https://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e34489
Received: 15/07/2024 Accepted: 05/09/2024 Published: 10/12/2024
1 of 8
Revista Científica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXIV, rcfcv-e34489
ABSTRACT
Reproductive pathologies in dairy cattle signicantly impact animal
welfare, protability, and productivity. The objective of this study was
to estimate the prevalence of the main reproductive pathologies that
have affected livestock farming in Colombia during the period between
2019 and 2022 through a systematic review and meta–analysis. A
meta–analysis was carried out where the prevalence of diseases was
identied, where initially a systematic review was accomplish with the
PRISMA methodology, using the databases PubMed, Science Direct,
Dialnet, Google Scholar. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were dened,
the quality of the studies was evaluated and data was extracted from
the selected articles to analyze the information using the OpenMeta
[Analyst]® software, in order to standardize the ndings obtained.
From an initial 3,883 bibliographic references, 28 studies met the
inclusion criteria. Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR) exhibited
the highest prevalence, ranging from 0.00% to 77.30%, followed
by Bovine Neosporosis (17.55% – 61.34%) and Bovine Viral Diarrhea
(BVD) (16.14% – 44.13%). Brucellosis (0.01% – 1.65%) and Leptospirosis
(1.48% – 24.33%) displayed the lowest overall prevalence. Data for
other reproductive diseases was either absent or excluded based
on the dened criteria. The identied prevalence of reproductive
diseases in Colombian dairy cattle highlights the need for improved
farm health protocols and management practices. Furthermore,
a scarcity of studies across different regions suggests a gap in
knowledge regarding the true national prevalence of these diseases.
This knowledge is crucial for establishing effective health and animal
welfare plans.
Key words: Colombia; dairy cows; reproductive pathologies;
prevalence
RESUMEN
Las patologías reproductivas en el ganado lechero impactan
signicativamente el bienestar, la rentabilidad y la productividad
animal. El objetivo de este estudio fue estimar la prevalencia de las
principales patologías reproductivas que han afectado a la ganadería
en Colombia durante el período comprendido entre los años 2019 y
2022 mediante revisión sistemática y metaanálisis. Se realizó un
metaanáilisis donde se identicó la prevalencia de enfermedades,
para esto inicialmente se efectuó una revisión sistemática con la
metodología PRISMA, utilizando las bases de datos PubMed, Science
Direct, Dialnet, Google Scholar. Se denieron criterios de inclusión
y exclusión, se evaluó la calidad de los estudios y se extrajeron los
datos de los artículos seleccionados para poder realizar el análisis de
la información mediante el software OpenMeta [Analyst]® software,
con el n estandarizar los hallazgos obtenidos. De 3.883 referencias
bibliográficas iniciales, 28 estudios cumplieron los criterios de
inclusión. La Rinotraqueitis Infecciosa Bovina (IBR) exhibió la
prevalencia más alta, oscilando entre 0,00% y 77,30%, seguida de
la Neosporosis bovina (17,55% – 61,34%) y la Diarrea Viral Bovina (DVB)
(16,14% – 44,13%). La Brucelosis (0,01% – 1,65%) y la Leptospirosis
(1,48% – 24,33%) mostraron la prevalencia global más baja. Los datos
sobre otras enfermedades reproductivas estuvieron ausentes o
excluidos según los criterios denidos. La prevalencia identicada de
enfermedades reproductivas en el ganado lechero colombiano resalta
la necesidad de mejorar los protocolos de salud y las prácticas de
manejo de las granjas. Además, la escasez de estudios en diferentes
regiones sugiere una brecha en el conocimiento sobre la verdadera
prevalencia nacional de estas enfermedades. Este conocimiento es
crucial para establecer planes ecaces de salud y bienestar animal.
Palabras clave: Colombia; vacas lecheras; patologías reproductivas;
prevalencia
Estimation of the prevalence of the main reproductive pathologies that
affected dairy farming in Colombia reported between 2019 and 2022
through a meta–analysis
Estimación de la prevalencia de las principales patologías reproductivas que afectaron a la
ganadería lechera en Colombia reportadas entre 2019 y 2022 por medio de un metaanálisis
Laura Marcela Moreno–Andrade
1,2
* , Nelitza Linárez–Álvarez
2
, Adriana María Pedraza–Toscano
2
, Orlando Alfredo Torres–García
2
,
Francisco Javier Vargas–Ortiz
2
, Ignacio de Blas–Giral
1
1
Universidad de Zaragoza, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Instituto Universitario de Investigación Mixto Agroalimentario de Aragón (IA2). Zaragoza, Spain.
2
Universidad Antonio Nariño, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics. Bogotá, Colombia.
*Corresponding authors: zootecnistalauramoreno@gmail.com
Prevalence of Dairy Reproductive Pathologies in Colombia (2019–2022): A Meta-Analysis / Moreno-Andrade et al._______________
2 of 8
INTRODUCTION
Dairy farming is a major productive activity in Colombia,
encompassing two primary production systems: specialized (40%
of national production) and dual–purpose (60%) [1]. In these systems,
reproduction plays a critical role in herd profitability and milk
yield. Dairy cattle are susceptible to various health problems with
reproductive consequences, caused by diverse etiological agents,
including viruses, bacteria, and parasites [2, 3, 4].
Some of the key reproductive pathologies include:
1.
Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR): This highly contagious
and infectious disease, caused by Bovine Herpesvirus Type 1
(BHV–1), manifests with respiratory and conjunctival signs, as
well as infertility, embryonic mortality, abortion, and neonatal
mortality [5, 6]
2. Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD): Caused by a Pestivirus, BVD exhibits
a range of clinical presentations, including enteric, respiratory, or
reproductive symptoms, abortions, fetal mummication, congenital
malformations, and the birth of persistently infected animals [7, 8].
3.
Brucellosis: A contagious zoonotic disease with mandatory
reporting, brucellosis is caused in cattle (Bos taurus) by Brucella
abortus. It leads to abortions, retained placenta, infertility, low
milk production, and human infection [9].
4.
Leptospirosis: Another zoonotic and infectious disease, caused
by bacteria of the genus Leptospira, leptospirosis manifests as
reproductive disorders in cattle, including abortions, birth of weak
calves, stillbirths, infertility, and decreased milk production [7, 10].
5.
Neosporosis: This parasitic disease is caused by Neospora
caninum, a protozoan with dogs as the denitive host. It affects
other animal species, causing abortions, subfertility, early
pregnancy losses, mummication, extended calving intervals,
reduced milk production, and the birth of weak calves with
neurological signs [5, 7]
Currently, in Latin America, particularly in Colombia, the
implementation of reproductive disease control measures has been
dicult [11]. Therefore, it is necessary to perform a compilation of
recent cross–sectional survey to assess the importance of the main
reproductive pathologies that affect dairy farming in Colombia in
recent years, for which we performed a systematic review and a
meta–analysis (in order to discard the studies with low quality).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
In the present study, descriptive observational cross–sectional
studies were included, such as reproductive pathology studies,
conference proceedings, epidemiological bulletins, degree theses and
prevalence reports of reproductive diseases that have affected dairy
cattle in Colombia (Brucellosis, Leptospirosis, IBR, BVD, Neosporosis,
Campylobacteriosis, Trichomoniasis, Metritis and Endometritis) that
were published within the time period between 2019 and 2022 and
performed in Colombia.
Methods
A meta–analysis was performed where the prevalence of diseases was
identied, where initially a systematic review was conducted following
the PRISMA methodology (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta–Analyses) [12]. The search strategy utilized four
databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Dialnet, and Google Scholar.
For the search process, Boolean operators were employed in a
specic order (Colombia AND cattle AND reproductive prevalence).
This search string was designed to identify relevant studies for the
research question, focusing on the study population (dairy cattle),
intervention/comparison (diagnostic tests), or outcome (percentage
of reported prevalence of reproductive diseases in Colombia).
Inclusion criteria
Only articles published in peer–reviewed journals were included in
the systematic review. Additionally, relevant studies on the prevalence
of the main reproductive diseases in Colombian dairy cattle were
considered from the grey literature, including epidemiological reports,
dissertations, and theses.
Denition of inclusion and exclusion criteria
The study included descriptive studies, descriptive observational
studies, case–control studies, reproductive pathology studies,
conference proceedings, epidemiological bulletins, degree projects,
and reports of the prevalence of reproductive diseases affecting dairy
cattle in Colombia (Brucellosis, Leptospirosis, IBR, BVD, Neosporosis,
Campylobacteriosis, Trichomoniasis, Metritis, and Endometritis)
published between 2019 and 2022.
Exclusion criteria
Studies not published between 2019 and 2022, those reported for
countries other than Colombia, and those not addressing reproductive
diseases, or their prevalence were excluded. Initial selection was
performed based on titles and abstracts.
Study quality assessment
Four reviewers independently assessed the internal validity of
the studies.
Data extraction
Following the preliminary selection by title and abstract, a detailed
review of each article was conducted. Data were extracted and
organized in Microsoft Excel, including the year of publication, the
region in Colombia where the study was conducted, the reported
reproductive disease, the type of sample collected, the diagnostic
technique used, sample size, prevalence percentage, and the last
names of the author(s).
Analysis of data
Data obtained from the systematic review were analyzed by using
the OpenMeta [Analyst]® software (http://www.cebm.brown.edu/
openmeta/). The analysis considered the diagnostic tests performed,
individual prevalence data, reported prevalence in infected farms,
and the condence interval for each disease. The 95% condence
interval for the estimated prevalence values was calculated by using
an arcsine transformation. Study heterogeneity was quantied using
the I
2
statistic, based on Cochran’s Q test of homogeneity [13]. The I
2
value was interpreted with a signicance level of P<0.05, indicating
heterogeneity when the value was close to 100%, and homogeneity
when close to 0%.
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only
Records identified from:
Databases (n =3883)
Records deleted before
selec tion:
Records marked as ineligible by
automation tools (n =2619)
Duplicate records removed
(n =131)
Records examined in databases
(n=1133)
Pubmed (n =17)
Google Scholar (n=1000)
Dialnet (n= 11)
Sciencedir ect (n=105)
Excluded records
(n =1064) Title and abstract of
articles on unrelated diseases or
carried out in other countries
Preselected studies
Pubmed (n =9)
Google Scholar (n=57)
Dialnet (n= 1)
Sciencedir ect (n=2)
Unselected studies
(n =22)
Studies evaluated for eligibility
(n = 69)
Excluded studies (n=28):
Studies carried out in another
country (n =4)
Studies with reports of unrelated
diseases (n =3)
Studies without disease
prevalence (n = 7)
Study without determining the
diagnostic test (n=3)
Out of range of years (n=1)
Duplicate studies (n=10)
Studies included in the review (n =41)
Reports of included studies
Scientific articles (n =30)
Congress proceedings (n=2)
Thesis or graduate work (n=9)
Identification of studies through databases and registries.
ID
Selection
Included
Studies included in the
quantitative synthesis- Meta-
analysis (n =28)
FIGURE 1. Results of the bibliographic search according. PRISMA 2022 statement
(
http://www.prisma–statement.org)
FIGURE 2. Number of publications by the location at dierent departments of
Colombia 2019–2022
_____________________________________________________________________________Revista Cientifica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXIV, rcfcv-e34489
3 of 8
Meta–Analysis
For the meta–analysis, only studies addressing reproductive
diseases and utilizing the following diagnostic techniques were
included: ELISA for BVD and IBR, RBT/ELISA (Rose Bengal Test/
ELISA) for bovine Brucellosis, MAT (Microagglutination Test) for
Leptospira, and ELISA for bovine Neosporosis. A P–value of less than
0.05 was considered statistically signicant, indicating a signicant
difference in the analyzed studies and leading to the rejection of the
null hypothesis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The search strategy identied a total of 3,883 articles. Of these,
2,619 were deemed ineligible by automated tools, and 131 were
eliminated due to duplication. We examined 1,133 records in the
databases: 17 from PubMed, 1,000 from Google Scholar, 11 from
Dialnet, and 105 from ScienceDirect. After removing duplicates, we
screened 1,064 articles by title and abstract. Ultimately, 69 studies
were included, with only 41 meeting our inclusion criteria. Finally, 28
articles were included in the meta–analysis. Systematic or literature
review studies whose diagnostic methods could not be compared for
quantitative synthesis were excluded from the meta–analysis. The
results of the included studies are illustrated in FIG. 1 [12].
The distribution of studies found at different departments of
Colombia reported from the 41 articles selected in the systematic
review, was represented by a choropletic map in order to determine
the distribution of studies and the departments that had the greatest
number of studies. It is important to keep in mind that, in the map,
more than one disease could be represented in different departments
of Colombia in the same study (FIG. 2).
Taking into account the FIG. 2, it can be seen that the disease
with the greatest number of studies published was BVD, followed by
Brucellosis and Neosporosis, then IBR, Leptospirosis and Metritis
and Endometritis.
Likewise, according to the systematic review obtained, it was
observed that the departments that had the greatest number of
studies carried out and published were Antioquia and Cundinamarca
with 15 studies each department; Boyacá, Cesar and Córdoba with
14 studies each one; Caquetá with 12 studies; Risaralda 8 studies
carried out; Meta and Santander with 6 studies each one; Caldas,
Magdalena and Tolima with 5 studies each one; Cauca and Nariño 4
studies each one; Quindío and Valle del Cauca 3 studies each one;
Arauca, Bogotá, Bolívar, Huila and Putumayo with 2 studies each
one; Amazonia, Atlántico, Guaviare, La Guajira and Sucre with 1 study
each one and 7 Departments where no studies were reported such
as Casanare, Chocó, Guainía, Norte de Santander, San Andrés and
Providencia, Vaupés.
From the systematic review, a total of 28 articles were included
in the meta–analysis.
According to the entire rigorous process of systematic review, it
can be determined that there are few fully published research studies
on reproductive diseases in dairy cattle in Colombia. This coincides
with Pérez [11], who reported that, in Latin America, there is a lack
TABLE I
Frequency of infected farms and individual prevalence in infected farms
Disease
Frequency of infected farms Individual prevalence at infected farms
Studies Farms
Frequency
(95%CI)
I
2
(P–value)
Studies Animals
Prevalence
(95%CI)
I
2
(P–value)
Bovine viral diarrhea 4 831
70.8%
(47.9% – 93.7%)
98.75%
(<0.001)
12 16,861
40.4%
(33.7% – 47.1%)
98.60%
(<0.001)
Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis 2 484
62.0%
(-10 5% – 134.5%)
99.89%
(<0.001)
11 20,143
66.5%
(55.7% – 77.3%)
99.61%
(<0.001)
Bovine brucellosis 3 238
20.2%
(14.6% – 25.8%)
14.15%
(0.312)
3 28,396
3.3%
(0.1% – 6.4%)
96.99%
(<0.001)
Bovine leptospirosis 1 384
37.0%
(32.2% – 41.8%)
– 3 2,959
31.4%
(4.6% – 58.2%)
99.71%
(<0.001)
Bovine neosporosis 3 422
75.9%
(58.9% – 92.8%)
85.14%
(0.001)
6 2,813
48.0%
(29.8% – 66.1%)
99.11%
(<0.001)
FIGURE 3. Result of the meta–analysis on the frequency of infected farms with
reproductive diseases reported (3A. Bovine viral diarrhea; 3B. Infectious bovine
rhinotracheitis; 3C. Bovine brucellosis; 3D. Bovine neosporosis)
Prevalence of Dairy Reproductive Pathologies in Colombia (2019–2022): A Meta-Analysis / Moreno-Andrade et al._______________
4 of 8
of analysis on the degree of incidence and impact of reproductive
pathologies in cattle, which makes it difficult to adopt sanitary
measures to control these diseases.
Additionally, it was possible to observe that the disease BVD is the
disease with the highest number of studies published, followed by
bovine Brucellosis, bovine Neosporosis, IBR, and leptospirosis. For
diseases such as metritis and/or endometritis, some studies were
included in the systematic review but could not be included in the
meta–analysis because there were very few reports and because the
diagnostic techniques used in them were different from immunological
techniques. This fact does not allow an adequate comparison in
terms of the method used, which in some studies turned out to be
bacteriological or biochemical tests, making it impossible to make
prevalence comparisons. In regard to other reproductive diseases,
it was found that there are no complete studies reported in recent
years according to the Boolean search engines established in the
systematic review and therefore included in the meta–analysis. This
could be due to the interest that different researchers have to the
study of more communes reproductive diseases, such as those that
were considered in the meta–analysis of the present study.
It is important to highlight that livestock farming in Colombia is
distributed in different departments, where 9 of them are identied
by their high milk production, however, other departments have small
productions. By 2022, the number of farms (properties) dedicated
to dairy and dual–purpose livestock farming was 1,378,104 and the
number of milk–producing and dual–purpose animals was 13,888,956.
However, of this sample universe, not all departments have conducted
studies on reproductive diseases, likewise some studies found did
not meet the inclusion criteria. For this reason, only 28 relevant
studies that t the established parameters could be included in
this meta–analysis.
These results from the 28 studies included in the meta–analysis
shown below by TABLES and FIGURES indicating frequency of infected
farms and individual prevalence for each reproductive disease which
were reported and fulfilled the inclusion criteria of study: BVD,
Brucellosis, IBR and Neosporosis (TABLE I; FIG. 3, FIG. 4).
For BVD, regarding the individual prevalence by ELISA in infected
farms, 12 studies that reported the disease in the departments of
Antioquia, Boyacá, Caldas, Cesar, Córdoba, Cundinamarca, Magdalena,
Meta, Nariño, Quindío, Risaralda, Santander, Tolima and Valle del
Cauca, were found. The mean frequency of individual prevalence for
the pathology was 40.4%; 95%CI (33.7% – 47.1%) with a signicant
high heterogeneity (I
2
= 98.60%; P<0.001), (TABLE 1; FIG. 4A) [9, 14,15,
17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. On the other hand, for the prevalence in
herds, only four studies were found where the average frequency was
Figure 4. Result of the meta–analysis on the individual prevalence of reproductive diseases reported in infected farms (4A. Bovine viral diarrhea; 4B. Infectious bovine
rhinotracheitis; 4C. Bovine brucellosis; 4D. Bovine leptospirosis; 4E. Bovine neosporosis)
_____________________________________________________________________________Revista Cientifica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXIV, rcfcv-e34489
5 of 8
70.8%, 95%CI (47.9% – 93.7%) and also high heterogeneity (I
2
= 98.75%;
P<0,001) (TABLE I; FIG. 3A) [14, 15, 16, 17].
Regarding IBR, the individual prevalence by ELISA in infected
farms, eleven studies that included the departments of Boyacá,
Caquetá, Córdoba, Cesar, Cundinamarca and Meta were found, where
the average frequency was 66.5%, 95%CI (55.7% – 77.3%) and high
heterogeneity (I
2
= 99.61%; P<0.001), so IBR was the most prevalent
disease at individual level (TABLE I; FIG. 4B) [9, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 36]. Likewise, concerning the prevalence in herds, only 2
studies were found where the average frequency was 62.0%, 95%CI
(-10.5% – 134.5%) and high heterogeneity (I
2
= 99.89%; P<0.001). The
condent interval with negative values is due to the meta–analysis
only includes 2 studies (TABLE I; FIG. 3B) [6, 16].
With reference to bovine brucellosis, the individual prevalence
in infected farms by Rose Bengal, three studies were found in the
departments of Putumayo, Caquetá, and Antioquia, where the average
frequency was 3.3%, 95%CI (0.1% – 6.4%) and high heterogeneity
(I
2
= 96.99%; P<0.001), that corresponds with the lower individual
prevalence observed in our study (TABLE I; FIG. 4C) [19, 20, 37]. In
terms of prevalence in herds, three studies were found where the
average frequency was 20.2%, 95%CI (14.6% – 25.8%) and shows a
good homogeneity, but not signicant (I
2
= 14.15%; P<0.312). In this
case the frequency of infected farms was also the lowest observed
(TABLE I; FIG. 3C) [18, 19, 20].
For the individual prevalence of bovine leptospirosis pathology
in infected farms by MAT (microagglutination), three studies were
found in the departments of Boyacá and Córdoba, where the average
frequency was 31.4%, 95%CI (4.6% – 58.2%) and high heterogeneity
(I
2
= 97.19%; P<0.001) (TABLE I; FIG. 4D) [23, 24, 38]. Likewise, the
prevalence in herds, only one study was found with a frequency of
37.0%, 95%CI (32.2% – 41.8%).
Finally, regarding bovine neosporosis, the individual prevalence in
infected farms by ELISA, six studies were found in the departments
of Antioquia, Boyacá, Cundinamarca, Caldas, Quindío, Risaralda, Valle
del Cauca, Caquetá, Cesar, Magdalena, Meta, Santander and Tolima,
where the average frequency was 48.0%; 95%CI (29.8% – 66.1%) and
high heterogeneity (I
2
= 99.11%; P<0.001) (TABLE I; FIG. 4E) [21, 22, 27,
39, 40, 41]. Likewise, three studies were found about prevalence in
herds, where the average frequency was 75.9%, 95%CI (58.9% – 92.8%)
and moderate–heterogeneity (I
2
= 85.14%; P=0.001), and according
this data bovine neosporosis would be the disease present in more
dairy farms in Colombia (TABLE I; FIG. 3D) [16, 21, 22].
Furthermore, an analysis was performed in order to determine the
global prevalence by disease as product of frequency of infected
farms and individual prevalence, where the lower limit of the frequency
of infected farms was multiplied by the lower limit of the individual
prevalence in infected farms, and the upper limits were multiplied
to obtain the upper limit (TABLE II).
TABLE II
Summary of the global prevalence of reproductive diseases
reported in the last 3 years in dairy farms in Colombia
according to the results of the meta–analysis
Disease Average min max
Bovine viral diarrhea 28.60% 16.14% 44.13%
Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis 41.23% 0.00% 77.30%
Bovine brucellosis 0.67% 0.01% 1.65%
Bovine leptospirosis 11.62% 1.48% 24.33%
Bovine neosporosis 36.43% 17.55% 61.34%
Prevalence of Dairy Reproductive Pathologies in Colombia (2019–2022): A Meta-Analysis / Moreno-Andrade et al._______________
6 of 8
Since we do not have an accurate estimate of the individual and
overall prevalence in infected herds, there is considerable variability
that generates a high degree of uncertainty. This lack of accurate
data makes it dicult to make effective decisions for monitoring and
controlling these pathologies. In contrast, the situation is different
with brucellosis, since more specic data are available. This greater
precision is probably due to the vaccination and control programs
implemented in Colombia.
According to this global analysis, the disease with the largest
number of infected bovine populations was IBR 41.23% (0.00% –
77.30%) but with a vast condent interval, followed by Neosporosis
with a prevalence of 36.43% (17.5% – 61.34%), and BVD with a 28.60%
(16.14% – 44.13%). Finally, the two pathologies that reported lower
overall results were Brucellosis with 0.67% (0.01% – 1.65%), followed
by leptospirosis with 11.62% (1.48% – 24.33%).
Regarding the global prevalence of reproductive diseases in the
present study, it was observed that the disease that presented the
most signicant number of infected bovine population was IBR
(41.23%), followed by bovine Neosporosis (36.43%), and BVD (28.6%).
Finally, the two pathologies that reported global results of lower
presence of infected bovine population were bovine Brucellosis
(0.83%), followed by Leptospirosis (11.62%). In most of the cases, a
large variability of results was observed both at farm and individual
level. These overall results contrast with what was published by
FEDEGAN (42) which reports that 102,296 samples were processed,
with 47% (48,542 samples) being positive. It is evident that the disease
with highest number of reports was IBR (69%), followed by bovine
Leptospirosis (46%), BVD (41%), bovine Neosporosis (37%), bovine
Trichomoniasis (6%) and Campylobacteriosis (6%) [3]. This allows
us to analyze that there is a variation in these gures if we compare
these reports of reproductive diseases with the number found in the
studies published in this systematic review and meta–analysis. Still,
in general, they are very similar except for bovine leptospirosis, which
in this study reports a lower prevalence and bovine Neosporosis that
reports a higher prevalence. Some of these differences observed in
studies by different authors, such as those included in this study, may
also be due to differences in prevalence between departments and
regions of the country in those who have developed these studies.
On the other hand, the results of an investigation accomplished by
Vecol, Minagricultura and Corpoica [43], show that the prevalence
of the most relevant diseases for the farmer was studied, in some
municipalities of the Departments of Antioquia, Boyacá and
Cundinamarca. In this study, it was found that the pathology with the
highest prevalence was BVD (54%), followed by bovine Neosporosis
(39%), then IBR (34%) and nally bovine Leptospirosis (17%). This
allows us to identify consistency with the study carried out since
a relationship is observed with the number of studies obtained by
disease in the systematic review, except by brucellosis; Although, it
is noteworthy that Vecol, Minagricultura and Corpoica [43], did not
take bovine brucellosis into account in their study, is possible that
this disease has an important prevalence, because it has a national
control program established by the ICA. However, the need to apply
sanitary plans is evident to reduce the presence of these pathologies
in the different regions of Colombia and thus avoid the impact that
this generates in livestock farms.
On the other hand, a study published by Ordóñez et al. [44], in
Ecuador mentions that, according to the results obtained, the main
reproductive diseases presented in dairy farming were: IBR (48%),
followed by BVD (36%), then bovine Neosporosis (24%) and later
bovine Leptospirosis (10 to 12%), but there was no presence of
bovine Brucellosis. A similar case was presented in Uruguay in an
investigation obtained by Silveira [45], where he published that he
analyzed information obtained between 2016 and 2019, on the main
reproductive pathologies, and observed that the disease with the
highest prevalence was bovine Neosporosis (36.1%), followed by
bovine Leptospirosis (19.4%), then bovine Trichomoniasis (2.25%)
and then BVD (0.35%). In the case of bovine Campylobacteriosis,
in the present study, no ndings compatible with the disease and
diagnosis by immunological methods were found, which causes a
contradiction with Barros and Silva [46], since they mention that the
bovine campylobacteriosis disease is within the leading infectious
diseases that affect reproduction in Uruguay. It should be noted that
these variations in percentages are possibly due to the application
of sanitary protocols, vaccination, and animal management in the
different countries.
CONCLUSION
There is a high degree of uncertainty due to the great variability
of data on BVD, IBR, neosporosis and leptospirosis, which prevents
knowing the real health status with precision. This highlights the
need to improve protocols to take effective actions and decisions
that help mitigate the presence of these pathologies.
There is low variability in the reported data on brucellosis, this is
because in Colombia there is a prevention, control and eradication
program established throughout the national territory for this disease.
It reflects that there are reproductive pathologies that have
few prevalence studies such as Trichomoniasis, Toxoplasmosis,
Campylobacteriosis, Histophilosis, Ureaplasmosis and Mycosis, which
makes it dicult to identify their impact and establish strategies that
contribute to improving the health status of dairy cattle, productivity
and animal welfare.
Conicts of interest
The authors declare they have no conicts of interest with regard
to the work presented in this report.
BIBLIOGRAPHICS REFERENCES
[1] Barrios D, Duque L. Costo económico por quistes foliculares en
vacas lecheras posparto. Rev. Colom. Cienc. Pecua. [Internet].
2012 [cited 23 Jan. 2023]; 25(2):252–257. Available in: https://
goo.su/xutwpd
_____________________________________________________________________________Revista Cientifica, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXIV, rcfcv-e34489
7 of 8
[2] Vargas D, Góngora A, Correa J. Enfermedades virales emergentes en
ganado de leche de América Latina. Rev. Orinoquía [Internet]. 2012
[cited 4 Feb 2023]; 16(2):88–96. Available in: https://goo.su/IBmn
[3] Garzón Sánchez JS, Santoque Socha A. Prevalencia de patologías
reproductivas en la hembra bovina en la planta de sacricio
del municipio de Chia–Cundinamarca [thesis on the Internet].
Bogotá: Universidad de la Salle: 2015. [cited 13 Feb 2023]. 74p.
Available in: https://goo.su/EVUms
[4] Castro Añazco AC. Caracterización, clasicación y repercusiones
sobre la producción lechera de las patologías puerperales en
la hembra bovina Bos taurus [thesis on the Internet]. Machala
(Ecuador): Universidad Técnica de Machala; 2018. [cited 15 Feb
2023]. 32 p. Available in: https://goo.su/Cz1t
[5] Zuluaga Ochoa MA. Reproducción y neonatología bovina en la
hacienda La Vittoriana, Córdoba – Colombia [thesis on the Internet].
Antioquia (Colombia): Corporación Universitaria Lasallista; 2016.
[cited 20 Feb. 2023]. 72 p. Available in: https://goo.su/nzdmq3y
[6] Muñoz–Murcia A, Motta–Delgado P, Herrera W, Polania R, ChávesL.
Prevalencia del virus de la rinotraqueitis infecciosa bovina en el
departamento del Caquetá, Amazonia Colombiana. Rev. Med. Vet.
Zoot. [Internet]. 2020; 67(1):9–16. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz3s
[7] Rada Briñez IX. Revisión bibliográca de algunas enfermedades
de origen infeccioso en bovinos [thesis on the Internet]. Ibagué
(Colombia): Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia; 2018. [cited
5 Feb. 2023]. 39 p. Available in: https://goo.su/DEhDl
[8] Villamil VV, Ramírez GC, Vera VJ, Jaime JA. Primera evidencia
del Virus de Diarrea Viral Bovina (VDVB) genotipo 2 en Colombia.
Rev. Med. Vet. Zoot. [Internet] 2018; 65(1):11–26. doi: https://doi.
org/g8tz3t
[9] Pinilla León JC, Diaz W, Vasquez MC, Tobón JC, Sánchez A, OrtizD.
Seroprevalence and risk factor associated with respiratory viral
pathogens in dual–purpose cattle of Aguachica, Rio de Oro, and
La Gloria municipalities in Cesar department, Colombia. Vet.
World [Internet]. 2019; 12(7):951–958. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz3v
[10] Llanco L, Suárez F, Huanca W, Rivera H. Frecuencia y riesgo de
infección de leptospirosis bovina en dos establos lecheros de la
costa y sierra peruana. Rev. Investig. Vet. Perú [Internet]. 2017
[cited 15 Feb 2023]; 28(3):696–702. Available in: https://goo.
su/UazqmO7
[11] Pérez Castillo JE. Principales patologías reproductivas en
hembras bovinas de Rancho Los Ángeles, comunidad Quinama,
municipio Villa Sandino, Chontales, Enero – Julio 2014. [thesis
on the Internet]. Managua: Universidad Nacional Agraria; 2015
[cited 15 Feb 2023]. 53 p. Available in: https://goo.su/ZjBYlA
[12] PRISMA. Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta–
analyses 2020 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 23 Jun. 2023]. Available
in: https://www.prisma–statement.org/
[13] Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different
experiments. Biometrics [Internet]. 1954; 10(1):101–129. doi:
https://doi.org/cqbwwf
[14] Ortiz Ortega D, Martínez Sarmiento RA, Tobón Torreglosa JC,
Rocha JF. Prevalence and risk factors of bovine viral diarrhea in
Colombian cattle. Vet. World. [Internet]. 2020; 13(8):1487–1494.
doi: https://doi.org/g8tz3w
[15] Martínez–Rodríguez LC, Guzmán–Barragán BL, Ordoñez D, Tafur–
Gómez GA. Cattle seroprevalence and risk factors associated with
bovine viral diarrhea in the northeastern of Colombia. Trop. Anim.
Health Prod. [Internet]. 2021; 53:377. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz3x
[16] Muñoz M. Variación de la dinámica de los anticuerpos
detectados en leche en el diagnóstico poblacional de algunas
enfermedades reproductivas en bovinos de la región de
Guatavita, Cundinamarca [master’s thesis on the Internet]
Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia]; 2021 [cited 13 Feb.
2023]. 88 p. Available in: https://goo.su/Gh8iL
[17] Saldarriaga–Saldarriaga A, Londoño M, González–Herrera LG, Rincón
JC, López–Herrera A. Seropositivity for Bovine Viral Diarrhea and
Enzootic Bovine Leukemia viruses in Blanco Orejinegro cattle in
Colombia and infection associated factors. Rev. Med. Vet. Zoot.
[Internet]. 2021; 68(2):105–123. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz3z
[18] Cárdenas L, Peña M, Melo O, Casal J. Risk factors for new
bovine brucellosis infections in Colombian herds. BMC Vet.
Res. [Internet]. 2019; 15:81. doi: https://doi.org/48ng
[19] Herrán Ramirez OL, Azevedo Santos H, Jaramillo Delgado IL,
Angelo IdC. Seroepidemiology of bovine brucellosis in Colombia’s
preeminent dairy region, and its potential public health impact.
Braz. J. Microbiol. [Internet]. 2020; 51(4):2133–2143. doi: https://
doi.org/g8tz32
[20] Motta–Delgado PA, Martínez–Tovar RA, Londoño–Giraldo M,
Rojas–Vargas EP, Herrera–Valencia W. Sero–prevalence of
brucellosis (Brucella abortus) in bovines from Caquetá state,
Colombia. Cien. Agri. [Internet]. 2020; 17(1):19–30. doi: https://
doi.org/g8tz33
[21] Idarraga–Bedoya SE, Álvarez–Chica J, Bonilla–Aldana DK, Moore
DP, Rodríguez–Morales AJ. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum
infection in cattle from Pereira, Colombia. Vet. Parasitol Reg. Stud.
Reports [Internet]. 2020; 22:100469. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz34
[22] González Corrales JC, González–Herrera LG, López–Herrera A,
Rincón Florez JC. Antibody seropositivity for Neospora caninum
in Blanco Orejinegro cattle in Colombia and factors associated
with the infection. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. [Internet]. 2021;
53(3):391. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz35
[23] Arias García AL. Prevalência e fatores de risco para leptospirose,
diarreia viral bovina (DVB) e rinotraqueíte infecciosa bovina
(IBR) em bovinos e búfalos da Colômbia. [master’s thesis on
the Internet]. Belem (Brazil): Universidade Federal Rural Da
Amazônia; 2019 [cited 13 Feb. 2023]. 50 p. Available in: https://
goo.su/aJum3P
[24] Arias García A, Tobón Torreglosa J, Marín DD, Bernal MKM, Rolim
Filho ST, Pereira WLA. Leptospirosis, bovine viral diarrhea and
infectious bovine rhinotracheitis: prevalence in Colombian cattle
and buffaloes. Acta Sci. Anim. Sci. [Internet]. 2022; 44(1):e54875.
doi: https://doi.org/g8tz36
[25] González–Bautista ED, Bulla–Castañeda DM, Lopez–Buitrago
HA, Díaz–Anaya AM, Lancheros–Buitrago DJ, Garcia–Corredor
DJ, Tobón Torreglosa JC, Ortiz Ortega D, Pulido–Medellín MO.
Seroprevalence of bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) in cattle
from Sotaquirá, Colombia. Vet. Anim. Sci. [Internet]. 2021;
14:100202. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz37
Prevalence of Dairy Reproductive Pathologies in Colombia (2019–2022): A Meta-Analysis / Moreno-Andrade et al._______________
8 of 8
[26] González–Bautista ED, Bulla–Castañeda DM, Díaz–Anaya AM,
García–Corredor DJ, Pulido–Medellín MO. Determinación de
anticuerpos antidiarrea viral bovina (DVB) en vacas lecheras de
un municipio de Boyacá (Colombia). Rev. Med. Vet. [Internet].
2021 [cited 24 Feb. 2024]; 1(43):117–126. Available in: https://
goo.su/ziaJPE3
[27] Naranjo–Guerrero L, Rodríguez–Colorado N, Mejía–Araque J.
Prevalencia de diarrea viral bovina, neosporosis bovina, leucosis
bovina enzoótica y paratuberculosis bovina en vacas de doble
propósito en condiciones del trópico colombiano. Rev. Investig.
Vet. Perú. [Internet]. 2022; 33(2):e20694. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz38
[28] Rodriguez Daza DA, Cruz Estupiñan SE, Bulla Castañeda
DM, Díaz Anaya AM, García Corredor DJ, López Buitrago HA,
Pulido Medellín MO. Seroprevalencia y factores de riesgo del
Herpesvirus Bovino tipo 1 en el municipio de Sogamoso, Boyacá.
Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. [Internet]. 2021 [cited 13 Feb. 2024];
34(Suppl.):220. Available in: https://goo.su/FHFWJ
[29] Sánchez Carvajal E, Parra Arango JL, Góngora Orjuela A.
Seroprevalencia compartida a DVB y HVB–1 en bovinos del sistema
doble propósito de Villavicencio, Colombia. In: Jaramillo Hernández
DA, Jiménez Forero JA, Roque Rodríguez AI, Mogollón A, editors.
Memorias 3er Encuentro de Investigadores, Facultad de Ciencias
Agropecuarias y Recursos Naturales. Universidad de Los Llanos.
Colombia. Rev. Sist. Prod. Agroecol. [Internet]. 2021 [cited 13 Feb.
2024]; 11(2):122–191. Available in: https://goo.su/VHakGHU
[30] Rodriguez C, Cruz S, Bulla D, García D, Pulido M. Serological study
of Bovine Viral Diarrhea in dairy farms in Sogamoso, Boyacá.
Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. [Internet]. 2021 [cited 13 Feb. 2024];
34(Suppl.):220–221. Available in: https://goo.su/FHFWJ
[31] Ortiz–González AD, Díaz–Anaya AM, Pulido–Medellín MO.
Determinación de Rinotraqueítis Infecciona Bovina (BHV–1)
en el municipio de Toca, Boyacá. Rev. CES. Med. Vet. Zootec.
[Internet]. 2019; 14(1):18–24. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz39
[32] Ortiz–González A, Lopez Buitrago HA, Bulla–Castañeda DM,
Lancheros–Buitrago DJ, Garcia–Corredor DJ, Díaz–Anaya
AM, Tobón–Torreglosa JC, Ortiz–Ortega D, Pulido–Medellín
MO. Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with bovine
herpesvirus 1 in dairy herds of Colombia. Vet. World [Internet].
2022; 15(6):1550–1556. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz4b
[33] Gutiérrez Rivera C. Seroprevalencia de Rinotraqueitis Infecciosa
Bovina en una zona rural del departamento de Cesar, Colombia.
[thesis on the Internet]. Bucaramanga (Colombia): Universidad
de Santander; 2020 [cited 12 Feb. 2024]. 120 p. Available in:
https://goo.su/Kqi9fvH
[34] Arismendy Morales JP, López–Herrera A, Echeverri Zuluaga J.
Association of Bola DRB3 gene polymorphisms with BOHV–1
infection and zootechnical traits. Open Vet. J. [Internet]. 2020;
10(3):331–339. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz4c
[35] Muñoz Murcia AL, Motta–Delgado PA, Herrera W, Polania R,
Cháves LC. Prevalencia del virus de la rinotraqueitis infecciosa
bovina en el departamento del Caquetá, Amazonia Colombiana.
Rev. Med. Vet. Zoot. [Internet]. 2020; 67(1):9–16. doi: https://
doi.org/g8tz3s
[36] Sánchez E, Góngora A, Parra J. Seroprevalencia y factores
de riesgo a IBR en bovinos doble propósito de Villavicencio,
Colombia. In: Jaramillo Hernández DA, Jiménez Forero JA, Roque
Rodríguez AI, Mogollón A, editors. Memorias 3er Encuentro de
Investigadores, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Recursos
Naturales. Universidad de Los Llanos. Colombia. Rev. Sist. Prod.
Agroecol. [Internet]. 2021 [cited 13 Feb. 2024]; 11(2):171–174.
Available in: https://goo.su/VHakGHU
[37] Gaviria Obregón O. Factores de riesgo asociados a la
seropositividad a Brucella abortus en ganaderías del departamento
de Putumayo, Colombia [master’s thesis on the Internet]. Bogotá:
Universidad de la Salle; 2020. [cited 21 Feb. 2023]. 143 p. Available
in: https://goo.su/jd4zCI
[38] Taddei S, Moreno G, Cabassi CS, Schiano E, Spadini C, CaviraniS.
Leptospira seroprevalence in Colombian dairy herds. Animals
[Internet]. 2021; 11(3):785. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz4d
[39] Cruz–Estupiñan S, Diaz–Anaya A, Bulla–Castañeda D, Garcia–
Corredor D, Pulido–Medellín M. Diagnóstico serológico de Neospora
caninum en vacas del municipio de Tuta, Boyacá. Rev. Med. Vet.
Zoot. [Internet]. 2019; 66(3):197–207. doi: https://doi.org/g8tz4f
[40] Sánchez Ospina AC. Seroprevalencia y factores de riego de
neosporosis bovina en una nca en Risaralda, 2018 [thesis on
the Internet] Pereira (Colombia): Universidad Tecnológica de
Pereira; 2019. [cited 25 Feb. 2023] 113 p. Available in: https://
goo.su/9GfblI
[41] Flechas Bernal JD, Fonseca–Torres LA, García–Corredor DJ,
Pulido–Medellin MO. Serological diagnosis and risk factors of
Neospora caninum in cattle from the municipality of Sogamoso,
Boyacá. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. [Internet]. 2021 [cited 29
Jan. 2024]; 34(Suppl.):221. Available in: https://goo.su/FHFWJ
[42] Federación Colombiana de Ganaderos (FEDEGAN). Situación
en Colombia de enfermedades bovinas no sujetas al control
ocial: recopilación de resultados diagnósticos 2005–2009,
Recopilación de publicaciones y tesis de grado 1998–2008.
Bogotá: FEDEGAN; 2011. 118 p.
[43] Sánchez Prada A, Ortiz Ortega, D, Tobón JC, Camargo Garzón H,
Gutiérrez MF. Proyectos piloto de excelencia sanitaria en ganadería
de bovina de leche [Internet]. Bogotá: Vecol, Ministerio de
Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural–Colombia, Corporación Colombiana
de Investigación Agropecuaria; 2020 [cited 13 Feb. 2023]. 64 p.
Available in: https://goo.su/u3jzD
[44] Ordóñez G, Avilés D, Borja B, Condolo L. Relación entre
enfermedades infecciosas y parámetros reproductivos con
énfasis en el perl reproductivo. AICA [Internet] 2021 [cited 13
Feb. 2023]; 16:48–55. Available in: https://bit.ly/49suOSr
[45] Silveira CdS. Enfermedades infecciosas que causas abortos en
bovinos con enfoque en rodeos lecheros de Uruguay [dissertation
on the Internet]. Montevideo (Uruguay): Universidad de la
República; 2019 [cited 25 Feb. 2024] 135 p. Available in: https://
goo.su/UTisVA
[46] Barros Mayol MS, Silva Rodríguez A. Aislamiento e identicación
de Campylobacter fetus por cultivo y real time PCR. [dissertation
on the Internet]. Montevideo (Uruguay): Universidad de la
República; 2021 [cited 27 Feb. 2024]. 42 p. Available in: https://
goo.su/GizrHKY
