Table 4.
Results from multivariate logistic models investigating the influence of predictor variables on F. hepatica BTM ELISA results (North: Df = 175; South: Df = 186). Significant ORs and CIs are printed in bold.
| North | South | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | OR | 95% CI | -2LL | nDF | F | p | OR | 95% CI | -2LL | nDF | F | p |
| Access to fresh grass | - | - | 125.87 | 1 | 3.50 | 0.063 | - | - | 104.02 | 1 | 15.52 | <0.001 |
| Yes vs. no | 2.74 | 0.95–7.92 | - | - | - | - | 8.71 | 2.95–25.75 | - | - | - | - |
| Hay | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 104.02 | 2 | 4.78 | 0.009 |
| Floor-dried vs. no hay | - | - | - | - | - | - | 12.19 | 1.21–122.50 | - | - | - | - |
| Dried otherwise vs. no hay | - | - | - | - | - | - | 4.97 | 1.46–16.87 | - | - | - | - |
|
Anthelmintic treatment
Calves & young cattle |
- | - | 125.87 | 2 | 1.54 | 0.218 | - | - | 104.02 | 2 | 8.61 | <0.001 |
| Both vs. no treatment | 5.04 | 0.49–52.13 | - | - | - | - | 19.42 | 3.07–122.75 | - | - | - | - |
| Yc vs. no treatment | 6.58 | 0.76–56.76 | - | - | - | - | 16.57 | 4.20–65.43 | - | - | - | - |
|
Anthelmintic treatment
Lactating & dry cows |
- | - | 125.87 | 3 | 0.40 | 0.753 | - | - | 104.02 | 2 | 4.39 | 0.014 |
| Both vs. no treatment | 0.96 | 0.35–2.63 | - | - | - | - | 0.24 | 0.06–1.02 | - | - | - | - |
| Lc vs. no treatment | 1.05 | 0.21–5.34 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Dc vs. no treatment | 2.62 | 0.41–16.83 | - | - | - | - | 8.37 | 0.94–74.94 | - | - | - | - |
| Lameness | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 104.02 | 1 | 6.69 | 0.010 |
| 10% increase from mean | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.58 | 0.38–0.88 | - | - | - | - |
| Milk yield | - | - | 125.87 | 1 | - | <0.001 | - | - | 104.02 | 1 | 5.92 | 0.016 |
| 500 kg increase from mean | 0.79 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.75 | 0.60–0.95 | - | - | - | - |
Abbreviations: -2LL, -2 Log-Likelihood; nDf, numeric degrees of freedom; F, F-Value; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; yc, young cattle; lc, lactating cows; dc, dry cows.