Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:55:23.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study of the Streptococci from Fifty cases of Bovine Mastitis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. J. Gibson  and
R. O. Muir
H. J. Gibson
Affiliation:
From the Bacteriology Department, University of Edinburgh
R. O. Muir
Affiliation:
From the Bacteriology Department, University of Edinburgh
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Fifty-one strains recently isolated from cases of bovine mastitis have been studied in their morphological, cultural and biochemical reactions.

Using their colony appearance in blood agar as the first differential criterion we have shown that the strains differ widely from one another and from the α β and γ streptococci usually encountered in human disease.

The heterogeneity of mastitis streptococci was strikingly demonstrated. From the results of a relatively small number of cultural and biochemical tests it could be shown that no two of the fifty-one strains were identical, in every respect.

The findings recorded suggest that great caution must be exercised in ascribing a bovine or human origin to individual strains of streptococci on the results of cultural or biochemical reactions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , May 1935 , pp. 238 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, C. and Parran, T. (1927). U.S. Publ. Health. Reps. Suppl. 62, 1.Google Scholar
Breed technique (1921) in Standard Methods for the Bacteriological Examination of Milk. 3rd Ed. (1921). Amer. Pub. Health Assoc., Boston, p. 15.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H. (1919). The Use of Blood Agar for the Study of Streptococci. Monograph of the Rockefeller Institute, New York.Google Scholar
Diernhofer, K. (1930). Arch. f. Tierheilk. 61, 181.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. R. (1932). J. Bact. 23, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, P. R. (1933). Ibid. 25, 527.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. J. (1932). J. Comp. Path. Ther. 45, 49.Google Scholar
Frost, J. (1932). J. Bact. 23, 88.Google Scholar
Hare, R. and Colebrook, L. (1934). J. Path. Bact. 39, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haupt, H. (1931). Zbl. f. Bakt. Orig. 120, 291.Google Scholar
Klimmer, M., Haupt, H. and Roots, E. (1928). Ibid. 107, 206.Google Scholar
Kollenz, (1924). Inaug. Diss. Wien. quoted in Corn. Vet. 23, 171.Google Scholar
Minett, F. C. (1932). Bull. de l'Office Internal, des Epiz. 6, No. 1: “Les Mastites de la Vache”.Google Scholar
Minett, F. C., Stableforth, A. W. and Edwards, S. J. (1930). J. Comp. Path. Ther. 43, 165.Google Scholar
Nocard, E. and Mollereau, (1887). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 1, 109.Google Scholar
Plimmer, R. H. A. (1933). Organic and Bio-Chemistry, pp. 171, 196. Longmans, Green, London.Google Scholar
Reis, J. and Sevensson, A. (1931). C. R. Soc. Biol, Paris, 107, 645.Google Scholar
Rosell, J. M. (1933). Corn. Vet. 23, 168.Google Scholar
Rudolf, J. (1926). Zbl. f. Bakt. Orig. 100, 47.Google Scholar
Savage, w. G. (1906–7). 36th Ann. Rep. of Loc. Govt. Board, Rep. of Med. Off. p. 205, H.M.S.O., London.Google Scholar
Seelemann, M. (1932). Die Streptokokkeninfektionen des Enters. Hanover: M. and H. Schaper.Google Scholar