Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T20:52:01.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

133. Influence of Mastitis and of Brucella abortus Infection upon the Milk Yield of Cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

F. C. Minett  and
W. J. Martin
F. C. Minett
Affiliation:
Research Institute in Animal Pathology, Royal Veterinary College, London
W. J. Martin
Affiliation:
Division of Epidemiology and Vital Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The influence of mastitis and of Br. abortus infection, separately and combined, has been observed in two tuberculosis-free herds during the years 1929–31 and 1930–4 respectively. Actual abortions in these herds were few, but many cows were affected with Streptococcus mastitis in a subclinical form. The results, comprising the examination of 180 lactations in Ayrshires and 193 in Friesians, have been considered in relation to the results of others who have investigated the influence of Br. abortus infection on the yield.

When all the lactations of all cows were considered, the average reduction in yield per lactation was 954 lb. due to mastitis and 1685 lb. due to mastitis and abortion combined. Among the Ayrshires of one herd the average reduction due to mastitis was 892 lb.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , May 1936 , pp. 122 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1) Gowen, J. W. (1924). Milk Secretion. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
(2) Runnells, R. A. & Huddleson, I. F. (1925). Cornell Vet. 15, 376.Google Scholar
(3) Tweed, R. L. (1923). Bull. Mich. agric. Exp. Sta. No. 61.Google Scholar
(4) Bang, O. & Bendixen, Chr. (1932). Z. InfehtKr. Haustiere, 42, 81.Google Scholar
(5) Niermann, F. (1932). Inaugural Dissertation. Hanover.Google Scholar
(6) Hooper, J. J. (1923). Bull. Ky agric. Exp. Sta. No. 248.Google Scholar
(7) Simms, B. T. & Miller, F. W. (1925–1926). J. Amer. vet. med. Ass. 68, 455.Google Scholar
(8) (1928). Bull. Ore. agric. Coll. No. 232.Google Scholar
(9) White, G. C., Johnson, R. E., Rettger, L. F. & Mcalpine, J. G. (1925). Bull. Storrs agric. Exp. Sta. No. 135.Google Scholar
(10) Turner, C. W., Ragsdale, A. C. & Brody, S. (1924). Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. No. 221.Google Scholar
(11) Fritz, B. S. & Barnes, M. F. (1930). J. Amer. vet. med. Ass. 76, 490.Google Scholar
(12) Graham, R. & Thorp, F. (1930). Circ. III. agric. Exp. Sta. No. 360.Google Scholar
(13) Rich, L. H. (1931). Cornell Vet. 21, 15.Google Scholar
(14) Kijmmer, M. (1925). Quoted by Seelemann (15).Google Scholar
(15) Seelemann, M. (1932). Die Streptokokkeninfektionen des Enters. Hanover: M. and H.Schaper.Google Scholar
(16) Shaw, A. O. & Beam, A. L. (1935). J. Dairy Sci. 18, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17) Minett, F. C. (1934). Rep. Xllth Internal. Veterinary Congress, New York. Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Office.Google Scholar
(18) Stableforth, A. W., Edwards, S. J. & Minett, F. C. (1935). J. comp. Path. 48, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19) Sanders, H. G. (1927). J. agric. Sci. 17, 339, 502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20) Dahlberg, A. C. (1935). Bull. N.Y. St. agric. Exp. Sta. No. 654.Google Scholar
(21) Bartlett, S. & Huthnance, S. L. (1935). Agric. Progr. 12, 144.Google Scholar
(22) Tuff, P. (1928). Proc. 8th World's Dairy Congress, p. 275.Google Scholar