Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T22:27:57.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

215. The value of indirect methods for the detection of mastitis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

S. J. Rowland  and
M. Zein-El-Dine
S. J. Rowland
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Chemistry, University of Reading
M. Zein-El-Dine
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Chemistry, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following indirect tests for the detection of subclinical mastitis were applied, under bacteriological control, to a series of milk samples from the individual quarters of cows in full milk: presence of clots, reaction to bromcresol-purple, reaction to brom-thymol-blue, amount and character of centrifuge deposit, catalase content, chloride content, casein number and solids-not-fat content.

These tests detected 12, 61, 14, 55, 49, 77, 91, and 63% respectively of the infected quarters, and diagnosed 0, 16, 0, 3, 34, 0, 8, and 9% of the uninfected quarters as infected.

For each indirect test the mean square contingency was calculated as a measure of agreement between it and the direct bacteriological method. The tests were placed in the descending order of their value for diagnosis thus: casein number, chloride content, centrifuge deposit, solids-not-fat content, brom-cresol-purple reaction, brom-thymol-blue reaction, presence of clots, catalase content.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1939 , pp. 108 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1939

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) Edwards, (1933). J. comp. Path. 46, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2) Cunningham, (1936). “The occurrence and detection of streptococcal mastitis.” Proc. Soc. agric. Bact.Google Scholar
(3) Minett, , Stableforth, & Edwards, (1930). J. comp. Path. 43, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4) Davies, (1932). Analyst, 37, 71.Google Scholar
(5) Krenn, (1930). Fortschr. Landw. 5, 413.Google Scholar
(6) Seelemann, (1932). Die streptokoken Infektronen des Euters. Hanover: M. and H. Schaper.Google Scholar
(7) Zieger, (1932). Dtsch. tierarztl. Wschr. 40, 17.Google Scholar
(8) Rosell, & Miller, (1933). J. Amer. vet. Med. Ass. 82, 587.Google Scholar
(9) Blood, & Rowlands, (1936). J. Dairy Res. 7, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10) Rowland, & Zein-El-Dine, (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11) Rowland, & Zein-El-Dine, (1938). J. Dairy. Res. 9, 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12) Munch-Petersen, (1938). Bovine Mastitis. Imp. Bureau of Animal Health, Review Series, no. 1.Google Scholar