Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:42:14.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The response of the bovine mammary gland to an infusion of staphylococci

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

F. H. S. Newbould  and
F. K. Neave
F. H. S. Newbould
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
F. K. Neave
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Small numbers of bovine staphylococci, usually less than 30, were infused into the teat cistern of 17 cows secreting less than 100 000 leucocytes/ml milk. Infection was assumed to have occurred if the organisms multiplied sufficiently to be recovered in the foremilk and inflammation was regarded as demonstrated if there was an increase in leucocytes. If the staphylococci were recovered at the 1st post-infusion milking they were consistently recovered thereafter and inflammation always followed but was never evident at the 1st post-infusion milking. Inflammation was usually evident by the 3rd but in one instance was delayed to the 11th post-infusion milking. There was never inflammation in the absence of infection. When there was a high probability that the infusion contained one organism or more, infection occurred in 2 of 10 quarters infused with coagulase-negative staphylococci and 23 of 25 quarters infused with coagulase-positive staphylococci.

A significant positive relationship was found between the number of staphylococci found at the 1st post-infusion milking and the number of leucocytes at the 3rd postinfusion milking.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , June 1965 , pp. 163 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1965

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

Dalling, T. & Stableforth, A. W. (1948 J. Frms' Club, Pt 4, 39.Google Scholar
Davis, D. J. (1935). J. Bact. 29, 43.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, J. B. (1960). Res. vet. Sci. 1, 350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, F. H., Oliver, J. & Neave, F. K. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, D. G., Pattison, I. H., Holman, H. H. & Smith, I. M. (1954). J. comp. Path. Ther. 64, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klastrup, D. (1960). Nord. VetMed. 8, 193.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEwen, A. D. & Samuel, J. McA. (1946). Vet. Rec. 58, 485.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. M. & Stuart, O. M. (1953). Cornell Vet. 43, 465.Google Scholar
Neave, F. K., Oliver, J. & Dodd, F. H. (1957). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy.Google Scholar
Neave, F. K., Dodd, F. H. & Kingwill, R. G. (1961). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy.Google Scholar
Newbould, F. H. S. & Neave, F. K. (1965 a). J. Dairy Res. 32, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbould, F. H. S. & Neave, F. K. (1965 b). J. Dairy Res. 32, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattison, I. H. & Holman, H. H. (1951). J. comp. Path. Ther. 61, 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pier, A. C., Schalm, O. W. & Hage, T. J. (1956). J. Am. vet. med. Ass. 129, 347.Google Scholar
Plastridge, W. N. (1958). J. Dairy Sci. 41, 1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, M. E., Neave, F. K. & Reiter, B. (1962). J. appl. Bact. 25, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, G. R. & McNutt, S. H. (1950). Am. J. vet. Res. 11, 188.Google Scholar
Waite, R. & Blackburn, P. S. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, R. & Blackburn, P. S. (1963). J. Dairy Res. 30, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, A. H. (1938). N.Z. Jl Sci. Technol. 20, 109A.Google Scholar
Young, C. W., Legates, J. E. & Leece, J. G. (1960). J. Dairy Sci. 43, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar