Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:58:33.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk factors for isolation of Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus dysgalactiae from milk culture obtained approximately 6 days post calving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2008

Olav Østerås ,
Anne Cathrine Whist  and
Liv Sølverød
Olav Østerås*
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, PO Box 8146 Dep., 0033 Oslo, Norway Department of Norwegian Cattle Health Services, TINE Norwegian Dairies, PO Box 58, 1431 Ås, Norway
Anne Cathrine Whist
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, PO Box 8146 Dep., 0033 Oslo, Norway Department of Norwegian Cattle Health Services, TINE Norwegian Dairies, PO Box 58, 1431 Ås, Norway
Liv Sølverød
Affiliation:
Department of Norwegian Cattle Health Services, TINE Norwegian Dairies, PO Box 58, 1431 Ås, Norway Mastitis Laboratory, TINE Norwegian Dairies, Fannestrandvegen 55, 6415 Molde, Norway
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Milk culture results at approximately 6 d post calving were assessed in a 2-year retrospective single-cohort study in 178 Norwegian herds. A combined teat dipping and selective antibiotic therapy trial was performed in these herds where cows with composite milk somatic cell count (CMSCC) >100 000 cells/ml before drying-off (geometric mean of the last three CMSCC test-days) and isolation of Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus dysgalactiae were selected for either short-acting lactation antibiotic treatment or long-acting dry cow antibiotic treatment. Milk culture results at approximately 6 d post-calving were available from 437 treated cows and 3061 non-treated cows before drying-off and separate multivariable logistic regression models were ran for these two groups. Risk factors associated with isolation of Staph. aureus 6 d post calving for non-treated cows were CMSCC >400 000 cells/ml before drying-off v. <400 000 cells/ml (Odds ratio (OR)=2·4) and clinical mastitis (CM) in the previous lactation v. non-treated (OR=1·5). Risk factors associated with Staph. aureus 6 d post calving for treated cows was a CMSCC >200 000 cells/ml before drying-off v. <200 000 cells/ml (OR=2·3) and CM in the previous lactation versus non-treated (OR=1·7). For non-treated cows it was 1·7-times more likely to isolate Str. dysgalactiae 6 d post-calving if the CMSCC was >50 000 cells/ml compared with <50 000 cells/ml. For treated cows it was 3·7–5·8-times more likely to isolate Str. dysgalactiae 6 d post calving if given short-acting lactation formula at quarter level compared with long-acting dry cow formula used at cow level. Regular use of iodine post-milking teat disinfection (PMTD) did not influence the isolation of Staph. aureus 6 d post calving, but it was less likely to isolate Str. dysgalactiae 6 d post calving if iodine PMTD was used regularly rather than irregularly. The external teat sealant had no effect on either of the two bacteria.

This study indicates that the CMSCC limit for sampling cows before drying-off can be reduced to 50 000 cells/ml in herds with a Str. dysgalactiae problem. Iodine PMTD should also be recommended in these herds. Cows with a CMSCC >400 000 cells/ml prior to drying-off should receive long-acting dry cow formula irrespective of the milk culture result.

Keywords

Staphylococcus aureusStreptococcus dysgalactiaedry cow therapyteat dipping
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 98 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2008

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

Alfnes, T & Østerås, O 1992 Milking and Milking Management [in Norwegian]. Oslo, Norway: LandbruksforlagetGoogle Scholar
Bradley, AJ & Green, MJ 2000 A study of the incidence and significance of intramammary enterobacterial infections acquired during the dry period. Journal of Dairy Science 83 1957–1965CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, AJ & Green, MJ 2001 An investigation of the impact of intramammary antibiotic dry cow therapy on clinical coliform mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 84 1632–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, V, Zeger, SL & Diggle, PJ 1993 Modelling multivariate binary data with alternative logistic regressions. Biometrika 80 517–526Google Scholar
Cousins, CL, Higgs, TM, Jackson, ER, Neave, FK & Dodd, FH 1980 Susceptibility of the bovine udder to bacterial infection in the dry period. Journal of Dairy Research 47 11–18Google Scholar
Dingwell, RT, Kelton, DF & Leslie, KE 2003 Management of the dry cow in control of peripartum disease and mastitis. Veterinary Clinic of North America Food Animal Practice 19 235–265Google Scholar
International Dairy Federation 1999 Suggested interpretation of mastitis terminology. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation No 338IDF Brussels BelgiumGoogle Scholar
International Dairy Federation 1981 Laboratory methods for use in mastitis work. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation No 132IDF Brussels BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Kingwill, RG, Neave, FK, Dodd, FH, Griffin, TK & Westgarth, DR 1970 The effect of a mastitis control system on levels of subclinical and clinical mastitis in two years. Veterinary Record 87 94–100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Veterinary Institute 1993 Laboratory routines for mastitis diagnostics at the State Veterinary Laboratories, Oslo [in Norwegian]Google Scholar
Oliver, SP & Sordillo, LM 1988 Udder health in the periparturient period. Journal of Dairy Science 71 2584–2606CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Østerås, O, Solbu, H, Refsdal, AO, Roalkvam, T, Filseth, O & Minsaas, A 2007 Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in Norwegian dairy cattle population. Journal of Dairy Science 90 4483–4497CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Østerås, O & Sølverød, L 2005 Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In Proceedings of the 4th International Mastitis Seminar, IDF, Mastitis in Dairy Production, Current Knowledge and Future solutions, pp. 91–101. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic PublishersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Østerås, O, Edge, VL & Martin, SW 1999 Determinants of success or failure in the elimination of major mastitis pathogens in selective dry cow therapy. Journal of Dairy Science 82 1221–1231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Østerås, O, Aursjø, J, Gjul, GG & Jørstad, A 1994 Effect of dry-cow therapy on subclinical mastitis – an evaluation of long-acting and short-acting intramammaria. Journal of Veterinary Medicine B 41 529–540Google Scholar
Pankey, JW 1984 Post-milking teat antisepsis. Veterinary Clinics of North America Large Animal Practice 6 335–348Google Scholar
Pankey, JW, Barker, RM, Twomey, A & Duirs, G 1982 A note on effectiveness of dry cow therapy in New Zealand dairy herds. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 30 50–52Google Scholar
Philot, WN & Pankey, JW 1978 Hygiene in the prevention of udder infections. VI. Comparative efficacy of a teat dip under experimental and natural exposure to mastitis pathogens. Journal of Dairy Science 61 964–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, A, Seegers, H & Bareille, N 2006 Incidence of intramammary infections during the dry period without or with antibiotic treatment in dairy cows – a quantitative analysis of published data. Journal of Veterinary Research 37 25–48Google Scholar
SAS/STAT User's Guide Version 6 second edition 1993 Inst., Inc., Cary NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Timms, LL 2001 Field trial evaluation of a novel persistent barrier teat dip for preventing mastitis during the dry period and as a potential substitute for dry cow antibiotic therapy. In Proceedings of the National Mastitis Council Annual Meeting, Reno NV, USA. pp. 262–263Google Scholar
Walter, SD, Feinstein, AR & Well, CK 1987 Coding ordinal independent variables in multiple regression analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology 125 319–323Google Scholar
Whist, AC & Østerås, O 2007a Association between somatic cell counts at calving or prior to drying-off and clinical mastitis in the remaining or subsequent lactation. Journal of Dairy Research 74 66–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whist, AC, Østerås, O & Sølverød, L 2007b Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus dysgalactiae in Norwegian herds after introduction of selective dry cow therapy and teat dipping Journal of Dairy Research 74 1–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whist, AC, Østerås, O & Sølverød, L 2007c Streptococcus dysgalactiae isolates at calving and lactation performance within the same lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 90 766–778CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whist, AC & Østerås, O 2006 Association between somatic cell counts at calving or prior to drying-off and future somatic cell counts, in the remaining or subsequent lactation. Journal of Dairy Research 73 277–287Google Scholar
Woolford, MW, Williamson, JH, Day, AM & Copeman, PJ 1998 The prophylactic effect of a teat sealer on bovine mastitis during the dry perios and the following lactation. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 46 12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziv, G, Neriya, A & Storper, M 1987 Efficacy of an intramammary nifuroquine dry cow product in the elimination and prevention of udder infections. Israeli Journal of Veterinary Medicine 43 3–10Google Scholar