Himachal Journal of Agricultural Research

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Assessment of the Common Methods for Diagnosis of Bovine Subclinical Mastitis


Affiliations
1 Department of Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, Dr. GC Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Scieces, CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidalya, Palampur-176 062, India
 

A total of 69 lactating Jersey crossbred cows of an organised dairy farm were examined for the presence of subclinical mastitis. The diagnosis of subclinical mastitis was done on the basis of somatic cell count (SCC) in the milk samples. The other methods of diagnosis of subclinical mastitis such as California Mastitis Test (CMT), Bromothymol Blue (BTB) test, microbial culture and milk yield evaluation were also performed. Different tests revealed variable results. It was found that although these diagnotic methods correlated linearly with SCC but not fully. CMT and BTB failed to detect the presence of subclinical mastitis in 10 and 24 percent cases, respectively; where SCC was more than 0.4 million cells/ml. However, twenty percent of cows were harboring pathogenic bacteria without any abnormal change in SCC, whereas in 41 percent cows, a high somatic cell count was observed in the absence of any bacteria. Furthermore, daily milk yield had a negative but weak correlation with SCC. No difference in the presence of various milk proteins were revealed by SDS-PAGE in the milk samples containing 0.2, 0.7, 1.3 million cells/ml, respectively. Thus, it was concluded that the correlation between the different methods of testing subclinical mastitis is tenuous and as such none of the tests may be regarded as confirmatory for the diagnosis of subclinical mastitis. This study suggests the development of alternative methods for achieving the confirmatory diagnosis of subclinical mastitis.

Keywords

Subclinical Mastitis, Somatic Cell Counting, California Mastitis Test, Bromothymol Blue Test, Microbial Culturing of Milk.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Akers RM. 2002. Lactation and Mammary Gland. Iowa State Press, America. 278 p.

  • Biggadike HJ, Ohnstad I, Laven RA and Hillerton JE. 2002. Evaluation of measurements of the conductivity of quarter milk samples for the early diagnosis of mastitis. Veterinary Record 150: 655-658.

  • Bramley AJ. 1992. Mastitis. In: Bovine Medicine-Diseases and husbandry of cattle (eds. Andrews AH, Blowey RW, Boyd H and Eddy RG). Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, 289-300.

  • Broom DM and Fraser AF. 2007. Domestic animal behavior and welfare. Fourth Edition. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.

  • Carter GR. 1995. Diagnostic Procedures in Veterinary Bacteriology and Mycology. 5th edition Springfield, USA.

  • Cruickshank R, Duguid JP, Marmion BP and Swain RHA.. 1975. Medical Microbiology. 12th Edition. Vol.1& 2 Churchill Livingston, Maryland.

  • Daley MJ, Oldham ER, Williams TJ and Coyle PA. 1991. Quantitative and qualitative properties of host polymorphonuclear cells during experimentally induced Staphylococcus aureus mastitis in cows. American Journal of Veterinary Research 52: 474-479.

  • Daniel WW. 1990. Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Applied Nonparametric Statistics (2nd ed.). Boston: PWSKent. pp. 358–365.

  • Degraves FJ and Fetrow J. 1993. Economics of mastitis and mastitis control. Veterinary Clinics of North America-Food Animal Practice 9: 421-434.

  • Dingwell RT, Leslie KE, Schukken YH, Sargeant JM and Timms LL. 2003. Evaluation of the California mastitis test to detect an intramammary infection with a major pathogen in early lactation dairy cows. Canadian Veterinary Journal 44: 413-416.

  • Halasa T, Huijps K, Osteras O and Hogveen H. 2007. Economic effects of bovine mastitis and mastitis management: a review. Veterinary Quarterly 29: 18-31

  • Halasa T, Nielen M, De Roos AP, Van DE Hoorne R, DE Jong G, Lam TJGM, Werven T V and Hogveen H. 2009. Production loss due to new subclinical mastitis in Dutch dairy cows estimated with a test-day model. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 599-606.

  • Harmon RJ 1994. Physiology of mastitis and factors affecting somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 77: 2103-2112.

  • Hendriksen RS, Mevius DJ, Schroeter A and Teale C. 2008. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among bacterial pathogens isolated from cattle in different European countries: 2002–2004. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50:28 doi:10.1186/1751-0147-50-28.

  • Hillerton JE. 1999. Redefining mastitis based on somatic cell count. International Dairy Federation (IDF) Bulletin 345: 4-6.

  • Hortet P and Seegers H. 1998. Loss in milk yield and related composition changes resulting from clinical mastitis in dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 37: 1-20.

  • Hortet P, Beaudeau F, Seegers H and Fourichon C. 1999. Reduction in milk yield associated with somatic cell counts up to 600 000 cells/ml in French Holstein cows without clinical mastitis. Livestock Production Science 61: 33-42.

  • Houben EHP, Dijkhuizen AA, Vanarendok JAM and Huirne RBM. 1993. Short-term and long-term production losses and repeatability of clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76 : 2561-2578.

  • Huijps K, Lam TJ and Hogveen H. 2008. Costs of mastitis: Facts and perception. Journal of Dairy Research 75: 113-120.

  • Malinowski E. 2001. Somatic cells in milk. Med Weter 57: 13-17.

  • Mattila T, Pyrola S and Sandholm M. 1986. Comparison of milk antitrypsin, albumin, N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase, somatic cells and bacteriological analysis as indicators of bovine subclinical mastitis. Veterinary Research Commun 21: 655-658

  • Mitchell JM, Griffiths MW and Mcewen SA. 1998. Antimicrobial drug residues in milk and meat: causes, concerns, prevalence, regulations, tests and test performance. Journal of Food Protection 61 : 742-756.

  • Moretain JP and Boisseau J. 1989. Excretion of penicillins and cephalexin in bovine milk following intramammary administration. Food Add Contamin 6:79-90.

  • Presscot JF and Breed RS. 1910. The determination of number of body cells in milk by a direct method. Journal of Infectious Diseases 7: 632-640.

  • Pyorala S. 2003. Indicators of inflammation in the diagnosis of mastitis. Veterinary Research 34: 565-578.

  • Pyorala S and Pyorala E. 1997. Accuracy of methods using somatic cell count and N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase activity in milk to assess the bacteriological cure of bovine clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 2820-2825.

  • Rajala-Schultz PJ, Grohn YT, McCulloch CE and Guard CL. 1999. Effects of clinical mastitis on milk yield in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 1213-1220.

  • Schepers AJ, Lam TJ, Schukken YH, Wilmink JB and Hanekamp WJ. 1997. Estimation of variance components for somatic cell counts to determine thresholds for uninfected quarters. Journal of Dairy Science 80:1833-1840.

  • Sears PM, Smith BS, Eglish PB, Herer PS and Gonzalez RN. 1990. Shedding pattern of Staphylococcus aureus from bovine intramammary infection. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 27852789.

  • Varshney JP and Naresh R. 2004. Evaluation of homeopathic complex in the clinical management of udder diseases of riverine buffaloes. Homeopathy 93:17.

  • Webster J. 1999. Animal Welfare. A Cool Eye Towards Eden. First Edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.

  • Wilson DJ, Gonzalez RN, Hertl JA, Schulte HF, Bennett GJ, Schukken YH and Grohn YT. 2004. Effect of clinical mastitis on the lactation curve: A mixed model estimation using daily milk weights. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 2073-2084.


Abstract Views: 249

PDF Views: 0




  • Assessment of the Common Methods for Diagnosis of Bovine Subclinical Mastitis

Abstract Views: 249  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Geetanjali Singh
Department of Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, Dr. GC Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Scieces, CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidalya, Palampur-176 062, India
Bishrutee Bhardwaj
Department of Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, Dr. GC Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Scieces, CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidalya, Palampur-176 062, India
Subhash Verma
Department of Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, Dr. GC Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Scieces, CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidalya, Palampur-176 062, India

Abstract


A total of 69 lactating Jersey crossbred cows of an organised dairy farm were examined for the presence of subclinical mastitis. The diagnosis of subclinical mastitis was done on the basis of somatic cell count (SCC) in the milk samples. The other methods of diagnosis of subclinical mastitis such as California Mastitis Test (CMT), Bromothymol Blue (BTB) test, microbial culture and milk yield evaluation were also performed. Different tests revealed variable results. It was found that although these diagnotic methods correlated linearly with SCC but not fully. CMT and BTB failed to detect the presence of subclinical mastitis in 10 and 24 percent cases, respectively; where SCC was more than 0.4 million cells/ml. However, twenty percent of cows were harboring pathogenic bacteria without any abnormal change in SCC, whereas in 41 percent cows, a high somatic cell count was observed in the absence of any bacteria. Furthermore, daily milk yield had a negative but weak correlation with SCC. No difference in the presence of various milk proteins were revealed by SDS-PAGE in the milk samples containing 0.2, 0.7, 1.3 million cells/ml, respectively. Thus, it was concluded that the correlation between the different methods of testing subclinical mastitis is tenuous and as such none of the tests may be regarded as confirmatory for the diagnosis of subclinical mastitis. This study suggests the development of alternative methods for achieving the confirmatory diagnosis of subclinical mastitis.

Keywords


Subclinical Mastitis, Somatic Cell Counting, California Mastitis Test, Bromothymol Blue Test, Microbial Culturing of Milk.

References