Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T05:35:52.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

561. The use of phage typing and penicillin sensitivity tests in studies of staphylococci from bovine mastitis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Patricia Price ,
F. K. Neave ,
Joan E. Rippon  and
R. E. O. Williams
Patricia Price
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
F. K. Neave
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Joan E. Rippon
Affiliation:
Staphylococcus Reference Laboratory, Public Health Laboratory Service, Colindale
R. E. O. Williams
Affiliation:
Staphylococcus Reference Laboratory, Public Health Laboratory Service, Colindale
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In three heavily infected herds there were sufficient types of staphylococci to enable phage typing to be of use in distinguishing between strains present before and after intramammary infusions with antibiotics. Two phage types were rarely found in established infections in one quarter even when three or four distinguishable types were present in a herd. But two types were sometimes found in milk samples when the teat apex was unhealthy and truly aseptic sampling by the usual procedure was impractical. In quarters infected for many months phage type and penicillin sensitivity (and resistance) were found to be very stable. There were only two spontaneous replacements of one phage type by another.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , October 1954 , pp. 342 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1954

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)Crossman, Joan, V., Dodd, F. H., Lee, J. M. & Neave, F. K. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Williams, R. E. O. & Harper, G. J. (1946). Brit. J. exp. Path. 27, 72.Google Scholar
(3)Williams, R. E. O. & Rippon, , Joan, E. (1952). J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Williams, R. E. O., Rippon, , Joan, E. & Dowsett, , Lynette, M. (1953). Lancet, i, 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Gillespie, W. A. & Simpson, P. M. (1948). Brit. med. J. ii, 902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Elek, S. D. & Levy, E. (1950). J. Path. Bact. 62, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Bondi, A. Jr & Dietz, C. C. (1945). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 60, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Gots, J. S. (1945). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 60, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Macdonald, A. (1946). Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth Lab. Serv. 5, 230.Google Scholar
(10)Smith, H.Williams, (1948). J. comp. Path. 58, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Rep. nat. Inst. Dairy., Reading (1950), p. 49.Google Scholar
(12)Smith, H.Williams, (1948). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar