Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:40:33.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of inoculating the bovine teat duct with small numbers of Staphylococcus aureus

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

Fifty-seven inoculations of a strain of Staphylococcus aureus were made into the outer 4 mm of the teat ducts of 8 cows. The inocula ranged from 10 to 600 colony-forming units (CFU) and were made with a stainless steel instrument designed to overcome the disadvantages of glass rods and cotton swabs hitherto used.

A single inoculation resulted in either no colonization of the duct, in temporary colonization for up to 7 days, or in colonization followed by intramammary infection.

The recovery of the organisms depended on the size of the inoculum. When 70–100 CFU were placed in the teat duct no organisms were recovered from 12 of 24 quarters after the 1st post-inoculation milking. When 500–600 CFU were used, organisms were recovered from all of 31 quarters for at least 3 milkings, and from 61% for 6 milkings or more, in spite of dipping the teats in a strong disinfectant twice daily.

Intramammary infection developed in 1 of 12 quarters (8%) inoculated in the teat duct with about 600 CFU when the animals were milked twice daily, and in 5 of 19 (23%) quarters if the 1st post-inoculation milking was omitted.

There was no evidence of sensitization resulting from previous infection.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , June 1965 , pp. 171 - 179
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

Adams, E. W. & Rickard, C. G. (1963). Am. J. vet. Res. 24, 122.Google Scholar
Espe, D. & Cannon, C. V. (1942). J. Dairy Sci. 25, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, T. K. & Dodd, F. H. (1962). J. Dairy Res. 29, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadley, F. B., Frost, W. D., Gumm, M. & Welsh, W. E. (1930). J. Am. vet. med. Ass. 30, 328.Google Scholar
Hopkirk, C. S. M. (1934). Aust. vet. J. 10, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, T. (1938). J. comp. Path. Ther. 51, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, F. S. & Little, R. B. (1934). 12th Int. vet. Congr. 2, 563.Google Scholar
Kennedy, A. J. (1943). Vet. Rec. 55, 45.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. M. & Stuart, O. M. (1953). Cornell Vet. 43, 465.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. M. & Stuart, O. M. (1956). Cornell Vet. 45, 112.Google Scholar
Neave, F. K., Dodd, F. H. & Henriques, E. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neave, F. K., Oliver, J. & Dodd, F. H. (1957). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy.Google Scholar
Neave, F. K. & Oliver, J. (1962). J. Dairy Res. 29, 79.CrossRefGoogle 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, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J., Dodd, F. H. & Neave, F. K. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Report (1959). Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish Fd., Lond., no. 177, p. 116. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Sharpe, M. E., Neave, F. K. & Reiter, B. (1962). J. appl. Bact., 25, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar