Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:34:35.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The distribution and characters of coagulase-negative staphylococci of the bovine udder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

S. J. Edwards  and
G. W. Jones
S. J. Edwards
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council, Institute for Research on Animal Diseases, Compton, Newbury, Berks
G. W. Jones
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council, Institute for Research on Animal Diseases, Compton, Newbury, Berks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Coagulase-negative staphyloccoci were isolated regularly over a period of 39 weeks from quarter milk samples of 18 cows belonging to one herd. They did not produce a leucocytosis in the milk or high anti-haemolysin titres in the blood of these cows, but such responses occurred in 2 cows infected with pathogenic staphylococci. The coagulase-negative variety was found to colonize the teat duct and surface of the teat in preference to the milk and possessed greater resistance than pathogenic staphylococci to certain long-chain fatty acids. Infection with coagulase-negative staphylococci was thought to antagonize the colonization of the udder by a pathogenic variety present in the herd; 23% of the coagulase-negative strains were found to elaborate an antibiotic substance inhibitory to the growth of a coagulase-positive staphylococcus. Coagulase-negative strains were characterized by the production of ɛ-toxin and could be divided into 3 main groups according to their effect on gelatin, mannitol and phenolphthalein diphosphate as substrates.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , October 1966 , pp. 261 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1966

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
Blackburn, P. S., Laing, C. M. & Malcolm, J. F. (1955). J. Dairy Res. 32, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossman, J. V., Dodd, F. H., Lee, J. M. & Neave, F. K. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruickshank, R. (1960). Mackie and McCartney's Handbook of Bacteriology. Edinburgh and London: Livingstone.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. J. & Rippon, J. E. (1957). J. comp. Path. 67, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S. J. & Smith, G. S. (1966). J. comp. Path. 76, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elek, S. D. & Levy, E. J. (1950). J. Path. Bact. 62, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elek, S. D. & Levy, E. J. (1954). J. Path. Bact. 68, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, G. (1962). Vet. Rec. 74, 753.Google Scholar
Fraser, G. (1964). Res. vet. Sci. 5, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minett, F. C. (1937). J. comp. Path. 50, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, M. T. & Simmons, L. E. (1959). J. gen. Microbiol. 21, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, W. B. & Wilson, J. B. (1959). Am. J. vet. Res. 20, 825.Google Scholar
Slanetz, L. W. & Bartley, C. H. (1953). J. infect. Dis. 92, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar