Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:30:57.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observed reduction in recovery of Corynebacterium spp. from bovine milk samples by use of a teat cannula

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2010

Ricardo Bexiga ,
Helena Pereira ,
Octávio Pereira ,
André Leitão ,
Carla Carneiro ,
Kathryn A Ellis  and
Cristina L Vilela
Ricardo Bexiga*
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Avenida da Universidade Técnica, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
Helena Pereira
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Avenida da Universidade Técnica, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
Octávio Pereira
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Avenida da Universidade Técnica, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
André Leitão
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Avenida da Universidade Técnica, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
Carla Carneiro
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Avenida da Universidade Técnica, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
Kathryn A Ellis
Affiliation:
Scottish Centre for Production Animal Health and Food Safety, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Bearsden Road, G61 1QH, UK
Cristina L Vilela
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Avenida da Universidade Técnica, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Corynebacterium bovis and coagulase-negative staphylococci are frequently the most commonly isolated bacteria from milk samples submitted for identification of pathogens causing intramammary infection, the individual quarter somatic cell count (SCC) from those samples is most often low. The present study aimed at evaluating the difference in bacteriology results from milk sampled by the standard technique (as recommended by the National Mastitis Council) and by the use of a teat cannula surpassing the teat canal, since C. bovis is often only found in the teat canal. Single quarter milk samples were collected in duplicate from 132 dairy cows on a commercial dairy farm using the standard milk sampling technique and also using a cannula introduced into the teat. Two groups of quarters were sampled: a group that was selected randomly at cow and quarter level and a group that was selected based on having SCC >200 000 cells/ml at the previous milk recording at cow level and on California mastitis test result at quarter level. Bacteriological culture performed on the samples yielded 29 Corynebacterium spp. isolates from the samples collected with the standard technique and 6 isolates from the samples collected with a cannula. Bacteriological culture yielded 73 and 100 culture negative samples respectively with the standard and the alternative sampling technique. A significant difference between the two sampling techniques was observed for recovery of Corynebacterium spp. and for no-growth samples. There was no significant difference in the isolation of Corynebacterium spp. or other bacterial species when using the standard technique before or after sampling with the cannula; thus the observed difference in bacteriology results could not be attributed to a particular sampling order. No significant change was observed overall in individual quarter SCC measured on the sampling day and 7 d later. Our results agree with several studies showing that Corynebacterium bovis often colonizes the teat canal, without causing true intramammary infection.

Keywords

Milk samplingCorynebacterium spp.intramammary infection
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 9 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2010

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

Black, RT, Marshall, RT & Bourland, CT 1972 Locus of mammary gland infections of Corynebacterium bovis. Journal of Dairy Science 55 413–416CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Couture, Y & Moulon, P-Y 2005 Procedures and surgeries of the teat. Veterinary Clinics of North America – Food Animal Practice 21 173–204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Haas, Y, Veerkamp, RF, Barkema, HW, Gröhn, YT & Schukken, YH 2004 Associations between pathogen-specific cases of clinical mastitis and somatic cell count patterns. Journal of Dairy Science 87 95–105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honkanen-Buzalski, T & Bramley, AJ 1984 Observations on Corynebacterium bovis infection of the mammary gland II. Experimental infection. Journal of Dairy Research 51 379–385CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Dairy Federation 1999 Suggested interpretation of mastitis terminology. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 338 3–26Google Scholar
Makovec, JA & Ruegg, PL 2003 Results of milk samples submitted for microbiological examination in Wisconsin from 1994 to 2001. Journal of Dairy Science 86 3466–3472CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Mastitis Council 1999 Sample collection and handling In: Laboratory Handbook of Bovine Mastitis. Madison WI, USA: National Mastitis CouncilGoogle Scholar
Pitkälä, A, Haveri, M, Pyörälä, S, Myllys, V & Honkanen-Buzalski, T 2004 Bovine mastitis in Finland 2001 – Prevalence, distribution of bacteria and antimicrobial resistance. Journal of Dairy Science 87 2433–2441CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seegers, H, Fourichon, C & Beaudeau, F 2003 Production effects related to mastitis and mastitis economics in dairy cattle herds. Veterinary Research 34 475–491CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, DJ, Gonzalez, RN & Das, HH 1997 Bovine mastitis pathogens in New York and Pennsylvania: prevalence and effects on somatic cell count and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 80 2592–2598CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed