Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:34:30.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Relationship between previous history of Streptococcus uberis infection and response to a challenge model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2013

Sally-Anne Turner*
Affiliation:
DairyNZ, Private Bag 3221, Hamilton, New Zealand
John H Williamson
Affiliation:
DairyNZ, Private Bag 3221, Hamilton, New Zealand
S Jane Lacy-Hulbert
Affiliation:
DairyNZ, Private Bag 3221, Hamilton, New Zealand
J Eric Hillerton
Affiliation:
DairyNZ, Private Bag 3221, Hamilton, New Zealand
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Streptococcus uberis is the most common cause of clinical mastitis at calving in pasture-based dairy cows. Results of experimental inoculations were compared with cows' previous history of infection to help define a model for susceptibility to Str. uberis mastitis. Cows used had either no apparent history of intramammary infection (IMI) by Str. uberis or other major mastitis pathogens throughout their productive lifetime (‘apparently uninfected’; AUI), or had a confirmed history of Str. uberis IMI (‘historically infected’; HI). Cows were exposed to Str. uberis in sequential steps: dipping of the teat end (DIP; n=53 cows); a teat canal inoculation (TCI; n=33 cows); and, finally, intramammary inoculation challenge (IC; n=7 cows). Only cows that remained free of infection at each step progressed to the next phase. Infection rates were similar between AUI or HI cows following the DIP (9 and 17% respectively), or the TCI (75 and 68% respectively). Physical and biochemical traits of cows were examined. Analysis of traits prior to inoculations implied that HI cows produced more milk fat, while AUI cows tended to have longer teat canals. Analysis of traits for cows that became infected following DIP, implied that there was a positive association with milk fat production and negative association with somatic cell count (SCC), while there was a positive association with the duration of p.m. milking, and negative association with SCC in those cows that became infected following TCI. Only AUI cows became infected following the IC inoculation. Similarity in response to experimental inoculation between the two groups suggests that the current dip or teat canal inoculation (using a 3-mm depth of inoculation) models are not good predictors of natural resistance to Str. uberis. However, a population of cows was identified that remained uninfected after DIP, TCI and IC, and may comprise a resistant phenotype.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2013 

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

Bakken, G 1981 Relationships between udder and teat morphology, mastitis and milk production in Norwegian red cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 31 438444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannerman, DD, Paape, MJ, Goff, JP, Kimura, K, Lippolis, JD & Hope, JC 2004 Innate immune response to intramammary infection with Serratia marcescens and Streptococcus uberis. Veterinary Research 35 681700CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, ES, Clarke, PM, Dodd, FH & Foot, AS 1950 Factors affecting the rate of machine milking. Journal of Dairy Research 17 117127Google Scholar
Bright, SA, Bitman, J, Capuco, AV, Wood, DL & Miller, RH 1990 Methods of collection and lipid composition of teat canal keratin in dry and lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 73 98106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Compton, CW, Heuer, C, Parker, K & McDougall, S 2007 Epidemiology of mastitis in pasture-grazed peripartum dairy heifers and its effects on productivity. Journal of Dairy Science 90 41574170Google Scholar
Finch, J, Hill, A, Field, TR & Leigh, JA 1994 Local vaccination with killed Streptococcus uberis protects the bovine mammary gland against experimental intramammary challenge with the homologous strain. Infection and Immunity 62 35993603CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galton, D, Peterson, L.G. & Merrill, WG 1988 Evaluation of udder preparations on intramammary infections. Journal of Dairy Science 71 14171421Google Scholar
Galton, DM 2004 Effects of an automatic postmilking teat dipping system on new intramammary infections and iodine in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 87 225231Google Scholar
GenStat 2011 GenStat for Windows, 14th edition. Hemel Hempstead, UK: VSN InternationalGoogle Scholar
Gindler, EM & King, JD 1972 Rapid colorimetric determination of calcium in biologic fluids with methylthymol blue. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 58 376382Google Scholar
Grindal, RJ & Hillerton, JE 1991 Influence of milk flow rate on new intramammary infection in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research 58 263268CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grindal, RJ, Walton, AW & Hillerton, JE 1991 Influence of milk flow rate and streak canal length on new intramammary infection in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research 58 383388Google Scholar
Hill, AW 1988a Pathogenicity of two strains of Streptococcus uberis infused into lactating and non-lactating bovine mammary glands. Research in Veterinary Science 45 400404Google Scholar
Hill, AW 1988b Protective effect of previous intramammary infection with Streptococcus uberis against subsequent clinical mastitis in the cow. Research in Veterinary Science 44 386387CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillerton, JE & Kliem, KE 2002 Effective treatment of Streptococcus uberis clinical mastitis to minimize the use of antibiotics. Journal of Dairy Science 85 10091014Google Scholar
Hogan, J, Gonzalez, R, Harmon, R, Nickerson, S, Oliver, S, Pankey, J & Smith, KL 1999 Laboratory Handbook on Bovine Mastitis. Madison, WI, USA: National Mastitis Council IncGoogle Scholar
Jayarao, BM, Gillespie, BE, Lewis, MJ, Dowlen, HH & Oliver, SP 1999 Epidemiology of Streptococcus uberis intramammary infections in a dairy herd. Zentralbl Veterinarmed B 46 433442Google Scholar
Kolver, ES, Napper, AR, Copeman, PJA & Muller, LD 2000 A comparison of New Zealand and overseas Holstein Friesian heifers. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 60 265269Google Scholar
Lacy-Hulbert, SJ 1993 Mastitis and the role of the bovine teat canal. PhD Thesis. Reading: Department of Pure and Applied Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of ReadingGoogle Scholar
Lacy-Hulbert, SJ & Hillerton, JE 1995 Physical characteristics of the bovine teat canal and their influence on susceptibility to streptococcal infection. Journal of Dairy Research 62 395404Google Scholar
Lacy-Hulbert, SJ, Woolford, MW, Nicholas, G & Stelwagen, K 1996 Effect of Streptococcus uberis infection on milk characteristics of individual quarters. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 56 6567Google Scholar
Lopez-Benavides, MG, Williamson, JH, Walters, JB & Hickford, JGH 2004 Relationship between intramammary infection and teat characteristics. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 64 147149Google Scholar
McDougall, S 1998 Prevalence of clinical mastitis in 38 Waikato Dairy Herds. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 58 7678Google Scholar
McDougall, S, Parker, K, Swift, S, Harcourt, S & Sutherland, G 2004 Effect of dose of Streptococcus uberis infused into the mammary gland of lactating cows on clinical signs, bacterial count, somatic cell count and milk production. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 64 143146Google Scholar
Newbould, FHS & Neave, FK 1965 The effect of inoculating the bovine teat duct with small numbers of Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Dairy Research 32 171179Google Scholar
Pankey, JW & Philpot, WN 1975 Hygiene in the prevention of udder infections. 1. Comparative efficacy of four teat dips. Journal of Dairy Science 58 202204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, KI, Compton, CW, Annis, FM, Weir, AM & McDougall, S 2007 Management of dairy heifers and its relationships with the incidence of clinical mastitis. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 55 208216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulrud, CO 2005 Basic concepts of the bovine teat canal. Veterinary Research Communications 29 215245Google Scholar
Rambeaud, M, Almeida, RA, Pighetti, GM & Oliver, SP 2003 Dynamics of leukocytes and cytokines during experimentally induced Streptococcus uberis mastitis. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 96 193205Google Scholar
Roche, JR, Berry, DP & Kolver, ES 2006 Holstein-Friesian strain and feed effects on milk production, body weight, and body condition score profiles in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89 35323543CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, KM, McDougall, S, Stanley, GE, Johnson, DL, Spelman, RJ & Harcourt, SJ 2006 Responses and factors affecting intramammary infection rates resulting from infusion of a Streptococcus uberis strain in Friesian-Jersey crossbred cows. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 66 7076Google Scholar
Schukken, YH, Mallard, BA, Dekkers, JC, Leslie, KE & Stear, MJ 1994 Genetic impact on the risk of intramammary infection following Staphyloccus aureus challenge. Journal of Dairy Science 77 639647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seykora, AJ & McDaniel, BT 1985 Udder and teat morphology related to mastitis resistance: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 68 20872093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waage, S, Sviland, S & Odegaard, SA 1998 Identification of risk factors for clinical mastitis in dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 81 12751284Google Scholar
Zadoks, RN, Allore, HG, Barkema, HW, Sampimon, OC, Wellenberg, GJ, Grohn, YT & Schukkent, YH 2001 Cow- and quarter-level risk factors for Streptococcus uberis and Staphylococcus aureus mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 84 26492663Google Scholar