Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:48:57.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Timing of entry of Streptococcus uberis into the mammary gland of the dairy cow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2020

J Eric Hillerton
J Eric Hillerton*
Affiliation:
Drumlanrig, Cambridge, New Zealand
*
Author for correspondence: J Eric Hillerton, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Streptococcus uberis do not colonise the teat canal and appear to invade the mammary gland of the dairy cow by direct entry though the canal. When they enter the mammary gland, and the early resulting processes, are unclear. Experimental infusions of the lactating mammary gland have been made to determine outcomes of infection, mastitis and disease. Infusion of 500 cfu bacteria was made immediately after milking (8 and 16 h intermilking interval) and 1, 4 or 12 h prior to milking. A mastitis resulted from all infusions, probably in response to the skim milk carrier. Infusions post milking resulted in clinical mastitis in more than half of the quarters, whereas infusion 1 h premilking created no clinical mastitis. Infusion 4 or 12 h pre milking resulted in the most severe reactions, with all quarters developing moderate to severe clinical mastitis. This was more rapid with the 4 h pre milking group. The results demonstrate that the initial inflammatory response caused by an invasion of the mammary gland is not necessarily protective against establishment of a pathogen, and that especially the response to invasion in the intermilking interval is often insufficient to prevent infection and/or disease.

Keywords

Dairy cowmastitisStreptococcus uberis
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 87 , Issue 3 , August 2020 , pp. 295 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © Hannah Dairy Research Foundation 2020

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

Anderson, JC (1985) The prospect of immunization to prevent mastitis. In Progress in the Control of Bovine Mastitis. Kiel, Germany: IDF Seminar, pp. 524–527.Google Scholar
Bramley, AJ (1976) Variations in the susceptibility of lactating and non-lactating bovine udders to infection when infused with Escherichia coli. Journal of Dairy Research 43, 205–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dodd, FH and Bramley, AJ (1985) Reviews of the progress of dairy science: mastitis control – progress and prospects. Journal of Dairy Research 51, 481–512.Google Scholar
Elliott, GM, Dodd, FH and Brumby, PJ (1960) Variations in the rate of milk secretion in milking intervals of 2–24 hours. Journal of Dairy Research 27, 293–308.10.1017/S0022029900010360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillerton, JE, Bramley, AJ, Staker, RT and McKinnon, CH (1995) Patterns of intramammary infection and clinical mastitis over a 5 year period in a closely monitored herd applying mastitis control measures. Journal of Dairy Research 62, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Dairy Federation (1981) Laboratory methods for use in mastitis work. Brussels: IDF (International Dairy Federation Bulletin no. 132).Google Scholar
International Dairy Federation (2011) Suggested interpretation of mastitis terminology. Brussels: IDF (International Dairy Federation Bulletin no. 448).Google Scholar
Kitt, AJ and Leigh, JA (1997) The auxotrophic nature of Streptococcus uberis. In Horaud, T, Bouvet, A, Leclercq, R, de Montclos, H and Sicard, M (eds), Streptococci and the Host. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 418. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 647–650.10.1007/978-1-4899-1825-3_151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kliem, K and Hillerton, JE (2002) Labile inhibition of the growth of Streptococcus uberis in milk from cows free from mastitis. Journal of Dairy Research 69, 375–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacy-Hulbert, SJ and Hillerton, JE (1995) Physical characteristics of the teat canal and their influence on susceptibility to streptococcal infection. Journal of Dairy Research 62, 395–404.10.1017/S0022029900031101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neave, FK, Dodd, FH and Henriques, H (1950) Udder infections in the dry period. Journal of Dairy Research 17, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiel, CC, Cousins, CL, Westgarth, DR and Neave, FK (1973) The influence of some physical characteristics of the milking machine on the rate of new infections. Journal of Dairy Research 40, 117–129.10.1017/S0022029900014424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, DM and Mein, GA (1985) The role of machine milking in the invasion of mastitis causing organisms and implications for maintaining low infection rates. In Progress in the Control of Bovine Mastitis. Kiel, Germany: IDF Seminar, pp. 415–425.Google Scholar