Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-cxxrm Total loading time: 0.3 Render date: 2021-12-01T11:09:48.266Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The association between bedding material and the bacterial counts of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis and coliform bacteria on teat skin and in teat canals in lactating dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Jan-Hendrik Paduch
Affiliation:
Faculty II, Department of Microbiology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Hannover, Heisterbergallee 12, 30453 Hannover, Germany Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Chair of Animal Health and Animal Welfare, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 8, 18059 Rostock, Germany
Elmar Mohr
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Chair of Animal Health and Animal Welfare, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 8, 18059 Rostock, Germany
Volker Krömker*
Affiliation:
Faculty II, Department of Microbiology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Hannover, Heisterbergallee 12, 30453 Hannover, Germany
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: volker.kroemker@fh-hannover.de

Abstract

Several mastitis-causing pathogens are able to colonize the bovine teat canal. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between the treatment of sawdust bedding with a commercial alkaline conditioner and the bacterial counts on teat skin and in the teat canal. The study used a crossover design. Ten lactating Holstein cows that were free of udder infections and mastitis were included in the study. The animals were bedded on either untreated sawdust or sawdust that had been treated with a hydrated lime-based conditioner. Once a day, fresh bedding material was added. After 3 weeks, the bedding material was removed from the cubicles, fresh bedding material was provided, and the cows were rotated between the two bedding material groups. Teat skin and teat canals were sampled using the wet and dry swab technique after weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis, Escherichia coli and other coliform bacteria were detected in the resulting agar plate cultures. The treatment of the bedding material was associated with the teat skin bacterial counts of Str. uberis, Esch. coli and other coliform bacteria. An association was also found between the bedding material and the teat canal bacterial counts of coliform bacteria other than Esch. coli. For Staph. aureus, no associations with the bedding material were found. In general, the addition of a hydrated lime-based conditioner to sawdust reduces the population sizes of environmental pathogens on teat skin and in teat canals.

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

Bey, RF, Reneau, JK & Farnsworth, RJ 2002 The role of bedding management in udder health. In Proceedings National Mastitis Council Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 4555Google Scholar
Bramley, AJ 1984 Streptococcus uberis udder infection – a major barrier to reducing mastitis incidence. British Veterinary Journal 140 328335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bramley, AJ & Neave, FK 1975 Studies on the control of coliform mastitis in dairy cows. British Veterinary Journal 131 160169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bramley, AJ, King, JS, Higgs, TM & Neave, FK 1979 Colonization of the bovine teat duct following inoculation with Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. British Veterinary Journal 135 149162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capuco, AV, Mein, GA, Nickerson, SC, Jack, LJW, Wood, DL, Bright, SA, Aschenbrenner, RA, Miller, RH & Bitman, J 1994 Influence of pulsationless milking on teat canal keratin and mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 77 6474CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Du Preez, JH 1985 Teat canal infections. Kieler Milchwirtschaftliche Forschungsberichte 37 267273Google Scholar
Fairchild, TP, McArthur, BJ, Moore, JH & Hylton, WE 1982 Coliform counts in various bedding materials. Journal of Dairy Science 65 10291035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
German Veterinary Medical Society 2002 Leitlinien zur Bekämpfung der Mastitis des Rindes als Bestandsproblem [Guidelines for bovine mastitis control in dairy herds]. 4th edition. Gießen, Germany: German Veterinary Medical SocietyGoogle Scholar
Grunert, E 1990 Weiblicher Geschlechtsapparat und Euter [Female genital tract and udder]. pp. 472548 (Eds Rosenberger, G, Dirksen, G, Gründer, HD & Stöber, M). Berlin, Hamburg, Germany: Die klinische Untersuchung des Rindes, Verlag Paul PareyGoogle Scholar
Haveri, M, Hovinen, M, Roslöf, A & Pyörälä, S 2008 Molecular types and genetic profiles of Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from bovine intramammary infections and extramammary sites. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 46 37283735CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogan, JS & Smith, KL 1997 Bacteria counts in sawdust bedding. Journal of Dairy Science 80 16001605CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogan, JS, Smith, KL, Hoblet, KH, Todhunter, DA, Schoenberger, PS, Hueston, WD, Pritchard, DE, Bowman, GL, Heider, LE, Brockett, BL & Conrad, HR 1989 Bacterial counts in bedding materials used on nine commercial dairies. Journal of Dairy Science 72 250258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogan, JS, Bogacz, VL, Thompson, LM, Romig, S, Schoenberger, PS, Weiss, WP & Smith, KL 1999 Bacterial counts associated with sawdust and recycled manure bedding treated with commercial conditioners. Journal of Dairy Science 82 16901695CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, J 1999 Bedding systems and mastitis. In Proceedings British Mastitis Conference, Axient/Institute for Animal Health/Milk Development Council/Novartis Animal Health, Stoneleigh, pp. 7378Google Scholar
Jain, NC 1979 Common mammary pathogens and factors in infection and mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 62 128134CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kagkli, DM, Vancanneyt, M, Vandamme, P, Hill, C & Cogan, TM 2007 Contamination of milk by enterococci and coliforms from bovine faeces. Journal of Applied Microbiology 103 13931405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mein, GA, Neijenhuis, F, Morgan, WF, Reinemann, DJ, Hillerton, JE, Baines, JR, Ohnstad, I, Rasmussen, MD, Timms, L, Britt, JS, Farnsworth, R, Cook, N & Hemling, T 2001 Evaluation of bovine teat condition in commercial dairy herds: 1. Non-infectious factors. In Proceedings 2nd International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 347351Google Scholar
Munoz, MA, Welcome, FL, Schukken, YH & Zadoks, RN 2007 Molecular epidemiology of two Klebsiella pneumoniae mastitis outbreaks on a dairy farm in New York State. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 45 39643971CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickerson, SC 1987 Resistance mechanisms of the bovine udder: new implications for mastitis control at the teat end. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 191 14841488Google ScholarPubMed
Paduch, JH & Krömker, V 2011 Colonization of the teat skin and the teat canal by mastitis pathogens in dairy cattle. Tierärztliche Praxis 39(G) 7176Google ScholarPubMed
Paduch, JH, Mohr, E & Krömker, V 2012 The association between teat end hyperkeratosis and teat canal microbial load in lactating dairy cattle. Veterinary Microbiology 158 353359CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulrud, CO 2005 Basic concepts of the bovine teat canal. Veterinary Research Communincations 29 215245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccinini, R, Cesaris, L, Daprà, V, Borromeo, V, Picozzi, C, Sechhi, C & Zecconi, A 2009 The role of teat skin contamination in the epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus intramammary infections. Journal of Dairy Research 76 3641CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryor, SM 2008 Bovine mastitis and ecology of Streptococcus uberis. Dissertation, University of Waikato, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Quirk, T, Fox, LK, Hancock, DD, Capper, J, Wenz, J & Park, J 2012 Intramammary infections and teat canal colonization with coagulase-negative staphylococci after postmilking teat disinfection: species-specific responses. Journal of Dairy Science 95 19061912CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rendos, JJ, Eberhart, RJ & Kesler, EM 1975 Microbial populations of teat ends of dairy cows, and bedding materials. Journal of Dairy Science 58 14921500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, KL, Todhunter, DA & Schoenberger, PS 1985 Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention. Journal of Dairy Science 68 15311553CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, JL, Salmon, SA & Yancey, RJ 1993 Use of modified Rambach agar to differentiate Streptococcus uberis from other mastitis streptococci. Journal of Dairy Science 76 17401743CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wellek, S & Blettner, M 2012 On the proper use of the crossover design in clinical trials: part 18 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 109 276281Google ScholarPubMed
Williams, DM & Mein, GA 1985 The role of machine milking in the invasion of mastitis organisms and implications for maintaining low infection rates. Kieler Milchwirtschaftliche. Forschungsberichte 37 415425Google Scholar
Zadoks, RN, Allore, HG, Barkema, HW, Sampimon, OC, Gröhn, YT & Schukken, YH 2001 Analysis of an outbreak of Streptococcus uberis mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 84 590599CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zdanowicz, M, Shelford, JA, Tucker, CB, Weary, DM & von Keyserlingk, MAG 2004 Bacterial populations on teat ends of dairy cows housed in free stalls and bedded with either sand or sawdust. Journal of Dairy Science 87 16941701CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zecconi, A, Hamann, J, Bronzo, V & Ruffo, G 1992 Machine-induced teat tissue reactions and infection risk in a dairy herd free from contagious mastitis pathogens. Journal of Dairy Research 59 265271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The association between bedding material and the bacterial counts of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis and coliform bacteria on teat skin and in teat canals in lactating dairy cattle
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The association between bedding material and the bacterial counts of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis and coliform bacteria on teat skin and in teat canals in lactating dairy cattle
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The association between bedding material and the bacterial counts of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis and coliform bacteria on teat skin and in teat canals in lactating dairy cattle
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *