Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:41:18.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of somatic cell volume distribution as an aid to the diagnosis of mastitis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Roderic J. T. Hoare ,
Richard F. Sheldrake ,
Paul J. Nicholls ,
Gavin D. McGregor  and
Victoria E. Woodhouse
Roderic J. T. Hoare
Affiliation:
New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Station, Glenfield, N. S. W. 2167, Australia
Richard F. Sheldrake
Affiliation:
New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Station, Glenfield, N. S. W. 2167, Australia
Paul J. Nicholls
Affiliation:
New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Station, Glenfield, N. S. W. 2167, Australia New South Wales Department of Agriculture Biometrical Branch, Sydney, N. S. W. 2000, Australia
Victoria E. Woodhouse
Affiliation:
New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Station, Glenfield, N. S. W. 2167, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Electronic somatic cell counts (ESCC) and relative cell volume distributions (RCVD) in milk samples were obtained simultaneously on a Coulter Counter Model TA and their potential assessed, either singly or in combination, for identifying mastitic quarters and cows in 2 herds. Using log (ESCC) alone the probability Pm of misclassifying quarters infected with major pathogens was 6–7 % for herd 1 and 18–1% for herd 2. The inclusion of RCVD variables with log (ESCC) did not substantially improve the chance of detecting quarters infected with major pathogens. However, the RCVD variables did improve the chance of identifying quarters infected by major and minor pathogens compared to the use of log (ESCC) alone, the Pm figures being reduced by about one third.

When testing composite quarter samples, where milk from infected quarters was diluted with that from uninfected quarters, the inclusion of RCVD variables decreased the Pm compared to the use of log (ESCC) alone. In herd 1 the improvement was from 26–1 to 3·0 %, while in herd 2 the effect was less marked, the Pm being reduced from 28–6 to 21–6%. However, as the RCVD assessment is provided simultaneously with ESCC, the additional information is obtained at minimal cost.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 167 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1980

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

Bramley, A. J. (1975). Annual Bulletin, International Dairy Federation (85), pp. 377–381.Google Scholar
Bramley, A. J., Kinowill, R. G., Griffin, T. K. & Simpkin, D. L. (1976). Veterinary Record 99, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duitschaever, C. L. & Leggatt, A. G. (1967). Stain Technology 42, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, T. K., Dodd, F. H., Neave, F. K., Westgarth, D. R., Kingwill, R. G. & Wilson, C. D. (1977). Journal of Dairy Research 44, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoare, R. J. T. (1976). In Proceedings of Refresher Course in Mastitis no 28, 73–84. Sydney University Post-Graduate Committee in Veterinary Science.Google Scholar
Hoare, R. J. T., Andrews, R. J., Ballek, J. C., Corbould, A., Hehir, A. F. & Richards, R. J. (1975). Annual Bulletin, International Dairy Federation (85), pp. 142–144.Google Scholar
Hoare, R. J. T. & Barton, M. D. (1972). Australian Veterinary Journal 48, 657–660.Google Scholar
Hughes-Jones, N. C., Norley, I., Young, J. M. S. & England, J. M. (1974). Journal of Clinical Pathology 27, 623–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbould, F. H. S. (1975). Annual Bulletin, International Dairy Federation (85), pp. 136–141.Google Scholar
Newbould, F. H. S. (1978). Journal of Food Protection 41, 96–99.Google Scholar
Reichmuth, J. (1975). Annual Bulletin, International Dairy Federation (85), pp. 93–109.Google Scholar
Sheldrake, R. F., Hoare, R. J. T., Woodhouse, V. E. & Mcgregor, G. D. (1977). Journal of Dairy Science 60, 882–888.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods (6th edn.). Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Waite, R. & Blackburn, P. S. (1957). Journal of Dairy Research 24, 328–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westgarth, D. R. (1975). Annual Bulletin International Dairy Federation (85), pp. 110–115.Google Scholar
Young, B. J. (1968). Veterinary Record 82, 226–227.Google Scholar