Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T02:18:20.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The udder as a possible source of coliform organisms in milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Rowlands
A. Rowlands
Affiliation:
Midland Agricultural College, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. It seems to be the general opinion of veterinary contributors on the subject that infection of the udder with coliform organisms is rapidly followed by clinical symptoms of mastitis, and marked changes in the appearance of the secretion. There would therefore appear to be little danger of contamination of bulk milk from such sources except during the few hours between infection and the appearance of the clinical symptoms.

2. Injury to the teats or quarters may result in infection of milk with coliform organisms owing to the difficulty of thorough cleaning of the malformed tissue.

3. Several cases of infection of quarters in the entire absence of clinical or other symptoms of disease have been cited. There is no evidence that such cases can be classed as subclinical forms of the disease as is the case in streptococcic mastitis. The evidence in two cases cited indicates that milk drawn from a quarter can remain infected with coliform organisms for a considerable period with no apparent clinical or other symptoms of disease.

4. There is sufficient evidence to warrant the examination of quarter samples in cases where infection of bulk milk with coliform organisms from other more common sources appears to be unlikely.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , July 1939 , pp. 454 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1939

References

REFERENCES

Ayers, S. H. & Clemmer, P. W. (1918). Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 739.Google Scholar
Barkworth, H. (1934). J. Dairy Res. 6, 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkworth, H., Mattick, A. T. R., Taylor, M. G. D. & Williams, R. S. (1927). J. Minist. Agric., Lond., 33, 997.Google Scholar
Barkworth, H., Meanwell, L. J. & Taylor, M. G. D. (1929). J. Minist. Agric., Lond. 36, 170.Google Scholar
Chalmers, C. H. (1934). Zbl. Bakt. 2te. Abt., 89, 459.Google Scholar
Cunningham, A. (1938). The University, Edinburgh. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Druce, R. G. (1938). School of Agric. Reaseheath. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Egdell, J. W. (1938). The University, Bristol. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Gilruth, J. A. & MacDonald, N. (1911). Vet. J. 18, 217.Google Scholar
Gwatkin, R., Le, H. M. Gard. & Hadwen, S. (1938). Can. J. comp. Med. 2, 155.Google Scholar
Hardenbergh, J. G. & Schlotthauer, C. F. (1927). J. infect. Dis. 40, 667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoy, W. A. & Newland, L. G. (1931). Proc. Soc. Agric. Bact. Rep. Ann. Conf.Google Scholar
Jones, F. S. (1918 a). J. exp. Med. 28, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, F. S. (1918b). J. exp. Med. 28, 721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamont, H. F. (1925). J. comp. Path. 38, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesbouyries, N. M., Adam, & Argoud (1933). Lait, 13, 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malcolm, J. F. (1933). J. Dairy Res. 5, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattick, A. T. R. (1930). J. Dairy Res. 1, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattick, A. T. R. & Williams, R. S. (1925). J. Hyg., Camb., 23, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Min. of Health. Memo 139/Foods (1937).Google Scholar
Minett, F. C., Stableforth, A. W. & Edwards, S. J. (1929). J. comp. Path. 42, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. S. (1938). Seale-Hayne Agric. Coll. Devon. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Munch-Petersen, E. (1935). Imp. Bur. Anim. Hlth Rev. Ser. 1.Google Scholar
Pont, E. G. (1935). J. Dairy Res. 6, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, J. N. (1931 a). Vet. Rec. 11, 1295.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. N. (1931b). J. Roy. San. Inst. 52, 245.Google Scholar
Rowlands, A. (1932). Conf. of Adv. Bact. Min. of Agric. Paper 54.Google Scholar
Rowlands, A. (1937). Conf. of Adv. Bact. Min. of Agric. Ann. Rep.Google Scholar
Rudolf, J. (1928). Dtsch. tierärztl. Wschr. 36, 17.Google Scholar
Savage, W. (1907–1908). 37th Ann. Rep. Loc. Govt. Bd, p. 359.Google Scholar
Savickis, J. (1936). Vet. ir. Zootech., Kovno, 13, 97.Google Scholar
Sherman, J. M. & Wing, H. U. (1933). J. Dairy Sci. 16, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F. R. & Henderson, J. L. (1934). J. Dairy Sci. 17, 799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, C. A., Wheeler, K. M. & Griffin, A. M. (1938). J. Bact. 36, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, S. B. (1938). U.C.W. Aberystwyth. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Westwater, C. H. & Henderson, D. W. (1938). Armstrong Coll., Newcastle-on-Tyne. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. (1935). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 206.Google Scholar
Whitehead, H. R. (1930). J. Dairy Res. 2, 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, H. R. & Cox, G. A. (1932). J. Dairy Res. 4, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yale, N. W. (1937). B., W. Hammer, Panegyric, pp. 197–208. Collegiate Press. Inc. Iowa.Google Scholar