Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:26:23.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Residue concentration of cefquinome taking into account different milk fractions and comparing the performance of two screening tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2019

Joana Bachmann
Affiliation:
Clinic for Animal Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin Königsweg 65, 14163 Berlin, Germany
Christin Helmschrodt
Affiliation:
Institute of Pharmacology, Pharmacy and Toxicology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universität Leipzig, An den Tierkliniken 15, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
Angelika Richter
Affiliation:
Institute of Pharmacology, Pharmacy and Toxicology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universität Leipzig, An den Tierkliniken 15, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
Sandra Bertulat
Affiliation:
Clinic for Animal Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin Königsweg 65, 14163 Berlin, Germany
Wolfgang Heuwieser*
Affiliation:
Clinic for Animal Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin Königsweg 65, 14163 Berlin, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Wolfgang Heuwieser, Email: w.heuwieser@fu-berlin.de

Abstract

This Research Communication describes the residue concentration of a dry cow antibiotic in two different milk fractions and describes effects of milk fraction and milk composition on the test performance of a rapid screening and a microbial inhibitor test. Thirteen dry cows were treated with an intramammary dry cow antibiotic containing 150 mg cefquinome. Quarter foremilk and stripping samples were collected on the first 10 d postpartum. All milk samples were analyzed for milk composition by the local Dairy Herd Improvement Association and were tested for antibiotic residues using the rapid screening test Milchtest BL and the microbial inhibitor test Delvotest BR Brilliant Plates. The residue concentration of cefquinome was determined in foremilk and stripping samples from milkings 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 after calving using high performance liquid chromatography – tandem mass spectrometry. The logarithm of cefquinome concentration (logCef) was higher in foremilk than in stripping samples and higher in milk samples with lower lactose content. Furthermore, logCef decreased with the number of milkings (P < 0.001). The Milchtest BL was more likely to be not evaluated (i.e. no test and control line or no control line appeared) in stripping samples and milk samples with higher protein content. In the Delvotest BR Brilliant Plates milk samples with higher protein content were more likely to have a false positive result (i.e. the screening test result was positive, but the HPLC-MS/MS result was below the detection limit of the screening test). These results indicate that foremilk is the recommended milk fraction to be tested for residues of cefquinome and that a high protein content can be a cause of test failure and false positive results when milk during the first 10 d postpartum is tested for antibiotic residues using screening tests.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Hannah Dairy Research Foundation 2019 

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

Alcântara, LAP, Fontan, RCI, Bonomo, RCF, Souza, EC, Sampaio, VS and Pereira, RG (2012) Density and dynamic viscosity of bovine milk affect by temperature and composition. International Journal of Food Engineering 8, 15563758.10.1515/1556-3758.1860Google Scholar
Andrew, SM (2000) Effect of fat and protein content of milk from individual cows on the specificity rates of antibiotic residue screening tests. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 29922997.Google Scholar
CVMP (1995) Cefquinome. Summary Report. EMEA/MRL/005/95. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products, London, UK.Google Scholar
Dohoo, IR, Martin, SW and Stryhn, H (2009) Veterinary Epidemiologic Research, 2nd Edn. Charlottetown, PEI, Canada: University of Prince Edward Island.Google Scholar
FDA (1996) Milk Monitoring with Antimicrobial Drug Screening Tests. M-I-96-I. US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hillerton, JE, Halley, BI, Neaves, P and Rose, MD (1999) Detection of antimicrobial substances in individual cow and quarter milk samples using delvotest microbial inhibitor tests. Journal of Dairy Sciencce 82, 704711.Google Scholar
IDF (2014 a) Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 471/2014. Detection of inhibitors and antimicrobial residues in milk and dairy products by screening methods – Guidance on preparation of the test portion. International Dairy Federation, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
IDF (2014 b) Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 474/2014. Detecting antibiotic residues in milk – Guidance on the application of screening tests and confirmatory methods in integrated dairy chain management. International Dairy Federation, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Jones, GM (2009) On-Farm Tests for Drug Residues in Milk. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 404–401.Google Scholar
Kang, JH, Jin, JH and Kondo, F (2005) False-positive outcome and drug residue in milk samples over withdrawal times. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 908913.Google Scholar
Stockler, RM, Morin, DE, Lantz, RK and Constable, PD (2009) Effect of milking frequency and dosing interval on the pharmacokinetics of cephapirin after intramammary infusion in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 42624275.Google Scholar
Vangroenweghe, F, Dosogne, H and Burvenich, C (2002) Composition and milk cell characteristics in quarter milk fractions of dairy cows with Low cell count. The Veterinary Journal 164, 254260.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bachmann et al. supplementary material

Bachmann et al. supplementary material 1

Download Bachmann et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 177.8 KB