Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T15:56:19.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using dairy herd improvement records and clinical mastitis history to identify subclinical mastitis infections at dry-off

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2008

Audrey H Torres ,
Päivi J Rajala-Schultz ,
Fred J DeGraves  and
Kent H Hoblet
Audrey H Torres
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus43210, USA Present address: Departamento de Producción Animal y Tecnología, Decanato de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Centroccidental “Lisandro Alvarado”, Tarabana, Estado Lara3023, Venezuela
Päivi J Rajala-Schultz*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus43210, USA
Fred J DeGraves
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus43210, USA
Kent H Hoblet
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Starkville39762, USA
*
†For correspondence; e-mail: rajala-schultz.1@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interest in selective dry cow therapy (SDCT) has been increasing owing to concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance. Implementation of SDCT, however, requires a quick and cost-effective on-farm method for identifying cows for treatment and cows that can be left without treatment. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the use of clinical mastitis (CM) history and somatic cell counts (SCC) from monthly Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) records in identification of infected and uninfected cows at dry-off. A total of 647 Holstein cows were classified as uninfected or infected at dry-off based on CM history and varying number of monthly SCC records (with three different SCC cut-offs). Cows were considered uninfected based on the following criteria: (1) SCC <100 000 cells/ml and no CM during the lactation; (2) SCC <200 000 cells/ml and no CM during the lactation; (3) as criterion two, but additionally a cow was also considered uninfected if it experienced a case of CM during the first 3 months of the lactation and the SCC was <100 000 cells/ml for the rest of the lactation; (4) SCC <300 000 cells/ml and no CM during the lactation; otherwise they were considered infected. Infected and uninfected cows at dry-off were most efficiently identified using three months' SCC records with a threshold of 200 000 cells/ml for cows without CM during the lactation and a threshold of 100 000 cells/ml during the rest of lactation for cows with CM during the first 90 days in milk. Moreover, this criterion also most efficiently identified cows infected with major pathogens only at dry-off. The success of the criteria used for identifying infected and uninfected cows will, however, depend on herd characteristics, such as prevalence of infection and type of pathogens present in the herd.

Keywords

Selective dry cow therapyintramammary infectionmastitisdry-off
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 240 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2008

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

Andrews, RJ, Kitchen, BJ, Kwee, WS & Duncalfe, F 1983 Relationship between individual cow somatic cell counts and the mastitis infection status of the udder. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 38 71–74Google Scholar
Barkema, HW, Schukken, YH, Lam, TJGM, Galligan, DT, Beiboer, ML & Brand, A 1997 Estimation of interdependence among quarters of the bovine udder with subclinical mastitis and implications for analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 80 1592–1599CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, SL, Maas, J, Kirk, JH, Reynolds, JP, Gardner, IA & Ahmadi, A 1997 Effects of antimicrobial treatment at the end of lactation on milk yield, somatic cell count, and incidence of clinical mastitis during the subsequent lactation in a dairy herd with a low prevalence of contagious mastitis. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 211 207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, AJ & Green, MJ 2004 The importance of the nonlactating period in the epidemiology of intramammary infection and strategies for prevention. Veterinary Clinics of North American Food Animal Practioners 20 547–568CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bratlie, O 1973 Letter: Dry cow therapy. Veterinary Record 93 430–431CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browning, JW, Mein, GA, Brightling, P, Nicholls, TJ & Barton, M 1994 Strategies for mastitis control: dry cow therapy and culling. Australian Veterinary Journal 71 179–181CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, NB, Bennett, TB, Emery, KM & Nordlund, KV 2002 Monitoring Nonlactating cow intramammary infection dynamics using DHI somatic cell count data. Journal of Dairy Science 85 1119–1126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dingwell, RT, Leslie, KE, Schukken, YH, Sargeant, JM & Timms, LL 2003 Evaluation of the California mastitis test to detect an intramammary infection with a major pathogen in early lactation dairy cows. Canadian Veterinary Journal 44 413–415Google Scholar
Djabri, B, Bareille, N, Beaudeau, F & Seegers, H 2002 Quarter milk somatic cell count in infected dairy cows: a meta-analysis. Veterinary Research 33 335–357CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohoo, IR 2001 Setting SCC cutpoints for cow and herd interpretation. In: National Mastitis Council 40th Annual Meeting Proceedings, pp. 10–18. Reno NV, USA: NMCGoogle Scholar
Dohoo, IR & Leslie, KE 1991 Evaluation of changes in somatic cell counts as indicators of new intramammary infections. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 10 225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohoo, IR, Wayne, M & Stryhn, H 2003 Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island: AVC, IncGoogle Scholar
Eberhart, RJ 1986 Management of dry cows to reduce mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 69 1721–1732CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elbers, ARW, Miltenburg, JD, De Lange, D, Crauwels, APP, Barkema, HW & Schukken, YH 1998 Risk factors for clinical mastitis in a random sample of dairy herds from the southern part of The Netherlands. Journal of Dairy Science 81 420–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetrow, J & Anderson, K 1987 The economics of mastitis control. Compendium Food Animal 9 F103–F110Google Scholar
Harmon, RJ 1994 Physiology of mastitis and factors affecting somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 77 2103–2112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hassan, Z, Daniel, RCW, O'Boyle, D & Frost, AJ 1999 Effects of dry cow intramammary therapy on quarter infections in the dry period. Veterinary Record 145 634–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, JS, White, DG & Pankey, JW 1987 Effects of teat dipping on intramammary infections by staphylococci other than Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Dairy Science 70 873–879CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huxley, JN, Green, MJ, Green, LE & Bradley, AJ 2002 Evaluation of the efficacy of an internal teat sealer during the dry period. Journal of Dairy Science 85 551–561CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Dairy Federation 1987 Bovine mastitis definition and guidelines for diagnosis. Brussels, Belgium: FIL/IDFGoogle Scholar
International Dairy Federation 2001 Mastitis Newletter No 24. Brussels, Belgium: FIL/IDFGoogle Scholar
Kirk, JH, Berry, SL, Reynolds, JP, Maas, JP & Ahmadi, A 1996 Sensitivity and specificity analysis for somatic cell count (SCC) used to predict bacteriologically positive subclinical mastitis at calving in a dairy herd with low SCC. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 208 1054–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraemer, HC 1992 Evaluating Medical Tests: Objective and Quantitative Guidelines. Newbury Park CA, USA: SAGE Publications, IncGoogle Scholar
Macmillan, KL, Duirs, GF & Duganzich, DM 1983 Associations between dry cow therapy, clinical mastitis, and somatic cell count score with milk and fat production in ten New Zealand dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 66 259–265CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDermott, MP, Erb, HN & Natzke, RP 1982 Predictability by somatic cell counts related to prevalence of intramammary infection within herds. Journal of Dairy Science 65 1535–1539CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Middleton, JR, Hardin, D, Steevens, B, Randle, R & Tyler, JW 2004 Use of somatic cell counts and California mastitis test results from individual quarter milk samples to detect subclinical intramammary infection in dairy cattle from a herd with a high bulk tank somatic cell count. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 224 419–423CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliver, SP, Gonzalez, RN, Hogan, JS, Jayarao, BM & Owens, WE 2004 Microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of bovine udder infection and determination of milk quality. Verona WI, USA: NMCGoogle Scholar
Østerås, O, Aursjø, J, Gjul, GG & Jørstad, A 1994 Effect of dry-cow therapy on subclinical mastitis – an evaluation of long-acting and short-acting intramammaria. Zentralblatt fur Veterinarmedizin B 41 529–540Google Scholar
Østerås, O, Edge, VL & Martin, SW 1999 Determinants of success or failure in the elimination of major mastitis pathogens in selective dry cow therapy. Journal of Dairy Science 82 1221–1231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Østerås, O, Sandvik, L, Aursjø, J, Gjul, GG & Jørstad, A 1991 Assessment of strategy in selective dry cow therapy for mastitis control. Zentralblatt fur Veterinarmedizin B 38 513–522Google ScholarPubMed
Østerås, O, Solverød, L & Reksen, O 2006 Milk culture results in a large Norwegian survey: Effects of season, parity, days in milk, resistance, and clustering. Journal of Dairy Science 89 1010–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkälä, A, Haveri, M, Pyörälä, S, Myllys, V & Honkanen-Buzalski, T 2004 Bovine mastitis in Finland 2001. Prevalence, distribution of bacteria, and antimicrobial resistance. Journal of Dairy Science 87 2433–2441CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poutrel, B & Rainard, P 1981 California mastitis test guide of selective dry cow therapy. Journal of Dairy Science 64 241–248CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prescott, JF 2006 History of antimicrobial usage in agriculture: an overview. In: Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria of Animal Origin (Ed.Aarestrup, FM). Washington DC, USA: ASM PressGoogle Scholar
Rajala, PJ & Grohn, YT 1998 Disease occurrence and risk factors analysis in Finnish Ayrshire cows. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 39 1–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reneau, JK 1986 Effective use of dairy herd improvement somatic cell counts in mastitis control. Journal of Dairy Science 69 1708–1720CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rindsig, RB, Rodewald, RG, Smith, AR & Spahr, SL 1978 Complete versus selective dry cow therapy for mastitis control. Journal of Dairy Science 61 1483–1497CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robert, A, Bareille, N, Roussel, P, Poutrel, B, Heuchel, V & Seegers, H 2006a Interdependence of udder quarters for new intramammary infection during the dry period in cows submitted to selective antibiotic therapy. Journal of Dairy Research 73 345–352CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robert, A, Seegers, H & Bareille, N 2006b Incidence of intramammary infections during the dry period without or with antibiotic treatment in dairy cows – a quantitative analysis of published data. Veterinary Research 37 25–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, TC, Jackson, ER & Marr, A 1983 Within herd comparison of teat dipping and dry cow therapy with only selective dry cow therapy in six herds. Veterinary Record 112 315–319CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanford, CJ, Keefe, GP, Sanchez, J, Dingwell, RT, Barkema, HW, Leslie, KE & Dohoo, IR 2006 Test characteristics from latent-class models of the California Mastitis Test. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 77 96–108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schukken, YH, Wilson, DJ, Welcome, F, Garrison-Tikofsky, L & Gonzalez, RN 2003 Monitoring udder health and milk quality using somatic cell counts. Veterinary Research 34 579–596CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A, Neave, FK & Dodd, FH 1966 Methods of reducing the incidence of udder infection in dry cows. Veterinary Record 79 233–236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timms, LL & Schultz, LH 1987 Dynamics and significance of coagulase-negative staphylococcal intramammary infections. Journal of Dairy Science 70 2648–2657CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
USDA 2002 Part III: Reference of dairy cattle health and health management practices in the United States. Fort Collins CO, USA: USDA: APHIS: VS, CEAH, National Animal Health Monitoring System.Google Scholar
Whist, AC & Østerås, O 2006 Associations between somatic cell counts at calving or prior to drying-off and future somatic cell counts, in the remaining or subsequent lactation. Journal of Dairy Research 73 277–287CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whist, AC, Østerås, O & Solverød, L 2007 Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus dysgalactiae in Norwegian herds after introduction of selective dry cow therapy and teat dipping. Journal of Dairy Research 74 1–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiggans, G 2007 Summary of DHI Participation (DHI Report K-1). Vol. 2007Google Scholar
Witte, W 1998 Medical consequences of antibiotic use in agriculture. Science 279 996–997CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed