4.1 Article

Incidence of Subclinical Mastitis and Prevalence of Major Mastitis Pathogens in Organized Farms and Unorganized Sectors

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 315-320

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12088-012-0336-1

关键词

Subclinical mastitis; Somatic cell count; Electrical conductivity; Major bacterial pathogens causing mastitis

资金

  1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research under the National Agriculture Innovation Projects Scheme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subclinical mastitis (SCM) represents a major proportion of the burden of mastitis. Determining somatic cell count (SCC) and electrical conductivity (EC) of milk are useful approaches to detect SCM. In order to correlate grades of SCM with the load of five major mastitis pathogens, 246 milk samples from a handful of organized and unorganized sectors were screened. SCC (> 5 x 10(5)/mL) and EC (> 6.5 mS/cm) identified 110 (45 %) and 153 (62 %) samples, respectively, to be from SCM cases. Randomly selected SCM-negative samples as well as 186 samples positive by either SCC or EC were then evaluated for isolation of five major mastitis-associated bacteria. Of the 323 isolates obtained, 95 each were S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), 48 were E. coli and 85 were streptococci. There was no association between the distribution of organisms and (a) the different groups of SCC, or (b) organised farms and unorganised sectors. By contrast, there was a significant difference in the distribution of CoNS, and not other species, between organized farms and unorganized sectors. In summary, bacteria were isolated irrespective of the density of somatic cells or the type of farm setting, and the frequency of isolation of CoNS was higher with organized farms. These results suggest the requirement for fine tuning SCC and EC limits and the higher probability for CoNS to be associated with SCM in organized diary sectors, and have implications for the identification, management and control of mastitis in India.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据