4.7 Article

Incidence rate of clinical mastitis on Canadian dairy farms

期刊

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
卷 91, 期 4, 页码 1366-1377

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2007-0757

关键词

incidence rate; clinical mastitis; pathogen-specific mastitis; Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

No nationwide studies of the incidence rate of clinical mastitis (IRCM) have been conducted in Canada. Because the IRCM and distribution of mastitis-causing bacteria may show substantial geographic variation, the primary objective of this study was to determine regional pathogen-specific IRCM on Canadian dairy farms. Additionally, the association of pathogen-specific IRCM with bulk milk somatic cell count (BMSCC) and barn type were determined. In total, 106 dairy farms in 10 provinces of Canada participated in the study for a period of 1 yr. Participating producers recorded 3,149 cases of clinical mastitis. The most frequently isolated mastitis pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus uberis, and coagulase-negative staphylococci. Overall mean and median IRCM were 23.0 and 16.7 cases per 100 cow-years in the selected herds, respectively, with a range from 0.7 to 97.4 per herd. No association between BMSCC and overall IRCM was found, but E. coli and culture-negative IRCM were highest and Staph. aureus IRCM was lowest in low and medium BMSCC herds. Staphylococcus aureus, Strep. uberis, and Streptococcus dysgalactiae IRCM were lowest in the Western provinces. Staphylococcus aureus and Strep. dysgalactiae IRCM were highest in Quebec. Cows in tie-stalls had higher incidences of Staph. aureus, Strep. uberis, coagulase-negative staphylococci, and other streptococcal IRCM compared with those in free-stalls, whereas cows in free stalls had higher Klebsiella spp. and E. coli IRCM than those in tie-stall barns. The focus of mastitis prevention and control programs should differ between regions and should be tailored to farms based on housing type and BMSCC.

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

4.7
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