California Mastitis Test and Whiteside Test in diagnosis of subclinical mastitis of dairy ewes

Fthenakis, George C.

doi:10.1016/0921-4488(95)00638-2

Cited by 71 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The CMT was carried out in secretion samples, as described before [19]. Secretion films were stained by the Giemsa method; the percentage of leucocyte (macrophages, neutrophils, lymphocytes) subpopulations was determined.…”

Section: Post-inoculation/chapping Examinationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The bacterial flora in the teat duct of ewes can protect against and can cause mastitis

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-We studied the possible effects of bacterial populations within the teat duct, in the pathogenesis of ovine mastitis. In experiment I, 32 ewes were allocated into group A (ewes from which we isolated (+++ growth) coagulase-negative staphylococci), B (ewes from whose duct we isolated (+ growth) coagulase-negative staphylococci) or C (ewes from which we isolated Bacillus spp.) and subdivided into A1, B1, C1 (n = 4; challenged by deposition of 1.250 cfu of Mannheimia haemolytica into the teat duct) or A2, B2, C2 (n = 4; used as uninoculated controls); group D (n = 8) contained ewes with no bacteria in their teat ducts and were challenged as above. There were less bacteriological isolations of flora (P = 0.018) and challenge (P < 0.05) organisms from A1 than from A2 and D ewes; the severity of pathological findings in A1 (summed up score: 27) ewes was smaller than in D (summed up score: 36) ewes (P = 0.038). No such findings were evident with B1 or C1 ewes (P > 0.4). In experiment II, ewes (groups E and F, n = 6) from whose duct we isolated coagulase-negative staphylococci (+ growth) were used; in group G (n = 6) ewes with no bacteria in their teat ducts were included. Teat chapping was applied in E and G ewes. All E ewes developed acute clinical mastitis within 24 h after teat chapping, although we had carried out no challenge; there were more bacteriological isolations of flora organisms from E than from F and G ewes (P < 0.001); the severity of pathological findings in E (score: 28) was greater than in F (score: 3) or G (score: 14) ewes. In experiment III, eight ewes with no bacteria in their teat ducts were allocated into group H or I (n = 4) and challenged into the teat (group H) or into the gland (group I) with 10 6 cfu of a Staphylococcus simulans recovered from the teat duct of a group E ewe. Group H ewes developed transiently clinical followed by subclinical mastitis (based on bacteriological and cytological evidence), whilst group I ewes developed severe clinical disease. We conclude that staphylococcal flora present in high numbers within the teat duct of ewes can afford some protection against invading microorganisms. However with impeded defence mechanisms of the teat, the same flora may invade the mammary parenchyma and cause clinical mastitis. mastitis / sheep / teat / predisposing factor / bacterial flora

show abstract

Section: Post-inoculation/chapping Examinationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The bacterial flora in the teat duct of ewes can protect against and can cause mastitis

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All samples were cultured onto Columbia blood agar; the media were incubated aerobically at 37 °C for up to 72 h. The CMT was carried out in secretion samples, as described before [28]; secretion films were made and stained by the Giemsa method.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teat disorders predispose ewes to clinical mastitis after challenge with Mannheimia haemolytica

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-In order to study the effects of sheep teat disorders on the protection of the mammary gland, we used a Mannheimia haemolytica isolate, which did not cause clinical mastitis when deposited into intact teats. In the first experiment, this was deposited into the duct of teats with orf (Group A, n = 5) or papilloma (Group B, n = 3). In the second, teats were chapped and then, the organism was deposited into the duct (Group C, n = 7) or on the skin (Group D, n = 4). Ewes with healthy teats were controls (Group E, deposition into duct, n = 5; Group F, deposition on skin, n = 2). The ewes in Groups A, B or C developed clinical mastitis 5 h later, whilst the ewes in Group D developed it 2 d later; no control ewe developed clinical mastitis. In ewes with teat lesions, the organism was isolated from secretion samples and the California Mastitis Test became positive 5 h after challenge; neutrophils and lymphocytes were seen in Giemsa-stained secretion films from Group A or B ewes, whilst macrophages, neutrophils and lymphocytes in films from Group C or D ewes; neutrophils were predominating in films from Group E or F ewes. Inside the teats of Group A, B, C or D ewes, folds, hyperaemia and mucosal thickness were seen; histologically, subepithelial leucocytic infiltration was seen. In Group A or B ewes, no evidence of lymphoid tissue at the teat duct-cistern border was found. In Group C or D ewes, intense erosion and ulceration of the teat skin and conspicuous lymphoid tissue at the teat duct-cistern border, were evident; lesions characteristic of haemorrhagic mastitis were in the mammary parenchyma. In control ewes, subepithelial leucocytic infiltration in the teat duct and lymphoid tissue as above, were evident. We postulate that teat lesions can be predisposing factor to mastitis, by adversely affecting defences and speeding the process of infection and making it more severe. mastitis / sheep / teat / predisposing factor / orf

show abstract

“…All samples were cultured onto Columbia blood agar; the media were incubated aerobically at 37 °C for up to 72 h. The CMT was carried out in secretion samples, as described before [14]; secretion films were made and stained by the Giemsa method.…”

Section: Pre-and Post-inoculation Examinationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of inoculation of Mannheimia haemolytica into the teat of lactating ewes

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The objectives of the work described in this paper were: (i) to study the outcome of challenging ewes with Mannheimia haemolytica, at different sites of their teats, (ii) to compare the effects of two different isolates of the organism and (iii) to describe the features of the resulting lesions. Thirty-two ewes were used in the study and allocated into one of two groups (A or B, n = 16); they were challenged with one of two isolates of M. haemolytica, respectively, strain ES26L of known pathogenicity or strain VSM08L from the teat duct of a healthy ewe. Each group was further divided into four equal subgroups: the ewes in the A1/B1 subgroups were intramammarily challenged; one teat of the ewes in the A2/B2 subgroups was immersed into a broth-culture of the organisms; one teat of the ewes in the A3/B3 subgroups was inoculated 2 mm-deep, whilst one teat of the ewes in the A4/B4 subgroups was inoculated 6 mm-deep. The animals were monitored clinically, bacteriologically and cytologically before and after challenge; one animal in each subgroup was euthanised 2, 4, 7 and 11 days after challenge. All ewes in the A1/B1 subgroups developed clinical mastitis, whilst of the other animals, only one ewe in each of the A4/B4 subgroups did. Neither of the two strains used was associated with more positive bacteriological or CMT results; the A2/B2 subgroups were associated with less positive results than the A3/B3 and A4/B4 subgroups. In some ewes of the A2/B2 subgroups, mild leucocytic infiltration in the teat was evident; in the ewes of the A3/B3 subgroups, leucocytic infiltration (neutrophils, lymphocytes, plasma cells) was seen, as well as a lymphoid hyperplasia at the border between the teat duct and teat cistern; in ewes of the A4/B4 subgroups, intense subepithelial leucocytic infiltration was the salient feature. No differences were found in the severity of lesions between the two strains used or the three treatments carried out. Although strain VSM08L had been isolated from the teat duct of a healthy ewe, it caused mastitis when inoculated intramammarily; although strain ES26L is of known pathogenicity for the mammary gland, it did not cause clinical mastitis when deposited 2 mm-deep into the teat. These findings point to a protective role of the teat of ewes, which appear to limit bacterial penetration from the teat duct or cistern to the mammary gland. The lymphoid tissue, at the border between the teat duct -teat cistern, may play a significant protective role.

show abstract

California Mastitis Test and Whiteside Test in diagnosis of subclinical mastitis of dairy ewes

Cited by 71 publications

References 5 publications

The bacterial flora in the teat duct of ewes can protect against and can cause mastitis

The bacterial flora in the teat duct of ewes can protect against and can cause mastitis

Teat disorders predispose ewes to clinical mastitis after challenge with Mannheimia haemolytica

The effects of inoculation of Mannheimia haemolytica into the teat of lactating ewes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About