Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T00:45:36.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship of somatic cell count and cell volume analysis of goat's milk to intramammary infection with coagulase-negative staphylococci

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Richard F. Sheldrake ,
Roderic J. T. Hoare  and
Victoria E. Woodhouse
Richard F. Sheldrake
Affiliation:
New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Station, Glenfield, New South Wales 2167, Australia
Roderic J. T. Hoare
Affiliation:
New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Station, Glenfield, New South Wales 2167, Australia
Victoria E. Woodhouse
Affiliation:
New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Station, Glenfield, New South Wales 2167, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The prevalence of intramammary infection in 4 commercial goat herds was studied in conjunction with electronic somatic cell count and volume analysis, determined using a Coulter Counter and volume analyser.

Neither streptococci nor mycoplasma were isolated from any half and the prevalence of intramammary infection with Staphylococcus aureus ranged from 0 to 3% between herds. For coagulase-negative staphylococci the range for infected halves was 36–71%. There was no significant difference between the mean total microscopic somatic cell count for halves infected with coagulase-negative staphylococci and those free from infection. A similar trend was observed for electronic somatic cell counts although the mean electronic cell count was greater than the mean total microscopic count on the 2 occasions that they were compared. The correlation coefficients between the 2 cell counting methods were 0·86 and 0·94. Between herds there were significant differences in mean electronic somatic cell count, with herd means ranging from 438×103 to 1684×103 cells/ml. In 2 of the 4 herds studied, milk samples from halves infected with coagulase-negative staphylococci had a significantly higher prevalence of cell volume distributions with a modal cell volume between 65 µ3 and 100 µ3. This was attributed to a higher proportion of polymorphonuclear neutrophils.

Use of electronic somatic cell count and cell volume analysis were considered of little value in predicting infection caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci as there was a high proportion of false negative and false positive predictions.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , October 1981 , pp. 393 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1981

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

REFERENCES

Bremel, R. D., Schultz, L. H., Gabler, F. R. & Peters, J. (1977). Journal of Food Protection 40, 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, C. S. (1942). American Journal of Veterinary Research 3, 92–95.Google Scholar
Heidrich, H. J. & Renk, W. (1967). Diseases of the Mammary Glands of Domestic Animals. Philadelphia U.S.A.: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Hoare, R. J. T., Sheldrake, R. F., Nicholls, P. J., Mcgregor, G. D. & Woodhouse, V. E. (1980). Journal of Dairy Research 47, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoare, R. J. T., Williams, L. G., Richards, R. J. & Boutcher, L. G. (1977). Australian Veterinary Journal 53, 529–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, O. (1973). Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica Supplementum no. 45.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, A. A. E. (1968). Sudan Journal of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry 9, 20–28.Google Scholar
Mellenberger, R. (1979). Proceedings, Annual Meeting, National Mastitis Council 18, 41–43.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, A. & Das, M. S. (1957). Indian Veterinary Journal 34, 339–341.Google Scholar
Nesbakken, T. (1976). Nordisk Veterinaer Medicin 28, 550–556.Google Scholar
Paape, M. J., Dulin, A. M., Wergin, W. P., Guidry, A. J. & Weinland, B. T. (1980). Journal of Dairy Science 63 Supplement (1), 123–124.Google Scholar
Panduranga Rao, C. C. & Seetharaman, C. (1967). Indian Veterinary Journal 44, 91–95.Google Scholar
Pearson, J. K. L., Wright, C. L., Greer, D. O., Phipps, L. W. & Booth, J. M. (1970). Electronic Counting of Somatic Cells in Milk. A Recommended Procedure. Stormont, Belfast: Veterinary Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Perez, M. & Schultz, L. H. (1979). Proceedings, Annual Meeting, National Mastitis Council 18, 44–49.Google Scholar
Roguinsky, M., Redon, J-F., Le Mens, P., Gendron, H. & Allard, P. (1971). Chèvre 68, 4–5. Cited by Smith, M. C. & Roguinsky, M. (1977).Google Scholar
Schalm, O. W., Carroll, E. J. & Jain, N. C. (1971). Bovine Mastitis. Philadelphia, Pa: Lea and Febiger.Google Scholar
Sheldrake, R. F. & Hoare, R. J. T. (1980). Journal of Dairy Research 47, 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldrake, R. F., Hoare, R. J. T., Woodhouse, V. E. & Mcgregor, G. D. (1977). Journal of Dairy Science 60, 882–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. C. & Roguinsky, M. (1977). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 171, 1241–1248.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. D. & Kingwill, R. G. (1975). Bulletin, International Dairy Federation (Doc. 85), 422–438.Google Scholar