References

Bates A, Laven R, Bork O, Hay M, McDowell J, Saldias B. Selective and deferred treatment of clinical mastitis in seven New Zealand dairy herds. Prev Vet Med. 2020; 176:(February) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.104915

Bosward KL, House JK, Deveridge A, Mathews K, Sheehy PA. Development of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for the detection of Streptococcus agalactiae in bovine milk. J Dairy Sci. 2016; 99:(3)2142-2150 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10073

Bradley AJ, Green MJ. A study of the incidence and significance of intramammary enterobacterial infections acquired during the dry period. J Dairy Sci. 2000; 83:(9)1957-1965 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75072-7

Bradley AJ, Leach KA, Breen JE, Green LE, Green MJ. Survey of the incidence and aetiology of mastitis on dairy farms in England and Wales. Vet Rec. 2007; 160:(8)253-258 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.160.8.253

Cornelissen JBWJ, De Greeff A, Heuvelink AE Rapid detection of Streptococcus uberis in raw milk by loop-mediated isothermal amplification. J Dairy Sci. 2016; 99:(6)4270-4281 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10683

Döpfer D, Barkema HW, Lam TJGM, Schukken YH, Gaastra W. Recurrent clinical mastitis caused by Escherichia coli in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 1999; 82:(1)80-85 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75211-2

Down PM, Bradley AJ, Breen JE, Green MJ. Factors affecting the cost-effectiveness of on-farm culture prior to the treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cows. Prev Vet Med. 2017; 91-99 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.07.006

Erskine RJ, Bartlett PC, VanLente JL, Phipps CR. Efficacy of systemic ceftiofur as a therapy for severe clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2002; 85:(10)2571-2575 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74340-3

Fuenzalida MJ, Ruegg PL. Negatively controlled, randomized clinical trial to evaluate use of intramammary ceftiofur for treatment of nonsevere culture-negative clinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci. 2019; 102:(4)3321-3338 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15497

Fuenzalida MJ, Ruegg PL. Molecular epidemiology of nonsevere clinical mastitis caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae occurring in cows on 2 Wisconsin dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. 2020; 103:(4)3479-3492 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17464

Jones G, Bork O, Ferguson SA, Bates A. Comparison of an on-farm point-of-care diagnostic with conventional culture in analysing bovine mastitis samples. J Dairy Res. 2019; 86:(2)222-225 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029919000177

Lago A, Godden SM, Bey R, Ruegg PL, Leslie K. The selective treatment of clinical mastitis based on on-farm culture results: I. Effects on antibiotic use, milk with-holding time, and short-term clinical and bacteriological outcomes. J Dairy Sci. 2011; 94:(9)4441-4456 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-4046

Leach KA, Archer SC, Breen JE Recycling manure as cow bedding: Potential benefits and risks for UK dairy farms. Veterinary Journal. 2015; 206:(2)123-130 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.08.013

Leimbach S, Krömker V. Laboratory evaluation of a novel rapid tube test system for differentiation of mastitis-causing pathogen groups. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018; 101:(7)6357-6365 https://doi.org/10.3168/JDS.2017-14198

Leininger DJ, Roberson JR, Elvinger F, Ward D, Akers RM. Evaluation of frequent milkout for treatment of cows with experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003; 222:(1)63-66 https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2003.222.63

Mansion-de Vries EM, Knorr N, Paduch JH A field study evaluation of Petrifilm™ plates as a 24-h rapid diagnostic test for clinical mastitis on a dairy farm. Prev Vet Med. 2014; 113:(4)620-624 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.11.019

Laboratory Handbook on Bovine Mastitis. 2017;

Pyörälä S, Kaartinen L, Käck H, Rainio V. Efficacy of two therapy regimens for treatment of experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis in cows. J Dairy Sci. 1994; 77:(2)453-461 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)76973-3

Royster E, Godden S, Goulart D, Dahlke A, Rapnicki P, Timmerman J. Evaluation of the Minnesota Easy Culture System II Bi-Plate and Tri-Plate for identification of common mastitis pathogens in milk. J Dairy Sci. 2014; 97:(6)3648-3659 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7748

Schmenger A, Leimbach S, Wente N, Zhang Y, Biggs AM, Kroemker V. Implementation of a targeted mastitis therapy concept using an on-farm rapid test: anti-microbial consumption, cure rates and compliance. Vet Rec. 2020; 187:(10) https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.105674

Schukken YH, Bennett GJ, Zurakowski MJ Randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of a 5-day ceftiofur hydrochloride intramammary treatment on nonsevere gram-negative clinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci. 2011; 94:(12)6203-6215 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4290

Schukken Y, González R, Tikofsky L CNS mastitis: nothing to worry about?. Vet Microbiol. 2009; 134:(1-2)9-14 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.09.014

Sheet OH, Grabowski NT, Klein G, Abdulmawjood A. Development and validation of a loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus in bovine mastitis milk samples. Mol Cell Probes. 2016; 30:(5)320-325 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcp.2016.08.001

Suojala L, Simojoki H, Mustonen K, Kaartinen L, Pyörälä S. Efficacy of enrofloxacin in the treatment of naturally occurring acute clinical Escherichia coli mastitis. J Dairy Sci. 2010; 93:(5)1960-1969 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2462

Vasquez AK, Nydam DV, Capel MB, Eicker S, Virkler PD. Clinical outcome comparison of immediate blanket treatment versus a delayed pathogen-based treatment protocol for clinical mastitis in a New York dairy herd. J Dairy Sci. 2017; 100:(4)2992-3003 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11614

Watts JL. Etiological agents of bovine mastitis. Vet Microbiol. 1988; 16:(1)41-66 https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1135(88)90126-5

On-farm culture and pathogen identification: risks and benefits

02 November 2021
7 mins read
Volume 26 · Issue 6

Abstract

Selective treatment of clinical mastitis cases based on the results of on-farm culture (OFC) has been suggested by several international experts. It is based on the theory that mastitis cases caused by Gram-negative species has high resolution rates, and those that do not resolve respond poorly to therapy. Several peer-reviewed studies have evaluated the accuracy of different OFC test kits, which are between 60–85% accurate at identifying Gram-positive pathogens. Implementation studies consistently show a reduction in antimicrobial use, although further research across larger populations is needed to assess the impact on mastitis cure. Any OFC protocol should be regularly reviewed with the herd veterinarian. Herds with a high bulk cell count, a high prevalence of Gram-positive pathogens (e.g. Streptococcus uberis), or with a high prevalence of Klebsiella spp. should carefully consider the impact of deferred or withholding treatment on mastitis cure.

On-farm culture (OFC) is based on the theory that clinical mastitis caused by Gram-negative pathogens does not require antimicrobial treatment. In OFC protocols, cows with mastitis have an aseptic milk sample taken, which is incubated on agar or in broth. Antimicrobial treatment is withheld in samples with pure growth of Gramnegative species, or no significant growth. In samples with Grampositive species, mixed or contaminated growth, intramammary antimicrobial treatment is given on label.

Several OFC studies have shown that withholding treatment in cases of mastitis caused by Escherichia coli has no detectable impact on treatment outcome (Lago et al, 2011; Vasquez et al, 2017; Fuenzalida and Ruegg, 2019; Schmenger et al, 2020). One criticism of these studies is that they lack statistical power to detect a meaningful clinical difference in cure rate, i.e. the sample size is too small. Two independent studies in the USA have shown a 10–11% numerical reduction in bacteriological cure risk, which was not ‘statistically significant’ (Lago et al, 2011; Fuenzalida and Ruegg, 2019). A recent study in Germany showed more convincing evidence that bacteriological cure rate is unaffected by OFC: 75.3% with conventional therapy compared with 78.4% in the OFC group (Schmenger et al, 2020). Another USA study found similar days to clinical cure, although bacteriological cure was not assessed (Vasquez et al, 2017).

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting UK-VET Companion Animal and reading some of our peer-reviewed content for veterinary professionals. To continue reading this article, please register today.