4.3 Article

Prevalence and etiology of subclinical mastitis in dairy ewes in two seasons in Semnan province, Iran

期刊

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
卷 47, 期 7, 页码 1249-1254

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-015-0855-y

关键词

Subclinical mastitis; Sheep; Prevalence; Etiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Twenty-one dairy ewe flocks selected by stratified random sampling were subjected to study the prevalence and etiology of subclinical intramammary infections and to assess the influence of parity on the prevalence of intramammary infections. Also, spontaneous cure rates were determined over study period. A total of 1192 milk samples were collected at 2 weeks after lambing until tenth-week postpartum. All flocks had hand milking; those which were classified by bacterial culture and California Mastitis Test (CMT) as positive were deemed to have glands with subclinical mastitis (SCM). Of 1192 halves examined, 791 samples were collected during spring and 401 samples were collected during summer. Prevalence rate of SCM in spring was 14.7 %; and spontaneous cure that occurred in this season was 88.8 %; coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) were the most common isolates (66.6 %). Samples collected in spring showed higher prevalence rate of SCM than summer samples. This rate was 8.9 % in summer. Spontaneous cure rate in this season was 69.4 %, and Staphylococcus aureus (72.2 %) was the most common isolates. SCM was seen at significantly lower rates in left half than in right one (p < 0.05). Multiparous ewes had significantly higher (p < 0.05) SCM prevalence rates than primiparous ewes. The incidence of clinical mastitis (defined as number of clinical cases per 100 ewe-months) was 0.21 and 0.74 in spring and summer, respectively. The isolates from clinical cases in spring were fungi and, from summer, were S. aureus. Also, S. aureus SCM cases were not significantly severe than other SCM cases. In conclusion, multiparous ewes were most at risk, and severity of infection was higher in summer.

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

4.3
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