Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 50 Issue: 1

The effeet of udder and milking hygiene on systemic immunization approaehes in dairy herds

Sütçü inek işletmelerinde mastitislere karşı sistemik immunizasyon uygulamalarında meme ve sağım hijyeninin etkisi

Pages
—
Publication Date
2003-03-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclıısion, the vaccine was effective in both manageıııents of all vaccinated cows when the scverity and the guantity of chnic mastitis cases were taken into consideration and in the family type ıııanageıııents when it was evaluatcd with their SCe.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the study was to investigate the defence activity of systemic immunization against clinical and subclinical mastitis by due to udder and milking hygiene conditions in dairy herds managements.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was carried out on a tot,ıl of 80 cows which arc selccted randomly from Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture Farm (AUZF) and from the family type herds (1 A cows) in Ankara region.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclıısion, the vaccine was effective in both manageıııents of all vaccinated cows when the scverity and the guantity of chnic mastitis cases were taken into consideration and in the family type ıııanageıııents when it was evaluatcd with their SCe.
🔬Design:Letter to Editor
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cow · mastitis · systeıııicimıııunization

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate the defence activity of systemic immunization against clinical and subclinical mastitis by due to udder and milking hygiene conditions in dairy herds managements. The study was carried out on a tot,ıl of 80 cows which arc selccted randomly from Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture Farm (AUZF) and from the family type herds (1 A cows) in Ankara region. Milking-machine was used in the first management, udder disinfection beforc milking. teat dipping aftcr milking and dry cow infusions to udder lobes was applied. However, in the second managements haııd milking was ımıde anel the proteetive proceelures that are mentioneel above were not taken. Inactive mastitis vaccine Mastivac@ (S.aga!acıiae. S.dysga!actiae, S.uberis, S.aureus, E.coli, A.pyogenes) was used for systemic immunization. Mastivae@ vaecines were injected su bcutaneously to cows from neck region andsaline solution was injecteel to 20 control cows in each group, by the same procedure. The injections were repeated 15 days af ter the first application. The effectiveness of the vaccine on clinical and subclinical mastilis was evaluated during 12 months after imımıııization. California mastitis test (CMT) and somatic cell count (SCC) were ımıde from the individual milk samples eollected monthly. The bacteries were evaluated from milk samples that have SCC>500.()()O cell/ml and from the cows having clinical mastitis. AIso. randomize clinical mastitis cases were evaluated. There was a statisticaly insignificant e1ccrease at SCC of the vaccine group when compared to control group in AUZF management (p>0.05). Howevcr. there was a statisticaly significant decrease in the SCC of the vaccine group in the family type management when compared to control group. After 2 months of vaccination CMT results in AUZF management show insignificant differences for control group while eMT rcsults of family type managements show s significant decrease. In the first two months, all clinical mastitis cases occured in vaccine group in AUZF management; and no clinical cases were seen in the other months. On the other hand 13 cases seen in the control group distributed to the other months. Likewise, all cases were seen in the in the first two months in the vaccine group of ['amily type ımınagements, Clinical mastitis were distributed to the other months in control groups. Beforethe vaccination the most isolated nıicroorganism was Saureus with 59.1 % in AUZF farm and 70.6% in family type herd. Af ter vaccination the strain werc dccreased to 26.4 and 42.7, respectively. There were not significant differences in the presence S.agalactiae af ter vaccination when comparcd to pre-vaccination. During the first two months af ter immunization, E.coli was idenlified in the clinical cases, but after this pcriod the strain were not seen. According to the idcntification results aftcr vaccination, sufficient immunization can not be obtained against Suberi" and S.pyogenes which are involved in the vaccine. In conclıısion, the vaccine was effective in both manageıııents of all vaccinated cows when the scverity and the guantity of chnic mastitis cases were taken into consideration and in the family type ıııanageıııents when it was evaluatcd with their SCe.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, sütçü inek işletmelerinde meme ve sağım hijyeni koşullarına bağlı olarak, sistemik immunizasyon ile mastitislere karşı korunma etkinliği araştırıldı. Çalışma, makinayla sağılan, sağım öncesinde meme dezenfeksiyonu, sonrasıııda teat dipping ve kuruya çıkan meme bölümlerine antibiyotik infüzyonu uygulanan Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi (AÜZF) işletmesi ile, elle sağılarak diğer önlemler alını;'ayan (aile tipi) işletmelerden seçilen, toplam 80 baş inek üzerinde yürütüldü. Sistemik imımınizasyon amacıyla, Mastivac@ adlı (Sagalactiae, Sdysgalactiae, S.uberis, S.pyogenes, Saureus. E. co li, A.pyogenes) inaktif mastitis aşısı kullaı~ıldı. Her iki tip işletmeden 20 ineğe aşı uygulanırken, 20 ineğe de plasebo enjekte edildi. Birinci uygulaniadan 15 gün sonra cnjeksiyonlar tekrar edildi. Uygulanan aşının inastitisler yönünden etkinliğini araştırmak üzere, immunizasyon öncesindc ve sonrasında, 12 ay süre ile, her ay toplanan süt örneklerinde, sıralı olarak, Kaliforniya mastitis te'sti (CMT) ve soımltik hlicrc sayımı (SHS) ile mikrobiyolojik yoklamalar yapıldı. Bunların yamsıra klinik mastitisler değerlendirildi. AÜZF işlctmcsinde aşılama grııbunun SHS'lerinde kontrol grubuna kıyasla istatistik yönden önemsiz, buna karşılık diğer tip yetiştirmclerde önemli düşmeler görlildü. Klinik mastitisler yönünden, AÜZF vc aile tipi işletmelerde, sırasıyla aşılama gruplarında 4'er, kontrol gruplarında ise 13 ve 6 olgu belirlendi. Aşılama öncesinde S.aureus, AÜZF işletmesinde %59.1 ve aile tipi işletmelerde %70.6 ile en fazla izole edilen mikroorganizma oldu. Aşının uygulanmasmdan sonra bu etkenin rastlantısı sırasıyla %26.4 ve %42.7 oranlarına azalma gösterdi. Aşılama sonrasında Saga!actiae ve Sdysgalacıiae rastlantılarıııda, öncesine kıyasla önemli bir değişiklik görülmedi. Sonuç olarak. klinik mastitis olgularının şiddeti ve niceliği göz önünde tutulduğunda tüm aşılanan ineklerde; SHS'leri ile birlikte değerlendirildiğinde ise aile tipi işlelIlıelcrdc aşının daha etkili olduğu belirlendi.

🔖

Cite This Article

Küçük, Ş., Alaçam, E. (2003). The effeet of udder and milking hygiene on systemic immunization approaehes in dairy herds. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 50 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.1501/Vetfak_0000002226

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. HN, ı. Allore (1998)
  2. 'matie eell coUlıt be ow 500.000 per mililiıer Oltenac(ı ıo tower m k ım:ık so- ot sımıegies Dair~ Sei, SI, 694-7()2. i Andrews RJ, KitchenBJ, Kwce WS, Duncalfe Fci983): Relationship and the masıitis iııteelion slalus of ıhe ucLder. Aust Teeh,6,71-74. Aydın N, Cambazoğlu masıiıisLerine karşı aşı hazırlanması Etlik Yet Mikrobio] Derg, 6,69-88. Barkema ML, Benedictus ıiees associated wiıh Low, medium aııd hiKh sOJ)wıie e{,ll eo- unlS in bulk milk. 1 Dairy Sei, Sl. 1917-i927.
  3. Brock JH, Steel ED, Reiter mmuseular ıibody Leve s and resisıanceloinımmammm)' Sıaphylococcus ClarkP, Van Raekel DE (1994): heriehia coLi baeterin jiJr ıhe conlro oj' co Lijimn masıilis in dair)' cows. Agri-Praetiee Med, IS,ı9-25.
  4. ColdwitzlG, WatsonDL(ı985): The immıllllJ oph}'sio o- gical basis for vaccinaıing ruminanl aKainsl maslili,J Aust Yet 1,62,145-151. Edmondson i PW (1998): lnjluence ofsampLe co eetion on buLk ıank somatic ceLLcOUlıl.Yet Ree, 1,0, 555. Erganiş filokokal masıiıisLerin konıroLu için oıojen SıaphyLocqus au- reus aşı. çalışmaLan. llL. Ulusal Yeteriner
  5. Kongresı, 23-25 Eylul, Bursa. s: 4i-42. Fırat G, Uysal Y (1988): SlafiLokokkal orijinLi maslillisLere karşı bir aşı hazırlanması. (1998)
  6. SC(ı985): Imm/me mechanismsoj'lhe bovine udder. JAVMA, 187,41-45. Nickerson SC, PankeyJW, WattsJL (1985): EnhCll7ce- menl oj'lhe cel/u ar immune respm7se of ıhe bovine udder by occl cınd syslemic immunizaıion masıiıis. Agri-PracticeMed, 6, 34-38. againsl Slaphy ococca Nordhaııg ML, NesseLL, Iria an experimenıa vaccine (1994): Slaphy ococus ponse. J Dairy Sci. 77,i276-ı284. againsı aureus masıilisin call e. 2. Anlibodyres- Opdebeeek ll', Noreross
  7. NL (1982): Anıibodyresponse in aclm secrelim7s oj' cows alier immımizalion wiıh va. rious concenlmlions mııigens. Am. J Vet Res, 43,1770-]775. ll', Norcross cınd slreplococca Opdebeeek
  8. NL (1985): Anıibodies in bovine serım? and aClea secreıions Slaphy ococcus Sehalm OW, Carrol lo cClpsu ar antigens of aureus.Am J Vet Res, 46,1561-1564. EJ, Jain NC (1971): Bovine Mas- ıizis. Lea-Febigcr Co, Philadclphia. Smith KL, Hogan.lS
  9. (I996): Fulure pmspeclsji)r masıilis conlroL. World Association for Buiatrics XiX Congress, 2- i2 July, Edinburgh, pp: 263-268. Smith LK (1983): Masıiıis contro: A discussifJll.1 Dairy Sci, 66, 1790-1794. Sümbüloğlıı K, Sümbüloğlıı V (2000): Biyoisıaıisıik. Ha- tiboğlu Yayınevi, Ankara.
  10. Watson DL, Meeoll ML, Davies HI (1996): Field Iricı ot a slophy ococca subclinica 447-450. assesmenls. AlIsl Vet.I, Yaneey RJ(1993): Recenladvwıces in boI'ine vaccine lechno ogy. J Dairy Sci, 76, 24ı8-2436. Yoshida K, lehiman Y, Narikawa S, Evans WB (1984): Slaphy ococcal
  11. Iwo herds in Georgicı. J Dairy Sci. ?7, 620-627. Geliş ıarihi: 12.3.20.0.2/Kabul ıarihi: 30.4.20.0.2
  12. ColdwitzlG, WatsonDL(ı985): The immıllllJ oph}'sio o- gical basis for vaccinaıing ruminanl aKainsl maslili,J Aust Yet 1,62,145-151. Edmondson i PW (1998): lnjluence ofsampLe co eetion on buLk ıank somatic ceLLcOUlıl.Yet Ree, 1,0, 555. Erganiş filokokal masıiıisLerin konıroLu için oıojen SıaphyLocqus au- reus aşı. çalışmaLan. llL. Ulusal Yeteriner
  13. (I996): Fulure pmspeclsji)r masıilis conlroL. World Association for Buiatrics XiX Congress, 2- i2 July, Edinburgh, pp: 263-268. Smith LK (1983): Masıiıis contro: A discussifJll.1 Dairy Sci, 66, 1790-1794. Sümbüloğlıı K, Sümbüloğlıı V (2000): Biyoisıaıisıik. Ha- tiboğlu Yayınevi, Ankara.