SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Animal Health Production and Hygiene / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 4

Data Quality, Quarter-Level Organism Records, and Treatment Components in Bovine Clinical Mastitis in a University Dairy Herd: A Retrospective Record-Based Study

Bir Üniversite Süt Sığırı Sürüsünde Klinik Mastitis Kayıtlarında Veri Kalitesi, Meme Lobu Düzeyinde Etken Kayıtları ve Tedavi Bileşenleri: Retrospektif Kayıt Temelli Bir Çalışma

Taha Gürsoy(BURDUR MEHMET AKİF ERSOY UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8642-2527
Ömer Aykul(BURDUR MEHMET AKİF ERSOY UNIVERSITY)0009-0008-5382-3226
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-27
🏛️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)

Unique case-to-laboratory linkage is required for stronger retrospective inference.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This retrospective, single-herd, record-based study assessed the availability and interpretability of quarter-level organism and treatment records from a university dairy herd.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Seventeen documented mastitis episodes from 14 cows (1 August 2025–9 July 2026) included 36 quarter fields with organism entries.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Unique case-to-laboratory linkage is required for stronger retrospective inference.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Sığır mastitisi · Klinik kayıtlar · Veri kalitesi

Abstract

This retrospective, single-herd, record-based study assessed the availability and interpretability of quarter-level organism and treatment records from a university dairy herd. Seventeen documented mastitis episodes from 14 cows (1 August 2025–9 July 2026) included 36 quarter fields with organism entries. Escherichia coli, Streptococcus spp., coagulase-negative staphylococci, and Streptococcus uberis were recorded in 11/36 (30.6%), 9/36 (25.0%), 9/36 (25.0%), and 7/36 (19.4%) fields, respectively; 9/36 (25.0%) contained multiple categories. Ceftiofur and flunixin meglumine were documented in 12/17 (70.6%) and 11/17 (64.7%) episodes. Standardized severity, laboratory metadata, linked susceptibility findings, complete treatment regimens, and outcomes were unavailable or incompletely reconstructable. The records therefore supported descriptive reconstruction but not epidemiological estimates, microbiological validation, treatment-effectiveness assessment, or recurrence classification. Unique case-to-laboratory linkage is required for stronger retrospective inference.

Özet

Bu retrospektif, tek sürüye dayalı ve kayıt temelli çalışma, bir üniversite süt sığırı sürüsündeki meme lobu düzeyinde etken ve tedavi kayıtlarının erişilebilirliğini ve yorumlanabilirliğini değerlendirmiştir. On dört ineğe ait 17 belgelenmiş mastitis olgusu (1 Ağustos 2025–9 Temmuz 2026) içinde etken kaydı bulunan 36 meme lobu alanı yer almıştır. Escherichia coli, Streptococcus spp., koagülaz-negatif stafilokoklar ve Streptococcus uberis sırasıyla 11/36 (%30,6), 9/36 (%25,0), 9/36 (%25,0) ve 7/36 (%19,4) alanda kaydedilmiş; 9/36 (%25,0) alanda birden fazla kategori bulunmuştur. Seftiofur ve fluniksin meglumin sırasıyla 12/17 (%70,6) ve 11/17 (%64,7) olguda kaydedilmiştir. Standardize şiddet bilgisi, laboratuvar metaverileri, olguya bağlanmış duyarlılık bulguları, tam tedavi rejimleri ve sonuç verileri mevcut değildi veya eksik biçimde yeniden oluşturulabiliyordu. Bu nedenle kayıtlar tanımlayıcı yeniden yapılandırmayı desteklemiş, ancak epidemiyolojik tahminler, mikrobiyolojik doğrulama, tedavi etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesi veya nüks sınıflandırması için yeterli olmamıştır. Daha güçlü retrospektif çıkarımlar için olgu ile laboratuvar kaydı arasında benzersiz bağlantı gereklidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gürsoy, T., Aykul, Ö. (2026). Data Quality, Quarter-Level Organism Records, and Treatment Components in Bovine Clinical Mastitis in a University Dairy Herd: A Retrospective Record-Based Study. Animal Health Production and Hygiene, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 4. https://doi.org/10.53913/aduveterinary.2016163

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Çelik, E., & Akçay, A. (2024). Meta-analysis and meta-regression of subclinical mastitis prevalences in dairy cattle in Türkiye. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 71(2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.33988/auvfd.1155601
  2. de Jong, E., McCubbin, K. D., Speksnijder, D., Dufour, S., Middleton, J. R., Ruegg, P. L.,. Barkema, H. W. (2023). Invited review: Selective treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 106(6), 3761–3778. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22826
  3. Heikkilä, A.-M., Liski, E., Pyörälä, S., & Taponen, S. (2018). Pathogen-specific production losses in bovine mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science, 101(10), 9493–9504. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14824
  4. Jamali, H., Barkema, H. W., Jacques, M., Lavallée-Bourget, E. M., Malouin, F., Saini, V.,. Dufour, S. (2018). Invited review: Incidence, risk factors, and effects of clinical mastitis recurrence in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 101(6), 4729–4746. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13730
  5. Karakaya, E., & Abay, M. (2025). Subclinical mastitis in dairy cattle in Kayseri, Türkiye: Bacteriological analysis and antibiotic susceptibilities. Erciyes Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.32707/ercivet.1652863
  6. Kurt, S., & Eşki, F. (2021). Pathogen isolation and antibiogram analysis in dairy cows with clinical mastitis in Adana region, Turkey. Etlik Veteriner Mikrobiyoloji Dergisi, 32(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.35864/evmd.906990
  7. Lago, A., Godden, S. M., Bey, R., Ruegg, P. L., & Leslie, K. (2011a). The selective treatment of clinical mastitis based on on-farm culture results: I. Effects on antibiotic use, milk withholding time, and shortterm clinical and bacteriological outcomes. Journal of Dairy Science, 94(9), 4441–4456. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-4046
  8. Lago, A., Godden, S. M., Bey, R., Ruegg, P. L., & Leslie, K. (2011b). The selective treatment of clinical mastitis based on on-farm culture results: II. Effects on lactation performance, including clinical mastitis recurrence, somatic cell count, milk production, and cow survival. Journal of Dairy Science, 94(9), 4457–4467. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-4047
  9. Ruegg, P. L. (2017). A 100-year review: Mastitis detection, management, and prevention. Journal of Dairy Science, 100(12), 10381–10397. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13023
  10. Ruegg, P. L. (2021). What is success? A narrative review of research evaluating outcomes of antibiotics used for treatment of clinical mastitis. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 639641. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.639641
  11. Sarıçam İnce, S. (2025). Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Streptococcus uberis isolates recovered from bovine mastitis. Etlik Veteriner Mikrobiyoloji Dergisi, 36(2), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.35864/evmd.1776357
  12. de Jong, E., McCubbin, K. D., Speksnijder, D., Dufour, S., Middleton, J. R., Ruegg, P. L.,. Barkema, H. W. (2023). Invited review: Selective treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 106(6), 3761–3778. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22826
  13. Jamali, H., Barkema, H. W., Jacques, M., Lavallée-Bourget, E. M., Malouin, F., Saini, V.,. Dufour, S. (2018). Invited review: Incidence, risk factors, and effects of clinical mastitis recurrence in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 101(6), 4729–4746. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13730