MASTITIS IN DAIRY COWS : A CASE STUDY OF PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD IN SAU-PHARSATIKAR; RUPANDEHI

Presented By:Bijay Khanal

IAAS, Rampur, TU

Bijay Khanal1,Gandhi Raj Upadhyay2

1, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences,Rampur,Chitwan;2Senior Veterinary Officer , Animal Quarantine Office, Bhairahawa

Introduction

The milk is considered as almost complete food which is consumed by children to elders.

Mastitis is the inflammation of the mammary gland and udder tissue, and is a major endemic disease of dairy cattle.

Mastitis is Characterized by Physical, Chemical and Usually Bacteriological changes in milk and by Pathological changes in the Udder.

2

3

Introduction contd…..

It usually occurs as an immune response to bacterial invasion of the teat canal by variety of bacterial sources present on the farm, and can also occur as a result ofchemical, mechanical, or thermal injury to the cow's udder.

Mastitis is well recognized as being a major problem asit causes a serious wastage and undesirable milk quality.

Mastitis remains a major challenge to the worldwide dairy industry despite the widespread implementation of mastitis control strategies(A.J.Bardley,…..).

4

EFFECTS OF MASTITIS

• Direct losses due to mastitis.

• Treatment cost.

• Discarded milk.

• Fatality.

• Repeated cases of mastitis.

• Decrease in milk yield.

• Milk quality changes.

• Decreased hygienic quality of milk and public health considerations.

5

For each case of clinical mastitis in a herd populationthere will usually be 15 to 40 subclinical cases (Philpotand Nickerson 1991), and most clinical cases arepreceded by infection at the subclinical level.

The milk which is produced from the cattle sufferingfrom the mastitis is highly dangerous in humanconsumption at raw stage.

There is high chance of getting infection with bacteriafrom such milk on consuming milk products, where milkmay not be safe.

6

EFFECTS OF MASTITIS…..

Objectives

General Objective

To determine the prevalence and Causative agent of mastitis and its importance to public health.

Specific Objectives

To know the Prevalence of Mastitis.

To know the situation of Mastitis Ward wise.

To know the management system of Farmers.

7

1. Site of Study

• This study was conducted in Sau-Pharsatikar VDC of

Rupandehi district, August 2013.

2. Questionnaire Survey

• To assess the management aspects and its possible risks on

Mastitis, questionnaire survey was conducted with each

farmer. Individual cattle from farmers’ shed were selected

and other relevant information was recorded.

Methods and Methodology

Tests

California Mastitis Test (CMT)

Cultural Examination

Biochemical Tests

9

Lab AnalysisThe Laboratory analysis of the collected milk samples was carried out at Bacteriology unit of the Microbiology Lab and Veterinary Teaching Hospital(VTH) Rampur, Chitwan.

10

Result and Discussion• Table 1. CMT scores on milk of cows

11

CMT Scores Number Percentage

Negative 452 58.78

Trace 66 8.74

1+ 108 14.29

2+ 68 8.99

3+ 62 8.2

Level of infection

Healthy60%

S aureus17%

E coli10%

Others13%

12

Others* Pasturella multocida, Brucella abortus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Actinomyces bovis, Actinobacillus liniereesi, Cryptococcus neoformans etc.

13

Isolation of Staphylococcus aureus from milk samples:

Milk sample

Cultured in Blood agar

Incubated for 24 hours

Grams Staining

Gram –vediscarded

Grams positive sub-cultured in nutrient agar

13

14

Pure colony in Nutrient agar

Grams staining

Gram –vediscarded

Grams positive samples were subjected to Catalase test

Catalase –vediscarded

Catalase positive were subjected to coagulase test

Coagulase –vediscarded

Coagulase positive identified as

Staphylococcus aureus

Fig. Coagulase Test

14

Method of isolation of E coli

Milk Sample

culture in Mac conkey agar

15

pink colony obtained after 24 hours incubated at 37oC

pure colony was then obtained

then was put in Brain Heart Infusion broth

various Biochemical test performed(Indole, Methyl Red, Voges proskauer and Citrate utilization)

16

TABLE FOR BIOCHEMICAL TEST OF E. coli:

TESTSCHARACTERISTICS SHOWN BY E.coli

MR test +ve

VP test -ve

CU test -ve

Indole +ve

TSI test y/y

EMB Green Metallic Sheen

17

Ward Wise Prevalence of Mastitis

30.3

40

35.529.4

42.1

47.4

44.7

50 52.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

WardNo 1

WardNo 2

WardNo 3

WardNo 4

WardNo 5

WardNo 6

WardNo 7

WardNo 8

WardNo 9

Percentage(%)

Percentage(%)

18

It was found that , the difference in Prevalence ofmastitis in ward wise was -

• High in the society where people are poor,uneducated and no care by VDC.

• Low in the society where VDC regularly launchtraining on Agriculture and Animal Husbandry.

19

Result and Discussion……..

The prevalence of Mastitis in cattle of Sau-Pharsatikar was 40.21% during examination.

Similar result was reported by Karimuribo et al., (2006)at Tanzania, in which out of 400 randomly selected samples 46.2 % were found to be SCM positive in CMT test.

20

Result and Discussion……..

• The higher prevalence recorded was not surprising in this study since the farmers were not applying recommended milking and hygiene procedures.

• There is high risk of infection from the mastitis infected milk, if we consume raw milk or any types of milk products.

• In the present context, We are haphazardly using such product without thinking anything.

21

22

23

Who is thinking about Us?????

24

I am also consuming that things…..

25

I like this so much…………………….

26

• The public health hazard of E. coli has beenemphasized by many authors, because thesebacteria have been implicated in human cases ofgastroenteritis, epidemic diarrhea in infants,sporadic diarrhea in children as well as in cases offood poisoning [Marier et al. 1973, Mossel 1982].

• S aureus is probably the most infectious agent inthe mammary glands that is extremely difficult tocure,(Miles et.al. 1992)

• S aureus and E coli has been found as the majorbacteria causing Mastitis.

27

• The most extensive antimicrobial resistance studies involving mastitis isolates have investigated S aureus.( Jones et. al.)

• S aureus is not only a killing machine, it is also hard to kill.

• Besides being antibiotic resistance, it has its own way of defense system.

28

Symptoms of E coli infection

• Little or no Fever developed.

• Diarrhea.

• RBCs are destroyed.

• Kidney Fails

• Hemolytic Uremia Syndrome (HUS).

- Main cause of Kidney Failure in Children.29

Common Effects Of E coli

1. Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

• E coli is the most common uropathogenisolated from persons with acute UTIs accounting for 75-90% of cases(Ronald A. 2003).

30

2. Meningitis

31

3. Peritonitis

32

4. Septicemia

33

5. Food Poisoning

34

Symptoms of S aureus infection

• Nausea

• Vomiting

• Diarrhoea

• Loss of appetite

• Sever abdominal pain

• Mild Fever

• Folliculitis

- A hair root (Follicle) is infected, causing slightly painful, tiny

pimple at base of hair.35

Common Effects Of S aureus1. Skin Lesions

36

2. Food Poisioning

37

3. Nasal Passage Infection

38

4. Pneumonia (Partly seen)

39

5. Meningitis ( Partly seen)

40

CONCLUSION

• For the pooled data of mastitis the frequencyof samples containing

- S. aureus 17.3% and

- E. coli has 9.5% .

• The Prevalence of Mastitis found was 40.21%.

• Level of Mastitis was found higher (52.6%) in Ward no. 9 & lower (29.4%) was found in Ward no. 4.

41

42

Recommendation

• Hygienic control measures should be applied during milk production.

• Farmers should be inspired for mastitis management, udder health management, shed management and nutrition management.

• VDC must regularly launch the trainings in the field of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry.

• It is imperative that government provide Financial support and subsidy to Farmers.

• Workshops, tours, Farmer's school should run for better livestock management and healthy milk production.

43

44

• A.J. Bradley, Division of Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of Clinical

Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, pg no 116—128

• Karimuribo ED, TL Fitzpatric, CE Bell, DM Kambarage, NH mOgden, MJ

Bryant, and NP French, 2006. Clinical and sub-clinical mastitis in smallholder

dairy farms in Tanzania: Risk, intervention and knowledge transfer. Prev. Vet.

Med., 74: 84-98.

• MARIER R., WELLS J G., SWANSON R C., CALLAHAN W., MEHLAN I J.,

1973 − An outbreak of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli foodborne disease traced

to imported French cheese. Lancet ii 1376-1378.

• Miles, H.,W., Lesser and P. Sears.,1992. The economic implications of

bioengineered mastitis control. J Dairy Sci. 75.

• MOSSEL D.A.A., 1982 − Microbiology of Food. 3rd Ed., University of Utrecht,

The Netherlands ISBN.

• Philpot W.N. and Nickerson S.C. 1991. Mastitis: Counter Attack. A Strategy to

Combat Mastitis. Babson Bros. Co., Illinois, USA.

• Ronald A. The etiology of Urinary tract infection ; traditional and emerging

pathogens. Dis Mon 2003; 49; 71-82.

• Jones, A. T. M Higgs, F. K. Neave, et al 1967. The sensitivity of bovine

Staphylococci and Corynebacterium to cloxacilin and various other antibiotics. J

Dairy Res. 34: 249-255.45

References

Dr. Dipesh Chhetri Dr. D. K. Singh Dr. Hom Bahadur Basnet Dr. Anil Tiwari Dr. Sikesh Manandher, Bhojan Dhakal, Dr.Shatrughan Shah, Dr. Krishna Acharya, Dr. GangaPrasad Yadav, Dr. Ram Krishna Yadav, Dr. SurendraKanu, Dr. Manoj Kr. Mahato.

46

Acknowledgements