InTechOpen uses cookies to offer you the best online experience. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Agricultural and Biological Sciences » "Milk Production - An Up-to-Date Overview of Animal Nutrition, Management and Health", book edited by Narongsak Chaiyabutr, ISBN 978-953-51-0765-1, Published: September 26, 2012 under CC BY 3.0 license. © The Author(s).

Chapter 17

Bovine Mastitis Pathogens: Prevalence and Effects on Somatic Cell Count

By Erika Margarita Carrillo-Casas and Rosa Elena Miranda-Morales
DOI: 10.5772/51032

Article top

Bovine Mastitis Pathogens: Prevalence and Effects on Somatic Cell Count

Erika Margarita Carrillo-Casas1 and Rosa Elena Miranda-Morales2

1. Introduction

Bovine mastitis is the most prevalent and costly disease, affecting dairy farms worldwide. Economic losses associated with mastitis derive mainly from a decrease in milk production and to a lesser extent, from the culling of chronically infected cows, cost of veterinary treatment, and penalties on milk quality (Seegers et al., 2003). Mastitis is caused by a wide spectrum of pathogenic agents that penetrate the teat canal and multiply in the udder cistern. The majority of mastitis cases are produced by a relatively small group of bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis, Mycoplasma spp and Escherichia coli (Calvinho & Tirante, 2005). Bovine mastitis is characterized by inflammation of the mammary gland. The inflammation severity depends on the causative agent and the host response (Bannerman et al., 2004; Barkema et al., 2006; Burvenich et al., 2003; Petzl et al., 2008). Resident and recruited cells together play an essential role in immediate defense against local infection (Rainard & Riollet, 2006). Extensive neutrophil recruitment from the circulation to the lumen of the mammary gland is a hallmark of the early immune response to mammary infection (Thomas et al., 1994; Sordillo & Streicher, 2002; Oviedo-Boyso et al., 2007). When designing mastitis-prevention and control programs, it is worthy to take on account the adoption level of mastitis-prevention management practices and control programs as well as the etiology of the intramammary infections (IMI), the herd-level prevalence of contagious mastitis pathogens, and the general factors that influence milk production.

2. Mastitis pathogens agents

Staphylococcus aureus

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) colonize the nipple skin, advance through the mammary gland canal into the gland. The IMI with S. aureus predominantly cause subclinical mastitis resulting in a chronic infection lingering lifelong (Bannerman et al., 2004; Riollet et al., 2000; Yang et al., 2008). During the infection's early stages, the mild damage may be reverted but S. aureus infections, in its peracute mastitis presentation generates gangrene and severe tissue damage. In comparison with Streptococcus agalactiae, S. aureus is more difficult to be eradicated. S. aureus infections cause a 45% decrease on milk production per quarter, reflected as a 15% per infected animal (NMC, 1999). The chronic, subclinical infections account for approximately 80% of mastitis related costs, due to reduced milk yield and product quality (Shim et al., 2004). In practice, an elevated somatic cell count (SCC), over 300, 000 to 500, 000 cells/ml, indicates high prevalence of infected glands with S. aureus in a herd (NMC, 1999).

Streptococcus agalactiae

Streptococcus agalactiae (S. agalactiae) causes contagious mastitis, an obligated pathogen of the mammary gland, which is transmitted directly among cows during milking (NMC, 1999). S. agalactiae infects the gland cistern and ducts of the mammary gland causing irritation, swelling and subclinical mastitis. The infected cow shows mere clinical signs without abnormalities drawn in milk. However, low production rates and high SCC are usually registered. S. agalactiae infections are related to Bulk-tank milk figures around a 1,000, 000 cells/ml on SCC or higher. Currently, these figures are rarely seen because the control measures and milking management had been improving along with better antibiotic treatment (Hillerton & Berry, 2003).

Globally S. agalactiae is a low prevalence pathogen. In Canadian bulk milk, its prevalence ranged between 6% in Alberta (Schoonderwoerd et al., 1993), and 43% in Québec (Guillemette et al., 1992). In the Prince Edward Island, Keefe et al., (1997) determined a herd prevalence of 18%. Furthermore, a study recently performed in Canada (Richard G.M. et al., 2010) demonstrated the low prevalence of S. agalactiae at 4.4% and in Argentina, in the last 25 years, the mastitis prevalence due to S. agalactiae has been 0.3% in the four quarters before-delivery (Calvinho et al., 2001).

Mycoplasma spp

Mycoplasma spp are highly contagious microorganisms, but less common than S. agalactiae and S. aureus. Nevertheless, Mycoplasma spp damage the secretory tissue, induce the gland fibrosis, abscesses and the lymphatic nodules fibrosis (NMC, 1999). Animals from all ages are susceptible, as well as at any time during lactation. Those in early lactation are more susceptible to Mycoplasma infection and it can be isolated from high production animals without signology.

Mycoplasmosis is frequently related to the mastitis outbreak onsets, to the introduction of new animals to a herd, to previous respiratory or articular disease, and to herds with unresponsive mastitis to antibiotic treatment. When at least the recurrent mastitis, a non-signs illness and an unresponsive treatment are observed, a mycoplasma infection is suspected.

Mycoplasma infection prevalence at the herd-level is estimated by Mycoplasma culture from Bulk Tank Milk (BTM) and has been suggested to be between 1 and 8%in the USA (Fox LK., et al., 2005). These monitoring of mycoplasma-mastitis performed through BTM cultures assumes that the appearance of a Mycoplasma sp in it indicates that there is at least one cow in the herd affected with mycoplasma and that environmental contamination of the bulk tank by mycoplasma is unlikely, hence a false positive result is discarded. The speciation of mycoplasma mastitis pathogens requires secondary tests, usually only carried out by specialized laboratories from colonies presumptively identified as Mycoplasma spp and with specific end point PCR for M. alkalescens, M. bovigenitalium, M. bovirhinis, M. californicum, M. canadense and M. bovis (Hirose et al., 2001; Kirk JH. et al., 1997) applied to determine the genus and specie prevalence from BTM samples collected monthly between 1989 and 1995 from 267 dairy herds. From these M. bovis, M. canadense, M. californicum, M. bovigenitalium, M. alkalescens, were retrieved from 209 (78.2%) dairies and they had been identified and reported as potentially pathogenic Mycoplasma organisms. Further studies, in the herd level such as, Fox et al., (2003) and the Nothwest Dairy Association (NDA), processed milk from 463 herds concluding 93 herds diagnosed as mycoplasma-positive from BTM. Mycoplasma was more likely to be present in samples from herds shipping higher milk amounts, therefore mycoplasma is indirectly related to the herd size and the larger the herds are, the higher mycoplasma caused mastitis prevalence will be. From the same study, a year later, Mycoplasma spp were not detected in any herd. These finding suggested that Mycoplasma caused mastitis can be controlled and eliminated from herds. This observation is supported by the studies done by, Brown et al. (1990), who reported that an outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis mastitis was controlled by an intensive identification scheme to find infected cows, culling the unproductive ones, and segregating and milking the left under a milking time hygiene procedure, also Bicknell et al. (1983) reported similar findings with intensive identification schemes to determine cows with Mycoplasma bovis mastitis and successfully managed with segregation and culling. Similar findings were reported by Mackie et al. (2000) specifically for M. californicum and M. canadense. The exception was reported by Jackson and Boughton (1991) who observed that segregation and culling were not necessarily required for controlling a M. bovigenitalium outbreak.

Coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CNS)

Coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CNS) are considered opportunistic mastitis pathogens, resident colonizers on the teat skin, rarely causing clinical mastitis (Hogan et al., 1987) and are frequently not reported in mastitis studies (Bramley & Dodd, 1984). However, CNS are isolated from cases of subclinical and clinical mastitis and as the cause of IMI in lactating cattle with subclinical prevalence of 31.1% at prepartum and 27.9% postpartum (Hogan, 1997; Fox, 2009). Moreover, CNS are the most frequently isolated pathogens from mastitis in heifers. This bacteria group comprises more than 50 species and subspecies (Pyöräla S. et al., 2008). Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species differ from each other in antimicrobial susceptibility, virulence factors and host response to infection (Birgersson et al., 1992; Devriese et al., 2002; Taponen S. et al., 2009). Thus, identification of species may be relevant for epidemiological surveys, the assessment of their pathogenic significance and for developing specific management practices to prevent mastitis. Perhaps it could be worthy to study them as individual species. There are many differences regarding the pathogenicity of different species of CNS that are studied with molecular diagnostic techniques (Zadoks & Schukken, 2006).

The most commonly isolated species of CNS from bovine mastitis are Staphylococcus chromogenes, Staphylococcus epidermitis, Staphylococcus hyicus and Staphylococcus simulans. Prevalence studies have demonstrated that CNS are the bacteria group most frequently isolated from milk samples with high SCC (Pitkälä et al., 2004; Bradley et al., 2007; Piepers et al., 2007; Sampimon et al., 2009). In mammary quarter infection prevalence ranges between 28.9–74.6% prepartum, and 12.3–45.5% at calving. CNS are the most prevalent cause of subclinical IMI in heifers and coagulase-positive Staphylococci (CPS) are the second most prevalent pathogens, while in other studies the environmental mastitis pathogens are more prevalent. Generally, the pathogens that cause mastitis in heifers are the same as those that cause infections in older cows. The risk factors for subclinical mastitis appear to be dependent on the season, herd location, and trimester of pregnancy; all suggesting that management has great impact in the prepartum disease control. Regarding clinical mastitis, the most prevalent mastitis pathogen has been reported to be CNS as well as CPS and environmental mastitis pathogens. Heifers are at a higher risk for clinical mastitis during the periparturient period including those related to diet, intrinsic mammary gland factors such as swelling and milk leaking, and factors associated with management changes and the heifer’s introduction the milking herd (Fox, 2009).

The prevalence of IMI with CNS has been increasing in North America, Europe and Latin America (Calvinho et al., 2001, Jánosi1 & Baltay, 2004; Sampimon et al., 2009; Pantoja, et al., 2009) (Table 1 and Table 2). CNS are the most frequently isolated pathogen group from IMI in The Netherlands, estimated as 10.8% at the quarter level and 34.4% at the cow level. Fourteen species of CNS were identified and the most relevant were Staphylococcus chromogenes (30.3%) Staphylococcus epidermidis (12.9%) and Staphylococcus capitis (11.0%) and prevalence of CNS IMI was higher in heifers than in older cows. Geometric mean quarter SCC of CNS-positive quarters was 109,000 cells/ml, which was approximately twice as high as culture-negative quarters. Quarters infected with S. chromogenes, S. capitis and Staphylococcus xylosus had a higher SCC (P < 0.05) than culture negative quarters, while quarters that were culture-positive for S. epidermidis and Staphylococcus hyicus tended to higher SCC than culture-negative quarters. An increased prevalence of CNS-IMI is associated with the herd-level variables such as a taped source of drinking water, single dry-cows housing, monthly SCC measure, veterinary udder health monitoring, outdoors season pasturing, percentage of milk contaminated stalls, and bulk milk SCC (BMSCC) > 250,000 cells/ml. Currently the prevalence of CNS-IMI is already high in heifers around their first calving (Borm et al., 2006), the lower prevalence of CNS in multiparous cows may be explained by the fact that in the 80% of the farms included in this study, the practice of antibiotic dry off and post-milking teat disinfection applied twice a day during lactation was used. Also pasturing during the outdoor season was associated with an increased prevalence of CNS-IMI, and the summer period is related to active flies, especially the horn fly Haematobia irritans which can transmit S. aureus (Owens et al., 1998) and possibly transmits CNS.

CountryStaphylococcus aureusStreptococcus agalactiaeMycoplasma sppEnvironmental Streptococcus
CNS*Environmental pathogensReference
Iran--48.75%---Ghazaei, 2006
Mexico9.92%Infante., et al., 1999
Argentina2.0%0.3%--25.3%-Calvinho., et al., 2001
Hungria32.5%--12.8%41%6.8%Jánosil & Baltay, 2004
Netherlands----10.8%Sampimon et al., 2009
Wisconsin----12.8%Pantoja, 2009
Canada74%4.4%SD---Richard., et al., 2010
Germany5.01%8.7%17.17%Schwarz., et al., 2010

Table 1.

Pathogen prevalence in Bovine Milk from some productive regions

CountryStaphylococcus aureusStreptococcus agalactiaeMycoplasma sppStaphilococcus Coagulase-NegativeReference
Pennsylvania, USA150 000 to 700 000 cells/mlErskine R.J. et al., 1987
Hungary400 000 cells/mlJánosi & Baltay, 2004
Mexico465 000 cells/mlMiranda-Morales RE et al., 2008
Netherlands109,000 cells/mlSampimon et al., 2009
Wisconsin, EEUU600,000 cells/ml190,000 to 519,000 cells/mlPantoja, 2009
CanadaRichard et al., 2010
Germany"/>100 000 cells /mlSchwarz D, et al., 2010

Table 2.

Somatic cell count (SCC×1000 cells/ml) associated with the mastitis causing microorganism in different countries.

Environmental mastitis pathogens

Streptococcus spp are among the outstanding environmental pathogens as well as E. coli and Corynebacterium spp. Environmental Streptococcus spp are present in dairy herds causing clinical and subclinical mastitis, its presence has been exacerbated due to the increasing implementation of control strategies against contagious pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus. These programs had reduced the contagious mastitis incidence, however, they had low effect on the mastitis caused by Streptococcus spp, catalase-negative cocci, and by environmental coliform bacteria which affect the udder. Among Streptococcus spp, Streptococcus uberis (S. uberis) is the most frequent as bovine udder pathogen (Olde Riekerink et al., 2008). Moreover, the dairy environment is a determinant factor for mastitis development due to S. uberis and Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. dysgalactiae (S. dysgalactiae), and stabled dairies are in greater risk than those held in open pastures (NMC, 1999). Other Streptococcus spp related in lesser amount to bovine mastitis are Streptococcus parauberis (S. parauberis), Streptococcus salivarius (S. salivarius), and Streptococcus sanguinis (S. sanguinis) (Whitman, 2009). Some Enterococcus such as Enterococcus faecium (E. faecium), Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis), Enterococcus saccharolyticus (E. saccharolyticus) (Østerås, et al., 2006). Aerococcus viridans (A. viridans) has been also related to mastitis but its role has not been elucidated yet (Devriese et al., 1999; Zadoks et al., 2004). In Hungary, Jánosi1 and Baltay, (2004) determined that the environmental caused mastitis by Streptococcus sp and E. coli had a prevalence of 12.8% and 6.8 % respectively.

The environmental pathogens, by themselves, are not enough frequent and persistent to cause mastitis or as a significant elevation of somatic cells counts (SCC) of bulk milk (values over 400,000 cells/ml). However, 66% of mastitis caused by environmental Streptococci and 85% of those caused by coliform bacteria, display clinical presentation. Therefore, losses due to this type of mastitis can reach substantial amounts even in herds with low SCC (<300,000 cells/ml), mainly due to a high incidence of clinical mastitis as it has been estimated around a 46% of clinical mastitis per year in herds with bulk milk SCC counts of less than 200,000 cells/ml

3. Somatic cell counts (SCC)

Throughout the world in the last ten years, udder health programs have been increasing (Godkin et al., 1999; Østerås et al., 1998; Plym 1996a; Plym et al., 1996b; Sargeant et al., 1998), and regarded as a critical production issue on dairy farms. In Europe, the European Economic Community (EEC) since 1998 does not recommend consumption of milk with SCC over 400, 000 cells/ml. In North America the limit has been established at 750, 000 (USA) and in Canada at 500, 000 cells (Sargeant et al., 1998).

Somatic cells are, in great quantity, cells of the immune system (80% in uninfected quarters, and 99% in quarters with mastitis) (Sordillo et al., 1997). They are part of the natural defense mechanisms, including lymphocytes, macrophages, polymorphonuclear and some epithelial cells (Pillai et al., 2001). Somatic cells are therefore a reflection of the inflammatory response to an IMI. Somatic cell counts are often used to distinguish between infected and uninfected quarters according to the general agreement between infection status and the inflammatory response to infection reflected as an increased SCC. As with any diagnostic test, errors will occur when solely depending on a single test. To minimize error, diagnostic test parameters such as sensitivity & specificity are calculated at various cut-off values in the continuum SCC (Schepers et al., 1997). In North America and Europe the SCC for an uninfected quarter is approximately 70, 000 cells. There is of course variation around this mean; its value can increase with age, decreasing milk production and days in milk period (Schepers et al., 1997). Hence, to be able to distinguish between infected and uninfected quarters a cut-off of approximately 200, 000 to 250, 000 cells is accepted (Dohoo et al., 1991; Laevens et al., 1997; Leslie et al, 1997; Schepers et al, 1997). At this cut-off value, diagnostic sensitivity is approximately 75%, and specificity approximately 90% (Schepers et al., 1997). The 200, 000 cells cut-off is not considered a physiological cell concentration in milk able to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy udders, but it is a practical value under field conditions (minimizing diagnostic error). Erskine et al. 1987, evaluated 32 dairy herds, 16 with low SCC less than or equal to 150, 000 cells/ml and 16 with high SCC greater than or equal to 700, 000 cells/ml. From the 16 herds with low SCC, S. agalactiae was isolated in two herds (12.5%), and S. aureus was isolated from seven herds (44%). Moreover both microorganisms were found in all of the herds with high SCC, a program of post-milking teat dipping and treatment of all cows at the beginning of the non-lactating period was practiced in the herds with low SCC. Whist et al. (2007) reported low SCC in milk from heifers having Streptococcus dysgalactiae IMI and in non-infected glands the results indicated that SCC were high (between 50,000 and 100,000 cells/ml) during the immediate postpartum period, within the next 5 days after calving.

4. Bulk tank milk (BTM) SCC

BTM SCC is a general indicator of the udder health in a herd and it is also regarded as an indirect measure of milk quality (Schukken et al. 2003). Elevated SCC, are correlated with changes in milk composition, casein and more serum-derived whey proteins, as well as increased proteolytic and lipolytic activities (Auldist & Hubble, 1998). SCC may, however, vary greatly depending on factors such as number of lactations, stage of lactation, season and milking frequency (Harmon, 1994; Pyörälä, 2003). In BTM, where the total volume of milk will dilute effects from affected quarters, SCC appears to be less sensitive and specific as a biomarker for milk quality, e.g. suitability for cheese production (Leitner et al., 2006).

Bulk tank milk SCC assist in directing milk quality control programs and assist with the identification of risk factors in herds. The production of milk with low bacterial counts starts at the farm and is influenced by many procedures related to farm management practices. At the farm level, microbial contamination of BTM occurs through three main sources; bacterial contamination from the external surface of the udder and teats, from the surface of the milking equipment, and from mastitis organisms within the udder (Murphy & Boor, 2000). The levels and types of microorganisms in BTM provide valuable information on the hygienic conditions during the steps of milk production. The microbiological count methods are used to monitor hygienic quality of raw milk including the total aerobic count (TAC). TAC is the most common method for the assessment of bacterial quality of raw milk, it estimates the total number of bacteria present at the farm´s pickup time, providing an overall hygienic milk-quality measure; however, it is limited for the identification of the bacteria contamination source. An alternative has been the standard plate count (SPC) and the preliminary incubation count (PIC), a selective count is measuring psychotropic bacteria, which will grow and multiply under improper refrigeration conditions. These organisms can create undesirable odors and off-flavors. Many psychotropic bacteria can also produce heat-stable enzymes that will survive pasteurization degrading and reducing milk and milk products during shelf-life (Hayes & Boor, 2001). The laboratory pasteurization count (LPC), another selective count, estimates the number of thermoduric bacteria, mainly from the surfaces of poorly cleaned farm equipment that will survive a laboratory-scale batch pasteurization process. Thermoduric bacteria have been associated with spoilage of pasteurized milk. The Coliform count (CC) measures the number of coliform bacteria in milk, organisms primarily coming from the cow’s environment, therefore high CC will give an estimation of the production sanitary status and practices. Coliforms can also incubate on residual films of improperly cleaned milking equipment (Reinemann et al., 2003).

The results from a case–control study indicated that TAC and PIC were mostly related to cow and stall hygiene, whereas LPC and CC were related to equipment hygiene (Elmoslemany et al., 2009; Jayarao et al., 2004), and included among the bacteria groups associated with bovine IMI are Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, Mycoplasma spp, Streptococcus spp, Escherichia coli, and SCN.

5. Prevalence of mastitis pathogens and somatic cell counts

In Mexico, the prevalence of mastitis pathogens in BTM SCC from 224 milk samples of 112 herds was as follows; Mycoplasma spp were isolated from 62 herds (55%), S. aureus from 34 cattle barns, S. uberis and CNS were isolates from milk from 42 herds (37.5%) and from 43 (38.3%) bulk tank milk samples. The geometric mean of SCCs was 465, 000 cells/ml. No significant differences were observed in SCCs between Mycoplasma spp, S. aureus and Streptococcus spp positive and negative herds (P>0.5) (Miranda-Morales, et al., 2008).

In Latin America, few data had been carried out regarding microorganism’s prevalence and SCC in cases of clinical and subclinical mastitis. Nonetheless, regarding bovine mastitis, Calvinho et al, (2005) assessed the primary pathogens prevalence, and its relation with the general udder health status in Argentina from 1983 to 2001. The subclinical mastitis showed a prevalence of 25.3% of S. aureus in the 80’s and through the years it has been decreasing until a level of 13.9% in 2000. This situation was also observed regarding S. agalactiae, which has been reducing its prevalence from 8.8 to 1.6%; Streptococcus spp from 19.3 to 6.5% and coliforms from 2.7 to 2%. The prevalence observed for the same pathogens causing clinical mastitis, were low prevalence levels for S. aureus, S. agalactiae and coliforms respectively from 34.45 to 29.2%, 13 to 3.9%, and from 20 to 4.4%. In contrast the CNS, S. dysgalactiae and Streptococcus spp registered rising prevalence from 2.1 to 12.7%, 1.7 to 15.9%, and from 6.4 to 19.8% respectively. This situation was also seen among SCC registering levels of 400, 000 to 900, 000 cells/ml in the 80's, since after a sustained decrease in the SCC from BTM in recent years; in 2004 ranging around 300, 000 cells/ml, and in 2005, an average of 384, 000 cells/ml (SAGPyA, 2005). The producers have been implemented systematically control programs based on hygiene and antibiotic therapy, there has been a decrease in the prevalence of contagious pathogens and environmental relative increase, however it should be noted that the SCC values remain high compared with those of countries with high dairy development. In Perú, Ortiz, et al., 2006, assessed the SCC in dairy herds of different technological levels in Arequipa, milk samples were collected twice in 2005. The stables were stratified according to their technological level in high, medium and low. The general average of SCC were 505 x 103 x 103 ± 150 cells/ml, and significant differences between technology levels were identified as SCC were 353, 559 and 603 x 103 cells/ml for high, medium and low, respectively (p <0.05), feature explained by the dilution of somatic cells in a greater volume of milk and a more rational application of best practices to prevent and control mastitis in the most sophisticated stables. On the other hand, limited access to training adversely affects low-technology. In a study by Moraga et al (1994) in Chile, the prevalence of bovine mastitis in the years 1972 to 1992; subclinical mastitis in 1972 was 45.42%, and by 1992 the prevalence had reduced to 38.65%, traduced on a 14.90%. Regarding clinical mastitis a continuous prevalence reduction of 12.86% from 74.41% to 64.84% was determined during the same period. Furthermore, the SCC were reduced from 1,983,310 cells/ml to 1,055,240 cells/ml, in these 20 years. These decrements on the severity of subclinical mastitis obeys the current control measures spread in the early 70's, such as post-milking disinfection of teats and drying therapy used in the 66.7% of the farms studied as well as the general infrastructure improvement. Finally despite the progress, acceptable control mastitis levels have not yet been reached.

In Mexico, Infante, et al., (1999), observed in a commercial dairy herd (282 cows) in lactation a sudden atypical clinical mastitis outbreak with 28 cases of severe purulent mastitis, hard swollen mammary glands and lacking systemic signs of illness. The treatment non- responsive cases (Table 1) suggested the spreading through the milking machine and other management practices, further cultures determined the presence of Mycoplasma californicum and Mycoplasma canadense. A second study performed by Miranda-Morales, et al., (2008), revealed that Mycoplasma spp were present in the 55% of the 62 herds included, also that S. aureus was present in the 30% of cattle barns and that S. uberis and CNS were present in 42 herds (37.5%) and 43 herds (38.3%) according to the BTM samples, respectively. The geometric mean of SCCs was 465, 000 cells/ml and no significant differences were observed among Mycoplasma spp, S. aureus and Streptococcus spp positive and negative herds (P> 0.5) (Table 2 and 5).

Overall, prevalence of mastitis is over 10%, in samples of direct milk Staphylococcus aureus has a prevalence >30% in contrast to an <5% prevalence of Streptococcus agalactiae, and a prevalence between 15 and 41% has been reported for CNS. Mycoplasma has been reported in a few prevalence studies and environmental mastitis pathogens have an average prevalence of >15%. However in BTM Staphylococcus aureus have registered consistently high figures from 30% and up to 74%, followed by the prevalence values of Streptococcus agalactiae around 40%, and in BTM Mycoplasma spp had variable prevalence figures ranging from 50% to 85%. Regarding SCC, values of 100, 000 – 700, 000 cells/ml are associated to the presence of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus agalactiae. For Mycoplasma spp, SCC values are > 200, 000 cells/ml, and SCC of 100, 000 and up to 500, 000 cells/ml are associated to CNS infection. Currently, in America, BTM-SCC values are around > 200, 000 cells/ml, therefore milk quality requirements are barely meet except for some regions that had achieved SCC levels of < 200, 000 cells/ml, and low prevalence of mastitis associated pathogens. Therefore, herd overall studies are mandatory for mastitis control programs including duration of lactation, season, milk production and parity. But will also be guided by the prevalence of mastitis pathogens and by the, geographic region and production practice.

Seattle, USA93533 000 cells/mlFox L.K. et al., 2003
Argentina7358384 000 cells/mlSAGPyA, 2005
Peru15500 000 cells/mlOrtiz Z.C. et al., 2006
Argentina51250 000 cells/mlVissio, C., et al., 2007
Mexico112465 000 cells/mlMiranda-Morales R.E., et al., 2008

Table 3.

SCC values of BTM milk samples associated with mastitis pathogens of some regions worldwide.

ReferenceNo. of Dairy herdsNo. of
Gland infected
Zurita., et al., 19721 13748,81%
Moragay., et al., 1993302 32141,10%
Chaves., et al., 19961937%
Calvinho., et al., 20018662,8%
Sampimon., et al., 2009491 96010,8%
Castillo., et al., 20092 11672,61%

Table 4.

General overview of mastitis prevalence.

ReferenceDairy herds studiedStaphylococcus aureusStreptococcus agalactiaeMycoplasma spp
Kunkel, 19852346--1.3%
Guillemette., et al., 1992-6%-
Schoonderwoerd., et al., 1993-43%-
Keefe., et al., 199770%18%
Kirk., et al., 1997267--78.2%
Fox., et al., 2003664--14%
Sato, 200411871.6%--
Sato, 20044027.55%--
Riekerink., et al., 200625874 %1.6 %1.9%
Howard, 2006757.1%--
Miranda-Morales., et al., 200811230%-55%
Richard & Riekerink., et al., 201022674%4%-

Table 5.

Prevalence of contagious mastitis pathogens in BTM.


1 - M. J. Auldist, I. B. Hubble, 1998Effects of mastitis on raw milk and dairy productsAustralian Journal of Dairy Technology5312836
2 - D. D. Bannerman, MJ Paape, J. W. Lee, X. Zhao, J. C. Hope, P. Rainard, 2004Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus elicit differential innate immune responses following intramammary infectionClinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 11(3),463-472.
3 - H. W. Barkema, Y. H. Schukken, R. N. Zadoks, 2006Invited review: the role of cow, pathogen, and treatment regimen in the therapeutic success of bovine Staphylococcus aureus mastitis.Journal of Dairy Science8918771895
4 - A. J. Bramley, F. H. Dodd, 1984Reviews of the progress of Dairy Science: Mastitis Control- progress and prospects. Journal of Dairy Research. 51(3), 481-512.
5 - D. R. Bray, J. K. Shearer, C. A. Donovan, P. A. Reed, 1997Approaches to Achieving and Maintaining a Herd Free of Mycoplasma MastitisProceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the National Mastitis Council, Madison, WI, 132137
6 - M. B. Brown, J. K. Shearer, F. Elvinger, 1990Mycoplasmal mastitis in a dairy herd.Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association196710971101
7 - A. A. Borm, L. K. Fox, K. E. Leslie, J. S. Hogan, S. M. Andrew, K. M. Moyes, S. P. Oliver, Y. H. Schukken, D. D. Hancock, C. T. Gaskins, W. E. Owens, C. Norman, 2006Effects of prepartum intramammary antibiotic therapy on udder health, milk production, and reproductive performance in dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 89620908
8 - C. Burvenich, V. Van Merris, J. Mehrzad, A. Diez-Fraile, L. Duchateau, 2003Severity of E. coli mastitis is mainly determined by cow factors. Veterinary Research 345521564
9 - S. R. Bicknell, R. F. Gunning, G. Jackson, E. Boughton, C. D. Wilson, 1983Eradication of the Mycoplasma bovis infection from a dairy herd in Great Britain. Veterinary Record 11213294297
10 - L. F. Calvinho, L. Tirante, 2005Prevalencia de microorganismos patógenos de mastitis bovina y evolución del estado de salud de la glándula mamaria en Argentina en los últimos 25 años. Revista FAVE 4(1-2):29-40.
11 - L. A. Devriese, P. Vandamme, M. D. Collins, N. Alvarez, B. Pot, J. Hommez, P. Butaye, F. Haesebrouck, 1999Streptococcus pluranimalium sp. nov., from cattle and other animalsInternational Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 49312211226
12 - I. R. Dohoo, K. E. Leslie, 1991Evaluation of changes in somatic cell counts as indicators of new intramammary infectionsPreventive Veterinary Medicine103225237
13 - A. M. Elmoslemany, G. P. Keefe, I. R. Dohoo, R. T. Dingwell, 2009Microbiological quality of bulk tank raw milk in Prince Edward Island dairy herdsJournal of Dairy Science92942394248
14 - R. J. Erskine, R. J. Eberhart, L. J. Hutchinson, S. B. Spencer, 1987Herd management and prevalence of mastitis in dairy herds with high and low somatic cell counts.Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association1901114111416
15 - K. P. Forshell, 1996aMilk quality and mastitis control in Sweden. Proceedings of the National Mastitis Council. 4249
16 - K. P. Forshell, O. Østerås, K. Aagaard, L. Kulkas, 1996bAnti-microbial drug policy in the four Nordic countries. IDF Mastitis News 212628
17 - L. K. Fox, J. M. Gay, 1993Contagious mastitis.The Veterinary Clinics of North AmericaFood Animal Practice 93475487
18 - L. K. Fox, D. D. Hancock, A. Mickelson, A. Britten, O. R. Kaaden, 2003Bulk tank milk analysis: factors associated with appearance of Mycoplasma sp. in milkJournal of Veterinary Medicine SeriesB 505235240
19 - L. K. Fox, J. H. Kirk, A. Britten, 2005Mycoplasma Mastitis: A review of transmission and Control.Journal of Veterinary MedicineSeries B 524153160
20 - L. K. Fox, 2009Prevalence, incidence and risk factors of heifer mastitis. Veterinary Microbiology 134(1-2):82-88.
21 - J. M. Guillemette, M. Bouchard, M. Bigras-Poulin, M. Nadeau, 1992Étude sur la prevalence de Streptococcus agalactiae et Staphylococcus aureus dans les troupeaux de Québec par la culture séquentientielle du reservoir. Proc Am Assoc Bovine Pract, World Assoc. Buiatrics 3377382
22 - C. Ghazaei, 2006Mycoplasmal mastitis in dairy cows in the Moghan region of Ardabil State, Iran. Journal of the SouthAfrican Veterinary Association. 774222223
23 - A. Godkin, 1999Monitoring and controlling mastitis: progress in Ontario, Proceedings of the National Mastitis Council Ann Mtg. Arlington, VA, USA.19
24 - M. C. Hayes, K. Boor, 2001Raw milk and fluid milk products. In: Applied Dairy MicrobiologyEd. J. Steele and E. Marth, Marcel Dekker, NY 5976
25 - R. J. Harmon, 1994Physiology of mastitis and factors affecting somatic cell counts.Journal of Dairy Science77721032112
26 - J. E. Hillerton, E. A. Berry, 2003The management and treatment of environmental streptococcal mastitis.The Veterinary Clinics of North AmericaFood Animal Practice 19115769
27 - K. Hirose, Y. K. Kawasaki, K. Kotani, A. Tanaka, K. Abiko, H. Ogawa, 2001Detection of mycoplasma in mastitic milk by PCR analysis and culture method.Journal of Veterinary Medicine Science. 636691693
28 - J. S. Hogan, J. W. Pankey, K. L. Smith, 1987Staphylococcus species other than Staphylococcus aureus. In: Proceedings of the National Mastitis Council 26th Ann Meeting, Orlando, Florida, 2132
29 - J. S. Hogan, 1997Occurrence of clinical and sub-clinical environmental streptococcal mastitis. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Udder Health Management for Environmental Streptococci. National Mastitis Council. Inc., Arlington, Tex.
30 - P. Howard, 2006Mastitis pathogens present in bulk tank milk from seven dairy herds in the Waikato region, New ZealandNew Zealand Veterinary Journal5414143
31 - S. Jánosi, Z. Baltay, 2004Correlations among the somatic cell count of individual bulk milk, result of the California Mastitis Test and bacteriological status of the udder in dairy cows.Acta Veterinaria Hungarica52217383
32 - B. M. Jayarao, S. R. Pillai, A. A. Sawant, D. R. Wolfgang, N. V. Hegde, 2004Guidelines for monitoring bulk tank milk somatic cell and bacterial counts.Journal of Dairy Science871035613573
33 - G. Jackson, E. Boughton, 1991A mild outbreak of bovine mastitis associated with Mycoplasma bovigenitalium.The Veterinary Record12920444446
34 - G. P. Keefe, I. R. Dohoo, E. Spangler, 1997Herd prevalence and incidence of Streptococcus agalactiae in the dairy industry of Prince Edward Island.Journal of Dairy Science80464470
35 - J. H. Kirk, K. Glenn, L. Ruiz, E. Smith, 1997Epidemiology analysis of Mycoplasma spp isolated from bulk-tank milk samples obtained from dairy herds that were members of a milk cooperative. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 211810361038
36 - J. R. Kunkel, 1985Isolation of Mycoplasma bovis from bulk milk.The Cornell Veterinarian753398400
37 - H. Laevens, H. Deluyker, Y. H. Schukken, L. De Meulemeester, R. Vandermeersch, E. De Muêlenaere, A. De Kruif, 1997Influence of parity and stage of lactation on the somatic cell count in bacteriologically negative dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 801232193226
38 - G. Leitner, O. Krifucks, U. Merin, Y. Lavi, N. Silanikove, 2006Interactions between bacteria type, proteolysis of casein and physico-chemical properties of bovine milkInternational Dairy Journal166648654
39 - R. E. Miranda-Morales, V. Rojas-Trejo, R. Segura-Candelas, E. M. Carrillo-Casas, M. G. Sánchez-González, R. S. Castor, F. J. Trigo-Tavera, 2008Prevalence of pathogens associated with bovine mastitis in bulk tank milk in MexicoAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences1149300302
40 - D. P. Mackie, D. Finlay, N. Brice, H. J. Ball, 2000Mixed mycoplasma mastitis outbreak in a dairy herd.The Veterinary Record14712335336
41 - B. L. Moraga, A. E. Hernán, B. M. Bezama, M. M. A. Morales, 1994Evolución de la prevalencia de mastitis bovina en lecherías de la región metropolitana, Chile. Avances en Ciencias Veterinarias 9(1). []
42 - S. C. Murphy, K. J. Boor, 2000Trouble-shooting sources and causes of high bacteria counts in raw milkDairy Food and Environmental Sanitation208606611
43 - National Mastitis Council,1999Microbiological Procedures for the Diagnosis of Bovine Udder InfectionNational Mastitis Council. 3rd ed. Arlington, Virginia, USA.
44 - Riekerink. R. G. Olde, H. W. Barkema, S. Veenstra, D. E. Poole, R. T. Dingwell, G. P. Keefe, 2006Prevalence of contagious mastitis pathogens in bulk tank milk in Prince Edward IslandThe Canadian Veterinary Journal 476567572
45 - Riekerink. R. G. Olde, H. W. Barkema, D. F. Kelton, D. T. Scholl, 2008Incidence rate of clinical mastitis on Canadian dairy farms.Journal of Dairy Science91413661377
46 - Riekerink. R. G. Olde, H. W. Barkema, D. T. Scholl, D. E. Poole, D. F. Kelton, 2010Management practices associated with the bulk-milk prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus in Canadian dairy farmsPreventive Veterinary Medicine9712028
47 - Z. C. Ortiz, A. R. Vera, 2006Recuento de células somáticas en hatos lecheros de diferente nivel tecnológico en Arequipa. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perú 172104107
48 - O. Østerås, L. Sølverød, O. Reksen, 2006Milk culture results in a large Norwegian Survey- effects of season, parity, days in milk, resistance and clustering. Journal of Dairy Science 89310101023
49 - J. Oviedo-Boyso, J. J. Valdez-Alarcon, M. Cajero-Juárez, A. Ochoa-Zarzosa, J. E. López-Meza, A. Bravo-Patiño, V. M. Baizabal-Aguirre, 2007Innate immune response of bovine mammary gland to pathogenic bacteria responsible for mastitis. Journal of Infectology 544399409
50 - J. C. Pantoja, C. Hulland, P. L. Ruegg, 2009Dynamics of somatic cell counts and intramammary infections across the dry periodPreventive Veterinary Medicine43 EOF54 EOF
51 - S. R. Pillai, E. Kunze, L. M. Sordillo, B. M. Jayarao, 2001Application of differential inflammatory cell count as a tool to monitor udder health.Journal of Dairy Science84614131420
52 - S. Piepers, H. W. Barkema, A. De Kruif, G. Opsomer, S. de Vliegher, 2008Association between CNS-infections at calving and first lactation milk production and somatic cell counts in dairy heifersIn: NMC 47th Annual Meeting Proceedings, New Orleans, LA, 172173
53 - A. Pitkäla, M. Haveri, S. Pyörälä, V. Myllys, T. Honkanen-Buzalski, 2004Bovine mastitis in Finland 2001-prevalence, distribution of bacteria, and antimicrobial resistance.Journal of Dairy Science87824332441
54 - W. Petzl, H. Zerbe, J. Günther, W. Yang, H. M. Seyfert, G. Nürnberg, H. J. Schuberth, 2008Escherichia coli, but not Staphylococcus aureus triggers an early increased expression of factors contributing to the innate immune defense in the udder of the cow. Veterinary Research 39(2):18.
55 - S. Pyörälä, 2003Indicators of inflammation in the diagnosis of mastitis.Veterinary Research34565578
56 - S. Pyörälä, 2008Mastitis in post-partum dairy cowsReproduction in Domestic Animalss2):252 EOF259 EOF
57 - P. Rainard, C. Riollet, 2006Innate immunity of the bovine mammary gland.Veterinary Research373369400
58 - D. J. Reinemann, M. V. H. G. Wolters, P. Billon, O. Lind, M. D. Rasmussen, 2003Review of practices for cleaning and sanitation of milking machinesIn: Bull. 381. International Dairy Federation, Brussels, Belgium. 123
59 - C. Riollet, P. Rainard, B. Poutrel, 2000Differential induction of complement fragment C5a and inflammatory cytokines during intramammary infections with Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureusClinical and Diagnostic laboratory Immunology 72161167
60 - SAGPyA.2005Propuestas para el mejoramiento de la competitividad de la lechería argentina. Ed. por Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos. 17
61 - O. Sampimon, H. W. Barkema, I. Berends, J. Sol, T. Lam, 2009Prevalence of intramammary infection in dutch dairy herdsJournal of Dairy Research 762129136
62 - J. M. Sargeant, Y. H. Schukken, K. E. Leslie, 1998Ontario bulk milk somatic cell count reduction program: progress and outlook.Journal of Dairy Science81615451554
63 - A. J. Schepers, T. J. Lam, Y. H. Schukken, J. B. Wilmink, W. J. Hanekamp, 1997Estimation of variance components for somatic cell counts to determine thresholds for uninfected quarters.Journal of Dairy Science80818331840
64 - Y. H. Schukken, D. J. Wilson, F. Welcome, L. Garrison-Tikofsky, R. N. Gonzalez, 2003Monitoring udder health and milk qualityusing somatic cell counts. Veterinary Research 345579596
65 - D. Schwarz, U. S. Diesterbeck, K. Failing, S. König, K. Brügemann, M. Zschöck, W. Wolter, C. P. Czerny, 2010Somatic cell counts and bacteriological status in quarter foremilk samples of cows in Hesse, Germany-a longitudinal studyJournal of Dairy Science5716 EOF5728 EOF
66 - H. Seegers, C. Fourichon, F. Beaudeau, 2003Production effects related to mastitis and mastitis economics in dairy cattle herds.Veterinary Research345475491
67 - E. H. Shim, R. D. Shanks, D. E. Morin, 2004Milk loss and treatment costs associated with two treatment protocols for clinical mastitis in dairy cows.Journal of Dairy Science87827022708
68 - L. M. Sordillo, K. Shafer-Weaver, D. De Rosa, 1997Immunobiology of the mammary gland.Journal of Dairy Science80818511865
69 - L. M. Sordillo, K. L. Streicher, 2002Mammary gland immunity and mastitis susceptibility.Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia72135146
70 - S. Taponen, S. Pyörälä, 2009Coagulase-negative staphylococci as cause of bovine mastitis- not so different from Staphylococcus aureus? Veterninary Microbiology 134(1-2):29-36.
71 - L. H. Thomas, W. Haider, A. W. Hill, R. S. Cook, 1994Pathologic findings of experimentally induced Streptococcus uberis infection in the mammary gland of cows.American Journal of Veterinary Research551217231728
72 - M. Thrusfield, 1990Epidemiología veterinaria. Ed. Acribia. S.A. Zaragoza, 399 pp.
73 - C. Vissio, S. Dieser, J. Giraudo, M. Pellegrino, I. Frola, C. Raspanti, L. Odierno, A. Larriestra, 2008Prevalencia de mastitis en tambos de la cuenca lechera de Villa María (Córdoba). Revista Argentina de Producción Animal 28303334
74 - J. L. Watts, 1988Etiological agents of bovine mastitis.Veterinary Microbiology1614166
75 - W. B. Whitman, 2009The firmicutes, In: Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 3nd ed.), Springer Dordrecht Verlag. Heidelberg, Germany.
76 - W. Yang, H. Zerbe, W. Petzl, R. M. Brunner, J. Günther, C. Draing, Aulock. S. von, H. J. Schuberth, H. M. Seyfert, 2008Bovine TLR2 and TLR4 properly transduce signals from Staphylococcus aureus and E. coli, but S. aureus fails to both activate NF-kappaB in mammary epithelial cells and to quickly induce TNF-alfa and interleukin-8(CXCL8) expression in the udder. Molecular Immunology 45513851397
77 - R. N. Zadoks, R. N. Gonzalez, K. J. Boor, Y. H. Schukken, 2004Mastitis-causing Streptococci are important contributors to bacterial counts in raw bulk tank milk.Journal of Food Protection671226442650
78 - R. N. Zadoks, Y. H. Schukken, 2006Use of molecular epidemiology in veterinary practice. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 221229261