• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
titulo
 

titulo

on

  • 1,372 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,372
Views on SlideShare
1,372
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    titulo titulo Document Transcript

    • Vet. Res. 34 (2003) 689–716 689 © INRA, EDP Sciences, 2003 DOI: 10.1051/vetres:2003030 Review article Mastitis of dairy small ruminants Dominique BERGONIERa*, Renée DE CRÉMOUXb, Rachel RUPPc, Gilles LAGRIFFOULd, Xavier BERTHELOTa a École Nationale Vétérinaire, UMR 1225 INRA-ENVT Host-Pathogens Interactions, 23 chemin des Capelles, 31076 Toulouse Cedex 3, France b Institut de l’Élevage, Chambre d’Agriculture du Tarn, BP 89, 81003 Albi Cedex, France c INRA-SAGA, BP 27, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France d Comité National Brebis Laitières – Institut de l’Élevage, BP 27, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France (Received 25 April 2003, accepted 23 June 2003) Abstract – Staphylococci are the main aetiological agents of small ruminants intramammary infections (IMI), the more frequent isolates being S. aureus in clinical cases and coagulase negative species in subclinical IMI. The clinical IMI, whose annual incidence is usually lower than 5%, mainly occur at the beginning of machine milking and during the first third of lactation. These features constitute small ruminant peculiarities compared to dairy cattle. Small ruminant mastitis is generally a chronic and contagious infection: the primary sources are mammary and cutaneous carriages, and spreading mainly occurs during milking. Somatic cell counts (SCC) represent a valuable tool for prevalence assessment and screening, but predictive values are better in ewes than in goats. Prevention is most often based on milking machine management, sanitation and annual control, and milking technique optimisation. Elimination mainly relies on culling animals exhibiting clinical, chronic and recurrent IMI, and on drying-off intramammary antibiotherapy; this treatment allows a good efficacy and may be used selectively by targeting infected udders only. Heritability values for lactation mean SCC scores are between 0.11 and 0.15. Effective inclusion of ewe’s mastitis resistance in the breeding goal has recently been implemented in France following experimental and large scale estimations of genetic parameters for SCC scores. ewe / goat / mastitis / somatic cell count / epizootiology Table of contents 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 690 2. Aetiology ......................................................................................................................................... 691 2.1. Clinical mastitis....................................................................................................................... 691 2.2. Subclinical mastitis ................................................................................................................ 691 3. Descriptive epizootiology: recent knowledge.................................................................................. 692 3.1. Incidence, prevalence and persistence .................................................................................... 692 3.1.1. Clinical mastitis ........................................................................................................... 692 3.1.2. Subclinical mastitis ...................................................................................................... 692 * Corresponding author: d.bergonier@envt.fr
    • 690 D. Bergonier et al. 3.2. Effects of stage and number of lactation on the IMI incidence and prevalence ......................693 3.2.1. Lactation stage..............................................................................................................693 3.2.2. Lactation number (parity).............................................................................................694 4. Analytical epizootiology ..................................................................................................................694 4.1. Sources and associated factors.................................................................................................694 4.1.1. Sources .........................................................................................................................694 4.1.2. Factors associated to bacterial persistence ...................................................................695 4.2. Factors of susceptibility ...........................................................................................................696 4.2.1. Genetic factors: recent advances ..................................................................................696 4.2.2. Environmental factors ..................................................................................................696 4.3. Transmission ............................................................................................................................697 5. Diagnosis: new developments in the cytological detection of mastitis ...........................................697 5.1. Milk cell subpopulations..........................................................................................................697 5.2. Lentiviral variation factors of somatic cell counts...................................................................699 5.3. Non-pathological variation factors of somatic cell counts ......................................................699 5.4. Recent advances in the practical use of individual somatic cell counts ..................................701 5.4.1. Punctual approach (and single threshold).....................................................................701 5.4.2. Dynamical approach and multiple thresholds ..............................................................702 6. Treatment..........................................................................................................................................703 6.1. Clinical mastitis .......................................................................................................................704 6.2. Subclinical mastitis ..................................................................................................................704 6.3. Risks associated with intramammary treatment ......................................................................705 6.3.1. Clinical outbreaks .........................................................................................................705 6.3.2. Residues........................................................................................................................705 7. Disease control .................................................................................................................................705 7.1. Vaccination ..............................................................................................................................705 7.2. Preventive general management ..............................................................................................706 7.2.1. Control of bacteriological sources................................................................................706 7.2.2. Control of bacteriological transmission during milking...............................................706 7.2.3. Limitation of receptivity and sensitivity.......................................................................707 7.3. Genetic control.........................................................................................................................708 8. Future prospects................................................................................................................................708 1. INTRODUCTION short or absent suckling period, diversity of alimentation systems from zero-grazing to Intramammary infections (IMI) in dairy traditional extensive husbandry, etc. Thus small ruminants are mainly of bacterial ori- control strategies are based upon the same gin; this paper does not deal with lentiviral principles, but vary to a certain extent. On or mycoplasmal infections (see [15, 19]). the contrary, important differences exist Ovine and caprine IMI epizootiology and regarding cow IMI, which first led to control share numerous common points, improving basic knowledge and more but are different from some physiopatho- recently to validating specific control pro- logical points of view: in goats, there are grammes. shorter (or even no) dry period, more varied variation factors of somatic cell counts The importance of mastitis is mainly (SCC), lentiviral mammary infection, higher economic, hygienic (dairy products con- ‘stress’ susceptibility, etc. These also differ sumers) and legal in Europe (E.U. Direc- due to certain husbandry methods: in goats, tives 46/92 and 71/94 defining the generally lower kidding synchronisation, a bacteriological quality of milk).
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 691 2. AETIOLOGY nosa (peri partum period and sometimes drying-off), and more rarely to Burkholde- 2.1. Clinical mastitis ria cepacia or Serratia marcescens ([13, 23, 76, 110, 111, 145], Bergonier et al., In sporadic cases for sheep and goats, unpublished results). the high prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus has often been reported. In a 2.2. Subclinical mastitis decreasing order of frequency, isolates belong to Coagulase Negative Staphyloco- Figure 1 shows that CNS are the most cci (CNS), which cannot be considered as prevalent, ranging from 25 to 93 %, before minor pathogens in small ruminants, Strep- S. aureus (3 to 37 %) mainly isolated from tococci, Enterobacteria, Arcanobacterium infections that had become chronic (less pyogenes, Corynebacteria, Pasteurellaceae, severe ones). Among the CNS, S. epider- Pseudomonas spp., etc. [5, 14, 80, 146, midis then S. xylosus, S. chromogenes and 153]. S. simulans are the more frequently isolated Enzootic or epizootic outbreaks are due in ewes. In goats, S. caprae is one of the to S. aureus, then to S. uberis, S. agalac- most prevalent species, followed by the tiae, S. suis (mainly during lactation) or to former ones. In addition, among the CNS, opportunistic pathogens such as Aspergil- S. epidermidis is generally associated with lus fumigatus and Pseudomonas aerugi- the highest average values of SCC both in Figure 1. The aetiology of ovine and caprine subclinical intramammary infections.
    • 692 D. Bergonier et al. ewes and goats, on the contrary to two species, mammary pathology is the S. caprae. Sixty to more than 80% of CNS first cause of culling for sanitary reasons; strains isolated from subclinical IMI it is more frequent during the first 2– produce evidence of alpha, delta or syner- 3 months of lactation [92]. gistic haemolysis. These haemolytic strains The persistence of mammary symp- induce significantly higher SCC than non- tomatology after clinical cases during the haemolytic ones. Leucotoxin production is dry period is not well documented but prob- absent or lower in CNS than in S. aureus. ably high [131], above all in goat husbandry In the latter species, caprine and ovine mas- characterised by a shorter dry period (1 to titis isolates are more leukotoxic than 3 months) than in that of the ewe (2 to bovine ones. Listeria monocytogenes and 5 months). Culling of mastitic (even chronic) Salmonella spp. IMI are very rare but animals is highly recommended. important; these organisms can cause chronic and subclinical IMI [2, 8, 14, 17, 3.1.2. Subclinical mastitis 21, 28, 29, 38, 40, 68, 70, 75, 80, 109, 115, 129, 130, 143, 144]. The prevalence may be assessed, as in dairy cattle, by the analysis of bulk milk somatic cell counts (bSCC), which is the 3. DESCRIPTIVE EPIZOOTIOLOGY: only easy and cheap way to estimate the RECENT KNOWLEDGE whole flock/herd mammary infectious sta- tus (exhaustive individual SCC [iSCC] are 3.1. Incidence, prevalence rarely available). In several regions, bSCC and persistence are carried out every month (or more) in every flock. Recent data are available 3.1.1. Clinical mastitis regarding the relationship between bSCC annual mean or punctual values and the rate The incidence is usually lower than 5% of presumed infected animals [73]. In per year. In a low percentage of herds, the ewes, the annual mean bSCC (weighted by incidence is higher and may exceed 30– the volumes) is closely linked (r2 = 0.845) 50% of the animals, causing mortality or to the proportion of presumed ‘persistently culling of up to 70% of the herd. S. aureus, infected’ ewes, using the thresholds pro- Streptococci or opportunistic pathogens posed by Bergonier and Berthelot [14]. An generally cause these outbreaks [32, 60, increase of 100 000 cells per mL was asso- 69, 71]. ciated with a rise of estimated prevalence The persistence of individual clinical of about 2.5% [73]. In Spanish flocks with IMI during lactation depends on the techni- 250 000 and 1 million cells per mL, the cal level, the flock size and the type of milk prevalence was estimated to 16 and 35% payment and valorisation (raw versus pas- respectively, considering as infected an teurised milk). It is rarely documented and ewe with iSCC over 340 000 cells per mL traditionally high, except for peracute cases [120]. The bSCC values and their corre- [20]. Mastitic animals are not often imme- spondence with iSCC allow a good estima- diately culled, and acute cases may become tion of prevalence. chronic for several months or more (1.5 to In goats (Fig. 2), this relationship is more than 30%). In ewe flocks, culling for rather delicate to define, taking into account IMI is increasing up to 7% of total causes the incidence of lentiviral mastitis and the in the Lacaune breed (Lagriffoul, unpub- importance of non infectious variation fac- lished results). In specialised goat herds, tors of SCC. The influence of the kidding 18% of the animals culled or dead for dis- season on the bSCC values has been ease reasons experienced mastitis. In the reported [52]. The dynamics of infections
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 693 Figure 2. Relation between annual geometric mean of bulk somatic cell counts and prevalence of subclinical intramammary infections estimated by individual somatic cell counts in goats and ewe herds/flocks ([73, 74], De Cremoux, unpublished results). can also vary according to the flock’s struc- caused by one pathogen with an average ture and breeding management: percent- shedding duration of three to four months ages of primiparous goats or prolonged at least (± 2.5 months). Two or three succes- lactation goats, period and distribution of sive and different infections also occurred droppings, etc. [43]. Preliminary results are frequently (Bergonier and Berthelot, unpub- available from 155 French herds: annual lished data). geometric means of 750 000, 1 000 000 and The persistence of subclinical IMI dur- 1 500 000 cells/mL corresponded respec- ing the dry period is important to consider tively to 30% (± 12%), 39% (± 8%), 51% regarding the treatment strategies. An over- (± 8%) of presumed infected goats [42, 43]. all self-cure rate of 35 to 67% and of 20 to 60% of halves was estimated respectively Table I presents the geometric means of in the ewe [17, 51, 64] and goat [81, 98, bSCC performed in various European 112, 114]. Thus, percentages of spontane- areas (European programme FAIR CT 95- ous cure during the dry period are generally 0881: ‘Strategies of in farm control of SCC lower in goats. If the infection substitutions in ewe’s and goat’s milk’). during the dry period are taken into account, these percentages are lower. The persistence of subclinical IMI dur- ing lactation is variable according to the causative pathogen but is generally high, 3.2. Effects of stage and number since Staphylococci represent the more fre- of lactation on the IMI incidence quent ones [132]. Subclinical IMI are in and prevalence general poorly detected and not eliminated at least during lactation. In two monthly 3.2.1. Lactation stage surveys concerning a total of 768 udder- halves during entire lactations (eight The incidence of clinical IMI does not months) in six dairy flocks, 45 to 50% of vary with the lactation stage in the same infected halves exhibited a single IMI way as in dairy cattle. A high incidence at
    • 694 D. Bergonier et al. Table I. Geometric means of bulk milk somatic cell counts in various areas of the ewe’s and goat’s milk production (in thousands cells per mL) (Source: annual reports of the European programme FAIR CT 95-0881: ‘Strategies of in farm control of Somatic Cell Counts in ewe’s and goat’s milk’). Species Areas of production 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Global (breed) Ewes Castilla-León (Churra) – – 783 866 916 – 863 Castilla-La Mancha 758 660 776 741 602 691 708 (Manchega) Spanish Basque country – 481 482 473 – – 477 (Latxa) Roquefort (Lacaune) 713 599 680 657 647 586 647 Pyrenees (Basco- 642 642 663 733 750 710 690 béarnaise, Manech) Sardinia (Sarda) 1561 1624 1566 1416 1457 1493 1509 Goats Castilla-La Mancha 2187 1259 1380 1318 1023 1071 1148 France (Alpine, Saanen) 1218 1111 1166 1226 1252 1309 1214 Sardinia (Sarda) 1595 1739 1516 1468 1483 1673 1575 drying-off or at parturition is observed in 3.2.2. Lactation number (parity) very rare and specific cases (mycotic agents or P. aeruginosa), in relation with An increased prevalence related to parity environmental contamination and/or poor has been reported in ewes and goats [26, 56, hygiene practices. On the contrary, the 80, 138]. Such descriptive data must be cau- higher rates are observed at the beginning tiously interpreted: the incidence is difficult of machine milking and during the first to differentiate from prevalence (chronicity third of lactation. High incidence may be or relapse), and older animals may be the observed in dairy ewes during suckling or more resistant ones. suckling-milking periods [22, 76, 80]. The variations of subclinical IMI inci- dence according to the stage of lactation 4. ANALYTICAL EPIZOOTIOLOGY should be assessed by systematic monthly milk culturing of large numbers of healthy udders. This kind of a study is very rare. 4.1. Sources and associated factors Variations can be indirectly estimated through SCC, allowing the analysis of large 4.1.1. Sources data sets. They must be cautiously inter- preted as infectious and milk dilution/con- The primary sources are firstly animal centration effects are added. In goats, carriage and subclinical IMI. The main sig- higher rates have been observed at the nificant Staphylococci reservoirs are sub- beginning of lactation [48, 128], but prev- clinical and chronical IMI and teat alence seems to increase throughout the cutaneous infections (traumas, contagious campaign (Fig. 3). In ewes, a high incidence ecthyma). CNS and S. aureus can also be was reported at the beginning of lactation cultured from healthy teat skin (and other [70, 80]. body sites or external orifices) ([27, 135],
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 695 Figure 3. Estimation of intramammary infection average prevalence throughout lactation in 155 French caprine herds [43]. Parturition took place in November and December. (Proportions of presumed infected udders were estimated through individual somatic cell counts.) Bergonier et al., unpublished results). Other vival of this organism [27, 153]. P. aerugi- bacteria also have animal primary sources: nosa, S. marcescens can survive in teat S. agalactiae, A. pyogenes, Mannheimia dipping solutions or disinfected moist clus- haemolytica, etc. The latter is carried in the ters (Bergonier et al., unpublished results). adults and suckling young’s mouth, naso- pharynx and tonsils [134]. 4.1.2. Factors associated to bacterial Other primary sources are environmen- persistence tal: Enterobacteria and Enterococci are found particularly in the litter, and Pseu- Udder infection persistence is due to the domonas spp. especially in water or a lack of precocious IMI detection and sys- humid environment. A. fumigatus and other tematic application of control programmes: fungi are isolated from mouldy forage, wet teat antisepsis, antibiotherapy or culling. bedding, litter, and air [110]. S. uberis and In French dairy ewe recorded flocks S. suis recognise mixed reservoirs: infected (379 flocks of the Roquefort area), foremilk animals, litter, and the environment. inspection is exceptional, udder palpation and California Mastitis Test (CMT) are The accessory sources are, for Staphy- occasionally realised by 57 and 65% of the lococci, housing, bedding, feedstuffs, farmers; post-milking teat antisepsis and air, insects, clusters, equipments, humans drying-off antibiotherapy are performed in (hands), other animals, etc. [3, 28, 139]. 20 and 70% of the flocks, respectively M. haemolytica can be found on the teat (Lagriffoul, 2000, unpublished results). skin of ewes soon after lambing [134] and These percentages are high compared to in the environment of diseased animals: other dairy ewe areas and are increasing. grass, water, straw bedding, etc. Colder, In French goat herds, drying-off antibio- wetter weather seems to prolong the sur- therapy frequency increased from 62.7%
    • 696 D. Bergonier et al. in 1997 to 84.3% in 2000; teat antisepsis mine SCS across lactation [123, 124]. The progressed from 13.7 to 29.4% of the herds results are in close agreement with dairy [44]. cattle literature [125]. The genetic variabil- Extra-mammary bacterial persistence is ity of SCS in dairy ewes appears sufficient firstly due to hygienic or technical failures to implement a selection. The evolution of concerning the milking machine (over-used the genetic determinism of SCS during lac- liners, etc.). Very little literature is availa- tation shows a moderate to strong increase ble; incorrect machine disinfection (no in heritability. The values are particularly alternation acid-alkaline chlorinated water, low on the first test days (0.01 to 0.04), then too low water temperature) or the use of between the beginning to the middle of the rubber (vs. silicone) liners seems to be asso- lactation, estimates range from 0.04–0.1 to ciated with poorer tank milk bacterial 0.12–0.25 [9, 10, 83]. In dairy cattle, com- counts in ewes. parable studies reported a smaller increase with days in milk, with higher values in the Secondly, high stocking density, partic- first months of lactation [33, 36, 118]. ularly in intensively managed herds/flocks or during the suckling period, may result in Regarding relationships between udder large air concentrations of total microor- health and milk production traits, several ganisms, mesophilic or coliform bacteria studies indicate unfavourable positive and staphylococci. These effects are prob- genetic correlations between SCS and pro- ably associated with incorrect ventilation duction traits, ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 [9, 96, and high relative humidity. The multiplica- 124], as in dairy cattle [125]. Additionally, tion of various bacteria on the skin (and in the risk of being predicted as subclinically the litter) can be subsequently enhanced [2, infected (according to French SCC thresh- 137, 139]. olds) is significantly increased in the high, versus low, divergent lines selected on milk production in the La Fage experimental 4.2. Factors of susceptibility flock [9]. On the contrary, some authors found a favourable negative genetic corre- 4.2.1. Genetic factors: recent advances lation between SCS and milk yield, ranging from –0.35 to –0.11 [10, 49, 50, 83], con- Several studies on resistance to mastitis cluding that selection for increased milk have been recently based on SCC as an yield might not result in an unfavourable indirect way of measuring udder sanitary response for SCC. Discrepancies between status in dairy sheep (no literature data is the results could be due to differences in available in dairy goats). breeds, modelling and nature of the SCC data. Genetic parameters for SCC are calcu- lated after logarithmic transformation of 4.2.2. Environmental factors the values, i.e. somatic cell scores (SCS). The results based on repeatability test day Milking equipment and milking routine models for SCS indicate variable heritabil- are the main receptivity factors during lac- ity estimates from 0.04 to 0.17 [9, 10, 49, tation. In ewes, association between teat 63, 83]. Most studies based on larger data injuries and mastitis has been reported [5]. sets for the Churra and Lacaune breeds The limitation of udder massages and strip- reported consistent heritability values ping is associated with a significant positive between 0.11 and 0.15 for the lactation effect for primiparous goats: a decrease of mean SCS [9, 50, 123, 124]. A high genetic IMI and teat congestions. Over-milking correlation between the first and second limitation (respectively suppression) may lactation (0.88–0.93) has been reported, be associated with the reduction of hyper- indicating that mostly the same genes deter- keratoses (respectively reduction of minor
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 697 pathogen IMI prevalence), but data con- 5. DIAGNOSIS: cerning over-milking are rather inconsist- NEW DEVELOPMENTS ent; it is probably better tolerated by healthy IN THE CYTOLOGICAL udders [44]. A vacuum level increase may DETECTION OF MASTITIS induce a rise of SCC without clinical IMI [88, 140]. Clinical and bacteriological diagnosis Intramammary infusions at drying-off will not be considered, as recent advances or during lactation may cause teat duct cell mainly concern detection of subclinical damages. IMI by SCC. The factors affecting sensitivity are not very well known (very few data are availa- 5.1. Milk cell subpopulations ble about udder immunity). In dairy ewes, parenteral administration of vitamin E and Small ruminant milk contains the same selenium during the dry period can reduce types of cells as cow’s milk, but important SCC and increase the percentages of milk differences exist between ewe and goat neutrophils during the subsequent lactation milk cells in subpopulation percentages [102, 121]. Sensitivity may also be increased and total counts (Tab. II). by milk retention, due to a bad working In bacteriologically negative ewe’s milk, milking machine, under-milking, stressful epithelial cells seem to be less than 2–3% or painful milking and even udder morphol- of somatic cells, polymorphonuclear neu- ogy. Milk kinetics analysis allows to evi- trophil leukocytes (PMNL) constitute 10– dence too short milking times: 12 to 14% of 35%, macrophages 45–85% and lym- under-milking (1023 kinetics) have been phocytes 10–17%. These percentages do observed in goats [24]. not vary to a large extent with the lactation stage, excluding the beginning of lactation (particularly the colostral period) and the 4.3. Transmission involutive period: in early involution secre- tion, PMNL increase; they decline 21 days Spreading mainly occurs during milk- after cessation of lactation [78]. These per- ing. Udder massage and stripping induce centages are close to those of cow’s milk air intakes leading to impact. Cluster (2–30% for PMNL for example); in both removal by the milker may also induce species, the macrophage is the major cell type in bacteriologically negative milk [99, impact, since it is often performed without 106, 108]. There is a high correlation in previous vacuum cutting off (the automatic ewes and cows between PMNL percent- cluster removal is developing). Bacteria are ages and SCC [59, 103]. also transported passively by liners. How- ever, the IMI prevalences do not seem to be On the contrary, in goats, several cyto- significantly different between dairy (hand logical peculiarities must be underlined for or machine milked) and meat flocks. Trans- their biological as well as operational (IMI detection) interests. First of all, milk secre- mission is also possible by “milk-robber” tion in goats is apocrine [149, 150]: cyto- lambs (buccal carriage) and may be impor- plasmic particles are physiologically shed tant for staphylococci, Pasteurellaceae, into milk from the apical portion of secre- parapox virus (contagious ecthyma), etc. tory cells. Although most of them are anu- Penetration of the udder by organisms cleated, some of these particles have been is performed via the teat duct. In cases of observed to contain nuclear fragments systemic infections, haematogenous colo- [107] and could contribute to a slight extent nisation is frequent (lentivirosis, myco- to the total cell count. Cytoplasmic particles plasmosis, brucellosis, etc.). are similar in size to milk somatic cells.
    • 698 D. Bergonier et al. Table II. Distribution of leucocyte subpopulations in small ruminant milk. Species Reference Year n Milk type Lactation (L.) Neutrophils Macrophages Lymphocytes stage % % % Goats [46] 1982 56 uninfected early L. 45 35 20 halves 4 uninfected late L. 74 15 9 halves [45] 1993 70 bulk tank 87.3 9.9 2.8 [122] 1993 200 halves weeks 1–4 pp 45.8 to 52.5 19.6 to 27.2 12.9 to 14.1 halves weeks 28–31 pp 68.6 to 70.3 12.0 to 12.5 2.9 to 4.3 [93] 1998 12 halves weeks 2–3 pp – 80 – weeks 4–18 50 45 – ³ 19 weeks pp 80 – – [52] 1999 950 halves – 40.9 35.6 0.7 [151] 2002 237 halves early L. 79 – 22 36 halves late L. 78 – 22 Ewes [55] 1985 84 uninfected mid-L. 26.5 to 58.5 – – halves 12 uninfected early drying-off 69.7 to 85.8 – – halves [59] 1985 91 halves mid-L. 10 to 90 0 to 60 8 to 18 [77] 1976 6 halves dry udder – 84 6 [78] 1981 6 halves colostrum 41 to 84 8 to 49 6 to 11 6 halves mid-L. – 83 to 86 10 to 17 [99] 1994 – uninfected whole L. 30 60 8 halves [100] 1996 640 uninfected whole L. 34.9 – – halves 50 infected halves whole L. 52.1 to 82.2 – – [101] 1996 10 healthy halves whole L. 30.6 57.3 8.2 [103] 2001 40 uninfected mid and 31.1 to 52.6 – – halves late L.* infected halves mid and 65.9 to 77.6 – – late L.* pp: postpartum. * No significant evolution according to the lactation stage.
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 699 Their average concentrations in milk is In goats, there is a little more informa- 150 ´ 103/mL for goats and 15 ´ 103/mL for tion concerning the relationship between ewes [108]. Furthermore, numerous inves- CAEV and SCC or the prevalence of sub- tigators reported unexpected SCC increases clinical IMI. A relationship between sero- and high PMNL percentages (Tab. II): logical status and bacterial IMI was PMNL comprise the major cell type in milk reported in herds with a high prevalence from uninfected goats [108]. In normal late of CAEV and IMI [62, 127, 129, 142]. lactation milk, they constitute 74–80% of This was attributed to a selective immuno- total cells. A significant increase has been suppression due to altered macrophage found in PMNL chemotactic activity dur- function during CAEV infection. In serop- ing this stage compared to early lactation ositive goats, an increase of SCC was and inverted evolution of mononuclear mostly reported as far as bacteriologically cells chemotactic activity. Differences uninfected halves are concerned [82, 105, between chemotactic cytokine profiles of 127, 130]. This could be related to the larger mastitic and normal late-lactation-stage number of macrophages in the milk of milk suggest the existence of a physiologic CAEV contaminated goats [82]. Neverthe- regulation in the influx of PMNL into the less, it was weak [82, 129] and lower than milk. The authors suspected PMNL to serve those due to bacterial infections. The effect as physiological regulators in the early of CAEV on SCC was not apparent when phase of the involution process [93]. In udder halves showed a persistent subclini- early lactation also, goat milk generally cal IMI. This failure of the inflammatory contains a higher PMNL proportion than response was interpreted as a reduction in the others. It has been suggested that leuko- the activity of macrophages caused by the cyte migration could proceed at a faster rate viral infection. Some cytokines, such as than that into cow’s milk and might contrib- chemotactic factors for neutrophils, and ute to naturally higher SCC [107]. The some mediators such as interleukin-8 could hypothesis of different defense mecha- be involved in this process [129]. nisms for the goat udder than for the bovine udder has been considered [97]. Some 5.3. Non-pathological variation factors authors suggest that in goats compared to of somatic cell counts dairy cattle, the low incidence of clinical IMI might be related to the physiologically The main variation factors for healthy high SCC and PMNL percentage. This udders are, in decreasing order of fre- hypothesis is weakened by the comparison quency, lactation stage, lactation number or with the ewes situation: the same low clin- within-day fluctuations, and milk fractions. ical IMI incidence and, on the contrary to The nature and importance of these factors goats, the same range of somatic cell counts have already been described [18, 60, 72, and percentages as in the cow. 108]. Briefly, in the ewe they are responsi- ble for geometric mean variations ranging 5.2. Lentiviral variation factors from 40 000 to 100 000 cells/mL, the mean of somatic cell counts iSCC values for uninfected ewe udders in mid-lactation ranging from 100 000 to The mammary gland of the goat and 250 000 cells/mL [18, 58, 108, 123]. The ewe is a target organ for lentiviral infec- lactation stage is the first of these factors. tions, but an additional difference between Irrespectively of the infectious status, SCC the two species is reported. In the ewe, no values increase as the stage of lactation clear evidence is available for influence of progresses, above all in goats (Figs. 4 and 5): Maedi-Visna infection on SCC at a large average values during the first three months scale [79]. are 200 ´ 103 cells/mL, and progressively
    • 700 D. Bergonier et al. (b) Figure 4. The effect of lactation stage on individual somatic cell counts according to the infectious status of the mammary gland of ewes (a) (Rupp, unpublished results) and goats (b) [41, 94]. increase to more than 106 cells/mL during udders, whose SCC values show less the latter months [108]. In ewes, counts are fluctuations than those of goats, the ‘flock- higher during the first few weeks of lacta- campaign’ effect appears to be the most tion and decrease at the maximum milk important [123]. production. Average SCC (and PMNL per- Minor or punctual SCC variation fac- centages) are also affected by parity (Fig. 5) tors may exist according to the manage- [38, 41, 71, 122, 147]. For healthy ewe ment of the flock/herd. In ewes, the number
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 701 Figure 5. Illustration of the lactation number (parity) effect on individual somatic cell counts throughout the lactation of uninfected ewes [123] and goats [41]. Lac: lactation. of suckling lambs, the suckling-milking tion status among the indirect tests availa- period management, the lambing month, ble at the moment [14, 91]. and sudden dietary transitions are respon- sible for mild variations, whose geometric mean is generally lower than 20 000 cells/ 5.4. Recent advances in the practical mL [71, 72, 123]. In goats, vaccinations, use of individual somatic cell counts treatments, abrupt dietary modifications, stress, etc. have been found to increase SCC [82]. A significant SCC increase with 5.4.1. Punctual approach (and single a simultaneous decrease of production has threshold) been observed during induced estrus. This effect is accentuated in infected halves ([4, This simple and quite early methodol- 91], Poutrel, unpublished data). ogy proposes the punctual or instantaneous discrimination between ‘healthy’ and In conclusion, important differences ‘infected’ udders, generally using a single concerning differential and total counts, threshold. Thresholds are sometimes pro- lentiviral infection effect and non-patho- posed for milk to be tested bacteriologi- logical variation factors exist between cally. The threshold determination is dairy ewes and cows and, on the other usually based on the comparison of iSCC hand, goats. For the latter, cellular recruit- of punctually infected and uninfected ment is characterised by a more important halves, or on the choice of the best compro- number and diversity of factors, and by mise between sensitivity and specificity. greater inter-individual and temporal vari- Briefly, an analysis of the available litera- ations. The signification of goat milk cellu- ture bring forth the differences on the tech- larity fluctuations is not so far completely nical and methodological levels [40]. In understood. Nevertheless, bacterial IMI is goats, the apocrine character of lacteal the main variation factor of SCC, which secretion implies specific coloration of was found to be the best predictor of infec- DNA in order to differentiate cytoplasmic
    • 702 D. Bergonier et al. particles from leukocytes [46, 152]. Large dynamic character of infection and cellular differences concerning the thresholds are response. Cut-off recommendations have also notable, even when considering stud- moved towards the use of consecutive iSCC ies using the fluoro-opto-electronic (FOE) per lactation and the definition of two (or method. The validity parameters (sensitiv- three) thresholds within the same detection ity, specificity, predictive values, etc.) of systems. An important reason is that sta- such detection methods are also highly var- phylococcal IMI are characterised by iable and consequently will not be reported. dynamic fluctuations and consequently cyclic milk shedding, potentially causing In ewes with the FOE method, the single false-negative bacteriological results. ‘Inter- thresholds proposed surprisingly range mittent isolations’ have been reported [27, from 200 000 to 1.5 million cells/mL; nev- 132]. This bacterial cyclicity is generally ertheless the majority of them are below inverted to PMNL one, since neutrophil 500 000 cells/mL [57, 58, 90, 95, 109, 119]. infiltrates usually eliminate most but not all Some authors suggested using two thresh- bacteria; SCC fluctuate according to the olds to distinguish ‘healthy’ from ‘infected’ organisms number and viability [39, 116, udders (140 000 and 340 000 cells/mL, 136, 148]. On the contrary, discordance [120]) or ‘minor’ from ‘major’ pathogen between some chronic IMI and SCC values IMI (244 000 and 106 cells/mL, [144]). is due to the important heterogeneity in CNS field strain virulence. For example in In goats, for healthy halves, arithmetic ewes, the SCC mean induced by S. lentus means with the FOE method range from is very close to that of uninfected halves 520 000 to 1.1 ´ 106 cells/mL [37, 41, 82, [14]. 113] and geometric means from 223 000 to 396 000 cells/mL [37, 41, 90]. The cut-off Consequently, one should prefer to use values range from 500 000 to 1.5 ´ detection systems defining a third class of 106 cells/mL [37, 67]. The studies and ‘doubtful’ udders and the combination of results differ depending on whether they several successive SCC, as in dairy cattle, consider the nature (‘minor’ versus ‘major’ rather than punctual approaches. A geo- metric mean is sometimes employed, but pathogens), intensity or persistence of IMI, generally one or several criterions based on and impact of non-infectious factors. the number of SCC exceeding the thresh- Among them, lactation stage has been pro- olds are used. Methodologically, these posed to be included in the definition of a proposed standards originate from the series of threshold values: according to cer- comparison of monthly SCC throughout tain authors, defining punctual standards the lactation to the results of monthly bac- for goat SCC is not possible without con- teriological analysis of udder-halve milk sidering lactation stage and probably parity samples. In goats, since 2000, development [60]. Using monthly SCC, a linear regres- of udder health management programmes sion allowed the determination of cut-off in France is based on a synthesis of two values from 556 000 cells/mL (90 days in studies [11, 41] (Tab. III) (SCC standards milk) to 1.2 ´ 106 cells/mL (305 days) [60]. are used for milk quality payment). The lat- ter defined thresholds related to various operational strategies, since the develop- 5.4.2. Dynamical approach and multiple ment of a single criterion is difficult in thresholds goats. Four criterions are proposed depend- ing on the nature of the infections, period of In addition to the necessity to take into detection (early lactation, drying off) and account these identified non-infectious var- practices (preventive or curative) for con- iation factors, other reasons explain that trolling IMI. In ewes (Tab. III), it is also studies have recently been focused on the possible to use geometric means or numbers
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 703 Table III. Dynamic approaches for somatic cell count detection of subclinical mastitis. Reference Year Infection type Criterion SCC N° Threshold Test validity parameters (%) Sens. Spe. PPV NPV Eff. Detection of infected goat halves [128] 1998 All infections Geometric 6 1 100 57.4 75.9 15.6 95.8 74.7 mean [65] 1990 All infections No. of over 800 62.5 87.0 61.4 92.5 80.9 counting: 2 Detection of infected goat udders [41] 1995 Minor pathogens No. of over 6 750 82.6 60.9 77.5 68.2 73.1 counting: 2 Major pathogens No. of over 6 1 750 61.3 80.2 16.5 97.0 79.2 counting: 3 [11] 1998 S. aureus No. of over C1 + 3 000 81.8 95.3 42.9 99.2 94.7 counting: 1 C2 S. aureus No. of over C3 to 2 000 73.3 91.2 33.3 98.3 90.2 counting: 3 Cn S. aureus No. of over C1 to 2 000 100.0 74.1 18.7 100.0 75.6 counting: 2 Cn All (primiparous) No. of over C1 to 600 90.9 85.7 90.9 85.7 88.9 counting: 2 Cn Detection of infected ewe udders [16] [14] 1996a Short infection or No. of over 2003 ‘doubtful’ counting: 3 Durable infection No. of over or ‘positive’ counting: 2 7 7 500 1 000 } 84.1 66.3 – – 71.1 Sens.: sensitivity; Spe.: specificity; PPV and NPV: positive and negative predictive values; Eff.: effi- ciency. Thresholds: ´ 1000 cells/mL. SCC: Somatic Cell Counts. SCC N°: number of SCC. of over counting, with thresholds and valid- 6. TREATMENT ity parameters close to those of the dairy cow [14, 16]. In both species, this kind of In small ruminant field conditions, clin- screening methodology can be adapted to ical and subclinical IMI treatments must be operational purposes (detection for culling, distinguished, the average treatment cost drying-off treatment, etc.) and sometimes per animal being high in comparison with to IMI prevalence assessment [90]. Usu- the culling value and the expected recov- ally, in field conditions, a few iSCC values ery. In (per)acute clinical cases, the first are available per lactation. In these cases, purpose is to save the animal’s life and, priority can be given to sensitivity, specif- possibly, to save the diseased halves. In icity, or predictive values in order to some areas, antibiotherapy is more and compensate for the decrease of overall effi- more used at drying-off, particularly for ciency. milk cellular quality control [22, 114].
    • 704 D. Bergonier et al. Most of the published papers report ing bacteriological cure or prevention. The clinical observations and/or recommenda- overall cure rate ranges from 65 to 95.8% tions adapted from results obtained in the in the ewe [1, 35, 64, 86, 87] and from 50 cow; control-case studies are rare. Moreo- to 92.5% in the goat, whose dry period is ver, due to the general lack of specifically shorter [7, 54, 89, 112, 114]. The efficacy designed treatments for small ruminants, is better for CNS than for S. aureus infec- those for cattle are used (very few treat- tions. These cure rates are higher than ments are labelled for ewe and goat). spontaneous cure rates (see Sect. 3.1.2.). The preventive interest remains to be 6.1. Clinical mastitis discussed, particularly in ewes, considering No results from a controlled trial are the length of the dry period. Most bacteria available on the efficacy (i.e. bacteriologi- isolated from colostrum are not isolated cal and clinical cure) of parenteral or later in lactation (Berthelot, unpublished intramammary antibiotherapy. A clinical results). The new subclinical IMI rate at study about tilmicosin treatment of ovine lambing or kidding is therefore difficult to staphylococcal IMI and mammary derma- estimate (two successive bacteriological titis recently reported a complete symp- examinations are necessary). This rate is tomatology decrease five days after a single probably low, between 5 and 20%; very dose (10 mg/kg); this treatment seems to large data sets are therefore statistically also have induced a cessation of milk shed- needed to identify a possible positive pre- ding from days 5 to 7. S. aureus and CNS ventive effect of the drying-off treatment showed greater in vitro susceptibility to [1, 7, 17, 35, 87, 89]. tilmicosin than to various other antibiotics Different treatment strategies are per- [104]. Pharmacokinetics of various antibi- formed regarding the target for antibiother- otics have been studied after parenteral apy. Additionally to the dry period length in administration in the ewe and goat. Thera- ewes, three other small ruminant peculiar- peutical schemes have been proposed but ities should be taken into account: the large the efficacy has not been published so herd size, the production cycle synchroni- far: tobramycin (25 mg/kg) or apramycin sation inducing a collective drying-off, and (20 mg/kg) twice a day by intravenous from a pathological point of view, the low route; enrofloxacin (5 mg/kg) or norfloxacin drying-off and peri partum IMI incidences. (10 mg/kg) once a day by the intramuscular Consequently, a selective drying-off ther- route; tiamulin (25 mg/kg) twice a day by apy (concerning the infected udders only) the intramuscular route; florfenicol (20 to may be preferred to a systematic one. The 25 mg/kg) twice a day by the intravenous or limitation of the number of treatments intramuscular route [155]. Under field con- allows an easier implementation for a lower ditions, beta-lactamines and macrolides are cost and, overall, reduces the utilisation of still widely used via the intramuscular route, antibiotics and the risk of ‘iatrogenic’ udder as recommended in former studies [154]. contamination [22, 54]. Udder examination As in cattle, complementary treatments and iSCC or CMT are helpful to select the may be implemented in the severe cases ewes and goats requiring an antibiotic treat- [14, 47]. The economic interest of these ment. Drying-off antibiotherapy is gener- treatments and also of new antimicrobial ally performed once a year for the ‘whole’ drugs (fluoroquinolones) use remains to flock, but early dried females (including evaluated. subclinical IMI) mostly remain untreated [22]. For these females, antibiotherapy 6.2. Subclinical mastitis must not be implemented at this time by the The efficacy of drying-off intramam- intramammary route since the teat duct is mary antibiotherapy depends on consider- sealed by a keratin plug; the parenteral route
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 705 is the only usable one. An elegant possibil- During lactation, the infusion (three ity is to perform two (or three) successive syringes per udder-half at 12 h intervals) of sessions of intramammary infusion accord- a cattle-labelled formulation containing ing to the respective lactation durations. amoxicillin, clavulanic acid and pred- The intramuscular antibiotherapy (dry- nisolone led to the detection of residues up ing-off) would be an interesting route, par- to 136 h in the ewe and 112 h in the goat ticularly in large flocks, because it allows after the last infusion [30, 31]. In a similar an easier implementation and a reduction study, cloxacillin residues were detected in of the ‘iatrogenic’ risk of udder contamina- goat’s milk up to 156 h after the last infusion tion [155]. Nevertheless there is a lack of [61]. These results justify the 7-days with- published controlled trials. According to drawal period prescribed by the European field observations, two successive injec- regulation after an out-of-label intramam- tions at drying-off are needed to possibly mary treatment in lactating small rumi- obtain a significantly higher cure rate than nants. that of the untreated animals. After drying-off treatments of dairy ewes with a cattle-labelled formulation 6.3. Risks associated with containing penicillin (300 000 IU), nafcil- intramammary treatment lin (respectively 100 and 109.2 mg) and dihydrostreptomycin (respectively 100 and 6.3.1. Clinical outbreaks 125 mg), residues were detected at lambing in four (respectively five) ewes out of 190 The development of drying-off intramam- (respectively 25) and no more after three mary antibiotherapy has been associated (respectively 5) days [35, 84]. In goats in sheep and goats with a few outbreaks receiving the same formulation, residues of (per)acute to chronic clinical mastitis were found at kidding in some females caused by opportunistic pathogens, espe- whose dry period had been shorter than two cially P. aeruginosa (at the peri-partum months; no more residues were detected period and sometimes at the beginning of after seven days [85]. These results confirm dry period) or A. fumigatus (at the peri-par- previous data [54], who found residues tum period) [13, 66, 76, 110, 111, 117]. In in only 1 out of 34 treated goats after a most cases, the hygiene precautions had not 107-day dry period. been strictly respected at the time of imple- Considering the dry period durations, it mentation: teat-end disinfection, partial can be assumed that the risk of residues in and atraumatic introduction of the cannula, milk is virtually null at lambing and, a for- infusion of a complete syringe in each tiori, at the first milk delivery after a one to udder-half, teat antisepsis. Certain specific two-month nursing period. On the contrary, risk factors possibly existing at the time of in the goat, the risk at kidding is present, drying-off are now identified: liner contam- particularly in cases of a shortened dry ination originating from P. aeruginosa period (shorter than two months); in the lat- multiplication in machine residual water, ter conditions, a 14-day withdrawal period use of wet bedding or mouldy forage con- is justified, as recommended in the cow. taminated by A. fumigatus, etc. (Bergonier and Berthelot, unpublished results). 7. DISEASE CONTROL 6.3.2. Residues 7.1. Vaccination The risk of antibiotic residues in milk after intramammary treatments is poorly No literature relative to recent advances documented. in IMI vaccination is available since the
    • 706 D. Bergonier et al. publication of a recent review [14]. Briefly, tions regarding the pen and the stocking regarding S. aureus, vaccine preparations density. based on bacterial cell extracts, capsular The control of environmental sources polysaccharides and/or toxoids, products of first consists in applying the pen recom- virulence regulation genes, adhesins, etc. mendations for its conception, maintenance have been proposed to prevent murine or and stocking density (primary sources). ruminant IMI. Attempts at immunisation The pen management plays a key role in with these preparations give generally controlling environmental bacteria IMI, insufficient results. In ewes, a liposome- and indirectly helps to reduce staphylococ- immunopotentiated exopolysaccharide vac- cal pressure through controlling density cine gave promising results [6]. Inactivated and air humidity. These factors are likely to vaccines and autovaccines are commer- enhance air and cutaneous staphylococcal cially available and widely used for ewes concentrations. Stocking density may rep- and goats in several countries. Information resent a critical factor in housing; too small about their efficacy in large scale controlled space allocations may adversely affect per- trials would be required. formances and health [137, 139]. For envi- ronmental pathogens, the greatest care 7.2. Preventive general management should be taken in the control of ambient hygiene, especially through efficient litter 7.2.1. Control of bacteriological sources management and ventilation systems [2]. This is of important concern in intensive production systems, particularly in goats. The control of animal sources first tar- gets intra-mammary carriage (primary Secondly, the liners must be replaced sources). This is mainly performed by dry- every year for rubber ones, every two years ing-off treatment of subclinical and mild for silicone ones. The milking machine chronic IMI and by culling the animals (liners, clusters, pipelines, etc.) must be who experienced acute or severe chronic cleaned disinfected twice a day with drink- IMI: udder asymmetry, diffuse hardness, ing water and following a validated proce- abscesses, etc. (abscesses must be differen- dure (accessory sources). tiated from cysts, generally located in declivitous position sagital and close to the 7.2.2. Control of bacteriological cisterns) [131]. After drying-off antibio- transmission during milking therapy, those animals still presenting chronic signs at the beginning of the subse- The milking technique represents a crit- quent lactation should be culled. ical point for IMI control, but the specific Mammary cutaneous carriage might be risk factors associated to each time of the controlled by pre-milking teat dipping; this milking routine – and the milking equip- measure is generally not used, due to herd ment – have not been completely character- sizes and milking routines, and probably to ised. Over- and under-milking and every the low incidence of bulk milk flora prob- factor leading to impact (brutal and pro- lems. In cases of staphylococcal dermatitis longed stripping, cluster removal without or contagious ecthyma, udder antisepsis, vacuum cutting off) must be avoided. isolation of affected animals and their Some authors underlined that preventive lambs, and sometimes antibiotherapy should practices, including milking techniques, be performed. The suckling lamb’s mouth were required to provide an effective and naso-pharynx carriage is important for decrease of IMI rates [44]. Minimising air staphylococci and M. haemolytica [3]. Its inlets contributed to significant improvement limitation relies on several other factors in udder health status as far as minor path- including the application of recommenda- ogens presumed infections were concerned.
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 707 Minimising mammary massage, machine 7.2.3. Limitation of receptivity stripping and avoiding the removal of extra- and sensitivity milk reattaching the teat cups is recom- mended, particularly for primiparous females. The non genetic control of udder recep- The effect of milking techniques on bSCC tivity is in particular based upon the reduc- were only significant at the end of the tion of teat lesions and pain caused by lactation (the middle or long-term effect). inadequate settings of the milking machine. A survey on standards for small rumi- Post-milking teat antisepsis seems to nants milking installations used in different allow a 30 to 40% decrease of new IMI in countries showed differences in ewes and the goat. The reduction is more important at goat husbandry leading to differences in the beginning of lactation, when spontane- requirements for milking equipment [24]. ous incidence is higher [12, 126]. The pos- Effective reserve, vacuum pump capacity itive effect on bSCC is also significant at and pulsation characteristics are especially the beginning of lactation [44]. Goat SCC in question. The lack of available knowl- analysis evidenced a decrease of primipa- edge prevents from taking into account rous early IMI and IMI recurrences [40]. In specific characteristics of species and another trial using iSCC but no bacteriol- breeds in construction and installations of ogy for the efficacy assessment, no differ- milking machines. Annual checking and ence was found between the dipped (nisin) regular maintenance of milking machines and undipped groups [114]. In dairy ewes constitute basic measures insufficiently also, teat-dipping or spraying is an efficient applied since only 40 to 60% of the total tool for reducing IMI incidence, above all number of machines are checked annually. in high prevalence situations (Berthelot Mostly, the purpose of the investigations et al., unpublished results). This preventive was to study the influence of machine measure is not frequently used, but could parameters on milking efficiency [53, 141]. be implemented for a limited duration, dur- Quantitative recommendations for small ing the period at risk (the suckling-milking ruminant milking installations were recently period or the beginning of milking after explored [25], with references to specific weaning) or for controlling a mastitis or equipments such as non conventional clus- teat dermatitis outbreak. Its precise effec- ters, references to specificity of milking tiveness according to the antiseptic mole- practices (attachment rates for example) cules and to the different prevalence and to typical lactation curves recorded in conditions remains to be evaluated in small various species and breeds. These recom- ruminants, mainly in the ewe. mendations will evolve during the next years and favour the development of relia- Implementing a milking order consists ble analysis of machine milking impact on in milking primiparous and/or healthy teat duct health. females first. In France, this heavy tech- The control of udder sensitivity should nique seems to be more frequent in goats be based on dietary recommendations: lim- than in ewes [44]. Its development may itation of sudden transitions or lack of bal- be associated with other advantages in ance. On the contrary, milk retention must goats regarding CAEV control, alimenta- be reduced through adaptation of the equip- tion or reproduction. Implementing a milk- ment to animal yield, teat size and flock ing order has been shown to be associated size [53]: vacuum pump capacity, vacuum with a decrease of (1) presumed major reserve, claws volume and position with pathogen associated IMI in primiparous regards to the liners. Automatic cluster goats, and (2) presumed minor pathogen removal systems, when they exist, must be associated IMI in multiparous goats [44]. carefully set.
    • 708 D. Bergonier et al. 7.3. Genetic control The improvement of diagnosis would also need, especially in small ruminants, the The genetic basis of susceptibility to IMI development of rapid animal-side tests. The has been established (moderate heritabili- available tools are of limited interest: the ties and QTL for SCC). Effective inclusion foremilk visual examination and the Cali- of mastitis resistance in the breeding goal of fornia Mastitis Test can not be regularly and Lacaune breed, based upon SCC, has been systematically applied to large herds, and recently implemented in France [124]. the on-line electrical conductivity measure- Accordingly, breeders can choose their ment needs efficiency improvement and reproducer rams on mastitis resistance in technical adaptations to small ruminant addition to production traits (milk yield, fat milking machines. and protein contents) and PrP genotype The assessment of bacteriological cure (scrapie-resistant genotype). Improvement and new infection rates during the dry of resistance to mastitis by selection, how- period, with or without antibiotic treatment ever, is a long-term process and only par- at drying-off, require additional informa- tially efficient. Therefore, proper sanitary tion in order to define and accurately choose management remains the main clue to mas- the differential treatment strategies. Con- titis control. trolled trials are needed to better determine the bacteriological cure after drying-off intramammary or parenteral (two succes- 8. FUTURE PROSPECTS sive injections) antibiotherapy, according to the herd effects (main pathogens, infec- To control small ruminant mastitis, tions length). They will also provide infor- future research should concern the follow- mation about the new infection rates at ing fields, dealing with applied or basic lambing/kidding, in order to rationalise the research. choice between systematic and selective The improvement of diagnosis, particu- treatments and to assess the potential inter- larly IMI cytological detection in goats. est of teat sealers. Internal teat sealers are Future research in this field should attempt presumably less interesting in small rumi- to determine the exact impact on total and nants than in dairy cattle: the intramam- differential counts of CAEV, herd manage- mary implementation is not easier than ment factors (dietary or medical stresses, conventional treatments particularly for etc.) and physiological factors (lactation large flocks/herds, and the incidence of new stage, estrus, etc.). Non infectious varia- IMI during the dry period is lower. tion factors of SCC are unique in the case The assessment of preventive measures of goats in comparison with ewes and would be of particular interest regarding the cows; the inflammatory and immune proc- key-procedure in small ruminant IMI con- esses of the caprine udder are not com- trol: the milking machine management and pletely understood. This point must be the milking technique. Progress concerning underlined since SCC are the only large the former was published last year through scale available screening tests to be used quantitative recommendations for small for control programmes, and since maxi- ruminant milking machine installations mum levels are held as standards by the [25]. In the field, these recommendations dairy industry or health officials. Progress and the basic measures are insufficiently in this field could be achieved by charac- known and applied, and very different terising bacteriologically negative halves quantitative values are observed (particu- with high and low SCC, at different lacta- larly for pulsation rates). Moreover, addi- tion stages, from cytological, biochemical tional work is needed to clearly identify the and histopathological points of view. possible adverse effects of the equipment
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 709 and milking routines on the receptivity of [5] Ameh J.A., Tari I.S., Observations on the the mammary gland and on the spreading of prevalence of caprine mastitis in relation to predisposing factors in Maiduguri, Small organisms. Rumin. Res. 35 (1999) 1–5. The development of a new generation [6] Amorena B., Baselga R., Albizu I., Use of vaccine protecting against S. aureus IMI is liposome immunopotentiated exopolysac- an important need, this organism being the charide as a component of an ovine mastitis staphylococcal vaccine, Vaccine 12 (1994) main causative agent of acute and peracute 243–249. IMI. Immunity of the ovine and caprine [7] Anniss F.M., McDougall S., Efficacy of anti- mammary glands is still poorly under- biotic treatment at drying off in curing exist- stood. Possible means to achieve these ing infections and preventing new infections goals have been reviewed [116]. in dairy goats, in Proceedings of the 62nd Conference of the New-Zealand Society of The detection of the ovine genome Animal Production, Massey University, New regions involved in mastitis resistance Zealand, 24–26 June 2002, 62, pp. 19–21. began with the first results of a Quantitative [8] Ariznabarreta A., Gonzalo C., San Primitivo Trait Loci (QTL) detection program based F., Microbiological quality and somatic cell on purebred families of French dairy sheep count of ewe milk with special reference to breeds [133]. It showed that QTLs for SCS staphylococci, J. Dairy Sci. 85 (2002) 1370– 1375. were detected on chromosome 6 and 16, [9] Barillet F., Rupp R., Mignon-Grasteau S., allowing to locate the gene(s) that control Astruc J.M., Jacquin M., Genetic analysis for resistance to mastitis in this species. Addi- mastitis resistance and milk somatic cell tional and complementary results may arise score in French Lacaune dairy sheep, Genet. from another QTL programme, based on Sel. Evol. 33 (2001) 397–415. crossbreeding between Sarda and Lacaune [10] Baro J.A., Carriedo J.A., San Primitivo F., breeds, that was implemented in 1999 in a Genetic parameters of test day measures for somatic cell count, milk yield and protein Sardinian experimental flock [34]. Con- percentage of milking ewes, J. Dairy Sci. 77 versely to the previous project, the whole (1994) 2658–2662. genome will be investigated (genome [11] Baudry C., Mercier P., Mallereau M.-P., Lenfant scan), and traits related to mastitis resist- D., Utilisation des numérations cellulaires ance will also include information on clin- individuelles pour la detection des infections ical mastitis occurrence in addition to SCC. mammaires subcliniques de la chèvre : défi- nition de seuils, in Proceeding of the 6th Inter- national Symposium on the Milking of Small Ruminants, Athens, September 26–October 1, REFERENCES 1998 (1999) 119–123. [12] Baudry C., Mercier P., Mallereau M.P., [1] Ahmad G., Timms L.L., Morrical D.G., Lenfant D., Evaluation de l’efficacité du Brackelsberg P.O., Ovine subclinical mastitis post-trempage chez la chèvre, Rev. Med. Vet. efficacy of dry treatment, Sheep Res. J. 8 151 (2000) 1035–1040. (1992) 30–33. [13] Bergonier D., Berthelot X., Mammites asper- [2] Albenzio M., Taibi L., Muscio A., Sevi A., gillaires en élevage ovin laitier, Revue d’épi- Prevalence and etiology of subclinical masti- démiosurveillance VEGA 1 (1993) 10–11. tis in intensively managed flocks and related [14] Bergonier D., Berthelot X., New advances in changes in the yield and quality of ewe milk, Epizootiology and control of ewe mastitis, Small Rumin. Res. 43 (2002) 219–226. Livest. Prod Sci. 79 (2003) 1–16. [3] Albenzio M., Taibi L., Caroprese M., De Rosa [15] Bergonier D., Thiaucourt F., L’Agalactie G., Muscio A., Sevi A., Immune response, Contagieuse des petits ruminants, in: Lefèvre udder health and productive traits of machine P.C., Blancou J., Chermette R. (Coord.), milked and suckling ewes, Small Rumin. Res. Principales maladies infectieuses et parasi- 48 (2003) 189–200. taires du bétail. Europe et Régions chaudes, [4] Aleandri M., De Michelis R., Colafrancesco Ed. Tec et Doc, Lavoisier, 2003, 1824 p. R., Olivetti A., Valori citologici e agenti [16] Bergonier D., Van de Wiele A., Arranz J.M., infettivi di mastite nel latte de pecora, Atti Barillet F., Lagriffoul G., Concordet D., Berthelot Soc. Ital Sci. Vet. 38 (1994) 431–433. X., Détection des infections mammaires
    • 710 D. Bergonier et al. subcliniques chez la brebis laitière à l’aide des [24] Billon P., Ronningen O., Sangiorgi F., comptages de cellules somatiques : proposi- Schuiling E., Quantitative requirements of tions de seuils physiologiques, in: Rubino R. milking installations for small ruminants. A (Ed.), Proceedings of Somatic cells and milk survey in different countries. Sixth Interna- of Small Ruminants, International Sympo- tional Symposium on the Milking of Small sium, Bella, Italy, Wageningen Pers, The Ruminants, Athens, Greece, in: Barillet F., Netherlands, 1996, pp. 41–47. Zervas N.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Milking of [17] Bergonier D., Longo F., Lagriffoul G., Small Ruminants. Milking and milk produc- Consalvi P.J., Van de Wiele A., Berthelot X., tion of dairy sheep and goats, Athens, Greece, Fréquence et persistance des staphylocoques Wageningen Pers, The Netherlands, 1999, coagulase négative au tarissement et relations pp. 209–215. avec les numérations cellulaires chez la brebis laitière, in: Rubino R. (Ed.), Proceed- [25] Billon P., Fernandez Martinez N., Ronningen ings of Somatic cells and milk of Small O., Sangiorgi F., Schuiling E., Quantitative Ruminants, International Symposium, Bella, Recommendations for Milking Machines Italy, Wageningen Pers, The Netherlands, Installations for Small Ruminants, Bulletin of 1996, pp. 53–59. the International Dairy Federation 370 (2002) 4–19. [18] Bergonier D., Lagriffoul G., Berthelot X., [26] Boscos C., Stefanakis A., Alexopoulos C., Barillet F., Facteurs de variation non infec- Samartzi F., Prevalence of subclinical masti- tieux des comptages de cellules somatiques tis and influence of breed, parity, stage of lac- chez les ovins et les caprins laitiers, in: tation and mammary bacteriological status on Rubino R. (Ed.), Proceedings of Somatic Coulter Counter Counts and California Mas- cells and milk of Small Ruminants, Interna- titis Test in the milk of Saanen and autoch- tional Symposium, Bella, Italy, Wageningen thonous Greek goats, Small Rumin. Res. 21 Pers, Netherlands, 1996, pp. 113–135. (1996) 139–147. [19] Bergonier D., Berthelot X., Poumarat F., [27] Burriel A.R., Dynamics of intramammary Contagious Agalactia of small ruminants: infection in the sheep caused by coagulase- current knowledge about epidemiology, diag- negative staphylococci and its influence on nosis and control, Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE, 16 udder tissue and milk composition, Vet. Rec. (1997) 848–873. 140 (1997) 419–423. [20] Bergonier D., Blanc M.C., Fleury B., Lagriffoul [28] Burriel A.R., Isolation of coagulase-negative G., Barillet F., Berthelot X., Les mammites staphylococci from the milk and environment des ovins et des caprins laitiers : étiologie, of sheep, J. Dairy Res. 65 (1998) 139–142. épidémiologie, contrôle, in: Chabert Y. (Ed.), Proceedings of Rencontres Recherches Rumi- [29] Burriel A.R., Dagnall G.J., Leukotoxic fac- nants 4 (1997) 251–260. tors produced by staphylococci of ovine ori- gin, Microbiol. Res. 152 (1997) 247–250. [21] Bergonier D., Berthelot X., Romeo M., Contreras A., Coni V., De Santis E., Rolesu S., [30] Buswel J.F., Barber D.M.L., Antibiotic per- sistence and tolerance in the lactating sheep Barillet F., Lagriffoul G., Marco J., Fréquence following a course of intramammary therapy, des différents germes responsables de mam- Br. Vet. J. 145 (1989) 552–557. mites cliniques et subcliniques chez les petits ruminants laitiers, in: Barillet F., Zervas N.P. [31] Buswell J.F., Knigth C.H., Barber D.M.L., (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Antibiotic persistence and tolerance in the lac- Symposium on the Milking of Small Rumi- tating goat following intramammary therapy, nants. Milking and milk production of dairy Vet. Rec. 125 (1989) 301–303. sheep and goats, Athens, Greece, Wageningen [32] Calavas D., Bugnard F., Ducrot C., Sulpice P., Pers, The Netherlands, 1999, pp. 130–136. Classification of the clinical types of udder [22] Bergonier D., Lagriffoul G., Berthelot X., Le disease affecting nursing ewes, Small Rumin. tarissement des brebis laitières : conduite et Res. 29 (1998) 21–31. antibiothérapie. Journées nationales SNGTV- [33] Carnier P., Bettella R., Cassandro M., Gallo INRA, Clermont-Ferrand, 30 mai–1er juin L., Mantovani R., Bittante G., Genetic param- 2001, pp. 295–299. eters for test-day somatic cell count in Italian [23] Berriatua E., Ziluaga I., Miguel Virto C., Holstein Frisian cows, in: Proc. 48th Ann. Uribarren P., Juste R., Laevens S., Vandamme Meet. Eur. Assoc. Anim. Prod, August 25– P., Govan J.R.W., Outbreak of subclinical 28th, Vienna, Austria, 1997, p. 141. mastitis in a flock of dairy sheep associated [34] Carta A., Barillet F., Allain D., Amigues Y., with Burkholderia cepacia complex infec- Bibé B., Bodin L., Casu S., Cribiu E.P., Elsen tion, J. Clin. Microbiol. 39 (2001) 990–994. J.M., Fraghi A., Gruner L., Jacquiet P., Ligios
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 711 S., Marie-Etancelin C., Mura L., Piredda G., comptages de cellules somatiques en élevage Rupp R., Sanna S.R., Scala A., Schibler L., caprin, Proceedings of Rencontres Recher- Casu S., QTL detection with genetic markers ches Ruminants 8 (2001) 157–160. in a dairy sheep backcross sarda-Lacaune resource population, N° 01-40 in 7th World [45] Droke E.A., Paape M.J., Di Carlo A.L., Prev- Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock alence of high somatic cell counts in bulk Production, Montpellier, France, 2002. tank goat milk, J. Dairy Sci. 76 (1993) 1035– 1039. [35] Chaffer M., Leitner G., Zamir S., Winkler M., Glickman A., Ziv N., Saran A., Efficacy [46] Dulin A.M., Paape M.J., Wergin W.P., Dif- of dry-off treatment in sheep, Small Rumin. ferenciation and enumeration of somatic cells Res. 47 (2003) 11–16. in goat milk, J. Food. Prot. 45 (1982) 435– 439. [36] Charffeddine N., Alenda R., Carabano M.J., Genetic parameters for somatic cell score [47] East N.E., Birnie E.F., Disease of the udder, within first lactation, and across lactations in in: Symposium on sheep and goat medicine, Spannish Holstein-Frisian cattle, p32 in: Vet. Clin. North Am. (Large Anim. Pract.) 5 Proc. 48th Ann. Meet. Eur. Assoc. Anim. (1983) 591–600. Prod., Vienna, Austria, 1997. [48] East N.E., Birnie E.F., Farver T.B., Risk fac- [37] Contreras A., Sierra D., Corrales J.C., tors associated with mastitis in dairy goats, Sanchez A., Marco J., Physiological thresh- Am. J. Vet. Res. 48 (1987) 776–779. old of somatic cell count and California Mas- [49] El Saied U.M., Carriero J.A., San Primitivo titis Test for diagnosis of caprine subclinical F., Heritability of test day somatic cell counts mastitis, Small Rumin. Res. 21 (1996) 259– and its relationship with milk yield and pro- 264. tein percentage in dairy ewes, J. Dairy Sci. 81 [38] Contreras A., Paape M.J., Miller R.H., Prev- (1998) 2956–2961. alence of subclinical intramammary infection [50] El Saied U.M., Carriero J.A., De La Fuente caused by Staphylococcus epidermidis in a L.F., Genetic parameters of lactation cell commercial dairy goat herd, Small Rumin. counts and milk and protein yield in dairy Res. 31 (1999) 203–208. ewes, J. Dairy Sci. 81 (1999) 2956–2961. [39] Daley M.J., Oldham E.R., Williams T.J., [51] Esnal A., Romeo M., Extramiana B., Gonzalez Coyle P.A., Quantitative and qualitative prop- erties of host polymorphonuclear cells during L., Marco J.C., Mamitis en la oveja Latxa: experimentally induced Staphylococus aureus eficacia del tratamiento y dinámica de infec- mastitis in cows, Am. J. Vet. Res. 52 (1991) ción durante el período seco, in: XIX Jorna- 474–479. das Científicas Sociedad Española Ovino- technica Caprinotechnica, Burgos, España, [40] De Crémoux R., Poutrel B., Les numérations 1994, pp. 45–49. cellulaires chez la chèvre : un outil de dia- gnostic présomptif des infections mammai- [52] Fahr R.D., Schulz J., Finn G., Von Lengerken res, Proceedings of the 7th International Con- G., Walther R., Cell count and differential ference on goats, Tours, 15–21 mai 2000, cell count in goat milk – Variability and influ- pp. 757–760. encing factors, Tierarztl. Prax. Ausg. G Grosstiere Nutztiere 27 (1999) 99–106. [41] De Crémoux R., Poutrel B., Berny F., Use of milk somatic cell counts (SCC) for presump- [53] Fernandez N., Requena R., Beltran M.C., tive diagnosis of intramammary infections in Peris C., Rodriguez M., Molina P., Torres A., goats, in: Third Int. Mastitis Sem., Proceed- Comparison of different machine milking ings II S6, 1995, pp. 90–91. clusters on dairy ewes with large size teats, Ann. Zoot. 46 (1997) 207–218. [42] De Crémoux R., Heuchel V., Berny F., Inter- prétation des numérations cellulaires de lait [54] Fox L.K., Hancock D.D., Horner S.D., Selec- de troupeau en élevage caprin : résultats pré- tive intramammary antibiotic therapy during liminaires, Proceedings of the 7th Internatio- the nonlactating period in goats, Small nal Conference on goats, Tours, 15–21 mai Rumin. Res. 9 (1992) 313–318. 2000, p. 764. [55] Fruganti G., Ranucci S., Tesei B., Valente C., [43] De Crémoux R., Heuchel V., Berny F., Valutazione dello stato sanitario della Description et interprétation des comptages mamelle di pecore durante un intero ciclo di de cellules somatiques des laits de troupeaux lattazione, Clinica Vet. 108 (1985) 286–296. en élevage caprin, Proceedings of Rencontres [56] Fthenakis G.C., Prevalence and aetiology of Recherches Ruminants 8 (2001) 163. subclinical mastitis in ewes of southern [44] De Crémoux R., Heuchel V., Chatelin Y.M., Greece, Small Rumin. Res. 13 (1994) 293– Évaluation des stratégies de contrôle des 300.
    • 712 D. Bergonier et al. [57] Fthenakis G.C., Use of somatic cell counts or isolated from subclinical mastitis in sheep, of indirect tests in milk for the diagnosis of New Microbiol. 25 (2002) 367–373. subclinical mastitis in ewes, in: Rubino R. (Ed.), Proceedings of Somatic cells and milk [69] Kirk J.H., Glenn J.S., Mastitis in ewes, Comp. of Small Ruminants, International Sympo- Cont. Educ. Pract. 18 (1996) 582–591. sium, Bella, Italy, Wageningen Pers, The [70] Kirk J.H., Glenn J.S., Maas J.P., Mastitis in a Netherlands, 1996, pp. 27–29. flock of milking sheep, Small Rumin. Res. 22 [58] Gonzalez Rodriguez M.C., Gonzalo C., San (1996) 187–191. Primitivo F., Carmenes P., Rodriguez M.C.G., [71] Lafi S.Q., Al Majali A.M., Rousan M.D., Relations between somatic cell count and Alawneh J.M., Epidemiological studies of intramammary infection of the half udder in clinical and subclinical ovine mastitis in dairy ewes, J. Dairy Sci. 78 (1995) 2753–2759. Awassi sheep in northern Jordan, Prev. Vet. [59] Gonzalo C., Gaudioso Lacasa V.R., Evolu- Med. 33 (1998) 171–181. tion des types cellulaires du laits de brebis [72] Lagriffoul G., Bergonier D., Berthelot X., (race Churra) en fonction des dénombre- Jacquin M., Guillouet P., Barillet F., Facteurs ments cellulaires totaux pendant la traite de variation génétiques et non génétiques des mécanique et manuelle, Ann. Zoot. 34 (1985) comptages de cellules somatiques du lait de 257–264. brebis en relation avec les caractères laitiers [60] Haenlein G.F.W., Relationship of somatic et les mesures portant sur le lait de tank, in: cell counts in goat milk to mastitis and pro- Rubino R. (Ed.), Proceedings of Somatic ductivity, Small Rumin. Res. 45 (2002) 163– cells and milk of Small Ruminants, Interna- 178. tional Symposium, Bella, Italy, Wageningen [61] Hill B.M., Jagusch K.T., Rajan L., Kidd G.T., Pers, The Netherlands, 1996, pp. 149–155. Antibiotic residues in goats milk following [73] Lagriffoul G., Barillet F., Bergonier D., intramammary treatment, New Zeal. Vet. J. Berthelot X., Jacquin M., Relation entre les 32 (1984) 130–131. comptages de cellules somatiques du lait de [62] Hinckley L.S., Revision of the somatic cell troupeau et la prévalence des mammites sub- count standart for goat milk, Dairy Food cliniques des brebis estimée avec les compta- Environ. Sanitat. 10 (1990) 548–549. ges de cellules somatiques individuels, in: Barillet F., Zervas N.P. (Eds.), Proceedings [63] Horstick A., Hamann H., Distl O., Estimation of the Sixth International Symposium on the of genetic parameters for daily milk pre- Milking of Small Ruminants. Milking and rformance of east Friesian milk sheep by ran- milk production of dairy sheep and goats, dom regression models, in: 7th World Con- Athens, Greece, Wageningen Pers, The gress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Netherlands, 1999, pp. 151–156. Production, Montpellier, France, N° 01-53, 2002. [74] Lagriffoul G., Bergonier D., Bernard J., Millet F., Arranz J.M., Berthelot X., Barillet [64] Hueston W.D., Boner G.J., Baertsche S.T., F., Situación de los recuentos de células Intramammary antibiotic treatment at the end somáticas en leche de oveja en Francia, Ovis of lactation for prophylaxis and treatment of intramammary infections in ewes, J. Am. 66 (2000) 29–34. Vet. Med. Assoc. 194 (1989) 1041–1044. [75] Las Heras A., Dominguez L., Fernandez- [65] Issartial J., La numération cellulaire indivi- Garayzabal J.F., Prevalence and etiology of duelle du lait de chèvre : rôle du virus de subclinical mastitis in dairy ewes of the l’arthrite encéphalite caprine (C.A.E.V.), Madrid region, Small Rumin. Res. 32 (1999) Vet. Doct. thesis, Cl. Bernard-Lyon I Univer- 21–29. sity, 1990. [76] Las Heras A., Dominguez L., Lopez I., Paya [66] Jensen H.E., Espinosa de los Monteros A., M.J., Pena L., Mazzucchelli F., Garcia L.A., Carrasco L., Caprine mastitis due to aspergil- Fernandez Garayzabal J.F., Intramammary losis and zygomycosis: a pathological and Aspergillus fumigatus infection in dairy ewes immunohistochemical study, J. Comp. Pathol. associated with antibiotic dry therapy, Vet. 114 (1996) 183–191. Rec. 147 (2000) 578–580. [67] Kalogridou-Vassiliadou D., Manolkidis K., [77] Lee C.S., Outteridge P.M., The identification Tsigoida A., Somatic cell counts in relation to and ultrastructure of macrophages from the infection status of the goat udder, J. Dairy mammary gland of the ewe, Ajebak 54 (1976) Res. 59 (1992) 21–28. 43–55. [68] Kanellos T.S., Burriel A.R., Production and [78] Lee C.S., Outteridge P.M., Leucocytes of sheep novel quantification of haemolysins pro- colostrum, milk and involution secretion, duced by coagulase-negative staphylococci with particular reference to ultrastructure and
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 713 lymphocyte subpopulations, J. Dairy Res. 48 [89] Luengo C., Sanchez A., Corrales J.C., (1981) 225–237. Contreras A., Valoración de un tratamiento antibiotico de secado frente a mammitis sub- [79] Legrottaglie R., Martini M., Barsotti G., clínicas caprinas, in: Mamitis y calidad de Agrimi P., The effects of ovine lentivirus leche, 16 Jornadas Nacionales y 1as Interna- infection on some productive aspects in a cionales del Grupo de Técnicos Especialistas Sardinian sheep flock from Italy, Vet. Res. en Mamitis y Calidad de Leche, Murcia 18 y Com. 23 (1999) 123–131. 19 de octubre 1999, Diego Marin editor, [80] Leitner G., Chaffer M., Zamir S., Mor T., 1999, pp. 243–249. Glickman A., Winkler M., Weisblit L., Saran [90] MacDougall S., Voermans M., Influence of A., Udder disease etiology, milk somatic cell estrus on somatic cell count in dairy goats, J. counts and NAGase activity in Israeli Assaf Dairy Sci. 85 (2002) 378–383. sheep throughout lactation, Small Rumin. Res. 39 (2001) 107–112. [91] MacDougall S., Murdough P., Pankey W., Delaney C., Barlow J., Scruton D., Relation- [81] Lerondelle C., Poutrel B., Characteristics of ships among somatic cell count, California non-clinical mammary infections of goats, mastitis test, impedance and bacteriological Ann. Rech. Vet. 15 (1984) 105–112. status of milk in goats and sheep in early lac- [82] Lerondelle C., Richard Y., Issartial J., Fac- tation, Small Rumin. Res. 40 (2001) 245– tors affecting somatic cell counts in goat 254. milk, Small Rumin. Res. 8 (1992) 129–139. [92] Malher X., Seegers H., Beaudeau F., Culling [83] Ligda C., Mavrogenis A., Georgoudis A., and mortality in large dairy goat herds man- Estimate of genetic parameters for somatic aged under intensive conditions in western cell counts in Chios dairy sheep, in: 7th France, Livest. Prod. Sci. 71 (2001) 75–86. World Congress on Genetics Applied to [93] Manlongat N., Yang T.J., Hinckley L.S., Livestock Production, Montpellier, France, Bendel R.B., Krider H.M., Physiologic-che- N° 09-21, 2002. moattractant-induced migration of polymor- [84] Lohuis J.A.C.M., Berthelot X., Cester C., phonuclear leukocytes in milk, Clin. Diagn. Parez V., Aguer D., Pharmacokinetics and Lab. Immunol. 5 (1998) 375–381. milk residues of penicillin, nafcillin and dihy- [94] Martinez Navalon B., El recuento de células drostreptomycin in dairy sheep treated with somaticas en la leche de cabra : factores de nafpenzal DC at drying-off, in: Proceedings variación y efecto sobre la producción y com- of the Symposium on residues of antimicro- posición de la leche, Ph.D. thesis, Universi- bial drugs and other inhibitors in milk, Kiel, dad Politécnica de Valencia, Oct. 2000, Germany, 1995, pp. 64–68. p. 308. [85] Lohuis J.A.C.M., Poutrel B., de Cremoux R., [95] Mavrogenis A.P., Koumas A., Kakoyiannis Parez V., Aguer D., Milk residues of penicil- C.K., Taliotis Ch., Use of somatic cell counts lin, nafcillin and dihydrostreptomycin in for the detection of subclinical mastitis in dairy goats postpartum treated with nafpenzal sheep, Small Rumin. Res. 17 (1995) 79–84. N8R at drying-off, in: Proceedings of the [96] Mavrogenis A.P., Koumas A., Gavrielidis. Third IDF International Mastitis Seminar, G., The inheritance of somatic cell counts Tel-Aviv, Israel, 28 May–1 June 1995, 2, s-5, (index of mastitis) in Chios sheep, in: Proc. pp. 102–103. 6th Int. Symp. of the Milking of Small Rumi- [86] Longo F., Pravieux J.J., Traitement des nants, Athens, Greece, Wageningen Pers, brebis au tarissement : Cefovet HL, première Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1999, pp. AMM pour ovins, in: Proceedings of the 389–392. Journées Nationales GTV, Clermont-Fer- [97] Menzies P.I., Ramanoon S.Z., Mastitis of rand, France, 2001, pp. 301–302. sheep and goats, Vet. Clin. North Am. Food. [87] Longo F., Béguin J.C., Monsallier G., Delas Anim. Pract. 17 (2001) 333–358. P., Consalvi P.J., Efficacy of spiramycin and [98] Mercier P., Baudry C., Lenfant D., Mallereau neomycin combination in the control of cell M.-P., Étude de l’efficacité d’un traitement counts and udder pathogens in the dry ewe, antibiotique au tarissement chez la chèvre, in: Rubino R. (Ed.), Proceedings of Somatic Recl. Med. Vet. 174 (1998) 7–14. cells and milk of Small Ruminants, Interna- [99] Morgante M., Ranucci S., Pauselli M., Casoli tional Symposium, Bella, Italy, Wageningen C., Duranti E., Total and differential cell count Pers, The Netherlands, 1996, pp. 49–52. in milk of ewes during lactation, in: Rubino R. [88] Lu C.D., Potchoiba M.J., Loetz E.R., Influ- (Ed.), Proceedings of Somatic cells and milk ence of vacuum level, pulsation ratio and rate of Small Ruminants, International Sympo- on milking performance and udder health in sium, Bella, Italy, Wageningen Pers, The dairy goats, Small Rumin. Res. 5 (1991) 1–8. Netherlands, 1996, pp. 41–45.
    • 714 D. Bergonier et al. [100] Morgante M., Ranucci S., Pauselli M., [112] Poutrel B., de Cremoux R., Efficacy of anti- Beghelli D., Mencaroni G., Total and differ- biotic treatment at drying-off for udder ential cell count by direct microscopic infections in goats, in Proceedings of the method on ewe milk, J. Vet. Med. A 43 Third IDF International Mastitis Seminar, (1996) 451–458. Tel-Aviv, Israel, 28 May–1 June, 1995, 2, s-5, pp. 91–92. [101] Morgante M., Ranucci S., Pauselli M., Casoli C., Duranti E., Total and differential [113] Poutrel B., Lerondelle C., Cell content of cell count in milk of primiparous Comisana goat milk: California mastitis test, Coulter ewes without sign of mastitis, Small Rumin. counter and fossomatic for predicting half Res. 21 (1996) 265–271. infection, J. Dairy Sci. 66 (1983) 2575– 2579. [102] Morgante M., Beghelli D., Pauselli M., Dall’Ara P., Capucella M., Ranucci S., [114] Poutrel B., de Cremoux R., Ducelliez M., Effect of administration of vitamin E and Verneau D., Control of intramammary infec- selenium during the dry period on mammary tions in goats: impact on somatic cell counts, health and milk cell counts in dairy ewes, J. J. Anim. Sci. 75 (1997) 566–570. Dairy Sci. 82 (1999) 623–631. [115] Rainard P., Corrales J.C., Barrio M.B., [103] Moroni P., Cuccuru C., Relationship Cochard T., Poutrel B., Leucotoxic Activi- between mammary gland infections and ties of Staphylococcus aureus Strains Iso- lated from Cows, Ewes, and Goats with some milk immune parameters in Sardinian Mastitis: Importance of LukM/LukF’-PV breed ewes, Small Rumin. Res. 41 (2001) Leukotoxin, Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 10 1–7. (2003) 272–277. [104] Naccari F., Martino D., Giofre F., Passantino [116] Rainard P., The complement in milk and A., De Montis P., Therapeutic efficacy of defense of the bovine mammary gland against tilmicosin in ovine mammary infections, infection, Vet. Res. 34 (2003) 647–670. Small Rumin. Res. 47 (2003) 1–9. [117] Rapoport E., Visinsky Y., Hanoch U., [105] Nord K., Adnoy T., Effects of infection by Faingolg D., Shani A., Hatib N., Kussak A., caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus on milk Outbreak of acute ovine mastitis caused by production of goats, J. Dairy Sci. 80 (1997) Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Sixth Interna- 2391–2397. tional Symposium on the Milking of Small Ruminants, Athens, Greece, in: Barillet F., [106] Ostensson K., Variations during lactation in Zervas N.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth total and differential leukocyte counts, N- International Symposium on the Milking of acetyl-D-glucosaminidase, antitrypsin and Small Ruminants. Milking and milk produc- serum albumin in foremilk and residual milk tion of dairy sheep and goats, Athens, Greece. from non-infected quarters in the bovine, Wageningen Pers, The Netherlands, 1999, Acta Vet. Scand. 34 (1993) 83–93. pp. 192–195. [107] Paape M.J., Capuco A.V., Cellular defense [118] Reents R., Dekkers J.C.M., Genetic evalua- mechanisms in the udder and lactation of tion for somatic cell score with a test-day goats, J. Anim. Sci. 75 (1997) 556–565. model for multiple lactations, J. Dairy Sci. 78 (1995) 2858–2870. [108] Paape M.J., Capuco A.V., Contreras A., Marco J.C., Milk somatic cells and lactation [119] Romeo M., Esnal A., Contreras A., Aduriz in small ruminants, J. Dairy Sci. 84 (2001) J.J., Gonzalez L., Marco J.C., Evolution of E237–E244. milk somatic cell counts along the lactation period in sheep of the Latxa breed, in: [109] Pengov A., The role of coagulase-negative Rubino R. (Ed.), Proceedings of Somatic Staphylococcus spp. and associated somatic cells and milk of Small Ruminants, Interna- cell counts in the ovine mammary gland, J. tional Symposium, Bella, Italy. Wageningen Dairy Sci. 84 (2001) 572–574. Pers, The Netherlands, 1996, pp. 21–25. [110] Perez V., Corpa J.M., Garcia Marin J.F., [120] Romeo M., Ziluga I., Marco J., Diagnóstico Aduriz J.J., Jensen H.E., Mammary and sys- in situ de la infección mamaria mediante pal- temic aspergillosis in dairy sheep, Vet. pación, california mastitis test y su segui- Pathol. 35 (1998) 235–240. miento mediante recuento de celulas somáti- cas, Ovis 59 (1998) 61–77. [111] Perez V., Corpa J.M., Garcia Marin J.F., Aduriz J.J., Jensen H.E, Generalized [121] Ronchi B., Lacetera N.G., Bernabucci U., aspergillosis in dairy sheep, Zentralbl. Vet- Nardone A., Preleminary report on the rela- erinarmed. B 46 (1999) 613–621. tionship between selenium status and milk
    • Mastitis of dairy small ruminants 715 somatic cell count in selenium deficient sar- ties in dry ewes in 10 flocks in Southern dinian ewes, in: Rubino R. (Ed.), Proceed- Greece, Prev. Vet. Med. 37 (1998) 173–183. ings of Somatic cells and milk of Small Ruminants, International Symposium, Bella, [132] Saratsis P., Alexopoulos C., Tzora A., Italy, Wageningen Pers, The Netherlands, Fthenakis G.C., The effect of experimentally 1996, pp. 137–171. induced subclinical mastitis on the milk yield of dairy ewes, Small Rumin. Res. 32 [122] Rota A.M., Gonzalo C., Rodriguez P.L., (1999) 205–209. Rojas A.I., Martin L., Tovar J.J., Effects of stage of lactation and parity on somatic cell [133] Schibler L., Roig A., Neau A., Amigues Y., counts in milk of Verata goats and algebraic Boscher M.Y., Cribiu E.P., Boichard D., models of their lactation curves, Small Rupp R., Barillet F., Detection of Quantita- Rumin. Res. 12 (1993) 211–219. tive trait loci affecting milk production or somatic cell score in three French dairy [123] Rupp R., Lagriffoul G., Astruc J.M., Barillet sheep breeds by partial genotyping of seven F., Genetic parameters for milk somatic cell chromosomes, in: 7th Worl Congress on count across first three parities and relation- Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, ships with production traits in French Montpellier, France, N° 01-41, 2002. Lacaune dairy sheep, in: Proc. 52th Annu. Mtg. Eur. Assoc. Anim. Prod., Budapest, [134] Scott M.J., Jones J.E., The carriage of Pas- Hungary, Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, teurella haemolytica in sheep and its transfer The Netherlands, 2001, p. 280. between ewes and in relation to mastitis, J. Comp. Pathol. 118 (1998) 359–363. [124] Rupp R., Boichard D., Barbat A., Astruc [135] Scott P.R., Murphy S., Outbreak of staphy- J.M., Lagriffoul G., Barillet F., Selection for lococcal dermatitis in housed lactating Suf- mastitis resistance in French dairy Sheep, in: folk ewes, Vet. Rec. 140 (1997) 631–632. 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France, [136] Sears P.M., Smith B.S., Cornetta A.M., N° 09-28, 2002. Sequential milk sampling to enhance the accuracy of bacteriological culture, J. Dairy [125] Rupp R., Boichard D., Genetics of resistance Sci. 71 (1988) 261. to mastitis in dairy cattle, Vet. Res. 34 (2003) 671–688. [137] Sevi A., Massa S., Annicchiarico G., Dell’Aquila S., Muscio A., Effect of stock- [126] Ryan D.P., Greenwood P.L., Prevalence of ing density on ewes’ milk yield, udder health udder bacteria in milk samples from four and microenvironment, J. Dairy Res. 66 dairy goat herds, Aust. Vet. J. 67 (1990) (1999) 489–499. 362–363. [138] Sevi A., Taibi L., Albenzio M., Muscio A., [127] Ryan D.P., Greenwood P.L., Nicholls P.J., Annicchiarico G., Effect of parity on milk Effect of caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus yield, composition, somatic cell count, ren- infection on milk cell count and N-acetyl– neting parameters and bacteria counts of beta-glucosaminidase activity in dairy goats, Comisana ewes, Small Rumin. Res. 37 J. Dairy Res. 60 (1993) 299–306. (2000) 99–107. [128] Sánchez A., Contreras A., Corrales J.C., Par- [139] Sevi A., Taibi L., Albenzio M., Annicchi- ity as a risk factor for caprine subclinical arico G., Muscio A., Airspace effects on the intramammary infection, Small Rumin. Res. yield and quality of ewe milk, J. Dairy Res. 31 (1999) 197–201. 84 (2001) 2632–2640. [129] Sanchez A., Contreras A., Corrales J.C., [140] Sinapis E., Vlachos I., Influence of the vac- Marco J.C., Relationships between infection uum level of the milking machine and with caprine arthritis encephalitis virus, zootechnical factors on the somatic cell intramammary bacterial infection and counts of local Greek goats, in: Proceeding somatic cell counts in dairy goats, Vet. Rec. of the 6th International Symposium on the 148 (2001) 711–714. Milking of Small Ruminants, Athens, Sep- tember 26–October 1, 1998 (1999) 209–215. [130] Sanchez A., Fernandez C., Contreras A., Luengo C., Rubert J., Effect of intramam- [141] Sinapis E., Hatziminaoglou I., Marnet P.G., mary infection by Staphylococcus caprae on Abasa Z., Bolou A., Influence of vacuum somatic cell counts and milk composition in level, pulsation rate and pulsator ratio on goats, J. Dairy Res. 69 (2002) 325–328. machine milking efficiency in local Greek goats, Livest. Prod. Sci. 64 (2000) 175–181. [131] Saratsis P., Leontides L., Tzora A., Alexopoulos C., Fthenakis G.C., Incidence [142] Smith K.L., Cutlip R., Effects of infection risk and aetiology of mammary abnormali- with caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus on
    • 716 D. Bergonier et al. milk production in goats, J. Am. Vet. Med. from the electron microscopic examination Assoc. 193 (1988) 63–67. of milk, Nature 226 (1970) 762–764. [143] Stefanakis A., Boscos C., Alexopoulos C., [150] Wooding F.B., Morgan G., Craig H., “Sun- Samartzi F., Frequency of subclinical masti- bursts” and “christiesomes”: cellular frag- tis and observation on somatic cell counts in ments in normal cow and goat milk, Cell ewe’s milk in northern Greece, Anim. Sci. Tissue Res. 185 (1977) 535–545. 61 (1995) 69–76. [151] Ying C., Wang H.T., Hsu J.T., Relationship [144] SuarezV.H., Busetti M.R., Miranda A.O., of somatic cell count, physical, chemical and Calvinho L.F., Effect of infectious status and enzymatic properties to the bacterial stand- parity on somatic cell count and California ard plate count in dairy goat milk, Livest. mastitis test in pampinta dairy ewes, J. Vet. Prod. Sci. 74 (2002) 63–77. Med. B 49 (2002) 230–234. [152] Zeng S.S., Escobar E.N., Hart S.P., Hinclley [145] Tzora A., Fthenakis G.C., Mastitis in dairy L., Baulthaus M., Robinson G.T., Jahane G., ewes associated with Serratia marcescens, Comparative study of the effects of testing Small Rumin. Res. 29 (1998) 125–126. laboratory, counting method, storage, and shipment on somatic cell counts in goat milk, [146] White E.C., Hinckley L.S., Prevalence of Small Rumin. Res. 31 (1999) 253–260. mastitis pathogens in goat milk, Small Rumin. Res. 33 (1999) 117–121. [153] Ziluaga I., Romeo M., Marco J., Prevalen- cia, patogenicidad y epidemiologia de los [147] Wilson D.J., Stewart K.N., Sears P.M., microorganismos implicados en procesos Effects of stage of lactation, production, par- mamiticos del ganado ovino, Ovis 59 (1998) ity and season on somatic cell counts in 27–49. infected and uninfected dairy goats, Small Rumin. Res. 16 (1995) 165–169. [154] Ziv G., Profil pharmacocinétique de la spiramycine chez les brebis et les vaches [148] Winter P., Colditz I.G., Immunological laitières, Cah. Méd. Vét. 43 (1974) 371–390. response of the lactating ovine udder follow- ing experimental challenge with Staphyloco- [155] Ziv G., Soback S., Pharmacotherapeutics of ccus epidermidis, Vet. Immunol. Immuno- newer antibacterial agents in lactating ewes pathol. 89 (2002) 57–65. and goats: a review, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Machine [149] Wooding F.B.P., Peaker M., Linzell J.L., Milking of Small Ruminants, Tel Aviv, Theories of the milk secretion: evidence Israel, 1989, pp. 408–423. To access this journal online: www.edpsciences.org