Mastitis in dairy cows  a case study of public health hazard in Sau Pharsatikar; Rupandehi, by Bijay Khanal
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Mastitis in dairy cows a case study of public health hazard in Sau Pharsatikar; Rupandehi, by Bijay Khanal



7th National Conference on Food Science & Technology,FOOD CONFERENCE 2014 , 13-14 june, Kathmandu, Nepal

7th National Conference on Food Science & Technology,FOOD CONFERENCE 2014 , 13-14 june, Kathmandu, Nepal



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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.

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

Mastitis in dairy cows a case study of public health hazard in Sau Pharsatikar; Rupandehi, by Bijay Khanal Presentation Transcript

  • 1. MASTITIS IN DAIRY COWS : A CASE STUDY OF PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD IN SAU-PHARSATIKAR; RUPANDEHI Presented By: Bijay Khanal IAAS, Rampur, TU Bijay Khanal1,Gandhi Raj Upadhyay2 1, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences,Rampur,Chitwan; 2Senior Veterinary Officer , Animal Quarantine Office, Bhairahawa
  • 2. Introduction  The milk is considered as almost complete food which is consumed by children to elders.  Mastitis is the inflammation of the mammary gland and udder tissue, and is a major endemic disease of dairy cattle.  Mastitis is Characterized by Physical, Chemical and Usually Bacteriological changes in milk and by Pathological changes in the Udder. 2
  • 3. 3
  • 4. Introduction contd…..  It usually occurs as an immune response to bacterial invasion of the teat canal by variety of bacterial sources present on the farm, and can also occur as a result of chemical, mechanical, or thermal injury to the cow's udder. Mastitis is well recognized as being a major problem as it causes a serious wastage and undesirable milk quality. Mastitis remains a major challenge to the worldwide dairy industry despite the widespread implementation of mastitis control strategies(A.J.Bardley,…..). 4
  • 5. EFFECTS OF MASTITIS • Direct losses due to mastitis. • Treatment cost. • Discarded milk. • Fatality. • Repeated cases of mastitis. • Decrease in milk yield. • Milk quality changes. • Decreased hygienic quality of milk and public health considerations. 5
  • 6. For each case of clinical mastitis in a herd population there will usually be 15 to 40 subclinical cases (Philpot and Nickerson 1991), and most clinical cases are preceded by infection at the subclinical level.  The milk which is produced from the cattle suffering from the mastitis is highly dangerous in human consumption at raw stage.  There is high chance of getting infection with bacteria from such milk on consuming milk products, where milk may not be safe. 6 EFFECTS OF MASTITIS…..
  • 7. Objectives General Objective  To determine the prevalence and Causative agent of mastitis and its importance to public health. Specific Objectives  To know the Prevalence of Mastitis.  To know the situation of Mastitis Ward wise.  To know the management system of Farmers. 7
  • 8. 1. Site of Study • This study was conducted in Sau-Pharsatikar VDC of Rupandehi district, August 2013. 2. Questionnaire Survey • To assess the management aspects and its possible risks on Mastitis, questionnaire survey was conducted with each farmer. Individual cattle from farmers’ shed were selected and other relevant information was recorded. Methods and Methodology
  • 9. Tests California Mastitis Test (CMT) Cultural Examination  Biochemical Tests 9
  • 10. Lab Analysis The Laboratory analysis of the collected milk samples was carried out at Bacteriology unit of the Microbiology Lab and Veterinary Teaching Hospital(VTH) Rampur, Chitwan. 10
  • 11. Result and Discussion • Table 1. CMT scores on milk of cows 11 CMT Scores Number Percentage Negative 452 58.78 Trace 66 8.74 1+ 108 14.29 2+ 68 8.99 3+ 62 8.2
  • 12. Level of infection Healthy 60% S aureus 17% E coli 10% Others 13% 12 Others* Pasturella multocida, Brucella abortus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Actinomyces bovis , Actinobacillus liniereesi, Cryptococcus neoformans etc.
  • 13. 13 Isolation of Staphylococcus aureus from milk samples: Milk sample Cultured in Blood agar Incubated for 24 hours Grams Staining Gram –ve discarded Grams positive sub-cultured in nutrient agar 13
  • 14. 14 Pure colony in Nutrient agar Grams staining Gram –ve discarded Grams positive samples were subjected to Catalase test Catalase –ve discarded Catalase positive were subjected to coagulase test Coagulase –ve discarded Coagulase positive identified as Staphylococcus aureus Fig. Coagulase Test 14
  • 15. Method of isolation of E coli Milk Sample culture in Mac conkey agar 15 pink colony obtained after 24 hours incubated at 37oC pure colony was then obtained
  • 16. then was put in Brain Heart Infusion broth various Biochemical test performed(Indole, Methyl Red, Voges proskauer and Citrate utilization) 16
  • 17. TABLE FOR BIOCHEMICAL TEST OF E. coli: TESTS CHARACTERISTICS SHOWN BY E.coli MR test +ve VP test -ve CU test -ve Indole +ve TSI test y/y EMB Green Metallic Sheen 17
  • 18. Ward Wise Prevalence of Mastitis 30.3 40 35.5 29.4 42.1 47.4 44.7 50 52.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ward No 1 Ward No 2 Ward No 3 Ward No 4 Ward No 5 Ward No 6 Ward No 7 Ward No 8 Ward No 9 Percentage(%) Percentage(%) 18
  • 19. It was found that , the difference in Prevalence of mastitis in ward wise was - • High in the society where people are poor, uneducated and no care by VDC. • Low in the society where VDC regularly launch training on Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. 19
  • 20. Result and Discussion…….. The prevalence of Mastitis in cattle of Sau- Pharsatikar was 40.21% during examination. Similar result was reported by Karimuribo et al., (2006)at Tanzania, in which out of 400 randomly selected samples 46.2 % were found to be SCM positive in CMT test. 20
  • 21. Result and Discussion…….. • The higher prevalence recorded was not surprising in this study since the farmers were not applying recommended milking and hygiene procedures. • There is high risk of infection from the mastitis infected milk, if we consume raw milk or any types of milk products. • In the present context, We are haphazardly using such product without thinking anything. 21
  • 22. 22
  • 23. 23
  • 24. Who is thinking about Us????? 24
  • 25. I am also consuming that things….. 25
  • 26. I like this so much……………………. 26
  • 27. • The public health hazard of E. coli has been emphasized by many authors, because these bacteria have been implicated in human cases of gastroenteritis, epidemic diarrhea in infants, sporadic diarrhea in children as well as in cases of food poisoning [Marier et al. 1973, Mossel 1982]. • S aureus is probably the most infectious agent in the mammary glands that is extremely difficult to cure,(Miles 1992) • S aureus and E coli has been found as the major bacteria causing Mastitis. 27
  • 28. • The most extensive antimicrobial resistance studies involving mastitis isolates have investigated S aureus.( Jones et. al.) • S aureus is not only a killing machine, it is also hard to kill. • Besides being antibiotic resistance, it has its own way of defense system. 28
  • 29. Symptoms of E coli infection • Little or no Fever developed. • Diarrhea. • RBCs are destroyed. • Kidney Fails • Hemolytic Uremia Syndrome (HUS). - Main cause of Kidney Failure in Children. 29
  • 30. Common Effects Of E coli 1. Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) • E coli is the most common uropathogen isolated from persons with acute UTIs accounting for 75-90% of cases(Ronald A. 2003). 30
  • 31. 2. Meningitis 31
  • 32. 3. Peritonitis 32
  • 33. 4. Septicemia 33
  • 34. 5. Food Poisoning 34
  • 35. Symptoms of S aureus infection • Nausea • Vomiting • Diarrhoea • Loss of appetite • Sever abdominal pain • Mild Fever • Folliculitis - A hair root (Follicle) is infected, causing slightly painful, tiny pimple at base of hair. 35
  • 36. Common Effects Of S aureus 1. Skin Lesions 36
  • 37. 2. Food Poisioning 37
  • 38. 3. Nasal Passage Infection 38
  • 39. 4. Pneumonia (Partly seen) 39
  • 40. 5. Meningitis ( Partly seen) 40
  • 41. CONCLUSION • For the pooled data of mastitis the frequency of samples containing - S. aureus 17.3% and - E. coli has 9.5% . • The Prevalence of Mastitis found was 40.21%. • Level of Mastitis was found higher (52.6%) in Ward no. 9 & lower (29.4%) was found in Ward no. 4. 41
  • 42. 42
  • 43. Recommendation • Hygienic control measures should be applied during milk production. • Farmers should be inspired for mastitis management, udder health management, shed management and nutrition management. • VDC must regularly launch the trainings in the field of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. • It is imperative that government provide Financial support and subsidy to Farmers. • Workshops, tours, Farmer's school should run for better livestock management and healthy milk production. 43
  • 44. 44
  • 45. • A.J. Bradley, Division of Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, pg no 116—128 • Karimuribo ED, TL Fitzpatric, CE Bell, DM Kambarage, NH mOgden, MJ Bryant, and NP French, 2006. Clinical and sub-clinical mastitis in smallholder dairy farms in Tanzania: Risk, intervention and knowledge transfer. Prev. Vet. Med., 74: 84-98. • MARIER R., WELLS J G., SWANSON R C., CALLAHAN W., MEHLAN I J., 1973 − An outbreak of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli foodborne disease traced to imported French cheese. Lancet ii 1376-1378. • Miles, H.,W., Lesser and P. Sears.,1992. The economic implications of bioengineered mastitis control. J Dairy Sci. 75. • MOSSEL D.A.A., 1982 − Microbiology of Food. 3rd Ed., University of Utrecht, The Netherlands ISBN. • Philpot W.N. and Nickerson S.C. 1991. Mastitis: Counter Attack. A Strategy to Combat Mastitis. Babson Bros. Co., Illinois, USA. • Ronald A. The etiology of Urinary tract infection ; traditional and emerging pathogens. Dis Mon 2003; 49; 71-82. • Jones, A. T. M Higgs, F. K. Neave, et al 1967. The sensitivity of bovine Staphylococci and Corynebacterium to cloxacilin and various other antibiotics. J Dairy Res. 34: 249-255. 45 Referenc es
  • 46.  Dr. Dipesh Chhetri  Dr. D. K. Singh  Dr. Hom Bahadur Basnet  Dr. Anil Tiwari  Dr. Sikesh Manandher, Bhojan Dhakal, Dr. Shatrughan Shah, Dr. Krishna Acharya, Dr. Ganga Prasad Yadav, Dr. Ram Krishna Yadav, Dr. Surendra Kanu, Dr. Manoj Kr. Mahato. 46 Acknowledgements