Şebnem KÜÇÜK, Erol ALAÇAM

Sütçü inek işletmelerinde mastitislere karşı sistemik immunizasyon uygulamalarında meme ve sağım hijyeninin etkisi

Bu çalışmada, sütçü inek işletmelerinde meme ve sağım hijyeni koşullarına bağlı olarak, sistemik immunizasyon ile mastitislere karşı korunma etkinliği araştırıldı. Çalışma, makinayla sağılan, sağım öncesinde meme dezenfeksiyonu, sonrasında teat dipping ve kuruya çıkan meme bölümlerine antibiyotik infüzyonu uygulanan Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi (AÜZF) işletmesi ile, elle sağılarak diğer önlemler alınmayan (aile tipi) işletmelerden seçilen, toplam 80 baş inek üzerinde yürütüldü. Sistemik im-munizasyon amacıyla, Mastivac® adlı (S.agalactiae, S.dysgalactiae, S.uberis, S.pyogenes, S.aureus, E.coli, A.pyogenes) inaktif mas-titis aşısı kullanıldı. Her iki tip işletmeden 20 ineğe aşı uygulanırken, 20 ineğe de plasebo enjekte edildi. Birinci uygulamadan 15 gün sonra enjeksiyonlar tekrar edildi. Uygulanan aşının mastitisler yönünden etkinliğini araştırmak üzere, immunizasyon öncesinde ve sonrasında, 12 ay süre ile, her ay toplanan süt örneklerinde, sıralı olarak, Kaliforniya mastitis testi (CMT) ve somatik hücre sayımı (SHS) ile mikrobiyolojik yoklamalar yapıldı. Bunların yamsıra klinik mastitisler değerlendirildi. AÜZF işletmesinde aşılama gru-bunun SHS'lerinde kontrol grubuna kıyasla istatistik yönden önemsiz, buna karşılık diğer tip yetiştirmelerde önemli düşmeler gö-rüldü. Klinik mastitisler yönünden, AÜZF ve aile tipi işletmelerde, sırasıyla aşılama gruplarında 4'er, kontrol gruplarında ise 13 ve 6 olgu belirlendi. Aşılama öncesinde S.aureus, AÜZF işletmesinde %59.1 ve aile tipi işletmelerde %70.6 ile en fazla izole edilen mik-roorganizma oldu. Aşının uygulanmasından sonra bu etkenin rastlantısı sırasıyla %26.4 ve %42.7 oranlarına azalma gösterdi. Aşı-lama sonrasında S.agalactiae ve S.dysgalactiae rastlantılarında, öncesine kıyasla önemli bir değişiklik görülmedi. Sonuç olarak, kli-nik mastitis olgularının şiddeti ve niceliği göz önünde tutulduğunda tüm aşılanan ineklerde; SHS'leri ile birlikte değerlendirildiğinde ise aile tipi işletmelerde aşının daha etkili olduğu belirlendi.

The effect of udder and milking hygiene on systemic immunization approaches in dairy herds

The aim of the study was to investigate the defence activity of systemic immunization against clinical and subc-linical mastitis by due to udder and milking hygiene conditions in dairy herds managements. The study was carried out on a total of 80 cows which are selected randomly from Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture Farm (AUZF) and from the family type herds (1-4 cows) in Ankara region. Milking-machine was used in the first management, udder disinfection before milking, teat dipping after milking and dry cow infusions to udder lobes was applied. However, in the second managements hand milking was made and the protective procedures that are mentioned above were not taken. Inactive mastitis vaccine Mastivac® (S.agalactiae, S.dysgalactiae, S.uberis, S.aureus, E.coli, A.pyogenes) was used for systemic immunization. Mastivac® vaccines were injected sub-cutaneously to cows from neck region and saline solution was injected to 20 control cows in each group, by the same procedure. The injections were repeated 15 days after the first application. The effectiveness of the vaccine on clinical and subclinical mastitis was evaluated during 12 months after immunization. California mastitis test (CMT) and somatic cell count (SCC) were made from the in-dividual milk samples collected monthly. The bactéries were evaluated from milk samples that have SCC>500.()()0 cell/ml and from the cows having clinical mastitis. Also, randomize clinical mastitis cases were evaluated. There was a statisticaly insignificant dec-rease at SCC of the vaccine group when compared to control group in AUZF management (p>0.05). However, there was a sta-tisticaly significant decrease in the SCC of the vaccine group in the family type management when compared to control group. After 2 months of vaccination CMT results in AUZF management show insignificant differences for control group while CMT results of family type managements shows significant decrease. In the first two months, all clinical mastitis cases occured in vaccine group in AUZF management; and no clinical cases were seen in the other months. On the other hand 13 cases seen in the control group dist-ributed to the other months. Likewise, all cases were seen in the in the first two months in the vaccine group of family type ma-nagements. Clinical mastitis were distributed to the other months in control groups. Before the vaccination the most isolated mic-roorganism was S.aureus with 59.1% in AUZF farm and 70.6% in family type herd. After vaccination the strain were decreased to 26.4 and 42.7, respectively. There were not significant differences in the presence S.agalactiae after vaccination when compared to pre-vaccination. During the first two months after immunization, E.coli was identified in the clinical cases, but after this period the strain were not seen. According to the identification results after vaccination, sufficient immunization can not be obtained against S.uberis and S.pyogenes which are involved in the vaccine. In conclusion, the vaccine was effective in both managements of all vac-cinated cows when the severity and the quantity of clinic mastitis cases were taken into consideration and in the family type ma-nagements when it was evaluated with their SCC.

PDF

___

1.Allore HG, Erb HN, Schruben LW, Oltenacu PA (1998): A simulation of strategies to lower bulk tank somatic cell count below 500.000 per mililiter. J Dairy Sci, 81, 694-702.
2.Andrews RJ, Kitchen BJ, Kwee WS, Duncalfe F (1983): Relationship between individual cow somatic cell counts and the mastitis infection'status of the udder. Aust J Dairy Tech, 6,71-74.
3.Aydın N, Cambazoğlu M (1987): Sığırların stafilokokkal mastitislerine karşı aşı hazırlanması üzerinde çalışmalar. Etlik Vet Mikrobiol Derg, 6, 69-88.
4.Barkema HW, Schukken YH, Lam TJGM, Beiboer ML, Benedictus G, Brand A (1998): Management prac tices associated with low, medium and high somatic cell co unts in bulk milk. J Dairy Sci, 81, 1917-1927.
5.Brock JH, Steel ED, Reiter B (1975): The effect of int ramuscular and intramammary vaccination of cows on an tibody levels and resistance to intramammary infection by Staphylococcus aureus. Res Vet Sci, 19, 152- 158.
6.Clark P, Van Raekel DE (1994): Efficacy of an Escherichia coli bacterin for the control of colifonn mastitis in dairy cows. Agri-Practice Med, 15, 19-25.
7.Coldwitz IG, Watson DL (1985): The immunolophysiological basis for vaccinating ruminant against mastitis. Aust Vet J, 62, 145-15İ.
8.Edmondson PW (1998): Influence of sample collection on bulk tank somatic cell count. Vet Rec, 10, 555.
9.Erganiş O, Hadimli HH (1998): Süt ineklerinde stafilokokal mastitislerin kontrolü için otojen Staphyloccus aureus aşı çalışmaları. III. Ulusal Veteriner Mikrobiyoloji Kongresi, 23-25 Eylül, Bursa, s: 41-42.
10.Fırat G, Uysal Y (1988): Stafilokokkal orijinli mastitislere karşı bir aşı hazırlanması. Pendik Hay Hast Araş Enst Derg, 2, 28-43.
11.Hadimli HH (2000):, Süt ineklerinde stafilokokkal mastitisler için aşı çalışmaları. Doktora Tezi. SÜ Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya.
12.Hoare RJT, Sheldrake RF, Nicholls PJ, Mcgregor GD, Woodhouse VE (1980): Analysis of somatic cell volume distribution as an aid to the diagnosis of mastitis. J Dairy Res, 47, 167-176.
13.Hogan JS, Weiss WP, Todhunter DA, Smith LK, Schoenberger, PS (1992): Field trial to determine efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 mastitis vaccine. J Dairy Sci, 75, 78-84.
14.Hogan JS, Weiss WP, Todhunter DA, Smith LK, Schoenberger PS (1992): Efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 mastitis vaccine in an experimental challenge trial. J Dairy Sci, 75, 415-422.
15.International Dairy Federation (1981): Laboratory met hods for use in mastitis work. Document: 132, Brussels.
16.Kennedy BW, Sethar MS, Tong AKW, Moxley JE, Downey BR (1982): Environmental factors influencing test-day somatic cell counts in Holsteins. J Dairy Sci, 65, 275-280.
17.Kirk JH, Degraves F, Tyler J (1994): Recent progress in treatment and control of mastitis in cattle. JAVMA, 204, 1152-1158.
18.Logan EFj. Mackie DP, Meneely DJ (1984): immunological features of consecutive intramammary in fections with Streptococcus agalactiae in vaccinated and non-vaccinated heifers. Br Vet J, 140, 535-542.
19.Nickerson SC (1985): Immune mechanisms of the bovine udder. JAVMA, 187, 41-45.
20.Nickerson SC, Pankey JW, Watts JL (1985): Enhance ment of the cellular immune response of the bovine udder by local and systemic immunization against Staphylococcal. mastitis. Agri-Practice Med, 6, 34-38.
21.Nordhaug ML, Nesse LL, Norcoss NL, Gudding R (1994): A field trial an experimental vaccine against Staphylococus aureus mastitis in cattle. 2. Antibody res ponse. J Dairy Sci, 77, 1276-1284.
22.Opdebeeck JP, Norcross NL (1982): Antibody response in lacteal secretions of cows after immunization with va rious concentrations of staphylococcal and streptococcal antigens. Am. J Vet Res, 43, 1770-1775.
23.Opdebeeck JP, Norcross NL (1985): Antibodies in bovine serum and lacteal secretions to capsular antigens of Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Vet Res, 46, 1561-1564.
24.Schalm OW, Carrol EJ, Jain NC (1971): Bovine Mas titis. Lea-Febiger Co, Philadelphia.
25.Smith KL, Hogan JS (1996): Future prospects for mastitis control. World Association for Buiatrics XIX Congress, 2-12 July, Edinburgh, pp: 263-268.
26.Smith LK (1983): Mastitis control: A discussion. J Dairy Sci, 66, 1790-1794.
27.Sümbüloğlu K, Sümbüloğlu V (2000): Biyoistatistik. Hatiboğlu Yayınevi, Ankara.
28.Watson DL, Mccoll ML, Davies HI (1996): Field trial of a stophylococcal mastitis vaccine in dairy herds: Clinical, subclinical and microbiological assesments. Aust Vet J, 74,447-450.
29.Yancey RJ (1993): Recent advances in bovine vaccine technology. J Dairy Sci, 76, 2418-2436.
30.Yoshida K, Ichiman Y, Narikawa S, Evans WB (1984): Staphylococcal capsuler vaccine for preventing mastitis in two herds in Georgia. J Dairy Sci, 67, 620-627.