Assessing Dairy Health Opportunities

Assessing Dairy Health Opportunities

Bulk tank and bedding pathogensDr. Paula OspinaMarch 25, 2018

Northeast Dairy Production Medicine Symposium

Thank you

NYFVIFunds that allowed this research

NYS Dairy farmers that allowed us to work with their data

Cornell QMPS (all lab sections) Staff, interns, and students

Easy sample to obtain, but may be difficult to

understand.

Harder sample to obtain, less difficult to

understand.

Why is mastitis important?Estimation of milk loss

20

30

40

50

0 50 100 150 200Days in milk

Yie

ld (p

ound

s)

Gröhn et al., 2004

In addition to loss due to disease, there is milk loss

(in the tank) due to treatment.

Reduced reproductive performance- Clinical Mastitis -

Hertl et al, JDS, 2010

AI

Negative effects on reproduction.

Effect of subclinical Mastitis classification on Conception Rates

Effect of SCC increase in sub-clinical cases on Conception Rate

Lavon et al, JDS 2011

-3.8%-14.5%

-16.2%

-14.1% -14.5%-20.5%

Reduced reproductive performance- Subclinical Mastitis -

Subclinical mastitis defined as SCC > 200K without clinical signs of mastitis.

EVALUATION OF BULK TANKS TO HELP MONITOR MASTITIS?

Bulk tanks are an easy sample to collect…What kind of information can you collect?What can you do with that information?

Bulk Tank Program with QMPS• Farms voluntarily enroll in the bulk tank program• QMPS collects and processes 6 samples/year (1 every

other month)– $200 USD– Qualitative:

•

– Quantitative:• Coliforms, Staph. spp., Strep. spp

Contagious Gram negative

Gram positive Other

Staph. aureus E. Coli Strep. spp Yeast

Strep. ag Klebsiella Staph. spp Prototheca

Mycoplasma Serratia

Pseudomonas

Contagious PathogensStaph. aureus, Strep. ag., Mycoplasma

• Contagious pathogens are found in milk – They survive best in the udder

• When these pathogens are found in the bulk tank they are very likely to come from a cow(s) with an infection

• Although it is not recommended as the only source of monitoring, some small farms will use bulk tank monitoring to track contagious pathogens

Contagious PathogensStaph. aureus, Strep. ag., Mycoplasma

• Why is it not recommended to use a bulk tank to monitor for contagious pathogens?

• False negatives due to decrease in sensitivity of the test.

• Cows with Staph. aureus infections don’t always shed– This is an issue at the individual cow level too!

• Cows with mycoplasma may also have cyclical shedding.

Bulk Tank PathogensStaph aureus• This is a contagious organism• Lives in and around the udder

– Spread cow to cow… usually during milking• If you are having cows with chronic high SCC, but no clinical

mastitis… this may indicate a Staph aureus problem• If you have a BTSCC creeping up… you may have a Staph.

aureus problem– Even if you haven’t purchased any cows!

• Rinse gloved hands frequently during milking– You may need to review milking procedures with your staff

so they understand how contagious pathogens are transmitted

• If you have not identified your Staph aureus cows, it will be important to do so.

Staph. aureus positive tank

• Now what…?–Individual cow monitoring

• Culture all cows in herd x2-3, 3 weeks apart

–Sequential tanks–Focus on chronic cows–Culture fresh cows…

Strep. ag.• Not seen frequently in US herds• Elevated SCC without clinical signs• Bulk tanks averaging > 400K• Possible elimination of all infections with

blanket treatment with penicillin based drug– Good biosecurity– Doesn’t survive in environment too long– …Can a closed herd get Strep. ag?

• YES IT CAN!

Mycoplasma

• Highly contagious organism• Cows that test positive for Mycoplasma should

be segregated from the main herd and culled as soon as possible

• Milk all cows with clinical mastitis last until Mycoplasma status is known

Mycoplasma

• Submit a milk sample for Mycoplasma culture from the following:– All clinical mastitis cows– 48 hours after calving from fresh cows and heifers – All cows exiting the hospital pen to make sure the

given cow did not become infected with Mycoplasma while in the hospital pen

– All high SCC and chronically infected cows

Gram negative E. coli, Klebsiella, Serratia, Pseudomonas

• These organisms can be found in the environment as well as infections of the udder– when they are found in the bulk tank it is difficult

to determine if this is coming from mastitis infections or environmental contamination

• Prevention:– Keep environment clean and dry– Maintain milking equipment – Reduce liner slips

Gram negative

E. coli• Clinical mastitis can vary

from mild to very sick cow• Severe infections more

common in early lactation

Klebsiella• Can be chronic• May lose quarter

Gram Negative

Serratia• Resistant to antimicrobial

therapy• Milk cows last

Pseudomonas• Found in water and bedding• Ponds, troughs, water

hoses, contaminated teat dip

• Chronic infections

Streptococcus spp.

• Common in fresh cows• Invade mammary gland:

– Weeks 1 – 3 dry period– Pre-fresh period

• Respond well to intramammary treatment during lactation

• High counts may also be associated with cleaning issues

Staphylococcal spp.

• Significant increase in SCC• Usually infected between milking but may be

spread at milking• Dirty teats, legs, udders increase risk of new

infection• Bedding management during the dry period is

extremely important• Does not respond well to intramammary

treatment during lactation– Responds well to dry treatment

Other pathogensYeast• Found in soil, plants, bedding and decaying organic

matter• Transmitted

– Contaminated multidose bottles of medication– Contaminated syringes

• Improper intramammary treatment protocol increase risk of infection

• May be spread at milking time form cow-to-cow through milking equipment

• Do not treat yeast infections with antibiotics

Bulk Tank Pathogens Other

Prototheca

· It is an algae found in cow environment including water, soil, bedding and manure.

· Prototheca infection does not respond to antibiotic therapy. · Infections last through a lactation and often the lifetime of the cow.· Infected quarters have very high SCC levels.· Prototheca mastitis may contribute to persistently high bacteria counts (SPC/PLC).· Cow to cow transmission of infection during milking is likely.· Early detection of infection is key!

Bulk tank pathogens

T. pyogenes• Sometimes considered “Summer mastitis”• Associated with damaged teat ends• Treatment outcomes are poor• Loss of the quarter is not uncommon

Does the number of bacteria matter?

• The bulk tank program includes counts of:– Coliforms– Staph. spp. – Strep. spp.

• The raw number may matter, but perhaps more importantly is the change over time.

Total number of tanks by herd sizeSize Number of BT

<250 990

250 – 500 353

500 – 1000 299

>1000 220

0

500

1000

1500

<250 250 - 500 500 - 1000 >1000

Num

ber o

f tan

ks

Herd Size

Number of Bulk Tanks by herd size

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

Num

ber o

f bul

ktan

ks

Bacteria counts (CFU/ml)

Frequency distribution of bacteria counts

Coliforms Staph sp Strep sp

*1862 Bulk tanks (August 2014- November 2017)

Median bacteria

count

Totalcoliforms

Total Staph species

Total Strep species

40 CFU/ml 60 CFU/ml 420 CFU/ml

0102030405060708090

100

Perc

ent o

f tan

ks

Species identified in culture

Percent of positive tanks

Summary of bulk tank pathogens

Distribution of Contagious pathogens

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mycoplasma % Staph. aureus % Strep. agalactiae %

Perc

ent o

f tan

ks w

ith c

onta

giou

s pa

thog

enDistribution of Contagious pathogen by herd size

<250 250 - 500 500 - 1000 >1000

Distribution of Gram negative pathogens

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% % % %

E. coli Klebsiella Pseudomonas Serratia

Perc

ent o

f tan

ks w

ith g

ram

neg

ativ

e pa

thog

ens

Distribution of Gram Negative pathogens by herd size

<250 250 - 500 500 - 1000 >1000

Distribution of Other organisms

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% % %

Prototheca T. Pyogenes Yeast

Perc

ent o

f tan

ks w

ith 'o

ther

' or

gani

sms

Distribution of 'Other' Pathogens by herd size

<250 250 - 500 500 - 1000 >1000

DO WE SEE ANY DIFFERENCE IN BULK TANK PATHOGENS BY SEASON?

Seasonal differences in bulk tanks

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.0

Perc

ent o

f pos

itive

tank

s

Pathogens

Percent of tanks positive by season

Spring Summer Fall Winter

EXAMPLE BULK TANK REPORTS?

https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/sects/QMPS/Services/bulktank.cfm

(Bulk Tank Monitoring Program)

Stay tuned for upcoming changes…Contagious pathogens bulk tank, quantitative bulk tank, bulk tank

monitoring

https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/sects/QMPS/Services/bulktank.cfm

BULK TANK PROGRAM REPORTBulk Tank Culture Results

Historical ComparisonBacteria Levels

June2015

August2015

October2015

December2015

February 2016

April 2016

TotalStrep species 40 cfu/ml 40 cfu/ml Not

detected 140 cfu/ml 180 cfu/ml 100 cfu/ml

TotalStaph species 80 cfu/ml 80 cfu/ml 40 cfu/ml 80 cfu/ml 120 cfu/ml 140 cfu/ml

TotalColiformBacteria

20 cfu/ml Not detected

Not detected

Not detected Not detected Not detected

CultureResults

Strep speciesStaph

speciesKlebsiella

Strep speciesStaph

species

Staph species

Pseudomonas

Staphaureus

Strep speciesStaph

speciesYeast

Staph aureusStrep speciesStaph speciesPseudomonas

Staph aureusStrep speciesStaph species

Yeast

MycoplasmaCulture Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative

Bulk Tank Culture ResultsHistorical Comparison

Bacteria Levels

April2015

June2015

October2015

December2015

February 2016

April 2016

TotalStrep species 400 cfu/ml 4,200 cfu/ml 60 cfu/ml 100 cfu/ml 300 cfu/ml 720 cfu/ml

TotalStaph species Not

detected400 cfu/ml Not

detected 80 cfu/ml 60 cfu/ml 240 cfu/ml

TotalColiformBacteria

60 cfu/ml 20,000 cfu/ml 40 cfu/ml 60 cfu/ml 2,400 cfu/ml 20 cfu/ml

CultureResults

Strep speciesE. coli

Pseudomonas

StaphaureusStrep

speciesStaph

speciesPseudomon

as

Strep speciesE. Coli

T. pyogenes

StaphaureusStrep

speciesStaph

speciesKlebsiella

T. pyogenes


E. coli


Klebsiella

MycoplasmaCulture Negative Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative

SCC Over Time

Great improvement!

Analyzing 574 cows on Test Date 3/ 5/16

Without any cows removed : Bulk Tank SCC 128

ID #>4 MILK Value SCC %Tank | Price @SCC Income | Price @SCC Income |===== === ==== ===== ==== ===== | ===== ==== ======= | ===== ==== ======= |9329 2 126 20.05 1838 3.2 16.17 124 9165 16.17 124 91659816 7 108 17.19 1838 2.7 16.16 125 9164 16.17 121 91479510 8 123 19.58 1600 2.7 16.17 125 9165 16.17 118 91279686 2 140 22.29 1213 2.3 16.16 125 9159 16.16 115 91019906 3 79 12.57 1715 1.9 16.16 126 9168 16.16 113 90888942 5 104 16.55 1300 1.9 16.17 126 9168 16.16 110 90719559 4 109 17.35 1213 1.8 16.17 126 9168 16.16 108 90549668 3 122 19.42 1056 1.8 16.16 126 9161 16.16 106 90349629 2 91 14.48 1300 1.6 16.17 126 9170 16.16 104 9019

# of times cow had LS > 4 (aka > 200K) on test

Subclinical Infections Summary

Jul-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Ideal Range

OkNeeds

Improvement

LSChronic % 13 11 8 9 10 11 11 ≤ 5% 6-10% > 10%

# 60 52 36 43 49 59 59New Inf % 6 7 8 7 5 6 6 ≤ 5% 6-8% > 8%

# 27 31 34 33 27 31 30Goal: Cure % > New

Infection %Cured % 9 5 8 5 6 3 4

# 40 25 34 26 32 17 22Clean % 73 77 77 79 79 80 79

# 343 353 342 393 400 418 419HiFresh % 19 18 17 25 10 8 11 ≤ 5% 6-17% > 17%

# 14 13 19 16 5 3 5LoFresh % 81 82 83 75 90 92 89

# 59 60 91 47 45 37 39

Cure Risk 41 31 50 36 38 21 27 Goal: Cure risk > 35%New Risk 8 8 9 8 6 7 7

Ideal Range

OkNeeds Improvement

LSChronic % ≤ 5% 6-10% > 10%

# New Inf % ≤ 5% 6-8% > 8%

# Goal: Cure % > New Infection %Cured %

# Clean %

# HiFresh % ≤ 5% 6-17% > 17%Cure Risk Goal: Cure risk > 35%

Subclinical Infections Summary

EVALUATION OF BULK TANKS TO HELP MONITOR MASTITIS?

Bulk tanks are an easy sample to collect…What kind of information can you collect?What can you do with that information?

ENVIRONMENTAL PATHOGENS, BEDDING AND MASTITIS…?

Sample bedding• Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) is very

important for analysis.• Our general recommendations are:

– Sample at the same time • For example, right before new bedding is due to be applied

– Avoid manure piles– Sample multiple stalls– Gather new bedding as it is being applied to the stalls

(but not on the stalls)– Record stall condition

• Bedding quantity• Stall cleanliness

– Write down bedding type (new vs. used; sand/sawdust/etc.)

USED Bedding Sampling SOP

USED BEDDINGCollect Representative Samples

NEW BEDDING Sampling SOP

ALL SAMPLES:LABEL & KEEP COLD OR FROZEN

Studies

• 1st study– Evaluate sampling SOP– Effect of management– Variability in samples

• 2nd study– Variability across farms – Association with mastitis

risk?

1st study

• Three farms all using manure solids.• Farm A =

– Deep beds, raw manure solids, applied lime to end of stall

• Farm B =– Deep beds, post digester manure solids and mixed

lime in mixer prior to applying bedding to stalls• Farm C =

– Mattresses with post-digester manure solids and applied lime to end of stall before adding fresh bedding

Bacteria counts in raw manure solids (FARM A)

Management Step

Used bedding in Farm A pathogen count (CFU/g; ±Standard Error)

Gram Positive Organisms Gram negative organisms

Streptococcus species

Staphylococcal species

Coliforms

Pre 181 million(±39 m)

6.5 million(±1.8 m)


Raking 284 million(±63 m)

25 million(±9.5 m)


Lime 29,823(±27,014)

2,484(±1,401)

1(±0)

Lime stopped growth… but for

how long?

Bacteria counts in manure solidsFarm NEW Bedding (CFU/g;

± Standard Error)USED bedding (CFU/g;

± Standard Error)Gram positive organisms Gram

negativeGram positive organisms Gram negative

Staphs Streps Coliforms Staphs Streps Coliforms

A23/23 stalls

158,198 (±47,364)

3.2 million(±766,087)

135,866 (±30,332)

25 million(±9.5 m)

284 million(±63.5 m)


B40/400 stalls

48,801(±24,819)

5,024(±1,891)

0 72 million(±6.9 m)

520 million(±34.1 m)

51 million(±7.8 m)

C40/100 stalls

1.3 million(±586,377)

22 million(±8.9 m)

0 95 million(±12.4 m)

313 million(±24 m)

416,055(±206,007)

Variability in samples… due to sampling technique?

Farm 1

Farm 2

Farm 3

On-going study…Over 50 farms (> 250 SAMPLES)

• Different types of bedding• Samples in FRESH PEN:

– 3-6 used bedding samples– 1 new sample

• Objective –– Define distribution

0

5

10

15

20

25

125 250 500 750 950 1200 1500 1800 2500 More

NU

MBE

RS O

F FA

RMS

NUMBERS OF COWS

Cows/farm

Frequency

2nd study (on-going)

3% 3% 2%2%

12%

2%

2%

50%

12%

2%5%

5%

BEDDING MATERIAL (FRESH PENS)

Dry sawdust

Fresh clay sand

H2O2 Recycled sand

Kiln dried sawdust

Manure solids

Raw solids

Recycled sand

Sand

QMPS BEDDING REPORT?

Stay tuned for upcoming changes!

QMPS bedding report?• Streptococcus spp.• Staphylococcus spp.• Coliform

– E. coli– Klebsiella– Other

• Other bacteria– Gram – bacillus– Gram + bacillus– Cornybacterium spp.– T. pyogenes– Pseudomonas spp.

• Other Organisms– Prototheca spp.– Yeast– Mold– Other Fungus

• Total Strep.• Total Staph.• Total Coliforms• Total other bacteria• Total other organisms• TOTAL Number• (Staph. aureus/Strep. ag)

QMPS BEDDING REPORT?

Stay tuned for changes…

MaterialNumber

of samples

Number of farms

Median Total CFU/ml

Median Total Strep spp

CFU/ml

MedianTotal Staph spp

CFU/mlManure

solids 23 7 30,700 3,330 1,280

Paper 4 1 64,800 24,800 39,700Recycled

sand 9 3 920 964 10.3

Sand 141 26 3,690 1,230 1,500Syracuse

fiber 19 4 11,100 3,210 1,290

Raw solids 7 1 1,730 1,480 -Sawdust 40 7 6,800 2,910 4,890

Straw 8 2 4,460 1,220 653

Summary of Total Bacteria (CFU/mL x 104)

Streptococcus spp counts(CFU/mL x 104)

Material Number of samples

MedianCFU/mL

Lowest countCFU/mL

Highest count

CFU/mL

Number of samples negative

Manure solids 23 3,330 0.70 32,100 0

Paper 4 24,800 823 42,000 0Recycled

sand 9 964 0.57 7,900 1

Sand 141 1,230 0.02 59,100 16Syracuse

fiber 19 3,210 0.42 84,100 0

Raw solids 7 1,480 212 2,550 0Sawdust 40 2,910 23 33,900 3

Straw 8 1,220 0.04 5,420 1

Staphylococcus spp counts(CFU/mL x 104)


MedianCFU/mL

Lowest count

CFU/mL

Highest count

CFU/mL


Manure solids 23 1,280 30.1 24,000 1

Paper 4 39,700 2,380 66,000 0Recycled

sand 9 10.3 10.3 10.3 8

Sand 141 499 0.01 21,700 41Syracuse

fiber 19 1,290 0.16 8,820 10

Raw solids 7 - - - 7Sawdust 40 4,890 0.03 66,600 17

Straw 8 653 0.006 7,000 0

Klebsiella spp counts(CFU/mL x 104)


MedianCFU/mL

Lowest count

CFU/mL

Higher count

CFU/mL


Manure solids 23 16.4 0.04 606 10

Paper 4 1.60 .14 3.05 2Recycled

sand 9 0.02 0.02 0.03 7

Sand 141 2.28 0.002 72.4 76Syracuse

fiber 19 0.91 0.001 45.1 11

Raw solids 7 12.8 0.007 140 0Sawdust 40 3.43 0.002 15,000 9

Straw 8 - - - 8

Positive to other pathogensMaterial Number of

samplesCorynebacterium

spp Pseudomonas Yeast Mold

Manure solids 23 1 13 16 3

Paper 4 0 0 0 1Recycled

sand 9 1 0 1 1

Sand 141 32 20 43 26Screened

sand 1 0 0 0 0

Syracuse fiber 19 1 2 14 2

Raw solids 7 0 0 0 6Sawdust 40 11 1 12 10

Straw 8 1 3 2 4

ADDITIONAL TESTING FOR SAND

QMPS - SAND

https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/test/list.aspx?Species=&Test_Name=sand&TstTyp=&WebDisc=

https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/test/list.aspx?Species=&Test_Name=sand&TstTyp=&WebDisc=

Particle Size

Place name of tests here.If you don’t know what to select, call us!

… These are changing… so it doesn’t hurt to call.

Bedding and mastitis

• On going research• Lots of variability• Important to follow sampling SOP

– Also include information on SAMPLE

Questions?

• Dr. Paula Ospina• [email protected]• Office: 607-255-3933• QMPS

– Ithaca

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Assessing Dairy Health Opportunities