Search

The mode of action of bismuth subnitrate in teat sealant formulations as a preventative for intramammary infections during the dry period is unknown. Although previous studies proposed an action mechanism—creating a physical barrier in the teat canal to prevent bacterial invasion—it has not been proven experimentally. We hypothesized that bismuth subnitrate has an inhibitory effect on bacterial growth, in addition to its barrier effect. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of bismuth subnitrate on bacterial growth of major mastitis-causing agents. A strain of Streptococcus uberis (SR115), 2 strains of Staphylococcus aureus (SA3971/59 and SA1), and a strain of Escherichia coli (P17.14291) were tested in vitro for their ability to grow in the presence or absence of bismuth subnitrate. Disk diffusion testing, impedance measurement, and evaluation of bacterial growth in shaking conditions were the methods used to test this hypothesis. A reduction of growth in the presence of bismuth subnitrate occurred for all the strains tested. However, we observed strain and species variations in the extent of growth inhibition. These results suggest that an inhibitory effect on bacterial growth by bismuth subnitrate could partially explain the efficacy of bismuth-based formulations for preventing intramammary infections over the dry period. Further research is required to test the effect of teat sealant formulations on bacterial growth.

AIMS: To determine seroprevalence of Leptospira borgpetersenii serovar Hardjo and L. interrogans serovar Pomona in beef cattle, sheep and deer in New Zealand and the association between farm-level risk factors and seroprevalence. METHODS: Between June 2009 and July 2010, 20 serum samples per flock or herd were collected from 162 sheep flocks, and 116 cattle and 99 deer herds from 238 farms, along with farm data by interview. Samples were tested for antibodies to serovars Hardjo and Pomona by microscopic agglutination testing, with a titre ≥48 being positive. Species-specific associations between herd-level seroprevalence (number of seropositive animals, for each serovar, divided by the number of animals tested) and herd-level risk factors were determined by multivariable logistic regression analysis. Vaccinated animals were excluded from seroprevalence estimates but included in multivariable analyses. RESULTS: For sheep (n=3,339), animal-level seroprevalence was 43.6 (95% CI=41.9–45.3)% for serovar Hardjo and 14.1 (95% CI=12.9–15.3)% for serovar Pomona; for beef cattle(n=1,886), it was 45.6 (95% CI=43.3–47.9)% for Hardjo and 19.6 (95% CI=17.9–21.5)% for Pomona; and for deer (n=1,870), it was 26.3 (95% CI=24.3–28.4)% for Hardjo, 8.8 (95% CI=7.6–10.2)% for Pomona. In sheep flocks (n=161), flock-level prevalence for Hardjo varied from 77.9–91.3%, and for Pomona from 40.4–73.9%, when ≥1, ≥2 or ≥3 animals were seropositive. In beef herds (n=95), herd-level prevalence for Hardjo varied from 7.0–90.5%, and for Pomona from 42.1–68.4%. In deer herds (n=93), herd-level prevalence for Hardjo varied from 45.2–59.1%, and for Pomona from 22.6–48.4%. For sheep flocks, herd-level seroprevalence for Hardjo was associated with flock size (OR=1.56) and number of dogs (OR=0.75), and for Pomona, seroprevalence varied with region. For beef cattle, herd-level seroprevalence for Hardjo was associated with herd size (OR=1.4), presence of dams (OR 0.6) and vaccination (OR 2.9), and for Pomona, co-grazing with deer (OR=0.4), vaccination (OR=3.22), presence of dams (OR=0.2) and streams (OR=2.7). For deer herds, seroprevalence for Hardjo or Pomona was associated with herd size (OR=1.6 and 1.8) and varied with region, and for Pomona seroprevalence varied with season (summer vs. winter: OR=4.8). CONCLUSIONS: Serovars Hardjo and Pomona were highly prevalent at herd and animal levels, with serovar Hardjo highest in all species. Larger herd size was the common risk factor for seroprevalence in all livestock species.