RESUMEN
Severe clinical mastitis is not so frequent in dairy cows, but it can have a significant economic impact due to its high mortality rate and adverse effects on milk production. Surveys about the cause of mastitis typically provide overall findings without connecting them to a specific medical condition. There are few studies on the specific etiology of severe mastitis. Only etiological results obtained during field studies are available in France, and the number of mastitic milk samples analyzed is always low. In recent years, veterinary clinics have improved their ability to identify bacteria causing bovine mastitis using a widely used method. This in-clinic milk culture made it possible to better understand the etiology of mastitis according to the symptoms observed. Regarding clinical mastitis, veterinarians treat severe cases differently than less severe ones. Based on data from nineteen veterinary clinics in France and over 2000 severe mastitis cases, the current study revealed that Enterobacteriaceae, particularly Escherichia coli, is the most common cause, isolated on average from 53.9% of milk samples. This information is highly reliable for practitioners to quickly and effectively treat the condition, because early and targeted treatment is crucial to avoid the complication of endotoxic shock.
Asunto(s)
Mastitis Bovina , Leche , Animales , Bovinos , Femenino , Humanos , Leche/microbiología , Escherichia coli , Bacterias , Causalidad , Mastitis Bovina/microbiologíaRESUMEN
Since the outbreak of bluetongue in Northern Europe in 2006, numerous outbreaks involving several serotypes have been observed. Since 2008, compulsory or voluntary vaccination campaigns with inactivated vaccines have been carried out to eradicate these serotypes. In France, serotypes 8 and 4 have been enzootic since 2017, and currently, the majority of vaccinations take place in the context of animal movements, to comply with the regulations of the importing countries. Several vaccine manufacturers have developed inactivated vaccines against serotypes 4 and 8 (mono or bivalent). In this study, we investigated and compared the serological responses to a booster vaccination with two different bivalent inactivated vaccines (BTVPUR suspension injectable® 4 + 8, Boehringer Ingelheim or SYVAZUL ® BTV 4 + 8, Biové) following a primary vaccination with BTVPUR® 4 + 8 in the previous year. The results show that using an alternative vaccine for booster vaccination is at least as effective as using the homologous vaccine. Indeed, the antibody response against BTV-8 is higher in the case of a heterologous vaccination and identical for BTV-4. This information could allow more flexibility in the choice of vaccines used for booster vaccination, particularly in cases where homologous vaccines are in short supply or unavailable.