HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Interpretive Summary Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Kristula, M. A. Articles by Sabo, M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kristula, M. A. Articles by Sabo, M.

Evaluation of Free-Stall Mattress Bedding Treatments to Reduce Mastitis Bacterial Growth

M. A. Kristula^*,1, Z. Dou^*, J. D. Toth^*, B. I. Smith^*, N. Harvey^* and M. Sabo

^* University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square 19348
PO Box 43, Unionville, PA 19375

¹ Corresponding author: Kristula{at}vet.upenn.edu

Bacterial counts were compared in free-stall mattresses and teat ends exposed to 5 treatments in a factorial study design on 1 dairy farm. Mattresses in five 30-cow groups were subjected to 1 of 5 bedding treatments every other day: 0.5 kg of hydrated limestone, 120 mL of commercial acidic conditioner, 1 kg of coal fly ash, 1 kg of kiln-dried wood shavings, and control (no bedding). Counts of coliforms, Klebsiella spp., Escherichia coli, and Streptococcus spp. were lowest on mattresses bedded with lime. Mattresses bedded with the commercial acidic conditioner had the next lowest counts for coliforms, Klebsiella spp., and Streptococcus spp. Wood shavings and the no-bedding control had the highest counts for coliform and Klebsiella spp. Compared with wood shavings or control, fly ash reduced the counts of coliforms, whereas for the other 3 bacterial groups, the reduction was not always significant. Streptococcus spp. counts were greatest in the control group and did not differ among the shavings and fly ash groups. Teat swab results indicated that hydrated lime was the only bedding treatment that significantly decreased the counts of both coliforms and Klebsiella spp. There were no differences in Streptococcus spp. numbers on the teats between any of the bedding treatments. Bacterial populations grew steadily on mattresses and were generally higher at 36 to 48 h than at 12 to 24 h, whereas bacterial populations on teats grew rapidly by 12 h and then remained constant. Hydrated lime was the only treatment that significantly reduced bacterial counts on both mattresses and teat ends, but it caused some skin irritation.

Key Words: bedding • bacterial count • free-stall