Estimation of the costs of mastitis, using National Animal Health Monitoring System and milk somatic cell count data

Data collected by the National Animal Health Monitoring System in Ohio for a 12-month period during 1986 and 1987 were used to determine the relative magnitude of costs associated with mastitis in the following categories: milk production loss, veterinary services, drugs, producer labor, and "other" factors. The cost of milk loss associated with mastitis that was reported by producers cooperating in the National Animal Health Monitoring System program was compared with estimates based on bulk tank somatic cell counts and individual cow milk somatic cell counts. Using producer-reported estimates, milk loss accounted for about one third of the total cost associated with mastitis. When estimates of milk loss were replaced by estimates based on bulk tank somatic cell counts, milk loss accounted for over 80% of the total cost of mastitis. Estimates of the cost of milk loss based on studies relating milk yield to somatic cell counts differed considerably. Consequently, it was unclear how to best estimate the relative magnitude of the milk loss component of mastitis costs.     

A blind test of the serological response of dogs to infection with Taenia ovis

Fifty six dogs of mixed age and sex were acquired from farms in the Otago/Southland region, and maintained at the Hydatid Research Unit, Taieri, where 43 were each fed two Tueniu ovis cysts. All were bled fortnightly for six or 12 weeks. Coded sera were sent to Wallaceville Animal Research Centre for testing using ELISA, with antigen from T. ovis scoleces. Dog treatments were identified after all tests were complete. A discriminant level was derived from the mean absorbance value plus three standard deviations of 56 sera taken at time zero and 78 sera from serially bled uninfected dogs. None of these 134 sera registered as a false positive using this discriminant level. The data showed no significant deviation from normality, and the expected frequency of the occurrence of false positives is therefore less than 0.14%. Four weeks after infection 63% of dogs proved to be infected were serologically positive, rising to 78% after 6 weeks. When worms were removed by anthelmintic treatment, ELISA absorbance levels decreased. Four weeks after removal 70% of previously infected dogs remained positive, decreasing to 30% after 6 weeks. Six weeks after infection the sensitivity of the test was 78%, and the specificity 63%. However, if dogs with positive ELISA absorbance levels, but which did not purge worms, were regarded as having had worms, the respective figures would be 82% and 100%. The latter figures are similar to our previously published laboratory results. The test is of comparable efficiency to arecoline purgation for surveillance, and has the additional advantage of detecting infection in the majority of those dogs that have been infected for three weeks or more but fail to pass worms on purgation, and a substantial proportion of those infected dogs that were treated by their owners prior to presenting them for purgation in order to avoid detection of infection.