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

Abstract

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.

An update on environmental mastitis: Challenging perceptions

“…Both alkaline and acidic conditioners have been used successfully to modify coliform and streptococcal counts on cow mattresses (Kristula et al., ) and in sawdust (Paduch, Mohr, & Krömker, ; Proietto et al., ). When using lime, both positive and negative effects were observed at teat level, that is, a reduction of bacterial counts as well as damage to teat skin (Kristula et al., ; Paduch et al., ). With acidifiers, neither positive nor negative effects were observed (Kristula et al., ; Proietto et al., ).…”

“…When using lime, both positive and negative effects were observed at teat level, that is, a reduction of bacterial counts as well as damage to teat skin (Kristula et al., ; Paduch et al., ). With acidifiers, neither positive nor negative effects were observed (Kristula et al., ; Proietto et al., ). The effect of acidifiers is time‐limited.…”

“…Tools to manage bacterial counts in bedding include bedding replacement and the use of bedding conditioners. Both alkaline and acidic conditioners have been used successfully to modify coliform and streptococcal counts on cow mattresses (Kristula et al, 2008) and in sawdust (Paduch, Mohr, & Kr€ omker, 2013;Proietto et al, 2013). When using lime, both positive and negative effects were observed at teat level, that is, a reduction of bacterial counts as well as damage to teat skin (Kristula et al, 2008;Paduch et al, 2013).…”

Sources of Klebsiella and Raoultella species on dairy farms: Be careful where you walk

“…Growth of Klebsiella spp. is also observed on mattresses without shavings or other bedding (Kristula et al, 2008). In recent years, Klebsiella spp.…”

Disinfection with hydrated lime may help manage cryptosporidiosis in calves

“…However, the parasite is resistant to all commonly used chemical disinfectants, making it particularly difficult to control (Fayer, 2008). Hydrated lime, or calcium hydroxide, can be used to sanitise animal facilities from bacteria and viruses (Kristula et al, 2008;Anonymous, 2009). It has been shown that hydrated lime decreases the viability of C. parvum in the laboratory (Zintl et al, 2010), and when hydrated lime disinfection of the calf pens was used as a complement to the standard cleaning procedures in two Swedish herds with long-lasting cryptosporidiosis problems, the farmers reported a lower incidence and less severe diarrhea in the calves (C. Axén personal communication).…”