Prevalence of Subclinical Mastitis Pathogens in Small Dairy Farms in Republic of North Macedonia

Open access


Subclinical mastitis is an asymptomatic udder infection distributed worldwide with enormous losses in the dairy industry. The study’s objective was to determine the presence of this pathological condition in small dairy farms in the R. of N. Macedonia and to identify the most common associated bacteria. Milk samples were obtained from 96 dairy cows (378 udder quarters) in seven dairy farms, in 3 consecutive samplings 24-72 hours apart. The samples were cultured on routine bacteriological growth media and incubated for 24-48 hours. The isolates were identified by AximaiD Plus MALDITOF MS Platform. Subclinical mastitis was found in 49 animals (51%) and 104 infected quarters (27%). The most frequent isolated bacteria on cow level were Streptococcus uberis (19.4%), Staphylococcus haemolyticus (13.4%), Staphylococcus aureus (7.4%) and Staphylococcu ssimulans (7.4%). On quarter level, the most isolated pathogen was Streptococcus uberis (35.6%) followed by Staphylococcu shaemolyticus and Staphylococcus aureus (10.3% and 9.2% respectively). Subclinical mastitis was found to be highly present in the selected small dairy farms. The most prevalent bacteria identified in the dairy farms (Streptococcus uberis, Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase–negative staphylococci) indicate that poor management and udder health practices, inadequate milking procedures and lack of mastitis control strategies greatly contribute to occurrence and persistence of subclinical mastitis.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Gianneechini R. Concha C. Rivero R. Delucci I. Moreno López J. (2002). Occurrence of clinical and sub-clinical mastitis in dairy herds in the west littoral region in Uruguay. Acta Vet Scand. 43 221-230. PMid:12831175 PMCid:PMC1764198

  • 2. Gonçalvesa J.L. Kamphuisb C. Martinsa C.M.M.R. Barreiroa J.R. Tomazia T. Gameiroa A.H. Hogeveenb H. dos Santos M.V. (2018). Bovine subclinical mastitis reduces milk yield and economic return. Livest Sci. 210 25-32.

  • 3. Forsbаck L. Lindmark-Mansson H. Andren A. Kerstedt M.A. Svennersten-Sjaunja K. (2009). Udder quarter milk composition at different levels of somatic cell count in cow composite milk. Animal 3(5): 710-717. PMid:22444450

  • 4. Sharif A. Muhammad G. (2008). Somatic cell count as an indicator of udder health status under modern dairy production: A review. Pakistan Vet J. 28(4): 194-200.

  • 5. Persson Y. Nyman A.K.J. Grönlund-Andersson U. (2011). Etiology and antimicrobial susceptibility of udder pathogens from cases of subclinical mastitis in dairy cows in Sweden. Acta Vet Scand. 53(1): 36. PMid:21649936 PMCid:PMC3118135

  • 6. Tongel P. Broucek J. (2010). Influence of hygienic condition on prevalence of mastitis and lameness in dairy cows. Slovak J Anim Sci. 43(2): 95-99.

  • 7. Abdel-Rady A. Sayed M. (2009). Epidemiological studies on subclinical mastitis in dairy cows in Assiut Governorate. Vet World. 2(10): 373-380.

  • 8. Sanotharan N. Pagthinathan M. Nafees M.S.M. (2016). Prevalence of bovine subclinical mastitis and its association with bacteria and risk factors in milking of Batticaloa district in Sri Lanka. IJSRIT 3 (6): 137-150.

  • 9. Botrel M.A. Haenni M. Morignat E. Sulpice P. Madec J.Y. Calavas D. (2010). Distribution and antimicrobial resistance of clinical and subclinical mastitis pathogens in dairy cows in Rhone-Alpes France. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 7(5): 479-487. PMid:19919286

  • 10. Tenhagen B.A. Koster G. Wallmann J. Heuwieser W. (2006). Prevalence of mastitis pathogens and their resistance against antimicrobial agents in dairy cows in Brandenburg Germany. J Dairy Sci. 89 2542-2551.

  • 11. Sharma N. Singh N. K. Bhadwal M. S. (2011). Relationship of somatic cell count and mastitis: an overview. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 24(3): 429 - 438.

  • 12. Hristov S. Relich R. Stancovich B. Vukovich D. (2006). Influence of individual factors on somatic cell count in cow’s milk. Proceedings of Scientific Papers 12(3-4): 47-57. [in Serbian]

  • 13. Bojkovic Kovacevic S. Lazarevic N. (2009). Correlation between CMT test subclinical mastitis and somatic cell count. Proceedings of Scientific Papers 15(3-4) 29-37. [in Serbian]

  • 14. Manzi M. de P. Nуbrega D.B. Faccioli P.Y. Troncarelli M.Z. Menozzi B.D Langoni H. (2012). Relationship between teat-end condition udder cleanliness and bovine subclinical mastitis. Res Vet Sci. 93 430-434. PMid:21669449

  • 15. National Mastitis Council (2012). Interpreting bacteriological culture results to diagnose bovine intramammary infections. Research Committee Report. [Internet] Verona Winskonsin USA. [Accessed November 2018]

  • 16. Katic V. El Tayeb H. Babic L. Popovic J. (1994). Effect of mastitis on milk quality. Vet Glas. 48(3-4): 171-176. [in Serbian]

  • 17. Knight CH. Peaker M. (1991). Mammary gland physiology. Flemishe Vet J. 62(Suppl. 1): 33-41.

  • 18. Berglund I. Pettersson G. Ostensson K. Svennersten-Sjaunja K. (2007). Quarter milking for improved detection of increased SCC. Reprod Dom Anim. 42 427-432. PMid:17635782

  • 19. Food and Veterinary Agency of Republic of Macedonia (2012). Rulebook for specific requirements for safety and hygiene and the manner of conducting official controls of milk and milk products. Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia No. 26/2012. [in Macedonian]. [Accessed November 2019]

  • 20. Commission of European Communities: Council regulation 853/2004/EC on laying down specific hygiene rules for on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2004). Official Journal L139/55 [Accessed November 2019]

  • 21. National Mastitis Council (2004). Microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of bovine udder infection and determination of milk quality. microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of bovine udder infection and determination of milk quality. [Internet]. Verona Winskonsin USA. [Accessed November 2018]

  • 22. Pitkala A. Haveri M. Pyorala S. Myllys V. Honkanen-Buzalski T. (2004). Bovine mastitis in Finland 2001 - prevalence distribution of bacteria and antimicrobial resistance. Dairy Sci. 87 2433-2441.

  • 23. Wilkins C. L. O Lay J. (2006) Identification of microorganisms by mass spectrometry. Hoboken New Jersey: Wiley-Interscience.

  • 24. AnagnosTec [Internet]. Potsdam Germany: Spectral archive and microbial identification system user manual (2009). Availlable from:

  • 25. ISO. ISO 13366-2:2006 Milk-enumeration of somatic cells Part 2-guidance on the operation of fluoro-opto-electronic counters. 2nd ed. Geneva: ISO; 2006. 15p.

  • 26. Sylejmani D. Ramadani N. Robaj A. Hamidi A. (2015). Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of bacterial isolates from subclinical mastitis in dairy farms in Kosovo. BJVM 9(4): 299-307.

  • 27. Dohoo R. Meek A.H. (1982). Somatic cell in bovine milk. Can Vet J. 23 119-125.

  • 28. Tomazi T. Gonchalves J. L. Barreiro J. R Arcari M. A. dos Santos M. V. (2015). Bovine subclinical intramammary infection caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci increases somatic cell count but has no effect on milk yield or composition. Dairy Sci. 98 3071-3078. PMid:25726098

  • 29. Djabri B. Bareille N. Beaudeau F. Seegers H. (2002). Quarter milk somatic cell count in infected dairy cows: a meta-analysis. Vet Res. 33 335-357. PMid:12199362

  • 30. Kochyigit R. Yilmaz O. Ozench E. Uchar M. (2016). Effect of some risk factors on subclinical mastitis in dairy cows. Vet J. 9(3): 185-193.

  • 31. Slyzius E. Juozaitiene V. Juozaitis A. Zilaitis V. Slyziene B. Cereskiene E. (2014). Udder quarters morphological and milking traits risk factors influencing productivity and subclinical mastitis in dairy cows. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 20(6): 1502-1507.

  • 32. Мalik T.A. Мohini M. Mir S.H. Ganaie B.A Singh D. Varun T.K. Howal S. Thakur S. (2018). Somatic cells in relation to udder health and milk quality-a review. J Anim Health Prod. 6(1): 18-26.

  • 33. Čačić Z. Kalit S. Antunac N. Čačić M. (2003). Somatic cells and factors affecting their number in milk. Mljekarstvo 53(1): 23-36. [in Serbian]

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.45

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.193
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.328

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 15 15 15
PDF Downloads 9 9 9