Submitted:
08 September 2025
Posted:
11 September 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Mastitis is a leading disease in dairy cows, significantly affecting milk quality and yield, and posing notable public health risks due to milk contamination with zoonotic pathogens. This study aimed to isolate and determine the prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, and assess their associated risk factors in mastitic milk samples from selected dairy farms in Shashamane and Arsi Negelle districts, West Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. A total of 83 mastitis-positive milk samples were examined bacteriologically. The results revealed that 50.6% of the samples tested positive for S. aureus and 24.1% for E. coli, confirming their prominent role in bovine mastitis. Risk factor analysis showed that only the stage of lactation was significantly associated with S. aureus prevalence (p < 0.05), with early lactation cows being most affected. Additionally, significant associations (p < 0.05) were identified between both pathogens and hygiene-related variables, including the cleanliness of milking processes, milking equipment, handlers’ hands, and cow housing conditions. In contrast, variables such as breed, age, parity, production system, and settlement type did not show statistically significant associations. These findings emphasize the need for enhanced hygiene management, regular mastitis screening, and farmer education to reduce the burden of mastitis and improve milk safety. The study provides critical evidence for designing context-specific intervention strategies and highlights the necessity for further research into antimicrobial resistance profiles of mastitis pathogens in the region.
Keywords:
Introduction
Ethical Considerations
Methodology
Study Area and Design
Sampling Technique and Sample Size
Data Collection Instruments
- Milk Sample Collection: Following strict aseptic protocols, milk was collected into sterile universal bottles. The udder and teats were thoroughly cleaned, and the first few streams of milk were discarded to avoid contamination. Each sample was labeled appropriately for traceability.
- Transport and Storage: Collected samples were transported to the microbiology laboratory of Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center (ATARC) in ice-cooled containers. If immediate processing was not feasible, samples were refrigerated at 4°C and processed within 24 hours.
- Questionnaire Survey: Structured questionnaires were administered to 40 farm owners and attendants to gather information on risk factors such as breed, age, parity, lactation stage, hygiene practices, production system, and environmental conditions.
Bacteriological Examination
- S. aureus was isolated by culturing milk on Mannitol Salt Agar (MSA) and 5% Sheep Blood Agar. Colonies showing golden yellow pigmentation and β-hemolysis were Gram-stained and subjected to catalase and slide coagulase tests. Catalase-positive, coagulase-positive, Gram-positive cocci arranged in clusters were identified as S. aureus.
- E. coli was isolated by streaking milk onto MacConkey Agar and Eosin Methylene Blue (EMB) Agar. Colonies with a metallic green sheen on EMB were Gram-stained and subjected to biochemical tests, including Indole, Methyl Red, Voges-Proskauer, and Citrate (IMViC). Indole- and Methyl Red-positive but VP- and Citrate-negative results confirmed the presence of E. coli.
Data Analysis
Results
Bacterial Isolation and Prevalence
Association of Risk Factors with Pathogen Prevalence
Hygienic Practices and Pathogen Association
- Milking process hygiene
- Milking equipment hygiene
- Milker's hand hygiene
- Pen and floor cleanliness
Other Variables
Discussion
Conclusion
Funding
Acknowledgements
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Amer, S.; et al. Standard bacteriological procedures for milk analysis. Journal of Veterinary Microbiology 2018, 44(3), 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balcha, M. Multi-drug resistance in S. aureus isolated from bovine mastitis. Ethiopian Veterinary Journal 2022, 26(1), 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brenner, D. J. Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 9th Edition ed; Williams & Wilkins, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheesbrough, M. District Laboratory Practice in Tropical Countries: Part 2; Cambridge University Press, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 28th Edition ed; CLSI Document M100, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrigan, W. F.; McCance, M. E. Laboratory Methods in Food and Dairy Microbiology; Academic Press, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langer, S.; Wenzel, C.; Jost, C. Impact of milking hygiene and udder health management on microbial contamination in dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Research 2020, 87(1), 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shimels, D.; Yilma, T.; Belihu, K. Assessment of hygienic milk handling practices and prevalence of bovine mastitis in smallholder dairy farms in Ethiopia. African Journal of Microbiological Research 2014, 8(4), 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weldemelak Girmay, T.; Haileselassie, M.; Tesfaye, B. Zoonotic challenges of dairy cattle production in Ethiopia. Journal of Zoonotic Disease Research 2020, 9(2), 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeryehun, T.; Aya, T.; Bayecha, R. Study on bovine mastitis in dairy farms of Asella town, Oromia Regional State, South Eastern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Veterinary Journal 2013, 17(1), 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| Pathogen | Number of Isolates | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| S. aureus | 42 | 50.6 |
| E. coli | 20 | 24.1 |
| Breed | S. aureus (%) | E. coli (%) |
| Cross | 47.62 | 50.00 |
| Exotic | 35.71 | 30.00 |
| Local | 16.67 | 20.00 |
| Lactation Stage | S. aureus (%) | E. coli (%) |
| ≤4 months | 38.10 | 45.00 |
| 4–8 months | 35.71 | 30.00 |
| >8 months | 26.19 | 25.00 |
| Hygiene Level | S. aureus (%) | E. coli (%) |
| Poor | 47.62 | 60.00 |
| Medium | 35.71 | 30.00 |
| Good | 16.67 | 10.00 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).