The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 25 of the 87 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Coliform mastitis
Open accessAbstract
Gram-negative bacteria that commonly cause bovine mastitis are classified as environmental pathogens. The point sources of coliform bacteria that cause infections include bedding materials, soil, manure and other organic matter in the environment of cows. Rates of coliform mastitis increase during climatic periods that maximize populations in the environment. The portal of entry into the mammary gland for Gram-negative bacteria is the teat canal. Once in the gland, bacteria must utilize available substrates in the mammary secretion to replicate and evade host defenses. Rates of coliform mastitis are greater during the transitional phases of the non- lactating period than during lactation. The ability to infect the non-lactating gland is directly related to the ability of bacteria to acquire iron from the mammary secretion. The primary host defense against coliform mastitis during lactation is the elimination of bacteria by neutrophils migrating into the gland in response to inflammation. Damage to the host is mediated by the release of endotoxin. The severity and duration of clinical signs associated with coliform mastitis are reduced by the use of core-antigen bacterins.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review summarizes coliform mastitis as an environmentally acquired bovine mammary infection caused mainly by *Escherichia coli* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*, emphasizing pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and control. It concludes that management is most effective through reducing environmental exposure and using core-antigen bacterins, which in field trials reduced clinical mastitis 4- to 5-fold.
Key findings
- Coliform mastitis is usually caused by environmental Gram-negative bacteria; common sources include bedding, soil, manure, water, and other organic matter in cows’ environments.
- During lactation, coliform infections are often short: the average duration of *E. coli* intramammary infections was reported as less than 10 days, and *K. pneumoniae* averaged about 21 days.
- In a field-trial summary, Gram-negative core-antigen vaccination reduced clinical mastitis incidence, with clinical cases 4- to 5-fold lower in vaccinated cows than controls; another trial result cited was that 66.7% of coliform intramammary infections in unvaccinated cows became clinical in early lactation versus 20% in vaccinated cows.
- Dry-period infections are important: 65% of coliform clinical cases in the first two months of lactation were reported to have originated during the dry period.
Methods
- Narrative review article synthesizing prior experimental, field-trial, survey, and laboratory studies on bovine coliform mastitis.
- No original study sample is reported in this paper; it summarizes evidence from published work on diagnosis, virulence, epidemiology, and management.
- The main analysis is qualitative integration of prior findings, with occasional quantitative comparisons taken from cited studies.
Limitations
- The paper explicitly notes that control data are lacking to demonstrate a clear effect of heat stress on susceptibility to clinical coliform mastitis.
- It states that the mechanisms by which immunization reduces clinical mastitis are not known.
- Evident from the text: because this is a review, it does not present new primary data or a new analytic design of its own.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
25 No full text of the sources · 14 Partly supported · 11 Sources not found · 7 Own interpretation · 4 Supported so far · 2 Not supported · 1 Supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Wood shavings, straw, chopped newspaper, recycled manure, and corn fodder are commonly used bedding materials that often sustain coliform populations greater than 10 6 colony forming units/gram of bedding [24, 27].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] [24] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Bacterial counts in bedding materials used on nine commercial dairies, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 250-258. - source
- Disputedcites [27] [27] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Bacterial counts associated with recycled chopped newspaper bedding, J. Dairy Sci. 73 (1990) 1756-1761. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 1 (CONCLUSIONS section) reports mean coliform counts of about 10^5.5 CFU/g for used chopped newspaper and 10^5.2 CFU/g for used wood shavings—below the claimed 10^6 threshold. The study did not test recycled manure or corn fodder, and its discussion says straw was not included. The reported counts therefore contradict the threshold claim for the two named materials it measured. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Only about 10% of clinical coliform cases result in systemic signs including fever, anorexia, and altered respiration [25, 55].”
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [25] [25] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Schoenberger P.S., Todhunter D.A., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Conrad H.R., Field survey of mastitis in low somatic cell count herds, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1547-1556. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Clinical Mastitis Severity Codes section defines code 5 as including systemic signs. The Mastitis Severity Codes results report that 29.2% of clinical coliform cases were code 5, contrary to the claimed approximately 10%. Our copy does not specify fever, anorexia, or altered respiration as those signs. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The primary host defense against coliform mastitis during lactation is the elimination of bacteria by neutrophils migrating into the gland in response to inflammation.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Evading cellular defenses · plain
“The primary cellular defense of the bovine mammary gland against coliform mastitis is the phagocytosis and killing of bacteria by neutrophils [18, 60].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] [18] Hill A.W., Factors influencing the outcome of Escherichia coli mastitis in the dairy cow, Res. Vet. Sci. 31 (1981) 107-112. - source
- Supportedcites [60] [60] Van Werven T., Noordhuizen-Stassen E.N., Daemen A.J.J.M., Schukken Y.H., Brand A., Burvenich C., Preinfection in vitro chemotaxis, phagocytosis, oxidative burst, and expression of CD11/CD18 receptors and their predictive capacity on the outcome of mastitis induced in dairy cows with Escherichia coli , J. Dairy Sci. 80 (1997) 67-74. - source
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes leukocyte migration into the udder, followed by phagocytosis and intracellular killing, as key defenses against E. coli mastitis. The Discussion (page unavailable) calls fast leukocyte migration the most important step in the defense cascade and describes neutrophil movement into inflammatory sites. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Evading cellular defenses · plain
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Damage to the host is mediated by the release of endotoxin.”
- Also stated in: § 3.5. Endotoxin · plain
“Endotoxin is the primary virulence factor of Gram-negative bacteria responsible for damage to the cow.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] [53] Shuster D.E., Harmon R.J., Jackson J.A., Hemken R.E., Suppression of milk production during endotoxin-induced mastitis, J. Dairy Sci. 74 (1991) 3746-3774. - source
- Supportedcites [3] [3] Bouchard L., Blais S., Desrosiers C., Zhoa X., Lacasse P., Nitic oxide production during endotoxin-induced mastitis in the cow, J. Dairy Sci. 82 (1999) 2574-2581. - source
The Introduction states that endotoxin (LPS) is responsible for acute clinical symptoms of coliform mastitis and that interaction with LPS induces inflammatory mediators. In Experiment 1, LPS infusion caused mastitis and changes in mammary epithelial permeability, supporting the claim that endotoxin mediates harm to the host. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] [21] Hirvonen J., Eklund K., Teppo A.M., Huszenicza G., Kulcsar M., Saloniemi H., Pyorala S., Acute phase response in dairy cows with experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis, Acta. Vet. Scand. 40 (1999) 35-46. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] [22] Hoeben D., Burvenich B., Trevisi E., Bertoni G., Hamann J., Bruckmairer R.M., Blum J.W., Role of endotoxin and TNFin the pathogenesis of experimentally induced coliform mastitis in periparturient cows, J. Dairy Res. 67 (2000) 503-514. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.5. Endotoxin · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Rates of coliform mastitis are greater during the transitional phases of the nonlactating period than during lactation.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Dry period · plain
“Rates of new intramammary infections caused by coliforms are greater during the dry period than during lactation [12].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [12] [12] Eberhart R.J., Natzke R.P., Newbould F.S.H., Nonnecke B., Thompson P., Coliform mastitis - a review, J. Dairy Sci . 62 (1979) 1-22. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The review’s “Time of Infection” section reports coliform infections arising during the dry period and a high proportion of peracute cases around parturition. It does not establish that rates during the transitional phases of the nonlactating period exceed rates during lactation; several figures instead describe cases in early lactation. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Dry period · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Decreased milk production during clinical coliform mastitis results both directly and indirectly from the local and systemic effects of endotoxin [3, 21, 22].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [3] [3] Bouchard L., Blais S., Desrosiers C., Zhoa X., Lacasse P., Nitic oxide production during endotoxin-induced mastitis in the cow, J. Dairy Sci. 82 (1999) 2574-2581. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Experiment 1 reports that intramammary endotoxin infusion reduced milk production and produced both udder inflammation and increased body temperature. The paper does not establish that the reduction resulted both directly and indirectly from local and systemic effects, and its experiment used induced mastitis rather than naturally occurring clinical coliform mastitis. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] [21] Hirvonen J., Eklund K., Teppo A.M., Huszenicza G., Kulcsar M., Saloniemi H., Pyorala S., Acute phase response in dairy cows with experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis, Acta. Vet. Scand. 40 (1999) 35-46. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] [22] Hoeben D., Burvenich B., Trevisi E., Bertoni G., Hamann J., Bruckmairer R.M., Blum J.W., Role of endotoxin and TNFin the pathogenesis of experimentally induced coliform mastitis in periparturient cows, J. Dairy Res. 67 (2000) 503-514. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Intramammary infections caused by Serratia spp. and Pseudomonas spp. often are chronic infections that may persist multiple lactations [25].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] [25] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Schoenberger P.S., Todhunter D.A., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Conrad H.R., Field survey of mastitis in low somatic cell count herds, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1547-1556. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Rates of Clinical Mastitis section reports that 31.0% of cases involving nonlactose-fermenting gram-negative bacilli were potential repeat cases, and relates this finding to high clinical recurrence among pseudomonads. The paper does not identify Serratia in that finding or establish that infections were chronic or persisted across multiple lactations; the herds were monitored for one year. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Coliform mastitis can result in bacteremia and septicemia as the blood-milk barrier is destroyed [61].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [61] [61] Wenz J.R., Barrington G.M., Garry F.B., McSweeney K.D., Dinsmore R.P., Goodell G., Callan R.J., Bacteremia associated with naturally occuring acute coliform mastitis in dairy cows, J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 219 (2001) 976-981. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that E. coli and Klebsiella isolated from cows’ blood matched isolates from their infected mammary glands, supporting mastitis-associated bacteremia. It does not establish septicemia or show that destruction of the blood–milk barrier caused the bacteremia; it also notes that some cases may involve bacteria translocating from other organs. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The percentage distribution of Gram-negative bacteria causing clinical mastitis is herd dependant, but studies in the United States and Europe consistently report that appropriately 40% of clinical cases are the result of Gram-negative bacteria [25, 27, 55, 57].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] [25] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Schoenberger P.S., Todhunter D.A., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Conrad H.R., Field survey of mastitis in low somatic cell count herds, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1547-1556. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Distribution of Clinical Cases by Bacteriological Status section reports 29.7% coliform cases and 6.5% nonlactose-fermenting cases; the paper identifies the latter as Gram-negative bacilli. Together, these account for about 36% of cases in the herds studied, reasonably close to 40%. The paper does not establish that studies across the United States and Europe consistently find that proportion; its comparison with United Kingdom herds concerns overall mastitis rates, not the Gram-negative percentage. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Could not verifycites [27] [27] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Bacterial counts associated with recycled chopped newspaper bedding, J. Dairy Sci. 73 (1990) 1756-1761. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction discusses bedding as a source of mastitis pathogens, and Bedding Counts reports that 1.1% of quarters had a Gram-negative intramammary infection. Neither passage gives the proportion of clinical mastitis cases caused by Gram-negative bacteria. Searches for the claimed 40% figure and for clinical-case proportions found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [57] [57] Suriyasathaporn W., Schukken Y.H., Nielen M., Brand A., Low somatic cell count: a risk factor for subsequent clinical mastitis in a dairy herd, J. Dairy Sci. 83 (2000) 12481255. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Coliforms that can metabolize the constituents of milk in the micro-environment of the gland can reach populations exceeding 10 8 colony-forming units per milliliter of milk [31].”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] [31] Hogan J.S., Weiss W.P., Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Schoenberger P.S., Efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 vaccine in an experimental challenge trial, J. Dairy Sci. 75 (1992) 415-422. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction discusses coliform intramammary infections, and the Milk samples section describes culturing milk to identify bacteria. Neither reports coliform growth from milk constituents or populations exceeding 10^8 colony-forming units per milliliter; searches for those terms and the numerical threshold found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The high frequency of clinical cases and relatively short duration of Gram-negative bacterial intramammary infections render the use of individual cow SCC and bulk tank SCC as poor indicators of the prevalence of disease caused by these bacteria [13, 20, 25, 57].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] [13] Erskine R.J., Eberhart R.J., Hutchinson L.J., Spencer S.B., Herd management and prevalence of mastitis in dairy herds with high and 14. low somatic cell counts, J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 190 (1987) 1411-1416. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] [20] Hillerton J.E., Bramley A.J., Staker R.T., McKinnon C.H., Patterns of intramammary infection and clinical mastitis over a 5 year period in a closely monitored herd applying mastitis control measures, J. Dairy Res. 62 (1995) 39-50. - source
- Partly supportedcites [25] [25] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Schoenberger P.S., Todhunter D.A., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Conrad H.R., Field survey of mastitis in low somatic cell count herds, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1547-1556. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions (page unavailable) state that herds with low somatic cell counts can still have unacceptable frequencies of intramammary infections and clinical cases caused by environmental pathogens. The paper also reports frequent coliform clinical cases, but it does not establish that Gram-negative infections are relatively short-lived or assess whether individual-cow and bulk-tank SCC are poor indicators of their prevalence. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [57] [57] Suriyasathaporn W., Schukken Y.H., Nielen M., Brand A., Low somatic cell count: a risk factor for subsequent clinical mastitis in a dairy herd, J. Dairy Sci. 83 (2000) 12481255. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The prevalence of coliform mastitis in a herd seldom exceeds five percent of quarters because coliform infections tend to be of short duration during lactation.
- Rests on an assumption: Approximately 85% of coliform infections will cause clinical mastitis.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Rate of clinical cases caused by Gram-negative bacteria average approximately 20 cases per 100 cows per year in these studies.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [25] [25] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Schoenberger P.S., Todhunter D.A., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Conrad H.R., Field survey of mastitis in low somatic cell count herds, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1547-1556. - source
Table 4 (page not available in our copy) gives a mean coliform rate of 0.136 cases per 305 cow-days. Table 8 records another 42 cases caused by nonlactose-fermenting gram-negative bacilli among 646 total cases. Combining those groups and annualizing the rate gives approximately 20 clinical cases per 100 cows per year. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Could not verifycites [27] [27] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Bacterial counts associated with recycled chopped newspaper bedding, J. Dairy Sci. 73 (1990) 1756-1761. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Bedding Counts section reports that 1.1% of quarters had Gram-negative intramammary infections; that is not a rate of clinical cases. Searches for annual clinical-case rates and 20 cases per 100 cows found no such figure in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [57] [57] Suriyasathaporn W., Schukken Y.H., Nielen M., Brand A., Low somatic cell count: a risk factor for subsequent clinical mastitis in a dairy herd, J. Dairy Sci. 83 (2000) 12481255. - source
plainn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, serum resistance does not differ between coliforms isolated from intramammary infections originating during the dry period and strains creating infections that originate during lactation [26].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [26] [26] Hogan J.S., Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Schoenberger P.S., Serum susceptibility of coliforms isolated from bovine intramammary infections, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1893-1899. - source
The Results report no overall difference in serum growth responses between coliforms from dry-period and lactational intramammary infections. They also report a species-specific difference: K. pneumoniae from lactational infections was more serum resistant, while E. coli did not differ by infection period. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Rate of clinical mastitis caused by Gram-negative bacteria was 4 to 5-fold lower in vaccinated cows compared with controls in controlled field trials [16, 28].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] [16] Gonzalez R.N., Cullor J.S., Jasper D.E., Farver T.B., Bushnell R.B., Oliver M.N., Prevention of clinical coliform mastitis in dairy cows by a mutant Escherichia coli vaccine, Can. J. Vet. Res. 53 (1989) 301-305. -
- Supportedcites [28] [28] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Field trial to determine efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 mastitis vaccine, J. Dairy Sci. 75 (1992) 78-84. - source
The discussion reports a 4.1-fold lower rate of Gram-negative bacterial clinical mastitis in vaccinated cows than controls in this field trial, and a 4.9-fold difference in a California field trial. Both figures fall within the claimed 4- to 5-fold range. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Enhanced opsonization of wild strains of coliform bacteria by serum and whey of vaccinated cows was correlated with elevated IgM titers [30].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [30] [30] Hogan J.S., Todhunter D.A., Tomita G.M., Smith K.L., Schoenberger P.S., Opsonic activity of bovine serum and mammary secretion after Escherchia coli J5 vaccination, J. Dairy Sci. 75 (1992) 72-77. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Serum section reports increased opsonization with serum collected 21 days after calving and a correlation with IgM titers. The Discussion reports an IgM-related trend toward increased opsonization with colostrum, but mammary secretions collected at other times did not show increased opsonic activity. The study tested one heterologous E. coli strain, so the claim overgeneralizes to wild coliform strains and to whey without the timing and uncertainty qualifiers. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Titers responsive to immunization were negatively correlated with severity of clinical signs of mastitis following intramammary challenge [33].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [33] [33] Hogan J.S., Weiss W.P., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Sordillo L.M., Effects of an Escherichia coli J5 vaccine on mild clinical coliform mastitis, J. Dairy Sci. 78 (1995) 285-290. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion report that cows vaccinated with J5 had less severe local clinical signs after intramammary challenge than placebo-treated cows. The Statistical Analyses section lists comparisons of treatment groups, but our copy does not report immunization-responsive titers or a correlation between titers and clinical severity. The claim's titer-specific relationship is therefore unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The most striking difference between vaccinated and nonvaccinated cows was that 66.7% of coliform intramammary infections in unvaccinated cows became clinical during early lactation compared to 20% in vaccinated cows [28].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [28] [28] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Field trial to determine efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 mastitis vaccine, J. Dairy Sci. 75 (1992) 78-84. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The results passage reports that 66.7% of Gram-negative intramammary infections at calving in unvaccinated cows became clinical during the first 90 days of lactation, compared with 20% in vaccinated cows. The percentages and timing match, but the paper applies them to Gram-negative infections, not specifically to the narrower coliform category; it also lists Pseudomonas among the organisms. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recurrent or chronic E. coli infections have been reported as accounting a relatively small percentage of intramammary infections in survey herds [25, 55].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] [25] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Schoenberger P.S., Todhunter D.A., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Conrad H.R., Field survey of mastitis in low somatic cell count herds, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1547-1556. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Rates of Clinical Mastitis section (page unavailable) reports that potential repeat coliform cases accounted for less than 10% of coliform clinical cases; Table 8 gives 7.5%. This supports a small proportion of repeat cases in the survey herds, but the paper reports coliforms rather than E. coli specifically, and potential repeat clinical cases rather than confirmed recurrent or chronic intramammary infections. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Survey averages suggest that coliform bacteria are the culprits of 60 to 70% of peracute clinical cases [25, 55].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] [25] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Schoenberger P.S., Todhunter D.A., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Conrad H.R., Field survey of mastitis in low somatic cell count herds, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1547-1556. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Mastitis Severity Codes section defines code 5 as cases with abnormal milk, quarter swelling, and systemic signs. The severity-code results and Table 2 report that coliforms accounted for 58.9% of code 5 cases, approximately the lower end of the claimed range. The paper does not identify these cases as “peracute” or report a figure approaching 70%. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Data from field trials suggest that these vaccines also reduce clinical cases of mastitis caused by species in the genera Klebsiella , Pseudomonas , Serratia , and Proteus [16, 28].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] [16] Gonzalez R.N., Cullor J.S., Jasper D.E., Farver T.B., Bushnell R.B., Oliver M.N., Prevention of clinical coliform mastitis in dairy cows by a mutant Escherichia coli vaccine, Can. J. Vet. Res. 53 (1989) 301-305. -
- Partly supportedcites [28] [28] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Field trial to determine efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 mastitis vaccine, J. Dairy Sci. 75 (1992) 78-84. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The field-trial results report fewer clinical Gram-negative mastitis cases in vaccinated cows, supporting the general suggestion of protection. The results also identify Serratia, Pseudomonas, and Klebsiella among infections at calving, but do not report reduced clinical cases separately for those genera; no passage found mentions Proteus (searched: Proteus and genus-specific clinical cases). (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The ability to infect the non-lactating gland is directly related to the ability of bacteria to acquire iron from the mammary secretion.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54] [54] Smith K.L., Schanbacher F.L., Lactoferrin as a factor of resistence to infection in the mammary gland, J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 170 (1976) 1224-1227. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [58] [58] Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Hogan J.S., Growth of Gram-negative bacteria in dry cow secretion, J. Dairy Sci. 73 (1990) 363-372. - source
- Not matchedcites [41] [41] Lin J., Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Growth responses of coliform bacteria to purified immunoglobulin G from cows immunized with ferric enterobactin receptor FepA, J. Dairy Sci. 82 (1999) 86-92. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Gram-negative bacteria that commonly cause bovine mastitis are classified as environmental pathogens.”
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
“Gram-negative bacteria are considered environmental mastitis pathogens [34].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [34] [34] Hogan J.S., Gonzalez R.N., Harmon R.J., Nickerson S.C., Oliver S.P., Pankey J.W., Smith K.L., Laboratory Handbook on Bovine Mastitis, National Mastitis Council, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1999. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Coliform bacteria that cause infections originate from bedding materials, soil, manure and other organic matter in the environment of cows.
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
In the paper
“The average duration of E. coli intramammary infections during lactation is less than ten days [59].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [59] [59] Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Hogan J.S., Schoenberger P.S., Gram-negative bacterial infections of the mammary gland in cows, Am. J. Vet. Res. 52 (1991) 184-188. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Klebsiella pneumoniae are more capable than most strains of E. coli to overcome the inhibitory effects of lactoferrin and infect involuted mammary glands [58].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [58] [58] Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Hogan J.S., Growth of Gram-negative bacteria in dry cow secretion, J. Dairy Sci. 73 (1990) 363-372. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Complement activity is greater in secretions from involuted mammary glands than in milk collected during lactation [51].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] [51] Poutrel B., Rainard P., Hemolytic and bactericidal activities of bovine complement in mammary secretions of cows during the early nonlactating (dry) period, Am. J. Vet. Res. 47 (1986) 1961-1962. - source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Escherichia coli isolated from intramammary infections originating during the periparturient period were more resistant to phagocytosis than isolates from infections originating in the early dry period or during lactation [29].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] [29] Hogan J.S., Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Schoenberger P.S., Susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolated from intramammary infections to phagocytosis by bovine neutrophils, J. Dairy Sci. 75 (1992) 3324-3329. - source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The percentage of isolates from intramammary infections susceptible to the bactericidal and bacteriostatic activities of bovine serum is similar to the percentage of serum susceptible coliform isolates existing in the environment of the cow [5].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] [5] Carroll E.J., Bactericidal activity of bovine serums against coliform organisms isolated from milk of mastitic udders, udder skin, and environment, Am. J. Vet. Res. 32 (1971) 689-701. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Duration of intramammary infections caused by K. pneumoniae average about 21 days [55].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Capsule producing strains of E. coli are more likely to create intramammary infections of longer duration than are non-encapsulated strains of E. coli [19].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] [19] Hill A.W., Heneghan D.J.S., Williams M.R., The opsonic activity of bovine milk whey for the phagocytosis and killing by neutrophils of encapsulated and non-encapsulated Escherichia coli , Vet. Microbiol. 8 (1983) 293-300. - source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Capsules produced by K. pneumoniae isolated from bovine intramammary infections block deposition of complement and camouflage against antibody-mediated opsonization [62].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [62] [62] Williams P., Lambert P.A., Brown M.R.W., Penetration of immunoglobulin through the Klebsiella capsule and their effect on cellsurface hydrophobicity, J. Med. Microbiol. 26 (1988) 29-35. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Escherichia coli infections present at calving and early lactation most often originate during the last two weeks of the dry period [59].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [59] [59] Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Hogan J.S., Schoenberger P.S., Gram-negative bacterial infections of the mammary gland in cows, Am. J. Vet. Res. 52 (1991) 184-188. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Adherence of E. coli and K. pneumoniae to epithelial tissue does not play a major role in the pathogenesis of bovine mastitis [15, 47].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] [15] Frost A.J., Wanasingue D.D., Woolcock J.B., Some factors affecting selective adherence of microorganisms in the bovine mammary gland, Infect. Immun. 15 (1977) 245-253. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [47] [47] Opdebeeck J.P., Frost A.J., O'Boyle D., Adhesion of Staphylococcus aureus and - Escherichia coli to bovine udder epithelial cells, Vet. Microbiol. 16 (1988) 77-86. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“During the dry period, susceptibility to intramammary infections is greatest the two weeks after drying off and the two weeks prior to calving [56].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] [56] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental pathogens and intramam- - mary infection during the dry period, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 402-417. - source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Secretions from fully involuted mammary glands do not readily support growth and multiplication of coliform bacteria [46].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [46] [46] Oliver S.P., Bushe T., Growth inhibition of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae during involution of the mammary gland: relation to secretion composition, Am. J. Vet. Res. 48 (1987) 1669-1673. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, serum resistant coliforms apparently have no selected advantage over serum susceptible coliforms for creating naturally occurring intramammary infections.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Escherichia coli strains within O serotype groups O8 and O9 possess antiphagocytic factors that are not related to capsule [19].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] [19] Hill A.W., Heneghan D.J.S., Williams M.R., The opsonic activity of bovine milk whey for the phagocytosis and killing by neutrophils of encapsulated and non-encapsulated Escherichia coli , Vet. Microbiol. 8 (1983) 293-300. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Growth of E. coli can be inhibited in secretion from involuted glands by blocking iron uptake with antibody specific for the enterobactin receptor [41].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [41] [41] Lin J., Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Growth responses of coliform bacteria to purified immunoglobulin G from cows immunized with ferric enterobactin receptor FepA, J. Dairy Sci. 82 (1999) 86-92. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The limiting nutritional factor for many coliform bacteria in the dry mammary gland is iron [54].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54] [54] Smith K.L., Schanbacher F.L., Lactoferrin as a factor of resistence to infection in the mammary gland, J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 170 (1976) 1224-1227. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Research has shown that 65% of coliform clinical cases that occur in the first two months of lactation are intramammary infections that originated during the dry period [55].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Most of these vaccines use either Escherichia coli J5 or Salmonella typhimurium Re17 [43] as the antigens.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [43] [43] McClure A.M., Christopher E.E., Wolff W.A., Fales W.H., Krause G.F., Miramonti J., Effect of Re-17 mutant Salmonella typhimurium bacteria toxoid on clinical mastitis, J. Dairy Sci. 77 (1994) 2272-2280. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“However, Serratia spp. and Pseudomonas spp. often are resistant to the bactericidal activity of chlorhexidine gluconate [8, 39].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8] [8] Dody J., Devleeschouwer M.J., Momin P., Comparison of the sensitivity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to disinfectants according to the growth conditions, Int. J. Pharm. 19 (1984) 239-242. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [39] [39] Lannigan R., Lawrence L.E., Decreased susceptibility of Serratia marcescens to chlorhexidine related to the inner membrane, J. Antimicrobiol. Chemother. 15 (1989) 559565. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“FepA was determined to be an excellent protein from which to formulate vaccines because FepA was expressed on all clinical isolates tested [40].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [40] [40] Lin J., Hogan J.S., Aslam M., Smith K.L., Immunization of cows with ferric enterobactin receptor from coliform bacteria, J. Dairy Sci. 81 (1998) 2151-2158. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Coliforms isolated from intramammary infections shared a specific enterochelin-iron retrieval system that included a protein on the cellular surface named FepA.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The ability of E. coli and K. pneumoniae to cause mastitis is related to the ability of these isolates to overcome the inhibitory properties of lactoferrin [58].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [58] [58] Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Hogan J.S., Growth of Gram-negative bacteria in dry cow secretion, J. Dairy Sci. 73 (1990) 363-372. - source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore the number of Gram-negative bacteria on teat skin is a reflection of the cow's recent exposure to the contaminating environment.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Gram-negative bacteria are inept at surviving and multiplying on teat skin.
In the paper
“The use of antibiotics administered by intramammary or systemic routes for treating E. coli clinical cases is virtually useless because of the short duration of infections and high spontaneous cure rate [55].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Older cows calving during the summer months are commonly the population of animals at greatest risk to coliform clinical mastitis [55].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The protein lactoferrin binds iron and makes the element unavailable to bacteria [54].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54] [54] Smith K.L., Schanbacher F.L., Lactoferrin as a factor of resistence to infection in the mammary gland, J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 170 (1976) 1224-1227. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, the use of post-milking teat antisepsis as a means to control coliform mastitis is unsuccessful [49].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [49] [49] Pankey J.W., Eberhart R.J., Cuming A.L., Daggett R.D., Farnsworth R.J., McDuff C.K., Update on postmilking teat antisepsis, J. Dairy Sci. 67 (1984) 1336-1353. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The use of antibiotics for treatment of mammary glands at the end of lactation has no effect on the prevalence of coliform infections at calving [2].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] [2] Berry E.A., Hillerton J.E., The effect of selective dry cow treatment on new intramammary infections, J. Dairy Sci. 85 (2002) 112-121. - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Use of the inorganic bedding materials sand and crushed limestone exposes cows to fewer Gram-negative bacteria than the use of organic materials such as wood products and straw [24].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] [24] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Hoblet K.H., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Hueston W.D., Pritchard D.E., Bowman G.L., Heider L.E., Brockett B.L., Bacterial counts in bedding materials used on nine commercial dairies, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 250-258. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, outbreaks of clinical mastitis caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae are common in herds using finely chopped sawdust [45].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] [45] Newman L.E., Kowalski J.J., Fresh sawdust bedding - a possible source of Klebsiella organisms, Am. J. Vet. Res. 34 (1973) 979980. - source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Rates of new infection and clinical mastitis are highest in summer months for confinement-housed cows [59].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [59] [59] Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Hogan J.S., Schoenberger P.S., Gram-negative bacterial infections of the mammary gland in cows, Am. J. Vet. Res. 52 (1991) 184-188. - source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The use of germicidal sanitizers on teats immediately prior to milking (predipping) can reduce the incidence of new coliform infections during lactation [48].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [48] [48] Pankey J.W., Hygiene at milking time in the prevention of bovine mastitis, Br. Vet. J. 145 (1989) 401-409. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although clinical mastitis caused by species of Serratia, Pseudomonas, and Proteus tend to occur much less frequently than clinical coliform mastitis, sporadic herd outbreaks involving Gram-negative bacteria other than the coliforms have been reported [23].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23] [23] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Importance of the dry period during Serratia mastitis outbreaks, Large Anim. Pract. 18 (1997) 20-25. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
- Probably not a substantial claim. 1
- Borderline: one of the tests for a substantial claim is unclear. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Resistance to the bactericidal activity of serum is a virulence factor common to many coliform bacteria causing clinical mastitis, but is not a prerequisite for pathogenicity [14, 26, 36, 52].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [14] [14] Fang W., Pyorala S., Mastitis-causing Escherichia coli : serum sensitivity and susceptibility to selected antibacterial in milk, J. Dairy Sci. 79 (1996) 76-82. - source
The Discussion (page not specified) identifies resistance to serum complement as a determinant of virulence in intramammary infection. The Results (page not specified) report that 68% of the studied mastitis-causing E. coli isolates were resistant or moderately resistant, meaning others caused mastitis without that resistance. The evidence concerns E. coli specifically. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites [26] [26] Hogan J.S., Todhunter D.A., Smith K.L., Schoenberger P.S., Serum susceptibility of coliforms isolated from bovine intramammary infections, J. Dairy Sci. 72 (1989) 1893-1899. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not available in our copy) says that both serum-resistant and serum-susceptible coliforms were isolated from naturally occurring intramammary infections, directly supporting that resistance is not a prerequisite. The Introduction reports an association with virulence in experimentally induced mastitis, but the paper does not establish that serum resistance is a common virulence factor specifically among bacteria causing clinical mastitis; its isolates are described as coming from intramammary infections. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] [36] Kaipainen T., Pahjanvirta T., Shpigel N.Y., Aswimmer A., Pyorala S., Pelkonen S., Virulence factors of Escherichia coli isolated 13. from bovine clinical mastitis, Vet. Microbiol. 85 (2002) 37-46. - source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [52] [52] Sanchez-Carlo V., McDonald J.S., Packer R.A., Virulence factors of Escherichia coli isolated from cows with acute mastitis, Am. J. Vet. Res. 45 (1984) 1775-1777. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Vaccination reduced the peak bacterial counts in infected quarters, duration of intramammary infections by 25%, and duration of clinical signs of mastitis by 50% compared with unvaccinated cows [33].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [33] [33] Hogan J.S., Weiss W.P., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Sordillo L.M., Effects of an Escherichia coli J5 vaccine on mild clinical coliform mastitis, J. Dairy Sci. 78 (1995) 285-290. - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion report shorter intramammary infections and local clinical signs in J5-vaccinated cows, but the reported durations imply about a 39% reduction in infection duration (129.8 versus 79.6 hours), not 25%, and about a 44% reduction in the measured period of severe local signs (31.6 versus 17.7 hours). The J5 section explicitly says vaccination did not reduce peak bacterial counts. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the severity of clinical disease and peak coliform counts in mammary secretions are positively correlated.”
correlational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In general, older cows have a higher rate of clinical mastitis caused by Gram-negative bacteria compared with primiparous cows [55].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] [55] Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Schoenberger P.S., Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention, J. Dairy Sci. 68 (1985) 1531-1553. - source
correlational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Borderline substantial claim. It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once in the gland, bacteria must utilize available substrates in the mammary secretion to replicate and evade host defenses.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The portal of entry into the mammary gland for Gram-negative bacteria is the teat canal.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Coliform bacteria do not appear to colonize inside the mammary gland, but multiply in the secretion without attachment to epithelial surfaces.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Locally, endotoxin does not directly effect secretory cell but disrupts the blood flow [53].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] [53] Shuster D.E., Harmon R.J., Jackson J.A., Hemken R.E., Suppression of milk production during endotoxin-induced mastitis, J. Dairy Sci. 74 (1991) 3746-3774. - source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Many coliform bacteria isolated from the bovine mammary gland are capable of expressing cytotoxins and hemolysins, but the production of exotoxins does not appear to be critical for evading host defenses [42].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] [42] Lipman L.J.A., de Nijs A., Gaastra W., Isolation and identification of fimbriae and toxin production by Escherichia coli strains from cows with clinical mastitis, Vet. Microbiol. 47 (1995) 1-7. - source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Products designed to form a physical barrier between the teat and the environment between milkings have been minimally successful in persistence and they lack efficacy in reducing new intramammary infections [44].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [44] [44] National Mastitis Council, Summary of peerreviewed publications on efficacy of premilking and postmilking teat disinfectants published since 1980. Proc. National Mastitis Council 41st Annual Meeting, national Mastitis Council, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA, appendix. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“While vaccination with FepA was effective against E. coli , the immune response did not affect growth of Klebsiella in secretion from involuted glands [41].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [41] [41] Lin J., Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Growth responses of coliform bacteria to purified immunoglobulin G from cows immunized with ferric enterobactin receptor FepA, J. Dairy Sci. 82 (1999) 86-92. -
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: A FepA vaccine caused an immune response in cows and the antibody blocked growth of E. coli in synthetic medium and dry cow secretion.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, these data imply that the core antigen vaccines do not prevent the occurrence of mastitis, but do reduce the severity of the disease.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The use of these bacterins did not prevent intramammary infections.
- Rests on an assumption: Immunization did not reduce prevalence of Gram-negative bacterial intramammary infections at calving, but did reduce incidence of clinical mastitis.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the general conclusions concerning severity of clinical coliform cases are that few coliform intramammary infections cause systemic clinical signs, but the majority of clinical cases resulting in systemic signs are caused by coliform bacteria.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Coliform bacteria that cause infections originate from bedding materials, soil, manure and other organic matter in the environment of cows.
“The point sources of coliform bacteria that cause infections include bedding materials, soil, manure and other organic matter in the environment of cows.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The portal of entry into the mammary gland for Gram-negative bacteria is the teat canal.
“The portal of entry into the mammary gland for Gram-negative bacteria is the teat canal.”
“The portal of entry for Gram-negative bacteria into the mammary gland is the teat canal.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The mammary gland is not a natural habitat for coliform bacteria.
“Although the mammary gland is not considered a natural habitat for coliform bacteria, many strains are capable of surviving and multiplying in the mammary gland.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The spread of Gram-negative bacteria from other regions of the body to the mammary gland via the vascular or lymphatic systems is minimal.
“However, the spread of Gram-negative bacteria from other regions of the body to the mammary gland via the vascular or lymphatic systems appears minimal.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The only apparent prerequisite for a strain to cause mastitis is the ability to grow and multiply in mammary secretions.
“The only apparent prerequisite for a strain to cause mastitis is the ability to grow and multiply in mammary secretions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Gram-negative bacteria are frequently the leading cause of clinical mastitis in well-managed dairies with low bulk tank milk somatic cell counts.
“Gram-negative bacteria are frequently the leading cause of clinical mastitis in well-managed dairies with low bulk tank milk somatic cell counts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Coliform pathogens generally account for the majority of peracute cases of clinical mastitis in a herd.
“Coliform pathogens generally account for the majority of peracute cases of clinical mastitis in a herd.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae are the coliform species most commonly isolated from intramammary infections and clinical mastitis.
“Specifically, E. coli and K. pneumoniae are the coliform species most commonly isolated from intramammary infections and clinical mastitis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The rate of coliform intramammary infections during lactation is highest at calving and decreases as days in milk advances.
“Rate of coliform intramammary infections during lactation is highest at calving and decreases as days in milk advances.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The prevalence of coliform mastitis in a herd seldom exceeds five percent of quarters because coliform infections tend to be of short duration during lactation.
“The prevalence of coliform mastitis in a herd seldom exceeds five percent of quarters because coliform infections tend to be of short duration during lactation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Approximately 85% of coliform infections will cause clinical mastitis.
“but approximately 85% of coliform infections will cause clinical mastitis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Gram-negative bacteria are inept at surviving and multiplying on teat skin.
“Gram-negative bacteria are inept at surviving and multiplying on teat skin.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The use of Gram-negative core antigen vaccines effectively reduces the incidence and severity of clinical mastitis caused by Gram-negative bacteria.
“The use of Gram-negative core antigen vaccines effectively reduces the incidence and severity of clinical mastitis caused by Gram-negative bacteria.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The use of these bacterins did not prevent intramammary infections.
“A consistent result was that the use of these bacterins did not prevent intramammary infections.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Immunization did not reduce prevalence of Gram-negative bacterial intramammary infections at calving, but did reduce incidence of clinical mastitis.
“For example, immunization did not reduce prevalence of Gram-negative bacterial intramammary infections at calving, but did reduce incidence of clinical mastitis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Currently available antibiotics have minimal effect on shortening the duration of intramammary infections caused by coliform bacteria.
“Currently available antibiotics have minimal effect on shortening the duration of intramammary infections caused by coliform bacteria.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A limiting nutritional factor for many coliform bacteria in secretion from involuted mammary glands is iron.
“A limiting nutritional factor for many coliform bacteria in secretion from involuted mammary glands is iron.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Coliforms isolated from intramammary infections shared a specific enterochelin-iron retrieval system that included a protein on the cellular surface named FepA.
“Coliforms isolated from intramammary infections shared a specific enterochelin-iron retrieval system that included a protein on the cellular surface named FepA.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A FepA vaccine caused an immune response in cows and the antibody blocked growth of E. coli in synthetic medium and dry cow secretion.
“A FepA vaccine caused an immune response in cows and the antibody blocked growth of E. coli in synthetic medium and dry cow secretion.”
Citations
Cites
Laboratory Handbook on Bovine Mastitis.
Hope, A. (2000) · Australian Veterinary Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2000.tb11869.x · Cited by 1,136
Environmental Mastitis: Cause, Prevalence, Prevention
Smith, K. L., Todhunter, D. A., & Schoenberger, P. S. (1985) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(85)80993-0 · Cited by 475
Self-citationField Survey of Clinical Mastitis in Low Somatic Cell Count Herds
Hogan, J. S., Smith, K. L., Hoblet, K. H., Schoenberger, P. S., Todhunter, D. A., Hueston, W. D., Pritchard, D. E., Bowman, G. L., Heider, L. E., Brockett, B. L., et al. (1989) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(89)79266-3 · Cited by 266
Self-citationBacterial Counts in Bedding Materials Used on Nine Commercial Dairies
Hogan, J. S., Smith, K. L., Hoblet, K. H., Todhunter, D. A., Schoenberger, P. S., Hueston, W. D., Pritchard, D. E., Bowman, G. L., Heider, L. E., Brockett, B. L., et al. (1989) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(89)79103-7 · Cited by 253
Self-citationEnvironmental Pathogens and Intramammary Infection During the Dry Period
Larry Smith, K., Todhunter, D. A., & Schoenberger, P. S. (1985) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(85)80838-9 · Cited by 246
Factors influencing the outcome of Escherichia coli mastitis in the dairy cow
Hill, A. W. (1981) · Research in Veterinary Science · doi:10.1016/s0034-5288(18)32532-3 · Cited by 216
Low Somatic Cell Count: a Risk Factor for Subsequent Clinical Mastitis in a Dairy Herd
Suriyasathaporn, W., Schukken, Y. H., Nielen, M., & Brand, A. (2000) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(00)74991-5 · Cited by 172
The Effect of Selective Dry Cow Treatment on New Intramammary Infections
Berry, E. A., & Hillerton, J. E. (2002) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(02)74059-9 · Cited by 168
HOEBEN, D., BURVENICH, C., TREVISI, E., BERTONI, G., HAMANN, J., BRUCKMAIER, R. M., & BLUM, J. W. (2000) · Journal of Dairy Research · doi:10.1017/s0022029900004489 · Cited by 166
Bacteremia associated with naturally occurring acute coliform mastitis in dairy cows
Wenz, J. R., Barrington, G. M., Garry, F. B., McSweeney, K. D., Dinsmore, R. P., Goodell, G., & Callan, R. J. (2001) · Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · doi:10.2460/javma.2001.219.976 · Cited by 159
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [32][32] Hogan J.S., Smith K.L., Todhunter D.A., Virulence factors of coliform bacteria, in: Fox L.K., Gay C.C. (Eds.), 1993 Coliform Mastitis Symposium, Veterinary Learning Systems, Trenton, New Jersey, 1993, pp. 36-40. -
- [37][37] Koneman E.W., Allen S.D., Dowell V.R., Sommer H.M., The Enterobacteriaceae, in: Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology, J.B. Lippincott Company, New York, New York, USA, 1983, pp. 57124. -
- [44][44] National Mastitis Council, Summary of peerreviewed publications on efficacy of premilking and postmilking teat disinfectants published since 1980. Proc. National Mastitis Council 41st Annual Meeting, national Mastitis Council, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA, appendix. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Perspectives on Immunoglobulins in Colostrum and Milk
Hurley, W. L., & Theil, P. K. (2011) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu3040442 · Cited by 691
“Coliform mastitis is one of the major types of mastitis in cattle [90].”
BackgroundInvited review: Inflammation during the transition to lactation: New adventures with an old flame
Bradford, B. J., Yuan, K., Farney, J. K., Mamedova, L. K., & Carpenter, A. J. (2015) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9683 · Cited by 520
“If the infection is caused by gram-negative bacteria, LPS released from the bacterial outer membrane is the main pathogen component initiating inflammatory responses (Hogan and Smith, 2003).”
BackgroundHost-response patterns of intramammary infections in dairy cows
Schukken, Y. H., Günther, J., Fitzpatrick, J., Fontaine, M. C., Goetze, L., Holst, O., Leigh, J. A., Petzl, W., Schuberth, H. J., Sipka, A. S., et al. (2011) · Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology · doi:10.1016/j.vetimm.2011.08.022 · Cited by 333
Epidemiology and Classification of Mastitis
Čobirka, M., Tančin, V., & Sláma, P. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10122212 · Cited by 336
“Others: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Arcanobacterium pyogenes Minor pathogens CNS: S. chromogenes, S. haemolyticus, S. epidermidis, S. simulans, S. sciuri Corynebacterium bovis Yeasts Fungi Note: Table modified according to Smith et al. [21], Todhunter et al. [52], Fox and Gay [53], Zadoks et al. [54], Heikkilä et al. [49]…”
BackgroundInfluentialAn update on environmental mastitis: Challenging perceptions
Klaas, I. C., & Zadoks, R. N. (2017) · Transboundary and Emerging Diseases · doi:10.1111/tbed.12704 · Cited by 316
Metadata
- Authors
- Hogan, J., & Larry Smith, K.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- ORCID
- Hogan, Joe
- Venue
- Veterinary Research
- Publisher
- EDP Sciences
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 507-519
- ISSN
- 0928-4249 (ISSN-L)
- 1297-9716
- OpenAlex
- W4247360602
- Semantic Scholar
- 289dbacacda27e8f1cce071b1a1a249f05968876
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 0.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Veterinary Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Ohio State University
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Milk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal health and immunology
- Keywords
- coliform mastitis, bovine mastitis, Gram-negative bacteria, environmental pathogens, teat canal, iron acquisition, neutrophils, endotoxin, host defense, dairy cattle
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Husbandry, Cattle, Enterobacteriaceae, Enterobacteriaceae Infections, Environmental Microbiology, Female, Lactation, Mammary Glands, Animal, Mastitis, Bovine, Neutrophils, Risk Factors, Vaccination, Virulence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
