So...does lysigin really work?

Discussion in 'Dairy Goat Info' started by Qvrfullmidwife, Jan 4, 2009.

  1. Qvrfullmidwife

    Qvrfullmidwife New Member

    1,008
    0
    0
    This abstract seems to indicate that it does not prevent staph aureous...so, if this is true, what do you think?

    "The objective was to compare the efficacy of two experimental Staphylococcus aureus mastitis bacterins and a currently marketed five-isolate-based Staph. aureus bacterin (Lysigin, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc.) with unvaccinated controls. Forty-seven Holstein-Friesian heifers were randomly assigned to one of four groups such that Group 1 (n=11) received a three-isolate experimental bacterin, Group 2 (n=11) received a five-isolate experimental bacterin, Group 3 (n=14) received Lysigin, and Group 4 (n=11) served as unvaccinated controls. Vaccinations were administered twice 28 d apart in late gestation. All groups were challenged with a heterologous strain of Staph. aureus (ATCC 29740) on days 6, 7, and 8 of lactation. Mastitis score, somatic cell count (SCC), milk culture yield, and total daily milk yield data were collected before and after challenge. All 47 cattle developed a Staph. aureus IMI post-challenge with three animals in Group 1 and one animal in Group 3 clearing their Staph. aureus IMI by the end of the study. However, there was no evidence of a difference between vaccinates and control with regard to Staph. aureus clearance rates post-challenge (P?0.214). Cattle vaccinated with Lysigin had a lower mean duration of clinical mastitis and lower total mastitis score post-challenge than controls (P=0.045 and P=0.046, respectively). Overall, there was no evidence that any of the vaccinated groups had a lower mean SCC than control (P?0.148) for the tested study days. Likewise there was no evidence that vaccinates had greater milk yield than controls post-challenge (P=0.617). Hence, there was no evidence that the vaccines reliably prevented Staph. aureus IMI, but Lysigin showed benefit in reducing the clinical severity and duration of clinical disease post-challenge. Neither of the experimental bacterins appeared to perform better than Lysigin."

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17468754
     
  2. hsmomof4

    hsmomof4 New Member

    3,402
    5
    0
    I dunno. It indicates that it doesn't prevent it but reduces how bad it is and how long it lasts. So it has limited benefits but that may be better than none at all.
     

  3. Kaye White

    Kaye White Guest

    1,837
    0
    0
    I use the Lysigin here as a pre-kidding booster on the does. It's also used if I have an outbreak of external staph on the udder. In that, if the doe develops staph on the udder, along with treatment, she also gets a staph booster. NOTHING will keep you from developing Staph spp or Staph aureus. Having a strict milking routine...pre-dip, pre-wash, proper vaccum system, milking with adequate equip., post dipping and udder care between milkings will greatly reduce your chances. Then having the knowledge to know EARLY when a doe is in trouble, and how to aggressively treat it, will all lead to healthy udders and quality milk production.

    If anyone tells you they've never had a case of mastitis...they've never milked many does, have a way to check SCC and catch those infections early, and/or don't know they have mastitis. Milking in the south is a challenge with the summer heat/humidity. It stresses the does, raising SCC's, leading to outbreaks, and will be the one time of the year that no short cuts should ever be taken. The same person should do ALL the milkings so every does udder is known to feel. How much care is put into the milking routine is rewarded by the quality of milk you get out of each doe and her udder health.
    JMO,
    Kaye
     
  4. Qvrfullmidwife

    Qvrfullmidwife New Member

    1,008
    0
    0
    We have it and I plan to use it, I was just surprised to read this.

    We have had one doe with mastitis. My dh took it as a personal insult. He is rabid regarding routine, cleanliness, etc so for him even the thought that it might help makes it a no-brainer, I was just...surprised.
     
  5. NubianSoaps.com

    NubianSoaps.com New Member

    16,497
    4
    0
    Hence, there was no evidence that the vaccines reliably prevented Staph. aureus IMI, but Lysigin showed benefit in reducing the clinical severity and duration of clinical disease post-challenge.
    ............


    Is that not what you expect a vaccine to do? Think about that these heifers were innoculated with staph a. They cleared it from their system by the end of the trial...means that the vaccine stimulated their immunity to do so. Is this not what we want? If a doe comes into contact with staph A. that she will be able to clear this with her immunity, with even support from us she should clear faster...and it not turn into gangrenous mastitis and she sloughs the half?

    Goats who are vaccinated for entero, come from dams who have immunity for entero's will not die in entero storms on farms. Same with pasteurella pnemonia vaccinations.

    And one shot for one year is also not vaccination. Vaccination of your adult colostrum does, of virgin kids before being bred...that is a vaccination series.

    Can you imgaine how much better the heifers who did recieve their Lysigin would have done had they been out of vaccinated cows? Vicki
     
  6. Katarina

    Katarina New Member

    319
    0
    0
    Well actually "the vaccines reliably prevented Staph. aureus IMI" is what I assumed I would read, LOL.