TABLE 1.
Isolation of treponemes from cattle with PDD
| Region | Farm | No. of cattle examined | No. of lesions sampleda | No. of cattle with isolated treponemes | Isolation rate in cattle (%) | No. of treponeme strains isolatedb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hokkaido | A | 6 | 8 | 5 | 83.3 | 17 |
| Hokkaido | B | 8 | 12 | 6 | 75.0 | 10 |
| Yamagata | C | 2 | 3 | 2 | 100 | 2 |
| Chiba | D | 4 | 4 | 1 | 25.0 | 1 |
| Chiba | E | 2 | 2 | 1 | 50.0 | 1 |
| Hyougo | F | 22 | 22 | 2 | 9.1 | 2 |
| Hiroshima | G | 6 | 6 | 1 | 16.7 | 1 |
| Kumamoto | H | 2 | 2 | 1 | 50.0 | 1 |
| Miyazaki | I | 11 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kagoshima | J | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kagoshima | K | 9 | 9 | 5 | 55.6 | 5 |
| Kagoshima | L | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 12 | 80 | 91 | 24 | 30.0 (mean) | 40 |
a
PDD lesions from 12 cattle in farms A, B, C, I, J, and L were taken from both rear feet.
b
The number of strains includes different colonies isolated from the same lesion and different foot lesions from identical cattle in farms A and B.