Microscopic examination
In bacterioscopy,
D.
nodosus,
F.
necrophorum and other Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria were seen in slides, but bacterial identification was not performed for other bacteria in this study.
PCR results
In this study, 16SrRNA species specific gene for
D.
nododus was detected in all 41 swap samples by PCR (Table 2). The presence of
IktA, specific gene for
F.
necrophorum was determined in 22 samples (Table 2).
Treatment results
All the animals used in the study had lameness. At the end of treatment applications lasting ten days (newly formulated pomade® and ceftiofur hydrochloride, Eficur®), the success rate was 93.33% for light and medium level lameness animals and 45.45% for severe acute ones (Table 3). During the controls on the 11
th day of the treatment, recovery and tissue regeneration were seen in all animals having wounds which developed depending on foot rot caused by
D.
nodosus,
F.
necrophorum and other bacteria (Fig 1-4). The total lameness recovery rate was stated as 80.48%.
The first clinical symptoms observed in foot rot was sudden lameness caused by extreme pain, acute swelling, redness in interdigital tissues and coronary bands, malodorous and necrotic lesions in interdigital spaces along with loss of appetite
(Biggs et al., 2019). Many researchers have stated that hoof diseases and lameness are seen more on feet rather than forefeet
(Neveux et al., 2006). In the present study, foot rot cases and lameness were found more on feet. In various studies, this condition was stated to have been caused by more weight bearing on hind feet
(Yayla et al., 2012).
Foot rot is a contagious disease and
F.
necrophorum and
D.
nodosus are the main causative factors. These bacteria might be present in stools of healthy animals.
D.
nodosus and
F.
necrophorum were stated to be present normally on the skin located in interdigital spaces of cattle feet
(Osova et al., 2018). The discharge from the feet of infected animals and stools might cause contamination of the environment. In foot rot cases,
Porphyromonas levii,
P.
asaccharolytica,
Prevotella intermedia and
P.
melaninogenica,
Staphylococcus aureus,
Escherichia coli and
Trueperella pyogenes are other bacteria that can be isolated
(Kontturi et al., 2019). As a result of injuries on the skin, these bacteria reach subcutaneous tissues and replicate swiftly. They penetrate in deeper tissues by means of their exotoxins and cause the disease
(Nagaraja et al., 2005; Biggs et al., 2019). Shivasharanappa et al., (2014) stated that the foot rot factor in sheep was
D.
nodosus and it have caused infection by itself in cases where
D.
nodosus was not detected while
Knappe-Poindecker et al., (2015) was of the opinion that foot rot factor was
D.
nodosus in sheep which might play a role in contaminating cattle. In this study, all swap samples taken from feet depicted
D.
nodosus,
F.
necrophorum and other bacteria under microscope. In another study
(Osava et al., 2018; Kontturi et al., 2019), revealed that
D.
nodosus and
F.
necrophorum were the main organism producing foot rot, however, other Gram negative and Gram positive bacteria were isolated. However in our study, other bacteria were not isolated or identified. Using PCR,
D.
nodosus was found in all samples and
D.
nodosus and
F.
necrophorum were found together in 53.66% cases. In a cattle business in Finland,
F.
necrophorum was considered as the main factor in foot rot cases, nevertheless, both bacteria were generally detected together
(Kontturi et al., 2019). Kontturi et al., (2019) similarly stated that occurrence of mixed bacteria
i.
e.
D.
nodosus +
F.
necrophorum was as high 82.4% and medium 52.6% at the end of PCR tests carried out for samples taken from interdigital phlegmon based on epidemics of Finnish dairy herds. In a study in Norway, in dairy cattle with hoof problems,
D.
nodosus prevalence was found to be 94.5% while it was 66% in the control group. In another study, the biggest problem in hoof disease was stated as
D.
nodosus bacteria
(Knappe-Pointdecker et al., 2013). In Eastern Slovakia,
Osova et al., (2018) found
D.
nodosus over 95% and
F.
necrophorum over 27% during bacterial planting in swap samples taken from feet of the healthy cows showing no lameness. They also stated that diagnosing
D.
nodosus by PCR was three times more susceptible compared to culture method. In contrast to our findings,
Bennett et al., (2009) detected 53%
F.
necrophorum (
iktA gene) and 5%
D.
nodosus (
fim A gene) using PCR in swap samples taken from the feet of dairy cattle with lameness.
In foot rot treatment, systematic antimicrobial treatment applications are usually recommended during early stages of the disease
(Cook and Cutler, 1995; Stokka et al., 2001). We can identify the antibiotics used for foot rot treatment as ceftiofur, oxytetracycline, ampicilin, penicilin, sulphonamides strengthened by trimethoprim, florfenicol, spectinomycin, lincomycine, tulathromycin and tylosin
(Osova et al., 2017; Van Metre, 2017). In foot rot and case of outbreak of foot-hoof injuries, their progress and correspondingly leading to lameness, topical treatment should be started. Zinc sulphate, iodine formulations or peroxidase solutions are recommended to be used for destruction of
D.
nodosus, which is an anaerobic pathogen, with active oxygen. Local antibiotics (tetracycline) or regional intravenous long-acting antibiotics could also be administered
(Osova et al., 2017). In this study, rifampicin used in the pomade hindered RNA polymerase in bacteria and prevented mRNA synthesis and thus nucleic acid formation. This antibiotic was effective against many gram positive and gram negative bacteria
in vitro (Suresh and Wadhwa, 2020). During the studies, use of the antibiotics topically was considered both to keep the infection under control and accelerated recovery from injuries as compared to control group
(Saydam et al., 2005). In this study, the antifungal effective agent used in the pomade was Naftifine hydrochloride which was obtained on the basis of antifungal medicine having azole structure with allyamine structure. The component was also proved to have antibacterial effects against gram positive and gram negative bacteria apart from its fungicidal activity
(Şimsek and Şafak, 1996). Some excipient agents such as aluminium subacetate, boric acid and zinc oxide present in the pomade served as antiseptic, astringent, antiperspirant, desiccant and deodoriser. Other agents were as solvents, emulgators and desiccants
(Pekcan, 2014). In present study, application of newly formulated pomade® and ceftiofur hydrochloride (Eficur®), during the controls on the 11th day in all foot rot cases resulted in 100% recovery with tissue regeneration. In addition, as a result of treatment applications for ten days, a success of 93.33% was achieved for light and medium level lameness and 45.45% for severe acute ones. The total lameness recovery rate was recorded as 80.48%. During treatment studies based on parenteral antibiotic applications carried out for foot rot cases, the success rates observed was 68% with oxytetracycline, 73-99% with ceftiofur sodium, 74% with tilmicosin and 99.5% with ceftiofur crystalline free acid
(Sano et al., 2007; Van Donkersgoed et al., 2008). In a foot rot research proceeding using parenteral and topical antibiotic applications together, a success rate of 73% was achieved while it was 56% for cases with deep sepsis whose treatment was delayed
(Cook and Cutler, 1995).