Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T12:17:27.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of quarter-individual milking in conventional milking parlours on the somatic cell count and udder health of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2012

Anika B Müller ,
Sandra Rose-Meierhöfer ,
Christian Ammon  and
Reiner Brunsch
Anika B Müller
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering for Livestock Management, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, D-14469 Potsdam, Germany
Sandra Rose-Meierhöfer*
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering for Livestock Management, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, D-14469 Potsdam, Germany
Christian Ammon
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering for Livestock Management, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, D-14469 Potsdam, Germany
Reiner Brunsch
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering for Livestock Management, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, D-14469 Potsdam, Germany
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: srose@atb-potsdam.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the quarter health status of quarter-individually and conventionally milked cows. The MultiLactor®, a quarter-individual milking system (MULTI), has single guided tubes which provide milking on the quarter level with a low system vacuum level (37 kPa), sequential pulsation and periodic air inlet. The conventional milking system (CON) was equipped with a milking cluster where the system vacuum level was adjusted to 40 kPa. A total of 84 German Holstein cows, randomly divided into two groups, were included in the study. Over a period of 32 trial weeks, quarter foremilk samples were taken every week to determine somatic cell count (SCC). Bacteriological examinations and udder palpation were conducted at three different times. During the trial period, median SCC of quarter foremilk samples in both groups did not exceed the threshold value of 100 000 cells/ml. The results of the F test showed that the milking system (P = 0·0587) and days in milk (DIM) (P = 0·8066) had no significant effects on the quarter health status. On the other hand, lactation (P = 0·0396), quarter health status in the previous week (P < 0·0001) and trial week (P = 0·0061) affected quarter health status significantly. The estimated probabilities of the occurrence of a suspicious quarter (SCC > 100 000 cells/ml) were 19·97% (CON) and 31·72% (MULTI). However, the test of differences in the Least Square Means (LSM) showed no significant differences (P = 0·0585) between CON and MULTI. The estimated probability of quarters becoming suspicious during the first lactation was 12·51% for both groups. With an increasing number of lactation, the probability of a quarter becoming suspicious clearly increased (2nd lactation: 32·73% and 3rd lactation: 36·19%). The results also showed that the percentage of quarters with bacteriological findings revealed a stronger increase over time for MULTI than for CON.

Keywords

Somatic cell countudder healthquarter-individual milking system
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 36 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bansal, BK, Hamann, J, Grabowski, NT & Singh, KB 2005 Variation in the composition of selected milk fraction samples from healthy and mastitic quarters, and its significance for mastitis diagnosis. Journal of Dairy Research 72 144–152Google Scholar
Barkema, HW, Schukken, YH, Lam, TJGM, Beiboer, ML, Wilmink, H, Benedictus, G & Brand, A 1998 Incidence of clinical mastitis in dairy herds grouped in three categories by bulk milk somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 81 411–419Google Scholar
Berglund, I, Pettersson, G, Ostensson, K & Svennersten-Sjaunja, K 2007 Quarter milking for improved detection of increased SCC. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 42 427–432Google Scholar
Berglund, I, Pettersson, G& Svennersten-Sjaunja, K 2002 Automatic milking: effects on somatic cell count and teat end-quality. Livestock Production Science 78 115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brade, W 2001 Udder health, somatic cell content and milk quality. Tierärztliche Umschau 56 470–476Google Scholar
Bruckmaier, RM, Weiss, D, Wiedemann, M, Schmitz, S & Wendl, G 2004 Changes of physicochemical indicators during mastitis and the effects of milk ejection on their sensitivity. Journal of Dairy Research 71 316–321Google Scholar
Buelow, KL, Thomas, CB, Goodger, WJ, Nordlund, KV & Collins, MT 1996 Effect of milk sample collection strategy on the sensitivity and specificity of bacteriologic culture and somatic cell count for detection of Staphylococcus aureus intramammary infection in dairy cattle. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 26 1–8Google Scholar
DVG – German Veterinary Medical Society (Deutsche Veterinärmedizinische Gesellschaft e.V.) 2002 Relevant aspects of combating bovine mastitis as a herd problem. In Leitlinien zur Bekämpfung der Mastitis des Rindes als Bestandsproblem’. 4th edition, [GVA Publication]. Gießen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Djabri, B, Bareille, N, Beaudeau, F & Seegers, H 2002 Quarter milk somatic cell count in infected dairy cows: a meta-analysis. Veterinary Research 33 335–357Google Scholar
Dohoo, IR & Leslie, KE 1991 Evaluation of changes in somatic cell counts as indicators of new intramammary infections. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 10 225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufour, S, Fréchette, A, Barkema, HW, Mussell, A & Scholl, DT 2011 Invited review: effect of udder health management practices on herd somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 94 563–579Google Scholar
Forsbäck, L, Lindmark-Månsson, H, Andrén, A, Åkerstedt, M, Andrée, L & Svennersten-Sjaunja, K 2010 Day-to-day variation in milk yield and milk composition. Journal of Dairy Science 93 3569–3577Google Scholar
Halasa, T, Huijps, K, Østerås, O & Hogeveen, H 2007 Economic effects of bovine mastitis and mastitis management: a review. Veterinary Quarterly 29 18–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamann, J 2005 Diagnosis of mastitis and indicators of milk quality. In Mastitis in Dairy Production: Current Knowledge and Future Solutions. pp. 82–90 (Ed. Hogeveen, H.). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
Hamann, J & Tolle, A 1978 Infection trials with conventional and non-conventional milking units. In International Symposium on Machine Milking, National Mastitis Council, Louisville, Kentucky, pp. 269–274Google Scholar
Jayarao, BM, Pillai, SR, Sawant, AA, Wolfgang, DR & Hegde, NV 2004 Guidelines for monitoring bulk tank milk somatic cell and bacterial counts. Journal of Dairy Science 87 3561–3573Google Scholar
Klastrup, O, Bakken, G, Bramley, J & Bushnell, R 1987 Environmental influences on bovine mastitis. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation. No. 217. pp. 2–37Google Scholar
Laevens, H, Deluyker, H, Schukken, YH, De Meulemeester, L, Vandermeersch, R, De Muelenaere, E & De Kruif, A 1997 Influence of parity and stage of lactation on the somatic cell count in bacteriologically negative dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80 3219–3226Google Scholar
Magee, C, Sagi, R, Scott, NR & Gates, RS 1984 Bacterial transport within and among various teatcup and cluster assemblies during milking. Journal of Dairy Science 67 2034–2040CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahle, DE, Galton, DM & Adkinson, RW 1982 Effects of vacuum and pulsation ratio on udder health. Journal of Dairy Science 65 1252–1257Google Scholar
Müller, U & Sauerwein, H 2010 A comparison of somatic cell count between organic and conventional dairy cow herds in West Germany stressing dry period related changes. Livestock Science 127 30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohnstad, I, Barkema, HW, Hogewerf, P, de Koning, CAJM & Olde Riekering, RGM 2008 Impact of automatic teat dipping and cluster flushing on the milking work routine. In Mastitis Control - From Science to Practice. Proceedings of International Conference. 30 September–2 October 2008, pp. 357–363 (Ed. Lam, TJGM). The Hague, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
Öz, H, Rose-Meierhöfer, S, Ströbel, U & Ammon, C 2010 Comparison of the vacuum dynamics of conventional and quarter individual milking systems. Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi 16 162–168Google Scholar
Peris, C, Dίaz, JR, Balasch, S & Beltrán, MC 2003 Influence of vacuum level and overmilking on udder health and teat thickness changes in dairy ewes. Journal of Dairy Science 86 3891–3898Google Scholar
Petrovski, KR, Trajcev, M & Buneski, G 2006 A review of the factors affecting the costs of bovine mastitis. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association 77 52–60Google Scholar
Plozza, K, Lievaart, JJ, Potts, G & Barkema, HW 2011 Subclinical mastitis and associated risk factors on dairy farms in New South Wales. Australian Veterinary Journal 89 41–46Google Scholar
Pyörälä, S 2003 Indicators of inflammation in the diagnosis of mastitis. Veterinary Research 34 565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, MD, Blom, JY, Nielsen, LAH & Justesen, P 2001 Udder health of cows milked automatically. Livestock Production Science 72 147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitsma, SY, Cant, EJ, Grindal, RJ, Westgarth, DR & Bramley, AJ 1981 Effect of duration of teat cup liner closure per pulsation cycle on bovine mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 64 2240–2245Google Scholar
Rose-Meierhöfer, S, Brunsch, R & Jakob, M 2009 Reduction of forces on the teats by single tube guiding in conventional milking parlours. SA Journal of Animal Science 39 161–164Google Scholar
Sarikaya, H & Bruckmaier, RM 2006 Importance of the sampled milk fraction for the prediction of total quarter somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 89 4246–4250Google Scholar
Schepers, AJ, Lam, TJ, Schukken, YH, Wilmink, JB & Hanekamp, WJ 1997 Estimation of variance components for somatic cell counts to determine thresholds for uninfected quarters. Journal of Dairy Science 80 1833–1840Google Scholar
Schukken, YH, Wilson, DJ, Welcome, F, Garrison-Tikofsky, L & Gonzalez, RN 2003 Monitoring udder health and milk quality using somatic cell counts. Veterinary Research 34 579–596Google Scholar
Seegers, H, Fourichon, C & Beaudeau, F 2003 Production effects related to mastitis and mastitis economics in dairy cattle herds. Veterinary Research 34 475–491Google Scholar
Spencer, SB 1989 Recent research and developments in machine milking – a review. Journal of Dairy Science 72 1907–1917Google Scholar
Urech, E, Puhan, Z & Schallibaum, M 1999 Changes in milk protein fraction as affected by subclinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 82 2402–2411CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed