Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T19:14:52.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of methods for estimating the cell content of bulk milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

J. K. L. Pearson ,
C. L. Wright  and
D. O. Greer
J. K. L. Pearson
Affiliation:
Government of Northern Ireland, Ministry of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Laboratories, Stormont, Belfast, Northern Ireland
C. L. Wright
Affiliation:
Government of Northern Ireland, Ministry of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Laboratories, Stormont, Belfast, Northern Ireland
D. O. Greer
Affiliation:
Government of Northern Ireland, Ministry of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Laboratories, Stormont, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Four methods of estimating the cell content of bulk milk were studied, correlated statistically and their degree of reproducibility estimated. The relative merits of the 4 methods are discussed, and the need for defining the object of testing before selecting a test is stressed. If designed for use in a programme for mastitis control, or the control of milk quality based on cell content, each country must choose a screening test or a precise cell-counting technique, depending on the availability of laboratory resources, extension advisory services and other economic factors.

Screening tests studied were the California Mastitis Test (CMT) and the Brabant Mastitis Test (BMR), the former showing a correlation coefficient of 0·817 against the Electronic Cell Count (ECC) method in 320 samples. The more objective BMR correlated well with the ECC method, showing a correlation coefficient of 0·987 for 406 samples. Direct microscopic counts (DMC) were correlated with a centrifugal method and with a chemical method of preparing samples for electronic cell counting. For 430 samples in each case the correlation coefficients obtained were 0·930 and 0·966 respectively. The 2 ECC techniques were compared using 430 samples, and a very close relationship was found (r=0·988).

For regular examination of large numbers of milk samples using the electronic cell counter we consider the chemical method of sample preparation more suitable than the centrifugal method. Differences in the reproducibility and accuracy of both tests are negligible, but the former procedure is quicker, more economical in terms of cost, and more adaptable to a national testing programme.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , October 1970 , pp. 467 - 480
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1970

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

REFERENCES

Barnum, D. A. & Newbould, F. H. S. (1961). Can. vet. J. 2, 83.Google Scholar
Bieri, J. (1966). Schweiz. landw. Forsch. 5, 56.Google Scholar
Blackburn, P. S. (1965). Br. vet. J. 121, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullen, G. A. (1966). Vet. Bull., Weybridge 36, 337.Google Scholar
Cullen, G. A. (1967). Vet. Rec. 80, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, R. C. W., Smith, G. C. & Barnum, D. A. (1966). Can. vet. J. 7, 80.Google Scholar
De Langen, H. (1967). Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 22, 36.Google Scholar
Dijkman, A. J. (1968). Veet.- en Zuivelber. 11, 85.Google Scholar
Dijkman, A. J., Schipper, C. J., Booy, C. J. & Posthumus, G. (1969). Ned. Melk- en Zuiveltijdschr. 23, 168.Google Scholar
Dijkman, A. J., Schipper, C. J. & Walstra, P. (1966). Ned. Melk- en Zuiveltijdschr. 20, 193.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R. (1962). Vet. Rec. 74, 1017.Google Scholar
Giesecke, W. H. & van der Heever, L. W. (1967). Jl S. Afr. vet. med. Ass. 38, 16.Google Scholar
Gray, D. M. & Schalm, O. W. (1960). J. Am. vet. med. Ass. 136, 195.Google Scholar
Hauke, H. (1967). Milchwissenschaft 22, 269.Google Scholar
Jaartsveld, F. H. J. (1961). Thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Janzen, J. J. (1969). J. Dairy Sci. 52, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasper, D. E. (1967). Dairyman, Calif., 04, p. 32.Google Scholar
Kernohan, E. A. (1968). Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 23, 173.Google Scholar
Klein, H. & Thomas, H. J. (1968). Milchwissenschaft 23, 153.Google Scholar
Kleinschroth, E., Richter, O. & Schumann, H. (1968). Milchwissenschaft 23, 147.Google Scholar
Kroger, D. & Jasper, D. E. (1967). J. Dairy Sci. 50, 1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levowitz, D. & Weber, M. (1956). J. Milk Fd Technol. 19, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, P. S. (1968). Acta vet. scand. 9, 376.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. R., Newbould, F. H. S. & Platonow, I. (1967). Vet. Rec. 81, 298.Google Scholar
Nageswararao, G. & Derbyshire, J. B. (1969). J. Dairy Res. 36, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Mastitis Council, Inc. (1969). 8th Annual Mtg, Chicago.Google Scholar
Newbould, F. H. S. & Phipps, L. W. (1967). Can. J. comp. Med. vet. Sci. 31, 65.Google Scholar
Nyhan, J. F. (1965). Vet. Rec. 77, 1086.Google Scholar
O'Reilly, P. F. & Dodd, K. (1969). Vet. Rec. 84, 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paape, M. J., Hafs, H. D. & Snyder, W. W. (1963). J. Dairy Sci. 46, 1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paape, M. J., Hafs, H. D. & Tucker, H. A. (1964). J. Milk Fd Technol. 27, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, J. K. L. (1965). Vet. Rec. 77, 971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, J. K. L., Greer, D. O. & Spence, B. K. (1970). Vet. Rec. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Pearson, J. K. L., Wright, C. L., Greek, D. O., Phipps, L. W. & Booth, J. M. (1970). Electronic Counting of Somatic Cells in Milk. A Recommended Procedure. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Philpot, W. N. (1969). Res. Rep. La St. Univ., p. 91.Google Scholar
Phipps, L. W. (1968). J. Dairy Res. 35, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, L. W. & Newbould, F. H. S. (1966). J. Dairy Res. 33, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postle, D. S. (1967). J. Milk Fd Technol. 30, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postle, D. S. & Blobel, H. (1965). Am. J. vet. Res. 26, 90.Google Scholar
Prescott, S. C. & Breed, R. S. (1910). J. infect. Dis. 7, 632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, R. B. Jr, Reyes, A. L., Bradshaw, J. G. & Peeler, J. T. (1967). J. Dairy Sci. 50, 669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, R. B. Jr, Reyes, A. L., Bradshaw, J. G. & Peeler, J. T. (1969). J. Dairy Sci. 52, 1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schalm, O. W. & Noorlander, D. O. (1957). J. Am. vet. med. Ass. 130, 199.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. & Jasper, D. E. (1964). Am. J. vet. Res. 25, 1635.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. & Jasper, D. E. (1965). J. Dairy Sci. 48, 1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, R. & Jasper, D. E. (1966 a). J. Milk Fd Technol. 29, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, R. & Jasper, D. E. (1966 b). J. Milk Fd Technol. 29, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, R., Jasper, D. E. & Eide, R. N. (1966). Am. J. vet. Res. 27, 1169.Google Scholar
Schultze, W. D. (1968). J. Milk Fd Technol. 31, 344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, H. C. (1963). Cornell Vet. 53, 54.Google Scholar
Tolle, A., Zeidler, H. & Heeschen, W. (1966). Milchwissenschaft 21, 93.Google Scholar
van der Schaaf, A., Jaartsveld, F. H. J. & Kramer-Zeeuw, A. (1964). J. comp. Path. Ther. 74, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittlestone, W. G. & de Langen, H. (1965). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 25, 137.Google Scholar
Wright, C. L. & Pearson, J. K. L. (1969). Vet. Rec. 84, 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeidler, H., Tolle, A. & Heeschen, W. (1968). Milchwissenschaft 23, 564.Google Scholar