1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk and success factors for good udder health of early lactation primiparous dairy cows

      , ,
      Journal of Dairy Science
      American Dairy Science Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Invited review: Mastitis in dairy heifers: nature of the disease, potential impact, prevention, and control.

          Heifer mastitis is a disease that potentially threatens production and udder health in the first and subsequent lactations. In general, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) are the predominant cause of intramammary infection and subclinical mastitis in heifers around parturition, whereas Staphylococcus aureus and environmental pathogens cause a minority of the cases. Clinical heifer mastitis is typically caused by the major pathogens. The variation in proportions of causative pathogens between studies, herds, and countries is considerable. The magnitude of the effect of heifer mastitis on an individual animal is influenced by the form of mastitis (clinical versus subclinical), the virulence of the causative pathogen(s) (major versus minor pathogens), the time of onset of infection relative to calving, cure or persistence of the infection when milk production has started, and the host's immunity. Intramammary infection in early lactation caused by CNS does not generally have a negative effect on subsequent productivity. At the herd level, the impact will depend on the prevalence and incidence of the disease, the nature of the problem (clinical, subclinical, nonfunctional quarters), the causative pathogens involved (major versus minor pathogens), the ability of the animals to cope with the disease, and the response of the dairy manager to control the disease through management changes. Specific recommendations to prevent and control mastitis in late gestation in periparturient heifers are not part of the current National Mastitis Council mastitis and prevention program. Control and prevention is currently based on avoidance of inter-sucking among young stock, fly control, optimal nutrition, and implementation of hygiene control and comfort measures, especially around calving. More risk factors for subclinical and clinical heifer mastitis have been identified (e.g., season, location of herd, stage of pregnancy) although they do not lend themselves to the development of specific intervention strategies designed to prevent the disease. Pathogen-specific risk factors and associated control measures need to be identified due to the pathogen-related variation in epidemiology and effect on future performance. Prepartum intramammary treatment with antibiotics has been proposed as a simple and effective way of controlling heifer mastitis but positive long-lasting effects on somatic cell count and milk yield do not always occur, ruling out universal recommendation of this practice. Moreover, use of antibiotics in this manner is off-label and results in an increased risk of antibiotic residues in milk. Prepartum treatment can be implemented only as a short-term measure to assist in the control of a significant heifer mastitis problem under supervision of the herd veterinarian. When CNS are the major cause of intramammary infection in heifers, productivity is not affected, making prepartum treatment redundant and even unwanted. In conclusion, heifer mastitis can affect the profitability of dairy farming because of a potential long-term negative effect on udder health and milk production and an associated culling risk, specifically when major pathogens are involved. Prevention and control is not easy but is possible through changes in young stock and heifer management. However, the pathogenesis and epidemiology of the disease remain largely unknown and more pathogen-specific risk factors should be identified to optimize current prevention programs. Copyright © 2012 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Incidence rate of clinical mastitis on Canadian dairy farms.

            No nationwide studies of the incidence rate of clinical mastitis (IRCM) have been conducted in Canada. Because the IRCM and distribution of mastitis-causing bacteria may show substantial geographic variation, the primary objective of this study was to determine regional pathogen-specific IRCM on Canadian dairy farms. Additionally, the association of pathogen-specific IRCM with bulk milk somatic cell count (BMSCC) and barn type were determined. In total, 106 dairy farms in 10 provinces of Canada participated in the study for a period of 1 yr. Participating producers recorded 3,149 cases of clinical mastitis. The most frequently isolated mastitis pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus uberis, and coagulase-negative staphylococci. Overall mean and median IRCM were 23.0 and 16.7 cases per 100 cow-years in the selected herds, respectively, with a range from 0.7 to 97.4 per herd. No association between BMSCC and overall IRCM was found, but E. coli and culture-negative IRCM were highest and Staph. aureus IRCM was lowest in low and medium BMSCC herds. Staphylococcus aureus, Strep. uberis, and Streptococcus dysgalactiae IRCM were lowest in the Western provinces. Staphylococcus aureus and Strep. dysgalactiae IRCM were highest in Québec. Cows in tie-stalls had higher incidences of Staph. aureus, Strep. uberis, coagulase-negative staphylococci, and other streptococcal IRCM compared with those in free-stalls, whereas cows in free stalls had higher Klebsiella spp. and E. coli IRCM than those in tie-stall barns. The focus of mastitis prevention and control programs should differ between regions and should be tailored to farms based on housing type and BMSCC.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Influence of raw milk quality on fluid milk shelf life.

              Pasteurized fluid milk shelf life is influenced by raw milk quality. The microbial count and somatic cell count (SCC) determine the load of heat-resistant enzymes in milk. Generally, high levels of psychrotrophic bacteria in raw milk are required to contribute sufficient quantities of heat-stable proteases and lipases to cause breakdown of protein and fat after pasteurization. Sanitation, refrigeration, and the addition of CO2 to milk are used to control both total and psychrotrophic bacteria count. It is not uncommon for total bacterial counts of raw milk to be 200,000 cell/mL are usually due to the contribution of high SCC milk from a small number of cows in the herd. Technology to identify these cows and keep their milk out of the bulk tank could substantially increase the value of the remaining milk for use in fluid milk processing. To achieve a 60- to 90-d shelf life of refrigerated fluid milk, fluid processors and dairy farmers need to work together to structure economic incentives that allow farmers to produce milk with the SCC needed for extended refrigerated shelf life.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Dairy Science
                Journal of Dairy Science
                American Dairy Science Association
                00220302
                April 2021
                April 2021
                : 104
                : 4
                : 4858-4874
                Article
                10.3168/jds.2020-19683
                33551155
                81759a0e-9485-44b3-bbf5-dee9f265b176
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article