4.7 Article

Short communication: Cow- and quarter-level milking indicators and their associations with clinical mastitis in an automatic milking system

Journal

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
Volume 100, Issue 11, Pages 9267-9272

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2017-12839

Keywords

clinical mastitis; milking interval; peak milk flow rate

Funding

  1. Avon Dairy Solutions (Melksham, United Kingdom)
  2. Dairy Australia (Melbourne)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to assess associations of cow-, udder-, and quarter-level factors with the risk of clinical mastitis (CM) in cows managed using an automatic milking system. The primary hypothesis was that quarter peak milk flow rate (QPMF) is associated with increased risk of CM. A retrospective, case-control study was undertaken using data from a 1,549 cow farm using 20 automatic milking system units. All data from cows milked during March to December 2015 was available for analysis. Cases (n = 82) were defined as cows diagnosed with their first case of CM between 24 and 300 d in milk in the current lactation. Healthy control cows (n = 6/case) were randomly matched based on identical parity, existence of milk records during the day in milk period corresponding to the 15-d window before case diagnosis, average conductivity of <5.5 mS/cm in that window, and no history of CM in the current lactation. Logistic regression was used to estimate effects of parity, quarter position, day in milk at diagnosis of CM, average of QPMF 15 d before CM diagnosis, udder milk yield, and milking interval on the probability of CM. Of the 6 predictor variables included in the model, only milking interval was significantly associated with the increased risk of quarter CM. We concluded that in a high-production, freestall-housed North American herd using automatic milking system, milking interval, but not QPMF, was associated with risk of CM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available