2. The Investigation
• Details the findings of routine investigation
• Carried out on 9th of April following reports of
high somatic cell counts and mastitis rates
above that of the farms target.
• Focus was to assess the milking and housing
facilities in addition to milking routine in order
that improvements could be suggested
3. Clinical History
• Ongoing monitoring at Meldrum has shown
the SCC for the herd to be 150 000-180 000
cells per ml of milk.
• The rate of clinical mastitis has been
approximately 40-50 cases per 100 cows per
year which is above the target set by the farm
5. Farm Background
• Split into three different infrastructures;
1. Main farm-(lactating cows, calving cows and
young calves)
2. Dry cow accommodation
3. Youngstock accommodation
• The main source of income is the sale of liquid
milk. Averaging 19 000L of milk per day.
• Currently milking three times daily
6. Housing
• Milking cows are housed in two sheds on the
main farm. Within deep bedded lime and
husk.
• New shed also has a straw yard which is used
to house close-up/calving heifers or calves
• On the day of inspection this pen was used to
house close-up/calving heifers.
7. Housing
• All of the housing facilities for adult cattle on
the main farm was found to be adequate on
the day of observation, including lunging
space, cubicle size, feed barrier space and
number of water troughs
8. However…
• It was found, on the day of inspection that
there was dust covering their backs.
• Ventilation is inadequate in both sheds on the
main farm
• Cows within the dry cow accommodation
were found to be standing in faeces while at
the feed space.
• Passage scraping too infrequent
11. Herd Profile
• 260 heifers in first lactation
• 157 cows in their second lactation
• 175 cows on their third or higher lactation
• Average yield per day is 38.6L (With an
average 305 day yield of 12,023 Litres) and
average days in milk were 167.
12. Milking Parlour
• Farm currently operates a 50 point Westfalia
rotary parlour
• On day of investigation the vacuum pressure
was not observed when parlour was in
operation.
• Prior to milking, the vacuum pressure was
37.8kPa; this value should increase to
between 40-44kPa when parlour is in
operation.
13. Milking Routine and Staff
• Cows are milked three times daily at 03:30am,
11.30am and 19:30pm
• The milking order is freshly calved cows,
heifers, high yielders and low yielders
• The farm currently employees a herd
dairyman, a second dairyman, 6 milkers and
an additional staff member who is responsible
for cleaning the cubicles and passages within
the sheds.
14. Pre-milking
Before the cows entered the parlour…
• The plant was visibly clean
• All the inner linings of the clusters were
checked and all were found to be clean- no
milk residue evident.
• Most cows were found to be very clean whilst
some had faecal material up to the level of
their fetlocks-however all udders appeared
clean before teat disinfection took place!
15. Pre-milking
• All farm workers wore disposable gloves and
aprons throughout the milking, washing their
hands regularly through-out.
• The teats were disinfected with peracetic acid
(0.2%) and cleaned with a paper towel until
the teats were visibly dirt-free.
16. Pre-milking
• During the investigation 119 cows were
assessed for cleanliness
• 18% of the cows were found to have dirty
teats on entering the parlour
17. Pre-milking
• We then recorded the time from when the
teats were first cleaned to when the quarters
were attached. These times were categorised
into three groups; less than 1 minute, 1-2
minutes and over 2 minutes.
• Consistent teat stimulation is important to
ensure adequate speed of milk let down
18. Pre-milking
• 8% of the herd was found to have a time of teat
preparation to cluster attachment in excess of 2
minutes
• In cases where there was an increase in time, it was
found to be as a result of the line halting that was to
blame.
19. Milking
• Following cluster attachment, clusters were
observed until the first litre of milk had been
removed to ensure milk let down was
adequate.
• Categorised as being “Good” or “Poor”
• Poor milk let down is indicative of stress
within the herd which could be as a result of
poor handling techniques being employed.
20. Milking
• The herd was found to have adequate milk let
down in 87% of the cows
21. Milking
• Most cows stood very quietly during milking. There were a few cases
observed where cows kicked the clusters off, however this was very
infrequent. There were no incidences of air sucking observed.
• Cows were milked in the same order every day: fresh cows, heifers, high-
yielders, and finally low-yielders. The cows with high somatic cell count
were milked first in this case, so that bacteriology samples could be taken,
and these cows were milked into separate dump buckets, using separate
units.
• Some of the time, the cow number displayed on the milk recorder would
not tally with the cow. The cow that the milk recorder was displaying the
information for would be two or three cubicles away – this would easily
cause confusion, and could result in mastitic or high SCC cows being
milked into the bulk tank.
• Every time the parlour had rotated by 360 degrees, it was sprayed clean
using a hose with water. Clusters were sprayed with an unknown product
between every cow until they appeared clean
22. Post-milking
• The milking unit is automatically removed using ACR at
600ml/min flow rate cut off.
• The conditions of the teats were then scored immediately,
using the 4-point scale.
23. Post Milking
• A score of 1 or 2 was described as being unaffected
and a score over 2 was affected.
• Only 18% of the teats scored were found to have a
score of 3 or 4; this equates to 32% of the herd
having poor teats scores
24. Post Milking
• Cows were found to have a higher teat score if
they were in their third or higher lactation.
• Cows which were 208-307 days in milk were also
found to have a poor teat score.
• Any condition affecting the teats; for example
Papilloma virus; were also noted during teat
inspection.
• On the day of the investigation 23% of the cows
observed were found to have lesions consistent
with Papilloma virus on their teats
27. Post-milking
• Post-milking teat disinfection was applied to the teats
by dipping them in a container of iodine based
solution.
• On the day of the investigation, the staff members
were observed performing post-milking teat
disinfection.
• Most teats were individually dipped, however when
teats were close together, only 2 dips per udder would
be undertaken.
• Overall 98% of the animals observed had adequate
post-milking disinfection.
• The parlour wash-up routine was not observed.
28. Clinical Mastitis
• Mastitic cows were identified by pre-milk stripping of
each individual teat.
• If heat was detected in the quarter on palpation, or if
suspicious clots were observed on stripping of the teat,
the cow would be identified with tail tape.
• Cows with mastitis were milked into a dump bucket
using separate clusters thus reducing the risk of
contagious mastitis being spread throughout the herd.
• The same protocol was adhered to if the cow was on
antibiotics for any other reason until the antibiotic milk
withdrawal had been adhered to.
29. Clinical Mastitis
• Clinical cases of mastitis were treated post milking in
the parlour using one of the two protocols based on
severity:
• If the quarter was soft and clots were observed on
stripping of the teat= Multiject IMM was
administered for a 3 day minimum (minimum of 9
tubes).
30. Clinical Mastitis
• If the quarter was found to be hard on palpation
and clots were observed on stripping of the teat,
Multiject IMM was administered for 3 days and
30ml of Cronyxin 5% (w/c Flunixin Meglumine)
was also administerd for 3 days.
• Any reoccurring cases were treated using
Multiject IMM or a 3 day treatment and 25ml of
Bilosin (200mg/ml tilosin). If the cow was
observed to have a reoccurrence of mastitis 3
times within the same quarter, the cow was
culled.
31. Clincial Mastits
• In the event of a cow having E.coli mastitis,
15ml of Marbocyl 10% (Marbofloxacin) was
administered for four days alongside a three
day course of Cronyxin 5% and an oral drench
of electrolyte solution.
32. Dry Cow Therapy
• Upon drying off, all cows were administered Orbeseal which acts as
a teat sealant. If the individual cow had a low somatic cell count
(SCC) the cow was given Multiject IMM.
• If the cow was found to have a high SCC, they were given
Cephaguard or Cepravin.
• Cephaguard DC is a 150mg cefquinome preparation whilst Cepravin
DC is a 205mg preparation of Cefalonium.
• Whilst both offer effective antibiotic control for the dry period, they
both have different milk withdrawl periods and so the choice of
which preparation is used in each cow is dictated by when the cow
is due to calve.
33. Subclinical Mastitis
• Milk recording is carried out monthly with all
milking animals sampled. A composite sample
from all three milkings is used.
• Interherd+ was used to access historical milk
recording information which is updated
directly from Cattle Information Service (CIS).
• The cut-off used to indicate a sub-clinical
infection by CIS is 200, 000 cells per ml of milk.
34. Prevalence of Subclinial Mastitis
• The prevalence (number of cows with a high somatic cell
count in any given time) of infected cows in the last 12
months has fluctuated between 17 and 23% (Figure 19). At
the most recent recording (8th of April 2015) it was 21%
(124/585).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Feb May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Prevalence of infection last 12 milking
recordings
(Cut off 200K SCC)
All Infected
All Unifected
35. Prevalence of Subclinial Mastitis
• The prevalence of infection was 7% in 1st lactation animals,
29% in 2nd lactation animals and 33% in older animals (Figure
20). There is a moderate correlation with DIM, the longer the
days in milk the higher the SCC percentage (Figure 21).
36. Incidence of Subclinical Mastitis
• The incidence of new sub-clinical infections (new cases /
cases at risk of becoming new in the previous recording) has
fluctuated over the last 12 months between 4% and 10%. The
incidence has been increasing and decreasing every 1-3
months but has remained lower than 10% most of the time
during the last 12 months.
37. Dry Cow Performance
There has been a dry cow success rate of 73%
over the last 12 months, with the majority of
failure due to a high new infection rate. Of all
cows dried off without infection in 2014, 17%
developed an infection by first recording of the
next lactation (Figure 23)
38. Heifers First Recordings
• Of 1st lactation animals, 12% had an infection
at first recording (Figure 24)
39. Culture Results
• On the day of the investigation 5 individual
quarter sterile milk samples were collected
from high SCC cows at the visit.
• From these a total of 4 positive bacterial
cultures were obtained. 2 cultures were non-
pathogenic Staphylococcus and 2 cultures
were Streptococcus uberis.
• No bacteria were recovered from 2 of the
samples submitted.
40. Recommendations
• Improve teat health – milking plant inspection to ensure adequate
vacuum and cluster pulsation ration. If these are found to be
adequate the ACR value should be increased to 700ml and the
number of new cases should be assessed in a month.
• Milking herd accommodation – Ventilation could be improved by
widening the ventilation ridge at the apex or introducing fans.
• Further assessment of heifer accommodation – high somatic cells
counts could be indicative of poor hygiene. Assessment of the
heifer housing would need to be carried out prior to cleaning in
order to identify the potential source of infection; for example dirty
cubicles.
41. Recommendations
• Dry cow accommodation – increase frequency of
passage scraping to reduce faecal build up.
• Dry cow therapy – ensure it is administered
correctly
• Mastitis records – by allowing CIS access to the
mastitis records it would encourage more
frequent analysis of both subclinical and clinical
cases of mastitis, thus more accurate
interpretation.
42. References
• Dairy Co. (2015). Retrieved 04 10, 2015, from Dairy Co:
http://www.dairyco.org.uk/technical-
information/buildings/housing/#.VS9iAPm-1cY
• Leigh, J. A. (1999). Streptococcus uberis: A Permanent Barrier to the
Conrtol of Bovine Mastits. The Veterinary Journal , 225-238.
• Mein, G. A., Neijenhuis, F., Morgan, W. F., Reinemann, D. J.,
Hillerton, J. E., Baines, J. R., et al. (2001). Evaluation of Bovine Teat
Condition in Commercial Dairy Herds 1. Non-infectious. 2nd
International Symposium on Mastits and Milk Quality , 347-351.
• Petersson-Wolfe, C. S., & Currin, J. (2012). Streptococcus uberis: A
Practical Summary for Controlling Mastitis. Retrieved 04 19, 2015,
from Virginia Cooperative Extension:
https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/DASC/DASC-8P/DASC-8P_pdf.pdf
