Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:11:58.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of out-wintering pad design on dirtiness score, somatic cell score and mastitis incidence in dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2008

K. O’Driscoll ,
L. Boyle ,
P. French ,
B. Meaney  and
A. Hanlon
K. O’Driscoll*
Affiliation:
Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Sciences Centre, NUI Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
L. Boyle
Affiliation:
Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
P. French
Affiliation:
Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
B. Meaney
Affiliation:
Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
A. Hanlon
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Sciences Centre, NUI Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study aimed to compare three woodchip out-wintering pad (OWP) designs, and indoor cubicle housing with regard to cow dirtiness scores during the winter housing period, and udder health during both the winter period and the following lactation, for spring-calving dairy cows. The treatments were: an uncovered (UP) and covered (CP) OWP with a concrete feed apron; an uncovered OWP with self-feed silage pit provided directly on the woodchips (SP); and indoor cubicle housing (IC). Data were compared during 2 years: year 1 was a case study while year 2 was an experimental study. In year 1, treatments were UP (space allowance = 12 m2/cow), CP (6 m2/cow) and IC. In year 2, all three OWP designs (12 m2/cow) were compared with IC. Animals were assigned to treatments at the end of lactation in the autumn, and remained there while dry until calving the following spring. Subsequently, all cows were at pasture during lactation. Outcome measures for analysis were cow dirtiness score, somatic cell score (SCS) and incidence of clinical mastitis during the dry period and during lactation. Quarter milk samples were also taken at drying off, calving and 3 weeks post partum both years, and at approximately 113 days in milk in year 2. Samples were analysed for presence of mastitis-causing agents and SCS was determined. Sub-clinical mastitis was diagnosed when cows had an SCS greater than 200 000, or California mastitis test greater than 1 in at least one quarter. In year 1, cows in CP were dirtier than cows in the other two treatments. These animals also had the highest SCS during lactation and tended to have more mastitis-causing agents isolated from quarter milk samples. In year 2, when all cows were stocked at the same density, cows in the sheltered OWP (i.e. CP) had similar dirtiness scores to cows in cubicles and significantly lower dirtiness scores than cows in the unsheltered OWP designs, i.e. UP and SP. However, there were no effects on SCS or quarter sample results. Cleaning of OWP’s stocked at 12 m2/cow reduced cow dirtiness scores. However, cleaning of CP in year 1 when cows were stocked at 6 m2/cow had no effect on dirtiness scores. We conclude that dry cows stocked at 12 m2/cow on OWP’s are unlikely to have udder health problems in the subsequent lactation. Furthermore, provision of shelter and cleaning of the woodchips are management factors that help to keep cows clean on OWP’s.

Keywords

dairy cowdirt scoremastitisout-wintering pad
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 6 , June 2008 , pp. 912 - 920
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Barberg, AE, Endres, MI, Salfer, JA, Reneau, JK 2007. Performance and welfare of dairy cows in an alternative housing system in Minnesota. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1575–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkema, HW, Schukken, YH, Lam, TJGM, Beiboer, ML, Benedictus, G, Brand, A 1999b. Management practices associated with the incidence rate of clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1643–1654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartlett, PC, Miller, GY, Lance, SE, Heider, LE 1992a. Environmental and managerial determinants of somatic cell counts and clinical mastitis incidence in Ohio dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 14, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, PC, Miller, GY, Lance, SE, Heider, LE 1992b. Managerial determinants of intramammary coliform and environmental streptococci infections in Ohio dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 1241–1252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, D, Amer, P 2005. Derivation of a health sub-index for the economic breeding index in Ireland. Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.Google Scholar
De Palo, P, Tateo, A, Zezza, F, Corrente, M, Centoducati, P 2006. Influence of freestall flooring on comfort and hygiene of dairy cows during warm climatic conditions. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4583–4595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohoo, I, Leslie, K 1991. Evaluation of changes in somatic cell counts as indicators of new intramammary infections. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 10, 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshraghi, HR, Zeitlin, IJ, Fitzpatrick, JL, Ternent, H, Logue, D 1999. The release of bradykinin in bovine mastitis. Life Sciences 64, 1675–1687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, AD, Stewart, M, Verkerk, GA, Morrow, CJ, Matthews, LR 2003. The effects of surface type on lying behaviour and stress responses of dairy cows during periodic weather-induced removal from pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazzola P, Boyle L, French P, Hanlon AJ and Mulligan F 2007. Foraging behaviour of dry cows in out-wintering systems. Proceedings of the 41st Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Merida, Mexico, 30 July–3 August 2007, pp 44.Google Scholar
Grohn, YT, Gonzalez, RN, Wilson, DJ, Hertl, JA, Bennett, G, Schulte, H, Schukken, YH 2005. Effect of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on herd life in two New York State dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 71, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Haas, Y, Barkema, HW, Veerkamp, RF 2002. The effect of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on the lactation curve for somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1314–1323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harmon, RJ 1994. Physiology of mastitis and factors affecting somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 2103–2112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickey, MC, French, P, Grant, J 2002. Out-wintering pads for finishing beef cattle: animal production and welfare. Animal Science 75, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hourihan, J 2006. Survey of factors affecting the dirtiness of out-wintering pads and out-wintered cattle in Ireland Masters of Agricultural Science. University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Kaneene, JB, Scott-Hurd, H 1990. The national animal health monitoring system in Michigan. III. Cost estimates of selected dairy cattle diseases. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 8, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivula, M, Mantysaari, EA, Negussie, E, Serenius, T 2005. Genetic and phenotypic relationships among milk yield and somatic cell count before and after clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 827–833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, T, Miglior, F, Dekkers, JCM, Burnside, EB 1994. Genetic relationships between clinical mastitis, somatic cell count, and udder conformation in Danish Holsteins. Livestock Production Science 39, 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, J, Meaney, W, Giller, PS 1991. An evaluation of four cubicle designs using cattle behaviour criteria. Irish Veterinary Journal 44, 8–13.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, K, Boyle, L, French, P, Meaney, B, Hanlon, A 2006. Effect of winter housing on cow dirt score, somatic cell score and mastitis incidence in dairy cows. Animal Science 84 (Suppl. 1), 93.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, K, Boyle, L, French, P, Hanlon, A 2008. The effect of out-wintering pad design on hoof health and locomotion score of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 544–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osteras, O, Lund, A 1988. Epidemiological analyses of the associations between bovine udder health and housing. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 6, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overton, MW, Sischo, WM, Temple, GD, Moore, DA 2002. Using time-lapse video photography to assess dairy cattle lying behavior in a freestall barn. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2407–2413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poso, J, Mantysaari, EA 1996. Relationships between clinical mastitis, somatic cell score, and production for the first three lactations of Finnish Ayrshire. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1284–1291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryce, JE, Nielsen, BL, Veerkamp, RF, Simm, G 1999. Genotype and feeding system effects and interactions for health and fertility traits in dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 57, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargeant, JM, Leslie, KE, Shirley, JE, Pulkrabek, BJ, Lim, GH 2001. Sensitivity and specificity of somatic cell count and California mastitis test for identifying intramammary infection in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2018–2024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreiner, DA, Ruegg, PL 2003. Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores and subclinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3460–3465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sim, J, Wright, CC 2005. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy 85, 257–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todhunter, DA, Smith, KL, Hogan, JS 1995. Environmental Streptococcal intramammary infections of the bovine mammary gland. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 2366–2374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, CB, Rogers, AR, Verkerk, GA, Kendall, PE, Webster, JR, Matthews, LR 2007. Effects of shelter and body condition on the behaviour and physiology of diary cattle in winter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zdanowicz, M, Shelford, JA, Tucker, CB, Weary, DM, von Keyserlingk, MAG 2004. Bacterial populations on teat ends of dairy cows housed in free stalls and bedded with either sand or sawdust. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1694–1701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed