Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:03:59.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

448. Machine milking rate and mastitis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

F. H. Dodd
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
F. K. Neave
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading

Extract

It is generally accepted that the udder possesses two main defence mechanisms against mastitis infections. The teat sphincter acts as a barrier against the entry of the pathogenic frequently present on the skin of the teats, and internal factors prevent the bacteria which gain access from setting up an infection. In recent years studies have been made on the relative importance of these two mechanisms, and particular attention has been paid to the relation of teat patency or ease of milking with the incidence of disease. Little (1) stressed the importance of the intact sphincter as a barrier, and suggested that the sphincters of older cows relax, making them more susceptible to infection. In an attempt to overcome the disadvantages of the manual assessment of teat patency, Espe & Cannon (2) used a special instrument. The results were not wholly satisfactory and no correlation with mastitis was found. More recently, Murphy (3) manually examined the teats of at least eighty-seven cows and found a trend towards a higher incidence of infection in quarters with patent teats. This latter author did not agree that relaxing of the teat sphincters with advance in age could account for the increased susceptibility of older cows to streptococcal mastitis (4). While Murnane (5) could not confirm Murphy's results, McEwan & Cooper (6), again using the manual method, obtained further evidence definitely suggesting that easy milking cows were more prone to mastitis. Although Stuart & Lancaster (7) found evidence confirming the importance of the teat orifice, they concluded that it was of less importance than those factors operating within the udder.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1951

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

(1)Little, R. B. (1937). Cornell Vet. 27, 309.Google Scholar
(2)Espe, D. & Cannon, C. Y. (1942). J. Dairy Sci. 25, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Murphy, J. M. (1944). Cornell Vet. 34, 64.Google Scholar
(4)Murphy, J. M. (1945). Proc. 49th Acc. Mtg. U.S. Livestock San. Ass. p. 30.Google Scholar
(5)Murnane, D. (1940). Bull. Coun. sci. industr. Res. Aust. no. 134, p. 64.Google Scholar
(6)McEwan, A. D. & Cooper, M. B. (1947). Vet. Rec. 59, 655.Google Scholar
(7)Stuart, P. & Lancaster, J. E. (1949). J. comp. Path. Bact. 59, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Neave, F. K., Dodd, F. H. & Henriques, E. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Crossman, J. V., Dodd, F. H., Lee, J. M. & Neave, F. K. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 128.Google Scholar
(10)Foot, A. S., (1935). J. Dairy Res. 6, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Dodd, F. H. & Foot, A. S. (1949). J. Brit. Dairy Fmrs' Ass. 53, 25.Google Scholar
(12)Baxter, E. S., Clarke, P. M., Dodd, F. H. & Foot, A. S. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 117.Google Scholar
(13)Dodd, F. H., Foot, A. S., Henriques, E. & Neave, F. K. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Arthur, G. H. (1947). Vet. Rec. 59, 231.Google Scholar
(15)Gätjen, (1933). Münch. tierärztl. Wschr. 84, 525.Google Scholar
(16)Käastli, P. (1933). Schweiz. Arch. Tierheilk. 75, 461.Google Scholar
(17)Watts, P. S. (1951). Vet. Rec. 63, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Neave, F. K., Phillips, M. & Mattick, A. T. R. (1951). J. Dairy Res. (in press).Google Scholar