Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:02:06.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

532. The relationship between mastitis and the method of stripping after machine milking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

F. K. Neave ,
T. M. Higgs ,
D. Simpkin ,
J. Oliver  and
F. H. Dodd
F. K. Neave
Affiliation:
Bacteriology Department
T. M. Higgs
Affiliation:
Bacteriology Department
D. Simpkin
Affiliation:
Bacteriology Department
J. Oliver
Affiliation:
Dairy Husbandry Department, National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
F. H. Dodd
Affiliation:
Dairy Husbandry Department, National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the end of normal machine milking some milk, which cannot be removed unaided even by the most efficient milking machine, remains in the udder sinus. This milk, often some 10% of the total yield depending upon the age of the cow, udder shape, partial vacuum of the milking machine and teat-cup liner design, was formerly most frequently removed by hand. As a result of advice and encouragement farmers are rapidly changing to manipulation of the teat-cups, known as machine stripping. This practice has renewed interestin the old controversy about the effect of the method of stripping on udder health.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 1954 , pp. 10 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1954

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)Ernst, W., Schmidt-Hoensdorp, F. & Schmidt, W. (1931) Arch. wiss. prakt. Tierheilk. 63, 401. Abstr. Milchw. Forsch. 12, 151.Google Scholar
(2)Schmidt-Hoensdorf, F. & Schmidt, W. (1932). Arch. wiss. prakt. Tierheilk. 65, 535.Google Scholar
(3)Schalm, O. W. & Mead, S. W. (1943). J. Dairy Sci. 26, 823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Cullity, M. (1944). J. Dep. Agric. W. Aust. 21, 228.Google Scholar
(5)Nichols, L. E. (1944). Qd agric. J. 59, 357.Google Scholar
(6)Ward, A. H. (1944). 20th Ann. Rep. N.Z. Dairy Bd, p. 49.Google Scholar
(7)Ward, A. H. & Castle, O. M. (1945). 21st Ann. Rep. N.Z. Dairy Bd, p. 46.Google Scholar
(8)Edwards, S. J. (1951). Quoted by Wilson C. D. (1952). Vet. Rec. 64, 525.Google Scholar
(9)Wilson, C. D. (1952). Vet. Rec. 64, 525.Google Scholar
(10)Neave, F. K., Taylor, M. E. & Lawes, L. F. (1949). Proc. Soc. appl. Bact. (1), 34.Google Scholar
(11)Stuart, P. & Lancaster, J. E. (1949). J. comp. Path. 59, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Bull, L. B., Murnane, D., Munch-Petersen, E. & Maclean, Jean, D. (1940). Bull. Court, sci. industr. Res. Aust. no. 134.Google Scholar
(13)McEwen, A. D. & Cooper, Margaret, B. (1947). Vet. Rec. 59, 655.Google Scholar
(14)Archer, R. T. (1915). J. Dep. Agric. Vict. 13, 33.Google Scholar
(15)Holman, H. H., Pattison, I. H. & Taylor, J. I. (1950). J. comp. Path. 60, 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Neave, F. K., Phillips, Mary, & Mattick, A. T. R. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 14.Google Scholar