Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:39:02.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How does the milk removal method affect teat tissue and teat recovery in dairy ewes?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2014

Manuel Alejandro ,
Amparo Roca ,
Gema Romero  and
Jose Ramon Díaz
Manuel Alejandro
Affiliation:
Departamento de Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Orihuela, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Ctra. Beniel, Km. 3,2. 03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain
Amparo Roca
Affiliation:
Departamento de Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Orihuela, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Ctra. Beniel, Km. 3,2. 03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain
Gema Romero
Affiliation:
Departamento de Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Orihuela, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Ctra. Beniel, Km. 3,2. 03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain
Jose Ramon Díaz*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Orihuela, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Ctra. Beniel, Km. 3,2. 03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this work was to study how machine milking (MM) carried out in suitable conditions affects teat wall thickness and teat canal length and their return after milking to pre-milking conditions, in comparison with other milk extraction methods considered biological referents: lamb suckling (LS), milk removal by catheter (RC) and hand milking (HM). Three Latin square experiments were designed, using 11 ewes in the first experiment (LS), 13 in the second (RC) and 12 in the third (HM). Each of the Latin squares was divided into two periods: in the first, the left gland of each animal was machine milked and the corresponding treatment (LS, RC and HM) was applied to the right gland. Subsequently, in the second period the extraction methods were interchanged. During the experimental period, 4 sampling days were carried out (2 in each experimental period), where ultrasound scans were taken before (B) and immediately after milking (A) and at 1 (1 h), 2 (2 h), 3 (3 h), 4 (4 h), 6 (6 h), 8 (8 h) and 10 (10 h) hours after milking finished. Teat wall thickness (TWT), teat wall area (TWA), teat end area (TEWA) and teat canal length (TCL) were measured in all the ultrasound images. MM increased TWT after milking compared with RC. TWT, TWA, TEWA and TCL were lower (P<0·05) in HM than in MM. No significant differences (P>0·05) were found between LS and MM for any variable. The extraction method affected the recovery time of the variables, with total teat recovery at 6 h after RC and 4 h after HM. In the case of LS, the TEWA and TCL values were recovered sooner, as of 3 h. Teat recovery time after MM was similar to the extraction method with which it was compared in each experiment. Thus, considering the similar increase in wall thickness and their recovery time compared with the reference methods, it was concluded that machine milking, carried out in optimum conditions and respecting the time interval between milkings usually applied on sheep farms (8–12 h), would not affect teat integrity. Moreover, given the variability observed in teat thickness recovery time between the different experiments, further research should be carried out to study which factors intrinsic and extrinsic to the animal may affect the teat wall thickness and recovery time after machine milking.

Keywords

Recovery teatewecongestionultrasonographymachine milking
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , August 2014 , pp. 350 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2014 

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

Alejandro, M, Roca, A, Romero, G & Díaz, JR 2014a Effects of milk removal on teat tissue and recovery in Murciano-Grandina goats. Journal of Dairy Science (in press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alejandro, M, Rodríguez, M, Peris, C & Díaz, JR 2014b Study of ultrasound scanning as method to estimate changes in teat thickness due to machine milking in Manchega ewes. Small Ruminant Research 119 138–145Google Scholar
Castillo, V, Such, X, Caja, G, Casals, R, Albanell, E & Salama, AA 2008 Effect of milking interval on milk secretion and mammary tight junction permeability in dairy ewes. Journal of Dairy Science 91 2610–2619Google Scholar
Fahr, R, Schulz, J & Rosner, F 2001 Melkbedingte Veränderungen an der Zitzenspitze der Ziege [Milking associated changes of the teat end in goats]. Tierarztliche Praxis 29 G151–G156Google Scholar
Gleeson, DE, O'callaghan, EJ & Rath, MV 2002 Effect of milking on bovine teat tissue as measured by ultrasonography. Irish Veterinary Journal 55 628–632Google Scholar
Hamann, J & Burvenich, C 1994 Physiological status of the bovine teat. En: Teat Tissue reactions to machine milking and new infection risk. International Dairy Federation 297 3–11Google Scholar
Hamann, J & Mein, GA 1988 Responses of bovine teat to machine milking. Measurement of changes in thickness of the teat apex. Journal of Dairy Research 55 331–338Google Scholar
Hamann, J & Mein, GA 1990 Measurement of machine-induced changes in thickness of the bovine teat. Journal of Dairy Research 57 495–505CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamann, J & Osteras, O 1994 II Special aspects. In Teat Tissue reactions to machine milking and new infection risk. International Dairy Federation 297 35–41Google Scholar
Knizkova, I, Kunc, P, Broucek, J & Kisac, P 2005 The effect of calf suckling and machine milking on bovine teats. In Physiological and Technical Aspects of Machine Milking Proceedings of the International Conference held in Nitra, Slovak Republic, 26–28 April, pp. 137–146 (Eds Tancin, V, Mihina, S & Uhrincat, M). Villa del Ragno, Via Nomentana 134, 00162 Rome, Italy: ICARGoogle Scholar
Lefcourt, AM 1982 Rhythmic contractions of the teat sphincter in bovines: an expulsion mechanism. The American Journal of Physiology 242 R181–R184Google Scholar
McDonald, JS & Witzel, DA 1966 Differential pressures across the bovine teat canal during three methods of milk removal. Journal of Dairy Science 49 176–178Google Scholar
Neijenhuis, F, Klungel, GH & Hogeveen, H 2001 Recovery of cow teats after milking as determined by ultrasonography scanning. Journal of Dairy Science 84 2599–2606Google Scholar
Rasmussen, MD & Mayntz, M 1998 Pressuer in the teat cistern and the mouth of the calf during suckling. Journal of Dairy Research 65 685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ślósarz, P, Wójtowski, J, Bielińska, S, Frąckowiak, A, Ludwiczak, A, Krzyżewski, J, Bagnicka, E & Strzałkowska, N 2010 Machine induced changes of caprine teats diagnosed by ultrasonography. African Journal of Biotechnology 9 8698–8703Google Scholar
Svennersten, K, Claesson, C & Nelson, L 1990 Effect of local stimulation of one quarter on milk production and milk components. Journal of Dairy Science 73 970–974CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Tol, PPJ, Schrader, W & Aernouts, B 2010 Pressure distribution at the teat-liner and teat-calf interfaces. Journal of Dairy Science 93 45–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wójtowski, J, Ślósarz, P, Bielińska, S, Nowicki, S, Gut, A & Danków, R 2006 Ultrasound image of morphological changes of teat end in sheep caused by machine milking. Archiv Tierzucht Dummerstorf 49 (Special Issue) 231–237Google Scholar