Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:41:58.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of milking, over-milking and vacuum levels on front and rear quarter teats in dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2021

Theresa Vierbauch ,
Walter Peinhopf-Petz  and
Thomas Wittek
Theresa Vierbauch
Affiliation:
PFI DR VET – Die Tierärzte OG, Jöss 6a, 8403Lang, Austria University Clinic for Ruminants, Vetmeduni Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210Vienna, Austria
Walter Peinhopf-Petz
Affiliation:
PFI DR VET – Die Tierärzte OG, Jöss 6a, 8403Lang, Austria
Thomas Wittek*
Affiliation:
University Clinic for Ruminants, Vetmeduni Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210Vienna, Austria
*
Author for correspondence: Thomas Wittek, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mechanical forces to the teat and vacuum during milking negatively affect teat condition and may result in increased mastitis risk. We compared vacuum levels during milking and over-milking as well as teat condition before and after milking between front and rear teats. We expected that the lower milk yield of the front quarters would result in a longer over-milking and higher vacuum levels in front teats, resulting in morphological differences. The study comprised 540 dairy cows in 41 Austrian dairy farms with conventional milking systems. Before and after milking teats were visually assessed (colour, swelling, rings, hyperkeratosis) and teat dimensions (length, diameter, wall thickness, teat canal length) were measured manually and ultrasonographically. Vacuum measurements were taken using a vacuum measurement device attached to the cluster (short milk tube, pulsation tube and mouth-piece chamber). These various measurements of front and rear teats were compared and a multivariable analysis with backward stepwise procedure was used for inclusion or exclusion from the model. Front teats showed a poorer teat condition and were over-milked for longer in comparison to the rear teats. However, during milking and over-milking the vacuum levels in the mouthpiece chamber were significantly higher at the rear teats. The changes in front teat morphology were only partially caused by milking, over-milking and vacuum levels, with approximately 70% of the variation due to other, undetermined variables. Milking, over-milking and vacuum levels had no or very limited impact on the morphological changes of the rear teats.

Keywords

Milking vacuumover-milkingteat damage
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 88 , Issue 4 , November 2021 , pp. 396 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hannah Dairy Research Foundation

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

Barkema, HW, Schukken, YH, Lam, TJGM, Galligan, DT, Beiboer, ML and Brand, A (1997) Estimation of interdependence among quarters of the bovine udder with subclinical mastitis and implications for analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1592–1599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Besier, J and Bruckmaier, RM (2016) Vacuum levels and milk-flow dependent vacuum drops affect machine milking performance and teat condition in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 3096–3102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleeson, DE, O'Callaghan, EJ and von Rath, M (2002) Effect of milking on bovine teat tissue as measured by ultrasonography. Irish Veterinary Journal 55, 628–632.Google Scholar
Guarín, J and Ruegg, P (2016) Short communication: pre- and postmilking anatomical characteristics of teats and their associations with risk of clinical mastitis in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 8323–8329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guarín, J, Paixão, M and Ruegg, P (2017) Association of anatomical characteristics of teats with quarter-level somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 643–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamann, J (1987) Effects of machine milking on teat end condition – a literature review. IDF Bulletin: Machine milking and Mastitis, 35–55.Google Scholar
Hillerton, JE, Ohnstad, I, Baines, JR and Leach, K (2000) Changes in cow teat tissue created by two types of milking cluster. Journal of Dairy Research 67, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillerton, JE, Pankey, JW and Pankey, P (2002) Effect of over-milking on teat condition. Journal of Dairy Research 69, 81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ipema, AH and Hogewerf, PH (2008) Quarter-controlled milking in dairy cows. Computers and Electronic in Agriculture 62, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, D, Flöck, M, Khol, JL, Franz, S, Stüger, HP and Baumgartner, W (2005) Ultrasonographic measurement of the bovine teat: breed differences, and the significance of the measurements for udder health. Journal of Dairy Research 72, 296–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mein, GA, Neijenhuis, F, Morgan, WF, Reinemann, DJ, Hillerton, JE, Baines, JR, Ohnstad, I, Rasmussen, MD, Timms, L, Britt, JS, Farnsworth, R, Cook, N and Hemling, T (2001) Evaluation of bovine teat condition in commercial dairy herds: 1. Non-infectious factors. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality, pp. 347–351.Google Scholar
Michel, G, Seffner, W and Schulz, J (1974) Hyperkeratosis of teat duct epithelium in cattle. Monatshefte Veterinärmedizin 29, 570–574.Google Scholar
Neijenhuis, F, Barkema, HW, Hogeveen, H and Noordhuizen, JP (2000) Classification and longitudinal examination of callused teat ends in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2795–2804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neijenhuis, F, Klungel, GH and Hogeveen, H (2001) Recovery of cow teats after milking as determined by ultrasonographic scanning. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2599–2606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulrud, CO (2005) Basic concepts of the bovine teat canal. Veterinary Research Communications 29, 215–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penry, JF, Upton, J, Mein, GA, Rasmussen, MD, Ohnstad, I, Thompson, PD and Reinemann, DJ (2017) Estimating teat canal cross-sectional area to determine the effects of teat-end and mouthpiece chamber vacuum on teat congestion. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 821–827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasmussen, MD (1997) The relationship between mouthpiece vacuum, teat condition, and udder health. National Mastitis Council Annual Meeting 36, 91–96.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, MD and Madsen, NP (2000) Effects of milkline vacuum, pulsator airline vacuum, and cluster weight on milk yield, teat condition, and udder health. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strapák, P, Strapáková, E, Rušinová, M and Szencziová, I (2017) The influence of milking on the teat canal of dairy cows determined by ultrasonographic measurements. Czech Journal of Animal Science 62, 2017–2075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tančin, V, Ipema, B, Hogewerf, P and Mačuhová, J (2006) Sources of variation in milk flow characteristics at udder and quarter levels. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 978–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, D, Weinfurtne, M and Bruckmaier, RM (2004) Teat anatomy and its relationship with quarter and udder milk flow characteristics in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 3280–3289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Vierbauch et al. supplementary material

Vierbauch et al. supplementary material

Download Vierbauch et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 111.6 KB