Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:28:04.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability of the bulk milk somatic cell count as an indication of average herd somatic cell count

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2009

Jan Lievaart ,
Herman W Barkema ,
Henk Hogeveen  and
Wim Kremer
Jan Lievaart*
Affiliation:
Dept. of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Herman W Barkema
Affiliation:
Dept. of Production Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Henk Hogeveen
Affiliation:
Dept. of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Wim Kremer
Affiliation:
Dept. of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
†For correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bulk milk somatic cell count (BMSCC) is a frequently used parameter to estimate the subclinical mastitis prevalence in a dairy herd, but it often differs considerably from the average SCC of all individual cows in milk. In this study, first the sampling variation was determined on 53 dairy farms with a BMSCC ranging from 56 000 to 441 000 cells/ml by collecting five samples on each farm of the same bulk tank. The average absolute sampling variation ranged from 1800 to 19 800 cells/ml. To what extent BMSCC represents all lactating cows was evaluated in another 246 farms by comparing BMSCC to the average herd SCC corrected for milk yield (CHSCC), after the difference was corrected for the sampling variation of BMSCC. On average BMSCC was 49 000 cells/ml lower than CHSCC, ranging from −10 000 cells/ml to 182 000 cells/ml, while the difference increased with an increasing BMSCC. Subsequently, management practices associated with existing differences were identified. Farms with a small (<20%) difference between BMSCC and CHSCC administered intramuscular antibiotics for the treatment of clinical mastitis more often, used the high SCC history when cows were dried off more frequently and had a higher number of treatments per clinical mastitis case compared with farms with a large (⩾20%) difference. Farms feeding high-SCC milk or milk with antibiotic residues to calves were 2·4-times more likely to have a large difference. Although sampling variation influences the differences between BMSCC and CHSCC, the remaining difference is still important and should be considered when BMSCC is used to review the average herd SCC and the subclinical mastitis prevalence.

Keywords

Bulk milk somatic cell counttest-day somatic cell countmanagement practicessampling variation
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 76 , Issue 4 , November 2009 , pp. 490 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2009

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

Akaike, H 1973 Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
Barkema, HW, van der Schans, J, Schukken, YH, de Gee, AL, Lam, TJGM & Benedictus, G 1997 Effect of freezing on somatic cell count of quarter milk samples as determined by a Fossomatic electronic cell counter. Journal of Dairy Science 80 422–426CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barkema, HW, Schukken, YH, Lam, TJGM, Beiboer, ML, Wilmink, H, Benedictus, G & Brand, A 1998a Incidence of clinical mastitis in dairy herds grouped in three categories by bulk milk somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 81 411–419CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barkema, HW, Schukken, YH, Lam, TJGM, Beiboer, ML, Benedictus, G & Brand, A 1998b. Management practices associated with low, medium, and high somatic cell counts in bulk milk. Journal of Dairy Science 81 1917–1927CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bansal, BK, Hamann, J, Grabowski, NT & Singh, KB 2005 Variation in the composition of selected milk fraction samples from healthy and mastitic quarters, and its significance for mastitis diagnosis. Journal of Dairy Research 72 144–152CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, DP, O'Brien, B, O'Callaghan, EJ, Sullivan, KO & Meaney, WJ 2006 Temporal trends in bulk tank somatic cell count and total bacterial count in Irish dairy herds during the past decade. Journal of Dairy Science 89 4083–4093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IDF (International Dairy Federation) 1999 Definition and evaluation of the overall accuracy of indirect methods of milk analysis application to calibration procedure and quality control in the dairy laboratory. FIL-IDF Standard no. 128A IDF, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Fossomatic™FC FOSS Analytical, Denmark. http://www.foss.dk/ (Last accessed May 2009)Google Scholar
Green, MJ, Bradley, AJ, Newton, HM & Browne, WJ 2006 Seasonal variation of bulk milk somatic cell counts in UK dairy herds: Investigations of the summer rise. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 74 293–308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodridge, L, Hill, AR & Lencki, RW 2004 A review of international standards and the scientific literature on farm milk bulk-tank sampling protocols. Journal of Dairy Science 87 3099–3104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Committee for Animal Recording 2002. Yearly inquiry on the situation of milk recording in member countries. Available: http://www.icar.org. (Last accessed May 2009)Google Scholar
Lievaart, JJ, Barkema, HW, Kremer, WDJ, van den Broek, J, Verheijden, JHM & Heesterbeek, JAP 2007a Effect of herd characteristics, management practices, and season on different categories of the herd somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 90 4137–4144CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lievaart, JJ, Kremer, WDJ & Barkema, HW 2007b Comparison of bulk milk, yield-corrected, and average somatic cell counts as parameters to summarize the subclinical mastitis situation in a dairy herd. Journal of Dairy Science 90 4145–4148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, NI, Larsen, T, Bjerring, M & Ingvartsen, KL 2005 Quarter health, milking interval, and sampling time during milking affect the concentration of milk constituents. Journal of Dairy Science 88 3186–3200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olde Riekerink, RGM, Barkema, HW, Veenstra, S, Poole, DE, Dingwell, RT & Keefe, GP 2006 Prevalence of contagious mastitis pathogens in bulk tank milk in Prince Edward Island. Canadian Veterinary Journal 47 567–572Google ScholarPubMed
Olde Riekerink, RGM, Barkema, HW & Stryhn, H 2007a The effect of season on somatic cell count and the incidence of clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 90 1704–1715CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olde Riekerink, RGM, Barkema, HW, Veenstra, W, Berg, FE, Stryhn, H & Zadoks, RN 2007b Somatic cell count during and between milkings. Journal of Dairy Science 90 3733–3741CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quist, MA, LeBlanc, SJ, Hand, KJ, Lazenby, D, Miglior, F & Kelton, DF 2008 Milking-to-milking variability for milk yield, fat and protein percentage, and somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 91 3412–3423CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2005. Online available: http://www.R-project.org. (Last accessed March 2009)Google Scholar
Servello, V, Hill, AR & Lencki, RW 2004 Towards an optimum mixing protocol for on-farm bulk milk sampling. Journal of Dairy Science 87 2846–2853CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Schaik, G, Lotem, M & Schukken, YH 2002 Trends in somatic cell counts, bacterial counts, and antibiotic residue violations in New York State during 1999–2000. Journal of Dairy Science 85 782–789CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed