CellCheck Newsletter July FINAL

JULY EDITION 2018

CellCheck ANIMAL HEALTH IRELAND NEWSLETTER Contributing to a profitable and sustainable farming and agri-food sector through improved animal health

CELLCHECK PROGRAMME NEWS

P3

www.AnimalHealthIreland.ie

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR P4

CELLCHECK TIP OF THE MONTH P7

P9

RESEARCH UPDATE

NATIONAL MASTITIS CONTROL PROGRAMME

CellCheck AnimalHealthIreland.ie Animal Health Ireland, 4-5 The Archways, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim, N41 WN27

AHI gratefully acknowledges the financial and other contributions of our stakeholders to the CellCheck programme.

NATIONAL MASTITIS CONTROL PROGRAMME Animal Health Ireland, 4-5 The Archways, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim, N41WN27

CellCheck AnimalHealthIreland.ie

CELLCHECK PROGRAMME UPDATE

July News

Finola McCoy, Programme Manager

W elcome to the July edition of the CellCheck newsletter. This month’s guest contributor is Kevin Downing of ICBF. There is an old management adage that states “You can’t manage what you don’t measure”. Without measurement, you don’t know if you’re getting better or worse and without knowing this, you can’t manage for improvement! This statement is also true when it comes to milk recording. In his article Kevin outlines research that shows herds that milk record increase their output significantly more than herd who do not. In this month’s Tip of the Month we look at the potential source of bacteria, particularly from the environment. Very often, we think of environmental bacteria as those that are around housing and cubicles. However, we need to remember that even when cows are outdoors, there are bacteria in their environment that can cause mastitis infections. Udder and leg hygiene scores are often used as a measure of environmental hygiene, both indoor and outdoor. This month, we feature a peer-reviewed paper that looks at the relationship between these scores and subclinical mastitis.

PAGE 3

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | July Edition 2018

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR Increased Output through Milk Recording

Kevin Downing, Business Analyst and HerdPlus Technical & Support Lead, ICBF

T here is an old management adage that states “You can’t manage what you don’t measure”. Without measurement, you don’t know if you’re getting better or worse and without knowing this, you can’t manage for improvement! This statement is also true when it comes to milk recording. Therefore, it is no surprise that, according to research carried out by ICBF, herds that are milk recording, in a Discussion Group and using HerdPlus are delivering €184 higher output per cow per year than herds that are not.

Difference per cow

Difference 70 Cow

Milk Kgs per Cow

Fat&protien KGs

Milk Value

-

-

Never Milk Recorded

4,107

303

€1,282

€64

€4,480

Started Milk Recording in 2012

4,284

319

€1,345

Continually Milk Recording & Discussion Groups and/or Herdplus

€184 €12,880

4,616

347

€1,465

Table1. Milk Value A+B-C @27c/l; Source ICBF 2014

Table 1 above compares herds that have never milk recorded with Herds that started milk recording in 2012 and herds continually milk recording, in a discussion group and/or HerdPlus. The research shows that in the average 70 cow herd, the extra output equates to over €12,000 each year due to increased milk volume and more milk solids. The level of milk recording in Ireland over the last eight years is displayed in Table 2. While the number of cows recorded has been steadily increasing (e.g. up 7.5% between 2016 and 2017), these gains are coming from expanding cow numbers as opposed to an increase in the number of herds milk recording.

PAGE 4

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | July Edition 2018

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

Year

Total Dairy Cows Herd’sMilkRecording Cow’s Milk Recorded % of Cows Recorded

2010

1,097,550

5,933

491,968

45%

2011

1,145,053

6,216

542,162

47%

2012

1,173,226

6,343

541,768

46%

2013

1,191,983

6,269

565,077

47%

2014

1,230,397

6,552

596,012

48%

2015

1,320,200

6,637

646,340

49%

2016

1,408,413

6,291

642,038

46%

2017

1,443,112

6,385

690,245

48%

Table 2. Milk Recording Statistics 2010- 2017; Source ICBF

Therefore, we still have huge scope for improvement, as the number of cows milk recorded still only represents about 48% of total dairy cow compared with a figure of 66% in New Zealand. Improved Milk Output & Quality Data from milk recording herds clearly shows an increase in milk solids per cow over the last four years i.e. 2013 versus 2017 (Figure 1). The biggest increase in milk solids has come about during the first five months of the year, which would be expected given the improvement in cow fertility brought about by choosing high EBI bulls. ICBF calving data has shown improvements over the last five years in traits like calving interval, six week calving rate and percentage calved between January and March. These improvements have a direct impact on a cow’s ability to produce more milk due to longer lactations.

Figure1. Milk Recording Fat & Protein 2013 vs 2017

PAGE 5

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | July Edition 2018

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

Finally, it is important to note that Ireland has also seen a considerable improvement in Somatic Cell Count (SCC) over the last five years with average SCC from milk recording herds falling from a high 282 cells/ml in 2010 to 165 cells/ml in 2017 (see Figure 2). This improvement has also contributed to the farmer’s bottom line with increased cell count bonuses but more importantly, increased milk output.

Figure 2. Trend in Milk Recording Somatic Cell Count 2004 vs 2017

The industry as a whole must continue its focus on getting more herds engaged in milk recording, as the gains to be made must not be allowed go to waste especially in the context of a quota free environment and fluctuating milk prices.

PAGE 6

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | July Edition 2018

CELLCHECK TIP OF THE MONTH Everywhere a cow goes, her teats go too! M astitis is not a mystery disease. It occurs when bacteria get into the quarter, through the teat end. These bacteria multiply REMEMBER!

[Click here] for previously published tips

and cause inflammation and infection. The cow’s immune response to this infection results in an increase in the somatic cell count (SCC) of that quarter, and sometimes clinical signs. The bacteria come from 2 main sources - other cows, and the environment. We can identify the cows that are a potential source of infection i.e. the cows with clinical mastitis and those that have a subclinical infection or simply a high SCC. But what exactly do we mean by environmental risk? Very often we focus on housing and cubicle management when we think of reducing the environmental risk. But we need to remember that everywhere a cow goes, her teats go too! Even if cows are not housed, they still have an environment all around them - grazing, roadways, muddy gateways, collecting yards, parlour etc. All of these areas are potential sources of environmental bacteria and hence infection. Reducing the numbers of bacteria at the teat ends reduces the risk of mastitis.

CLEAN COWS + + CLEAN MILKER

CLEAN ENVIRONMENT = LESS MASTITIS!

Ensure collecting yards are clean

Always milk with clean gloves

PAGE 7

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | July Edition 2018

CELLCHECK TIP OF THE MONTH

1. Milk clean cows

a. Clip tails and udders. b. Put cups on clean, dry teats. If teats are not clean, wash and dry them.

2. Clean up your act! a. Wear clean gloves when milking. b. Wear clean overalls and aprons for milking.

3. Work in clean surroundings a. Keep the parlour clean during milking-be careful with that hose while the cows are still there, or you will create a shower of bacteria! b. Clean concrete yards between each milking to ensure cow standing areas are clean. c. If cows are being housed, even for short periods of time, don’t forget to clean and lime cubicles and mats daily. 4. Fix areas that make teats muddy a. Clean and renovate areas around troughs, gates, roadways, housing and the entrance to the parlour area. Ensure adequate drainage and proper construction of roadways.

Keep roadways clean and in good repair

For more tips on reducing the risk of mastitis see the CellCheck Farm Guidelines for Mastitis Control, particularly Guidelines 1,8, 27 & Management Note L.

PAGE 8

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | July Edition 2018

RESEARCH UPDATE

J. Dairy Sci. 86:3460–3465 http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10466 © American Dairy Science Association, 2003.

Relationship Between Udder and Leg Hygiene Scores and Subclinical Mastitis

D. A. Schreiner 1 and P. L. Ruegg

Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706 1 Present address: University of Wisconsin, Cooperative Extension, Green Lake Courthouse, 492 Hill St., Green Lake, WI 54941.

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores of lactating dairy cattle and measures of subclinical mastitis. Study animals (n = 1250) consisted of lactating dairy cows from eight commercial dairy farms. Herds were enrolled during December 2000 and January 2001 and were visited bimonthly for a total of five visits per herd. Udder and leg hygiene scores were recorded by one person using a four-point scale ranging from one (very clean) to four (very dirty). Udder and leg hygiene scores were compared to bacteriological cultures of milk samples and monthly individual SCC values. Mean hygiene scores were 2.09 and 2.33 for udders and legs, respectively. Udder hygiene scores (UHS) were significantly associated with leg hygiene scores and varied among farms. Linear somatic cell scores increased as udder hygiene score increased. Significant differences in somatic cell scores were observed for all contrasts of udder hygiene score, except between scores of 1 and 2 and of 3 and 4. Linear somatic cell scores were associated with leg hygiene scores, but the only significant contrast was between leg hygiene scores of 2 and 4. There was a significant association between the prevalence of intramammary contagious pathogens and udder hygiene score. The prevalence of intramammary environmental pathogens was significantly associated with udder hygiene score and was 7.7, 10.0, 10.6, and 13.5% for UHS of 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The prevalence of environmental pathogens was not associated with LHS. Cows with udder hygiene scores of 3 and 4 were 1.5 times more likely to have major pathogens isolated frommilk samples compared with cows with hygiene scores of 1 and 2.

Abbreviation key: LHS = leg hygiene score, UHS =udder hygiene score.

PAGE 9

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | July Edition 2018

CELLCHECK REGIONAL COORDINATORS

A Resource and Point of Contact for CellCheck Activities in your Area

6

1

Tom Starr 087 6697010

Mícheal Guinan 086 3511852 micheal.guinan@aurivo.ie Mayo/Sligo Aurivo

tstarr@arrabawn.ie Tipperary/Limerick National Co-op

7

2

4

1

John Fitzpatrick 086 0426567

John Murphy 066 7163200 john.murphy@kerry.ie Kerry/Clare Kerry Agribusiness

fitzpatrickj@glanbia.ie Kilkenny/Laois/Carlow/ Kildare/Dublin Glanbia

3

7

8

6

8

6

5

Sinead Treanor streanor@carbery.com 023 8822369 West Cork Carbery Group

9

Andrew O’Neill 086 1836505 aoneill@tipperary-coop.ie Tipperary Tipperary Co-Op

2

3

4

9

5

Tom Downes 087 2564669

Denis Guiry 086 8098639 dguiry@dairygold.ie Cork/Tipperary/Limerick Dairygold

downest@lakeland.ie Longford/Monaghan Lakeland Dairies

Brendan Dillon 087 2626851 BrDillon@glanbia.ie

Cork/Waterford/ Wexford/Wicklow Glanbia

PAGE 10

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | July Edition 2018

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10

Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker