CellCheck Newsletter_May 2019 FINAL

May Edition 2019

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

www.AnimalHealthIreland.ie

PROGRAMME NEWS | 03

GUEST CONTRIBUTORS | 04 & 08 CELLCHECK TIP OF THE MONTH | 11 RESEARCH UPDATE | 13

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.

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

CellCheck AnimalHealthIreland.ie

CELLCHECK PROGRAMME

Programme news

Finola McCoy, Programme Manager

GUEST CONTRIBUTORS

W elcome to the May edition of the CellCheck newsletter! This month’s topic is all about teats, and in particular teat disinfection after milking. This might seem like old news, but in practice it is the most common area where improvements to herd mastitis control can be made. As it can prevent new infections by 50%, it is a practice well worth getting right! David Gleeson and Sarah Fitzpatrick from Teagasc, our guest contributors this month, present recent Teagasc research on the impact of different types of teat disinfectant on different bacteria that commonly causemastitis. As mentioned already, themessage about the importance of good post-milking teat disinfection in mastitis control is not new. In fact some of the evidence to support it has been around since the 1960s! Our featured research paper, this month from New Zealand, evaluates teat disinfection, both pre- and post-milking, in a modern-day NZ farming system. Finally…..calling all Discussion Groups! Don’t forget that the closing date for group entries to the CellCheck Milking For Quality awards is Monday May 13 th . If you’re not in, you can’t win!!

Choosing the right teat disinfectant Dr David Gleeson and Sarah Fitzpatrick PAGE 4 Top performance from discussion groups in the 2018 CellCheck Dairy Discussion Group Awards George Ramsbottom PAGE 8 CELLCHECK TIP OF THE MONTH It’s all about the teats!

PAGE 11

WINNERS

DISCUSSIONGROUPAWARDS

PAGE 3

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

CHOOSING THE RIGHT TEAT DISINFECTANT

Dr David Gleeson Research Officer, Livestock Systems Department Teagasc Moorepark, Fermoy

Sarah Fitzpatrick, PhD Walsh Fellow student Teagasc Moorepark, Fermoy

T eat disinfection is an integral part of the whole programme designed to reduce the challenge from bacteria, promoting good skin condition and producing quality milk. Disinfecting teats immediately after milking kills most of the pathogens on teats. This in turn reduces the chance of those pathogens getting into the udder. In fact more than 50% of new infections can be prevented by adequate post-milking disinfection with an effective disinfectant immediately after every milking. Key guidelines to adhere to when choosing/using a teat disinfectant • Refer to the list of teat disinfectant products on the market, which can be viewed on the Teagasc website (click here) . • Check if the product is registered. The product will have either a PCS or IMB number on the drum label. This is important for cross compliance checks. • Use products as recommended by the manufacturer/drum label. i.e. if disinfecting before milking, ensure the product is recommended for both pre- and post-milking disinfection. • Ensure the product is correctly diluted as recommended by the manufacturer. If there are any farm water supply issues with regard to water hardness, bacteria and/or pH, then ready-to-use products should be considered as opposed to those that require dilution. • Avoid adding additional emollients as this may have a negative impact on product efficacy. • Take care when using iodine products and do not use iodine as a pre-milking disinfectant. Inappropriate use of iodine products can lead to increased iodine levels in milk. • Chlorine dioxide disinfectant products can contain chlorates, so it is best to avoid such products. • Never disinfect teats pre-milking without drying teats with paper afterwards. This will reduce the possibility of residues entering the food chain. • Do not use products past their date of expiry.

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

PAGE 4

CHOOSING THE RIGHT TEAT DISINFECTANT

Evaluating products on the Irish market Currently, there are over 100 commercially available teat disinfectant products for sale in Ireland and a list of those products including details such as ingredients and regulatory status are available on the Teagasc milk quality webpage (click here) . These products can vary in colour, active ingredients and emollients. Some of the main disinfectant ingredients incorporated in products are iodine, chlorhexidine gluconate, chlorine dioxide and/or lactic acid, with many combinations of these ingredients. While most of the individual ingredients have been demonstrated to have good efficacy against contagious pathogens such as Staphylococcus spp. , there is limited independent knowledge available on the efficacy of these combination products with different emollient levels present against specific bacteria relevant to Irish conditions. A study is currently being undertaken in Teagasc Moorepark to measure the efficacy of the range of teat disinfectant products sold in Ireland.

A study is currently being undertaken in Teagasc Moorepark to measure the efficacy of the range of teat disinfectant products sold in Ireland.

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

PAGE 5

CHOOSING THE RIGHT TEAT DISINFECTANT

Test Method Teat disinfectant products, with different active ingredients of varying concentrations were tested using a laboratory method called disc diffusion. These products were tested against the most prevalent mastitis-causing pathogens in Irish dairy herds (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis and Escherichia coli) which were isolated from teat skin surfaces. The disc diffusion method is a laboratory test that measures the ability of a teat disinfectant product to inhibit bacterial growth. The bacteria that are to be tested are placed onto agar plates. This is allowed to dry and discs are then soaked in the test disinfectant. These discs are then applied to the agar plate. This plate is then incubated at 37 ˚C for 24 hours. The zones of inhibition (Figure 1), measured in millimetres (mm) using an electronic caliper, are a measurement of the ability of the disinfectant to inhibit bacterial growth. Therefore, the most effective teat disinfectant product will have the largest zone of inhibition. This method allows screening of teat disinfectant products against specific bacterial strains of interest.

Figure 1: Zones of inhibition after incubation for 24 hrs.

What ingredients were best? The results for the inhibition (mm) of different ingredients and concentrations of products tested in the study against the three strains of bacteria can be seen in Figure 2. The overall average inhibition for Staph. aureus was 15 mm. Products containing 0.05% chlorine dioxide or a combination of 4.9% lactic acid and 1.28% chlorhexidine or a combination of 5% lactic acid and 0.3% chlorhexidine resulted in the greatest levels of inhibition (19 mm) against Staph. aureus. Strep. uberis was the most susceptible to the tested products, with an average inhibition of 19 mm. Products containing either 0.2% iodine, 0.0157% chlorine dioxide or a combination of 2.5% iodine and 2% lactic acid or a combination of 3% Lactic acid and 0.25% chlorhexidine resulted in the greatest levels of inhibition (22- 23 mm) for Strep. uberis . Overall, E . coli was the most resistant to the teat disinfectant products, with an average inhibition of 13 mm. Products containing 0.0157% chlorine dioxide, 0.74% chlorhexidine or a combination of 2% lactic acid and 0.03% chlorhexidine achieved the greatest levels of inhibition (19 mm) against E. coli .

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

PAGE 6

CHOOSING THE RIGHT TEAT DISINFECTANT

CONCLUSIONS

→ Overall, products containing a combination of lactic acid and chlorhexidine, or chlorine dioxide were found to be the most effective in inhibiting the growth of the bacterial strains tested. → It is important to consider the type of disinfectant along with the specific bacteria causing the infection issue on the farm. → The effectiveness of a product may depend on the concentration (%) of ingredient and in most cases, high concentrations of an active ingredient resulted in greater levels of inhibition. → Teat disinfectant products may react differently when applied to teats and in the presence of organic matter. → Further studies will be conducted on these products to measure the impact of applying disinfectants to teat skin through field studies.

Figure 2. A scatter plot of the inhibition (mm) of different ingredients and concentrations of products tested in the study against the three strains of bacteria.

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

PAGE 7

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

Top performance from discussion groups in the 2018 CellCheck Dairy Discussion Group Awards

George Ramsbottom Dairy Specialist, Teagasc

DISCUSSION GROUP AWARDS

Animal Health Ireland and Teagasc in conjunction with ICBF initiated a new discussion group competition called the ‘CellCheck Dairy Discussion Group Awards’ in spring 2018. The objective of the Competition was to reward and promote improved somatic cell counts (SCC) among members of Dairy Discussion Groups. The Competition was open to all Dairy Discussion Groups operating in the Republic of Ireland.

Two winning categories were identified → The most improved group – to identify the group that had made the most improvement in SCC reduction between September ’17 and August ‘18 and the average of the previous two years. → The lowest SCC group – to identify the group that had the lowest group bulk SCC average in the September’17 – August ’18 period. Eleven discussion groups from around the country entered the Competition in its inaugural year.

1. Barryroe 1 2. Barryroe 2 3. CFS Discussion Group 4. Dairy Diploma Discussion Group 5. Dunmanway 14 6. Grassmasters 7. Mid-Monaghan Dairy Discussion Group 8. N71 Dairy Discussion Group 9. Pasture Apprentices Discussion Group 10. Templemore Discussion Group 11. West Offaly

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

PAGE 8

CELLCHECK MILKING FOR QUALITY DISCUSSION GROUP AWARDS

PRESENTAIONS TO WINNING GROUPS The winning groups were announced at the FBD sponsored CellCheck Awards event at the Lyrath Hotel, Kilkenny

on November 29th 2018. Most improved group

Winners in this category were the CFS discussion group from Kerry. In existence for over 20 years, the 18-strong group is chaired by William Dennehy and facilitated by Teagasc’s Denis Brassil. The average bulk milk SCC for the group decreased by an average of over 18,000 cells/ml in the 2017/18 milk production year to 154,000 SCC average compared to the average of the previous two years.

CFS Discussion Group members with Finola McCoy, AHI, George Ramsbottom, Teagasc and Kevin Downing, ICBF (Judges) with Liam Herlihy and John Cahalan, FBD (Sponsors).

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

PAGE 9

CELLCHECK MILKING FOR QUALITY DISCUSSION GROUP AWARDS

Lowest SCC group Winners in this category were the Pasture Apprentices discussion group with members from Tipperary and Laois. This young farmers’ group are chaired by Jonathan Dwyer and facilitated by Liam Hanrahan from Teagasc Moorepark. In winning this category the group had an average bulk milk SCC of 135,000 SCC in 2017/18.

Members of the Pasture Apprentices Discussion Group with Finola McCoy, AHI, George Ramsbottom, Teagasc and Kevin Downing, ICBF (Judges) with David Graham AHI, Liam Herlihy and John Cahalan, FBD (Sponsors).

Details of the 2019 CellCheck Dairy Discussion Group competition were announced recently.

With interest in the Competition growing, this year’s Competition is expected to attract up to thirty discussion group applications. Entry forms for the competition can be accessed on the AHI website click here or by contacting your local Teagasc dairy adviser. The deadline for receipt of completed applications is 13thMay 2019. The winning groups will be invited to attend the CellCheck awards event on November 20th at the Lyrath Hotel.

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

PAGE 10

CELLCHECK TIP OF THE MONTH

[Click here] for previously published tips It’s all about the teats!

Preventing mastitis is very simple-it’s all about keeping bacteria out of teat! That doesn’t mean mastitis isn’t challenging, but there are two key things to aim for: 1. Keep the teat ends as healthy as possible, so that they act as a good barrier and stop bacteria entering the teat canal i.e. Shut the door! 2. Fewer bacteria on the teat skin means the risk of bacteria getting “in through the door” is lower. Good teat disinfection after milking is essential-it reduces new mastitis infections by 50%. It does this by killing the bacteria that are left behind after milking. It also improves teat skin condition, which means there are fewer cracks and areas for bacteria to lurk in. Teat skin doesn’t possess any glands, which means there are no protective oils produced. This is why the skin can become dry and damaged quite easily, and why the emollient in teat disinfectant is so important. The goal should be to cover all the skin, on all of the teats, of all of the cows, all of the time! The only part of the milking machine that comes in contact with the cow is the liner, so the whole teat surface touched by the cluster liner needs to be disinfected-a drop of teat disinfectant at the end of the teat is not enough!

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

PAGE 11

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE TEATS!

How do you know if you’re getting good coverage?

TIP

A

→ Look at teats after spraying – it can help if you use a product that’s clearly visible on the teat skin after it’s been sprayed on. All sides of the teat barrel should be covered. → Calculate the volume used per milking-you need to allow at least 15 mL/cow/milking. So for example, if you’re milking 100 cows you should be using at least 1.5L of teat spray at each milking. → STEPS [A-C]: wrap a paper towel around the barrel of the teat [A] , then carefully remove and examine the pattern. A patchy picture [B] indicates poor coverage of the teat, while a ‘solid’ block [C] means teats have been well covered.

B

C

For more information, see CellCheck Farm Guidelines for Mastitis Control-Guideline 7, 26 & Management Note I

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

PAGE 12

RESEARCH UPDATE New Zealand Veterinary Journal ISSN: 0048-0169 (Print) 1176-0710 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzv20 Effect of disinfecting teats post-milking or pre- and post-milking on intramammary infection andsomatic cell count

J HWilliamson & S J Lacy-Hulbert ABSTRACT

AIMS: To determine the effects of (a) post-milking teat disinfection compared with no disinfection and (b) pre- and post-milking teat disinfection comparedwith post-milking disinfection alone, on the incidence of new intramammary infection (IMI), somatic cell count (SCC) and teat skin abnormalities in dairy cows. METHODS: In Experiment 1, dairy cows in five dairy herds were randomly allocated to a post-milking teat disinfection group (n=230), that was sprayed with an iodine-based disinfectant (TeatguardPlus) for a complete lactation, or to a non-disinfected group (n=239). In Experiment 2, cows were randomly allocated to post-milking teat disinfection (n= 239) or both pre- and post-milking teat disinfection (n=235), using a chloramine-T-based disinfectant (Teatsweet) for both treatments, from calving to 118-127 days in milk. The incidence of new IMI was determined by aseptic sampling of all quarters at calving, during lactation, and at trial end or at drying-off, with clinical mastitis cases sampled on detection. SCC and teat skin abnormalities were measured at 2-monthly intervals during lactation. In both experiments, disinfectant was applied by spray application. RESULTS: Cows that receivedpost-milking teatdisinfectionhada lower incidenceof newIMI causedby Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis, Corynebacterium spp and coagulase negative staphylococci, had lower bulk milk SCC during lactation, and had fewer teat skin abnormalities compared with the non-disinfected cows (p 5 0.05). Pre-milking teat disinfection, in addition to post-milking teat disinfection, did not reduce the incidence of new IMI for any pathogens and did not reduce SCC (p 4 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Post-milking teat disinfection applied as a spray is a key component in mastitis control in New Zealand. There was no benefit from the addition of pre-milking disinfection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study confirms previous findings of the effectiveness of post-milking teat disinfectionin reducing the incidence of IMI caused by the common mastitis-causing pathogens in New Zealand, and presents the first results of a controlled study examining pre-milking teat spraying undertaken in New Zealand commercial dairy herds.

KEYWORDS:Mastitis,bovine, teatdisinfection,pre-milking, teat condition, teat spray

PAGE 13

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

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 14

CELLCHECK NEWSLETTER | May Edition 2019

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14

Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs