Download PDF
Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere 2011; 39(02): 88-94
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1624623
übersichtsartikel
Schattauer GmbH

Risikoorientiertes Monitoring der Eutergesundheit

Eine LiteraturübersichtRisk-based monitoring of udder healthA review
V. Zoche
,
W. Heuwieser
2   Tierklinik für Fortpflanzung, Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin
,
V. Krömker
3   Abteilung Mikrobiologie der Fakultät II – Maschinenbau und Bioverfahrenstechnik der Fachhochschule Hannover
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Eingegangen: 02 January 2011

Akzeptiert nach Revision: 28 February 2011

Publication Date:
09 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Das Monitoring der Eutergesundheit einer Milchkuhherde hat drei Aufgaben: erstens die Bestimmung des Status quo, zweitens die Kontrolle der Wirksamkeit ergriffener Verbesserungs- und Behandlungs - maß nahmen und drittens die Früherkennung auftretender Probleme. Dazu müssen auch die Bereiche Haltung, Fütterung und Management in die überwachung einbezogen werden. Risikoorientiertes Monitoring der Eutergesundheit zeichnet sich einerseits durch Fokussierung auf die aktuell relevanten herdenspezifischen Faktoren aus und ist folglich ein dynamischer Prozess. Andererseits ist es durch klar strukturiertes Vorgehen geprägt, um in keinem Bereich aus Unachtsamkeit die Kontrolle zu verlieren. Alle wesentlichen Entscheidungen und Handlungen werden dokumentiert, sodass sie nachvollziehbar sind und immer wieder kritisch überprüft werden können. Die vorliegende Arbeit versucht, mittels einer Literaturübersicht das Vorgehen zur Etablierung eines risiko - orientierten Monitoringprogramms zu erläutern.

Summary

Monitoring udder health of a dairy herd has three functions: firstly describing the actual situation, secondly evaluating the efficiency of adopted improvement measures and treatments, thirdly to detect emerging problems as early as possible. Therefore, husbandry, feeding, and management of the cows have to be included in the surveillance. Risk-based monitoring of the udder health is characterized on the one hand by focussing on the currently relevant herd-specific risk factors. Consequently, it is a dynamic process. On the other hand, it is affected by a clearly structured approach to prevent a loss of control due to a lack of attention in any area. All essential decisions and actions are documented to be comprehensible and available for critical examination. This review explains the procedure to establish a risk-based monitoring program on dairy farms.

Schlüsselwörter

Mastitis - Qualitätsmanagement - Zellzahl - Risikoanalyse

Keywords

Mastitis - quality management - cell count - risk assessment
 

  • Literatur

  • 1. Barkema HW, Green MJ, Bradley AJ, Zadoks RN. Invited review: The role of contagious disease in udder health. J Dairy Sci 2009; 92: 4717-4729.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Bradley A, Green M. An approach to the analysis and monitoring of clinical and subclinical mastitis data. Poster präsentiert auf dem XXIV. World Buiatrics Congress; 15.-19. Okt. 2006; Nizza, Frankreich.
    PubMed
  • 3. Bradley AJ, Green MJ. The importance of the nonlactating period in the epidemiology of intramammary infection and strategies for prevention. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2004; 20: 547-568.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Breen JE, Green MJ, Bradley AJ. Quarter and cow risk factors associated with the occurrence of clinical mastitis in dairy cows in the United Kingdom. J Dairy Sci 2009; 92: 2551-2561.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Curtis CR, Erb HN, Sniffen CJ, Smith RD, Kronfeld DS. Path analysis of dry period nutrition, postpartum metabolic and reproductive disorders and mastitis in Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 1985; 68: 2347-2360.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6. De Haas Y, Veerkamp RF, Barkema HW, Grohn YT, Schukken YH. Associations between pathogen-specific cases of clinical mastitis and somatic cell count patterns. J Dairy Sci 2004; 87: 95-105.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7. De Vliegher S. Udder health in dairy heifers. Some epidemiological and microbiological aspects. Ghent: Ghent University, Faculty of veterinary medicine 2004.
    PubMed
  • 8. Dohoo IR, Meek AH. Somatic cell counts in bovine milk. Can Vet J 1982; 23: 119-125.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Dohoo IR. Monitoring livestock health and production: service - epidemiology’s last frontier?. Prev Vet Med 1993; 18: 43-52.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Elbers AR, Miltenburg JD, De Lange D, Crauwels AP, Barkema HW, Schukken YH. Risk factors for clinical mastitis in a random sample of dairy herds from the southern part of the Netherlands. J Dairy Sci 1998; 81: 420-426.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Emery RS, Burg N, Brown LD, Blank GN. Detection, occurrence, and prophylactic treatment of borderline ketosis with propylene glycol feeding. J Dairy Sci 1964; 47: 1074-1079.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Erskine RJ. Nutrition and mastitis. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 1993; 9: 551-561.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Fürll M. Spezielle Untersuchungen beim Wiederkäuer. In: Klinische Labordiagnostik in der Tiermedizin, 6. Aufl. Kraft W, Dürr UM Hrsg. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2005: 444-474.
    Google Scholar
  • 14. Goff JP, Horst RL. Effects of the addition of potassium or sodium but not calcium to prepartum rations on milk fever in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1997; 80: 176-186.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Green MJ, Bradley AJ, Medley GF, Browne WJ. Cow, farm and management factors during the dry period that determine the rate of clinical mastitis after calving. J Dairy Sci 2007; 90: 3764-3776.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Hamann J, Fehlings K. Leitlinien zur Bekämpfung der Mastitis des Rindes als Bestandsproblem. Gießen: Verlag der Deutschen Veterinärmedizinischen Gesellschaft 2002.
    PubMed
  • 17. Hamann J. Guidelines for evaluation of the milking process. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation (IDF) 1997; 321: 26-30.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Hogan JS, White DG, Pankey JW. Effects of teat dipping on intramammary infections by Staphylococci other than Staphylococcus aureus. J Dairy Sci 1987; 70: 873-879.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Juran JM. Juran on leadership for quality. New York: Free Press 1989.
    PubMed
  • 20. Kelly PT, O’Sullivan K, Berry DP, More SJ, Meaney WJ, O’Callaghan EJ, O’Brien B. Farm management factors associated with bulk tank somatic cell count in irish dairy herds. Ir Vet J 2009; 62: 45-51.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Kelton DF, Lissemore KD, Martin RE. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 1998; 81: 2502-2509.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Kreienbrock L, Schach S. Epidemiologische Methoden, 4. Aufl. München: Elsevier Spektrum Akademischer Verlag 2005.
    PubMed
  • 23. Krömker V, Bruckmaier RM. Kurzes Lehrbuch Milchkunde und Milchhygiene. Stuttgart: Parey 2007.
    PubMed
  • 24. National Mastitis Council.. Regular ronitoring of udder health status. Essential part of mastitis control program. NMC Newsletter “Udder Topics” Aug.-Sept. 2002. Verfügbar unter: http://www.nmconline.org/articles/monitor.htm
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25. National Research Council.. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th ed. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press 2001.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Neave FK, Dodd FH, Kingwill RG, Westgarth DR. Control of mastitis in the dairy herd by hygiene and management. J Dairy Sci 1969; 52: 696-707.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Noordhuizen JPTM, Cannas da Silva J. HACCP-based quality risk management approach to udder health problems on dairy farms. Ir Vet J 2009; 62: 21-25.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28. O’Rourke D. Nutrition and udder health in dairy cows: a review. Ir Vet J 2009; 62: 15-20.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Peeler EJ, Green MJ, Fitzpatrick JL, Morgan KL, Green LE. Risk factors associated with clinical mastitis in low somatic cell count British dairy herds. J Dairy Sci 2000; 83: 2464-2472.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Reneau JK, Kinsel ML. Record systems and herd monitoring in production-oriented health management programs. In: Herd health. Food animal production medicine. Radostis OM ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1998: 107-146.
    Google Scholar
  • 31. Ruegg PL. Basic epidemiologic concepts related to assessment of animal health and performance. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2006; 22: 1-19.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32. Ruegg PL. Investigation of mastitis problems on farms. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2003; 19: 47-73.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33. Salman S. Effect of selenium supplementation from various dietary sources on the antioxidant and selenium status of dairy cows and trace element status in dairy herds. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität, Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerische Fakultät 2009.
    PubMed
  • 34. Sander A, Piechotta M, Schuberth HJ, Bollwein H, Kaske M. Möglichkeiten der antepartalen Risikoabschätzung postpartaler Produktionskrankheiten mittels metabolischer, endokrinologischer und immunologischer Blutparameter bei Milchkühen. 35. Leipziger Fortbildungsveranstaltung. Labordiagnostik in der Bestandsbetreuung; 25. Juni 2010; Leipzig.
    PubMed
  • 35. Schukken YH, Grommers FJ, Van de Geer D, Erb HN, Brand A. Risk factors for clinical mastitis in herds with a low bulk milk somatic cell count. 1. Data and risk factors for all cases. J Dairy Sci 1990; 73: 3463-3471.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36. Schukken YH, Wilson DJ, Welcome F, Garrison-Tikofsky L, Gonzalez RN. Monitoring udder health and milk quality using somatic cell counts. Vet Res 2003; 34: 579-596.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37. Sears PM, Gonzalez RN, Wilson DJ, Han HR. Procedures for mastitis diagnosis and control. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 1993; 9: 445-468.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38. Smith KL, Todhunter DA, Schoenberger PS. Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention. J Dairy Sci 1985; 68: 1531-1553.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39. Stup RE. Standard Operating Procedures: Managing the human variables. NMC Regional Meeting Proceedings 2002. Verfügbar unter: http://www. nmconline.org/articles/SOP.pdf.
    PubMed
  • 40. Suriyasathaporn W, Heuer C, Noordhuizen-Stassen EN, Schukken YH. Hyperketonemia and the impairment of udder defense: a review. Vet Res 2000; 31: 397-412.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41. Volling O, Krömker V. Monitoring als Bestandteil des Tiergesundheitsmanagements. Zwischen Tradition und Globalisierung - 9. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau; 20.-23. März 2007; Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Deutschland. Verfügbar unter: http://orgprints.org/9506/.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42. Waage S, Odegaard SA, Lund A, Brattgjerd S, Rothe T. Case-control study of risk factors for clinical mastitis in postpartum dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci 2001; 84: 392-399.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43. Wenz JR. Practical Monitoring of clinical mastitis treatment programs. NMC Annual Meeting Proceedings 2004. Verfügbar unter: http://nmconline.org/articles/cmpmonitor.pdf.
    PubMed
  • 44. Wilson DJ, Gonzalez RN, Sears PM. Segregation or use of separate milking units for cows infected with Staphylococcus aureus: Effects on prevalence of infection and bulk tank somatic cell count. J Dairy Sci 1995; 78: 2083-2085.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45. Zadoks RN, Schukken YH. Use of molecular epidemiology in veterinary practice. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2006; 22: 229-261.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar