Untersuchungen zu einem kontrollierten, entscheidungsbaumbasierten Verfahren des Selektiven Trockenstellens in Bayerischen Milchviehbetrieben

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Vier Parameter eines, in einer vorherigen Studie geprüften, Entscheidungsbaumes (EnB) für das Selektive Trockenstellen (TS) wurden auf ihre Selektionsstärke zur Erkennung von antibiotisch trockenzustellenden Kühen (K_TV/AB) geprüft. Ebenso, ob alle Parameter (Zellzahlen [ZZ≥200 000 Z/ml] der letzten 3 Milchleistungsprüfungen [MLP] vor dem TS, Mastitis-Historie der Laktation [≥1 MH], mikrobiologische Untersuchung [MBU, 14d vor TS, Major Pathogen-Nachweis] und California-Mastitis-Test [CMT, >Grad 1/+, beim TS]) notwendig sind, Modifikationen als Ersatz der MBU sowie ein vereinfachtes Modell anstatt des EnB ermittelt werden können.

Material und Methoden Daten aus 18 bayerischen Milchviehbetrieben von 06/2015 bis 08/2017 wurden deskriptiv sowie mittels kostensensitivem binärem Klassifikationsbaum und logit-Modellen ausgewertet. Der EnB galt als zugrunde liegende Wahrheit.

Ergebnisse Einbezogen wurden 848 Trockenstellvorgänge (K_TV) von 739 Kühen. ZZ und CMT selektierten 88,1%, in Kombination mit der MH 95,6% der K_TV/AB (n=494). Ohne MBU wären 22 (4,4%) der K_TV/AB mit Major Pathogen-Nachweis (davon 8x Staphylococcus [S.] aureus) fehlklassifiziert worden. Im Durchschnitt des geometrischen Mittels der ZZ innerhalb 100d vor TS, blieben K_TV ohne Befund in der MBU <100 000 Z/ml Milch, mit Minor Pathogen zwischen 100 000–150 000 Z/ml, mit Major Pathogen (ohne S. aureus) ≥150 000 Z/ml. Bei den 2 Selektionskriterien ZZ in der Laktation mind. 1x >200 000 Z/ml und postiver CMT beim TS, wären 37 K_TV(4,4%) „falsch nicht“, 43 K_TV (5,1%) „unnötig“ für ein antibiotisches TS selektiert worden. Modifikationen, u. a. ZZ <131 000 Z/ml innerhalb 100d vor TS, zur Selektion von K_TV ohne Befund/mit Minor Pathogen, wurden ermittelt. Das beste Modell zur Selektion der Trockenstellbehandlung (K_TV ohne MH & ZZ <200 000 Z/ml in den letzten 3 MLP) wies Metriken von AUC=0,74, Accuracy=0,78, balanced Accuracy=0,63, Sensitivität=0,92 und Spezifität=0,33 auf.

Schlussfolgerungen ZZ, CMT und MH des EnB in Kombination erwiesen sich unter den Bedingungen der vorliegenden Studie als geeignete Selektionskriterien. Eine Herabsetzung der ZZ-Grenzen ist betriebsindividuell sinnvoll, wenn auf die MBU verzichtet werden soll. Das beste Modell konnte den EnB nicht ersetzen.

Abstract

Objective Four parameters of a decision tree for Selective Dry Cow Treatment (SDCT), examined in a previous study, were analyzed regarding their efficacy in detecting cows for dry cow treatment (DCT, use of intramammary antimicrobials). This study set out to review wether all parameters (somatic cell count [SCC≥ 200 000 SC/ml 3 months’ milk yield recordings prior dry off (DO)], clinical mastitis history during lactation [≥1 CM], culturing [14d prior DO, detection of major pathogens] and California-Mastitis-Test [CMT, > rate 1/+ at DO]) are necessary for accurate decision making, whether there are possible alternatives to replace culturing, and whether a simplified model could replace the decision tree.

Material and Methods Records of 18 Bavarian dairy farms from June 2015 to August 2017 were processed. Data analysis was carried out by means of descriptive statistics, as well as employing a binary cost sensitive classification tree and logit-models. For statistical analyses the outcomes of the full 4-parameter decision tree were taken as ground truth.

Results 848 drying off procedures in 739 dairy cows (C_DO) were included. SCC and CMT selected 88.1%, in combination with CM 95.6% of the cows that received DCT (n=494). Without culturing, 22 (4.4%) with major pathogens (8x Staphylococcus [S.] aureus) infected C_DO would have been misclassified as not needing DCT. The average of geometric mean SCC (within 100 d prior DO) for C_DO with negative results in culturing was<100 000 SC/ml milk, 100 000–150 000 SC/ml for C_DO infected with minor pathogens, and ≥ 150 000 SC/ml for C_DO infected with major pathogens (excluding S.aureus). Using SCC during lactation (at least 1x > 200 000 SC/ml) and positive CMT to select C_DO for DCT, contrary to the decision tree, 37 C_DO (4.4%) would have been treated “incorrectly without” and 43 C_DO (5.1%) “unnecessarily with“ DCT. Modifications were identified, such as SCC<131 000 SC/ml within 100 d prior to DO for detecting C_DO with no growth or minor pathogens in culturing. The best model for grading C_DO for or against DCT (C_DO without CM and SCC<200 000 SC/ml [last 3 months prior DO]) had metrics of AUC=0.74, Accuracy=0.778, balanced Accuracy=0.63, Sensitivity=0.92 and Specificity=0.33.

Conclusions Combining the decision tree’s parameters SCC, CMT and CM renders suitable selection criteria under the conditions of this study. When omitting culturing, lower thresholds for SCC should be considered for each farm individually to select C_DO for DCT. Nonetheless, the most accurate model could not replace the full decision tree.

Schlüsselwörter

Milchkühe - Eutergesundheit - Antibiotikaminimierung - Entscheidungskriterien

Keywords

Dairy cows - udder health - antibiotic minimization - decision criteria

Publication History

Received: 17 August 2023

Accepted: 12 December 2023

Article published online:
03 May 2024

• Literatur

• 1 Robert A, Roussel P, Bareille N. et al. Risk factors for new intramammary infections during the dry period in untreated dairy cows from herds using selective dry cow therapy. Animal 2008; 2: 247-254 DOI: 10.1017/s1751731107000833.
• 2 Torres AH, Rajala-Schultz PJ, Degraves FJ. et al. Using dairy herd improvement records and clinical mastitis history to identify subclinical mastitis infections at dry-off. J Dairy Res 2008; 75: 240-247 DOI: 10.1017/s0022029908003257.
• 3 Scherpenzeel CGM, den Uijl IEM, van Schaik G. et al. Effect of different scenarios for selective dry-cow therapy on udder health, antimicrobial usage, and economics. J Dairy Sci 2016; 99: 3753-3764 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2015-9963.
• 4 Mc Cubbin KD, de Jong E, Lam T. et al. Invited review: Selective use of antimicrobials in dairy cattle at drying-off. J Dairy Sci 2022; 105: 7161-7189 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2021-21455.
• 5 Krömker V, Leimbach S. Mastitis treatment-Reduction in antibiotic usage in dairy cows. Reprod Domest Anim 2017; 52: 21-29 DOI: 10.1111/rda.13032.
• 6 Lipkens Z, Piepers S, De Visscher A. et al. Evaluation of test-day milk somatic cell count information to predict intramammary infection with major pathogens in dairy cattle at drying off. J Dairy Sci 2019; 102: 4309-4321 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2018-15642.
• 7 Vasquez AK, Nydam DV, Foditsch C. et al. Use of a culture-independent on-farm algorithm to guide the use of selective dry-cow antibiotic therapy. J Dairy Sci 2018; 101: 5345-5361 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2017-13807.
• 8 Green MJ, Bradley AJ, Medley GF. et al. 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 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2007-0107.
• 9 Green M, Huxley J, Madouasse A. et al. Making Good decisions on dry cow management to improve udder health – synthesising evidence in a Bayesian Framework. Cattle Pract 2008; 16: 200-208
• 10 Keefe G. Update on control of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus agalactiae for management of mastitis. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2012; 28: 203-216 DOI: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.03.010.
• 11 Osteras O, Whist AC, Solverod L. Risk factors for isolation of Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus dysgalactiae from milk culture obtained approximately 6 days post calving. J Dairy Res 2008; 75: 98-106 DOI: 10.1017/s0022029907002890.
• 12 Scherpenzeel CGM, Hogeveen H, Maas L. et al. Economic optimization of selective dry cow treatment. J Dairy Sci 2018; 101: 1530-1539 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2017-13076.
• 13 Schmon KS. Untersuchungen zur Implementierung eines kontrollierten Verfahrens zum Selektiven Trockenstellen in bayerischen Milchviehbetrieben [Monographie]. LMU München: Tierärztliche Fakultät; 2019
• 14 Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft. RAST – selektives Trockenstellen in der Milchviehhaltung. In https://www.lfl.bayern.de/RAST 2015
• 15 Kabera F, Roy JP, Afifi M. et al. Comparing blanket vs. selective dry cow treatment approaches for elimination and prevention of intramammary infections during the dry period: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Vet Sci 2021; 8 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.688450.
• 16 Weber J, Borchardt S, Seidel J. et al. Effects of selective dry cow treatment on intramammary infection risk after calving, cure risk during the dry period, and antibiotic use at drying-off: A systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature (2000-2021). Animals 2021; 11 DOI: 10.3390/ani11123403.
• 17 Tijs SHW, Holstege MMC, Scherpenzeel CGM. et al. Effect of selective dry cow treatment on udder health and antimicrobial usage on Dutch dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 2022; 105: 5381-5392 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2021-21026.
• 18 Niemi RE, Hovinen M, Rajala-Schultz PJ. Selective dry cow therapy effect on milk yield and somatic cell count: A retrospective cohort study. J Dairy Sci 2022; 105: 1387-1401 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2021-20918.
• 19 Ferreira FC, Martinez-Lopez B, Okello E. Potential impacts to antibiotics use around the dry period if selective dry cow therapy is adopted by dairy herds: An example of the western US. Prev Vet Med 2022; 206 DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2022.105709.
• 20 DLG Ausschuss Milchproduktion und Rinderhaltung, Reinecke F, Krömker V et al. DLG-Merkblatt 400. In https://www.dlg.org/fileadmin/downloads/landwirtschaft/themen/publikationen/merkblaetter/dlg-merkblatt_400_3Aufl.pdf DLG e. V.; 2019
• 21 Wiederkäuerklinik der Universität Bern. Umsetzungsempfehlung – Selektives Trockenstellen. In https://www.wiederkaeuerklinik.unibe.ch/e18951/e63082/e441604/e441607/MB_Selektives_Trockenstellen-2017-07-20_VetsuisseBE_ger.pdf 2017
• 22 Oberösterreichischer Tiergesundheitsdienst. Selektives Trockenstellen mit Sinn und Verantwortung. In https://www.ooe-tgd.at/Mediendateien/TGDSelektivesTS2020_gro%C3%9F.pdf 2020
• 23 Bradley A, De Vliegher S, Farre M. et al. Pan-European agreement on dry cow therapy. In, Vet Rec 2018; 637 DOI: 10.1136/vr.k2382.
• 24 Winter P, Zehle H-H. Praktischer Leitfaden Mastitis : Vorgehen beim Einzeltier und im Bestand. Stuttgart: Parey; 2009
• 25 Mansfeld R, De Kruif A, Hoedemaker M. Datenverarbeitung und -auswertung. In: De Kruif A, Mansfeld R, Hoedemaker M, Hrsg. Tierärztliche Bestandsbetreuung beim Milchrind. Stuttgart: Enke; 2014: 307-319
• 26 Vanderhaeghen W, Piepers S, Leroy F. et al. Identification, typing, ecology and epidemiology of coagulase negative staphylococci associated with ruminants. Vet J 2015; 203: 44-51 DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.11.001.
• 27 Condas LAZ, De Buck J, Nobrega DB. et al. Distribution of non-aureus staphylococci species in udder quarters with low and high somatic cell count, and clinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2017; 100: 5613-5627 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12479.
• 28 DVG. Leitlinien. Entnahme von Milchproben unter antiseptischen Bedingungen und Isolierung und Identifizierung von Mastitiserregern. 2. Aufl. Gießen: Deutsche Veterinärmedizinische Gesellschaft e.V.,Fachgruppe „Milchhygiene“,Sachverständigenausschuss „Subklinische Mastitis“,; 2009
• 29 Steffen A. Das Problem der Multikollinearität in Regressionsanalysen. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. 1994
• 30 Hand D, Till R. A Simple Generalisation of the Area Under the ROC Curve for Multiple Class Classification Problems. Hand, The 2001; 45: 171-186 DOI: 10.1023/A:1010920819831.
• 31 Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W. et al. Multivariate Analysemethoden, Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Gabler; 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-46076-4
• 32 Kuhlmann J. Ausgewählte Verfahren der Holdout- und Kreuzvalidierung. Wiesbaden: Gabler; 2007
• 33 Kabacoff R. R in action, Data analysis and graphics with R and Tidyverse. 2022
• 34 Pardo S, Pardo M. Statistical Methods for Field and Laboratory Studies in Behavioral Ecology: Chapman & Hall/CRC Applied Environmental Statistics 2018; DOI: 10.1201/9781315181769.
• 35 Grandini M, Bagli E, Visani G. Metrics for Multi-Class Classification: an Overview. In. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.05756.pdf 2020
• 36 Kingsford C, Salzberg SL. What are decision trees?. Nature Biotechnology 2008; 26: 1011-1013 DOI: 10.1038/nbt0908-1011.
• 37 Therneau T, Atkinson E. An introduction to Recursive Partitioning Using the RPART Routines. In: Foundation. M ed, Mayo Clinic. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rpart/vignettes/longintro.pdf 2022
• 38 Rokach L, Maimon O. Data mining with decision tree, Theory and Applications. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co; Pte. Ltd. 2014
• 39 Dohoo IR, Smith J, Andersen S. et al. Diagnosing intramammary infections: Evaluation of definitions based on a single milk sample. J Dairy Sci 2011; 94: 250-261 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3559.
• 40 DVG. Leitlinien. Bekämpfung der Mastitis des Rindes als Bestandsproblem. 5. überarbeitete Auflage. Aufl. Gießen: Deutsche Veterinärmedizinische Gesellschaft e.V.,Fachgruppe „Milchhygiene“,Arbeitsgruppe Sachverständigenausschuss Subklinische Mastitis.; 2012
• 41 Rajala-Schultz PJ, Torres AH, Degraves FJ. Milk yield and somatic cell count during the following lactation after selective treatment of cows at dry-off. J Dairy Res 2011; 78: 489-499 DOI: 10.1017/s0022029911000690.
• 42 Rowe SM, Vasquez AK, Godden SM. et al. Evaluation of 4 predictive algorithms for intramammary infection status in late-lactation cows. J Dairy Sci 2021; 104: 11035-11046 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2021-20504.
• 43 Schukken YH, Wilson DJ, Welcome F. et al. Monitoring udder health and milk quality using somatic cell counts. Vet Res 2003; 34: 579-596 DOI: 10.1051/vetres:2003028.
• 44 Cameron M, Keefe GP, Roy JP. et al. Evaluation of selective dry cow treatment following on-farm culture: Milk yield and somatic cell count in the subsequent lactation. J Dairy Sci 2015; 98: 2427-2436 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2014-8876.
• 45 Osteras O, Edge VL, Martin SW. Determinants of success or failure in the elimination of major mastitis pathogens in selective dry cow therapy. J Dairy Sci 1999; 82: 1221-1231 DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75345-2.
• 46 Cameron M, McKenna SL, MacDonald KA. et al. Evaluation of selective dry cow treatment following on-farm culture: Risk of postcalving intramammary infection and clinical mastitis in the subsequent lactation. J Dairy Sci 2014; 97: 270-284 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2013-7060.
• 47 Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (BLE), Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). PraeRi- Tiergesundheit, Hygiene und Biosicherheit in deutschen Milchkuhbetrieben – eine Prävalenzstudie. In: Hoedemaker M, Grunding N, Campe A et al. eds https://ibei.tiho-hannover.de/praeri/uploads/report/Abschlussbericht_komplett_2020_06_30_korr_2020_10_22.pdf 2020: 108–130
• 48 McDougall S, Williamson J, Lacy-Hulbert J. Bacteriological outcomes following random allocation to quarter-level selection based on California Mastitis Test score or cow-level allocation based on somatic cell count for dry cow therapy. J Dairy Sci 2022; 105: 2453-2472 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2021-21020.
• 49 Kiesner K, Wente N, Volling O. et al. Selection of cows for treatment at dry-off on organic dairy farms. J Dairy Res 2016; 83: 468-475 DOI: 10.1017/s0022029916000662.
• 50 Ruegg P. TmfMaU. Selecting Herds and Cows for Selective Dry Cow Therapy. In. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=997GZFWwJ0A 2016
• 51 Müller S, Nitz J, Tellen A. et al. Effect of antibiotic compared to non-antibiotic dry cow treatment on the bacteriological cure of intramammary infections during the dry period-A retrospective cross-sectional study. Antibiotics 2023; 12: 429 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12030429.
• 52 Kabera F, Dufour S, Keefe G. et al. Evaluation of quarter-based selective dry cow therapy using Petrifilm on-farm milk culture: A randomized controlled trial. J Dairy Sci 2020; 103: 7276-7287 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2019-17438.
• 53 Mansion-de Vries EM, Knorr N, Paduch JH. et al. A field study evaluation of Petrifilm™ plates as a 24-h rapid diagnostic test for clinical mastitis on a dairy farm. Prev Vet Med 2014; 113: 620-624 DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.11.019.
• 54 Rowe S, Kabera F, Dufour S. et al. Selective dry-cow therapy can be implemented successfully in cows of all milk production levels. J Dairy Sci 2023; 106: 1953-1967 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2022-22547.
• 55 Patel K, Godden M, Royster E. et al. Pilot study: Impact of using a culture-guided selective dry cow therapy program targeting quarter-level treatment on udder health and antibiotic use. In. https://journals.tdl.org/bovine/index.php/bovine/article/download/138/121 2017
• 56 Barkema HW, Schukken YH, Zadoks RN. Invited Review: The role of cow, pathogen, and treatment regimen in the therapeutic success of bovine Staphylococcus aureus mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2006; 89: 1877-1895 DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72256-1.
• 57 Osterås O, Sølverød L. Norwegian mastitis control programme. Ir Vet J 2009; 62: S26-33 DOI: 10.1186/2046-0481-62-s4-s26.
• 58 Djabri B, Bareille N, Beaudeau F. et al. Quarter milk somatic cell count in infected dairy cows: a meta-analysis. Vet Res 2002; 33: 335-357 DOI: 10.1051/vetres:2002021.
• 59 Halasa T, Nielen M, De Roos AP. et al. Production loss due to new subclinical mastitis in Dutch dairy cows estimated with a test-day model. J Dairy Sci 2009; 92: 599-606 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2008-1564.
• 60 Hogeveen H, Steeneveld W, Wolf CA. Production Diseases Reduce the Efficiency of Dairy Production: A Review of the Results, Methods, and Approaches Regarding the Economics of Mastitis. Annual Review of Resource Economics 2019; 11: 289-312 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093954.
• 61 Cha E, Bar D, Hertl JA. et al. The cost and management of different types of clinical mastitis in dairy cows estimated by dynamic programming. J Dairy Sci 2011; 94: 4476-4487 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-4123.
• 62 Bucher B, Bleul U. [The Effect of Selective Dry Cow Treatment on the Udder Health in Swiss Dairy Farms. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 2019; 161: 533-544 DOI: 10.17236/sat00219.
• 63 Jaeger S, Virchow F, Torgerson PR. et al. Test characteristics of milk amyloid A ELISA, somatic cell count, and bacteriological culture for detection of intramammary pathogens that cause subclinical mastitis. Journal of dairy science 2017; 100: 7419-7426 DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12446.
• 64 Hamel J, Zhang Y, Wente N. et al. Non-S. aureus staphylococci (NAS) in milk samples: Infection or contamination?. Vet Microbiol 2020; 242: 108594 DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108594.