Download PDF
Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere 2011; 39(02): 95-100
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1624622
Review Article
Schattauer GmbH

On-farm udder health monitoring

Eutergesundheitsmonitoring im Milchviehbetrieb
T. J. G. M. Lam
1   UGCN – Dutch Udder Health Centre at GD Animal Health Service, AA Deventer, the Netherlands
,
J. C. L. van Veersen
1   UGCN – Dutch Udder Health Centre at GD Animal Health Service, AA Deventer, the Netherlands
,
O. C. Sampimon
2   Pfizer Animal Health, Capelle aan den IJssel, the Netherlands
,
R. G. M. Olde Riekerink
1   UGCN – Dutch Udder Health Centre at GD Animal Health Service, AA Deventer, the Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 02 January 2011

Accepted after revision: 09 March 2011

Publication Date:
09 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

In this article an on-farm monitoring approach on udder health is presented. Monitoring of udder health consists of regular collection and analysis of data and of the regular evaluation of management practices. The ultimate goal is to manage critical control points in udder health management, such as hygiene, body condition, teat ends and treatments, in such a way that results (udder health parameters) are always optimal. Mastitis, however, is a multifactorial disease, and in real life it is not possible to fully prevent all mastitis problems. Therefore udder health data are also monitored with the goal to pick up deviations before they lead to (clinical) problems. By quantifying udder health data and management, a farm is approached as a business, with much attention for efficiency, thought over processes, clear agreements and goals, and including evaluation of processes and results. The whole approach starts with setting SMART (Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic, Time-bound) goals, followed by an action plan to realize these goals.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Artikel wird eine Vorgehensweise für ein Eutergesundheitsmonitoring auf Herdenebene dargestellt. Eutergesundheitsmonitoring beinhaltet die regelmäßige Sammlung und Analyse von innerbetrieblichen Daten und Arbeitsabläufen in einem Milchviehbetrieb. Das letztendliche Ziel besteht darin, kritische Kontrollpunkte im Bereich des Eu tergesundheitsmanagements, wie Hygiene, Körperkondition, Zitzenkondition oder Behandlung erkrankter Tiere so zu managen, dass die Ergebnisse (Eutergesundheitsvariablen) immer optimal sind. Eutergesundheitsstörungen stellen multifaktorielle Erkrankungen dar und in der Realität lassen sich nicht alle Störungen der Eutergesundheit verhindern. Somit sollten Eutergesundheitsdaten auch deshalb dokumentiert und bewertet werden, um Abweichungen zu erkennen, bevor diese zu (klinischen) Problemen führen. Durch die Quantifizierung von Eutergesundheitsdaten und der zugehörigen Arbeitsabläufe kann ein Milchviehbetrieb effizient ausgerichtet auf die jeweiligen Prozesse auf der Basis klarer innerbetrieblicher Vereinbarungen und Ziele und mit regelmäßiger Evaluierung der Prozesse und der Ergebnisse wirtschaftlich geführt werden. Die Vorgehensweise beginnt mit der Festlegung von vernünftigen Zielen (spezifisch, messbar, nachvollziehbar, realistisch, befristet), gefolgt von einem Aktionsplan zur Erreichung dieser Ziele.

Keywords

Monitoring - mastitis - management - control

Schlüsselwörter

Monitoring - Mastitis - Management - Bekämpfung
 

  • Literatur

  • 1. 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
  • 2. Halasa T, Huijps K, Osteràs O, Hogeveen H. Economic effects of bovine mastitis and mastitis management: a review. Vet Quart 2007; 29: 18-31.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Hogeveen H, Huijps K, Jansen J, Lam TJGM. Motivating isn’t just about the money. Proceedings 48th annual meeting of the NMC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, US, 2010.
    PubMed
  • 4. Huijps K, Lam TJGM, Hogeveen H. Costs of mastitis: facts and perception. J Dairy Res 2008; 75: 113-120.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Hulsen JHJL, Lam TJGM. Udder health: a practical guide to first-rate udder health. ISBN 9789087400149. Zutphen, the Netherlands: Roodbont Publishers 2007.
    PubMed
  • 6. Jansen J, van den Borne BHP, Renes RJ, van Schaik G, Lam TJGM, Leeuwis C. Explaining mastitis incidence in Dutch dairy farming: the influence of farmers’ attitudes and behaviour. Prev Vet Med 2009; 92: 210-223.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Jansen J, Renes RJ, Lam TJGM. Evaluation of two different communication strategies to improve udder health management. J Dairy Sci 2010; 93: 604-612.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Jansen J, Steuten CDM, Renes RJ, Aarts MNC, Lam TJGM. Debunking the myth of the hard-to-reach farmer: effective communication on udder health. J Dairy Sci 2010; 93: 1296-1306.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Kremer WDJ, Noordhuizen-Stassen EN, Grommers FJ, Schukken YH, Heeringa R, Brand A, Burvenich C. Severity of experimental Escherichia coli mastitis in ketonemic and nonketonemic dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1993; 76: 3428-3436.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Lam TJGM, Ruegg PL, McDougall S. Good Veterinary Practice to improve udder health: do’s, don’ts, and opportunities. Proceedings WBC, July 6-11, Budapest, Hungary,. 2008; 70-74.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Lam TJGM, Olde Riekerink RGM, Sampimon OC, Smith H. Mastitis diagnostics and performance monitoring: a practical approach. Ir Vet J 2009; 62: 34-39.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Lam TJGM, Jansen J, van den Borne BHP, Renes RJ, Hogeveen H. What veterinarians need to know to optimize their role as udder health advisors in dairy herds. Nw Zeal Vet J 2011; 59: 8-15.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Lievaart JJ, Kremer WDJ, Barkema HW. Short Communiation: Comparison of bulk milk, yield corrected, and average somatic cell counts as parameters to summarize the subclinical mastitis situation in a dairy herd. J Dairy Sci 2007; 90: 4145-4148.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Milne MH, Nolan AM, Cripps PJ, Fitzpatrick JL. Preliminary results of a study on pain assessment in clinical mastitis in dairy cows. BMC, Garstang, UK,. 2003; 117-119.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15. 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
  • 16. Noordhuizen JPTM, Cannas da Silva J, Boersema JSC, Vieira A. Applying HACCP-based quality risk management on dairy farms. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers 2008.
    PubMed
  • 17. Ohnstad I, Mein GA, Baines JR, Rasmussen MD, Farnsworth R, Pocknee B, Hemling TC, Hillerton JE. Addressing teat condition problems. San Antonio, Texas, USA: NMC; 2007: 188-199.
    Google Scholar
  • 18. Olde Riekerink RGM, Barkema HW, Stryhn H. The effect of season on somatic cell count and the incidence of clinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2007; 90: 1704-1715.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19. O’Reilly KM, Green M. Investigation of risk factors for clinical mastitis in British dairy herds with bulk milk somatic cell counts less than 150,000 cells/ ml. Vet Rec 2006; 158: 649-653.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Paduch JH, Krömker V. Besiedlung von Zitzenhaut und Zitzenkanal laktierender Milchrinder durch euterpathogene Mikroorganismen. Tierärztl Prax 2011; 39 G 71-76.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Penry JF, Brightling PB, Dyson RS, Paine MS. Developing new veterinary services in milk quality: findings from a recent mastitis risk management codevelopment in Australia. New Zeal Vet J 2011; 59: 24-27.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Pol M, Ruegg PL. Relationship between antimicrobial drug usage and antimicrobial susceptibility of Gram-positive mastitis pathogens. J Dairy Sci 2007; 90: 262-273.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Rabelo E, Rezende RL, Bertics SJ, Grummer RR. Effects of transition diets varying in dietary energy density on lactation performance and ruminal parameters of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2003; 86: 916-925.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Roche JR, Friggens NC, Kay JK, Fisher MW, Stafford KJ, Berry D. Invited review: Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. J Dairy Sci 2009; 92: 5769-5801.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Rodrigues ACO, Caraviello DZ, Ruegg PL. Management of Wisconsin dairy herds enrolled in milk quality teams. J Dairy Sci 2005; 88: 2660-2671.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Sampimon OC, Barkema HW, Berends I, Sol J, Lam TJGM. Prevalence of intramammary infection in Dutch dairy herds. J Dairy Res 2009; 76: 129-136.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Schreiner A, Ruegg PL. Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores and subclinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2003; 86: 3460-3465.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Sol J, Sampimon OC, Snoep JJ, Schukken YH. Factors associated with bacteriological cure after dry cow treatment of subclinical staphylococcal mastitis with antibiotics. J Dairy Sci 1994; 77: 75-79.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Zoche V, Heuwieser W, Krömker V. Risikoorientiertes Monitoring der Eutergesundheit. Eine Literaturübersicht. Tierärztl Prax 2011; 39 G 88-94.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar