Download PDF
Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere 2013; 41(06): 379-386
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1623193
Übersichtsartikel
Schattauer GmbH

Einfluss der Menge loser Restmilch in Milchdrüsen auf die Entstehung klinischer Mastitiden bei Milchkühen

Relationship between residual milk and clinical mastitis in dairy cattle
F. Cording
1   Mikrobiologie, Abteilung Bioverfahrenstechnik, Fakultät II, Hochschule Hannover
2   Klinik für Rinder, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover
,
M. Hoedemaker
2   Klinik für Rinder, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover
,
V. Krömker
1   Mikrobiologie, Abteilung Bioverfahrenstechnik, Fakultät II, Hochschule Hannover
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Eingegangen: 01 April 2013

Akzeptiert nach Revision: 27 May 2013

Publication Date:
05 January 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Mastitis des Rindes ist eine Infektion der Milchdrüse, der infektiöse, toxische oder traumatische Ursachen zugrunde liegen können. In praxi wird aktuell davon ausgegangen, dass ein kausaler Zusammenhang zwischen erhöhten Mengen des losen Restgemelks und der Inzidenz klinischer Mastitiden besteht. Die Menge des losen Restgemelks lässt sich mithilfe unterschiedlicher Verfahren untersuchen. Erhöhte Restgemelksmengen können aus Zitzenkonditionsstörungen und den individuell wählbaren Abnahmeschwellen der Melkanlage resultieren. In der wissenschaftlichen Literatur wurden bereits Beziehungen zwischen erhöhten Mengen des losen Restgemelks, erhöhten Abnahmeschwellen und der Inzidenz klinischer Mastitiden diskutiert. In der vorliegenden Arbeit soll der aktuelle Kenntnisstand anhand einer Literaturübersicht dargestellt werden.

Summary

Mastitis in cattle is an infection of the mammary gland caused by infection, toxins and/or trauma. Currently, it is assumed that there is a correlation between higher amounts of residual milk and the incidence of clinical mastitis. The amount of residual milk can be examined using different methods. Higher amounts of residual milk may result from an insufficient teat condition and individual detachment settings of milking units. To date, scientific literature has already discussed the relationship between high amounts of residual milk, undermilking and the occurrence of clinical mastitis. The present paper reviews the current status of knowledge regarding residual milk and risk of mastitis.

Schlüsselwörter

Loses Restgemelk - Mastitis - Abnahmeschwelle - somatischer Zellgehalt

Key words

Residual milk - mastitis - automatic cluster detachment threshold - somatic cell count
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Bruckmaier RM, Wellnitz O. Induction of milk ejection and milk removal in different production systems. J Anim Sci 2008; 86 (Suppl. 01) 15-20.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Burke JK, Jago JG. The effect of two milk flow-rate thresholds for automatic cup removal on milking duration, production and somatic cell count of peak-lactation dairy cows. Proceedings of the 4th Australasian Dairy Science Symposium. Lincoln University; Christchurch, New Zealand: 2010: 376-379.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Clarke T, Cuthbertson E, Greenall R, Hannah M, Jongman E, Shoesmith D. Milking regimes to shorten milking duration. J Dairy Res 2004; 62: 373-394.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Clarke T, Cuthbertson E, Greenall E, Hannah M, Jongman E, Shoesmith D. Incomplete milking has no detectable effect on somatic cell count but increased cell count appears to increase strip yield. Aust J Exp Agr 2008; 48: 1164-1167.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Davis MA, Reinemann DJ. Methodology of measuring strip yield. Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality. Vancouver, Canada: 2001: 387-391.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Deutsche Veterinärmedizinische Gesellschaft (DVG). Leitlinien zur Bekämpfung der Mastitis des Rindes als Bestandsproblem. Gießen: DVG; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Engelhardt W, Breves G. Physiologie der Haustiere. 2. Aufl.. Stuttgart: Enke; 2005: 558-559.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Ginsberg R. Influence of milk yield and take-off settings on milking parlour performance and udder health. Israel Dairy Board. 2011 http://afimilk.com/upload/infocenter/info_images/20112011104158@Influence%20of%20Milk%20Yield.pdf 10.03.2013.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Graff K. Haben unsere Kühe noch ein Nachgemelk?. Milchpraxis 2006; 2: 72-75.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Grunert E, Hoedemaker M, Weigt U. Mastitiden. In: Buiatrik, Band 1: Euterkrankheiten, Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie, Andrologie und Besamung. 5. Aufl.. Grunert E. Hrsg. Hannover: Schaper; 1995: 45-47.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Hamann J, Mein GA. Teat thickness changes may provide biological test for effective pulsation. J Dairy Res 1996; 63: 179-189.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hubal M, Krömker V. Melktechnische Einflüsse auf die Zitzenkondition von Milchkühen. Tierärztl Prax 2010; 38 (G): 225-232.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hillerton JE, Ohnstad I, Baines JR, Leach KA. Changes in cow teat tissue by two types of milking cluster. J Dairy Res 2000; 67: 309-317.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 International Dairy Federation (IDF). Bulletin of the IDF 211 – Bovine mastitis – definitions and guidelines for diagnosis. Hamburg: Behr‘s Verlag; 1987: 2-8.
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Jago JG, Burke JL, Williamson JH. Effect of automatic cluster remover settings on production, udder health, and milking duration. J Dairy Sci 2010; 93: 2541-2549.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Joe A, Cranefield SW, Hodge IC, Clarke TG. Summary of problems identified in 200 milking assessments from mastitis problem herds during 2008 and 2009 in two regions of New Zealand (Waipa and South Canterbury). Mastitis Research into Practice, Proc. 5th IDF Mastitis Conference. Christchurch, Neuseeland: 2010: 363-369.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Jones T, Ohnstad I. Milking procedures recommended for the control of bovine mastitis. In Practice: Journal of the Veterinary Postgraduate Clinical Study 2002; 24: 502-511.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kanswohl N, Schlegel M. Anrüsten schöpft Leistungspotenzial besser aus. Tiergesundheit aktuell 2010; 1: 8-11.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Krömker V, Hamann J. Diagnostik des Mastitisrisikos: Tierindividuelle Merkmale. Prakt. Tierarzt 1997. Coll. Vet. XXVIII: 70-75.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Krömker V. Hrsg. Euterkrankheiten. In: Kurzes Lehrbuch der Milchkunde und Milchhygiene. 1. Aufl.. Stuttgart: Parey; 2007: 48-74.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Mein G, Thompson P. Milking the 30.000-pound herd. J Dairy Sci 1993; 76: 3294-3300.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mein G. Completeness of milking. Lecture notes prepared by Graeme Mein, August 2001 http://milkquality.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/completeness-of-milking.pdf 28.02.2013.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mein G, Smolenaars F. 2001 Making the most of the milk harvest – a prospectus for Milk Qualitiy and Harvesting Subprogram of the National Dairy Alliance. Dairy Research and Development Corporation. 3/84 William St Melbourne, Victoria: 3000.
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Mein GA, Neijenhuis F, Morgan WF, Reinemann DJ, Hillerton JE, Braines JR, Ohnstad I, Rasmussen MD, Timms L, Britt JS, Farnsworth R, Cook N, Hemling T. Evaluation of bovine teat condition in commercial dairy herds 1. Non-infectious factors. Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality. Vancouver, Canada: 2001: 347-351.
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Mein GA, Reinemann DJ. Making the most of machine-on time: What happens when the cups are on?. NMC Annual meeting. San Antonio Texas, USA: 2007. http://fyi.uwex.edu/uwmril/files/2011/07/07-NMC-Making-the-most-of-Milking.pdf 28.02.2013.
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Mein G, Dyson R, Eden M, Reinemann DJ, Burke J, Jago J, Greenall R, Penry J. How completely should we aim to empty cows’ udders at milking time?. Summary and Recommendations. 2010 http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/~/media/Documents/Animals%20feed%20and%20environment/Animal%20health/Countdown-Downunder/Lactation/How%20we%20should%20aim%20to%20empty%20cows%20udders%20at%20milking%20time.pdf 28.02.2013.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Napper AR, Williamson JH. The effect of milking end point on somatic cell count. Annual report (1982/83) of Agricultural Research Division, MAF. Neuseeland: 1983: 55.
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Newman JA, Grindal RJ, Butler MC. Influence of liner design on mouthpiece chamber vacuum during milking. J Dairy Res 1991; 58: 21-27.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Neijenhuis F, Barkema HW, Hogeveen H, Noordhuizen JPTM. Relationship between teat-end callosity and occurence of clinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2001; 84: 2664-2672.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Paduch JH, Haverkamp H, Klocke D, Abograra IM, Zinke C, Krömker V. Zur Prävalenz von Zitzenkonditionsstörungen in nord- und mitteldeutschen Milchviehbetrieben. Proc. 10. Tagung: Bau, Technik und Umwelt in der landwirtschaftlichen Nutztierhaltung. Kiel, Deutschland: 2011: 144-149.
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Paduch JH, Mohr E, Krömker V. The association between teat end hyperkeratosis and teat canal microbial load in lactating dairy cattle. Vet Microbiol 2012; 158: 353-359.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rasmussen MD. Influence of switch level of automatic cluster removers on milking performance and udder health. J Dairy Res 1993; 60: 287-297.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Rasmussen MD. Benefits from early removal of the milking unit. Proceedings of the British Mastitis Conference. Institute for Animal Health/Milk Development Council; 1999: 55-61.
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Rathore AK. Relationships between teat shape, production and mastitis in Friesian cows. Br Vet J 1976; 132: 389-392.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rathore AK. Teat shape and production associates with opening and prolapse of the teat orifice in Friesian cows. Br Vet J 1977; 133: 258-262.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Rathore AK. Teat shape, teat cup crawl and milk production in Guernsey and Australian Illawara Shorthorn cows. Br Vet J 1977; 133: 454-457.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Stewart S, Godden S, Rapnicki P, Ried D, Johnson A, Eicker S. Effects of automatic cluster remover settings on average milking duration, milk flow, and milk yield. J Dairy Sci 2002; 85: 818-823.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Taylor G, van der Sande L, Douglas R. Technical report for: Smarter not harder: Improving labour productivity in the primary sector. 1 June 2005 to 30 June 2007 A Joint Dairy InSight (Dairy NZ) and Sustainable Farming Fund Project. Hamilton, Neuseeland: 2009: 39-40 http://maxa.maf.govt.nz/sff/about-projects/search/05-028/technical-report.pdf 13.03.2013.
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Thiel CC, Dodd FH. Machine milking. In: Technical Bulletin No 1. NIRD; Reading, UK: 1979: 236-285.
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Weiss D, Bruckmaier RM. Optimization of individual prestimulation in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2005; 88: 135-147.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft der Milcherzeugerberater e.V.. Zum richtigen Einstellen einer milchflussgesteuerten Abnahmeautomatik beim Melken. 2011 http://www.wgmev.de/download-verzeichnis/doc_details/127-zum-richtigen-einstellen-einer-milchflussgesteuerten-abnahmeautomatik-beim-melken 10.03.2013.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar