great lakes dairy sheep symposium - the Department of Animal ...
great lakes dairy sheep symposium - the Department of Animal ... great lakes dairy sheep symposium - the Department of Animal ...
Figure 5. Example of daily fluctuations of SCC (——) and bacterial count (----) for an infected udder-half (Bergonier et al. 2006). Number of UFC or SCC *1 000 cells/ml 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 The use of a combination of several successive individual SCC (iSCC) or a lactation geometric mean of all the iSCC may give better results than a punctual approach leading to about 75/80 % of sensitivity and specificity. Such an approach results in the definition of a third class of udders: doubtful udders which are note truly infected or truly healthy. At the lactation level, the thresholds of 250,000 cells/ml and 500,000 cells/ml geometric means could allow to distinguish healthy and infected ewes. Using such a dynamic approach, results in the following rules: an udder will be considered as healthy if every iSCC is below 500,000 cells/ml (possibly allow two iSCC greater than 500,000 cells/ml), or infected when at least two iSCC are over 1,000,000 cells/ml, and doubtful in other cases (Berthelot et al. 2006). This approach has the advantage to take into account the dynamics of the inflammation due to straphylococcal IMI. But it is necessary to have several iSCC per lactation to define the status of the ewe. These rules were developed from an experimental milk recording flock where the ewes were monthly sampled throughout lactation. In practice, the rules must be adapted to the information available (i.e. iSCC or California Mastitis Test). 1.4. Non-pathological variation factors for SCC Days Bacterial IMI is the main factor influencing SCC, but many non-pathological factors also will elevate SCC of a healthy udder. In order of decreasing importance, the main known factors are the following: day in milk (increase at the end of lactation), parity (increase with the parity), 42
within-day fluctuation (SCC level at the evening milking is higher than the morning one), milk fractions (increase with the milk fractions), flock, year… The range of variation of the non pathological factors are: Flock * year effect: 130,000 cells/ml Day in milk effect: 60,000 to 100,000 cells/ml Age, lactation number effect: 40,000 cells/ml (from parity 1 to parity 5 or more) Evening/morning milking effect: 60,000 to 90,000 cells/ml (depending on the interval between the two milkings) Some other minor or punctual SCC factors of variation may exist depending on the management of the flock: suckling/milking period, number of suckled lambs, the milking routine, the type of milking (by machine or by hand ), sudden dietary transitions cause punctual fluctuation of SCC… 1.5. Conclusion Dairy sheep IMI are mainly due to staphylococci. This fact has 2 main consequences: 1) The primary sources of IMI are carried by the animal (teat cutaneous infection, skin…) and subclinical IMI. Thus, milking is the principal vector for the spread of IMI in dairy sheep. Despite this key role, additional work is needed to clearly identify the effect of milking equipment, routine, management… In France, in a survey carried out in 2003, it was pointed out that bulk SCC of flocks milked by machine with major defaults was higher (+100,000 cells/ml) throughout the year (Fig. 6). In Spain, C. Gonzalo in 2005 and 2006, established that machine milking in a parlour was associated with better udder health than using a bucket-milking machine or milking by hand. Figure 6. Monthly evolution of the geometric mean of bulk tank SCC of flocks milked by machine with 2 majors defaults (——) or no default (----) (Bergonier et al. 2005, Billon et al. 2003). SCC (*1 000 cells/ml) 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 Month 43
- Page 1 and 2: Proceedings of the 12 th Annual GRE
- Page 3 and 4: Symposium Organizing Committee Yves
- Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents (cont.) SHEPHERD
- Page 7 and 8: Program of Events (cont.) Friday, N
- Page 9 and 10: Gold: Sponsors Babcock Institute fo
- Page 11 and 12: SHEEP DAIRY FARM ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
- Page 13 and 14: 3) Recordkeeping a) Degrees of deta
- Page 15 and 16: Out of this allocation, the Dairy B
- Page 17 and 18: The original plan for Uplands was t
- Page 19 and 20: Cheese As previously mentioned, Ple
- Page 21 and 22: ORGANIC SHEEP DAIRY: MARKETS AND PR
- Page 23 and 24: products that, especially combined
- Page 25 and 26: Organic Milk Production Requirement
- Page 27 and 28: To become certified, you must first
- Page 29 and 30: ATTRA- the National Sustainable Agr
- Page 31 and 32: 1.2. The average western Pyrenees d
- Page 33 and 34: During the last 15 years, the avera
- Page 35 and 36: The growth of the market of Pyrenee
- Page 37 and 38: them tested for OPP using the cElis
- Page 39 and 40: separate facilities and tested at 4
- Page 41 and 42: • Neoplastic tumors Treatment •
- Page 43 and 44: STRATEGIC CONTROL OF GASTRO-INTESTI
- Page 45 and 46: C. Intestinal cestode parasites (ta
- Page 47 and 48: Strategic Timing of Treatment Phase
- Page 49 and 50: 1.2. IMI is the main factor influen
- Page 51: 1.3. Use of SCC in order to detect
- Page 55 and 56: expensive. But it is necessary to b
- Page 57 and 58: The influence of high SCC on cheese
- Page 59 and 60: Figure 9. Contribution to bulk tank
- Page 61 and 62: Regarding the dynamics of the infec
- Page 63 and 64: Figure 11. Evolution of the average
- Page 65 and 66: Lafi S.Q. 2005. Use of somatic cell
- Page 67 and 68: (Penning et al., 1988). Another stu
- Page 69 and 70: Pre-grazing herbage mass (kg DM/ha)
- Page 71 and 72: Table 2: Average test day milk prod
- Page 73 and 74: Figure 4: Average test day milk fat
- Page 75 and 76: lactation ewes (1.66 vs. 1.50 kg/d,
- Page 77 and 78: Figure 6: Average change in body we
- Page 79 and 80: esults, so an average pasture CP va
- Page 81 and 82: Pulina, G. 2002. Dairy Sheep Feedin
- Page 83 and 84: light treatments, when all ewes wer
- Page 85 and 86: percentage protein (AgSource Milk L
- Page 87 and 88: the difference was significant on o
- Page 89 and 90: kg), fat (+ 3.0 kg), protein (+ 0.9
- Page 91 and 92: Auchtung, T. L., A. G. Rius, P. E.
- Page 93 and 94: site of a small settlement for seve
- Page 95 and 96: Gonyou, HW and Stookey, JM. 1983. U
- Page 97 and 98: SHEPHERD’S DAIRY Kim Curtis Ansel
- Page 99 and 100: Breeds As I stated above, we starte
- Page 101 and 102: Summary ARTISAN SHEEP MILK CHEESE J
within-day fluctuation (SCC level at <strong>the</strong> evening milking is higher than <strong>the</strong> morning one), milk<br />
fractions (increase with <strong>the</strong> milk fractions), flock, year…<br />
The range <strong>of</strong> variation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> non pathological factors are:<br />
Flock * year effect: 130,000 cells/ml<br />
Day in milk effect: 60,000 to 100,000 cells/ml<br />
Age, lactation number effect: 40,000 cells/ml (from parity 1 to parity 5 or more)<br />
Evening/morning milking effect: 60,000 to 90,000 cells/ml (depending on <strong>the</strong> interval<br />
between <strong>the</strong> two milkings)<br />
Some o<strong>the</strong>r minor or punctual SCC factors <strong>of</strong> variation may exist depending on <strong>the</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> flock: suckling/milking period, number <strong>of</strong> suckled lambs, <strong>the</strong> milking<br />
routine, <strong>the</strong> type <strong>of</strong> milking (by machine or by hand ), sudden dietary transitions cause punctual<br />
fluctuation <strong>of</strong> SCC…<br />
1.5. Conclusion<br />
Dairy <strong>sheep</strong> IMI are mainly due to staphylococci. This fact has 2 main consequences:<br />
1) The primary sources <strong>of</strong> IMI are carried by <strong>the</strong> animal (teat cutaneous infection, skin…)<br />
and subclinical IMI. Thus, milking is <strong>the</strong> principal vector for <strong>the</strong> spread <strong>of</strong> IMI in <strong>dairy</strong> <strong>sheep</strong>.<br />
Despite this key role, additional work is needed to clearly identify <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> milking<br />
equipment, routine, management… In France, in a survey carried out in 2003, it was pointed out<br />
that bulk SCC <strong>of</strong> flocks milked by machine with major defaults was higher (+100,000 cells/ml)<br />
throughout <strong>the</strong> year (Fig. 6). In Spain, C. Gonzalo in 2005 and 2006, established that machine<br />
milking in a parlour was associated with better udder health than using a bucket-milking machine<br />
or milking by hand.<br />
Figure 6. Monthly evolution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> geometric mean <strong>of</strong> bulk tank SCC <strong>of</strong> flocks milked by<br />
machine with 2 majors defaults (——) or no default (----) (Bergonier et al. 2005, Billon et al.<br />
2003).<br />
SCC (*1 000 cells/ml)<br />
800<br />
750<br />
700<br />
650<br />
600<br />
550<br />
500<br />
450<br />
400<br />
Month<br />
43
Change language