BIOSECURITY ▶▶▶


Focus on cow hygiene is good for low SCC


BY M.J.R.PARANHOS DA COSTA, UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, BRAZIL T


he hygiene of dairy cows can be used as an indicator of animal welfare, as it provides information about the quality of life of the animals and the quality of the farm facilities. Most studies that have evaluated


the hygiene of dairy cows were performed with animals housed in freestalls and confirmed that the cows’ level of hy- giene is an important indicator of their welfare and that it is influenced by the characteristics and conditions of the facili- ties where they are kept. It was expected, therefore, that poor hygiene in cows would be associated with an increased oc- currence of disease such as environmental mastitis. Mastitis results in an increased somatic cell count (SCC) in milk, a pa- rameter that can be used as an indicator in the evaluation of udder health in a herd. Furthermore, SCC has been used for the evaluation of milk quality. Despite the many studies ad- dressing the effects of management practices on SCC, as re- ported previously, few focused on the relationship between an individual cow’s body hygiene and milk quality, and all of them were carried out with cows kept indoors. In addition, lit- tle information is available regarding individual variation in body cleanliness through the year and which parts of a cow’s body would be a better indicator of hygiene as a risk factor for milk quality. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to describe how the hygiene conditions of dairy cows vary over time and to analyse the effect of hygiene on SCC in milk from cows that are not housed in stalls.


Study on two Brazilian dairy farms The study was carried out by evaluating lactating cows from the herds of two dairy farms located in northwestern Sao Pau- lo State, Brazil. The herds were composed of Holstein cows (purebred and crossbred). Farm 1 had approximately 250 lac- tating cows and an average production of 18kg of milk/cow per day from two milkings. Groups were formed with approxi- mately 50 animals, depending on parity order, milk produc- tion, body condition score, and health (occurrence of mastitis and hoof disease). On this farm, depending on the time of year, lactating cows were confined in outdoor pens with 900 m2


(around 18 m2 per cow) cemented floors or were re-


leased to grass paddocks (ranging from 3,000 to 6,000 m2 daily rotation) with natural shade between milking sessions


, in a ▶DAIRY GLOBAL | Volume 6, No. 2, 2019 13


Corporal hygiene is an important indicator of welfare for dairy cows and is dependent on facilities, climate conditions, and the behaviour of the animals. Research looked into the relationship between hygiene and the somatic cell count in milk.


and at night. The pens were scraped once a week during the rainy season (December, January, and February) and once a month during the dry season. Farm 2 had approximately 130 lactating cows and an average production of 25kg of milk/ cow per day from two or three milking sessions per day, de- pending on the level of production. The cows were divided into five groups, with 30 animals on average (ranging from 13 to 50), depending on parity order, milk production, body con- dition score, and health (based on occurrence of mastitis and hoof problems). These groups were kept in total confinement in paddocks ranging in size from 5,000 to 11,220 m2 in an area of 300 m2


, resulting , on average, per cow. In these areas, grass


availability was very low and therefore did not contribute to their nutrition. During the rainy season (December–February), the areas close to the feed bunks (approximately 4m wide) in all paddocks were scraped once a month due to mud accumu- lation. All cows were fed a TMR consisting of corn silage and concentrate, distributed evenly over the length of the feed bunks. All cows had free access to shade (trees and sheds covered by 70% shade cloth).


It is important to evaluate the hy- giene of cows, such as the pres- ence of small quantities of dirt on the udder.


PHOTO: JAN WILLEM SCHOUTEN


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36