Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T00:33:19.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

649. The effect of design of teat-cup liners on mastitis incidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

F. H. Dodd ,
J. Oliver  and
F. K. Neave
F. H. Dodd
Affiliation:
Dairy Husbandry Department
J. Oliver
Affiliation:
Dairy Husbandry Department
F. K. Neave
Affiliation:
Bacteriology Department, National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An experiment was carried out to study the effect on udder health and milk yield when half-udders of dairy cows were milked with either a moulded or an extruded teat-cup liner.

2. There was a higher incidence of mastitis in quarters that were milked with moulded than with extruded liners, but the incidence of new infection was similar for each group of quarters.

3. The types of liners used had no measurable effect on teat orifice erosion or leucocyte content of the milk, nor was the decline in milk yield with advance in lactation significantly different for the groups of quarters.

We wish to thank Dr A. T. R. Mattick and Mr A. S. Foot for advice and encouragement, and Miss H. R. Chapman for assistance in the cleaning of teat-cup liners. We are indebted to Miss M. S. Hawkins and Messrs T. M. Higgs and D. S. Simpkin for technical assistance.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 1957 , pp. 20 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Annual Report (1951). Rep. Nat. Inst. Dairying, Reading, p. 21.Google Scholar
(2)Leslie, A. & Whittlestone, W. G. (1938). Mimeogr. Rep. Fed. Taranaki Co-op. Dairies, N.Z., 1938.Google Scholar
(3)Leslie, A. & Whittlestone, W. G. (1939). Ann. Gen. Mtg. N.Z. Vet. Ass. & Nat. Dairy Ass. Conf., Wellington, 06 1939, 19 pp.Google Scholar
(4)Watts, P. S. (1942). Vet. Rec. 54, 181.Google Scholar
(5)Watts, P. S. (1942). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact. (Abstr.), p. 35.Google Scholar
(6)Gambrel, P. (1950). Vet. Med. 45, 122.Google Scholar
(7)Annual Report (1951). Rep. Nat. Inst. Dairying, Reading, p. 63.Google Scholar
(8)Neave, F. K., Phillips, M. & Mattick, A. T. R. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Wilson, C. D. (1952). Vet. Rec. 64, 525.Google Scholar
(10)Wilson, C. D. (1954). St. Vet. News Minist. Agric., Lond., 9 (26), 22.Google Scholar
(11)Parker, W. H. (1956). Personal communication.Google Scholar
(12)Ward, A. H., Whittlestone, W. G., Hopkirk, C. S. M. & Filmer, J. F. (1942). N.Z.J. Agric. 64, 85.Google Scholar
(13)Ward, A. H., (1944). Rep. N.Z. Dairy Bd. 1943–44, p. 49.Google Scholar
(14)Whittlestone, W. G. (1948). Aust. J. Dairy Tech. 3, 45.Google Scholar
(15)Oliver, J., Dodd, F. H. & Neave, F. K. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Bailey, G. L., Higgs, T. M, Neave, F. K. & Simpkin, D. S. (1956). Unpublished data.Google Scholar