Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:10:19.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of a multi-sided concave liner barrel design on thickness and roughness of teat-end hyperkeratosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2016

Angelika Haeussermann ,
Justine Britten ,
Allan Britten ,
Christian Pahl ,
Nils Älveby  and
Eberhard Hartung
Angelika Haeussermann*
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, 24098 Kiel, Germany
Justine Britten
Affiliation:
Udder Health Systems Inc., Meridian, Idaho, USA
Allan Britten
Affiliation:
Udder Health Systems Inc., Meridian, Idaho, USA
Christian Pahl
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, 24098 Kiel, Germany
Nils Älveby
Affiliation:
DeLaval International AB, Tumba, Sweden
Eberhard Hartung
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, 24098 Kiel, Germany
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a round liner barrel, the force of the closing liner is transferred by the two opposite sides of the liner wall to the teat apex. Liners with a multi-sided barrel shape close at three or more planes and distribute their force to a larger area of the teat apex. The objective of the study was to investigate effects of a liner with a multi-sided concave barrel design on the degree of teat-end hyperkeratosis, thickness and roughness, and on the time delay until thickness or roughness of teat-end hyperkeratosis responded to the experimental liner. The investigations were done on two dairy farms, one in USA and one in Germany. A split-udder arrangement of liners was used, and control treatment was a liner with round barrel shape. The test period comprised 14 weeks in the first study and 16 weeks in the second study. Thickness of teat-end hyperkeratosis was influenced by farm and test week. Roughness was influenced by farm, test week and treatment. In the first study, the incidence of rough teat-end hyperkeratosis was about 28 and 42% lower in teats milked with the experimental liner than in teats milked with the control liner by test weeks 11 and 14, respectively. In the second study, incidence of rough teat-end hyperkeratosis was rare in general, and in addition hardly occurred in teats milked with the experimental liner. The results indicate that the barrel design of the experimental liner causes similar effects on different farms but magnitude of the effect depends on initial incidence of teat end hyperkeratosis in the herd.

Keywords

Machine milkinglinerhyperkeratosisteat condition
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 83 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 188 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2016 

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

Bade, RD, Reinemann, DJ, Zucali, M, Ruegg, PL & Thompson, PD 2009 Interactions of vacuum, b-phase duration, and liner compression on milk flow rates in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92 913–921CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Britten, A, Hanson, N & Pedraza, J 2004 Effect of teat dips on hyperkeratosis. National Mastitis Council Annual Meeting Proceedings 43 286–287Google Scholar
Capuco, AV, Woods, DL, Bright, SA, Miller, RH & Bitman, J 1990 Regeneration of teat canal keratin in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 73 1745–1750Google Scholar
Capuco, AV, Bright, SA, Pankey, JW, Wood, DL, Miller, RH & Bitman, J 1992 Increased susceptibility to intramammary infection following removal of teat canal keratin. Journal of Dairy Science 75 2126–2130Google Scholar
Capuco, AV, Wood, DL & Quast, JW 2000 Effects of teatcup liner tension on teat canal keratin and teat condition in cows. Journal of Dairy Research 67 319–327CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haeussermann, A, Rudovsky, HJ & Schlaiß, G 2011 Auswirkung dreieckiger Zitzengummis auf Milchabgabe und Zitzenkondition [Effect of triangular liners on milking characteristics and teat condition]. ART-Schriftenreihe 15 33–40Google Scholar
Hamann, J 1987 Machine milking and mastitis. Section 3: effect of machine milking on teat end condition – A literature review. Bulletin International Dairy Federation 215 33–49Google Scholar
Hamann, J, Burvenich, C, Mayntz, M, Osteras, O & Haider, W 1994a Machine-induced changes in the status of the bovine teat with respect to the new infection risk. Bulletin International Dairy Federation 297 13–22Google Scholar
Hamann, J, Osteras, O, Mayntz, M & Woyke, W 1994b Functional parameters of milking units with regard to teat tissue treatment. Bulletin International Dairy Federation 297 23–32Google Scholar
Hamann, J, Nipp, B & Persson, K 1994c Teat tissue reactions to milking: changes in blood flow and thickness in the bovine teat. Milchwissenschaften-Milk Science International 49 243–247Google Scholar
Kochman, AK & Laney, C 2009 The effect of liner barrel shape on teat end condition. National Mastitis Council Annual Meeting Proceedings 48 230–231Google Scholar
Lamb, RC, Thomas, DW, Walters, JL & Boman, RL 1984 Evaluation of milking characteristics of triangular silicone milking machine inflations. Journal of Dairy Science 67 2066–2070Google Scholar
Mein, GA, Williams, DM & Thiel, CC 1987 Compressive load applied by the teatcup liner to the bovine teat. Journal of Dairy Research 54 327–337Google Scholar
Mein, GA, Neijenhuis, F, Morgan, WF, Reinemann, DJ, Hillerton, JE, Baines, JR, Ohnstad, I, Rasmussen, MD, Timms, L, Britt, JS, Farnsworth, R, Cook, N & Hemling, T 2001 Evaluation of bovine teat condition in commercial dairy herds: 1. non-infectious factors. In Proceedings 2nd International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 347–351Google Scholar
Mein, GA, Reinemann, D, O'Callaghan, E & Ohnstad, I 2003 Where the rubber meets the teat and what happens to milking characteristics. In: 100 years with liners and pulsators in machine milking. In Proceedings of the International Dairy Federation, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 431–446Google Scholar
Mein, G, Reinemann, D, Schuring, N & Ohnstad, I 2004 Milking machines and mastitis risk: a storm in a teatcup. National Mastitis Council Annual Meeting Proceedings 43 176–188Google Scholar
Neijenhuis, F 2004 Teat condition in dairy cows. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Paduch, JH, Mohr, E & Krömker, V 2012 The association between teat end hyperkeratosis and teat canal microbial load in lactating dairy cattle. Veterinary Microbiology 158 353–359Google Scholar
Paulrud, CO 2005 Basic concepts of the bovine teat canal. Veterinary Research Communications 29 215–245Google Scholar
Reitsma, SY & Scott, NR 1979 Dynamic responses of the dairy cow's teat to step changes in pressure. Journal of Dairy Research 46 115–25Google Scholar
Rudovsky, HJ, Pache, S & Schulz, J 2011 Hyperkeratosen – Wo liegen die Ursachen? [Hyperkeratoses – what are the causes?]. ART-Schriftenreihe 15 75–78Google Scholar
Schukken, YH, Petersson, LG & Rauch, BJ 2006 Liners and teat end health. National Mastitis Council Annual Meeting Proceedings 45 183–196Google Scholar
Shearn, MFH & Hillerton, JE 1996 Hyperkeratosis of the teat duct orifice in the dairy cow. Journal of Dairy Research 63 525–532Google Scholar
Van der Tol, PPJ, Schrader, W & Aernouts, B 2010 Pressure distribution at the teat-liner and teat-calf interfaces. Journal of Dairy Science 93 45–52Google Scholar