Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:10:30.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of mid-line or low-line milking systems on milking characteristics in goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2012

Alberto Manzur ,
José-Ramón Díaz ,
Amine Mehdid ,
Nemesio Fernández  and
Cristòfol Peris
Alberto Manzur
Affiliation:
Departamento de Rumiantes, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas, Ctra, Tuxtla-Ejido Emiliano Zapata, km 8, Mexico
José-Ramón Díaz
Affiliation:
Departamento de Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Orihuela Universidad Miguel Hernandez,Ctra, Beniel, Km. 3,2, 03312 Orihuela, Spain
Amine Mehdid
Affiliation:
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Animal, Universitat Politècnica de València, Cami de Vera s/n, Valencia, Spain
Nemesio Fernández
Affiliation:
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Animal, Universitat Politècnica de València, Cami de Vera s/n, Valencia, Spain
Cristòfol Peris*
Affiliation:
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Animal, Universitat Politècnica de València, Cami de Vera s/n, Valencia, Spain
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two experiments were carried out to compare mechanical milking in mid-level (ML) and low-level (LL) milkline in goats. The first trial used 40 intramammary infection (IMI)-free goats that had been milked in ML during a pre-experimental period of 4±1 weeks post partum. These animals were divided into two groups (n=20), randomly assigning each group to ML or LL milking for a 17-week experimental period. During this period, several strategies were applied to increase teat exposure to pathogens in both experimental groups. The IMI rate was the same in both experimental groups (30% of goats), although the majority of new infections appeared earlier in ML (weeks 1–5) than in LL (weeks 7–16). Teat-end vacuum range (maximum minus minimum vacuum) was higher in ML than in LL, but no significant differences were found in the remaining variables [milk production and composition, somatic cell count (SCC), frequency of liner slips+teatcups fall off]. In the second experiment, in a crossover design (54 goats in fourth month of lactation; 2 treatments, ML and LL, in 2 experimental periods each lasting 1 week) it was observed that both the milk fractioning (reduced machine milk and increased machine stripping) and average machine milk flow worsened slightly in ML milking; in contrast, no differences were observed in total milking time or teat thickness changes after milking. It was concluded that the differences found between ML and LL are not sufficiently important to discourage breeders from using ML in goat milking.

Keywords

Milking machinemilklinemid-linelow-linegoatmastitis
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , August 2012 , pp. 375 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2012

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

Ali, AKA & Shook, GE 1980 An optimum transformation for somatic cell concentration in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 63 487–490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambord, S & Bruckmaier, M 2010 Milk flow-dependent vacuum loss in high-line milking systems: Effects on milking characteristics and teat tissue condition. Journal of Dairy Science 93 3588–3594 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billon, P, Sauvee, O, Menard, JL & Gaudin, V 1998 Effects of milking and the milking machine on somatic cells counts and intramammary infections on diary cows. Rencontres autour des Recherches sur les Ruminants 5 305–311 Google Scholar
Czediwoda, E 1991 Ways of improving udder health and milk quality. Milch Praxis 29(2) 80–85 Google Scholar
Díaz, JR, Peris, C, Rodriguez, M, Molina, P & Fernández, N 2004 Effect of milking pipeline height on machina milking efficiency and milk quality in sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 87 1675–1683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garces, AR, López, FJ & Bruckmaier, RM 2006 Milking machines on Chilean dairy farms and their effects on somatic cell count and milk yield: a field study. Agricultura –Técnica 66(1) 31–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalo, C, Carriedo, JA, Blanco, MA, Beneitez, E, Juarez, MT, De la Fuente, LF & San Primitivo, F 2005 Factors of variation influencing bulk tank somatic cell count in dairy sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 88 969–974 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamann, J, Mein, GA & Nipp, B 1996 Recommended method for measuring changes in thickness of the bovine teat with spring-loaded calipers. Journal of Dairy Research 62 309–313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmon, RJ, Jasper, DE, Langlois, BE & Wilson, RA 1990 Microbiological Procedures for the Diagnosis of Bovine Udder Infection, 3rd edn. Arlington, VA: National Mastitis Council Inc., 33 ppGoogle Scholar
ISO 3918 2007 Milking Machine Installations – Vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 5707 2007 Milking Machine Installations – Construction and performance. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
Le Du, J 1977 La machine à traite: incidence des facteurs associés au fonctionnement du manchon. Annales de Médicine Vétérinaire 121 309–321 Google Scholar
Le Du, J 1983 Comparaison d´un lactoduc en ligne haute et en ligne basse. Incidence sur la traite des brebis de races Lacaune et Manech. Annales de Zootechnie 32 43–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Du, J 1985 Paramètres de fonctionnement affectant l'efficacité des machines à traire pour brebis. Additif concernant la chèvre. In 36ème Reunion Annuelle de la Fédération Européenne de Zootechnie, Kallithea, Grèce, 12 ppGoogle Scholar
Littell, RC, Henry, PR & Ammerman, CB 1998 Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76 1216–1231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mein, G, Reinemann, D, Schuring, N & Ohnstad, I, 2004 Milking machines and mastitis risk: a storm in a Teatcup. In Meeting of the National Mastitis Council. 43nd Annual Meeting of the National Mastitis Council, Charlotte, NC, USA, 1–4 February 2004, p. 176–188 Google Scholar
Murgia, L & Pazzona, A 1999 Comparison among six milk claws for sheep milking. In Milking and Milk Production of Dairy Sheep and Goats: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Milking of Small Ruminants, Athens, Greece, 26 September–1 October 1995. Wageningen, The Netherlands: EAAP Publication, pp. 245–247.Google Scholar
O'Callaghan, EJ 2004 Effects of the design of a milking unit on vacuum variations during simulated milking. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 43 237–245 Google Scholar
O'Shea, J 1987 Machine milking factors affecting mastitis. A literature review. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation n° 215 5–32 Google Scholar
Osteras, O & Lund, A 1980 The correlation between milk flow, vacuum fluctuations and decrease in vacuum in the long milk tube at the claw in different milking machines. Nordic Veterinary Medicine 32 281–290 Google Scholar
Peris, C, Díaz, JR, Balasch, S & Beltrán, MC 2003 Influence of vacuum level and overmilking on udder health and teat thickness changes in dairy ewes. Journal of Dairy Science 86 3891–3898 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasmussen, MD, Frimer, ES & Decker, L 1994 Reverse pressure gradients across the teat canal related to machine milking. Journal of Dairy science 77 984–993 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinemann, DJ 2007 Latest thoughts on methods for assessing teat condition. 46nd Annual Meeting of the National Mastitis Council, San Antonio, TX, USA, 21–24 January 2007Google Scholar
SAS 2002 SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Release 9.1. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Skapetas, B, Katanos, J, Laga, V, Sinapis, E & Hatziminaoglou, I 2008 Vacuum level for opening the teat sphincter and the change in the teat end wall thickness in response to the machine milking of indigenous Greek goats. Czech Journal of Animal Science 53 112–118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiel, CC, Cousins, CL, Westgarth, DR & Neave, FK 1973 The influence of some physical characteristics of the milking machine on the rate of new mastitis infections. Journal of Dairy Research 40 117–129 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, PD & Pearson, RE 1979 Likelihood vacuum fluctuations. Journal of Dairy Science 62 1314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar