Flock and Herd logo

ARCHIVE FILE


This article was published in 1982
See the original document

Developments in Mastitis Control

R.J.T. Hoare, Veterinary Research St., GLENFIELD NSW

There was a continued gradual improvement in the average bulk milk cell count during the past 12 months. All but two factories are now below 500,000 cells per ml. The Departmental target of below 300,000 cells per ml. has now been achieved by 6 of the State's 43 factories. There is considerable activity in many areas to reduce mastitis still further.

There has been much interest this year in the Bulk Milk Cell Count Competition, the winners of which will be announced at the Factory Manager's Conference in May. The State winner this year will have a cell count below 100,000 cells per ml. - a remarkable achievement.

There has been a special project undertaken during the past 12 months to reduce mastitis in the Hunter area. Cell counts have improved dramatically at some factories in the DVO Newcastle's area e.g. Wyong down by 200,000 and Dungog down by 100,000 in the past 12 months.

Ranking of Factories on Bulk Milk Cell Count for 6 months to March 1982 -

1 Moruya 254,000
2 Jamberoo 260,000
3 Wollongong 281,000
4 Manning River 287,000
5 Bowral 293,000
6 Bodalla 298,000
7 Griffith 309,000
8 Albion Park 311,000
9 Mudgee 323,000
10 Menangle 337,000
11 Armidale 340,000
12 Moss Vale 347,000
13 Gerringong 348,000
14 Berry 352,000
15 Wyong 353,000
16 Orange 357,000
17 Wauchope 363,000
18 Penrith 368,000
19 Singleton 376,000
20 Kempsey 378,000
21 Bega 378,000
22 Peters, Taree 386,000
23 Nowra 399,000
24 Gloucester 404,000
25 Lismore 408,000
26 Dubbo 411,000
27 Goulburn 419,000
28 Kraft, D' quin 419,000
29 Tamworth 423,000
30 Wagga 426,000
31 Smithtown 426,000
32 Grafton-Ulmarra 426,000
33 Raleigh 430,000
34 United Dairies 443,000
35 Muswellbrook 449,000
36 Inverell 449,000
37 Dungog 458,000
38 Finley 468,000
39 Haberfields 471,000
40 Perfection 472,000
41 Comboyne 473,000
42 Hexham 547,000
43 Bathurst 561,000

Average cell count March 1982 - 385,000

Averages for 6 months to March 1976 584,000
1977 522,000
1978 567,000
1979 492,000
1980 447,000
1981 486,000
1982 405,000

To overcome staff and funding shortages in the Mastitis Laboratory, the Dairy Industry Marketing Authority will be providing funds for a laboratory attendant and operating expenses for the bulk milk cell counting programme. DIMA is also about to use the cell count in conjunction with the sediment test to grade milk for acceptance purposes. Suppliers whose latest bulk milk cell count is below 500,000 cells per ml. will receive a warning not a rejection if their sediment test shows the yellow colour indicative of mastitis or other udder abnormality. This is to allow farmers with a history of moderate mastitis control to get their milk quality in order before rejections occur. Farmers with high levels of mastitis will have a real incentive to reduce below 500,000.

Cow cell counting

The number of cow samples received for cell counting has doubled every year. This is proving to be too much of a drain on the Mastitis Laboratory's allocation of staff and finances. A proposal has been accepted that a charge would be made for these tests except for the first diagnostic test in each herd. A fee of 80 cents per test is proposed for casual testing and 50 cents a test for herds regularly testing their herds through the Dairy Herd Improvement Programme (DHIP). In the DHIP, results would be sent back only through the computer and would not be available to Departmental field staff. Once we have identified cows with high cell counts farmers will have to decide on courses of action regarding identification of affected quarters, treatment, selection of antibiotics or culling. We will be advising farmers to contact their veterinary practitioners for advice on what action to take with cows with high cell counts.

Investigation of problem herds

A small number of herds, currently carrying out the recommended routines but still with a mastitis problem, have been investigated. In many instances the first contact by the farmer has been with the local Livestock Officer. Where non-responsive problems exist a joint investigation with a VO or VI should be made. Occasionally a farmer may take samples to a Livestock Officer who would submit them to a Regional Veterinary Laboratory. When Livestock Officers submit samples, the laboratory may return results to the LO and the local VI. We assume that local VI will be providing assistance to the LO and farmer in the interpretation of the results. Livestock Officers are not trained in the interpretation of bacteriology results and are not qualified to give advice on treatment.


Site contents Copyright 2006-2026©