| Literature DB >> 32132316 |
Takeshi Miyama1, Joseph Byaruhanga1, Ikuo Okamura1, Hajime Nagahata2, Ryo Murata3, William Mwebembezi4, Yasukazu Muramatsu5, Kohei Makita1.
Abstract
A cross-sectional study was conducted to investigate the risk factors for sub-clinical mastitis (SCM) in Mbarara District, an intensive dairy production region of Uganda where hand-milking is dominant. In 30 farms, herd-level milking practices and SCM prevalence were studied. The SCM prevalences were 68.6% (417/608, 95% confidence interval (CI): 64.9-72.2%) and 39.2% (946/2,411, 37.3-41.2%) at the cow- and quarter-levels, respectively. A preventive factor for SCM was cow calmness at the end of milking (OR: 0.20, 95%CI: 0.05-0.79, P=0.021); a risk factor was rough teat-end (OR: 1.75, 95%CI: 1.14-2.68, P=0.011). Good cow hygiene was negatively associated with environmental mastitis (P=0.002). Appropriate hand-milking practices that avoid teat damage are expected to reduce SCM in Uganda.Entities:
Keywords: Uganda; dairy cattle; hand-milking; milking practice; sub-clinical mastitis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32132316 PMCID: PMC7192731 DOI: 10.1292/jvms.19-0588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Vet Med Sci ISSN: 0916-7250 Impact factor: 1.267
Milking hygiene practices in the 29 studied dairy farms in Mbarara, Uganda
| Variables | Number of farms | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mastitic cows are milked last (NA=1) | 1 | 3.6 | |
| Milkers’ hands | |||
| Wearing gloves | 0 | 0 | |
| Hands are disinfected | 5 | 17.2 | |
| Presence of buckets to rinse and disinfect hands | 6 | 20.7 | |
| Hands are dry before touching teats (NA=1) | 2 | 7.1 | |
| Forestrip 4–5 times | 4 | 13.8 | |
| Calf suckling before milking | 18 | 62.1 | |
| Try to detect abnormal milk | 3 | 10.3 | |
| Apply proper hand-milking technique | 5 | 17.2 | |
| Apply pre-dipping | 0 | 0 | |
| Wipe and dry teat completely with towel before milking | 7 | 24.1 | |
| Wipe teat-end before milking | 5 | 17.2 | |
| Use of one towel per cow | 5 | 17.2 | |
| Start milking 60–90 sec after the first teat stimulation | 14 | 48.3 | |
| Finish milking within 5 min after first teat stimulation (NA=2) | 17 | 63.0 | |
| Apply post-dipping (NA=1) | 3 | 10.7 | |
| Teat coverage rate of >75% in post-dipping (NA=1) | 2 | 7.1 | |
NA: not available, because the checklist conductor failed to observe.
Fig. 1.Causal diagram showing relationships between SCM and milking practices. The variables of milking practices that yielded P<0.2 in univariable analyses, and the observed variables associated with the milking practices and SCM on an a priori basis, are included in the diagram.
Microbiological test results from 576 quarter milk samples of which California Mastitis Test scores were 2 or more in studied dairy farms in Mbarara, Uganda
| Pathogen isolated | Number of samples | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 88 | 15.3 | |
| 65 | 11.3 | |
| Coagulase-negative staphylococci | 56 | 9.7 |
| Other streptococci (unidentified) | 29 | 5.0 |
| 24 | 4.2 | |
| 5 | 0.9 | |
| Coliforms | 4 | 0.7 |
| 1 | 0.2 | |
| Yeast | 1 | 0.2 |
| Others (unidentified) | 10 | 1.7 |
| No growth | 278 | 48.3 |
| Two different speciesa) | 6 | 1.0 |
| Contaminatedb) | 9 | 1.6 |
a) Pairs of the listed microbes. b) Milk samples with more than two different species isolated on a plate were considered contaminated, unless one of the species was S. aureus, in which case S. aureus was defined as the dominant pathogen.
Multivariable risk factor analysis results for calmness, milking-practice, teat-end score, and integrated effects on California Mastitis Test positivity
| Variables | Odds ratio | 95%CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a) Effect of calmness at end of the milking | |||||
| Fixed effect variables | |||||
| Cows calm at end of the milking | 0.20 | 0.05–0.79 | 0.021 | ||
| Milking time (<5 min) | 0.53 | 0.14–1.96 | 0.331 | ||
| Hand-milking technique | 0.61 | 0.15–2.49 | 0.489 | ||
| Parity | 1.10 | 0.93–1.30 | 0.233 | ||
| Milk yield | 0.97 | 0.92–1.03 | 0.346 | ||
| Breed | 1.20 | 0.40–3.55 | 0.730 | ||
| Random effect variables | Variance | Standard deviation | ICCa) | ||
| Herd | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.23 | ||
| b) Effect of milking time | |||||
| Fixed effect variables | |||||
| Milking time (<5 min) | 0.41 | 0.10–1.63 | 0.203 | ||
| Hand-milking technique | 0.55 | 0.12–2.51 | 0.433 | ||
| Parity | 1.10 | 0.93–1.30 | 0.253 | ||
| Milk yield | 0.98 | 0.92–1.04 | 0.462 | ||
| Breed | 1.16 | 0.28–4.80 | 0.820 | ||
| Random effect variables | Variance | Standard deviation | ICCa) | ||
| Herd | 1.33 | 1.15 | 0.29 | ||
| c) Effect of teat-end score | |||||
| Fixed effect variables | |||||
| Teat-end score | 1.75 | 1.14–2.68 | 0.011 | ||
| Cows calm at end of the milking | 0.19 | 0.05–0.72 | 0.015 | ||
| Milking time (<5 min) | 0.53 | 0.15–1.89 | 0.317 | ||
| Hand-milking technique | 0.54 | 0.13–2.15 | 0.374 | ||
| Parity | 1.10 | 0.93–1.29 | 0.247 | ||
| Milk yield | 0.97 | 0.91–1.03 | 0.297 | ||
| Breed | 1.18 | 0.36–3.86 | 0.766 | ||
| Random effect variables | Variance | Standard deviation | ICCa) | ||
| Herd | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.23 | ||
| d) Integrated effects | |||||
| Fixed effect variables | |||||
| Cows calm at end of the milking | 0.17 | 0.05–0.64 | 0.009 | ||
| Teat-end score | 1.75 | 1.14–2.68 | 0.011 | ||
| Hand-milking technique | 0.69 | 0.20–2.39 | 0.555 | ||
| Parity | 1.10 | 0.93–1.29 | 0.248 | ||
| Milk yield | 0.98 | 0.92–1.03 | 0.421 | ||
| Breed | 1.25 | 0.38–4.09 | 0.697 | ||
| Random effect variables | Variance | Standard deviation | ICCa) | ||
| Herd | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.23 | ||
a) Intraclass correlation coefficient.
Relationship between contagious mastitis and milking practices/level of cow hygiene at quarter level, among quarters from which bacteria were isolated
| Variables | Percentage of | Contagious/bacteria | Odds ratio | 95%CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disinfecting hands before milking | 67.6 | 23/34 | 2.01 | 0.69–5.86 | 0.201 | |
| Not conducted | 54.1 | 138/255 | Reference | |||
| Presence of buckets to rinse and disinfect hands | 68.6 | 35/51 | 2.20 | 0.90–5.35 | 0.084 | |
| Not present | 52.9 | 126/238 | Reference | |||
| Drying hands after washing and before milking | 46.2 | 6/13 | 0.53 | 0.11–2.66 | 0.441 | |
| Not conducted | 57.6 | 151/262 | Reference | |||
| One towel per cow use for teat wiping | 44.7 | 34/76 | 0.51 | 0.23–1.12 | 0.093 | |
| Not used | 59.6 | 127/213 | Reference | |||
| Cow hygiene appeared good | 60.7 | 142/234 | 3.71 | 1.64–8.39 | 0.002 | |
| Not good | 34.5 | 19/55 | Reference | |||
The numbers of observations were 23/176/289 at herd/cow/quarter levels (respectively), other than drying hands before milking (22/167/275).