区域基准数据使农民能够将其动物健康状况与其他牛群进行比较,并确定具有改善潜力的地区。对于德国奶牛养殖场的乳房健康状况,这些数据是不完整的。因此,这项研究的目的是(1)描述临床乳腺炎(CM)的发病率,(2)描述基于细胞计数的乳房健康指标[无乳腺炎(aWIM)适应症的动物比例的年平均试验日平均值,哺乳期新感染风险(aNIR),和低治愈机会(aLCC)的奶牛比例;小母牛乳腺炎率(HM)]及其季节变化,(3)评价乳腺炎监测措施的实施水平。访问了具有不同生产条件的三个德国地区(北部:n=253;东部:n=252,南部:n=260)的牧群。通过基于结构化问卷的访谈收集CM发病率和乳腺炎监测措施的数据。此外,获得了访谈前365天的奶牛群改善(DHI)测试日数据。在北部,农民报告的轻度CM发生率中位数(Q0.1,Q0.9)为14.8%(3.5,30.8%),东部16.2%(1.9%,50.4%),南部为11.8%(0.0,30.7%)。对于严重的CM,报告的发生率为4.0%(0.0,12.2%),2.0%(0.0,10.8%),北部为2.6%(0.0,11.0%),东,南,分别。AWIM中位数为60.7%(53.4,68.1%),59.0%(49.7,65.4%),和60.2%(51.5,67.8%),而aNIR中位数为17.1%(13.6%,21.6%),19.9%(16.2%,24.9%),和18.3%(14.4%,22.0%)在北部,东,南,分别具有较大的季节性变化。ALCC中位数≤1.1%(≤0.7%,≤1.8%)在所有地区,HM为28.4%(19.7%,37.2%),35.7%(26.7%,44.2%),和23.5%(13.1,35.9%),在北方,东方和南方,分别。参加DHI测试计划(N:95.7%,E:98.8%,S:89.2%)和预挤奶(N:91.1%,E:93.7%,S:90.2%)被广泛使用。乳房健康监测的几个方面,包括CM案件的确切文件,许多农场没有定期对牛奶样本进行微生物分析和使用兽群健康咨询服务。这项研究的结果可以被奶农及其顾问用作评估其牛群乳房健康状况的基准。
Regional benchmarking data enables farmers to compare their animal health situation to that of other herds and identify areas with improvement potential. For the udder health status of German dairy cow farms, such data were incomplete. Therefore, the aim of this
study was (1) to describe the incidence of clinical mastitis (CM), (2) to describe cell count based udder health indicators [annual mean test day average of the proportion of animals without indication of mastitis (aWIM), new infection risk during lactation (aNIR), and proportion of cows with low chance of cure (aLCC); heifer mastitis rate (HM)] and their seasonal variation, and (3) to evaluate the level of implementation of selected measures of mastitis monitoring. Herds in three German regions (North: n = 253; East: n = 252, South: n = 260) with different production conditions were visited. Data on CM incidence and measures of mastitis monitoring were collected via structured questionnaire-based interviews. Additionally, dairy herd improvement (DHI) test day data from the 365 days preceding the interview were obtained. The median (Q0.1, Q0.9) farmer reported incidence of mild CM was 14.8% (3.5, 30.8%) in North, 16.2% (1.9, 50.4%) in East, and 11.8% (0.0, 30.7%) in South. For severe CM the reported incidence was 4.0% (0.0, 12.2%), 2.0% (0.0, 10.8%), and 2.6% (0.0, 11.0%) for North, East, and South, respectively. The median aWIM was 60.7% (53.4, 68.1%), 59.0% (49.7, 65.4%), and 60.2% (51.5, 67.8%), whereas the median aNIR was 17.1% (13.6, 21.6%), 19.9% (16.2, 24.9%), and 18.3% (14.4, 22.0%) in North, East, and South, respectively with large seasonal variations. Median aLCC was ≤1.1% (≤ 0.7%, ≤ 1.8%) in all regions and HM was 28.4% (19.7, 37.2%), 35.7% (26.7, 44.2%), and 23.5% (13.1, 35.9%), in North, East and South, respectively. Participation in a DHI testing program (N: 95.7%, E: 98.8%, S: 89.2%) and premilking (N: 91.1%, E: 93.7%, S: 90.2%) were widely used. Several aspects of udder health monitoring, including exact documentation of CM cases, regular microbiological analysis of milk samples and the use of a veterinary herd health consultancy service were not applied on many farms. The results of this
study can be used by dairy farmers and their advisors as benchmarks for the assessment of the udder health situation in their herds.