title: Farm management factors associated with bulk tank somatic cell count in Irish dairy herds.
abstract: The relationship between bulk tank somatic cell count (SCC) and farm management and infrastructure was examined using data from 398 randomly selected, yet representative, Irish dairy farms where the basal diet is grazed grass. Median bulk tank SCC for the farms was 282,887 cells/ml ranging from 82,209 to 773,028 cells/ml. Two questionnaires were administered through face-to-face contact with each farmer. Herd-level factors associated with bulk tank SCC were determined using linear models with annual somatic cell score (i.e., arithmetic mean of the natural logarithm of bulk tank SCC) included as the dependent variable. All herd level factors were analysed individually in separate regression models, which included an adjustment for geographical location of the farm; a multiple regression model was subsequently developed. Management practices associated with low SCC included the use of dry cow therapy, participation in a milk recording scheme and the use of teat disinfection post-milking. There was an association between low SCC and an increased level of hygiene and frequency of cleaning of the holding yard, passageways and cubicles. Herd management factors associated with bulk tank SCC in Irish grazing herds are generally in agreement with most previous studies from confinement systems of milk production.
authors.affiliation: Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co, Cork, Ireland. paddy.kelly@teagasc.ie.
authors.forename: Pt
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Kelly
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: O'Sullivan
authors.forename: Dp
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Berry
authors.forename: Sj
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: More
authors.forename: Wj
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Meaney
authors.forename: Ej
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: O'Callaghan
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: O'Brien
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2005 May;88(5):1909-16
references.pmid: 15829686
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2005 Jul;88(7):2660-71
references.pmid: 15956328
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1982 Jan;65(1):117-25
references.pmid: 7042783
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1998 May;81(5):1205-13
references.pmid: 9621221
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2006 Oct;89(10):4083-93
references.pmid: 16960086
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2007 Aug;90(8):3652-9
references.pmid: 17638976
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1998 Jul;81(7):1917-27
references.pmid: 9710760
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1999 Aug;82(8):1643-54
references.pmid: 10480089
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1985 Jun;68(6):1531-53
references.pmid: 4019890
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1983 Feb;66(2):259-65
references.pmid: 6187787
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2006 Jun;89(6):1877-95
references.pmid: 16702252
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2006 Mar;89 Suppl 1:E15-9
references.pmid: 16527874
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2004 Aug;87(8):2433-41
references.pmid: 15328265
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1989 May;72(5):1308-12
references.pmid: 2745833
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1969 May;52(5):696-707
references.pmid: 5391057
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2003 Nov;86(11):3460-5
references.pmid: 14672175
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1990 Apr;73(4):1135-43
references.pmid: 2345202
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1992 Jan;75(1):96-104
references.pmid: 1541747
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 1988 May;71(5):1417-21
references.pmid: 3397430