Can Use of a Teat Sealant Alone Prevent New Cases of Mammary Infection During a Dry Period?

Final Report for FNE04-509

Project Type: Farmer
Funds awarded in 2004: $8,000.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/2004
Matching Non-Federal Funds: $23,280.00
Region: Northeast
State: New York
Project Leader:
Willard De Golyer
Table Rock Farm, Inc.
Expand All

Project Information

Summary:

Study data were submitted to Quality Milk Production Services in January of 2005 for statistical analysis. Brad Rauch, Manager of Contract Research performed the analysis using Microsoft Excel and Statistical Analysis System v8.0 (SAS).

Orbeseal, Quartermaster and a combination treatment of both Orbeseal and Quartermaster were evaluated for their effort on SCC and clinical mastitis following calving. There were 149 cows enrolled in the study, with nearly equal numbers in each treatment group. Cows within each treatment group were also distributed fairly evenly amoungst categories of secondary variables (season, dry-days). SCC was measured at 30+-15 DAF, while clinical events were recorded from freshening to the end of the study (March 14th, 2005). There were no detectable differences in SCC or the occurrence of clinical mastitis between any of the three treatment groups in this study. Additional SCC data that included various samplings times outside the 30+-15 day range indicated a significant effect of when sampling occured on the likelihood of an elevated SCC being detected. Considering this, it is important to clearly present the SCC results of this study as 30+-15 DAF. A study with samples taken at 10+-5 DAF for example, may have prohibited different results.

On-farm observation led us to believe that the Orbeseal/Quartermaster combination was the most successful treatment. Therefore, we were quite interested to learn that analysis indicated that each treatment method was equally effective, given the parameters for SCC and previous animal history of infection that we established for the study.

Cooperators

Click linked name(s) to expand
  • Leslie de Groff

Research

Participation Summary
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or SARE.