From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:22:02 +0100

Reported in dairy farmer 1/Jul/99 P14.

Ed Goff, 'The Organic Orator' and a regular in dairyfarmer says:

"I managed a stable SCC of 300,000 during the winter..."

"until april when it soared to 7,497,000."

He doesn't say what he intends to do but notes:

"Antibiotics can be used for therapeutic reasons in organic farming but
with longer withdrawal periods."

and

"What the soil Association is against is indiscriminate mass medication
of animals, like dry cow therapy..."

At  no time does he mention his TBC, probably just as well as the herd
has a staph aureus problem.

=================================

Yup, hygieneic milk from organic herds ....


--
Oz

From: "Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:00:01 +0200

Quote from  "Organic grazing livestock production: possibilities
and prospects" Susanne Padel, Lsird Witzenhausen Workshop
Proceedings:

"Detailed studies on the health situation of animals under organic
management are rare and usually focus on dairy cows. There is some
indication of lower incidence of ketosis, milk fever, mastitis
and lameness in organic herds (Ebbesvik and Loes, 1994;
Haggar and Padel, 1996; Offerhaus et al., 1993), even though the
result in terms of mastitis are not conclusive. There appears
to have been a slight improvement in fertility and age of the
cow on the organic and in conversion holdings (Ebbesvik and
Loes, 1994). The biggest health problems mentioned by dairy
farmers are mastitis, hoof disorders (Baars and Buitink, 1995;
Haggar and Padel, 1996) and infertility (Roderick et al., 1996).
Poor nutrition (structure, energy and protein supply) often
underlies health problems and it has therefore been suggested
that a recommendation for regular forage analysis should become
part of organic standards (Ebbesvik and Loes, 1994). "

Baars, T. and I. Buitink (1995) Some practical aspects of
preventing disease in organic husbandry, health promotion,
natural behaviour enhancement. Luis Bolk Institut, Driebergen, NL.

Ebbesvik, M. and A. K. Loes (1994) Organic Dairy Production
in Norway. Feeding, health, fodder production, nutrient
balances and economy. Results from the "30 farm project",
1989-1992. Paper presented at the 'Nordiska jordbrugsforskares
foerening seminar: Converting to organic agriculture', Mikkeli.

Haggar, R. and S. Padel (ed.) (1996) Conversion to organic
milk production. Technical Review No 4, IGER; Aberystwyth.

Offerhaus, E. J., T. Baars and F. J. Grommers (1993)
Gezonheit en vruchtbaarheid van melkvee op biologische bedrijven.
Unpublished, Luis-Bolk Institut, Driebergen, NL.

Roderick, S., N. Short and M. Hovi (1996) Organic livestock
production: Animal health and Welfare; Research priorities.
VEERU, University of Reading.

From: "Jim Webster" <jim@websterpagebank.spam.freeserve.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 15:12:26 +0100

Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...
>Quote from  "Organic grazing livestock production: possibilities
>and prospects" Susanne Padel, Lsird Witzenhausen Workshop
>Proceedings:
>

What you have to remember Torsten is that with cell counts at 300,000 we
aren't really talking about mastitis. OK when it soared to over 7 million
something was going wrong but the current EU regulations are (in my arrogant
opinion) set irrationally low. My hobby horse which no one ever produces
figures to convincingly support or disprove is that to get below 400,000
consistantly (over a period of several years) is at the very least
exceedingly difficult under an Organic system. I would also suggest that it
is also unnecessary and doesn't actually pay for the farmer (whether organic
or conventional) who does it.

Jim Webster

 The most obvious sign that your life has no meaning is carrying a clip
board.
The next most obvious sign is not realising this.


>"Detailed studies on the health situation of animals under organic
>management are rare and usually focus on dairy cows. There is some
>indication of lower incidence of ketosis, milk fever, mastitis
>and lameness in organic herds (Ebbesvik and Loes, 1994;
>Haggar and Padel, 1996; Offerhaus et al., 1993), even though the
>result in terms of mastitis are not conclusive. There appears
>to have been a slight improvement in fertility and age of the
>cow on the organic and in conversion holdings (Ebbesvik and
>Loes, 1994). The biggest health problems mentioned by dairy
>farmers are mastitis, hoof disorders (Baars and Buitink, 1995;
>Haggar and Padel, 1996) and infertility (Roderick et al., 1996).
>Poor nutrition (structure, energy and protein supply) often
>underlies health problems and it has therefore been suggested
>that a recommendation for regular forage analysis should become
>part of organic standards (Ebbesvik and Loes, 1994). "
>
>Baars, T. and I. Buitink (1995) Some practical aspects of
>preventing disease in organic husbandry, health promotion,
>natural behaviour enhancement. Luis Bolk Institut, Driebergen, NL.
>
>Ebbesvik, M. and A. K. Loes (1994) Organic Dairy Production
>in Norway. Feeding, health, fodder production, nutrient
>balances and economy. Results from the "30 farm project",
>1989-1992. Paper presented at the 'Nordiska jordbrugsforskares
>foerening seminar: Converting to organic agriculture', Mikkeli.
>
>Haggar, R. and S. Padel (ed.) (1996) Conversion to organic
>milk production. Technical Review No 4, IGER; Aberystwyth.
>
>Offerhaus, E. J., T. Baars and F. J. Grommers (1993)
>Gezonheit en vruchtbaarheid van melkvee op biologische bedrijven.
>Unpublished, Luis-Bolk Institut, Driebergen, NL.
>
>Roderick, S., N. Short and M. Hovi (1996) Organic livestock
>production: Animal health and Welfare; Research priorities.
>VEERU, University of Reading.
>
>

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:01:17 +0100

In article <7lft4m$j48$2@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@websterp
agebank.spam.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>What you have to remember Torsten is that with cell counts at 300,000 we
>aren't really talking about mastitis.

I agree. Absolutely not.

In any case SCC are an outdated and inaccurate means of determining milk
bacteriological quality. It only exists because 30 years ago it was the
only automated method that could give a guide.

Now we have TBC's, SCC should be abandoned. It's perfectly common to
have a cow with high SCC and a very low TBC. In particular it results in
the early culling of perfectly good cows with low TBC's.

>OK when it soared to over 7 million
>something was going wrong but the current EU regulations are (in my arrogant
>opinion) set irrationally low.

They shouldn't be set at all. TBC's should be used.

>My hobby horse which no one ever produces
>figures to convincingly support or disprove is that to get below 400,000
>consistantly (over a period of several years) is at the very least
>exceedingly difficult under an Organic system.

Polite as ever.

>I would also suggest that it
>is also unnecessary and doesn't actually pay for the farmer (whether organic
>or conventional) who does it.

Even worse it doesn't benefit the consumer, either.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:38:44 +0100

In article <7lib4t$a9i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, cottagefarmer@my-deja.com
writes
>I read the entire thread with interest and get the general idea.  Would
>someone take the time to explain what SCC and TBC indicators are
>exactly?  How the measurements are taken and overall purpose.  Also,
>same for lactation.

SCC: Somatic cell count.
The number of white bllod cells (simply).
Automated equipment to measure this has been available for 30+ years
able to do 10,000+ of samples daily.

Used as a secondary measure of milk hygienic quality as a high (for
those days) SSC count was highly correlated with bacteriological
contamination. Note that 30 years ago a 'good' figure was under 400,000
and a 'bad' figure was over 2,000,000 and some were over 10,000,000!

IMHO the correlation between bacteriological quality and SCC breaks down
rather badly under about 400k. At the 10k-150k level that some herds
achieve it's almost uncorrelated.

TBC: Total Bacterial Count.
An automated system for reading bacteria directly in milk samples.
Beware comparing different countries and different labs too closely as
there are a number of different antibodies and mixtures used that give
different results. A TBC of 20K is the limit for mineral water. Typical
'good' figure is 10k-30k for milk, average about 30-70k and poor over
100k for the UK which does, I believe, use the most sensitive reagents.

Note that even this has problems. We SHOULD be measuring pathogens or
bacteria that affect shelf life or processing (eg cheeses and youghurts)
although these are pasteurised. A relatively high level of, say,
lactobaccillae that are readily killed by pasteurisation, non-pathogenic
and do not affect processing may well be more indicative of a healthy
microflora in a cow's udder.


--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 19:27:16 +0100

In article <c47f3.316$ei4.472@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>Huh? What is 'a healthy microflora in a cow's udder'?

Dunno.
Maybe the same as a healthy microflora in your gut or on your skin?
Actually I *think it's the teat cnal.

--
Oz

From: "Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:22:52 +0200

Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...
>In article <c47f3.316$ei4.472@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes


>>Huh? What is 'a healthy microflora in a cow's udder'?


>Actually I *think it's the teat cnal.


If I insert that in you original statement on bacterial
counts  in raw milk I get:

>A relatively high level of, say,
>lactobaccillae that are readily killed by pasteurisation, non-pathogenic
>and do not affect processing may well be more indicative of a healthy
>microflora in a cow's teat canal.

You can't be serious.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 08:33:43 +0100

In article <ecgf3.3$SD4.134@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>>A relatively high level of, say,
>>lactobaccillae that are readily killed by pasteurisation, non-pathogenic
>>and do not affect processing may well be more indicative of a healthy
>>microflora in a cow's teat canal.
>
>You can't be serious.

Trials have shown increased levels of severe mastitis in herds with very
low cell counts. This was attributed to the loss of the 'natural
microflora in the udder'. To get these low TBC's requires great care to
avoid x-infection. Carefully designed liners (ours have one-way valves
built in) and completely separate ones milked into a churn for any cow
showing signs of mastitis and even on occasion those with high cell
counts.

I don't know why you are surprised. Every orifice of a mammal is stuffed
with bugs of specific sorts which survive in harmony (of sorts) with the
animal. Your ears, mouth, skin, sweat glands and so on have their
commensal bacteria so whay are you surprised that an open teat canal,
regularly slobbered over by a calf, should be any different?

Bugs are natural and rather all-pervasive.

--
Oz

From: "Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:04:33 +0200

Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...
>In article <ecgf3.3$SD4.134@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>>
>>>A relatively high level of, say,
>>>lactobaccillae that are readily killed by pasteurisation, non-pathogenic
>>>and do not affect processing may well be more indicative of a healthy
>>>microflora in a cow's teat canal.
>>
>>You can't be serious.
<..>
>I don't know why you are surprised. Every orifice of a mammal is stuffed
>with bugs of specific sorts which survive in harmony (of sorts) with the
>animal. Your ears, mouth, skin, sweat glands and so on have their
>commensal bacteria so whay are you surprised that an open teat canal,
>regularly slobbered over by a calf, should be any different?

>Bugs are natural and rather all-pervasive.

Off the point.  You are not saying that the presence of, say lactobacillae
in raw milk is indicative of a normal microflora in the vicinity of the
teat canal. You are saying that _relatively high levels_ of lactobacillae
in raw milk is such an indication. That surprises me. I would take that
as an indication of improvable milk hygiene on the farm, cleanliness,
storage temperature etc.

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 00:37:25 +0100

In article <Xhsf3.301$SD4.476@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>Off the point.  You are not saying that the presence of, say lactobacillae
>in raw milk is indicative of a normal microflora in the vicinity of the
>teat canal. You are saying that _relatively high levels_ of lactobacillae
>in raw milk is such an indication. That surprises me. I would take that
>as an indication of improvable milk hygiene on the farm, cleanliness,
>storage temperature etc.

Well, lets say that 20% of my TBC is due to commensal lactobaccilae.
That weould be about 2-10k/ml. That's under the amount expected in
mineral water that has absolutely no bacterial food whatsoever. So we
are talking about rather low doses, not like in the old days when 300k
on a TBC was not unknown.

If your cleanliness was out then you get figures over 70k with
considerable ease on even minute traces of milk deposits, believe me. As
to milk storage temperature that's pretty heavily regulated as it's
measured each time a load is removed. Milk really does go from cow to
under 6c in a few minutes, and under 4C within 20 mins of milking
ending.

--
Oz

From: "Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 08:54:52 +0200

Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...
>In article <Xhsf3.301$SD4.476@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>>
>>Off the point.  You are not saying that the presence of, say lactobacillae
>>in raw milk is indicative of a normal microflora in the vicinity of the
>>teat canal. You are saying that _relatively high levels_ of lactobacillae
>>in raw milk is such an indication. That surprises me. I would take that
>>as an indication of improvable milk hygiene on the farm, cleanliness,
>>storage temperature etc.

>Well, lets say that 20% of my TBC is due to commensal lactobaccilae.
>That weould be about 2-10k/ml. That's under the amount expected in
>mineral water that has absolutely no bacterial food whatsoever. So we
>are talking about rather low doses, not like in the old days when 300k
>on a TBC was not unknown.

>If your cleanliness was out then you get figures over 70k with
>considerable ease on even minute traces of milk deposits, believe me. As
>to milk storage temperature that's pretty heavily regulated as it's
>measured each time a load is removed. Milk really does go from cow to
>under 6c in a few minutes, and under 4C within 20 mins of milking
>ending.


It seems to me that we can then agree that if you experience
relatively high levels of lactobacillae in your raw milk you should
see it  as an indication that something has gone wrong with your
milk hygiene.

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 08:22:20 +0100

In article <5BDf3.24$sZ4.22@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes

>It seems to me that we can then agree that if you experience
>relatively high levels of lactobacillae in your raw milk you should
>see it  as an indication that something has gone wrong with your
>milk hygiene.

Note: 5-10k/ml is low, but it's significant when your payments get hit
if you go above 50. Also not that as yields fall the % of commensals
increase a lot so this may be a significant number at some times of
year.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 20:54:20 +0100

In article <9wOf3.595$sZ4.29@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>Hum. Maybe it would easier for you, if you would simply try to explain
>what it was you wanted to say, when you wrote:
>
>"Note that even this has problems. We SHOULD be measuring pathogens
>or bacteria that affect shelf life or processing (eg cheeses and youghurts)
>although these are pasteurised. A relatively high level of, say,
>lactobaccillae that are readily killed by pasteurisation, non-pathogenic
>and do not affect processing may well be more indicative of a healthy
>microflora in a cow's udder."

Not all bugs are bad bugs.
One should perhaps count the bad bugs but not the non-bad bugs.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:51:09 +0100

In article <db6g3.335$Fh5.609@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>I'd like to be sure that I have understood this now. Are you suggesting
>that we should give up SCC (somatic cell count)

Yes, since it's a secondary indicator of bacterial count and we can now
do it properly wiyj

>and TBC (total
>bacteria count)

No, but we might consider using antibodies that exclude or detect non-
bad bugs

>as measures in milk hygiene, and substitute them with
>a set of BBCs (bad bug counts)?

BBC's would of course be TBC's but a rather more sophisticated version.

--
Oz

From: "Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:07:28 +0200

Oz skrev i meddelelsen <+OPaOAANCPg3EwT4@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <db6g3.335$Fh5.609@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes

>>I'd like to be sure that I have understood this now. Are you suggesting
>>that we should give up SCC (somatic cell count)

>Yes, since it's a secondary indicator of bacterial count and we can now
>do it properly wiyj


But it is not a secondary indicator of bacterial count. SCC is a measure
of udder health, tear and wear. Bacterial counts --if we are speaking raw
milk -- is to a very large extent a measure of what microbiological
contamination and growth has done to the milk since it left the teat
orifice.


>>and TBC (total
>>bacteria count)

>No, but we might consider using antibodies that exclude or detect non-
>bad bugs

>>as measures in milk hygiene, and substitute them with
>>a set of BBCs (bad bug counts)?

>BBC's would of course be TBC's but a rather more sophisticated version.


But a count of, say, thermotolerant bacteria cannot be said to be
a sophisticated version of a total bacteria count. If you want to
sophisticate a total bacteria count, you must make it less
selective, not more selective.

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 06:54:49 +0100

In article <qD9g3.519$Fh5.812@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>Oz skrev i meddelelsen <+OPaOAANCPg3EwT4@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>...
>>In article <db6g3.335$Fh5.609@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
>><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>>>I'd like to be sure that I have understood this now. Are you suggesting
>>>that we should give up SCC (somatic cell count)
>
>>Yes, since it's a secondary indicator of bacterial count and we can now
>>do it properly wiyj
>
>
>But it is not a secondary indicator of bacterial count.

Historically, that is what it is used for.

>SCC is a measure
>of udder health, tear and wear.

Oh, it's a measure of a whole load of things.
I do object to culling healthy cows just because they are old and have a
little wear and tear.

>Bacterial counts --if we are speaking raw
>milk -- is to a very large extent a measure of what microbiological
>contamination and growth has done to the milk since it left the teat
>orifice.

I wish. In practice this is not so. In practice the big counts come from
a cow excreting bacteria in her milk.

>But a count of, say, thermotolerant bacteria cannot be said to be
>a sophisticated version of a total bacteria count. If you want to
>sophisticate a total bacteria count, you must make it less
>selective, not more selective.

Oh, it is more sophisticated. In practice a small number of thermophilic
bacteria will cause more problems than a vast nuber of thermally
susceptible ones for example. The thermally susceptible ones are just
noise, possibly many times greater than what you really want to know
which is to assess shelf life etc etc. Ditto those that can grow at
temeratures of 2-6C.

Remember, milk really IS chilled to 6C in minutes from leaving the cow.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:52:21 +0100

In article <Jhjg3.58$zC5.436@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...

>>>SCC is a measure
>>>of udder health, tear and wear.
>
>>Oh, it's a measure of a whole load of things.
>>I do object to culling healthy cows just because they are old and have a
>>little wear and tear.
>
>So do I. Personally I would start suspecting from a SCC that something
>might be abnormal if we are getting above 500k cells/ml.

Hmmm. Probably yes if a heifer, Probably no if she is on her 13th
lactation. Remember much of the data that the work was done on is very
historic in modern terms. The results of a drop from 200k to 100k is
deduced from the drop from 3000k to 300k and assuming it's linear. It
was done by comparing high cell count herds (bad management) with low
cell count herds (good management) and then attributing much of the
difference to the difference in cell counts. I'm sure you can see the
plentiful pitfalls in this methodology.

>>I wish. In practice this is not so. In practice the big counts come from
>>a cow excreting bacteria in her milk.
>
>I would say that anything above 200k/ml is a big count, but I am not
>a big  expert in these matters. Would you say that raw milk leaving
>the farm with 200k would (in practise) simply indicate that the cows
>have been excreting milk with 200k bacteria/ml.

Oh no. It's probably a herd of 100 cows of which 96 have a TBC of 70 and
four delivering 3000.

In actuality we are really talking about herd TBC's of 30, made up of
most of the cows at 10-15ish and one or two in the millions. The trouble
is that finding that cow in the absence of symptoms is very difficult
and this is compounded by the fact that it's very frequently transient
(ie only high for a few days).

>>>But a count of, say, thermotolerant bacteria cannot be said to be
>>>a sophisticated version of a total bacteria count. If you want to
>>>sophisticate a total bacteria count, you must make it less
>>>selective, not more selective.
>
>>Oh, it is more sophisticated.
>
>No. It is expressly _not_ a total bacteria count.

Correct it's a BBC, that's what we are talking about, remember.

>>In practice a small number of thermophilic
>>bacteria will cause more problems than a vast nuber of thermally
>>susceptible ones for example. The thermally susceptible ones are just
>>noise, possibly many times greater than what you really want to know
>>which is to assess shelf life etc etc. Ditto those that can grow at
>>temeratures of 2-6C.
>
>True. The introduction of 200k/ml thermally susceptible bacteria into the
>raw milk the minute before it is pasteurized is hardly worth bothering
>about, while it is a quite different situation if they grew up in it.

Eh? Why? What's the typical number of bacteria in a 5mm diam spot on one
of your plates?

Anyhow please note that the example figs you are using are about an
order of magnitude too high.

>You do have a quality limit for thermotolerant bacteria count already,
>which would affect your income if you can't keep your milk below it, yes?
>
>>Remember, milk really IS chilled to 6C in minutes from leaving the cow.
>
>Grin. Yes. And remember that a low total bacteria count is proof
>that it really was.

Not at these levels. What is the expected growth of a typical bacterium
at 8C in 12 hours? At 4C in 12 hours?

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 21:51:58 +0100

In article <T6Pe3.818$3t3.16716484@news.siol.net>, TINE
<carnium.commerce@siol.net> writes
>
>
>By my opinion any rise in bulk SCC over 250.000 indice for some trouble in
>herd, caused by hygyenic, housing, nutritional or other reasons.
>
>SCC also rise in lactation and higher (not high) level before drying is
>normal. High temperaturs, specialy connected with high humidity also rise
>SCC.

So can a kick on the udder (non-infected). There are a whole ot of
reasons why it could be high. My herd has an average number of
lactations of 6.5, so we have 8 lactation cows. They quite often show
high cell counts with low TBC's (we have tested them).

>SCC at general indicate udder health.

In general, yes. However it's a crude measure.

>With higher SCC you can be sure, how
>production decrease.

No you can't be sure. You can be statistically suggestive IFF you know
all the details. A SCC of 120 in a very young herd could be very bad
whilst one of 150 in a very old one at end lactation could be excellent.

>With todays margins in dairy production it can be
>expencive.

So can culling old, highly productive cows with good genes for health
and long life. It's like saying all people who need glasses have a
genetic problem with their eyes (and should be culled).

--
Oz

From: "Jim Webster" <jim@websterpagebank.spam.freeserve.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 20:45:08 +0100

Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...
>Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...
>>In article <qD9g3.519$Fh5.812@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
>><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>>>Oz skrev i meddelelsen <+OPaOAANCPg3EwT4@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>...
>>>>In article <db6g3.335$Fh5.609@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
>>>><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>>>>>I'd like to be sure that I have understood this now. Are you suggesting
>>>>>that we should give up SCC (somatic cell count)
>
>>>>Yes, since it's a secondary indicator of bacterial count and we can now
>>>>do it properly wiyj
>
>>>But it is not a secondary indicator of bacterial count.
>
>>Historically, that is what it is used for.
>
>>>SCC is a measure
>>>of udder health, tear and wear.
>
>>Oh, it's a measure of a whole load of things.
>>I do object to culling healthy cows just because they are old and have a
>>little wear and tear.
>
>So do I. Personally I would start suspecting from a SCC that something
>might be abnormal if we are getting above 500k cells/ml.

What you must remember is SCC actually measures the animals immune response.
You are measuring the animals own cells not bacteria. This is why the old
lady of the herd suffers unreasonably. In her youth her immune system has
mixed it with the best of them and now no longer pussy foots about. Whereas
her younger contempories fight a police action, upgrading the rules of
engagement only as things get out of hand, the old lady just sends in three
marine battalions with artillery support and deals with the  matter pronto.
         Hence the same level of infection will produce a totally different
level of response in the old lady or the heifer. Indeed the old lady could
well have a SCC of over a million in response to a relatively minor
infection which is dealt with immediatley and produces no other symptoms.
The same level of infection might merely lead to a raising of SCC to 500,000
for a long period and it may even lead to mastitis in the younger animal.

Jim Webster

 The most obvious sign that your life has no meaning is carrying a clip
board.
The next most obvious sign is not realising this.

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:41:44 +0100

In article <4c%g3.106$jh6.341@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...

>I must ask directly then. Would it be correct to say,
>that you hypothesis is, that bacteria (within the interval
>0-200k colony forming units/ml) found in raw milk when
>it leaves a farm can for all purposes and intents be
>assumed to have been present in the milk when the
>milk left the teat canal.

In general, yes.

>Check you TBC assumption.
>At which SCC would you experience delivery rejection/quarantine?

500k IIRC.

>>>>Torsten, waht is the mass of 200k bacteria?
>
>>>About one micrograms, I reckon. If TBC is your measure,
>>>you must remember to adjust for clustering. A TBC at 200 k
>>>would probably represent a bacteria mass of appr 10 micrograms.
>
>>Strikes me as rather high. Anyhow with only say 1 growing to 10 ug we
>>are not talking about a whole bunch of metabolites, nor significant
>>amounts of enzymatic activity.
>
>I don't understand the 1 growing to 10 ug bit. Your assertion seems
>to me to be completely unsubstantiated.

Eh? You said that if they were 'contamination' it wouldn't be so
important but if they had grown in the medium there would be off
flavours etc. Taking the growth from 1ug to 10ug seems a reasonable
estimate of 'grown in the medium'.

>OK. Then I read you as stating the hypothesis that you can let  up to
>10^7 bacteria/ml be produced in raw milk, and expect that  no degradation
>of the milk has occurred or will occur due to such growth.

No. I was trying to get a handle on what 30k really meant.

>>>>>>What's the typical number of bacteria in a 5mm diam spot on one
>>>>>>of your plates?
>
>>>7 log  (10^7), give or take one decade. I am all ears.
>
>>Hmm. I would have guessed far more. However you are the expert and I
>>can't be bothered to look it up. Despite that being a rather thin sheet
>>of bugs that puts 30k/ml into perspective. Frightening really that
>>30k/ml is only 2 1/2 logs from what I consider very high cleanliness.
>
>I think you suggested that the number of bacteria in a 5 mm
>diameter colony on a plate was relevant, for which I am not sure.
>I am still listening. Maybe you can state your hypothesis now, post
>hoc.

I had no hypothesis. I was trying to gauge how many bugs 30k/ml really
meant. if the 5mm spot has 10^7 bugs (say) or 20mm^2 then lets say 1cm^2
has 10^8. Assume (aqnd this may be very wrong) that the bugs are
distributed in the top 1mm (give or take) so that concentration would
gove around 10^9/cc. This is only 30,000 times more than in a 30k milk
sample which is not really as good as I would like.

>I assume you mean plants and bulktanks which are external to the farm.

No. I mean plant and bulktanks on the farms. The TBC is measured on the
farm. Hmm, actually the sample is placed in an insulated container and
tested some hours later.

I think we may have misinformed you earlier. Individual cow TBC's CAN be
had (like one or two), but it's only SCC that is done at milk testing
time.

>If that is the case your explanation fails to adress the phenomenon that
>thermotolerant bacteria, as well as psychrotrophic bacteria can  be
>observed in raw milk also before it leaves the farm.

Of course. There can be both plant and bulktank contamination if
cleaning systems malfunction or are inadequate.

--
Oz

From: "Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:29:01 +0200

Jim Webster skrev i meddelelsen <7m0g96$r3o$1@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>sarah wrote in message <1dukwcd.7nmrxfv87zqN@amitiel.demon.co.uk>...
>
>>
>>It certainly sounds as though the consumer is conned, as the milk price
>>I pay varies according to quality only if I buy organic vs. ordinary, or
>>goldtop/ 'Channel Islands' (higher cream/butterfat? content) vs.
>>ordinary or skimmed etc. Retailers may also sell milk as a loss leader
>>ie. set the price very low in order to entice people into the shop.
>>
>>But the average consumer isn't aware of cell counts (I wasn't before I
>>started hanging out with you lot), and probably doesn't care as long as
>>the milk doesn't make it ill.
>
>According to the US Department of Agriculture a low SCC improves the
>manufacturing/shelf life properties of milk and makes it more valuable to
>the manufacturer, it doesn't meaningfully effect the value of liquid milk
>to the consumer.

That is true to the extent that a change to high SCC is  correlated with
the occurrence of several undesirable chemical and physical anomalies
in milk (e.g. changes in whey/casein ratio, decreased fat droplet size,
increased content of cow native lipase), besides the obvious, that a
high SCC indicates mastitis, and thus potentially an undesirably elevated
content of certain types of bacteria.

If we are talking only  liquid milk for consumption, decreased
shelf life/increased risk for taste and smell abnormalities would be
an expected consequence of a shift to higher SCC. To the consumer
this is of course only meaningful, if he happens to encounter a liquid milk
product which has come to the point when taste and smell is less than
delicious. The manufacturer will also have a problem at that point, if the
consumer is absolutely certain that he has transported and stored the
milk according to good hygienic practise, and his milk has nonetheless
'gone off' before the expiry date.

The problem has been compounded by the modern practises of effective
chilling, and the homogenizing process. Both these modern technologies
have tended to increase the risk of lipid degradation, the former because
it makes longer storage times possible in which lipase may form and/or
act, the latter because lipid droplets have become disrupted and are
more susceptible to degradation. The consequence is an increased
risk that foul tasting lipid degradation products will develop in liquid
milk, to such an extent that it becomes detectable to the consumer
tongue.

Lipase can roughly be seen as originating either from the cows own cells
(i.e. the content will correlate with SCC), or from bacteria contaminating
the milk (psychrotrophic 'coldness loving' bacteria, Pseudomonas notably)
Bacteria lipases are generally quite resistant to heat, that is, they will
faithfully carry  on with degradation even after the bacteria have been
killed during processing, whereas  lipases originating from the cow
will largely be inactivated by pasteurizing.

It should be clear that neither  SCC nor  bacterial counts can stand
alone as control measures in the face of technology derived problems
of the kind which I have described above.

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:45:49 +0100

In article <r5%g3.100$jh6.319@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>Jim Webster skrev i meddelelsen <7m0g96$r3o$1@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>

>That is true to the extent that a change to high SCC is  correlated with
>the occurrence of several undesirable chemical and physical anomalies
>in milk (e.g. changes in whey/casein ratio, decreased fat droplet size,
>increased content of cow native lipase), besides the obvious, that a
>high SCC indicates mastitis, and thus potentially an undesirably elevated
>content of certain types of bacteria.

I think you will find this work refers to SCC in the many 100's region.
It's very old now.

>The manufacturer will also have a problem at that point, if the
>consumer is absolutely certain that he has transported and stored the
>milk according to good hygienic practise, and his milk has nonetheless
>'gone off' before the expiry date.

The manufacturer will have made appropriate tests to judge the quality
of the purchased milk. Otherwise he is incompetant.


--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:47:26 +0100

In article <1dukwcd.7nmrxfv87zqN@amitiel.demon.co.uk>, sarah <swroot@cop
y.amitiel.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>But the average consumer isn't aware of cell counts (I wasn't before I
>started hanging out with you lot), and probably doesn't care as long as
>the milk doesn't make it ill.

I suspect I am going to shock you again.

The cooling of the milk, the expensive ultra-high-power cooling
equipment and the (high) running costs, are paid by the farmer.

Until just before point of use (ie pasteurisation/cheesemaking/youghurt
etc) it's not chilled again. That would put too much strain on the
finances of the impoverished dairy companies.

Both in bulk tanks and at storage vats in the dairy it's merely kept in
insulated tanks. Since pretty well only cowpeople will work w/e on a
year on year basis stuff delivered from Friday PM to Monday AM (if not
longer) simply sits in store for a few days until it's required for use.
That's why the TBC is important. Although the milk may leave the farm at
4C, after a few tanker rides and a few days in store it may have got
quite a bit warmer (I have heard figures of 8c and 10C as the dairy
maximum). A low starting TBC is so much more convenient for the dairy
companies, they may even pay the 0.1p/L bonus.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:12:22 +0100

In article <1dum50r.wxah6k1vzg0mN@amitiel.demon.co.uk>, sarah <swroot@co
py.amitiel.demon.co.uk> writes

>What happened/when to start
>the process of putting small dairies out of business and concentrate
>purchasing powers in the hands of the processors? The initial set of
>hygiene regs?

Partly that was so. An unaffordable investment with inspection costs the
same for the megafactory as the small farmer.

Also the big dairies sold at below cost until the local people went
bust, then often offered them jobs as milkmen. Typical corporate
business ethics, the supermarkets are continuing this technique to this
day.

However I expect you had already guessed this.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:08:29 +0100

In article <7m28oc$2m0$1@newsreader2.core.theplanet.net>, David
Pickersgill <david.pickersgill@home.com> writes
>
>Oz wrote in message ...
>
>>. I have had TBC's vary from 10 to 70
>>and back again with no change to the parlour washing practice.
>
>Please excuse my ignorance here - I'm trying to follow and learn :-( - but
>is there any possible correlation between, say, weather conditions which may
>affect the samples taken before they are tested and which may go some way to
>explaining the variations?

It shouldn't.

They are taken from the bulk tank at 4C and we are assured that there
will be no change between sampling and testing when stored in the
insulated case.

That said there have been documented problems with driver technique and
sampling equipment. Apparently not *properly* stirring the tank for 3
minutes before sampling can produce anomalous very high figures. The
driver handling the sampling scoops, unsterilised sampling scoops (each
are use once individually wrapped) and dust blowing into the
sample/scoop/container have been shown to produce anomalous very high
readings. Unfortunately since the driver arrives at odd times (like
23.00 hrs) it's in practice impossible to check.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Mastitis
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:13:27 +0100

In article <7m2rsc$2k2$9@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@websterp
agebank.spam.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>In theory as the milk passes through scrupulously clean pipes from udder to
>tank where it is immediately cooled to 4 degrees C the answer should be no.
>However humility insists that I tell you that reality does tend to break in.
>Hot weather does encourage bacterial growth and not every cleaning routine
>is 100% efficient. Hence a spell of hot weather can test your hygiene to the
>limits. We like to think we are on top of it, however it aint necessarily
>so.

1) You need the Oz three phase, 'all on off peak', small footprint, self
descaling, scale-free fill, water heater that will do the requisite
amount +50% (settable) for an 18-18 to 90C.

2) You need to use the cheapest chemicals from the best (but low
overhead) manufacturer. Made redundant by Ciba, set up his own business
and he knows his stuff.

3) You need to check your plant. Carefully. So you know each and every
place that milk depositis may lurk preparatory to redesigning these
bits.

4) You need to use an alkaline chlorinated hot wash in the morning
(removes protein deposits) and an acid cold wash in the evening removes
lime scale). Using just one or the other FAILS.

5) You need the Oz bulk tank cleaning system. This is made from a
swimming pool pump, a treatment valve pinched from the old washer, a 45
gall drum and some simple electric timers. Use an acid idophor
tankwaher.

6) Weekly you must remove protein deposits from the bulk tank with neat
hypochlorite (or caustic soda).

Then it's very easy.

:-)))

--
Oz