Coliform Vaccines & Mastitis Control

If your mastitis prevention program doesn’t include vaccinating for coliform mastitis, it probably should. The following article describes the basics of coliform mastitis, research on coliform vaccines, and differences between the products currently available for purchase.

Coliform mastitis is mainly caused by E. coli, Klebsiella, and Enterobacter bacteria. E. coli and Klebsiella are the most common causes of coliform infections. Differences between bacterial strains within the ‘coliform’ bacteria, as well as differences in how cows respond to coliform infections, leads to variation in symptoms and milk appearance. Most often, farmers and their advisors diagnose coliform cases when the cow has ‘hot’, watery mastitis in early lactation. Both E. coli and Klebsiella can cause severe cow symptoms, however, research suggests Klebsiella mastitis more often leads to a cow’s dying or being culled. Coliforms can also cause long-term chronic infections leading to eventual cow culling because of low production and/or high SCC.

Coliform mastitis infections are often associated with substantial loss of milk production. Lactation infections typically occur before peak milk and likely have an impact on milk producing cells of the infected quarter(s).   Coliform mastitis is most often a problem in the late dry period, around calving, and within the first 90-days of lactation. Risk of coliform mastitis also increases in the summer-time or during wet conditions compared with winter or dry weather conditions. Most herds have at least periodic issues with coliform mastitis in early lactation.

Strategies to prevent coliforms are mainly hygiene related – bedding management during the dry period, heifer rearing period, pre-calving, and early lactation. Completeness of cleaning and drying teat ends before milking is another control strategy that is believed to reduce risk of coliform mastitis. Organic bedding types are most commonly associated with coliform mastitis, particularly wet bedding and wet sawdust. However, studies also found Klebsiella in sand bedding, especially associated with bedding maintenance programs that pull contaminated sand from base layers up to the top of the bedding and also programs using bedding retainers at back of stalls to reduce use of bedding.

Coliform mastitis vaccine use is an additional control strategy that can reduce herd risk of coliform mastitis. Research has shown that for herds with over 1% coliform mastitis, vaccine use is financially beneficial and was estimated to increase herd profits by $57 per lactation. Unfortunately, based on a USDA study – the National Animal Health Monitoring System (2007), the percent of farms using coliform vaccines is under 38%, despite being commercially available for a quarter of a century. Coliform vaccination is substantially higher in herds over 500 cows compared with mid-size and small herds and may reflect ability to comply with need for multiple injections during the dry period, or perceived cost versus benefit (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. NAHMS Survey of Coliform Vaccine Use by Herd Size (2007)

There are currently three Coliform Vaccines marketed in the U.S. (See Table 1). These vaccines are similar in that they contain what is called a rough (“R”) mutant bacteria that provides protection against infections caused by a wide variety of gram-negative bacteria. Two R-mutant bacteria are used in coliform vaccines, ‘E. coli O111:B4’ is marketed by Pfizer as J-5™ and Merial as J-VAC®, and ‘Salmonella typhimurium Re-17’, is marketed by ImmVac as Endovac Bovi®. The rough mutants have exposed core antigens which stimulate antibody production by the cow which act quickly in the case of new infections and are intended to reduce the symptoms of clinical coliform mastitis. Most studies have shown that new infections are not prevented but the impact of infections on milk production and duration of infections is reduced. Data is available for all three products to demonstrate efficacy against coliform mastitis. Recent studies show that the impact of the vaccine is reduced as time from last vaccination is increased. For example, a study that evaluated 2 injections of J-VAC, at dry-off and around calving showed that efficacy of the vaccine decreased as days in milk increased beyond 50 days.

The vaccines differ slightly in the label recommendations for use. A summary of key points, including label directions, dose, and indications for use can be found in Table 1. In addition, more information can be found on the company websites provided at the bottom of this post. Prices for products were found on a veterinary supply company website (See Table 2) and are intended to demonstrate similarities in price despite some differences in recommended protocol. Cost varies from $2.55 to $4.92 before shipping (mail order) for the entire protocol per cow for the lactation. Prices vary with quantity or size of bottle purchased. The price for the vaccine is very minimal compared with the cost of clinical coliform mastitis.

Table 1. Commercial Coliform Vaccines available in the U.S.

Table 2. Mastitis Coliform Vaccine Purchase Price Economics

Prices were obtained from an online animal health supply company on Sept 5, 2012. Prices do not include shipping costs. Alternative bottle sizes may be available in some cases and from different suppliers. Prices are used to provide a comparative idea of purchase price. It is important to choose a bottle size that will be used quickly upon opening. Only buy what you will use within a short period of time. It is important to buy from a company or person who understands the importance of quality handling of vaccines. Vaccine should be kept out of direct sunlight, refrigerated and used quickly once opened. Always check the expiration dates before purchasing and using vaccine. Don’t use after expiration date unless you like to lose money twice – the bottle of vaccine and the down cow with enterotoxemia due to useless vaccine.

Good vaccine management is essential when using coliform vaccines like all other vaccine products. Only buy what you will use within a relatively short time period and check expiration dates before use. Keep vaccines out of direct sunlight and refrigerate after opening. Do not use vaccine on cows with mastitis or other diseases at the time you would normally vaccinate. Boosters are essential to vaccine performance so make sure second or third shots are scheduled and given according to label directions.

Coliform mastitis can be expensive. Estimates for cost of a single case range from $100 to over $300. Research on coliform vaccines suggest that their use can be an effective strategy to reduce severity of clinical symptoms and reduce impact of coliform mastitis on milk production, duration of symptoms, and risk of culling cows with clinical coliform mastitis in early lactation. Vaccines should be used in conjunction with good bedding and hygiene management during lactation, the dry period, and around calving for maximal herd protection against coliform mastitis.

_________________________

For more information see the following websites and discuss options with your udder health advisor.

Company Labels:

• IMMVAC:  ENDOVAC-Bovi® 
• http://immvac.com/endovac-bovi-dairy/
• Merial:  J-VAC® 
• http://us.merial.com/producers/dairy/products/dairy_JVAC.asp
• Pfizer:  J-5 BacterinTM 
• https://animalhealth.pfizer.com/sites/pahweb/US/EN/Products/Pages/ESCHERICHIACOLIBACTERIN-J5STRAIN.aspx

_________________________

Dr. Sandy Costello is owner and mastitis/milk quality specialist at Milk Quality Pays and provides on-farm milk quality consulting, training, and product and applied research to aid producer decisions. The mission of Milk Quality Pays is to ensure clients produce and sell milk of the highest quality while maximizing profitability from milk income and maximizing customer assurance of product quality, safety, and worker & animal well-being. Dr. Costello can be reached at 570-768-6140 or scostello@milkqualitypays.com.

Dry Period - Part 3: Dry-off Methods -- Does Milk Production Level Matter? (continued)

---

Keys To Milk Quality

---

As described previously, dry period management is a current research focus for mastitis scientists. Ways to fine-tune feeding, promote cow comfort and well-being, and otherwise manage the dry period to minimize new mastitis infections and maximize cure rate of existing mastitis infections are being re-investigated under current farm conditions. This is the last article to focus specifically on dry-off methods and describes findings from some of the recent research.


Survey of Existing Dry-Off Methods

Until 2010, no published surveys were done to see how producers manage cow Dry-Offs. A survey by Rajala-Schultz and co-workers at Ohio State found that only 18% of dairies (69 of 385 farms) considered milk production of individual cows in their Dry-Off decisions. Eighty-eight percent said that expected calving date was the only criteria used to determine time to Dry-Off cows. When asked about specific Dry-Off decisions, 20% of dairies reported decreasing ration energy level as an aid to Dry-Off and dry period mastitis control. Seventy-two percent of dairies reported using abrupt Dry-Off method instead of intermittent Dry-Off method. Only twenty percent of dairies milked cows 1-time per day before Dry-Off. The survey also found that larger dairies appeared to use abrupt Dry-Off more often and dried cows off at higher milk production than smaller herds. The reasons for decisions associated with Dry-Off were not studied. The findings indicate that few herd managers, especially on larger dairies, Dried-Off cows intermittently or decreased ration energy level before Dry-Off. The survey also indicates that calving date was the main criteria used by most dairies when determining date to Dry-Off cows.

Informal mastitis risk assessments in south central Pennsylvania of 200 dairies from 2008 to 2012 agree with these findings. With the exception of a few dairies with less than 100 cows, few herds indicated milking cows intermittently before Dry-Off or decreasing energy density of the ration for the week before calving. In dairies using intermittent Dry-Off, the method was only used for select cows with high milk production, or a history of leaking milk, and not as a whole herd strategy to reduce new infection risk in the early dry period. Although not a formal study, abrupt Dry-Off appears to be most popular as an across herd strategy in Pennsylvania and agrees with survey findings from Ohio State.

So why is abrupt Dry-Off used on most dairies despite research indicating a positive benefit from reducing production in the last week of lactation? I can guess but don’t know for sure. Because of changes to dry period management practices following the original research, additional studies are needed to evaluate the benefits of intermittent Dry-Off compared with abrupt Dry-Off on new infection rates in the early dry-period.


New & On-Going Studies 

A large project with several individual studies is currently on-going at Ohio State. Project findings should provide improved best management practices for Dry-Off. Variations in procedures, facilities, and cows will help to develop best methods on individual dairies to reduce new mastitis infections between dry-off and calving. For intermittent Dry-Off to be economically justified, it must provide economic benefit to compensate for additional labor requirements. Economic merit will likely vary by farm and will take longer to prove.

A herd study was reported in 2005 by Rajala-Schultz and co-workers at Ohio State and re-examined the effect of Dry-Off method – abrupt versus intermittent on new mastitis infections. Researchers studied 112 Dry-Offs at a single dairy to evaluate the impact of dry-off method. Cows were Holstein or Jersey and were seasonally grazed. Housing was the same before and after Dry-off. The 56 cows Dried-Off abruptly were housed in tie-stalls in the first year and Free-stalls in the second-year of the study due to management changes at the dairy. The 56 cows Dried-Off intermittently were housed in Free-stalls. Ration changes were not made before Dry-Off so only milking frequency was evaluated. All other conditions were similar between treatment groups so that only Dry-Off method could be evaluated. Bacterial cultures and somatic cell count (SCC) tests on cow and quarter milk samples, collected 3-days after calving, were used to determine impact of Dry-Off method.

Researchers found that higher milk production was associated with risk for new environmental mastitis infections. For every 11-pound increase in milk production above 27.5 pounds, the odds of a cow having an environmental mastitis infection increased by 77%. There did not appear to be an increased risk of a cow having a Staph species infection at calving when milk production was higher at Dry-Off. When only cows with environmental mastitis infections were included in the analysis, cows with higher milk production at Dry-Off had 2.13-times greater odds of having an environmental mastitis infection compared with cows with lower milk production. Results suggested that increasing milk production at Dry-Off is an important factor affecting environmental mastitis level at calving.

A 2010 study by Rajala-Schultz and co-workers offers some confusion to answering the best Dry-Off method question. Similar to the previous study, Dry-Off method was evaluated in 112 Holstein and Jersey cows in a single herd. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of milk production and infection status between cows Dried-Off intermittently or abruptly.

Researchers found that the intermittent method was effective at reducing milk production level at Dry-Off compared with abrupt Dry-Off. In addition, quarters not infected before Dry-Off and producing more cumulative milk the week before Dry-Off had a greater chance of a new mastitis infection when evaluated at calving. Uninfected quarters from cows producing 36-pounds of milk per day over the last week before dry-off had significantly higher odds (7.05-times) of being infected compared with cows milking less than 23-pounds per day. The confusing portion of the study is that when both infected and non-infected quarters before Dry-Off were included in the analysis, Dry-Off method and milk yield at the end of lactation were not significantly associated with mastitis status at calving.

The latest research by Rajala-Schultz’s team took a novel approach to investigating Dry-Off methods. The team evaluated impact of abrupt Dry-Off on cow lying behavior immediately following Dry-Off. They expected cows Dried-Off abruptly would increase activity and decrease lying time of cows immediately after Dry-Off. They also expected that milk production level at Dry-Off would be partially responsible for change in lying behavior patterns. Eighteen cows were evaluated in three dairies in the summer of 2011. Activity sensors on cows’ hind legs 7-days before Dry-Off through 7-Days following Dry-Off were used to study lying behavior.

 Researchers found that cows changed their lying habits following Dry-Off and there was substantial variation between herds. Across herds, standing time increased significantly and lying time decreased significantly following Dry-Off. Milk production level and lactation number were not significantly associated with lying behavior. Because number of study cows was small, this finding may be contested in future studies with more cows and greater variation in milk at Dry-Off. Herd differences in lying behavior after Dry-Off were attributed to likely housing and management differences. Although number of cows and especially number of herds was much too small to be conclusive, there was a statistically higher activity level and less lying time in barn-housed cows compared with cows on pasture all day following dry-off. Despite statistical significance, without more herds and cows within herd no conclusions can be drawn between the interaction of housing type and Dry-Off method on lying behavior. It will be very interesting however, to see future research findings and best methods that may be adopted to reduce new infection risk in the early dry-period while maintaining comfort of cows in this critical time period.


Article Highlights 

• Milk production level appears to impact risk for new environmental mastitis infections following Dry-Off. Higher production is associated with increased risk of new mastitis infections in the early dry period and infections likely persist into early lactation.

• Intermittent milking before Dry-Off is effective at reducing milk production level at Dry-Off.

• Abrupt Dry-Off changes lying behavior of cows following Dry-Off and likely increases cow activity, while decreases lying time. Differences in housing and management practices within herd will likely affect importance to individual dairies.

• Intermittent Dry-Off may be a useful best management practice in herds with higher milk production and cows with higher production at Dry-Off to reduce new infection risk for environmental mastitis.

• Complete impact of Intermittent compared with Abrupt Dry-Off, including economic viability is not known at this time.

Dry Period – Part 2: Dry-Off Methods -- Does Milk Production Level Matter?

---

Keys To Milk Quality

---

Introduction

Part1 of the Dry Period series provided an overview of National Mastitis Council (NMC) recommendations on best practices for a low level of mastitis cases over the dry period and shortly after calving. The next few articles provide new ideas and the nuts and bolts of how to plan for and make it happen. This article focuses on management practices during the weeks leading up to Dry-Off. Research on whether milk production level at Dry-Off matters, and whether sudden stop to milking (abrupt), or slow-down to stop milking (intermittent), is the better approach to meet mastitis and cow comfort goals.


‘Old’ Research on Dry-Off Methods 

A few studies in the 1950s through 1980s looked to see if milk production level of cows at dry-off was important to new mastitis infections seen at the start of the next lactation. The later studies looked at abrupt Dry-Off only, abrupt Dry-Off combined with decreasing energy in the feed (medium quality hay fed only), reduced milking frequency from 2-times-per day milking (2x-milking) to 1-time-per day milking (1x-milking) only, and reduced feed energy and 1x-milking combination.

Researchers found that production may be important and that the combination of feeding medium quality hay only plus reducing milking frequency to 1x-milking over the last week of milking appeared best. Use of combined practices, intermittent milking plus reduced energy intake led to significantly lower milk production at Dry-Off and fewer new mastitis infections at the start of the next lactation. Cause and effect was not proven. In other words, the drop in milk production was not proven to be responsible for fewer new infections at next lactation.
_______________

University of Tennessee researchers, Oliver and co-workers, also looked to see if concentration of bacteria-fighting compounds were higher in milk of cows with reduced production at Dry-Off. Concentration of the immunoglobulin, IgG; Lactoferrin, a compound that limits iron use by coliform bacteria; and somatic cells, were highest at Dry-Off in cows Dried-Off with combined practices of low-energy-diet, and 1x-milking. This finding provided a possible biologic reason for the practical result and a probable cause.

By reducing milk produced at Dry-Off, concentration of bacteria-fighting compounds in the udder appears to be increased and may directly lead to fewer new infections during the early dry period. Given that all other practices are good to excellent over the entire dry period and early lactation (kept excellent or controlled in the research), lower milk production at Dry-Off may lead to low new mastitis infections after calving.

Other factors that may also be involved, such as inability of teat ends to close due to milk pressure in the udder, reduced cow immune response due to physical stress were not studied, so no additional conclusions could be made on whether other factors, also played a combined role in reducing new infections in the early dry period.


New Research in Process

Based on this research before 1990, the NMC dry cow therapy fact sheet was revised to indicate some of these findings (See: http://nmconline.org/drycow.htm). Specific NMC recommendations at Dry-Off include the following:

• Concentrate feeding of high producing cows should be stopped two weeks before the anticipated Dry-Off date to reduce daily milk yield (target milk yield: less than 35 lbs.-per-day) 
• A change in environment can also help reduce production 
• Abrupt end to milking is recommended when the target daily yield is achieved (less than 35 lbs.-per-day)
• Intermittent milking along with a decrease in energy concentration of the ration can be used to achieve target yield

Use of the cut-off or threshold of 35-pounds of milk to make the decision on whether to use abrupt vs. intermittent Dry-Off seems arbitrary and reasons for the recommendation are not known. Because cows, facilities, and management practices continually change, and controlled studies have not been done on commercial dairies, more detailed studies over a variety of current on-farm situations are needed.

In addition, no research until recently looked at the impact of abrupt compared with intermittent Dry-Off from a cow comfort and animal well-being perspective. No one has evaluated economics of practices, (e.g., regrouping cows, labor costs, error in procedures, etc.) to determine if benefit is worth added costs of intermittent compared with abrupt Dry-Off.

A group of researchers at Ohio State Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, led by Rajala-Schultz are currently looking at Dry-Off methods from a mastitis control and animal well-being standpoint. The studies are funded by USDA and will not be finished for another few years. However, there is some great data from reported research that support previous work and further suggest intermittent milking before Dry-Off may be best.


Article Highlights:

• Milk production at Dry-Off probably affects new mastitis infection risk in early dry period leading to new infections in next lactation
• Lower milk production appears to be better to reduce new infections and is partially due to higher concentration of immunoglobulin, IgG; higher Lactoferrin, and higher somatic cell levels
• To date, there is limited research to give an exact milk production cut-off (e.g., 35 lbs.) for decision to use abrupt vs. intermittent Dry-Off
• Dry-Off Method is currently being studied at Ohio State University to further understand if method used affects new mastitis in the early dry period or cow comfort
• Part 3 in the Dry Period series will provide more evidence suggesting intermittent Dry-Off may be better than abrupt Dry-Off

---

Dr.Sandy Costello is owner and mastitis/milk quality specialist at Milk Quality Pays and provides on-farm milk quality consulting, training, and product and applied research to aid producer decisions. The mission of Milk Quality Pays is to ensure clients produce and sell milk of the highest quality while maximizing profitability from milk income and maximizing customer assurance of product quality, safety, and worker & animal well-being. Dr. Costello can be reached at 570-768-6140 or scostello@milkqualitypays.com.

Recommended Mastitis Control Program - Keys To Milk Quality

---

Part 1: Dry Period

---

One of the greatest contributions from the National Mastitis Council has been the 10-point mastitis control program. This plan provides a complete checklist for comparing your farm mastitis control practices with NMC recommendations.

Future milk quality articles will use this 10-point mastitis control plan as a guide through the key elements to producing quality milk. The first few articles will focus on the dry period – one of the most important times for strategic mastitis control planning and action. This article provides a general overview of critical mastitis control practices during the dry period.

Why Dry Period Mastitis Control Strategies are Important

The dry cow period, specifically, time periods from dry-off to two weeks after dry-off, and two weeks before and after calving are most critical for prevention of new mastitis infections (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

By nature and just when it is most important, cows have the worst ability to fight off bacteria in the environment at these times of the dry period. Herd conditions are primed for new mastitis infections unless attention is paid to key practices and strategies to maintain low new infection rates, and reduce existing mastitis by curing infections in chronic mastitis cows.

The overall goal of the dry period is to prepare cows well for calving, and create conditions for optimum production and well-being in the next lactation. To meet this overall goal, sub-goals likely include: negligible new mastitis cases during the dry period; high cure rate of existing infections; no measurable physical discomfort of cows through dry-off and dry period; maintenance of body condition; conditions that enable all mastitis control practices to work well, including vaccinations, teat sealant, antibiotic treatment, nutrition, etc.; and a positive benefit to cost ratio for decisions.

Dynamics of Infections

To evaluate effectiveness of dry period mastitis control decisions it is important to record and track how many cows are not infected (clean) and how many are infected going into the dry period and then again after freshening. It is also important to calculate historic rate of new infections and cure rates in dry cows and springers (heifers) over the last 3-months, 6-months, 9-months, and year. This will provide a baseline of how your herd has done and periods of challenge.

Large herds may have enough freshenings to reduce these intervals to cows freshening in a given month. The objective of choosing evaluation periods is to have sufficient number of animals to be meaningful and recent enough to reflect current practices and pinpoint periods of variation from the norm for your herd. Goals should be set to improve upon what has happened in the past and using documented achievable goals as a reference.

Most control strategies are designed to prevent cows from getting new infections during the dry period, while others are designed to eliminate or cure existing mastitis cases. Cows with existing mastitis at dry-off are ones that did not cure during lactation and require an opportunity to cure between lactations. Hopefully they are also cows that warrant additional costs to cure existing infections. Factors such as how long cows have been infected; number of quarters infected; organism (e.g., bacteria) responsible; damage to teat end and teat canal; cow’s health and immune status; and antibiotic used for dry cow treatment, will determine the chance that existing infections will cure over the dry period and before the next lactation.

Herd goals should be unique to herd conditions and should be set for new infections and cures based on current level of infection in the herd and to improve upon previous baseline levels. As a general guideline and at minimum, 85% or more of cows should freshen without a mastitis infection. Goals at 90% and above would be considered excellent. Cure rates are more difficult to provide standards for herd use, as levels will vary within a herd by many factors, including those mentioned previously.

In general, cure rates of existing infections should be above 60% with 70% and higher considered excellent. If long-term chronic mastitis cases have been removed from the herd and ‘existing cases group’ consists mainly of shorter-term chronic mastitis cases and younger animals, the cure rates should be higher and goal rate for cures should be adjusted accordingly. In this case, cure rates of chronic mastitis cases during the dry period may be as high as 80 to 90 percent. If not, adjustments may need to be made to mastitis control program during lactation as well as possibly the dry period to achieve higher cure rates and further reduce new infections during the dry period. Without measuring these values you are assuming that all mastitis control expenses are worthwhile and will not benefit from fine-tuning based on herd unique characteristics and changes over time.

NMC Recommendations for Dry Period

Future articles will provide more in-depth background on individual elements of the dry cow management mastitis control program. For now, the elements are listed with a brief statement on purpose and whether the overall purpose is for prevention of new cases of mastitis, for cure of existing cases, or both. This becomes important when evaluating effectiveness of dry period control elements on intended outcome. Indirectly, all best management practices will likely impact cure rates of cows with pre-existing infections.

SUMMARY
• Goals for dry period mastitis should be set based on herd baseline levels with eye to industry guidelines
• Planning, acting, and evaluating are essential steps for dry period mastitis control
• Dry period is the time period of greatest risk for new mastitis infections and for curing existing infections in your herd
• Economics and best decisions can only be evaluated when dry period mastitis control is planned rather than just happens
The Milk Quality article in April will focus on recent research findings on dry-off methods.
The NMC Mastitis Control Program is available at the following website:
http://nmconline.org/docs/NMCchecklistNA.pdf

=======================================================
Dr. Sandy Costello is owner and mastitis/milk quality specialist at Milk Quality Pays and provides on-farm milk quality consulting, training, and product and applied research to aid producer decisions. The mission of Milk Quality Pays is to ensure clients produce and sell milk of the highest quality while maximizing profitability from milk income and maximizing customer assurance of product quality, safety, and worker & animal well-being. Dr. Costello can be reached at 570-768-6140 or scostello@milkqualitypays.com.

The European Union Export Requirements for Milk Quality

And What This Means for You

---

The upcoming change to the European Union (EU) milk quality requirements for U.S. produced and exported milk has gotten lots of attention in the last 6-months. On paper, the regulations may appear only slightly different than in the past. Producers who sell milk to processors that do not export milk may believe the changes won’t affect them. However, the new regulations could result in real short and long-term milk quality implications for most dairy farms.

This article presents what we know about the new EU milk quality export requirements. It also describes the difference between the EU regulation and the U.S. Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. General information on how milk processors are handling the new regulations is also included. In this article, the term milk processor is used broadly and includes milk buyer, milk supplier, milk plant, and milk cooperative.

It is important to talk with your own milk processor about specific impact of regulations for your farm and based on your farm’s history of milk quality. Each processor that exports milk must meet minimum mandated requirements. Processors that do not export milk are not required by law to follow the new EU Regulation but will continue to follow the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance as a minimum requirement.

Many specialists believe that all processors whether directly exporting product or not will follow suit and require individual dairies to meet the EU regulations as a minimum requirement. In fact, many milk processors currently have similar regulations for their individual producer dairies or have incentives in place to encourage producers to meet or exceed these same milk quality standards. The goal of this article is to aid understanding so you can better ask questions of milk quality advisors and can prepare for potential impact of the new EU regulations on your dairy or client’s dairies.

What is the new EU Milk Quality Requirement?

The EU requirement starts April 1, 2012. Individual dairies are being given between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2012 to meet this requirement. The EU regulation states that all milk to be exported from the U.S. to any member or allied EU country must meet milk quality standards of somatic cell count (SCC) and bacteria count (Standard Plate Count = SPC) of less than 400,000 cells/ml and 100,000 cfu/ml, respectively.

The main difference between the new and previous EU regulation is that the requirement is now for milk from individual dairies and not for pooled milk (multiple dairies) from the processor. In the past, milk could be collected from several farms and as long as the average of what was exported to the EU met the quality regulations, the milk or milk product could be exported with no problem. Now each individual farm’s milk average must meet the requirement.

The farm’s SCC requirement to meet the EU regulation is a 3-month rolling average. The term rolling average is similar to that used by DHIA. It means that the SCC used will be the average of the current month’s SCC and the two previous months. The three-month rolling SCC average is recalculated each month. According to the regulation, at least 1 official SCC per month must be used by the milk processor to represent a farm’s monthly SCC. However, many milk processors take the average of several official SCC tests to represent the farm’s monthly SCC and may continue to do so.

The farm’s SPC requirement is a 2-month rolling average. It means that the SPC used will be the average of the current month’s SPC and the previous month. This 2-month rolling SPC average is recalculated each month. The EU regulation requires that the average of two official SPC in a single month be used to calculate a herd’s monthly SPC average.

According to the EU Regulation, the 3-month rolling average SCC and 2-month rolling average SPC can be calculated by using either the arithmetic average or geometric average. The arithmetic average is currently used. Most milk processors will likely continue using the arithmetic average at this time. The geometric average is the actual midpoint of several tests whereas high or low tests may have a greater influence on the arithmetic average. If your SCC is generally consistent over time, this difference is not that important. The geometric average is used by most milk processors from countries outside of the U.S. to evaluate herd milk quality. Microsoft Excel has formulas to calculate an arithmetic or geometric mean and can be easily used to estimate your rolling average for SCC and SPC.

The US Pasteurized Milk Ordinance and EU Requirement

The Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) contains milk quality standards that are minimum requirements for all U.S. dairy producers. The PMO requires that milk from individual farms be less than 750,000 SCC and less than 100,000 SPC. The new EU Requirement does not change the PMO requirement. This may seem confusing but remember the EU Requirement (400,000 SCC) is only for milk from individual farms that will be exported from the U.S. to EU or allied countries. In theory, individual dairies whose milk processor will not export product are required to only meet milk quality standards of the PMO or their milk processor. As mentioned previously, many milk processors have milk quality standards superior to the PMO.

Some Short-Term Exceptions Are Allowed

The EU requirement states that individual farms may request a temporary exception if their milk quality does not meet regulations. You may also hear this referred to as a derogation. According to the EU requirement, an application can be submitted by the milk processor to the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA-AMS) requesting an exception. It is expected that the cost for the milk processor will be about $200 per application. Milk processors are then required to work with the farm to resolve the cause of high SCC or SPC.

If a farm has long term challenges in meeting the EU requirement the milk processor will be required to stop picking up milk from that farm, or will need to segregate milk to comply with EU requirements. To qualify for a seasonal exception, a farm must have 9-months of milk quality results that meet the EU requirement. The farm must also demonstrate through records that this seasonally high SCC or SPC rolling average isn’t due to poor hygiene or unsanitary procedures.

Impact

The new EU Regulations will take place for US dairy producers on April 1, 2012. As described, the requirement specifically applies to individual dairy farms that sell milk to processors that export dairy products to the EU and allied countries. The requirement states that each of these dairy farms must meet the regulation for a 3-month rolling average SCC below 400,000 and 2-month rolling average SPC below 100,000. It is very likely that all dairy farms should be prepared to meet these minimum requirements for milk quality. Many milk processors are changing milk quality premium schedules to further encourage producers to meet the demand for quality milk in the US and by other countries.

To further expand and supply export opportunities for US dairy products it is likely that the trend for improved milk quality will continue and grow. As milk processors and individual farms work to meet these new standards they will improve quality milk in the U.S. resulting in a lower average SCC for U.S. milk.

More information, including frequently asked questions, can be found at the following website: http://nmpf.org/washington_watch/labeling/SCC

---

Dr. Sandy Costello is owner and mastitis/milk quality specialist at Milk Quality Pays and provides on-farm milk quality consulting, training, and product and applied research to aid producer decisions. The mission of Milk Quality Pays is to ensure clients produce and sell milk of the highest quality while maximizing profitability from milk income and maximizing customer assurance of product quality, safety, and worker & animal well-being. Dr. Costello can be reached at 570-768-6140 or scostello@milkqualitypays.com.