Milk Quality Pays

Recent Twitters: October 2011

2011-10-13T00:12:00.002-04:00

There were lots of tweets over the last few weeks by Anne Saeman, Executive Director of National Mastitis Council (Twitter@QualityMilk). The purpose was to spotlight udder health and milk quality points made at World Dairy Expo and the American Association of Bovine Practitioners & National Mastitis Council Joint meetings (AABP-NMC). Each TWEET has a lot more to the story...always ask for the rest of the story before making decisions solely on brief statements below.

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE by MASTITIS PATHOGENS:
1. Antibiotic Resistance: There is no evidence of antimicrobial resistance to mastitis pathogens. (Source: Hogan, J. from Ohio State Univ. at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
2. Antibiotic Resistance & Risk of Transfer from Milk to People: Results suggest a low risk of transmission of bacteria from milk and milk products to human populations. (Source: Saini, V. from Univ. of Calgary at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)
3. Methicillin Resistant Staph. aureus (MRSA): Despite many lawsuits, MRSA in milk is not currently a major health concern. (Source: Ferreira, J. from NC State Univ. at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

ANTIBIOTIC USE on DAIRIES:
1. Antibiotic Use on 40 Dairies in Wisconsin: All 40 dairies treated cows for mastitis; 92% treated for respiratory disease; 85% for foot rot; 32% for diarrhea. (Source: Oliveira, L. from Univ. of WI-Madison at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

AUTOMATIC MILKING SYSTEMS:
1. Electrical Conductivity (EC) & SCC: Use of EC plus SCC together are a better predictor of clinical mastitis than EC alone on robotic farms. (Source: Kamphuis, C. from DairyNZ at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@MteamUGent (Belgium) on Sept 22, 2011)

2. Mastitis Detection: New and more accurate sensors are needed to further improve detection of clinical mastitis on robotic farms. (Source: Kamphuis, C. from DairyNZ at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@MteamUGent (Belgium) on Sept 22, 2011)
3. Systems in Denmark: Twenty-two % of herds in Denmark have automatic milking systems. It is the highest in the world. (Source: Katholm, J. from Knowledge Center for Ag, Cattle at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@MilkQuality (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

CLINICAL MASTITIS:
1. No Growth Results: Ten to 40% of all milk samples from clinical mastitis cases result in 'no significant growth' when cultured for mastitis pathogens. (Source: Plummer, P. from Iowa State at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)
2. No Growth Results: Study confirmed microbial populations exist in non-culturable mastitis cases. (Source: Plummer, P. from Iowa State at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

DISEASES-OTHER & METABOLIC DISORDERS & MASTITIS:
1. Milk Fever & Mastitis: Research showed that subclinical Milk Fever (low Calcium level) at calving is associated with increased fat mobilization but was not associated with clinical mastitis. (Source: Chamberlin, J. from Univ. Missouri at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
2. Milk Fever & Mastitis: Clinical Milk Fever is associated with mastitis but there is a lack of research focused on subclinical milk fever and mastitis. (Source: Chamberlin, J. from Univ. Missouri at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)

DRY COW SELECTIVE TREATMENT:
1. Use of On-Farm Culture for Selective Treatment: On-farm culture using 3M Petrifilms may be an effective tool for selective treatment provided the user is properly trained. (Source: MacDonald, K, from Univ. Prince Edward Island at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

2. Use of 3M Petrifilms for Selective Treatment: Use of 3M Petrifilms to identify mastitis pathogen resulted in a substantial decrease in primary antibiotic use. (Source: MacDonald, K, from Univ. Prince Edward Island at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

GOATS & MASTITIS:
1. Genetics & SCC: There appears to be a relationship between estimated breeding value for SCC and mastitis infections in goats. (Source: McDougall, S. from Morrisville Animal Health Center in New Zealand at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)

HEIFER MASTITIS:
1. Strep. uberis: See Strep. uberis comments below
2. Milk Production: Mastitis during udder development may cause long-term reduction in milk yield. (Source: Hillerton, E. from Dairy NZ at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
3. Milk Production: Mastitis in heifers around calving will likely affect first lactation milk yield. (Source: Hillerton, E. from Dairy NZ at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)

MONITORING MASTITIS:
1. Changes in Mastitis Level: Key mastitis parameters to monitor herd level, include number of new infections, number of chronic infections, and number of infections in fresh cows. (Source: Schukken, Y. from QMPS-Cornell Univ. at World Dairy Expo, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Oct 7, 2011)

ORGANIC DAIRIES & MASTITIS:
1. Organic Treatments: Some products used in organic herds are being sold (and purchased) without any data showing effectiveness. (Source: Barlow, J. from Univ. of Vermont at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 22, 2011)
2. Organic Treatments: Residue issues are a concern that must be addressed for certain products used. (Source: Barlow, J. from Univ. of Vermont at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 22, 2011)
3. Organic & Conventional Bulk Tank Milk: There was similar Bulk Tank Milk quality in the 95 organic and 51 conventional herds in WI study although management practices differed. (Source: Weix, R. from Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 22, 2011)

PAIN RELIEF & MASTITIS:
1. Pain Indicator Tools: Pain indicator tools may accurately detect discomfort associated with mastitis and may be used in future to administer pain relieving medications. (Source: Fitzpatrick, C. from Univ. of Guelph at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 22, 2011)

PATHOGENS:
Coagulase Negative Staphylococci (CNS or Staph. species)
1. Teat Dipping: Teat dipping will control CNS infections. (Source: Hillerton, E. from Dairy NZ at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
2. Heifers & Calving: CNS are the most common bacteria isolated from heifer milk around calving. (Source: Hillerton, E. from Dairy NZ at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
3. CNS & Clinical Mastitis: CNS usually causes subclinical or mild clinical mastitis. Can persist for several months. (Source: Simojoki, H. from Univ. of Helsinki at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)
4. CNS & Staph. epidermidis: Staph. epidermidis is one of the most common species of CNS. (Source: Simojoki, H. from Univ. of Helsinki at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

Klebsiella
1. Characteristics: Klebsiella mastitis can be severe or chronic. It has a low cure rate, can be long duration, associated with production loss (Source: Schukken, Y. from QMPS-Cornell Univ. at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

2. Risk Factors: Bedding is a risk factor for Klebsiella but not the only one. Manure is important. Dirty cows have more Klebsiella. Cleanliness of pens, alleys are crucial. (Source: Schukken, Y. from QMPS-Cornell Univ. at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

Mycoplasma
1. Detection: Not all milk samples from Bulk Tank Milk were positive for Mycoplasma for both PCR and culture. (Source: Wilson, D. from Utah State Univ. at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

2. Detection: PCR and cultures for Mycoplasma in milk had nearly 80% agreement, and sensitivities were not significantly different. (Source: Wilson, D. from Utah State Univ. at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

3. Characteristics & Detection: Mycoplasma's slow growth and specific nutritional requirements in culture are impediments to identifying the organism in the lab. (Source: Boonyayatra, S. from Washington State Univ. at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

4. Characteristics: Mycoplasma is considered a contagious mastitis pathogen. Characteristics include: no cell wall, smallest self-replicating organism. (Source: Boonyayatra, S. from Washington State Univ. at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

Prototheca
1. Characteristics: Prototheca are single cell pathogenic algae. They sometimes cause clinical mastitis and may be found in water, bedding, manure. (Source: Britten, A. from Udder Health Systems (Idaho) at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)
2. Herd Outbreak on 3000 Cow Dairy: Prototheca could not be identified from environmental sources. (Source: Britten, A. from Udder Health Systems (Idaho) at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)
3. Herd Outbreak on 3000 Cow Dairy: Subclinically infected cows appeared to be the reservoir for Prototheca mastitis in the herd - cow to cow tranfer. (Source: Britten, A. from Udder Health Systems (Idaho) at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

Staphylococcus aureus
1. Vaccination: No vaccines are currently available that reliably prevent Staph. aureus mastitis. The first S. aureus vaccine was attempted in 1966. (Source: Luby, C. from Univ. Saskatchewan at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
2. Agglutination Tests for Pathogen ID: Evaluated performance of 3 agglutination tests to identify Staph. aureus. Tests are quick and easy but interpretation differs between tests. (Source: Persson Waller, K. from Natl. Vet. Inst. Sweden at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)
3. Agglutination Tests for Pathogen ID: The tests correctly identified Staph. aureus isolated from cows with mastitis however there were false positives and false negatives. (Source: Persson Waller, K. from Natl. Vet. Inst. Sweden at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

Streptococcus agalactiae
1. Strep ag in Columbia: Strep ag is a pathogen associated with the udder and does not survive long on other body sites or in environment. (Source: Keefe, G. from Univ. Prince Edward Island at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)
2. Strep ag in Columbia: The reservoir for Strep ag infections is the infected udder and shedding cows. (Source: Keefe, G. from Univ. Prince Edward Island at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)
3. Strep ag in Columbia: Programs can get rid of Strep ag in a dairy herd and unless infected animals are purchased, the herd can remain Strep ag free. (Source: Keefe, G. from Univ. Prince Edward Island at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

4. Strep ag in Sweden: Mastitis caused by Strep ag is uncommon in Sweden, however several large herds have experienced problems. (Source: Persson Waller, K. from Natl. Vet. Inst. in Sweden at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

5. Strep ag in Sweden: In most of the herds (in Sweden), Strep. ag was introduced by purchased animals. (Source: Persson Waller, K. from Natl. Vet. Inst. in Sweden at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

6. Strep ag in Denmark: Bulk Tank Milk from all herds in Denmark are annually tested for Strep ag by bacterial culture. (Source: Katholm, J. from Knowledge Center for Ag, Cattle (Denmark) at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

Streptococcus uberis
1. Calving Infections: Get rid of Strep uberis infections around calving! (Source: Hillerton, E. from Dairy NZ at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
2. Milk Production: Twin study showed heifers with Strep uberis infections around calving produced less milk than their uninfected twin. (Source: Hillerton, E. from Dairy NZ at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
3. Calving Infections - Clinical Mastitis: Ten % of cows experience clinical mastitis at calving in New Zealand. Seventy-five % of these clinical new infections are due to Strep uberis. (Source: Hillerton, E. from Dairy NZ at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
4. Transfer of Strep uberis: Research has focused on how contagious organisms like Staph aureus get into the udder. Less is known about how Strep. uberis move from original source into the cow's udder. (Source: Hillerton, E. from Dairy NZ at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
5. Strep uberis Risk & Prevalence: Strep uberis is a common environmental mastitis pathogen and a common cause of intramammary infections. (Source: Prado, M. from Univ. Tenn at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)
6. Biofilms: Biofilms provide a sheltered and protected area for bacterial growth and allow them to be resistant to antibiotics. (Source: Prado, M. from Univ. Tenn at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

7. Biofilms: Strep uberis bacteria varies in its' ability to form biofilms. (Source: Prado, M. from Univ. Tenn at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

8. Biofilms: Many persistent/recurrent Strep uberis infections are attributed to formation of biofilms, or polymetric matrixes produced by bacterial colonies. (Source: Prado, M. from Univ. Tenn at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

9. Vaccination: Currently there is no commercially available Strep uberis vaccine. (Source: Nickerson, S. from Univ. Georgia at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 23, 2011)

RAW MILK SALES & REGULATIONS:
1. Raw Milk Sales: There is large variation among states in the U.S. for testing requirements for milk to be sold directly as non-pasteurized milk. SCC limits range from less than 500,000 to greater than 1-million (Source: Open Discussion at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)
2. Raw Milk Position Statement: The NMC has a position statement on raw milk. NMC Raw Milk Position Statement (Source: Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 21, 2011)

REPRODUCTION & MASTITIS:
1. Association with Mastitis: Mastitis goes beyond milk quality. There is a link between reproduction and udder health (Source: Dairy Cattle Reproduction Council, 2011. RT@DCRCouncil. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 26, 2011)

SOMATIC CELL COUNT:
1. Canada & SCC Level: Did you know that the SCC limit in Canada will drop from 500,000 to 400,000 in August 2012. (Source: Schukken, Y. from QMPS-Cornell Univ. at World Dairy Expo, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Oct 7, 2011)
2. Herd SCC Goal & Regulations: If you want to beat the 400,000 SCC limit, your optimal bulk tank SCC goal should be between 50,000 and 200,000. (Source: Schukken, Y. from QMPS-Cornell Univ. at World Dairy Expo, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Oct 7, 2011)
3. Low SCC & Impact: It is virtually impossible for cows to have an SCC that is too low. (Source: Schukken, Y. from QMPS-Cornell Univ. at World Dairy Expo, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Oct 7, 2011)
4. Change in U.S. SCC Requirement: USDA is circulating a new draft on 400,000 SCC requirement. (Source: Dairy Today on agweb.com. RT by Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Oct 7, 2011)
5. SCC & Global Testing: The number of SCC tests done globally is estimated as more than 500-million per year. (Source: Orlandini, S. from Assoc. of Italian Breeders. at AABP-NMC Conference, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 24, 2011)

ULTRA VIOLET LIGHT & PATHOGENS:
1. Use of Ultra Violet Light: Technology has promise for extending shelf life and improving milk safety. (Source: Cullor, J. from School of Vet. Med. UC-Davis at AABP-NMC, 2011. Twitter@QualityMilk (NMC) on Sept 22, 2011)

Serratia - What Should You Do If You Find it in Your Herd?

2010-03-27T22:15:00.003-04:00

Several producers have called recently to find out about Serratia marcescens mastitis after culturing milk samples from individual cows and finding Serratia as the cause of mastitis. This blog addresses their questions, decisions, and our current understanding.
Origin of Serratia marcescens

It is difficult to know where Serratia comes from without testing environmental samples, utensils, milking equipment, or milk samples from additional cows. If Serratia is found only in one cow, further environmental testing may not be worthwhile. However, if the bug is found in several cows' milk it would be important to act quickly. Serratia, although not a common cause of mastitis, is present in the cow's environment - soil, plants, feed, and water. Serratia has also been found in bedding and on the milking facility floor, indicating it may be traced back to infected cows. Serratia may originate in bedding or have leaked onto bedding from infected cows. This means that good hygiene and biosecurity are very important to prevent transfer from infected to 'clean' cows. It also means that culturing new infections - either found through DHI SCC or when fore-stripping - is important to reduce the chance of spread of Serratia. Herd outbreaks of Serratia mastitis have occurred in herds where Serratia grew in bedding and/or teat dip. Poor udder cleanliness and damaged teat ends also appear to increase risk of spreading Serratia to 'clean' cows.

Diagnosis and Severity of Serratia Mastitis Infections
Most Serratia infections will be found after a new DHI test comes back with a high cow somatic cell count (SCC). Visible signs of mastitis may only be seen in one-half of Serratia cases, meaning that visible symptoms won't always be apparent. Changes to milk are usually mild - few flakes - but infections won't cure, regardless of treatment. This means that Serratia mastitis is not a good thing, and prevention, and diagnosis through milk culturing, are important to keep infections low.

When are Serratia Mastitis Infections Most Likely to Occur?
New infections can occur at any time during lactation and may also occur during the dry period. Cows with high milk production are not at greater risk than cows with low milk production. Serratia is an "equal opportunity" bug, although is more likely to infect that next cow milked after an infected cow, and cows with poor teat ends. Because Serratia, like many environmental mastitis bugs, may be spread from cow to cow, it is important to milk infected cows last or with a milking unit used only for chronic cows.

How likely is Serratia to Cure?
Serratia is resistant to most antibiotics. One study found cure rate was only 14 percent. Mastitis treatment for Serratia rarely cures infections and is not recommended. After antibiotic treatment, milk may look better, but is usually only temporary. Because cows with Serratia mastitis are not likely to cure, emphasis should be placed on identifying new infections quickly.

How Can You Prevent and Control Serratia Mastitis Infections?
Serratia, like most mastitis bugs, plays by the numbers game. The more Serratia bugs in the cow's environment, the more likely the next cow will become infected. Teat and teat end cleanliness at milking, careful fore-stripping to prevent back splash or stripping onto cow beds, removing hair from the udder at least every 6-months, use of pre-dipping before milking will all be beneficial. In addition, reducing contact of the cow's udder with bugs between milkings, by scraping back of cow beds (where the udder rests), and applying fresh bedding frequently, will be worth your time. In herd-wide problems, quick identification of Serratia source: cows, bedding, or teat dip, is essential to reducing infection spread.

Teat Dip and Serratia
Teat dip does not usually contain Serratia marcescens. However, Serratia is commonly resistant to chlorhexidine-gluconate or quaternary ammonium disinfectants. Consider culturing your teat dip if Serratia is found in more than one cow, and especially if one of these disinfectants is used as germicide in your teat dip. Most mastitis laboratories will culture teat dips. As long as a representative sample is sent to the laboratory, Serratia should be easy to find if present in the teat dip. A negative finding means that Serratia is not present in the teat dip sample and a positive finding means that Serratia is in the teat dip and is likely a source for new Serratia infections.

Summary
Serratia infections are relatively uncommon and it was surprising to have two calls within a short-time frame. Routine culturing was helpful to these particular farmers in that it confirmed Serratia was present in their herds. Because both producers tend to culture most new infections, they knew Serratia was not common and wanted to learn more about how to deal with the mastitis. In one case, the producer had the teat dip cultured and the result was negative. He was concerned whether a negative result meant the teat dip was not the source of the infection or the chlorhexidine teat dip was not the likely source of the cow's infection. In the other herd, Serratia was found in a good cow without previous mastitis, symptoms were atypical for the herd, and treatment was started before culture results came back from the laboratory. The producer's veterinarian recommended extended therapy because symptoms were atypical for the herd and this protocol was previously successful in curing herd mastitis infections. After treatment, mastitis was still present in the cow's quarter. The producer called to get information on what the research suggests in terms of ability to cure Serratia mastitis and whether additional treatment might be successful.

What Decisions Can Be Aided By a New Understanding About Serratia?
1). Serratia cows should be milked last or with dedicated milking units to reduce the chance of spreading infections;
2). Serratia cows should be put on the 'to cull' list. Treatment and especially re-treatment is not recommended;
3). Carefully watch for Serratia mastitis by culturing new infections;
4). Culture fresh bedding and/or teat dip (if chlorhexidine or quaternary ammonium based) if more than one case of Serratia is found;
5). Add new knowledge gained about Serratia to your tool box for quicker and profitable future mastitis decisions.

Thanks to Dr. Frank Welcome for guidance about teat dip culturing and Cornell QMPS for their summary of Serratia Research.

Milking Management and Gloves: A Historical Perspective on Use

2010-01-07T14:20:00.005-05:00

Historical Background on 'Glove Use' as a Strategy to Reduce Infection Transfer

I'm currently working on several fact sheets for National Mastitis Council (NMC) meetings which are coming up in early February and am also preparing for winter workshops that will be held on 'Milking Management' (see December blogs). As part of the process, I'm reviewing lots of research to trace origin of why certain procedures and control methods are recommended. I thought I'd share some of the highlights of my findings.

It is recommended by NMC, that strong but thin disposable gloves, similar to what surgeons and health professionals wear in the hospital, be worn by all folks doing the milking on-farm. It is also recommended that these gloves be sanitized periodically or changed as needed. Gloves should be thrown away at a minimum after each milking and new gloves worn at the start of the next milking. The rationale for wearing gloves and potential impact on disease control may seem pretty obvious but we still have many farmers and employees who refuse to consider wearing gloves for various reasons. I've also found over the last 3-years of field work that many farms save gloves used at one milking and reuse them at the next to 'save money'.

My thought was that maybe there is some 'ammunition' in the research data to convince folks to wear gloves, and to encourage quick replacement or sanitizing of 'gloves at risk'. This 'ammunition' would then be used in education to persuade and overcome feelings by some farmers and employees that 'gloves are uncomfortable', 'cost too much', and/or 'affect ability to effectively palpate the udder or otherwise perform tasks that require 'feeling' or tactile senses needed when milking and diagnosing problems with the udder'.

Where and Why Did Glove Use in the Medical Profession Originate?

The 'data' or 'validation' will follow in upcoming blogs but this blog shares a historical perspective from the medical literature and which I think is both interesting and 'fun'.

The first article I found on rationale or initiation for glove use was in the medical literature in a British Medical Journal published in 1933. My thought was that if I could find the original rationale or reference, this may be helpful to get more dairy producers and their employees to wear gloves while milking and thereby reduce risk of spreading mastitis from infected cows to healthy cows.

So how did glove use start? Basically, glove use was initiated to protect a woman's hands from an unsightly rash and chemical reaction and because of a romance between this assistant and the doctor in charge. Glove use initially expanded partially due to ego. Health care professionals felt they looked more like 'experts' when wearing gloves. Glove use then expanded and continued based on a desire by health professionals to protect themselves from disease and also to protect transfer of diseases from diseased patients to healthy patients (albeit immunocompromised - e.g., in hospital for another ailment). Research provided the cause and effect or rationale. Hands harbor bacteria. Gloves, when used properly, may reduce the chance or risk of transferring bacteria. AIDS has probably been the number one reason for expanded glove use in the medical profession. It is possible, when one's own health is at stake, health care professionals are more likely to adhere to a particular protocol - like wearing gloves.

There are still plenty of instances or examples in the medical literature where health care workers forget to fully cleanse gloved hands or replace used gloves and where bacteria are transferred via gloved hands or non-gloved hands from diseased patients to healthy patients. The presence of Methicillin Resistant Staph. aureus (MRSA) in hospitals and impact, especially in immunocompromised patients, may be reinforcing and expanding adherence to glove use by health care workers. Regardless, even when their own potential health is at stake, folks have to be continually reminded through 'data' and other means, that hands - even with glove use, - are a major means of transferring disease from one patient to other patients.

The actual historical quote of how glove use started

The original story is attributed to Dr. F.L. Reichert, and related to an event in 1891. Enjoy!

"(Dr.)W.S. Halstead of Baltimore introduced the use of rubber gloves as a protection both for patient and for surgeon in 1891. Halstead first introduced rubber gloves into his theatre a year or so earlier, in the winter of 1889-90 for a slightly different purpose. The nurse in charge of the operating room had complained to him that the solution of mercuric chloride used in sterilizing the hands had caused dermatitis on her forearms and hands. In Halstead's own words: "As she was an unusually efficient woman, I gave the matter my consideration and one day in New York requested the Goodyear Rubber Company to make as an experiment two pairs of thin rubber gloves with gauntlets (e.g., a dress glove extending over the wrist). On trial these proved to be satisfactory (so) that additional gloves were ordered." Later the assistant in charge of instruments was given gloves. The operator wore them at first only when making exploratory incisions into joints. After a time men who had grown accustomed to wearing gloves as assistants came to wear them habitually as operators, because they felt more expert with gloves than without."

"It is interesting that the use of rubber gloves in surgery was not the result of an inspiration to eliminate the hands as a source of infection during the operation. Their use was a matter of slow evolution, first as a protection for the hands of the assistants from irritating solutions, then as an added precaution on the part of the operator in exploring joints, later as an aid to the operative dexterity of those accustomed to gloves as assistants, and finally as a regular adornment to be worn invariably in all cases, clean and septic, by the operator and all members of the operating team." "The unusually efficient woman" for whom it all began in due course became Mrs. Halstead".

More actual data to follow.... ;-)

Penn State Winter 2010 Workshop Series - Best Milking Practices

2009-12-18T12:39:00.020-05:00

Renew or Expand Your...

Milking Practices to Reduce Mastitis
Risk and Reduce Your Frustration
"Fitting it all in a 'days' work"

What is Happening...

Workshop Series:
"Best Milking Practices"

Offered By:
Penn State Cooperative Extension

Time: 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (note: program will start at 9:30 a.m. sharp - if late milking still join us)

Register By: 1-week before workshop date

Description:
There is not necessarily one right way to milk cows. However, there is often a best way based on milking facilities, people, and preferences. In addition, the parts of the milking process should be done a certain way and for specific and science-based reasons. Milking practices should be consistent - same way every milking and every day. Cows like consistency which affects their well-being, risk of mastitis, and milking speed. These are all things important to the cow. However, good cow well-being, low mastitis risk, and steady milking likely also reduce your frustration (a.k.a. greater 'happiness').

This hands-on workshop will reinforce 'best milking practices' including cow milking stimulation and essentials of milk let-down. Equipment to demonstrate impact of prepping practices on milk flow will be used to validate (convince you?) that 'best milking practices' - prepping practices that match intended purpose and gentle cow handling - are important to milk let-down and milking speed.

Agenda:
9:00 to 9:30: Registration

9:30 to 11:00: Best Milking Practices
Anatomy, Purpose of Each Task and Fitting it All Together

11:00 to 11:30: Impact of Milking Practices on Teat Health

11:30 to 12:00: How Prepping Affects Milk Flow

12:00 to 12:30: Lunch

12:30 to 1:00: Travel to Farm

1:00 to 2:30: On-Farm Milking Practices and 'Practice Concepts Learned'

Please note the afternoon session wil be on-farm. Please bring proper footwear that can be sanitized for biosecurity reasons, as well as, warm and clean clothing. We will provide plastic boots for additional protection on-farm.

This Workshop Will Suit You Best If...
You are a producer and you or your employees milk in a stall barn or a smaller parlor.

We will spend a lot of time talking about things you do that affect time of detaching. These concepts apply to manual detach, stall barns with detachers or end of milking indicators, and small parlors - less than double-10 with or without detachers (yes there are some - honest :-)).

Fee...

We are trying something different for these workshops and will see how well it works for future planning.

Producer Fee: $10/person
Producer is responsible for this cost to attend
Producer Sponsor Fee: $20/person
We are requesting that each producer be 'sponsored' by one of their milk quality advisors. This might be your veterinarian, nutritionist, lender, dairy supply company, milk plant inspector, milking equipment dealership, or DHI technician. As a producer, please talk with us if you feel this will prevent you from attending.

Note: The Producer Sponsor Fee is an additional fee that is part of the cost for a producer to attend. It is not intended to replace the producer fee. Please ask if you have questions. As an advisor, if you want more details about sponsoring a client or clients who you feel will benefit and use workshop information, please contact an educator listed below.

Logistics...

Workshop Dates, Educator Contact, and Locations:

Tuesday January 19, 2010: Central Pennsylvania - Blair County
Educator Contact: Amber Yutzy - Dairy Herd Health Educator - Central Region
Phone: 814-643-1660
Fax: 814-643-1669
E-mail: anl113@psu.edu
Workshop Location: Martinsburg, PA

Wednesday January 20, 2010: Northeastern Pennsylvania - Tioga County
Educator Contact: Craig Williams - Dairy Extension Educator - Northeast Region
Phone: 570-724-9120
Fax: 570-724-9120
E-mail: jcw17@psu.edu
Workshop Location: Middlebury Center, PA

Thursday January 21, 2010: Central Pennsylvania - Juniata County
Educator Contact: Amber Yutzy - Dairy Herd Health Educator

Wednesday Feb 17, 2010: Southeastern Pennsylvania - Lancaster County
Educator Contact: Sandy Costello, Ph.D. - Dairy Herd Health Educator - Southeast Region
Phone: 717-240-6500
Fax: 717-240-6548
E-mail: ssc10@psu.edu
Workshop Location: Paradise, PA

Thursday March 11, 2010: Southeastern Pennsylvania - Franklin County
Educator Contact: Phil Wagner - Dairy Extension Educator - Franklin County
Phone: 717-263-9226 Extension 228
Fax:717-263-9228
E-mail: pew1@psu.edu
Workshop Location: Chambersburg, PA

Please contact specific educator contact for site specifics, registration and sponsorship and other details, and Sandy Costello for overall program content details. Thanks! Costello E-mail: ssc10@psu.edu

Penn State Winter 2010 Workshop Series - Mastitis Records

2009-12-16T21:54:00.007-05:00

Learn how to...

Use Your Mastitis Records to Make More Money

What is Happening...

Workshop Series:
"Mastitis Records: Evaluating What Works and What Doesn't"

Offered By:
Penn State Cooperative Extension

Time: 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (note: program will start at 9:30 a.m. sharp - if late milking still join us)

Registration By: 1-week before workshop date

Description:
Mastitis is the costliest disease on most dairies. Costs vary a lot from herd to herd. A recent Penn State study funded by the Northeast Center for Risk Management Education on 30 dairies found that milk plant incentives varied from a cost of $45 per cow per year to a supplement of more than $140 per cow per year. In addition to milk quality dollars, cost of mastitis in the average herd is estimated to be another $200 per cow per year while the average clinical case of mastitis may cost another $108.

The only way to determine costs of mastitis and impact of quality milk practices is to start with a great understanding of available records and ways to keep and use them more effectively. Milk plant records, DHI records, and clinical mastitis records should be used together to set goals and track progress toward reducing mastitis and receiving higher milk quality dollars.

Thus workshop will help you to better use your DHI mastitis records, and culture results, keep track of clinical mastitis, better monitor your progress toward higher quality milk dollars, and to communicate more easily and more often with your milk quality advisors.

Agenda:

9:00 to 9:30: Registration

9:30 to 10:00: Milk Quality Records

10:00 to 11:30: DHI Records

11:30 to 12:30: Clinical Mastitis Records

12:30 to 1:00: Lunch

1:00 to 2:15: Case Studies and Records Work

2:15 to 2:30: Evaluation

This Workshop Will Suit You Best If:

You are a Pennsylvania Dairy Producer and Have DHI Records Processed through Lancaster DHIA or Dairy One
You mainly use DHI Records in paper form (mailed to you each month) with limited on-farm computer software to evaluate mastitis

Fee...

We are trying something different for these workshops and will see how well it works for future planning.

Producer Fee: $10/person
Producer participant is responsible for this cost to attend

Producer Sponsor Fee: $20/person
We are requesting that each producer be 'sponsored' by one of their milk quality advisors. This might be your veterinarian, nutritionist, lender, dairy supply company, milk plant inspector, milking equipment dealership, or DHI technician

Note: The Producer Sponsor Fee is an additional fee that is part of the cost for a producer to attend. It is not intended to replace the producer fee. Please ask if you have questions.
As an advisor, if you want more details about sponsoring a client or clients who you feel will benefit and use workshop information, please contact an educator listed below.

Logistics...

Workshop Dates, Site Educator In Charge, and Locations:

Wednesday Feb 10, 2010: Central Pennsylvania - Clinton County
Educator Contact: Amber Yutzy - Dairy Herd Health Educator - Central Region
Phone: 814-643-1660
Fax: 814-643-1669
E-mail: anl113@psu.edu
Workshop Location: Mill Hall, PA

Friday, Feb 12, 2010: Central Pennsylvania - Fulton County
Educator Contact: Amber Yutzy - Dairy Herd Health Educator - Central Region
Workshop Location: McConnellsburg, PA

Wednesday, Feb 24, 2010: Southeastern Pennsylvania - Lancaster County
Educator Contact: Sandy Costello, Ph.D. - Dairy Herd Health Educator - Southeast Region
Phone: 717-240-6500
Fax: 717-240-6548
E-mail: ssc10@psu.edu
Workshop Location: Paradise, PA

Thursday, Feb 25, 2010: Southeastern Pennsylvania - Cumberland County
Educator Contact: Sandy Costello, Ph.D. - Dairy Herd Health Educator - Southeast Region
Workshop Location: Newburg, PA

Wednesday, Mar 3, 2010: Northeastern Pennsylvania - Tioga County
Educator Contact: Craig Williams - Dairy Extension Educator - Northeastern Region
Phone: 570-724-9120
Fax: 570-724-8137
E-mail: jcw17@psu.edu
Workshop Location: Middlebury Center, PA

For brochures or more information, please contact us!