The effect of different levels of teat-end hyperkeratosis on mammary infrared thermograph and mastitis in dairy cows

Abstract

The object of this study was to assay different levels of teat hyperkeratosis and to determine the connections between
teat thermographic characteristics, somatic cells count (SCC) and mastitis in dairy cows. A total of 920 teats of 230 Lithuanian Black
and White cows were evaluated to assess teat-end conditions and the thermographic characteristics were determined before evening
milking. Teats of the animals were grouped into four different classes of hyperkeratosis. Additionally, quarters of udder were divided
into three different classes based on the California mastitis test (CMT) and clinical signs: group 1 (healthy), group 2 (subclinical
mastitis), and group 3 (clinical mastitis). The 44.3% of the teats were given a score of N (No ring), 41.1% of the teats were scored S
(smooth ring), 11.8% of teats were given a score R (rough ring) and 2.9% of teats were given a score VR (very rough skin). The N and
S groups had more healthy udder quarters than R and VR groups (P<0.001). Analysis of thermographic images at the teat sinuses
showed that group 1 had lower teat temperature (0.93-1.32 0C) than group 2 and group 3 (P<0.01). There was a significant positive
correlation between milk SCC and temperature of the teats evaluated by hyperkeratosis scores N, S, and R. The results of the present
study clearly showed that there was a significant connection between different levels of hyperkeratosis and teat temperature in all
groups, indicating a greater risk to mastitis.  

Keywords

• Dairy cows,infrared thermography,mastitis,somatic cell count,teat-end hyperkeratosis

References

1. 1. Bhattacharya A, Mahajan RL (2003): Temperature dependence of thermal conductivity of biological tissues. Physiological Measurement, 24, 69–783.
2. 2. Breen JE, Green MJ, Bradley AJ (2009): Quarter and cow risk factors associated with the occurrence of clinical mastitis in dairy cows in the United Kingdom. J Dairy Sci, 92, 6, 2551–2561.
3. 3. Bu RE, Wang JL, Wu JH, et al (2017): Indirect enzymelinked immunosorbent assay method based on Streptococcus agalactiae rSip-Pgk-FbsA fusion protein for detection of bovine mastitis. Pol J Vet Sci, 20, 2, 355-362.
4. 4. Capuco AV, Bright SA, Pankey JW, et al (1992): Increased susceptibility to intramammary infection following removal of teat canal keratin. J Dairy Sci, 75, 2126–2130.
5. 5. Chrystal MA, Seykora AJ, Hansen LB (1999): Heritabilities of teat end shape and teat diameter and their relationships with somatic cell score. J Dairy Sci., 82 9, 2017-22.
6. 6. Colak A, Polat B, Okumus Z, et al (2008): Short communication: early detection of mastitis using infrared thermography in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci., 91, 4244–4248.
7. 7. Culina M, Hahne J, Vorlop KD (2006): Design of an online sensor array for an early detection of udder affections in automatic milking systems. World Congress of Agricultural Engineering for a Better World: Book of Abstracts. VDI Verlag GmbH, Germany 453–454.
8. 8. Emre B, Alaçam E (2015): The Occurrence of teat hyperkeratosis in cows and its effect on milk somatic cell counts. Türkiye Klinikleri J Vet Sci, 6, 1, 1–6.

9. 9. Espeche M, Pellegrino M, Frola I, et al (2012): Lactic acid bacteria from raw milk as potentially beneficial strains to prevent bovine mastitis. Anaerobe, 18, 103–109.
10. 10. Gáspárdy A; Ismach G, Bajcsy AC, et al (2012): Evaluation of the on-line electrical conductivity of milk in mastitic dairy cows. Acta Vet Hung, 60, 1, 145–55.
11. 11. Gleeson DE, Meaney WJ, O’Callaghan EJ, et al (2004): Effect of teat hyperkeratosis on somatic cell counts of dairy cows. J App Res Vet Med, 2, 115–122.
12. 12. Guarín JF, Paixão MG, Ruegg PL (2017): Association of anatomical characteristics of teats with quarter-level somatic cell count. J. Dairy Sci, 100, 643–652.
13. 13. Haghkhah M, Ahmadi MR, GheisarI HR, et al (2011): Preliminary bacterial study on subclinical mastitis and teat condition in dairy herds around Shiraz. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 35, 6, 387–394.
14. 14. Hamann J (1987): Machine Milking and Mastitis Section 3: Effect of Machine Milking on Teat End Condition - A Literature Review. Bull. IDF, 215, 33–53.
15. 15. Hovinen, MJ, Siivonen J, Taponen S, et al (2008): Detection of clinical mastitis with the help of a thermal camera. J Dairy Sci, 91, 12, 4592-8.
16. 16. Kaşıkçı G, Çetin Ö, Bingöl EB, et al (2012): Relations between electrical conductivity, somatic cell count, California mastitis test and some quality parameters in the diagnosis of subclinical mastitis in dairy cows. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 36, 1, 49–55.
17. 17. Lewis S, Cockroft PD, Bramley RA, et al (2000): The likelihood of subclinical mastitis in quarters with different types of teat lesion in dairy cow. Cattle Pract, 8, 3, 293-9.
18. 18. Mein GA, Neijenhuis F; Morgan WF, et al (2001): Evaluation of bovine teat condition in commercial dairy herds. 1. Non-infectious factors. In: Proceedings of the AABP-NMC International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality. Vancouver. BC. Canada, 347–351.
19. 19. Nakov D, Hristov S, Andonov S, et al (2014): Udderrelated risk factors for clinical mastitis in dairy cows. Veterinarski archiv, 84, 2, 111–127.
20. 20. Neijenhuis F. (1998): Teat End Callosity Classification System. Proc Intern Dairy Housing Conf., 4, 17–123.
21. 21. Neijenhuis F, Barkema HW, Hogeveen H, et al (2001): Relationship between teat-end callosity and occurrence of clinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci, 84, 2664–2672.
22. 22. Norberg E (2005): Electrical conductivity of milk as a phenotypic and genetic indicator of bovine mastitis: A review. Livest. Prod Sci, 96, 129–139.
23. 23. Porcionato MAF, Canata TF, De Oliveira Cel, et al (2009): Udder thermography of Gyr cows for subclinical mastitis detection. BioEng. Campinas. Set/Dez, 3, 251–257.
24. 24. Sandrucci A, Bava L, Zucali M, et al (2014): Management factors and cow traits influencing milk somatic cell counts and teat hyperkeratosis during different seasons. R Bras Zootec, 43, 9, 505–511.
25. 25. Sathiyabarathi M, Jeyakumar S, Manimaran A, et al (2016): Infrared thermography: A potential noninvasive tool to monitor udder health status in dairy cows. Veterinary World. EISSN: 2231-0916 Available at www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.9/October-2016/7.pdf.
26. 26. Špakauskas V, Klimienė I, Matusevičius AA (2006): Comparison of indirect methods for diagnosis of subclinical mastitis in lactatting dairy cows. Veterinarski Archiv, 76, 2, 101–109.
27. 27. Trajcev M, Nakov D (2010): Distribution of abnormal secretion and subclinical mastitis among the udder quarters in dairy cows. Yearbook of the Faculty of agricultural science and food, 55, 129–138.
28. 28. Yarabbi H, Mortazavi A, Mehraban M, et al (2014): Effect of somatic cells on the physic-chemical and microbial properties of raw milk in different seasons. IJPAES, 4, 3, 289–298.
29. 29. Zecconi A, Piccinini R, Casirani G, et al (2003): Effects of automatic milking system on teat tissues, intramammary infections and somatic cell counts. Italian J of Anim Sci, 2, 275-282.
30. 30. Zecconi A, Di Bella L (2013): La mastite costa piu di 300 euro a capo. Informatore agrario 69, 23-26.