Hose Maintenance Pays for Automatic Feeders
Does hose maintenance have an influence on bacteria counts in milk replacer coming out of automatic feeders?
In a study of 17 dairies in southern Ontario samples were collected both from the mixing bowl and at the end of the hose connecting the mixing bowl on the automatic feeder to the mixing bowl.
By season visit the bacteria counts at the end of the hose (% pens over 100,000cfu/ml:
Season Percent over 100,000cfu
Fall 85%
Winter 83%
Spring 88%
Summer 74%
Thus we see that high counts at the end of the feeding hose is a common issue.
But, what role did the hose play in these high counts?
By season visit the bacteria counts at the end of the hose (% pens over 100,000cfu/ml:
Season Percent over 100,000cfu
Fall 85%
Winter 83%
Spring 88%
Summer 74%
Thus we see that high counts at the end of the feeding hose is a common issue.
But, what role did the hose play in these high counts?
They found that, on dairies with lower mixing bowl bacteria counts, in 7 out of 8 measurements the bacteria count actually went down between the bowl and end of hose.
In contrast, they found that, on dairies with higher mixing bowl bacteria counts, in 7 out of 8 measurements the bacteria count went UP between the bowl and end of hose.
What are my conclusions from these data?
1. If the dairy is doing a good job in sanitizing the mixing bowl they are probably doing an equally good job in keeping bacteria counts down in the hoses as well. Thus, farms with low mixing bowl counts tend to have clean milk replacer coming out of the hoses.
2. Although this study did not report cleaning frequency for the mixing bowl, cleaning frequency for hoses and hose replacement for individual farms, my on-farm experience suggests these good practices tend to cluster - folks that do a good job on one tend to do all of these three jobs well.
3. Because of the long time interval between farm visits (every three months) the "snapshot" observations of calf diarrhea may not have reflected actual occurrence of this intestinal disorder. Further, we have data that show calf care persons generally tend to under-diagnose and under-treat calf diarrhea - missing about 40% of the cases that a trained veterinary observer would find. Thus, we cannot connect cleaning practices in this study to actual calf diarrhea rates.
4. All of us that use automatic feeders need to be sensitive to the need for cleanliness monitoring. At least quarterly (I prefer monthly ) samples need to be collected and sent to a lab to monitor both how many and what kinds of bacteria are present in the milk replacer the calves are drinking.
5. Given we often feed 8 liters or more of milk replacer per day, remember how to translate lab data into daily bacteria intake for each calf:
CFU/ML (total bacteria) CFU/Day/calf(8 L/da)
50 400,000
500 4 million
5000 40 million
50000 400 million
100,000 800 million (26 out of 34 pens had this level of contamination!)
1. If the dairy is doing a good job in sanitizing the mixing bowl they are probably doing an equally good job in keeping bacteria counts down in the hoses as well. Thus, farms with low mixing bowl counts tend to have clean milk replacer coming out of the hoses.
2. Although this study did not report cleaning frequency for the mixing bowl, cleaning frequency for hoses and hose replacement for individual farms, my on-farm experience suggests these good practices tend to cluster - folks that do a good job on one tend to do all of these three jobs well.
3. Because of the long time interval between farm visits (every three months) the "snapshot" observations of calf diarrhea may not have reflected actual occurrence of this intestinal disorder. Further, we have data that show calf care persons generally tend to under-diagnose and under-treat calf diarrhea - missing about 40% of the cases that a trained veterinary observer would find. Thus, we cannot connect cleaning practices in this study to actual calf diarrhea rates.
4. All of us that use automatic feeders need to be sensitive to the need for cleanliness monitoring. At least quarterly (I prefer monthly ) samples need to be collected and sent to a lab to monitor both how many and what kinds of bacteria are present in the milk replacer the calves are drinking.
5. Given we often feed 8 liters or more of milk replacer per day, remember how to translate lab data into daily bacteria intake for each calf:
CFU/ML (total bacteria) CFU/Day/calf(8 L/da)
50 400,000
500 4 million
5000 40 million
50000 400 million
100,000 800 million (26 out of 34 pens had this level of contamination!)
No comments:
Post a Comment