Acta Vet. Brno 2016, 85: 55-61
https://doi.org/10.2754/avb201685010055
Effect of cow cleanliness in different housing systems on somatic cell count in milk
References
1. N 1999: The deeper the “mud”, the dirtier the udder. Hoard’s Dairyman 144: 439
2. HW, Schukken H, Lam TJGM, Beiboer ML, Benedictus G, and Brand A 1998: Management practices associated with low, medium, and high somatic cell counts in bulk milk. J Dairy Sci Vol 81: 1917-1927
<https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75764-9>
3. J, Jarosińska A, Wolanciuk A, Kędzierska-Matysek M 2012: The quality of market milk obtained from farms, employing diverse systems of milking. Rocz Nauk PTZ 8: 31-38
4. M, Sawa A, Krężel-Czopek S, Neja W, Sass Ł 2010: Effect of degree of dirtiness of cows on milk quality. Acta Sci Pol Zoot 9: 3-8
5. D, Brzozowska A, Oprządek J 2014: Effect of number of lactation on physical activity of dairy cows. Prz Hod 6: 13-15
6. KA, Innocent GT, Mihm M, Cripps P, Mclean WG, Howard CV, and Grove-White D 2007: Dairy cow cleanliness and milk quality on organic and conventional farms in the UK. J Dairy Res 74: 302-310
<https://doi.org/10.1017/S002202990700249X>
7. SJ, Kielland C, Ringdal G, Skjerve E, Nafstad O 2012: Factors associated with cattle cleanliness on Norwegian dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 95: 2485-2496
<https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4786>
8. J. 2001: A system for assessing cow cleanliness. In Pract 23: 517-524
<https://doi.org/10.1136/inpract.23.9.517>
9. J, Bergsten C 2001: Effects of a rubber-slatted flooring system on cleanliness and foot health in tied dairy cows. Prev Vet Med 52: 75-89
<https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(01)00237-9>
10. Mucha Ł, Bogucki M, Jankowska M 2003: Housing and milking systems as compared to cow productivity and behaviour. Proc. of the Conference “Animal nutrition vs. health and current issues in veterinary hygiene and prevention”. September 4-7, 2003 Ciechocinek, pp. 86-88
11. Nigel BC, Douglas JR 2007: A tool box for assessing cow, udder and teat hygiene. Annual meeting of the NMC, University of Wisconsin-Madison
12. Performance recording results of dairy breed cattle in 2013 – tables. www.pfhb.pl
13. Philips C 2002: Cattle behavior and welfare. Willey-Blackwell, New Jersey, 274 p.
14. Philpot WN, Nickerson SC 1991: Mastitis: Counter Attack. Babson Bros., Naperville, IL.
15. Renner E 1975: Investigations on some parameters of milk for the detection of subclinical mastitis. Proc Semin Mast Cont, IDF Doc
16. PL 2006: The role of hygiene in efficient milking. WCDS Adv Dairy Techn 18: 285-293
17. AC, Paranhos da Costa MJR 2011: The relationship between dairy cow hygiene and somatic cell count in milk. J Dairy Sci 94: 3835-3844
<https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3951>
18. SAS Institute Inc. 2013. SAS/STATR 9.3 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
19. DA, Ruegg PL 2002: Effects of tail docking on milk quality and cow cleanliness. J Dairy Sci 85: 2503-2511
<https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74333-6>
20. DA, Ruegg PL 2003: Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores and subclinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci 86: 3460-346
<https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73950-2>
21. Szyndler J, Kaczor A 1998: Hygiene of dairy cows kept in different types of tie stalls. National Research Institute of Animal Production, Krakow, pp. 81-90
22. Winnicki S, Nawrocki L, Werbiński R, Myczko A 2003: Living conditions of cows vs. milk quality. 9th International Symposium, IBMER, Warszawa, pp. 123-125
23. S, Walczak H 1991: Study on cow living conditions in stalls with different dimensions and equipment. Zesz Nauk Prz Hod 3: 194-197
24. K, Kelton D, Anderson N, Millman S 2005: Tie-stall design and its relationship to lameness, injury, and cleanliness on 317 Ontario Dairy Farms. J Dairy Sci 88: 3201-3210
<https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73003-4>
