Influence of the new wavy teat liner “Stimulor StressLess” on milk yield performance and its quality in dairy cows: Results of a field study

Shehadeh  Kaskous; Khaled  Al-Najjar; Michael W.  Pfaffl

doi:10.59400/mea.v2i2.1752

Shehadeh Kaskous Department of Research and Development, Siliconform, 86842 Türkheim, Germany
Khaled Al-Najjar General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research, GCSAR, Damascus 12573, Syria
Michael W. Pfaffl Department of Animal Physiology and Immunology, School of Life Sciences, Technical University of Munich, 85354 Freising, Germany

Article ID: 1752

4823 Views

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/mea.v2i2.1752

Keywords: dairy cows; fat; lactose; liner; protein; SCC; Stimulor StressLess; teat cup; urea

Abstract

The ideal milking system meets the physiological needs of dairy cows to increase milk yield, achieve better milk quality and maintain healthy udders. Therefore, the settings of the milking machine and the properties of the teat cup liners are very important on dairy farms. The aim of the present study was to test a new teat cup liner “Stimulor StressLess” (SSL) in two commercial dairy farms and to investigate its influence on daily milk production and quality having different experimental settings. For this purpose, 40 dairy cows of different breeds in Tirol, Austria (farm 1) were investigated for 6 months, where 3 months represent the control phase (Gr 1) and milked with conventional teat liners, and the second 3 months phase (Gr 2) was the experimental phase and milked with SSL teat cup liners. On the second farm 90 dairy cows of Simmental breed in Baden-Württemberg, Germany (farm 2) were examined for one year equally divided in the first 6 months of control phase and second 6 months of treatment phase. All cows on both farms had the same stage of lactation and lactation number. During the study period, the daily milk production of each cow was recorded and milk samples were collected to determine the ingredients. The results showed that higher daily milk production and better milk quality were observed after using the new SSL teat cup liner in the existing milking machines. However, the use of the new teat cup liner SSL was more efficient in the longer treatment in farm 2 than in farm 1. In addition, after the use of the new SSL teat cup liner, the udders remained healthy throughout the study period, showing lower somatic cell counts (SCC). It can be concluded that high milk yield and better milk quality can be achieved by using SSL teat cup liners, as they are adapted to all teat shapes and dimensions.

References

[1]Kaskous S, Pfaffl, MW. Milking machine settings and liner design are important to improve milking efficiency and lactating animal welfare-technical note. AgriEngineering. 2023; 5: 1314–1326.

[2]Parilova M, Stadnik L, Jezkova A, Stolc L. Effect of milking vacuum level and overmilking on cow’s teat characteristics. Acta Univ. Agric. Et Silvic. Aemendelianae Brun. 2011; 59: 193–202.

[3]Edwards JP, O’Brien B, Lopez-Villalobos N, et al. Overmilking causes deterioration in teat-end condition of dairy cows in late lactation. J. Dairy Res. 2013; 80: 344–348.

[4]Ferneborg S, Svennersten-Sjaunja K. The effect of pulsation ratio on teat condition, milk somatic cell count and productivity in dairy cows in automatic milking. J. Dairy Res. 2015; 82: 453–459.

[5]Gasparik M, Duchacek J, Stadnik L, et al. Impact of milking settings optimization on milk quality, milking time, and milk yield in Holstein cows. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018; 420: 012073.

[6]Kaskous S. Importance of the new silicone liner “Stimulor Stressless” for optimal milking performance and welfare of the lactating animals-technical report. Applied Veterinary Research. 2023; 2(3): 2023011. doi: 10.31893/avr.2023011

[7]Reinemann DJ. Milking machines and milking parlours. In: Handbook of farm, dairy and food machinery Engineering, 3rd Edition. Academic Press; 2019. pp. 225–243.

[8]Cesna J, Medvedskyi O, Postol Y, et al. Simulation of design parameters of a milking cup with an extended service life. Agricultural Engineering. 2022; 26(1): 243–252.

[9]Walker M. Choosing the best teat cup liner for optimal milking performance. International Dairy Topics. 2018; 17(3): 9–11.

[10]Krömker V. Melken. In: Krömker V (editor). Short textbook on dairy science and milk hygiene. Parey in MVS Medizinverlage Stuttgart: Stuttgart; 2007. pp. 23–46.

[11]Reinemann DJ. The smart position on teat condition. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand milk quality conference; 18–19 June 2012; Hamilton, New Zealand. pp. 124–131.

[12]Gleeson DE, Ocallaghan EJ, Rath MV. Effect of liner design, pulsator setting, and vacuum level on bovine teat tissue changes and milking characteristics as measured by ultrasonography. Irish Veterinary Journal. 2004; 57(5): 289–296.

[13]Vermaak P, Petzer IM, Karzis J. Effects of milking machine settings and teat liners on bovine udder health. South African Journal of Animal Science. 2022; 52(4): 421–432.

[14]Wieland M, Sipka A. Prospective cohort study of the relationship between milking machine liner slip, milking performance, and cow characteristics. J. Dairy Sci. 2023; 106: 2044–2053.

[15]Reinemann DJ, Mein GA. Unravelling the mysteries of liner compression. In: Proceedings of the Countdown Symposium, Tackling Strep Uberis; 8 June 2011; Melbourne, Australia. p. 10.

[16]Kaskous S. The effect of using quarter individual milking system “MultiLactor” on improvement of milk performance and milk quality of different dairy cow’s breeds in different farms. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2018; 30: 57–64.

[17]Kaskous S, Fadlelmoula A. Adaptability of dairy cows to individual quarter milking system after changing from tying to loose housing system. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 2015; 3(4): 225–232.

[18]Kaskous S. Optimization of milk performance and quality in dairy farms by using a quarter individual milking system “MultiLactor”. Int. J. Environ. Agric Biotechnol. 2020; 5: 943–952.

[19]Kaskous S. Influence of the quarter-individual milking system “MultiLactor” on the milk yield and quality in dairy cows: Results of a field study. In: Proceedings of International Conference on research on food security, natural resource management and rural development-Tropentag, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; 20–22 September 2023; Germany. p. 384.

[20]Müller AB, Rose-Meierhöfer S, Ammon C, et al. Comparison of the effects of quarter-individual and conventional milking system on milkability traits. Archiv Tierzucht. 2011; 54(4): 360–373.

[21]Kaskous, S. MultiLactor Melksystem, eine Revolution in der Melktechnik. In: Forschungsbericht, Abteilung der Forschung und Entwicklung; Siliconform: Türkheim, Germany, 2016; pp. 1–40.

[22]Holst GE, Adrion F, Umstätter C, et al. Type of teat cup liner and cluster ventilation affect vacuum conditions in the liner and milking performance in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2021; 104 (4): 4775–4786.

[23]EuroTier Special. These are the novelties 2022. Silicone mold: corrugated liners adapt (German). Agriculture. 2022; 20(16): 31.

[24]EuroTier. Innovation is rewarded, Stimulor StressLess, Siliconform Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG (German). Allgäuer Bauernblatt. 2022; 44(3): 50.

[25]NRC. Nutrient Requirement of Dairy Cattle, 8th ed. National Academies Press; 2021. pp. 1–502.

[26]SAS Institute. SAS User’s Guide, Release version 9.3. SAS Institute INC; 2012.

[27]Bruckmaier RM, Schams D, Blum JW. Continuously elevated concentrations of oxytocin during milking are necessary for complete milk removal in dairy cows. J. Dairy Res. 1994; 61: 323–334.

[28]Bruckmaier RM, Blum JW. Oxytocin release and milk removal in ruminants. J. Dairy Sci. 1998; 81: 939–949.

[29]Nazar M, Lu X, Abdalla IM, et al. Genome-Wide Association Study Candidate Genes on Mammary System-Related Teat-Shape Conformation Traits in Chinese Holstein Cattle. Genes. 2021; 12(12): 2020.

[30]Ruegg PL, Erskine RJ. Mammary gland health. In: Smith BP, Van Metre DC, Pusterla N (editors). Large Animal Internal Medicine, 5th ed. Elsevier Mosby; 2014, pp. 1015–1043.

[31]Upper Austrian Cattle Production Advice Center, Chamber of Agriculture, Upper Austria. The right liner, which liner suits my cows (German)? Upper Austrian Cattle Production Advice Center, Chamber of Agriculture, Upper Austria. 2015. pp. 1–8.

[32]Penry JF, Upton J, Mein GA, et al. Estimating teat canal cross-sectional area to determine the effects of teat-end and mouthpiece chamber vacuum on teat congestion. J. Dairy Sci. 2017; 100(1): 821–827.

[33]Maier J, Kaskous S. Multi-Lactor die R-Evolution in der Melktechnik. 6. Fachtagung Automatisierung in der Milcherzeugung, Bauernscheune Bösleben der AGRAR Genossenschaft, Thüringen, Germany; May 12. pp. 1-9.

[34]Hillerton JE. Do liners differ? In Natl. Mastitis Counc. Reg. Mtg. Proc. Orlando, FL. National Mastitis Council, Madison, WL. 2005. pp. 133–138

[35]Wilde CJ, Peaker M. Autocrine control in milk secretion. J. Agric. Sci. 1990; 114: 235–238.

[36]Zebeli Q, Tafaj M, Steingass H, et al. Effects of physically effective fiber on digestive processes and milk fat content in early lactating dairy cows fed total mixed rations. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89(2): 651–668.

[37]Caccamo M, Veerkamp RF, Licitra G, et al. Association of total-mixed-ration chemical composition with milk, fat, and protein yield lactation curves at the individual level. J. Dairy Sci. 2012; 95(10): 6171–6138.

[38]Rico DE, Marshall ER, Choi J, et al. Within-milking variation in milk composition and fatty acid profile of Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014; 97: 4259–4268.

[39]Bostanova S, Aitmukhanbetov D, Bayazitova K, et al. Indicators of full value feeding rations for dairy cows. Brazilian J. Biology. 2022; 82: e254111.

[40]Whittlestone WG. Variation in the fat content of milk throughout the milking process. J. Dairy Sci. 1953; 20: 146–153.

[41]Upton J, Penry J, Rasmussen M, et al. Effect of pulsation rest phase duration on teat end congestion. J. Dairy Sci. 2016; 99: 3958–3965.

[42]Urech E, Puhan Z, Schällibaum M. Changes in milk protein fraction as affected by subclinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 1999; 82: 2402–2411.

[43]Bisutti V, Vanzin A, Pegolo S, et al. Effect of intramammary infection and inflammation on milk protein profile assessed at (the quarter level in Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2024; 107(3): 1413–1426. doi: 10.3168/jds.2023-23818

[44]Zhang L, Boeren S, Van Hooijdonk ACM, et al. Proteomic perspective on the changes in milk proteins due to high somatic cell count. J. Dairy Sci. 2015; 98: 5339–5351.

[45]Schaar J. Plasmin activity and proteose-peptone content of individual milks. J. Dairy Res. 1985; 52: 369–378.

[46]Le Roux Y, Colin O, Laurent F. Proteolysis in samples of quarter milk with varying somatic cell counts: 1. Comparison of some indicators of endogenous proteolysis in milk. J. Dairy Sci. 1995; 78: 1289–1297.

[47]Auldist MJ, Coats S, Sutherland BJ, et al. Effects of somatic cell count and stage of lactation on raw milk composition and the yield and quality of cheddar cheese. J. Dairy Res. 1996; 63: 269–280.

[48]Le Roux Y, Laurent F, Moussaoui F. Polymorphonuclear proteolytic activity and milk composition change. Vet. Res. 2003; 34: 629–645.

[49]Forsback L, Lindmark-Mansson H, Andren A, et al. Evaluation of quality changes in udder quarter milk from cows with low-to-moderate somatic cell counts. Animal. 2010; 4: 617–626.

[50]Caggiano N, Lorenzo SA, Bottini JM, et al. Protease activity and protein profile in milk from healthy dairy cows and cows with different types of mastitis. Int. Dairy J. 2019; 89: 1–5.

[51]Rogers SA, Slattery SL, Mitchell GE, et al. The relationship between somatic cell count, composition, and manufacturing properties of bulk milk. Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 1989; 44: 49–52.

[52]Ruegg PL. A 100-Year Review: Mastitis detection, management, and prevention. J. Dairy Sci. 2017; 100: 10381–10397.

[53]Tesin N, Radinovic M, Tomanic D, et al. Analysis of the somatic cell pattern in mastitis-affected cows on three dairy farms in Vojvodina. Contemporary Agriculture. 2023; 72(4): 175–180.

[54]Neijenhuis F, de Koning K, Barkema H, et al. The effect of machine milking on teat condition. In: Proceedings of Conference on Physiological and technical aspects of machine milking, ICAR Technical Series. 2001. pp. 33–40.

[55]Hamann J, Burvenich C, Mayntz M, et al. Machine induced changes in the status of the bovine teat tissue with respect to new infection risk. Bul. IDF. 1994; 2: 13–22.

[56]Neijenhuis F, Barkhema HW, Hogeveen H, Noordhuizen JPTM. Classification and longitudinal examination of callused teat ends in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2000; 83: 2795–2804.

[57]Dairy NZ. Correct teat cup liners will keep cows healthy and happy. Available online: www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/dairy-management (accessed on 7 September 2024).

[58]Schulz J. Structure of the mammary gland and physiology of lactation. In: Fahr RD, von Lengergen G (editors). Milk production. German specialized publisher; 2003. pp. 45–79.

[59]Hayton A, Husband J, Vecqueray R. Nutritional management of herd health. In: Dairy HH, Green MJ, Bradley AJ (editors). Dairy herd health, 1st ed. CABI North American Office; 2012. pp. 227–278.

[60]Rezamand P, Hoagland TA, Moyes KM, et al. Energy status, lipid-soluble vitamins, and acute phase proteins in periparturient Holstein and Jersey dairy cows with or without subclinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 2007; 90: 5097–5107.

[61]Eicher R, Bouchard E, Bigras-Poulin M. Factors affecting milk urea nitrogen and protein concentrations in Quebec dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 1999; 39: 53–63.

[62]Olmos Colmenero JJ, Broderick GA. Effect of dietary crude protein concentration on milk production and nitrogen utilization in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89(5): 1704–1712.

[63]Borucki Castro SI, Phillip LE, Lapierre H, et al. The relative merit of ruminal undegradable protein from soybean meal or soluble fibre from beet pulp to improve nitrogen utilization in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2008; 91: 3947–3957.

[64]Spek JW, Dijkstra J, Van Duinkerken G, et al. A review of factors influencing milk urea concentration and its relationship with urinary urea excretion in lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2013; 151: 407–423.

[65]Siachos N, Panousis N, Arsenos G, et al. Investigation of milk urea nitrogen concentration and factors affecting its variation in Greek Holstein herds. J. Hell Vet. Med. Soc. 2017; 68: 423–432.

[66]Nyman AK, Persson Waller K, Bennedsgaard TW, et al. Associations of udder-health indicators with cow factors and with intramammary infection in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014; 97: 5459–5473.

[67]Timonen AAE, Katholm J, Petersen A, et al. Within-herd prevalence of intramammary infection caused by Mycoplasma bovis and associations between cow udder health, milk yield, and composition. J. Dairy Sci. 2017; 100: 6554–6561.