Relations of hygiene index scores with milk production in Anatolian buffaloes

Main Article Content

Huseyin Erdem Savas Atasever Ibrahim Cihangir Okuyucu

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the relations of hygienic status and milk production of Anatolian buffaloes. Fifty milking buffaloes reared in two farms in the Middle Black Sea region of Turkey were used as the study material. To record hygienic status of the animals, udder and flank hygiene scores (UHS and FHS) of the animal’s bodies were evaluated using a scale with 1 to 4 points (1 = very clean, 2 = clean, 3 = dirty, 4 = very dirty). Hygiene index score (HIS) values were consisted of 60% UHS and 40% FHS. To eliminate environmental factors, two parity (1st and ≥2nd) and stage of lactation (SL1<100d and SL2≥100d) subgroups were constituted. The buffalo cows with first parity and later SL had more udder dirtiness (P<0.05) and, the buffalo cows those in SL1 had higher milk yield compared to the other subgroup. A negative and weak correlation (r = -0.227) was estimated between HIS and test day milk yield (TDMY) of milking buffaloes. Confirming these relationships using more data and keeping buffaloes within more hygiene is advised as beneficial approaches.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
ERDEM, Huseyin; ATASEVER, Savas; OKUYUCU, Ibrahim Cihangir. Relations of hygiene index scores with milk production in Anatolian buffaloes. Buffalo Bulletin, [S.l.], v. 41, n. 4, p. 615-621, dec. 2022. ISSN 2539-5696. Available at: <https://kuojs.lib.ku.ac.th/index.php/BufBu/article/view/4309>. Date accessed: 28 jan. 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.56825/bufbu.2022.4144309.
Section
Original Article

References

Atasever, S. and H. Erdem. 2013. Relationships between somatic cell count and udder type scores in Holstein cows. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 45: 153-156.

Bekuma, A. and U. Galmessa. 2018. Review on hygienic milk products practice and occurrence of mastitis in cow’s milk. Agricultural Research and Technology, 18(2). DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.18.556053

Erdem, H., S. Atasever and E. Kul. 2010. Determination of milk production characteristics and milk losses related to somatic cell count in Jersey cows raised in the Black Sea region of Turkey. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 5(3): 217-222. DOI: 10.3923/ajava.2010.217.222

Hovinen, M. and S. Pyörala. 2011. Invited review: Udder health of dairy cows in automatic milking. J. Dairy Sci., 94(2): 547-562. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3556

Huijps, K., H. Hogeveen, T.J.G.M. Lam and A.G.J.M.O. Lansink. 2010. Costs and efficacy of management measures to improve udder health on Dutch dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci., 93(1): 115-124. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2009-2412

Kirkland, R.M. and F.J. Gordon. 2001. The effects of milk yield and stage of lactation on the partitioning of nutrients in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 84(1): 233-240. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74473-6

Sandrucci, A., L. Bava, M. Zucali and A. Tamburini. 2014. Management factors and cow traits influencing milk somatic cell counts and teat hyperkeratosis during different seasons. Rev. Bras. Zootecn., 43(9): 505-511. Available on: https://www.scielo.br/j/rbz/a/MRTrn8Jv5ZGhTgFQtV4TSKk/?format=pdf&lang=en

Sant’Anna, A.C. and M.J.R. Paranhos da Costa. 2011. The relationship between dairy cow hygiene and somatic cell count in milk. J. Dairy Sci., 94(8): 3835-3844. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3951

Srairi, M.T., H. Benhouda, M. Kuper and P.Y. Le Gal. 2009. Effect of cattle management practices on raw milk quality on farms operating in a two-stage dairy chain. Trop. Anim. Health. Pro., 41(2): 259-272. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-008-9183-9

Stadnik, L., S. Atasever and J. Ducháček. 2017. Effects of body condition score and daily milk yield on reproduction traits of Czech Fleckvieh cows. Anim. Reprod., 14, (Suppl. 1): 1264-1269. DOI: 10.21451/1984-3143-AR944

Tančin, V., S. Mikláš, C. Čobirka, M. Uhrinčat and L. Mačuhová. 2020. Factors affecting raw milk quality of dairy cows under practical conditions. Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences, 14: 744-749. DOI: 10.5219/1336