ICAR Technical Series no. 7 - Nitra Proc.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Kunc et al.Hamann, J., 1985; Infection rate as affected by teat tissue reactionsdue to conventional and non-conventional milking systems. Kiel.Milchwirtsch. Forschungsber, 37,426-430.Hamann, J., 1992; Stimulation and teat tissue reaction. Kiel.Milchwirtsch. Forschungsber, 44, 339-347.Isaksson , A. & O. Lind, 1992; Teat reactions in cows associated withmachine milking. J. Vet. Med., Series A, 39.Johansson, B., J. Olofsson, H. Wiktorsson, K. Uvnas-Moberg &K. Svennersten-Sjaunja, 1998; A comparison between manualprestimulation versus feeding stimulation during milking in dairy cows.Swedish J. Agr. Res., 28, 177-187.Kruze, J., 1998; The milking and its role in mastitis controlprogrammes. Archivos de Medicine Veterinaria, 30, 7-16.Kunc P., I. Knízková, M. Koubková, J. Fluser & O. Dolezal, 2000a;Machine milking and its influence on temperature states of udder. CzechJ. Anim. Sci, 45, VI.Kunc P., I. Knízková, M. Koubková, J. Fluser & O. Dolezal, 2000b;Comparasion of rubber liners by means of temperature states of teat. Res.Agr. Eng., 46, 104-107.Neijenhuis, F., 1998;Teat end callosity classification system.Proceedings of 4 th International Dairy Housing Conference, St.Louis,Missouri, USA, January 28-30, ASAE, 117-123.Neijenhuis, F., H.W. Barkema, H. Hogeveen &J.P.T.N.Noordhuizen, 2000; Classification and longitudinal examinationof callused teat ends in dairy cows. J.Dairy Sci, 83, 2795-2804.Pankey, J.W., R.J. Eberhart, A.L. Cuming, R.D. Daggett,R.J. Farnsworth & C.K. McDuff, 1984; Uptake on postmilking teatantisepsis. J. Dairy Sci.,52, 696-706.Rasmussen M.D., E.S. Frimer, Z. Horvath & N.E. Jensen , 1990;Comparison of a standardized and variable milking routine. J. Dairy Sci.,73, 3472-3480.Rasmussen, M.D., E.S. Frimer, D.M. Galton & L.D. Petersson, 1992;The influence of premilking teat preparation and attachment delay onmilk-yield and milking performance. J. Dairy Sci., 75, 2131-3141.Rasmussen, M.D. & H.D. Larsen, 1998; The effect of post milkingteat dip and suckling on teat condition, bacterial colonisation and udderhealth. Acta Vet. Scan., 39, 443-452.Rasmussen, M.D. & N.P. Madsen, 2000; Effects of milkline vacuum,pulsator airline vacuum, and cluster weight on milk yield, teat condition,and udder health. J. Dairy Sci., 83, 77-84.ICAR Technical Series - No 7223
Los & MaškováTeatcup hardness after ageing inlaboratory and plant usageJ. Los & A. MaškováMendel University of Agriculture and Forestry in Brno,Zemedelská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech RepublicE-mail: los@mendelu.czA crucial hygienic measure in primary milk production is the eliminationof microbiological contamination. The most stringent requirements aretherefore imposed on the quality of liners, which as the only ones comeinto the contact with the living organism (teats) and with milk.The liners made by two different manufacturers (L1, L2) were used in tworotary milking parlour Melotte 9 employing milking machines with milkingunits BDS-378.3 made by Agrostroj Pelhrimov, a.s. Cleaning anddisinfection were made by automated washers AMA 227.1 (AgrostrojPelhrimov, a.s.). The changes of liner rubber hardness were evaluated usingvarious disinfectants and detergents (S1, S2). The releasing of carbon blacksfrom rubber parts into milk and the CPM (count of coliform bacteria) forlifetime determination were used. A time schedule was set up forobservation and sampling of liners and milk tubes in order to verify thecapacity of liners and milk tubes to be cleaned. Each sampling contained 4liners of each type. The samples were then analyzed in accreditedlaboratories and obtained results subjected to a further statistic evaluationby UNISTAT 5.1 program.It is possible to conclude on the basis of the correlations that hardnesswould be increasing with the increasing usage time in the application ofL2 and the cleaning and disinfection system S2. In other combinations ofliners and cleaning/disinfection systems the hardness of liners decreaseswith the increasing time of their usage (see Figure 1).It was evidenced that the hardness of liners is highly significantlyinfluenced only by the cleaning agent (P < 0.01). No significant influenceon the value of hardness was evidenced in other factors or their interactions.The highest hardness values were reached in L2 combined with thecleaning/disinfection system S1 (average 55.43° Sh A).ICAR Technical Series - No 7225
Page 2 and 3:
The designationsemployed and thepre
Page 4 and 5:
The organisers of the meeting want
Page 6 and 7:
Milking variables in relation to te
Page 8 and 9:
Modelling of liner behaviour using
Page 10 and 11:
ForewordThe second half of the part
Page 13 and 14:
Rosatiorganizations. The “Lactati
Page 15 and 16:
Rosatito guarantee correctness of s
Page 17 and 18:
RosatiICAR also sponsors books belo
Page 19 and 20:
Technical developments in Slovak co
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
de Koning & HuijsmanThe Dutch Quali
Page 27 and 28:
de Koning & Huijsmanare Medicines,
Page 29 and 30:
de Koning & HuijsmanThe pulsation c
Page 31 and 32:
de Koning & HuijsmanBalances which
Page 33 and 34:
Tancin et al.Physiology of milk let
Page 35 and 36:
Tancin et al.In the dairy practice
Page 37 and 38:
Tancin et al.Mayer, H., D. Schams,
Page 39 and 40:
Effect of machine milking on teatIn
Page 41 and 42:
Effect of machine milking on teatBe
Page 43 and 44:
Effect of machine milking on teatTa
Page 45 and 46:
Effect of machine milking on teatNe
Page 47 and 48:
Measurements of vacuum stabilityInt
Page 49 and 50:
Measurements of vacuum stabilityTab
Page 51 and 52:
Measurements of vacuum stabilityFor
Page 53 and 54:
Marnet et al.Comparative study of p
Page 55 and 56:
Marnet et al.production during the
Page 57 and 58:
Marnet et al.prestimulation by the
Page 59 and 60:
Worstorff & BilgeryEffects of liner
Page 61 and 62:
Worstorff & BilgeryTable 1 summaris
Page 63 and 64:
Worstorff & Bilgeryseries 40/32 kPa
Page 65 and 66:
Differential staining of somatic ce
Page 67 and 68:
Different diagnostic measures for m
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Evaluation of milking routine by La
Page 75 and 76:
Evaluation of milking routine by La
Page 77 and 78:
Fryc et al.The assessment parameter
Page 79 and 80:
Fryc et al.p n[kPa]p n1p n2p npt st
Page 81 and 82:
Fryc et al.rate. There were three s
Page 83 and 84:
Milking devices disturbance on SCCm
Page 85 and 86:
Milking devices disturbance on SCCL
Page 87 and 88:
Milking devices disturbance on SCCT
Page 89 and 90:
Turki & WinnickiMilking variables i
Page 91 and 92:
Table1. Milk flow time from in indi
Page 93 and 94:
Table 2. First minute milk flow, av
Page 95 and 96:
Turki & WinnickiMayer H., Schams D.
Page 97 and 98:
Milk recording in GermanyTable 1. E
Page 99 and 100:
Milk recording in GermanyTable 3. A
Page 101 and 102:
Milk recording in GermanyTable 5. M
Page 103 and 104:
Main fields ofactivities of theGerm
Page 105 and 106:
Influence of duration of a and c ph
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Nosal & BilgeryVibrations and vacuu
Page 113 and 114:
Nosal & BilgerykPa45.645.445.245.04
Page 115 and 116:
Nosal & BilgeryIn case of problems
Page 117 and 118:
Testing of vacuum during milkingEva
Page 119 and 120:
Testing of vacuum during milkingthe
Page 121 and 122:
Ryšánek et al.Vacuum fluctuation
Page 123 and 124:
Ryšánek et al.Teat injuries were
Page 125 and 126:
Ryšánek et al.Particular attentio
Page 127 and 128:
de KoningAutomatic milking:Chances
Page 129 and 130:
de Koningfor some time after the mi
Page 131 and 132:
de KoningMilk quality is without do
Page 133 and 134:
de Koningwhen the bulk tank is empt
Page 135 and 136:
de KoningLand, A. van ‘t et al, 2
Page 137 and 138:
Characterising the farms equipped w
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Designing optimal robotic milking b
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
ArtmannThe effects of automatic mil
Page 155 and 156:
ArtmannData was collected on the ma
Page 157 and 158: ArtmannThe differences of the co-ef
Page 159 and 160: BarthEvaluation of somatic cell cou
Page 161 and 162: BarthTable 1. Determined and real m
Page 163 and 164: Barthyield is often a side effect o
Page 165 and 166: Milking parameters in modified milk
Page 167 and 168: Pallas & WendtThe development of ud
Page 169 and 170: Pallas & WendtSCC (x 1,000) / ml250
Page 171 and 172: Pallas & WendtTrilk, J. und Münch,
Page 173 and 174: Udder health and milk low profilesA
Page 175 and 176: Udder health and milk low profilesD
Page 177 and 178: AMS in Czech RepublicThis farm size
Page 179 and 180: AMS in Czech RepublicTable 1. Effec
Page 181 and 182: AMS in Czech RepublicFigure 1. Stab
Page 183 and 184: BruckmaierSpecific aspects of milk
Page 185 and 186: Bruckmaiertowards the end of lactat
Page 187 and 188: BruckmaierBruckmaier, R.M., D. Scha
Page 189 and 190: Teat callosity and mastitisResultsT
Page 191 and 192: de Koning et al.Milking characteris
Page 193 and 194: de Koning et al.Table 1. Statistica
Page 195 and 196: Influence of ageing on linersThe re
Page 197 and 198: Neijenhuis & HogeveenMilking interv
Page 199 and 200: Knízková et al.Effect of old and
Page 201 and 202: Knízková et al.Thermograms of the
Page 203 and 204: Knízková et al.Kunc, P., Knízkov
Page 205 and 206: Postmilking teat disinfectingIntrod
Page 207: Postmilking teat disinfectingNDT an
Page 211 and 212: Los & MaškováIt follows from the
Page 213 and 214: Trends in milking equipmentThe fina
Page 215 and 216: Olechnowicz & TurkiMilking and milk
Page 217 and 218: Table 2. Milk components and somati
Page 219 and 220: Lipinski et al.Effect of some selec
Page 221 and 222: Lipinski et al.Milk hygiene quality
Page 223 and 224: Lipinski et al.1. The technical and
Page 225 and 226: Effect of two milking systems on te
Page 227 and 228: Effect of two milking systems on te
Page 229 and 230: Milk quality and mastitis monitorin
Page 231 and 232: Nitra in ICAR interlaboratory studi
Page 233 and 234: Botto et al.Effect of ultrasound in
Page 235 and 236: Báder et al.Change of udder confor
Page 237 and 238: Báder et al.6050%4030201.scor.2.sc
Page 239 and 240: Luger et al.Effect of inclination a
Page 241 and 242: Luger et al.There is no difference
Page 243 and 244: Harty et al.Modelling of liner beha
Page 245 and 246: Harty et al.A solid plane was const
Page 247 and 248: Provolo & SangiorgiUsing daily data
Page 249 and 250: Provolo & SangiorgiFigure 3. Averag
Page 251 and 252: Provolo & SangiorgiFigure 7. Cow no
Page 253 and 254: Provolo & Sangiorgistandardisation
Page 255 and 256: Cognome/iInhibition of oxytocin rel
Page 257 and 258: Tancin et al.Milk flow patterns: in
Page 259 and 260:
Szlachta & AleksanderThe influence
Page 261 and 262:
Szlachta & Aleksanderforces in the
Page 263 and 264:
Szlachta & Aleksanderpressure diffe
Page 265 and 266:
List of participantsŠtefan BodoSPU
Page 267 and 268:
List of participantsMarian GregušI
Page 269 and 270:
List of participantsMarija KlopcicD
Page 271 and 272:
List of participantsŠtefan MihinaV
Page 273 and 274:
List of participantsEduard Pravnans
Page 275 and 276:
List of participantsJozef Tonhauser
show all

ICAR Technical Series no. 7 - Nitra Proc.

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?