Fecal egg counts and individual milk production in temperate pastoral dairy systems of Australia

T. Loughnan , P. Mansell , M. Playford , D. Beggs
{"title":"Fecal egg counts and individual milk production in temperate pastoral dairy systems of Australia","authors":"T. Loughnan ,&nbsp;P. Mansell ,&nbsp;M. Playford ,&nbsp;D. Beggs","doi":"10.3168/jdsc.2024-0555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Anthelmintic use in lactating dairy cattle has been shown to result in a milk production response in some previous studies. If individual animals within a herd could be identified that would most benefit from anthelmintic treatment, this may reduce anthelmintic resistance. Australian dairy systems are predominantly pasture based, allowing sustained exposure and immune stimulation of cattle to gastrointestinal nematodes. We assessed the relationship between milk production and early-lactation fecal egg counts (FEC) to determine whether cows with higher FEC produced less milk. Ten pasture-based dairy farms in south-west Victoria, Australia, entered an observational study. Individual FEC at a minimum detectable count of 2.5 eggs per gram of feces (epg) were recorded for recently calved primiparous and multiparous cohorts on each farm. All animals were calved ≤30 d at sampling. Body condition scores were assessed at sampling and milk production data were collected from daily milk meters and herd tests to give first 100-d milk production. When separated by primiparous or multiparous status, no difference in the milk production between cows with FEC = 0 and FEC ≥2.5 epg was identified. Between-farm variation was large for FEC and milk production. Fecal egg count at a minimum detectable count of 2.5 epg detected parasitism in primiparous cows postcalving, but the presence and magnitude of parasitism measurable by FEC was not related to milk production in pasture-based Australian dairy systems. In multiparous cows, the rate detection of worm eggs at this analytical sensitivity was lower and the significance of a positive FEC at this analytical sensitivity requires further assessment to ascertain the effect on milk production. Based on our study, it seems unlikely that individual FEC results would be useful as a basis to select individual cows in south-west Victorian dairy herds for anthelmintic treatment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94061,"journal":{"name":"JDS communications","volume":"5 6","pages":"Pages 664-668"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JDS communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666910224001005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Anthelmintic use in lactating dairy cattle has been shown to result in a milk production response in some previous studies. If individual animals within a herd could be identified that would most benefit from anthelmintic treatment, this may reduce anthelmintic resistance. Australian dairy systems are predominantly pasture based, allowing sustained exposure and immune stimulation of cattle to gastrointestinal nematodes. We assessed the relationship between milk production and early-lactation fecal egg counts (FEC) to determine whether cows with higher FEC produced less milk. Ten pasture-based dairy farms in south-west Victoria, Australia, entered an observational study. Individual FEC at a minimum detectable count of 2.5 eggs per gram of feces (epg) were recorded for recently calved primiparous and multiparous cohorts on each farm. All animals were calved ≤30 d at sampling. Body condition scores were assessed at sampling and milk production data were collected from daily milk meters and herd tests to give first 100-d milk production. When separated by primiparous or multiparous status, no difference in the milk production between cows with FEC = 0 and FEC ≥2.5 epg was identified. Between-farm variation was large for FEC and milk production. Fecal egg count at a minimum detectable count of 2.5 epg detected parasitism in primiparous cows postcalving, but the presence and magnitude of parasitism measurable by FEC was not related to milk production in pasture-based Australian dairy systems. In multiparous cows, the rate detection of worm eggs at this analytical sensitivity was lower and the significance of a positive FEC at this analytical sensitivity requires further assessment to ascertain the effect on milk production. Based on our study, it seems unlikely that individual FEC results would be useful as a basis to select individual cows in south-west Victorian dairy herds for anthelmintic treatment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚温带牧区奶牛系统中的粪蛋计数和个体产奶量
以前的一些研究表明,对泌乳乳牛使用驱虫药可提高产奶量。如果能确定牛群中哪些动物最受益于驱虫药治疗,就可能减少抗药性。澳大利亚的奶牛饲养系统以牧场为主,这使得牛群能够持续接触胃肠道线虫并受到免疫刺激。我们评估了产奶量与早期泌乳期粪卵计数(FEC)之间的关系,以确定粪卵计数越高的奶牛产奶量是否越少。澳大利亚维多利亚州西南部的十个牧场参与了一项观察性研究。每个牧场都记录了最近产犊的初产牛群和多产牛群的粪便卵计数,每克粪便中至少可检测到 2.5 个卵子(epg)。采样时,所有动物均已产仔≤30 d。采样时对体况评分进行评估,并通过每日奶量计和牛群测试收集产奶量数据,以得出前100天的产奶量。按初产或多产状态区分,FEC = 0 和 FEC ≥2.5 epg 的奶牛的产奶量没有差异。不同牧场之间的FEC和产奶量差异很大。在澳大利亚牧场奶牛系统中,最低可检测到的2.5 epg数量的粪便卵计数可检测到初产奶牛产后的寄生虫,但粪便卵计数可测量的寄生虫的存在和规模与产奶量无关。在多胎奶牛中,这种分析灵敏度下的虫卵检出率较低,在这种分析灵敏度下,FEC阳性的意义需要进一步评估,以确定对产奶量的影响。根据我们的研究,在维多利亚州西南部的奶牛群中,单个 FEC 结果似乎不能作为选择奶牛进行抗蠕虫治疗的依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JDS communications
JDS communications Animal Science and Zoology
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Editorial Board Getting to grips with resilience: Toward large-scale phenotyping of this complex trait* Development of genomic evaluation for methane efficiency in Canadian Holsteins* Validation and interdevice reliability of a behavior monitoring collar to measure rumination, feeding activity, and idle time of lactating dairy cows
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1