Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2017, 65(3), 879-892 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201765030879

Somatic Cells in Bulk Samples and Purchase Prices of Cow Milk

Jindřich Kvapilík1, Oto Hanuš2, Petr Roubal2, Jan Říha3, Petr Urban4, Radoslava Jedelská2, Růžena Seydlová2, Marcela Klimešová2, Pavel Kopunecz4
1 Research Institute for Animal Production v.v.i., Přátelství 815, 104 00 Praha 22, Czech Republic
2 Dairy Research Institute, s.r.o., Ke Dvoru 12a, 160 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic
3 Bentley Czech s.r.o., Hlinky 114, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic
4 Czech-Moravia Breeders Corporation a.s., Benešovská 123, 252 09 Hradištko, Czech Republic

There were calculated the somatic cell count (SCC) 209 (36-468) 103ml-1, the total count of microorganisms (TCM) 25 103ml-1 (from 5 to 377), fat 3.84 % (from 3.23 to 4.46) and protein content 3.39 % (from 3.04 to 3.75) and milk freezing point (MFP) -0.525 °C (from -0.534 to -0.395) of the 522 monthly bulk milk samples from 11 experimental stables during the period from 2012 to 2015. Residues of inhibitory substances were not detected in any sample. Milk sale reached 7,999 liters (l) with fluctuating between 6,150 and 10,532 l per cow. This can be deduced from the regression coefficients that due to increase in the SCC by 100 103ml-1 the TCM increased by 2.9 to 4.2 103ml-1, the fat content decreased by 0.09 to 0.13 % and protein about 0.01 to 0.05 %. Influence of SCC, TCM and the fat and protein content calculated from monthly samples for individual stables can be estimated at -0.12 CZC, fluctuations between the stables at +0.46 to -0.84 CZC per l of milk. The increase in milk price by 0.17 CZC in the range of -0.92 to +0.92 CZC per l of milk corresponds to averages of indicators calculated from 522 samples.

Keywords: bulk raw cow milk, somatic cell count, fat, proteins, total count of microorganisms, milk freezing point, residues of inhibitory substances, milk secretion disorders - mastitis, quality and purchase price of milk
Grants and funding:

This work was supported by Ministry of Agriculture projects NAZV KUS QJ1210301, MZe RO0714 and MZe RO1417.

Prepublished online: July 3, 2017; Published: May 1, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kvapilík, J., Hanuš, O., Roubal, P., Říha, J., Urban, P., Jedelská, R., ... Kopunecz, P. (2017). Somatic Cells in Bulk Samples and Purchase Prices of Cow Milk. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 65(3), 879-892. doi: 10.11118/actaun201765030879
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. FETROW, J. 2016. Innovationsteam Milch Hessen. [Excel table]. Landesvereinigung Milch Hessen. Available at: www.milchhessen.de/mediaarchiv/grab_pic.php?id=34635 [Accessed: 2016, December 20].
    2. GERMANY. 1980. Milch-Güteverordnung vom 9. Juli 1980 (BGBl. I S. 878, 1081), die zuletzt durch Artikel 1 der Verordnung vom 17. Dezember 2010 (BGBl. I S. 2132) geändert worden ist. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/milchg_v/gesamt.pdf [Accessed: 2016, December 20].
    3. HANUŠ, O., HRONEK, M., HYŠPLER, R., YONG, T., TICHÁ, A., FIKROVÁ, P., HANUŠOVÁ, K., SOJKOVÁ, K., KOPECKÝ, J. and JEDELSKÁ, R. 2010. Relationship between somatic cell count and lactose content in milk of various species of mammals. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63(2): 87 - 100. DOI: 10.11118/actaun201058020087 Go to original source...
    4. HOGEVEEN, H., HUIJPS, K. and LAM, T. J. 2011. Economic aspects of mastitis: new developments. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 59(1):16 - 23. DOI: 10.1080/00480169.2011.547165 Go to original source...
    5. HUBER, L. 2014. Milch-Güteverordnung (MilchGüV). Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten. [Online]. Available at: http://www.lfl.bayern.de/iem/milchwirtschaft/026702/ [Accessed: 2016, December 20].
    6. JONES, G. M. and BAILEY, T. L. 2009. Understanding the basics of mastitis. Virginia Cooperative Extension, Publication No. 404 - 233. Virginia State University.
    7. KOPUNECZ, P. 2016. Milk laboratories - LRM. Českomoravská společnost chovatelů, a.s. Available at: http://www.cmsch.cz/343laboratore-pro-rozbor-mleka-lrm/ [Accessed: 2016, December 20].
    8. KOSSAIBATI, M. A. and ESSLEMONT, R. J. 1997. The costs of production diseases in dairy herds in England. Veterinary Journal, 154(1): 41 - 51. DOI: 10.1016/S1090-0233(05)80007-3 Go to original source...
    9. KRÖMKER, V. 2007. Kurzes Lehrbuch Milchkunde und Milchhygiene. Parey Verlag, 232. Go to original source...
    10. KVAPILÍK, J. 2014. Mastitis in dairy cows and production losses. [In Czech: Mastitidy u dojených krav a výrobní ztráty.] Veterinářství, 64(7): 550 - 560.
    11. KVAPILÍK, J., HANUŠ, O., BARTOŇ, L., KLIMEŠOVÁ V. M. and ROUBAL, P. 2015. Mastitis of dairy cows and financial losses: an economic meta-analysis and model calculation. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 21: 1092 - 1105.
    12. KVAPILÍK, J., HANUŠ, O., SYRŮČEK, J., VYLETĚLOVÁ KLIMEŠOVÁ, M., and ROUBAL, P. 2014. The economic importance of the losses of cow milk due to mastitis: a meta-analysis. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 20(6): 1501 - 1515.
    13. KVAPILÍK, J., JEDELSKÁ, R., HANUŠ, O., URBAN, P., ŘÍHA, J., KOPUNECZ, P., SEYDLOVÁ, R., ROUBAL, P., ZLATNÍČEK, J. and KLIMEŠ, M. 2016. Somatic cell count in milk from individual dairy cows and selected indicators. [In Czech: Somatické buňky v mléce individuálních krav a vybrané ukazatele]. Mlékařské listy 158, 27(5): 5 - 12.
    14. LANDESKONTROLLVERBAND. 2016. LKV Info - KKB 2016. [Online]. LKV Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. Available at: http://www.lkv-nrw.de/fileadmin/redaktion/LKV_NRW/LKV-Info/LKV_Info_KKB_2016.pdf [Accessed: 2016, December 20].
    15. LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER RHEINLAND-PFALTZ. c2016. Aktuelles zum Milchmarkt. Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland-Pfalz.[Online]. Available at: http://www.lwk-rlp.de/de/markt-statistik/marktbericht/marktbericht/news/detail/News/aktuelles-zum-milchmarkt/ [Accessed: 2016, December 20].
    16. LÜHRMANN, B. 2013. Erkrankungen bei Milchkühen - was kostet eine Mastitis? Vortrag Milcherzeugertag, Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen. [Online]. Available at: http://www.lwk-niedersachsen.de/index.cfm [Accessed: 2016, December 20].
    17. MGN MILCHGENOSSENSCHAFT NÖ. 2016. Mitgliederinformation. [Online]. Available at: http://www.mgn.at/rundschreiben/rundschreibenDez2016.pdf [Accessed: 2016, December 20].
    18. MILCHINDUSTRIE-VERBAND. 2016. Milkipedia. Meine Milch. [Online]. Available at: http://www.meine-milch.de/milkipedia/milch-gueteverordnung [Accessed: 2016, December 20].
    19. MILCHPRÜFRING BAYERN E. V. 2016. Jahresauswertung 2012 - 2015. Wolnzach. [Online]. Available at: https://www.mpr-bayern.de [Accessed: 2016, December 20].
    20. NIELSEN, C. 2009. Economic impact of mastitis in dairy cows. Doctoral Thesis. Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
    21. RÜSCH, P. 2000. Wirtschaftliche Bedeutung - was kostet Mastitis? In: Walkenhorst, M. (Ed.) Mastitis: Kein Wundermittel gegen die Kuhkrankheit Nummer eins. Bio Aktuell.
    22. WALKENHORST, M. 2000. Mastitis: Kein Wundermittel gegen die Kuhkrankheit Nummer eins. Bio Aktuell, 9.
    23. ZSCHÖCH, M. 2016. Die Diagnose der Mastitis. Milchpraxis, 4: 2 - 4.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content