Drying-off practices and cell count–based new infection and cure risk over the dry period on 765 German dairy farms

IF 2.2
JDS communications Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-18 DOI:10.3168/jdsc.2025-0782
Andreas R. Böker , Roswitha Merle , Phuong Do Duc , Antonia Hentzsch , Annegret Stock , Frederike Reichmann , Alexander Bartel , Svenja Woudstra , Martina Hoedemaker
{"title":"Drying-off practices and cell count–based new infection and cure risk over the dry period on 765 German dairy farms","authors":"Andreas R. Böker ,&nbsp;Roswitha Merle ,&nbsp;Phuong Do Duc ,&nbsp;Antonia Hentzsch ,&nbsp;Annegret Stock ,&nbsp;Frederike Reichmann ,&nbsp;Alexander Bartel ,&nbsp;Svenja Woudstra ,&nbsp;Martina Hoedemaker","doi":"10.3168/jdsc.2025-0782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This observational study with voluntary participation investigated drying-off practices and dry period-related udder health key performance indicators in 3 important dairy production regions in Germany (the north [NR], east [ER], and south [SR]). Data from DHI testing and information about drying-off practices were collected during a single herd visit between 2016 and 2019 from 253, 252, and 260 farms in NR, ER, and SR, respectively. Abrupt cessation of lactation was most common in NR and ER, but only practiced on about half of the farms in SR (NR: 79%, ER: 75%, SR: 56%). Blanket dry cow therapy (BDCT, the use of antibiotic agents for all cows) dominated in NR and ER (63% and 65%, respectively), whereas in SR, primarily selective dry cow therapy (SDCT, targeted use of antibiotic agents at drying-off for individual cows according to farm-specific criteria; 56%) or even no use of antibiotic dry cow therapy (20%) were adopted. The use of teat sealants (TSL) with or without the use of antibiotics was most common in ER (66%), followed by farms in NR (54%), and least common in SR (30%). The median new infection risk (using a SCC threshold of 100,000 cells/mL of milk) during the dry period (NIRD; cows with SCC ≤100,000 before dry period and SCC &gt;100,000 at first test-day post dry period) in NR, ER, and SR was 24% (interquartile range: 13%–35%), 25% (18%–35%), and 24% (8%–37%), and the cure risk during the dry period (CRD; cows with SCC &gt;100,000 before dry period and SCC ≤100,000 at first test-day post dry period) in NR, ER, and SR was 63% (51%–72%), 57% (47%–65%), and 60% (42%–75%), respectively. The NIRD and CRD varied greatly between farms, indicating improvement potential on many dairy farms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94061,"journal":{"name":"JDS communications","volume":"7 2","pages":"Pages 227-232"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","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/S2666910225001826","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This observational study with voluntary participation investigated drying-off practices and dry period-related udder health key performance indicators in 3 important dairy production regions in Germany (the north [NR], east [ER], and south [SR]). Data from DHI testing and information about drying-off practices were collected during a single herd visit between 2016 and 2019 from 253, 252, and 260 farms in NR, ER, and SR, respectively. Abrupt cessation of lactation was most common in NR and ER, but only practiced on about half of the farms in SR (NR: 79%, ER: 75%, SR: 56%). Blanket dry cow therapy (BDCT, the use of antibiotic agents for all cows) dominated in NR and ER (63% and 65%, respectively), whereas in SR, primarily selective dry cow therapy (SDCT, targeted use of antibiotic agents at drying-off for individual cows according to farm-specific criteria; 56%) or even no use of antibiotic dry cow therapy (20%) were adopted. The use of teat sealants (TSL) with or without the use of antibiotics was most common in ER (66%), followed by farms in NR (54%), and least common in SR (30%). The median new infection risk (using a SCC threshold of 100,000 cells/mL of milk) during the dry period (NIRD; cows with SCC ≤100,000 before dry period and SCC >100,000 at first test-day post dry period) in NR, ER, and SR was 24% (interquartile range: 13%–35%), 25% (18%–35%), and 24% (8%–37%), and the cure risk during the dry period (CRD; cows with SCC >100,000 before dry period and SCC ≤100,000 at first test-day post dry period) in NR, ER, and SR was 63% (51%–72%), 57% (47%–65%), and 60% (42%–75%), respectively. The NIRD and CRD varied greatly between farms, indicating improvement potential on many dairy farms.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

干燥实践和基于细胞计数的新感染和治疗风险在干燥期765德国奶牛场。
这项自愿参与的观察性研究调查了德国3个重要乳制品产区(北部[NR]、东部[ER]和南部[SR])的干燥做法和与干燥期相关的乳房健康关键绩效指标。2016年至2019年期间,在对NR、ER和SR的253个、252个和260个农场进行一次牧群访问期间,分别收集了DHI测试数据和有关干燥做法的信息。突然停止泌乳在NR和ER中最常见,但仅在SR中约一半的农场实行(NR: 79%, ER: 75%, SR: 56%)。毯式干牛疗法(BDCT,对所有奶牛使用抗生素)在NR和ER中占主导地位(分别为63%和65%),而在SR中,主要采用选择性干牛疗法(SDCT,根据农场特定标准在奶牛干燥时有针对性地使用抗生素药物;56%)甚至不使用抗生素干牛疗法(20%)。使用或不使用抗生素的乳头密封剂(TSL)在ER最常见(66%),其次是NR (54%), SR最不常见(30%)。干期(nrd;干期前SCC≤100,000,干期后第一个试验日SCC≤100,000的奶牛)NR、ER和SR的新感染风险中位数为24%(四分位数范围:13%-35%)、25%(18%-35%)和24%(8%-37%),干期治愈风险(CRD;干前SCC≤10万、干后第1试验日SCC≤10万的奶牛,NR、ER和SR分别为63%(51% ~ 72%)、57%(47% ~ 65%)和60%(42% ~ 75%)。不同农场的nrd和CRD差异很大,这表明许多奶牛场有改进的潜力。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
JDS communications
JDS communications Animal Science and Zoology
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书