Variation in Somatic Cell Counts in Dairy Herd

Improvement Milk Samples ~

G. W. B O D O H , W. J. B A T T I S T A 2 , and L. H. S C H U L T Z
Department of Dairy Science
University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706
R. P. J O H N S T O N , JR.
Department of Animal and Food Sciences
University of Wisconsin, River Falls 54022

ABSTRACT Mastitis Test (WMT). Initial steps have been

taken for incorporation of a mastitis screening
Information on variability of somatic
test into the Wisconsin Dairy Herd Improve-
cell numbers in Dairy Herd Improvement
ment (DHI) program. Gel tests could not be
samples analyzed by the Filter-DNA
used satisfactorily in the Wisconsin DHI pro-
method came from two field studies.
gram (4) where testing is in central laboratories
Data consisted of 13,733 samples taken
on preserved milk. These studies were initiated
in 16 herds monthly for 2 y r in one sur-
to test the feasibility of using the Filter-DNA
vey and 6285 observations in 134 herds
mastiffs test of Ward and Schultz (10) in central
each sampled once in the other. Mean cell
DHI laboratories on preserved milk.
numbers in the studies were 692,000 and
These tests are of limited value as short-
625,000 cells per ml. Median cell number
range indicators of clinical mastitis but can
in the 16 herds was 390,000 cells per ml.
offer long-range management benefits. A peri-
Herd percentages of cows over 1 million,
odic program could monitor a herd's udder
between 500,000 and 1 million, and
health, identify chronically-infected cows, aid
below 500,000 cells per ml averaged 17.9,
in selection of cows for dry therapy and culling,
20.5, and 61.6 with wide ranges. Data
and determine effectiveness of treatment. It
were transformed to a log scale and
also could aid veterinarians in.mastitis control
analyzed with two models, one involving
and milk plants in milk quality determination.
herd, year, season, and age and another
The objective of this study was to examine
involving management practices. Mean
the effect of several sources of variation in
differences among herds, years, seasons,
somatic cell counts as determined by the
age of cows, and stages of lactation were
Filter-DNA method and draw recommendations
large in the 16-herd study. The model of
for its use in a DHI program.
management practices found no associa-
tion of herd size and cell numbers. Herds METHODS
with parlor milking systems that dipped Data consisted of somatic cell counts deter-
teats and practiced selective dry cow mined by the Filter-DNA method from two
treatment had the lowest mean cell num- surveys. One study involved 16 herds which
bers. were tested monthly for 2 yr. Cooperating
herds were selected to represent a variety of
I NTRODUCTION
management systems and infection levels.
A number of states have incorporated so- Dairymen were asked to minimize changes in
matic cell counting schemes into their produc- management practices during this period. The
tion testing programs. These usually involve the second data set was from 134 herds each
California Mastitis Test (CMT) or the Wisconsin sampled once. In each survey, milk samples
were obtained from the DHI laboratory after
fat test. Cell counts were in campus laborato-
Received August 18, 1975. ries. Dairymen in each group were asked to
t Research supported by the College of Agricultural describe their facilities and management prac-
and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, tices in questionnaires.
and by special funds for cooperative research in Data were transformed to a log scale to
agriculture at Madison and River Falls.
2Agricultural Records Cooperative, 6225 Univer- normalize the distribution of the independent
sity Avenue, Madison, WI 53705. random residual effects and analyzed with two

1119
1120 BODOH ET AL.

where Y is a cell c o u n t f r o m a p o p u l a t i o n w i t h
mean, /J, a n d effect of i th h e r d size, jth m i l k i n g
system, k th u d d e r wash t e c h n i q u e , 1 th t e a t
dipping alternative, a n d m t h dry t h e r a p y pro-
gram. All effects are fixed e x c e p t e. T h e first
d a t a set was a n a l y z e d w i t h b o t h m o d e l s while
the s e c o n d set c o u l d o n l y be a n a l y z e d w i t h
Model II.
Full r a n k s o l u t i o n s were o b t a i n e d b y apply-
ing t h e c o n s t r a i n t t h a t c o m p o n e n t s of each
main effect a n d i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n each com-
p o n e n t of its m a i n e f f e c t s u m to zero. Estima-
ble f u n c t i o n s , b, were o b t a i n e d f r o m b = ( X ' X ) -1
0 2 4 6 6 10 12 14 16 t8 20 22 24
SOMATIC CELLS (xl05) X'y, sums of squares f r o m ~)'Z -1 b, a n d s t a n d a r d
FIG. 1. Distribution of somatic cell numbers errors f r o m X/C ii 0 2.
observed in 16 herds (no. of observations 13,733).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A t o t a l of 13,733 s o m a t i c cell c o u n t s was

models by least square analysis of variance.
Model I w h i c h includes factors w h i c h m a y
affect a c o w ' s general physiological s t a t e was:
Yijklmn = /2 + H i + Aj + M k + P1 + Sm +
(AM)jk + ( P M ) l m + eijklmn
where Y was t h e n th s o m a t i c cell c o u n t t a k e n
in t h e m th stage of l a c t a t i o n , l t h p a r i t y group,
k th m o n t h of year, jth year a n d i th h e r d f r o m a
p o p u l a t i o n w i t h a mean, ~t, a n d i n d e p e n d e n t
r a n d o m i d e n t i c a l l y - d i s t r i b u t e d residual effect,
e. Stage of l a c t a t i o n was o n e o f f o u r 6 1 - d a y
periods p o s t p a r t u m or a fifth p e r i o d m o r e t h a n
2 4 4 days p o s t p a r t u m . Cows in l a c t a t i o n s five or
later were s u m m a r i z e d as o n e group.
Model II, w h i c h c o n t a i n s m a n a g e m e n t prac-
tices w h i c h differ f r o m h e r d t o herd, was:
Yijklmn = /a + Li + Bj + W k + D 1 + T m
+ (DT)Im + eijklmn
t a k e n in t h e 16 h e r d s a n d 6285 in t h e 134
herds. Cell c o u n t s averaged 6 9 2 , 0 0 0 a n d
6 2 5 , 0 0 0 cells per ml, respectively, w i t h stan-
dard deviations o f 1 , 1 2 1 , 0 0 0 a n d 8 1 6 , 0 0 0 . T h e
d i s t r i b u t i o n of cell n u m b e r s was skewed, as
s h o w n in Fig. 1 w i t h data f r o m t h e 16 h e r d s so
t h a t t h e m e d i a n was 3 9 0 , 0 0 0 cells p e r ml.
T a b l e 1 shows general i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the
herds in each group. C o r r e l a t i o n o f cell n u m -
bers a n d test day milk yield, a d j u s t e d for
effects o f herd, year, season, age, a n d stage o f
l a c t a t i o n , was - . 1 6 5 in t h e 16 herds. No
p r o d u c t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n was available f r o m t h e
134 herds. T h e p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n of cell
n u m b e r s is c o n s i d e r e d a m o r e m e a n i n g f u l indi-
cator of a h e r d ' s average u d d e r h e a l t h t h a n is
the m e a n o f cell n u m b e r s t a k e n f r o m a p o p u l a -
t i o n w i t h this skewness. Figure 2 shows t h e
d i s t r i b u t i o n of h e r d s b y p r o p o r t i o n of cows
with s o m a t i c cell n u m b e r s o f greater t h a n 1

TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics of the two groups of herds.

16 Herds a 134 Herds b

Item Mean Range Mean Range

Herd size (no. cows) 47 33 to 64 57 11 to 220

Daily milk yield (kg) 20 16.2 to 23.6
% counts >1 million/ml 17.9 5 to 43 14.1 o to s 3
% 500,000 to 1 million/ml 20.5 I0 to 27 27.1 0 to 80
% counts < 500,000/ml 61.6 31 to 84 58.8 0 to 96

aSampled monthly for 2 yr.

bsampled once.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 59, No. 6

 SOMATIC CELLS IN PRODUCTION TESTING 1121

O- 4- 8 - ~2- 16- 2 0 - 2 4 - 2 8 - 3 2 - 3 6 - 4 0 +
4 8 12 16 2 0 2 4 28 3 2 36 40
% OF COWS IN HERD WITH >I,(X)O, O00 CELIS/rnl

FIG. 2 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f 1 3 4 herds b y p e r c e n t o f
c o w s w i t h s o m a t i c cell n u m b e r s greater t h a n 1 million
cells/ml.

o
million per ml in the 134 herds. o
o
A limited number of bulk tank samples were
e,
tested for cell numbers and compared to an
estimated bulk tank count calculated from cell 3
number and daily milk yield of each cow.
~A
Means of the actual and estimated bulk tank
cell numbers were 370,000 and 380,000 cells E
per ml, respectively. Some milk from infected
cows may have been withheld from the tank.
c~
Correlation of actual and expected bulk tank
counts was .87.
Analysis of the 16-herd data by Model I
found significant differences (P<.01) among X
factors in all main effects and the year x month r.~ (-.4

interaction. Least square means for herds

ranged from 429,000 to 1,344,000 cells per ml
as expected in this selected sample. Seasonal =-
differences are in Fig. 3. The highest average O

cell numbers were in July and August and the

lowest in March. There was a marked difference
in months between different years. These are

lOSO
1000
iiSO / ••
/ I

80D s ~
_ff 75o . ,, . ,

BOO I

MSNTH OF YEflR ,d
e~
FIG. E f f e c t o f s e a s o n o n s o m a t i c cell c o u n t
3. < >
(solid line, y e a r 1 ; d a s h e d line, y e a r 2 ) .

Journal o f Dairy S c i e n c e Vol. 59, No. 6

1122 BODOH ET AL.

I~ Older cows h a d h i g h e r cell n u m b e r s t h a n

cows at successively y o u n g e r ages (Table 2).

2
o
1, i
5o
T h e r e were n o differences a m o n g m e a n cell
n u m b e r s in t h e first t h r e e stages o f l a c t a t i o n ,
I zo_o b u t t h e y rose sharply in t h e f o u r t h a n d again in
1~ ~ the f i f t h stages. Cell n u m b e r s in milk o f
k,--'E "-; ~9o_~ younger animals did n o t appear to rise as
~6o~ sharply in late lactation as in the milk of older
I0 /" / MILK YIELD
z° animals. However, this interaction was n o t

ti
5 ~~ significant. These results confirm other reports
of t h e effects of age a n d stage o f l a c t a t i o n o n
0 [ I I I I I I ]
O- 2.5- 39- 52.- 66- 7.9- 93- 102- 1::>0- > cell n u m b e r s in milk (1, 2, 3, 7).
2.5 39 .5.2 6.6 7.9 9.3 107 12:0 12t4
DALLY MILK YIELD ON LAST TEST DAY (KR) ~34 T h e last cell c o u n t in l a c t a t i o n s of 983 cows
FIG. 4. Relationship of average somatic cell num- averaged 2 8 0 , 0 0 0 ceils per ml m o r e t h a n t h e i r
ber on last test day to daily milk yield. c o u n t s in t h e 2 n d last m o o f l a c t a t i o n ( P < . 0 1
b y W i l c o x a n ' s s i g n e d - r a n k test). Average cell
similar t o t h e seasonal t r e n d in i n c i d e n c e o f n u m b e r s a m o n g yields a b o v e 4 kg o n t h e last
clinical i n f e c t i o n f o u n d by Paape et al. (8). test day were n o t significantly d i f f e r e n t (Fig.

TABLE 3. Least squares means of factors in Model II.

16 Herds 134 Herds

LS. L.S.
Sources of No. of No. of
variation observations SE observations SE

cells (O00's) cells (O00's)

Herd size
<36 1497 903 31.8 493 605 40.7
36-49 4720 894 24.1 1778 619 26.7
>49 7516 938 29.5 4014 581 22.2
Milking system
Bucket 3334 978 29.3 lOOl 598 32.0
Pipeline 7214 1095 23.0 3971 653 24.8
Parlor 3185 662 33.9 1313 555 37.1
Udder preparation
Individual towel 3915 720 24.0 1729 669 27.0
Common towel 3463 827 30.6 2673 573 25.7
Sponge 4216 776 30.8 797 559 34.7
Water spray 2139 1326 44.5 898 564 40.0
Other 0 188 644 62.2
Teat dip
Yes 10417 642 18.5 3424 536 29.1
No 3316 1182 29.0 2861 667 25.2
Dry treatment
None 0 487 540 42.9
Selective 10550 701 21.1 3346 586 21.1
All 3183 1122 31.5 2452 680 25.1
Teat Dry
dip treatment
Yes None 0 164 475 67.5
Yes Selective 7842 535 30.2 1492 514 26.0
Yes All 2575 748 44.0 1768 620 29.6
No None 0 323 605 48.9
No Selective 2708 867"'' 40.9 1854 657 25.9
No All 608 1496 37.9 684 739 34.4

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 59, No. 6

 SOMATIC CELLS IN PRODUCTION TESTING
4). However, cell numbers were significantly
higher at yields below 4 kg. This high concen-
tration of leucocytes and sloughed m a m m a r y
ceils in the small p r o p o r t i o n of low producing
cows can cause misinterpretation o f cell counts
in late lactation.
Analysis of both data sets with Model II
f o u n d significant differences a m o n g factors of
all main effects, e x c e p t herd size, and interac-
tion of dipping dry therapy program in b o t h
sets (P<.01). Differences in herd size were
significant in the 134 herds (P<.05) but n o t in
the 16 herds. Least squares means of estimable
functions of Model II are in Table 3. There was
no definable t r e n d in the relationship of herd
size and cell numbers. In both cases, herds with
milking parlors had the lowest cell numbers and
barn pipeline systems the highest. Parlor sys-
tems may have had more m o d e r n e q u i p m e n t ,
while the elevation of milk in around-the-barn
pipelines could have resulted in m o r e v a c u u m
fluctuation c o m p a r e d to the bucket setups.
There were no c o m m o n trends in m e t h o d s of
udder preparation, possibly indicating that this
m a n a g e m e n t practice by itself is of less signifi-
cance than are others in milking hygiene.
Herds that dipped teats had lower cell
numbers, which supports other studies on the
benefits of teat dipping (5, 11). Herds using a
selective dry t h e r a p y program exhibited lower
cell numbers than did those on a c o m p l e t e dry
cow t r e a t m e n t program. In the small n u m b e r of
herds that did no dry treatment, cell numbers
were low. Herds using the c o m b i n a t i o n of teat
dipping and eitherselective or no dry t r e a t m e n t
had the lowest cell numbers while those n o t
dipping and dry treating all cows were the
highest. These results do not contradict neces-
sarily those of o t h e r workers (6, 9) who have
shown the value of dry cow therapy if o t h e r
m a n a g e m e n t practices are good. T h e y indicate
that dairymen can maintain low cell numbers
with g o o d m a n a g e m e n t , teat dipping, and selec-
tive dry cow therapy. On the o t h e r hand, those
w h o used c o m p l e t e dry cow t r e a t m e n t w i t h o u t
attention to o t h e r m a n a g e m e n t practices were
unable to maintain cell numbers comparable to
1 123
the o t h e r groups. No i n f o r m a t i o n was available
on what materials were used in the dry cow
t r e a t m e n t programs in these herds.
These results do not represent cause and
effect relationships for there are o t h e r factors
which can affect somatic cell numbers. How-
ever, t h e y are general associations currently
existing in the field.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to express their appreci-
ation for the assistance provided by M. Engler,
M. lwen, and the personnel of the Verona and
M e n o m o n i e A R C Centers and St. Croix C o u n t y
DHIA.
REFERENCES
1 Blackburn, P. S. 1966. The variation in the cell
count of cow's milk throughout lactation and from
one lactation to the next. J. Dairy Res. 33:193.
2 Braund, D. G., and L. H. Schultz. 1963. Physiologi-
cal and environmental factors affecting the Cali-
fornia Mastitis Test under field conditions. J. Dairy
Sci. 46:197.
3 Cullen, G. A. 1968. Cell counts throughout lacta-
tion. Vet. Rec. 83:125.
4 Funk, C. D., L. H. Schultz, and G. R. Barr. 1967.
Investigations on possible use of mastitis-screening
tests in Dairy Herd Improvement Association
central laboratories. J. Dairy Sci. 50:47.
5 McDonald, J. S. 1970. Prevention of intramam-
mary infections by milking time hygiene. Amer. J.
Vet. Res. 31:233.
6 Natzke, R. P. 1971. Therapy: One component in a
mastitis control system. J. Dairy Sci. 54:1895.
7 Oliver, J., F. H. Dodd, F. K. Neave, and G. L.
Bailey. 1956. Variations in the incidence of udder
infection and mastitis with stage of lactation, age,
and season of the year. J. Dairy Res. 23:181.
8 Paape, M. J., W. D. Schultze, R. H. Miller, and J.
W. Smith. 1973. Thermal stress and circulating
erythrocytes, leucocytes, and milk somatic cells. J.
Dairy Sci. 56:84.
9 Pearson, J. K. L., and C. L. Wright. 1969. Dry cow
therapy as a means of controlling bovine mastitis.
Vet. Rec. 84:294.
10 Ward, G. E., and L. H. Schultz. 1973. Estimation
of somatic cells in milk by filter-deoxyribonucleic
acid method with indole. J. Dairy Sci. 56:1097.
11 Wesen, D. P., and L. H. Schultz. 1970. Effective-
ness of a post-milking teat dip in preventing new
udder infections. J. Dairy Sci. 53:1391.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 59, No. 6