Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38711109›Full record

ArticleIrish veterinary journal2024

Survey of farm, parlour and milking management, parlour technologies, SCC control strategies and farmer demographics on Irish dairy farms.

Alice Uí Chearbhaill, Pablo Silva Boloña, Eoin G Ryan, Catherine I McAloon, Alison Burrell, Conor G McAloon, John Upton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Irish veterinary journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alice Uí ChearbhaillTeagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 C997, Ireland. alice.walsh@teagasc.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5723-1702
Pablo Silva BoloñaTeagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 C997, Ireland.
Eoin G RyanSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 W6F6, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Catherine I McAloonSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 W6F6, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Alison BurrellAnimal Health Ireland, 2-5 The Archways, Carrick On Shannon, N41 WN27, Co. Leitrim, Ireland.
Conor G McAloonSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 W6F6, Dublin 4, Ireland.
John UptonTeagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 C997, Ireland.

Funding

Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) & the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine on behalf of the Government of Ireland through the VistaMilk centre 16/RC/3835
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis cross-sectional study describes a survey designed to fill knowledge gaps regarding farm management practices, parlour management practices and implemented technologies, milking management practices, somatic cell count (SCC) control strategies, farmer demographics and attitudes around SCC management on a sample of Irish dairy farms.

resultsWe categorized 376 complete responses by herd size quartile and calving pattern. The average respondent herd was 131 cows with most (82.2%) operating a seasonal calving system. The median monthly bulk tank somatic cell count for seasonal calving systems was 137,000 cells/ml (range 20,000 - 1,269,000 cells/ml), 170,000 cells/ml for split-calving systems (range 46,000 - 644,000 cells/ml) and 186,000 cells/ml for 'other' herds (range 20,000 - 664,000 cells/ml). The most common parlour types were swing-over herringbones (59.1%) and herringbones with recording jars (22.2%). The average number of units across herringbone parlours was 15, 49 in rotary parlours and two boxes on automatic milking system (AMS) farms. The most common parlour technologies were in-parlour feeding systems (84.5%), automatic washers on the bulk tank (72.8%), automatic cluster removers (57.9%), and entrance or exit gates controlled from the parlour pit (52.2%). Veterinary professionals, farming colleagues and processor milk quality advisors were the most commonly utilised sources of advice for SCC management (by 76.9%, 50.0% and 39.2% of respondents respectively).

conclusionsIn this study, we successfully utilised a national survey to quantify farm management practices, parlour management practices and technology adoption levels, milking management practices, SCC control strategies and farmer demographics on 376 dairy farms in the Republic of Ireland. Rotary and AMS parlours had the most parlour technologies of any parlour type. Technology add-ons were generally less prevalent on farms with smaller herds. Despite finding areas for improvement with regard to frequency of liner changes, glove-wearing practices and engagement with bacteriology of milk samples, we also found evidence of high levels of documentation of mastitis treatments and high use of post-milking teat disinfection. We discovered that Irish dairy farmers are relatively content in their careers but face pressures regarding changes to the legislation around prudent antimicrobial use in their herds.

Indexed as

Farm managementMilking managementParlour technologiesSCC control

Identifiers

PMID38711109
PMCPMC11071209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.