Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41788843›Full record

ArticleJDS communications2026

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

Andreas R Böker, Roswitha Merle, Phuong Do Duc, Antonia Hentzsch, Annegret Stock, Frederike Reichmann, Alexander Bartel, Svenja Woudstra, Martina Hoedemaker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JDS communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Andreas R BökerClinic for Cattle, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, 30173 Hannover, Germany.
Roswitha MerleInstitute for Veterinary Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Veterinary Public Health, Freie Universität Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany.
Phuong Do DucClinic for Cattle, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, 30173 Hannover, Germany.
Antonia HentzschWG Internal Medicine and Surgery, Division for Ruminants and Camelids, Farm Animal Clinic, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany.
Annegret StockWG Internal Medicine and Surgery, Division for Ruminants and Camelids, Farm Animal Clinic, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany.
Frederike ReichmannClinic for Ruminants with Ambulatory and Herd Health Services, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, 85764 Oberschleissheim, Germany.
Alexander BartelInstitute for Veterinary Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Veterinary Public Health, Freie Universität Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany.
Svenja WoudstraClinic for Cattle, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, 30173 Hannover, Germany.
Martina HoedemakerClinic for Cattle, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, 30173 Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Identifiers

PMID41788843
PMCPMC12958192

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.