Trends in somatic cell counts, bacterial counts, and antibiotic residue violations in New York state during 1999-2000

G. Van Schaik*, M. Lotem, Y. H. Schukken

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    Abstract

    Milk quality data on a month-by-month basis from March 1999 to December 2000 were studied from five of the largest milk plants operating in New York State. The analyses focused on bulk tank somatic cell count (SCC), bacterial counts in the form of plate loop count (PLC), and antibiotic residue violations in the pool of milk of New York State, their mutual relation, and the influence of farm size. The average SCC was 363,000 cells/ml, the average PLC was 24,400 bacteria/ml, and the average number of antibiotic residue violations in the pool of milk was 3.9 per 1000 producers. Each month between 72 and 88% of the milk pool had SCC levels in compliance with the European Union (EU) requirements (SCC < 400,000 cells/ml). The findings in this study suggest that larger farms had lower SCC and PLC but more antibiotic violations. However, the larger farms contribute most to the SCC and PLC of the total pool of milk. Farms with high SCC also had higher PLC and more antibiotic violations. Measurable improvements in overall quality of the pool of milk in New York state would most likely occur by targeting incentives, education, and training programs for any farms with very high SCC and for larger farms with SCC between 400,000 and 750,000 cells/ml.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)782-789
    Number of pages8
    JournalJournal of Dairy Science
    Volume85
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2002

    Keywords

    • Antibiotic residue
    • Bacterial count
    • New York State
    • Somatic cell count

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Trends in somatic cell counts, bacterial counts, and antibiotic residue violations in New York state during 1999-2000'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this