Shim E H, Shanks R D, Morin D E
Department of Animal Sciences, College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801, USA.
J Dairy Sci. 2004 Aug;87(8):2702-8. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73397-4.
The objective of this study was to compare milk loss and treatment costs for cows with clinical mastitis that were given antibiotics in addition to supportive treatment or supportive treatment alone. Between January 1994 and January 1996, 116,876 daily milk records on 676 lactations were taken at the University of Illinois Dairy Research Farm. Clinical mastitis was diagnosed during 124 lactations with 25,047 daily milk records, and 1417 of the daily milk records were on days when clinical mastitis was present. Cows with clinical mastitis were randomly assigned to one of 2 treatment groups: N (supportive treatment only) or A (antibiotics in addition to supportive treatment). Extent of antibiotic and supportive treatment varied according to twice daily severity scores. Projected and actual daily milk yields were estimated utilizing a random regression test-day model, and the differences were summed over 305 d of lactation to estimate lactational milk yield loss. The actual amount of discarded milk was added to milk yield loss to determine total milk loss per lactation. A cost analysis that included milk loss and treatment costs was then performed. Cows with clinical mastitis that were given only supportive treatment lost 230 +/- 172 kg (mean +/- standard error of mean [SEM]) more milk and incurred 94 +/- 51 dollars (SEM) more cost per lactation than cows given antibiotics and supportive treatment. Cows given only supportive treatment showed a response pattern of 305-d milk yield loss and economic loss per lactation that varied 2 to 3 times as much as cows treated with antibiotics. Based on reduced milk loss, better reliability (less variable response), and lower economic loss, the addition of antibiotics to supportive treatment was more efficacious and cost effective than supportive treatment alone.
本研究的目的是比较接受支持性治疗加抗生素治疗或仅接受支持性治疗的临床型乳房炎奶牛的产奶量损失和治疗成本。1994年1月至1996年1月期间,伊利诺伊大学奶牛研究农场记录了676次泌乳的116,876条日产奶记录。在124次泌乳期间诊断出临床型乳房炎,共有25,047条日产奶记录,其中1417条记录是在临床型乳房炎发病当天。临床型乳房炎奶牛被随机分配到两个治疗组之一:N组(仅支持性治疗)或A组(支持性治疗加抗生素)。抗生素和支持性治疗的程度根据每日两次的严重程度评分而有所不同。利用随机回归测定日模型估计预计和实际日产奶量,并将差异在泌乳的305天内求和,以估计泌乳期产奶量损失。将实际丢弃的奶量加到产奶量损失中,以确定每次泌乳的总产奶量损失。然后进行了包括产奶量损失和治疗成本的成本分析。仅接受支持性治疗的临床型乳房炎奶牛比接受抗生素和支持性治疗的奶牛每次泌乳多损失230±172千克(平均值±平均标准误差[SEM])的奶,且成本多94±51美元(SEM)。仅接受支持性治疗的奶牛在305天产奶量损失和每次泌乳经济损失方面的反应模式,其变化幅度是接受抗生素治疗奶牛的2至3倍。基于减少的产奶量损失、更高的可靠性(反应变异性更小)和更低的经济损失,支持性治疗加用抗生素比单纯支持性治疗更有效且更具成本效益。