©FIUIDF ISSN 0250-5118

BULLETIN OF THE INTERNATIONAL DAIRY FEDERATION N° 305/1995 PRICE: 1400 BEF (Belgian Francs) Including Postage

MILK PAYMENT SYSTEMS FOR EX-FARM MILK RESULTS OF IOF QUESTIONNAIRE 2893/A - Group A8 PRELIMINARY REPORT

Foreword 1 Introduction 2 Participation 3 Price expression 4 Payment basis 5 Component criteria 6 Method for calculating compositional prices 7 Objective of payment method 8 Sampling for analyses 9 Payment based on hygienic quality criteria 10 Payments based on other criteria 11 Payment basis 12 Price and price differential determination 13 Contracts between dairy plants and producers 14 Frequency of producer payment 15 Payment of price supplements as instalments 16 Transport of producers' milk 17 Cooling of milk 18 Seasonality 19 Miscellaneous premiums

ANTIBIOTICS TESTING RESULTS OF IOF-INTERCOMPARISONS 1989 AND 1992 G. Suhren, W. Heeschen & J. Reichmuth (Germany)

Foreword 1 Introduction 2 Experimental design 3 Evaluation 4 Results 5 Summary and conclusions Acknowledgement

MASTITIS CONTROL RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE 1694/A, J.M. Booth (United Kingdom)

Foreword Dairy herd Control schemes Pathogens Control measures Milk payment Progress Conclusions IDF/A2 mastitis control questionnaire (1994)

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6

13 13 13 13 13 13 13

18 18 18 18 19 25 25

29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 48

Bulletin of the IOF 305

MILK PAYME T SYSTEM FOR EX-FARM MILK

RESULTS OF IOF QUESTIONNAIRE 2893/A GroupAB

PRELIMINARY REPORT

ABSTRACT The information submitted in this report is based on replies

to Questionnaire 2893/ A and the factual situation in the differ­ent IDF countries for the period 1992/93. The questionnaire highlights the disparate nature of the payment systems and tackles the subject through surveying payments related to milk quality, hygienic quality, methodology of milk sampling and collection, and the various payment formulas. Some countries presented the data as was applicable during 1992 and others, which responded later, presented the situation as it was in 1993 and 1994.

1 INTRODUCTION The differences in payment systems with regard to

price determination, price differentiation, quality stan­dards , premiums, etc . are large. Notwithstanding these differences, there were common denominators such as more emphasis on protein delivered, acknowl­edgement of hygienic quality, cooled milk and others.

The dynamics in payment systems was also clear as quite a few countries indicated changes from previ­ous systems. In some countries different payment sys­tems exist and therefore a uniform system could not be defined.

Please note that this report reflects the situation only with regard to cow's milk. Furthermore , some countries have more than one system in operation (for example in different states) and the total number of responses may therefore be more than the number of countries that completed the questionnaire.

2 PARTICIPATION Twenty-two countries participated in the survey.

The different countries, abbreviations for countries, local currencies and exchange rate with the American dollar on 3 May 1994 are indicated in Table 1.

3 PRICE EXPRESSION Twelve countries indicated that the milk price is

expressed per unit volume. Another seven indicated that price was expressed on a weight (mass) basis. The weight (mass) of solids delivered was used by seven countries. PL and ZA indicated that other fac­tors are used in price expression . These findings are indicated in Table 2.

4 PAYMENT BASIS Kenya indicated that they are not paying farmers

according to the components of milk (Table 2). Of the 22 countries that responded to this question , 10 declared that the selected basis of payment was voluntary. Another 14 countries indicated a regulatory basis whilst the basis in three countries was both vol­untary and regulatory.

AU declared in explanatory notes that their manu­facturing milk is purchased on the basis of fat and true protein content. The price for components is deter­mined by the individual companies, whereas in the case of market milk (fluid milk) it is regulated by the different government authorities.

5 COMPONENT CRITERIA The majority of countries (21) indicated milkfat

(butterfat) to be one of the components determining price (Table 2). True protein (N-NPN x 6.38) is inter alia the basis for payment in AU and FR. In 18 coun­tries the crude protein (N x 6.38) is included as a parameter in the payment system . CA and ZA are using lactose as a component that deserves payment. CA is also using milk solids in its payment system.

Solids-not-fat are used in CS, IN, JP and US.

6 METHOD FOR CALCULATING COMPOSI­TIONAL PRICES

From Table 3 it is clear that 14 countries indicated that the calculation of a compositional price for an indi­vidual producer's milk is based on a standard milk price. Five countries (CA, IE, JP, SE, ZA) have a stan­dard milk price and are also paying farmers on the

Bulletin of the IOF 305

basis of one or more components. In total, 12 coun­tries are paying according to component criteria.

In different countries the milkfat (butterfat) content of standard milk varies between 3.07 and 4.02% and the protein content between 2.8 and 3.4%. In a few countries where solids-not-fat is included, the mini­mum levels vary between 8.45 and 8.65%.

The exception is ZA, where a single large manu­facturer defines a standard litre not only in terms of milkfat (butterfat), protein, lactose and mineral content but also distance from the production site (farm) from the main market and collecting factory. Included in Table 3 is an indication of the price in the different countries for standard milk expressed in terms of the local currency per litre or kg.

For some countries the average price of standard milk might include several deductions and/or premi­ums.

The value of components in those countries where payment is based on the value of the different compo­nents is also stated in Table 3. The values are expressed in terms of the local currency.

With regard to the method of price calculation, 17 countries indicated that a single calculation method is applicable on all milk. In four countries (CA, CS, IE, US) the end use of the milk determines the method of price calculation.

In six countries differences in calculation method according to geographical area (state, region or dis­trict) also exists.

7 OBJECTIVE OF PAYMENT METHOD The objectives sought through the payment

method are indicated in Table 4. Six countries indi­cated that total solids content was important in this respect. Sixteen countries consider crude protein to be important. AU, FR, and IE indicated true protein content to be an objective. In 18 countries fat content was important. In AU, DE, GB, US and ZA other objectives were also sought.

The majority of countries (18) in the survey indi­cated that the set objectives were reached.

8 SAMPLING FOR ANALYSES The number of samples for analysis varied amongst

countries from a minimum of 2 per month to as often as each haul collected from the farm (Table 4).

The pooling of samples for composite sample anal­ysis occurs in AU, DK, CA and PL. In a number of countries samples are preserved with chemicals. Eight countries indicated that Bronopol was used as preser­vative. Two countries (PL and ZA) are using Microtabs as preservative. DE is using Acidiol as preservative (Table 4).

9 PAYMENT BASED ON HYGIENIC QUALITY CRITERIA

Details of the payment system according to differ­ent hygienic criteria in the different countries are explained in Table 5. In almost all countries, hygienic quality is a parameter in the payment system. Eleven countries indicated that the set standard was voluntar-

3

ily agreed upon and 13 countries said it was by legis­lation. AU, FR and ZA have voluntary and legislated standards in operation. Total bacteria count and somatic cell count seem to be the most common crite­ria (19 countries).

The standards for grading on bacteria count are summarized in Table 5A. The lowest standards differ from 20 000 (AU, GB) to 300 000 (JP). The most com­mon standards lie in the range 100 000-300 000. Test frequencies for bacteria count are in general twice a month.

The standards for grading on Somatic Cell Count (SCC) are given in Table 5B. Standards of 400 000-750 000 are most common. In some countries (AU, FR, FI and NO) the standard for the best grade is very low, between 200 000 and 250 000. Test frequencies for SCC of once or twice a month are most common.

A number of countries (10) included the organolep­tic quality as part of routine testing. A few countries also indicated that butyric spores, a lipolysis index, and macroscopic properties are considered.

10 PAYMENTS BASED ON OTHER CRITERIA

Other criteria also considered in payment by differ­ent countries are indicated in Table 5, the most impor­tant being antibiotics or inhibitory substances and added water. With regard to these some kind of penal­ization exists. Other criteria of importance and identi­fied by some countries are also indicated in Table 5. Even the maximum temperature of the milk collected on the farm is set as a critical parameter by 15 coun­tries.

11 PAYMENT BASIS Thirteen countries indicated that the farm-gate

price excluded transport in comparison with 11 coun­tries reporting a farm-gate price which included trans­port cost (Table 6). Also in Table 6 the responsibility for analysing the milk is given. In the majority of cases the dairy is responsible for milk analyses. In 7 coun­tries independent professional organizations are responsible for analyses . It has also been indicated that interprofessional organizations, public organiza­tions (government) and independent private organiza­tions are responsible for the task in some countries. In 13 countries some kind of organization exists for set­tling disputes between the various interest groups (Table 6).

12 PRICE AND PRICE DIFFERENTIAL DETERMINATION

The base price for milk and price differentials in the different countries are determined mainly by the dairy responsible for collecting and/or processing the milk (Table 7) . In some countries professional organiza­tions of producers or dairies are responsible for price determination. In others, interprofessional organiza­tions of traders, producers or dairies are involved. In six countries the public authorities are responsible . CA also indicated that the market determines the price dif­ferentials.

Table 1: Participating countries, local currencies and exchange rate with US $

Country Country Currency Currency Abbreviation Abbreviation

Austria AT Schilling Sch

Australia AU Dollar AU$

Belgium BE Franc BFR

Germany DE Mark OEM

Denmark OK Krone DKK

Canada CA Dollar C$

Czechoslovakia CS Crown Kc

France FR Franc FF

Finland FI Markka FM United Kingdom GB Pounds £ Ireland IE Pounds IRP

India IN Rupee Ra

Israel IL New Shekel IS

Japan JP Yen YEN

Kenya KE Shilling Ksh

. Netherlands NL Guilder Dfl

New Zealand NZ Dollar NZ$ Norway NO Krone NKR

Poland PL Zloty ZI

Sweden SE Krona SEK

United States US Dollar US$

South Africa ZA Rand SAR

Exchange Rate With US $

(3 May 1994)

11.6337

1.4028

34.16

1.6437

6.6147

1.3837

-6.634

5.3747

1.5148

1.4704

31.4326

-101 .34

-

1.8718

1.7358

-

7.673

1.00

3.52

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

...

OJ S. ~ 5· 8-S-a>

o "Tl W o U1

Table 2: Price expression and payment basis properties as reported by the different countries

Price Expression Country Price expression in terms of {)J Voluntary Regulatory

Volume Weight Weight of solids Other components

Austria No Yes Yes No Yes

Australia 1 (A) Yes Yes No Yes

Australia (B) Yes No Yes Yes Yes No

Belgium Yes No Yes No Yes

Germany No Yes Yes No Yes

Denmark No Yes Yes Yes No

Canada Yes No Yes Yes No Yes

Czechoslovakia Yes No Yes No Yes

France Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Finland Yes No No Yes Yes No

United Kingdom Yes No No Yes No Yes

Ireland (A) Yes No Yes Yes Yes No

Ireland (B) Yes No Yes Yes Yes No

India No No Yes Yes No Yes

Israel Yes No No Yes No Yes

Japan No Yes No Yes Yes3 Yes4

Kenya Yes No No No

Netherlands NOB Yes Yes Yes No Yes

New Zealand No No Yes (Prot+Fat) Yes Yes No

Norway Yes Yes No Yes

Poland No No No Yes Yes No Yes

Sweden No Yes No . Yes Yes No

United States No Yes No Yes Yes No

South Africa6 Yes No -Y~ - - __ ---",es_ Yes Yes '--- _N,,- _ - - --- ---

7 In two states market milk price is adjusted according to composition. 2 Lactose used in N .. lreland only. 3 For liquid milk. 4 For dairy products. 5 Varies amongst dairies. 6 Payment varies between a single price per volume and a modem payment system based on unique standard litre calculations. 7 One large dairy indudes minerals in a point system. 8 A deduction based on weight is made for processing costs.

Payment Basis

Component criteria

Milkfat True protein Crude lactose (N -NPNx6.38) (Nx6.38)

Yes No Yes No

Yes Yes No No

Yes Yes No No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes Yes

Yes No Yes No

Yes Yes No No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No'!

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No No No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes - - -

Milk solids

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No No7

MilksoJids-not -fat

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yess

No

,

I

OJ So S[ 5" S!. :r CD

is " w o r.n

'"

Table 3: Definition of standard milk, average prices, component values and application scope of calculation methods as indicated by the different countries

Method used to calculate component-based prices

Country Base Base Definition of standard milk Ave. price Component value in 1993 Calculation method

price components Milkfat Protein std. milk

Austria Yes 4.02% 3.24%

Australia (A) Yes No 3.2% min 3.1% min

Australia (B) No Yes

Belgium Yes No 3.8%(g/v) 3.35%(gll)

Germany Yes No 3.7% min 3.4% min

Denmark

Canada Yes Yes 3.6% (glv)

Czechoslovakia No Yes 3.2% min 2.8% min France Yes No 3.69% 3.11%3

Finland No Yes

United Kingdom No Yes

Ireland (A) Yes Yes 3.6% 3.3%

Ireland (B) Yes Yes 3,6% 3.3%

India Yes No 3.5%

Israel Yes No 3.07% 3.00%

Japan Yes Yes 3.5%

Kenya Netherlands No Yes

New Zealand No Yes

Norway Yes No 3.2% >3.2% Poland No Yes

Sweden Yes Yes 4.0% 3.4%

United States Yes 3.5% 3.0 - 3.2%

South Africa 11 Yes Yes 3.75% 3.35%

-- -- - L- ____ - - - - -

7

2

3

5

6

Two markets - fluid products and industrial products. By province. True protein %. Indicators in questionnaire not clear. Price varies in live MMB areas in UK. England & Wales.

Lactose Solids- Minerals Market not-fa1 km

8.5% min

8.5% min

8.5%

8.45°//

8.65%

4.85% 1.0% 100 km

- -

Dairy km

40 km

8

9

std. milk Milkfat True prot. Crude prot. Lactose Volume Single Ditt. 1993 (N-NPNx6.38) (Nx6.38) meth. meth.

all milk end use

Yes No

AU$ 0.446/1 No No

2.72/kg 5.44/kg Yes No

BFR 1211 1521kg Fat 186/kg Prot. Yes No

OEM 0.5919 Yes No

26 .07/kg Fat 34 .37/kg Yes No Prot.

C$ 0 .5111 5.5/kg Fat 6.3/kg Prot. 0.75/kg Lact.

6.5/kg No Yes'

No Yes

FF 1.91 /1 Yes No

- 4 4 Yes No

£ 23.0/15 2.223 p/%6 3.293 p/%6 Yes No

0.227 IRP/I 0.01 0.013 Yes Yes IRP/O.l% IRP/O.l%

Yes No

50-55 Ralkg 32·35 Ralkg No

0.994 IS/I 6.16 IS/kg 22.83 IS/kg Yes No Fat Prot

89.0 YEN/kg Yes No

0.7964 Ofl/kg 8.09 Dll/kg 11.05 Oll/kg Yes No Fat Prot

3f7 NZ$lkg 2.91 NZ$/kg 4.83 NZ$/kg Yes No Prot & Fat Fat Prot

3..26 NKR/I Yes No

3.26 ZI 650 Z1I1 % Fat Yes No

2.69 SEKlkg Yes No

0.275 US$/kg Yesa Yes lO

0.85 SARli 7.33 SAR/kg 11.0 2.33 No No Fat SARlkg Prot SAR/kg

Lact - -

For dairy products. In the northern part of Sweden, there is a price support system instituted by the Government. Fluid milk.

70 Milk for cheese is paid for according to potential cheese yield. 77 In addition to price components indicated volume is also a price determining factor.

Ditt. meth. geogr. area

No

Yes

No

No

No No

Yes2

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yesa

No

Yes

I

I

J

,

0>

co s. if S· g, S' CD

6 TI W o (J1

Table 4: Objectives of payment method and sampling details in the different countries

Country Objective of payment method

Higher! Higher! Higher! lower lower lower

solids % Crude Prot.% True prot.%

Austria

Australia (A) No No Yes

Australia (B) Yes

Belgium No Yes No

Germany No Yes No

Denmark Yes Yes

Canada Yes Yes No

Czechoslovakia No Yes No

France No No Yes

Finland No Yes No

United Kingdom Yes

Ireland (A) Yes

Ireland (B) Yes Yes

India Yes

Israel No Yes No -----Japan No No No

Kenya Netherlands No Yes No

- - - --New Zealand Yes Yes

Norway No Yes

Poland Yes

Sweden No Yes

United States No Yes

South africa Yes Yes

1 Reduce spring & summer: autumn & winter production ratio_ 2 Quality assurance, uniqueness, transparency. 3 Potassium dichromate. 4 Differential payment to fanners. 5 Only for see samples: 6 Both fat and protein have increased.

No

No -No

Higher! lower Fat %

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

----Yes

Yes

Yes ----Yes

Yes - - -Yes

Yes

Yes ._--"_._- -Yes ---Yes

Yes

Sampling for analysis and payment

Higher! Objectives Frequency Samples Chemical Chemical lower atttained pooled? preservation? used Other

Per test No Yes Yes -No Yes Each haul Yes Yes Bronopol Yes! Yes Each haul Yes Yes Bronopol No Yes Each haul No No

Yes2 Yes Min 2-3/mth No Yes Acidiol Yes Each haul Yes Yes Bronopol Yes Each haul YIN 50:50 Yes Bronopol+3 Yes Min 21mth No Yes

Min 3/mth No No No No Min 21mth No Yes Bronopol Yes4 Yes One/week No No

Yes Min 4/mth No No ------ _. - - ---- - . ~ No

Yes Each haul No No Yes Each haul No Yes ~ronopol_5 _i + -- - --_ .. .. _.--_. __ .. -

No Yes Min 21mth No Yes Bronopol

Yes Each haul No No ---~-- . '-------- -- - - - -- -- -

Yes Each haul No No No Yes Min 21mth No Yes Bronopol

Yes Min 21mth Yes Yes Microtabs - --.- -- -- .-.------No Yes/Nos Min 4/mth No No Yes Yes Each haul No No Yes No 4-15/mth No Yes Microtabs

-- - - -

OJ £ i[ 5' 8-:T CD

o -n w o (}l

.....

Table 5: Details of payments for hygienic quality properties as indicated by the different countries

Country Payments on hygienic quality

Included Volun Le~is- Total see Butyric Lipolysis or not? tary lat.on bactJml NoJml sp. indo

NoJml mE~100g o BF

Auslria Yes No Yes Yes Yes Australia (A) Yes Yes Yes Australia (B) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Belgium Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No

Germany' Yes No Yes

Denmark Yes No Yes Yes Yes Canada Yes No Yes Yes Yes Czechoslovakia Yes No Yes Yes Yes France Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Finland Yes Yes No Yes Yes Uniled Kingdom Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Ireland (A) Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Ireland (B) Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

India6

Israel Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Japan Yes Ye.s No Yes Yes No No Kenya Yes Yes No Netherlands Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes New Zealand Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Norway Yes No Yes Yes Yes Poland Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Sweden Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No United States Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No South Africa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

, Hygienic quality standards set by EEC Milk Hygiene Directive 85/397. 2 Heavy metals.

Organol. Macroscop. Other Antibiol. Heat quality prop. inhibit. resist.

bacteria

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes

No No Yes

Ye s No No Yes No No No No Yes No

Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes3 Yes Yes

Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes4 Yes No

3 50% of industry test according to set qualify categories Finest, First, Second, reject and 50% of industry use the Demenit Points. 4 Ringtest used to check on CA-status once per month. 5 Only AA milk (special quality). 6 Hygenical/y unfil milk is rejected by dairies but payment has not yet been linked with hygienic quality.

Payments based on other criteria

Psychrot. Staph. Sa/mo- Listeria Stropto- E. coli bact. au reus nella monocyt. coccus coliform

No No No No No Yes5

No No No No No No Opt. No Opt. No No No Yes Yes No Opt. No Opt. No No No Opt. Opt. Opt. Opt. Opt. No No No No No No No No No No No No

No No No No No No No No No No No No

No No No No No No No No No No No No

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Opt No No No No No

-- - '--- -

Water Alla-frz. toxin pnt

Yes Yes No No Yes No

Yes Yes

Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Opt. Yes Yes

Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Opt Yes No

Other

Yes No No

Yes

No Opt.

No

Opt.

Yes2

No No

No

No No No No No

Milk temp.

at pick-up

Yes Yes No

Yes

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

No No No Yes Yes

I

I

'"

{Jl

s. ![ s g, :i-ll>

is " w o (J1

Table SA: Bacteria count - standards for class grading

Country Class grading (total bacteria count x 1000) Rejection threshold Frequency (and expression of result)

Australia1 <20 20-50 >50 50 2-4 xlmonth - . - ------_.-

Austria < 100 100-300 30~00 600-1000 > 1000 2 xlmonth

Belgium < 100 100-300 300-400 lx>400 2x>400 3 x > 400 - 2 xlmonth (geometric mean of 2 months)

Canada <50 50-75 > 75 100 1 xlmonth

Czechoslovakia < 100 100-300 300-800 800-2000 800 2 xlmonth

Germany < 100 100-400 >400

Denmarl< <30 30-100 100-300 > 300 4()()2 weekly

France <50 50-100 100-300 >300 500 3 xlmonth

Finland <50 50-100 100-250 >250 500 2 xlmonth

United Kingdom <20 20-100 > 100 200 weekly --~ . --.

Ireland <30 30-50 50-100 100-250 250-500 500 2 xlmonth

Israel <40 40-100 100-250 250-500 > 500 3 xlmonth (grading according to the sum of 3 last

- .- ~~s..0!Sl Japan <300 >300 1000 1 xlmonth

Netherlands < 100 100-250 >250 1 xl2 weeks "._- . . __ .. _._---.- .-- .--- .---- . . ---. - -----.---,-- - ._-_ .. New Zealand < 25 25-50 50-100 100-200 200-500 >500 1 xll0 days

I Norway <30 30-80 80-300 > 300 300 3 xlmonth

Poland reductase: positive or negative 2 xlmonth .. --.- - ---- ---'--- '-

South Africa <50 50-200 200-300 >300 300 3 xlmonth

Sweden < 100 100-300 >300 2 xlmonth (if bad results after grading 4 xlmonth)

United States <25 >25 300 1 xlmonth - -- -

, Reconmendations by the end of 1993, 2 ACCOfding to EEC-directive (geometric average o( 3 months),

to

OJ S. ~ 3 ' Q. 5 CD

6 "Tl w o (]l

Table 58: Cell count - standards for class grading

Country Class grading (SCC x 1000) Rejection threshold Frequency (and expression of result)

Australia' <200 200-300 300-500 > 500 > 750 Austria <350 350-750 > 750 1 xlmonth

Belgium <400 400-500 500-750 > 750 - 2 xlmonth (geom. mean of 3 months)

Canada < 500 50Q-600 600-700 750 1--4 xlmonth

Czechoslovakia <300 300-400 400-500 >500 2 xlmonth

Germany <400 400-500 > 500 1 xlmonth (geom. mean of 3 months)

Denmark <300 300-400 400-750 > 750 40()2 weekly

France <200 200-300 300-400 400-500 5003 2 or 3 xlmonth

Finland <250 250-400 400-700 > 700 > 750 2 xlmonth

United Kingdom <400 400-500 500-1000 > 1000 weekly

Ireland <400 400-500 >500 > 500 2 xlmonth

Israel < 300 300-500 500-700 > 700 2 xlmonth (grading arithmetic mean of 6 last results)

Japan <300 > 300 > 1000 2 or 3 xlmonth

Nethenands <400 400-500 > 500 400/5005 1 xl4 weeks

New Zealand ~ 490 500-590 600-790 800-990 > 1000 minimum 1 xll0 days

Norway < 250 251--400 401-750 > 750 > 750 2 xlmonth - ---" ._-- 1-._-,---- - "---' _ ._._- - - -- ,-- - -

Poland 500 1 xlmonth

South Africa4 < 500 500-750 750-1000 1000-1250 > 1250 > 750 1-3 xlmonth

Sweden < 500 500-750 ~ 750 2 xlmonth (grading arithmetic mean of 2 results) ._. ---.- - _._---_ . - - -- ---_._ . United States <500 > 1000 6 xlmonth - -

Recommendations by the end of 1993. 2 According to EEC-clirocUve, based on a geometric mean. 3 < 500 until 1 January 1998, then < 400 accorrJing to EEC directive. 4 Grading system of one company. Other companies use 500 000 or 750 000 for grading the milk. Rejection threshold of > 750 000 is used by some countries, most do not use a rejection threshold S Depending on end use of milk. < 400 as of 1 January 1998, according to EEC-clirective, based on geometric mean.

I

I

o

(Jl

s. ~ 5' Q.

5' CD

o " w o (]1

Table 6: Farm-gate price and responsibility for milk analyses in the different countries

1993 Country Farm gate price7

Transport & other costs

Excluding

Austria Yes

Australia (A) Yes

Australia (B) Yes

Belgium

Germany

Denmark Yes

Canada Yes

Czechoslovakia Yes

France Yes

Finland

United Kingdom Yes

Ireland (A)

Ireland (B) Yes

India Yes

Israel

Japan

Kenya Yes

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland Yes

Sweden

United States Yes

~olJth_Alrica ~ ___ Yes6

7 Facultative arbitration procedure. 2 Central laboratories. 3 Mifk Marketing Boards. 4 Only for SCC. 5 Varies amongst dairy companies.

Including

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes6

6 Some prices exclude and others include transport. 7 The definition of farm-gate mifk price differs from country to country.

Who analyses the milk ?

The dairy Proff. Interproff. Public organiz. organiz. body

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes2

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes3

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes4

Yes

Yes

Yes5 Yes5

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes - - -------

Indep.priv. organiz.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Org. for disputes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes 1

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes3

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

OJ £ ~ 3' Q.

:Y C1>

\5 "Tl W o U1

Table 7: Responsibilities with regard to base price and price differential determination as applicable in the different countries

Country Who determines the base price ?

The dairy Proff. Interproff.

Austria

Australia (A)

Australia (B)

Belgium

Germany

Denmark

Canada

Czechoslovakia

France

Finland

United Kingdom

Ireland (A)

Ireland (B)

India

Israel

Japan

Kenya

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Sweden

United States

South Africa

1 Composition. 2 Quality.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 Canadian Dairy Commission. 4 Certain regions.

organiz.

Yes

Yes6

Yes

Yes

5 Negotiated between Govemment and the National Union of Farmers. 6 Milk Marketing Boards. 7 EEC standards & National standards. 8 For liquid milk. 9 For dairy products.

organiz.

Yes3

Yes

Yess

YesB

--- --

Public authority

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yess

Yes

Yes9

- - - - -

Who determines price differentials ?

The dairy Proff. Interproff . Public organiz. organiz. authority

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes' Yes2

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes6

Yes 7

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes - - -

I

Marketing

Yes

-

'"

OJ <:. ~ 5' Q.

5' C1>

(5 OJ W o (Jl

-Table 8: Details of contracts between producers and dairies, payment, frequency and other principles in payment systems as indicated by the different countries

Country Contracts Contracts between dairy plant and How often is the producer paid? Frequency and principles of supplement Exist producer concern

Prices Volumes Term Quality After Each Every Every Each Payment Paid Paid Paid to According to criteria each week 10 15 month as monthly annually all haul days days instalment producers Quality Quantity Others

Austria No Yes No

Australia (A)' No Yes Yes No

Australia (B) No Yes Yes Yes

Belgium No Yes9 Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes Yes

Germany Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Denmark No Yes3 Yes Yes Yes

Canada Yes Yes Yes Yes Yess Yes No

Czechoslovakia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

France Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Finland No Yes Yes Yes Yes United Kingdom Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ireland (A) No Yes No

Ireland (8) No Yes No

India Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Israel No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Japan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Kenya No Yes No

Netherlands Yes Yes Yes Yes3 Yes Yes Yes Yes

New Zealand Yes Yes Yes6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Norway No Yes No

Poland Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Sweden Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

United States No? Yes Yes No

South Africa YesINoB Yes Yes Yes No

1 Market milk quotas are allocated to dairy farmers in some states. 2 Some dairies pay supplements at the end of the year according to market success. 3 Every 2 weeks or 14 days. 4 Basic value. 5 In advance and final payment end of month. 6 Applicable on out of season supply contracts. 7 Some dairies do have contracts. 8 Some companies have a quota/share system as a contract and others not. 9 Some dairies in Belgium pay producers every fifteen days.

Specific arrangements

(price rate)

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

v:

(l)

s. ![ 5· So 3-'" o "T1 W o (J1

Table 9: Aspects of milk transport and milk refrigeration as practised in the different countries

Country Transport of milk

The farmer

Austria

Australia (A) No Australia (B)

Belgium No Germany No Denmark

canada Yes Czechoslovakia Yes France No Finland No United Kingdom No Ireland (A) Yes Ireland (B) No India No Israel Yes Japan No Kenya No Netherlands No New Zealand No Norway No Potand Yes Sweden No United States No South Africa Yes

1 A few dairies pay a premium. 2 Marketing Board. 3 ± 2 centsllitre.

The dairy

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

4 MMB's through contracters and own vehicles. 5 MMB for N.lreland own's 90% of bulk tanks. 6 Uncooled milk is penalized.

'---

Others Payment deduc. by dairy

Yes No Yes

Yes No No" No No

Yes Yes2 Yes No Yes No No No Yes4

No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes Ye~ __ Yes/No9

-

Deduction for transport made Any cooling? Ownership of refrigerating bulk tank

Per Per volume weight

Yes Yes No Yes

Yes Yes

No No

Yes

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes Yes

Per Other Cooled load at farm

Yes No No Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes

No No Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

7 Some dairies pay premium. 8 95% of bulk tanks.

Temp. The °C producer

Yes <SoC Yes

Yes <4°C Yes <Boe Yes 4-6oe'2 Yes <4°C Yes 4-7°e Yes 2-4°e Yes <4°C Yes <4.Soe Yes <4°C Yes

Yes No

2-4°e Yes 3-4°e Yes

No 0-4°e Yes <JOe 0-4°e

<4°C Yes <4°C No <7°C Yes 4-7°e Yes

9 Some dairies include and others exclude transport cost.

The Proff. dairy organiz.

Yes Yes

Yes5

No

Yes Yes Yes

YesB

Yes - -

10 Some dairies have a higher price for milk components when it is cooled and others not. 11 A minority of dairies have a deduction of transport costs (fixed amount/month). 12 Every day collection max 6°C and every second day collection max 4°C.

Premium cool milk

No No No No No' No No No3

Yes No No Yes Yes No No6

No No No7 No No No No No NolYes'o

I

~

OJ £. ~ S· Q.

:r (1)

o ." W o (]l

Table 10: Seasonal effects on price and volumes delivered to dairies in the different countries

Country Seasonality

Price stability During which period Is the price

Axed Seasonal Marl<el The hlgest The lowest Price January for Variance Variance difference % Y- Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer high & low

Austria Yes

Austratia (A) Yes

Australia (8) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.044 AU$II 9.95

Belgium No Yes No Yes Yes 2.58FII 7.00

Germany No Yes Yes Yes Yes 10% 8.20

Denmar1< No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 28% 8.17

Camda No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes O.Ol-.02CA$II 8.40

Czedloslovakia No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 8.00

France No Yes No Yes Yes Yes 0.37 FF~ 8.39

Finland No Yes No Yes Yes 0.48FIMII 8.20

Unhed Kingdom No Yes No Yes2 Yes 44.8"/0 8.40

Ireland (A) No Yes No Yes Yes 5.3 ppll 4.00

Ireland (8) Yes No No

India No Yes No Yes Yes 0.75 ReaJ1 9.00

Israel Yes No No 8.66

Japan Yes No No 8.20

Kenya No Yes No Yes Yes 1 Kshll 8.98

Neltler1ands No Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.16 DflJ1<g 7.39

New Zealand Yes No No 12.40

Norway No Yes No Yes Yes 9.3

Poland No Yes No Yes Yes 3J% 7.00

~ No Yes No Yes Yes 0.3SE~ 8.60

Unhed States No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8.38

SoU\h Africa Yes3 No Yes Yes Yes 0.02SA~ 9.00 ---

I Varies berween 7,2 kc + premium and 0,510 I,D kc. 2 England and Wales. 3 One company has A-, B-, C- and D-quola and Ihe price for C- & D-quola could val}' according /0 local market and export prices,

Volume of milk delivered by month

February March April May June July August September % 0", % % % % % %

7.98 7.77 6.40 5.69 5.00 5.35 7.31 9.82

7.00 8.50 9.50 10.00 10.00 9.50 8.50 8.00

7.60 7.90 8.80 9.50 8.90 8.70 8.40 8.10

7.33 8.33 8.75 9.33 9.00 8.83 8.50 8.00

7.90 8.50 8.40 8.80 8.50 8.40 8.60 8.20

8.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 9.00 8.00

7.81 9.08 9.87 10.47 9.31 8.29 7.20 6.70

7.60 8.20 8.30 9.10 9.20 9.20 8.80 7.90

7.70 8.30 9.10 10.80 8.40 8.10 7.50 7.60

6.00 8.00 12.0 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00

9.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.00

8.16 9.36 9.14 9.27 8.49 8.30 7.63 7.19

7.80 8.50 8.40 8.80 8.60 8.70 8.40 8_10

7.58 8.97 8.91 9.1 7 8.33 7.68 7.n 7.85

7.49 7.75 7.96 8.39 8.39 8.35 8.00 7.59

10.10 9.50 6.50 1.40 0.10 0.30 4.90 11 .10

8.2 9.2 6.6 8.7 6.0 7.2 7.0 7.7

6.00 7.00 7.00 800 10.00 12.00 12.00 10.00

8.20 890 8.80 9.00 8.30 7.10 7.90 7.80

8.03 8.65 8.43 8.86 6.67 8.65 6.31 7.82

8.20 8.40 7.70 7.40 7.40 7.80 8.20 8.30 -- -- -

October November % %

11.92 11 .73

7.50 7.50

8.10 7.60

8.08 7.67

8.20 7.90

8.00 8.00

7.42 7.48

7.70 7.60

7.80 7.70

7.00 5.00

9.00 10.00

7.70 7.68

8.30 7.90

834 8.D7

7.19 7.16

15.00 14.80

8.4 8.7

8.00 7.00

8.10 8.00

8.04 7.83

9.20 9.00

Decermer %

11 .08

7.00

8.10

8.08

8.20

8.00

8.00

8.20

8.50

3.00 I

10.00

8.42

8.30

8.38

7.01

13.80

8.6

6.00

8.70

8.33

9.20

a,

CD r:. ![ S· Q.

5' (l)

6 " w o OJ

18

FOREWORD This repo(1 on the results of intercomparison

trials carried out in 1989/1992 was prepared by G. SUhren, W, Heeschen and J. Reichmuth under the auspices of IDF Group of Experts E503 "Antibiotics". It was presented to and approved for publication . at the IDF Annu,al Sessions in September 1994 (E·Doc 583, Appendix III).

The composition of Group E503 is as follows: IDF: G. Suhren (DE), Chairman, S.E. Charm

(US) , Deputy Chairman, W. Heeschen (DE), F. Gorner (CS), J. Floor (ZA) , G. Johnsson (SE), H. Stegeman (NL) , P. Aureli (In, J.M.Diseren.s (CH), J. Degelaen (BE), A. Mayra·Makinen (FI), T. Kamei (JP), P. Shmidt Madsen (DK), J.-P. Moretain (FR), R.N . Sinha (IN), L. Roth (CA), MA Zorraquino (ES), R. Hutchinsoh (NZ) , Martlbauer (DE). Corresponding members: R. Beukers (NL), M. Schi:illibaum (CH).

ISO: S. Szakaly (HU), M. Barbosa (PT). AOAC: M. Cemy (CH).

IDF is grateful to the group, particularly to the authors of the report and to the laboratories parHei­pating in the tests for their valuable contribution to the work of IDF.

IOF General Secretartat August 1995

Bulletin of the IOF 305

ANTIBIOTICS TESTING: RESULTS OF IDF-I,NTER­COMPARISONS 1989 A~D 1992 1

G. Suhren, w. Heeschen & J. Reichmuth Institute for Hygiene of the Federal Dairy Research Centre,

Kiel, Germany

ABSTRACT The results of intercomparison tri a ls ca rried out in

1989 / 1992 are reported. The experimental s tudies, designed and organized by IDF Group E503 (former E47) - Antibiotics - aimed to obta in insight into the actual "s tate of profi­ciency" of rou tinely applied tests and l or laboratories. The information acquired from the s tudy should be helpful in determining (1) which tests are routine.lv applied for the detection of antimicrobials; (2) to what extent the results of one test (group) among participating laboratories va ry; (3) how the claims of detection limits agree with experimental data obtained; (4) by which methods fi xed limits - like the MRLs of EU - regulations or " safe l tolerance levels" in the USA - can be detected.

1 INTRODUCTION It was decided to include penicillin and tetracycline in the first trial and sulfadimidine (syn . sulfamethazine) and oxytetracycline in the second one. Whereas in the intercomparison 1989 inhibitor-free milk of an experi­mental herd, which had been spiked with the antimi­crobials in the desired concentrations, was lyophilized and had to be reconstituted in the participating labora­tories with distilled water, in the intercomparison 1992 the test substances were prepared in bottles and gave after reconstitution with inhibitor-free milk of the labs the desired concentrations. Each substance/concen­tration combination was divided into 2 subsamples.

The aim of experimental studies , which were designed and organized by IDF-Group E 503 (former E 47) "Antibiotics" , was to obtain insight into the actual "state of proficiency" of routinely applied tests and/or laboratories. The information of the study should be helpful to answer the following questions:

Which tests are routinely applied for the detection of antimicrobials? To what extent do the results of one test (group) vary among participating laboratories? How do the claims of detection limits agree with experimental data obtained? By which methods can fixed limits - like the MRLs of EU-regulations or "safe/tolerance levels" in the USA - be detected?

It has to be kept in mind that the purpose of the experimental studies was not a ring test in its strict sense. It was not the objective to recommend meth­ods on the basis of the data obtained in these experi­ments.

2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The experimental design of the two intercompar­

isons is summarized in Table 1.

Each test sample contained either one of the antimicrobials or no antibiotic. The experimental design means that the sensitivity of the applied tests was tested just by one dotted sample. Possible inter­ferences - for example by sample composition - were not included.

3 EVALUATION For the evaluation only the results "negative" and

"positive" were considered. Different results of samples in duplicate in the intercomparison 1989 and results indicated - contrary to the test protocol - as "question­able" were evaluated as negative. In the first trial in some lists of results negative controls were indicated

Planning and organization by Dr Charm (USA), Mr Saarinen (Finland). Dr Stadhouders (Netherlands) and Dr Suhren (Germany). The manuscript was revised with respect to the discussions within IOF-Group £503 (former £47), especially with Dr Beukers (Netherlands), Dr Charm (USA), Dr Oegelean (Belgium), Dr Mayra -Makinen (Finland), Dr Stadhouders (Netherlands) and Dr Sternesjd (Sweden).

Bulletin of the IDF 305 19

Table 1: IDF-Intercomparisons 1989 and 1992 - Experimental design

Intercomparison 1989 Intercomparison 1992 r-

Substances/ Penicillin G: Sulfadimidine (= methazine): concentrations 2; 4; 6; 8 and 10 10; 25 ; 100; 250 and 1000 (~glkg) Tetracycline: Oxytetracycline:

50; 100; 250; 500; 750 and 1000 30; 100; 250 and 750 Negative controls Negative controls

Samples Spiked, lyophilized milk, Lyophilized substance reconstitution with reconstitution with inhibitor distilled water free milk of the labs 2 subsamples each 2 subsamples each

Sample Federal Dairy Research Centre Charm Sciences Inc. preparation Kiel, Germany Malden, USA

Coding and Federal Dairy Research Centre Federal Dairy Research Centre evaluation Kiel, Germany Kiel, Germany Analysis Each subsample in Each subsample according

duplicate to the protocol of the applied method

Interpretation Positive or negative Positive or negative questionable ---? negative questionable ---? negative

as "pos tive" and the corresponding concentration rows gave irr plausible results. These test series - 20 of 122 altogetr er - were not included in the evaluation .

Due to the experimental design chosen and the many d fferent tests applied in a varying number of laborat< ,ries the statistical analysis of data is rather limited. For most of the methods it is not possible to test, for example, for outliers, normal distribution or to indicate the confidence level. In order to get an indica-

. tion of l 1e proficiency of most possible methods the followin\ I evaluation was chosen :

Grou oing of methods, which differed only by slight modi :ications; Calcillation of the percentage of positive results on the c ifferent concentration steps for those groups of mllthods with at least 8 results of subsamples . Refel ence number for the calculation of percent­ages was the corresponding number of subsam­pies, Nhich varied from 8 to 32.

4 RESJLTS

4.1 Par :icipants Partie ipating laboratories were nominated by the

National Committees of IDF . In 1989 88% and in 1992 87 % of the nominated laboratories (n = 60 and 54 respe :tively) returned their test results, which cor­respond I J 53 and 47 participating labs respectively.

4.2 Tes\ applied In Tat Ie 2 the tests applied in various countries and

labs are 5ummarized. Within the group of microbial inhibitor It 'StS, tests with Bacillus stearothermophilus as test micro )rganism in the form of disc assay, Delvo- and brillantbla,:k reduction test were used most frequently,

followed by acidification or Valio test with Streptococcus thermophilus. Within the group of tentative confirmation tests the Charm II test as microbial receptor assay or immunotest and the Penzymtest were applied most often. It has to be mentioned, that the tetracyclines were determined with the Charm II microbial receptor assay in the intercomparison 1989 and with the Charm II immunotest in the intercomparison 1992.

4.3 Variation of results of one test (group) among participating laboratories

In Figures 1-4 the percentages of positive results on each concentration level tested for the various methods applied are demonstrated. The slope of the curves gives - with respect to the concentrations tested - an indication of the variation of test results and therefore the reprod,ucibility of the method.

For example in the case of penicillin (Figure 1) and the disc assay or Delvotest the slope increases steeply . Varying results were evaluated on the level of 2 ~g/kg; on the level of 4 ~g/kg about 100% of the results were evaluated as positive. The slopes of the acidification and the Penzymtest increase only gradu­ally: varying results were evaluated on the level of 4, 6, 8 and 1 0 ~g/kg.

In the case of tetracycline (Figure 2) all tests applied showed varying results over the whole con­centration spectrum tested.

In the second intercomparison test methods devel­oped for the sensitive detection of tetracyclines were applied. These tests - the Charm II immuno assay, the BRT pH 6, the Charm Farm and the Valio test -showed a steep increase of the oxytetracycline detec­tion curves with a relatively narrow range of concen­tration steps with varying results (Figure 3).

24 Bulletin of the IOF 305

Test **)

Disc assay n=20

BRT n=22 o Delvotest P/SP n=32

Acidification n = 16 o Charm II (Microb) n=12

o 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200

Tetracycline ().Jg/kg)

OIDF-Bulietin *) ~50%/100% pos. results

*) Detection of inhibitors, No. 258 (1991) or claim of the manufacturer **) n = Number of subsamples

Figure 6: IDF-intercomparison 1989 - Tetracycline . Detection limits (Jig/kg) of various methods.

Test **)

Disc assay n = 16

Enterotox AS n = 16

Blue Star n=17

BRT pH 6 n=10 o o

I'«./&9V<.)<7\,.y,\/" I IVV&"-N v<//<;X/'\ I

k" 'x '{'<'Y'/,< $(W'(y '><)<'1

KXxx;q

Delvotest P/SP n=22 RX'XxX'Xx><XX'X'X x)<5<! 1X><X>?><><'XXx'XXSl

Acidification n= 16 R'x/<>Q~AX)<M?\5<;X;q K></vVY\XXXX>v,</,<XX,xX I

Valio T 101 n=8 6/1 PS?"I

Charm" (Immunt.)n =26 I tx Y:< X2<Y\/>('x')< <16)<\( xXS<><' <5? xY'-<'x'x'XXYYXX>'><6l

o 200 400

Oxytetracycline ().Jg/kg)

600

o IOF-Bulletin *) 5150%/100% pos. results

*) Detection of inhibitors, No. 258 (1991) or claim of the manufacturer **) n = Number of subsamples

Figure 7: IDF-intercomparison 1992 - Oxytetracycline. Detection limits (Jig/kg) of va rio liS methods.

800

4.5 Detection of MRLs In Figures 9-12 again the concentrations where 50

and 100% of the results, respectively, were evaluated as positive are marked. Additionally the MRLs as fixed by EU-Iegislation and the FDA "safe level" are indi­cated.

were obtained on the EU-MRL-Ievel by the Blue Star-. the Charm Farm and the Charm " microbial receptor and -immunotest and on the FDA "safe level" only by the Charm" tests.

In the case of sulfadimidine as example (Figure 12) it becomes evident that at least 50% positive results

Table 5 summarizes the results of the 4 tested antimicrobials and again it has to be stated that the required sensitivities are covered by different tests in dependency on the substance under study.

Bulletin of the IDF 305

Test **)

Disc assay n=16 o Enterotox AS n = 1 6 !XXxxxxxxxxxXX><xxxxxxxxxxSl > 1 000

Blue Star n=12 1 ISJ

Charm Farm Test n=12 11>(,225&201

Delvotest P/SP n=22

Acidification n = 16

Valio T 101 n=B

Charm II (Microb .)n=16 B

> 1000

KX><XXXXX'Q<XXXI I > 1000

Charm II (Immunt.)n=14 k,\':, ';<Yx 'x':<,<Y\('x',\(xS<5<'('<I<YxS<'x'\)(x\(5<'(/x,\1 > 1000

o 200 400 600 BOO 1.000 1.200 Sulfadimidine (j..Ig/kg)

o IOF-Bulletin *) Ia 50%/1 00% pas . results

*) Detection of inhibitors, No. 258 (1991) or claim of the manufacturer **) n = Number of subsamples

Figure 8: IDF-intercomparison 1992 - Sulfadimidine. Detection limits (J.1glkg) o/various methods.

25

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In interpreting the results of these intercompar­

isons it has to be kept in mind that - due to the experimental design chosen interfer­

ences due to , for example sample composition , were not included;

The results are roughly summarized in Table 6.

The results can only be interpreted as a snapshot as tests applied and changes of test sensitivity are underlying a continuous process under the pressure of the required detection sensitivities.

only a limited number of concentrations were tested; - the number of laboratories that apply a certain test

varied greatly and has been in many cases rather low and therefore the results of statistical analysis have to be interpreted with caution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The experimental work was partly supported by a

grant of the EEC (Contract No. 1 001/90-11.1) .

Table 5: IDF-Intercomparisons 1989 and 1992 - Tests with at least 50% positive results on the EU-MRL- or FDA-"safe" level (no statistical analysis of confidence level)

Antimicrobial EU-MRL FDA "safe" IJg/kg Test IJg/kg Test

Penicillin G 4 Disc assay 5 Disc assay BRT BRT Delvotest Delvotest Charm II (microb.) Acidification

Penzym Charm II (microb.)

Tetracycline 100 -- 80 --

Oxytetracycline 100 Charm Farm Test 30 Charm II (immun.) Acidification Charm II (immun.)

Sulfadimidine 100 Blue Star 10 Charm II (microb.) Charm Farm Test Charm II (immun.) Charm II (microb .) Charm II (immun.)

26 Bulletin of the IOF 305

Test *)

Disc assay n = 20

BRT n=22

Delvotest P/SP n=32

Acidification n = 16

Penzym n= 12

Charm II (Microb) n=18

*) n = Number of subsamples

o 2 4

~~1>10

6

Penicillin (J1g/kg)

8 10

[3J 50%/100% pos. results - EEC-MRL - - FDA"safe"

Figure 9: IDF-intercomparison 1989 - Penicillin G. Detection limits (pglkg) o/various methods.

Test *)

Disc assay n = 20

BRT n=22 > 1000

Delvotest PjSP n=32

Acidification n = 1 6 > 1000

Charm II (Microb) n= 12 > 1000

12

o 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200 Tetracycline {J.1g/ kg)

[350%/ 100% pos . results - EEC-MRL * .. ) - - FDA "safe"

*) n = Number of subsamples **) Sum of all substances of the tetracycline group

Figure 10: IDF-intercomparison 1989 - Tetracycline. Detection limits (pgikg) o/various methods.

Bulletin of the IDF 305

Test *)

Disc assay n = 16

Enterotox AS n = 16

Blue Star n=17

BRTpH6n=10

Charm Farm Test n = 12

Delvotest P/SP n=22

Acidification n= 16

Valio T 101 n=B

t5<'2S<56&5<5&5<x'lXY'-<Y><5&'S<56<yxx>l

®<XXXX><><:X:XXXXXXl

~

xx x

xx xxx

Charm II (Immunt.)n=26U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J o 200 400

Oxytetracycline (J.1g/kg)

600

iS2lS0%/100% pos. results - EEC-MRL -- FDA "safe"

*) n = Number of subsamples **) Sum of all substances of the tetracycline group

Figure 11: IDF-intercomparison 1992 - Oxytetracycline. Detection limits (}-Iglkg) of various methods.

Test *)

Disc assay n = 1 6 I

I Enterotox AS n = 16 I I >s~-(:'·: '</ /. ~'-.' . </>~· ·':' /."x >-';<)<,/>::.x,\i\. ·1 > 1000

I

Blue Star n = 12 I 132: I

Charm Farm Test n = 12 I KI"7:x""~,/""'" r-"lX;-... <",..'''':,Y'' ... -''·1 I

Delvotest P/SP n=22 I I

Acidification n = 16 I I

Valio T 101 n=B I I

Charm II (Microb.)n= 16 p ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T7~ Charm II (Immunt.)n=14 IXX'., /'(' , ' .. : " .,>' ....... " "/', ' ·-: ··:··,· <" ,'··· ·'X'/x'//·,,·v'<YX!

> 1000

> 1000

BOO

o 200 400 600 BOO 1.000 1.200

Sulfadimidine (J.1g/kg)

EJ 50%/1 00% pos. results - EEC-MRL **) - - FDA "safe"

*) n = Number of subsamples **) Sum of all substances of the sulfonamide group

Figure 12: IDF-intercomparison 1992 - Sulfadimidine. Detection limits (}-Iglkg) of various methods.

27

28 Bulletin of the IOF 305

Table 6: IDF-Intercomparisons 1989 and 1992 - Summary of results

Antimicrobial Small variation Agreement with Fulfilment of Fulfilment of FDA-between results claim* EU-MRL* "safe-Ievel"*

Penicillin G Disc assay Disc assay Disc assay Disc assay Delvotest BRT BRT BRT Charm II (microb.) Delvotest Delvotest Delvotest

Charm II (microb.) Charm II (microb.). Acidification Penzym Charm II (microb.).

Tetracycline -- Disc assay -- --Delvotest

Oxytetracycline Charm II (immun.) Disc assay Test Charm Farm Test Charm II (immun.) BRT pH 6 Delvotest Acidification Charm Farm Test Acidification test Charm II (immun.) Valio T101 Valio T101

Charm II (immun.)

Sulfadimidine Charm II (microb.) Delvotest Blue Star Charm II (microb.) Blue Star Valio T101 Charm Farm Test Charm II (immun.)

Charm II (immun.) Charm II (microb.) Charm II (immun.)

• At least 50 % positive results, no indication of confidence tevel.

Antlbrbtics ,Testing:' Result&of ID6Intercompariso'ns~1989 ~d1992 by Group of Experts £503 ,.. AnJf6iotics .

The resultS: of intercornparisontrials.,C{lrried OLlt in 1989f1 992 are reported, The experimental, stuqres! de.signed and organized by IDF GroupE5Q~(former E47) -Antibiotics - ~imed.tb obtain insight into the actual Mstate 9f proficiency' of routint'lly appiied testsa)idl6r>!aboratories. The information acquiredlrom th'e study should be helpful ,in determining (1) which tests are routinely applied' toi' the detection of .antimicrObials; (2) to what extent the results of anetest (group) among par;tlcipatihg !¢.1br~tories vary: (3) how: th~ claims of,detectlon limits agree with experimental data obtaine~; (4) by whicl') l'Detliods fixed IilTiit$'-like 1~e MRLs ofEU .~ (eQUlations dr"safeltolerance levelsn 'inthe GSA ~.~ be,deUicted. 11 pp - English only

{Max: antfbJ"t/cs' testfli¥.

Bulletin N~30S1,19Q5-:->51 ppin tOtal .. 1400 BEF

Bulletin of the IDF 305 29

FOREWORD MASTITIS COHTROL This document contains , the tabula'ted

replies of 24 member countries to IDF masti· tis control Questionnaire 1694/A issued' in February 1994. The questionnaire was the fifth in a series isSued by the International Dairy Federation on behalf of Group A.2 (Bovine Mastitis) at approximately five year intervals. 'Previous reports have been pub- . lished in IDF Documents 76 (1973), 121 (1980), 187 (1985) and Bulletin 262 (1991). A copy of the questionnaire is inCluded as an appendix. The assistance of Dr S. Morant and Ms M. Sanders in analysing the data is acknowledged.

(Results of Questionnaire 1694/A) J.M. Booth, Chairman, Group A2

Animal Health, Genus Animal Health, Hallow Park, Hallow, Worcester WR2 6PG, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT The replies of 24 member countries to IDF mastitis control

questionnaire 1694/ A issued in February 1994 are tabulated . The survey shows a high degree of uniformity in recommended mas­titis control measures and an increase in their application on-farm since the previous questionnaire 5 years before. There is little evi­dence of a reduction in infection levels, although cell counts are lower and there has been a big increase in cell count payment schemes in the countries replying to the questionnaire.

DAIRY HERD The 24 countries replying to the questionnaire had

more than 42 million milking cows. This represented a 6% reduction from five years previously. Median herd size increased from 30 to 33 cows, although the range was from 9 to 358 cows. The predominant breed was Holstein/Friesian,

CONTROL SCHEMES Most countries recommended a national mastitis

control scheme although in only two countries was this compulsory. Virtually all countries used whole herd milk samples for monitoring by cell count and the majority carried out testing more than once a month, There was an increase in the use of individual cow samples for cell count monitoring from 13 to 21 countries, and in most this was performed on a monthly basis. The Fossomatic instrument was used for cell counting of more than 50% of herds in all countries replying to the question.

PATHOGENS Staph. aureus was the most common pathogen

causing both clinical and subclinical mastitis. E. co/i/coliforms and Strep. uberis were the other com­mon pathogens from clinical mastitis cases whereas Staph epidermidis/coagulase negative staphylococci and Strep. dysga/actiae were more frequent causes of subclinical mastitis. However most of this information came from random samples or control schemes which might indicate some bias. Virtually all countries used a cowside test for mastitis, mostly the CMT.

CONTROL MEASURES There was a large degree of uniformity in the rec­

ommended mastitis control measures. Teat washing and/or disinfection before milking, the treatment of subclinical cases and the routine bacteriological examination of cows were the major areas of differ­ence, although three Scandinavian and one other country recommended the selective use of dry cow therapy. Median values for the application of dry cow therapy to all cows had increased from 37% to 60% and for teat disinfection after milking from 50% to

60%. The treatment of clinical mastitis was mostly by the intramammary route , frequently with systemic treatment, equally by the farmer and his veterinary surgeon, Five countries carried out pre-dipping in more than 5% of their herds. Iodophor was the most commonly used teat disinfectant.

MILK PAYMENT All but one of the 24 countries adjusted the milk price

to farmers according to the cell count, up from 17 coun­tries five years ago. In over half these countries the pay­ment scheme applied to all herds. The median cell count levels used were 350 000 cells/ml for the lowest range and 700 000 cells/ml for the highest range, although there were very wide variations, The median highest price penalty was 6%, but ranged from 1% to 62%.

PROGRESS Thirteen countries reported a definite improvement in

the level of mastitis during the last ten years, eight had some improvement and the remaining three reported slight improvement. These figures indicate a much better situation than five years previously. However, most of the statistics related to the last three years and only six countries went back m(}re than ten years. These six countries were able to show a 28% reduction in average cell count between 1980 and 1993, Such statistics as were available , however, indicated little progress in reducing subclinical or clinical mastitis. Regarding future plans, the only common theme was the implementation or revision of herd health programmes.

CONCLUSIONS The survey shows a high degree of uniformity in rec­

ommended mastitis control measures and an increase in their application on-farm since the previous questionnaire five years before. There is little evidence of a reduction in infection levels, although cell counts are lower and there has been a big increase in cell count payment schemes in the countries replying to the questionnaire.

IDF Group A2 is most grateful to the national com­mittees and to colleagues in the 24 countries who replied to this questionnaire ,

Table 1: Dairy cow population (Q1)

Country Milking Dairy Mean herd Main dairy breed(s) cows herds size

AT Austria 824,000 43,300 19 Fleckvieh, Braunvieh, Schwarzbunt

AU Australia 1,653,000 14,622 113 Friesian BE Belgium 764,000 29,000 28 Belgian White and Blue, Holstein CA Canada 1,292,500 39,000 33 Holstein CH Switzerland 728,981 50,382 14 Simmental, Simmentalx Red

Holst, Swiss Brown, Holst Friesian

DE Germany 5,300,000 220,700 235/28a Friesian, Simmental DK Denmark 707,000 16,500 43 Holstein Friesian EE Estonia 215,000 3,800 235 Estonian Black and White,

Estonian Red ES Spain 1,453,800 155,100 9.4 Friesian FI Finland 426,400 34,000 13 Finnish Ayrshire, Friesian FR France 4,600,000 170,000 26 Holstein, Normande, Montbeliarde GB United Kingdom 2,676,000 36,400 67 Holstein(Friesian, Holstein HU Hungary 430,000 1,200 358 Holstein-Friesian IE Ireland 1,281,400 46,500 27.5 Friesian IT... Israel 120,000 1,540 305/52b Israeli - Holstein IT Italy 2,317,000 143,341 16.2 Friesian Brown JP Japan 1,084,000 50,900 21.3 Holstein NL Netherlands 2,000,000 50,000 40 Holstein - Friesian NO Norway 344,000 26,690 12.9 Norwegian Red NZ New Zealand 2,601,022 14,441 180 Holstein - Friesian, Jersey SE Sweden 490,000 18,300 27 Swedish Red and White, Swedish

Friesian US USA 9,700,000 162,000 60 Holstein UY Uruguay 450,000 8,500 50 Holstein, Jersey, Normand ZA South Africa 600,000 8,100 70-80 Friesian, Jersey

Notes: a East 235, West 28. b Kibbutz 305, Moshav 52

Year I

1993 I

1993/94 I

1992 I 1992

1992

I

1993 1993 1993 I

1993 1993

1992/93 1993 1994 1993 1993 1992 1993 1993 1993

1992/93 1993

1993 1993 1994

--

15

CD ~

~ 5' ~ s-a>

o "T1

15 r.n

Table 2: Mastitis control scheme (Q2)

Country Control Scheme Recommended

AT Austria Yes AU Australia Yes BE Belgium Yes CA Canada Yes CH Switzerland Yes DE Germany Yes DK Denmark No EE Estonia Yes ES Spain No FI Finland Yes' FR France Yes GB United Kingdom Yes HU Hungary Yes IE Ireland Yes IL Israel Yes IT Italy No JP Japan Yes NL Netherlands Yes NO Norway Yes NZ New Zealand Yes SE Sweden Yes US USA Noa

UY Uruguay No ZA South Africa Yes

Notes: a General guidelines but no single control scheme.

Compulsory

Yes No No No No No

No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No

No No

~

w ~

~ 5 ' ~ :;. '" 6 -n w o (fI

Table 3: Monitoring procedures - Milk samples (Q3.1, 3.2)

Country Samples Frequency-herd Frequency-cow

Whole Indi- More Monthly Less More Monthly Less herd vidual than than than than

cows monthly monthly monthly monthly

AT Austria Yes Yes Yes Yesa

AU Australia Yes Yes Yes Yes BE Belgium Yes Yes Yes Yes CA Canada Yes Yes Yes Yes CH Switzerland Yes Yes Yes Yes DE Germany Yes No Yes Yes DK Denmark Yes Yes Yes Yes EE Estonia No Yes Yes ES Spain Yes Yes Yes Yes FI Finland Yes Yesb Yes Yes

FR France Yes Yes Yes Yes GB United Kingdom Yes Yes Yes Yesb Yes

HU Hungary Yes Yes Yes Yes IE Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes II... Israel Yes Yes Yes Yes IT Italy Yes Yes Yes Yes JP Japan Yes No Yes Yes NL Netherlands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

I NO Norway Yes Yes Yes Yes NZ New Zealand Yes Yes Yes Yes SE Sweden Yes Yes Yes Yes US USA Yes Yesc Many Most Few Yes

UY Uruguay ZA South Africa Yes Yes Yes .Yes

~- -- -

Notes; a CMT b Milk recorded herds c DHl

(;J N

CD ~ p: s· S. 5-CD

is .,., ~ tJl

Table 4: Monitoring procedures - Cell counting methods (Q3.3) I~ ~ S"

2. :;-

Country Fossomatic Indirect Other I~ 0 "Tl

AT Auslria ++ + Ig AU Australia ++ + BE Belgium ++ CA Canada ++ CH Switzerland ++ DE Germany ++ DK Denmark ++ EE Estonia ++ + +a ES Spain ++ FI Finland ++ FR France ++ GB United Kingdom ++ HU Hungary ++ IE Ireland ++ IL Israel ++ + +b IT Italy ++ + +c JP Japan ++ +d NL Netherlands ++ NO Norway ++ NZ New Zealand ++ SE Sweden ++ US USA ++ + +e UY Uruguay ZA South Africa ++ + +e

+ + more than 50% + less than 50%

Notes: a Electrical conductivity b Coulter Counter, Flow cytometry c Somacount

d Microscopic e Coulter Counter

~

Table 5: Monitoring procedures - Clinical mastitis (Q3.4)

Country A 8 C D E F G H I Other NS

AT Austria 3 4 6 5 I Staph Yes 2 Strep

AU Australia I 4 2 3 BE Belgium I 4 2 3 5 CA Canada 4 3 2 1 5 ,CH Switzerland 2 5 1 1 3 6 4 I Enterococci DE Germany DK Denmark . EE Estonia I 2 3 4 Yes ES Spain 1 4 6 2 Corynebacterium bovis

3 Strep spp 5 Staph intermedius

FI Finland I 4 5 3 2 FR France 3 2 2 1 GB United Kingdom 1 5 6 3 2 4 HU Hungary 1 2 3 IE Ireland 1 3 4 2 Streptococcal spp IL Israel 3 2 I 4 Pseudomonads

5 Enterobacter aerogenes IT Italy 1 2 JP Japan 4 3 5 2 6 1 Non ag strep NL Netherlands 1 5 3 4 2 NO Norway I 2 3 6 4 5 Other strep NZ New Zealand 1 3 4 2 5 6 SE Sweden I 5 4 2 3 Strep others US USA 5 I 4 2 No isolation,

3 Non ag strep, 6 Other UY Uruguay 1 2 ZA South Africa 1 3 2 Various streptococci

A Staph aureus NS National surveys B Strep agalactiae RS Random samples C Strep dysgalactiae CS Control schemes D S trep u beris E E coli/coliforms F A pyogencs G S epiderrnidis/coag neg staphs H Nocardia asteroides I Yeast

- -- - - - - ---

Pathogens ranked from most common (I) to least common (6)

RS

Yes Yes Yes

. ,

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

CS

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes I Yes

I

Y~s I

W l>

OJ ~

~ 5 ' S. S-ID

o " w o U1

Table 6: Monitoring procedures - Subclinical mastitis (Q3.4)

Country A B C 0 E F G H Other

AT Austria 1 2 Strep

AU Australia 1 BE Belgium 1 5 4 2 3 CA Canada 1 4 3 2 6 5 Staph species

CH Switzerland 1 4 3 2 Other streps

DE Germany 2 3 1 Streptococci

DK Denmark 1 3 4 2 5 Strep faecalis 6 Haemolytic streps

EE Estonia 1 2 3 ES Spain 1 4 6 2 3 Strep spp

5 Staph intermedius

FI Finland 2 5 4 3 1 FR France 1 3 2 3 GB United Kingdom 1 2 4 3 HU Hungary 1 2 3 IE Ireland 1 2 3 lL Israel 1 2 IT Italy 1 3 4 2 Environmental streps

JP Japan 4 5 6 1 2 3 Non ag streps

NL Netherlands 1 2 3 4 5 NO Norway 1 3 6 2 4 Enterococcus spp

5 0: haem strep

NZ New Zealand 3 2 1 4

SE Sweden 2 1 3 Strep all

US USA 3 5 6 1 4 2 Non ag streps

UY Uruguay 4 2 1 3 ZA South Africa 1 4 2 Other staphs

3 Various streps

A Staph aureus NS National surveys

B Strep agalactiae RS Random samples

C S trep dysgalactiae CS Control schemes

0 Strep uberis E E coli/coli forms F A pyogenes G S epidermidis/coag neg staphs H Corynebacterium bovis

-

Pathogens ranked from most common ( I) to least common (6)

NS RS

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

CS

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

III S. ~ so ~ 5-et>

(5 ., c.> o C11

'" (J1

AT AU BE CA CH DE DK EE ES FI FR GB HU IE IL IT JP NL NO NZ SE US UY ZA

Tests:

Table 7: Monitoring procedures - Cowside tests (Q3.6)

Country Used Test

Austria Yes CMT Australia Yes Rapid Mastitis Test Belgium Yes CMT Canada Yes CMT Switzerland Yes CMT Germany Yes CMT Denmark Yes CMT Estonia Yes CMT, EC Spain Yes CMT Finland Yes CMT France Yes CMT United Kingdom No Hungary Yes CMT Ireland Yes CMT, EC Israel Yes CMT, EC Italy Yes CMT Japan Yes Modified CMT, EC Netherlands Yes Teepol, EC Norway Yes CMT New Zealand Yes CMT, EC Sweden Yes CMT USA Yes CMT, EC Uruguay Yes CMT South Africa Yes CMT

CMT California Mastitis Test EC Electrical conductivity

w CJ)

aJ ~

~ 5·

2-5-Ct>

6 TI W 0 (1\

Bulletin of the IOF 305

Table 8: Mastitis Control Measures (Q4.1)

Country Recommended control measures A B C D E F G H I J K L

AT Austria + + - + + + + +/- + + + 1 AU Australia + + +/- +/- + + + + + + - 2 BE Belgium + + + - + + + - + + + CA Canada + + + +/- + + +/- - + + + 3 CH Switzerland + + - - + + + + + +a -

DE Germany + + - - + + +/- + + + + -DK Denmark + + +b - + + + - + + + 4

EE Estonia + + - - + + + - + + + ES Spain + + - + + + + - + + + FI Finland + + + - + +c + - + + +d

FR France + + + + + + + +e + + -GB United Kingdom + + + - + + + +f + + +

HU Hungary + + + + + + + + + + + -IE Ireland + + + - + + + - + + -IL Israel + + + - + +c + + + + +

IT Italy + + - - + + + + + + JP Japan + + + - + + + - + + NL Netherlands + + - +/- + + + +/- + + +d 5

NO Norway + + - - - +c + - + + +/- 6

NZ New Zealand + + - - + + + +g + + - 7

SE Sweden + + + - + +c + - + + +c

US USA + + +h + + + + +1 + + - 8

UY Uruguay + + + - + + + - + + - 9 ZA South Africa + + + + + + + + + + + 10

Recommended control measures: Notes: a CMT

A Advice on management and housing b Not washing but drying off

B Milking machine test and maintenance c Selective

C Teat washing before milking d Clinical cases

o Teat disinfection by dipping or spraying before milking e At end of lactation

E Teat disinfection by dipping or spraying after milking With dry cow therapy

F Dry cow therapy g In two year olds only

G Treatment of clinical cases h If no predipping

H Treatment of subclinical cases Strep ag problem herds only

Culling chronic cases

J Cell counting K Routine bacteriology examination of cows L Other measures :

1 CMT 2 Selenium in different areas 3 Re-evaluate controls. establish goals. cow comfort 4 Advising upon milking routine 5 Separation of infected cows 6 Milking technique observation and instruction 7 Bacteriological samples in problem herds I animals 8 Coliform vaccination in high risk herds 9 Milking routine. stimulation. strip cup 10 Prevention of teat canal erosion. general hygiene. personal hygiene. milk quality and

safety

37

Percentage of herds using:

AT Austria AU Australia BE Belgium CA Canada CH Switzerland

DE Germany DK Denmark EE Estonia ES Spain FI Finland FR France GB United Kingdom HU Hungary IE Ireland IL Israel IT Italy JP Japan NL Netherland NO Norway NZ New Zealand SE Sweden US USA UY Uruguay ZA South Africa

Notes: a No[ (yet) allowed

Table 9: Mastitis control measures (Q4.2, 4.4)

Dry Cow Therapy Teat Disinfection

To all To some Before After

cows cows milking milking

+ 80 40 30 45 <1 60 70 10 0 30 60 10-20 30 >80 5 45 Oa 18 75 25 0 75 ? ? 0 ? - + - >50

+ 20 <2 60-80 0 27

75-90 10-20 1 >60 80 15 1 75 - + 20 100

75 0 60 15 50 5 90 80 5 75 50 30 3 47 60 25 <1 60 l.1 45.8 0.7 11.8

10-20 80-90 0 75-85 0 70 0 60 80 18 45 85 40 - 0 50 70 <10 90

I

I

I

w

'"

co s:. ~ s· 9.. :T CD

o -n w o (]1

Table 10: Mastitis control measures (Q4.3)

Clinical Mastitis Who Treats Treatment Farmer

AT Austria AU Australia + BE Belgium 1 CA Canada + CH Switzerland 2 DE Germany DK Denmark EE Estonia ES Spain + FI Finland 2

FR France + GB United Kingdom + HU Hungary IE Ireland + IL Israel + IT Italy + JP Japan NL Netherlands + NO Norway NZ New Zealand + SE Sweden US USA 1 UY Uruguay + ZA South Africa • 1

Notes: a Farmer is allowed to use only intramammaries b Farm worker

C Milker

Vet

+

2

1 + + +

1 +

+

+

+

+

+ 3 +

Other Intra-mammary

+ 1 + 2

+

+ + + +

+

+

+

2b 1 1

2c +

What Route Systemic Both

+

2

1 + + +

+a

+ +

+

+

+ 3 2 2

-

'" «>

ro ~ ~ 5 2-:0-CD

Cl

" '" o (]l

40

Table 11: Mastitis control measures (Q4.5)

Among herds using teat disinfectant, percentage using:

Country Before milking A B C D E

AT Austria 60 20 20 0 -AU Aus tra lia <1 - <1 - -BE Be lgi um - - - - -CA Canada - - - - -CH Sw itzerl and 0 0 0 0 0 DE Germany - - - - -DK Denmark ? ? ? ? ? EE Estonia - - - - -ES Spain - - - - -FI Finland - - - - -FR France - - - - -

GB Uni ted Kingdom - - - - -HU Hungary - - - 5 15d IE Ireland - - - - -IL Israel - - - - -IT Italy - - - - -JP Japan 95 - - - 5b NL Netherlands < 1 <1 - - -NO Norway 100 - - - -NZ New Zealand - - - - -SE Sweden - - - - -US USA 50 ? 5 4 40J UY Uruguay - - - - -

ZA South Africa ? ? ? ? ?

Disinfectants: A Iodophor; B Chlorhexidine C Hypochloriles o Dodecyl benzene sulphonic acid

E a PYP Iodine 5%.Glularald ehyde 3%. Chloramin T 2% b

c

d

e

f

g h

J k

Not s tated

Appro x 10% in lotal

Onophosphor acid

Laclic acid

Glut araldehyde 14%. Sodium dic hlo roisocyanurate 10% Troclosene sodium

Glutaraldehyde

Isopropanol. Tea tree oi l. Lactic acid

Chlorous acid. Ambicin N. Oxguard . etc QA

After milking A B C D

40 20 40 0 45 30 15 -50 50 - -- - - -

90 0 0 0 70 - - -? ? ? ? 50 20 - 20 40 60 - -85 - - 15 35 55 10 lOc

c

80 10 - -50 10 10 -

60 9 - -

70 20 5g -40 40 20 -95 1 - -45 45 - <1 80 - - -

70 12 0 18 60 20 - 5 45 20 5 1 50 3 30 0 ? ? ? ?

Bulletin of the IOF 305

E

----lOa -? lOb --lOc

-

30e

24f

5b

-4

5h

20i 0 15b

29J

15k

?

Country

AT AusLIia AU Australia BE Belgium CA Canada CH Switzerland DE Germany DK Denmark EE Estonia ES Spain FI Finland FR France GB United Kingdom HU Hungary IE Ireland IT..- Israel IT Italy IP Japan NL Netherlands NO NOIway NZ New Zealand

SE Sweden US USA UY Uruguay ZA South Africa

-

Table 12: Milk payment (QS.1, 5.2.1)

Milk price to farmers Year

oS 6.28/liLIe 1993 31-38 cents/li LIe 12 BEF CDN $51.00/h1 1993 SFR 0.97/kg 1993 60pfg/kg 1993 2.56 KR 1266 EEK per tonne 1993 37pts 1993 3.22 FIM 1993 1.92F/l a 38g MG, 32g MP 1993 21.0 pence per liLIe 1992 19. 10 Ft//i LIe 1993 20.3p/liLIe 1.03 Shekel (US $0.34) 1993 620 Lit/l 89 Yen/kg 1992 0.80 - 0.78 3.87 NOK 1993 NZ $5.85 kg milk fat, 1992 NZ $3 .30 kg milk solids 2,87 SEK 1993 $12.83/cwt 1993 US $0.135 1993

Price adjustment

Yes/No Herds

Yes All Yes Some Yes All Yes Some Yes All Yes All Yes All Yes All Yes All Yes All Yes All Yes All Yes Most Yes All Yes All Yes Most Yes Most Yes All Yes All Yes Some

Yes Some Yes Most No Yes Many

OJ S. ~ :; !:!, 5-<1)

o " w o U1

~

Table 13: Milk payment (Q5.2.2)

Cell count ranges and price changes Country Lowest Middle Highest

CCa Price cca Price cca Price

AT Austria -3S0 641.78g -SOO -S.OOg >7S0 -7S.00g -7S0 -2S.00g

AU Australia Varies BE Belgium sAOOb Base 400-S00 -0.2SBEF/l >7S0 -I BEF/l

SOO-7S0 -O.SOBEF/I CA Canada SOO-600 -I.OO/hl 600-700 -2.00 700-7S0 -3.00

CH Switzerland 3S0 -c 3S0 c 3S0 _c -DE Germany >400 0.02DM/kg DK Denmark ~300 +3 ore/kg 300-400 0 ~7S0 -60re/kg

400-7S0 -3 ore/kg EE Estonia >SOO + >7S0 >1000 -ES Spain <400 +2Pts >400 FI Finland <2S0 +0.11(3.4%) 2S0-400 0 >700 -0.4 to -2.0 (62%)

400-700-0.1 to -0.4 (12%) FR France <2S0 o to +3CLS 2S0-400 o to -4cts >SOO -6 to -12cts GB United Kingdomd 0-400 0 401-S00 -O.Sppl Over 1000 -2.Oppl

SOI-IOOO -1.Oppl HU Hungary <400 100% 401-700 80% >701 60 % IE Irelande 401-S00 -0.7Sp/gal SOI-600 -1.OOp/gal >600 -1.2Sp/gal IL Israel <300 +O.S% SOO-700 -1 .0% >700 -2.0% IT Italy <ISO +6 Lit 3S0 >600 -6 Lit JP Japan <300 ±O 300-S00 -I to 2 Yen >SOO -2 to S Yen NL Netherlands <400 400-S00 -0.01 c >SOO -0.02c NO Norway +2S0 O.ISNOK -400 -0.07NOK -7S0 -O.14NOK NZ New Zealand >SOO Unknown SE Sweden <200 +O.OS SEK >400 -0.06 to -0.20SEK US USA 100 +$.20 to + $.80 300 +$.10 to ? 700 -$.10 to ? UY Uruguay ZA South Africa Varies

Notes: a Cell count (OOO/ml)

b Geometric mean of 3 months (6 results )

c Number of failures within 6 months: 1st - warning, 2nd -2%, 3rd -3.8 %, 4th -5.7%, 6th -9.5 % + delivery blockade

d England and Wales

e Example from one major co-op, similar in most co-ops

I

I

I

.t> N

CIl ~

!! s· 2-:r (1)

o .,., w o (J1

Table 14: Progress in mastitis control-Cell counts (Q6.1, 6.2.1)

Country Improvement Cell Count ('OOO/ml)

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

AT Austria Definite AU Australia Definite 379

BE Belgium Definite 550 307

CA Canada Definite a

CH Switzerland Slight 150 166 171 128 117

DE Germany ' Definite/some 274

DK Denmark Some 390 350 368 310 280 313

EE Estonia Some ES Spain ' Slight FI Finland Definite 282

205

FR France , Some GB United Kingdom Definite 573 508 469 376 329

HU Hungary Some 419

IE Ireland Definite IL Israel Definite 395b

IT Italy Some 434

JP Japan Definite 250 260

NL Netherlands Definite 400 350 320

NO Norway Some 236 248 206 158

NZ New Zealand $ome 345

SE Sweden Definite (400) (300) 282 266 230

US USA Definite 650 600 550 500 400

UY Uruguay Slight ZA South Africa Some 350

Means: A Arithmetic G Geometric W Weighted

Notes: a Available on provincial basis b Represents 44 .2% of herds

Accurate or Estimate

1992 1993

337 313 Accurate 278 265 Accurate

a ' a Accurate 98 104 Accurate

230 237 Accurate 346 309 300 274

247 186 Accurate 179 138

280 277 Accurate 366 351 Accurate

450 450 438 426 Accurate 280 280 Accurate 300 280 Accurate 204 194 Accurate 151 143 288 255 Accurate 228 231 Accurate 375 350 Estimate

(465) (465) Estimate

Type of I mean

A G A A G A G

I

A G

G A G A A A

A G W

A ofG A

A

CD ~

~ s· 2-5-CD

o .,., w o (J1

J> W

Table 15: Progress in mastitis control - Subclinical mastitis (Q6.2.2)

% Cows infected

Country 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1992

AT Austria AU Australia . BE Belgium 45 CA Canada CH Switzerland 20a 22.4ab 20.7ac

DE Germany DK Denmark 39.5c 42d 46

EE Estonia ES Spain FI Finland FR France GB United Kingdom 55 32 HU Hungary 60 60 65 IE Ireland IL Israel IT Italy JP Japan NL Netherlands 16 14 8 9 15 15 NO Norway 25.4 24.0 NZ New Zealand SE Sweden 28e 28e 30e

US USA 50 48 45 40 30 25 UY Uruguay 60 ZA South Africa

-

Notes: a Approximate b 1979 c 1989 d 1991 e Estimates

1993

35

19a

49.9 I

70

I

15 24.1

30e

24

--

" "

(JJ

£. p: :i" £. S-<Il

0

" c.:> 0 (}l

Table 16: Progress in mastitis control - Clinical mastitis (Q6.2.3)

Country

AT Austria AU Australia BE Belgium CA Canada CH Switzerland

DE Germany DK Denmark EE Estonia ES Spain FI Finland FR France GB United Kingdom HU Hungary IE Ireland IL Israel IT Italy JP Japan NL Netherlands NO Norway NZ New Zealand SE Sweden

US USA UY Uruguay ZA South Africa

Notes: a Approximate b 1982

1970

87

20·25

48

c Cases/lOO finished lactations

Cases/l00 cows/year

1975 1980 1985 1990 1992

15ab

37 38 37 41

74 48 I <1

20·25 20-25 20-25 20-25 20-25 18.0 19.4 23.1 23.8

18.9 18.3c 18.31 c 49 50 48 47 46

1993

0.29

42

<1

20-25 24.4

18.82c 45

... '"

co s. P: s· 2-5' <t>

o ." W o '"

AT AU

BE CA CH

DE DK EE ES FI FR GB

HU IE IL

IT JP NL NO

NZ SE

us

UY ZA

Country

Austria Australia

Belgium Canada Switzerland

Germany Denmark· Estonia Spain Finland France United Kingdom

Hungary Ireland Israel

Italy Japan Netherlands Norway

New Zealand Sweden

USA

Uruguay South Africa

Notes: a Not stated

Additional measures planned?

Yes Yes

No Yes Yes

No Yes No No Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes

No No No Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Table 17: Future plans (Q7)

Measures planned

Installation of local udder health services. Move to premium payment schemes based on cell count. Emphasis on suitability of milking machine for type of cow milked.

Most regions implementing progressive reductions in SCC penalty levels. Compulsory milk quality assurance programme for all milk producers based on HACCP concept.

New health surveillance agreement with Danish Vet Association.

Computer aided herd health plans.

Promotion of sampling and testing individual cows for cell count. Identification of bacterial species and drug sensitivity and analysis. a

Inclusion of all herds in national mastitis control scheme. Eradication of Streptococcus agalactiae subclinical mastitis.

Work more with clinical mastitis and total mastitis economics and less with only BMSCC. Revision of recommended control measures. Herd health programme adjusted to specific herd. AI and milk recording results combined with environment, cell counts and bacteriological examinations. PC used for monitoring aid .. Methods for controlling mastitis in heifers from breeding to first calving being investigated . Control methods being evaluated include fly control, vaccines, antibiotics, and housing. Cell counting in new payment scheme, probably 1994. Further promotion of the National Procedure for Mastitis Control. Increased promotion of regular SCC determinations in herd and individual cow milk. Efforts to establish database.

.<> O"l

OJ ~ p: s· So 5-<1>

o 'Tl W o (J1

Country

AT Austria AU Australia BE Belgium CA Canada CH Switz,erland DE Germany DK Denmark EE Estonia ES Spain FI Finland FR France GB United Kingdom

HU Hungary IE Ireland IT.. Israel

IT Italy JP Japan NL Netherlands NO Norway NZ New Zealand SE Sweden US USA UY Uruguay ZA South Africa

Table 18: Additional comments (Q8)

Additional comments

Plan educational input to those producers with SCC above European Union standard of 400/500 thousand.

Since 1 January 1992 SCC were included in milk payment scheme, compulsory for all herds, including those not in national herd book and not yet in mastitis control programmes. About 88% of all herds in 1993 belonged to the national herd book and national mastitis control programmes.

More effort is being made to milking procedures.

National statistics are virtually non-existent in the US. Estimates are best guesses.

Promising progress made during 1990 to 1992 has been halted from 1993 to date and new efforts at promoting the resumption of earlier work to stimulate new progress seem difficult.

(D

£. en s· o

5-(1)

6

" w o (11

.. ..., f

IDF/A2 MASTITIS CONTROL QUESTIONNAIRE (1994)

Your Country

DAIRY COW POPULATION

Please state:

1.1 Total number of milking cows

1.2 Number of dairy herds

1.3 Average herd size (milking COWS)

1.4 Main dairy breed(s)

1 . 5 Year this information refers to

2 MASTITIS CONTROL SCHEME

2.1 Is there a mastitis control scheme which is recommended to all herds in your country?

2.2 Is it compulsory for all herds?

3 MONITORING PROCEDURES

YES* NO*

3.1 If milk samples are used for cell counting to monitor mastitis, are these samples normally:

YES NO 3.1. 1 Whole herd samples?

3.1.2 Individual cow samples? I -] 3.2 How frequently are thes~-~ilk samples taken for cell counting?

3.2.1 More often than once a month

3.2.2 Once a month

3.2.3 Less than once a month

HERD COW YES NO YES NO

I I II I I * Please place cross X in relevant box

3.3 If cell counting is undertaken, what method(s) are used? cross X in appropriate boxes)

(Please

Percentage of national dairy herds tested each

month

>50% <50%

3.3 . 1 Fossomatic

3.3.2 Indirect (eg CMT, WMT)

3.3.3 Other (please state)

3.4 What are the most common pathogens causing mastitis in your country' (Please list below 2-6 pathogens, in order of frequency if possible)

Clinical mastitis Subclinical mastitis

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

3 . 5 Has this information been obtained from:

3.5.1

3.5.2

3.5 . 3

Na tional surveys ?

Random samples?

Herds in mastitis control schemes?

CLINICAL MASTITIS YES NO

SUBCLINICAL MASTITIS YES NO

- -

J> CD

CD S. ~ S·

£. :;. <1l

o " ~ '"

3.6 Cows ide tests

3.6.1 Are cows ide tests, eg CMT, WMT, used for mastitis monitoring?

YES NO

I J 3.6.2 If ' YES, whicrh test is used? I . I

4 MASTITIS CONTROL MEASURES

4.1 Which of the following measures are recommended in your country?

4 . 1. 1

4.1. 2

4, 1. 3

4.1. 4

4.1. 5

4.1. 6

4 . 1. 7

4 . 1. B

4.1. 9

4.1.10

4.1.11

4 . 1.12

Advice on management and housing

Milking machine test and maintenanc,e

Teat washing before milking

Teat disinfection by dipping or spraying before milking

Teat disinfection by dipping or spraying after milking

Dry cow therapy

Treatment of clinical cases

Treatment of subclinical cases

Culling chronic cases

Cell counting

Routine bacteriological examination of cows

Other measures (please state)

, YES NO

4.2 What percentage of herds apply dry cow therapy

4.2 . 1

4 . 2.2

To all cows?

To some cows? 5 4.3 By whom and by what route is clinical mastitis most commonly

treated?

4.4

4.5

4.3.1

4.3 .2

Who treats? Farmer/Veterinarian/ Other (please state)

What route? Intramammary/ Systemic/Both (please state) EJ

What percentage of herds spraying.

apply teat disinfection by dipping or

4 . 4.1 Before milking?

4.4 .2 .After milking?

What percentage of herds using spraying use the following:

4.5.1 Iodophors?

4 . 5 . 2 Chlorhexidine?

4.5.3 Hypochlorites?

teat

B disinfectant by dipping or

Before Milking

After Milking

4.5.4 Dodecyl benzene sulphonic acid?

4.5.5 Other? (please state)

.... 10

!II ~

~ 5' ~ :r <0

6 ."

'" o (Jt

5 MILK PAYMENT

5.1 Average milk price paid to farmers in I 1992 or 1993? (please state year) L. __________ __

5.2 Is the milk price to farmers according to cell count?

If YES, is this:

5.2.1 For all/most/some herds?

YES NO adjusted I

'-----'-__ -----l

5.2.2 Cell count categories (OOO / ml) and price additions (+) or deductions(-):

Cell count Price

Category: lowest range change

middle

highest

6 PROGRESS IN MASTITIS CONTROL

6 . 1 Has there been a change in the level of mastitis during the past ten years?

YES 6.1.1 Definite improvement

6 . 1. 2 Some improvement

6.1.3 Slight improvement

6.1.4 No change

6 . 1.5 Deterioration

NO

6.2 please enter national mean statistics (where available) for all or some of the following years:

1970 1975 1980 1985

6.2 . 1 Cell count" (OOO / ml)

6 . 2 . 2 Subclinical mastitis prevalence (no infected per 100 cows)

6 . 2.3 Clinical mastitis incidence (cases per 100 cows per year)

" Please state whether these cell counts are:

6.2 . 1.1 Accurate statistics or estimates

6 . 2.1.2 Arithmetic/geometric/weighted means

FUTURE PLANS

7.1 Are any additional mastitis control measures planned for your country?

7.1. 1 If YES, please state.

B ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

1990 1992

YES NO

COMPLETED BY (BLOCK LETTERS PLEASE): ........... . ......... .

1993

(J1 o

OJ £. ~ 5' 2-:T (1)

o 'Tl

~ en

Bulletin of the IOF 305 51

Jnd~x: ma~tiH?j;Qilttol

Bulletin N°30sit995 - 51ppin total-14()O~EF