Mastitis

Your Vet Recommended RT-PCR for Mastitis — Now What?

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:03:58 GMT

If your veterinarian is recommending RT-PCR (real-time polymerase chain reaction), it’s usually tied to a specific frustration point on the dairy. That might be repeated “no growth” culture results, ongoing contagious mastitis challenges or a high number of clinical cases without clear answers.

As Dr. Jim Rhoades, veterinarian with IDEXX, put it:

“PCR is not new, but it may be new to some of our producers. It’s a tool that is really applicable to diagnosing mastitis on commercial dairy farms now. Getting good, timely information to make management decisions is probably undervalued in many cases.”

At its core, this isn’t about adding another test. It’s about getting clearer, more actionable information to guide management decisions. RT-PCR is one key in the advancement of technology for mastitis detection and prevention .

What RT-PCR Actually Does

RT-PCR works by detecting the genetic fingerprint of bacteria rather than trying to grow them in the lab.

Here’s the simple version:

Every pathogen has unique DNA. RT-PCR takes a milk sample mixed with fluorescence-tagged pathogen-specific DNA primers and runs it through repeated heating and cooling cycles that facilitate the amplification of the target pathogen DNA. As that DNA builds up through the cycles, a fluorescent signal increases, and once that signal crosses a defined threshold, the test reads as positive.

This amplification process is what allows PCR to detect even very small amounts of bacteria that culture might miss.

“PCR is grounded in specific genetic sequences that make the bacteria the bacteria. It is very specific to a single target. We’re not casting a wide net to see what grows. We’re looking for specific pathogens or groups of pathogens,” Rhoades explains.

How to Interpret a PCR Result

Instead of colony counts, PCR reports a cycle threshold, or Ct value. This reflects how many amplification cycles, the repeated heating and cooling cycles, were needed before bacterial DNA was detected via fluorescence.

The key takeaway is straightforward:

Low Ct = more bacteria present
High Ct = less bacterial DNA present

That’s the opposite of what most people are used to with culture, but once understood, it becomes a reliable way to gauge how significant a result may be.

Why PCR Can Still Be Positive When Culture Isn’t

In practical terms, culture depends on live bacteria being able to grow, while PCR detects DNA whether or not those organisms are still viable, which is why it can pick up infections that culture misses.

“With PCR we can have positive results that may have been negative with culture. It can give us information we may not have gotten from culture,” Dr. Pamela Adkins, associate professor of food animal medicine at the University of Missouri, says. “About 30% of clinical mastitis cases will come back culture-negative. When we use PCR, we find only 8% of those cases are actually negative.”

In practice, PCR is especially useful when:

Bacterial levels are too low to grow in culture
The cow has already started clearing the infection
Sample handling reduces bacterial viability

One of the most important things to understand is that PCR detects DNA, not necessarily live bacteria.

“The immune system may clear the pathogen, which is great. If that happens too quickly, we may not get an answer from culture, but the PCR will still be positive,” Adkins explains.

This is where interpretation is important. A PCR-positive result doesn’t always mean an active infection that needs treatment; it may reflect a recent infection that has already resolved.

Where PCR Fits and What to Do With It

PCR is best thought of as part of a broader diagnostic approach rather than a replacement for existing tools. Rather than replacing culture, it complements it by adding speed and sensitivity, particularly in situations where traditional methods fall short.

“These are all tools and we need to use all the tools in our toolbox,” Rhoades says.

In practice, PCR adds the most value when it helps you step back and understand what is happening at the herd level. It can identify infections that would otherwise be missed, clarify what pathogens are driving mastitis on your farm and point toward more effective prevention strategies.

For producers, that translates into a few key advantages:

A clearer picture of what’s actually in the herd
Better ability to reduce spread of contagious pathogens
More confidence in targeted, cost-effective decisions

When used correctly, RT-PCR can give you the information needed to make better decisions with fewer surprises, fewer missed infections and more control over the problem.

To learn more about how mastitis detection, prevention and treatment are changing, check out the following episode of “ The Bovine Vet Podcast ”.

Fighting Mastitis with the Help of Robots and Smart Technology

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 15:20:26 GMT

Mastitis remains one of the most costly and persistent health challenges facing dairy farms today, whether cows are milked in a parlor or by robots. In 2024, mastitis was estimated to cost the U.S. dairy industry more than $13 billion annually through lost milk, treatment costs and discarded milk.

As robotic milking systems become more common, new sensors and monitoring tools are helping detect milk quality problems earlier than ever. Even with these technological advances, the core principles of mastitis control remain the same. According to Douglas Reinemann and Carolina Pinzón-Sánchez of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, good hygiene, careful monitoring and timely intervention still form the foundation of effective mastitis management.

Clean Cows Still Matter Most

No matter where cows are milked, prevention still begins with cleanliness. In automated milking systems, that means ensuring the robot can properly clean and attach to the udder each time a cow enters the box.

“The cleanliness of the udder when the cow enters the robot has a big influence on how well that preparation process works,” Reinemann says.

Milking preparation is a critical step. Proper stimulation helps trigger milk letdown and allows teat cups to attach quickly and correctly. While premilking sanitation steps vary by robot brand, the goal is the same across systems: The robot must attach the milking unit to clean, dry and well-stimulated teats.

Postmilking teat disinfection is equally important. After milking, the teat canal remains temporarily open, leaving the udder more vulnerable to infection. Applying teat disinfectant helps remove bacteria from the teat skin and reduces the risk of new intramammary infections.

Routine equipment maintenance also plays a major role in mastitis prevention. Checking the accuracy of cleaning and sanitation cycles helps ensure the robot is properly preparing teats before milking.

“Equipment maintenance is nonnegotiable,” Pinzón-Sánchez says. “Milking systems must be serviced and tested regularly per manufacturer guidelines. Monitoring the accuracy of pre- and postmilking sanitation cycles ensures effective cleaning and prevents bacterial spread.”

How Robots Detect Mastitis Earlier

While mastitis prevention principles remain largely the same, detection looks different in robotic systems.

In conventional parlors, trained employees serve as the first line of defense. Those hands-on observations allow workers to quickly spot abnormal milk or signs of udder inflammation. But in automated milking systems, technology takes on that monitoring role.

Robots rely on sensors and algorithms to track milk quality and cow behavior. When the system detects patterns that deviate from normal, it generates an alert that a cow may be experiencing mastitis.

Automated milking system sensors commonly monitor:

Electrical conductivity of milk.
Milk color and composition changes.
Somatic cell count (SCC).
Quarter-level milk yield.
Cow visit frequency to the robot.

“These systems are very good at detecting abnormalities,” Reinemann says. “Sensor data can often identify subtle changes before clinical signs become obvious.”

Additional monitoring tools also help catch potential problems earlier. Activity monitors worn on collars, legs or ear tags track how cows move throughout the day. When a cow becomes less active or her behavior starts to change, it can be an early sign that something isn’t right. Often, these shifts show up before obvious symptoms appear, giving producers more time to take a closer look and respond if needed.

How to Interpret Alerts

Even with all the high-tech monitoring tools in an automated milking system, interpreting data the robots provide isn’t always straightforward. To make sense of what the sensors are telling you, Reinemann and Pinzón-Sánchez explain that it helps to understand two key concepts: sensitivity and specificity.

According to the pair, sensitivity refers to the system’s ability to correctly identify cows that truly have mastitis. A highly sensitive system detects most sick animals but may flag more healthy cows as potential cases.

Specificity, on the other hand, reflects how well the system identifies healthy cows. High specificity reduces false alarms but may miss some infected animals.

“No system is perfect,” Pinzón-Sánchez explains. “Increasing sensitivity can increase false positives, while increasing specificity can lead to missed cases.”

Fortunately, many automated systems allow producers to adjust these settings depending on herd conditions. When mastitis risk is elevated, increasing sensitivity may help catch more true cases. During periods of stable milk quality, higher specificity can reduce unnecessary alerts.

What to Do When the Robot Flags a Cow

Despite how capable automated systems have become, Reinemann and Pinzón-Sánchez emphasize that technology should support, not replace, human decision‑making. When the robot flags a cow, producers should:

Review the system alert and cow history.
Visually evaluate milk for abnormalities.
Palpate the udder for swelling or heat.
Take the cow’s temperature if illness is suspected.
Divert abnormal milk from the bulk tank.
Collect aseptic milk samples for culture or PCR testing.
Use cow-side tests such as the California Mastitis Test (CMT).
Consult a veterinarian before initiating treatment.

Blending Management with Technology

Despite the technology, successful mastitis control still comes down to good management. Robots can flag changes and catch potential problems earlier, but producers must still evaluate cows and make treatment decisions.

“These systems are excellent at detecting abnormalities, but they can’t diagnose diseases or recommend treatments,” Reinemann says.

He and Pinzón-Sánchez stress that successful mastitis management still relies on the basics: watching cows closely, keeping consistent routines and working with a veterinarian on prevention and treatment plans. When technology and good herd management work together, mastitis problems can often be addressed before they become serious.

For more on mastitis, check out:

Why We Need Technology and Human Expertise to Close The Mastitis Detection Gap

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 19:51:55 GMT

Mastitis detection remains constrained by parlor realities. Modern dairies are designed to maximize throughput, leaving little margin for detailed milk inspection on every cow at every milking. Even highly trained milkers can overlook subtle milk changes or early signs of disease when operating under fatigue, time pressure and competing demands.

“With how fast parlors are being pushed, workers are asked to milk more cows in shorter amounts of time. To look at and examine milk thoroughly for 8- or 12-hour shifts, it doesn’t always happen on every single cow,” says Dr. Justin Hess of Clinton Veterinary Services. “You’d be amazed at how much you can actually miss.”

Subclinical mastitis is particularly vulnerable to underdetection because it requires intentional testing that is accompanied by labor, cost and workflow implications.

Improving mastitis outcomes depends less on detection itself and more on what happens afterward. Farms today are generating more information than ever, but that information does not automatically translate into better decisions. Sound mastitis protocols need to be in place and understood by all on a dairy.

“If you try to develop a protocol, and the management team isn’t on board and you don’t have the right people in place, you’re going to struggle and probably make things more difficult,” Hess explains. “We like to keep things simple but effective.”

These protocols largely include management choices surrounding animal density, mastitis detection methods and even the choice of bedding in the stalls.

Concerning mastitis detection methods, on-farm culturing demonstrates the tension between simple and complex protocols well.

(Rose Memories Photography LLC)

“Culturing on-farm can be a struggle because of the increase in labor and having a dedicated person to do it. You also need the knowledge and desire to do it and do it correctly,” Hess says.

When farms have dedicated personnel, clear interpretation guidelines and confidence in how results will be used, culturing can reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and improve outcomes. When those conditions are absent, culturing may delay treatment without changing behavior, prompting farms to revert to broad-spectrum approaches for the sake of speed.

The challenge isn’t just the size of the farm, but the speed at which data must be converted into a treatment decision.

As the limitations of manual culturing and visual inspection become more apparent, the industry is shifting toward passive detection — systems that monitor the cow without requiring extra labor hours.

To address the complexity of dairy systems, Dr. Alon Arazi, chief veterinarian at Afimilk, hopes consolidating data generated by monitoring animals in existing protocols will help refine management and improve animal health.

“All this data is being gathered into one piece of software in which we do the analysis to detect mastitis,” Arazi says.

Sensor systems can also be used to detect mastitis based on deviations from the norm at a cow level. This baseline varies for each cow, meaning you need historical data for comparison.

“The main way to detect mastitis is based on what’s normal [for that animal]. Increased conductivity of a cow or dropped lactose to a lower level than is expected. This is mainly happening with clinical mastitis,” Arazi says. “One of the problems with subclinical mastitis is that the changes sometimes are very, very low and very hard to detect. In that case, we are looking for more and more sophisticated modeling algorithms that combine more and more things together to see things that are just starting to change.”

Mastitis Indicators Used in Automated Monitoring Systems

Automated monitoring systems identify cows suspected of mastitis by analyzing multiple milk and cow-level parameters simultaneously, rather than relying on a single signal. Key indicators include:

Milk conductivity
- Increased electrical conductivity associated with changes in ion flow during mastitis
- One of the primary and earliest milk signals used
Milk yield
- Sudden or unexpected drops in production relative to the cow’s baseline
Lactose concentration
- Decreases in lactose production when udder function is impaired
- Possible lactose leakage from milk or utilization by bacteria
Milk flow / milking dynamics
- Changes in milk flow rate that may reflect udder discomfort or inflammation
Rumination patterns
- Decreases in rumination associated with illness or discomfort
Eating behavior / dry matter intake
- Reduced intake relative to expected performance
Activity and behavior changes
- Deviations from individual cow behavioral baselines

This collected data is then compared and put into context on the individual, group and herd levels. Mastitis alerts are generated by combining multiple indicators, rather than any single threshold.

These disparate data points, along with the sheer volume of data, are where machine learning thrives.

“AI or machine learning will allow you to detect things that, even for us, are hard to see now. This for sure will improve subclinical detection,” Arazi predicts.

These systems aim to provide directional insight that shortens the time between detection and action by reducing the workload and finding changes in cow performance before they would be noticed by a worker. Catching a case 24 hours earlier could be the difference between a quick recovery and a culled cow.

“You don’t have to check every cow because the system has checked every cow two or three times in a day depending on how many milkings there are,” Arazi says. “You get the information, and you get the option to catch things earlier than people can see with their eyes.”

The Human Filter: Why Detection Requires Interpretation

Alerts without context quickly become noise. High alert frequency, poor specificity or unclear next steps can erode trust in the system. This is where veterinary intervention can help a dairy understand what they’re seeing and how best to act.

Hess stressed the questions he poses to dairies implementing updated mastitis detection protocols: “When you have that information, what are you going to do with that information? Are you going to actually change your protocols?”

Having more data is only useful for improving animal management if accompanied by a plan to act on what that data is telling you.

(Afimilk)

Technologies offering continuous observation and reduced reliance on human detection can introduce risks related to accuracy, workflow fit and trust. There is also the worry of false alerts.

“We can still improve accuracy, reduce false alerts and get more sensitivity,” Arazi says, speaking on the Afimilk system for mastitis detection.

These systems are, of course, not infallible. As with all hardware, there are uncontrollable hiccups that need to be considered when looking at the data generated.

“There are some critical parts of measuring conductivity,” Hess says. “If milk is moving or if air gets into the system, it can affect the sensitivity or the reading on it.”

At their core, these tools are designed to flag abnormal patterns, not to dictate diagnoses or management decisions. Alerts of deviations are only meaningful after interpretation by people who understand the cows, the parlor and the operation of the farm. Without the human layer, accurate detection risks becoming background noise.

“The only thing worse than no data is having wrong or misleading data,” Hess says.

The limitation is not simply technological, but decisional. This becomes most apparent when detection systems skew too far toward sensitivity at the expense of specificity. Highly sensitive tools identify earlier or more subtle changes, but they also generate more false positives. Each unnecessary alert pulls time and attention away from other priorities.

At the other end of the spectrum, overly specific systems may miss early disease signals, limiting their preventative value. Effective mastitis detection depends on deliberate trade-offs, favoring actionable accuracy over alert volume. The future of the dairy isn’t just in the data collecting sensors, but in how the person in the office uses that data to provide better care for the cow.

How Technology is Changing the Game in Mastitis Prevention and Detection

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 22:24:02 GMT

Mastitis is commonly described as an infectious disease, but in real-world dairy systems, it behaves far more like a systems problem. Case rates and economic impact are shaped by the barn environment, milking routines, labor capacity and cow flow long before a pathogen is identified. Mastitis persists not because veterinarians and producers lack knowledge, but because it emerges from the interaction of multiple, interconnected management decisions.

From a practice perspective, mastitis is never truly absent on a dairy.

The Ever-Present Risk of Mastitis

“Mastitis is always something you’re managing. It’s ever-present on a dairy and something you try to manage, control, keep in check and improve upon,” says Dr. Justin Hess, veterinarian at Clinton Veterinary Services in Michigan. “It’s always at the forefront to some degree. You hope to have control measures in place and treatment protocols well developed to make it easy and fairly straightforward for a dairy, but it’s ever-present.”

(Rose Memories Photography LLC)

Even well-managed herds maintain a baseline level of mastitis that fluctuates with the season, staffing changes and parlor consistency. Therefore, the practical objective is control rather than eradication. Success is measured by manageable case rates, quick identification of infection, limited impact on bulk tank somatic cell counts and culling pressure.

“Management choices such as bedding type used in stalls, overcrowding and detection methods for mastitis can all influence the case rate,” Hess says.

This reality contrasts with the tendency to treat mastitis as an isolated event. In practice, spikes in mastitis often follow subtle changes in the environment or management system. Instead of just identifying a pathogen, the vet’s value lies in identifying the systemic failure that allowed the pathogen to thrive.

(Afimilk)

Integrating Data Into Clinical Insight

Dr. Alon Arazi, chief veterinarian at Afimilk, shares the perspective that mastitis is not just one thing, but one signal inside a much bigger system of animal health, welfare and performance. That’s where technology comes in, specifically animal health monitoring systems where signals from multiple biological inputs are combined to paint a bigger picture of cow health leading to diagnosis. Technology, such as the Afimilk system, allows for the collection of large data sets from both activity and milk monitoring hardware to help with mastitis prevention and detection. Patterns, or deviations from these patterns, can signal when a cow needs a closer look.

“Twenty years ago, a very small percentage of farms used this technology. Now they are using it much more; more farms on a larger scale,” Arazi says. “In the past it was only milk matter and milk production. Now we have much more information. Information about the behavior of the cow and also more information about the milk, such as components … which led us to improving the accuracy of [mastitis] detection.”

(Photo: Rose Memories Photography LLC)

These ideas converge on a critical point: There is not one single component of herd health management that dictates mastitis prevalence; it is the sum of the whole. New technologies improve our monitoring capabilities, but they must be applied with strong fundamentals, management and prevention practices.

Solving the Root Cause of Mastitis

“If you cull the top 5% or the top few highest cows as far as somatic cell count, you’ll remove those cows and that’s easy, right? But it doesn’t actually tell you what’s causing those cows to get to that place,” Hess says. “If you’re not changing something upstream, you’re always going to deal with an issue downstream.”

Ultimately, the shift from reactive treatment to proactive system management is what defines a modern, resilient dairy. As Dr. Hess and Dr. Arazi highlight, data and technology are powerful allies, but they function best when they empower the people on the ground to make better “upstream” decisions. By treating mastitis as a symptom of the system rather than a standalone event, dairies can move away from constant firefighting to a more predictable, profitable future.

Having spent their careers at the intersection of veterinary medicine and dairy technology, Dr. Hess and Dr. Arazi share a common passion for evolving how we look at herd health. On the first episode of The Bovine Vet Podcast , they join host Andrea Bedford to discuss why mastitis is much more than a simple infection. Together, they explore the “systems” approach to dairy management and share insights on how veterinarians and producers can use data and environment to stay ahead of the curve.

Managing Heifer Mastitis: Targeting Risk Before Freshening

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 20:44:54 GMT

Heifer mastitis is often underestimated because it occurs before an animal has even entered the milking string, but the impacts are long-lasting. Subclinical infections at calving are linked to reduced production across the entire first lactation and often throughout the cow’s lifetime. For a class of animals that has yet to return any of their rearing investment, those losses are magnified.

“It’s been identified that an animal with an increased somatic cell count in the early parts of their first lactation, those animals produce less milk throughout that first lactation and many times have decreased milk production throughout their lifetime,” says Dr. Pamela Adkins of the University of Missouri. “So we are starting out of the gate not performing as well as we could, which obviously can be quite expensive.”

Based on data presented by Adkins, what’s becoming increasingly clear from recent research is heifer mastitis is not simply early-lactation mastitis in small cows. The timing, pathogen profile and management leverage points are all distinct. Because most new infections occur before the heifer ever enters the parlor, this disease demands a prevention strategy tailored to prepartum animals.

How is mastitis in heifers different from mastitis in older cows?

Across multiple studies, higher incidences of clinical mastitis have been observed in heifers during the first few days of lactation compared to older cows.

“It’s likely that those heifers acquire those infections prior to the onset of lactation,” Adkins explains. “Therefore, a lot of our focus potentially needs to be before lactation.”

This represents a shift from how we think about lactating cows.

Culture studies of heifers reinforce this: 29% to 75% of quarters can be culture-positive before calving and over 80% may be positive at first calving and in early lactation. In older cows, early lactation infection rates tend to be around 30%.

What kinds of bacteria are causing heifer mastitis?

The types of pathogens causing infection in heifers differs from those of adult cows. Heifers show a high prevalence of infection with non-aureus staphylococci (NAS), a lower prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus, and a higher prevalence of Streptococcus spp. compared to multiparous cows.

NAS are the most common isolates in heifers, especially Staphylococcus chromogenes. These are generally considered minor mastitis pathogens as they cause only a minor inflammatory response, but Adkins advises not ignoring these bacteria because they are highly prevalent.

Interestingly, NAS infection has been linked with lower incidence of clinical mastitis, and NAS inhibit the growth of pathogen bacteria in lab settings. These results suggest NAS could have a protective effect, but Adkins acknowledges there is a lot more in vitro and in vivo work to be done on this topic.

While not the largest contributor to heifer mastitis, S. aureus infection is still common. However, without the usual parlor-based transmission pathways, the question becomes how these heifers are becoming infected.

“In older cows, we consider the parlor the major concern of where the pathogen is coming from. We know [S. aureus] can be contagious, spread from cow to cow, and we think about that happening during milking time,” Adkins says. “Obviously that’s not happening yet in heifers. Therefore, we need to think of other factors that are important in heifers.”

Some older work looked into where S. aureus was found across seven dairies. Looking beyond milk and colostrum, isolates were found on the udder skin, muzzle, rectum and vagina. Adkins proposes these body sites were an important source of S. aureus infection for heifers. These infections also vary with geography and environment. The risk factors associated with an individual farm’s management and location need to be taken into consideration.

When are heifers most at risk of getting intramammary infections?

“In order to be able to prevent it, we need to know where we should focus so that we can implement prevention strategies at the right time points to help reduce infections,” Adkins says.

Work from her own lab sampled 304 quarters from 152 Holstein heifers. In comparing primigravid and nulligravid heifers, they found pregnant heifers had a higher incidence of positive quarters than non-pregnant heifers.

“Gestation and development of the [mammary] gland associated with pregnancy seem to be risk factors for increased prevalence of intramammary infections,” Adkins says.

These infections, in both pregnant and non-pregnant heifers, are significant because that animal is still growing and developing. Any infection could interrupt that process.

How do we diagnose heifer mastitis?

Without the usual diagnostic pathway of milk culture available, defining an intramammary infection in a heifer can be a bit tricky. In most young and early gestation heifers, there isn’t enough secretion present in the mammary gland to collect a meaningful sample. Collecting swabs from the teat or teat canal might be the best option at the moment, but it might not tell the whole story either.

“A lot of bacteria hang out just in the teat canal or the teat sphincter. They don’t necessarily go up into the gland,” Adkins explains. “If we just culture the end of the teat we can find bacteria that maybe aren’t causing a problem, which complicates our definitions [of infection].”

In research, needle based methods are used to bypass the teat end and go directly to the glandular tissue. However, these methods have not been validated in the field, and Adkins heavily advises against their use on farms.

Herd level factors you should review during your visit:

Overall herd udder health: Herds with lower overall somatic cell counts tend to have less heifer mastitis. Good management practices for lactating cows influence heifer health.
Early-life management: Heifers from farms with strong colostrum SOPs show lower mastitis rates, likely due to both enhanced immunity and overall better heifer oversight. Cross-suckling remains a concern due to teat end damage.
Fly control: It has been well documented that flies can carry mastitis pathogens and move directly between teat ends.
Contact with mature cows: Some research has linked prepartum commingling with increased mastitis risk, possibly due to both pathogen exposure and stress.
Time in calving area: Longer stays in heavily contaminated maternity environments significantly increase exposure risk.

Luckily, a lot of these factors come down to management decisions.

“Heifer mastitis is a major concern in many herds. Management is always a consideration for mastitis and a major consideration in heifers as well,” Adkins says. “Mammary health is related to herd level mammary health. So taking care of mastitis at all fronts is important, and considering environmental management strategies for your heifers is vital to try to reduce infections in these animals.”

Clinical Takeaways for Vets: Managing Heifer Mastitis

Think prepartum, not parlor. Most intramammary infections in heifers are acquired before calving; prevention efforts must target the rearing and prefresh periods.

Expect a different pathogen profile. NAS (especially S. chromogenes) and Streptococci dominate. S. aureus is present but less tied to parlors and more to skin, mucosal and environmental sources.

Use herd somatic cell count as a proxy. Herds with low bulk-tank and lactating-cow SCC typically have fewer heifer infections; poor overall udder health is a red flag to investigate replacements.

Audit early-life management. Verify colostrum SOPs, prevent cross-suckling, evaluate fly burden and assess cleanliness/turnover of prefresh and calving areas. These are high-yield levers.

Beware diagnostic pitfalls. Teat-end swabs overcall “infection”; needle sampling is research-only and not appropriate on-farm. Focus on first-test-day SCC and targeted cultures from clinical quarters postcalving.

Targeted protocols over blanket therapy. Emphasize environmental and management changes first. Use selective culture-based treatment strategies in fresh heifers rather than routine prepartum intramammary therapy.

Antibiotics with Purpose: Building Stewardship into Daily Dairy Practice

Wed, 01 Oct 2025 17:57:57 GMT

When a cow shows up in the parlor with clots in her milk, the clock starts ticking. Will treatment restore her quickly to the herd, or will it end with wasted drugs, discarded milk, and frustration?

For decades the answer was almost automatic: reach for antibiotics. However, Dr. Pamela Ruegg of Michigan State University suggests that the future of dairy health management depends on asking a different question: How do we know that we’re using the right amount of antibiotics?

Twenty years ago, Ruegg conducted a survey asking dairy producers about their perceptions of utilizing antibiotics on their farms and found that 80% of them thought they used the right amount. In a recent online survey of Wisconsin and Michigan veterinarians (unpublished), Ruegg asked vets about their perceptions of prescribing antibiotics for dairy cattle. She found that 85% of veterinarians said they felt they were prescribing the right amount, while 15% of veterinarians said they prescribed too many.

“Look at that. Twenty years difference. Similar populations: dairy producers vs. dairy veterinarians. We believe we’re doing the right thing. But the next question that comes out is: How do you know what the right amount is?” proposed Ruegg.

Looking across 40 surveyed farms in Wisconsin , the number of defined daily doses per adult cow per year varied widely. This data shows that while producers and veterinarians may feel they’re using the right amount of antimicrobials, this doesn’t mean the same thing from farm to farm.

Shown is the annual antibiotic use of 40 large farms in Wisconsin.

(Top Milk)

If you’re interested in seeing how your farm’s antimicrobial usage compares to others, the Top Milk program of Michigan State University has created an Antibiotic Usage Benchmark Tool .

Changing the Way We Treat Dairy Cattle

Mastitis and dry cow therapy remain the two biggest reasons antibiotics are used in dairy cattle. When looking at the quantity of antimicrobials sold in the U.S. for cattle in 2022 , intramammary administration accounted for less than 1% of the total mass. While this overall proportion of antibiotics used in dairy cattle is relatively small, there are still opportunities to improve and reduce costs for producers. For veterinarians, that opens both a challenge and an opportunity: ensuring herds receive the treatments they need while cutting down on unnecessary exposures.

Ruegg encourages livestock workers to live by the mantra, “if you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” She proposes the following framework:

Establish standardized methods. Define your antimicrobial usage. Consider using Defined Daily Doses per cow per year.
Create benchmarking reports. These can allow farms to compare similar herds, flag outliers, and observe trends over time.
Follow a four-month stewardship cycle. Perform a quarterly review of antimicrobial usage and protocols.

These steps create a cadence of check-ins and ongoing improvement, but remember that there is no “one size fits all”; apply whatever protocols work best for your herd.

Reduced Antimicrobial Use, Not Zero Use

At the heart of antimicrobial stewardship is deciding when not to treat or how to treat most effectively.

According to Dr. Michael Zurakowski from Quality Milk Production Services (QMPS) at Cornell University, only 15% of all mastitis cases are severe: “The other 85% are mild or moderate, giving us the opportunity to do some diagnostics.” He encourages the adoption of on-farm culturing to determine what pathogen is causing the issue in your animals. “When we implement these pathogen based treatment mastitis protocols, we see a significant decrease in antibiotic use on the order of 60[%]-70%. That equates to a pretty good savings in cost.”

If this is a route you think may work on your farm, QMPS has put together an online culture education module to help you with setup, sample collection, pathogen identification and treatment decisions.

Closing Thoughts

Antibiotic stewardship isn’t about using less for the sake of using less; it’s about making informed decisions for the sake of more — more healthy cows, more trust from consumers and more longevity for the drugs we rely on. With data-driven tools, economic reasoning and veterinary leadership, stewardship can become less of a burden and more of a blueprint for the future of dairy management.

Mastering Milk Quality and Cow Comfort: Insights from The Udder Doctor

Mon, 10 Feb 2025 13:19:51 GMT

In the world of dairy farming, maximizing milk quality and cow comfort is paramount. Dr. Andy Johnson, famously known as ‘The Udder Doctor,’ has been at the forefront of this mission. With experience ranging from small farms with 20 cows to large-scale operations with 22,000 cows, Dr. Johnson’s insights have reached dairies across 30 countries and 47 states.

Throughout his career, he has championed the “100 Award,” an accolade granted to dairies that maintain an average of 100 lbs. of milk production under a somatic cell count of 100,000. Remarkably, in the past 15 years, more than 40 dairies have earned this distinction, with 75% achieving it in just the last five years. According to Dr. Johnson, a farm’s cell count is a reflection of its management practices, encompassing factors like housing, milking routines, and equipment maintenance.

Prioritizing Cow Comfort and Hygiene
A key point emphasized by Dr. Johnson is the critical role of environmental cleanliness in preventing infections.

“Cows in a dirty environment will have a higher risk to new infections. Keep cows clean, dry, and comfortable 24 hours a day,” he advises. This was a central message shared with over 300 attendees at the 2025 National Mastitis Council Annual Meeting in Charlotte, N.C.

Dr. Johnson also underscores the importance of a consistent milking routine and proper training for milkers.

“Do not just train one time,” he insists. “Continual training is a must.” This ongoing education is vital for maintaining high standards of milk quality.

Optimizing Milking Routine

Focusing on the milking procedure, Dr. Johnson outlines an ideal routine:

1. Dry wipe and predip: Begin with cleaning and preparing the udder.

2. Strip and dry: Strip teats to promote milk letdown and check for abnormalities, then dry thoroughly.

3. Attach and align: Properly attach the milking unit and align it to ensure efficiency.

Achieving the fastest milking with highest flow rates and optimal milk quality requires adherence to these steps. Proper drying enhances milk speed and reduces clinical mastitis, while complete stripping helps ensure the best let down and early detection of abnormal milk.

“Everyone will benefit by stripping. It just takes an attitude change,” Dr. Johnson notes, pointing out that the most successful herds implement this practice diligently.

He further advises that the optimal lag time between stripping and unit attachment should be at least 90 seconds. Moreover, maintaining clean cow legs—even if there’s a small amount of manure at the foot bottom—is crucial.

“Those little things really do matter,” he notes, emphasizing that attention to detail is rewarded with improved milk quality.

The Importance of Proper Equipment Management
Another critical factor in milking efficiency is the correct management of equipment, particularly the vacuum speed.

“Low vacuum is the number one problem on dairy,” Dr. Johnson states. Ensuring compatibility between vacuum speed and inflations is crucial for achieving swift, high-quality yields. “I’ve got dairies that are getting over 100 lbs. in under three and a half minutes,” he proudly asserts.

Embracing these techniques can lead to substantial improvements in both productivity and quality.

Your Next Read:
A United Front: The Future of Dairy Industry Innovations

How Dairy Producers are Boosting Profitability

Wed, 27 Nov 2024 14:00:00 GMT

In the ever-competitive world of agriculture, dairy producers are continuously exploring new avenues to ensure the sustainability and growth of their operations. In the face of fluctuating market dynamics and economic pressures, innovative profitability strategies have become crucial, particularly in the dairy industry.

Alternative Profit Strategies
With the spotlight on profitability, many dairy producers have turned their attention to alternative profit sources. This shift has been especially significant during times when milk prices are less than favorable. Robin Schmahl from AgMarket.Net highlights the beef-on-dairy strategy as a pivotal approach to increasing income. By integrating beef genetics into dairy herds, many producers have successfully split their breeding practices between sexed semen and beef, leading to substantial income boosts over recent years.

Understanding Market Dynamics
Market dynamics play a critical role in shaping milk production. According to Phil Plourd, head of market intelligence at Ever.Ag Insights, the unfavorable economic conditions have historically squeezed milk production. Despite this, he remains optimistic about the upcoming 12 months, suggesting they present the best profit potential for dairy producers in recent times. His observation that “Historically, more money generally means more milk,” underlines the intricate relationship between economic conditions and milk yield.

Challenges with Dairy Replacement Heifers
The adoption of beef-on-dairy practices has, however, led to a decrease in the availability of dairy replacement animals. This scarcity has driven up prices, presenting a challenge for producers, especially those planning for expansion. Larger operations are now strategizing ways to secure replacements either through internal growth or external purchases well in advance.

“I don’t think they’re going to wake up three days before they open the new dairy and say, ‘Oh, wait, I need heifers,’” Plourd says.

Adapting to Market Signals
While there is potential market growth with higher milk prices, current dairy heifer inventory doesn’t entirely align with this trend. However, Schmahl points out that the increased milk prices offer producers more flexibility, allowing them to invest in replacements or retain older cows to maximize their output.

Risk Management in a Volatile Market
Efficient risk management strategies are crucial to navigating the ups and downs of the market. Schmahl emphasizes the importance of engaging in risk management without capping potential gains. He recommends option strategies or revenue protection, advising producers to remain flexible and informed as they plan for the future.

“You don’t want to limit your upside,” Schmahl insists, while cautioning producers about using futures, encouraging a balance between protection and opportunity.

As the dairy industry continues its evolution, staying informed and adaptable is essential for producers looking to capitalize on emerging trends. By employing innovative strategies and maintaining a sharp focus on market signals, dairy producers can navigate economic challenges to secure and enhance their profitability.

Your Next Read:
A Promising Turnaround: U.S. Milk Production Sees Unexpected Growth

Make The Right Mastitis Treatment Decisions

Wed, 04 May 2022 16:30:11 GMT

There are many different approaches to treating clinical mastitis on dairy farms. Some farms treat every clinical case with antibiotic tubes and supportive care. Other farms might not use any antibiotics on clinical mastitis, rather just supportive care when necessary. Yet others may only use antibiotics on severe cases of mastitis.

No matter the category your dairy falls in, it is important to track and record each case of clinical mastitis whether she is treated, not treated, or culled. The typical on-farm goal for clinical mastitis cases per year is less than 25% of the herd affected.

CULTURE CLINICAL CASES
When a cow is identified with clinical mastitis, consider a different approach other than blindly following the protocol of treat or no treat. Culturing clinical mastitis prior to treatment is simple, yields quick results, and helps to allow the producer to make a more informed decision.

Setup for on-farm culture is fairly easy and inexpensive. An incubator can range in price from $300-400 for very small, base models. A styrofoam egg incubator can also work, and is considerably less expensive. Other necessary items are culture plates (bi-plates are the easiest, other plates are available), sterile milk collection vials, and sterile swabs. Milkers can be trained to collect sterile milk samples and refrigerate after a new case is identified. The last and most important aspect of a successful on-farm culture lab is to identify a person who is interested and provides leadership and oversight to the program.

The simplest plate to use is a bi-plate. The bi-plate has two sides. Blood agar is the media where most aerobic bacteria will grow and Mackonkey agar only supports growth of gram-negative bacteria such as coliforms. After the sample is collected, trained personnel transfer a small amount of milk to the culture plate and incubate for 24 hours.

At that point, the plate can be interpreted to determine the result:

No growth - the bacteria that caused mastitis has been cleared by the cow and antibiotic therapy is not indicated
Gram-negative - antibiotic therapy is not warranted as the cow is typically able to clear the bacterial infection, however, the cow may need supportive care if necessary
Gram-positive - typically Strep or Staph; intramammary antibiotic therapy is typically indicated
Contaminated sample - these cows should either be re-cultured or not treated with antibiotics

REDUCE ANTIBIOTIC USE
The goals of implementing an on-farm milk culture lab are to reduce antibiotic use to only the cows whose cultured bacterial growth indicates they need it (gram positive) and to identify the common causes of clinical mastitis that are occurring on the farm so that appropriate intervention to reduce clinical mastitis can be enacted. The typical distribution of coliform, gram positive, and no growth should be approximately 33% in each category. That means that only about 33% of the cases of clinical mastitis (gram-positive) on a dairy farm will need antibiotic therapy.

While the milk of cows infected with gram positive bacteria typically becomes normal again after 5-6 days, those bacteria are the ones that can create chronic infections, causing increases in bulk tank somatic cell count. This is why these infections need antibiotic therapy early in the disease course.

Your veterinarian can help provide oversight and set up protocols for the on-farm milk culture program. Keep in mind that the decision to treat or not to treat is only in reference to antibiotics. Your veterinarian can write protocols for the supportive care that a cow might need depending on her physical condition.

Becoming proficient in reading culture plates also takes some practice. The easiest way to check your work is to send pictures of the plates to someone who can help, such as your veterinarian. At that point they can determine if additional testing may be needed on the plate, such as confirmation of contagious bacteria like Staph aureus or other bacteria such as Klebsiella. When you confirm your bacterial diagnosis, be sure to record your results.

Make an informed decision when treating clinical mastitis. The results will not only help reduce antibiotic use and save money, they will also help the entire herd by giving an epidemiologic snapshot of current clinical mastitis challenges.

For a video on how to culture a milk sample, click here .

As You Keep Cows Longer, Mastitis Increases in Concern

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 20:58:46 GMT

As dairy farmers reduce culling rates and milk a larger proportion of their herd as third- and later- lactation animals, rates of clinical mastitis are likely to increase.

New research from Zoetis Animal Health shows that the cost of the disease can increase by as much as 50% with later-lactation cows. The field research involved 11 herds and nearly 3,000 cows.

When just first- and second-lactation cows were examined in the first year of the study, the best quartile of cows had an 8.5% rate of clinical mastitis. The worst quartile had a clinical mastitis rate of 15.9%. When these cows were studied a year later, the best quartile of cows had a 13% clinical mastitis rate while the worst quartile shot up to 25.3%.

This finding has major implications for herds that are lowering their cull rates and keeping a higher proportion of older cows in their herds, says Dan Weigel, Director of Outcome Research for Zoetis and lead researcher of the study.

“The goals [of keeping cows longer] are to lower costs by raising fewer replacement heifers, increase milk production by having more of the herd near maturity, and increase revenue by the use of beef semen on some of the herd,” he says. “Producers who adopt this strategy would have more economic incentive to select for cows that are more resistant to clinical mastitis.”

However, the current Net Merit $ (NM$) formula places very little emphasis on clinical mastitis resistance, with a weighting of 0.77% of the total. (Clinical mastitis is part of the Health sub-index that is now included in NM$.) The genetic progress for clinical mastitis is only about 30¢/year out of the total progress of $63.18 that is expected, says Weigel.

One option for dairy farmers is to customize their sire selection index to include clinical mastitis resistance as a higher proportion of their index. However, before doing so, farmers should consult with their genetic adviser on the proper weighting for their herd.

The study was presented at the 2019 National Mastitis Council meeting Savannah, Ga. in January. For more information, go to www.nmconline.org .

Dairy MMA: Parlor Throughput vs. Optimal Milk Harvest

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:02:07 GMT

Have you heard about Dairy MMA (Mixed Milking Arts)?

This activity is not new to the dairy industry. The last 5 years of low profit margins has produced more Dairy MMA than ever. Some owners are trying to get more milk per cow, some are trying to ship more components per day, most are simply trying to milk more cows. The milking parlor has become ground zero for financial survival tactics.

Dairy MMA is the constant balancing act between parlor throughput and harvesting milk from well-stimulated cows with clean, dry teats. The competition pivots around what is best for the cow versus how many cows can be milked per hour.

How to identify Dairy MMA in your parlor
Research has established the important steps necessary to prepare a cow for milk harvest. The ultimate goal is to invite your cow to fully participate in the process. The chart below defines the key goals, their time requirements and Dairy MMA I have observed.

Can we push too hard for production?
When working with biological systems, changes made to increase performance may reach a point of diminishing returns. An example of this phenomenon is research recommending stocking densities of 120% in free stalls as the most profitable compromise between milk shipped and cow comfort. The most comfortable would be one cow per stall. The most milk shipped will occur by adding more and more cows per pen. The key word in this discussion is “profitability”. I

I recently visited a dairy that had reduced their herd size from 3700 cows down to 3200 cows and were now shipping more milk per day with 500 fewer cows. This is improved profitability.

I have visited a few dairies operating at 150% stocking densities and achieving very high milk production per cow. In these cases, excellent managers are pushing the envelope of the stocking density rule without seeing the diminishing return phenomenon.

The assumption from milking more cows per hour through a parlor is shipping more milk per day with no other ramifications. Excellent management however cannot overcome the physiology of the milk letdown reflex. Short cuts or total elimination of key prep procedures do have negative consequences that may be dragging down your profitability.

Why is Dairy MMA Important?
The milk letdown is hard wired in the cow so pre milking stimulation and the time from first touch to unit attachment has biological time requirements. Additionally 80-90% of the milk in the cow’s udder is stored in the glandular compartment and can only be harvested with the release of oxytocin. Increasing parlor throughput steals time from teat stimulation and lag time necessary to prevent double (bimodal) letdowns.

Additionally teat end hygiene has a strong correlation with the quality of milk harvested and the risk of new mammary infections. Why then are there so many variations in how cows are prepped and milked around the country? Why do we have Dairy MMA?

Two Big Problems with Dairy MMA:
1. Milking dirty teats has never been acceptable. Attaching a cup to a dirty teat increases the risk of mastitis. Every dairy farm system has its challenges.

Grazing: Wet spots; rain; thin manure creating dirty parlors
Pack: No deep stirring; not adding dry material regularly
Stanchion: Not keeping stalls clean & dry; cow positioning
Free stalls: Poor grooming; bedding material choice; cow positioning
Alternative bedding: Recycled sand or manure; moisture content; CFU levels
Cross vents: Humidity increasing CFU’s in bedding; air quality
Open lots: Excellent in dry weather & challenging in wet weather
Employee milkers: No one cleans a teat like an owner

Parlor throughput has a negative correlation with teat end hygiene scores. Increased new infection rates are expensive even if you choose not to treat any clinical mastitis. The highest dollar loses from mastitis result from decreased milk production over the lactation and the increased cull rate. Overall a case of mastitis can steal $200 - $500 from your checkbook.

2. Bimodal letdowns have traditionally been criticized for lengthening average unit on-times and for exposing teat ends to elevated vacuum levels just like overmilking from delayed unit detachment. New research has revealed that the elevated teat end vacuum is real but the waste of time is not happening. Statistically a bimodal letdown is not longer then a good letdown because less milk is harvested on average from the gland. At this time it is assumed that the elevated claw vacuum is producing changes to the teat end, narrowing the streak canal and impeding milk flow.

This phenomenon appears to be dose-related, the longer the bimodal event, the less milk harvested. A 30-60 second bimodal milking may harvest up to 3 lbs. less milk during a single event. A bimodal milking greater than 60 seconds may harvest as much as 6 lbs. less milk. The milk left in the gland is beyond residual milk and an acceptable strip yield.¹

The Blind Side of Dairy MMA
Bulk tank somatic cell count (BTSCC) is not a good barometer of Dairy MMA. Remember, if your milkers are identifying new, clinical mastitis cases consistently, your BTSCC may not increase a lot because the high cell count cows are in your hospital string. If you “don’t have time to fore strip”, you no longer have a consistent method to ID clinical mastitis. Add to this decision the fact that more and more dairies no longer have individual cell count data and you create a milk quality management challenge akin to driving blind in a fog. All you have is the BTSCC and at best this is a 30,000-foot view of your herd.

Rates of mastitis are a better evaluation of Dairy MMA. New clinical mastitis rates should be less than 2%/month in the milking herd. New infection rates (this requires individual somatic cell count data) should be less than 7% per month with heifers lower than mature cows.

An acceptable goal for herd level bimodal milking events should be less than 15%. Pregnant and mid to late lactation cows typically have a higher frequency than fresh and peak production cows. I am finding more and more herds with bimodal events averaging 40-50%. The most extreme example was a herd with 90% bimodal events.

Field reports typically reveal that adjusting a dairy’s MMA to milk cleaner teat ends can produce a reduction in new infection rates. A new experience in a select few herds has shown reducing the percentage of bimodal letdowns produces more milk shipped per day. What is your herd’s new infection rate or bimodal percentage? For the sake of parlor throughput, have you pushed your herd beyond the point of diminishing returns?

For more information on milking procedures, watch an eight-part video series on the entire milking process at www.dairyherd.com/DHMHowTo

1 Decreased milk yield is associated with delayed milk ejection
R. J. Erskine,¹* B. Norby,¹ L. M. Neuder,¹ and R. S. Thomson²

¹Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824
²Department of Animal Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824
J. Dairy Sci. 102:6477–6484 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-16219

DHM How To: Culture To Achieve A Bacteriological Cure

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:01:59 GMT

Being able to treat mastitis effectively starts with understanding the pathogens involved with creating the infection. The only way to effectively develop a treat, no-treat protocol is through culturing milk samples from clinical mastitis cases.

In the last edition of this eight-part series on proper milking protocols, Jill Brester, herd veterinarian at Green Meadows Dairy near Elsi, Michigan provides an overview of how to take and culture a sample, then understand the bacteriological makeup of the infection. From there she can devise a treatment protocol to achieve a bacteriological cure and prevent recurring infections.

OSU Researchers Develop Blood Test for Mastitis Susceptibility

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:53:54 GMT

Oregon State University researchers have developed a blood test to identify dairy cows that are susceptible to bovine clinical mastitis.

The interdisciplinary research team published its findings in the Journal of Dairy Science.

Bovine clinical mastitis, a bacterial infection of the udder, is the most prevalent and costly disease in the dairy industry. Diagnosed shortly after calving, the disease strikes about 16.5 percent of U.S. dairy cows in the first 30 days of lactation. Clinical mastitis costs the dairy industry millions of dollars of lost milk income and loss of cows due to the disease.

The OSU test can assist with prevention and early treatment intervention against clinical mastitis, thereby improving cow health and welfare, said study lead author Gerd Bobe , an animal scientist in OSU’s College of Agricultural Sciences and Linus Pauling Institute.

The researchers identified biomarkers in the cows’ blood that could indicate which of them are at increased risk of a specific disease, Bobe said.

“After giving birth, all cows are highly vulnerable to serious infectious and metabolic diseases,” he said. “Long before they acquire the disease these cows have a metabolic profile that indicates they are at an increased risk of disease.”

In nearly all cases, bovine clinical mastitis develops when the cow’s immune system isn’t able to defend against exposure of pathogenic bacteria at the end of its teat. Most of the time, the cow’s symptoms are mild–they are producing milk lacking normal consistency, for example flakes or clots, and the milk must be discarded. In serious cases, the cow may also have a fever and won’t eat.

The OSU test makes it possible for a dairy farmer to use this test to determine which of their cows are at risk for the infection before it occurs, Bobe said. To prevent the disease, they could feed those cows nutritional supplements that could boost their immune systems.

The study cohort consisted of 161 healthy pregnant Holstein cows from a 1,000-head dairy farm in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Blood samples were collected weekly during the last three weeks before calving and at calving. After calving, the researchers selected blood samples of eight cows that were diagnosed with clinical mastitis but no other diseases after calving and compared them with nine cows that remained healthy after calving.

The researchers used a form of advanced analytical chemistry, known as ultra-performance liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry, to analyze the blood samples for lipids and other circulating metabolites.

“At some point before calving the cows got infected,” Bobe said. “This method allows us to determine when those cows were infected and needed to be treated.”

Study co-authors are Fereshteh Zandkarimi and Claudia Maier in the College of Science, Jorge Vanegas in the Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine and Xiaoli Fern in the College of Engineering.

The study was funded by the OSU Agricultural Research Foundation and the Oregon Beef Council.

British Consortium Developing Rapid Mastitis Test

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:53:04 GMT

Abingdon Health, a tenant at the University of Birmingham’s bio-incubator, is developing a rapid diagnostic test for bovine mastitis, a common and serious health problem in dairy cows, which has an estimated £14-23 billion impact on the global dairy industry.

Mastitis is usually caused by bacterial infection in the cow’s teats or udder, and reduces the quality of milk, rendering it unsaleable – and can be fatal to the cow.

Currently, mastitis is detected by visual inspecting the milk, and the type of infection is confirmed by sending it off for laboratory testing – which is both time-consuming and expensive.

The University’s relationship with Abingdon Health started in 2010, when a joint venture resulted in a new start-up company called Serascience, who developed Seralite®, the world’s first rapid test for multiple myeloma. The test is used in human healthcare and is now available in 70 countries worldwide.

Abingdon’s diagnostic test for mastitis will be based on a lateral flow technology that can be used on the farm, to identify the type of bacteria that caused the infection

Test results will ensure that the cow is quickly prescribed the right antibiotic to treat the infection, and it is expected that this will reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics, and the spread of disease between cattle in milking herds.

The test will aim to provide sensitive measurements in order to stratify mastitis by bacterial class (gram-negative or gram-positive).

Dr David Pritchard, Chief Technical Officer of Abingdon Health Ltd, commented: “The pressure to reduce the use of antimicrobials in food production is growing rapidly. To do this, we need to provide farmers with rapid diagnostic tests that guide the choice of antibiotic, and ensure animals are treated quickly and effectively with the right antibiotic. We also believe this test will provide benefits to the dairy industry in terms of milk quality and yield, and to the cattle in terms of animal welfare.”

The development of the diagnostic test has been funded by an £805,000 grant from Innovate UK, the UK’s innovation agency. The test will be developed in partnership with the University of Glasgow, and will combine the diagnostic assay development expertise of Abingdon with the animal health and biomarker knowledge of the University of Glasgow to develop a highly sensitive and specific assay with the ability to stratify mastitis by bacterial class (gram-negative or gram-positive), thus offering fast, on-farm decision making about antimicrobial treatment of cows with mastitis and providing an opportunity to reduce antimicrobial use whilst safeguarding cow health.