HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Querengässer, J. Articles by Fehlings, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Querengässer, J. Articles by Fehlings, K.

Comparative Evaluation of SIMPL Silicone Implants and NIT Natural Teat Inserts to Keep the Teat Canal Patent After Surgery

J. Querengässer^*, T. Geishauser, K. Querengässer^*, R. Bruckmaier and K. Fehlings

^* Veterinary Clinic Babenhausen, Germany,
Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Canada,
Institute of Physiology, Milk and Food Research Center Weihenstephan, Technical University Munich, Germany,
Bavarian Animal Health Service, Grub, Germany

Corresponding author:
T. Geishauser; e-mail:
tgeishaus{at}uoguelph.ca.

The objective of this study was the comparative evaluation of SIMPL silicone implants and NIT natural teat inserts to keep the teat canal patent after teat surgery. The study was performed on 100 teats of 97 cows treated surgically for milk flow disorders. After surgery, 53 teats were administered with SIMPL and 47 with NIT, and rested for several days. Before treatment and 1 and 6 mo later quarter milk flow and milk yield were measured with Lactocorders; quarter milk was examined for somatic cell count (SCC), pathogens, and signs of mastitis (SCC > 100,000 and pathogens detected). Half a year after surgery milk flow, milk yield and SCC were equal from teats that had been inserted with SIMPL or NIT. The odds of detecting pathogens or signs of mastitis in the milk was lower in SIMPL than in NIT teats at this point in time. SIMPL teats stayed in the herd as long as NIT teats. Based on the results, it may be expected that teats inserted with a SIMPL or NIT do not differ long term in regards to milk flow, milk yield, SCC, and risk of removal from the herd. After the use of SIMPL, fewer pathogens may be detected in the milk long term than after the use of NIT.

Key Words: teat • insert • udder health