Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-k8lnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:19:33.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of the DeLaval cell counter (DCC) on goats' milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2007

Elizabeth Berry  and
Jennifer Broughan
Elizabeth Berry*
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Newbury RG20 7NN
Jennifer Broughan
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Newbury RG20 7NN
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: Elizabeth.Berry@bbsrc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Milk quality is measured by a variety of parameters and one of these is the number of somatic cells in the milk. Within the bovine dairy industry there are maximum acceptable levels on bulk milk cell counts and these are being introduced into caprine dairy production. The reference method for cell counting in goats is the direct microscope (DM) method using pyronin Y-methyl green stain, which stains cell DNA. The use of the DeLaval cell counter (DCC) on goats' milk was compared with this reference method. Samples from 102 udder halves were cell counted using the direct microscope method and the DeLaval cell counter (DCC). Each sample was counted twice by two different observers by the DM method and once using DCC. DCC showed large coefficients of regression (1·03) and correlation (0·95) when compared with the DM cell count (F1,199=1080·0; P<0·001). Goat, udder half and reader type were significant factors.

Keywords

milk qualitysomatic cell count

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , August 2007 , pp. 345 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Droke, EA, Paape, MJ & Di Carlo, AL 1993 Prevalence of high somatic cell counts in bulk tank goat milk. Journal of Dairy Science 76 1035–1039Google Scholar
Dulin, AM, Paape, MJ & Wergin, WP 1982 Differentiation and enumeration of somatic cells in goat milk. Journal of Food Production 45 435–439Google Scholar
Dulin, AM, Paape, MJ, Schultze, WD & Weinland, BT 1983 Effect of parity, stage of lactation, and intramammary infection on concentration of somatic cells and cytoplasmic particles in goat milk. Journal of Dairy Science 66 2426–2433Google Scholar
Gonzalo, C & San Primitivo, F 1998 [Somatic cell counts in ovine milk]. Ovis 56 1–56Google Scholar
Gonzalo, C, Martínez, JR, Carriedo, JA & San Primitivo, F 2003 Fossomatic cell-counting on ewe milk: comparison with direct microscopy and study of variation factors. Journal of Dairy Science 86 138–145Google Scholar
Gonzalo, C, Linage, B, Carriedo, JA, Fuente, F & San Primitivo, F 2006 Evaluation of the overall accuracy of the DeLaval Cell Counter for somatic cell counts in ovine milk. Journal of Dairy Science 89 4613–4619Google Scholar
Hillerton, JE, Berry, EA, Gravenor, MB & Middleton, N 2004 Errors associated with milk cell counting. Veterinary Record 155 445–448Google Scholar
ISO 1997 Milk – Enumeration of somatic cells – Part 1: Microscopic. ISO13366. International Standards Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
IDF 1981 Laboratory methods for use in mastitis work. Bulletin No. 132. International Dairy Federation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
International Dairy Federation Standard 148A:1995. Milk – Enumeration of somatic cellsGoogle Scholar
DeLaval, 2005 Instruction booklet http://www.delaval-us.com/Products/MilkingEquipment/Milk_Quality/DCC/default.htmGoogle Scholar
Luengo, C, Sanchez, A, Corrales, JC, Fernandez, C & Contreras, A 2004 Influence of intramammary infection and non-infection factors on somatic cell counts in dairy goats. Journal of Dairy Research 71 169–174Google Scholar
Miller, RH, Paape, MJ & Action, JC 1986 Comparison of milk somatic cell counts by Coulter and Fossomatic counters. Journal of Dairy Science 69 1942–1946Google Scholar
Moroni, P, Pisoni, G, Ruffo, G & Boettcher, PJ 2005 Risk factors for intramammary infections and relationship with somatic cell counts in Italian dairy goats. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 163–173Google Scholar
Paape, MJ, Poutrel, B, Contreras, A, Marco, JC & Capuco, AV 2001 Milk somatic cells and lactation in small ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 84 237–244Google Scholar
Poutrel, B & Lerondelle, C 1983 Cell content of goat milk: California mastitis test, Coulter counter and Fossomatic for predicting half infection. Journal of Dairy Science 66 2575–2579Google Scholar
Paape, MJ & Capuco, AV 1997 Cellular defense mechanisms in the udder and lactation of goats. Journal of Animal Science 75 556–565Google Scholar
Sarikaya, H & Bruckmaier, RM 2006 Importance of the sampled milk fraction for the prediction of total quarter somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 89 4246–4250Google Scholar
Wooding, FBP, Peaker, M & Linzell, JL 1970 Theories of milk secretion: evidence from the electron microscopic examination of milk. Nature 226 762–764Google Scholar