Content uploaded by Matúš Gašparík
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matúš Gašparík on Dec 10, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
431
Czech Journal of Animal Science, 64, 2019 (10): 431–438 Original Paper
hps://doi.org/10.17221/145/2019-CJAS
Supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (“S” grant) and by the European Regional
Development Fund (Project MLIEKO No. 26220220196 under the Operational Programme for Research and Development).
Differences between Jersey and Holstein cows
in milking-induced teat prolongation during lactation
M G1*, L S1, J D1, V T2,3
1Department of Animal Science; Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources,
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
2National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute for Animal Production,
Lužianky, Slovak Republic
3Department of Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources,
Slovak University of Agriculture, Nitra, Slovak Republic
*Corresponding author: gasparikm@af.czu.cz
Citation: Gašparík M., Stádník L., Ducháček J., Tančin V. (2019): Differences between Jersey and Holstein cows in milking-
induced teat prolongation during lactation. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 64, 431–438.
Abstract: Factors consequential to milking-induced teat prolongation (MITP) were identified. Effects of breed, teat
position, lactation number, lactation stage and their interactions were evaluated. e length of each teat before and
after milking was measured seven times during lactation in 59 Holstein cows and 45 Jersey cows. Rear teats seemed
to prolong more with the exception of rear left teats of Holstein cows. MITP of Holsteins was more balanced among
quarters compared to Jerseys, where we observed significantly higher MITP of their rear teats. e pairs mostly had
similar reactions even for different teat lengths, therefore for future studies evaluating one of each pair should be
sufficient and more effective. Development of MITP during lactation showed more variability at the onset of lacta-
tion, followed by more uniform response at later stages. Lower MITP for higher parity cows was observed only in
Holsteins. Overall, Jerseys achieved a significantly higher level of MITP, which suggests breed differences in reaction
to milking. Effects identified in this study should be taken into consideration while designing future experiments in
this area. In addition, our results suggest the future necessity to improve milking technology to allow group or even
individual settings optimization based on breed, lactation stage, lactation number, and teat position.
Keywords: dairy cow; milking; teat length; teat position
e teat condition plays a considerable role in the
incidence of mastitis infections (Gleeson et al. 2004).
Forces applied to the teats during milking result in
physiological and pathological changes of their tis-
sue, which may counteract the normal teat defence
mechanism (Zwertvaegher et al. 2011). A short-term
negative effect of machine milking on the teat tis-
sue may manifest itself by oedema. Subsequently,
long-term stressful milking may create a callous ring
around the teat orifice (Stadnik et al. 2010). Teats
also tend to continually prolong and widen in the
course of production life (Guarin and Ruegg 2016).
Previous studies identified many teat morphological
characteristics as a risk factor for udder health, traits
like wide teat apex diameter (Guarin and Ruegg 2016),
short and wide teat canal (Lacy-Hulbert and Hillerton
1995) or occurrence of hyperkeratosis (Neijenhuis
et al. 2001). Also, milking-induced changes of some
of these structures were subjects of various studies
with focus on optimization of milking conditions or
evaluation of its impact on udder health – e.g. teat
barrel diameter (Zwertvaegher et al. 2013) or teat
432
Original Paper Czech Journal of Animal Science, 64, 2019 (10): 431–438
hps://doi.org/10.17221/145/2019-CJAS
canal prolongation (Geishauser and Querengasser
2000). e impacts of milking machine on teats are
not well defined and additional research is required
to better understand the relationship between teat
dimensions, teats reaction to milking, and their
influence on mastitis (Guarin et al. 2017).
Zwertvaegher et al. (2013) found relationships
between milking-induced thickening of teats and
worsening of udder health. ey have not been found
for milking-induced teat prolongation (MITP) yet,
although some studies suggest that the relationships
between teat length, teat thickness, and liner dimen-
sions are intertwined (O’Callaghan 2001; Gleeson
et al. 2004). O’Callaghan (2001) stated that teats
expand after entering the liner to fill the barrel of
the liner, therefore liner dimensions greatly influence
the teat reaction to milking. Variations in used liners
combined with existing inter-breed differences in
teat morphology and their reaction to milking might
be the reason for different results coming for MITP
from various studies (e.g., –6 to –3 mm (Hamann et
al. 1993), 1 to 3.2 mm (Parilova et al. 2011), 2.5 to
2.6 mm (Stadnik et al. 2010), 2.6 mm (Guarin and
Ruegg 2016), 4.8 mm (Zwertvaegher et al. 2013) and
5.17 to 11.62 mm (Gleeson et al. 2004)).
e greatest teat prolongation occurs during high
milk flow and then the teats thicken as the milk
flow is low to none (Isaksson and Lind 1992). Pre-
vious research in this area was mostly focused on
evaluating the influence of various milking settings
like vacuum level (Hamann et al. 1993; Ipema et al.
2005), critical milk flow for automatic detachment
(Parilova et al. 2011) and teat liners (Gleeson et
al. 2004). However, various cow organism related
factors could affect milking-induced teat changes.
erefore, identifying these effects and taking them
into consideration while designing next experiments
is essential for future research in this area. e ef-
fects of breed, teat position, lactation number and
lactation stage could be critical factors affecting the
teat tissue reaction to milking. us, the aim of this
study was to evaluate the influence of these factors
and their interactions on MITP.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Animals and measurements. At the start
of the experiment, there were 59 Holstein cows
(H) and 45 Jersey cows (J) in their first (nH = 16,
nJ = 26), second and subsequent (nH = 43, nJ = 19)
lactation with average number of 2.25 lactations for
H and 2.13 lactations for J. e length of each teat on
the udder was measured with a calliper immediately
before pre-milking preparation and immediately
after (< 1 min) evening milking from the teat end
to the teat basis. MITP was calculated as a change
in teat length due to milking in relative values. Teat
measurements were done by the same person during
the whole experiment. e first measurement for
each cow took place during summer (July or August)
within 17 days after calving. Subsequent measure-
ments were carried out 4 weeks apart until the start
of late lactation (147–170 days in milk (DIM)). e
final measurement was done at the end of lactation
(246–315 DIM). Overall, 7 measurements were per-
formed for each dairy cow during lactation, with the
exception of cows culled for various reasons from
a production herd in the course of the experiment.
ese 7 measurements represented various lacta-
tion stages defined in DIM range as follows: LaSt1=
1–17 DIM (n = 104); LaSt2 = 30–49 DIM (n = 99);
LaSt3 = 57–78 DIM (n = 97); LaSt4 = 90–113 DIM
(n = 95); LaSt5= 115–140 DIM (n = 93); LaSt6 =
147–170 DIM (n = 91); LaSt7 = 237–314 DIM
(n = 77). Data on daily milk yield, milking time (daily
average) and average milk flow (daily average) related
to the day of the measurements were taken from
“in-line real-time” milk analysers (Afilab, Afifarm,
Israel) and evaluated. Data on DIM, lactation number
(1 or 2+) and breed for the tested cows were also
recorded. Dairy cows were milked twice a day in
a herringbone milking parlour with an automatic
detachment system, where the critical milk flow
was set to 0.5 kg/min for H and 0.42 kg/min for J.
Pulsation ratio was set to 60 : 40 with 55 pulses/min.
Vacuum level was set to 42 kPa. Both used liners
had an orifice diameter of 23 mm. Evening milking
started 8 h after finishing the morning milking. e
milking machine was attached from the side using
a positioning tool. Milking settings did not change
during the experiment.
Statistical analysis. e data were analysed using
SAS software (Statistical Analysis System, Version
9.3, 2011). e UNIVARIATE procedure was used
to determine basic parameters. For further evalua-
tion, the dataset was divided into three additional
groups based on teat length before milking (short
teats (ShorT) < 43.1 mm; medium teats (MediT)
43.1–52.1 mm; long teats (LongT)> 52.1 mm) ac-
cording to arithmetic means and standard deviation
(< x – ½ s, –½ s to +½ s, > x + ½ s). Subsequently,
433
Czech Journal of Animal Science, 64, 2019 (10): 431–438 Original Paper
hps://doi.org/10.17221/145/2019-CJAS
relative MITP of all teats, ShorT, MediT and LongT
was detailedly evaluated using the MIXED proce-
dure. e REG procedure (stepwise method) was
used to select suitable factors for a model equation.
e best model for evaluation was selected in line
with the values of the Akaike Information Criterion
(AIC). Fixed effects of breed, teat position (TPos),
lactation number (LaNu), lactation stage (LaSt),
breed × TPos interaction, breed × LaNu interac-
tion and breed × LaSt interaction were included in
the model equation. e model was improved by
the repeated effect of animal. e difference was
detailedly evaluated by the Tukey-Kramer test. e
significance level of P < 0.05 was used to evaluate
the differences between groups.
e model equation was set as follows:
yijklmn = μ + ai + bj + ck + dl + fm + abij + acik + adil + eijklmn
where:
yijklmn = value of dependent variable (MITP all teats,
MITP ShorT, MITP MediT and MITP LongT)
μ = overall mean value
ai = fixed effect of breed (for total dataset: i = H, n =
1440; i = J, n = 1184; ShorT group: i = H, n = 1099;
i = J, n = 724; MediT group: i = H, n = 909; i = J,
n = 782; LongT group: i = H, n = 872; i = J, n = 862)
bj = fixed effect of LaNu (for total dataset: j = 1, n = 1124;
j = 2+, n = 1500; ShorT group: j = 1, n = 651; j = 2+,
n= 1172; MediT group: j = 1, n = 736; j = 2+, n =
955; LongT group: j = 1, n = 861; j = 2+, n = 873)
ck = fixed effect of LaSt (for total dataset: k = 1, 3–17
DIM, n = 416; k = 2, 30–46 DIM, n = 396; k =
3, 63–77 DIM, n = 388; k = 4, 92–113 DIM, n =
380; k = 5, 121–137 DIM, n = 364; k = 6, 149–165
DIM, n = 372; k = 7, 286–314 DIM, n = 308; ShorT
group: k = 1, 3–17 DIM, n = 273; k = 2, 30–46
DIM, n = 297; k = 3, 63–77 DIM, n = 286; k = 4,
92–113 DIM, n = 271; k = 5, 121–137 DIM, n =
248; k = 6, 149–165 DIM, n = 233; k = 7, 286–314
DIM, n = 215; MediT group: k = 1, 3–17 DIM,
n = 273; k = 2, 30–46 DIM, n = 261; k = 3, 63–77
DIM, n = 252; k = 4, 92–113 DIM, n = 236; k = 5,
121–137 DIM, n = 224; k = 6, 149–165 DIM, n =
246; k = 7, 286–314 DIM, n =199; LongT group:
k = 1, 3–17 DIM, n = 286; k = 2, 30–46 DIM, n =
234; k = 3, 63–77 DIM, n = 238; k = 4, 92–113 DIM,
n = 254; k = 5, 121–137 DIM, n = 256; k = 6, 149–
165 DIM, n = 265; k = 7, 286–314 DIM, n = 202)
dl = fixed effect of TPos (for total dataset: l = left
front, n = 656; l = left rear, n = 656; l = right
front, n = 656; l = right rear, n = 656; ShorT
group: l = left front, n = 592; l = left rear, n = 296;
l = right front, n = 598; l = right rear, n = 337;
MediT group: l = left front, n = 460; l = left rear,
n = 410; l = right front, n = 427; l = right rear,
n= 394; LongT group: l = left front, n = 260; l =
left rear, n = 606; l = right front, n = 287; l = right
rear, n = 581)
fm = repeated effect of animals (n = 104 animals with
different number of measurements from 1 to 7)
abij = fixed effect of breed × LaNu interaction
acik = fixed effect of breed × LaSt interaction
adil = fixed effect of breed × TPos interaction
eijklmn = random residual error
RESULTS
Data on milk yield, milking time, and average
milk flow were collected on the measurements
day. Average daily milk yield and average milking
time for both breeds throughout the tested period
are in Figure1. H achieved average daily milk yield
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Milking time per milking (min)
Daily milk yield (kg)
Lactation stage
Milk yield H Milk yield J
Milking time H Milking time J
Figure 1. Basic statistical over-
view of mean daily milk yield
and mean milking time per
milking with standard de-
viation in tested breeds, and
their development throughout
lactation
434
Original Paper Czech Journal of Animal Science, 64, 2019 (10): 431–438
hps://doi.org/10.17221/145/2019-CJAS
of 33.05 kg, while J averaged at 16.83 kg. Milking
took on average 7.33 min for H and 5.48 min for J.
Average milk flow during lactation was 2.31 kg/min
for H and 1.57 kg/min for J. Development of teat
lengths during lactation is illustrated in Figure 2.
Average teat length on the days of teat measure-
ments was 50.61 mm for H and 47.03 mm for J.
The ratio between rear and front teats was similar
for both breeds (H = 0.81, J = 0.78), which indi-
cates a high length imbalance between the pairs
for both breeds.
The effects of breed, TPos, LaNu, and LaSt on
MITP were evaluated using the MIXED procedure.
The model equation explained 16–21.9% of vari-
ability and was statistically significant for MITP
(P < 0.05). The effects of breed, LaNu, LaSt, TPos
and interactions between breed and LaNu, breed
and LaSt, and breed and TPos were statistically
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Teat length (mm)
Lactation stage
Rear teats H Rear teats J Front teats H Front teats J
Figure 2. Basic sta-
tistical overview for
mean teat length
with standard devia-
tion in tested breeds,
and its development
throughout lactation
Table 1. Effect of breed on milking-induced teat prolongation (MITP; %) based on pre-milking teat lengths (values
are Least Squares Means ± standard error of the means)
Breed All teats Teat length groups
short teats medium teats long teats
Holstein 12.35 ± 0.38a 8.76 ± 0.41a12.65 ± 0.49a17.23 ± 0.52
Jersey 15.23 ± 0.38b11.84 ± 0.47b15.50 ± 0.49b17.40 ± 0.50
a,bdifferent letters in columns mean statistical significance (P < 0.05)
Table 2. Milking-induced teat prolongation (MITP, %) based on pre-milking teat lengths in relation to breed and teat
position (TPos) (values are Least Squares Means ± standard error of the means)
Interaction breed ×
TPos All teats Teat length groups
short teats medium teats long teats
H × left front 11.32 ± 0.70a9.44 ± 0.66b9.23 ± 0.83a20.38 ± 1.23a
H × right front 12.15 ± 0.70a10.34 ± 0.64b10.39 ± 0.87a19.22 ± 1.16a
H × left rear 12.68 ± 0.70a6.86 ± 0.85a15.44 ± 0.95b14.12 ± 0.75b
H × right rear 13.23 ± 0.70b8.38 ± 0.78b15.53 ± 1.02b15.21 ± 0.76b
J × left front 11.76 ± 0.75a10.76 ± 0.70b10.27 ± 0.99a16.17 ± 1.11b
J × right front 12.79 ± 0.75a11.93 ± 0.70b12.31 ± 1.01a15.56 ± 1.06b
J × left rear 17.24 ± 0.75c12.49 ± 1.14b18.84 ± 0.95b17.55 ± 0.78b
J × right rear 19.13 ± 0.75c12.16 ± 1.15b20.57 ± 0.92c20.33 ± 0.79a
H = Holstein breed, J = Jersey breed
a–cdifferent letters in columns mean statistical significance (P < 0.05)
435
Czech Journal of Animal Science, 64, 2019 (10): 431–438 Original Paper
hps://doi.org/10.17221/145/2019-CJAS
significant for MITP (P < 0.05) with few exceptions:
the effects of LaNu and TPos were not significant
for MITP ShortT, the interaction between breed
and TPos was not significant for MITP MediT, and
the effect of breed was not significant for MITP
LongT. Concerning the results of the MIXED
procedure, we focus on the effect of breed and
its interactions with other effects.
Overall, J had significantly higher MITP com-
pared to H (J = 15.23%, H = 12.35%, P < 0.05).
MITP of J was also significantly higher for ShorT
and MediT compared to H (Table 1).
Rear teats prolonged significantly more in J.
The prolongation was relatively balanced among
quarters in H, but rear teats also had a slight in-
clination to prolong more (Table 2). Rear right
teats prolonged the most (P < 0.05). Overall, the
prolongation of rear left teats of H did not sig-
nificantly differ from that of front teats, but the
individual teat length groups reacted differently
(P< 0.05). Left and right positions within pairs mostly
had a similar reaction with the exception of all and
ShorT rear teats of H and MediT and LongT rear
teats of J (Table 2).
e first lactation in H was characterized by sig-
nificantly higher MITP of all teats and all teat length
groups compared to higher parity cows (Table 3). A
significant decline in MITP was observed only for
Table 3. Milking-induced teat prolongation (MITP, %) based on pre-milking teat lengths in relation to breed and
lactation number (LaNu) (values are Least Squares Means ± standard error of the means)
Interaction breed ×
LaNu All teats Teat length groups
short teats medium teats long teats
H × 1 14.67 ± 0.64a 9.95 ± 0.71a15.18 ± 0.81a19.47 ± 0.81a
H × 2+ 10.02 ± 0.41b 7.56 ± 0.40b10.11 ± 0.54b15.00 ± 0.58b
J × 1 15.67 ± 0.48a10.60 ± 0.65a16.44 ± 0.63a17.46 ± 0.54a
J × 2+ 14.79 ± 0.60a13.08 ± 0.63c14.56 ± 0.75a17.34 ± 0.81a
1 = primiparous cows, 2+ = multiparous cows, H = Holstein breed, J = Jersey breed
a,bdifferent letters in columns mean statistical significance (P < 0.05)
Table 4. Milking-induced teat prolongation (MITP, %) based on pre-milking teat lengths in relation to breed and
lactation stage (LaSt) (values are Least Squares Means ± standard error of the means)
Interaction breed ×
LaSt All teats Teat length groups
short teats medium teats long teats
H × 1 2.94 ± 0.86a0.56 ± 0.88a3.36 ± 1.14a7.40 ± 1.09a
H × 2 4.45 ± 0.89a 1.39 ± 0.86a4.75 ± 1.13a10.54 ± 1.29a
H × 3 13.91 ± 0.88b9.10 ± 0.90b14.00 ± 1.13b20.98 ± 1.18b
H × 4 11.87 ± 0.90c9.19 ± 0.90b12.08 ± 1.19b15.43 ± 1.170c
H × 5 19.39 ± 0.93d15.81 ± 0.96c19.19 ± 1.26c23.87 ± 1.16d
H × 6 18.29 ± 0.92d15.07 ± 0.98c18.80 ± 1.17c21.65 ± 1.16b
H × 7 15.57 ± 1.07b11.28 ± 1.12b16.33 ± 1.35b20.77 ± 1.39b
J × 1 12.10 ± 0.96c8.01 ± 1.18b12.64 ± 1.17b14.03 ± 1.14c
J × 2 17.65 ± 0.97d12.24 ± 1.11b18.54 ± 1.24c20.91 ± 1.17b
J × 3 10.02 ± 0.10c7.49 ± 1.07b10.55 ± 1.29b12.19 ± 1.25a
J × 4 17.48 ± 0.10d12.83 ± 1.12b18.13 ± 1.30c20.28 ± 1.18b
J × 5 16.21 ± 0.10b13.72 ± 1.14c16.46 ± 1.28b17.52 ± 1.18c
J × 6 16.25 ± 0.10b14.01 ± 1.22c15.45 ± 1.25b17.86 ± 1.14c
J × 7 16.90 ± 1.04b14.57 ± 1.11c16.71 ± 1.35b19.02 ± 1.28b
H = Holstein breed, J = Jersey breed
a–ddifferent letters in columns mean statistical significance (P < 0.05)
436
Original Paper Czech Journal of Animal Science, 64, 2019 (10): 431–438
hps://doi.org/10.17221/145/2019-CJAS
H (14.67–10.02%, P < 0.05). The greatest reduction
of MITP was observed for MediT (H = –5.07%,
P< 0.05; J = –1.88%, not significant). On the other
hand, we did not find any significant differences
in MITP between primiparous and multiparousJ,
with the exception of ShorT. MITP for ShorT of J
significantly increased in higher parity cows (P<
0.05) (Table 3).
LaSt had a significant influence on MITP (Table 4).
The smallest changes occurred at LaSt1 and LaSt2
in H. Although low MITP at LaSt1 was also ob-
served in J, they achieved their lowest MITP at
LaSt3 and their highest MITP at LaSt2. Generally,
greater MITP was observed for LaSt5 and LaSt6
when all teat length groups of H showed more
than 15% teat prolongation (P < 0.05). Increases
in MITP were observed in H towards LaSt5, and
then there was a decrease in MITP towards LaSt7.
On the other hand, J cows kept a similar level of
MITP after LaSt3 (16.21–17.65%) (Table 4).
DISCUSSION
In the present study, the average teat length in H
cows (50.61 mm) was greater than in most other
studies, e.g. 44.3 mm (Guarin and Ruegg 2016),
44.6–47 mm (Parilova et al. 2011), 45.5 mm (Strapak
et al. 2015). However, a much higher average teat
length (54.3 mm) was measured by Zwertvaegher
et al. (2013). Our J cows had numerically smaller
teats compared to H cows in this study (no sta-
tistical evaluation was performed). dos Santos et
al. (2016) also observed that J cows had generally
smaller udder morphometry compared to H and
attributed it to their much smaller body frame.
Although not directly evaluated as an effect, we
noticed that the initial teat length could have
influenced MITP in our study. Differences in the
teat length of tested herds could have affected
teat prolongation in studies of Zwertvaegher et al.
(2013) and Guarin and Ruegg (2016). Zwertvae-
gher et al. (2013) reported average MITP of 9.2%
(average teat length 54.3mm) compared to 5.5%
MITP (average teat length 44.3mm) measured by
Guarin and Ruegg (2016). In our study, we observed
a higher level of MITP for both breeds compared
to the above-mentioned studies. Interestingly, gen-
erally smaller teats of our tested J cows achieved
a significantly higher level of MITP compared to
H. The existing interbreed differences in teat di-
mensions and their reaction to milking were also
described by Stadnik et al. (2010) and Genc et al.
(2018). As observed in the present study, teats of
different breeds react differently to similar milk-
ing conditions. In addition, we can reveal slight
differences between breeds based on TPos, LaSt
and LaNu factors.
Teat dimensions were influenced by TPos in the
studies of Zwertvaegher et al. (2012) and Guarin
et al. (2017). The length ratio between rear and
front teats in our test groups showed a high degree
of imbalance in length. Front teats longer by ap-
proximately 1 cm were also reported for example
by Weiss et al. (2004), Strapak et al. (2015), and
Guarin and Ruegg (2016). TPos also significantly
affected MITP, when rear teats prolonged more.
The other teat structures also reacted differently
during milking based on teat position (Strapak et
al. 2017). Naturally, there are a number of differ-
ences in milking characteristics between front and
rear teats, which could potentially be consequential
to MITP. Rear teats have significantly higher milk
yield, milking time and milk flow compared to front
teats (Weiss et al. 2004; Tancin et al. 2006), which
could be the reason for higher MITP as suggested
by Isaksson and Lind (1992) and Gleeson et al.
(2004). The reaction to milking between left and
right positions was similar in both breeds, therefore
evaluating one of each pair for future studies should
be sufficient and more effective. Our results also
suggest that there is a possibility of milking settings
optimization based on TPos, mainly in relation to
discrepancies in morphology and milk yield.
The onset of lactation also showed higher MITP
variability compared to the much more uniform
reaction at later stages, which may be attributable
to the resolving of physiologic udder oedema,
which commonly appears 2 to 4 weeks after calv-
ing (Divers and Peek 2007). Lower MITP at the
onset of lactation could be caused by oedema
stiffened teats which could be less susceptible to
prolongation. Also, udder oedema may indirectly
influence the teat dimension measurements, either
by altering the actual dimensions of the teat or by
hindering the measuring methods from measur-
ing them accurately (Zwertvaegher et al. 2012).
We also observed distinctions between breeds in
reaction to milking at various stages of lactation.
Higher MITP of J may suggest a lower occurrence
of physiologic udder oedema after calving as com-
pared with H. We suggest excluding early lactating
437
Czech Journal of Animal Science, 64, 2019 (10): 431–438 Original Paper
hps://doi.org/10.17221/145/2019-CJAS
cows from studies focused on the teat reaction
to milking to avoid result distortion. In addition,
fluctuations of milk yield during lactation can be
the reason to include LaSt as a factor for milking
settings optimization. The basic muscle tone may
gradually decrease by continuous milking at high
vacuum levels as suggested by Hamann et al. (1993).
Cow teats have very high Poisson’s ratio compared
to other biological structures like aorta, which
allows them to greatly change their shape under
pressure. In mechanical terms, the cow teat tissue
could be described as a fibrous structure rather
than a homogeneous material like rubber, which
is elongating at constant volume under pressure
(Lees et al. 1991). It could definitely be summarized
that all cows have a biological limit for a positive
reaction to the vacuum. Exceeding these limits
may lead to the teat tissue damage (Parilova et al.
2011) without further increase of the milk flow
rate (Ipema et al. 2005). In future, we need to de-
termine an optimal range of prolongation mainly
with regard to udder health and milking settings
optimization. Use of milking settings which are
better adapted to cow’s physiology could reduce
the teat tissue damage and slow morphological
changes during the production life (Parilova et al.
2011). Based on our results, the factor of breed
should be considered important for the milking
settings optimization. Ideally, milking settings
should be adjusted individually for each cow and
each milking, but there are still technological and
sciential boundaries for this solution (Gasparik et
al. 2018). Besides breed, factors like LaSt, TPos
and teat morphology could be used to optimize
milking for cow’s needs. The changes in the ud-
der may be irreversible if cows are exposed to
improper milking for a long period, and these
cows are at much higher risk of mastitis or/and
culling (Parilova et al. 2011).
CONCLUSION
In our study we have found out that LaSt, LaNu
and TPos significantly affect MITP. In addition, these
effects showed interbreed variations and influenced
MITP of J and H cows differently. Teat morphology
could be another factor influencing their prolonga-
tion during milking. Inner teat morphology could
also affect prolongation during milking and studies
identifying these relations should be undertaken in
future. Influential factors identified in this study
should be taken into consideration while designing
future experiments in this area to avoid data distor-
tion for effects tested in your study. Our results also
suggest that the next big step in improving milking
technologies will be through optimization options
for groups or even individual cows based on breed,
LaSt, LaNu and TPos.
REFERENCES
Divers T.J., Peek S.F. (2007): Rebhun’s Diseases of Dairy Cattle.
Sounders, Elsevier, St. Louis, USA.
dos Santos S.K., Oliveira M.G., Noriler E.P., Vrisman D.P.,
Borges L.P.B., Santos V.J.C., Coutinho L.N., Teixeira P.P.M.
(2016): Mammary gland ultrasound evaluation of Jersey
cattle breed. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae, 44, 1–5.
Gasparik M., Duchacek J., Stadnik L., Novakova V. (2018):
Impact of milking settings optimization on milk quality,
milking time and milk yield in Holstein cows. IOP Confer-
ence Series: Materials Science and Engineering , 420, 012073.
Geishauser T., Querengasser K. (2000): Investigations on teat
canal length in teats with milk flow disturbances. Journal of
Dairy Science, 83, 1976–1980.
Genc M., Coban O., Ozenturk U., Eltas O. (2018): Influ-
ence of breed and parity on teat and milking charac-
teristics in dairy cattle. Macedonian Veterinary Review,
41, 169–176.
Gleeson D.E., O’Callaghan E.J., Rath M.V. (2004): Effect of
liner design, pulsator setting, and vacuum level on bovine
teat tissue changes and milking characteristics as measured
by ultrasonography. Irish Veterinary Journal, 57, 289–296.
Guarin J.F., Ruegg P.L. (2016): Pre- and postmilking anatomi-
cal characteristics of teats and their associations with risk
of clinical mastitis in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science,
99, 8323–8329.
Guarin J.F., Paixao M.G., Ruegg P.L. (2017): Association of
anatomical characteristics of teats with quarter-level so-
matic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science, 100, 643–652.
Hamann J., Mein G.A., Wetzel S. (1993): Teat tissue reactions
to milking: Effects of vacuum level. Journal of Dair y Science,
76, 1040–1046.
Ipema A.H., Tancin V., Hogewerf P.H. (2005): Responses of
milk removal characteristics of single quarters on different
vacuum levels. ICAR Technical Series, 10, 49–55.
Isaksson A., Lind O. (1992): Teat reactions in cows as-
sociated with machine milking. Journal of Veterinary
Medicine Series A, 39, 282–288.
Lacy-Hulbert S.J., Hillerton J.E. (1995): Physical charac-
teristics of the bovine teat canal and their influence on
438
Original Paper Czech Journal of Animal Science, 64, 2019 (10): 431–438
hps://doi.org/10.17221/145/2019-CJAS
susceptibility to streptococcal infection. Journal of Dairy
Research, 62, 395–404.
Lees C., Vincent J.F., Hillerton J.E. (1991): Poisson’s ratio in
skin. Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering, 1, 19–23.
Neijenhuis F., Barkema H.W., Hogeveen H., Noordhuizen
J.P.T.M. (2001): Relationship between teat-end callosity
and occurrence of clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Sci-
ence, 84, 2664–2672.
O’Callaghan E.J. (2001): Influence of liner design on inter-
actions of the teat and liner. Irish Journal of Agricultural
and Food Research, 40, 169–176.
Parilova M., Stadnik L., Jezkova A., Stolc L. (2011): Effect
of milking vacuum level and overmilking on cow’s teat
characteristics. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silvi-
culturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 59, 193–202.
Stadnik L., Louda F., Bezdicek J., Jezkova A., Rakos M.
(2010): Changes in teat parameters caused by milking
and their recovery to their initial size. Archiv Tierzucht,
53, 650–662.
Strapak P., Szencziova I., Stadnik L. (2015): Use of ultra-
sonography for evaluation of internal structures of udder
and teats in dairy cows. Slovak University of Agriculture,
Nitra, Slovakia. (in Slovak)
Strapak P., Strapakova E., Rusinova M., Szencziova I. (2017):
The influence of milking on the teat canal of dairy cows
determined by ultrasonographic measurements. Czech
Journal of Animal Science, 62, 75–81.
Tancin V., Ipema B., Hogewerf P., Macuhova J. (2006):
Sources of variation in milk flow characteristics at udder
and quarter levels. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 978–988.
Weiss D., Weinfurtner M., Bruckmaier R.M. (2004): Teat
anatomy and its relationship with quarter and udder
milk flow characteristics in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy
Science, 87, 3280–3289.
Zwertvaegher I., Baert J., Vangeyte J., Genbrugge A., Van
Weyenberg S. (2011): Objective measuring technique for
teat dimensions of dairy cows. Biosystems Engineering,
110, 206–212.
Zwertvaegher I., Van Weyenberg S., Piepers S., Baert J., De
Vliegher S. (2012): Variance components of teat dimen-
sions in dairy cows and associated factors. Journal of
Dairy Science, 95, 4978–4988.
Zwertvaegher I., De Vliegher S., Verbist B., Van Nuffel A.,
Baert J., Van Weyenberg S. (2013): Short communica-
tion: Associations between teat dimensions and milking-
induced changes in teat dimensions and quarter milk
somatic cell counts in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Sci-
ence, 96, 1075–1080.
Received: 2019–06–21
Accepted: 2019–09–13