What the ADF system claims to do

01-09-2010 | Not Specified

Those promoting the Automated Dipping and Flushing system make several claims.

One is more efficient teat spraying/dipping.

In terms of labour, the efficiency must be superior to hand-held teat sprayers, and on a par with automated teat sprayers. In terms of the volume of teat spray used, ADF uses about one-third of automated spray systems.

It is claimed ADF gives more effective teat spraying/dipping. This would be hard to argue against on two counts. The cover achieved by dipping is more thorough than spraying, and because the teats are dipped before cup removal, the teat sphincter is still open, allowing the dip to penetrate this sensitive area.

ADF prevents infection and eliminates cross-contamination. Preventing cross-contamination depends on wiping out the mastistis pathogens left in the liners by an infected cow.

To achieve this, the sanitiser must be of adequate strength, and the contact time must be sufficient. It would be interesting to see results of swabbing "before and after" sanitising of the liners. While no data of this nature has been cited, the flushing action alone will clear out much of any infected milk.

They say ADF can be quickly and easily installed. The first NZ system was installed in a 44-bail rotary by three fitters in four days, working between milkings. The fitters say that "yes, it was easy to install". Can't argue with that.

ADF is said to reduce somatic cell count. The researchers from Britain say that farms which adopted the ADF system did reduce their bulk milk somatic cell counts (BMSCC) compared with control farms which either teat sprayed or teat dipped.

Whether this will happen on NZ farms is yet to be seen.

Those who install the ADF system will probably have a mastitis problem, and will be wise to engage a range of practices to reduce this.

So the effect of ADF on somatic cell count, clinical and subclinical mastitis, can be proven beyond doubt only with some thorough research. Ideally this would involve split herd trials with ADF and control cows grazing together. Such research is expensive, time-consuming and unfortunately in this day and age, rare.

It is claimed ADF saves money. Savings can be made through less labour for teat spraying and stripping/treating clinical cases. Less mastitis means more milk, of better quality and less money spent on antibiotics and vet visits. Money may be saved because less teat spray is being used. Countering this are the costs of ADF installation, running costs, and repairs and maintenance. Running costs are estimated at just under 8 cents/cow/day.

Cost depends on installation and economies of scale but an ADF system costs about $2000/bail.

  Printable View