1 Results
1.1 HERD TEST RESULTS
DIM
Milk (L)
Fat %
Fat kg
Protein %
Protein kg
SCC
1st Test
19.29
43.41
4.06
1.70
3.12
1.32
168.97
2nd Test
48.69
45.60
3.50
1.57
2.87
1.30
123.30
3rd Test
77.53
42.75
3.07
1.30
2.97
1.26
154.34
1st Test
18.79
41.87
4.08
1.67
3.09
1.27
177.91
2nd Test
47.45
42.26
3.50
1.46
2.92
1.22
131.94
3rd Test
77.02
39.88
3.45
1.34
3.01
1.20
278.59
S.P. 1
S.P. 2
Table 5 – Herd test results showing mean days in milk, daily production of milk, fat and
protein and somatic cell count score for both treatment groups throughout the trial period.
T- Test Statistics
Milk (L)
Fat %
Fat kg
Protein %
Protein kg
SCC
1st Test
0.76
-0.07
0.29
0.32
0.8
-0.07
2nd Test
2.07
0.12
1.50
-1.01
1.81
-0.12
3rd Test
1.72
-1.95
0.28
-0.8
1.24
-0.93
Table 6 – Statistical Analysis of herd test data results, two sample, pooled variance, t-test
assuming equal variances. Critical value to show significant difference in results between
groups t(0.05) = 1.66
Milk Volume
48.00
45.00
42.00
39.00
36.00
Volume (L)
33.00
30.00
27.00
S.P. 1
24.00
S.P. 2
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
1st Test
2nd Test
3rd Test
Herd Test no.
Graph 2.1 – Mean daily milk production comparison between the treatment groups on their
first three herd test dates after parturition, taken from table 5.
1.80
4.50
1.60
4.00
1.40
3.50
1.20
3.00
1.00
2.50
0.80
2.00
0.60
1.50
0.40
1.00
0.20
0.50
0.00
S.P. 1
Fat (%)
Fat (kg)
Milk Fat
S.P. 2
S.P. 1
S.P. 2
0.00
1st Test
2nd Test
3rd Test
Herd Test no.
Graph 2.2 – Comparison of daily milk fat kg, and percentage in milk, between the treatment
groups on their first three herd test dates after parturition. Column graph shows kg production,
line graph shows % in milk, taken from table 5.
Milk Protein
1.40
3.15
3.10
1.20
Protein (kg)
3.00
0.80
2.95
0.60
2.90
2.85
0.40
Protein (%)
3.05
1.00
S.P. 1
S.P. 2
S.P. 1
S.P. 2
2.80
0.20
2.75
0.00
2.70
1st Test
2nd Test
3rd Test
Herd Test no.
Graph 2.3 – Comparison of daily protein kg, and percentage in milk, between the treatment
groups on their first three herd test dates after parturition. Column graph shows kg production,
line graph shows % in milk, taken from table 5.
The average days in milk at each herd test was close to identical for both treatment groups, the
largest difference was at the second test where there was 1.2 days difference in these results,
the other two herd test dates both had a difference of less than 1 day.
There was a difference shown in the mean daily milk production through the first three herd
test dates which will be compared in this report. Table 5 and graph 2.1 show that S.P. 1
produced higher amounts of liquid milk throughout the period. The difference between the two
groups peaked at 3.34 litres on the second herd test, and remained significantly higher over the
whole trial period. There is a significant difference at p(0.05) in the milk production data
recorded for the second and third herd test.
There was little significance shown in results for milk fat production, shown in table 5 and
graph 2.2. S.P. 2 was equal or higher than S.P. 1 for milk fat percentage at every herd test,
however this difference was minimal and converted to less than S.P. 1 when comparing kg fat
produced due to the difference in daily milk production. S.P. 1 had lower fat percentages at
herd test, on one occasion, significant at p(0.05), however this significant difference didn’t
convert when comparing actual fat solids produced rather than percentages of milk solids.
The difference between percentage protein in liquid milk was variable between treatment
groups, however these differences were not significant at p(0.05) considering the largest
difference was 0.05% of liquid milk produced, shown in table 5 and graph 2.3. The major
differences shown in protein was in daily kg protein production. S.P. 1 produced higher levels
of protein solids at every herd test. As there were very little differences in protein percentage of
liquid milk the difference in protein soled produced came from the difference in overall milk
production. S.P. 1 produced between 0.05 and 0.08 kg more protein that S.P. 2 throughout the
trial period. S.P. 1 produced significantly more protein solids, at p(0.05), on the second herd
test and while this statistical significance didn’t exist on the third herd test there was still quite
a
physical
difference.
1.2 POST NATAL EXAMINATIONS – UTERINE INFECTIONS
Vet Check -
Estromil
Betamox
Alamycin
Clean
Treatment
Infusion
Treatment
Deaths
n.
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
S.P. 1
63
47
74.60
9
14.29
3
4.76
3
4.76
1
1.59
S.P. 2
68
43
63.24
8
11.76
12
17.65
4
5.88
1
1.47
TOTAL
131
90
17
*critical value
Insignificant
Insignificant
z(0.05) = 1.96
(1.40)
(<1.96)
15
7
2
Significant
Insignificant
Insignificant
(2.31)
(<1.96)
(<1.96)
Z test statistic
Table 7 – Post Natal examination results, differences between two treatment groups in
numbers clean (not infected) at post natal examination and numbers requiring different
treatment for uterine infections. Z test statistics calculated using two sample Z test of
proportions.
Post Natal Uterine Infections
Number of Cases
50
40
30
S.P. 1
20
S.P. 2
10
0
Vet Check Estromil
- Clean
Treatment
Betamox
Infusion
Alamycin
Treatment
Deaths
Treatment Required
Graph 3.1 – Comparison between treatments for incidence of post natal uterine
infections and differences in treatments required, taken from table 7.
S.P. 1 Post Natal Uterine Infections
Vet Check - Clean
Estromil Treatment
Betamox Infusion
Alamycin Treatment
Deaths
Graph 3.2 – Percentage of animals from S.P. 1 not requiring treatment to those which
were identified as being infected, taken from table 7.
S.P. 2 Post Natal Uterine Infections
Vet Check - Clean
Estromil Treatment
Betamox Infusion
Alamycin Treatment
Deaths
Graph 3.3 – Percentage of animals from S.P. 2 not requiring treatment to those which
were identified as being infected, taken from table 7.
Table 7 shows some significant differences in incidence of post natal uterine infection
cases. 74.6% of S.P. 1 were clear at first post natal examination after parturition, meaning
they had no sign of uterine infections and therefore required no treatment. This is a large
difference to the results from S.P 2, where there was a total of only 63.2% clear at first
examination, making a difference of 11.36 percent. The difference in these results isn’t
statistically significant at p(0.05), however it’s still a large variation.
Graph 3.2 and 3.3 also show there were recordable differences in the different treatments
required. S.P. 1 required slightly more estromil treatments, with a difference of 2.53%
greater than S.P. 2, however this was reversed for every other treatment in this category.
S.P. 2 required 12.89% more animals to be treated with betamox and 2.59 more with
alamycin than S.P. 1, the differences in betamox treatments was significant at p(0.05).
The two deaths that were recorded were the result of a combination of serious uterine
infections and a metabolic breakdown within the animal, so they have been recorded in
both table 7 ant table 8, however they are the same animals.
1.3 HYPOCALCAEMIA RESULTS
Hypocalcaemia
Cases
Deaths
Total Cows
% Treated
% Death
SP 1
7
1
63
11.11
1.59
SP 2
7
1
68
10.29
1.47
Table 8 – Comparison of hypocalcaemia incidence between treatment groups.
Milk Fever Incidence
Number of Cases
12
10
8
SP 1
6
SP 2
4
2
0
Milk Fever
Cases
% Milk Fever
Deaths
% Death
Graph 4.1 - Comparison of hypocalcaemia incidence between treatment groups, taken
from table 8.
There was no differences shown in hypocalcaemia incidence between both treatment
groups, as shown in table 8 and graph 4.1. The only difference shown here is a slight
difference in percentage of cases, which is brought about by a difference in the number of
animals in each group, there wasn’t actually a physical difference in hypocalcaemia
cases.