Volume 62 Supplement 4
HACCP-based quality risk management approach to udder health problems on dairy farms
© The Author(s) 2009
Published: 1 April 2009
Against the background of prevailing udder health problems on dairy farms, this paper discusses a new approach to mastitis control. Current udder health control programmes, such as the 'five-point plan', are highlighted and their drawbacks indicated. The concept and principles of hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP) are introduced. The eight core elements of this concept are dealt with by using the example of a dairy herd with a mastitis problem due to Staphylococcus aureus. The various steps to be taken in the development of a HACCP-based quality risk management programme are illustrated through the application of core elements. Finally, it is shown that the HACCP key words, structure, organisation, planning, communication and formalisation; which do not frequently appear in conventional herd health and production management programmes can contribute to better udder health. The role of the veterinarian can be paramount and of added value, if he/she is willing to invest in new knowledge and skills, such as the HACCP concept, farm economics, animal nutrition, and particularly the role of coach to the dairy farmer in the implementation of preventative measures in relation to udder health.
Keywordsdairy farms HACCP principles quality risk management udder health control
Mastitis in dairy cows is a multifactorial disease with a long history. In addition to the associated impairment of welfare due to the pain, it is the most costly endemic disease in dairy herds with an average yearly incidence of about 28%. Among the economic loss components are the loss of milk production, treatment costs, extra labour and premature culling of chronically infected cows . Moreover, mastitis represents a stress factor for the farmer Over decades, much research has been conducted in the area of udder health. Although a variety of treatment and prevention protocols have been developed over the years, success rates have been variable and a true solution to the problem has not been found. Differences in mastitis prevalence rates between farms are large [10, 15].
Regarding the potential causes of failure to solve the problem, various suggestions have been provided. Firstly, multifactorial diseases are not always easy to eliminate if adequate attention is not given to contributing causal factors, or if the pathogen is ubiquitously present in the environment. Secondly, for a proper understanding of the mastitis problem sufficient information must be available, e.g., cow history, environmental conditions, production data, management data. Thirdly, hygiene is recognised as an important issue, but farmers should understand that hygiene goes far beyond hygiene during milking alone. Hygiene at all levels should be addressed: housing, feeding, cows in the barn, milkers. Finally, when an udder health control programme (UHC) is designed and implemented, it warrants a persistent and protocol-based approach by both the farmer (and his co-workers) and a coaching veterinarian in all areas of udder health [9, 15].
This paper deals with a new kind of approach to udder health problems in which all fragments of other approaches are integrated, structured and formalised: the HACCP-like Quality Risk Management approach. The objectives are to show that this approach is feasible on the dairy farm, and that its intrinsic structure, organisation, planning and formalisation may yield better results than the conventional methods.
Udder Health Control, UHC
Among udder health control programmes, the five point plan issued in the 60's predominantly focussed on contagious mastitis, e.g., Streptococcus agalactiae. This scheme has proven to be rather successful [13, 3].
The five points involve clinical and subclinical mastitis, drying off therapy, the culling of chronically infected cows, the proper milking machine function, and appropriate milking methods including teat dipping. The main goals are to prevent new infections from occurring and reducing the number of existing infections. Since the 1960's this five point plan has been expanded to eight or ten points, including areas like feeding, farm hygiene and adequate housing and climate, but the principles remained the same. Total farm hygiene means that in addition to hygiene around milking (machine, milkers, waiting area, teats and teat dip), attention must also be given to overall hygiene of cows in the barn, hygiene of cubicles, exercise areas, equipment and feed bunk. All these activities together are not easy to persistently conduct on a farm.
After applying an UHC programme, the pathogen profile of dairy herds usually change. Coliform bacteria have emerged in low cell count herds where streptococci have been reduced, indicating udder infections due to environmental bacteria challenging the immune responsiveness of high yielding cows . Impaired immune-responsiveness is at the same time linked with an increased milk yield and negative energy balance (NEB) after calving and ketosis . Control measures are usually focussed on improving the immune-responsiveness of cows by reducing the NEB and ketosis, and optimising cow comfort issues . Staphylococcus aureus as a third major udder pathogen group plays an intermediate role between contagious and environmental bacteria. This pathogen has various subtypes, each with its own epidemiological herd dynamics .
The reliability of information about the udder health situation on a dairy farm is at best variable. This variability can occur due to a higher or lower availability of such information, but also due to bias in, for example, the farmer or veterinarian's observational skills. Moreover, laboratory testing results may show bias, due to variation in sensitivity and or specificity of diagnostic tests; there is quite a difference in results when comparing bacteriological culturing and DNA-fingerprinting results. Any bias may lead to misclassification and misinterpretation, either negative or positive, which in their turn lead to improper UHC measures.
Finally, there is the matter of ensuring that all measures are consistently implemented in full and advice offered to the farmer as required. This is about communication and coaching. Given the complexity of udder health problems it is paramount that the farmer understands the different risk factors and their impact and that the veterinarian is a member of the problem solving team. In addition to technical advice, communication qualities (empathy, emotion, perception, attitude, voice and tone of speaking) are paramount to the success of control programmes. It seems that too often the farmer does not quite understand the relevance of risk factors and measures to be taken, while on the other hand, the veterinarian too often leaves the farmer alone with his problem, without playing his role as a coach.
HACCP: Concept and Application
HACCP addresses product quality through the control of the production process. It was originally developed for the NASA space programme to safeguard astronauts from chemical, physical and micro-biological hazards through food. For a history and review, see Pierson  and Hulebak and Schlusser .
The HACCP concept and principles have been adopted by the EU for safeguarding consumers from food safety hazards through the food producing industries. Moreover, in 2004 the EU has suggested that farmers implement a HACCP-like programme on their farm to control hazards and risks in the areas of food safety and public health, and animal health and welfare, as part of the new Hygiene directive EC 852/853/854-2004 .
The eight key components in the HACCP concept and principles, and hence in the handbook of HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programmes are: analysis of main hazards and associated risks on a farm (e.g., mastitis); production process diagrams (e.g., a more detailed elaboration of Figure 1); definition of critical control points (CCPs) with their standards and tolerance limits, and points of particular attention (POPA) with their targets; the monitoring of these CCP's and POPA's; the availability of corrective measures; working instructions and guidelines; records; verification [7, 14].
In the next section the example of a herd mastitis problem due to Staphylococcus aureus is addressed by following several of the eight key components highlighted above.
Risk factors contributing to Staphylococcus aureus mastitis on the example farm. Figures in brackets refer to the weighting and ranking of the risk factors
Deficiencies in the milking machine function
High teat end callosity scores in the herd
Contaminated hands of milkers, bedding material, flies
Previous udder infections with Staphylococcus aureus or
Poor milking method and hygiene
Poor culling policy regarding problem cows
Age of cows
Regarding the CCP's and POPA's it can be stated that formal HACCP programmes comprise CCP's which have to meet different formal criteria; if those criteria are not met, one can decide to retain that point as a point of particular attention (POPA). The criteria most frequently not met are: a full restoration of process control after corrective measures are taken; and: the presence of formal standards and tolerance limits. In physical processes (e.g., industry) most if not all control points are CCP; in live animals with their biological variation we will most often deal with POPA's. Regarding the definition of CCP's and POPA's, the following action was taken.
Hazards and risks listing (with CCP and POPA, standards or targets, monitoring)
Hazard defined: Staphylococcus aureusmastitis
CCP or POPA
Milking machine function (e.g.vacuum level)
Daily + 1x/wk + 2x/yr
Teat liner condition
Overall hygiene on the farm (e.g.barn)
Udder health state (pathogen profile)
Daily + 1x/wk
Milking method and hygiene (+milker)
Culling rate of problem cows
Daily + 1x/wk
Each of the items listed under 'Risk area' in Table 2 should be further detailed to be as specific as possible. For example, if the farmer considers daily which cows should be defined as problem cows; he considers once a week which problem cows should be culled or treated.
Zadoks  has examined the decision dilemma that surrounds treating or culling. An older cow, 150 days in lactation with subclinical mastitis in both hind quarters due to Staphylococcus aureus, an average somatic cell count level of 2 million/ml would better be culled than treated because expected cure rate is around 1%. In contrast, a young cow with mastitis in one front quarter and a somatic cell count of 500,000/ml and 220 days in lactation would have an expected cure rate of around 60%. Various economic assessments about treating mastitis or not have been published .
Intervention and advice plan for the example farm
Activities to be undertaken
1. Keep milking machine in good function at all times (frequent check-ups; maintenance; machine evaluation)
2. Adjust milking method and improve milking hygiene
3. Follow the herd treatment advisory plan for diagnosis and treatment of mastitic cows
4. Cull chronically infected cows according to criteria
5. Monitor healthy and infected cows and the environment
1. Implement separate housing for mastitis cows
2. Improve cow comfort elements (feeding, housing, climate)
3. Improve overall farm hygiene
The proposed interventions (corrective measures) are described on a separate sheet and updated when needed, e.g., after a follow-up evaluation.
The working instructions (WI) as indicated in Table 3 (herd treatment advisery plan; instruction on milking method and hygiene; criteria for culling) can be considered as technical management tools. They are meant to avoid flaws in attention and lack of compliance. It has been proven that such working instructions are highly beneficial and economically justified for the dairy farmer . Working instructions are detailed elaborations of (parts of) good dairy farming (GDF) codes of practice, which are general guidelines to improve attitude and mentality of people working on the farm . Examples are: good milking hygiene, good medicine application .
Records in a HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programme must be functional for operational farm management to maintain motivation of the farmer. They must also be relevant with regard to HACCP demands. In the latter case, such records must allow the internal validation of the HACCP-like Quality Risk Management programme to ensure it is functioning properly, as well as meeting the demands of HACCP with regard to demonstrating the herd status and measures taken for improvement of animal health and welfare, public health and food safety. In summary, the following records are core components: general farm information sheet; hazards and risks sheet (including risk weighting, true risk identification, CCP and POPA determination); monitoring scheme (including the CCP's and POPA's, their standards and tolerance limits, or target values respectively, the method, frequency and person responsible for monitoring); the monitoring results sheet (including CCP's and POPA's monitored with date and findings, and in the case of deviations, the corrective measures taken); the GDF guidelines and working instructions; a list of monthly, six or 12-monthly herd performance figures; checklists for internal validation; reports of external verification audits .
Discussion and Conclusions
Several remarks may be made in relation to the creation of a formal HACCP-based Quality Risk Management (QRM) programme handbook. Firstly, this type of QRM represents a highly structured and organised approach. Planning and prevention are fully protocol-based. Such aspects are often lacking in conducting veterinary UHC or herd health and production management programmes [5, 8]. Secondly, there are quite some elements in this QRM approach which may look familiar because they also appear in herd health and production management programmes. Examples are risk assessment, monitoring, record keeping, performance figures, and interventions. However, the major difference between the two approaches is the emphasis placed on structure, planning, organisation, and formalisation present in QRM. However, there are similarities between the two approaches and it is possible to integrate the two into a single advisery programme for the dairy farmer. In that way, the operational management issues and the more tactical quality risk control can be addressed simultaneously.
With a focus on UHC problems, the HACCP-like approach will focus the farmer's attention on relevant areas. In QRM, all areas must be addressed at the same time, and preferably in an extensive manner. Guidance is provided by a coaching veterinarian and the records of the HACCP handbook. These records provide the means to focus on relevant areas. In fact, farmers who have experienced the implementation of HACCP principles are much more focused and motivated to solve a herd problem as the whole picture is more clear . In addition to this, the HACCP-like QRM provides the veterinarian with means to act as a coach for the farmer, once the veterinarian has acquired the necessary knowledge and skills, of which adequate communication is one of the most important [16, 6]. Other important domains of new knowledge are farm economics, animal nutrition, marketing and business administration.
The 12-steps scheme for developing a HACCP-based Quality Risk Management (QRM) programme (adapted after )
Assemble an on-farm QRM-team; describe the general farm geography.
Identify the most significant hazards in public health and food safety, and in animal health and animal welfare.
Determine the risk factors associated with the defined main hazards, and explore which are applicable on the particular dairy farm.
Draw farm process flow diagrams (general and detailed for a hazard) and check these on site.
Define critical control points (CCP), and points of particular attention (POPA).
Determine the respective standards and tolerance limits (CCP) and target values (POPA).
Weigh the different risk factors for their probability of occurrence and their impact.
Design a formal monitoring scheme, including CCP/POPA, method of monitoring, frequency of monitoring, person responsible, measures to be taken at deviations.
Determine sets of corrective measures for deviations occurring at CCP's and or POPA's.
Develop good dairy farming guidelines and technical working instructions for areas needing particular attention.
Introduce the necessary documents and install specific training programmes of short duration for farm workers.
Install internal validation procedures, and external auditing procedures.
- Angus LJ, Bowen H, Gill LAS, et al: The use of conjoint analysis to determine the importance of factors that affect on-farm welfare of the dairy cow. Animal Welfare. 2005, 14 (3): 203-213.Google Scholar
- Animal Health Service: Effects of guidelines and working instructions, a three-year study on 1000 dairy farms. Animal Health Service, Deventer, The Netherlands. 2006Google Scholar
- Bramley AJ, Dodd FH: Reviews of the progress of dairy science: mastitis control (progress and prospects). Journal of Dairy Research. 1984, 51: 481-512. 10.1017/S0022029900023797.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bray DR, Shearer JK: Milking machine and mastitis control handbook. Cooperative Extension Service. 1994, IFAS circular 1136, University of Gainesville, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
- Brand A, Noordhuizen JPTM, Schukken YH: Herd health and production management in dairy practice. 1996, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The NetherlandsView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cannas J, Noordhuizen JPTM, Vagneur M, et al: The future of veterinarians in bovine health management. Proceedings of the World Buiatrics Congress. Nice, France, October 2006. Edited by: Navetat, Schelcher. 2006Google Scholar
- Cullor JS: Implementing the HACCP programme on your clients' dairies. Veterinary Medicine/Food Animal Practice. 1995, 290-295.Google Scholar
- De Kruif A, Mansfeld R, Hoedemaker M: Tierärztliche Herdenbetreuung beim Milchrind. 2007, Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany, 2Google Scholar
- Hancock D, Dargatz D: Implementation of HACCP on the farm. Proceedings of a Symposium on HACCP, 75th Meeting of Research Workers in Animal Diseases, November 12, 1995, Chicago, Ill., USA. 1995Google Scholar
- Hogeveen H, Osteras O: Mastitis management in an economic framework. Mastitis in Dairy Production. Proceedings of the 4th IDF International Conference (H.Hogeveen, editor), 41-52, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 11-16 June 2005. 2005, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Huirne RBM, Saatkamp HW, Bergevoet RHM: Economic analysis of common health problems in dairy cattle. Proceedings of the XIIth World Buiatrics Congress (Kaske, Scholz & Holtershinken, editors), 18-23 August 2002, Hannover, Germany. 2002, 420-431.Google Scholar
- Hulebak KL, Schlusser W: HACCP history and conceptual overview. Risk Analysis. 2002, 22 (3): 547-552. 10.1111/0272-4332.00038.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kingwill RG, Neave FK, Dodd FH, et al: The effect of a mastitis control system on levels of clinical and subclinical mastitis in two years. The Veterinary Record. 1970, 84: 94-100. 10.1136/vr.87.4.94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Noordhuizen JPTM, Welpelo HJ: Sustainable improvement of animal health care by systematic quality risk management according to the HACCP concept. The Veterinary Quarterly. 1996, 18: 121-126.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Noordhuizen JPTM, Hogeveen H: The systems approach to udder health control. Mastitis in Dairy Production, Proceedings of the 4th IDF International Mastitis Conference. Maastricht, The Netherlands, 11-16 June 2005. Edited by: Hogeveen H. 2005, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 551-558.Google Scholar
- Noordhuizen JPTM, Metz JHM: Quality control on dairy farms with emphasis on public health, food safety, animal health and welfare. Livestock Production Science. 2005, 94 (1-2): 51-59. 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.031.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Noordhuizen JPTM, Lievaart JJ: Cow comfort and Cattle Welfare. Proceedings of Buiatrissima, the 1st Swiss Buiatrics Association Congress, Bern, (CH). 2005, 7-12.Google Scholar
- Noordhuizen JPTM, Cannas da Silva J, Boersema JSC, et al: Applying HACCP-based Quality Risk Management on Dairy Farms. 2007, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The NetherlandsView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- OIE, Office Internationale des Epizooties: Guide to good farming practices for animal production food safety. Rev sci techn OIE. 2006, 25 (2): 823-836.Google Scholar
- Pierson M: An overview of HACCP and its application to animal production food safety. Proceedings of the Symposium on Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points, Conference of Research Workers in Animal Diseases, November 12, 1995, Chicago, Ill. USA. 1995Google Scholar
- Suriyasathaporn W, Heuer C, Noordhuizen-Stassen EN, et al: Hyperketonaemia and the impairment of udder defense: a review. Vet Research. 2000, 31: 397-412. 10.1051/vetres:2000128.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Swinkels JM, Zadoks RN, Hogeveen H: Use of partial budgetting to determine the economic benefits of antibiotic treatment during lactation of chronic mastitis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Mastitis in Dairy Production, 217-224, Proceedings of the 4th IDF International Mastitis Conference, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 11-16 June 2005. 2005, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Valeeva NI, Lam TJGM, Hogeveen H: Motivation of dairy farmers to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007Google Scholar
- Schukken YH, Tikofsky LL, Zadoks RN: Environmental control for mastitis prevention, milk quality and food safety. Proceedings of the 4th IDF International Mastitis Conference: (H.Hogeveen, editor), Maastricht, June 2005, pages 109-114. 2005, Wageningen Academic Publ., Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Zadoks RN: Personal communication. 1999Google Scholar
- Zadoks RN, Allore HG, Hagenaars TJ, et al: A mathematical model of Staphylococcus aureus control in dairy herds. Epidemiology & Infection. 2002, 129: 397-416.View ArticleGoogle Scholar