SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Black Sea Journal of Agriculture / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5

Effect of Manure Cleaning Systems and Cleaning Frequency on Udder Hygiene Scores in Dairy Cattle

Esra Us(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0004-7124-8035
Nurettin Kayahan(SELCUK UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-9031-0699
Kazım Çarman(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9860-7403
Pages
776–782
Publication Date
2026-09-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings confirm that increasing cleaning frequency improves udder hygiene and reduces odor emissions, supporting better mastitis management and animal welfare.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Hygiene is very important for food quality and animal welfare in the environmental surfaces of animal shelters.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study was conducted in 2023 across 10 large dairy farms located in Konya, Türkiye, to quantitatively determine the effects of manure scraper use on animal hygiene scores and barn cleanliness.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings confirm that increasing cleaning frequency improves udder hygiene and reduces odor emissions, supporting better mastitis management and animal welfare.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Dairy cattle · Barn hygiene · Manure scraper

Abstract

Hygiene is very important for food quality and animal welfare in the environmental surfaces of animal shelters. This study was conducted in 2023 across 10 large dairy farms located in Konya, Türkiye, to quantitatively determine the effects of manure scraper use on animal hygiene scores and barn cleanliness. The farms utilized three different manure cleaning systems: chain, steel rope, and hydraulic scrapers. Udder hygiene was scored on a 1–4 scale (1: clean, 2: slightly dirty, 3: moderately dirty, 4: very dirty/covered with manure). Contamination rates (%) on udders were determined using image processing technique. The effects of manure cleaning systems, stall material, and daily cleaning frequency on udder hygiene scores were evaluated. In addition, odor values were measured before and after cleaning in the farms. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and correlation analysis. Animal udder contamination rates ranged between 4.45% and 13.8% across farms. It was determined that the daily manure cleaning frequency had a significant effect on the udder dirt rate (P<0.01) Odor values varied between 100-10 OU m⁻³ before cleaning and 60-5 OU m⁻³ after cleaning. While the udder hygiene score in animals was 3 in 4 of the farms, it was determined as 2 in the other farms. These findings confirm that increasing cleaning frequency improves udder hygiene and reduces odor emissions, supporting better mastitis management and animal welfare.

Özet

Hygiene is very important for food quality and animal welfare in the environmental surfaces of animal shelters. This study was conducted in 2023 across 10 large dairy farms located in Konya, Türkiye, to quantitatively determine the effects of manure scraper use on animal hygiene scores and barn cleanliness. The farms utilized three different manure cleaning systems: chain, steel rope, and hydraulic scrapers. Udder hygiene was scored on a 1–4 scale (1: clean, 2: slightly dirty, 3: moderately dirty, 4: very dirty/covered with manure). Contamination rates (%) on udders were determined using image processing technique. The effects of manure cleaning systems, stall material, and daily cleaning frequency on udder hygiene scores were evaluated. In addition, odor values were measured before and after cleaning in the farms. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and correlation analysis. Animal udder contamination rates ranged between 4.45% and 13.8% across farms. It was determined that the daily manure cleaning frequency had a significant effect on the udder dirt rate (P<0.01) Odor values varied between 100-10 OU m⁻³ before cleaning and 60-5 OU m⁻³ after cleaning. While the udder hygiene score in animals was 3 in 4 of the farms, it was determined as 2 in the other farms. These findings confirm that increasing cleaning frequency improves udder hygiene and reduces odor emissions, supporting better mastitis management and animal welfare.

🔖

Cite This Article

Us, E., Kayahan, N., Çarman, K. (2026). Effect of Manure Cleaning Systems and Cleaning Frequency on Udder Hygiene Scores in Dairy Cattle. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5, 776–782. https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1964095

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Aarnink, A. J. A., & Verstegen, M. W. A. (2007). Nutrition, key factor to reduce environmental load from pig production. Livestock Science, 109(1–3), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.01.112
  2. Aytekin, İ., Altay, Y., Boztepe, S., Keskin, İ., & Zülkadir, U. (2021). The effect of body cleanliness (hygiene) score on some criteria used in the detection milk quality in dairy cattle. Large Animal Review, 27(2), 69–74.
  3. Boone, R. E., Bucklin, R. A., & Bray, D. R. (2009). Comparison of freestall bedding materials and their effect on cow behavior and cow health. 2009 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Reno, NV, United States.
  4. Boztepe, S., Aytekin, İ., & Zülkadir, U. (2015). Süt sığırcılığı. Selçuk Üniversitesi Basımevi.
  5. Cook, N. B. (2002). The influence of barn design on dairy cow hygiene, lameness and udder health. American Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings, 35, Madison, WI, USA, 97–103.
  6. Cook, N. B., Bennett, T. B., & Nordlund, K. V. (2005). Monitoring indices of cow comfort in free-stall-housed dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science, 88(11), 3876-3885.
  7. DeVries, T. J., Aarnoudse, M. G., Barkema, H. W., Leslie, K. E., & Von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2012). Associations of dairy cow behavior, barn hygiene, cow hygiene, and risk of elevated somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(10), 5730–5739. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5375
  8. Dhaka, P., Chantziaras, I., Vijay, D., Bedi, JS, Makovska, I., Biebaut, E., & Dewulf, J. (2023). Geliştirilmiş Çiftlik Biyogüvenliği Gıda Hayvanlarında Antimikrobiyal İhtiyacını Azaltabilir mi? Kapsamlı Bir İnceleme. Antibiyotikler, 12 (5), 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050893
  9. Erzurum, O. (2025). Evaluation of structural conditions of dairy cattle barns in Konya and Aydın provinces. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1473305
  10. Güzel, M., & Aybek, A. (2017). Kahramanmaraş ili süt sığırı işletmelerinin mekanizasyon durumu. KSÜ Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(2), 148–159. https://izlik.org/JA73KA89JB
  11. Herlin, A. H. (1997). Comparison of lying area surface for dairy cows by preference, hygiene and lying down behavior. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research, 27, 189–196.
  12. Kymäläinen, H. R., Kuisma, R., Määttä, J., & Sjöberg, A. M. (2009). Assessment of cleanness of environmental surfaces in cattle barns and piggeries. Agricultural and Food Science, 18(3–4), 268–282.
  13. Mathiasson, L., Knutsson, M., Bremle, G., & Mårtensson, L. (1991). Chemical environment in animal buildings: Determination of organic acids in manure. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research, 21(4), 147–155.
  14. McFarland, D. F. (2003). Freestall design: Cow recommended refinements. In Fifth International Dairy Housing Conference Proceedings (pp. 131–138). American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE).
  15. Schreiner, D. A., & Ruegg, P. L. (2003). Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores and subclinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science, 86(11), 3460–3465. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73950-2
  16. Sefeedpari, P., Hertogh, N., van Rooijen, J., van Valkengoed, P., & Aarnink, A. (2025). Emissies uit een innovatieve biggenstal met mestschuif en gescheiden gierafvoer: Resultaten metingen fase 2 Sbv projectnr. 2122002 (Rapport No. 1600). Wageningen Livestock Research. https://doi.org/10.18174/702963
  17. Tatar, Y. E., & Esenbuğa, N. (2022). İzmir İli Ödemiş İlçesi Sığırcılık İşletmelerinin Sürü Yönetim Tekniklerinin İncelenmesi. Palandöken Journal of Animal Sciences Technology and Economics, 1(1), 16-23.
  18. TÜİK. (2024). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu: Hayvansal üretim istatistikleri.
  19. Yenice, G., & Savaş, S. (2016). Rize İlinde Yapılan Süt Sığırcılığının Mevcut Durumunun Araştırılması. Atatürk Üniversitesi Veteriner Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.17094/avbd.60910
  20. Dhaka, P., Chantziaras, I., Vijay, D., Bedi, JS, Makovska, I., Biebaut, E., & Dewulf, J. (2023). Geliştirilmiş Çiftlik Biyogüvenliği Gıda Hayvanlarında Antimikrobiyal İhtiyacını Azaltabilir mi? Kapsamlı Bir İnceleme. Antibiyotikler, 12 (5), 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050893