RESUMO
A new trend in cow's milk has emerged in the market called type A1 and A2 milk. These products have piqued the interest of both consumers and researchers. Recent studies suggest that A2 milk may have potential health benefits beyond that of A1 milk, which is why researchers are investigating this product further. It is interesting to note that the A1 and A2 milk types have area-specific characteristics compared to breed-specific characteristics. Extensive research has focused on milk derivatives obtained from cow's milk, primarily through in vitro and animal studies. However, few clinical studies have been conducted in humans, and the results have been unsatisfactory. New molecular techniques for identifying A1 and A2 milk may help researchers develop new studies that can clarify certain controversies surrounding A1 milk. It is essential to exercise extreme caution when interpreting the updated literature. It has the potential to spread panic worldwide and have negative economic implications. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the differences between A1 and A2 milk in various research areas and clarify some aspects regarding these two types of milk.
RESUMO
Poor udder health can have a negative impact on milk production and reproductive performance, which reduces the net present value (NPV) of dairy farms. The aim of this study is therefore to investigate the relationship between clinical mastitis and NPV and the financial impact of impaired reproductive function. For this purpose, 473 dairy cows were included in our study, 146 cows with clinical mastitis (CM group) and 327 clinically healthy cows (CH group) from a high-yielding dairy farm in Romania, milking approximately 780 dairy cows with an average milk production of 46 kg milk/day. We found that, in contrast to CH cows, CM cows had a significantly lower conception rate at first service (58.2% vs. 41.7%, p < 0.05), third service (45.3% vs. 30.2%, p < 0.05), and total services (49.2% vs. 36.4%, p < 0.05). However, this positive effect was not observed for the average days open, which were significantly lower in CM cows than in CH cows (112 ± 4.3 days vs. 142 ± 3.1 days, p < 0.05). The fact that the non-pregnant CH cows had higher somatic cell counts (>400,000 SCC/mL) in their milk around artificial insemination (AI) and 1 month earlier than the pregnant cows (<250,000 SCC/ml) supports the idea that poor uterine health affects the reproductive activity of high-yielding cows. However, by using the UW-DairyRepro$ decision support tool, we found that despite the impairment of reproductive function in dairy cows, the largest negative impacts on NPV are still the cost of milk loss (US$14,439.4/farm/year) and treatment costs (US$4,380/farm/year). We considered the costs associated with poor reproductive function in the CM group (US$3,577/farm/year) as an additional cost of mastitis. Finally, it appears that the impact of mastitis on reproduction is associated with a lower chance of conception than it is with a daily risk of services.