Today I drove past a crew of highway maintenance workers and one was pounding in a stake, one was holding the stake, one had a white hard hat and was obviously the crew chief and three were watching. Like most Bullvine readers, my mind reacted by saying – “Now isn’t that an inefficient use of our taxpayers dollars!”  Fifty percent of that crew were taking their pay check but not giving back.  You could be correct if you were to say that I judged too quickly. Perhaps I did not have all the facts. Most of us are quick to judge outside situations. However when it comes to our own milk producing work force are we business like, when it comes to the number of workers required to get the job done?

Tighter Margins Means Stringent Culling

Last year when milk was $22.00 /cwt FOB the farm gate, cows below herd average for revenue generation or above herd average for problems could be tolerated. But 2015 is a new year. Milk is only returning $18.00/cwt. That $4.00/cwt difference in revenue has a significant impact on cow to cow margins. Cows are your work force. 2015 is good year to get the pencil out and do the math on which cows to cull and thereby, in fact, increase the daily herd profit.

Jack Welch 10% Removal Method 

A previous Bullvine article called Why You Should Get Rid Of the Bottom 10% was based on former Chairman and CEO of General Electric Jack Welch’s theory of removing the bottom 10% of workers every year. Even though that may sound extreme, few can argue with the 4000% growth in GE’s value over the 20 years Mr. Welch led the company. That previous Bullvine article focused readers’ attention on reproduction, heifer rearing, animal health and technological changes. This article aims to apply dollars and cents to identify potential cull animals. So you can allocate the feed and energy to the animals retained.

Calculate The Dollars

Once the very obvious culls have been removed from the herd, breeders need some way to decide which animals are the next ones to be culled. As dairying is a business, it seems appropriate to make the decisions based on what drives profit. More profit comes from either less cost or more revenue.  Let’s look at how that could play out on dairy farms.

These Six Animals Can Be Culled Immediately

By attaching dollar values the following six scenarios came to the top of our list:

• Her Somatic Cell is Over 3.00
  Think about it. You spend $2500 to raise a heifer only to have her produce milk that is over 3.00 SCS. Cows like that help put you in a potential penalty position, when it comes to the requirement that herd average SCC be under 400,000. Why keep cows that must be milked separately and their milk pasteurized and then used to feed calves? There are no dairy purpose sale opportunities for high SCS first calving cows. With a beef market value at $1300 (net), you have just lost $1200 on her. There is considerable documented field research to show that when a cow gets a third case of mastitis in a lactation that immediately puts her in the category of loosing money, no matter what the production level is. Considering lost saleable milk, drug costs, labor costs and consumption of valuable feed, cows that have high SCS’s can easily be costing you $2.00 per milking day. And that is not to mention the danger of shipping milk that contains a drug residue.
• Her Conception Rate is Costing Time, Resources and Money
  Cows that take more than three services and heifers that take more than two services to conceive, cost big time. They have increased costs of $400 – $500 per year and likely $2000 per lifetime. That is based on added semen, labor (farm manager, farm worker, vet & technician) and drugs costs. Also included are the extra days she spends being non-productive (prior to first calving and in dry pens) and her time at lower production levels in her lifetime. These types of animals are losing you $1.60 per milking day. Looking at improved reproduction from a net perspective, Jeff Stevenson of Kansas State University determined that moving up pregnancy rate by 2% will net a dairyman $132 per cow per year as a result of more milk revenue, more calf revenues and increased value of cull/dairy sales of cows when milk is $18 per cwt. It would be even more if the sale price of milk is higher.
• She Cannot Keep Up in the Milk Pail
  Yield is comprised of both volume and solid content.  Cows that are 10% below their age-lactation contemporaries for solids corrected milk on average are generating $1.50 (1^st lactation) – $2.50 (mature) less revenue per milking day than their piers. Again why raise a heifer just to have her be 10% or more below other first calvers?
• She is a Problem at Milking Time
  Slow milking animals were tolerated in stanchion barns. Every breeder knew it was not a good thing but after investing in raising the heifer they thought they needed to get a return on their investment. Times have changed. Slow milkers in palor or rotary barns create extra work and lost through put time. Even in robot herds, slow milkers reduce the volume of milk that can be harvested per day. No one wants a slow milker. Another problem are the heifers that are hard to train to the milking routine. Staff can only be expected to be patient for a couple of weeks with first calf heifers that kick the milking unit off. Unlike the cows themselves, staff must be adaptable, but at what cost? It is almost impossible to put a dollar value on the cost of slow milkers and mean tempered cows. Definitely bloodlines with undesirable milking speed and temperament should be avoided.
• She Visits the Hoof Trimming Chute Often
  The Bullvine has previously covered animal mobility (Read more: MOBILITY – THE ACHILLES HEEL OF EVERY BREEDING PROGRAM).  Putting a dollar value on the cows that need extra foot care ($15 per trim), eat less so they produce less, require medication and therefore milk withdrawal,  require numerous extra inseminations to conceive thereby spending extra time in the dry pen can mount up quickly. A simple foot problem can take a very profitable cow and make her a money losing one. If even 5% of a herd falls into this category, it can be costing $0.25 – $0.50 per milking cow day for the entire herd.
• She’s a Poor Doer / Goer
  Animals that do not thrive and therefore require extra care can make the life of dairy people a drag a best but at worst can make people leave the industry. On a heifer basis we have no population figures on averages or the relationship with bloodlines of animals that do not thrive, get sick easier or do not reach puberty by 12-13 months of age. On a cow basis we know which ones have metabolic disorders, but we do not know how that relates to their genetic make up.  As The Bullvine has stated on other occasions we need to be capturing and retaining more extensive information on these areas for both the heifer and cow herds. As yet we cannot put a dollar value on these costs.

Opportunity Lost

Culling is usually viewed by dairy managers as a cost. It should be viewed as an opportunity. An opportunity to improve your farm’s bottom line.  In a hundred cow herd carrying an extra five cows and ten heifers every day of the year amounts to $23,725 per year for feed costs alone. As feed is 55% of all expenses, total costs for carrying these extra animals is $43,136. That is sure not pocket change.

Sires and cow families that leave progeny that fit these six scenarios need to be eliminated from herds and the entire population. Good judicious culling, like pruning a tree, always makes the harvest better.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

It’s time to base culling on dollars – either extra costs or lost revenue. Operating a successful dairy enterprise is all about maximizing profit. Removing problem animals can impact the bottom line a significant, positive way.

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

Last week Saputo Inc. announced measures to control dehorning pain and to ban tail docking. (Read more: DAIRY GIANT SAPUTO MANDATES DEHORNING PAIN CONTROL AND BANS TAIL DOCKING) Company policy requirements will be put in place in response to a widely publicized video of animal abuse at Chilliwack Cattle Sales in B.C. Canada, which is a milk supplier to Saputo. (Read more: Dairy Cattle Abuse Video – A black eye for the dairy industry) Saputo is one of the three biggest milk buyers in Canada and a global company with operations around the world.

Saputo’s plan, unveiled on Monday, includes a commitment to end tail “docking” or cutting, and for the use of pain control when removing horns. The dairy company is also spending $1-million to sponsor animal-care education at two leading agricultural universities, University of Guelph in Ontario and University of Wisconsin-Madison.

A spokesman for Saputo acknowledged how they came to implement this process. “We recognized last year after the incident … that there, quite frankly, was not enough leadership in the industry to carry this issue forward. So we have taken a much more robust position.”

“The Cut Stops Here!” says Saputo.  Other milk buyers to follow.

Saputo, which employs 13,000 workers at plants in Canada, the United States, Australia and Argentina, said it will require farms that are direct suppliers to follow the new policies. The Globe and Mail article also reported that Saputo will pressure milk-marketing boards and milk purchasing co-ops to encourage members to do so, as well.

The Bullvine is always pro-actively interested in initiatives that will impact the dairy industry and encourages dairy managers to evaluate what it means to them.  Members of The Milk House were given the following invitation to weigh in. “Saputo has mandated dehorning pain control and banned tail docking. Do you think more dairies will follow? Does this change how you will manage your herd?” (Read more: Introducing The Milk House – Dairy Breeder Networking on Facebook)

Tail Docking Questioned?  The Short Answer:  “Don’t do it!”

If you are not involved in dairy farming, hearing that the tails of dairy cattle are amputated, for any reason, could be alarming.  Furthermore, you might assume that everybody does it.  While this practice is more common in New Zealand, it has been used, to varying degrees in other countries as well.  The Milk House discussion group felt it was not as common a practice today.  One herd that previously had docked tails, no longer does so and commented “we only trim switches twice a year.” Another respondent asked, “Who docks tails anymore? It’s truly unnecessary to dock tails. You say they get covered with flies if you keep their tail on, yet if you remove their tail you are removing their first defense against flies. And if you have a fly problem, get more fans in your barn. Problem solved.” In other words, if the problem is with flies or sanitation, deal with those problems before docking tails.

Cats De-Clawed.  Cows De-Horned.  Children restrained.

Most animal rights proponents are not against having cats declawed.  After all, it saves the furniture and cat lovers as well from scratches. One reader saw the irony in leaving horns on dairy cattle and painted an extreme picture of the dangers that they pose. “Yep it is much better to leave the horns on and go to the sale yards and see animals bleeding because they have holes poked in their sides” Or in her own barn “I’d much rather be head butted by a heifer with horns.” She wrapped up her fearful horn wrangle with, “It would be so much fun to dangling from a bulls horns as he charges around the paddock with me.” Yes, an extreme picture but we know too well that it can happen and therefore leaving the horns on is not considered an option.

Safety in the barn and pasture has evolved in the same way that car safety has changed.  Today we would not consider driving anywhere unless our children were properly buckled into their car seats and seatbelts.  I have been trying to imagine the look on my parents and grandparents faces if they had foreseen that children of the future could not ride in the front seat and had to be properly restrained with buckles and belts. Alternatively, looking back, what would today’s parents think of little ones climbing over seats while the car is moving? Not to mention, my siblings and I often took turns riding in the back window!

Horn Removal! What’s the Alternative?

Several options for horn removal methods other than burning were discussed on the Milk House.  Paste and drugs were two of the options. One reader noted that paste is banned in Australia.

As with all protocols, new, chosen or mandated, questions concerning the added expense for drugs, labor or vet costs, become part of the implementation issues. Added price could mean added costs to the consumer … and that too is a concern.  However, if the consumer isn’t happy with the raising methods, they are less likely to choose the product.  No, consumer.  No, dairy business!  It seems like a Catch-22 situation.

Pharmaceutical Methods of Dehorning

Several readers mentioned that they have always used a sedative and lidocaine.  Medicam was more widely discussed and had several enthusiastic supporters. “It’s a great idea to use Medicam when dehorning” said some and one explained “We have used it when dehorning and there is a total difference.”  The questions all boiled down to who could administer the drug and most often that means veterinarians. Some managers noted that there are differences between vet practices regarding use and approval and handing out of drugs … and who can administer them.  One reader, citing their great relationship with their vets, emphasized that it’s important to discuss what it will be used for. Another outlined the logistics he uses in New Zealand, “Yes vets and/or vet assistants come and dehorn calves here – they do most of the calves in this area – I think about 120,000 last season. I even had the CEO vet come and dehorn one lot of mine last year because everyone else was busy.”

Testimonial for Medicam”

Dianna Malcolm (Blue Chip Genetics and CrazyCow in Print) also recommends Medicam. “It’s just an excellent all-round drug that is also awesome to use in conjunction with pneumonia treatments if calves are well hydrated and old enough, and colic too – among other purposes.” She urges contacting your vet and working out a protocol and a price. Dianna expanded even further. “The manufacturers of Medicam halved its price to the vets so that farmers would use it for dehorning. It is a staple drug in our fridge and very easy to get…I did a story on it in CrazyCow, and I can confirm that the difference between using it and not using it for dehorning is night and day! I’d never go back – it’s fantastic.”

One dairyman did a trial on about 120 calves for Boehringer using Medicam on every other calf. He administered three cc under the skin at disbudding. Disbudded between 2 weeks and five weeks normally. He reports “From observation calves with no Medicam kicked their heads and rubbed off gates, etc. Medicam calves gave no signs that they had been done at all. All got three cc of local anesthetic near each horn before. Growth rates averaged slightly better from birth to weaning at 56 days. Probably between 3 and 6kg a calf better than their counterparts who had sore heads for a few days after we dehorned with the burning type device, one with the screw-in gas cylinder that heats up the little cup that fits over the bud. For all the cost of doing it, roughly four bottles of Medicam a year, even if it didn’t give me better growth rates I would definitely continue it for the sake of happier calves. Happy stock is profitable stock!”

Producing a Food Product, without Consumer support, means dairying is Redundant

One reader spoke emphatically for listening to the dairy consumer.  He said, “Anyone arguing against this, needs to get their head checked out. Don’t forget that we as dairy farmers, like every other business, are driven by what the consumer wants. And if Saputo made this decision in order to please the consumer then if you care at all about the economic influence that may potentially have on us, you’d stop bitching like a little school kid and change your management practices. Saputo is not saying you have to do this, only if you want to ship milk with them. If you’d rather try to sell your own milk, then best of luck on that and let me know how that works out for you”

SIDE NOTE: In this particular thread on The Milk House, no one mentioned Polled animals. Raising polled dairy cattle is as natural, pain-free and consumer friendly as it gets! And, as has been noted numerous times by The Bullvine, the genetic merit of polled Holsteins is fast catching up to that of horned Holsteins. (Read more: Polled Dairy Cattle)

The Bullvine Bottom Line

The Dairy Industry Can’t Leave Image to a Tossup between Consumers and Suppliers

These milk-buyer initiatives impact the dairy industry.  It requires buy-in not only from the suppliers but buy-in from the consumers too.  Milk companies are using education, protocols and training to turn around the negative impact that some animal handling practices have had on the image of the industry. They naturally have an interest in seeing that their business survives. Breeders should be interested in seeing dairying thrive.  The toss up for me is, “What’s the other side of the coin if dairying isn’t a growth industry?”  “Is there another side at all?

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

There are so many questions when it comes to managing a dairy farm and achieving the ultimate goal of producing a healthy milk product in a profitable and sustainable way.

Not About How Much Feed but How Much Milk

You might think that the size of the calf doesn’t really matter because, until they’re in the milking line, they are in limbo.  Right? Wrong! Everything that impacts the health and growth of the dairy calf will, ultimately, have a significant impact on whether or not she reaches her full potential as a dairy cow

And, furthermore, the point is not about how much feed you get into them … but rather it’s about how the nutrition the calf receives can impact the speed with which they get to breeding maturity.

Disadvantages of 2X Milking

When calves are only fed twice a day, the abomasum sits empty too long.  This causes low pH level to result, and it might lead to ulcerations.

What Are You Willing to Give Up for Convenience?

With the 24/7 nature of dairy managing, we are always looking for ways to save time.  However saving time with calf feeding could prove to be costly, in the end.  What are you willing to give up?  Weaning age?  Weaning weight? Age at first calving? Total lifetime production?

By changing the frequency of feeding – up OR down – be clear about how that changes the expected outcome of your calf program. You may prefer the logistics of 2X for human scheduling, but the goal should be about the calves growing as fast and efficiently as they can.

There are several ways to fit in the three feedings. Those who work with this system agree that once there is a will to make it work, the best method can be figured out.

Not ALL Dairy Calves are Created Equal

Sometimes a new calf needs extra attention.  However, even after receiving that, there are a few who still don’t do well.  It’s a challenge to the animal caregiver to make sure that every animal gets the best opportunity.  Having said that, there has to be the realization that a sick calf will carry the stresses and delays of that slow start with her right into the milking line.

Calf Raising Consultants

Having recognized the importance of an excellent start to a productive milking life, dairy managers would do well to get their questions answered by consulting with calf raising specialists.  Together you can determine the desired outcomes and work out the protocols that will deliver them.  Everyone connected with the calf raising program needs to accept responsibility and be accountable for improving the program. Those are the most important first steps from the human side of the equation.

Consider Where Frequency Research is Coming From

When dairy managers consider the reported results of dairy research projects, it is crucial that they receive the information using the lens of the goals they are trying to achieve.  In the case of calf feeding frequency, there has to be a choice between the comfort and convenience of the calf feeding crew and the goals that the calf program is targeting.

Years of tradition says that 2X feeding works and there are “In summary, calves on a conventional milk replacer program performed similarly whether provided their daily allotment of milk in 1, 2 or 3 feedings per day.  When fed on a slightly higher plane of nutrient, differences in feeding frequency showed no effect on calf performance.”  If you’re looking for support of 2x feeding, this is the research you will quote.  However, it is important to note the reference to plane of nutrition.

Consider Advice from People Who Have “Been There Done That!”

Recent headlines that caught my eye:

• ‘Three-times-a-day calf feeding gaining popularity.”
  In the not-to-distant past, feeding dairy calves three times per day was relatively unheard of. However, this 3x frequency is rapidly becoming the popular choice.
• “Study finds 1 in 7 calf raisers feeds 3x some of the year.”
  There are always discerning managers, and there are some who have always fed 3x.  They point to lower levels of sickness and death and feel that those results far outweigh concerns with extra labor and expense.
• “There are several advantages to feeding milk replacer 3x.”
  In 2011 Don Sockett DVM, Ph.D. epidemiologist/microbiologist for the University of Wisconsin reports his experience with 3X feeding frequency. “ When compared, calves fed a milk replacer three times daily, versus a control group fed the same milk replacer twice daily, were more feed efficient and showed improved average daily gain. Calves fed three times daily grew taller and longer, with added pounds of lean growth.  This growth is optimal for dairy calves to prepare them for desirable breeding weights and freshening at a younger age, leading to greater lifetime performance.” Researchers also noted that these calves were noticeably friskier than calves fed twice a day.  In further discussion of this topic several veterinarians and calf managers frequently report vastly improved results, “Since 3x feeding we now double our weights in less than 60 days and cut treatments for scours in less than half of what they had been.” It is important to target levels of nutrition and the corresponding feeding frequency, which will see dairy heifers reach their performance potential in their first lactation.

The 3X Effect on Profit Potential

The ultimate measure of success of your calf feeding program happens when calves enter the lactating herd.  The previously noted Wisconsin researcher Don (Sockett et al) reports that”97.1 percent (34 of 35) of the claves in the three times a day feeding group entered the milking string. In comparison, 80.0 percent (28 of 35) of calves fed two times per day entered the milking herd. This means for every six calves fed three times a day, one additional heifer entered lactation. Calves fed three times per day also averaged 1,136 pounds more of milk and calved 16 days earlier. This can also translate to improved herd longevity and increased the number of replacement heifers that successfully make it to the milking line.

3X Means Reaching Full Calf Potential

If your goal is to increase first lactation and lifetime production levels in your dairy calves, you must consider these benefits delivered by 3X calf feeding.

• Decreased calf mortality rate
• Improved feed efficiency
• Healthy rumen development
• Breeding weights reached earlier
• Calved two weeks earlier than 2X peers

At the Very Least, Consider 3X to Relieve Winter Stress

During winter, calves are exposed to low-temperature extremes and windy and wet weather. These variables can double their daily calorie needs and, if not met, could result in sickness and greater risk of death. By consuming smaller volumes more frequently, calves can better fend off diarrhea or digestive disturbances at any time of year.

Automated Feeders Allow Ultimate Timing Opportunity

Dairies don’t leave calves with their mothers because of the potential for increased disease risk.  Although it’s not likely possible in standard calf raising situations, trying to replicate, the natural nursing frequency of 4 to 8 times per day could be considered a goal. It does become possible with automated feeders. Not only does this rapidly evolving technology work well for calf health but it further aids in reducing the labor costs associated with increased feeding frequency

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Not only is 3X feeding closer to nature’s way, it also delivers benefits for both calves and dairy managers and that’s a promise every dairy wants to have and to hold from calving day to milking day!

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.