Hopefully we are all beginning to face the fact that health issues in the dairy population have flown under the radar for far too long. Johnes, Leucosis and E Coli are three, all independent of each other, that come to mind easily.  The other day something came across my desk that raised more concern. A recent article out of UK reports that young women having IVF treatment are at ‘higher risk of breast cancer’. It goes on to say that the Australian study has found that , “Women who have IVF in their twenties are up to 50 per cent more likely to develop breast cancer.” The key alarm raised is that “the use of strong hormones to stimulate the ovaries to produce more eggs during fertility treatment as hyperstimulation can be fatal.” Granted this is talking about women in the human population but we have all experienced the parallels between ourselves and the girls in the barn. The article was well balanced and cautioned against making assumptions, concluding that “A lot more work would be needed before we can say definitively whether these results are true or not.” Only good can come from further study.

Now from the bovine side.  It stimulates a series of questions and considerations. Recently the dairy industry has recorded deaths of some high profile cows due to cancer.  Rainyridge Talent Barbara, Shoremar S Alicia, Winterbay Goldwyn Lotto.  When you add to that list others such as Comestar Goldwyn Lilac, dying in her prime, and then consider all the more ordinary cows, both yours and mine, that don’t make headlines, you can begin to think that this could be serious. The first question needs to be asked, “Does IVF increase cancer risk in cows?” Of course, you can’t stop there. My mind is rolling out questions such as these:

• Is there currently any research being done into cancer in bovines?
• Could this be a thesis – for a university student?
•  How could we get a comparable study of cancer deaths in the bovine population?
• Which age group in the bovine population has the largest number of deaths from cancer?
• Are younger cattle dying more frequently of cancer?  Is there an association with IVF?
• How many older cows are dying of cancer? How would we know?
•  Is there a link between the cancer and the very early age that heifers receive IVF treatment?
• What age group or sub-section of the bovine population is at the least risk of death due to cancer?

In human medicine it has been reported by Dr Linda Giudice, President-Elect of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, that: “The development of breast cancer is linked to oestrogen exposure and the longer one is exposed, the greater the risk.” Could this also be true in bovines?

THE BULLVINE BOTTOM LINE

As with any of the issues that face the dairy industry, the first step is recognizing the need. The next step is finding an able and willing leader. Of course, that means you can’t start with denial because that helps no one. It’s okay to say, “This is going to be difficult.” And it’s productive to point out, “We don’t know all, or even any, of the answers yet.” If we tell it like it is, we may not know where we are going  but at least we are not standing still.

Read the original article that sparked these questions.

[related-posts-thumbnails]

Depending where you live, the last several years have put many pressures on dairy profitability.  Margins are becoming slim to non-existent for some farms in 2012. Previously, one of the positive aspects of dairy farming was that dairy cows are good converters of by-products and low-cost feedstuffs that would otherwise be discarded.  In today’s, challenged marketplace even these feeds are becoming more costly.

It’s Time to Look at Feed Conversion

Now the dairy industry must take a lesson from poultry, swine and beef who focus on feed efficiency in producing eggs, chicken, pork and beef.  It’s time for dairy to focus on the conversion of feed to edible products.

The FE (Feed Efficiency) Formula

FE = Milk or FCM or ECM / dry matter intake

Feed efficiency in the dairy industry has traditionally been measured as some measure of milk production (actual milk, fat-corrected milk (FCM) or energy-corrected milk (ECM) as a ratio to dry matter intake.

The FCR (Feed Conversion Formula)

FCR = dry matter intake / lbs. of milk fat + lbs. of milk protein

The above is a new measure for feed conversion ratio (FCR), which is a measure of the pounds of feed (DM) that it takes to produce 1 pound of milk components.

Feed Efficiency is Not ONLY about FEED!

It would seem obvious that feed related factors would be most important when you set out to increase feed efficiency.  Nutritionists and consultants draw our attention to forage digestibility, feed particle size, protein levels, fat levels, starch levels and certain feed additives that can affect feed efficiency. This is what they know.  This is what we can control.

However, there are factors beyond feed that we can look at such as environmental factors and our own management inputs. Some environmental factors can be more difficult to control than others.  It is difficult to be 100% in charge of the effects of heat stress, average days in milk, lactation number, acidosis and heat stress.  Each one of these will affect feed conversion. But there are other environmental and management factors that we can target in our effort to improve feed conversion.

MANAGING TO MAKE MORE MILK: Do you help or hinder your cows?

Variability in management practices can greatly affect production, components and dry matter intake and, thus, feed efficiency. Researchers point to a survey which was undertaken on 3000 cows in 47 herds that were fed the same diet.  Results show that there was a 27 pound difference in production (i.e. the difference between 47 pounds and 74 pounds of milk), even when fed the same ration.

Cow Comfort Should Not Be the Last Resort

A recent area under consideration for feed efficiency is cow comfort. Cow comfort issues can affect milk production and components, reproduction and general health. While most of the research has shown increases in production with improved cow comfort, generally production or component increases translate into improvements in feed efficiency. There are excellent studies on the effects of stall design on milk production and cow health.

Less Stocking density = More Milk

Too many cows in one area and the number of stalls per cow can have an effect on feed conversion. Cows in crowded conditions tend to eat faster and ruminate less. The larger numbers can directly relate to more pathogen load in the area. More pathogens can be as simple as more teat end exposure to pathogens. In the long term cows can share more serious illness and immune suppression. The previously mentioned Spanish study, attributed a 32 percent of the production variability to stocking density and determined that each 10 percent reduction in cows per stall equaled 1.7 lbs more milk per cow.

Less Lameness = More Milk

Lameness can dramatically affect production, health and reproduction. However, even cows that are mildly lame (cows that walk with shortened strides, an arched back and a slight limp) can have reduced production and feed efficiency.

Researchers have shown even cows with a lameness score of 3 (mildly lame, 1 to 5 scale with 5 being severely lame), can have 3 to 5 lbs less production (greater than 900 lbs per lactation) vs. sound cows (score 1). Key point – Even mild lameness can negatively impact production and feed efficiency.

More Lying time = More Milk

Cows need time to lie down. This priority can consume around 12 hours of a cow`s day and cows will sacrifice eating time for lying time.  The Miner Institute in New York conducted a series of studies that showed an increase of 2 to 3.5 lbs of additional milk for each additional hour of lying time. More rest = More dollars.

Less Time Away from the Pen = More Milk

Minimizing time outside the pen is important to maximize cows’ time for resting, eating and drinking. Time away from the pen for milking can have an effect on production. In an extreme example of this, a study from the University of Nebraska compared the effect of three versus six hours per day away from the pen for milking. When time away from the pen was reduced, second-plus lactation cows gained two additional hours of resting time and 5 lbs of milk and first-lactation heifers gained an additional four hours of rest and 8 lbs of milk.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

These are only a few of the factors that have an impact on our cattle and their production levels. Knowing how to balance the need for resting, drinking, exercise, feeding and general comfort can have as much or more impact on feed efficiency than feed related factors alone. It only makes sense to control what we have some control over.

[related-posts-thumbnails]

We have all said at one time or another, “If only we took as good care of ourselves as we do of our cows!” However, we may be a little less precise in our care of newborn calves.  It might mean we need to change our protocols so that these newborns get the same attention to detail as our human babies. 

1. Clear the airway: Remove mucous from around the mouth and nose, assisting the calf to breath.  Inserting a piece of straw into the nasal cavity or pouring some cold water on the calf’s head should initiate a gasping reflex to promote respiration.
2. Dry off the calf:  The dam, if she is well and able, will dry the calf.  If she needs assistance, or if you are moving the calf immediately, you can handle the drying by using a clean, dry towel. The vigorous message provided while drying around the shoulders and neck encourages respiration and helps the calf to regulate its body temperature.  As water evaporates, heat is removed, which can lead the calf vulnerable to chilling. In cold weather provide blankets.
3. Provide Calf Comfort:  Even more than with cows, calf bedding needs to be clean and thick. Thickness is important because the bedding must be thick enough that the newborn is not exposed to all the bacteria underneath.  Take a look at the calving area and you will see that newborn calves do not land in a sterile environment.  The entire area cradles bacteria as well as brand new calves.
4. Feed adequate colostrum.  Once the calf is breathing well, colostrum should be administered. According to DCHA Gold Standards (Colostrum Management), colostrums equaling 10% of body weight should be fed in the first four hours of life.  It not only provides the calf with disease-fighting antibodies, but it also increases the calf’s blood volume and improves blood circulation.
5. Use a colostrometer to evaluate quality.  Cattle managers are well aware of the benefits of good quality colostrum.  The question is, “How do you evaluate your colostrum?” Experience tells us that if it’s yellow and thick … it’s probably good.  But is that true? We can’t wait to see if the calf responds well and yet we may be saving poor quality colostrums based on visual assessment alone. Having a trusted and accurate source is well worth the investment in a colostrometer.
6. Use a meat thermometer. Some sources advise using a meat thermometer to determine if the refrigerator where you store your colostrum is working properly and if your hot water heater is working properly. You can’t just assume because either of these feel cold or hot to the touch that they are working at the most effective temperature. The same attention to detail that you use in cleaning the milk pipelines in the milking parlour needs to be applied to the measureable temperatures that are used in care of your calves.
7. Special Care: Calves from a difficult calving may need to be moved and handled with extra care. Surviving alive may not be enough to guarantee a healthy growing period for that newborn calf. Extra attention will save time, labour and medication if spent wisely in these early hours and days.
8. Clean the calf cart!  Clean the calf pails!  Clean the calf bottle! Clean the esophageal tube!

The Bullvine Bottom Line:

When it comes to raising calves it’s the first little details that pay off in big returns later. See that your calves remain alive and thrive!

[related-posts-thumbnails]

Sometimes I wonder if non-farming consumers ever ask themselves how farmers feel about the price of food.

Farmers have to eat too!

Even though I’m a farmer, I am also affected at the grocery store when events such as the largest drought in the last fifty years drives corn prices to record highs.  You don’t have to be much of a food label reader to know that corn finds its way into more than 2500 products on grocery store shelves. Having said that, food corn only represents 1% of the annual corn crop. The corn planted in 2012 represents the largest it’s been in the U.S. since 1937. One might assume that the one percent grown for human consumption may have benefited, depending on local water reserves, from irrigation and therefore will not see higher prices this year. According to industry experts, the value of the corn in both processed foods and non-food products is usually not large enough for the current corn price spike to have much impact on what the consumer pays at the checkout.

So, if the impact is small, why is the forecast for food prices to rise 4.5 per cent?

Regardless of individual items, the USDA projects overall food prices in the U.S. will rise three to four per cent in 2013. That’s more than the inflation rate but food prices have been running ahead of inflation for the last few years. The Wall Street Journal calculates that the impact of the drought will be “not that much,” or $32.76 for the year for the average U.S. consumer. Sylvain Charlebois, the project lead of the University of Guelph’s Food Retail Price Index, told CBC News that he does not expect the U.S. drought to have a significant impact on food prices in Canada. He forecasts food prices will increase by no more than 4.5 per cent in 2013, and only a fraction of that can be attributable to the drought.

Farmers Grow Corn.  Farmers Buy Corn.

Recently, Statistics Canada released its latest crop production forecast. In contrast to what’s happening in the U.S., corn production in Canada is expected to increase 9.5 per cent from 2011. Nevertheless, the U.S. situation will have quite an impact on Canadian agriculture. Because nearly 43 per cent of U.S. corn goes to feed cows, pigs, chickens and even farmed fish, that is where the price increase is likely to be felt most. In Ontario, which grows about three-quarters of Canada’s corn, 50-55 per cent of the crop is used as animal feed.

About 12 per cent of U.S. corn gets exported and Canada is a big buyer. Last year, another 10 per cent of U.S. corn went into “other products,” while the remaining seven per cent was surplus.

Data shows that “Canada is by far the top buyer” for the other-products category which includes corn flour, starch, malt and worked grains.

First Increases will be in dairy and eggs

Dairy and egg prices should be the first to see an increase from the higher input costs. Beef and pork prices are actually forecast to drop initially. That’s because producers are expected to send some animals to market earlier than they would have otherwise, to reduce costs. In the short term, the extra supply will put downward pressure on meat prices and then smaller herds will mean less supply.

Corn in the Tank

After animal feed, the next largest share of U.S. corn ends ups as ethanol, which gets blended into the gasoline sold at the pumps. To encourage energy efficiency and renewable fuels, governments have mandated a minimum amount of renewable fuels being blended with gasoline. These laws have led to a progressively larger share of the corn harvest ending up as fuel. In Canada the federal government has set the average minimum content for renewable fuels at 5 per cent. In Saskatchewan, the mandate is 7.5 per cent; it is 8.5 per cent in Manitoba. The U.S. now has a 10-per-cent mandate for the amount of ethanol that has to be added to gasoline.

In the U.S., the National Corn Growers Association says 38 per cent of the country’s corn crop is destined for ethanol. But since those same cobs get made into both ethanol and animal feed, in the form of distillers’ grains, they do the math to end up with 29 per cent of the corn crop getting used for ethanol, and add nine points to what’s used for animal feed. In Canada, about 30 per cent of the corn crop is grown for ethanol, or about 20 per cent, after accounting for distillers’ grains.

When it comes to the price of ethanol, government subsidies and other factors that mean the end cost is not a simple equation based on input costs. Ethanol futures prices are up about 19 per cent since the start of the year. Corn prices, on the other hand, fell through the first half of the year but have spiked sharply since then, resulting in a price increase for corn of about 35 per cent so far this year. It is nearly twice that for ethanol.  A surplus of ethanol has probably helped to keep its prices low and, with ethanol prices still below those of gasoline, analysts expect the increase in corn prices for consumers buying blended gas at the pump will be insignificant.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

When all is said and done, a bad crop year has wide-ranging ripples that can hit the farmer at multiple touch points.  The farmer feels the negative effects twice at the farm, as a corn producer and corn consumer, and again as the consumer at the checkout.  And so perhaps the original question needs to be changed, “Why don’t non-farming consumers recognize that farmers are consumers too?”

[related-posts-thumbnails]