Cryptosporidiosis is the primary cause of diarrhea in 1-3 week old dairy and beef calves, with conservative estimates placing the economic impact of the disease at $175 million per year in the U.S. in cumulative losses from death, treatment expenses and decreased production. Unlike the other major causes of neonatal calf diarrhea, no effective drugs or vaccines are presently available to combat the costly parasitic infection. The disease is of particular interest to Dr. Michael Riggs

, a veterinarian and professor in the Department of Animal and Comparative Biomedical Sciences at the University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences . Riggs researches the immunobiology and molecular pathogenesis of parasitic protozoal diseases of zoonotic importance including Cryptosporidiosis, or Crypto, which is caused by the microscopic parasite Cryptosporidium. The the parasite infects not only humans, but also domesticated mammals, fish and poultry, and young livestock, such as calves and lambs, are especially susceptible. For its victims, Crypto creates a multitude of problems. What starts as nausea can quickly bloom into abdominal pain and full-blown diarrhea, followed by a fever and dehydration. In most instances, healthy people recover within two weeks. But for people with weakened immune systems, an extended, persistent infection can be much more dangerous, causing rapid and sometimes life-threatening weight loss and dehydration. The tiny bug is spread through any contact with infected feces and is frequently contracted via water sources ­such as mountain streams, public pools or contaminated municipal drinking water. It can be found on babies’ changing tables and in the pens of newborn calves. Given the dangers of infection and how quickly the parasite can spread, early diagnosis is key in keeping it under control. To that end, Riggs and UA research specialist Deborah Schaefer have developed a panel of monoclonal antibodies that have proven useful for detecting Crypto. To maximize the impact of their work, the team has been working with Tech Launch Arizona , or TLA, the office of the UA that commercializes inventions stemming from research. As a result, the UA has licensed the first group of reagents to Kerafast , a Boston-based reagent company. Plans are to continue to add additional reagents in the future. “Ultimately, the goal is to get this technology out into the world where it can help the most people,” said Tod McCauley , senior licensing manager for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at TLA. “Kerafast will be a great partner to make that happen.”

Toward Faster, More Accurate Diagnosis

Riggs’ research concentrates on characterizing immune responses to Crypto – specifically on the development of recombinant vaccines, immunotherapies and drug discovery for Cryptosporidiosis – and improved methods for diagnosis. Current means of detecting and diagnosing Crypto present challenges including cost, performance, clinical significance and assessment of co-infection with other pathogens. In addition, the use of a wide variety of diagnostic methods and the inconsistent application of techniques makes it difficult to compare results from clinical and veterinary studies. Microscopy, for example, requires simple instrumentation and inexpensive consumables, but the process is laborious and lacks sensitivity and specificity. Molecular methods of detection such as polymerase chain reactions can be used identify the parasite at the species level, but testing for Crypto is not routine in most laboratories. The reagents developed in Riggs’ laboratory offer the opportunity for the creation of a rapid, highly sensitive diagnostic test for Crypto. “We are now making a characterized panel of mouse monoclonal antibodies available to the community for a variety of applications including rapid, simpler diagnostic assay development, antigen characterization and immunotherapeutic development,” Riggs said. “These antibodies are a useful resource for a broad range of research and development purposes,” he continued. “After years of development and characterization, we decided to make them available to others for a variety of applications which are expected to advance the field. TLA has been the perfect liaison to partner with Kerafast and allow this to happen.” McCauley says the university-industry arrangement is doing much more than getting this specific technology out into the marketplace; it represents a relationship and a pathway that will continue to serve both organizations going forward. “We are exploring ways we can work with Kerafast long term to add additional value to particular reagents and create new research avenues for antibodies through technologies available to create customized antibody sequences.” Kerafast’s Director of Business Development Matt Takvorian is likewise optimistic about the opportunity for impact. “At Kerafast, we are committed to accelerating scientific progress by facilitating access to the unique and useful research reagents developed by academic laboratories,” Takvorian said. “We are excited to partner with the Riggs lab to make these antibodies more easily available to scientists worldwide to advance research toward better Crypto diagnosis and treatment. We look forward to continuing to expand our relationship with the University of Arizona to bring more of its lab-made reagents to the wider scientific community.”

Source: University of Arizona

When Jonathan Lovegrove-Fielden decided to covert Longden Manor Farm back to an organic autumn-block and expand to 300 cows his farm manager, Colin Bowen, knew they would have to buy-in cows to facilitate the move in a reasonable timeframe.

But having made good progress in reducing the prevalence of red and yellow Johne’s cows within the herd from 9% to 1.5%, he was keen not to undo the farm’s hard work.

The farm had begun whole herd testing for Johne’s some two years earlier, in April 2014, with tests carried out every quarter as part of their milk testing regime.

Although it wasn’t a requirement of their milk contract at that time, Mr Bowen believes that further down the line milk buyers could create a two-tier milk market and wanted to get ahead of the game.

Whole herd testing involves sampling milk from individual cows and is deemed much more accurate than bulk tank sampling, as their farm vet, Nathan Loewenstein from Shropshire Farm Vets, explains.

“Bulk milk testing is still being offered to people, but it is a complete waste of money. For a tank not to be low you need a minimum of 15% of cows in the herd to be a high [risk]. So, a lot of herds that did bulk milk test came back negative and thought they were fine.

“But the number of herds that are false negative is massive and by the time they go positive you have to dig yourself out of a massive hole.”

As well as converting to organic, they decided to streamline their system and reduce labour by getting rid of their spring block of cows and becoming a solely autumn block. 

Buying-in animals

Being short of numbers and not wanting to extend their autumn block any further by rotating cows from spring to autumn calving, their only option was to buy in.

Their shopping list was extensive; cows had to be organic, good health status and autumn calving, which left them with limited vendors.

The first bunch of 13 animals was purchased this spring and as the herd they were buying from had limited Johne’s data they decided to pay £5-6 a head to blood test the animals for the disease during the pre-movement TB test.

“The Johne’s risk was accepted and it meant that if any cows were Johne’s positive they could then be managed as such. If you’re going to have to buy something you buy with as much information as you can,” says Mr Loewenstein.

“I think as an industry we are very poor at asking questions. You wouldn’t buy a car without test driving it, but we do buy most stock without knowing the disease history.”

Even though only three animals tested Johne’s-positive, all animals were treated as yellow rather than run the risk of them joining the herd and failing a test at a later date (see box: “six ways they have controlled Johne’s spread”).

Another 23 milkers and 13 bulling heifers were bought in September, but this time extra precautions were taken with lessons learned after buying in the spring.

“We looked for herds that had done a more significant level of Johne’s investigation and requested results for all of the animals we were interested in,” says Mr Bowen.

As a result, none of the animals bought in had a positive test, although animals were kept in isolation for four weeks after arrival and were milked separately to limit contact with the main herd. During this time, they were vaccinated for BVD and IBR.

This approach, while not bullet-proof, has helped the herd manage the risk and as a result keep the number of red cows within the herd constant.

In the next three years, they hope to be milking 300 cows at Longden Manor and have surplus replacements to sell for a premium.

Mr Bowen hopes that being organic and having a good disease status will make them attractive to other organic herds.

So, what’s his one piece of advice for other farmers starting their Johne’s journey?

“Don’t try and do it all at once. Gradual improvements are a lot easier to manage than trying to have a big impact at the start.”

About Johne’s disease

A slow-developing, incurable disease caused by MAP (Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis). Clinical form causes thickening of the intestine which means cows are unable to absorb nutrients.

At a sub-clinical level, it affects the immune systems and results in poor fertility, lower production, and other disease. It is spread through muck, milk, colostrum and in the womb.

It is closely related to avian tuberculosis and therefore, can affect the top lump on the TB test.

Because the price of milk has been marginal for the last four years, Dairy Farmers have been struggling with keeping their farms going. Dairy Farmers like Scott Sawyer have turned to beef cattle as a means to supplement their income, but Cornell Cooperative Extension’s Jeff Miller tells us it’s not an easy choice.

“There are examples of people that have made that transition, or maybe I’m going to say not transition, but kind of that addition of that diversification of dairy production, but again it’s not going to be the answer for everybody.”

Other farmers are turning to soy beans, hay, grains, and even hemp, but Scott Sawyer of Hidden Hill Ranch isn’t ready to go that route.

“Certainly we could do it, but I don’t see us doing it. I can understand other people going that way, and I think it’s going to be very interesting to see it develop. I think it will develop actually, but I’m a cow guy. I like cows.” (laughs)

Cornell Cooperative Extension held a discussion with local farmers interested in what the beef industry might have to offer, but the interest was low. You’re probably not going to see a massive number of farmers making the transition from dairy to beef, but given the financial stresses of the dairy industry, farmers are likely going to look to diversify into other markets. It might sound like an easy answer, but each farm has individual challenges.

Jeff Miller says: “So there’s no cookie cutter… ok if you’re in dairy now and you’re finding it really tough to stay in because of the margins, here’s your answer. It’s going to be on an individual case by case method.”

Hidden Hill Ranch is hoping to sell their beef products in local farmers markets, an already established group of buyers, and right on his own farm.

Source: wktv.com

Most animals need some shelter during the winter months, however their natural winter coats allow them to endure cold temperatures. ( Drovers )

Knowing that women approach business with different priorities can help farm and ranch families maximize their effectiveness in management roles.

This was the theme of the “Making Room for Women Managing Family Business” workshop, presented by Jeanne Bernick, principal and market strategist with KCoe Isom, at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s 100th Annual Convention.

“We’re seeing more and more women come back to the farm – and all kinds of family businesses,” said Bernick.

Today, women comprise 31 percent of all U.S. farmers and ranchers, run 14 percent of all U.S. farms and ranches, and own 30 percent of all farmland in the country, said Bernick. Forty-four percent of FFA students are girls.

“Yet women are still less than 10 percent of senior executives at major agribusiness companies. But that’s changing,” she said.

Bernick helps families transition businesses between generations. She has worked with many daughters, nieces and sisters-in-laws who are returning to the farm and are interested in management roles.

Women want fulfillment in their work.

“Women bring heart to business. They want to do what they’re passionate about,” said Bernick.

Women also want to leave a strong legacy.

“They’re interested in what is going to happen to the family business in the next generation and beyond. ‘How do we make this legacy stick?’ This is what I hear most,” she said.

Having a plan is an effective way to maximize a woman’s success in a leadership role.

“It works well for women in managing a family business when they run from a plan rather than off the cuff,” said Bernick. “Map out a one-year plan, a five-year plan. Once they have a plan, women are incredibly focused. This makes them incredible leaders.”

Women are also more inclined to continue learning on the job, proactively seeking knowledge in books, trainings, online classes and support groups.

Women in leadership roles make great mentors; they’re interested in paying it forward.

“Women supporting other women is really important. They’re really community-based. When we feel like we have a community we can be a part of, we blossom,” she said. 

It’s also important to teach women their value.

“I find women tend to see their value in what they do, like raising kids or meal planning. I help them remember they’re also valuable for who they are. Their ideas are valuable.”

While it can be a change for a farm or ranch to have a woman assume a leadership role, there are many advantages to be gained.

Bernick quoted Kevin O’Leary, “Mr. Wonderful” from the Shark Tank TV show: “My most successful business ventures are those with women leaders.”

“There are lots of reasons for this, but the one that sticks out: women can multitask,” said Bernick. “There’s a reason for the old saying, ‘If you want something done, give it to a busy mom.’”

Source: Southeast Ag Net

Source: Bowling Green Daily News

When you test your hay or corn stalks or cover crop for nitrates, look closely at the report to see what method your lab used to report your nitrate results. Photo courtey of Troy Walz, NE Extension.

I just got the forage test results back from the lab and the nitrate score was 3,000. Am I in trouble?

Every year I get multiple questions similar to this one. Unfortunately, with just this information I’m unable to give a useful answer. So – the first question I ask is “Was this reported as nitrates or as nitrate nitrogen?”

Why is it important to know the difference between nitrate nitrogen and nitrates? Well, using the example above, if the score was 3,000 parts per million of nitrate nitrogen, then the forage may have a nitrate concentration that is almost 50 percent higher than what we often consider to be the potentially toxic level for nitrate nitrogen. It would be risky for cattle to eat this forage without taking some precautions.

However, if the score was 3,000 parts per million of nitrate there should be no worries since this is less than one-third the danger level for nitrates. So the same score or value can range from quite dangerous to perfectly safe depending on how it is reported.

So what is the reason for these big differences? Basically, it comes down to how each individual laboratory tests for and then reports results for nitrates. When a laboratory reports directly the concentration of nitrate, it is referring specifically to the nitrate ion, which is designated chemically as NO3-. Most labs and advisors consider a level of 9,000 to 10,000 parts per million of the nitrate ion to be the level where toxicity concerns begin.

Some labs, though, report the amount of nitrogen that is in the nitrate ion and call it nitrate nitrogen and report it chemically as NO3-N. Nitrate is one part nitrogen plus three parts oxygen so nitrogen only makes up about 22.6 percent on the nitrate ion. Thus, a much smaller amount of nitrate nitrogen is needed to produce the same effect as the entire nitrate ion. As a result, the danger level for nitrate nitrogen begins somewhere between 2,000 and 2,300.

Is one method better than the other? No – both give the same result and either one can be used to determine the safety of your feed. In fact, it is easy to mathematically convert between nitrate and nitrate nitrogen by using the following formulas:

Nitrate = Nitrate Nitrogen x 4.43
Nitrate Nitrogen = Nitrate x 0.226

Next time you test your hay or corn stalks or cover crop for nitrates, look closely at the report to see what method your lab used to report your nitrate results. Then, if you want to talk with someone about the safety or feeding alternatives for your forage you can be sure both of you are talking the same language.

Source: newsroom.unl.edu

 When Old Man Winter and Mother Nature start two-stepping through the short days and long nights of winter, big changes can happen quickly for baby calves. 

During the first three weeks of life, calves rely almost solely on the milk ration to meet their nutrition needs.

“Calves are more susceptible to cold stress than older animals, due to their low body fat reserves and larger surface-area-to-body-mass ratio, which causes them to lose body heat more rapidly,” says Skip Olson, technical services veterinarian for Milk Products.

“While young calves have the ability to consume and digest small amounts of starter grain, their energy needs come primarily from the milk ration,” says Olson. “Calves over three weeks of age consume more starter, providing them with more energy to resist cold weather challenges.”

Since baby calves depend on milk for most of their energy needs, it’s especially important to adjust the liquid ration for cold conditions. Olson says not doing so can have a snowball effect on young calves.

“Calves can stop gaining and possibly even lose weight,” he notes. “Their immune system can become compromised, leading to health challenges.”

Pour on the nutrients

Here are three main ways to adjust the milk ration and help baby calves meet the demands of cold weather:

1. Increase the volume fed per day by feeding more often, a larger quantity at each feeding, or both.

2. Increase the concentration of the milk offered by adding more solids to the existing volume.

3. Increase the fat content of existing milk volume.   

“By far the best method to feed more nutrition is to feed the same diet more frequently during the day,” Olson advises. “Not every farm can adjust to feeding three times per day, but if they can manage to do it for just baby calves, an important need can be met.”

Feeding higher solids, or added fat, to the existing milk increases the total solids fed and may subject baby calves to a higher risk of bloat. The following chart using the National Research Council (NRC) calf model equations comparing different feeding rates of milk – one with fat added and two with increased volume – clearly shows that a little extra volume goes a long way in meeting the energy needs of a young calf.

Beyond the liquid ration

Boosting milk replacer feeding rates requires attention to other details to keep calves in balance. Olson offers the following advice for effectively transitioning calves to winter rations:

1. Timing – Pick a date in advance of when you are going to change the feeding program in the fall and stick with it until spring, despite weather fluctuations. One of the worst things you can do to a calf is change the rules.

2. Water – Do your best to deliver warm water shortly after milk feeding. Calves will reward your effort by drinking more water, eating more starter grain and continuing to grow during the coldest weather.

3. Starter – Even during cold weather, pay close attention to the starter bucket. Make sure the grain is available and palatable to encourage young calves to eat as much as they can. 

4. Housing – A clean, dry, draft-free environment, with deep bedding and possibly calf jackets, will help calves reserve energy and channel their metabolic efforts toward immune function and growth.

5. Milk Preparation – Milk prepared for feeding during extreme cold will cool rapidly outdoors. Adjust the initial temperature accordingly to achieve a milk feeding temperature of 100-105 degrees Fahrenheit. Dry milk replacer stored in cold conditions will affect the final feeding temperature when mixed. Adjust warm water accordingly with an accurate thermometer to achieve consistent feeding temperatures.

“Cold weather can be challenging for raising calves,” says Olson. “But it doesn’t have to make raising healthy calves impossible. With careful attention to the liquid ration and other surrounding details, many farms successfully raise healthy, well-grown replacements through the most brutal conditions.”

Source: milkproductsinc.com

Have you ever thought about how you can prevent a fire in your barn? Read this tips for reducing the risk and being prepared for a barn fire.

Have you ever considered what you would do if you had a barn fire? How would you protect your animals and all the other assets you have in your barn? What could you have done to prevent it? The thought of a fire is very scary. Although you cannot completely eliminate the risk that there could be a fire in your barn, there are some steps you can take to reduce the risk and be more prepared.

Tips for reducing the risk of a barn fire

Contact your local fire department to have them do a “checkup” of your barn and offer more recommendations for your individual situation. The University of Kentucky’s “Preventing Barn Fire: Tips for Horse Owners” recommends the following steps in reducing your chances of having a barn fire.

• No smoking! Bedding and hay can easily be ignited by a person smoking in or around the barn. Enforce a strict no smoking policy in your barn. Post signs inside and outside your barn.
• Place a fire extinguisher next to each exit, utility box and at roughly 30-40-foot intervals in your barn. Inspect and recharge each extinguisher every year, and use a ABC (general purpose) extinguisher.
• Clean off cobwebs and pick up loose bailer twine. By making sure your barn is clutter-free, you are helping eliminate ways for fire to spread.
• Electrical devices need to be professionally installed and encased in conduit. Pay attention during winter months to water tank heaters and heated buckets—they continue to generate heat even if there is no water present, which can cause the plastic to melt and a fire to ignite bedding and hay. If you are using electrical cords, make sure that they are professional grade, inspected often and are not overloaded. Keep lights caged and only use lights that are designed for barn use.
• If possible, keep hay and bedding stored away from a barn housing animals. If you only have one barn, like many of us, make sure hay has properly cured before storing it in the barn. Check the internal temperature of curing hay by poking a thermometer into the middle of the bale. If the temperature reaches 150 degrees, the hay should be monitored. If it reaches 175 degrees, contact the fire department.
• Keep tractors, fuel, other petroleum products and machinery away from the barn. Clear any grass, hay, leaves or other combustible materials from equipment before storage.

Tips for being prepared in case there is a barn fire

Mentally prepare yourself so that you can act calmly and safely in the case of a fire. Remember that human safety is the top priority—ensure your own safety and the safety of others before taking care of animals. The University of Kentucky’s “Preventing Barn Fire: Tips for Horse Owners” recommends the following steps for preparing yourself and being ready if a fire does occur in your barn.

• Identify and designate a safe place for your animals to go if you can get them out of the barn safely. This location should be away from the fire and allows fire crews enough room to do their jobs.
• Handling equipment such as halters, leads, etc. should be quickly accessible. Consider the materials these items are made of. Remember that plastic and nylon will melt in heat.
• Talk about the plan with members of your family and any employees you might have so they can also be prepared in an emergency.
• Mark gates, pens or stalls with reflective tape or glow-in-the dark paint. This will make it easier to see where you are going in the dark.
• If you are removing animals, start closest to the exit first and handle animals one at a time or by groups if they are herd animals. Always maintain control of the animals to help reduce their stress, which can prevent other injury risks.

If there is a fire, call 911 and get people out of the barn. Only get animals out if you can do so without risking human safety. Follow the directions from the fire department or 911 dispatcher.

No one ever wants to think about the risk of a fire, but it is best to be fully prepared so that you can react fast and appropriately.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension.

A major new study of Holstein dairy sires has confirmed that genomic indexes are a remarkably reliable predictor of actual daughter performance. This provides reassurance to the thousands of UK dairy producers who select service sires on the strength of an index based on their DNA.

Our study included every genomic sire marketed in the UK in August 2014 and compared its genomic index at that time with its daughter-proven index in August 2018.  

Some 7,745 bulls were included in the analysis which showed there was little difference between their average genomic index in 2014 and their proven index four years later.

Marco Winters, head of animal genetics for AHDB Dairy says: “This study should give complete reassurance that UK genomic indexes are amongst the most stable and reliable in the world. Provided they chose their service sires wisely, the many producers who put their faith in genomic indexes should have made substantial genetic gains in their herds.”

We introduced genomic indexes for bulls marketed in the UK in 2012. At that time, the technology to calculate the indexes was still in its early stages, and producers were made aware they were more likely to change over time than indexes for proven sires which already had many daughters milking.

However, the attraction of using these young sires was their generally superior genetics which would help producers breed better replacement dairy heifers. Thousands of producers took this opportunity and some now breed 100 per cent of their replacements from genomic sires. Across the UK, around 70 per cent of dairy replacements are now bred from these young bulls.

Full results from the study group are shown in Table 1. The correlation figure, also in the table, gives an indication of how close all of the sires are to that average change figure. Correlation figures for all traits were generally considered high, indicating there was a narrow spread of bulls around the average. In other words, as well as the average index in 2018 being close to, or the same as, the average in 2014, there was not a wide spread of bulls around that average. This means that most individual bulls’ indexes were close to their former prediction. The graph depicts this information in figures and indicates that between 2014 and 2018, 34.2 per cent of bulls’ indexes (in this case for Lifespan but equally applicable for other indexes) did not change at all and most others have changed very little.

A second analysis of a smaller sub-set of bulls which now have far more daughters showed exactly the same pattern. This gives further reassurance that as large numbers of daughters finally contribute to a bull’s index later in life, their indexes are still unlikely to see much change on average from their initial genomic predictions.

Marco continued: “We were confident in the system when we launched genomic indexes in the UK in 2012, and this analysis confirms the reliability of the techniques we used.”

Remarking that the UK teamed up with the USA, Canada and Italy to provide one of the largest reference populations in the word, he said this helped ensure the reliability of the UK indexes.

Table 1: Aug ’18 PTAs for daughter-proven sires compared with their genomic indexes in Aug ’14

 7,745 sires contributed to the data in this table

Graph 1: Distribution of percentage change between young sires’ genomic indexes for Lifespan PTA in August 2014 and the same sires’ daughter-proven indexes in August 2018

What’s a genotype?

The genotype is the genetic make-up (or gene-set) of the animal. It is measured from a tissue sample containing the animal’s DNA (its genetic blueprint) and expressed as a raw code which goes on to be interpreted by AHDB Dairy, through its contract partners, Egenes, and converted to a genomic index.

What’s a genomic index?

A genomic index is a genetic index which is calculated from the gene-set or genotype of a young animal, rather than from its own, its daughters’ or its parents’ and ancestors’ actual performance. In reality, the genomic component of an animal’s index is used alongside other genetic information from these alternative sources, in a smooth transition towards an index which will ultimately be based on actual or daughter performance.

What’s a reference population?

A reference population (also called a training population or a predictor population) comprises several thousand animals whose phenotype (actual performance/appearance) and genotype (or gene-set) are compared. This allows relationships to be established and from these, genomic Predicted Transmitting Abilities (PTAs) are calculated.

What do the correlations mean?

Correlation figures indicate how widely spread the population is around the average (in this case, the mean). To demonstrate with the extremes, a correlation of zero would indicate that the spread around the average was huge – in other words, while the average change in index for all sires may have been small, large numbers of bulls would not have been close to their former prediction.

Conversely, a correlation of one would mean that every bull’s daughter index was identical to its former genomic index. Obviously that would be an impossibility, and wouldn’t even happen between index runs for a group of daughter-proven sires!

What’s the recommended usage of genomic sires?

Genomic indexes remain marginally less reliable than daughter-proven indexes which means their likelihood of change is greater. However, this study has indicated the indexes used over the past four years have been extremely accurate. Ultimately, farmers have to take their breeding decisions based on their attitude to risk. Usage should continue to be based on the existing advice, which is to limit the use of any single young sire to 12.5% of the herd, which – if all inseminations are to genomic sires – means using a minimum of eight young sires each year. Current young sire usage runs at about 70% of dairy inseminations in the UK.

Source: AHDB Dairy

Periodically, UW-Extension Specialists and Agriculture Agents have collected farm level data to benchmark calf and heifer raising costs. Our first fact sheet The cost of raising dairy calves using individual or automated feeding systems covered the key findings comparing individual feeding systems (bottle or bucket) to using an automated milk feeding system.

In the factsheet Averages don’t tell the whole story, UW-Extension St. Croix County Agriculture Agent Ryan Sterry digs deeper into the variation in costs to rear calves in both systems. The lowest cost producer was $232 per calf, and the highest was $816 per calf, a significant range of $584.

For more information, please visit UW-Extension Dairy Replacement Management.

It is widely known that military veterans have among the highest suicide rates in our country. Sadly, in any given year, 38 of every 100,000 veterans take their lives.

We know too well why they end it all — they saw things overseas that none of us could ever imagine, they battled post-traumatic stress disorder, and they could have had disabilities ranging from traumatic brain injury to dismemberment.

Many reading this column will be surprised to learn that there is segment of our population that has a suicide rate rivaling that of our struggling veterans: Farmers.

Those who put food on our tables are taking their lives in unprecedented numbers. Just a few years ago their rate of suicide was 85 per every 100,000 farmers — 2.2 times the occurrence among veterans and 5 times that of the general population. Although last year’s numbers aren’t available, it’s well known in ag circles that that number is growing.

Even though this is a rural social crisis of epic proportions it has received little attention in the public eye and, therefore, a similar amount of concern from the masses.

That said, it’s probably mind blowing to most Americans because they have a vision of the farming life that is made of serene, pastoral landscapes, healthy country living, strong men and even stronger families.

They know little of the incredible stresses put upon farmers.

First, there’s the weather. They have to hope that Mother Nature accommodates their needs and business cycles and ensures a timely planting and a productive harvest. But, in many years, she’s not very helpful. Western New York farms were hit hard by drought in 2016 when unirrigated, rain-fed fields and orchards had crop losses between 30 and 90 percent. They prayed hard for rains after that, and the skies responded in 2017 with too much, which delayed plantings and harvests while damaging crops.

Then there’s animal disease. Back in 2015, deadly strains of bird flu killed off unbelievable numbers of chickens and turkeys throughout the central United States. Even if it didn’t, the poultry farmers had to cull their flocks to prevent the spread of disease. Halfway through that year, 50 million birds had died and the losses to farmers and producers exceeded $3.3 billion.

Farmers are also besieged by the economy. Dairy prices have plummeted over the past few years. In 2014, dairymen were getting $24 per hundredweight for their milk. Now, that number sits around $13. Farmers are producing and shipping milk because they have to, yet are losing money every single day for doing it. In Wisconsin alone, 500 dairy farms closed their doors last year. Here in New York, last year’s net farm income was a third of what it was in 2014.

Then, there’s the opioid crisis. The stereotype is that it’s hitting the cities and suburbs the hardest, but three-quarters of farmers say it is affecting them or their workers. It’s easy to see why. Farming is physically demanding work, from heaving hay bales to lifting feed bags to picking vegetables to bending down to milk cows. Back injuries and other aches are common. To work through it, they were prescribed pain killers, which in turn became an addiction.

There you have just four factors of many that make it seem like there’s no hope for farmers. Too often, the odds are stacked against them and there are so many things beyond their control. Seeing the very real chance of losing the farms and homes they love so much — the places that receive their attention, blood, sweat, and tears 24/7/365 — they see suicide as the only way out. It’s sad.

There is help available for those living those dark days. NY FarmNet is a free and confidential consulting service available to any farm located in New York state to discuss financial and health issues. They have a 24/7 hotline at 1-800-547-FARM. Crisis Services of Erie County has a 24-hour hotline (716-843-3131) to serve anyone contemplating taking their life. The YWCA of Genesee County has one, too, at 585-344-4400 and so does Niagara County’s Department of Mental Health at 716-285-3515.

I encourage those reading this paper who are not farmers or counselors to lend a hand. Outreach can be done in any number of ways, from checking up on your neighbors to supporting local farm stands to buying only local or American-grown produce, meats and dairy products at the grocery store to writing elected officials about foreign trade and frustrating price controls on milk and foods.

As Paul Harvey once said: “And on the 8th day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, ‘I need a caretaker.’ So God made a farmer.”

It’s time that we, as good citizens, acted as caretakers for them. These are some dark days in agriculture. Farmers need help. They need to know that they can ask for it and we need to know we should give it to them.

Source: lockportjournal.com

Just as variety is the spice of life, it’s also a key focus for those behind the “Efficient Dairy Genome Project”.  As they seek to apply genomics in breeding dairy cattle that are more feed efficient and produce less methane, scientists know that genetic variance could be the difference between success and failure.

“We’re examining the transcriptome (RNA) and genome (DNA) of dairy cattle to improve feed efficiency and reduce methane emissions,” said Stephanie Lam, a PhD student working with Dr. Angela Cánovas and Dr. Filippo Miglior at the University of Guelph.

Can you spot the difference?

Using public data available from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), Lam and her colleagues developed a methodology for accurately detecting structural changes or variations in dairy cattle DNA. They then applied the method to another dairy cattle population from the center consisting of Holstein and Jersey cows. The goal was to find genetic variance in the genome – such as insertion, deletion or duplication of base pairs – of animals with high feed efficiency.

“Essentially we are seeking genetic clues to help us determine what makes certain animals more feed efficient than others. When we see structural changes in DNA between two extreme groups of animals with high and low feed efficiency, it’s possible that these changes in the high efficiency group are behind their improved metabolic performance.”

Through their research, the team found about 14,000 SNP’s that were unique to either the high or low group. A SNP or single nucleotide polymorphism is a variation at a single DNA site, and is the most frequent type of variation in the genome.

Of course, not all variations will necessarily have a functional impact on metabolic pathways or biological processes, so the next step was determining which SNP’s or genetic markers were causal. Using specially designed software, the team found 400 – 500 SNP’s that may have a functional impact on feed efficiency.

“We then took the 400 – 500 SNP’s and, using the same software, found that the genes containing these SNP’s were mainly associated with metabolic pathways related to fat metabolism and protein digestion and absorption. That suggests that these markers may play a role in regulating feed efficiency and helping cows perform more effectively when it comes to milk production.”

Though the work itself is highly complex, the possible implications for the dairy industry are both easy to understand and exciting to ponder.

Panel discussions

“Once we identify these key markers, we can incorporate them into SNP panels or even make custom panels to specifically select for feed efficiency in a herd. By evaluating two different cow populations, we are confirming genetic information and narrowing our focus to what is most important. In doing so, we can provide producers and industry with applicable results that have more functional data and reliability.”

Lam is pleased with the progress thus far. At the same time, she is encourage by how the work to date could fuel further research and possible breakthroughs.

“These results help us decide what we can do in our next studies. For example, we have a lot of genes associated with fatty acid metabolism and protein digestion, so we may want to look at more specific target tissues related to those pathways. When we find common genes across breeds, it can assist future studies in deciding what genes to focus on regarding genetic markers that relate to feed efficiency.”

Few would argue that variety is the spice of life. If research can fully tap the potential of genetic variance, there could be more spicy findings for the dairy sector in the years to come.

Source: genomealberta.ca

Logan Edenfield with Equity Livestock in Stratford discussed beef cattle marketing techniques and what buyers are seeking at a workshop on transitioning from dairy to beef held in Baldwin. Photo by Heidi Clausen

With milk prices stuck below the level of profitability for many dairy farmers this past year, more have been getting out and making the transition to raising beef cattle.

About 20 farmers and others attended a Dec. 11 workshop entitled “So You Want to Raise Beef?” in Baldwin. A similar workshop was offered the same day in Eau Claire.

“It’s getting to be a more popular topic for us,” said Ryan Sterry, UW-Extension agriculture agent for St. Croix County.

Rooted in the heart of dairy country, NorthStar Select Sires has seen its beef semen sales skyrocket by 300 percent this past year, according to the company’s Scott Ellevold, who also raises beef cattle north of New Richmond.

Ellevold said not only are more people breeding their whole herd over to beef as they exit dairy altogether, but many dairy farmers are breeding their best cows with sexed semen to increase their odds of getting heifer calves that will grow into replacement animals and their lower-end cows to beef bulls, as beef bulls generally fetch a better price at market than their Holstein counterparts.

Holstein bull calves are bringing anywhere from nothing to $60 at market, while a black part-beef calf from a Holstein dam might be worth $100 to $300, according to Logan Edenfield with Equity Livestock in Stratford. Edenfield grew up on a 50-cow dairy farm in Ohio that has since transitioned to beef. He came to Stratford in 2017.

He said farmers exiting dairy and going into beef must change their way of thinking. Those still milking cows and looking to retire should breed everything to an Angus bull, which will result in black-hided calves that tend to be worth the most, he said, and “then, you automatically have put a date on when you won’t have replacement heifers. It gives you a deadline and, in the meantime, gets you more value out of the calves you are selling.”

Edenfield recommends dairy farmers sell those calves at 3 to 5 days of age to reap the most benefit.

“Don’t keep them as beef cows,” he said. “You’d be starting behind the eight-ball. (The next generation) would be one-fourth Holstein, and those calves wouldn’t bring much.”

The other optimal time to sell these animals is after they’re finished.

None of the major packers, including Tyson and Greater Omaha, want those partial dairy animals, he said, and those slaughtering Holsteins won’t pay extra for animals with a black hide.

“There’s going to be a lot of them around and a lot finished,” he said. “Just know they’re black Holsteins, not beef animals. Some may bring close to beef prices, but not all will.”

With more black calves now entering the market, Edenfield said, those prices could move lower, but they’ll still be better than prices for Holstein bull calves and, currently, more than Holstein heifer prices, too.

“Over time, if you can make those cattle look uniform, it will help you, no matter what they are,” he said. “If finishing animals, there’s not much difference in hide (color). if you’re selling feeders, uniformity is the main thing. Black-hided cattle typically bring more; they don’t have to be quite as good to bring as much.”

He said it’s not so much about the color of the cattle as all the other details regarding management, and that’s why Beef Quality Assurance certification — now required by a growing number of packers — is increasingly important. Dairy farmers are automatically covered under the national FARM Program, but once they sell their herd, they must become BQA-certified. Certification is available free online.

“The buyer wants to hear the story. They want to know they’ve been cared for the right way,” Edenfield said.

Fast gain is the goal

Edenfield said there are a lot of opportunities for those entering the beef industry, but before dropping off a load of cattle at market, producers would be wise to talk with their sales barn manager to learn more about what buyers want. Many marketers are happy to visit farms and help producers figure out their next phase, he said. Producers also should consult with their UW-Extension ag agent, veterinarian (especially if buying calves), feed company representative and nutritionist before switching from dairy to beef.

“Too many dairymen … want to fatten them like your dairy heifers when you fatten steers. It doesn’t work,” he said. “Feeding steers, you want to shorten their life as much as you can” in order to minimize feed costs. In contrast, the goal with dairy cattle is to keep them productive for as long as possible.

“You can’t make them gain too fast or go (to market) too young,” Edenfield said of beef cattle.

If the decision is made to finish cattle, Edenfield said, farmers should be prepared to feed more energy than they did with their dairy herd. He encourages producers also to consider implants, which can be especially beneficial with Holstein steers.

“It’s not worth it to go implant-free,” he said.

Silage-fed Holstein steers may be discounted because they’re too old and too big, he said. Cattle may be discounted if older than 30 months; age is determined by looking at the teeth.

“There’s nothing wrong with feeding silage, but you could feed them all the silage they want and nothing else,” he said. “They can use a lot of forage, but you have to have the energy to back it up.”

The two packers killing the most Holsteins in the U.S. are in Green Bay — JBS and Green Bay Dressed Beef. JBS tends to want a smaller animal than Green Bay Dressed Beef will buy, according to Edenfield. The only option with animals weighing more than 1,600 pounds is Green Bay Dressed Beef, he said, so aiming for between 1,500 and 1,600 pounds gives producers more competition for their cattle because they could go to either plant.

“You gotta go at it with a game plan,” Edenfield said of transitioning from dairy to beef. “The first thing to do is get the stalls out of (the barn) to prevent injuries and aggravation, and make sure to figure out a way the barn can go cold.”

Old stall barns are best suited for backgrounding calves — taking them from 300 to 400 pounds up to 700 to 800 pounds, “correcting” any problems and creating a bigger lot, he said. Certain advantages often come with size and scale and being able to fill a semi-load for market.

“If your land base is limited, consider backgrounding,” Edenfield said. “There’s where your profit is.”

If going the cow/calf route, he recommends buying straight-bred beef cattle and keeping with “something standard” such as Angus or Hereford.

“You don’t want to be the odd calf in the bunch; you probably will take a discount,” he said. “Don’t bring in a Swiss cross if you’re going to do Holsteins. If you’re going to fatten, it doesn’t matter as much because they’ll sell on their individual merit.”

Edenfield also advises farmers to buy a good mineral. Animals lacking a certain mineral may not be best using all the other nutrients they consume. Also, proper castration of steers could mean the difference between getting 85 cents per pound at market or 40 cents, so it’s worth taking the time to do it correctly.

Grass-based and organic may be good options for some, he said, and with the down dairy market, there could be some opportunity in buying and fattening Holstein heifers.

Source: leadertelegram.com

Quicker pregnancies equal more profit. When cows get pregnant quickly, they produce more milk, have shorter calving intervals and generate more replacements. Managing cows for higher milk production requires a solid reproduction program to optimize your pregnancy rate.

According to a field study by Zoetis and Compeer Financial that analyzed 11 years of herd data from 489 year-end financial and production-record summaries,¹ the impact pregnancy rate can have on your profitability is too large to leave to chance.

The profit opportunity

According to the study, a 9% difference in pregnancy rate between the top one-third of herds and the bottom one-third resulted in an additional $143/cow/year in net farm income. Additionally, the top herds in the study also produced almost 7 pounds more milk/cow/day than the bottom herds^1,*

Associations between a 21-day pregnancy rate and other financial drivers revealed the impact quick pregnancies can have across a dairy.

Quicker pregnancies produce more milk

In the study, increased energy-corrected milk production was associated with a higher 21-day pregnancy rate and fewer days open.  As animals get pregnant at a more rapid pace, overall milk production on a per day basis goes up. This is because cows spend more time at the front end of the lactation curve, when milk production is higher— ultimately driving profitability. 

Conversely, an elevated somatic cell count (SCC) was associated with a reduced 21-day pregnancy rate. This is due to the negative physiological effect a high SCC has on reproductive performance. When SCC is high, pregnancy rates are sure to be reduced.

Three tips for improving pregnancy rate

Maximize profit opportunities on your dairy with three tips to improve pregnancy rates:

1. Get cows pregnant earlier in lactation. — Staying at the front end of the milking curve means more efficient milk production. Optimize pregnancy rate by implementing a high-conception rate fertility synchronization program followed by an intensive heat detection program to identify open cows for prompt re-insemination.
2. Keep your fresh cows healthy. — Good fresh cow care is key to ensuring fresh cows are ready to breed. Evaluate your fresh cow program to make sure stress is minimized, rations are balanced, and health evaluations are done at the front and back of a cow. Look for signs of illness such as loss of appetite, drooping ears, depressed attitude, increased temperature, abnormal tail carriage and vaginal discharge, in addition to the telltale foul smell which may signal a metritis infection. If metritis is an issue, eliminate the need for hospital pen moves and avoid the cost of discarding milk by using a proven, on-label treatment.
3. Calve in the right heifers for your dairy. — First-lactation animals typically make 15% less milk than second-lactation animals. Therefore, it’s important to manage and monitor heifer inventories closely with the goal of balancing your heifer and adult cow population. Having the right number of heifers with genetics that achieve your herd goals will allow you to minimize replacement costs while avoiding milk production gaps. Genomic testing with CLARIFIDE® Plus can help identify heifers that will live longer in your herd.

Don’t leave pregnancy rate, or profitability, to chance.

Source: dairywellness.com

According to Dr. Doug Reinemann, UW-Madison milking system specialist and College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Associate Dean for Extension and Outreach, over 300 U.S. dairy farms have automatic milking systems (AMS), also known as robotic milking systems. That number is much higher in Canada and even greater in Europe. Some reasons for choosing automatic milking systems include a lack of labor, including reliable labor, and flexibility when cows are milked. Although dairy farmers may choose robotic milking systems for the aforementioned reasons, AMS requires a very high level of management and service skills. In addition, robotic milking systems are capital-intensive investments.

Dairy farmers, consultants, and service providers interested in learning more about automatic milking systems technology are encouraged to attend the Building Our Dairy Future: Robotic Milking Systems Performance and Efficiency Seminar scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2019. The seminar will be held at the Osthoff Resort, Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin beginning with registration at 10 am.

The program will start at 10:30 with a presentation entitled, “Robotic Facilities Design Considerations” by Jouni Pitkaranta, an architect with 4d Barn located in Oulu, Finland. Mr. Pitkaranta specializes in dairy, young stock, and calf barn design especially focused on robotic milking barn design. He has designed about 600 dairy barns mostly in Finland, but also in Sweden, Estonia, Russia, Lithuania, Holland, and Germany.

His presentation will be followed by a presentation on the “Economics of Automatic Milking Systems”, by Dr. Larry Tranel, a Dairy Field Specialist with Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. Dr. Tranel specializes in financial analysis of all types of dairy farms.

Mr. Pitkaranta will return for the afternoon session with a presentation on labor efficiency of automatic milking system barns. This presentation will be based on his work on an international robot barn labor efficiency project monitoring robot barn performance in numerous barns in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and the United States.

A panel entitled, “The Good, The Bad, and The Unknown” will complete the day-long program. The discussion will focus on a single robotic dairy farm along with their lender, AMS equipment installer, and barn builder.Panelists include Larry and Jennifer Meyer, owners of JenLar Holsteins. Switching to an automatic milking system in early 2017, both Larry and Jennifer have full-time off-the-farm jobs while milking 120 Swiss and Holstein cows. JenLar Holsteins’ lender, Kevin Coffeen, vice president of BMO Harris, will accompany Jennifer and Larry Meyer on the panel. Representing JenLar’s AMS equipment dealer will be Barry Pavlat, Farm Management Support Manager for Abts Lely Center. Fox Cities Builders, Meyer’s robotic barn builder, will be represented by the president of FCB, Phil Ullmer.

To register for this event, please make checks payable to UW-Extension and send them to: Robotic Milking Systems, 121 West Main Street, PO Box 994, Port Washington, Wisconsin 53074. Registration may also be made by credit card for a $3 per person convenience fee. To do so, please call 920-929-3171. Cost for the program is $30 per person and the registration deadline is January 18th.

The program is sponsored by UW-Extension offices in Washington, Ozaukee, Calumet, Fond du Lac, and Manitowoc counties.Financial support is provided from those offices as well as from Compeer Financial and GreenStone Farm Credit Services. For more information contact Steph Plaster at 262-335-4482; Tina Kohlman at 920-929-3180; Amber O’Brien at 92-849-1450; or Scott Gunderson at 920-683-4175.

As 2018 winds down, it’s time to reflect on how your dairy performed this year. Did you meet your operational goals? What do you need to improve for 2019? While there are factors beyond your control affecting your success, let’s focus on your opportunities for 2019. Consider how the six dairy financial drivers discovered in a Zoetis and Compeer Financial study can improve your net farm income.¹*

Source: Brainerd Dispatch

The following is from Lee Mielke, author of a dairy market column known as “Mielke Market Weekly.”

A higher U.S. All-Milk price average and some lower feed prices pushed the October milk-feed-price ratio higher for the third month in a row and the highest level since January 2018, but farm margins have since fallen. The Agriculture Department’s latest Ag Prices report shows the October ratio at 2.20, up from 2.10 in September but down from 2.47 in October 2017.

The U.S. All-Milk price averaged $17.40 per hundredweight, up 70 cents from September but 70 cents below October 2017. New Mexico again had the low at $15.80, followed by Michigan at $16.50. California, at $16.46, was up 49 cents from September; and Wisconsin was at $17.60, up 20 cents.

The national average corn price averaged $3.41 per bushel, up 2 cents from September and 15 cents per bushel above October 2017. Soybeans averaged $8.58 per bushel, down 19 cents from September and 60 cents per bushel below a year ago. Alfalfa hay averaged $178 per ton, down $2 from September but $25 per ton above a year ago.

The milk-over-feed margin was up 70 cents from September, at $8.96 per hundredweight, based on the Margin Protection Program calculation, highest margin of the year but still $1.17 below a year ago.

Looking at the cow side of the ledger, the October cull price for beef and dairy combined averaged $57.80 per hundredweight, down $3 from September, $7.60 below October 2017 and $13.80 below the 2011 base average of $71.60 per hundredweight.

Cash cheese prices ended November strengthened but still in the cellar. Block Cheddar, after dropping 10¾ cents Thanksgiving week, finished the week after and the month at $1.36 per pound, up 1½ cents on the week but 9½ cents below its Nov. 1 level and 20¼ cents below a year ago. The barrels closed at $1.3150, up 7½ cents on the week, after plunging 12 cents the previous week, but 6 cents lower on the month, 22 cents below a year ago, and 4½ cents below the blocks. There were seven cars of block sold on the week, 71 on the month, plus eight cars of barrel sold on the week; 44 on the month.

Midwest cheese production has slowed, reports Dairy Market News, and some plants are shifting away from barrel production to other varieties, such as curds, or selling milk into bottling. Shredded cheese demand is reportedly strong. Other orders are average to slow, according to a growing number of contacts.

Western cheese prices are low and overall U.S. cheese prices are lower than that of the European Union. Western processors are seeing more demand from the export market, particularly from Mexico. However, the general market undertone seems mixed, as some market players say they have been seeing more pushback on cheese demand. Cheese output remains active as milk is plentiful. Cheese is abundant in the West.

October Cold Storage data was a bit bullish for butter but that didn’t do much for the CME price. It closed the week and the month at $2.2425 per pound, down 3¾ cents on the week and 5¾ cents lower on the month, but is 2¾ cents above a year ago when it fell 14 cents. Seven cars sold on the week; 59 on the month.

Butter markets typically see a significant decline this time of year, warned DMN. The difference of the weekly average CME butter market price, between weeks 48 and 52, from 2013 to 2017, was a decrease of 24.15 cents. Contacts are concerned about the potentiality of a large drop-off this year. Cream is becoming more available for butter in the region, although some suggest the momentum is slow to build. Butter inventories are balanced to declining says DMN.

Western contacts say retail sales have been strong and print orders are coming in for the final holiday push. Butter inventories are seasonally lower but butter makers know they will have the opportunity to rebuild stocks after the holidays.

Dairy margins weakened further through the first half of November as lower milk prices more than offset a slight decline in projected feed costs, according to the latest Margin Watch (MW) from Chicago-based Commodity and Ingredient Hedging LLC. The MW stated, “Nearby dairy margins in both spot fourth quarter and first quarter 2019 are now negative with deferred margins in second and third quarters only slightly positive and above average from a historical perspective.”

“Milk prices continue to suffer from insufficient demand being able to absorb increased production,” the MW warned. “USDA reported October Milk Production of 17.9 billion pounds, up .8 percent from last year despite increased cow slaughter as the remaining cow herd becomes more efficient. USDA reported the October dairy herd at 9.365 million head, down 2,000 from September and 30,000 below last year. The Midwest continues to struggle with milking economics where production shrank last month, while production increases in Western states more than offset those losses.”

Penn State’s November Dairy Outlook examined the state’s dairy industry and reported: “Based on our sample of nearly 100 annual actual cash flow plan analyses, more than 50 percent of dairy farmers reported cash surpluses in 2013 (i.e., gross milk prices above their break even cost). In 2014, while the production costs were reported to be higher than 2013, the increase in gross milk prices compensated for the increase in the production costs and more than 75 percent of dairy farmers in our sample reported gross benefits.”

“However, the picture reversed in 2016, where the gross milk prices were below their average levels in 2014 and 2015 in such a way that producers could not benefit from lower costs of production. More than 75 percent of dairy farmers in our sample reported cash losses. In 2016, the increase in the costs of production, accompanied with flat gross milk prices made a dire situation even worse. Almost all of the dairy producers in our sample reported losses in 2016. While the situation got slightly better in 2017 due to a small increases in the gross milk price and lower production costs, more than 50 percent of dairy farmers in our sample reported cash losses,” according to the outlook.

University of Wisconsin emeritus professor Robert Cropp and Mark Stevenson state in their latest podcast that “we’re range-bound. Dairy markets are prepared to move up a bit and then retreat from those gains in the absence of any strong evidence that milk supplies are tightening or demand is picking up.”

The fundamentals wouldn’t seem to dictate where cheese prices are today, Stevenson said. They cited abundant cheese output, mixed reports on demand, and tariff-affected export losses as the factors impacting prices.

They also pointed to disappointing global prices as evidenced in the past seven Global Dairy Trade auctions, and stated that weather will be a big factor ahead. New Zealand milk output looks to be very strong, they said, Australia is in drought, and the EU milk output is questionable because of drought.

Cropp believes Class III futures prices are “too soft.” He’s a little more optimistic but doesn’t see “a great rebound in milk prices where farmers like to see them,” but should mirror those in 2017, “even though the futures aren’t there yet.”

HighGround Dairy’s director of market intelligence, Lucas Fuess, stated in the Dec. 3 Dairy Radio Now broadcast that the fundamentals look pretty bearish after the holiday season and into 2019. A look at Class III futures underscores that. Prices are below $16 per hundredweight through the first half of 2019, but Fuess says a continued drop in cow numbers could change that.

The last Milk Production report showed numbers continue to tick lower and are well below a year ago. If that continues and milk output slows to levels lower than where they were in 2018, that could indicate a rebound in the making, but “there’s plenty of product to work through before that happens,” he said.

When asked if the tariff and trade wars are responsible for the depressed prices, Fuess said they certainly contribute to it as it remains difficult to get product into China and, even with the new USMCA agreement, Mexico still has tariffs on some U.S. dairy products, he concluded.

Dairy producers must call on their elected representatives to respond to the financial crisis on U.S. dairy farms, according to Arden Tewksbury, manager of the Progressive Agriculture Organization. Tewksbury charged, “For the last four years, United States dairy farmers have been underpaid nearly $11 billion per year,” and he called for three specific actions.

First, lawmakers need to immediately implement a $20 per hundredweight floor price under milk used to manufacture dairy products. Second, agriculture committees need to hold hearings for dairy farmers to testify “how bad things are, and develop a new milk pricing formula which includes the dairy farmer’s cost of production.” Thirdly, he called for an investigation “to determine if whey and milk protein concentrate products are causing an unnecessary surplus of milk.”

“We’re losing thousands of dairy farmers each year, and this cannot continue,” he writes. “Many other dairy farmers are on the verge of going out of business. Demand congressmen and senators take immediate action,” he concludes.

The loss of dairy operations will impact several state economies, according to 10 new videos created by a coalition of dairy organizations and posted on the U.S. Dairy Export Council website. The posting talks of dairy’s “ripple effect” to related industries like retailing and manufacturing and “the numbers are eye-opening.”

The dairy industry supports more than 390,000 jobs and pumps $98 billion into the California economy alone, the video states. Dairy in Wisconsin creates 215,128 jobs and $62 billion, plus 203,254 jobs and $39.5 billion in Texas. Nationally, dairy supports 2.9 million American jobs, according to the videos.

The data come from “Dairy Delivers”, the International Dairy Foods Assn’s. economic impact tool, as well as quantitative analysis by the U.S. Dairy Export Council and National Milk. Bottom line, “Dairy creates jobs and exports create more.” Other states especially benefiting from the dairy industry include New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan.

Source: farmers-exchange.net

Researchers measure calves’ sociability trait by the proximity they choose between themselves and other calves in a group pen. Credit: University of British Columbia Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-dairy-calves-personalities-ability-cope.html#jCp

A UBC study published earlier this year found that dairy calves have distinct personality traits from a very young age. Researchers from the faculty of land and food systems tested calves for pessimism, fearfulness and sociability at both 25 and 50 days old, and learned that each calf has an inherent outlook that changes little with the passing of time.

Now the researchers have followed up that study by examining those same calves at four months of age, to find out how their personality traits govern their reactions to real-world situations.

Benjamin Lecorps, a Ph.D. student in UBC’s animal welfare program, was lead author of the latest study published Nov. 5 in Scientific Reports. We asked him about the findings.

You already knew which calves were optimistic, pessimistic, fearful and sociable. Why the second experiment?

This paper really focuses on the validity of the different traits we identified in our earlier paper. We set out to confirm, for example, that a calf with a fearful personality would be more stressed in certain situations than a calf that isn’t fearful.

How did you go about that?

One routine procedure that can potentially stress calves is transportation. It’s novel for them, there’s a lot of handling involved, and the calves usually don’t enter the trailer by themselves but have to be pushed in. Since we had to transport those calves from one barn to another as part of our routine management, it was a good opportunity to measure their reactions to a potential stressor.

How do you tell if a calf is stressed while being transported?

Farm animals often vocalize when they’re in distress. It’s a good marker of the intensity of the emotional response; the more they vocalize, the more stressed they are. Typically, the temperature in their eyes also increases when they feel threatened, because the sympathetic nervous system is activated and that increases the blood flow to the eyes. In this study we used a combination of both measures.

So you had already identified some calves as pessimistic or fearful when they were newborns. How did those calves react to being transported three months later?

As expected, having information about the fearfulness trait allowed us to predict how calves reacted to transportation. What surprised us was that the pessimism trait was an even better predictor. The more pessimistic calves vocalized more often and had higher eye temperatures after transportation. We speculate that the more pessimistic calves have more negative expectations about any new experience.

How can this knowledge ultimately be used for the animals’ benefit?

The whole idea of studying personality traits for animal welfare is to detect which animals might be more vulnerable to stress. Knowledge about their individual personalities may enable us to understand better why some animals fail to cope under standard management practices, and are more likely to become ill. The time around calving is a good example. At that time, many things are changing for the cows, including the food that they get, unfamiliar pen-mates, learning how to be milked in the milking parlour, and of course all the physiological changes that come with having offspring. Dairy cows often get sick after calving, and the animals that are more vulnerable to stress may be more vulnerable to infectious disease.

More information: Benjamin Lecorps et al. Dairy calves’ personality traits predict social proximity and response to an emotional challenge, Scientific Reports (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34281-2

Source: phys.org

Compost bedded pack (CBP) barns have become an increasingly popular alternative housing system for the lactating herds of many dairy farmers in Kentucky and around the world. Past research has driven the rise in popularity largely due to the evidence that cows housed in CBP barns have improved cow comfort, heat detection, decreased lameness problems and in many studies decreased somatic cell count. However, effective management of the compost-bedding must be maintained by producers in order to successfully reap the benefits of a CBP barn. The most critical factor for managing a successful CBP barn is providing a comfortable, dry resting surface for the cows at all times.

Figure 1. Restarting compost bedding at UK Coldstream Dairy: May, 2018

Educational programs of Kentucky Cooperative Extension serve all people regardless of race, color, age, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The time of the year to start up a compost bed is extremely important and often forgotten. Producers should restart a fresh compost bed when at least the next four to six weeks of weather is expected to have highs above 50°F. This allows enough time for the bedding to begin actively composting, thus generating heat. The rate of heat production should ideally be at its peak prior to freezing temperatures. Not achieving adequate heat production through the composting process when going into winter may result in a decrease in overall heat production; in return producers have experienced increased difficulties in managing and maintaining proper bedding characteristics throughout those winter months. Many producers choose to restart their compost beds in the fall.

The key requirement for compost bed start-up is to apply 1 foot of bedding, either sawdust or dry, fine wood shavings, to the barn floor. Add enough bedding so that the mixing equipment is not able to touch the barn floor, as shown in Figure 1. Several semi-loads of bedding material (Figure 2) may be necessary and is dependent on barn size, number of cows, and the size of the pack.

Addition of Bedding Throughout the Year

Figure 2. New sawdust used for the CBP barn at UK Coldstream Dairy: May 2018

Take Home Message

Figure 3. UK Coldstream Dairy herd enjoying the freshly cleaned CBP barn; May 2018

Source: afs.ca.uky.edu

Gone are the days when a surplus heifer inventory defined a dairy’s profitability.

As a progressive dairy producer, you are acutely aware of our industry’s sensitive climate. You know that every decision you make — even those that seem simple — can weigh heavily on your dairy’s success. Grab a pen, paper and get ready to take notes. Let’s talk about the three most common misconceptions when raising heifers.

Misconception 1: Raising every heifer increases profits.

• • In our industry’s current state, raising heifers is a costly expense that must be carefully evaluated. In fact, heifer replacement costs can be the second- to third-highest expense on dairies, sometimes up to 20% of total production cost.^1,2 Take the general cost for raising a heifer from birth to springing — between $1,700 and $2,200 — and multiply that across the number of heifers you’re raising.³ Consider that it typically takes until midway through the second lactation for cows to produce enough milk to start paying their bills. Also, keep in mind that not all heifers will pan out. Some might be genetically prone to disease risks, such as mastitis, lameness or metritis, and may not survive long in the milking herd. Is raising every heifer really the most profitable plan? Additionally, consider how a surplus of heifers potentially pushes out older, higher-producing cows, ultimately decreasing milk production, lowering income, raising expenses and overall plummeting profits.

Misconception 2: Every heifer is needed to manage turnover.

• • •  Keeping every heifer as a replacement is not necessary to successfully manage herd turnover. In fact, a recent study by Zoetis and Compeer Financial showed how managing herd turnover cost to be as low as possible can drive profitability.⁴Additionally, while you need to have replacement heifers, it should not be at the expense of older milking cows. A turnover rate of lower than 35% is ideal. This will allow you to maintain a fresh source of animals with high-genetic potential while still allowing cows to reach lifetime production peaks.

Misconception 3: Culling is too random, so why even try?

• • • Thanks to new genetic technologies in our industry, you can stop guessing and more accurately identify animals most likely to survive and thrive. Using genomics, producers can avoid random culling and make more-informed decisions. Through genomic testing results, you can identify top-performing and risk-adverse heifers within your herd. Calf wellness traits from Clarifide^® Plus can help you create calves with less risk of disease. Additionally, wellness traits from Clarifide Plus  determine risk for diseases such as mastitis, metritis, lameness, ketosis, displaced abomasum and retained placenta. Having this data on hand allows you to make more accurate, strategic breeding decisions for your herd, such as sexed semen for top-genetic heifers and beef semen for bottom-genetic heifers.

By evaluating your heifer-raising strategy, you can help move the needle on your profitability.

Remember, the future of your dairy begins with the genetic potential of your herd. I encourage you to hear insights and success stories from your peers who have implemented genomics into their management programs. For additional resources, please visit CLARIFIDEPlus.com or speak with your Zoetis representative.

About Zoetis

The trial ration is competitive or even cheaper than the current diet

Feeding trials from Wisconsin dairies showed that cows produced more litres of milk per day with canola meal in their feed rations.

On-farm trials carried out at two dairies by the Canola Council of Canada and GPS Dairy Consulting, a group of independent dairy nutritionists, replaced animal protein and high-bypass soybean meal with canola meal and rumen-protected lysine.

The cows were monitored for four months — two months on a control diet and two months on the trial diet.

One dairy involved in the study milked 2,100 cows with an average of 45 kilograms of milk per cow per day. The other dairy milked 700 cows and also averaged 45 kg of milk per cow per day.

Following the trial, both dairies reported their yield weight of milk, fat and protein increased, including an increase of almost two litres per cow per day on the larger farm and an increase of 3.5 litres on the smaller farm.

The study also noted the trial ration was about the same in price or less expensive than the control diet.

“Canola contributes to cost-efficient production. We no longer have to source and store expeller soybean meal,” Gordon Speirs, manager of Shiloh Dairy, the larger dairy involved in the trial, said in a news release.

Source: Manitoba Co-Operator

The Washington State Dairy Federation is challenging rules meant to protect groundwater, saying it will delay fertilizing crops with manure.

Capital Press reports the state Department of Ecology rules impose statewide a formula that prohibits spreading manure until temperatures are above freezing for a prolonged period.

The dairy federation says the formula will work in western Washington’s milder climate but prevent fertilizing in eastern Washington’s colder climate until mid-March in some cases.

The federation says that delay will deprive crops of nutrients without any benefit to water quality.

Dairies already must follow a separate manure-management law enforced by another state agency.

An Ecology spokeswoman says her agency used the best available science and broad input to develop clear, understandable rules.

Environmental groups separately have sued over the rules, alleging deficiencies.

Source: KOMOnews

The largest two factors driving cows to the bunk are delivery of fresh feed and milking. Pushing feed up to the bunk does help, but the increase in cows at the bunk is less and for a shorter period than providing fresh feed or milking (DeVries et al., 2003, 2005). With this in mind, design a feed management schedule that corresponds to the milking schedule. Feed must be available and within reach as cows return from the parlor to the bunk. To keep feed within reach it would be best to have a bunk push-up within 90 minutes of the cows returning. This is particularly true in facilities where feed space is limited due to stocking density.

As I have spent the summer reviewing several time-lapse videos from various farms, the one thing that has come up over and over is the question of feed availability as cows return to the barn. The video would seem to show that as cows return they head to the bunk to look for feed. However, if feed is not within reach they go in search of a stall.

While it may be easier to schedule feed push-ups as a whole farm event, the truth is we manage and move animals by groups. Therefore, the push-up may or may not be timed correctly for when an individual group returns to the shelter. Adding the push-up responsibility to the person that is moving cows to the parlor and grooming stalls may be one way to ensure that feed will be within reach as the cows return.

So ask yourself, “Do my cows return to a bunk that not only has feed in it, but feed that is within reach?” and “How long does it stay within reach?” While this may seem like a small detail to feeding management, it remains true that attention to detail is what separates the high-performance herd from the average herd.

Source: extension.psu.edu

Todd Webb is a fifth-generation dairy producer, having learned the business from his father, who milked cows by hand like his father before him.

There have been many changes to the operation over the decades, and Heglar Creek Dairy is on the precipice of another — a move to robotic milking.

A couple of years ago, Webb and his partners — brothers Scott Webb and Mark Webb and longtime neighbor Mike Garner — were at a crossroads with the 2,000-cow dairy. The milking barn was showing its age, pens needed maintenance and a tight labor market was a growing issue.

“We were trying to decide where we were going with the dairy,” Todd Webb said.

It was a question of whether to expand or let the dairy run its course and eventually sell, he said.

Weighing the options led them to contact Lely, a Dutch company that manufactures automated systems for dairies worldwide. Lely is one of several companies that manufacture robotic systems for dairies.

Soon after, he and his partners jumped on a plane to look at robotic dairies in the Midwest. That experience, as well as visits to many more robotic dairies and a lot of research, convinced them.

“We decided we wanted to go into robotics,” he said.

As is the case at most U.S. dairies, labor had become a huge issue. Competition from other industries in a tight labor market made it harder to keep workers and caused wages to skyrocket. While going robotic would also raise wages, it would require fewer workers and reduce overall labor costs by 60 to 70 percent.

The savings don’t fully cover the investment in robotic milkers — but if wages go up another couple of dollars, the savings would cover it, Webb said.

“But it’s not just about reducing labor costs,” he said.

There are other reasons the partners decided to go robotic. Improved milk production, better efficiency and cow health are a few. In addition, the technology has evolved beyond its original application for smaller dairies and costs have come down, he said.

“In the last couple of years, the technology has turned the corner and we’re seeing extreme benefits in large operations,” he said.

Source: Capital Press

The high producing dairy cow is a marvelous high-octane beast who can turn feed into large amounts of nutritious milk. One downside is it often harder to get her pregnant compared to her lower producing herdmates and heifers. In this article, we will chat about how the development of the oocyte can be a factor in why high producing cows who experience negative energy balance can be harder to get pregnant.

The oocyte, also known as the ovum or egg, is the female gamete or reproductive cell found in each ovarian follicle. The life of an oocyte begins in the fetal ovary. Only a few are ovulated and most degenerate as the follicle they reside in regresses. Many that are ovulated and fertilized do not survive the early stages of development.

Most early lactation high producing cows are in negative energy balance because the demand for energy exceeds the energy the cow is able to consume. The result is body fat is mobilized to provide the extra energy. Blood concentrations of free fatty acids are elevated when cows are mobilizing body fat to support milk production. Follicular fluid is also higher in free fatty acids in this situation.

One interesting question is what happens to oocytes when the level of free fatty acids in the blood and follicular fluid are elevated. Results of recent research have shown oocytes which mature in a high free fatty acid environment are compromised and result in less robust embryos after fertilization. Less robust embryos could result in lower embryo survival and lower conception rates. One researcher has even suggested this oocyte environment may have persisting negative effects on fetal development and the newborn calf. An interesting side note is Kentucky native, Dr. Jack Britt, hypothesized way back in 1992 that follicles growing in early lactation may contain a compromised oocyte. Well done Dr. Britt!

In conclusion, we need to minimize the magnitude and duration of negative energy balance in the high producing early lactation cow. There are thousands of articles written on how to manage transition and early lactation cows to accomplish this goal, so I will not enter that discussion here.

Source: afs.ca.uky.edu

One of the key themes at this year’s National Dairy Conference was the topic of making Irish dairy farms better workplaces for employees, as labour becomes an increasingly important issue.

The conference, organised by Teagasc, covered the topic in one of six workshops which took place earlier today (Tuesday, November 27) in Cork.

With an additional 300,000 dairy cows in the country since 2010, more and more dairy farmers are now employing either full or part-time workers to manage the increased herd sizes.

Employees

At the same time, with labour availability reducing to 5.4% in 2018 with the upturn in the economy, from 15% in 2010, there is now increased competition for workers.

This has meant that attracting and retaining employees is crucial for the success of Irish dairy farmers and so it is essential Irish farms are attractive places to work, according to Teagasc.

At today’s workshop, Teagasc advisors Mark O’Sullivan and Paidi Kelly mediated a discussion on what makes dairy farms more attractive work places for employees, featuring presentations from dairy farmer and employer Diarmuid Hegarty and farm worker Cormac Desmond.

Kelly noted that employees for dairy farms want a variety of things from their work: fair reward for their efforts; a nice place to work; work they enjoy doing; a nice person to work for; and a job that fits in with their personal lives.

Hegarty explained his own situation as a dairy farmer, noting that he had one farm assistant and took on a student, either second or third level, in the spring and for relief milking later in the year. He noted that effective communication is very important for good relationships with workers.

Meanwhile, Desmond outlined his experience working for local dairy farmers both as an agricultural college student on placement and as a full-time worker.

He explained that, as a dairy employee, he appreciated good structure and organisation, as well as good routines and knowing what his schedule was – while good facilities made working that bit easier.

In a farm as a workplace, aspects earmarked as benefits included: an organised working day with set finishing times; a well-planned working day with a clear outline of jobs to be done; good facilities working well; and some responsibility, such as a specific job like looking after calves.

Farming workplace

Having a farm that is a good workplace is crucial not just for employees, but also the farm family and the farmer himself or herself, according to Teagasc guidelines.

A good farm workplace is a safe place to work, well organised, and people have the resources they need to efficiently complete all tasks.

Summing things up in the workshop, Kelly said that making farms better workplaces has a number of benefits.

As well as attracting and retaining employees, such a move will help attract the next generation and make farming more enjoyable for farmers themselves.

Source: agriland.ie