After a number of U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, audits of dairies in New Mexico and Texas last year, Dr. Ellen Jordan, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service dairy specialist in Dallas, said the industry is working to help dairies get laborers properly documented.

U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, audits of laborer paperwork on dairies has increased in New Mexico and Texas in the past few years. (Texas A&M AgriLife photo by Kay Ledbetter)

Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, AgriLife Extension agricultural law specialist in Amarillo, led an employee immigration panel discussion on “Navigating the Dairy Workforce Crisis” recently at the High Plains Dairy Conference in Amarillo.

“Immigration is an important issue for all of agriculture, but particularly for the dairy industry,” explained Lashmet. “The vast majority of dairy owners want to comply with the law when hiring employees, so ensuring they know exactly how the law works and are educated on what their rights and responsibilities are is critical.”

Jordan and Lashmet recently wrote a publication, “The Difference between an ICE Raid and an ICE Audit: Are You Prepared?” which can be downloaded from the AgriLife Bookstore at: http://bit.ly/2iEwwLc.

“What we are trying to do is identify laborers and get them employed according to U.S. regulations, with an emphasis on what should be done to make sure they have proper documentation,” Jordan said.

“Traditionally a large portion of our workforce has been immigrants,” she said. “So producers need to know the changes in immigration policy and procedures.”

Jordan said the human resources panel was designed to address not only how to deal with ICE, but how to bring new employees on board with proper training so they are effective at doing their job and integrated into the farm team.

Sarah Thomas, a lawyer with Noble and Vrapi Immigration Attorneys in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said during the panel discussion that I-9 forms are required for every employee, regardless of race or status.

She said when the subpoena for an audit or notice of inspection is served at the dairy, there are several things all employees should know and the dairy should have trained them on.

“Designate who will talk to the agents and who will sign for the subpoena,” Thomas said. “You don’t want someone who doesn’t know what is going on or the time frame they have to comply.”

She said the employer has 72 hours from the time they receive the subpoena to gather data, during which time an employer should consider consulting an attorney and thoroughly reviewing all of their I-9 documents. Once the documents are turned over, the dairy will generally receive a letter of technical violations and have 10 days to show good faith and try to comply.

“We recommend you have a uniform policy with regard to copying documents presented by an employee completing an I-9 form by either taking or not taking copies of supporting documents,” Thomas said. “What you do for one employee, do for all employees.”

If an employer has taken all documents in good faith and complied with the record-keeping rules, she said, they are not liable. But in the end, if a worker is not able to be accurately documented, their employment must be terminated as it is illegal to knowingly employ someone who is not authorized to work in the U.S.

Thomas offered some suggestions on how to prepare and respond to an ICE visit:

• Have a procedure in place and employees trained on what to do if ICE shows up at the dairy.
• Obtain a copy of any subpoena or search warrant and send it to an attorney for review.
• Do not voluntarily waive the 72-hour time period for producing I-9 documents.
• Don’t allow officers into non-public areas without a search warrant granting them such access.
• Don’t overtly share information that is not required.
• Mark areas “Employees Only.”
• Do your own audits internally to ensure I-9 documentation is in order.

Jordan said the number of on-farm employees in the dairy industry are generally figured at one for every 100 cows. So, in Texas, there’s an estimated workforce of 4,000, she said, and that doesn’t include the allied industries, such as veterinarians, technicians, nutritionists, milk truck haulers and others.

She said the labor force on dairies is continually changing, which equates to constant processing of paperwork.

While Jordan said the pay is good and that is what attracts the workers, it is physical labor and that can sometimes be the reason for the revolving door.

“The work is outdoors, and workers have to adjust and decide if they want to do that,” she said. “Many new employees start in the milking parlor and that is repetitive work. Also many workers have not done farm work at all, so they have to decide if that is a culture they want to be involved in.”

Also, if the owners and managers are able to engage the workers and help them learn their position to become a team member, it is more effective, Jordan said.

“Communication and building trust are key points of workforce management,” she said. “Most of our workers are coming without skills and those skills need to be developed on the farm. We need effective training so the workers are comfortable at their job and want to stay.”

Source: animalscience.tamu.edu

Knowing the total solids content of milk replacer fed to calves is critically important, yet few producers or calf managers know their total solids content or how to calculate it.

Total solids content of a milk replacer mix is how “strong” you mix it up. Every farm does it a little different and it is rare to find someone following the directions on the milk replacer bag. Total solids greater than ~17-18 percent presents a risk of disrupting normal cell balance inducing scours in calves. When total solids are too low, calves will be hungry and not consuming enough calories to grow, maintain body temperature, and support the immune system.

Saleable whole milk is about 12.5 percent total solids. Waste milk can vary greatly but is often 11-15 percent solids. My preference is to use a milk replacer concentration of 12-15 percent total solids, and achieve this with specific volume, feeding frequency and average daily gain (ADG) goals for the farm. As total solids increase, the risk of scours increases. Therefore it is imperative that calves have access to clean, fresh water to self-regulate cell osmotic balance and that milk replacer mixing is very consistent.

The formula to calculate total solids is:

 Percent Total Solids = pounds of powder/ pounds of total solution

In order to calculate total solids, we must know the weight of the powder, not volume, so use a scale. To get to the pounds of total solution, we know that milk is 8.6 lbs. / gallon so we can multiply the volume by 8.6 lb. / gallon to get a final weight.

It is all in the details

It is important to use the final volume to calculate total solids, not the amount of water added. This detail often gets missed and leads to mixing and calculation errors. The correct way to mix milk replacer is to start with water, add the powder and then add enough water to bring up to total volume.

Example 1: The directions say: Feed each calf 12 oz. (0.75lb) of milk replacer in a volume of three quarts (0.75 gallons) total solution twice daily. The calculation is:

0.75 lb. powder/ (0.75 gallon * 8.6 lb. / gallon) = 11.63 percent total solids

Example 2:

If the directions are not correctly followed and three quarts (0.75 gallons) of water are added to 12 oz. (0.75 lb.) of powder, the powder displaces the water for a total volume of 0.86 gallons. When feeding three quarts of this mix, the calf will receive less than the desired 0.75 lb. powder. The calculation is:

0.75 lb. powder / (0.86 gal * 8.6 lb. / gallon) = 10.1 percent total solids

How many pounds is she consuming?

For our previous two examples, let’s figure out how many pounds of milk replacer powder each calf is consuming, assuming that milk replacer powder is mixed into a batch and three quarts twice a day is measured out to each calf.

Example 1:  11.63 percent total solids * (0.75 gallon* 8.6 lb. / gallon) * 2x/day = 1.5 lb. powder per day

Example 2:  10.1 percent total solids * (0.75 gallon* 8.6 lb. / gallon) * 2x/day = 1.3 lb. powder per day

The difference between these two ways of mixing could be the difference of a calf gaining weight or not, or fighting off disease versus succumbing to it. Before calves are consuming a measurable amount of starter, all of their calories are coming from milk, so it is imperative that we get it right.

Check consistency

Calves grow better when their diet is consistent. A big advantage to feeding milk replacer over waste milk is the consistency of the diet. Refractometers can be used with whole milk to determine total solids, however it is not accurate for milk replacer. A refractometer is very useful for checking consistency in milk replacer mixing. Michigan State University Extension recommends no more than one percent variation day to day in mixing and during feed-out (from the beginning of feeding to the end). If variation is greater than one percent within a feeding, that indicates that the solids are settling. Ensure that proper water temperature is being used, mixing time is long enough to get all product in suspension and the mixed product is not sitting too long before feeding.

Summary

Just knowing that calves are being fed three quarts of milk replacer twice a day is not enough information. In order to understand a calf feeding program, we need to know the pounds of milk replacer powder fed, which is based on volume, frequency and total solids of the liquid fed.

If your calves are not meeting the goals you have set, do the calculations and talk to your vet, nutritionist, or Extension Educators about how to meet your goals.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. For more information, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu. To have a digest of information delivered straight to your email inbox, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu/newsletters. To contact an expert in your area, visit http://expert.msue.msu.edu, or call 888-MSUE4MI (888-678-3464).

Legend has it there’s a barn full of cows in Pennsylvania which refuse to eat anything but bubblegum-flavored nutritional pellets.

“Cows are weird,” said Russ Klein, a fourth-generation dairy farmer at Silver Meadows, a 750-acre operation located on the western shores of Silver Lake. “They get onto something they like and that’s what they demand.”

Since the installation of his farm’s robotic system at the tail-end of 2014, he’s discovered that his own cows — approximately 200 of them — seem to prefer orange citrus to that quintessential strawberry-banana punch combo (according to experts, that’s a precise breakdown of what you’re tasting when you bite into a wad of gooey, sticky, pink bubblegum). With the cows now on their own milking schedules thanks to implementation of advanced DeLaval milking technology, Klein said they begin to develop individual routines and a heightened curiosity. In other words, their personalities, including their flavor preferences, really start to shine through.

“I think you see the character start to come out in these cows a little bit more,” Klein said of how the barn environment has changed since his two robots entered into service just over two years ago. “Now when you’re in the pen, you’re not there to move the cows to the milking parlor, so they get used to you and their personalities start to come out.”

And so while some public entities have suggested that robotic milking systems are impersonal and make for unpleasant milking situations for cows, in Klein’s experience, he said, “it’s just the opposite.”

“You really are letting the cows dictate what they want during the day and you’re not dictating a schedule for them,” Klein said. “I don’t think either way is wrong, but this barn is extremely calm, quiet and cow-friendly. You really can adapt the robots to any situation.”

It’s also safe to say that the cows prefer robotic milking to hand milking “hands down,” Klein said, especially when they get to chow down on the orange-flavored pellets during a session.

The process, it seems, is simultaneously simple and complex.

“The cows in the pen are free to choose when they want to come in and milk,” Klein said. “They’ll come in if it’s time to be milked, and each cow has an individual setting as to how often she can be milked. If it’s time to milk her, the machine will read her electronic ear tag and proceed with the milking process.”

If it’s not, the machine lets her go and sends her back to the group until she visits again — no harm done.

Most cows in the barn are allowed to be milked every 5.5 hours on average, Klein said, depending on the cow’s milk production, her age and her stage of lactation, among other things. Collectively, they produce about 27,000 pounds of milk every other day.

Sometimes the computer sends out a kind of warning — every day, about two or three cows don’t come up to the milking station within a 12-hour window, and then Klein, his parents or one of the other longtime farm workers have to herd them into the fetch bin.

“They’ll show up on a list and we’ll bring them in here, where the only way out of here is to go through the robot,” Klein said. And that’s just for the cow’s health and safety, really — cows should be milked at least twice a day.

“Other than that, cows are on their own milking schedules,” Klein said. “They’re fed a grain supplement in here (that’s the flavored pellet) and it’s kind of like a candy bar for the cows.”

While it may be a treat to eat, it serves a dual purpose — balancing each cow’s diet with the necessary amount of grain and mixture of nutrients needed to keep her healthy.

Don’t let the process, fool you, though, Klein warned — there’s still plenty of work to do on the farm.

Though the robotics system provides better comfort for the cows and frees up some time that the farmers can devote to other chores, only 100 cows, selected based on their health and a variety of other factors that suggest they don’t need as much hands-on attention, live in the free-flow pens of the robotics barn. The other hundred are still milked by hand back at the old milking parlor, where legacy practices take precedence.

And, of course, there’s plenty of other manual labor to go around no matter what barn you’re in. Twice a day, workers hand-scrape the stalls and alleys in the new barn — it’s more often than that in the milking parlor — feed the cows out of the bunk and do whatever else needs doing, like equipment repairs and crop management.

And things at Silver Meadows weren’t always so advanced, either. Klein’s grandfather and great-grandfather purchased the property in 1954, when cows were milked in a tie-stall barn. That was, and still is, the primary type of dairy cattle housing, but some fault it for its contributions to lameness, swollen hocks and neck lesions in cows.

Growing up, Klein said he never imagined milking technology would be where it is today.

“No, I was just having fun running around,” Klein said. “The first robot I saw, I think, was in 2003. They put a unit in down in Belfast, and I saw that and I was just amazed at what you could do.”

Soon after, he went off to college, where his interests heightened.

“Robotics started to get a little bit more popular in the United States,” Klein explained. “More people put them in and they started working better and better. It took me just shy of 10 years to convince mom and dad we ought to bite the bullet and put a system in.”

The farm decided to install the system after participating in the Cornell PRO-DAIRY Dairy Acceleration Program. The PRO-DAIRY team and cooperative extension experts work with farmers to analyze their businesses and help them develop specific business plans, and the Dairy Acceleration Program has assisted hundreds of farms statewide on a range of issues. In this instance, their focus was on determining from the financial analysis whether it was feasible for Silver Meadows.

“Using PRO-DAIRY and the Dairy Acceleration Program allowed us, before we got started, to get comfortable with our financial numbers,” Klein said. “It was a huge leap for us and I think with doing budget analysis and looking at the numbers and being sure that we were going to be OK, we weren’t going to go bankrupt, it allowed us to see, ‘All right, this is going to be a positive investment for us.”

The PRO-DAIRY program paid for some of the logistics of the new barn design, some engineering costs and some financial analysis, as well as environmental impact studies, Klein said.

“It just brought everything up to date and you kind of dotted your ‘i’s and crossed your ‘t’s with the whole project,” he said. “We did some of the things you maybe would have cut corners with when the program wasn’t available.”

The project was 100 percent financed by Farm Credit East, something Klein said has “been quite a challenge” given the current state of milk prices.

“Since we’ve built the barn and put the robots in, we have not seen a favorable milk price,” Klein said. “I remember doing all of our cost analysis with PRO-DAIRY, where we worked with a five-year average milk price. Since we built the barn, we haven’t seen that milk price, so a little bit of a challenge there.”

But according to Ben Rand, manager of PR and media relations at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, it’s a move that will likely help Klein to stay afloat.

“Such an investment is kind of unique given the size of Silver Meadows,” Rand said. “The robotic system … is a more efficient way of milking. I think this is an interesting story due to the challenges facing dairy farmers from lower prices — an example of a farm looking ahead and changing with the times to stay ahead of changing market dynamics.”

Silver Meadows is among just a small number of dairies nationwide to hop on the new tech train — according to Bloomberg, less than 5 percent of dairy farms nationwide have robotics systems — and so even though the economic market has proved challenging, Klein said he’s glad to have made the move.

“We’ve been able to make payments, we haven’t slipped behind,” he said. “I guess even though we’re in a pretty low turn, we’ve been able to cash-flow things. It’s not fun, but at least we’re getting by.”

And, if anything, at least he knows now that his cows like the taste of oranges.

Source: The Daily News

The genetic fingerprint of feed conversion and global sustainability

Livestock genetics leader and innovator STgenetics^® has launched a new index that will ultimately predict a cow’s productive life and profitability from the time she is born until she leaves a herd.

EcoFeed™ is built around feed efficiency, which is a moderately inheritable trait. Feed costs can represent up to 60 percent of a dairy farm’s operational costs. Breeding for animals that produce the same amount or more milk than their peers on less feed can lower feed costs by an average 24 cents per day per animal, which translates to saving about $87,600 per year for a 1,000 head herd.

The EcoFeed™ index is an integrated approach to genetic selection developed by STgenetics® to help producers create their next generation breeding females. The program encompasses environmental, metabolic and genomic factors affecting dairy cattle profitability from birth until the cow leaves the farm.

EcoFeed™ comprises more than simple feed efficiency. It is a continuously growing database that monitors the animal’s growth, milk production, fertility and it’s impact on the environment through the amounts of manure, methane and carbon dioxide it produces. Feed efficient animals use fewer feed resources and convert feed more efficiently, creating less waste, manure, methane and CO2 per unit of production, which in turn helps make dairying a sustainable and environmentally friendly industry.

To qualify as an EcoFeed™ sire, a bull’s progeny must be genetically tested and complete feed efficiency testing. EcoFeed™ rankings are based on a 100 base system where every five points equals one pound less feed the bull’s progeny can be expected to consume each day while producing as much or more milk than its peers. For example, the progeny of a bull with a 110 EcoFeed™ score can be expected to eat two pounds less feed per day than the progeny of a bull with a 100 EcoFeed™ score.

click here for listing of  EcoFeed™ designated sires

For more information about EcoFeed™ and qualifying bulls, talk with your local STgenetics® representative or contact the company’s Dairy Call Center at (844) 828-7849 or Dairy@STgen.com. International customers can call (920) 921-5850 or email CS@STgen.com.

Many dairy farmers have followed a tradition of making contracts informally – perhaps orally and with a handshake, or in the case of a milk contract it may have been a one-pager signed on the hood of the field man’s pickup truck. But one experienced attorney is advising farmers to take a close look and see how that contract may affect them. And they should get it in writing.

“In many cases the contracts have been vague and both parties have liked the flexibility they had to get out of the arrangement,” says Troy Schneider, an attorney with Twohig, Rietbrock, Schneider and Halbach, S.C. in Chilton. With low prices and the marketplace awash in milk, he is advising dairy producers to be aware of how contracts may affect their businesses.

Last year’s move by Grassland, which caused 50 producers to lose their milk markets and similar action taken recently by Dean Foods, highlights the importance to farmers of having a contract in place so they know they have a market for their milk. Wisconsin has always been a marketplace where there were ample buyers for all of state farmers’ milk, but that has changed with current supply and demand conditions.

Schneider was a featured speaker at the Professional Dairy Producers of Wisconsin (PDPW) annual business conference in Madison, March 14 – 15. His personal observation is that all processors are currently trying to limit the amount of milk they purchase. Even farmers who are patron/members of a cooperative, and as such are “owners,” do not have any greater protection in this area of contract law, he said.

Most milk plants today use written contracts with the farmers who supply their milk, he said, and contracts that span two or three paragraphs are generally okay. If those contracts run for several pages, he adds, they are “probably skewing toward the processor, because quite frankly they wrote it. This really has been the Wild West of contract law.”

When he looks at various milk procurement contracts there’s “very little in them, it’s shocking,” he said. Because of what has happened to dairy farmers who lost their milk market, most farmers are looking at their milk contracts differently. Farmers and their lenders are demanding more detailed contracts.

Contracts have been skewed toward the milk buyer rather than the farmer and include vague language like “standards we adopt from time to time.” Schneider said more attention has to be paid to what contracts say.

No ‘Silver Bullet’

While there is no “silver bullet” he urged farmers to be careful that the contract isn’t “watered down” with “escape clauses” for the processor.

In many cases a lender may want a dairy farmer to have a contract in place, especially if money is being loaned for a farm expansion; in those cases the contract should include a reasonable term during which the processor will take the farm’s milk — from six months to a year.

A milk supply contract, he explained, is an “open quantity” contract because a specific quantity of milk to be sold and purchased is not specified. These contracts are governed by case law and precedents that have been previously set by courts and also by statutes and regulations.

Milk contracts are also affected by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a set of binding guidelines that has been in place for decades. Schneider said Article 2 of the UCC was adopted as Wisconsin law and governs these contracts between milk buyers and milk producers.

In an “open quantity” contract, in line with Wisconsin law, a change in either output or requirement may be made if it is in “good faith” however, in such “open quantity” contracts, no changes in either output or requirement can be made if it is “substantially disproportionate” from a stated estimate.

“You can see how important it may be to include an estimate,” he said.

He also urged farmers to beware of contract clauses that limit damages (payments to the injured party) in case the contract is broken. A clause stating “liquidated damages” usually works to the advantage of the milk plant and farmers should try to get them eliminated from the contract, he said.

A typical milk supply contract is most likely to be an output contract in which the dairy farmer agrees to sell the entire farm’s production to the milk plant, who in turn agrees to purchase the entire output. However the milk plant may try to include provisions that allow it to become the “quantity determining” party” and may seek contract language that allow it to adjust its intake of milk according to fluctuations in the markets.

Constant demand for milk

Farmers need to make sure the contracts they enter into will assure a constant demand for their milk. In negotiating these contracts, Schneider urged farmers to assure that their contracts do the following:

• Include an estimate of milk to be purchased so that the milk plant does not have the ability to drastically vary or eliminate the amount of milk purchased;
• Address issues of non-performance by the parties;
• Delineate standards, requirements and specifications and avoid vague clauses like “from time to time adopted by the purchaser”;
• Provide adequate notice periods and rights and address remedies for breaching the contract;
• Address what will happen if milk output is increased due to expansion or purchase of another dairy operation.

Having said of all that, Schneider admitted that now is a “very difficult time to add details” to a contract and noted that the farmer is negotiating the contract from a position of weakness since there is so much milk in the market. “Now the scale is tipped toward the milk processor.”

At some point that power may return to farmers, but it if doesn’t he suggested that maybe lawmakers will have to fix the situation with new statutes. “That may be something that gets looked at.”

For now, he advised farmers to “be diplomatic if there are things in the contract you don’t like unless you have a Plan B in place.” That is, unless you have another place to market the milk. “This is a unique circumstance,” he said. “The buyers for your product are just not there.”

And since milk is a perishable product, unlike corn, it must be marketed on a regular basis.

This will leave a mark

Schneider commented that the 1980s put a lot of bad memories in farmers’ and lenders’ minds and these times in the dairy industry will put the issue of contract law firmly in dairy farmers’ heads and hearts.

“Farmers are looking at contracts a lot more carefully. When times get better farmers will continue to pay more attention to these contracts and so will their lenders and business partners,” he said. “They will demand more detailed contracts.”

Source: Wisconsin State Farmer

Double-cropping winter annuals after corn silage harvest is increasing in popularity among dairy farmers who have found that it provides numerous benefits, including increased per-acre forage production, reduced feeding costs, better cycling of manure nutrients and improvements in the farm’s overall bottom line.

Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences’ research and extension personnel, along with farmers and farm advisors, will share some of what they have learned from incorporating winter annual forages into a dairy production system during a full-day conference on Wednesday, March 28, from 9:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., at the Good Shepherd Catholic Church, 867 Grays Woods Boulevard, Port Matilda.

The conference will highlight the experiences of many dairy farmers who are learning and continuing to learn about making use of winter annual forages, which are planted after corn silage harvest, and harvested in the spring prior to rotating fields back to corn production.

Jonathan Binder, Eric Ranck, and Heather Karsten of Penn State will summarize some recently collected agronomic and dairy-feeding data for winter annuals from on-farm research trials. Dairy farmer Gordon England, of Blair County, and dairy farmer/nutrient management consultant Dean Patches, of Lebanon County, will share their on-farm experiences when winter annuals are double-cropped with corn silage.

Noah Hughes, a dairy nutritionist with Cargill, will relate his experiences from working with dairymen who feed winter annuals. Finally, Lancaster dairyman Lamar Stoner and Penn State Extension educator Timothy Beck will conclude the event by sharing some of the financial outcomes possible when dairies include these double-crops in their systems.

More program and conference registration details can be found online at https://extension.psu.edu/double-cropping or by calling 1-877-489-1398 or emailing Ron Hoover at rjh7@psu.edu.

Manure can be used to produce biogas, electricity and fertiliser. In the process, you will recycle nutrients and increase profits while reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions

Approximately 10% of cow dung and urine is deposited in the dairy yard and lanes daily.

This figure is lower in an extensive operation, because more is deposited on the pasture.

In an intensive system, the percentage will tend to be higher than 10%. Here, manure and slurry are usually flushed into a pond, where a natural crust forms, partially sealing the pond and further encouraging anaerobic fermentation. After the slurry has matured, it can be used to fertilise pasture camps via a spreader. This is an effective re-use of nutrients, especially phosphorus.

Biogas: clean power on tap when you need it
A portion of the nutrients (mostly nitrogen, carbon and sulphur) escapes as ‘biogas’, which contributes to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

The good news, though, is that a dairy can use biogas directly as fuel or to generate power for lights, machinery or ovens.

Biogas, which is free of pathogens and odour, is produced by the natural fermentation of organic material in the absence of oxygen. The process, called anaerobic bacterial fermentation, breaks down 40% to 65% of the organic raw material.

Hay and grain silage, and vegetable, agricultural and kitchen waste are also suitable for biogas production.

After the biogas has been extracted, the remaining fermented raw materials (digestate) can be used as fertiliser or sold.

Heat produced during the fermentation process can also be captured in coolant fluid, and used for heating greenhouses and domestic buildings via a piped, circulating system.

Do your homework
If you are considering installing an anaerobic digester system on your dairy farm, you will need to calculate the trade-off between the savings on input costs and the expense of infrastructure such as a manure spreader or a biogas plant.

It is also important to decide whether you would prefer a ‘hot’ or ‘cool’ system, as this will affect the bacterial population, biogas yield and efficiency. A hot system is higher-yielding, but more expensive to maintain, and there is a greater risk of ammonia release at higher temperature.

Ammonia inhibits the growth of biogas-producing bacteria. In a dairy farm that uses slurry, the ammonia concentration must be kept below 80mg/ℓ to reduce ammonia inhibition of bacteria.

Source: Hawkins HJ, Stanway R:The Sustainable Dairy Handbook, Nestlé Printers, Bryanston, SA.

Four keys to calf health success

Raising new calves is an exciting, fun adventure. By ensuring a great start in the first weeks, you’ll help set the stage for growth and performance.

Livestock manure contains beneficial soil-building ingredients and plant nutrients, but they could be wasted if the manure spreader isn’t calibrated correctly.

“Whether you are spreading the manure yourself or having a North Dakota custom manure hauler do the job for you, calibrating the spreader should be a top priority,” says Mary Berg, the North Dakota State University Extension Service’s area livestock environmental management specialist at the Carrington Research Extension Center.

“These valuable nutrients may be wasted by overapplication or crop yield goals may not be met due to underapplication because of a lack of spreader calibration,” she adds. “Manure is money, so let’s not waste it.”

One calibration option is called the sheet method. This method works well for solid manure applications, Berg says.

Here are materials you’ll need:

• Tarps/sheets (at least three) of a known area (3 feet by 7 feet 4 inches, for example). Landscaping fabric works well because applied manure will not slide off as easily as it will on a plastic sheet.
• 5-gallon bucket
• Scale

Procedure:

• Weigh the bucket and a sheet.
• Lay the sheets in a row and anchor them with a few rocks or stakes.
• Start the tractor and turn on the spreader. Allow time for the spreader to start spreading.
• Record your tractor gear, engine’s revolutions per minute and spreader settings.
• Drive over the sheets, applying manure on them.
• Retrieve the manure-covered sheets and weigh them in the bucket. Subtract the weight of the bucket and sheets.
• If you’re using a sheet measuring 21.8 square feet (3 feet by 7 feet 4 inches or 4 feet by 5 feet 6 inches, for example), then the weight in pounds of manure on the sheet is equal to tons per acre.

The application rate is: Rate (tons/acre) = (pounds of manure on sheet x 21.8) ÷ sheet area (square feet).

Visit http://tinyurl.com/ManureSpreaderCalibration-NDSU for more information on calibration methods.

To find a North Dakota custom manure hauler, visit https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/lem, NDSU’s livestock environmental management website.

Tighter and likely negative margins on many dairy farms now and for much of 2018 make it even more critical for dairy producers to focus their management skills on making sure that their herd management is “being all that it can be.” In a previous paper we outlined “Ten Low Investment, High Return Management Opportunities on Dairy Farms.” This paper gives added focus to this material and adds other key points for discussion and evaluation within individual dairy farms.

1) Maximize milk component production
Top-tier herds in the monthly Dairy Profit Monitor benchmarking program are producing a combined total of 6.5 lbs/day per cow or more of fat and true protein, with a solid goal across herds of greater than 6.0 lbs/day per cow. Although the major driver of fat and protein yield is overall milk yield, component percentages are also important. In general, herd-level milk fat percentage below 3.7% and true protein percentage under 3.0% in Holstein herds suggest opportunities for improvement. Motivation to seek this improvement needs to be based on the current value of milk fat and protein – the value of milk fat has been and likely will continue to be an important driver of the milk check. Low milk fat suggests passage from the rumen of unique unsaturated fatty acids that directly inhibit milk fat synthesis and that there is opportunity either in ration formulation (unsaturated fats, carbohydrate balance, forage quality issues) or in ration implementation (dry matters, amounts fed, sorting, etc.). In the case of milk protein, levels below 3.0% suggest that rumen fermentation and microbial protein synthesis is not being maximized, or there are opportunities to improve amino acid balance by use of blended proteins or protected amino acids. The general timeline for the impact of ration changes on milk components is 10 to 14 days after implementation of the change.

2) Relentlessly seek marginal milk opportunities

Generally, the highest profit margin production is that from marginal (incremental) increases in milk production. This can be accomplished by herd-level management strategies such as changing milking frequency (e.g., 2X to 3X or 4X/2X milking), shortening dry period length on higher producing cows down to 40 days dry, capturing feed efficiency through use of compounds such as Rumensin, or improving cow comfort. Several years ago, we completed a field study to evaluate production responses to 4X milking during the first three to four weeks post-calving followed by 2X milking thereafter. Although responses varied among farms and by lactation group within a farm, all farms had positive production responses for cows milked 4X/2X and the average response was approximately 3.5 lbs of component-corrected milk yield across the first 7 monthly test days. The overall increase in labor/milking capacity for a 2X herd to actualize 4X/2X is only about 7% compared to 30% for whole-herd 3X. With any of these changes, it is important to look at not only the expected increases in production, but also the changes in input costs to determine what the actual profit may be.

3) Don’t lose fresh cows
The best dairies that we encounter maintain fresh cow loss in the first 60 days in milk at or below 5% of calvings, without keeping low producing fresh cows simply to keep this number lower. In a recent data set of 72 herds in New York and Vermont, about 25% of the herds had 9 to 13% of fresh cows leaving in the first 60 DIM. Furthermore, within first calf heifers this rate averaged about 6%; alarmingly, the highest 25% of herds had between 7 and 11% of first calf heifers leaving in the first 60 DIM. This represents a large economic loss to these dairies. Frequently, these losses are contributed to by overcrowding either before or after calving, frequent group changes before or after calving, or competition issues between springing heifers and older cows. In another recent data set from our group, cows in herds with less than 28 inches of bunk space pre-fresh had 40% greater risk of leaving the herd in the first 30 DIM. Ration formulation issues are relatively rare, but ration implementation issues (long chop length of dry forages in dry/pre-fresh TMR leading to sorting, inaccurate weighing of ingredients, not accounting for dry matter changes) are common. Farms with high quality forages typically will need to obtain low energy forages for far-off dry cow rations because high energy intake far-off can lead to more fresh cow health disorders and increased fresh cow loss. If overall management practices and grouping are in line, there is little added value from routine drenching/pumping practices.

4) Identify and potentially cull low value and low profit cows
Identify those low producing cows who are not generating enough revenue to cover variable feed and labor expenses and use routines such as COWVAL in DairyComp 305 (either on-farm or run by a DairyOne technician at a monthly herd visit) to identify those lower value cows in the herd for either removal, dry off, or replacement. In overstocked pens, removal of low profit cows may result in little to no change in overall milk yield because of better overall performance of the remaining cows. If barns are understocked, how can culling be controlled or heifer rearing be improved to ensure that facilities are being used at optimal capacity. It is important to analyze each individual herd situation, perhaps in conjunction with your agriservice professionals (consultants, extension, veterinarian, nutritionist) because the opportunity can vary widely from herd to herd.

5) Ensure that all management protocols are still appropriate, are working and are being followed

Protocol drift in many areas of dairy herd management (an incomplete list includes milking routines, calving and colostrum management, reproductive program implementation, and feeding management) is more common then desired. This can easily lead to drag in milk yield, higher SCC, poorer conception rate, increased morbidity and mortality in calves, lower feed efficiency and poorer rumen health among other issues. Are you losing out on milk quality premiums because of milking routine/facility issues or a few high SCC cows that are elevating the entire tank? Spending time and money on protocols that are no longer appropriate or needed on the farm adds unnecessary expenses to the farm. Take the opportunity to review protocols with employees and provide feedback to ensure that these protocols are getting the response and return that you expect. Also take time to review protocols with key agriservice personnel and farm employees to determine if they are still needed and providing positive returns, or if there are changes that can be made.

6) Don’t incur excess heifer rearing costs: raising animals longer than necessary or raising too many
Despite years of research and herd experience that suggests that herds can grow heifers well and calve them at 21 to 22 months of age, many herds still average 24 to 26 months age or higher at first calving. This can incur substantial additional cost both in terms of feed requirements and facility/labor to support additional heifer inventory. If raising more heifers than necessary, what is the ability for the farm to recoup the investment in the animal? An Excel spreadsheet calculator for evaluation of the heifer enterprise is available at the PRO-DAIRY website. Of course, quality of heifers also counts. In our recent study, lactational milk yield of first lactation animals averaged between 75 and 80% of mature cows in 25% of the herds studied – the goal is 82 to 85% of mature cows. Furthermore, cull and death rates of first lactation animals varied widely. Herds averaged about 19% cull and death rate in first lactation animals – the highest 25% of herds ranged from 25 to 37% and the lowest 25% of herds ranged from 5 to 15%. If poor heifer quality is driving high turnover of first lactation animals, this can be a large economic loss that can go unrealized on many farms.

7) Get the most out of your reproduction program
Many dairies are consistently achieving pregnancy rates of 26% or higher. Comparing this to what used to be considered a good goal of 20% a few years ago, there is significant revenue to be gained. Even at current milk prices, a 500 cow dairy stands to gain $42,000/yr if they can improve from 20% to 26%. Of course any additional expenses needed to make improvements in the breeding program must be deducted from this dollar figure. Evaluate all aspects of your reproduction program and take advantage of the advancements our industry has made in this area to improve.

8) Optimize neonatal management
Opportunities exist on many dairies to decrease stillborn (DOA) rates and decrease morbidity and mortality in calves through the milk-fed phase and weaning. Our best dairies consistently maintain dead-on-arrival (DOA) rates in female calves at around 4 to 5% of calvings. However, a number of dairies have DOA rates of 8 to 10% or more, especially in first calf heifers. Intensively managing the calving process for a “just-in-time” move from a close-up group to a calving area usually decreases DOA rates (and also decreases overall fresh cow problems). More calves born alive provides more calves that either eventually enter the herd or can be sold to improve cash flow.

Once born alive, studies suggest that calf mortality rates average 8% and morbidity averages about 30%. In our recent study, the best 25% of dairies averaged less than 2% death and cull rate in the first 3 months of life. Excellent colostrum management, 4 quarts of quality colostrum (> 45 to 50 mg/ml of IgG; < 100,000 CFU/ml of bacteria), within 4 hours of birth for Holsteins, is critical to ensure that calves have sufficient passive transfer of immunity and nutrition immediately after birth. Calves should be fed to double their birth weight by 56 days of life, which is higher than traditional feeding recommendations – this plane of nutrition both enhances the efficiency of lean gain and provides nutrients to allow the immune system to function, thereby decreasing veterinary and medicine costs for the calf program.

9) Strategically identify ration opportunities
Opportunities exist both in terms of using accurate forage analyses to enable tighter ration formulation and more sophisticated forage analyses (e.g., fiber digestibilities) integrated with nutritional models to optimize use of homegrown forage within dairy rations. If forage is of high quality and inventory is adequate, is it being utilized to its potential? Likewise, if high quality forage is not available, are there other ration adjustments that can be made to optimize milk yield? Recent work has suggested that there are opportunities to strategically decrease protein feeding levels and maintain high milk and milk component yield. This strategy has focused primarily on decreasing rumen degradable protein supply to about 8 to 9% of diet dry matter and using high quality undegradable protein sources and amino acids to ensure adequate metabolizable protein supply. Economics likely will make this approach more attractive in high corn silage based diets when haylage inventory is limited. Research consistently indicates that there is no productive or reproductive reason to exceed approximately 0.40% phosphorus for fresh cows, and 0.35% phosphorus for cows at other stages of lactation. Ration levels of 0.35% phosphorus are typically achieved using only basal feed ingredients, and no added phosphorus from mineral sources. Although it is tempting to remove nutrients or feed additives from the ration to lower cost, be careful that you are not hurting subsequent returns by doing so. It is reasonable to carefully review with your nutritionist what is going into rations and ensure that you are making solid decisions. When making changes to the overall ration program, it is important to measure and track net milk income over feed costs to ensure that the changes you are making are providing the results that you are looking for. More information on this topic can be found in the companion paper Feeding Strategies During Challenging Times authored by Tom Overton and Larry Chase.

10)Maximize your feeding management program
The feeding management program can result in hidden losses in feeding programs. Opportunities range from decreasing shrink at the silo by better face management in bunks and bags to accurate and frequent (at least weekly) assessment of silage dry matters to ensure more consistent delivery of diets to cows. This is another area in which protocol drift both within a feeder and across multiple feeders has occurred, which can change particle size and consistency of diets, and contributes to inconsistent intakes and lower efficiency of use of rations. This protocol drift may also impact other costs on the farm, such as labor, fuel, maintenance and repairs.

Source: CORNELL UNIVERSITY

Metritis is a common fresh cow disease that strikes early lactation females, usually within the first 10 days after calving. Incidence rates of metritis and subclinical endometritis range from 10% to 30% in herds.¹ Even more worrisome, this reproductive challenge can be hard to prevent and difficult to properly treat. And when left untreated, it can be extremely costly to your dairy and overall cow health.

Metritis has real economic consequences. Each case can cost between $304 and $354, represented by the following costs:²

• Culling within the first 60 days in milk: $71
• Milk production reduction: $77
• Fertility and reproductive performance problems: $98
• Treatment and associated milk withdrawal: $58 to $108

Along with reducing profitability, metritis decreases performance in many ways.  

• Risk of culling increases by 5.3% during the first 60 days of lactation²
• Depression in fertility, an increase of 18 days open²
• Reduced milk production, an average of 4.9 pounds per day less milk production in the first 120 days post-calving³

With proper management, these costly consequences can be minimized. An effective management plan includes:

• Good nutrition
• Careful monitoring
• Proper diagnosis
• Early intervention
• Effective treatment

To develop a plan to minimize the effects of Metritis on your dairy and for an effective treatment,, work with your veterinarian to establish an on-label treatment regimen as early as possible. EXCEDE^® (cefiofur crystalline free acid) Sterile Suspension or EXCENEL^® RTU EZ (ceftiofur hydrochloride) Sterile Suspension are the only on-label treatments for metritis backed by the Residue Free Guarantee.* Closely monitoring cows for early symptoms and diagnosis of metritis are keys to any fresh cow program. Finally, completing a full antibiotic treatment as recommended by your veterinarian, even if the cow looks healthier, is important to ensure full recovery and minimize risk of relapse.

Source: dairywellness.com

Significant advances in dry cow nutrition have been made in the last 20 years. Most recently, interest has shifted to the protein needs of transition cows. Advancements in the models for ration balancing have made it possible to estimate the metabolizable protein (MP) supply and needs of dry cows, while the use of crude protein still remains important. This gives nutritionists the opportunity to formulate diets for dry cows based on metabolizable protein and amino acids.

• Retained placenta
• Metritis
• Poor colostrum quality
• Poor production and reproductive performance

To maximize colostrum quality, the dry cow diet should supply adequate metabolizable protein while also controlling energy.

• One group dry cows, 110 to 120 percent of ME requirements
• 1,200 grams per day of MP

• 110 to 120 percent of ME requirements
• 1,000 grams per day of MP

Research could eliminate need for hormone protocols

They might not move very fast, but PhD students at the UBC Dairy Education and Research Centre say dairy cows reap huge fertility benefits from physical activity, and tracking their movements could change the way farmers approach breeding their herds.

Tracey Burnett is in the fourth year of her PhD studies, but came to the centre in 2009 as a herd hand during her undergraduate degree. The UBC student has been focusing on using automated activity monitors to measure dairy cows’ estrus-expression, or displays of fertility behaviour.

When the cows are about to ovulate, or “come into heat,” they have huge behavioural changes, Burnett said.

“They start walking a lot, mounting other cows… These monitors – similar to a FitBit – measure how much they usually move and compare it to previous days,” she said.

“When [the cow is] in heat, it will increase a lot. There will be an alert for the farmers and then they know when to inseminate the cows.”

Not only can a cow’s activity level indicate ovulation, but student research has shown that the more the cows move, the more fertile they become.

Now, using movement-tracking monitors, farmers can be more selective about which cows they breed, decreasing the risk of an embryo loss.

“Right now we’re super focused on asking ‘Why?’ ” Burnett said. “Why is there even this connection? But in the future, we’ve been talking about ways that we can get them to move around more – maybe having more solid surfaces for the floors [or] allowing them to go outside.”

PhD student Augusto Madureira’s research has many of the same goals as Burnett’s.

The Brazilian student has been studying factors affecting increased activity in the cows and looks at a specific protein associated with gestation to figure out just how that physical activity impacts embryo quality.

“A few studies we did in Brazil showed that you can predict pregnancy loss,” he said. “We [are] trying to see how, when the [cows’] physical activity changes, how it impacts those proteins. Animals that have high increases of activity – they are most likely to be pregnant. They also are more likely to not lose the embryo.”

Before their research, Burnett and Madureira say they didn’t know the full impact physical activity had on cow fertility.

“We thought that only the machines can detect [it], but when we see the big differences we [started] to ask, why?” Madureira said.

While the students are still focusing their research to look at the “why questions” rather than the “how,” Burnett said the findings could have huge implications for the way dairy farmers go about breeding their stock.

“Traditionally, farmers had to go into the barn and watch the cows for heat,” she said.

The time-consuming and, frankly, boring process of looking for signs of ovulation in cattle led farmers to use fertility treatments to instigate ovulation. But the treatments are an ongoing expense and still time-consuming on a large dairy farm, the students explained.

“Now that we have these monitors, we can come back to how we originally did it because it doesn’t take all this effort and work…like sitting in the barn,” Burnett said. “It’s still work but you’re able to get the same outcome by just looking at the behaviour of the animal, as others are [getting] by using fertility treatments.

“It’s very hard to get away from the fertility treatments but at least you don’t need to do it to 100 per cent of your cows.

“You can be very successful just looking at the natural behaviour of the cows.”

The Dairy Centre’s manager, Nelson Dinn, said the research is just some of the many studies contributing to progress in the dairy industry.

“Basically, it’s using technology to monitor natural behaviour for the benefit of the farm,” he said.

“And hopefully they get that published in a scientific journal somewhere, but the other important thing is that all of this research is for the benefit of the dairy industry across Canada, North America and around the world.”

“We are doing work in a very applied sense, so it can be adopted on dairy farms quite easily.

“Learning how animals learn, and what motivates cattle, we can take the information we learn here and apply it to how facilities are designed for the best interest of the animal.

“That’s how the dairy industry can move forward.”

The UBC Dairy Centre has been operating off Highway 7 in Agassiz since 1996 and is a western Canada leader in the study of animal welfare and reproduction.

Dinn said there are from 20 to 30 UBC students conducting research at the centre at any given time.

Source: Agassiz Harrison Observer

Flexibility in protocols gives producers best opportunity to protect the unborn calf

While spring calving season is just around the corner and fall calving herds are about to wean, it’s never too early to think about protecting the next calf crop by implementing a strong fetal protection vaccine program.

“It’s important to get that calf going good, and the right health all starts from the beginning,” said Cody Jorgensen, a partner in Jorgensen Land and Cattle near Ideal, South Dakota. “If you aren’t off to a good start, it’s a battle the rest of the way through that calf’s life.”

“What we’re doing by using fetal protection vaccines is that we are effectively protecting the calf prior to birth. If you couple that with a proper nutritional program, we’re setting that calf up for success in being able to reach its full genetic potential, from the time it’s conceived all the way through the production cycle,” says Mark Alley, DVM, Technical Services veterinarian with Zoetis.

While research has shown that a modified-live vaccination program can be highly effective in helping prevent abortions caused by infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) and persistent infection caused by bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) viruses Types 1 and 2, maintaining a strictly modified-live vaccination program that fits the cattle working schedule can be challenging for veterinarians and producers alike.

A nearly three-year study at Auburn University evaluated the efficacy of a vaccination program where heifers were all vaccinated with two doses of a modified-live reproductive vaccine (BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP^® 5) prior to breeding.¹ At pregnancy check, the vaccinated heifers were split into two groups — one continued to get BOVI-SHIELD GOLD FP 5 and a second group was given CATTLEMASTER GOLD FP^®5. The study also maintained a control group, which received no vaccinations. 

Study results in the control group revealed the severity of the challenge model with 14 of 15 cows either aborting BVD-positive calves or delivering a BVD persistently infected calf. Researchers observed significant (p < 0.0001) protection against both virulent BVD and IBR exposure in the vaccinated groups with both vaccine groups providing similarly high levels of protection.¹

Dr. Alley says it is important for producers and veterinarians to look at the labels to make sure they are selecting vaccines that are effective in protecting against the reproductive forms of these important diseases. This means looking for the following information on the vaccine label:
• “FP” in the name of the product, which is a designation that the vaccine provides fetal protection
• Indication to prevent or control IBR-related abortions
• Indication to prevent or control BVD persistently infected calves

Source: Zoetis

Kent Nutrition Group (KNG) hosted nearly 100 dairy producers, nutritionists, and industry specialists at their inaugural KNG Dairy School held at Kent Corporation headquarters this week. The school entitled, Dedicated to Dairy, focused on transition cow nutrition and their crucial role in a dairy’s long-term success. Industry speakers shared their latest research findings and management protocols for moving these cows into milk production.

The conference program was intentionally balanced with science and practical on-farm management experience to ensure participants received a well-rounded update. Key dairy industry sponsors and the KNG Dairy Team are dedicated to dairy and ensuring continued success for our dairy customers.

“Success for dairies in the current market environment requires dairymen to have access to a team of experts and the understanding that herd performance depends on quality nutrition and cow care,” according to, Heather Hunt, KNG Dairy Technical Specialist and school organizer. “At Kent Nutrition Group, we realized an opportunity to become a true partner with our dairy customers by sharing our nutritional expertise and offering this unique training opportunity.”

Kent Nutrition Group understands a dairy’s financial success must be supported by a team effort. Increasing herd efficiency, health, and comfort can help lead to overall profitability. The KNG Dairy School was designed to help increase the knowledge level and skill sets of the KNG sales team, industry partners and dairy participants and achieved that goal in that it was awarded 12 continuing education units (CEUs) by the American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists (ARPAS).

“Being awarded the ARPAS CEUs for the KNG Dairy School validated the level of content that our meeting provided,” Hunt concluded. “KNG is proud to bring this level of training to our team and dairy partners.”

With Daylight Saving Time here again, a lot of us may have found ourselves dragging on Sunday, adjusting to an hour less of sleep after the clocks sprang ahead an hour overnight.

It’s not just people, though, who have to adjust.

Dairy cows are also creatures of habit, and the time change can take some getting used to for them.

“I wouldn’t say they’re grumpy, but usually when we get here in the morning, they’re ready to go, and today they lag a little bit behind more,” said Magdalene Richmond, whose family owns Richmond Farms Dairy in North Collins.

Every day, 200 cows are milked at the farm starting at 5:30 a.m. and keeping those cows feeling good is very serious business.

“We have a nutritionist that comes, like a dietician for humans, and they balance the diet,” Richmond explained. “With the feed that we have on hand, we take samples and get it analyzed, and then they come back and they adjust everything. They have sand beds in the cow barn, that’s very comfortable for them, and we make sure that they’re full, and keep them happy, clean water, fans in the summer.”

Bottom line: Happy cows make more milk, and that’s critical for a family farm’s bottom line. “This is our livelihood,” Richmond said. “They mean everything to us.”

And, with Daylight Saving Time heralding the arrival of spring, Richmond is looking forward to conditions that make her cows happier.

“Now that the days are getting longer and it’s going to start getting warmer, it will be better,” she said. “They can start going outside and opening all the windows and the curtains and getting fresh air.”

Even so, Richmond says this week, the cows probably won’t give as much milk as usual as they adjust to the new schedule.

Some dairy farmers try to make the time change less jarring for their animals by moving the milking times a little each day before the clocks change.

For the Richmond Farms Dairy cows, the change is done all at once, though.

They’re each milked three times a day, so there’s less pressure on their udders between milkings, and there’s less pressure on the farmhands to get them in at exactly the same time for the first milking on the first day of Daylight Saving Time.

“They don’t see a big difference,” Richmond said, when asked about how her cows adjust to the time change.

“For us it’s a big difference. We’re really tired,” she added.

On the other hand, Daylight Saving Time does bring the arrival of longer daylight hours, and that’s good news for the cows. More light keeps cows happier, and again, happy cows make more milk.

“They actually need about 16 to 18 hours a day of light,” Richmond said explained.

For farms with lights on timers in the barns, those timers should be adjusted with the beginning of Daylight Saving Time. Richmond says their barns still have the lights on manual switches, so they don’t have to make any changes.

Of course, with the hour lost for the beginning of Daylight Saving Time, everyone gets an hour back when the clocks fall back later in the year. Richmond says, that takes another round of adjustments for the people and the cows, alike.

Source: wivb.com

6 calving tips that can make a lifetime of difference

The things human caretakers do — and don’t do — can have a lasting impact on the survival and health of newborn calves.

“Events in the first 15 minutes after birth can make a lifetime of difference for newborns,” says Amanda Fordyce, Ph.D., technical calf consultant for Milk Products.

Here are six calving do’s to help calves get their best possible start:

1. Hands off at delivery

 When we see two hooves emerging, our natural inclination is to grab ahold and help mama out. But Fordyce says some important physical and biological events are happening during birth, and normally they take time.

As an example, you may notice when cows deliver naturally, they pause for a few moments after the calf’s ribcage passes and the calf takes its first breaths of air. At this time, the placenta transfers its blood supply to the calf. This blood transfer contains about 1 pint of blood and is crucial for timely placenta expulsion and a thrifty calf.

“As long as the cow is progressing normally and the calf is in the correct positon, with no signs of stress from the cow or calf, the best strategy is to monitor the process, but let her and Mother Nature do the work,” advises Fordyce.

2. Ensure those first breaths

  “If you are concerned the calf is not breathing or thriving like it should, you can intervene when the calf is out to help it take those critical first gasps of air,” says Fordyce.

Suggested methods are poking a clean piece of straw in the nostrils or pouring cold water on the calf’s forehead. Also, help the calf sit up on its sternum by tucking the front legs under the body.

“This sternal recumbency position helps ensure airways are open and makes it easier for calves to breathe,” says Fordyce.

Monitor the calf’s breathing and overall thriftiness during this time. Irregular breathing patterns and a slight gurgling sound from the calf is normal and can be expected.

3. No dangling calves

 There is a school of thought that every newborn calf should be lifted upside down to help clear fluid from its lungs.

“Research has shown this practice does indeed expel fluids, but they are contents of the stomach — not the lungs,” says Fordyce.

The result of turning the calf upside down is harmful because the unnatural body position stresses the calf and causes the internal organs to press against and crush the diaphragm, making it more difficult for the calf to breathe.

4. Don’t give up on stillbirths

 “Some calves may be born not breathing but may still have a heartbeat,” says Fordyce.

Go the extra mile by feeling for a heartbeat under the left leg on the rib cage. If you feel even a slight heartbeat, vigorously rub the calf’s chest and use the straw-poke and ice water techniques to stimulate them. You may be surprised by how many of them “wake up” and perform just fine.

5. Limit the warming box

 “Warming boxes are used with the best of intentions. In instances of very cold weather they are necessary, but can actually harm calves in the long run if used for too long or not cleaned regularly. If not cleaned regularly, warming boxes can serve as reservoirs of harmful bacteria, which can be easily absorbed by newborns,” shares Fordyce.

Plus, spending too long (48 or more hours) in an ultra-warm environment can deplete calves’ internal stores of brown fat, leaving them less capable of making thermal adjustments when they are transitioned to a normal environment.

Fordyce suggests a better approach is to use the clean warming box sparingly until the calf’s hair coat is dry (up to 24 hours) before placing it in a dry, well-ventilated and well-bedded environment. Consider using calf jackets and extra straw bedding in frigid conditions (less than 30 degrees Fahrenheit).

6. A rush order of colostrum, please

“Calves can absorb critical antibodies and other immune factors from their dams only through colostrum and their ability to do so drops rapidly after 24 hours,” says Fordyce.

As soon as the calf is breathing and sitting upright, your next most important task is delivering 3-4 quarts (10 percent of the calf’s bodyweight ofhigh-quality, biosecure colostrum within the first 2 hours of life. Use a Brix refractometer reading of 22 or higher to determine high-quality maternal colostrum.

“This process can be expedited by using previously harvested pasteurized colostrum from other dams in the herd or feeding a high-quality colostrum replacer with 150 grams IgG (globulin protein) per dose,” says Fordyce.

To prevent delivering a large load of harmful bacteria with beneficial colostrum, consider keeping a separate stash of sanitized bottles, nipples and esophageal feeders for colostrum feeding only.

Consult your veterinarian, nutritionist or colostrum replacer supplier to learn more about timely and effective colostrum delivery. Learn more about colostrum replacer and whole milk products at CalfSolutions.com.

Milk Products, based in Chilton, Wis., manufacturers high-quality animal milk replacers and young animal health products. Using its innovative manufacturing technology, Milk Products produces over 700 unique animal nutrition products for numerous independent feed manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and large retail chains. Our customers choose whether these products are sold under their private label brand, or under the Sav-A-Caf^® brand which is manufactured and marketed by Milk Products.

Source: PennState Extension

Robotic or automatic milking systems (AMS) have steadily increased in popularity in the dairy industry since the installation of the first commercial unit in 1992 in the Netherlands. In 2015, the number of AMS units installed was over 25,000 worldwide. Here in Nebraska, there are two commercial dairy farms that having installed multiple AMS units, Demerath Farms (Plainview, NE) and Beaver’s Dairy (Carleton, NE). Demerath Farms installed four AMS units in February 2017 and are set up to milk 240 cows. Beaver’s Dairy began milking with five AMS units in May 2017 and is set up to milk 300 cows. Additionally, there are several other dairies that are looking into milking robots for their farm.  Typically, 60 cows are milked on one robot. One robot will likely cost the producer anywhere from $150,000- $200,000.

Robots have been seen as the “new and improved” way to milk cows because they may provide opportunities to decreased the labor pool and allow producers to spend more time on animal care. In a survey of 10 United States dairies and 15 Canadian dairies who had installed an AMS, 70% of the farms reported a decrease in hired labor costs. Some other opportunities that may come with installing an AMS include the system providing information to the producer including individual cow milk production, milking frequency, rumination and movement activity, concentrate intake, health alerts, and much more. This information could in turn, help the producer make more informed herd management decisions. Because cows can be fed a concentrate supplement when visiting the AMS there is also opportunity to feed individual cows closer to their nutrient requirements within their stage of lactation. This could decrease overfeeding nutrients to cows, therefore increasing feed efficiency, milk production, and economic returns.

Feeding in the AMS 

The frequency, timing and amount of feed supplementation is also controlled by the AMS. The primary reason for feeding concentrate in the AMS is to entice cattle to enter the AMS. In simple terms, the cow’s biological need to eat is stronger than her biological need to be milked. This feature has stimulated the industry to re-examine overall nutrition strategies. In general, the nutritional goal of any dairy farm is to develop a low cost diet that meets the nutritional requirements of the cow while optimizing milk production and cow health. In a conventional system that is not utilizing an AMS, this goal is typically achieved by offering a consistent total mixed ration that is mixed and delivered at the same time every day. With an AMS system, this system is modified by offering a fraction of the concentrate during milking in the AMS, and the resulting portion of the concentrate along with the forage, and vitamins and minerals are fed in a partial mixed ration at the feedbunk.

The need to “fetch” cows 

Cows not frequently visiting in the AMS must be brought to the units and are commonly referred to as “fetch cows” and represent a big challenge. This is a complex issue which spans animal and environmental factors such as social structure in the herd, farm layout, type of traffic, and health (especially lameness). Uneven milking intervals result when time between milkings is not equal. For example, milking at 6AM and 6PM results in an even milking interval of 12h. Uneven milking intervals can also lead to mastitis, decreased daily milk yield, and lameness. Uneven milking intervals can also lead to decreased economic returns due to the physical labor that is required to go out into the barn and push cows to the milking unit. Solutions for uneven milking frequency included 1) implementing a guided or forced traffic system that will utilize a pre-selection gate to guide the cow to milking and 2) to entice the cow in the AMS with the concentrate that is offered during milking. 

Managing cow traffic 

Farms using an AMS are constructed into one of two types of guided traffic systems: the milk first system and the feed first system. In the milk first system, the cow leaves the lying area and passes through a pre-selection gate where she is determined to be eligible for milking or not, eligibility is defined by the producer but is typically set to have cows milked every 6 hours. If the cow is eligible for milking, she will be guided into a commitment pen that contains the AMS where she will stay until she passes through the AMS for milking. If she is not eligible she will pass through the pre-selection gate into the feed bunk area. In comparison, in the feed first system cows start at the feed bunk, passing through the pre-selection gate and ending in the lying area.

AMS… what we don’t know 

There is limited research available on the best methods to entice cattle to the AMS with the concentrate fed at milking; however producer experience has shown cows are enticed with concentrate at the AMS. Some research has been conducted on changing starch content, grain type, and flavoring. Manipulating starch level to entice cattle does not seem to influence milking frequency. However, a concentrate with low starch content (25%) has been shown to increase milk yield in the AMS. In terms of grain type of the pellet, a barley-oat pellet has been reported to decrease the number of cows needed to be fetched to the AMS and increase the number of visits to the AMS when compared to other grains. Interestingly enough, New Zealand researchers have found that for a grazing dairy, the absence of concentrate in the AMS had no negative effects on milking frequency. Finally, flavoring of the concentrate in the AMS has been shown to significantly increase the visits to the pre-selection gate, and increase milking frequency.  

Dairies have been using robots for more than 25 years, and as the research and technology improve, the number of AMS units will continue to increase.

Source: University of Nebraska

Difficult calvings are costly to dairy producers. Not only do they often impact the dam’s subsequent production ability and health but they can also negatively affect the growth, health and survival of the newborn calf. First time calvers and smaller cows are at highest risk of having a difficult calving so producers tend to pay special attention when selecting a sire to mate them. Today, with the widespread use of genomics and the availability of sexed semen, Canadian producers have two tools to help reduce the incidence of calving difficulties in their herd.

Genomic Evaluations for Calving Ability

As part of the genetic evaluation services offered by Canadian Dairy Network (CDN), each sire receives an evaluation for both Calving Ease and Calf Survival. These are combined together into an index named Calving Ability, which is often a key trait of interest when selecting mating sires for heifers. Daughter Calving Ability is a similar trait but reflects the ability of each sire’s daughters to calve easily and produce calves born alive. Prior to genomics, the only reliable way to identify “Calving Ease” sires was to wait for them to have a progeny-based proof following the birth of several progeny, both male and female. With the adoption of genomics, all young bulls in A.I. now have a genomic evaluation for Calving Ability so this trait can be used to select mating sires to avoid calving problems nine months later.

In a recent analysis, CDN examined how well these genomic assessments predict the eventual progeny-based proof. A group of 461 A.I. genomic young bulls born in 2013 or 2014 were included and their evaluation for Calving Ability as a young bull was compared to the official progeny proof of December 2017. Table 1 shows that the average evaluation for these bulls was consistent at 104 regardless of whether they were simple Parent Averages, Genomic Parent Averages or official progeny proofs after accounting for the annual genetic base updates. The fact that this average is 104 means that A.I. organizations are selecting more “calving ease” sires to purchase rather than simply looking for breed average bulls at 100.  Genomics, however, resulted in an increase of 39% in the average Reliability, moving from 31% for Parent Average to 70% for Genomic Parent Average. Once progeny proven, these bulls increased another 19% to an average Reliability of 89%.  Without genomics, Parent Average values had a correlation of 52% with the eventual progeny proof but genomics increased this relationship significantly to 74% (Table 1).

Looking closer at how well genomics identified superior bulls for Calving Ability, the Genomic Parent Averages correctly predicted 88% of the bulls that ended up with an official progeny proof with a rating of 100 (breed average) or higher and also correctly identified 85% of the bulls expected to be below breed average (Table 2). In terms of predicting the highest ranking sires for Calving Ability, with a rating of 105 or higher, the genomic evaluations correctly identified 61% of them (i.e.: 111/182) as shown by the shaded corner in Table 2.

Using Sexed Semen to Reduce Calving Problems

As sexed semen technology continues to develop and improve, especially in terms of the negative impact of conception rates, the use of sexed semen steadily increases.  In addition, the combined use of sexed semen and genomic testing of females is a herd management strategy being adopted by more dairy producers.  The primary goal of using sexed semen is to increase the percentage of heifer calves born on the farm, from the usual 50% to over 90%. A secondary benefit of the fact that more heifer calves are born is the associated reduction in calving difficulties. Figure 1 shows the percentage of calvings from heifers that are expected to be “Unassisted” or “Easy Pull” depending on the Calving Ability evaluation of the calf’s sire.

In general, a sire with a Calving Ability rating of 100 is expected to have 85% of their progeny born from first calf heifers without any problem at calving. The percentage of “Unassisted” or “Easy Pull” calvings increases to over 93% for sire’s rated 110 or higher.  These expectations are associated with the use of conventional semen, whereby 50% of the progeny born are expected to be males. As shown by the dashed line in Figure 1, calving problems can be reduced further by the use of sexed semen. For an average bull with a Calving Ability of 100, the use of sexed semen reduces the expected degree of calving problems from 15% to 12%. The benefit of sexed semen is amplified for sires that are below average for Calving Ability while this advantage is lessened for sires that are already highly rated for this trait (Figure 1).

Summary

Producing healthy herd replacements is an important component of profitable dairy farms. The calving process plays an important role in terms of the number of calves born alive and the ability of the dam to have the best possible start to her subsequent lactation and reproductive cycling.  For this reason, dairy producers have always paid special attention when mating heifers and smaller cows in an effort to reduce the likelihood of calving difficulties nine months later. With semen from genomic young bulls now representing 70% of the market share, genomic evaluations for Calving Ability can be used as an improved tool for identifying “Calving Ease” sires compared to what was previously possible based only on Parent Average values.  In addition, the growing popularity of sexed semen in the market place also provides a second tool to reduce the incidence of calving problems in your herd.

Author:   
Brian Van Doormaal, General Manager, CDN

Download a PDF copy of this article

Zoetis announced the addition of three calf wellness traits to Clarifide^® Plus for Holsteins. The new calf wellness traits include calf livability, respiratory disease and scours. This dependable genetic information enables dairy producers to genetically improve calf health and survival within their herds, as the calf wellness trait information helps identify and select for calves more likely to survive as well as animals that are less likely to become ill due to respiratory disease and scours. Minimizing disease risk improves calf health, results in fewer treatments and lowers calf mortality — all important animal well-being considerations for producers.

As part of the offering with Clarifide Plus, the Calf Wellness Index^™ (CW$^™) is a multitrait selection index that exclusively focuses on calf wellness traits to directly estimate the potential profit contribution of the calf wellness traits for an individual animal.

In addition, CW$ has been added to the Dairy Wellness Profit Index^® (DWP$^®) to supplement the most comprehensive animal ranking selection available commercially in Holsteins. DWP$ includes all Zoetis wellness traits for cows and calves. Plus, DWP$ includes other economically important production, performance and longevity-related traits. The inclusion of calf wellness traits creates an opportunity for producers to realize part of the lifetime economic gains earlier in life — as early as near birth — occurring approximately nine months after implementing breeding selecting strategies. DWP$ helps improve the outcome of the calf wellness traits with their inclusion, thus improving their progress toward enhancing overall herd health.¹

Importance of Calf Wellness

Heifer replacement costs are often the second-highest expense on dairy farms, averaging from 8.6% up to 20% of total production cost in Holstein herds.^2,3 This cost is heavily influenced by many factors, including disease incidence and calf mortality.

“Calf health and mortality can mean the difference between profits or shortfalls in tight margin years,” said Kent Weigel,* PhD, professor and chair of the Department of Dairy Science at University of Wisconsin-Madison. “We completed research that published 10 years ago, showing genetic differences between sire families and their chances of developing health challenges like milk fever** or mastitis. It was encouraging to see Zoetis use this research to develop Clarifide Plus, a tool producers can use for making genetic selection decisions to raise animals with reduced risk for health problems. Now Zoetis has taken a step farther to introduce calf wellness traits that help minimize disease risk for respiratory disease and scours, which will be game-changing for producers.”

Reports demonstrate the impact on U.S. dairies from scours and respiratory disease — the leading causes of calf death loss and disease in the first year of life:

• 23.9% of pre-weaned dairy heifers are affected by scours.
• 12.4% of pre-weaned dairy heifers are affected by respiratory disease.
• 56% of all pre-weaned calf deaths are due to scours.
• 47% of all weaned calf deaths are due to respiratory disease.⁴

The cost of calf health presents significant and long-lasting challenges. For example, records show that calves with respiratory disease that required treatment produced about 1,087 pounds less milk in the first lactation than calves with no record of being treated.⁵

The impact from disease can present lifelong setbacks, such as with calves impacted by pneumonia during the first 90 days of life, which are more likely to experience increased age at first calving, higher incidence of dystocia, lower milk production and greater mortality before first calving.⁶ Other studies have indicated 2 to 2.5 times greater risk of death before calving for animals that had either pneumonia or scours, respectively.^7,8

Clarifide Plus was the first commercially available genetic evaluation for wellness traits for U.S. Holsteins, launched in March 2016. In addition to the new calf wellness traits — calf livability, respiratory disease and scours — Clarifide Plus provides reliable genomic predictions to help producers manage and reduce risk for mastitis, lameness, metritis, retained placenta, displaced abomasum and ketosis. Clarifide Plus provides accurate genetic predictions using cutting-edge genetic evaluation methodology applied to data collected from U.S. commercial production settings. This results in an average reliability of 50% or more for the six cow wellness traits⁹ and 39% reliability for the average of the three calf wellness traits on young genomic-tested calves.¹

“Genomic predictions for wellness traits were developed because of the commitment Zoetis has to the overall health of dairy cattle,” said Cheryl Marti, associate director, U.S. Marketing, Dairy Genetics and Reproduction, Zoetis. “We strive to improve dairy wellness and understand genetic factors impacting resistance to common diseases. The recently announced development of the first Holstein reference genome at Zoetis allowed us to map regions of the genome influencing disease outcomes in calves. These discoveries will lead to improvements in the reliability of future predictions for Dairy Wellness.”

The calf wellness trait information helps dairies obtain the full lifetime value of healthier calves by selecting and breeding for animals that have a better chance of becoming healthy, productive cows, thus better positioned to attain their genetic potential — and increase a dairy operation’s profitability.

Zoetis recognizes that every dairy has different strategies as well as information, management and support needs. For this reason, Zoetis has a broad portfolio of genomic testing solutions including Clarifide Plus, Clarifide, Clarifide^® Ultra and Clarifide^® Core.

About Zoetis
Zoetis (NYSE: ZTS) is the leading animal health company, dedicated to supporting its customers and their businesses. Building on more than 60 years of experience in animal health, Zoetis discovers, develops, manufactures and markets veterinary vaccines and medicines, complemented by diagnostic products, genetic tests, biodevices and a range of services. Zoetis serves veterinarians, livestock producers and people who raise and care for farm and companion animals with sales of its products in more than 100 countries. In 2017, the company generated annual revenue of $5.3 billion with approximately 9,000 employees. For more information, visit www.zoetisUS.com.

Markedly higher levels of health-promoting fatty acids reported

Omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are essential human nutrients, yet consuming too much omega-6 and too little omega-3 can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes. Today, Americans consume 10 to 15 grams of omega-6 for every gram of omega-3.

Source: Science Daily

A major study led by Cornell researchers reveals for the first time that water troughs on farms are a conduit for the spread of toxic E. coli in cattle, which can then spread the pathogen to people through bacteria in feces. The study was published Feb. 7 in the journal PLOS ONE.

“Water troughs appeared in our mathematical model as a place where water can get contaminated and a potential place where we could break the cycle,” said Renata Ivanek, associate professor of epidemiology in the College of Veterinary Medicine and the paper’s senior author. The hypothesis was then tested in the field – with surprising results.

People commonly acquire infections from shiga toxin-producing E. coli through cow feces-contaminated beef and salad greens. The main shiga toxin-producing strain, E. coli 0157:H7, causes more than 63,000 illnesses per year and about 20 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Though cows carry and spread E. coli 0157:H7 when they defecate, the bacteria do not make them sick.

“Farmers do not see a problem because there are no clinical signs in cows; it is totally invisible,” Ivanek said.

A vaccine to reduce bacterial shedding in cows exists, but the beef industry has little incentive to use it, partly due to cost, and the industry does not benefit from labeling beef as “E. coli safe,” Ivanek said. So Ivanek and a research team of 20 co-authors conducted a study to identify other ways to reduce the bacteria’s prevalence in cattle, which can vary over the year from zero to 100 percent of cows in a feedlot carrying the bacteria, with rates generally rising in the summer.

The researchers ran mathematical modeling studies to see if they could pinpoint areas in the farm where infections might spread between cattle. They found that water in a trough, especially in summer months, could heat and promote pathogen replication, causing more cows to acquire the bacteria when they drink. The researchers hypothesized that frequently changing the water in the summer could keep the water colder, limiting bacterial growth.

On most farms, water troughs automatically refill when they get low enough, and farmers can adjust the water levels so they refill more often. This tact saves water and keeps it fresher while ensuring cows still have enough to drink.

The group ran control trials in a feedlot over two summers. This involved reducing the water volume in troughs in randomly selected treatment pens and leaving the volume unchanged in control pens. They expected that reducing the water levels in troughs would prevent the spread of E. coli. Instead they found that it increased spread; in the treatment pens, the odds of finding shiga toxin-producing E. coli in cows was about 30 percent higher than in the control pens.

“Our modeling studies did pick up the right parts of the system,” Ivanek said, “but the mechanism that we postulated is the opposite from what we thought.”

More study is needed to determine why more water in troughs reduced E. coli in cows, but Ivanek questions whether the lower volume made it easier for cows to swallow debris at the bottom of tanks, or whether a fuller tank reduced E. coli concentrations.

The study will trigger more research on environmental sources of E. coli spread in cattle, Ivanek said.

Next steps include repeating the results in other feedlots, evaluating the effectiveness and cost benefit of using more water to reduce E. coli, investigating how seasons and temperatures play a role in prevalence of E. coli, and understanding the actual mechanisms that led to the results.

Wendy Beauvais, a postdoctoral researcher in Ivanek’s lab, is the paper’s first author. Co-authors included researchers from Texas A&M University, West Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University.

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health and the Texas Veterinary Medical Foundation.

Source: Cornell Chronicle

Dairy producers strive to maintain high-quality milk, which contributes to a safe, sustainable food supply. Mastitis also impacts cow health and wellbeing and ultimately the economic success of the dairy. Many co-ops offer incentives linked to quality milk standards. Thus, a bonus is added to the milk check which is a palpable reward for a job well done. Ironically, this is isn’t the biggest financial reward for reducing mastitis. 

Cell Destroyer

Mastitis decreases the capacity of epithelial cells to produce milk, or destroys epithelial cells altogether. Unresolved infections, even those that seemingly cause minor (subclinical) increases in somatic cell counts (SCC), will result in lost milk production in an affected cow every day of her lactation. This loss is a lost opportunity and, unlike the incentive programs, doesn’t put real money in a producer’s milk check. However, a cow with subclinical mastitis has the same feed, housing, labor, and husbandry expenses whether she is achieving optimal production or losing milk to mastitis. Thus, subclinical mastitis is a “silent” money sink.

Pioneering work by Raubertas and Shook (1982) found a direct linear relationship between milk loss and the log 2 transformation of SCC. It was estimated 1.5 lb. of milk was lost per day in older cows (0.75 lb. in first-lactation cows) for each doubling of SCC or unit increase in linear score. Thus, as SCC increases milk yield decreases. This concept has been used by DHI programs to estimate milk yield losses for dairy herds based on individual cow linear SCC scores.

Other factors are involved in yield loss related to SCC. More recent studies might better reflect the current production, management and genetics of dairies today versus 30 years ago.

One of the more intriguing studies was published by Hand et al. (2012). Although similar to the Raubertas and Shook report, the Canadian study suggested the amount of milk lost per day to increasing SCC might be greater than previously suggested, especially in first-lactation animals. Additionally, the impact of mastitis on milk yield loss is greater in higher-producing cows. Total lactation milk yield decreased for each day a cow had an SCC higher than 100,000 cells/ mL, (linear score 3), especially for cows with at least five test days above 100,000 cells/mL.

Finally, a study by Kirkpatrick and Olson in 2015 confirmed the substantial losses that occur when a cow begins her lactation with a first test date linear SCC of 4 or greater. Cows with high linear SCC produced nearly 1,600 lb. less milk by 305 DIM and were three times more likely to have a case of clinical mastitis by 60 DIM than cows with lower linear SCC.

Mastitis causes destructive inflammation in the udder, even when the inflammation is mild. Beyond the lost incentives for quality milk, treatment costs of clinical cases, lower reproductive fertility and reduced longevity and well-being of affected cows, mastitis also causes a pernicious day to day milk yield loss. Important points to consider:

1. Milk yield loss for a cow begins at any SCC over 100,000 cells/mL
2. The earlier a cow becomes infected in a lactation the greater the milk yield loss. Reducing new infection rates during the dry and transition period is critical.
3. Yield losses are proportional to the cow’s potential. Cows that milk more lose the same percent of milk from mastitis as those that don’t, thus higher-producing cows lose more milk.

Source: qualitymilkalliance.com

America’s Dairyland is undergoing a bit of a revolution, and it has nothing to do with the words on Wisconsin’s license plate or even the size of farms.

It’s about the cows — specifically who’s minding the animals in the barn.

Increasingly, the folks caring for the cows, monitoring their health and managing the herd are women, according to agriculture educators in west-central Wisconsin. 

It’s a stereotype-busting trend that’s as dramatic as it is undeniable.

The animal science management program at Chippewa Valley Technical College has seen female applicants climb from a minority four years ago to about three-quarters of the total for 2018-19, program director Adam Zwiefelhofer said.

The male-female ratio also has changed noticeably over the last few years at UW-River Falls, where women this year account for 91 percent of the 650 students in animal science, the largest program in the university’s College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Science, said Dale Gallenberg, dean of the college.

When female students first claimed a majority of CVTC’s animal science management slots three years ago, Zwiefelhofer brushed it off as just a coincidence.

“But it continues to happen, and it keeps increasing,” Zwiefelhofer said. “It’s absolutely wonderful for the industry.”

Strong bond

Several of the young women in the two-year associate degree program recently explained the appeal of potential animal science careers, including herd manager, dairy consultant, reproduction specialist, nutritionist and sales specialist. 

They mentioned the opportunity to work outside, use technology, help provide food for the world and do something hands-on instead of being stuck behind a desk. 

But most of all they talked about their love of working with dairy cows — Wisconsin’s official state domestic animal. 

Bailey Karaba of Owen joked that caring for a herd of cattle was like raising 400 kids with one key difference: “Cows can’t tell you what’s wrong when they’re not feeling well, so you have to be a problem-solver,” she said. “When a sick cow bounces back, it’s the best feeling.”

As for the satisfaction of working with cows compared with other aspects of agriculture, Jennah Henk of Birchwood said simply, “I like seeing animals progress more than watching grass grow.”

Clearly, the students feel a strong bond with the primary subjects of their studies — at least for animal science students in the land of cheeseheads — despite occasionally being on the receiving end of a kick.

“Cows are like big puppies; they’re so cute,” Karaba said, adding that sometimes they follow her around the barn.

Halea Bowe of Chippewa Falls initially enrolled at UW-River Falls to study veterinary medicine but changed her mind in part because of her passion for cows.

“I decided I like cows better than cats and dogs,” she said.

Second-year animal science student Katelynn Monson of Gilman completed an internship this summer at Denmark Dairy near Colfax and continued in a part-time role this fall. Not only is it great experience in her chosen field, but she enjoys her work caring for sick animals and helping to operate a breeding program, including artificially inseminating at least 30 cows. 

Walking down the center of the 550-foot-long barn after artificially inseminating a mostly black, 2,200-pound Holstein on Thursday afternoon, Monson said she takes pride in her ability to spot symptoms of cows feeling under the weather — droopy ears, reduced milk production and walking “like they’re having a bad day.”

“Then I try to figure out what’s wrong,” she said.

As she led visitors around the barn, Monson stopped to pet and talk to a few particularly friendly animals, including her favorite, a cow numbered 7154.

A woman’s touch

Farmers are noticing — and benefiting from — the special connection many female workers develop with livestock.

As a result, Zwiefelhofer said, CVTC increasingly hears from regional farmers who specifically inquire about the availability of female graduates. 

 The reason is simple: “Cows respond extremely well to being handled by females,” he said, chalking it up mostly to gentler bedside manner.

That can mean anything from generally being less stressed to cooperatively moving from one pen to another — an important facet of dairy farming when dealing with hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of 1,400-pound animals. 

Can the calming effect of female handlers even affect milk production?

“Absolutely,” said Karl Kragness, who co-owns Denmark Dairy along with his father, Dennis. The farm employs four women, including Monson and another recent graduate of CVTC’s animal science program who help work with its roughly 1,500 Holsteins.

While Karl Kragness emphasizes that his male employees are great too, he said he doesn’t hesitate to seek out female workers because of their tendency to wield a softer touch with the cows.

“I’d pick a woman any day because of their attention to detail,” he said.

Zwiefelhofer noted that advances in technology — machines that scrape manure, distribute feed and spread bedding — have lessened the physical demands of farming and thus have made it easier for women to infiltrate the barn — once considered primarily the domain of men.  

“They don’t have to lift 50- to 100-pound feed bags anymore,” he said.

Yelling doesn’t work

The female CVTC students said they believe cows appreciate the calmness, patience and higher voices that women typically bring to the job.

“They’re just like people. If you start yelling at them, it doesn’t work,” Henk said.

Added Tess Fagerland of Mondovi, “I definitely think it goes back to maternal instinct.” 

Bowe shared an anecdote about a cow at the farm where she works that refuses to get on a trailer unless she’s there.

“One day we had to take her to her other farm and I wasn’t anywhere near, and (the other workers) sat there for an hour trying to get her on the trailer. Finally, they had to call me. As soon as she saw me, I grabbed the rope and she walked on the trailer herself,” Bowe said with a chuckle.

Jane Mueller, secretary and treasurer for the Eau Claire County chapter of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation and operator of Mueller Hilltop Farms near Fall Creek, said she sees women getting more and more active in many aspects of the ag community. She agrees that it bodes well for the industry.  

For Kragness and his wife, Mandy, hiring women also carries the important side benefit of providing female role models for the couple’s 5-year-old daughter.

“I feel that there is just as much opportunity, if not more, for her to be a big part of the future of this operation than if she were a boy,” Karl Kragness said. 

Source: leadertelegram.com

Jon Heslop from CEO group, talks to farmers about being better staff managers.

Dairy industry workers need to be treated as people and not resources when they work on farms, and should have regular days off, say industry experts.

About 70 people wanting to be better employers in the dairy industry found out the best ways to employ people at a DairyNZ People Expo in Palmerston  North. Experts advised that staff needed their hours of work managed so fatigue was not a factor,

Fonterra manager of social responsibility Matt Trent  said it was good to see farmers giving up their time to find out how they could be better employers to attract good staff.

He said employees talked among themselves and knew who were the good and bad employers.

“People will care about your dairying business when you care about them.”

He said valuing people and treating them well was important.

“Just saying thank you to an employee when they have done a good job. And paying them a fair wage, and not working them too hard.I guess it is those sorts of things, and not treating them as a resource but as a person.”

Trent said staff needed to feel safe.

“There are times, such as calving when farms are busy.There are times when people work hard, and I think everyone knows that. Most people want to do a good job and be thanked for doing a hard job with long hours.”

He said the dairy industry should be one that had a reputation for being a good employer.

Trent said schools no longer pointed people without academic achievements to farming and many farmers had university degrees.

He said he was thrilled farmers gave up their valuable time to be better employers.

“I am blown away.  They have so many competing demands, and they chose to come here to develop themselves as leaders.  That speaks volumes to me.  I think about the state of the dairy industry. Being a good employer is just good business.”

Business leadership developer Jon Heslop said dairy farmers needed to think big, be realistic about facing facts, be warriors who had courage and healers who cared about their staff. 

He said those traits would make people excellent managers and make the difference in leadership.

Heslop said open questions were good because they went into long term memory, whereas instructions went into short term memory.

“It is surprising to many people, when a staff member rides a bike back, and says they had forgotten what it was they were supposed to do.”

He said feedback was also important.

“Ask, tell and ask and tell.  Ask what they thought they’d done well.  Then tell them what their good points are.  Ask where they think they could improve, then talk to them about ways to lift their game.”

During the expo farmers talked about management issues they had found difficult to deal with.

“Talking to an employee about drug and alcohol testing when you know the result, taking disciplinary action, talking to someone about their performance or behaviour. And talking to a business partner about standing back.  It is hard to tell someone something has to change.”

Heslop said dairy farmers were doing business in a fish bowl, which was hard given the environmental pressures.

“But believe in the dairy industry and stand up for your vision and people.”

Source: stuff.co.nz

The dairy industry is concerned that a lack of skilled workers will make it unable to meet targets as the UK is responsible for a tenth of Europe’s total milk supply.

Source: Farming UK

Add legumes to grazing pastures to improve cow performance, soil health and forage production, says Patrick Davis, University of Missouri Extension livestock specialist in Cedar County.

Now is the time to frost-seed legumes into pastures, Davis says. Frost seeding is a method of broadcasting seeds over frozen pastures. This no-till method works seeds into the soil as it freezes and thaws during the transition between winter and spring. You also can let cattle trample the ground after seeding to work seeds into the soil.

This method can improve pastures, add nitrogen to the soil and increase the quality of livestock forage, he says. Frost seeding requires less fuel and equipment than drilling.

Drilling or no-till drilling is another option that may lead to better seed-to-soil contact. Davis says the producer needs to know proper seeding rates, dates and depths to achieve a good stand. Davis recommends contacting your local extension agronomy specialist for advice or downloading the MU Extension publication “Seeding Rates, Dates and Depths for Common Missouri Forages” at extension.missouri.edu/p/G4652(opens in new window).

Davis prefers legumes to grasses for improvement of grazing pastures.

Much of southwestern Missouri’s grass base is fescue. Legumes interseed well into a fescue base, he says. Legumes produce a higher quality forage than grasses because of the lower stem-to-leaf ratio. The lower stem ratio results in less neutral detergent fiber and more protein.

Legumes also make better year-round grazing, Davis says. He recommends red clover, white clover and lespedeza in southwestern Missouri. These legumes produce better in late spring and summer, when fescue does not grow or performs poorly. They result in improved forage intake, and cattle perform better with potential for higher profits.

Legumes also dilute the consumption of toxic fescue. This results in healthier cattle.

Do a soil test before incorporating legumes into fescue pastures, Davis says. Make sure pH and mineral levels are adequate for legumes to grow. Clover legumes require a pH of 6. Lespedeza can tolerate a 5.5 pH.

Stand management is key to legume persistence, he says. New legume plants need time to grow without competition from grass canopies. Rotational grazing systems prevent overgrazing. Davis recommends a four- to five-week rest period after grazing young legume plants.

Cattle bloat is a concern when grazing high-protein, highly digestive legumes. White clover is the most likely legume to cause bloat. Hold the forage base at 30 percent legume to reduce likelihood of bloat. Cattle experience less bloating with lespedeza and red clover, Davis says.

He recommends the following to reduce bloat:

• Restrict grazing of legume fields at first to allow cattle time to adjust to legumes.

• Provide dry hay to cattle to reduce legume intake before turning cattle out to legume pastures.

• Provide poloxalene to cattle through bloat blocks or other means of supplementation.

Incorporating legumes should prevent cattle from poor performance in summer, a condition known as summer slump. It should reduce symptoms of fescue toxicosis during late spring and summer, and increase forage production, quality and cattle carrying capacity.

Source: extension2.missouri.edu

Southwestern Missouri dairy farmers find that cows housed in compost bedded pack barns are healthy, happy and produce more milk, says University of Missouri Extension dairy specialist Ted Probert.

Bedded pack barns are structures used to house livestock by continually adding new bedding to the living area. Large, open-air bedded barns provide comfortable resting and walking areas instead of individual stalls and concrete alleyways typically used in freestall operations.

Probert says southwestern Missouri’s many sawmills give livestock owners an ample supply of finely ground sawdust for packing. The sawdust provides livestock with soft, safe resting and walking areas. Livestock operators till the sawdust, which contains animal waste, and it builds into compost over time.

Sawdust prevents foot and leg injuries commonly associated with concrete and hard dirt surfaces, Probert says. Compost bedded pack barns tend to create less odor than other manure storage systems. Farmers clean barns once or twice yearly and apply the nutrient-rich material to cropland.

Cow comfort is king, Probert says. Most farmers equip their barns with curtains that lower during rain, snow and windstorms. Ceiling or side fans circulate air and cool cows. Some barns have sprinkler systems to cool cows during periods of excessive heat.

The barns allow animals to walk freely to feeding, watering and grazing areas.

These barns offer great value at a low cost, Probert says. He says cost sharing for pack barns is now available through the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s EQIP program. For more information, go to nrcs.usda.gov(opens in new window).

One southwestern Missouri dairy producer received advice on compost bedded pack barns from numerous MU Extension specialists, including Probert, Joe Zulovich, Bob Schultheis and retired dairy specialist Barry Steevens.

They guided Mountain Grove dairy producer David Gray through the decision-making for his pack barn. Gray Family Dairy includes David, wife Rhonda and three children.

Gray says he has seen improved milk production of 15-18 pounds daily per cow since building his 60-by-140-foot pack barn in 2014. His entire 78-cow Holstein herd has access to the barn.

Gray uses sawdust from area sawmills for bedding. He tills the compost daily and spreads it on 55 acres of cornfields used for silage twice a year. “We’ve seen a big benefit in organic matter and fertility,” he says.

Gray’s barn features large overhead ceiling fans that cool cows and ventilate the barn. He raises or lowers side curtains as temperatures change. Lights are on a timer. They provide extended “daytime” for cows. Research shows that this increases milk production.

He also has seen lower somatic cell counts, a main indicator of milk quality. Milk buyers pay higher prices for low herd SCC. Buyers also refuse to buy milk with levels above targeted amounts.

Cows also eat more when comfortable, Gray says, and his herd has increased feed intake significantly. Increased comfort reduces feed intake lags during heat stress. Cows also have ready access to feed in nearby feed barns.

Gray notices other signs of improved cow comfort. He sees fewer foot injuries, and improved udder and teat health. Their relaxation level is so strong that he is sometimes unsure if cows are relaxing or dead when he walks into the pack barn. Another benefit is improved heat detection. Comfortable cows and better footing improve mounting. Producers can better monitor breeding because animals are located in a central area.

Cows are free to roam to other areas but they return to the pack. “What do they choose? They choose to go to an open gate but they choose to come back to where the comfort is,” Gray says.

The barn provides comfort for dairy herd owners too, he says. He sleeps better on cold winter nights knowing that his cows are not lying on snow-covered pastures.

Source: agebb.missouri.edu

Source: Farm Ireland

Antibiotic dosages are determined by individual cattle body weight.

Zoetis defines “responsible use of antibiotics” as administering medication under the guidance of a veterinarian, following the directions on the approved product label and using only the amount needed to treat the problem. Therefore, we are using antibiotics responsibly only when we factor in appropriate dosage based on accurate, individual body weight.

Commonly, dairies determine antibiotic dosage based on visual estimates of weight for large and small cows. Generally speaking, a large cow is a large cow; however, this practice of “eyeballing” presents a big risk in under- or overdosing of antibiotics, as doses vary greatly given differences in body weight. For example, recommended antibiotic dosage differs for a 1,500-pound cow versus an 1,800-pound cow. Although first lactation cows should have fairly uniform body weights, we have seen more than a 600-pound difference in fresh heifer body weights on a dairy with a scale. The spread can be even greater with older cows.

The impact of under- and overdosing antibiotics

Without capturing accurate, individual body weights, cattle may be underdosed, which can decrease antibiotic efficacy or create poor response to treatment. This can result in increased treatment and labor costs due to disease relapse. Even more, dairies may be at increased risk for residues if other antibiotics are introduced and Federal Drug Administration-mandated withdrawal times aren’t followed. On the other hand, overdosing cows with antibiotics increases risk of violative residues in milk and meat and increases treatment costs, as more product than needed is being used. Keep in mind that overdosing isn’t just administering too much of a product — cows also can be overdosed based on volume of antibiotic administered per injection site.

What can you do?

• Stop guessing.

• Capture individual weights with a weight tape or digital cattle scale.

• Weigh cows at freshening, one month post-calving and at dry off to monitor for weight fluctuations that could indicate potential metabolic issues that may require treatment.

• Follow product labels.

Through responsible use of antibiotics, we all can help maintain the effectiveness of these important resources. Accurate body weight data allows for more accurate antibiotic dosing, resulting in improved treatment efficacy and prevention of residues in milk and meat. Work with your local Zoetis territory business manager to have a discussion on how to build a more strategic plan on proper dosing of antibiotics.

Source: Zoetis

DeLaval, the industry’s leading supplier of dairy farming solutions, is offering a free webinar series to anyone who raises and cares for calves. Known as Calf College, the series of eight webinars will be taught by Dr. Robert James, professor emeritus of Dairy Science at Virginia Tech University.

“The productivity of a dairy cow starts way before she enters the milk parlor,” said Dr. James. “We can help calves achieve their milking potential by offering quality care, adequate nutrition and a comfortable environment from day one. Incorporating new calf rearing technology is also essential to achieving good results.”

Calf College participants will begin by learning the fundamentals of calf rearing and progress towards topics on calf housing systems, facility requirements and auto feeding technology. The dates and topics of each webinar are as follows:

Calf College dates and topics

March 16          Critical points for calf rearing

April 13             Dry cow and calving management

May 4               Feeding the newborn

June 8              Feeding the pre-weaned calf

July 6               Pro/cons of different calf housing systems

September 7     Choosing the calf feeder system

October 12       Facilities for group housing systems

November 2      Managing the calf feeder system

As an innovator of calf feeding technology, the latest calf care offering from DeLaval is the calf feeder CF1000S, designed to help ensure calves receive their full daily rations. “We understand the importance of helping customers transition to new technology,” said Joaquín Azocar, DeLaval Market Solution Manager. “DeLaval Calf College is designed to help these producers – and those interested in the system – increase the efficiency of their operations and achieve better results with their herds.”

For more information about DeLaval Calf College and to register for the webinars, click here. Participants should register for each webinar they’d like to attend.