Training cattle to poop and pee in a designated area could revolutionize manure management, pen and barn design, animal health and welfare.

And research proves it can be done, although more study is needed on the specifics.

Jennifer Van Os, a post-doctoral scholar in the University of British Columbia’s animal welfare program, is interested in taking up that study.

She would like to build on work done by Dr. Alison Vaughan, formerly of UBC, who undertook a study and published a paper in 2015 indicating dairy calves can be trained to urinate in a specific area.

Van Os was among several UBC researchers on hand March 8-10 to explain their work during the Western Canadian Dairy Seminar.

“I’m interested in taking over this,” she said about Vaughan’s initial study. “Part of the reason we design these barns on concrete is to manage manure and that’s why we want cows to lie in cubicles in a certain direction so that we can keep them clean.

“But then if they’re on concrete it results in lameness and all these other issues and I just love this idea because it could possibly improve or reduce lameness, reduce dirtiness problems and then also reduce pneumonia because of the urine and the feces combining.”

In her initial study, Vaughan focused on urination training for six one-month-old Holstein heifers. The animals were put in a stall and given a diuretic. As soon as they urinated, they were released from the stall and given a 20-millilitre milk reward from a teat.

They were then returned to the stall for two more urinations, each followed by two more milk rewards.

The next day, the calves were tested in the same pen. They were not given a diuretic but if they urinated within 15 minutes of entry, they were released to get a milk reward. Those that failed were given a time out with no reward.

The experiment went on for 17 days, with training days followed by testing days.

Vaughan found that calves urinated more often in the stall on test days than the calves used as a control.

One apparently precocious heifer learned to urinate in the required spot after only one training day and another heifer, apparently less trainable, failed to urinate more than the control animal during the entire test.

“This study is the first to show that cattle can be trained to urinate in a specific place and demonstrates that calves have both the cognitive ability and the physiological control required for toilet training,” said the study synopsis.

Van Os said the next step may be to see if calves can learn the desired place to urinate but also identify and avoid the wrong place.

The synopsis indicated that UBC’s department of physics is helping develop an automated system for detecting and rewarding urination and defecation in specific areas so producers wouldn’t have to spend time training animals individually.

“I’d love to see it someday come to fruition,” Van Os said about the research.

Source: The Producer

Japanese telecommunications giant NTT Docomo will launch an internet-linked monitoring service later this month that will help farmers better determine whether a cow is in heat.

Dairy cows are said to produce more milk when in estrus, and the innovation would also promote the efficient breeding of beef cattle.

Source: Nikkei

Small actions can lead to large gains in farm profitability.

Kristjan Hebert is Canadian farmer who has presented on a farm improvement framework he calls “The 5% Rule”. This is a simple rule where farmers should aim to increase yield and price received by 5% and decrease expenses by 5%.

I should note that we have no affiliation with Kristjan or any of his business interests (I simply really like his business philosophies).

The small 5% improvements have a large compounding effect on farm profitability.

This rule/mindset is the backbone of a great farm business. It’s not something that can be acheived overnight. It’s a long-term, ROI-focused approach to business decisions.

See below for a simple illustration on the power of small, incremental improvements using soybeans as an example.

The power of compounding! 5% + 5% + 5% = +132%

See below for a great presentation that Kristjan gave on this topic. I particularily enjoy his commentary regarding cutting expenses and increasing efficiency while focusing on not hurting your yield prospects. I call this “trim the fat, not the muscle”.

While I love this concept, there is one point that I would like to build on. I think producers need to be careful with the goal of increasing price by 5%.

Every successful business tries to maximize revenue. Increasing pricing in a major component in achieving that.

But most businesses are not farms.

The truth is that a commodity-based business is a price “taker”(at least from a futures market standpoint). Individual producers have no control over futures prices.

It’s dangerous to get stuck in a cycle of always wanting 5% more.

My 5% rule clarification: Get 5% more by maximizing the basis and carry on your futures sales/hedges.

In the video shown above Kristjan alludes to the fact that most farms don’t separate the futures and basis side of their sales. I agree with that but I want to add some additional commentary on the increasing price component of the 5% rule.

I like to break marketing decisions down into the following steps:

1. Set the futures price when that price that work for your farm’s financials. This often occurs during the growing season when your crop is in a state of uncertainty. That’s the reality of farming.
2. Ignore the dozens of market predictions that are thrown at you every week.
3. Make store vs not-store decisions by the amount of carry in your specific commodity market.
4. Ignore the dozens of market predictions that are thrown at you every week.
5. Set the basis on your futures sales when your local market is hungry for your commodity. Click here for a blog post on maximizing storage ROI.
6. Ignore the dozens of market predictions that are thrown at you every week.

I will admit that the steps listed above are much easier said than done. But running a farm is not easy. Make strategic investments in your farm business that will allow you to better accomplish these steps.

In any aspect of grain marketing, there are no certainties. Just like on the agronomy side of your operation, use a probability-based decision making process.

It’s common sense that you’re rarely 100% certain that an incremental input purchase will produce a positive ROI. You make your decision based on the probability of said purchase giving you that positive ROI. We need to apply that same logic to our marketing.

Agricultural commodity markets tend to price in risk premium when the future crop size is in question. This tends to happen from March-July. Once the market is comfortable with the crops size, we can quickly see risk premium come out of the market.

Once again, nothing is a certain but over time the market offers risk premium before and during the first couple months of the growing season. Be aware of this seasonal pattern.

See below for a video I produced for a now-closed course we offered this past winter.

(On a side note, we’ll be launching a new and improved course in December. Keep your eye open for it.)

Another important consideration is the fact that we can’t change past decisions. If you sell 20% of your wheat the day before the market goes up $.20, it’s over and done with. Don’t dwell on it.

Kristjan hammers home the point that farmers need to measure their profitability on an accrual basis. Doing this focuses a farm on the fact that higher prices are great! Don’t let a fear of higher future prices stop you from making a sound marketing decision today.

Furthermore, there’s a popular quote in business that states, “What Gets Measured Gets Improved”. Accrual-based accounting allows a farm to meaure their profitability on a crop year-basis rather than simply monitoring the cash flow. A farm’s cash flow can be a dangerously lagging measure of farm profitability.

In summary, every business decision needs to be approached from an ROI-standpoint and a farm business is no different. If you focus on making small, incremental improvements to your farm it will pay big dividends in the long run.

Source: HarvestProfit

Though he didn’t come from a farming family, from a young age Tim Joseph was fascinated by the idea of living off the land.

Reading magazines like The Stockman Grass Farmer and Graze, he “got hooked on the idea of grass-fed agriculture — that all energy and wealth comes from the sun,” he explains, “and the shorter the distance between the sun and the end product,” the higher the profit to the farmer.

Joseph wanted to put this theory to the test, so in 2009, he and his wife Laura launched Maple Hill Creamery, an organic, all grass-fed yogurt company in upstate New York. He quickly learned what the market has demonstrated: Demand for grass-fed products currently outstrips supply.

Grass-fed beef is enjoying a 25 to 30 percent annual growth rate, while sales of grass-fed yogurt and kefir have in the last year increased by over 38 percent, compared with a drop of just under 1 percent in the total yogurt and kefir market, according to natural and organic market research company SPINS.

Joseph’s top priority became getting his hands on enough grass-fed milk to keep customers satisfied, since his own 64-cow herd wasn’t going to suffice.

His first partnership was with Paul and Phyllis Van Amburgh, owners of the Sharon Springs, N.Y., farm Dharma Lea. The Van Amburghs, too, were true believers in grass-fed. In addition to supplying milk from their own 85-head herd, they began to help other farmers in the area convert from conventional to certified organic and grass-fed in order to enter the Maple Hill supply chain. Since 2010, the couple has helped close to 125 small dairy farms convert to grass-fed, with more than 80 percent of those farms coming on board during the last two years.

All this conversion has helped Maple Hill grow 40 to 50 percent every year since it began, says Joseph, with no end in sight.

Joseph has learned that a farmer has to have a certain mindset to successfully convert. But convincing open-minded dairy people is actually not that hard, when you look at the economics.

Grass-fed milk can fetch up two-and-a-half times the price of conventional milk. Another factor is the squeeze that conventional dairy farmers have felt as the price of grain they feed their cows has gone up, tightening their profit margins. By replacing expensive grain feed with regenerative management practices — grazing animals on grasses coaxed from the pastureland’s latent seed bank, and fertilized by the cows’ own manure — grass-fed farmers are completely insulated from spikes in the price of feed.

Champions of this type of regenerative grazing also point to its animal welfare, climate and health benefits: Grass-fed animals live longer out of confinement. Grazing herds stimulate microbial activity in the soil, helping to capture water and sequester carbon. And grass-fed dairy and meat have been shown to be higher in certain nutrients and healthy fats.

In the grass-fed system, farmers are also not subject to the wildly fluctuating milk prices of the international commodity market. The unpredictability of global demand and the lag-time it takes to add more cows to a herd to meet demand can result in events like the recent cheese glut. Going grass-fed is a “safe refuge,” says Joseph, a way for “family-scale farms to stay viable.”

“Usually a farmer will get to the point where financially, what they’re doing is not working,” says Paul Van Amburgh. That’s when they call Maple Hill. If the farm is well managed, has enough land, and the desire to convert is sincere, a relationship can begin.

Through regular regional educational meetings, a large annual meeting, individual farm visits and thousands of phone calls, the Van Amburghs pass on the principles of pasture management. Maple Hill signs a contract pledging to buy the farmer’s milk at a guaranteed base price, plus quality premiums and incentives for higher protein, butterfat and other solids.

While Maple Hill’s conversion program is unusually hands-on and comprehensive (Joseph calls sharing his knowledge network through peer-to-peer learning “a core piece of our culture”), it is just one of a growing number of businesses committed to slowly changing the way America farms.

Last summer, Massachusetts grass-fed beef advocate Ridge Shinn launched Big Picture Beef, a network of small grass-fed beef farms in New England and New York that is projected to bring to market 2,500 head of cattle from more than 125 producers this year.

Early indications are that Shinn will have no shortage of farm members. Since he began to informally announce the network at farming conferences and on social media, he’s received a steady stream of inquiries from interested farmers.

Shinn says he will provide services ranging from formal seminars to on-farm workshops on holistic management, to “one-on-one hand-holding and an almost 24/7 phone hotline” for farmers who are converting. In exchange, he guarantees an above-market price for each animal and, for maximum traceability, a calf-to-customer electronic ear tag ID system like that used in the European Union.

Though advocates portray grass-fed products as a win-win situation for all, they do have downsides.

Price, for one: Joseph says his products are priced 10 to 20 percent above organic versions, but depending on the product chosen, compared to non-organic conventional yogurt, consumers could pay a premium of 30 to 50 percent or more for grass-fed.

As for the meat, Shinn says his grass-fed hamburger will be priced 20 to 25 percent over the conventional alternative. But a peek at the prices on online grocer Fresh Direct suggests a grass-fed premium of anywhere from 35 to 60 percent.

And not every farmer has the option of going grass-fed: For both beef and dairy production, it requires, at least in the beginning, more pastureland. Grass-fed beef production tends to be more labor intensive as well.

But Shinn counters that if you factor in the hidden cost of government corn subsidies, environment degradation, and decreased human health and animal welfare, grass-fed is the more cost-effective model. “The sun provides the lowest cost of production and the cheapest meat,” he says.

Another grass-fed booster spurring farmers to convert is EPIC, which makes meat-based protein bars. Founders Taylor Collins and his wife, Katie Forrest, used to be vegan endurance athletes; now they’re advocates of grass-fed meat. Very soon after launching EPIC’s most successful product – the Bison Bacon Cranberry Bar – Collins and Forrest found they’d exhausted their sources for bison raised exclusively on pasture.

“When we started digging into the supply chain,” says Collins, “we learned that only 2 to 3 percent of all bison is actually grass-fed and grass-finished. The rest is feed-lot confined and fed grain and corn.”

So two years ago, the company created a secondary, clearly labeled line of “natural” bars using animals that had eaten grain as well as grass. Collins wrote this post to explain the move to customers.

But after General Mills bought EPIC in 2016, Collins and Forrest suddenly had the resources they needed to expand their supply chain. So the company teamed up with Wisconsin-based rancher Northstar Bison. EPIC fronted the money for the purchase of $2.5 million worth of young bison that will be raised according to its grass-fed protocols, with a guaranteed purchase price.

The message to young people who might not otherwise be able to afford to break into the business, explains Collins, is, “‘You can purchase this $3 million piece of land here, because I am guaranteeing you today you will have 1,000 bison on it.’ We’re bringing new blood into the old, conventional ranching ecosystem, which is really cool to see.”

Source: NPR

Dairy producers in the United States are feeling the stress of volatile markets, increasing regulation and consumer demands. During stressful times, it can be easy to let emotions overtake rational thinking, which often leads to poor decision making. Dr. Chris Canale, Cargill U.S. dairy technology manager, offers these tips to ‘hold the line’ when it comes to making decisions:

Utilize a systematic review approach.

“Have a disciplined approach to decision making. Write out all pros and cons and discuss them with a trusted advisor. Make sure you always follow the approach to help limit gut reaction decision making.”

Detach yourself from the emotion.

“Removing the emotion from a decision can be very difficult, but it’s something that must be done. When our emotions take over, it can cloud our judgement, and lead to a decision we likely would not have made. Following a systematic review can often help keep rational thinking at the forefront when emotions are attached.”

Evaluate the decision before, during and after you make it.

“Evaluate decisions, especially ones that are significant, to improve future decision making. Don’t just evaluate the outcome though, look back and assess your motivations; did you make the decision for the right reasons? Assess your process: did you stick with your system, or did something cause you to deviate? Confront emotions: Were sentiments or stress under control, or heavily influencing you? By taking the time to evaluate these things you will be better able to hold the line the next time you’re under pressure to make a significant decision.”

Source: Wisconsin Farmer

Dairymen who use the right feed at the right time can maintain profitability even in down times, says Mike Hutjens.

“Every dairy farmer should be feeding corn silage,” Hutjens, a retired University of Illinois dairy specialist, told producers at a meeting here.

“We call it Christmas corn silage. You do not feed corn silage until Christmastime. It’s been fermenting in a bag for three or four months, which makes the starch more available.”

That is among several tips Hutjens provided to help dairy farmers who have struggled through low milk prices over the past couple of years.

Many are optimistic that prices will improve this year. Still, economical feeding solutions can help bridge the gap.

“Dry matter is 10 to 12 cents per pound. Every dairy farmer in Illinois needs to know that number,” Hutjens said. “What’s it cost for a pound of dry matter for your cow? The magic number is that 1 pound of dry matter should support 2 pounds of Jersey or 2 ½ pounds of Holsteins. I’ve already paid her maintenance costs.”

With milk prices at 17 cents per pound, a dime’s worth of dry matter yields 24 cents more profit, numbers indicate. There are some feed bargains out there that are on the good side of the break-even price.

One is distillers grains. Another is corn gluten feed.

“You’ve got to be feeding distillers grains,” Hutjens said. “It’s half price. Corn gluten feed is almost half price. Then there are soy hulls and fuzzy cotton. They’re still not break even, but at a good price this year.”

But making economical feed available doesn’t do much good if the cow doesn’t eat it. Hutjens points to a University of Wisconsin study giving three reasons for under consumption:

• A cow may be physically full and is unable to eat any more feed.
• Something tells the cow it is time to stop feeding. Researchers believe it could be related to rumen pH, fat level in the diet or other factors.
• Lameness may restrict feeding. Studies show 18 to 20 percent of cows are considered lame.

“What do lame cows not do? They don’t go to the feedlot eight to 10 times a day to get that extra mouthful of feed,” Hutjens said. “This lameness thing is huge.”

Additives that may also make economic sense include rumen-protected amino acids, which may increase milk protein and may yield more milk.

A study by The Ohio State University showed adding amino acids to the ration can add as much as 8 more pounds of milk daily.

“If your cows are producing 2.4 pounds of true protein, I would really check out your amino acid balance. There may be an opportunity for you,” Hutjens said. “And mycotoxin binders. This should be in every ration in Illinois.”

One survey indicated that many dairymen aren’t aware of exactly what they’re feeding their cows. For lactating animals, Hutjens recommends additives of rumen buffers, yeast products, silage inoculants, biotin and organic trace minerals.

For dry cows, the list changes, and includes organic trace minerals plus chromium, and anionic product.

Source: Missouri Farmer Today

A consultant says there are benefits to expanding dairy farms during times of low milk prices.

Dairy business consultant John Roach tells Brownfield farmers often expand dairies when milk prices are down. “Some of the best to expand historically has been when low milk price has been there because there’s not as much demand from the builders because there’s not as much building being planned, so often times you’re able to generate a better price.”

For producers that expand during times of low milk prices, Roach says producers usually get to capitalize on the price rebound. “Generally, the cycle will give you an upside on the other side, so expand that year when you have low milk prices, and then when the milk price rebounds, your expansion is fully populated and ready to go, but that assumes that you’ve got enough cash flow and ability in your balance sheet to be able to absorb that.”

Roach says if the decision to expand is made, don’t present lenders with a request that barely meets construction costs as unexpected expenses usually happen with construction projects.

Source: Brownfield

It can be as easy to do it right as wrong so manage animal health by doing the basics right.

At this time of the year, most livestock farmers haven’t time enough for their normal workload – without also having to care for sick animals. However, when sick animals appear they must be cared for and, with labour limited, many will look to prevention rather than treatment.

Higher vaccine use is good, but it must be matched with the basics of good farm management. Scour in calves is the biggest calf killer and usually reaches a peak in early March, as sheds fill up and newborn calves are housed in pens where older calves have just moved away from.

Kieran Mailey and the Journal Vet go through some of the calf-care basics that are essential to manage scour. While vaccination is effective when managed properly, it is not a cure-all and often the management around newborn calves is just as important.

With the start of breeding around the corner in suckler and dairy herds, go back through the calving notebook and think now about cows that had the hard calvings, the retained placenta, the twins, etc.

They might need a bit more attention and, if lacking in condition score, now is the time to mind them before the start of breeding and maybe a little extra feed or once-a-day milking might improve the situation.

On many sheep farms, given the exceptional rainfall, it is proving difficult to turn out ewes and lambs.

The increased risk of mastitis is a challenge and Darren Carty discusses what to look out for with the Journal Vet.

Rather than fire fighting individual herd health problems, farmers need to develop annual herd health plans that can allow for more structured and cheaper herd health control.

Farmers involved in the Knowledge Transfer Programme rightly need to complete an annual herd health plan.

Source: Irish Farmers Journal

Dairymen who use the right feed at the right time can maintain profitability even in down times, says Mike Hutjens.

“Every dairy farmer should be feeding corn silage,” Hutjens, a retired University of Illinois dairy specialist, told producers at a meeting here.

“We call it Christmas corn silage. You do not feed corn silage until Christmastime. It’s been fermenting in a bag for three or four months, which makes the starch more available.”

That is among several tips Hutjens provided to help dairy farmers who have struggled through low milk prices over the past couple of years.

Many are optimistic that prices will improve this year. Still, economical feeding solutions can help bridge the gap.

“Dry matter is 10 to 12 cents per pound. Every dairy farmer in Illinois needs to know that number,” Hutjens said. “What’s it cost for a pound of dry matter for your cow? The magic number is that 1 pound of dry matter should support 2 pounds of Jersey or 2 ½ pounds of Holsteins. I’ve already paid her maintenance costs.”

With milk prices at 17 cents per pound, a dime’s worth of dry matter yields 24 cents more profit, numbers indicate. There are some feed bargains out there that are on the good side of the break-even price.

One is distillers grains. Another is corn gluten feed.

“You’ve got to be feeding distillers grains,” Hutjens said. “It’s half price. Corn gluten feed is almost half price. Then there are soy hulls and fuzzy cotton. They’re still not break even, but at a good price this year.”

But making economical feed available doesn’t do much good if the cow doesn’t eat it. Hutjens points to a University of Wisconsin study giving three reasons for under consumption:

• A cow may be physically full and is unable to eat any more feed.
• Something tells the cow it is time to stop feeding. Researchers believe it could be related to rumen pH, fat level in the diet or other factors.
• Lameness may restrict feeding. Studies show 18 to 20 percent of cows are considered lame.

“What do lame cows not do? They don’t go to the feedlot eight to 10 times a day to get that extra mouthful of feed,” Hutjens said. “This lameness thing is huge.”

Additives that may also make economic sense include rumen-protected amino acids, which may increase milk protein and may yield more milk.

A study by The Ohio State University showed adding amino acids to the ration can add as much as 8 more pounds of milk daily.

“If your cows are producing 2.4 pounds of true protein, I would really check out your amino acid balance. There may be an opportunity for you,” Hutjens said. “And mycotoxin binders. This should be in every ration in Illinois.”

One survey indicated that many dairymen aren’t aware of exactly what they’re feeding their cows. For lactating animals, Hutjens recommends additives of rumen buffers, yeast products, silage inoculants, biotin and organic trace minerals.

For dry cows, the list changes, and includes organic trace minerals plus chromium, and anionic product.

Source: Illinois Farmer Today

One third of the cows is not making it in their barns. Why? Because of diseases, and one in particular. Subclinical rumen acidosis is barely visible, but will weaken you cows, leading to other diseases. In the end, this is cutting cow lives short. If we want to do something about this, we need to broaden our knowledge of feed. There’s plenty of information about feed quality available, but more knowledge of housing and management with regard to feeding is much needed.

In the titel of this blog we specifically mention advisors. That doesn’t mean farmers can lie back and relax. It’s a farmer’s reponsibility to keep their cows healhty. So this is as much of an appeal to farmers as it is to advisors. We just want to challenge the advisors to do better as well, because we believe they can have a crucial role in changing things.

By the time you catch it (or not), the other trouble has already started: mastitis, lameness, low fertility..

One third of the cows is not making it. ‘Not making it’, is saying that the average productive lifetime for cows is below 3 lactations, where it can be 5 lactations. Did you know 20% of lactating heifers doesn’t make the second lactation? When we’re looking at why cows don’t go the distance, we’re quickly faced with disease numbers:

• 50% bloody soles after calving
• 50% subclinical milk fever
• 30% mastitis or much more
• 20% ketosis
• x % subclinical rumen acidosis

Shocking numbers and there’s plenty to say about each disease individually. But let’s look at one disease in particular: rumen acidosis. This disease is hard to recognize for farmers, but will seriously weaken the cow. It starts with nausea and by the time you catch it (or not), the other trouble has already started: mastitis, lameness, low fertility rates and so on. This is what in the end is keeping cows from happily and healthy making it to five lactations.
Rumen acidosis is the silent killer of our cows.

So if you can hardly catch it in time, it is even more crucial to prevent it. For prevention farmers need a good understanding of how the rumen functions and an excellent feeding program. A major issue is feed quality and luckily, most farmers have a good feed advisor for this. What the feed advisor often doesn’t tell the farmer is how management and housing effect feed intake. Without broadening knowledge about feeding to these areas as well, rumen acidosis just will keep happening.

Like we said, it is a farmer’r responsibility to keep their cows healthy. They need to actively search for broader knowledge on feeding. However, we believe that advisors have an important role in providing this information more easily. We like to challenge them to do a better job.

What the feed advisor often doesn’t tell you, is how management and housing effect feed intake

Farm advisors that can advise on a broader scope, will probably do a lot better than their competitors. They can actually help farmers solve problems that are of key importance to them. This makes them highly valuable. Also, instead of just advising farmer to just buy their product, they will also be giving farmers advice on things they don’t earn a penny from. This will make them a more trustworthy partner for their clients. Expending their knowledge is in the best interest of the advisors as well.

In summary, rumen acidosis is a very serious disease that has enormous effects on both the cow’s as the farmer’s life. Good farmers will actively search for new insights and improvement opportunities in the housing and management department. Good advisors, that are keen on giving quality advice and creating a sustainable relationship with their clients by constantly being of added value, face the challenge to give advice on a broader scope and involve all factors needed for a good feeding program. This will not only benefit cows and farmers, but also the farm advisor. Together, we can do a better job.

About Feeding Signals
We just developed a new video learning ‘Feeding Signals’. It focuses on housing and management with regards to feeding and it provides solutions that have proven themselves in practice. The video learning is for both farmers and feed advisors, vets, fertility specialists and barn designers. Feeding Signals is also available as a day training.

Learn more:

• Free webinar Feeding Signals for Farmers
• Free webinar Feeding Signals for Advisors
• Free whitepaper

U.S. dairy producers work hard every day to provide the safest food in the world to consumers, but there is always room for improvement. Although dairy cattle make up less than one tenth of the total cattle sent to market, dairy and bob veal from dairy account for 90% of the violative residues on an annual basis. Just one single residue violation can erode consumer confidence and a dairy operation’s reputation.

We have a huge responsibility to consumers to supply a safe, wholesome and quality product with no residues — in both milk and meat. If we can do that, they’ll have confidence in buying our products, which will help producers and the dairy industry in the long run.

When inspectors find drug residues in milk and meat, it’s most often because product labels or withholding times for milk and meat weren’t followed at the farm level. Help your dairy avoid the damage of drug residue violations by recognizing their leading causes and establishing procedures to avoid them. Start with these tips:

1. Consult with your veterinarian regularly

Having a strong veterinarian-client-patient relationship and including your veterinarian in regular conversations with your management team not only helps improve cow health and the overall performance of your herd, but also helps prevent residues in milk and meat.

2. Keep written treatment protocols up to date

All treatment protocols provided by your veterinarian should be in writing. Review protocols with your veterinarian at least twice a year to make sure they are up to date and appropriate for your operation. Also review protocols with farm employees — especially those administrating animal health treatments. Written protocols should include:

• How to diagnose the disease
• Which medications and doses are approved for treatment
• Instructions for administration
• Milk discard and pre-slaughter withdrawal times
• Steps to ensure that cows are withheld the appropriate amount of time

3. Maintain accurate treatment records

The risk of a drug residue violation is significantly increased if your operation does not keep accurate records. All records should note the:

• Animal treated
• Date and time of treatment
• Drug and dosage administered
• Route of administration
• Length of any milk discard or pre-slaughter withdrawal times
• Who administered the treatment

4. Always follow labeled instructions

Make sure your operation always follows labeled dosages for any drugs prescribed by a veterinarian or purchased over the counter. When it comes to using pharmaceuticals, never make guesses on weight, treatment frequency or route of administration, no matter where they are purchased. Only a veterinarian can prescribe extra-label uses and determine appropriate withholding times based on dosage and route of administration.

5. Retrain employees on treatment protocols at least twice a year

Keep all employees on the same page and prevent treatment protocol drift by retraining employees who administer medications at least every six months. Train new employees before allowing them to administer products.

6. Use separate drug storage areas for lactating and nonlactating cows

Most violative drug residues are caused by human error. Clearly labeling and keeping medicines for lactating and nonlactating cows in separate areas is an easy way to avoid a simple mistake that can have major consequences.

Don’t think residue violations could affect you? Know the risks. Take this 10-question Residue Risk Assessment to learn how your operation needs to maximize its residue avoidance procedures.

Reviewing the numbers probably isn’t the most exciting thing at your dairy farm. But if you want to be around next year, and the year after, you better know where you stand.

That was part of the message delivered by Gary Sipiorski, dairy development manager with Vita Plus, and Dianne Shoemaker, Ohio State University dairy field specialist, during the Northeast Ohio Regional Dairy Conference March 1 at the OARDC.

Sipiorski told dairy farmers how to manage budgets, feed and operating costs, if they want to be in the top third of dairy producers.

“The financial clock is ticking,” he said. “If you don’t like numbers, it’s time to start liking them. It’s time to start knowing what’s going on, because top-third dairy producers know how to manage money.”

Managing debt

One of the biggest factors is managing debt. Sipiorski said top-third producers keep debt at 20 percent of their income or less. Put another way, they don’t carry more than $20 of debt for every 100 pounds of milk they sell.

He said it’s OK to borrow money — and borrowing can lead to a good investment, “as long as you can pay it back in a reasonable amount of time.”

Shoemaker, who also dairy farms in Mahoning County, said having no debt is fine, but sometimes producers who have no debt should look at the next best area to invest.

“If there is no debt, a good question is ‘are there some things I could do, to do better,’” she said.

She also cautioned producers about taking too short of a loan term, especially when the term is much shorter than the usable life of the product. She said it’s usually better to take the longer term debt, and pay it off more aggressively, than limit yourself to too short of a term.

Balance sheets

Sipiorski told producers they need to keep accurate balance sheets, and do their budgeting three months before end of year. They also need to be reviewing their cash flow on a quarterly basis, monitoring key financial ratios like debt-to-asset and return-on-investment, and they need to be risk managers.

“You’ve got to educate yourself on risk, and if you don’t want to educate yourself on risk, stay away from it (dairy farming), because you will get smucked,” he said.

On the milk production side, Sipiorski said top dairy farmers know how to maximize cow comfort and feed efficiency. They limit calf loss to less than 1 percent, their heifers freshen at 22-24 months, somatic cell count is kept to 100,000 or less, and top producers think about cow comfort on a daily basis.

On the feed side, top-third producers are working with crop advisors, planning for the growing season in winter, and they also know when to harvest, store and transport their feed in a way that maximize energy and protein, while reducing shrink and loss.

Improving relations

On the social side, the best producers also spend time improving their relations with farm employees, family members, and the different people they interact with. Sipiorski said it’s a good idea to attend at least two or three educational events each year, and to look for ways to improve as an employer.

Some important steps are keeping current on your OSHA paperwork, hiring people who share the same values, and providing opportunities for your employees to advance and grow within the industry.

Shoemaker said dairy farms also need mission statements, and everyone involved with the operation needs to be on the same page.

“Do the people involved agree with the mission,” she asked. “You have to know and agree on why you are in business.”

By the numbers

Shoemaker reminded farmers that the number of dairy farms in Ohio are rapidly decreasing, and if they want to be in it for the future — they need to be among the top.

In 2007, there were 2,517 licensed Grade A milk producers in Ohio, and in January 2017, the number dropped to below 2,000 — for a decrease of nearly 600 producers.

She said managing your numbers is important, “if you don’t want to be part of that next group that leaves the industry in the next 10 years.”

She also reviewed the results of OSU’s Ohio Farm Business Analysis program, which tracked the performance data of 40 Ohio dairy herds. The top 20 percent of producers kept feed costs to just $10.42 per cwt. (100 pounds), compared to $11.88 for the average of all farms.

The top 20 percent sold nearly 2,000 pounds more milk per cow, and the top 20, on average, kept total costs per 100 pounds of milk to about $3 less ($15.28) than the average of all farms ($18.21).

The net return per cow, before labor and management, showed producers in the top 20 netting $905 per cow, compared to only $36 per cow for the average of all farms.

Looking at everything

Like Sipiorski, she reminded farmers to review the critical benchmarks and ratios of their business, but reminded them that they need to look at more than just one number.

“One number will not give you the whole picture, and if you calculate one number and it’s excellent, that doesn’t mean you don’t keep looking at what the other numbers are,” she said.

Sipiorski said there isn’t necessarily a magical herd number, or size of farm that is most profitable.

“I’ve seen all the different size dairies that are out there, I see them on a regular basis. And it isn’t a number, it’s the bottom line number,” he said.

He said they should keep an open and honest communication line with their lender. Lenders should visit the farm, and be kept in the light.

“The best lender is one that’s real honest with you, and the best customer is the customer that’s honest with the lender,” he said.

Source: Farm and Dairy

Millennials, those born after 1982, will soon make-up 50% of the workforce. This generation, often misunderstood and identified as being lazy, was raised on grading rubrics. Every performance expectation and academic milestone was carefully spelled out, clearly outlining the necessary steps to achieve an ‘A’ or just get by with a ‘D’. When millennials fell short, a parent, teacher, or mentor coached them to success.

Farm owners and managers in need of more than ‘D’ performers must also integrate the use of grading rubrics and coaching strategies to ensure the success, growth, and development of their employees. According Dr. Robert Milligan, Professor Emeritus from Cornell University and consultant at Dairy Strategies LLC, every successful employee needs clear responsibilities, performance expectations, and an improvement plan. Just as the Kindergarten grading rubric spelled out the standards for exceeding counting standards, managers must carefully spell out and measure the standards for success on their farms.

Managers and owners have the responsibility of facilitating employee success through continuous monthly performance measures. A simple excel spreadsheet could serve as a performance grading rubric for employees. As displayed in Table 1, the left hand column represents jointly agreed upon performance measures. Next room exists for the expected and actual performance. A 12 month rubric provides opportunity for monthly discussion and corrective actions of performance.

Monthly discussions of performance measures provides both managers and employees with opportunities to communicate and assess business performance. As stated by Erica Leubner, a personal consultant with New York FarmNet, “Lack of effective communication is the number one reason (I have observed) why farm businesses experience conflict and dysfunction”. Clearly stated performance measures are the first step in effective communications with family and non-family members.

The performance evaluation and communication process breeds accountability and success for the entire organization. Similar to the kindergarten grading rubric, employees (family and or non-family) need clear responsibilities, performance expectations, and an improvement plan. The role of the farm manager/owner is to coach the employees, including the often misunderstood Millennials, to success.

Source: Morning Ag Clips

There is no question that Michigan dairy farms have been experiencing tough economic conditions over the past two years. Some drivers of these conditions are new, or at least greater in scale than have been experienced previously. The response by individual farms is critical to their ability to survive and thrive.

When we travel to dairy farms to talk with producers that are going through these tough times, we cover three areas that we believe are important to turning the operation around. These areas include: maximizing the resources that you have, reducing waste, and re-evaluating the business structure.

Maximizing resources means getting more out of investments you have already made, particularly resources that are currently underutilized. Examples could include milking cow barns that are not full, work schedules that don’t fully utilize workers time, and parlor underutilization. Milking cow housing that is only partially full is an automatic red flag. Farms can ill afford to have assets that are not being fully utilized to generate revenue. Underutilized cow housing is often associated with other problem areas, including higher cull and death rates, poor reproductive performance and compromised calf raising. 

Another underutilized resource that farms may not immediately recognize is the external resources that they have available to them. One such resource is your Michigan State University Extension Dairy Team. The MSU Extension Dairy Team consists of six field educators and several campus-based specialists who can bring varied expertise to help producers identify opportunities and pathways to improvement. Like other outside people resources, MSU Extension educators offer an external perspective, and we also are a link to unbiased research-based information.

Reducing waste on farms means identifying any area where there are losses of value. This includes animals that should be pregnant and are still open, dead animals, disease that robs production or decreases reproduction or milk quality, wasted feed, wasted seeds, and wasted time. This area requires the farm manager to take a step back, observe, do inventory and look for opportunities to cut waste without hurting performance. This is a great area to utilize employees as they are your eyes on the front lines. Seek their input, thank them for their input and use their ideas. Even when an idea is off the mark, recognize that employees are trying to help your business succeed. Use these ideas that are “off the mark” to help train employees on why it is important not to cut a certain area.

Reevaluating the business structure means that you critically evaluate each operation and whether you consistently, efficiently and profitably perform it. Oftentimes, that will take bringing in some outside thinking and ideas. The newest economic realities may necessitate that your business structure change from what you have always done. That could be using a custom heifer grower to free up facility space, feed and human resources. It could be contracting with a custom harvester to free up financial resources that have been dedicated to machinery that is underutilized and improving the harvested product by getting it put up in a narrower window. Finally, it may mean changing debt structure to enable you to weather these tough economic times. 

In all of these cases, you will need to have a firm grasp on your farm’s cost of production, balance sheet information, net income and cash flow. You’ll need to be able to determine what areas of your farm are profitable and which areas are not. If this is where you could use assistance, there is a MSU Extension resource available to help you.

Michigan State University Extension is offering a program entitled Newest Economic Realities in Agriculture: Building Your Farm’s Plan.  This program is designed to help everyone, from a novice to an advanced farmer, understand your business’ numbers and how that translates into prioritizing options and making timely management decisions. There will be breakout sessions for dairy/livestock, field crops, and fruits/vegetable production.

The program is being held on March 8 at the Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center in East Lansing. It runs from 8:30 to 5:00 p.m. with an optional dinner with Question and Answer session from 5:30 – 7 p.m. To view the full program agenda and register for the program, please go to the event page online.

Tough times demand re-evaluation. Don’t miss the opportunity to re-evaluate your business and put it on a path to greater profitability.

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).

Agricultural debt on a nominal basis in Illinois has been increasing since 1991. Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Illinois Farm Business Farm Management (FBFM) are shown to see if increasing debt levels pose problems for the financial health of Illinois farms. With the continued downturn in the farm economy, increasing debt levels need to be monitored closely.

Overall Agricultural Debt Levels

USDA publishes estimates of total agricultural debt outstanding in the United States (see Economic Reporting Service, USDA website). This series is available from 1960 onwards and gives the amount of debt outstanding as of the year-end.

Nominally, agricultural debt reached a peak in 1984 of $188.8 billion (see the nominal line in Figure 1). From 1984 through 1989, agricultural producers retired debt and agricultural lenders wrote off some debt, resulting in a decline in total debt. By 1989, agricultural debt had declined by 31%, reaching a level of $131 billion.

Since 1990, agricultural debt increased an average of 4.1% per year. The rate of increase varied from year-to-year but exhibited no escalating or decreasing trends. The highest rate increases occurred between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 when increases were 11.6 and 8.4%, respectively. Increases of less than 3% occurred 6 times in this period while decreases happened in 3 years with the greatest at negative 3.2% in 2002-2003.

At the end of 2004, agricultural debt reached $197.6 billion, surpassing the previous high set in 1984. Increasing debt levels may cause concerns that financial stress occurring during the 1980s may repeat. However, the above debt levels are stated in nominal terms and do not take into consideration inflation’s devaluing impacts on the dollar.

Using the gross national product – implicit price deflator to state nominal debt levels in terms of 2009 dollars gives a different picture of debt levels (see the real line in Figure 1). In terms of 2009 dollars, agricultural debt started at $365 billion in 1980 before declining until 1994. Since 1993, agricultural debt in real terms increased all but three years 2000, 2003 and 2012. Since 1990, the rate of increase averaged 2.1% for real debt levels, much lower than the 4.1% nominal rate increase. The forecasted numbers for 2016 and 2017 are the highest levels in real terms since 1985

Debt Levels on FBFM Grain Farms

Additional perspective on debt can be obtained by analyzing farm level data from FBFM. Table 1 presents average data for grain farms enrolled in FBFM who have certified-useable balance sheets. The data is stated in nominal terms and debt levels are stated as of year-end 1991 through 2015. Three measures of debt level are presented in Table 1: debt-to-asset ratio, debt per tillable acre, and interest expense per tillable acre.

The debt-to-asset ratio had a very slight downward trend from 1991 to 2003. In 1991 and 2003, the debt-to-asset ratio was 33.4% and 29.2%, respectively. From 2004 to 2012, the debt-to-asset ratio decreased at a faster pace, averaging 5.2%. In 2004 and 2012, the debt-to-asset ratios were 28.5% and 18%, respectively. Since 2012, the debt-to-asset ratio has increased 4.3% annually. Since 1991, both asset and liability levels rose, with asset levels increasing slightly faster than debt levels.

Increases in debt can be seen by examining debt per tillable acre. Debt levels were $258 per tillable acre in 1991 compared to $372 in 2004, an increase of over $100 per acre (see Table 1). Since 2005, debt levels per tillable acre increased almost $300 per acre. Between 1991 and 2004, debt per tillable acre increased an average of 2.9%, which is about equal to the 3% for all U.S. agricultural debt. However since 2005, Illinois FBFM grain farms debt per tillable acre increased 5.7%, slightly higher than the national average of 5.6%.

While debt levels have increased, interest expense per tillable acre declined from 1999 to 2013, except for 2006, 2007 and 2008 which saw double-digit increases of 11.7%, 18.9% and 11.8%, respectively as well as 2.0% in 2011. Interest per tillable acre has been increasing since 2014. Interest expense was $20.72 per tillable acre in 1991 and $18.63 in 1992, while in 2014 and 2015 interest expense was $18.50 and $20.20, respectively. Lower interest rates in the late 90s and early 2000s caused the reduction in interest expense per tillable acre in the face of rising debt levels per acre. However, an interest rate increase in the mid-2000s caused an increase in interest expense per tillable acre during that period. From the mid-2000s until 2013, interest rates have decreased, but the amount of debt has increased more rapidly. Interest rates as well as debt has begun to increase since 2013, leading to interest expense per tillable acre to increase on average 7.5%.

Summary

The importance a farmer puts on monitoring their debt level is becoming increasingly important in this period of lower farm returns. With lower crop prices and higher inputs, we will continue to see the increase in debt per acre. With interest rates moving higher, this mean a rising interest expense as well. In addition, with some farm assets decreasing in value, this can also lead to higher debt-to-asset ratios even without any additional debt. Finally, as debt levels increase, farmers need to monitor their term debt and capital lease ratio. The greater the number, the greater the margin to meet all term debt and capital lease payments. A ratio of one means that income available is equal to the term debt and lease payments. In 2015, the average for the 2,601 IL farms enrolled in FBFM with useable data was 0.42 compared to 1.48 in 2014. Establishing or maintaining good recordkeeping during these times will help farmers identify areas of concern faster and be able to make better farm financial decisions.

Source: Farmdoc Daily

Farmers looking at the dairy shed and pasture from a cow’s perspective could reduce cow stress and end up with more milk in the farm vat, says DairyNZ.

The dairy industry organisation ran a Milk Smart seminar near Palmerston North at a dairy farm, and about 20 people went to find out more about cow senses.

“Think from a cow’s point of view,” said Murray Holt from DairyNZ

“A fearful cow makes adrenaline and that stops her letting down her milk. if a cow is upset, even when she is calm, it takes half an hour for her to be ok.”

Holt told farmers calm cows produced 4 per cent to 14 per cent more milk.

He said all domesticated cows came from 70 auroc cattle, and they were prey animals.

“Even though we have bred a quieter cow, they still have the basic instincts of being a hunted animal.”

Holt said cows had social interactions with other animals.

“They have friends and remember family. They are curious. if a sick TB possum crosses their paddock what do they do? Go over and investigate, and smell it. Sheep run away. Cows also have moods and emotions. They are intelligent.”

He said a cow’s sense of smell was better than humans, and they could smell other animals eight kilometres away.

“They can smell the urine of other cows, and if a cow is afraid it shows in the urine and other cows know. They also use smell to recognise other cows in the herd, and they use their sense of smell to recognise you.”

Holt said cows had two or three times as many taste buds as humans and could hear higher frequencies than people.

“Don’t have the radio on full in the cow shed. If a cow can’t hear, it would be like she is wearing a blindfold.”

He said cows could see more widely than people, with a 330 degree vision. A cow had 30 degrees at the back which she could not see. In contrast, people can see 170 degrees.

“But we work behind a cow in her blind spot. She can’t see us, and often when the [milking] cups go on a cow, she jumps. She only knows you are there because she can hear you.”

Source: NZ Farmer

There is no question that Michigan dairy farms have been experiencing tough economic conditions over the past two years. Some drivers of these conditions are new, or at least greater in scale than have been experienced previously. The response by individual farms is critical to their ability to survive and thrive.

When we travel to dairy farms to talk with producers that are going through these tough times, we cover three areas that we believe are important to turning the operation around. These areas include: maximizing the resources that you have, reducing waste, and re-evaluating the business structure.

Maximizing resources means getting more out of investments you have already made, particularly resources that are currently underutilized. Examples could include milking cow barns that are not full, work schedules that don’t fully utilize workers time, and parlor underutilization. Milking cow housing that is only partially full is an automatic red flag. Farms can ill afford to have assets that are not being fully utilized to generate revenue. Underutilized cow housing is often associated with other problem areas, including higher cull and death rates, poor reproductive performance and compromised calf raising. 

Another underutilized resource that farms may not immediately recognize is the external resources that they have available to them. One such resource is your Michigan State University Extension Dairy Team. The MSU Extension Dairy Team consists of six field educators and several campus-based specialists who can bring varied expertise to help producers identify opportunities and pathways to improvement. Like other outside people resources, MSU Extension educators offer an external perspective, and we also are a link to unbiased research-based information.

Reducing waste on farms means identifying any area where there are losses of value. This includes animals that should be pregnant and are still open, dead animals, disease that robs production or decreases reproduction or milk quality, wasted feed, wasted seeds, and wasted time. This area requires the farm manager to take a step back, observe, do inventory and look for opportunities to cut waste without hurting performance. This is a great area to utilize employees as they are your eyes on the front lines. Seek their input, thank them for their input and use their ideas. Even when an idea is off the mark, recognize that employees are trying to help your business succeed. Use these ideas that are “off the mark” to help train employees on why it is important not to cut a certain area.

Reevaluating the business structure means that you critically evaluate each operation and whether you consistently, efficiently and profitably perform it. Oftentimes, that will take bringing in some outside thinking and ideas. The newest economic realities may necessitate that your business structure change from what you have always done. That could be using a custom heifer grower to free up facility space, feed and human resources. It could be contracting with a custom harvester to free up financial resources that have been dedicated to machinery that is underutilized and improving the harvested product by getting it put up in a narrower window. Finally, it may mean changing debt structure to enable you to weather these tough economic times. 

In all of these cases, you will need to have a firm grasp on your farm’s cost of production, balance sheet information, net income and cash flow. You’ll need to be able to determine what areas of your farm are profitable and which areas are not. If this is where you could use assistance, there is a MSU Extension resource available to help you.

Michigan State University Extension is offering a program entitled Newest Economic Realities in Agriculture: Building Your Farm’s Plan.  This program is designed to help everyone, from a novice to an advanced farmer, understand your business’ numbers and how that translates into prioritizing options and making timely management decisions. There will be breakout sessions for dairy/livestock, field crops, and fruits/vegetable production.

The program is being held on March 8 at the Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center in East Lansing. It runs from 8:30 to 5:00 p.m. with an optional dinner with Question and Answer session from 5:30 – 7 p.m. To view the full program agenda and register for the program, please go to the event page online.

Tough times demand re-evaluation. Don’t miss the opportunity to re-evaluate your business and put it on a path to greater profitability.

Source: MSU Extension

Skills in detective work are sometimes more valuable than knowing the ins and outs of nutrition. Today’s computer models make ration formulation almost too easy. When troubleshooting “nutrition” problems many people start with the paper ration. However, in reality the problem many times is in the implementation. This is where science and art come into play.

Production Perspective

Experience has shown that there is normally not just one area that is causing low milk production or performance. It is usually multifaceted, which makes it even more difficult to find and correct the problem. The other challenge is there may not be a cost effective immediate solution, which can be difficult to accept. There are some major steps in drilling down to the bottleneck(s) affecting performance. 

Evaluating herd records is a good first step. Using DHIA or on farm data systems can help locate the potential problem areas. Examining peak milk, days in milk, performance by lactation number, grouping strategies, milk quality, reproduction, reasons for animal sold are just a few areas that can give indications of where or what the problem may be. Forage and TMR analysis reports are needed to make connections between nutrition and animal performance. The next action is a visual appraisal of the animals and feeds.

Animals never lie and thus they are the best indicators of what is really happening on farm. Also, answering the question of does the herd information match the visual appraisal of animals and feed can be extremely enlightening. Body condition scores by group, change in body condition over time, manure consistency, animal behavior including lying time, walking, interaction with people, access to water are just a few observations that can narrow down problem areas. Forage and feed assessment in and out of storage can determine how much they are factoring into the performance problems.

Feed management weighs heavily in evaluating low performance. Some common areas to check is ration consistency, frequency of feeding and ration push-ups, time away from feed, sorting, and particle size to name a few. To accurately assess what is happening may require checking feeding management practices at different times during a 24-hour period. Troubleshooting problems rarely has a one stop solution.

Dairying is a dynamic process so keep in perspective that what is observed one day may change tomorrow. This can challenge any troubleshooting endeavor and may explain why animals may not respond to recommended changes. Continual monitoring of herd data and management are necessary to confirm that practices have been properly implemented and are working.

A common scenario playing out this year is corn silage with diverse ranges in starch content, within farm and structure due to the erratic weather during the growing season. This has resulted in unexpected low performance, which is not necessarily the fault of the producer or nutritionist, but challenges associated with forage inconsistency.  More frequent forage testing may not be enough to keep on top of the constant changes.  In the short-term there may be limited solutions to this bottleneck. The best approach is to discuss how to minimize or manage the problem for the next growing season.  Keeping expectations realistic can minimize frustrations when positive results are not immediately forthcoming.

Action plan for troubleshooting low milk production

Goals

Evaluate all pertinent information related to cows, feeds and management to determine possible bottlenecks to low performance. Develop a strategy to improve production and monitor key metrics over time to assess results.

Steps

• Step 1: Work with an advisory team to evaluate herd data and visually appraise all animals and feeds on the farm.
• Step 2: Conduct tests on feeds, rations, manure, or other items to validate the bottleneck(s) affecting animal performance.
• Step 3: Evaluate feeding management practices over time to confirm proper protocols are being followed.
• Step 4: Based on the findings, develop a plan to correct the problem area(s) affecting production.
• Step 5: Monitor key production metrics including income over feed cost.

Economic perspective

Monitoring must include an economic component to determine if a management strategy is working or not. For the lactating cows income over feed costs is a good way to check that feed costs are in line for the level of milk production. Starting with July’s milk price, income over feed costs was calculated using average intake and production for the last six years from the Penn State dairy herd. The ration contained 63% forage consisting of corn silage, haylage and hay. The concentrate portion included corn grain, candy meal, sugar, canola meal, roasted soybeans, Optigen (Alltech product) and a mineral vitamin mix. All market prices were used.

Also included are the feed costs for dry cows, springing heifers, pregnant heifers and growing heifers. The rations reflect what has been fed to these animal groups at the Penn State dairy herd. All market prices were used.

Source: PennState Extension

The youngest animals on a dairy are often the most vulnerable. Improving mortality rates in this susceptible population can be the key to decreasing costs and improving productivity.

On U.S. dairies, the average mortality rates for pre-weaned calves is about 7.8 percent,1 which means nearly all operations can make improvements in this area, says Angel Aguilar, Ph.D., Dipl. ACAN, Technical Services Manager, Lallemand Animal Nutrition.

“Supporting calf health can pay dividends in reduced treatment costs, lowered death loss and improved gain,” he says. “To meet these goals, operations must ensure calves get a good start before they are challenged with stress. That takes attention to management practices and nutrition.”

To improve calf health, Aguilar suggests producers tackle the main causes of calf illness, which are scours, digestive and respiratory disorders associated with stress.1 He recommends reducing or eliminating the main causes of stress, such as:

・ Abrupt feed changes

・ Poor ventilation

・ Overcrowding

・ Exposure to sudden weather changes

・ Excessive heat or cold

Aguilar recommends producers also carefully transport, vaccinate and handle pre-weaned calves to reduce the stress associated with these events.

In addition, a healthy and balanced digestive system can support a calf’s overall immune system. One way to do this is to include an active dry yeast (ADY) probiotic to the milk replacer, raw or waste milk fed to neonatal calves. ADY probiotics containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii CNCM I-1079 have been shown to help reduce the negative impact of stress in cattle.

“Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii CNCM I-1079 is a proven probiotic that positively activates the immune system of cattle during times of stress,” Aguilar says. “It actually works in the animal’s lower gut to influence the calf’s natural immunity through an internal active process.”

Aguilar cautions that not every probiotic can deliver these effects, particular in newborn calves. Producers should look for specific strains that are proven to deliver results.

“At birth, the digestive system of a calf is just beginning to develop,” Aguilar says. “It’s one of the many ways calves are vulnerable. Probiotics can help alleviate stress that so often damages the productivity potential of the calf — and the herd as a whole. Healthy calves provide a strong foundation for the health of a herd and profitability of an operation.”

Lallemand Animal Nutrition is committed to optimizing animal performance and well-being with specific natural microbial product and service solutions. Using sound science, proven results and knowledge, Lallemand Animal Nutrition develops, manufactures and markets high value yeast and bacteria products ─ including probiotics, silage inoculants and yeast derivatives. Lallemand offers a higher level of expertise, leadership and industry commitment with long-term and profitable solutions to move our partners Forward. Lallemand Animal Nutrition is Specific for your success. For more information, please visit www.lallemandanimalnutrition.com.

When the feed bunk is overstocked it can have negative impacts on profits.

Overstocking at feed bunks can impact the time budget and behavior of a dairy cow. This occurs if a cow spends longer than 2.5-3.5 hours a day away from the barn. This time budget includes 5 hours for eating, 12-14 hours for lying and resting and 2-3 hours for walking. Disruption of this time budget can occur if a cow has to wait at the feed bunk to eat. The cow will lose time in one of the other areas of her time budget impacting productivity.

The recommended amount of bunk space per cow is 24 inches. Less than 24 inches of bunk space per cow is considered to be overstocking of the feed bunk. When a feed bunk is overstocked, cows will have to wait to eat. While waiting, she is losing time to rest which in turn will decrease milk production. Overstocking at the feed bunk will also make it more likely that a cow will be displaced by another cow due to increased competition.

It is important to understand that cows do not make up for lost feed time. They do not come back to the feed bunk when there are less cows.  Cows will instead eat 25 percent faster and eat larger meals. This will lead to ruminal acidosis, which happens when the pH of the rumen drops drastically for an extended period of time. Acidosis in dairy cows can result in lower milk yields, lower milk fat yield, and sole ulcers.

The design of a dairy free stall barn has an impact on bunk space. In a 4-row free stall barn, bunk space per stall is 24 inches. However, in a 6-row free stall barn, there are 18 inches of bunk space per stall.  This means that if a 6-row free stall barn has more than one cow per stall the negative impacts of feed bunk overstocking will be seen sooner than in a 4 row free stall barn.

Inadequate feed bunk space in the transition cow pen will negatively impact a dairy herd. Michigan State University Extension recommends that each transition cow has 30 inches of bunk space and the stalls are only 80 percent stocked. Close-up dry and fresh cows are already predisposed to decreased dry matter intake and a sensitivity to acidosis. In order to have a smooth transition period, it is important to plan ahead and make sure your transition animals have the space they need.

If the feed bunk is overstocked there are ways to decrease some of the negative impacts. Some of these are:

• Develop a long term strategic culling plan to keep the ideal number of animals in each pen.

Add cows to the “Do not breed” list earlier.

•  This will allow cows to complete the lactation without spending money on breeding for an inferior cow.
• Look at your replacement heifer inventory.
  • Many farms have more heifers than they need. They can be sold young or as fresh 2-year-olds.
  •  The decision as to which heifers to sell can be done by looking at health events and genetic potential.
• Feed more times per day and/or add more feed push-ups to the daily routine.
  • This will attract a cow who has not had enough feed intake for the day to get up and eat.
• Add head locks to the feed bunk.
  • Headlocks will limit the number of cows that can eat at one time, but they make it harder for one cow to push another one away from feed.
• Create a first lactation group
  • Older cows will not be able to push the smaller ones away from the feed bunk.
  • The ration can be tailored to help continued growth for those younger cows.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension.

Several changes in the way dairy farms can use antibiotics came into effect January 1st, 2017. At this point, most people are aware of the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) and the effect it has on some of the practices we used in raising replacement heifers. The same legislation that brought in the VFD also changed access to certain over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. One of the drugs affected by this change were the tetracyclines that hoof trimmers commonly used to treat digital dermatitis (hairy heel warts). On top of this, it is expected that at some point in 2017, the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) is going to start a pilot tetracycline testing program. This pilot program will test 1/15 of all grade A raw milk for tetracycline residues on a quarterly basis.

What does this all mean for your farm? Primarily you will notice that your hoof trimmer will no longer be able to show up on your farm with tetracycline powder that they purchased themselves and farms will have to supply it. Unfortunately, there are no antibiotics with a licensed label claim for the treatment of digital dermatitis. This means that the use of tetracycline to treat these cows is considered extra-label drug use.

For farms to be able to continue to use tetracycline powder, the farm will need to get their veterinarian to write a prescription. To write a prescription, your veterinarian will require the farm to have a veterinary client patient relationship (VCPR). The VCPR means that:

• The veterinarian is familiar with the client (farm owner)
• The veterinarian is familiar with the herd being treated
• The client must agree that the people who use antibiotics on their farm (including hoof trimmers) follow the veterinarian’s specific directions.

A prescription needs to include:

• A dose
• An application method
• Appropriate milk and slaughter withdrawals information

To ensure your farm continues to use antibiotics responsibly and is not affected by the change in both access to tetracycline powder and the pilot testing program, it is important that your veterinarian and hoof trimmer communicate and develop a treatment protocol that they are both comfortable with. Your veterinarian will want to be certain that the specific instructions they provide on their prescriptions are followed to ensure the milk withdrawal period is appropriate.

Research conducted at the University of Minnesota has shown that treatment with tetracycline powder does create residues in the milk and teats do become contaminated with the treatment. This raises some questions for veterinarians writing prescriptions and they will want to ensure a system exists to ensure proper dosages are used to prevent violative residues.

A violative residue is a residue that is above the maximum residue limit (MRL) of 300 ppb for tetracycline. From this University of Minnesota research, we know that applying 2 grams or less of tetracycline powder per lesion for a maximum of two lesions per cow will not cause violative residues in individual cows and is enough to successfully treat the lesion (Figure 1). A complicating factor is that although the MRL is 300 ppb, some of the tests used to screen milk can detect tetracycline residues at a much lower level. What you and your veterinarian will need to consider is how your milk processor is going to implement the NICMS pilot program and how they will use the results of tests that find tetracycline residues below the MRL. In most cases, if an appropriate dose of tetracycline is used on individual animals, the risk of contaminating the food supply with violative residues is minimal. However, in some cases, your veterinarian might be uncomfortable with the risk of potentially contaminating the milk supply and include a milk withdrawal period.

The bottom line in all of this is for you to be sure your hoof trimmer and veterinarian have developed a protocol that ensures cows with digital dermatitis receive appropriate treatment and also address the new rules around the use of and testing for tetracycline.

Source: Univ. of Minnesota Extension

On average, a Danish dairy cow calve once a year. However, there are many indications that fewer calvings and extended milking periods have more advantages.

By extending the lactation by up to six month both the environmental and climate impact of the livestock production may be reduced, whereas productivity and animal welfare potentially improve.

Moreover, research now shows that the milk quality is not affected negatively – contrary to previous fears:

• There are a very limited number of studies examine the impact of extended lactation on milk quality; but previous studies have caused some concern. However, it is worth noticing that these studies date far back – and therefore they do not take modern livestock production into consideration, explains Assistant Professor Nina Aagaard Poulsen from the Department of Food Science at Aarhus University.

Higher protein and fat contents

Within the context of the research project REPROLAC she and a number of colleagues have joined forces with representatives from the industry in order to clarify all aspects of the production method – including the effect on milk quality.

A PhD student from the Department of Food Science has been affiliated with the project, the efforts of which e.g. includes a comparison of milk samples from different stages of lactation – focusing specifically on taste and the properties making milk suitable for cheese production.

• As expected, milk yield decreases over time. However, the contents of protein and fat increased. Our investigations thus show that the cheese-making properties of milk improve during lactation, Nina Aagaard Poulsen says.

No negative effect on taste

Apart from measurable factors, the researchers have used a professional taste panel to investigate whether the extended lactation strategy affects the taste of the milk.

Previous investigations have indicated that milk from cows in extended lactation may have an undesirable and salty taste.

In addition, problems with increased proteolysis or protein breakdown may occur, especially if increased cell count problems arise during lactation.

• As mentioned before, milk from cows in extended lactation contains more fat and protein and this is reflected in the taste panel evaluation. As an example, panel participants state that the milk is more creamy and fat. Most importantly, however, they do not indicate any negative impact on the milk taste, Nina Aagaard Poulsen says. In other words, there is no reason to fear that milk quality is reduced by extended lactation – neither with regard to the composition, the cheese-making property nor the taste of the milk.

Source: EurekAlert!

At the Cargill Animal Nutrition Meeting recently, speakers Dr. Chris Canale and Dr. Gordie Jones showed us the feeding and cow care practices that lose milk production in their presentation, “Thrive: Finding lost milk and profit at any price”. In the case of corn silage, starch availability is a big predictor of how well it feeds. 20-30 percent of the starch value depends on the amount of processing and grinding prior to feeding or ensiling. Kernel processing scores (KPS) can be a helpful guideline. A KPS under 65% leads to a loss of about 4 pounds of milk/cow/day. Genetic differences in hybrids are a major factor as well – PDMP data illustrates clear differences in starch availability by hybrid early on in the fermentation cycle, so starting out with more floury starch hybrids can prove to be a great advantage.

There’s more to NDF than we often think, and this goes for all forages. Fast and slow pools and UNDF240 were discussed by both speakers to get at the heart of fiber digestibility. Low UNDF240 is critical to predicting fiber digestion in cows, and even though no feedstuffs remain in the cow for that length of time, the analysis is used to predict KP and KD rates in high producing cows, and to understand the total kinetics of NDF digestion.

Small grain forages are a good double-cropping option as well as an excellent way to add a high yield of highly digestible fiber to your rotation. Not only do winter small grains give you a chance to bring extra tonnage from the same land area, they have very high NDFd values and low UNDF 240. Also, if the DM is low in small grains there is a lower probability of butyric acid formation compared to alfalfa silages. Dr. Canale’s data showed that the very worst grass or small grain is more digestible than the best alfalfa, and that another 4-5 lbs of milk is potentially achievable by replacing poor forage with highly digestible cereal silage.

In addition, 1 pound of rumen digestible starch can yield 2.7 lbs of milk.

Recumbent cows and time budgets are critical. Every hour of rest for a cow equals about 3.7 lbs of milk.

Dr. Jones shared his four rules for cow performance:

1. Cow comfort
2. Forage is King
3. Better forage is BETTER
4. Pregnancy rate – keep cows in the herd!

As he reminded us, “cows do not cause problems; cow problems are caused by people.” He also urged us to find bottlenecks in our production system by looking at industry and internal benchmarks. Fix the bottleneck or flow rate problem, then look for the next bottleneck. Repeat, repeat, repeat!

Dr. Jones also explained his Three Circles of Excellence:

Time budget-

• Time to milk, time in transit, time to eat and drink and rest. No more than four hours out of the day should be spent away from feed, water, and beds.
• When is she fed? Feed 50 percent or more of DMI so it is present at the exit of the parlor. If you are tie stall herd, feed before you milk.
• Cows and managers shouldn’t see the concrete or tiles under the feed until after noontime. Every spot of concrete or feed liner visible is $1 in lost milk value.
• No more than one hour in headlocks.
• Feed 105-110 percent of actual DMI; push feed up every two hours.

What does the cow experience in a year-long time budget?

• Group changes can knock off 6 lbs/cow/day
• Social groups are needed to restore, boss cows, water placement and number of waterers (never less than two for any size group)
• Pen population size is critical for social groups – 2-100 cows you have a single group; 100-300 cows and you have 2 groups
• Over 300 cows in a pen and you have no social groups.
• Dr. Jones recommends only 1 ration be fed.
• Two more time points are critical: when is she bred and confirmed, and how long is the cow dry? She required 55-60 days dry.

Two year cycle of growth for heifers. Maternity pen clean and dry, calves in hutches.

• Always wean calves in even numbers (they are herd “prey” and everyone needs a buddy).
• Always wean into groups of 20 or less
• Breeding at 13 months, vaccinate, feed

Though cow management is a key to productivity, recovering milk production starts in the field, with more and better forage. I connected with this message because King’s AgriSeeds emphasizes building a profitable operation on a foundation of high energy forages grown on the farm. In our product selection process, we look for the genetics that lead to the most digestible products.

Source: King’s Agriseed

Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is an economic challenge to dairy producers. It continues to be the major cause of death in weaned calves and can lead to poor performance later in a cow’s life.

Dr. Mark van der List, Professional Services Veterinarian with Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. (BIVI), suggests implementing the following management practices on your operation to help reduce the impact of BRD in your herd:

Reduce cow stress

BRD often presents itself in times of stress: weaning, feed variations, high humidity, calving and season changes. During these periods, it’s important to reduce stress factors and keep a close watch on your herd. Stress can also lead to immunosuppression — especially around calving. A focus on cow comfort and other management practices, including avoiding overcrowding, using low-stress handling techniques, and good calving management can help reduce stress and improve transition cow health.

Ensure proper housing

One of the biggest risk factors for BRD is poor ventilation. Make sure cows are in an area where there is fresh air flow, with clean, dry bedding to improve cow comfort.

Monitor herd closely

Recognize the signs of sickness, especially after calving. Fever, increased respiratory rate, discolored nasal discharge and coughing are all symptoms of BRD. Work with your veterinarian to properly treat a cow with pneumonia.

Implement a sound vaccination program

Vaccination against BRD is crucial to prevention. Take the time to vaccinate cows in the dry period to help boost not only the cow’s immunity, but also to boost immunoglobulins in colostrum and start the calf off on the right foot. Dr. van der List recommends working with your local veterinarian to develop a vaccination program to prevent BRD in your herd.

Source: Bovine Veterinarian

Daily in-line milk analysis with the Afimilk’s AfiLab milk analyzer may be more useful in predicting a cow’s future lactation than monthly DHIA tests, according to a recently published study of 37,486 Holstein cows over a two-year period.

Unprecedented in scope, the study “Genetic and phenotypic analysis of daily Israeli Holstein milk, fat, and protein production as determined by a real-time milk analyzer,” selected for “Editor’s Choice” in the December 2016 issue of the Journal of Dairy Science, appears to validate the hypothesis that AfiLab daily analysis of milk components provide a more representative measure of a cow’s total lactation when compared with monthly DHIA tests.

Joel Weller and Ephraim Ezra from the Agricultural Research Organization, Volcani Center, compared daily records of milk production, protein and fat concentration collected by the AfiLab with monthly test day records of the same statistics derived from the central laboratory of the Israel Cattle Breeders Association. They concluded that real-time daily recording may be preferable to monthly DHIA testing based on several findings:

• Lactation means were similar for the two methods for all traits except fat production, with minor differences of up to 0.1 percent.
• First-parity heritabilities were higher for lactations computed from daily records for all traits except protein percentage, but differences were not significant.
• At only 30 days in milk (DIM), high genetic correlations ranging from 0.73 to 0.79 were observed between predicted and actual lactations using in-line milk sampling.
• Daily first-parity partial lactations for milk, fat and protein production with <150 DIM predicted future lactation more accurately than corresponding monthly partial lactations.

According to Weller & Ezra: “The AfiLab phenotypic correlations are higher than the ICBA correlations for all 3 traits at all 9 truncation points, even though DIM at truncation was lower for the AfiLab records.”

Afimilk’s In-line Milk Lab measures milk yield, components and conductivity every milking to help manage cow selection, and alert when cows are at risk for diseases such as mastitis and ketosis, and nutritional changes affecting the entire herd.

Afimilk, a global leader in farm management tools, provides dairy farmers in over 50 countries with technology and expertise to profitably produce milk for over 40 years. Read more: http://www.Afimilk.com. Visit us at World Ag Expo stand DS69,70,83,84.

When Adam Faust purchased his parents farm four years ago, he was determined to carry on his grandfather’s legacy, and had already had his sights set on updating the old bank barn for creature comforts during his 15-year partnership with his father. The last update was in 1974.

The work began in October 2015. Two months later, he was milking cows in the renovated tie-stall barn on Christmas Day 2015.

“I spent a lot of time researching. I looked at all types of ventilation systems and all types of facilities and milking systems. I looked at Nigel Cook’s designs at the University of Wisconsin. but when it came right down to it, Tom Kestell (Ever-Green-View) encouraged me by telling me the walls here are strong, and that what’s between them can be replaced, and so that’s what I did,” Adam reflects. “He told me there is not a better system for making milk than a properly designed and managed tie-stall barn.”

While he farms 500 acres, runs a custom harvesting business and sells Latham seed, it is the cows on the Northeast Wisconsin farm that are his biggest focus. Whether it’s the cows or the crops, Adam enjoys developing genetics in all that he does. He has a few Excellent cows, including an Adonis daughter with four out of five dams all Excellent that he purchased as a calf, and calved into his herd last summer.

Adam was one of five finalists for the 2017 Wisconsin Outstanding Young Farmer award. He is president of the Calumet County Forage Council, has served several years on the county dairy promotion board, is a member of the Holstein Association and Farmers Union, as well as participating actively in various community civic organizations and volunteering as a member of AgrAbility.

But those aren’t the things I found so inspiring during my summer visit to the rejuvenated Faustone Holstein Farm, Chilton, Wisconsin.

Born with spina bifida, Adam has overcome mobility challenges from the various degrees of paralysis. He has worked hard and persevered to pursue his passion for dairy farming. His recent remodel of the bank barn added a few touches for his own assistance, but his focus has admittedly always been the cows.

AgrAbility partnered with Easter Seals and the Wisconsin Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to help Adam realize his dream of independent farming, including custom steps for the tractor and feed bins instead of carrying feed bags for the youngstock and the detacher rails for moving milkers from stall to stall.

“I have always known this is what I wanted to do,” the young dairyman said. He has been mentored by some of the best in the community, like Tom Kestell, getting him involved in showing at the age of 12. From these mentors, he learned how to pick a calf that will make a good cow. Some of his best can be traced to the Ever-Green-View cow family that produced Kestell’s single-lactation milk yield world record holder for 2013 and 2016.

Adam has been thinking about modifying the dairy’s bank barn ever since he completed the two-year University of Wisconsin short courses in agronomy and dairy at the Madison campus in 1999. He did his own research on dairy systems in Europe and Canada, and he was inspired by Kestell’s comments, especially since Ever-Green-View is home to the cow that set the world record for single-lactation milk production in two of the past five years.

Top on his cow comfort list was to increase the stall size. He added 10 inches to the width and length and increased the neck rail space for lunging from 48 inches to 54.

He deep beds the tie-stalls using “Alternative Animal Bedding” produced from a byproduct of recycled de-inked paper from a mill outside of Green Bay. Each load is mixed with deep-bedding lime to reduce moisture and increase pH. Adam grooms the stalls each day to keep the deep-bedded material flat and adds fresh as needed. The cows are free to nestle in just like a sand bed.

“I like big powerful cows, so I wanted the stalls to fit the kind of cows I like, and I wanted them to be comfortable,” said Adam as he showed me around and pointed out a few of his top producers and Excellent cows. He has built up the pedigrees for type, relying on quality forages, a high forage TMR and improved cow comfort for increased production among his 70 cows. Production continues to climb into the upper 70s with good components and low somatic cell counts as the comfort has improved.

Milk from the Faustone Holsteins is shipped nearby through membership in a small local marketing cooperative and is used for both cheese as well as soft serve made famous by the farmer-appreciating Midwestern restaurant chain: Culver’s.

While he uses genomics to a point, Adam is building his herd’s genetics by investing in cow families and is quick to point out that the world record milk production cow from Ever-Green-View was not a high genomic testing cow on paper. Adam is proud to have daughters from her in his herd because, as he points out, “that family has produced tremendous milk cows.”

“I will use high genomic bulls — if the pedigree behind them in decent,” he explains. “I want the bulls to have something real behind them. I look for deep cow families and components. I want a balanced cow that I can feed for yield. They need to be big enough to consume enough forage to make the milk.”

To that end, he feeds a 65% forage TMR that consists of hay, corn silage, corn and soybeans — all grown on the farm.

Adam has made numerous other cow comfort modifications to the bank barn.

The detacher rails are helpful to him, allowing him to pull the milkers to each tie-stall on the rail system instead of carrying them. And he has equipped each tie-stall with a deep Canadian-style drinking cup.

He has opened up the window sections of the concrete block walls for larger glass-block windows to let in more light and added long-day LED lighting. This concept can be a bit difficult for the previous generation when walking through the barn feeling as though lights need to stay off. But Adam is happy with the atmosphere for the cows.

To increase air flow through the barn, he put into the wall at the far end of the stable two 72-inch ceiling-to-floor fans for air-intake year-round and small directional fans over stalls for summer. The two large intake fans produce air exchange every 14 seconds and air movement at 12 to 15 miles per hour.

The barn is now wireless equipped, and Adam uses the Del Pro system, allowing the DHIA testing to be done electronically.

In addition to the tie-stall renovation and the deep bedded stalls, Adam has adopted the 7-day fresh cow routine for his fresh cows and two-year-olds. “I picked up a sample on the first day of the 2016 Oshkosh show. Two days later, after using it on a high-pedigree 2-year-old, I had my hired man go back to buy a whole gallon.”

That fresh heifer had not been milking out completely and was giving well below her production potential. “I sprayed her udder after each milking, and by the 3rd time, she was milking out to a dishrag. Her 7-day average rose quickly from 15 to 94 lbs after the Udder Comfort straightened her out,” he explained. “I am sold on this product. It gets edema out fast for a complete milkout. Now we spray it on all fresh udders after each milking for 7 days to improve comfort and reduce stress. I see them get going and their SCCs coming down faster with far fewer high-count cows. ”

All of these changes will help Adam further build the herd’s performance at Faustone, and he has no regrets about renovating instead of building new. He wanted to continue with the tie-stall style of management and wanted to keep the herd small.

Dairying is something he loves, and now he loves the way the barn suits both him, and his cattle.

Source: Cause Comfort Matters

Today, prevalence of anestrous cows is estimated at 20% to more than 40% in U.S. dairy herds.¹ The complications can be detrimental to your reproductive success. These cows have lower probability of breeding, lower conception rates and longer intervals to conception than cycling herdmates.²

What are anestrous cows costing you?
Anestrus, or missed estrous periods, can significantly reduce reproduction efficiency. Missed estrous periods increase the animal’s number of days in milk, which in turn costs producers lost income. The cost per extra day open beyond the voluntary waiting period can be more than $3.00 per cow per day,³ which can add up quickly if cows are not managed properly.

It’s important to rule out poor heat detection before assuming cows are not cycling. The following methods can be used to identify anestrous cows:  

• Observation: No signs of estrus since calving
• Ultrasound: No corpus luteum detected on either ovary in two exams at seven- to 14-day intervals, such as on Day 35 and Day 42 post-calving
• Blood or milk samples: Low concentrations of progesterone discovered in two samples collected at seven- to 14-day intervals, such as on Day 35 and Day 42 post-calving

Can anestrous cows be treated?
Work with your veterinarian to properly identify anestrous cows or other reproductive issues. Once diagnosed, Eazi-Breed^™ CIDR^® Cattle Insert can be used for the induction of estrous cycles in anestrous dairy cows, which is the only on-label treatment option available. Continue to work with your veterinarian to implement protocols that follow the product label and will help get your cows cycling again.

How do I prevent anestrus?
Nutrition plays a large role in the prevention of anestrus. Following calving, make sure you’re getting cows to a positive energy balance as soon as possible to improve body condition score and their overall health. Cows with a body condition score (BCS) ≤ 2.50 have a significantly lower probability of becoming pregnant by 150 days postpartum than cows with higher BCS.⁴

Work closely with your veterinarian to make reproductive health a Dairy Wellness priority. Discuss estrous detection with your employees to help minimize anestrus incidence on your dairy. Visit DairyReproSolutions.com for more information.   

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR EAZI-BREED CIDR: Avoid contact with skin by wearing protective gloves when handling Eazi-Breed CIDR inserts. Do not use in heifers of insufficient size or age for breeding or in cattle with abnormal, immature, or infected genital tracts. Do not use inserts more than once.

Source: Zoetis

When choosing a milk replacer, calf raisers often look at two key ingredients: fat and protein. But did you know there are four major ingredients in milk replacer? 

“Milk replacers are made with four major components: protein, fat, lactose and ash. All four work in collaboration with one another,” says Skip Olson, Technical Services Veterinarian for Milk Products, LLC, Chilton, Wis.

Protein and fat are traditionally used to describe a specific milk replacer’s formulation, with the first number representing protein and the second, fat. For example, a 24:20 milk replacer would contain 24 percent protein and 20 percent fat.  

Ash (mineral) percentage is determined by the ash content of the various ingredients. 

“Ash is a naturally occurring substance in milk- and plant-based feed products,” says Olson. “It is made up of minerals, including sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium and trace minerals. Many of these essential elements contribute to the cellular function of calves that allow for both growth and strong immunity.”

The fourth ingredient, lactose, is variable. Its percentage changes because it completes the formulation based on the protein, fat and ash content. In a 20:20 milk replacer with 10 percent ash, lactose would make up the remaining 50 percent. If the protein level was changed to 24 percent, lactose would drop to 46 percent. 

“Whole, raw milk contains about 5.5 to 6.5 percent ash,” says Olson. “Milk replacers usually contain more ash because they often are manufactured using primarily milk-based ingredients that concentrate natural minerals.” 

An example is reduced-lactose whey, or “delac,” which is a coproduct of cheese production.

Milk replacers also often contain additional additives – trace minerals, vitamins and medications – which increase ash content. The result is a 7 to 12 percent range in commercial milk replacers, with most containing about 9 percent ash. Olson says a higher number is not necessarily detrimental to the calf for a number of reasons:

1. Protein, fat and lactose are variable influencers. Protein is required by the calf for lean tissue and structural growth. Fat and lactose combine to provide energy to fill in the skeletal frame. Ash levels only become “too high” and limit growth when they don’t allow for enough lactose to provide a total energy package that maximizes growth based on the amount of protein in the ration. Even in those cases, the setback in weight gain is minor. For example, when a 25:20 milk replacer containing 9 percent ash is fed at 1.5 pounds of dry matter per day, National Research Council (NRC) predicted gain at 60 degrees Fahrenheit is reduced by only 0.03 pound per day compared to a formulation containing 7 percent ash. Over a 5-week period, that amounts to just a 1-pound difference in total gain.

2. Feeding rate matters. Using the same formulation of 25:20 milk replacer but increasing the feeding rate to 2 pounds of dry matter per day means the 9 percent ash level won’t have any influence on predicted gain. That’s because feeding at this higher rate provides more than enough available energy (fat + lactose) to accommodate the protein in the ration.

3. Cost of adjustment usually is not recouped in gain. The primary challenge in manufacturing milk replacers is providing high-quality nutrition at the least cost. “Delac” often is a key ingredient to accomplish both. It is higher in ash than other common ingredients. But, given the examples above, it can be used to develop milk replacer formulations that still result in acceptable ash levels. For example, choosing a 12 percent ash product versus a 9 percent product saves $1.50 to $2.00 per bag, while sacrificing only 2 pounds of total predicted gain for the first 5 weeks of feeding.

4. Moisture also is a factor. Probably a more important variable than ash is moisture level in milk replacer. Moisture can vary from 2.5 to 7 percent. As an example, a bag of milk replacer with 7 percent moisture has 4 percent less dry matter (and 4 percent more water) than a bag with 3 percent moisture. That represents a 50-pound bag of milk replacer with 2 pounds less dry matter and nutritional value. Essentially, you’re paying for added water. High moisture content has a much more detrimental effect on calf growth and cost efficiency than high ash content. A 20:20 milk replacer with 7 percent moisture, fed at the same volume as a 20:20 formulation with 3 percent moisture, will result in 0.07-pound lower average daily gain, or a total of 2.45 pounds of gain in the first 5 weeks of feeding. 

Olson says the last example is especially telling, because the two bags of milk replacer likely would sell at a very similar price.

“Unlike ash, where a small sacrifice in gain would be offset by a more affordable product, moisture levels at the high end of the acceptable range usually do not come at a lower price. But they have similar, or more profound, impact on gain,” he states.

“Ash is not added to milk replacer as a ‘filler,’” says Olson. “It is a natural and varying component based on the ingredients selected for the formulation.”

Source: Milk Products news release

The reasons dairy producers invest in genomic testing are as unique as the print patterns in a herd of Holsteins.

Hear four dairy producers from across the United States discuss different reasons behind their decisions to introduce genomic testing on their operations in a webinar, “Genomic Testing in Action: How Dairies Use Data to Improve Herd Productivity and Profitability”, held Nov. 30, 2016. The four panelists also share the progress made with CLARIFIDE^® and CLARIFIDE Plus, new offerings that provide direct indication of the genetic risk for six of the most common and costly animal health diseases: mastitis, lameness, metritis, retained placenta, displaced abomasum and ketosis.  

Participating panelists were:

• Brian Houin — Homestead Dairy in Plymouth, Indiana
• Paul Van Warmerdam — PH Ranch in Winton, California
• Brian Fiscalini — Fiscalini Farms in Modesto, California
• Simon Vander Woude — Vander Woude Farms in Merced, California

Their reasons for investing are unique, but all producers share one thing in common — positive results. This includes the ability to make earlier culling decisions to right-size their heifer inventory or improvements to production, reproduction or herd health progress. Some shared that they have a new stream of income for the farm as a result. For Fiscalini Farms, examples of progress made with the help of genomic testing include earlier culling of lower-ranking heifers and a higher, more productive proportion of third-lactation or higher cows, which are contributing to $300,000 in feed savings and improved production, respectively.

Watch the webinar to learn more about how you can unlock your herd’s genetic potential and increase your dairy’s profitability, just like these producers.

Successful strategies follow integrated, multifaceted approach that takes local livestock production system into account and involves all relevant stakeholders.

Reducing the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, replacing them where possible and rethinking the livestock production system is essential for the future of animal and public health, according to experts from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the world’s most pressing public health issues, and the use of antimicrobials in animals contributes to this problem, so limiting their use to the minimum necessary to treat infectious diseases in animals is crucial, EFSA and EMA said.

The ESFA and EMA experts have reviewed the measures taken in the European Union to reduce antimicrobial use in animals and stress that there is no one-size-fits-all solution; successful strategies follow an integrated, multifaceted approach that takes into account the local livestock production system and involves all relevant stakeholders — from governments to farmers.

“It is clear that strategies that are already available can be implemented immediately and will have a positive impact on levels of antimicrobial resistance. At the same time, there is a need for innovative solutions. We need to find alternative ways to prevent and treat bacterial infections in animals,” EFSA executive director Dr. Bernhard Url said.

“There are only a few new antibiotics in the development pipeline; hence, those already available need to be used responsibly, both in humans and animals,” professor Guido Rasi, EMA executive director, added. “Collecting data on AMR and antibiotic consumption is key to putting into place effective measures to control AMR and retain the effectiveness of antimicrobials for the benefit of public and animal health.”

Measures

Control strategies that have been important drivers of change include setting national targets to reduce antimicrobial use, EFSA and EMA said. The use of antimicrobials in animals should be reduced to the minimum necessary to treat infectious diseases. Other than in exceptional cases, their use to prevent such diseases should be phased out in favor of alternative measures, the European agencies added.

Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine should be used in animals only as a last resort.

Alternatives to antimicrobials that have been shown to improve animal health and, thereby, reduce the need to use antimicrobials include vaccines, probiotics, prebiotics, bacteriophages and organic acids, EFSA and EMA said.

However, reducing the use of antimicrobials and finding alternatives is not enough. There is a need to rethink the livestock system by implementing farming practices that prevent the introduction and spread of the disease into farms and by considering alternative farming systems that are viable with reduced use of antimicrobials. Education and awareness of AMR should be addressed to all levels of society but with veterinarians and farmers in particular.

The experts concluded that it is reasonable to assume that reducing antimicrobial use in food-producing animals will result in a general decrease in antimicrobial resistance in the bacteria the animals they carry and the food products derived from them. However, the experts could not quantify the impact single reduction measures or antimicrobial alternatives would have on levels of antimicrobial resistance in food-producing animals and their food products due to a lack of data, EFSA and EMA reported.

Next steps

In February, EFSA and the European Centre for Disease Prevention & Control (ECDC) will publish their annual report on the levels of antimicrobial resistance in food, animals and humans across the EU.

EFSA, EMA and ECDC are also working on a report that assesses the link between consumption of antimicrobials and development of resistance in bacteria found in animals and humans. This report is due to be published at the end of July.

By the end of 2017, the three agencies will propose a list of indicators enabling risk managers to monitor the reduction of AMR and the use of antimicrobials in people, food-producing animals and food.

For more information, see the EMA and EFSA joint scientific opinion on measures to reduce the need to use antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry in the EU and the resulting impact on food safety.

Source: Feedstuffs

Withers height measurement can be obtained using a measuring stick by measuring the animal at the highest point of the withers. When measuring withers height, the animal should be standing on a level surface with its head upright. Hip height can also be measured as shown in Figure 4 and assessed by shifting the withers height curve up by two inches. Body condition score should be assessed by a trained individual. 

Figure 3. Proper weight tape placement around the heart girth¹

Conclusion
Because raising heifers is costly and labor intensive, any efficiency gained during that time is of benefit to the producer. Delaying calving over the goal of 24 months costs the producer approximately $50 per heifer per month or more. Monitoring heifer growth and condition throughout the rearing period allows producers to evaluate their heifer program to ensure that individual farm goals are met and heifers that are more profitable and able to reach their production potential are produced.  

Safety message: Keep safety in mind when moving and handling heifers. Strive to create a low stress environment to ensure safety for livestock and handlers.

Source: Michigan Farm News

An ag lender says a tough farm economy forces farmers to be more meticulous with their on-farm management decisions. But, Bill Watson, president of the agribusiness division for UMB Bank says it’s also important for farmers to continue those diligent management practices when the economy isn’t bad. “In 2014 we had tremendous prices – we saw people do silly things,” he says. “What they should have been doing then was taking some of that surplus cash and reducing leverage and even making some investments into improving efficiencies.”

Read more: Brownfield

Dr. Eunsung Kan sees his concept of a closed-loop dairy farm, which reuses wastewater, emits zero waste and powers itself on manure, as the future of sustainable animal farming.

Kan, a Texas A&M AgriLife Research chemical and environmental engineer in Stephenville, said his concept could change the way dairies, swine and poultry farms deal with manure, wastewater and greenhouse gasses while utilizing the waste to generate electricity.

Animal waste is a blessing and curse for dairies.

Manure is sold to local farmers who need to infuse nutrients into the soil for crops and forage. However, tons of manure can also be logistically taxing as facilities keep up with the treatment and distribution of large quantities of environmentally problematic materials monitored by state and federal environmental regulators.

Farm operations have been implicated in higher-than-normal levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, antibiotics, heavy metals and hormones in surface and groundwater downstream from facilities. Manure is also a known contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane and carbon dioxide.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service estimates manure from a dairy milking 200 cows can produce as much nitrogen as is in the sewage from a community of 5,000-10,000 people.

Kan’s research would utilize existing technology – biochar, a carbon material similar to charcoal, created from animal manure and agricultural waste, such as corn stubble or rice straw – that would be used to filter solid waste and effluent. The biochar could be used as a slow-release fertilizer or converted, via pyrolysis, which is the decomposition of organic material by heat, into energy to power the farm.

The closed-loop dairy concept focuses on three main goals – wastewater treatment using dairy manure-derived biochar, producing bioenergy using dairy manure and capturing greenhouse gasses via adsorption onto dairy manure-derived biochar, Kan said.

Biochar has proven to provide a beneficial surface chemistry that can filter a wide range of contaminants, including nitrogen and phosphorous, he said. When the surface of biochar is modified with several methods in a lab, it has shown an ability to capture antibiotics, pesticides, hormones, heavy metals and other possible contaminants.

“The mission is the treatment and reuse of dairy wastewater and the conversion of dairy waste into energy to power the facility,” he said. “It focuses on providing a model for sustainable farming.”

Last year, Kan received a $1 million grant from the Texas A&M University Chancellor’s Research Initiative Fund to research the viability of the closed-loop dairy system. Before joining AgriLife Research, he also received about $400,000 in research grants from the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Geologic Survey to research the concept’s potential to treat animal waste, control greenhouse gas emissions and convert manure to energy.

CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM

The closed-loop dairy is a relatively simple concept, Kan said.

Cows produce manure, which when mixed with remnants of local crops, can become a seemingly endless supply of filtering material, fertilizer and energy.

Columns filled with biochar would act as a water purification system that filters nitrogen, phosphorous and other contaminants from liquid as it passes through, Kan said.

“The effluent from the column would then be very low in nitrogen and phosphorous,” he said. “If we filter to low levels of nitrogen and phosphorus it wouldn’t cause any environmental problem.”

The biochar used to filter nitrogen and phosphorous could then be used as slow-release fertilizer that provides needed nutrients to plants and would not wash away as runoff from heavy rains. In addition, biochar immobilized with photocatalysts would decompose toxic contaminants to harmless products when irradiated by exposure to ultraviolet light.

For instance, Kan’s study has shown that a biochar immobilized with photocatalysts completely degraded antibiotic and hormone compounds while effectively controlling pathogens. The potential for biochar’s use to filter wastewater goes beyond agriculture and could be applied at any wastewater treatment plant, or even to filter contaminants in injection water used in the petroleum industry for fracking.

For energy, dairy manure would be fed into a pyrolysis reactor on site that would use relatively low heat, 500-1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, to create compressed hydrogen and carbon monoxide syngas that can be used to create electric power, Kan said. Excess electricity could be sold to local utility companies. The byproduct from pyrolysis of dairy manure is biochar.

“The principle is very simple,” Kan said. “The dairy would just need a different size reactor to meet its scale of manure output and energy needs.”

Dr. Sergio Capareda, an AgriLife Research agricultural engineer in College Station, proved the pyrolytic conversion of dairy manure to syngas and biochar from his USDA-funded project, Kan said. Kan plans to advance this concept by biologically converting syngas to butanol and bio-jet fuel as alternative transportation fuels, and developing biochar-based processes for wastewater treatment and greenhouse gas control.

Several other researchers and engineers within the Texas A&M system are collaborating with Kan, and interest in the concept is growing among public institutions and private companies.

CONCEPT TO REALITY

Kan will produce a lab-scale version of the closed-loop dairy to determine the necessary scale for application and experimentation at the neighboring Southwest Regional Dairy Center in Stephenville, a privately owned working dairy operated by Tarleton State University used for educational purposes. He hopes to have a system, including the pyrolysis reactor, operating at the dairy within three to four years.

“Having the dairy farm here provides a good opportunity for field data,” he said. “The field demonstrations will help us work out any problems that might arise at the various scales that might be applied by commercial animal farms.”

The dairy produces milk that is processed for consumption and into products such as cheese and yogurt and sold in local grocery stores.

Clay Dameron, the dairy’s waste manager, said between 300-400 cows are milked daily. Those cows produce manure and effluent that is treated via a conventional lagoon system. Around 90-130 tons of solids are moved to nearby croplands and pastures every three weeks where it’s used as fertilizer. Treated liquids from the lagoon are dispersed via sprinklers in nearby fields.

Kan said he believes the closed-loop system will prove to be a logistically and financially viable model for dairy producers to implement in the future. He expects his pilot project at the regional dairy to produce data that will draw more interest and investment from public institutions and private companies.

“It is very exciting,” he said. “I look forward to working with my collaborators and colleagues to make this concept a reality that could change the way dairies operate by providing a self-sustaining, environmentally friendly model.”

Source: AgriLife Today