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

Earlier this year, the milk to feed price ratio (MFPR) fell to its lowest level for a number of years at just 0.88.

However, since the end of the summer, the ratio has been steadily recovering. By November, the ratio had increased to 1.02 (up 0.14 compared with June), the first time it has exceeded 1 since 15 December.

Despite the rise, the ratio in November still remained below the 5-year average, which is currently sitting at 1.07.

With a number of processors announcing further price increases for the New Year, the ratio is expected to show further recovery.

Feed prices are continuing to rise, having lifted around 8 per cent between June and December.

UK grain prices have been supported by a tighter feed wheat balance as well as the weakness of Sterling.

However, this is currently being outstripped by rising milk prices.

At current feed prices (£250/tonne in January), in order for the ratio to move above the 5-year average, the GB farmgate milk price (excluding bonuses and aligned contracts) will need to reach 27ppl.

Source: The Cattle Site

Unable to find enough workers to carry out the painstaking tasks of milk production, dairy producers in South Dakota hope to tap into a different labor force: unemployed residents of Puerto Rico.

It could be a tonic both for dairy operators and Puerto Rico, where the jobless rate stands at 12 percent but workers are far freer to travel to the U.S. for jobs than immigrants due to the island’s status as a U.S. territory.

South Dakota dairy farms produced 209 million pounds of milk in 2016, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service. That’s far less than the more commonly known milk-producing states of California and Wisconsin, but the state’s pilot project to find another labor source is gaining attention.

“If this is successful, this would be a significant success for the U.S. dairy industry, certainly South Dakota’s industry,” said Jaime Castaneda, senior vice president of the National Milk Producers Federation. “So, we are watching it. We are looking at what happens.”

Certain agricultural industries are allowed to hire foreign-born workers seasonally under a visa category, but dairy farms do not qualify because they operate year-round. A study commissioned by the National Milk Producers Federation released in June 2015 concluded immigrant labor accounts for 51 percent of all dairy labor in the U.S.

The proposal from a team of agriculture experts to recruit a labor force from the Caribbean island to work on South Dakota’s dairies would eliminate the need for a visa because Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. Experts from the South Dakota State University Extension hope to bring about 20 workers by September.

They hosted recruiting sessions in November and December in three Puerto Rican communities that are home to dairies and addressed topics such as the farm routine, weather and cost of living. Of the 28 people who attended the sessions, half had an agricultural background. Others were electricians, nurses and construction workers. More sessions are planned for May.

The team is focused on developing a program that would help the workers adjust to life in the Great Plains. Karla Hernandez, an SDSU Extension forage field specialist, said producers in South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin who have hired Puerto Ricans have seen them last only short periods on the job after realizing the demands, pay and the stark differences between the two places.

“Say you have a person from Mexico who gets here, that person will stick around because he has a need to provide for himself and for his family back in Mexico. Now if you get a Puerto Rican and he doesn’t like the job, he can go home very easily because he doesn’t need to wait for any visa or passport,” Hernandez said.

It’s no secret that immigrant labor is crucial at many agricultural enterprises in the U.S. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that about 80 percent of the agricultural labor force is foreign born and over half is unauthorized to work in the U.S.

Castaneda said his organization is not speculating about what the incoming Trump administration might do in terms of immigration. But he said the group will continue to pressure Congress and the administration to approve changes that would allow immigrant dairy workers to stay in the U.S. for at least three years with the option of reapplying after a stay in their home countries.

For those who doubt the need of foreign-born workers on dairy farms, Walt Bones, part owner of the Turner County Dairy and former South Dakota secretary of agriculture, has a succinct answer: U.S.-born workers don’t want to work that hard.

“They’re not hungry enough to improve themselves that they don’t want to work that hard. I think it’s that simple,” said Bones, whose dairy farm has 1,600 cows that are milked three times a day. “It’s not easy work. It’s repetitive, but at the same time, it’s not bad work.”

Gerson Cardona, a Guatemala native, began working on a dairy farm in South Dakota 15 years ago at the age of 15 by milking and washing cows. These days, he cares for days-old calves.

“If one enjoys the job, one can persevere,” Cardona said in Spanish during a break. “If one enjoys working with the animals, then that’s what motivates one to learn more and stay in one place. This (job) is a good source to be able to do something with one’s life.”

Source: Associated Press

Digital dermatitis (DD) is by far the most common hoof lesion found in confinement-housed dairy cattle. DD lesions, resulting from bacterial infection of the skin of the heel and/or interdigital space, develop quickly through the several M-stages illustrated below. After initial infection (M1) of healthy skin (M0), the bacteria rapidly produce the active, strawberry-like and very painful M2 lesion which causes the animal to exhibit lameness. M2 lesions may heal or they may progress to less-painful, scabbed-over M3 or chronic wart-like M4 lesions where the bacteria encyst deep in the skin. Bacteria re-emerging into the surface layers of M4 lesions may reactivate (M4.1), resulting in new, painful M2s.

Digital Dermatitis Infection Dynamics

Prevention of DD focuses on biosecurity, maintaining good barn hygiene and routine foot bathing. Treatment of DD infections is typically only done by hoof trimmers at their infrequent visits—usually by applying antibiotic and bandaging for a few days. But, because new infections can rapidly advance, early detection and treatment is necessary to minimize new outbreaks of active lesions.

Over the past few years, researchers at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Veterinary Medicine have been working to develop a practical way to routinely identify and treat painful DD lesions in the milking parlour. The first step was to develop a way to accurately detect lesions The solution involved a 50¢ cosmetic mirror glued to a $2 kitchen spatula, sliding this device under the heel of the cow as she stood in the parlour. A headlamp was found to be an effective aid to improving visibility (see photos below).

see: Validation of the M-stage scoring system for digital dermatitis on dairy cows in the milking parlor. J Dairy Sci in press (complete article here)

The next challenge was to determine whether treating lesions in the parlour could be practical and effective. Ten central Alberta herds were visited weekly for 8 weeks. On the first visit, the hind feet of all cows were examined for the presence of DD lesions. Cows with M2 lesions were randomly assigned to treatment with one of four solutions applied with a simple $3 spray bottle (see photo below). Treatments were applied at each subsequent weekly visit after first rinsing the feet with high pressure water.

Results of the study are illustrated in the graph below. Notice that even the saline treatment resulted in progressive decline in the percentage of M2 lesions over 7 weeks, likely due to thoroughly rinsing the feet before treatment. By the end of the trial, the number of lesions in the saline group had decreased to 32% of the number at the start. HoofSol®, HealMax® and tetracycline treatment reduced lesions even further, to 9%, 10% and 13% of their original numbers.

HoofSol® produced a 57% decline in M2 lesions after a single treatment, equal to that of tetracycline, and offering the additional advantage of avoiding any risk of milk antibiotic residues.

The bottom line is this: occasional (1x per week in this study) thorough rinsing of hooves can be an effective way to reduce M2 DD lesions. Additional weekly treatment with an effective antibacterial product can further reduce the prevalence of these painful, lameness-causing lesions.

Source: Dairy Cattle Hoof Health

Dezi, a Lawrence County Holstein, churns out 201 pounds of milk per day, almost three times as much as the average Holstein.

Missouri Holstein Dezi is a moo-ver and a milker.

The Lawrence County cow outperforms most of her regional counterparts, producing just short of three times as much milk per day, says University of Missouri Extension dairy specialist Reagan Bluel.

Dezi, owned by farmer Karl Wilke, churns out 201 pounds of milk per day. That’s the equivalent of about 24 gallons—15 gallons more than the average Holstein.

The 200-pound-plus achievement through peak production is not uncommon in dairy states, but it is rare in Missouri’s Ozark region. “She’s a superstar,” says Bluel.

Dezi’s efforts earned her nomination as the Missouri Holstein Association Cow of the Year. The winner will be named at the Heart of America Expo, Jan. 19-21 in Springfield. More than 500 producers from 15 states plan to attend.

Bluel says Wilke uses solid dairy management practices to achieve outstanding herd performance.  

Wilke is “graze-ing the bar” for other dairy producers by growing and feeding quality forage. “They do a phenomenal job of putting up great forage,” Bluel says.

Wilke feeds Dezi and the rest of the herd corn silage and high-moisture cereal rye bales – 60 percent moisture – and pastures the herd on cereal rye. There is no alfalfa in the Wilke herd diet. Wilke says he quit growing alfalfa after the 2012 drought and bought it for a few years when fertilizer prices increased. He saw some production loss but profits increased.

Wilke also uses the services the Dairy Herd Improvement Association testing and record-keeping.  Bluel also points out that Wilke studies and then amends management based on the results of DHIA tests and records.  

Dezi was born and AI-bred on the Wilke farm. As a first-lactation heifer, she showed promise, Bluel says. The 5-year-old is being flushed to maintain multiple offspring.

A bred heifer is scheduled to freshen this fall to carry on the cow family name. Wilke is eager to see if she will shine among her peers in the 165-head herd. He hopes her genetics will carry on to her progeny. Third-party testing confirms her milk for protein and butterfat quality.

Dezi feeds on partial mixed ration and is turned out to graze on rye. Part of her superb performance may be attributed to rains in the fall of 2015 that created optimum lush pastures.

Advantages of feeding a partial mixed ration (PMR) include more uniformity in nutrients reaching the cow and therefore less disruption of rumen function, Bluel says. Supplementation allows for an improved control of dry matter intake and reduced rumen digestive problems. “When supplementing pasture with PMR, the rumen is prepped for dietary changes to continue to support lactation even when the pasture gets short,” she says.

Research at Penn State University shows that grazing cows supplemented with a PMR had higher milk fat and protein, better body condition and produced 8 pounds more milk per day than those not fed a PMR.

Wilke and his parents moved their dairy operation to Missouri from Wisconsin in 1979. Missouri’s milder climate appealed to them. Wilke family members have been dairy farmers since coming to the United States from Germany in the 1860s.

Wilke family members are strong supporters of MU Extension education. Karl serves as president of the Lawrence County Extension Council. His family donated some of the foundation heifers in the University of Missouri grazing herd.  

Wilke believes in passing along his dairy knowledge to MU Extension 4-H members and others. He provides scholarships for 4-H camp and offers to host dairy judging clinics at his farm. Wilke helps 4-H dairy judging teams prepare for competitions. “He is someone who always asks how he can help others and our activities,” says 4-H youth development specialist Karla Deaver.

Wilke, Bluel and others interested in the southwestern Missouri bovine phenomenon plan to follow Dezi and her offspring.

“You pour your heart and soul into your passion for milk production,” Bluel says. “Day in and day out, there is never a dull moment. Every once in a while, there is the unexpected in the herd. The outlier cow that makes you proud. Those are the moments—those are the cows—that keep you passionate about your love of making milk.”

Source: MU Extension

Most dairy producers will welcome the end of 2016. The variability in weather, forage quality and quantity, and the low milk prices will not be missed. However, what will 2017 offer and what can be done to manage the ups and downs? The one constant is precision feeding as the lifeline for keeping margins in check throughout the year.

Production Perspective

In 2016 the Penn State dairy herd averaged a gross milk price of $16.84/cwt with an average Class III milk price of $14.87/cwt and a basis of $1.97. The projection for 2017 is a $17.50/cwt Class III milk price. Corn price is ranging between $3 and $4/bushel and soybeans $10/bushel. It appears milk price will improve and feed prices will remain about the same compared to 2016. The one unknown is weather and how that will impact forage quality and quantity. These scenarios are not new and should not be a surprise to anyone working in the dairy industry.  Precision feeding is the one constant that can maintain milk production, control feed costs, and manage forage inventories. All three items are important to maintain a respectable margin so expenses can be paid.

Over the past five years more Pennsylvania dairy producers have embraced precision feeding. This is being confirmed by comparing TMR analysis results with the formulated ration. A close match of nutrient specifications shows the farm is paying attention to feed management. There are some commonalities of farms doing an excellent job with precision feeding. The first is the lactating cow ration contains high amounts of corn silage with other alternative forage sources such as small grain silage.  By balancing for metabolizable protein, the protein percent of the milk cow ration has been greatly reduced to 16 to 17% on a dry matter basis compared to levels observed in the early 2000s of 18 to 19%. This has improved the carbohydrate and protein balance for the cow and in many instances production has improved or been maintained. Progressive producers are routinely monitoring the dry matters of their feeds and adjusting the rations accordingly. They are also managing how crops are harvested and stored to better match the animal group being fed.

Shrink or feed loss can have huge implications especially when yields have been compromised due to weather conditions. Managing feed out from storage and during feeding can make a difference by several weeks on the amount of forage retained in inventory. Management is the key for keeping dairies in business and precision feeding encompasses many aspects related to cropping and feeding management.

 Precision feeding is not only for lactating cows but also for dry cows and heifers. These groups can affect forage inventory, feed costs, and animal performance. They are the future income generators of the operation and precision feeding for these groups can make or break the budget.

 Precision feeding is not only for TMR fed herds. Component feeding can be managed for precision feeding however it may require more attention to details. Grain mixes and protein supplements can be analyzed to compare to the paper formulation. Checking weights of grain scoops and hay/silage bales can help hone in on dry matter intakes. There are feeders available that minimize waste when hay/silage bales are offered free choice. Monitoring animal growth can confirm animals are receiving the correct amounts of feed or that feed space is adequate. If precision feeding is made a priority it can work on any dairy operation regardless of the feeding system or herd size.

Action plan for implementing precision feeding on the dairy operation

Goals

Monitor feed inventory, income over feed costs and ration agreement with the formulated diets on all animal groups on a quarterly basis.

Steps

• Step 1: Monitor feed inventory by determining the amount of forages and/or grains currently stored in all structures. Record the usage of feeds as they are being mixed or utilized. Determine the estimated length of time forage/grain will be available.
• Step 2: Check dry matters on all high moisture ingredients weekly or when necessary. Analyze any forage or grain when changes occur. Adjust all rations accordingly.
• Step 3: Monitor income over feed cost monthly.
• Step 4: Each quarter, or when necessary, sample the TMR and/or complete grain mix to compare to the formulated diet or mix.
• Step 5: Meet with the farm’s advisory team and include discussion on the farm’s inventory and income over feed costs.

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.

Income over feed cost using standardized rations and production data from the Penn State dairy herd.

Note: December’s Penn State milk price: $19.18/cwt; feed cost/cow: $5.87; average milk production: 84 lbs.

Feed cost/non-lactating animal/day.

Source: Penn State Extension

A computer programmer says there is a lot of potential for using big data in the dairy industry.

Ben Keating from software developer Milker tells Brownfield the dairy industry already collects a lot of data. He says, “We’re definitely collecting it, and we’re holding onto it, and I think right now, we’re at the moment in time where we are starting to discuss as an industry what we can do and how we can get that data merged together to do more interesting things.”

Keating says existing technology in milking systems, cow activity monitors, and other on-farm systems will quickly evolve to where artificial intelligence capable of deep learning will evaluate many streams of data and predict problems before they happen.

Keating sees the industry moving towards standardized platforms. “Ultimately, it benefits the producers and all businesses involved because holding on and retaining that data and not sharing it really doesn’t do any good to any of the products or companies involved.”

Keating believes the technology he is working on will be as easy to use as a smartphone app, while allowing machines to monitor every aspect of the herd and the business.

Source: Brownfield

Cattle farmers struggling with record corn prices are feeding their cows candy instead. 

That’s right, candy. Cows are being fed chocolate bars, gummy worms, ice cream sprinkles, marshmallows, bits of hard candy and even powdered hot chocolate mix, according to cattle farmers, bovine nutritionists and commodities dealers.

“It has been a practice going on for decades and is a very good way to for producers to reduce feed cost, and to provide less expensive food for consumers,” said Ki Fanning, a livestock nutritionist with Great Plains Livestock Consulting, Inc. in Eagle, Neb.

Feeding candy to cows has become a more popular practice in tandem with the rising price of corn, which has doubled since 2009, fueled by government-subsidized demand for ethanol and this year’s drought.Thrifty and resourceful farmers are tapping into the obscure market for cast-off food ingredients. Cut-rate byproducts of dubious value for human consumption seem to make fine fodder for cows. While corn goes for about $315 a ton, ice-cream sprinkles can be had for as little as $160 a ton.

“As the price of corn has climbed, farmers either sold off their pigs and cattle, or they found alternative feeds,” said Mike Yoder, a dairy farmer in Middlebury, Ind. He feeds his 400 cows bits of candy, hot chocolate mix, crumbled cookies, breakfast cereal, trail mix, dried cranberries, orange peelings and ice cream sprinkles, which are blended into more traditional forms of feed, like hay.

The farmer said that he goes over the feed menu every couple of weeks with a livestock nutritionist who advised him to cap the candy at 3% of a cow’s diet. He said that the sugar in ice cream sprinkles seems to increase milk production by three pounds per cow per day.

Sugar also helps to fatten up beef cattle, according to livestock nutritionist Chuck Hurst, owner of Nutritech, Inc., in Carmen, Idaho, without any ill effects to the cow, or to the person consuming its meat or milk. He said that it’s the sugar in the candy that’s important, and that it provides “the same kind of energy as corn.”

He added that farmers feed their cows a wide assortment of byproducts beyond candy to save money.

“One guy in Montana bought a whole carload of soda crackers as feed,” he said. “He had to hire a guy to open all the boxes of soda crackers.”

Yoder and other farmers buy their feed from brokers like Midwest Ingredients, Inc., of Princeville, Ill., which offers a wide assortment of byproducts, including cherry juice, fish meal, peanut butter, fruit fillings, tapioca and left-over grain from distilleries.

“The buyers of corn, or feed in general, are paying a lot of money so they’re definitely out there shopping around looking for cheaper stuff,” said Eric Johnson of Eagan, Minn., who owns MidWest Feed Ingredient Trading. “People are price conscious and they’re resourceful. Stuff comes up and they hunt it down and try to save a little bit of money.”

But there is a catch — as the demand for candy-feed goes up, so does the price. Yoder said that he has become “more aggressive in bidding for [candy-feed] because of the high price of corn.” But he added that the candy “started getting expensive because other people want it too.”

Yoder said he’s seen the price of sprinkles rise from $160 per ton — which was about half the price of corn — to about $240. But he still buys the candy.

“Any time I can make a change to save two cents or three cents a cow, that makes a difference,” said Yoder. “Farming is a game of inches sometimes, or half-inches. Every little penny you can find to save, you do.”

Source: CNN

The term “sweat equity” is used frequently in discussions of the contributions of an off-farm heir to the value of the family owned business. Sweat equity arises in part when an on-farm heir is paid less than their true opportunity cost to work for the business. The term also arises in situations where the business has grown substantially in value due to the managerial ability and efforts of the on-farm heir. This article describes why sweat equity is commonly used on farms that include multiple generations, and discusses how to measure sweat equity.

Why Does Sweat Equity Occur?

As noted above, sweat equity may arise when an on-farm heir is paid less than their true opportunity cost to work for the business and/or the business has grown substantially due to the abilities and efforts of the on-farm heir. Let us look at these two items one at a time. Suppose a returning family member has the opportunity to work for a local retailer that with benefits would pay them $75,000 per year. The farm is currently not able to match this offer. Instead of a $75,000 salary with benefits, the farm is willing to pay the returning family member a salary and benefit package of $50,000 per year. Benefits are widely defined here and may include; but are not necessarily limited to; insurance, housing, and vehicle use. In this instance, sweat equity can be computed by examining the difference between the agribusiness and farm opportunities.

Sweat equity also occurs when the business has grown substantially, at least partially as a result of, the abilities and efforts of the returning family member. To motivate our discussion, let’s assume that the farm purchased and rented additional land when the family member returned to the farm. Owned land is a major asset of U.S. farms accounting for approximately 84 percent of total assets. The returns to land include operating income and appreciation. To capture appreciation the land would have to be sold. Obviously, this often not feasible or prudent. Sweat equity can be used to capture land value appreciation that occurs when land is purchased to accommodate the returning family member. If the older generations helped purchase the land, not all of the land value appreciation would accrue to the returning family member.

The above discussion assumed that the farm was profitable and could afford to add one or more returning family members. What if the farm is in general not profitable and the farm’s equity decreases instead of increasing with the addition of the family member. In this case, sweat equity may be zero. This is why it is sometimes argued that if a farm cannot afford to fully compensate an individual returning to the farm (i.e., pay the family member his or her full opportunity cost), the farm should not encourage the family member to return to the farm.

How Can We Measure Sweat Equity?

Let’s use an example to illustrate a few key points. The example outlined below was modified using an illustration made by David Goeller from the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

In this example, Mom and Dad want to keep the farm in the family. The youngest of three children, Michael, came back to the farm in 1990. Unfortunately, if the farm business was divided into three equal pieces, it would not be of an adequate size to create a viable farm business for Dad, Mom, and Michael. When Michael came back to the family farm in 1990, the fair market value of the business (i.e., owner’s equity) was $420,000. At that time, Mom and Dad agreed that the contribution of each child up to 1990 was equal. Dividing the $420,000 by three results in a contribution of each child of $140,000. Today’s fair market value of the business is $1,680,000. If we divide by three, $560,000 would be left to each child. However, the contributions of the three children have not been equal since 1990. There were very few promises made to Michael when he returned to the farm. However, decisions were made because he came back (e.g., land was rented and purchased). Mom, Dad, and Michael know that his contribution to the family farm has resulted in Michael developing a sizable investment in “sweat equity” in the farm business.

There are two potential dilemmas present in the example outlined above: treating each child fairly and farm equity has increased dramatically. With regard to the first dilemma, Mom and Dad do not want the non-farm heirs to feel that they have been mistreated or slighted. A couple of questions come to mind. If you were divide the farm business into three equal pieces, would each slice by large enough to create a viable business? What about the contribution of the on-fam heir to the growth or success of the business? With regard to the second dilemma, Michael has likely not earned enough since 1990 to pay for the increased value of the land and other assets. For Michael to be successful, both the income the business generates and the market value of the farm assets has to be considered.

Let’s examine one possible resolution of the two dilemmas noted above. After careful consideration, Mom and Dad decided that they would equally divide the 1990 value of the farm business between the three children. They also decided that Michael was responsible for 50 percent of the farm growth since 1990 (value of business grew from $420,000 to $1,680,000 or $1,260,000). Table 1 outlines the resulting equity distribution in the estate plan. At this point, Mom and Dad want to establish procedures for how the equity would be split. The amounts presented will likely be changed to reflect future changes to the farm’s equity position. A couple caveats should be noted. First, it is often difficult to determine how much “sweat equity” contributed to the increase in the value of the business. Second, the level of Michael’s annual compensation is an important consideration when valuing “sweat equity”. If Michael was paid something close to his opportunity cost when he returned to the farm, the computations in table 1 would likely be different.

Source: Farmdoc Daily

At a recent event hosted on Bryn Jones’ farm near Oswestry local farmers heard how AHDB Dairy’s Mastitis Control Plan had helped him to significantly reduce the rate of new clinical mastitis cases and reduce antibiotic use across his 800-cow herd, delivering annual savings of around £57,000. This downward trend is encouraging as the livestock industry works towards achieving a long term reduction in the use of antibiotics.

The joint event organised by AHDB Dairy and Farming Connect farmers looked at a number topics such as ways to reduce new infections, lowering antibiotic use, avoiding inappropriate use, selective dry cow therapy principles, a practical demonstration of the infusion technique, reducing infection pressure and optimising cow immunity.

Speaking at the event Dr James Breen, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Specialist in Cattle Health and Production, said: “Antibiotic use in mastitis control often accounts for the largest proportion of prescriptions in dairy herds, for example recent work from the Netherlands showed nearly 70% of antibiotics were for udder health reasons, and 24% of these for clinical mastitis alone.”

Dr Breen shared the Mastitis Control Plan, which provides a structured approach to mastitis control and provides a diagnosis based on udder health records, enabling farmers to identify and prioritise appropriate interventions. He then introduced Bryn Jones who talked about his experience at Nantgoch.

Bryn Jones commented: “Three years ago we were experiencing a very high rate of clinical mastitis with lots of recurrent cows, costing us money we could ill afford. A member of our local foot group was already using James Breen to help tackle mastitis and Neil Blackburn from Kite encouraged us to do the same.”

From on-farm records, the incidence rate of clinical mastitis averaged close to 70 cases per 100 cows each year, meaning the total cost of mastitis on the farm was around £120,000 every year. Halving this mastitis rate would therefore be expected to recover around £60,000 a year…

Following that initial conversation, Bryn and the team at Nantgoch received several part-funded visits from Dr Breen which helped begin the implementation of the Mastitis Control Plan for the farm. The mastitis and cell count data for Nantgoch clearly highlighted that the majority of new infections were acquired during the dry period, and the Plan identified key actions that would reduce this new infection rate, such as changes to transition cow cubicle accommodation and improved management of the calving cow yard.

Between 2014-15 and 2015-16 there were 256 less cases of mastitis overall. The annual mastitis rate now stood at around 30 cases per 100 cows and farm-specific figures showed that the total cost for mastitis was now around £63,000 – a saving of £57,000 – the vast majority of which came through better control of clinical mastitis.

“We were using less and less mastitis tubes, so I knew cases were coming down. Even so, I was staggered when I saw that we’d cut our costs in half. It shows that if you put the Mastitis Control Plan in place and follow it through, you’ll see the benefit.” Bryn continued.

Source: AHDB

Calves impacted by pneumonia during the first 90 days of life are more likely to experience increased age at first calving, higher incidence of dystocia and greater mortality before first calving.¹

“Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is far too common on dairies,” said Greg Edwards, managing veterinarian, Dairy Technical Services, Zoetis. “Detecting respiratory disease symptoms early in a calf’s life can help prevent chronic infections and lead to better future lifetime productivity.”

Are producers looking for the right signs to know if a calf has contracted BRD? Both the University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of California, Davis, offer scoring systems to help determine whether calves are showing clinical signs of respiratory disease, which could include:

• Eye discharge
• Nasal discharge
• Ear droop
• Head tilt
• Cough
• Increased breathing rate
• Elevated temperature
• Slow, reduced or zero milk intake during feeding
• Slow to rise at feeding time
• Slow to lie down after eating

Producers can use either the UW-Madison scoring system or UC Davis scoring system to record their calves’ symptoms on a daily basis to help determine which animals are sick. Early detection and treatment with an antibiotic approved for use in calves, such as DRAXXIN® (tulathromycin) Injectable Solution, may reduce the risk of treatment failure to help get its health back on track.

Take the opportunity to head off the disease before it affects long-term wellness by identifying animals at high risk, such as those experiencing:

• Commingling
• Weaning
• Seasonal temperature change
• Introduction to new animals
• Transportation

Research shows control of BRD during high-risk times can improve dairy heifer growth and performance.²

Vaccinate to help prevent pneumonia. The cost to raise a heifer from birth to freshening can exceed $2,000 per head.³ Does it pay to put a calf’s future at risk before she even has a chance to return her profit as a lactating cow? Producers should work with their veterinarian to set up a vaccination program for young calves. Ask him or her about introducing an intranasal vaccine, such as INFORCE™3 respiratory vaccine, that helps protect against three major viral pathogens that cause pneumonia in dairy calves — bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) virus and parainfluenza 3 (PI3) virus. Vaccines are an important part of helping the immune system fight off BRD.

Source: Zoetis

Cold weather is not just hard on the people taking care of animals, it can be tough on the animals themselves, said Russ Daly, Professor, SDSU Extension Veterinarian, State Public Health Veterinarian.

“It’s not just our imagination that cold temperatures often bring with them an increase in sick calves; there are physiologic reasons why cold weather increases the risk of respiratory disease such as pneumonia in dairy calves,” Daly said.

He explained that cold weather enhances the growth of certain respiratory germs inside a calf’s nose and upper respiratory tract. “The more bacteria present in the upper respiratory tract, the more likely they’ll reach the lower lung and cause pneumonia,” he said.

Daly added that cold weather also thickens up mucus and impairs the work of the ciliary escalator – the fine hair-like cell structures that sweep bacteria and foreign material from the lower airways up to the throat to be coughed up.

“All these factors increase the risk of pneumonia in calves,” he said.

Proper ventilation providing fresh air to calf barns is important to preventing respiratory diseases – a goal that can conflict with efforts to protect calves from cold temperatures.

To ensure calves are equipped to deal with cold temperatures, along with fresh air, provide deep dry bedding and adequate nutrition.

Because of the increased risk of respiratory disease following cold weather, caretakers need to focus even more of their energy on the calves’ health.

“Early detection and treatment is important to the calf’s immediate health as well as to her long-term production,” Daly said.

He pointed to evidence which suggests dairy cows who were treated more than once for respiratory disease as calves produce 10 percent less milk in their first lactation, and 15 percent in their second lactation.

“These effects on milk production have not been demonstrated in calves only treated once, underlining the importance of effective and timely treatment,” he said.

Heifers that suffered pneumonia as calves are older on average at first calving compared to heifers that did not get sick.

When prevention efforts fail, Daly said early detection and effective treatment of respiratory disease can improve the odds of a calf surviving respiratory disease as well as their productivity as a cow.

“Work with your veterinarian to improve these aspects of your operation, and pay close attention to calves when cold winter temperatures set in,” he said.

Many drugs – available by prescription through veterinarians -have demonstrated effectiveness against respiratory pathogens. Antibiotics labeled for use against Mannheimia, Histophilus and Pasteurella are the most effective in treating calf respiratory disease.

“As there is not a single drug that has proven effective in every situation, antibiotic choice should be guided by veterinary consultation and, if available, bacterial culture and antibiotic sensitivity results from previous calves,” Daly said.

Using nasal swabs to identify pathogens and guide treatment should be approached with caution, but may provide important information in some cases.

Lung cultures from calves that died of pneumonia may be more useful, but Daly said their representativeness for future calf groups should be considered carefully.

“Pneumonia and other infections caused by Mycoplasma bovis are particularly difficult to treat. Antibiotics labeled for Mycoplasma should be utilized and treatment length may need to be prolonged,” he said.

Identifying Mycoplasma through lab testing is a valuable piece of information that can help with treatment and prognosis.

Supportive care through anti-inflammatory medications, injectable vitamin supplements and oral electrolytes can also prove valuable in helping an ill calf deal with pneumonia.

During outbreaks veterinarians may recommend an intranasal vaccine to enhance the immune response.

Providing extra bedding and calf coats to sick calves will help them maintain their body temperature.

Milk should not be withheld from sick calves, as energy and protein are necessary for them to respond to the infection. “Breaking the required daily feeding into smaller amounts given more frequently may help calves with lung problems “catch their breath” more easily during feeding,” Daly said.

Source: Usagnet

Over 1,600 farmers across the Midwest have signed up for free Revolution Plastics dumpsters on their farms. Plastic is picked up once a month or by appointment, and is recycled into garbage liners that are used nationwide.

With corn silage harvest concluded in the Midwest, farmers have packed their silage bags in preparation for another productive year. Once the silage is in front of the cows, however, disposing of the plastic wrapping is a problem farmers have been dealing with for years.
Revolution Plastics, based out of Madison, Wis., now offers farmers the free solution they have been looking for. With 1,600 producers currently enrolled in the program, farmers across Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois are receiving free dumpsters to dispose of recyclable plastic.
Ed Nowobielski, who milks 230 cows near Thorp, Wis., saw the opportunity to dispose of his farm’s plastic in an environmentally friendly way and thought he would look into it further.
“I heard about it on the radio when a UW-Extension agent was talking about plastic recycling,” Nowobielski said. “My nutritionist, Maria Meyer, had heard about it through the Dairy Girl Network and emailed a representative while we were out pulling a silage sample from one of the bags.”
Just 15 minutes after sending the email, Nowobielski received a phone call from Revolution Plastics. After answering a few questions about his farm, Nowobielski was enrolled and set to pick up his free dumpster in late September.
Price Murphy, Revolution Plastics Director of Operations, has been a part of the program since its inception in 2014. He said the program was created due to the need in the area and a request from UW-Extension.
“Delta Plastics has been recycling agricultural plastics in the Arkansas and Mississippi Delta area for 10 years,” Murphy said. “Wisconsin farmers could not find an outlet to recycle their plastics. UW-Extension did some research on Delta Plastics in 2014 and asked if we could do something here.”
From there, the Midwest-based Revolution Plastics was born. Prior to the program, paying for costly trash dumpsters or burning plastic were the limited options farmers had to dispose of farm plastics. Going through 30, 9-foot by 250-foot bags a year was generating a high amount of waste and creating a large problem for Nowobielski.
“Our dumpster would get overfilled, so we would burn the excess,” Nowobielski said. “We needed this in this area; this is the solution to a growing problem.”
To sign up for the program, farmers simply need to visit RevolutionPlastics.com or call a representative toll free at (844) 490-7873. While signing up, farmers are asked a series of questions to determine the scope of their operation and the amount of recyclable plastic they generate each year.
Originally, the program was limited to farms producing 4,000 to 5,000 pounds of plastic per year. After the program was launched however, Murphy said it was evident limitations were not necessary.
“Not every farm could realistically figure out how much plastic they were using,” Murphy said. “If farms can fill the dumpsters a few times a year to make up for our expenses, it’s worth it. If there are 20 to 30 farms in an area that we are servicing, it doesn’t hurt us at all.”
The biggest responsibility farmers have is picking up and hauling the dumpster to their farm. Semi-loads of dumpsters are sent to pickup locations after several farmers in an area sign up, at which time Murphy said he contacts farmers to retrieve the dumpsters.
“When we are going to be in their area, a customer service representative will contact the farmer to pick up the dumpster,” Murphy said. “From then on, we handle the disposal and pickup of the plastic.”
Once filled with plastic, the dumpsters are picked up in one of two ways: farmers can get on a scheduled pickup or simply call the number on the dumpster to schedule a pick up. Once scheduled, dumpsters are picked up within a three-day window of time.
Plastic is then baled up and sent to a factory in Arkansas where it is washed and turned into post-consumer resin. The resin is then made into garbage liners that are used by hotels, restaurants, schools and businesses nationwide.
Nowobielski said it is a service farmers need.
“We’ve got to do something,” Nowobielski said. “So many people try to burn plastic, which is illegal. This is the answer to our problems.”
While the dumpsters accept plastic materials such as silage bags, bunker covers and baleage wrap, it is not a receptacle for all plastics. Plastic jugs, barrels, buckets and net wrap are several items that are prohibited in the dumpsters. A complete list of excluded items are available on the Revolution Plastics website and are labeled on the dumpsters themselves.
Murphy said the program benefits everyone involved.
“This is a way to save money and time; it is a win for everyone,” Murphy said. “It is better for the environment and the farm, turning waste into something good rather than filling up a landfill.”
Nowobielski agreed, encouraging farmers to sign up sooner rather than later.
“This is a free service that I cannot say enough good things about,” Nowobielski said. “It’s as easy as it can be to get one; we all should be doing this.”

Source: Dairy Star

Are you using an activity tracker like a Fitbit to move more in the new year?  Whether you’re an intense athlete, a busy mom, a farmer, or even a cow, you’ve got to get those steps in to meet your daily goals!

Wait a minute…a cow? You bet! We caught up with two farm families who joined the “Fitbit craze” and so have their cows!

Becky Akins calls Five Mile Farm in Lisbon, NY home. Becky and her husband Mark work alongside their grown children Ryan and Allison. In addition to the farm’s 500 milking cows, they raise 100 beef cattle a year, produce 150 gallons of maple syrup, and sell 1500 dozen sweet corn. 

That means they are moving a lot! Becky gave us the scoop!

MBTM: When did your family start using Fitbits?

BA: Our family purchased Fitbits in July 2015 as part of a health awareness initiative with AgriMark/Cabot Cheese. We all continue to track our steps and set personal goals. 

MBTM: What’s the average amount of steps taken for a day’s work on the farm?

BA: Ryan and Mark average 14,000 steps daily. Some days they have 5000 steps in before breakfast!

MBTM: So the cows have “Fitbits” too? What’s that all about?

BA: CowManager tags track the amount of time the cows spend eating, ruminating, sleeping, walking, high activity, and the cow’s temperature. This information is sent to a computer and viewed by our family, the herdsmen, veterinarians, and nutritionists.

MBTM: What are the most important things to monitor?

BA: Everything is important. How healthy our cows are is a priority to everyone on the farm. By monitoring daily habits of the cows, we can diagnose problems several days before they visually appear.

MBTM: How many cows have them?

BA: 300 cows have CowManager tags. About a week before a cow is due to have a calf, they receive their tracker.

MBTM: When did you get them for the cows?

BA: In July 2015 we got CowManager tags for our cows. This was the same time we got Fitbits for our family.

The Akins Family uses “earring style” activity trackers for their cows, but just like for people, there are several different activity trackers and styles to choose from!

The Manning Farm in Swanton, Vermont uses trackers that fit on their cow’s ankles! We also caught up with the Manning family to learn about how they track their cow’s activity.

Manning Farms is home to Robert and Sandy Manning their son David, his children Rebecca, Nick, and Oliver, also grandchildren Ryland and Regan. It has been a family operation ever since it began with Robert’s grandfather, Gerald Griswold about a century ago. They have plenty to do with 700 cows (360 of which are milked) and 1,200 acres.

Rebecca Manning Howrigan gave us the scoop!

MBTM: What type of activity trackers do your cows use?

RH: GEA pedometers that fit around the ankle.

MBTM: What is the most important thing to monitor?

RH: It’s all important! We will monitor laying time by cow groups, as well as individual cows. It is very helpful used together with step count on individual cows. As you would expect with people, if a cow isn’t feeling well, she will not be walking as much and will be laying down more. My computer has an algorithm that will alert me when cows reach an “attention” thresh hold. 

Another important data point to look at is, how many times did an individual cow get up and down? I want a cow to eat a good meal and lay down for a lengthy period. If she is constantly up and down, it is a hint that she isn’t feeling well.

MBTM: What’s the average daily step count for your cows?

RH: The average steps for our cows is around 3,000.

See an example of some data from the Manning’s cows:

RH: I got a Fitbit for Christmas!!! On my first day, I had already walked 6,600 steps before 9:00 a.m.! By the end of the day, I had over 20,000 steps! 

Technology is pretty amazing! Will you use it to get moooving in 2017?

Source: Must Be The Milk

I was recently reading an article which reported the cost for days open in a dairy animal to be between $3 and $5. Many factors come into play with determining if an animal becomes pregnant or not, and several of them are beyond our control as dairy producers. However, one of the variables we can control is our A.I. technique. I asked Eric Maynard, GENEX Dairy Education Instructor, to give me the top ten A.I. technique and semen handling mistakes people make.

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 Extensionrecommends 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.

Source: Michigan State University Extension

DAIRYING in the subtropics at Dobies Bight, NSW, Wayne and Paul Clarke know too well the importance of keeping cows comfortable in hot and humid weather. When they installed an automatic milking system (AMS) they entered relatively unchartered territory in terms of keeping cows cool.

A year down the track, they report simple strategies, including shade at the dairy, have been effective while maintaining voluntary cow movement to and from the dairy.

Initial research conducted by FutureDairy PhD student Ashleigh Wildridge suggests that providing shade at an AMS dairy can improve overall cow performance without compromising animal welfare. “The aim of providing shade at the dairy is to improve cow comfort, but we wanted to make sure it didn’t create an unintended risk of lameness from cows standing on concrete for too long,” Ms Wildridge said.

During the summer of 2015/16, Ms Wildridge split the University of Sydney’s AMS herd into two groups, one with access to shade at the dairy holding yard and the other without.

“On average, the cows with access to shade spent 2-3 minutes longer at the holding yard before entering the milking units,” she said. “This did not appear to be long enough to increase the risk of lameness but it was long enough to improve measured indicators of cow comfort and performance.”

Cows with access to shade had reduced respiratory rates, averaging 68 breaths per minute (bpm) compared with 73bpm for the no shade group.

Seeing the results

Shade was also associated with increased intake of concentrate feed and higher milk yield.

Feedback from Australian AMS farmers in hot areas suggests that providing shade at the dairy and around the farm can be managed to improve cow comfort and maintain voluntary cow movement, however the grazing behaviour of AMS cows in hot weather appears to be different to conventional milking systems.

When the Clarke brothers installed four DeLaval VMS units in 2015 they included seven metre by 16m area of shade cloth over the holding yard. The concrete floor was covered with rubber for hoof comfort and small fans were installed at the robots to keep flies away.

Source: Airy Farmer

It seems producers are turning more towards robotics to help fill the gap in the agricultural workforce.

Forster Technik’s calf rail feeding systems are now employed by 12 dairy farms in Ontario.

North American General Manager Jan Ziemerink says not only do the machines help farmers save time, they also provide incredibly precise feedback while they feed either powder or whole milk.

“The machine keeps track of anything the calf drinks. It monitors how much they drink, the drinking speed and all that,” he says.

“All that is sent to a computer or laptop. It’s also saved up in the cloud. The data is always available at all times so we know exactly what each calf drinks and how fast they drink at any time.”

Producers worried about the spread of disease as the feeder moves down the line, Ziemerink adds his units have that covered.

Hot water cycles heat and clean the lines before and after each feeding.

A disinfectant solution is also sprayed on the nipple as the machine moves between calves.

Ziemerink also points out each machine has a text alert feature, which messages the farmer if it detects any problems.

Source: Blackburn News

Weather this time of year can change in a hurry. “So how many of you as dairy producers have heeded the warning and taken the time to prepare for the upcoming winter?”

Barn & Facilities

Let’s start with some basic areas such as in and around the barn. First, take the time to pick up any items from the yard that may become buried under a snow bank or entangled in the snow blower. Next, put up an appropriate snow fence or snow breaks in yards for protection and minimizing drifts in areas where they are not wanted. Consider bringing in any necessary fill or mounding areas that become muddy or troublesome spots in the spring. Take a look at your barn maintenance list noting areas that sometimes get pushed off on the “oh…I’ll do it tomorrow list”. Examples of such are the following:

1. Check curtains on barns to make sure they are operating properly and repair any holes or tears.
2. Check and maintain ventilation fans including tightening belts and keeping blades and louvers clean.
3. Look upward, inspect and repair building roofs and rafters, making sure there is no loose tin or cracked rafters present.
4. Maintain and repair any doors in freestall barns that may not open or close properly.
5. Check and clean barn heaters to make sure they are operating properly.
6. Outside the facilities, do preventative trimming of trees around barns, driveways and fences.

Equipment

It never fails that in winter, Murphy’s Law prevails and equipment will break down or have problems on one of those extremely cold days, making repair work miserable. So what are some things to consider regarding winter equipment maintenance and preparation? First, test and service your generator(s) and make sure there is adequate fuel on hand to run them. Second, winterize and service farm equipment such as tractors, semi’s, skid loaders, pay loaders, feed mixing wagons, manure pumps, etc. Producers will want to take time to check anti-freeze levels, batteries and fuel filters as these items routinely cause issues in cold weather. Third, examine snow blowers or other snow removal equipment and make sure it is in proper working order. Fourth, obtain and store enough fuel (No. 1 Diesel or 50:50 blend) to run equipment for an extended period of time. (A two-week supply is suggested.)

Food & Water

As we move to the basics of sustaining life we think of food, water and shelter. Our livestock have the same needs so let’s examine the feed and water checklist first:

1. Clean and check heating elements in all water drinking fountains.
2. Repair any water fountains or water lines that may be leaking. Ice buildup is a hazard to livestock and humans.
3. Have adequate feed supplies moved in for easy access to the farm. It is recommended to have a two-week supply of purchased feedstuffs.

Animal Shelter & Health

As we examine the shelter and health side, what is necessary to keep the animals healthy and protected on the dairy?

1. Move calf hutches to areas that are easily accessible in the winter and provide wind protection for young livestock.
2. Have a two-week supply of veterinary supplies commonly used on the dairy such as intra-mammary mastitis treatments, antibiotics, electrolytes, calcium solutions, antiseptics, bandages, unused needles, and syringes.
3. Start utilizing calf coats on newborn calves till they are weaned.
4. Provide adequate bedding for all livestock making sure it is deep enough for them to nest in to help maintain body heat.
5. Examine body condition and hair coat of various groups of livestock, adjust rations appropriately for cold weather.
6. Evaluate housing for livestock in open lots, making sure there is adequate wind protection and the ability to get bedding pack built up for them prior to poor weather.

Other Considerations

Lastly some other miscellaneous items to consider include the following:

• Develop a plan with milk haulers and milk buyers for options if milk is unable to be picked up for an extended period of time.
• Partner with neighbors and develop a plan if it is necessary to do your own snow removal on public access roads.

The Bottom Line

Obviously, there may be things that you will need to add to this list as each farm is unique, but it will serve as a starting point. It is my hope that this checklist will help you prepare your dairy for the winter season ahead and be beneficial as you put YOUR winter preparedness plan into action, while simultaneously making those cold winter mornings less stressful.

Source: iGrow