Genetic selection has played an important role in halting the downward trend in Australian dairy herd reproductive performance.

A recent analysis by Dr John Morton confirmed that the Daughter Fertility Australian Breeding Value (ABV) has given dairy farmers an effective tool to breed for improved herd reproductive performance.

His analysis, found that the daughters of sires with higher ABVs for daughter fertility have markedly better reproductive performance than daughters of sires with lower Daughter Fertility ABVs (see graph).

He concluded that continual selection of sires with a high Balanced Performance Index (BPI) would result in small but ongoing improvements in herd reproductive performance. “This is significant because genetic improvement is both permanent and cumulative. Some farmers may choose to use the Health Weighted Index (HWI) which puts more emphasis on daughter fertility than the BPI,” John said.

“However, to maximise genetic gain for herd fertility, select high BPI/HWI sires from the Good Bulls Guide that have high ABVs for daughter fertility.”

Michelle Axford from the Australian Dairy Herd Improvement Scheme (ADHIS) said farmers could expect continued improvements in herd fertility, as more cows with better genes for fertility enter the milking herd.

“Farmers have more choice than in the past, with the number of high BPI bulls with a Daughter Fertility ABV of at least 105 increasing from 16 in 2011 to 478 in 2016 (see bar chart) in the Good Bulls guide/App,” she said.

As well as this, the reliability of the Daughter Fertility ABV has improved. In 2003 only 10 of the top 50 Holstein bulls and eight of the top 20 Jersey Bulls had a Daughter Fertility ABV. Today, with improvements to the genetic evaluation model and increased reliability, every Holstein and Jersey Bull listed in the Good Bulls Guide has a Daughter Fertility ABV. Similar improvements have been achieved in other dairy breeds. This improvement provides dairy farmers with even more power to breed for better reproduction.

“Of course, genetics complements other management strategies used by dairy farmers to improve herd fertility, including nutrition, heat detection, AI practices and bull management,” she said.

The study drew upon data from 74 seasonal and split calving commercial herds with high quality reproductive data, covering more than 60,000 lactations from Holstein cows and almost 3,000 Jersey cow lactations. More information on the study is available by clicking this link for a research update.

ADHIS is an initiative of Australian Dairy Farmers’ Ltd, that receives the majority of its funding from Dairy Australia through the Dairy Services Levy.

For more information, contact Michelle Axford at ADHIS ph (03) 8621-4240 or email maxford@adhis.com.au.

Figure 1: 6-week in-calf rates for Jersey (upper line – green) and Holstein (lower line) cows by cow’s sire’s Daughter Fertility ABV.

Source: ADHIS

When reviewing a herd’s performance records, dairy herd managers and their consultants may wonder how the herd compares to other dairy herds in the state and elsewhere. A comparison to herds that are managed similarly can be referenced when developing performance goals. This article provides information about Michigan dairy herds based on two management characteristics: production and herd size.

The DairyMetrics program available from Dairy Records Management Services (DRMS) was used to summarize performance data for Michigan dairy herds in the Dairy Herd Information (DHI) system. For Table 1, herds were divided into three groups based on rolling herd average for milk (< 22,000 lb, 22,000 – 25,999 lb, and > 26,000 lb). The herds are grouped in Table 2 by herd size (< 100 cows, 100 – 249 cows, and > 250 cows). The items in each table are from the DHI-202 Herd Summary report and include key indicators of overall herd management. Data presented in each table are the averages for each key indicator.

** SCC=Somatic Cell Count
**DairyMetrics summaries based on DRMS data available on June 27, 2012.

** SCC=Somatic Cell Count

**DairyMetrics summaries based on DRMS data available on June 27, 2012.

Trends – Production Groups

Several general trends were observed across the production groupings.

• The highest production group has the     lowest average days open and the highest pregnancy rate. In addition, this     group has the lowest days to first service and the highest percentage of     heats observed. However, the highest average for percentage of successful     first services was in the lower production group.
• The highest production group has the     lowest average somatic cell count (144,000 SCC).
• Higher producing herds use a higher     percentage of AI sires with a higher percentile ranking for Net Merit.
• Larger herd size average is associated     with the highest production group.

These trends should not be considered a cause-and-effect relationship between milk production and the other key indicators. More likely management factors that positively influence milk production also have a positive impact on other aspects of herd performance.

Trends – Herd Size Groups

Some trends also existed across the groupings based on herd size.

• The larger herds tended to have more     desirable reproductive performance. The average days open was lowest in     the largest herd category. The largest herd category also had the highest     average pregnancy rate, highest percentage heats observed, and lowest days     to first service. However the highest percentage of successful first     services was in the lowest herd size category.
• Average somatic cell count was lowest in     the largest herd size category.
• The larger herds tended to have higher     rolling herd averages for milk yield, a trend that has existed for a     number of years. It should be noted that there was a significant range in     production in each herd size category. In fact, the highest producing herd     in each size category had a rolling herd average for milk above 30,000 lbs.

The items in both tables are indicators of herd performance only. Other business management criteria would be considered when evaluating the financial status of the herd.

Using DairyMetrics

DairyMetrics is a benchmarking tool for dairy farm performance evaluation. Herd managers and their herd consultants can compare their own herds to a group of DHI herds that meet the criteria that they select (cohort herds). The cohorts can be selected based on parameters within five categories (general, production, udder health, reproduction and genetic information). Herds from other states that are processed by DRMS also can be included in comparisons.

The reports available through DairyMetrics contain information about the specific herd in addition to the averages, standard deviations, minimums and maximums for the cohort herds. They also give the percentile ranking for each herd performance parameter in comparison to the cohort group.

More information about the DairyMetrics program is available from DRMS or your DHI service affiliate.

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

To keep your herd healthy and your dairy profitable, it’s important to have a vaccination program that works. But a vaccine program is only as effective as your dairy’s storage and handling protocols. Are you working with your veterinarian and following these steps?

Proper vaccine storage

Vaccines should be refrigerated at a temperature between 35°F and 45°F, unless stated differently on the product label. Failing to store vaccines at temperatures according to the product label could result in vaccine ineffectiveness and may increase the rate of local reactions to vaccinations. Vaccines that have been exposed to temperatures outside of the recommended range (too warm or too cold) should not be used and should be properly disposed of.

Storage tips:

• Keep a working minimum-maximum thermometer in your refrigerator to monitor internal temperature fluctuations.
• Record the refrigerator temperature twice a day to monitor temperature variations that might indicate a malfunctioning refrigerator.
• Store vaccines in the middle of the refrigerator. Do not store in the door (may be exposed to warmer temperatures frequently) or against the back of the refrigerator (may be exposed to very cold temperatures for long periods of time).
• Stock and rotate vaccine supply from the back so the shortest expiration date is in the front.
• Maintain a clean fridge at all times. Do not use disinfectants for cleaning; use hot water only.
• Evenly space products.

Keep in mind that storing colostrum, food, test kits, etc. can affect the consistency of the refrigerator’s temperature. It’s recommended to have a fridge designated for vaccines only. It is also highly discouraged to use a refrigerator in the barn because it was not functioning properly in the house.

Proper vaccine handling 

Labels explain what the products are supposed to do, how to use them and which animals are approved for their use. Make sure you’re handling vaccines properly so your animals are successfully immunized.

Handling tips:

• Place paper or packaging material between ice packs and vaccines when transporting in a cooler.
• Only insert a new needle into a bottle.
• Clean syringes with hot water only. Using soap or disinfectant is highly discouraged because they can inactivate modified-live virus vaccines.
• Allow syringes to air-dry before reassembly.
• Do not combine vaccines, and use only approved combinations from your veterinarian.
• Finish open bottles before opening a new one.
• Use the appropriate needle size for intramuscular (1.5 inch x 18 gauge) and subcutaneous (5/8 to 1 inch x 18 gauge) administration.

Always keep your veterinarian part of your team to ensure you’re storing, handling and using all products appropriately to keep your herd healthy and improve your dairy’s bottom line. 

Source: Dairywellnes

Management of the down cow is a crucial role on the farm.  As employers and managers, we need to set our employees up for success when responding to a down cow.  Employees need to have clear expectations of their job as well as written protocols and standard operating procedures.

A farm’s animal well-being plan must include how to care for these animals and, in the rare situations when the animal is compromised, individuals on the farm must know how to respond appropriately, with the animal’s best interest in mind.  Plans should include how to handle the down animal and implement the treatment plan. Plans should be written down and accessible to all individuals.  Primary caretakers should be trained in proper animal handling.

In the factsheet, Planning Dairy Animal Well-Being: Managing the Down Cow, UW-Extension Taylor County Agriculture Agent Sandy Stuttgen addresses how to:

• Assess the down cow
• Encourage standing
• Care for the down cow

Our featured barn is a prototype of one of DeLaval’s most popular North American robotic barn designs. Why you ask? Above all, cows in this barn have the potential to be highly productive and that all starts with cow comfort. Additionally, the farmer can potentially thrive with relatively low labor inputs. Also when the operation is ready to expand, this design has already taken into account future growth.

Click on the image below for a larger view:

In summary, this is an eight VMS, free flow traffic, three feed drive, cross ventilated barn with automatic sorting to a bedded Separation Pen. The design is easily adapted to milk first guided traffic and the drawings reflect this; one side is portrayed as free flow and the other as guided flow.

• Highlights:
  Flexible and expandable
  o Can easily be converted between free and guided cow traffic
  o Additional robots can be added in the future by adding more bays to the building
• Bunk space
  o Approximately 30” of bunk space per cow, allowing all in the group to eat comfortably
•  VMS Room
  o 28” deep pit for easy udder viewing and, in the case of fresh cows, manual attaching of cups
  o Clean access to room with no dirty lanes to cross
  o Doors to access Commitment Pen
  o Tiled floor and PVC sheeted walls for bright appearance and easy cleaning
• Post-milk sorting
  o Bedded pack Separation Pen behind VMS Room provides utmost comfort for segregated cows
  o Headlocks located only in Separation Pen with neck rail in main group, significantly reduced airborne and impact noise when compared to barn with headlocks all around
• Pre-milk sorting
  o Angled entry for smooth cow flow into the Commitment Pen, particularly when fetching overdue cows
• Middle Crossover
  o Often overlooked, the additional crossover located in the middle of the outside row gives cows a second option for accessing the feed bunk from the freestalls
  o Research has shown that feed is rapidly and completely consumed within 30’ of a crossover, therefore we’ve ensured all 162’ of feed wall is within 30’ of a crossover (note: we consider the Commitment Pen in this design a crossover)
• Utility Room adjacent to the VMS Room
  o A dedicated place to keep equipment such as water heaters and milk divert units as well as chemicals
  o Room located near center of barn for ease of access by people and equipment
• Manure handling
  o All manure is scraped to a cross trench away from the robots, keeping the milking area as clean as possible with minimum labor input
• Walkway between head-to-head stalls
  o Allows Herd Manager to walk the barn with better and more complete view of cows
• Concrete curbs, not walls, at freestall row ends and crossovers
  o Curbs keep manure, sand, straw, etcetera in the appropriate place while not hindering airflow like a 4-5’ wall

The facility we’ve highlighted here is the culmination of years of experience of what works well. Our integrated solutions and more than 130 years of innovative barn designs can help you increase productivity.

Each dairy is unique and has different needs, therefore results are not typical and will vary. Results depend on a variety of factors including good farm and herd management practices.

8 VMS DrawingEven retrofitted barns have the potential to be successful robotic operations. At DeLaval we do all we can when designing a VMS barn to ensure the cows and the operators have the best chance to thrive while keeping the bottom line in mind. In the next addition we will delve into a facility designed for large herds.

Source: DeLaval

Water is the most important nutrient for calves and plays an important role as solvent of nutrients, rumen development, thermoregulation and other functions in the body. 

Background

In addition other researchers found that calves started feed consumption earlier and consumed more when unlimited access to clean drinking water is available. Generally, water comprises 70 to 75% of the weight of the calf, and they require greater amount of water per pound of body weight compared to mature animals. Water from milk or mixed with milk replacer provides fluid to calves during the pre-weaning period, although this water directly passes to the abomasum through the esophageal groove. Thus clean, soft, and fresh water should be provided separately throughout their early life. Newborn calves are more sensitive to greater concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) in water compared to older calves. Calves are also highly vulnerable to greater concentrations of iron, sulfate, manganese and magnesium and microbial contamination. These factors may cause digestive disorders like diarrhea. Loss of water through feces may causes dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. It was therefore hypothesized that improving water quality by a reverse osmosis system will improve growth performance and wellbeing of calves.

Experiment

A research project was conducted at the SDSU Dairy Research and Training Facility with twenty-four Holstein calves to determine the effects of drinking reverse osmosis water (ROW) versus municipal city water (MCW) on growth and health performance of calves. Briefly, calves were housed in individual hutches during the 10-week study. Treatments were ROW (Culligan Water filtration system, Brookings, SD) versus MCW (Brookings Municipal Utility, Brookings, SD) which contained 13 and 387 ppm TDS, respectively. Iron concentration of ROW and MCW were 0.04 and 0.17 ppm, respectively. Sulfate concentration was 195 ppm in MCW compared to 1.35 ppm in the ROW. Milk replacer (28% CP; 18% Fat) was fed twice daily during the first five weeks and then once daily during week six. At each feeding 1 lbs of dry milk replacer was mixed with 3 quarts of the respective water type according to treatment. Calves were fed water and starter pellets free choice throughout the study. All intakes were recorded daily. Health parameters were observed daily after the morning feeding by one individual (rectal temperature, cough, ocular and nasal discharge, alertness, and fecal consistency). Daily total respiratory scores were calculated from the sum of scores for rectal temperature, cough, ocular, and nasal discharge (Method developed by the School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin). Body weights (BW) and frame growth were measured two days every two weeks, and jugular blood samples were collected after three hours after morning feeding. Total tract digestibility was analyzed by compositing fecal samples three consecutive days during week 10.

Findings

Total DMI and gain to feed ratio increased more over time for ROW than MCW (Table 1). Surprisingly, water intake was slightly less in ROW than MCW, but this may indicate more efficient water use by calves (Figure 1). Body weight and average daily gain were similar between treatments (Table 1). Feces tended to be firmer in calves on ROW, especially in the post-weaning period. Respiratory score had a tendency to decrease more over time when calves drank ROW (Figure 2). Respiratory score in calves fed ROW decreased during the transition period (week 6), which may indicate reduced weaning stress. Starter intakes also were less in the pre-weaning period, but more in the post weaning period for calves fed ROW compared to MCW. Despite lack of large differences in growth performance, it was found that even small improvements in water quality can result in improvements in calf health and wellbeing.

Table 1. Intakes, growth performance and health scores of calves.. Intakes, growth performance and health scores of calves.

Figure 1. (Above) Drinking water, total water and milk replacer water intakes for Holstein calves fed reverse osmosis water (ROW) and municipal city water (MCW).

Figure 2. (Above) Respiratory score for Holstein calves fed reverse osmosis water (ROW) or municipal city water (MCW) (Note: lower numbers indicate calves were healthier).

Source: iGrow

The maternity pen is a calf’s first contact with her environment, and what the calf is exposed to can make or break her future in your dairy herd. That’s why maternity pen management needs to be a high priority on your dairy. Here are some opportunities for you to help get your calves off to a healthy start.

Calving area hygiene
Before the calf arrives, make sure the calving area is clean by following these steps:

• Freshly bed calving pen before each calving, and clean out dirty bedding after each calving.
• Provide a deep bed (minimum of 6 inches) of straw, shavings or sand.
• Sanitize pen floors, walls and gates.

Calving observation
It’s important for the health of both the cow and calf that each cow has a safe calving. Reference your dairy’s calving procedures, including monitoring progress and assisting. Consider these tasks:

• Monitor close-up cows for calving signs every two to four hours.
• Provide cows one to four hours of labor; examine if no progress.
• Allow first-calf heifers two to four hours of labor; examine if no progress.
• Watch for early calving signs:
  • Swollen udder and teats
  • Cow looking uneasy or pacing around pen
  • Enlargement or softening of the vulva
  • Raised tailhead
  • Visible water bag
• If possible, avoid disturbing cows and replacement heifers during pre-calving and post-calving to help ease the natural calving process.

Post-calving navel dipping
Dipping a newborn calf’s navel helps protect the calf against disease during the first days of life. Follow these tips for administration and timing of navel dipping:

• Dip the calf’s navel immediately after birth.
• Use a strong tincture of iodine (at least 7%). If availability is limited, consult your veterinarian.
• Redip the calf’s navel when the calf is moved to an individual hutch or pen.
• Redip the calf’s navel again 12 to 18 hours after moving to its individual hutch or pen.
• Trim the end of the navel with a clean scissors.

Vaccinating with an intranasal vaccine
Vaccinating calves with INFORCE™ 3 respiratory vaccine at birth can help calves build strong immunity against respiratory disease-causing pathogens.

• Administer 2 mL intranasally using a cannula or a syringe with the needle removed, placing 1 mL in each nostril.
• Work with your veterinarian to establish vaccination programs that may include revaccination for transition calves.

Feeding colostrum
Providing newborn calves with the necessary level of protective antibodies is essential to achieve successful immunoglobulin transfer as well as absorption of other important nutrients and compounds.

• Ensure colostrum is harvested clean to keep bacteria levels as low as possible.
• Feed first feeding of colostrum within two hours of birth.
  • First feeding of colostrum should amount to 10% of a calf’s body weight (e.g., Holstein newborns require about 4 quarts per feeding and Jersey newborns require about 3 quarts).
• Feed second feeding (two quarts of colostrum) before 12 hours of life.

Remember that cleanliness is key around calves. Be sure to wear clean clothes and boots, wash your hands or wear gloves, and wash and sanitize calf equipment between calves.

Review the maternity pen assessment portion of the Zoetis Calf & Heifer Assessment with your Zoetis representative or veterinarian to develop and incorporate proper calf management protocols in your calf care program.

Source: Zoetis

When breeding heifers, the common question “how big is big enough?” could soon be a thing of the past.

Breeding size for heifers is typically based on a one-size-fits-all stature and weight, rather than by age. This is because it is assumed that all heifers should be the same size at the same age. However, the reality is that heifers are genetically predisposed to be different sizes. Waiting for heifers to reach a height benchmark can be a costly practice for dairies, leading to delayed first breeding and delayed entry into the milking herd and delayed milk production.

Genomic testing can more accurately reveal a heifer’s growth potential early in life, allowing producers to accelerate genetic progress with confidence and enhance profitability, all while capitalizing on higher production and profit potential.

Recent herd evaluations from Zoetis show substantial differences in heifer weight and height due to differences in genomic standardized transmitting abilities (STA) for strength and stature.

Zoetis evaluations report:

• At approximately 12 to 13 months of age, calculated weight varied by approximately 90 pounds due to genetic size differences in genomic STA for strength between -2 and +1.5.¹
• At approximately 12 to 13 months of age, height varied as much as 2 to 2.5 inches in heifers that varied in differences in genomic STA for stature.²  Another way to look at it, is that heifer height ranged from 0.5 to 0.87 inches taller per change of +1 in STA for stature.^1,2

These evaluations demonstrate how genetics play a large part in heifer growth. Genomic information can give you an estimate of whether a heifer is expected to be bigger or smaller than others at that age. Again, why wait for just size to determine breeding age? Consider breeding heifers based on age to avoid losing income because they look smaller, when, genetically, heifers will vary in size and some heifers are supposed to be smaller than others. Of course, animals that are noticeably smaller due to previous health challenges are a different story, which is where good health records can help.

Many farms with genomic testing have yet to utilize data to its fullest potential, and continue to resort to outdated, less accurate methods of gauging breeding age. With the help of genomics, producers can eliminate the guesswork from these decisions. Tune in to the webinar Moving Beyond Phenotype: Genomics vs. Size-based Traits to learn more.

Source: Zoetis

Sharemilking career paths are changing in New Zealand, according to the DairyNZ and Federated Farmers-resourced Dairy Progression Pathways report, undertaken by AgFirst.

Federated Farmers Sharemilker Farm Owners’ Section Chairperson Tony Wilding says the report shows opportunities for progression still exist but the career pathways have been changing and will continue to do so.

“While the number of traditional herd owning sharemilking (HOSM) agreements is slowly declining, the scale of them has increased and other options to invest in cows and land in equity ownership are continuing to emerge,” says Tony.

Richard McIntyre, Federated Farmers Sharemilkers’ Section Chairperson agrees. “Sharemilkers need to be better equipped to survive the climate of volatility through contracts that are flexible allowing them to manage risk.

“As sharemilking contracts evolve, it is important that the risk remains relative to reward.

“The report also highlights the need for improved due diligence prior to entering contracts. A number of failed sharemilking relationships can be traced back to a lack of due diligence at the start.”

The Pathways to Progression report shows that sharemilkers continue to make up 35 per cent of the industry, but HOSM has declined to 17 per cent from 25 per cent in 1995. This may be due to milk price variation and the challenges it presents for sharemilkers and farm owners.

The number of farmers planning to purchase a dairy farm after sharemilking has also dropped to 47 per cent from 70 per cent 20 years ago.

Source: TheCattleSite

NovaVive Inc., a Canadian immunobiology company, today announced that its cattle immunotherapy – Amplimune™ – has received organic certification by two U.S. agencies. Northeast Organic Farming Association New York (NOFA-NY) and Quality Certification Services (QCS) have both approved Amplimune for use in organic cattle production. The Company is pursuing further organic certifications for this product.

Organic certification is a process that enables food and other agricultural products to be represented as organic. In 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) implemented federal standards for organic products.

Organic standards address such factors as soil quality, pest and weed control, use of input materials, and humane treatment of livestock. Meeting these NOP standards is the core of the organic certification process and is required for a producer to use the word “organic” or the USDA Organic seal on food, feed, or fiber products.

“In order to be certified organic, cattle must receive no antibiotics from birth,” said Dr. Frank Mongini, a Californian veterinarian who serves clients with more than 10,000 organic dairy and beef cattle. “The organic dairy industry desperately needs a non- antibiotic, therapeutic product that is science-based and has met all the standards for USDA approval.”

“My clients have been looking for safe and effective alternative therapies for commonly occurring diseases like scours,” he added. “There are very few options available, and I see Amplimune as an important therapy in organic cattle production.”

About Northeast Organic Farming Association New York (NOFA-NY)
NOFA-NY is a non-profit organization of farmers, gardeners, and consumers working together to create a sustainable regional food system that’s ecologically sound and economically viable. Through demonstration and education, NOFA-NY promotes land stewardship, organic food production, and local marketing. The organization brings consumer and farmer together to make high quality food available to all people. Founded in 1983, NOFA-NY was the first organic certifier in New York State.

About Quality Certification Services (QCS)
QCS is the certification program of Florida Certified Organic Growers and Consumers Inc., a non-profit organization that began certifying organic growers in 1989 and received its USDA accreditation in 2001. The program offers a wide array of certification options for farming, livestock, packing, handling, processing, and wild harvest operations. QCS is an industry leader with more than 25 years of experience in certification. The organization has clients in 39 states and 12 countries, meeting the needs of operations regardless of type, location, or size on the ever-expanding worldwide market. QCS offers a variety of accredited organic, food safety and ethical certifications.

About Amplimune™
Amplimune is a USDA-approved immunotherapeutic treatment for the reduction of clinical signs and mortality associated with E. coli K99 diarrhea in neonatal calves. Amplimune is a formulation of mycobacterium cell wall fraction (MCWF) that enhances innate immunity to kill bacteria without the use of antibiotics.

About NovaVive Inc.
NovaVive is a private company founded in July, 2014. The Company acquired an advanced veterinary immunotherapeutic platform based on mycobacterium cell wall fraction (MCWF) with four regulator-approved products. Some of these formulations have demonstrated the capability of reducing the reliance on antibiotics in the treatment of certain diseases of horses and cattle. Other formulations have been developed as an anticancer therapy in dogs and horses. The MCWF technology was formerly part of Bioniche Animal Health.

NovaVive also acquired the global license to mycobacterial cell wall-nucleic acid complex (MCNA) for treating animal cancers. MCNA is an advanced formulation of mycobacterium cell walls and nucleic acids formulated for human applications. MCNA has been advanced through Phase III in the treatment of human bladder cancer by Bioniche Life Sciences (now Telesta Therapeutics).

Experience gained from managing through recent industry downturns should benefit New Zealand dairy farmers if they choose to set up their businesses to be “one step ahead of the price curve”, according to a new industry report.

The summer season is just around the corner, and the knowledge and understanding of the effects of heat stress on cow production and how to mitigate these effects are important for dairy operations. The combined effects of high heat and high humidity make a very uncomfortable environment for both farmers and lactating dairy cows. The decrease in milk production as a result of heat stress is readily seen, but there are less immediate negative effects of heat stress such as reduced fertility. Previous iGrow articles have addressed heat stress, but it is about time to refresh the basic concepts concerning heat stress, its implications, and provide an update on new genetic research which may lead to a more permanent solution to the problem.

Heat Stress: Symptoms & effects

Individual cows that are heat stressed are easy to identify by the symptoms of panting and drooling, which are the mechanisms they use to rid themselves of excess heat in an attempt to maintain their normal body temperature. In addition, heat-stressed dairy cows reduce feed intake and are unable to mobilize body fat reserves to compensate for their lower energy intake. At the same time, there is a 25 to 30% increase in maintenance requirements for the extra activities associated with combating heat stress such as muscle movements for panting, greater sweating, and production of heat shock proteins to maintain the cell functions. The combination of these factors puts tremendous stress on the high-producing dairy cow.

Cows under heat stress may experience:

• Drop in milk yield and fat and protein content.
• Metabolic alkalosis and ruminal acidosis.
• Reduced fertility.
• Impaired milk coagulation properties, reduced cheese yield, and alteration of organoleptic characteristics of milk products.

Managing Heat Stress

Fresh quality water availability is required at all times but is especially important during the summer to aid the cow in dissipation of body heat by sweating and breathing. Water intake increases in parallel to the ambient temperature. Sprinklers over cows in loafing and feeding areas as well as voluntary “cow showers” are additional methods of reducing heat stress. However, large dairy operations need to be able to ask for a prompt decision at a population level. It is imperative to recognize the ability of animals to adapt during long-term exposure to high temperature environments.

Temperature-Humidity Index (THI)

Heat load exposure of cows, estimated by the Temperature-Humidity Index (THI) that combines temperature and relative humidity, is widely used as an indicator of the animal-perceived outdoor conditions and as guide for taking appropriate measures. In a practical context, values of THI:

• 74° F is the threshold where heat stress may be present among cows,
• Greater than 74° F would be uncomfortable for 50% of cows,
• At approximately 80° F most cows would be severely affected by heat stress.

However, the THI has its limitations since it does not take into account individual animal characteristics (e.g. low vs. high producing cows, metabolic heat production, skin water loss), as well as ambient airflow, housing type, heat duration and degree of night cooling.

Increases in dairy cow productivity by genetic selection will make them even more susceptible to heat stress in the future. Modern high yielding dairy cows lose the ability to regulate their body temperature at an ambient temperature of 77 to 84° F.

Genetic Selection: A future heat stress solution?

Besides the known heat stress alleviating strategies such as watering (more available drinking water), feeding (buffer and probiotic additives, fat supplementation) and cooling (shades, fans, sprinklers, etc.), the selection of animals more resistant to heat stress may be an additional tool in the dairy producer’s toolbox Even with environmental modification to relieve the negative effects of heat stress, it is clear that some cows are better at regulating their body temperature than others, which suggests a genetic component to heat tolerance.

In 2013, researchers in Florida estimated that 13 to 17% of the variation in rectal temperature in cows during heat stress is due to genetic differences. This heritability (h² = 0.13 to 0.17) is lower than the heritability of milk yield (h²~0.30), but it is high enough to allow selection for lower rectal temperature under heat stress.

Methods of estimating genetic merit for heat-tolerance have been developed in Australia with clear results in sire selection. For example in the most extreme sires, when the THI went from 60 to 90° F, daughters of the least heat-tolerant sires had a decrease in milk yield from about 40 to 28 lb/day (0.4 lb/THI unit). In contrast, daughters from the most heat-tolerant sire did not decrease milk production at all as the THI increased.

Another interesting approach would be the introduction of genes from other breeds into our productive dairy herds that may increase their heat-tolerance. A dominant “slick” gene first described in Senepol breed of beef cattle in the Virgin Islands, that causes very short hair growth was introduced into Holsteins cows in Florida, and the resulting offspring were better able to regulate their body temperature during heat stress than cows with normal hair.

In this same manner, studies on the immunological responses of a heat-tolerant (Romosinuano breed) and a heat sensitive-breed (Angus) demonstrated differences in metabolic response (i.e., immuno-resistance, hormone levels, etc.) between breeds under changes in ambient temperature, which may help understand differences in productivity among cattle breeds in response to heat stress. A less dense hair coat in the Romosinuano breed compared to the Angus, may play an important role in its ability to tolerate higher temperatures. The genetic variation for rectal temperature and hair coat density observed in these studies suggests the future possibility of producing cows with greater heat tolerance from sires selected on genetic merit for this trait.

Advantages & Disadvantages

The advantage of selection for heat-tolerance is that the reduction in milk yield and fertility during the summer could be minimized. However, the possible disadvantages of this selection, such as producing cows less resistant to cold stress or negative relationships between heat tolerance and other economically important traits, must be investigated before heat tolerance is incorporated into selection criteria of dairy cattle.

Monitoring Heat Stress

It is really important to monitor weather changes and the animal’s body language (e.g. increased respiration rate, sweating, panting and reduction in eating) as show in Figure 1. When extended high temperatures are expected during the summer time, take proper actions to mitigate heat stress. Tracking temperature and humidity records and calculating the temperature-humidity index are part of proper cattle care management.

Figure 1. Detection of thermal stress and actions that should be taken under extensive production systems. Both climate and animal data should be monitored for the detection of thermal stress situations. Once thermal stress situation is detected, mangers should take measures to alleviate the impact of thermal stress on animals. Salama et al., 2016. Chapter 2: Thermal stress in ruminants: Responses and strategies for alleviation. Pages 11-36 In Animal Welfare in Extensive Production Systems. J. J. Villalba, ed. 5M publishing, Sheffield, United Kingdom. (ISBN: 9781910455548, In Press).

Take-Home Message

• Controlling heat stress is a challenge for a dairy farm. It is important to recognize symptoms of heat stress so that environmental interventions can be put in place to reduce the negative consequences of heat stress.
• Individual inherent variation between animals in their response to heat stress opens the window for selection of thermo-tolerant animals.
• The genetic tolerance to heat stress in Holsteins, through identifying specific genes or gene markers that are related to thermo-tolerance, could be the key to overcoming these real economic losses related to heat stress.

Source: iGrow

Farmers are among the most vulnerable when it comes to mental health, according to a new study from the University of Guelph.

Stress, anxiety, depression, emotional exhaustion and burnout are all higher among farmers than among other groups, early findings of the survey show.

As well, Canadian farmers are more stressed than those living and working elsewhere.

Prof Andria Jones-Bitton, a professor in the Department of Population Medicine, analysed more than 1,100 responses from across Canada to an online stress and resilience survey, conducted on agricultural producers from September 2015 to this past January.

“Some of the producer comments leave little doubt about the impact their job and culture is having on them,” Prof Jones-Bitton said.

“One said, ‘We are not invincible, but we feel we must be’.”

The survey found 45 per cent of survey respondents had high stress. Another 58 per cent were classified with varying levels of anxiety, and 35 per cent with depression.

Overall, that’s two to four times higher than farmers studied in the United Kingdom and Norway, Prof Jones-Bitton said.

Resilience, popularly believed to be a strength among producers, is also lower among two-thirds of the respondents than it is among a comparative US population.

In agriculture, a stigma is associated with mental health treatment, Jones-Bitton said.

So it follows that the survey showed 40 per cent of respondents said they’d feel uneasy getting professional help “because of what people might think.”

At the same time, more than three-quarters of those surveyed said professional mental services can be helpful in times of struggle.

Prof Jones-Bitton is building a team to deliver mental health training for farmers.

“We need to do something,” she says. “Farmers want help, and we’re going to find ways for them to receive it.”

Source: The Dairy Site

Once your dairy takes on employees, it is inevitable that at some point you will have to discipline or terminate one of them. Disciplining and terminating, like hiring, requires the employer to keep records. Dairy operators must keep in mind that anti-discrimination laws, public policy, and employment contracts may limit an employer’s ability to terminate dairy workers.

Evaluations

One of the most important duties you will have as an employer is to evaluate employee performance. Letting an employee know how he or she is performing can encourage the employee to perform at a high level, and letting the employee know he or she has fallen short can help reinforce expectations. You should attempt to do evaluations in a positive manner, and keep a written record of the evaluations to help document job performance.

Useful tools in handling evaluations will be developing job descriptions for employees and developing an employee handbook with expectations for positions. This provides you and the employee with a reference point to strengths and weaknesses in performing job duties and clearly lays out expectations.

Disciplining

If the evaluation does not improve performance or if the situation necessitates, an employer may need to discipline poorly performing employees before terminating anyone. Letting the employee know early on how his or her performance is inappropriate or inadequate, both verbally and in writing, gives the employee an opportunity to correct unacceptable behavior. If the employee’s performance does not improve, then the employer can consider suspending the employee without pay or even termination.

For example, a dairy has an employee, Steve, who is habitually late to work every morning. Pete, the dairy owner, should document that Steve is late and explain to Steve that he cannot arrive late to work anymore.  If Steve arrives to work late the next day, then Pete could send Steve home for the day without pay. If Steve arrives late again, then Pete could terminate Steve.

When disciplining an employee, keep written records in the employee’s file. Good records on all matters related to your employees will help prove that terminating an employee was warranted.

Discrimination Issues

When terminating an employee, it is important to remember that anti-discrimination laws still apply. State anti-discrimination laws can vary as to classifications (examples: race, sex, religion, etc.) which are protected traits. “Discrimination” is an action that confers “privileges on a certain class or that denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or disability” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2004). The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and typically state employment laws will protect against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, veteran, genetic information and religion during hiring, employment, and termination.

For the most part, you cannot terminate an employee based on race, age, sex, disability, and religion. This is why documentation and being consistent in disciplinary actions are important and help to verify you are terminating an employee for reasons other than discrimination. For example, Pete could not terminate Steve based on his race, but Pete could terminate Steve for violating the terms of employment.

Contract vs. At-Will Employment

When terminating an employee, the next issue to consider is at-will employment versus contract employment. At-will employment is employment usually “undertaken without a contract and that may be terminated at any time, by either the employer or the employee, without cause” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2004). At-will employment is the default rule in all 50 states except Montana. At-will employment is just what it means: at the will of the employee or the employer.

One exception to the rule of at-will employment is termination for a discriminatory purpose. As discussed earlier, you may not terminate at-will employees for a discriminatory purpose. You may terminate an at-will employee for any reason but his or her race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, veteran, genetic information and religion.

Another exception to the at-will rule would be when termination violates public policy (such as performing an action supported by public policy or refusing to do something which violates public policy). For example, an employee, Marcia, videotapes Steve, another employee, abusing dairy cattle during milking, and turns that video over to local law enforcement. The dairy operator promptly fires both Marcia and Steve. Terminating Marcia may violate public policy since many states have animal welfare statutes.

Another exception is termination which violates the terms of the employment contract. If you use an employment contract when hiring an employee, this contract can potentially limit when you can discharge employees. Employment contracts can be useful in retaining valued dairy employees, such as a farm manager, but you need to keep in mind that your ability to terminate those employees will be limited. If the employment contract states, for example, that an employee can only be fired for violations of the contract, then that employee cannot be terminated for any reason other than violations of the employment contract.

Terminating the Employee

We have probably all heard Donald Trump utter the words, “You’re fired!” on The Apprentice at some point. Trump may have made termination seem easier than it actually is for some employers. As you are seeing, properly terminating an employee is not always as simple as saying “you’re fired.”

After you have documented the problems with an employee, and given the employee an opportunity to correct the problems, then you can consider termination. You should terminate the employee in a way that will not cause embarrassment or distractions. Be clear with the employee as to why he or she is being terminated.

Once terminated, the employee will be entitled to unpaid wages and retaining unpaid wages is illegal in a majority of states. Although you may want to retain those wages, doing so is never advisable. If the employee having damaged equipment, buildings, etc. is a reason for his or her termination, then consult an attorney on how best to collect damages.

The other issue to consider is vacation and other accrued leave. Many states have laws requiring you to pay the terminated employee for unused leave unless the company has a policy or a contract term which does not require paying for unused leave. While many hourly employees on your dairies may not earn leave, this can be an issue if the terminated employee is a manager.

You also need to take steps to get property returned to you. If the terminated employee has company equipment such as a phone or truck, it is important to regain possession of these items at the time of termination. Remove the employee from any bank accounts he or she may have signing authority on. Have the employee return any keys.  Change any passwords for bank accounts and/or social media accounts to which the employee may have had access. Doing this will restrict the terminated employee’s ability to retaliate. Do you want to see your social media accounts showing statements against you or your family? Do you want to be locked out of bank accounts? Taking steps to protect your dairy when terminating employees can save you trouble down the road.

Special Note on Housing

Many of you may allow an employee to live in a house/trailer/living quarters located on the farm. Often little attention is paid to the employee’s status while using the housing and this can lead to an issue when terminating the employee. With employee housing on the farm, consider talking to an attorney and an accountant on the proper way to set up the arrangement to save yourself problems if you have to terminate the employee. Getting the proper agreements early on can help save you heartache down the road.

If the housing is considered a part of employment, this may lead to problems, such as the cost of the housing being calculated as a part of the employee’s wages and increasing overtime pay. When terminating the employee, contact an attorney to make sure the proper process is followed in evicting the former employee from the dairy’s housing. This process may not always be as quick and painless as you hope it would be.

The other option is to treat the employee as a tenant who pays rent for a set period. Treating the employee as a tenant could cause issues when terminating the employee, you would need to follow state law to evict the employee, which could take anywhere from 30 to 90 days.

Bottom Line

Terminating an employee is not a simple process and may not be something you ever grow comfortable doing. You need to keep records showing how you evaluated employee performance and how you disciplined poorly performing employees. Doing this will help limit claims that the termination was for a discriminatory reason. If it becomes necessary to terminate an employee, remember to pay them for any unpaid wages and unpaid leave (depending on company policy and your state), get keys and equipment returned to you, and change all applicable employee passwords.

Source: University of Maryland

Cows have a strong urge to be resting at night, a research study into feeding behaviour has found.

The study was the subject of a PhD thesis by Sydney University student Alex John which sought to understand how cows feed when subjected to different feed times both in daylight or at night,

The results will help provide answers to how they can be robotically milked.

In his study, dry cows were placed in feeding pens in three groups.

Some were allowed to feed at will over a 24-hour period, another fed at night while the third during daylight hours.

“We saw a really interesting difference,” Mr John said.

“If we split the 12 hours into two lots of six hours, the day cows were splitting their intakes (feeding) pretty much evenly.

“The night cows were consuming around 75 per cent of their daily intake in that first six-hour period and only 25 per cent in the last six hours.

“What that shows is that cows have a real strong urge to be resting at that period and not be active at all feeding.”

“That will have a massive impact on the flow through the dairy.”

To spread the cows feeding and therefore going through the automated system there needs to be a “manipulation” of the cows.

“Do we give more feed during the night time to encourage the cows to be feeding then more actively?”

He said there might be the need to in fact give them less feed at a certain time, therefore encouraging them to go looking for feed at a different time.

The conclusion is not surprising whether it be cows, or other animals including humans.

“Do we offer them something that is more enticing to the cows at night time? Would this encourage them to move around more the system.”

Once the results are known and it is learnt what works, Mr John said this would be applied to milking cows on a dairy farm.

The cows which were subject to the program were aged between two and six.

There were nine cows in each group, all penned individually.

“The cows adapted really quickly to a change in feeding strategy,” Mr John said.

“For a commercial farm this shows cows were able to adapt quite quickly.”

Source: ABC

June is National Dairy Month and the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Dairy Unit is studying ways to get more milk and cheese to your table. But it’s no easy task to keep cows cool enough to produce in the scorching Florida sun.

That’s where researchers with the UF/IFAS Dairy Unit, in Hague, Florida come in. “It is difficult for a dairy cow in a hot environment to meet her full potential for either milk yield or fertility,” said Geoff Dahl, chair of the UF/IFAS animal sciences department. “The physiological adjustments the cow makes to prevent body temperature from rising during heat stress reduce productivity.”

This is especially true for cows in their dry period—cows in late pregnancy or who are not lactating. “These are times when we don’t milk the cows, because for six to eight weeks they don’t produce milk,” Dahl explained.

These cows are usually put out to pasture, and that’s where the trouble comes in, Dahl said. The cows suffer from heat stress and their milk production suffers. Also, the calves developing in utero produce less milk in their lifetimes.

For example, heat-stressed cows lose their appetite, Dahl said. Eating less means the cow is able to lower her internal heat production and regulation of body temperature becomes easier, he said. But, the disadvantage to the producer is that this decreases milk yield.

But dry cows are regenerating mammary tissue to prepare for the next lactation, and that is compromised by heat stress, Dahl said.

“The increase in body temperature that occurs during heat stress can itself limit productivity,” Dahl said. “This is certainly true for fertility because the early embryo in the first one to three days of life is not able to develop when body temperature rises to 104°F (40°C).”

The solution, said Dahl, has been to bring cows into a barn where they can stay cool, especially during summer months. “Even in other states that have relatively mild summers, the heat can still have a significant effect on the cows’ ability to produce milk,” he said.

According to Dahl, recent studies show that dry cows cooled during summer months produce almost a gallon and a half more milk than cows that are not cooled. “The science is there that a cooled cow makes for a more productive cow,” he said.

Source: University of Florida

Dairy calves are dehorned for the safety of the animals and the people who will handle them in the future. Guidelines from the American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) cover key considerations for the welfare of calves during the dehorning or disbudding process. These guidelines include age at which the procedure is done, proper restraint, use of appropriate methods, and pain control during and after the procedure.

Dehorning and disbudding are best done when the calf is young. When using a hot-iron dehorner, the horn should be removed before the horn base becomes larger than 1-inch in diameter. This is at approximately six weeks of age. During the procedure, restrain the calf using a halter or other head restraint. Providing employee training on safe, low-stress handling techniques is very important.

Applying caustic paste to the calf’s horn buds is another method for dehorning and is most effectively done at 1-3 days of age. Calves must be kept from rubbing paste on other animals. Protecting calves from rain or other moisture for at least 24 hours will prevent the paste from running and causing injury to the calf. A fact sheet from the University of Wisconsin suggests covering the horn buds with duct tape or vet wrap after the paste is applied.

Local anesthesia is highly recommended during hot iron dehorning. A corneal nerve block using lidocaine controls the pain and discomfort of burning. Lidocaine has a 4-day meat withholding time.

To reduce inflammation and post-procedure pain associated with both procedures, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are helpful. Meloxicam is a low-cost, oral tablet that can provide pain relief for up to 48 hours with a single dose after either procedure. Using meloxicam in this manner is an extra label drug use. Consequently, it must be prescribed by your herd veterinarian as part of a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR). The meat withholding time for meloxicam is 21 days after a single dose.

It is important to consult your veterinarian regarding the proper use and dosage of a local anesthetic or other pain relief for dehorning.

Using appropriate dehorning or disbudding procedures and minimizing the associated pain are essential for a well-managed calf program. Developing protocols for calf care and pain management can ensure that everyone caring for calves follows the same procedures on your farm. Several changes being implemented in the National Dairy FARM program in January 2017 address best practices for dehorning and protocols for pain management.

Dairy calf dehorning is just one topic covered in the Calf Care Schools conducted by Michigan State University Extension dairy educators. Three Calf Care Schools will be offered in the Upper Peninsula on June 21-23, 2016. You can access more details or register for a Calf Care School at the MSU Extension events page.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension.

Canadian dairy producers have made great strides in the area of reproductive performance. Statistics such as pregnancy rate, average days in milk and calving interval are rhymed off much more easily by the herd manager of today than the one of the past.  For various reasons, improved herd management and reproductive performance translates to more cows pregnant earlier in lactation.  At the other end of the lactation, these cows may also be dried off earlier and therefore not surpass the standard lactation length of 305 days in milk.  Canadian Dairy Network (CDN) took a closer look at this reality to assess its impact on lactation records and genetic evaluations.

BCA = Breed Class Average

Lactation records in Canada include the kilograms of milk, fat and protein produced as well as BCA values and BCA deviations from herd average.  BCA refers to Breed Class Average, which is an index for expressing lactation yields used by milk recording in Canada since the 1950’s. They allow for a fair comparison of 305-day production levels within a breed independent of the month during the year and the age of the cow at each calving. For example, BCAs allow us to directly compare the production of a cow that calved at 26 months of age in July to another that calved as a 4-year old (48 months) in December. Although unique only to Canada, the BCA system is useful since it allows for an easy comparison of production performance across all cows instead of trying to look at actual kilograms of production when such levels vary by the age at calving and the month/season of calving during the year.  BCA is similar to the use of Mature Equivalent values but BCAs have the added benefit of being comparable across the traits of milk, fat and protein.

Performance for Production Versus Reproduction

Lactation yields in kilograms reflect the cumulative levels of milk, fat and protein produced over the length of lactation as indicated by the number of days in milk (DIM).  For the calculation of BCA values, the lactation yields to 305 DIM are used for a standard comparison.  Cows that are dried off prior to reaching 305 DIM end up with a lower 305-d lactation record used to calculate the associated BCAs for milk, fat and protein.  Clearly, cows that are pregnant earlier in lactation have a decreased likelihood of reaching a lactation length of 305 days. The use of 305-d lactation records is the international standard for expressing lactation records.  This standard was derived based on a targeted calving interval of 12 months (365 days) and a targeted dry period of 60 days. Given these targets and a standard gestation length of 280 days, any cow becoming pregnant prior to reaching 85 DIM would normally be dried off before a lactation length of 305 days.

Current Statistics   

To investigate the potential scope of this question of balancing reproductive and production performances, CDN conducted an analysis based on Holstein lactation and insemination records in recent years. Only lactations that ended by a normal drying off were considered.  General statistics are presented in Table 1.  One-quarter of all lactations end with a normal drying off before reaching 305 days in milk, which is consistent with the fact that 26% of successful pregnancies occur before reaching 85 days in milk and today there is even 5% occurring prior to 50 days in milk.  With good herd management in terms of reproduction, some herds will achieve a higher proportion of cows successfully pregnant before 85 days in lactation, which will also depend on the voluntary waiting period adopted for the herd.  Pregnancy prior to 85 days in milk does not necessarily translate into a lactation length of 305 days if one is willing to reduce the length of the following dry period from the traditional standard of 60 days.  This seems to be the current trend since 57% of all dry periods are shorter than 60 days and one-third are 50 days or less (Table 1). Another measure of reproductive performance often quoted is calving interval.  Currently, 30% of calvings have an interval that is 12 months or less while 51% have an interval up to 13 months.

Impact on Lactation BCAs  

In any event, it is true that some cows do get pregnant early in lactation and therefore will be dried off prior to reaching 305 DIM.  The CDN analysis also quantified the impact of such shorter lactations on the calculation of resulting BCA values.  To do so, the average lactation curve for Holstein cows was used to quantify the average amount of milk that would be excluded from a 305-d lactation when the cow was dried off earlier.  Roughly speaking, for the average cow dried off during the weeks prior to reaching 305 DIM, the expected impact is approximately 1 BCA point for every two days dried early.  Specifically for a cow dried off at 280 DIM, the BCAs for milk, fat and protein would be reduced by 13 to 14 points, on average.  Depending on the number of lactations affected during the year, this could also reduce the average BCA values for the herd and BCA deviations will be negatively affected to a lesser degree compared to the BCA values per se.

What About the Impact on Genetic Evaluations?

CDN uses a very sophisticated model for calculating genetic evaluations for production traits.  This system uses the 24-hour yields of milk, fat and protein on each test day rather than lactation yields, BCAs or BCA deviations.  In addition, the effect of pregnancy on each test day is taken into account depending on the number of days pregnant at that time.  These two factors, taken together, ensure that cows that get pregnant earlier in lactation and therefore have a shorter lactation length are not penalized in any way in terms of the resulting genetic evaluations.

Summary

As herd management levels improve and increased attention is given to measures of reproductive performance, more cows will become successfully pregnant earlier in lactation.  While some flexibility exists in terms of the dry period prior to the next calving, some cows pregnant earlier in lactation will need to be dried off prior to reaching the standard of 305 days in milk used to express lactation records and to calculate BCA values.  On average, this will reduce published BCAs by approximately 1 point for every two days dried off prior to 305 DIM. Of importance, however, is the fact that genetic evaluations published by CDN are not affected.

Authors:
Brian Van Doormaal, General Manager, CDN
Lynsay Beavers, Industry Liaison Coordinator, CDN

Download a PDF copy of this article

Everybody notices big dips in animal performance. But slowly sinking milk fat production is much more insidious.

Lower milk fat levels gradually become accepted since the losses are not as dramatic from one month to the next—and dairies may struggle with strategies to overcome reductions. For farms that are paid on components, slipping milk fat production can become a significant lost income opportunity.

Don’t accept suppressed milkfat levels as normal in your herd. Monitor trends to catch challenges early and focus on ways to optimize milk fat production.

Search for Solutions

Part of the challenge is that there are many influencers on milk fat production including:

• Rumen buffering
• Ration fat source
• Excessive ration sorting
• Larger less-frequent meals
• Overcrowding
• Forage-to-concentrate ratio
• Stage of production
• Parity
• Seasonality
• Genetics
• Diseases like mastitis and more

However, reduced rumen pH due to highly fermentable diets is the biggest contributor to lower milk fat production. That’s because today’s diets include more fermentable carbohydrates, along with minimized fiber (physically effective NDF) levels. In short, rations rely more on microbial protein and fermentation than in the past.

Variable feed ingredient quality also plays a role in ration performance, and can lead to rumen upsets due to fluctuating pH levels.

“The optimal rumen pH should be between 6.0 and 6.2, but there is daily fluctuation below this level even in healthy cows” explains Gabriella Varga, Animal Science professor at Penn State University. The length of time pH is low and the number of bouts below 5.5 are what impact clinical and subclinical cases of rumen acidosis, as well as impact milk fat production.

In addition, feeding high grain, low roughage rations encourages milk production but depresses milk fat percentages, especially when roughage is restricted to 30% or less of the dry matter fed.¹

Generally, when rations include ground, rolled, heated, steam-­flaked or pelletized grain it increases starch digestibility and propionic acid production in the rumen. Furthermore, the variable amounts of fatty acids from feeds like DDGS, gluten and hominy, cottonseed and other oilseeds, combined with increasing dietary starch and other fermentable feeds, can contribute to lower milk fat production, too.

Optimize Milk Fat Production

Take the following steps to overcome low milk fat production and boost herd productivity:

1. Increase inclusion rate of rumen buffers.

The recommended inclusion rate for sodium bicarbonate is 0.75% to 1.0% of TMR dry matter.² When fed at that rate, a cow eating 60 pounds of dry matter per day should receive at least 0.5 pounds of buffer per day—not the 0.25 pounds too many cows currently receive.

Rumen buffers help stabilize rumen acids, increasing feed intake while reducing off-feed bouts and improving rumen performance for enhanced productivity. Rumen upset from inadequate buffering is a leading cause of acidosis—which is a top contributor to lower milk fat production.

2. Better manage DCAD levels for high production and fresh cow diets. A plethora of data indicate that dairies should take advantage of increased DCAD levels. A 2014 University of Maryland meta-analysis³ showed a linear response (P<0.001) to increasing DCAD levels for a number of important production parameters. For each 10-point increase in DCAD [(sodium potassium) – (chloride sulfur)] increased:

• Milk fat percentage by 0.10%

• Milk fat grams per day by 0.35

• Rumen pH by 0.033 units

• Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) digestibility by 1.5%

• Fat-corrected milk/DMI by 0.013

In addition, multiple trials⁴ from Clemson University have shown a positive influence on rumen biohydrogenation when a stabilized potassium carbonate source was evaluated. Research confirms potassium can help reduce the incidence and severity of lower milk fat production by allowing for more of the desirable rumen biohydrogenation pathway to occur.

3. Use wet chemistry analysis to obtain accurate ration nutrient levels. Don’t rely on book values. The nutrient values—like protein, fiber and starch levels—of various feedstuffs are not consistent from load to load.

For instance, data presented at the 2013 American Dairy Science Annual Meeting showed significant differences in rumen dry matter digestibility and protein bypass, and substantial variation within feeds for soybean meal, canola meal, corn distillers grain, corn gluten, soy hulls and expeller meal.⁵

Also, consider alleviating overcrowding when possible to prevent cows from slug feeding, include milk fat traits in breeding decisions, reduce mastitis incidence and step up feed mixing and delivery management.

While lower milk prices are out of your direct control, you can have an impact on the product you deliver to market. Use this advice to help increase your opportunities to get the most from what milk markets offer.

By Dr. Elliot Block, Research Fellow, Arm & Hammer Animal Nutrition and Dr. Joel Pankowski, Manager, Technical Services, Arm & Hammer Animal Nutrition

A central Wisconsin dairy farmer says producing high quality forage is helping offset escalating input costs.

Brad Kramer has a 200 cow operation near Pittsville where he also raises corn, soybeans and alfalfa.

He tells Brownfield margins are getting tighter as milk prices go down and soybean meal prices go up.

“The price of milk (has been) crashing, now down in the $12 range.  And soybean meal, which as a grower of soybeans it’s great that the soybean rally is coming, but as a buyer of soybean meal it’s definitely putting a strain on the dairy farm.”

Kramer recently finished his first cutting of alfalfa and says the excellent crop is helping the bottom line.

“My nutritionist said that all the samples are looking like 190-200 Relative Feed Value, which is exactly what we were looking for on our dairy.  We were not going for tonnage, we were going for quality, and we attained that goal.”

Kramer says farmers in his area are also benefiting from a huge supply of alfalfa seed from last year’s bumper crop.

Listen to Interview

Here we go. Another challenging year in the dairy business, and an opportunity for you to challenge the “status quo” and ensure you are running on all cylinders in the key areas affecting your dairy’s profitability. Taken from the archives of 2009, here is Greg Bethard’s “Top 10 Keys to Making Money in the Dairy Business.” While he assures us that 2016 is not 2009, the advice is as pertinent today as it was back then.

1. Keep a full barn
2. Healthy fresh cows
3. Offer a career change to unprofitable cows
4. Realize quality and component premiums
5. Maximize income over feed cost
6. Procure high quality forages
7. Generate pregnancies (heifer and cow)
8. Minimize replacement costs
9. Cut costs intelligently
10. Control labor costs

Keep a Full Barn
Keeping a full barn means averaging 100% of capacity over a year’s time. Anything less is a lost opportunity, other than the rare circumstance where a marginal cow is not making money. The definition of “full” or “100% capacity” does not necessarily mean one cow per stall or one cow per headlock. It could mean less or more depending on the facility, environment, and management. Every dairy needs to figure out what “full” is for their facility and management, then strive to stay there all year round.

Healthy Fresh Cows
Trickledown economics relating to fresh cows are simple: poor fresh cow health leads to excessive fresh cow culling, poor reproduction, high replacement costs, high cost/cwt, and eventually a dairy in financial trouble. The number one heard health priority should be healthy fresh cows. Healthy fresh cows trump high milking fresh cows.

Offer a Career Change to Unprofitable Cows
Cows that are not covering variable costs need to be traded in for a new cow, or her spot should be left vacant. A breakeven level of production can be calculated to determine if variable costs are covered as follows: (variable costs)/(milk price per pound). Variable costs are those that disappear if one cow is culled. These include feed, bST, chemical/teat dip, interest, and antibiotic risk. If these costs are not covered by the income the cow generates every day, then the cow is not covering her variable costs. For example, suppose variable costs totaled $5.50 per day and milk is $12/cwt; breakeven level of production is $5.50/$0.12 = 45 lbs. In this case any cow below 45 lbs should be culled. This calculation is independent of the cow being replaced.

Practical uses of this calculation involve adding some common sense to the equation. Pregnant cows (for sure those>100 days carried calf) on most dairies would not be considered for culling. Cows would need to have two test days below breakeven levels to be considered (some cows may have had a “bad“ test day), and the manager or herdsman should visually evaluate before culling to be sure the milk weights are real.

Pregnant cows may be eligible for early dry if it would be less costly to feed her in the dry pen compared to keeping her in the milking string. In this case, breakeven production would be: (variable costs – dry cow feed costs)/(milk price per pound). For example, suppose variable costs are $5.50/day, dry cow feed costs are $2.50, and milk is $12; dry-off level of production is ($5.50 – $2.50)/$0.12 = 25 lbs. In this case any pregnant cow below 25 lbs should be early dried. This logic works to a point – it doesn’t make a lot of sense to early dry a cow with a poor mature equivalent (ME) that is less than 100 days carried calf.

How then is it justifiable to cull poor pregnant cows, or open cows that are poor producers but above breakeven levels? Models have been generated (Eicker et al, Kinsel, 1998, de Vries, 2004) to predict the Net Present Value of a cow relative to a heifer that could take her place. Inputs include value of sold cows, cost of replacement, feed costs, milk price, and risk of pregnancy. A Net Present Value model essentially moves all costs and revenues that are predicted to occur in the future back to present day dollars, making comparison simpler. These models, if followed implicitly, would indicate that any cow with a negative Present Value should be culled. These models are valuable and useful, but can be limited if future economic conditions differ markedly
from the present. They are dependent on the cow being replaced.

Realize Quality and Component Premiums

Milk premiums in most markets are offered for high quality milk (low bacteria and somatic cell counts), butterfat, and protein. Milk quality is generally the most lucrative, followed by protein then fat. Total premiums can exceed $1.00/cwt on Holstein herds and more on Jersey and crossbred herds. When milk was $20, a $1.00 premium was nice like icing on the cake. Today with $10 milk it is monumental and potentially lifesaving for the dairy.

Maximize Income Over Feed Cost (IOFC)
Income over feed cost is calculated as (milk revenue per cow per day) minus (feed costs per cow per day). If cows are milking 70 lbs, milk is $12/cwt, and feed costs are $5.50/day, then IOFC = (70 × 0.12) – ($5.50) = $2.90. Any change that increases the $2.90 is likely good provided it does not impact cow health.

The IOFC is driven by several factors. Obvious are feed price and milk price. Others include feed conversions, milk per cow, and the value of milk (i.e. components and premiums). Day to day feeding and management decisions should be evaluated using income over feed costs. Feed cost per cwt is a useful tool to gauge the entire feeding program (milking and dry) over a longer period of time, and is impacted by feed buying, shrinkage, waste, and the factors influencing IOFC. Feed cost per cwt is not useful for short term feeding and management decisions; IOFC is more appropriate.

Procure High Quality Forages
The ultimate trickledown economics on a dairy begin and end with forage quality. Cows eating lots of high quality forage under good management will likely be healthy, productive, and fertile. It is quite difficult to have healthy cows with poor forages.

Generate Pregnancies (Heifer and Cow)
There are many calculations available to determine how valuable a pregnancy is to a dairy. Somewhere around $400 is typical, and in the dairy industry we are well aware of the benefits of getting cows pregnant. Often the importance of heifer pregnancies is forgotten, but they generally make up about 35% of the pregnancies generated on a dairy. They are the easiest to get (particularly in summer), and are equally valuable to cow pregnancies in generating cow flow. The number one reason for culling on most dairies is reproduction (often called low milk). Dairies that need to purchase springing heifers to maintain herd size are really buying pregnancies. It is much cheaper to generate them on the dairy.

Pregnancy hard count estimates how many pregnancies a dairy needs to maintain cow flow. Several methods are utilized to compute a hard count. The method described here is simple and relates to cow flow. Assume for this example that a herd has 1000 milking cows (not including dry). This dairy should calve 100 animals per month or 10% of milking cows. Pregnancy Hard Count would be computed as follows:

• Heifer Calvings
  • 35% should be heifer calvings, or 35 per month
  • Inflate by 1-2% for abortions or about 36 pregnancies needed per month
  • 36 per month equates to about 25 pregnancies needed per 21 day cycle
• Cow Calvings
  • 65% should be cow calvings, or 65 per month
  • Inflate by 15% (or whatever the abortion rate for the dairy is) for abortions or about 75 pregnancies needed per month
  • 75 per month equates to about 52 pregnancies needed per 21 day cycle

The most important question to answer reproductively on a dairy is “are there enough pregnancies being generated?” Pregnancy Hard Count is more useful than pregnancy rate or conception rate in answering this question.

Minimize Replacement Costs
Replacement costs are typically the second largest cost of producing milk, behind feed costs. Conceptually, replacement cost is the cost of maintaining herd size and structure. Although genuine dairy accountants have various methods to determine replacement costs, all methods are similar to the following: (value of cows sold – cost of replacement) / cwt milk sold. The value of cows sold is impacted by the kind of cows that are sold (fat, late lactation culls that sell well or beat-up fresh cows that are thin and sell poorly), and the number that are actually sold (deads are generally not sold). The cost of replacement is impacted by what you pay for a new heifer, or the money invested in the home-raised replacement (not including value at birth). In a situation where all heifers are purchased, the value of heifer calves sold is included in the value of cows sold. Quantity of milk shipped plays greatly impacts the calculation.

Our industry focuses on cull rate as a measure of herd turnover. Replacement cost/cwt, as described above, trumps any other measure of herd turnover. It doesn’t matter what your cull rate is if your replacement costs/cwt are low. It doesn’t matter how much you pay for heifers if your replacement costs/cwt are low. The measuring stick is replacement cost/cwt, and a reasonable goal in most areas of the country is <$1.50/cwt. Some quick cowboy math illustrates these points. The following three examples are for a herd of 1000 cows with 850 producing saleable milk.

• Scenario A. ~70 lbs milk, 40% cull rate, 10% death loss, $500 average cull cow
  price, and $1200 cost of rearing heifers.
  • Milk sold = 220,000 cwts/year
  • Value of Sold Cows = 300 x $500 = $150,000
  • Cost of Replacements = $1200 x 400 = 480,000
  • Replacement Cost = ($480,000 – $150,000) / (220,000) = $1.50.cwt
• Scenario B. ~80 lbs milk, 50% cull rate, 5% death loss, $500 average cull cow price, and $1200 cost of rearing heifers.
  • Milk sold = 250,000 cwts/year
  • Value of Sold Cows = 450 x $500 = $225,000
  • Cost of Replacements = $1200 x 500 = 600,000
  • Replacement Cost = ($600,000 – $225,000) / (250,000) = $1.50.cwt
• Scenario C. ~60 lbs milk, 25% cull rate, 2.5% death loss, $500 average cull cow price, and $1200 cost of rearing heifers.
  • Milk sold = 185,000 cwts/year
  • Value of Sold Cows = 225 x $500 = $112,000
  • Cost of Replacements = $1200 x 250 = 300,000
  • Replacement Cost = ($300,000 – $112,000) / (185,000) = $1.02.cwt

Reducing heifer rearing costs is an important factor in lowering replacement costs. Many factors contribute, but paramount is getting heifers pregnant. We often mislead ourselves by using a biased number to evaluation heifer reproduction: conception rate. While a useful number in some ways, the most important number is how many pregnancies are generated over a recent period of time such as a week, 21 day cycle, or month.

Cut Costs Intelligently.
Cutting costs is necessary and good dairyman can do this intelligently. Cost cutting is OK provided the following areas are not impacted: Forage Quality, Cow Health, Fresh Cows, and Pregnancies. Dairies that cut in these areas are signaling that they do not intend to be in the dairy business long term.

Control Labor Costs
There are many measures of labor efficiency. They include cows/employee, and pounds of milk sold/employee. While some of these measures have some utility, the ultimate measure is labor cost per cwt. It really doesn’t matter how many employees you have if labor costs per cwt are “good”. Several issues can skew this number, including contract labor (outside breeding services, outside maintenance services, etc) and if replacements are raised on or off the farm. Ideally only labor involved in taking care of the milking herd should be included. Labor involved with replacements or farming should be considered separate.

SUMMARY
Having a low cost/cwt trumps all other rules for making money. Those that make cheap milk will remain in business the longest if they choose.

*Dr. Greg Bethard presented “Surviving Low Milk Prices” at the Florida Dairy Production Conference in Gainsville, FL on April 28th, 2009. He is currently serving as CFO of Pagel’s Ponderosa Dairy and Dairy Dreams in Northeast Wisconsin.

We at Virtus Nutrition believe that Fatty Acids Matter. Big Fat Ideas from The Fatty Acid Forum is an email series created to highlight key concepts in fatty acid nutrition for dairy cattle in a simple and impactful way: One Big Fat Idea at a Time. Be sure to forward to a friend, client or colleague to share the knowledge and improve the returns from fatty acids in your dairy cow diets!

The regular creation of pregnancies is essential to providing the steady stream of fresh cows necessary to maintain a good milk production average along with the heifer calves that will become the future replacements for a dairy operation.

A common measurement of reproductive performance on dairies is Pregnancy Rate which measures the percentage of pregnancy eligible cows that actually become pregnant during a 21-day heat cycle. The two factors driving Pregnancy Rate are Service Rate (or Heat Detection Rate) and Conception Rate. A simple way to calculate Pregnancy Rate is to multiply the Service Rate x Conception Rate.

Although the national average is estimated to be around 15%, many herds consider a Pregnancy Rate of 20% a desirable and attainable goal. Of course the ultimate success of a repro program is not measured in percentages but in the hard number of pregnancies created. Creating a pregnancy starts with heat detection or service rates.

Service Rate (SR) – The total number of cows inseminated divided by the total number of Pregnancy Eligible Cows during a 21-day cycle. The term Heat Detection Rate is often used interchangeably with Service Rate. Service Rate is perhaps a more accurate term as it includes all cows inseminated, including synchronized cows that were not actually detected in heat.

Conception Rate (CR) – The total number of cows that become pregnant divided by the total number of cows inseminated during a specific time frame.

Pregnancy Rate (PR) – The total number of cows that become pregnant divided by the total number of pregnancy eligible cows during a 21-day cycle.

Service Rate or Heat Detection Rate is often the greatest limiting factor of the equation. A high Conception Rate is impressive but must be complemented by an adequate Service Rate if the ultimate goal of a high Pregnancy Rate is to be achieved. Before a cow is inseminated we must be reasonably sure she is in heat or trust in a synchronization program to cause her to ovulate at the right time if we time-breed her.

Among the factors that can contribute to a poor Service Rate:

• Inadequate heat detection skills: A technician lacking good heat detection skills may miss some subtle signs of heat and breed fewer cows resulting in a low service rate. Conversely, an inadequately trained technician may achieve a good service rate by breeding many cows that are not actually in heat. This will be reflected in low conception rates but is really a result of poor heat detection technique. Insemination is a process that can be learned but heat detection is more of an art requiring the development of keen observation skills.

• Noncycling cows: Nutritional, metabolic and disease issues along with a premature Voluntary Waiting Period may result in a high number of noncycling cows. According to Fertility Specialist, Dr. Arun Phatak, “In the average herd about 10% of the cows will not be cycling and show any signs of heat until about 75 days in milk. If the number exceeds 10% then nutrition and intakes need to be examined. Also, first lactation cows need their own pen.” The consequence of higher numbers of noncycling cows will be lower heat detection rates along with lower conception rates for cows bred by appointment.

• Inadequate facilities: Overcrowded pens and slippery concrete may limit mounting and other estrus activity. Inadequate lock-up capacity and poor lighting may also hamper a technician’s ability to evaluate cows for signs of estrus.

To demonstrate the importance of Service Rate, commonly observed performance ranges for Service and
Conception Rates are listed below along with possible combinations and resulting Pregnancy Rate outcomes.

Common Range for Conception Rate= 25%-40+% | Common Range for Service Rate= 35%-70% (See Table 1.)

Compared to service rate the performance range for conception rate is relatively lower and narrower, thus it has less potential impact on the final Pregnancy Rate. The wider and higher range for service rate has more potential to affect the final Pregnancy Rate.

The economic returns are dramatically different under the different scenarios too. At an estimated $10 per point of improvement in PR, we can estimate the payback per cow. (See Table 2.)

Except for the rare situation of herds that breed their cows entirely by appointment, heat detection skills are critical for achieving a desirable Service Rate. One of the more popular methods of heat detection for large herds involves tail chalking and evaluating cows while walking behind them during a daily lock-up period. Rubbed off cows have a high probability of being in heat but according to Phatak, only 40-50% of cows will be mounted long enough to completely rub off the chalk. Therefore the ability to recognize the more subtle secondary signs of heat is critical in order to find those extra cows to breed and ensure an adequate Service Rate.

Synchronization programs can be an excellent tool for increasing service rate if they are well managed. Strict compliance to protocols is absolutely necessary for positive results. To save on drug expenses and maximize conception rates the majority of herds using a synchronization program will breed any cow that shows an active heat (assuming she is past her VWP) and remove her from the program. Therefore heat detection skills are also critical for this scenario.

A less common but interesting method of heat detection involves the use of an activity monitoring system that predicts estrus by measuring an increased activity level of a cow compared to her norm. Pedometers or neck mounted sensors count the number of steps taken by a cow at regular intervals and downloads the data to a computer program. When cows exhibit an increased level of activity they show up on a ‘hot cow’ list. Activity systems work very well on some dairies but not all. Research and visits to farms using the technology are recommended for those considering a purchase of an activity system.

If one of the goals for your dairy operation is improved reproductive performance, make sure and evaluate the number of cows you are breeding each month. Monitoring only CR, gives only half the picture. After all, the conception rate for a cow not inseminated is always zero!
To view a PDF of this article, please Click HERE

Source: AltaGenetics

With a lush pasture at the Erlandson Farm in Greenfield awaiting their arrival, organic dairy steers arrived at their new Iowa home on May 5, completing their journey from the University of Minnesota-Morris Organic Dairy Facility.

The cattle are part of a $1.9 million joint project sponsored by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Organic Research and Extension Initiative. The project is headed at Iowa State University by Kathleen Delate, professor and extension organic specialist in horticulture and agronomy, and also includes the University of Minnesota and the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania.

“Most organic producers separate their pastures and livestock from the cropping systems on their farms,” said Delate. “The long-term goal of this project is to enhance the sustainability of organic systems by integrating crops and livestock in the same space across time. This integrated system is common in many parts of the world, so we hope to examine the biological, environmental and economic aspects in three states (Iowa, Minnesota and Pennsylvania) in the United States.”

Organic producers often purchase off-farm feed and fertility sources, which can increase production costs. The project examines a system of integrating pasture, grain crops and small grains (wheat and rye) as forage crops. Cattle productivity, health and food components (conjugated linoleic acids) in the meat, soil-building through the additions of organic matter, carbon sequestration through cattle manure deposition and pest management (allelopathic weed prevention with small grains before corn and soybeans) also will be monitored.

“Organic grazers are looking for a method to extend the pasture season, and small grain forages are of particular interest to them,” said Brad Heins, assistant professor and animal scientist at Minnesota-Morris.

Craig Chase, program manager for the Food Systems Initiative at ISU Extension and Outreach, will be tracking the economics of the integrated systems and anticipates lower production and energy costs through the on-farm production of feed and fertility sources. In addition to reduced production costs, practicing “climate-smart agriculture” through sequestration of carbon may lead to “green” payments, similar to those already in place for California farms.

The addition of manure to cropping systems may trigger food safety concerns, but in the first year of the project ISU Extension and Outreach Specialist in Food Safety Angela Shaw has not found harmful bacteria in feed, forage or animal manure in pastures.

Animals selected for the project are particularly adapted to grass-based diets, such as the Montbeliarde breed from France. Crossbreeding of Montbeliarde cattle also imparts fertility, longevity and calving ease into Holstein cows, while the Holstein genes are associated with increased milk production.

Outcomes from the project are anticipated to include increased producer knowledge and skills to integrate livestock, forage and grain crops, increased soil quality, profitability, and food safety.

Dairies use intermittent sprinkler systems to cool cows in warm weather, but little experimental work has been done to determine how much water is needed to achieve beneficial effects. A group of dairy scientists conducted a study at the University of California, Davis, to examine the effects of using low-flow sprinkler systems that cut water use for this purpose by nearly 75%. Their research is published in the current issue (June 2016) of the Journal of Dairy Science.

“Dairies vary widely in the amount of water used to cool cows,” explained lead investigator Jennifer M. Chen, of the Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, but using more water results in diminishing returns and minimizing water use is a sustainability concern for U.S. dairy production.

Chen and colleagues compared the effects of high and low water use on cattle behavioral, physiological, and production responses, and evaluated heat abatement in relation to water use. The authors determined that the low-flow sprinkler systems were just as effective as the high-flow systems in mitigating the effects of heat in California’s hot, dry climate, despite using only about one-quarter as much water.

• Cows had lower body temperatures when given access to sprinklers, but the low-flow and high-flow systems delivered similar benefits.
• Cows exhibited similar behavior when given access to both types of sprinklers. They showed similar patterns in time spent near the sprinkler-cooled feeding area, near the uncooled water trough area, and lying down, and experienced similar changes in feed consumption with temperature.
• Cows produced more milk when given access to sprinklers, but both types provided similar benefits.

“Future work should evaluate the degree of heat abatement that can be achieved with even less water. An alternative to reducing sprinkler flow rate may be to apply higher flow rates for a shorter duration,” added Chen. Reducing water usage by using higher flow rates for a shorter duration could also reduce spray drift, which reduces sprinkler cooling efficiency and is a concern at larger scales than the current study.

“Water use on dairies increases in the summer because cows drink more water and dairy farmers use water sprinklers to keep cows cool. This new research demonstrated that a “low-flow” sprinkler system that uses nearly 75% less water cooled cows just as well as a traditional high-volume system. Low-flow sprinklers conserve valuable natural resources without sacrificing cow comfort on-farm,” said Matt Lucy, PhD, editor-in-chief, Journal of Dairy Science, and professor of animal science, University of Missouri.

Source: American Dairy Science Association