There’s been a great deal of industry buzz around new genetic programs and technology that promise to create healthier cows for your herd. That means it’s the perfect time to revisit the impact that selection for Productive Life within your genetic plan can have on the overall health and longevity of your cows.

The Productive Life (PL) number that appears for any given sire on your proof sheet is defined as the number of months longer (or shorter) that his daughters will be productive in your herd as compared to herdmates. If a bull is 7.0 for PL, his daughters within a given herd are predicted to live seven months longer than the average cow in that herd. If a bull is -2.0 for PL, his daughters are predicted to live about two months less than the average cow in that given herd.

PL is often associated with old cows. However, if you think about which cows live longest in your herd, it would be those that have no troubles calving, fewer incidences of mastitis, no respiratory issues, fewer hoof problems, and so on.

Four-event cows

In reality, genetic selection for PL doesn’t just mean more old cows; it predicts which cows are toughest, healthiest and easiest to manage. We call those the four-event cows. If you look at a cow card on your herd management software program, a four-event cow has only four events listed throughout her lactation: 1-fresh; 2-bred; 3-confirmed pregnant; and 4-dry.

If those four events are the only major things a cow experiences throughout her lactation, chances are she’s trouble-free, making you money, and will stick around for several lactations.

Any time an event takes place, such as milk fever, a displaced abomasum, retained placenta, mastitis, pneumonia, or any other disruption to the normal progression of a cow’s lactation, milk is lost. In addition to lost milk production, vet and treatment costs add to the dollars lost.

The proof is in the numbers

Selection for Productive Life propels you toward the goal of a herd full of four-event cows. Since the actual measure of PL is not calculated until after a cow leaves the herd, we can use other ways to see if higher PL bulls actually create healthier and more trouble-free cows.

Table 1 breaks down the events within a real 2,400-cow Holstein herd on all first lactation animals with known sire ID’s. Based only on the animal’s parent average or Productive Life, this shows the extreme difference in health events between cows with a high PL pedigree versus those with a low PL pedigree.

Table 1 compares the health events of 1st lactation cows with high PL pedigrees versus those with low PL pedigrees

These are real numbers, recorded on this farm’s herd management software program. Keep in mind, management is consistent throughout the herd, and no preferential treatment is provided for any given cows.

As the table clearly illustrates, far fewer of the high PL cows had issues after calving and throughout their lactation. Fewer cows from high PL group were coded as ‘do not breeds’ (DNB) and therefore, fewer of the high PL cows died or were sold. This means more cows from within that high PL group claimed the title of trouble-free, four-event cows.

On your dairy, how much does a displaced abomasum decrease a cow’s profitability over her lactation? How much of your milk check is sacrificed with every case of mastitis? How many dollars are lost for every lame cow or case of pneumonia? If you put a dollar value to the lost production and treatment cost associated with each extra health event experienced by the group of low PL cows it adds up significantly.

Want healthier cows? Let PL get you there

While environment, cow comfort and overall management practices all play an integral role in the health of any given herd, genetic selection can also aid your quest for a herd of healthy, trouble-free cows. To do that, keep these points in mind.

1. Genetic selection for PL will help you create longer living cows.
2. Despite new genetic programs promising added immunity or greater health during a cow’s transition period, PL remains the standard for breeding tougher, healthier cows with fewer issues throughout their lactations.
3. Include selection for PL as part of your customized genetic plan in order to build your herd of the profitable, four-event cows.

Source: Alta Genetics

Transitioning from conventional to robotic milking is a critical process that can be successfully executed as long as you plan your work and work your plan. It requires consistent work and methodic execution.

Avoiding negative impacts on people and cows by preventing undesirable events is crucial. Applying these principles enables the possibility of enjoying the features and benefits of this
fantastic technology.

Not every dairy begins the transition process from the same starting point. Today, approximately 60 percent of automatic milking system installations are constructed new and 40 percent are retrofitted, where cows remain in the same environment before and after startup. Both scenarios are different and require diverse transition management strategies.

New facilities can have a greater impact on the herd during the transition period due to major environmental changes. A strategy to ease the transition into new facilities can be as simple as
housing the animals in the new barn while continuing to milk in the conventional parlour. From every angle, gradually transitioning the cows is key to the smoothest adaptation.

Due to lower stress levels surrounding familiar environments, retrofitted installations have a lower impact on milk production and cow behaviour after startup.

The transition period covers three phases: six months before startup, startup and six months after startup.

In this article, we will focus on the first phase: six months prior to startup. This is the most important phase from all perspectives. It is the time where all plans and strategies must be defined. Unfortunately, this step is often underestimated. Ignoring crucial details and decision-making associated with startup planning will result in undue stress and a potential delayed transition.

Six months before startup

EDUCATE THE WORKFORCE

No doubt – moving into robotics requires additional skills concerning technology and herd management. Recognizing weaknesses and strengths within the management team is key in order to prepare ourselves for the new challenge.

GET COMFORTABLE WITH COMPUTERS

If you have already been working with herd management software, then you are probably ready. However, if instead you have had little or no contact with computers, now is the time to get back to school and take some classes. It does not mean that you need to become a computer expert; it means it is time to learn the basics. Experience will come with practice and time.

IMMERSION IN THE WORLD OF ROBOTIC MILKING

Touring and visiting dairies is a common practice for farmers interested in robotics. In order to learn how to run successful robotic milking operations and benchmark your success, one of the key objectives must be to build a network of peers. In addition to traditional learning opportunities, including reading materials or attending meetings, there are more innovative education channels such as webinars, virtual libraries and, of course, the social media community. Make sure to do your homework by using multiple learning strategies and inviting the entire farm team members including external advisers.

Two months before startup: Set the herd

This is the time to put all the focus and effort on the herd.

HOW TO SELECT THE RIGHT ANIMALS

There are three main criteria to consider when selecting cows for a robotic milking system: udder conformation, udder health, and feet and legs. In robotic milking every second counts, and being able to attach rapidly and accurately is necessary for both cow health and system performance. Select cows with centrally placed teats and avoid rear-crossed teats. Finding a balance between teat placement and udder cleft will have a positive impact on cow longevity.

If there is a possibility to select animals from a larger group, consider the following  five-step selection process in order to have an ideal group of “robotic” cows:

1. Identify the animals with highest milk flow rates.
2. Out of that group, test and select the individuals that have low somatic cell counts and are negative to contagious mastitis pathogens.
3. Evaluate udder conformation, especially rear teat placement.
4. Make sure cows have good, healthy feet and legs.
5. If possible, group cows based on lactation number. Dedicated young and mature groups are ideal.

EVALUATE YOUR CONTAGIOUS MASTITIS SCREENING PROGRAM

Once the final group of cows is defined, the main objective is to ensure every animal entering and being milked by the robot is free of contagious pathogens. Unfortunately, due to group management and dynamics, segregation of infected cows is not a viable option in robotic milking systems compared to conventional milking systems. It is strongly recommended to run monthly bulk tank cultures and monitor cows individually.

Culture all cows above 200,000 SCC for more than one week, every other day. If a cow has at least one sample positive to pathogens such as staph. aureus, she is considered positive and a decision has to be made. Your veterinarian’s involvement is critical to develop a milk quality plan.

CONSIDER HOOF TRIMMING NOW

All cows should visit the hoof trimmer between one and two months prior to startup in addition to receiving consistent footbath treatment. Do not wait until the last moment to trim feet, as the combination of new concrete, stress factors and trimming procedures can lead to undesirable hoof issues.

REVIEW THE DESIGN OF YOUR SOPS WITH KEY PLAYERS

Planning by scenarios and consistency are two special benefits of robotic milking. The best way to capitalize on both is through aligning the team, including the herd veterinarian and nutritionist. The objective is to develop, discuss and apply the set of herd SOPs moving forward.

20 days before startup: Get everyone ready

REMOVE UDDER HAIR

Udder hair removal is a must with robotic milking systems. Cows should be enrolled in a two-month or three-month schedule, varying by season. In order to efficiently perform udder hair removal, it is strongly recommended to make this a weekly or biweekly routine. Working with smaller groups of cows avoids major disruptions.

ACCURATELY TRANSFER YOUR DATA

Take time to transfer data or build the new database well in advance of starting up. Remember, the quality of entered data is equal to the quality of obtained information. Try to maximize software usage from the beginning.

DEVELOP YOUR FEEDING PLAN DURING THE TRAINING PERIOD

Although not every installation is able to have a feed-only period, it is highly recommended and ideal to feed cows through the robot (not milking) at least two weeks prior to the first milking. Feeding before is probably the best practice with the highest impact on early performance after startup. Keep in mind, it is important to ensure feed consistency by avoiding provider and formulation changes during this period of time. The amount to feed varies depending on cow traffic and day of transition, ranging between .9 to 3.6 kilograms per cow per day.

After one week, it is possible to combine feeding only with spraying teats and robotic arm movements. Combining the two will motivate cows to visit the robot and acclimate them to the new sounds and environment.

Although feed-only has the biggest impact on early performance, it is not the only method to train cows. There are other techniques that depend primarily on cow traffic design. Ask your provider for advice on this topic.

BEGIN YOUR STARTUP ON DEFAULT SETTINGS

The entire system must be in “safe mode” in preparation for startup, from milking procedure to feeding, and general management settings. If settings are placed with maximum levels of protection for your herd, the focus can turn to proper herd management basics including clean bedding, frequent feeding and push-up, and training/fetching of overdue and new cows.

Two days before startup: Almost there

Now is the time to make sure all components of the robotic milking equipment and systems are working properly and that the cows and people are aligned. The entire project must be organized for final inspection and evaluation. These are the top five points to consider:

1. System evaluation
2. Regulatory inspection
3. Database surveillance
4. Proper animal identification
5. Coordinated startup teams and schedule

By turning the above transition plan from conventional to robotic milking into a reality, and always remembering the focus on team communication for optimal success, you should be ready to go for this exciting journey. Through planning your work and working your plan, you can anticipate good news and great results.

Once the robots are fired up and the real journey has begun, it is time to focus on the right areas by planning for a bright future. Keep in mind that with a good plan in place, the sky can be the limit.

Two days post-startup: Focus on the basics and keep it simple

The beginning is the most difficult part of any change. By now both you and the cows are in the steadiest part of the learning curve. You have acquired a very capable piece of technology and, as expected, you may feel very attracted by it. However, it is crucial to prioritize your efforts in order to have the smoothest transition by focusing on the fundamentals. It is important to ensure the entire system is configured at a baseline where each area can function without major adjustments or in what is called a “safe mode.” Beginning in safe mode enables you to focus on daily routines and, most importantly, herd adaptation. In other words, you organized a big party, you invited the girls, and now you must be the best hostess:

1. Milking intervals and milk frequency:

The goal by the end of the first week is greater than 2.5 milkings per cow per day with a minimum of two milkings per cow per day for all animals. In order to ensure milking intervals under 12 hours and an appropriate balance between milk frequency and robot usage, it is important to set adequate milking permissions based on stage of lactation:

• One to 100 days in milk (DIM): four hours or 14 pounds expected yield
• 100 DIM until 40 days before dryoff: six hours or 16 pounds expected yield
• Less than 40 days before dry-off: eight hours or 18 pounds expected yield

Remember, with guided cow traffic it is essential to ensure proper smart selection gate configurations and holding area management by setting cow counters and maximum capacity based on area per cow and robots per holding pen. Ideally, cows should have 45 square feet per cow in the holding area and no more than seven cows allowed per robot. The goal is to harvest 30 pounds per milking, and although these milking permissions parameters seem to be much lower than listed, remember that cows will not have access to the robot at every single attempt, as it might be in use or a group of cows are already queuing, etc. Therefore, adding flexibility in the beginning is important.

2. Fetching:

Due to the learning process, and based on your milking queue reports, it is important to guide overdue cows (more than 12 hours since last milking) to the robot. A gradual process must be implemented based on how fast the herd is adapting to new cow flow. Start fetching overdue cows every four hours, then as cows learn and number of overdue animals start decreasing, the fetching intervals can be extended to every six hours, then eight hours, up to the point where fetching occurs every 12 hours or just twice a day.

3. Milking procedure:

Make sure the entire tool kit is being used in order to protect udder health at all times:

• Use compatible/sprayable teat dips.
• Maximize teat coverage through appropriate nozzle size, spray pattern, proper indexing of cows and arm speed.
• Pre-milking and post-milking spraying of teats with an effective disinfectant is highly recommended.
• Use of an approved disinfectant diluted accordingly for teat cleaning is necessary.
• Set the system for heavy teat cleaning level regardless of bedding system or surface cleanliness. This way your cows will be at maximum level of protection.

4. Feeding:

The main objective is to motivate cows in order to maximize visit frequency to the robot at all stages of lactation so consistent cow flow patterns are developed and fetch rates are minimized. Cows must always have feed available at the feed bunk, meaning feed cows at least twice per day ensuring frequent push-ups, at least every four hours. Concerning feed at the robot, an adequate baseline for feeding parameters is necessary:

• Feed available per cow per day: Depending on the kind of cow traffic scenario, levels of grain must vary. In order to keep it simple so you can focus on the fundamentals, a basic but safe feeding strategy must be in place. Set a fixed amount of feed available per day and per visit for all cows so the entire herd is equally motivated. This is a recommended strategy for the first 20 days post-startup only.
• Free-flow or feed-first pre-selection: 16 pounds per cow per day available for all cows, 4 pounds per visit.
• Milk-first pre-selection: 8 pounds per cow per day available for all cows, 2 pounds per visit

As expected, feed consumption will vary according to milk frequency; therefore, partial mixed rations
(PMR) should be balanced during this period according to the average feed consumed per day reported by the system.

5. Bedding management:

As this is a stressful period for the cows and the udder is adapting to the new system, clean stalls and a dry, comfortable bedding surface must be provided at all times. Clean alleys are necessary as well.

6. Data management:

At this point, you should be able to manage action and key performance reports with a very simple approach, focusing on daily tasks and making sure the herd is moving in the right direction. Screening of essential reports three times a day is enough. Avoid fine tuning and frequent adjustments during this period.

20 days post-startup: Time to evaluate and adjust

Once the most stressful period has occurred and both cows and people are adjusting to their new lifestyle, it is time to evaluate and start adjusting the system:

1. Feeding:

Based on cow traffic, feeding strategies, feeding quantities, days in milk, milk frequency and milk production, implementing a customized feeding plan for the operation is highly recommended, considering the three feeding phases of feeding in robotics:

• Adaptation: zero DIM until 15 to 21 DIM
• Target: 15 to 21 DIM until 70 to 100 DIM
• Optimization: greater than 70 to 100 DIM

Once the feeding plan is designed and reviewed by the management team, including advisers, then the next step is to configure the system. Make sure you have appropriate understanding of the different settings and parameters; otherwise, consult you equipment provider. Last but not least, ensure that individual feed consumption at the robot is higher than 80 to 90 percent on 72 hours average; if some animals are less, then troubleshooting is necessary.

2. Fetching:

Now that the majority of the cows are visiting the robot on their own, it is time to evaluate fetch rates and fetching times, and therefore, adjust routines if necessary. The key aspect at this time is to start prioritizing fetching based on stage of lactation. Milking intervals in fresh cows shouldn’t be higher than eight hours, while mid-lactation and late-lactation cows can continue with 12 hours.

3. Evaluate milking performance:

Identify animals presenting difficulties while attaching or milking, as there are several factors that can interfere with appropriate performance, especially the ones related to udder conformation, teat shape, animal temperament or even udder cleanliness. It is recommended to evaluate the performance index per cow. Ideally, you would like to have the entire herd above 100, which means an attachment time of less than 15 seconds per teat or one minute total. Focus on the animals that are below that threshold, prioritizing the ones in the lowest part of the range.

4. Milk quality and udder health:

Daily screening of udder health indicators is crucial; ensure proper report design and management routines. Regardless of the technology, udder health must be a priority, especially as your physical contact with the herd is probably less than before. Animals with abnormal indicators must receive a physical exam so actions such as culturing can be made on time.

5. Data management:

Now is the time to get more involved in system configuration and details, especially in two key areas: milking procedure and feeding management. Assessing and measuring become a very important part of your daily routines.

Two months post-startup: Fine-tuning for maximum performance

Now that the herd has settled, people have learned, and the entire system is hungry for improved performance, it is time to start exploring new opportunities:

• Feeding: Fine-tune dispensing rates at group level and dispensing speed at cow level. This will ensure that cows receive what they deserve while enjoying their milking; this has a positive impact on letdown and therefore milking speed.
• Stall times and robot performance.
• It is recommended to stop dispensing feed when only two quarters are being milked, as this will ensure that by the time the milk flow ends, the cow has no feed left in the feed bowl; therefore, leaving the station for the next cow is the only option.
• Evaluate yield per milking individually and adjust milking permissions at group level or cow level if necessary; this will optimize robot usage.
• Evaluate udder health and teat cleaning parameters so teat cleaning level can be adjusted. Getting clean cows to the robot pays; less cleaning times equals more available milking times.
• Breeding: Ensure proper configuration of activity systems and breeding reports; now is the time to leverage other sides of the technology in order to improve crucial areas such as reproduction.

Six months post-startup: Setting your goals en route to success

It is time for strategic planning based on scenarios and time tables. Setting short-term, mid-term and long-term goals and actions will drive your herd to the stage you have always desired; keep up with the great work and good luck!

Source: DeLaval

A dry, healthy navel

Umbilical hernias are the most common birth defect in calves.  They occur when the umbilical ring fails to close after birth, allowing abdominal contents to protrude through the opening. Umbilical hernias vary in severity from those that will spontaneously heal to those that will need surgical repair.  But how do you determine whether it is severe and requires surgery or not? Some of the factors that should be considered when assessing the umbilical hernia include the size of the hernia, whether infection is present, and if the hernia can be reduced (i.e. the abdominal contents can be pushed easily back into place).

The size of an umbilical hernia can differ greatly, based on the size of the opening of the umbilical ring and the amount of abdominal contents that have protruded through this opening. If the hernia is less than one to three cm in diameter, and/or if the contents of the hernia are easily reducible, it is likely that the hernia is not severe and will heal spontaneously. A hernia that is less than four to five cm (or less than three fingers wide) can likely be resolved by wrapping an elastic bandage over the belly to keep the contents in once they have been put back in place. However, the larger the hernia sac, the more likely it is that the umbilical ring opening is large, and increasing the odds of surgical repair becoming necessary. As a rule of thumb, if the hernia sac/opening is more than six cm, can’t be replaced easily into the abdomen, persists for several weeks, and/or is infected, it is considered severe and you should contact your herd veterinarian to have it assessed.

When assessing the size of the hernia, it is also important to check for infection.  Some signs of an infected hernia include fever, loss of appetite and poor growth rates. In some cases, signs of infection can also include frequent urination and urination through the umbilicus. If any of these symptoms are present it is important to further investigate the situation by calling your herd veterinarian to determine next steps.

It is also possible for an umbilical hernia to develop into a strangulated hernia.   This happens when the intestines, which are part of the abdominal contents contained in the hernia sac, become twisted outside the body.  Symptoms of a strangulated hernia include a warm, swollen, firm and painful hernia sac accompanied by signs of colic (grinding teeth, grunting, arching back, shifting weight, restlessness, depression, etc.).  This type of umbilical hernia requires surgical repair by your herd veterinarian.

It is important to recognize and differentiate the signs and symptoms between a routine umbilical hernia that will heal on its own and a severe or strangulated umbilical hernia requiring surgical repair. If any signs and symptoms pointing towards a severe or strangulated hernia exist, consultation with your herd veterinarian is strongly encouraged to maintain the health and well-being of your calves. When inspecting your calves for umbilical hernias, it is better to be safe than sorry!

Source: Calf Care

Long range summer forecasts call for average to above-average temperatures for nearly all of the United States. While it may be unknown how high thermometer mercury will rise in the coming months, dairy farmers do know that much warmer weather is just around the corner and their cows will have to deal with the effects of heat stress.

“Hot weather reduces feed intake and rumination, dragging down animal performance. This condition is often made worse because cows are prone to potassium deficiencies during heat stress,” explains Dr. Elliot Block, Research Fellow, Arm & Hammer Animal Nutrition.

But you don’t have to let heat stress gain the upper hand. There are nutritional steps you can take to optimize milk production in your herd this summer before temperatures climb.

1.     Focus on Potassium

First, pay attention to ration potassium levels. Potassium is a key dietary consideration and including supplemental dietary potassium provided by DCAD Plus™ in lactating cow rations is a recommended part of a proactive heat abatement plan.

That’s because:

Potassium is the #1 mineral in milk, even higher than calcium. Yet, potassium is the main component of sweat, and cows lose it quickly through increased perspiration and urination during heat stress.

Due to reduced feed intake, heat-stressed cows ruminate less and therefore generate less saliva—and salivary bicarbonate content is also reduced. These reductions, along with the decreased amount of saliva entering the rumen make the heat-stressed cow much more susceptible to subclinical and acute rumen acidosis.

Fresh cows require higher levels of dietary potassium. Research3 shows that cows are often potassium deficient for the first 10 weeks of lactation even when potassium is fed at National Research Council recommended levels.

Feeding supplemental potassium is critical to replace what’s lost. As temperatures climb, DCAD Plus can safely and palatably mitigate the effects of heat stress and improve fresh cow performance.

University research shows increasing dietary potassium levels can also boost fat-corrected milk production by more than 8 pounds per day.

2.    Obtain Buffer Benefits

Buffers seem to have become the forgotten tool of basic dairy nutrition. Not only is adequate inclusion of buffers like sodium bicarbonate and SQ-180™ in the ration important to maintain milk component production, they are key factors in combating the effects of heat stress.

Buffers help stabilize rumen acids, increasing feed intake and improving rumen performance for enhanced productivity. Cows need this assistance throughout the year, but especially during periods of heat stress.

Today’s diets include more fermentable carbohydrates—which require more buffering, not less. Rations also minimize fiber (physically effective NDF) and rely more on microbial protein and fermentation than in the past. In addition, variation in feed ingredient quality plays a significant role in ration performance.

The key is to feed buffers at recommended levels. “There’s been a downward trend in ration buffer inclusion rates, to the detriment of cow performance,” says Block. “To increase animal success, include buffers at proper levels.” The recommended inclusion rate for sodium bicarbonate is 0.75% to 1.0% of TMR dry matter.5

3.    Tap Yeast Culture Advantages

Lastly, be sure that rations include proper levels of yeast culture. Research6 in California found that feeding yeast culture improved daily milk yield by 2.6 pounds per cow during heat-stressed conditions.

A-MAX™ yeast culture has demonstrated significant advantages in helping animals with challenging conditions like heat stress. CELMANAX™ delivers a full dose of yeast culture, plus the additional benefits of Refined Functional Carbohydrates™ (RFC™) that help modulate the immune system, bind mycotoxins and improve nutrient digestibility. Consult your nutritional advisor for specific feeding recommendations, as levels may vary based on herd stressors.

Protect your herd and potential profits by preventing potassium and buffer deficiencies in your lactating herd, recommends Block. Also be sure to include proper yeast culture levels. “Don’t wait until hot weather hits to evaluate your ration and formulate it for higher levels of these key feed ingredients,” he says.

Manage high production and fresh cow diets to include 1.7% to 2% potassium and ensure that rations are formulated to include adequate buffering and recommended levels of yeast cultures to help maximize production and improve cow starts during heat stress this summer.

To learn more, visit AHanimalnutrition.com.

The Journal of Dairy Science (JDS) has compiled a set of 10 articles that look at the science of tail docking, a practice that will be banned under National FARM program beginning January 1, 2017. The articles cover pain, hygiene and biological responses to tail docking, and were published between 2000 and 2010.

“The practice of tail docking is being hotly debated in the dairy industry, in part because of new guidelines for milk producers,” says Matt Lucy, JDS editor-in-chief. “To enable the dairy community to better understand the science addressing the practice of tail docking, we have assembled a collection of research articles on the subject and made these freely available to better inform discussion in the dairy community.”

The articles can be found here.

An examination of 2015 cash flow and breakeven production costs for 107 Pennsylvania farms shows that breakeven ranged from less than $16/cwt to over $22/cwt. Not surprisingly, feed costs are a big contributor to differences between farms.

During 2015 the Dairy Business Management team worked with 107 farms to study their breakeven cost of production and look at ways to improve this number. We’ve worked on this effort for over five years, and from year to year the most predictable aspect seems to be the wide range of breakeven cost between farms. We’ve summarized the data to attempt to explain what causes these differences. Table 1 outlines the 2015 data, showing cash flow on a per cow basis for herds with different breakeven costs and the average across all farms.

Table 1. 2015 Dairy Enterprise Breakeven Summary (107 farms)

Examining the inflow side of the cash flow equation, there is very slight variation among farms with different breakeven costs in milk inflow per cow per year. At $4,688 average inflow, this number varies no more than $100 across the breakeven groups. The exception to this observation is the 12% of farms with a breakeven cost over $22/cwt. These farms are experiencing serious milk production issues that prevent them from achieving the milk sales needed. Dividing by a smaller number of pounds sold produces a high breakeven cost. Production and financial management are forever interlocked where dairy cash flows are concerned. Without serious remediation of the production issues on this group of farms, financial difficulties will continue.

Indeed, any farm that is experiencing a high breakeven cost due to low production needs a partnership of skilled financial planning and high quality production consulting to remedy the issues. Too often farms in financial difficulty focus only on the cost side of the equation. While cost control is critically important, it is no more important than having a productive dairy that achieves milk production goals.

The second most predictable variation in breakeven cost each year is feed cost per cow. Each year our summary consistently shows approximately $600/cow/year variation in the cost of all purchased and home-raised feeds for all animals on the farm. The most competitive group averages around $1,900/cow/year while the highest cost group is usually around $2,500/cow/year. Much of this variation is influenced by how well the cropping program complements the cow numbers on the farm. The most competitive group grows all forages required for milking cows, dry cows, and heifers. They also feed home-raised corn grain and sometimes grow and feed their own soybeans as well. When examining crop costs on these dairy operations there is a cost advantage to raising grains and forages over purchasing them. This may change as corn and soybean prices continue to erode, but only farms with serious yield challenges due to production issues or extremely high crop input costs can purchase feeds for less than homegrown grains and forages. Because of the cost advantage for homegrown feeds, the farms who implement aggressive double-cropping programs have been able to capture large cost savings by converting purchased corn and grass hay to raised ingredients. The double-crop forages produced can replace grass hay for dry cows and heifers and open up acreage to grow corn grain that might have previously been used exclusively for perennial crops. A financially challenged farm that won’t consider serious adjustments to their feed and cropping program will have a difficult time making significant financial progress. There are many different cropping programs that can work, and the farm must select the combination of crops best suited for their soils and climate. The key is to increase diversity in the cropping program and use both winter and summer annuals to increase total tonnage grown for the year.

There can be a small amount of variation in dairy expenses, owner draw, and loan payments across farms. Each of these items varies about $100 across each of the breakeven groups. With dairy expenses the variation is often due to differences in the farm’s use of custom heifer raising and custom manure hauling.

Owner draw and loan payments vary with the family income requirements and the degree of investment on the farm, respectively. While the range is wide on loan payments per cow per year between farms, it doesn’t explain the large differences in breakeven cost. Sometimes people focus on too much debt as the reason for financial challenges. Based on the work conducted by the Extension Dairy Team, the underlying cause is often a costly feed and crop program along with low milk sales.

Overhead costs factor into the differences observed with breakeven costs, with about $500/cow/year contributing to the variation. These include items like fuel, repairs, hired labor, insurance, real estate taxes, utilities, and building and machinery leases. Among these items, nearly all of this variation between farms can be accounted for by hired labor cost. Hired labor tends to increase in a linear fashion as cow numbers increase. An old farm management standard suggests one labor equivalent can manage 55 cows. While labor efficiency varies greatly across farm sizes, increasing herd size will raise hired labor costs. Overhead costs are frequently unique to an individual farm operation. The quality of the dairy facility, the amount of rented or owned land, real estate taxes, and even utility costs can be very unique to an individual farm. When considering a farm purchase, rental, or farm expansion, research these items carefully since these costs are frequently difficult if not impossible to change without considerable added investment to the farm. The other name for these costs—“the fixed costs” speaks to the difficulty of lowering these items for an established business. Your goal is to dilute these costs as much as possible by increasing milk sales without requiring additional overhead costs. That’s the goal of both increased cow numbers and higher milk sales—dilute the overheads to reduce the breakeven cost.

To appreciate the relative importance of the differences in breakeven costs, consider the following: $100 (income variation) + $600 (feed costs) + $100 (dairy expenses) + $500 (overhead costs) + $100 (owner draw) + $100 (loan payments) = $1,500 per cow per year. While not a perfect assessment of differences, this summary accounts for $1,500 of the $1,800 per cow per year observed in the data.

To reduce a farm’s breakeven cost of production, begin with a thorough assessment of the feed and crop program. Use the combined expertise of your crop consultant, dairy nutritionist, and financial advisor to address this issue. At the same time consider any production bottlenecks that may be holding back either milk production or components. These may include forage quality or forage inventory issues that must be addressed before you can sell more milk at a more economical cost.

Follow up that effort with ways to make the most efficient use of your farm labor resources. Look for ways to alter farm work routines or procedures to make the best use of labor hours. Working on these two big picture issues will go a long way toward a more competitive farm breakeven. Is there a better risk management strategy against low milk prices than a low breakeven cost?

Source: Penn State Extension

Almost all dairy farmers would like to improve the reproductive efficiency of their dairy herd, but they must manage many aspects to achieve this goal, including the nutritional program.

The feeding program during the dry period, for the fresh cows, and throughout the breeding period is very important for optimizing reproductive efficiency in a herd. Although the voluntary waiting period (VWP) for first insemination following calving is typically 60 days, feeding the herd must be on target before and during this time period.

Energy Balance: Greatest Nutritional Impact on Reproduction

Energy balance has the greatest effect on reproduction. Intake of cows can begin to drop within one week before calving, and feeding practices today focus on trying to minimize the drop in dry matter (DM) intake before calving to minimize the extent and magnitude of a negative energy balance. Negative energy balance after calving caused by low DM intake and increasing milk yield can be affected by the transition diets fed. Stable DM intake before and high DM intake after calving usually minimize metabolic problems after calving, which in turn minimize the impact on energy balance. The goal is for cows to have a body condition score (BCS) of no greater than 3.5 during the dry period and to lose less than 1 BCS during early lactation. Earlier Cornell University data revealed that the first ovulation after calving typically occurs about 10 to 14 days after energy balance is at its most negative point. However, the occurrence of this first ovulation sets in place the timing of the subsequent ovulations, where the third ovulation will likely occur near the VWP.

In addition, it is important to keep in mind that the follicle that will ovulate near the VWP began development about 14 days before calving (the follicle takes about 10 weeks to develop). Thus, the follicles ovulating near the time of breeding were developing during the time of negative energy balance before calving and shortly after calving. The extent and magnitude of the negative energy balance may affect the fertility of the ovum released. So the two keys to achieving good reproductive efficiency are 1) managing the feeding program of transition cows to maintain DM intake before calving and obtain high DM intake after calving and 2) minimizing metabolic problems. To learn more about how pre-calving feeding and management programs impact herd health and future milk production, click here.

Fat Supplements

Recent focus has been on feeding specific fat supplements during the transition period for improving reproductive efficiency. Although fat is a very dense source of energy, the focus has been on specific fatty acids and their effects on the function of the reproductive organs, not feeding the fat as an energy source. The focus has been on feeding sources of linoleic acid (C18:2) to close-up and fresh cows with the idea that the linoleic acid is important for prostaglandin synthesis that will aid in uterine involution. Several commercial sources of fat are available that are high in linoleic acid, but typical feed sources such as soybeans and cottonseed also can be good sources. During the breeding period, the focus is on providing adequate eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and/or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), which are thought to help maintain a viable corpus luteum to aid in maintaining a pregnancy. Again, a few commercial sources are available, and fish meal and other marine feed sources contain appreciable concentrations of these fatty acids.

Protein Nutrition

The focus on protein relative to reproduction has been on not feeding it in excess, especially not feeding excessive amounts of rumen degradable protein (RDP). Milk and blood urea nitrogen (MUN and BUN, respectively) are monitored in reference to this aspect. Caution should be exercised if MUN for the herd or high cow group exceeds 18 mg/dL and/or BUN exceeds 20 mg/dL. The actual targets for MUN are 10 to 14 mg/dL with the aim at reducing feed costs and nitrogen excretion by animals. To reduce nitrogen excretion, some scientists are even lowering the recommended MUN concentration to 8 mg/dL with strategic formulation of diets for amino acids. The high circulating concentrations of ammonia and urea may be toxic to sperm, ova, or embryos or may reduce the binding of luteinizing hormone to ovarian receptors, which leads to a decrease in serum progesterone. In general, the focus has been the potential for embryo mortality with high BUN, which is reflected in higher MUN. Although this is a potential effect to keep in mind, other influences (e.g., heat stress, disease, etc.) may more likely be causing the embryo mortality. This association of protein on reproduction has been speculated by some to occur because the highly RDP sources fed to dairy cattle are often legumes (e.g., soybean meal), and these legumes are sources of estrogen that could be affecting the reproductive cycles. However, this relationship has not been substantiated by research.

Mineral and Vitamins

An adequate supply of many minerals and vitamins is needed before calving and throughout the breeding period for good reproduction efficiency. Blood calcium is not only important for milk synthesis but also for function of smooth muscle. Thus, hypocalcemia can increase the risk for metritis and displaced abomasum. Adequate (but not excessive) dietary concentrations of calcium, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and even sodium, chloride, and sulfur as they relate to dietary cation-anion difference (DCAD) are important for minimizing the risk for hypocalcemia and hypomagnesia.

In addition to its relationship with calcium, phosphorus has been a focus for many years relative to reproduction. A severe deficiency of phosphorus (usually reduced milk yields will occur before any negative effects on reproduction are observed with low phosphorus diets; that is, less than 0.25% of diet) will reduce reproductive efficiency; however, overfeeding phosphorus does not boost reproductive performance. As an industry, we went through several years of overfeeding phosphorus (e.g., 0.5 to 0.6% of diet); however, with the increased excretion of P and the associated risks to the environment and increased ration costs, phosphorus concentrations in diets were reduced. Dietary concentrations of 0.38 to 0.42% are adequate for cows in the breeding herd.

Adequate dietary concentrations of selenium, copper, and zinc are important for reproduction, especially in reducing the incidence of retained placenta and metritis. Dietary concentrations should be 0.3 ppm of supplemental selenium, 20 ppm of copper, and 70 ppm of zinc. Adequate concentrations of vitamins A, D, and E can be important for optimal reproductive efficiency. Adequate concentrations of vitamins E and selenium are important to immune function. The generally recommended dietary concentrations for close-up dry cows is 60,000, 15,000, and 1000 IU/day and for breeding cows 100,000, 25,000, and 500 IU/day for vitamins A, D, and E, respectively. Supplemental B-carotene, independent of its role as a vitamin A precursor, has improved fertility in some studies, but it is expensive.

Summary

In evaluating the potential that the feeding problem may be affecting the pregnancy rate in a dairy herd, the first and primary focus should be on energy status of the cows pre- and post-calving. The next step is to assess the calcium status; dietary concentrations of selenium, copper, and zinc; and dietary concentrations of vitamins A, D, and E. Although likely adequate, review the dietary phosphorus concentration. If embryo mortality is an issue in the herd and the herd has high MUN, the amount of RDP likely needs to be reduced. After reviewing the dietary components, discuss with your nutritionist the possibility of fine-tuning the feeding program for optimizing reproductive performance and for adding certain fat sources to provide specific fatty acids during the pre-breeding or post-breeding periods.

Source – Ohio State University Extension

Veterinarians and other experts are mystified to explain why an increasing number of dairy cows are ending up with broken shoulders.

Dairy heifers seem to be most prone to the humerus bone injuries during their first lactation, although they occasionally fall to them in the second lactation. Experts believe the broken shoulders are not an issue with beef cattle.

Broken shoulders appeared mostly during peak lactation in September-October, although they also occurred before calving and through to December, Massey University veterinary professor Dave West told farmers at Limestone Downs Station’s annual field day.

West said a soon-to-be-released study from the university showed this was a serious problem in the dairy industry.

“They are spontaneous, there’s no history of trauma. You go out into the paddock and you find them. Farmers have reported cows walking past and you hear a bang and there’s another one with a broken shoulder.”

The issue was first reported in Manawatu in 2008 when a Foxton farm had five cows with broken shoulders. At Limestone Downs, there were 16 cases between August and November last year. All the cows were purchased apart from one which was reared on the farm.

Some of the heifers were second calvers and had been on the farm for more than a year before the problem occurred, West said.

Based on a random phone survey of 500 farmers, researchers determined that about 10 per cent of all dairy farms had this issue.

“It’s usually about 2 per cent of first calvers and 2 per cent of second calvers.

“If you add up the number of heifers in New Zealand, you’re talking 4500-5000 heifers every year in New Zealand are breaking bones,” he said.

The estimated loss at this level was about $9.24 million.

Broken shoulder reports were found across the country including “quite a few” in Waikato.

West said the problem was likely being under reported by farmers.

“It’s not a nice condition, farmers don’t want to admit that they have a problem, sometimes they are put down in the back paddock and they might wait until they have half a dozen and then they  might contact the vet.”

This is despite farmers knowing there was little a vet could do.

Testing from pathologists revealed the bones were osteoporotic, meaning they were weaker and not formed properly. A microscopic examination of the affected bone showed it had been present for some time, and the bones were not formed properly during its growth.

Low copper levels were associated with some of the affected cattle, including those at Limestone Downs.

West said he found it difficult to accept it was the only cause as copper deficiencies in cattle had occurred for a long time.

Research showed the damage was during bone development of cattle while they were still young.

“My personal view is that the way we rear calves is the only thing that I can think of that’s changed informally throughout the country so dramatically.”

He believed that lactation drain was obviously a trigger factor.

Whether it was a calcium or protein deficiency among the cattle was unclear.

Modern calf rearing minimised the amount of milk fed to dairy calves whereas beef calves still fed off their mother for a much longer period. He believed this was why it was not so much of an issue in the beef industry.

Genetics may also be a factor as the injuries had been associated with higher producing cows and some cows may be more susceptible than others.

“I personally don’t give them credit for creating such a change in our cattle that they are producing so much milk that their bones give way, but it’s certainly part of it.”

Another contributing factor could be the hangover effect of the drought where post-drought autumn and winter pasture growth was often deficient in minerals.

He urged the industry to undertake larger scale and more in-depth research to determine the cause of the injuries.

Source: Stuff

The quality of colostrum – the nutrient-rich milk newborn dairy calves first drink from their mothers – can be predicted by the mother’s previous lactation performance and weather, according to new research from the NH Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of New Hampshire.

UNH researchers found that previous lactation performance data can predict colostrum quality; the more lactations the cow has had in the past, the higher the quality of colostrum in the future.

This method allows dairy producers to predict colostrum quality before the calf is born and the ability to estimate Immunoglobulin G content, which is the primary measure of colostrum quality, of the colostrum without having to collect it.

Colostrum is a concentrated source of nutrients, which includes fats, proteins, including immunoglobulins such as Immunoglobulin G (IgG), carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals. It is key in supporting the health of the young dairy animal.

Previous research has found that inadequate feeding of quality colostrum to newborn calves can result in reduced growth rates, increased risk of disease and death, increased risk of being culled, and decreased milk production in the first and second lactations.

The research was conducted by UNH doctoral graduate Rosemarie Cabral; UNH doctoral students Colleen Chapman and Kayla Aragona; former UNH undergraduate student Elizabeth Clark; Michael Lunak, extension assistant professor and dairy specialist; and Peter Erickson, professor of biological sciences and extension dairy specialist. The research is presented in the current issue of the Journal of Dairy Science.

“The long-term effects of colostrum determine the success of the cow, and therefore special care should be taken to ensure colostrum of the highest quality is provided to the newborn calf,” Mr Erickson said.

Currently, dairy farmers can test colostrum using two tools: a colostrometer or refractometer. While these methods are effective in estimating IgG concentration, many dairy producers do not have access to these tools or do not take the time to test their colostrum prior to feeding.

According to the USDA, only 5.7 per cent of US dairy producers evaluated colostrum quality using a colostrometer.

Researchers also found that the poorest quality colostrum was produced during the winter. The researchers theorise that in warmer temperatures, the blood vessels of the cow dilate, causing them to be more permeable to IgG. This increased permeability of the blood vessels may lead to improved colostrum.

“It is apparent from these studies that environmental temperature or day length has an impact on colostrum quality,” the researchers said.

There are approximately 130 dairy farms in New Hampshire with an average of 115 milking animals per farm. The New Hampshire dairy industry impacts state and local economies with more than $141 million in total output, more than 3,700 jobs and more than $19 million in labour income, according to Granite State Dairy Promotion.

Source: University of New Hampshire

A casualty animal recently submitted to one of SRUC’s Veterinary Investigation Centres confirms earlier fears that some silages being fed to livestock this winter are low in protein.

The dead cow, examined by Vets from the SAC Consulting Division of SRUC, was diagnosed with a condition called rumen impaction.

The first stomach or rumen of a cow is effectively a large bag hosting millions of microbes that help ruminant animals begin to digest the plant material they eat.

Rumen impaction occurs when what the animals eat contains insufficient protein to supply these microbes which affects their activity. This reduces the rate of fermentation or digestion and leads to blockages which slow the progress of food into the next part of the digestive system.

It also means there is less space in the rumen for any new food the animal eats.

Veterinary Investigation Officer Heather Stevenson commented: “In November SRUC warned that our analytical labs had identified that there were more lower protein silages around than usual this winter.

“We highlighted the potential risks of feeding low protein grass silages to spring calving suckler cows.

“Animals not receiving enough protein from their feed often look healthy and full which means their condition is sometimes not discovered until too late. The case investigated was one of 2 cows to die in a group.”

SRUC is recommending that any farmer who has not recently analysed their silage get it done as soon as possible. While bulk and energy levels are often good low protein content is difficult to spot.

“Sometimes there are signs in the dung which is far firmer and drier than normal for the time of year,” commented Ms Stevenson.

“Blood samples can be used to confirm low protein status and the farmer’s vet would notice other signs. But it is important farmers keep alert.”

Aware that problems can arise in other ruminants, like sheep fed on similar silages, SRUC recommends that farmers seek nutritional advice on the best way to provide protein supplements. It is important to asses the animals body condition score so that animals can be grouped and fed accordingly as many conventional protein supplements are also high energy.

Specialist advisers from SRUC’s SAC Consulting Division can offer more specific advice on the best way to provide suckler cow rations as they get closer to calving and beyond. Concerned farmers can also contact their local SAC Consulting office for guidance. Likewise expert advice is also available for local veterinary practices.

Source: The Dairy Site

Outwintering dairy animals can reduce total feed costs by 20 to 30 per cent on dairy farms. However, the success of the system requires farmers to pay close attention to animal performance writes Dr Stephen Whelan, Research and Development manager for nutrition at AHDB Dairy.

Successful dairy operations usually aim to calve their replacement heifers down at 0.9 of their mature weight by 24 months of age.

To do this, the animal needs to grow by an average of 0.70 kg/ day, every day for two years.

But what is performance like in out wintered animals?

Recently, an AHDB Dairy funded study reported that animal performance was only 0.25 kg/ day over a 12 week period, highlighting severe underperformance on the nine farms studied. Because this was a research study it was not possible to make adjustments during the 12 weeks.

However, on commercial dairy units farmers should weigh their replacement heifers on a monthly basis and adjust the management as required.

To help in the management of outwintering systems it is useful to know what the requirements of the heifer are and what the feed is capable of providing.

For example a 500 kg heifer growing at 0.7 kg/ day requires approx. 70 MJ of ME per day. The energy contents of the fodder beet, grass and kale used in the study mentioned above were 9.3, 9.8 and 10.0 MJ ME.

This means that our example heifer would need to consume 7 to 8 kg DM of these feed stocks to meet her requirements. This can be a difficult task for the pregnant dairy heifer.

To help bridge the gap between energy available and that supplied, grass silage or concentrates should be used as a supplement.

Another AHDB Dairy funded outwintering study, conducted at Harper Adams University, chose to supplement their animals with grass silage at a rate of 0.35 of DMI. The remainder of the diet consisted of either grass or fodder beet with a housed control group receiving a TMR.

Weight gain in this study averaged 1.1 kg/ day, comfortably meeting the requirement of these high genetic merit heifers, with feed costs that were 20 to 30 per cent below the cost of the TMR fed animals.

More importantly, these results demonstrate that, with careful management, outwintering replacement heifers can meet their growth targets.

Table 1. Factors to consider for a successful outwintering operation

Source: The Dairy Site

Dairy farmers with the St. Albans Co-Op will be benefiting from a new technology that they say is crucial to helping them increase the value of their milk.

Rebecca Howrigan helps run her family’s farm, Manning Dairy, in Swanton. The farm is one of hundreds of members of the St. Albans Co-Op who will now be benefiting from a new milk testing system.

“This is just another tool that we will have to help make better decisions with our cows’ diets and to improve the amount of fat and protein that we can get from the milk,” said Howrigan.

Researches spent four years trying to develop a new way to test milk that would help farmers better manage their cows’ health and increase the value of their milk. On Saturday, they announced that the co-op would be the first in the nation to use it.

“A new tool in terms of a piece of information from milk that tells how well the cows are digesting their feed and converting it to fat and protein which is what the farmers get paid for,” said David Barbano, a Cornell University Science Professor.

Their research found that de novo fatty acids, which produce milk fats, have a direct correlation to the amount of protein and butterfat in the milk. Howrigan says farms are paid more for milk with high fat and protein content, and this new technology will now be giving them reports on the de novo fatty acids in their milk.

“So if we can get them to make more fat and more protein in the same amount of milk that they’re giving us every day, then that will help to be able to produce things that use a lot of the fat and protein like cheese, and yogurt, and butter,” said Howrigan.

Researchers say that farms can increase the amount of de novo fatty acids by changing the cows’ food, giving them more room in the barn, and providing more space for them to lay down.

“The dairy industry is such an important part of our economy, certainly throughout the state of Vermont and the Northeast, so we need to continue to all that we can to benefit this industry, to ensure there’s viability to the industry, and also for that next generation,” said Leon Berthiaume, St. Albans Co-op CEO.

Howrigan says as farms struggle with low milk prices, this type of technology will be crucial in helping them to increase the value and earnings of their product.

Source: WCAX

Creating extra heifers provides you many intriguing options – the option to expand, the option to sell extra heifers, and the option to sell your low producing cows.

While these options all have the potential to propel herd improvement or provide added profit, there are some caveats to consider before you decide to create extra heifers for your dairy.

1. Do you have room for the extra heifers?
   If your facilities become severely overcrowded because of the extra heifers you create, you may not yield optimal heifer performance.

2. Will female calves be worth more than male calves in 9 months?
   If females are not worth more than males, then you should consider whether creating more of a less valuable gender even makes sense. The fact is, earlier in 2015, Holstein bull calves were worth more than female calves in most parts of the country! That situation is different for Jerseys, and it changed quickly for both Holstein and Jersey producers.
   If the goal is to sell extra calves, considering a terminal beef cross on the low end of your herd or on hard breeders will yield a more valuable calf, regardless of the calf’s gender.

3. What will you do with the extra females?
   If you are going to expand, these aren’t truly “extra” heifers, but future members of your milking herd. If you are creating extra females with the intent of selling them, be sure to evaluate the price risk between the time you create them and the time you sell them.

Decisions to make

High pregnancy rates, optimal calf care programs, earlier ages at first calving and more sexed semen use have created a surplus of female calves and heifers for many dairy producers.

Suppose you are one of those producers who has extra females right now – more replacements than you would generally “need” to maintain your herd size.  Should you sell them before they calve?

If you decide selling extra heifers is the best choice, one option is to sell the animals with the least genetic potential – which you would identify through parent averages or genomic testing. A second option is to sell those heifers that grew slower, got sick more often, or took more services to become pregnant.

Even though both options to select which heifers to sell are positively correlated with future performance, they are only predictions. In other words, on average as a group, the heifers that grow the slowest will indeed be less productive cows than the heifers that grow well. Likewise the group of heifers with the least favorable genetics will certainly produce less than the group with the best genetics.

However, these factors are not perfect predictors. Therefore, if you choose to make a culling decision based on one of these predictions, mistakes will be made. You’ll end up culling heifers that would have performed better than others that you decided to keep.

A real example

Take for example the scatterplot above, with each red dot representing one first lactation animal. This compares the parent average for PTAMilk to actual 305ME performance for each animal. You can see a general trend that animals bred to produce more milk will produce more milk.  Genomic testing does make the genetic prediction (represented by the blue line in the image above) more accurate. But despite this accuracy, genetics are still not a perfect predictor of actual performance for an individual animal.

Therefore, a potential missed opportunity comes if you would have decided to cull any of these individual first lactation animals before they ever freshened, based only on their genetics. If milk production is your main selection goal, and you sold the lowest heifers for predicted milk production, you would have decided to sell the heifers that appear on the left of the chart above. You can see that most of those animals have below average milk production (appearing below the line), and some individuals produced well above average for the herd.

Yet you wouldn’t have known with certainty how these animals would perform before they got a chance to prove themselves. Genetic predictions work extremely well across large groups of animals, but are not a perfect predictor of an individual animal’s performance.

There are so many environmental challenges a cow may experience. She may have a difficult calving, get a sore foot, or get mastitis. Any of these factors will have an effect on her overall performance and is likely completely separate from her genetic potential.

No perfect predictors

If we translate this in terms of baseball and have to predict which player is going to go 4 for 4 in tonight’s game, we would probably pick the one with the highest batting average, or perhaps the highest batting average against that particular pitcher. While having that information increases our odds of being correct, our prediction is certainly not perfect.

However, tomorrow morning, we will know exactly which player went 4 for 4 – and it might be the guy that had been hitting just .200!

The same is true in cows. Even though we can get close to knowing which animals will perform best based on their genetics, no predictors are perfect indicators of future performance. Like the graph above shows, sometimes a cow out-produces her predictions, and sometimes she performs less than expected.

Culling heifers with the poorest growth rates or least desirable genetics is always an option to consider if you do not have the space to raise those heifers. But it’s important to recognize that when you cull a heifer, you essentially cash in all your options. You ultimately lose your ability to cull a less efficient cow at the time when that heifer would have entered the milking string.

While we can make predictions of future performance before an animal ever freshens, our predictions are rarely perfect indicators of future performance. Keeping extra heifers gives you the option of culling the cows that actually perform the worst, instead of the heifers you predicted would end up as the worst performing cows.

Source: AltaGenetics

Farmers should be careful to dispose of their waste plastic in accordance with the law or risk huge fines, following the conviction of a business in Oxfordshire.

Since 2006 farmers have been required to dispose of their waste plastic through a licensed business, yet many are still illegally burying or burning waste on-farm, or unwittingly using unlicensed carriers, says Mark Webb, director of recycling firm Farm XS.

“By flouting the rules, farmers lay themselves open to fines of up to £50,000, plus legal costs,” he warns.

“In addition, they may have to cover the costs of any environmental clean-up, which could be astronomical.”

Mr Webb’s warning comes after a business in Oxfordshire was fined £20,000 plus costs for illegally storing, treating and burning waste at Chowle Farm, Faringdon. The firm was prosecuted for operating a skip hire business illegally from the site, and allowing the disposal of large quantities of tyres.

“All farmers have a duty of care to ensure the person they give their waste to is licensed and deals with it properly,” says Mr Webb.

“Make sure you see a copy of the license and receive a waste transfer note – this will be checked by farm assurance schemes.”

Farmers dealing with their own waste require a farm waste exemption, and if they are transporting it will also need a lower tier waste carriers license, adds Mr Webb.

“The Environment Agency is clamping down on unregistered waste carriers, and stopped 71 vehicles in Operation Salamandar in the South East of England in just one day last month. Of those, 26 face possible prosecution for duty of care offences.”

Although farmers’ margins are under intense pressure right now, the cost of waste disposal does not have to be prohibitive. Farm XS charges a membership fee of less than £1/acre for an average size farm for plastic recycling, with no weight fees on top, says Mr Webb.

“Taken in context of a possible £50,000 fine – on top of the environmental damage caused by illegal activities – it’s madness for farmers to risk falling foul of the law.”

Source: The Dairy Site

The use of a fresh pen continues to grow in popularity, especially for dairies that are expanding herd size and/or building new facilities. A fresh pen allows a dairy to house fresh cows separately from other cows in the lactating herd to facilitate monitoring of health problems, minimize social stress, and provide a diet specifically formulated for fresh cows.

The optimal duration for cows to remain in a fresh pen is unknown but likely is unique for each dairy and possibly each cow given differences in rate of increase in dry matter intake and milk production. An informal survey of dairies suggested that cows remain in a fresh pen anywhere from 10 to 42 days in milk (DIM) with 14 to 21 DIM the most common.

Fresh cows that transition successfully are typically ready for a move to a high group pen with a more fermentable carbohydrate diet between 10 and 14 DIM. Extended stays in a fresh pen can limit dry matter intake because of gut fill and increase the risk of health problems, such as primary ketosis. An example of this occurred at Miner Institute where the primary forage in the fresh diet, corn silage, had a lower fiber digestibility than expected based on initial laboratory analysis. Cows increased intake rapidly until 10 to 14 DIM when intake plateaued with milk continuing to increase. The cows were eating as much fiber as a percentage of their body weight as possible.

Blood beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA) started to rise at a time when it would normally decrease resulting in some cows having subclinical ketosis or showing clinical signs of ketosis. At 22 DIM, cows were switched to a more digestible high group diet that allowed greater intake and the primary ketosis problem resolved.

A fresh pen and its management can greatly influence fresh cow behavior. A fresh pen typically houses a smaller group of cows together than the other lactating groups which reduces the social activity and possibly leads to less social stress and more resting. This concept was demonstrated in a European study where the addition of fresh cows to small groups of cows compared to large groups of cows housed at 1 stall per cow resulted in fewer agonistic and nonagonistic interactions within the 3 hours after mixing. Introducing fresh heifers as pairs rather than individuals to a group containing older cows promoted lying behavior after mixing in the UK.

In a Danish study, cows housed as a separate group for one month after calving with ≥1 stall per cow resulted in improved production and health in primiparous but not multiparous cows. Interestingly, a fresh cow diet was not used in the separate group. An additional benefi t of separate grouping may be observed if an appropriate fresh cow diet is used.

The feed bunk of a fresh pen should be understocked and provide at least 76 cm of space or ≥1 headlock per cow. Limited feed bunk space increased the number of displacements and feeding rates of cows before and after calving in a University of British Columbia study. Fresh cows that were overcrowded at the feed bunk altered their feeding behavior (e.g. increased feeding rate) and increased the risk for health problems associated with slug-feeding in a collaborative study between Miner Institute and the University of British Columbia.

Based on fi eld observations and limited research, fresh cows should be housed in small, separate groups to minimize social stress, maximize comfort of the physical resting space, minimize slug feeding and other undesirable feeding behaviors, and provide a diet that promotes intake and prevents health problems.

Source: Miner Institute

While there is much to be said for housing calves in outdoor hutches, it is important to manage and feed them in individual pens even though this may mean more time and labour than if allowed to feed at a communal milk machine, veterinary surgeon, Neil Roberts, told visitors to a Dugdale Nutrition iFeed organised farms open day.

Speaking at Copp Farm, Great Eccleston, Lancashire, Mr Roberts of Dalehead Veterinary Group, Settle said that in one case a farmer had housed calves in individual hutches but instead of feeding them separately had allowed them access to a communal milk machine. The result was an outbreak of scours and pneumonia which individual feeding in the hutches would have avoided.

Well managed housing in hutches means that the calves are unlikely to be exposed to pneumonia, however this also meant they were potentially vulnerable to the condition when mixed with other calves.

Hutches need to be well bedded and on free draining surfaces. Ventilation is important so hutches with vented openings in the back were recommended.

“The aim with all dairy calves is to achieve 0.8kg/day live-weight gain from birth through to weaning which roughly means doubling their body weight over this period. There is strong evidence that the greater the weight gains pre-weaning, the more robust the immune system is to fight off infection in later life.

“On average, for every additional 100 grams of average daily weight gain during the first two months of life, about 225kg of additional milk yield could be expected in the first lactation.

“Furthermore improving weight gains before weaning resulted in better survivability of heifers into the second lactation. These health benefits from good weight gains before weaning cannot be achieved by increasing weight gains after weaning,” he said.

Mr Roberts said that in a dry draught free environment the lower critical temperature for a young calf (the temperature below which it needed to burn additional energy to keep warm) is 9ºC, whereas in damp draughty conditions this temperature rises to 17ºC. For each ºC below the lower critical temperature, the calf uses an additional 2 per cent of energy just for maintenance and to keep warm.

If hutches are badly situated resulting in exposure to winds and damp bedding, the growth rates of the calves will be significantly reduced. For young calves in both hutches and buildings in winter months, he strongly recommended the use of calf jackets to keep them warm, he said.

Looking at calf buildings at Great Eccleston Hall, he stressed the need for clean, dry conditions and, most importantly, ventilation and air movement providing draught free fresh air at calf level.

Pneumonia is a constant threat to calves even in the best calf house environments. The virus is spread from calf to calf in droplets of moisture but could only survive for about a minute outside the animal in dry conditions but up to 10 minutes in humid conditions, said Mr Roberts.

Housing adult dairy cattle was also taken up by Dugdale Nutrition dairy consultant, Adam Collantine who said: “The average dairy cow produces 1.25kw of heat per day, so 100 head will produce a significant amount of heat. Dairy cows perform best at about 50 to 60 Centigrade. It is important that the ventilation should remove moisture, dust, gasses, micro-organisms and to minimise the spread of respiratory diseases.

“It is also vital that this should work evenly over all the cattle housing 24 hours a day throughout the year, with an air speed of 1m per second able to naturally ventilate a well designed shed.

Maintaining this can be tricky and on most sites it is suggested that gable ends remain closed, but everything depends on the individual situation. Where efficient natural ventilation is not available, mechanical intervention such as fans may be needed.

“Lighting is also important. Milkers need 16-18 hours’ light at about 160-200 lux and the remaining dark period at about 30 lux – similar to bright moonlight. Dry cows need the reverse. One farmer uses a timer so that the main lights come on about 30 minutes before milking, which seems to work well giving the cows a chance to wake up before going into the parlour.

“It makes sense to make maximum use of natural light and to keep lights and roof lights clean, also lighting needs to be even throughout the building.”

The open days were organised as part of Dugdale Nutrition’s Intelligent Feeding Forum programme.

Source: The Dairy Site

Just as with humans, social relationships in the bovine world have a substantial effect on an individual cow’s success. In the U.S. dairy industry there is substantial diversity in group size, pen layout, stocking density, and grouping strategy – all of which will influence how cows interact.

As research accumulates, we continue to learn more about the complex social network that is characteristic of groups of dairy cows. Within social groups, cows often form social bonds – or friendships – and definitely have preferred cows to eat with at the feed bunk. These relationships can be surprisingly durable, and it’s common to observe subgroups of cows preferring certain stalls or places to feed within the context of a much larger pen of cows. Increasingly we’re learning about the specific and important role of social grooming or licking behavior.

Research conducted in the 1990s at Purdue University by Jack Albright showed that grooming is a behavioral need of dairy cows. In fact, when cows have been locked into headlocks for extended periods of time, the first behavior they perform upon release is grooming. Grooming, or licking behavior, can be an effective indicator of the stability of the social structure in a pen of cows. Grooming helps to maintain the social structure, and the strength of social bonds is reflected in the degree of grooming between individual cows.

Social grooming has a calming effect on cows and plays an integral role in decreasing social tension and enhancing group stability. Jack Albright referred to cows that seem to spend considerable time engaged in grooming and licking behavior as “public servants” that groom for the good of the group. When investigating licking behavior, Japanese researchers found that nearly 80% of social grooming focused on the head and neck – areas unreachable by the animal herself. In the case of unsolicited grooming, the licking activity was oriented primarily to the back and rump areas of the cow.

The parallels with human society are too obvious to ignore. In an early review of cow behavior published in the Journal of Dairy Science in 1981, Arave and Albright reported that milk yield and milking order were positively correlated with being groomed by other cows. In fact, they even proposed that culling good social groomers – one might say the boot lickers of bovine society – could result in reduced milk yield and greater mortality within the group.

They pointed out that not all cows are accomplished at rendering the service of social grooming, and the cows that excel at it ought to be maintained within the herd. So, it appears that bovine boot lickers play an important role in the social structure of our cow pens. Their grooming behavior helps stabilize social order, lessens the chance of aggression, and generally lets other cows within the pen get on with their daily activities.

Not so different from our own human society!

Source: Minor Institute

In 2014 the price of butterfat averaged $2.38/lb and protein averaged $3.79/lb in marketing orders based on components. At these component prices, amino acid balancing routinely resulted in a 2:1 to 3:1 return on investment due to increased milk volume and milk protein and fat content and yield.

Supplemental methionine and lysine are often targeted in diets for dairy cows since they are commonly the first limiting amino acids for dairy cows fed typical Northeastern or Midwestern diets predominately containing corn and soy. Amino acids are required nutrients in the same way that minerals and vitamins are required nutrients. All amino acids are used for protein synthesis and each have a multitude of other biological functions. Increased milk protein content is the quickest and most visible benefit to dairy producers when deficient amino acids are supplemented. The increase in milk protein content often ranges from 0.05 to 0.2 %-units and a 0.15 %-unit increase is common.

More recently the price butterfat and protein has inverted. As of December 2015, the price of butterfat averaged $3.18/lb and protein averaged $1.32/ lb in the Northeast milk marketing order. This price inversion has caused many producers and their nutritionists to question the value of amino acid balancing for dairy cows. Certainly, as milk prices continue to remain low with no short term end in sight, dairy producers must evaluate all dietary supplements or additives. All supplements or additives must provide consistent and scientifically proven results that are worth their cost so that the farm remains profitable in the long term.

For decades the research focus on amino acid supplementation and balancing was its role in promoting increased milk yield and protein and fat content and yield. Recently there’s been a shift in measuring the benefits beyond milk production. In addition to production measurements, researchers are also focusing on the role of functional amino acids and the benefits of amino acid balancing on other biology such as the immune system, oxidative stress, and liver function. Researchers at the University of Illinois found that transition cows supplemented with methionine consumed more dry matter and produced more milk and milk components.

In addition to greater milk yield, those cows also had reduced inflammation, lower oxidative stress, and improved liver function all according to gene expression and blood metabolite measurements. Based on these results it appears that the immune system of cows was dysfunctional when fed methionine-deficient diets, causing depressed appetites. Whereas, immune function improved in transition cows supplemented with methionine resulting in greater appetite, increased dry matter intake, and a concomitant increase in milk yield. Cows supplemented with methionine also had fewer incidences of ketosis. All of these factors indicate that cows are healthier when fed diets that supply the required amount of key essential amino acids.

It can be difficult to quantify the cost of immune dysfunction, increased oxidative stress, or reduced liver function. However, greater progress has been made to accurately quantify the cost of metabolic diseases, particularly around transition. In example, the average cost per case of ketosis is $289 for all cows according to researchers in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University. Proper amino acid balancing has been shown to reduce the incidences of ketosis and should therefore result in greater return on investment.

The primary value of amino acid balancing is healthier cows. Furthermore, at a modest increase of 1.0 lb of milk and 0.1 %-units of milk protein or fat content, the return on investment of amino acid balancing simply from the increased value of milk will be approximately 1:1. Amino acid balancing is paying for itself and works as an added bonus beyond healthier cows. The 1:1 return on investment also does not account for any realized savings from replacing more expensive protein feeds with less expensive forages or fermentable carbohydrates since diets are now properly balanced for amino acids.

Proper amino acid balancing continues to be a viable dietary feeding strategy, even during low milk prices. Amino acid balancing consistently results in improved milk yield and component content and yield. Additionally, now there is data that supports the role of amino acid balancing in improved immune and liver function and reduced oxidative stress. So what is the value of amino acid balancing during low milk prices? We’re just beginning to quantify the true long-term value, but it certainly appears to be healthier cows.

This article was originally published in the Miner Institute February 2016 Farm Report. Shane was a post-doctoral researcher at Miner Institute from June 2014 to June2015 when he accepted a job at Adisseo USA Inc. as their Eastern North America Technical Manager. Adisseo provides two rumen-protected sources of methionine,Smartamine® M and MetaSmart®.

Agricultural Research Service dairy scientists in Wisconsin are helping dairy farmers weigh the merits of a relatively new option for feeding their cattle: Using canola meal as a protein supplement.

Protein supplements are costly, and dairy producers must decide which protein source to use—soybean meal or canola meal—and how much of it. Dairy producers want to use as little as possible; increasing the amount can increase milk production, but the benefit is usually negligible. Using more protein supplements than necessary also increases urinary nitrogen, often leading to additional nitrogen runoff that pollutes waterways, says Glen Broderick, a former ARS dairy scientist with the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin.

Canola production increased rapidly in the 1990s as a cold-tolerant crop and was initially raised for its seed oil. Canola meal is a relatively new protein source for dairy cattle, Broderick says. “Canola meal didn’t begin to catch on as a protein source for cattle until years after the crop was first introduced, when extensive breeding led to improved varieties.”

Broderick (now retired) and his colleagues divided 50 lactating dairy cows into 5 groups and varied their diets (high and low amounts of soybean meal, high and low amounts of canola meal, and a mix of low canola and low soybean meal). Each group received a different diet every 3 weeks, and researchers measured the amount of milk, milk proteins, and urine nitrogen produced by the cows while on each diet. The diets were balanced to provide adequate levels of protein and included standard corn and alfalfa silages; corn grain; and the usual supplementary vitamins, minerals, and neutral detergent fiber. The study was partially funded by the Canola Council of Canada.

After 15 weeks, researchers found that the canola meal supplement resulted in more milk and more milk protein per day than soybean meal. The effects were about the same in both the high- and low-protein diets. Specifically, cows fed canola meal produced an average 88.8 pounds of milk per day, compared with 86.6 pounds produced by cows on soybean meal, a 2.5 percent difference per cow. Cows on canola meal also showed a similar increase in production of milk proteins. Most dairy producers have hundreds of cows, so every additional pound increase in yield per cow translates into a more financially viable dairy operation. Using canola meal also had an environmental benefit—the canola meal diets produced less urine nitrogen, which could lead to less nitrogen runoff.

Canola meal now costs about the same as soybean meal per unit of protein, but the findings could save costs in the long run by giving dairy producers another option in the face of ever-changing prices, Broderick says.

Source – USDA

Fermentable carbohydrates are the main energy source in diets of high-producing dairy cows and play a major role in microbial growth and protein synthesis in the rumen. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF), soluble fiber, starch, and sugars are the main carbohydrate sources.

Although these varied carbohydrate sources can be used for energy, they differ in fermentation end-products produced by rumen microorganisms, which in turn alter metabolism and performance by dairy cows.

Starch is rapidly fermented into propionate in the rumen, the propionate is absorbed into the blood, and then it is later transformed into glucose in the liver. Alternatively, starch may be digested in the small intestine directly to glucose. Although starch is not considered a required nutrient for dairy cattle, it directly affects glucose supply; hence, it affects lactation performance of dairy cows.

Corn is the predominant starch source in the United States, but corn prices have drastically increased in recent years following the greater demand of corn for ethanol production. Consequently, this has renewed the interest of dairy nutritionists in formulating lower-starch diets that could reduce corn inclusion without impairing lactation performance.

Replacement of corn grain with non-forage fiber sources (NFFS), highly digestible forages (i.e., corn silage), or sugars are common feeding strategies used to reduce starch in diets of high-producing dairy cows. Typical NFFS alternatives include soybean hulls, beet pulp, citrus pulp, wheat middlings, whole cottonseed, and cottonseed hulls. Potential sugar sources are molasses, whey, deproteinized whey, and sucrose. Viability of these feeding strategies in corn silage based diets during different stages of lactation will be discussed throughout this article.

Fresh Cows and Early Lactation

Early lactation diets should support metabolic adaptations that dairy cows go through during calving. During the initial weeks of lactation, energy intake is unable to meet the energy demand of high-producing dairy cows. Therefore, an increase in dietary energy to minimize the duration of negative energy balance is desired. However, when cows are fed controlled-energy close-up diets, a drastic increase in starch level in a fresh cow diet may have negative effects on rumen health and metabolism.

A trial conducted at Miner Institute evaluated the transition of cows from a controlled-energy close-up diet (15.5% starch) to two fresh cow diets fed for 21 days in milk (DIM) that varied in starch content (21% vs. 27%) by replacing ground corn with a mixture of soybean hulls and wheat middlings. Measured ruminal pH, ruminal lipopolysaccharide, and serum acute phase proteins demonstrated that the risk of sub-acute ruminal acidosis and inflammation increased with greater dietary starch content.

Another trial from Miner Institute showed that lactation performance was better when cows transitioned from a 40-day dry controlled energy diet (13.5% starch) to early lactation diets containing either 21% starch (fed for 91 DIM) or 23% starch (fed for 21 DIM) followed by 26% starch (fed for 22 to 91 DIM) compared with 26% starch (fed for 91 DIM). The low starch and step-up starch approaches were effective dietary strategies. In contrast, a trial from Cornell University revealed faster rise of intake and milk production when cows were fed a diet containing 26% compared with 21% starch up to 21 DIM. All cows were fed 26% from 22 to 63 DIM. Interestingly, cows were fed a 17.4% starch diet pre-partum. Perhaps the difference in starch levels between pre- and post-partum diets may be more important than specific dietary starch levels fed to fresh cows. In addition, it is important to formulate lower starch diets during the early lactation period with digestible carbohydrates so they do not limit intake because of gut fill.

Peak and Mid-Lactation

Cows reaching peak of lactation also have a high-energy demand, but unless limited by gut fill, those cows should be able to meet their energy requirements by adjusting their feed consumption. For example, in an Ohio State University trial, the substitution of corn grain by conventional corn silage (32% vs. 26% of dietary starch, respectively) reduced intake and milk, suggesting that the higher corn silage diet increased gut fill and impaired performance of mid-lactation cows. In contrast, a trial from Miner Institute replaced corn grain with brown midrib corn silage (26% vs. 21% of dietary starch, respectively) and found no negative effects on intake or milk production. The use of digestible forage NDF is important when decreasing dietary starch through increased forage in the diet.

Replacement of starch with sugars or NFFS should not limit intake because of gut fill. Overall, trials that replaced starch with sugars suggested no changes or small increases in lactation performance. Lactation responses to the replacement of corn grain with NFFS (5-10%-units decrease in dietary starch), however, have varied effects. Combining the results of short- and long-term trials from Miner Institute and University of Wisconsin, respectively, revealed mixed effects on milk production, intake and feed efficiency when dietary starch levels were lowered to approximately 21%. Overall, reducing dietary starch through the inclusion of NFFS may be feasible. However, due to potential negative effects on feed efficiency due to increased intake, monitoring income over feed costs is recommended rather than price per unit of diet dry matter to fully assess economic benefits.

Late-Lactation

Cows in the final stage of lactation partition energy towards both milk production and body reserves. Thus, formulation of late-lactation cow diets must focus on maintenance of milk production while not allowing cows to gain excessive body condition which could affect the next transition period. Replacement of starch with NFFS or forage NDF during this period is more likely to maintain performance compared with the peak or mid-lactation period. Due to the scarceness of trials during late-lactation, however, caution is recommended when drastically decreasing dietary starch. Although a decrease in starch level during this period is desired, an excessive decrease may result in decreased milk production and forced dry-off, depending on the farm’s specific management practices. A reduction of dietary starch from 27 or 28% to 20 or 22% will likely have little effect on milk yield by cows in late lactation.

Source – Miner Agriculture Institute

Barn fires can cause a devastating loss of livestock and assets for owners in addition to emotional and economic hardships for families, businesses and communities.

There are best practices to follow to reduce the risk of barn fires:

• Have a qualified professional complete assessments of all farm buildings
• Have all electrical equipment inspected yearly by a licensed electrical contractor, including wiring, mechanical and heating systems
• When heat lamps are required, protect the immediate area with non-combustible sheathing, keep the area around the heat lamp clear of clutter or bedding materials that could catch fire and only use heat lamps with the CSA or ULC label
• Establish good housekeeping practices – eliminate clutter inside and outside the buildings to the risk of fire spreading
• Be sure to check exposed electrical equipment for corroded parts and repair all damaged fixtures or equipment as soon as possible
• Avoid storing dangerous fuels and chemicals such as gasoline, cleaning fluids or solvents inside barns
• Ensure that all applicable regulations are followed when constructing or renovating farm buildings
• Make sure all equipment and motors are in good working condition, and free from dust and debris
• Always keep a fire extinguisher on hand
• Make sure a reliable source of water is available and easily accessible by fire departments.

Ontario encourages owners of farm buildings to follow these best management practices when working with livestock in farm buildings. Planning ahead to reduce risks and prevent accidents will help protect employees, family members and animals.

Benchmarking and knowledge transfer will be two essential tools to help farmers manage their businesses in volatile markets.

Giving evidence to the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-committee hearing on “Responding to price volatility and creating a more resilient agricultural sector”, Sir Peter Kendall, chairman of the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board, said that there has been a failure to provide farmers with the instruments to help farmers cope with volatility.

He said that the AHDB’s Volatility Forum which is to be launched on 27 January will bring together the academic world, commercial world and farmers to focus on volatility management and build knowledge exchange networks.

However, he said that to ensure that farmers are resilient in such a volatile market it is necessary to concentrate not only on the bad time but also to look at the time when the markets are high.

“We need to make sure it is a long-term piece of work,” he said.

The forum will look at measures such as forward planning, forward pricing and derivatives as well as how government policy can help.

In his evidence Sir Peter called for a greater understanding of the commodity cycle and a greater understanding of risk to be shared with in the farming sector.

He said that farmers did not like the concept of benchmarking and he called for a new way of being able to explain to farmers how they should compare their businesses, both at home and around the world.

He suggested that mandatory price reporting could help farmers understand the markets.

He said that a lot of farmers spend their time just managing the day to day issues of low price and paying the bills but it is important to get them to try to manage the future.

Lord Curry in questioning the witnesses on benchmarking on the farm said that it was an essential tool.

“If you want to encourage resilience, then understanding how you relate to your peers is essential,” he said.

Eirwen Williams, Director, Menter a Busnes, an independent economic development company building support programmes for the farming sector in Wales, said that by forming discussion groups farmers are able to share ideas and benchmark their achievements.

“Getting farmers to engage and benchmark isn’t an easy thing to do, but they see the benefit when they do,” she told the committee.

She stressed the need for programmes for farmers to be able to measure their businesses to manage volatility and she said in this innovation played an important role.

Ms Williams added: “People are not very confident at the moment and you have to develop the individuals so that they can develop their businesses.”

She said that new research and development is need for farmers but the research needs to be translated into something that is relevant for them, rather than “sitting on shelves gathering dust”.

She called for more communication on research and issues of animal health and welfare.

“Farmers have to have to tools to arm themselves against risk,” she said.

Ms Williams added: “we need to be more innovative and come up with new ways to transfer knowledge.”

David Garner, the chief executive of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, said that volatility is here to stay and that farmers need help to get them through the trough.

He said there were two ways for them to look at their businesses – either by building niche production or through the commodity market.

He said that niche production needs to be encouraged as farmers are more protected than in the commodity market, although there is a limit to the size of a niche market.

Those farmers in the commodity markets have to look at the cost of production.

However, he said that benchmarking and knowledge transfer in England are completely dysfunctional.

The sector should be aiming to develop world class businesses that do not haemorrhage money in the low points of a volatile market.

He said that diversification and other income streams would help.

Mr Gardner also called of better coordinated used of research to bring it into best practice for the farming community.

“Other industrialised countries have moved forward further than we have,” he said.

“We are behind the curve.”

Sir Peter added: “We have to link the academic research and what is relevant on the farm.”

The Lords Committee heard that while the young farming community had all the enthusiasm and the knowledge and ability with new technology to work in a volatile market a lack of finance often held them back.

Source: The Dairy Site

There are three simple steps dairy farmers should use when feeding their calves colostrum, according to Catherine Carthy.

Speaking at a recent calf care event in Co. Wexford, UCD’s Herd Health Veterinary Surgeon said that colostrum is the first milk that the cow produces and it is formed before the cow calves.

It is important that calves receive an adequate amount of good quality colostrum, she said, as they are born with no immune system.

There is a big difference between normal milk and colostrum and colostrum will give calves antibodies which boost their immune system.

1. Use colostrum from the first milking

The colostrum fed to calves should be from the first milking, as the quality begins to drop once the cow calves, she said.

This is important, as colostrum has its highest concentration of antibodies present at calving time, Carthy said.

The UCD vet also said it is quite easy for farmers to test the quality of the colostrum and devices such as the Colosrometer and the Brix Refractometer can be used.

Colostrum should never be taken from sick cows or cows suffering from mastitis, as the antibody concentration may be low, she said.

2. Feed Colostrum within two hours of birth

Colostrum should be given to calves within the first two hours of birth, as this is when maximum absorption occurs, she said.

There are large holes in the calf’s gut and this allows antibodies to pass through. Calves can absorb antibodies for four hours after birth, but the first two hours are ideal.

To have an adequate supply of colostrum at hand, she said, farmers can refrigerate colostrum for up to 24 hours and it can also be stored in a freezer for longer periods of time.

3. Calves should get three litres of colostrum

Farmers should also aim to fed their calves three litres of colostrum, she said, as this is an adequate volume for most dairy calves.

“Feeding three litres is the best chance of making sure you get enough of the necessary antibodies into your calves,” she said.

Source: Agriland