Here are the data (RLU’s – see below for explanation):

August     September        October

Nursing Bottle               191           3136                1

Nursing Nipple            1010             256                0

The farm uses an upper threshold for calf feeding equipment of 100.

I am using the Hygiena SystemSure Plus unit to do adenosine triphosphate (ATP) monitoring. The ATP test is a process of rapidly measuring actively growing microorganisms through the detection of adenosine triphosphate. An ATP monitoring system can detect the amount of microbial contamination that remains after cleaning a surface (for example, calf feeding equipment).

Thresholds used in the food processing industry are less than10 RLU for direct food contact surfaces and less than 50 RLU for environmental surfaces. I have been using a reading of 100 RLU as realistic on-farm upper threshold for calf feeding equipment

After the elevated readings in August and September the calf manager decided to add a “pre-use” rinse to their feeding routine. Starting at the beginning of October before starting the feeding this bottle is filled with warm water and health splash of household bleach – he shakes it and dumps out the rinse water. Then it goes into the feeding cart just in case it is needed.

The bottle is only used when a young calf fails to drink her milk. The bottle was not used the morning I swabbed the bottle and nipple.

What was the problem back in August and September?  Several days may pass with the bottle not being used – yes, you are correct – this was an issue with bacteria regrowth following cleaning.

Now it is rinsed before each feeding just in case it will be needed.

Source: Calves with Sam

Farming practices such as larger herd size, maize growth, fewer hedgerows and the use of silage have been linked to higher risk of bovine TB, new research from the University of Exeter has concluded. 
The study, funded by BBSRC, analysed data from 503 farms which have suffered a TB breakdown alongside 808 control farms in areas of high TB risk. Dr Fiona Mathews, Associate Professor in Mammalian Biology, who led the study, said: “TB is absolutely devastating for farming, and it’s essential that workable solutions are found. In the worst hit areas, farms are frequently affected over and over again with crippling consequences. If lower intensity production means better animal health, it offers a sustainable long-term strategy in high risk areas.”

The last few decades have seen radical changes in farming practices. Half of British dairy farmers have gone out of business since 2002. Those that remain have larger herds and greater productivity: average herd size increased from 75 animals in 1996 to 133 in 2014 (a rise of 77 per cent), and the annual yield increased from 5775 litres per cow in 1995 to 7535 litres per cow in 2013 (a rise of 27 per cent).
The team found that farms with herds of 150 cattle or more were 50 per cent more likely to suffer a bovine TB outbreak than those with herds of 50 or fewer.
Patterns of crop production and feeding were also important, with the risks increasing with practices linked with higher productivity systems.  For every 10 hectares of maize – a favourite food of the badgers that play a role in transmitting the disease – bTB risk increased by 20 per cent. The feeding of silage was linked with a doubling of the risk in both dairy and beef systems.

Landscape features such as deciduous woodland, marshes and hedgerows were also important. For example, on farms with 50km of field boundaries, each extra 1km of hedgerow was linked with a 37 per cent reduction in risk. This is likely to be because there is less contamination of pasture by badger faeces and urine in hedgerow-rich areas. Marshland was associated with increased risk, possibly as a secondary effect of infection with liver fluke – a disease linked with wet environments and which interferes with the diagnosis of bTB in cattle.

Dr Mathews said: “To beat TB, we need to ensure our approach is robust and evidence-based. This is the first large-scale study to link a range of landscape-scale habitat features and farming practices with bTB.  All of the effects we have found are additive, so changing several linked aspects of the farming system could potentially make a big difference.  “Farmers are already aware that biosecurity in the farmyard can help reduce the risk of bTB in cattle. We have now shown that wider environmental management is also important. By finding out more about these links, we hope that we can help eradicate this terrible disease.”

Source: The Dairy Site

It has been a tough year across the agricultural sector, with dairy being one of the hardest hit. Melanie Jenkins looks at what steps dairy farmers can take to weather the storm this winter.

Farmgate milk prices have been under significant pressure this year, falling to a UK average of 23.28p/litre in August, the lowest level since August 2009. Although September saw a small price increase, to 23.61p/litre, this was still 23 per cent lower than in September 2014, leaving many farmers facing cash flow difficulties in the winter ahead.

According to a report by accountant Old Mill, dairy farmers are set to lose an average of 3p/litre in 2015/16, before accounting for non-farm income.

“There is no question that if the current low prices continue it won’t take long to see a significant shift in the industry and ultimately a drop in productive capacity,” said board chairman Mike Butler.

“Most farmers are now steering away from significant investment in their businesses and a notable proportion are very definitely questioning whether there is a future for them in dairying at all.”

Global dairy commodity markets appear to have started a tentative recovery, with the GlobalDairyTrade auction strengthening by 56 per cent between early August and early October, to a weighted average of $2,834/t (£1,843/t), before heading back into negative territory in November. Even so, it’s likely to be a long road to recovery.

“Low milk prices and low income from sales will see the majority of farmers below the cost of production at present,” said Sian Davies, chief dairy adviser at the UK’s NFU. “This is more tolerable in the summer months, but in the winter costs increase for feed, bedding and labour.”

According to the AHDB, the top and bottom quartile of dairy farmers’ full economic costs of production averaged 25.6p/litre and 35p/litre, respectively, in the 12 months to August – around an 8 per cent reduction on the previous year.

Reducing feed costs in the run-up to winter

Feed makes up the vast proportion of production costs, said James Miller, senior consultant at Laurence Gould and a South West NFU dairy board member. “A third of total production costs can be attributed to feed, so even if costs can be reduced, it still accounts for too much of the milk price.”

Over the past year, UK feed prices have fallen across the board according to a report by Farm Brief, with soymeal averaging £253-£256/t in October, down from £307-£314/t in October last year, while hipro soya averaged £266-£268, down from £317-£324/t last year. Feed wheat is around £10/t cheaper on the year, at £112-£116/t in October, while feed barley is about £3/t cheaper, at around £108/t in October.

According to Farm Brief, the price of a high energy diet averaged £215-£227/t in October; about £16/t down, year-on-year.

Fortunately, the opening to autumn has enabled farmers to keep cows at grass for longer, and this year’s decent yields of good quality silage should also help to keep costs down, said Mr Miller. “Farmers should get as much from forage as possible – and keep a balanced view on cake because sometimes less is more.”

Producers may prefer to reduce concentrate use and suffer slightly lower yields, if they can retain milk bonuses for butterfat, protein and hygiene, he adds.

“Think about removing cows from the herd that could impact upon this. Farmers need to adapt to the situation depending on their contracts but there is no easy way of cutting back,” he said. “Group buying with other farmers can be an option; it is really a case of being proactive where you can.”

Labour costs a worry whilst other costs fall

Fortunately, other input costs have also fallen. In September, the average price of freshly calved heifers was down 16.7 per cent on the same month last year, at £1350 a head, while freshly calved cow prices were down 14.7 per cent at £1020 a head.

Fertiliser prices are about 12 per cent weaker on the year, with 34.5 per cent ammonium nitrate down by £31-£33/t to £229-£236/t in October said the report by Farm Brief. Fuel prices have also fallen, with red diesel averaging 44.51p/litre in October, compared to 62.42p/litre last year.

In September, big bale hay prices were at their lowest level since 2008, at £41/t, down from £50/t last year, while big bale wheat straw averaged £32/t, down from £36/t last year, and at the lowest level since early 2008. Similarly, big bale barley straw fell by £7/t on the year, to £35/t in September, its lowest price since 2007.

However, labour costs are a concern, with the new living wage likely to result in a 2 per cent hike in employee costs, said Mr Miller. “It is important to look after the people you have got and to not let other issues you have affect the relationship with staff.” Sharing labour with other farms could be an option but trying to find skilled labour can be an issue, he adds.

Late basic payments a concern for cash flow

From a cash flow perspective delays to the Basic Payment Scheme will be the biggest concern for most farmers.

There is no guarantee that farmers will receive their basic payment on 1 December although the RPA said the majority will be paid by January. Mr Miller suggests that the best option is to plan for payment delays. “Get a three to six month plan in place for the deficit and go to the bank and talk to them.”

Cutting expenses where possible and putting a contingency plan in place will demonstrate a proactive approach to the banks. “They understand difficulties in the sector and that the current problems will not be forever,” adds Mr Miller. “Also, the EU dairy fund money will be coming up in December, which will be welcome as it may pay one or two bills for farmers.”

At such a difficult time it is important not to forget other possible issues such as isolation and depression.

“It is important to get together with other farmers and talk to them as it can be an isolated industry, but really farmers are not on their own. Even a quick phone call or giving a struggling neighbour a bit of help can go a long way,” said Mr Miller.

“The industry has not felt quite this much pressure for eight years so it is important to have a plan, and go through and work out what your business and family needs.”

In the longer term, the NFU is calling for a restructure of the dairy supply chain across the UK and Europe.

“While the short term focus is on income and cash flow, Government must prioritise a better functioning supply chain; only then will farmers have the confidence to invest in the future and build resilience,” said NFU deputy president Minette Batters.

“The opportunities for UK farming are clear – in the longer term global and domestic demand will increase. But for British farmers to benefit, we need the right policy and fiscal environment which encourages the sector to increase efficiency, develop and embrace technological advances, and take a long-term balanced view to investment.”

Source: The Dairy Site

Helping calves adapt to winter conditions by altering feeding regimes is essential to help calves grow to their full genetic potential, experts from Purina Animal Nutrition say.

Winter is fast approaching, and that means your calves’ nutrient requirements are changing. The amount of energy needed to grow and support the immune system changes, depending upon the temperature.

“By adjusting for the weather we can expect to see better performing calves,” said Ed Denton, calf and heifer specialist with Purina Animal Nutrition.

Transition

Calves should be switched to a cold weather feeding program when the temperatures are consistently below their thermoneutral zone.

For calves fewer than 21 days old, cold stress can begin when temperatures dip below 60 degrees F (15.5 degrees C). Calves more than 21 days of age start to experience cold stress when temperatures dip below 40 degrees F (4.4 degrees C).

The timing will vary based on geography and age of calves, but once the temperature hits the calves’ lower critical temperature and stays consistent, that’s the time to switch.

When making the transition there are several options to consider.

• Option 1: Start feeding seasonal milk replacer to the new or incoming calves and not switch all of the calves to the seasonal formula.
• Option 2: Gradually add the seasonal milk replacer, mixing it with the regular milk replacer until calves are receiving 100 per cent seasonal milk replacer. Start by adding 20-25 per cent of the seasonal milk replacer per day over 4-5 days.

“Avoid switching milk replacers “cold turkey” as it is best to keep the diet consistent as possible for calves,” said Mr Denton.

A seamless switch

It’s important to weigh milk replacer at every feeding to provide a consistent diet for the calf, but it becomes critical when switching between seasonal products, Mr Denton advises.

“The fat and protein content of seasonal formulas have been optimised to meet the calves’ needs during cold weather. As a result the seasonal milk replacers can have different densities,” he said. If using automated feeders, make sure to calibrate them when switching to a new milk replacer.

Steps to avoid the winter ‘slump’

Nutrition is of utmost importance, but experts advise considering these additional factors when dealing with cold weather conditions:

• Colostrum – Calves are born with 4 per cent body fat, making the fat in colostrum an essential source of energy for the newborn calf.
• Bedding – An effective mechanism to minimise heat loss, deep, clean and dry straw will allow the calf to nest, trapping a boundary layer of warm air around itself.
• Calf jackets – If the temperature is below 60 degrees F, consider putting calf jackets on newborn calves. For older calves (21 days old), look to implement calf jackets when temperatures dip below 40 degrees F (4.4 degrees C). Be sure to adjust the fit of the jacket over time as the calf grows.
• Warm, fresh, free-choice water – Water consumption helps improve starter intake and supports rumen development in those early weeks of life, and a well-developed, functioning rumen generates heat which helps keep calves warm. Offering warm water to calves also conserves energy, as they don’t have to expend energy to warm it up to their core body temperature.
• Consistent feeding intervals – Feed calves a milk diet at even intervals of 2 times or 3 times to avoid extended time between feedings. When there is a 14-16 hour interval between feedings calves can be exposed to the coldest time of the day with empty bellies.
• Seasonal starters – Consider feeding a seasonal calf starter, which provides higher energy levels to meet a calf’s higher energy requirements in the winter months.
• Minimise stress – It may seem obvious, but minimising stress during a period of cold weather will help calves conserve energy. It’s as simple as closing a calf barn door behind you or reducing handling time.

“A seasonal feeding program is part of a full potential nutritional program that gives calves the nutrients they need to support their immune system and grow to their full genetic potential,” said Mr Denton. “Therefore we tend to see overall healthier calves and reduced treatment costs.”

Source: The Dairy Site

The use of deep straw bedding and calf jackets during winter will result in healthier calves and improved average daily gains.

It is time to change to winter bedding and bring out the calf jackets to provide calves extra warmth from low temperatures.

If you normally use shavings as calf bedding during summer, it is now time to switch to straw bedding to help keep calves warm.Michigan State University Extension recommends using straw bedding when temperatures are 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below. Straw bedding is ideal when daytime highs or night time lows are below the thermo-neutral zone for a young calf. A newborn Holstein calf has to burn energy to keep herself warm when temperatures are below 50 F. If there is draft, wet bedding, or an immune system challenge, then the critical temperature is higher.

A calf is born with only 2-4 percent of body weight as fat, which will not last long if she is forced to burn fat for heat production. Burning body fat for heat can lead to lower growth rates, compromised immune status, and even death. The need for straw bedding at this time of the year to provide warmth for young calves is true both in barns and in hutches. Unless the calf barn has supplemental heat, it should be well ventilated, but without drafts on the calf, and within 5 degrees of outside temperatures, necessitating the use of straw bedding and calf jackets.

Straw is the best choice of bedding to provide thermal insulation for the young calf. Straw tends to hold moisture, so it is important to add fresh bedding regularly. Moisture exceeding 20 percent is too high. If you kneel with all your weight in the calf bedding, any moisture on your pants indicates the bedding is too wet. Straw should be bedded deep enough that the calf can nestle in. This traps warm air around the calf, which will help maintain body heat. For winter months, the straw should be deep enough that when the calf is lying down its legs are generally not visible.

Calf jackets are another way to protect calves from losing excess body heat. A field trial from North Dakota State University found that calves housed in hutches during winter had higher average daily gains when wearing calf jackets. Gains for jacketed calves averaged 1.15 pounds per day for the first three weeks of life, while calves without jackets averaged 0.82 pounds per day. When using calf jackets, ensure that they are sized correctly and stay dry.

The use of deep straw bedding and calf jackets during low temperatures will help young calves stay warm resulting in improved average daily gains and immune status.

Source: Michigan State University Extension

• Robert Todd designed the slip-ons in a bid to tackle lameness in cattle
• They feature flexible soles made from wood and are colour-coded by size
• The shoes can be fitted in minutes using an adhesive called ‘Moo-Tac’
• The fully biodegradable shoes are made in Dorset using local materials

Two British inventors have moo-ved into a new market after launching a range of footwear – for cows.

Robert Todd, a professional cattle hoof trimmer, designed the Croc-like slip-ons in a bid to tackle lameness in cattle caused by ulcers and bruising.

They feature flexible soles made from beech and oak and are colour-coded by size.

Pull the udder one: Robert Todd, a professional cattle hoof trimmer, designed the Croc-like slip-ons in a bid to tackle lameness in cattle caused by ulcers and bruising

Mr Todd (left) and his business partner Mike Brimble have been approached by retailers in 42 countries since the footwear went on sale this year

The patented, fully biodegradable shoes are made in Dorset using mostly local materials, including beech and oak trees for the wooden component

The shoes can be fitted in minutes using a special adhesive called ‘Moo-Tac’ and cows can wear them for up to eight weeks while their hooves recover.

Lameness is one of the biggest problems facing modern dairy herds and the ‘Moover’ shoes have already proved a hit across the world.

Mr Todd and his business partner Mike Brimble have been approached by retailers in 42 countries since the footwear went on sale this year.

They make the patented, fully biodegradable shoes in Dorset, where they both live, and mostly use local materials, including beech and oak trees for the wooden soles.

Mr Todd, 40, said: ‘I wanted an easier system that every man could use. Herdsmen had told me that the wooden blocks they were using would fall off after two steps.

The shoes can be fitted in minutes using a special adhesive called ‘Moo-Tac’ and cows can wear them for up to eight weeks while their hooves recover

‘I just wanted to create something that would work when blocking lame cows.

‘I have been really surprised by the feedback to our shoes, and the offer of other companies taking on the licence, including Europe’s biggest veterinary firm.

‘But it would be nice to keep a handle on things and keep everything local as much as possible.’

The company, Moowell, has also launched Moo-Tac which changes colour to show when it has reached the right temperature for the shoe to be fitted.

Prices start from £3.20 per shoe and they come in yellow, red, green and blue.

Project manager Mr Brimble, 43, had no background in farming but has seen a real need for the product since he and Mr Todd started developing it two years ago.

Prices start from £3.20 per shoe and they come in yellow, red, green and blue

‘Lameness has become a bigger issue due to bigger herds and less grazing, as well as superfoods being added to diets to aid milk production,’ he said.

‘And with the cows standing on concrete for long periods of time they can get bad bruising and other foot problems.

‘All of this means that feet grow at quite a rate, and need constant trimming and attention.

‘The two main ways to help them have previously been to put a block of wood on the opposite foot to alleviate pressure on the bad one, or put hard plastic shoes on.

‘But the blocks of wood came off too easily and the hard plastic shoes stayed on for too long and buckled the hooves.

‘So we have created a hybrid version of the two and the feedback has been amazing.’

Prince Philip gave the pair a special Innovation Merit Award at the National Livestock Event in July and top vets have shown their support for the Moowell concept.

The shoes are designed to fall off by themselves and rot down to avoid contaminating slurry pits.

They are currently stocked in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA and several European countries.

Farmers and ranchers see tremendous benefits with technology, but can’t turn a blind eye to the privacy concerns that remain, Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst told the House Agriculture Committee today.

Hurst, a board member of the American Farm Bureau Federation, was asked to testify on innovation and its implications for agriculture.

“The big data movement — and the innovative technologies and analytics it yields — could lead to at least as much change in agriculture as the Green Revolution and the adoption of biotechnology did,” Hurst said. “Farmers are reporting higher yields, fewer inputs, more efficiency and higher profits thanks to technology.”

While farmers are eager to adopt these groundbreaking tools, they are not willing to simply hand over their sensitive business information — nor should they have to. Farmers have the right to know what information is collected, how exactly their data is used and who else has access to it. “It’s then up to farmers to determine whether the benefits outweigh the privacy and security risks associated with usage,” Hurst said.

These concerns are best resolved through private partnerships where farmers can work directly with businesses to address problems and find workable solutions. “If we rely on the government to make changes, the undue overhead might irreversibly deter innovation,” Hurst said.

AFBF has worked to address big data concerns and recently joined with other industry players to produce a set of principles to govern data privacy and security. AFBF and its partners are currently developing tools to help farmers evaluate privacy agreements and data storage options. When farmers and businesses work together, Hurst told the committee, they can “expand their return on investment and unlock the power of ag data.”

Source: Delta Farm Press

Dairy nutrition isn’t simple. In fact, with so many dynamic factors influencing both nutrition requirements and nutrient availability from feeds, it’s complicated. To that end, three top-notch of expert trainers—Dr. Randy Shaver, Dr. Gordon Jones and Dr. Phil Cardoso—will address every day dairy feed and nutrition challenges from a 360-degree angle at three one-day PDPW Dairy Feed & Nutrition Conferences developed by Professional Dairy Producers®.

Designed specifically for dairy owners, herdsmen, nutritionists, veterinarians, and other team members working with the cows’ ration, the one-day conferences will be offered at three different locations across Wisconsin:

• Tuesday, Nov. 17, at Arlington Ag Research Station, Public Events Building, Arlington, Wis.
• Wednesday, Nov. 18, at D.J. Bordini Center at Fox Valley Technical College, Appleton, Wis.
• Thursday, Nov. 19, Marshfield Ag Research Station, Marshfield, Wis.

Randy Shaver, PhD, Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, will start each conference with “Making Sense of Modern Feed Tests.” Shaver will examine test results and research data and explain how the information can be applied to on-farm management decisions. Shaver will zero in on what matters most and why.

With the Goldilocks diet garnering significant attention and praises from dairy farmers, the conference’s second session, “Dry Cow Diets: Is Goldilocks the Answer?”, will be delivered by the dairy producer and DVM who created the Goldilocks diet: Dr. Gordon (Gordie) Jones. Dr. Jones will discuss the particulars regarding how this diet can make the transition from dry to fresh a seamless snap. Conference participants will also discover how the Goldilocks diet can provide answers to challenges such as LDAs, ketosis, milk fevers and other metabolic problems.

“Corn Silage: Fungus Disease, the Silent Killer,” featuring the University of Illinois’ Phil Cardoso, DVM, PhD, will get to the heart of fungal disease that can wreak havoc on corn yield and feed quality, and negatively impact animal health and production. Cardoso will share proper management, corn hybrid and fungicide research findings, as well as tips and tricks that can help dairies maneuver around feed challenges.

Dr. Jones’ second session, “Achieving Excellence: Going beyond 90 lb. Milk,” will deliver ideas for identifying and unlocking the bottlenecks to high performance on dairies. Dr. Jones will arm attendees with the knowledge and skills so dairy farmers better understand their cows and achieve top performance. This session is all about teaching how to assess, evaluate and change, in order to achieve excellence.

The last session of the conference will be “Ask the Experts.” This is the perfect place for participants to bring nutrition questions and feeding challenges to a top-notch feed and nutrition trio of experts, as well as fellow dairy producers.

The Nov. 17, 18 and 19, 2015 PDPW Dairy Feed & Nutrition Conference has been accredited for up to 6.1 CEU credits from the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine and for up to 4 CEU credits from ARPAS. Limitations and restrictions apply to the number of CEU credits that can be obtained. Interested individuals are advised to work with their respective organization regarding qualification for the credits.

While walk-ins to the workshop are welcome, pre-registration is encouraged. To learn more about the PDPW 2015 PDPW Dairy Feed & Nutrition Conference and to register, visit www.pdpw.org or contact PDPW at 1-800-947-7379.

Professional Dairy Producers (PDPW) is the nation’s largest dairy producer-led, grassroots organization of its kind, focusing on education, networking and professional development to shares ideas, solutions, resources and experiences that help dairy producers succeed.

Over the last 15 years dairy producers and veterinarians have debated if tail docking is a necessary management practice on dairy farms. Dairy farmers choose to tail dock for many reasons. Dairy farmers who use parallel or rotary parlors often dock tails to keep them out of the way of the milking unit. In parallel and rotary parlors, the tails may swing into and strike the worker as they attach the milking unit. In robotic milking systems, the eye of the laser can mistake the tail for a teat. To avoid causing problems with the laser, robotic milking companies recommend dairy producers trimming tail switches, however many producers dock tails instead. Many dairy producers believe that tail docking improves cow cleanliness and decreases mastitis. In 2008 a survey done at Colorado State University of 113 dairies in the Midwest observed that 82 percent of dairies had docked tails. The most common reason given by producers for tail docking was cow hygiene (73 percent) followed by parlor worker comfort (17 percent).

Research over the years has not supported the idea that tail docking decreases mastitis or somatic cell count. In 2002, researchers from the University of Wisconsin found that cows with docked tails did not have different udder hygiene scores, somatic cell counts or intramammary infections than cows that did not have docked tails. However a study by Texas Tech University and Purdue University in 2001 found that cows with docked tails were cleaner in general but had no difference in udder hygiene. Cows with docked tails also had higher fly counts and fly control behavior exhibited by foot stomping.

In 2014 the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) officially opposed routine tail docking in dairy cattle because current scientific literature indicates that routine tail docking provides no benefit to the animal and can cause distress during fly season. The AVMA is not alone in its thoughts. The American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) also opposed routine tail docking as of March 2010 and the National Mastitis Council (NMC) knows of no evidence that tail docking of dairy cattle improves cow welfare, cow hygiene or milk quality.

The National Dairy Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) Animal Care Program opposes routine tail docking of dairy animals, unless the animal suffers a traumatic injury that requires tail amputation. Tail docking protocols should be included in the written Herd Health Plan in the FARM program.

Tail docking currently is recommended to be phased out of the Dairy FARM program by 2022. Switch trimming is a recommended as an alternative to tail docking. Trimming the tail switch will alleviate the matting of hair with manure and bedding. If the hair of the switch is trimmed it cannot strike the worker, increasing worker comfort.

Tail docking is done with banding, cauterizing docking irons, emasculators or surgical removal. Banding is the most common method of tail docking and takes 3-7 weeks for the tail to detach. Any type of tail docking can lead to infection.

Clostridia is a common pathogen that results after tail docking and may cause local or systemic infections. Consult your veterinarian about clostridia vaccinations to help in the case of a clostridia infection. Gangrene and tetanus infections have also been found after tail docking. Tail docking can also lead to the formation of damaged nerve axons called neuromas that can cause chronic pain.

If you choose to tail dock on your dairy farm Michigan State University Extension recommends to do it at the youngest age possible, ideally within the first 3 weeks of life. Also to minimize distress and improve the animal performance, pain control is recommended. To find the right pain control for your farm, please consult your veterinarian.

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

Castration is an essential management procedure for the cow-calf producer that is often performed for both handling and economic reasons. However, there are surprisingly many producers who are not taking advantage of economic and marketing advantages by failing to castrate their bull calves before marketing. According to the most recent USDA National Animal Health Monitoring System 2007-08 Beef Cow-calf survey, only 65% of operations in the Southeast sold weaned or older steers as compared to the Western (70%) and Central (89%) US regions.

Castration reduces aggression and mounting behavior and helps prevent unwanted matings. Bull calves will sell for less per pound than steers of comparable quality and weight due to discounts. Furthermore, cattle buyers and feedlot operators prefer the disposition and handling of steers compared to intact males.

The method of castration will depend on age and weight of the calf, producer preference, and time of the year. Castration should be performed as early as possible to reduce stress. Baby calves can be castrated shortly after birth with the least amount of stress. While calves castrated early may have a reduce rate of gain, numerous research studies have shown that a proper implant program will compensate for the losses and add to the value of the animal.

Try to avoid castrating calves within 3 weeks of weaning to reduce overall stress during this time. Older calves will have a greater setback from the castration procedure, and tend to bleed more following surgical castrations. Furthermore, bull calves castrated later may still have the undesirable appearance and attitude of an intact male. In some situations, such as purebred operations culling unwanted seedstock, castration will need to be performed in older animals. In older animals, regardless of the method used, pain management should be considered prior to castration. Castrations should not be performed during the heavy fly season or in wet or muddy conditions.

Methods of castration
Castration can be performed surgically or non-surgically. Surgical castration is performed by making an opening in the scrotum and removing the testicles. In baby calves, the bottom 1/3 of the scrotum is removed by a horizontal incision with a sharp blade or scalpel (figure 1). Once exposed, grasp each testicle individually, isolate the spermatic cord and cut or apply even tension on the cord until it breaks free. This procedure can often be done by one person with the rear legs and one front leg of the calf tied, and results in the least amount of stress to the animal.

For older males, either a horizontal incision or a vertical incision can be made. The key is to make a large enough incision to allow drainage. Extreme care must be taken not to cut the inside of the calf’s leg, or the handler. A newberry knife is the safest method of making two vertical incisions, one on each side of the scrotum, for testicle removal. Once the scrotal sac is opened, grasp each testicle individually, isolate the spermatic cord and apply tension on the cord. An emasculator is then applied as high as possible to crimp and cut the cord. The testicle can also be removed by applying tension as described in younger animals, but there are greater risks of bleeding and internal injury when this is done in older animals. The emasculator should be left on the cord for 15-20 seconds to help control bleeding.

Advantages to surgical castration include assurance that the testicles are removed, and less pain and stress to the animal when done properly. Wounds caused by surgical castration will also heal quicker than those created by non-surgical methods. Disadvantages to surgical castration include skill required by the handler, bleeding and swelling at the incision site, risk of infection, and risk of fly strike. A non-irritating antiseptic such as iodine should be applied to the incision when finished, as well as fly spray when needed. Instruments should be properly cleaned and disinfected between animals, and handlers should have clean hands or gloves whenever performing the procedures to reduce the risk of infections.

Non-surgical castration (or bloodless castration) can be performed using an elastrator band or an emasculatome, also known as a Burdizzo clamp. Advantages to nonsurgical castration include less blood loss, less risk of infection due to wet or dirty environments, and relative ease of performance. A major disadvantage to non-surgical castration is the risk of tetanus, an often-fatal disease caused by the bacterium Clostridium tetani. When non-surgical methods are used, especially in older animals, it is recommended that tetanus vaccination be given at least 10-14 days prior to the procedure. Ideally, two vaccines should be given 6-8 weeks apart prior to castration for maximum protection.

An elastrator band can be applied by using an instrument that places a very tight rubber band around the neck of the scrotum. Other methods of applying the band use a drill or specifically designed tool to tighten the rubber. It is important to ensure that both testicles are pulled down and encompassed below the band. The blood supply to the scrotum is cut off and the scrotal tissue and testicles will fall off in approximately 2-3 weeks, sometimes longer. This procedure, while preferred by many when used in older bulls due to less bleeding, has the greatest risk of tetanus and is best when used in animals younger than a month of age. Another disadvantage to this method is the possibility of missing a testicle, resulting in a stag. Breakage of the bands can be a problem if not properly applied or if old bands are used, requiring the scrotum to be cut off or reapplication of the band.

An emasculatome, or Burdizzo, resembles a large clamp which will shut off blood supply to the testicle resulting in its atrophy and resorption when properly applied. With the calf in standing restraint and tailed to reduce kicking and movement, the neck of the scrotum is held in one hand and the opposite spermatic cord is pushed to the side. The emasculatome is the applied to the cord and closed tightly about 2 inches above the testicle (Figure 2).

The emasculatome should be left in place for approximately 15-30 seconds. Each cord should be crushed separately in a staggered manner. The major disadvantage to this method is failure to completely clamp the spermatic cord, resulting in a stag. It is important that the emasculatome is in good condition in order to get a good crush of the blood and nerve supply to the testicle. It’s recently been reported that some producers have been utilizing the banding procedure followed by the cutting of the scrotum to decrease swelling. This can cause a number of problems, including increasing the risk of infection – essentially taking away the one major advantage of non-surgical castration. Furthermore, when performed properly, the majority of swelling which occurs following banding occurs intracellularly, and opening the bottom of the scrotum will have little effect on swelling. Unlike the other common methods of castration, this method has not yet been evaluated in a controlled setting.

Regardless of the method of castration used, proper restraint of the calf is important, while still allowing the handler access to the scrotal area. While several techniques are available, surgical castration at an early age is preferable and is consistent with Beef Quality Assurance guidelines. Your herd veterinarian should be consulted regarding local anesthesia and pain control during and after any painful procedures.

Castration is an economically important management procedure when performed properly. For additional information on castration, as well as information on pain management and tetanus vaccination requirements prior to performing castrations, contact your herd veterinarian.

By: Carla L. Huston, DVM, Mississippi State University College of Veterinary Medicine 

The board of the National Milk Producers Federation today set January 1, 2017, as the date for dairy farmers participating in the industry’s Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) Animal Care Program to phase out the routine practice of tail docking.

At the Federation’s annual meeting here, the board approved a resolution hastening by five years the previously established 2022 deadline for discontinuing tail docking.  The resolution will be incorporated into the dozens of animal care measures designed for the FARM Program to ensure the consistent, optimal care of dairy cows in the United States.

“On this issue, the science, the advice of our technical experts and requests from our dairy customers and consumers are all aligned,” said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern. “Today’s action demonstrates that dairy producer-leaders want to be proactive, yet pragmatic, in addressing animal care concerns.”NMPF started the FARM Animal Care Program in 2009 to highlight how much the dairy industry is doing to improve animal care. Dairy farmers supplying milk to dairy cooperatives and processors representing more than 90 percent of the nation’s milk supply now participate. The program demonstrates the commitment dairy producers have to providing quality care to their cows.

Also at the NMPF annual meeting, the FARM Animal Care Program unveiled new communications resources, including a revamped website and stepped-up social media engagement on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. The new resources will help share stories of dedicated farmers, healthy cows and wholesome milk.

“While tail docking may be contentious for some, our producers have a great story to tell when it comes to animal care,” said Mulhern. “It is crucial that we share these stories and discuss animal care in a way that connects our values with those of our customers and consumers.”

The annual meeting will also feature on Tuesday an animal care panel discussion that includes representatives from Chobani, Walmart, Starbucks and Kroger.

For more information on the National Dairy FARM Animal Care Program, contact Emily Meredith at (703) 243-6111 or visit www.nationaldairyfarm.com.

Source: National Milk Producers Federation

Dairy producers should change their expectations for transition dairy cow performance and not accept these animals as a high health risk, but rather an opportunity for high milk production, good health and optimal fertility, according to Tom Overton, Ph.D., professor of dairy management and director of the PRO-DAIRY Program at Cornell University. Dr. Overton maintains that achieving all three benefits can be a realistic expectation for transition cows.

Addressing nutritionists, veterinarians and dairy producers at this fall’s World Dairy Expo, Dr. Overton said transition period goals should include high milk production and a low incidence of metabolic disorders around the time of calving. Achieving these objectives, he said, requires properly managing energy metabolism, blood calcium and immune function of transition cows.

According to Dr. Overton, key components of transition cow nutrition programs should include:

• Tight control of macrominerals in cow diets as they approach calving.
• Control of energy intakes both in far-off and close-up groups.
• Excellent feed management to ensure accurate ration implementation and prevention of TMR sorting.
• Focus on ration fermentability during the fresh period.

Protecting immune function
Subclinical hypocalcemia (SCH), or low blood calcium without symptoms of clinical milk fever, during the transition period contributes to impaired immune function, delayed reproduction and other metabolic disorders. Dr. Overton emphasized the need for real-time blood monitoring at the herd and cow level using physiological markers and technology. He also described a negative dietary cation-anion difference (DCAD) diet fed to prepartum cows as one of the most effective strategies to help reduce the risk of both clinical milk fever and SCH, which in turn may lead to improved immune function.

Dr. Overton’s research has demonstrated the success of an aggressive DCAD strategy with the use of anionic supplementation. This feeding strategy has been shown to increase post-calving blood calcium, feed intakes and milk production. Dr. Overton recommends feeding a negative DCAD diet prepartum, fully acidified to a urine pH between 5.5 and 6.0, with 180 grams of calcium.

“We have learned and implemented a lot in the last 10 to 15 years, but there is more opportunity to improve transition cow success,” Dr. Overton said. “This includes managing hypocalcemia, controlling energy intake precalving, proper feed management and managing the non-nutritional factors.”

Dr. Overton’s presentation at World Dairy Expo was sponsored by Phibro Animal Health Corporation, which offers two nutritional specialty products that help promote transition cow health: Animate®, a palatable source of supplemental anions that may help reduce the risk of hypocalcemia when fed as part of a negative DCAD prepartum diet, while also maintaining dry matter intake; and OmniGen-AF®, which helps support normal dairy cow immune function in the face of expected and unexpected stress events year-round.

Dr. Overton is recognized nationally and internationally for his research and extension efforts relating to metabolism, immune function and nutritional physiology of the transition cow. He has authored or coauthored more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific publications and numerous technical articles for conference proceedings, extension publications and popular press articles.

About Phibro Animal Health Corporation
Phibro Animal Health Corporation is a diversified global developer, manufacturer and marketer of a broad range of animal health and mineral nutrition products for use in the production of poultry, swine, cattle, dairy and aquaculture. For more information, visit pahc.com.

For years, livestock farmers have used manure as a fertiliser, soil amendment, energy source and even construction material.

With today’s science and technology, we can use manure more efficiently and in new ways like protecting water and air quality and reducing greenhouse gases. When managed improperly, manure can harm the environment. But when properly managed, it can serve as a valuable, renewable resource.

Utilising manure to meet crop nutrient needs is beneficial for many reasons, according to Laura Pepple, Livestock Extension Specialist with the University of Illinois Extension Service in an online presentation.

1. Good source of macronutrients
2. Complete nutrient package
3. Improved soil quality
4. Reduces soil erosion risk
5. Saves money

Beyond supplying a crops with its Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), and Potassium (K) needs, manure improves soil quality through better water use and increased organic matter and micronutrients.

“This makes manure an ideal soil amendment for fields with low to moderate soil fertility,” said Ms Pepple. “When manure is applied to fields at appropriate agronomic rates, it will also act like field residue and reduce the risk of soil erosion occurring in that field.“

The following manure information details the beneficial uses and importance of manure and demonstrates the ways it can benefit the economy while also being managed in ways which protect the environment. It was created by several US commodity groups in partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Nutrients

Manure contains nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients that plants need to grow. Farmers can often save money by properly using manure as a fertiliser. Farmers can also sell manure or manure products to gardeners, landscapers, golf courses, and others who use nutrients to grow plants. Manure can be land-applied in its raw form, or after processing (for example, composting, pelleting, nutrient extraction).

Just like other fertiliser sources, as long as the manure is applied from the right source, at the right rate and time, using the right methods, and in the right place, manure nutrients can be recycled safely through agricultural systems. Land application of manure should be guided by a nutrient management plan (NMP) that outlines how to balance crop needs with manure nutrient concentrations. The NMP includes specifications for manure application based on soil and geographical conditions in order to avoid over-application, prevent runoff, and protect water quality.

Proper use of manure as a fertiliser minimises nutrient pollution to water resources and helps build healthy soils. Manure nutrients can also be used to grow worms, insect larvae, algae, or other living organisms. Through “biomass conversion,” these organisms transfer manure nutrients to their bodies or castings, which can then be harvested and used as fertiliser, animal feeds, or soil amendments.

Organic Matter

Adding manure to soils is an excellent way to increase soil organic matter. Soil organic matter contributes to overall soil health—the soil’s ability and sustainability to function as a living ecosystem. In addition to slowly releasing plant nutrients over time, organic matter improves soil structure and the soil’s ability to hold water.

Healthier soils improve crop yields and reduce soil loss from both wind and water erosion, and protect water quality by reducing contaminated runoff. Land managers can increase soil organic matter by applying raw manure or a manure product like compost, pellets, or biochar — a product of manure combustion. Manure should be utilised appropriately, as noted in the previous section.

Solids

Manure begins as mostly water. Different types of manure can contain from 8 to 26 per cent solids. By separating the liquid and solid portions of manure, the solids can be used for other purposes. Many dairy farms use separated manure solids for bedding. This can save farmers up to $50 per cow every year— savings that can add up for dairy farmers milking hundreds of cows!

Energy

Manure contains a lot of carbon and other elements that can be used to generate different types of biofuels. Anaerobic digestion is a technology that uses microbes to process manure into biogas. Biogas can be used to generate heat or electricity for use on the farm or sale to the local power grid.

Thermal processes can produce liquid bio-oil fuels, including biodiesel, and useful byproducts like biochar. Bio-oils can be used for heating or generating electricity. Biodiesel can be used just like petroleum diesel. Gasification can also be used to convert manure to syngas, a synthetic gas fuel that can power engines, turbines, and fuel cells. Using manure to generate biofuels reduces our reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels. In addition, farmers can save money when biofuels are used on the farm.

Fibre

Manure contains a great deal of fibre. Some of the fibre is from undigested animal feed and some is from straw, sawdust, or other bedding that gets mixed in with the manure. Manure fibre has been used to produce a number of speciality consumer products like plant growth medium (similar to peat moss), seed starter pots, fertiliser garden sculptures, paper, and building materials. Consumer products help turn manure from a potential environmental liability to a commodity.

The fact sheet detailing Beneficial Uses of Manure and Environmental Protection was a collaboration between the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, US Poultry & Egg Association, United Egg Producers, National Pork Producers Council and National Milk Producers Federation.

Source: The Dairy Site

I had an opportunity to meet with nearly 200 calf care persons last week (October 13-15, 2015) in Wisconsin.

One of the activities we did together was to check nursing nipple contamination levels. Many of the folks brought calf feeding equipment to the meetings. We  used a Hygiena luminometer to check for contamination levels.

We used the Hygiena SystemSure Plus unit to do adenosine triphosphate (ATP) monitoring. The ATP test is a process of rapidly measuring actively growing microorganisms through the detection of adenosine triphosphate. An ATP monitoring system can detect the amount of microbial contamination that remains after cleaning a surface (for example, calf feeding equipment).

Thresholds used in the food processing industry are less than10 RLU for direct food contact surfaces and less than 50 RLU for environmental surfaces. I have been using a reading of 100 RLU as realistic on-farm upper threshold for calf feeding equipment.

What was the range we found on nipples? They came from both nursing bottles and automatic feeders.

The lowest value was Zero! Yes, a few of them tested “0.” They were used nipples that had been scrubbed really really clean.

The highest value was slightly over 2,000. Other values were scatter between 2,000 and 0 with the majority of them between 100 and 500.

It was great to have these numbers – they sparked some great discussion about cleaning procedures. The most common barrier to adequate cleaning was the lack of a brush that would fit up into the nipple. Virtually all of the “clean” nipples were from folks that had such a brush.

So, I guess the moral of the story is that if you don’t have a brush that will fit  up into your nursing bottle nipples you need to buy one.

I’m off to another calf connection workshop tomorrow so will report on that one later this week.

Source: Calves with Sam

Three on-farm studies of more than 12,000 cows showed FACTREL® Injection (gonadorelin injection), when used with LUTALYSE® Injection (dinoprost injection), effectively helped synchronize estrous cycles and achieve equivalent conception risks as compared with other on-farm fixed-time artificial insemination (AI) protocols in lactating dairy cows.

One of those studies, the dairy industry’s largest fixed-time AI non-inferiority study to date involving 5,827 cows, showed FACTREL was not statistically different when used in fixed-time AI protocols as compared to competitive GnRH products containing gonadorelin diacetate tetrahydrate. The first-service conception risk in cows treated with FACTREL was noninferior to farm protocols using competitive GnRH products. In addition, there was no significant difference (P=0.65) in first-service conception risk between those treated with a 2-mL dose of FACTREL (37.6%) and those treated with farm protocols using competitive products (39%).1

In a second and independent study of 3,938 cows, the conception risk of animals treated with a 2-mL dose of FACTREL was not statistically different (P>0.10) to those treated with Cystorelin® (gonadorelin diacetate tetrahydrate) in a fixed-time AI program.2

A third and independent study of 2,620 cows from 40 Canadian herds, found no difference (P=0.84) in first-time conception risk between its two study groups. Furthermore, FACTREL was found to be noninferior to Fertiline® (gonadorelin acetate) in a fixed-time AI protocol.

“Using FACTREL and LUTALYSE in combination provides an effective, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved method of synchronizing estrus using a variety of fixed-time AI programs,” said Ken Learmont, DVM, senior veterinarian, Dairy Technical Services, Zoetis. “With more than 12,000 combined cows studied, producers can have the peace of mind that FACTREL is a safe and efficacious product when used according to its label.”

FACTREL now offered in a larger, more convenient vial size

Zoetis continues to focus on convenience for producers by now offering FACTREL in a 50-mL vial size. The larger bottle size delivers ease by allowing producers to treat up to 25 cows per bottle, which is more than most other GnRH products on the market.

For the convenience of producers, Zoetis is now offering FACTREL® Injection (gonadorelin injection) in a 50-mL vial size.

With approved use of Zoetis products for fixed-time AI, customers can use LUTALYSE and FACTREL in many of the synchronization protocols recommended by the Dairy Cattle Reproduction Council. The FDA approval of FACTREL and LUTALYSE includes a flexible schedule and the only flexible dose of a GnRH product, allowing producers to develop protocols that fit their dairy’s needs.

Ken Mitchell, DVM, of Valley Veterinarians based in Tulare, California, expressed confidence in FACTREL: “We were involved in a trial to test the efficacy of FACTREL used in a simple timed AI sequence. At the end of the trial, as a whole, our reproductive program on this dairy became noticeably more efficient during that period of time.”

Committed to reproductive success

Raising the bar in dairy reproduction requires a team effort. Zoetis understands the changing needs of today’s dairy industry and is committed to providing flexible, comprehensive on-label solutions that are consistent with management practices.

“This new offering is a continuation of Zoetis’ commitment to providing the industry with comprehensive reproductive management solutions,” Dr. Learmont said. “We’ll continue to invest in new, practical and on-label solutions and research that will help improve reproduction so veterinarians and producers can use them with confidence. This provides producers the peace of mind they are doing the right thing for their dairy.”

For more than 30 years, as the leader in dairy reproduction research, support and technical services, Zoetis has been delivering innovations to help producers and veterinarians improve reproductive programs.

To learn more about FACTREL and LUTALYSE as an on-label synchronization program, visit DairyReproSolutions.com or contact your veterinarian or Zoetis representative.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR FACTREL: FACTREL Injection is for use in cattle only. Please see full Prescribing Information.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR LUTALYSE: Women of childbearing age and persons with respiratory problems should exercise extreme caution when handling LUTALYSE. LUTALYSE is readily absorbed through the skin and may cause abortion and/or bronchiospasms, therefore spillage on the skin should be washed off immediately with soap and water. Aseptic technique should be used to reduce the possibility of post-injection clostridial infections. Do not administer LUTALYSE in pregnant cattle unless cessation of pregnancy is desired. See full Prescribing Information.

Traditional preweaning feeding programs have limit fed milk or milk replacer to encourage starter intake and early weaning as a means of reducing daily feed cost. More recently, research and experience by dairy producers has shown that the practice of feeding calves more milk or milk replacer before weaning has a positive impact on growth. However, given the current economic conditions, what are the benefits to offset these higher feed costs?

First, a higher liquid feeding rate during the first four weeks of life improves feed efficiency as a lower proportion of nutrients are devoted to body growth. This makes each pound of gain cost less. Second, many studies have shown that higher milk or milk replacer feeding rates are associated with higher milk production during the first lactation This is encouraging but when milk prices are low, we want to see positive economic returns sooner rather than later. A third advantage appears to be an improved immune response to feeding more milk or milk replacer during the preweaning period. This can result in lower treatment cost, less labor to treat sick calves, lower culling rates and possibly an additional milk response from healthier cows.

Workers at Texas Tech University compared the response of calves fed either a low plane of nutrition (1 lb. of milk solids) or a high plane of nutrition (1.8 lb. the first week and 2.4 lb. through 54 days of age) to a Bovine Herpesvirus and Mannheimia challenge at 81 and 84 days of age. (As a reference 1 lb. of milk solids equals about a gallon of milk and 2.4 lb. of milk solids is more than 2 gallons). All calves were weaned at 70 days of age. Calves fed the low plane of nutrition had lower blood glucose and mobilized more body fat during the challenge which indicated a more severe response to these respiratory challenges. In another study on a commercial calf ranch, sale barn calves in which more than 75% were colostrum deprived, were fed either 1 lb. of milk solids from a 20:20 milk replacer or 1.8 to 2.4 lb. of milk solids from a 28:20 milk replacer. Calves were weaned at 57 days. Although the calves fed more liberally had more bloat and looser manure there were no differences in health treatments. More liberally fed calves gained 1.2 lb. / day during the first 25 days vs. .2 lb. / day for the calves fed the 20:20 milk replacer. These advantages in body weight gain persisted throughout the study. The more liberally fed calves had higher feed efficiency (1.7 vs. 5.8 feed: gain ratio) for the first 25 days of life and over the term of the study (2.2 vs. 3.3 feed: gain). This later study demonstrated that higher feeding rates don’t predispose calves to more digestive disease.

More liberal feeding programs for calves based upon intakes of higher protein milk replacers or whole milk result in great body weight gains, improved feed efficiency, better health and improved first lactation milk yield when included in a well-designed feeding program for the postweaned dairy heifer.

Source: Virginia Cooperative Extension

Michigan State University Extension has recently revised its Agricultural Employer Checklist. Farms that hire labor should use this document as a general education tool on the employment process

Agricultural employers of labor in Michigan have a newly updated tool in the form of the Agricultural Employer Checklist, which was revised Oct. 1, 2015 and updated by Stan Moore, Adam Kantrovich, Corey Risch and John Jones of Michigan State University Extension. The checklist was developed in 2011 and revised to incorporate changes that are needed to reflect the hiring process for agricultural workers in Michigan. The document is available on the MSU Extension Farm Information Resource Management (FIRM) Labor and Human Resource Management website, or can be downloaded at: Agricultural Employer Checklist.

The checklist is put together in five sections that outlines the steps used when hiring labor. “Section 1: Employers Prepare to Hire Agricultural Employees” provides what steps should be taken by the employer in this phase of hiring. Section 2 outlines the processes the employer must do “After Hiring Agricultural Employees, Employers Must.” In Section 3, the checklist outlines what the “Employer Must Provide to the Employee,” and Section 4 gives the documents that an agricultural “Employer Must Complete Annually.”

Section 5 gives employers a list of all the “Other Potential Labor Regulations” that agricultural employers need to be aware of, including unemployment insurance, pesticide and worker protection rules, OSHA and MIOSHA regulations, the Affordable Care Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Finally, a list of references is placed in Section 6 along with links to useful publications that all employers should have on file.

According to Kantrovich, MSU Extension FIRM states that this is not a complete list, but one that contains many of the more common items to be aware of, and “always consult your legal and tax consultants about your specific situation.”

For additional information on labor and human resource management, see the MSU Extension Labor and Human Resource Management website or contact your local MSU Extension educator.

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

Just like that, summer has come to a close and fall is back on our door step. The end of summer marks the end of worrying about high somatic cell counts, right? Wrong! I’m sure you all know by now that it takes year-round effort to keep your cell count low and your cows mastitis free. When it comes to milk quality and mastitis, we usually spend a lot of time talking about keeping the cow’s environment clean, treatment of mastitis, and common mastitis pathogens. Those are all very important, but don’t forget about another piece of the milk quality puzzle-milking time. Whether you milk in tie stalls or a parlor, the principles are the same, and they are all about the timing. Keep these “times” in mind for the milking time on your farm.

10-20 seconds

This is the amount of stimulation time the teat skin surface requires for optimal milk letdown. This can include wiping the teats and cleaning them of any dirt and manure. However, the most powerful milk letdown stimulus is fore stripping each teat. This also allows you to check for any visual symptoms of mastitis (such as milk with flakes, clots, or an off color). If a cow has not letdown her milk, the extra machine pulsation can lead to damaged teats and teat ends. This negatively effects udder health and can lead to a higher incidence of mastitis.

30 seconds

This is the ideal amount of contact time. Contact time is the time required for teat dip to kill bacteria on the teat surfaces. Dirt, manure, and bedding should be cleaned off of each teat before dipping to ensure full skin contact. The key to effective use of teat dipping for mastitis control is consistent and complete teat coverage at every milking. When hastily preparing cows for milking, it can be easy to miss a teat or have incomplete coverage.

An easy way to test yourself (or your employees) is by using the White Towel Test. It’s a great option because it offers immediate feedback and can be used for pre- and/or post-dipping. To do the test, wrap a clean paper towel around the base of the teat immediately after it has been dipped. Be sure to blot the dip from the entire teat. Unwrap the towel and open it to display the teat dip pattern. A completely (and correctly) dipped teat will give a full, singular blot on the paper towel. A broken or uneven blot is representative of an improperly dipped teat.

60-120 seconds

One to two minutes represents the goal time frame for prep lag time. This is the time from the initial contact with the teat surfaces until the milking machine is applied. The prep-lag time for cows being milked 2 times per day should be shorter than cows being milked 3 times per day. In a typical parlor setting, prepping four cows at a time will accomplish proper prep lag time for each cow, given there is consistency in stimulation and contact time. For stall barn application, the use of an end-of-milking indicator is helpful in organizing the milking routine.

30 minutes

This may be one of the most important times to remember. After milking, the teat sphincter takes 30 minutes to close. It also takes 30 minutes for the post-dip to dry. If a cow lies down while the sphincter is still relaxed or before the teat dip has dried, it can lead to bacteria entering the teat and potential infection. Is it estimated that 50% of new contagious mastitis infections can be prevented by complete and consistent post-milking teat dipping and allowing the dip to dry. A good way to keep cows standing for at least 30 minutes after milking is to provide fresh feed (or push feed up) so the cows are motivated to stand and eat after milking.

The ideal pre- and post- milking procedure should be standardized to maintain consistency between all milkers. It should also focus attention on the teat surfaces, include an effective teat dip, and remove all dirt and manure from the teat surface including the teat ends. Most importantly, it should include the times:

• 10-20 seconds of stimulation for milk letdown
• 30 seconds of contact time with teat pre-dip
• 60-120 seconds of prep-lag time
• 30 minutes of keeping cows standing after milking

For additional resources related to milk quality and mastitis management, visit University of Minnesota’sQuality Count$.

Source: University of Minnesota Extension

It’s a big step toward limiting antibiotic use in livestock—and the meat industry didn’t even fight back.

California just passed a bill to sharply limit the use of antibiotics in farm animals, making it the first state to ban the routine use of the drugs in animal agriculture.

The law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday bans medically important antibiotics to promote growth in cows, chickens, pigs, and other animals raised for profit. Meat producers will only be able to administer the drugs with the approval of a veterinarian when animals are sick, or to prevent infections when there’s an “elevated risk.” They can’t use the drugs “in a regular pattern.” The policy is more restrictive than the FDA’s national guidelines, which don’t restrict use for disease prevention.

Overuse of antibiotics, both in medicine and in animal agriculture, contributes to the rise of drug-resistant superbugs that kill 23,000 Americans each year and sicken 2 million. Brown vetoed a weaker bill last year. The new law is a win for consumer and environmental advocates who have sought tougher rules for years.

The state’s meat and poultry associations stayed neutral on the bill. No one was squawking about heavy-handed regulation or government interference. Just seven lawmakers voted against it.

“I think the bill is basically doing something that we in California have been doing all along, which is phasing out antibiotic use,” said Bill Mattos, president of the California Poultry Federation, which represents large poultry farmers. “It’s something that the industry is living with. We’re happy to get this bill the way it is, and I think we’re going to see more of this.”

Not long ago, changing the practices of the livestock industry looked like a long-shot battle for consumer advocates. In 2010, national meat industry groups briefing Washington lawmakers doubted the science connecting antibiotics on the farm to resistant superbugs, and defended antibiotics to “improve the efficiency of beef production.”

But consumer demand is driving more companies to kick the antibiotic habit. In MarchMcDonald’s announced plans to stop selling chicken raised with antibiotics. One of its suppliers, Tyson Foods, made a similar commitment the next month. Foster Farms andPerdue are cutting back too. Wal-Mart is asking suppliers to do the same.

“I think we’re seeing the marketplace change, and this legislation will continue to push it in that direction,” said Jason Pfeifle, public health advocate at the California Public Interest Research Group, a consumer group that supports the new law.

Small cattle ranchers in rural areas may have a harder time getting medicine approved by a veterinarian, said Justin Oldfield, vice president of government relations at the California Cattlemen’s Association. But he rejected the notion that the bill would force producers to change their practices much, suggesting advocates exaggerated how often the drugs were used. “We’re not routinely feeding animals [antibiotics] all the time for disease prevention,” he said. “We care about antibiotic resistance, just like everybody else does.”

Source: Bloomberg

Recent growing seasons have created needs for additional forage and feed stock in the United States. In addition, since 2007, significant acres have been diverted from forage production to grain production. Crop residues have bridged the gap in many situations as livestock producers are “learning on the fly” how to harvest, store, and feed crop residues.

The key emphasis has been targeting corn stover in the mid-west. As crop yields grow, so does the available stover fraction. In many cases, harvesting a percentage (30-50 percent) can increase productivity in the cropping system. For this reason alone, it can be beneficial to livestock and crop producers to work on agreements for corn stover harvest in the rotation.

The key challenge with fall harvest is the stover moisture content. Dry stover is generally only harvested in the upper-mid west from Oct. 1- Dec. 1 and the harvest window may close quickly. Dry stover can be harvested with good quality product up to 25 percent moisture. Above those levels, we begin to see spoilage and fermentation of the stover depending on the climate conditions and storage method.

Harvesting wet corn stover is an excellent option to increase feed quality and palatability but does come with additional cost. Moisture levels can be 30-50 percent and bales should be tightly wrapped in plastic to allow for fermentation to occur over four to eight weeks. Fermentation will be slowed as ambient temperatures decline into the fall. Wrapping systems generally cost $8-10 per wet ton depending on bale size, transportation distance, number of bales, etc.

If the stover biomass is harvested and aggregated as feedstock for a cellulosic ethanol or biomass refinery operation, ash and dirt inclusion rate is important. Any biomass refinery technology would prefer the lowest possible levels of dirt in the incoming feedstock. Traditional methods of raking and mowing typically generate more than 10 percent ash content in the baled feedstock. New chopping and windrowing equipment designed for industrial scale harvesting, baling, and collection can achieve dirt and ash inclusion rates as low as 7 percent, with much of that being structural ash, part of the plant biomass. Some biomass refinery technologies capture the plant nutrients, such as potassium and phosphorus, which can be returned to the soil as a nutrient supplement. Here is document from Iowa State University addressing the ash content of harvested corn stover.

Recent work with the New Holland “Corn Rower Head” has increased options for harvesting and storing corn stover. ThisYouTube video helps show how this new equipment harvests grain and windrows the stover all in one pass at the 2015 Michigan State University harvest trial. Stover can then be baled without raking, which helps reduce ash levels in the stover.

If you are considering corn stover to harvest to fill a gap in your feeding system or biomass harvest for ethanol production, be sure your equipment is ready for the field ahead of time so you can hit a fairly narrow harvest window. Remember, you should only plan to remove 30-50 percent of the corn stover from the field. Some residue needs to be left for wind/water erosion protection and to build or maintain soil organic matter levels. For more information on harvest and feeding of corn stover, feel free to contact Michigan State University Extension educators Kevin Gould at gouldk@msu.edu or Dennis Pennington atpennin34@anr.msu.edu or Leifmark, Paul Kamp regarding biomass harvest at pkamp@leifmark.com.

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

DairyNZ are collaborating with breeding companies in New Zealand to develop a breeding value that measures how efficient a cow is at using feed for body maintenance or milk solids production (feed conversion efficiency). If successful, the resulting residual feed intake (RFI) breeding value will allow breeders to more accurately select the most genetically elite animals that maximise farm profit by keeping feed costs down.

A breeding value, known as residual feed intake (RFI), will measure feed needed for producing milk solids and body maintenance, with selection processes then accounting for this. Presently, efficiency can be driven by selecting for cows that combine higher milksolids per kg o liveweight, longer lives and earlier calving, according industry levy board DairyNZ and the Livestock Improvement Corporation. “By contrast, RFI – which is the difference between predicted feed intake and actual feed intake on a daily basis, is about an animal generating the maximum performance out of a unit of feed consumed,” said a DiaryNZ spokesperson. If a cow consumes 1kg DM (dry matter) less per day for the same level of milksolids production, this saves farmers $85 per year in feed costs for a single cow. Investigations have shown there is economic justification for pursuing RFI as a new trait for BW, according to New Zealand Animal Evaluation Limited (NZAEL) manager, Dr Jeremy Bryant. However, he added: “There are still some unanswered questions before we can make definitive conclusions and include RFI in BW.” – See more at: http://www.thedairysite.com/news/48686/selecting-for-feed-efficiency-coming-soon-for-new-zealand/#sthash.zikPvfpu.dpuf

Robotic milking has helped free up time for other duties around and off the farm for a South Dakota dairyman.

In the old days, Stuart Plucker never had a whole lot of time in the evenings to spend with his young children.

A dairy farmer doesn’t get that luxury. He’s a slave to the milking — four hours in the morning, another three to four hours at night, every single day.

And so it was for Plucker until he purchased his robotic milking system five years ago this October. Or in the language of the automation revolution, back in the old days.

“It’s made my life simpler,” the 34-year-old farmer said from his farm home five miles west of Tea. “It’s freed up my nights, that’s for sure. I have a young family, and I get to see them now.”

In a world where robotics and artificial intelligence are predicted to dramatically impact workforce needs in the future, agriculture has already been down that road.

At the dawn of the 1800s, almost 90 percent of Americans worked the land in one way or another. Today the country’s farm population is between 1 and 2 percent. That trend remains clear in South Dakota. Since 1980, the state’s rural population has grown by 2,500 residents, according to Census figures, while the urban population is up 160,000 in that same period.

Former state Agriculture Secretary Walt Bones says his father once employed 45 people full and part time on their operation northeast of Parker. “Now we’re farming more acres and have more cattle, and we’re doing it with eight people,” Bones told the Argus Leader. “It’s bigger tractors. It’s auto-steering and GPS mapping. We have all these sensors now on the combines and tractors.”

It was industrialization that moved farming from the horse and plow to gasoline-powered tractors and combines, enabling sodbusters to turn more soil with less effort. Eventually it enabled operations to get bigger. As they did, small farms disappeared, and the number of people working the land declined.

The technology revolution that has made Plucker’s life simpler means less labor to help milk his cows as well. In the larger scheme, it means production agriculture has been able to move out of chemistry into biology — relying less on herbicides and pesticides to protect plants because genetic engineering has built that resistance right into the makeup of the seeds.

Producing, of course, less work for the crop sprayers.

Fewer jobs in the countryside sent farm laborers into South Dakota manufacturing plants. At the same time, farm families were having fewer children. That’s less hands to help with the farm chores. And if they don’t stay on the land once they reach adulthood, that ultimately translates into a smaller workforce for the manufacturing sector, too.

“There has been a constant migration to the city,” Bones said. “People can earn more while working less hours. And here’s how it plays out for farmers. As long as all the kids are home and helping milk cows, you’re in great shape. Once they go off to college or get other jobs, then you sell your cows.”

That said, Lucas Lentsch, South Dakota’s current agriculture secretary, reminds us that seed still needs to be put in the ground. Crops still need to be harvested. Someone still has to unplug machinery when it gets clogged.

That requires some farm labor, Lentsch said. But beyond that, he believes much of that labor lost on the farms has simply shifted to value-added agriculture industries in town or in urban centers. Again, maybe they’re helping to manufacture or fabricate farm buildings, he said. Perhaps they have gone off to college to develop computer science and agronomy backgrounds.

“I think agriculture labor has many different forms,” he said. “Intellectual labor continues to evolve with, say, marketing techniques. You need intellectual labor to test equipment. And as you see what has evolved in genetics, as you see what has evolved in best practices and equipment availability, there’s been a realignment of positions. It’s turned direct labor on the farm into manager roles.”

That said, there will always be a need for manual labor in agriculture, he said, whether it’s building fence or opening gates or keeping track of how the animals are faring under the influence of technology.

Perhaps that’s true, said Martin Ford, a Silicon Valley software developer whose book, “Rise Of The Robots,” is a treatise on technology and how its evolution threatens to create what he calls “a jobless future.” He still believes the ongoing evolution of automation and artificial intelligence will impact South Dakota agriculture even more than it has.

“I’m sure you have cattle or hogs that require manpower in your slaughter houses,” Ford said. “But you’ll see robots slaughtering animals in the future. That will certainly happen. And again, that will definitely impact agriculture jobs there.”

Whether that impact continues to be a net declining of farm-related jobs, or simply a shifting of labor needs, remains to be seen.

All Stuart Plucker knows is that his robotic milking system means he now has more time to work in the field of cattle breeding. It also means he has more time for his family.

“I’ve got a lot more freedom,” he said. At least more than he did in the old days.

Five years ago.

Source: Argus Leader

In the USA it will be unable to market milk after December 31, 2015 without a signature from each farm committing to producing “rbST-free milk”. In the dairy industry a ban on using BST always gives rise to a discussion that there are no negative effects of BST, it is a hormone that every cow makes herself in her body, and it is safe for consumption, so why should it not be allowed? As an example of this, read the opening of August 2015’s edition of the -excellent as always- W.H. Miner Institute’s Farm Report.

The crucial point is not the scientific evidence about the fact that BST-use is safe for both humans consuming milk, milk products and meat, and for the cows. Although the swellings on the injection site of BST suggests painful tissue reactions.

The crucial point is respect for the cow. Each cow is an animal that has the right to be a cow, to behave as a cow and to live a positive life.

“The public” does not regard cows as machines and does not respect people who do so. Machines can be manipulated in any way, have no perceptions, no stress and no pain sensitisation. Machines you can inject with hormones regardlessly, to increase and manipulate outcomes.

As mr. Frits van der Schans of the Dutch Centre of Agriculture and Environment has put it in an interview in the dairy farmers magazine Veeteelt: “A cow is not a thing.” He also said: “What would otherwise be the added value of cows milk compared to soya-milk?” (quotes translated by Vetvice).

For the good reader: the same is the case with routine use of synchronized breeding practices, like OvSync. The public, the society does not want this!!!

When the society looses respect for dairy farming, it will not want to pay for dairy products. Good milk prices are founded on respect from society for both dairy farmers as for dairy products.

The dairy industry has a good future as long as it gives cows, consumers and environment the respect they deserve.

Vetvice and the CowSignals say: “Happy cows, happy farmers” and “Happy cows, happy consumers, happy planet”.

Source: CowSignals

The stomach worm (Ostertagia ostertagi) is the most commonly identified worm in dairy cows.

However, although over 90 per cent of animals can be infected, they rarely show overt clinical signs. This means that despite the reduction in appetite, fertility and herd productivity associated with these worms, they are often not perceived as a high profile herd health issue.

Worming: The Good Times

Dr Philippe Camuset has over 30 years’ experience as a cattle veterinarian in a mixed practice in Normandy, France; during that time he has become an expert in parasitology.

His experience has led him to develop a very pro-active approach to worming among his dairy clients, based on data from individual farms. For more than 10 years he has been conducting audits among his dairy clients and using the results to open an active dialogue with farmers and to develop a dynamic, structured approach to worming together.

“Farmers think that de-worming cattle is very easy to do and is effective at any time,” he explains. “I have to convince them that there is a best time to dose their animals.

“Many vets are afraid of the management of parasites, but this approach makes the discussion very comfortable for the vet with little danger of failure, as they are using data.”

He shows his farmers data from an audit of their own herd in the form of tables and uses these as the basis for a discussion of the potential impact and the most appropriate form of action throughout the year.

“This convinces them of the need to de-worm and they follow my advice on when and how to do it.”

The detailed schedule varies from herd to herd depending on its individual needs. The following table is an example of a summary developed for one of his clients based on the current assessment of his herd:

He often suggests that calves are wormed just before turn out, and that heifers and high yield animals are wormed at calving in order to reduce the impact of infestation during lactation. This approach has allowed anthelmintics to be used in a more preventative way and has produced benefits for his dairy clients:

“Cows are getting pregnant earlier and they look better, and both dictyocaulosis (lungworm) and ODR (Optical Density Ratio – for Ostertagia ostertagi antibodies) have decreased,” he says.

For the last seven years Dr Camuset has been President of the parasitology group of the SNGTV (the national technical organisation for veterinarians in France). He is a firm believer in the benefits of a structured worming programme that enables the effective use of anthelmintics, but without using these treatments any more than is necessary.

He has found that generating data from the individual herd and discussing this with his clients is the best way to motivate farmers to follow a structured and sustainable de-worming programme:

“The two sets of data to discuss with farmers are the level of clinical episodes relating to parasites, and a systematic laboratory assessment of the type and level of parasites,” he says.

“I think it is also worth convincing farmers that a series of tests, such as microscopy, serology, ODR, pepsinogen and coproscopy, are worth doing because they provide a picture of which parasites are present in the herd and at what levels. You can then speak to the farmer about the potential impact on health and production, and this will motivate them to follow a recommended programme.

According to Dr Camuset, duration of action and withdrawal times are key factors when deciding which anthelmintic to use at a given time:

“One of the times I suggest for routine de-worming is at the end of the dry period just before calving. At this time I suggest moxidectin because it lasts a bit longer, so the benefits are greater,” he says.

Published studies have confirmed that treating animals with a pour-on wormer in the late dry period before the start of lactation can increase milk yield from between 0.54kg and 1.24kg per day [Yazwinski et al 1999, Rock & Clymer 2002, Murphy 1998]. That is equivalent to 183 litres per cow based on a 305-day lactation.

“If worming is done during lactation as a strategic approach according to epidemiology, then I would suggest a product that has a zero milk withdrawal period, so there is no loss of production,” Dr Camuset concludes.

– See more at: http://www.thedairysite.com/articles/4272/controlling-worms-to-improve-milk-yield/#sthash.l337FgHb.dpuf

Source – The Dairy Site

Yes, it may be considered adding insult to injury, but even that very mature, poor quality, lowly digestible, late made first cutting hay that was harvested this year took with it lots of soil nutrients. Fact is, each ton of hay that’s harvested and removed from a field in the harvest process takes with it roughly 13 pounds of P2O5 (phosphorus) and 50 pounds of K2O (potash). That’s regardless the calendar date or quality of the material that’s harvested.

To maintain productivity and plant health, fertility that’s removed needs to be replaced. Since P and K move slowly through the soil profile – perhaps only an inch or two a year – it’s probably best that what’s removed is replaced annually. And, since nearly all the phosphorus sources we presently have available include some nitrogen, those replacing fertility this fall will enjoy the benefit for grass based hay fields from the nitrogen that comes along with the P. That makes the next month or so a great time to replace the fertility that was removed this year.

The basics of fertilizing permanent hay fields are simple:

a) Soil Test, always soil test! Fertilizer is too expensive to apply if it’s not a yield limiting factor. If we don’t know what we presently have, we can’t possibly know what we might need! Contact your local OSU Extension office or fertilizer dealer for help finding a soil testing lab.

b) Read the soil test carefully or get help reading it. I’d discourage anyone from blindly accepting the fertilizer recommendations that sometimes are returned along with a soil test report. In some cases I’m not even certain I believe their little graphs that are sometimes found on the soil test results which indicate a sample might be high, medium or low in a certain nutrient. What I was told by one of Ohio’s labs when I asked how their recommendations are generated is that after they establish the nutrient levels in the soil through their laboratory procedures, the recommendations are typically generated based on the opinions of the company who might have submitted the sample for the land owner. This means, unless you send in the sample yourself, you may get back a recommendation based on data other than what Ohio State’s (or other midwest universities’) research might suggest is appropriate as published in OSU Extension Bulletin E-2567, Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations. Ask your local Agriculture Educator for help in developing a recommendation if you have questions.

c) If one insists on fertilizing without the benefit of knowing the present fertility levels of the hay field, or if you know your present fertility levels meet or slightly exceed critical minimum levels, then it’s prudent to base your fertilizer application rates on actual or expected crop removal. As was mentioned earlier, each ton of hay removed takes with it 13 pounds of P2O5 and 50 pounds of K2O. No matter how you slice it, that’s a ratio of roughly 1 to 4, phosphorus to potash. Without benefit of a soil test to tell us otherwise, fertility needs to be replaced in that ratio when harvesting hay.

To put that into a little different perspective, consider that the average hay yield in Ohio is, and has been for decades a little less than 3 tons per acre per year. At a 1 to 4 ratio, that’s about 13 and 50 pounds respectively multiplied times the 3 tons of crop removal, or 39 pounds of P2O5 and 150 pounds of K2O per acre. As an FYI, since corn grain only removes about 0.27 pounds of K2O per bushel, it would take a yield of over 555 bushels of corn to remove the same amount of potash that an average Ohio hay yield removes annually!

To recap . . . you can’t starve a profit into any crop, sometime before winter dormancy is an excellent time to apply fertilizer to a hay field, and one ton of hay removes P and K in a ratio of roughly 1 to 4, or 13 pounds P2O5 and 50 pounds of K2O. To maintain fertility, health and the productivity of your forages, P and K must be replaced with either fertilizer or manure nutrients . . . 1 to 4, 13 and 50, per ton of hay removed!

Source: Ohio State University Extension