North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service
Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2002
Editorial
Bio Security
Health
Reproduction
Research
Dates To Remember
Any time congressional support is offered to the ag community it's maligned and singled out. In a country that has many support programs, it's fair to scrutinize support programs like the farm bill, as long as all the cards are on the table. But then there wouldn't be much news.
With President Bush signing the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill), U.S. farmers have a new farm bill, which provides support for dairy farmers not seen in the recent past, including:
Extending the price support program at the current $9.90/cwt/level (through a period of six years); authorizing a new national Johne's disease control program; require dairy importers to pay their fair share into the National Dairy Board for promotion and research projects (which is .15 cent/cwt milk equivalent); extending the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) and increasing Market Access Program (MAP) funds (both issues important to commodity groups); as well as an increase in the available funding for dairy and other livestock producers through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
The other portion of the bill is the direct payments which will be made using the target price of $16.94/cwt and will pay 45% of the difference between the $16.94 and the Boston Class I price. Payments will be capped with 2.4 million lbs. of milk production per year. This is based on 133 head milking 18,000 lbs. a year. Any production above this won't receive payments.
Dairy producers will need to sign up for this program at their county FSA office. However, sign-up dates and other details are not available yet. While it is anticipated the sign-up period will be later this summer, payments will be retroactive to Dec., 2001. The Class I fluid milk price in Boston has been below $16.94 the entire December 2001 to May 2002 period, therefore triggering a payment for all six months. For planning purposes the following table provides an estimate of the price level and dairy market loss payment by month.
-------------------------------------- Month Boston Price Payment -------------------------------------- - - - - - per cwt - - - - - December $15.23 $0.77 January $15.21 $0.78 February $15.20 $0.78 March $14.87 $0.93 April $14.72 $1.00 May $14.51 $1.09 -------------------------------------- Not official USDA estimates
Producers, on an operation by operation basis, may receive payments on no more than 2.4
million pounds of milk marketed per year. There is also a limit of $20,000 per producer
per year.
The Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program will be of more benefit to the smaller sized dairy farms of the Midwest and Northeast regions of the country. Most dairy farms in these producing regions are small enough that their entire production will be supported under this program. In contrast, most of the dairy operations in the West and Southwest far exceed the maximum production level eligible for these support payments and will receive the payments on only a portion of their production.
There are important questions yet to be answered, such as who qualifies as a person for payment purposes. Many dairy operations are multiple family operations and will likely have more than one family member qualify as eligible producers.
Another yet to be determined point is how total pounds eligible for payment will be counted. Milk prices normally exhibit a seasonal price pattern, as do most agricultural commodities. Therefore it is expected that the Class I Boston price may be high enough to not result in a payment for some months. With an annual limit on pounds of milk eligible for payment, does this also imply a monthly limit? If it does, the approximate 130-cow herd size will be the upper limit. If the limit is simply an annual limit, then a producer selling 2.4 million pounds per month would earn the maximum payment in one month. The question for larger producers would be one of, do you use up all of your limit as soon as a payment is triggered or spread it out over more months?
As with the entire farm bill, USDA will answer these and many other questions when they write the regulations to implement the interest of Congress. That must be completed before producers can sign up for this as well as other components of this farm program.
J.W. Schroeder
Extension Dairy Specialist
Police in upstate New York have been investigating a rash of product tamperings on dairy farms, as one or more persons has been sneaking onto dairy farms and apparently putting antibiotics into milk bulk tanks and injecting cows with the drugs.
The tampering has ruined about 44,000 gallons of milk worth about $49,000 to farmers, according to New York state police. There are no suspects in the 14 cases under investigation since last fall. Authorities said none of the tainted milk made it to store shelves because milk is tested for antibiotics before being unloaded from the trucks that take it to processing plants.
First released last year in response to the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in Great Britain, National Milk Producers Federation Top Ten biosecurity tips provide some guidance on how to maintain a healthy, secure dairy herd:
The most critical period for dairy cattle from a health and economic perspective is 3 weeks prior to calving through 3 weeks after calving (transition period). Treatment of metabolic disorders is costly, and improper management of the transition cow will reduce future reproductive performance and decrease optimal milk yield. Furthermore, antibiotic treatment of metabolic disorders increases the amount of milk that cannot be sold for human consumption.
Recently, an experiment was conducted by New Mexico State University researchers at a commercial dairy to investigate treatment methods for transition cows. Objectives were 1) to monitor body temperature of first-calf heifers and mature cows to determine subclinical (visually undetectable) illness, 2) prevent the progression of metabolic illness using non-antibiotic and antibiotic medications, and 3) determine efficacy of treatments of cows with increased body temperatures and metabolic disorders.
Body temperatures (using a digital rectal thermometer) were monitored every morning (7:30 a.m.) on 45 first-calf heifers and 96 mature cows for seven days after calving during October and November. Medication was administered if body temperature was greater than 102.5° F for first-calf heifers and greater than 103° F for mature cows. Normal body temperature in cattle is 101.5° F.
All cows with increased body temperatures were orally administered four aspirin boluses to reduce fever, and one probiotic capsule to supplement beneficial microbial and nutritional components to the rumen. This treatment regime was continued in cattle with increased body temperatures for two consecutive days. If the cattle continued to display an increased body temperature on Day 3, a broad-spectrum antibiotic (NaxcelTM ) with zero-day withdrawal time was given to cattle (figure).
Seventy-six percent of first-calf heifers and 29% of mature cows had fever at some time
during the first 7 days after calving, demonstrating the importance of monitoring
first-calf heifers daily. Day 4 after calving for first-calf heifers and Day 2 after
calving the mature cows was the most prevalent day for increased temperatures. The
aspirin/probiotic treatment did not prevent the recurrence of increased temperatures in
first-calf heifers during the first 7 days after calving. However, administration of
aspirin/probiotic treatments did prevent the recurrence of increased temperatures in
mature cows. First-calf heifers are probably more stressed at calving and were less
responsive to a non-antibiotic (aspirin/probiotic) treatment regime. All cattle with
metabolic disorders had increased body temperatures for at least two days.
Day-to-day visual observations of dairy cattle after calving along with monitoring body temperature are beneficial management tools for dairy producers to identify problematic cows with special emphasis on first-calf heifers. Solely monitoring temperatures of cows after calving should not replace daily observations of "whole cow" health. Observing all aspects of the cow including dry matter intake, cud chewing, milk yield, manure characteristics and overall health/appearance is necessary for a successful transition period.
A.C. Fitzgerald and M.L. Looper, New Mexico State University
Select top ranked bulls based on high Net Merit Dollars (NM$) values. A producer should be cautious in using bulls with reliability (REL) less than 80 percent since the NM$ values are not as accurate. Sires should be selected from the top 30 percent of the current sire list. This would include bulls over 400 NM$ values.
Use proper AI techniques and develop a sound heat detection program. Keep only a six month inventory of semen in your tank. Update sire selections with each new summary. Semen inventory can be easily maintained on the PC-DART program.
Select bulls of high fertility to use on repeat services. Estimated relative conception rate (ERCR) information is available through Dairy Records Management systems on bulls with more than 300 services.
Mating programs work best if good bulls are used, not necessarily because of a specific mating. Also, the more traits selected, the more the overall effect will be diluted. Use production traits of high heritability in making your decision. Production traits should receive at least 75 percent of the effort in sire selection. The physical trait that appears to have the greatest heritability is stature. The udder trait with the greatest heritability is udder depth. Producers also need to use a sire summary to select sires that provide the best choice economically. Finally, calving difficulty information should always be used when making breeding decisions for heifers.
Don't forget the cow! A cow must have a healthy reproductive tract and be cycling every 21 days in a successful AI program. Producers should watch for heats regularly and use estrus and ovulation synchronization schemes to get animals bred sooner. Begin breeding animals 50 days after calving and watch semen handling and placement in the cow. Breed animals according to the AM-PM rule in most cases.
Source: W.M. Graves, Ext. Dairy Scientist, Georgia DairyFax
In today's component pricing schemes for milk and with growing concerns about inbreeding, in dairy breeds worldwide, many are asking the following questions about dairy crossbreeding.
Q. Will I get more milk?
A. This depends on your viewpoint. If you own Jersey cows and breed them to Holstein service sires, then on average, the crossbred daughters are expected to produce more milk than their Jersey dams. If you own Holstein cows and breed them to Jersey service sires, then it is expected that the crossbred progeny will produce less milk than their Holstein dams. More generally, milk yield of crossbreds is expected to be slightly higher than the average of the parents. So, for our example using Holsteins (genetic potential for milk of 21,000 lbs.) and Jerseys (genetic potential for milk of 16,000 lbs.), average milk yield of crossbred progeny should be in the range of 18,800 to 19,900 lbs.—more than the Jersey parents, less than the Holstein parents, and slightly more milk than the average of the two parents.
Q. Will I get higher components from crossbreds?
A. Using our same example of a Holstein-Jersey cross (625 lbs. of protein for the Holstein and 545 lbs. for the Jersey), you might expect first generation crossbred daughters to produce between 610 and 625 lbs. of protein. For Holstein-Brown Swiss crosses (584 lbs. of protein for the Brown Swiss), average crossbred daughters are expected to produce roughly 625 to 634 lbs. of protein.
Q. What other differences may I expect to see?
A. Typically, crossbreds will have somewhat to notably better reproduction, survival, and livability than the average of their parents. These advantages may be very important in some instances, but of course, good management is necessary to realize these benefits from crossbreeding. Crossing will not "correct" problems that are due to lapses in management.
Q. Will crossbreeding benefit every dairy producer?
A. Probably not at this time. The biggest economic benefits won't come from a single factor — like milk production, calfhood survival, or even from reproduction. Instead, those who may benefit most from crossbreeding will be those who are able to capture smaller gains for a wide number of these factors.
Q. If I am convinced that I need to use crossbreeding, what things should I consider about making the right kinds of crosses?
A. We get the most gains from crossbreeding when we:
- cross the "right" breeds,
- choose the right cows and service sires from these breeds,
- follow a STRUCTURED plan for crossing.
Q. So, what are the "right" breeds?
A. Consider what factors are most important to dairy income, as this list will help to sort out breed selection. Traits such as milk yield and protein yield should continue to be high on all dairy lists. Other factors like reproduction and livability are important, and will get a bigger "boost" from crossing than will the yield traits. Also, consider that to be successful, crossing programs must be long-term commitments, and so, you must select breeds that themselves are viable for the long-term. This means that the selected breeds need to have a wide enough genetic base to continue well into the future to make genetic progress within the breed. Breeds that have good long-term prospects and strong research results on crossbred progeny to back them up include: Brown Swiss, Holstein, and Jersey. Breeds that have a very narrow genetic base (small worldwide populations) are not good long-term choices.
Q. Does it matter which breeds I use for my dairy?
A. When selecting breeds for individual farms, it is critical to consider the farm's constraints, because this helps to define the factors to optimize. For herds that are constrained by feed resources—typically forages and most often grazing herds—it is most important to optimize the amount of total milk sold per acre. For these herds, it is likely that a smaller body size cow is most appropriate as this allows maximum stocking rates per acre. For this situation (constraint), a Holstein-Jersey two breed cross is expected to be best suited.
For herds that have buildings to pay for freestalls, etc.—it is most important to optimize total milk sold per STALL. For herds with this latter constraint, the most appropriate cross is likely to be Holstein-Brown Swiss, because the Swiss-Holstein cross will produce more total yield than will other crosses. Further, most stalls are built for large breed cows, and smaller courses such as Holstein-Jerseys can have problems in large stalls.
Q. After choosing the "right" breeds, how important is selection of individual serve sires?
A. Selection of high genetic merit service sires is as important for good crossbred performance as it is for good performance of straightbreds. Crossbreeding cannot correct problems due to low genetic merit.
Q. After the first cross, to what do I breed first cross heifers?
A. If you are electing to use a 2-breed rotational cross, the data seems to suggest that you come back with a Holstein service sire on first generation cross heifers and cows. For the next generation, you would continue to rotate/alternate service sire breeds always using the breed that is least related to individual heifers and cows.
If you are electing to use a 3-breed rotational cross, first cross heifers and cows would be bred to bulls of the third selected bred, and subsequent generations would be bred to the breed (of the 3 selected) that is least represented in their genetic makeup. So, if a cow is 5/8 Holstein, 1/4 Jersey, and 1/8 Brown Swiss, she should be bred to a service sire that is Brown Swiss.
Q. Does it matter if I start with Holstein or Protein breed cows?
A. One of the key studies on dairy crossbreeding seemed to indicate that there was an advantage to breed Holstein cows to protein breed service sires. However, two studies completed since that time have reported the opposite result. Because of the discrepancies in results, it is most reasonable to say that at this time, we don't fully know.
Q. Do I gain more if I use a 3- or 4-bred rotation?
A. From a theoretical perspective, more complex crosses can have merit. However, from a management perspective, three- and four-breed crosses can pose significant management problems. In these more complex crossing schemes, a portion of cows will be more than 1/2 Holstein. Some that are over 1/2 Brown Swiss, and others that are more than 1/2 Jersey. This makes it much more difficult to adequately group cows based on nutritional and management needs.
Q. Do I need to worry about inbreeding if I am crossing?
A. No. Crossbreeding will break the inbreeding cycle, unless you are using breeds such as the Norwegian Red that are related to a number of U.S. breeds.
Q. Can I still use DHIA if I crossbreed?
A. YES! In fact, USDA-AIPL is working to incorporate more information about dairy crossbreds into our National Dairy Genetic Database.
Many producers who have used crossbreeding have been very happy with the results. Others have found it too difficult to manage. Crossbreeding is not for everyone, but could be right for your dairy IF you are trying to capitalize on breaking cycles of inbreeding and capturing small benefits from numerous lifetime and yield traits.
Marjorie A. Faust, ISU Ext. Dairy specialist
I've been working on a heifer development idea for a couple of years, but limitations with sexed semen have slowed progress, until $2000 replacement heifers appeared this past winter. Although those prices will no doubt soften, it may be some time before the industry sees the inexpensive heifers it had become accustomed to. Moreover, issues of biosecurity and source verification offer heifer raisers an opportunity to provide a much needed commodity to U.S. dairy markets. However, you have to find the heifers first. That's why I've proposed to use North Dakota's extensive grass and beef industry to provide `gestational space,' or in other words, using beef cows as foster mothers (incubators) for dairy embryos. Limited availability of separated semen and the cost of embryo transfer have been a hold up.
Semen, or more specifically sperm, that has been sorted for sex ratio has been a desire of the livestock industry for a long time. In 1991, Larry Johnson at the USDA in Maryland developed a technique to be able to separate sperm based on the premise that X or female sperm have about 3.8% more DNA. (The X chromosome is larger than the Y chromosome) The DNA can be labeled with a dye that binds with specificity and fluoresces when excited with a laser beam. Machines called flow cytometers or cell sorters have the ability to shine a laser beam on each cell, detect the amount of light emitted, and sort the cells into X and Y bearing fractions. This can be done with ninety-percent accuracy.
However, it's apparently not as easy as it sounds, since sexed semen is still not commercially available. Currently, sperm cells are individually sent past a laser at approximately 60 miles per hour and at a rate of 5000 per second. A computer analyzes information and a sorting gate separates the cells. One company controls the patent rights to this technique, XY, Inc. of Fort Collins, CO. The sexed semen that is available is only for research purposes. I'm currently in negotiations to procure semen from them or Select Sires (that is getting out of the embryo business). At present, the separated semen is packaged at about 500,000 to 1,000,000 sperm per straw compared to 10-60,000,000 per straw for normal AI usage. Because of the techniques employed and the limited number of cells, fertilization rates are reduced, typically by 20 percent.
Applications in the beef and dairy industries are fairly obvious. My proposal seems to have found significant interest among some producers. At a time when beef producers are making less than $100 per calf, the price of Holstein heifers this spring makes this look quite favorable. Together with the NDSU Experiment Station, I hope to initiate a project yet this summer and for sure with some market beef cows this fall that will look at the economics and behavior issues necessary to make this a profitable venture for North Dakota. In the meantime, I'll submit proposals in an attempt to secure financial support to help research this idea, study the impact of imprinting and reduce the risks.
Dates to RememberJune 19 June 20-21 June 28-30 July July |
Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2002
NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, and U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Sharon D. Anderson, Director, Fargo, North Dakota. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. We offer our programs and facilities to all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, Vietnam era veterans status, or sexual orientation; and are an equal opportunity employer. This publication will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities upon request, 701/231-7881.
