North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service
Vol. 13, No. 3 SEPTEMBER 2003
EDITORIAL
REPRODUCTION
MILK QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
NUTRITION
During this time of the year, I'm usually writing about the dairy convention. However, the convention time has changed to Dec. 2-3, 2003, with the program highlighting marketing and milk price protection. Mark your calendar and wait for more information to come later.
In the meantime, the North Dakota Dairy Task Force continues to make progress. Many of you participated in the farmyard socials, where the task force shared its vision for the year 2020. Now it is working on short- and long-term goals and a strategic plan. However, it's slow work. As the task force strives to prepare a plan of work, it encourages input from those who want a future in the dairy industry.
Why is dairying important to North Dakota? The dairy industry has been and can continue to be an important part of local communities. The following was taken from a report by the Virginia Farm Bureau and the Applied and Agricultural Economics Department at Virginia Tech. It highlights the importance of dairying to that state's economy, and pertains to ours as well.
• Every $1 a farm grosses is worth $5-$7 to the local community. Profit or payment, every dollar a farmer is paid through a milk check spins through the local economy between five and seven times.
• The average dairy cow in Virginia adds $9,000 to $15,000 of economic stimulus to her local economy each year. In other words, a small, 50-cow dairy is worth nearly $500,000 to local businesses.
• It takes $31,000 per month to run the average Virginia dairy farm. This amounts to about $225 per cow per month. This figure does not include debt payments. Feed and labor account for two-thirds of this figure.
• Given the fact that it takes $31,000 per month to operate the average dairy and that money circulates five to seven times through a community, every time Virginia loses a dairy farm, it costs the local community $2,011,088.
Regards,
J.W. Schroeder
Extension Specialist-Dairy
Department of Animal and Range Sciences
Approximately 50 percent of the profit per lactation is generated in the first 100 days. During this period, the return per feed dollar is usually 3:1, in contrast to late lactation when the return is approximately 1:1.
A goal of the reproductive management program should be to have the cow spend as much of her life in the early phase of lactation as possible. Thus, it is critical that the reproductive management program focus on getting a large percent of the cows pregnant quickly after the voluntary waiting period (VWP).
Equations and estimates of financial benefits for various pregnancy rates (PR) with interactions of milk yield, calving, culling for reproductive failure and days open have been derived. Improvement in milk production due to reduction in days open was dependent on days in milk, peak milk production and the monthly rate of decline in daily milk. Costs per day open were calculated to be 50 cents for 100 days, $1.42 for 130 days, $2.99 for 160 days and $4.52 for 175 days.
A comparison of a visual heat detection program (16 percent PR — approximate average for DHI herds in Virginia) with three commonly used synchronization protocols (OvSynch, PreSynch and HeatSynch) revealed the following:
Unadjusted cost per pregnancy (out-of-pocket cost) was lowest for the visual heat detection program at $55.40, with the three synchronization protocols ranging from $78.59 for PreSynch to $69.87 for HeatSynch. The number of reproductive culls showed an advantage to the synchronization protocols with visual heat detection resulting in a 10.8 percent cull rate or 37 of the 250 cows not pregnant by 300 days in milk. In contrast, the three synchronization protocols had a similar culling rate of 6.4 percent or 16 of the 250 original cows failing to conceive by 300 days in milk.
The adjusted cost per pregnancy which included cost of extended days in milk and cows removed because of failure to conceive by 300 days was $298.35 for the visual heat detection program, $123.46 for HeatSynch, $115.39 for OvSynch and $110.49 for each pregnancy obtained using the PreSynch protocol. The OvSynch protocol developed in the mid-1990s allowed for the first timed artificial insemination (TAI) program that obtained conception rates similar to those of cows artificially inseminated to detected estrus. Modifications of the OvSynch protocol to maximize cows between day five and 12 of the estrous cycle (PreSynch) have shown a further enhancement in conception rates to TAI. HeatSynch is a less expensive alternative to PreSynch; however, it requires heat detection and may not work in anovulatory cows. For best results, visual heat detection should be conducted between initial synchronization on first service and resynchronization of cows not detected 18 to 24 days post AI. Pregnancy diagnosis at 33 days allows for accurate determination without a high early post-detection embryonic death loss experienced with earlier ultrasonic imaging. All three protocols reduced days open and increased PR with no significant economic advantage of one protocol over the other.
Source: R.L. Nebel, Extension Dairy Scientist, Virginia Tech Dairy Pipeline
Since 1991, Pharmacia Animal Health has investigated milk residue violations alleged to be associated with the use of Excenel®/Naxcel® (ceftiofur hydrochloride/ceftiofur sodium). To discover the inciting agent in these cases, milk samples from the violative load are tested using HPLC (high-pressure liquid chromatography) analysis to identify the violative antibiotic condemning the milk. HPLC analysis has identified the violative antibiotic in more than 80 percent of the cases submitted for analysis. The results of these investigations are shown below:
Residue incidents by year
| Case of residue | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | |
| Extra-label use of Excenel/Naxcel (MM therapy) |
8 | 33 | 17 | 12 | 18 | 18 | 3 | 4 | 8 | |
| Other B-lactams | 23 | 22 | 13 | 20 | 18 | 26 | 19 | 18 | 19 | |
| Inhibitor detected, not identified | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Negative | 3 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 1 | |
| Total number of cases | 36 | 62 | 41 | 40 | 48 | 48 | 27 | 28 | 28 | |
Note: No violations were associated with the proper use of Excenel/Naxcel.
Nine years of investigations by Pharmacia's milk safety assay lab reveal that most residue incidents can be blamed on one of these common mistakes:
1. Milk from treated cows was not withheld for the full withdrawal time. There are many reasons why this occurs. A paint mark or ankle band may have come off, or there may have been miscommunication between employees about how long to discard the milk. In some cases, producers may treat one quarter for mastitis but fail to withhold the milk from all four quarters.
2. Dry cows were milked into the bulk tank by accident. A recently treated dry cow sometimes gets into the milking herd by mistake. Another common error is to milk treated cows last, but fail to divert the milk line from the bulk tank.
3. Failure to operate or clean equipment properly. If the same milking unit is used to milk both treated and untreated cows, it is important to clean and sanitize the equipment between uses. Careless use of equipment, such as using vacuum from the milk pipeline to operate dump-milk buckets for example, can cause violative residues as well. Employee training can help minimize these incidents.
4. Extra-label antibiotic use. Improper product use is a leading cause of residue incidents investigated by Pharmacia. If your veterinarian recommends extra-label antibiotic use, be sure to follow milk discard instructions precisely before returning milk to the tank. The best way to prevent violations is to always use antibiotics according to the recommended dose, duration and route of administration as specified on the label. And always follow milk discard time lines.
Results of the retrospective study indicate that drugs used for treating lactating cows should be used according to label directions and that proper recordkeeping is crucial to residue prevention. In most of these cases, the inciting agent turned out to be a drug other than what was initially suspected to have caused the residue. Adequate record keeping and observance of proper withdrawal times would have prevented these cases.
Source: Udder Topics, Vol. 26, No. 1.
A well-maintained free stall is a wonderful place for a cow, but there is nothing "free" about it.
Free stalls require daily, consistent and ongoing maintenance.
According to Hank Spencer, DVM, technical service specialist for Monsanto Dairy Business, the four basic areas involved in free stall maintenance are:
1. Daily maintenance
2. Bedding maintenance
3. Stall bed maintenance
4. Stall partition maintenance
Stall partition maintenance needs to be done on an as-needed basis but it needs to be done immediately, not after, a cow is hurt. Partition cost is minimal when compared to that of an injured cow.
Stall bed maintenance will vary on the type of stall base being used. Obviously, concrete will not need to be maintained as much as sand. However we do not want to sacrifice cow comfort and production for ease of maintenance. Regardless, the proper slope needs to be maintained to encourage stall use and allow proper position in the stall.
Bedding maintenance is often the overriding factor in determining the frequency of stall maintenance. Poor bedding and stall maintenance are primary reasons for good free stall designs becoming completely dysfunctional and allowing cows to enter the parlor with filthy udders. Bedding maintenance will vary with the type of stall and bedding used. However, using mechanical means it can be done on a regularly scheduled basis as well in a labor efficient manor. Weekly maintenance is a minimum, yet often unsatisfactory in current designs.
None of this works without daily maintenance. This may involve nothing more than a rake and spot cleaning several times a day as cows are moved to the parlor. Ultimately, this becomes a management decision, based on the economics of producing a quality product.
Feed and alley lanes need to be cleaned two to three times daily in free stalls. Flush systems, manual scrapping or alley scrappers are all highly successful if done on a frequent repeatable basis. Once a day is not enough.
Source: NMC Annual Meeting Proceedings (2003), pg 172
Daughters of proven A.I. bulls produce more milk than those sired by non-A.I. bulls. Israeli scientists reported that cows that were pregnant survived 420 days longer than herd mates that were open. It is important that we get animals pregnant, maximize the genetic potential available through A.I. and remember the disadvantages of herd bulls.
Herd bulls are:
1. Dangerous! People have been hurt and killed by herd bulls.
2. Genetically inferior! Using a bull out of one of your best milkers or a neighbor's top cow has no guarantee. When a bull's daughters begin to milk and you recognize their production is inferior to their herd mates, it is too late. Start with a bull that is proven to produce more milk.
3. Carriers of disease! Herd bulls can transmit many diseases including brucellosis, vibriosis, IBR and trichomoniasis. Bulls in A.I. studs are routinely monitored to be disease-free.
4. Possibly subfertile! Herd bulls not only are subfertile during hot weather, but it takes up to six weeks after the weather cools off for them to recover and produce viable sperm.
5. Not always easy calving! With A.I. bulls, producers can select those bulls that are known to sire calves that cause fewer difficult births with heifers. There is no way to know until it is too late with herd bulls.
Remember your objectives:
1. Settle the cow or heifer. Get the semen in the right animal at the right time in the right place.
2. Obtain calves for replacements from best bulls genetically available.
3. Use fertile, disease-free semen available through A.I. bulls.
4. Accomplish the above at reasonable cost.
Source: Adapted from Georgia Dairy Fax, W. M. Graves, Extension Dairy Scientist.
Questions arise from time to time about feeding grain or silage produced from corn varieties that contain glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) or corn rootworm protected (Bt) genes. Most of these questions relate to the effects of these genes on digestibility of the silage or grain or the potential impact on the natural micro-organism population in the rumen.
Researchers in Wisconsin compared the chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of corn varieties included in variety testing programs with and without genetic enhancements. Results of these analysis indicate that these genes do not alter nutrient digestibility. Thus, if the genes are inserted into varieties with above-average digestibility, digestibility of the genetically enhanced variety should still be above average. Inserting the genes into a variety with below-average quality will not improve the quality of that variety.
Nebraska researchers recently reported the results of two trials in which they compared diets containing silage and grain produced from normal varieties or varieties containing Roundup Ready and Bt genes. In the first trial, the Roundup Ready variety was harvested last and had a higher dry matter (DM) content due to rapid drying conditions. Intake and milk production were similar for all treatments, except the Roundup Ready variety, which was lower. This was due primarily to the lower DM intake of this variety due to the higher DM content of the diet. In the second trial, no differences in intake, milk yield or composition were observed among normal and genetically enhanced varieties. Similar results have been reported by research from Illinois.
Many of the problems encountered with silage produced from high-quality varieties are related to management decisions rather than the variety itself. Stage of maturity at harvest, packing density, management of the silo face during feeding and bunk management all impact nutrient contents as well as the performance of animals eating the silage.
Source: John K. Bernard, Dairy Research and Extension, U. of Georgia
If you have corn in the field and are planning on harvesting it for grain, here's a quick and easy way to estimate grain yield:
1. Select a random 30-foot length of a row at least six rows into the field, and count the number of ears on the plants.
2. Count the number of kernel rows around the cob on at least three ears, and average them.
3. Measure the average length of the ear in inches (only the part that has kernels on it).
4. Multiply (number of ears) x (number of kernel rows) x (ear length in inches)
5. Divide by row spacing in inches.
The result in the approximate yield in bushels/acre.
Example:
(50 ears) x (14 rows) x (6 inch ear length)/(30 inch row spacing) = 140 bushels/acre
Obviously, this method is only accurate if the 30 feet of row you choose is representative of the whole field. If you pick the best 30 feet of row in the field, that's what the yield estimate will represent.
Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach that person to use the Internet, and they won't bother you for weeks.
I read recipes the same way I read science fiction; I get to the end and think, "Well, that's not going to happen."
Dairy Connection -- Vol. 13, No. 3 SEPTEMBER 2003
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.