North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service
Vol. 8, No. 4, October 1998
Editorial
1998 North Dakota State Dairy Convention
Milk Quality: Problem solving hints
Herd Health: Improve biosecurity to prevent disease
Nutrition: Know your feed costs per 100 pounds of milk
Forage: Corn silage processors
Selection: Using PTAs and indexes
DHIA: Y2K . . . year 2000
Each year the North Dakota Milk Producers Association hosts its Dairy Convention, in hopes of drawing dairy friends and family together for education and fellowship. This year the Dickinson area producers have gone all out to make us feel welcome. I encourage you to put the event on your calendar and begin planning for the event. While it will be a bit farther to drive for some, Doug Dukart tells me you won't regret it. Hope to see you there.
At right is an abbreviated glimpse of this year's event. Under the theme, "Defining Quality . . ." — the sentence has many endings. Only you can complete the definition.
Regards,
J.W. Schroeder
Livestock Specialist-Dairy
Thursday, October 8, 1998
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Registration
10:00 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. MPA of North Dakota Director's Meeting
12:00 noon Dutch Lunch on your own
1:10 p.m. - 1:15 p.m. Program announcement and tour plans
1:15 p.m. - 4:15 p.m. Dairy Farm Tour (buses will load in front
of motel)
6:30 p.m. Dairy Ambassador Recognition Banquet
Friday, October 9, 1998
7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Registration
7:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast
8:30 a.m. Promotion Highlights –
ADA/DC of the Upper Midwest
(Gary Hoffman); UDIA and DMI
(Jerry Messer)
9:30 a.m. MPA of North Dakota "Annual Meeting"
10:00 a.m. Cheese Break
10:15 a.m. Dairy Industry Happenings and Regulation
Update Roger Scheibe, North Dakota
Director of Dairy Services
10:45 a.m. DHIA It Doesn't Cost a Bundle Jason
Ritchie, HOA/Raleigh DHIA District Manager
11:15 a.m. Livestock Health Issues and Update
Susan Keller, DVM, Assistant ND State
Veterinarian
11:50 a.m. Luncheon
KEYNOTE ADDRESS – Defining Quality;
"What Really Matters?" Christopher Dodson,
Executive Director, North Dakota Catholic
Conference
1:45 p.m. Milk Break
2:00 p.m. Dairy Strategic Planning Task Force
Progress Update Doug Dukart; Future
Needs Roger Johnson, Agriculture
Commissioner Dairy Diagnostic Program
and Purpose John Johnson, Statewide
Coordinator
2:45 p.m. Dairy Retention Panel Discussion
"Our Definition of Quality . . ."
4:30 p.m. Kid's Program
6:00 p.m. Friends of Dairyman Reception
6:30 p.m. Dairy Industry Recognition Banquet
Mastitis diagnosis should be based on clinical observations, laboratory data, information from records and on-farm investigations. This includes:
Using all available information, answer the following questions:
What is the mastitis problem?
Which individuals have mastitis?
When and where is mastitis occurring?
What caused the mastitis problem?
Why did mastitis occur?
How is the mastitis problem controlled or prevented?
Source: Proceedings from Udder Health Management for Environmental Streptococci, Guelph, Ontario, pg. 87, 1997.
After spending thousands of dollars on new bulls or heifers, the last thing you want is to have those new animals infect your existing herd with disease. Some diseases you want to keep out include Johne's disease, bovine leukosis virus (BLV), and BVD.
To prevent infections, Gerald Stokka, Kansas State University extension veterinarian (formerly from North Dakota), offers these tips to improve biosecurity in your herd:
Quality colostrum and keeping the calf clean, dry and comfortable during the nursing period is of primary concern to insure the calf leaves the hutch in optimal condition. According to research conducted at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Virginia Tech, colostrum protection levels can vary from cow to cow. The level or concentration of immunoglobulins (antibody protection in the colostrum passed to the calf) will vary from a low of 200 mg/dl to over 9000 mg/dl or a variation of close to 50 fold. You may not be aware of the measurement, but what you should be aware of is that colostrum protection or concentration can vary tremendously from cow to cow.
This variation is not apparent by simply visualizing colostrum for color or thickness. What should be apparent is the calf fed the lower concentration (200 mg/dl) colostrum will not receive adequate protection against bacteria or viruses in the environment. This study also indicated that the sheer volume of colostrum produced by the dairy cow may decrease the concentration of protection. Their feeding trials indicated that 1 gallon or 10% of the typical Holstein calf's body weight should be fed in the first 12 hours of life, but feeding prior to 6 hours is the most important feeding for adequate protection, with an additional feeding of 1 gallon in the next 12 hours. These feedings were split into 2 quart feedings approximately 4 to 5 hours apart beginning at 2 hours. These feedings were split into 2 quart feedings approximately 4 to 5 hours apart beginning at 2 hours of age.
What can you do to insure good protection status in the calf? Measure the level of protection with a colostrometer at room temperature, freeze and store the excellent quality for feeding the first 24 hours of life. The fair or poor quality can be used for milk replacer. The absorption of colostrum in the stomach of the calf is decreased by 33% at 6 hours and 50% at 12 hours of life, so the best quality should be used prior to 6 hours of age. Insure the calf gets two gallons of good quality colostrum in the first 24 hours by nursing bottle or with the aid of an esophageal feeder.
Remember, studies indicate at least 25 to 40% of the calves left to nurse the dam don't receive adequate protection. This may be because the concentration of the colostrum is too low for protective levels, the calf simply does not nurse, or the calf does not consume an adequate volume from cows with the lower concentration of antibodies. Have your veterinarian randomly sample calves less than 10 days of age to measure antibody levels in the blood to document how well you are doing with colostrum management. Remember the key to a healthy start is good quality colostrum, and keeping the calf clean, dry and comfortable.
Source: Tom L. Bailey, Dairy Production Medicine, VA-MD Regional College of Vet Medicine
Knowing your cost of producing milk is one of the most valuable pieces of financial information you can have. While you may not like the price received for your product, knowing your cost means knowing if you're making a profit or just wish you were.
The calculations can be broken down into purchased feed versus total feed costs. If you buy all your feed they will be the same. In terms of using a traffic light as an analogy to your feed costs, a green light for purchased feed, assuming forages are home produced, would be $3.50 per CWT, a yellow light would be $3.50 to 4.50, and a red light over $4.50. In other words if you can produce 100 lbs. of milk for less than $3.50 in purchased feed you have done well. To calculate, take line 18 from your 1997 Schedule F and divide it by the number of hundred weights of milk sold (not DHI average). Line 18 should be the purchased feed for replacements, dry cows, and lactating cows. If beef cows are fed, any feed purchased for them should be subtracted.
Example:
$100,000 purchased feed/26,250 CWT sold = $3.81.
For total feed costs, green light is under $6.00 per CWT,
yellow light is 6.00 to 8.00, and red light is over 8.00.
To do these calculations add purchased feed and home produced forage costs. It is best to use the cost of production of your own feeds plus an allowance for storage and feeding losses. Using North Dakota Farm Management Budgets is a good way to get started, if you haven't already. Differences in yields will not really change these numbers.
Example:
$181,000 total feed cost/26,250 CWT milk sold = $6.90.
If you fall into the red light category in either the purchased or
total feed cost, evaluate your situation and determine the cause.
According to unofficial guesstimate, about 25 to 30% of the acres of corn for silage in dairy areas of the United States will be processed this fall. These acres may be up due to the lower prices paid for shelled corn. As a result, more interest in silage processors has become evident. Some of the advantages of processed corn silage according to recent reports and `shop-talk' are:
The result of all the above is increased milk production in every trial reported, healthier cows, and lower feed costs. Other than that, processors are probably a worthless investment. Will processing eliminate the need for a silage inoculant? I don't know, but until research proves otherwise, continue to inoculate corn silage if currently doing so.
Source: Miner Institute Farm Report. September 1998
Selection is the most important tool available to improve genetics of a dairy herd. Over the years, the amount of genetic information available to use in selection decisions has increased significantly. However, many statistics can make it difficult to decide which information to use when selecting bulls to use as sires. In addition to information on milk yield and milk components, there are numerous indices that combine yield and type.
Which information is most important? The answer depends on your breeding goals and the specifics of your operation. Selection for any one trait will result in the most progress for that specific trait, but may not be the most economical decision if several traits are important.
How can selecting for predicted transmitting ability (PTA) milk increase profits over selecting for PTA type? As an example, suppose a producer has 100 cows in his herd and each cow completes three lactations. Also assume that the producer receives $12.30 per hundredweight of milk.
First, assume the producer selects bulls based on PTA milk. If
he chooses a bull that is 500 pounds greater than another bull
(i.e. 5 cwt.), then the increase in gross return is 5 * $12.30,
or $61.50 per daughter per lactation. Over three lactations, the
increase would be $184.50 per daughter. For 100 daughters, the
producer would receive a $18,450 gross return from sire selection
of milk. Table 1 shows this information along with gross returns
for selecting a bull that is 1000 pounds or 1500 pounds over
another bull for PTA milk.
| Table 1. Gross return to producer per difference in PTA milk. | |||
| Difference in PTA milk | One Lactation per Daughter | Three Lactations per Daughter | Herd of 100 Daughters with 3 Lactations Each |
| Gross return to producer (in dollars) | |||
| 500 lbs. 1000 lbs. 1500 lbs. |
$61.50 $123.00 $184.50 |
$184.50 $369.00 $553.50 |
$18,450 $36,900 $55,350 |
In contrast, selecting only top type bulls may yield an increase
in returns at cattle sales. If a producer sells 2 or 3 more
animals annually for reasons of conformation, the gross return
may be several thousand dollars over three years. Not every
producer will be able to increase cattle sales, and in many
situations, traits other than type will also be important (i.e.
some say that red cattle are selling well now). If the producer's
main revenue is in milk sales, it appears that increasing milk
production by selecting higher PTA milk bulls will increase
revenue more than selecting higher PTA type bulls.
Several indices available to producers allow for selection of a combination of traits as opposed to selecting for just a single trait. Net Merit Dollars (NM$) is an index that includes PTAs for milk, fat, protein, somatic cell score (SCS), and productive life (PL). The index starts with the milk-fat protein economic index (MFP$), subtracts feed costs, subtracts mastitis and milk quality costs associated with SCS, and adds value of PL. The index gives a weighing of 10 for yield, 4 for PL and -1 for SCS. The NM$ index reflects the net contribution to income from these traits on a lactation basis.
Using our 100 cow herd example, selecting a bull with a NM$ rating 25 dollars greater than another bull indicates a 25 dollar increase in gross return per cow per lactation. That is, $25 * 3, or $75 per cow over three lactations, and $75 * 100, or $7500 for 100 cows over three lactations.
If your breeding goals include increasing yield, increasing PL and decreasing SCS, comparing bulls based on their NM$ value may be profitable. Keep in mind that if you are selecting for NM$, you should not compare bulls based on individual traits. The index is constructed to combine economic information and weigh each trait appropriately. A bull with a lower relative score for one trait will not be penalized if that trait is not as economically important as another trait in which he has a higher relative score. In general, select an index based on the goals of the herd, then allow the index to find the right bulls.
As the year 2000 approaches, you have heard the possibilities of computer bugs and glitches. Many have asked questions about PCDART (our DHIA software) and other software to see if they are ready for the year 2000. DRMS (Dart Records Management Systems) is spending considerable programming resources to make all their software (including PCDART) year 2000 compliant. If you're following the popular press on this subject, mega dollars are being invested in preparation for this need.
One important issue when dealing with the year 2000 bug is hardware compatibility. Many computers built before 1997 and some built after 1997 have a BIOS (a hardware component that controls the functions of your computer and interfaces with your operating system) that is not compatible for the year 2000. What does this mean? Basically, it means that even if all your software (Windows, PCDART, etc.) can support 2000 dates, your BIOS will always tell your operating system (DOS, Windows, OS2) to use 1900.
There is a free diagnostic tool available to you to see if your BIOS is compatible. The program is TEST2000. Running this tool will check if your computer will roll-over to 01-01-2000 properly and if it will continue to keep the current date once the computer is restarted. Once the test is completed, you will be told if your computer is compliant, if it is not compliant but fixable, or if it needs to be upgraded with new hardware. If it is fixable, you can install a program, Y2KPCPro, to make the BIOS compliant.
These programs can be downloaded from a website: http://www.RighTime.com. A link to this site is available from my website: http://www.ag.ndusu.nodak.edu/aginfo/dairy. Links for other information on the year 2000 bug is also available and easily searched for on internet.
Vol. 8, No. 4, October 1998
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.
North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service