Posilac 1 Step® In Other Countries
Monsanto Dairy Business

Key Points:

• POSILAC 1 STEP® has consistently increased milk yields in a wide range of management systems.
• Countries around the globe have determined that BST is safe.

Economic & Farm Benefits of Using POSILAC 1 STEP^®

Key Points:

The benefit of POSILAC is its ability to increase milk production significantly and, in doing so, to lower farm fixed costs over units of milk produced. As with all production-enhancing management practices, the objective of using POSILAC is to provide increased profitability to the dairy producer. Maximum economic response is obtained by following the use instructions described in “POSILAC - Milk Production and Management.” Basically, beginning supplementation of ALL healthy cows beginning in the ninth or tenth week of lactation and providing constant availability of a ration designed to support the increased level of production will result in maximum economic response. The concept is so simple that virtually all producers can use POSILAC to increase the profitability of their herds. POSILAC can help raise the profitability of cows as their lactation progresses. Research has shown that, by following proper use instructions, milk production can increase from 5 to 15 lb/cow/day. The economic benefit of using POSILAC can be calculated by merely subtracting the additional incremental costs associated with using POSILAC from the incremental income. Since use of POSILAC requires no capital investment, all fixed costs of producing milk remain unchanged. Only the variable costs and returns need to be evaluated. To calculate the daily return per cow with POSILAC, multiply the extra pounds of milk produced each day times the mail box price of milk. Subtract the extra costs of producing that amount of milk: the daily cost of POSILAC (price per unit/14) plus the cost of the extra feed required. Refer to Table 1 for some examples.

Table 1 Economic benefit of POSILAC bovine somatotropin

Profit/herd/year using POSILAC

Incremental cost/profit per cwt for milk produced with POSILAC

The actual increased profits enjoyed by individual dairy producers will depend on their mail box milk price, the price of POSILAC, feed costs, and the actual response to POSILAC achieved on their farm. Another example of how POSILAC bovine somatotropin provides economic benefit is its use in extending the lactation of cows that would otherwise be culled due to inability to breed or other health or age reasons. The economic benefit in this case depends on factors that are highly variable from farm to farm, and relate to the level of daily production required to break even. Generally speaking, each additional day that a cow is kept in the production string rather than culled can mean an extra $5.00 or more in income. Thus, keeping the cow in production an extra 30 to 100 days provides a significant, positive economic impact. POSILAC can also be used to decrease the number of cows necessary to produce the same amount of milk. This provides additional income from the sale of cull cows, lowers feed costs, and is of particular benefit in areas of the country where per cow facility costs are relatively high. POSILAC may be a particularly valuable management tool for the dairyman who has too high a density of cows for his facility. Since no capital expenditures are required to incorporate POSILAC into a producer’s dairy management regime, the benefits are equally available to producers regardless of size or location. POSILAC can provide economic advantages to virtually all dairy producers.

Focus on the Fundamentals – Financial

Gary Sipiorski, Citizens State Bank of Loyal

Armfelt, Caddy, Weisman

When the milk price drops and stays down as long as it has, emotional decisions are a dairy producer’s first reaction. A better approach may be to Stop, Think, Talk and Calculate the Impact. It is too easy to Fire, Ready, then Aim. Here are a few Dos and Don’ts of which dairy producers should be reminded. Remember, cows are not economists. They react to comfort and care. If you were doing things right with the cows before, you should keep doing those things now.

Do:

1. “Cash Flow” is and always will be King. Think about the impact that each decision will have on the Gross Income. An often asked question: “Why does production go up nation wide when the price of milk drops?” Dairy producers that can, are adding cows or work to achieve higher production to recapture lost Gross Income. The bottom line is to generate cash!

2. Now is the time to really “know your monthly cash expenses”. Sit down with key employees and go through each expense category. In times like these, sit down at the first of the month and write down those anticipated expenses on a pad of paper next to the anticipated income. At the end of the month, review those expected numbers against the real numbers. How did you do? If you missed the acceptable outcome, redo the numbers for next month and discuss what management changes need to be made to make the projected monthly numbers match. It is best to go through this exercise monthly. If you wait for year-end, you may not be there to see the outcome. Computers are fine, but everyone seems to take more responsibility in times like this when you have the pencil in hand.

3. Review key and major expense areas. Feed bills are always at the top of expense categories. Make sure each ingredient is pulling its weight with the cow. Review other major input areas. Resist major changes in those areas that worked before the milk price dropped, like feed protein and POSILAC®. Make sure you are using high quality feed that has the potential to make milk. 4. Talk to your money source people before they want to talk with you. Lenders hate to be surprised. You take the lead to share your balance sheets, cash flows and thought process.5. Talk with time proven advisors that you have come to trust. This list may include your veterinarian, nutritionist, crop specialist, extension personnel and others. They still have good advice to share.

6. Surround yourself with producers that build you up, rather than pull you down! Many of your peers have been through times like these. Talk with those that have positive outlooks and suggestions.

Don’t:

1. Don’t change the things you know are right for the cows. (See “Focus on the Fundamentals - Cow Management”).

2. Don’t buy assets that have a long payback such as land, machinery and pickup trucks.

3. Don’t stop talking to the right people that have been through this before and have been successful.

Source: Monsanto
Authors: Armfelt, Caddy, Weisman

Tracking Mass Nutrient Balance on Delmarva Dairy Farms - The Phosphorous Dilemma J. A. Moore and J. M. Hart, Bioresource Engineering Department and Crop and Soil Science Department, Oregon State University

The production goal for most dairy farms is to maximize income through high milk output combined with low cost, high quality feed input. A dilemma develops as producers monitor and try to minimize soil phosphorus levels while simultaneously trying to achieve production goals. Phosphorus is imported onto a dairy in two forms. One, as fertilizer to meet one of the requirements for optimum forage production and secondly as a dietary supplement for maintaining healthy productive cows. Typical dairies on the Delmarva Peninsula have two exports containing phosphorous, milk and cull cows. Unfortunately the amount of imported phosphorus far exceeds the exports leading to a positive mass nutrient balance (an increase in soil phosphorus). As nutrient management regulations are written in Maryland and surrounding states the phosphorous dilemma becomes more challenging. How will a producer be able to maintain an economically viable number of animal units per acre without exceeding the allowable phosphorous limit (environmental degradation)?

Phosphorous loading within the confine of a dairy farm or any larger geographical area is serious issue large animal production agriculture is facing. The dilemma can be lessened if producers are more aware of the mass balance of nutrients on his or her farm. Software programs are available that track the mass balance of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium on dairy farms. All the inflows of these nutrients from fertilizer, feed, bedding, and animal entries are monitored. Also the outflow away from the farm of the same nutrients are measured in milk and animals sold, grains and forages sold, and manure exported. The remaining balance of these nutrients becomes a useful monitor of the accumulation on the farm and/or the potential for unplanned nutrient loss away from the farm.

For more information on the software to track Mass Nutrient Balance contact:

Richard A. Kohn
Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
rkohn@wam.umd.edu

Stu Klausner
NRAES, Cooperative Extension
152 Riley-Robb Hall Ithaca, New York 14853-5701
sklausner@aol.com

Al Rotz
PSWMRL, The Pennsylvania State University
Curtin Rd., University Park
PA 16802-3702
alrotz@psu.edu

Source: Monsanto Dairy Group
Author: Hart, Moore

Herd Management Opportunities for Decreasing the Nitrogen Load on the Dairy Farm
Charles G. Schwab, University of New Hampshire, Durham, and Rick A. Kohn,University of Maryland, College Park

INTRODUCTION

Dairy farming in the United States faces two major challenges, an economic challenge and an environmental challenge. The solution to the economic challenge continues to be one of becoming more efficient. Two ways of becoming more efficient has been to increase milk production per cow (i.e., rolling herd average) and to increase cow numbers.

Unfortunately, increasing cow numbers on the farm has contributed to the environmental challenge. From an environmental point of view, in regard to nitrogen, there are two major areas of increasing concern. The first is the pollution of surface water (e.g., streams, lakes, wetlands and estuaries) and ground water from excessive land application of nitrogen. Some nitrogen may be lost with runoff water after a rainfall (Baker and Senft, 1993). Nitrogen incorporated into the soil in excess of crop needs is eventually lost to ground water (Joshi et al., 1994).

The second environmental concern is the volatilization of manure nitrogen into ammonia and its emission into the air. Ammonia contributes to acid rain that endangers forests and lakes (Luebs et al., 1973). Also, some nitrogen may be lost from the farm by conversion to atmospheric N2 in a process known as denitrification (Thompson et al., 1987). Studies indicate that up to 50% of manure nitrogen can be lost to the atmosphere during handling, storage, and land application (Borton et al., 1995; Hutson et al., 1998). The problem is that 60 to 80% of the nitrogen imported onto most dairy farms in the form of feed and commercial fertilizers stays on the farm. The reason for this is that only about 30% of the nitrogen consumed by lactating cows in high producing herds is transferred to the milk, the remainder is excreted in feces and urine (Wilkerson et al., 1997).

It is becoming increasingly clear that how we handle nitrogen and other nutrients (particularly phosphorus) on the dairy farm will affect both farm profitability and the number of animals per unit of cropland that will be allowed. The challenge is to find the appropriate balance between environmental stewardship and an efficient,economically viable dairy production system.Thus, the goal is to increase dairy farm efficiency and profitability while maintaining or reducing nutrient losses to the environment.

The purpose of this presentation is to compare the potential impact of some of the newer technologies in dairy cattle feeding and management on reducing nitrogen losses per unit of milk produced from typical dairy farms.

These technologies are grouped into those aimed at improving biological efficiency through increased production and those aimed at providing a better match of protein sources with the animal’s needs. The reader is referred to other publications that focus on manure, soil, and crop management practices as strategies for reducing nitrogen losses to the environment (e.g., Borton et al., 1997; Joshi et al., 1994; Van Horn et al., 1994).

Source: Monsanto Dairy Group
Author: Schwab,  Durham, Cohn

Manure management decisions are complex. While these decisions are an intricate part of the dairy production system, manure management also involves a variety of subjects, several different segments of society and a broad range of agencies. That?s why we?ll explore how manure management differs from most other aspects of dairy farm management.

Unique Aspects of Manure Management

Manure management is quite different from most other farm management problems, mainly because problems related to manure are of a different type and more social in nature than experts in the physical sciences are accustomed to addressing. Some examples of manure management problems are:

Solutions require knowledge from several different subject matter areas; A wide variety of agencies and individuals - local, state and federal - have different perspectives on manure; This issue has the attention of several segments of society besides dairy, livestock and poultry producers and all of this attention isn’t necessarily an asset. This is particularly true in areas where animal agriculture is well established and wishes to coexist in harmony with other segments of society — some already there and some new to the area; and It is a cost of operation on the dairy farm. Usually, a positive return is anticipated as the result of making an on-farm capital investment.

Producers invest in manure storage systems for other than economic reasons because added profitability is not the incentive. These reasons include:

Convenience (i.e., reducing the need for daily hauling);To prevent discharge of pollutants to surface waters;Regulatory and legislative pressures; and To better utilize the nutrients contained in manure.

Selected manure treatment methods including the following, may improve finances:

Composting adds value to manure, resulting in a product that has potential market value; Reclaiming sand from sand-laden manure reduces complications with both handling and storing manure;Reusing the reclaimed sand for freestall bedding reduces the amount of new sand purchased; and Electricity generated from methane, a product of anaerobic digestion of manure, may be an additional revenue source.

Managing Manure Nutrients

Manure management must be part of the overall farm management plan. Decisions about manure system design are an integral aspect of the decision-making process when selecting facilities for the animals, as well as designing the cropping program.

Utilizing manure nutrients in the cropping program to offset the use of commercial fertilizers is not new. We know, for example, manure is a good source of phosphorus. In Michigan, estimates indicate manure produced by animals in the state can supply about 50 percent of the total phosphorus for crops grown in the state. But, while manure may indeed meet the plant?s requirements for one nutrient, the soil may already have sufficient quantities available of another, thus raising many concerns. Also in Michigan, estimates suggest that 50 percent of the soils already have phosphorus contents sufficiently high to warrant caution when applying manure. Therefore, if manure is applied to the land, that land must be determined deficient in meeting the nutrient needs of the crop grown in the case of those nutrients contained in the manure. Not applying nutrients in excess of a crop?s needs is in the best interest of both good nutrient management and responsible environmental management.

Producers should consider the following when managing manure nutrients:

If the land available for spreading manure already has more than enough of at least one of the nutrients needed by the crop, look to nearby crop farmers as an alternative;Buy additional land. Although it will be costly, it provides additional places to spread manure; Manure transportation costs must be weighed against the value of manure nutrients;Pumps may be used to move manure up to several miles to remote storage, or to apply it directly to the land;Consider irrigating. However, the odor created can be substantial. If sand is used for freestall bedding, special consideration must be given to remove the sand to minimize impact on pumping and irrigation equipment; and Maintaining a low profile for the dairy ? reducing visual awareness, reducing objectionable odors and avoiding runoff - is advised in all cases.

Manure Management Critical Decisions

Manure management decisions are related to the requirements of a well thought-out management program, including a clear description of the environment provided for every animal on the farm. Thus, all decisions regarding facilities and manure management must be made with a full awareness of the consequences.

Producers should consider the following for freestall bases and bedding:

Choice of bedding should reflect management style and goals for level of milk production and somatic cell count;Ensuring cows have six to eight inches of loose sand and rubber-filled mattresses with organic bedding on top are two methods for satisfying the freestall bed requirements promoting cow comfort and good udder health; and The only reasons for not using sand are the difficulty it may add to the manure system, or the availability of high quality sand. Ultimately, this may lead to a decision to use sand despite the difficulties, but seek ways to reduce its impact on the manure system, or use mattresses or organic bedding and avoid the problems with sand altogether.

Consider the following recommendations for freestall barns with or without exercise lots:

Cover all feeding, resting and traffic areas to reduce the amount of polluted runoff that must be controlled and handled through the manure storage and handling system; and While many farms have outside lots and traffic areas, keep the uncovered areas used by animals at a minimum. Also, clean runoff water should be diverted away from the manure storage area.

Manure System Design: Decision Priorities

While the traditional view of manure system planning centers on the handling system components ó collection, transfer, storage, possible treatment and nutrient utilization ?sound engineering design assures that all components will operate together economically and effectively to manage manure until it reaches its final destination.

Categorizing manure management decisions helps design a manure system to meet all the needs of a dairy. These categories should be considered in the planning process:

Decisions that consider the dairy farm in the broadest possible context are high priority and should be made early in the design process; Make decisions early in the process regarding the method of applying manure to the land and whether it will be handled as a semi-solid or liquid; and After choosing the type of bedding and establishing the method of land application, address those decisions involved with our traditional view of manure system planning. This involves collection of manure in the barn, transfer to storage, the type of storage and length of storage period involved. Manure management is an extremely complex issue and is different from other farm management problems. Therefore, planning for manure management must be an integral part of planning the overall farm system since investments in manure management systems cannot be justified on strictly an economic basis.

Source: Michigan State University
Author: William G. Bickert

The Use of Bovine somatotropin (BST) in Milk Production

Adam J. Lieberman and Simona C. Kwon, M.P.H.
Facts Versus Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of recent Times
American Council on Science and Health
SOURCE: http://www.acsh.org/publications/reports/facts3.pdf

Bovine somatotropin (BST) is a natural hormone that stimulates milk production. Biotechnology companies began manufacturing a genetically engineered version of BST in the early 1990s.

On November 5, 1993, the FDA approved genetically engineered BST for commercial use in the UnitedStates. Treating dairy cows with this hormone increases milk production by as much as 20 percent, and no detectable difference has been found between milk from treated cows and milk from untreated cows. The hormone BST has no adverse effects on the health of treated cows, and milk and meat from BST-treated cows are both safe for human consumption.

Scientists throughout the world—researchers working in academia, in government, and in the dairy industry—conducted more than 2,000 scientific studies of BST. The studies show clearly the efficacy, the safety, and the benefits that can be realized by integrating BST into dairy production technology. To stem the tide of misinformation about BST, the FDA itself—in an unprecedented move—sponsored a 1990 article in Science magazine stating that BST was perfectly safe.

But despite the scientific data and the proved efficacy of BST, opposition arose. One day before U.S. sales of milk from treated cows began, consumer activists dressed up in cow suits and dumped milk to protest the use of BST. Jeremy Rifkin, the president of the Foundation for Economic Trends, raised particularly vigorous objections to the introduction of BST.

Because Rifkin could not present a convincing case to the FDA, the EPA, or other scientific groups, he decided to take his case directly to the people. Rifkin and others used the popular press to make unsubstantiated claims that the use of BST would increase the incidence of antibiotic-resistant infections and increase milk drinkers’ risk of developing allergies. Neither of these claims is true, however.

Like all other plant and animal proteins in the human diet, BST is destroyed during the digestion process. It therefore has no effect on people who consume it. Furthermore, BST is inactive in humans even when injected: The makeup of bovine somatotropin is significantly different from that of human somatotropin, and human cells can neither identify nor react to the bovine hormone.

Recently, the activists’ attention has turned to Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF-1), a protein hormone. This hormone, which is stimulated by naturally occurring BST, converts nutrients into milk. Both humans and cows possess IGF-1. Although supplemental BST does increase IGF-1 levels in the milk of treated cows, treating cows with the hormone increases the level of IGF-1 in their milk to only two to five parts per billion more than the levels that occur naturally in untreated cows.

The fear of increased IGF-1 levels in milk has, indeed, led to a scare, because IGF-1, estrogen, and organochlorines in milk have all been linked to breast cancer. The FDA has dismissed this scare, however, and has concluded that the claim that IGF-1 milk promotes breast cancer is scientifically unfounded.

Despite the body of scientific evidence and BST’s approval by the FDA, scares centering on the hormone’s use in milk production are likely to continue because of the public’s apprehension about the use of biotechnology to enhance the food supply. This continuing uneasiness is evidenced by a label displayed on the carton of every Ben & Jerry’s ice cream product—a label stating the company’s commitment to the use of “natural ingredients” and expressing disapproval of the use of BST in cow’s milk.

Conclusion

Public concern over these three “not-quite-great” scares—fluoridation, irradiation, and BST—has not mounted to a high pitch of anxiety. But the existence of these “lesser” scares does point up the American public’s generalized fear of the unfamiliar—a fear not easy to dispel. And scaremongers habitually try to exploit this uneasiness—the vague feeling of misgiving that people commonly display in response to unfamiliar technologies and scientific innovations.

Unfortunately, the consequence of these scare tactics is twofold: Much time, effort, and money are spent refuting the scaremongers’ false claims; and the activists’ playing of the scare card delays the benefits these new technologies and processes have to offer. The public’s anxiety about irradiation, for example, delayed its approval for the pasteurization of meat products in the U.S.—despite the fact that the process can kill E. coli and so might have halted the foodborne illnesses and deaths that preceded Hudson Food’s recall of 25 million pounds of beef in the summer of 1997.

Thus, even as the activists are mounting scare campaigns to try to convince people that the increased use of chemicals and new technologies are increasing their health risks, the scientific evidence is demonstrating that technology is, in fact, helping to make the world a better—and safer—place.

Source: US Federal Government
Author: Lieberman, Kwon

• rbST and Environmental Issues , rbST and Farm Economics , rbST and Human Health , rbST and Animal Health , rbST and Consumer Choice
• Comments(0)

Next »