Improving Animal Efficiency

Production efficiency has been measured in many different ways over the past decades. When considering the viability and profitability of a farm, the efficiency of food production relative to the financial costs is the primary concern. On a global scale, when considering the limited availability of land for food production, we have often thought of the need to increase the efficiency of production per unit of land. However, with today’s technological advancements enabling more and more production per acre, it is the efficiency of production relative to environmental damage this is of particular interest. The question has become: how do we maintain productivity while decreasing environmental damage, and at the same time stay in business?

Fortunately, we have already conducted a vast amount of research related to answering this question. Research has focused on improving the nutritional efficiency of animal production. For example, because protein is an expensive nutrient to obtain, we have continually improved our methods of feed analysis and diet formulation. As a result, we have discovered ways to reduce the amount of feed nitrogen (an element mainly found in protein), relative to the amount of milk or meat produced. This improved efficiency translates into producing more animal product with lower levels of manure N (Kohn et al., 1997). At the same time, we have selected crops and determined their nutrient requirements to improve their use of N in soils, and we have developed manure management practices to use manure nutrients more efficiently. The main reason for this research was to reduce the costs of food production by decreasing feed and fertilizer costs while producing the same or greater amount of product. Most agricultural scientists specialize in specific aspects of the production cycle rather than integrate the various sub-components of the system. Nevertheless, farmers are required to consider the whole system and how the subcomponents add up. We have addressed these holistic concerns by developing a mathematical model of the animal enterprise (click on the icon below to view it).

The overall efficiency of nutrient utilization for the system is the amount of N in product divided by the total N inputs to the farm. This efficiency depends on the partial efficiencies of each subsystem. The potential range in partial efficiencies that might be expected for nitrogen on dairy farms is shown in the table below.

For example, the efficiency of a dairy herd would be the amount of product N divided by the total amount of feed used on the farm. Losses over time would be equal to the manure production and would result from spilled feed, feces, and urine. A 50% variation in manure production might result from feeding, ration formulation, and animal grouping systems. The apparent efficiency of crop production may range also by 50%. The range may result across crops, soils, harvesting methods, and fertilization methods. The availability of manure may range by 100% or more depending on manure collection, storage, and application methods. All of these ranges exclude practices that grossly mismanage resources such as applying too much fertilizer or grossly overfeeding of protein.

The predicted impact on the environment of changing the efficiencies of subcomponents to a farm are shown in the next table.

Ratio of N loss from the farm to product N, as affected by efficiency and source of N input to the farm.

Improving the efficiency of animal production relative to feed nutrients is the most important mechanism for reducing nutrient losses from the farm. The second most important means to reduce nutrient losses is to improve the efficiency of crop utilization of soil nutrients. This may be accomplished by choosing crop species that are best suited for nutrient uptake and high yields, and by applying the correct amount of fertilizer and available nutrients from manure. The losses from the farm would be reduced substantially by improvements to both herd and cropping systems.

The efficiency of manure conversion to soil available nutrients has the least impact on total farm losses. For example, an improvement in manure collection or storage to reduce N volatilization from manure would have a lesser impact on the whole farm nutrient use efficiency than a proportionally similar improvement in herd or crop management. None the less, gross losses in manure nutrients should be avoided. In contrast to improvements in animal nutrition which result in proportional or greater increases in whole farm efficiency, much of the conserved manure N is subsequently lost from the nutrient cycle before being translated into increased animal production.

The most important way to reduce nutrient losses to the environment for animal production systems is to improve animal efficiency to reduce manure nutrients and feeding for a given level of production.

Richard Kohn, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Animal and Avian Sciences at the University of Maryland. He received his Ph.D. in 1993 from Michigan State University.

References

Kohn, R. A., Z. Dou, J. D. Ferguson, and R. C. Boston. 1997. A sensitivity analysis of nitrogen losses from dairy farms. Journal of Environmental Management, 50:417-428.

The model demonstrates that nutrients enter the farm as imported feed, legume fixed nitrogen from the atmosphere, fertilizer purchases, or imported manure. From here, they are cycled through the system until they are lost. The ways that nutrients are lost from the farm include production and export of milk or meat, or losses from manure or soil from volatilization, runoff, leaching or denitrification.

Improving nutrient utilization in any subsystem will reduce nutrient losses from the farm. For example, improving nutrient utilization in the animal can reduce the amount of manure nutrients produced. Thus, when manure is applied and the unavoidable losses occur, these losses will be reduced proportionately. In addition, less feed nutrients will be required. Therefore, the associated losses from crop production will also be reduced.

Improving the utilization of nutrients by the animal is the most effective way to reduce nutrient losses from the farm. However, animal feeding is also related to crop selection, and crop selection affects nutrient losses. Additional savings (financial and environmental) can be obtained with better manure application methods.

Source: University of Maryland
Author: Richard Kohn, PhD

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

A Step-by-Step Guide to Nutrient Management

Richard P. Wolkowski

Introduction

This publication is designed to help farmers, consultants, governmentalagencies, fertilizer dealers, and others determine the cropnutrient requirements of individual fields. The assessment willfocus on the primary nutrients . nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P),and potassium (K) . because they represent the largest cost tothe farmer and present the greatest risk to the environmentwhenimproperly managed. A logical, step-wise process is used to calculatethe amount of nutrients needed to grow a crop byaccounting for nutrients that are available from several sources.

The assessment begins with the fertilizer recommendations foundon the soil test report. The soil test recommendations are basedon the level of available nutrients in the soil and the nutrientdemand of the crop(s) to be grown. Nutrient credits for soilorganicmatter,manure, legumes, and/or residual soil nitrate needto be subtracted from the fertilizer recommendation to determinethe adjusted nutrient need.Worksheets for conducting field-specificnutrient assessments can be found near the end of thispublication. Oncecompleted, thisworksheet can be filed with thesoil test report to furnish a record of fertilization and croppinginformation. Recommendations and credits used in this publicationare identical to those used by the University of WisconsinSoil Testing Program and can also be developed by using theWisconsin Interactive Soil Program for Economic Fertilizer Recommendations(WISPer) computer program.

Where the University of Wisconsin soil test recommendationprogram is used, and accurate manure and legume creditinginformation is provided with the soil samples, nutrient credits aresubtracted from the total nutrient requirement. In this case, theadjusted nutrient need has been calculated and the farmer candetermine a fertilization program. Where other soil testing programsare used or when a change inmanagement plans occur, theadjusted nutrient need may have to be calculated by the individualgrower, farm manager, or crop consultant.

Ideally, nutrients should be applied to fields at rates matching theadjusted nutrient need. However, for reasons of practicality it isexpected that fields with similar nutrient recommendations willbe grouped together. Then awhole-farm fertilization program canbe developed using the adjusted field nutrient needs from theworksheet to determine a reasonable number of rates and blendsof fertilizer materials. An additional worksheet, found at the endof this publication, tallies the adjusted nutrient requirements fromindividual fields. This can serve as a nutrient management planfor the entire farm.

Completing theWorksheet

Step 1. Field Information

Fill in the appropriate information for field identification, year,size, crop, soil name(s), and previous crop. This will provide acondensed record containing the treatment of each field and canserve as a future reference. Enter this information on the worksheetin the space provided in box 1.

Step 2. Nutrient Need

Determine field-specific nutrient needs by completing the worksheetaccording to the following directions.

Recommended N-P2O5-K2O. From the soil test report form fillin the recommendations for N, phosphate (P2O5), and potash(K2O) in the spaces at line 2a. These are the nutrients which thesoil test levels, crop to be grown, and yield goal indicate areneeded for each acre in the selected field. University of Wisconsinsoil test reports provide nutrient recommendations for twodifferent crop rotation options. It is important to note that nutrientrecommendations from soil test reports may not account fornutrient creditswhen services other thanUniversity ofWisconsinor ASCS- approved soil testing laboratories are used.

Special N-P2O5-K2O. Certain cropping conditions can affectcrop nutrient needs. Special nutrient recommendations areprinted as a comment on University of Wisconsin soil testreports. These recommendations are not considered in the cal-culation of the report.s fertilizer recommendation. It is the responsibilityof the user to include the special nutrientrecommendations in the final calculation of nutrient applicationrates.Asummaryof the mostcommonof these recommendationsis listed inTable 1. Enter any specialN, P2O5,K2Orecommendedat line 2b.

The nutrient need for the primary nutrients can be determinedby adding lines 2a and 2b. Fill in the sum for each nutrient atline 2c.

Starter fertilizer. It is commonly recommended that a minimalamount of starter fertilizer be applied for corn planted in soils slowto warm in the spring. For corn grown on medium and finetextured soils, apply at least 10 lb N, 20 lb P2O5, and 20 lbK2Oper acre at planting as a starter fertilizer. In most row crop fields,all the recommended P2O5 and K2O can be applied as starterfertilizer. On soils with test levels in the excessively high range,starter fertilizer applications in excess of 10 lb/a N, 20 lb/a P2O5,and 20 lb/aK2O should be avoided. The amount ofN applied asstarter fertilizer that exceeds 20 lb/a should be credited against theoverall N recommendation.

In-row placement of fertilizer is an efficient means for supplyingcrop nutrients. The fertilizer is placed near the germinating seedand is immediately available to the crop. Starter fertilizer applicationis an ideal method of applying a relatively small amount ofnutrients to row crops. Starter applications usually supply all therecommended P2O5 and K2O for soils testing in the optimum orhigher ranges.

Secondary and micronutrients. If soil tests for other nutrients(eg.,Ca,Mg, S,Zn,B,Mn)were performed, refer to the commentssection of the soil test report form to determine if any of the testsindicate a need for secondary or micronutrients. Applications ofthese nutrients may also be considered without a soil test whenthere is evidence of a need through plant analysis, visual deficiencysymptoms, or previous experience. Enter therecommended application of the appropriate nutrient at line 5a.

Table 2. Availability estimates for N, P2O5, and K2O for un-analyzedsolid manure.

1 Nutrient values in parenthesis are for incorporated manure

Lime needs. The need for lime must not be overlooked, becausea low soilpHwill reduce the response to applied nutrients. Wherea lime recommendation is given on the soil test report, enter therecommended rate of 60-69 or 80-89 neutralizing index (NI) limeat line 5b. If the lime to be used has a different NI calculate theamount needed using the equation provided below.

Lime to apply = (t/a 60-69 required ) ?65Midpoint NI of your lime

Step 3. Nutrient Replacement Credit

A goal of nutrient management planning is to allow farmers theopportunity to maximize the value of their on-farm nutrients. Formost Wisconsin farms this means utilizing fertilizer replacementcredits for legumes, manure, or carry-over soil nitrogen.

Manure. Manures contain significant amounts of the primaryplant nutrients (N, P, and K), as well as other essential plantnutrients.Anaccuratemanure nutrient credit can be determinedonly if the available nutrient content of the manure and themanure application rate are known.

Table 3. Availability estimates for N, P2O5, and K2O for the application of

un-analyzed liquid manure.

1.Nutrient values in parenthesis are for incorporated manure.

2.f.u. = finishing unit; f.n. = farrow nursery

Author: Richard Wolkowski

Increasing Milking Frequency Take Home Message

Take Home Message

Introduction

Increasing the frequency of milking dairy cows results in increased milk production (Amos et al 1985). If the herd is provided with adequate nutrition to support the increased milk production, then the benefits are maintained over time. This approach to increased production usually is found to be profitable by dairy producers and is typically maintained if the herd has adequate access to a high quality supply of labor that is required.

The percentage of herds using increased milking frequency to boost milk yields has increased in USDA sire summaries (Wiggans, personal communication). In countries where bovine somatotropin supplementation is prohibited, such as Canada, the use of increased milking frequency may be even more attractive and common that in the United States.

When herds wish to consider adopting increased milking frequency as a management policy to elevate herd production, the question “How much response should we expect” is often posed. There is much confusion regarding the amount of response in the scientific, educational and popular literature available to producers. Sometimes herds wish to decrease milking frequency at some stage of later lactation, and the question is posed “Will there be any carry-over of the benefits from increased milking frequency once we stop the extra milkings?” Most producers have observed milk production levels returning to twice-daily milk production levels after ceasing the three times-a-day milking frequencies. The objective of this presentation is to describe studies that evaluated responses to increased milking frequency in dairy herds.

Fixed Response to Milking Frequency

A common response to the question of “How much response should we expect” is “About fifteen or twenty percent of the herd’s previous production.” The USDA uses a percentage of the herd’s production level to account for increased milking frequency when calculating sire summaries. Yet, many dairy herd consultants have observed that herds had a fixed response, typically 3 or 31/2 kilograms of milk per cow per day. There were no reports in the scientific literature evaluating whether the response was a percentage of the herd’s previous production or a certain number of kilograms, termed a “fixed yield response.”

One approach to studying this question is to conduct a statistical analysis of previously published trials, and this approach is termed a “meta-analysis.” The meta-analysis approach is common in human and veterinary medicine. A total of 19 research literature reports were found and utilized in the meta-analysis. Some reports contained multiple comparisons, and each comparison in a research report of once daily (1X), three times-a-day (3X) and four times-a-day (4X) versus twice daily (2X) was considered as if it was a ‘herd’ that had compared the various milking frequencies.

There were varying amounts of information published in the results. Some reports contained information concerning cow parity and others contained information concerning milk components. The average difference for the results of the comparisons for milk, fat and protein yield are in Table 1. There was a significant benefit of 3.5 and 4.9 kg/cow/day for 2X vs 3X or 4X, respectively. There was a significant reduction of 6.2 kg/cow/day when going from 2X to 1X milking. In herds with seasonal calving, there is an interest in using 1X milking during late lactation. The penalty for 1X milking may be to large for adoption by many producers, however.

Table 1. Difference in milk yield with various milking frequency

(X= number of milkings per day).

Source: Erdman and Varner, 1995.

The differences within each comparison were statistically correlated with the level of milk production, and no significant regression coefficient was found for the 2X vs 3X comparison. This is clear evidence that the benefit of 3X milking is fixed and not proportional to herd milk production level. There was insufficient number of trials to make a meaningful comparison for 4X and 1X vs 2X regression evaluation.

Milk fat percentage declined as milk production increased. Nevertheless, the increase in 3X milk yield resulted in a significant increase in fat yield of 92 g/cow/day. This increase in fat yield was not dependent on herd production level, and no significant correlation could be found in regression analysis. There was insufficient number of reports that included analysis of protein levels, so no statistical evaluation was conducted. Milk protein yield was increased by 84 g/cow/day in 3X groups.

Some studies split out the results for first-lactation cows and multi-lactation cows. Milk production from adopting a 3X milking frequency was 3.3 and 3.5 kg/cow/day in first-lactation versus multi-lactation cows, respectively. These results suggest that USDA’s use of a 20, 18 and 15% milk production adjustment factors for first, second and later lactation, respectively, are not accurate.

Dairy producers who are considering use of increased milking frequency must evaluate whether the increased revenue from milk and components is sufficient to cover the increased labor, feed and utility costs. If a producer uses an estimate of increased milk production that is based on a proportion of existing herd production, the economic evaluation may be faulty, as these results suggest that producers should be using a fixed production response.

Six Times-A-Day (6X) Milking

Researchers have used increased milking frequency to study the cow’s physiological response to high levels of milk production. One study used six 268 Varner et al. times-a-day (6X) milking to increase milk production and the researchers found that there was still a significant elevation in milk production levels after returning to the herd norm of 3X (Bar-Peled, et al. 1995). These workers found that cows milked 6X had an increase of 7.3 kg/cow/day over the 3X controls during the time of 6X milking. After the six weeks of 6X milking, all cows were milked 3X, and the 6X group still had a 5.0 kg/cow/day benefit. This maintenance of all, or at least part, of the additional milk from early-lactation increased milking frequency can be termed the “carry-over effect.”

The potential for 6X milking during the first six weeks of lactation to induce a significant carry-over effect was determined under the demanding conditions of a private herd. Data were collected on a 2000 cow private dairy with Holsteins. Fifty cows that calved during a two-week period were assigned to the trial. Both first-lactation and multi-lactation cows were assigned, and half were milked 6X during the first six weeks of lactation. The milk production results are in Table 2.

Table 2. Milk yield (kg/cow/day) and standard error of the mean (SEM) for various treatment groups and parity.

A significant treatment by parity interaction was determined. While there was a significant effect of 6X milking on both first and later lactation cows during the first six weeks of lactation, the cows in the 6X first lactation group had reduced milk production levels after starting 3X milk production. The multi-lactation cows had a significant carry-over effect on milk production. First-lactation cows were significantly lighter in body weight at 15 weeks after calving (487 vs 592 kg). The average age at calving for first-lactation cows was 23 months, so they were also a little young. The young age may have contributed to the lighter weight, which prevented the first lactation cows from having any carry-over effect.

There was no significant difference in fat or protein percent for 6X milking, though there was a parity by treatment interaction for fat and protein yield, due to the effects on milk production described above. There was no significant difference in milk somatic cell count for any of the treatment groups. First service conception rate was low for the herd (~20%), due to warm weather, but there were no significant differences in conception rate between groups.

The maximal amount of difference in level of milk production between 6X and 3X multi-lactation cows was observed at three weeks after calving. This observation suggests that increase in milking frequency may not have to be a full six weeks to develop a full carry-over effect.

Four Times-A-Day Milking

Increasing the milking frequency during early lactation has some important practical limitations to application. One limitation is that cows are sometimes handled in a separate group until the milk is clean and salable. Another is when to do the extra milkings. These two factors were evaluated in a 4X versus 2X trial.

Thirty cows were assigned to one of three treatments (Hale et al 2002). One group were milked 4X starting at the first day of lactation (termed IMF-1). The second group was milked 4X starting on the fourth day of lactation (termed IMF4), when milk could be sold. The third group was the control group and was milked 2X for the entire lactation. The 4X treatments were done for the first three weeks of lactation, and then the cows were milked 2X for the remainder of lactation. The 4X milkings were done at the beginning and end of the herd 2X milkings, so there was not an even 6 hour milking interval for the 4X groups. The 2X groups had an 11 – 13 hour milking intervals, so some 4X intervals may have been as short as 4 hours and as long as 8 hours.

Milk production levels are in Figure 1. There was a significant increase in milk production in both 4X groups during the first three weeks of lactation. There was also a significant carry-over effect through the remainder of lactation. There did not appear to be a significant difference between the IMF-1 and IMF-4 treatment groups for milk production.

These results demonstrate that 4X milking frequency for only three weeks and applied without a regular milking interval, can lead to a significant carry-over effect. The effects of treatment on milk components and the dynamics of mammary cell numbers will be determined.

Summary

Increased milking frequency results in increased levels of milk production. This increase is fixed and not proportional to level of milk production at the time of increase. Milking cows more frequently during the first weeks of lactation may provide a significant improvement in milk production for the remainder of lactation. The minimum amount of time required is not known, but may be as little as three weeks. The increase in frequency does not appear to have to start immediately after calving, and the milking intervals doe not have to be equal in length. It appears that conducting the increased frequency milkings at the beginning and end of the herd’s standard milking interval is sufficient.

References

Amos, H.E., T. Kiser and M. Loewenstein. 1985. Influence of milking frequency on productive and reproductive efficiencies o dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 68:732-739.

Bar-Peled, U., E. Maltz, i. Bruckental, Y. Folman, Y. Kali, H. Gacitua, A.Rl Lehrer, C.H. Knight, B. Robinzon, H. Voet and H. Tagari. 1995. Relationship between frequent milking or suckling in early lactation and milk production of high producing dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 78:2726-2736.

Erdman, R.A. and M.A. Varner. 1995. Fixed yield responses to increased milking frequency. J.Dairy Sci. 78:1199-1203.

Hale, S., A. Capuco, R. Erdman and M. Varner. 2002. Unpublished.

Sanders, A.H. M.A. Varner and R.A. Erdman. 2000. The effects of six times a day milking in early lactation on milk yield, milk composition, body condition and reproduction. Am. Dairy Sci. Annual Meeting, Baltimore, July. J. Dairy Sci. 83(Suppl. 1):242 (Abstr.)

Figure 1. Milk Production in Cows Milked 2x vs. 4x

Source: University of Maryland
Author: Varner, Hale, Capucco

POSILAC 1 STEP® and Nutrition

Key Points:

• Bovine somatotropin has no effect on the efficiency of nutrient utilization.
• Managers who encourage maximum dry matter intake are expected to profit maximally from use of POSILAC 1 STEP® and will experience higher overall milk production.
• Dry matter intake of cows supplemented with POSILAC will increase sufficiently to support increased milk production.
• Responses to POSILAC are greatest when quality feed is available for consumption at least 20 hours a day.

Nutrition requirements of cows supplemented with POSILAC are the same as that of nonsupplemented cows producing at similar levels. Controlled studies1,2,4,5 have demonstrated that supplementation with bovine somatotropin does not change nutrient requirements per unit of milk produced nor does it change the digestion characteristics of the diet. Therefore, the ration balance required for cows supplemented with POSILAC bovine somatotropin will depend on body weight and milk production just as it does in nonsupplemented cows.

Controlled studies1,2 demonstrate that bovine somatotropin has no effect on the efficiency of nutrient utilization. Nutrients are directed away from other body tissues toward the mammary gland.3,4,5 These same studies show that basal metabolism and maintenance requirements are unaffected by somatotropin supplementation. Slight increases in body temperature are associated with higher milk yields. After exhaustive research on the subject, the National Research Council (NRC) publication, Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, recognizes only body weight, milk production, milk fat test, and expected gain or loss of body weight as factors that affect nutrient demand.

In the dairy cow, fat covering is an indicator of the amount of stored energy. Cows without adequate body reserves are prone to disease, metabolic disorders, impaired reproductive efficiency, and reduced milk production. In heifers, lack of body reserves will delay breeding and will lower milk production after calving. Excessively fat cows, on the other hand, are predisposed to calving difficulties, fatty liver after calving, and often death. This condition has been termed Fat Cow Syndrome. Even cows that recover from this condition experience lower milk and butterfat production as well as increased risk of other disease conditions. Heifers that are fat at puberty fail to develop their full mammary gland capacity, resulting in lower lifetime production. Problems of repeat breeding are also reported for overly fat heifers at puberty.

The body fat covering of dairy cattle changes with different stages of lactation. Fresh cows lose body fat because they are unable to eat enough to meet the energy requirements for their high milk production. Late lactation and dry cows can add large amounts of body fat because they are able to take in more energy that they require for the amount of milk they produce.

Dairy farmers need to be aware of the body condition of their cows and heifers so that they can adjust management practices and feed rations as needed. The body reserves of dairy cows are evaluated by a procedure known as body condition scoring. When body condition scoring the fat covering the rump and loin is evaluated and the cow is given a numeric score based on this evaluation. Body condition is scored between 0 and 5 with half scores in between. This gives a total of 11 possible body scores. Use of the body condition score system enables a farmer to accurately evaluate the body reserves of a cow and describe it in an easily understood, consistent way.

In long-term studies with bovine somatotropin8,9,10 dry matter intake was increased to a level that would support increases in milk production. This increase in dry matter intake occurred at variable times after initiation of POSILAC treatment, but generally within 3-5 weeks.

This implies that those managers who encourage maximum dry matter intake by lead feeding would be expected to profit maximally from POSILAC as well as to experience higher overall milk production. This also implies that cattle selected for supplementation with POSILAC should have adequate body condition for their stage of lactation.

Because the increase in dry matter intake does not occur for several weeks after initiation of treatment, initially the nutrients for increased milk production will come from body scores.3 Loss of body condition after supplementation with somatotropin may occur if cows move into a negative energy balance.11,12,13 This transitory condition loss corresponds to between 1/4 and 1/2 of one body condition score.14 This agrees with theoretical energy balance calculations, assuming that one body condition score is between 120 and 180 pounds of body weight.

Ultimately, dry matter intake determines the productive level of any herd of dairy cattle.15 Suggested nutrient levels, which optimize dry matter intake for animals producing at various production levels, are presented in Table 1. These were developed from NCR recommendations and from field experience.

Table 1 Approximate desired nutrient concentration in total ration dry matter for stated amount of milk

Because of increased dry matter intake and the constancy of nutrient demand, cows supplemented with POSILAC have no increased requirements for concentrate, added fat, ruminally inert fat, protein, undegradable intake protein, minerals, or trace minerals beyond those of unsupplemented cows producing at the same levels.

Different researchers have proposed various schemes for feeding the BST-supplemented cow including increasing the amount of grain fed,17 feeding a single, high-energy Total-Mixed Ration ad libitum,18 increasing the amount of energy,19 increasing the amount of ruminally bypassed fat,20 or increasing total protein and undegraded intake protein.21 To date all of these schemes have shown no or very low effects on somatotropin response. At present, encouraging increased dry matter intake is the only proven strategy for feeding the cow treated with POSILAC.22 In a large field study,13 cows were found to respond well to POSILAC over a wide range of ration nutrient composition.

References

1. Tyrell HF, Brown ACG, Reynolds PJ, Haaland GC, et al: Effect of bovine somatotropin on metabolism of lactating cows: Energy and nitrogen utilization as determined by respiration calorimetry. J Nutr 1988;118:1024.

2. Robinson PH, de Boer G, Kennelly JJ: Effect of bovine somatotropin and protein on rumen fermentation and forestomach and whole tract digestion in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3505.

3. Peel CJ, Bauman DE: Somatotropin and lactation. J Dairy Sci 1987;70:474

4. Hart IC: Altering the efficiency of milk production of dairy cows with somatotropin, in Garnsworthy PC (ed): Nutrition and Lactation in the Dairy Cow. London, Butterworths, 1988, pp 232-247.

5. McBride BW, Brown JL, Burton JH: Review: The influence of bovine growth hormone (somatotropin) on animals and their products. Res Dev Agricult 1988;5:1.

6. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 1988.

7. Patton RA, Bucholtz HF, Schmidt MK, Hall FM: Body Condition Scoring - A Management Tool. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 1988.

8. Bauman DE, Eppard PJ, DeGeeter MJ, Lanza GM: Responses of high-producing cows to long-term treatment with pituitary somatotropin and recombinant somatotropin. J Dairy Sci 1985;68:1352.

9. Phipps RH, Weller RF, Craven N, Peel CJ: Use of prolonged-release bovine somatotropin for milk production in British Friesan dairy cows. Effect on intake, milk production and feed efficiency in two consecutive lactations of treatment. J Agricult Sci 1990;115:95.

10. Hartnell GF, Franson SE, Bauman DE, Head HH, et al: Long-term evaluation of sometribove, recombinant methionyl bovine somatotropin, in a prolonged release system in lactating dairy cows-production responses in a dose titration study. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:2645.

11. McDaniel BT, Fetrow J, Harrington BD, Bell WE, Rehman JD: Factors affecting response to recombinant bovine somatotropin. J Dairy Sci 1990;73(Suppl 1):159(Abstr.).

12. Thomas JW, Samuels WA, Madsen KS: Use of sometribove, USAN (recombinant methionyl bovine somatotropin) in a prolonged release system in commercial dairy herds. J Dairy Sci 1989;72(Suppl 1):450(Abstr.).

13. Thomas JW, Erdman RA, Galton DM, Lamb RC, et al: Responses by lactating cows in commercial herds to recombinant bovine somatotropin. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:945.

14. Ferguson JD: Interactions between milk yield and reproduction in dairy cattle, in Meeting the Challenges of New Technology. St. Louis, MO, Monsanto Technical Symposium. Monsanto Agricultural Group, 1989, pp 35-44.

15. Patton RA: Dry matter intake. Department of Animal Science monograph, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 1987.

16. Bucholtz HF, Thomas JW, Walter JP, Patton RA, Hayes ST: Approximate desired nutrient concentrations in total ration for slated amounts of milk. Spartan Dairy Ration Evaluator, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 1987.

17. Tessman NJ, Kleimans J, Dhiman TR, Radloff HD, Satter LD: Effect of dietary forage:grain ratio on response of lactating dairy cows to recombinant somatotropin. J Dairy Sci 1988;71(Suppl 1):121(Abstr.).

18. Hutjens MF: Dairy nutrition applications. Dairy Forum, Production Medicine - Managing the Whole Picture. St. Louis, MO, Monsanto Agricultural Group, 1990.

19. Lormore MJ, Muller LD, Deaver DR, Griel LC, Jr: Early lactation responses of dairy cows administered bovine somatotropin and fed diets high in energy and protein. J Dairy Sci 1990; 73:3237.

20. Chalupa W, Galligan DT: Nutritional implications of somatotropin for lactating cows. J Dairy Sci 1989;72:2510.

21. McGuffey RK, Basson RP, Snyder DL, Block E, et al: Effects of sometribove sustained release administration on the lactational performance of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:1263.

22. Franson SE, Cole WJ, Hoffman RG, Meserole VK, et al: Response of cows throughout lactation to sometribove, recombinant methionyl somatotropin, in a prolonged release system - a dose titration study. Part 1. Production response. J Dairy Sci 1989;72(Suppl 1):451 (Abstr.).

23. Patton RA, Heald CW: Management of bST-supplemented cows, in Halberg MC (ed): Bovine somatotropin and Emerging Issues - An Assessment, Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 1992, p 73.

Source: Monsanto

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)

MANAGING HEAT STRESS

Water, moving air are critical cooling components

The single objective is to cool cows. The methods, however, will vary. Break the “laws” of cooling and you’ll break more cows.
by Dave Natzke

One size doesn ’t fit all when it comes to cooling cows. limate,management and economics all determine what system works best.

“There are tough choices to make on cooling,and those choices have to match the environment,” said John Smith,Kansas State University (KSU).

Before you begin

Supplemental cooling cannot fix problems caused by other management shortfalls.Smith urges establishing a cow cooling strategy priority list:

1. Provide adequate drinking water
2. Provide shade
3. Reduce parlor walking distance
4. Reduce time in the holding area
5. Improve ventilation
6. Add holding area/exit lane cooling
7. Cool close-up cows
8. Cool fresh/early-lactation cows
9. Cool mid-and late-lactation cows.

Where to start

“You really have to make the choice whether you want to cool the cow or cool the air,” Smith said..“There are huge geographical differences.”

The drier the climate,the more potential to cool the air through evaporative cooling.The potential to change air tem-perature goes down as relative humidity goes up,Smith said.

For example,at 90 °F and 10%relative humidity,a dairy producer has the potential to lower air temperatures in a barn by 30 °F with 100%efficient evaporative cooling.In contrast, at 90 °F and 60%humidity,the producer has the potential to lower air temperatures by only about 9 °F.

“You can ’t bend physics,”Smith said.“In a humid climate, you have to be realistic about how much you can drop air temperature,”Smith said.“In humid climates,cooling the cow instead of the air is more efficient.”

“In the Arizona desert,where afternoon relative humidity is 10%,I don ’t know if you can put enough water on a cow ’s back to cool her,” Smith said.“In that situation it makes more sense to cool the air.But in most temperature ranges in the United States,it ’s more efficient to evaporate the water off a cow ’s back.Every time we evaporate a pound of water,1,000 BTUs have to come from somewhere.When we take it off a cow ’s back,the BTUs are primarily coming out of the cow.”

Selecting a cooling system

Once you ’ve made the decision to cool the air or the cows, you can move ahead with a system.Some systems cool the air and the cows.Some techniques work across most climates.

Shade

Blocking the sun ’s radiation is one of the first steps to cooling cows,and is effective almost everywhere.

“Protection from solar radiation can have a large payback,”said Dr.Bob Collier,University of Arizona.

Trees provide an excellent source of natural shade for cattle housed outdoors.Permanent or portable artificial shade (a roof or other sunblock)can be effective.Realize,however,that cows will congregate under shade,potentially limiting airflow.Align shade to take advantage of natural ventilation, and provide adequate space.Use dirt mounds to aid water and urine diversion.Keep water and feed nearby to encourage dry matter intake.Don ’t limit shade to lactating cows.

“Probably all dry cows in western United States need solid shade,and the only exception may be western Oregon and Washington,” said Dennis Armstrong,,University of Arizona. “If your lactating cows need additional cooling,your dry cows need it,too.”

Ventilation

Ensure adequate natural ventilation by opening walls or ceiling ridges.Adding mixing fans to create a draft across the cows helps remove body heat (convection)and improves the cow ’s own evaporative ability.

Direct-drive or belt-driven fans are available.Most are 36 or 48 inches in diameter and normally installed about 10 to 12 feet above the cow feeding alley,high enough to clear equipment operating below the fans.Fans over freestalls are usually mounted 8 feet above the cow alley or higher if necessary to keep cows from reaching them.Angle fans downward 15 to 20 degrees.The goal is to create air velocities around 200 to 300 feet/minute across the cows ’ backs..The recommended distance between fans is 30 feet for 3-foot diameter fans and 40 feet for 4-foot diameter fans.All fans should be blowing air in the same direction.

“A big mistake is failing to get the correct airf low and get-ting it to the right places,” Smith said..“You need air volume and air velocity.You need at least 5 mph across a cow ’s back. Don ’t cheat on fan numbers or spacing.”

Moving air and water

Fans are by far the most common system used to reduce dairy cattle heat stress.Trouble is,many producers stop there. While natural and supplemental ventilation provides fresh air exchange that improves convection,evaporation,conduction and convection cooling can be further enhanced with both air and water.

“Many think the first thing they should do is simply put in fans and blow air over cows,” he said.“Above 70 °F,fans do very little to improve cow comfort.Putting water on a cow ’s back – in combination with the fans – has a huge impact. Without water,fans do very little.”

“In hot temperatures,if you don ’t put water with it there ’s no benefit to blowing hot air,” said Armstrong.“The benefits come when you wet her and lower air temperature.”

Adding water

Smith calls water “the magic ” in a cow cooling system.

“When we only blow air on cows,we have very little impact on respiration rates and body temperatures,” he said..“Adding water reduces body temperatures and respiration rates very rapidly.”

The primary wetting system for much of the United States is a low-pressure feedline soaker with fans over the feedlines and stalls.The method ombines frequent wetting (conduction)with moving air (convection),and enhances the cow ’s own evaporation.

Using feedline soakers and fans at various wetting cycles,KSU researchers found just how effective a combination can be.They studied the cooling impact on body temperature and respiration among heat-stressed cows with body temperatures of about 103 °F.The study compared using fans and sprinklers separately,and fans/sprinklers under a variety of wetting cycles.

At 88 °F and 57%relative humidity (THI of 80),attempting to cool with fans only actually produced higher cow body temperatures.Using fans and sprinklers set at 15-minute intervals (sprinkler on for 1 minute,off for 14 minutes),and sprinklers without fans at 15-minute intervals,maintained cow body temperatures at about 103 °F.

More effective cooling was found using sprinklers set at 10-minute and 5 minute intervals without fans.Most effective cooling was found with sprin kler/fan combinations at 10-(sprinkler on for 1 minute,off for 9 minutes)and 5-minute (sprinkler on for 1 minute, off for 4 minutes)intervals,dropping body temperatures to between 101.5 °F and 102.5 °F.

KSU research found similar positive cow cooling impacts on cow respiration rates,a critical component of a cow ’s natural evaporative cooling.

Air alone did not reduce respiration rates.The biggest effect was found with fan/sprinkler combinations and wetting frequency at 10-and 5-minute intervals.

Compared to cows receiving no cooling, cows cooled with fans and sprinklers set at 5-minute intervals cut respiration rates in half,from 105 breaths/minute to 50 breaths/minute. The results convince Smith that wet- ting frequency is important. “What we ’re doing now is increasing wetting frequency,” he said.“We need to start the water at 70 °F and increase wetting frequency as temperature rises.At 70-80 °F,soakers will come on every 15 minutes;at 80-87 °F,they ’ll come on every 10 minutes;and above 87 °F,every five minutes.

Start with water?

Since sprinklers alone had more positive influence on cooling than air lone, producers might consider starting with sprinklers instead of fans if investment capital is limited.Smith offers a couple of warnings,however.

“Starting with water makes economic sense if it is a well-ventilated barn,” Smith said.“Water without good natural ventilation creates problems.And, without fans,increasing the wetting frequency is going to fill your manure lagoon with water.”

When using a lot of water to cool cows,freestall comfort is imperative,”said Monsanto ’s Tom Bailey.“Cows have to get off their feet in a clean,dry comfortable bed.You want her to go to the bunk,but you want her to lie down.Overcrowding is a real issue when usingsprinklers.”

More frequent wetting cycles requires some additional sprinkler technology. Smith recommends nozzles with check valves.That ’s critical because,if the system is not sized correctly,it can take up to two minutes for water to reach the end of the line.With check valves and proper pipe size,the entire system comes on immediately because the pipe is full of water.Another method is to wet separate pens in sequence,so water doesn ’t have to be pumped to the full barn all at one time. “The other thing we ’ve done is lower the water lines so we reduce water droplet drift.And,we ’ve gone to a larger droplet size,” said Smith..“The good news:putting in low-pressure soakers and fans is a lot cheaper than putting in high-pressure pumps,evaporative pads and tunnel ventilation in most barns.” Sprinklers,misters are different

Before installing a cooling system, know what you ’re trying to accomplish, and how each system works.Misters and foggers are more effective at moistening and cooling the air around cows. Sprinklers cool the cows.

“Sprinklers and misters are not interchangeable,” said Smith..“Their design end mode of action are very different.” “Don ’t confuse a sprinkler and a mister,” added Bailey..“With misters in high humidity,small water droplets lie on the hair,and you get airlocks between the skin and water,resulting in a vapor barrier that actually hampers cooling.With sprinklers,what we ’re trying to do is soak the hair all the way down to the skin,for evaporative cooling.By adding more water (misters or foggers)to the air at night,when air is naturally more humid,you get more condensation,and bedding and everything will get wet.”

“Sprinkling combines conduction and evaporation,” said Dr..Joe West, dairy scientist at the University of Georgia.“Through conduction,heat is absorbed by the water on the skin. Evaporation pulls the moisture-loaded heat off the cow.”

Provide uniform distribution

Use sprinkler supplier information to determine nozzle spacing based on water pressure.Space nozzles to provide uniform distribution.Size water lines to provide sufficient water flow and minimal pressure drop.Consider installing a pressure regulator to keep the water pressure within operating limits.Excessive pressure may produce smaller droplets that don ’t wet the skin.

Install sprinklers so they will not wet feed or freestall bedding.Wet bedding can lead to an increase in mastitis.

Use 180-degree (half-circle)or 360-degree (full-circle),low-pressure (20 to 25 psi)sprinkler nozzles that roduce a shower of large droplets.Irrigation nozzles and solid-cone coarse droplet spray nozzles with flow rates between 0.2 and 0.5 gallon per minute work well.Along a feed manger,180-degree nozzles mounted so they spray away from the bunk minimize feed wetting.The 360-degree nozzles work well in holding areas.

Sprinklers can be effectively used in holding pens,exit alleys or at the feedbunk.The key is to thoroughly wet the cows ’ backs to the skin without allowing much water to run down off the cow ’s udder.In stall barn situations,cows could be allowed to go outside and walk under sprinklers,then brought back in the barn under fans.

Ponds

In the southern United States soaking ponds have been used effectively. They aren ’t practical in the Upper Midwest,and aren ’t just pools of standing water. “They take a lot of water,and a lot of management,” said Don Bennink, North Florida Holsteins,Bell,Fla.

“People that don ’t manage them get in a lot of trouble.You need fresh water running in and out all of the time.If you do that,you ’ll actually cut mastitis vs.an open lot without cooling ponds, because cows stay cleaner rather than creating a mud hole.Plus,you ’re keeping her body temperature down so she ’s more resistant to disease.”

“It ’s just like airflow,” adds Bailey.“They ’re constantly turning that water,flowing in one end and out the other.” Set cooling,economic priorities

Heat stress window,intensity and potential paybacks factor into cooling system investment.

by Dave Natzke

The answer to the question of what type of cow cooling system to use was,“It depends.” The same answer applies to cooling system cost effectiveness.

“Cooling investment will depend on your heat stress window,” said Dennis Armstrong,,University of Arizona.“The longer the heat stress window,the more cooling you can afford.”

Using the Temperature Humidity Index chart (on page 12),determine the average number of days and intensity the THI will put cows in heat stress.Use your milk production records to evaluate how much milk you lose during the typical “summer slump.” Don ’t stop there,however. “There are a lot of intangibles related to heat stress management cost effectiveness,” said Dave Bray,,University of Florida dairy scientist.“Cow death losses,daily milk production,peak milk production,reproduction,cow health and calf birth weights are factors.”

Kansas State University dairy scientist John Smith concurs.

“In reality,the things we do with heat stress not only improve summer milk production and reproduction,but we ’re increasing milk peaks,” Smith said..“Every pound of peak production equals about 250 pounds of milk over the lactation.Ten pounds of milk off peaks in summer can mean 2,500 pounds over the lactation.”

Cooling economics

KSUagricultural economist K.C.Dhuyvetter has conducted cooling impact studies,citing both other literature and his own on-farm tests

Tur ner and Bucklin estimated the annual rate of return for a sprinkler/fan cooling system was 58%and 27%for dairies in Florida and Kentucky,respectively.Comparing cooled cows to noncooled cows,the Florida study was based on a 4.6lb./day milk gain for 210 days;the Kentucky study was based on a 7.9-lbs./day milk gain for 100 days.

Igono et al.,estimated a $0.22/day return on a shade,spray and fan system compared to shade alone in Missouri. Curt Gooch,Cornell,analyzed tunnel ventilation in 2-,3-, 4-and 6-row barns to determine the pounds of milk/per day required using an energy efficient tunnel ventilation system. Depending on barn configuration,number of cows,etc.,the milk gains ranged from a low of about 2 lbs./cow/day to a high of 12.1 lbs./cow/day.

“Studies indicate milk production can plummet 20%-30% in high-producing herds,” Dhuyvetter noted..“With production decreases of that magnitude,it ’s hard to argue against investing in supplemental cooling.” Dhuyvetter ’s analysis found that the break-even level of production loss is about 3%to 4%,depending on the cooling system installed.As heat stress production declines exceeded 20%,the returns to heat stress abatement exceeded $2/cow/day. Var iable costs to operate the cooling system,including water,electricity and maintenance will go up.If cows are able to maintain higher dry matter intakes,feed costs will also go up.Most would argue that ’s a good thing.

Dhuyvetter argues that the optimal decision to cool cows is insensitive to milk prices and feed costs.Higher milk production and other benefits will more than offset those variable costs.Basing the investment impact only on summer milk production severely shortchanges the value. Management strategies that reduce heat stress on peak production can generate large economic returns,especially for cows in their second and later lactations. Some costs will go down,including those associated with reproductive inefficiency,and health disorders or problems linked to cow discomfort.

“On a 500-cow dairy experiencing 21 days of heat stress per summer,preventing a 4-lb.drop in milk production per cow per day adds up to $5,500 with $13/cwt.milk,” said Smith. “Add in the benefits to the reproductive program and a sprinkler system can be easily justified in just one summer.”

“I don ’t care which climate you ’re in,with the exception of maybe northwest United States or high altitude climates,” Smith said.“In most of traditional dairy areas,there ’s an incredible amount of money left on the table to cool cows. Producers have to make the decision to do it,and they need to make the decision to manage it.”

Source: Midwest Daily Business
Author: Dave Natzke

CASH FLOW STRATEGIES

PRODUCER ROUNDTABLE

Managing through an economic storm

Cash flow concerns know no boundaries. Dairy producers from Idaho, Mississippi and New York share management ideas on how to do more than survive.

by DairyBusiness Communications staff

Peak Performance: All signs point to higher feed costs and a continuation of relatively low milk prices. What management steps are you taking to weather this challenging economic period?

Ideal Dairy: We were proactive with our banker and met with him about what we could do to get us through this tight period. We laid out a plan and discussed options if this is a long-term downturn and how we could restructure. I try to stay ahead of the curve so I know what my options are.

We also did budgeting projections for what we have to do to cash flow through this year. We curtailed any capital improvements and we’re living off depreciation – we didn’t have a choice.

We’re down one worker, and I decided to cut one worker, who we usually let go in the winter, three or four months ahead of time. We’ll rely on part-time labor as needed.

We’re fortunate to have enough feed carry-over that I can sell some excess feed. We bought a large square baler to market large bales and that’s been a big plus. But I won’t sell any corn silage this year until I see what I have.

VanEss: We had implemented quite a few programs prior to this drop in milk prices, and we’re thankful we did. It has forced us to be a little more focused. We sat down and talked about where we could cut costs. We’re convinced we can’t cut back on things that would hurt milk production. It takes forever to get that back. When this price rebounds, we have to be in the position to capitalize on it. That’s our philosophy. Don’t act on emotion.

We contracted our hay and some of our corn so we knew what our costs would be. We cut out one employee.

We worked a lot on heat abatement this year, and put a lot of shade and fans in the fresh cow and close-up pens, and fans, misters and soakers in the holding pen. Heat abatement pays for itself. The radiant heat load is hard on cows.

We switched to night feeding in summer. That helped intakes. We feed once a day. We keep it pushed up all day long.

Heritage: First, we’re intensifying the management of various areas in the operation. We’re controlling, to the greatest degree possible, the many details in every management scheme that we employ. There is no room for the mistakes of poor execution by the management and labor team. This means effective planning and good communication with our employees to ensure excellent follow-through. Additionally, we are investigating creating new milk marketing opportunities for our dairy.

PP: Challenging economic times force us to put everything we do on a dairy under a microscope. Are there any areas that are getting your special attention?

Ideal Dairy: The big ticket items: labor and feed. I’ve locked in our feed until January and will probably lock in the rest soon. We’re always looking at benchmarks and if any are out of line, I go back to look at those. When your competitors are doing it for less, there must be a reason.

Crop costs is one: I changed my fertility program due to prices and am much more conservative now. And our hauling costs are out of bounds, but I haven’t looked into what I can do about that yet.

VanEss: We really put a lot of attention on our fresh cow management. We can manage almost our whole dairy from the 40-50 cows in that fresh pen. We take temperatures of the cows every day for the first 10 days after freshening. You can fine-tune the close-up cow ration so much quicker when you’re out there taking temperatures. We’ve spent a lot of time teaching our employees about cow health. We’re able to pick up on things right away.

The other area is our ration, not only what’s in it, but how it is delivered. We do weighbacks every day on all pens; we keep charts on intakes; we do daily dry matter samples on our forages to make sure our intakes are accurate.

Heritage: We are evaluating expenses in all areas. We believe most of our expenditures represent good management decisions. However, feed costs are always an area of special scrutiny. We are working hard at making sure we are getting the best possible price on every ingredient we use. This is done by regularly seeking bids on feed (and other) products we use.

PP: Any changes planned to your reproductive program? If so, what?

Ideal Dairy: We’ve changed drug protocols and use less of some drugs such as oxytocin and Lutalyse, but haven’t cancelled our synchronization program altogether. I’ve seen nothing detrimental from that.

Denise has changed the breeding program. We only use proven sires on the first two services, then we go to young sires to cut breeding costs.

VanEss: All first-service cows are on the full Pre-Synch/Ovsynch protocol, and after that many are on a Re-Synch program. We have a voluntary waiting period of about 58 days, and our days in milk to first service averages about 63 days. We’re pretty aggressive. During these tighter times, we’re looking at costs associated with these programs. But we’re afraid to go away from them to save costs. Open cows are costly.

We did go to less expensive bulls, which is about the only area where we’ve cut costs.

Heritage: We have had excellent results with reproduction using Pre- Synch, Ovsynch and frequently palpating for pregnancy, along with intensive heat detection using heat expectancy reports every day during breeding season. We will continue to dedicate the man hours necessary to succeed in this important aspect of the dairy.

PP: Will the current economic situation have any impact on your nearterm capital expenditures, such as postponing an expansion or buying equipment?

Ideal Dairy: Usually we have a capital budget. We spent all that we intended to this year in the spring, but we’re looking ahead to next year. We did have to add on a bunker silo this fall because we have so much feed carry-over from last year.

VanEss: We did postpone an expansion, but it was related more toward a business situation, not an economic situation. Looking back, maybe it was good thing. We’ve put all equipment purchases on hold, and we’ll sit tight.

Our freestall facilities and lockups aren’t overcrowded, but our parlor throughput limits us. We were at 3X milking, but with extra cows and low cull rates, we’re down to 2.2X milking per day, and it’s starting to hurt production. On 3X, we consistently had daily peaks of 104 lbs. of milk; we’re now at 86-87 lbs. Our SCC had been about 140,000; it climbed to 180,000 to 190,000. We’re convinced that milking 2.2X doesn’t help that.

We want to get back to 3X. One thing we’re talking about is milking the fresh cows 3X and leaving the rest of the herd at 2X, so we can keep our peaks. We think we could get another 10 cows through the parlor a day.

Heritage: Yes. We have been planning to expand our freestall housing, but have been unable to proceed in these market conditions. Current financial commitments to debt repayment are the first priority. Additional debt could jeopardize cash flow.

PP: Is the current economic situation forcing you to look at changes to specific enterprises within your dairy?

Ideal Dairy: No. Our calves are contracted out from birth to 100 days and we’re not stopping that – it’s a good situation. We’re so pleased with the results from the calf grower, and it would be tough to re-establish it here.

VanEss: Our baby calves are raised by a custom grower, come back at 4 months, and then go to another grower at 1 year to about four weeks prefresh. It would have to get pretty tough for us to raise our baby calves again. We do not have the room here for them, and it takes so much manpower focused on them. We don’t ever want to do the baby calves again.

Heritage: We have no plans to restructure any of our main enterprises, but we have had to operate them with “no frills.”

PP: What kind of cropping year did you have, and how is your forage inventory, based on quantity and quality?

Ideal Dairy: We had very good hay and haylage. Third cutting is down but a large second cutting compensated for that. We’re in the middle of corn. It was obviously a record year last year; this is an average to less-than-average year. But our feed inventory is OK – we have 200 to 240 days of feed left over from 2001.

VanEss: We buy all our feed. We have 90% of our hay in storage already, and the quality (175-213 RFV) is good. We have about 10,000 tons of corn silage in the pit, and will add another 1,500 tons. We usually feed about 17 lbs. of dry hay, 40 lbs. of corn silage and 31 lbs. of concentrate and 1.5 lbs. oat hay as a fiber source, depending on hay quality. We add water to the TMR to keep it at 52% moisture. We’ve been as high as 18 lbs. of water per cow and as low as 8-10 lbs. When we deviate from 52%, you’ll notice intake fluctuations and sorting.

Heritage: Corn silage (350 acres) and ryegrass baleage (100 acres) are the forages grown locally for us by the dairy’s previous owners (Jimmy and Wayne Steward). Inventory is adequate (6,000 tons of silage and 300 tons of baleage) and quality is very good for our region of the country.

PP: What kind of feeding changes will you make? Did you lock in any feed purchase prices?

Ideal Dairy: I locked in half of my corn and some of my beans quite a while ago.

VanEss: We locked in our corn and soy, and we’ll lock in our cottonseed.

We reviewed rations, but there wasn’t really a lot of opportunity within our ration to cheapen it up. We felt that if we cut out too much on our feed costs, we would sacrifice on milk.

This year we tried feeding some green chop during the summer heat. We were happy with it; it maintained intakes, but it was harder to control the ration. Moisture levels varied from day to day. We have the FeedWatch program on our feed truck to help.

Heritage: We will evaluate rations frequently to make needed adjustments for price and performance. We’ll make sure we know our ingredients’ nutrient values (including moisture). We’ll monitor dry matter intake, cud chewing, rumen pH, particle size, etc. In short, we’ll try to avoid any inefficiencies in our feeding system. We regularly use byproducts, including wet brewers grain, distillers grains, cottonseed hulls and cottonseed. Our corn, soybean meal and distillers grains are locked in for six months.

PP: When it comes to marketing your milk, do you use forward contracting, hedging, options or other marketing tools? How’s that going, and explain?

Ideal Dairy: I have done forward contracting in the past but haven’t been very successful. I think there’s not enough volume traded, and the economists can’t even strategically guess what the price of milk will be. With the feed situation, I don’t see how anyone can establish their cost of production to lock in prices. I don’t have confidence in the volatility of the commodity market and I don’t feel confident in hedging with feed costs what they are.

VanEss: We tried it a little bit in the past, and we can still laugh about it, but we need to do a lot more educating ourselves in that area. I think it’s something dairy producers are going to be forced to do. We have to change our mindset a little bit. To be profitable year-in-and-year-out is better than being very profitable one year and losing money the next.

Heritage: No. There is no mechanism for doing this with our milk processor.

PP: If there’s such a thing as a “sacred cow” on your dairy, such as a technology, system or program you wouldn’t change no matter what the economic situation, what would it be?

Ideal Dairy: Cow comfort. We never compromise on that expense, such as sand for bedding. When it comes to fans, lights, bedding – cows drive those decisions.

Other than that, second would be the quality of proven sires. It’s a fundamental principle that we feel is important to our business from a merchandising standpoint and for herd longevity.

VanEss: We’d never, ever change our fresh cow program. We were culling a lot of cows at low days in milk. Cows would come fresh and weren’t performing at 60-70 days in milk. We also culled a lot of cows late in the lactation because they weren’t getting bred. Attention in the fresh pen improved reproduction. We haven’t had a uterus prob lem in two months. We only had three DAs last year and production has soared. Cull rates and death rates are down. We’re keeping cows around longer.

And we’d never feed without FeedWatch on the truck.

Heritage: The financial success of the dairy is the “sacred cow” and most any of our systems would be subject to adaptation in order to achieve economic performance. We do believe that cow comfort and happiness, the use of proven, emerging technologies, attention to details, and high-quality cattle are the keys to our success.

PP: Financial stress can add personal stress. What are you doing to keep family and labor healthy and happy?

Ideal Dairy: In our weekly staff meetings in May and June, we put the cards on the table about what the company would take on the chin. We discussed line items that the employees had an impact on, like equipment repair, and compared them to last year. They are fully aware of the financial complications and difficulties.

Denise and I have been coming up with a plan. We’ve made projections and what we have to do to make it work and to at least make ends meet. That’s important.

VanEss: We keep our employees informed about what’s going on. When Lisa and I come out after paying bills and are stressed, it helps a lot for the employees to know what’s going on. We work through it together. We’re out there every day interacting with employees and take opportunities to stop and talk.

Heritage: For ourselves and our families, we try to, “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your request be made known to God (Philippians 4:6).” We try to insulate our labor from any direct effects of the dairy markets to ensure good performance. We have continued to provide competitive salaries, health insurance, paid vacation and a profitsharing plan to our full-time employees. We are very thankful for the dedicated employees we have.

Source: Midwest Dairy Business

TSS notes

High Production –Boom or Doom?

Select Sires Symposium

October 2, 2002

Mark Armfelt, DVM, DABVP

Technical Services Specialist,

Monsanto Dairy Business

High Production vs. Stress

Does high production result in stress?

Or

High production is the result of the removal of stress?

High Production and Reproductive Performance

TRUE OR FALSE

High producing cows are much more difficult to

get pregnant than low producing cows.

Objectives

High Production – What are the Economic Benefits?

Example –I do this on flip chart, have the
audience give me their numbers

Stress, Reproduction & High Production

Why do you care?

Objectives

Stress and Dairy Cow

Stress: External event resulting in strain on the biological system. It is measurable.

Collier, 2002

Stress and Dairy Cow

High Production vs. Stress

High Production vs. Stress

We Start Here….

Stressed? Production Level?

Stressed? Production Level?

Source: Monsanto Dairy Group

Handling Sand Laden Manure
High Plains Dairies
Joe Harner, John Smith, Mike Broukand and Pat Murphy
K-State Dairy Team
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS

PDF: Handling Sand Laden Manure

Source: Monsanto
Author: Donald Niles, DVM