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.

POSILAC 1 STEP® and Genetics

Key Points:

The effect of bovine somatotropin is similar to the selection goal of genetic programs and other dairy technologies which is to lower farm fixed costs over units of milk produced. Use of POSILAC bovine somatotropin will not eliminate genetic variation, and selection will continue to be important. There will be challenges in distinguishing between “AI proven bulls” and “BST proven bulls,” which is no different from established practices that have always existed within the industry. Dairy producers who use POSILAC will pay more attention to the contribution genetics can make to increasing productivity.

Genetic progress is likely to increase with POSILAC from the current gain of 125 lbs per year.1 Genetic progress is expected to increase because both the mean and variance are expected to increase in an environment with POSILAC. Genetic progress could be less under an environment with POSILAC compared to current progress if manipulation of records occurs. Manipulated records will decrease the accuracy of cow and sire evaluations. Dairy records rely on the integrity of individual producers. Under current conditions, records can be manipulated by simply offering additional feed, for example. Biases due to POSILAC can be handled if records are properly coded.2

Several computer simulation models1,3,4 indicated that if administration of BST is accurately recorded, then effects on genetic progress will be minimal. The more random the use of BST in the population, the less will be the effect on genetic evaluations, especially for bulls.3 A major problem would arise if individual cows are supplemented with BST and the highest responders are used as bull dams. However, as stated previously, research has not been successful in predicting individual cow responses so manipulation of potential bull dams would be difficult. POSILAC is not recommended for use on any bull dams as we do not have any specific trial data on the effects on male offspring. If the response would be an individual trait, this would lead to a preference for high responders.5 High-yielding cows and daughters of bulls with high PDs will respond to BST equally as well as cows of lower genetic merit.6,7

Dairy farmers with top genetic and production herds will have top genetic and production herds under POSILAC bovine somatotropin.1 The selection goal, increased yield, will remain the same, and will continue to be highly associated with net income within a herd. The top genetic herds will still sell bulls to AI and producers will continue to benefit from sampling young sires.1 The importance of selection will continue to grow with increased emphasis on milk production efficiency. With POSILAC, variation within herds will increase and the top genetic cows will be the best daughters of the best bulls. If all available cows are supplemented, the variance will increase because the mean will increase. If only a part of the herd is supplemented with POSILAC, then there will be a significant increase of within the herd variation because the difference between the highs and the lows will increase.8 This can be handled by adjusting the records for the effect of POSILAC.2

The impact of POSILAC on sire proofs is unknown until widespread adoption within the industry occurs. POSILAC may neutralize the effects of some genes, but is not likely to reverse their actions and cause bulls to rank much differently.1 There might be slight changes in sire rankings and sire proofs, but the net effect is expected to be minimal and the best bulls available today will also rank at the top in a POSILAC environment.

References

1. Everett RW: How will bST affect dairy genetics in the 1990’s? Hoards Dairyman 1987(April 10), p 301.

2. Everett RW, Galton DM, Kachman SD: Dairy genetics in a bST environment. Proc: Advanced Technologies Facing the Dairy Industry: bST. Cornell Cooperative Extension Meeting, Rochester, NY, 1989.

3. Burnside EB, Meyer K: Potential impact of bovine somatotropin on dairy sire evaluations. J Dairy Sci 1988;71:2210.

4. Frangione TA, Cady RA: A simulation study of the effects of somatotropin usage on sire evaluations and milk yield and yield heritabilities. J Dairy Sci 1988;71(Suppl. 1):239.

5. Gravert HO: bST and breeding-overview. Monsanto bST-Symposium, Brussels, May 22-24, 1988.

6. Ferguson JD: Strategies of bST utilization. Proc: Advanced Technologies Facing the Dairy Industry: bST. Cornell Cooperative Extension Meeting, Rochester, NY, 1989.

Source: Monsanto

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

Environmental Benefits of rbST Supplements

PRODUCING MILK USING FEWER RESOURCES & GENERATING LESS WASTE

The net benefits of producing 10% more milk than the 1996 annual supply (19 billion gallons) using the same number of dairy cows and 100% adoption of rbST would include:

Water – irrigation for feed grains. 100% adoption of supplemental rbST would save 180 billion gal/yr of water, or the equivalent of 700,000 U.S. homes’ annual usage.Land – used for feed grain farming. 100% adoption of supplemental rbST would save 1.7 million acres of land, or 1/3 the land area of New Jersey.Fuel – for grain, dairy operations, and (including) rbST production. 100% adoption of supplemental rbST would save 150 million gal/yr of fuel, or 240,000 homes’ annual consumption.

Gases – methane (greenhouse) gases from cows. 100% adoption of supplemental rbST would reduce 4.9 million tons/yr gas emissions.

Manure – 100% adoption of supplemental rbST would reduce 0.9 million metric tons/yr of manure.

Soil loss — erosion from grain farming. 100% adoption of supplemental rbST would reduce 5.3 million tons/yr soil loss, or 1% of the U.S. total soil.

Source: Kansas State University
Author: Brouck, Smith

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

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

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)

Next »