2013 05 14 - Report on Mastitis Management and Labor Management

7/30/2019 2013 05 14 - Report on Mastitis Management and Labor Management

1/10

Prepared by Casey Odom

May 6, 2013

Report on Mastitis Management and Labor Management

This is a report on some of the data collected with the Quality Milk Alliances survey ASurvey of Mastitis Management on Dairy Farms. This report focuses on the questions that

addressed labor management issues and how labor management practices are related to mastitis

management.

Introduction

Mastitis has become a problem for dairy farmers around the world. Mastitis is simplydefined as an infection of the mammary gland in the udder. These infections can be caused by a

number of different bacteria but they mostly have similar results. Due to the cows immune

response, the udders become inflamed and the white blood cells produced to fight the infection,

get mixed into the milk they produce. Because the white blood cells in the milk make it less pure,

mastitis is an indicator of lower quality milk (Barkema et al 1999).Obviously, mastitis and low quality milk is a problem for everyone involved. The farmers

cannot sell their milk to premium markets, so they make less money per gallon of milk produced.The farmers also have to treat the cattle to try to cure the infection. Antibiotics and veterinary

farm visits can quickly become expensive for the farmers, thus decreasing their profit margins

even more. Also, once the cows are treated with antibiotics, they are removed from the regularmilking line so that the antibiotic residues that will be in their milk do not contaminate the rest of

the milk produced by the other cows on the farm (Gonzalo et al. 2010). The farmers pockets

take a hit once again since they are producing less milk that is eligible for sale or consumptionwhile the cow is withdrawn from production for treatment. Mastitis often can decrease the

amount of good nutrients in the milk, as well. Consumers who consume dairy products madefrom this milk receive fewer of the beneficial vitamins and minerals found in milk, such as

calcium. Lastly, as you can imagine, mastitis is not a comfortable infection to have. Lets just say

that these are not exactly happy cattle.

Since mastitis causes problems from the farm to the cereal bowl, the Quality MilkAlliance (QMA) has developed this survey to assess some of the practices that farmers employ to

manage mastitis on their farm (N=628). Eventually, QMA will use the data produced by the

survey to help farmers manage their individual issues with mastitis and improve their milkquality.

Dairy Farm Labor

Any dairy farmer will tell you, running a dairy farm is hard work. There are three options

that dairy farmers have for managing daily farm work. In a few cases, farmers purchase robotic

milking systems which can greatly reduce the milking workload, but are very expensive andoften unreasonable for dairy farmers. Other farmers have family members who help them on the

farm, paid or unpaid. Oftentimes, however, farmers do not have enough relatives on the farm to

handle all the tasks that need to be done in a day, so they must hire part-time or full-time

employees to help them get the work done.

1


2/10

Laborer Descritptives

As you can see in Table 1, of the dairy farmers who responded, there are approximately 4

family workers and only 1.5 non-family workers on each farm. Since many farmers havedemonstrated that they are not the only ones working on their farm, it is important to understand

how those extra workers may or may not be affecting mastitis and their mastitis management

practices.

Table 1 - Family and Non-Family

Workers

Family Non-Family

Minimum 0 0

Maximum 50 120

Mean 3.9322 1.6314

Std. Deviation 2.7758 5.07537

Valid Total 2967 2665

Missing 87 389

Total 3054 3054

Since the farmers have workers on their farm, examining the amount of people who are

milking the cows is important when examining how the farms manage their labor. Table 2,

below, shows how many total milkers are present on the farm and then how many milkers are

present at each individual milking (since there are usually at least 2 milkings per day). Looking

at Table 2 we can see that there are many more total milkers on average (n=82) than there aremilkers present at each milking on average (n=13).

Table 2 Amount of Milkers

Total number

of milkers

Total number of

milkers per milking

Minimum 1 1

Maximum 82 13

Mean 3.3241 1.18415

Std. Deviation 2.6432 0.712

Valid 2961 2953

Missing 93 101

Total 3054 3054

While we can see that many farmers hire non-family employees, we should also examine

how those employees work and who those employees are. Table 3 shows that on average, mostemployees work full time (i.e., more than 40 hours a week). However, there are also part-time

employees who are probably important for certain farm operations.

2


3/10

Table 3 In 2012, how many of your employees typically worked:

Less than 20

hrs/week

20 to 40

hrs/week

More than 40

hrs/weekMinimum 0 0 0

Maximum 9 25 100

Mean 2.2 2.09 3.42

Std.

Deviation

1.707 1.916 5.252

Valid 782 936 1259

Missing 2272 2118 1795

Total 3054 3054 3054

We should also look at farmers retaining employee. As you will see later in this report(Table 7), retaining employee is important to many famers. Below, Table 4 shows how many

part-time and full-time employees are retained from year to year. Table 4 shows that there are

more employees, on average, who have are full-time and have been working on the same farmfor at least 2 consecutive years. Table 4 also shows that many more part-time employees have

worked on the same farm for at least 2 consecutive years. This suggests that farmers are more

likely to keep the same hired work, from year to year.

Labor ManagementOne issue with having family or hiring non-family to do farm work can be the

management practices for mastitis. If the family members or the hired labor are new workers on

the farm, they may not know of the problems that mastitis can cause. An easy way to fix this

problem is to teach the employees the protocols that are used for mastitis management. QMAssurvey of dairy producers asked the participants to rank how often they trained their employees

in mastitis treatment protocols.

Table 4 How many of your employees have worked on your farm:

Part time for

1 - 12

Months

Part time for

12 - 24

months

Part time for

more than 24

months

Full time

for 1 - 12

months

Full time

for 12 - 24

months

Full time for

more than

24 months

Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum 6 9 16 20 20 60

Mean 1.43 1.67 2.51 2.09 2.03 3.75

Std. Deviation 1.134 1.643 2.199 2.481 2.609 4.61

Valid 392 393 769 218 205 1188

Missing 2662 2661 2285 2836 2849 1866

Total 3054 3054 3054 3054 3054 3054

3


4/10

Table 5 - Train employees in mastitis protocols

Response Frequency

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Percent of Farmers

with Employees

Valid Never 354 13.0 13.0 17.2

Sometimes 379 14.0 27.0 18.5

Frequently 416 15.3 42.3 20.3

Always 903 33.3 75.5 44.0

N/A, Other 664 24.5 100.0

Total 2715 100.0 100.0

Missing 339

Total 3054 2052

As shown in Table 5, of the farmers that responded (n1=2715), the highest percentage answeredthat they always train their employees in mastitis protocols (n=903). This is a very good sign

because training is an easy way to increase the quality of the milk produced by each farm (Stup

et al. 2006). However, 13% of respondents report that they Never train their employees inmastitis protocols and 14 % report that they only sometimes train employees in mastitis

protocols.

While a large portion of the farmers train their employees in their mastitis protocols, theresults show that only 1/3

rd(n=1113) of the total respondents hold meetings with their employees

throughout the year about the quality of their milk. If you subtract the farmers who do not have

employees from the total, however, over 50% of the farmers who have employees never holdteam meetings (3054 1075 = 1979 / 1113). This may be due to the fact that these farmers do

not have a problem with the quality of their milk. However, it may also allow less than excellent

milk quality to go unnoticed or unreported by the workers. Below, Table 6 shows the meeting

scheduling practices of the farmers.

Table 6 - How often do you hold team meetings with milkers and other employees/professionals

Response Frequency

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Percent of Farmers

with Employees

Valid Never 1113 38.1 38.1 60.7

1 or 2 times per year 294 10.1 48.2 16.0

Quarterly 100 3.4 51.6 5.5

Once a month 231 7.9 59.5 12.6

At least twice a month 96 3.3 62.8 5.2

N/A, no employees 1075 36.8 99.6

Other 11 .4 100.0Total 2920 100.0 100.0

Missing 133

Total 3054 1834

In Table 6 we should examine the subgroup of farmers who have employees and exclude thefarmers who do not. As you can see, totaling up the amount of respondents who meet with their

team of milkers and/or employees at least once or twice a year results in almost 40% of the total

4


5/10

respondents (n=721). Its a good sign that a portion of the respondents are having at least yearly

meetings with their employees because it allows the employees to voice concerns or confusionthey may have about milk quality, milking practices, or mastitis protocol and it allows the

farmers to inform the employees about any changes that might be made. However, over 60% of

those farmers responded that they Never hold team meetings. This suggests that there may be

poor communication between employees and farmers.One of the issues with managing employees is communication. As we have seen in Table

6, there may be some issues with opportunities for farmers and workers to communicate. One

might conclude that the farmers are not holding meetings with their employees because there arelanguage and/or cultural barriers to communicating with their employees, so there would be no

way to have a meeting. Table 6, however, shows that very few farmers reported that there are

language barriers that prevent them from communicating.

Table 7 - Are there any cultural/language barriers in communicating with employees?

Response FrequencyValid

PercentCumulative

Percent

Percent of Farmers

with Employees

1 Yes 120 4.2 4.2 7.52 No 1486 51.6 55.7 92.5

3 N/A, no employees 1277 44.3 100.0

Total 2883 100.0 100.0

Missing 171

Total 3054 1606

1 + 2 1606

As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, training and meeting regularly with employees are

things that are important to the farmers who participated in this study for managing mastitis andmilk quality. The following figure, Table 8, demonstrates just how important the management of

employees is to their employers. Note, Table 8 is a compilation of questions into one table.When looking at Table 8 below, one can see that generally, employees are important to the

farmers. Many of the farmers answered Important or Very Important for almost every

question.

Table 8a - Importance of Managing Employees A

Recruiting

Good

Employees %

Retaining

Good

Employees %

Motivating

w/ Neg.

Feedback %

Correcting

w/ Neg.

Feedback %

Closely

Supervising

Employees %

Very

Unimportant 40 3.5 28 2.4 36 3.2 72 6.5 23 2

Unimportant 19 1.7 8 .7 11 1.0 184 16.5 67 5

Neither 143 12.4 120 10.5 117 10.2 365 32.8 236 20

Important 416 36.1 312 27.4 501 43.7 377 33.9 609 53

Very Important 533 46.3 670 58.8 481 42.0 115 10.3 203 17

1152 100.0 1138 100.0 1147 100.0 1112 100.0 1138 100

Missing 1902 1915 1907 1941 1915

Total 3054 3054 3054 3054 30545


6/10

Table Note: The questions in this survey asked the participants to mark the importance

of each employee management strategy.

There are some inconsistencies with the data in Table 8a Table 8b and the data

presented earlier in Table 5 and Table 6. A majority (53.5%, n=614) of the participants said that,when managing employees, it was Important and to provide training opportunities for their

employees. Another 12.7% (n=145) said that it was Very important to provide training

opportunities for their employees. In Table 5 a much larger amount (n=1319) of respondents said

that they train their employees in mastitis protocols Always or Frequently. While there werefewer participants who answered the questions in Table 8, it still creates some confusing

information when looking at all three tables. This may indicate that training on mastitis protocols

are more available than general employee training. On the plus side of this data, the majority offarmers reported they understand the value of training their employees, and the general

importance of their employees.

Incentivizing Employees

Nightingale et al. (2008) have demonstrated that premium programs for higher qualitymilk have increased the quality of milk produced by dairy farmers. One of the ways that dairy

farmers encourage their employees to follow mastitis management and treatment protocols is

passing some of that premium incentive on to the employees. If the employees produce higherquality milk over a certain period of time, the dairy farmers will sometimes give them bonus pay.

A small minority of the farmers who participated in this study, however, use any type of

incentive program to motivate their employees (n=316), as is shown in Table 9.Table 9 Employees received a financial or other incentive

based on milk quality

Response FrequencyValid

PercentCumulative

Percent

1 Yes 316 12.5 12.5

2 No 2217 87.5 100.0

1 + 2 (Valid Total) 2534 100.0

Missing 520

Total 3054

Table 8b - Importance of Managing Employees B

Setting

Goals for

Employees%

Including

Employees

in Setting

Goals %

Including

Employees

in Farm

Decisions %

Evaluating

employee

Performance%

Providing

Employee

Training%

Very

Unimportant 20 1.7 33 2.8 47 4.1 14 1.2 18 Unimportant 72 6.3 66 5.7 129 11.4 48 4.2 64 5

Neither 377 33.1 339 29.4 382 33.7 316 27.6 306 26

Important 566 49.7 577 49.9 506 44.6 627 54.8 614 53

Very Important 103 9.1 141 12.2 70 6.2 140 12.2 145 12

1138 100.0 1155 100.0 1135 100.0 1144 100.0 1147 100

Missing 1915 1899 1919 1909 1907

Total 3054 3054 3054 3054 3054

6


7/10

Farmers also sometimes punish their employees for producing poor quality milk by reducing

their pay. As you can see in Table 10 however, an even smaller portion of farmers whoparticipated in this study reported that they use financial penalties to incentivize their employees

(n=75). This small value is interesting when looking back at Table 8a because over 85% (n=982)

of the respondents said that it was either Important or Very Important to motivate their

employees with negative feedback, but financial penalties are obviously not the preferred form ofnegative feedback.

Table 10 Employees received a financial or other penalty i fSCC increases

Response Frequency

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

1 Yes 75 3.0 3.0

2 No 2459 97.0 100.0

1 + 2 (Valid Total) 2534 100.0

Missing 520

Total 3054

Labor and Mastitis Management

Now that we have seen that most dairy farmers think it is important to provide training

opportunities to their employees, lets examine the following tables (Table 11 Table 12)concerning the farmers feelings about mastitis management on their farms.

Table 11 Mastitis is a problem on my farm

Response Frequency

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

1 Strongly disagree 193 6.6 6.6

2 Disagree 804 27.4 33.93 Neither 624 21.3 55.2

4 Agree 1143 38.9 94.1

5 Strongly agree 173 5.9 100.0

Total 2938 100.0

Missing 116

Total 3054

1 + 2 997 33.9

4 + 5 1316 44.8

Table 11 shows that there are farmers believe they have a mastitis problem and also

farmers who believe they do not have a mastitis problem. The most common response is agree

with 38.9% of respondents agreeing that mastitis is a problem on their farms. Note that there are

more farmers who believe they have a mastitis problem (combining Agree and StronglyAgree, n=1316, 44.8%) than there are farmers who believe they do not have a mastitis problem

(combining Disagree and Strongly Disagree, n=997, 33.9%). There is also a group of

participants in the middle who neither agree nor disagree that mastitis is a problem on their farm(n=624). This data is important to keep in mind while examining the next two tables.

7


8/10

Table 12 - Problems with following protocol

Response Milking % Treatment %

1 Strongly disagree 477 16.7 497 17.5

2 Disagree 1305 45.7 1458 51.3

3 Neither 667 23.3 631 22.2

4 Agree 368 12.9 235 8.3

5 Strongly agree 39 1.4 18 .6

Total 2856 100.0 2840 100.0

Missing 198 214

Total 3054 3054

1 + 2 1782 1955

4 + 5 407 253

Table 12 combines two questions that were used to ask the participants for similar

information, Is not following protocol a problem on your farm? A common response from therespondents was that not following milking protocol is not a problem (Table 12 Milking:Disagree and Strongly Disagree, n=1782). The most common response from participants was

that not following (mastitis) treatment protocols is not a problem (Table 12 Treatment:

Disagree and Strongly Disagree, n=1955). Now, looking at Table 13, we can see that amajority of the farmers think that employees play an important role in mastitis management

(combining Agree and Strongly Agree, n=1752).

Table 13 - Employees play an important role in mastitis problems

Response Frequency

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

1 Strongly disagree 146 5.5 5.5

2 Disagree 175 6.6 12.1

3 Neither 579 21.8 33.9

4 Agree 1228 46.3 80.2

5 Strongly agree 524 19.8 100.0

Total 2652 100.0

Missing 402

Total 3054

1 + 2 321

4 + 5 1752

As you can see, there are inconsistencies in these responses. The majority of farmers

think that employees play an important role in creating mastitis problems but not a majoritybelieve that protocol drift is a problem on their farm. This raises questions about what exactly the

owners and managers believe employees are doing to contribute to mastitis. Further analysis will

look at the relationship between these questions and use focus group data to inform analysis.

8


9/10

Protocol Design

The last section raises some questions about how mastitis treatment protocols aredesigned by the farmers. Table 14 below shows how many employees administer antibiotic

therapy.

Table 14 How many peopleadminister antibiotic therapy?

Antibiotic

Administrators

Minimum 0

Maximum 10

Mean 1.5289

Std. Deviation 0.95865

Valid 2884

Missing 170

Total 3054

As you can see, on average, only 1.5 people administer antibiotics on these dairy farms.This is also relevant the issues brought into question in the last section. If so few employees are

administering antibiotics, but employees play an important role in mastitis problems, are the

mastitis treatment protocols affecting the incidence of mastitis more than the farmers think?To examine this issue a little closer, Table 15 shows the results from a question from the

survey that asks the farmers if they develop their mastitis management protocols with or by their

veterinarian.

Table 15 - My mastitis plan was designed with or by my

veterinarian

Response Frequency

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

1 Yes 860 31.1 31.1

2 No 1905 68.9 100.0

1 + 2(Valid

Total)

2764 100.0

Missing 289

Total 3054

The table above shows that only 31.1% of the respondents involve their veterinarian in

planning their mastitis treatment program. This is a minority of the respondents, but it is a verylarge minority, considering the veterinarians are supposed to prescribe antibiotics to the farmers

before they can purchase and use them.

9


10/10

Works Cited

Barkema, H.W., J.D. Van Der Ploeg, Y.H. Schukken, T.J.G.M. Lam, G. Benedictus, and A.Brand

1999 Management Style and Its Association with Bulk Milk Somatic Cell Count and Incidence

Rate of Clinical Mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 82(8): 1655-663.

Gonzalo, C., J. A. Carriedo, M. C. Garcia-Jimeno, M. Prez-Bilbao, and L. F. de la Fuente.2010 Factors influencing variation of bulk milk antibiotic residue occurrence, somatic cell

count, and total bacterial count in dairy sheep flocks. The Journal of Dairy Sciences.

93:1587-1595.Nightingale, C., K. Dhuyvetter, R. Mitchell, and Y. Schukken.

2008 Influence of Variable Milk Quality Premiums on Observed Milk Quality. Journal of

Dairy Sciences. 91:1236-1244.Stup, R.E., J. Hyde, and L.A. Holden.

2006 Relationships Between Selected Human Resource Management Practices and Dairy Farm

Performance. Journal of Dairy Science 89.3 (2006): 1116-120.

10

2013 05 14 - Report on Mastitis Management and Labor Management

Documents

Transcript of 2013 05 14 - Report on Mastitis Management and Labor Management