“Enhancing Dairy Farm Profits through Internal Growth”

“Enhancing Dairy Farm Profitsthrough Internal Growth”

2005 Winter Dairy Management Series:

“Internal Growth” encompasses many aspects of your business; we will stay on message to address the

breadth:AgendaWhat’s the Internal Growth Level in your Herd? Welcome Capturing the Economic Value of Internal Growth Introduction of the Case Farm(s)Assessing, Improving and Minimizing Broken Cows Analyzing Internal Growth Components in the Case Farm How we Limit Broken Cows in the Case Farm, Mastitis & Foot Health Lunch Many Cows Break in the Transition Possible Fixes Transition Cow Management in the Case Farm Optimizing Replacement Enterprise for Profitable Internal Growth Ins & outs of the Case Farms Replacement EnterpriseFarm-Specific, Goal-Driven Reproductive Management How Repro is handled on the Case Farm Where do we start? Modeling Improvements to IG and Predictable Gains Final questions & Evaluation

Agricultural Finance and Management at CornellDepartment of Applied Economics and Management

Many people across the NYS Dairy Industry had a hand in pulling this together…

… the most important of whom are our Case Farms who you soon will meet. They

generously opened their farms’ data for our better understanding


Internal Herd Growth

Generating Profits through Management


What is Internal Herd Growth

Generating more dairy replacements than you need to maintain herd size.

Interaction of two components: How many replacements do you need to

maintain herd size? How many replacements are you generating?

Many different areas of farm operations impact these two components.


How Many Replacements do You Need?

Centered in the milking herd. How many cows have to be replaced? Why do they have to be replaced?

DiedMastitisReproductionLow milk productionEtc.

What could be done to decrease the number that need to be replaced?


Economics

By requiring fewer replacements to maintain herd size, you minimize expenses associated with maintaining herd size. If paying $1,500 per replacement with a replacement

rate of 50%, you will spend $150,000 per year to maintain a 200 cow dairy.

If you can lower replacement rate to 30%, you will spend $90,000 to maintain same 200 cow dairy.


Total Cost per Year to Maintain Herd Size Purchasing All Replacements Herd Size 200 Cows

Cow Price of Dairy ReplacementsReplacement $1,300 $1,400 $1,500 $1,600 $1,700 $1,800 $1,900 $2,000 $2,100Rate

22% 57,200 61,600 66,000 70,400 74,800 79,200 83,600 88,000 92,400

26% 67,600 72,800 78,000 83,200 88,400 93,600 98,800 104,000 109,200

30% 78,000 84,000 90,000 96,000 102,000 108,000 114,000 120,000 126,000

34% 88,400 95,200 102,000 108,800 115,600 122,400 129,200 136,000 142,800

38% 98,800 106,400 114,000 121,600 129,200 136,800 144,400 152,000 159,600

42% 109,200 117,600 126,000 134,400 142,800 151,200 159,600 168,000 176,400

46% 119,600 128,800 138,000 147,200 156,400 165,600 174,800 184,000 193,200

50% 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 210,000

Prepared by: Jason Karszes, Senior Extension Associate, PRO-DAIRY, Cornell University


Economics

Lower or little financial gain from internal herd growth if: Attain IHG by keeping unprofitable

and/or low profit cows in the herd. Costs associated with preventing cows

from leaving the herd too high.


How Many Replacements are You Generating?

Combination of milking herd and replacement program. How many calves born per year?

Calving interval

Ratio of heifer calves to bull calves. How many heifer calves born dead?

DOA

How many calves don’t complete replacement program?

Non-Completion percent – or “heifer cull rate”


How Many Replacements are You Generating?

If all four in your favor, you can generate many replacements.

If 3 in your favor, may still be able to generate more heifers than needed.

If 2 in your favor, will be difficult to generate excess heifers.

If only one factor in your favor, may be difficult to maintain herd size.


Required Number of Heifer Calves per Year to Maintain Herd SizeFor Various Non-Completion Rates and Dairy Replacement RatesHerd Size 200 DOA Rate^ 5%

Cow Replacement Rate, PercentageNon-Completion 20 23 26 29 33 36 39 42 45Rate*, Percentage

2 43.0 49.5 55.9 62.4 71.0 77.4 83.9 90.3 96.8

4 44.0 50.5 57.1 63.7 72.5 79.1 85.7 92.3 98.9

6 44.9 51.7 58.4 65.2 74.2 80.9 87.6 94.4 101.1

8 46.0 52.9 59.8 66.7 75.9 82.8 89.7 96.6 103.4

10 47.1 54.1 61.2 68.2 77.6 84.7 91.8 98.8 105.9

12 48.2 55.4 62.7 69.9 79.5 86.7 94.0 101.2 108.4

14 49.4 56.8 64.2 71.6 81.5 88.9 96.3 103.7 111.1

16 50.6 58.2 65.8 73.4 83.5 91.1 98.7 106.3 113.9

18 51.9 59.7 67.5 75.3 85.7 93.5 101.3 109.1 116.9

* Non completion rate represents the percent of heifers that start the replacement system that don't enter the dairy herd.^ DOA Rate represents the percent of heifer calfs that are born dead.

Prepared by: Jason Karszes, Senior Extension Associate, PRO-DAIRY, Cornell University


Economics

By generating more heifers than needs, you have the ability to generate additional earnings: If need 50 replacements and only

generate 50, no gain. If generate 60, have 10 more than

needed. If generate 40, have to purchase 10 to

maintain herd size.


Economics

Lower or little financial gain from internal growth if: The cost to raise the heifers is high.

LaborFeedInventory – older calving age

If the quality of the replacement is low.Less profitable animal in the herd: i.e.

stunted or fat


Capturing the Value of Internal Growth

Internal growth is having more animals than you need.

Capturing value becomes a management decision.

Many different ways to capture value.

Mission, vision, values, goals of family and business important when evaluating.


Growing Herd Size

The extra animals generated enter the dairy herd.

Grow herd size without purchasing outside animals.

Have the ability to handle increased numbers or can easily add the capacity.

Increase profits through increased utilization of assets.

If not full or not at maximum size for site, may be best means to capture value.


Key Factors

Control genetics and quality of replacements.

Slow steady growth over time.Can grow with closed herd.Operating expenses (feed, labor, etc).

used to build balance sheet assets (cattle).

Has to be economical to grow.


Selling Milking Cows

All replacements enter the herd.Sell the least profitable dairy cows in

the herd.Market them for dairy purposes.Average a higher price then beef

price.


Key Factors

Stable herd size.Keep replacements – may be better genetics.Keep calf that replacement heifer is carrying. Improve dairy herd by replacing less

profitable cows. Increase value of animals sold through higher

price for dairy vs beef.Capturing most of the calf crop.


Selling Springing Heifers

Raise heifers.Sell excess animals at calving for

replacements purposes.


Key Factors

Stable herd size.Pick which animals enter herd vs are

sold.For animals sold – no risk if they don’t

make it through calving.Possible loss of genetic progress:

replacement and calf she’s carrying.Possible fewer calves entering system.


Selling Calves

Sell excess heifers early in age.Only raise enough that are needed to

maintain herd size.


Key Factors

Stable herd size.

Limited replacement program capacity.

Pick which calves to raise.

Minimized replacement expense.

Increased calf sales.

Limited number of heifers if unusual event in dairy or replacement program.


Leasing Animals

Keep all animals.Lease out excess milking animals.


Key Factors

Building herd size – increasing assets.No investment in buildings/land, etc.Keep all genetics and calves.If animals come home – no longer

closed herd.Make return on investment in cattle.Return may be negative!


Take Home Points

Internal herd growth is a profit source under control of management.

Interaction among many areas of the business.

Operational costs building assets on the balance sheet, not just maintaining assets.

Means of capturing value is a management choice.

We are privileged to have been able to work with our 3 “Internal Growth” Case Farms:

Hal and Kerry Adams Manchester, NY

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 CowsBeginning 75 78 76 89 103 109Purchased 0 0 0 0 0 0Died 3 1 0 1 3 4Beefed 19 32 15 23 39 18Sold Dairy 0 1 1 0 0 0Heifers Freshened 25 32 29 38 48 31

End 78 76 89 103 109 120

IHG 4.0% -1.3% 18.4% 15.7% 5.8% 8.3%

Nathan, MaryLou and Steve DurfeeChittenango, NY


Steve and MaryLou Durfee2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Number of cows (ave.) 180 184 180 186 197Heifers - all ages 164 191 181 161 225Milk Sold/Cow (lbs.) 25,159 24,993 25,708 25,098 24,591Total Milk Sold (lbs.) 4,528,561 4,587,591 4,627,504 4,668,287 4,598,605Culling Rate % 33 34 33 33 30Internal Herd Growth % 7.9 12 11.8 7.9 9.6Heifers Sold 0 0 20 25


Pat and Marty HanehanSaratoga Springs, NY

Pat and Marty Hanehan2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Number of cows 339 401 495 519 560Bred Heifer # 104 131 148 203 204Open Heifer # 65 104 121 132 151Calves # (0-6 mos.) 65 84 96 105 114Milk Sold/Cow (lbs.) 20051 21337 22688 22861 23354Total Milk Sold (lbs.) 7,979,994 10,164,432 11,361,881 12,797,792Culling Rate % 29 21 30 31 29Bst ------ almost none ---------

Case Herds were selected from search of either Farm Credit or Cornell Dairy Summaries (or both).

Primary search item was multi-year Internal Growth.

As you will see, each herd arrived at good level of growth differently, and captured the dividend differently as well.

While there is a mountain of “measurables” we’ll be looking at, the most important trait linking these businesses is more observable than measurable.

Positive Attitude

Bias for Action

Realistic View of the Changing Dairy Industry

(Vision)

Reconfiguring Business to fit that Vision (Mission)

Knows how to Implement Measured

Improvements

Particularly Good at Problem Solving

Excellent with People

Pat & Marty Hanehan Hanehan and Sons Dairy

Pat and Marty Hanehan2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Number of cows 339 401 495 519 560Bred Heifer # 104 131 148 203 204Open Heifer # 65 104 121 132 151Calves # (0-6 mos.) 65 84 96 105 114Milk Sold/Cow (lbs.) 20051 21337 22688 22861 23354Total Milk Sold (lbs.) 7,979,994 10,164,432 11,361,881 12,797,792Culling Rate % 29 21 30 31 29Bst ------ almost none ---------

Profitability - The Real Indicator

Hanehan Large Herds 300+ Cows

2002 8.65% 1.10%

2003 6.96% 1.60%2004 15.96% 8.50%

Profitability - The Real Indicator

8.65%

6.96%

15.96%

1.10%

8.50%

1.60%

0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%18.00%

2002 2003 2004Rat

e o

f R

etu

rn o

n a

ll C

apit

al (

w/o

ap

pre

c.)

Hanehan Large Herds 300 Cows

2004 year end numbers

What Really Matters…Learning from How and When Cows “Break”

John ConwayBill Stone

Jerry Bertoldo

Not so useful:

Cull Rates

May include those sold for Dairy

Says nothing about underlying problems

But may “light up” the need to look deeper

Not so useful:

DHI Cull Codes

Better than “cull rate”

Does not allow for full sequence of insults

Lean on details for quick, deep analysis

Some are “fast and loose” with single code

May allow analysis of trends over time

Left for DairyLeft for low productionLeft for reproductionLeft for injury/otherLeft – diedLeft for mastitisLeft for feet/legsLeft for udderLeft – no reason

What Really Matters is…Learning from How and When Cows “Break”

Who? When? Why?How?Analysis

Connecting to amemory of an individual may bring back the seriousness of the insult

Gives you the advantage of seeing trends over time -- i.e. rash of fresh cow problems when transition group size goes beyond threshold.

Exactly what symptoms were observed & treated. Becomes part of readily searchable record.

Gets to the root cause. Best way to improve processes & practices in a way that’s meaningful.

For a great array of Dairy Production analytical tools go to:

http://www.ansci.umn.edu/dairy/toolbox/toolbox.htm#mgmttools(especially note UW Vets’ # 4: Goal Form - Estimate of Economic Losses)

http://www.ansci.umn.edu/dairy/toolbox/toolbox.htm#mgmttools

http://www.ansci.umn.edu/dairy/toolbox/04-losses.pdf

Lameness!

Environment/Management • Stress • Trauma • Exercise • Trimming

Weakened Claws (Hooves) • Breakdown in Supportive Connective Tissue • Poor Quality Horn Formation


Metabolic Disorders • Milk Fever • Ketosis

Genetics Vaso-Constriction/Dilation (Hoof Corium)Vaso-Constriction/Dilation (Hoof Corium)

Nutrition • Excessive Grain • Finely Chopped Forage • Improper Feeding Management • Incorrect Ratio of Concentrate to Forage

Increased Lactic Acid ProductionIncreased Lactic Acid Production

Lowered pHLowered pH

Infectious Diseases • Metritis • Mastitis • Retained Placenta

Death of Gram Negative BacteriaDeath of Gram Negative Bacteria

Molds/Mycotoxins Endotoxin ReleaseEndotoxin Release

HistamineHistamine

Lameness:Causes and Sequence of Events

Adapted from Hoof Care for Dairy Cattle, 1992. J.E. Nocek

Manifestations• Yellow Soft Horn •Deformed Claws• Double Sole •Sole or Toe Ulcer• White Line Disease •Hemorrhage

Bill StonePro-Dairy

Cornell University

Internal Growth at Hanehan Dairy

Snapshot of Hanehan Dairy

How do dairies grow internally?

Heifers• Low rate of still borns• Don’t lose calves• Grow heifers properly and breed them on timeCows• Minimize transition cow problems• Successful reproduction program• Control mastitis• Sound feet and legs• Will result in a low cull rate

– but do cull unprofitable cows

Good

Stillborn calves – Goal < 5%

Total freshenings

Started new protocol…

Stillborn calves in 1st lactation animals

Fluke, error, or something exciting?

Started new protocol…

(These heifers came in off of pasture!)

DOA from a dairy that has been getting smaller…

DOA in 1st lactation animals at this same dairy

IG: Don’t lose calves Goal: Calf mortality of < 1%

38 “sold”475 heifers (8%)… includes calves lostin new calf barn while trying to tweak ventilation system

HeiferReproResults

HeiferReproResults

Heat Detection Rate

Pregnancy Rate

Goals:HDR > 60%CR > 60%PR > 25%

CR = 32%

24 months average AFC

Heifer Repro Results

32

30

28

26

24

22

Aborts or bred xx times

6

25 8 2 2 510

Goal, %<

Health events during 2004

552 cows (514 milking, 38 dry) in herd

7

1711 3 511 3

Milk by DIM for the entire herd

Lact = 1 Milk by DIM

115

100

80


140

110

80

Lact > 2 Milk by DIM

160

120

80

Lact > 2 Milk by DIM

552 cows (milking and dry) in herd168/552 = 30% cull rate

(48+21)/168 = 41% of culls left within 60 days

When they left the herd…

Why they left the herd

1.5%?

37% CR

CowReproResults

Heat Detection Rate

Pregnancy Rate

Goal:> 20% PR

DIM

DIM

at 1

st b

reed

ing

DIM at first breeding

Udder Health – Previous LS by LS

Chronic cowsNew infections

CuresClean

Goal < 5%Goal < 10%

79/552 = 14%

Cows that may make the dairy more money by being replaced…

Why has Hanehan Dairy grown this past year?

•Average DOA but moving in right direction•Above average heifer reproductive results•The vast majority of cows freshen well•Very low mastitis rate•Above average cow reproductive results

•Don’t have to sell many cows

Lameness!

Environment/Management • Stress • Trauma • Exercise • Trimming



Metabolic Disorders • Milk Fever • Ketosis

Genetics Vaso-Constriction/Dilation (Hoof Corium)Vaso-Constriction/Dilation (Hoof Corium)

Nutrition • Excessive Grain • Finely Chopped Forage • Improper Feeding Management • Incorrect Ratio of Concentrate to Forage

Increased Lactic Acid ProductionIncreased Lactic Acid Production

Lowered pHLowered pH

Infectious Diseases • Metritis • Mastitis • Retained Placenta

Death of Gram Negative BacteriaDeath of Gram Negative Bacteria

Molds/Mycotoxins Endotoxin ReleaseEndotoxin Release

HistamineHistamine

Lameness:Causes and Sequence of Events

Adapted from Hoof Care for Dairy Cattle, 1992. J.E. Nocek

Manifestations• Yellow Soft Horn •Deformed Claws• Double Sole •Sole or Toe Ulcer• White Line Disease •Hemorrhage

Lameness prevalence as a function of housing type and stall surface

•30 herds - 14 stanchion/tie-stall, 16 free-stall

•Herds averaged 67 (tie-stall) and 175 (free-stall) cows

•Cows were lameness scored in summer and winter1 = normal 2 = slight lameness 3 = moderate lameness 4 = severe lameness

•>3,600 cows evaluated

•Stall base Sand Non-sand (rubber mat, rubber filled mattress,

concrete with added straw, shavings, etc.)

Cook, JAVMA 2003:1324

% o

f cow

s la

me

Interaction between locomotion score & stall base and its effect on time standing up in stall

Cook et al., JDS 87:2912

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

FS Sand

FS Non-sand

TS Sand

TS Non-sand

SummerWinter

a ba a ab

Effect of free stall surface on daily activitypatterns in dairy cows

Twelve herds

6 sand based 6 mattress filled withrubber crumbs, organic bedding on cover

Video cameras, 1 sec per 30 sec10 cows per herd (60 sand, 60 mattress)Lameness scored




Herd parametersMattress Sand P

Herd size, # 305 298Cows in pen, # 77 96 .12Stocking rate 108 108RHA, lbs. 24,800 26,728

Annual turnover rate 36.5% 28.8% .09Herd prevalence of 24.0% 11.1% <.001

clinical lameness



Daily activity, h/dMattress Sand P

Time lying in stall 11.7 12.0Time standing in stall 3.4 1.8 .002Time up in alley 2.3 2.3

Time up feeding 4.1 4.6 .03Time up milking 2.6 3.2

Hou

rs/d

ay

Mattress SandLameness score



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5 6

Mat-Lie

Sand-Lie

Mat-Stand

Sand-Stand

1 2 3 1 2 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4

MatSand

Tim

e up

in s

tall,

h/d

Lameness score



Mastitis Problem Solving Scheme

Identify Mastitis Problem

STEP 1 Determine Causative Organisms STEP 2

Generate Prevention and Treatment Solutions

Generate Strategic Plan - Establish Herd Goals

Generate Tactical Plan

Monitor Performance, Reassess Goals, and Tactical Plans

Acute Mastitis >1% per year

New Clinical Cases >2% per month

Bulk Tank SCC >150,000

DHI Test Day Ave. LS >4.5 >10%

Bacteriologic Cultures: Bulk Tank and/or Individual Cows

STEP 1 11 11 1 11








Contagious Organisms

Coliform Strep spp. Staph spp. Staph aureus Mycoplasma Strep ag.

STEP 2 11 11 1 11

Environmental Organisms








Coliform Strep spp. Staph spp. Staph aureus Mycoplasma Strep ag.

Systemic Treatment and Supportive Care

Intramammary Treatment & supportive care

Culture Herd; Segregate Positives; Treat and resample Strep ag; Cull chronic Staph aureus & all Mycoplasma

PREVENTION Proper Milking Procedures Routine Milking Machine Maintenance Pre and Post milking Teat Dipping Dry Cow Therapy Nutrition (Adequate Energy, Se & Vit E Culling Strategy

PREVENTION Clean, Dry Environment Clean Cows Adequate Bedding Premilking Hygiene (clean dry teats)

PREVENTION Culture Clinical Cases Fresh Animals and New purchases. Maintain Closed Herd. (Biosecurity – NYSCHAP ENROLLMENT

STEP 3 33332311 11 1 11

Create Diagnostic & Treatment Protocols








Management Tactical Plan - Employee Training & Evaluation - Effective Records System

STEP 4 33332311 11 1 11 STEP 5 33332311 11 1 11

Operational Tactical Plan – Standard Operating Procedures

DHI SCC Reports Milk Plant Quality Reports QMPS Reports Test Day Average linear score Clinical Infections Rate Pathogens New & Chronic Infection Rates Cure Rate

STEP 6 33332311 11 1 11

Effective transition cow management to maximize Internal Herd Growth

Thomas R. Overton, Ph.D.Thomas R. Overton, Ph.D.Department of Animal ScienceDepartment of Animal Science

Cornell UniversityCornell University

Our charge

Devise and employ nutritional management strategies and Devise and employ nutritional management strategies and nutritional tools to support metabolic adaptation to nutritional tools to support metabolic adaptation to lactationlactation Macromineral metabolism (manage DCAD)Macromineral metabolism (manage DCAD) Glucose metabolism (provide fermentable carbohydrate)Glucose metabolism (provide fermentable carbohydrate) Fat metabolism (minimize BCS loss)Fat metabolism (minimize BCS loss)

Minimize potential negative effects of nonnutritional Minimize potential negative effects of nonnutritional factors on metabolic adaptation to lactationfactors on metabolic adaptation to lactation OvercrowdingOvercrowding Environmental stress (temp., ventilation)Environmental stress (temp., ventilation) Infectious challenge/hygieneInfectious challenge/hygiene Grouping/regroupingGrouping/regrouping ComfortComfort

Big rocks from the nutritional side (common themes in our case farms)

Manage DCADManage DCAD Start with including low potassium forages in dry Start with including low potassium forages in dry

period diets period diets

Sufficient energy and protein intake from a dry period Sufficient energy and protein intake from a dry period diet of moderately high nutrient densitydiet of moderately high nutrient density

Thinner (within reason) is betterThinner (within reason) is better

Trends toward shortened dry periods and one-group Trends toward shortened dry periods and one-group nutritional strategies for dry cowsnutritional strategies for dry cows

Res

ou

rces

to

str

ess

resp

on

se

Res

ou

rces

fo

r p

rod

uct

ion

Metabolic stress

Overcrowding

Social stress

Heat stress

Poor housing

Breakpoint

Effects of multiple stressors accumulate...

Drackley, 2002

Transition period indices relating to Internal Herd Growth

Nondairy cull rate during first 60 days in Nondairy cull rate during first 60 days in milkmilk

Incidence of metabolic disordersIncidence of metabolic disorders Related to likelihood of high milk Related to likelihood of high milk

productionproduction Tied to reproductive performanceTied to reproductive performance

When Cows Leave the Herd(MN DHIA 10/96 – 10/01) Godden et al., 2003

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

% C

ow

s L

eavin

g T

hat

Left

in

th

e

21 D

ay P

eri

od

624,614 Cows Leaving 5,749Herds

0-2

0

21

-41

42

-62

63

-83

84

-10

4

10

5-1

25

12

6-1

46

14

7-1

67

16

8-1

88

18

9-2

09

21

0-2

30

23

1-2

51

25

2-2

72

27

3-2

93

29

4-3

14

31

5-3

35

33

6-3

56

35

7-3

77

37

8-3

98

39

9-4

19

42

0-4

40

21 DIM Interval

Nondairy cull rate during the first 60 days in milk Captures dead cows and cows sold for nondairy Captures dead cows and cows sold for nondairy

during first 60 days in milkduring first 60 days in milk Crude index of overall transition managementCrude index of overall transition management Minnesota workers (previous slide) reported that Minnesota workers (previous slide) reported that

25% of cows that leave herds leave during the first 25% of cows that leave herds leave during the first 60 days in milk60 days in milk

We look at the number of cows dead and sold for We look at the number of cows dead and sold for nondairy as a percentage of the number of nondairy as a percentage of the number of calvingscalvings

Fresh cow loss as a percentage of calvings

Typical values in well-managed herds are 10 Typical values in well-managed herds are 10 to 12% (unacceptable)to 12% (unacceptable)

Best herds consistently average 5 to 6%Best herds consistently average 5 to 6%

Can be as high as 25% during train wrecksCan be as high as 25% during train wrecks

Our case farms

FarmFarm

HanehanHanehan DurfeeDurfee AdamsAdams

Dead and Dead and sold/calvingssold/calvings

74/60574/605 20/21320/213 5/1075/107

PercentagePercentage 12.2%12.2% 9.4%9.4% 4.7%4.7%

Incidence of metabolic disorders

Combination of objective (retained Combination of objective (retained placenta, displaced abomasum) and placenta, displaced abomasum) and subjective (hypocalcemia, ketosis, metritis)subjective (hypocalcemia, ketosis, metritis)

Goals for each usually set by survey dataGoals for each usually set by survey data

Transition cow survey

Conducted by Buzz Burhans and Conducted by Buzz Burhans and colleaguescolleagues

27 herds in Vermont and New 27 herds in Vermont and New HampshireHampshire

Over 600 cows in the datasetOver 600 cows in the dataset

Event N min p50 max N min p50 max N min p50 maxKetosis 13 2.10% 14.70% 50.00% 4 6.30% 8.30% 15.80% 17 2.10% 13.20% 50.00%Milk Fever 14 2.60% 10.10% 26.30% 6 8.10% 37.70% 60.00% 20 2.60% 11.10% 60.00%Off Feed 7 2.30% 4.80% 21.40% 4 2.70% 6.50% 10.50% 11 2.30% 6.30% 21.40%Displaced Abomasum 10 3.60% 8.10% 14.30% 2 2.70% 2.90% 3.10% 12 2.70% 7.30% 14.30%Digestive/Diarrhea 9 2.10% 5.60% 11.80% 2 3.10% 4.20% 5.30% 11 2.10% 5.30% 11.80%Mastitis 10 2.60% 7.10% 15.80% 5 5.30% 10.00% 13.50% 15 2.60% 7.10% 15.80%Edema 7 5.10% 7.10% 40.90% 2 22.20% 25.20% 28.10% 9 5.10% 13.20% 40.90%Dystocia 13 2.10% 5.60% 16.70% 2 2.70% 4.70% 6.70% 15 2.10% 5.60% 16.70%Twins 12 2.10% 5.70% 18.80% 1 3.10% 3.10% 3.10% 13 2.10% 5.60% 18.80%Stillbirths 8 2.60% 6.50% 12.50% 3 3.10% 5.40% 6.70% 11 2.60% 5.90% 12.50%Retained Placenta 13 2.90% 11.80% 23.70% 1 3.10% 3.10% 3.10% 14 2.90% 11.20% 23.70%Metritis 14 4.30% 11.20% 39.30% 3 3.10% 5.40% 15.80% 17 3.10% 11.10% 39.30%Abortions None Reported None Reported

Occurrence of Disorders at the Herd LevelHolsteins J erseys Total

Burhans et al., 2003

Burhans et al., 2003

Factor N min p50 max N min p50 max N min p50 max

Problem Cow 19 18.80% 47.40% 73.70% 6 24.30% 47.00% 60.00% 25 18.80% 47.40% 73.70%

Metabolic Problem 18 14.70% 30.30% 65.80% 6 12.50% 40.00% 60.00% 24 12.50% 32.20% 65.80%

Infectious Problem 16 4.30% 16.20% 39.30% 5 6.70% 12.50% 16.20% 21 4.30% 14.30% 39.30%

Energy Problem 18 3.70% 19.60% 53.80% 5 5.40% 6.70% 15.80% 23 3.70% 14.70% 53.80%

Bad Calving 17 3.40% 11.10% 25.00% 3 5.40% 6.30% 13.30% 20 3.40% 11.10% 25.00%

Preventable Problem 18 14.70% 36.00% 68.40% 6 18.80% 40.00% 60.00% 24 14.70% 36.00% 68.40%

Holsteins Jerseys Total

Health Events by Category at the Herd Level

Problem Cow: Any problem (Dystocia, Mastitis, Abortion, Twinning, Stillbirths, Retained Placenta, Milk Fever, Digestive, Ketosis,Metritis,Edema, Displaced Abomasum, Off Feed)

Metabolic Problem: (Milk Fever, Retained Placenta, Digestive, Ketosis, Displaced Abomasum and Off Feed)

Infectious Problem: All cows with Mastitis, Metritis

Energy Problem: (Digestive, Ketosis, Off Feed, Displaced Abomasum)

Bad Calving: (Dystocia, Abortion, Twinnings, Stillbirths)

Preventables: (Mastitis, Retained Placenta, Milk Fever, Digestive/Diarrhea, Ketosis, Metritis, DA, Off Feed)

Achievable goals for metabolic disorders

Milk fever -- < 5%Milk fever -- < 5% Retained placenta/metritis -- < 9%Retained placenta/metritis -- < 9% Displaced abomasum -- < 5%Displaced abomasum -- < 5% Clinical ketosis (blood BHBA > 27 Clinical ketosis (blood BHBA > 27

mg/dl) -- < 5%mg/dl) -- < 5% Subclinical ketosis (blood BHBA > 14.4 Subclinical ketosis (blood BHBA > 14.4

mg/dl) -- < 15%mg/dl) -- < 15%

Our case farms

FarmFarm

HanehanHanehan DurfeeDurfee AdamsAdams

Milk feverMilk fever 2.82.8 < 5< 5 1.81.8

RPRP 11.711.7 ~ 10~ 10 10.010.0

MetritisMetritis 2.62.6

DADA 5.65.6 ~ 5~ 5 4.54.5

KetosisKetosis 11.611.6

Framework for actualizing “optimum” nutritional management strategies on commercial dairy farms in the context of shortened dry periods

What are our nutritional goals and how do we achieve them?

The GoalsThe Goals Moderately high DMI of well-formulated close-up Moderately high DMI of well-formulated close-up

diets while attempting to minimize extent of DMI diets while attempting to minimize extent of DMI decrease during the prepartum perioddecrease during the prepartum period

How do we achieve them?How do we achieve them? Many herds still struggle to get ENOUGH dry matter intake Many herds still struggle to get ENOUGH dry matter intake

in close-up cows (goal Holstein 26 to 28 lb/d of suggested in close-up cows (goal Holstein 26 to 28 lb/d of suggested close-up cow diet)close-up cow diet)

In herds where close-up cows are consuming large amounts In herds where close-up cows are consuming large amounts of DM ( > 30 to 33 lb/d), limit grain-type forages and other of DM ( > 30 to 33 lb/d), limit grain-type forages and other very palatable feeds to control intake within goal and very palatable feeds to control intake within goal and complement with a consistent, low potassium forage source complement with a consistent, low potassium forage source (preferably bulky)(preferably bulky)

The challenge – extent of DMI decrease extremely The challenge – extent of DMI decrease extremely difficult to characterize in group-fed animalsdifficult to characterize in group-fed animals

Far-Off Dry Cows

• Dry-off until ~ 3 weeks pre-freshening

• Ration considerations

NEL 0.59 to 0.63 Mcal/lb for maintenance BCS

Do not want to overfeed (Dann et al., 2003)

Stone, 2001

General goals for diet formulation for closeup cows and one-group dry cow systems up to 40 days

Partial anionicFull anionic

• NEL, Mcal/lb 0.68 to 0.70• Metabolizable protein, g/d 1100 to 1200• NFC, % 34 to 36• Starch, % 19 to 21• Dietary Ca, g/d 100 140• Dietary Ca, % 0.90 1.2• Dietary P, % 0.30 to 0.35• Mg, % 0.40 to 0.42• Cl, % 0.3 0.8 to 1.2• K, % < 1.3 < 1.3• Na, % 0.10 to 0.15• S, % 0.20 0.3 to 0.4• Vitamin A (IU/d) 100000 100000• Vitamin D (IU/d) 30000 30000• Vitamin E (IU/d) 1800 1800Prefer use of organic trace elements, including organic Se

Advantages of shorter dry period

Avoid forfeiting milk during late lactationAvoid forfeiting milk during late lactation

Simplify dry cow management and decrease Simplify dry cow management and decrease cost of dry cow housing (one dry cow group)cost of dry cow housing (one dry cow group)

Decrease sociological stress associated with Decrease sociological stress associated with multiple group changes, etc.multiple group changes, etc.

More closely match dry period length with More closely match dry period length with biologically required length (~ 25 days)biologically required length (~ 25 days)

Summary of research on planned shorter dry period length

Milk yield similar between cows managed for 40 vs. 60 days dry – 65 herds in NY

Coppock et al., 1974

Milk yield after 49- or 70-d dry periods comparable; 28-Milk yield after 49- or 70-d dry periods comparable; 28-d dry reduced subsequent milk yield d dry reduced subsequent milk yield Sorensen and Enevoldsen, 1991Sorensen and Enevoldsen, 1991

Milk yield comparable for cows managed for 60 vs. 30 Milk yield comparable for cows managed for 60 vs. 30 to 35 d-dry periods to 35 d-dry periods Shairer, 2001; Bachman, 2002; Gulay et al., 2003Shairer, 2001; Bachman, 2002; Gulay et al., 2003

Comparable milk yield for 60 vs. 30-d dry; continuous Comparable milk yield for 60 vs. 30-d dry; continuous lactation decreased subsequent milk yield (differences lactation decreased subsequent milk yield (differences greater in primiparous cows)greater in primiparous cows) Annen et al., 2003; Rastani and Grummer, 2003Annen et al., 2003; Rastani and Grummer, 2003

Cornell study Two commercial dairy farms (cows over 27 kg/d at 60 Two commercial dairy farms (cows over 27 kg/d at 60

d before expected calving)d before expected calving)

TreatmentsTreatments 60 d dry period, label bST (two group dry cow 60 d dry period, label bST (two group dry cow

management)management) 40 d dry period, label bST (moved to closeup 40 d dry period, label bST (moved to closeup

group at 40-d drygroup at 40-d dry Continuous lactation, label bST (stop bST at Continuous lactation, label bST (stop bST at

calving and resume during 9calving and resume during 9thth week of lactation) week of lactation) – remained on lactating cow ration for the – remained on lactating cow ration for the durationduration

Fernandez et al., 2004

Least squares means for milk yield and milk composition during the first 6 months of the subsequent lactation for cows managed for 60, 40, or zero days dry.1

Treatment

Item 60-d dry 40-d dry 0-d dry SEM # of cows 22 23 22

Average days dry 57 41 1

Milk yield, kg/d 47.1a 46.3a 37.1b 1.8

Fat, % 3.51 3.62 3.40 0.14

Fat yield, kg/d 1.68a 1.62a 1.28b 0.09

True protein, % 2.74a 2.84b 2.83b 0.06

True protein yield, kg/d 1.31a 1.30a 1.06b 0.041Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P <0.05.

Fernandez et al., 2004

Average milk yield, lb/dAverage milk yield, lb/d

ItemItem 5050 6060Marginal incomeMarginal income

Milk ($0.14/lb)Milk ($0.14/lb) $140$140 $168$168

Marginal expenseMarginal expense

Lactating diet Lactating diet $48$48 $56$56

Closeup dietCloseup diet $14$14 $14$14

Variable costVariable cost $15$15 $15$15

Total expensesTotal expenses $77$77 $85$85

Net per cowNet per cow $63$63 $83$83

The Economics – 60 versus 40 days dry

Current thinking on management considerations for 40-d dry period

Either two-group or one-group nutritional strategies Either two-group or one-group nutritional strategies acceptableacceptable Marginal feed cost approximately $15 per cow for Marginal feed cost approximately $15 per cow for

20 additional days fed close-up diet20 additional days fed close-up diet One-group dry cow program fits better with One-group dry cow program fits better with

shortened dry periodshortened dry period

Moderate NFC/energy close-up diet acceptable to Moderate NFC/energy close-up diet acceptable to feed for 40 d dry, regardless of DCAD strategyfeed for 40 d dry, regardless of DCAD strategy

Continue to require far-off type diet to feed to cows Continue to require far-off type diet to feed to cows with dry periods longer than 40 dayswith dry periods longer than 40 days

Transition cow management outcomes and strategies – Pat and Marty Hanehan

Hanehan -- special needs facility

Hanehan – managing for shorter dry periods and a one-group dry cow nutritional program

Hanehan – sand freestalls for dry cows

Hanehan – cows imminent to calve separated by a cable

Hanehan – cows imminent to calve fed the same diet

Hanehan – calving pack

“Enhancing Dairy Farm Profits through Internal Growth”

Documents

Transcript of “Enhancing Dairy Farm Profits through Internal Growth”