Implementing Milk Quality Programs On Farms Pamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVM University of Wisconsin Madison.
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
1
Transcript of Implementing Milk Quality Programs On Farms Pamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVM University of Wisconsin Madison.
Implementing Milk Quality Implementing Milk Quality Programs On FarmsPrograms On Farms
Pamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVMPamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVM
University of Wisconsin MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin Madison
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Key Contagious Mastitis Control Practices
EffectiveEffective teat dipping teat dipping 97% adoption97% adoption
Dry cow therapy of Dry cow therapy of allall quarters quarters of all cowsof all cows 93% adoption93% adoption
AppropriateAppropriate treatment of treatment of clinical casesclinical cases No dataNo data
Culling Culling chronically chronically infected infected cowscows 35% of all cows culled are 35% of all cows culled are
for mastitisfor mastitis RegularRegular milking machine milking machine
maintenancemaintenance 43% analyze yearly43% analyze yearly
WI Parlors (n=101)335,000 cells/ml
WI Stallbarns (n = 78)430,000 cells/ml
WI Parlors (n=101)335,000 cells/ml
WI Stallbarns (n = 78)430,000 cells/ml
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Why is mastitis a problem?
Improving milk Improving milk quality is technically quality is technically easyeasy
There is lots of There is lots of knowledge about knowledge about basic methods to basic methods to improve milk qualityimprove milk quality
Most farms want to Most farms want to improve milk quality improve milk quality but………but……… Too many Too many
competing issuescompeting issuesRodriques & Ruegg, 2004 Food Protection Trends 24:670-
675
Opinions of Vets (n=42) & Ext. Agents (n=35)
Whats stops improvement in milk quality?
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Poor
Adv
ice
Not en
ough
mon
ey
Lack
of pe
ople
Low m
otiva
tion
Too M
any o
ther
prob
lems
Milk
Price
too l
ow
Farm
ers d
on't
care
Vets Ext. Agent
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
What are the real challenges?
2004 Survey of Wisconsin Dairy Farms 2004 Survey of Wisconsin Dairy Farms Mailed 1000 surveys & received 584 backMailed 1000 surveys & received 584 back Summarized by herd sizeSummarized by herd size
OverallOverall >200 cows (n = 34 herds)>200 cows (n = 34 herds)
Hoe & Ruegg, JDS May 2006Hoe & Ruegg, JDS May 2006
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Farms are dynamic & facilities are Limited
The calving pen is also The calving pen is also used to house sick cowsused to house sick cows 73 % Overall73 % Overall 25 % Big herds25 % Big herds
Purchased Cattle in last Purchased Cattle in last 3 years3 years 44 % Overall44 % Overall 33 % Big herds33 % Big herds
Of those purchasing, % Of those purchasing, % buying lactating cowsbuying lactating cows 62% Overall62% Overall 52% big herds52% big herds
Tests Performed on Purchased Cattle
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Vet E
xam
ines
Johne
s Tes
t
BVD
BLVSCC/C
MT
S ag o
r Myc
o
Overall Big Herds
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Our recommendations are hard to implement
Sick Cows housed with Sick Cows housed with Healthy cowsHealthy cows 73 % Overall73 % Overall 25 % Big herds25 % Big herds
Milk Mastitic Cows Milk Mastitic Cows using Separate Barn or using Separate Barn or UnitUnit 27 % Overall27 % Overall 19 % Big herds19 % Big herds
Use same unit to milkUse same unit to milk 12% Overall12% Overall 8% big herds8% big herds
Culture & Treatments
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Cultu
re so
me/a
ll Clin
.BTC >
4x/y
rH
ave R
X Pro
toco
l
No Rec
ords
for A
b RX
Don't
Use A
b
Overall Big Herds
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Modern Mastitis Control programs have to include the whole farm and all
workers
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Who Is Working with Milk Quality?
Opinion survey of Opinion survey of professionals professionals working with MM working with MM teamsteams N= 165 surveysN= 165 surveys 79% response79% response 42 vets; 35 ext. 42 vets; 35 ext.
agents; 21 DFR; agents; 21 DFR; 17 VoAg instr.; 15 17 VoAg instr.; 15 otherother
Percent of Time Spent Actively
Working on Milk Quality
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
<10% 10-
24%
25-
49%
50-
75%
>75%
Vet Ext. AgentDFR VoAg I nstr.Other
Rodrigues & Ruegg, J Food Prot Trends, 2003Rodrigues & Ruegg, J Food Prot Trends, 2003
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Improving Milk Quality Using Self-Directed Teams
Farmer led effort to Farmer led effort to improve milk qualityimprove milk quality
Supported in part by Supported in part by Wisconsin dairy Wisconsin dairy producersproducers
Farms enroll and Farms enroll and commit to form a milk commit to form a milk quality team that meets quality team that meets monthly for 4 monthsmonthly for 4 months
Use Program material to Use Program material to help organize meetings help organize meetings and reach resultsand reach results
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
History of Milk Money Evolving program based Evolving program based
on responding to needs on responding to needs of industryof industry
1998 – benchmarked the 1998 – benchmarked the industry based on SCCindustry based on SCC Our performance = Our performance =
“average”“average” Wisconsin has special Wisconsin has special
challengeschallenges Developed a 56 herd Developed a 56 herd
pilot projectpilot project Vets & Extension Vets & Extension
agents as leadersagents as leaders Goal was to test the Goal was to test the
team conceptteam concept
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
History of Milk Money Pilot project showed Pilot project showed
tremendous resultstremendous results Increased BMPIncreased BMP Increased premiumsIncreased premiums Decreased SCC & Decreased SCC &
clinical mastitisclinical mastitis Also identified Also identified
challengeschallenges Infrastructure for Infrastructure for
team support team support Revision of materialsRevision of materials Marketing of program Marketing of program
The support of the The support of the
Wisconsin Dairy ProducersWisconsin Dairy Producers
Has been fundamental Has been fundamental
To the success of Milk MoneyTo the success of Milk Money
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Using Milk Money to Make Money for Dairy Farmers
Milk Money is Milk Money is designed to help farms:designed to help farms:
Define clear milk Define clear milk quality goalsquality goals
Create a focused Create a focused milk quality planmilk quality plan
Adopt best Adopt best management management practicespractices
Make more moneyMake more money
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
How Does Milk Money Work?
Producers and their Producers and their LOCAL experts work LOCAL experts work TOGETHER in a TOGETHER in a farmer-directed farmer-directed teamteam
How often do teams How often do teams meet?meet? Once a month for Once a month for
4 months4 months Reassess at 4Reassess at 4thth
meetingmeeting
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
What happens at a team meeting?
Use provided forms to:Use provided forms to: Come to consensus Come to consensus
on farm goalson farm goals Determine an action Determine an action
planplan Determine how Determine how
actions will be actions will be trackedtracked
Assign responsibilityAssign responsibility Follow-upFollow-up
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Who has participated?
About 400 farms About 400 farms have enrolledhave enrolled 1107 total team 1107 total team
membersmembers We have to market We have to market
the program to get the program to get participationparticipation
Facilitation of the Facilitation of the teams is the most teams is the most challenging aspectchallenging aspect
Most veterinarians Most veterinarians are paid but most are paid but most other team other team members are notmembers are not
Field Reps,
113
Other, 133
Ext.
Agents, 62
Equip. Reps,
91
Farm
Workers,
27
Nutritionists,
56
Vets, 192
Producers,
387
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Management Of Wisconsin Dairy Herds Enrolled in Milk Quality Teams
Rodrigues et al., J Dairy Science, July 2005
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Performance of Herds Enrolled
Monthly data from meeting Monthly data from meeting 1 & 4 (n=113)1 & 4 (n=113)
Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Spring 2004 Spring 2004
Data was collected and Data was collected and recorded by trained team recorded by trained team leaders using MM program leaders using MM program formsforms
Data sources included Data sources included milk plant receipts milk plant receipts farm records farm records DHI data (n = 82) DHI data (n = 82) Farmer recallFarmer recall
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Smaller Herds that Enrolled had Poorer Performance
Characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by cow housing typeCharacteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by cow housing type
Facility type Facility type PP
OutcomeOutcome StallbarnStallbarn
(n = 101) (n = 101) FreestallFreestall
(n = 78) (n = 78)
Total lactating cows (n) Total lactating cows (n) 86.786.7 377.2377.2 < 0.001< 0.001
Yield per cow per day (kg) Yield per cow per day (kg) 28.128.1 31.931.9 < 0.001< 0.001
Cows milked per hour per Cows milked per hour per person person
25.325.3 40.040.0 < 0.001< 0.001
Milk price ($/cwt) Milk price ($/cwt) 11.2511.25
11.7011.70 < 0.001< 0.001
Bulk milk SCC premium ($/cwt Bulk milk SCC premium ($/cwt 0.000.00 0.130.13 0.0140.014
Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 430,221430,221 335,762335,762 0.0060.006
Monthly rate of clinical mastitisMonthly rate of clinical mastitis 0.080.08 0.060.06 0.0580.058
Monthly cows culled for Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%)mastitis (%)
1.81.8 1.01.0 0.0730.073
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Smaller Herds Adopt Less BMP
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Freestall (n=101)
Stallbarn (n=78)
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Characteristics of Herds by SCC
BMSCC category BMSCC category
OutcomeOutcome LowLowBMSCCBMSCC
< 250,000< 250,000
(n = 36) (n = 36)
MediumMedium250,000 ≥250,000 ≥
BMSCCBMSCC
≤ ≤ 400,000400,000
(n = 83) (n = 83)
HighHighBMSCCBMSCC
> 400,000> 400,000
(n = 61) (n = 61)
PP
Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml)Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 197,611 197,611 a a 317,265 317,265 bb 564,623 564,623 cc < 0.001< 0.001
Standard plate count (cfu/ml) Standard plate count (cfu/ml) 5,943 5,943 aa 10,105 10,105 bb 19,237 19,237 bb < 0.024< 0.024
Total lactating cows (n) Total lactating cows (n) 214 214 a ba b 326 326 aa 167 167 bb < 0.003< 0.003
Yield per cow per day (lb) Yield per cow per day (lb) 70.0 70.0 aa 68.9 68.9 aa 63.4 63.4 bb < 0.020< 0.020
Cows milked per hour per person (n) Cows milked per hour per person (n) 32.232.2 35.335.3 32.032.0 < 0.998< 0.998
Monthly Inc. of subclinical mastitis (%) Monthly Inc. of subclinical mastitis (%) 9.39.3 9.59.5 11.411.4 < 0.984< 0.984
Monthly Prev. of subclinical mastitis (%) Monthly Prev. of subclinical mastitis (%) 22.7 22.7 aa 31.0 31.0 bb 41.6 41.6 cc < 0.002< 0.002
Monthly clinical mastitis (per 100 cows)Monthly clinical mastitis (per 100 cows) 6.0 6.0 aa 5.0 5.0 aa 10.0 10.0 bb < 0.002< 0.002
Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%)Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%) 0.7 0.7 aa 1.0 1.0 aa 2.1 2.1 bb < 0.056< 0.056
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Consultation with Dairy Professionals Before MM
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rev. SCC Plan with Vet Plan with
DFR
Reg.
Meetings Vet
& DFR
Bef ore Af ter Adoption Rate
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Farmers Perception of Cost of Mastitis
Subclinical lossesSubclinical losses Milk not producedMilk not produced
$3.96/cow/month$3.96/cow/month PremiumsPremiums
$8.36/cow/month$8.36/cow/month Clinical Mastitis Clinical Mastitis
LossesLosses Estimated:Estimated:
$6.04/cow/month$6.04/cow/month StandardizedStandardized
$7.85/cow/month$7.85/cow/month
Cost of a Clinical Case:
$90.59
$54.27, 60%
$17.48, 19%
$18.84, 21%
Drug CostLabor CostsDiscarded Milk
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Financial Losses per Month
Financial characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by BMSCC Financial characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by BMSCC categorycategory
BMSCC categoryBMSCC category
OutcomeOutcome LowLow MediuMediumm
HighHigh PP
Standard milk production loss per cow Standard milk production loss per cow ($)($)
2.12 2.12 aa 3.77 3.77 bb 5.35 5.35 cc < < 0.0010.001
Milk quality premium loss per cow ($)Milk quality premium loss per cow ($) 4.69 4.69 aa 7.33 7.33 bb 11.79 11.79 cc < < 0.0370.037
Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per cow ($)cow ($)
7.25 7.25 a a
bb
4.67 4.67 aa 7.23 7.23 bb < < 0.0400.040
•Low SCC: $14.06 per cow per Month
•Medium SCC: $15.77 per cow per Month
•High SCC: $24.37 per cow per Month
100 cow High SCC Herd
-$29,244 per year
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Milking Management
Data from WI freestall Data from WI freestall farms (n = 101)farms (n = 101) 377 cows per herd377 cows per herd SCC = 335,000 cell/mlSCC = 335,000 cell/ml
High adoption of recc. High adoption of recc. practicespractices 89% gloves; 97% 89% gloves; 97%
postdip; 98% predip; postdip; 98% predip; 89% forestrip89% forestrip
6 pp milking each month6 pp milking each month Range of 2 – 16Range of 2 – 16
Training was rareTraining was rare Frequent: 22%Frequent: 22% At hiring: 49%At hiring: 49% Never: 29%Never: 29%
Only 41% had written Only 41% had written milking routinemilking routine 6% of stall barns6% of stall barns
WI stall barns (n = 78)WI stall barns (n = 78) 86 cows per herd86 cows per herd 3 pp milking each 3 pp milking each
monthmonth 54% never train milkers54% never train milkers
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Influence of TInfluence of Training & Routine & Routine Milking SpeedMilking Speed
05
10152025303540455055
Written
Routine
Training
Freq.
Complete
Routine
Forestrip Comp. Rout.
& Freq.
Train
Cow
s pe
r H
our
per
Ope
rato
r
No NoNever No
YesFreq
.Yes YesHire
Train Freq &
Complete
Train Freq &
incomplete
** ***
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
Written
Routine
Training Freq. Complete
Routine
Forestrip
Mon
thly
Rat
e
No
NoNever No
YesFreq Yes Yes
Hire
** ***
Influence of Training & Routine Monthly Rate of Clinical Mastitis
Frequent Training Results in Frequent Training Results in Fastest Milking SpeedsFastest Milking Speeds
&&Lowest Rate of Clinical MastitisLowest Rate of Clinical Mastitis
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
What we learned – Part 1
Smaller herds adopt fewer best Smaller herds adopt fewer best management practices and have poorer management practices and have poorer milk qualitymilk quality
Training of milking personnel is infrequent Training of milking personnel is infrequent and is related to milk qualityand is related to milk quality
Few veterinarians are perceived as actively Few veterinarians are perceived as actively working with milk quality on farmsworking with milk quality on farms
There is a large and real opportunity to There is a large and real opportunity to rapidly improve financial performance rapidly improve financial performance based on improvements in milk qualitybased on improvements in milk quality
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Actions & Outcomes of Actions & Outcomes of Wisconsin Farms Completing Wisconsin Farms Completing
Milk Quality TeamsMilk Quality TeamsRodrigues & Ruegg, J Dairy Science, 88:2672-2680 July 2005Rodrigues & Ruegg, J Dairy Science, 88:2672-2680 July 2005
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Data used in study
Monthly data from meeting Monthly data from meeting 1 & 4 (n=113)1 & 4 (n=113)
Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Spring 2004 Spring 2004
Data was collected and Data was collected and recorded by trained team recorded by trained team leaders using MM program leaders using MM program formsforms
Data sources included Data sources included milk plant receipts milk plant receipts farm records farm records DHI data (n = 82) DHI data (n = 82) Farmer recallFarmer recall
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Use of Management PracticesBefore & After
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Before After Adoption Rate
Adoption Rate is adoption of each practice by non-users at meeting 1
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Consulting ActivitiesBefore & After
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Low SCC (<250) Medium SCC High SCC (>400)
Plan MQ Program with Vet Discuss MQ with DFR DFR & Vet Meet
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
ResultsDifferences in monthly outcomes
OutcomeOutcome Before Before programprogram
After After programprogram
DifferenceDifference PP
Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml)Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 385,838385,838 307,951307,951 -77,887-77,887 < 0.001< 0.001
Standard plate count (cfu/ml)Standard plate count (cfu/ml) 14,56414,564 10,43310,433 -4,131-4,131 0.0140.014
Yield per cow per day (kg)Yield per cow per day (kg) 29.829.8 30.630.6 0.820.82
0.2230.223
Monthly rate of clinical mastitis (%)Monthly rate of clinical mastitis (%) 6.86.8 4.94.9 -1.9-1.9 0.0160.016
Monthly incidence of subclinical mastitis (%) Monthly incidence of subclinical mastitis (%) 10.910.9 9.29.2 -1.8-1.8 0.0330.033
Monthly prevalence of subclinical mastitis Monthly prevalence of subclinical mastitis (%) (%)
35.835.8 30.830.8 -5.0-5.0 0.0080.008
Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%)Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%) 1.41.4 0.80.8 -0.7-0.7 0.0230.023
Standard milk production loss per cow ($)Standard milk production loss per cow ($) 3.883.88 2.752.75 --1.121.12
< 0.001< 0.001
Bulk milk SCC premium ($/45kg)Bulk milk SCC premium ($/45kg) 0.070.07 0.270.27 0.200.20
< 0.001< 0.001
Milk quality premium loss per cow ($)Milk quality premium loss per cow ($) 9.219.21 5.975.97 --3.243.24
< 0.001< 0.001
Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per cow ($)cow ($)
6.486.48 4.424.42 --2.062.06
0.0020.002
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Results
Critical Factors for Milk Quality
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Env. M
astiti
s
Milk
ing R
outin
e
Clinica
l Mas
titis
Milk
ing S
yste
mRX p
roto
cols
Hygien
eTeat
sDry
Cows
Milk
er T
raini
ngRec
ords
Conta
giou
s M
astitis
SOP
At meeting 1:At meeting 1: Areas of financial Areas of financial
opportunityopportunity subclinical mastitis subclinical mastitis
(13%)(13%) clinical mastitis (27%)clinical mastitis (27%) quality premiums (60%)quality premiums (60%)
No individual practice was No individual practice was independently related to milk independently related to milk qualityquality
At meeting 4:At meeting 4: 63% of the herds reported 63% of the herds reported
that they had achieved their that they had achieved their milk quality goals milk quality goals
99% agreed that teams 99% agreed that teams were useful for improving were useful for improving milk quality milk quality
83% planned to continue 83% planned to continue team meetingsteam meetings
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Changes In Performance By SCC at Meeting 1
Bulk Tank SCCBulk Tank SCC Low: - 33,478Low: - 33,478 Med: - 53,108Med: - 53,108 High: -181,446High: -181,446
Rate of clinical Rate of clinical MastitisMastitis Low: -1.4%Low: -1.4% Med: -0.3%Med: -0.3% High: -3.6%High: -3.6%
% of Cows Culled% of Cows Culled Low: -0.9%Low: -0.9% Med: -2.2%Med: -2.2% High: -1.6%High: -1.6%
Milk MoneyReduced Losses by: $7,752 - $22,956
Per 100 cows per year
Financial Changes After Completion
-$7.50-$7.00-$6.50-$6.00-$5.50-$5.00-$4.50-$4.00-$3.50-$3.00-$2.50-$2.00-$1.50-$1.00-$0.50$0.00
Subclinical $$ Prem. Loss per Cow Clinical Mastitis $
Dif
fere
nce
in
Lo
ss o
r P
rem
ium
($)
Low (n=20)
Med (n=54)
High (n=39)
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
A typical MM success“Lakeside Dairy”
Husband and wife Husband and wife manage the dairy manage the dairy operation of a large operation of a large farm.farm. 2X / day milking2X / day milking 209 milk cows209 milk cows Milk/cow/day = 60 Milk/cow/day = 60
lbslbs SCC of 337,000SCC of 337,000
Team membersTeam members Three producersThree producers Extension agent Extension agent
was team leaderwas team leader Dairy field Dairy field
representativerepresentative VeterinarianVeterinarian NutritionistNutritionist
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
“Lakeside Dairy”Financial Impact & Goals
Subclinical Subclinical production loss-no production loss-no data.data.
Premium Premium opportunity for goal opportunity for goal at BTSCC 150 = $ at BTSCC 150 = $ 1932 / month.1932 / month.
Clinical mastitis loss Clinical mastitis loss = $1833.= $1833.
Total Impact = Total Impact = $3,765.$3,765.
Goals:Goals: Lower Bulk Tank Lower Bulk Tank
SCC to 150,000SCC to 150,000 Identify Identify
contagious contagious mastitis cowsmastitis cows
Decrease clinical Decrease clinical mastitis casesmastitis cases
Group cowsGroup cows
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Teat end qualityTeat end quality Milking routineMilking routine Milker trainingMilker training Farm recordsFarm records Consistency of Consistency of
milking routinemilking routine
Team IdentifiedCritical Management Factors
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
“Lakeside Dairy”Action Plan
Meeting OneMeeting One Begin treatment Begin treatment
recordsrecords Monthly bulk tank Monthly bulk tank
cultureculture Begin on farm Begin on farm
culturingculturing Develop treatment Develop treatment
protocolsprotocols Update milking Update milking
procedures procedures protocolprotocol
Meeting TwoMeeting Two Re-culture two Re-culture two
mycoplasma mycoplasma positive cowspositive cows
Culture high SCC Culture high SCC cowscows
Develop milking Develop milking procedures posterprocedures poster
Weekly bulk tank Weekly bulk tank cultureculture
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
“Lakeside Dairy” Outcome
SCC reduced SCC reduced 34%34%
Premium Premium ChangeChange $.03 to $.40.$.03 to $.40.
Increased Increased monthly income monthly income $1,450$1,450
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
APR MAY JULY AUG
(x1
00
0)
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Why do some Milk Quality Programs Fail?
Some herds can never Some herds can never improve milk qualityimprove milk quality
Failure is often related Failure is often related to:to: Lack of commitment Lack of commitment
to changeto change Inability to Inability to
communicate communicate effectivelyeffectively
Failure to manage Failure to manage personnelpersonnel
Herds that failed in Herds that failed in Milk Money reportedMilk Money reported Lack of time Lack of time
69%69% Other farm Other farm
problemsproblems16%16%
Lack of focusLack of focus16%16%
Seasonal problemsSeasonal problems14%14%
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Anatomy of a MM Failure
54 cow dairy enrolled by 54 cow dairy enrolled by veterinarian in Oct 2005veterinarian in Oct 2005
History of BTSCC >750kHistory of BTSCC >750k Previous history of Previous history of
extensive treatment of extensive treatment of cows for Staph aureuscows for Staph aureus
Farm owner somewhat Farm owner somewhat disabled disabled 1 ft employee lived 1 ft employee lived
on farmon farm 2 high school 2 high school
students helped milk students helped milk
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
MM Failure Meeting 2
No Change in BTSCCNo Change in BTSCC No Change in YieldNo Change in Yield Implementation of actions?Implementation of actions?
1.1. Milking time observationMilking time observation
2.2. Stop feeding waste milkStop feeding waste milk
3.3. Develop segregation planDevelop segregation plan
4.4. Make treatment planMake treatment plan
5.5. Treat heifers precalvingTreat heifers precalving
6.6. Change milking prep to Change milking prep to include forestrippinginclude forestripping
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
MM Failure: Meeting 3
2 months elapsed 2 months elapsed due to scheduling due to scheduling
BTSCC increased to BTSCC increased to >1,000,000>1,000,000
6 cows had to be 6 cows had to be culled to stay legalculled to stay legal
Prevalence increased Prevalence increased to >64% of herdto >64% of herd
NIR = 21%NIR = 21% No actions No actions
completed by farm completed by farm
The success of Milk Money is dependent
On CommitmentOf Team Members
© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved
Conclusion
Ability to implement management practices is Ability to implement management practices is the most important aspect of improving milk the most important aspect of improving milk qualityquality
Implementation is dependent onImplementation is dependent on Development of standardized proceduresDevelopment of standardized procedures Ability to clearly communicate valueAbility to clearly communicate value Continued training of personnelContinued training of personnel
There is a large opportunity for more veterinary There is a large opportunity for more veterinary involvement in this area butinvolvement in this area but We must market our services or lose the turfWe must market our services or lose the turf