Kentucky Dairy Notes September 2017

Key Connections in Calf Management By: Karmella Dolecheck and Jeffrey Bewley

What can you do to improve calf health, growth, and welfare? The National Animal Health Monitoring Service conducted a survey in 2014 and 2015 to try and answer that question. One hundred and four farms from 13 states provided data from a total of 2,545 heifer calves. Each calf was followed from birth until weaning. Based on those calves’ performance, the following relationships were found for disease incidence, colostrum management, and average daily gain. Knowing these relationships can help identify both specific calves that may be at risk and general farm management practices that could improve calf productivity. The chance of getting a disease was higher: -In calves with lower birth weights -In calves with lower serum IgG (IgG concentration in the blood of calves reflects the amount of antibodies absorbed from colostrum.) -In calves without natural ventilation -When temperature humidity index was higher The chance of contracting cryptosporidiosis was greater: -On large farms -In younger calves -In higher temperature humidity index conditions The chance of contracting giardia (an infection of the intestine known to cause diarrhea) was greater: -On small farms -In older calves -In calves experiencing a lower average daily gain -In calves that had experienced cryptosporidiosis previously -In higher temperature humidity index conditions Passive transfer of colostral antibodies was more successful: -In the Western US compared to the Eastern US

-If colostrum was heat treated (Heat treatment or pasteurization of colostrum decreases bacteria counts. Studies have shown reduced absorption of antibodies with high bacterial counts in colostrum.) -If colostrum came from a parity 1 cow (because production was lower, resulting in a higher concentration of antibodies) -If time from birth to feeding of colostrum was short (Ideally, colostrum should be fed within 6 hours of birth.) -If volume of colostrum fed was greater (for every 1 L of colostrum fed in the first 24 h after birth, serum IgG increased 0.56 g/L) -If IgG levels in the colostrum were higher (for every 10 g/L increase in colostrum IgG, serum IgG increased 1.1. g/L) Average daily gain was higher: -In calves born from cows in parity 2 and greater -In calves born as singles as opposed to twins -In calves that did not experience cryptosporidiosis or giardiasis -In calves fed a greater amount of protein in their liquid diet per day (every 2.2 lb of protein fed per day resulted in 0.04 lb/day of gain) -In calves that had no diseases present versus those that had one or more disease -In calves bedded with straw, hay, shavings, or some combination of these as compared to calves bedded with sand or no bedding -When the temperature humidity index was less than 50 Information in this article was presented at the Joint Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, July 19-23, by researchers from the National Animal Health Monitoring System and Colorado State University.

What do I need to consider before in-

vesting in a robotic milking system?

By: Derek Nolan and Jeffrey Bewley

More and more dairy producers are considering in-

vesting in automatic milking systems (AMS) around

the United States. Producers all around the world

have been adopting robotic milkers to allow for more

freedom in their daily lives and to replace labor. No

longer is the producer committed to two or three milk-

ings each day. While their day may be less struc-

tured, some changes need to be considered when it

comes to the day-to-day management of the dairy

herd.

Before Installation

Before installation of the AMS, Jack Rodenburg,

DairyLogix, stresses management practices that need

to be considered. The first is the housing type. Two

different types of systems are common with a robotic

milker. The first is a free flow system. In a free flow

system, cows are allowed to roam freely around the

barn with unlimited access to the AMS, feed bunk,

and housing. On the other hand, guided systems

force the cow to enter one area before another. The

most common is for the cow to enter the AMS before

going to the feed bunk. This provides an incentive for

the cow to milk. Neither system is perfect. In a free

flow system, cows average two milkings per day com-

pared to 2.6 in a guided system. However, cows in a

free system average 12 meals a day compared to on-

ly 3.9 in a guided system. The number of fetch cows,

cows that do not come to the AMS voluntarily, is also

affected by the system type with an average of over

16% of cows needing to be fetched in a free system,

with less than 9% in a guided system.

In either system, by considering space during the

building process, the producer can decrease fetching.

Limited space, both for the cow and around the AMS,

can increase the number of fetch cows. An AMS sys-

tem can handle around 60 cows. More cows per ro-

bot than that leads to more fetch cows and lower milk-

ing frequency. Free space in front of the robot is criti-

cal. If space is tight, timid cows will not come up to

milk as often, as dominant cows push them out. Any-

thing that attracts cows, such as brushes, needs to be

placed at the opposite end of the barn, to relieve traf-

fic to the AMS. If a barn contains multiple robots, ro-

bot orientation should be the same for all units. Cows

are habitual creatures and if most of the herd decides

they like one robot over the other it will build traffic

and lower milking frequency. Placing robots in the

same orientation also relieves exit and entry traffic

from the robots. Easy traffic flow makes for easy

fetching.

Besides easy fetching, other aspects of the barn need

to be considered to make management less labori-

ous. When building the barn, Rodenberg stresses, try

to make every job a one-man job. Consider how the

barn design will affect scraping, cow management, or

herd health and reproductive checks.

Herd Health and Reproduction

Dr. Stephen LeBlanc, Ontario Veterinary College,

suggests there has been some concern with potential

issues of unit attachment and teat cleaning with an

AMS. Farms that follow the NMC guidelines for milk

prep are consistently better at teat prep than a robot.

A cow entering the AMS with clean teats is more im-

portant than it would be in a parlor because the robot

follows the same procedures every time where a hu-

man will spend extra time with a dirty cow. Robotic

milking herds tend to have a higher SCC than con-

ventional herds. Herds with a SCC between 200,000

and 250,000 tend to increase where herds over

300,000 tend to decrease after adoption. One reason

for the increase may be due to the increase in milk

production that comes with adoption of the AMS.

LeBlanc points out other herd health factors do not

see much of a change from conventional to an AMS.

Both reproductive success and metabolic health tend

to be no better or worse after the adoption of robotic

milkers.

Even though change in herd health is minimal to non-

existent, the potential an AMS system has to monitor

the health of individual cows can be a major benefit.

An AMS can provide 120 pieces of information per

cow per day. Data provided is consistent and objec-

tive allowing the producer to track changes in the

cows’ data output. As more research is completed on

the data and patterns it creates, producers will be

able to set alerts when cows go outside of their daily

routine.

Nutrition

Dr. Alex Bach, Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia

Agroalimentàries, suggests an AMS gives the pro-

ducer the opportunity to structure more to a cow’s in-

dividual needs compared to a complete TMR. Con-

centrate provided by the robot is used to entice cows

to enter the AMS. However, a large amount of con-

centrate provided by the robot does not make it more

enticing for milking. If too much is provided the cow

will not eat all of it leading to more cleanout by the

producer. Two to three lbs. of concentrate should be

provided per milking. A TMR balanced for one cow

leads to an unbalanced ration for another. An AMS

can allow for selective concentrate feeding but a pro-

ducer can run into the same problem of a batch TMR

by feeding only one type of pellet. Bach suggests by

investing in multiple concentrate boxes, a balanced

concentrate can be offered to meet individual cow

needs.

Economic Investment

Adoption in an AMS by most producers is for a life-

style change and to replace labor. Producers that

have invested in a robot see a 10% to 29% reduction

in labor. The value of an AMS is just shy of

$200,000. Dr. Jim Salfer, University of Minnesota,

suggests the cost of labor is a major variable in deter-

mining the value of the AMS. When number crunch-

ing, the producer must consider wage inflation. Labor

wages will change while a robot is going to stay con-

stant. For every $1 increase in the annual labor the

profitability of the robot increases by $4 and for every

additional year of life of the robot the value increases

by approximately $16,000.

Salfer advises the other variable that plays a large

role in the profitability of an AMS is cow throughput

and milk production per robot. A robot can be more

profitable than an underutilized parlor, which is com-

mon for the small dairies that adopt them. After adop-

tion, producers should cull cows that do not adapt to

the robot or have long milk out times. This will allow

the AMS to run more efficiently and have a greater

throughput.

Final Take Home Message

Perhaps the biggest consideration is how labor use

will change. None of the other considerations will be

beneficial without the change of labor. Milking labor

should now be management labor. Producers should

now spend extra time managing their herd, from re-

trieving fetch cows and fresh cows to examining alerts

from the data provided by the AMS. The robot allows

producers to manage the cow’s individual needs. In

order to reap all the benefits of the AMS, the producer

must shift from manual labor to management labor.

Dare to Dairy

When: October 21, 2017

Where: University of Kentucky Coldstream Dairy

Cost: $15 per person

Registration Deadline: October 2, 2017

Open to 4-H and FFA members who would like to learn more about the science behind milk production. 4-H members may receive

3 livestock educational hours for this event. 4-H volunteer leaders may also receive 3 hours towards their continuing education

hours (Please bring your completed form to be signed).

What do I need to consider before in-

vesting in a robotic milking system?

Continued...

Managing Cows: How Nutrition Impacts

Lifelong Health

By: Amanda Lee and Jeffrey Bewley

Proper nutrition is crucial to the development of

calves, heifers, and cows. Researchers from around

the world are exploring novel options to promote

healthy growth and development in heifers, reduce

transition cow diseases, and provide proper nutrition

for pasture animals. With an increased emphasis on

cow longevity and overall health, exploring new

options for nutrition can help producers to better

understand how to effectively feed their animals.

Researchers from South Dakota State University

reported that high forage, low concentrate diets might

have low feed efficiency because of poorly digestible

fiber. Thus, alternative nutritional sources or feeding

protocols, such as limit feeding, are needed to provide

heifers with quality, highly digestible sources of fiber.

In limit feeding, producers feed a set amount of

nutrient dense diet and ad libitum hay to improve feed

efficiency and decrease the cost of growing feed. The

objective of the study was to compare the effects of

limit feeding with distiller grain versus ground corn

and soybean product mix when fed with ad libitum

grass hay. A 16-week feed trial exposed 24 cows to

one of two treatments: distillers grain concentrate mix

or corn and soybean product concentrate mix.

Because distiller’s dried grains had a greater fat

concentration, the diet intake composition had a

significantly higher NDF and ether extract in heifers

fed distillers dried grain. However, there was no

difference in average daily gain, DMI, BW, or frame

growth between the two groups of cows. Looking at

rumen fermentation, cows fed distillers dried grains

had greater propionate and butyrate than cows fed

ground corn and soybeans. However, when

considering total tract digestibility, there were no

differences in dry matter, organic matter, crude

protein, or NDF between the diets. Overall, the study

suggests that limit feeding with distillers dried grain as

the primary concentrate in addition to ad libitum grass

hay maintains the same level of growth performance,

energy status, dry matter intake, and nutrient

digestibility.

Take home message: When considering how and

what to feed heifers, all aspects of the diet must be

analyzed. Although no perfect feed exists, a ration

must be balanced to provide adequate NDF, CP, and

energy.

Okara is the residue extracted from soybeans used to

make soy and tofu products. Frequently, okara is

considered a waste product and it can be highly

susceptible to bacterial growth if not properly dried.

The crude protein content ranges from 25.5 to 37.5 %

and 45.5 to 58.6 % total carbohydrates. In a previous

study, up to 12 % okara as dry matter did not affect

dairy cows milk production or digestibility. The

objective of the current study conducted at the

University of New Hampshire was to determine how

replacing soybean meal with okara meal changes milk

production, milk composition, and nutrient digestibility

in dairy cows. Twenty cows were exposed to a

soybean based or okara based diet for 21 days.

Researchers found no difference in feed intake, feed

efficiency, energy corrected milk, 4% fat corrected

milk, and milk yield between the groups. However,

cows fed okara meal had significantly lower true

protein percent. In considering change in digestibility,

no difference was seen between okara and soybean

meal in dry matter intake and digestibility, organic

matter intake and digestibility, or NDF intake or

digestibility, although CP intake was significantly

lower in cows fed soybean meal.

Take home message: Overall, okara meal can

potentially replace up to 8% of soybean meal when

fed on a dry matter basis without affecting milk yield

or dry matter intake.

Transition cows require additional management to

prevent ketosis and hypocalcemia, and researchers

in Canada are trying to determine when and how a

producer might intervene to prevent disease

incidence. Flax oil may serve to aid in the energy

balance during early lactation of high producing dairy

cows. Flax oil is approximately 41% fat and 20%

protein and has been shown to reduce fatty liver

disease and increase fertility. However, researchers

are unsure which component contributes these

benefits. Thus, researchers tested two groups of

cows by infusing 0.6 lbs of flax oil into the abomasum

daily. One group was also supplemented with an

additional 15% flax meal in the dry matter. Blood,

urine, liver, and mammary gland biopsies were

collected from day 7 to 49 in milk. No difference was

seen between the two groups in oxidative liver

damage, but greater DNA damage was seen in the

group supplemented with flax oil in both mammary

gland and liver. Overall, flax meal did not reduce the

risk of disease in fresh cows.

Take home message: Flax meal must be analyzed

further to determine if there is potential benefit in

feeding to the fresh cows.

Because Irish dairies typically keep cows on pasture

220 days per year, seasonal calving must occur to

prevent grass shortages. With the abolishment of the

quota system in 2015, producers are no longer limited

by production, but continue to face challenges in land

and feed availability. Because there is a high cost

associated with cereal growth, there has been

increased emphasis on replacing cereals with other

byproducts such as palm kernel, soya hulls and

distillers grain. The objective of the study was to

determine the effects of byproduct inclusion on body

weight, BCS, and DMI. Cows were separated into

four groups: cows fed 6.6lbs concentrate by-product

at 35% inclusion level, 13.2 lbs by-product fed at 35%

inclusion level, 6.6 lbs concentration by-product at

95% inclusion level, and 13.2 lbs by-product fed at

95% inclusion level. By feeding 13.2 lbs rather than

6.6 lbs of concentrate, cows tended to produce 4.3

lbs more of milk (or 1.3 lbs more per lb of concentrate

above 6.6 lbs). No differences were seen in milk

solids or protein produced or pasture DMI intake.

Kilograms of milk fat per cow per day were

significantly greater in cows fed 13.2 lbs of

concentrate than 6.6 lbs of concentrate. Although

rumen pH was significantly lower in cows consuming

the higher concentrate, the cows still had normal

rumen pH and were not at a higher risk for SARA.

Take home message: Cows can be fed up to 95%

concentrate with byproducts without changes in DMI,

milk production and composition, BCS and BW.

Although feeding 13.2 lbs of concentrates resulted in

higher milk production and fat concentration, it is

currently not economical to feed such high

concentrate levels at current milk prices.

This research was presented at the American Dairy

Science Association and American Society of Animal

Science Joint Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah

on 20 July 2016.

Managing Cows: How Nutrition

Impacts Lifelong Health continued...

Water Needs for the Dairy Herd

By: Hannah Himmelmann and Donna M.

Amaral-Phillips, PhD

Most people know that water is required for

survival. What people tend to forget is just how

important water is. In fact, water is the most

important nutrient for the milking dairy cow. Water

intake is critical in

order to obtain

maximum

production from

dairy cows. Without

proper water

intake, productivity

will decrease,

which can lead to

economic loss.

Water Amount

The amount of

water dairy cows

consume is vital.

Cows should

consume between

30 and 50 gallons

per day. This is over 415 pounds of water per day.

Why do they need this much water? It takes

between 4 and 4.5 pounds of water to produce 1

pound of milk. Milk consists of 87% water.

Insufficient water intake will result in decreased milk

yield. Dairy cows rely on saliva and other fluids to

assist in the digestion of feedstuffs. This increased

need for saliva requires water. If water intake

decreases, the digestion of the feed decreases. A

decrease in water intake results in decreased feed

intake. Decreased feed intake can have detrimental

effects on dairy cows. Cows get their energy from

feed which is needed for producing milk.

Managing the Dairy Herd’s Water Supply

Managing water on a per cow basis in a dairy herd

can be quite difficult. For this reason, it is best to

make decisions that will benefit the herd as a

whole. Cows must have access to water when they

are in the barn. The water trough should be

centrally located or located where all cows in a

group can access it easily. Placing the water trough

close to the feed bunk allows cows to drink after

eating. Cows tend to drink the most after eating and

being milked. There also should be plenty of space

for multiple cows to drink at once. Each cow should

have 3 to 5 inches

of water space

available to them.

The height of the

trough should be 2

to 3 feet. The fill

rate of the waterer

should be a little

over 2.5 gallons

per minute. If the

herd is split into

multiple groups,

each group should

contain its own

water trough. One

water trough

should be present

for every 20 cows. The number of cows in the barn

will determine the number of waterers needed. The

water trough also needs to hold no less than 5

gallons at a time. The trough that holds the water

should be clean and provide fresh water at all

times. An automatic waterer ensures cows will have

the correct amount of water offered to them at all

times. However, automatic waterers and float

valves still must be cleaned at least once a week.

In conclusion, water is the most important nutrient a

dairy cow receives. In order to achieve maximum

productivity, cows need to obtain the required

amount of water each day. While it is hard to

manage water intake per cow, managing the entire

herd’s water intake is simple and effective.