proceedings of the 47 florida dairy production conference
TRANSCRIPT
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 47th
FLORIDA DAIRY PRODUCTION CONFERENCE
Best Western Gateway Grand
Gainesville Florida March 30, 2011
Sponsored by the Department of Animal Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension
Service and the Agricultural Experiment Station of the Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, with the cooperation of State Dairy Organizations and
Allied Industry
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 i
Proceedings of the
47th
Florida Dairy Production Conference
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Best Western Gateway Grand
4200 NW 97th
Blvd
Gainesville, FL 32606
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Michael Pedreiro (Dairy Production Systems), Maggie Murphy (Southeast Milk, Inc), David
Bray, Courtney Davis, Albert De Vries, Alan Ealy, Klibs Galvaõ, Chris Holcomb, Carlos Risco,
Marry Sowerby, José Santos, and Charlie Staples (University of Florida)
CONFERENCE INFORMATION
Albert De Vries
UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences
Phone: (352) 392-5594 ext. 227 * Fax: (352) 392-5595
E-mail: [email protected]
CONFERENCE SPONSORSHIPS
David R. Bray
UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences
Phone: (352) 392-5594 ext. 226 * Fax: (352) 392-5595
E-mail: [email protected]
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION
Rebecca Matta
UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences
Phone: (352) 392-1916 * Fax: (352) 392-9059
E-mail: [email protected]
These proceedings were edited by Albert De Vries. Proceedings from past Florida Dairy Production Conferences are
available at the Florida Dairy Extension website at http://dairy.ifas.ufl.edu.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 ii
Table of Contents
Conference Schedule 1
2011 Sponsors 2
New Challenges, New Ideas: An Overview of Dairy Issues and Policies Leading to the 2012
Farm Bill Andrew M. Novakovic, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
5
Producing Quality Milk in Florida David R. Bray, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
10
Florida Dairy Youth Programs Chris Holcomb, University of Florida, Bartow, FL
16
Identifying and Treating Uterine Disease in Dairy Cows Klibs N. Galvão, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
21
The Use of Technology for Improved Cow Health to Increase Production and
Reproduction Eric Diepersloot, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
30
Dairy Lending: a Lender’s Perspective Jeffrey Spencer, Farm Credit of Florida ACA, Alachua, FL
37
Feeding Cows with Increasing Feed Prices: Efficiencies, Feed Options, and Quality
Control Charles C. Stallings, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
40
Reproductive Programs for Florida Dairy Herds J.E.P. Santos, W.W. Thatcher, R.S. Bisinotto, F.S. Lima, and E.S. Ribeiro, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL
46
Appendix: Southeast DHIA Update 2010 Dan W. Webb, University of Florida, Gainesville , FL
57
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 1
Florida Dairy Production Conference Schedule
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Best Western Gateway Grand, Gainesville, Florida
8:45 AM Registration
Presiding – Adam Jackanicz, Southeast Milk, Inc.
9:45 Welcome – Geoff Dahl, University of Florida
10:00 Implications of Evolving Dairy Markets and Policy for the Florida Dairy Industry –
Andrew Novakovic, Cornell University
10:50 Producing Quality Milk in Florida – David Bray, University of Florida
11:30 Dairy Youth Update – Chris Holcomb, University of Florida
12:00 PM Luncheon
Presiding – Carlos Risco, University of Florida
1:15 Identifying and Treating Uterine Disease in Dairy Cows – Klibs Galvaõ, University
of Florida
1:50 Application of Daily Milk Weights, Daily Components, and Body Weights in Dairy
Management – Eric Diepersloot, University of Florida
2:25 Dairy Lending: A Lender’s Perspective – Jeffrey Spencer, Farm Credit of Florida
3:00 Refreshment Break
3.30 Feeding Cows with Increasing Feed Costs: Efficiencies, Feed Options, and Quality
Control – Charlie Stallings, Virginia Tech
4:20 Reproductive Programs for Florida Dairy Herds – José Santos, University of Florida
5:00 Reception – Hors d’oeuvres and a cash bar are available for your enjoyment
2 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
2011 Sponsors
We thank the following sponsors who provided support for the
47th
Florida Dairy Production Conference
Silver Sponsors ($300)
Terry Creel
West Central Soy Plus
30 Mountain Creek Drive
Rome, GA 30161
Ph. 706-766-2177
Josh Churchwell
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health 6110 SW CR 346
Archer, FL 32618
Ph. 813-967-5176
Harvey Largen
Select Sire Power
PO Box 370
Rocky Mount, VA 24151
Ph. 540-483-5123
Heath Graham
Pfizer Animal Health
535 Planters Manor Way
Bradenton, FL 34212
Ph. 941-737-5357
Terry Weaver
Westway Feed Products, Inc
PO Box 2447
Lake Placid, FL 33862
Ph. 863-840-0935
Jake Martin
DairyDesign.Com
6024 SW 89th
Terrace
Gainesville, FL 32608-5577
Ph. 352-371-4655
Brent Lawrence, Jennifer Skelton
Alltech, Inc.
350 Davenport Drive
Thomasville, GA 317292
Ph. 352-212-6240
Matt and Christy Walter
Central Florida Large Animal Veterinary
Services - bioPRYN
43 E 17th St
Saint Cloud, FL 34769
Ph. 407-892-2034
Pete Hetherington
LIC USA Ph. 706-231-4673
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 3
Milk Sponsor
Maggie Murphy
Southeast Milk, Inc.
1950 SE County Highway 484
Belleview, FL 34420
Ph. 800-598-7866
4 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 5
New Challenges, New Ideas: An Overview of Dairy Issues and Policies
Leading to the 2012 Farm Bill
Andrew Novakovic
The E.V. Baker Professor of Agricultural Economics
Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University
316 Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853
An Outline
1. The status of dairy markets and need (or desire) for new solutions
2. Contrast with the status of other major US agricultural sectors
3. What is the direction of US agricultural policy?
4. What is presently authorized?
5. What are the new ideas?
6. What is the likely timetable?
7. ―Big Picture‖ issues that will affect dairy and the farm bill?
Introduction
Dairy markets have exhibited increased volatility since the withdrawal of significant federal
prices supports during the late 1980s. However, the events of 2009 and continuing uncertainty
about economic recovery for dairy farmers have created an increased sense of urgency for new
dairy policy. The dairy, agricultural, and general economic climate is increasingly tumultuous
and difficult to predict. National politics and the ability of the US government to develop
legislative responses are bedeviled by a general agreement that many things need to be changed
and changed dramatically but by a large disagreement on what those changes ought to be.
While volatility in milk prices have been a great catalyst for recent industry efforts to
dramatically change federal dairy policy, there are a number of issues that are of large and
perhaps growing importance to dairy farmers.
Issue #1: Volatility in Dairy Farm Income
The challenge of volatility in farm milk prices has been immensely compounded by volatility in
the prices of farm inputs, especially feed. This has drawn our attention to thinking about the
economic problem as one of volatility in dairy farm income, more so than the price of milk.
We might ask ourselves, what is the nature or characteristics of farm income volatility. Is it:
1. Cyclical or random?
2. Unpredictable?
3. Increasing?
6 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Is it caused by:
1. Volatile milk prices?
2. Volatile feed prices?
3. Volatility in other input costs?
4. Production risk?
Familiar graphs of milk prices amply convey a sense of volatility. Monthly patterns show very
large swings in price compared to the last half of the 20th Century. However, if one looks at the
national average milk price from the first half of the last century, it is clear that volatility, or at
least large variations in monthly prices is not really new to the US dairy sector. Indeed the
relative swings in milk prices in the first 25 years of the 20th Century easily rival recent patterns.
What emerges from an investigation of these data is evidence that the Dairy Price Support
Program, operated in the 1940s and made permanent in 1949, had a considerable effect on
dampening milk price volatility that seems to be inherent. The reduction in the federal support
price during the dairy surplus crisis of the 1980s resulted in a Price Support program that offered
much reduced protection and therefore offered little moderation to milk price volatility in the
1990s. The completion of the Uruguay Round negotiations of the GATT, and the creation of the
new World Trade Organization (WTO) opened the door to both the US market as well as
provided greater access to the world market for US processors. Both seem to have added to milk
price volatility.
In assessing the calamitous economic events of 2009, it is tempting to conclude that these were
the result of a very unusual combination of economic factors that are unlikely to repeat any time
soon. However, the economic climate in the years before 2009 and the brief period since leave
many industry participants feeling that there is both justification and need to find a different set
of tools to help dairy farmers deal with turbulent markets. Other issues are also of importance to
dairy farmers, and perhaps increasingly so.
Issue #2: Environmental Policy
The current status of agricultural environmental policy is uncertain, but the trend has been for it
to become tougher. In assessing environmental policy and regulations applied to agriculture, one
might ask:
1. Are stricter environmental controls ―right‖: is there really an underlying problem
2. Are stricter controls ―good‖: is what you want me to do actually a solution
3. Is it ―fair‖
a) What is the cost vs. the benefit
b) How much should I have to pay (vs. government/society)
Issue #3: Regional, Product Sector and Structural Issues
The dairy industry is often described as being conflicted along regional lines. To the extent that
there is disagreement among dairy farmers about appropriate or existing policies, it is probably
incorrect to attribute all of these to some kind of dairy regionalism. Many opinions are more
correlated with things like farm size, production systems, or marketing systems. Some of these
may be somewhat correlated with region. For example, there may be more small-scale farms in
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 7
New England, but their views may be more similar to small-scale farmers anywhere than with
other New England farmers.
Some issues do have a theme that is more clearly regional. For example, farms that produce
their own feed experience feed price volatility very differently from those who rely on purchased
feed. These alternative systems can theoretically exist anywhere but agronomic and climate
conditions vary regionally and have a lot to do with the feasibility of one system over the other.
State regulations are inherently regional. These play an important role in both the description
and enforcement of regulations related to: 1) environmental standards, 2) labor, and 3) animal
welfare.
Some differences in policy perspective are associated with the Product Sector to which a farmer
sells milk. These could include various aspects of a sector, for example:
1. Fluid vs. Soft vs. Cheese vs. Butter/powder vs. NDM/SMP/MPC etc
2. Organic vs. conventional or pasture-based or rBST free
3. Farm value-added
Another set of factors impacting perspectives on dairy policy relate to industry structure. For
example:
1. Low cost production systems vs. Value Added system
2. Local food systems vs. cheap food systems
3. Dairy as producer of milk vs. Dairy as producer of a tapestry of social, economic and
environmental benefits
4. Availability of choices
a) Where to sell my milk
b) Where to buy my inputs
5. Competitiveness of markets
a) In terms of choices available and
b) Market power wielded by those alternative buyers
Competition or the competitiveness of markets has been of sufficient concern to draw the
attention of the US Department of Justice and various members of Congress. No particular
sweeping or general allegations or actions have taken place as yet, but this remains fertile ground
for debate and concern.
In evaluating the competitiveness of US dairy markets, one might ask: Competition with whom?
Of what kind? Do Competitive Markets mean:
1. Low prices, constrained choices
a) Few cooperatives is a bad thing
b) Few processors is a bad thing
c) The CME is a bad thing
d) Few retailers and restaurants are a bad thing
e) New products are a threat
f) We need strong regulation
8 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
2. Higher prices, new markets
a) Strong cooperatives are a good thing
b) Strong processors are a good thing
c) Healthy competition keeps us lean and on the cutting edge
d) We are better positioned relative to external competitors and international markets
e) New products are an opportunity
f) We don’t need a lot of regulation, especially of the economic variety
In evaluating existing or proposed regulations, we might also ask ourselves about the unintended
as well as intended effects of those regulations. Do our fences hold us in or keep the bad guys
out? For example,
1. Do Product Identity Standards
a) Defend the purity of core dairy products, or
b) Inhibit innovation
2. Do Trade restrictions - market access, tariffs, quality and safety standards – protect us
from importers or inhibit us as exporters
3. Do Price or income supports protect us from the excesses of markets or do they stifle
innovation
4. Are Federal Milk Marketing Orders the benign umpire that keeps the game flowing
smoothly or are they a relic of a past that has no relevance to today’s marketplace.
What is our optimal strategy in international markets
1. Opportunistic seller (of commodities)
2. Consistent and committed seller (commodities or ?)
3. Active player (value added products?)
Prospects for Changes in Dairy Policy
Although the 2008 Farm Bill is scheduled to be in effect through 2012, many voices in the dairy
sector have called for change on a much-accelerated timetable. Then House Agriculture
committee chair, Collin Peterson obliged in 2010 with a number of hearings and a clearly stated
ambition to reform dairy policy soon, certainly in 2011. Secretary of Agriculture Thomas
Vilsack appointed the first ever USDA dairy industry advisory committee to help him think
through actions he could take or which he could advocate to improve dairy farm profitability and
reduce milk price volatility. The National Milk Producers Federation and other dairy farm
advocacy groups offered bold new ideas for dairy policy.
The November 2010 election, which changed the political dynamic at the federal level, has had a
profound effect on the trajectory of new dairy policy, and probably agricultural and other
policies as well. At this point, what will happen and when it will happen are quite uncertain. To
be sure, there will be discussions in 2011, but whether these will result in changes to dairy policy
in advance of 2012 farm bill discussions remains to be seen. Indeed, there is some speculation
that the next farm bill will not be discussed in earnest until after the 2012 national election.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 9
NOTES
10 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Producing Quality Milk in Florida
David R. Bray
Extension Agent IV, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida
Bldg. 499, Shealy Drive, Gainesville, FL 32608
Introduction
Historically, Florida and the southeastern states have always been deficit milk states. Every
year in the summer we must import milk, but we export milk in the winter months when the
heat stress is gone – until now we were pretty much an island. What happened here stayed
here? Another problem is that we are not the only dairymen who are supplying milk to the
Southeast. Thanks to the strange milk marketing system we are exporting milk out of the area
while other areas are importing milk into the Southeast. This lowers prices for the Southeast
dairymen. If we hope to revise these trends some changes to the milk marketing rules must be
made. But if we can impress to our local processors that our milk quality is as good or superior
to the milk that is being imported, maybe this will keep outside milk out of the Southeast.
If we can can’t even the supply of milk to our own processors, who are we going to sell it to?
Other Opportunities
The world has been changing and changing fast. Floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, governments
being overthrown and populations expanding; the burning food in our cars, trucks and farm
machinery. World markets are changing also. The US has never been a big exporter of dairy
products but in the last few years it has increased and with the shortage of protein in the world
it can expand with our ability to overproduce milk in this country. We have a chance to export
more dairy products.
The export market has strict standards from size of shipping containers to milk quality
standards and probably isn’t a standard playing field for the United States, but this export
market could bring in higher prices for our milk if we can meet the milk quality standards.
While it’s doubtful that much of the Southeast’s milk will be in the export market, the rules are
that all milk in the exporters supply must meet these quality standards. This means the somatic
cell count (SCC) of 400,000 cells/ml or below is going to be the export limit and yours also if
we wish to compete.
What is Being Done?
Southeast Milk, Inc. (SMI) has had in place a penalty system to lower SCC and has also been
concentrating on lowering the Lab Pasteurized Counts (LPC) on your dairy. This is a big step
since the LPC is really the indication of shelf life in milk because the bacteria that survive
during pasteurization continue to grow and decay the quality of milk. They also have taken a
big step in hiring Dr. Adam Jackanicz as their Field Representative. His expertise in the area of
milk quality is much needed.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 11
Guidelines to Get to High Quality Milk (SMI)
In April 2011, penalties will be charged if the SCC monthly average is greater than 650,000
cells/ml, bacteria Count (SPC) monthly average is greater than 80,000, or the Preliminary
Incubation Count (PI Count) average is greater than 100,000 (no change). Follow these
guidelines to avoid penalties:
High SCC Herd Now?
1. Get a bulk tank culture done on the herd, two weeks in a row.
2. Strip every quarter of every cow in the herd. This should be done by someone in
management or ownership in the dairy, not by the guy you hired last week.
3. Do something with those cows with high SCC quarters. If she has been treated more than 5
episodes this lactation, dry that quarter off, kill it. If a small herd gets a quarter milker and
keep that quarter’s milk out of the tank or cull the cow. Dry the cow off early if she is
pregnant.
4. If you have a bunch of junk cows, chronic cows, cull them.
5. Treat the quarter with a commercial tube, cleaning the teat end off with alcohol pads.
Follow label directions. Some drugs need to be given at 12 hour intervals. Do what the
label says.
6. Treat or cull enough quarters to be below the penalty limit.
7. Determine what kind of bacteria you have in the herd from the bulk tank results. If you
have a veterinarian you should have some input from him or her. If not, I would be happy
to discuss the options with you.
8. Figure out how you got into this mess and how to get out of it: milk clean dry udders, post
dip every quarter milked, keep your cows in as clean a place as possible, rebuild your
pulsators, clean your vacuum controller, dry treat every cow going dry, mow your careless
weeds in all pastures.
9. Cull junk cows and don’t make more junk cows!
High SPC Cows, Cooling, Cleaning
1. A bulk tank analysis would help to make a decision. If you have low SCC, low pathogen
levels you have eliminated cows as being the cause of the high SPC. If high SCC, see
above in high SCC herd now.
2. Cooling is easy. Is the milk cooling fast enough, temperature low enough? You need a
thermometer.
3. Get the system checked. Clean the cooling fins, check if the agitator is working. If the tank
is iced up get it checked.
4. Cleaning. Is your hot water temperature 160⁰ F at the start of wash, 120⁰F at the dump
cycle? Is the air injector working properly?
5. Have your chemicals changed? Inexpensive chemicals are usually less concentrated and
more are needed. Are you sanitizing the tank less than a hour before using it? If you use
chlorine, some acid rinse sanitizers have a long time limit.
12 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
6. Change all rubber hoses, gaskets, jetter cups in the parlor twice a year. Change liners every
1200 cow milking or per label directions. Change all rubber parlor hoses, milk house hoses
at least once a year, don’t chase milk with water, and don’t drink out of them either.
Reasons for High PIC
1. Poor milking hygiene, dirty conditions is lots, stalls and the parlor.
2. Poor wash up procedures and or sanitizing of milking equipment.
3. Poor or slow milk cooling, milk not cooled below 38⁰ F, blends should not exceed 48⁰F
4. Poor water quality.
5. Milk clean dry udders and teats, have proper wash up and sanitizing of milking equipment,
cool your milk cold and as quickly as possible.
Laboratory Pasteurized Count (LPC) Reduction Procedures
The LPC test is doing a standard plate count on pasteurized milk. The mastitis pathogens are
killed and what remains are organisms that keep on growing in the milk and reduce shelf life.
These organisms are not from cows’ udders, they are usually spore formers like bacillus or
other undesirables like pseudomonas, which live in rubber hoses and are in some water
supplies. If a high LPC count is present or in your near future, 250-300 cfu/ml is the usual cut
off point, then the following procedures need to be done to ensure you stay below these levels.
1. Milk clean dry pre-dipped teats and udders. Dirty sand bedding and muddy lots are a big
supplier of these non-cow bacteria. Milking wet and or dirty teats will load up the tank
with them.
2. Replace all rubber parts in the milking parlor: milk hoses, wash hoses, jetter cups, pipeline
gaskets, milk pump gaskets and butterfly valves etc. While apart, inspect inside of the
pipelines for any build-up or milk stone, including the pipeline from the milk pump to the
bulk tank. The hot water supply to the pipeline, bulk tank washers, and all rubber water
hoses that may get water into the milk supply. Replace all rubber parts every 6 months. No
chasing of milk, especially not with a rubber hose.
3. Wash out pulsator lines. They should have clean outs on the corners so it can be flushed
out. Wash out pulsator hoses, remove the twin pulsator hoses from the claw, run hot soapy
water through them and the pulsators. Most pulsators will take a quart of water. Rinse
pulsators, change hoses if old (when liners split during milking, the milk runs through the
pulsators into the pulsator lines and throughout the vacuum system). Dried milk film may
be a big problem of high LPCs.
4. Wash out vacuum supply lines, trap to pump, balance tanks etc. (DO NOT RUN WATER
INTO VACUUM PUMPS!!!!).
5. Inspect the inside of bulk tanks. You need a black-light or big flash light and a skinny
person. Let the tank air out and if any internal cleaning of the tanks is needed, use a non-
scratch 3M scrubber and soap and water. Do not use acids or strong chemicals that will kill
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 13
the skinny guy in the tank. NEVER COMBINE ACID CLEANERS WITH OTHER
CHEMICALS.
6. Make sure air injectors are working properly and chemical concentrations are correct for
your system. Have a minimum of 160⁰ F water at the start of the wash cycle and dump the
water at 120⁰ F. Sanitization of tanks and pipelines should be 1 hour or less with chlorine
sanitizers (some products are longer lasting). Check all labels of all chemicals, you might
learn something important. If you only do wash up twice a day and you milk 3X you might
try washing the system 3X.
7. Make sure your cooling system is working properly. Chillers are necessary if you have a
old tank with little cooling capacity. Ideally, if we never get milk to over 40⁰ F, we will
have lower counts.
8. The plate cooler is a good candidate for LPC problems: lots of gaskets etc. If all above fail
this is causing the problem. It should be possible to isolate the plate cooler by hooking up
the inline samplers in the pipeline in front of and behind the plate cooler and run LPC’S on
each sample. If the before sample count is high, it is dirty before the plate cooler. You then
need to clean that part of the system and run the test again. If the count before the plate
cooler is low and after the plate cooler is high, you tear it down. If neither are high and the
bulk tank is high, it’s the tank. Inline sampling device suppliers are QMI
(www.qmisystems.com) and BoldBioTech (www.boldbiotech.com).
9. Transfer of hoses from the tank to the truck can be a problem also, especially on large
dairies where bulk tanks are filled multiple times a day. It is possible that the hose does not
get washed and sanitized every time, causing bacterial build up. If emptying of the tank is
delayed due to truck dispatch problems and the tank gets washed after being emptied, you
can get milkstone build up which allows these bacteria to hide and slough off under the
milk stone and increase these bacteria causing LPC problems.
10. These practices are not an expensive process; no cows to treat or cull, just good husbandry
practices like keeping cows as clean and cool as possible, milking clean dry teats, have
enough hot water and proper chemical concentrations, flushing out your milking system
regularly, change rubber parts every six months. You just as well might get used to doing
this because these tests are here forever.
11. If none of these changes lower your LPC count, you may have a problem with bio-films on
the surfaces of your equipment. These are removed with a more powerful chemical. You
should contact your chemical supplier to get the proper chemicals and concentrations to
remove them.
12. Bio-films seem to be a bigger problem in larger herds that milk around the clock. Again,
you need to probably use high quality chemicals to control them.
13. Another factor may be that dry cow teat sealants may stick to pipelines and harbor
undesirable bacteria; you will need better chemicals to remove these residues. Some dry
14 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
and lactation antibiotics may cling to surfaces and won’t be removed with conventional
wash up procedures.
Summary
1. Sell junk cows!
2. Don’t make more junk cows!
3. Buy quality chemical products!
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 15
NOTES
16 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Florida Dairy Youth Programs
Chris Holcomb
RSA & Extension Agent 1, Dairy/4-H
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida
PO Box 9005, Drawer HS03, Bartow, FL 33831
Introduction
The Florida Dairy Youth Program is currently undergoing a slight overhaul in both the
direction and goals of the curriculum. Many of the old programs are going through a slight
overhaul and are being updated to more appropriately fill the needs of our dairy youth. This is
needed to both improve the participation in the program and ensure that they are developing
skills and knowledge that will benefit them in their future endeavors.
I think most of you will agree that the youth are the future of our industry and livelihood. It is
because of this that we must adapt our programs to further encourage youth to become involved
in the dairy industry. It is the goal of the program to develop the skills of our youth so that they
are prepared to enter the job field upon graduation. Many of the new programs as well as a
review of the current ones will be discussed during the presentation.
Current Programs
Two of the main programs that have been a staple of the Florida Youth Dairy Program for
decades are the Dairy Judging and Dairy Quiz Bowl Competitions. Some of the other
programs that are important to the development of our youth are the Southeast Dairy Youth
Retreat and National 4-H Dairy Conference. The other important aspect of the dairy program is
the development of our volunteers through Volunteer Leader Training.
In 2010 the Florida Dairy Judging teams attended three (3) contests beyond the state of Florida.
The team that traveled to World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin did very well and finished
seventh (7th
) overall and sixth (6th
) in oral reasons. We also had two of the three members that
earned All-American status by placing ninth (9th
) and twenty-fourth (24th
) overall, and the third
was twenty-ninth (29th
). In reasons, they were twelfth (12th
), twenty-third (23rd
), and twenty-
ninth (29th
). The Team that attended the North American International Livestock Exposition
(NAILE) in Louisville, Kentucky also did exceptionally well. The team ended up ninth (9th
)
overall and sixth (6th
) in oral reasons. Individually we placed twelfth (12th
) and twenty-first
(21st) overall and eighth (8
th) and twenty-third (23
rd) in reasons. The other two members were in
the top forty (40) in both categories. The third contest that we attended was the Alabama State
Fair in Montgomery, Alabama. The team consisted of three members and had a great day. The
team was first (1st) overall and in oral reasons, and individually we took first (1
st) and second
(2nd
) in both reasons and overall.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 17
In 2010 the Florida Dairy Quiz Bowl teams attended three (3) contests beyond the state of
Florida. Two teams traveled to national breed conventions and represented Florida well.
Additionally, we traveled to the National 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl contest at the NAILE in
Kentucky for the first time in almost ten (10) years. We only had a three member team, and
were at a decided disadvantage but still did exceptional. Florida placed fifth (5th
) out of thirty
two (32) teams and was the highest that a three (3) man team had ever placed. One of the
members was third (3rd) on the written portion of the contest.
We had an exceptional group of individuals that attended the Southeast Dairy Youth Retreat in
2010 and it looks like a much larger group will be attending in 2011. The Southeast Dairy
Youth Retreat is an annual event where youth from around the southeast get together and learn
about the dairy industry and the many practices that are employed throughout the southeast.
There are workshops about many different aspects of the industry from animal husbandry and
anatomy to nutrition and dairy cattle judging. In 2011 the retreat will be held in North Carolina
and then Florida in 2012, where it will be held in the Gainesville area.
The Volunteer Leader Training is an annual event that allows for the training of the many great
volunteers from around the state to learn different techniques and access resources for further
development and improvement of the program. In 2010 there were over thirty (30) volunteers
who attended the training and we had some exceptional workshops that ranged from dairy
nutrition and proper feeding techniques to preparing animals for show. This is a very important
program that serves as the backbone of the youth dairy program. Our dairy volunteers are the
best volunteers in the country, across all aspects of agriculture. Without the dedication and
countless hours of time that they devote, the program would not be the strong program that it is
today.
New Programs
There are many new programs that have been started, and many that will begin in the near
future to further develop the skills of our youth, and promote the dairy industry in doing so.
Among the many new programs are the Florida Youth Dairy Ambassador, Jackpot Shows, and
Florida Junior All Breeds Convention. There are many other new programs in the works for
this year, from a Dairy Field Day to an expansion of the Jackpot Shows.
One of the programs that will likely become the marquee program and one to be copied by
other states around the country is the Florida Youth Dairy Ambassador. This program is
designed to select one or two elite dairy youth from Florida to represent the dairy industry and
the Florida Dairymen, as well as promoting dairy product consumption. We selected our first
ever Youth Dairy Ambassador at the Junior All Breeds Convention back in January. The
selection process included a written application, interview process, power-point presentation,
and they had to answer two extemporaneous questions on stage in front of the convention
attendees. Upon being selected, the new ambassador was sent to meet with a group from
Florida Dairy Farmers to go through media training on how to address a crowd, educate the
public, and the top talking points to use in dairy promotion. The ambassador/s receives a $500
scholarship and $500 in travel money to attend at least three (3) dairy promotion events
18 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
throughout the state. Congratulations to Pamela Mayo from Riverview on being selected as the
2011 Ambassador.
Jackpot Shows and Workshops have been used in the beef and livestock industry for many
years and allow producers to exhibit their livestock at many more events throughout the year.
We have put a slightly different spin on our program and have made it to allow for building
knowledge as well as cattle exhibition. The Jackpot Show is a two day event that allows for
cattle to enter one day and leave the next. Included with the show we also conduct workshops
that help to develop the skills of our youth. In November of 2010 we conducted our first show
in Bartow and had over thirty (30) participants and twenty-two (22) animals. For our first show
we focused on improving showmanship and fitting and grooming techniques through two
different clinics. Not only did we have the clinics, but the event also worked to recruit new
members to join the dairy project. The comments from the participants were very positive and
there was a strong desire to continue the program.
The Florida Junior All Breeds Convention was established for many different reasons,
including the promotion of many of the programs that we are currently conducting. It is also to
be used as a preparation for the events of the upcoming year and a breeding ground for new
program development. During the convention that was held in January of 2011 in Ocala the
Florida Junior Holstein Association was re-established and the Florida Junior Guernsey
Association was formed. Another highlight was the selection of our teams to attend the
national conventions this summer. There were many great workshops and we also had the
selection of our first ever Florida Youth Dairy Ambassador. There were over 70 people that
attended and the event was a huge success with much interest to continue it.
One of the new programs in the works for the coming year is to expand the scope of the jackpot
show and workshop and create more throughout different regions of the state. There have been
many requests throughout the past year for animals that are registered and not Holstein. As
part of the expansion of the jackpot shows, we will bring in a sale that will only be open to the
youth of Florida that will consist of registered Brown Swiss, Guernseys, Jerseys, and probably
Holsteins and Ayrshires. There are also plans to expand into an additional one of two locations
around the state to encourage more participation from the youth of Florida.
The other new program that is in the works is a Dairy Field Day at the University of Florida
(UF) Dairy Unit. There are many dairy youth throughout the state that have never been to the
Dairy Unit and unfortunately many more who do not even know that we have a UF dairy farm.
The event will serve to promote the University of Florida, educate of the many resources that
we have, and most importantly educate about the Florida dairy industry. There will be many
clinics as well as a tour of the farm.
Summary
There have been some significant changes in the program over the past year and we have seen a
renewed enthusiasm for the program and many of the events both old and new. There has also
been an increase of involvement from some of the youth that have not been active other than
showing cows and attending fairs. The Florida dairy program will become more visible to the
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 19
dairymen and the public as well as becoming a more educated and positive voice for the dairy
industry. It is the goal of the youth dairy program to make the youth of Florida the most
marketable and sought after people in the country to fill dairy positions throughout the United
States and globally.
20 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
NOTES
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 21
Identifying and Treating Uterine Disease in Dairy Cows
Klibs N. Galvão
Assistant Professor, Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences,
College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida
PO Box 110136, Gainesville, FL 32610
Introduction
Uterine diseases can be classified as puerperal metritis, clinical metritis, clinical endometritis
and subclinical endometritis (Sheldon et al., 2006). These diseases are highly prevalent in high
producing dairy cows and have been associated with decreased pregnancy per AI, extended
interval to pregnancy, increased culling, and economic losses (Bartlett et al., 1986; Sheldon and
Dobson, 2004; Gilbert et al., 2005). Metritis affects about 20.0% of lactating dairy cows, with
the incidence ranging from 8 to > 40% in some farms (Curtis et al., 1985; Galvão et al., 2009;
Goshen and Shpigel, 2006; Hammon et al., 2006; Huzzey et al., 2007). Clinical endometritis
also affects about 20.0% of lactating dairy cows, with the prevalence ranging from 5.0 to >30%
in some herds (Galvão et al., 2009; LeBlanc et al., 2002; McDougall et al., 2007). Subclinical
endometritis is the most prevalent of all uterine diseases; it affects ~ 30% of lactating dairy
cows, with the prevalence ranging from 11 to >70% in some herds (Barlund et al., 2008;
Galvão et al., 2009; Gilbert et al., 2005; Hammon et al., 2006; Kasimanickam et al., 2004).
Retention of fetal membranes is a condition where the cow fails to release the placenta 12 or 24
h after calving. Although retention of fetal membranes is not a disease per se, many researchers
have tried to treat (systemically or intrauterine) this condition because it is a major risk factor
for metritis (Drillich et al., 2006; Goshen and Shpigel, 2006; Risco and Hernandez, 2003).
Although treatment has been found to prevent metritis (Risco and Hernandez, 2003), it has not
been found to improve fertility or milk yield (Drillich et al., 2006; Goshen and Shpigel, 2006;
Risco and Hernandez, 2003); therefore it will not be emphasized in this paper. Pyometra is
characterized by a pus filled uterus in the presence of a corpus luteum (CL) and a closed cervix
(Sheldon et al., 2006). Pyometra can be considered a sub-set of endometritis where cows
ovulate in the presence of a contaminated uterus. Common treatment is administration of
PGF2α.
Identification
Metritis
Puerperal metritis is characterized by the presence of an abnormally enlarged uterus, a fetid
watery red-brownish uterine discharge associated with signs of systemic illness, and fever (>
103 oF) within 21 days in milk (DIM). Animals without systemic signs but with an enlarged
uterus and a purulent uterine discharge within 21 DIM may be classified as having clinical
metritis (Sheldon et al., 2006). Metritis is diagnosed by a complete physical examination of the
cow including attitude, hydration status, rectal temperature, and palpation of the uterus per
22 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
rectum to evaluate uterine discharge. Evaluation of rectal temperature should be performed
before palpation per rectum. A Florida study (Benzaquen et al., 2007) observed that a high
proportion (~ 60%) of cows did not have fever (> 103.0 oF) at the time puerperal metritis was
diagnosed, indicating that this condition is not always accompanied by a fever. This finding
suggests that diagnosis and treatment consideration for puerperal metritis should include the
character of the uterine discharge (fetid or not) and the attitude of the cow, besides
measurement of rectal temperature. Cows diagnosed with metritis without a fever were just as
likely to later develop clinical endometritis as cows with metritis and a fever. This indicates
that metritis without a fever might have the same negative effects on fertility as metritis without
a fever (Benzaquen et al., 2007).
Cows diagnosed with metritis (puerperal or clinical) should be evaluated for concurrent
metabolic or infectious disease (ketosis, displaced abomasum, mastitis, pneumonia, etc) since
this conditions are associated (Curtis et al., 1985). Vaginal examination is not performed on a
routine basis but can be performed to aid in diagnosis if a cow has a fever of unknown origin
and no uterine discharge can be produced after palpation of the uterus per rectum. Care should
be taken to wash the vulva with antiseptic solution (e.g. iodine scrub) and to use a clean well
lubricated palpation sleeve (Williams et al., 2005). Dairies should have a clear standard
operating procedure on when to evaluate cows for metritis and how to identify them. Metritis
can occur at any time after calving, even after 21 DIM; however, most of the cases (~95%;
44/753); occur in the first 14 DIM with a peak around 5-7 DIM (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of metritis incidence by days postpartum in a sample of 753
metritis cases that occurred over a one year period in dairies in Ohio, New York, and
California.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Fre
qu
en
cy
Days postpartum
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 23
Because of this concentration in incidence of metritis in the first 14 DIM, and in an effort to
target monitoring of cows, different strategies have been proposed. Pfizer (Pfizer Animal
Health, New York, NY) devised what is called the 100-day contract for health and reproductive
management. Part of that program includes daily monitoring of fresh cows in the first 10 DIM.
Although monitoring cows in the first 10 DIM would be sufficient to diagnose most of the
cows, a substantial proportion (~20%; 140/753) would be missed. At the University of Florida
Dairy Unit, a combination of targeted monitoring of all cows at 4, 7, and 12 DIM in
combination with physical examination of cows with milk deviation of more than 12% or
failure to increase milk yield at least 4 (primiparous) or 7% (multiparous) per day in the first 20
DIM have proven very efficacious in diagnosing cows with metritis and metabolic diseases
(ketosis and displaced abomasum). Although the system has proven effective, it requires
individual daily milk weights. Others have targeted the first 13 (Benzaquen et al., 2007) or 14
DIM (Galvão et al., 2009) for daily monitoring. Regardless of the monitoring regimen adopted,
compliance with the protocol and skill of the evaluator is paramount to the success of the
monitoring program.
Endometritis
Clinical endometritis is characterized by the presence of purulent (> 50%) uterine discharge
after 21 DIM or mucopurulent (50% pus, 50% mucus) after 26 DIM (Sheldon et al., 2006).
Clinical endometritis is usually diagnosed by evaluation of uterine discharge detected in the
vagina with the aid of a speculum (LeBlanc et al., 2002), the Metricheck tool (McDougall et
al., 2006), or a gloved hand (Williams et al., 2005). When using either one of these methods,
care should be taken to clean the vulva, to avoid introduction of contaminants into the vagina,
and to use lubrication. When using vaginoscopy, the speculum should be introduced into the
vagina up to the level of the external os of the cervix, and inspection of the discharge is
performed with the aid of a flash light. When using the Metricheck tool (Metricheck, Simcro,
New Zealand), the device should be introduced into the vagina up to the level of the external os
of the cervix and the discharge should be scooped for evaluation after exteriorization of the
device. When using a gloved hand, the hand should be introduced into the vagina up to the
level of the external os of the cervix and the discharge should be scooped for evaluation after
exteriorization of the hand.
In the absence of clinical endometritis, subclinical endometritis is defined by the presence of
>18% neutrophils (PMN) in uterine cytology samples collected between 21 and 33 DIM or >
10% PMN between 34 and 47 DIM (Sheldon et al., 2006). Uterine cytology samples can be
collected using the cytobrush (Kasimanickam et al., 2004) or the low-volume uterine lavage
(Gilbert et al., 2005) technique. For the cytobrush, a Pap smear cytology brush is attached to a
metal rod that is fitted through a metal pipe similar in diameter to an insemination pipette (Fig.
2). The tool is protected with a plastic sheath protector during insertion into the vagina, and
then is exposed for passing through the cervix. At the uterine body, the cytobrush is exposed
and the body wall is pressed slightly against the cytobrush while the cytobrush is rolled two or
three times. After that, the tool is exteriorized, and the cytobrush is smeared onto a glass slide
and air dried before staining using Diff-Quick stain.
24 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Figure 2. Cytology tool with cytobrush attached.
For the low-volume uterine lavage, an infusion pipette is protected with a sanitary chemise,
which is punctured before the pipette is passed though the cervix. At any place in the uterus,
10-20 ml of sterile saline solution is infused, the uterus is then massaged and a portion (≥ 5 ml)
is harvested. A folley catheter can also be used to perform a low volume lavage in a manner
similar to embryo flushing (Galvão et al., 2009). After collection, the sample needs to be
centrifuged in a conventional or cytospin centrifuge. If using a conventional centrifuge, most of
the supernatant needs to be discarded and one drop of the remaining fluid is smeared onto a
glass slide. For the cytospin, ~ 150 µl of the collected sample is loaded in the cytospin
container and centrifuged at 700 g for 5 min. Then, slides are air dried and stain using Diff-
Quick. After staining, all cells, including epithelial cells but excluding erythrocytes, are
counted under the microscope, and the proportion of PMN out of a total of 200 cells is
calculated.
Endometritis has been diagnosed by detection of fluid in the uterus using ultrasonography
(Kasimanickam et al., 20045). Nonetheless, this method was found to be less sensitive than
endometrial cytology (Balund et al., 2008).
Treatment
Metritis
The most common method of treatment is either intrauterine (Galvão et al., 2009; Goshen and
Shpigel, 2006; Kasimanickam et al., 2005; LeBlanc et al., 2002; Thurmond et al., 1993) or
systemic (Chenault et al., 2004) antibiotic administration. Currently, in the USA, there is no
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 25
approved antibiotic for intrauterine administration in dairy cows. There is only one approved
antibiotic for systemic administration for treatment of metritis in dairy cows; ceftiofur
hydrochloride (Excenel®, Pfizer Animal Health, New York, NY), which is a broad-spectrum
third-generation cephalosporin in an oil suspension. The recommended dose is for treatment of
metritis in postpartum dairy cows is 2.2 mg/Kg of body weight intramuscularly. Although
systemic administration of ceftiofur hydrochloride improves clinical signs of metritis (Chenault
et al., 2004), the effects on fertility have not been evaluated. On the other hand, intrauterine
treatment with 5 g chlortetracycline twice weekly for 2 weeks prevented the negative effects of
metritis on fertility and on milk yields in multiparous cows (Goshen and Shpigel, 2006);
however, this treatment is not approved in the USA and would lead to long milk withdrawals.
Assuming that the treatment would cost $10.00 and milk would be discarded for 21 d, the
overall cost would be $ 199.00 (60 lbs x 21 x $15.00 cwt = 189 + 10 = 199). Cows that
received this treatment regimen produced 1438 lbs more milk and conceived 29 d sooner;
therefore the return would be $273.70 ((1438 / 100 x 15) + (29 x $2.00 per additional day
open)), and the net profit $74.70.
Other ceftiofur products have been used in exchange for ceftiofur hydrochloride (Excenel®
);
namely, ceftiofur sodium (Naxcel®) and ceftiofur crystalline free acid (Excede
®). Particularly
Excede® has been widely adopted as the first antibiotic choice for treatment of metritis in many
dairies because it has a long-acting formulation (5 days above the minimum inhibitory
concentration for pathogens associated with respiratory disease). Nonetheless, producers and
veterinary practitioners need to be aware that this product was not approved for the treatment of
metritis; therefore, minimum inhibitory concentrations or dose of administration have not been
established. With Excenel® for example, only the higher dose (2.2 mg/Kg of BW) was
effective; therefore, more information is needed before Excede® can be indicated for the
treatment of metritis.
Endometritis
A formulation containing 500 mg of cephapirin benzathine in 19 g emulsifier (Metricure®,
Intervet, Boxmeer, The Netherlands) is approved for treatment of clinical endometritis by
intrauterine administration in Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, and other countries
around the world. Intrauterine infusion of Metricure®
improved reproductive performance of
cows with clinical endometritis (LeBlanc et al., 2002). In the same study, treatment with
prostaglandin F2α (PGF2α) was found to be intermediate. Treatment with Metricure® was also
found to improve fertility in cows with a history of retained fetal membranes, stillbirths, or a
vulval discharge after 13 DIM (McDougall, 2001). Nonetheless, a formulation containing 125
mg of ceftiofur hydrochloride in 10 mL oil-based sterile suspension (Spectramast LC, Pfizer
Animal Health, New York, NY) labeled for treatment of clinical mastitis was shown to reduce
the bacterial contamination of dairy cows with clinical endometritis; however, it did not
improve fertility (Galvão et al., 2009a).
Although there is no approved treatment for subclinical endometritis, Metricure®
was found to
improve reproductive performance of cows with SCE (Kasimanickam et al., 2005).
Interestingly, in that study, PGF2α had a similar beneficial effect (Kasimanickam et al., 2005).
In another study, PGF2α improved fertility in cows with subclinical endometritis at 35 DIM
26 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
(Fig. 3), but not in cows that still had endometritis at 49 DIM (Galvão et al., 2009b). Median
days open for cows treated with PGF2α was significantly decreased compared to controls (124
vs. 160 d; P < 0.05).
Figure 3. Survival analysis for time to pregnancy in cows that had subclinical endometritis at
35 DIM and did (dashed line) or did not receive PGF2α at 35 and 49 DIM.
The benefit from PGF2α administration is believed to arise from induction of estrus in cows
having a PGF2α-responsive corpus luteum; the estrus leads to physical expulsion of bacterial
contaminants and inflammatory products as well as a possible improvement in the uterine
defenses under low progesterone (Kasimanickam et al., 2005). It is generally agreed that a
high-progesterone environment suppresses cervical mucus production, myometrial
contractility, uterine-gland secretion and the phagocytic activity of uterine neutrophils (Frank et
al., 1983; Hussain, 1989; Bondurant, 1999), and is therefore permissive to uterine infection.
PGF2α is not only luteolytic but also appears to have pro-inflammatory actions that might
enhance neutrophil function (Lewis, 2004). Because there is increased concern about bacterial
acquisition of antibiotic resistance, PGF2α might provide an efficacious method of treatment of
endometritis.
Conclusions
Uterine diseases are prevalent in high producing dairy cows, and require prompt diagnosis and
treatment. Metritis can be successfully treated either by systemic or intrauterine antibiotic
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time to pregnancy
Pe
rce
nt
no
t p
reg
nan
t
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 27
treatment. Ceftiofur hydrochloride (Excenel®) intramuscularly was effective in treating
metritis, and oxytetracycline intrauterine was effective in abrogating the negative effects of
metritis on milk yield and fertility. Although ceftiofur crystalline free acid (Excede®
) is
routinely been used, more research is needed before this formulation can be safely
recommended for the treatment of metritis. Intrauterine administration of cephapirin benzathine
(Metricure®
) or intramuscular administration of PGF2α seem effective in the treatment of
endometritis (clinical or subclinical); although results are not consistent. Nonetheless,
Metricure® is not available in the USA.
References
Barlund CS, Carruthers TD, Waldner CL, and Palmer CW. 2008. A comparison of diagnostic
techniques for postpartum endometritis in dairy cattle. Theriogenology 69:714-723.
Benzaquen ME, Risco CA, Archbald LF, Melendez P, Thatcher MJ, and Thatcher WW. 2007.
Rectal temperature, calving-related factors, and the incidence of puerperal metritis in
postpartum dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:2804-2814.
BonDurant RH. 1999. Inflammation in the bovine female reproductive tract. J. Animal Sci.
77(Suppl 2):101-110.
Curtis CR, Erb HN, Sniffen CJ, Smith RD, and Kronfeld DS. 1985. Path analysis of dry period
nutrition, postpartum metabolic and reproductive disorders, and mastitis in Holstein
cows. J. Dairy Sci. 68:2347-2360.
Drillich M, Reichert U, Mahlstedt M, and Heuwieser W. 2006. Comparison of two strategies
for systemic antibiotic treatment of dairy cows with retained fetal membranes:
preventive vs. selective treatment. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1502-1508.
Frank T, Anderson KL, Smith AR, Whitmore HL, and Gustafsson BK. 1983. Phagocytosis in
the uterus: a review. Theriogenology 20:103-110.
Galvão KN, Greco LF, Vilela JM, Sá Filho MF, and Santos JEP. 2009a. Effect of intrauterine
infusion of Ceftiofur on uterine health and fertility in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1532-
1542.
Galvão KN, Frajblat M, Brittin SB, Butler WR, Guard CL, and Gilbert RO. 2009b. Effect of
prostaglandin F2alpha on subclinical endometritis and fertility in dairy cows. J. Dairy
Sci. 92:4906-4913.
Gilbert RO, Shin ST, Guard CL, Erb HN, and Frajblat M. 2005. Prevalence of endometritis and
its effects on reproductive performance of dairy cows. Theriogenology 64:1879-1888.
Hammon DS, Evjen IM, Dhiman TR, Goff JP, and Walters JL. 2006. Neutrophil function and
energy status in Holstein cows with uterine health disorders. Vet. Immunol.
Immunopathol. 113:21-29.
Hussain, A. M. 1989. Bovine uterine defense mechanism: a review. J. Vet. Med. B. 36:641-
651.
Huzzey JM, Veira DM, Weary DM, and von Keyserlingk MA. 2007. Prepartum behavior and
dry matter intake identify dairy cows at risk for metritis. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3220-3233.
Kasimanickam R, Duffield TF, Foster RA, Gartley CJ, Leslie KE, Walton JS, and Johnson
WH. 2004. Endometrial cytology and ultrasonography for the detection of subclinical
endometritis in postpartum dairy cows. Theriogenology 62:9-23.
Kasimanickam R, Duffield TF, Foster RA, Gartley CJ, Leslie KE, Walton JS, and Johnson
WH. 2005. The effect of a single administration of cephapirin or cloprostenol on the
28 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
reproductive performance of dairy cows with subclinical endometritis. Theriogenology
63:818-830.
LeBlanc SJ, Duffield TF, Leslie KE, Bateman KG, Keefe GP, Walton JS, and Johnson WH.
2002. Defining and diagnosing postpartum clinical endometritis and its impact on
reproductive performance in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2223-2236.
Lewis GS. 2004. Steroidal regulation of uterine immune defenses. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 82-
83:281-294.
McDougall S, Macaulay R, and Compton C. 2007. Association between endometritis diagnosis
using a novel intravaginal device and reproductive performance in dairy cattle. Anim.
Reprod. Sci. 99:9-23.
Risco CA and Hernandez J. 2003. Comparison of ceftiofur hydrochloride and estradiol
cypionate for metritis prevention and reproductive performance in dairy cows affected
with retained fetal membranes. Theriogenology 60:47-58.
Sheldon IM, Lewis GS, LeBlanc S, and Gilbert RO. 2006. Defining postpartum uterine disease
in cattle. Theriogenology 65:1516-1530.
Williams EJ, Fischer DP, Pfeiffer DU, England GC, Noakes DE, Dobson H, and Sheldon IM.
2005. Clinical evaluation of postpartum vaginal mucus reflects uterine bacterial
infection and the immune response in cattle. Theriogenology 63:102-117.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 29
NOTES
30 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
The Use of Technology for Improved Cow Health to Increase Production
and Reproduction
Eric J. Diepersloot
Herd Manager, IFAS Dairy Unit, University of Florida
13200 NW 59th
Drive, Gainesville, FL 32653
Introduction
The UF Dairy Unit has been using the AfiMilk meters, pedometers, sort gates and AfiFarm
farm information software since August 2006. In June 2007 the AfiLabs were installed and
AfiWeight installation was finished in November 2010. Management of the Dairy Unit herd
relies on these tools for daily herd health and recordkeeping. The use of daily milk weights and
activity for improving cow health is nothing new in the dairy industry, but when it is combined
with daily milk components and daily body weights we can take it to a new level. Using
specific parameters and combining the above inputs, we created an automatic system to
perform a health check on each individual animal every time she comes through the milking
parlor.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 31
AfiMilk Meters - Daily Milk Weights
Milk weights are collected at every milking and automatically downloaded into the AfiFarm
software program. It is up to the software to use preset parameters to then sort a cow with milk
deviation (actual minus predicted milk yield). The software uses different milk deviation
parameters for each cow according to DIM and LACT number.
Milk Conductivity
An increase in the conductivity of the milk is a good indicator of an illness, mainly mastitis.
The tendency for conductivity to increase as DIM increases is taken into consideration in the
health parameters.
Pedometers - High or Low Activity
High activity is used in the detection of estrus; this has been used for years to assist in heat
detection. A decrease in activity may indicate a health problem. We use a decrease of 25% in
normal activity as a good indicator of a health concern.
AfiLabs – Real Time Fat, Protein, Lactose and SCC
The AFiLab is a milk analyzer. The AfiLab analyzes the milk as the cow is milking; this
information is transferred to the AfiFarm software. The Dairy Unit is on DHIA test and
monthly test data from DHIA milk samples are used to calibrate the AfiLabs.
We mainly use the Fat/Protein ratio in the fresh cow group. An increase in the F/P ratio is a
great indicator for ketosis and other digestive problems such as sub-clinical acidosis.
Lactose has been known to be a very consistent milk component. We have noticed a decrease
in the milk lactose in cows at the beginning of a clinical case of mastitis. Using this along with
the other health parameters helps us find a clinical case of mastitis that the milkers may have
missed.
The AfiLab records SCC in ranges: 0-200, 200-400, 400-800 and 800+. These parameters are
set so that any increase in the SCC of more than 200 from the last 3 day rolling average is
considered a health concern.
AfiWeight - Daily Body Weight
Daily body weights (measured each time a cow leave the parlor) gives us the advantage to look
at negative energy balance not only in the fresh group but also any cow that has a health issue.
Body weights help monitor stocking rates for freestalls, and being able to breed for higher
conception after the normal fresh cow has overcome the negative energy balance.
Real time Health Data
32 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
We are currently using several of these components together to create a list of cows that need
attention. The Health for 2 Deviations report has been a great tool for finding cows that may
have a health issue. This report is made up of any cow that has deviated on any 2 parameters
within the last 2 milkings. This report also triggers cows to automatically sort after milking for
a health check. This sorting is being done automatically, so we do not have to go into the barns
and disturb the entire group to bring the cows back to the herd health area.
All animals are diagnosed and treated according to the Dairy Unit Standard Operating
Procedures. All treatments are in veterinary protocols in the AfiFarm software and data entry is
done as the supervisors have time between duties. Daily treatments are on Today’s Task: no
mistakes, mo missed treatments. This includes all timed AI protocols and special treatment
protocols for different trials.
Parlor Monitoring
All parlor functions are monitored for each milking automatically and can be looked at during
the milking. Using the milk flow we can make sure proper milking procedures are being
followed.
Heifer Performance
Heifers at 2 to 16 months old are weighed monthly and hose 16 to 24 months old bimonthly.
Using these weights has helped diagnose growth problems and correct them accordingly.
Results of Using AfiMilk Technology with Good Herd Management
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 33
34 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 35
Don’t just buy a program, BUY INTO THE PROGRAM!!
Thanks to all who have helped make the Dairy Unit a better place to work and conduct
research.
Special thanks to:
Sherry Hay—Heifer Unit Supervisor
Grady Byers—Parlor Supervisor
And all the Dairy Unit Employees who have ―Bought Into the Program”
36 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
NOTES
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 37
Dairy Lending: a Lender’s Perspective
Jeffrey Spencer
Relationship Manager, Farm Credit of Florida, ACA
12300 US Hwy. 441, Alachua, FL 32615
Who is Farm Credit of Florida, ACA?
The Farm Credit System is a nationwide network of member-owned cooperatives established to
provide financing to agriculture and rural America. Farm Credit of Florida, ACA, is the result
of a merger between Farm Credit of North Florida, Farm Credit of South Florida, and Farm
Credit of Southwest Florida. Despite the name, there are two other ACA’s remaining in
Florida.
What is the Lending Environment?
In general, lending has been impacted over the past 3 years due to the recession. Regulation
and over-sight has increased for all lenders, including Farm Credit. Agricultural, including
dairy, appears to be doing better than most segments of the economy and the outlook is
favorable. Agricultural lending is what we are chartered to do and we are looking for new
business. We need to grow our business with quality assets and have a commitment to our
member/borrowers to make safe and sound loans.
Pros and Cons of Dairy Lending
Pros:
1. Monthly cash flow
2. Well established markets
3. The ability to generate a significant amount of financial and performance information
4. Have a well established support industry
Cons:
1. Significant capital requirements
2. Market cycles that dramatically impact revenue
3. Concentrated risks – herd health, environmental, labor, etc.
4. Specialized assets
What Does a Lender Look For in a Loan Request?
Lenders base their decisions on an analysis of the information provided by the borrower. It is
the borrower’s responsibility to provide support and documentation of the loan request. Items
that assist the lender in this analysis are as follows:
1. A written business plan - brief and factual
Management and business history
38 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Define where you started, where you are, and where you want to be
Purpose of term of the loan: Operating – 1 year, Cows & equipment – 3 to5 years, Land
and improvements – 7 to 20 years
2. Document and support for your current position with detailed information
Current balance sheet with a 3 to 5 year historical trend
Historical income and expense information over 3 to 5 years
Production history
Herd health history (including cull rate)
Feed program
Heifer program
Compare to peers and industry standards
Address any significant changes or challenges to your operation
3. Key financial measures - how do you compare to peers?
Profitability – long-term survival
Cash Flow – ability to meet short-term obligations
Equity – How much of your operation do you own
Liquidity – How much short-term adversity can you withstand
Debt per Cow – If your debt per cow is higher than your peers, show how you can
compensate given the same price for your product
Collateral – What is the condition and marketability of your collateral
4. Provide clear business goals
Projected herd numbers
Improvement plans, specifications, and costs
Management needs and/or changes
Personnel needs
Anticipated results
Provide support for assumptions used in your projections
Succession planning
5. Discuss the transition period – how will you get there?
Interim cash flow
Financing needs, including a draw schedule and repayment schedule
Time frame for converting assets to cash if this is part of your funding plan
6. Monitor progress
Need to have a budget and compare it to actual on at least a monthly basis
7. Have a contingency plan
How will you handle adversity, cost over-runs, etc.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 39
Jeffrey Spencer
Farm Credit of Florida, ACA
386-462-4201
1-800-342-3795
NOTES
40 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Feeding Cows with Increasing Feed Prices: Efficiencies, Feed Options, and
Quality Control
Charles C. Stallings
Professor and Extension Dairy Scientist
Dairy Science Department, Virginia Tech
2090 Litton-Reaves, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Feed efficiency should be monitored. One way to define feed efficiency is to express milk
produced per unit of dry matter consumed. This requires that dry matter intake be determined
by knowing what was offered and how much was refused. On farm dry matter determination is
helpful when doing this; however, estimates can be made from lab TMR dry matter results.
Also milk should be corrected to be expressed as 3.5% fat. Therefore, one pound of 3.5% fat
milk is equal to (0.432 times milk lbs.) plus (16.23 times milk fat lbs.). A herd producing 70
lbs. of 3.8% fat milk would actually be producing 73.4 lbs. of 3.5% fat corrected milk (FCM =
(.432 * 70) + (16.23 * 2.66)). If this herd consumes 50 lbs. of dry matter per day the feed
efficiency is 1.47 (73.4/50). Typically for herds averaging 150 to 200 days in milk, as are most
of our herds in Virginia, we would expect a feed efficiency of 1.5 to 1.6. A large number of
late lactation cows with average days in milk of the herd at greater than 250 might drop to 1.4.
Early lactation cows or groups might have a feed efficiency of 1.8 or greater due to use of body
stores to produce milk in early lactation. Now with feed costs greater than $5 per cow per day,
it is an excellent time to determine your feed efficiency. An economic analysis by Dr. Pat
French (personal communication) indicates that currently the breakeven feed efficiency is 1.3
and breakeven milk yield is 55 lbs./cow/day. His analysis indicates the current cost of a lb. of
dry matter is $.13. Make changes as needed to produce more milk per unit of feed consumed.
This makes sense both economically and environmentally. Another meaningful measure of
efficiency is to determine income over feed costs. Currently we are seeing an income over feed
cost of about $9/cwt.
Grouping lactating dairy cows into two or more feeding groups can reduce output of
nitrogen and phosphorus and reduce ration cost. In Virginia the trend over the last 10 to 15
years is for feeding one group of lactating dairy cows. The reasons are many but center around
keeping feeding simple, cheap feeds, and herd size. Interestingly the recent trend has been for
grouping of dry cows into two groups, far-off and close-up. When feeding one group of
lactating dairy cows we tend to balance the ration for the higher producers in the group. This is
with limitations because it is difficult to balance energy in rations for more than 100 lbs. of
milk per cow per day. The high producing dairy cow will use body fat deposits to make up any
shortage. This is not the case with protein, so we sometimes feed high amounts for high
producers resulting in overfeeding of lower producers. This directly results in more nitrogen
being excreted in the urine and feces. The same is true for phosphorus except most is excreted
in the feces. Phosphorus is many times over supplemented according to a Virginia survey and
the 2001 NRC publication. Both nitrogen and phosphorus can be problems in the environment.
Feeding two or more rations to lactating dairy cows will result in a better match of ration
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 41
nutrient concentration and the cows’ requirement resulting in less nitrogen and phosphorus
being excreted.
A cow will many times drop in production when switched from a high group ration to a low
group ration. One suggestion is to not change nutrient density by more than 15%. This
translates to 15.7% protein when a high group ration of 18.5% protein is fed. Early lactation
cows should be kept on the high group ration for at least one to two months to achieve milk
production potential. After this time they should be grouped by production considering
reproductive status in some cases. Another way to consider ration formulation is to balance
rations for 30% above average for one-group herds, 20% for each group of a two-group herd,
and 10% for each group of a three-group herd. These numbers are based on lead factors we
developed in the 1980’s for computerized ration formulation. The more groups we have the
more similar the production within each group and the more similar the nutrient requirements.
If multiple feeding groups are possible it might also be advisable to have a first lactation group
where heifers stay together for their first lactation.
Feed management practices that limit overfeeding of protein can be evaluated by
monitoring MUN levels. Milk urea nitrogen (MUN) is a direct indicator of protein status of
animals and can be used to predict over or under feeding. Factors that can influence MUN
concentrations are: protein intake both rumen degradable and undegradable, energy intake
especially rumen available energy needed to capture rumen available N, heat damage resulting
in reduced protein and energy digestibility, consumption of water because dehydration
increases MUN, and feed sorting. Best management practices to prevent overfeeding of protein
are:
1. Balance ration for total protein, rumen degradable and undegradable protein, and rumen
available energy as measured by nonfiber carbohydrates or starch as well as total energy.
2. Monitor dry matter intakes weekly on all groups and calculate N intakes relative to
requirements.
3. Analyze feeds monthly for total protein, plus heat damaged protein (more than 10% of
protein in the fibrous fraction (ADIN or ADFCP )) in feeds if excessive heating is
suspected.
4. Group cows by production and feed accordingly.
5. Prevent feed sorting by feeding a ration properly mixed with uniformity of feed delivered;
particle size separation at different feed bunk locations can be monitored by use of a
particle size separator.
6. Although there seems to be some genetic variation between herds it generally is suggested
that when bulk tank MUN is above 14 mg/dl, consider modifying the ration; rations below
12 are considered best from an environmental standpoint.
42 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
7. If bulk tank MUN is below 10 mg/dl, protein consumption may be low or feeds may be heat
damaged.
Consider options for more expensive feeds. This is always a problem when prices of corn
and soybeans are elevated as they are now. The other available feeds have also been elevated
due to market demand. There might be some local options that could be used to reduce ration
cost. A recent analysis of Mid-Atlantic feed costs in March of 2011 by Dr. Pat French
(personal communication) indicated some possible alternatives. He used linear programming
to put economic weights on the cost of rumen degradable protein, rumen undegradable protein,
neutral detergent fiber, nonfiber carbohydrate, and fat. He found, in order of greatest difference
from predicted value relative to market price, that feather meal ($399/ton), whole cottonseeds
($231), distillers dried grains ($264), wheat middlings ($167), pressed brewers grains ($66),
cottonseed meal ($305), hominy ($264), and barley ($221) were possible economical
alternative feeds. A nutritionist should be involved when making feed substitutions to ensure
proper balance of ration components. As prices change some relationships will also change.
More frequent feed analysis may reduce feeding costs. Weiss and St.-Pierre from Ohio
State suggest that sampling feeds only once per month is insufficient for larger herds. Their
data indicate monthly sampling for a herd of 50 cows is sufficient but for herds size of 200
sampling every 7 to 10 days would result in a $50/day savings due to reduced over feeding.
For 1000 cows sampling every 3 to 4 days could result in a $250/day savings.
TMR analysis can be a check to proper ration supplementation. Typically a nutritionist
wants to sample individual ration ingredients for lab analysis. They then will put together a
ration with these results. Many times they will not actually sample the TMR or final product.
One reason for this is difficulty in getting a proper mixture of the ingredients. However, if
careful sampling protocol is followed a meaningful lab analysis can be obtained. We have been
sampling TMR’s of some cooperator heads for the last three years. Some are feeding only one
ration and a few are grouping by production. These TMR’s averaged 47.2% dry matter.
Protein averaged 16.9% of the dry matter and TDN 73%. Starch averaged 24.3% with a range
of 20.3 to 27.2% and non fiber carbohydrates 38.7% with a range of 32.1 to 43.9%. Acid
detergent fiber averaged 21.6% and neutral detergent fiber 34.8%. The macromineral results
averaged .87% calcium, .39% phosphorus, .34% magnesium, 1.47% potassium, and .41%
sodium. The magnesium, potassium, and sodium amounts are similar to what is recommended
for hot weather feeding and are greater than required during cooler times of the year. The level
of phosphorus indicates effort by these herds to reduce the amount being fed although still
above the requirement. The micro minerals averaged 85 PPM manganese, 103 PPM zinc, and
26 PPM copper. All are well over the required amounts for lactating cows indicating some
over supplementation. This is probably an attempt to boost the immune system which is a
problem with early lactation cows. These numbers are being provided to give a benchmark for
comparison. Check your calculated ration nutrients against these numbers. If you are
interested it is possible to sample your TMR and compare. Sampling protocols can be found at
the following link: http://www.vtdairy.dasc.vt.edu/pdf/sampling.pdf
Particle size measurement can be used to check forages and TMR’s. The Penn State-Nasco
Particle Size Separator is an established method of determining particle size in forages and
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 43
TMR’s. It is sometimes called a shaker box because the method requires shaking to get settling
of the feed particles. There are three screens that cause particle separation. The largest screen
is 1.9 cm followed by .79, and .32. What appears in the top screen is the coarsest material and
smaller particles disperse on the two other screens or settle to the bottom. The suggested
relationships for corn silage, haylage, and TMR’s are below.
Screen size Corn silage Haylage TMR
1.90 cm (top) 3-8% 10-20% 3-8% (10%?)
0.79 45-65 45-75 30-40
0.32 30-40 20-30 30-40
Bottom less than 5 less than 5 less than 20
The top screen catches only the coarsest particles that are associated with stimulating
rumination. Signs of inadequate coarse particles in a ration are reduced or erratic intakes,
reduced milk production, depressed milk fat concentration, and reduced cud chewing.
A study by Kononoff and Heinrichs (2003) looked at particle size of corn silage based TMR’s
and found the following results before and after feeding.
Screen size Short TMR Refusal Long TMR Refusal
1.90 cm (top) 7% 25% 16% 60%
0.79 56 40 50 24
0.32 34 31 30 15
Bottom 4 5 4 1
These results demonstrate that longer particle size results in cows sorting feed and leaving the
coarser, higher fiber components of the TMR. Very little of the material in the original bottom
two screens were left after cows had access to the feed.
One method to check on ration delivery is to do a particle size measurement at different places
on the feed bunk shortly after feed is supplied so that cow eating will not affect the results.
Results should be the same from one location to the other. If there is variation it means that the
TMR is not adequately mixed and delivered.
References Cited
Armentano, Lou and Claudia Leonardi. 2003. Problems with Sorting in Total Mixed Rations.
Proceedings of the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference.
Kononoff, P. J. and A. J. Heinrichs. 2003. New Developments in TMR Particle Size
Measurement. Proceedings of the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference.
Nasco Farm and Ranch Supplies. 2010-11. www.eNasco.com/farmandranch.
National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. National Academy
Press, Washington D.C.
Shaver, Randy D. 2003. Managing the Feed Bunk. Proceedings of the Southeast Dairy Herd
Management Conference.
44 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Stallings, Charles C. 2005. Tests Available for Measuring Forage Quality. Virginia
Cooperative Extension Dairy Guideline 404-124.
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/404/404-124/404-124.html
Stallings, Charles. C. and Katharine F. Knowlton. 2006. Strategies to Reduce Amounts of
Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Dairy Rations. Virginia Cooperative Extension Dairy
Guideline 404-130. http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/404/404-130/404-130.html
Weiss, William P. and Normand St.-Pierre. 2009. Proceedings of the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition
Conference.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 45
NOTES
46 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Reproductive Programs for Florida Dairy Herds
J.E.P. Santos, W.W. Thatcher, R.S. Bisinotto, F.S. Lima, and E.S. Ribeiro
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida
Bldg. 499, Shealy Drive, Gainesville, FL 32608
Introduction
Reproductive efficiency is a major component of economic success in dairy herds. Recently, it
was estimated that the average value of a pregnancy was US $278 in high-producing herds in the
US, whereas the cost of a pregnancy loss was substantially greater (De Vries, 2006).
In the past, most dairy herds used reproductive programs that relied upon observation of estrus
up to a certain number of days in milk (DIM), and subsequent intervention was only
implemented in cows with advanced DIM and no insemination. Typically, interventions were
based on palpation per rectum of the reproductive tract and a decision was made based upon
detection of ovarian structures. More recently, reproductive programs have taken a slightly
different approach and the goal is to be more proactive and work with groups of cows. In most
cases, the focus is to increase the rate at which eligible cows become pregnant and, for that, use
of systematic breeding protocols have become an integral portion of reproductive management in
dairy herds (Caraviello et al., 2006). The development of controlled breeding programs have
allowed producers to minimize the variation in the interval from calving to first AI, increase the
rate at which eligible cows become pregnant and, consequently, reduce the interval from calving
to pregnancy in a more consistent manner. For these programs to succeed, cows need to be
managed as groups in a consistent manner and programs should follow physiological basis to
optimize fertility, but they also need to not be extremely complicated that producers would find
them difficult to implement.
Implementing Reproductive Programs for First AI
It is clear that high-producing lactating dairy cows have compromised duration and intensity of
estrous expression (Wiltbank et al., 2006; Yaniz et al., 2006). Therefore, implementation of
reproductive programs based on synchronization of estrus, ovulation, or both is needed to
optimize reproductive efficiency in dairy herds.
Managing Anovular Cows
In high-producing dairy herds, 6 to 59% of the postpartum Holstein cows do not resume cyclicity
by 60 d postpartum or before the first postpartum AI (Santos et al., 2009; Stevenson et al., 2006).
These cows experience reduced pregnancy per AI (P/AI) and increased pregnancy loss following
the first insemination (Chebel et al., 2006; Santos et al., 2004; Santos et al., 2009).
A method to induce cyclicity in anovular cows is to administer exogenous progesterone by using
controlled internal drug release (CIDR) impregnated with progesterone (Gumen and Wiltbank,
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 47
2005). When anovular cows were treated with a new or a 7-d used autoclaved CIDR originally
containing 1.38 g of progesterone (Table 1), induction of cyclicity was increased and short-
cycling was reduced in cows receiving supplemental progesterone, but these effects were not
sufficient to improve proportion of cows pregnant and pregnancy loss (Cerri et al., 2009).
Table 1. Effect of a new or 7-d used autoclaved controlled internal drug-releasing (CIDR)
containing progesterone on reproductive responses of anovular cows1
Treatment P 2
Item Control New CIDR Used CIDR CIDR Type
% (number of cows)
Cyclic 34.1 (120) 50.3 (199) 46.4 (196) 0.02 0.55
Short-cycling3 21.6 (74) 11.8 (110) 14.2 (120) 0.09 0.67
Pregnant
d 38 36.8 (117) 43.6 (195) 37.8 (193) 0.86 0.36
d 66 32.5 (117) 39.4 (76/193) 35.4 (192) 0.61 0.57
Pregnancy loss 11.6 (43) 8.4 (83) 5.6 (72) 0.40 0.48 1 Adapted from Cerri et al. (2009).
2 CIDR = effect of CIDR (control vs. new + used CIDR); Type = effect of type of CIDR.
3 Reinsemination of cows between 6 and 17 d after the initial AI.
The use of supplemental progesterone to reestablish ovulatory cycles in high-producing anovular
cows does not seem to be warranted. When used prior to first postpartum insemination to induce
cyclicity in anovular cows, the resulting P/AI are usually not altered (Cerri et al., 2009; Chebel et
al., 2006). When incorporated as part of a timed AI program, the efficacy of progesterone inserts
in improving fertility of anovular cows is also questionable (Lima et al, 2009b; Stevenson et al.,
2006). When compared with timed AI protocols, treatment of anovular cows (cystic) using
intravaginal inserts containing progesterone were less economical, a difference of approximately
US $11.4 (De Vries et al., 2006). Therefore, other methods than just progesterone inserts are
recommended to induce cyclicity and increase the risk or a cow to become pregnant to an
insemination.
Timed AI Protocols
Manipulation of the estrous cycle to improve service rate and fertility usually impacts positively
on pregnancy rate. Timed AI protocols rely on control of the estrous cycle by synchronizing
follicular development, CL regression and, ultimately, ovulation to allow for insemination at
fixed time with adequate P/AI (Thatcher et al., 2001). Such programs have become an integral
part of reproductive management in herds (Caraviello et al., 2006), and adoption has been
widespread because of the recognized problems with expression and detection of estrus in dairy
cows.
The most accepted timed AI protocol in dairy herds in the US is the Ovsynch and CoSynch
protocols, which consist of an injection of GnRH given at random stages of the estrous cycle,
followed 7 d later by a luteolytic dose of PGF2. For the Ovsynch, a final GnRH injection is
48 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
given at 48 to 56 h after PGF2 and fixed-time AI is performed 12 to 16 h later. When the
CoSynch is utilized, cows are fixed-time inseminated 48 or 72 h after the PGF2, and GnRH is
given concomitantly with timed AI. These protocols have been implemented very successfully in
many commercial dairy farms as a strategy for AI during the first postpartum service, as well as
for re-insemination of nonpregnant cows. Although timed AI protocols allow for insemination
without the need for estrous detection, approximately 10 to 15% of the cows will display signs of
estrus during the protocol and they should be inseminated promptly if maximum pregnancy rate
is to be achieved.
Pursley et al. (1997a) evaluated P/AI in lactating dairy cows (n = 310) and heifers (n = 155)
when AI was performed following the Ovsynch protocol or a synchronization program utilizing
only PGF2 injections. Cow in the PGF2 treatment received as many as 3 injections 14 d apart if
signs of estrus had not been observed. All control cows not detected in estrus after the third
injection of PGF2 were timed AI 72 to 80 h after that injection. Pregnancies per AI for the two
programs were similar and it averaged 38%. For the lactating cows, estrous detection rate during
the first 2 injections of PGF2 averaged 54.0% following each injection, with an overall 81.8%
for the 28-d period. Because of the low estrous detection rate in the PGF2 group, cows enrolled
in the Ovsynch timed AI protocol experienced greater pregnancy rate. In a subsequent study by
the same group (Pursley et al., 1997b), lactating dairy cows from 3 commercial herds (n = 333)
were randomly assigned to either the Ovsynch protocol or AI based on estrous detection with
periodic use of PGF2. Nonpregnant cows were re-inseminated using the original treatment.
Median days postpartum to first AI (54 vs 83; P < 0.001) and days open (99 vs. 118: P < 0.001)
were reduced in cows receiving the Ovsynch compared with cows inseminated following
detection of estrus.
It is important to note that the positive effects of timed AI compared with more traditional
reproductive programs based on detection of estrus on reproductive efficiency of a herd are only
observed when P/AI are not reduced with timed AI, and detection of estrus is deficient
(Tenhagen et al., 2004). When timed AI was implemented in 2 herds with distinct reproductive
performance, the benefits from a systematic breeding program were more clearly demonstrated
in the herd with poor estrous detection rate (Tenhagen et al., 2004).
Improving Response to Timed AI
Response to the Ovsynch protocol is optimized when cows ovulate to the first GnRH injection of
the program, and when a responsive CL is present at the moment of the PGF2 treatment (Chebel
et al., 2006). Vasconcelos et al. (1999) initiated the Ovsynch protocol at different stages of the
estrous cycle and observed that synchronization rate to the second GnRH injection was higher
when cows received the first GnRH injection prior to day 12 of the estrous cycle. Also, initiation
of the Ovsynch protocol between days 5 and 9 of the cycle resulted in the greatest ovulation rate.
Ovulation to the first GnRH injection and initiation of a new follicular wave should improve
pregnancy rate because an ovulatory follicle with reduced period of dominance is induced to
ovulate (Austin et al., 1999). Furthermore, initiating the Ovsynch protocol prior to day 12 of the
estrous cycle should minimize the number of cows that come into estrus and ovulate prior to the
completion of the program.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 49
The importance of inducing follicle turnover is demonstrated vividly by evaluating fertilization
rates and embryo quality after timed AI following the induction of follicle turnover or not (Cerri
et al. 2009b). They demonstrated that cows that did not ovulate to the first GnRH of the Ovsynch
protocol, and those that had extended period of follicle dominance had reduced embryo quality.
Moreira et al. (2001) designed a presynchronization protocol to optimize response to the
Ovsynch program by given 2 injections of PGF2 14 days apart, with the second injection given
12 days prior to the first GnRH of the timed AI protocol. This presynchronization program
increased pregnancy rates at 32 and 74 days after timed AI in cyclic cows. Because of the
convenience of giving injections on the same day of the week, many producers have opted for
administering the PGF2α injections of the presynchronization protocol on the same day of the
injection of the Ovsynch protocol, which results in an interval between presynchronization and
initiation of the Ovsynch of 14 days. Although presynchronizing cows 14 days before initiating
the Ovsynch also improved P/AI compared with no presynchronization (Navanukraw et al.,
2004), the interval is not optimal and results in poor ovulation rate to the initial GnRH of the
Ovsynch (Chebel et al., 2006; Galvão et al., 2007).
We have recently demonstrated that reducing the interval between presynchronization and
initiation of the timed AI from 14 to 11 days increased ovulation rate to the initial GnRH of the
timed AI protocol and increased P/AI (Galvão et al., 2007).
Table 2. Effect of presynchronization treatment on ovulatory responses to the first
GnRH of the timed AI, pregnancy per AI and pregnancy loss in dairy cows1
Treatment2 P
3
Control PShort PShortG Interval GnRH
Ovulation to 1st GnRH
4 ------------------- % (no.) -----------------
Overall 44.7 (340) 61.4 (337) 62.2 (323) <0.001 0.28
Cows with CL 37.2 (274) 54.4 (250) 59.7 (285) <0.001 0.29
Cows without CL 75.8 (66) 81.6 (87) 81.6 (38) 0.34 0.99
Pregnant
day 38 33.5 (412) 40.5 (410) 39.8 (392) 0.02 0.60
day 66 30.2 (410) 36.4 (409) 36.2 (392) 0.04 0.70
Pregnancy loss
day 38 to 66 8.8 (136) 9.7 (165) 9.0 (156) 0.88 0.85 1 Adapted from Galvão et al. (2007).
2 Control = two injections of PGF2α at 37 and 51 DIM, then enrolled in the timed AI 14 d later;
PShort = two injections of PGF2α at 40 and 54 DIM, then enrolled in the timed AI 11 d later;
PShortG = same as PShort, but with an injection of GnRH 7 d before the first GnRH of the timed
AI. 3 Interval = contrast for the effect of 14 vs. 11 d interval (Control vs. PShort + PShortG); GnRH
= contrast for the effect of GnRH 7 d before initiation of timed AI (PShort vs. PShortG). 4 Ovulation to GnRH was evaluated in cows with or without a CL on the day of treatment.
50 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Insemination or Not During Presynchronization
A common program adopted in many farms in California is to administer 2 PGF2α injections at
14 d interval, with the second injection given at approximately 50 to 55 days postpartum. Cows
are then inseminated following the second injection, and those not inseminated in the following
11 days are enrolled in the timed AI protocol. Because 45 to 55% of the cows display estrus and
are inseminated following the second PGF2α of the presynchronization, these cows ended up
receiving their first AI early in the postpartum period. Studies have demonstrated that response
to timed AI programs improves as the lactation progresses up to 70 to 90 days postpartum
(Pursley et al., 1997; Tenhagen, 2005), and we have demonstrated that cows inseminated at
estrus following the presynchronization have smaller P/AI than those inseminated after the
completion of the entire program (presynchronized timed AI), 3 weeks later (Bruno et al., Chebel
et al., 2006). However, insemination of cows at estrus during the presynchronization reduces the
interval to first AI and costs associated with hormones and labor.
In an attempt to evaluate whether cows should be inseminated following presynchronization or
subjected to timed AI, Chebel et al. (2005; 2006) assigned 1,019 Holstein cows to a
presynchronization with PGF2a (CON) or PGF2a and CIDR (CTAI and CED). All cows received
2 injections of PGF2a on days 35 ± 7 and 49 ± 7 after calving. Cows in CTAI and CED received a
CIDR on d 42 ± 7. After the second PGF2a and CIDR removal on day 49 ± 7, cows were
observed for estrus, but only CON and CED were inseminated. On day 62 ± 7 CON and CED
cows not inseminated in estrus and all CTAI began the Ovsynch and were timed AI on day 72 ±
7. Cows in CON and CED had smaller P/AI that CTAI on d 31 after the first AI, however,
because they were inseminated on average 2 weeks earlier, median days open for the first 300 d
postpartum were similar between CED and CTAI (Figure 1).
These results suggest that insemination of cows after the second PGF2a of the presynchronization
results in smaller P/AI, but because cows are inseminated earlier, days open are not affected.
This gives flexibility to producers that might decide to inseminate cows that display estrus after
the second PGF2α of the presynchronization, or inseminate all cows at timed AI. The first will
reduce costs with treatments, but the latter will optimize first service P/AI, with both resulting in
similar time to pregnancy.
It is important to emphasize that in order for systematic breeding programs to work, there must
be high compliance at every step of the program. Each individual farm has to develop a system
to assure that cows receive the correct hormonal treatment on the correct day. Failure in
complying with the programs can result in reduced insemination rate and P/AI. Because some
programs require handling of cows multiple times to administer hormonal treatments, it is
important that they tailored to the needs of the farm as long as critical steps are not ignored.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 51
Figure 1. Survival curves for time to pregnancy in cows subjected to different insemination
protocols for first AI. Median days open were 154, 133, and 136 for control, CED, and CTAI,
respectively.
Use of Bulls for Breeding Programs
A common belief by dairy producers is that the use of natural service can overcome
inefficiencies of the reproductive program when AI is used, particularly problems with estrous
detection. A considerable proportion of dairy farms use natural service as the sole or as a
component of their breeding program. In many cases, natural service is used after cows have
been subjected to several unsuccessful attempts of AI. Despite the common use of natural
service, very few controlled studies have compared the two systems for their effect of the
reproductive performance of dairy cows. De Vries et al. (2005) compared herds that used natural
service and others that used AI in the southeast region of the US and observed that bull breeding
did not seem to improve measures of reproductive performance. Another observational study in
California indicated that cows exposed to AI had increased rate of pregnancy than those exposed
to natural service (Overton and Sischo, 2005). A problem with these studies is that none used
randomly assigned cows under the same conditions within the same farm. In many cases, only
cows that had received several AI were part of the natural service group.
Recently (Lima et al., 2009; Lima et al., 2011) compared natural service with AI by randomly
assigning cows to one of the two treatments. In both groups, no detection of estrus was
performed and inseminated cows were subjected to timed AI only. In Lima et al. (2009), 1,055
Holstein cows were blocked by parity and randomly assigned to timed AI (n = 543) or natural
service (n = 512). Both groups received 2 doses of PGF2α, and those in natural service were
exposed to Holstein bulls 14 d later, at 70 d postpartum. Cows remained with bulls for 223 d
CED
CTAI
Control
0 100 200 300
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Days in milk
Pro
port
ion
not
preg
nant
Chebel et al. J. Dairy Sci. (2005)
52 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
postpartum. Cows in timed AI were enrolled in the Ovsynch protocol 14 d after the second
PGF2α, at 70 d postpartum, and received the first AI at 80 d postpartum. For timed AI,
nonpregnant cows were re-inseminated every 35 d during the first 223 d postpartum. The
pregnancy rate was greater for natural service than timed AI, which resulted in a small reduction
in median days open (Figure 2, 111 vs. 116 d). The proportion of pregnant cows at 223 d
postpartum was greater in the NS than TAI group (84.2 vs. 74.8%, respectively). Most of this
benefit was attributed to the increased opportunities for insemination in the natural service than
the timed AI group (Lima et al., 2009).
More recently, Lima et al. (2011) completed an experiment with 1,050 lactating Holstein cows
subjected to either 1 (1TAI, n = 533) or 3 timed AI (3TAI, n = 517) following the double
Ovsynch timed AI program (d -27 GnRH, d -20 PGF2a, d -17 GnRH, d -10 GnRH, d -3 PGF2a,
d -1 GnRH, and d 0 AI) for first AI. Following the first AI, cows in 1TAI were subjected to
natural service 1 week after insemination, whereas cows in nonpregnant cows 3TAI were re-
inseminated every 42 d. After the third AI, cows in 3TAI were subjected to natural service. As
expected, pregnancy at the first timed AI did not differ between 1TAI and 3TAI on d 60 after
insemination (30.9 vs. 33.4%). Cows receiving 3TAI had greater (P = 0.04) rate of pregnancy
than those in 1TAI (AHR=1.15; 95% CI=1.01-1.31; Figure 2). This resulted in median d open of
142 (95% CI=130-150) and 123 (95% CI=121-144) for 1TAI and 3TAI, respectively. Therefore,
in spite of the long re-insemination interval, cows receiving 3TAI had improved reproductive
performance than those receiving 1TAI (figure 2).
Figure 2. Survival curves for interval from calving to pregnancy in cows receiving natural
service or timed AI only (Lima et al., 2009), or 1 vs. 3 timed AI (Lima et al., 2011).
Are Bulls the Solution to Poor Estrous Detection
and Pregnancy Rate?
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
100
80
60
40
20
0
Day postpartum
Pro
port
ion n
o p
regnant
TreatmentNatural serviceTimed AI
Lima et al. (2010) J. Dairy Sci. 92:5456–5466
Natural Service vs. Only Timed AI
NS vs. TAI
AHR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.31)
40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
100
80
60
40
20
0
Day postpartum
Pro
port
ion n
ot
pre
gnant
Treatment1TAI3TAI
Lima et al. (2011) J. Dairy Sci. 93 (Abstr.)
1 vs. 3 TAI Followed by Natural Service
3TAI vs. 1TAI
AHR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.31)
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 53
Results from these two controlled randomized experiments give little support to the use of
natural service to improve reproductive performance of lactating dairy cows. In fact, economic
analyses of the two programs indicated that, despite the long inter-AI interval, timed AI only was
more profitable than natural service (Lima et al., 2010).
References
Austin, E. J., M. Mihm, M. P. Ryan, D. H. Williams, and J. F. Roche. 1999. Effect of duration of
dominance of the ovulatory follicle on onset of estrus and fertility in heifers. J. Anim.
Sci. 77: 2219-2226.
Britt, J. H. 1975. Early postpartum breeding in dairy cows. A review. J. Dairy Sci.58:266-271.
Caraviello, D. Z., K. A. Weigel, P. M. Fricke, M. C. Wiltbank, M. J. Florent, N. B. Cook, K. V.
Nordlund, N. R. Zwald, and C. L. Rawson. 2006. Survey of management practices on
reproductive performance of dairy cattle on large US commercial farms. J. Dairy Sci. 89:
4723-4735.
Cerri, R. L. A., H. M. Rutigliano, R. G. S. Bruno, R. C. Chebel, and J. E. P. Santos. 2005. Effect
of artificial insemination (AI) protocol on fertilization and embryo quality in high-
producing dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88 (Suppl. 1): 86 (Abstr.).
Cerri, R.L.A., H.M. Rutigliano, R.G.S. Bruno, and J.E.P. Santos. 2009. Progesterone
concentration, follicular development and induction of cyclicity in dairy cows receiving
intravaginal progesterone inserts. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 110:56-70.
Chebel, R. C., H. M. Rutigliano, R. L. A. Cerri, R. G. S. Bruno, and J. E. P. Santos. 2005.
Economic evaluation of pre-synchronization and resynchronization protocols in lactating
dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88(Suppl. 1): 46 (Abstr.).
Chebel, R. C., J. E. P. Santos, R. L. A. Cerri, H. M. Rutigliano, and R. G. S. Bruno. 2006.
Reproduction in dairy cows following progesterone insert presynchronization and
resynchronization protocols. J. Dairy Sci. 89: 4205-4219.
De Vries, A. 2006. Economic value of pregnancy in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 89: 3876-3885.
De Vries, A., M. B. Crane, J. A. Bartolome, P. Melendez, C. A. Risco, and L. F. Archbald. 2006.
Economic comparison of timed artificial insemination and exogenous progesterone as
treatments for ovarian cysts. J. Dairy Sci. 89: 3028-3037.
Ferguson, J. D., and D. T. Galligan. 1993. Reproductive programs in dairy herds. In Proc. Centr.
Vet. Conf. pp. 161-178.
Galvão, K. N. M. F. Sá Filho, and J. E. P. Santos. 2007. Reducing the interval from
presynchronization to initiation of timed AI improves fertility in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci.
In Press.
Gumen, A., and M. C. Wiltbank. 2005. Length of progesterone exposure needed to resolve large
follicle anovular condition in dairy cows. Theriogenology 63: 202–218.
Lima, F.S., A. De Vries, C.A. Risco, J.E.P. Santos, and W.W. Thatcher. 2010. Economic
comparison of natural service and timed artificial insemination breeding programs in
dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4404–4413.
Lima, J.R., F.A. Rivera, C.D. Narciso, R. Oliveira, R.C. Chebel, J.E.P. Santos. 2009b. Effect of
increasing amounts of supplemental progesterone in a timed AI protocol on fertility of
lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. J. Dairy Sci. 92:5436–5446.
Lima, F.S., C.A. Risco, M.J. Thatcher, M.E. Benzaquen, L.F. Archbald, J.E.P. Santos, and W.W.
Thatcher. 2009. Comparison of reproductive performance in lactating dairy cows bred by
54 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
natural service or timed artificial insemination. J. Dairy Sci. 92:5456–5466.
Lucy, M. C. 2006. Estrus: basic biology and improving estrous detection. In Proc. Dairy Cattle
Reproductive Council Conference, November 6 to 8, Denver, CO, pp. 29-37.
Moreira F, C. Orlandi, C. A. Risco, R. Mattos, F. Lopes, and W. W. Thatcher. 2001. Effects of
presynchronization and bovine somatotropin on pregnancy rates to a timed artificial
insemination protocol in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1646-1659.
Navanukraw C., D. A. Redmer, L. P. Reynolds, J. D. Kirsch, A. T. Grazul-Bilska, and P. M.
Fricke. 2004. A modified presynchronization protocol improves fertility to timed
artificial insemination in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87:1551-1557.
Pursley, R. J., M. C. Wiltbank, J. S. Stevenson, J. S. Ottobre, H. A. Garverick, and L. L.
Anderson. 1997a. Pregnancy rates per artificial insemination for cows and heifers
inseminated at a synchronized ovulation or synchronized estrus. J. Dairy Sci. 80: 295-
300.
Pursley, J. R., M. R. Kosorok, and M. C. Wiltbank. 1997b. Reproductive management of
lactating dairy cows using synchronization of ovulation. J. Dairy Sci. 80:301-306.
Santos, J. E. P., M. Villaseňor, E. J. DePeters, P. H. Robinson, and C. H. Holmberg. 2003. Type
of cottonseed and gossypol in diets of lactating dairy cows: Plasma gossypol,
reproduction, and health. J. Dairy Sci. 86: 892-905.
Santos, J. E. P., W. W. Thatcher, R. C. Chebel, R. L. A. Cerri, and K. N. Galvão. 2004. The
effect of embryonic death rates in cattle on the efficacy of estrous synchronization
programs. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 82-83C: 513-535.
Santos, J.E.P., H.M. Rutigliano, and M.F. Sá Filho. 2009. Risk factors for resumption of
postpartum cyclicity and embryonic survival in lactating dairy cows. Anim. Reprod. Sci.
110:207-221.
Stevenson, J. S., J. R. Pursley, H. A. Garverick, P. M. Fricke. D. J. Kesler, J. S. Ottobre, and M.
C. Wiltbank. 2006. Treatment of cycling and noncycling lactating dairy cows with
progesterone during Ovsynch. J. Dairy Sci. 89: 2567-2578.
Thatcher, W. W., F. Moreira, J. E. P. Santos, R. C. Mattos, F. L Lopes, and S. M. Pancarci. 2001.
Effects of animal drugs on reproductive performance and embryo production.
Theriogenology 55: 75-89.
Tenhagen, B. A., C. Vogel, M. Drillich, G. Thiele, and W. Heuwieser. 2003. Influence of stage
of lactation and milk production on conception rates after timed artificial insemination
following Ovsynch. Theriogenology 60: 1527-1537.
Tenhagen, B. A., M. Drillich, R. Surholt, and W. Heuwieser. 2004. Comparison of timed AI after
synchronized ovulation to AI at estrus: reproductive and economic considerations. J.
Dairy Sci. 87: 85-94.
Tenhagen, B. A. 2005. Factors influencing conception rate after synchronization of ovulation and
timed artificial insemination - a review. Dtsch. Tieraerztl. Wochenschr. 112: 136-141.
Vasconcelos, J. L. M., R. W. Silcox, G. J. Rosa, J. R. Pursley, and M. C. Wiltbank. 1999.
Synchronization rate, size of the ovulatory follicle, and pregnancy rate after
synchronization of ovulation beginning on different days of the estrous cycle in lactating
dairy cows. Theriogenology 52: 1067-1078.
Wiltbank, M., H. Lopez, R. Sartori, S. Sangsritavong, A. Gumen. 2006. Changes in reproductive
physiology of lactating dairy cows due to elevated steroid metabolism. Theriogenology
65: 17-29.
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 55
Yaniz, J. L., P. Santolaria, A. Giribet, and F. Lopez-Gatius. 2006. Factors affecting walking
activity at estrus during postpartum period and subsequent fertility in dairy cows.
Theriogenology 66: 1943-1950.
56 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
NOTES
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 57
Appendix
Southeast DHIA Update 2010
Daniel W. Webb
Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida
Past General Manager, Southeast DHIA, Inc.
Bldg. 499, Shealy Drive, Gainesville, FL 32608
Data from DHIA herds in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee
were used to examine dairy production in the Southeastern United States. Data were obtained
from files stored at Dairy Records Management Systems (DRMS), Raleigh, NC. Herds with
data in the DRMS database as of mid-October, 2010 included: 321 Holstein herds, 44 Jersey
herds and 60 herds of other breeds. In addition, the all DRMS average from 14,242 herds
located in 41 states was used for reference.
Milk production for all 425 Southeast herds averaged 18,096 pounds (rolling herd average)
which was 214 pounds per cow below last year. The 2X-305-day mature equivalent average was
20,260 pounds. Average 150-day milk was 61.7 pounds. Average peak milk was 67.5 pounds
for first lactations and 89.8 pounds for older cows.
Herd size of Southeast herds averaged 296 cows per herd, up 7 from last year with 40% milking
in lactation 1. All DRMS herds averaged 149 cows, with 38% first lactations. Herd turn-over
rate was 38 and 35%, respectively. Death loss averaged 8.2% for Southeast herds and 5.9% for
DRMS herds. Southeast herds averaged 295 calvings and had 84 heifer calves per 100 cows on
hand. Sixty-one percent of services were to proven AI sires. Southeast herds averaged 78%
heifers with known sire identity, where the average DRMS herd was 87%. Average sire identity
for adult cows was 56% for Southeast herds and 74% for DRMS herds. Average reported milk
price was $18.60, up from last year’s $14.70.
Days to 1st service was 105 and first-service conception rate, 49%. Fifteen percent of cows were
dry less than 40 days and 31% longer than 70 days. The actual, historical interval was 14.4
months. Calving difficulty scores above 4 were 5.5% for 1st-lactation cows. Average somatic cell
count was 441 thousand compared to last year’s 465 thousand. Average SCC score was 3.5.
In comparing performance among breeds, Jersey and other breeds had lower death loss, reduced
herd exits for reproduction and notably higher pregnancy rates.
Differences among Southeastern states were few, but Florida herds were considerably larger
(847 cows per herd) and Alabama and Tennessee herds smaller (145 cows per herd) than the
average. Average milk per cow was greatest in South Carolina.
58 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Table 1. Southeast DHIA. Comparison of Southeast herds to all DRMS herds 2010 (all breeds)
2009 2009 2010 2010
Southeast* DRMS** Southeast* DRMS**
No. Herds 444 14640 425 14282
No. Cows / Herd 289 146 296 149
No. 1st Lact 112 54 117 56
% 1st Lactation 39% 37% 40% 38%
Avg Days in Milk 202 189 208 190
% Left Herd 36 34 39 36
%died 7.9 6.0 8.2 5.9
%left Repro 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.8
Milk Price 14.70 12.90 18.60 16.90
Production
Rolling HA Milk 18,308 20,362 18,096 20,440
Rolling HA Fat 685 770 668 764
Rolling HA Prot 566 629 558 629
Summit Milk 1st Lac 63 67 62 68
Summit Milk 3rd+ 83 89 84 92
Peak Milk 1st Lac 69 73 68 73
Peak Milk 3rd+ 92 98 90 98
Proj 305ME Milk 20,525 22,304 20,261 22,269
Std 150-day Milk 62 69 62 69
Udder Health
SCC Actual 465 298 441 302
SCC Score 3.6 2.9 3.5 2.9
SCC Score 1st Lact 3.2 2.5 3.1 2.5
SCC Score 2nd Lact 3.5 2.8 3.4 2.8
SCC Score 3rd Lact 4.1 3.4 4.0 3.4
Reproduction
PregRate Current 10.8 15.8 12.4 15.7
Actual Calving Int 14.5 14.1 14.4 14
Days to 1st Serv 105 96 105 96
1st Serv Concep Rate 49 44 49 44
# Calvings 287 150 296 157
%Dry < 40 days 15 15 15 15
%Dry > 70 days 32 25 31 25
Genetics
%Bred to Proven bulls 63 57 61 55
%Bred to non-AI 36 23 35 23
%Heifers with Sire ID 78 87 79 87
%Cows with Sire ID 57 73 56 74
# calves per 100 cows 81 88 84 90
% Birth Difficulty >4 for 1st Lact 4.7 5.1 5.5 4.8
* Southeast – includes 6 southeastern states: FL, GA, SC, TN, AL, MS
** DRMS - includes all herds processed by DRMS
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 59
Table 2. Southeast DHIA. Comparison by state 2010
Fl GA SC TN AL MS
Number of Herds 50 119 27 94 13 18
Number of Cows-All Lact 847 311 247 145 145 219
% First Lact 40% 40% 41% 38% 34% 37%
Days in Milk 207 214 214 210 211 226
Cows Left Herd-All Lact, % 39 40 40 37 38 35
Cows Left Herd-1st Lact, % 24 22 19 22 11 19
Cows Died-All Lact, % 9.5 8.7 6.3 8.7 6.1 6.9
Cows Left Herd- Repro-All Lact, % 5.5 8 6.7 3.8 6.4 8.1
Milk Blend Price $19.20 $18.70 $19.10 $17.40 $18.90 $17.50
Production
Rolling Milk 18,594 18,631 21,017 18,889 17,103 19,867
Rolling Fat 626 669 764 688 563 719
Rolling Protein 538 567 651 571 498 626
Summit Milk 1st Lact 66 64 72 66 58 67
Summit Milk 3rd+ Lact 89 87 97 86 80 88
Peak Milk 1st Lact 72 70 78 70 64 73
Peak Milk 3rd+ Lact 96 93 104 92 87 95
Proj 305 Day ME Milk 20,650 20,915 23,157 21,307 18,854 21,407
Standardized 150 Day Milk 63 64 68 66 62 64
Udder Health
SCC Actual 445 445 400 449 471 445
SCC Score for 1st Lact Cows 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 2.8
SCC Score for 2nd Lact Cows 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.2
SCC Score for 3rd+ Lact Cows 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2 3.8
Cows culled for mastitis, % 2.7 3.1 4.5 3.4 2.3 2.4
Reproduction
Days to First Service 103 108 109 106 118 99
Avg Preg Rate 11.8 11.7 12.3 11.8 10.0 13.3
Actual Calving Interval 14.2 14.5 14.4 14.6 15.1 14.4
Births 4+ Calving Diff-1st Lact, % 5.6 9.3 3.8 4.1 0.6 10.7
Voluntary Waiting Period(VWP) 58 57 58 55 60 60
Days to 1st Serv-(%herd < VWP) 14.4 14.7 13.4 17.6 19.2 14.3
Serv per Preg-All Lact 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.5 3.4 3.3
Con Rate for Past 12M-1st Serv 52 50 49 52 33 35.6
Abortions in Past 12 Months 7.7 2.7 1.5 1 1 2.1
Calvings in Past Year 839 305 255 149 132 212
Dry Less Than 40 Days, % 16 14 14 16 19 11
Dry More Than 70 Days, % 33 32 27 31 31 22
Genetics
%ile Rank of Proven AI Bulls 44.0 46.2 49.6 41.6 30.3 53.0
Herd Bred to Proven AI Bulls, % 56.0 64.0 52.3 59.4 83.2 63.9
Net Merit $ for 1st Lact Cows 12.7 39.8 75.0 4.6 2.0 59.6
Net Merit $ for All Cows 5.0 6.8 26.6 1.0 2.0 11.2
Net Merit $ for Heifer 103.0 88.3 90.3 52.6 64.3 84.4
Heifers ID'd by Sire, % 63.0 76.5 84.4 79.9 65.0 82.1
Cows IDd by Sire, % 30.0 46.2 61.6 64.5 46.7 71.1
No.Heifers per 100 cows 66.0 76.1 96.0 94.6 71.3 90.6
Data from DRMS - Oct. 2010 Holstein Herds
60 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Table 3. Southeast DHIA. Comparison by breed 2010
2010 2010 2010 2010
Southeast DRMS Southeast DRMS
Holstein Holstein Jersey Jersey
No. Herds 321 12095 44 632
No. Cows / Herd 329 155 158 111
No. 1st Lact 130 59 55 37
% 1st Lactation 40% 38% 35% 33%
Avg Days in Milk 212 191 179 178
% Left Herd 39 36 37 32
%died 8.4 5.9 7.3 4.9
%left Repro 6.2 5.9 3.7 4.0
Milk Price 18.40 16.70 19.40 18.60
Production
Rolling HA Milk 18,915 21,174 14,511 14,355
Rolling HA Fat 678 781 671 673
Rolling HA Prot 574 645 516 515
Summit Milk 1st Lac 65 70 49 49
Summit Milk 3rd+ 87 95 68 65
Peak Milk 1st Lac 71 75 53 53
Peak Milk 3rd+ 94 101 73 69
Proj 305ME Milk 21,123 23,069 16,725 15,619
Std 150-day Milk 64 71 51 48
Udder Health
SCC Actual 443 302 417 306
SCC Score 3.5 2.9 3.5 3.1
SCC Score 1st Lact 3.1 2.5 3.2 2.9
SCC Score 2nd Lact 3.4 2.7 3.3 2.8
SCC Score 3rd Lact 4.1 3.4 4.0 3.5
Reproduction
PregRate Yr Avg 11.9 15.6 16.1 19.5
Actual Calving Int 14.5 14 14.1 13.5
Days to 1st Serv 107 96 95 91
1st Serv Concep Rate 50 44 45 49
# Calvings 326 163 164 116
%Dry < 40 days 15 15 10 12
%Dry > 70 days 31 24 32 23
Genetics
%Bred to Proven bulls 61 55 63 61
%Bred to non-AI 36 22 13 21
%Heifers with Sire ID 76 87 92 88
%Cows with Sire ID 52 73 88 83
# calves per 100 cows 82 90 100 90
% Birth Difficulty >4 for 1st Lact 6.4 5.1 0.6 1.6
* Southeast - includes 6 southeastern states
** DRMS - includes all herds processed by DRMS
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 61
Table 4. Southeast DHIA. 2010 Florida DHIA herd performance averages*
1993 2003** 2006** 2007** 2008** 2010**
No. Cows 55,648 56,366 54,978 51,406 51,711 47,128
No. Herds 122 92 66 62 59 58
Average Herd Size 456 613 833 829 876 812
% Days in Milk 86 84 85 86 86 87
Pounds of Milk 17,761 18,160 18,835 19,607 18,982 19,825
Peak Milk - 1st Calf (lbs./day) 67 70 72 74 75 70
Peak Milk - 2nd & Later (lbs./day) 88 88 91 94 93 91
Fat % 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4
Pounds of Fat 622 683 687 705 655 669
Pounds of Protein 592 541 546 566 541 553
Value of Milk ($) 2,658 2,579 2,982 3,558 3,904 3,355
Proj. Minimum Calving Interval 14.1 16 15.7 15.7 15.3 15.2
Days Dry 69 78 72 74 73 72
% Cows Dry > 70 Days 19 37 18 20 19 30
Days to 1st Breeding 77 107 110 109 107 103
Days Open 148 197 196 197 190 182
% cows Open > 100 d at 1st Bred 14 33 27 25 25 20
No. Breedings per Conception 4.0 3.0 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.8
% Possible Breeding Serviced 52 26 25 26 24 28
Age at 1st Calving (months) 25 25 26 25 25 25
Age - All Cows (months) 44 44 44 45 46 42
% With Sire Identity 34 23 35 36 37 42
Average PTA$ Sires 151 86 119 127 163 152
Average PTA$ Service Sires 210 344 304 291 343 336
% Left Herd 40 39 34 32 33 34
* September 30, of the respective year
** Cows in Herds on all types of test (01-74)
62 Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011
Table 5. Southeast DHIA. 2010 DHIA Production Recognition of High Florida Herds* Producer City Milkings RHA
Milk
RHA
Fat
RHA
Protein
Data
Collection
Rating Milk
WHITE OAK DAIRY MAYO 3X 25,543 89.2
BRANDY BRANCH DAIRY BALDWIN 3X 23,287 692 96.5
D.P.S. BELL BELL 3X 22,903 686 96.7
JEFFCO DAIRY QUITMAN 3X 22,873 101.8
LARSON DAIRY #5 OKEECHOBEE 3X 22,856 840 680 89.2
NORTH FL HOLSTEINS BELL 3X 22,759 818 664 103.0
D.P.S. BRANFORD BRANFORD 3X 22,573 688 667 96.7
BRIAN MCADAMS MAYO 3X 22,547 89.1
SUWANNEE DAIRY INC MC ALPIN 22,474 769 672 99.5
ELJIM DAIRY GRANDIN 22,351 873 642 50.9
IFAS DAIRY UNIT GAINESVILLE 21,901 800 651 103.2
SHIVER DAIRY MAYO 21,754 75.9
MILK-A-WAY WEBSTER 21,187 663 613 95.0
SHENANDOAH DAIRY LIVE OAK 21,157 769 619 101.2
ATR DAIRY LLC MAYO 20,351 94.1
WALKER & SONS FARM MONTICELLO 20,335 99.6
T.K. HATTEN DAIRY INC BROOKSVILLE 3X 20,119 68.4
* Production as of September 30, 2010
Southeast DHIA – Testing cows in Florida and Georgia
Proceedings 47th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, March 30, 2011 63
NOTES