New developments in the Dutch dairy industry

Henk Hogeveen

Lion’s tail

Thanks Willem for a great tour!!

Who am I

Born on a dairy farm

Animal science at Wageningen University

●Epidemiology (simulation model of management regarding cystic ovaries)

●Economics (long term effects of herd health management programs)

PhD at Fac. Veterinary Medicine (AI to diagnose mastitis)

Professor in Animal health managementIn between Wageningen University and Faculty of Vet. Med. (since 2001)

@henkhogeveen

animal-health-management.blogspot.com

www.slideshare.net/henkhogeveen

Outline

Structure

Automation

Milk quota

Antibiotics

Cattle through the last 10 years (* 1,000)

2000 2005 2011 2012 2013

4,068 3,796 3,885 3,879 3,999

1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 20143650000

3700000

3750000

3800000

3850000

3900000

3950000

4000000

4050000

4100000

Number of farms is decreasing

Bron: CBS Landbouwtelling

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1980

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Sterk gespecialiseerd Gespecialiseerd Overig Dieren/bedrijf

Grass-based system

Summer

●Fresh grass + corn silage + concentrates

Winter

●Grass silage + corn silage + concentrates

●Half mixed ratio

Milk price

1.2 billion kg milk per year (2.4% of world production)

1 large co-operation (FrieslandCampina) ~80 % of milk

Based on:

●Kg fat (€ 3.25)

●Kg protein (€ 4.58)

On average: € 0.34 per kg milk

Processing:

●50 % cheese

●20 % fluid productions (regional market)

●20 % powder (far away export)

●10 % other

Dairy processing

Consumption milk & products: 8 %

Cheese: 55 %

Cream and butter: 8 %

Condensed milk: 7 %

Milk powder: 12 %

Other: 10 %

More than 50 % exported

Milk prices over time (€/100 kg)

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 201520

25

30

35

40

45

Dutch dairy sector

Increasing farm seize

Half grass-based system

●Grazing under pressure (farm management)

●Stimulated (societal preference)

Volatile milk prices (relatively high)

More challenge on management

Outline

Structure

Automation

Milk quota

Antibiotics

Two reasons for automation

Labour savings

●Hired labour is expensive

●More cows with the same (family) labour

Improved (health) management

●Less time per cow

●(societal) pressure to improve health and welfare

●Precision dairy farming

Automatic milking

1970’s: Individual animal identification

1980’s: Sensor development

1990’s: Automatic milking

Five systems, different brands

First commercial farms: 1992

15% of Dutch dairy farms

Lely

DeLaval

Immense effects on dairy farming

No fixed milking times

●On average 2.8 times per day milking

●But in reality a large variation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

length of milking interval (hours)

freq

uenc

y (%

)

Effects on udder health

Milking per quarter (+)

More milkings per teat cup (-)

Shorter intervals (mostly +)

Longer intervals (-)

Automated detection of mastitis (-)

Relation between milking frequency and SCC

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

<5 5-7 7-9 9-11 11-13 >13

Milking interval (hr)

SC

C *

1,0

00

ce

lls/m

l

EU directive 89/362/EEG – milk hygiene

… the milker should control the physical characteristics of the milk. If any physical abnormality is detected, the milk should not be delivered.

Current systems

Sensor information

●Conductivity

●Colour

●Milk production (24h)

●Temperature (MQC 2)

●SCC (optional)

Algorithm → Udder health report

●Potential cases of mastitis

Needed performance

●High sensitivity and very high specificity

Anderen vinden veel betere getallen

Sensitiviteit Specificiteit

Cavero et al., 2006 81 94

De Mol & Ouweltjes, 2001 100 96

De Mol & Woldt, 2001 100 99

De Mol et al., 1997 59 98

De Mol et al., 2001 71 97

Kamphuis et al., 2008 80 92

Kamphuis et al., 2008 50 99

Maatje et al., 1992 100 ?

Maatje et al., 1997 90 98

Mottram et al., 2007 56 82

Nielen et al., 1995 77 69

Nielen et al., 1995 84 97

Norberg et al., 2006 43 93

Sheldrake & Hoare, 1981 49 79

Uitzetten tegen tijd-raam

80

85

90

95

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Total time window (days)

Sp

ecif

icit

y (%

)

Plus sensitiviteit

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Total time window (days)

Sp

ecif

icit

y/se

nsi

tivi

ty (

%)

Detection results

Current systems

●Sensitivity 21% - specificity 99 %

●Sensitivity 50 % - specificity 90 % (Mollenhorst et al., 2009)

Theory

●Sensitiviteit 57 % - specificiteit 98 % (Kamphuis et al., 2010)

●Can be improved by adding SCC

Performance for farmer

Practical problem: low prevalence

100 cows -> ~ 66,000 milkings/year (each milking = test)

30 cases of clinical mastitis to be detected

Prevalence -> ~ 0.005 (0.5 %)

Predictive value positive is low (10-15 %)

Consequences in practise

Study on 7 farms, 5 visits, all alerts checked by researcher

Only 3,5% of the alerts are checked by the farmer!

Reasons to check (n=15)

Combination of:

●Milk production decrease alarming

●Flakes/clots on milk filter

●High conductivity

●Failure in milking

●History of teat damage

●Earlier flakes/clots in milk

Reasons not to check (n=421)

No flakes/clots on milk filter 28%

Milk production decrease not alarming 19%

Repeatedly on list 10%

No time 10%

Conductivity level is not alarming 5%

Malfunctioning AMS 4%

Other 24%

Not much found

Checked clinical mastitis

Unchecked clinical

mastitis

Subclinical mastitis

26%

74%

100%

So what?

Data show clinical mastitis goes down….. Really

●Severe cases?

Somatic cell count goes up: average 210 -> 260

Udder health decreases?

Is it bad we miss the mild clinical mastitis cases?

Should we create new “rules of treatment”?

Sensors for individual cow management

Individual cow management easy

Individual cow management difficult (or impossible)

Don’t even think about it

The idea

Larger herds -> group management

Modern tools -> individual cow management

Does it pay?

Automated oestrus detection

Step counters

3d accelerometers

Oestrus detection rate: 80 %

What if oestrus is detected: inseminate or not?

Economic loss of increasing VWP (€/cow/year)

Voluntary waiting period (weeks)

7 9 11 13 15

Milk production 2 12 24 40 57

Calves 0 0 1 1 2

Calving mangement -0 -0 -1 -2 -3

Culling 0 2 4 7 10

AI -1 -1 -2 -2 -2

Total 2 12 26 44 65

Individual cows differ

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

VWP (wks)

Ave

rag

e a

nn

ua

l lo

sse

s (

€/c

ow

)

Individual cows differ

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

VWP (wks)

Pe

rce

nt

of

co

ws

Av

era

ge

of

An

nu

al

Ne

t E

co

no

mic

Lo

ss

es

(€

/co

w)

So ….

Individual management of insemination decisions saves money

●Voluntary waiting period (tool available)

●When to quite inseminating (cull cow)

Connect to sensors

Disease treatment decisions

●Drying off

●Metabolic disorders

●Mastitis

●…….

Field is gaining importance

Outline

Structure

Automation

Milk quota

Antibiotics

History

Fluctuating prices because of differing grass production

Market intervention: buying out milk at low prices

Guaranteed (low) milk price

Over production

New intervention: quota (plus intervention)

Effects on Dutch dairy production ….

Supply and demand -> equilibrium

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

S

Quantity

Price

Qe

Pe

D

Supply and demand -> equilibrium

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

S

Quantity

Price

Qe

Pe

D

Producer surplus

Supply and demand -> equilibrium

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

S

Quantity

Price

Qe

Pe

D

Consumer surplus

Producer surplus

Consumer surplus+

Producer surplus=

Social welfare

Milk quota

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

S

Quantity

Price

Q"e

P’e

D Quota

Producer surplus

Quota lower than equilibrium

New equilibrium

High milk price

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

S

Quantity

Price

Q"e

P’e

D Quota

Producer surplus

Consequences:Consumers: -Producers: +/-

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time

Mil

k p

rice

($/

CW

T)

US Class 1 base (3.5% fat) NL base (3.7 % fat)

Other effects for farmer

High costs to buy quota (= right to produce milk)

Up to € 2 /kg milk

Inflexible farm

Biosecurity risks to fill quota (end of year)

General feeling of being limited

But also effect for veterinarian

Cattle (production) diseases are less costly

~30 – 50 % of costs of diseases due to milk production

Without quota:

●Nr of cows is production capacity

●Diseases -> less milk per cow -> less milk per farm

●Less returns, savings on feed costs: ~ € 0.25/kg

With quota:

●Quota is production capacity

●Diseases -> less milk per cow -> equal milk per farm

●More cows needed to fill quota: ~ € 0.15/kg

Costs of diseases

Now 2015

Mastitis€ 71 € 118 per average cow

Calving interval 415 days€ 28 € 73 per average cow

Other diseases ……..

So there is an opportunity

Outline

Structure

Automation

Milk quota

Antibiotics

Human use of antibiotics

Antibiotic use for animals

melkvee zeugen/biggen vleesvarkens vleeskuikens0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6,3

24,5

12,9

19,1

5,8

22,2

10,3

22,5

5,4

27,8

11,8

30,1

5,7

22,4

16,4

32,9

6,6

22

17

37

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Less antibiotics in animal sector

Antibiotic resistance in humans

● MRSA (Staphylococ aureus)

● ESBL (E.coli, Klebsiella)

Links to animal sector

High use of antibiotics in animals compared to humans

How much use in dairy cattle?

Expressed in daily doses per cow per year

400 farms over 2 years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >14

DD/DJ

Aan

tal b

edri

jven

2010 2011

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

Droogzetters Mastitis Baarmoeder Via de bek Injectie

Toedieningswijze

Per

cen

tag

e

2010 2011

Distributed over various applications

62%

400 dairy farms

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >14

DD/DJ

Aa

nta

l b

ed

rijv

en

2010 2011

4.6

8 11.5

Convenant

In 2010:

In 2011, a reduction of 20 % related to 2009

In 2013, a reduction of 50 % related to 2009

In 2012:

Realisation of the 50% goal

For dairy sector

Responsible prescription

●Guaranteed vets (registration)

●Farm health plans

●One on one relation vets-farmers

Transparency in antibiotic use

●Per farm (registration)

●Per sector

Quality programs

●Animal medicine authoroty

The ongoing debate on dry-cow therapy

50% of Antibiotics as dry cow therapy (blanket)

Dry-cow therapy has two uses

●Curative

●Preventive

“We” do not want preventive use of antibiotics (anymore)

Which cows to dry-off with antibiotics?

Current rules:

●Cow > 50.000

●Heifer > 150.000

Consequences for the veterinarian

Less sales from antibiotics

More advisory work (health plan)

●Only once a year

●Maybe more prevention ???

Should focus more on veterinary herd health and management programs

Challenge!!

Thank you for your attention

@henkhogeveen

animal-health-management.blogspot.com

On-line courses on Veterinary Economics on:

www.elevatehealth.eu