ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICODAIRY NEWSLETTER

COOPERATIVE EXTENSIONThe University of Arizona

New Mexico State University

AUGUST 2006

THIS MONTH’S ARTICLE:

Recent Developments in Air Qualityfrom Dairies and Cattle Feedyards

Brent Auvermann, Ph.D.Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Amarillo, TX

(Reprinted from the 21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference ProceedingsFebruary 23-24, 2006, Tempe, Arizona)

~~~Don’t miss the

5th Annual Arizona Dairy Production Conferenceon Tuesday, October 5, 2006

at the Sheraton Phoenix Airport Hotel. See inside for more information

and a registration form.

~~~

Join us for the5th Annual

Arizona Dairy Production Conference

Seminar Topics:The Cows Are Always Right! Evaluating Rations

Nutritional and Management Factors Associated with Rumen Acidosis and Laminitis

Heat Stress and its Effects on Feeding and Management Decisions

Round Table Discussion - Building New Facilities

Economics and Managerial Comparisons BetweenOrganic Vs. Traditional Dairying

Tuesday, October 10, 2006Sheraton Phoenix Airport Hotel

1600 South 52nd Street · Tempe, Arizona 85281

Registration opens at 9:00 a.m. Conference concludes at 2:30 p.m.

London Broil lunch is included as part of registration. There will also be a deluxe continental breakfast and afternoon ice cream break provided.

Register online athttps://pubs1.cals.arizona.edu/sales/reginfo.cfm?ID=52

2006 ConferenceRegistration Form

Registration fee: $25.00 X ________ = $___________ #people

Additional proceedings:$10.00 X ________ = $___________ #additionalproceedings

Totalamountenclosedorchargedtocreditcard: $___________

No part of the registration fee is considered a tax deductible donation.

Sendregistrationformandfeesto: TheUniversityofArizona Attn:LauraRittenbach POBox210038 DepartmentofAnimalSciences Tucson,AZ85721 ORFaxformwithcreditcardinformationto:520-621-9435 ORRegisteronlineathttps://pubs1.cals.arizona.edu/sales/reginfo.cfm?ID=52

Foraddidtionalinformationcall520-626-9382oremailljr22@ag.arizona.edu

Name

Organization

Address

City, State, ZIP

Phone FAX

Email

If paying by credit card: Mastercard Visa American Express Discover

Credit Card Number Expiration Date 3- or 4-digit security code

21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference February 23-24, 2006 Tempe, AZ - 110

Recent Developments in Air Quality from Dairies and Cattle Feedyards

Brent Auvermann, Ph.D.

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Amarillo, TX Corresponding Author: b-auvermann@tamu.edu

Abstract The air pollutants of greatest concern to the owners, managers and neighbors of

open-lot livestock facilities are particulate matter (PM) and ammonia (NH3). Other gaseous constituents, as well as bioaerosols, are of concern at the local, regional and state levels, but most of the effort and resources devoted to open-lot air quality at the federal level has focused on PM and NH3. This paper outlines some of the major research developments since 2003 concerning emissions and abatement of those two important classes of air pollution.

Recent Advances Ammonia Emissions

Magnitude and Significance. Among the gaseous emissions traceable to dairies and cattle feedyards, the highest profile in environmental air quality is reserved for NH3. Dairymen and cattle feeders who have been attending closely to federal regulatory developments and litigation understand that the primary reason for NH3’s high profile is the recent proliferation of lawsuits under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Plaintiffs in those lawsuits assert that (a) the routine airborne emissions of NH3 from many animal-feeding operations (AFOs) exceed the monitoring and reporting threshold of 100 lb/d and that (b) any such AFO that has not been monitoring and reporting its NH3 emissions should be penalized similarly to the industrial sources for whom EPCRA and its Superfund siblings were originally written. Figure 1 shows the approximate capacity of a cattle feedyard that would surpass the 100 lb/d threshold depending on the feedyard’s aggregate nitrogen-use efficiency. When one realizes that the average capacity of a cattle feedyard in the Texas Panhandle exceeds 35,000, Figure 1 illustrates at least three take-home messages:

1. Assuming a modestly optimistic industry-wide N-use efficiency of 70%, all of the commercial cattle feedy ards larger than about 500 head (which is to say, virtually all of the cattle feedyards in the region) would be subject to the EPCRA monitoring and reporting requirements.

2. The N-use efficiency that would be required for a 35,000-hd feedyard to emit less than 100 lb/d of NH3 would be about 99.5%. To achieve that kind of efficiency would undoubtedly require abandoning the open-lot production system in which virtually all beef cattle in the Great Plains and West are fed.

3. Even aside from the infrastructure cost of shifting to full confinement systems, even documenting N efficiency at the first decimal place (i. e., 99.5% vs. 99%) would be prohibitively expensive for the cattle-feeding industry.

For dairies, the qualitative picture is much the same, although differences in ration, physiology, production and manure-handling systems shift the absolute numbers one way or the other.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

0 20 40 60 80 100

N Use Efficiency (%)

EPC

RA

Thr

esho

ld

Cap

acity

(hd)

Figure 1. Approximate capacity of cattle feedyards that would meet the 100 lb/d monitoring and reporting threshold under EPCRA for various nitrogen-use efficiencies.

Recent Legislation. In October 2005, U. S. Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Larry Craig (R-ID) tried to insert an exemption rider into the conference report of the agricultural appropriations bill. The rider would have exempted livestock operations from EPCRA’s monitoring and reporting requirements, dramatically reducing the potential regulatory burden and financial exposure that ongoing EPCRA litigation poses to AFOs. The exemption language, adopted by the Senate conferees on October 25th, was rejected by the conference committee in their October 27th report.

Quantitative Results. Political and judicial wrangling aside, a great deal of money and effort has been expended in recent years to estimate the rate at which NH3 is emitted from cattle feedyards and dairies. During the last three years, for example, a consortium of state and federal researchers in Texas and Kansas has been using a wide variety of methods to estimate NH3 emissions from cattle feedyards, including:

• Direct, surface-isolation methods (flux chambers, wind tunnels) • Mass-balance methods (input/output, nutrient-ratio, other) • Box models • Dispersion modeling methods (backward Lagrangian stochastic, Gaussian,

other)

Although convergence is not by itself sufficient to ensure that a value or range of values is accurate, independent estimates of the emission flux that do not converge on an arbitrarily narrow range of values will all be suspect. A brief synthesis of as-yet-unpublished data from our consortium project indicates that the annualized NH3 flux (expressed as N) from a cattle feedyard is likely to be somewhere between 40 and 50% of the total N fed to the animals, a range that reflects a reasonable convergence of 4 independent methods (Todd and Cole, 2005). In general, surface-isolation methods like wind tunnels and flux chambers yield flux estimates substantially lower than 40% of fed N (Mutlu et al., 2005).

21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference February 23-24, 2006 Tempe, AZ - 111

21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference February 23-24, 2006 Tempe, AZ - 112

Abatement Abatement methods for NH3 emissions tend to fall in the following, broad

categories: • Maintaining acidic pH • In-situ oxidation • Inhibition of urease • Segregation of solid manure from urine • Recapture and recycling • Feeding strategies to increase N use efficiency

To date, representative methods within all of those approaches have been validated at the benchtop and pilot scales, but commercial-scale adoption faces prohibitive logistical and financial hurdles (e. g., Parker et al., 2005; Cole et al., 2005).

Particulate Matter Emissions

Variability of Estimates. Estimating PM emissions from spatially extensive, spatially and temporally variable, weather-dependent sources like feedyards and dairies is complicated, and estimates have varied widely since the 1970s (Peters and Blackwood, 1977; Parnell, 1994; Grelinger and Lapp, 1996; Parnell et al, 1999; Price, 2004). However, it is clear from recent, quasi-real-time monitoring that diurnal variations in downwind concentrations of PM (Auvermann, 2005; Parnell et al., 2005) result from interactions between time-varying emission rates and diurnal changes in the stability of the atmospheric boundary layer.

Particle-Size Distribution. Any environmental sample of PM will contain particles having a wide range of sizes and shapes. Agricultural dusts, which result from mechanical actions like crushing and grinding, generally consist of much larger particles than urban aerosols, which are dominated by combustion products. One simple way to express the particle-size distribution (PSD) of agricultural dust is the ratio of sub-10-micron particle (PM10) mass to the total aerosol mass. This ratio is known as the PM10/TSP ratio, and Sweeten et al. (1988) found that its value in feedyard dust varies between 0.19 and 0.40, depending on the type of sampler used. Recent, quasi-real-time concentration data by Goodrich and Parnell (2006) have shown that the PM10/TSP ratio in feedyard dust increases immediately after a rainfall event and then decreases rapidly to the typical value as the feedyard dries out. Similar data by Auvermann (2006) confirm that qualitative result, although his measured PM10/TSP ratios (0.40-0.55) are numerically higher than those measured by Goodrich and Parnell (2006) (0.15-0.25). The explanation for the discrepancy between the PM10/TSP ratios measured by Goodrich and Parnell (2006) and Auvermann (2006) is still a matter of conjecture, but it appears to be an artifact of (a) the well documented, upward bias in PM10 measurements when EPA-standard, size-selective inlets are deployed in samplers measuring coarse aerosols (Buser et al., 2003), (b) significant performance differences between real-time and time-averaged monitors (Wanjura et al., 2005) and (c) differences between post-hoc (e. g., Coulter Counter PSD analysis) and inertial methods of measuring the PM10/TSP ratio.

Visibility. Fugitive PM from open-lot AFOs may reduce visibility on nearby roadways and railways, posing a safety risk to motorists and pedestrians. The extinction efficiency of AFO aerosols is the relative change in visibility for a unit change in mass concentration. Recent work by Moon et al. (2005) has shown that extinction efficiency

21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference February 23-24, 2006 Tempe, AZ - 113

of AFO aerosols is roughly equivalent to that of “coarse particles” (Malm, 1999) during dry weather. Because feedyard and dairy aerosols tend to absorb water vapor from the air when relative humidity (RH) is high (the particles are thus described as hygroscopic), their extinction efficiency depends strongly on RH and increases with increasing RH. Abatement

General Considerations. Open-lot dairies and cattle feedyards are large, ground-level area sources of PM, their production areas having a footprint of anywhere from 100 to 400+ square feet per head of capacity (ft2/hd). To reduce PM emissions at the source, Auvermann et al. (2000) have recommended that operators of these facilities consider increasing the frequency with which they harvest the uncompacted manure from corral surfaces. Although retrofitting an older dairy or feedyard with solid-set sprinkler systems is often prohibitively expensive, open-lot dairies may use water trucks to good advantage for dust control by applying water to the corral surface while the cows are in the milking parlor (Cassel et al., 2003).

Manure Accumulation. Manure accumulation rates in dairy and feedyard corrals vary with the digestibility of the ration, animal spacing and dry-matter intake. For beef cattle receiving feed with a digestibility of 85%, assuming uniform distribution of manure on the corral and an animal spacing of 150 ft2/hd, manure accumulation may exceed 3 inches per year. Total mixed rations (TMR) for lactating dairy cows are less digestible than feedyard rations (~60% or less), but open-lot areas and dry-matter intake tend to be greater, as well. A reasonable estimate of manure accumulation in a dairy drylot with 400 ft2/hd and dry-matter intake of 50 lb/d would be >6 inches per year.

Manure-Harvesting Recommendations. Cattle feedyard managers typically instruct machinery operators to scrape any given pen once or twice a year, usually after a load of cattle is shipped to slaughter. Benchtop experiments by Razote et al. (2006) confirmed the conjecture by Auvermann et al. (2000) that the dust-emission potential of a cattle feedyard surface increases with increasing manure depth. That result justifies the manure-harvesting recommendation, but the law of diminishing returns applies strongly to the economics of manure-harvesting operations. If the manure-accumulation rate is 3 in/yr, the average depth of manure in the corrals would be about 1.5”, 0.75”, 0.5” and 0.38” for 1, 2, 3 and 4 manure-harvesting operations per year, respectively. The marginal reductions in dust potential for the 4th and subsequent manure-harvesting operations in a 12-month period are probably not detectable in practice, which argues for a maximum of 4 operations per year. (If manure is not distributed uniformly across the pens, the 4th and 5th harvesting operation per year may help by removing locally deep accumulations.) Because there are usually about 2-2.2 turns of cattle through a feedyard per year, manure-harvesting operations will need to be conducted occasionally with cattle in the pens. In the case of open-lot dairies, the movement of cattle to and from the milking parlor provides ample opportunity for frequent manure harvesting, in which case the main limitations are fuel, labor costs and the mechanical strength of the subsoils.

Water Application. Direct water application to suppress dust on the cattle feedyard is an effective but expensive option, and where water resources are limited, efficiency is at a premium. Using small weighing lysimeters loaded with compacted soil and manure, Marek et al. (2004) measured daily evaporation rates from simulated feedyard surfaces and determined that the consumptive use of irrigated crops is a poor predictor of feedyard evaporative losses and that water application rates for dust control need to be about 0.15-

21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference February 23-24, 2006 Tempe, AZ - 114

0.25” per day during most of the dust season, with higher rates during August and September.

Razote et al. (2006) also confirmed that manure harvesting and water application have a synergistic effect on the dust potential of a corral surface. When the uncompacted manure layer significantly exceeds the depth to which applied water will penetrate, the water is essentially wasted; conversely, when dry manure is harvested and used to build mounds to improve wintertime drainage, water must be added to the manure to improve compaction and ensure that hoof action does not redistribute the uncompacted material. Summary

Recent investments in air quality research, both public and private, are beginning to show returns for the dairy and beef industries across the U. S. The major airborne constituents of regulatory concern nationwide have been reduced to two: ammonia (NH3) and particulate matter (PM). Constituents of regional and local concern include reactive volatile organic compounds (RVOC) in California, where RVOC are implicated in ground-level ozone formation; odorants of various kinds at the state and local level; and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in densely populated areas where neighbors are located immediately across the property line from facilities where manure and/or wastewater are stored under anaerobic conditions. Bioaerosols are attracting greater attention, mainly in the context of biosecurity and zoonotic disease. Innovative measures to reduce emission rates and downwind concentrations of PM and gases from feedyards and dairies have been proposed and validated, but broad implementation will require financial incentives and will generally increase the use of scarce water and fuel resources. References Auvermann, B. W. 2006. Unpublished data. Auvermann, B. W., D. B. Parker and J. M. Sweeten. 2000. Manure harvesting

frequency: the feedyard manager’s #1 dust-control option in a summer drought. College Station, TX: Texas Cooperative Extension. Bulletin E-52.

Buser, M. D., C. B. Parnell, Jr., B. W. Shaw and R. E. Lacey. 2003. Particulate Matter Sampler Errors Due To The Interaction Of Particle Size and Sampler Performance Characteristics: PM10 and PM2.5 Ambient Air Samplers. Presented at the Third International Conference on Air Pollution from Agricultural Operations, Raleigh/Durham, NC, October 12-15.

Cassel, T., D. Meyer, E. Tooman and B.W. Auvermann. 2003. Effects of sprinkling of pens to reduce particulate emissions and subsequent efforts in ammonia emissions from open-lot dairy facilities. Presented at the International Symposium of Gaseous & Odour Emissions from Animal Production Facilities, Horsens, Jutland, Denmark, June 1-4.

Cole, N.A., R. N. Clark, R. W. Todd, C. R. Richardson, A. Gueye, L. W. Greene and K. McBride. 2005. Influence of Dietary Crude Protein Concentration and Source on Potential Ammonia Emissions from Beef Cattle Manure. Journal of Animal Science. 83:722-731.

Goodrich, B. and C. B. Parnell, Jr. 2006. Unpublished data. Grelinger, M. A. and T. Lapp. 1996. An evaluation of published emission factors for

cattle feedlots. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Air Pollution from Agricultural Operations, Kansas City, MO, February 7-9.

Malm, W. C. 1999. Introduction to Visibility. Ft. Collins, CO: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere. 70 pp.

21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference February 23-24, 2006 Tempe, AZ - 115

Marek, G., T. H. Marek, K. Heflin and B. W. Auvermann. 2004. Determination of Feedyard Evaporation Using Weighing Lysimeters. Presented at the 2004 ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, August 1-4, 2004, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Paper No. 04-4014.

Moon, S., B. W. Auvermann and W. J. Rogers. 2005. Open-Path Transmissometry To Determine Atmospheric Extinction Efficiency Associated with Feedyard Dust. Presented at the Annual Conference of the Air & Waste Management Association, Minneapolis, MN, June 20-25.

Mutlu, A., S. Mukhtar, S. Capareda, C. Boriack, R. Lacey, B. Shaw and C. B. Parnell, Jr.. Summer Ammonia Emission Rates From Free-Stall and Open-Lot Dairies in Central Texas. Presented at the 2005 ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, Tampa, FL, July 17-20. Paper No. 05-4037.

Parker, D.B., S. Pandrangi, L. W. Greene, L. K. Almas, N. A. Cole, M. B. Rhoades and J. A. Koziel. 2005. Rate and Frequency of Urease Inhibitor Application for Minimizing Ammonia Emissions from Beef Cattle Feedyards. Transactions of the ASAE 48(2):787-793.

Parnell, C. B. Jr., B. W. Shaw and B. W. Auvermann. 1999. Agricultural Air Quality Fine Particle Project - Task 1: Livestock - Feedlot PM Emission Factors and Emissions Inventory Estimates. Final project report to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Parnell, S. 1994. Dispersion Modeling for Prediction of Emission Factors for Cattle Feedyards. Unpublished Master of Science Thesis, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Peters, J. A. and T. R. Blackwood. 1977. Source assessment: beef cattle feedlots. Special report to the EPA Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/2-77-107.

Price, J. E. 2004. Back-Calculating Emission Rates for Ammonia and Particulate Matter from Area Sources Using Dispersion Modeling. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Razote, E. B., R. G. Maghirang, B. Z. Predicala, J. P. Murphy, B. W. Auvermann, J. P. Harner and W. L. Hargrove. 2006. Dust emission potential of cattle feedlots as affected by feedlot surface characteristics. Transactions of the ASAE (edition pending).

Sweeten, J. M., C. B. Parnell, Jr., R. S. Etheredge and D. Osborne. 1988. Dust emissions in cattle feedlots. Food Animal Practice 4(3):557-578.

Todd, R. and N. A. Cole. 2005. Unpublished data. USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Bushland, TX.

Todd, R.W., N. A. Cole, L. A. Harper, T. K. Flesch and B. H. Baek. 2005. Ammonia and Gaseous Nitrogen Emissions from a Commercial Beef Cattle Feedyard Estimated Using the Flux-Gradient Method and N:P Ratio Analysis. Proceedings of “State of the Science: Animal Manure and Waste Management,” January 4-7, 2005, San Antonio, TX.

Todd, R. T., N. A. Cole and R. N. Clark. 2006. Effect of Crude Protein in Beef Cattle Diets on Ammonia Emissions from Artificial Feedyard Surface. Journal of Environmental Quality (edition pending).

21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference February 23-24, 2006 Tempe, AZ - 116

Vasconcelos, J. T., L. W. Greene, N. A. Cole, F. T. McCollum and J. C. Silva. 2004. Effects of Phase Feeding of Protein on Performance, Blood Urea Nitrogen, and Carcass Characteristics of Finishing Beef Cattle. Journal of Animal Science Supplement 82(1):63-64.

Wanjura, J. D., C. B. Parnell, Jr., B. W. Shaw and R. E. Lacey. 2004. A Protocol for Determining a Fugitive Dust Emission Factor from a Ground Level Area Source. Presented at the 2004 ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, August 1-4, 2004, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Paper No. 04-4018.

Wanjura, J., C. B. Parnell, B. W. Shaw, R. E. Lacey, S. C. Capareda and L. B. Hamm. 2005. Comparison of Continuous Monitor (TEOM) vs. Gravimetric Sampler Particulate Matter Concentrations. Paper presented at the 2005 ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, Tampa, FL, July 17-20. Paper No. 05-4048.

HIGH COW REPORT JULY 2006

MILK Arizona Owner Barn# Age Milk New Mexico Owner Barn # Age Milk * Stotz Dairy 20261 03-04 40,710 * Goff Dairy 8256 06-06 41,210 * Stotz Dairy 18681 03-10 38,230 * Providence Dairy 9300 05-07 40,700 * Withrow Dairy 3577 05-04 37,080 * Butterfield Dairy 2224 04-03 38,460 * Stotz Dairy 17829 04-06 36,910 * Pareo Dairy 4421 04-09 38,412 * Goldman Dairy 5645 04-09 35,690 * Providence Dairy 409 05-01 38,200 * Stotz Dairy 18453 04-00 35,280 * Butterfield Dairy 960 06-06 36,460 * Stotz Dairy 18763 03-09 35,260 * Butterfield Dairy 1699 05-06 36,330 * Stotz Dairy 16126 05-09 35,030 * Providence Dairy 2019 03-01 36,280 * Stotz Dairy 16973 05-01 35,030 * Caballo Dairy 7992 04-05 36,180 * Mike Pylman 2850 05-09 34,990 * Pareo Dairy 3713 05-02 35,915 FAT * Stotz Dairy 20261 03-04 1,753 * Caballo Dairy 5971 05-00 1,416 * Stotz Dairy 18852 03-08 1,542 * Providence Dairy 2085 02-11 1,331 Lunts Dairy 4621 07-01 1,449 * Providence Dairy 9300 05-07 1,327 * Stotz Dairy 17829 04-06 1,387 * Pareo Dairy 4182 05-00 1,321 * Stotz Dairy 17534 04-09 1,386 * Butterfield Dairy 1864 05-06 1,316 * Danzeisen Dairy, LLC 4846 04-08 1,365 * Goff Dairy 8256 06-06 1,305 * DC Dairy, LLC 4230 04-04 1,339 * Providence Dairy 877 04-06 1,287 * Stotz Dairy 16602 05-06 1,324 * New Direction Dairy 2835 ----- 1,280 Paul Rovey Dairy 9685 06-10 1,320 * Providence Dairy 1327 03-10 1,275 * Stotz Dairy 16037 05-10 1,309 * New Direction Dairy 2903 ----- 1,274 PROTEIN * Stotz Dairy 20261 03-04 1,184 * Providence Dairy 9300 05-07 1,245 * Stotz Dairy 18681 03-10 1,051 * Goff Dairy 8256 06-06 1,144 * Stotz Dairy 18763 03-09 1,051 * New Direction Dairy 2835 ----- 1,111 * Mike Pylman 6891 04-06 1,046 * New Direction Dairy 2903 ----- 1,103 * Stotz Dairy 18453 04-00 1,042 * Pareo Dairy 4421 04-09 1,089 * Shamrock Farms A290 03-08 1,041 * Butterfield Dairy 1832 05-06 1,084 * Stotz Dairy 14824 06-09 1,038 * Providence Dairy 9596 05-06 1,083 * Mike Pylman 2850 05-09 1,037 * Butterfield Dairy 1193 07-06 1,081 * Shamrock Farms 5177 05-01 1,036 * Pareo Dairy 3713 05-02 1,081 * Shamrock Farms 3688 05-08 1,027 * New Direction Dairy 3043 ----- 1,080 *all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking

ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b

JULY 2006

OWNERS NAME Number of Cows MILK FAT 3.5 FCM DO * Stotz Dairy West 2,199 27,428 987 27,859 200 * Stotz Dairy East 1,076 25,357 920 25,878 211 * Joharra Dairy 1,400 25,487 872 25,156 109 * Mike Pylman 7,929 25,032 869 24,910 183 * Red River Dairy 5,181 24,746 864 24,706 146 * Zimmerman Dairy 1,195 24,063 858 24,313 170 * Del Rio Dairy, Inc. 1,386 24,294 833 24,008 133 * Danzeisen Dairy, Inc. 1,486 23,525 847 23,902 166 * Withrow Dairy 5,365 24,345 813 23,706 154 Parker Dairy 4,098 23,140 845 23,703 171 * Arizona Dairy Company 5,480 23,771 808 23,376 196 * Dairyland Milk Co. 2,978 23,377 818 23,368 152 * Shamrock Farm 8,497 23,884 768 22,777 156 * Goldman Dairy 2,186 22,772 796 22,750 171 * Bulter Dairy 595 22,889 789 22,687 187 Paul Rovey Dairy 342 22,143 804 22,607 151 * Yettem 2,905 19,291 872 22,477 115

NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b

JULY 2006

OWNERS NAME Number of Cows MILK FAT 3.5 FCM DO * Hide Away 2,676 28,105 913 26,950 115 * Do-Rene 2,469 27,740 902 26,614 141 * Milagro 3,383 25,915 949 26,595 138 * Pareo 2 1,500 25,602 908 25,794 144 * Butterfield 2,071 26,645 876 25,727 132 * Wormont 1,026 23,857 891 24,764 182 * Goff 4,387 24,455 865 24,602 132 * Macatharn 1,009 24,702 855 24,546 134 * SAS 1,890 24,423 846 24,279 132 * Pareo 3,496 23,366 848 23,855 140 * all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking b average milk and fat figure may be different from monthly herd summary; figures used are last day/month

ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO HERD IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY FOR OFFICIAL HERDS TESTED JULY 2006

ARIZONA NEW MEXICO

1. Number of Herds 34

2. Total Cows in Herd 70,711

3. Average Herd Size 2,080

4. Percent in Milk 88

5. Average Days in Milk 214

6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day 53.3

7. Average Percent Fat – All Cows 3.6

8. Total Cows in Milk 60,844

9. Average Daily Milk for Milking Cows 61.7

10. Average Days in Milk 1st Breeding 83

11. Average Days Open 165

12. Average Calving Interval 14.2

13. Percent Somatic Cell – Low 86

14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium 8

15. Percent Somatic Cell – High 6

16. Average Previous Days Dry 59

17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd 30

STATE AVERAGES Milk 23,008 Percent butterfat 3.59 Percent protein 2.90 Pounds butterfat 800

Pounds protein 667

Information unavailable

at press time.

Department of Animal SciencesPO Box 210038

Tucson, AZ 85721-0038

Phone: 520-626-9382Fax: 520-621-9435

Email: ljr22@ag.arizona.edu

UPCOMING EVENT:ARIZONA DAIRY PRODUCTION CONFERENCE

OCTOBER 10, 2006SHERATON PHOENIX AIRPORT HOTEL

TEMPE, AZ