PROCEEDINGS OF THE 47 FLORIDA DAIRY PRODUCTION CONFERENCE

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


Phone: (352) 392-5594 ext. 226 * Fax: (352) 392-5595


CONFERENCE REGISTRATION

Rebecca Matta


Phone: (352) 392-1916 * Fax: (352) 392-9059


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.

mailto:[email protected]



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

[email protected]

Josh Churchwell

Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health 6110 SW CR 346

Archer, FL 32618

Ph. 813-967-5176

[email protected]

Harvey Largen

Select Sire Power

PO Box 370

Rocky Mount, VA 24151

Ph. 540-483-5123

[email protected]

Heath Graham

Pfizer Animal Health

535 Planters Manor Way

Bradenton, FL 34212

Ph. 941-737-5357

[email protected]

Terry Weaver

Westway Feed Products, Inc

PO Box 2447

Lake Placid, FL 33862

Ph. 863-840-0935

[email protected]

Jake Martin

DairyDesign.Com

6024 SW 89th

Terrace

Gainesville, FL 32608-5577

Ph. 352-371-4655

[email protected]

Brent Lawrence, Jennifer Skelton

Alltech, Inc.

350 Davenport Drive

Thomasville, GA 317292

Ph. 352-212-6240

[email protected]

Matt and Christy Walter

Central Florida Large Animal Veterinary

Services - bioPRYN

43 E 17th St

Saint Cloud, FL 34769

Ph. 407-892-2034

[email protected]

Pete Hetherington

LIC USA Ph. 706-231-4673

[email protected]


Milk Sponsor

Maggie Murphy

Southeast Milk, Inc.

1950 SE County Highway 484

Belleview, FL 34420

Ph. 800-598-7866

[email protected]



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

[email protected]

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?



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


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


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.


NOTES


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

[email protected]

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.



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.


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


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

http://www.qmisystems.com/

http://www.boldbiotech.com/


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!


NOTES


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

[email protected]

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.



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


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


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.


NOTES


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

[email protected]

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



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


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.


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


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


(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


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


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.


NOTES


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

[email protected]

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.



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


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




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”


NOTES


Dairy Lending: a Lender’s Perspective

Jeffrey Spencer

Relationship Manager, Farm Credit of Florida, ACA

12300 US Hwy. 441, Alachua, FL 32615

[email protected]

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



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.


Jeffrey Spencer

Farm Credit of Florida, ACA

386-462-4201

1-800-342-3795

NOTES


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

[email protected]

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



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.


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

http://www.vtdairy.dasc.vt.edu/pdf/sampling.pdf


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.

http://www.enasco.com/farmandranch


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.




NOTES


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


[email protected]

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,



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


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.


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.


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.


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)


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)


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


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.


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.


NOTES


Appendix

Southeast DHIA Update 2010

Daniel W. Webb

Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida

Past General Manager, Southeast DHIA, Inc.


[email protected]

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.



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


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


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


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)


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


NOTES

Documents

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 47 FLORIDA DAIRY PRODUCTION CONFERENCE