Summary of a Decade of Dairy Check-Off Researc h

D. R. Bray' , P. J . Hansen ', W. W. Thatcher ' , M. B. Hall ' , J . M. Bennett2 ,J.K. Shearer3, R. L. Kilmer4 , H. H. Van Horn '

'Dairy and Poultry Sciences2Agronomy

3Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicin e4Food and Resource Economic s

University of Florida, Gainesville 3261 1

It is our pleasure to express appreciation, on behalf of more than 90 investigatin gscientists and additional visiting professors and participating graduate students, fo rdairymen's support of research programs over the last decade . The Dairy Check-Offprogram has encouraged many scientists, who might otherwise have worked on othe rcommodities, to focus on dairy-related issues . Additionally, the Check-Off funds hav eleveraged dairy scientists to research problems that were highest priority for dairyme nwhere otherwise those scientists may have focused on other projects where they could ge tfunding and those might not have been high on the dairymen's priority list Additionally ,many of these Check-Off grants provided the seed money necessary to initiate researc hthat later led to larger grant funding from state, federal, and private funding sources .

The following bullet summaries of research findings were done to give a quick overvie wof the broad scope of research conducted and the potential applications coming out of tha tresearch . Although the summaries are structured a bit differently from category tocategory, they still give a glimpse of a large amount of the research that was done tha twas supported, at least in part, and initiated because of Check-Off funding . The summarystatements may represent results from several different experiments . Not all of theresearch projects that have been supported are represented in these statements .

Cow Comfort and Milking Management : Dave Bray

• Fans and sprinklers with timers can cut water use from 120 to 20 gal/cow/day .• High psi foggers use only about 10 gal water/cow/day at 200 psi . The cooling i s

equal to sprinklers if they are maintained (i .e ., water use versus maintenance) .• Cows get hot at night, if outside .• Tall barns (greater than 14' at eaves) are cooler than low barns .• Chilled drinking water is cold! Not apparently beneficial to cows .• A 3" pipeline will handle 16 units/slope . This is much different than the Nationa l

Mastitis Council recommendation of 9 .• Gas valve regulator is for gas, Doesn't work for vacuum regulator .• Can sanitize teats and udders in the wash pen with sanitizer injection in last was h

cycle .

14

Heat Stress Physiology : P. J . Hansen

•

Most sensitive period for heat stress effects on reproduction is early in pregnancy :As embryos develop, they become more resistant .Follicular growth before ovulation is also sensitive .

• Hair coat color and genetic differences in cellular resistance affect magnitude of hea tstress effects .

• Timed Artificial Insemination reduces problems caused by poor estrous detection .• Transferring embryos at day 8 bypasses the period when the embryo is most sensitiv e

to heat stress . Need to reduce cost . Timed embryo transfer may be feasible .• Antioxidants :

Beta carotene (400 mg/d in feed) benefited reproduction and milk yield .Vitamin E/Se improved pregnancy rate .

• Management of the replacement heifer :Mammary growth of peripubertal heifers was blunted when insufficient protei n

was fed relative to energy .Growth rates of peripubertal heifers could be increased 5-13% by bST injectio n

in heifers fed for normal or accelerated growth .No difference in first lactation milk yield between heifers grown at normal o r

rapid rates peripubertal whether or not they were injected with bST .Colostrum high in antibodies was also high in nutritive and/or physiologicall y

active constituents that affect heifer growth and health .• Transition cows :

Treatment of transition dairy cows (-3 to +8 wk) with bST increased dry matte rintake, energy status, and milk yield following calving .

Prepartum milking of first or multi-lactation cows caused more cows to star tnormal lactation before calving but benefit was too small to justify .

Reproduction : W. W. Thatcher

• 30% incidence of cystic follicles, 19-29 days postpartum : Treatment with GnRHreduced days open and services per conception .

• Heat stress altered ovarian follicle development and increased Prostaglandin secretio nin early pregnancy .

• In Florida commercial dairy herds, injection of GnRH + Lutalyse at the time o finsemination did not increase conception rate .

• Persistent ovarian follicles reduce fertility .• Synchronization with GnRH and Lutalyse eliminates persistent follicles and increase s

pregnancy rate .• Aspiration of the dominant follicle at day 6 of the estrous cycle increased follicl e

response and CL formation to superovulation treatment .•

A timed insemination program was developed based upon follicle recruitment, C Lregression, and induction of ovulation . through use of GnRH + Lutalyse + GnRH :

Increased net revenue per cow by $15 to $7 0Gave higher pregnancy rates when used experimentally on commercial dairies .

• Pregnancy rates increased with increases in Body Condition Score .

15

• Posilac given at beginning of OvSynch/Timed AI protocol (day 63 postpartum )increased day 27 pregnancy rate compared to control group (46% versus 30%) .

•

Abomasal infusions of yellow grease reduced estradiol induction of uterin eprostaglandin secretion implying that certain unsaturated fatty acids may increas eembryo survival .

•

Feeding Menhaden fish meal (includes fish oils) reduced uterine prostaglandi nsecretion and increased pregnancy rates .

•

Feeding Megalac stimulated ovarian follicle development and increased conceptionrates of lactating cows .

•

Injection of GnRH agonist implant in a Ovsynch/TAI protocol stimulated pregnanc yrate in lactating dairy cows with poor body condition .

•

High EstradiollProgesterone ratio and absence of small IGF-binding proteins areexcellent markers for fertile follicles and can be used to evaluate synchronizatio nsystems, heat stress, bST .

•

Specific proteins identified as being produced in the corpus luteum of cows may lea dto fertility advancements .

Nutrition : Mary Beth Hal l

• Heat Stress :More potassium needed .Carbohydrates and fiber management more critical.Efficiency reduced if more acidosis occurs .

• Minerals :Anionic salts reduce milk fever, hypocalcemia, and may reduce some othe r

postpartum problems .Mg, Cu for milking cows evaluated .

• Roughage sources and uses :Perennial peanut, Tifton 85, cottonseed hulls .Preserving forage .Grazing studies .

• By-product feeds :Whole cottonseed and cottonseed hulls .Citrus pulp and hominy .

• Transition cows :Management and feeding studied .Estrogen to shorten dry period may be feasible .

• Nutrition and reproduction :Energy -- fat and carbohydrates .Protein – amount of NPN .

• Protein -- amino acids .• Changing milk composition :

Increasing unsaturated fatty acids in milk fatManaging effective fiber to avoid milk fat depressionManaging rumen carbohydrate digestibility to maximize rumen microbial growt h

and milk protein percentage .

16

Forage Production : J . M. Bennett

• Mott Dward Elephantgrass• Elephantgrass x Pearl Millet• Annual and perennial peanut for hay and grazing• Tropical corn (north and south Florida )• Ensiling and feeding value of various grasse s• Rotational grazing strategie s• Grass response to daylength and effects on winter forage production• Removal of nitrogen and phosphorus by various cropping system s• Use of manure wastewaters as fertilizers for forage and field crops• Many of these results contributed to development of the Florida Forage Handbook .

This handbook, edited by Dr . Carrol Chambliss, and co-authored by 25 OF/IFAS an dUSDA-ARS forage and animal scientists contains 33 chapters with recommendation sfor management and production of more than 20 warm-season and 10 cool-seaso ncrops and includes a special section for dairy cattle managers . The handbook i savailable for a cost of $10 from IFAS Educational Media and Services (EMS) and ca nbe ordered by phone (352-392-1764) or through the EMS website a thttp://ems .ifas .ufl .edu/forsale . This publication should be of assistance to dair yproducers .

Cow Health : J . K. Shearer

• Established preliminary steps to develop a vaccine for cryptosporidiosis in dair ycalves .

• Warm weather nematodes (Hemonchus sp and Cooperia sp) are the most significantworm parasites in dairy heifers, unlike beef cattle .

• Most worm infestations in dairy heifers occur during the summer and autumn .• Supplementation of selenium (0 .5 to 0 .8 ppm)( during the dry period reduced

incidence of retained placenta, weak calves, and mastitis, also increased milkproduction, and reduced somatic cell counts in milk .

• Oral treatment of calcium chloride gel at 24 and 48 hours postpartum increased bloo dcalcium levels in cows with retained placenta .

• Mycoplasma bovis was identified as an important cause of inner ear infections and eardroop in dairy calves .

• Dairy cattle switched from a "cool" to a "hot" Florida-type diet developed mor esymptoms of acidosis and laminitis . These data support the importance of carefu lmonitoring of rations and ration formulation during the transition period .

• Topical spray is an effective treatment procedure for footwarts .• Improved procedures for diagnosis of Johnes disease were develope d• Master Hoof Care Technician Program :

6 formal programs, one in Spanish, 90 participants, 8 graduates .Hoof Care Manual .Videotape in English and Spanish, soon to be in French and Portugues e

17

Economic and Business Analysis : R. L . Kilmer

• Processors save Southeast Milk, Inc . $0.23 per cwt. on 56% of the loads by receivingmilk 7 days per week instead of 5 days .

• Processors cost Southeast Milk, Inc . $0.22 per cwt. on each load of milk that deviate sfrom an even delivery schedule (e .g., 10 loads Monday and 2 loads Tuesday) .

• Processors cost Southeast Milk, Inc . $0.24 per cwt . on each load of milk that deviate sfrom the milk ordered by processors every Thursday for delivery the next week .

• Florida milk production varies from 15% above the average to 18% below th eaverage.

• 1993 Seasonal Pricing Plan reduced :Imports by $2 .3 millionExports by $1 .1 million

• Dairies that did participate in the 1993 Seasonal Pricing Plan reduced seasonalitybetween 1992 and 1995 .

• Dairies that did not participate in the 1993 Seasonal Pricing Plan increasedseasonality between 1992 and 1995 .

• The Simulated Monthly Class 1 Price Differential for milk produced in Florida i n1997 ranged between $4 .50 and $6.50 per cwt .

• The Dairy Rule in Okeechobee reduced :Milk sales $34 millio nLocal economy $54 millio nEmployment 531 job sEarnings $10 .2 million

• The cost of complying with the Dairy Rule in Okeechobee was $1 .10 per cwt. forevery cwt . produced over the life of the dairy .

•

The Dairy Business Analysis was developed . The 1997 summary showed :Average revenues $18.30/cwt. milk (top 25%, $19 .77)Average costs $17 .98/cwt. (top 25%, $17.63 )Net farm income $0 .32/cwt. milk (top 25%, $2 .14)

• Earlier study for 1987-88 showed :Total cost of production was $15 .70/cwt .Total farm receipts were $16 .72/cwt .

• Optimal breeding and culling/replacement guidelines were developed that maximize dnet income .

• Reasons for income and cost performance on individual dairies were identified .• Economic impact of days open, calving interval, and culling rates were determined .

Manure and Flies : H. H. (Jack) Van Horn

• Nutrient excretion = feed — milk(we can reduce feed inputs to reduce excretions) .

• Sod-based multiple cropping systems maximize nutrient removal and minimiz egroundwater losses (Tifton 85 best?) .

18

• Sedimentation and screening remove organic matter more than N and P .• Chemical additives — soil amendments, precipitate P .• N in wastewaters quickly available .• Anaerobic digestion reduces odors .• N losses to denitrification may be great (>100 lb/acre) .• Innovative crops can be grown on wastewaters (e.g., microalgae, fish) .• Biocontrol of flies may be helpful on dairies, especially around the calf pens .

Check-Off Committee Report

Ron St . John, Alliance and Piedmont Dairies, TrentonL. E. (Woody) Larson, Larson Dairy, Okeechobe e

Gerald Fieser, Fieser Dairy DeLeon Springsl

It is both rewarding and exciting to be involved in an Advisory Committee to guide th euse of funds provided by our industry to insure that the teaching, research, and extensio nprograms in dairy science at the University of Florida are in line with our needs . Weknow that with the decline in public funding of agricultural research and with fewer gran topportunities research will not necessarily target farmer needs unless they participate i nthe process more than we did in the past . Dairy farmers, as good businessmen, hav edecided to make an investment in research and education through the Check-Off

Although this review of the program focuses on a Decade of Results, allocations hav enow been awarded from 12 years of our Check-Off of 1 .0 cents per cwt . of milkmarketed . It is amazing that these contributions by individual dairy farmers haveaccumulated to almost $3 .0 million . And the research and education supported with thosefunds have made Florida dairy farmers much more competitive . Just the returns fromimplementing better heat stress management have more than paid for the program .Significant advances in reproduction and manure management have also been made . Weknow that not all of the research has been or will be successful . We just hope thatdairymen learn as much from the research that didn't work out according the researcher' shypothesis as they do from their own mistakes. And save money by having done it tha tway

We are especially proud of the results we see from our support of Youth Programs .Hundreds of youth, mostly 4-Her's have been directly and positively impacted by Check-Off dollars .

The total of these research and education grants totals $2,990,979, an average o f$250,000 awarded yearly . The grants have been made to a diverse set of projects rangin gfrom undergraduate scholarships, transportation of youth to 4-H contests, materials fo r

' The following comments that these dairymen made in oral presentations at th econference were assembled from notes that they gave to H. H. Van Horn .

19

teaching, extension activities, support of visiting scientists, and mostly for research, bot hbasic and applied . A summary of these grants includes :

Youth $ 305,800Extension 62,840

ResearchAgronomy and soils $ 164,32 0Production economics 113,850Milk supply management 116,01 5Herd health 267,129Reproduction 439,364Manure management 479,62 1Heat stress 263,792Milking management 55,186Calves 131,10 5Dry and transition cow 162,380

TOTAL $2,990,979

The 12-year experience of committee members recommending which grants to fund ha sshown that good projects in basic research have as high a success rate as applied an ddemonstration project proposals. All dairy farmers benefit from direct benefits from th eresearch supported with this funding but some of the side benefits are nearly a srewarding, for example, 1) research and extension activities were selected to meet hig hpriority needs of dairymen ; 2) dairymen become very interested in the projects with th eidea of incorporating positive outcomes into their management scheme ; 3) because o fdairymen involvement, the time interval between obtaining research results and adoptio nof the practice is minimal ; 4) the benefit of leverage is important because our grants ar ean incentive to faculty members from other departments to direct their expertise to a dairyproblem; 5) because of their closeness to the research projects, dairymen haveconfidence in the results and this increases their willingness to accept recommendations ,and 6) the additional support funds available to UF dairy programs from the Check-Offoften help attract additional state and grant funds that are directed to problems originall yselected by dairymen on these committees . Many grant proposals reviewed by th ecommittee were not funded but, in general, those fit a category or not appearing to be aworthy research project or being a project that is too far removed from dairy farme rpriorities .

The past decade has seen a lot of advances in the Florida dairy industry but as we look t othe future, Florida dairymen still face many problems . First and foremost is to remai ncompetitive with other areas of the country in supplying our local markets . We need abetter handle on cost control on Florida dairies if we are going to compete in a nationa lmarketplace . To remain competitive, it is obvious that we need more economic input int odecision making and into developing strategies to reduce costs of production . The DairyBusiness Analysis Project is a great first step but we need more . To that end, it is not out

20

of the .question that we continue to direct and perhaps increase Check-Off funds t osupport business management and integrated systems research that will help our industr ywith these challenges . And off the farm, we need to be better prepared to deal wit hnational issues in milk pricing and marketing . The University of Florida is way behin dmany other institutions in these areas . When the recent announcement of U .S .D .A .Federal Order Reform came out, the West, Upper Midwest, and Northeast responde dimmediately. Where was the Southeast? Dr . Martin, this is an area that we feel need simmediate attention .

Other challenges that we will face in the next decade include :• Manure management -- How to turn cost into a positive retur n• Cow comfort – We know that stress is our biggest roadblock . How are we going to

make cows more comfortabl e

Another challenge, and perhaps an opportunity, is regionalization . As funding from stat elegislatures continues to decline, the dairy industry of the Southeast with Florida as th ecatalyst must look for ways to get more bang for our bucks in research and development .Regionalization is not a popular topic with other universities that are trying to maintai ntheir identities . However, if Georgia passes their dairy referendum and reestablishes aGeorgia Dairy Board to distribute research funds it could be a golden opportunity to forc ethe issue of expanding our Check-Off Committee to include representatives of their dair yfarmers and combine our research funds .

Although not without challenges, we are very optimistic as to the future of the Southeas tdairy industry and we are proud to be participants .

An "Out-Sider's" Viewpoint of the Florida Check-Off Progra m

William MooreCommodities Marketing Department

Georgia Farm Bureau Federatio nMacon, GA

Sunbelt Dairy Federation . At that time, as now, Georgia dairymen were frustrated withthe inability to acquire the extra income that our dairymen thought was needed an djustified to insure an adequate supply of local milk . The federation helped but we sawmore and more milk coming in and limiting the premium . Also, there was the subtl eprice cutting within caused by handlers ability to buy milk at a lower price fro mindependent producers and still pay them more because of the cost of operatingcooperatives .

Georgia Milk Producers – "What can we do?" We wound up publishing th eSoutheast Milk Producer magazine for the purpose of improving communication amongdairymen in the Southeast .

21

One of my first trips was in the early 1990's to do an article on the dairy industry i nFlorida . One focus of the Florida story was the environmental crisis in Florida . The otherwas ways Florida dairymen were coping with heat, humidity, and quality forage . Ilooked at the work the University of Florida had done in those areas which certainly wa simpressive and had a lengthy discussion with Roger Natzke . We talked about the needand possibilities of more coordination and cooperation and, possibly, consolidation o fdairy support programs in the Southeast, particularly in the area of research .

After a lapse of about 5 years, I came back to Florida to see how this program was doing .While most, if not all of the other dairy programs in the Southeast were experiencin gsevere cuts, loss of scientists, and loss of students, Florida's dairy programs seemed to b eflourishing . One of the things that particularly impressed me was the excitement of th edairy scientists because of their ability to work as partners with dairy farmers . This wasmy first really close look at the Check-Off Program in Florida .

Georgia Milk Producers Dairy Research and Education Committee, chaired by Lama rAnthony, for a number of years has talked about the need for such a program in Georgia .Lamar is a dairyman from Americus, GA and contends that no matter what kind o fmarketing program, supply management, dairy compact or what-have-you that is put i nplace to raise the price of milk, if there is an advantage to sell milk in our marke tsomebody will figure out a way to do it . Lamar says, "The only long term fix to th eproblem is to be able to produce the milk at a lower cost than anyone else plus their cos tof bringing the milk in . "

Yesterday (May 3, 1999), we experienced a great victory in Georgia with Governo rBarnes signing the dairy compact . I think the Southern Dairy Compact can accomplish alot to solve our regional problem of competing with the cost of an alternative supply on ayear-round basis . I think now is an excellent time for Georgia to join Florida in jumpin gon the cost of production side of the equation . I believe this is the only way we ca ninsure for the long haul a successful dairy industry in the Southeast .

The Georgia Agricultural Commodity Commission for Milk has just approved areferendum to be held for Georgia producers to decide whether they want an additiona lassessment of 1 cent/cwt . to fund a producer association and/or an additional 1 cent/cwt .to fund a producer controlled, applied research program similar to the Florida program .

On-farm experimentation can be very expensive because the very word, experimenting ,means you are going to try something that is unproven and when it fails, money usually i slost. The other problem with on-farm experimenting done by farmers is that usually i tisn't shared very far . If it takes three or four tries on every experiment you are going t ohave to reproduce your successes many times to get your losses back .

This should tell how this "out-sider" views the Florida Check-Off Program . Wouldn't i tbe great if we could get similar programs throughout the Southeast? "Working together "is what it is really all about .

22