Buckeye Dairy News: Volume 17, Issue 5

  1. Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

    Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Extension Dairy Management Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    The Ugly Side: Milk Prices

    As I write this column in late November, the class III futures have just closed at $15.33 for November, $14.68 for December, and $14.71/cwt for January 2016.  For the next 12 months, the Class III milk futures are averaging $15.59/cwt, which (IF these are accurate predictors) should provide Ohio dairy producers with a mailbox price averaging around $16.50/cwt over the next 12 months.  The Class IV futures prices are above the Class III for the next couple of months, then they drop into the $14.00 to 14.50/cwt range.  Needless to say, these prices are not good, even with $3.50/bu corn.  To compound the problem, I think that the futures markets might in fact be a bit optimistic.  There is a lot of milk produced around the world, especially in Oceania and Europe, which explains why non-fat dry milk is currently selling in the low $0.80/lb; it has to be priced this low to find export markets.  In short, milk prices in the foreseeable future will be a challenge to dairy producers.

    The Good Side: Nutrient Prices

    Feed prices have dropped significantly in the last year and all indications are they will remain low (“low” taken here in the context of the post ethanol era).  This brings significant opportunities not only to lock in very good prices on major commodities (e.g., corn, soybean meal, etc.) but also to evaluate how byproduct ingredients could fit your feeding program.

    As usual in this column, I used the software SESAME™ that we developed at Ohio State to price the important nutrients in dairy rations, to estimate break-even prices of all major commodities traded in Ohio, and to identify feedstuffs that currently are significantly underpriced as of November 23, 2015.  Price estimates of net energy lactation (NEL, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb – MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1. Compared to its historical 6-year average of about 10¢/Mcal, NEL is currently a relative bargain at 4.9¢/Mcal.  This is important because a cow producing 70 lb/day of milk requires in the neighborhood of 33 Mcal/day of NEL. So, supplying the dietary energy required to produce milk is currently relatively inexpensive.  For MP, its current price ($0.556/lb) is nearly 2 times greater than its 6-year average ($0.28/lb). In short, protein prices are still relatively expensive but not as much as this time last year.  The cost of ne-NDF is currently discounted by the markets (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), but the discount of -1.7¢/lb is less than its 6-year average (-9¢/lb).  Meanwhile, unit costs of e-NDF are also at over 4 times their 6-year average, being priced at 14.9¢/lb compared to the 6-year average (3.3¢/lb).  Fortunately, a dairy cow requires only 10 to 11 lb of effective NDF, so the daily cost of providing this nutrient is only about $1.56/cow/day (i.e., 10.5 lb × $0.149 per lb).

    Using these nutrient costs, we can estimate how much it should cost on an average to feed for a certain amount of milk production.  Using a target cow milking 70 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein and eating 50.4 lb/day of dry matter, the average feed costs should currently be in the neighborhood of $5.95/cow/day or $8.49/cwt.  These costs do not include the costs of feeding the dry cows nor the replacement herd.  At a production level of 85 lb/day, the average feed costs increases to $6.81/cow/day, while the feed costs for milk drop to $8.01/cwt. 

    Table 1.  Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 23, 2015.
    Table 1

    Economic Value of Feeds

    Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 23, 2105 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported.  The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices.  Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price.  One must remember that Sesame compares all commodities at one point in time, mid November in this case.  Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

    Table 2.  Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 23, 2015.
    Table 2
    For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the Sesame analysis.

    Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, November 23, 2015.

    Bargains

    At Breakeven

    Overpriced

    Corn, ground, shelled
    Corn silage
    Distillers dried grains
    Feather meal
    Gluten feed
    Meat meal
    Soybean meal – expeller
    Wheat middlings

    Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF
    Bakery byproducts
    Brewers grains, wet
    Whole cottonseed
    41% Cottonseed meal
    Gluten meal
    Hominy
    48% soybean meal
    Roasted soybeans
    Wheat bran

    Beet pulp
    Blood meal
    Canola meal
    Citrus pulp
    Molasses
    Soybean hulls
    44% soybean meal
    Tallow

     

    As usual, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column.  Feeds in the “bargains” column offer savings opportunity and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet.  In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc.  Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column.  For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NEL and MP contents.

    Appendix

    A few people have asked that I publish the results using the 5-nutrient group (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein).  A table containing these results is provided herewith.

    Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio
    dairy farms, November 23, 2015.
    Table 4

  2. Farm Transition Considerations: Working with an Attorney

    Dr. Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, ANR,Tuscarawas County, The Ohio State University

    Questions and issues from families about transferring their farm businesses to the next generation often arise. Most farm business transfers will involve a group of experts to advise you through the process.  In most cases, an attorney will need to be a part of the transition process.  For some, finding an attorney the family feels comfortable with can be difficult, but it can be done.  Options available to help you locate an attorney include: reviewing websites of law firms that specialize in estate planning, talking with friends or relatives about attorneys they use, or using one who has advised your family on other legal matters related to the business. 

    When meeting with an attorney for the fist time, there are several questions you will want to ask, including:

    • What is your expertise in the field?
    • Have you handled matters similar to mine?
    • What paperwork is involved?
    • What are your rates and how often will you bill me?
    • Will you consider doing the work for a flat fee?
    • Can you give me an estimate of the cost?
    • How will you inform me of the progress?
    • Do you have any conflict of interest?
    • Who else in the office will work on my case?
    • Can paralegals or junior attorneys handle some of the work at a lower cost?

    Your first meeting should be one where you and the attorney get to know each other.  The attorney will want to know some background about the farm and your goals for transferring ownership.  Come prepared with written information about your background, goals, and questions you have for the attorney.

    Documents the attorney may ask you to bring to the first meeting might include:

    • Business plan or summary of information about your farm,
    • Financial records (balance sheet, tax returns, and financial statements),
    • Any agreements or information about the organization of the business, and
    • Organizational chart or diagram of the people involved.

    Once the documents have been reviewed, the attorney may provide you with alternatives.  Make certain you understand the pros and cons of each alternative.  You need to make sure when you leave the office that you and the attorney have a clear understanding of the present situation, goals, and next steps.  Discuss with the attorney how you will be billed, how you should expect to receive communications, and that you want copies sent to you of all correspondence prepared on your behalf.

    There are a few things you can do to help minimize your attorney expenses:

    • Don’t call unless you have a good reason – attorneys typically bill for phone calls.
    • Plan meetings at the attorney’s office – otherwise, you will be billed for travel time and costs.
    • Ask for an itemized bill that provides detailed information – this may help you see where to trim costs, especially with communication.
    • Do your homework.  The more time the attorney spends preparing your transfer, the more you will pay.

    We’ve all heard the lawyer jokes, but attorneys are most often a necessary resource to guide you through the transition process.  Find one you feel comfortable working with and capitalize on his/her expertise.  Remember, you hire a lawyer to work for you, but don’t expect free legal advice or simple answers to complicated questions!

    (Source: PA Farm Link, 2708 N. Colebrook Road, Manheim, PA)

  3. Managing the Work Schedule for Personnel in Large Dairy Herds

    Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann and Dr. Jeffrey D. Workman, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

    The biggest challenge for modern dairy owners and managers often does not directly involve the herd or the farm, it is people!  Managing and coordinating the work schedule for dairy personnel directly impacts milk production, animal health and welfare, and overall profitability. Furthermore, it can be a monumental task balancing cost savings with the most efficient number of employees to successfully complete the work. The U.S. Department of Labor considers the normal work shift to be a work period of no more than eight consecutive hours during the day, five days a week with at least an eight-hour rest. A dairy farm, by definition, requires people to work extended and unusual shifts. Advantages of a longer shift from a management perspective involve less employees with more continuity and production per worker.

    There has been much research investigating the length of a work shift and the pros and cons of a 12-hour work shift versus the “normal” 8-hour shift. In practice, it really depends on the mental and/or physical demands of the specific job, and the overall attitude or desire of the worker to perform. Factors to be considered include: fatigue and job performance; safety; sleep, physical health, and psychosocial well-being; system implementation, attitudes, preferences, and morale; absenteeism and turnover; and overtime and moonlighting. When studying the U.S. manufacturing industry, previous research showed that the use of overtime hours (>40 hours per week) actually lowered average productivity output per worker.

    Research regarding number of hours per shift typically focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of longer shifts, with the assumption that the individual is going to work about the same total number of hours for the week and month regardless of the length of their shift. However, there is a certain number of man-hours needed to be successful on any given operation. When farms and other businesses are essentially under staffed or right at their limit, the benefits of longer work shifts may go away. Having not enough or just enough employees not only means that personnel are working longer shifts, but they are also working many more hours in the week and month. Although there are limited studies available in the literature for the dairy industry, the total number of employees is increased by about one-third by adding a third shift to the farm. The likely increase in productivity due to improvement in morale and attitude of personnel and the subsequent improvement in animal health and welfare can potentially pay off with increased profit beyond the cost of having more employees on the payroll.

    It is common to observe large within-herd variation in milking personnel performance (MPP) and turnover over time. In large dairy herds, scheduling the work shifts in the milking parlor can be a challenging task due to the number of personnel available, hours/days worked per week, and having enough relief workers to cover the day-off.  As an example, a 2,100-cow dairy farm that milks cows three times per day with a double 32-parallel parlor requires 4 milking personnel present at all times. Thus, there is a minimum of 672 man-hours required per week to keep the parlor operational. For this example, the assumption was that personnel work for 6 consecutive days and have 1 day-off. To illustrate the complexity of managing the work schedule for milkers, two distinct scheduling approaches were simulated.  Scenario I consists of an 8-hour shift which requires a total of 14 workers per week to keep the milking parlor operational (Table 1). Scenario II consists of 12-hour shift which requires a total of 9 milkers plus 1 relief worker per week to keep the milking parlor operational (Table 2). For these two scenarios, the day-off for each milker was distributed evenly within week. However, in practice, schedules may or may not be rotating in which a worker who has Thursday off this week will have Friday off next week and Saturday off the following week (milkers typically want their day-off during weekends).

    Table 1. Schedule showing the 8-hour shift during the week.

     

    Sun

    Mon

    Tues

    Wed

    Thurs

    Fri

    Sat

    Milker 1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    Milker 2

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    1

    Milker 3

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    Milker 4

    1

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 5

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 6

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 7

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 8

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 9

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 10

    1

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 11

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    Milker 12

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    1

    Milker 13

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    Milker 14

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    TOTAL/DAY

    12

    12

    12

    12

    12

    12

    12

    1 = Milker is working for 8-hour shift.
    0 = Day-off for milker.

    Table 2. Schedule showing the 12-hour shift during the week.

     

    Sun

    Mon

    Tues

    Wed

    Thurs

    Fri

    Sat

    Milker 1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    Milker 2

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    1

    Milker 3

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    Milker 4

    1

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 5

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 6

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 7

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 8

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Milker 9

    1

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Relief Milker

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    TOTAL/DAY

    8

    8

    8

    8

    8

    8

    8

    1 = Milker is working for 12-hour shift.
    0 = Day-off for milker.
    Relief Milker = Worker is responsible to milk cows for only 2 consecutive days (highlighted in yellow). The worker is responsible for other tasks within herd the remaining work days.
      
    In both scenarios, milkers were paid $10 per hour. Scenario I requires a total of $6,720 per week to compensate wages for all 14 milkers (Table 3). Similarly, scenario II requires a total of $6,720 per week to cover the wages of 9 milkers and 1 relief worker (Table 3). The 12-hour shift offers more schedule flexibility, but there is a real risk of losing MPP at the end of the shift as opposed to the 8-hour shift (Table 3). Often milkers prefer the 12-hour shift because the paycheck at the end of the week ($720 per worker) is significantly larger than for the 8-hour shift ($480 per week).

    Table 3. Economics of two working scenarios during the week.

    Scenario

    # of milkers

    hr/wk/milker

    total hr all milkers

    $/hr

    $/wk/worker

    total $

    8-hour shift

    14

    48

    672

    $10.00

    $480

    $6,720

    12-hour shift

    9 + 1 relief

    72 + 24 relief

    672

    $10.00

    $720
    $240 relief

    $6,720

    The estimated adjustment in MPP due to fatigue (e.g., milk loss) and turnover for the 12-hour milking shift has not yet been assessed. There is a fine balance between keeping the milker satisfied and avoiding the milking routine SOP drift due to working too many hours during the shift. It is not uncommon for dairy personnel to want all of the hours that they can get. They will often willingly work as long as they are permitted each and every day to receive the largest possible paycheck. The problem to be considered is that fatigue can result in reduced productivity, increased risk for non-compliance with SOP, and unsafe practices. Well-rested and alert employees are critical to safe and productive operations. Any schedule is most effective when the combination of shift length (e.g., 8-hour, 10-hour, or 12-hour) and number of consecutive days worked does not compromise personnel well-being, performance (e.g., compliance with SOP), and safety of the working environment. Frequent absenteeism at the parlor (e.g., “no show” workers who are always sick or the car always brakes down) require immediate attention by managers because it may be associated with the working schedule or other underlying issues. Consider discussing these issues with your employees during your next meeting and allow them to provide feedback.

    In our next article, we will present and discuss different work shift scenarios accounting for performance and turnover, number of consecutive days worked per week including overlapping shifts, number of relief workers needed per week, and how the combinations of these factors impact the economics of the herd.

  4. Silage Pile Management and Safety

    Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, The Ohio State University

    Silage management can be discussed from two perspectives, one being how to manage the removal of silage from the silo to maintain silage quality and promote animal intake and the other on how to keep farm workers, family, and visitors safe around the bunker.

    The key point to remember in silage removal is that air is the enemy of silage quality.  Once silage is exposed to air, quality begins to decline. The reason is that yeast begin to grow in the presence of oxygen and those yeast metabolize the lactic acid that was formed during silage fermentation. That lactic acid keeps silage pH low, preserving silage quality. As yeast metabolize the lactic acid, silage pH begins to increase and this allows fungi and bacteria to grow, which results in silage quality degradation. After the bunker silo or silage pile is opened up and silage starts to be used, the goal is to remove an adequate amount of silage each day from the bunker so that the face of the silage remains fresh and silage quality is maintained.  In general, a minimum of 8 to 12 inches of width should be removed from the silage face each day.

    Silage face management is important.  Bunker silos or silage piles that have poor face management, generally characterized by uneven and/or rough silage faces, will have a higher silage pH and higher temperature at that face surface compared to the silage maybe 2 to 3 feet behind the face.  Higher pH and temperature indicate yeast activity, which results in silage heating.  The bunk life of this silage is decreased and dairy cattle usually eat a lesser amount of this type of silage compared to silage that is managed better.  The goal is to minimize the penetration of air into the new silo face as silage is removed, so equipment that allows a smooth face to be maintained is preferred.  Silage face shavers (or defacers) and silage rakes are designed for this purpose. 

    Digging into the face of the silage should be minimized because that usually creates a rough, uneven face with more potential for silage avalanches.  If a front end loader is used, do not dig into the pile from the bottom but rather remove silage from the top down, keeping the face smooth across the entire width of the bunker silo.  A smooth silage face reduces the surface area exposed to air, reduces the amount of water that may be caught, and reduces the chance of a silage avalanche.

    The top priority when working around a bunker silo or silage pile should be safety.  There are too many stories of silage avalanches occurring just after a worker has left the silage face or equipment betting hit by a silage avalanche, or worse, the tragedy of a person losing their life after being buried under a silage avalanche.  The first point in silage safety is to recognize that silage avalanches are real, and there is no way to predict when and where they will occur.  Although  a rough or uneven silage face, or one that has been undercut, is more likely to have an avalanche, even  a well maintained smooth silage face could have part of that face fall away.  With the size of many of the bunker silos that exist on farms today, those avalanches involve multiple tons of silage falling.  If a person is located below when that occurs, this can easily result in a fatality.

    A few silage safety guidelines that should be followed include:

    • Never stand closer to the silage face than 3 times its height.  When a silage avalanche occurs, the silage falls down and runs out away from the silage face.
    • Do not fill bunker silos higher, or create silage piles higher, than your unloading equipment can reach.  These are the situations that most typically create overhangs when removing silage.  Generally, most unloading equipment can reach 12 to 14 feet above the silage floor.
    • Follow the “buddy” rule and never work in or near a bunker or pile alone.  Suffocation is a major concern in the event of a silage avalanche and the minutes saved in a rescue attempt because of the buddy rule could mean the difference between life and death.
    • Use proper removal or unloading techniques.  Never dig the bucket of a loader into the bottom of the silage.  Do not undercut the silage face.  Shave the silage from the top down on the silage face and maintain a smooth silage face.
    • When collecting a silage sample for quality analysis, do not sample from the silage face.  Collect silage in a loader bucket and sample from that loader bucket after it has been moved a safe distance from the silage face.
    • Consider posting a warning sign: “Danger! Silage Face Might Collapse” around the perimeter of bunkers and piles.

    Reference materials used in this article include an eXtension article by Donna Amaral-Phillips at the University of Kentucky available on-line at: http://tiny.cc/bunkersilomgmt and the Silage Safety Handbook by Lallemand Animal Nutrition.

  5. Calf Behavior and Bedding Materials

    Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, The Ohio State University

    Young dairy calves spend a lot of their day lying down.  Research from the University of Guelph indicates that calves from 10 days of age to 4 weeks can average 20.6 hr/day lying down over that period. Calf lying down time will average 18 hr/day from 30 to 39 days of age, 17 hr/day from 40 to 49 days of age, and 16 hr/day from 50 to 56 days of age.  Group housing systems must provide adequate space to enable all the calves to lie down for 75 to 85% of the day. To stay healthy and comfortable during that lying down time requires that calves have a clean, dry surface to lay on with ventilation that removes any ammonia near the surface of the bedding.  Ammonia levels above 5 ppm at the calf nose level are harmful.

    Bedding material is an important factor in calf comfort and type of bedding material may need to vary depending upon conditions.  During hot weather, bedding with sand can help to keep calves cool.  In cool and cold weather, calves need a bedding material that they can nest into, typically wheat or oat straw, to be able to conserve body heat, so depth of bedding is important.

    Top quality wood shavings, wood chips, and wheat or oat straw are all very good absorbent bedding materials. Corn stover, when shredded, and top quality sawdust are rated as moderate quality bedding materials. Chopping wheat, oat, or even mature hay will increase the absorbency potential.

  6. Provide Water to Baby Calves

    Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, The Ohio State University

    Even though temperatures are cooling down, continue to provide free-choice water for dairy calves. Calves are not born with a functioning rumen; they can’t digest forages until the rumen begins to develop.  It is known that grain helps rumen development and baby dairy calves are commonly offered grain as a calf starter at an early age. Donna Amaral-Phillips, Dairy Specialist with the University of Kentucky says that starting at 4 days of age calves should also be offered free-choice water along with their calf starter. 

    Offering water increases starter intake and weight gain.  In a research study that compared calves provided with free choice water to calves without water, starter intake was decreased by 31% and weight gain was decreased by 38% by calves without water.  In addition, calves that have free-choice water with calf starter get a boost in rumen development compared to calves not offered free-choice water.  Even though calves are getting water when they are fed milk, that milk does not enter the undeveloped rumen, but rather milk goes directly into the true stomach or abomasum.  In contrast, water enters the rumen and provides a moist environment that stimulates bacterial growth in the rumen.

  7. Easily Collect and Manage Calving Records in Real-Time

    Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

    A comprehensive calving management program involves many components, but one of the most important aspects for decision-making is valid and reliable records. Dairy farmers, consultants, and veterinarians often trouble-shoot calving-related losses within herd; however, the lack of meaningful records makes it difficult to implement effective corrective measures. Keeping accurate and complete records of calving-related events is key to reducing the prevalence of stillbirth around parturition and improving calf development. In many dairy herds, there are shared responsibilities for a given task, shift changes, turnover, absenteeism, and the subsequent communication challenges.

    Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann has developed eCalving™, a touchscreen application (app), for dairy producers and personnel to easily record and manage calving-related records in real-time. The eCalving™ app is currently available for Android smart devices at www.ecalving.com within OSU Veterinary Extension, and it is free of charge and available for anyone who would like to utilize this tool to aid in their decision-making process. It is important to note that the timing and accuracy of data are always dependent on the willingness and cooperativeness of the individual recording the information. This user-friendly tool requires minimal training to use, but personnel must possess sound knowledge and skills regarding calving and colostrum management (what to look for and why it is important). Training for calving personnel is available from Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann at OSU Veterinary Extension upon request to increase technical knowledge, skills, and build teamwork. The app was designed to benefit herd-specific calving management programs by helping farms keep more accurate and complete records, and to monitor personnel adherence to established protocols and standard operating procedures (SOP). The app captures those calving-related events associated with stillbirth and calf development. Novel components of the app include:

    1. Login screen for individual herds.
    2. Capture of selected calving-related events for both dam and calf (e.g., parity, breed, body condition score, hygiene of perineum, calving ease, sex of calf, presentation, and personnel).
    3. Rolling list of active cows with an alarm to monitor calving progress and time in labor.
    4. Rolling list of active calves (single or multiple) within 24 hr after birth.
    5. Colostrum management practices (quality, quantity, time of administration, calf vigor, birth weights, and personnel).

    A field study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the eCalving™app in dairy herds (Barragan et al., 2015). Calving events collected by personnel (n = 23) from 6 large dairy operations (range: 900 – 5,000 cows) were recorded. Calving personnel reported that the information provided during the training was relevant (agree = 14.3% and strongly agree = 85.7%) and of great immediate use (agree = 33.3% and strongly agree = 66.7%). The app captured calving events and integrated multiple metrics with personnel performance (accounting for the effect of shift change), such as the dam (e.g., date-time of calving), colostrum (e.g., timing, quality, and quantity), and newborn calf (e.g., presentation and vigor). The follow-up assessment with participants revealed that the app was easy to use (91.3%) and that they would like to keep using it. These findings showed that decision-makers can monitor calving events and losses (magnitude and time) at the farm level while accounting for the effect of management.

    Calving is an essential requirement of the production system in which cows initiate lactation and provide the future replacements for the herd. Too often, the success of calving management programs are evaluated only on the basis of calf survival, which substantially undervalues other factors contributing to superior management. Economic losses associated with dystocia can have severe consequences in dairy herds. It is known that dystocia increases the risk for stillbirth and maternal injury, leading to increased risk for uterine disease (metritis) and reduced milk yield and reproductive performance of lactating dairy cows (Curtis et al., 1983). Without considering medical and replacement costs, the percentage contribution of the total costs resulting from dystocic births was reported as 41% due to reduced milk yield, 33.4% due to reduced fertility, and 25% due to cow-calf losses (Dematawewa and Berger, 1997). Prevention of stillbirth (calf born dead or died within 24 hours after birth, normal gestation length) at the herd level requires an ongoing and constant effort with effective coordination of the whole system (animals, feed/water, facilities, environment, and personnel).

    Considering the diversity of production systems, adoption of herd-specific management practices is critical to prevent calving-related losses (e.g., stillbirth, dam injury, and uterine diseases) without neglecting animal welfare and profitability. When designing calving protocols within-herd, it is important to keep in mind the risk factors associated with stillbirth. Difficult births at calving, backward presentations, calf gender (male), parity (primiparous cows), season (winter and spring), and the time around the shift change (calves born 1-hour before and after) of herd personnel have been associated with increased risk for stillbirth (Lombard et al., 2007; Schuenemann et al., 2011; Hunter et al., 2013). For instance, distribution of births with respect to season (daily or weekly birth rate) and the same number of calving personnel might increase the risk for stillbirth because of increased number of cows calving per unit of time and the real possibility of late intervention (unable to assist multiple cows with dystocia at the same time). A proactive calving management program should cover at a minimum the following five areas: (1) nutrition and reproductive management of replacement heifers (from birth to weaning, from weaning to breeding, and from breeding to calving) and dry cows; (2) appropriate calving and colostrum protocols and SOP; (3) efficient training and re-training of personnel; (4) calving-related records; and (5) adequate facilities. The eCalving™ app addresses point #4 (records) and the data collected can be used to assess the human element associated with points #2 (protocols and SOP) and #3 (training).

    References

    Curtis, C.R., H.N. Erb, C.J. Sniffen, R.D. Smith, P.A. Powers, M.C. Smith, M.E. White, R.B. Hilman, and E.J. Pearson. 1983. Association of parturient hypocalcaemia with eight periparturient disorders in Holstein cows. J. Am. Vet. Assoc. 183:559-561.

    Barragan, A.A., J.D. Workman, S. Bas, K.L. Proudfoot, and G.M. Schuenemann. 2015. Assessment of an application to collect calving-related events in dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 99:39.

    Dematawewa, C.B.M., and P.J. Berger. 1997. Effect of dystocia on yield, fertility, and cow losses and an economic evaluation of dystocia scores for Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 80:754-761.

    Hunter, A., M.G. Maquivar, S. Bas, J.D. Workman, and G.M. Schuenemann. 2013. Assessment of work shift transition of calving personnel on stillbirth in Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:383.

    Lombard, J.E., F.B. Garry, S.M. Tomlinson, and L.P. Garber. 2007. Impacts of dystocia on health and survival of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1751-1760.

    Schuenemann, G.M., I. Nieto, S. Bas, K.N. Galvão, and J. Workman. 2011. Assessment of calving progress and reference times for obstetric intervention during dystocia in Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 94:5494-5501.

  8. Students Excelled at the 2015 Ohio Dairy Challenge

    Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    The 2015 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held October 30-31 and was sponsored by Cargill Animal Nutrition, Purina, Renaissance Nutrition, Elanco, and Sexing Technologies. Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped into teams of three to four individuals. Veterinary and graduate students are invited to attend the farm visit and participate in a meeting later in the evening with the contest judges to discuss observations on the farm. The farm selected for the contest this year was the Van Raay Dairy in South Charleston, OH owned by Ted Van Raay. The dairy farm began in 2004 with about 800 cows and is currently at about 2360 cows. Cows are milked 3 times-a-day in a double 36 parallel parlor. The forages consist of corn silage, alfalfa haylage, and straw. There were 56 undergraduate students (15 teams), 21 veterinary students, and 6 graduate students that participated. The undergraduate teams this year were again divided into novice and experienced divisions for judging purposes. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Friday afternoon, interviewing the owner and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. During Friday evening, the undergraduate teams spent about four hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities for the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation that had to be turned in on Friday evening. On Saturday, the undergraduate students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the novice division were:  Dr. Normand St-Pierre (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences) Michelle Lahmers (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Allen Johnson (Purina), and Bob Hostetler (Renaissance Nutrition). The judges for the experienced division were: Ryan Aberle (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Mark Armfelt (Elanco), Tom Noyes (OSU Agricultural Technical Institute staff), and Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences). The awards banquet was held on Saturday, October 31 at the Fawcett Center on the OSU Columbus campus. The top teams in the novice division were: First place – Allison Mangun, Angie Evers, and Bryanna Justice; Second Place – Jacob Triplett, David Pitts, and Britney Webb; and Honorable Mention – Victoria Cole, Alex Hurst, Dustin Meyer, Travis Simons, and Dustin White. The top teams in the experienced division were:  First Place – Logan Bauman, Clint Gasser, Jan Miedema, and Sytske Miedema; and Second Place – Amanda Crace, Sarah Harp, and Meghan Sanders. Students will be selected to represent Ohio at the 2016 National Contest and to participate in the Dairy Challenge Academy to be held in Syracuse, NY during April 7-9. Students from OSU also will be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge hosted by University of Wisconsin Platteville and Southwest Technical College in Platteville, WI February 17-19, 2015. The coach for the Dairy Challenge is Dr. Maurice Eastridge in the Department of Animal Sciences at Ohio State.

    Experienced
    First Place Team, Experienced Division (left to right): Jan Miedema, Clint Gasser,
    Logan Bauman, and Sytske Miedema.

    Novice
    First Place Team, Novice Division (left to right): Bryanna Justice, Allison Mangun, and Angie Evers.

  9. Dairy Palooza and Collegiate Updates

    Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Farm and Dairy featured a two page article about our 2015 Dairy Palooza 4-H event that has grown significantly. Servicing the needs of our dairy 4-Hers, we now offer Palooza in the northeast and the west.  Dates for next year are April 30th at the Trumbull County Fairgrounds and May 7th at the Auglaize County Fairgrounds. Many of you may be aware of this program, but take some time to view our promotional video at www.ohiodairypalooza.com.  Funded through a 4-H Foundation grant, we think you will find it entertaining as well as informative!

    Do you receive the Holstein World?  Each year, the magazine sponsors a cover photo contest based upon a current theme. This year, the Buckeye Dairy Club entry was selected as the winner.  While reading the story behind the cover, take some additional time to peruse our full page ad and also view the Club’s new video on YouTube titled ‘Buckeye Dairy Hype’.  Buckeye pride runs deep in the dairy industry and the subject of this video should be close to your heart as you see the four legged beauties who are the featured supporting cast!

    As the fall semester comes to a close, so has our dairy judging schedule.  OSU students participated in 4 major contests which includes the Pennsylvania All American, Eastern States Exposition, World Dairy Expo, and the North American Livestock Show.  The Scarlet team members are alum of the 4-H experience and include Cody Jodrey, Corey Jodrey, Laura Bond, and Colton Harstine. They earned a 4th place team finish at Eastern States and 8th place at World Dairy Expo. Cody earned All American status at Madison and was high individual in Ayrshire at Louisville with the team finishing 2nd in Ayrshire and 4th in Swiss.  At Madison, Colton was 4th high individual in Milking Shorthorn, and Laura was 8th in Brown Swiss at Expo.  A new recruit, Meghan Sanders, was high individual in Holstein at Eastern States.  Other new faces judging this fall included Louis Liming, Lorie Romie, and Ella Jackson. Upcoming in January, a team will be traveling to Ft. Worth, TX to participate in the Stock Show contest.