Buckeye Dairy News: Volume 8 Issue 6

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

On November 20, 2006, the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Federal Order Branch, announced changes to the Class IV and Class III pricing rules. These changes are to the make allowance values, i.e., those values, expressed on a dairy product pound basis, which processors are allowed to deduct before arriving at the fat, protein, other solids and skim solids values to be paid to producers. You can access the complete Federal Order decision document at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/proposals/classIII_IV_make_all.htm

I have posted a copy of the expected price impacts by components and milk class on my Ohio Dairy 2006 website at this address: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ . The bottom line is that milk producers will begin receiving less value for their milk as early as February 2007, or possibly March 2007. A positive referendum will require a 2/3 majority of producers voting individually or block voted by their cooperative association to approve the changes. Remember, that as stipulated under Federal Order procedural rules, the vote is to approve the new language authorizing the increased make allowance values. A 'no' vote is a vote to terminate your Federal Order. Not a small matter to consider.

Looking ahead, the time-line for implementation on this decision is:

November 22, 2006: Federal Register publication of the Tentative Final Decision (TFD) is adopted on an Interim Final and emergency basis. The 60-day comment period started on November 22, 2006 and runs to January 22, 2007. With the finding of an emergency basis, there will be a referendum concluded no later than 30 days from November 22, 2006, which was December 21, 2006. On December 22, a producer YES or NO vote is recorded. If the TFD is approved, then sometime shortly after this date, a Interim Final Rule(IFR) will be issued and the make allowance changes can go into effect for as early as February or March 2007. After the comment period closes on January 22, 2007, the comments will be reviewed and a Final Decision will be issued. This will be followed by a second referendum and the issuance of a Final Rule.

There are two very important items on the Federal Order agenda. On December 5, 2006 in Washington DC, the USDA held an information program on the issue of class pricing rules and proposals it has received for more changes to these pricing rules. Also scheduled for December 11, 2006 in Pittsburgh, PA, there was begun a national hearing on proposals to change Class I and Class II pricing rules. If you would like more information on these hearings, contact your Federal Market Administrator at 330-225-4758.

Dr. Naomi Botheras, Animal Welfare Program Specialist, The Ohio State University 

Traditionally, most dairy cattle lived on one farm from birth to death. However, transportation of young animals has now become a routine management practice on many dairy farms. Heifer calves are frequently moved off the farm to separate rearing facilities within the first week of life, and then perhaps moved again during the first year, before returning to the farm prior to calving. Furthermore, most bull calves are also transported off the farm very early in life, typically either to a grower facility to be raised for veal or dairy-beef production. Research suggests that handling and transport can be a severe stress for animals, and the welfare of calves may be at particular risk during transport. The welfare of calves during handling and transport has been comprehensively reviewed by Trunkfield and Broom (1990), and several other reviews of cattle transport are also available (Tarrant, 1990; Hemsworth et al., 1995; Grandin, 1997; Knowles, 1999; Eicher, 2001).

Transportation can be subdivided into several elements: handling, loading and unloading, mixing of unfamiliar animals, confinement and space limitations, unfamiliar environment, feed and water deprivation, fluctuating and/or extreme temperatures, and motion of the vehicle during transit. The ability of the animal to cope with these elements of transport varies with age, and importantly, the immune status of the animal influences the animals' coping response.

Loading and Unloading

Two of the greatest difficulties with handling and transporting very young calves are that they are often unable to walk without assistance, and they also fail to display following behavior, thus preventing them from being effectively herded. Consequently, these young weak animals are often difficult to handle and herd, and in many cases, forced movement results in the calves being mishandled and roughly treated when trying to move them on the farm and load and unload them from transport vehicles. Use of an electric prod or biting dogs to force calves to move, and throwing or dragging calves on or off trucks, all represent totally unacceptable ways of managing young calves. Loading and unloading of calves appear to be the most stressful stages of transport, as indicated by rises in the blood concentration of the stress hormone cortisol during this transport event (Trunkfield and Broom, 1990; Eicher, 2001). Calves find it difficult to navigate ramps and inclines, and calves often fail to remain upright during unloading from trucks, particularly if the unloading ramp is steep. The welfare of calves falling or sliding down a ramp is compromised, and in many situations, bruising may also occur, with welfare and economic consequences. In one study of 7,500 transported calves, an average of 80% of calves failed to remain upright during unloading from decks with a ramp incline of 18.8° (Bremner et al., 1992), and in another study of 16,400 transported calves, 50% of the calves had bruised stifles (McCausland et al., 1977).

Mortality and Shipping Fever

Transportation of calves has been shown to increase mortality rates of calves (Hemsworth et al., 1995; Knowles, 1995). However, few calves usually die during transport, but succumb to a secondary infection within the following 4 weeks. Neonatal animals are usually immuno-suppressed, and this makes it more difficult for the animal to cope with the additional stress of transport. A strong negative correlation exists between age at transport and mortality rate, such that mortality rates are reduced as calf age at transport increases. While death is an extreme consequence of transport, the welfare of a significant number of other calves is also likely to be compromised when mortality rates are high. Transport or shipping fever, also known as bovine respiratory disease, is generally considered to be caused by stress-induced changes in the immune system during transport, which increases susceptibility to viral and bacterial infections. Hence, transport may increase the rates of illness and disease. Furthermore, preliminary evidence suggests that calves are particularly vulnerable to transport stress at 4 days of age. Calves shipped at 4 days of age show a much lower immune response and ability to fight pathogens than calves transported before and after that age, suggesting that transporting calves at 4 days of age should be avoided.

Weight Loss

During transport, calves may lose weight. It appears that this weight loss results from food and water deprivation, and defecation and urinary losses, which can lead to acute dehydration and hypoglycemia (Trunkfield and Broom, 1990). Calves that are subject to long journeys are increasingly susceptible to acute dehydration and chronic hypoglycemia, and transportation is often associated with problems of scouring, which in turn may also lead to dehydration. Electrolytes given orally during or after transport, or subcutaneously after transport, have both been found to be beneficial, particularly in the young calf. The major effects are reduced dehydration, earlier return to interest in eating and improved growth rates, immune stimulation, and reduction of losses in both liveweight and carcass weights (Knowles, 1999; Eicher, 2001).

Physical and Environmental Effects

Neonatal calves prefer to lie down during transport, so sufficient space needs to be provided to allow animals to do this. A suitable bedding material, such as straw, also needs to be provided so the animals are comfortable, warm, and dry. Calves have little natural tolerance of the cold, so protection from wind chill and rain during transport in cold weather is very important. However, adequate ventilation must still be maintained to ensure suitable air quality. Care must also be taken when handling and transporting calves in hot weather, and particularly, if it is also humid. It may be necessary to reduce stocking density in such conditions, and extra patience when moving animals to prevent overexertion is important. The length of the journey, and thus the length of feed and water deprivation also need to be considered. It is suggested in the Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Land Transport of Cattle (2002) that all calves must be fed as close as possible to, and at least within 6 hours of, the time of transportation, and calves must not be deprived of appropriate liquid feed or water for more than 10 hours in total, including the mustering and holding period prior to transport, the actual transport, and the time after unloading. The Canadian Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: Transportation (2001) recommends that calves be provided with suitable feed and water at least every 12 hours. The metabolic (feeding) needs of the young calf have been linked to critical body temperature, so the need to maintain the critical temperature of the neonate is apparent. Colostrum also increases a calf's tolerance to cold temperatures.

Conclusions

Transport has various effects on the calf, and the evidence suggests that many are adverse. The extent to which calves are able to cope with transport, and the extent of their suffering, are questions which must be answered if good welfare of calves in transit is to be ensured. Due to the difficulties in handling and transporting very young calves, and the associated welfare (and economic) risks, it has been suggested that calves should not be transported until they have dry, withered navel cords, and that they must be fit and strong enough to be transported, i.e., calves must be bright and alert, robust, and able to rise and walk without assistance (UK Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order, 1997; Canadian Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: Transportation, 2001; Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Land Transport of Cattle, 2002). The importance of all calves (heifers and bulls) receiving an adequate quantity of high-quality colostrum as soon as possible after birth, preferably within one hour, also cannot be emphasized enough. Providing an adequate volume of high-quality colostrum is critical to calf health and is the single most important factor to prevent illness of young calves. Studies have indicated that as few as 20% of calves entering veal production units in the United States have acquired adequate transfer of Immunoglobulin G from colostrum (Wilson et al., 1994).

Dr. William B. Epperson, Extension Dairy Veterinarian, The Ohio State University 

Footbaths are used as a tool to assist in control of infectious diseases of the claw and interdigital area of the foot. Foot rot and hairy heel warts are the main infectious diseases of the foot, and each respond only partially to footbath use. Both diseases are directly related to the level of environmental hygiene. Footbaths are generally viewed as helpful when disease is present at a low (<10%) level. When more animals are affected with disease, such as hairy heel wart, other methods must be employed for treatment.

Environments that are mostly free of manure buildup offer very little challenge to foot health, and therefore, require less footbath use and maintenance. If more than 50% of cows are clean (area between coronary band to ½ way up hock shows only small drop splashing of manure), then footbath use may be constrained to 2 days/week or much less. This might be typical of well managed tie stall housed cows. Many dairy farms with freestalls will not have this level of hygiene (though it can be achieved) and will require footbath use the majority of days, and maybe continuously. Obviously, a focus on frequent cleaning will improve hygiene, and will improve many aspects of health - foot, mammary, and reproductive.

If footbaths are necessary, consider targeting higher risk groups to limit costs. Early lactation cows seem most at risk for infectious foot disease, so intense use of footbaths for cows in this stage of lactation may be justified. Later lactation cows may require 50 to 75% the frequency of footbath use as for the early lactation groups.

Improving design and function of footbaths may improve their effect and limit the need for repeated treatment. Size the treatment bath to be at least 8 and preferably 10 feet long. Maintain a 5-inch solution depth. Locate the bath in the return ally, far enough away from the parlor to avoid a "cow jam" leaving the parlor.

If feet are clean entering the bath, the disinfectant solution has a better chance to work. A 2 stage footbath is an option, with the first stage footbath being water and detergent to clean the feet, followed immediately by the treatment footbath containing the active disinfectant.

When not in use, route cows around the footbath. If that is not possible, put something in the footbath. An empty footbath can create a manure pit cesspool that cows must walk through.

Using chemicals strategically can also limit disinfectant costs. Footbath solutions really have 2 potential functions: 1) assist in simple cleaning of the foot, and 2) disinfect the skin of the interdigital space. These are separate functions, and each contributes to foot health.

Soaps and rock salt are among those additives that assist mostly in cleaning. When dispersed in water, they help remove debris. This is helpful in exposing the foot to oxygen and inhibiting the bacteria that typically produce foot rot and heel warts. But, they have little disinfecting action.

Disinfectants include copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, formalin, and a number of commercial products. Antibiotics are sometimes used in footbaths when a heel wart outbreak is occurring. Antibiotic use in footbaths is an extralabel use and requires veterinary direction. Following a course of antibiotic treatment, footbaths are then maintained with a disinfectant. Most footbath chemicals are effective for around 150 to 200 cow passes.

Copper sulfate at 5 to 10% has been the most common disinfectant used in footbaths. Substituting a cleaning agent for copper sulfate on some days will reduce use. Additives can also be used to extend copper sulfate (check with your chemical/equipment supplier). Some acid additives claim to allow a lower concentration of copper sulfate (i.e. 2%) to be used. Ask your supplier about effectiveness of the products; some available products have little efficacy data available, so it may be difficult to predict which ones will work.

Zinc sulfate at 5 to 10% can be used to replace copper sulfate, but it is hard to get dissolved into solution when mixed with cold water. Again, there are commercial solutions containing zinc sulfate that alleviate this problem. Some commercial solutions, such as Double Action (West Agro, Inc.) have been tested and shown to be effective in footbaths, and may be used as replacements. Formalin (2 to 5%) is used in footbaths, but it should be handled with caution, as it is a carcinogen and irritant. While formalin does appear to be an effective disinfectant, its use in a food production setting is difficult to justify.

Dr. Steve Boyles, Extension Beef Specialist, The Ohio State University

Dairy cows are a major source of beef. Cows marketed to slaughter can represent up to 15% of a dairy's income. Meat packers are implementing Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point plans and are focusing on the quality of cattle coming into the packing plant.

Dairy producers contribute to the beef supply through elimination of cull cows and bulls (non-fed beef). Approximately one-third of the total non-fed beef production originates from dairy cows, and one-half of all cows processed for beef in the U.S. are dairy cattle. Dairy producers were losing approximately $70 for every cow and bull marketed due to quality defects.

Some people think that the beef from cull cattle is used for ground beef. Products from the rib and round areas are used to form deli and steak sandwich meats. Ribeye steaks and tenderloins from cull cows and bulls are marketed to "family" steakhouses. There are strategies that producers may use to prevent monetary losses and improve the quality of beef from culled animals.

Injection Site Lesions

A Colorado State University (CSU) study found 58% of rounds from dairy carcasses had at least one injection site. A majority of these abscesses were in the back of the leg and were the result of intramuscular injections. Avoid intramuscular injections when possible (i.e., use subcutaneous). If no alternative exists, consider injecting products in the neck or shoulder region. No more than 10 cc of any product should be administered in any one-injection site.

Drug Residues

Dairy cows and veal calves are the two classes of cattle with the greatest violation of antibiotic residues according to the USDA National Residue Monitoring program. Withdrawal time is often not the same for meat and milk.

Lame Cattle

An average of $70 is lost for every disabled or non-ambulatory cow processed. Processing costs increase because of carcass trimming due to increased bruising and the likelihood that the carcass will be condemned. Decrease the incidence of downer cows by selling cull animals prior to deterioration of health.

Hide Damage

Hide defects among dairy cows cost producers $5.21 per head, or 16.6 million dollars annually. Damage to hides usually results from brands, scratches, and (or) insect/parasite infestation. Eliminate sharp, protruding objects in milking and handling areas. An external parasite program should reduce insect and parasite damage to hides. If possible, move the brand from the rib to the rump region and this will reduce the amount of leather that tanners have to remove from the hide. Most folks don't want your cow number in the middle of their leather car seat!

Body Condition

Cows in poor condition are more susceptible to bruising. Cows with excess body fat must be trimmed in order to market a more desirable carcass. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) audit calculated the following value losses due to carcass characteristics:

Source: NCBA/CSU, 1999.

Consider putting market cows that are in poor body condition on feed for a short time before marketing them. Feed the refusal feed from the milking string plus a little grain. If a cow is lame, it gives her time to heal. Keeping them on a dirt lot would be great.

A Cornell study found that fattening cows from 70 to 90 days prior to marketing could add body weight, result in a more desirable fat color, and give producers the opportunity to watch for higher market price days to sell.

Summary

Dairy cows at the end of their productive lives have been considered cull cows. These cows can contribute one last time to the bottom line of a dairy farm.

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Wooster 

Growing and staying healthy - 2 universal objectives for raising calves from birth to weaning. As the seasons change, so must our management practices to achieve these two goals. Why?

First, a calf is born with approximately 3% body fat. There is barely enough of that fat available to the calf to meet her energy requirements for the first 18 hours of life. Colostrum has twice the level of fat than normal milk to start addressing the calf's need for energy at birth.

Second, there is a finite range of temperatures where an animal does not require additional energy to simply maintain the body. In other words, the body functions properly, but neither gains nor loses weight. Calves are the most sensitive to external temperatures of any bovine age group.

Newborn calves (from birth to 7 days,) have a lower critical temperature of around 55°F. In other words, when the temperature in their environment drops below 60°F, Calves require additional nutrients to simply maintain their body temperature (and weight). After the first week of life, they can handle a few more degrees of cold.

How much extra milk or milk replacer is needed simply to maintain body weight? The following table shows the increasing amounts of 20:20 (Protein:Fat) milk replacer required to meet maintenance requirements of different size calves at varying environmental temperatures.

Remember, these increases represent maintenance requirements. We also want the calf to grow. Additional milk replacer or milk must be fed to achieve your desired growth rates.

Ms. Laurie Winkelman, Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University 

Eight dairy youth from throughout Ohio had the opportunity to travel this fall as members of the Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging Team. Two teams comprised of 4 youth per team represented Ohio at 3 national competitions in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Madison, Wisconsin; and Louisville, Kentucky.

The dairy judging season started with an intense practice over Labor Day weekend. Eleven youth vying for 8 team spots traveled to Timonium, Maryland and judged more than 20 classes at the Maryland State Fair. After a few more local practices, the teams were selected and continued preparation for the national contests.

The first competition was the All American 4-H Dairy Cattle Judging Contest in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in the middle of September. The Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging team placed 3rd overall (tied for 2nd, with tie broken on oral reasons), with 15 teams competing in the contest. The team placed 3rd in linear evaluation, 4th in Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, and Holstein, and 3rd in Jersey.

At the Harrisburg contest, the team was led by Neil Duncan from Warsaw, Ohio (Coshocton Co.). Duncan, who is a first-year student at OSU-ATI in Wooster, placed 5th overall, 1st in linear evaluation, 1st in Jersey, 10th in Guernsey, and 13th in oral reasons. Kaleb Kohler of Baltimore, Ohio (Fairfield Co.) placed 11th overall, 9th in Ayrshire and Guernsey, and 12th in oral reasons. Joel Bourne of Ansonia, Ohio (Darke Co.) was 13th high individual overall. Rounding out the team was Matthew Weeman, freshman in the Department of Animal Sciences at OSU, from Orrville, Ohio (Wayne Co.) placed 3rd in Ayrshire and was 27th overall.

The same four youth represented Ohio at the National 4-H Dairy Judging Contest at World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin during the first week of October. The team placed 8th overall out of 31 teams. The team placed 11th in Ayrshire, 13th in Brown Swiss, 8th in Jersey, 9th in Holstein, and 6th in Jersey.

At the Madison contest, the team was again led by Duncan who was the High Individual Overall. The last time Ohio 4-H had a high individual in the contest was in 1999, when OSU alumnus Emily Stammen from New Weston, Ohio (Darke Co.) won the contest. Duncan was also 16th in Brown Swiss, 11th in Guernsey, and 15th in Holstein.

Weeman placed 29th overall and was 5th in Jersey. Kaleb Kohler of Baltimore, Ohio (Fairfield Co.) placed 17th in Ayrshire, 20th in Brown Swiss, and 20th in oral reasons.

Four different youth made up the Ohio 4-H team that competed at the North American International Livestock Exposition 4-H Dairy Judging Contest in Louisville, Kentucky during the first week of November. In a challenging contest, the team placed 8th out of 23 youth teams. In breed competition, the team placed 5th in Holstein and 7th in Jersey.

The Louisville team was led by Jason Miley of West Salem, Ohio (Wayne Co.). Miley placed 16th overall and was 10th high in oral reasons. He was also 8th in Holstein. Other team members included: Sherri Gress, sophomore in the Department of Animal Sciences at OSU, of Wooster, Ohio (Wayne Co.) who placed 38th overall, 30th in oral reasons, and 19th in Holstein; Tom Grim from New London, Ohio (Lorain Co.) who was 3rd in Brown Swiss; and Amanda Hoover from Tiffin, Ohio (Seneca Co.) who placed 9th in Ayrshire.

This year's team had support from numerous businesses and individuals, including the Ohio Purebred Dairy Cattle Breeders' Association, COBA/Select Sires, Smith Dairy Products Co., and Brewster Cheese. The Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging Team is coached by Laurie Winkelman, the Dairy Program Specialist at The Ohio State University. If you would like more information about becoming a part of the Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging Team, please contact Ms. Winkelman at 614-688-3143 or email winkelman.6@osu.edu.

2006 4-H Louisville team: Tom Grim (Lorain Co.), Amanda Hoover
(Seneca Co.), Sherri Gress (Wayne Co.), and Jason Miley (Wayne Co.).

Matthew Weeman (Wayne Co.), Joel Bourne (Darke Co.), Neil Duncan
(Coschocton Co.), Kaleb Kohler (Fairfield Co.), and Laurie Winkelman, coach.