FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK — WHY DON’T MY COWS READ THE
RATION PRINTOUT?
This question is =
asked
jokingly whenever the herd’s milk production is less than predicted
according to the ration formulation. We often obsess over ration formulatio=
n:
Do we have sufficient effective NDF? What is the NDF digestibility? What ab=
out
starch content and starch digestibility? And let’s not forget the rat=
io
of lysine to methionine. All of these questions=
are
critically important, but let’s not forget the non-dietary factors th=
at
also impact milk production. &n=
bsp;
Research reported=
last
year in Journal of Dairy Science (Bach et al., 2008) evaluated the
effect of several non-dietary factors on milk production. In this study, 47
herds with similar genetics were all fed the same diet. A common facility
blended the total mixed ration and delivered it daily to the farms. The ave=
rage
milk yield for these farms was 66 lb/d, but the milk yield varied by +/-=
29
lb/d! This large range in milk production primarily reflected differenc=
es
in management among the farms because diet was the same and genetics were
similar.
In fact, these
researchers found that four management factors accounted for 56% of the
variation in milk yield. These factors were: 1) age at first calving, 2)
feeding for refusals, 3) feed push-ups, and 4) stalls per cow. Stocking den=
sity
of the stalls by itself explained about 32% of the variation in milk yield
among these dairy farms. It is almost a cliché to say that managemen=
t is
critical, and we all know the difference in productivity between well and
poorly managed dairy farms. But, this research really quantifies the potent=
ial
magnitude of this “management&#=
8221;
effect on milk yield. I also find it interesting that 3 of the 4 factors
identified by these researchers relate directly to cow comfort and well-bei=
ng.
A
few years ago we found that resting time explained 31% of the variation in =
milk
yield across several nutrition studies conducted at Miner Institute. Is it a
coincidence that stall stocking density and resting time have virtually the
same strong relationship with milk yield? I don’t think so. In fact, =
it
makes good sense that these two factors would be related since stall stocki=
ng
density and the resulting competition for stalls will influence resting time
among cows and subsequent milk production.
As
I’ve written before, a fundamental consideration is the impact of the
management environment on the critical time budget behaviors of the dairy c=
ow:
feeding, resting, and rumination. For instance, we all know that rumination
responds to dietary particle size. But, we also must remember that increasi=
ng
stall stocking density from 100 to 140% may reduce rumination by up to 2
hours/day. This reduction is similar to that observed when cows are fed a d=
iet
of 14% peNDF versus 21% pe=
NDF
(which is about as wide a range as can practically be formulated for dairy
cows). Other non-dietary factors known to reduce rumination include mixing
first-calf heifers with mature cows, excessive time spent in headlocks,
uncomfortable resting areas, and heat stress. These
factors reduce rumination anywhere from 15 to 20+%. Poor management will al=
so
compromise natural feeding behavior and limit resting time.
The bottom line h=
ere is
that milk yield and herd health drive profitability of a dairy farm. Nutrit=
ion
is important, but non-dietary factors (what we commonly call
“management”) modify the herd response to diet. For cows to
“read” the ration print-out correctly, they need the right
environment.
— Rick Gran=
t,
grant@whminer.com
AMINO ACID NUTRITION —
BEYOND PROTEIN SYNTHESIS
Throughout
2009, I have regularly contributed articles to the Farm Report that
focused on protein and amino acid nutrition of dairy cows. It is hard to
believe that I am now sitting down to write my very last article for 2009. =
Time
flies when you are having fun, and we do have some fun here at the Institut=
e.
In 2010, I'll branch out into other topics, so I will wrap up this 2009 ami=
no
acid series with a topic that I get very excited about: Uses of amino acids
beyond protein synthesis.
As I have written several times, amino acids are the building blocks for
protein synthesis, but amino acids are also used for other functions in the
body. Some of the additional metabolic uses of amino acids are:
Arginine – Used for=
creatine synthesis, which acts as=
a reservoir
for high energy phosphate in muscle tissue. For this reason, creatine supplements are very popular among body buil=
ders.
Histidine<=
/i> – Used for
production of histamine, which is used for many functions including
inflammatory reactions, body temperature regulation, and blood pressure
regulation.
Isoleucine=
, leucine,
and valine – Important energy sources for skeletal
muscle.
Leucine
– Signals for protein synthesis to occur in cells.
Lysine – Used for synthesis of carnitine,
which transports long chain fatty acids into mitochondria. The mitochondria=
of
cells are where fatty acids are oxidized for energy in the form of ATP.
Methionine=
– Used for
synthesis of S-adenosylmethionine, which
is the primary methyl donor for transmethylation
reactions in the body. Transmethylation
reactions are necessary for numerous functions in the body, including synth=
esis
of purines and pyrimidines=
,
which are the bases used for DNA and RNA production.
Tryptophan – Catabolism of tryp=
tophan
results in the production of tryptophan catabolites
which are involved in immune function in many different ways.
This l=
ist is
not comprehensive as there are additional uses for these and other amino ac=
ids,
but this list highlights some of the specific uses of amino acids. In addit=
ion
to these specific uses, all amino acids can be catabol=
ized
for energy in the body, and most amino acids (the exceptions are leucine and lysine) can be used for glucose synthesis.
Amino acid use for glucose synthesis in dairy cows is particularly interest=
ing
for cows in early lactation, where intake is low, but glucose needs for lac=
tose
synthesis are increased.
One question that I certainly have and you may also have: How are the
different uses for amino acids regulated in the body? As far as I know ther=
e is
no clear answer, but understanding this information is critical to further =
our
knowledge of amino acid nutrition of dairy cows and maybe even improve our
prediction of production responses to amino acid supplementation at various
stages of lactation. Answering these questions and delving into these issues
should keep people like me busy in 2010.
On a final note in 2009, I would like to extend my wishes to you and yo=
ur
families for a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous and healthy New Year!<=
/span>
— Sarah Boucher,
boucher@whminer.com
NOBODY ASKED MY OPINION, BUT...
I saw a recent newspaper headline that read “Panda Mating Fails;
Veterinarian Takes Over” and thought, “What a guy!”
Every time yet another politician talks about a “rooftop highway&=
#8221;
linking Plattsburgh and Watertown, I think it’s much like hopes for w=
orld
peace; a nice idea perhaps, but don’t hold your breath waiting for it=
to
happen.
I think it was a great decision to
dedicate Miner Institute’s dairy research facility to former Institute
president/ERN (Eminent Ruminant Nutritionist) Charlie =
Sniffen.
An honor well deserved.
That
said, I am somewhat less enamored of the suggest=
ion by
certain Institute staff members to name the new composted manure area after=
me.
Very funny, guys.
— E.T. <= o:p>
ORDERING ALFALFA SEED
It
looks like there will be good seed supplies of most of the top alfalfa
varieties for 2010. Long-time readers of this newsletter are aware of my
positive opinion on alfalfa variety traits, specifically potato
leafhopper-resistant (LHR) varieties. In checking the current list of avail=
able
alfalfa varieties, there are a baker’s dozen (13) of LHR varieties on=
the
market that are suited for northern climates (fall dormancy 2,3, and 4), in=
cluding
at least one – WL353LH – that’s a seventh generation
resistant variety.
Plant
breeders evaluate alfalfa varieties for many characteristics and traits, but
among the more important for farmers in the Northeast are fall dormancy, wi=
nter
hardiness and leafhopper resistance. What about disease resistance? DonR=
17;t
be overly concerned about disease resistance traits, simply because it̵=
7;s
just about impossible to find a modern alfalfa variety that’s not<=
/u>
resistant to all five of the alfalfa diseases for which ratings are usually
reported.
Do the newest LHR varieties have similar yield as the top non-LHR ones?=
We
don’t know, simply
because it takes a few years for a new alfalfa variety to go through the
university trials. You certainly don’t want to base purchase decision=
s on
first-year results – especially for LHR varieties, since it takes par=
t of
the seeding year for the resistance mechanism to become fully effective.
We’re
also limited because many university trials tend to compare LHR varieties, =
with
limited comparisons between LHR and the top non-LHR varieties. But e=
ven
if there still is a bit of “yield drag” – and if there is,
it’s pretty darned small – I still prefer LHR varieties.
That’s all we planted at the Institute during my last five years or so
there. You can control potato leafhoppers with insecticides, but that requi=
res
regular scouting and your being both willing and able to drop everyt=
hing
and apply an insecticide when needed. Finding leafhoppers at threshold leve=
ls
on Monday and spraying on Friday won't cut it.... Finally, beneficial
parasites, including both native and introduced species, are doing a dandy =
job
of controlling both alfalfa weevils and alfalfa blotch leafminers.
What will insecticides do to these populations? You don’t want to find
out.=
— E.T.
CORN HYBRID MATURITY
This
is an old refrain, but one worth repeating: As you order corn hybrids this
winter, pay close attention to Relative Maturity (RM) ratings. It really ge=
ts
old watching farmers chop dough-stage corn year after year, leaving both yi=
eld
potential and silage quality “in the bag,” so to speak, because
much of the problem starts with hybrid selection.
Every year in loo=
king at
Cornell’s corn silage hybrid trial results I'm impressed at how well =
many
early-maturing hybrids yield when compared to hybrids that are 10 days or so
later in RM. You’re giving up very little in yield – and nothin=
g in
quality – by selecting hybrids that will reliably mature un=
der
your crop management. Note the italics: If you routinely are still plan=
ting
corn in early June while your neighbor is usually done by May 20th, your
“correct” hybrid maturity isn’t the same as your neighbor=
's.
And if you've planted corn in June each of the past few years, chances are =
real
good that June 2010 will find your fanny in the tractor seat, planting corn=
.
Regardless
of planting date, unless you're planting into droughty soils make sure you =
drop
enough kernels to wind up with at least 30,000 plants per acre (final stand=
).
High population is especially important with early-maturity hybrids, and you
might even want to bump up population a bit. Now is the time to consider th=
is,
since you may need to order a few more bags of seed.
—
Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com
FROST TILLAGE
We
had some (much-needed) good November weather, but there still might be more
land going into winter that’s normally fall-tilled but this year was =
not.
Some of this land, including most sandy loam soils, can wait for spring til=
lage
with few if any adverse effects. However, most clay loam soils greatly bene=
fit
from fall tillage, since plowing in the spring often results in a very clod=
dy
seedbed. Spring plowing clay loams when they are too wet can result in
season-long problems.
Though
frost tillage is seldom done in this region, this may be the year to look f=
or
the opportunity to try it on some of these still-unplowed fields. This won'=
t be
possible if we get snow cover prior to a crust of frost, but if conditions
permit it may be worth the effort. The idea is to have enough frost to supp=
ort
your tractor while you're still able to get the plow into the ground. Often
this occurs the morning after a clear, cold night.
Don't
try frost tillage on fields with a lot of wet holes; these freeze later than
the better-drained areas and you’re almost certain to bury your tract=
or
in one of them. Frost tillage isn’t for the faint of heart or the sho=
rt
of temper, and sooner or later you might get stuck, so make sure you have
“Big John” or another 4WD tractor of sufficient size available =
to
extricate yourself. If you try frost tillage and it works (Wow!) we’re
always interested in hearing success stories.
— E.T.
SOUTHERN
EXPOSURE: GRASS
I
try to obey the Ten Commandments, including the one about not coveting my
neighbor’s stuff. I’m really good about not coveting his ox or =
his,
uh, donkey, but I occasionally covet my
neighbor’s lawns. Or to be more accurate, my neighbors’
lawns, since I have long been a serial coveter of lush green lawns. The law=
n at
our first house was the result of continued mowing of an old hayfield, and
after 40 years of mowing it still looked it. Here in
One
of the great things about coveting lawns down here is that there’s ab=
solutely
no way it can result in any work for me. The Bride has a green thumb to the
extent that I think she could plant Easter eggs and grow bunny rabbits, but=
she
also has a green tongue: “Honey, please dig this up.” “Pl=
ease
plant this.” “Please cut down this big old limb.” (In case
you were wondering what I was doing when I fell off a ladder in October.) So
admiring lawns is a risk-free endeavor, just what the doctor ordered in my
currently debilitated state. However, my fractured wrist is healing, spring=
will
eventually arrive and Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it
twice...
Wishing you all the joys and blessings of the holiday
season.
— E.T.
COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE'S
NEW VERY GOOD FRIEND
There’s
an old adage, “When God closes a door, He =
opens
a window.” In the October Farm Report, we commented on the pas=
sing
of Dr. Norman Borlaug, who was widely considered “The father of the G=
reen
Revolution.” Borlaug was a loyal friend to agriculture, actively
promoting the use of commercial fertilizers, while having some distinctly
uncomplimentary things to say about organic farming as a way to feed the wo=
rld.
Now that he’s gone, who will stand up for modern farming technology?<=
/span>
Why,
none other than the world’s richest man, Bill Gates, that’s who!
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have already given over $1 billion=
to health and food programs for some of the world’s poorest people. N=
ow
he’s going to the source – farmers – in announcing a $120
million package of agriculturally-related grants to nine institutions around
the world. At the recent World Food Prize Symposium in Des Moines, Iowa, in=
his
first major address on agriculture, Gates called on governments, researcher=
s,
environmentalists and others to “set aside old visions and join
forces” to help millions of farmers. He said that
“Environmentalists are standing in the way of feeding humanity through
their opposition to biotechnology, farm chemicals and nitrogen fertilizer. =
The
fact is, we need both productivity and sustainability — and there is =
no
reason we can’t have both.”
When Bill Gates s=
peaks,
people listen – both inside and outside of normal agricultural circle=
s.
Perhaps it has something to do with his approximately $40 billion of net wo=
rth.
Maybe he should be nominated for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, yeah,
that’s right – they already gave that to somebody…
— E.T.
DEVELOPING DROUGHT TOLERANT CORN
We don’t think about drought-stressed co=
rn
that often in the Northeast, but in places like the
Plant breeders are developing drought tolerant
corn using molecular breeding and map-based cloning techniques. These metho=
ds
determine the best maize genes for drought tolerance, isolate the genes, and
move them into top performing hybrids by traditional breeding or through
genetic engineering. Research showed that drought tolerant hybrids had abou=
t a
5% yield increase over susceptible hybrids. Drought tolerant corn could be
available as early as 2010 or 2011.
NEW HERBICIDE
FORMULA MAY INCREASE
EFFICACY & REDUCE LOSSES
Researchers at the Institute for Natural Resou=
rces
and Agrobiology in
Many herbicides are water soluble and are subj=
ect
to leaching and runoff, thus reducing their effectiveness on weeds and
increasing the risk of off-site losses. Laboratory tests showed that organo-clay formulations of diur=
on
(used extensively in olive groves) had lower leaching losses and maintained
activity longer compared to a standard formulation. Field tests are being d=
one
to confirm the laboratory results.
The hope is that this technology can be cost-effectively developed f=
or
additional herbicide chemistries.
BE THANKFUL FOR YOUR
MANURE
Have you ever est=
imated
the fertilizer value of a load of liquid dairy manure? In these tough econo=
mic
times it’s a good exercise. It might surprise you that a load (4,500
gallons) of liquid dairy manure is worth about 2 cents per gallon if you
consider the N-P-K value alone. That may not sound like much, but at $90 (4=
,500
gal x $.02/gal) a load, it’s not exactly peanuts. How do you figure? All you need is a manure analysis =
and
some recent fertilizer price quotes.
For N, it was assumed that 50% of the ammonia-N will be available and 3=
5%
of the organic-N would be mineralized. Incorporating manure within a day wi=
ll
get most of the ammonia-N, but wait a week or more, and most of it will be
gone. The 35% N mineralization value for manure is a ‘book’ val=
ue
that’s based on the average over the growing season and varies in rea=
lity.
As with fertilizer N, there is obvious uncertainty in trying to estimate ma=
nure
N contribution. Considering that N use efficiency values (amount of N appli=
ed
that actually ends up in the harvested crop) for fertilizer N are typically=
low
(~50%) to begin with, there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes =
to
accurately predicting N availability in general.
So wha=
t about
P and K assumptions? In this example it was assumed that all of the P in the
manure would be available to the crop, which is a stretch. Some of the
inorganic and organic P in the manure will be rapidly fixed by the soil and
unavailable to the crop. The =
same
is true for fertilizer P. In fact, organic compounds in manure can actually
help P availability by binding metals like iron and aluminum that fix P.
Inorganic and organic P in manure both contribute to greater plant availabl=
e P
over the cropping season and also build soil test P. The K in manure is
equivalent to fertilizer K availability. This is because K doesn’t ha=
ng
out in organic forms like N and P, so manure K essentially substitutes for
fertilizer K on a one-to-one basis.
— Eric Young,
young@whminer.com
SUMMARY OF FORAGE FRAGILITY & RUMINATION RESPONSE 2009
I've been debatin=
g what
to write for this month's "Farm Report from the Forage Lab". My f=
irst
thought was to present a summary of our Forage Fragility, NDFD and Ruminati=
on
Response work. I've been presenting this via Power Point to a number of gro=
ups
this year, and many of you have already heard this info. I kept asking myse=
lf
what would be most pertinent for producers right now and started to list wh=
at I
thought were their/your priorities. Well, milk price for one and the cascad=
e of
bankers and loan officers, fuel and feed costs, labor issues now with the c=
all
for I-9 documentation of the “alien” labor force, CAFO and nutr=
ient
and pollutant regulations, weather affecting delayed corn grain harvest aro=
und
the nation and possible effects on quality and cost of dry down, I am sure =
you
can add to this list. The poi=
nt
being that nutrition may not be at the top of your concerns right now. So, let me be brief:
Our measurement of forage
fragility using the slow grind Ball Mill method lacks precision. As yet, the
method does not clearly predict animal chewing response. We continue to
investigate the method and plan to modify it by grinding to multiple time
points in order to determine a rate of particle size reduction.
Chew fa=
ctor is
not simply a matter of particle size and peNDF,=
but
depends on the source of the fiber.
Same-sized pieces of grass, alfalfa, corn and straw require different amoun=
ts of
chewing, when expressed as minutes chewing/unit of NDF consumed by the anim=
al.
This di=
fference
in chewing is likely related to NDF digestibility. The more digestible, the
less chewing required. We're still working on determining that relationship=
in
order to adjust peNDF values to better reflect =
animal
chewing response and subsequent rumen health.
If you =
need to
increase ration peNDF, yes, straw works better =
than
coarse grass hay. Adding 2.5 lbs of NDF from straw required 3 lbs as fed, b=
ut
3.6 lbs of grass hay. Even at those amounts cows chewed 25 minutes/day long=
er
on the straw diet, a significant difference both statistically and in terms=
of
rumen buffering through saliva production.
There s=
eems to
be a critical mass of supplemental NDF required to optimize chewing respons=
e,
which we have yet to determine. In other words it took more than 1 pound of
straw to increase chewing response; on paper 1 lb looked sufficient. Even a=
t 3
lbs of straw we could not determine a difference in diets based on lab
analyses, but the cows increase in chewing behavior indicated that they are
more sensitive than our lab assays.
Given the current economic
situation it may not be prudent to purchase straw if coarse hay is availabl=
e.
It will just require more pounds in the ration than straw.
Lastly, our inten=
t in
these articles is to provide insight and information that is helpful and
immediately applicable on farm. Our aim is to better serve the dairy indust=
ry
and in that regard we ask you for your thoughts on what we should be
researching to help answer questions that you may have out in the field or =
in
the barn. Feel free to suggest research topics, or ideas how we may better
serve you.
Best Wishes for a=
Happy
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
— Kurt Cota=
nch,
cotanch@whminer.com
WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE FARM
Anna and Steve
won’t be making their usual contribution this month, so I’ll ta=
ke
this opportunity to make a few comments. After some crummy fall weather, the
sun came out and dried fields up enough to allow quite a lot of manure to be
spread on Institute fields. This is important, not only because it’s
critical to get the level down in the main slurry pit, but because many fie=
lds
—both leased and recently purchased — are very low in fertility=
and
really need a coat of manure.
Miner Institute&#=
8217;s
DHI rolling herd average is now 31,450 lbs., with components (butterfat plus
protein) just over 2100 lbs. Now that I’m far removed from the daily
management of the dairy operation, I can say some good things about it with=
out
blowing my own horn, so to speak. And there are so many good things to say!=
In
order to fully appreciate what it takes to reach this level of production, =
you
need to realize that there’s always ongoing research in the herd,
sometimes several studies at one time, including cows being moved from one
group to another for research purposes — and you know how cows hate
change. Occasionally, the impacts of this research on milk production are
negative — such as with the highest density group in a study of free
stall stocking density. In spite of this, the Institute has been able to
maintain high production for a long time, and production has continued to
increase. (I would say “continues to increase,” but then produc=
tion
would drop like a stone next month, and the barn crew would blame it all on=
me
for jinxing the herd.)
Not to be lost in=
all
this is forage quality: As I continue to tell the barn crew, “It must=
be
the forage.” (This is easier to say when everything is going so well.)
But in all seriousness, the change in Institute agronomists (and the absenc=
e of
an agronomist for the better part of a year) sure didn’t seem to both=
er
the cows much, did it! That’s because there was a good plan in place,=
and
good people to carry it out, both in the field and in the barn. Well done, =
guys
and gals.
— E.T.
2010 WINTER DAIRY MANAGEMENT WORKSHOPS
surveillance tools. Workshop =
topics
and presenters include:
Money on the Table—Workshop Focus, Case Farms and Your Farm’=
;s
Data: Dr. Jerry Bertoldo and Collin McCarthy, N=
WMY
Dairy & Field Crops Team: John Conway, PRO-DAIRY; and Joan Petzen, Wyoming CCE.
Catching all sorts of pathogens at “Stage 0” —
QMPS’ new bulk tank surveillance program. Tonya=
Van Slyke, Dr. Frank Welcome, Dr. Linda Tikofsky,
Dr. Gary Bennett and Dr. Mike Zurakowski, QMPS.=
Foot health assessment and root cause
diagnoses: Kathy Finnerty, NYSCHAP; Dr. Paul
Medicine & Diagnostic Sciences; and Frans <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Vokey, Lewis CCE.
Herd health and animal well-being audits: Finnerty and Virkler.
Your Farm’s Surveillance Data — Q &=
amp;
A with all presenters.
Most
workshops run from 10:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. and include lunch. Registration=
is
$25 per farm. For more information, contact the appropriate extension agent=
.
![](3D"2009_12_files/image001.gif")
|
Date |
Location |
Contact |
Phone |
Email |
|
Jan. 11 |
|
Colin McCarthy |
585-394-3977 |
cgm2@cornell.edu=
|
|
Jan. 12 |
|
Jerry Bertoldo |
585-343-3040 |
grb23@cornell.ed=
u |
|
Jan. 13 |
Portageville |
Joan Petzen |
585-786-2251 |
jsp10@cornell.ed=
u |
|
Jan. 14 |
|
Lisa Kempisty |
716-664-9502 |
ljk4@cornell.edu=
|
|
Jan..
15 |
|
Kerri Bartlett |
607-664-2300 |
ksb29@cornell.ed=
u |
|
Jan. 18 |
|
John Conway |
607-547-2536 |
jfc6@cornell.edu=
|
|
Jan. 19 |
Richfield Spring=
s |
Dave Balbian |
518-762-3909 |
drb23@cornell.ed=
u |
|
Jan. 20 |
|
Sandy Ferry |
518-746-2560 |
slf10@cornell.ed=
u |
|
Jan. 21 |
Chazy (Miner) |
Emily Myers |
815-353-4949 |
erm35@cornell.ed=
u |
|
Jan. 22 |
|
Frans Vokey |
315-376-5270 |
fjv2@cornell.edu=
|
VARIATION IN LYING BEHAVIOR OF DAIRY COWS
Much
of our behavioral research at Miner Institute has focused on evaluating how
management factors can influence the ability of cows to meet their daily ti=
me
budget needs, which includes between 10 and 14 hours lying per day. Stocking density (the number of co=
ws per
freestall, headlock, or both) has constituted o=
ur
primary variable of interest, but other researchers have established the
effects of several other aspects of management, including stall base (softer
equals more lying), bedding amounts (more increases lying), stall width (wi=
der
is better), brisket board location (cows prefer no brisket board), and stall
management (cows prefer clean, dry stalls).
A recently published article in the Journal=
of
Dairy Science (Ito, K., D. M. Weary, and M.A. G von Keyserlingk.
2009. Lying behavior: Assessing withing– =
and
between– herd variation. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4412-4420.) by researchers from the
The
time spent lying over the course of 5 days was recorded for 2,033 cows on 43
different farms in
&=
nbsp; Overall,
cows spent 11 hours per day lying spread across 9 distinct lying bouts. There was only a small amount of
between-farm variation; the range was from 9.5 to 12.9 hours per day and fr=
om 7
to 10 bouts per day. Converse=
ly,
there was a substantial amount of variation among the individual cows measu=
red. Lying times ranged from 4.2 to 19.5
hours per day spread across 1 to 28 bouts per day. The inclusion of 3 days of lying t=
ime
provided an accurate estimate of the mean lying time and mean lying bouts
recorded over the full 5 days. The
ability to estimate lying behavior was diminished by reducing the data
collection period below 3 days. The
overall means were based on the data from 50 cows, which represented
approximately 50% of the cows housed in the average size pen included in th=
is
study (ranging from 26 to 100% of the cows within a pen). It was later established that redu=
cing
the focal group to 30 cows would provide an estimate that was 90%
accurate. Finally, there was =
no
relationship between either CCI or SUI and mean lying time, however, the me=
an
values recorded (75% and 58%, respectively) were far below the current benc=
hmarks
(85-90% and 75%, respectively).
&=
nbsp; The
data presented in this study is very interesting for several reasons. Potentially the most valuable conc=
lusion
that may be drawn from this data is that it might not be possible, or
desirable, to establish a requirement for the number of hours of rest per d=
ay
to maintain health and productivity.
This also suggests that the value of measuring CCI and SUI is not to
estimate lying times, but ensure adequate access to fr=
eestalls
to provide each cow with the number of hours of rest that she requires. Next, the results of this study su=
ggest
that individual cows have much greater variation than specific management
practices. This may mean that=
as
the technology to monitor individual lying times becomes more readily avail=
able
for on-farm applications, tracking deviation from an established norm may be
more meaningful than ensuring a set number of hours is met. Finally, these data indicate that =
the
lying behavior of 30 cows for 3 days should be measured to gain a reliable
estimation of the mean lying times for that pen.
— Peter Kra=
wczel,
Krawczel@whminer.com
VET’S CORNER: ENDOMETRITIS, A CAUSE OF EEM?
Endometritis<=
/span> is costing the dairy industry mil=
lions of
dollars and is worthy of attention. Nearly all cows have bacterial
infection of the uterus in the first 2 weeks postpartum. If the immune syst=
em
returns to normal after calving and the degree of bacterial infection is not
overwhelming, a majority of cows will naturally overcome infection and have
normal fertility. Unfortunate=
ly,
approximately 15 to 20 percent of dairy cattle will have clinical endometritis, with a further 30 percent experiencing
subclinical disease.
So what syndrome are we=
talking
about? Clinical endometritis is the sick =
cow
syndrome seen in the first two weeks after calving which has an enlarged ut=
erus
and watery brown, fetid discharge. Subclinical e=
ndometritis
tends to occur later after calving and does not cause the cow to have fever=
or
go off feed. The subclinical form is defined as a mucopurulent
discharge detected within the vagina after 26 days postpartum.
Rectal palpation of fre=
sh cows
has been the most popular method used to diagnose subclinical endometritis. Since too many cases are missed b=
y this
method, rectal palpation is not considered to be a sensitive method of
diagnosis. Ultrasound technology is useful in identifying some, but n=
ot
all cows with endometritis. Ultrasound co=
mpares
unfavorably to two new methods, but will continue to be evaluated in combin=
ation
with one or both of the new tests.
Va=
ginoscopy is a useful method, which picks u=
p three
times as many cases as rectal palpation but still misses 40 percent of
subclinical cases. The advantages of vaginoscopy=
are that it is amendable to routine on-farm use and allows for immediate
action. The other new test is interuterine
flush or cytobrush cytology which requires skil=
led
manipulation of the uterus and lab stain and microscopic exam. A
combination of these techniques promises to be the most accurate predictor =
of
subclinical endometritis.
So why do we have to wo=
rry
about subclinical endometritis? Can’=
;t all
cows just receive two prostaglandin (PGF) injections and be cleaned out eno=
ugh
to breed? For PGF to bring a cow into heat and evacuate the uterus, a
palpable CL must be present for the PGF to lyses. Many high productio=
n or
subclinical ketosis cows don’t have a CL until four weeks in milk or =
much
later and the PGF treatment won’t work. Okay then, if PGF
doesn’t work all the time, why not just infuse all cows with Oxytet? Like most of the other intrauterine pro=
ducts,
it is poorly absorbed into the deeper layers of the uterus. How many
times after infusion have you seen the mucous clear up and return to pus fl=
akes
a few weeks later? This indicates a need for a more appropriate treat=
ment
and timing of the PGF injection.
Last month, it was stat=
ed that
over 80 percent of breedings produce fertilized=
ova,
but if half make it to 40-day pregnant stage, it is considered to be high
fertility. In addition to the reasons for EEM given last month,
subclinical endometritis should be added to the=
list
of causes. If you avoid heat stress and rough handling at the time of
A.I. service, provide proper transition cow housing and diet, and breed on
properly timed synch programs or standing heat and are continuing to have p=
oor
Conception Rates; a more extensive
investigation for the occurrence of subclinical endome=
tritis
by vaginoscopy or uterine cytology could be
warranted.
—
Northwest Veterinary Associates, I=
nc.
Hugamoo@comcast.net
WILLIAM H. MINER: THE MAN AND THE MYTH
Joseph Burke&=
#8217;s,
new biography, William H. Miner: The Man and the Myth presents this
legendary philanthropist of
In 1891, the 29-year-old
William Miner patented a tandem spring draft gear that cushioned the shock =
and
strain of train motion on the wooden railroad cars of the day. Two million =
cars
eventually carried a pair of those gears. In 1897, he opened an office in t=
he
A=
fter
losing their only child shortly after birth, William and his wife
The book can be purchas=
ed at www.whminer.org or by cal=
ling
(518) 846-7121. For more information, call or email dutil@whminer.com.
Closing Commen=
t
The=
trouble
with doing it right the first time is that
nobody appreciates how difficult it was.