Amber’s Top Ten Tips: Understanding Dairy FARM Evaluations

Approximately 90% of the milk supply in the United States currently participates in the National F.A.R.M. (Farmers Assuring Responsible Management) Program. Since its inception in 2009, the program’s participation has grown to include 82 co-ops and processors from across the nation. With the program’s increase in popularity, you most likely have already participated in an on-farm evaluation. I hope the information below will help you prepare for your next evaluation and encourage you to use some of the techniques below to monitor animal well-being on your dairy.

Last month, I completed the training to become a FARM Program on-farm evaluator. As I learned more about the program, I gained a deeper appreciation for how the program aims to emphasize “Animal Care is Everyone’s Responsibility”. Is the program perfect? No, but it is an honest attempt at uniting dairy industry stakeholders to achieve a common goal: provide the best care possible to dairy animals. These days, we need to unite as an industry in order to address the challenges that lie ahead.

Let’s take a closer look at the on-farm evaluation process and techniques evaluators use to monitor animal well-being:

1. Importance of On-farm Evaluations

   Why do we conduct on-farm evaluations? What is the purpose? The basis of these evaluations is to assure consumers that dairy producers are providing optimal care to their animals and provide producers with resources to continually improve animal care.

2. Second-party Evaluation

   These evaluations are conducted by certified evaluators like me that completed the FARM Program evaluator training. The process for these evaluations will be explained in-depth below. Over 33,000 second-party evaluations have been conducted.

3. Entrance Meeting

   At the beginning of each second-party evaluation, the evaluator will ask you a series of questions about your farm. This is a perfect time for you to ask questions about the FARM program. Once the meeting concludes, the evaluator will proceed to the cow housing facilities to collect cow observation data.

4. Hygiene Scores

   Cows are scored on a scale of 1 – 4, with a 1 representing a clean cow and a 4 representing a cow that has manure on her udder/belly and up towards her back. The goal is to have at least 90% of observed animals with a score of 2 or lower.

5. Locomotion Scores

   The locomotion scoring system is on a scale of 1 – 3, with a 1 representing a cow sound on all four legs and a 3 representing a severely lame cow. The goal is to have at least 95% of observed animals with a score of 2 or lower.

6. Body Condition Scores

   Body condition is analyzed by using a scale of 1 – 5, with a 1 representing a cow with no fat cover over her tail head, short ribs, hooks or pins and a 5 representing an obese cow. The goal is to have at least 99% of observed animals with a score of 2 or higher.

7. Hock and Knee Lesion Scores

   Hock and knee lesion scores are evaluated on a scale of 1 – 3, with a 1 representing a cow that has hair loss less than the size of a quarter with no swelling and a 3 representing a cow with severe swelling and/or an abrasion. The goal is to have at least 95% of observed cows with a score of 2 or lower.

8. Closing Meeting

   After the evaluator completes his/her animal observations, the evaluation will conclude with a closing meeting. The evaluator will discuss the observations with you, share any recommended areas for improvement, and, if needed, develop a corrective plan with you. Once again, consider this meeting to be an excellent opportunity to ask questions.

9. Third-party Verification

   To maintain the integrity of the FARM program, a third-party (in this case, a company called Validus) selects a random sample of evaluated farms to verify each year. The objective is to test whether the third-party evaluators reach the same conclusions as the second-party evaluators. Approximately 750 third-party verifications have been completed.

10. Effectiveness of the Program

    A 3% improvement in cow hygiene cores occurred from 2014 to 2015, in addition to a 2% improvement in locomotion scores and a 4% improvement in hock and knee lesions.

For more information (including charts on scoring hygiene, locomotion, and body condition) visit http://www.nationaldairyfarm.com/animal-care-program

Interested about the future of water in the PNW?

Join us for the Climate Impacts to Water Conference: Managing the Uncertainties of Water Supply and Quality in the PNW

The PNW’s $21.8 billion agricultural sector ($13.2 billion for crops and $8.6 billion for animals; USDA-NASS, 2013) is vulnerable to risks associated with climate change, especially, increased pressures on water resources in arid environments because of its reliance on regional climatic factors. Severe droughts are projected in semiarid regions of the U.S. during the upcoming century (Ault et al., 2014; Steinemann, 2014). Annual average temperatures in the PNW are projected to increase by 3.3 to 9.7° F by the end of the century and availability and timing of precipitation is also expected to shift (Mote et al., 2014). Excessive spring precipitation, longer freeze-free seasons, decreases in mountain snowpack, and reduced stream flow could also reduce available water, and further stress agricultural production and management (Mote et al., 2014; Abatzoglou et al., 2014; DOE, 2011).

In the PNW, seasonal variations in water supply and demand of the Columbia River Basin have resulted in localized water shortages that are expected to increase with competing demands for fresh water resources into the future (DOE, 2011). To reduce negative economic, social and environmental consequences associated with drought, agricultural producers, advisors and managers must be better informed about regional climate projections (immediate and long-term), on-farm water management, and conservation opportunities. There is a two day upcoming regional conference—Climate Impacts to Water: Managing the Uncertainties of Water Supply and Quality—occurring on January 25-26 at Skamania Lodge in Stevenson, WA. Regional agricultural producers, agriculture professionals, consultants, educators and specialists, NRCS, local and state employees and others interested in the topic are invited to more about the consequences and management of water in the PNW. Because agricultural advisors and similar stakeholders serve as key resources to producers for information about risks and management, increasing awareness and accessibility to relevant resources through this PNW Climate Impacts to Water conference will improve abilities to address concerns about sustainable water management, and risks to production systems and local environments.

The objectives of this conference are to:

• Improve your understanding about projected climate impacts on water accessibility in the PNW, and learn about sustainable management decisions.
• Create awareness of resources for adopting strategies that will make farming operations more resilient to climate change, while minimizing impact.
• Build on the regional network of advisors and educators and take the knowledge gained at the conference and encourage adoption in the field

The areas of emphasis are:

• Regional projections of climate and water supply
• Multiple facets of water management, including agricultural and stormwater
• Water conservation practices
• Water policy, regulations and rights
• Water quality
• Social science communication concerning water

Registration and abstract information will be announced by July, 2016. To learn more about this regional effort, please contact Liz Whitefield e.whitefield@wsu.edu or visit: cm.wsu.edu/climateimpactstowaterconference

Cited Resources

• Abatzoglou, J.T., D.E. Rupp and P.W. Mote. 2014. Seasonal climate variability and change in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Journal of Climate. 27:2125-2142. doi:10.1175/JCLI-K-13-00218.1.
• Ault, T.R., J.E. Cole, J.T. Overpeck, G.T. Pederson and D.M. Meko. 2014. Assessing the risk of persistent drought using climate model simulations and paleoclimate date. Journal of Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00282.1. In press.
• Department of Ecology (DOE). 2011. Columbia River Basin: Long-term water supply and demand forecast. Washington State Legislative Report 11-12-011. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/11-12-011.
• Mote, P., A.K., Snover, S. Capalbo, S.D. Eigenbrode, P. Glick, J. Littell, R. Raymondi and S. Reeder. 2014. Ch. 21: Northwest. Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national climate assessment. J.M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (Eds.).U.S. Global change Research Program:487-513. doi:10.7930/J04Q7RWX. [Online]. Available at: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/northwest. Accessed: 2014, October 9.
• United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). 2013. State agriculture overview (WA, OR and ID). [Online]. Available at: www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/.
• Steinemann, A. 2014. Drought information for improving preparedness in the western states. American Meteorological Society Bulletin:843-847. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00067.1

Celebrating—and Learning—during Dairy Month

On June 16-17, 2016, 96 Anacortes Junior High School students, teachers, and chaperones visited the Vander Kooy Harmony Farm #2 in Mount Vernon, WA. This visit was coordinated by WSU Skagit County Extension and included 4-H staff, a Master Gardener volunteer, and WSU faculty. Representatives of the Washington State Dairy Ambassador program also participated.

Each tour day featured one busload of students in the morning and another in the afternoon; many special needs students participated. Each group of students was divided into four sub-groups that rotated between four learning stations:

Station 1: Crops and soils discussion and demonstration.

WSU Skagit County Extension Director Don McMoran taught students about soil types, soil health, typical local crops, and how manure can benefit soil fertility and health. He sent each group home with a canning jar of soil suspended in water and instructed them to set it in their classroom and watch what happens as the particles settle. The students were eager to do this.

Station 2: Insect demonstration.

WSU Master Gardener Virgene Link brought an impressive array of preserved insect specimens to share with the students. She highlighted how most insects are non-problematic or even beneficial and we should not just reach for the “bug spray” when we see an insect. Students enjoyed looking at insects under a microscope and with magnifying glasses.

Station 3: Tools of the trade.

With assistance from advisor Annie Lohman, 2016-17 Skagit County Dairy Ambassador Juliana LeClair and Alternate Dairy Ambassador Leanna DeVries engaged students with a selection of the tools and used on a dairy farm. Students were introduced to water floats, moisture meters, A.I. straws, pH meters, esophageal feeders, OB chains, and balling guns to name just a few.

Station 4: Dairy cow milking, feeding, and welfare.

WSU Livestock and Dairy Extension Specialist Susan Kerr explained modern milking practices while students watched the process in the milking parlor. They learned about milk’s journey from cow to table, steps to insure milk safety and quality, and a cow’s lifecycle of production. They watched cows willingly enter the parlor and stand quietly for milking. Next they went to the freestall housing area and watched cows eat their TMR, relax, interact, ruminate, and make milk. Ways farmers keep cows comfortable, clean, healthy, and productive were highlighted.

Some questions, comments, or myths addressed during the tour included: “I heard boy calves are killed at birth;” “My mother says things are added to milk to make it taste unnatural;” “I heard that pasteurization destroys the nutrition in milk;” “Cows only have molar teeth;” and a favorite, “Is it true that a cow could eat a human?”

Tour participants left the farm knowing where dairy products come from, what it takes to make milk, and how much producers care about cow comfort and welfare. They saw firsthand how technology and mechanization have made farms more efficient and productive, keeping food prices low. Students learned how American dairy farmers feed the U.S. and the world.

Although time consuming and a bit of an inconvenience on a working farm, such educational tours can go a long way toward dispelling common myths and misunderstandings about dairy production. If you are interested in partnering with a school in your area to host such an event and need some assistance, please contact Susan Kerr at 360-848-6151 or kerrs@wsu.edu.

Thank you, Vander Kooy family!

Beat the Heat and Save Money Doing It; Make a Plan Now to Avoid Heat Stress

It’s never too early to start thinking about management strategies to minimize the impact of summer heat on cows. It just takes one real hot period of heat to put a big dent in milk production and reproductive performance. Last summer in 2015, Sunnyside, WA saw 45 days above 90°F, and 10 days above 100°F (NOAA). Sunnyside, WA normally sees approximately 38 days above 90°F (period of 1895 to 2013; NOAA). The highest temperature last summer reached 108°F on June 28, 2015. That record hot day wasn’t in late July or early August, as normally expected, but was in June, and was also part of a 9 day stretch of high temps above 99°F degrees.

In addition to extreme heat waves, warming temperatures associated with climate change will enhance the negative impact to milk production; considering dairy cattle are extremely vulnerable to extreme high temperatures and humidity. A study investigating the impact of climate change on milk production found that concentrated dairy farming areas that are currently experiencing the greatest heat related impacts (e.g., Arizona, Florida) are also predicted to experience the greatest additional losses with climate change (Mauger, et. al., 2014). Figure 1 (below) demonstrates the loss of milk production on an annual scale comparing the historical temperature humidity index (THI) to the THI projected in 2050 with climate projections for selected concentrated dairy farming regions in the U.S. In the next 30 years, the Yakima region would expect an impact of approximately 13 lb (6kg) of milk loss/cow/day.

Adapting to hotter periods of heat, and more frequent periods of heat during the summer months is a critical reality to avoid economic losses. The USDA Economic Research Service (Key, et. al., 2014) found in 2010, that the impact of heat stress caused the average US dairy about $39,000. Climate models project that heat stress will “cause production loss to almost all US dairies, with 4 to 18 percent of dairies experiencing a loss greater than 2%” (Key, et. al., 2014). Figure 2 (below) shows a visual scale of projected temperature change for each season (Implications of Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest, Island Press, 2013). It is clear that summer will become the critical season for dairies to build resiliency on their operation, and beat heat stress.

Adapting to extreme periods of heat will prove to be the key piece to avoid harsh economic losses in a changing climate (Mauger, et. al, 2013; Key, et. al., 2014). Cooling methods such as shades, fans, ventilation and easy access to fresh water are essential to cooling cows, but the industry is seeing more and more producers adopt evaporative cooling systems to cope through the high temperatures. Some examples of evaporative cooling systems on dairies are soakers, misters, foggers, cooling stall pads and cooling barn walls. Evaporative cooling occurs when water is evaporated, and the energy (heat) used to evaporate the water cools the evaporative source (skin or the air, depending on the method). Farmers that have invested in heat stress abatement strategies say the initial investment is well worth the money, and pays for itself quickly. Take a few minutes to see how J &K Dairy farm in Sunnyside, WA made the decision to invest in soaker cooling technology by clicking on the link below.

With the periods of heat increasing, and arriving earlier in the summer and later into the fall, it is necessary that dairies are prepared to cool their cows effectively and efficiently to maintain healthy cows and keep profit margins. In the video link below, Joe Harrison (Washington State University), Jay Gordon (WA State Dairy Federation) Guillaume Mauger (University of Washington), and Jason Sheehan (J&K Dairy, LLC) are interviewed to provide information and education on the topic of climate change impacting dairy production and how producers are successfully adapting to the heat.

An adaptation guide planning workbook specifically designed for animal agriculture is available online to assist in identifying farm vulnerabilities to climate associated risks. This workbook is available to help producers, consultants and advisors make decisions to build resiliency on an individual livestock operation.

For more on animal agriculture and climate change, visit extension.org/60702

References

1. Dalton, M., P.W. Mote, and A.K. Snover, eds., 2013: Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities. Pg. 36. Island Press.
2. Key, Nigel, Stacy Sneeringer, and David Marquardt. Climate Change, Heat Stress, and U.S. Dairy Production, ERR-175, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 2014.
3. Mauger, G.S., Bauman, Y., T. Nennich and E.P. Salathe’. 2014. Impacts of climate change on milk production. Professional Geographer, doi:10.1080/00330124.2014.921017
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sunnyside Station (GHCND: USC 00458211) Record of Climatological Observations, National Center for Environmental Information, 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801 www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Results of the 2014 NAHMS Dairy Study

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). Each year, NAMHS focuses on a different aspect of the livestock industry to study. The dairy industry was studied in 1992, 1996, 2002, 2007, and 2014. A calf component was added to the 2014 study; data collection lasted from 2014-2015 and these results will be shared in a future article.

Objectives for the 2014 study were determined with input from consultants, producers, veterinarians, Extension educators, and university faculty. The selected objectives were:

1. Describe trends in dairy cattle health and management practices.
2. Describe management practices and production measures related to animal welfare.
3. Estimate within-herd prevalence of lameness and evaluate housing and management factors associated with lameness.
4. Evaluate heifer calf health from birth to weaning.
5. Describe antimicrobial use and residue prevention methods used to ensure milk and meat quality.
6. Estimate the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance patterns of select foodborne pathogens.

To kick off the 2014 Dairy Study, an extensive questionnaire was completed by participating producers, then an additional in depth, on-farm survey was conducted; this survey focused on farm usage of veterinarians and antimicrobials, among other topics. Trained NAHMS representatives also conducted on-farm cow evaluations (lameness scores, hock scores, and body condition scores) and collected samples (composite fecals, bulk tank samples, and milk filters) for testing.

Data was collected from 17 of the major U.S. dairy states and represent 77% of dairy farms and 80% of dairy cows. In Washington, 110 dairy farms were invited to complete the questionnaire, which 41 completed. Eleven farms participated in the on-farm survey, cow evaluation, and sample collection.

Dr. Jason Lombard of USDA APHIS led the dairy study and is overseeing data analysis and publications. “Dairy Cattle Management Practices in the United States, 2014” (pdf) is the first publication produced by NAHMS using the study data. The selected graphics below are excerpted from that publication. Data are reported according to production system (conventional, grazing, combination, or organic) and farm size (very small, small, medium, large). Some comparisons are made between eastern and western U.S. herds.

Operation Average Percent Cows

To address the study’s objective of estimating the prevalence of selected foodborne pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter), fecal samples were collected from various sites on participating dairies. Percent of various sized farms with at least one positive test for these pathogens are depicted in Figure 4.

Bulk tank and milk filter samples were collected to estimate the prevalence selected foodborne pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria, Salmonella dublin). Percent of various sized farms with at least one positive test for these pathogens are depicted in Figure 5.

More results will be shared in future articles. Those interested in complete results from the 2014 Dairy Study can access publications when posted on https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/monitoring-and-surveillance/nahms.

Amber’s Top Ten Tips: Feeding Forages to Pre-weaned Calves

Did you know that about 50% of dairy producers surveyed in 1992 offered hay to calves within the first 14 days of life? In 2014, only 20-30% of producers reported offering hay to pre-weaned calves and the first offering typically didn’t occur until calves were 30-58 days old. What happened? What caused the dairy industry to reconsider feeding forages to pre-weaned calves? I recently presented a talk in Lynden, WA, on these very topics.

One producer applied the information he/she learned during my talk and began offering hay to calves at seven days of age. Previously, the producer waited to offer hay until calves reached 40 days of age (calves are weaned at 80 days of age on this particular dairy). The results this producer noticed were encouraging and he/she contacted me to share the news. Not only were the calves eating more starter grain than usual, but they were also starting to eat grain at an earlier age. On top of that, calves were consuming more water than usual. We are all curious to see how these calves look a couple of months from now. Will they wean at a heavier weight? Are there long-lasting effects of feeding hay at a younger age? For now, we will just have to wait and see.

I summarized my talk into the ten tips listed below, but you may also access the video of my talk at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9XK8vyAjIM. I hope you find this information to be useful as you contemplate whether feeding forages to your pre-weaned calves would be a good fit for your dairy.

What you need to know about the advantages and disadvantages of feeding forages to pre-weaned calves:

1. Energy and Digestion.

   Starches are known to provide more energy per unit and are more quickly digested than forages. This is one reason why starter intake has been preferred over forage intake for pre-weaned calves.

2. Rumen Development.

   Another reason starter grains have been preferred over forages is because volatile fatty acids (VFAs) from forages may negatively impact rumen development. A 1962 study found that pre-weaned calves fed hay developed 63-67% fewer papillae in their rumens. The papillae, as we know, play a key role in the absorption of nutrients in the rumen.

3. Appetite.

   Consuming forages may lead to “gut fill”, where the forages suppress a calf’s appetite and less starter feed is consumed by the calf.

4. Dry Matter Intake.

   The consumption of hay during the pre-weaning period may actually lead to increases in pre-weaning (up to 15% increase) and post-weaning (up to 38% increase) dry matter intake.

5. Body Weight.

   Forage feeding in pre-weaned calves has been associated with heavier weaning weights (increases up to 9%), but not all studies support this claim. No differences in body weight have also been documented.

6. Average Daily Gain.

   A 36% increase in average daily gain was reported in calves fed alfalfa hay during the pre-weaning period.

7. Feed Efficiency.

   Offering forages to pre-weaned calves does not appear to influence feed efficiency.

8. Heart Girth.

   Calves fed hay during the pre-weaning period had slightly larger heart girths (a 2% increase).

9. Abdominal Girth.

   The addition of hay to pre-weaned calf diets has resulted in larger abdominal girths (a 6% increase).

10. Future Performance.

    Few studies have evaluated the long-term effects of feeding forages to pre-weaned calves. Our understanding, thus far, is that this diet does not impact a calf’s future performance (reproductive success or future milk yield).

Ammonia Emissions Below Levels of Concern for Human Health

A question was recently posed to WSU faculty in regard to the concentration of ammonia that might be in dairy barns and if it would present a problem for human health. The short answer is no. A national monitoring study funded by the EPA looked at ammonia emissions in dairy barns across the US. One of the locations studied was in eastern Washington.

Average concentrations of ammonia in the barn ranged between 0.16 to 2.88 pm. These concentrations are significantly below the 50 ppm (averaged over an 8-h shift) permissible exposure limit (PEL) set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the 25 ppm 8-h shift-averaged National Institute for Occupational Safety Health recommended exposure limit (REL) (NIOSH, 2011). The concentrations in the barns also were considerably lower than the NIOSH 15-min REL of 35 ppm. These data indicate that even in the rare event that a farm worker is in the barn for an entire 8-h shift, there should be little safety or health concern from exposure to ammonia.

Amber’s Top Ten Tips: Understanding Group Housing in Calves

Have you considered transitioning your current calf management practices towards a group housing system? I would not be surprised if the thought has crossed your mind at least once. Dairies throughout the country have recently paid more attention to the concept, and why wouldn’t they? With the prospects of reductions in labor expenses and improved animal welfare, this type of system sounds appealing; however, group housing presents its own challenges for successful calf rearing. For now, let’s put aside the financial aspects of group housing and focus on how pair or group housing systems impact calf behavior, health, and growth. The next time group housing crosses your mind, please take the following tips into consideration.

What you need to know about the advantages and disadvantages of pair/group housing in pre-weaned calves:

1. Social Interactions

   Upon introduction into larger post-weaning groups, pair-housed calves exhibit more (up to 71%) social behavior than calves housed individually.

2. Aggression Behavior

   In social environments (such as post-weaning groups), calves housed in pairs and groups are 32-60% less aggressive towards other calves than calves housed individually.

3. Acceptance of Novel Foods

   Group-housed calves are, on average, 50% more likely to begin eating novel foods before individually-housed calves. Why does this matter? Dairies adjust their rations throughout the year (possibly including the addition of unique feedstuffs), in which cows must adapt to diet changes.

4. Time Spent at Feeder

   Pair-housed calves spend 26-59% more time at the feeder than individually-housed calves.

5. Visits to the Feeder

   Upon introduction into larger post-weaning groups, pair-housed calves are 42-82% more likely to attend the feed bunk before individually-housed calves.

6. Heart Rate

   A lower (about 13%) heart rate was measured in pair-housed than individually-housed calves when they were exposed to a novel environment. Why does this matter? An increased heart rate is associated with the physiological stress response, leading to potential detrimental impacts on cow health and production.

7. Respiratory Disease

   Individually-housed calves are 57-71% less likely to develop respiratory disease than group-housed calves, in general (this is highly dependent on the size of groups).

8. Antibiotic Resistance

   The odds for antibiotic resistance in E.coli is 50% lower for calves housed individually than calves housed in groups.

9. Starter Feed Intake

   Pre-weaning starter feed intake is typically higher (about 37%) in pair-housed calves than individually-housed calves. Post-weaning intake also tends to be higher (about 18%) in pair- or group-housed calves.

10. Average Daily Gain –

    Improved average daily gains have been noticed in pair-housed (14% increase) and group-housed (16% increase) calves over individually-housed calves.

Let’s Keep It Clean, Folks

Iatrogenic, (eye-AT-ro-JEN-ick), adjective. “Of or relating to illness caused by medical examination or treatment” (The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, 2009).

Are your medication handling and storage protocols a source of iatrogenic illness on your dairy? With so many uncontrollable factors dairy farmers have to deal with (fuel prices, weather, feed availability, etc.), it may be comforting to learn that a few simple practices can greatly reduce the likelihood of problems resulting from contaminated medications.

The photos used in this article are NOT from Washington State dairies and some are not even from the U.S. Nevertheless, they illustrate breaches in sanitation that can happen anywhere if shortcuts in best practices are taken due to haste, lack of training, or lack of concern about routine preventative measures.

Photo 1a shows an unsurprising source of medication contamination: manure. Controlling external contamination of medications with manure is a good practice for at least two reasons: it reduces the likelihood of transferring fecal organisms into the medication itself (Photo 1b) or other surfaces. Other surfaces include human hands (then water faucets, handles, countertops, etc.), thus putting human health at risk. It is easy to become complacent about surface contamination on dairies—note the coffee mug in Photo 1a—but small actions to improve sanitation may prevent large health problems with animals down the line.

Problem: Medication contamination with manure.

Solution: For medications commonly used cow-side that can be kept at environmental temperatures, consider keeping them in a washable plastic flip-top cooler to keep them clean.

Storing medications according to the manufacturer’s label instructions is critical. Upon arrival or purchase of any medications or vaccines, storage instructions on the label should be followed immediately. Only draw up or mix enough vaccine that can be administered within 30 minutes; remaining vaccine and/or un-mixed components should be kept according to label instructions (usually cool) until use. Keep thermometers in medication storage areas and monitor storage temperatures regularly; do not purchase vaccines over-the-counter if the business’s refrigerator temperature is not within vaccine label parameters (Troxel et al. 2009).The vaccines in Photo 2 were left at room temperature overnight, rendering them useless and a waste of money.

Problem: Improper vaccine storage temperature.

Solution: Unless using them within 30 minutes, keep vaccines stored as instructed on the manufacturer’s label.

Photo 3 depicts medications kept in a refrigerator—they have been protected from dirt and manure (yay!) but the refrigerator was not working (boo!). Photos 2 and 3 also illustrate another all-too-common sanitation no-no: leaving a needle and syringe inserted into a medication bottle top for a prolonged time. Dust and other debris can enter the syringe chamber and contaminate it. Also, the rubber stopper top is not able to “repair” itself from the needle’s insertion. Many individual needle insertions can weaken a rubber stopper, leave large holes that can permit contamination, and even send small rubber fragments into the medication. Using a “nurse needle” (see below) is a practical way to protect the integrity of a rubber stopper medication top and address sanitation concerns.

Problem: Leaving needle and syringe inserted into medication bottle for prolonged periods.

Solution: use a nurse needle for each session of medication use and never leave needles in bottle top rubber stoppers for prolonged times.

Steps to Keep New Medications Sterile

1. Flip metal, plastic or foil cover up but do not detach.
2. Clean top of rubber stopper with alcohol.
3. Crack open and insert a new nurse needle into medication top, retaining plastic cap (Photos 4a, 4b, 4c); do not remove the nurse needle from the rubber stopper top until the last dose is drawn up for a group of similar treatments of the same medication or vaccine.
4. Attach a new syringe to the nurse needle and draw up the required dose of medication or vaccine.
5. Detach filled syringe from nurse needle and leave nurse needle in top of bottle.
6. Cover nurse needle hub with the plastic cap while injecting cattle.
7. Use a new needle for each individual animal.
8. When it is time to refill the syringe, use the nurse needle still in the medication top: attach same syringe to nurse needle, draw up dose(s), detach syringe from nurse needle, leave nurse needle in medication top, attach new needle to syringe, inject next animal, repeat.
9. The nurse needle can be used for an individual animal injection after the last syringeful of medication or vaccine has been drawn into the syringe.
10. If possible, fold metal, plastic or foil cover down to original position to protect medication bottle’s rubber stopper until next use. A protective cap of aluminum foil or plastic wrap could also be applied and rubber-banded in place.

Save the plastic hub after opening needle and use it to cover nurse needle while not in use.

Not everyone who works on a dairy farm has previous experience with livestock medications, including proper care, handling, and storage (Photo 5). Correct use of medications should be part of all new worker training and presented by someone fully aware of all aspects of sanitation and correct use. Through effective training and modeling of correct behavior, sanitation practices can easily become habits for new workers.

Problem: Lack of attention to medicines and their importance, handling, and storage.

Solution: teach employees about the crucial role medications play in animal health and train them about proper medication handling and storage.

Proper medication handling, storage, and use will save money, reduce product contamination, increase the likelihood of treatment success, and reduce iatrogenic illnesses. Dairy farms are busy enough without having to treat problems that could have been prevented through simple sanitation practices.

Reference

• Troxel, T.R., and B.L. Barham. 2009. Case Study: The Temperature Variability of Refrigerators Storing Animal Health Products. Professional Animal Scientist 25:202-206.

Check Your Forage for Nitrates

The recent heavy rains that have followed a summer of record heat have created a situation where we could see high nitrates in forages harvested in late August and early September.

The dry July and August likely resulted in soil that was low in moisture and did not allow soil microbes to effectively convert manure nitrogen into nitrate for uptake by forages.

Now that we have seen record rainfalls in recent weeks, the soil microbes have the moisture they need and are likely active again and converting organic nitrogen into nitrate.

If your forage is high in nitrate, it is possible for as much as 50 % of it will get converted to ammonia when in the silo. While this reduces the risk of nitrate on the animal, the silage will likely have high levels of soluble nitrogen. The higher level of soluble nitrogen in the diet can be a challenge for ration formulation.

Consider sending samples of the fresh cut forage for a nitrate test, and if high, be ready to have the silage tested for nitrates and soluble nitrogen prior to feeding.

CUDS Update – WSU Cooperative University Dairy Students

The cooperative University Dairy Students are going strong with 13 new and continuing members. The herd continues to improve its productivity, reproductive performance and milk quality. They averaged between 87 to 90 lbs/d all summer and maintained over a fat test of over 3.6 and protein over 3.1. The SCC is routinely under 100,000.

Their attention to reproduction has been so diligent that they are now milking 12 fourth and fifth lactation cows out of a herd of 40! The pregnancy rate is consistently over 20%. They have one 90+ excellent Holstein, one 86 VG heifer and several animals classified over 85.

Current members are: Marcy Bartelheimer, Emily Beebe, Joe Britt, Chandler Byington (President), Parker Byington, Jennifer Callanan, Megan Chihak, Teresa Erwin, Kevin Gavin, Landon Macy, Dana McCurdy, Grace Montgomery, Maite Muse, Meghan Nyquist, Shane Reed, Conrad Reisenhauer, Lindsey Richmond, Kelby Stadt, Stephanie Van Volkenburg, Mark Vetter, Gavin Voelkers, and Kristen Wedam. The CUDS faculty advisor is John McNamara.

The undergraduate dairy program at WSU is going strong!

No Longer on the Horns of a Dilemma

Dairy producers know dehorning or disbudding of dairy cattle is a long-established best practice that benefits human and animal safety and welfare. With a growing research base supporting the need for and effectiveness of pain control during these routine practices, progressive producers are wondering if and how they should change their horn removal protocols.

Destroying horn buds by either caustic paste, burning, or gouging have long been the primary means of disbudding calves. Within the past decade, many studies have shown the use of local anesthetic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories are inexpensive and effective ways to control disbudding-related pain in calves. The use of a sedative has the added benefit of reducing the stress calves experience when handled for disbudding.

Day-old calves are not yet very active and usually unable to scratch their head with a hind foot. They are also often placed in single-calf housing. Both these factors help make disbudding with caustic paste on Day 1 of life safer because risk to non-target tissues of the calf or other animals is minimal.

A protocol to consider, developed after a discussion with beef and dairy veterinarians:

1. Make sure the day-old calf has a good meal before starting. Your veterinarian may recommend adding a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory to the bottle.
2. Sedate the calf (ask veterinarian about medication and dosage).
3. Block nerves with local anesthetic (again, consult veterinarian). Allow adequate time to pass before completing procedure.
4. Clip hair around horn bud. A very close clip with clippers will allow use of less paste or burning time and less unnecessary tissue death will occur.
5. If disbudding via gouging, switch to caustic paste or burning because these methods have fewer complications.
6. If disbudding via burning, burn until a ring of tissue around the bud base has turned a uniform copper color; burn the bud itself as well.
7. If using caustic paste, create an outer ring of petroleum jelly to confine paste to horn bud area. Use a designated syringe to apply a thin dime-sized amount of paste to the entire horn bud and base if hair has been clipped close; a thicker and larger area of paste may be needed if hair has not been clipped close. Scratch the horn bud and its base with the tip of the syringe to roughen up the targeted tissue a bit.
8. Administer anti-inflammatory if not done before the procedure.

If caustic paste is used, some veterinarians recommend wiping it off with gauze after 1 hour, others say after 24 hours. The paste should have done its work after just a few hours and removal will reduce the risk of damage to non-target tissue. Also, if calves nurse from dams instead of a bottle, do the procedure after the evening meal and separate the cow and calf; remove paste before returning the calf to its mother.

Consult with your veterinarian for more information about medications that can reduce calfhood stress and pain related to disbudding, including medication names, dosages, routes of administration, and any withdrawal times.

A few added suggestions:

• Protect calf from precipitation after paste application so paste doesn’t run down into eyes
• Cover paste with duct tape if calves are in groups or if there is anything they could rub paste on and contact with another part of their body
• Always use gloves when using caustic paste and avoid contact with human skin and non-target animal tissues; wash off promptly if paste contacts non-target tissue.
• If inexperienced about disbudding, learn from someone who is experienced and effective
• If disbudding with cautery, the key to success is to keep the iron HOT, HOT, HOT.

Try to prioritize disbudding at an early age by making it a routine part of neonatal calf processing. Disbudding calves at 1 to 2 days of age gets this important task accomplished and out of the way so calves can get on with the business of eating, growing, and staying healthy.

A bi-lingual publication that describes another disbudding protocol is available from Oregon State University Extension.

Whatcom County Dairy Education Opportunities

If you have free time between 2:00 and 3:00 pm on November 15 and will be in the Lynden area, drop in at the Fairway Café for a no-host pie, coffee, and chat session with other producers and regional Extension Specialist Susan Kerr. No reservation needed. Among other things, we’ll set the date for future such gatherings.

• November 16, 2015 Meet, Greet and Eat, Fairway Café, Lynden, 2:00 PM
• January 20, 2016 Dairy Producer College, Lynden, Mt. Baker Rotary Building

Amber’s Top Ten Tips: Managing Cold Stress in Calves

Now that we made it through one of our hottest summers on record, it’s time for us to turn our attention towards the cold weather that lies ahead. The average mortality rate of heifer calves is approximately 8% on dairies in the United States. Of course, higher incidences of calf morbidity and mortality occur during cold weather conditions when calves expend additional energy to regulate their body temperature, which leads to less energy available for health and growth functions. Take a look at the following tips on calf management during cold weather and consider them as you prepare for the upcoming winter.

What you need to know about cold stress in dairy calves:

1. Calf Jackets

   Using calf jackets or blankets during a calf’s first two weeks of life increases the calf’s insulation by 52% and may increase average daily gain by up to 0.2 lbs./day.

2. Thermoneutral Zone

   A calf’s thermoneutral zone is the range of environmental temperatures in which a calf does not need to use additional energy to maintain its body temperature. The thermoneutral zone is 50 – 78 °F for calves less than one month old and 32 – 78 °F for calves more than one month old.

3. Nesting Scores

   

   To conserve body heat, calves will burrow their bodies into their bedding (nesting behavior). The ability for calves to exhibit this behavior is scored according to a three-point scale. A nesting score of one means that the calf’s legs are completely visible when the calf lies down; whereas a score of two implies that the calf’s legs are partially visible. Ideally, each calf should receive a score of three so that the calf’s legs are completely covered with bedding.

4. Water Intake

   Calves need access to at least one to two gallons of clean water every day and offering warm water at least twice a day during cold weather may help calves maintain their internal body temperatures. Restricted water access may decrease weight gain by 38%.

5. Milk Feedings

   Increasing the number of milk feedings to three times per day or increasing the amount of milk offered by 30% will help ensure that calves have the energy they need when they need it.

6. Fat Supplementation

   Adding supplemental fat to calf diets during cold weather conditions have been linked to increases in calf growth during the first three weeks of life.

7. Housing

   Calves need to be sheltered from wet and windy conditions, but adequate airflow is still necessary to minimize ammonia build-up. Ammonia concentrations should be less than 10 ppm (parts per million).

8. Physiology

   Winter calves have respiration rates and heart rates higher (8.8% and 4.4%, respectively) than calves born in the summer.

9. Behavior

   Lying behavior decreases by up to 37% when calves are provided wet bedding versus dry bedding. This information encourages us to keep the bedding deep and dry.

10. Hypothermia

    Shivering and blood shunting (diverting blood flow from the calf’s extremities) are two mechanisms a calf’s body uses to increase muscle heat production and reduce heat loss during cold weather. Early signs of blood shunting in a calf include a cold nose and cold hooves.

Best to be Ready for an Early Corn Silage Harvest This Year

There is no question that this year has been warmer than normal for a majority of locations within the Pacific Northwest. As a result of the increased mean daily temperatures, we are also seeing a rapid increase in the amount of accumulated heat (growing degree day units – GDUs) required for corn maturation. It is only July, but it is time to be thinking about corn silage harvest. Since 2015 has proved to be one of the hottest years on record, temperatures from Snohomish, Lynden, and Sunnyside were assessed to determine the rate of GDU accumulation for 2015 compared to a “historical” period of 2008-2014.

We utilized data what we called historical data for the time period of 2008 to 20014, and compared that to data through July 9^th of 2015. The data shown in figures 1, 2, and 3 show that the accumulative GDU by July 9 of this year was at 163%, 165%, and 157% of the 2008 to 2014 average for Snohomish, Lynden, and Sunnyside, respectively.

Corn silage should be harvested according to stage of maturity as judged by milk line development and moisture content of the plants. Getting out in the field early and monitoring the stage of maturity of corn silage will be important to ensure that harvesting is done at the correct time. Walk out in the field and look at a few ears to see what the maturity is now. Get your harvest equipment ready or be in touch with your custom harvester to make sure they are prepared for an earlier harvest.