Letter from the Editor

I hope this newsletter finds you excited for the holidays and hopeful for the New Year. This past year was an unprecedented one full of historical moments, some we cherish and some we hope to forget. In spite of the challenges we faced this year, the strength of the Washington State dairy industry never waned. In fact, some of my favorite moments from this year occurred at the Annual Washington State Dairy Conference this month. Watching everyone enjoy each other’s company and exchange a bit of banter was priceless. Witnessing how the Washington dairy industry family pulled together to help each other during the latest flood disaster reminded me why I enjoy my job so much. The people in our industry bring joy to my work.

This joy was similar to the joy our WSU Animal Sciences students experienced when they returned to campus for in-person classes this semester. As you know firsthand, skills in Animal Sciences are best taught hands-on. Teaching a student how to milk a cow just isn’t the same when you are trying to explain it over a video conference. We are so grateful we were able to offer our classes the way they were intended to be offered, in-person and hands-on. The semester has now come to a close and the campus is once again quiet. I am hopeful that the new semester will open new doors for our students, including opportunities to meet you and learn about your experiences.

Time is invaluable. Thank you for setting aside time to read our newsletter. We hope you enjoy the articles and find the information to be helpful. If you have any suggestions for future article topics, please send them to me at amber.adams-progar@wsu.edu. Happy Holidays!

Amber Adams Progar, Associate Professor and Dairy Management Specialist

Cooperative University Dairy Students enjoying the 2021 Washington Dairy Conference

A Note from the Animal Sciences Chair

At last, this December there was an opportunity to meet in person with members of the WA Dairy Federation during the annual meeting at Wolf Creek Lodge, Grand Mound, WA. Having served as Chair of Animal Sciences at WSU for slightly over a year now, this was my first opportunity to attend this event and meet the great people. While the devastating impacts of the recent floods were certainly a topic of conversation and concern, there was also plenty of optimism, progressive ideas and shared wisdom. For me personally, I experienced great enthusiasm for the proposed efforts with respect to sustainability initiatives, carbon credits and market growth. WSU Animal Sciences intends on contributing to these efforts and advancements as an important component of our land-grant mission. I was overwhelmed by the welcome and support by members; as so many approached and introduced themselves and importantly expressed their willingness to work with WSU. We have a vision to upgrade our Knott Dairy Center, provide more internships for our undergraduate COUGS, grow our graduate program and maximize our research. It is important that WSU Animal Sciences and our dairy industry partners strategize on where we can proceed as a unified team, vested in the sustainable dairy industry. Thank you all, for your hospitality, I look forward to learning from each of you and building upon our long-standing commitments to one another. Happy holidays, and best wishes for an exceptional 2022.

Gordon K. Murdoch, Professor & Chair WSU Animal Sciences

Estrus detection: an overview of technologies used in dairy farms and their effects on productivity and profitability

Marcos I Marcondes¹, Erollykens F. Santos², and Lucilaine M. Veline²

¹Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA

²Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Vicosa, Vicosa-MG, Brazil

The constant search for improving technical and economic indexes in dairy farms leads us to understand how crucial reproductive efficiency is and how it impacts profitability. Heat detection is associated with total milk production and is the main trigger to the entire reproductive process. Thus, the objective was to evaluate the productive and reproductive impact of using three different types of estrus detection techniques: visual estrus identification, rump detectors (ink or tapes), and electronic detectors (collars or pedometers) on dairy farms.

Visual estrus observation was the most used for years (Marques et al., 2020). In addition to being a traditional and widespread method among producers, it does not require an initial investment for application. However, with visual observation, even with an experienced observer, it is challenging to achieve service rates above 80%, even if the observation is carried out three times a day and for at least 30 minutes (Hansen, 2002). For this reason, it is necessary to associate visual observation with more effective technologies of heat detection. For example, in studies carried out by Mayo et al. (2019), the percentage of identification of visual estrus was 54%, while the percentage of identification through electronic markers was 79%. In general, an increase in service rate is noted when any heat detection technology is employed compared to visual detection.

However, the adoption of detection technologies initially increases property costs. Thus, a careful economic analysis should be carried out before implementing new technologies on the farm. Therefore, we performed a simulation of comparing visual detection, rump detectors, and electronic detectors in a stabilized herd of 200 cows after ten years of using the technology. According to the analyses carried out in this simulation, the visual observation of estrus has zero cost and an estimated service rate of 54% for cows (Mayo et al., 2019). In contrast, the rump detector has a cost per breeding animal of US$ 0.075/day and an estimated service rate of 64% and finally, the cost with electronic detectors was US$ 0.15 per breeding animal/day with an estimated service rate of 79% for cows (Holman et al., 2011; Mayo et al., 2019). Furthermore, a similar labor cost was considered for all scenarios since, in all technologies, we will need an employee to perform tasks related to heat identification, or to carry out a daily round of visual heat identification, or to put on, take off and monitor the use of the collars, and to make markings and maintenance of the marker sticks/inks. The analysis was performed based on a stabilized herd, and the results for the tenth year are presented.

Electronic detectors promoted a higher average milk production per cow (Table 1), a greater number of lactating cows, and a consequent increase in the daily milk production on the farm compared to the method of visual estrus detection. On the other hand, rump detectors had intermediate results. Consequently, although there was an increase in costs with breeding animals, the use of technologies improved the profit/cow and reduced the operational milk costs compared with visual observations.

In summary, heat detection directly affects farm profitability, so the adoption of new technologies has been associated with improvements in production per cow and total milk, pregnancy rate, number of lactating cows, profit per cow, and farm profit. The electronic detector showed the best results in the long-term, followed by the rump detector. Visual observation had the worst performance, which is justified by its limitations for efficient heat detection.

Table 1: Results of 10-year simulation (year 10) of three estrus detection technologies on dairy farms

References

Hansen, P.J. 2002. Embryonic mortality in cattle from the embryo’s perspective. J. Anim. Sci. 80:E33–E44. doi:10.2527/animalsci2002.80E-Suppl_2E33x.

Holman, A., J. Thompson, J.E. Routly, J. Cameron, D.N. Jones, D. Grove-White, R.F. Smith, and H. Dobson. 2011. Comparison of oestrus detection methods in dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 169:47–47. doi:10.1136/vr.d2344.

Marques, L.R., J.V.N. Almeida, T.C. Marques, K.C. Guimarães, T. do P. Paim, and K.M. Leão. 2020. Estrus detection and reproductive performance of dairy cows: Review. Res. Soc. Dev. 9:e243974063. doi:10.33448/rsd-v9i7.4063.

Mayo, L.M., W.J. Silvia, D.L. Ray, B.W. Jones, A.E. Stone, I.C. Tsai, J.D. Clark, J.M. Bewley, and G. Heersche. 2019. Automated estrous detection using multiple commercial precision dairy monitoring technologies in synchronized dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 102:2645–2656. doi:10.3168/jds.2018-14738.

What’s New in Dairy Science Research?

Research in dairy sciences conducted at universities and research centers doesn’t always make its way to dairy farmers.  I am here to help bridge the gap between research and on-farm practice.  The goal of this article is to inform you of new technologies and ideas that can help improve the welfare and production of your cows.  I hope you enjoy my selection of articles for the December newsletter!

Is Pasture or Confinement-Based Management Better for Welfare?

As agricultural practices intensify, we move farther away from the idyllic, “natural” farming of the past, but is that always a bad thing?  Let’s look at an example of incidence of disease and malnutrition between the two systems in a review by Mee and Boyle from 2020.  Cows in pasture-based systems have a lower incidence of mastitis and lameness than those in confinement because of a greater ability to lie in clean spaces and walk on softer surfaces.  However, in the summer, cows on pasture are more likely to be affected by disease-carrying insects and parasites, and less likely to receive regular hoof care.  Cows on pasture tend to have lower body condition scores and higher incidences of negative energy balance than those in confinement, but these differences can be alleviated by providing supplemental TMR.  So which system is better?  The answer comes down to management.  Either system can provide a high level of welfare to your cows if you ensure they have adequate food and water, a dry and comfortable place to lie down, a regularly cleaned environment, and interactions with other cows.  Management is key to overall welfare!

Does Mastitis Cause Reduced Fertility?

A study published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Dalaneni et al., 2020) found differences in reproductive performance between cows that had been diagnosed with clinical mastitis and those that had not.  There were also differences based on the type of bacteria causing the mastitis.  Major pathogens (cause more symptoms and more severe symptoms of disease) like streptococcus and E. coli had greater consequences on reproductive performance than minor pathogens like CNS spp. (coagulase negative staph.) After analyzing 2,519 milk samples from 833 Holsteins across five herds, the researchers found that when infected with a major pathogen, cows had a lower pregnancy rate at first AI, greater pregnancy losses, and more days open than cows without an infection.  Those infected with minor pathogens had intermediate consequences to reproductive performance.  Knowing the pathogens present on your farm and working to control them can improve the health and welfare of your herd and increase their reproductive potential.

Can Drinking Behavior Alert you to Heat Stress?

Most of us dealt with an extreme heat wave over the summer and knowing when your cows begin to develop heat stress can allow you to intervene before welfare and production are compromised. Researchers in Taiwan (Tsai et al., 2020) tried using cameras with temperature and humidity detectors at waterers to monitor drinking behavior across seasons.  Not surprisingly, cows drank more often and for longer bouts when temperatures were high.  Having information on your cows normal drinking behavior throughout the year can allow you to see when abnormal intakes of water occur.  If your cows suddenly begin drinking more often and for longer bouts than normal, you know it is time to provide them with alternative means to cool down such as misters and fans.

References

Mee, J.F. and L.A. Boyle. 2020. Assessing whether dairy cow welfare is “better” in pasture-based than in confinement-based management systems. N.Z. Vet. J. 68(3):168-177.

Dalanezi, F.M., S.F. Joaquim, F.F. Guimarães, S.T. Guerra, B.C. Lopes, E.M.S. Schmidt, R.L.A. Cerri, and H. Langoni. 2020. Influence of pathogens causing clinical mastitis on reproductive variables of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 103(4):3648-3655.

Tsai, Y., J. Hsu, S. Ding, D.J.A Rustia, and T. Lin. 2020. Assessment of dairy cow heat stress by monitoring drinking behavior using an embedded imaging system. Biosyst. Eng. 199(2020):97-108.

Callan Lichtenwalter, Ph.D. student, WSU Animal Sciences

Amber’s Top Ten Tips: Impact of Environment on Cow Behavior and Well-being

Dairy cattle across Washington State are exposed to a wide variety of environmental conditions, including wildfires, floods, and blizzards. With the recent flooding that affected many of our dairies, I felt compelled to search for as much scientific information as possible on the impacts of flooding on short-term and long-term cattle well-being. I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that very little research has been conducted on the impacts of flooding on cattle well-being. The good news is that some scientific data related to flooding on dairies is available, as well as articles related to the impacts of wildfires and environmental stress on cattle. Below is a summary of these articles. I hope this information is useful as we cope with our current weather conditions (the snow is falling as I write this article) and prepare for future environmental challenges.

1. Distress and immunosuppression

As you may recall from previous newsletter articles, distress triggers cortisol production, which negatively influences an animal’s immune system, referred to as immunosuppression. While the direct effects of environmental conditions on cattle are usually obvious, the indirect effects are less obvious. For example, alterations in the environment’s water cycle and atmospheric CO₂ changes plant composition and feed quality. Poor feed quality further challenges an animal’s ability to maintain a strong immune system (as reviewed by Filipe et al., 2020).

2. Mastitis cases associated with flooding events

Incidences of mastitis cases in dairy cattle can be 1.5 times higher one year post-flooding when compared to pre-flooding incidence rates (as reviewed by Gaviglio et al., 2021).

3. Lameness cases associated with flooding events

Incidences of lameness cases in dairy cattle can be 1.3 times higher one year post-flooding when compared to pre-flooding incidence rates (as reviewed by Gaviglio et al., 2021).

4. Relationship between wildfires and milk quality

Wildfires contribute to higher concentrations of air pollutants, including fine particulate matter (PM_2.5). Decreases in milk yield and increases in milk somatic cell counts have been associated with higher concentrations of PM_2.5 (Beaupied et al., 2021).

5. Milk production affected by wildfires

A preliminary survey of livestock producers in California, Oregon, and Nevada revealed that 13% of the surveyed dairy producers reported losses in milk production during wildfire events (O’Hara et al., 2021).

6. Feed intake and feed efficiency during hot weather

When the temperature-humidity index (THI) increased in the United Kingdom, Holstein Friesian cows decreased their dry matter intake by 12%, but their feed efficiency (converting feed to milk) increased (Hill and Wall, 2017). Researchers are investigating this phenomenon to determine how genetics may play a role in feed efficiency during hot weather.

7. Winter housing and mastitis cases

Cows on an organic dairy in Minnesota housed in a three-sided compost-bedded pack barn (indoors) had more clinical mastitis cases than cows housed outdoors on a straw pack during winter (indoors: 27% of cows and outdoors: 15% of cows; Sjostrom et al., 2019).

8. Use of outdoor pack during summer and winter

Freestall-housed cows offered access to an outdoor deep-bedded open pack spent 25% of the time outside during summer and only 1.8% of the time outside during winter. When the cows used the outdoor space during the summer, it was mostly during the night (Smid et al., 2019). 

9. Lying behavior and milk yield

During hot weather in Italy, late lactation (> 100 days in milk) cows spent more time lying when THI was the lowest. For every hour of lying time, cows in this study produced almost six additional pounds of milk (Lovarelli et al., 2020).

10. Hot weather and competition

Once THI reached 65 units, the number of competitive replacements (one cow pushing another cow out of the way) that occurred at the waterer increased. Eighty-five percent more replacements occurred when THI was about 80 units compared to a THI of less than 60 units. Replacements at the waterer during hot weather can cause additional distress for subordinate cows (McDonald et al., 2020).

Amber Adams Progar, Dairy Management Specialist

amber.adams-progar@wsu.edu

It has Been a Great Ride, Please Stay in Touch

Today is my last day with WSU before I begin my emeritus (retired status) with WSU. I plan to continue to be a resource upon request to the dairy industry, serve on a graduate guidance committee, and stay involved with the National Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community.

It has been a great ride. I have enjoyed the challenge of a very progressive dairy industry in Washington State with dairy producers that have always been at the forefront of innovation and adoption of new management approaches and technologies.

What has been the most important to me has been the relationships that I developed with dairy producers and allied agriculture industry, and WSU staff, colleagues, graduate students, undergraduate students.

June 1, 1984, 37 years ago I started as an assistant professor with the department of Animal Sciences and located at the Western Washington Research and Extension Center, same place as WSU-Puyallup Research and Extension Center, just a different name.

My position began as a 100 % research appointment, and morphed to a partial extension appointment until ~ 2000 when I officially began a 50:50 research:extension appointment as a livestock nutrient management specialist. In 2017 a teaching responsibility was added with the assignment for being Cooperative University Dairy Students (CUDS) faculty advisor.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out with a question.

Amber’s Top Ten Tips: Calves and Heat Stress

Record-breaking hot weather is here. We know that heat stress causes decreases in feed intake, milk production, and reproduction in cows, but how does this hot weather affect your calves? My research team completed a study that aimed to help answer that very question.

We are reminded every day that our calves are the future of our dairy and we do everything we can to ensure they are healthy, especially when environmental conditions pose a challenge to calf well-being. Below are some interesting facts about calves and heat stress. It is a compilation of information from our study (Young et al., 2020), as well as others in this field of science:

1. Temperature-humidity Index (THI)

   As a reminder, THI is commonly used to gauge the severity of heat stress dairy cows experience under specific environmental conditions (ambient temperature and relative humidity). THI ≥ 68 is categorized as heat stress (Collier et al., 2009). It is important to note that THI guidelines are currently unavailable for calves. If you are interested in calculating the THI on your farm, the equation is pretty simple:

   THI = ambient temperature – [0.55 – (0.55 × relative humidity/100)] × (ambient temperature – 58.8)

   Ambient temperature is recorded in Fahrenheit and relative humidity is recorded as a percentage.

2. Temperatures within Calf Housing

   We compared the THI inside standard calf hutches placed outdoors against calf stalls located in a three-sided barn during the summer months. During the hottest hours of the day (12 PM – 5 PM), the THI was 74 inside the hutches and 73 within the stalls. Meanwhile, the THI in the ambient environment during the hottest hours was 84 (Young et al., 2020).

3. Calf Body Temperatures

   Calves housed in hutches during our study had higher body temperatures than calves housed in stalls, with the highest temperature recorded as 104°F. These temperatures were recorded by attaching a temperature-recording device to the underside of each calf’s tail (Young et al., 2020).

4. Upper Critical Temperatures for Calves

   Newborn calves experience heat stress when environmental temperatures exceed 79°F and one-month-old calves experience heat stress at temperatures above 73°F (Wathes et al., 1983).

5. Serum Cortisol Concentrations

   When we experience stress, our cortisol concentrations increase. This is also true for calves. Average cortisol concentrations were 17% higher in calves housed in hutches than calves housed in stalls during our study; however, cortisol concentrations were highly variable (Young et al., 2020). This is a good reminder that each calf has a different tolerance level for hot weather, so we need to watch all calves closely.

6. Shade for Calf Hutches

   Providing a sun shade net over calf hutches during hot weather (101.8°F max temperature) decreased temperatures within the hutches from to 110.7°F to 99.5°F (Kovács et al., 2019).

7. Salivary Cortisol Concentrations

   Calves housed in non-shaded hutches had salivary cortisol concentrations 47% higher than calves housed in shaded hutches (Kovács et al., 2019).

8. Calf Hutch Ventilation

   When comparing four different types of hutches during a summer in Texas, one study reported that raising the back of a hutch by 6 inches caused a 4% decrease in THI within the hutch (Reuscher et al., 2019).

9. Fans to Improve Air Flow

   Installing fans over shaded group pens increased air flow by 94%. Calves housed in pens with fans consumed up to 19% more milk replacer and concentrate, on a dry matter basis, than calves housed in pens without fans (Dado-Senn et al., 2020).

10. Temperature during Calving and Calf Growth

    Calves born when THI > 75 had pre-weaning gains that were 13% lower than gains in calves born when THI < 70 (López et al., 2018).

I hope this information is helpful as we enter an alarmingly hot summer. Please remember to keep a mindful eye on your cows, employees, and yourself. Stay well!

Waste to Worth 2022—National Conference Hosted by the Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

You are invited to participate in the 2022 Waste to Worth Conference (W2W2022) and to consider presenting on a topic that is important to sustainability in animal agriculture.

W2W2022 welcomes oral, poster, panel, and workshop presentation proposals focused on applied solutions related to animal manure management and protecting the environment. Graduate students are encouraged to submit and participate in a poster presentation competition.

To submit and abstract click on Submit an Abstract.

Amber’s Top Ten Tips: Farmer well-being

As I sat down to choose a topic for this article, I couldn’t stop thinking about the difficult times we are currently facing as a society. COVID-19 is affecting all our lives. It pangs me to watch milk being dumped down the drain, while many school-aged children won’t receive milk with their lunch (if they receive a lunch) today because of school closures. It is during times like this that we are pushed to the limits and our well-being is threatened. This is why today’s article will focus on the people that make the dairy industry thrive, YOU. My hope is that the information below will help you realize that you are not alone, your well-being matters, and tools are available to help you improve your well-being.

1. Prevalence of stress among dairy farmers.

   A survey of 265 Finnish dairy farmers revealed that 42% of the farmers were stressed and 9% of them experienced severe burnout (Kallioniemi et al., 2016).

2. Prevalence of anxiety and depression among dairy farmers.

   Out of 170 Midwestern U.S. dairy farmers surveyed, 71% of them met the criteria for Generalized Anxiety Disorder and 53% of them met the criteria for Major Depressive Disorder. Personal finances and time pressures were listed as the greatest concerns (Rudolphi et al., 2020).

3. Farmer well-being influences animal well-being.

   Over 900 Norwegian dairy farmers participated in a study in which farmer well-being was compared to animal well-being. Farmers with lower levels of stress and better well-being had animals with better well-being (cow health, longevity, fertility, etc.; Hansen and Østerås, 2019).

4. Farming pressures.

   In Wales, 582 dairy and beef cattle farmers identified the top five farming pressures as: finances; weather; tuberculosis; paperwork; and farm management. Farmers who identified finances as the key pressure were more likely to have a lower well-being (Crimes and Enticott, 2019).

5. Importance of social support.

   Among 121 Irish farmers, increases in financial and non-financial stress caused increases in farmer anxiety and depression. However, farmers with strong social support had less non-financial farm stress, as well as fewer cases of anxiety and depression (Furey et al., 2016).

6. Coping with farming pressures.

   Thirty-two Canadian male farmers participated in intensive interviews, in which all farmers agreed that work breaks and vacations were crucial coping strategies. Time spent with family was listed as particularly powerful a coping strategy (Roy et al., 2017).

7. Positive impacts on dairy farmer well-being.

   Finnish dairy farmers identified family, working with cattle, healthy farm animals, a reasonable workload, and a sustainable farm economy as factors that have a positive impact on dairy farmer well-being (Kallioniemi et al., 2018).

8. Relationship between mental health and physical health.

   A survey of 79 Australian dairy farmers showed that farmers with higher levels of exhaustion and stress experienced lower levels of physical and mental health. On the other hand, farmers who practiced mindfulness had better physical and mental health than farmers who didn’t practice mindfulness (Eddy et al., 2019).

9. Barriers to seeking help.

   A focus group of Australian farmers, farmers’ partners, and general practitioners emphasized that farming is more than just employment, it is a lifestyle. The focus group stated that seeking help requires time away from work, which is a key barrier. Finances may also present a barrier to seeking help (Vayro et al., 2020).

10. Role of ag professionals.

    Ag professionals (veterinarians, farm consultants, etc.) have established relationships with dairy farmers. They play a key role in identifying, mitigating, and supporting farmers during difficult times (Stanley-Clarke, 2019).

Remember: you are not alone, your well-being matters, and tools are available to help you improve your well-being.

References

• Crimes and Enticott. 2019. Assessing the social and psychological impacts of endemic animal disease amongst farmers. Front. Vet. Sci. 6:342.
• Eddy et al. 2019. Trait mindfulness helps explain the relationships between job stress, physiological reactivity, and self-perceived health. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:e12-e18.
• Furey et al. 2016. The roles of financial threat, social support, work stress, and mental distress in dairy farmers’ expectations of injury. Front. Public Health 4:126.
• Hansen and Østerås. 2019. Farmer welfare and animal welfare- Exploring the relationship between farmer’s occupational well-being and stress, farm expansion and animal welfare. Prev. Vet. Med. 170: 104741.
• Kallioniemi et al. 2016. Stress and burnout among Finnish dairy farmers. J. Agromedicine 21 (3): 259-268.
• Kallioniemi et al. 2018. Job resources and work engagement among Finnish dairy farmers. J. Agromedicine 23:249-261.
• Roy et al. 2017. “Do it all by myself”: a salutogenic approach of masculine health practice among farming men coping with stress. Am. J. Mens Health 11:1536-1546.
• Rudolphi et al. 2020. Depression, anxiety and stress among young farmers and ranchers: a pilot study. Community Ment. Health J. 56:126–134.
• Stanley-Clarke. 2019. The role of agricultural professionals in identifying, mitigating and supporting farming families during times of stress: findings of a qualitative study. Aust. J. Rural Health 27:203–209.
• Vayro et al. 2020. ‘Farming is not just an occupation [but] a whole lifestyle’: a qualitative examination of lifestyle and cultural factors affecting mental health help-seeking in Australian farmers. Sociol. Rural. 60:151-173.

Cows, Greenhouse Gases, and Nature’s Carbon Cycle

There was an article published in the July 2019 issue of Hoard’s Dairyman entitled “Cattle are part of nature’s carbon cycle”. The title probably didn’t catch your eye, but the content presents a very different picture of the role that dairy cows (and beef cattle) have in regard to greenhouse gases and climate change.

A few excerpts from the paper are:

“…we have seen the media place blame for our changing climate on cattle. For dairy cows in the U.S., this claim cannot be supported by science…”

“Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that along with carbon dioxide nitrous oxide, and some other compounds in the atmosphere create a blanket around our planet.”

“Without this atmospheric blanket, the earth would be too cold for us to survive.”

“The current problem is that concentrations of these gases are rising, which is thickening the blanket. This leads to an elevation in global temperatures and related climate changes.”

“The methane that cows produce is part of a natural carbon cycle that has been happening since the beginning of life on our planet.”

As shown in the figure below, CO₂ is fixed via photosynthesis into plant carbohydrates. The plant carbohydrates are fed to animals where some of the plant carbohydrates get converted to methane and end up in the atmosphere. In about a 12 year period of time most of the methane gets converted back to CO₂, and the cycle continues.

The step that is basically ignored is that methane is changed back to CO₂ within a very short period of time compared to CO₂ created by burning fossil fuels.

If you consider that we have less dairy cows now than 50 years ago, that cows are now more efficient, this then translates to less of an impact on atmospheric greenhouse gases today than in prior decades.

Does this mean we shouldn’t adopt practices that reduce methane emissions from cows and manure, certainly not. If new management practices and feeding strategies reduce methane emissions, and are profitable, their adoption should be considered.

Dairy can be part of the answer to atmospheric levels of CO₂; let’s make sure that the message to the public is that dairy is a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

Amber’s Top Ten Tips: Human-dairy Heifer Interactions

One of the most common causes of employee injuries on dairies is cattle. These injuries are a result of human-dairy cattle interactions that went wrong. Providing dairy cattle handling training is the first step in preventing cattle-related injuries. While many different training formats are available, including videos and lectures, which training improves cattle learning? We often focus on providing the most effective training for employees that we forget that training cattle is also beneficial. Cattle are capable of learning during training. I collaborated with two veterinarians at the University of Pennsylvania (Dr. Michaela Kristula and Dr. Meggan Hain) and an expert handling trainer (Dr. Don Höglund) to conduct a study aimed at determining how weaned heifers respond to training. Our research was published last month in the Journal of Extension. Below are some highlights about what we learned:

1. Heifers are more difficult to handle.

   Minnesota dairy producers reported in a 2014 survey that two of the most difficult groups of cattle to handle are postpartum heifers and calves (Sorge et al., 2014).

2. Relationship between heifer walking and slipping behavior.

   We conducted a series of handling tests during our study, in which we herded the heifers from one end of their pen to the opposite end of their pen six consecutive times. Heifers that walked during handling were significantly less likely to slip. This is one reason it is important to move cattle slowly. (Adams Progar et al., 2019)

3. Facing and approaching the handle.

   Heifers that faced the handler during the tests were more likely to approach the handler. If heifers face the handler, then they are not facing the direction of their destination. Approaching the handler is counterproductive to safely moving cattle, as we rely on an animal’s flight zone to move them safely. (Adams Progar et al., 2019)

4. Facing and approaching the handler.

   It was interesting to note that when heifers faced the handler, they were significantly less likely to walk during handling. (Adams Progar et al., 2019)

5. Repeat handling affects heifer walking behavior.

   We conducted handling tests over the course of two days so that all 36 heifers were handled on both days. While only 56% of heifers walked during tests on the first day, 75% of heifers walked during tests on the second day. Repeated handling of weaned heifers may help with their handling ease. (Adams Progar et al., 2019)

6. Facing the handler behavior affected repeated handling.

   Throughout the first day of training, 44% of heifers faced the handler during tests; whereas, 31% of heifers faced the handler during tests on the second day. Once again, repeated handling of weaned heifers may be beneficial. (Adams Progar et al., 2019)

7. Time of day affects heifer walking behavior.

   Over the course of both training days, all heifers were handled once in the morning and once in the afternoon. Fifty-four percent of heifers walked during the morning tests, and 78% of heifers walked during the afternoon tests. (Adams Progar et al., 2019).

8. Fewer occurrences of slipping occurred in afternoon.

   Fourteen percent of heifers slipped during handling in the morning and 4% of heifers slipped during afternoon handling tests. Training heifers during the afternoon may be more effective than training during the morning. (Adams Progar et al., 2019).

9. Type of handling training affects heifer walking behavior.

   Handlers who received the lecture only training had 34% of heifers walk during tests; however, handlers who received the hands-on workshop in addition to the lecture had 81% of heifers walk. (Adams Progar et al., 2019).

10. Type of handling training affects the occurrences of slipping during handling.

    Handlers who received only the lecture training had 17% of heifers slip during handling, but handlers who received the hands-on workshop had 5% of heifers slip (Adams Progar et al., 2019).

References

• Adams Progar et al. 2019. Dairy cattle handling Extension programs: training workers and cattle. Journal of Extension https://joe.org/joe/2019august/rb8.php.
• Sorge et al. 2014. Perception of the importance of human–animal interactions on cattle flow and worker safety on Minnesota dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 97:4632–4638.

Do you know a dairy leader interested in a unique training program?

The Leaders Enabling Advanced Dairy Safety (LEADS) program will be offered beginning Fall 2019. LEADS is a train-the-trainer program focused on preventing the most common types of employee injuries caused by cattle on dairies. Participants will complete a 4-hour training that will teach them how to provide an effective cattle handling safety training and prevent cattle-related injuries on their dairies.

Registration will be limited. We are planning to host four training sessions throughout Washington State. More details will be released soon. If you would like more information about this training, please contact Amber Adams Progar at 509-335-0673 or amber.adams-progar@wsu.edu.

Amber’s Top Ten Tips: Cow Behavior and Automated Milking Systems

Interested in automated milking systems? These systems have a lot to offer, but they are not a solution for all dairies. Automated milking systems are an investment. Although several management decisions can determine whether an automated milking system succeeds, understanding cow behavior can also influence a system’s successfulness. Here are some thoughts on how cow behavior may affect the success of an automated milking system:

1. Stress and milk yield

   When transitioning cows from a conventional system to an automated milking system, milk yield/cow can decrease by 45% during the first 24 hours of the transition, but milk yield should recover within 4 days. Changing a cow’s routine can cause a stress response that suppresses milk letdown. (Jacobs and Siegford, 2012)

2. Stress-related behaviors during milking

   Vocalization and elimination behaviors occur more frequently when cows are stressed. Although these behaviors increase during milking when cows are transitioning to an automated milking system, vocalizations and eliminations decrease by 84% and 71% within the first 24 hours of the transition. (Jacobs and Siegford, 2012)

3. Concentrate allocation in automated milking units

   Feeding cows 11 lbs/day versus 1.1 lbs/day of concentrate during milking does not appear to affect the number of voluntary visits to the milking unit. (Paddick et al., 2019)

4. Automatic feed delivery and cow lying time

   Lying time is important for cows. They will sometimes alter their behavioral patterns by decreasing the amount of time they spend performing other behaviors to allow more time for lying. Feeding cows with an automated feed system 11 times/day versus 6 times/day did not affect the total daily lying time (average of 12 hours/day). (Mattachini et al., 2019)

5. Use of an automatic herding system

   Engineers from Israel designed an automatic herding system that uses mobile fences to herd cows to the automatic milking unit. This herding system increased milking frequency by 45%, milk yield by 15%, and decreased labor time to fetch cows by 80%. (Drach et al., 2017).

6. Ratio of cows to automatic milking units

   Milking frequency/cow per day is negatively related to the ratio of cows to automatic milking units. (King et al., 2016)

7. Feed bunk activity

   With the ability to be milked on their own schedule, cows milked by automatic milking systems typically prefer to eat during the day, avoiding the late evening and early morning hours. It is important to note that environmental stressors, such as heat stress, can affect cow feeding behavior. (Wagner-Storch and Palmer, 2003)

8. Concentrate content and milking visits

   When compared against a standard concentrate, a barley-oats concentrate fed during milking caused an increase in the number of cow visits to the automated milking unit and a decrease in the number of fetches. (Madsen et al., 2010)

9. Waiting area

   With the use of control gates, the open waiting area in front of the automated milking unit should be large enough to decrease competition. Dominant cows spend an average of 13 minutes in the waiting area and subordinate cows spend an average of 20 minutes in the waiting area. (Melin et al., 2006)

10. Automated milking unit exit area

    Cows exiting the automated milking unit require 54% more time to exit the unit if other cows are near the exit gate than if no cows are near the exit gate. (Jacobs et al., 2012)

References

• Drach et al. 2017. Automatic herding reduces labour and increases milking frequency in robotic milking. Biosyst. Eng. 155:134-141.
• Jacobs, J. A., and J. M. Siegford. 2012. Lactating dairy cows adapt quickly to being milked by an automatic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 95:1575-1584.
• Jacobs et al. 2012. Dairy cow behavior affects the availability of an automatic milking system. J Dairy Sci. 95:2186-2194.
• King et al. 2016. Associations of herd-level housing, management, and lameness prevalence with productivity and cow behavior in herds with automated milking systems. J. Dairy Sci. 99:9069–9079.
• Madsen et al. 2010. Concentrate composition for automatic milking systems-effect on milking frequency. Livest. Sci. 127:45-50.
• Mattachini et al. 2019. Effects of feeding frequency on the lying behavior of dairy cows in a loose housing with automatic feeding and milking system. Animals 9(121).
• Melin et al. 2006. Cow traffic in relation to social rank and motivation of cows in an automatic milking system with control gates and an open waiting area. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 96:201-214.
• Paddick et al. 2019. Effect of the amount of concentrate offered in an automated milking system on dry matter intake, milk yield, milk composition, ruminal digestion, and behavior of primiparous Holstein cows fed isocaloric diets. J. Dairy Sci. 102:2173-2187.
• Wagner-Storch, A. M. and R. W. Palmer. 2003. Feeding behavior, milking behavior, and milk visits of cows milked in a parlor versus an automatic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 86:1494-1502.

Nitrate: Know Your Units of Measure

Is it nitrate or is it nitrate-nitrogen? Are the units in percent dry matter (% DM), parts per million (ppm), or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)?

Testing for nitrate is common practice by dairy farmers. Soil, crops and water may be tested. The nitrate content in soil is used to estimate the amount of nitrogen that will be available for crop growth. The nitrate content in both forage and drinking water are commonly used to monitor the amount of nitrate-N that cows might consume in order prevent nitrate toxicity.

Nitrate testing can seem straight forward and simple. However, the result might be expressed in different forms, leading to confusion. For instance, let’s start with soil. The recommended soil depth to obtain a sample is 1 foot, or in multiples of 1 foot. It is common for the test result to be reported as nitrate-N and expressed as mg/kg, ppm, or pounds per acre. Most fertilizer guides use nitrate-N as the unit of expression when interpreting soil analyses. What if a test result is expressed as nitrate (NO₃) rather than nitrate-N (NO₃-N)? If so, a conversion factor is needed.

The reason for this conversion is that nitrate molecule weighs 62 grams per mole; the nitrogen content of nitrate is 22.5% of the total weight of the molecule. (Source: R. Smith and M. Cahn, July 30, 2012, retrieved from https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=7744 on June 5, 2019).

A value of 6.9 mg/kg of nitrate-N would be 6.9 × 4.43 = 30.6 mg/kg nitrate.

Let’s start with soil. For dairy forage crops, the recommended soil sampling depth is typically one foot. Most commonly, the test result is reported as nitrate-N and expressed as mg/kg. The lab may also convert the result to pounds per acre. Most fertilizer guides use nitrate-N as the unit of expression when interpreting soil analyses.

An example of conversion of soil test nitrate-N is shown below. This example is from a commercial soil test lab that used a conversion factor of 3.5 to convert mg/kg to lbs/acre. The conversion factor of 3.5 assumes that a one acre-foot sample of soil weighs 3.5 million pounds (3.5 lb per acre-foot = 1 ppm). A very common factor to use is 3.5.

Can a soil sample be taken at a depth of 0 – 6 inches and the results be translated to a depth of 0 – 12 inches or one foot — NO!

The attempt to use a 6 inch soil sample to represent a 1 foot sample will either over or underestimate the corresponding value for the 1 foot sample.

As an example of underestimating the amount of nitrate-N in one ft of soil with a six inch soil sample, if a sample were obtained from the first 6 inches in the fall after it had started raining, the nitrate in soil may have been pushed to the 7 – 12 inch depth and not accounted.

As an example of overestimating the amount of nitrate-N in one foot of soil with a six inch soil sample, if fertilizer had just recently been surface applied and had not been distributed within the top foot of soil, the nitrate in the top six inches would result in an overestimation of nutrients available to the crop.

All Forms of Nitrogen

The other form of nitrogen available for crop growth is organic nitrogen found in soil organic matter. During a growing season, some of the organic nitrogen present in soil organic matter (OM) will become available for plant growth due to the biological activity in the soil. If the top foot of soil weighs approximately 3.5 million pounds, as previously noted, a soil with 5% OM has 175,000 pounds of OM present in the top foot. For soils up to 5% OM, approximately 20 pounds of nitrogen will become available to the crop for each percent OM. Thus a 2% OM soil will provide approximately 40 pounds of plant available nitrogen per acre each year and a 5% OM soil will provide 100# per acre.

Washington’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS WA) has supplements to the national Agricultural Waste Field Management Handbook, or AWFMH, Table 11-9.

The table below, taken from an actual soil test, shows the accounting of nitrogen from three sources, nitrate-N, N from OM, and N from ammonia-N. In this soil sample, there was a total of 67 pounds of tested N with 7 pounds of ammonia-N, and 38 pounds of N in OM (1.9 × 20 = 38) and 22 pounds of nitrate-N.

Analyzing a forage sample or water sample for nitrate follows the same logic as discussed for soil.