Letter from the Editor

Hello Spring! We are wrapping up our first week back from Spring Break at WSU, which means the reality of graduation is setting in for our seniors. The excitement of graduation blends with anxiety over what the future might hold. I had many discussions with students recently about their career plans and noticed that an increasing number of students are seriously considering careers in the dairy industry. Most of these students do not have a background in dairy. This is great news! This means that the Animal Sciences faculty and staff are providing eye-opening experiences for our students, encouraging them to try new things outside their comfort level.

With this great news, I have a request for you. Hands-on experience through internships is one of the most impactful training opportunities we can provide our students. If you have an internship position available, please reach out so we can help you connect with one of our students.

In the meantime, pour yourself a glass of milk and enjoy our March newsletter.

Thank you!

Amber Adams Progar, amber.adams-progar@wsu.edu

 

 

What’s New in Dairy Science Research?

Callan Lichtenwalter, Ph.D. Student, WSU Department of Animal Sciences

 

I am happy to be back with another article that takes new research in the dairy world and brings it directly to farmers in Washington State.  I hope you enjoy the new research I selected for the March newsletter.

Does pair housing calves affect calf health or welfare?

Researchers from Europe wanted to know how housing calves in pairs would affect their health, feed intake, and behavior compared to individually housed calves.  They took calves from 2 to 15 days old and sorted them into groups of 22 individually housed calves and 44 pair housed calves.  Their health and feed intake were measured daily, and one behavioral test was performed to understand how the calves acted in an unknown environment.  The incidence of diarrheal and respiratory illness did not differ between the pair and individually housed calves.  Consumption of milk, calf starter, and average daily gain also did not differ between the two groups of calves.  Based off the behavioral evaluation, the researchers concluded that individually housed calves might be deprived of normal movement behavior in their housing conditions.  From these results, we can conclude that pair housing calves does not impact their health or growth and can be a viable option for dairy farmers interested in increasing natural behaviors in calves.

Does pre-weaning illness in replacement heifers impact reproduction and lactation?

Replacement heifers represent a significant cost on many dairies, so knowing if disease early in life affects reproduction and lactation can help farmers make financially sound decisions when choosing replacement heifers.  Researchers at Michigan State University looked at the health records of 2,272 cows to see if diarrheal disease or BRD had an impact on reproductive success or first-lactation milk production.  Heifer calves with a history of BRD required more inseminations to reach pregnancy and were less likely to produce a calf than those without a history of BRD.  Average daily gain and first-lactation milk production was not affected by a history of BRD.  Heifer calves with a history of diarrheal illness needed more inseminations to achieve pregnancy.  They also had reduced average daily gain and first-lactation milk production.  Therefore, pre-weaning illness does have a negative impact on later reproductive efficiency and lactation in dairy cows.

Can dairy cows be bred to produce less methane?

Methane is a natural product of digestion in cows, but it is also a potent greenhouse gas.  Researchers from the Netherlands wanted to see if including reduction of methane emissions into their breeding strategy would be a feasible practice.  Based on their calculations, selecting for reduced methane emissions along with other production traits can produce healthy, productive cows that produce less methane.  Currently, measuring methane can be difficult and new technology would need to be implemented on farms to accurately select for low methane emitting cows.  How reducing methane emissions impacts other traits is also still unknown.  For now, selecting for cows that produce less methane does not seem like a practical strategy for most dairy farmers, but this may change as more knowledge is gained.

References

Bučková, K., R. Šárová, Á. Moravcsíková, and M. Špinka. 2021. The effect of pair housing on dairy calf health, performance, and behavior. J. Dairy Sci. 104(9):10282-10290.

Abuelo, A., F. Cullens, and J.L. Brester. 2021. Effect of preweaning disease on the reproductive performance and first-lactation milk production of heifers in a large dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 104(6):7008-7017.

de Haas, Y., R.F. Veerkamp, G. de Jong, and M.N. Aldridge. 2021. Selective breeding as a mitigation tool for methane emissions from dairy cattle. Anim. 15(1):1-10.

 

 

Responses of rbST injections on high-performance dairy heifers

Anna L. L Sguizzato¹ and Marcos I. Marcondes²

¹Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa/MG, Brazil

²Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA

 

Have you heard about Holstein × Gyr cattle? Girolando, as it is also called, is a common breed used in many dairy farms in Brazil. This crossbred unites the Holstein milk production with the Gyr rusticity, which is a great complement for pasture-based systems. Bearing this in mind, it is essential to acknowledge that, despite recent efforts to improve requirements, performance, growth, and reproduction, research is still needed to overcome production flaws such as late puberty and detrimental effects of high gain diets on dairy heifers, especially in heifers bred early in their life (11 to 13 months of age).

Based on literature evidence (Weller et al., 2016; Albino et al., 2017a), the exclusive use of nutritional strategies is insufficient to control the negative impacts of high feeding plans in prepubertal dairy heifers. Thus, the use of non-nutritional strategies, as frequent application of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), become a feasible strategy to enhance mammary growth (Radcliff et al., 1997; Sejrsen et al., 2000), or to increase N retention (Crooker et al., 1990) in dairy heifers. Therefore, a study conducted in Brazil, supervised by Dr. Marcondes, aimed to evaluate the use of rbST as an alternative strategy to overcome the detrimental effects of high-performance diets on the development of dairy heifers during pre-puberty.

The study was conducted at the Federal University of Viçosa, where 34 Holstein × Gyr heifers, with a body weight of 218 ± 49 kg and 14 ± 4 months of age were submitted to an 84-day trial to evaluate the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) on digestibility, performance, blood metabolites, carcass traits, and mammary development. The 34 heifers were divided into three blocks according to their initial BW, and two treatments (no rbST injections or rbST injections) were randomly assigned to the animals within each block. Heifers received a diet formulated to achieve an average daily gain of 1 kg, according to the NRC (2001). In addition, every animal in the rbST treatment received rbST shots (500 mg of recombinant bovine somatotropin – Boostin^®, Merc Animal Health) every 14-day. To mimic the stress suffered by these heifers, the no rbST animals received saline injections (sodium chloride, 0.9%), as a placebo, on the same days.

The rbST treatment did not influence any of the variables evaluated on the digestibility trial. Regarding performance, final BW and growth were not affected by treatments. However, the serum IGF1 was higher for rbST animals, which resulted in greater carcass traits and mammary gland development.

For carcass, rbST heifers presented a 25% increase in lean tissue deposition (Figure 1). In addition, we observed an increase in parenchymal tissue for the mammary gland and a reduction in fat pad tissue for rbST heifers (Figure 2). It may seem different at first look, but we aim to reduce pixel values for parenchyma and fat pad when evaluating mammary gland ultrasound results. The explanation is simple. In ultrasound, darker areas – lower pixel – represent structural or secretory tissues, as the parenchyma. On the other side, brighter areas – higher pixel – represent reservoirs tissues, as the adipose tissue. Thus, the reduced pixel value found for parenchyma represents greater secretory tissue deposition, and the reduced pixel value seen for the fat pad represents reduced adipose tissue deposition in the gland. If you still have questions about this analysis, check the companion paper written by Albino et al. (2017b) and learn more about this technique.

Figure 1. Representation of carcass ultrasound results. A – Carcass ribeye area between treatments. B –  Carcass ribeye area and backfat thickness among days. Differences were considered when P – the value was ≤ 0.05. Adapted from Sguizzato et al., (2022).

 

Figure 2. Representation of mammary gland ultrasound results. Differences were considered when P – value ≤ 0.05. Adapted from Sguizzato et al. (2022).

Moreover, to confirm the results obtained for the mammary gland, we observed reduced expression of IGFBP3 on mammary tissue of rbST heifers (P = 0.023). The IGFBP3 is a major IGF binding protein found in the bovine mammary gland, which can exert dependent or independent effects on cell growth, proliferation, and apoptosis, depending on the stimulus. However, according to our overall findings, we could associate the reduction in IGFBP3 expression with the increased IGF1 serum concentration on rbST heifers, resulting in greater parenchyma growth. Therefore, our study proved the efficacy of rbST as a non-nutritional strategy to improve mammary gland development and lean carcass gain of Holstein × Gyr heifers submitted to high-performance management. Nevertheless, a deeper investigation is still needed to understand the absence of the expected responses to the other variables evaluated and the efficacy of this technology with purebred Holstein heifers.

References

Albino, R.L., A.L. Sguizzato, K.M. Daniels, M.S. Duarte, M.M. Lopes, S.E.F. Guimarães, M.M.D.C.A. Weller, and M.I. Marcondes. 2017a. Performance strategies affect mammary gland development in prepubertal heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 100:8033–8042. doi:10.3168/jds.2016-12489.

Albino, R.L., S.E.F. Guimarães, K.M. Daniels, M.M.S. Fontes, A.F. Machado, G.B. dos Santos, and M.I. Marcondes. 2017b. Technical note: Mammary gland ultrasonography to evaluate mammary parenchymal composition in prepubertal heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 100:1588–1591. doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11668.

Crooker, B.A., M.A. McGuire, W.S. Cohick, M. Harkins, D.E. Bauman, and K. Sejrsen. 1990. Effect of dose of bovine somatotropin on nutrient utilization in growing dairy heifers. J. Nutr. 120:1256–1263. doi:10.1093/jn/120.10.1256.

Radcliff, R.P., M.J. Vandehaar, A.L. Skidmore, L.T. Chapin, B.R. Radke, J.W. Lloyd, E.P. Stanisiewski, and H.A. Tucker. 1997. Effects of Diet and Bovine Somatotropin on Heifer Growth and Mammary Development. J. Dairy Sci. 80:1996–2003. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76143-5.

Sejrsen, K., S. Purup, M. Vestergaard, and J. Foldager. 2000. High body weight gain and reduced bovine mammary growth: Physiological basis and implications for milk yield potential. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 19:93–104. doi:10.1016/S0739-7240(00)00070-9.

Weller, M.M.D.C.A., R.L. Albino, M.I. Marcondes, W. Silva, K.M. Daniels, M.M. Campos, M.S. Duarte, M.L. Mescouto, F.F. Silva, and S.E.F. Guimarães. 2016. Effects of nutrient intake level on mammary parenchyma growth and gene expression in crossbred (Holstein × Gyr) prepubertal heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 99:9962–9973. doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11532.

 

 

Amber’s Top Ten Tips: Consumer Perceptions

Amber Adams Progar, Dairy Management Specialist, WSU Animal Sciences

 

Have you ever scratched your head and wondered where some of the common misperceptions about dairy farming originated? I spend a great deal of time pondering this question. As the number of dairy farms decreases, the number of people with connections to, and an understanding of, dairy farming will also decrease. I thought it might be intriguing to look into dairy consumer perceptions about dairy farming and dairy products from a United States and global perspective.

Below are some highlights from recent articles that I thought were interesting:

1. Ranking Sustainable Practices

Over 5,000 consumers from six European countries were asked to rank, in the order of importance, three practices: agroforestry (integration of animals and trees on the same plot of land); prolonged maternal feeding (calves can suckle directly from their mothers for the first 3–5 months after they are born); and alternative protein source (use of home-grown protein crops, such as lupins, beans and peas, as animal feed). Prolonged maternal feeding was ranked #1 by 42.1% of consumers; whereas, agroforestry and alternative protein source were ranked #1 by 33.3% and 24.6% of consumers, respectively (Naspetti et al., 2021).

2. Intent to Purchase Based on Sustainable Practices

The same consumers described in #1 above were also asked to rank their intent to purchase dairy products that were made on farms that used agroforestry, prolonged maternal feeding, or alternative protein sources. Consumers favored products made from farms that used agroforestry and prolonged maternal feeding practices, but using alternative protein sources was not as appealing (Naspetti et al., 2021).

3. Label Claims can Make a Difference

A survey sent to 900 United States dairy consumers asked participants to rank the importance of 63 attributes/label claims to the sustainability, naturalness, or healthiness of dried dairy products. The label claim “environmentally sustainable practices” was most often perceived as sustainable, while “no artificial sweeteners, flavors, or colors” was most often perceived as healthy (Schiano et al., 2021).

4. Antibiotic Use on Dairies

One survey of 983 adults in the United States showed that 90.7% of respondents thought antibiotic use on dairies posed some threat to human health. Additionally, 71.5% of respondents claimed they would be willing to pay more for milk from farms that do not use antibiotics (Wemette et al., 2021).

5. What Makes Frozen Desserts Healthy?

Over 1,000 ice cream and frozen dessert consumers reported that labels such as “naturally sweetened”, “reduced sugar”, “no added sugar”, and “all natural”, as well as a short ingredient list, indicated that a frozen dessert was “healthier” (Sipple et al., 2022).

6. Animal Welfare Concerns

A survey of 409 Brazilian dairy consumers revealed that 48.7% of respondents thought cows suffer on dairy farms. The three most common concerns were movement restriction, cow-calf separation, and excessive production or reproduction (Comin et al., 2022).

7. Precision Livestock Farming

Consumer participants from three European countries expressed concern that data from precision livestock farming systems were vulnerable and could be misused in cyber-crimes. They also expected precision livestock farming to improve animal health and welfare (Krampe et al., 2021).

8. Gene-editing to Improve Animal Welfare

In Brazil, 864 citizens participated in a survey about using gene-editing to improve animal welfare. Sixty percent of respondents stated that using gene-editing for increased muscle growth was not acceptable; whereas, 40% of respondents stated using gene-editing to improve heat resistance or increase polled cattle was also not acceptable (Yunes et al., 2021).

9. Cattle Housing Systems

Over 3,600 survey respondents from eight European countries were asked to rank four different dairy cattle housing systems. Over half of respondents ranked compost bedded barns as the best housing for health, space, and comfort for cows (Waldrop et al., 2021).

10. Animal Welfare Influences Buying Decisions

In Italy, 69% of 969 consumers reported they pay attention to animal welfare at the time of purchasing dairy products, and they mostly acquire information about animal welfare through the mass media (Rubini et al., 2021).

 

As we near June Dairy Month, let’s make a concerted effort to find new ways to help more people feel connected to our industry. Share your story, it’s a good one!

 

 

2022 Class of CUDS Members Ready to Take the Helm

Amber Adams Progar, Copperative University Dairy Students (CUDS) Advisor

 

And just like that . . . a new cohort of CUDS members are trained and ready to manage the herd. We received a phenomenal pool of applicants and conducted interviews last semester. New members started training this past January and completed their training a couple of weeks ago. It is my pleasure to introduce you to our class of 2022.

Andrew Bartelheimer – President

Avery Ahearn – Reproduction

Katie Beckner – Milk Quality & Udder Health

Usha Caldwell – Finances

Holly Guest – Public Relations

Alyssa Hawley – Calves, Heifers, and Dry Cows

Doan Hoang – Calves, Heifers, and Dry Cows

Alissa Jilk – Reproduction

Rania Kraus – Sire Selection

Kaycie Leslie – Herd Health

Mary Morse – Nutrition/Feed Management

Olivia Poncia – Cow Comfort

Heston Richmond – Herd Health

Lauren Sandoval – Drugs, Supplies, and Records

 

We are excited to see what the next year brings for the CUDS members and herd. Welcome to our new members!

 

Thanks for reading our March newsletter! We’ll see you in June for our next edition!

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

Items	Visual	Rump	Electronic
Farm indexes
Milk yield, L/day)	5,508.46	5,904.13	6,359.78
Milk yield per lactating cow, L/day	33.69	34.86	35.98
Milking cows	163.53	169.39	176.78
Conception rate, %	27%	27%	27%
Pregnancy rate, %	15%	17%	22%
Breeding cows, #	30.63	35.20	40.15
Economic records
Expenditures with heat detection, $/yr	0.00	2,046.99	3,811.64
Milk operational cost, $/cwt	10.28	10.29	10.26
Profit, $/yr	179,163.14	194,665.41	213,632.56
Profit/cow, $/cow/yr	876.48	939.88	998.57

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.

Joe Harrison, Livestock Nutrient Management Specialist, jhharrison@wsu.edu

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!

Amber Adams Progar, Dairy Management Specialist, amber.adams-progar@wsu.edu

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.

Joe Harrison, Livestock Nutrient Management Specialist, jhharrison@wsu.edu

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.

Amber Adams Progar, Dairy Management Specialist, amber.adams-progar@wsu.edu

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.

Joe Harrison, Livestock Nutrient Management Specialist, jhharrison@wsu.edu

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.

Amber Adams-Progar, Dairy Management Specialist, amber.adams-progar@wsu.edu

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 Adams-Progar, Dairy Management Specialist, amber.adams-progar@wsu.edu