Click the images for a full-size slideshow.

Cow Comfort and Good Feed Top Priorities at Bomaz Dairy

At Bomaz Dairy, the philosophy is simple: give the cows the best care possible and they’ll return the favor. That’s why cow comfort and great feeds are top priorities for this Hammond, Wis. farm.

Brothers Bob and Greg Zwald own and operate Bomaz Dairy with their wives, Kay and Irma. Bob and Greg’s father started the home farm in 1953 and grew the herd to 100 cows. In 1996, the brothers decided to move to the farm’s current site and build a new freestall barn. The brothers wanted to move to a more mechanized dairy to reduce labor and knew they couldn’t do so without “filling the parlor.” They increased the herd to 400 milking cows.

At first, Zwalds sent their heifers to a custom raiser, but decided they wanted to bring the heifers home in 2002. Doing so displaced the dry cows, so it was time for Bomaz to add another freestall barn to the operation. Today, the farm milks about 550 cows, runs about 1,300 acres and employs 12 non-family employees. Bob specializes in cow care and employee management, Greg takes the lead on feed and business decisions, Irma helps with bookkeeping and Kay heads up the calf operation.

In 2006, the Zwald family made another big decision: to move away from mattresses in the freestalls to sand bedding. Bob said they’ve always placed a huge emphasis on cow comfort because the animals will give back according to the level of care you provide. Although sand bedding came with a couple of challenges in the early years (mostly freezing issues in the winter time), the investment was well worth it. Bob’s daughter, Annette, said the comfort of sand bedding is “second to none.”

The other major area of focus at Bomaz Dairy is high quality feeds. Annette, who is currently working towards her master’s degree through the Vita Plus dairy nutrition and management fellowship, said it all comes down to common sense. If a cow gets poor feed, she’ll never be a high-producing animal. Annette very simply stated, “Crap in. Crap out.”

About 55 percent of the cow’s diet is forages. The Zwalds often feed distillers grains and always include cottonseed in the ration. Bomaz Dairy is dedicated to putting up the best forages possible – a strategy that proves especially valuable with today’s high feed costs. Forages are treated with Crop-N-Rich inoculant and bunkers are covered with SiloStop. Bomaz also uses Crop-N-Rich Buchneri on its high moisture corn.

As the Zwald family looks to the future, Bob said the next generation’s choice to join the family business will determine whether or not they ever expand the operation. For now, they’ll continue to focus on optimizing production, which includes an emphasis on genetics. More than 300 animals have been genome tested and the animals with the highest genetic potential are flushed. Many of the animals will receive an embryo versus an actual breeding and about 40 bulls are enrolled in an artificial insemination per year.

Bob said genetics has always been a passion of his. It’s taken a few years, but he now sees that work pay off. Combined with great cow comfort and feed, Zwalds average 103 pounds of milk with 3.6 percent butterfat and 3.0 percent protein. Bob said that’s what he enjoys most about farming – really understanding the animals’ genetic profile and giving them the best care to maximize their potential.

Bob said, “I like to know something about them and see how the generations grow and improve.”

Download a printable PDF Presentation

In April, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution encouraging “meatless Mondays” or “Veg Day” at restaurants, schools and grocery stores in an effort to promote a “green diet." This is a prime example of the societal debate on the carbon footprint left by livestock production that Dr. Frank Mitloehner has seen as an associate professor and air quality specialist in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California-Davis.

Most of the discussion about livestock’s contribution to climate change came from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow." The report evaluated the sources of greenhouse gas emissions to determine the impact on climate change. It stated that 18 percent of global human-caused greenhouse gas emissions were from livestock agriculture - a larger share than transportation. The FAO report encouraged consumers to consider not only the nutritional facts in their food, but also the carbon footprint it took to create that food. This report had major implications such as meatless Mondays in San Francisco and European fast food chains offering not only the nutritional facts but also the carbon footprint of items on their menu.

The flaws in the FAO report comparison are pointed out in Dr. Miltloehner’s recently published peer-reviewed paper titled “Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contribution to Climate Change” in Advances in Agronomy. Mitloehner shows that the comparison was done on two different Life Cycle Assessment levels. When summing up the greenhouse emissions from livestock agriculture, the FAO used a level three assessment that included all of the emissions from the entire chain of production including crop production, land-use change, the animals and transportation of the final product. However, when considering the emission from transportation, the FAO report used a level one Life Cycle Assessment, which included just the burning of fuel in transportation.

Miltoehner said, “It’s like comparing apples to oranges.”

Dr. Mitloehner’s research concludes that in the United States 26 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation; 31 percent comes from electricity, while livestock agriculture accounts for only 3 percent. These facts were also then accepted by the EPA. After the release of Dr. Mitloehner’s data, the authors of “Livestock’s Long Shadow” admitted to overlooking the different levels of the Life Cycle Assessment.

According to Mitloehner, “Animal agriculture needs to stay proactive in the effort to combat misinterpretations of food production. Ignoring the debate will not make it go away. Global animal protein demand is expected to double from 2000 to 2050 and animal agriculture will be expected to produce more while not increasing emissions.”

Managing data has never been more important. The volatility of today’s markets demands that dairy producers be mindful of every aspect of their farms. Three dairy producers outlined the management systems they use to keep their dairies running lean.

Sam Dilsaver

Sam Dilsaver is a managing partner in Hillcrest Dairy located near Elmwood, Ill. The dairy started in 2007 as a partnership between Sam and a family friend in California. Currently, they milk 1,500 cows three times per day at this dairy. The cows are milking between 72 and 78 pounds per day with an emphasis on high components.

Sam uses Dairy Comp 305 and EZ Feed programs on a daily basis in order to efficiently manage the dairy.

“I think [Dairy Comp 305] is probably pretty priceless. I don’t know what I’d do without it,” he said.

In addition, Sam uses the RFID technology, QuickBooks and the milk plant website to evaluate components and other milk metrics. The key performance indicators Sam tracks include:

• Daily milk production, herd-wide and by shift.
• Weekly pregnancy rate analysis to stay on top of reproduction.
• Weekly lame cow reports to see how many times a cow is lame and what is wrong with it. This helps with analyzing the ration, monitoring foot health and providing a list for the trimmer.
• Cull rate to determine why cows are leaving the herd.
• Projected freshenings and dry off to know which cows need to be moved.
• Health event monitor reports.

Reports are shared with the dairy’s nutritionist, A.I. representative, financial lender and veterinarian to help them provide the best on-farm recommendations to Sam.

One tool Sam would like to employ in the future is a heat detection system.

Jason Sheehan

J&K Dairy, LLC is a 900-cow dairy owned and operated by Jason and Karen Sheehan near Sunnyside, Wash. In addition, Jason and Karen are involved in Karen’s family farm, Tony Veiga Dairy, which is a 1,700-cow dairy. Together, these two operations operate as one herd, milking 2,600 cows and raising all replacement heifers.

All youngstock are entered into Dairy Comp 305 on the day they are born, as are any health issues from that point on. FeedWatch is also used daily. The use of RFID helps the dairies cut down on time and mistakes, he said. QuickBooks is another tool that saves the farms a lot of time. Jason also uses a BECO Pulsation Monitoring program and Microsoft Excel. The Excel program is used to track milk production, components and other metrics from the milk plant website for both dairy operations. Jason finds that Excel helps when he wants to run data on youngstock that Dairy Comp 305 won’t let him sort out.

The key performance indicators Jason utilizes are:

• Daily milk production
• Daily mastitis cases
• Weekly dry matter intakes and feed costs
• Weekly milk components, SCC, MUNs
• Monthly fresh cow metrics
• Monthly reproduction summaries

“The more data you input the more data you have to look at,” Jason said. “That’s why you have consultants to help you know what to look at.”

Their nutritionist and veterinarian play the biggest role in working with farm data. The nutritionist uses the weekly fresh cow report and DMI from FeedWatch. The veterinarian also monitors the weekly fresh cow report and mastitis cases.

One day he would like to have the advanced parlor technologies that identify specific markers in the milk, but those tools are not mainstream yet.

Todd Doornink

Jon-De Farms is a 1,700-cow dairy owned and operated by Todd and Dean Doornink near Baldwin, Wis. Jon-De Farms is a fourth generation dairy business, farming a total of 2,000 acres and employing 35 full- and part-time employees.

Todd has used Dairy Comp 305 and EZ-Feed for the last 20 years. The Dairy Profit Manager program, available through their financial lender AgStar, takes accounting into consideration and is reviewed on a quarterly basis. The DHIA herd summary report is used to monitor somatic cell counts. He monitors the milk plant website to watch the bacteria count for proper operation of his clean-in-place system.

“You can’t measure the data if you don’t monitor it. This is critical to managing any dairy,” Todd said. “It allows us to make informed decisions instead of knee-jerk or emotional decisions.”

Todd’s key performance indicators include:

• Daily milk production per cow
• Number of cows milking
• Pregnancy rate for the last 60 days
• Feed efficiency analysis
• Working capital per cow
• Profit per cow

Records at Jon-De Farms are an open book for all consultants involved in servicing the business.

“If they can’t get what they want, they can’t help us,” Todd said.

Todd would like to have more smart phone technology to be able to better download and send data and a mapping system for their large bunker to better track forage inventories.

Download a printable PDF Presentation

With dynamic markets as the dairy industry’s new normal, today’s producers need to look beyond getting the highest price for their milk. The new focus is on ensuring good margins between costs and revenue.

Dr. John Goeser, Vita Plus dairy nutritionist and technical services representative, said one of the key strategies for protecting those margins is putting up high quality forages. Doing so can significantly reduce cost and, at the same time, increase productivity and profits. He said exceptional feed is half the battle. The other half, according to Goeser during his Vita Plus Dairy Summit 2010 presentation, is to “strive for consistent, high quality feed all year long.”

Goeser cited a few tools in the forage toolbox to help maintain feed quality: forage density, fermentation analyses and microbial counts, and forage core and surface temperatures. In relation to forage density, he said producers should aim for greater than 15 pounds of dry matter (DM) per cubic foot or greater than 44 pounds as fed per cubic foot. Goeser said research has shown a 20-percent DM loss with poor density. In comparison, by doubling that density, shrink was cut in half.

The next tool is to keep track of volatile fatty acids (VFA), which are produced by bacteria in the forages. Goeser gave the following VFA benchmarks:

• Lactic acid – the pH driver of the forages – greater than 3.0 percent
• Acetic acid (in forages not treated with L. buchneri inoculants) less than 2.0 percent
• Butyric acid (a negative end product of fermentation that signals major problems with the forage) less than 0.1 percent

In addition, research is placing more focus on ammonia-N as it’s an indicator of how much crude protein in the feed is broken down. Goeser said producers should aim for less than 10 percent ammonia-N.

All in all, Goeser said the goal should be efficient fermentation. That’s achieved first by harvesting high quality forages with less than 40 percent NDF. Next, Goeser recommends using a proven microbial inoculant. He said research shows that an efficient fermentation can preserve an additional 30 pounds of protein per ton of forage. Once you’ve put up good forage, protect it with two plastic layers to protect against oxygen as well as the elements and pests. Pay close attention to the edges and face of the bunker. Goeser advised putting gravel bags on the edges of forage to prevent air from slipping underneath the bunker cover.

Recently, Goeser started research on the relationship between forage temperature and quality. He said that normal fermentation will increase the temperature of the forage by 10 to 15 degrees F. When it’s fully fermented, it will cool off back to the normal harvest air temperature. However, if the forage does not properly ferment, temperatures will jump high and take longer to cool off. If the forage stays warm, the pH remains higher and bacteria will continue to burn the sugars and easy DM components. This is wasted energy that could have gone to the cows.

Since last winter, Goeser used a probe to measure internal temperatures and an infrared camera to measure the range in surface temperatures. He set the following goals for bunker and pile temperatures:

• Alfalfa silage: core temperature less than 75 degrees F and surface temperature range of less than 15 degrees F
• Corn silage: core temperature less than 70 degrees F and a surface temperature range less than 15 degrees F

Goeser said he will continue to place a priority on finding out how temperatures relate to forage quality. In the end, his goal is to use high quality forages to increase margins for producers.

“We’ve got to look for opportunities,” Goeser said. “We’ve got to find a way to grow margins and make them positive to keep everyone in this business and farming long-term.”

Download a printable PDF Presentation

As herd sizes increase and cows spend more time on concrete, dairy cow lameness has become an important issue for dairy producers and consumers. Despite a growing understanding of the important risk factors, little improvement has been made in the prevalence of lameness as it is a complex problem with many contributing factors.

Dr. Nigel Cook from the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine recommends that dairy producers first need to know what kind of lesions they have on their operation. When lesions are infectious (heel warts), dairy producers should look at their footbaths. When lesions are non-infectious (sole ulcers/white line), dairy producers should look at their flooring.

Eighty percent of dairy farms have heel warts (digital dermatitis) and a footbath is essential for combat. Of the chemicals used, 57 percent is copper sulfate and 26 percent is formalin. Cook warns that formalin is not effective in the winter. To ensure that both back feet get at least two dips, baths should be 12 feet long. To then help reduce the volume of solution, it should be 20 inches wide and four inches deep. Footbaths should be located in a split or a transfer exit alley and without a wash bath.

Cook recommends that, for proper footing, concrete flooring should have grooves that are 0.75 inches wide, a half inch deep and 3.25 inches apart. Rubber mats should be used in alleys where cows have to walk longer than the length of the barn.

First Step (TM), a collaboration between Zinpro Corporation and the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, helps dairy producers address the many problems associated with hoof health by creating a plan of action and allowing producers to address specific problems contributing to lameness in their herd. It covers all common management practices for dairy cows including freestalls, tie stalls, bedded pack, dirt lot and grazing. Dairy producers record data and enter it into First Step. It then uses 20 assessors to summarize the data and gives a report with opportunities for improvement. The assessment covers lesions, hoof-trimming assessment, transition management, footbath management, walking surfaces, nutrition, heat abatement, biosecurity and time budgets. A “More Info” section provides pictures and video for a better understanding and to improve education and training.

Download a printable PDF Presentation

Just as we learned at the producer panel, data is important for managing a dairy herd, especially during the transition period. Dr. Neil Michael, director of dairy initiatives for Vita Plus, reviewed key factors for the transition period, how they can be measured and what those measurements told him on actual dairies.

“The immune system of the cow is depressed during the transition period,” Michael said. “We need to optimize that immune system.”

He added, “The more we can minimize the decrease in intake, the better we are going to come through transition.”

Some of the influences that can negatively impact transition include:

• Stocking density
• Grouping
• Cow comfort
• Movement
• Rumen mat development
• Dry matter intake
• Immune function optimization
• Ration formulation

“The real trick is trying to figure out which ones of these is going to give you the biggest bang for your buck,” he said.

Using metrics can tell you if your transition program is really performing. Those metrics could include:

• Dry matter intakes (DMI)
• Body condition scores
• Post-partum events
• Percent sold or died within the first 60 days in milk
• Week 3 or 4 milk by lactation group
• Transition Cow Index
• First 305ME

Michael highly recommends monitoring BHBA and direct out-of-pocket costs for transition cows.

The cowside blood BHBA meter measures the risk factor for metabolic disease based on fat mobilization. Michael typically tests 12 animals from the tail vein. His target level is 0 to 1 animals above 1.4.

Direct out-of-pocket costs to the dairy for the transition period include cost of labor per hour spent on transition cows, cost of animals sold or died, cost of metabolic event treatments and costs of any additional treatment protocols.

He collected data from 28 dairies that range in cow numbers from 450 to 5,800 and found the total costs to range from $71 to $108.50. Culling represented 58 percent of the total direct costs.

Once shown this data, Michael said the dairies identified they need better diagnostics, better protocols and better drug inventories. It also increased their appreciation for transition cow health and provided the opportunity to use some nutrition solutions they previously thought were too expensive.

Michael then provided three case studies. Dairy A is a 1,700-cow herd that had a fairly high level of metabolic disease incidences no matter what measures were taken. On the farm, he observed overstocking in the pre and post groups, cows were not lying down and therefore not comfortable, they struggled to maintain DMI levels in both groups, and the post fresh groups had poor rumen fill.

The following changes were implemented:

• Adding chopped straw to the pre-fresh ration
• Targeting 85 percent stocking in the post-fresh group
• Over-bedding straw in the post-fresh area
• Measuring BHBA

“We didn’t do all of these changes on day one,” he said, which explains why the BHBA change occurred over time.

Before they started the direct out-of-pocket transition costs for the dairy averaged $95 per cow. After the changes it was at $79.

The 370-cow herd at Dairy B also complained of a high incidence of metabolic disease. Dry cows were housed in a tie-stall barn, so they decided to kick some heifers out to pasture and retrofit their deep-bedded pack pens for the pre-fresh cows. This gave them more bunk space and more water. A meeting with the herdsman helped identify outcomes to target as well.

This resulted in DMI increasing from 24 pounds to 27 pounds. Culling dropped and no deaths were reported in the last three months. Displaced abomasums, metritis and retained placentas incidences also decreased. Direct costs per cow went from $164 to $70 with the changes.

Dairy C with 3,500 cows was trying to manage the transition period with chopped straw and dry hay in the ration. They changed the diet to corn silage with chopped hay and straw, and managed sorting and ration consistency.

Cow deaths are now below 1 percent and direct costs dropped from $135 per cow to $50. Plus, the dairy had an additional 80 animals to sell after making the change 13 months ago.

Michael reminded producers that tracking metrics for the transition period can help identify areas for improvement and save some money too.

Click the images for a full-size slideshow.

Cows are Comfortable at Fetzer Farms

Fetzer Farms, Inc. is a 1,500-cow dairy with 1,800 acres in Elmwood, Wis. Brothers Paul, Steve and Joe Fetzer continue the tradition of their a family business passed on from their grandfather, father and uncle. Their mother, Betsy, continues to be very active in the farm’s daily operations as well.

In the fall of 2008, they moved 800 cows into a new eight-row cross-ventilated freestall barn. These cows are milked three times a day in a DeLaval double-20 parallel parlor.

The added cow comfort has the cows averaging 85 pounds of milk per day with a 3.99 percent fat and 3.25 percent protein. rBST is used on 50 percent of the herd, based on production and reproduction records.

The cross-ventilated barn has curtains for baffles instead of steel. It also has a double curtain fogger sidewall instead of the evaporative cooling pad, which is seen more often in this type of facility. The Fetzers believe the curtains allow for more translucent light to enter into the barn.

“The cows are comfortable. The employees are comfortable,” Paul said.

He also noted the incidences of pneumonia have been lower in this facility than what they experienced in their old conventional one.

Far-off dry cows are housed in the cross-ventilated barn too. Close-up dry cows are moved to the maternity barn, where they freshen. Those cows are milked there for one to two weeks before returning to the main milking string. The Fetzers keep all cows in one pen together throughout their entire lactation.

As part of the construction, they also converted an older freestall barn to tunnel ventilation and sand bedding. The barn holds 400 first-calf heifers and is connected to the new parlor.

Sand-laden manure from that barn and the cross-ventilated one are automatically scraped to a center collection pit in a sand separation room. Sand reclaimed from the manure sits in this room for two to three weeks to let the wash water leach out before being reintroduced to the stalls, which are bedded once a week.

“We haven’t purchased any new sand since January,” Paul said.

Previously the beds were made with mattresses and sawdust, which still remains in the springing heifer and maternity barn. The Fetzers are in the process of converting that barn to sand, too.

“We found once the girls get used to sand they won’t lie down on anything else,” Paul said.

Sand bedding and better climate control has made a difference in the dairy’s milk quality. When they moved into the new facility, somatic cell counts were around 270,000 to 280,000. That was reduced to 132,000, but after a spike from high humidity this summer, they are working again to get down to that level. Currently the farm is averaging 139,000.

Cropping had been a part of Fetzers’ operation until they partnered with a neighboring dairy to form a separate LLC. This entity owns the equipment needed to cover the combined 3,500 acres of forage and all fall manure applications.

In order to be more efficient on the operation, a number of years ago the Fetzers took time to measure shrink in their feeding system. They determined that if they switched to storing ground corn, a vitamin/mineral mix, soybean meal and dried distillers grains in bins on the dairy they could reduce their feed loss in this area by 65 tons a year.

Calves from the farm are picked up every week and send to a nearby grower. When they reach 600 pounds they are transferred to a second grower before returning to the farm pre-fresh.

The Fetzers have worked to make cows their main focus and it is evident from the facilities to their management style.

Download a printable PDF Presentation

On Wednesday morning, Gary Sipiorski and Randy Greenfield, both with Vita Plus, offered a special breakout session on risk management. With volatility seen in both inputs and milk prices, finding a way to manage a dairy’s risk has become a priority for many dairy producers and their lenders.

Sipiorski began the discussion with a review of prices seen in the last few years.

He then asked, “What are you trying to protect? What’s your risk? What’s your cost of production? You’ve got to know your bottom line.”

“To make sure your checkbook works, you need to think about what your expenses are and what your income is and capture some of that margin in between,” he added.

Greenfield then took over with what he has learned about risk management.

First of all, many farmers have at one point or another tried at least some form of risk management. In some cases, they purchased contracts when the price was low. The price then turned higher and they felt as if they were burnt on the deal, having to sell milk below market prices. Subsequently they vowed never to do that again.

“That is an example of marketing by emotion,” Greenfield said. “With this volatility, it’s all emotion.”

He then reviewed some of the basic pieces of risk management, including basis, futures contracts, put and call options, and hedging.

“In general, the more leveraged you are, the more you need to consider hedging,” he said.

Sipiorski added, “Most lenders are concerned if your equity drops below 50 percent.”

At that point, the lender may encourage you to take on some form of managing risk. Before taking that on, it is good to set a plan. This marketing plan will serve as a set of rules specifically set up for your business. It will remove emotion and limit speculation in your marketing activities.

To set up a plan, Greenfield suggested you ask yourself the following questions:

• What is your risk tolerance?
• What is your cost of production?
• How much of your milk do you want/need to protect? This should be based on your equity position and how diversified you are.
• What price level do you want to protect?
• What can you withstand for losses?
• Who will execute the trades?

Having more than one plan can help manage different scenarios. For instance, a plan during average market times is a good start, but what if conditions change and you can’t implement your plan? Having a Plan B for low market times and a Plan C for high market times can aid in those situations.

“Start slow,” he said. “I’m going to encourage you, if you’re going to do this, be sure you understand it.”

In closing, Greenfield recommended you get to know your cost of production, define the risk of your operation and become market aware.

Download a printable PDF Presentation

What’s become conventional calf feeding isn’t necessarily what’s closest to “natural” calf growth programs. That’s according to Dr. Jim Drackley of the University of Illinois during his presentation at Vita Plus Dairy Summit 2010.

Calf feeding programs that are most successful nutritionally mimic cow’s milk. Drackley introduced the idea of “biologically appropriate nutrition” to Summit attendees. Biologically appropriate feeding programs deliver milk solids in a ratio nearer cow’s milk (about 26 percent protein and 29 percent fat on a dry solids basis). The desired outcomes include:

• Maintenance of health
• Rapid growth of frame size (skeleton and muscle)
• Optimal fat deposition
• Better transition to becoming a functioning ruminant
• Optimal reproduction and increased milk production in first lactation

Drackley said the root of his research is simple. “If you want calves to grow more rapidly, they have to eat more,” he said. “That means increasing energy intake and protein intake.”

Drackley also reminded the attendees who farm in the Upper Midwest that colder climates demand more energy for basic maintenance requirements before better growth can ever be achieved. But placing calves on a biologically appropriate milk feeding program is only a portion of the total successful calf operation. Several others factors have a big influence on how quickly youngstock enter the milking herd.

Colostrum management

Remember the “three q’s and one c” of colostrum management: quickly, quantity, quality and cleanliness. Successfully delivering IgGs is essential for ensuring prime calf health. Failure of passive transfer can impair long-term performance, including increased time to first calving, decreased average daily gain to 180 days, and decreased milk and fat yields in the first lactation.

Supplemental water

Although feeding water in the winter comes with challenges, it is paramount to calf health. Inadequate free water leads to:

• Decreased starter intake
• Insufficient water for tissue growth
• Stress response
• Decreased growth

Starter and weaning management

Drackley reminded producers that proper weaning can minimize the “growth slump” that often occurs at this point in the calf’s life. It is an especially common concern with high performance or biologically appropriate milk programs. However, this challenge is easily solved with a few management adjustments. To avoid nutritional stress at weaning, strive for adequate starter intake by providing plenty of free choice water and avoiding weaning to early in the calf’s life.

In addition, wean gradually and don’t allow free-choice hay intake. Drackley said limit-feeding a small amount of high quality hay can be very good for the calf. Also use a step-down program with accelerrated milk replacers to improve starter intake.

Drackley provided his checklist of the “ideal” weaning process, but recognized it is extremely difficult – if not impossible – to achieve all these goals. Instead, try to focus on a few of these key items to improve the weaning period on your operation:

• Wean when calves consume more than 3 pounds of starter daily (start the process when calves reach 2 pounds per day).
• Wean gradually over 4 to 7 days by decreasing the volume of milk or diluting it with water.
• Offer warm water at normal feeding times by the same feeding method as milk replacer for three days. This separates calves’ behavioral needs from nutritional needs.
• Do not move calves or change the diet for two weeks post-weaning.
• Do not combine weaning with other management tasks such as vaccination, dehorning, etc.
• Ensure adequate intake of a coccidiostat before and after weaning. Calves may not be getting a high enough dose if they are slumping on starter intake, which may lead to cocci breaks during the weaning period.

In today’s tough dairy economy, Drackley said he sees why producers may be hesitant to invest more money in a biologically appropriate calf nutrition program. However, he said doing so will actually show a significant economic advantage in the long run through improved health and capitalizing on rapid early growth potential. He said he’s seen many examples where the investment per unit of gain is essentially equal between conventional and biologically appropriate programs. Plus, because these programs lead to increase production in the first lactation, the investment is easily paid for and will likely even show a positive return when the heifers enter the milking herd.

Download a printable PDF Presentation

With estate and capital gains tax up in the air and a low economy affecting interest rates and farm values, now is a good time to take care of planning the future of your business. Dan Rupar of Ruder Ware, L.L.S.C. in Wausau, Wis., specializes in estate and business succession planning. These plans are not only integral for intra-family farm transfers, but also for two or more farmers establishing a joint operation.

Only about 30 to 35 percent of family businesses make it to the second generation and just 10 percent make it to the third. While 78 percent of families intend to pass their business to their children, only 34 percent have created a succession plan.

“Succession planning can be a struggle,” Rupar said. “It’s a lot of hard work and takes concentration. It is not something you can just do in your spare time.”

That said, the harder you work at it, the easier it can become. “Succession planning is a process, not an event,” he said.

As with any good process, the foundation for succession planning must be laid first. This is opening the discussions between owners and potential successors.

“Laying the foundation prior to going into an attorney’s office is going to be more efficient and cost saving, rather than using the lawyer as a counselor,” Rupar said.

Roadblocks to establishing these business relationships are often self-imposed and result in poor group dynamics. The delicate nature of human relationship has to do with trust. Certain principals must be maintained to keep trust in the process. They are:

1. The relationship must be based on the owners’ quality, compatible shared values and goals for the farm and as individuals.

2. Differences in the owners’ styles of management and personalities may be the key to the farm’s success or a primary cause of conflict.

3. Potential rivalries must be recognized, evaluated and brought under control.

4. Planning for the farm must also recognize the convergence, and often conflict, of family values versus business values.

5. Planning must recognize the need for consistent and adequate communication between owners and within the organization.

6. The owners and successors must be committed to the full planning process. It is primary and necessary.

During the process, the parties involved need to identify individual goals, perform personal and partner assessments, establish a vision for the farm and outline core values.

An agreement may or may not include ownership, responsibility, contributions, management, compensation, distributions and classes of ownership.

As you consider transferring ownership, you should address who is a permitted transferee. Could they be spouses, children, owners or other businesses owned by owners or trusts? Would you consider ownership with limited voting rights?

Restricting methods of transfer and transfers to a third party should also be considered, as well as how ownership will be dealt with if there is a disability, divorce or death.

Farms are highly specialized business and with the addition of family can have a highly charged emotional atmosphere that doesn’t make ownership transfer easy. Employing succession planning can help you minimize future disagreements by minimizing surprises.

For more information, contact Rupar at drupar@ruderware.com or 800.477.8050.

Download a printable PDF Presentation

“How much corn silage should I feed?” is a common question raised by most dairy producers. The short-term answer is usually found by the amount of existing inventories, but the long-term answer is unique for each dairy. Randall Greenfield, Vita Plus nutritionist and a member of the technical staff, said feeding a high corn silage diet has some distinct advantages and disadvantages.

If you chose a high corn silage diet, that means you have to feed less of something else, usually alfalfa. Alfalfa has been known as the “queen of forages,” but it also has a long list of advantages and disadvantages. Corn silage almost always out-yields alfalfa. The University of Wisconsin-Madison agronomy department had an average of 8.25 tons of dry matter per acre of corn silage and 5.5 tons of dry matter per acre of alfalfa in 2010.

You can also achieve the increase in yield with harvesting once compared to the three to five times needed for alfalfa, giving corn silage an advantage in less soil compaction and lower fuel costs. With alfalfa being an annual crop, it provides ground cover during the off months, but also provides the risk of winter kill. Alfalfa removes approximately 43 pounds of phosphorous per acre from the soil and corn silage removes close to 33 pounds per acre. It can be a challenge to harvest alfalfa that is uniform and with an ideal moisture content. Corn silage provides less variability in the bunker with fewer buffers allowing it to ferment to a stable pH more rapidly.

So what about the numbers? Greenfield says that pricing corn silage is straight forward and is based off the corn grain price. Alfalfa, on the other hand, can be based off of the local market or the value your nutritionists gives. The University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Dairy Profitability reports that the 2010 price for corn silage is $70.96 per ton of dry matter and $88.66 per ton of dry matter for alfalfa. This gives a 35 cent per head per day advantage when feeding a high corn silage diet. Greenfield has also tracked the commodity prices at the beginning of the month since 2006. When comparing these numbers it gives an eight cent per head per day disadvantage for feeding a high corn silage diet. Neither corn silage nor alfalfa has the clear advantage over the other on the price of feeding.

So what do the cows tell us? According to Greenfield, corn silage fiber is not as effective as alfalfa fiber as cows will ruminate more on alfalfa producing more saliva and buffers. This means feeding more corn silage will lower the rumen pH. To compensate the lower pH, Greenfield recommends feeding at least 8 to 10 pounds of dry hay or setting a practical limit of forage dry matter at 70 to 80 percent corn silage. Corn silage is a good source of wet and rumen-available starch. High moisture corn and snaplage are not recommended as starch sources when feeding high amounts of corn silage. It is generally accepted that low fat tests are directly caused by unsaturated fats unsuccessfully being broken down in the rumen. Feeding high levels of fat is not recommended in a high corn silage diet. The type of fat should also be a major consideration. Greenfield recommends using a ruminally protected form.

Many university trials compare milk production of high corn silage diets, but many other factors contribute to production, such as other ingredients in the diet. Greenfield concludes that ultimately there is no clear winner but neither will limit milk production.

Greenfield encourages considering other factors on your farm and including your nutritionists on your decision about the amount of corn silage in your dairy’s ration. Alfalfa and corn silage will continue to improve genetically and the choice will never be completely clear.

Download a printable PDF Presentation

In an era when animal activists and anti-agriculture groups use mainstream media to push their agendas and influence consumers, it’s time for dairy producers to step up and maintain their “freedom to operate” by earning a “social license.” Charlie Arnot, chief executive officer of the Center for Food Integrity, said building trust and confidence in today’s food system is the only way to get there.

According to Arnot, a social license is defined as “the privilege of operating with minimal formalized restrictions (legislation, regulation or market requirements) based on maintaining public trust by doing what’s right” and public trust is “a belief that activities are consistent with social expectations and the values of the community and other stakeholders.” In other words, the general public believes what you are doing is ethical and doesn’t feel you need laws dictating your day-to-day actions. Keep in mind, increased regulation also means increased cost to stay in compliance.

For agriculture, Arnot said the real challenge is shifting focus from competence to confidence. Traditionally, agriculture relies on science and proven facts to tell its story of animal production and food safety. That’s competence. However, the public builds trust based on confidence – in knowing that farmers produce food based on shared values. Arnot cited a Theodore Roosevelt quote to reiterate this fact: “They don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

Under Arnot’s leadership, the Center for Food Integrity conducted a consumer trust qualitative research study and Arnot shared two of its key observations with Dairy Summit attendees. First, the general public is both disinterested and uniformed about modern food production. Second, consumers “trust farmers, but aren’t sure contemporary production is still farming.” Thus, by confirming that today’s producers are farmers and still care about their animals, environment and communities, the public will continue to give agriculturists a social license to operate.

Based on his 2010 research, Arnot said the public has a heightened interest in the food system. To capitalize on this interest, Arnot said producers need to take two steps. First, look in the mirror. Farmers need to make sure they are operating according to the highest standards for animal and environmental care. Second, they should be completely transparent and active in sharing their actions with consumers. Arnot said it’s great when producers talk about day-to-day activities on the farm and invite the community to see their operations.

Arnot concluded by reminding producers they should be proud of their accomplishments. Today’s farmers produce wholesome food in a more environmentally friendly way that’s also best for the animals and the people involved. That’s the story consumers are interested in hearing and, as an industry, the story we all need to share.