Title: Dairy update
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087054/00033
 Material Information
Title: Dairy update
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Institute of Food and Agricultural Science
Publisher: Institute of Food and Agricultural Science
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: Summer 2010
Copyright Date: 2010
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087054
Volume ID: VID00033
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text


Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS)
Department of Animal Sciences

airy Update

Quarterly Newsletter Vol. 10 No. 3 Summer 2010

Dan Webb retired from UF

Professor Daniel W. Webb retired from the University of
Florida on June 30, 2010. Dan Webb grew up on a dairy farm
in central Mississippi, where he participated in 4-H and FFA
showing Holstein cattle. He and his three brothers were the
primary labor force for the family dairy while in high school
and college. While in 4-H, Webb was a delegate to National 4-
H Club Congress, National Leadership Conference and
National 4-H Dairy Conference. Dan
Webb received a BS degree from
Mississippi State University, an MS
degree from the University of
Florida, and a PhD degree from
Kansas State University. After
graduating from Kansas State, Webb
joined the dairy science faculty of
the University of Florida. His
assignments were in Extension and
his academic interests revolved
around the use of information and records in dairy herd
management. Dan Webb coordinated the DHI program in
Florida, and has served as general manager of Southeast DHI
since 2000 when the DHI programs in Florida and Georgia
were merged. In the near future, Dan Webb intends to
remain working part-time with Southeast DHI.

Some Things I Have Learned

Daniel W. Webb

During 39 years of professional life, I have been
privileged to know and work with many fine people, most of
them dairy farmers or others associated with the dairy
business. While I spent nine years of informal study of
biology, math, chemistry, statistics and social science at three
different land grant universities, my greater education has
come from observations and analysis of dairy operations,
mostly in Florida and the southeast. A few of those
observations will be highlighted here.
Planning. A universal characteristic of the successful dairy
farms was that they had a plan. The manager or chief
decision-maker had a clear understanding of what he wanted
to happen and where he wanted to be 10 years down the
Personnel relations. The best dairy farms have a manager
with clear authority to manage. All too often, I have seen
managers hired but not given the trust and freedom to make

the important decisions. Further, managers need to expect a
lot from their workers and make sure important tasks are
performed according to the plan.
Good animal husbandry. High performing herds take
good care of their cows. Feeding, herd health, milking
management and breeding need constant attention. Failure
in any one of these cow management areas can doom a dairy.
The chain is no stronger than its weakest link.
Good genetics. I have observed that in herds where
ordinary cows are being milked, there is a definite limit of
performance. The top performing herds have a plan for
milking better cows tomorrow than they have today.
Performance information. Most modern dairies are large
businesses that require data, information and records to
know what works and what doesn't. Whether it's DHIA, cost
accounting or field productivity, analytical information is
Facility appearance. At the most successful dairies,
facilities are in good repair, well painted and clean. Neighbors
and farm visitors form their opinions of the industry by what
they see. Employees perform better in well-kept facilities,
Judicious investment. I have visited farms that still make
payments on facilities not in use. On the other hand, one
successful dairy was noted for "no moving parts". There was
nothing there except the cows and only what was needed to
manage and care for them.
Implementation. While a plan is important, more can be
said about how well the plan is carried out. Herds that
prosper are those that "get it done". Herds that raise their
own replacements well, have a greater chance for profit in
the long run. Herds that raise their own replacements poorly
have little chance. Herds that use Al and do it well have a
significant advantage compared to bull-bred herds. However,
well managed natural service can result in lower calving
intervals and higher profit than poorly managed Al programs.
It all comes down to how well the plan is implemented. A
good motto I found on the office wall at one dairy reads,
"Plan the work, and work the plan".
Daniel W. Webb is a Professor Emeritus in the UF
Department of Animal Sciences.

Laboratory Pasteurized Count Reduction Procedures

David R. Bray

The LPC test is doing a standard plate count on
pasteurized milk. The mastitis pathogens are killed and what
remains are organisms that keep on growing in the milk and
reduce shelf life. These organisms are not from cows' udders,
they are usually spore -formers, like bacillus or other
undesirables like pseudomonas, which live in rubber hoses
and are in some water supplies. If a high LPC count is present
or in your near future (250-300 cfu/ml is the usual cut off
point) then the following procedures need to be done to
ensure you stay below these levels.
1. Milk clean dry pre-dipped teats and udders. Sand
bedding, muddy lots are a big supplier of these non-cow
bacteria. Milking wet and or dirty teats will load up the
tank with them.
2. Replace all rubber parts in the milking parlor: milk hoses,
wash hoses, jetter cups, pipeline gaskets, milk pump
gaskets and butterfly valves etc. While taken apart,
inspect inside of the pipelines for any build-up or milk
stone, including the pipeline from the milk pump to the
bulk tank. The hot water supply to the bulk tank washers
usually has rubber water hoses that get water into the
milk supply. Replace all rubber parts every 6 months. No
chasing of milk, especially not with a rubber hose.
3. Wash out pulsator lines. They should have clean outs on
the corners so it can be flushed out. Wash out pulsator
hoses, remove the twin pulsator hoses from the claw,
run hot soapy water through them and the pulsators.
Most pulsators will take a quart of water, rinse pulsators,
change hoses if old (when liners split during milking, the
milk runs through the pulsators into the pulsator lines
and throughout the vacuum system). Dried milk film may
be a big problem of high LPC's.
4. Wash out vacuum supply lines, trap to pump, balance
5. Inspect the inside of bulk tanks. You need a black-light or
big flash light and a skinny person. Let the tank air out
and if any internal cleaning of the tanks is needed, use a
non scratch 3 M scrubber and soap and water. Do not
use acids or strong chemicals that will kill the skinny guy
6. Make sure air injectors are working properly and
chemical concentrations are correct for your system. Use
a minimum of 1600 F water at the start of the wash cycle
and dump the water at 1200 F. Sanitization of tanks and
pipelines should be 1 hour or less with chlorine
sanitizers. Some products are longer lasting. Check all
labels of all chemicals, you might learn something
7. Make sure your milk cooling system is working properly.
Chillers are necessary if you have an old tank with little
cooling capacity. Ideally if we never get milk to above
400F we will have lower counts.
8. The plate cooler is a good candidate for LPC problems,
lots of gaskets etc. If all things mentioned above fail this
is it. It should be possible to isolate the plate cooler by

hooking up the inline samplers in the pipeline in front of
and behind the plate cooler and run LPC's on each
sample. If the before sample is high or its dirty before the
plate cooler, you then need to clean that part of the
system and run the test again. If before the plate cooler
is low and after the plate cooler is high, you tear it down.
If neither are high and the bulk tank is high, it's the tank.
Inline sampling device suppliers are (QMI)
www.qmisystems.com and (BoldBioTech)
9. Transfer hoses from the tank to the truck can be a
problem also, especially on large dairies where bulk tanks
are filled multiple times a day. It is possible that the hose
does not get washed and sanitized every time causing
bacterial build up. If by chance that is due to truck
dispatch problems and the tank does get washed after it
is emptied, you can get milkstone build up which allows
these bacteria to hide and slough off under the milk
stone and increase these bacteria causing LPC problems.
10. This is not an expensive process, no cows to treat, or cull,
just good husbandry practices like keeping cows as clean
and cool as possible, milking clean dry teats, have
enough hot water and proper chemical concentrations,
flushing out your milking system regularly, change rubber
parts every six months. You might just as well get used to
doing this because these tests are going to be here
11. If you wish not to do these practices, there are dairymen
in other parts of this country who will be happy to supply
all the milk our processors need.
Contact Dave Bray at drbrav@(ufl.edu or call (352) 392-5594.

BIOENERGY- 2010 Farm to Fuel Summit

Ann C. Wilkie

In 2006, the Florida Farm to Fuel Initiative was statutorily
created to enhance the market for and promote the
production and distribution of renewable energy from
Florida-grown crops, agricultural wastes
and residues, and other biomass, and to
enhance the value of agricultural II
products and expand agribusiness in the
State. Since then, the Florida
Department of Agriculture and jgt
Consumer Services has hosted four &. 2 oW
"Farm to Fuel Summits", each of which
attracted several hundred participants.
The fifth Florida Farm to Fuel Summit is scheduled for
August 11-13 at the Rosen Shingle Creek Resort in Orlando.
The 2010 Summit will provide further opportunities for
leaders from agriculture, academia, government and industry
to discuss Florida's energy future and join in shaping the
production of biofuels and renewable energy in the State of
Florida. This high-profile event will feature speakers and
panelists representing international, national and state
perspectives on issues of research, production and
distribution of biofuels, including biodiesel, bioethanol and
biogas. This year's Summit will also include afternoon
workshops on biofuels and woody biomass utilization, on

August 11th. For the 2010 Summit agenda and registration
information visit the Farm to Fuel website:
http://www.floridafarmtofuel.com/summit 2010.htm. For
questions or issues about bioenergy, contact: Dr. Ann C.
Wilkie at acwilkie@ufl.edu or (352) 392-8699. Ann Wilkie is in
the UF Department of Soil and Water Science.

Changes in UF Dairy Science Curriculum

Albert De Vries

The Department of Animal Sciences at UF is making some
changes in its undergraduate curriculum. Starting in the fall of
2010, students in the Animal Sciences major will choose one
of 3 specializations: animal biology, equine, or food animal.
The new food animal specialization is a merger of the
previously offered beef, dairy, and meats options. The merger
is a result of changing interests by students in these options,
as well as a reaction to the leave of faculty who were deeply
involved with the students and courses taught in these
options during the last decade. Changes were also made in
the lists of required vs. elective courses.
The dairy science course offerings have changed as well.
Students interested in studying dairy science now can take
the courses Biology and Management of Dairy Cattle and
Dairy Cattle Practicum. Both courses are coordinated by Dr.
Albert De Vries. Dr. Mary Sowerby coordinates a course in
Dairy Herd Evaluation, including collegiate dairy cattle
Aspects of dairy science are also presented in courses
that cover multiple species, such as Introduction to Animal
Science, Reproductive Physiology and Endocrinology in
Domestic Animals, Genetic Improvement of Farm Animals,
and Principles of Animal Nutrition. More advanced dairy
cattle nutrition will be taught by Dr. Charlie Staples within the
Food Animal Nutrition and Feeding course.
Other opportunities for students with an interest in dairy
are taking a dairy focused internship and participation in the
Dairy Challenge competitions, both at the Southern Regional
and National levels. UF has again a vibrant Dairy Club, advised
by Dr. Mary Sowerby. Students wanting an intensive hands-
on dairy learning experience can participate in the Southern
Great Plains Dairy Consortium Teaching program. For more
information, contact Albert De Vries, devries@ufl.edu or (352)
392-5594 ext 227.

UF Dairy Student Attends Large Dairy Herd Management
Program in New Mexico

Albert De Vries

In 2008, UF became a cooperating institution in the
Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium -Teaching program.
This year, UF dairy option student C. J. Middleton participated
in the six-week long intensive hands-on dairy teaching
program held in Clovis, New Mexico. The third annual
SGPDCT program was held May 17-June 25 and brought
together 36 students interested in dairy large herd
management from 12 universities across the United States.

The SGPDCT was created to specifically address the need
to improve the availability of dairy science education at
universities in the Southwest and to ensure the growing dairy
industry in that area a well qualified pool of prospective
employees for future employment.
The program is divided into two concurrent sessions and
covers topics such as herd evaluation, reproduction,
nutrition, genetics, facilities and mastitis.
A major component of the learning process is hands-on
training. Each day the group spends at least four hours in the
classroom and every day the class either visits a dairy, lab or
takes a field trip to enforce what was taught during class.
There is a tremendous amount of hands-on. Nationally-
known instructors are brought in from all over the country
and are considered experts in their fields of dairy science.
They include university faculty members from participating
and other schools as well as industry experts.
C.J. Middleton noted: "We had speakers from all over the
U.S. We discussed data analysis, nutrition, reproduction,
mastitis, financial statements, etc. We worked with dairy
veterinarians for the last week, just our group of seven
students. We visited two cheese plants. We went to
Southwest Dairy Day at Spandet Dairy where they milk in a
100-head rotary with cross ventilated barns! We went to
heifer and calf feedlots and visited close to 30+ dairies in
Texas and New Mexico! We were challenged to use our
knowledge daily and we had sponsor dinners on several
Wednesday nights. Everybody welcomed us with hospitality
and entertained our questions. It is a great opportunity not
just for dairy people but for anyone interested in large
livestock production. It was a great opportunity and I'm glad
and thankful for the opportunity to participate."
The availability of this program offers a great opportunity
for students who attend UF and want the extensive dairy
instruction UF is no longer able to offer. This program has
been completely funded by private industry and a USDA
grant. UF students participating in this program receive credit
at UF. Read more about the 2010 program at
http://www.progressivedairy.com. For more information
about the details of this program, go to
http://sqpdct.tamu.edu or contact Albert De Vries,
devries@ufl.edu or (352) 392-5594 ext 227.

Effect of Sexed Semen on Dairy Heifer Supply
from 2006 to 2012

Albert De Vries

Presently, all major North American artificial
insemination (Al) companies sell sexed semen from dairy
sires. These Al companies sell sexed semen which results in
90% dairy heifer calves. Al organization Genex Cooperative
also offers sexed semen that gives a 75% chance of a heifer
calf. The fertility of sexed semen is less than that of
conventional (not sexed) semen. Used unbiased, the
conception rate for the 90% sorted semen is approximately
75 to 80% of the conception rate of conventional semen.
Demand for sexed semen was greater than the supply of
sexed semen until the end of 2008. But low milk prices in
2009 caused a sharp reduction in demand, and consequently

many Al companies produced less sexed semen in 2009 than
in 2008.
In early 2006, when effective sexed semen became
commercially available approximately 18,000 units were
produced monthly. By the end of 2008, this number had
increased to approximately 300,000 units. Total sexed-semen
production for the U.S. dairy market in 2008 was estimated at
2.5 million units. For 2009, total sexed-semen production is
more difficult to measure because demand was much less
than the sorting capacity. Reports are that some Al
companies produced less than 50% of the 2008 production.
Estimates for 2009 are 1 to 1.4 million units of sexed semen
The USDA-Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory
(USDA-AIPL) reports that in Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI)
herds, sexed semen was used for 1.4, 9.5, and 17.8% of all
reported inseminations in heifers for 2006, 2007, and 2008,
respectively, and for 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4% of all reported
inseminations in cows. For heifers, 82% of all sexed-semen
use was in first inseminations. For cows, 61% of sexed semen
was for first parity and 43% for first inseminations of the first
parity. Larger herds, herds with higher production levels, and
herds in the Northwest, Mideast, Midwest, and Southeast
used sexed semen more frequently than other herds and
USDA-AIPL calculated that 37% of the 700 active Holstein
bulls born in 1994 and later had their sexed semen used in
the April 2009 national genetic evaluation. These 260 bulls
were on average slightly better than the average bull-for-milk
yield traits (fat, protein, yield), productive life, somatic cell
score, daughter pregnancy rate, service-sire calving ease,
service-sire stillbirth, sire conception rate, final score, and Net
Results from a study by Select Sires Inc. of 211 dairy
farms suggest that-in heifers-age at first insemination and
age at calving was younger when sexed semen was used. This
is a result of the preferential use of sexed semen at first
insemination. Cycle lengths were not affected by the use of
sexed semen. Sexed semen did not affect stillbirth rates in
heifers getting heifer calves, but among heifers getting bull
calves (from sexed semen, a 10% chance), the incidence of
stillbirths appeared higher. In all calvings resulting from sexed
semen, the total incidence of stillbirth was similar as when
conventional semen was used. Caution must be used when
interpreting results from field data because of the
preferential use of sexed semen (only heifers with good
standing estrus are inseminated with sexed semen, for
example). Heifer calves resulting from sexed semen appear to
be completely normal.
Figure 1 shows the timing and number of sexed semen
units used in the domestic dairy market. Until the end of
2008, the produced units have been used in inseminations
almost immediately after they have become available.
Production in 2009 has been reported to be significantly less,
but the fraction of sexed semen used in all inseminations
apparently did not change much. Dairy producers probably
used up their semen inventories in early 2009 to save on
Furthermore, the vast majority of sexed semen has been
used in virgin heifers. Our estimates are that in 2006, 99% of
the produced sexed semen was used in heifers. In 2007,

2008, and 2009, these percentages were 96%, 85%, and 85%,
respectively. The remainder was used in cows. Thus, more of
the sexed semen was used in cows in late 2008 and 2009
than during the early commercialization in 2006, but the use
was still limited.

heifers 0 cows


2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 1. Estimated amount of used sexed-semen units in the
U.S. dairy market from January 2006 to December 2009. Until
late 2008, almost all produced units were used in
inseminations within afew months. In 2009, less units were
produced but apparently a similar number of sexed semen
units were used as in 2008.

Data Records Management Systems (DRMS), in Raleigh,
North Carolina, reported that the percentage of sexed semen
inseminations of all reported inseminations in heifers was
18.7% in April 2008 and increased to 23.9% in December
2008 (John Clay, DRMS, personal communication) (Figure 2).


1 ~ -------------------

2008 2009

Month and year

Figure 2. Sexed-semen inseminations as percent of all
reported inseminations to DRMS, Raleigh, North Carolina, in
heifers and cows in April-December 2008 and April-
December 2009 (Source: John Clay, DRMS, personal

In April 2009, sexed-semen use in heifers was 22.8% and
then varied between 20.2 and 21.6% until December 2009.
For cows, sexed semen accounted for 1.7% of all reported
inseminations in April 2008 and increased to 2.3% in
December 2008. In 2009, the use of sexed semen in cows
decreased again to approximately 1.6% in cows. Note that
this use in cows is significantly more than the 0.4% reported
by USDA-AIPL for 2008. The low milk prices in 2009
apparently did little to the use of sexed semen that year.
These usage data and production data prior to 2008 are the

basis for the following calculations on how the use of sexed
semen affects the national heifer supply.
The number of new pregnancies with heifer calves from
sexed-semen inseminations has increased from 7,200 in
January 2006 to 58,000 in December 2008, after which it
decreased to 40,000 to 50,000 per month in 2009 (Figure 3).
The results for late 2008 are less than predicted in 2009.
These estimates include 45% and 28% conception rates with
sexed semen in heifers and cows, respectively. It also includes
a small adjustment for abortions. And furthermore, 90% of
the new pregnancies are heifer calves. Because cows have
lower conception rates than heifers, cows contributed only
0.6% (2006) to 10% (2008 and 2009) of the new pregnancies
from sexed semen.

i heifers 0 cows

I 60,000
E 50,000
S 30o,ooo000 -
I 20,000
U 1o,ooo

2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 3. Number of new pregnancies with heifer calves per
month in those heifers and cows inseminated with sexed
semen from January 2006 to December 2009.

If these same heifers and cows had conceived with
conventional semen (48% heifer calves), the number of new
pregnancies with heifer calves would have been
approximately 3,800 in January 2006 to 31,000 per month in
late 2008 and back to about 24,000 per month in 2009. Thus,
almost half of the heifers and cows would also be carrying a
heifer calf if they had been inseminated with conventional
semen. These heifer calves must be subtracted from the
heifer calves from sexed semen to calculate the net gain. The
monthly net gain in number of heifer calves ranges from
3,400 in January 2006 to 30,000 per month in late 2008 to
25,000 per month during 2009. Summed over the four years
(2006 to 2009), the number of extra heifer calf pregnancies
due to the use of sexed semen is 820,000. Per unit of sexed
semen, about 17% more heifer calves were obtained.
These numbers of new pregnancies with heifer calves from
sexed semen need to be compared with the total number of
new pregnancies with heifer calves on U.S. dairy farms. USDA
estimates available on the University of Wisconsin dairy
markets Web site (http://future.aae.wisc.edu ) showed the
national population of dairy cows at about 9.1 million in 2006
and increasing to 9.3 million in late 2008 and 9.1 million in
2009. Commercial dairy cow slaughter and death losses
accounted for approximately 3.2 million cows in 2006 and 3.5
million in 2009. Average annual national cull rate (including
deaths) is then 35%, which agrees with the 2007 Dairy Report
from USDA (2008). Culled and dead cows are replaced by
calving heifers because the national cow population is fairly
constant. Thus, approximately 275,000 heifers will calve
monthly (starting first parities). We also estimated that

approximately 440,000 cows will calve monthly (starting
second and greater parities).
Of all conceiving heifers, 3% (early 2006) to 23% (late
2008), and decreasing to approximately 20% in 2009, became
pregnant with sexed semen. Of the conceiving cows, 0.01%
(early 2006) to 1.4% (late 2008) and then decreasing to 1.2%
(in 2009) became pregnant with sexed semen. The remainder
of the calving heifers and cows then became pregnant with
either conventional Al or by natural service bulls, with 48% of
these pregnancies resulting in heifer calves. Sexed-semen use
has caused 1% (early 2006) to 8% (late 2008) to 7% (2009)
more heifer calves in new pregnancies than if conventional
semen had been used.
Figure 4 shows when the extra heifer calves that are a
result of the use of sexed semen are conceived (conceptions),
born (births) and when they are expected to enter the milking
herd as heifers themselves (entering). We assumed that 80%
of heifer calves enter the milking herd as heifers 24 months
after they are born. The first heifer calves conceived with
sexed semen in early 2006 were starting to enter milking
herds in late 2008. The estimated numbers of extra heifers
entering the national milking herd in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
and 2012, as a result of the use of sexed semen, are 8,000,
63,000, 156,000, 258,000, and 237,000. Based on the
conceptions from sexed semen from 2006 to 2009, a total of
722,000 extra heifers are projected to calve in the five years
from 2008 to 2012.

-4-conceptions -o-births -c-entering
F 30,000
*" 10,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 4. Number of extra heifer calves in the national
population (heifers and cows) that resulted from
inseminations (conceptions) with sexed semen from January
2006 to December 2009. These heifer calves are born (births)
9 months after conception and enter herds 24 months after
they are born (entering).

For more information, contact Albert De Vries,
devries@ufl.edu or (352) 392-5594 ext 227. A slightly
extended version of this article can be found at
http://edis.ifas. ufl. edu/an242.


a" ,."

Prediction of the Future Florida Mailbox Price:
August 2010 July 2011

Albert De Vries

The realized Florida mailbox price closely follows the
Class III price announced monthly by USDA. The figure shows
the Florida mailbox prices and the announced Class III prices
from January 2007 to March 2010. The correlation between
both series of prices for those 39 months is 0.89.
-Announced Class III price Florida Mailbox Price
2007 2008 2009
C C> > C >- 0-> C

The Class Ill futures markets provide settle prices for
monthly contracts up to 24 months into the future. Economic
theory holds that these settle prices are the unbiased
predictors of what the market (the traders) believes will be
the announced Class Ill price for that month in the future.
These contracts are traded almost every day, so these settle
prices change often. The close relationship between the
realized Florida mailbox prices and the announced Class III
prices, and the availability of Class III futures prices, provide
an opportunity to predict the future Florida mailbox prices.
Economists of the University of Wisconsin developed a
formula to predict the Florida mailbox price. The formula is:
Florida mailbox price = 0.888 x (Class III price) -0.541 (Q1) -
1.511 (Q2) -0.092 (Q3) -0.000 (Q4) +6.208 where Q1, Q2, Q3
and Q4 are 0 or 1 according as whether the price pertains to
quarters 1, 2, 3 or 4. For the Class III price, we use the Class III
futures settle price for months into the future. The formula
was developed by regressing the Florida mailbox price on the
Class III price from 2001-01-01 to 2010-03-01. The inclusion
of the 4 quarters implies that the difference between the
Class III price and the Florida mailbox price is the smallest in
the spring (Q2) and the greatest in the fall (Q4).
When we used this formula with the actual monthly
prices from January 2007 to March 2010, we found that on
average the actual Florida mailbox price was $0.61/cwt
higher than what the formula predicted. In 20% of these 39
months, the actual Florida mailbox price was more than
$2.40/cwt higher than what the formula had predicted. On
the other hand, in 20% of the months the Florida mailbox
price was at least $0.87/cwt lower than what was predicted.
Accurate prediction of future milk prices remains difficult.
Using the Class III future settle prices of July 15, 2010 and
the formula, we predict the Florida mailbox price for August
2010 to July 2011 as follows:

Month Year Class III settle Predicted Florida
price* mailbox price
August 2010 15.06 19.49
September 2010 15.18 19.60
October 2010 15.04 19.56
November 2010 14.83 19.38
December 2010 14.83 19.38
January 2011 14.55 18.59
February 2011 14.50 18.54
March 2011 14.53 18.57
April 2011 14.54 17.60
May 2011 14.52 17.58
June 2011 14.44 17.51
July 2011 14.50 18.99
Class Ill settle price as of July 15, 2010.

For more information, contact Albert De Vries,
devries@ufl.edu or (352) 392-5594 ext 227.

Dairy Extension Agenda

* South GA/North FL Dairy Update Lunch Tuesday, July
27, noon to 1:15 PM at the Brooks County Ag Center,
Quitman, GA. Speakers will be Dr. Ron Barnett on new
small grain and grass forage species available for this
area and Dr. Cheryl Mackowiak on the nutritive uptake of
those forages. Please RSVP to Mary Sowerby
(meso@ufl.edu or (386) 362-2771) to reserve your
sponsored lunch by Friday, July 23.

* Dairy Risk Management Meeting, Tuesday, July 27, 7 PM
to 9 PM, at the Lafayette County Extension Office, Mayo,
FL. Dr. John Van Sickle will be leading the discussion on
when to push the hedging trigger. This event can be
viewed via polycom at any county extension office in
Florida and the Tifton, GA, UGA conference center with
advance notice of your intent to attend. Please contact
Mary Sowerby (meso@ufl.edu or (386) 362-2771) by
Friday, July 23, if you are interested in attending at a site
other than Mayo.

Dairy Update is published quarterly by the Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, as an educational and informational service. Please address any
cancellations or comments to Albert De Vries, Editor, Dairy Update, PO Box 110910, Gainesville, FL 32611-0910. Phone: (352) 392-5594 ext 227. E-mail:
devries@ufl.edu. Past issues are posted on the UF/IFAS Florida Dairy Extension website at http://dairy.ifas.ufl.edu. This issue was published on July 19, 2010.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs