Title: Dairy update
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087054/00004
 Material Information
Title: Dairy update
Series Title: Dairy update
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Institute of Food and Agricultural Science
Publisher: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: Spring 2003
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087054
Volume ID: VID00004
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:

DairyUpdateSpring2003 ( PDF )

Full Text



Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Department of Animal Sciences

airy Update

Quarterly Newsletter



Gainesville, April 29-30, 2003

Monday Afternoon, April 28
Special Activities

2:00 pm PCDART Workshop for
Consultants and Dairy Managers
(Animal Sciences Building) Dan
Webb, leader.

Tuesday Morning, April 29
Special Activities

7:00 am Dairy Science Club Golf
Tournament (University Golf Club)
(Until 10:30 am)

9:00 am 12:00 pm Conference
Registration (Farm Bureau

11:30am DHIA Luncheon
Gainesville Woman's Center) Ed
Henderson, DHIA President,
Presiding. Luncheon. Agenda:
DHIA Recognitions Dan Webb,
Florida Milk Quality Awards Ed
Nix, Div. Dairy Industry, Florida

Tuesday Afternoon, April 29
(Farm Bureau Building)

Session 1: Florida Dairy Situation -
F. Glen Hembry, Presiding

1:05 pm Welcome F. Glen
Hembry, Chair, Department of
Animal Sciences, UF/IFAS

1:15 pm State of Affairs in the FL
Dairy Industry Calvin Covington,
Southeast Milk, Inc.

1:45 pm Simple ways to get 3 a
day Michele Cooper, Dairy
Farmers, Inc.

Session 2: Nutritional Updates -
Bill Thatcher, Presiding, Department
of Animal Sciences, UF/IFAS

2:15 pm Transition Cow
Management to Reduce Metabolic
Diseases and Improve
Reproductive Performance Jose
Santos, VMTRC, University of
California, Davis, CA

3:00 pm Break

3:30 pm Feeding Ryegrass Silage
in the South East US John
Bernard, Department of Animal &
Dairy Science, University Of
Georgia, Tifton, GA

4:00 pm Selecting Fats for
Feeding Lactating Dairy Cows -
Charles Staples, Department of
Animal Sciences, UF/ IFAS

4:30 pm Putting it All Together
to Stay in Business Mary Beth
Hall, Department of Animal
Sciences, UF/ IFAS

5:15 pm Wrap-Up
5:30 pm Adjourn

6:15 pm Reception + Dinner
(Horse Teaching Unit).
Prime Rib Dinner. Agenda:
Farm Family of the Year Frankie
Hall, Florida Farm Bureau

Student Awards James Umphrey,
UF. Department of Animal Sciences

Wednesday Morning, April 30
(Farm Bureau Building)

Session 3: Brent Broaddus,
Presiding, Dairy Extension, UF/IFAS

8:30 am Productive Life of Dairy
Cows in Florida Albert De Vries,
Department of Animal Sciences, UF/

9:00 am Effects of Gossypol on
Fertility in Dairy Cattle Jose
Santos, VMTRC, University of
California, Davis, CA

9:45 am Feeding Whole
Cottonseed in the 21st Century -
John Bernard, Department of Animal
& Dairy Science, University Of
Georgia, Tifton, GA

10:15 am Break

10:45 am Why did you do that? -
Roger Natzke, Department of
Animal Sciences, UF/IFAS

11:15 am How to Select Products
to use on your Dairy Nick Place,
Department of Agricultural
Education and Communication;

11:45 am DHIA Update Dan
Webb, Department of Animal
Sciences, UF/ IFAS

12:15 pm Wrap-Up

12:30 pm Adjourn

Spring 2003

Conference Hotel

A block of rooms is being held
for Dairy Production Conference
participants at the Doubletree Hotel
and Conference Center, located at
1714 SW 34 Street, Gainesville, FL
32607. The group rate is $72 per
night plus 10% tax. Call the
Doubletree Hotel directly at (352)
384-3407. Be sure to mention that
you are attending the Dairy
Production Conference to receive
the group rate. For directions to
the Doubletree Hotel, visit

Registration Information

The early registration fee is $80 and
includes the program, one copy of
the proceedings, refreshment breaks,
Tuesday's luncheon and reception.
The regular registration fee is $100
for payments received after April 21,
2003. To register, contact:

Sylvia K. Beauchamp
Department of Animal Sciences
Phone: 352- 392-2186
Fax: 352-392-1913
Email: sylvia@animal.ufl.edu

Refund policy: No refunds given
after April 21, 2003.

Additional Information

James E. Umphrey,
Email: umphrey@animal.ufl.edu

David R. Bray,
Email: bray@animal.ufl.edu

Phone: 352-392-5594
Fax: 352- 392-5595


Mary Beth Hall

In Okeechobee now, but in due
time all around the state and nation,

phosphorous (P) is going to be a
nutrient management issue. It is not
necessarily a good thing for
phosphorous to build up on farms
and in the environment. That said
there are some basic things you need
to know about phosphorous:

* It is an element. It does not
change into anything else.
* It is not volatile. Unlike nitrogen,
it will not just blow away.
* What goes in does come out. It is
used for growth to make tissue,
for bone, for pregnancy, for milk,
and for manure.
* The phosphorous content of milk
is about 0.09%, and it does not
change much.
* For milking cows, roughly, intake
minus milk equals manure for

The best way to reduce the
amount of phosphorous you have to
deal with in manure is to feed less
phosphorous to your cows. Dr. Larry
Satter of USDA recommends feeding
phosphorous as 0.35% of ration dry
matter (in his research he's fed cows
as little as 0.31% without negative
effects). Reaching this amount often
means feeding more forage and
carefully selecting the byproducts
you use. Many of the high protein
byproduct feeds and wheat midds
tend to be high in phosphorous.
Hominy contains roughly twice the
phosphorous (0.65%) that ground
corn does (0.30%). Often, no
additional phosphorous from
minerals needs to be added into
rations to meet the animals'
phosphorous requirements.

Another way to reduce
phosphorous in manure is to increase
feed efficiency: get more pounds of
milk out of each pound of feed the
cow eats. At a set amount of
phosphorous in the ration, each
additional pound of milk ships
another 0.4 grams of phosphorous off
the farm. That's a small amount, but
multiply it by the number of cows,
365 days in a year, and increasing

pounds of milk, and it adds up to
something that matters.

Never say never, but if someone
offers you a product that reduces
phosphorous in manure or the lagoon
without changing the amount of
phosphorous being fed into the
system, ask them where it goes away
to. Even in cows, phosphorous is
neither created nor destroyed.


Roger P. Natzke and
Lokenga Badinga

While working with dairy
producers on somatic cell count
situations it is common to hear a
comment like "I don't know what the
State is doing wrong because the
count I get from them is always
higher than the one I get from SMI".
And then have another producer say
"SMI must have a real laboratory
problem because their counts are
always higher than the official State
sample". To me it is clear that if we
are going to be serious about
improving the cell count situation in
the State we need to have confidence
that the results that are being
provided to the dairymen are reliable.
As a first step toward that goal,
representatives from the State, SMI
and the University met to set up a
comparison study. The State people
collected 30 one gallon milk samples
from dairies in the State and brought
it to the Animal Sciences Department
where we split each gallon into 8
sub-samples. Each of the four
laboratories that count somatic cells
received 60 samples to count; the 30
farm samples and a duplicate of
each. The duplicates were randomly
assigned numbers between 31 and 60
so that the technician would not
know which sample was the
duplicate. In addition four standard
samples were purchased from a
commercial laboratory and given to

each of the laboratories. The SMI
laboratories analyzed the samples
using their electronic counters and
counted the number of cell under the
microscope. The State laboratories
used their standard method of
counting cells.

The analysis of the results was
very exciting and reassuring. When
one compared the original sample
and the duplicate, the differences
were extremely small. Similarly, the
comparison between laboratories
revealed great consistency. Yes, and
contrary to what some would have
expected there was no significant
difference between the State
laboratory results and those of the
SMI laboratories. However, as
expected, the results from those
samples counted under the
microscope were more variable. That
is not a bad reflection on the
laboratory technician's abilities.
Microscopic counting is always
going to be more variable, no matter
who is doing the counting. The final
test was to compare the results from
our four laboratories to those of the
commercial standards. Again it was
reassuring to note that the results
were very similar. To make a long
story short, producers should be
proud of the quality of their
laboratory people and should
recognize that the results they get
are accurate and reliable.

So if the differences that
dairymen see are not the result of
laboratory error, then how can we
explain the difference that we see
from samples taken within the same
week? Fact number one is that
somatic cell counts of cows are
highly variable. If you take an AM
and a PM sample from a cow on one
day you should expect that the results
will be different. In fact, if you take
individual quarter samples at each of
the milkings, you will see that the
results of some of the quarters will
go up while the others may go down
or stay the same.

A second fact is that the proper
mixing of the milk is very important.
The somatic cells tend to congregate
with the fat globules. Thus if milk is
not mixed properly and a sample is
taken off the top of the tank, then
you can expect a high somatic cell
count. Conversely if the sample is
taken from the bottom of the tank the
count will be abnormally low.

Fortunately, sample handling
technique has very little effect on
somatic cells. In contrast to
bacteriological samples which can
increase in numbers with improper
cooling, somatic cells cannot
increase in number once the sample
is collected.

With SMI now going to a
penalty system for high somatic cell
counts, dairymen may want to
consider observing how the truck
driver goes about mixing the tank
and sampling the milk. You can't
afford to have him take shortcuts
because it could cost you money.


David R. Bray

Now is the time to prepare for
the long hot summer with low milk

1. Clean out high organic matter dirt
(MUD) in lots and add new dirt.

2. Clean out cooling ponds. Pump
out the water, and clean out the
sludge and spread it some place
where the cows do not have access to

3. Let ponds sit dry for the sun to
work on the bacteria, because
Mycoplasma and other nasty stuff
live in ponds. You must clean the
ponds out at least once a year if you
continuously add water to the pond.
If you DO NOT continuously add
water, you need to sample the ponds

for Mycoplasma and pump and clean
out the ponds once or twice during
the summer.

4. Clean your fans. Dirty fan
shields can reduce fan efficiency by
50%. You can purchase and install
twice as many fans if you wish not to
clean them.

5. Make sure your sprinklers,
foggers, etc, work. It was a cold
winter, many pipes froze and/or
broke. Also, dirty nozzles don't add
much water. Check timers for the
proper time for adding water.
Constant water is not as efficient as
intermittent sprinkling and
intermittent sprinkling saves water.

6. Clean and rebuild your pulsators.
Wash out and change the filters on
your vacuum controller, (unless you
have a "Freak Drive"), make sure all
ATO's work.

7. Replace all milk hoses. Wash
hoses, pulsator hoses and jetter cup
holders. Replace all rubber hoses that
may be in the milk house that may
add water to the pipeline and /or bulk
tank wash. These hoses harbor
Pseudomonas and Coliforms and can
raise your bacteria count. If rubber
hoses are used to wash udders,
change them also.

8. Clean your condenser fins on
your milk coolers. Dirty fans cut
down cooling and efficiency and you
get warmer milk at higher electric

9. Mow and spray careless weeds in

10. Dip the dogs to keep the fleas out
of your pick-up.

11. Wash your truck. With these milk
prices you probably can't afford a
new one.


Mary Beth Hall

Something curious I've seen
when I'm out on farms: everything
looks fine with the ration (on paper,
in the bunk, etc.), but still, there's a
scattering or more of cows in the
herd that have just very loose, bad
looking diarrhea. It doesn't look like
acidosis, but what is making these
cows sick? More often than not, the
cause seems to be feeding spoiled
feed, rotten silage or moldy grain.
My guess is that it usually doesn't hit
cows evenly across the herd because
the spoilage doesn't mix evenly into
the ration. There's not much research
in this area, just observations. One
explanation for how moldy feed
might affect cows this way is that
some of the toxins produced by the
spoilage organisms may act on
bacteria in the gut, perhaps killing
off the more beneficial microbes, and
leaving less favorable ones, rather
like antibiotics might. If the wrong
bacteria become the main occupants
of the gut, the cow has problems.
Think about it: when people take a
course of antibiotics, they sometimes
eat live culture yogurt to try and keep
good bacteria alive and well in the
gut, rather than what the antibiotics
allow to live.

If you see this kind of problem
with your cows, walk the feedbunk:
are there chunks/balls of moldy or
spoiled feed there? If you break the
chunks open, they usually smell
rotten. When you look at the feeds,
check the commodity shed to make
sure that feeds stored up against
concrete walls haven't taken on
moisture and molded, or that the feed
that was supposed to be dry wasn't
damp when it was delivered and it

How to solve this problem: don't
feed bad feed. Pitch the spoilage off
the silage and don't feed it. This also
means managing the bunk silo so that
you minimize the spoilage on the
feeding face. Keep dry feeds dry.
Rotate feeds to feed the oldest loads
of a commodity first.

PROJECTS 2003-2004

Bernard, West Feeding value
of whole fuzzy cottonseed with
elevated concentrations of free fatty
acids. Braun Milk Check-off
scholarship Bray, Bernard
Evaluation of environmental bedding
materials for mastitis pathogens.
Bray, Boyd Multi-lingual milking
videos for Florida dairies. Bray,
Natzke, Bucklin, West, Bernard -
Environmental modifications for
reducing summer stress on S.E. US
dairy farms. Bray, Webb, Natzke,
Broaddus Florida mastitis and
SCC reduction study. Buckling,
Shearer, Bray, Giesy Alleviating
the stresses of concrete floors in
Florida feed barns. Ely Dairy
Business Analysis Project Georgia
2003. Hall, Holtshausen Do
carbohydrate blends give the same
amounts of nutrients as individual
carbohydrates? (Do associative
effects help or hurt us?). Head,
Liboni, Gulay, Belloso Use of
management strategies throughout
the transition period of dairy cows to
improve their liver function, health
and milk production. Hembry -
Milk check-off recovery funds.
McKee, Graves Evaluation of the
effectiveness of decreasing the dose
of GnRH used in Ovsynch protocol
for synchronization of ovulation and
timed AI in dairy cows. Risco,
Archibald, M. Thatcher, Hansen -
The value of postpartum rectal
temperature and calving status in the
prediction of metritis and milk
production in dairy cows. Scully,

Hall The development of corn
silage varieties and a year-round
cropping system for south Florida
dairy farms. Van Amstel, Shearer -
Thin soles in dairy cattle.
Investigation of factors affecting sole
wear. Shearer, Melendez, Risco,
Donovan Dairy herdsman seminars
and cow college in Spanish.
Steenholdt, Risco, Donovan -
Reproductive efficiency of natural
service and artificially inseminated
dairy herds in Florida and Georgia.
Thatcher, Silvestre, Risco Use of
a degradable deslorelin implant
(2.1 mg) in lactating dairy
cows to enhance uterine involution.
Umphrey, Bachman, Gilson,
Graves Florida and Georgia youth
programs, 4-H activities and youth
events, dairy judging team support,
undergraduate programs and


Albert de Vries and Russ Giesy

The 2000 and 2001 financial
summaries of the Dairy Business
Analysis Project are now available
on the DBAP website:
www.animal.ufl.edu/dbap. These
reports summarize the data that was
collected on 23 (2000 data) and 39
(2001 data) farms that participated in
DBAP. The reports have lots of
tables with financial data sorted by
net farm income per cwt, return on
assets, state (FL vs. GA), milk per
cow, herd size, total cost per cwt,
raised heifers per cow, and assets and
liabilities per cow. Take a look and
see how your operation compares. Or
contact any of us and we'll send you
the reports.

DBAP data collection
spreadsheets for the 2002 data can
also be downloaded from the DBAP

The Florida Dairy Update newsletter is published on a quarterly basis by the University of Florida, Department of Animal Sciences
as an educational and informational service. Please address any questions comments or suggestions to Albert de Vries, Editor, Dairy
Update, PO Box 110910, Gainesville, FL 32611-0910. Ph: (352)392-7563. Email: devries@animal.ufl.edu

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