Milk Prices

Have milk prices bottomed?

With Class III and IV futures prices showing signs of strength over the past week to 10 days, they may be a sign that the worst is over for milk prices and dairy budgets.

“I think the one thing we can say with some confidence is that we’ve already hit bottom in milk prices,” says Mark Stephenson, a dairy economist with the University of Wisconsin. “So farm milk checks are as likely to be as bad as they’re going to get this year, and they are on their way up.

“The real question: Are we going to take that $2 jump or more that the futures markets show, or is it going to be a little softer than that?  …Personally, I don’t think that the recovery will be explosive, and we’ll see these prices creep back up to a more comfortable level.”

Fellow economist Bob Cropp agrees, saying milk production both here in the United States and world-wide will likely slow as summer temperatures rise. “Milk prices are worse around the world, and milk production may be starting to slow worldwide. That may help,” he says.

Although the European Union has been stockpiling skim milk powder, with some 150 million metric tons now in storage, these levels aren’t anywhere near historic highs or even volumes reached in 2009, says Stephenson. “If we can reverse some of this stockholding and maybe bleed those products off, maybe we’re getting into a recovery,” he says. “[But] it will be a while before we’ve had a full-blown price recovery.”

Adds Cropp: “Clearly, 2017 will be a better year.”

Don't be shellfish...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Read More

Corn Replant

Replant Decisions for Field Corn

 

The Agronomy Team

(Richard Taylor, Joanne Whalen, Mark VanGessel, Nathan Kleczewski, Amy Shober, Phillip Sylvester, Cory Whaley, and Dan Severson, University of Delaware

 

The prolonged period of cold and wet weather this spring plus the usual culprits such as slugs have led to questions about the adequacy of corn stands this year.  In addition, many growers have only recently or have not yet gotten their corn acreage planted.  In this article, the UD Agronomy Team will outline considerations involved in making replant decisions as well as whether to plant another crop, assuming herbicides have not eliminated some choices.

 

The most important consideration when thinking about replanting is timing.  How quickly you can make the final decision to replant and actually replant the crop?  Waiting too long to assess a stand increases the potential yield loss if a decision is made to replant the field.

 

Potential yield loss percentages for delayed corn plantings were developed many years ago: advances in corn genetics and irrigation management have significantly improved hybrid performance.  It is important to note that the loss per day of delay estimates may overestimate the impact of delaying planting.  Yet, these estimates are useful as guidelines for both irrigated and dryland corn production systems.

 

In mid-May for irrigated corn, every day you delay making a replant decision and actually replanting the crop reduces the hybrid’s yield potential by 0.4 to 0.7 percent for short-season and full-season hybrids, respectively.  Delaying planting into early June increases that per day yield loss to 1.3 to 1.7 percent of the hybrid’s yield potential for short-season and full-season hybrids, respectively.

 

In a dryland cropping situation in mid-May, daily delay in replanting can result in a loss of 0.4 to 0.9 percent of the hybrid’s yield potential for short-season and full-season hybrids, respectively; whereas by early June, a delaying replanting by one day results in a 2 to 1.3 percent loss of the hybrid’s yield potential for short-season and full-season hybrids, respectively.  Dryland corn yields can be impacted even more by delayed planting than estimated by these average losses because pollination is also delayed to the hotter and drier portions of summer.

 

The first step is to determine the plant population to estimate the chances of obtaining the hybrid’s maximum yield potential.  Estimate current corn stand by counting the number of plants in a 17 ft 5 inch row length.  (For 30-inch rows, a row length of 17 feet and 5 inches is equal to 1/1000 of an acre.)  Repeat this count in 6 to 8 random locations for each 20 acre block of a field.  Average the number of plants in the 6 to 8 row lengths to determine an estimated population.  During past field trials, we saw a 1 percent decrease in yield for each 1,000 plant per acre decline in harvest population.  However, with many hybrids now planted at 32,000 to 36,000 or more plants per acre, our former trials determining yield losses with lower populations are questionable for reliability.  We suggest that you start calculating the yield loss per loss of 1,000 plants once the population falls below 32,000 since the yield increase as you go above that target is small.

 

While counting the number of plants, also observe the unevenness of the stand.  If the stand has a number of small gaps (1.5 to 3 feet in length), deduct 2 to 10 percent from the hybrid’s expected yield potential with a perfect stand.  If there are numerous gaps between plants that measure 4- to 6-feet in length, deduct 10 to 20 percent from the field’s yield potential.

 

The next step in the process is to estimate the yield potential of the stand actually in the field.  Use the stand reduction loss percentages (above) and the realistic yield goal to estimate the yield potential of the reduced stand.  This is the expected yield without replanting.  You then want to estimate expected yield if you replant.  Deduct from that the expected percentage yield loss based on the date that you expect to be able to replant the field.  If the initial stand was not planted around the ideal planting date, you may also need to adjust the realistic yield goal for the actual planting date.  Make your best guess as to when you can prepare the field for replanting (killing the existing stand), obtain new corn seed, and get back into the field to replant.  Keep in mind that the current weather pattern could easily force you to delay planting again, just like it did for the initial planting but it is best not to underestimate how long it will take to replant!

 

Next, you should calculate the replanting cost including extra tillage (equipment, fuel, and labor) if you plan on doing any tillage either to kill the remaining corn and/or to prepare the seedbed.  Add in the planting cost; seed costs; any needed pesticide costs; and, if the corn will be planted late, add in a cost for drying the corn.

 

Compare the expected yield without replanting with the expected net yield (after you deduct those additional costs involved in reseeding the stand) with replanting and decide if it is worth the effort to replant.

 

One final consideration is that you should factor in the risks involved in replanting.  Replanting corn does not guarantee that you will achieve any better a stand the second time around.  If the weather stays bad, if slugs or insects attack the crop, if poor growing conditions continue for much of the remaining season, or a hurricane, hail, or other storm damages the crop later, you may expend a great deal of money for minimal to no benefit.

 

Other considerations when deciding to replant include:

 

Sometimes, seeding alongside the rows already in the field is suggested in lieu of a full replant.  However, the plants often end up having more than a 2-leaf difference in their stage of growth and the younger plants will be at a competitive disadvantage.  Yield will likely be a lot less than expected.

 

There have been a few places where replanting is necessary and existing plants need to be killed.  The difficulty is that the corn is Roundup Ready (in additional many hybrids are also Liberty Link), so control will be difficult.  If by chance the corn is not Roundup Ready, glyphosate is the best option.  The herbicide options include Gramoxone plus atrazine, Select (clethodim), or Liberty (if not a Liberty Link hybrid).  Check the clethodim label and follow the required time between application and replanting because clethodim can cause corn injury if planted too soon.  A multi-state project conducted in this region found Gramoxone provided the most consistent control and it performed better on 5 inch corn and then corn that was 2 to 3 inches tall.  No treatment consistently controlled all the corn plants.  If complete control is necessary, tillage will be required.

 

If residual herbicides were used, you need to think about when the products were applied and at what rate.  Most of the residual herbicides will not provide more than 3 to 4 weeks of activity.  What do the labels allow regarding an additional application?  Are weeds present at time of the replanting and do they need to be killed?  Would delaying a herbicide application until the corn is up and then using an early postemergence application that includes a product that provides residual control be the best option for the replanted field?

 

If replanting occurs during May and early June, damage from cutworms, seed corn maggot, wireworms, and white grubs can continue to affect stand establishment.  The most common insect problem in later planted corn is the black cutworm.  If slugs were a problem on the first planting, weather conditions after planting will determine if they will continue to be a problem.  Rescue treatments are only available for cutworms and slugs.  The cool, wet conditions that resulted in reduced stands and poor plant growth have also slowed the development of white grubs and wireworms.  In addition, wireworms can remain in the larval stage for up to six years, depending on the species.  So you can expect them to be present when you re-plant, especially in fields with a history of wireworm problems.

Don't be shellfish...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Read More

Corn Planting Delayed?

Has Field Corn Planting Been Delayed—What Management Decisions Need Adjustment?

 

The Agronomy Team

(Richard Taylor, Joanne Whalen, Mark VanGessel, Nathan Kleczewski, Amy Shober, Phillip Sylvester, Cory Whaley, and Dan Severson, University of Delaware

 

The prolonged period of cold and wet weather this spring has delayed planting for many growers.  Late planting dates (roughly after May 26) offer challenges that must be successfully met to ensure the minimum impact on yield potential.  In this article, the UD Agronomy Team will outline adjustments and decisions needed to grow a successful corn crop when planting is delayed.  We’ll cover some of the management decisions and options available to help late planted corn by practice category.

 

Soil Fertility:  An important potential problem with delayed planting occurs when a portion of the required nitrogen (N) fertilizer has been applied in the weeks prior to when the corn is actually placed in the soil.  During the delay, nitrate-N added can be loss via denitrification or leaching and nitrification of ammonium or urea can begin again resulting in the loss of N if the rainfall pattern continues.  To give the process more time, ammonium or urea sources can be treated with urease and/or nitrification inhibitors such as Super U or Agrotain Plus and this can delay a significant loss of N through leaching or denitrification by three or more weeks.  Losses that do occur will require the grower to apply additional N fertilizer at an additional cost and require changes to the nutrient management plan (NMP).

 

Also along these lines, the application of manure well before planting can also permit loss of any inorganic N present in the manure.  Although the cold weather has delayed the process of mineralization there was a short period earlier this spring when air and soil temperatures rose enough to encourage mineralization and nitrification of organic N from the manure.  With additional rainfall and a return to cold temperatures, any nitrate N formed will likely be loss before the crop can grow enough to reach the stage when N uptake accelerates.  If N is lost, additional N fertilizer can be applied to the crop, but the NMP will need to be modified.

 

Although many of Delaware’s growers currently use a banded starter fertilizer and include at least some ammonium sulfate in the starter band, growers may be tempted to speed up the planting process by eliminating banded starter fertilizer.  It is true that as we move into June and if soil temperatures finally warm up, phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) will become more available to the crop and may not be needed as part of the starter fertilizer.  However, slightly higher than usual rates of starter featuring the soil mobile nutrients, N and sulfur (S), or planning on an earlier sidedress N application should help corn get off to a faster start and keep it growing rapidly during the critical V5 to V9 growth stages when kernel number and row number are being set.

 

Soil Considerations:  Although soil temperature should be increasing rapidly at this time of year, the cooler, wetter conditions we face in 2016 are preventing that increase.  The higher the soil temperature the faster and more uniform is seed germination and emergence.  Rapid germination and emergence will translate into improved yield potential.

 

Some options for the growers include the use of a turbo-till or similar tillage implement to help dry and warm the surface soil.  Although more extensive tillage could be used as well, further delaying planting to complete preparing a fine-firm seedbed is counterproductive.  In addition, extensive tillage especially on soil that is at the upper limit or past it for water content can lead to severe compaction issues.  Even with a turbo-till, the key to using it successfully will be to avoid any tillage if the soil is too wet since compaction can translate to yield losses that will continue for years.  Turbo-till and similar light tillage that warms and dries the soil surface without causing compaction issues will shorten the time until a field can be planted.  Keep in mind that this type of tillage will incorporate some of the crop residue or disturb a killed cover crop and may not be acceptable in some situations.

 

Another option is the use of aggressive row sweeps or row cleaners to clear the top of the seed row and allow the soil to warm faster.  This will allow the soil immediately over the seed to quickly warm up and dry if we receive some periods of sunny weather.  Again, warmer soil translates to more rapid and uniform emergence and higher yield potential.

 

Hybrid Selection:  Growers often start thinking of changing to shorter season hybrids as planting is delayed into early June.  Dr. Peter Thomison from Ohio State University found that a hybrid planted in late May/early June will mature at a faster thermal rate (require fewer total heat units) than the same hybrid planted in late April or early May.  He found that the required heat units from planting to kernel black layer decreased on average about 6.8 GDDs (growing degree days) per day of delayed planting so that a hybrid rated at 2800 GDDs planted at the normal time would require 204 fewer GDDs or about 2600 GDDs if planted 30 days late in late May or early June.  Dr. Thomison does point out that other factors should be considered when deciding on whether to change from a full season to a short season hybrid.  One of these considerations is that a full season hybrid although yielding more could have a significantly higher grain moisture at maturity than earlier maturing hybrids if fall weather conditions are not conducive to rapid drydown.

 

Another factor that relates to insect control is that European corn borer (ECB) damage and yield reductions are often greater even under low ECB pressure when corn hybrids are planted late.  This warrants the selection of ECB Bt hybrids whenever possible for late planted corn situations.

 

Since late planting is most likely to occur on soils that are either warmer than the temperature seen at normal planting time or will warm up much quicker as we move into June, germination and emergence will be better than that seen at the optimum planting date.  For early planting dates and optimum plant dates, we often plant 5 to 10 percent higher seeding rates than the target or desired harvest population since we expect greater seedling mortality.  For late planting, seeding rates can be decreased to about 3 percent higher than the desired harvest population and this will reduce the production cost at least a little.

 

Weed Control:  If the field has not received a burndown, you may need to adjust your standard burndown program to account for larger weeds. If residual herbicides were used ahead of the anticipated planting, you need to think about when the products were applied and at what rate.  Most of the residual herbicides will not provide more than 3 to 4 weeks of activity.  What do the labels allow regarding an additional application?  Are weeds present at time of planting and do they need to be killed?

 

Disease Issues:  Most issues with stand are caused by wet conditions.  No seed treatment will save you from plants submerged in water or growing in standing water for prolonged periods of time.  The presence of Pythium or Fusarium on roots of plants growing in wet cool soils does not mean stand loss was caused by these organisms.  Rather, stand issues were likely a complex of issues related to poor plant growth and excess water.

 

Planting into cool soils can result in more issues with pre- or post-emergent damping off due to the seeds remaining in the soil for longer periods of time or delayed seedling growth.  If you replant and stick with a 100-120 day hybrid you can end up with stalk rot or stalk strength issues later on, especially if growing unirrigated corn, because the corn may be exposed to more stressful growing conditions (hoy dry) during critical periods of plant growth.

 

Two other diseases that should be targeted for finding resistant hybrids are gray leaf spot and northern corn leaf blight.  Whether you are choosing a corn hybrid to replant or choosing a hybrid for the normal planting time, hybrids with resistance to these two diseases should be high on your list.

 

Irrigation Practices:  On late planted corn, any early moisture stress around V4 to V6 would be more critical and possibly contribute to a yield reduction.  Late planted corn is growing faster than is normally seen since there are so many heat units (GDDs) accumulating in June and early July and the soil is probably already warm.  Therefore, a grower might fail to recognize how rapidly corn roots are growing and how fast soil moisture is being depleted.  This could lead to underestimating the need for additional irrigation.  This is one aspect where moisture stress could have a larger impact on the yield of late planted corn.

 

If wet soil conditions continue into the rapid growth phase, it might become difficult to apply N via fertigation in a timely fashion.  In case this is a concern, growers could set their irrigation system to run as fast through the field as possible so the water volume is kept as low as possible while applying N fertilizer to keep the grow growing and developing without causing excessive denitrification, leaching, or root suffocation from water ponding.  This applies N almost as a foliar feed application but in a dilute enough solution that foliar burn is not likely to happen.

 

Insects and Slugs:    One of the most common insect problems in later plated corn is the black cutworm. Conditions favoring cutworm out breaks include a combination of late planted corn, poorly drained soil, heavy broadleaf weed growth, planting into soybean stubble, and reduced tillage. Even if an at planting protection method is used including at-planting insecticides, seed treatments or Bt corn, scouting after plant emergence will still be important.  If conditions remain cool and wet, wireworms and white grubs can continue to be a problem. Although problems from annual grubs tend to decrease with the warming of the soil and development of grubs from the damaging larval stage to pupation, it will still be important to sample fields for grubs before planting to determine what level and species is present and if larvae have started to pupate. Wireworms can remain in the larval stage for up to six years, depending on the species, so you can expect them to be present in fields with a history of wireworm problems. Since slugs have already hatched, the potential for slug damage will be determined by weather conditions after planting. In wet years, we have seen economic levels of damage from slugs continue through June so scouting as soon as corn is spiking is important to time a rescue treatment.

Don't be shellfish...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Read More

GMO Milk

Will non-GMO be the next trend?

When food products made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) hit commercial markets in the late 1990s, many thought consumer opposition would be short lived. Now a vast majority of the nation’s corn and soybeans are GMOs, which means that milk—except for milk that’s organically produced—is also considered to be a GMO product.

The number of consumers who are buying organic food products and/or food products made without GMOs is increasing; both the organic and non-GMO food categories are seeing tremendous growth, says Sara Dorland, analyst with the Daily Dairy Report and managing partner at Ceres Dairy Risk Management, Seattle.

“Regardless of the science, 20 years after the first commercial introduction of genetically engineered (GE) crops, consumers are starting to push back, and a growing number of consumers are reaching for products with ‘clean’ labels, no artificial colors or flavors, and in some cases non-GMO,” Dorland notes. “And large food companies are starting to pay attention.”

Within the past year, Dorland notes that Kraft Foods removed artificial colors from its iconic yellow macaroni and cheese, and General Mills recently committed to labeling U.S. products that contain GMOs. Whole Foods has also said that by 2018 it will have implemented a full transparency policy on GMOs and will verify all non-GMO claims.

In late April, Dannon announced plans to transition its Oikos Greek, Danimals, and Dannon yogurts as non-GMO products starting this July. “In addition, by December 2017, Dannon, like General Mills, will label any brands that still contain genetically engineered ingredients. As larger companies look more seriously at sourcing non-GMO milk, the entire dairy industry will need to take note,” says Dorland.

While the news that the popularity of organic and non-GMO milk products is not necessarily good news for conventional milk producers, it could present an opportunity to those who are willing to change their strategy.

“For dairies converting to non-GMO milk, the overall process could be easier than switching to organic production,” Dorland notes. “Recently, the Non-GMO Project changed its rules for non-GMO milk production by reducing the conversion period from one year to 30 days, which basically reduces the amount of time a transitioning producer must sell non-GMO milk as conventional. This is a significant benefit for producers making or contemplating the switch.”

Non-GMO regulations also do not impose pasture restrictions on milk cows like those for organic milk producers. Assuming a producer does not have cloned or genetically altered cows, Dorland notes that making the switch to producing non-GMO milk is a matter of sourcing non-GMO feed.

“Readily available feed could be the limiting factor in conversion to non-GMO milk,” says Dorland. In 2015, 92% of all corn and 94% of all soybean acres were planted with genetically engineered seeds, according to USDA. For corn and soybeans to be considered non-GMO, a five-year transition period is required for crops used in livestock feed.

“That does not necessarily preclude the resulting crops from being eligible for non-GMO status during the transition period, but they must be proven to be non-GMO through testing, and the producer or farmer must demonstrate that the seeds and the crop are part of a system designed to avoid GMOs,” says Dorland. The Non-GMO Project focuses on testing feed because no reliable tests for milk exists. Organic feed also qualifies as non-GMO, but the cost of organic feed is likely higher.

If consumers are willing to pay up for non-GMO dairy products and manufacturers are willing to pay a premium for non-GMO milk, which at this point is unclear, some dairy producers will likely start looking to non-GMO production as a way to differentiate their product in what is currently an oversupplied milk market, Dorland adds.

Don't be shellfish...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Read More

FAMACHA

Small Ruminant Producers:

 

We are pleased to offer an online training program for FAMACHA© certification as part of new Northeast SARE Grant (LNE15-342).  Online FAMACHA© certification can be obtained through a 4-step process:

 

  1. View our 2 hour video on Integrated Parasite Control and our 30 minute video, Why and How To Do FAMACHA© Scoring. Complete an online post-video summary.
  2. Practice the Cover, Push, Pull, POP! technique.
  3. Record and email us a video of your FAMACHA© scoring technique.
  4. Follow-up by phone and/or email as needed.Live video sessions can be utilized if needed.

Once this certification process is complete, you will be able to purchase a FAMACHA© card.  Visit our website for detailed instructions including contacts for more information, http://web.uri.edu/sheepngoat/famacha/

 

For those producers that are already FAMACHA© certified, our online videos serve as an excellent refresher on integrated parasite management as well as the FAMACHA© system including hands-on demonstration of the proper scoring technique.

http://web.uri.edu/sheepngoat/video/

Don't be shellfish...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Read More

Planting Season and Farm Vehicles

  • Planting season presents special dangers for farm workers and motorists. Drive slowly and cautiously during spring planting season, says MU Extension health and safety specialist Karen Funkenbusch.

Drivers should pay special attention as they travel rural roads and highways during spring planting time, says University of Missouri Extension health and safety specialist Karen Funkenbusch.

It’s the time of the year when the rural roads are filled with tractors pulling farm equipment. Slow-moving farm equipment presents special dangers for motorists, Funkenbusch says.

The most common accident occurs when a slow-moving farm vehicle turns left. Large farm equipment needs to make wide turns to line up with a gate or driveway.

Slow down on rural roads, she says. A car traveling 55 mph requires 224 feet to stop on dry payment, assuming average reaction time for braking. At 55 mph, it takes a car just five seconds to close the length of a football field and overtake a tractor moving 15 mph.

Stay back from farm equipment. Use caution and patience, Funkenbusch says. Noise from the equipment’s motor and tires may make it difficult for the driver to hear approaching vehicles.

Dusk, sunrise and blinding sunlight compromise the driver’s vision. Keep an eye on traffic behind you that may also attempt to pass. Pass only when the road is clear and vision is unobstructed. “Getting to your destination safely is the main goal,” Funkenbusch says. “A few extra minutes may save lives.”

Most farmers make every effort to be courteous and safe, she says. Many will pull equipment off the roadway when road shoulders permit to let motorists pass safely. Watch for hand signals from the farmer.

Farmers may rush as they face weather-related deadlines. They want to get into the fields to till and plant. Practice patience during the small and temporary inconvenience of your food being produced, Funkenbusch says.

Funkenbusch also recommends that parents talk to teen drivers in their household about additional dangers presented during farming season. Hired farmhands also should review safe practices.

Funkenbusch offers additional recommendations for farmers:

  • When driving farm machinery on a road or highway, display a red flag measuring 12-14 feet high atop a pole so that the machine can be seen even when hidden by a rise or curve in the roadway.
  • When rounding a curve, stay to the right-hand side of the road as much as possible. Avoid soft or steep road shoulders, which may cause the tractor to tip.
  • Take extra precautions when driving in the early morning or early evening hours, when visibility is often impaired by sun.
  • If traffic lines up behind you, pull off or let traffic pass when it is safe to do so.
  • Railroad crossings, especially those without gates, present a special hazard. Never take a safe crossing for granted.
  • Use hand signals, electronic signals or both to indicate intentions to turn. Avoid wide turns.
  • Turn your headlights on, but turn off rear spotlights, which can be mistaken for headlights.
  • Avoid the roads during rush hour, in bad weather and at night.
  • Use pilot cars if going a considerable distance, and hang a flag out the window of these vehicles or use a slow-moving vehicle emblem.
Don't be shellfish...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Read More

Un-complicating firearm and captive bolt euthanasia

While never the preferred outcome, humane euthanasia plays a key role in animal care and veterinary medicine. For bovine practitioners working in the field, euthanasia of cattle often involves using a firearm or a captive-bolt device. Recommendations for placement of the bullet or bolt can, however, create some confusion and potentially affect efficacy of the procedure.

During the recent Academy of Veterinary Consultants conference, Iowa State University veterinarian Renee Dewell, DVM, MS, presented a simple way to determine the optimal point of entry for euthanizing cattle with a firearm or captive-bolt device.

Dewell credits a team including Dr. Eric Rowe and Mr. Wolfgang Weber from the anatomy division at ISU, Dr. Dee Griffin from the University of Nebraska, ISU Extension veterinarian Grant Dewell and Mr. Doug Bear, Iowa BQA Coordinator, for working together to provide a rationale and validate an easier way to describe the ideal entrance point for a bolt or bullet.

Dewell’s team suggests that the operator simply aim the bullet or captive bolt towards the base of the tongue at the midpoint of a line drawn between the base of each ear.

Dewell said the project was initiated after several members of the group related incidents where they  observed those responsible for euthanasia struggling with firearm or captive bolt euthanasia because of difficulty in rapidly and correctly locating the point of entry. “Veterinarians and others responsible for euthanasia are tasked with dispatching an animal as quickly and humanely as possible.  A method to rapidly and accurately locate the optimal point of entry for a bullet or captive bolt may simplify the procedure and result in less stress for both the person conducting the euthanasia procedure as well as the animal.” Says Dewell.

Dewell acknowledges there are several existing descriptions to locate the optimal point of entry, all targeting the brainstem. While Dewell and her group don’t dispute the validity of  them, the group contends that some techniques to determine the point of entry may be difficult to remember, require multiple steps, need to be adjusted based on breed type, and may be challenging in polled cattle when the suggested protocol uses horns as a landmark. Dewell also noted that the recent PRRS (swine) and HPAI (poultry) outbreaks have invigorated efforts within the cattle industry to plan for a swift and effective response during a disease outbreak. Dewell stated that depopulation would likely be considered in some disease scenarios as part of a response effort and emphasized that preference should be given to the use of depopulation techniques and strategies that are most likely to minimize human psychological stress and support animal welfare.

“Several team members had already been successfully using the ears to help determine the point of entry and we had discussed this concept with others but none of us was aware of any scientific support for this idea.”  In addition, she says she and several team members had observed packing plant personnel use the ears as landmarks when stunning. “Packing plants may process more than 350 head per hour. Rapid and accurate stunning is absolutely critical to protect human safety, support a high standard of cattle welfare, and maintain the projected kill rate. Plant personnel who are responsible for stunning use a captive bolt far more than veterinarians or other cattle caretakers.  Even though the captive bolts used in packing plants are non-penetrating, the intended point of entry is comparable to that for penetrating captive bolts and firearms.”

The team is confident that their suggested technique is both reliable and broadly applicable to the bovine species because of the relationship of cranial nerves between the brainstem and external acoustic meatus as well as the comparable brain size in cattle regardless of maturity. Dewell expressed gratitude for the expert anatomical input provided by Rowe and Weber as well as the fact that bovine cranial nerve and head skeletal anatomy have already been well documented in the literature. These established anatomical parameters are common to the bovine species regardless of age, gender, presence/absence of horns, or breed type. They used this existing knowledge to explain the suggested protocol and then demonstrated it using specially prepared prosections.

Dewell summarized the presentation by emphasizing the importance of appropriate ammunition and equipment, proper animal restraint.  She also reminded us that the AVMA’s Euthanasia Guidelines strongly recommended a reliable and humane adjunct method be used following the use of captive bolt.

 

 

 

Credit Iowa State University

Don't be shellfish...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Read More

Land O’ Lakes implements nationwide base plan

This story originally appeared on Farm Journal’s MILK

Milk production in the U.S. has grown substantially over the last 10 years. From 2000 to 2014 the amount of milk produced in America has grown 23.1%. Combined with production increases around the world, supply is outpacing demand and milk prices have fallen.

In response to the glut of milk, Land O’ Lakes will have a nationwide base plan fully implemented this year.  “By instituting a Base Program, we are acting as an industry leader to implement more structure and discipline and be in a better position to capture market opportunities to maximize the value of member production,” officials say.

Details on the base program have not been disclosed; however, Land O’ Lakes officials say they have had similar programs in place for California members since 2008 and for Bismarck, N.D., members since September 2006. The co-op introduced a Base Program in their Eastern and Upper Midwest regions earlier in 2016.

It is unknown at this time if other co-ops will follow suit. Dairy Farmers of America, the nation’s largest dairy cooperative, says it doesn’t intend to implement a nationwide program this year.

“At this time, DFA does not have any plans to establish a national quota/base plan for our membership,” says John Wilson, Senior Vice President and Chief Fluid Marketing Officer. “As the movement of milk is very regional, supply management decisions are handled region by region.”

Don't be shellfish...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Read More

The Holstein Dairy Cow

History of dairy cow breeds: Holstein

Holstein cows are the most recognized breed of dairy cattle with distinctive black and white or red and white markings.

Have you ever looked at a dairy cow and wondered about the history of the breed? This new series from Michigan State University Extension will explore the history of the seven major breeds of dairy cattle in the U.S. First in the series is the Holstein.

Holstein cows are perhaps the most recognized breed of dairy cattle and are the most common dairy breed in the U.S. The have distinctive black and white or red and white markings. The red and white coloring is a recessive gene that appears when both the dam (mother) and sire (father) are carriers or exhibit the trait themselves. The Holstein breed is known for high milk production but has less butterfat and protein based on percentage in the milk, compared other breeds.

Holstein cows originated in the Netherlands approximately 2,000 years ago. Two breeds of cattle, black animals from the Batavians (present day Germany) and white animals from the Friesians (present day Holland), were crossed to create a new breed of cattle. This crossbreeding led to a high milk-producing animal that was able to do so on limited feed resources. Originally, this breed was known as Holstein-Friesians but is now known more simply as Holsteins. Friesian cattle still exist today but are separate from the Holstein breed. There are Friesian breeds from the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Holland and these animals tend to be smaller bodied than Holstein cattle.

Holstein cattle were initially brought to the U.S. in 1852 by a Massachusetts man named Winthrop Chenery. There was a growing market for milk and a need for cattle, so dairy breeders looked to Holland for animals. Chenery purchased the cow from a Dutch sailing master who had a Holstein on board to provide fresh milk to his crew during the voyage. Impressed with the cow’s milk production, Chenery imported more cows in 1857, 1859 and 1861, and soon many other breeders followed suit to establish lines of Holstein cattle in the U.S.

Near the end of the 1800’s, there were enough cattle and dairy farmers interested in the breed that the Holstein-Friesian Association of America was formed in 1885 to maintain herdbooks and record pedigrees of cattle in the U.S. In 1994, the association changed its name to Holstein Association USA, Inc.

Here are a few more fun facts about the Holstein breed:

  • A mature cow weighs about 1,500 pounds and stands 58 inches tall at her shoulder.
  • There are more than nine million dairy cows in this country and about 90 percent of them are Holsteins.
  • Holstein calves weigh 80 to100 pounds when born.
  • Holstein cows take the top awards in milk production. The average cow produces about 25,000 pounds, or around 2,900 gallons, of milk each lactation or milking, cycle. Each lactation cycle lasts about a year.

Enjoyed learning about Holsteins? Stay tuned for more articles about U.S. dairy breeds!

Don't be shellfish...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Read More

Will dairy base plans be triggered this spring?

With milk production up in New York, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota and processing plants nearing capacity, it begs the question whether dairy co-ops will have to activate base plans to slow milk production.

It’s a real possibility, says the University of Wisconsin’s Bob Cropp. “I haven’t heard of any new big plant capacity coming on out there,” he says.

Plants in New York and Michigan were brimming to overflow last spring, and some had to dump milk after they skimmed off solids. This year, even though we’re not yet through the first quarter, production is up.

Even discounting for leap year, February milk production in New York is up 4.6%, Michigan is up 7.7%, Wisconsin is up 5.1% and Minnesota is up 1.4%. Cow numbers are also up in three of these four states. New York is up 4,000 head; Michigan is up 11,000, and Wisconsin is up 5,000. Cow numbers in Minnesota are unchanged.

At the same time, milk/feed margins are tight, particularly in New York. Because of the large milk supply, dairy processors there are not paying premiums to attract milk and basis is much lower than in the Midwest. “That hurts,” says Mark Stephenson, a dairy economist with the University of Wisconsin.

“Bankers out there tell me there are a few farms that are in bad enough shape that they likely will not be get operating loans,” he says. “That’s not widespread, but if you’re talking about that at all going into spring planting season, if you’re working capital isn’t adequate, that’s tough.”

Don't be shellfish...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Read More