ANIMALNET SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 -- II Activists' anti-dairy ad abuses scientific data in fact, dairy products shown to reduce cancer in many studies Swine fever Vet, young, mastitis: farm animal welfare news -June '00 - recommended practices for tail docking in dairy cows EU to ask WTO to write rules to offset animal welfare costs W.H. miner institute farm report: September, 2000 Organic milk: marching to a different drummer NC dairy extension news fall '00 - prevention and control of Johnes disease Subject: feed: GA dairyfax july/aug '00 - using byproduct feeds to stretch your forage supply Nutrition and immunity: looking for connections A comparison of dairy cattle tail docking studies Don't overlook basic management principles and practices Tifton dairy research center update Getting cows to eat, despite the heat Drought brings problems with nitrates and aflatoxin AnimalNet is produced by the Centre for Safe Food at the University of Guelph, and is supported by the Ontario Cattlemenís Association, the U.S. National Pork Producers, U.S. National Food Processors Association, Pfizer Animal Health Group, Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Canadian Animal Health Institute, Meat & Livestock Australia, Canadian Pork Council, Ontario Egg Producers, Ontario Farm Animal Council, U.S. National Cattlemens Beef Association, the Rutgers Food Risk Analysis Initiative, Ag-West Biotech, Land Oí Lakes Feed, Capital Health, Animal Industry Foundation, American Feed Industry Assn., the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board, Food Indsutry Environmental Network, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors, Chicken Farmers of Canada, MDS Nordion, American Meat Institute, AdCulture, USDA Veterinary Services (Fort Collins) Alberta Farm Animal Council, and the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program). archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/animalnet-archives.htm STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL DAIRY COUNCIL(R) AND THE NATIONAL FLUID MILK PROCESSOR PROMOTION BOARD: ACTIVISTS' ANTI-DAIRY AD ABUSES SCIENTIFIC DATA IN FACT, DAIRY PRODUCTS SHOWN TO REDUCE CANCER IN MANY STUDIES Sept. 25/00 PRNewswire ROSEMONT, Ill. -- The National Dairy Council(R) and the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board denounces the new ad launched today in New York by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an animal rights/vegan organization that attempts to generate news coverage by posing as a reputable "doctors' group." PCRM's ad misleads viewers on the current science regarding any possible connection between milk and prostate cancer. Reputable researchers and health organizations -- including the very researchers who conducted the research PCRM refers to -- disagree with PCRM's position on this issue. In fact, PCRM's views have been repeatedly denounced by the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF), and the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), among others. PCRM's anti-dairy television ad that began running in New York today demonstrates how closely this group is affiliated with the controversial activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA made headlines two weeks ago with its billboard ads on the same subject. As the national media has reported several times since last April, the Physicians Health Study referred to by PCRM in the ad is a preliminary, observational study that does not show a cause-and-effect link between dairy products and prostate cancer. The Harvard researchers warn against using the study to encourage changes in eating habits, and wrote in their April press release, "It's far too early to recommend any extreme change in eating habits." In fact, the authors clearly state that more research is needed, and they acknowledge limitations in their study. In a conference two weeks ago sponsored by the American Institute for Cancer Research, nutrition experts said messages suggesting that milk causes prostate cancer are not supported by solid scientific evidence. "The claim that milk and milk products increase the risk of prostate cancer is a serious abuse of the scientific data to date," John D. Potter of Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center told the Washington Post (Sept. 1, 2000, page A09). In this same article, one of the researchers from the Physicians Health Study was quoted as saying, "Nobody that I know who worked on that particular project is willing to...say we should restrict dairy intake to prevent prostate cancer." The National Cancer Institute also stepped forward last month to denounce PETA's use of some of the same information that PCRM is recycling into its current campaign. PCRM and PETA's strategy is clearly to generate as much media coverage on an animal rights agenda based on little fact and no actual news. Moreover, other recent studies have shown that the nutrients in milk and dairy products are effective in reducing the risk of certain types of cancers. Dairy's role in preventing osteoporosis, in strengthening bones and providing calcium, vitamin D and seven other essential nutrients has long been established and lauded by the nutrition and science community, including the American Dietetic Association (ADA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and many other reputable health organizations, from whom people should get their nutrition and health information and not animal rights activists. More information on the latest scientific research regarding dairy products is available on-line at www.nationaldairycouncil.org . SWINE FEVER September 25, 2000 PA News Ian Shoesmith, City Staff The recent swine fever outbreak has, according to this story, infected profits at food and distribution giant Unigate's pig division, the group confirmed today. Unigate chairman Ian Martin was cited as warning at the company's annual general meeting on July 26 that, unless prices came down, the UK's pig processing industry would continue to suffer. Since then, Unigate said the outbreak of swine fever had closed many export markets. And containment measures introduced to try to prevent its spread had affected the distribution chain of pigs around the UK, thereby limiting supply and pushing up prices. VET, YOUNG, MASTITIS: FARM ANIMAL WELFARE NEWS -JUNE '00 - RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR TAIL DOCKING IN DAIRY COWS September 25, 2000 From: Stanley Fultz To: DAIRYNEW@UMDD.UMD.EDU Subject: Farm Animal Welfare News -June 2000 http://www.afac.ab.ca/FAWNews.pdf Recommended Practices for Tail Docking in Dairy Cows The American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) recognizes that more work is needed to fully understand the welfare, food safety and milker comfort implications of dairy cattle tail docking. It encourages research studies that use scientifically valid methods with clinically relevant outcomes reported in peer-reviewed publications. Until consensus can be reached, the AABP recommends that, if tail docking is to be done, it should be as young as practical using appropriate techniques. (From the AABP Position on Tail Docking in Dairy Cattle and e-mail communication with Larry Hutchinson, D.V.M., AABP President). EU TO ASK WTO TO WRITE RULES TO OFFSET ANIMAL WELFARE COSTS September 25, 2000 Feedstuffs Rod Smith TUCSON, ARIZ.- Tage Lysgaard, secretary general of AVEC, a European federation of poultry processors and related interests, was cited as telling the International Egg Commission here last week that international trade rules should be established in the World Trade Organization (WTO) to require livestock and poultry production worldwide to adhere to European-style animal welfare regulations or set levies on dairy, meat and poultry products exported into Europe to "neutralize" the added costs of animal welfare on the European producers. Otherwise, Lysgaard added, unencumbered products from nations that do not practice European husbandry will be detrimental to the European livestock and poultry industries. He said consumers demand food based not only on price but convenience, nutrition and safety, as well as cultures, ethics and morals. In recent years, as economies strengthened over the world, there has been "less strain" on available consumer incomes for food, and consumers have shifted food purchasing decisions to cultural or ethical influences, such as how animals are husbanded. Animal welfare is "a very significant soft parameter" for many consumers in Europe" who are prepared to pay higher prices for food from higher-cost husbandry systems to make sure animals "are being treated according to their needs," he said-assurances that are being increasingly provided in the EU through national authority. (The story notes that Lysgaard was preceded at the opening session by a poultry economist who reported that the EU's new cage requirements for layer welfare will add 10-15% to costs of production.) W.H. MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT: SEPTEMBER, 2000 September 25, 2000 From: Stanley Fultz To: DAIRYNEW@UMDD.UMD.EDU http://www.whminer.com/Sep00.htm ZOO NEWS The San Francisco Zoo has an elephant named Calle who has a chronic illness that requires daily medication. Calle won’t take the medicine orally and nothing is easily injected through an elephant’s tough hide, so a pharmacologist developed a suppository of truly elephantine proportions: 10" in length, weighing 4 pounds and made of cocoa butter. Administering the daily medication takes five zoo workers: One to distract Calle with treats, one (wearing a full-arm glove) to insert the suppository, and three to hang on for dear life since this isn’t the best minute of Calle’s day. The message during this most difficult crop year: There are at least five people who have jobs worse than yours, so quit complaining. W.H. MINER FARM REPORT - SEPT '00 - ORGANIC MILK: MARCHING TO A DIFFERENT DRUMMER September 25, 2000 From: Stanley Fultz To: DAIRYNEW@UMDD.UMD.EDU http://www.whminer.com/Sep00.htm The number of cows devoted to organic milk production increased by almost 500% between 1992 and 1997, but only to about 13,000 cows. Is there potential for producing organic milk? This may depend on where you live, but for Roman Stoltzfoos, a Lancaster Co. (PA) farmer, there certainly seems to be. Mr. Stoltzfoos isn’t a typical dairy farmer by any measure, from his choice of cattle (Dutch Belted, which he’s breeding to New Zealand Jerseys), grain feeding (5 lbs./cow in 2000, 0 lbs. in 2001), or market philosophy ("Give the customers what they want so we can set the price."). This isn’t a small farm—over 100 cows—with a sophisticated composting operation that will generate $20,000 in sales this year. A family farm with almost no hired labor, the Stoltzfoos family lives well, budgeting $50,000 for living expenses. The key, of course, is the $19.00 per hundredweight price they get for organic milk, and according to Roman their milk handler "is crying for milk." In 1997 the farm was more typical with about $6.00 of purchased feed cost per cwt milk and normal fertilizer, vet and medicine bills. Now purchased feed cost for the pasture-based operation is $1.33/cwt milk, vet and medicine expenses are less than half what they were, and the only fertilizers purchased are gypsum and an organic mineral blend. Operating cost was $12.95/cwt milk in 1997, $8.58 in 1998, $11.76 in 1999, and is on track for a bit over $7.00 this year. The 1999 and 2000 costs include the $50,000 in living expenses I mentioned, compared to $17,969 in 1997. Marching to a different drummer, perhaps, but making a bit of noise in the dairy industry. NC DAIRY EXTENSION NEWS FALL '00 - PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF JOHNES DISEASE September 25, 2000 North Carolina State University Dairy Extension News From: Stanley Fultz To: DAIRYNEW@UMDD.UMD.EDU http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/an_sci/extension/dairy/dairyextensionewsfall2000.h= tm Prevention and Control of Johne'sDisease Sheila Jordan, Area Specialized Extension Agent-Dairy, NCSU Johne'sdisease, or paratuberculosis, is caused by Mycobacterium paratuberculosis. This is a slow-growing bacteria that causes thickening of the intestinal wall of cattle and lowers their ability to absorb nutrients. The economic losses from Johne'sdisease are substantial and occur through premature culling, reduced milk production, higher cow replacement costs and lower cull cow revenues. Results from a 1996 USDA study indicates that the annual cost of Johne's disease is $40 per cow in the herd if the percentage of cull cows with clinical signs is less than 10 percent. Annual losses increased to $227 per cow in infected herds where more than 10 percent of cull cows showed clinical signs. There is no treatment for Johne's disease. The key is MANAGEMENT, especially manure management. More M. paratuberulosis bacteria are excreted by infected animals in manure than in colostrum, milk or in utero. Management of newborn calves and young animals is critical because they are the most susceptible to the disease. The minimum time for complete separation is the first six months of life. Following are some steps to protect calves and young heifers from infection: Calves should be born in an area (pasture or pen) that is dry, free from manure and used only for calving. Remove calves from dams and the maternity area immediately. This prevents accidental ingestion of manure by the newborn calf attempting to nurse. Feed newborn calves colostrum from test negative cows or those who have a lower disease risk. Use milk replacer to eliminate the risk of infection from feeding whole or pooled milk to calves, or use milk from test negative animals. -House young calves and heifers separately from adults. Do not allow direct contact with manure or run-off from adult cows. Keep waterers and feed free from manure contamination. Clean pens routinely. Ensure all manure and run-off goes away from calves. Clean calf pens before cleaning adult areas. Avoid contaminating calf area with manure from equipment or feet of farm personnel. Here are some steps to protect older animals from the disease: 1. Prevent manure contamination of feed and waterers. 2. Do not use the same loader or equipment to clean up manure and then load feed. 3. Do not walk in feed bunks or alleys unless your boots are clean. 4. Eliminate or fence animals out of natural drinking water sources, that are slow moving, stagnant or collect run-off containing manure. 5. Spread manure on cropland not on pasture to be harvested or grazed the same season. 6. Clean trailers after hauling cattle. 7. Wash and disinfect or spread lime calving pens. Prevention can be started immediately. Whatever the status of your herd, treat all animals as if they are infected and all manure as if it is contaminated. SUBJECT: FEED: GA DAIRYFAX JULY/AUG '00 - USING BYPRODUCT FEEDS TO STRETCH YOUR FORAGE SUPPLY September 25, 2000 From: Stanley Fultz To: DAIRYNEW@UMDD.UMD.EDU Georgia Dairyfax The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/asdsvm/Dairyscience/aug00dfx.htm Using Byproduct Feeds to Stretch Your Forage Supply John K. Bernard Dairy Research and Extension Many producers are facing a shortage of forage due to the continuing drought. As pointed out in a previous article by Dr. Ely, producers should make an inventory of available forage and develop a plan based on forage needs as soon as possible. Alfalfa hay prices have already increased due to poor weather conditions in the Western U.S. The drought may also increase the price of other feeds such as cottonseed hulls and whole cottonseed. There are several high-fiber byproduct feeds available in the region that are sometimes used to stretch forage supplies. Some of the more common high-fiber byproduct feeds include wet brewers' grains, citrus pulp, corn gluten feed, cottonseed hulls, soybean hulls, and wheat middlings. The chemical composition and roughage values (RV) for selected feeds are listed in the following table. The roughage value is calculated by multiplying the NDF content by a factor reflecting the relative value of the fiber in that feed compared to grass hay which is considered 100% effective. Except for cottonseed hulls, the roughage value of all of these byproducts is low relative to forage. It is also apparent that a small amount of bermudagrass hay (or similar grass hay) can be used to maintain an acceptable roughage value in the diet. Table 1. Chemical composition and roughage value of select feeds. (See web site for table) Some points to remember when using high-fiber byproducts to stretch forage supplies are as follows: Always provide adequate effective fiber (roughage value) to maintain rumen bulk and function. High-fiber byproducts do not stimulate cud chewing and pass through the rumen faster than forages, contributing to sub-clinical acidosis. Feeding large quantities of high-fiber byproducts results in high energy rations which may alter intake and ruminal fermentation. Lower amounts of starch or nonstructural carbohydrates (NSC) should be fed when byproducts replace corn silage. Some feeds such as wheat middlings may limit intake due to palatibility problems whereas other feeds such as cottonseed hulls tend to be consumed in greater quantities due to faster passage rates through the rumen. When feeding medium protein feeds such as brewers grains or corn gluten feed, consideration should be given to the type of protein supplement to provide optimal concentrations of degradable and soluble protein. Many byproducts contain high concentrations of certain minerals, so the mineral supplement used in the diet should be adjusted. For example corn gluten feed contains high concentrations of phosphorus, so phosphorus supplementation should be reduced to prevent metabolic problems. The nutrient content of byproducts varies among sources due to differences in manufacturing, the source of raw materials, and drying methods used. Request a nutrient profile from the supplier and have samples analyzed to check the nutrient content. Most byproducts that originate from processors producing items for human consumption check for mycotoxins and other contaminants; however producers should screen these feeds in the event some became contaminated during storage. Work with a nutritionist who is familiar with byproduct feeds and has experience using byproducts to stretch forage supplies. With today's computer software, most anyone can balance a ration, but knowing if the cows will milk or remain healthy is another issue. SUBJECT: VET, FEED: HEALTHY ANIMALS ISSUE 5, JULY 2000 - NUTRITION AND IMMUNITY: LOOKING FOR CONNECTIONS September 25, 2000 From: Stanley Fultz Reply-To: sf28@umail.umd.edu Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:29:33 -0400 USDA ARS Healthy Animals Issue 5, July 2000 http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/ha/han5.htm Nutrition and Immunity: Looking for Connections A strong immune system can make the difference between fighting off a passing virus or succumbing to illness. It can mean higher milk production, healthier offspring and better growth. But how can producers help strengthen their animals? immunity? Researchers at several ARS laboratories are working to find out. The scientists focus on the links between nutrition and immune function, because feed-based strategies are some of the most practical for producers to implement. In addition, these strategies offer a rapid means of getting newer scientific principles of animal health from the laboratory into the hands of producers and extension agents. Some links between nutrition and disease are direct. For example, ARS researchers at the National Animal Disease Center (NADC) in Ames, IA, showed that high potassium levels cause milk fever in cows-not calcium as previously thought. More often, though, immunity and nutrition have less tangible connections. While immune function appears depressed in dairy cattle just before and after giving birth, the reasons are not well defined. In beef cattle, researchers at the Growth Biology Laboratory in Beltsville, MD, discovered several years ago that high-protein diets curbed an overproduction of cytokines observed with poor or unbalanced nutrition. While cytokines are necessary hormones, overproduction can cause shock and cardiopulmonary failure. More recently, Beltsville researchers found that changes in metabolic hormones and cell processing of specific nutrients interplay to regulate the amount of chemically active ?free radicals? produced in cells. These free radicals can change the activity of otherwise normal proteins and, in turn, alter metabolism and increase the rate at which healthy cells deteriorate. Antioxidant vitamins can reduce free radical impact. Ongoing studies will help define the best mix of antioxidants in cattle feed during anticipated periods of stress, such as birth, weaning, or turning out to pasture in the spring. ARS? ability to hold animals long term helps researchers study these complex interactions. For instance, NADC scientists can infuse dairy cattle with nutrients and perform sophisticated blood assays while maintaining them in the milking barn. That?s crucial for understanding the immune system changes that take place immediately before and after cows give birth. The Ames location also has quarantine facilities and a veterinary staff available to handle disease research. At Beltsville, researchers can team with the Nutrient Conservation Laboratory and perform indirect whole body calorimetry on cattle. This allows them to monitor whole-body oxygen consumption and oxidation as a function of changing nutrient composition and response to simulated disease stresses. At the Aquatic Animal Health Research Laboratory in Auburn, AL, ARS scientists are expanding their disease and parasite studies to define the effects of nutrition, feed and feeding on immunity and disease resistance in fish. They hope to develop feeds that optimize not only growth and feed efficiency but also for improving the health of catfish and other warmwater aquaculture species. ARS has recently restructured its national programs. The animal nutrition component now resides under Food Animal Production. For more information, contact: Ted Elsasser, Beltsville, MD (beef cattle) Jesse Goff, Ames, IA (dairy cattle, periparturient diseases) Chhorn Lim, Auburn, AL (fish) VET, MASTITIS, YOUNG: FARM ANIMAL WELFARE NEWS -JUNE '00 - A COMPARISON OF DAIRY CATTLE TAIL DOCKING STUDIES September 25, 2000 From: Stanley Fultz To: DAIRYNEW@UMDD.UMD.EDU Farm Animal Welfare News -June 2000 http://www.afac.ab.ca/FAWNews.pdf A Comparison of Dairy Cattle Tail Docking Studies Tail docking of dairy cows is a management practice, seen as a means of ensuring udder health, cow cleanliness and ease of milking. The procedure is usually done with a constricting rubber ring applied 4 -6 inches below the ulva, causing the end of the tail to die after about a week. Many tail docking studies have been carried out on dairy cows to determine whether the procedure is justifiable on food safety, animal welfare or milker comfort grounds. Some recent studies have been summarized below in an effort to compare study methods, purposes and results. Sample size and testing for statistical significance may account for the discrepancies between Mississippi's findings compared to British Columbia and New Zealand. The Mississippi study presented its findings as cumulative averages, but did not apparently test the statistical significance of differences for somatic cell counts and milk yields. Sample sizes were limited in many studies, which makes conclusions difficult. The New Zealand study found very few occasions where the tails of cows were in contact with the milker. However, parlor design may have affected these results. With cows increasingly being milked from behind, contact with the tail would likely increase. Pain studies have been difficult to base conclusions on. The USDA study found that there was some indication of a stress response from cows after tail docking (haptoglobin levels increased in adult cows, but not in calves). Behaviourally, calves were noted to show signs of stress. In the study done at University of Guelph, behavioural signs of stress were absent in adult cows. Behaviour indicators of stress may not be appropriate because many species have adapted to not visibly exhibit their pain as a survival tool against predators. The University of Guelph study also measured cortisol through saliva samples, but these have yet to be fully analyzed. Conflicting results were obtained regarding cow cleanliness between the University of British Columbia and the USDA. The USDA study had a small sample size, which may have contributed to this difference. >From the above studies it would seem that justifications for tail docking in dairy cows are limited to milker comfort. Tail docking is likely not acceptable from an animal welfare perspective. Perhaps a report that reviews multiple tail docking studies and compares their methods and results could give us more information on which to base an informed decision on the appropriateness of tail docking in dairy cows. FEED, MASTITIS, BREED: GA DAIRYFAX JULY/ AUG '00 - DON'T OVERLOOK BASIC MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES September 25, 2000 From: Stanley Fultz To: DAIRYNEW@UMDD.UMD.EDU Georgia Dairyfax The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/asdsvm/Dairyscience/aug00dfx.htm Don't Overlook Basic Management Principles and Practices James W. Smith Extension Dairy Scientist In this age of biotechnology, computer technology and the Internet, we may forget that many principles of sound dairy herd management were forged 50 or more years ago. These principles and practices are just as important today and should not be overlooked in our high tech world. Forage Testing Much of the increase in milk production in the last twenty years must be attributed to more precise computerized ration balancing. However, the accuracy of every ration program depends on the information entered into the computer. Due to the variability in nutrient composition of forages, routine forage analysis is essential. Many times, however, the importance of a good representative sample is overlooked. The most accurate forage analysis and ration balancing program is minimized if the forage sample does not represent what is being fed. Sampling at harvest time is recommended (Extension Bulletin 960, Feed and Forage Analysis provides more details). Moisture Testing Thousands of dollars are spent on mixer wagons with fancy electronic scales. However, the silage loaded into the mixer wagon may be significantly wetter or dryer than when sampled for forage analysis. Routine testing of dry matter using a moisture tester is absolutely essential to maintain an accurate ration formulation. Bunk Management The most accurately balanced ration is useless if cows are not fed enough and/or if they are not consuming adequate quantities. (See article by Dr. Joe West in this issue). Sanitation 'Simple' sanitation is the key to prevention and control of mastitis. Keep cows out of mud and manure. Milk a clean dry udder. Heat Detection Unless you are using a timed breeding program or a natural service sire, heat detection is the most important reproductive herd management practice. Many aids are available, but nothing beats watching cows twice a day every day. The time spent watching cows for heat often reveals other management deficiencies. Just because a management practice is 'old' doesn't mean it is not important. Review your management practices and be sure you're not neglecting some of the 'tried and true' practices. FEED:GA DAIRYFAX JULY/AUG '00 - TIFTON DAIRY RESEARCH CENTER UPDATE September 25, 2000 From: Stanley Fultz To: DAIRYNEW@UMDD.UMD.EDU Georgia Dairyfax The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/asdsvm/Dairyscience/aug00dfx.htm Tifton Dairy Research Center Update Drs. John K. Bernard and Joe W. West CURRENT SITUATION: As we noted in our last report, we have been purchasing heifers and cows as our budget allowed to expand the herd. Dean Buchanan appropriated some money for cattle purchases this spring and we have been able to purchase more cows and springing heifers. This should allow us to have 175 cows on line this fall. We still are short of our 256 cow capacity, but we are making progress. CROPS: Because of our irrigation system, we will have a good corn silage crop. The custom harvester we have contracted to cut our corn will be here mid July and should be able to get it cut in a couple of days. We plan to plant oats and ryegrass behind the corn later this fall for some grazing and silage production. This spring our oats produced 3.2 tons dry matter per acre and our ryegrass produced 2.35 tons dry matter per acre. We could have harvested more tonnage off of the ryegrass, but it was taken out of production in early March to plant corn for silage. The oats tested 19.4% CP, 32% ADF, and 58% NDF (DM basis). The two cuttings of ryegrass harvested tested 22 and 26% CP, 26 and 28% ADF, and 45 and 53% NDF. We are currently feeding the first cutting of ryegrass in a research trial. RESEARCH: A study was completed this spring to examine the effects of calcium levels in the diet when cows are fed anionic salts prepartum. There are a lot of recommendations regarding calcium levels, but not a lot of data. This work is geared toward improving conditions for the transition cow, and in fine tuning nutritional recommendations during this period. The results are currently being summarized. We currently have four nutrition research studies underway. The first study is examining the effect of including urea along with starch in a coating applied to whole fuzzy cottonseed. The coating improves the handling characteristics of whole cottonseed so that it can be hauled in bottom hopper and can be handled using smaller feed conveyers commonly used in feed mills. This work is being funded by Cotton Incorporated. Results of a field study on a large Arizona dairy indicated a positive response in milk production to additional lysine. The focus of the second study here is to examine the effect of adding steam flaked or ground corn and supplemental lysine to diets containing an animal-marine protein supplement on ruminal fermentation and nutrient supply to the small intestine. Diets containing steam flaked corn have also been shown to improve milk production. Supplemental lysine improves rumen fermentation under heat stress conditions, so the combination of lysine and steam-flaked corn should promote improved fermentation and nutrient availability for milk production. This research is being supported by H. J. Baker & Bros. and South Georgia Grain Services. A third study is currently underway to define the protein needs for the dairy cow during hot weather. Protein levels in the diet, using a high quality bypass protein source to improve amino acid content of the diet, are being evaluated to determine how to supplement the cow for high production during hot weather. This study is being partially funded by the H. J. Baker and Bro. Company. The fourth study is a follow-up to a ryegrass feeding trial conducted last December. In the first study, cows fed the ryegrass diets consumed more dry matter and produced more milk than those fed diets containing corn silage. Part of this difference may have been due to the low fiber content of the 100% corn silage diet, but we did not observe any milk fat depression. The trial currently being conducted is comparing diets containing all ryegrass or a 50:50 blend of ryegrass and corn silage. Diets are being supplemented with either ground or steam-flaked corn. Given the large amount of nitrogen in the ryegrass silage (more than 20% CP), substituting corn silage for a portion of the ryegrass silage and using steam flaked corn should improve nitrogen utilization. A new graduate student has started her research in Tifton for the Masters Degree. Pooi-See Chan, a native of Malaysia, will be conducting research with the transition cow. She will be feeding anionic diets prepartum, and diets with a high dietary cation-anion difference (high content of sodium and potassium) postpartum, to determine which treatments enable cows to consume the greatest amounts of feed at and following calving. It has been proven that cows with a high feed intake near calving will continue that intake on through early lactation, when nutrient intake is particularly crucial. This work will be done in late summer, the period which is especially challenging for transition cows. Proposals are being made to industry for financial support of this work. Six proposals were submitted from Tifton to the Florida Dairy Check-Off for consideration for funding. Only one was funded, but does provide much needed financial support for dairy research. FEED: GA DAIRYFAX JULY/AUG '00 - GETTING COWS TO EAT, DESPITE THE HEAT September 25, 2000 From: Stanley Fultz To: DAIRYNEW@UMDD.UMD.EDU Georgia Dairyfax The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/asdsvm/Dairyscience/aug00dfx.htm Getting Cows to Eat, Despite the Heat Joe W. West Dairy Research & Extension Hot weather depresses intake in lactating cows, which is particularly challenging for the late summer and fall calving transition cow. Numerous management factors can enhance intake by the cow, and each pound of dry matter intake can be worth two to three pounds of milk. Here are some low cost tips to help cows eat more feed, and make the dairy producer more profits. Know what's going on in the feed bunk! Is sufficient weigh back present to ensure high intake for all cows? Is feed hot or spoiled? Is there a musty smell to feed? Is silage coming to the barn already hot, indicating spoilage in the bunker? Are total mixed rations (TMR) consistently and uniformly mixed? Importance? Preventing 'clean bunk syndrome' ensures that cows have constant access to high quality, palatable feed. Frequent feeding and pushing up feed regularly can improve intake. Feed bunks should be cleaned daily to prevent spoilage, heating, and molding. Warm silage can indicate spoilage in the silo due to inadequate removal or excessive air exposure. What are your cows doing? Is there room for all cows at the feed bunk? What is the intake for each group of cows? Do intake patterns change with hot weather? (More intake at night, less during the day?) Can cows reach the feed? Is feed pushed up often? How long do cows have access to feed? Are feed bunks empty? Are cows in the holding pen too long? Importance? Cows need 24 to 30 inches of bunk space for all cows to eat, and crowding is a bigger issue for transition cows. As daily temperatures rise, cows often shift feed consumption to night-time. Feeding programs should adjust also. Cows should be fed frequently and abundantly, and feed should be pushed up in the bunk regularly. Are feed bunks empty too long ? Does it take too long to feed cows after bunks are cleaned? Or are cows in the holding pen too long, away from feed? Cows should be away from feed no more than two to three hours per day. Giving cows constant access to feed is critical to maintaining intake. Can your cows get a cool drink? Is water easily accessed, or do cows have to compete for it? Is water clean and cool? Is water close to feed and housing? Is water shaded or do cows have to go into the sun to drink? Importance? Inadequate water supplies limit feed intake, and water requirements are greater during summer. Cows should not have to drink dirty or hot water. If cows must go into the blazing sun to get a drink, they may choose not to. Getting water should not be a challenge for the cow. How does your TMR look? Is there plenty of TMR available? Is the mix consistent? Is the particle size adequate, or is it overmixed or pulverized? Can cows sort feed ingredients due to large particle size? What are they sorting for or against? Does the TMR left in the feed bunk look different from that delivered to the feed bunk? Is the ration dry; will intake benefit from added water? Importance? Is there enough feed; an 8 to 10% weigh back is recommended. The TMR needs to be mixed consistently along the bunk. If the mix varies along the bunk mixing time may be too short or the mixer wagon may be worn. A good mix is required to deliver the formulated ration. Does the ration have sufficient particle size? Overmixing may grind particles too small for good rumen function. Excessive particle size allows cows to select against forage or select for concentrate, increasing the potential for acidosis. If the TMR looks different at the end of the day than when it was first fed, cows are sorting and are not consuming the formulated TMR. A dry ration (containing a lot of hay, for example) increases sorting. Adding water can reduce sorting and make the ration more palatable. Ration DM in the 50 to 60% range is desirable. Is the ration properly balanced? Reformulated for lower intake? Consider protein, escape protein, energy, fiber, minerals, micronutrients. Minerals boosted for summer feeding? 1.5 to 1.8% potassium, .3 to .4% sodium, .35% magnesium. Using high quality forage? Adequate forage content in the ration? Use dietary buffers. Importance? Rations should be reformulated for all major nutrients to reflect lower intake. Mineral requirements for potassium and other electrolytes increase. Reformulate for concentrations listed above. Good quality and adequate quantities of fiber are necessary to maintain good rumen function and health. It is not good to greatly increase concentrate and reduce forage in the ration during hot weather because of acidosis and laminitis. Buffers such as sodium bicarbonate should be included at about .75% of dietary DM. Fat can be used to increase dietary energy density. Maintaining good feed intake during hot weather depends on a combination of management factors. Environmental modification (cooling) and ration alterations work best when used together, and ration changes without cooling will not return the full benefits. FEED, BREED, VET: GA DAIRYFAX JULY/AUG '00 - DROUGHT BRINGS PROBLEMS WITH NITRATES AND AFLATOXIN September 25, 2000 From: Stanley Fultz Georgia Dairyfax The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/asdsvm/Dairyscience/aug00dfx.htm Drought Brings Problems with Nitrates and Aflatoxin Lane O. Ely Extension Dairy Scientist As the drought continues, plants are under stress. Because of the stress conditions and reduced growth, plants are more susceptible to nitrate and aflatoxin problems. Nitrate problems have a higher occurrence with summer drought than other times of the year. After fertilizer application, plants take up nitrogen and store it as nitrates. As the plant grows, the nitrate is converted to plant proteins. During drought, the plant growth stops and the nitrates remain concentrated in the plant. As producers try to harvest some forage, plants have reduced growth and higher nitrate levels. Be sure to test the forages at harvest and before feeding. The ensiling process can reduce the level of nitrates by 40-60%. Be sure to take a representative sample as the level of nitrates can vary throughout the field. If nitrates are a problem in corn, one can raise the chopper level because the highest concentration of nitrates are in the lower 12 inches of the plant. Aflatoxin will also be a problem this summer as drought stress plants are more likely to have aflatoxin develop. Corn, corn silage, peanuts, whole cottonseed are all likely candidates to have aflatoxin but almost any crop grown in the Southeast can have aflatoxin present. The aflatoxin can be produced in the field before harvest or during storage. Testing before feeding is critical. Milk that is above .5 ppb is not allowed to be sold. The aflatoxin level should be below 20 ppb in the feed to hopefully stay below this level. The drought causes producers to be concerned with lower yield, reduced quality and potential problems with nitrates and aflatoxins. Be sure to test your feed to be safe. To subscribe to AnimalNet, send mail to: (subscription is free) mailto:listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca leave subject line blank in the body of the message type: subscribe animalnet-L firstname lastname i.e. subscribe animalnet -L Wendy Powell To unsubscribe to AnimalNet, send mail to: mailto:listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca leave subject line blank in the body of the message type: signoff animalnet-L For more information about the AnimalNet research program, please contact: Dr. Wendy Powell mailto:wpowell@uoguelph.ca http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/animalnet-archives.htm