Implementing Milk Quality Programs On Farms Pamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVM University of Wisconsin Madison.

Implementing Milk Quality Implementing Milk Quality Programs On FarmsPrograms On Farms

Pamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVMPamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVM

University of Wisconsin MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin Madison

© 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights ReservedReserved

Key Contagious Mastitis Control Practices

EffectiveEffective teat dipping teat dipping 97% adoption97% adoption

Dry cow therapy of Dry cow therapy of allall quarters quarters of all cowsof all cows 93% adoption93% adoption

AppropriateAppropriate treatment of treatment of clinical casesclinical cases No dataNo data

Culling Culling chronically chronically infected infected cowscows 35% of all cows culled are 35% of all cows culled are

for mastitisfor mastitis RegularRegular milking machine milking machine

maintenancemaintenance 43% analyze yearly43% analyze yearly

WI Parlors (n=101)335,000 cells/ml

WI Stallbarns (n = 78)430,000 cells/ml

WI Parlors (n=101)335,000 cells/ml

WI Stallbarns (n = 78)430,000 cells/ml


Why is mastitis a problem?

Improving milk Improving milk quality is technically quality is technically easyeasy

There is lots of There is lots of knowledge about knowledge about basic methods to basic methods to improve milk qualityimprove milk quality

Most farms want to Most farms want to improve milk quality improve milk quality but………but……… Too many Too many

competing issuescompeting issuesRodriques & Ruegg, 2004 Food Protection Trends 24:670-

675

Opinions of Vets (n=42) & Ext. Agents (n=35)

Whats stops improvement in milk quality?

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Poor

Adv

ice

Not en

ough

mon

ey

Lack

of pe

ople

Low m

otiva

tion

Too M

any o

ther

prob

lems

Milk

Price

too l

ow

Farm

ers d

on't

care

Vets Ext. Agent


What are the real challenges?

2004 Survey of Wisconsin Dairy Farms 2004 Survey of Wisconsin Dairy Farms Mailed 1000 surveys & received 584 backMailed 1000 surveys & received 584 back Summarized by herd sizeSummarized by herd size

OverallOverall >200 cows (n = 34 herds)>200 cows (n = 34 herds)

Hoe & Ruegg, JDS May 2006Hoe & Ruegg, JDS May 2006


Farms are dynamic & facilities are Limited

The calving pen is also The calving pen is also used to house sick cowsused to house sick cows 73 % Overall73 % Overall 25 % Big herds25 % Big herds

Purchased Cattle in last Purchased Cattle in last 3 years3 years 44 % Overall44 % Overall 33 % Big herds33 % Big herds

Of those purchasing, % Of those purchasing, % buying lactating cowsbuying lactating cows 62% Overall62% Overall 52% big herds52% big herds

Tests Performed on Purchased Cattle

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Vet E

xam

ines

Johne

s Tes

t

BVD

BLVSCC/C

MT

S ag o

r Myc

o

Overall Big Herds


Our recommendations are hard to implement

Sick Cows housed with Sick Cows housed with Healthy cowsHealthy cows 73 % Overall73 % Overall 25 % Big herds25 % Big herds

Milk Mastitic Cows Milk Mastitic Cows using Separate Barn or using Separate Barn or UnitUnit 27 % Overall27 % Overall 19 % Big herds19 % Big herds

Use same unit to milkUse same unit to milk 12% Overall12% Overall 8% big herds8% big herds

Culture & Treatments

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Cultu

re so

me/a

ll Clin

.BTC >

4x/y

rH

ave R

X Pro

toco

l

No Rec

ords

for A

b RX

Don't

Use A

b

Overall Big Herds


Modern Mastitis Control programs have to include the whole farm and all

workers


Who Is Working with Milk Quality?

Opinion survey of Opinion survey of professionals professionals working with MM working with MM teamsteams N= 165 surveysN= 165 surveys 79% response79% response 42 vets; 35 ext. 42 vets; 35 ext.

agents; 21 DFR; agents; 21 DFR; 17 VoAg instr.; 15 17 VoAg instr.; 15 otherother

Percent of Time Spent Actively

Working on Milk Quality

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

<10% 10-

24%

25-

49%

50-

75%

>75%

Vet Ext. AgentDFR VoAg I nstr.Other

Rodrigues & Ruegg, J Food Prot Trends, 2003Rodrigues & Ruegg, J Food Prot Trends, 2003


Improving Milk Quality Using Self-Directed Teams

Farmer led effort to Farmer led effort to improve milk qualityimprove milk quality

Supported in part by Supported in part by Wisconsin dairy Wisconsin dairy producersproducers

Farms enroll and Farms enroll and commit to form a milk commit to form a milk quality team that meets quality team that meets monthly for 4 monthsmonthly for 4 months

Use Program material to Use Program material to help organize meetings help organize meetings and reach resultsand reach results


History of Milk Money Evolving program based Evolving program based

on responding to needs on responding to needs of industryof industry

1998 – benchmarked the 1998 – benchmarked the industry based on SCCindustry based on SCC Our performance = Our performance =

“average”“average” Wisconsin has special Wisconsin has special

challengeschallenges Developed a 56 herd Developed a 56 herd

pilot projectpilot project Vets & Extension Vets & Extension

agents as leadersagents as leaders Goal was to test the Goal was to test the

team conceptteam concept


History of Milk Money Pilot project showed Pilot project showed

tremendous resultstremendous results Increased BMPIncreased BMP Increased premiumsIncreased premiums Decreased SCC & Decreased SCC &

clinical mastitisclinical mastitis Also identified Also identified

challengeschallenges Infrastructure for Infrastructure for

team support team support Revision of materialsRevision of materials Marketing of program Marketing of program

The support of the The support of the

Wisconsin Dairy ProducersWisconsin Dairy Producers

Has been fundamental Has been fundamental

To the success of Milk MoneyTo the success of Milk Money


Using Milk Money to Make Money for Dairy Farmers

Milk Money is Milk Money is designed to help farms:designed to help farms:

Define clear milk Define clear milk quality goalsquality goals

Create a focused Create a focused milk quality planmilk quality plan

Adopt best Adopt best management management practicespractices

Make more moneyMake more money


How Does Milk Money Work?

Producers and their Producers and their LOCAL experts work LOCAL experts work TOGETHER in a TOGETHER in a farmer-directed farmer-directed teamteam

How often do teams How often do teams meet?meet? Once a month for Once a month for

4 months4 months Reassess at 4Reassess at 4thth

meetingmeeting


What happens at a team meeting?

Use provided forms to:Use provided forms to: Come to consensus Come to consensus

on farm goalson farm goals Determine an action Determine an action

planplan Determine how Determine how

actions will be actions will be trackedtracked

Assign responsibilityAssign responsibility Follow-upFollow-up


Who has participated?

About 400 farms About 400 farms have enrolledhave enrolled 1107 total team 1107 total team

membersmembers We have to market We have to market

the program to get the program to get participationparticipation

Facilitation of the Facilitation of the teams is the most teams is the most challenging aspectchallenging aspect

Most veterinarians Most veterinarians are paid but most are paid but most other team other team members are notmembers are not

Field Reps,

113

Other, 133

Ext.

Agents, 62

Equip. Reps,

91

Farm

Workers,

27

Nutritionists,

56

Vets, 192

Producers,

387


Management Of Wisconsin Dairy Herds Enrolled in Milk Quality Teams

Rodrigues et al., J Dairy Science, July 2005


Performance of Herds Enrolled

Monthly data from meeting Monthly data from meeting 1 & 4 (n=113)1 & 4 (n=113)

Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Spring 2004 Spring 2004

Data was collected and Data was collected and recorded by trained team recorded by trained team leaders using MM program leaders using MM program formsforms

Data sources included Data sources included milk plant receipts milk plant receipts farm records farm records DHI data (n = 82) DHI data (n = 82) Farmer recallFarmer recall


Smaller Herds that Enrolled had Poorer Performance

Characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by cow housing typeCharacteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by cow housing type

Facility type Facility type PP

OutcomeOutcome StallbarnStallbarn

(n = 101) (n = 101) FreestallFreestall

(n = 78) (n = 78)

Total lactating cows (n) Total lactating cows (n) 86.786.7 377.2377.2 < 0.001< 0.001

Yield per cow per day (kg) Yield per cow per day (kg) 28.128.1 31.931.9 < 0.001< 0.001

Cows milked per hour per Cows milked per hour per person person

25.325.3 40.040.0 < 0.001< 0.001

Milk price ($/cwt) Milk price ($/cwt) 11.2511.25

11.7011.70 < 0.001< 0.001

Bulk milk SCC premium ($/cwt Bulk milk SCC premium ($/cwt 0.000.00 0.130.13 0.0140.014

Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 430,221430,221 335,762335,762 0.0060.006

Monthly rate of clinical mastitisMonthly rate of clinical mastitis 0.080.08 0.060.06 0.0580.058

Monthly cows culled for Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%)mastitis (%)

1.81.8 1.01.0 0.0730.073


Smaller Herds Adopt Less BMP

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Freestall (n=101)

Stallbarn (n=78)


Characteristics of Herds by SCC

BMSCC category BMSCC category

OutcomeOutcome LowLowBMSCCBMSCC

< 250,000< 250,000

(n = 36) (n = 36)

MediumMedium250,000 ≥250,000 ≥

BMSCCBMSCC

≤ ≤ 400,000400,000

(n = 83) (n = 83)

HighHighBMSCCBMSCC

> 400,000> 400,000

(n = 61) (n = 61)

PP

Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml)Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 197,611 197,611 a a 317,265 317,265 bb 564,623 564,623 cc < 0.001< 0.001

Standard plate count (cfu/ml) Standard plate count (cfu/ml) 5,943 5,943 aa 10,105 10,105 bb 19,237 19,237 bb < 0.024< 0.024

Total lactating cows (n) Total lactating cows (n) 214 214 a ba b 326 326 aa 167 167 bb < 0.003< 0.003

Yield per cow per day (lb) Yield per cow per day (lb) 70.0 70.0 aa 68.9 68.9 aa 63.4 63.4 bb < 0.020< 0.020

Cows milked per hour per person (n) Cows milked per hour per person (n) 32.232.2 35.335.3 32.032.0 < 0.998< 0.998

Monthly Inc. of subclinical mastitis (%) Monthly Inc. of subclinical mastitis (%) 9.39.3 9.59.5 11.411.4 < 0.984< 0.984

Monthly Prev. of subclinical mastitis (%) Monthly Prev. of subclinical mastitis (%) 22.7 22.7 aa 31.0 31.0 bb 41.6 41.6 cc < 0.002< 0.002

Monthly clinical mastitis (per 100 cows)Monthly clinical mastitis (per 100 cows) 6.0 6.0 aa 5.0 5.0 aa 10.0 10.0 bb < 0.002< 0.002

Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%)Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%) 0.7 0.7 aa 1.0 1.0 aa 2.1 2.1 bb < 0.056< 0.056


Consultation with Dairy Professionals Before MM

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Rev. SCC Plan with Vet Plan with

DFR

Reg.

Meetings Vet

& DFR

Bef ore Af ter Adoption Rate


Farmers Perception of Cost of Mastitis

Subclinical lossesSubclinical losses Milk not producedMilk not produced

$3.96/cow/month$3.96/cow/month PremiumsPremiums

$8.36/cow/month$8.36/cow/month Clinical Mastitis Clinical Mastitis

LossesLosses Estimated:Estimated:

$6.04/cow/month$6.04/cow/month StandardizedStandardized

$7.85/cow/month$7.85/cow/month

Cost of a Clinical Case:

$90.59

$54.27, 60%

$17.48, 19%

$18.84, 21%

Drug CostLabor CostsDiscarded Milk


Financial Losses per Month

Financial characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by BMSCC Financial characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by BMSCC categorycategory

BMSCC categoryBMSCC category

OutcomeOutcome LowLow MediuMediumm

HighHigh PP

Standard milk production loss per cow Standard milk production loss per cow ($)($)

2.12 2.12 aa 3.77 3.77 bb 5.35 5.35 cc < < 0.0010.001

Milk quality premium loss per cow ($)Milk quality premium loss per cow ($) 4.69 4.69 aa 7.33 7.33 bb 11.79 11.79 cc < < 0.0370.037

Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per cow ($)cow ($)

7.25 7.25 a a

bb

4.67 4.67 aa 7.23 7.23 bb < < 0.0400.040

•Low SCC: $14.06 per cow per Month

•Medium SCC: $15.77 per cow per Month

•High SCC: $24.37 per cow per Month

100 cow High SCC Herd

-$29,244 per year


Milking Management

Data from WI freestall Data from WI freestall farms (n = 101)farms (n = 101) 377 cows per herd377 cows per herd SCC = 335,000 cell/mlSCC = 335,000 cell/ml

High adoption of recc. High adoption of recc. practicespractices 89% gloves; 97% 89% gloves; 97%

postdip; 98% predip; postdip; 98% predip; 89% forestrip89% forestrip

6 pp milking each month6 pp milking each month Range of 2 – 16Range of 2 – 16

Training was rareTraining was rare Frequent: 22%Frequent: 22% At hiring: 49%At hiring: 49% Never: 29%Never: 29%

Only 41% had written Only 41% had written milking routinemilking routine 6% of stall barns6% of stall barns

WI stall barns (n = 78)WI stall barns (n = 78) 86 cows per herd86 cows per herd 3 pp milking each 3 pp milking each

monthmonth 54% never train milkers54% never train milkers


Influence of TInfluence of Training & Routine & Routine Milking SpeedMilking Speed

05

10152025303540455055

Written

Routine

Training

Freq.

Complete

Routine

Forestrip Comp. Rout.

& Freq.

Train

Cow

s pe

r H

our

per

Ope

rato

r

No NoNever No

YesFreq

.Yes YesHire

Train Freq &

Complete

Train Freq &

incomplete

** ***


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

Written

Routine

Training Freq. Complete

Routine

Forestrip

Mon

thly

Rat

e

No

NoNever No

YesFreq Yes Yes

Hire

** ***

Influence of Training & Routine Monthly Rate of Clinical Mastitis

Frequent Training Results in Frequent Training Results in Fastest Milking SpeedsFastest Milking Speeds

&&Lowest Rate of Clinical MastitisLowest Rate of Clinical Mastitis


What we learned – Part 1

Smaller herds adopt fewer best Smaller herds adopt fewer best management practices and have poorer management practices and have poorer milk qualitymilk quality

Training of milking personnel is infrequent Training of milking personnel is infrequent and is related to milk qualityand is related to milk quality

Few veterinarians are perceived as actively Few veterinarians are perceived as actively working with milk quality on farmsworking with milk quality on farms

There is a large and real opportunity to There is a large and real opportunity to rapidly improve financial performance rapidly improve financial performance based on improvements in milk qualitybased on improvements in milk quality


Actions & Outcomes of Actions & Outcomes of Wisconsin Farms Completing Wisconsin Farms Completing

Milk Quality TeamsMilk Quality TeamsRodrigues & Ruegg, J Dairy Science, 88:2672-2680 July 2005Rodrigues & Ruegg, J Dairy Science, 88:2672-2680 July 2005


Data used in study

Monthly data from meeting Monthly data from meeting 1 & 4 (n=113)1 & 4 (n=113)

Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Spring 2004 Spring 2004

Data was collected and Data was collected and recorded by trained team recorded by trained team leaders using MM program leaders using MM program formsforms

Data sources included Data sources included milk plant receipts milk plant receipts farm records farm records DHI data (n = 82) DHI data (n = 82) Farmer recallFarmer recall


Use of Management PracticesBefore & After

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Before After Adoption Rate

Adoption Rate is adoption of each practice by non-users at meeting 1


Consulting ActivitiesBefore & After

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Low SCC (<250) Medium SCC High SCC (>400)

Plan MQ Program with Vet Discuss MQ with DFR DFR & Vet Meet


ResultsDifferences in monthly outcomes

OutcomeOutcome Before Before programprogram

After After programprogram

DifferenceDifference PP

Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml)Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 385,838385,838 307,951307,951 -77,887-77,887 < 0.001< 0.001

Standard plate count (cfu/ml)Standard plate count (cfu/ml) 14,56414,564 10,43310,433 -4,131-4,131 0.0140.014

Yield per cow per day (kg)Yield per cow per day (kg) 29.829.8 30.630.6 0.820.82

0.2230.223

Monthly rate of clinical mastitis (%)Monthly rate of clinical mastitis (%) 6.86.8 4.94.9 -1.9-1.9 0.0160.016

Monthly incidence of subclinical mastitis (%) Monthly incidence of subclinical mastitis (%) 10.910.9 9.29.2 -1.8-1.8 0.0330.033

Monthly prevalence of subclinical mastitis Monthly prevalence of subclinical mastitis (%) (%)

35.835.8 30.830.8 -5.0-5.0 0.0080.008

Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%)Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%) 1.41.4 0.80.8 -0.7-0.7 0.0230.023

Standard milk production loss per cow ($)Standard milk production loss per cow ($) 3.883.88 2.752.75 --1.121.12

< 0.001< 0.001

Bulk milk SCC premium ($/45kg)Bulk milk SCC premium ($/45kg) 0.070.07 0.270.27 0.200.20

< 0.001< 0.001

Milk quality premium loss per cow ($)Milk quality premium loss per cow ($) 9.219.21 5.975.97 --3.243.24

< 0.001< 0.001

Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per cow ($)cow ($)

6.486.48 4.424.42 --2.062.06

0.0020.002


Results

Critical Factors for Milk Quality

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Env. M

astiti

s

Milk

ing R

outin

e

Clinica

l Mas

titis

Milk

ing S

yste

mRX p

roto

cols

Hygien

eTeat

sDry

Cows

Milk

er T

raini

ngRec

ords

Conta

giou

s M

astitis

SOP

At meeting 1:At meeting 1: Areas of financial Areas of financial

opportunityopportunity subclinical mastitis subclinical mastitis

(13%)(13%) clinical mastitis (27%)clinical mastitis (27%) quality premiums (60%)quality premiums (60%)

No individual practice was No individual practice was independently related to milk independently related to milk qualityquality

At meeting 4:At meeting 4: 63% of the herds reported 63% of the herds reported

that they had achieved their that they had achieved their milk quality goals milk quality goals

99% agreed that teams 99% agreed that teams were useful for improving were useful for improving milk quality milk quality

83% planned to continue 83% planned to continue team meetingsteam meetings


Changes In Performance By SCC at Meeting 1

Bulk Tank SCCBulk Tank SCC Low: - 33,478Low: - 33,478 Med: - 53,108Med: - 53,108 High: -181,446High: -181,446

Rate of clinical Rate of clinical MastitisMastitis Low: -1.4%Low: -1.4% Med: -0.3%Med: -0.3% High: -3.6%High: -3.6%

% of Cows Culled% of Cows Culled Low: -0.9%Low: -0.9% Med: -2.2%Med: -2.2% High: -1.6%High: -1.6%

Milk MoneyReduced Losses by: $7,752 - $22,956

Per 100 cows per year

Financial Changes After Completion

-$7.50-$7.00-$6.50-$6.00-$5.50-$5.00-$4.50-$4.00-$3.50-$3.00-$2.50-$2.00-$1.50-$1.00-$0.50$0.00

Subclinical $$ Prem. Loss per Cow Clinical Mastitis $

Dif

fere

nce

in

Lo

ss o

r P

rem

ium

($)

Low (n=20)

Med (n=54)

High (n=39)


A typical MM success“Lakeside Dairy”

Husband and wife Husband and wife manage the dairy manage the dairy operation of a large operation of a large farm.farm. 2X / day milking2X / day milking 209 milk cows209 milk cows Milk/cow/day = 60 Milk/cow/day = 60

lbslbs SCC of 337,000SCC of 337,000

Team membersTeam members Three producersThree producers Extension agent Extension agent

was team leaderwas team leader Dairy field Dairy field

representativerepresentative VeterinarianVeterinarian NutritionistNutritionist


“Lakeside Dairy”Financial Impact & Goals

Subclinical Subclinical production loss-no production loss-no data.data.

Premium Premium opportunity for goal opportunity for goal at BTSCC 150 = $ at BTSCC 150 = $ 1932 / month.1932 / month.

Clinical mastitis loss Clinical mastitis loss = $1833.= $1833.

Total Impact = Total Impact = $3,765.$3,765.

Goals:Goals: Lower Bulk Tank Lower Bulk Tank

SCC to 150,000SCC to 150,000 Identify Identify

contagious contagious mastitis cowsmastitis cows

Decrease clinical Decrease clinical mastitis casesmastitis cases

Group cowsGroup cows


Teat end qualityTeat end quality Milking routineMilking routine Milker trainingMilker training Farm recordsFarm records Consistency of Consistency of

milking routinemilking routine

Team IdentifiedCritical Management Factors


“Lakeside Dairy”Action Plan

Meeting OneMeeting One Begin treatment Begin treatment

recordsrecords Monthly bulk tank Monthly bulk tank

cultureculture Begin on farm Begin on farm

culturingculturing Develop treatment Develop treatment

protocolsprotocols Update milking Update milking

procedures procedures protocolprotocol

Meeting TwoMeeting Two Re-culture two Re-culture two

mycoplasma mycoplasma positive cowspositive cows

Culture high SCC Culture high SCC cowscows

Develop milking Develop milking procedures posterprocedures poster

Weekly bulk tank Weekly bulk tank cultureculture


“Lakeside Dairy” Outcome

SCC reduced SCC reduced 34%34%

Premium Premium ChangeChange $.03 to $.40.$.03 to $.40.

Increased Increased monthly income monthly income $1,450$1,450

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

APR MAY JULY AUG

(x1

00

0)


Why do some Milk Quality Programs Fail?

Some herds can never Some herds can never improve milk qualityimprove milk quality

Failure is often related Failure is often related to:to: Lack of commitment Lack of commitment

to changeto change Inability to Inability to

communicate communicate effectivelyeffectively

Failure to manage Failure to manage personnelpersonnel

Herds that failed in Herds that failed in Milk Money reportedMilk Money reported Lack of time Lack of time

69%69% Other farm Other farm

problemsproblems16%16%

Lack of focusLack of focus16%16%

Seasonal problemsSeasonal problems14%14%


Anatomy of a MM Failure

54 cow dairy enrolled by 54 cow dairy enrolled by veterinarian in Oct 2005veterinarian in Oct 2005

History of BTSCC >750kHistory of BTSCC >750k Previous history of Previous history of

extensive treatment of extensive treatment of cows for Staph aureuscows for Staph aureus

Farm owner somewhat Farm owner somewhat disabled disabled 1 ft employee lived 1 ft employee lived

on farmon farm 2 high school 2 high school

students helped milk students helped milk


MM Failure Meeting 2

No Change in BTSCCNo Change in BTSCC No Change in YieldNo Change in Yield Implementation of actions?Implementation of actions?

1.1. Milking time observationMilking time observation

2.2. Stop feeding waste milkStop feeding waste milk

3.3. Develop segregation planDevelop segregation plan

4.4. Make treatment planMake treatment plan

5.5. Treat heifers precalvingTreat heifers precalving

6.6. Change milking prep to Change milking prep to include forestrippinginclude forestripping


MM Failure: Meeting 3

2 months elapsed 2 months elapsed due to scheduling due to scheduling

BTSCC increased to BTSCC increased to >1,000,000>1,000,000

6 cows had to be 6 cows had to be culled to stay legalculled to stay legal

Prevalence increased Prevalence increased to >64% of herdto >64% of herd

NIR = 21%NIR = 21% No actions No actions

completed by farm completed by farm

The success of Milk Money is dependent

On CommitmentOf Team Members


Conclusion

Ability to implement management practices is Ability to implement management practices is the most important aspect of improving milk the most important aspect of improving milk qualityquality

Implementation is dependent onImplementation is dependent on Development of standardized proceduresDevelopment of standardized procedures Ability to clearly communicate valueAbility to clearly communicate value Continued training of personnelContinued training of personnel

There is a large opportunity for more veterinary There is a large opportunity for more veterinary involvement in this area butinvolvement in this area but We must market our services or lose the turfWe must market our services or lose the turf

Implementing Milk Quality Programs On Farms Pamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVM University of Wisconsin Madison.

Documents

Transcript of Implementing Milk Quality Programs On Farms Pamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVM University of Wisconsin Madison.