Internal Herd Growth and Heifer Programs: Keep Them Alive and Get Them Pregnant on Time

Internal Herd Growth and Heifer Programs: Keep Them Alive and Get Them

Pregnant on Time

Mike Van Amburgh, Jerry Bertoldo, John Conway, Tom Overton, Bill Stone and a large

cast of other characters….

Department of Animal Science

Cornell University

A 24 Month Age at First Calving “Heiferhood” - Mature Weight 1400 Lbs.

First 6 HoursWeaning Puberty

Breeding Window

GestationGrowing

2415122



Breeding Window

GestationGrowing

2415122

90 Lbs.

180 Lbs. 56 days (double)

630 to 700Lbs.

45 – 50%MatureWeight

770 Lbs. 55%

MatureWeight

1190 Lbs. PostFresh85%

MatureWeight



Breeding Window

GestationGrowing

2415122

90 Lbs.

630 to 700Lbs.


770 Lbs. 55%

MatureWeight


MatureWeight

0.650.660.50

$1.81

Feed - 0.42Labor - 0.15Other - 0.24

$0.81

0.500.170.37

$1.04


$1.46

Costs per← Pound →

Of Gain




Breeding Window

GestationGrowing

2415122

90 Lbs.

630 to 700Lbs.


770 Lbs. 55%

MatureWeight


MatureWeight

0.650.660.50

$1.81


$0.81


$1.46

0.500.170.37

$1.04

Costs per← Pound →

Of Gain

14%

8%

29%

38%

11%

12%

46%

35%

← % of Total Cost →

← % of Total Gain →




Breeding Window

GestationGrowing

2415122

A Replacement Heifer Ready and able to Milk her Heart out Needs:

Clean place to start life

Passive Immunity

Limited exposure to pathogens throughout

Nutrition keyed to ADG/Environment interaction

The costs involved in getting her there are depends upon:

Interaction of Labor and Environment (Labor Efficiency)

Interaction of Nutrition and Environment (Feed Efficiency)

Relative costs of inputs, fixed costs, capital

Characteristics of a Sound Calf Program

Calf program growth goal:

Double birth weight by 56 days (~ 180 lb)

Why do this?

Makes it easier to hit breeding weight at an earlier age – reduce AFC – increase potential for IHG, reduce costs.

Starts with the following objectives:

1) To equip the calf with adequate antibodies, primarily in the form of colostrum, to fight infections

2) To minimize the calf’s exposure to infectious organisms

Management for Great Colostrum

• Good dry cow vaccination program– Work with your veterinarian

• Remove quickly after birth – First milk only; hopefully within 4 to 6

hrs. of parturition• Check for specific gravity or Ig content• Clean udder and feeding equipment

– Minimize pathogenic bacteria

Think the 3 Q’s of Colostrum Management: Quality Quantity Quickness

Colostrum is Richer in Nutrients Than Whole MilkColostrum (Milking Postpartum)

1 2 3 MilkTotal Solids % 23.9 17.9 14.1 12.5Fat % 6.7 5.4 3.9 3.6Solids - not - fat % 16.7 12.2 9.8 8.6Total Protein % 14 8.4 5.1 3.2 Ig % 6 4.2 2.4 0.09 Casein % 4.8 4.3 3.8 2.5Lactose 2.7 3.9 4.4 4.9Ash 1.5 N/A N/A 0.8Vit. A (ug/100ml) 295 190 113 34Vit. D (ng/g fat) 30 N/A N/A 15Vit. E (ug/g fat) 84 76 76 15 *Adapted from "The Development, Nutrition, and Management of the Young Calf"

C.L. Davis and J.K. Drackey Iowa State University Press

Quality

Passive Transfer Target for Newborn Calf Health

• Want to target 10 mg/ml in calf serum IgG following colostrum ingestion

• Calves with levels less than 10 mg/ml have

“Failure of Passive Transfer” (FPT)

Quality Quantity Quickness

86889092949698

100102

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56

IgG > 10 mg/ml

IgG < 10 mg/ml

National Dairy Heifer Evaluation Project, NAHMS, 2002

Cal

ves

surv

i vin

g (

%)

Age (days)

Failure of Passive Transfer Increases Calf Death Losses

4 x increase in death rate

Quality Quantity Quickness

Failure of Passive Transfer Reduces Long Term Performance

•Dairy calves:–Decreased average daily gain to 180 days (J. Dairy Sci., 1988, 71:1283)

–Decreased milk and fat production at first lactation (J.Dairy Sci., 1989, 72:552)

–Delayed time to first calving (Can Vet J., 1986, 50:314)

•Beef Calves:–Higher pre-weaning morbidity and mortality (AABP Proceedings 2002, 35:168)

–Decreased weaning weight at 180 days (Am. J. Vet. Res. 1995, 56:1149)

0

50

100

150

200

250

<16 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85 86-95 >95

Distribution of IgG1 in Colostrum from Cows of a Single Dairy

Nu

mb

er o

f co

ws

IgG Concentration in Colostrum (mg/ml)

N = 919 calvings

Avg IgG1 = 48+22 mg/ml

Avg milk yield 8.5+4.8 L

Quality

Milking Number and Immunoglobulin Mass in Dairy Cows and Heifers

Ig Content of Colostrum

0100200300400500600

1 2 3 4

Milking Number

[Ig

] (g

)

heifers

cows

Modified from Can. Vet. J. 34:407-412, 1993

Ig

G

g/m

ilki

ng

Quality

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 12 18 24

Hours

Seru

m I

gG1 (g

/ l)

Age of the Calf at First Colostrum Feeding

Modified from: The Compendium 15:335, 1993.

**Only calves fed colostrum before 6 hrs had serum IgG levels > 10 mg/ml

6

IgG Absorption Declines Rapidly After Birth

Quickness

Grams IgG absorbed = volume x concentration

90 lb calf needs 36 grams IgG

Average absorption rate = 35%

Good colostrum = 50g/L

50g/L x 0.35 x 2 L = 35 grams

Fair colostrum = 25g/L

25g/L x 0.35 x 4 L = 35 grams

Quantity

Fat and Lactose Provide Energy

Calves are born with low energy reserves• Fat and lactose are important as immediate

sources of energy to maintain body temperature

Colostrum Whole Milk1.16 kcal/g 0.69 kcal/g

From: Davis and Drackley; 1998

Comparison of Calf Performance, Morbidity and Mortality of

Purchased Holstein CalvesBased Upon Immunoglobulin

Status

Four Week Calf Performance and Health by Calves (2,016 Calves) in Each Relative Immunoglobulin Status Group

Serum Ig mg/ml

0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10-14.9 15-24.9 25+

Number of Calves 129 224 323 592 748

Percent of Total Calves 6.4 11.1 16.0 29.4 37.1

4-Week Calf Weight Gain, Lbs. 21.05c 23.58b 24.12ab 24.53ab 25.41a

Feed Conversion, Lbs. feed/Lb. gain 2.70a 2.15b 2.16b 1.96b 1.85b

Average Fecal Score 1.38a 1.28b 1.24c 1.25bc 1.24c

Scour Days 7.31a 5.66b 4.76c 5.07bc 4.86c

Mortality, % 29c 16b 11a 8a 8a

a,b,c (P<.05)

Data from Land O’Lakes Research Farm

Time Calves Remain With Cows After Birth and Heifer Calf Mortality

Time(Hours)

No.Herds

Average Mortality (%)(Calves 1 Week-6 Months of Age)

2- 6 13 5.2

7-12 35 9.3

13-24 32 10.7

25-48 24 20.5

+48 35 14.4

* Clemson University

Objectives of Calf Management from After Colostrum to Weaning

• To meet the calf’s nutrient requirements for maintenance and growth with milk or milk replacer.

• To stimulate appetite, begin rumen development, and meet the calf’s nutrient requirements for growth with a high quality calf starter and water.

• To prevent scours which can cause dehydration, diminish growth rates and possibly cause death.

Environmental and Stress Effects onMaintenance Requirements

The thermoneutral zone for young lightweight calves is in the range of 15 to 28°C (Gonzalez-Jimenez and Blaxter, 1962; Scibilia et al., 1987; Shrama et al., 1992, 1993; Arieli et al., 1995)

The additional heat increment required to maintaincore body temperature below 15 °C (59 °F) isApproximately 0.022 Mcal/kg0.75/°C, especially for calves < 21 d.

For calves > 21 days of age the LCT is ~ 5 °C (42 °F).

Temp. °F 59a 32 5

Body weight, lb Lb milk or milk replacer/d

110 (MR) 1.00 1.35 1.77

110 (milk) 0.91 (7.3)

1.20 (9.6)

1.51 (12.1)

Amount of Milk or Milk Replacer Needed to MeetMaintenance Requirements

aLower critical temp. calves less than 21 d age.

Environmental and Stress Effects on Maintenance Requirements

Based on Arieli et al. (1995) an additional adjustment of 0.03 Mcal ME/kg0.75 might be warranted for wet calves that have been transported or are adapting to other stressors for at least 14 days after the initial stress.

Stress can be defined as transportation, significantalteration in temperature or a social and dietary change

Equivalent to 0.5 to 0.6 Mcal ME/d for the average calf (~ 0.12 kg of DM/d (0.25 lb DM/d))

Updated Nutrient Requirements of a 110 lb Calf Under Thermoneutral Conditions

Rate of gain,lb/d

MEa, mcal/d

DMI,

kg/d

ADP,

g/d

CP, g/d CP, % DM

0.44 2.35 0.51 87 94 18.5

0.88 2.89 0.67 140 150 22.3

1.32 3.48 0.77 193 207 26.0

1.76 4.13 0.95 235 253 26.8

2.20 4.80 1.15 286 307 27.5

a0.6 efficiency of use of ME and 0.72 for BV of protein

Just what are we “Replacing”!

Holstein Milk (on Average)

As Fed Basis Dry Matter Basis

% Butterfat 3.6 28.8

% Crude Protein

3.2 25.6

% Lactose 4.9 39.2

% Ash 0.8 6.4

% Total Solids 12.5 100

Calf program growth goal:

Double birth weight by 56 days (~ 180 lb)

Why do this?

Makes it easier to hit breeding weight at an earlier age – reduce AFC – increase potential for IHG, reduce costs.

Target Growth Rates – Integrates Managementand Biology

Approach determined by: Mature body weight (3rd and greater parity cattle – not cull cows)

Concept of physiologic maturity - puberty occurs at a given percentage of mature size (45% to 50%)

Pregnancy should occur by 55% maturebody weight

Herd goals for age at first calving

“My Canadian Wonders” Dave Lundgren, Dairy Producer, Prairie Du Sac,

Wisconsin

1984

Among the first to put full TMR into Tie-stall Barn

High “PD” American Sire Heifers performed very well

“Canadian Wonders” (herdmates) lagged behind as

heifers

By 3rd Lactation “Canadian Wonders” equaled/out

performed

Raised together, grouped by age, freshened at 24

months

“Americans” were 85% of Mature Size – 1200 lbs. post-

fresh

“Canadians” were 75% of Mature Size – 1200 lbs. post-

fresh

“Americans” going to 1400 lbs., “Canadians” to 1600

lbs.

Heifers raised in group pens. What were his options?

Background

Desire

d A

ge a

t Calvin

g

(Manageria

lly Dete

rmin

ed)

Exp

ect

ed M

atu

re S

ize

(Geneti

cally

Dete

rmin

ed)

Rate of Gain Needed (Nutrient Density/Management Determined)

Amazingly, yet another, 3 – legged stool!Background

Monthly Target Weights for 24 Month FresheningMature Body Weights

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900Birth 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 108 114 120

1 89 99 108 117 127 136 145 155 164 173 1832 119 131 144 157 169 182 195 207 220 232 2453 148 164 180 196 212 228 244 260 276 292 3084 178 197 216 235 255 274 293 312 332 351 3705 207 230 252 275 297 320 342 365 388 410 4336 236 262 288 314 340 366 392 418 444 469 4957 266 295 324 353 383 412 441 470 499 529 5588 295 328 360 393 425 458 490 523 555 588 6209 325 361 396 432 468 504 540 575 611 647 683

10 354 393 432 472 511 550 589 628 667 706 74511 384 426 468 511 553 596 638 681 723 766 80812 413 459 504 550 596 642 688 733 779 825 87113 442 491 541 590 639 688 737 786 835 884 93314 472 524 577 629 681 734 786 838 891 943 99615 495 550 605 660 715 770 825 880 935 990 104516 525 583 642 700 758 817 875 933 992 1050 110817 555 617 678 740 802 863 925 987 1048 1110 117218 585 650 715 780 845 910 975 1040 1105 1170 123519 615 683 752 820 888 957 1025 1093 1162 1230 129820 645 717 788 860 932 1003 1075 1147 1218 1290 136221 719 794 869 944 1019 1094 1169 1244 1319 1394 146922 794 872 950 1029 1107 1185 1264 1342 1420 1499 157723 868 950 1031 1113 1195 1276 1358 1440 1521 1603 168524 765 850 935 1020 1105 1190 1275 1360 1445 1530 1615

Average Daily Gains by Mature Weights for 24 Month Freshening Mature Bodyweight in Pounds

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 Birth --> Pregnancy 0.95 1.06 1.17 1.28 1.38 1.49 1.6 1.71 1.81 1.92 2.03 Pregnancy --> Calving 0.99 1.1 1.21 1.32 1.43 1.54 1.64 1.75 1.86 1.97 2.08 Last Trimester Pregnancy 2.44 2.55 2.66 2.77 2.88 2.99 3.09 3.2 3.31 3.42 3.53

24Month

Freshening

24Month

Freshening

Body ConditionScore

3.0

Body ConditionScore

3.0

Body ConditionScore

3.5

Body ConditionScore

3.5

Body ConditionScore

4.0

Body ConditionScore

4.0

Body Weights Must Always be Taken in Conjunction with either Body Scores or Hip Heights

Courtesy of Elanco Animal Health Illustrations by Barb Spike.

2.5

Body ConditionScore

2.52.5

Body ConditionScore

Tools

Monthly Target Weights for 22 Month FresheningMature Body Weights

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900Birth 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 108 114 120

1 94 104 114 124 133 143 153 163 173 182 1922 128 142 155 169 183 196 210 224 237 251 2653 162 180 197 215 232 250 267 284 302 319 3374 196 217 239 260 281 303 324 345 367 388 4095 230 255 280 306 331 356 381 406 431 456 4826 264 293 322 351 380 409 438 467 496 525 5547 298 331 364 397 429 462 495 528 561 593 6268 332 369 405 442 479 515 552 589 625 662 6999 366 407 447 488 528 569 609 649 690 730 771

10 400 444 489 533 577 622 666 710 755 799 84311 434 482 530 579 627 675 723 771 819 867 91612 468 520 572 624 676 728 780 832 884 936 98813 495 550 605 660 715 770 825 880 935 990 104514 525 583 642 700 758 817 875 933 992 1050 110815 555 617 678 740 802 863 925 987 1048 1110 117216 585 650 715 780 845 910 975 1040 1105 1170 123517 615 683 752 820 888 957 1025 1093 1162 1230 129818 645 717 788 860 932 1003 1075 1147 1218 1290 136219 719 794 869 944 1019 1094 1169 1244 1319 1394 146920 794 872 950 1029 1107 1185 1264 1342 1420 1499 157721 868 950 1031 1113 1195 1276 1358 1440 1521 1603 168522 765 850 935 1020 1105 1190 1275 1360 1445 1530 1615

22Month

Freshening

22Month

Freshening

Average Daily Gains by Mature Weights for 22 Month Freshening Mature Bodyweight in Pounds

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 Birth --> Pregnancy 1.11 1.22 1.35 1.47 1.6 1.72 1.84 1.97 2.09 2.22 2.54 Pregnancy --> Calving 0.99 1.1 1.21 1.32 1.43 1.54 1.64 1.75 1.86 1.97 2.08 Last Trimester Pregnancy 2.44 2.55 2.66 2.77 2.88 2.99 3.09 3.2 3.31 3.42 3.53

Body ConditionScore

3.0

Body ConditionScore

3.0

Body ConditionScore

3.5

Body ConditionScore

3.5

Body ConditionScore

4.0

Body ConditionScore

4.0

Body Weights Must Always be Taken in Conjunction with either Body Scores or Hip Heights

Courtesy of Elanco Animal Health Illustrations by Barb Spike.

2.5

Body ConditionScore

2.52.5

Body ConditionScore

Tools

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

Age in Months

Lb

s. B

od

ywei

gh

t

Post-FreshWeight

MatureWeight

1615 -------- 1900

1530 -------- 1800

1445 -------- 1700

1360 -------- 1600

1275 -------- 1500

1190 -------- 1400

1105 -------- 1300

1020 -------- 1200

935 -------- 1100

850 -------- 1000

765 -------- 900

Heifer Growth Lines with Breeding, Post-Freshening & Mature Weight Targets

24Month

Freshening

24Month

Freshening

15 MonthBreeding

TargetWeight

1045 (1900)990 (1800)935 (1700)880 (1600)825 (1500)770 (1400)715 (1300)660 (1200)605 (1100)550 (1000)495 (900)

Tools

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

3 4 5 6 7 8

23.3

24.3

25.6

27.2

30.3

Figure 1. Average number of productive days, difference from herd mean AFC (25.6 month)

Within Herd Analysis of AFC on Productive Days, Milk Yield, Longevity

Opportunity Group, years

Pro

duct

ive

days

di

ffer

ence

fro

m m

ean

AF

C

-7000

-6000

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

3 4 5 6 7 8

23.3

24.3

25.6

27.2

30.3



Tot

al m

ilk p

rodu

ctio

n, lb

s,

d

iffer

ence

fro

m m

ean

AF

C

Figure 2. Average total milk production, lbs, difference from herd mean AFC (25.6 month)

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

3 4 5 6 7 8

23.3

24.3

25.6

27.2

30.3



Sta

yabi

lity,

% s

urvi

val,

diff

eren

ce f

rom

mea

n A

FC

Figure 3. Average stayability, % survival, difference from herd mean AFC (25.6 month)

Conclusions

1) Reducing AFC to ~22 months is likely to result in a ~5% reduction in first lactation milk yield; later lactations are not affected.

2) Cow health and stayability is not affected by reduced AFC if she calves in at adequate BW, stature. Conceive @ 55% mature BW, 47” wither height;

Post calving BW = 82% of MBW, 54” wither height

3) Lifetime productive days and milk is greater for cows with lower AFC.

4) Economic analysis indicates that lower AFC is slightly more advantageous.

5) Lower AFC provides an increased availability of heifers for replacements.

Bill StonePro-Dairy

Cornell University

Reviewing the Reproduction

Program at the Case Farm

Getting ‘em pregnant

Catch them in heatSynchronized breeding

Mission accomplished

End result

Heat Detection RateService Rate~ 47% average

Conception Rate~33% average

Pregnancy rate~ 15% average$25/point/cow5 point change = $12,500 per 100 cows

24 months average AFC 27

26

25

24

2350 130 190 270 320

DIM

AFC

Heifer Repro Results Black Brook

36% CR

CowReproResults

Heat Detection Rate

Pregnancy Rate

Goal:> 20% PR

Black Brook

DIM

DIM

at 1

st b

reed

ing

DIM at first breedingBlack Brook

Black Brook

(4)

26 months average AFC

31

29

27

25

23

Heifer Repro Results Durfee Dairy

31% CR

CowReproResults

Heat Detection Rate

Pregnancy Rate

Goal:> 20% PR

Durfee Dairy

DIM

DIM

at 1

st b

reed

ing

DIM at first breedingDurfee Dairy

Durfee Dairy

24 months average AFC

Heifer Repro Results

32

30

28

26

24

22

Aborts or bred xx times

Hanehan Dairy

37% CR

CowReproResults

Heat Detection Rate

Pregnancy Rate

Goal:> 20% PR

Hanehan Dairy

DIM

DIM

at 1

st b

reed

ing

DIM at first breedingHanehan Dairy

Hanehan Dairy

Four approaches to reproductive programs

1. “Industry norm”

2. Aggressive heat detection, no synchronization

3. Total synchronization

4. Combined synchronization and HD

NEDB, 6-04

- C:COWFILE1.DAT ----------- ------------- 1/10/05 - Date Br Elig Bred Pct Pg Elig Preg Pct Aborts======== ======= ==== === ======= ==== === ======12/29/03 124 78 63 124 36 29 4 1/19/04 141 68 48 141 21 15 3 2/09/04 162 92 57 162 30 19 2 3/01/04 163 106 65 162 37 23 6 3/22/04 183 112 61 183 36 20 4 4/12/04 204 139 68 204 57 28 7 5/03/04 197 123 62 197 49 25 2 5/24/04 197 113 57 197 34 17 3 6/14/04 194 118 61 193 36 19 9 7/05/04 189 109 58 189 33 17 3 7/26/04 213 142 67 213 42 20 4 8/16/04 226 156 69 225 51 23 4 9/06/04 240 156 65 237 53 22 6 9/27/04 231 153 66 231 47 20 410/18/04 251 171 68 243 61 25 011/08/04 244 187 77 241 60 25 011/29/04 229 151 66 0 0 0 0 12/20/04 169 142 84 0 0 0 0 -------- ------- ---- --- ------- ---- --- ------ Total 3159 2023 64 3142 683 22 61

- C:COWFILE1.DAT ----------- ------------- 1/10/05 - Summarized By Breeding Code from 12/ 7/03 through 12/ 6/04Breeding Code %Conc #Preg #Open Other Abort Total %Tot SPC==================== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ==== ====gnrh 31 47 103 6 3 156 6 3.2kamar 31 22 47 12 0 81 3 3.1Lutalyse&Stand 40 17 25 1 2 43 2 2.5mucus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0OvSynchProgram 32 139 285 3 20 427 17 3.1standing 31 539 1171 48 51 1758 71 3.2vet heat 100 2 0 0 0 2 0 1.0TOTALS 32 770 1636 71 76 2477 100 3.15 non-AI breedings were omitted

Primarily from HD

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

DIM

DIM

at

each

bre

edin

g

Bred1

Bred2

Bred3

Figure 2. Days in milk at first, second, and third breeding in a dairy using only synchronized breeding

Bred1, 2, and 3 correspond with DIM at first, second, and third breedings.

PG

PG

CompleteOvsynch

Figure 3. Days in milk by DIM at first breeding in a dairy using both heat detection and synchronization.

Note: each square represents one cow. Cows are on the Presynch program (Ovsynch preceded by two injections of prostaglandin (PG)). Cows observed in heat after the

second PG injection are bred; others are bred at the conclusion of Ovsynch.

Table 2. Estimated results and economics of various reproductive programs. Industry

Norm1 Aggressive

Heat Detection Total

Synchronization Combined HD & Synchronization

Heat detection (HD)

Method

Completed with other chores,

minimal specified HD time

Scheduled HD for at least 1 hr at 12 h intervals

No HD Only synchronized

breedings

HD completed with other chores; targeted HD when groups are expected to be in heat

Expected HD%2 35-50% 45-90% 0 40-50% Average HD% 40 55 - 45%3 Expected CR% 26-40% 26-40% 26-40% 26-40% Average CR% 32 33 33 33 Expected PR% 12-15% 15-25% 16-23% 18-25% Average PR% 13 18 20 22 Per 100 cows Annual hormonal expenses4 - - $2850 $1700

- - 1 h/wk .8 h/wk Injecting/Managing Synch. Program5 $500/year $400/year HD time/week, hours 3 14 - 5 HD $/year $1560 $7300 - $2600 Total Investment/year $1560 $7300 $3350 $4700 Return from increased PR6 - $11000 $15400 $19800 Net annual return over “Industry Norm”

- $3700 $12050 $15100

(24 h - 28%)

(22%)

(34%)

.95 .95 .95 .95 .95 = .77

.70 .70 .70 .70 .70 = .17

14 d

Wk 1

M

T PGF Th F S S

2

M T W Th F S S

3

M T PGF Th F S S

4

M T W Th F S S

5

GnRH T W Th F S S

6

PGF T W GnRHAI

F S S

Presynch

Ovsynch

Repro Calendar for Synchronization programs

Why Synchronization Programs Might Fail

Management – Improving compliance

Reduce the number of times cows are handledShots on vet check and breeding day?Have plenty of help (3 minimum plus veterinarian)

Insemination time• Have the cows easily identified• Be there to assist the inseminator• Does your inseminator have good success with a

flaccid uterus? (most Ovsynch cows don’t comeinto heat)

• Tired arm? Tried patience? Too many straws?

•Synchronization program success dependson the details

Must have an easy implementation plan

•Simplify your herd’s approachCoordinate cow handling activities14 days vs 12 daysGnRH on insemination day

Agricultural Finance and Management at CornellDepartment of Applied Economics and Management

Where Do We Start

Modeling Improvements to Internal Herd Growth

&Predicting Gains


Tools

Spreadsheet developed by Dr. Normand St.Pierre, Professor of Animal Science, Ohio State University

Predict internal herd growth for a closed herd based on selected management factors.


Base Situation - Data

Representative Dairy Herd Average culling rate(%/year) 36% Average calving interval(months) 13.9 Average age at first calving(months) 26 Dead on arrival(% of births) 8% Heifer cull and death rate(%/year) 10% Initial number of mature cows 100 Initial number of heifers, 0-12 months 37 Initial number of heifers, 12+months 37


OSU - Closed Herd Animal Number Projection

Version 1.1

April, 1998

Inputs

Average Culling Rate (%/Year) 36.0

Average Calving Interval (months) 13.9

Average Age at First Calving (months) 26.0

Dead on Arrival (% of births) 8.0

Heifer Cull & Death Rate (%/year) 10.0

Initial Number of Mature Cows (#) 100

Initial Number of Heifers, 0-12 months (#) 37

Initial Number of Heifers, 12+ months (#) 37


Base Situation - IHG

Assuming factors stay the same for 10 years.

Herd size will shrink at -2.67% a year.After ten years, projected herd size will be

76 cows.With these parameters, this herd is not

able to maintain herd size or grow and will need to buy additional animals to maintain herd size.


Output OSU - Closed Herd Animal Number Projection

Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University221-A Animal Science Building, 2029 Fyffe Rd, Columbus, OH-43210 Average

Yearly YEAR Growth

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (%)

Cows 100 92.5 88.6 87.2 85.5 83.9 82.3 80.8 79.2 77.7 76.3 -2.67 First Lactation 28.5 29.4 30.5 29.6 29.2 28.6 28.1 27.6 27.0 26.5 % First Lactation 30.8 33.1 35.0 34.7 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8Heifers, 0-12 Months 37 38.5 37.0 36.6 35.8 35.1 34.5 33.8 33.2 32.6 32.0 -1.45 as % of Cows 37.0 41.7 41.8 41.9 41.9 41.9 41.9 41.9 41.9 41.9 41.9Heifers, 12+ Months 37 38.1 39.6 38.4 37.8 37.1 36.4 35.7 35.0 34.4 33.7 -0.92 as % of Cows 37.0 41.1 44.7 44.0 44.3 44.2 44.2 44.2 44.2 44.2 44.2Culled Cows 36.0 33.3 31.9 31.4 30.8 30.2 29.6 29.1 28.5 28.0Dead Female Calves 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8Culled Heifers, 0-12 M 3.7 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3Culled Heifers, 12+ M 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4

Heifers, as % of Cows 74.0 82.8 86.5 85.9 86.2 86.1 86.1 86.1 86.1 86.1 86.1


Lower Culling Rate

Lower culling rate from 36% to 28%.Ways this may be done:

Better control of mastitis. Higher pregnancy rate. Better cow comfort. Better transition cow management.

All other factors remain the same.Maintain factors for 10 years.


Lower Culling Rate

Herd growth = 3.23% a year.Projected herd size after 10 years =

137 cows.An improvement of 62 cows over the

base year.

Base year was -2.67%


Lower Calving Interval

Lower calving interval to 12.5 months.

Ways this may be done: Lower voluntary wait period. Better heat detection. Hormone breeding programs. Etc.

All other factors remain the same


Lower Calving Interval

Herd growth = -1.30% a year.Projected herd size after 10 years =

88 cows.An improvement of 12 cows over

base.Herd still shrinking.



Lower Calving Age

Lower calving age to 22 months.Ways this be done:

Early breeding. Ration balancing. Grouping of heifers. Targeted growth.

All other factors remain the same.


Lower Calving Age

Herd growth = -1.12.% a yearProjected herd size after 10 years =


base.Herd still shrinking.



Lower DOA

Lower dead on arrival to 4%.Ways this could be done:

More frequent fresh pen checks. SOP’s for calf deliveries. Calving ease sire’s on first calf heifers.



Lower DOA

Herd growth = -1.80% a year.Projected herd size after 10 years =

83 cows.An improvement of 7 cows over base.Still not able to maintain herd size.



Lower Heifer Culling Rate

Lower heifer culling/death rate to 5%.

Ways this could be done: Less death loss in calves. Vet program for non-breeders. Minimizing areas for cattle injuries.



Lower Heifer Culling Rate

Herd growth = 0.19% a yearProjected herd size after 10 years =


base.Generating herd growth over time.



Summary of Individual Changes

Factor % Growth Herd SizeBase -2.67 76Culling Rate 3.23 137Calving Interval -1.30 88Calving Age -1.12 89DOA -1.80 83Heifer Cull/Death Rate 0.19 102


Power of Combined Changes

Making improvements across all areas.Multiplying the impact that any one

individual area has.Meet all five goals for performance:

Cull rate = 28% Calving interval = 12.5 months Calving age = 22 months DOA = 4% Heifer cull rate = 5%



Herd growth = 10.53% a yearProjected herd size after 10 years =

272 cows.An Improvement of 196 cows over

base.Generating significant herd growth

over time.



Capturing Value

Don’t have to grow.Have the ability to capture the value

in different ways.IHG is important because it gives you

options to capture the value.How would you capture the value if

you could grow like this?



Can only make four of the five changes, cull rate stays at 36%.

Still generate 4.33% growth.Projected herd size after 10 years =

153 cows.Still generating growth.



Where to Start

What is the limiting factor within your business?What can you have the fastest impact on?What is the easiest change to make?What change has the greatest potential to

work. What utilizes the least amount of:

Money? Management Time? Labor?

What will have the biggest impact?


Playing With The Numbers

What scenarios do you want to look at?

How fast can herds grow?

PROGRAM

Thank you for participating in the 2005 “Internal Growth” workshop series

We sincerely hope something was gained f or your time and attention. Please help us by fi lling out this short evaluation. Your f eedback helps us meet our goals f or continuous improvement!

Were you surprised by your herd’s internal growth? Yes No

Which of these segments helped you better understand where some potential new profi t streams might be f ound in your business? (check all that apply)

“Capturing the Economic Value”

Use of the Case Farm to put a real situation to the various topics

“Assessing, I mproving and Minimizing “Broken” Cows”

“Many Cows “Break” in the Transition – Possible “Fixes”

“Optimizing Replacement Enterprise f or Profi table I nternal Growth”

“Farm-Specifi c, Goal-Driven Reproductive Management”

“Where do we start? Modeling I mprovements to I G and Predictable Gains”

What was the most important thing you learned today?

________________________________________________________________ _

________________________________________________________________ _

What suggestions f or improving this workshop would you have?

________________________________________________________________ _

________________________________________________________________ _

What change or changes do you intend to implement as a result of today’s workshop?

________________________________________________________________ _

________________________________________________________________ _

I t’s not always easy trying to measure success in changes that you make. We are very interested in your business getting a positive impact f rom improvements you intend to make. Can we contact you in a month or two to help see what’s working?

Yes Our contact information:

Name:______________________ Address: ________________________________

City: ________________ Zip: ____________

Phone(s): ___________________________________________________________

E-mail: ____________________________

Internal Herd Growth and Heifer Programs: Keep Them Alive and Get Them Pregnant on Time

Documents

Transcript of Internal Herd Growth and Heifer Programs: Keep Them Alive and Get Them Pregnant on Time