ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO
DAIRY NEWSLETTER
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
The University of Arizona
New Mexico State University
January 2008
THIS MONTH’S ARTICLE:
Commingling Dairy Cows:
Pen Moves, Stocking Density and Health
Ken Nordlund, DVM
Nigel Cook, MRCVS
Garrett Oetzel, DVM, MS
Department of Medical Sciences,
School of Veterinary Medicine,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
~~~~~
Dairy Day is coming!
The 2008 Arizona Dairy Day will be
Thursday, April 3 at the Caballero Dary 2943 W. Harmon Road - Eloy, Arizona
Dairy Day and Golf details inside.
~~~~~
Make plans
to be at
Caballero Dairy Farms
2943 W. Harmon Road
Eloy, AZ 85231
Thursday, April 3, 2008
10:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Bring your family
And enjoy the day with food & fun
Lunch provided by
For more information contact Julie Stefanic at (520) 626-9382
Email at stefanic@ag.arizona.edu or visit our website at
http://ag.arizona.edu/extension/dairy/index.html
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Caballero Dairy Farms
2943 W. Harmon Rd
Eloy, AZ 85231
Space will be available to vendors at the following prices:
Booth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $400
Extra booth space available for additonal cost
Tractors, feed trucks or other equipment . . . . . . $100/piece
One table and two chairs furnished with each space
(check one)
BoothSpace($400)
=
_______________
Equipment (Tractors/Feed Trucks/Scrapers/Other Equipment):
______ (# Pieces) X
$100 =
_______________
Power, water, additional table(s) and chair(s) are available if necessary,
but we must know requirements ahead of time to arrange for generators, etc.
(additional services)
Power Type___________ Water_____ Tables_____
(quantity)
Chairs_____
(quantity)
Company/Organization__________________________________________________________
Contact Person ________________________________________________________________
Address _____________________________________________________________________
City, State, ZIP________________________________________________________________
Phone _________________________________ FAX _________________________________
Email address _________________________________________________________________
For more information contact Julie Stefanic at (520) 626-9382 via email at
stefanic@ag.arizona.edu or visit our website at http://ag.arizona.edu/extension/dairy/index.html
Please mail form with check payable to: The University of Arizona,
PO Box 210038 - Department of Animal Sciences, Tucson, AZ 85721-0038
®
Commingling Dairy Cows: Pen Moves, Stocking
Density and Health
Ken Nordlund, DVM; Nigel Cook, MRCVS; Garrett Oetzel, DVM, MS
Department of Medical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Abstract
In modern confinement dairies, cows move between
groups depending on management needs for special rations and special handling requirements. With each
move, each cow must establish rank within the new
group. Extended stays in pens characterized by new
arrivals every day appear to present substantial health
risks to some cows. Overstocked pens present challenges
regarding both stall and feed bunk access. Provision of
30 inches (76 cm) of bunk space per cow in the weeks
before and after calving, and minimizing pen moves,
appears to be consistent with improved fresh cow health
and productivity.
Résumé
Dans les fermes laitières confinées d’aujourd’hui,
les vaches se déplacent entre groupes selon les besoins
de régie pour des rations spéciales et quand des soins
particuliers sont requis. La vache doit établir son rang
dans un nouveau groupe après chaque déplacement. De
longs séjours dans des enclos où de nouvelles vaches
arrivent chaque jour semblent créer des problèmes de
santé substantiels pour certaines vaches. Des enclos avec
une trop forte densité accroissent les problèmes d’accès
aux mangeoires et aux stalles. L’allocation de 30 pouces
(70 cm) d’espace par vache dans les semaines précédant
et suivant le vêlage et la réduction du nombre de
déplacement entre enclos semblent promouvoir la santé
et la productivité des vaches vêlées récemment.
A Changing Clinical Perspective of Fresh Cow
Metabolic Disease
Over the past 17 years of herd investigations by
our clinical service, the complex of ketosis, fatty liver
and displaced abomasum has emerged as the most frequently investigated herd problem, and cow behavior
and social factors have emerged as the primary risk factors in these herds. Where poorly formulated rations
and inaccurate delivery systems were once the primary
risk factors, we increasingly see poorly staged pen moves
and overstocking as the key risk factors in our industry
today. We hypothesize that the mechanism is disruption of dry matter intake for vulnerable cows, leading to
36
ketosis or hepatic lipidosis followed by the cascade of
related diseases, and resulting in high turnover rates
in early-lactation cows.
The primary variant we observe in dairies today
is Type II ketosis as summarized by Holtenius and
Holtenius,8 characterized by an onset of clinical disease
at about five to 15 days in milk and usually triggered by
negative energy balance in the pre-fresh period. In contrast, a majority of the herd ketosis problems seen 15
years ago were considered to be Type I, characterized
by an onset of clinical disease at about 20 to 40 days-inmilk and associated with energy-related problems in the
post-fresh groups. While both forms remain as problems, the relative importance of each has been reversed.
Over this same period of time, our clients have
changed from predominantly tie-stall herds of 50-100
cows to freestall herds typically in the range of 300-3,000
cows. In the tie-stall herds, cows were familiar with
their environment, remained in the same group of cows,
and were subjected to management changes without
leaving their stalls. The only changes they faced with a
new ration were the nutrients themselves. In contrast,
virtually any change in ration or management group in
the larger freestall dairies requires introduction to a new
pen, familiarization with new pen fixtures, stalls, and
headlocks, and establishment of rank within a different
group of cows. Each of these aspects can present significant challenges to low-ranking cows and if a sufficient minority of the pen succumbs to disease, a herd
problem emerges.
This paper will summarize some behavioral research findings that provide useful perspectives on the
clinical situation, and will present some of our evolving
impressions as investigators of herd problems.
Basics of Cow Behavior Relative to Modern
Dairy Systems
Our clinical experience suggests that regrouping
and overstocking cows in the vulnerable weeks just before and after calving has the most adverse effects on
cow health. While it is obvious that cows are social herding animals, there are several aspects of cow behavior
that affect how well individual cows adapt to modern
dairy systems. Behaviorists describe cows as crepuscular, meaning that they are particularly active in the
THE AABP PROCEEDINGS—VOL. 39
twilight hours of dawn and dusk.1 Cows are also categorized as allelomimetic, meaning that they all want
to do the same thing at the same time.1 These characteristics have consequences on stocking density regarding requirements for stalls and feeding space.
When a cow is moved into a new group in a large
herd, she experiences stress and must establish her rank
within the social order of the pen. Cows form dominance
hierarchies, strongly associated with age, body size, and
seniority in herd.6 In general, cows resident in a pen
tend to maintain their rank, compared to new arrivals.18
While rank within a pen is relatively stable, Hook observed a complete reversal of rank in one study when
the dominant cow was removed and a new cow added to
a small group.9 Konggaard and Krohn reported that
early lactation cows were more affected by regrouping
than mid-lactation cows.11 Lamb cites a trial where cows
were given access to different diets through Calan gates,
some a high energy diet and others a low energy diet.12
Cows losing weight also lost rank within a group, while
the cows gaining weight tended to gain dominance. This
may have impact on fresh cow health, as the early postpartum period is typically a period of significant weight
loss for most cows.
Many of our concerns about cow behavior have
emerged with the advent of grouped cows in confinement freestall barns. Miller and Wood-Gush compared
the behavior of a herd of cows on a British pasture in
spring to their behavior in freestall confinement in the
winter.15 Feeding, lying and agonistic behavior or conflicts were monitored throughout the day. While cows
in both systems showed crepuscular behavior, almost
all cows were observed feeding at the same time while
on pasture, whereas a smaller proportion ate simultaneously in confinement. The allelomimetic tendency for
lying behavior was more synchronized on pasture than
in freestalls. Agonistic interactions occurred with about
eight times the frequency in confinement compared to
pasture, although all cows were familiar with each other
and rank was well established.
Older work suggests that the reestablishment of
rank takes perhaps a week,18 but more recent studies
indicate that stability is achieved in three to four days.
Kondo and Hurnik established two new groups of 16
cows in each, and after five weeks removed eight cows
from each group to form a third commingled group.10
They monitored the number of agonistic interactions per
day and characterized them as physical (bunting, pushing, fighting, etc.) or non-physical (threatening and
avoidance posture and movement). The number of agonistic interactions was highest on the day of comingling
and was reduced to approximately one-third within two
days. On the days that the cows were mixed, approximately 80% of the agonistic interactions were physical,
but two days later about 40% were physical and 60%
SEPTEMBER, 2006
were postural. This suggests that the groups are reasonably well stabilized within two days.
Moving Fresh Cows through the Pens of Modern
Dairy Systems
Larger scale dairies have developed grouping systems of cows so that specialized management practices
or rations can be implemented with simplified and minimized labor. A suggested series of pens or management
groupings before and after calving (with time periods
relative to calving date) might include a far-off dry cow
(-60 to –21 days), close-up dry cow freestalls (-21 to –3
days), maternity pen – bedded pack (-3 to 0 days), colostrum pen – bedded pack (0 to 3 days), fresh pen freestalls
(3 to 14 days), sick pen (variable), and various lactation
groupings.19 First lactation cows are typically commingled with mature cows for the first time in the faroff or close-up dry pens, but may be kept separate in
some herds.
Each pen move entails some stress and requires
the establishment of a rank order, but all pen moves
should not be considered equal. Presumably there is
some memory of rank in smaller herds. Movement from
pens in close proximity to each other is likely to be easier,
particularly if pen fixtures such as stalls, headlocks,
water source and milking parlor are similar.
Social Turmoil Profile of a Pen
As we began to collect data on the duration of stay
in pens, we found conflicting results. In some pens, long
stays appeared to be very desirable, but in others, long
stays appeared to be detrimental. It was not until we
created the concept of a “social turmoil profile” of a pen,
shown in Figure 1, that the findings made sense. The
profile is constructed conceptually by superimposing two
Figure 1. Graphic depicting the social turmoil profile
of agonistic interactions in a pen characterized by
weekly entries of new cows, compared to a pen with
daily entries.
37
days of high rates of agonistic interactions, mostly physical, upon intervals of cow introductions into a pen. For
example, close-up dry cow pens are usually characterized by weekly introductions, i.e., Tuesday, of new cows.
The social turmoil profile of such a pen with weekly cow
introductions on Tuesdays would be high turmoil on
Tuesday and Wednesday, followed by five days of relative calm. We would speculate that short stays of a few
days would be adverse, because all or most of the time
in the pen would be in social turmoil, only to be followed
by another move into another pen. In contrast, calving
pens populated by cows expected to deliver calves in the
coming three days would be characterized by daily additions and departures of cows. The social turmoil profile of a calving pen would have continuous high rates
of agonistic interactions, and we would speculate that
longer stays should be avoided.
Close-up Pens
Controlled prospective studies of the effect of duration of stay in close-up pens have not been found, but
there is widespread clinical opinion that short stays in
the close-up pen has an adverse effect on fresh cow
health. A nutritional study by Robinson et al showed a
subsequent production advantage for first lactation heifers exposed to the pre-fresh ration for five or more days,
compared to shorter exposures.17 Mature cows were not
affected by days exposed to the ration. While the focus
of this study was exposure to the ration, it is reasonable
that the advantage of longer stays in a pen with intervals of several days to a week between cow additions
would be particularly beneficial to younger, lower rank
cows.
Maternity Pens
Our group has assembled data from several field
investigations that suggests that extended stays in maternity pens has adverse consequences on subsequent
cow health. In general, rates of culling in the first 60
days after calving; ketosis and displaced abomasum are
doubled for cows that spend three or more days in the
pen, compared to cows that calve within two days on
the pack. There was no evidence of bias by herd managers moving problem cows into the maternity pen early.
These observations are consistent with the idea that
extended periods of time in pens with constant social
turmoil would adversely affect fresh cow health.
There are several approaches to managing maternity pens to minimize cow stress and turmoil. One approach is to move cows at two days or less prior to actual
calving, and there are dairies where records show that
uncommonly skilled herdsmen are achieving this for
95% of cows. The more common practice in larger herds
38
with round-the-clock labor is to move cows into a maternity pen only after the cow has started labor and/or
the calf ’s feet are visible. Another approach would be to
develop multiple-bedded pack areas managed as all-in,
all-out groups. A group of close-up dry cows would enter as one group. As individual cows calve, a temporary
movable fence would be used to separate them within
the pen, allowing them to move for milking and be monitored as fresh cows. As more cows calve, the movable
fence would be moved stepwise down the length of the
pen. When all cows had calved and were judged ready,
the entire group could be moved on to lactation pens.
Sick Pens
Sick pens are another group with daily entries of
new cows and are in a state of constant social turmoil.
Mastitis is usually the predominant reason that cows
are in a sick pen. Sick pens have also been shown to be
the most highly salmonella-contaminated spaces on
dairies.16 Because of the concentration of both mastitis
pathogens and salmonella, these pens present substantial risks to cows that are introduced to these groups.
Many dairies move all fresh cows through their sick pen
until the colostrum has cleared. While grouping all “nonsalable” milk producers may be convenient for labor, it
is a high-risk practice that should be discontinued. It is
preferable to keep the colostrum-producing cows separate or with other fresh cows, and separate their milk
in buckets in the parlor. In the fresh cow group, metritis is typically the most common reason given for antibiotic treatment. With the advent of labeled antibiotic
treatments for metritis such as Excenel RTUa (ceftiofur
hydrochloride) that do not require milk withholding,
cows with metritis can be left in the fresh cow pen,
treated and not exposed to the concentration of pathogens in the sick pen nor the social turmoil of another
pen move.
Stocking Density
Because of the cost of dairy housing, there has been
substantial pressure to overstock pens and barns in our
dairy industry.2 While overstocking of barns is also a
risk factor for lameness and respiratory disease,4 this
discussion will focus on feed intake, milk production and
ketosis problems caused by overstocking.
In most discussions of stocking density, the focus
is on cows per stall. As we work with our data from
both field investigations and research with transition
cows, we are shifting our emphasis to inches of bunk
space per cow. It is our opinion that bunk space per cow
is vastly more important as a risk factor for transition
cow ketosis than stall stocking density, and the current
focus on stall stocking density frequently misses the
THE AABP PROCEEDINGS—VOL. 39
most important underlying factor in fresh cow disease:
decreased dry matter intake.
As we consider the issues that determine crowding at a feed bunk, there appear to be three general factors. Figure 2 is a graph made from one of our video
studies and illustrates the percentage of headlock spaces
over the feed platform that are filled throughout the
day in the high production pen of a commercial dairy.
First, there is the allelomimetic tendency of cows to want
to all eat at the same time. This is suggested by the
three feeding peaks that occur in the day. Second, there
appears to be a particular drive to eat after the delivery
of fresh feed and after milking. This is illustrated where
the peak number of occupied headlocks occurred after
the delivery of fresh feed and the return from milking.
The second and third-highest headlock fill periods occurred after the other two milkings, when the feed was
not fresh. Third, the tendency to eat together is confounded by the physical width of the cows when bunk
pressure is intense, a tendency to spread out while feeding, and the influence of dominant cows to clear out subordinate cows in competitive feeding situations. Note
that the highest occupancy rate was approximately 80%,
which translates to approximately 30 inches (76 cm) per
cow. Based upon 24-hour video studies of 12 dairies, cows
do not fill more than 80% of 24-inch (61 cm) headlocks
except in the most unusual situations, such as manual
forcing for palpation, etc. Mature Holstein cows are simply wider than the standard 24-inch headlocks of our
industry. Also note that the peak feeding periods last a
relatively short period of time, usually less than 90 minutes. Once the peak bunk pressure starts to subside,
dominant cows can be seen forcing subordinate cows
from the adjacent headlocks, repeatedly moving from
space to space down the line, and sometimes taking up
diagonal standing positions at the feedbunk.
Prior studies have suggested a wide range of acceptable bunk space per cow.7 A widely referenced study
by Menzi and Chase suggests that because there were
few periods of full bunk use in a 24-hour period, bunk
space of 14 to 16 inches (35.6 to 40.6 cm) per cow did not
necessarily limit access to feed.14 As shown in Figure 2,
there are many periods of time when there is open space
for cows to access the bunk. However, these conclusions
reflect an assumption that cows are time-sharing animals content to eat in shifts and that dry matter intake
(DMI) is not reduced in these conditions.
Field data collected by Buelow from two dry lot
0 .9 0
0 .8 0
0 .7 0
18:19
0 .5 0
8:20 feed
delivery
16:02 all back
0 .6 0
23:03 all back
push up
14:12
m ilking
0:07
0 .4 0
push up
9:44
7:46 all back
push up
0 .3 0
4:47
push up
0 .2 0
17:44 push up
13:14
0 .1 0
push up
21:50
22:12 push
up
m ilking
16:47 push up
6:50 push up
0 .0 0
Time of day
6:20 m ilking
Figure 2. Graph of the % of headlocks filled through a period of 25 hours in the high-production group pen on a
commercial dairy. The headlocks were spaced at 24 inches on center.
SEPTEMBER, 2006
39
New Mexico dairies in Figure 3 supports the hypothesis
that average dry matter intake is reduced when all cows
cannot eat at the same time.3 In two pens of dry cows,
average daily dry matter intake was monitored by weighing feed delivery and refusals. As the number of cows
per headlock increased, average dry matter intake decreased. It is likely that the maximal fill rate of wide
pregnant cows would be less than 80%. As these were
pens of dry cows with no activities outside of the pen,
individual cows would have had many opportunities to
find access to feed after the dominant cows had eaten.
Two plausible explanations are that intake will be reduced if the allelomimetic behavior is suppressed or that
the feed available to the secondary shifts of cows is less
palatable.
Data collected by us demonstrates that overstocking of mixed first lactation and mature cows during the
pre-fresh period has an adverse effect on production after calving. Over the period of several months during
which a prepartum feed additive was being evaluated,
the pre-fresh pen stall-stocking density ranged from 62
to 138%. Stocking densities greater than 80% of stalls
in the pre-fresh group in a two-row pen adversely affected milk production of the primiparous cows through
the first 83 days of the subsequent lactation. Modeling
of data demonstrated that for each 10% increase in prefresh stocking density above 80%, there was a 1.6 lb
(0.72 kg) per day decrease in milk production in the first
lactation cows.
In this example, a stall-stocking density of 80% in
a two-row pen yields approximately 30 inches of bunk
space per cow. While individual cows were not ranked
for dominance, the first lactation cows in mixed groups
are generally lower in the dominance hierarchy. Even if
lactation groups are separated, there will still be a subordinate group in each pen of cows, and we would expect the lowest-rank third of the pen to show reduced
productivity when bunk space is limited.
In a recent study, DeVries reported on the effect of
increasing feed space on feeding behavior within 90
minutes of fresh feed delivery.5 Because individual cow
intake cannot be monitored in group feeding situations,
cows were fitted with devices that measure the number
of downward motions to retrieve feed. Feeding “hits”
were monitored when the cows were allowed 3.28 feet
(1 meter) of bunk space per cow versus 1.64 feet (0.5
meters) per cow. Dominant cows tended to maintain
the same feeding activity regardless of bunk space, but
Pre-Fresh DMI and Pen Crowding
(Two New Mexico dairies)
36
Dry matter intake, lb/day
34
32
30
28
26
24
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
10 5
11 0
1 15
Cows in pen / headlocks, %
Dairy 1
Linear (Dairy 1)
Dairy 2
Linear (Dairy 2)
Figure 3. Group average dry matter intake of dry cows and stocking density of headlocks on 24-inch centers.
Unpublished data from Kenn Buelow.
40
THE AABP PROCEEDINGS—VOL. 39
subordinate cows reduced feeding activity when bunk
space was reduced.
Figure 4 is a scatter plot that presents the firsttest 305-day projected milk plotted against days since
freshening for individual cows in a Wisconsin dairy
herd.13 This particular dairy had acted on concerns
about overstocked pens both before and after calving,
and reduced both pens to an 85% stall-stocking rate.
The highest first-test projections did not change, but
the number of projected milk values below 20,000 lb
(9,091 kg) disappeared. Clinicians who work with fresh
cow production data know that 10,000 to 15,000 lb (4,545
to 6,818 kg) first test projected milk values reflect sick
cows. In this example, reduction in stocking density
was rewarded with tremendous reductions in fresh pen
disease.
Our current recommendations to optimize fresh
cow health include the provision of 30 inches of bunk
space per cow in the close-up and fresh cow pens. Counting the number of stalls or headlocks does not adequately
explain the available bunk space per cow. Obviously,
fully stocked three-row pens of freestalls reduce the bunk
space per cow substantially compared to two-row pens.
However, pen stocking rate, number and width of crossover alleys and other factors make the actual bunk space
per cow measurements highly variable. Perhaps the
primary clinical recommendation when evaluating ketosis problem herds is to stop counting stalls and start
counting cows and measuring inches of bunk space.
A Perspective on Fixed Pens, Variable Group
Sizes, and Overhead Cost
Most of the problems related to pen moves and
overstocking are driven by the goals of minimizing labor and building costs. Labor and overhead costs are
simple to calculate. However, the impact on cow health
and productivity is difficult to measure and evaluate.
The prior discussions are offered to provide information
for the disease cost side of the equation.
One of the ongoing problems in modern confinement dairies is the flow of irregular numbers of cows
through special needs pens of fixed size. Dairy housing
is usually designed to fit some “normal” expectations of
numbers of cows in each management group. However,
events occur that result in ebbs and flows in the numbers of fresh cows. Because the special needs pens for
close-up cows, maternity pens, fresh pens and sick pens
are usually designed for a very small proportion of the
herd, these pens are easily overwhelmed by surges in
numbers of calvings.
Our observations of management approaches to the
ebb and flow of fresh cows show four general practices.
Some simply move the cows on an established schedule,
usually dictated by computerized move schedules, and
allow overstocking to occur. Some managers reduce the
Figure 4. Scatterplot of first-test projected milk values and days since freshening for cows in a herd that constructed additional barn space approximately 110 days previously. The additional barn space allowed for a
reduction of stall-stocking density in the pre-fresh pens from 120% down to 85%, and a reduction in the fresh cow
pens from 100% to 85%. Unpublished data from Paul Meagher.
SEPTEMBER, 2006
41
duration of stay in the close-up pen or fresh cow monitoring pen, choosing to avoid overstocking and accepting other negative consequences. Some managers
develop temporary and additional groupings, such as
an extra close-up group. This approach can work satisfactorily if the extra pen is managed as a separate and
equal group, but is not successful if all cows are moved
through the extra pen sequentially. Finally, some managers have facilities that allow them to expand the size
of a particular pen, allowing them to maintain stocking
density on the critical transition cow pens and transfer
the pressure to other, perhaps less vulnerable, groups.
Perhaps the most successful approach is to build
special needs pens to accommodate the extremes, rather
than the average. Using costs offered by Smith, doubling the typical size of all special needs pens in a new
dairy construction increased the annual total dairy facility cost by approximately $60 per cow, per year.19 It
is not difficult to calculate a combination of reduced
death rate, early lactation culling, treatments and increased production to yield $60 per cow per year. As we
accumulate data on disease and production costs related
to compromised transition cow housing, we expect that
sizing the special needs pens to handle the surges will
become the sensible decision for both economics and
welfare.
References
1. Barrows EM: Animal Behavior Desk Reference, Boca Raton, FL,
CRC Press, 2001.
2. Bewley J, Palmer RW, Jackson-Smith DB: Comparison of free-stall
barns used by modernized Wisconsin dairies. J Dairy Sci 84:528-541,
2001.
3. Buelow, Kenn: Personal communication, June, 1996.
4. Cook NB, Nordlund KV: Behavioral needs of the transition cow and
considerations for special needs facility design. Vet Clin North Am
Food Anim Pract 20:495-520, 2004.
42
5. DeVries TJ, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM: Effect of feeding
space on the inter-cow distance, aggression, and feeding behavior of
free-stall housed lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 87:1432-1438, 2004.
6. Dickson DP, Barr GR, Johnson LP, Wieckert DA: Social dominance
and temperament of Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 53:904, 1970.
7. Grant RJ, Albright JL: Effect of animal grouping on feeding behavior and intake of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 84(E. Suppl.):E156-E163,
2001.
8. Holtenius P, Holtenius K: New aspects of ketone bodies in energy
metabolism of dairy cows: a review. J Am Vet Med Assoc 43:579-587,
1996.
9. Hook, SL, Donaldson SL, Albright JL: A study of social dominance
behavior in young cattle. Amer Zool 5:714, 1965.
10. Kondo S, Hurnik JF: Stabilization of social hierarchy in dairy
cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 27(2):287-297, 1990.
11. Konggard SP, Krohn CC: Performance of first-calf heifers in two
different grouping systems. Rep Nat Inst Anim Sci Copenhagen, Denmark. 1978.
12. Lamb RC: Relationship between cow behavior patterns and management systems to reduce stress. J Dairy Sci 59(9):1630-1636, 1976.
13. Meagher P: Personal communication, May 2006.
14. Menzi W, Chase LE: Feeding behavior of cows housed in freestall
barns, in: Dairy Systems for the 21st Century. Amer Soc Agric Engineers, St Joseph, Michigan, 1994, pp 829-831.
15. Miller K, Wood-Gush DGM: Some effects of housing on the social
behavior of dairy cows. Anim Prod 53:271-278, 1991.
16. Peek SF, Hartmann FA, Thomas CB, Nordlund KV: Isolation of
Salmonella spp from the environment of dairies without any history
of clinical salmonellosis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 225:574-577, 2004.
17. Robinson PH, Moorby JM, Arana M, Hinders R, Graham T,
Castelanelli L, Barney N: Influence of close-up dry period protein
supplementation on productive and reproductive performance of Holstein cows in their subsequent lactation. J Dairy Sci 84(10):2273-2283,
2001.
18. Schein MW, Fohrman MH: Social dominance relationships in a
herd of dairy cattle. Br J Anim Behav 3:45-50, 1955.
19. Smith JF, Harner III JP, Brouk MJ: Special needs facilities. Recommendations for housing pregnant, lactating and sick cows. Kansas
State University Agricultural Experimental Station and Cooperative
Service, EP100. Manhattan, KS, 2001.
THE AABP PROCEEDINGS—VOL. 39
HIGH COW REPORT
December 2007
MILK
Arizona Owner
*Stotz Dairy
*Danzeisen Dairy 2
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
Barn#
18,764
4,814
18,213
17,666
8,455
20,452
21,073
5,162
18,468
18,371
Age
05-02
06-01
05-06
06-00
04-04
04-07
04-01
05-02
05-04
05-05
Milk
38,980
37,080
36,620
35,960
35,450
35,300
35,290
35,270
35,210
35,200
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Shamrock Farms
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
8,455
18,764
20,754
22,060
12,651
21,972
20,059
19,902
20,752
4,581
04-04
05-02
04-04
03-03
04-03
03-03
05-00
05-06
04-03
06-09
1,465
1,461
1,443
1,435
1,429
1,418
1,376
1,355
1,355
1,351
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Goldman Dairy
*Danzeisen Dairy, LlLC.
*Stotz Dairy
*Withrow Dairy
18,764
18,213
8,455
5,162
21,972
21,073
9,993
5,204
18,371
6,151
05-02
05-06
04-04
05-02
03-03
04-01
04-08
05-00
05-05
06-01
1,086
1,079
1,072
1,046
1,037
1,035
1,032
1,029
1,020
1,015
New Mexico Owner
S.A.S. Dairy
*Wayne Palla Dairy
*Wayne Palla Dairy
*Butterfield Dairy
*Providence Dairy
Caballo Dairy
*Providence Dairy
*Providence Dairy
Pareo Dairy
Caballo Dairy
Barn #
8,655
2,559
----1,492
697
551
905
300
166
9,524
Age
3-11
6-00
4-04
6-06
6-00
3-09
6-00
6-06
5-11
4-05
Milk
37,362
37,070
37,050
36,720
36,520
36,410
36,400
36,400
35,723
35,590
*Goff Dairy #2
*Providence Dairy
*Providence Dairy
*Goff Dairy #2
*Providence Dairy
*Vaz Dairy
*Wayne Palla Dairy
*Providence Dairy
*Providence Dairy
Stark Everett Dairy
3,684
6,015
5,898
6,292
5,388
--------6,636
9,052
4,086
4-03
4-11
5-03
3-04
6-02
4-00
4-04
4-06
7-01
5-06
1,923
1,485
1,384
1,374
1,371
1,370
1,370
1,349
1,332
1,330
----551
3,684
8,655
2,559
9,524
300
5,978
5,100
5,207
4-04
3-09
4-03
3-11
6-00
4-05
6-06
5-06
4-03
8-01
1,155
1,138
1,130
1,128
1,116
1,113
1,100
1,071
1,060
1,060
FAT
PROTEIN
*all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
*Wayne Palla Dairy
Caballo Dairy
*Goff Dairy #2
S.A.S. Dairy
*Wayne Palla Dairy
Caballo Dairy
*Providence Dairy
*Butterfield Dairy
*Goff Dairy #2
S.A.S. Dairy
ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
DECEMBER 2007
OWNERS NAME
*Stotz Dairy West
*Red River Dairy
*Danzeisen Dairy, Inc.
*Stotz Dairy East
*Mike Pylman
*Goldman Dairy
*Zimmerman Dairy
*Arizona Dairy Company
*Butler Dairy
*Parker Dairy
Number of Cows
2,203
9,734
1,459
1,335
6,745
2,329
1,299
5,576
622
4,573
MILK
28,405
26,789
25,426
24,252
23,989
24,472
23,740
23,422
23,733
22,455
FAT
1,038
897
930
881
866
846
851
844
833
851
3.5 FCM
29,108
26,124
26,070
24,768
24,411
24,295
24,060
23,809
23,765
23,504
DIM
240
3.5 FCM
28,169
27,103
26,304
26,105
25,269
24,993
24,923
24,478
24,464
24,155
23,838
23,817
22,872
22,150
CI
13.00
13.30
13.40
13.60
13.63
13.92
13.70
12.98
13.82
13.50
14.90
14.00
14.22
14.02
203
213
241
208
202
213
NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
DECEMBER 2007
OWNERS NAME
*SAS
MCatharn
Pareo
*Pareo 2
*Butterfield
*Do-Rene
*Red Roof
*Hide Away
*Milagro
*Providence
*Vaz
Vaz 2
Tee Vee
Stark Everett
Number of Cows
1,945
1,068
3,525
1,633
2,130
2,301
1,611
2,859
3,481
3,056
1,972
1,969
944
3,267
MILK
28,730
27,429
26,518
25,495
25,549
24,687
25,686
24,958
23,801
23,835
22,991
22,942
22,032
21,525
FAT
971
940
915
930
877
883
852
844
874
854
857
857
823
792
* all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
b
average milk and fat figure may be different from monthly herd summary; figures used are last day/month
ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO HERD IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY
FOR OFFICIAL HERDS TESTED DECEMBER 2007
ARIZONA
1. Number of Herds
NEW MEXICO
32
280
2. Total Cows in Herd
60,538
60,750
3. Average Herd Size
1,892
2170.
87
87
5. Average Days in Milk
197
197
6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day
59.3
61.64
3.8
3.66
52,171
19,473
68.8
71.89
85
74
11. Average Days Open
163
145
12. Average Calving Interval
14.2
14.04
86
81
14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium
9
15
15. Percent Somatic Cell – High
5
4
16. Average Previous Days Dry
63
63
17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd
32
32
4. Percent in Milk
7. Average Percent Fat – All Cows
8. Total Cows in Milk
9. Average Daily Milk for Milking Cows
10. Average Days in Milk 1st Breeding
13. Percent Somatic Cell – Low
STATE AVERAGES
Milk
21,916
22,443
Percent butterfat
3.72
3.62
Percent protein
3.05
3.08
Pounds butterfat
806
857
Pounds protein
668
677
2008 Dairy Day Golf Tournament
Hole Sponsorship
Sponsorship is greatly
appreciated and will be
$200 per hole.
Sponsorship includes:
Sign with your company name (If received by March 14th, 2008)
If you would like to give golf balls, towels, pencils, etc., contact
Julie Stefanic at 520-626-9382 or stefanic@ag.arizona.edu
http://ag.arizona.edu/extension/dairy/index.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - Return
- - - by- March
- - - 14,
- -2008
---------------
y
air D
Golf
The entire amount of hole sponsorship is considered a tax-deductible donation.
ay
Please make check for $200.00 payable to:
UA Foundation
Dairy Extension Program Coordinator
Dept. Animal Sciences
PO Box 210038
® Tucson, AZ 85721-0038
D
Organization________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________
City/State/ZIP_______________________________________________
Contact Person_______________________________________________
Phone_____________________Fax______________________________
Email____________________________________________________
Article to give away_____________________________________________
D
ai
ay
Dairy Day Golf Tournament
Registration
ry D
Golf
Friday, April 4, 2008
Club West Golf Club
16400 S. 14th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85045
Entry Fee:
Shotgun Start:
Contact Person:
®
$90.00 per person
1:00 p.m.
Julie Stefanic
PO Box 210038 - Dept of Animal Sciences
Tucson, AZ 85721
(520) 626-9382 ~ stefanic@ag.arizona.edu
http://ag.arizona.edu/extension/dairy/index.html
----------------------------------Registration form. Please detach and return to address above.
Individual
Team
Name(s)______________________________________________________
Organization________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________
City/State/ZIP_______________________________________________
Phone______________________________________________________
Team Members:
Number of players
_________
___________________________ x $90.00
___________________________
Total amount due
$__________
___________________________
Please make check payable to UA Foundation
Individuals will be assigned to a team.
Mulligans will be available the day of the tournament. Neither the tournament fee nor mulligans are considered a tax-deductible donation.
PRSRT STD
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
TUCSON, ARIZONA
PERMIT NO. 190
Department of Animal Sciences
PO Box 210038
Tucson, AZ 85721-0038
Phone: 520-626-9382
Fax: 520-621-9435
Email: stefanic@ag.arizona.edu
Upcoming Event
Arizona Dairy Day - Thursday, April 3, 2008
Caballero Dairy Farms - Eloy, Arizona
Arizona Dairy Day Golf - Friday, April 4, 2008
Club West Golf Club - Phoenix, Arizona