ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO
DAIRY NEWSLETTER
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
The University of Arizona
New Mexico State University
AUGUST 2006
THIS MONTH’S ARTICLE:
Recent Developments in Air Quality
from Dairies and Cattle Feedyards
Brent Auvermann, Ph.D.
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Amarillo, TX
(Reprinted from the 21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Proceedings
February 23-24, 2006, Tempe, Arizona)
~~~
Don’t miss the
5th Annual Arizona Dairy Production Conference
on Tuesday, October 5, 2006
at the Sheraton Phoenix Airport Hotel.
See inside for more information
and a registration form.
~~~
Join us for the
5th Annual
Arizona Dairy
Production Conference
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Sheraton Phoenix Airport Hotel
1600 South 52nd Street · Tempe, Arizona 85281
Seminar Topics:
The Cows Are Always Right! Evaluating Rations
Nutritional and Management Factors
Associated with Rumen Acidosis and Laminitis
Heat Stress and its Effects on Feeding and Management Decisions
Round Table Discussion - Building New Facilities
Economics and Managerial Comparisons Between
Organic Vs. Traditional Dairying
Registration opens at 9:00 a.m. Conference concludes at 2:30 p.m.
London Broil lunch is included as part of registration. There will also be a
deluxe continental breakfast and afternoon ice cream break provided.
Register online at
https://pubs1.cals.arizona.edu/sales/reginfo.cfm?ID=52
2006 Conference
Registration Form
Registration fee: $25.00 X ________
# people
=
$___________
Additional proceedings: $10.00 X ________
# additional proceedings
=
$___________
Total amount enclosed or charged to credit card: $___________
Name
Organization
Address
City, State, ZIP
Phone
FAX
Email
If paying by credit card:
Credit Card Number
Mastercard Visa American Express Discover
Expiration Date
3- or 4-digit security code
No part of the registration fee is considered a tax deductible donation.
Send registration form and fees to: The University of Arizona
Attn: Laura Rittenbach
PO Box 210038
Department of Animal Sciences
Tucson, AZ 85721
OR
Fax form with credit card information to:520-621-9435
OR
Register online at https://pubs1.cals.arizona.edu/sales/reginfo.cfm?ID=52
For addidtional information call 520-626-9382 or email ljr22@ag.arizona.edu
Recent Developments in Air Quality from
Dairies and Cattle Feedyards
Brent Auvermann, Ph.D.
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Amarillo, TX
Corresponding Author: b-auvermann@tamu.edu
Abstract
The air pollutants of greatest concern to the owners, managers and neighbors of
open-lot livestock facilities are particulate matter (PM) and ammonia (NH3). Other
gaseous constituents, as well as bioaerosols, are of concern at the local, regional and state
levels, but most of the effort and resources devoted to open-lot air quality at the federal
level has focused on PM and NH3. This paper outlines some of the major research
developments since 2003 concerning emissions and abatement of those two important
classes of air pollution.
Recent Advances
Ammonia
Emissions
Magnitude and Significance. Among the gaseous emissions traceable to dairies and
cattle feedyards, the highest profile in environmental air quality is reserved for NH3.
Dairymen and cattle feeders who have been attending closely to federal regulatory
developments and litigation understand that the primary reason for NH3’s high profile is
the recent proliferation of lawsuits under the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto-Know Act (EPCRA). Plaintiffs in those lawsuits assert that (a) the routine airborne
emissions of NH3 from many animal-feeding operations (AFOs) exceed the monitoring
and reporting threshold of 100 lb/d and that (b) any such AFO that has not been
monitoring and reporting its NH3 emissions should be penalized similarly to the industrial
sources for whom EPCRA and its Superfund siblings were originally written. Figure 1
shows the approximate capacity of a cattle feedyard that would surpass the 100 lb/d
threshold depending on the feedyard’s aggregate nitrogen-use efficiency. When one
realizes that the average capacity of a cattle feedyard in the Texas Panhandle exceeds
35,000, Figure 1 illustrates at least three take-home messages:
1.
Assuming a modestly optimistic industry-wide N-use efficiency of 70%, all of
the commercial cattle feedy ards larger than about 500 head (which is to say,
virtually all of the cattle feedyards in the region) would be subject to the EPCRA
monitoring and reporting requirements.
2.
The N-use efficiency that would be required for a 35,000-hd feedyard to emit
less than 100 lb/d of NH3 would be about 99.5%. To achieve that kind of
efficiency would undoubtedly require abandoning the open-lot production
system in which virtually all beef cattle in the Great Plains and West are fed.
3.
Even aside from the infrastructure cost of shifting to full confinement systems,
even documenting N efficiency at the first decimal place (i. e., 99.5% vs. 99%)
would be prohibitively expensive for the cattle-feeding industry.
For dairies, the qualitative picture is much the same, although differences in ration,
physiology, production and manure-handling systems shift the absolute numbers one way
or the other.
21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 23-24, 2006 Ô Tempe, AZ - 110
EPCRA Threshold
Capacity (hd)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
N Use Efficiency (%)
Figure 1. Approximate capacity of cattle feedyards that would meet the 100 lb/d
monitoring and reporting threshold under EPCRA for various nitrogen-use efficiencies.
Recent Legislation. In October 2005, U. S. Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and
Larry Craig (R-ID) tried to insert an exemption rider into the conference report of the
agricultural appropriations bill. The rider would have exempted livestock operations
from EPCRA’s monitoring and reporting requirements, dramatically reducing the
potential regulatory burden and financial exposure that ongoing EPCRA litigation poses
to AFOs. The exemption language, adopted by the Senate conferees on October 25th, was
rejected by the conference committee in their October 27th report.
Quantitative Results. Political and judicial wrangling aside, a great deal of money
and effort has been expended in recent years to estimate the rate at which NH3 is emitted
from cattle feedyards and dairies. During the last three years, for example, a consortium
of state and federal researchers in Texas and Kansas has been using a wide variety of
methods to estimate NH3 emissions from cattle feedyards, including:
•
•
•
•
Direct, surface-isolation methods (flux chambers, wind tunnels)
Mass-balance methods (input/output, nutrient-ratio, other)
Box models
Dispersion modeling methods (backward Lagrangian stochastic, Gaussian,
other)
Although convergence is not by itself sufficient to ensure that a value or range of
values is accurate, independent estimates of the emission flux that do not converge on an
arbitrarily narrow range of values will all be suspect. A brief synthesis of as-yetunpublished data from our consortium project indicates that the annualized NH3 flux
(expressed as N) from a cattle feedyard is likely to be somewhere between 40 and 50% of
the total N fed to the animals, a range that reflects a reasonable convergence of 4
independent methods (Todd and Cole, 2005). In general, surface-isolation methods like
wind tunnels and flux chambers yield flux estimates substantially lower than 40% of fed
N (Mutlu et al., 2005).
21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 23-24, 2006 Ô Tempe, AZ - 111
Abatement
Abatement methods for NH3 emissions tend to fall in the following, broad
categories:
• Maintaining acidic pH
• In-situ oxidation
• Inhibition of urease
• Segregation of solid manure from urine
• Recapture and recycling
• Feeding strategies to increase N use efficiency
To date, representative methods within all of those approaches have been validated at the
benchtop and pilot scales, but commercial-scale adoption faces prohibitive logistical and
financial hurdles (e. g., Parker et al., 2005; Cole et al., 2005).
Particulate Matter
Emissions
Variability of Estimates. Estimating PM emissions from spatially extensive,
spatially and temporally variable, weather-dependent sources like feedyards and dairies is
complicated, and estimates have varied widely since the 1970s (Peters and Blackwood,
1977; Parnell, 1994; Grelinger and Lapp, 1996; Parnell et al, 1999; Price, 2004).
However, it is clear from recent, quasi-real-time monitoring that diurnal variations in
downwind concentrations of PM (Auvermann, 2005; Parnell et al., 2005) result from
interactions between time-varying emission rates and diurnal changes in the stability of
the atmospheric boundary layer.
Particle-Size Distribution. Any environmental sample of PM will contain particles
having a wide range of sizes and shapes. Agricultural dusts, which result from
mechanical actions like crushing and grinding, generally consist of much larger particles
than urban aerosols, which are dominated by combustion products. One simple way to
express the particle-size distribution (PSD) of agricultural dust is the ratio of sub-10micron particle (PM10) mass to the total aerosol mass. This ratio is known as the
PM10/TSP ratio, and Sweeten et al. (1988) found that its value in feedyard dust varies
between 0.19 and 0.40, depending on the type of sampler used. Recent, quasi-real-time
concentration data by Goodrich and Parnell (2006) have shown that the PM10/TSP ratio
in feedyard dust increases immediately after a rainfall event and then decreases rapidly to
the typical value as the feedyard dries out. Similar data by Auvermann (2006) confirm
that qualitative result, although his measured PM10/TSP ratios (0.40-0.55) are
numerically higher than those measured by Goodrich and Parnell (2006) (0.15-0.25).
The explanation for the discrepancy between the PM10/TSP ratios measured by Goodrich
and Parnell (2006) and Auvermann (2006) is still a matter of conjecture, but it appears to
be an artifact of (a) the well documented, upward bias in PM10 measurements when EPAstandard, size-selective inlets are deployed in samplers measuring coarse aerosols (Buser
et al., 2003), (b) significant performance differences between real-time and timeaveraged monitors (Wanjura et al., 2005) and (c) differences between post-hoc (e. g.,
Coulter Counter PSD analysis) and inertial methods of measuring the PM10/TSP ratio.
Visibility. Fugitive PM from open-lot AFOs may reduce visibility on nearby
roadways and railways, posing a safety risk to motorists and pedestrians. The extinction
efficiency of AFO aerosols is the relative change in visibility for a unit change in mass
concentration. Recent work by Moon et al. (2005) has shown that extinction efficiency
21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 23-24, 2006 Ô Tempe, AZ - 112
of AFO aerosols is roughly equivalent to that of “coarse particles” (Malm, 1999) during
dry weather. Because feedyard and dairy aerosols tend to absorb water vapor from the air
when relative humidity (RH) is high (the particles are thus described as hygroscopic),
their extinction efficiency depends strongly on RH and increases with increasing RH.
Abatement
General Considerations. Open-lot dairies and cattle feedyards are large, groundlevel area sources of PM, their production areas having a footprint of anywhere from 100
to 400+ square feet per head of capacity (ft2/hd). To reduce PM emissions at the source,
Auvermann et al. (2000) have recommended that operators of these facilities consider
increasing the frequency with which they harvest the uncompacted manure from corral
surfaces. Although retrofitting an older dairy or feedyard with solid-set sprinkler systems
is often prohibitively expensive, open-lot dairies may use water trucks to good advantage
for dust control by applying water to the corral surface while the cows are in the milking
parlor (Cassel et al., 2003).
Manure Accumulation. Manure accumulation rates in dairy and feedyard corrals
vary with the digestibility of the ration, animal spacing and dry-matter intake. For beef
cattle receiving feed with a digestibility of 85%, assuming uniform distribution of manure
on the corral and an animal spacing of 150 ft2/hd, manure accumulation may exceed 3
inches per year. Total mixed rations (TMR) for lactating dairy cows are less digestible
than feedyard rations (~60% or less), but open-lot areas and dry-matter intake tend to be
greater, as well. A reasonable estimate of manure accumulation in a dairy drylot with
400 ft2/hd and dry-matter intake of 50 lb/d would be >6 inches per year.
Manure-Harvesting Recommendations. Cattle feedyard managers typically instruct
machinery operators to scrape any given pen once or twice a year, usually after a load of
cattle is shipped to slaughter. Benchtop experiments by Razote et al. (2006) confirmed
the conjecture by Auvermann et al. (2000) that the dust-emission potential of a cattle
feedyard surface increases with increasing manure depth. That result justifies the
manure-harvesting recommendation, but the law of diminishing returns applies strongly
to the economics of manure-harvesting operations. If the manure-accumulation rate is 3
in/yr, the average depth of manure in the corrals would be about 1.5”, 0.75”, 0.5” and
0.38” for 1, 2, 3 and 4 manure-harvesting operations per year, respectively. The marginal
reductions in dust potential for the 4th and subsequent manure-harvesting operations in a
12-month period are probably not detectable in practice, which argues for a maximum of
4 operations per year. (If manure is not distributed uniformly across the pens, the 4th and
5th harvesting operation per year may help by removing locally deep accumulations.)
Because there are usually about 2-2.2 turns of cattle through a feedyard per year, manureharvesting operations will need to be conducted occasionally with cattle in the pens. In
the case of open-lot dairies, the movement of cattle to and from the milking parlor
provides ample opportunity for frequent manure harvesting, in which case the main
limitations are fuel, labor costs and the mechanical strength of the subsoils.
Water Application. Direct water application to suppress dust on the cattle feedyard
is an effective but expensive option, and where water resources are limited, efficiency is
at a premium. Using small weighing lysimeters loaded with compacted soil and manure,
Marek et al. (2004) measured daily evaporation rates from simulated feedyard surfaces
and determined that the consumptive use of irrigated crops is a poor predictor of feedyard
evaporative losses and that water application rates for dust control need to be about 0.15-
21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 23-24, 2006 Ô Tempe, AZ - 113
0.25” per day during most of the dust season, with higher rates during August and
September.
Razote et al. (2006) also confirmed that manure harvesting and water application
have a synergistic effect on the dust potential of a corral surface. When the uncompacted
manure layer significantly exceeds the depth to which applied water will penetrate, the
water is essentially wasted; conversely, when dry manure is harvested and used to build
mounds to improve wintertime drainage, water must be added to the manure to improve
compaction and ensure that hoof action does not redistribute the uncompacted material.
Summary
Recent investments in air quality research, both public and private, are beginning to
show returns for the dairy and beef industries across the U. S. The major airborne
constituents of regulatory concern nationwide have been reduced to two: ammonia (NH3)
and particulate matter (PM). Constituents of regional and local concern include reactive
volatile organic compounds (RVOC) in California, where RVOC are implicated in
ground-level ozone formation; odorants of various kinds at the state and local level; and
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in densely populated areas where neighbors are located
immediately across the property line from facilities where manure and/or wastewater are
stored under anaerobic conditions. Bioaerosols are attracting greater attention, mainly in
the context of biosecurity and zoonotic disease. Innovative measures to reduce emission
rates and downwind concentrations of PM and gases from feedyards and dairies have
been proposed and validated, but broad implementation will require financial incentives
and will generally increase the use of scarce water and fuel resources.
References
Auvermann, B. W. 2006. Unpublished data.
Auvermann, B. W., D. B. Parker and J. M. Sweeten. 2000. Manure harvesting
frequency: the feedyard manager’s #1 dust-control option in a summer drought.
College Station, TX: Texas Cooperative Extension. Bulletin E-52.
Buser, M. D., C. B. Parnell, Jr., B. W. Shaw and R. E. Lacey. 2003. Particulate Matter
Sampler Errors Due To The Interaction Of Particle Size and Sampler Performance
Characteristics: PM10 and PM2.5 Ambient Air Samplers. Presented at the Third
International Conference on Air Pollution from Agricultural Operations,
Raleigh/Durham, NC, October 12-15.
Cassel, T., D. Meyer, E. Tooman and B.W. Auvermann. 2003. Effects of sprinkling of
pens to reduce particulate emissions and subsequent efforts in ammonia emissions
from open-lot dairy facilities. Presented at the International Symposium of Gaseous
& Odour Emissions from Animal Production Facilities, Horsens, Jutland, Denmark,
June 1-4.
Cole, N.A., R. N. Clark, R. W. Todd, C. R. Richardson, A. Gueye, L. W. Greene and K.
McBride. 2005. Influence of Dietary Crude Protein Concentration and Source on
Potential Ammonia Emissions from Beef Cattle Manure. Journal of Animal Science.
83:722-731.
Goodrich, B. and C. B. Parnell, Jr. 2006. Unpublished data.
Grelinger, M. A. and T. Lapp. 1996. An evaluation of published emission factors for
cattle feedlots. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Air Pollution
from Agricultural Operations, Kansas City, MO, February 7-9.
Malm, W. C. 1999. Introduction to Visibility. Ft. Collins, CO: Cooperative Institute for
Research in the Atmosphere. 70 pp.
21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 23-24, 2006 Ô Tempe, AZ - 114
Marek, G., T. H. Marek, K. Heflin and B. W. Auvermann. 2004. Determination of
Feedyard Evaporation Using Weighing Lysimeters. Presented at the 2004
ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, August 1-4, 2004, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada. Paper No. 04-4014.
Moon, S., B. W. Auvermann and W. J. Rogers. 2005. Open-Path Transmissometry To
Determine Atmospheric Extinction Efficiency Associated with Feedyard Dust.
Presented at the Annual Conference of the Air & Waste Management Association,
Minneapolis, MN, June 20-25.
Mutlu, A., S. Mukhtar, S. Capareda, C. Boriack, R. Lacey, B. Shaw and C. B. Parnell, Jr..
Summer Ammonia Emission Rates From Free-Stall and Open-Lot Dairies in Central
Texas. Presented at the 2005 ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, Tampa,
FL, July 17-20. Paper No. 05-4037.
Parker, D.B., S. Pandrangi, L. W. Greene, L. K. Almas, N. A. Cole, M. B. Rhoades and J.
A. Koziel. 2005. Rate and Frequency of Urease Inhibitor Application for
Minimizing Ammonia Emissions from Beef Cattle Feedyards. Transactions of the
ASAE 48(2):787-793.
Parnell, C. B. Jr., B. W. Shaw and B. W. Auvermann. 1999. Agricultural Air Quality
Fine Particle Project - Task 1: Livestock - Feedlot PM Emission Factors and
Emissions Inventory Estimates. Final project report to the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX.
Parnell, S. 1994. Dispersion Modeling for Prediction of Emission Factors for Cattle
Feedyards. Unpublished Master of Science Thesis, Department of Agricultural
Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Peters, J. A. and T. R. Blackwood. 1977. Source assessment: beef cattle feedlots.
Special report to the EPA Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA-600/2-77-107.
Price, J. E. 2004. Back-Calculating Emission Rates for Ammonia and Particulate Matter
from Area Sources Using Dispersion Modeling. Unpublished M.S. Thesis,
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX.
Razote, E. B., R. G. Maghirang, B. Z. Predicala, J. P. Murphy, B. W. Auvermann, J. P.
Harner and W. L. Hargrove. 2006. Dust emission potential of cattle feedlots as
affected by feedlot surface characteristics. Transactions of the ASAE (edition
pending).
Sweeten, J. M., C. B. Parnell, Jr., R. S. Etheredge and D. Osborne. 1988. Dust emissions
in cattle feedlots. Food Animal Practice 4(3):557-578.
Todd, R. and N. A. Cole. 2005. Unpublished data. USDA-Agricultural Research
Service, Bushland, TX.
Todd, R.W., N. A. Cole, L. A. Harper, T. K. Flesch and B. H. Baek. 2005. Ammonia and
Gaseous Nitrogen Emissions from a Commercial Beef Cattle Feedyard Estimated Using
the Flux-Gradient Method and N:P Ratio Analysis. Proceedings of “State of the Science:
Animal Manure and Waste Management,” January 4-7, 2005, San Antonio, TX.
Todd, R. T., N. A. Cole and R. N. Clark. 2006. Effect of Crude Protein in Beef Cattle
Diets on Ammonia Emissions from Artificial Feedyard Surface. Journal of
Environmental Quality (edition pending).
21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 23-24, 2006 Ô Tempe, AZ - 115
Vasconcelos, J. T., L. W. Greene, N. A. Cole, F. T. McCollum and J. C. Silva. 2004.
Effects of Phase Feeding of Protein on Performance, Blood Urea Nitrogen, and
Carcass Characteristics of Finishing Beef Cattle. Journal of Animal Science
Supplement 82(1):63-64.
Wanjura, J. D., C. B. Parnell, Jr., B. W. Shaw and R. E. Lacey. 2004. A Protocol for
Determining a Fugitive Dust Emission Factor from a Ground Level Area Source.
Presented at the 2004 ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, August 1-4, 2004,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Paper No. 04-4018.
Wanjura, J., C. B. Parnell, B. W. Shaw, R. E. Lacey, S. C. Capareda and L. B. Hamm.
2005. Comparison of Continuous Monitor (TEOM) vs. Gravimetric Sampler
Particulate Matter Concentrations. Paper presented at the 2005 ASAE/CSAE Annual
International Meeting, Tampa, FL, July 17-20. Paper No. 05-4048.
21st Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 23-24, 2006 Ô Tempe, AZ - 116
HIGH COW REPORT
JULY 2006
MILK
Arizona Owner
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Withrow Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Goldman Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Mike Pylman
Barn#
20261
18681
3577
17829
5645
18453
18763
16126
16973
2850
Age
03-04
03-10
05-04
04-06
04-09
04-00
03-09
05-09
05-01
05-09
Milk
40,710
38,230
37,080
36,910
35,690
35,280
35,260
35,030
35,030
34,990
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
Lunts Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, LLC
* DC Dairy, LLC
* Stotz Dairy
Paul Rovey Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
20261
18852
4621
17829
17534
4846
4230
16602
9685
16037
03-04
03-08
07-01
04-06
04-09
04-08
04-04
05-06
06-10
05-10
1,753
1,542
1,449
1,387
1,386
1,365
1,339
1,324
1,320
1,309
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Mike Pylman
* Stotz Dairy
* Shamrock Farms
* Stotz Dairy
* Mike Pylman
* Shamrock Farms
* Shamrock Farms
20261
18681
18763
6891
18453
A290
14824
2850
5177
3688
03-04
03-10
03-09
04-06
04-00
03-08
06-09
05-09
05-01
05-08
1,184
1,051
1,051
1,046
1,042
1,041
1,038
1,037
1,036
1,027
New Mexico Owner
* Goff Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Butterfield Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Butterfield Dairy
* Butterfield Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Caballo Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
Barn #
8256
9300
2224
4421
409
960
1699
2019
7992
3713
Age
06-06
05-07
04-03
04-09
05-01
06-06
05-06
03-01
04-05
05-02
Milk
41,210
40,700
38,460
38,412
38,200
36,460
36,330
36,280
36,180
35,915
5971
2085
9300
4182
1864
8256
877
2835
1327
2903
05-00
02-11
05-07
05-00
05-06
06-06
04-06
----03-10
-----
1,416
1,331
1,327
1,321
1,316
1,305
1,287
1,280
1,275
1,274
9300
8256
2835
2903
4421
1832
9596
1193
3713
3043
05-07
06-06
--------04-09
05-06
05-06
07-06
05-02
-----
1,245
1,144
1,111
1,103
1,089
1,084
1,083
1,081
1,081
1,080
FAT
* Caballo Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Butterfield Dairy
* Goff Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
PROTEIN
*all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
* Providence Dairy
* Goff Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Butterfield Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Butterfield Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
JULY 2006
OWNERS NAME
* Stotz Dairy West
* Stotz Dairy East
* Joharra Dairy
* Mike Pylman
* Red River Dairy
* Zimmerman Dairy
* Del Rio Dairy, Inc.
* Danzeisen Dairy, Inc.
* Withrow Dairy
Parker Dairy
* Arizona Dairy Company
* Dairyland Milk Co.
* Shamrock Farm
* Goldman Dairy
* Bulter Dairy
Paul Rovey Dairy
* Yettem
Number of Cows
2,199
1,076
1,400
7,929
5,181
1,195
1,386
1,486
5,365
4,098
5,480
2,978
8,497
2,186
595
342
2,905
MILK
27,428
25,357
25,487
25,032
24,746
24,063
24,294
23,525
24,345
23,140
23,771
23,377
23,884
22,772
22,889
22,143
19,291
FAT
987
920
872
869
864
858
833
847
813
845
808
818
768
796
789
804
872
3.5 FCM
27,859
25,878
25,156
24,910
24,706
24,313
24,008
23,902
23,706
23,703
23,376
23,368
22,777
22,750
22,687
22,607
22,477
DO
200
211
109
183
146
170
133
166
154
171
196
152
156
171
187
151
115
3.5 FCM
26,950
26,614
26,595
25,794
25,727
24,764
24,602
24,546
24,279
23,855
DO
115
141
138
144
132
182
132
134
132
140
NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
JULY 2006
OWNERS NAME
* Hide Away
* Do-Rene
* Milagro
* Pareo 2
* Butterfield
* Wormont
* Goff
* Macatharn
* SAS
* Pareo
Number of Cows
2,676
2,469
3,383
1,500
2,071
1,026
4,387
1,009
1,890
3,496
MILK
28,105
27,740
25,915
25,602
26,645
23,857
24,455
24,702
24,423
23,366
FAT
913
902
949
908
876
891
865
855
846
848
* 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 JULY 2006
ARIZONA
1. Number of Herds
34
2. Total Cows in Herd
70,711
3. Average Herd Size
2,080
4. Percent in Milk
88
5. Average Days in Milk
214
6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day
53.3
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
3.6
60,844
61.7
83
11. Average Days Open
165
12. Average Calving Interval
14.2
13. Percent Somatic Cell – Low
NEW MEXICO
Information
unavailable
at press
time.
86
14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium
8
15. Percent Somatic Cell – High
6
16. Average Previous Days Dry
59
17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd
30
STATE AVERAGES
Milk
23,008
Percent butterfat
3.59
Percent protein
2.90
Pounds butterfat
800
Pounds protein
667
UPCOMING EVENT:
ARIZONA DAIRY PRODUCTION CONFERENCE
OCTOBER 10, 2006
SHERATON PHOENIX AIRPORT HOTEL
TEMPE, AZ
Department of Animal Sciences
PO Box 210038
Tucson, AZ 85721-0038
Phone: 520-626-9382
Fax: 520-621-9435
Email: ljr22@ag.arizona.edu