ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO
DAIRY NEWSLETTER
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
The University of Arizona
New Mexico State University
DECEMBER 2005
THIS MONTH’S ARTICLE:
Reducing the Incidence of Clinical
Mastitis in Commercial Dairy Herds:
Failures and Success
With on Farm Culturing
Keith E. Sterner DVM
Sterner Veterinary Clinic, P.C.
(Reprinted from the 2005 Arizona Dairy Production Conference Proceedings,
October 11, 2005, Tempe, Arizona)
~~~~
Dairy Day is going back to a dairy!
The 2006 Arizona Dairy Day will be held on Thursday, April 6
at the Milky Way Dairy, 20000 N. Ralston Road, in Maricopa, Arizona.
See the flyers and golf information inside this newsletter!
~~~
Arizona Dairy Day
is going back to a dairy!
Thursday, April 6, 2006
9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Milky Way Dairy
20000 N. Ralston Road
Maricopa, Arizona
Space will be available to vendors at the following prices:
Booth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $400
Tractors, feed trucks or other equipment . . . . . . $100/piece
One table and two chairs furnished with each space
Power, water, additional table(s) and chair(s) are available if necessary
All heavy equipment will need to be delivered the afternoon of
Wednesday, April 5 by 5:00 p.m. and picked up on Friday, April 7.
Booth set-up will take place on Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning.
Lunch provided by
For more information contact Laura Rittenbach at (520) 626-9382
or via email at ljr22@ag.arizona.edu.
®
Arizona Dairy Day
is going back to a dairy!
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Milky Way Dairy
20000 N. Ralston Road
Maricopa, Arizona
Space will be available to vendors at the following prices:
Booth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $400
Tractors, feed trucks or other equipment . . . . . . $100/piece
One table and two chairs furnished with each space
Power, water, additional table(s) and chair(s) are available if necessary
(check one)
BoothSpace($400)
=
_______________
Equipment (Tractors/Feed Trucks/Scrapers/Other Equipment):
(additional services)
Power 110
Power 220
______ (# Pieces) X
Water
Tables_____
(quantity)
$100 =
_______________
Chairs_____
(quantity)
Company/Organization__________________________________________________________
Contact Person ________________________________________________________________
Address _____________________________________________________________________
City, State, ZIP________________________________________________________________
Phone _________________________________ FAX _________________________________
Email address _________________________________________________________________
For more information contact Laura Rittenbach at (520) 626-9382 or via email at
ljr22@ag.arizona.edu. Please mail form with check payable to: The University of Arizona,
PO Box 210038 - Department of Animal Sciences, Tucson, AZ 85721-0038
®
Dairy Day
Golf
Dairy Day Golf Tournament
Registration
Friday, April 7, 2006
Club West Golf Course
16400 South 14th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ
Entry Fee:
Shotgun Start:
Contact Person:
$85.00 per person
1:00 p.m.
Laura Rittenbach
PO Box 210038, Tucson, AZ 85721
(520) 626-9382
ljr22@ag.arizona.edu
----------------------------------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 $85.00
___________________________
Total amount due
$__________
___________________________
Please make check payable to UA Foundation
Individuals will be assigned to a team.
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 24th, 2006)
If you would like to give golf balls, towels, pencils, etc., contact
Laura Rittenbach at 520-626-9382 or ljr22@ag.arizona.edu
- - - - - - - - - - - - Return
- - - by- March
- - - 24,
- -2006
---------------
Please make check for $200.00 payable to:
UA Foundation
Laura Rittenbach
Dept. Animal Sciences
PO Box 210038
Tucson, AZ 85721-0038
Dairy Day
Golf
Organization________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________
City/State/ZIP_______________________________________________
Contact Person_______________________________________________
Phone______________________________________________________
Article to give away_____________________________________________
Reducing the Incidence of Clinical Mastitis in Commercial Dairy Herds:
Failures and Success With on Farm Culturing
Keith E. Sterner DVM
Sterner Veterinary Clinic, P.C.
821 N. Jefferson St.
Ionia, Michigan 48846
Take Home Messages:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Timeliness of clinical infection information is enhanced by on-farm culturing.
On-farm culturing can make treatment decisions more effective.
On-farm culturing requires committed and trained personnel.
On-farm culturing can result in reduced treatment costs.
On-farm culturing may be used to implement more effective control and
prevention measures.
Introduction
Over the years, there have been many methods of milk culturing employed to provide
information on mastitis prevention, treatment, and control. In general, these efforts have centered
on culturing being done in a laboratory located at a university, milk processor, or veterinary
clinic. Products available on the market and efforts required to culture milk on-farm have, in
general, been unsuccessful for various and sundry reasons. The main reason for frustration with
on-farm milk culturing stems from the fact that it has been difficult to train, equip, and motivate
farm personnel to ensure ongoing and accurate culturing for making treatment and prevention
decisions. On the other hand, by the time culture results of clinical infections are reported back to
the dairy for treatment decisions from other off-farm laboratories, too much time has elapsed.
This paper is intended to report on both success and failure in this endeavor, based on a
methodology reported by Hess, Neuder, and Sears. (1)
When confronted with an elevated herd somatic cell count (SCC), or an increased number of
clinical mastitis cases, most people who manage dairy herds today are quite knowledgeable
about effective measures for controlling and dealing with these problems. It is not so much an
issue of lack of knowledge, as it is a lack of attention to the details of implementation, that make
the real difference in the production of quality milk. It is simply a matter of milking clean, dry,
and comfortable cows with properly functioning milking equipment. Mastitis researcher J.
Woodrow Pankey was fond of saying that “there are only four ways that a cow gets mastitis: left
front, right front, left rear, right rear!” The trick is to ensure that the bacteria on the outside do
not become bacteria on the inside. There are many strategies for doing this, but they all boil
down to two basic tenets; either decrease the exposure to bacterial pathogens or increase the
resistance of the cow to these infections. Despite all of our advances in both strategies, cows
continue to develop intramammary infections, and will for the foreseeable future. The ability to
identify these bacteria allows the producer and his employees to devise both prevention and
treatment plans to deal with the reality of clinical mastitis.
Bacteria that are commonly associated with mastitis in dairy cows are most commonly
categorized by the type of stain that they take in the laboratory. The most commonly employed
Proceedings of the 4th Annual Arizona Dairy Production Conference Ô October 11, 2005 Ô Tempe, AZ - 17
stain is the Gram stain, and it has two possible outcomes. Gram- positive bacterial cells will have
a purple or blue color when observed under the microscope. Streptococcus and Staphylococcus
organisms are common Gram-positive bacteria. Gram-negative mastitis causing organisms, such
as E. coli, Aerobacter, and Klebsiella, have cells that stain with a red color when observed under
the microscope. In general, most Gram-positive bacteria will show some sensitivity to the beta
lactam (penicillin) antibiotic family, whereas the Gram-negative bacteria tend to be resistant to
most commercial antibiotics available today for use in lactating dairy cows. As a result,
intramammary treatment of Gram-negative clinical mastitis infections has met with relatively
poor results.
This paper specifically does not deal with the culturing and treatment of mycoplasma mastitis.
Mycoplasma mastitis infections require special culture techniques, with oxygen limiting
incubators, and do not respond to any sort of currently available conventional treatment.
Suspected mycoplasma mastitis problems should be sent to a qualified laboratory, with well
trained personnel who are qualified to give professional advice on milk quality issues associated
with mycoplasma infections.
Materials and Methods
The culturing and treatment technique described by Neuder et al. (2003) involves collecting milk
samples from all clinical cases of mastitis on the farm when first detected, and culturing the
samples on differential media in order to determine if the causative organism is either Grampositive or Gram-negative. Cows that show up as new cases of high SCC on the DHIA monthly
test report are CMT scored, and all suspected high SCC quarters are cultured as well. The
decision to treat or not to treat the quarter(s) is based on the growth of either a Gram-positive or
a Gram-negative infected quarter respectively. Gram-negative and all no growth quarters are left
untreated, however; in some cases they may be re-sampled and re-plated after a 1-2 week
interval, if there has been no improvement in the nature of the secretion from the affected
quarter.
Those quarters with no growth or a Gram-negative infection, identified as growth on
MacConkey’s agar, are not treated with intramammary antibiotics. Depending on the assessment
of the cow’s condition, supportive systemic therapy is employed according to a set of treatment
protocols that are based on observable symptoms and previous favorable responses of animals
with similar symptoms. Cows are not treated either way until there has been a determination of
Gram-positive growth or Gram-negative / no growth on culture media.
The clear advantage to on-farm culturing is the timeliness of obtaining results. When there is
recovery of a Gram-negative organism, growth on the agar occurs in as little as 6-8 hours. Most
of the common Gram-positive organisms will show growth by 24 to 48 hours. On farm culturing
allows for monitoring of good sampling technique and shortens the time required to recover and
identify organisms. It also demonstrates clearly when poor sampling technique has been used,
resulting in recovery of mixed organisms in the same sample. It is uncommon for mixed
infections in the same quarter to occur, therefore, culture of more than one organism from a
quarter is an indication of poor sampling technique or contamination of the sample. Timeliness
in recovery of organisms offers a clear advantage to the dairy because treatment plans can be
implemented as soon as the bacteria are identified. Outsourcing culturing to a lab can result in
costly delays in initiating a treatment plan.
Proceedings of the 4th Annual Arizona Dairy Production Conference Ô October 11, 2005 Ô Tempe, AZ - 18
On-farm culturing does, however, require some specialized equipment. A reasonable supply of
fresh culture plates needs to be on hand, either bi-plates with just two media on them, or plates
containing three or four selective media, designed to more specifically differentiate the Grampositive infectious organisms. In my experience, these plates are best obtained from a
commercial source, and only in quantities that allow for timely use. Usually it is best to stock no
more than a 3-4 week supply of culture plates, as they are prone to either getting contaminated or
drying out in refrigerated storage. Tri and Quad agar plates may be obtained from BioVet USA
Inc., 3055 Old Hwy 8, Suite 100, St. Anthony, MN 55418-2590 (phone: 877-824-6838). Biplates are available from Physicians Lab Supply, P.O. Box 80853, Rochester, MI 48308 (phone:
800-445-6507). Sterile collection tubes, a .01 ml inoculating loop, a Bunsen burner or small
propane torch, and an incubator are the other materials required for on-farm culturing. These
supplies may be obtained from NASCO, or from a scientific supply house, such as Fisher
Scientific (www.Fisherscientific.com). Some means of systematically recording and retrieving
culture results is necessary. This can be as sophisticated as using a computer or other electronic
device, or as simple as the use of a handwritten chart. There are other types of selective media
now available such as Petrifilm™ from 3M Microbiology (St. Paul, MN), but this paper only
deals with agar plate media. Papers on other media are available in the Proceedings of the
National Mastitis Council. (2)
Discussion
There are three components to a successful on farm culturing plan. First, and by far the most
important, is a well trained person with an interest in doing on farm microbiology. Second, a
mechanism for recording culture results and treatment outcomes is necessary. The third key
element is a timely review of the results, which leads to an action plan for treatment and
prevention.
Training of appropriate persons can be accomplished many ways, but in this authors’ experience,
I have assumed the role of microbiology instructor on dairies that want to implement on farm
culturing. The most important key to successful on farm culturing is the commitment of the
person(s) who will see to it that samples are plated properly and observed on a timely basis. It is
in this area where both my biggest failures and successes have occurred. Without someone who
will plate samples, read and interpret results, and record these results, the entire process of on
farm culturing will be an exercise in futility. Human nature being what it is, there is a tendency
toward complacency after an initial period of good compliance. Our clinic has experienced
several failures where, for many reasons, the program of culturing that started out so well, soon
fell into disuse and eventual cessation. My best estimate for this failure centers on the disconnect
between the enthusiasm of the veterinarian for culturing, countered by the mindset of the dairy
personnel that there was already a good enough milk quality program in place, and that there was
no pressing need for an improved decision making process for treatment of clinical mastitis
cases. When this is the case, no amount of external encouragement will facilitate continuation of
the program. That being said, when there is a belief on the farm among management and the
employees that milk quality can be continually improved, especially through better informed
treatment protocols, then culturing can and will contribute to more satisfactory outcomes. In
other words, mastitis on a dairy is not a problem until it IS a PROBLEM!
Ongoing experience with a few successful culturing programs led to several insights and
conclusions. First, a trained and committed person must be in charge of culturing. They must
Proceedings of the 4th Annual Arizona Dairy Production Conference Ô October 11, 2005 Ô Tempe, AZ - 19
have a designated area to perform culturing and the availability of materials and equipment
necessary to successfully carry out this endeavor. Second, the results of culturing and treatment
outcomes must be recorded in order to devise protocols that improve outcomes of cases.
Treatment protocols based on valid culture results should be tailored to the organisms recovered.
Identification of pathogens allowed the dairy to develop management strategies aimed at
reducing exposure to mastitis causing bacteria. When employees and management teamed
together to discuss recurrent infections and strategy planning, positive changes in milking
practices and facility management aimed at reducing clinical infection rates resulted. Because
everyone involved understood the nature of the problem, it was easier for everyone to understand
what and why something was being done to correct the problem. Most employees would much
prefer to deal exclusively with healthy and normal milking cows, without large numbers of
animals in the “pot” or treated group. In successful culturing programs, herd managers observed
that their use of intramammary infusion tubes had been reduced by about half, because they no
longer treated no-growth or Gram-negative infections. Substantial savings resulted from the use
of fewer tubes. Less milk was discarded, due to fewer antibiotic holds on treated quarters.
Additionally, untreated cows did not pose a violative residue threat to the farm.
In a recent case study of a 1000 milk cow 3x herd on BST, housed on sawdust covered mattress
freestalls, on farm culturing has been part of a plan to successfully trouble shoot their clinical
mastitis/SCC problem.
In this herd, SCC had never been much of a concern until, over a gradual period of time, the herd
SCC climbed from an average of 150-200 thousand to routinely around 350 thousand. There was
a significant increase in the number of clinical mastitis cases. Consequently, the herd
management became interested in a strategy to bring this problem under better control. Milker
training sessions resulted in better compliance with pre-milking hygiene and udder preparation,
but the SCC and clinical incidence of mastitis did not improve over a 6 month period. At that
point, the willingness of one co-herdsperson to do culturing resulted in implementation of an on
farm culturing program for clinical cases. Over time, this herdsperson’s proficiency with
culturing and interpretation of samples improved dramatically, along with her ability to decide
on which therapeutic protocol would have the best outcome based on the organism recovered/not
recovered. In addition, efforts to reduce environmental exposure to mastitis pathogens received a
much higher priority, since the majority of recovered organisms were environmental Gramnegatives. Improvements were made in freestall comfort, such as newer, more comfortable
mattress surface materials, better adjusted neck rails, and a switch to kiln-dried sawdust to cover
the mattresses. Pre and post-milking teat spraying was replaced with pre and post-teat dipping. In
the past 6 months, the herd SCC has returned to near its previous more normal levels (Figure 1).
The number of intramammary infusion tubes being used has been cut approximately in half. No
single change can be attributed to this improvement, however, in the aggregate these efforts have
resulted in a far more satisfactory herd SCC level and a greatly increased awareness, on the part
of all of the employees at this dairy, of the many details that help to serve as a focal point in the
effort to ensure overall high quality milk production.
Of note is this herd’s experience with a recently introduced intramammary infusion tube, with a
label claim for treatment of E. coli intramammary infection. Use of this infusion tube has met
with some frustration on the part of this producer because of poor clinical results. The
expectation of a positive response to intramammary infusion therapy for Gram-negative E. coli
Proceedings of the 4th Annual Arizona Dairy Production Conference Ô October 11, 2005 Ô Tempe, AZ - 20
has simply not been met. An explanation of this might be that organisms cultured on the Gramnegative agar plate were not E. coli, for which the product bases its label claim. This herd, as
previously mentioned, uses sawdust on top of the mattresses, and at times, it has not been
possible to obtain kiln-dried sawdust, rather, only ‘green’ sawdust. Gram-negative organisms
have been frequently associated with this type of bedding material. (3) When the clinical results
of intramammary infections showed a poor response to the labeled therapy (1 treatment in an
affected quarter repeated at 24 hours or once daily for 8 days), the efforts at reducing clinical
infections in this herd were redirected at eliminating environmental exposure to Gram-negative
organisms. New kiln-dried sawdust in the stalls replaced the ‘green’ sawdust, and more attention
was paid to better stall maintenance and sanitation. The salient point here is that on farm
culturing alerted them that they were dealing with a Gram-negative organism. Recording and
timely review of their treatment therapy clearly illustrated that intramannary infusions were not
correcting their Gram-negative mastitis problems. Therefore, they looked at other aspects of their
facilities management to eliminate exposure to environmental Gram-negative organisms. Once
these changes were made, the incidence of clinical mastitis was sharply reduced. Personnel on
this dairy recognize that there was not a better “cure” for mastitis, but their efforts in control and
prevention yielded long term benefits in less discarded milk, lowered treatment costs, and
improved milk quality.
In our practice, I have not been able to convince all dairies of the value of on farm milk
culturing. In each instance where failure has occurred, individuals with similar agricultural and
educational backgrounds to our successful on farm culturing dairies, were selected to perform
culturing duties. Initially, there was good compliance with the procedures, but as time
progressed, neither they nor the herd management perceived any tangible benefit to their efforts.
Culturing was time consuming, and their work schedule was already quite full of other duties.
Despite encouragement and enthusiasm from me at each and every herd visit, the program
quickly fell into disuse. No amount of brow beating or cajoling on my behalf was successful at
reinstituting the culturing program. Their incubators lie unplugged and stored on cabinet shelves
gathering dust. In defense of their decision, they already had reasonable milk quality and they
did not feel that their rates of clinical infection could be improved significantly. In other words,
they did not yet have a perceived PROBLEM, and without conviction on their part, the culturing
program became a dead issue. At some point in the future, should they perceive a PROBLEM, or
my communications skills improve, then culturing on their farm may yet become a reality. Hope
springs eternal.
Summary
On farm milk culturing in large dairies is a viable and useful tool, under the right circumstances,
for improving treatment protocols and overall milk quality. The success or failure of these
programs is highly dependent upon the motivations, training and support of the personnel
involved in this activity. The materials necessary are easily obtained, economical, and reasonably
straightforward to use with proper training. Information derived from culturing is valuable for its
timeliness in identification and treatment of organisms, and for its usefulness in the development
of control strategies. Overall success is a function of the commitment and motivation of the
personnel in charge of culturing.
Proceedings of the 4th Annual Arizona Dairy Production Conference Ô October 11, 2005 Ô Tempe, AZ - 21
Figure 1
Proceedings of the 4th Annual Arizona Dairy Production Conference Ô October 11, 2005 Ô Tempe, AZ - 22
References
1.
2.
3.
Hess, J.L., Neuder, L. M., Sears, P.M., Rethinking Clinical Mastitis Therapy In Proc.
42nd Annual Meeting of the National Mastitis Council, 2003: 372-373.
Silva, B., Caraviello, D., Rodrigues, A., Ruegg, P., Use of Petrifilm™ for Mastitis
Diagnosis and Treatment Protocols In Proc. 43rd Annual Meeting of the National
Mastitis Council, 2004: 52-59.
Hogan, J.S., Smith, K.L., Bacteria Counts in Sawdust Bedding. J. Dairy Science 80:
1600-1605.
Proceedings of the 4th Annual Arizona Dairy Production Conference Ô October 11, 2005 Ô Tempe, AZ - 23
HIGH COW REPORT
NOVEMBER 2005
MILK
Arizona Owner
* Dairyland Milk Company
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, Llc.
* Mike Pylman
* Mike Pylman
* Mike Pylman
* Shamrock Farms
* Mike Pylman
* Mike Pylman
* Dairyland Milk Company
Barn#
7682
15071
3857
2215
151
48
R953
8008
341
9221
Age
06-00
05-10
06-03
04-10
06-00
03-03
07-05
03-08
03-00
04-10
Milk
38,500
37,890
36,990
36,820
36,110
35,460
34,520
34,170
34,130
34,020
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, LLC
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Dairyland Milk Company
* Goldman Dairy
* Parker Dairy
19876
18388
3857
15071
15601
19906
18696
7682
6974
7364
05-09
03-04
06-03
05-10
05-04
03-04
03-02
06-00
04-09
04-11
1,349
1,338
1,329
1,312
1,302
1,300
1,293
1,288
1,266
1,261
* Mike Pylman
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, Llc.
* Mike Pylman
* Shamrock Farms
* Mike Pylman
* Stotz Dairy
* Goldman Dairy
* Goldman Dairy
* Dairyland Milk Company
151
15071
3857
48
R953
5973
19917
6597
6790
652
06-00
05-10
06-03
03-03
07-05
05-11
03-03
05-04
05-00
04-08
1,085
1,069
1,056
1,053
994
979
966
965
965
961
New Mexico Owner
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Tallmon Dairy
* Milagro Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Tallmon Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
Barn #
9623
4828
8362
202
4890
501
1500
8914
3847
3907
Age
04-10
05-01
07-07
04-07
05-02
05-04
04-03
05-01
03-07
04-04
Milk
40,590
39,120
36,685
36,640
36,520
36,110
36,050
35,850
35,780
35,606
1877
1963
4594
1202
9838
4439
4622
202
1040
376
07-00
07-00
03-11
06-03
05-08
04-02
03-11
04-07
05-06
-----
1,491
1,396
1,339
1,319
1,307
1,306
1,294
1,293
1,256
1,236
9623
4828
8914
1202
4622
4890
3847
7022
202
3907
04-10
05-01
05-01
06-03
03-11
05-02
03-07
06-01
04-07
04-04
1,151
1,141
1,138
1,109
1,072
1,063
1,062
1,062
1,061
1,048
FAT
* Pareo Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Do-Rene Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
PROTEIN
*all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Tallmon Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
NOVEMBER 2005
OWNERS NAME
* Stotz Dairy West
* Joharra Dairy
* Del Rio Dairy, Inc.
* Stotz Dairy East
* Mike Pylman
* Red River Dairy
* Zimmerman Dairy
Paul Rovey Dairy
* Arizona Dairy Company
* Dairyland Milk Co.
Parker Dairy
* Goldman Dairy
* Withrow Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, Inc.
* Dutch View Dairy
* Shamrock Farm
* Yettem
Lunts Dairy
* RG Dairy, LLC
* DC Dairy, LLC
* Jerry Ethington
Number of Cows
2,154
1,400
1,161
1,066
5,975
5,181
1,204
171
5,699
3,066
4,240
2,172
5,081
1,363
1,671
8,443
2,889
582
1,098
1,070
512
MILK
27,382
25,487
25,126
24,317
24,144
24,580
23,860
23,040
23,430
23,041
22,569
23,084
23,825
22,160
21,702
22,337
18,166
20,635
20,978
20,738
20,110
FAT
980
872
879
856
843
828
847
846
818
819
813
794
765
780
782
736
839
768
750
747
722
3.5 FCM
27,726
25,156
25,113
24,390
24,105
24,050
24,047
23,676
23,391
23,239
22,938
22,852
22,703
22,226
22,060
21,589
21,455
21,372
21,228
21,076
20,399
DO
196
109
147
232
172
143
175
152
204
144
175
177
173
169
168
158
106
128
181
146
157
3.5 FCM
26,589
25,791
24,687
24,610
23,801
23,729
23,710
23,677
23,650
23,581
23,431
23,220
23,161
22,165
DO
159
150
135
159
137
139
156
154
143
128
130
131
141
194
NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
NOVEMBER 2005
OWNERS NAME
* Tallmon Dairy
* Pareo Dairy #1
* Providence Dairy
* New Direction Dairy 2
* Pareo Dairy #2
* Do-Rene
* Vaz Dairy
* Milagro
* Macatharn
* Cross Country Dairy
* Goff Dairy 2
* Goff Dairy 1
* SAS Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
Number of Cows
471
1,485
2,764
2,053
3,428
2,347
1,706
3,389
1,019
2,312
4,280
4,249
1,860
42
MILK
26,503
25,520
25,254
23,837
23,430
24,012
23,107
23,405
23,530
23,520
23,098
22,912
23,488
21,183
FAT
933
910
849
882
843
823
846
836
831
827
829
821
802
802
* 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 NOVEMBER 2005
ARIZONA
1. Number of Herds
NEW MEXICO
44
24
2. Total Cows in Herd
77,193
43,724
3. Average Herd Size
1,754
1,822
86
87
204
194
6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day
58
61.5
7. Average Percent Fat – All Cows
3.4
3.6
66,851
38,248
67.2
70.7
83
72
11. Average Days Open
165
143
12. Average Calving Interval
14.1
13.9
84
80
14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium
9
14
15. Percent Somatic Cell – High
7
6
16. Average Previous Days Dry
61
65
17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd
34
31
4. Percent in Milk
5. Average Days in Milk
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
22,011
22,912
Percent butterfat
3.51
3.51
Percent protein
2.91
3.05
Pounds butterfat
773
808
Pounds protein
637
700
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: ljr22@ag.arizona.edu
UPCOMING EVENTS:
High Plains Dairy Conference
Albuquerque, New Mexico
March 16 & 17, 2006