Internal Herd Growth and Heifer Programs:
Keep Them Alive and Get Them
Pregnant on Time
Mike Van Amburgh, Jerry Bertoldo, John
Conway, Tom Overton, Bill Stone and a large cast
of other characters….
Department of Animal Science
Cornell University
A 24 Month Age at First Calving “Heiferhood” - Mature Weight 1400 Lbs.
First 6 Hours
Weaning
Breeding Window
Puberty
Growing
2
Gestation
12
15
24
A 24 Month Age at First Calving “Heiferhood” - Mature Weight 1400 Lbs.
First 6 Hours
Weaning
Breeding Window
Puberty
Growing
90
Lbs.
Gestation
2
12
180
Lbs.
56 days
(double)
630
to
700
Lbs.
45 – 50%
Mature
Weight
15
770
Lbs.
55%
Mature
Weight
24
1190
Lbs.
Post
Fresh
85%
Mature
Weight
A 24 Month Age at First Calving “Heiferhood” - Mature Weight 1400 Lbs.
First 6 Hours
Weaning
0.65
0.66
0.50
$1.81
90
Lbs.
Costs per
← Pound →
Of Gain
2
180
Lbs.
56 days
(double)
Breeding Window
Puberty
Growing
Feed - 0.42
Labor - 0.15
Other - 0.24
$0.81
12
630
to
700
Lbs.
45 – 50%
Mature
Weight
0.50
0.17
0.37
$1.04
15
770
Lbs.
55%
Mature
Weight
Gestation
Feed - 0.78
Labor - 0.18
Other - 0.48
$1.46
24
1190
Lbs.
Post
Fresh
85%
Mature
Weight
A 24 Month Age at First Calving “Heiferhood” - Mature Weight 1400 Lbs.
First 6 Hours
Weaning
0.50
0.17
0.37
$1.04
Gestation
Feed - 0.78
Labor - 0.18
Other - 0.48
$1.46
14% ← % of Total Cost → 29%
11%
46%
8% ← % of Total Gain → 38%
12%
35%
0.65
0.66
0.50
$1.81
90
Lbs.
Breeding Window
Puberty
Costs per
← Pound →
Of Gain
2
180
Lbs.
56 days
(double)
Growing
Feed - 0.42
Labor - 0.15
Other - 0.24
$0.81
12
630
to
700
Lbs.
45 – 50%
Mature
Weight
15
770
Lbs.
55%
Mature
Weight
24
1190
Lbs.
Post
Fresh
85%
Mature
Weight
A 24 Month Age at First Calving “Heiferhood” - Mature Weight 1400 Lbs.
First 6 Hours
Weaning
Breeding Window
Puberty
Growing
2
Gestation
12
15
A Replacement Heifer Ready and able to Milk her Heart out Needs:
Clean place to start life
Passive Immunity
Limited exposure to pathogens throughout
Nutrition keyed to ADG/Environment interaction
The costs involved in getting her there are depends upon:
Interaction of Labor and Environment (Labor Efficiency)
Interaction of Nutrition and Environment (Feed Efficiency)
Relative costs of inputs, fixed costs, capital
24
Characteristics of a Sound
Calf Program
Calf program growth goal:
Double birth weight by 56 days (~ 180 lb)
Why do this?
Makes it easier to hit breeding weight at
an earlier age – reduce AFC – increase
potential for IHG, reduce costs.
Starts with the following objectives:
1) To equip the calf with adequate antibodies,
primarily in the form of colostrum, to fight
infections
2) To minimize the calf’s exposure to infectious
organisms
Think the 3 Q’s of Colostrum Management:
Quality Quantity Quickness
Management for Great Colostrum
• Good dry cow vaccination program
– Work with your veterinarian
• Remove quickly after birth
– First milk only; hopefully within 4 to 6
hrs. of parturition
• Check for specific gravity or Ig content
• Clean udder and feeding equipment
– Minimize pathogenic bacteria
Colostrum is Richer in Nutrients
Quality
Than Whole Milk
Colostrum (Milking Postpartum)
Total Solids %
Fat %
Solids - not - fat %
Total Protein %
Ig %
Casein %
Lactose
Ash
Vit. A (ug/100ml)
Vit. D (ng/g fat)
Vit. E (ug/g fat)
1
23.9
6.7
16.7
14
6
4.8
2.7
1.5
295
30
84
2
17.9
5.4
12.2
8.4
4.2
4.3
3.9
N/A
190
N/A
76
3
14.1
3.9
9.8
5.1
2.4
3.8
4.4
N/A
113
N/A
76
*Adapted from "The Development, Nutrition, and Management of the Young Calf"
C.L. Davis and J.K. Drackey Iowa State University Press
Milk
12.5
3.6
8.6
3.2
0.09
2.5
4.9
0.8
34
15
15
Quality
Quantity
Quickness
Passive Transfer Target for Newborn
Calf Health
• Want to target 10 mg/ml in calf serum IgG
following colostrum ingestion
• Calves with levels less than 10 mg/ml have
“Failure of Passive Transfer” (FPT)
Quality
Quantity
Quickness
Failure of Passive Transfer
Increases Calf Death Losses
IgG > 10 mg/ml
102
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
IgG < 10 mg/ml
4 x increase in
death rate
0
7
14
21 28 35
Age (days)
42
49
56
National Dairy Heifer Evaluation Project, NAHMS, 2002
Failure of Passive Transfer Reduces
Long Term Performance
•Dairy calves:
–Decreased average daily gain to 180 days
(J.
Dairy Sci., 1988, 71:1283)
–Decreased milk and fat production at first
lactation (J.Dairy Sci., 1989, 72:552)
–Delayed time to first calving (Can Vet J., 1986,
50:314)
•Beef Calves:
–Higher pre-weaning morbidity and mortality
(AABP Proceedings 2002, 35:168)
–Decreased weaning weight at 180 days
Vet. Res. 1995, 56:1149)
(Am. J.
Quality
Distribution of IgG1 in Colostrum
from Cows of a Single Dairy
250
N = 919 calvings
Avg IgG1 = 48+22 mg/ml
200
Avg milk yield 8.5+4.8 L
150
100
50
0
<16
16-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66-75
76-85
86-95
IgG Concentration in Colostrum (mg/ml)
>95
Quality
Milking Number and Immunoglobulin
Mass in Dairy Cows and Heifers
[Ig] (g)
Ig Content of Colostrum
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
heifers
cows
1
2
3
4
Milking Number
Modified from Can. Vet. J. 34:407-412, 1993
Quickness
Age of the Calf at First Colostrum Feeding
16
IgG
Absorption
Declines
Rapidly
After Birth
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
6
12
18
24
Hours
**Only calves fed colostrum before 6 hrs had serum
IgG levels > 10 mg/ml
Modified from: The Compendium 15:335, 1993.
Quantity
Grams IgG absorbed =
volume x concentration
90 lb calf needs 36 grams IgG
Average absorption rate = 35%
Good colostrum = 50g/L
50g/L x 0.35 x 2 L = 35 grams
Fair colostrum = 25g/L
25g/L x 0.35 x 4 L = 35 grams
Fat and Lactose Provide Energy
Calves are born with low energy reserves
• Fat and lactose are important as immediate
sources of energy to maintain body
temperature
Colostrum
1.16 kcal/g
Whole Milk
0.69 kcal/g
From: Davis and Drackley; 1998
Comparison of Calf Performance,
Morbidity and Mortality of
Purchased Holstein Calves
Based Upon Immunoglobulin
Status
Four Week Calf Performance and Health by
Calves (2,016 Calves) in Each Relative
Immunoglobulin Status Group
Serum Ig mg/ml
0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10-14.9 15-24.9
Number of Calves
129
224
323
Percent of Total Calves 6.4
11.1
16.0
4-Week Calf Weight
Gain, Lbs.
21.05c 23.58b 24.12ab
Feed Conversion,
Lbs. feed/Lb. gain
2.70a 2.15b
2.16b
Average Fecal Score
1.38a 1.28b
1.24c
Scour Days
7.31a 5.66b
4.76c
Mortality, %
29c
16b
11a
a,b,c
25+
592
29.4
748
37.1
24.53ab
25.41a
1.96b
1.25bc
5.07bc
8a
1.85b
1.24c
4.86c
8a
(P<.05)
Data from Land O’Lakes Research Farm
Time Calves Remain With Cows
After Birth and Heifer Calf Mortality
Time
(Hours)
2- 6
7-12
13-24
25-48
+48
No.
Herds
13
35
32
24
35
* Clemson University
Average Mortality (%)
(Calves 1 Week-6 Months of Age)
5.2
9.3
10.7
20.5
14.4
Objectives of Calf Management from
After Colostrum to Weaning
• To meet the calf’s nutrient requirements for
maintenance and growth with milk or milk
replacer.
• To stimulate appetite, begin rumen development,
and meet the calf’s nutrient requirements for
growth with a high quality calf starter and water.
• To prevent scours which can cause dehydration,
diminish growth rates and
possibly cause death.
Environmental and Stress Effects on
Maintenance Requirements
The thermoneutral zone for young lightweight
calves is in the range of 15 to 28°C (GonzalezJimenez and Blaxter, 1962; Scibilia et al., 1987;
Shrama et al., 1992, 1993; Arieli et al., 1995)
The additional heat increment required to maintain
core body temperature below 15 °C (59 °F) is
Approximately 0.022 Mcal/kg0.75/°C, especially
for calves < 21 d.
For calves > 21 days of age the LCT is ~ 5 °C (42 °F).
Amount of Milk or Milk Replacer Needed to Meet
Maintenance Requirements
Temp. °F
Body
weight, lb
110 (MR)
110 (milk)
aLower
59a
32
Lb milk or milk replacer/d
1.00
1.35
0.91
(7.3)
1.20
(9.6)
critical temp. calves less than 21 d age.
5
1.77
1.51
(12.1)
Environmental and Stress Effects on
Maintenance Requirements
Based on Arieli et al. (1995) an additional
adjustment of 0.03 Mcal ME/kg0.75 might
be warranted for wet calves that have been
transported or are adapting to other stressors for
at least 14 days after the initial stress.
Stress can be defined as transportation, significant
alteration in temperature or a social and dietary
change
Equivalent to 0.5 to 0.6 Mcal ME/d for the average
calf (~ 0.12 kg of DM/d (0.25 lb DM/d))
Updated Nutrient Requirements of a 110 lb Calf
Under Thermoneutral Conditions
Rate of
gain,lb/d
MEa,
DMI,
mcal/d kg/d
ADP,
g/d
CP, g/d CP, % DM
0.44
2.35
0.51
87
94
18.5
0.88
2.89
0.67
140
150
22.3
1.32
3.48
0.77
193
207
26.0
1.76
4.13
0.95
235
253
26.8
2.20
4.80
1.15
286
307
27.5
a0.6
efficiency of use of ME and 0.72 for BV of protein
Just what are we “Replacing”!
Holstein Milk (on Average)
As Fed Basis
Dry Matter Basis
% Butterfat
3.6
28.8
% Crude Protein
3.2
25.6
% Lactose
4.9
39.2
% Ash
0.8
6.4
% Total Solids
12.5
100
Calf program growth goal:
Double birth weight by 56 days (~ 180 lb)
Why do this?
Makes it easier to hit breeding weight at
an earlier age – reduce AFC – increase
potential for IHG, reduce costs.
Target Growth Rates – Integrates Management
and Biology
Approach determined by: Mature body weight
(3rd and greater parity cattle – not cull cows)
Concept of physiologic maturity puberty occurs at a given percentage of
mature size (45% to 50%)
Pregnancy should occur by 55% mature
body weight
Herd goals for age at first calving
“My Canadian Wonders”
Background
 Dave Lundgren, Dairy Producer, Prairie Du Sac, Wisconsin
 1984
 Among the first to put full TMR into Tie-stall Barn
 High “PD” American Sire Heifers performed very well
 “Canadian Wonders” (herdmates) lagged behind as heifers
 By 3rd Lactation “Canadian Wonders” equaled/out performed
 Raised together, grouped by age, freshened at 24 months
 “Americans” were 85% of Mature Size – 1200 lbs. post-fresh
 “Canadians” were 75% of Mature Size – 1200 lbs. post-fresh
 “Americans” going to 1400 lbs., “Canadians” to 1600 lbs.
Heifers raised in group pens. What were his options?
Background
Amazingly, yet another, 3 – legged stool!
Rate of Gain Needed
(Nutrient Density/Management Determined)
Tools
Tools

Tools

Tools
Heifer Growth Lines with Breeding, Post-Freshening & Mature Weight Targets
1700
1700
1600
1600
1045 (1900)
990 (1800)
935 (1700)
880 (1600)
825 (1500)
770 (1400)
715 (1300)
660 (1200)
605 (1100)
550 (1000)
495 (900)
1500
1400
1300
1200
Lbs. Bodyweight
1100
1500
Post-Fresh
Weight
Mature
Weight
1615 -------- 1900
1530 -------- 1800
1445 -------- 1700
1400
1360 -------- 1600
1300
1000
1275 -------- 1500
1200
1190 -------- 1400
1100
1105 -------- 1300
1000
1020 -------- 1200
900
900
800
800
700
700
600
600
500
500
935 -------- 1100
850 -------- 1000
765 -------- 900
400
400
15 Month
Breeding
Target
Weight
300
200
300
200
100
100
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Age in Months
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
Month
Freshening
Within Herd Analysis of AFC on
Productive Days, Milk Yield, Longevity
Figure 1. Average number of productive days, difference from
herd mean AFC (25.6 month)
Productive days
difference from mean AFC
100
50
23.3
24.3
0
3
4
5
6
7
-50
8
25.6
27.2
30.3
-100
-150
Opportunity Group, years
Within Herd Analysis of AFC on
Productive Days, Milk Yield, Longevity
Figure 2. Average total milk production, lbs, difference from
herd mean AFC (25.6 month)
Total milk production, lbs,
difference from mean AFC
4000
3000
2000
1000
23.3
0
-1000
24.3
3
4
5
6
7
8
25.6
27.2
-2000
-3000
30.3
-4000
-5000
-6000
-7000
Opportunity Group, years
Within Herd Analysis of AFC on
Productive Days, Milk Yield, Longevity
Figure 3. Average stayability, % survival, difference from herd
mean AFC (25.6 month)
Stayability, % survival,
difference from mean AFC
8
6
4
23.3
24.3
2
25.6
27.2
0
-2
3
4
5
6
7
-4
-6
Opportunity Group, years
8
30.3
Conclusions
1) Reducing AFC to ~22 months is likely to result in a
~5% reduction in first lactation milk yield; later
lactations are not affected.
2) Cow health and stayability is not affected by reduced
AFC if she calves in at adequate BW, stature.

Conceive @ 55% mature BW, 47” wither height;

Post calving BW = 82% of MBW, 54” wither height
3) Lifetime productive days and milk is greater for cows
with lower AFC.
4) Economic analysis indicates that lower AFC is slightly
more advantageous.
5) Lower AFC provides an increased availability of
heifers for replacements.
Reviewing the Reproduction
Program at the Case Farm
Bill Stone
Pro-Dairy
Cornell University
Getting ‘em pregnant
Catch them in heat
Synchronized breeding
Heat Detection Rate
Service Rate
~ 47% average
Mission accomplished
Conception Rate
~33% average
End result
Pregnancy rate
~ 15% average
$25/point/cow
5 point change =
$12,500 per 100 cows
Heifer Repro Results
Black Brook
AFC
27
24 months average AFC
26
25
24
23
50
130
190
DIM
270
320
Black Brook
Cow
Repro
Results
Goal:
> 20% PR
Pregnancy Rate
36% CR
Heat Detection Rate
Black Brook
DIM at first breeding
DIM
Black Brook
Heifer Repro Results
31
29
(4)
27
25
23
26 months average AFC
Durfee Dairy
Durfee Dairy
Cow
Repro
Results
Goal:
> 20% PR
Pregnancy Rate
31% CR
Heat Detection Rate
Durfee Dairy
DIM at first breeding
DIM
Durfee Dairy
Heifer Repro Results
Hanehan Dairy
Aborts or bred xx times
32
30
28
26
24
22
24 months average AFC
Hanehan Dairy
Cow
Repro
Results
Goal:
> 20% PR
Pregnancy Rate
37% CR
Heat Detection Rate
Hanehan Dairy
DIM at first breeding
DIM
Hanehan Dairy
Hanehan Dairy
Four approaches to reproductive programs
1. “Industry norm”
2. Aggressive heat detection,
no synchronization
3. Total synchronization
4. Combined synchronization and HD
NEDB, 6-04
- C:COWFILE1.DAT ----------- ------------Date
========
12/29/03
1/19/04
2/09/04
3/01/04
3/22/04
4/12/04
5/03/04
5/24/04
6/14/04
7/05/04
7/26/04
8/16/04
9/06/04
9/27/04
10/18/04
11/08/04
11/29/04
12/20/04
-------Total
Br Elig
=======
124
141
162
163
183
204
197
197
194
189
213
226
240
231
251
244
229
169
------3159
Bred
====
78
68
92
106
112
139
123
113
118
109
142
156
156
153
171
187
151
142
---2023
Pct
===
63
48
57
65
61
68
62
57
61
58
67
69
65
66
68
77
66
84
--64
Pg Elig
=======
124
141
162
162
183
204
197
197
193
189
213
225
237
231
243
241
0
0
------3142
1/10/05
Preg
====
36
21
30
37
36
57
49
34
36
33
42
51
53
47
61
60
0
0
---683
-
Pct Aborts
=== ======
29
4
15
3
19
2
23
6
20
4
28
7
25
2
17
3
19
9
17
3
20
4
23
4
22
6
20
4
25
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
--- -----22
61
Primarily from HD
- C:COWFILE1.DAT ----------- -------------
1/10/05
-
Summarized By Breeding Code from 12/ 7/03 through 12/ 6/04
Breeding Code
%Conc #Preg #Open Other Abort Total %Tot SPC
==================== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ==== ====
gnrh
31
47
103
6
3
156
6 3.2
kamar
31
22
47
12
0
81
3 3.1
Lutalyse&Stand
40
17
25
1
2
43
2 2.5
mucus
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
OvSynchProgram
32
139
285
3
20
427
17 3.1
standing
31
539 1171
48
51 1758
71 3.2
vet heat
100
2
0
0
0
2
0 1.0
TOTALS
32
770 1636
71
76 2477 100 3.1
5 non-AI breedings were omitted
Figure 2. Days in milk at first, second, and third breeding in a dairy
using only synchronized breeding
250
Bred1
230
Bred2
DIM at each breeding
210
Bred3
190
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
30
10
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
DIM
Bred1, 2, and 3 correspond with DIM at first, second, and third breedings.
Figure 3. Days in milk by DIM at first breeding in a dairy using both heat detection
and synchronization.
Complete
Ovsynch
PG
PG
Note: each square represents one cow. Cows are on the Presynch program (Ovsynch
preceded by two injections of prostaglandin (PG)). Cows observed in heat after the
second PG injection are bred; others are bred at the conclusion of Ovsynch.
Table 2. Estimated results and economics of various reproductive programs.
Industry
Aggressive
Total
1
Norm
Heat Detection
Synchronization
Completed with
Scheduled HD for
No HD
Heat detection (HD)
other chores,
at least 1 hr at
Only synchronized
Method
minimal specified
12 h intervals
breedings
HD time
2
Expected HD%
35-50%
45-90%
0
Average HD%
40
55
Expected CR%
26-40%
26-40%
26-40%
Average CR%
32
33
33
Expected PR%
12-15%
15-25%
16-23%
Average PR%
13
18
20
Per 100 cows
Annual hormonal expenses4
$2850
Injecting/Managing
1 h/wk
5
Synch. Program
$500/year
HD time/week, hours
3
14
HD $/year
$1560
$7300
Total Investment/year
$1560
$7300
$3350
6
Return from increased PR
$11000
$15400
Net annual return over
$3700
$12050
“Industry Norm”
Combined HD &
Synchronization
HD completed with
other chores; targete
HD when groups ar
expected to be in he
40-50%
45%3
26-40%
33
18-25%
22
$1700
.8 h/wk
$400/year
5
$2600
$4700
$19800
$15100
(24 h - 28%)
(22%)
14 d
.95
.70
.95
.70
(34%)
.95
.70
.95
.70
.95 = .77
.70 = .17
Repro Calendar for
Synchronization programs
Wk
1
M
T
PGF
Th
F
S
S
M
T
W
Th
F
S
S
M
T
PGF
Th
F
S
S
M
T
W
Th
F
S
S
GnRH
T
W
Th
F
S
S
PGF
T
W
GnRH
AI
F
S
S
2
3
Presynch
4
5
6
Ovsynch
Why Synchronization Programs Might Fail
Management – Improving compliance
Reduce the number of times cows are handled
Shots on vet check and breeding day?
Have plenty of help (3 minimum plus veterinarian)
Insemination time
• Have the cows easily identified
• Be there to assist the inseminator
• Does your inseminator have good success with a
flaccid uterus? (most Ovsynch cows don’t come
into heat)
• Tired arm? Tried patience? Too many straws?
•Synchronization program success depends
on the details
Must have an easy implementation plan
•Simplify your herd’s approach
Coordinate cow handling activities
14 days vs 12 days
GnRH on insemination day
Where Do We Start
Modeling Improvements to
Internal Herd Growth
&
Predicting Gains
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Tools
Spreadsheet developed by Dr. Normand
St.Pierre, Professor of Animal Science,
Ohio State University
Predict internal herd growth for a closed
herd based on selected management
factors.
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Base Situation - Data
Representative Dairy Herd
Average culling rate(%/year)
Average calving interval(months)
Average age at first calving(months)
Dead on arrival(% of births)
Heifer cull and death rate(%/year)
Initial number of mature cows
Initial number of heifers, 0-12 months
Initial number of heifers, 12+months
36%
13.9
26
8%
10%
100
37
37
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
OSU - Closed Herd Animal Number Projection
Version 1.1
April, 1998
Inputs
Average Culling Rate (%/Year)
36.0
Average Calving Interval (months)
13.9
Average Age at First Calving (months)
26.0
Dead on Arrival (% of births)
8.0
Heifer Cull & Death Rate (%/year)
10.0
Initial Number of Mature Cows (#)
100
Initial Number of Heifers, 0-12 months (#)
37
Initial Number of Heifers, 12+ months (#)
37
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Base Situation - IHG
Assuming factors stay the same for 10 years.
Herd size will shrink at -2.67% a year.
After ten years, projected herd size will be 76
cows.
With these parameters, this herd is not able to
maintain herd size or grow and will need to buy
additional animals to maintain herd size.
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Output
OSU - Closed Herd Animal Number Projection
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University
221-A Animal Science Building, 2029 Fyffe Rd, Columbus, OH-43210
0
1
2
3
4
92.5
88.6
87.2
85.5
28.5
30.8
29.4
33.1
30.5
35.0
29.6
34.7
37
38.5
37.0
36.6
37.0
41.7
41.8
Heifers, 12+ Months
37
38.1
as % of Cows
Culled Cows
Dead Female Calves
Culled Heifers, 0-12 M
Culled Heifers, 12+ M
37.0
Cows
100
First Lactation
% First Lactation
Heifers, 0-12 Months
as % of Cows
Heifers, as % of Cows
74.0
YEAR
5
6
7
8
9
10
83.9
82.3
80.8
79.2
77.7
76.3
29.2
34.8
28.6
34.8
28.1
34.8
27.6
34.8
27.0
34.8
26.5
34.8
35.8
35.1
34.5
33.8
33.2
32.6
32.0
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
39.6
38.4
37.8
37.1
36.4
35.7
35.0
34.4
33.7
41.1
36.0
3.4
3.7
3.7
44.7
33.3
3.2
3.9
3.8
44.0
31.9
3.2
3.7
4.0
44.3
31.4
3.1
3.7
3.8
44.2
30.8
3.1
3.6
3.8
44.2
30.2
3.0
3.5
3.7
44.2
29.6
2.9
3.4
3.6
44.2
29.1
2.9
3.4
3.6
44.2
28.5
2.8
3.3
3.5
44.2
28.0
2.8
3.3
3.4
82.8
86.5
85.9
86.2
86.1
86.1
86.1
86.1
86.1
86.1
Average
Yearly
Growth
(%)
-2.67
-1.45
-0.92
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Lower Culling Rate
Lower culling rate from 36% to 28%.
Ways this may be done:
Better control of mastitis.
Higher pregnancy rate.
Better cow comfort.
Better transition cow management.
All other factors remain the same.
Maintain factors for 10 years.
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Lower Culling Rate
Herd growth = 3.23% a year.
Projected herd size after 10 years = 137
cows.
An improvement of 62 cows over the base
year.
Base year was -2.67%
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Lower Calving Interval
Lower calving interval to 12.5 months.
Ways this may be done:
Lower voluntary wait period.
Better heat detection.
Hormone breeding programs.
Etc.
All other factors remain the same
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Lower Calving Interval
Herd growth = -1.30% a year.
Projected herd size after 10 years = 88
cows.
An improvement of 12 cows over base.
Herd still shrinking.
Base year was -2.67%
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Lower Calving Age
Lower calving age to 22 months.
Ways this be done:
Early breeding.
Ration balancing.
Grouping of heifers.
Targeted growth.
All other factors remain the same.
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Lower Calving Age
Herd growth = -1.12.% a year
Projected herd size after 10 years = 89
cows.
An improvement of 13 cows over base.
Herd still shrinking.
Base year was -2.67%
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Lower DOA
Lower dead on arrival to 4%.
Ways this could be done:
More frequent fresh pen checks.
SOP’s for calf deliveries.
Calving ease sire’s on first calf heifers.
All other factors remain the same
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Lower DOA
Herd growth = -1.80% a year.
Projected herd size after 10 years = 83
cows.
An improvement of 7 cows over base.
Still not able to maintain herd size.
Base year was -2.67%
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Lower Heifer Culling Rate
Lower heifer culling/death rate to 5%.
Ways this could be done:
Less death loss in calves.
Vet program for non-breeders.
Minimizing areas for cattle injuries.
All other factors remain the same
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Lower Heifer Culling Rate
Herd growth = 0.19% a year
Projected herd size after 10 years = 102
cows.
An improvement of 26 cows over base.
Generating herd growth over time.
Base year was -2.67%
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Summary of Individual
Changes
Factor
% Growth
Base
-2.67
Culling Rate
3.23
Calving Interval
-1.30
Calving Age
-1.12
DOA
-1.80
Heifer Cull/Death Rate 0.19
Herd Size
76
137
88
89
83
102
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Power of Combined Changes
Making improvements across all areas.
Multiplying the impact that any one individual
area has.
Meet all five goals for performance:
Cull rate = 28%
Calving interval = 12.5 months
Calving age = 22 months
DOA = 4%
Heifer cull rate = 5%
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Power of Combined Changes
Herd growth = 10.53% a year
Projected herd size after 10 years = 272
cows.
An Improvement of 196 cows over base.
Generating significant herd growth over
time.
Base year was -2.67%
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Capturing Value
Don’t have to grow.
Have the ability to capture the value in
different ways.
IHG is important because it gives you
options to capture the value.
How would you capture the value if you
could grow like this?
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Power of Combined Changes
Can only make four of the five changes,
cull rate stays at 36%.
Still generate 4.33% growth.
Projected herd size after 10 years = 153
cows.
Still generating growth.
Base year was -2.67%
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Where to Start
What
What
What
What
What
is the limiting factor within your business?
can you have the fastest impact on?
is the easiest change to make?
change has the greatest potential to work.
utilizes the least amount of:
Money?
Management Time?
Labor?
What will have the biggest impact?
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Playing With The Numbers
What scenarios do you want to look at?
How fast can herds grow?
PROGRAM
Agricultural Finance and Management at Cornell
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Thank you for participating in the 2005 “Internal Growth” workshop series
We sincerely hope something was gained for your time and attention. Please help
us by filling out this short evaluation. Your feedback helps us meet our goals for
continuous improvement!
Were you surprised by your herd’s internal growth?  Yes
 No
Which of these segments helped you better understand where some potential new profit
streams might be found in your business? (check all that apply)
 “Capturing the Economic Value”
 Use of the Case Farm to put a real situation to the various topics
 “Assessing, Improving and Minimizing “Broken” Cows”
 “Many Cows “Break” in the Transition – Possible “Fixes”
 “Optimizing Replacement Enterprise for Profitable Internal Growth”
 “Farm-Specific, Goal-Driven Reproductive Management”
 “Where do we start? Modeling Improvements to IG and Predictable Gains”
What was the most important thing you learned today?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
What suggestions for improving this workshop would you have?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
What change or changes do you intend to implement as a result of today’s workshop?
_________________________________________________________________