JDS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Interpretive Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caraviello, D. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Rawson, C. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Caraviello, D. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Rawson, C. L.
J. Dairy Sci. 89:4723-4735
© American Dairy Science Association, 2006.

Survey of Management Practices on Reproductive Performance of Dairy Cattle on Large US Commercial Farms

D. Z. Caraviello*, K. A. Weigel*,1, P. M. Fricke*, M. C. Wiltbank*, M. J. Florent*, N. B. Cook{dagger}, K. V. Nordlund{dagger}, N. R. Zwald{ddagger} and C. L. Rawson{ddagger}

* Department of Dairy Science, and
{dagger} School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706
{ddagger} Alta Genetics, Inc., Watertown, WI 53094

1 Corresponding author: kweigel{at}wisc.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
A survey regarding general management, sire selection, reproductive management, inseminator training and technique, heat abatement, body condition scoring, facility design and grouping, nutrition, employee training and management, and animal health and bio-security was carried out from March to September of 2004 in 153 herds in the Alta Genetics (Watertown, WI) Advantage Progeny Testing Program. A total of 103 herds (67.3%) completed the survey. Herd size was 613 ± 46 cows, with herds located in Wisconsin (26), California (12), New York (11), Minnesota (10), Michigan (7), Washington (6), Pennsylvania (6), Iowa (5), Idaho (5), Texas (4), Ohio (4), and other states (7). These farms sold 34.5 ± 0.3 kg of milk/d per cow, with an annual culling rate of 34 ± 1% and a calving interval of 13.8 ± 0.1 mo. Cows were observed for estrus 2.8 ± 0.3 times/d, for a duration of 27 ± 4 min, but 78% of the respondents admitted that detection of estrus was not the employee’s sole responsibility at that time. Managers tried to achieve pregnancy until 8.8 ± 0.9 failed inseminations, 300 ± 26 d postpartum, or milk yield <17.7 ± 0.5 kg/d. Nonpregnant cows were culled at 326 ± 36 d postpartum or milk yield <16.4 ± 0.3 kg/ d. Mean durations of the voluntary waiting period were 52 ± 1.3 and 53 ± 1.4 d for primiparous and multiparous cows, respectively. Hormonal synchronization or timed artificial insemination programs were used in 87% of the herds, with 86% synchronizing first services, 77% resynchronizing repeat services, and 59% treating cystic, anestrous, or anovular cows. Finding good employees was identified as the greatest labor challenge, followed by training and supervising employees. Mastitis and hairy heel warts were noted as the greatest animal health concerns, followed by lameness, abortions, and death losses, whereas the greatest reproductive challenges were artificial insemination service rate, conception rate, twinning, and retained placenta or metritis. Results of this study can provide a useful benchmark or reference with regard to commonly used management practices on large commercial US dairy farms at the present time.

Key Words: reproduction • fertility • herd management • survey


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
The reproductive performance of high-producing dairy cows on modern commercial farms is influenced by a multitude of factors (Westwood et al., 2002; Caraviello et al., 2006). Numerous variables related to energy balance (Veerkamp et al., 2000), BCS (Moreira et al., 2000), milk yield (Veerkamp et al., 2000), disease (Windig et al., 2005), hormonal synchronization (Pursley et al., 1995), and reproductive management (Santos et al., 2004; Moore and Thatcher, 2006) have been associated with differences in reproductive performance in previous studies.

In a series of papers, Bewley et al. (2001a,b,c) and Weigel et al. (2003) presented results of a detailed management survey involving 302 Wisconsin farms that expanded their milking herds significantly between 1994 and 1998. All aspects of these operations, including biosecurity, employee management, housing, bedding, feed delivery, manure removal, stocking density, animal restraint, heat abatement, and fresh cow management, were evaluated as predictors of animal health, milk production, reproductive efficiency, culling rate, labor efficiency, and overall owner satisfaction. Although these studies provided a wealth of information, the survey was limited to herds in Wisconsin, and details regarding specific aspects of reproductive management were not considered.

Therefore, the objective of the present study was to examine current management practices on large commercial dairy farms, paying particular attention to factors that could influence reproductive performance, via an extensive survey of managers of herds that participated in the Alta Genetics (Watertown, WI) Advantage Progeny Testing Program.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
A comprehensive survey was developed that included questions regarding 10 aspects of each dairy operation, including general management issues, sire selection, reproductive management, inseminator training and techniques, heat abatement devices, body condition scoring, facility design and pen movement, nutrition, employee training and management, and animal health and biosecurity. Between March and September 2004, this survey was delivered to each of 153 large commercial dairy farms that participated in the Alta Genetics Advantage Program, a program for concentrated progeny testing of elite young Holstein sires in large herds, by an Advantage Program consultant, who assisted the herd manager in completing the survey. These herds were located in Wisconsin (26), California (12), New York (11), Minnesota (10), Michigan (7), Washington (6), Pennsylvania (6), Iowa (5), Idaho (5), Texas (4), Ohio (4), and other states (7). Means and corresponding standard errors were computed for continuous and ordinal variables, whereas frequencies were tabulated for binary and categorical variables.


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
A total of 103 of the 153 herds receiving a survey responded, resulting in a 67.3% response rate. The response rate was relatively high, because most of these herds have a long-standing relationship with Alta Genetics and, more important, because Advantage Program consultants assisted herd managers in completing the survey. Mean herd size of respondents was 613 ± 46 lactating cows.

Table 1Go provides a summary of information regarding labor, herd size, milk production, calving interval, culling, management of nonpregnant cows, and use of Posilac (recombinant bST, rBST) on these farms. Managers anticipated continued expansion, because the mean 5-yr goal for herd size of 942 ± 94 cows (ranging from 150 to 7,000 cows) represented a 54% increase from the current mean of 613 ± 46 cows. Approximately 73% of labor was provided by nonfamily employees, with most of these employees working full-time. Based on a 50-h work week, the average number of cows per full-time equivalent employee in the dairy operation was 84, which was greater than that reported for recently expanded Wisconsin herds surveyed by Bewley et al. (2001c). The most frequent employee benefits were paid vacation time and housing, which were offered on a greater percentage of farms than reported by Bewley et al. (2001b). Roughly one-half of the farms provided health insurance, but few offered profit sharing. Managers identified finding good employees as the greatest labor management challenge, followed by training and supervising employees, whereas employee absences and employee retention were not considered problematic. Respondents to the survey of Bewley et al. (2001b) also identified finding good employees as the top labor management challenge, followed by training employees, although employee retention was considered more problematic than in the present study.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Summary of responses by herd managers (n = 103) to questions related to labor, herd size, milk production, calving interval, culling, management of nonpregnant cows, and use of Posilac (rBST), along with corresponding means ± SE (continuous variables) or counts (binary or categorical variables)
 
Mean daily milk yield, expressed as the amount of milk sold per cow per day, was 34.5 ± 0.3 kg (with SD of 3.0 kg), whereas means for annual culling rate and calving interval were 34 ± 1% (with SD of 7.4%) and 13.8 ± 0.1 mo (with SD of 0.6 mo), respectively. Mean culling rate and calving interval in 1998 in recently expanded Wisconsin herds surveyed by Bewley et al. (2001b) were similar, at 33.2 ± 0.7% and 13.8 ± 0.1 mo, respectively. All of these herds used predominantly AI sires, which was expected given that heavy usage of young sire semen was a key requirement of the Advantage Progeny Testing Program. A total of 44 herds used a clean-up bull, and nonpregnant cows were moved to the clean-up pen after 6.6 ± 0.6 failed inseminations or 232 d ± 9 d postpartum. Interestingly, these managers kept trying to achieve pregnancy until cows reached 8.8 ± 0.9 failed inseminations, 300 ± 26 d postpartum, or when milk yield dropped below 17.7 ± 0.5 kg/d. Culling of nonpregnant cows occurred shortly thereafter, at 326 ± 36 d postpartum, or when milk yield was less than 16.4 ± 0.3 kg/d. By comparison, de Vries and Risco (2005) reported a mean of 415 d until culling of nonpregnant cows in Florida and Georgia, with a corresponding minimum milk yield of nonpregnant cows of 12.3 kg/d. Posilac (rBST) was used in 71 herds, with 41% of cows in these herds receiving Posilac every other week from 97 ± 6 d postpartum through the end of lactation, regardless of pregnancy status. However, usage may have been reduced because of limited availability of Posilac at the time of this survey. Managers indicated that a slightly lower proportion of herds and cows would use Posilac in the future, but that Posilac treatment would begin earlier in lactation than at present.

Table 2Go provides a summary of responses regarding detection of estrus, hormonal synchronization, and use of a voluntary waiting period (VWP) to determine the minimum number of days to first insemination. Most herds used on-farm labor for detection of estrus, and cows were observed 2.8 ± 0.3 times on weekdays and 2.5 ± 0.2 times on weekends, for an average duration of observation of 27 ± 4 min and 25 ± 4 min, respectively. Interestingly, 78 herds admitted that detection of estrus was not the employee’s sole responsibility during this period, so "multitasking" appears to be a widespread and limiting factor with respect to estrus detection efficiency. Among estrus detection aids, tail chalk was most commonly used, with few herds using pedometers or pressure-activated rump-mounted patches. Nearly all herds used a VWP, with a mean duration of 52 ± 1.3 d for primiparous cows and 53 ± 1.4 d for multiparous cows. About one-quarter of herds indicated that the duration of the VWP for an individual cow depended on milk yield, BCS, or other factors. In a recent study, Stevenson and Phatak (2005) noted that delaying first AI resulted in an increase in conception rate. The majority of herds used hormonal synchronization or timed AI programs. A description of the Ovsynch, Presynch + Ovsynch, and HeatSynch protocols (Pursley et al., 1995; Navanukraw et al., 2004; Moore and Thatcher, 2006), as shown in Figure 1Go, was provided to each farm as an appendix to the management survey. The most common strategies for use of synchronization protocols included setting up cows for first postpartum service (77 herds), resynchronizing cows for second and greater services (69 herds), and treatment of cystic, anestrous, or anovular cows (53 herds). The majority of herds indicated use of Ovsynch, with the exception of setting up cows for first service, in which Presynch + Ovsynch was most commonly used. Several studies have reported that presynchronization can improve the pregnancy rate to first postpartum timed AI, relative to Ovsynch alone (El-Zarkouny et al., 2004; Navanukraw et al., 2004).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Summary of responses by herd managers (n = 103) to questions related to detection of estrus, hormonal synchronization, and voluntary waiting period, along with corresponding means ± SE (continuous variables) or counts (binary or categorical variables)
 

Figure 1
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Diagrams of 3 common synchronization protocols for milking cows. ECP = estradiol cypionate.

 
Table 3Go provides a summary of information regarding breeding procedures, pregnancy examinations, and managers’ perceived reproductive challenges. The majority of herds used rectal palpation for pregnancy diagnosis, with a mean interval between examinations of 20.8 ± 1.7 d and a mean time to reexamination of pregnant cows of 118 ± 6 d after insemination. Interestingly, nearly 30% of these herds used ultrasound for conducting pregnancy diagnoses, indicating that ultrasound is beginning to displace rectal palpation as the method of choice for pregnancy diagnosis in some herds. Fricke (2002) noted the importance of early and accurate detection of nonpregnant cows, although recent reports have questioned the efficacy of conducting pregnancy diagnosis using ultrasound earlier than 30 to 40 d after timed AI (Sterry et al., 2006). Among the reproductive challenges identified by herd managers, AI service rate, conception rate, twinning, and retained placenta or metritis were noted most frequently. Detection of estrus and early embryonic loss were of intermediate concern, whereas ovarian cysts and (especially) reproductive record keeping were not considered problematic. As noted in Table 3Go, a total of 68 herds had self-locking manger head gates, whereas the remainder inseminated cows in the free stalls (24 herds) or used a palpation rail (21 herds). Bewley et al. (2001a) found no significant difference between self-locking head gates and palpation rails in terms of labor efficiency, ease of use, or worker safety. Most breeding technicians were trained on farm, and the vast majority used water thawing of semen at approximately 35°C for 35 to 40 s. The technicians surveyed indicated that they typically thawed no more than 3 straws of semen at a time. Dalton et al. (2004) found no association between conception rate and insemination sequence in lactating Holstein cows when up to 4 straws of AI semen were thawed simultaneously.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Summary of responses by herd managers (n = 103) to questions related to breeding procedures, pregnancy diagnosis, and reproductive challenges, along with corresponding means ± SE (continuous variables) or counts (binary or categorical variables).
 
Table 4Go summarizes housing, heat stress, and manure removal strategies on farms. Nearly all herds provided shade throughout the day, and most also shaded parlor walkways and holding pens. Only 15 herds used wind tunnel ventilation, whereas 83 used recirculation fans, and 69 used soakers (sprinklers). These herds are located throughout the United States, so the absence of heat abatement devices generally applies to herds in the northern states, although Fricke et al. (2002) noted that conception rates are reduced during the summer in northern Wisconsin as well. As noted in Table 4Go, fresh bedding is applied every 2.4 ± 0.3 d. However, fewer than half of respondents indicated that maternity pens were cleaned after every calving, and many indicated that ≥4 calvings occur between successive cleanings. This is in contrast to the recommendation of Elbers et al. (1998), who noted the importance of disinfecting the maternity pen after calving with respect to management of clinical mastitis. The vast majority of cows were housed on concrete, which increases the risk of lameness (Cook et al., 2004) and decreases expression of estrus behavior (Vailes and Britt, 1990). A total of 44 herds reported that cows had feet trimmed >3 times per year, whereas 21 herds performed maintenance trimming only once a year or less, suggesting a wide variation in hoof care management on these farms. However, almost all herds used a foot bath to control infectious causes of lameness.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Summary of responses by herd managers (n = 103) to questions related to housing, heat stress, and manure removal, along with corresponding means ± SE (continuous variables) or counts (binary or categorical variables).
 
Table 5Go summarizes data regarding nutrition and BCS. Drive-through feeding was the most common means of feed delivery, presumably because of high producer satisfaction with this practice, as noted in the survey of Bewley et al. (2001a). The mean frequency of feed delivery was 1.8 ± 0.1 times/d, and feed was pushed up an average of 6.8 ± 0.4 times/d. DeVries et al. (2005) noted that increasing the frequency of feed delivery from once to twice daily reduced the amount of feed sorting and improved access to fresh feed for all cows during peak feeding periods. Stone (2004) recommended that feed should be pushed up 8 to 10 times daily to encourage adequate intake and to minimize sorting. The mean targeted feed refusal rate was 3.5 ± 0.2% of feed delivered, whereas the mean amount of bunk space per cow was 52.6 ± 1.5 cm in the main breeding pen and 56.4 ± 2.5 cm in other pens that contained nonpregnant cows. Cook et al. (2004) noted the importance of adequate bunk space with respect to avoidance of metabolic disorders and reported means of 46 and 74 cm/cow in fully stocked 3-row and 2-row free-stall barns, respectively. Diets were reformulated and feeds were tested approximately once per month (28 ± 5 and 24 ± 2-d intervals, respectively), and responsibilities for diet formulation were shared primarily between feed company nutritionists (48 herds) and private nutrition consultants (42 herds). The mean percentage of CP in the nonpregnant cow diet was 17.8 ± 0.1%, on a DM basis, and the mean percentage of RDP (of total CP) was 51.7 ± 2.1%. The mean percentage of CP was in close agreement (17.5%) with Godden et al. (2001) in Ontario herds, although the mean percentage of RDP was 65.5% in the Ontario study. Roughly half of the herds (43 of 87 herds that responded to the question) fed urea, at 53 ± 6 mL/d per cow. Mean percentages of NDF and nonfermentable carbohydrates were 30.8 ± 0.6 and 38.9 ± 0.7%, respectively, which were very similar to the 31.3 and 39.4%, respectively, in the study of Godden et al. (2001). Mean percentages of fat and phosphorous in the diet were 5.0 ± 0.1 and 0.44 ± 0.03%, respectively. Responses regarding evaluation of BCS were somewhat inconsistent, although nearly all herds evaluated heifers, cows recently calving, nonpregnant cows, and nonlactating cows periodically, with pens of nonpregnant cows evaluated at roughly 2-mo intervals. The importance of BCS with respect to postpartum health and fertility is well documented (e.g.,Veerkamp et al., 2000). Furthermore, BCS near the time of timed AI after Presynch + Ovsynch is inversely related to fertility (Moreira et al., 2000).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Summary of responses by herd managers (n = 103) to questions related to nutrition and body condition scoring, along with corresponding means ± SE (continuous variables) or counts (binary or categorical variables)
 
Table 6Go documents the type of housing, group size, and pen movement strategy on farms. Mean entry and exit dates for the pregnant, nonlactating cows ("far-off dry cow pen") were 52.5 ± 1.2 and 20.7 ± 0.7 d prepartum, respectively. Mean group size was 60 ± 4 cows, with free stall (47 herds) and bedded pack (15 herds) as the most common housing types, and with sand (30 herds), mattresses (14 herds), and sawdust (13 herds) as the most common bedding types. Mean entry and exit dates for the "close-up dry cow pen" were 20.3 ± 1.3 and 3.1 ± 0.8 d prepartum, respectively, whereas mean group size was 41 ± 4 cows. Bedded packs (29 herds) were used more commonly, relative to free-stall housing (38 herds), than in the far-off dry cow pens. Sand (26 herds) was again the preferred type of bedding, followed by mattresses and sawdust (12 herds each). Contreras et al. (2004) documented the effects of dry cow grouping strategy on health, body condition, and fertility and recommended a 2-group nutritional strategy for dry cows. Mean entry and exit dates for the "maternity cow pen" were 2.4 ± 1.1 d prepartum and 0.8 ± 0.3 d postpartum, respectively. Average group size was 8.9 ± 1.3 cows, with a bedded pack (55 herds) as the most common type of housing. Weigel et al. (2003) reported a significantly lower risk of involuntary culling in herds with individual maternity pens. In the immediately after calving pen ("postfresh milk withhold pen"), mean group size was 22 ± 3 cows, with mean entry and exit dates of 1.1 ± 0.1 d and 8.4 ± 1.4 d postpartum, respectively. Free-stall housing (44 herds) was most common, with sand (24 herds) and mattresses (21 herds) used for bedding. Weigel et al. (2003) and Bewley et al. (2001a) reported a reduced risk of involuntary culling and increased cow comfort in herds that used sand bedding, rather than mattresses. Last, the after-calving pen ("postfresh saleable milk pen") contained 73 ± 6 cows, with mean entry and exit dates of 10 ± 3 d and 51 ± 7 d postpartum, respectively. Once again, free-stall housing (62 herds) was most common, with sand (33 herds) or mattresses (23 herds) as the preferred bedding choice. Average stall dimensions were largest in the postfresh saleable milk pen, at 215 ± 8 by 113 ± 5 cm, whereas average dimensions were smallest in the close-up dry cow pen, at 207 ± 13 by 110 ± 7 cm, most likely indicating the use of older barns to house dry cows. Tucker et al. (2004) reported higher average lying time in wide (126 or 132 cm) vs. narrow (106 or 112 cm) stalls, although stall width did not influence the number of lying events or milk yield.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 6. Summary of information provided by herd managers (n = 103) relative to grouping strategies and pen movements, along with corresponding means ± SE (continuous variables) or counts (binary or categorical variables)
 
Table 7Go summarizes responses regarding animal health and biosecurity on farms that responded to the management survey. As expected, these herds were in a continuous state of expansion, with annual purchases ranging from 63 ± 16 cows (in 2000) to 109 ± 25 cows (in 2002). Pregnant heifers with increasing mammary gland development ("springing heifers") were purchased most frequently (63 herds), whereas in roughly equal numbers of herds (37 and 35, respectively) fresh primiparous cows and multiparous cows were purchased. Bewley et al. (2001b) noted that in 66% of expanding herds surveyed in Wisconsin, respondents purchased springing heifers, whereas 63% bought multiparous animals, and 21% purchased recently calved primiparous cows. Respondents to this survey indicated that only 37 ± 4% of purchased animals were sire-identified. Lack of sire identification among purchased animals is a common problem in expanding herds, because it causes records from these animals to be discarded from the national genetic evaluation system and precludes the use of computerized mating programs to control inbreeding. Strategies to minimize health problems when purchasing animals varied widely, with visual inspection prior to purchase (66 herds), vaccination of new cattle before (41 herds) or after purchase (51 herds), increased vaccination of the existing herd (24 herds), and quarantine of purchased animals (23 herds) as the most commonly used precautions. Bewley et al. (2001b) reported similar trends in expanding Wisconsin herds, with visual inspection before purchase used in 91% of herds, increasing the vaccination level of the existing herd used in 67%, and vaccination of new cattle before or after purchase used in 49 and 51%, respectively. Disease exposure can occur when heifers are sent to a multiple-source custom raiser, although this occurred in only 15 herds, as 68 raised their own heifers and 12 used a single-source custom calf raiser. In the survey of expanded Wisconsin herds (Weigel et al., 2003), 26% of farms sent heifers to a custom raiser.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 7. Summary of responses by herd managers (n = 103) to questions related to animal health and biosecurity, along with corresponding means ± SE (continuous variables) or counts (binary or categorical variables)
 
Respondents were asked to indicate vaccines or injections that were typically used, as well as to rank the significance of various diseases as problems in their herds (1 = no problem, 2 = slight problem, 3 = major problem). Nearly all herds vaccinated animals for bovine viral diarrhea, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, and leptospirosis (including 38 herds that used Spirovac specifically for Lepto Hardjo-bovis), although the use of Endovac (73 herds) and J-5 or J-Vac (45 herds) was also very common. In addition, 45 herds used supplemental vitamin E and selenium, in addition to that which was available in the diet. Among the health problems listed in Table 7Go, mastitis (2.17 ± 0.05 on a 3-point scale) and hairy heel warts (2.15 ± 0.05) were of greatest concern, followed by lameness (2.01 ± 0.06), abortions (1.94 ± 0.04), cow death losses (1.88 ± 0.06), Johne’s disease (1.76 ± 0.07), and ketosis (1.64 ± 0.05). Although Bewley et al. (2001b) did not consider specific diseases or disorders, mastitis was the most commonly reported animal health problem in recently expanded Wisconsin herds.


   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
The present study provides a comprehensive summary of management practices, particularly those related to reproductive performance, on large, well-managed commercial dairy farms located throughout the United States. As such, it can serve as a useful reference regarding current practices in various aspects of modern dairy operations, including general management issues, sire selection, reproductive management, inseminator training and techniques, heat abatement devices, BCS, facility design and pen movement, nutrition, employee training and management, and animal health and biosecurity.

Several key challenges and opportunities were identified in the present survey. Managers identified finding good employees as their greatest labor management challenge, although training and supervision of employees were also considered as challenging on many farms. Mastitis, hairy heel warts, lameness, abortions, death losses, Johne’s disease, and ketosis were identified as the most critical animal health concerns on these dairy farms. These herds were in a continuous state of expansion, with plans to increase the milking herd by more than 50% in the next 5 yr. However, fewer than 40% of animals purchased over the past 5 yr were sire-identified. As such, it is likely that many purchased animals have poor genetic merit, and effective control of inbreeding in their progeny will be impossible. Additional opportunities may exist with regard to cleanliness of maternity pens, hoof trimming, and stall size. Fewer than half of respondents cleaned maternity pens after every calving, whereas many allowed ≥4 calvings between successive cleanings. In addition, many herds reported that maintenance hoof trimming took place at a frequency of once a year or less. Stall dimensions were adequate in the postcalving saleable milk pens, but other groups of animals, particularly nonlactating pregnant cows, were housed in older facilities with smaller stalls.

With regard to reproductive management, several key challenges were identified, including AI service rate, conception rate, twinning, and retained placenta or metritis. Among aids for detection of estrus, use of tail chalk was common, but few herds used pedometers or pressure-release patches. Nonpregnant cows were observed for estrus 3 times a day, for approximately 30 min per period, but it is of concern that nearly 80% of farms admitted to "multitasking" of other management activities during detection of estrus. These herds kept trying to achieve pregnancy in problem breeders well beyond peak lactation, with repeat inseminations continuing through nearly 9 failed inseminations, 300 d postpartum, or milk yield <18 kg/d, although one might question the value of achieving pregnancy at such a late stage in lactation. Nearly all farms used a VWP, although the average length of the VWP was just over 50 d in both primiparous and multiparous cows, and extending the time until first insemination might enhance the first-service conception rate. As expected, the vast majority of herds used hormonal synchronization or timed AI programs, and as such, the dedication of vast research resources to development and optimization of such programs in recent years appears justified. In summary, this study can provide a useful benchmark or reference with regard to commonly used management practices on large commercial US dairy farms at the present time.


   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
 
The authors would like to thank Alta Genetics for providing financial support and staff time for this project; the efforts of Advantage Program consultants in delivering and assisting with completion of the surveys described herein were particularly important. Cooperation by managers of herds participating at the Alta Genetics Advantage Program is also gratefully acknowledged. The authors gratefully acknowledge support provided to Daniel Caraviello by the Louis and Elsa Thomsen Wisconsin Distinguished Graduate Fellowship.

Received for publication May 30, 2006. Accepted for publication July 21, 2006.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 


Bewley, J., R. W. Palmer, and D. B. Jackson-Smith. 2001a. A comparison of free-stall barns used by modernized Wisconsin dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 84:528–541.[Abstract]

Bewley, J., R. W. Palmer, and D. B. Jackson-Smith. 2001b. An overview of experiences of Wisconsin dairy farmers who modernized their operations. J. Dairy Sci. 84:717–729.[Abstract]

Bewley, J., R. W. Palmer, and D. B. Jackson-Smith. 2001c. Modeling milk production and labor efficiency in modernized Wisconsin dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 84:705–716.[Abstract]

Caraviello, D. Z., K. A. Weigel, M. Craven, D. Gianola, N. B. Cook, K. V. Nordlund, P. M. Fricke, and M. C. Wiltbank. 2006. Analysis of reproductive performance of lactating cows on large dairy farms using machine learning algorithms. J. Dairy Sci. 89:4703–4722.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Contreras, L. L., C. M. Ryan, and T. R. Overton. 2004. Effects of dry cow grouping strategy and prepartum body condition score on performance and health of transition dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87:517–523.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Cook, N. B., K. V. Nordlund, and G. R. Oetzel. 2004. Environmental influences on claw horn lesions associated with laminitis and subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87:E36–E46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Dalton, J. C., A. Ahmadzadeh, B. Shafii, W. J. Price, and J. M. DeJarnette. 2004. Effect of simultaneous thawing of multiple 0.5-mL straws of semen and sequence of insemination on conception rate in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 87:972–975.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

de Vries, A., and C. A. Risco. 2005. Trends and seasonality of reproductive performance in Florida and Georgia dairy herds from 1976 to 2002. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3155–3165.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

DeVries, T. J., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and K. A. Beauchemin. 2005. Frequency of feed delivery affects the behavior of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3553–3562.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Elbers, A. R. W., J. D. Miltenburg, D. De Lange, A. P. P. Crauwels, H. W. Barkema, and Y. H. Schukken. 1998. Risk factors for clinical mastitis in a random sample of dairy herds from the southern part of The Netherlands. J. Dairy Sci. 81:420–426.[Abstract]

El-Zarkouny, S. Z., J. A. Cartmill, B. A. Hensley, and J. S. Stevenson. 2004. Pregnancy in dairy cows after synchronized ovulation regimens with or without presynchronization and progesterone. J. Dairy Sci. 87:1024–1037.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Fricke, P. M. 2002. Scanning the future—Ultrasonography as a reproductive management tool for dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 85:1918–1926.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Godden, S. M., K. D. Lissemore, D. F. Kelton, K. E. Leslie, J. S. Walton, and J. H. Lumsden. 2001. Relationships between milk urea concentrations and nutritional management, production, and economic variables in Ontario dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1128–1139.[Abstract]

Moore, K., and W. W. Thatcher. 2006. Major advances associated with reproduction in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1254–1266.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Moreira, F., C. A. Risco, M. F. Pires, J. D. Ambrose, M. Drost, M. DeLorenzo, and W. W. Thatcher. 2000. Effect of body condition on reproductive efficiency of lactating dairy cows receiving a timed insemination. Theriogenology 53:1305–1319.[Medline]

Navanukraw, C., D. A. Redmer, L. P. Reynolds, J. D. Kirsch, A. T. Grazul-Bilska, and P. M. Fricke. 2004. A modified presynchronization protocol improves fertility to timed artificial insemination in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87:1551–1557.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Pursley, J. R., M. O. Mee, and M. C. Wiltbank. 1995. Synchronization of ovulation in dairy cows using PGF2{alpha} and GnRH. Theriogenology 44:915–923.[Medline]

Santos, J. E. P., S. O. Luchem, R. L. A. Cerri, K. N. Galvao, R. C. Chebel, W. W. Thatcher, C. S. Dei, and C. R. Bilby. 2004. Effect of bST and reproductive management on reproductive performance of Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87:868–881.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Sterry, R. A., M. L. Welle, and P. M. Fricke. 2006. Effect of interval from timed AI to initiation of resynchronization of ovulation on fertility of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 89:2099–2109.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Stevenson, J. S., and A. P. Phatak. 2005. Inseminations at estrus induced by presynchronization before application of synchronized estrus and ovulation. J. Dairy Sci. 88:399–405.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Stone, W. C. 2004. Nutritional approaches to minimize subacute ruminal acidosis and laminitis in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 87:E13– E26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary, and D. Fraser. 2004. Free-stall dimensions: Effects on preference and stall usage. J. Dairy Sci. 87:1208–1216.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Vailes, L. D., and J. H. Britt. 1990. Influence of footing surface on mounting and other sexual behaviors of estrual Holstein cows. J. Anim. Sci. 68:2333–2339.[Abstract]

Veerkamp, R. F., J. K. Oldenbroek, H. J. Van Der Gaast, and J. H. J. Van Der Werf. 2000. Genetic correlation between days until start of luteal activity and milk yield, energy balance, and live weights. J. Dairy Sci. 83:577–583.[Abstract]

Weigel, K. A., R. W. Palmer, and D. Z. Caraviello. 2003. Investigation of factors affecting voluntary and involuntary culling in expanding herds in Wisconsin using survival analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 86:1482–1486.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Westwood, C. T., I. J. Lean, and J. K. Garvin. 2002. Factors influencing fertility of Holstein dairy cows: A multivariate description. J. Dairy Sci. 85:3225–3237.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Windig, J. J., M. P. L. Calus, and R. F. Veerkamp. 2005. Influence of herd environment on health and fertility and their relationship with milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 88:335–347.[Abstract/Free Full Text]


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
W. K. Fulwider, T. Grandin, B. E. Rollin, T. E. Engle, N. L. Dalsted, and W. D. Lamm
Survey of Dairy Management Practices on One Hundred Thirteen North Central and Northeastern United States Dairies
J Dairy Sci, April 1, 2008; 91(4): 1686 - 1692.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
D. J. Brusveen, A. P. Cunha, C. D. Silva, P. M. Cunha, R. A. Sterry, E. P. B. Silva, J. N. Guenther, and M. C. Wiltbank
Altering the Time of the Second Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Injection and Artificial Insemination (AI) During Ovsynch Affects Pregnancies per AI in Lactating Dairy Cows
J Dairy Sci, March 1, 2008; 91(3): 1044 - 1052.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
K. N. Galvao, M. F. Sa Filho, and J. E. P. Santos
Reducing the Interval from Presynchronization to Initiation of Timed Artificial Insemination Improves Fertility in Dairy Cows
J Dairy Sci, September 1, 2007; 90(9): 4212 - 4218.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
K. N. Galvao, J. E. P. Santos, R. L. Cerri, R. C. Chebel, H. M. Rutigliano, R. G. Bruno, and R. C. Bicalho
Evaluation of Methods of Resynchronization for Insemination in Cows of Unknown Pregnancy Status
J Dairy Sci, September 1, 2007; 90(9): 4240 - 4252.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
C. D. Dechow, G. W. Rogers, J. B. Cooper, M. I. Phelps, and A. L. Mosholder
Milk, Fat, Protein, Somatic Cell Score, and Days Open Among Holstein, Brown Swiss, and Their Crosses
J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2007; 90(7): 3542 - 3549.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
Y. M. Chang, O. Gonzalez-Recio, K. A. Weigel, and P. M. Fricke
Genetic Analysis of the Twenty-One-Day Pregnancy Rate in US Holsteins Using an Ordinal Censored Threshold Model with Unknown Voluntary Waiting Period
J Dairy Sci, April 1, 2007; 90(4): 1987 - 1997.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
D. Z. Caraviello, K. A. Weigel, M. Craven, D. Gianola, N. B. Cook, K. V. Nordlund, P. M. Fricke, and M. C. Wiltbank
Analysis of Reproductive Performance of Lactating Cows on Large Dairy Farms Using Machine Learning Algorithms
J Dairy Sci, December 1, 2006; 89(12): 4703 - 4722.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Interpretive Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caraviello, D. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Rawson, C. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Caraviello, D. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Rawson, C. L.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS