Herd Size

Slide 7: Slide 7
Slide 5: Slide 5
Style_Bullvine: Style_Bullvine
Slide 8: Slide 8

Slide 5: Slide 5

Archive for Herd Size

Central Asia: The Surprising New Powerhouse in the Global Dairy Industry

Monday, August 26th, 2024

Central Asia is rising in the global dairy scene. Could these nations become the new dairy leaders? Find out more.

Summary: Have you ever wondered where the next big player in the dairy industry might be? Look no further than Central Asia. According to Dou Ming, Chief Analyst at Beijing Orient Agribusiness Consultant, Ltd., Central Asia is on the brink of becoming a significant force in the global dairy sector. Central Asia is set for a transformation thanks to technological advancements, increased productivity, and a closer partnership with China’s growing dairy industry. The region could soon rival traditional dairy giants with abundant resources and lower production costs. Central Asia’s average milk yield per cow is similar to China’s 20 years ago, indicating colossal growth potential. Factors contributing to this growth include cost advantages, natural resources, and learning from neighboring markets like China. While China’s dairy sector has modernized with cutting-edge technology, challenges like market volatility and structural separations persist. Central Asia can leverage China’s dairy farming skills and automation and precision farming breakthroughs to boost production and efficiency. Lower production costs in Central Asia mean high-quality dairy products at competitive prices, positioning the region to meet China’s growing demand.

Central Asia is poised to become a significant player in the global dairy industry.
Technological advancements and increased productivity are key drivers of growth.
Central Asia benefits from abundant resources and lower production costs.
The region’s average milk yield per cow suggests significant growth potential.
China’s dairy sector has modernized but faces challenges like market volatility.
Central Asia can learn from China’s dairy farming techniques and technology advancements.
Lower production costs in Central Asia allow for competitive pricing of high-quality dairy products.
Central Asia is well-positioned to meet China’s growing demand for dairy products.

Central Asia, global dairy market, abundant natural resources, low production costs, milk yield per cow, potential for growth, cost advantage, learning from neighboring markets, China's dairy industry, transformation, herd size, per-cow production, cutting-edge technology, automated milking equipment, precision farming, market volatility, structural separation, stability, predictability, dairy farming skills, technical breakthroughs, increased production, improved efficiency, herd genetics, lower production costs, high-quality dairy products, competitive pricing, key supplier, alliance, consistent supply, cheaper supply, future of global dairy markets, expanded supply, developed nations, manufacturing costs, dairy exports, significant suppliers, knowledge exchange, collaborations, manufacturing efficiency, global standards, strategic stance, development, partnership, vital player.

Did you know Central Asia is poised to become a significant player in the global dairy market? It’s not just a possibility; it’s a promising reality! Central Asia, often overshadowed by dairy giants like the United States and New Zealand, is rapidly gaining recognition for its remarkable growth and potential. With its abundant natural resources and cost-effective production, this region is set to revolutionize the dairy sector. Central Asia is on the brink of becoming the new star of the global dairy market, and dairy producers worldwide should be excited about this burgeoning opportunity.

Breaking Down the Numbers

Let’s look at some eye-opening data. Kazakhstan, for example, produces over 6.5 million tons of dairy products yearly. Uzbekistan produces 12 million tons, while Turkmenistan provides around 2.4 million tons. In terms of herd size, these countries have always had access to enough grazing pasture and feed supplies, providing them a significant competitive advantage.

It’s not just about the current statistics; it’s about the growth potential. Central Asia’s average milk yield per cow is comparable to what China achieved over 20 years ago, indicating a vast opportunity for development. This growth potential makes Central Asia an attractive prospect for dairy producers worldwide.

Why the Growth?

Several factors are fueling this impressive rise:

Cost Advantage: Central Asia benefits from relatively low production costs, especially land and forage.
Natural Resources: Abundant grazing land and rich feed resources make healthier, more productive herds.
Learning from Neighbors: There’s potential for significant knowledge-sharing and collaboration with more advanced dairy markets like China.

From Modest Beginnings to Milk Giants: China’s Dairy Revolution Explained!

Over the last two decades, China’s dairy business has seen significant transformation. Imagine this: 2000 China produced around 9 million tons of milk yearly. Fast-forward to 2023, and that quantity has risen to 42 million tons annually! How did they make this leap? A single word: transformation.

First, let us speak about cows. Twenty years ago, China had around 5 million cows. Today, the herd has increased to almost 10 million. This includes both specialist dairy cows and those raised for other uses. In addition, per-cow production has increased significantly. Average milk output has increased from 2.5 tons per cow to around 9.4 tons. This is over four times more milk from the same number of cows!

So, what drove this extraordinary growth? Technology and large-scale agriculture had critical roles. Modern dairy farms in China have adopted cutting-edge technology such as automated milking equipment and precision farming methods. These advances have boosted efficiency, output, and even animal welfare.

But it isn’t just about technology. The industry’s transition from small, traditional dairy farms to substantial commercial operations has allowed for mass production at cheaper costs. Improved herd genetics also had a considerable impact. The number of High-yield Holstein cows increased from around 2 million to 7 million.

In short, concerted technological, farm management, and genetic development efforts have made China’s dairy industry a productivity and efficiency powerhouse.

What’s Holding Back China’s Dairy Industry?

So, what’s slowing China’s dairy industry? Let us break it down. First, there’s the matter of market volatility. The milk price in China swings like a pendulum, varying not just seasonally but also monthly. How does this affect dairy farmers? It’s simple: predictability declines. How can you prepare for next month when you don’t know what you’ll earn today?

Then, there’s the structural separation between dairy farms and processors. In regions like Europe, processors often own farms, resulting in a seamless supply chain. However, this is different in China. Farms and processors operate autonomously in this location. Farmers sell their milk to processors, but here’s the kicker: processors have the power. They determine the buying price, and farmers often find themselves on the losing end of the bargaining table. This gap renders farmers vulnerable as they struggle to secure fair pricing for their hard-earned milk.

These variables combine to produce an unpredictable and frequently dangerous situation for China’s dairy farmers. They must negotiate not just market fluctuations but also unfavorable power dynamics. So, what is the endgame? Once these challenges are overcome, Chinese dairy producers can achieve stability and predictability.

Central Asia’s Dairy Revolution: Powered by Chinese Know-How

Central Asia is on the cusp of a dairy revolution, and it doesn’t have to navigate this transformation alone. Central Asian nations can leverage China’s advanced dairy farming techniques and technical innovations to propel their dairy businesses to new heights. Collaboration with China is not just a possibility; it’s a promising opportunity that could significantly boost Central Asia’s dairy industry.

Consider using automated milking systems, precision farming, and improved herd genetics. These developments helped drive China’s dairy sector to where it is now. Central Asian nations may significantly increase production and efficiency by using comparable strategies, closing the milk output difference per cow.

So, what’s in it for Central Asia? A lot! Let us remember the economic rewards. Lower production costs in Central Asia provide an opportunity to create high-quality dairy products at a more competitive pricing. This alliance can make Central Asia a key supplier for China’s ever-increasing dairy demand.

The rewards are reciprocal. While Central Asian farmers improve their techniques, Chinese companies may get a more consistent and cheaper supply of dairy goods. These connections may take several forms, including industry conferences, study group exchanges, and on-site training sessions.

By cultivating a collaborative culture, China and Central Asia may unleash enormous potential, laying the groundwork for the region’s thriving dairy sector. The stars are aligned; all that remains is to grasp the chance!

Unleashing the Power of Innovation: China’s Dairy Tech Meets Central Asia

Central Asia is on the verge of a dairy revolution but does not have to do it alone. Central Asian nations may use China’s dairy farming skills and technical breakthroughs to propel their dairy businesses to new heights.

So, what’s in it for Central Asia? A lot! Lower production costs in Central Asia present a unique opportunity to produce high-quality dairy products at a more competitive price. This alliance has the potential to position Central Asia as a critical supplier for China’s ever-growing dairy demand, promising significant economic rewards for the region.

Understanding the Future of Global Dairy Markets: Trends and Dynamics

Understanding the global dairy industry’s future requires examining existing trends and dynamics. Global demand for dairy products is continually expanding, driven by increased consumption in developed and developing countries. This poses obstacles and possibilities for significant powers, including China and Central Asia.

Increasing Demand and Supply

Recent consultations with industry experts have shown a consensus: as global dairy demand rises, so will the need for expanded supply. Developed nations with high manufacturing costs may need help to meet growing demand. Central Asia is ripe for opportunity.

With its extensive resources and cheap manufacturing costs, Central Asia has the potential to close this increasing gap. Countries in the area, such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, have the potential to improve their dairy exports, becoming significant suppliers worldwide considerably. This is not just guesswork but a strategic prognosis based on resource availability and competitive production costs.

The China Connection

China, a significant participant in the dairy industry, now covers around 70% of its dairy demands via local production, with the remaining 30% coming from imports. As China’s population expands, so does its need for dairy, implying that it will continue to be a significant importer of dairy goods. This steady demand bodes well for Central Asian manufacturers looking to enter the Chinese market by taking advantage of cheaper production costs.

China’s success in ramping up dairy production via technical advancements might serve as a model for Central Asia. Knowledge exchange and collaborations might help Central Asian nations improve their manufacturing efficiency, ensuring they match global standards and needs.

A promising future.

Central Asia’s involvement in the global dairy business has become more critical. The region’s potential for growth is well aligned with the worldwide trend of shifting industrial dynamics owing to cost restrictions in more affluent countries. In turn, China will continue to play an essential role in balancing its production with significant import requirements.

As global dairy demand rises, Central Asia’s strategic stance might usher in a new era of development and partnership, making it a vital player worldwide.

The Bottom Line

Reflecting on the information presented during our meeting, it is evident that China and Central Asia have several potentials in the global dairy business. China’s spectacular increase in milk output, technical innovations, and efficiency gains demonstrate a dynamic and fast-changing industry. Simultaneously, Central Asia, with its enormous natural resources and cheap manufacturing costs, is ready to capitalize on these advantages to become a significant participant in the world arena.

Market instability, structural issues in China, and the need for more innovation uptake in Central Asia all pose obstacles that may be solved via cooperation and information exchange. With enhanced collaboration, these areas may learn from one another’s accomplishments, resulting in a more integrated and efficient dairy business that benefits all stakeholders.

Imagine a future in which Central Asia emerges as a global dairy market leader, propelled by innovation and innovative collaborations with its neighbors. This ideal is achievable only if we keep informed and actively engage in current changes. Stay tuned to see how these rising developments impact the dairy industry.

Learn more:

Categories : Dairy Industry

Tags : abundant natural resources, alliance, automated milking equipment, Central Asia, cheaper supply, China's dairy industry, collaborations, competitive pricing, consistent supply, cost advantage, cutting-edge technology, dairy exports, dairy farming skills, developed nations, development, expanded supply, future of global dairy markets, Global Dairy Market, global standards, herd genetics, Herd Size, high-quality dairy products., improved efficiency, Increased Production, key supplier, knowledge exchange, learning from neighboring markets, low production costs, lower production costs, manufacturing costs, manufacturing efficiency, market volatility, milk yield per cow, partnership, per-cow production, potential for growth, precision farming, predictability, significant suppliers, stability, strategic stance, structural separation, technical breakthroughs, transformation

The Future of Dairy Farming: Insights for US and Canadian Farmers!

Monday, July 29th, 2024

Uncover the future of dairy farming in Canada and the US. How will trends and tech reshape your farm? Stay ahead with expert advice and insights.

Summary: In an era where the dairy farming industry faces increasing environmental and economic pressures, the future of dairy farming in Canada and the US stands at a crossroads. Competing approaches in these neighboring nations present both challenges and opportunities. While Canada adheres to a regulated dairy supply management system, the US capitalizes on economies of scale, impacting herd size, sustainability, and technological integration. Expert insights from Dr. Jack Britt and Carlyn Peterson reveal how these differing methodologies shape the landscape, with Canada’s costly entry hindering expansion despite profitability and the US’s larger, more efficient farms driving growth. Advancements in data analytics, AI, and sustainable practices, like reducing protein in cow diets and enhancing manure management, are pivotal for the future. The dairy industry in North America must embrace innovative technologies while considering the unique economic frameworks of each country to ensure a sustainable and profitable future.

Canada’s regulated dairy supply management system ensures balanced milk production but imposes high entry costs, hindering expansion.
The US dairy industry leverages economies of scale, resulting in larger, more efficient farms that drive growth despite market fluctuations.
Environmental and economic pressures are significant challenges for the dairy farming industry in both Canada and the US.
Technological advancements such as data analytics, AI, and automation are revolutionizing dairy farm management, improving efficiency and sustainability.
Expert insights emphasize the importance of integrating sustainable practices, such as reducing protein in cow diets and enhancing manure management.
Adopting innovative technologies is crucial for ensuring a sustainable and profitable future for the dairy industry in North America.

Warning: The Dairy Farming Secrets That Could Make or Break Your Future! The dairy industry in North America is at a pivotal crossroads, brimming with potential for growth and innovation. With rapid technological advancements and evolving market dynamics, Canadian and American dairy farmers face an unprecedented wave of change. Two leading experts shared their insights at the Animal Nutrition Conference of Canada. Dr. Jack Britt, professor emeritus at North Carolina State University and chair of the Advisory Committee at the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, and Dr. Carlyn Peterson, dairy technical manager at Selko, a Nutreco brand specializing in specialty feed additives, delved into what lies ahead for the industry with a strong focus on sustainability. Here’s a glimpse into their visionary take on where dairy farming is headed.

Spotlight on Herd Size: A Comparative Analysis by Dr. Jack Britt

“Currently, the average herd size in the USA is about 350 cows and in Canada about 90 cows,” notes Dr. Jack Britt, Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University and Chair of the Advisory Committee at the North Carolina Biotechnology Center.

Canadian Approach to Dairy Farming

According to Britt, the US and Canada approach herd size management quite differently:

“Canada has a system focused on balancing supply and demand by making it very expensive to start a dairy farm or increase herd size. This supply management system makes dairying profitable but creates a strong hindrance for farmers or families wanting to start new dairy herds. The quota fee for adding one new cow to a herd in Canada varies among provinces but can reach CAD$40,000 per head or more. This is not a true free-market system, but it meets the needs of the dairy industry and Canada’s population.”

Britt further explains this through a conversation with a young Canadian dairy farmer using a robotic milking system for almost 40 cows, the maximum the robot can service:

“If he added a robot, he could nearly double his herd size, but the fee to add 30 cows would be two to three times the cost of the cows and the new robotic milking unit,” says Britt.

US Dairy Farming Dynamics

However, in the US, the startup costs are generally tied to land, cows, and facilities. US dairy herds tend to be larger, especially west of the Mississippi River, with New Mexico’s average milking herd size now at around 2,500.

Britt notes, “Most larger dairy farms in the US milk cows three times per day around the clock, using land, animals, and equipment to their fullest extent, thus minimizing the cost of milk production.”

Future Projections and Technological Integration

Britt expects US dairy farms to continue growing in size due to increased efficiency and profitability per unit of milk. He also anticipates using more robot milking systems as farm labor becomes more costly.

He notes, “We may have to start recruiting from other parts of the world. “Hourly pay is increasing quickly on farms.”

Carlyn Peterson Sheds Light on the Sustainable Transformation of Dairy Farming

Dr. Carlyn Peterson, Dairy Technical Manager at Selko—a Nutreco brand specializing in feed additives—recently shared insights at the Animal Nutrition Conference of Canada, emphasizing the future of dairy farming with a sustainability lens. She highlighted the exceptional efficiency of the US dairy herd, which ranks fourth most significant in size globally but second in production levels, a testament to ongoing advancements.

Peterson attributed these productivity gains to several factors: increased heifer growth rates, reduced age at first calving, optimized total mixed rations tailored for age and lactation stages, strategic genetic selection for enhanced productivity, longevity, and efficiency, and the widespread application of artificial insemination.

On the sustainability front, dairy farmers are making strides by reducing protein in cow diets, utilizing more effective feed additives, and improving crop production and manure management. Peterson remarked, “I think small changes implemented together will continue to enhance the efficiency of our dairy systems, leading to better environmental sustainability. Additionally, many promising technologies to reduce enteric methane are still on the horizon. Precision feeding optimally meets animal requirements, and practices like increasing the average number of lactations and improving animal handling and husbandry will further progress environmental sustainability.”

However, Peterson acknowledged the challenges in operationalizing these strategies, especially for enteric methane mitigation. “We are largely unaware of how additives combine, whether their results are fully additive or a mix of addition and subtraction,” she pointed out. “Research is crucial for understanding how to integrate these technologies into diverse individual systems, as variations are significant.”

The Bottom Line

The future of dairy farming in Canada and the US is set for a major shift thanks to technological advancements and sustainable practices. Canada focuses on sustainability and community, using smaller herd sizes to emphasize quality. In contrast, US farms operating on a larger scale prioritize high production with advanced technologies. Both countries are adopting data analytics and AI for optimal dairy farm management. This tech integration boosts productivity and aligns with ethical, sustainable farming demands. Canada and the US are setting global benchmarks by embracing innovation. As we look ahead, industry stakeholders must invest in R&D, innovative solutions, and collaborations, pushing the dairy sector toward a greener future. Each tech upgrade and sustainable practice adopted today brings us closer to tomorrow’s more ethical and efficient dairy farming landscape.

Categories : Dairy Industry

Why “Crowded Cows” Are a Growing Concern: The Impact on Dairy Farm Production

Friday, July 19th, 2024

Uncover the obscured expenses associated with “crowded cows” in agriculture and animal welfare. What repercussions does this practice have on our food supply and the health of livestock?

Overcrowding in dairy production, sometimes called ‘crowded cows,’ has become a significant worry for agricultural communities. Farmers must prioritize herd care and enhance productivity to meet the increased demand for dairy products. Overcrowding harms cow health, reducing farm output and sustainability. It causes sickness, stress, inefficiencies in milk production, and greater death rates. Stress and lack of relaxation may lead to a 10% loss in milk supply, costing a farm up to $50,000 per year. However, tackling ‘packed cows’ and encouraging sustainable and humane dairy farming may help livestock and livelihoods while increasing the dairy industry’s economic sustainability.

The Consequences of Spatial Overload in Dairy Farming

Cow Density	Number of Stalls per Cow
Low (<80% stocking)	1.2
Moderate (80%-100% stocking)	1.0
High (>100% stocking)	0.8

Crowded cows occur when the number of animals exceeds the required space for their health, production, and well-being. This problem stems from a lack of bunk space, resting locations, and restricted supplies such as water and food. A dairy cow requires around one stall. For pasture operations, they need about 120 square feet per cow. Exceeding this limit has negative repercussions, including increased resource competition, reduced dry matter intake (DMI), and decreased milk production. However, farmers may dramatically increase their herds’ well-being and productivity by emphasizing cow comfort and following these geographical guidelines.

The Impact of Overcrowding on Dairy Cow Welfare: Stress, Health, and Behavioral Issues

Metric	Optimal Conditions	Overcrowded Conditions	Percentage Difference
Milk Production (liters/day)	25	18	-28%
Incidence of Mastitis (%)	10%	30%	+200%
Average Longevity (years)	6	4	-33%
Feed Conversion Efficiency	1.5	1.2	-20%

Overcrowded circumstances harm dairy cows’ welfare, causing physical pain and other issues. Competition for food and rest places leads to elevated stress levels, which may weaken immune function and increase susceptibility to illnesses like mastitis and respiratory infections. Crowded herds might lead to behavioral difficulties. Cows become more aggressive as they fight for space, inflicting injuries and disrupting herd peace. Stress and dissatisfaction may cause aberrant repeated behaviors like frequent licking and pacing, indicating significant welfare inadequacies.

Overcrowding Factor	Impact on Milk Production
Increased Competition for Food	Decreased nutrient intake, leading to lower milk yield
Elevated Stress Levels	Reduction in milk quality due to hormonal imbalances
Limited Resting Space	Reduced time for necessary rest and rumination, impacting milk production
Poor Ventilation	Higher susceptibility to respiratory diseases, adversely affecting milk yield.

The Ripple Effect: From Stress to Severe Health Complications in Dairy Cows

Overcrowding has significant health consequences beyond acute stress, including lameness, mastitis, and respiratory difficulties. These circumstances jeopardize dairy cows’ well-being and production while imposing significant economic expenses on producers. Lameness, caused by extended standing on hard surfaces and little rest owing to restricted space, hinders movement and lowers feeding, influencing nutrition and energy intake, both of which are critical for milk production. Poor mobility might lead to increased stress and decreased milk supply.

Mastitis, an inflammatory illness of the udder, is aggravated by overcrowding, significantly when hygiene standards deteriorate owing to overpopulation. This illness lowers milk quality and quantity, needing expensive veterinarian interventions and lengthy therapies. Respiratory problems are common in overcrowded barns with poor ventilation, promoting diseases that quickly spread across the herd and reduce output. Chronic respiratory difficulties often result in higher culling rates, lowering each animal’s lifetime and return on investment.

Finally, these health conditions considerably impair dairy cows’ productivity and lifetime, resulting in lower milk output, medical costs, and profitability. Overcrowding poses health risks that must be addressed to maintain a healthy dairy enterprise.

Compromised Milk Production: The Immediate Impact of Overcrowding

Overcrowding Level	Milk Production (lbs/day)	Impact on Production (%)
Optimal Conditions	70 lbs	0%
10% Overcrowded	67 lbs	-4.3%
20% Overcrowded	64 lbs	-8.6%
30% Overcrowded	60 lbs	-14.3%

Dairy overpopulation’s most immediate consequences are decreased milk output and quality. Keeping cows in confined quarters reduces their daily dry matter intake (DMI), resulting in inadequate nutritional absorption for optimum milk production. Cow rivalry intensifies with limited bunk space, prompting some to eat less feed.

Overcrowding triggers deep physiological stress reactions. Stress causes the production of cortisol, a hormone that disrupts reproductive systems and immunological responses. Chronic stress limits the release of oxytocin, which is required for milk letdown, reducing milk quantity and quality.

Furthermore, tight confinement raises the risk of physical injuries and infections such as mastitis, which directly affects milk safety and quality. Cows that lack enough room are more likely to lie in damp or filthy circumstances, increasing the risk of pathogen exposure and milk contamination.

Finally, producers must maintain an ideal group size, ensuring that cows spend less time in holding pens and have easy access to feeding places. Balancing herd size and facility capacity improves cow comfort and productivity, ensuring milk output and quality.

The Unseen Burden: Environmental Stressors Aggravating Dairy Cow Overcrowding

Environmental factors enhance the impact of overpopulation in dairy farms. Poor ventilation may quickly raise ammonia and toxic gasses, aggravating cow respiratory systems and exacerbating illnesses like pneumonia. Inadequate bedding exacerbates this problem, producing comfort issues, foot abnormalities, and increased mastitis rates owing to unsanitary surroundings. Overcrowding often results in restricted availability of food and water, affecting feeding activity and dry matter intake (DMI). Dairy cows need a balanced diet and constant water supply for maximum health and output. Due to limited bunk space, fewer cows can eat the appropriate feed, resulting in decreased DMI, poor body condition, and restricted milk output. This creates a loop in which stressed, undernourished cows are more prone to sickness, lowering herd output. Farmers must manage herd numbers so that each cow has enough room, resources, and comfort. Strategic planning and management are essential for reducing environmental stresses. Addressing these concerns is critical for animal welfare and sustainable dairy production operations.

The Economic Ramifications of Overcrowding in Dairy Farms: A Deep Dive into Profitability and Sustainability

Economic Cost	Description	Estimated Financial Impact
Veterinary Costs	Increased frequency of disease and illness due to stress and inadequate living conditions	$50 – $100 per cow annually
Feed Efficiency	Higher competition for feed leads to inefficient feeding practices and uneven weight gain	5% – 15% increase in feed costs
Milk Yield and Quality	Reduced milk production and quality, leading to lower market prices	2% – 10% drop in revenue
Infrastructure Maintenance	Accelerated wear and tear on facilities due to higher occupancy	$200 – $500 annually
Labor Costs	Increased need for labor to manage overcrowded conditions and stressed animals	Additional $10,000 – $15,000 annually per farm

Overcrowding on dairy farms substantially influences the industry’s profitability beyond just animal welfare concerns. Crowded circumstances increase veterinarian expenditures due to mastitis, lameness, and respiratory problems. These health issues raise veterinarian expenditures and result in continuous costs for chronic illnesses.

Overcrowding has a direct effect on milk output. Stressed cows consume less, resulting in reduced milk output. Studies indicate that adjusting bunk space and group sizes helps sustain milk production levels. For example, moving a herd from one to two groups may boost fat-corrected milk (FCM) by 1% to 3%. Reduced milk production immediately affects the farm’s capacity to satisfy supply obligations, perhaps resulting in financial fines or lost business.

Furthermore, overcrowding may harm a dairy farm’s image in a market where customers increasingly demand ethically produced goods. Farms notorious for poor animal care may lose their competitive advantage, resulting in lower sales and perhaps expensive marketing attempts to improve their public image.

Regulatory Frameworks and Ethical Considerations: The Backbone of Humane Dairy Farming Practices

To address overpopulation in dairy farms, it’s important to consider regulatory frameworks and ethical principles for animal care. Several jurisdictions have enacted regulations to reduce overcrowding and safeguard the health of dairy cattle. These restrictions prioritize humane procedures, including enough space, nourishment, and general animal well-being. The Animal Welfare Act in several nations ensures humane treatment by promoting natural behaviors and well-being. Guidelines frequently specify stocking density limitations to minimize overpopulation. The European Union’s farm animal welfare regulation establishes minimum space requirements and feed and water availability. Organizations like the American Dairy Science Association and the World Organization for Animal Health recommend best practices beyond legal standards, such as providing enough bunk space and reducing pen time. These criteria emphasize the ethical need to balance production and a healthy animal living environment. Noncompliance may result in penalties, license revocation, and reputational harm. Ethical farming techniques prioritize animal care and promote the sustainability and economic viability of the dairy sector.

Proactive Solutions and Best Practices to Address Overcrowding in Dairy Farms

Improved management approaches are critical for addressing dairy farm congestion. Herd size has to be carefully planned, and cow behavior and health must be monitored. Data analytics can identify ideal group sizes based on feeding activity, milk output, and space availability.

Investing in improved housing facilities with enough sleeping space and rest places decreases stress and health problems. Flexible group size, in line with parlor capacity and holding pen time, ensures efficiency and comfort.

Adherence to animal welfare standards, as set by the Animal Welfare Institute and Michigan State University, promotes a compassionate and successful agricultural environment. Meeting these requirements improves cow welfare, farm sustainability, and customer confidence in dairy products.

The Bottom Line

Overcrowding in dairy farming has profound implications that must be addressed immediately. Overcrowding increases stress, health difficulties, and behavioral problems, lowering milk supply and affecting animal welfare and economic returns. Environmental factors exacerbate these difficulties. Herd density management is critical for both long-term sustainability and profitability. Optimizing welfare and economic viability requires correct grouping tactics, lowering group variance, and improving facility design and administration. Compliance with regulatory and ethical norms is vital for humane and sustainable activities. Our job is to improve procedures that benefit the animals and the industry. These methods balance production and animal care, promoting long-term profitability and sustainability in dairy farming.

Key Takeaways:

Proper spatial management in dairy farming is crucial for the well-being and productivity of dairy cows.
Overcrowding leads to increased stress, health issues, and behavioral problems among dairy cows.
The ripple effect of stress from overcrowding can escalate into severe health complications.
One immediate impact of overcrowding is a notable decline in milk production.
Environmental stressors can exacerbate the negative effects of overcrowding on dairy cows.
Overcrowding has significant economic ramifications, affecting profitability and sustainability of dairy farms.
Regulatory frameworks and ethical considerations are fundamental to implementing humane farming practices.
Adopting proactive solutions and best practices can effectively address the issue of overcrowding in dairy farms.

Summary:

Overcrowding in dairy production, also known as ‘crowded cows,’ is a significant issue that affects cow health, farm output, and sustainability. It can lead to sickness, stress, inefficiencies in milk production, and increased death rates. Overcrowding can cost farms up to $50,000 per year. To address this issue, farmers should focus on sustainable and humane dairy farming and follow geographical guidelines. The recommended number of stalls per cow is 120 square feet or one stall. Exceeding this limit can lead to increased resource competition, reduced dry matter intake, and decreased milk production. Farmers can improve their herds’ well-being and productivity by emphasizing cow comfort and following geographical guidelines. Overcrowding conditions also cause physical pain, competition for food and rest places, elevated stress levels, limited resting space, and poor ventilation. These factors lead to increased competition for food, decreased nutrient intake, reduced milk quality due to hormonal imbalances, and respiratory diseases. Overcrowding triggers physiological stress reactions, leading to the production of cortisol and limited release of oxytocin, reducing milk quantity and quality. Proactive solutions to address overcrowding include improved management approaches, careful planning of herd size, monitoring cow behavior and health, investing in improved housing facilities, and adhering to animal welfare standards set by organizations like the Animal Welfare Institute and Michigan State University.

Learn more:

Categories : Management

Choosing the Right Teat Dip: Myths and Facts for Dairy Farmers

Thursday, July 4th, 2024

Are you using the right teat dip for your dairy farm? Discover how to choose the best one to prevent mastitis, save money, and ensure high-quality milk production.

Have you thought about the significant influence the teat dip you apply has on your dairy farm? The condition of your cows and the quality of your milk output depend much on this little choice. Not only are teat dips essential, but they also serve as the first line of protection against mastitis, a disorder directly influencing production and quality. Join us as we bust common misconceptions regarding teat dips and help you decide which best fits your farm. The proper mix improves the quality of your milk, your dairy’s profitability, and your herd’s general state. Come along as we dispel misconceptions and provide practical guidance on choosing the best teat dip for your farm. By then, you will be ready to make decisions to safeguard your herd and boost production.

The Role of Teat Dips in Dairy Farming

To protect against infections, teat dips—liquid disinfectants—are applied to dairy cows’ teats before and after milking. These dips, which serve as the first line of defense against mastitis, an inflammatory udder condition, are crucial for dairy farming operations. Their role in reducing the bacteria count on the teat skin not only ensures the production of high-quality milk but also provides a reassuring barrier against illness.

Beyond simple contamination prevention, teat dips are essential for preserving udder health in dairy production. The correct application guarantees uniform coating, forming a barrier against external factors and lowering fissures and sores where germs may flourish. Teat dips can include emollients like glycerin or lanolin to keep the skin flexible and stop dryness and chapping.

Furthermore, teat dips may significantly avoid mastitis, one of the most expensive illnesses in dairy production. Following pre- and post-milking dipping procedures helps farmers improve milk quality while also helping to maintain a low somatic cell count in the milk—an indication of excellent udder health. This monitoring is crucial for securing quality premiums and guaranteeing economic sustainability.

Teat dips are critical for preventing mastitis and enhancing udder health. Farmers can guarantee sound milk output and protect the welfare of their herds by choosing the correct teat dip and consulting milk quality experts.

Debunking the Iodine Myth: Exploring Diverse Germicide Options for Teat Dips

Although most dairy farms believe iodine is the best teat dip germicide, current developments have provided other substitutes with either similar or better effects. For high-yield operations where udder health is critical, chlorhexidine—for example—is hailed for its broad-spectrum antibacterial qualities and long-lasting residual action and known for their efficient cleaning and mildness on teat skin, hydrogen peroxide-based dips shine, especially in challenging weather or with sensitive animals.

Furthermore, lactic and salicylic acids are well-known for their quick action and adaptability in various surroundings. These substitutes challenge iodine’s supremacy and let dairy producers choose the most suitable germicide for their situation, improving udder health and milk quality.

Eventually, the emphasis should be on knowing the many germicides accessible rather than depending only on iodine. This will help dairy producers make wise judgments that guarantee their teat dips fit their particular agricultural environment.

The Synergy Between Germicides and Emollients: Ensuring Comprehensive Teat Health

Any conscientious dairy farmer must realize that a germicide in a teat dip only counts somewhat. Although they destroy microorganisms well, germicides cannot guarantee the cow’s teats’ general protection. Emollients then become necessary.

Emollients assist in preserving and rebuilding the skin’s natural barrier. Varying weather and frequent milking may dry and split teats, increasing their infection susceptibility. Emollients improve cow comfort by keeping the teat skin smooth and less injury-prone, avoiding pathogen entry into the udder.

Formulating a teat dip requires balancing emollients and germicides to improve effectiveness. The proper proportion guarantees that the germicide kills dangerous bacteria without compromising the integrity of the skin. Specific formulas, for instance, have a vivid green hue that ensures coverage and efficacy for apparent assurance of appropriate dipping.

A premium teat dip, made under Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), aggregates these elements to provide complete protection. GMPs ensure that the teat dip is produced in a clean and controlled environment, free from contamination. Regular assessment of dipping techniques and full execution of dipping rules help strengthen this protection, improving udder health and producing better-quality milk.

Dispelling the One-Size-Fits-All Myth: Tailoring Teat Dip Formulas to Individual Farm Needs

Many people think that the same teat dip recipes apply everywhere. However, this needs to include the particular requirements of every dairy. Herd size, environmental factors, and specific farm needs vary substantially. A method perfect for a small farm may not work well for a large-scale business. Larger herds could require stronger germicides, whereas smaller farms might concentrate on emollients for improved skin conditions.

Another very vital factor is the weather conditions. While farms in humid climates may need moistening dips to avoid chapping, farms in brutal winters might need fast-drying dips to prevent frostbite. Customizing the teat dip to the particular situation of your farm guarantees good disinfection and enhances teat health.

Think through your farm’s particular requirements. While some might find recipes suited for all-year-round housed herds, others would benefit from colored dips for visual coverage checks. By tackling these many elements, farmers may pick the best teat dip, thus improving udder health, keeping low somatic cell counts, and guaranteeing top-notional milk output.

Strategic Teat Dip Selection: Safeguarding Herd Health and Maximizing Dairy Farm Profitability

Selecting the correct teat dip to protect your herd against mastitis is crucial. Customizing the mixture to fit your farm’s environmental demands guarantees good teat protection and sanitization. In winter, a fast-drying cream decreases chapped teats, lowering infection risk. The complete coating reduces the likelihood of bacteria entering the teat canal by dipping or spraying.

Economically, a good teat dip may result in huge savings. Reasonable mastitis control helps to lower veterinarian expenses and the necessity for culling resulting from ongoing infections. Reduced mastitis instances assist in preserving and improving milk production and quality. Udder health depends on a low somatic cell count (SCC), affecting milk quality and influencing farm profitability, which may attract premium prices. This financial benefit should motivate you to make strategic teat dip selections.

Using items based on good manufacturing standards (GMPs) guarantees consistent performance. Frequent updates to pre- and post-dip treatments support udder health all year round. A local milk quality professional may provide customized advice, achieving a balanced approach to mastitis avoidance, cost savings, and maximum milk output.

The Critical Importance of Choosing the Right Teat Dip: Science and Real-World Evidence

Dairy producers trying to preserve herd health and maintain milk quality must choose the appropriate teat dip. Mastitis may be much reduced using teat dips created based on scientific study. For instance, studies supported by data showed that teat dips significantly reduced mastitis cases and enhanced udder health, lowering somatic cell numbers.

Actual instances confirm this. Six months after changing to a scientifically validated teat dip, a Midwest dairy farm saw mastitis cases decline from 12 to three per month. This action also improved their milk quality premiums, demonstrating the sensible advantages of well-informed judgments.

Certain clinical benefits from using teat dips have been confirmed. Farmers improve herd health and structure their activities to be successful in the long term. See a local hygiene and milk quality professional to identify a proven teat dip catered to your farm’s requirements.

Harnessing Expertise: The Vital Role of Local Hygiene and Milk Quality Specialists

Depends on local hygiene and milk quality experts’ output. These professionals provide customized recommendations based on every farm’s circumstances and difficulties. Their observations guarantee that your teat dip schedule is ideal for optimal efficacy, helping fight certain infections and adapt formulas for each season. Before altering your teat dip schedule, it is highly advisable to consult these experts to avoid mastitis, save expenses, and maintain a low somatic cell count.

The Bottom Line

High-quality milk production and herd health depend on ensuring the teat dip is used most effectively. Dairy farmers may limit mastitis incidence and optimize profitability by eliminating iodine fallacies, knowing the synergy between germicides and emollients, and avoiding a one-size-fits-all strategy. Iodine is not always the best choice, even if it is conventional. Teat health depends on the interaction between germicides and emollients. Hence, customized teat dip formulations are essential considering every farm’s situation. See local hygienic and milk quality experts and use items with scientific backing. Effective farm management depends on strategic teat dip choices, influencing operating costs, herd health, and milk quality premiums. A good dairy runs on an educated, customized strategy alone. See your local hygienic and milk quality professional to guarantee the optimal teat dip for your farm’s requirements, avoiding mastitis and promoting a healthier herd.

Consult your local milk quality and hygienic professional to ensure you utilize the best teat dip. Using the correct strategy guarantees a better future for your dairy farm and the prevention of mastitis. Your decision on the appropriate teat dip now goes beyond immediate advantages to open the path for consistent herd health, better milk quality, and more income.

Key Takeaways:

Teat dip selection aligns directly with the production of high-quality milk and the minimization of mastitis incidence.
Effectiveness varies by formula, farm conditions, and pathogen strains, necessitating tailored choices over generic solutions.
Research-backed teat dips offer proven efficacy, making scientific validation a critical factor in selection.
Diverse germicides beyond iodine present viable options, broadening choices for specific farm needs and pathogen challenges.
The synergy of germicides and emollients is essential for comprehensive teat health, not just pathogen eradication.
Engaging local hygiene and milk quality specialists ensures informed decisions, optimizing herd health and profitability.
Clinical testing under experimental and natural conditions confirms the real-world applicability and effectiveness of teat dips.
Regular veterinary observations are pivotal in monitoring teat conditions and adjusting protocols as needed.
Understanding that every farm is unique, pushing against the one-size-fits-all myth, and preemptively assessing specific needs improve outcomes.

Summary:

Teat dips are essential in dairy farming to protect against infections and mastitis. They reduce bacteria count on the teat skin, ensuring high-quality milk production and providing a reassuring barrier against illness. Emollients like glycerin or lanolin help keep the skin flexible and prevent dryness and chapping. Farmers must follow pre- and post-milking dipping procedures to improve milk quality and maintain low somatic cell count. Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) ensure clean and controlled production. Customizing teat dip formulas to individual farm needs is crucial for udder health, low somatic cell counts, and maximum milk output. A good teat dip can result in significant savings, as it helps lower veterinarian expenses and the need for culling due to ongoing infections.

Learn more:

Categories : Management

USDA Reports 10-Month Decline in U.S. Milk Production: May Numbers Drop 1%

Monday, June 24th, 2024

Find out why U.S. milk production has been decreasing for the past 10 months. Learn how cow numbers and milk output per cow are affecting the dairy industry. Read more.

The USDA’s preliminary May Milk output report shockingly reveals a consistent drop in U.S. milk output extending for ten months. With May showing a 1% decline from the same month last year, this steady dip points to significant shifts within the dairy sector. The continuous drop has changed the scene of milk output worldwide and pushed industry players to change their plans.

The ten-month run of low milk supply draws attention to systematic problems U.S. dairy producers face: narrow revenue margins, changing feed prices, and bad weather.

Reviewing the USDA’s data, we see:

U.S. milk production fell to 19.68 billion pounds in May 2024, down 0.9% from the previous year.
Cow numbers decreased by 68,000 head, reflecting broader herd management strategies.
The average milk production per cow dropped by 3 pounds, influenced by various regional factors.

Metric	May 2024	May 2023	Change
U.S. Milk Production (billion pounds)	19.68	19.86	-0.9%
U.S. Cow Numbers (million)	9.35	9.418	-68,000 head
Average Milk per Cow (pounds)	2,105	2,108	-3 pounds
24-State Milk Production (billion pounds)	18.875	19.009	-0.7%
24-State Cow Numbers (million)	8.893	8.945	-52,000 head
24-State Average Milk per Cow (pounds)	2,122	2,125	-3 pounds

A Deeper Dive into USDA’s May 2024 Dairy Estimates

Category	May 2024	May 2023	Change
U.S. Milk Production (billion pounds)	19.68	19.86	-0.9%
U.S. Cow Numbers (million head)	9.35	9.42	-68,000 head
U.S. Average Milk per Cow (pounds)	2,105	2,108	-3 pounds
24-State Milk Production (billion pounds)	18.88	19.01	-0.7%
24-State Cow Numbers (million head)	8.89	8.94	-52,000 head
24-State Average Milk per Cow (pounds)	2,122	2,125	-3 pounds

The early projections for May 2024 from the USDA show significant changes in American dairy output. Down 0.9% from May 2023, the total U.S. milk output is 19.68 billion pounds. 9.35 million, U.S. cow counts have dropped 68,000 head from the previous year. Down three pounds year over year, the average milk output per cow is 2,105 pounds.

Milk output in the 24 central dairy states dropped 0.7% from May 2023, coming to 18.875 billion pounds. Down 52,000 head from the year before, cow counts in these states are 8.893 million. With an average milk yield per cow of 2,122 pounds, the milk output has slightly dropped from the previous year—3 pounds less.

Delving into the Dynamics of Cow Numbers: A Tale of Decline and Resurgence

Year	Total U.S. Cow Numbers (millions)	24-State Cow Numbers (millions)
2020	9.45	8.92
2021	9.50	8.95
2022	9.47	8.91
2023	9.35	8.84
2024	9.35	8.89

Cow counts from the USDA show declining and then rising trends. The U.S. dairy herd dropped 68,000 head starting in May 2023, underscoring continuous industry difficulties. However, there has been a slight rise since October 2023, which has driven herd size to its most significant since late 2023.

The 24 central dairy states had a similar trend. From the year before, the combined herd of these states dropped 52,000 head, yet it somewhat recovered with a 5,000 head rise from April 2024. This points to a partial recovery in certain areas while others continue to suffer.

It’s important to note the stark differences at the state level. While Florida and South Dakota saw a gain of 27,000 heads, New Mexico experienced a dramatic drop of 42,000 heads. These variations underscore the influence of local elements such as climate, feed availability, and state-by-state economic forces.

Interwoven Influences on Milk Output per Cow: The Balance of Weather, Feed Costs, and Income Margins

State	May 2024 (lbs)	May 2023 (lbs)	Change (lbs)	Change (%)
Florida	2,000	1,970	30	1.52%
Minnesota	2,210	2,180	30	1.38%
Wisconsin	2,100	2,075	25	1.20%
Illinois	2,150	2,120	30	1.42%
Iowa	2,300	2,270	30	1.32%
Kansas	2,120	2,100	20	0.95%
California	2,050	2,075	-25	-1.20%
Vermont	2,000	2,025	-25	-1.23%
Pennsylvania	1,980	2,005	-25	-1.25%
Indiana	2,100	2,125	-25	-1.18%

Income margins, feed prices, and regional weather have all played a role in the decline in milk yield per cow. Adverse weather patterns, such as droughts or excessive rainfall, can impact feed and water availability, which in turn can influence cow health and output. High feed prices might drive farmers to choose less nutritious substitutes, which can also affect milk output. These factors highlight the need for a comprehensive approach to address the issue, including strategies to manage weather risks and stabilize feed prices.

Income margins are crucially important. Tight margins often force difficult choices on herd management, reducing expenditures on premium feed or healthcare and, therefore, affecting milk yield per cow.

States like Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin reported increases in milk yield, up 15 to 30 pounds per cow, presumably owing to better local circumstances and enhanced procedures compared to year-to-year improvements.

States like California, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Indiana reported losses of 15 to 25 pounds per cow, on the other hand. California’s ongoing drought and other difficulties, such as changing feed prices and economic pressures, highlight the careful balance between environmental elements and farming methods.

The Bottom Line

The USDA report by May shows a continuous drop in important dairy indicators—ten consecutive months of declining U.S. milk output; May 2024 down about 1% over last year. Though there have been some recent increases, national cow counts have dropped by 68,000 head. Because of regional variations in feed prices, weather, and economic constraints, milk yield per cow decreased somewhat.

These patterns point to a declining milk supply, which would be expected to raise milk prices. This change in prices could benefit medium-sized manufacturers, but it also poses challenges for the sector, including high feed prices and economic difficulties. These factors are driving the industry towards farm consolidation and increased use of technology. The decline in milk output also underscores the need for innovation and policy support to ensure sustainable development in the sector.

Given these trends, it’s clear that the sector needs to innovate to counter these challenges. Strategies such as improving feed efficiency, genetic selection, and dairy management could prove beneficial. Moreover, policy support is not just beneficial, but crucial for ensuring sustainable development in the industry.

Key Takeaways:

U.S. milk production for May 2024 is estimated at 19.68 billion pounds, a decrease of 0.9% compared to May 2023.
U.S. cow numbers have dropped to 9.35 million, down 68,000 head from the same month last year.
The average milk production per cow in the U.S. has marginally declined by 3 pounds, totaling 2,105 pounds per cow.
In the 24 major dairy states, milk production is down 0.7%, with total output at 18.875 billion pounds.
These 24 states have seen a reduction in cow numbers by 52,000, now standing at 8.893 million.
Despite the overall decline, some states like Florida and South Dakota show robust growth in cow numbers and milk output.
Conversely, significant decreases in milk production have been observed in states such as New Mexico and California.

Summary:

The USDA’s preliminary May Milk output report shows a 1% decline in U.S. milk output for ten months, indicating significant shifts within the dairy sector. The ten-month run of low milk supply is attributed to narrow revenue margins, changing feed prices, and bad weather. The total U.S. milk output is 19.68 billion pounds, with cow numbers decreasing by 68,000 head. The average milk production per cow dropped by 3 pounds, influenced by regional factors. The U.S. dairy herd dropped 68,000 heads starting in May 2023, underscoring industry difficulties. However, there has been a slight rise since October 2023, driving herd size to its most significant since late 2023. Interwoven influences on milk output per cow include income margins, feed prices, and regional weather. States like Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin reported increases in milk yield, while California, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Indiana reported losses.

Learn more:

Categories : Dairy Industry

Avian Influenza Outbreak: How US Dairy Cows Are Suffering

Tuesday, June 11th, 2024

Explore the devastating effects of the avian flu outbreak on U.S. dairy cattle, recognizing the surge in mortality rates and culling practices among farmers. What implications does this hold for the future landscape of dairy farming?

The U.S. dairy industry is grappling with an unprecedented crisis as the avian flu, a disease typically associated with poultry, has now infiltrated dairy cows across multiple states. This alarming development has resulted in significant cattle losses, with infected cows either succumbing to the virus or being culled by farmers due to the lack of recovery prospects. These measures are dealing a severe blow to the sector, given the higher cost of raising dairy cows compared to poultry.

Bird flu in cows could take a more significant economic toll than initially thought.

For farmers, the avian flu outbreak is not just a health crisis but also an economic disaster. The need to prioritize containment efforts is adding to the financial pressures on struggling producers. The situation is further complicated by secondary infections, which are causing higher mortality rates and management challenges, thereby exacerbating the economic implications.

Increased culling of infected dairy cows
Secondary infections elevating mortality rates
Long-term impact on milk production and market prices

As the virus spreads, the agricultural sector’s resilience is being tested, but it’s also a testament to the industry’s ability to adapt and overcome. This makes long-term adaptations critical for survival, but it also instills a sense of hope that the sector can weather this storm.

Avian Flu Strikes Dairy Industry: A Significant Economic Threat

State	Infected Cows	Culled Cows	Secondary Infections
South Dakota	1,700	24	12
Michigan	200	20	10
Colorado	Unavailable	Reported	Reported
Ohio	Unavailable	Reported	Reported
Texas	Unavailable	Reported	Reported
New Mexico	Unavailable	Reported	Decreased
North Carolina	None	None	None
Kansas	None	None	None
Idaho	Unavailable	No Response	No Response

Reuters’ Leah Douglas and Tom Polansek highlighted a critical issue in the agricultural sector: dairy cows in five U.S. states have died or been culled due to the avian flu. State officials and academics confirmed that the affected cattle either died from the virus or were euthanized by farmers after failing to recover. This development could have significant economic implications, considering the higher costs of raising dairy cows than poultry.

The Financial Fallout: Avian Flu’s Deep Economic Impact on Dairy Farms

The economic ramifications of the avian flu outbreak in dairy cattle are severe, straining farmers already on thin margins. Dairy cows represent a much more significant investment in cost and maintenance than poultry. Raising a cow involves substantial feed, healthcare, housing, and labor expenses over several years, making the financial stakes high.

As dairy operations confront this crisis, culling infected cows adds economic pressure. Each lost cow means a direct financial hit and disrupts milk production cycles, affecting farm income. The smaller herd size reduces milk output, lowering sales and profits. The costs of rebuilding herds and replacing culled cows add further stress. These impacts can be devastating for small to mid-sized farms and may lead to closures.

The impact of the avian flu outbreak extends far beyond individual dairy farms, affecting the entire agricultural sector. The ripple effects of the outbreak are felt by feed suppliers, veterinary services, and dairy product distributors, all of whom experience a drop in demand due to the reduced number of cows. This highlights the need for robust disease management and support systems to mitigate future outbreaks and protect the livelihoods of those dependent on the agricultural sector.

Secondary Infections: The Underestimated Threat to Dairy Cattle Health

Secondary infections significantly contribute to the mortality of dairy cattle affected by avian flu. As the virus weakens their immune systems, cows become vulnerable to other infections they would usually resist.

Russ Daly from South Dakota State University explains, “Some animals died not from avian flu, but from secondary infections that thrived in their weakened state.”

Olga Robak from the Colorado Department of Agriculture adds, “Infected cows often didn’t recover their health because secondary infections took hold after their immune systems were compromised.”

Phil Durst of Michigan State University Extension notes, “In Michigan, secondary infections are notably high among infected cattle, further depleting herds struggling to recover.”

Ohio Department of Agriculture spokesperson Meghan Harshbarger confirms, “Most deaths in Ohio are due to secondary infections, rather than the avian flu virus itself.”

Therefore, while the initial avian flu infection is severe, the subsequent secondary infections are proving fatal for many dairy cows, complicating herd management during an outbreak.

Case Studies: Devastating Impact of Avian Flu on Dairy Farms

In South Dakota, a dairy farm had to cull 24 cows—12 that did not recover from the virus and another 12 that succumbed to secondary infections. This illustrates the drastic measures needed to maintain farm health.

In Michigan, about 10% of a farm’s 200 infected cows were culled due to their inability to recover from avian flu, highlighting the severe impact on large-scale dairy operations.

Colorado dairies also culled cows that failed to return to milk production, showing how the virus can significantly disrupt milk output and economic stability.

State Responses: A Patchwork of Impact and Strategies Amid Avian Flu Crisis

State responses to avian flu in dairy cows vary significantly. In Ohio and Texas, officials reported that most cow deaths resulted from secondary infections. Similarly, New Mexico’s state veterinarian indicated that early culling due to reduced milk production has diminished as recovery rates improved. Conversely, North Carolina and Kansas officials reported few to no cow deaths, suggesting a more contained situation.

Expanding Crisis: Avian Flu’s Relentless Spread Across U.S. Dairy Herds

The situation continues to worsen, with avian flu affecting dairy herds in Minnesota and Iowa. This brings the total infected dairies to 86 across 11 states. Since May 30, 18 new herds have tested positive. Recent USDA data shows new cases in three Texas dairies and another in Idaho. Increased voluntary testing by the USDA suggests more cases may emerge as the virus spreads.

USDA’s Pilot Program: A Crucial Weapon in the Fight Against Avian Flu in Dairy Herds

The USDA’s pilot program is a critical strategy in tackling the avian flu outbreak in dairy herds. By urging producers to test their herds voluntarily, it aims to identify H5N1 cases and quickly limit the virus’s spread. Farms must test negative for three consecutive weeks using ‘on-farm bulk milk’ or similar samples to be designated as ‘negative status,’ ensuring herd health and industry integrity.

Achieving a ‘negative status’ is crucial. It provides a framework for disease monitoring and control, preventing outbreaks from becoming more significant crises. Rigorous testing protocols help identify infected animals early, reducing economic losses from culling and secondary infections. Additionally, it restores consumer confidence in the safety of dairy products, which is essential for market stability. Such measures are vital in safeguarding public health and the dairy industry’s future.

Ensuring Food Safety Amid Avian Flu: USDA’s Assurance in the Integrity of Meat and Milk Supplies

As avian flu affects dairy cattle, food safety remains a top concern. The USDA assures that both meat and milk supplies are safe. Rigorous inspections by Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) veterinarians at federal slaughter facilities ensure that only healthy cattle enter the human food supply. Any cattle that do not pass these inspections are excluded.

Additionally, the USDA confirms that milk from healthy animals is safe for consumption, highlighting ongoing efforts to protect public health. These measures not only reassure consumers but also maintain the integrity of the U.S. food supply chain, instilling confidence in the safety of dairy products.

The Bottom Line

The avian flu’s penetration into the U.S. dairy industry is causing significant economic fallout. Dairy cows are dying or being culled due to the virus and secondary infections. Robust responses from state and federal agencies are now more critical than ever. Case studies from states like South Dakota, Michigan, and Texas highlight the dire impact. The USDA’s pilot program and testing efforts are essential for crisis management, food safety, and public trust. While current meat and milk supplies are safe, continuous monitoring and effective strategies are paramount to protect the agricultural economy and public health.

Key Takeaways:

Economic Impact: The culling and deaths of infected dairy cows are creating substantial financial strain on farmers, as cows are significantly more costly to raise compared to poultry.
Secondary Infections: Many cows are dying not directly from avian flu, but due to secondary infections that take advantage of their weakened immune systems.
State Reports: Multiple states, including South Dakota, Michigan, and Colorado, have reported significant losses, with differing responses and outcomes based on local conditions and strategies.
Rising Infections: The spread of avian flu continues to escalate, with new cases recently confirmed in Minnesota and Iowa, bringing the total number of affected states to 11.
Testing Initiatives: The USDA has initiated a pilot program encouraging dairy farms to test herds more frequently, aiming to identify negative status herds and curtail the spread of the virus.
Food Safety Assurance: Despite the outbreak, the USDA maintains that the U.S. meat supply remains safe due to stringent inspection processes ensuring only healthy animals enter the food supply.
State Variations: Impact and response strategies vary across states, reflecting a patchwork approach in managing the outbreak and its aftermath.

Summary: The U.S. dairy industry is facing an unprecedented crisis as the avian flu infiltrates dairy cows across multiple states. This has resulted in significant cattle losses, with infected cows either succumbing to the virus or being culled by farmers due to the lack of recovery prospects. The outbreak is not just a health crisis but also an economic disaster for farmers, with prioritizing containment efforts adding financial pressures on struggling producers. Secondary infections, causing higher mortality rates and management challenges, further complicate the situation. The agricultural sector’s resilience is being tested, but it is also a testament to the industry’s ability to adapt and overcome. Long-term adaptations are critical for survival, but it also instills hope that the sector can weather this storm. State responses to the avian flu in dairy cows vary significantly, with most cow deaths resulting from secondary infections. The USDA’s pilot program is a critical strategy in tackling the avian flu outbreak in dairy herds by urging producers to test their herds voluntarily.

Categories : Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

Comparing Dairy Feed Systems: Predicting Essential Amino Acid Outflows in Cows

Saturday, May 18th, 2024

Discover which dairy feed system best predicts essential amino acid outflows in cows. Are NRC, CNCPS, or NASEM systems more accurate for your herd’s nutrition?

The dairy industry thrives on the delicate balance between nutrition and productivity, with essential amino acids (EAA) playing a pivotal role. These building blocks are crucial for dairy cows’ health, growth, and milk production, serving as the foundation of successful dairy farming. But how do farmers ensure their herds get the right EAA mix? The answer lies in advanced feed evaluation systems that predict and optimize EAA outflows. This article explores the effectiveness of three such systems: the National Research Council (NRC), the Cornell Net Protein and Carbohydrate System (CNCPS), and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

Optimal EAA delivery in dairy diets boosts cow health and productivity and enhances overall farm sustainability through efficient nutrient utilization.

This study compares these three systems, focusing on their ability to predict post-ruminal outflows of EAAs. Analyzing data from 70 duodenal and 24 omasal studies aims to determine which method offers the most reliable predictions, guiding better feed formulations and promoting improved dairy cow health and productivity.

Essential Amino Acids in Dairy Cows

Essential amino acids (EAA) are vital nutrients that dairy cows must obtain through their diet. They are critical for protein synthesis, enzyme activity, and other metabolic processes.

In dairy nutrition, EAAs are vital to maintaining optimal milk production. An imbalance in amino acid ratios can lead to nutrient waste and inefficient milk production. Proper balance ensures that dietary proteins are used effectively, producing higher milk yield and quality.

Deficiencies in EAAs like methionine and Lysine can reduce milk protein synthesis, impacting milk production and cow health. Addressing these deficits through precise ration formulation sustains high milk yield and ensures cow well-being.

Dairy Feed Systems

In addition to the three dairy feed evaluation systems, the feed delivery method is crucial for amino acid absorption and utilization. Total Mixed Ration (TMR) and Partial Mixed Ration (PMR) are the two central systems.

Total Mixed Ration (TMR): This system mixes all dietary components into a single blend, ensuring each bite is nutritionally balanced.

Partial Mixed Ration (PMR): This method combines forage and concentrate portions separately, providing flexibility but potentially less consistency in nutrient intake.

Pros of TMR:

Ensures balanced nutrient intake in every bite, improving amino acid absorption.
Promotes stable rumen fermentation, essential for microbial protein synthesis and cow health.

Cons of TMR:

Requires costly specialized mixing equipment.
Less flexible in adjusting to individual cow needs or changes in forage quality.

Pros of PMR:

Offers flexibility to manage forage and concentrate portions for individual cow needs.
It is cheaper to implement as it doesn’t require sophisticated mixing equipment.

Cons of PMR:

This may lead to inconsistent nutrient intake, affecting amino acid absorption.
It can cause sorting behavior, leading to imbalanced nutrition.

When choosing between TMR and PMR, consider:

Equipment and Cost: Initial investment and maintenance of feeding equipment.
Nutritional Consistency: TMR ensures balanced intake, which is crucial for amino acid absorption, while PMR needs careful management.
Cow Behavior: Feeding systems should align with cow behavior to maintain milk production and health.
Flexibility: PMR might be preferable for operations requiring quick ration adjustments.

Both TMR and PMR have merits and limitations. The choice depends on farm-specific factors like resource availability, herd size, and management goals. Implementing the right feeding strategy with accurate feed evaluation optimizes amino acid absorption, ensuring better productivity and health in dairy cows.

Predicting Essential Amino Acid Outflows

Predicting essential amino acid (EAA) outflows in dairy cows accurately is vital for crafting balanced rations that boost health and productivity. Three primary dairy feed evaluation systems are in use: the National Research Council (NRC), the Cornell Net Protein and Carbohydrate System (CNCPS), and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

These systems use models based on rumen-undegradable, microbial, and endogenous protein outflows. The NRC model underpredicts most EAAs, while CNCPS overpredicts amino acids like Arg, His, and Lys. On the other hand, NASEM occasionally overpredicts Lysine but is more accurate overall in predicting absolute values.

Several factors affect amino acid absorption and metabolism, including the cow’s physiological state, feed composition, and microbial protein synthesis efficiency in the rumen—the sample collection site, whether omasal or duodenal, significantly impacts model accuracy. Changes in crude protein and EAA chemistry in feed also influence predictions, highlighting the complex relationship between diet formulation and nutrient absorption.

Accurate EAA outflow estimates are crucial for ensuring dairy cows receive proper nutrition, which optimizes milk production, enhances feed efficiency, and improves reproductive performance. Misestimations can result in nutrient deficits or excesses, with economic and health impacts. Therefore, continually refining these prediction models is essential to meet the evolving needs of dairy nutrition and maintain productive, healthy herds.

Comparative Analysis: NRC vs CNCPS vs NASEM

Evaluation System	Prediction Accuracy (EAA Outflows)	Mean Bias	Linear Bias of Concern	Strengths	Weaknesses
NRC	Accurate	Underpredicted most EAA (5.3% to 8.6%)	His	Higher concordance correlation in duodenal studies Slight superiority in predicting dietary change responses	Underprediction of most EAA except Leu, Lys, and Val
NASEM	Accurate	Overpredicted Lys (10.8%)	None	Small superiority in predicting absolute values	Overprediction of Lys
CNCPS	Variable	Overpredicted Arg, His, Lys, Met, and Val (5.2% to 26.0%)	All EAA except Leu, Phe, and Thr	Lowest mean bias for Met in omasal studies	Mean and linear biases of concern for many EAA

Analyzing raw observed values, the NRC system underpredicted EAA outflows, with deviations ranging from 5.3% to 8.6% of the observed mean except for Leu, Lys, and Val. Conversely, NASEM overpredicted Ly’s outflow by 10.8%. CNCPS overpredicted multiple amino acids, with deviations from 5.2% to 26.0%.

Regarding linear bias, NASEM showed no significant biases for any EAA, highlighting its robustness. NRC only had a linear bias of concern for His at 6.8%, while CNCPS had biases for almost all EAAs except Leu, Phe, and Thr.

For dietary changes, NRC showed fewer EAAs with linear biases of concern, precisely only two. NASEM and CNCPS had biases for four and six EAAs, respectively. Notably, He exhibited linear biases across all three systems.

The variability in sampling sites—omasal versus duodenal—revealed systematic discrepancies in Met outflows. NRC performed better with duodenal studies, while CNCPS showed the most negligible mean bias for Met in omasal samples. This 30% difference in Met mean biases mirrors discrepancies observed in Met versus nonammonia nitrogen outflows.

Detailed reporting of crude protein and EAA chemistry for feed ingredients, as observed in 36% of studies, helped reduce linear biases across all systems, emphasizing the importance of precise ingredient characterization.

Overall, NRC and NASEM showed vital prediction accuracy for EAA outflows, with NASEM excelling in predicting absolute values and NRC in adapting to dietary changes. Despite CNCPS’s broader mean and linear biases, it still offers valuable insights, making the system choice dependent on specific nutritional priorities.

Addressing Mean and Linear Biases in Feed Evaluation Systems

Understanding and addressing biases in feed evaluation systems is crucial for improving amino acid (AA) prediction models. Our meta-analysis of the NRC, CNCPS, and NASEM systems revealed significant insights into their predictive capabilities.

Mean and linear biases were considered concerning if statistically significant and exceeding 5% of the observed mean, mitigating Type I errors and ensuring actual predictive discrepancies.

Examining raw observed values, NRC tended to underpredict most essential amino acids (EAA) outflows, with deviations between 5.3% and 8.6% of the observed mean, except for Leu, Lys, and Val. NASEM overpredicted Lys by 10.8%, indicating a need for refinement. CNCPS overpredicted multiple EAAs, with biases from 5.2% to 26.0% for Arg, His, Lys, Met, and Val, suggesting algorithm adjustments.

Regression analyses indicated that reporting the measured chemistry of crude protein and EAA in feed ingredients, present in 36% of studies, significantly reduced linear biases in all three systems, emphasizing the importance of accurate input data.

Sampling site differences, particularly between omasal and duodenal studies, also affected mean biases for Met outflows. NRC showed better concordance in duodenal studies, while CNCPS was more accurate in omasal studies. This suggests that feed evaluation system applicability may vary with sampling methodology, warranting a nuanced model application approach.

This analysis highlights the strengths and limitations of current feed evaluation systems, prompting further refinements for enhanced accuracy and reliability. Addressing biases and leveraging precise feed composition data are essential for advancing dairy feed evaluation frameworks.

Impact of Study Adjustments on EAA Predictions

Adjusting data for the random effect of the study revealed notable changes in the feed evaluation systems’ ability to predict EAA outflows. These adjustments are crucial for reducing biases from study-specific variations, providing a clearer picture of predictive capabilities. The Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), indicating predictive agreement, ranged from 0.34 to 0.55, showing moderate reliability across the systems.

NRC showed an advantage in predicting EAA responses to dietary changes, with biases of concern for only two amino acids. This could be due to NRC’s fine-tuned foundational equations. In contrast, NASEM and CNCPS displayed more significant biases, with NASEM having four and CNCPS six EAA with linear biases of concern.

Interestingly, measured crude protein and EAA chemistries in feed ingredients—reported in 36% of the studies—significantly decreased linear biases in all three systems. This underscores the importance of precise ingredient characterization in improving prediction accuracy.

Histidine (His) outflows showed linear biases of concern across all three systems, suggesting a common modeling issue for this amino acid. Additionally, methodological differences between duodenal and omasal studies are notable; NRC showed better concordance for methionine (Met) in duodenal studies. CNCPS exhibited lesser mean bias in omasal studies.

Overall, these adjustments highlight the complexities in predicting EAA outflows. While NRC and NASEM are relatively reliable, each with unique strengths, CNCPS’s significant biases suggest a need for refinement. Future work should focus on identifying and correcting the causes of these biases to enhance nutritional precision for dairy cows.

The Bottom Line

The comparative analysis of NRC, CNCPS, and NASEM systems revealed distinct performance traits in predicting post-ruminal outflows of essential amino acids (EAA) in dairy cows. NRC and NASEM demonstrated solid accuracy, with NASEM slightly better at predicting absolute values and NRC superior in dietary change responses. In contrast, CNCPS showed significant biases for various EAAs.

These insights are crucial for dairy farmers and researchers. Accurate EAA outflow predictions are vital in formulating balanced rations, optimizing milk production, and enhancing overall herd health. The study highlights the need to choose the right evaluation system for absolute values or diet changes. The choice of sampling site, duodenal or omasal, also affects EAA prediction accuracy, which is vital for effective feeding strategies.

Future research should focus on reducing biases in feed evaluation systems and improving EAA prediction methods. Developing advanced models that include data from various sampling sites is essential. Further exploration into feed ingredient chemistry and its effects on EAA outflows will drive advancements in dairy nutrition, benefiting both economic and animal welfare outcomes.

Key Takeaways:

Essential Nutrients: Accurate prediction of EAA outflows enables better nutritional planning for dairy cows, leading to improved growth, milk production, and overall health.
Evaluation Systems: This study compares NRC, CNCPS, and NASEM in terms of their ability to predict postruminal amino acid outflows.
Meta-Analysis Scope: The data set includes 354 treatment means from 70 duodenal and 24 omasal studies, ensuring a comprehensive comparison across various methodologies.
Bias Consideration: Mean and linear biases are critical factors, flagged if statistically significant and representing more than 5% of the observed mean, to avoid Type I error.
Consistent Findings: NRC and NASEM are consistent in their predictions, with NASEM slightly better at predicting absolute values and NRC being superior in predicting dietary change responses. CNCPS, however, exhibits mean and linear biases for numerous EAAs.
Practical Applications: Understanding the accuracy and biases of these systems can help farmers and dieticians in optimizing diet formulations, thereby improving the effectiveness of dairy production practices.

Summary: The dairy industry relies on a balance between nutrition and productivity, with essential amino acids (EAA) playing a crucial role in cow health, growth, and milk production. Advanced feed evaluation systems help farmers predict and optimize EAA outflows. This study compares Total Mixed Ration (TMR) and Partial Mixed Ration (PMR) to determine the most reliable predictions for predicting post-ruminal EAA outflows. TMR ensures balanced nutrient intake, improving amino acid absorption and promoting stable rumen fermentation. PMR offers flexibility and is cheaper but may lead to inconsistent nutrient intake and imbalanced nutrition. Both systems have merits and limitations, depending on farm-specific factors. Implementing the right feeding strategy with accurate feed evaluation optimizes amino acid absorption, ensuring better productivity and health in dairy cows.

Categories : Uncategorized

Where have all the dairy farmers gone? In Depth Analysis of the 2013 U.S. and Canadian National Dairy Herd Statistics

· Comments (0)

Friday, March 14th, 2014

In 2013 more US dairy farmers left the business than in any year since 2007. For an industry that has seen almost 64% percent of its members leave in the span of one generation, these are not positive stats. Continued high feed costs, despite high milk prices, have seen margins get tighter and tighter causing over 2,321 dairy farmers to leave dairying in the last year alone.

Click on image to enlarge

TABLE 1: Licensed U.S. Dairy Farms & Average Herd Size by year

Name	Sire	GTPI*	Owner	State/Ctry
DA-SO-BURN UNO 781	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2647	Darin & Sonya Burnikel	Cresco , IA
LARCREST CANTO-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2626	Jon E. Larson	Albert Lea , MN
T-GEN-AC SUPERSIRE RUTH-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2619	Tim Clark	Brownsburg-Chatham , IA
EDG RUBY UNO RACHEL-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2615	Elite Dairy Genomics LLC	Chebanse , IL
LADYS-MANOR RD SASHAY-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2598	Ladys Manor LLC	Monkton , MD
S-S-I JEROD MINAL 8777-ET	DE-SU JEROD 1223-ET	2598	Select Sires Inc.	Plain City , OH
EDG HALLIE UNO HEATHER-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2581	Elite Dairy Genomics LLC	Chebanse , IL
CAR-J SUPERSIRE LILA-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2569	Carlton Williard	Graham , NC
COYNE-FARMS UNO MAPLE-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2545	Coyne Farms Inc.	Avon , NY
EDG RUBY UNO RIZA-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2539	Elite Dairy Genomics LLC	Chebanse , IL
EDG RUBY UNO RANDI-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2535	Elite Dairy Genomics LLC	Chebanse , IL
VIEW-HOME UNO HOPE-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2534	Country Dairy Inc.	New Era , MI
VIEW-HOME MCC FOUND-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2531	Country Dairy Inc.	New Era , MI
WOODCREST NUMERO UNO FUN-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2530	Woodcrest Dairy LLC	Lisbon , NY
VIEW-HOME MCC ALABAMA-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2528	Country Dairy Inc.	New Era , MI
ROORDA MAY MCBABY 15866-ET	DE-SU D MAYFIELD 893-ET	2522	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
ROORDA SS MCJONI 15887-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2516	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
EILDON-TWEED SAJ TANO-ET	GIL-GAR DOMAIN SAJAC-ET	2516	David R. Wood	Amsterdam , NY
BUTZ-HILL MAGICGIRL-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2513	Mark Butz	Mount Vernon , IA
VIEW-HOME UNO GRACE-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2512	Country Dairy Inc.	New Era , MI
MS KOENEN NUMEROUNO 5835-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2508	Gregory B Moret & Koenen Dairy	Prairie Du Chien , WI
APRILDAY-CG SS BETTY-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2502	Edward Peck & Charles Garrison	Madison , WI
MS DREARY DRALA-ET	SEAGULL-BAY HEADLINER-ET	2501	Trans-America Genetics	St-Hyacinthe QC , CA
ROORDA SS MCCARI 15884-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2500	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
EDG HALLIE MOGUL HEART-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2497	Elite Dairy Genomics LLC	Chebanse , IL
MELARRY MOGUL FELICE-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2495	Melvin C. & Spencer C. Hackett	Rice , MN
BACON-HILL UNO MAUDE-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2493	Bacon-Hill Holsteins LLC	Schuylerville , NY
ROORDA CUT MCCINDY 15917-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2493	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
ROORDA CUT MCJANE 15914-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2489	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
SPEEK-NJ UNO DANCE-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2489	Neil McDonah	Trempealeau , WI
DE-SU GALAXY 2494-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2487	Darin Meyer	New Albin , IA
VIEW-HOME UNO FAITH-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2487	Country Dairy Inc.	New Era , MI
S-S-I GLX MAYBELINE 8725-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2487	Select Sires Inc.	Plain City , OH
MORNINGVIEW MGL ROXY-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2478	Tom J. Schmitt	Durango , IA
ROORDA SS MERRITT 15889-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2477	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
SPEEK-NJ DA MARIAH CAREY-ET	MINNIGAN-HILLS DAY-ET	2475	Neil McDonah	Trempealeau , WI
FARNEAR CAM ALL AMBITION-ET	SHEMA JEEVES CAMERON-ET	2473	Bryhill Farm Inc	Ormstown PQ , IA
LARCREST COTTON-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2469	Jon E. Larson	Albert Lea , MN
NORTH-ECHO MOGUL 2893-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2469	Clear Echo Farm LLC & North Fo	Schuylerville , NY
SEAGULL-BAY MOGUL 1723-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2465	Seagull Bay Dairy Inc.	American Falls , ID
MORMANN UNO LIVANA 2184-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2465	Daniel Sandra & Jennifer Morma	New Vienna , IA
VATLAND MOGUL MOCHA 3665-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2463	Josh Vatland	Caledonia , MN
COYNE-MCGARR MOGL LOTTIE-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2463	Dan McGarr & Coyne Fms Inc.	King Ferry , NY
HOLYLAND ECLIPS UNO 2145-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2462	Daniel F. & Joseph N. Loehr	Mount Calvary , WI
LADYS-MANOR HDLR SHASTEE-ET	SEAGULL-BAY HEADLINER-ET	2461	Ladys Manor LLC	Monkton , MD
OCD PARISH DAFFODIL-ET	PLAIN-KNOLL PARISH 5534-ET	2459	Oakfield Corners Dairy	Oakfield , NY
REGANCREST NU BENISHA-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2458	Regancrest Farms	Waukon , IA
CO-OP RB MIXER OLIVE	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MIXER-ET	2454	Genesis Cooperative Herd	Shawano , WI
TJR MOGUL PACIFICA 2192-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2454	TJR Genetics	Farley , IA
VIEW-HOME MCC ALASKA-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2452	Country Dairy Inc.	New Era , MI
SANDY-VALLEY HLNR TILLIE-ET	SEAGULL-BAY HEADLINER-ET	2449	Dave Pat Frank Jr. & Greg B	Stevens Point , WI
JOOK SUPER SIRE 6839-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2447	Lester C. Jones & Sons Inc.	Massey , MD
CO-OP BSF MOGUL LYDIA-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2446	Brown Star Farm LLC	Gillett , WI
DE-SU GALAXY 2486-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2445	Darin Meyer	New Albin , IA
DINOMI MOGUL DAINTY CRI-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2445	Genesis Cooperative Herd	Shawano , WI
SEAGULL-BAY MOGUL 1725-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2445	Seagull Bay Dairy Inc.	American Falls , ID
PENN-ENGLAND GIFIAN 9329-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2441	Penn England LLC	Williamsburg , PA
ROORDA SS MIRCELA 15882-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2441	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
MS MOVIESTAR UNO MACE-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2439	Butler Borba Glaz-Way & Durr	Chebanse , IL
JOOK HEADLINER 6910-ET	SEAGULL-BAY HEADLINER-ET	2438	Lester C. Jones & Sons Inc.	Massey , MD
S-S-I STCHL MICK 8753-ET	ERBCREST SATCHEL P	2438	Select Sires Inc.	Plain City , OH
JOSEY-LLC UNO SANGARIA-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2437	Josey 101 LLC	Trempealeau , WI
DE-SU MOGUL 2490-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2437	De Su Holsteins LLC	New Albin , IA
SCO-LO ABRA UNO 2022-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2436	John Cannon	Dyersville , IA
TJR DAY PAIGE 2208-ET	MINNIGAN-HILLS DAY-ET	2436	TJR Genetics	Farley , IA
MIDAS-TOUCH MCCUT TISHA-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2435	Kings-Ransom Farm LLC	Schuylerville , NY
T-SPRUCE NUMERO UNO 7322-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2433	Arnold B. Gruenes	Richmond , MN
DE-SU SUPERSIRE 2278-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2432	De Su Holsteins LLC	New Albin , IA
DE-SU SALEEN 2492-ET	FUSTEAD SALEEN	2432	Darin Meyer	New Albin , IA
CO-OP BSF MOGUL LUCY-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2432	Brown Star Farm LLC	Gillett , WI
LARCREST CACHITO-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2432	Jon E. Larson	Albert Lea , MN
DE-SU UNO 2297-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2430	De Su Holsteins LLC	New Albin , IA
TJR UNO DEIDRA 2204-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2429	TJR Genetics	Farley , IA
SANDY-VALLEY HDLNR THEDA-ET	SEAGULL-BAY HEADLINER-ET	2429	Dave Pat Frank Jr. & Greg B	Stevens Point , WI
SANDY-VALLEY MG CALAMITY-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2429	Dave Pat Frank Jr. & Greg B	Stevens Point , WI
CO-OP DAY ROSETTE 6920-ET	MINNIGAN-HILLS DAY-ET	2428	Genesis Cooperative Herd	Shawano , WI
SIEMERS UNO REAL-PRETTY-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2426	Siemers Holstein Farms Inc.	Newton , WI
S-S-I STRLNG TAYLOR 8728-ET	SANDY-VALLEY STERLING-ET	2425	Select Sires Inc.	Plain City , OH
REGANCREST NU BENEA-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2424	Regancrest Farms	Waukon , IA
WILRA SUPER SIRE 537-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2422	Wilra Farms Inc.	Nashville , IL
STONEHURST NU CHESNI-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2422	David & Anne Kulp & Todd Galto	Manheim , PA
WA-DEL MOGUL BRENNA-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2422	Rick L. Wadel	Shippensburg , PA
STONEHURST NU CHASITI-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2421	David & Anne Kulp & Todd Galto	Manheim , PA
OAKFIELD MORGAN BUBBLES-ET	S-S-I BOOKEM MORGAN-ET	2420	Alicia Lamb	Oakfield , NY
DE-SU EPIC 2515-ET	GENERVATIONS EPIC	2418	De Su Holsteins LLC	New Albin , IA
MORMANN UNO LIQUOR 2209-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2418	Daniel Sandra & Jennifer Morma	New Vienna , IA
JOOK MOGUL 6736	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2416	Lester C. Jones & Sons Inc.	Massey , MD
END-ROAD MAYFIELD BLAZE	DE-SU D MAYFIELD 893-ET	2416	Duane & Janet Molhoek	Falmouth , MI
KHW MCCUTCHEN AFLIRT-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2416	High Altitude Syndicate	Platteville , WI
S-S-I OCOSMO MARIAH 8714-ET	O-COSMOPOLITAN-ET	2414	Select Sires Inc.	Plain City , OH
LANGS-TWIN-B S-SIRE 4961-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2414	F. & L. Baumann and F. Lang	Marathon , WI
KP-ACK HUNTER 316-ET	COOKIECUTTER MOM HUNTER-ET	2412	Kevin & Pete Ackerman	Sauk Rapids , MN
WOODCREST DAY DAWNING-ET	MINNIGAN-HILLS DAY-ET	2412	Woodcrest Dairy LLC	Lisbon , NY
DE-SU GALAXY 2504-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2412	Darin Meyer	New Albin , IA
MS PETRONE DONALYNNA-ET	WELCOME SUPER PETRONE-ET	2412	Trans-America Genetics	Oakdale , CA
HAR-DALE-ACRES-JP PALACE-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2411	Fred & Matt Harder	Athens , WI
RI-VAL-RE SUPRSRE NALLIE-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2410	Aaron Jorgensen	Webberville , MI
END-ROAD MOGUL BLISS-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2410	Duane & Janet Molhoek	Falmouth , MI
ROORDA UNO MOLLIE 15849-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2410	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
AL-LEW MGL ALABAMA 1196-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2409	Scott I. Sollenberger	Saint Thomas , PA
EDG LACY MCC LOLLIPOP-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2408	Elite Dairy Genomics LLC	Chebanse , IL
DE-SU UNO 2500-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2406	De Su Holsteins LLC	New Albin , IA
JB-DOMINIC SAJAC 3249	GIL-GAR DOMAIN SAJAC-ET	2405	James E. Burroughs	Denair , CA
CLEAR-ECHO CLARTA 2868-ET		2405	Clear Echo Farm LLC	Schuylerville , NY
JERESA UNO PEPSI-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2405	Jere L & Teresa J Brubaker	Myerstown , PA
PENN-ENGLAND RUTHIE 9512	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2404	Barry M. & Diane H. England	Williamsburg , PA
COYNE-MCGARR MOGUL BAINA-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2403	Dan McGarr & Coyne Fms Inc.	King Ferry , NY
FOUR-CAL DAY DARBY-ET	MINNIGAN-HILLS DAY-ET	2403	Four-Cal Genetics	Caledonia , MN
SCHILLVIEW SUPERSIRE GIGI	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2403	Michael & Karen Schiller	Freeport , MN
ST GENOMICPRO STARRY	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2403	Sexing Technologies	Navasota , TX
DANHOF MOGUL DELARAE-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2402	Jason & Sheri Danhof	Waukon , IA
AMMON-PEACHEY MSY MIFF-ET	CO-OP BOSSIDE MASSEY-ET	2402	M & J Ammon & G S Peachey	Lewistown , PA
CO-OP RB GALAXY GARLIN-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2401	Genesis Cooperative Herd	Shawano , WI
MORNINGVIEW UNO REGINA-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2400	Tom J. Schmitt	Durango , IA
SIEMERS DADDY BOMBTASTIC-ET	RONELEE SSI O DADDY-ET	2400	Siemers Holstein Farms Inc.	Newton , WI
S-S-I STRLNG SIDNEY 8732-ET	SANDY-VALLEY STERLING-ET	2399	Select Sires Inc.	Plain City , OH
CLEAR-ECHO SUPRSIRE 2878-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2399	Clear Echo Farm LLC	Schuylerville , NY
MORNINGVIEW MGL RENEA-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2399	Tom J. Schmitt	Durango , IA
T-SPRUCE O-COSMO 7270-ET	O-COSMOPOLITAN-ET	2399	Arnold B. Gruenes	Richmond , MN
SPEEK-NJ COLBIE CAILLAT-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2397	Neil McDonah	Trempealeau , WI
OCD PARISH DARLING-ET	PLAIN-KNOLL PARISH 5534-ET	2396	Oakfield Corners Dairy	Oakfield , NY
BLUMENFELD GRAFEETI 4282	LADYS-MANOR RD GRAFEETI-ET	2395	Spring Prairie Colony Inc.	Hawley , MN
KERIEL UNO BARBI-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2395	Daniel K Wiebe	Whitewater , KS
FOUR-CAL DAY FELICITY-ET	MINNIGAN-HILLS DAY-ET	2394	Four-Cal Genetics	Caledonia , MN
S-S-I OFFIE TANDY 8638-ET	CLEAR-ECHO OBSERVR OFFIE-ET	2394	Select Sires Inc.	Plain City , OH
LARCREST CALADIUM-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2394	Jon E. Larson	Albert Lea , MN
SIEMERS DADDY BOMBI-GAL-ET	RONELEE SSI O DADDY-ET	2393	Siemers Holstein Farms Inc.	Newton , WI
FARNEAR-BH SS MABEL-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2392	Tom Simon	Farley , IA
AL-LEW MGL ARCADIA 1194-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2392	Scott I. Sollenberger	Saint Thomas , PA
VATLAND MOGUL MOLLY 3663-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2391	Josh Vatland	Caledonia , MN
DE-SU UNO 2514-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2391	De Su Holsteins LLC	New Albin , IA
DE-SU UNO 2288-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2390	De Su Holsteins LLC	New Albin , IA
STONEHURST NU CHARISA-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2390	David & Anne Kulp & Todd Galto	Manheim , PA
NORTH-ECHO MOGUL 2856-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2390	Clear Echo Farm LLC & North Fo	Schuylerville , NY
NO-FLA PETRONE 34760-ET	WELCOME SUPER PETRONE-ET	2389	North Florida Holsteins	Bell , FL
S-S-I SHAN TEANNA 8755-ET	LADYS-MANOR MAN-O-SHAN-ET	2388	Select Sires Inc.	Plain City , OH
ROYLANE BOOKEM MEG 5457-ET	DE-SU 521 BOOKEM-ET	2388	Gary & Bruce Roylance	Warden , WA
ZAHBULLS GOLDEN CRI-ET	MOUNTFIELD MSY MAURICE-ET	2388	Genesis Cooperative Herd	Shawano , WI
CO-OP BSF MOGUL JASIME-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2387	Brown Star Farm LLC	Gillett , WI
SEAGULL-BAY VN GALAXY-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2387	Seagull Bay Dairy Inc.	American Falls , ID
GIL-GAR S-SIRE SAUCY-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2387	Henry G. Stelling	Plainview , MN
EDG BRYSHA SS BRYCE-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2386	Elite Dairy Genomics LLC	Chebanse , IL
KP-ACK MOGUL 320-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2386	Kevin & Pete Ackerman	Sauk Rapids , MN
SANDY-VALLEY SPX FREESIA-ET	BLUE-HORIZON ALTASUPLEX	2386	Dave Pat Frank Jr. & Greg B	Stevens Point , WI
ROSYLANE-LLC MAURICE 5848	MOUNTFIELD MSY MAURICE-ET	2385	Rosy-Lane Holsteins LLC	Watertown , WI
PINE-TREE 4283 NUM1 5577-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2384	Matthew J. Steiner	Marshallville , OH
WELCOME DAY GILDEX-ET	MINNIGAN-HILLS DAY-ET	2384	Welcome Stock Farm LLC	Schuylerville , NY
RONELEE SUPERSIRE TAMMY-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2382	Sherman Polinder	Lynden , WA
FARNEAR-BH SS MYRA-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2381	Tom Simon	Farley , IA
WELCOME UNO GORGEOUS CRI-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2379	Genesis Cooperative Herd	Shawano , WI
EDG EVIE LITHIUM EMA-ET	S-S-I DOMAIN LITHIUM-ET	2379	Elite Dairy Genomics LLC	Chebanse , IL
APRILDAY-CG SS ARETHA-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2379	Edward Peck & Charles Garrison	Madison , WI
TEEMAR MOGUL ARMBAND-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2379	Mark P. Paul	Luxemburg , WI
S-S-I MASSEY BARRIE 8784-ET	CO-OP BOSSIDE MASSEY-ET	2379	Select Sires Inc.	Plain City , OH
UECKER LAYNE JOLILA-ET	KELLERCREST SUPER LAYNE-ET	2379	Dale Uecker	Forestville , WI
SANDY-VALLEY BILLIE JEAN-ET	ROYLANE BOXER PUNCH 4311-ET	2378	Dave Pat Frank Jr. & Greg B	Stevens Point , WI
ROORDA UNO MCMARY 15844-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2378	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
SPEEK-NJ CLAUDET COLBERT-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2378	Neil McDonah	Trempealeau , WI
SEAGULL-BAY ALEXA II-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2377	Seagull Bay Dairy Inc.	American Falls , ID
VIEW-HOME MCC GLORY-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2377	Country Dairy Inc.	New Era , MI
SPEEK-NJ UNO GLENN CLOSE-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2376	Neil McDonah	Trempealeau , WI
JOOK 1H10297 6667	EILDON-TWEED SUPER CHAP-ET	2376	Lester C. Jones & Sons Inc.	Massey , MD
OCD MCCUTCHEN DETROIT-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2376	Oakfield Corners Dairy	Oakfield , NY
ROORDA MOGUL DARBY 15796-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2376	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
LINERWAY UNO GOGO-ETS	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2375	Jeff & Dan Liner	Van Dyne , WI
ROORDA MCCUT DANNY 15902-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2375	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
BRANDT-VIEW DEAN DOMINGA-ET	RONELEE SUPER DEAN-ET	2375	Brandt-View Farms	Annville , PA
HONEYCREST MOGUL FANFARE-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2374	Honeycrest Farms Inc	Spring Valley , WI
RO-WEE EXOTIC PARADISE-ET	REGANCREST PARADISE-ET	2374	Robert & Kris Weeden	Richland Center , WI
SPEEK-NJ CAROL CHANNING-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2374	Neil McDonah	Trempealeau , WI
WILRA SUPER SIRE 528-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2373	Wilra Farms Inc.	Nashville , IL
LINERWAY UNO GAGA-ETS	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2373	Jeff & Dan Liner	Van Dyne , WI
DE-SU GALAXY 2513-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2372	Darin Meyer	New Albin , IA
TJR UNO DAISY 2196-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2372	TJR Genetics	Farley , IA
DE-SU GALAXY 2484-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2370	De Su Holsteins LLC	New Albin , IA
VIEW-HOME UNO LUCIANA-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2370	Country Dairy Inc.	New Era , MI
HENNIKERS MOGUL REGENIA 2-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2370	Holstein UK	Herts WD3 3BB ,
DANHOF MOGUL DALLAS-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2368	Jason & Sheri Danhof	Waukon , IA
BUTZ-HILL MAGICNIGHT-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2368	Mark Butz	Mount Vernon , IA
DE-SU LITHIUM 2276-ET	S-S-I DOMAIN LITHIUM-ET	2367	De Su Holsteins LLC	New Albin , IA
WCD-ZBW SUPERSIRE LALA-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2367	Kevin & Barbara Ziemba & Woodc	Lisbon , NY
HOLEC PANZUL	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2367	A L H Genetics BV	Damwoude ,
LARCREST CABARET-ET	GENERVATIONS LEXOR	2367	Jon E. Larson	Albert Lea , MN
PFAFFS COCO-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2367	Kenneth J. Pfaff	Rochester , MN
SPEEK-NJ UNO DECKLYN-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2366	Neil McDonah	Trempealeau , WI
COYNE-MCGARR GALAXY BAKA-ET	DE-SU FREDDIE GALAXY-ET	2365	Dan McGarr & Coyne Fms Inc.	King Ferry , NY
DE-SU LAYNE 2279-ET	KELLERCREST SUPER LAYNE-ET	2365	De Su Holsteins LLC	New Albin , IA
MS CHASSITY UNO CUTIE-ET	AMIGHETTI NUMERO UNO-ET	2365	Chassity Syndicate LLC	Overland Park , KS
SIEMERS DADDY BOMBI-GIRL-ET	RONELEE SSI O DADDY-ET	2365	Siemers Holstein Farms Inc.	Newton , WI
CLEAR-ECHO ODADDY 2892-ET	RONELEE SSI O DADDY-ET	2365	Clear Echo Farm LLC	Schuylerville , NY
ST GENOMICPRO RAMAH-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2364	Sexing Technologies	Navasota , TX
KERNDTWAY MCCUTCHEN DICE-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2364	Mark W. Kerndt	Waukon , IA
WAKE-UP PETRONE EVE-ET	WELCOME SUPER PETRONE-ET	2364	Wayne Houdek	Caledonia , MN
VISION-GEN MOGUL MI14392-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2363	VISION GENETICS	Mount Joy , PA
MILLER-FF SSIRE ELEGANT-ET	SEAGULL-BAY SUPERSIRE-ET	2363	Joshua & Nicole Miller	Glenwood City , WI
PENN-ENGLAND GIFIAN 9331-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2362	Penn England LLC	Williamsburg , PA
SANDY-VALLEY HUNTER CHAR-ET	COOKIECUTTER MOM HUNTER-ET	2362	Dave Pat Frank Jr. & Greg B	Stevens Point , WI
ROORDA MCCUT MOANA 15909-ET	DE-SU BKM MCCUTCHEN 1174-ET	2362	John & Larry Roorda	Paullina , IA
KP-ACK MOGUL 319-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2361	Kevin & Pete Ackerman	Sauk Rapids , MN
AIR-OSA-EXEL M DEE-ET	MOUNTFIELD SSI DCY MOGUL-ET	2361	Joey Airosa & Henry & Carolyn	Tipton , CA

Of the 84,549 dairies that left the industry in the past 22 years, the majority did so between 1992 and 2002. Regardless that does not negate the fact that since 2003 the decline every year has been at least 3.3%.

How the West Was Won

TABLE 2 Regional Herds, Cows and Herd Size Since 1992

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Despite the reduction in the number of dairy farmers, national cattle numbers actually held seeing only a 0.1% reduction to 9.221 million cows., Production actually increased slightly (0.3%) to 201.2 billion pounds. However, that is the slowest rate of production growth recorded in the past 5 years.

Click to enlarge

An obvious trend over the past 22 years is the significant growth in herd sizes. The national average herd size has risen from 74 cows per herd in 1992 to 167 cows in 2013. The biggest change in herd size has occurred in the West where there has been a 58% increase to 279 cows per herd. In fact that average herd size in the West is more than 5 times the size of the herds in the other regions.

The Story by State

TABLE 3 Dairy Farm Numbers by State

RANK	NAME	SIRE STACK	RZG	RZM	RZE	OWNER
1	FAGENO	Fidji x Ruacana	152	141	121	RSH
2	RED MIST	Elburn x Spencer	149	135	120	WEU
3	ERAGON	Elburn x Spencer	149	130	127	RSH
4	ELSPE	Elburn x Spencer	147	134	122	RUW
5	TABIT	Tableau x Mr Burns	144	136	120	RUW
6	MORRIS	Fidelity x Spencer	144	137	121	RUW
7	DESMOND	Desk x Malvoy	143	136	129	RUW
8	ELLMAU	Elburn x Carmano	142	124	123	RUW
9	MILKYWAY	Mitey x Lawn Boy	142	132	116	RUW
10	LANZAROTE	Laron P x Mr Burns	142	125	126	RUW
11	GEERT	Fidelity x Spencer	141	135	114	RUW
12	ATTIKA	Axion-Red x Oman	141	134	109	RUW
13	CAN BE	Camery ISY x Carmano	141	124	120	RUW
14	AIRY-P-RED	Colt P x Pembroke	140	124	118	RSH
15	FILIAS	Fidji x Mr Burns	140	126	118	RSH
16	DESK	Destry x Gogo	140	129	124	RUW
17	FIERO	Fiction x Tocar	140	142	98	RUW
18	COLOUR P	Colt P x Destry	140	123	133	RUW
19	LADYS SON	Laron P x Zabing	140	128	124	RUW
20	TARGET	Tableau x Ramos	140	125	121	RUW
21	PASCHA RED	Savage x Spencer	140	126	116	RUW
22	LACOSTE	Larson x Destry	140	129	132	LTR/ZBH
23	FALSTER	Fiction x Mr Burns	139	135	118	LTR/ZBH
24	DEEPSPACE	Deedle x Tocar	139	139	124	RUW
25	KUMO	Fiction x Spencer	139	138	105	RU

Figure 4 Herds by State Heat Map 2013

The greatest percentage of declines has occurred in the Southeast region (6.5% decline), and the greatest total decrease occurred in the Midwest (1,755). The only state to actually show an increase was Pennsylvania that had a 60 herd (0.8%) increase in 2013.

TABLE 4 Total Milk Production by State 2013

RANK	NAME	SIRE STACK	RZG	RZM	RZE	OWNER
1	ELWOOD	Elayo x September	137	132	119	MAR
2	MALVOY	Marmax RF x Celsius	136	127	109	RUW
3	SELONO	Spencer 2 x Achtung	135	129	99	RSH
4	LARON P	Lawn Boy x Shottle	133	115	120	ZBH
5	LEVANT	Lawn Boy x Classic	132	128	113	WEU
6	COLD BOY	Spencer 2 x Oman	132	120	93	RUW
7	TABLEAU	Tlanet x Faber	132	121	117	RUW
8	MAXIMO-RED	Marmax RF x BW Marshall	131	137	106	OHG
9	TOCAR	Topred x Lucky Leo	131	140	106	RUW
10	JERUDO	Jerom x Rudolph	130	121	108	VOSt
11	GOLDEN EYE	Gogo x Lightning	128	127	106	RUW
12	LA CROSSE	Colby-Red x Dutch Boy	127	132	107	ZBH
13	MALLOW	Malvoy x Talent	127	122	117	RUW
14	SERANO	September x Stoll	126	120	102	RUW
15	FALIPO	Faber x Tulip	126	122	106	RBW
16	LUCATONI	Laruel x Talent	125	111	116	WEU
17	CRUNCH	Carmano x Lightning	125	116	108	WEU
18	CAREM	Carmano x Colby-Red	124	112	121	RUW
19	BURLENT	Mr Burns x Talent	124	113	119	RBW
20	CARAMEL	Carmano x Modest	123	114	117	RUW
21	WESTPOINT	Westwind x Kian	123	104	112	RUW
22	STYLE	Stabilo x Origin	123	123	106	RUW
23	STERNBOY	Stabilo x Komtur	123	125	95	MAR
24	EMDARU	Elayo x Talent	123	124	116	RSH
25	JOTAN	Jordan x Durham	123	109	125	MAR

Figure 5 Total Milk Production by State 2013

Figure 6 Production per Herd – By State 2013

Table 5 Dairy Cattle Population by State 2013

RANK	NAME	SIRE STACK	RZG	RZM	RZE	OWNER
1	SNOWMAN	Oman x BW Marshall x	147	145	126	GOEP
2	GUARINI	Goldwyn x Oman	147	131	125	RBB
3	BILLARD	Billion 3 x Oman	145	139	110	RUW
4	MAGORIAN	Mascol x Oman	145	145	102	Masterrind
5	OMEGA	Oman x Manat	143	136	95	RMV
6	MAVID	Mascol x Eminenz	142	137	108	WEU
7	BJÉRK	Bolton x Oman	142	139	116	Masterrind
8	MALIX	Mascol x Oman	140	128	104	WEU
9	FROSKO	Frosty x Shottle	139	138	105	LTR
10	ENZO	Encino x Oman	139	135	98	RUW
11	OMAGIC	Oman x Lambada	139	133	94	RUW
12	BAKOMBRE	Baxter 2 x Goldwyn	139	131	119	Masterrind
13	MASCOL	Mtoto x Rudolph	138	127	105	LTR
14	NOG MATO	Mascol x Laudan	138	123	115	RMV
15	MARACAS	Oman x Convincer	138	131	97	Masterrind
16	BANDINI	Billion 3 x Morty	137	130	109	RBB
17	SHOWTIME	Shottle x Brett	137	131	123	RMV
18	MASCARPON	Mascol x Oman	137	130	100	WEU
19	GIBOR	Gibbon x Sunnyboy	137	120	103	RUW
20	GUNNAR	Goldwyn x Ford	137	125	128	RMV
21	MAINAU	Oman x BW Marshall x	136	125	100	Masterrind
22	JUGADOR	Jardin x Finley	136	139	118	RBB
23	WIZZARD	Webster x Cash	136	130	101	OGH
24	STERNGOLD	Stol Joc x Shottle	136	117	120	RUW
25	LEKO	Laudan x Jocko Besn	136	126	119	RBB

Figure 7 Dairy Cattle Population by State 2013

Figure 8 Herd Size by State 2013

Figure 9 Production per Cow by State 2013

Table 6 Top States 2013 by Milk Production Efficiency

Name	LPI	Milk	Fat	Prot	%F	%P	Conf
LONG-LANGS OMAN OMAN-ET	3212	1490	83	82	0.25	0.27	12
DE-SU GILLESPY-ET	2987	2574	69	69	-0.22	-0.12	13
BADGER-BLUFF FANNY FREDDIE	2985	1717	66	59	0.03	0.02	5
ENSENADA TABOO PLANET-ET	2966	2497	89	82	-0.03	0.01	8
FREUREHAVEN NIAGARA	2943	2210	91	77	0.1	0.03	8
END-ROAD O-MAN BRONCO-ET	2923	2291	70	75	-0.13	0	6
REGAN-ALH DIPLOMAT-ET	2905	1382	49	73	0	0.24	10
UFM-DUBS ALTAESQUIRE-ET	2864	973	110	63	0.69	0.27	3
GEN-I-BEQ BRAWLER	2855	910	62	46	0.26	0.14	10
SILDAHL JETT AIR-ET	2824	1292	72	31	0.23	-0.1	12
MAPLE-DOWNS-I G W ATWOOD	2818	596	62	30	0.37	0.09	19
GOLDEN-OAKS MEDFORD-ET	2800	1555	120	43	0.58	-0.06	8
CRACKHOLM FEVER	2797	620	56	20	0.32	0	15
DOMICOLE CHELIOS	2794	845	78	41	0.44	0.11	14
MAINSTREAM MANIFOLD	2789	1795	85	70	0.17	0.09	2
O-BEE MANFRED JUSTICE-ET	2780	1447	80	75	0.25	0.25	-3
GEN-I-BEQ TOPSIDE	2768	1197	72	45	0.26	0.05	12
OCONNORS JAY	2764	1292	60	74	0.12	0.27	10
LIRR DREW DEMPSEY	2756	364	42	34	0.29	0.19	15
GEN-I-BEQ ALTABUZZER	2748	1417	82	46	0.28	0	6
SCHILLVIEW GARRETT-ET	2746	1669	65	58	0.03	0.03	4
DELABERGE DEMOCRACY	2745	443	69	47	0.49	0.28	9
HYLLTOP PRESLEY RED	2734	866	78	56	0.43	0.24	6
BUTOISE BAHAMAS	2726	1725	52	73	-0.1	0.14	6
WABASH-WAY EUREKA	2711	1679	51	69	-0.1	0.12	7
CROCKETT-ACRES EIGHT-ET	2706	1205	70	72	0.24	0.28	0
SANDY-VALLEY BOLTON-ET	2706	2033	71	57	-0.03	-0.08	9
EMILANE LARKIN	2702	1646	41	57	-0.18	0.03	9
DEWGOOD BENEFIT	2700	841	45	49	0.13	0.18	7
DE-SU BOWMAN-ET	2692	1377	71	44	0.19	-0.01	10
ALLYNDALE-I ATTICUS	2680	194	47	22	0.38	0.14	14
CLAYNOOK TENNESSEE	2674	592	38	40	0.15	0.18	13
MORNINGVIEW HASKEL	2670	1935	87	64	0.15	0.01	5
REGANCREST-PJ MAXLIFE-ET	2669	715	83	45	0.53	0.19	10
BRAEDALE GOLDWYN	2656	317	49	28	0.36	0.16	12
DYMENTHOLM SOLSTICE	2655	1485	70	68	0.15	0.16	4
GILLETTE WINDBROOK	2654	937	62	40	0.26	0.07	15
CHARLESDALE SUPERSTITION-ET	2653	1779	28	57	-0.33	-0.02	9
SANDY-VALLEY BRYSON-ET	2649	1602	69	52	0.07	-0.02	10
COMESTAR LAUTREC	2648	1168	72	47	0.26	0.07	9
UFM-DUBS OLEGANT-ET	2639	1286	40	42	-0.07	0.01	8
WA-DEL JUNCTION-ET	2638	711	93	57	0.62	0.3	-4
ROCKYMOUNTAIN LEGACY	2629	2257	88	53	0.04	-0.18	4
COMESTAR LAUTHORITY	2628	525	59	26	0.38	0.08	15
COMESTAR BRIGADE	2622	1939	77	60	0.06	-0.02	9
WINDY-KNOLL-VIEW PARTNER	2617	1142	48	64	0.07	0.23	8
WESSELCREST AIRBORNE-ET	2615	1521	28	43	-0.24	-0.05	8
JOLICAP CARRERA	2612	1596	62	58	0.05	0.06	5
VIORIS SLEEMAN	2609	2450	68	89	-0.19	0.07	4
STANTONS ALTARIC-RED	2608	906	71	55	0.35	0.22	6
VALBLANC LIBRA	2606	1024	18	33	-0.18	-0.01	13
KARONA FANTASY	2605	1846	51	61	-0.13	0	6
BO-IRISH ALTON-ET	2598	2234	71	77	-0.09	0.03	1
TRAMILDA-N ESCALADE-ET	2595	693	52	22	0.24	-0.01	13
KILOBYTE	2591	881	28	38	-0.05	0.08	11
GINARY ALTABERNIE	2587	1815	42	51	-0.21	-0.08	5
BOMAZ OMAN KRAMER 561-ET	2585	2195	59	53	-0.2	-0.16	5
CHASIN-RAINBOWS JADON-ET	2581	1432	48	52	-0.04	0.04	10
DUDOC MR BURNS	2580	1310	32	67	-0.15	0.2	7
EXPRESS BOLLY	2577	876	54	40	0.2	0.1	7
CHARITY ALTAGRATIS-ET	2571	599	57	44	0.32	0.21	9
HEATHERSTONE-V MCGUIRE-ET	2570	1417	49	29	-0.02	-0.15	9
MORSAN BORIS	2569	398	57	30	0.41	0.15	11
JEWELED-ACRES SHARKY-ET	2564	2228	78	82	-0.04	0.07	-4
GINARY JAKE	2563	2676	59	58	-0.33	-0.24	7
GILLETTE CANYON	2563	1214	43	51	0	0.1	7
GILLETTE JORDAN	2562	849	47	29	0.15	0.01	10
DIAMOND-OAK FROSTY-ET	2560	1431	66	54	0.12	0.06	0
BRYHILL LOYAL	2560	659	55	29	0.29	0.06	11
GILLETTE WATCH OUT	2558	1281	91	43	0.4	0.01	3
PICSTON SHOTTLE-ET	2558	1156	46	34	0.04	-0.04	10
GENO MARITIME	2557	1713	65	48	0.03	-0.06	7
SILDAHL AIRRAID	2555	1690	82	41	0.19	-0.13	6
TRUE-BLUE SHOWBOAT-ET	2552	1179	46	50	0.03	0.11	6
R-E-W SUNBURN	2551	1187	52	55	0.09	0.14	10
BEAUCOISE RHAPSODY	2551	775	32	45	0.03	0.17	7
SMITHDEN AARON	2551	963	49	41	0.12	0.07	10
GINARY BRAD	2545	1665	42	45	-0.16	-0.09	9
GEN-I-BEQ LAVAL	2541	2152	65	61	-0.12	-0.08	6
ARDROSS STERLING	2539	1125	77	59	0.33	0.19	5
CRACKHOLM FOCUS	2539	1169	46	57	0.02	0.17	3
HARDWOOD BOSTON-ET	2539	467	44	38	0.26	0.2	7
SMITHDEN ADMIRAL	2538	956	73	39	0.35	0.07	7
PETHERTON ROX ITAK	2536	874	48	48	0.15	0.17	5
GREENLEA ARTIE-RED-ET	2535	589	36	47	0.14	0.24	11
REGANCREST REGINALD-ET	2535	386	41	29	0.26	0.14	14
NURRES SLUGGER-ET	2533	1336	39	60	-0.09	0.14	7
DEMARC RANCH	2532	1507	40	51	-0.13	0.01	5
KERNDT BRILLO-ET	2528	2372	54	66	-0.28	-0.1	4
REGAN-ALH DU RITE-ET	2528	878	50	60	0.16	0.28	4
HENDEL BIGSTONE-ET	2528	958	61	60	0.24	0.24	4
ROCKYMOUNTAIN MARKER	2525	1875	48	51	-0.18	-0.1	9
VELTHUIS SOLSTICE	2525	127	29	31	0.23	0.24	8
BREEZE HILL CIRCUIT	2525	-337	55	14	0.66	0.23	14
COMESTAR LAWMAN	2521	1293	72	35	0.23	-0.06	13
CLEAR-ECHO DRISCOLL-ET	2521	868	81	34	0.46	0.06	4
MICHERET INFRAROUGE	2521	710	29	28	0.03	0.04	7
DUDOC RADIUS	2518	1344	38	39	-0.11	-0.05	4
GILLETTE STANLEYCUP	2511	600	65	22	0.4	0.02	13
GILLETTE WINDHAMMER	2511	600	65	22	0.4	0.02	13

Figure 10 Top States 2013 by Milk Production Efficiency

In evaluating which states are doing the best you can look at which states have the most production (i.e. California, Wisconsin & New York), or you can look at which states have the most producers (i.e. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New York).We prefer to rank by which states are producing the most milk per cow from the most efficient herds. Using that ranking we see the following top 10: New Mexico; Arizona; Nevada; California; Colorado; Idaho; Texas; Washington; Florida; Utah). It is interesting to note that all of these herds are located in the West except for Florida and that Wisconsin, despite having the most producers and the most cattle, falls to #23 in the rankings for milk production efficiency.

How Does Canada Compare?

Table 7 – Canadian Statistics

Name	LPI	Milk	Fat	Prot	%F	%P	Conf
VEAZLAND MARION-ET	2129	2890	56	64	-0.43	-0.25	-1
KELSTEIN OLIVER	2446	2789	82	89	-0.17	-0.03	1
FUSTEAD EMORY BLITZ-ET	2073	2703	16	23	-0.71	-0.53	8
GINARY JAKE	2563	2676	59	58	-0.33	-0.24	7
DE-SU GILLESPY-ET	2987	2574	69	69	-0.22	-0.12	13
B-HIDDENHILLS MAR MARMAX-ET	2294	2538	44	71	-0.43	-0.1	-2
WILLOW-MARSH-CC GABOR-ET	2162	2512	21	43	-0.61	-0.32	3
ENSENADA TABOO PLANET-ET	2966	2497	89	82	-0.03	0.01	8
STANTONS SILENT	2040	2469	31	59	-0.51	-0.18	-4
BRAEDALE BIGBEN	1600	2463	4	35	-0.75	-0.38	2
VIORIS SLEEMAN	2609	2450	68	89	-0.19	0.07	4
MORSAN ROSETTE	2187	2445	43	48	-0.42	-0.26	1
MORNINGVIEW-MT-I LAKEVIEW	2271	2383	56	77	-0.28	-0.02	0
KERNDT BRILLO-ET	2528	2372	54	66	-0.28	-0.1	4
DRIFTY-HOLLOW MASTODON	2265	2371	43	54	-0.39	-0.2	3
END-ROAD O-MAN BRONCO-ET	2923	2291	70	75	-0.13	0	6
GINARY ROCKEFELLER	1958	2282	49	37	-0.29	-0.31	5
ROCKYMOUNTAIN LEGACY	2629	2257	88	53	0.04	-0.18	4
MR MILLION MEGA-MAN-ET	2139	2257	35	36	-0.4	-0.32	2
MAINSTREAM CROWN-ET	1786	2252	26	13	-0.5	-0.51	4
BO-IRISH ALTON-ET	2598	2234	71	77	-0.09	0.03	1
JEWELED-ACRES SHARKY-ET	2564	2228	78	82	-0.04	0.07	-4
FREUREHAVEN NIAGARA	2943	2210	91	77	0.1	0.03	8
ETAZON ADDISON	1709	2205	11	65	-0.62	-0.06	-7
COMESTAR EL TOREADOR	2267	2201	50	42	-0.27	-0.25	9
REGANCREST LONGTIME	2373	2196	24	57	-0.5	-0.13	10
BOMAZ OMAN KRAMER 561-ET	2585	2195	59	53	-0.2	-0.16	5
GEN-I-BEQ LAVAL	2541	2152	65	61	-0.12	-0.08	6
BONTEMPS-I ASHTON	2310	2152	40	49	-0.34	-0.18	8
GAVOR	2237	2144	11	74	-0.58	0.02	3
MR ELITE-ET	1923	2136	21	48	-0.51	-0.19	0
DA-SO-BURN DAMASK-ET	1659	2122	19	34	-0.51	-0.3	-3
PETHERTON DARBY	1899	2121	8	38	-0.6	-0.26	0
VELKOMMEN-VALLEY JORIDY-ET	1960	2094	17	35	-0.53	-0.28	2
RENADO ROCKWOOD	2371	2072	41	44	-0.31	-0.2	2
CASTEL	2310	2058	45	54	-0.26	-0.11	3
MY-JOHN DENBY-ET	2053	2050	43	51	-0.28	-0.14	-4
ROCKYMOUNTAIN LONGSUIT	2268	2040	54	53	-0.18	-0.11	7
GEPAQUETTE CYCLONE	1930	2036	37	36	-0.33	-0.26	1
SANDY-VALLEY BOLTON-ET	2706	2033	71	57	-0.03	-0.08	9
COXLYN CAVAN	1971	2023	26	41	-0.43	-0.22	2
LE-O-LA EMERSON CLASSIC-TW	2397	2009	20	55	-0.47	-0.09	3
RICH-J SOSA-ET	1843	2009	17	33	-0.51	-0.28	-3
MS POSIBILITY PRODUCER-ET	2260	2003	49	49	-0.2	-0.13	4
DELABERGE LAZARO	1884	2000	-9	37	-0.72	-0.24	-3
PREMIER-G BLACKSMITH-ET	2407	1995	51	52	-0.19	-0.11	5
RICECREST MURPHY-ET	2342	1978	56	62	-0.14	-0.02	-2
ALTAPPEL GLENDOR	2421	1970	69	43	-0.02	-0.17	2
CO-OP LONDON COSMO-ET	2341	1967	7	57	-0.56	-0.07	-1
COMESTAR LITTORAL	2078	1967	3	40	-0.61	-0.21	5
SANDY-VALLEY BRISK-ET	1734	1967	30	38	-0.37	-0.22	-6
DOMICOLE CHESTER	2359	1959	54	52	-0.18	-0.11	6
BENNER JUDO	2345	1958	84	44	0.12	-0.17	5
LA PRESENTATION CHARLY	1389	1955	7	40	-0.57	-0.21	-13
STANTONS ENTER	2115	1949	10	41	-0.55	-0.19	1
COMESTAR LOUDANO	1940	1944	23	39	-0.42	-0.21	0
BEYERCREST JUDD-ET	2030	1941	22	29	-0.43	-0.29	1
COMESTAR BRIGADE	2622	1939	77	60	0.06	-0.02	9
MORNINGVIEW HASKEL	2670	1935	87	64	0.15	0.01	5
WELCOME GARTER-ET	2094	1933	49	49	-0.2	-0.12	0
EMERALD-ACR-SA T-BAXTER	2473	1914	68	38	-0.02	-0.21	6
THORNSPYC TOYBOY	1717	1907	5	21	-0.58	-0.35	3
HORSTYLE MAXWELL-ET	2183	1901	34	67	-0.31	0.04	4
EMERALD-ACR-VR CHASER-ET	2123	1901	30	53	-0.35	-0.07	-8
LADYS-MANOR LANCE-ET	1748	1887	16	30	-0.49	-0.28	-1
MY-JOHN ROB-ET	2212	1882	32	76	-0.34	0.12	2
GLEN-TOCTIN LASHBAX-ET	2302	1878	24	53	-0.4	-0.08	4
ROCKYMOUNTAIN MARKER	2525	1875	48	51	-0.18	-0.1	9
COMESTAR LAUBUCK	2119	1865	59	29	-0.07	-0.27	7
GILLETTE WALLACE	2333	1859	40	42	-0.26	-0.16	8
GILLETTE WHITEFACE	2333	1859	40	42	-0.26	-0.16	8
RALMA-RH TRUMPET-ET	2226	1859	55	35	-0.12	-0.22	3
CLOVERHILLFM PLYMOUTH-ET	2373	1857	62	58	-0.05	-0.03	3
SUNNYLODGE SEYMORE	1772	1856	9	26	-0.52	-0.28	-1
KARONA FANTASY	2605	1846	51	61	-0.13	0	6
GEPAQUETTE MESQUIN	2161	1845	41	54	-0.24	-0.06	1
GILLETTE WINDOVER	2026	1843	14	22	-0.47	-0.32	8
JNP-ATH-MOR MOSAIC-ET	1951	1833	34	39	-0.31	-0.19	1
MOHRFIELD FORM TRADEMARK-ET	1738	1821	-2	26	-0.61	-0.29	-1
GINARY ALTABERNIE	2587	1815	42	51	-0.21	-0.08	5
POLY-KOW ALLTOP-ET	2479	1811	42	47	-0.22	-0.1	7
MISTER MADAGASCAR	1957	1809	31	37	-0.31	-0.2	-1
STANTONS PRONGER	1262	1806	-9	13	-0.69	-0.39	-1
MAINSTREAM MANIFOLD	2789	1795	85	70	0.17	0.09	2
CHARLESDALE SUPERSTITION-ET	2653	1779	28	57	-0.33	-0.02	9
CRESCENTMEAD-A MOSES-ET	1408	1777	6	24	-0.53	-0.29	-10
ROCKYMOUNTAIN LOCKMASTER	2266	1776	47	31	-0.16	-0.22	6
OCD ALTAPAXTON-ET	2081	1771	4	35	-0.55	-0.19	1
PLUSHANSKI ATMEN-ET	2258	1767	28	21	-0.33	-0.31	8
LEHOUX FESTIVAL	2193	1761	23	36	-0.39	-0.19	6
BLOSSOMDAIRY CALVIN	1839	1758	33	36	-0.27	-0.18	-7
HA-HO CUBBY MANFRED-ET	2260	1748	47	52	-0.17	-0.04	-8
JOCKO BESN	2215	1742	46	63	-0.17	0.06	-2
GILLETTE WOLF	1953	1734	22	16	-0.37	-0.34	4
GILLETTE WYMAN	1953	1734	22	16	-0.37	-0.34	4
SPRINGHILL-OH ELLIPSIS-ET	1796	1728	6	19	-0.51	-0.32	2
BUTOISE BAHAMAS	2726	1725	52	73	-0.1	0.14	6
WALLACEVIEW PATTON	2411	1720	63	41	0	-0.13	3
BADGER-BLUFF FANNY FREDDIE	2985	1717	66	59	0.03	0.02	5
RALMA COPPER	2266	1716	51	21	-0.12	-0.3	6

*Rankings are where each province would rank in the U.S.

Some interesting stats present themselves when we compare Canada to the U.S.

For example:

All of Canada has about the same number of herds as Wisconsin and Missouri combined
Both Wisconsin and California have more cattle each than all of Canada
More milk is produced in each of Wisconsin and California than in all of Canada
The average Canadian herd is about 60% smaller than the average herd in the U.S.
The average US cow produces about 5% more milk than the average Canadian cow. (21,807 lbs vs 20,712 lbs)

The Bullvine Bottom Line

While there are certainly drastic differences in operation size across the different regions in the USA, the trends seem to be the same. The number of dairy farmers is getting smaller and smaller and production is increasing at a slower rate than that of the U.S. population. Continued increasing feed costs and decreased margins are only going to cause more producers to leave the US industry. Since 2009 a perfect storm of plummeting milk prices and high feed costs have combined to push dairy margins to the brink. Thousands have been forced out of business and many of those who survived are now deeply in debt. Nationwide, dairy farmers lost $20 billion in net equity between 2007 and 2009.

Increasing global dairy marketplace competition and a US milk price that, although at a record high, remains lower than prices in Canada, China, Australia and New Zealand is driving producers out of the industry. Unless more is done to protect dairy margins, these alarming trends are going to continue. The day is coming in the United States when there will be very few milk producers left. Is the US dairy industry coming to an end or a turning point?

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

Search

Archive for Herd Size

Central Asia is rising in the global dairy scene. Could these nations become the new dairy leaders? Find out more.

Breaking Down the Numbers

Why the Growth?

From Modest Beginnings to Milk Giants: China’s Dairy Revolution Explained!

What’s Holding Back China’s Dairy Industry?

Central Asia’s Dairy Revolution: Powered by Chinese Know-How

Unleashing the Power of Innovation: China’s Dairy Tech Meets Central Asia

Understanding the Future of Global Dairy Markets: Trends and Dynamics

The Bottom Line

Learn more:

Uncover the future of dairy farming in Canada and the US. How will trends and tech reshape your farm? Stay ahead with expert advice and insights.

Spotlight on Herd Size: A Comparative Analysis by Dr. Jack Britt

Canadian Approach to Dairy Farming

US Dairy Farming Dynamics

Future Projections and Technological Integration

Carlyn Peterson Sheds Light on the Sustainable Transformation of Dairy Farming

The Bottom Line

Uncover the obscured expenses associated with “crowded cows” in agriculture and animal welfare. What repercussions does this practice have on our food supply and the health of livestock?

The Consequences of Spatial Overload in Dairy Farming

The Impact of Overcrowding on Dairy Cow Welfare: Stress, Health, and Behavioral Issues

The Ripple Effect: From Stress to Severe Health Complications in Dairy Cows

Compromised Milk Production: The Immediate Impact of Overcrowding

The Unseen Burden: Environmental Stressors Aggravating Dairy Cow Overcrowding

The Economic Ramifications of Overcrowding in Dairy Farms: A Deep Dive into Profitability and Sustainability

Regulatory Frameworks and Ethical Considerations: The Backbone of Humane Dairy Farming Practices

Proactive Solutions and Best Practices to Address Overcrowding in Dairy Farms

The Bottom Line

Key Takeaways:

Summary:

Learn more:

Are you using the right teat dip for your dairy farm? Discover how to choose the best one to prevent mastitis, save money, and ensure high-quality milk production.

The Role of Teat Dips in Dairy Farming

Debunking the Iodine Myth: Exploring Diverse Germicide Options for Teat Dips

The Synergy Between Germicides and Emollients: Ensuring Comprehensive Teat Health

Dispelling the One-Size-Fits-All Myth: Tailoring Teat Dip Formulas to Individual Farm Needs

Strategic Teat Dip Selection: Safeguarding Herd Health and Maximizing Dairy Farm Profitability

The Critical Importance of Choosing the Right Teat Dip: Science and Real-World Evidence

Harnessing Expertise: The Vital Role of Local Hygiene and Milk Quality Specialists

The Bottom Line

Key Takeaways:

Summary:

Learn more:

Find out why U.S. milk production has been decreasing for the past 10 months. Learn how cow numbers and milk output per cow are affecting the dairy industry. Read more.

A Deeper Dive into USDA’s May 2024 Dairy Estimates

Delving into the Dynamics of Cow Numbers: A Tale of Decline and Resurgence

Interwoven Influences on Milk Output per Cow: The Balance of Weather, Feed Costs, and Income Margins

The Bottom Line

Key Takeaways:

Summary:

Learn more:

Explore the devastating effects of the avian flu outbreak on U.S. dairy cattle, recognizing the surge in mortality rates and culling practices among farmers. What implications does this hold for the future landscape of dairy farming?

Avian Flu Strikes Dairy Industry: A Significant Economic Threat

The Financial Fallout: Avian Flu’s Deep Economic Impact on Dairy Farms

Secondary Infections: The Underestimated Threat to Dairy Cattle Health

Case Studies: Devastating Impact of Avian Flu on Dairy Farms

State Responses: A Patchwork of Impact and Strategies Amid Avian Flu Crisis

Expanding Crisis: Avian Flu’s Relentless Spread Across U.S. Dairy Herds

USDA’s Pilot Program: A Crucial Weapon in the Fight Against Avian Flu in Dairy Herds

Ensuring Food Safety Amid Avian Flu: USDA’s Assurance in the Integrity of Meat and Milk Supplies

The Bottom Line

Key Takeaways:

Discover which dairy feed system best predicts essential amino acid outflows in cows. Are NRC, CNCPS, or NASEM systems more accurate for your herd’s nutrition?

Essential Amino Acids in Dairy Cows

Dairy Feed Systems

Predicting Essential Amino Acid Outflows

Comparative Analysis: NRC vs CNCPS vs NASEM

Addressing Mean and Linear Biases in Feed Evaluation Systems

Impact of Study Adjustments on EAA Predictions

The Bottom Line

Key Takeaways:

TABLE 1: Licensed U.S. Dairy Farms & Average Herd Size by year

How the West Was Won

TABLE 2 Regional Herds, Cows and Herd Size Since 1992

The Story by State

TABLE 3 Dairy Farm Numbers by State

Figure 4 Herds by State Heat Map 2013

TABLE 4 Total Milk Production by State 2013

Figure 5 Total Milk Production by State 2013