Implementing Milk Quality Programs On Farms

1
Implementing Milk Quality Programs On Farms

• Pamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVM
• University of Wisconsin Madison

2
Key Contagious Mastitis Control Practices

• Effective teat dipping
• 97 adoption
• Dry cow therapy of all quarters of all cows
• 93 adoption
• Appropriate treatment of clinical cases
• No data
• Culling chronically infected cows
• 35 of all cows culled are for mastitis
• Regular milking machine maintenance
• 43 analyze yearly

WI Parlors (n101) 335,000 cells/ml WI Stallbarns
(n 78) 430,000 cells/ml
3
Why is mastitis a problem?

• Improving milk quality is technically easy
• There is lots of knowledge about basic methods to
  improve milk quality
• Most farms want to improve milk quality but
• Too many competing issues

Rodriques Ruegg, 2004 Food Protection Trends
24670-675
4
Why is mastitis a problem?

• Improving milk quality is technically easy
• There is lots of knowledge about basic methods to
  improve milk quality
• Most farms want to improve milk quality but
• Too many competing issues

Rodriques Ruegg, 2004 Food Protection Trends
24670-675
5
What are the real challenges?

• 2004 Survey of Wisconsin Dairy Farms
• Mailed 1000 surveys received 584 back
• Summarized by herd size
• Overall
• gt200 cows (n 34 herds)

Hoe Ruegg, JDS May 2006
6
Farms are dynamic facilities are Limited

• The calving pen is also used to house sick cows
• 73 Overall
• 25 Big herds
• Purchased Cattle in last 3 years
• 44 Overall
• 33 Big herds
• Of those purchasing, buying lactating cows
• 62 Overall
• 52 big herds

7
Our recommendations are hard to implement

• Sick Cows housed with Healthy cows
• 73 Overall
• 25 Big herds
• Milk Mastitic Cows using Separate Barn or Unit
• 27 Overall
• 19 Big herds
• Use same unit to milk
• 12 Overall
• 8 big herds

8
Modern Mastitis Control programs have to include
the whole farm and all workers
9
Who Is Working with Milk Quality?

• Opinion survey of professionals working with MM
  teams
• N 165 surveys
• 79 response
• 42 vets 35 ext. agents 21 DFR 17 VoAg instr.
  15 other

Rodrigues Ruegg, J Food Prot Trends, 2003
10
Improving Milk Quality Using Self-Directed Teams

• Farmer led effort to improve milk quality
• Supported in part by Wisconsin dairy producers
• Farms enroll and commit to form a milk quality
  team that meets monthly for 4 months
• Use Program material to help organize meetings
  and reach results

11
History of Milk Money

• Evolving program based on responding to needs of
  industry
• 1998 benchmarked the industry based on SCC
• Our performance average
• Wisconsin has special challenges
• Developed a 56 herd pilot project
• Vets Extension agents as leaders
• Goal was to test the team concept

12
History of Milk Money

• Pilot project showed tremendous results
• Increased BMP
• Increased premiums
• Decreased SCC clinical mastitis
• Also identified challenges
• Infrastructure for team support
• Revision of materials
• Marketing of program

The support of the Wisconsin Dairy Producers Has
been fundamental To the success of Milk Money
13
Using Milk Money to Make Money for Dairy Farmers

• Milk Money is designed to help farms
• Define clear milk quality goals
• Create a focused milk quality plan
• Adopt best management practices
• Make more money

14
How Does Milk Money Work?

• Producers and their LOCAL experts work TOGETHER
  in a farmer-directed team
• How often do teams meet?
• Once a month for 4 months
• Reassess at 4th meeting

15
What happens at a team meeting?

• Use provided forms to
• Come to consensus on farm goals
• Determine an action plan
• Determine how actions will be tracked
• Assign responsibility
• Follow-up

16
Who has participated?

• About 400 farms have enrolled
• 1107 total team members
• We have to market the program to get
  participation
• Facilitation of the teams is the most challenging
  aspect
• Most veterinarians are paid but most other team
  members are not

17
Management Of Wisconsin Dairy Herds Enrolled in
Milk Quality TeamsRodrigues et al., J Dairy
Science, July 2005
18
Performance of Herds Enrolled

• Monthly data from meeting 1 4 (n113)
• Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Spring 2004
• Data was collected and recorded by trained team
  leaders using MM program forms
• Data sources included
• milk plant receipts
• farm records
• DHI data (n 82)
• Farmer recall

19
Smaller Herds that Enrolled had Poorer Performance
Characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by cow housing type Characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by cow housing type Characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by cow housing type Characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by cow housing type
Facility type Facility type P
Outcome Stallbarn (n 101) Freestall (n 78) P
Total lactating cows (n) 86.7 377.2 lt 0.001
Yield per cow per day (kg) 28.1 31.9 lt 0.001
Cows milked per hour per person 25.3 40.0 lt 0.001
Milk price (/cwt) 11.25 11.70 lt 0.001
Bulk milk SCC premium (/cwt 0.00 0.13 0.014
Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 430,221 335,762 0.006
Monthly rate of clinical mastitis 0.08 0.06 0.058
Monthly cows culled for mastitis () 1.8 1.0 0.073
20
Smaller Herds Adopt Less BMP
21
Characteristics of Herds by SCC

BMSCC category BMSCC category BMSCC category BMSCC category
Outcome Low BMSCC lt 250,000 (n 36) Low BMSCC lt 250,000 (n 36) Medium 250,000 BMSCC 400,000 (n 83) High BMSCC gt 400,000 (n 61) P
Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 197,611 a 317,265 b 564,623 c lt 0.001
Standard plate count (cfu/ml) Standard plate count (cfu/ml) 5,943 a 10,105 b 19,237 b lt 0.024
Total lactating cows (n) Total lactating cows (n) 214 a b 326 a 167 b lt 0.003
Yield per cow per day (lb) Yield per cow per day (lb) 70.0 a 68.9 a 63.4 b lt 0.020
Cows milked per hour per person (n) Cows milked per hour per person (n) 32.2 35.3 32.0 lt 0.998
Monthly Inc. of subclinical mastitis () Monthly Inc. of subclinical mastitis () 9.3 9.5 11.4 lt 0.984
Monthly Prev. of subclinical mastitis () Monthly Prev. of subclinical mastitis () 22.7 a 31.0 b 41.6 c lt 0.002
Monthly clinical mastitis (per 100 cows) Monthly clinical mastitis (per 100 cows) 6.0 a 5.0 a 10.0 b lt 0.002
Monthly cows culled for mastitis () Monthly cows culled for mastitis () 0.7 a 1.0 a 2.1 b lt 0.056
22
Consultation with Dairy Professionals Before MM
23
Farmers Perception of Cost of Mastitis

• Subclinical losses
• Milk not produced
• 3.96/cow/month
• Premiums
• 8.36/cow/month
• Clinical Mastitis Losses
• Estimated
• 6.04/cow/month
• Standardized
• 7.85/cow/month

24
Financial Losses per Month
Financial characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by BMSCC category Financial characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by BMSCC category Financial characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by BMSCC category Financial characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by BMSCC category Financial characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by BMSCC category
BMSCC category BMSCC category BMSCC category
Outcome Low Medium High P
Standard milk production loss per cow () 2.12 a 3.77 b 5.35 c lt 0.001
Milk quality premium loss per cow () 4.69 a 7.33 b 11.79 c lt 0.037
Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per cow () 7.25 a b 4.67 a 7.23 b lt 0.040
100 cow High SCC Herd -29,244 per year

• Low SCC 14.06 per cow per Month
• Medium SCC 15.77 per cow per Month
• High SCC 24.37 per cow per Month

25
Milking Management

• Data from WI freestall farms (n 101)
• 377 cows per herd
• SCC 335,000 cell/ml
• High adoption of recc. practices
• 89 gloves 97 postdip 98 predip 89
  forestrip
• 6 pp milking each month
• Range of 2 16

• Training was rare
• Frequent 22
• At hiring 49
• Never 29
• Only 41 had written milking routine
• 6 of stall barns
• WI stall barns (n 78)
• 86 cows per herd
• 3 pp milking each month
• 54 never train milkers

26
Influence of Training Routine Milking Speed
27
Influence of Training Routine Monthly Rate of
Clinical Mastitis
Frequent Training Results in Fastest Milking
Speeds Lowest Rate of Clinical Mastitis
28
What we learned Part 1

• Smaller herds adopt fewer best management
  practices and have poorer milk quality
• Training of milking personnel is infrequent and
  is related to milk quality
• Few veterinarians are perceived as actively
  working with milk quality on farms
• There is a large and real opportunity to rapidly
  improve financial performance based on
  improvements in milk quality

29

• Actions Outcomes of Wisconsin Farms Completing
  Milk Quality Teams
• Rodrigues Ruegg, J Dairy Science, 882672-2680
  July 2005

30
Data used in study

• Monthly data from meeting 1 4 (n113)
• Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Spring 2004
• Data was collected and recorded by trained team
  leaders using MM program forms
• Data sources included
• milk plant receipts
• farm records
• DHI data (n 82)
• Farmer recall

31
Use of Management PracticesBefore After
Adoption Rate is adoption of each practice by
non-users at meeting 1
32
Consulting ActivitiesBefore After
33
Consultation with Dairy Professionals
34
ResultsDifferences in monthly outcomes
Outcome Before program After program Difference P
Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 385,838 307,951 -77,887 lt 0.001
Standard plate count (cfu/ml) 14,564 10,433 -4,131 0.014
Yield per cow per day (kg) 29.8 30.6 0.82 0.223
Monthly rate of clinical mastitis () 6.8 4.9 -1.9 0.016
Monthly incidence of subclinical mastitis () 10.9 9.2 -1.8 0.033
Monthly prevalence of subclinical mastitis () 35.8 30.8 -5.0 0.008
Monthly cows culled for mastitis () 1.4 0.8 -0.7 0.023
Standard milk production loss per cow () 3.88 2.75 -1.12 lt 0.001
Bulk milk SCC premium (/45kg) 0.07 0.27 0.20 lt 0.001
Milk quality premium loss per cow () 9.21 5.97 -3.24 lt 0.001
Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per cow () 6.48 4.42 -2.06 0.002
35
Results

• At meeting 1
• Areas of financial opportunity
• subclinical mastitis (13)
• clinical mastitis (27)
• quality premiums (60)
• No individual practice was independently related
  to milk quality
• At meeting 4
• 63 of the herds reported that they had achieved
  their milk quality goals
• 99 agreed that teams were useful for improving
  milk quality
• 83 planned to continue team meetings

36
Changes In Performance By SCC at Meeting 1

• Bulk Tank SCC
• Low - 33,478
• Med - 53,108
• High -181,446
• Rate of clinical Mastitis
• Low -1.4
• Med -0.3
• High -3.6
• of Cows Culled
• Low -0.9
• Med -2.2
• High -1.6

Milk Money Reduced Losses by 7,752 -
22,956 Per 100 cows per year
37
A typical MM successLakeside Dairy

• Husband and wife manage the dairy operation of a
  large farm.
• 2X / day milking
• 209 milk cows
• Milk/cow/day 60 lbs
• SCC of 337,000

• Team members
• Three producers
• Extension agent was team leader
• Dairy field representative
• Veterinarian
• Nutritionist

38
Lakeside DairyFinancial Impact Goals

• Subclinical production loss-no data.
• Premium opportunity for goal at BTSCC 150
  1932 / month.
• Clinical mastitis loss 1833.
• Total Impact 3,765.

• Goals
• Lower Bulk Tank SCC to 150,000
• Identify contagious mastitis cows
• Decrease clinical mastitis cases
• Group cows

39
Team IdentifiedCritical Management Factors

• Teat end quality
• Milking routine
• Milker training
• Farm records
• Consistency of milking routine

40
Lakeside DairyAction Plan

• Meeting Two
• Re-culture two mycoplasma positive cows
• Culture high SCC cows
• Develop milking procedures poster
• Weekly bulk tank culture

• Meeting One
• Begin treatment records
• Monthly bulk tank culture
• Begin on farm culturing
• Develop treatment protocols
• Update milking procedures protocol

41
Lakeside Dairy Outcome

• SCC reduced 34
• Premium Change
• .03 to .40.
• Increased monthly income
• 1,450

42
Why do some Milk Quality Programs Fail?

• Some herds can never improve milk quality
• Failure is often related to
• Lack of commitment to change
• Inability to communicate effectively
• Failure to manage personnel

• Herds that failed in Milk Money reported
• Lack of time
• 69
• Other farm problems
• 16
• Lack of focus
• 16
• Seasonal problems
• 14

43
Anatomy of a MM Failure

• 54 cow dairy enrolled by veterinarian in Oct 2005
• History of BTSCC gt750k
• Previous history of extensive treatment of cows
  for Staph aureus
• Farm owner somewhat disabled
• 1 ft employee lived on farm
• 2 high school students helped milk

44
MM Failure Meeting 2

• No Change in BTSCC
• No Change in Yield
• Implementation of actions?
• Milking time observation
• Stop feeding waste milk
• Develop segregation plan
• Make treatment plan
• Treat heifers precalving
• Change milking prep to include forestripping

45
MM Failure Meeting 3
The success of Milk Money is dependent On
Commitment Of Team Members

• 2 months elapsed due to scheduling
• BTSCC increased to gt1,000,000
• 6 cows had to be culled to stay legal
• Prevalence increased to gt64 of herd
• NIR 21
• No actions completed by farm

46
Conclusion

• Ability to implement management practices is the
  most important aspect of improving milk quality
• Implementation is dependent on
• Development of standardized procedures
• Ability to clearly communicate value
• Continued training of personnel
• There is a large opportunity for more veterinary
  involvement in this area but
• We must market our services or lose the turf