ASO-Uricaater Farming, Saturday, January il, 1995
DHIA
(Contlnuad from Pag* A 1)
ber is more like 3/4 of herds by
spring.”
The charts of enrollment in var
ious types of test in 1993 and 1994
tell the story. While official
records continued to provide the
bread and butter of DHIA’s busi
ness at around 90 percent a
number that has remained stable
over the years the shift in offi
cial plans to AM/PM is clear, (see
charts)
“1 think two things really
account for the push,” Amick said,
“the Holstein Association’s accep
tance of AP tests was one factor,
and of course our own pricing
changes were the other.”
Are members happy about the
change?
“For the most part, yes,” Amick
said, “although some folks are still
skeptical about AP. No matter
how long the program’s been
Bulktank v.Testday Milkweights
2X Supervised (DHI) Herds in 1994
Bulktank v. Testday Milkweight
120
around, or how good the research
is, there will always be some skep
tics. But we really don’t have any
choice. By far and away the
biggest cost we have is putting a
technician on the farm on test day,
and AM/PM reduces that cost to
the farmer, and to us, by one test
per day. It’s as simple as that.”
But is there any reason to be
suspicious of AP testing?
Not according to Jim Boyer,
Pennsylvania DHIA’s Processing
Center manager.
“If you look at the comparison
between milk shipped and milk
weighed on test day, that’s what
counts. And we see virtually no
difference between AP and 2X
plans. In fact the overage between
2X milk weighed and shipped, and
the same numbers for AP is slight
ly smaller, showing that, if any
thing, AP testing may be just
slightly more accurate. Statistical-
102 108
% of Bulktank
AM/PM Herds in 1994
% of Bulktank
DHIA Changes For Next Century
2X Plans (25
2X Plans (43.1 °>
ly speaking we see virtually the
same average, and the same over
all distribution.” (see chart)
“If you don’t think the numbers
will apply in your herd, there’s a
average: 103.4%
deviation: 5.4%
120
114
average: 102.7%
deviation: 5.8%
The Changing Shape of DHIA
Type Test Enrollment
Enrollment during 1994
The Changing Shape of DHIA
Type Test Enrollment
Enrollment during 1993
good test available,” he said. ‘The
DHIA technician’s laptop pro
gram allows him to calculate total
milk weights. If you’re currently
testing 2X, have the technician run
the AP total calculation the next
time he’s in your barn. Right after
the first milking print off a list of
total milk weights and compare
the results with what you actually
see after the cows are milked the
second time. Maybe you’ll still
find that AP isn’t for you, but you
may be surprised.
On the leading edge of DHIA
testing plans are the LER, or
Labor Efficient Records pro
grams, now in their seventh year.
Under LER testing, a farmer
with electronic metering equip
ment takes milk weights on a
monthly or semi-monthly basis
and forwards those results to the
DHIA processing center, either
electronically or on diskette. Milk
is only actually weighed and sam
pled by the DHIA technician on a
quarterly basis.
“Pennsylvania DHIA was one
of the first in the country to be
involved in this program, and
we’ve seen slow but steady
growth,” Boyer said.
“As on-farm computing becomes
more and more common, I expect
the LER type programs to really
take off. At this point, I’m not sure
how many of our dairymen really
even know about them. We have
about two dozen herds on the
option. Mostly, but not exclusive
ly, the larger herds have signed up
so far.”
Beyond LER there are a num
ber of innovative or experimental
programs. Some of the options
available include: alternate DHI
supervised and owner supervised
tests on test day, alternate DHI
supervised and owner supervised
tests on a monthly basis, APCS
quarterly sampling, and a number
of variations on the 2X LER pro
gram for those herds with elec
tronic meters.
Amick said that right now
Pennsylvania has about 75 herds
enrolled in various innovative
options, and points out that not all
of them are restricted to herds with
electronic equipment.
“Some of the best innovative
plans are designed around letting
the member take some of the milk
weights and have the technician
led (6.8%)
is (67.6%)
tied (8.8%)
P Plans (47.9%)
take the others when he comes to
sample,” he said.
‘There are a lot of alternatives,
both for cost-savings, and in order
to minimize the amount of incon
venience a DHIA technician might
cause on test day. I really say that
no technician should have any
body quit DHIA anymore. We just
have so mush flexibility in what
we can allow in official programs
that we never had in the past.”
But Amick cautioned that the
innovative plans, while official,
are regarded as “provisional” by
National DHIA.
“I don’t doubt in the ling run
most of these are going to be made
regular DHIA tests,” Amick said.
“That’s what happened with LER,
which was once an innovative
plan. In the meantime, I have
dairymen check with their AI
units, or with their breed associa
tions to see how they feel about a
particular innovative program.
While we might allow it, some
body at a bull stud might have
questions if the herd is on a young
sire program, for example. When
in doubt, call the people who are
using your records outside of
DHIA to be sure.”
Call DHIA if you’re interested
in LER or innovative plans for
your own herd, and ask for Dean
Amick at 1-800-DHI-TEST.
Average Farm Feed
Costs For Handy
Reference
To help farmers across the state
to have handy reference of com
modity input costs in their feeding
operations for DHIA record sheets
or to develop livestock feed cost
data, here’s last week’s average
costs of various ingredients as
compiled from regional reports
across the state of Pennsylvania.
Remember these are averages so
you wi|l need to adjust your figures
up ex- down according to your loca
tion and the quality of your crop.
Com, No. 2y - 2.29 bu. 4.09 cwL
Wheat, No. 2 - 3.62 bu. 6.04
CWL
Barley, No. 3-1.80 bu. 3.85
CWL
Oats, No. 2 - 1.52 bu. 4.74 cwL
Soybeans, No. 1-5.16 bu. 8.61
CWL
Ear Com 57.98 ton 2.90 cwL