Question: Reproductive
performance over the past
several years has gotten worse.
We have tried all the normal
things that most dairymen do,
with the help of our
veterinarian. Is there some
influence that we may have
overlooked?
Reproductive performance is a
subject that I leave solely in hands
of people more skilled than
myself. I would like to report on
some research that I read about
lately and how it might apply to
this situation.
At the' 2000 Regional Meeting
of the National Mastitis Council,
personnel at the ' University of
Tennessee presented a paper
entitled “Clinical and Subclinical
Mastitis During Jfcarly Lactation
Impairs Reproductive
Performance of D%iiy -Cows”.
These w?xe the at the
end, i of that presentation; (I)
occurrence of mastitis before first
service delayed days ‘to first
■'' r ihcreased ’ days to
conception and elevated services
per conception, (2) occurrence of
mastitis during the breeding
period increased days open and
doubled the number of services
per conception compared to
uninfected cows, (3) reproductive
performance was not affected if
mastitis occurred after
establishment of pregnancy, (4)
NEW SORT ALL BUILDING
Designed bg Schick Enterprises
SUPER SORTER
THE PERFECT PIG PICKER
iliMi i
<s
• T\vo New 2200 Hd Sort All Finishers, Now Under Construction
WE CAN HELP WITH ALL YOUR BUILDING AND
SCHICK ENTERPRISES
DESIGNER AND BUILDER OF TURN KEY BUILDINGS
Call For Details 800-527-7675
both Gram-negative and Gram
positive mastitis pathogens
decreased reproductive
performance similarly, (5) sub
clinical and clinical mastitis
equally reduced reproductive
performance, and (6)
experimentally-induced mastitis
increased concentrations of
cortisol, increased serum PFG
2alpha, and elevated body
temperature.
As this applies to this farm we
should first look at the mastitis
trends of this herd measured by
somatic cell count.
We can 1 easily see the
increased trend in Somatic Cell
Count over the past three years. I
further dug into the information
and turned up the following.
We see that the big influence
on the cell count is on the cows
that we are breeding or getting
ready to breed. In the first 60 days
in milk (the voluntary waiting
period) we see by far the highest
infection rate this year. We see
the same thing in cows during the
breeding period as indicated by
the list for cows up till 130 days
in milk.
I then looked at all the current
pregnant cows. 23 cows became
pregnant less than 130 DIM and
75% did not have a LSCC
exceeding 3 for the first three test
periods. 16 cows became
pregnant past 130 DIM with 63%
• Automatically Sorts Pigs By Weight
• Make Money On Sort Bonus
• No More Battles On Market Day
• Pigs Will Be Sorted, Ready For Loading
• You Can’t Afford To Build Without It
EQUIPMENT NEEDS
Average Farm Feed
Costs for Handy
Reference
To help farmers across the state to
have handy reference of commodity
input costs in their feeding operations
for DHIA record sheets or to develop
09/17/
t*** 05/21
11/21,
11/26/1!
of those with one or more of the
first three tests over a LSCC of 4
(infected)
Is this significant? I can’t be
sure but there is much at stake
when we fail to keep somatic cell
counts in check. We have to ask
ourselves; could reproductive
performance be one of them 7
feed
livestock feed cost data, here’s last
week’s average costs of various ingred
ients as compiled from regional reports
across the state of Pennsylvania.
Remember, these are averages, so you
will need to adjust your figures up or
down according to your location and the
quality of your crop.
Bulk Tank Somatic Cell Average Past 3 Years
As Linear Score
Barn Owl 2000
Nov 00
130P1M
#cows 29
LSCC 2.52
SCC 466,000
WSCC 3 6 2000
60DIM
#cows 20
LSCC 2.51
SCC 715,000
WSCC 522,000
X Suspended from header
boards by free swinging chains
to avoid cow entanglement
X Free swinging feature virtually
eliminates injury to cows and
damage to freestalls
X By decreasing cow injury, you
can increase milk production
Call Us For Your Nearest Dealer!
LEBANON VALLEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
Manufacturing • Powder Coating * Precast
P.O. Box 187, Myerstown, PA,17067 • (717) 866-2030
Lancaster Farming, Saturday, December 16, 2000-A29
N „lv 1.96 bu., 3-50 cWt. “
Corn, N• y 223 bu j.72cwt.
Wheat, N 0.2 2.23 «u., j
LSCC
Nov 99 Kov 98
2.12
105,000 228,000
104,000 238,000
2.18
130,000 130,000 38,000
137,000 141,000 42,000
X Fully adjustable in height,
neck rail & brisket rail also
adjustable
X Available from 1-bed to 5-bed
assemblies
X Powder coated with a 20 year
rust through guarantee
Barley, N 0.3 —1.39 bu., 2.96 cwt.
Oats, N 0.2 —1.36 bu., 4.24 cwt.
Soybeans, No.l —4.5 bu., 7.52 cwt.
Ear Com 57.61 ton, 2.88 cwt.
Alfalfa Hay —105.00 ton, 5.25 cwt.
Mixed Hay —106.25 ton, 5.31 cwt.
Timothy Hay —108.75 ton, 5.44 cwt.
2.79
20 13
2.33 1.06
Nov 97
2.09
228,000
245,000