Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred thirteen north central and northeastern United States dairies.

The objective was to conduct a broad survey of dairy management practices that have an effect on animal well-being. Dairies were visited during the fall and winter of 2005 and 2006 in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa, and New York. Data were collected on 113 dairies on colostrum feeding, dehorning, tail-docking, euthanasia methods, producer statements about welfare, use of specialized calf-raising farms (custom), level of satisfaction with calf-raising by producers, and cow behavior. Calves were raised by the owner on 50.4% of dairies; 30.1% were raised on custom farms during the milk-feeding period, 18.6% were custom raised after weaning, and 1% sold calves with the option to buy them back as first-lactation heifers. A total of 51.8% of producers were very satisfied with their current calf-raising methods. Three feedings of colostrum were fed to the calves on 23.9% of dairies, 2 feedings on 39.8% of farms, 1 feeding on 31.0% of farms, and colostrum replacement products were fed on 5.3% of farms. Many farms (61.9%) provided 3.8 L at first feeding. Calves were dehorned at different ages by various methods. By 8 wk, 34.5% of calves were dehorned. By 12 wk, 78.8% of calves were dehorned. The majority of calves were dehorned by hot iron (67.3%). The remainder were dehorned by gouging (8.8%), paste (9.7%), saw (3.5%), or unknown by calf owner (10.6%). Anesthetic use was reported by 12.4% of dairy owners and analgesia use by 1.8%. Tail-docking was observed on 82.3% of dairies. The most common reported docking time was pre- or postcalving (35.2%). The second most commonly reported time was d 1 (15.4%). Rubber band was the most common method (92.5%), followed by amputation (7.5%). Three dairies amputated precalving, 1 at 2 mo and 3 at d 1 or 2. Cow hygiene was the most common reason given to dock (73.5%), followed by parlor worker comfort (17.4%) and udder health (1.0%). Producers reported 2.0% of cows obviously lame. Gun was the preferred euthanasia method (85.7%), followed by i.v. euthanasia (8.0%), live pick-up (1.8%), and nondisclosure (3.5%). Most producers (77.9%) stated that cows were in an improved environment as compared with 20 yr ago, whereas 8.0% stated conditions were worse, and 14.2% were undecided. Dairies with higher percentages of cows that either approached or touched the observer had lower somatic cell counts. The survey results showed management practices that were important for animal welfare.

Influence of free-stall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene in dairy cows.

The objective was to quantify the incidence of tarsal lesions and level of hygiene by stall bed type. Cows were scored on 100 dairies from Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa, and New York in the fall and winter. Thirty-eight dairies used rubber-filled mattresses (RFM), 27 had sand beds, 29 had waterbeds, and 6 used compost packs (CPk). Stocking density, stall dimensions, bedding amount, bedding frequency, and type of bedding were recorded. One pen of early-lactation multiparous cows on each dairy was scored based on injury of the tarsal joints at the lateral and medial surfaces and tuber calcis at the dorsal, lateral, and medial surfaces. A tarsal score of 1 represented hair loss, 2 was moderate, and 3 indicated severe swelling. Differences between bed types in the percentages of cows with lesions were tested with one-way ANOVA by lesion severity and incidence, with farm as the experimental unit. Cows on sand beds or waterbeds had fewer lesion scores of 1, 2, and 3 than those on RFM. The percentages of score 1 were 54.6 +/- 4.4 (RFM), 22.5 +/- 4.7 (sand), and 29.8 +/- 4.3 (waterbed), whereas the percentages of score 2 were 14.0 +/- 1.4, 2.3 +/- 1.5, and 5.0 +/- 1.4, and of score 3 were 3.0 +/- 0.4, 0.2 +/- 0.4, and 0.4 +/- 0.4. Cows on CPk had no lesions. Hygiene scores ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 being clean and 5 soiled. The percentages of hygiene score 1 were 0 (compost), 0.4 (RFM), 0.4 (sand), and 0.4 (waterbeds); those with score 2 were 79.0, 84.0 +/- 0.01, 73.2 +/- 0.01, and 80.4 +/- 0.01; with score 3 were 20.3, 15.2 +/- 0.01, 23.8 +/- 0.01, and 18.6 +/- 0.01; with score 4 were 0.8, 0.005 +/- 0.001, 0.006 +/- 0.001, and 0.025 +/- 0.003; and with score 5 was 0 for all bed types. Cows on RFM and waterbeds had improved hygiene compared with cows on sand beds. There was no difference in somatic cell count (SCC) by bed type. The percentage of cows in fourth lactation or greater on waterbeds (19.8 +/- 1.8) was greater than those on RFM (13.3 +/- 1.6) or on sand (13.5 +/- 1.8). The percentage culled was lower for cows on waterbeds than on RFM (22.8 +/- 1.5 vs. 29.4 +/- 1.4). Score 3 tarsal lesions were correlated (r = 0.60) with SCC. The length of the sand bed was correlated with a greater percentage of mature cows. The SCC was correlated with the percentage of cows reported lame on the day of the visit (r = 0.45) and with neck rail height (r = -0.26). On dairies with RFM, severe lesions (r = 0.60), death losses (r = 0.52), and percentage of the herd reported lame on the day of the visit (r = 0.52) were all correlated with the SCC. Dairies with higher percentages of lesions had higher SCC, death losses, lameness, and culling rates. Adding bedding several times per week may reduce the incidence of lesions.

An evaluation of the lamb vision system as a predictor of lamb carcass red meat yield percentage.

An objective method for predicting red meat yield in lamb carcasses is needed to accurately assess true carcass value. This study was performed to evaluate the ability of the lamb vision system (LVS; Research Management Systems USA, Fort Collins, CO) to predict fabrication yields of lamb carcasses. Lamb carcasses (n = 246) were evaluated using LVS and hot carcass weight (HCW), as well as by USDA expert and on-line graders, before fabrication of carcass sides to either bone-in or boneless cuts. On-line whole number, expert whole-number, and expert nearest-tenth USDA yield grades and LVS + HCW estimates accounted for 53, 52, 58, and 60%, respectively, of the observed variability in boneless, saleable meat yields, and accounted for 56, 57, 62, and 62%, respectively, of the variation in bone-in, saleable meat yields. The LVS + HCW system predicted 77, 65, 70, and 87% of the variation in weights of boneless shoulders, racks, loins, and legs, respectively, and 85, 72, 75, and 86% of the variation in weights of bone-in shoulders, racks, loins, and legs, respectively. Addition of longissimus muscle area (REA), adjusted fat thickness (AFT), or both REA and AFT to LVS + HCW models resulted in improved prediction of boneless saleable meat yields by 5, 3, and 5 percentage points, respectively. Bone-in, saleable meat yield estimations were improved in predictive accuracy by 7.7, 6.6, and 10.1 percentage points, and in precision, when REA alone, AFT alone, or both REA and AFT, respectively, were added to the LVS + HCW output models. Use of LVS + HCW to predict boneless red meat yields of lamb carcasses was more accurate than use of current on-line whole-number, expert whole-number, or expert nearest-tenth USDA yield grades. Thus, LVS + HCW output, when used alone or in combination with AFT and/or REA, improved on-line estimation of boneless cut yields from lamb carcasses. The ability of LVS + HCW to predict yields of wholesale cuts suggests that LVS could be used as an objective means for pricing carcasses in a value-based marketing system.

Measuring financial performance: an overview of financial statements.

Financial management has emerged as a critical component in the long-term viability of today's ranches and farms. Proper and timely financial reporting and analysis of financial statements are valuable tools that agricultural producers can use to monitor, coordinate, and plan their operational production and marketing schemes and strategies. A side note to preparation of financial statements. With the concerns over lender liability issues associated with statements either assisted with or prepared by a lending officer, agricultural producers will be responsible for preparing their own statements. The lending institutions may prepare their own statements in their assessment of the financial condition of a business and or individual, but, ultimately, the responsibility of financial statements is the borrower's. Some of the material presented in this article provides important input for use in such analytical programs as the National Cattlemen's Association, Integrated Resource Committees, and Standard Performance Analysis (SPA). SPA techniques and associated software have been or currently are under development for cow-calf, stocker, seedstock, and sheep enterprises. Critical to the analysis is having complete and correct financial statements. These analytical programs build on the financial statements. These analytical programs build on the financial statements as recommended by the FFSTF. Proper financial reporting is critical not only to a SPA assessment but also to the overall financial management of today's farms and ranches. Recognizing the importance of financial management in production agriculture is not enough, taking a proactive stance in one's financial plan is paramount to success. Failure to do so will only enhance the exit rates of producers from production agriculture.