A survey of dairy goat kid-rearing practices on Canadian farms and their associations with self-reported farm performance

Although future production of dairy goats is influenced by kid-rearing practices, little is known regarding which practices maximize kid growth, welfare, and future production success. The objectives of this survey study were to (1) identify common rearing practices of Canadian commercial dairy goat farms and evaluate their associations with 6 farm performance indicators and (2) determine if farms could be grouped by management style on the basis of the 6 performance indicators and compare rearing practices common across the different groups. A survey was sent by post or electronic media to reach dairy goat producers across Canada. The questionnaire contained 70 questions on the following areas of kid rearing: kidding management, care of newborn, colostrum management, milk and solid feeding in the preweaning period, health management, disbudding, housing conditions, weaning strategies, record keeping and growth monitoring, and farm performance data. Performance indicators, calculated on self-reported data, were 305-d milk production, preweaning mortality rate, diarrhea and respiratory disease prevalence, average daily gain from birth to weaning, herd milk production, and replacement rate. A total of 175 questionnaires were returned. After applying inclusion criteria, including herd size (≥40 goats) and completeness of surveys, 104 respondents from Ontario (n = 72, 69%), Québec (n = 23, 22%), and the Western provinces (n = 9, 9%) were retained for analysis, representing 29% of all Canadian producers. Farm sizes ranged from 42 to 2,500 (median = 190) goats. A large amount of variation in rearing practices and farm performance was found between farms. Colostrum and milk feeding management were found to be associated with all performance indicators except for kid respiratory disease prevalence, with timing of colostrum delivery and feeding method accounting for most the associations within each of the 2 areas. Replacement rate was mostly affected by whether or not kids were reared with their dam. Herds surveyed in the study could successfully be divided into 3 distinct groups (production-focused, longevity-focused, and low performance), representing different management styles on the basis of farm self-reported performance levels. Rearing practices found to be associated with higher farm performance could be targeted by advisory services to help improve management practices on Canadian dairy goat farms.     

Canadian dairy farmers' perception of the efficacy of biosecurity practices

The adoption of biosecurity practices on dairy farms is limited worldwide. Multiple aspects, one of which is the perception of the effectiveness of these practices, influence the adoption of preventive behavior. The objectives of the present study were to investigate the general understanding of biosecurity by Canadian dairy farmers and to describe their perception of the effectiveness of specific biosecurity practices. In 2015, 368 Canadian dairy farmers were selected to participate in an on-farm national cross-sectional benchmarking study during which they were asked about their general understanding of biosecurity and their perception of the effectiveness of 17 practices to minimize biosecurity risk. For these same biosecurity practices, respondents were asked whether they discussed that particular practice with a veterinarian and whether they implemented it on their farm. Herd and respondent characteristics were also recorded. Associations between the perception of effectiveness of each biosecurity practice and the discussion with a veterinarian, its implementation on farm, and the herd and respondent characteristics were examined using ordered regression models. Most respondents thought the purpose of on-farm biosecurity was to prevent both entry of a new pathogen and spread of an existing pathogen (73%) and considered general biosecurity to be effective (92%) and important (58%). When asked about specific biosecurity practices, respondents considered most of them to be effective (60–94%). Practices related to direct animal-to-animal contact were perceived as effective by more respondents than biosecurity practices related to fomites and visitors. Less than 20% of the respondents reported discussing the different biosecurity practices with a veterinarian, and less than 60% reported implementing these practices on their farm. Geographical region, involvement of a veterinarian, and implementation of the practice on farm were associated with the perception of effectiveness for multiple practices. Finally, the reasons chosen by most respondents as motivation to implement biosecurity practices were (1) if the practice helped to regionally prevent the introduction or the spread of a disease and (2) if it was proven to be beneficial to the health and welfare of animals. These results show that there is a positive perception of the effectiveness of specific biosecurity practices, that there might be a lack of understanding of the practices involving transmission of diseases via indirect contact, and that the perceived threat associated with not adopting practices is minimal.     

Farm characteristics and calf management practices on dairy farms with and without diarrhea: A case-control study to investigate risk factors for calf diarrhea

Calf diarrhea is one of the most important problems in calf rearing on dairy farms worldwide. Besides pathogens, several noninfectious management factors, especially management around birth, colostrum management, calf housing, feeding, and hygiene are important in the pathogenesis of diarrhea. To date, few data are available concerning calf rearing management on small and medium-sized dairy farms that are typical for Austria and the alpine region. Consequently, the objectives of this case-control study were to evaluate routine calf management practices on Austrian dairy farms and to examine differences in management between farms with and without the presence of calf diarrhea to identify risk factors. Overall, 100 dairy farms were visited. Of these farms, 50 were chosen based on the history and presence of calf diarrhea (case farms). Another 50 farms with no presence of calf diarrhea were chosen to serve as a standard of comparison (control farms). On farms, management was evaluated by face-to-face interview, and health status and hygiene were surveyed. Several calf rearing management procedures were similar on all of the visited farms, especially in areas regulated by national and European law. These factors include colostrum management and feeding. Consequently, no influence of these factors on the appearance of calf diarrhea could be detected. In contrast, other areas such as hygiene measures differed between farms and showed a partial association with the presence of calf diarrhea on farm. Variables related to diarrhea on farm were farm size; that is, the number of cows on farm. Farms with diarrhea cases were larger (median 40 cows, interquartile range 24.5 to 64.0) compared with farms with no presence of diarrhea (median 28 cows, interquartile range 18.8 to 44.0). Other risk factors that influenced the presence of diarrhea were the presence of other farm animal species on the farm [odds ratio (OR) 26.89, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.64 to 273.5], frequency of cleaning of the calving area (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.79), the placement of individual calf housings (barn vs. outdoors; OR 0.02, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.47), and the presence of respiratory tract disease (OR 52.49, 95% CI: 1.26 to 2,181.83). The possible influence of these factors on the appearance of calf diarrhea should be considered when farmers are advised.     

Biosecurity and herd health management practices on Canadian dairy farms

The Canadian dairy industry has created national standards to support the adoption of biosecurity practices and to reduce disease risks across the country. There is, however, very little information on the adoption of these practices. The present study aimed to describe the adoption of biosecurity practices on Canadian dairy farms shortly after the creation of the national standards and to identify demographic factors associated with practice adoption. In 2015, 2 questionnaires (phase 1 and 2) were administered to Canadian dairy farmers during an extensive cross-sectional study. Associations between adoption of biosecurity practices as well as associations between adoption of these practices and demographic variables were tested using multiple correspondence analysis. A total of 1,157 questionnaires were completed in phase 1, and a subsample of 368 respondents was selected using stratified random sampling to complete phase 2 during visits to the farms. There was a lack of investigation into general disease syndromes such as a high prevalence of abortion or an unexplained death (38 and 22% of respondents, respectively). Biosecurity measures within herds and between herds to minimize the spread of infection were not widely adopted (e.g., 27% of the respondents never housed sick or lame animals in their calving pen, 41% had closed herds, and 25 and 48% of the open herds had no strategy for introducing new additions and reintroducing returning animals, respectively). Cleanliness of the cows before calving was always ensured by 29% of the respondents, and 27% of the respondents reported always sanitizing the calving pen after each calving. Less than 15% of the respondents had measures in place to limit or control visitors coming on their farm. Moreover, less than half of the respondents reported requiring family members, employees, and visitors to wear farm-designated or clean boots and coveralls. From the multiple correspondence analysis, 2 dimensions were retained and were summarized as “animal movement, calving area, and visitor biosecurity” and “employee biosecurity.” Geographical region, type of housing, and milk production were associated with the “employee biosecurity” dimension. The present study demonstrates that many important biosecurity practices are not implemented on Canadian dairy farms; therefore, efforts to promote the adoption of these practices will be necessary to improve biosecurity in dairy herds.     

Reproductive management practices on dairy farms: The Canadian National Dairy Study 2015

The objectives of this cross-sectional study were to characterize reproductive management practices on Canadian dairy farms and describe differences based on regional and demographic factors. A questionnaire was offered to all licensed Canadian dairy producers and included 189 questions regarding producer and farm background information, herd dynamics, biosecurity, disease prevalence, calf health, animal welfare, milking practices, reproduction, and internet use. Twenty-four questions were related to estrus detection, hormonal protocols for reproduction, insemination, and pregnancy diagnosis. A total of 1,373 producers responded to the survey, representing a response rate of 12.5%. Estrus detection practices in lactating cows were associated with herd size, barn type, region, organic production, breeding method, and age of respondent. The most commonly used estrus-detection method in cows was visual (51.0% of farms for first insemination; 45.5% for subsequent inseminations). Estrus detection for nulliparous heifers was associated with herd size, barn type, region, and breeding method, with visual detection also the most common method for heifers (71.3% of farms). Eighty percent of farms used strictly artificial insemination, 2.8% used natural service only, and 16.8% used a combination of artificial insemination and natural service. Breeding method was associated with herd size, barn type, region, and education level of the respondent. Pregnancy diagnosis method was associated with herd size, barn type, region, and organic production. Ultrasound was the most commonly used method of pregnancy diagnosis (used by 52.2% of farms). Sixty-nine percent of farms rechecked cows for pregnancy, and rectal palpation was the most commonly used method (employed by 48.7%). Reproductive management practices vary considerably among Canadian dairy farms and decisions are associated with farm-level factors, including region, herd size, and barn type, as well as producer-level factors, such as age, managerial role, and education level.     

Exploring expert opinion on the practicality and effectiveness of biosecurity measures on dairy farms in the United Kingdom using choice modeling

Biosecurity, defined as a series of measures aiming to stop disease-causing agents entering or leaving an area where farm animals are present, is very important for the continuing economic viability of the United Kingdom dairy sector, and for animal welfare. This study gathered expert opinion from farmers, veterinarians, consultants, academics, and government and industry representatives on the practicality and effectiveness of different biosecurity measures on dairy farms. The study used best-worst scaling, a technique that allows for greater discrimination between choices and avoids the variability in interpretation associated with other methods, such as Likert scales and ranking methods. Keeping a closed herd was rated as the most effective measure overall, and maintaining regular contact with the veterinarian was the most practical measure. Measures relating to knowledge, planning, and veterinary involvement; buying-in practices; and quarantine and treatment scored highly for effectiveness overall. Measures relating to visitors, equipment, pest control, and hygiene scored much lower for effectiveness. Overall, measures relating to direct animal-to-animal contact scored much higher for effectiveness than measures relating to indirect disease transmission. Some of the most effective measures were also rated as the least practical, such as keeping a closed herd and avoiding nose-to-nose contact between contiguous animals, suggesting that real barriers exist for farmers when implementing biosecurity measures on dairy farms. We observed heterogeneity in expert opinion on biosecurity measures; for example, veterinarians rated the effectiveness of consulting the veterinarian on biosecurity significantly more highly than dairy farmers, suggesting a greater need for veterinarians to promote their services on-farm. Still, both groups rated it as a practical measure, suggesting that the farmer-veterinarian relationship holds some advantages for the promotion of biosecurity.     

Effect of reproductive management programs for first service on replacement dairy heifer economics

Our objective was to evaluate cash flow for dairy heifers managed for first service with programs that relied primarily on insemination at detected estrus (AIE), timed AI (TAI), or a combination of both. Holstein heifers from 2 commercial farms were randomized to receive first service with sexed semen after the beginning of the AI period (AIP) at 12 mo of age with 1 of 3 treatments: (1) PGF+AIE (n = 317): AIE after PGF_2α injections every 14 d (up to 3) starting at the beginning of the AIP; heifers not AIE 9 d after the third PGF_2α were enrolled in the 5d-Cosynch (5dCP) protocol; (2) ALL-TAI (n = 315): TAI after ovulation synchronization with the 5dCP protocol; and (3) PGF+TAI (n = 334): AIE after 2 PGF_2α injections 14 d apart (second PGF_2α at beginning of AIP). If not AIE 9 d after the second PGF_2α, the 5dCP protocol was used for TAI. After first service heifers were AIE or received TAI after the 5dCP with conventional semen. Individual heifer cash flow (CF) for up to a 15-mo period (d 0 = beginning of AIP) was calculated using reproductive cost (rearing only), feed cost (rearing only), income over feed cost (lactation only), calf value, operating cost, and with or without replacement cost. A stochastic analysis with Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate differences in CF for a range of market values for inputs and outputs. Time to pregnancy for up to 100 d after the beginning of the AIP was analyzed by Cox's proportional regression, binary data with logistic regression, and continuous outcomes by ANOVA. Time to pregnancy (hazard ratio and 95% CI) was reduced for the ALL-TAI versus the PGF+AIE treatment (1.20; 1.02–1.42), but it was similar for ALL-TAI and PGF+TAI (1.13; 0.95–1.33) and the PGF+AIE and PGF+TAI treatments (1.07; 0.91–1.25). The proportion of heifers not pregnant by 100 d did not differ (PGF+AIE = 7.0%; PGF+TAI = 6.5%; ALL-TAI = 6.8%). When including replacement cost, CF ($/slot per 15 mo) differences were $51 and $42 in favor of the PGF+TAI and ALL-TAI compared with the PGF+AIE treatment, and $9 in favor of the PGF+TAI compared with the ALL-TAI treatment but did not differ statistically. Excluding heifers that were replaced to evaluate the effect of timing of pregnancy differences only, the difference in CF between the PGF+AIE with the PGF+TAI and ALL-TAI treatment was the same (i.e., $15) and favored the programs that used more TAI, but also did not differ statistically. Stochastic simulation results were in line with those of the deterministic analysis confirming the benefit of the programs that used more TAI. We concluded that submission of heifers for first service with TAI only or TAI in combination with AIE generated numerical differences in CF of potential value to commercial dairy farms. Reduced rearing cost and increased revenue during lactation increased CF under fixed (not statistically significant) or simulated variable market conditions.     

Pilot implementation of a newly developed bovine leukemia virus control program on 11 Alberta dairy farms

We developed a custom bovine leukemia virus (BLV) control program for the Alberta dairy industry, consisting of a risk assessment and a comprehensive list of best management practices (BMP) aimed at prevention of BLV transmission between cattle. This control program was implemented on 11 farms for approximately 1 yr. Blood samples were collected from all cattle ≥12 mo old, and serum was tested with a commercial ELISA. Risk assessments were performed on each farm, risk-connected on-farm management was identified, and management changes expected to prevent transmission of BLV between cattle were suggested by the first author and agreed upon with each farmer. Throughout the following year, all participating farmers were visited multiple times to identify and overcome barriers to implementation and to monitor progress. After approximately 1 yr of implementing BLV control, all cattle ≥12 mo old on farm with a negative or no previous test result were sampled, and the within-herd prevalence was determined. The median number of cattle on farm that were ≥12 mo was 195 (range 110–524). The initial prevalence averaged 39% (13–66%). On average, 5 BMP (3–7) were suggested to each farmer. On average, 4 BMP (1–7) were implemented. At the second sampling, the average within-herd prevalence of all animals that tested positive (including the previous sampling) was 36% (12–62%). Eight farms reduced their within-herd BLV prevalence, within-herd prevalence stayed constant on 1 farm, and it increased on 1 farm. The remaining farm terminated their participation before the second sampling. The number of seroconversions per farm ranged from 3 to 109, highlighting the success of some producers to minimize new infections. The risk assessment was proven to be a valuable tool to identify flaws in on-farm management, although risk assessment score was unrelated to the within-herd BLV prevalence. Finally, it appeared that implementation of BMP aimed at prevention of BLV transmission between cattle could reduce within-herd BLV prevalence when farmers committed to their implementation.     

Investigating Ontario dairy farmers motivations and barriers to the adoption of biosecurity and Johne's control practices

For the control of Johne's disease (JD), management practices to minimize disease transmission must be implemented and maintained. Once infected, animals will enter a latent phase and will typically only manifest clinical symptoms years later. As young calves are the main susceptible group on farm, the observed effects of management practices geared toward minimizing their exposure to infective material may not be realized until years later. This delayed feedback limits the sustained implementation of JD control practices. Although quantitative research methods have demonstrated changes to management practices as well as their association with changes to JD prevalence, dairy farmers can offer insights into the current challenges relating to JD implementation and control. Thus, this study aims to use qualitative methods and in-depth interviews (n = 20) with Ontario dairy farmers who had previously been engaged in a Johne's control program to explore their motivations and barriers to the implementation of JD control practices and general herd biosecurity. A thematic analysis using inductive coding was completed generated the following 4 overarching themes: (1) the hows and whys of Johne's control, (2) barriers to general herd biosecurity, (3) barriers to Johne's control, and (4) overcoming barriers. Farmers no longer believed JD was an issue on their farm. Johne's was low on their list of concerns due to little public discourse, absence of animals displaying clinical signs, and no financial support for diagnostic testing. Producers who were still actively engaged in JD control cited animal and human health as their primary motivations. Financial support, targeted education, and promoting engagement through discourse may help encourage producers to reconsider their participation in JD control. Government and industry collaboration with producers may help to develop more effective biosecurity and disease control programs.     

Associations between biosecurity practices and bovine digital dermatitis in Danish dairy herds

The relationship between biosecurity and digital dermatitis (DD) was evaluated in 8,269 cows from a convenience sample of 39 freestall dairy herds. The hypothesis was that poor implementation of biosecurity was associated with higher within-herd prevalence of DD. All lactating cows were scored as negative or positive for DD at the hind legs during milking in the milking parlor. Information about biosecurity was obtained through questionnaires addressed to farmers, on-farm observations, and information from the Danish Cattle Database (www.seges.dk). These assessment tools covered potential infection sources of DD pathogens to susceptible cows (e.g., via animals, humans, manure, vehicles, equipment, and facilities). External and internal biosecurity measures were explanatory variables in 2 separate logistic regression models, whereas within-herd DD prevalence was the outcome. Overall DD prevalence among cows and herds were 24 and 97%, respectively; the within-herd DD prevalence ranged from 0 to 56%. Poor external biosecurity measures associated with higher prevalence of DD were recent animal purchase, access to pasture, lack of boots available for visitors, farm staff working at other dairy farms as well, hoof trimming without a professional attending, and animal transporters having access to cattle area. For internal biosecurity, higher DD prevalence were associated with infrequent hoof bathing, manure scraping less than 8 times a day, manure removal direction from cows to heifers, animal pens' exit without water hoses, manure-handling vehicle used in other activities, and water troughs contaminated with manure. These findings showed that improvements on biosecurity may be beneficial for controlling DD in dairy herds. The study is relevant for farmers facing problems with DD, as well as hoof trimmers, advisors, and veterinarians, who can use the results for optimized recommendations regarding biosecurity in relation to DD. Furthermore, our results might be considered by future studies investigating DD pathogen reservoirs and transmission routes.     

The dehorning of dairy calves: practices and opinions of 639 farmers

Calf dehorning is a routine husbandry practice on dairy farms that is justified by safety reasons for stockpersons and by a reduced risk of injures among herdmates. In Europe, the practice is regulated by law but little is known about the methods applied or about farmers’ attitude to the practice. This study aimed to broaden the existing information on dehorning in dairy holdings by processing results of 639 farm questionnaires gathered in a traditional dairy area of northeastern Italy. Farm questionnaires were stratified according to herd size, type of housing, and productive purpose of the predominant reared breed(s). Chi-squared tests were performed to verify the significant association between a given practice or opinion and the 3 classification factors, and odd ratios were calculated. The outcomes of the study showed that dehorning was carried out on 80% of the surveyed farms, and disbudding was the method reported by all the interviewed farmers. Hot-iron cauterization was the preferred method for disbudding (91%). On average, disbudding was performed at 32 d of age and it was more likely in farms with ≥60 cows than in smaller dairy holdings (OR = 7.3). The practice was carried out mainly by farm personnel, but the intervention of a veterinarian was far more likely (OR = 5.98) on farms with ≤30 cows than on larger dairies. Most farmers (70%) stated that they had not received any specific training on how to perform disbudding. Fifty-two percent of the respondents reported that disbudding causes prolonged postoperative pain (≥6 h) but pain management was rare. Only 10% of the farmers used local anesthesia before cauterization, and 5% of the farmers provided calves with postoperative analgesia. Consistent with these results, farmers indicated limited willingness to pay the cost of analgesia or to call a veterinarian to perform the procedure. This low motivation of the respondents toward the adoption of practices able to reduce pain related to disbudding might arise from their insufficient knowledge on long-term negative effects of early painful experiences on behavior and handling of dairy heifers. Farmers in favor of keeping horned cows were asked about the reasons for not carrying out dehorning. Aesthetic motivations (54% of respondents) and lack of time (24%) were the main reasons cited. Moreover, a large majority of these respondents (74%) reported no difficulty in handling horned cattle.     

Views of Western Canadian dairy producers on calf rearing: An interview-based study

Calf rearing practices differ among farms, including feeding and weaning methods. These differences may relate to how dairy producers view these practices and evaluate their own success. The aim of this study was to investigate perspectives of dairy producers on calf rearing, focusing on calf weaning and how they characterized weaning success. We interviewed dairy producers from 16 farms in Western Canada in the following provinces: British Columbia (n = 12), Manitoba (n = 2), and Alberta (n = 2). Participants were asked to describe their heifer calf weaning and rearing practices, and what they viewed as successes and challenges in weaning and rearing calves. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and subjected to qualitative analysis from which we identified the following 4 major themes: (1) reliance on calf-based measures (e.g., health, growth, and behavior), (2) management factors and personal experiences (e.g., ease, consistency, and habit), (3) environmental factors (e.g., facilities and equipment), and (4) external support (e.g., advice and educational opportunities). These results provided insight into how dairy producers view calf weaning and rearing, and may help inform the design of future research and knowledge transfer projects aimed at improving management practices on dairy farms.     

Evaluation of a biological risk management tool on large western United States dairies

Critical to changing biosecurity practices on the farm is an individual assessment of those practices contributing to disease transmission. The purpose of this project was to assess, implement, and refine a biological risk management survey for use on large western United States dairy farms. Assessment tools developed by Iowa State University Center for Food Security and Public Health (Ames, IA) were refined using a focus group process and by testing them on 40 dairy herds in California. Each question was evaluated using standard criteria and producer responses. Some survey questions required refinement for clarity and others were considered unnecessary. New questions were added based on a biosecurity literature review, resulting in a new set of questions that can be used by extension educators and food animal veterinarians to help identify disease risk areas and educate dairy producers.     

Survey of disbudding practice on Czech dairy farms

Disbudding is a routine practice in many dairy herds due to the effort to decrease the risk of injuries. Although the disbudding practice is regulated, it can vary among farms. The variation may be caused by many factors, such as herd size or type of breed, but also by farmers' perception of pain caused by disbudding. Hence, the aim of this study was to specify the disbudding practice on dairy farms in the Czech Republic and to assess these practices, including the use of pain mitigation medication, by breed, herd size, and sex of the disbudded calves. We analyzed data from 106 Czech dairy farms, which were collected by a trained interviewer at dairy meetings in 2014–2015. The farmers answered questions regarding the farm's basic characteristics, disbudding practice, and his/her attitude to the pain caused by disbudding. To test the influence of breed, herd size, and sex of disbudded calves on different variables, logistic regression models were used. Disbudding was performed in 92.5% of the surveyed farms; 63.3% of dairy calves were disbudded before 4 wk of age, and Czech Fleckvieh calves were 2.8 times more likely to be disbudded before 4 wk of age than Holstein calves. The hot-iron method was the most used method (69.4%). Calves were 4.5 times more likely to be disbudded by hot iron in herds where both heifers and bulls were disbudded than in herds where only heifers were disbudded. Most (>90%) surveyed farms did not use any pre- or post-procedure medication to mitigate the pain caused by disbudding. The disbudding procedure was performed mainly by farm personnel (94.9%), who were trained by a veterinarian or veterinary technician (46.9%) or by other farm personnel (37.8%) or were not trained (15.3%). Two-thirds of farmers observed behavioral changes in calves after disbudding. Most farmers estimated the pain caused by disbudding to be mild or moderate (20.4 or 45.9%, respectively) and 15.3% of farmers estimated it to be severe. Almost a quarter of interviewed farmers were unable to assess the duration of pain, 39.8% farmers estimated that the pain lasts only several minutes, and 20.4% estimated that the pain lasts up to 6 h. We detected a tendency that farmers of larger herds estimated pain duration to be shorter (odds ratio = 1.2). To improve calves' welfare, training is needed in disbudding practice, focusing on the advantage of pain mitigation.     

A 100-Year Review: A century of dairy heifer research

The years 1917 to 2017 saw many advances in research related to the dairy heifer, and the Journal of Dairy Science currently publishes more than 20 articles per year focused on heifers. In general, nutrition and management changes made in rearing the dairy heifer have been tremendous in the past century. The earliest literature on the growing heifer identified costs of feeding and implications of growth on future productivity as major concepts requiring further study to improve the overall sustainability of the dairy herd. Research into growth rates and standards for body size and stature have been instrumental in developing rearing programs that provide heifers with adequate nutrients to support growth and improve milk production in first lactation. Nutrient requirements, most notably for protein but also for energy, minerals, and vitamins, have been researched extensively. Scientific evaluation of heifer programs also encouraged a dramatic shift toward a lower average age at first calving over the past 30 yr. Calving at 22 to 24 mo best balances the cost of growing heifers with their production and lifetime income potential. Increasingly, farms have become more progressive in adopting management practices based on the physiology and nutrient needs of the heifer while refining key economic strategies to be successful. Research published in the Journal of Dairy Science has an integral role in the progress of dairy heifer programs around the world.     

Dairy farmers with larger herd sizes adopt more precision dairy technologies

An increase in the average herd size on Australian dairy farms has also increased the labor and animal management pressure on farmers, thus potentially encouraging the adoption of precision technologies for enhanced management control. A survey was undertaken in 2015 in Australia to identify the relationship between herd size, current precision technology adoption, and perception of the future of precision technologies. Additionally, differences between farmers and service providers in relation to perception of future precision technology adoption were also investigated. Responses from 199 dairy farmers, and 102 service providers, were collected between May and August 2015 via an anonymous Internet-based questionnaire. Of the 199 dairy farmer responses, 10.4% corresponded to farms that had fewer than 150 cows, 37.7% had 151 to 300 cows, 35.5% had 301 to 500 cows; 6.0% had 501 to 700 cows, and 10.4% had more than 701 cows. The results showed that farmers with more than 500 cows adopted between 2 and 5 times more specific precision technologies, such as automatic cup removers, automatic milk plant wash systems, electronic cow identification systems and herd management software, when compared with smaller farms. Only minor differences were detected in perception of the future of precision technologies between either herd size or farmers and service providers. In particular, service providers expected a higher adoption of automatic milking and walk over weighing systems than farmers. Currently, the adoption of precision technology has mostly been of the type that reduces labor needs; however, respondents indicated that by 2025 adoption of data capturing technology for monitoring farm system parameters would be increased.     

Survey of calf and heifer housing on Pennsylvania dairy farms

Research has established a link between calf and heifer housing and calf health. To determine current calf and heifer housing practices in Pennsylvania, 329 dairy farms were surveyed. The study was designed to increase awareness on the part of dairy farmers in housing and management and to develop education programs and materials in the area of calf and heifer management. All surveys were conducted on the farm by personal interviews. Results showed 24.9% of the farms had maternity pens in a building separate from the milking herd, although half of these farms used maternity pens in conjunction with facilities of lesser quality for the health and management of the animals. The same number of farms used calf hutches as those keeping calves in dairy barns with cows. A high percentage of the farms weaned calves (moved from milk diets to dry feed diets) to recommended types of facilities that included group pens, loose housing, and group or superhutches. However, 49.5% of the facilities used for weaned calves were in conjunction with other dairy animals. Animal restraint facilities have also been identified as an area that needs more emphasis on dairy farms. Many areas of dairy replacement housing on commercial dairy farms were determined to be unsatisfactory according to recommended Pennsylvania standards.