ABSTRACT

HERD HEALTH PROBLEMS
AFFECTED BY DRY COW MANAGEMENT
ON SOUTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMS

By
David John Kjome

Fifty-four Michigan dairy farms were studied to define
present dry cow feeding and management practices and their
effect on herd health.

Four (housing system, separation of dry cows, herd size
and production level) primary sources of variation in dry
cow management were examined statistically through an
analysis of variance to determine their influence on herd
health. Housing system had a significant influence on milk
fever (P<0.03) while the separation factor affected milk
fever (P<0.11) and mastitis (P<0.10). Also. the interaction
of housing system and separation of dry cows affected
metritis (P<0.09) and ketosis (P<O.ll). Herd size, as a
.source of variation, had no significant effect on herd health
but as an interaction with separation of dry cows. it
affected metritis (P<0.01). Production level affected
retained placenta (P<0.06), metritis (P<0.0h), ketosis

(P<0.11) and milk fever (P<0.0l).

David John Kjome

Quantitative secondary nutritional and management
parameters were analyzed through a regression analysis to
study their relationship to herd health. Secondary variables
significantly (P<O.lO) related to displaced abomasum were
roughage fed per hundredweight to milk cows, dry matter
intake at 270 days postpartum and dry days. Four nutritional
variables including dry matter intake at 270 days, dry matter
pounds of grain at 270 days, daily roughage intake to milk
cows and dry matter per hundredweight in dry cows were
related to retained placenta. Variables related to metritis
were dry matter intake at 40 days postpartum, percent days
in milk, milk cow daily roughage, roughage dry matter intake
per hundredweight in dry cows and dry matter grain intake
at 270 days. Milk level and daily roughage per hundred-
weight in milk cows were related to ketosis. Dry matter
intake in late lactation, milk level and milk cow grain
protein related to milk fever.

Relationships of significant primary sources of
variation and significant quantitative secondary variables
with a significant difference in means of that secondary
factor within the primary category were studied with respect
to herd health. Those studied were housing system and
'percent protein fed to milk cows in relation to milk fever.
housing system and dry matter intake at 270 days postpartum
to milk fever, dry cow separation and milk cow grain percent
protein to milk fever, production level and dry matter grain

fed to milking cows as related to retained placenta,

David John Kjome

production level and dry matter intake at 40 days postpartum
to metritis and the relationship of production level and dry
matter fed at 270 days to milk fever.

In summary. it is concluded that of the primary
significant factors affecting herd health, production level
is the most important. Separation of dry cows and housing
system are also important factors relating to herd health
while herd size was not significant.

Eleven of the eighteen named quantitative secondary
summary nutritional and management factors were significantly
related to herd health. It is concluded that milk cow
feeding and management factors rather than dry cow are more
related to herd health problems. Milk cow roughage dry
matter per hundredweight in milk cows and total dry matter
intake at 270 days postpartum were most frequently related
to herd health.

In the study of relationships of significant primary
and quantitative secondary factors with a significant
difference in means of the secondary factor within the
primary category. it is evident the milk cow secondary
quantitative factors of pounds of roughage to milk cows,
pounds of dry matter grain to milk cows at 270 days postpartum,
milk cow grain protein and pounds of dry matter to milk
cows have a significant relationship with housing system.

separation of dry cows and production level.

HERD HEALTH PROBLEMS
AFFECTED BY DRY COW MANAGEMENT
ON SOUTHERN MICHIGAN DAIRY FARMS

By
David John Kjome

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Dairy Science

1975

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to extend a special thank you to Dr. John
A. Speicher for his strong encouragement to pursue graduate
study and acknowledge his invaluable assistance during the
preparation of this thesis.

The counsel and time given by Drs. Clinton E. Meadows,
Sherrill B. Nott, Wayne D. Oxender. and Roy S. Emery is
greatly appreciated.

Sincere gratitude is extended to Drs. John L. Gill.
Ivan L. Mao. and Roger R. Neitzel for their time and effort
provided in the statistical analysis of the data.

Appreciation is expressed to the Department of Dairy
Science and Dr. Charles A. Lassiter, Chairman, for the
financial support and encouragement provided during my
graduate study.

I am most grateful to my family, especially to my wife,
Sue. and children, Jeffrey David and Janna Lynn, whose
constant interest, support, encouragement, and patience

.provided the motivation to complete my graduate study.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O C O O O O 0
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... . . . . . . . . .

Dry Cow Management . .
Dry Period . . . . . .
Dry Period Length. . .
Dry Cow Energy Needs . .
Grain Feeding-Prepartum.
CasP Ration and Relationship to
Parturient Paresis (Milk Fever). . . .
Mastitis-Dry Cow Treatment . . . . . . .

C O C O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O C
O Q O O O

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . .

Sample Size and Selection.
The Survey . . . . . . . .
Interview Procedure. . . .
Methods of Analysis. . . .

O C O O
O O O O
O O C O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O I
O O O C

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . .
Primary Factors Affecting Herd Health. .
Nutritional and Management Factors
Affecting Herd Health. . . . . . . .
Relationship of Significant Primary and

Secondary Factors Affecting Herd
Health 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O
v. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY. o o o o o’ o o o o o o c o o o o o o 0
.APPENDIX A. O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0
APPENDIX B. O l O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0

APPENDIX C. O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iii

Page

\OanX-C' 4-” l-'

10

16
19
19

21
22

23
27
27
36

51
65
69
7h
88
llh

Table

10

ll

. 12

13

1;.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Significance of Sources of Variation
Affecting Herd Health (54 Herds). . . . . . 28

Milk Fever Percent as Affected by
HOUSing syStems o o o o o o o o c o o o o o 29

Metritis Percent as Affected by Separation
of Dry Cows and Housing Systems . . . . . . 29

Ketosis Percent as Affected by Separation
of Dry Cows and Housing Systems . . . . . . 30

Milk Fever Percent as Affected by
Separation of Dry Cows. . . . . . . . . . . 31

Clinical Mastitis Percent as Affected by
Separation of Dry Cows. . . . . . . . . . . 31

Metritis Percent as Affected by Separation
of Dry Cows and Herd Size . . . . . . . . . 33

Retained Placenta Percent as Affected
by Production Level . . . . . . . . . . . . 3“

Metritis Percent as Affected by
Production Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Ketosis Percent as Affected by
PrOdUCtion Level. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 35

Milk Fever Percent as Affected by
Production Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Variables Significantly Related to Incidence
of Displaced Abomasum . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Variables Significantly Related to Incidence
of Retained Placenta. . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Variables Significantly Related to Incidence
of Metritis (54 Herds). . . . . . . . . . . 42

iv

Table Page

15 Variables Si nificantly Related to Incidence
of Metritis 31 Herds with Two Added
Variables). o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1+4

16 Variables Significantly Related to Incidence
of Ketosis (54 Herds) . . . . . . . . . . . #5

1? Variables Significantly Related to Incidence
of Ketosis (31 Herds with Two Added
Variables). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

I8 Variables Significantly Related to Incidence
of Milk Fever (5# Herds). . . . . . . . . . 47

l9 Variables Significantly Related to Incidence
of Milk Fever (31 Herds with Three Added
Variables). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

20 Variables Significantly Related to Incidence
of Clinical Mastitis (31 Herds with Two
Added variableS) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 51

21 Relationship of Housing System and Milk Cow
Dry Matter Grain Protein to Incidence of
Milk Fever. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 53

22 Relationship of Housing System and Total
Dry Matter Intake at 270 Days Postpartum
to Incidence of Milk Fever. . . . . . . . . 55

23 Relationship of Dry Cow Separation and
Milk Cow Dry Matter Grain Protein to
Incidence of Milk Fever . . . . . . . . . . S7

24 Relationship of Production Level and
Pounds of Roughage to Incidence of
Retained Placenta . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

25 Relationship of Production Level and
.Pounds of Dry Matter Grain Fed to Milking
Cows at 270 Days Postpartum to Incidence
of Retained Placenta and Metritis . . . . . 60

26 Relationship of Production Level and Total
Pounds of Dry Matter Intake at 40 Days
Postpartum to Incidence of Metritis . . . . 61

27 Relationship of Production Level and Total
Pounds of Dry Matter Fed at 270 Days
Postpartum to Incidence of Milk Fever . . . 64

APPENDIX A LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 General Herd Characteristics Based on
Type of Housing and Yes or No Response
to Dry Cow Separation from Milking

Herd. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 75
2 Characteristics of Lactating Cow

Feeding Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3 Characteristics of Dry Cow Feeding

PrograJTS. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 78
h Herd Health Problems Related to Feeding

and Management of Dry Cows by System of

Housing. Herd Size and Production Level . . 83

vi

Table

APPENDIX C LIST OF TABLES

Page

Means and Standard Deviations of
Quantitative Variables of Survey
Herds. O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 114

Responses to Questions Requiring Yes
or No Answers in Survey Herds. . . . . . . 120

Subdivision of Certain Positive Responses
to Dry Cow Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

vii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The dry cow resides on ll,OOO dairy farms currently
producing milk in Michigan. The percentage of dry cows per
herd was studied by Speicher and Brown (#2) who utilized
Michigan Telfarm records and found an average of 13 percent
of all dairy cows in the state were dry while Michigan DHIA
records. utilizing a 12 month rolling herd average, report
a state average of 13 percent dry days for all cows in all
tested herds. With an estimated “22,000 dairy cows in
Michigan, it is postulated that well in excess of 55,000
dry cows exist at any one time in the state. Although dry
cows are in the minority in relation to lactating cows,
dairymen and researchers are becoming more cognizant that
dry cow management today directly affects dairy profits
tomorrow.

The validity of a #5 to 60 day dry period to restore
and regenerate body tissue has been documented by researchers
.(19. 28, 41). The exact physiological functions and changes
that occur during the dry period remain an unsolved
mystery, but researchers (1. 9. 38, 41. #3) have shown that
a dry period of less than 40 days has a negative effect on
milk production the following lactation.

1

With the continual crusade toward higher production
per cow to generate increased dairy income and profits, dry
cow management becomes even more important as it is generally
accepted to affect future milk production. livability of the
unborn calf. and postpartum disorders such as displaced
abomasum. retained placenta, metritis, ketosis. milk fever,
and mastitis which most frequently occur within 45 days of
calving.

With the present number of dairy farms in excess of
11,000 in Michigan, it is apparent that dry cow management
occurs under the roof of different housing systems, herd
sizes. and production levels. The field of dairy research.
education, and extension must be in a position to extract
dry cow management successes and failures to grant dairymen
more useful tools and tips to obtain profitable production
levels and goals with a minimum of addition herd health
problems and expense. This search and service can lend
itself to a more satisfying and profitable way of life for
the future dairyman.

Future projections suggest fewer dairymen but larger
herds. In 1970, 63 percent of the dairy cows in Michigan
were in herds of less than 50 cows: however, herds of
.greater than 100 cows are projected to increase nearly three
times and will account for over one half of the cows in
Michigan by 1985 (5). Hoglund (26) in a recent study of
the top ten dairy states. indicates that Michigan will

remain constant in total milk output over the next decade

 

 

 

 

but milk will be produced by fewer dairymen with increased
herd size and production per cow.

This study attempts to provide an analysis of dry cow
management as carried out on present Michigan dairy farms.
A special study is included on herds with over 200 cows to
postulate what dry cow management may be in the future as we
see larger dairy herds on the horizon.

The objectives of this study were:

1. To determine how dry cows are handled in different

systems of housing.

2. To establish present feeding and management
practices in different types of housing and if
possible. to determine their effects on herd
health.

3. To extract possible dry cow successes and failures

in different types of housing.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The dairy cow in Michigan and across the United States
is seen in many sizes, shapes, colors, and conditions. Much
of her past and future contributions to the owner and dairy
industry lie in her genetic makeup and the environment in
which she has been subjected to since birth.

The dry cow is in a unique period of her productive
life. It is a transition period from one lactation to
another with a period of rest, regeneration and restoration.
The art and science of feeding and managing the dry cow by
her dairy husbandman determine to a great extent her future
destiny and profit potential.

This literature review addresses itself solely to the
areas of basic and applied dry cow management research which

influences production and health during the next lactation.

D an e en
Ideally, dry cow management can be defined as the act
iar art of handling and directing a dairy cow through a 45
'to 60 day dry period every 12 months with the end result
:relating directly to future milk production. livability of
'the unborn calf. and post calving disorders: therefore, a
smaccessful dry cow management program establishes its primary

h

objective to prepare the dry cow for high production in the

next lactation with a minimum of metabolic disorders.

Per'

The question of why a dry period must be allotted to
a dairy cow has plagued the minds of dairy researchers for
decades and continues to remain an area of unsolved mysteries.

Hutjens and Otterby (28) suggest that a dry period is
needed to: (l) regenerate udder tissue, (2) replace body
reserves used in the previous lactation, and (3) stimulate
high production in the next lactation. Smith, §t_al. (41)
stresses that the main physiological function of the dry
period is to induce full involution in the mammary gland.
which will allow full regeneration of mammary tissue so that
there is maximum milk production after parturition. Harris
(19) concurs with the above reasons for a dry period and
emphasizes that good body condition at calving is important
because many high producing cows cannot consume sufficient
feed to meet their energy demands in early lactation,
making it necessary to draw on body reserves during this

period.

Dry Period Length

Length of dry period with respect to herd average,
subsequent milk production, and disorders at calving has
plagued the researcher's mind for many years.

Copeland (8) in his early work with dry cow management

found that the percentage of dry cows on herd test was

directly proportional to the herd average. His findings
reveal that the percentage of dry cows carried in all herds
averaged 15 to 39 Percent or 56 days. Speicher and Brown
(42) in a study of dairy herds utilizing Michigan Telfarm
records indicated a range of 9 percent dry cows in the month
of April to a high of 16 percent in late summer for an average
of 13 percent dry cows when total cows in the herd are known.
Copeland (8) found that herds averaging less than 250
pounds of butterfat averaged 28.2 percent or 103 days and
herds averaging 500 pounds of fat averaged 10.7 percent or
39 days dry. Also. small and medium sized herds contain a
smaller percentage of dry cows than do large herds. Sargent
(37) utilizing North Carolina DHIA summaries pointed out
that as production per cow increases, the average dry days
decrease which simply confirms that dry cows do not milk.
Early work by Arnold and Becker (1) indicates dry
periods of 31 to 60 days had the highest maximum daily
production in the succeeding lactation. Dry periods of
longer than 91 days appeared to result in lower production
than did shorter dry periods: however. dry periods of less
than 30 days appeared to cause an early decline in milk
yield. .
~ In an attempt to establish the optimum length of dry
period. Klein and Woodward (31) compared the loss of milk
in the current lactation with gain the following lactation.
Their results utilizing O to 1 month as the base comparison

period, revealed 9.2 percent more milk with a dry period of

1 to 2 months. 13.5 percent more when dry 2 to 3 months and
cows dry 3 to 4 months gave 14.9 percent more milk than when
dry 0 to 1 month. Based on their study (31). a dry period
of 55 days was found to be optimum for cows yielding 10,000
pounds of milk and calving at 12 month intervals. The work
of Schaeffer and Henderson (38) substantiates the findings of
Klein and Woodward (31); however. dry periods of 40 to 49
and 60 to 69 days were not greatly different on a practical
basis.

Schaeffer and Henderson (38) also found that age and
month of calving influenced the length of the dry period.
Within a lactation. older cows tended to have a longer dry.
period than younger cows with a greater difference within
second lactation than third and fourth lactations. Cows
that freshened in the spring months of March. April and May
tended to have longer than average dry periods: whereas.
summer fresheners had shorter than average dry periods.

Heritability of dry days was found to be very low by
Wilton. at al. (47) and stated that effects were largely
of an environmental nature. Schaeffer and Henderson (38)
cite within herd heritability estimates of days dry as
.15. .33 and .34 for second. third and later lactations.

. As milk production per cow increases. higher producing
cows are often dried off at the 10th month of lactation

at a daily production level of 35 to 45 pounds of milk.
This profitable level has caused researchers to study the

effects of continuous milking in comparison to different

length dry periods.

Swanson (43) assigned one member from five sets of
identical twins to a 60 day dry period and the other member
was milked continuously throughout the dry period prior to
the second and third lactation with all twins given dry
periods of 60 days or more before the 4th lactation.
Average milk yields of the continuously milked cows in the
second and third lactation was only 75 percent and 62
percent respectively as much as the controls. Swanson (43)
suggests that the inhibiting effect of continuous milking
on the next lactation is more likely due to effects in the
mammary gland and its regulatory factors than to nutritional
factors.

Milk response was similar in work by Smith. at al.
(41) in which the right front forequarter and left rear
quarter of five cows was dried off with the other two
quarters milked throughout the whole of pregnancy.

More recent research involving an extensive field
trial in 65 New York DHI herds by Coppock, at al. (9)
attempted to evaluate the effect of length of dry period
on milk production and disorders at calving. Their findings
revealed common disorders and udder edema at parturition
nwere not associated with the length of the preceding dry
period. However. cows which averaged from 10 to 40 days
dry period averaged 990 to 1,440 pounds less milk in the
following lactation than cows with average dry periods of

40 days or longer. The results of the field study are in

agreement with previous work (1. 31. 41. 43) reaffirming
that a 40 to 60 day dry period results in maximum milk
production. Coppock. gt‘al. (9) as does Swanson (43)
pointed out that a dry period is not needed to replenish
energy reserves. but unknown factors are responsible for
a dry period requirement. Coppock. g1__l. (9) concluded
that most New York dairymen strive for a six to eight week
dry period and those outside this range are merely

accidental.

Dry Cow Energy Needs

Prior to the early 1970's. some researchers (2. 44)
considered the dry period essential to provide time for cows
to replenish energy needs depleted during the lactation.
However. Moe. gt a1. (34) utilizing energetic efficiency
studies at Beltsville in 1971 found that body tissue lost
during early lactation can be more economically replaced
(74.7 percent) in late lactation rather than during the dry
period (61.6 percent).

In question of the 1966 NRC (National Research Council)
metabolizable energy requirements of pregnant cows. Moe
and Tyrell (33) studied allowances for pregnancy and con-
.cluded that growth and development of the fetus of the cow
is energetically a very costly process with the amount of
metabolizable energy required at term about 175 Percent
above that of the nonpregnant cow of equal body weight.

Researchers and educators have strived to make

10

dairymen energy conscious during the dry period. Huber

(27) postulates that modern labor saving systems of handling
cows in large groups with little attention to individual
requirements have accentuated "mismanagement of energy"

in many dairy herds and dry cows will eat about twice their
requirements if allowed to consume all they want of the

high quality ration needed for the milking herd. Hillman
(22) in his recommendations to Michigan dairymen suggests
that rations for dry cows must provide for: (1) maintenance
of dry cows. (2) development of the unborn calf, and

(3) proper balance of nutrients to prevent post calving
disorders. Hillman (22) cautions dairymen to feed a weight
reducing ration to cows carrying excessive body fat as they
enter the dry period while cows completing their lactation

in poor condition may require high energy feeds.

Grain Feeding-Prepartum

After reviewing the literature. one can hypothesize
that more research has been done in the area of prepartum
grain feeding than any other phase of dry cow management.
Profits in the dairy industry have been frequently
correlated with level of milk production and with the added
.stress of increased milk production.has evolved new and
higher incidence of post calving metabolic disorders possibly
stemming from prepartum feeding and management practices.
In an effort to maximize milk production and minimize

postpartum metabolic diSorders. feeding throughout the

11

dry period has received much research investigation.

The feasibility and economics of additional prepartum
grain levels to increase future milk production has caused
researchers to study the effect of "steaming up” dry cows
for the next lactation.

Blaxter (2) in early work on the use of home grown
grains for milk production compared no feeding prior to
calving versus feeding concentrates prepartum and concluded
that cows which received concentrates gained more weight
before calving. were in superior condition at calving. and
peaked at a higher production level.

I Swanson and Hinton (45) studied the effects of feeding
extra grain during the latter part of the lactation compared
to the last six weeks of the dry period. Results showed
those fed eight pounds of grain for 38 days of the dry
period gained 35 pounds more before calving than pairmates
and produced 359 pounds more of fat corrected milk in the
first 15 weeks and 573 pounds more in the first 30 weeks
of lactation.

Gardner (15) built into his experiment digestible
energy levels of 115 percent (low prepartum) and 160 percent
(high prepartum) maintenance requirements during the last
‘six to eight weeks of gestation. He concluded that cows
producing 9.695 to 23,518 pounds of milk over a 305 day
lactation need_no more than 115 percent of their maintenance
digestible energy needs during the dry period if they are

fed adequate energy levels during lactation and a greater

12

milk response is obtainable if extra feed is provided
during early lactation rather than storing body fat during
the dry period. Gardner (l6) postulated that mobilization
of body fat stresses the animal because of elevated blood
ketone levels. Similar studies by Castle and Watson (7).
Davenport and Rakes (ll). Greenhalgh and Gardner (18) and
Schmidt and Schultz (39) concluded that different levels of
prepartum grain feeding had no significant effect on milk
yield during the lactation that followed. Emery. gt a1.
(13) studied the influence of grain feeding before calving
on heifers and cows with insufficient response to cover
additional grain costs and the practice was declared
uneconomical when the animals entered late pregnancy in
good condition.

Coupled with the future milk responses from varying
prepartum grain levels. researchers have also studied the
effect of various prepartum feeding levels upon postpartum
metabolic disorders.

Schmidt and Schultz (39) studied varying prepartum
grain levels and the relationship to herd health. Their
findings revealed no significant differences in the severity
of udder edema at calving and seven days postpartum but
Ireported a doubling of ketosis incidence in the medium and
high grain group versus the low. Gardner (16) reported
similar results. Emery. gt a1. (13) reported increased
edema in first calf heifers but not cows when fed grain

prepartum while milk fever incidence increased twofold in

13

heifers and somewhat less in cows. Retained placenta.
metritis. and indigestion were not significantly affected
by prepartum feeding.

Braund. gt a1. (6) fed two groups of dry cows
experimental and control rations balanced to provide 100
percent on NRC crude protein and 85 to 100 percent of energy
needs with the experimental ration composed of less corn
silage. less concentrate. but eight pounds of hay more than
the control ration. Cows on the control ration lost 1.5
pounds of body weight when dry while those on the experi-
mental ration gained an average of 27.6 pounds during the
dry period but the two dry period rations were reported as
having little effect on cow health in the next lactation
with hay having no apparent effect on herd health.

Coppock. £1.21- (10) looked at the effect of various
forage to concentrate ratios in complete feeds fed ad libitum
on feed intake prepartum and the occurrence of displaced
abomasum. Noticeable increases in left displacement of
the abomasum were observed 25 days following parturition
in the lower forage to concentrate groups. Also. dry matter
intake in the 28 days prior to parturition revealed a
significant depression in intake as parturition approached
'in groups with low forage to concentrate ratios suggesting

forage to concentrate ratios of no less than 60:40.

14

Ca ati and Relati nshi
artu 'e t a esi i k ever

Jorgenson and Bringe (30) in a 1972 survey of dairymen
found a milk fever incidence of six percent of all cows in
Wisconsin with some herds eXperiencing incidence as high as
75 to 80 percent.

Parturient paresis. commonly called milk fever. is a
metabolic disorder associated with parturition and initiation
of lactation and is tied in closely with calcium and
phosphorous levels in the dry cow ration and blood plasma.
Jorgenson and Bringe (30) along with Boda and Cole (4)
report normal plasma concentrations for calcium from 8.5 to
11.5 milligrams (mg.) percent (mg./100 milliliter) with a
normal decline in plasma calcium at calving of 2 mg. percent
with the degree of hypocalcemia (low plasma calcium levels)
in the mild range of 7.5 to 8.5 mg. percent to severe at
5 to 6 mg. percent. When plasma calcium concentrations are
less than 5.5 mg. percent. milk fever is likely to occur.
Boda.and Cole (4) reported that milk fever is the failure
of normal homeostatic mechanisms (principally the parathyroid
glands) to maintain a normal level of blood calcium in the
face of a great loss of calcium from the blood to the milk
'at the initiation of lactation in the high producing cows.

Dry cow diets have been reported to influence the
incidence of milk fever and prepartum feeding to prevent it
is a constant challenge to researchers and dairymen.

Hillman (20) reports feeding monosodium phosphate instead of

15

mineral supplements containing calcium essentially eliminated
the disease in Michigan test herds. In a field trial. Boda
(3) divided milk fever susceptible cows into three groups

and fed low calcium. high phosphorous prepartal diets
consisting of oat hay, basal concentrate and varying levels
of monosodium phosphate (1.5 to 5.0 percent). The lowest
incidence of milk fever was observed in the ration with the
least hay. highest concentrate and five percent supplemental
phosphate.

Different prepartum energy intakes with varying calcium
and phosphorous ratios and its effect on parturient paresis
was studied by Gardner and Park (17). They reported lowest
incidence of milk fever in the low energy intake groups with
calcium to phosphorous ratios of 2.3:1 and 1.531. Hillman
and Newman (24) recommended 2.3 parts calcium to 1 part
phosphorous as the most desirable ratio to avoid milk fever.

This is in conflict with Jorgenson and Bringe (30)
who are of the opinion that levels of calcium and phosphorous
are more important than ratios. They reported high levels
of calcium intake (over 100 grams per day) increase the
incidence of milk fever and if sufficient phosphorous is fed
during the dry period (25 to 40 grams per day). calcium
‘intake may range from a very low level to 100 grams per day
without markedly influencing the incidence of milk fever.
They (30) postulate that a high calcium intake during the
dry period may prevent the conversion of Vitamin D2 or D3

to their active metabolite which is 25-Hydrocholocalciferol.

l6

Wiggers. gt a1. (46) conducted a field study in five
Iowa Jersey herds to prevent parturient paresis by feeding
a calcium-deficient diet prepartum. Dry cows with at least
one lactation were divided into two groups with the control
group maintained under the usual herd conditions while the
other groups were fed one of the two designated calcium
deficient diets 10 to 14 days prior to parturition. Sixteen
of the 51 cows on control diets were treated for parturient
paresis and none of the 36 cows on the calcium deficient

diets developed milk fever.

Mastiti§--er ng Treatment

The dry period is described as a period of restoration
and regeneration with little consideration given to the fact
that the dry udder and its tissue are constantly being
bombarded by infectous organisms. the precursors of mastitis
which has been and continues to be recognized as one of the
major disease problems confronting the dairy industry (15.
25. 29). Normally. more cows have infected udders at calving
than drying off time simply because animals infected at
drying off time usually remain infected at calving and in
addition. about one third of all cows acquire new infections
.in the dry period. Smith. gt_g1. (40) reported that 50
percent of all cows drying off were infected but in calving
again. it had increased to 61 percent. With this increased
incidence. it would appear that the major goal of any dry

cow therapy and treatment program should be geared to

l7

eliminate subclinical infections present at the end of
lactation and to protect the udder against bacterial invasion
during the dry period.

It is postulated by Natzke (35) that the loss of milk
due to new dry cow period infections is about the same as
that caused by an infection that persists throughout the
dry period. If the infection is eliminated early in the
dry period. much of the tissue damage can be repaired before
next lactation. Natzke (35) recommends treatment of all
quarters on all cows at the time of drying off and it should
be combined with a teat dip program.

I Eberhart and Buckalew (12) subjected half of 120 cows
to a post milking teat dip and dry cow therapy of all quarters.
while the other half were untreated controls. Findings
showed the proportion among treated cows with infected
quarters with Streptococcus agalagtiae decreased 20.2 per-
cent (21.8 to 1.6 percent) and Staphylococcus aureus
decreased 6.6 percent (9.5 to 2.9 percent); whereas.
controls showed much smaller changes.

In a three year mastitis treatment project at Cornell.
Natzke (35) reported that 58.4 percent of all pathogens were
eliminated with a commercial lactation treatment compared
.to a 92.5 percent elimination with dry period therapy at
1.000.000 units of penicillin and l g. streptomycin in a
3 percent aluminum monostearate in peanut oil.

In another dry cow therapy study. Pugh. gt a1. (36)

utilized a long acting intramammary preparation containing

18

high levels of procaine penicillin and dihydrosteptomycin
sulfate in an oily base in all four quarters immediately
after the last milking of their lactation. Staphylococci
were isolated from 49 quarters of 150 cows at drying off
and at four days after calving. 80 percent of these quarters
were free from infection with streptococci eliminated from
97 percent of the infected quarters during the same period.
Research results by Smith. gt g1. (40) indicate that
with the simple technique of infusing all cows at drying
off and teat dipping. the proportion of cows calving and

infected with mastitis can be reduced from 60 to 15 percent.

CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Two surveys were designed and utilized to obtain the
necessary data for this research project. The first was a
mail survey sent out to all dairymen enrolled in one of
Michigan’s three DHIA testing programs as of March. 1974.
Its purpose was to identify possible dry cow management
problems which then might be surveyed in a more quantitative
manner through a personal survey. The data from the completed-
and returned mail surveys was analyzed (Appendix A). It did
provide an appropriate base on which to study dry cow
management but the validity of the results was in question
based on the incompleteness and accuracy of the information
provided by the dairymen on the mail survey. From the mail
survey. a second and more in depth survey on dry cow
management was developed and completed through 64 personal
on the farm visits; henceforth. only the latter survey will

be discussed.

Sample Sizg and Selection

Sample size was determined and limited primarily by the
available time. Drs. John Gill and Ivan Mao were consulted
to insure sufficient sampling numbers. It was decided to

include in the basic study 54 herds plus a special study

19

20

of ten large herds. each with over 200 cows. for a total of

64 herds. It was further decided to eliminate breed variation
by including only Holstein herds. The geographic area
included in the sampling pool was designated as the southern
portion of Michigan specified by the northern boundary of
Manistee and Iosco counties. A total of 670 dairymen who
returned the mail survey fit the above characteristics and
from this listing. 54 herds were randomly selected represent-
ing approximately eight percent of the defined population.

The author chose through the survey design to study
four factors; namely. housing system. separation of dry
cows. herd size and production level. These were believed
to be primary factors in dry cow management and the author
does recognize secondary factors do exist which might
contribute to differences. Although they are not a part of
the survey design. they were recorded as supplementary
data in the survey.

The sample was first stratified by system of housing
and (1) separation of dry cows or (2) no separation of dry
cows from the milking herd. Three major types of housing
iJIIHichigan as determined from the mail survey analysis
were utilized and they were (1) stanchion. (4) open-lot
free stall and (5) covered-free stall (cold or warm).

Each of the six strata was further stratified by including
three herd sizes of (1) 20 to 49, (2) 50 to 99 and ('3) 100
-u; 199 cows and three production levels of (1) under 12,699.
(2) 112.700 to 14.699 and (3) herds above 14,700 pounds of

21

milk based on the May. 1974 rolling DHI average. The
following example illustrates the stratification.

4 Open lot free stall

1 Dry cows separated

2 Herd size of 50 to 99 cows

3 Production level over 14,700 pounds of milk
Each stratum required nine herds and a total of 54 test
herds were selected from the cross classified classes by
randomization within the smallest subclass. The author
does recognize the survey design limits randomization and

offers no replication with the four cross classification

categories.

The Survev

A survey through individual on the farm contacts was
designed requiring an estimated 75 minute interview time.
In the formulation of the survey questionnaire. the theses
projects of Erickson (l4) and Kucker (32) were reviewed.
After the initial formulation of the survey. it was submitted
to each graduate committee member for his critique. From
the suggestions and comments expressed on the initial survey.
a second survey was designed and tested on eight farms in
the immediate area of the Michigan State University campus.
A Special effort was made to include dairy farms with
'variance in the four chosen primary contributing factors
to make certain the survey would be suited to broad spectrum
differences in dry cow management which might arise from
farm to farm. After the pretest farm interviews. additional

modifications were made. The final survey utilized in the

22

study contained five major sections; namely. housing.
feeding program (roughage and grain) of dry cows. herd
health. and general management of dry cows. A total of 192
questions were included in the final survey and a copy of it

is included in Appendix B.

Interview Procedure

Immediately upon selection of the dairymen by randome
ization. a letter was addressed to them outlining the purpose
of the study and soliciting their willingness to cooperate
in the project. A self addressed return postcard was
enclosed requesting their response. whether positive or
negative. and also time of day preferred and any dates which
would not be satisfactory for an interview on their farm.

A special effort was made to adhere to their requests.
Urgency of response was stressed in the initial letter but
only about 25 percent responded within ten days so a
followup contact was made by telephone in the essence of
saving time. Many apologies were received but willingness
to cooperate was very high when contacted by telephone.
After definite commitments were received from the 64
required dairymen. a travel itinerary was formulated and
_each dairyman in the study was mailed a form letter 10 to
14 days in advance of the farm visit giving exact date and
time of interview. The on the farm time to make acquaintance,
view the setup and complete the survey was scheduled for

two hours with interviews scheduled in the morning.

23

afternoon. and evening where distance between visits was
minimal: otherwise. two per day were scheduled.

Most interviews were completed in the dairyman's
home which was most often quiet and free from disturbances.
The wife or partners of the dairy operation were invited
to participate and did contribute greatly to the completeness
and accuracy of the survey. The interviewer utilized a
tape recorder in early visits but terminated the practice
because it was too distractive and involved one more piece
of equipment to oversee. Notes and calculations were taken
to back up any questionable areas and these were transposed
to the back of the survey sheets when data was reviewed
and finalized.

The 64 interviews commenced in mid August and were
completed by late September. 1974. Of the original 54
selected dairymen for the basic study. five were dropped
due to a misunderstanding in the interpretation of open lot
free stall and covered free stall housing; therefore. an
additional five dairymen were randomly selected and
interviewed to fill the necessary subcells for the study.
In the future. the author suggests types of housing be
discretely defined to avoid such discrepancies especially

.when relying solely on the dairyman's judgment.

Methods of Analysis
Due to limited data with only 54 herds in the basic

study. it was clearly recognized that an analysis of the

24

data must be a "step by step” procedure.

The balanced portion or four chosen primary contributing
factors including all two-way interactions were subjected
to the Least Square Analysis of Variance to determine
significance of the sources of variation affecting herd
health. Secondary factors were ignored in this analysis.
Significant primary major effects and interactions (P<0.ll)
between categories were examined two at a time using Tukey's
test and the Student's t-test.

To look at the secondary factors which were ignored
in the balanced design factors. a Multiple Regression
Analysis was utilized to examine secondary nutritional
and management factors related to herd health problems.
Because of the limited scope of design. it was decided to
test only summary nutritional parameters rather than the
many facets of nutrition because of insufficient data.
Although not part of the design. these secondary factors
were recorded as supplementary data on the survey and were
examined through a Multiple Regression Analysis to determine

their effect on herd health problems.

Variable_Number
90
92

99

101

104
143

144

202

204

231

25

Variable Name
Roughage pounds-milk cows
Roughage dry matter pounds per
hundred pounds of body weight-
milk cows

Dry matter grain at 40 days post-
partum-milk cows

Dry matter grain at 270 days post-
partum-milk cows

Dry matter grain protein-milk cows

Total dry matter at 40 days post-
partum-milk cows

Total dry matter at 270 days post-
partum-milk cows

Daily dry matter roughage intake-
dry cows

Roughage dry matter pounds per
hundred pounds of body weight-dry
cows

Total dry matter pounds per hundred
pounds of body weight-dry cows

Other secondary management factors which might have an

effect on herd health problems were included. They were:

Variable Number
' 7
10
12
91
300

We

Production level
Percent days in milk
Age of owner

Weight of milking cows

Average number of dry days

A special statistical analysis adding the following

highly significant nutritional variables was done on metritis.

26

ketosis. milk fever and mastitis to determine their relation-
ship on these specified herd health problems. This did
reduce the available data from 54 to 31 herds or only about
57 percent of the original data was utilized in the analysis.

The added nutritional variables were:

 

Variable Number‘ Variable Name
73 Pounds hay fed in winter-milking
cows
155 Fixed pounds of corn silage fed

in winter-dry cows

186 Pounds hay fed in winter-dry cows

Means and frequencies were run on all quantitative
and qualitative data in the survey. Each quantitative
variable and its mean is listed in Table 1. Appendix C.
All questions in the survey requiring a yes or no response
and followup questions relating to yes and no questions
are listed in Tables 2 and 3. Appendix C. Other collected
data of a qualitative nature is summarized based on responses

and is found in Appendix B amidst the survey questionnaire.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Survey data for the study was collected on 64 dairy
farms in Michigan: however. a heavy portion of the analysis
centered around 54 herds interviewed in the basic study with

ten herds over 200 cows included in a special study.

rim a t ectin e d Health

One of the objectives of the mail survey was to
determine possible major sources of variation which might
affect herd health. The four major primary sources of
variation and all possible two way interactions are listed
in Table 1.

It is noted that housing system affects only milk
fever (P<0.03) with a significant increase in the incidence
of milk fever in open-lot free stall housing versus
stanchion and covered-free stall which showed the lowest

incidence of milk fever (See Table 2).

27

28

 

Hm>mq :Ofiposwonm

 

use. mmm. mom. Mom. mam. mmo. x muam whom
Ho>mq soflposconm

wmm. mum. mam. cam. Ham. mum. x Umpmhmmmm
muam eumm

one. mom. 0mm. dei mmm. mmm. x Umvmuwaom
Hw>mg cofiposuoum

mmw. om:. New. can. now. and. x Empmhm msflmsom
muwm Uhmm

:33. mmm. mmm. mam. 0mm. mom. x Empwhm mCAmsom
Umpmumamm

mam. sow. mqa4 mmo. was. mms. x awpmsm wcamsox

mos. moo. moa. meq quq moo. am>ma composeoum

mam. Ham. com. one. com. www. mnam uumm

cod. Nod. owe. Nos. mam. owe. ememnmaom

mam. mmqq Hem. amm. was. owm. ampmsm mcamsom

mflpwpmwz um>om mwmopmx wfivflupmz .mwdoomam EsmmEon< Cowemfihm> Ho
xafis UmcflMPmm voomammfim mmohsom

 

 

Amuouum H mass no mmapaaanmpoumv .Amezmm
smv sesame cums weapommm< coapmapm> do mmousom mo mocwoamacwam .H mamas

29

TABLE 2. Milk Fever Percent as Affected by Housing Systems.

 

 

 

System of Housing Mean
1 Stanchion 6.4
4 Open-lot free stall 10.6*
5 Covered-free stall (warm or cold) 4.3
Standard error of means i 1.55
* Significantly higher (P<0.03)

However. the two way interaction of housing system and
the separation factor does affect metritis (P<0.09). In
stanchion housing. a significant difference is noted between
separation of dry cows from the milking herd and those
housed and fed with the milking herd. One could make a
solid recommendation favoring dry cow separation in stanchion
housing with less difference in open-lot free stall and an
inverse relationship noticed in covered-free stall housing

as noted in Table 3.

TABLE 3. .Metritis Percent as Affected by Separation of Dry
Cows and Housing Systems.

 

4 Open-lot 5 Covered-
1 Stanchion Free Stall Free Stall

 

Not Separated 25.8 23.4 19.2
Separated 7.6* 17.0 24.0
Standard error of means 1 3.00

'* Significantly lower than non-separated (P<0.05)

30

Also. housing system and the separation factor has a
slightly lesser effect on ketosis (P<0.ll). It can be seen
(Table 4) that the incidence of ketosis is significantly
lower in herds not separating dry cows from the milking
herd. A strong case could be formulated to not separate dry
cows in covered-free stall housing if ketosis is a problem
with a lesser effect in open-lot free stall housing but to
reduce incidence of ketosis in stanchion housing. dry cows

should be separated.

TABLE 4. Ketosis Percent as Affected by Separation of Dry
. Cows and Housing Systems.

 

4 Open-lot 5 Covered-
1 Stanchion .Free Stall Free Stgll

 

Not Separated 7.9 3.7 1.0*
Separated 3.5 5.9 7.4
Standard error of means 1 1.37

* Significantly lower from separated herds in same housing
system (P<0.05)

Althbugh the separation factor did not greatly affect
herd health problems. it was a contributing factor to the
.incidence of milk fever (P<0.11) and mastitis (P<0.lO) at
lower significance levels. It is noted in Table 5 that milk
fever is significantly higher in herds not separating dry
cows versus those dairymen who do separate. Based on the

:results in Table 5. the practice of separating dry cows is a

31

management factor which contributes to lower incidence of

milk fever.

TABLE 5. Milk Fever Percent as Affected by Separation of

 

 

Dry Cows.
rMean
Separated 5.5
Not Separated 8.7*

 

Standard error of means i .97

* Significantly higher (P<0.ll)

A similar pattern is noted with the separation factor
and its effect on clinical mastitis. Herds who do not
separate dry cows show a significantly higher incidence of
mastitis and it appears that separation is a sound management
factor to reduce clinical mastitis incidence as seen in

Table 6.

TABLE 6. Clinical Mastitis Percent as Affected by
.Separation of Dry Cows.

 

 

Mean
Separated 18.0
Not Separated 25.8#

 

Standard error of means i 2.27

# Significantly higher (P<0.lO)

32

Although herd size does not have any significant affect
on herd health problems. the interaction of herd size and
the separation factor was highly significant on metritis
(P<0.01) as seen in Table 7. The low incidence in large
herds separating dry cows is difficult to explain. First
of all. it was obvious to the author when collecting the
data that not all dairymen understand and recognize
metritis: therefore. the reported results may not be as
accurate as other herd health problems. One might hypothe-
size that smaller herd owners are less likely to recognize
metritis. However. if incidence has been reported accurately.
the results show large herds should be separating dry cows.
All ten herds over 200 cows reported separation of dry cows
and 16.3 percent incidence of metritis; therefore. one might
be led to believe the actual incidence is closer to this
figure than the 6.5 percent incidence of metritis reported

in Table 7.

33

TABLE 7. Metritis Percent as Affected by Separation of
Dry Cows and Herd Size.**

 

LS) 20-49 Cows (M) 50-99 Cows_ (L) 100-199 Cows
Not Separated 6.9* 19.6 31.1*
Separated 23.5 18.0 6.5

 

Standard error of means i 3.29

* Significantly different from separated herds in same
size herd (P<0.05)

**Significant interaction (P<0.01)

 

 

 

35
ot Separated
£3 30
e:
H
a:
Ex...
0 20
a:
(3
21’s
Q 15
H
L)
Z
P‘ 10
S \.
a: ' Separated
0 5
a:
[:1
Q.
0
l 2 3
20-49 40-99 100-199
Cows Cows Cows

HERD SIZE

34

Production level affects more herd health problems
than any other source of variation. It has its effect on
retained placenta (P<0.06). metritis (P<0.04). ketosis
(P<0.11) and a very high significance level with milk fever
(P<0.01). It is obvious in Table 8 that lower producing
herds have a significantly lower incidence of retained

placenta than do higher producing herds.

TABLE 8. Retained Placenta Percent as Affected by
Production Level.

 

 

.Production_Level-Pounds of Milk Mean
' Low (<12.699) 10.8#
Medium (12.700-14,699) 15.4

High (>14.700) 17.9

 

Standard error of means :_l.67

# Significantly lower (P<0.06)

It is often reported that metritis follows right
behind retained placenta and this statement is once again
substantiated in the low and medium producing herds. but
metritis incidence is quite a lot higher in high producing
.herds than is the incidence of retained placenta in high
producing herds. However. the data in Table 9 once again
bears out that as production increases. so does incidence

of metritis.

35

TABLE 9. Metritis Percent as Affected by Production Level.

 

Production Level-Pounds of Milk Mean

LOW (<12.699) 1003
Medium (12.700-14,699) 18.1
High (>14.7oo) 24.6*

 

Standard error of means 1_3.10

* Significantly different from low production (P<0.05)

Production level does have an effect on ketosis. but
not as strongly as with retained placenta and metritis. A
significantly higher incidence of ketosis is noted in high
producing herds versus low and medium herds as seen in

Table 10.

TABLE 10. Ketosis Percent as Affected by Production Level.

 

 

Production Level-Pounds of Milk Mean
Low (<12,699) 3.4
Medium (12.700-14,699) 3.5
High 6.14.700) 7.9#

 

Standard error of means 1 1.39

'# Significantly higher (P<0.ll)

36

The effect of production level on incidence of milk
fever is highly significant with a higher incidence in high
producing herds versus low and medium producing herds.
Production level and its effect on milk fever as evidenced
in Table 11 follows a similar trend of increased incidence
as production level moves up. It would appear that higher
incidence of herd health problems is a characteristic of
higher producing herds and if a dairyman elects to set his
goals and objectives above 15,000 pounds of milk. he must
be willing to accept increased incidence of retained placenta.

metritis. ketosis and milk fever.

TABLE 11. Milk Fever Percent as Affected by Production

 

 

Level.

Production Level-Pounds of Milk Mean
LOW ((12,699) 3.8
Medium (12.700-14.699) 5.8
High (>14.700) 12.4**

 

Standard error of means 1 1.38

**Significantly higher (P<0.01)

Nutritignal and Mgnagement
Factors Affecting Herd Health

Although four factors were chosen and earmarked in the
study as primary contributing factors to the incidence of

herd health problems. secondary feeding and management

37

factors of a quantitative nature were recorded with selected
summary nutritional and management parameters (see Methods
and Procedures) subjected to a multiple regression analysis
to determine their possible effect or relationship to herd
health problems. Variables significantly affecting herd
health problems are given and discussed in this section.

Variables are listed in descending order of standardized
partial regression coefficients (beta weights) because they
are free of units and can be compared on the basis of
absolute magnitude. It is pointed out that it can be very
misleading if only regression coefficients are used as
variables might be expressed in other terms or units.

As was pointed out earlier. housing systems. separation
of dry cows. herd size and production level did not contribute
significantly to the incidence of displaced abomasum:
however. 24.9 percent of the variation of incidence is
explained by the three secondary variables listed in Table
12. When comparing the standardized partial regression
coefficients of roughage per hundred pounds of body weight
to dry cow days. roughage fed per hundredweight to milk
cows has a three times greater effect on reducing incidence
than does dry days. As total dry matter intake at 270 days
postpartum is increased. an increase is noted in displaced
abomasum but it indicates less than half the predictability
strength of roughage per hundredweight and is much nearer
to the strength of dry days. From a practical aspect. it

would appear from these data that roughage pounds per

38

hundredweight is the most critical factor affecting displaced
abomasum. This inverse relationship is in agreement with
earlier work by Coppock. gt gt. (10) who reported noticeable
increases in left displacement of the abomasum within 25

days following parturition in lower forage to concentrate
ratios.

The increased effect on incidence of displaced abomasum
by total dry matter intake at 270 days postpartum might
create more awareness of its importance but strength would
dictate its lesser value or effect on displaced abomasum.

It would appear impractical to increase dry days to
merely avoid displaced abomasum especially with its minimal
strength of predictability. Coppock. gt gt. (9) showed in
their work that common health disorders at parturition were
not associated with length of dry period but did not measure
displaced abomasum: therefore. one would conclude from this
evidence that it is not a feasible management practice to
increase dry days to decrease the incidence of displaced
abomasum. Variables significantly related to incidence

of displaced abomasum are given in Table 12.

39

TABLE 12.. Variables Significantly Related to Incidence
of Displaced Abomasum.*

 

 

Variable Regression Standard Significance
Numberrand Namefi Coefficient" Error Level
92 Daily roughage D.M. -0.0058 1 0.0015 <.0005

pounds per cwt.-
milk cows

144 Total daily D.M. 0.0013 1 0.0008 .108
intake at 270 days-
milk cows

300 Dry days -0.0005 i 0.0003 .118

 

* 24.9 percent of variation of incidence (1.3 percent.
variable 256) is explained by variables listed.

# Variables are listed in descending order of standardized
partial regression coefficients.

A total of 34.3 percent of the variation of retained
placenta incidence is explained in Table 13. A study of
the standardized partial regression coefficients reveals
dry matter at 270 days postpartum has the greatest strength
of predictability but is followed closely by dry matter
grain at 270 days postpartum and roughage pounds fed. This
is a difficult relationship to comprehend and defend. From
the results. dry matter grain at 270 days postpartum and
roughage pounds have a positive effect on retained placenta
'and when combined. should equal the total dry matter intake
at 270 days postpartum which shows a negative affect on
retained placenta incidence. Dry matter intake per hundred
pounds of body weight in dry cows relates a negative affect

on retained placenta incidence but its predictability is

40

only one-sixth the strength of the other three significant
variables. Variables significantly related to retained

placenta incidence are listed in Table 13.

TABLE 13. Variables Significantly Related to Incidence of
Retained Placenta.*

 

 

Variable Regression Standard Significance
Number and Name# Coefficient- Error Level
144 Total daily D.M. -0.0213 1 0.0052 <.0005

intake at 270 days-
milk cows

101 Dry matter grain 0.0241 1 0.0051 <.0005
intake at 270 days-
milk cows

90 Daily D.M. roughage 0.0229 1 0.0053 <.0005
intake pounds-milk
cows

231 Daily dry matter -0.0046 i_0.0027 .096
intake per cwt.-
dry cows

 

* 34.3 percent of variation of incidence (14.7 percent.
variable 258) is explained by variables listed.

# Variables are listed in descending order of standardized
partial regression coefficients.

The five secondary parameters explaining 26.1 percent
of the variation of metritis incidence are given in Table
'14 with total dry matter at 40 days postpartum having the
highest standardized partial regression coefficient. Its
strength is nearly double the impact when compared to other
variables and in an increased manner on metritis incidence

as dry matter increases at 40 days. Daily roughage pounds

41

fed to milk cows and percent days in milk reveal about 60
percent of the relative magnitude of the strongest variable
but both do have a negative correlation on metritis incidence.
Roughage dry matter per hundredweight to dry cows is less
than half the strength of the strongest variable with dry
matter grain at 270 days postpartum having a similar strength
of predictability. 'From this data. it is concluded that
roughage pounds is a factor to reduce metritis while rough-
age fed to dry cows has a positive effect. The management
factor of percent days in milk with a negative effect on
metritis would tend to favor the dairyman striving to keep
his percent days in milk at a high level. Variables

significantly related to metritis are given in Table 14.

42

TABLE 14. Variables Significantly Related to Incidence
of Metritis.* (54 Herds)

 

 

Variable Regression Standard Significance
Number andrName Coefficient- Error Level
143 Total daily dry 0.0167 + 0.0048 .001

matter intake at 40
days-milk cows

10 Percent days in milk -0.0138 1 0.0062 .032

92 Daily roughage D.M. -0.0199 1_0.0107 .068
pounds per cwt.-
milk cows

204 Daily roughage D.M. 0.0168 1 0.0104 .114
intake per cwt.-dry
cows

101~ Dry matter grain 0.0084 i_0.0056 .136

intake at 270 days-
milk cows

 

* 26.1 percent of variation in incidence (17.4 percent.
variable 260) is explained by variables listed.

# Variables are listed in descending order of standardized
partial regression coefficients.

From a study of means within the major sources of
variation. it was postulated that two additional nutritional
variables might have a significant relationship to metritis
incidence. These two variables were pounds of hay fed to
milking cows in winter (variable number 155) and pounds of
corn silage fed to milking cows in the winter (variable
number 186). This did limit the use of only 57 percent of
the original data (31 rather than 54 herds) because of
fewer responses on these two variables. Again. total dry

matter intake at 40 days postpartum remains the strongest

’43

predictor of metritis incidence with percent days in milk
remaining in the same position as in 54 herds but with a
slightly stronger magnitude from a standardized partial
regression coefficient aspect. Pounds of corn silage fed

to dry cows in the winter is recognized as a significant
variable with about 55 percent the strength of the strongest
variable. Pounds of hay fed to dry cows in the winter was
not significantly related to metritis. The two nutritional
variables of roughage dry matter per hundredweight in dry
cows and roughage per hundredweight in milk cows carry about
equal strength but are less than half that of the strongest
variable. Each has an Opposite significant effect on
metritis incidence with increased roughage in dry cows having
a positive effect while increased roughage in milk cows
shows a negative affect on metritis incidence. In summary.
one can conclude from the presented data that roughage
variables contribute to decreased incidence Of metritis
incidence with the exception of roughage dry matter per
hundredweight in dry cows which has a similar positive
effect much the same as total dry matter at 40 days to
metritis incidence. Variables significantly related to

metritis incidence are outlined in Table 15.

44

TABLE 15. Variables Significantly Related to Incidence of
Metritis.* (31 Herds with Two Added Variables)

 

 

Variable Regression +Standard Significance
Number and Name# Coefficient-'Error, .Level
143 Total daily D.M. 0.0234 1 0.0059 .001

intake at 40 days-
milk cows

10 Percent days in milk -0.0204 1 0.0071 .008

155 As fed pounds of corn -0.0065 1_0.0023 .010
silage fed in winter-
dry cows

204 Daily roughage D.M. 0.0259 i_0.0126 .051
intake per cwt.-dry
cows

92 Daily roughage D.M. -0.0266 1 0.0143 .075
pounds per cwt.-milk
cows

 

* 57.3 percent of variation of incidence (17.4 percent.
variable 260) is explained by variables listed.

# Variables are listed in descending order of standardized
partial regression coefficients.

Only two variables explain 28.2 percent of the variation
of ketosis (see Table 16). Milk level and roughage per
hundredweight are virtually equal in predictable power
when comparing the standardized partial regression
coefficients. However. an opposite effect is noted in their
"affect on ketosis incidence with milk level portraying a
positive effect and daily roughage per hundred pounds of
body weight showing a decreased effect on ketosis incidence.
From this set of data. one might postulate that increased

ketosis incidence is characteristic of or a part of

45

increased production. From a nutritional aspect. increased
roughage per hundredweight to milk cows has a strong effect
to decrease ketosis incidence. Variables significantly

related to ketosis incidence are listed in Table 16.

TABLE 16. Variables Significantly Related to Incidence of
Ketosis.* (54 Herds)

 

 

Variable Regression Standard Significance
Number and Name£_ Coefficient- Error Level
7 Milk level 0.000011 0.000004 .001
92 Daily roughage D.M. -0.0117 1 0.0033 .001

pounds per cwt.-
milk cows

 

* 28.2 percent of variation of incidence (4.9 percent.
variable 262) is explained by variables listed.

# Variables are listed in descending order of standardized
partial regression coefficients.

For analysis of ketosis. the same two additional
nutritional variables; namely. pounds of hay fed to milking
cows in winter (variable number 155) and pounds of corn
silage fed to dry cows in the winter (variable number 186)
were subjected to an additional analysis utilizing only 57
percent of the original data with the results listed in
“Table 17. It is evident that two variables explain 24.4
percent of the differences in ketosis incidence. Dry matter
grain fed at 40 days postpartum has the greatest strength of
predictability with roughage dry matter per hundredweight

in dry cows portraying 76 percent of the strongest variable.

46

It is recognized that two different variables are significant
in the 31 herds versus the data in the 54 herds but it might
be explained by the fact that the 31 herds are evidently not
a random sample of the 54 herds. Variables significantly

related to incidence of ketosis are listed in Table 17.

TABLE 1?. Variables Significantly Related to Incidence of
Ketosis.* (31 Herds with Two Added Variables)

 

 

Variable Regression Standard Significance
_Number and Name# Coefficient- Error Level
99 Dry matter grain 0.0053 1_0.0020 .012

intake at 40 days-
milk cows

204 Daily roughage D.M. 0.0081 1_0.0040 .051
intake per cwt.-
dry cows

 

* 24.4 percent of variation Of incidence (4.9 percent.
variable 262) is explained by variables listed.

# Variables are listed in descending order of standardized
partial regression coefficients.

Three variables explain 38.4 percent of the variation
in incidence Of milk fever and each is a near equal
contributor to the strength of predictability when studying
the standardized partial regression coefficients. Similarly.
'as evidenced in ketosis. milk level has an increased effect
on milk fever incidence. It is interesting to note that
milk cow grain protein has a suppressed effect on milk
fever. One might postulate this variable to have a positive

relationship to milk level; therefore. the two might be

47

interrelated. From this set of data, it would appear that
total dry matter intake at 270 days postpartum has a
significant affect on milk fever. In conclusion. it is
pointed out that the two significant nutritional variables
listed are indicating a decreased effect on milk fever as
they increase but both possibly are tied in closely to milk
level which indicates an increased effect on milk fever per
each pound of milk increase. Variables significantly
related to incidence of milk fever are presented in Table

18.

TABLE 18. Variables Significantly Related to Incidence of
Milk Fever.* (54 Herds)

 

 

Variable Regression Standard Significance
Number and Name# Coefficient- Error Level
144 Total daily D.M. -0.0049 1 0.0020 .016

intake at 270 days-
milk cows

7 Milk level 0.0000I:_0.000004 .018

104 D.M. grain protein -0.0070 1 0.0026 .009
percent-milk cows

 

* 38.4 percent of variation of incidence (7.0 percent.
variable 264) is explained by variables listed.

# Variables are listed in descending order of standardized
partial regression coefficients.

Five variables listed in Table 19 account for 49.7
percent of the incidence of milk fever utilizing 57 percent

of the available data. In this analysis. pounds Of hay fed

48

to milking cows in winter. pounds of hay fed to dry cows in
winter and fixed pounds of corn silage fed to dry cows in
the winter were added to the study. It is pointed out that
hay fed in the winter to dry cows does have a positive
effect on milk fever incidence. From a study of the results.
it is recognized that milk level carries the greatest
strength of predictability. and as it increases. so does
milk fever. Of lesser magnitude are total dry matter fed
270 days postpartum and pounds of hay fed to dry cows in the
winter. and both indicate an increased effect on milk fever
incidence. The variables of percent days in milk and milk
cow grain protein carry about 60 percent the weight of the
strongest variable but both indicate a negative effect on
the incidence of milk fever. In summary. one might conclude
from the data that increased milk production is again
characteristic with increased milk fever. The nutritional
variables Of total dry matter at 270 days postpartum and
pounds of hay fed to dry cows in winter are factors which do
not have the strength of milk level but do have implications
on milk fever incidence. Again. grain protein is a
significant factor but with the least strength of predict-
ability. From a practical standpoint. it would be a sound
4management practice to increase percent days in milk to
primarily generate greater dairy profits. but from this

set of’data. a bonus would be decreased incidence of milk
fever» Variables significantly related to milk fever

incidence are listed in Table 19.

49

TABLE 19. Variables Significantly Related to Incidence of
Milk Fever.* (31 Herds with Three Added
Variables)

 

 

Variable Regression +Standard Significance
Number and Name# Coefficient“ Error Level
7 Milk level 0.000021 0.000006 .010
144 Total daily D.M. 0.0055 3; 0.0026 .043
intake at 270 days-
milk cows
186 As fed pounds of hay 0.0033 1 0.0015 .040
fed in winter-dry cows
10 Percent days in milk -0.0053 1_0.0028 .067
104 D.M. grain protein -0.0098 :_0.0050 .062

percent-milk cows

 

* 49.7 percent of variation of incidence (7.0 percent.
variable 264) is explained by variables listed.

# Variables are listed in descending order of standardized
partial regression coefficients.

Regarding mastitis. none of the offered variables
remained in the analysis of 54 herds: therefore. no table
is presented. However. the addition Of pounds of corn
silage (variable number 155) and hay fed to dry cows in
'winter (variable number 186) using only 57 percent of the
data.listed. six significant variables explaining 52.7
{percent of the variation of incidence in mastitis. It is
:recognized that some of the listed variables may have been
‘near'significance levels with the larger set of data. It
is obvious that all variables listed are nutritional in

nature with total roughage pounds and roughage per

50

hundredweight carrying the strongest predictability but each
have an opposite effect on mastitis. It is hypothesized
that both variables are closely correlated with each other
and differences in cow weight must be a factor. Roughage
per hundredweight in milk cows has about 88 percentthe
power of the strongest variable and reveals an increased
effect on mastitis as does total dry matter intake at 270
days and in dry cows which are only about half as powerful
as the strongest predictor. Both dry matter grain at 270
days postpartum and dry matter per hundredweight in dry cows
indicate a negative response to mastitis but their power to
predict is only about 25 percent of the strongest variable.
From the data. it is apparent that nutritional variables

are predictors and related to mastitis incidence. but the
two at the top of the list exert the greatest influence

with two at the mid point and the last two carrying only
about one-fourth the power of the two strongest variables.
Variables significantly related to incidence of mastitis

are listed in Table 20.

51

TABLE 20. Variables Significantly Related to Incidence of
Clinical Mastitis.* (31 Herds with Two Added
Variables)

 

Variable Regression +Standard Significance
b 'cie t- evel
90 Daily D.M. roughage -0.0859 1.0.0286 .006
intake pounds-milk
cows
92 Daily roughage D.M. 0.1062 1.0.0300 .002
pounds per cwt.-milk
cows
144 Total daily D.M. intake 0.0321 : 0.0119 .013

at 270 days-milk cows

202 Daily roughage D.M. 0.0336 1.0.0109 .005
pounds-dry cows

101 Dry matter grain intake -0.0268 1.0.0115 .028
at 270 days-milk cows

231 Total daily D.M. pounds -0.018l 1.0.0084 .041
per cwt.-dry cows

 

* 52.7 percent of variation of incidence (21.3 percent.
variable 266) is eXplained by variables listed.

# Variables.are listed in descending order of standardized
partial regression coefficients.

Relgtignship 9f Significggt Primary gnd Secondary
e i e e

It has been previOusly pointed out in tables and
'through discussion that certain primary sources of variation
and secondary quantitative feeding and management factors
do have a significant effect on specific herd health
problems. Henceforth. the discussion centers around inter-

relationships of significant major sources of variation and

52

significant quantitative secondary factors with significant
differences in means within the primary category to extract
possible effects they may have on herd health incidence. In
essence. a cause and affect relationship will be discussed.

It was identified earlier that housing system as a
primary source of variation revealed only a significant
effect on milk fever incidence (see Table l).' When secondary
summary variables were analyzed through a multiple regression
analysis. dry matter grain protein was identified as one of
the three significant variables explaining 38.4 percent of
the incidence of milk fever (see Table 18). The relationship
of housing system as a significant primary factor and dry
matter grain protein (milk cows) as a significant secondary
nutritional factor is presented in Table 21. The results
show milk fever incidence significantly lOwer in covered-
free stall housing with highest incidence in open-lot free
stall and stanchion housing near the mean of 7.0. In
studying the effect of grain protein on milk fever incidence.
it is evident from the results that the lowest grain protein
has the highest incidence of milk fever. From the regression
analysis. a significant decrease of .69 percent in incidence
of milk fever per one percent increase in protein is
recognized.

In a study of the large herd data. the percent grain
protein averaged 15.7 percent with a 3.6 percent incidence
of milk fever which further substantiates the effect grain

protein has on milk fever: however, 90 percent of the 10

53

herds in this study were in open-lot free stall housing
which in the 54 herds showed the highest incidence of milk
fever.

It is concluded from the results that the highest
incidence of milk fever is in open-lot free stall with the
nutritional variables the lowest in the same housing system.
The lowest incidence is noted in covered-free stall housing
but the nutritional variable is not significantly different
from the highest. The relationship of housing system and
milk cow dry matter grain protein to milk fever incidence

is given in Table 21.

TABLE 21. Relationship of Housing System and Milk Cow
Dry Matter Grain Protein to Incidence of Milk

 

 

Fever.
% Incidence of Percent
_______Hgg§ingSvstem Milkerver# Grain Protein
1 Stanchion 7. 3 15.5
4 Open-lot Free Stall 9.8 13.0*
5 Covered-Free Stall 4.0* 14.4

 

# .69 percent decrease in incidence per one percent increase
in milk cow dry matter grain protein (P<0.02).

* Significantly lower than other housing systems (P<0.05).

54

The interrelationship of housing system as a primary
factor and total dry matter at 270 days postpartum as a
secondary nutritional factor causing a .49 percent decrease
in milk fever incidence per one pound increase in dry matter
is presented in Table 22. It would appear outwardly from
the means that milk fever incidence increases with pounds
of total dry matter; however. a decrease is noted per pound
increase in dry matter. This is a difficult relationship
to explain and defend. It would appear from the means that
a decrease is apparent in incidence as dry matter does
increase for the stanchion housing: however. an opposite
trend is observed in Open-lot free stall. One might
hypothesize that a decreased incidence is noted in housing
systems with less than 38 pounds of total dry matter intake
including large herds but an opposite effect appears as
total dry matter intake surpasses the 40 pound level.

In conclusion. it is apparent that milk fever is
highest in open-lot free stall and lowest in covered-free
stall housing which is significantly different than other
housing systems. Total dry matter at 270 days postpartum
reveals a decrease in milk fever incidence as dry matter
increases. but with no real concrete explanation for the
'decreased effect as dry matter increases. The relationship
of housing system and total dry matter intake at 270 days

postpartum to incidence of milk fever is given in Table 22.

55

TABLE 22. Relationship of Housing System and Total Dry
Matter Intake at 270 Days Postpartum to Incidence
of Milk Fever.

 

Pounds Total
Dry Matter at

 

% Incidence 270 Days Post-
Housina Svstem of Milk Fever# partum__
l Stanchion 7.3 36.4
4 Open-lot Free Stall 9.8 40.2*
5 Covered-Free Stall 4.0* 37.8

 

# .49 percent decrease in incidence per pound increase in
total dry matter (P<0.01).

* Significantly different than other housing systems
(P<0.05).

Separation of dry cows from milking herd as a primary
factor indicated a significant effect on milk fever and
mastitis (see Table 1). However. becauSe none of the
secondary variables Offered in the multiple regression
analysis remained in for mastitis at the stated significance
level. only the relationship of dry cow separation and dry
‘matter milk cow grain protein which are at the stated
significant levels will be discussed in relation to their
effect on milk fever.

From the results presented in Table 23. it is evident
after studying the means that milk fever incidence is
significantly lower in herds where dry cows are separated.
The secondary nutritional factor of milk cow dry matter

grain protein indicates a .69 percent decrease in incidence

56

of milk fever per one percent increase in protein which is
not sufficient to account for differences associated with
separation.

A study of the 10 herds over 200 cows substantiates
the above results as they reported a 15.7 percent mean grain
protein and a milk fever incidence of 3.6 percent with 100
percent of herdowners indicating separation of dry cows
from the milking herd. This very low incidence in large
herds may be explained somewhat in part by production level
which in the 54 herds was a highly significant factor on
milk fever. The large herds had a mean production level
of 756 pounds less milk than in the 54 herd study.

From the data. it is concluded that separation of
dry cows has the lowest incidence of milk fever with a
significant difference and also has the highest dry matter
grain protein percent with a significant difference from
the lowest. The relationship of dry cow separation and dry

matter grain protein is presented in Table 23.

57

TABLE 23. Relationship of Dry Cow Separation and Milk Cow
Dry Matter Grain Protein to Incidence of Milk

 

 

Fever.
Dry Cows % Incidence of Mean
Separated Milk Fevera Grain Protein
Yes 5.5b 15.3
No 8.5 13.3C

 

a .69 percent decrease in incidence per one percent increase
in dry matter grain protein (P<0.02).

b Significantly lower (P<0.ll).

c Significantly lower (P<0.03).

As was pointed out previously. production level as a
primary factor had a significant effect on retained placenta.
metritis. ketosis and milk fever (see Table 1). It is
apparent that production level has a greater effect on more
of the studied herd health problems than any Of the major
sources of variation.

The relationship of production level as a primary
factor and pounds of roughage fed to dry cows as a secondary
factor with their effect to retained placenta is presented
in Table 24. It is a direct linear relationship where
retained placenta incidence increases as production level
.and pounds of roughage to milk cows with a 2.3 percent
increase per one pound increase in roughage.

These results are further substantiated in the 10 large
herds with a mean production level of 12,855 pounds of milk

that average 27.3 pounds of roughage and reported a 13.5

58

percent incidence of retained placenta. From these data.
it is evident that higher producing herds do feed higher
amounts of roughage which one might postulate is a reason
for the added production. but with the increased milk
production and pounds of roughage goes increased incidence
of retained placenta. The relationship of production level
and milk cow pounds of roughage to incidence of retained

placenta is presented in Table 24.

TABLE 24. Relationship of Production Level and Pounds of
Roughage to Incidence of Retained Placenta.

 

 

Production Level % Incidence of Pounds of
(Egnnds gt Milk) Retgired Blgcenta# Roughage
Low (<12.699) 11.4* 26.3*
Medium (12.700-14.699) 15.7 29.1
High (>14.700) 17.1 29.5

 

# 2.3 percent increase in incidence per pound increase in
roughage (P<0.01).

* Significantly lower than higher producers (P<0.05).

Also. the combination Of production level and dry
Inatter pounds of grain fed at 270 days postpartum team up to
have an increased significant effect on both retained placenta
and metritis as related in Table 25. An increase in retained
jplacenta incidence of 2.4 percent per pound increase in
dry matter grain at 270 days is revealed while a .8 percent

increase in metritis is noted per pound of increase in dry

59

matter grain at 270 days postpartum. It is recognized
that as production level increases. so does retained placenta
and metritis incidence.

Large herd owners reported an average of 10.5 pounds
of dry matter grain with 13.5 percent incidence of retained
placenta and 16.3 percent incidence of metritis. One might
be confident in the accuracy of the pounds of grain fed at
270 days but question if large herd owners are as mindful
or accurate in reporting incidence as those in the 5# herd
study. This doubt arises after personally interviewing
large herd owners.

In summary. these results indicate the lowest production
level has the lowest incidence of retained placenta and
metritis with a significant difference from the higher
production levels and highest grain intake at 270 days
postpartum in the high production level with a significant
difference from lower production levels. The relationship
of production level and pounds of dry matter grain intake
at 270 days postpartum to incidence of retained placenta

and.metritis is presented in Table 25.

60

TABLE 25. Relationship of Production Level and Pounds of
Dry Matter Grain Fed to Milking Cows at 270 Days
Postpartum to Incidence of Retained Placenta and

 

 

Metritis.
Production % Incidence % Incidence Pounds
Level (Pounds of Retained of b Dry Matter
gf_Milk) Placentaa Metritis Grain
Low (<12,699) 11.u* ll.6* 9.4
Medium (12,700-1u,699) 15.7 19.2 9.1

 

a 2.# percent increase in incidence per pound increase in
total dry matter grain fed at 270 days postpartum (P<0.01).

b .8 percent increase in incidence per pound increase in
total dry matter grain fed at 270 days postpartum (P<0.lu).

* §ignificantly different from other production levels
P<0.05).

In the analysis of secondary factors affecting metritis.
total dry matter intake at #0 days emerged as the strongest
secondary variable affecting metritis. A study was made of
the means within production level and a significant
difference was noted between the means of total dry matter
intake at.40 days postpartum. From the results in Table
26, it is evident that as the primary factor of production
level and the secondary factor of total pounds of dry matter
'at #0 days postpartum both increase. so does metritis
incidence in a linear fashion. A 1.7 percent increase in
metritis incidence is noted for each one pound increase in

total dry matter.

61

A somewhat different trend is realized in large herds
which reported an average of #6.l pounds of total dry matter
at #0 days postpartum but with a 16.3 percent incidence
causing a doubt on their accuracy in either recognizing or
reporting metritis incidence. I

In summary, lowest milk fever incidence is in the
lowest production level at a significant difference from
higher producing herds and highest total pounds of dry matter
at highest production level with a significant difference
from other production levels. The relationship of production
level and total pounds of dry matter intake at 40 days

postpartum is presented in Table 26.

TABLE 26. Relationship of Production Level and Total
Pounds of Dry Matter Intake at 40 Days Postpartum
to Incidence of Metritis.

 

 

Production Level % Incidence of Total Pounds
(Pounds of Milk) Metritis# Dr Ia er
Low'(<12.699) 11.6* 41.5
IWedium (12,700-14,699) 19.2 43.9
High (>1#.700) 21.3 1&7.8*

 

jfi 1.7 percent increase in incidence per pound increase in
total dry matter (P<0.001).

1* Significant difference from other production levels
(P<0.05).

62

Milk production as a primary factor showed a significant
affect on ketosis (see Table l). but none of the significant
secondary variables related to ketosis showed significant
differences between the means: therefore. a discussion of
the relationship of primary and secondary factors is omitted.

The primary factor of milk production revealed a
significant affect on milk fever (see Table l). The secondary
nutritional factor of total pounds of dry matter at 270 days
postpartum in the multiple regression analysis had a
significant decreased affect on milk fever (see Table 18)
and a significant difference in the means of the variable
under milk production was observed. A study of the relation-
ship of production level and milk fever incidence in Table
27 indicates again that milk fever increases as milk
production increases with the highest incidence in the
highest production level and significantly higher than the
other production levels. In the secondary nutritional
factor of dry matter at 270 days. a .49 percent decrease in
incidence of milk fever is noted per pound increase in dry
Inatter which is opposite in trend from outward appearance.
Based on secondary variation in incidence of milk fever and
total dry matter intake holding all other nutritional
“variables and significant primary sources of variation
constant at their mean values, the regression statement is
free from confounding by other variables: whereas. means
are confounded because of unequal representation of other

ruitritional variables in various subclasses. For example,

63

the nutritional variable of corn silage moisture has a mean
which is going up as incidence is going down. Even though
total pounds of dry matter and incidence of milk fever
appear to be increasing with increased production, corn
silage moisture is decreasing with increasing production
level. If corn silage moisture is correlated with dry
matter intake. that relationship and other nutritional
ones like it which may not even have been measured, may be
causing such a discrepancy.

The large herds reported an average of 35.7 pounds
of dry matter intake at 270 days postpartum with a 3.6
percent incidence of milk fever placing them in line between
the low and medium production groups. Their average
production was 12,855 pounds of milk. The relationship
of production level and pounds of dry matter fed at 270
days postpartum on incidence of milk fever is given in

Table 27.

64

_ TABLE 27. Relationship of Production Level and Total Pounds
of Dry Matter Fed at 270 Days Postpartum to
Incidence of Milk Fever.

 

 

Production Level % Incidence of Total Pounds
(Pounds of Milk) Milk Fever# Drv_Matte;_
Low (<12,699) “.1 35.5*‘
Medium (12.700-14.699) 5.5 38.2
High (>1u.700) 11.u* no.8

 

# .49 percent decrease in incidence of milk fever per pound
increase in total dry matter intake at 270 days postpartum
(P<0.001).

* Significantly different than other production levels
(P<Ooos O

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Fifty-four southern Michigan dairy farms were studied
through a personal on the farm survey to define present dry
cow feeding and management factors and determine what effect
they may have on herd health problems.

Four chosen primary sources of variation in dry cow
management were examined through an analysis of variance
to determine their effect on herd health problems. Housing
system had a significant effect on milk fever incidence
(P<0.03) while the separation factor of dry cows affected
milk fever (P<0.11) and mastitis (P<0.lO). The interaction
of housing system and'separated had an effect on metritis
(P:0.09) and ketosis (P<0.ll). Herd size as a primary
factor had no significant effect on herd health problems;
however. the interaction of herd size and separated did
affect metritis at a highly significant level (P<0.01).

The primary factor of production level appeared to have
affected the greatest number of herd health problems with a
significant effect on retained placenta (P<0.06). metritis
.(P<0.04), ketosis (P<0.11) and milk fever (P<0.01).

Summary quantitative secondary nutritional and
management parameters collected as supplementary survey
data were tested through a multiple regression analysis
at a significance level of P<O.10 on each studied herd

65

66

health problem with the exception of mastitis, which was
tested at the P<0.05 level because all variables remained
at the higher significance level.

Secondary variables significantly related to displaced
abomasum were roughage per hundredweight to milk cows.
total dry matter intake at 270 days postpartum and dry days.
Four nutritional variables. namely. total dry matter at 270
days postpartum, dry matter grain at 270 days postpartum.
daily roughage pounds to milk cows and dry matter per
hundredweight to dry cows, were significantly related to
retained placenta. With reSpect to metritis, total dry
matter intake at 40 days postpartum, percent days in milk,
milk cow daily roughage pounds, roughage dry matter per
hundredweight in dry cows. and dry matter grain at 270
days postpartum all were significantly related to metritis
incidence. Only two variables were significantly related
to ketosis. They were milk level and daily roughage per
hundredweight to milk cows. Three variables were significant-
ly related to milk fever and they were total dry matter at
270 days postpartum. milk level. and milk cow grain protein.

Finally, relationships of significant primary sources
of variation and significant quantitative secondary factors
'with a significant difference in means of that factor
within the primary category were studied with respect to
their joint effect on herd health problems. The relation-
ships studied were housing system and the secondary

'nutritional variable of milk cow grain protein in relation to

67

milk fever, housing system and total dry matter intake at
270 days postpartum as related to milk fever, dry cow
separation and milk cow grain protein to milk fever.
production level and pounds of roughage as related to
retained placenta. the relationship of production level and
pounds of dry matter grain fed to milking cows at 270 days
postpartum to retained placenta. the effect of production
level and dry matter intake at 1&0 days postpartum to

metritis. and the relationship of production level and

 

total pounds of dry matter fed at 270 days postpartum to

milk fever.

In summary, it is concluded that of the four chosen

primary factors affecting herd health. production level

significantly affects four herd health problems which is

twice as many as the next closest primary factor. Housing

system affects only milk fever while separationof dry cows

does affect milk fever and mastitis but not at highly

significant levels. Herd size. the fourth primary source

of variation, had no significant effect on herd health.

Eleven of the 18 named quantitative secondary summary

nutritional and management factors were pinpointed as
significantly related to herd health problems. From the

.analysis of the significant secondary quantitative factors

related to herd health. it is concluded that milk cow

feeding and management factors are much more related to
herd health incidence than dry cow feeding and management

variables. Two secondary nutritional variables of roughage

68

ckynmtter per hundred pounds of body weight in milk cows
amltotal dry matter intake at 270 days postpartum were
related to more herd health problems than other factors.

In the study of relationships of significant and
semnflary factors showing significant difference in means
oftme secondary factor within the primary category. it
nsevident that only the milk cow secondary nutritional
factors of pounds of roughage to milk cows, pounds of dry
nmtter grain to milk cows at 270 days postpartum, dry matter
percent grain protein to milk cows and total pounds of dry
matter to milk cows have a significant relationship with
the primary factors of housing system, separation of dry

cows and production level to explain the effect on herd

health incidence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Arnold, P. T. D.. and R. B. Becker. 1936. Influence
of preceding dry period and of mineral supplement
on lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 19:257.

2. Blaxter, K. L. 1944. EXperiments on the use of home
grown foods for milk production. II. The effect
of feeding concentrated and bulky feeds prior to
calving on subsequent milk production. J. Agr.
SCio 3u827o

3. Boda. J. M. 1956. Further studies on the influence
of dietary calcium and phosphorous on the incidence
of milk fever. J. Dairy Sci. 39:66.

h. Boda, J. M.. and H. H. Cole. 1956. Calcium metabolism
with special reference to parturient paresis (milk
fever) in dairy cattle: A Review. J. Dairy Sci.

39:1027.

5. Boyd, L. J.. A. L. Rippen, C. R. Hoglund, J. S. Boyd,
and G. McBride. 1972. The Michigan dairy industry
of 1985. Farm Science Research Report 183. Agri.
Expt. Station and Cooperative Extension Service,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

6. liraund, D. G.. K. L. Dolge, and R. L. Steele. 1973.
Effect of restricted energy intake and addition of
hay in the TMR diet of dry cows on body weight,
health, and performance. Final Report to Research
.Committee. Cooperative Research Farms. Agway
Research and Development Department, Syracuse.

New York.

7. Castle, M. E.. and J. N. Watson. 1961. The effect of
level of concentrate feeding before and after
calving on the production of dairy cows. J. Dairy
Sci. 28:231.

8. Copeland, L. 1935. Effect of breeding efficiency and

culling on herd roduction. J. Dairy Sci.
18:950. (Abstr. ‘

69

10.

11.

12.

130'

19.

15.

16.

17.

.18.

19.

7O

Coppock. C. E., R. W. Everett. R. P. Natzke, and H. R.
Ainslie. 1974. Effect of dry period length on
Holstein milk production and selected disorders
of parturition. J. Dairy Sci. 57:712.

Coppock. C. E.. C. H. Noller, S. A. Wolfe, C. J.
Callahan. and J. S. Baker. 1972. Effect of
forage-concentrate ratio in complete feeds fed
ad libitum on feed intake prepartum and the
occurrence of abomasal displacement in dairy cows.
J. Dairy Sci. 55:783.

Davenport. D. G.. and A. H. Rakes. Effects of
prepartum feeding level and body condition on
the postpartum performance of dairy cows. J.
Dairy Sci. 52:1037.

Eberhart, R. J.. and J. M. Buckalew. 1972. Evaluation
of a hygiene and dry period therapy program for
mastitis control. J. Dairy Sci. 55:1683.

Emery, R. S.. H. D. Hafs, D. Armstrong, and W. W.
Snyder. 1969. Prepartum grain feeding effects
on milk production, mammary edema, and incidence
of diseases. J. Dairy Sci. 52:345.

Erickson. R. W. 1972. An analysis of high and average
milk production dairy farms. Ph.D. Thesis.
Michigan State University. East Lansing.

Fincher. M. G. 1963. Costs of eliminating streptococcus
mastitis. Amer. Vet. Med. Assn. J. 142:994.

Gardner, R. W. 1969. Interactions of energy levels
offered to Holstein cows prepartum and postpartum.
I. Production responses and blood composition
changes. J. Dairy Sci. 52:1973.

Gardner, R. W.. and R. L. Park. 1973. Effects of
prepartum energy intake and calcium to phosphorous
ratios on lactation response and parturient
paresis. J.-Dairy Sci. 56:385.

Greenhalgh, F. F. D.. and K. E. Gardner. 1958.
Effect of heavy concentrate feeding before calving

upon lactation and mammary gland edema. J. Dairy
Sci. 91:822.

Harris. B.. Jr. 1972. Care and management of dry cows.
Animal Nutrition and Health. 27 (5):l4.

20.

21.

22.

23.

2h.

25.

26.

27.

28.

.29.
30-

31.

71

Hillman. D. 1968. Feeding to prevent milk fever.
Extension Bulletin 633: Farm Science Series.
Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State
University. East Lansing.

Hillman. D. 1969. Diets for pregnant dairy cows.
Extension Bulletin E-667. Farm Science Series.
Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

Hillman. D. 1974. Feeding the dry cow. Dairy In
Service Training for Extension Agents, Michigan
State University. East Lansing.

Hillman. D., J. T. Huber, R. S. Emery, J. W. Thomas.
and R. W. Cook. 1973. Basic Dairy Cattle
Nutrition. Extension Bulletin E-702, Farm Science
Series, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan
State University, East Lansing.

Hillman, D., and L. E. Newman. 1972. Post calving
disorders related to feeding. Extension Bulletin
E-750. Farm Science Series. Cooperative Extension
Service, Michigan State University. East Lansing.

Hodges, H. G. 1961. Talk, ”Mastitis Action Conference”,
October 29, 1960. J. American Vet. Med. Assn.
13831450

Hoglund, C. R. 1979. The U. S. dairy industry today
and tomorrow. Publication in process of publication
for Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station
Research Report.

Huber, J. T. 1973. Feeding the dairy cow to meet her
changing energy demands during lactation and
gestation. AgriServices Foundation. Clovis.
California. 6:115.

Hutjens. M. F.. and D. E. Otterby. 1979. Feeding the
dry cow. Dairy Husbandry No. 11 Fact Sheet,
Agricultural Extension Service. University of
Minnesota, St. Paul.

Janzen. J. J. 1970. Economic losses resulting from
mastitis. A review. J. Dairy Sci. 53:1151.

Jorgenson. N. A.. and A. N. Bringe. 1973. Milk fever:
can we prevent it? Hoards Dairyman. 118:1175.

Klein. J. W.. and T. E. Woodward. 1993. Influence of
length of dry period upon the quantity of milk
produced in the subsequent lactation. J. Dairy
Sci. 26:705.

32.

33-

39.

35.

36c

37.

38.

39.

90.

91.

’92.

493.

72

Kucker. W. L. 1970. Adoption of production testing
and artificial insemination by Michigan dairy
farmers. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University.
East Lansing.

P. W.. and H. F. Tyrrell. 1972. Metabolizable

Moe,
energy requirements of pregnant dairy cows. J.

Dairy Sci. 55:980.
Moe. P. W.. H. F. Tyrrell. and W. P. Flatt. 1971.
Energetics of body tissue mobilization. J. Dairy

59:598.

Natzke, R. P. 1971. Therapy:
mastitis control program.

Sci.

One component in a
J. Dairy Sci. 59:1895.

Pugh, K. E.. A. M. Harris, M. S. Marshall, and J. M.
Evans. 1973. Evaluation of a long-acting
intramammary prepartum containing high doses of
penicillin and streptomycin for use in dry cows.

Vet. Rec. 93:212.
Sargent, F. D. 1972. Too many long dry periods can
cost you money. Hoards Dairyman. 117:996.
Schaeffer. L. R.. and C. R. Henderson. 1972. Effects

of days dry and open on Holstein milk production.
J. Dairy Sci. 55:107.

Schmidt. G. H.. and L. H. Schultz. 1959. Effect of
three levels of grain feeding during the dry
period on the incidence of ketosis. severity of
udder edema. and subsequent milk production of
dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92:170.

Smith, A., F. K. Neave, F. H. Dodd. and G. C. Brander.
1966. Methods of reducing the incidence of
udder infection in dry cows. Vet. Rec. 79:233.

Smith. A., J. V. Wheelock, and F. H. Dodd. 1967.
The effect of milking throughout pregnancy on
milk secretion in the succeeding lactation.
J. Dairy Res. 39:195.

Speicher, J. A., and L. H. Brown. 1969. A dairy
budget guide. D-211, Dairy and Agricultural
Economics Departments, Michigan State University,
East Lansing.

Swanson, E. W. Comparing continuous milking with
sixty-day dry periods in successive lactations.
J. Dairy Sci. 98:1205.

99.

95.

96.

97.

73

Swanson, E. W.. and S. A. Hinton. 1962. Effects of
adding concentrates to ad libitum roughage
feeding in the dry period. J. Dairy Sci. 95:98.

Swanson. E. W.. and S. A. Hinton. 1971. Effects of
prepartum grain on lactation in cows. J. Animal
Sci. 20:980.

Wiggers. K. D.. D. K. Nelson, T. E. Aitchison, and
N. L. Jacobson. 1979. Prevention of parturient
paresis by feeding a calcium-deficient diet
prepartum: Results of a field study. J. Dairy
Sci. 57:612. (Abstr.)

Wilton. J. W.. E. B. Burnside, and J. C. Rennie.
1967. The effects of days dry and days open on
the milk and butterfat production of Holstein-
Friesian cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 97:85.
(Abstr.)

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF MAIL SURVEY

A total of 2.210 mail surveys were sent out to
Michigan dairymen on one of the three state testing programs.
A total of 1,110 (50.2 percent) were completed and returned
with seven discarded from the analysis because of PBB
contamination in their feed supply and dairy herds. Of
those returned, 76.7 percent (896 herds) had the following
characteristics: (1) in either stanchion. open-lot free
stall, or covered free stall (cold or warm) systems of
housing, and (2) were of the Holstein breed. These herds
were utilized in the analysis and the results are reported
in the following tables.

The author points out that a misunderstanding by
some dairymen in interpretation of the open-lot free stall
and covered free stall housing systems was obvious when
making the farm visits to complete a personal interview
with selected dairymen. The figures reported in these
tables would tend to understate the herds in open-lot free
stall and overstate those herds in cold covered (cold or

warm) housing systems. One should review and interpret

the results in the following tables with this misunderstanding

in mind.

79

75

TABLE 1. General Herd Characteristics Based on Type of

Housing and Yes or No Response to Dry Cow
Separation from Milking Herd. (May, 1979 DHI
Rolling Herd Average Figures Utilized)

 

HERD SIZE: Range of 13 to 363

 

 

Housing System Number Mean Std. Dev.
11 Stanchion-separated 91 95.0 16.5
12 Stanchion-not separated 211 39.9 19.2
91 Openlot free stall-separated 122 99.6 99.9
92 Openlot free stall-not separated 108 62.9 25.9
51 Covered free stall-separated 132 89.3 97.8
52 Covered free stall-not separated 118 59.2 25.5

MILK PRODUCTION: Range of 6,380 to 20,178 pounds

11
12
1.1
L:2
51
52

ll
12
41
1:2
51
52

Stanchion-separated 91 19,159 1,973
Stanchion-not separated 211 13,667 2,232
Openlot free stall-separated 122 13,689 1,760

Openlot free stall-not separated 108 13,560 1,722
Covered free stall-separated 132 13,828 1,792
Covered free stall-not separated 118 13,353 1,705

FAT PRODUCTION: Range of 236 to 780 pounds

Stanchion-separated 91 529 76
Stanchion-not separated 211 507 87
Openlot free stall~separated 122 508 69
Openlot free stall-not separated 108 509 70
Covered free stall-separated 132 509 69

Covered free stall-not separated 118 999 67

 

76

TABLE 2. Characteristics of Lactating Cow Feeding Programs.

 

Question: Is corn silage fed to milking cows and if yes.
is it free choice or fixed, and if fixed, what is
the amount in pounds?

Pounds per cow per day

 

Number Percent Mean Std. Dev.
No 81 9.6
Yes 765 90.9
Free Choice 116 15.2
Fixed 699 89.8 35.0 1.1

Question: When is corn silage harvested?

 

l=Ear1y dent Mean Std. Dev.
2=Soft dent
3=Late dent 2.2 .68

Question: Is hay fed to milking cows and if yes, what are
the pounds per cow per day?

Pounds per cowlper day
Number Percent Mean Std. Devi
No 101 11.9
Yes 795 88.1 12.0 1.10

Question: Is haylage fed to milking cows and if yes, is it
free choice or fixed amount, and if fixed, what
is the amount?

Pounds per cow per day

Number Percent Mean Stdl Devi

 

No 967 55.2
Yes 379 99.8
Free Choice 197 52.0

Fixed 206 98.0 23.0 1.03

77

Question: How is haylage harvested?

 

 

Housing System Number Mean Std.iDey.
ll Stanchion-separated 22 2.2 .93

12 Stanchion-not separated 93 2.9 .61

91 Openlot free stall-separated 80 2.5 .50

92 Openlot free stall-not separated 63 2.9 .53

51 Covered free stall-separated 88 2.5 .55

52 Covered free stall-not separated 68 2.9 .52
1=Direct Cut 2=Wi1ted 3=Low Moisture

Question: Are you feeding dry corn? If yes, what amount
and what is the percent protein of grain ration?

 

Number Percent Mean Std. Dev.
No 228 27
Yes 615 73
Pounds fed per cow per day 16.7 6.17
(Range of 3 to 50 pounds)
Percent protein in grain 19.3 2.12
ration (Range of 7 to 22
percent)

Question: Are you feeding high moisture corn? If yes, is
it ear or shelled, and what is the amount and
percent protein in your grain ration?

 

 

Number Percent Mean Std. Devi
No 556 - 66
Ear corn 106 13
Shelled
corn 180 21
Pounds fed per cow per day 17.3 9.93

(Range of 5 to 95 pounds)

Percent protein in grain 13.6 2.90
ration (Range of 7 to 28
percent)

78
Question: Are you feeding vitamins, minerals, and trace
mineralized salt to milking cows?
Vitamins Minerals T, M, Salt
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

No 137 19 29 3 96 12
Yes 585 81 781 97 700 88

 

TABLE 3. Characteristics of Dry Cow Feeding Programs.

 

Question: Is corn silage fed to dry cows, and if yes, is
it free choice or fixed, and if fixed, what is
the amount in pounds?

Pounds per cow per day

 

Number Percent Mean Std; Devi
No 189 22
Free choice 192 23
Fixed 970 55 28.0 1.21

Question: Is hay fed to dry cows and if yes, what are the
pounds per cow per day and quality of hay?

Pounds per cow per day

Number Pegcent Mean Std. Devi

No , 89 10
Yes 757 90 15.0 1.09

 

 

 

 

79

 

Nmufing System Number Mean Std, Dev,
Ll Stanchion-separated 63 2.1 .56
12 Stanchion-not separated 131 1. 8 . 59
in. Openlot free stall-separated 78 2.0 .93
92 Openlot free stall-not separated 50 1.9 .97
51 Covered free stall-separated 99 2.0 .53
52 Covered free stall-not separated 57 1.7 .57
l=High quality 2=Medium quality 3=Low quality

Question: Is haylage fed to dry cows and if yes, is it
free choice or fixed, and if fixed, what is the

 

 

amount?
Pounds fed per cow per dav
Number Percent Nggg StdlgDev-
No 562 66
Free choice 139 16
Fixed 150 18 21.0 1.05

Questign: What percent of dry cows receive grain by
housing system?

Hggsing System Number l_\_’1_e_a_£ Std, Dev,
11 Eitanchion-separated 99 90 1.77
12 Eitanchion-not separated 226 70 1.69
91 (Ipenlot free stall-separated 131 25 1.61
92 (Ipenlot free stallsnot separated 113 90 1.81
'51 (hovered free stall-separated 197 30 1.71

'52 Covered free stall-not separated 130 90 1.80

80

Question: Are you feeding dry corn? If yes, what amount
and what is the percent protein of the grain

 

ration?
Number Percent Mssg_ Std.,Dev,
No 505 60
Yes 337 90
Pounds fed per cow per day 6.2 9.79

(Range of 1 to 50 pounds)

Percent protein in grain ration 12.3 3.07
(Range of 6 to 20 percent)

Question: Are you feeding vitamins, minerals, and trace
mineralized salt to dry cows?

Vitamins Minerals T, M, Salt
Numbe; Percent Number Percent Number Percent

No 138 29 35 5 99 13
Yes 936 76 673 95 631 87

Question: How would you describe the condition of your dry

 

 

cows?
Housing System Number Mean Std. Dev.
11 Stanchion-separated 99 2.1 .39
12 Stanchion-not separated 225 231 .37
91 Openlot free stall-separated 131 2.2 .39
92 Openlot free stall-not separated 113 2.2 .91
51 Covered free stall-separated 197 2.1 .36
52 Covered free stall-not separated 130 2.2 .95

.l=Under condition 2=Average condition 3=Over condition

81

Question: When do your cows peak in production after

 

calving?
ngsing System Number Mean Std, Dev,
11 Stanchion-separated 97 9.0 1.1
12 Stanchion-not separated 222 3.7 1.1
91 Openlot free stall-separated 128 3.9 1.2
92 Openlot free stall-not separated 112 3.9 .9
51 Covered free stall-separated 199 3.7 1.1
52 Covered free stall-not separated 126 3.8 1.1

1:1 week 2:2 weeks 3:3 weeks 9:9 weeks 5:5 weeks 6:6 weeks

Question: What was your calf mortality in 1973?

Housigg System Number Nssg_ ssgy_ggy,
11 Stanchion-separated 99 3.8 .71
12 Stanchion-not separated 229 3.2 .79
91 Openlot free stall-separated 131 9.8 1.13
92 Openlot free stall-not separated 111 7.9 .93
51 Covered free stall-separated 197 9.1 1.08
52 Covered free stall-not separated 128 8.8 1.23
Herd Size

<30 , 199 9.1 .89
30‘59 357 5.8 .98
60-89 ' 161 8.9 1.10
'90-119 96 8.9 1.01
120-199 50 9.0 1.09

ZOO-#00 10 1200 1013

82

 

Milk Level (Pounds) Nsm§s§_ Essa Std. Dev.
<10,000 18 10.6 1.35
10-12,000 122 9.9 1.28
12-19,000 299 7.1 1.01
19-16.ooo 253 5.3 .78
16-18,000 72 9.7 .86

>18,000 12 1.7 .58

 

83

TABLE 9. Herd Health Problems Related to Feeding and
Management of Dry Cows by System of Housing,

Herd Size and Production Level.

 

DISPLACED ABOMASUM a b C
% of % per % A11 Cows

EEEDEE Es; s Ns§g_ All Herds
ngsing System
11 Stanchion-separated 99 20.2 3.6 .72
12 Stanchion-not separated 226 16.9 9.5 .73
91 Openlot f.s.-separated 131 39.9 2.8 .96
92 Openlot f.s.-not sep. 113 26.5 3.0 .77
51 Covered f.s.-separated 197 32.7 3.3 1.08
52 Covered f.s.-not sep. 130 23.1 3.7 .87
Nerd Size
<30 197 19.3 5.8 .83
30-59 358 23.2 3.1 .73
60-89 182 26.9 3.9 1.09
90-119 96 37.5 2.6 .96
120-199 50 32.0 2.9 .78
200-900 10 90.0 2.9 1.16

duc ion Leve unds 0 Milk

<10,000 18 5.6 3.9 .21
10-12,000 129 15.3 3.5 .59
.12-19,000 302 29.5 3.1 .76
l9-16,000 259 29.9 3.5 1.03
16-18.000 72 31.9 9.2 1.39
>18,000 12 91.7 5.0 2.09

 

a Percent of herds reporting incidence.
b Percent of cows in herds reporting incidence.
c Percent of all cows in all herds of housing system.

89

TAINED P CENTA

Number
Housing System
11 Stanchion-separated 99
12 Stanchion-not separated 226
91 Openlot f.s.-separated 131
92 Openlot f.s.-not sep. 113
51 Covered f.s.-separated 197
52 Covered f.s.-not sep. 130
Herd Size
<30 197
30-59 358
60-89 182
90-119 96
120-199 50
200-900 10
P duction Lev 1 nds f lilk
<10,000 18
10-12,000 129
12-19.000 302
19-16.000 259
l6-18,000 72
'>18.000 12

% ofa
Nerds

55.6
52.7
69.1
61.1
65.3
59.6

97.6
56.9
59.9
76.0
69.0
60.0

33.3
52.9
58.9
61.9
61.1
66.7

% perb % All Cowsc
Herd .All Herds

10.2
11.1
10.5
11.3
11.3

9.9

12.5
10.8
10.7
9.3
10.1
9.9

9.0
11.2
10.8
10.9
10.1
12.1

5.9
5.7
6.9
6.8
6.9
5.9

6.0
6.0
6.2
7.1
6.9
5.9

3.0
5.9
6.2
6.9
5.9
8.1

 

a Percent of herds reporting incidence.
b Percent of cows in herds reporting incidence.

0 Percent of all cows in all herds of housing system.

METR TIS

85

 

% ofa % perb % All CowsC
Nsmgsg Herds Herd A11 Herds

Ngusing System

11 Stanchion-separated 99 15.2 9.9 1.9
12 ‘Stanchion-not separated 226 19.6 17.3 2.5
91 Openlot f.s.-separated 131 39.7 19.6 5.8
92 Openlot f.s.-not sep. 113 29.2 17.3 9.9
51 Covered f.s.-separated 197 28.6 12.7 3.6
52 Covered f.s.-not sep. 130 19.2 19.2 2.6
Nezd Size

<30 197 12.9 16.8 2.2
30-59 358 20.9 15.3 3.1
60-89 182 29.7 19.3 3.9
90-119 96 90.6 19.9 5.7
120-199 50 90.0 13.9 5.9
200-900 10 90.0 5.8 2.3

du io eve und f Jilk

<10,000 18 27.8 17.9 9.8
10-12,000 129 12.1 16.0 1.9
12-19.000 302 29.8 19.9 3.5
19-16,000 259 27.6 13.1 3.6
16-18,000 72 26.9 20.6 5.1
'>18.000 12 91.7 11.6 9.8

 

a Percent of herds reporting incidence.
b Percent of cows in herds reporting incidence.
c Percent of all cows in all herds of housing system.

86

KETOSI"

Housigg System

11
12
91
92
51
52

Stanchion-separated
Stanchion-not separated
Openlot f.s.-separated
Openlot f.s.-not sep.
Covered f.s.-separated

Covered f.s.-not sep.

Herd Size

<30

30-59
60-89

90-119

120-

199

200-900

Producti

<10.

evel

000

10-12,000

19-16,000
16-18,000

5'18,

000

Number Herds

99
226

131
113
197
130

197
358
182
96
50
10

unds of Milk

18
129
302
259

72

12

% ofa % perb % All Cowsc

37.9
39.9
28.2
35.9
39.0

29.2

36.1
39.9
31.9
32.3
92.0
20.0

16.7
23.9
33.9
37.9
99.9
66.7

Nerd

6.9
8.8
5.2
9.3
9.8
5.8

9.9
6.9

5.9
9.5

3.2
1.9

9.6
5.3
6.0
6.3
7.2
6.9

All Nezds

2.2
3.3
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7

3.6
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.3

.3

.8
1.2
2.0
2.9

3.1
9.3

 

a Percent of herds reporting incidence.
b Percent of cows in herds reporting incidence.

0 Percent of all cows in all herds of housing system.

87

MILK VE a b c
% of % per % All Cows
Number Herds Herd All Nerds

Housing System

 

ll Stanchion-separated 99 59.5 6.1 3.3
12 Stanchion-not separated 226 58.9 7.7 9.9
91 Openlot f.s.-separated 131 68.7 5.9 3.6
92 Openlot f.s.-not sep. 113 66.9 8.3 5.2
51 Covered f.s.-separated 197 63.3 5.9 3.9
52 Covered f.s.-not sep. 130 69.6 7.1 9.5
Herd.Size

<30 197 51.0 8.3 9.2
30-59 358 61.5 7.0 9.2
60-89 182 67.6 6.3 9.1
90-119 96 71.9 6.2 9.5
120-199 50 69.0 9.5 2.9
200-900 10 70.0 9.1 2.9

Production evel Pounds f Milk

<1o,000 18 luau. 5.7 2.5
10-12.000 129 98.9 5.8 2.8
12-19.000 302 65.2 6.7 9.2
19-16.ooo 259 68.9 6.5 9.5
16-18.000 ' 72 66.7 8.2 5.2
’>18.000 12 58.3 12.3 7.2

 

a Percent of herds reporting incidence.
b Percent of cows in herds reporting incidence.
c Percent of all cows in all herds of housing system.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

PERSONAL INTERVIEW
DAIRY DRY COW MANAGEMENT SURVEY

 

 

 

 

 

Variable

Number

Date Herd Code ________ 1
Name Housing System _ 2
Address Dry Cows Separated___ 3
County Telephone Herd Size _ 9
Production Level _ 5

HERD AVERAGE (JULY-1979) Cows _ _ _‘_ 6
Milk _____ 7

Fat ___ _ 8

Test _._ 9

% DIM _,_ 10

Number of owners _ 11
Age of owner(s) _ _, _ _, __ _ 12.13.19

1. Describe ownership of dairy enterprise (59 Responses)

Sole ownership (57%)

Father-son partnership (29%)

Brothers partnership (6%)

Other related family partnership (9%) _ 15
Unrelated family partnership (9%)

Family corporation (0%)

Other-specify (5%)

 

88

10.

ll.

12.

89

I. HQUSING

Where are your milking cows housed? (59 responses)

__1. Stanchion (33%)

__2. Open lot-free stall (33%)
__3. Covered free stall-cold (30%)
__9. Covered free stall-warm (9%)

Years in this type of housing.

Are your milking cows in dry lot year around?
1. Yes __2. No

Where are your dry cows housed? (59 responses)*

1. Stanchion (19%)

Open lot bedded (31%) Prim.

Covered free stall-cold (19%) Sec.

__2-

__3. Open lot-free stall (28%)
::5. Covered free stall-warm (3%)
*Only one secondary response.

Years in this system of housing.

Are your dry cows housed separately from milking

cows in the winter? __1. Yes __2. No

Are your dry cows housed separately from milking

cows in the summer? __1. Yes __2. No

Are your dry cows housed with any heifers as a

group? __1. Yes __2. No

If yes, what age heifers? __1. Springing
__2. Bred
__3 . Open

Are your dry cows kept in dry lot year around?
, _10 Yes __2. NO

II. REBELS. PROORNA OF Ngmch cows
A. ROUGHAGE PROGRAM

Is corn silage fed in your roughage program?
1. Yes __2. NO

16

17

18

19
20

21

22

23

29

25
26

27

28

29

9O

13. If yes, what time of the year is it fed? (52 responses)
__1. Summer-May thru September (0%) _ 3O
,__2. Winter-October thru April (96%)
_3. Both (59%)

19. If corn silage is fed during the summer feeding
period. how is it fed? (28 responses) _ 31
‘__1. Free choice (21%) __2. Fixed amount (79%)

15. If free choice, how many pounds per cow per day?_ _ 32

16. If fixed amount, how many pounds per cow per
day?

17. If corn silage is fed during the winter feeding
period, how is it fed? (52 responses) _ 39
__1. Free choice (23%) __2. Fixed amount (77%)

18. If free choice, how many pounds per cow per day?_ _ 35
19. If fixed amount, how many pounds per cow per
day? _ _ 36
20. Is NPN (non-protein nitrogen) added at time of
ensiling? __1. Yes __2. No _ 37

21. At what stage of maturity is corn silage
harvested? (52 responses)
__1. Early dent (0%) _ 38
__2. Soft dent (98%)
__3. Late dent (52%)

22. What is the fineness of chop of your corn silage?
(52 responses)
1. Less than 1/9 inch (10%)

__2. 1/9 inch (52%) _,39
__3. 3/8 inch (26%)
__,. 1/2 inch (6%)
_50. 3/4 inch (6%)
__6. Greater than 3/9 inch (0%)

23. What is the average moisture content of your corn
silage? _r_ 90

'29. What type of structure is utilized in corn silage
storage? (52 responses)
__1. Bunker silo (19%) __3. Both types (2%) “l

__2. Tower silo (80%) __9. Sealed storage (9%)

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30-

31.

32.

33.

39.

35.

91

How is corn silage distributed and fed to milking
cows? (52 primary, 8 secondary)
__1. Mechanical feeder in bunk (61%, 38%)* Prim. _ 92
.__2. Mechanical transport to fenceline

bunk (10%, 29%) Sec. _ 93
__3. Mechanical feeder in manger (2%, 0%)
9. Feed cart-manually (25%. 38%)

__5. Bunker silo-self feeding (2%, 0%)
*First figure prim. source, second figure sec. source
Is grass silage (haylage) fed? __1. Yes __2. No_ 99

If yes, at what time of the year? (39 responses)

__1. Summer-May thru September (38%)

__2. Winter-October thru April (5%) _ 95
__3. Both (57%)

If haylage is fed during the summer feeding period,
how is it fed? (38 responses)
__1. Free choice (95%) 2. Fixed amount (55%)

If free choice, how many pounds per cow per day?___ 97

If fixed amount, how many pounds per cow per

day? ___ 98
If haylage is fed during the winter feeding period,
how is it fed? (29 responses) ..49
__1. Free choice (13%) __2. Fixed amount (87%)

If free choice. how many pounds per cow per day?_ _ 50
If fixed amount. how many pounds per cow per

day? ___ 51
At what stage of maturity is haylage ensiled?

(39 responses)

[__1. Prebud (10%) __9. 1/9 bloom (23%)

__2. Bud (8%) 5. 1/2 bloom (21%) _ 52
__3. 1/10 bloom (33%) __6. Full bloom (5%)

What cuttings do you utilize as haylage?

__1. First cutting _ 53
__2. Second cutting _ 54
__3. Third cutting ._ 55

9. Fourth cutting _ 56

36.

37.

38.

39.

90.

91.

92.

92

What degree of fineness of chop do you use on
haylage? (39 responses)

__1. < 1/9 inch (8%) _9. 1/2 inch (17%) __ 57
_2. 1/9 inch (37%) _5. 3/9 inch (10%)
_3. 3/8 inch (23%) _6. >3/9 inch (5%)

How would you describe your haylage? (39 responses)
__1. Direct cut-over 70% moisture (0%)

__2. Wilted-6O to 70% moisture (56%) _ 58
.__3. Low moisture-less than 60% moisture (99%)

What type of structure is utilized in haylage

storage? (39 responses)

__1. Bunker silo (13%) __3. Both types (0%) _ 59
__2. Tower silo (56%) __9. Sealed storage (31%)

How is haylage distributed and fed to milking

cows? (39 responses)

1. Mechanical feeder in bunk (80%)

__2. Mechanical transport to fenceline bunk (13%)

__3. Mechanical feeder in manger (0%) __60
9. Feed cart-manually (7%)

__5. Bunker silo-self feeding (0%)

Why do you include haylage in your roughage program
for milking cows?
__1. Easier to handle with less labor required to

harvest and feed out. _ 61
__2. Fits into feeding system with highly mechanized
harvesting and less field losses. _ 62

__3. Nutritive value plus savings on purchased

protein supplement., _ 63
__9. Fits rotation and means to get crop off
early. _ 69

Have you encountered any management problems with
haylage harvesting and storage in the past five __65
years? __1. Yes __2. No

If yes. what were they?

__1. Chopped too fine--fat test and herd health _ 66
problems.

2. Chopped too coarse--poor packing with 67
excessive heating.

__3. Chopped too dry-~excessive heating and _ 68
loss of digestible protein.

9. Chopped too wet--high seepage losses. 69

93.
99.

45.

96.

97.

98.

99.

50.

510

93

Is hay fed to milking cows? __1. Yes __2. No _ 70
If yes, what time of the year is it fed? (99 responses)
1. Summer-May thru September (2%)

__2. Winter-October thru April (21%) _ 71
...3. Both (77%)

If fed during the summer feeding period, how
many pounds per cow per day?

If fed during the winter feeding period. how
many pounds per cow per day?

How would you describe the quality of hay fed
to milking cows? (99 responses)

__1. Excellent (7%) __9. Fair (9%)

__2. Very good (36%) __5. Poor (5%)

__3. Good (93%)

Compared with the past 5 years, what amounts of _ 75
hay are you feeding now? (59 responses)
1. More (15%) 2. Less (26%) __3.‘ Same (59%)

79

If either more or less is indicated, why?
(22 responses)*
1. Availability (9%)

__2. Herd health problems (23%) Prim. _ 76
.__3. Recommendation of M.S.U. dairy extension
personnel (0%) Sec. _ 77

__9. Recommendation of veterinarian or feed
salesman (0%)
__5. Other-specify (68%)

 

*Only one secondary response.

If herd health problems is indicated, what
problems did you encounter?
__1. Displaced abomasum 78

__2. Retained placenta _ 79
__3. Metritis _ 80
__9. Mastitis _ 81
__5. Ketosis _ 82
__6. Milk fever ..83
__7. Fat cow _ 89

How many times per day is hay fed to milking cows
during the summer feeding period? (39 responses)

__1. Once (93%) __3. Three or more (8%) _ 85
2. Twice (90%) ,__9. Free choice (9%)

52¢

53.

52+.

55.
56.

57.
580

59-

60.

61.

99

How many times per day is hay fed to milking cows
during the winter feeding period? (93 responses) 86
__1. Once (26%) __3. Three or more (16%)
,__2. Twice (56%) ‘__9. Free choice (2%)

Do you feel sufficient bunk space is available to
give all milking cows equal access and time to

available hay? __1. Yes __2. No _,87
Are milking cows on pasture during the summer
feeding period? ‘__1. Yes __2. No _ 88
If yes, what are the number of days on pasture: _‘_ 89
What is the average pounds of roughage fed per
cow per day on a dry matter basis? ___ 90
What is the average weight of milking cows? ___,_‘_ 91
How many pounds of roughage dry matter are fed
per hundred pounds of body weight? _‘_ 92

B. GRAIN PROGRAM--MILKING Cows

How would you describe the total grain ration of

the milking cows? (59 responses)

__1. Complete purchased feed (9%)

__2. Purchased feed grains balanced with protein,

salt. minerals and vitamins (9%) __93

.__3. Home grown feed grains supplemented with
protein. salt, minerals and vitamins (83%)

__9. Only home grown grains--no protein supp. (9%)

What is the major source(s) of energy in the

grain ration? (59 primary. 27 secondary)

1. Dry ear corn (98%, 8%)* Prim. _ 99

. Dry shelled corn (15%, 11%)

. High moisture shelled corn (13%, 9%)

. High moisture shelled corn (29%, 9%) Sec. _ 95

. Oats (0%, 71%)

. Other-specify (0%. 2%)

EE
__5

 

*First figure prim. source, second figure sec. source.

What rate of grain feeding do you follow on

mature cows? (59 responses)

__1. Light 9.1 (33%) _ 96
__2. Average 3:1 (50%)

__3. Heavy 2:1 (17%)

62.

63.

69.

650

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

95

What rate of grain feedin do you follow on two
year olds? (59 responses

__1. Light 9:1 (33%)

__2. Average 3:1 (50%)

__3. Heavy 231 (17%)

What is the average amount of grain fed per cow per

day 90 days after freshening? As fed basis _,_

Dry matter basis _,_

What is the average amount of grain fed per cow

per day 270 days after freshening? As fed basis ___
Dry matter basis _,_

What is the maximum pounds of grain any one cow

receives in your herd per day? As fed basis _,_
Dry matter basis ___

What is the percent protein in the grain ration

on a dry matter basis? ___

What is the source of supplemental protein in

your grain ration? (99 responses)

__1. Vegetable protein (57%) _

__2. Non-protein nitrogen (9%)

__3. Both (39%)

Is liquid protein supplement used in your feeding

program? ,__1. Yes __2. No _

What is the degree of coarseness of the feed

grain? (59 responses)

__1. Coarsely ground (26%) ,_

__2. Medium ground (96%)

__3. Finely ground (9%)

How is the grain fed to milking cows?

Crimped or rolled (29%)

As one feed ingredient (76%)
Mixed and fed with roughage (13%)
Both (11%)

is grain fed to milking cows?
Manger in barn

Milking parlor

Outside bunk

Magnetic feeder
Other-specify

99

100
101

102
103
109

105

106

107

(59 responses)

108

109
110
111
112
113

72.

73.
79.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

96

If magnetic feeders are used, what percent of
the cows have magnets? 119

Are milking cows grouped? __1. Yes __2. No _ 115
If yes, on what basis? (3 responses)

__1. Milk production (100%) 116
_2- Age (0%)

__3. Time of calving (0%)

If cows are grouped, are grain ration ingredients
and amounts adjusted to meet production and
maintenance requirements? __1. Yes __2. No 117

Are you feeding supplemental calcium and

phosphorous? __1. Yes ‘__2. No 118
If yes, how? (53 primary, 23 secondary) Prim. _ 119
.__1. Fixed amount in grain ration (68%, 17%)*

__2. Fixed amount in roughage ration (8%, 9%)

__3. Free choice in bunk (29%. 79%) Sec. _ 120

*First figure prim. source, second figure sec. source.

What minera1(s) are you feeding to milking cows?

__1. Dicalcium phosphate _ 121
__2. Steamed bonemeal _ 122
__3. Limestone (CaCo3) _ 123
__9. Monosodium phOSphate _ 129
__5. Commercial mineral supplement _ 125
__6. Other-specify _ 126

 

Define milking cow mineral supplementation
program (53 responses)

__1. High calcium, no P (0%)

__2. High calcium, low P (97%)

__3. No calcium. high P (9%)

9. Low calcium, high P (9%)

__5.. About equal Ca:P (90%)

127

Have you changed your mineral program in the past
two years? 1. Yes __2. No 128

81.

82.

83.

89.

85.

86.

87.

If yes, why?

__1.
2.

__3-

__5-
6.

97

(90 primary. 11 secondary)*

Availability (98%, 18%)** Prim. _ 129
Price (2%. 0%)

Herd health problems (2%. 9%) Sec. _ 130
Recommendation of vet or feed salesman

(23%. 96%) Tert. _ 131

Recommendation of M.S.U. extension
personnel (7%, 0%)
Roughage program change (18%, 27%)

*Only one tertiary response.

**First figure prim. source, second figure sec. source.

Are your milking cows regularly receiving?
(59 primary, 10 secondary)

__1. Trace mineralized salt (80%, 30%)*

__2. White salt (18%, 30%) Prim. _ 132
__3. Medicated (2%, 90%)

__ . No salt (0%. 0%) Sec. _ 133
*First figure prim. source, second is sec. source.

How is salt fed?

__1. Fixed amount in grain ration _ 139
__2. Free choice loose in feeder ._ 135
__3. Free choice block in feeder ,_ 136
Are you feeding supplemental vitamins to the

milking cows? __1. Yes __2. No _ 137
If yes, what period of the year? (99 responses)

__1. Winter months only (7%)

__2. Summer months only (2%) ‘_ 138
__3- Both (91%)

Have you had any fat test problems over the past

10 years? __1. Yes __2. No _ 139
If yes, what was the major cause? (15 responses)

__1. Feeding and management (73%)

__2 Season (27%) _ 190

__33

Genetics (0%)

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

99.
95-

.96.

97.

98

If feeding and management is indicated, how did

you get out of the problem? (11 responses)*

__1. Increased amount of dry hay (27%) Prim.

__2. Decreased shelled corn portion (18%)

__3. Addition of feed additives in ration (0%)
9. Other-specify (55%) Sec.

*Only two secondary responses.

What is the total pounds of dry matter consumed
for cows 90 days in production?

What is the total pounds of dry matter consumed
for cows 270 days in production?

Describe condition of cows at peak production.
(59 responses)
1. Thin (17%)
,__2. Good milking cond. (83%)
__3. Fat (0%)
9. Too fat (0%)

Describe condition of cows at 270 days of
production. (59 responses)

_1. Thin (13%) _3. Fat (31%)
__2. Desireable (56%) 9. Too fat (0%)

III. FEEDING ERQGRAM--DRY CQWS
A. ROUGHAGE PROGRAM

Are dry cows fed roughage separately from milking
cows? __1. Yes __2. No

Is corn silage fed to dry cows? __1. Yes __2. No

If yes, at what time of the year? (99 responses)
__1. Summer-May thru September (0%)

__2. Winter-October thru April (61%)

__3. Both (39%)

If corn silage is fed during the summer feeding
period, how is it fed? (17 responses)
__1. Free choice (6%) __2. Fixed amount (99%)

If free choice, how many pounds per day?

_ 191

192

193

199

195

196

197
198

199

_ 150

151

98.
99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

109.

105.

106.

107.

108.

99

If fixed amount. how many pounds per day? _ _
If corn silage is fed during the winter feeding
period, how is it fed? (99 responses)

__1. Free choice (13%) __2. Fixed amount (87%)

If free choice. how many pounds per cow per
day?

If fixed amount, how many pounds per cow per
day?

Is NPN (non-protein nitrogen) added at time of
ensiling? __1. Yes __2. No

At what stage of maturity is corn silage
harvested? (99 responses)

__1. Early dent (0%)

__2. Soft dent (52%)

__3. Late dent (98%)

What is the fineness of chop of your corn

silage? (99 responses)

_1. <1 9 inch (9%) __9. 1/2 inch (7%) _
__2. 1 9 inch (59%) __5. 3/9 inch (7%)

_3. 3/8 inch (23%) __6. > 3/9 inch (0%)
What is the average moisture content of your

corn silage?

What type of structure is utilized in corn

silage storage? (99 responses)

__1. Bunker silo (18%) __3. Both types (2%)
(__2. Tower silo (78%) 9. Sealed storage (2%)

How is your corn silage distributed and fed to dry
cows? (99 responses)*

1. Mechanical feeder in bunk (55%) Prim.

__2. Mechanical transport to fenceline bunk (18%)
__3. Mechanical feeder to manger (0%)

__9. Feed cart-manually (23%) Sec.
__5. Bunker silo--se1f feeding (9%)

*Only three secondary responses.

Is grass silage (haylage) fed? __1. Yes __2.No

152

153

159

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

_ 162

163

109.

110.

111.
112.

113.

119.

115.

116.

117.

118.

'119.

100

If yes, at what time of the year is it fed?
(31 responses)

__1.
__2.
..3-

Summer-May thru September (95%)
Winter-October thru April (0%)
Both (55%)

If haylage is fed during the summer feeding

period, how is it fed?

__1.

(31 responses)
Free choice (55%)

If free choice, how many pounds per cow per

day?

If fixed amount, how many pounds per cow per

day?

If haylage is fed during the winter feeding

period, how is it fed?

__1.

(17 responses)
Free choice (12%) __2.

If free choice, how many pounds per cow per

day?

If fixed amount, how many pounds per cow per

day?

At what stage of maturity is haylage ensiled?
(31 responses)

__1. Prebud (12%) __9. 1/9 bloom (26%)
__2. Bud (10%) __5. 1/2 bloom (29%)
__3. 1/10 bloom (16%) __6. Full bloom (7%)
What cuttings do you utilize as haylage?

__1. First cutting

__2. Second cutting

__3. Third cutting

__ . Fourth cutting

What degree of fineness of chop do you use on
haylage? (31 responses)

__1. <1/9 inch (11%) __9. 1/2 inch (13%)
[__2. 1/9 inch (32%) __5. 3/9 inch (13%)
__3. 3/8 inch (26%) __6. >3/9 inch (6%)
How would you describe your haylage with respect
moisture? (31 responses)

__1. Direct cut-over 70% moisture (0%)

.__2. Wilted-6O to 70% moisture (55%)

__3. Low moisture-less than 60% (95%)

2. Fixed amount (95%)_

Fixed amount (88%)_

169

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172
173
179
175

176

to
_ 177

120.

121.

122.

123.

129.
125.

126.

127.

128.

,129.

101

What is the legume-grass content of your

haylage? (31 responses)

__1. Alfalfa-greater than 75% alfalfa (58%) _ 178
__2. Alfalfa grass-3/9 to 1/9 a1fa1fa:grass (92%)
__3. Grass-less than 1/9 alfalfa (0%)

What type of structure is utilized in haylage

storage? (31 responses)

__1. Bunker silo (13%) __3. Both (0%) 179

__2. Tower silo (58%) 9. Sealed storage (29%)

How is haylage distributed and fed to milking

cows? (31 responses)* ‘

__1. Mechanical feeder in bunk (71%) Prim. _ 180
__2. Mechanical transport to fenceline bunk (23%)
__3. Mechanical feeder in manger (0%)

__9. Feed cart-manually (6%) Sec. _ 181
__5. Bunker silo--self feeding (0%)

*No secondary responses.

Do you provide any green chop to dry cows during

the summer feeding period? __1. Yes __2. No _ 182
Is hay fed to dry cows? __1. Yes- __2. No _ 183
If yes, at what time of the year? (96 responses)

__1. Summer-May thru September (0%)

__2. Winter-October thru April (33%) _ 189
__3. Both (67%)

If fed during the summer, how many pounds per cow

per day? _‘_ 185
If fed during the winter, how many pounds per cow

per day? _,_ 186

How would you compare the quality of hay fed dry

cows when compared to milking cows? (96 responses)
__1. Lower quality (39%)
__2. Equal quality (61%)
__3. Higher quality (0%)

What type of hay are you feeding to dry cows?
(96 responses)

187

__1. Alfalfa-greater than 75% alfalfa (35%)

__2. Alfalfa grass-3/9 to 1/9 alfalfa:grass (57%) 188
__3. Grass-less than 1/9 alfalfa (8%)

__9. Other-specify (0%)

 

130.

131.

132.

133.

139.

135.
136.

137.
138.

102

Compared to the past 5 years, what amounts of dry

 

hay are you feeding dry cows now? (59 responses) _ 189
__1. More (35%) __2. Less (19%) __3. Same (96%)
If either more or less is indicated, why?
(29 responses)
__1. Availability (7%) Prim. _ 190
__2. Herd health problems (98%)
__3. Recommendation of M.S.U. dairy extension

personnel (0%) Sec. _ 191
__9. Recommendation of veterinarian or feed

salesman (0%)
__5. Other-specify (95%)
*Only three secondary responses.
If herd health problems are indicated what
problems did you encounter?
__1. Displaced abomasum _ 192
__2. Retained placenta _ 193
__3. Metritis _ 199
__9. Mastitis _ 195
__5. Ketosis _ 196
__6. Milk fever _ 197
__7. Fat cow _ 198
How many times per day is hay fed to dry cows
during winter feeding period? (96 responses)
__1. Less than once (2%) __3. Twice (65%) _ 199
__2. Once (31%) __9. Free choice (2%)
Are dry cows on pasture during the summer feeding
period? __1. Yes __2. No _ 200
If yes, what are the number of pasture days? ___ _ 201
What is the average pounds of roughage fed per
cow per day on a dry matter basis? _,_ 202
What is the average weight of dry cows? ___,_,_ 203
How many pounds of roughage dry matter are fed
per hundred pounds of body weight? _ _ 209

139.

190.

191.

192.

193.

199.

103

B. GRAIN PROGRAM--DRY COWS

What percent of cows receive grain at specified
times of dry period and in what amounts on dry
matter basis?

 

Period Percent Dry Matter Lbs.
End of dry period _ _‘_ _._ 205,206
1 week prior to calving _ _ _ _ 207,208
2 weeks prior to calving ___ _ _ 209.210
9 weeks prior to calving _ _ _ _ 211.212
Entire dry period ___ _ _,_ 213.219

If dry cows are fed grain during any part of the
dry period, how? (39 responses)*

__1. Individually (68%) Prim. _ 215
__2. In a group with milking cows (12%) Sec. _ 216
__3. Group with dry cows (20%) Tert. _ 217

*Only one secondary and no tertiary responses.

If dry cows are fed grain, is it a different ration
than milking cows? __1. Yes __2. No _ 218

If dry cows are fed grain. how would you describe

the ration? (39 responses)

__1. Complete purchased feed (12%)

__2. Purchased feed grains balanced with protein,

salt, minerals and vitamins (0%)

__3. Home grown feed grains supplemented with
protein, salt, minerals and vitamins (70%) _

__9. Only home rown grains-no protein supplement
added (18%?

219

What is the major source of energy in the grain
ration? (39 primary, 13 secondary)

__1. Dry ear corn (91%, 0%)* Prim. _ 220
__2. Dry shelled corn (12%, 15%)

__3. High moisture ear corn (12%, 8%)

__ . High moisture shelled corn (27%, 0%) Sec. _ 221
__5. Oats (0%. 69%)

6. Other-specify (8%, 8%)

 

*First figure prim. source, second figure sec. source.

What is the percent protein on a dry matter basis
in the grain ration? 222

195.

196.

197.

198.

199.

150.

151.

152.

153.

109

What is the source of supplemental protein in
the grain ration? (26 responses)

__1. Vegetable protein (38%) _ 223
__2. Non-protein nitrogen (12%)

_3. Both (50%)

Is liquid protein supplement used in dry cow

protein supplementation? __1. Yes __2. No _ 229
What is the degree of coarseness of dry cow

grain? (31 responses)

__1. Coarsely ground (26%) _ 225
__2. Medium ground (95%)

__3. Finely ground (0%)

__9. Crimped or rolled (29%)

Where is grain fed to dry cows?

__1. Manger in barn _ 226
__2. lilking parlor _ 227
__3. Outside bunk _ 228
__9. Magnetic feeder _ 229
When is the major weight gain put on cows in
preparation for next calving? (59 responses)

_1. Last 9 months of lactation (15%) _ 230

__2. Last 2 months of lactation (70%)
__3. Dry period (15%)

How many pounds of dry matter per hundred pounds of

body weight are consumed by average dry cow? _ 231
Are you feeding supplemental calcium and
phosphorous to dry cows? __1. Yes __2. No _ 232
If yes. how? (97 primary, 6 secondary)
__1. Fixed amount in grain ration (17%. 50%)Prim._ 233
__2. Fixed amount in roughage ration (8%, 0%)

3. Free choice in bunk (75%, 50%) Sec. _ 239

*First figure prim. source, second figure sec. source.

What minerals are you feeding to dry cows?

__1. Dicalcium phosphate _ 235
__2. Steamed bonemeal _ 236
__3. Limestone (CaCo3) _ 237
__9. Monosodium phosphate _ 238
__5. Commercial mineral supplement _ 239
__6. Other-specify _ 290

 

105

159. Define dry cow mineral supplementation
program. (97 responses)
__1. High Ca, no P (0%)
__2. High Ca, low P (38%) 291
__3. No Ca, high P (7%)
__9. Low Ca, high P (21%)
__5. About equal Ca:P (39%)

155. Have you changed your mineral program in the past

two years? __1. Yes __2. No _ 292
156. If yes, why? (29 primary, 7 secondary)*

__1. Availability (52%. l9%)** Prim. _ 293

__2. Price (3%. 0%)

__3. Herd health problems (0%, 19%) Sec. _ 299

__9. Recommendation of vet or feed salesman (21%,93%)

__5. Recommendation of M.S.U. dairy staff (7%, 0%)
__6. Change in roughage program (17%. 29%)Tert. _ 295
*Only one tertiary response.

HFirst figure prim. source, second figure sec. source.

157. Are your dry cows regularly receiving?
(59 primary. 9 secondary)
__1. Trace mineralized salt (87%, O%)* Prim. _ 296
__2. White salt (11%. 25%)
__3. Medicated (2%, 75%) Sec. _ 297
9. No salt (0%, 0%)

*First figure prim. source, second figure sec. source.

158. How is salt fed?

__1. Fixed amount in grain ration _ 298
__2. Free choice loose in feeder _ 299
__3. Free choice block in feeder ,_ 250

159. Are you providing supplemental vitamins to dry
cows? __1. Yes __2. No 251
160. If yes, how? (26 responses)
__1. Grain ration (92%)
__2. Muscle injection (19%)
__3. Mineral (39%)

252

161. If yes, when is it offered? (26 responses)

__1. Winter (8%)

__2. Summer (0%) _ 253
_3. BOth (92%)

162.

163.

169.

165.

How would you describe the condition of your
cows at freshening time?

__1.
2.

IV.

Indicate the number of cows in your herd over the
past year that have experienced the following
herd health problems within 95 days postpartum.

l.

6.

Have you diagnosed any positive cases of fat or
downer cows in the past year?

106

Thin (3%)
Good flesh (92%)

NERD HEALEH

Displaced abomasum
a. Number of cows
b. Percent of herd

Retained placenta
a. Number of cows
b. Percent of herd

Metritis
a. Number of cows
b. Percent of herd

Ketosis
a. Number of cows
b. Percent of herd

Milk fever
a. Number of cows
b. Percent of herd

Mastitis
a. Number of cows
b. Percent of herd

If yes, number of cows

percent of herd

(59 responses)

Fat (9%)
Too fat (0%)

__1. Yes __2. No

- 259

255

257
258

259
260

261
262

269

265
266
267

268
269

166.

167.

107

Displaced abomasum
Is this incidence normal for a one year

1.

2.

3.

period? __1. Yes __2. No _ 270
Have you ever had a greater incidence during
any one year compared to the past year?

1. Yes __2. No _ 271

If yes. what dry cow management factor(s)
most greatly reduced incidence? (15 responses)*

1.

__2.
__3-
4

Increased length of chop of fermented
silages (0%) Prim. _
Increased hay fed to dry cows (27%)
Decreased amount of dry shelled corn (0%)
Decreased amount of high moisture shelled
corn to dry cows (7%) Sec. _ 273

272

 

__5. Reduced or eliminated grain to dry cows (0%)

__6. Fed dry cows in separate group (7%)

__7. Other-specify (60%) Tert. _ 279

*Only one secondary and tertiary response.
Retained placenta
1. Is this incidence normal for a one year

period? __1. Yes __2. No _ 275
2. Have you ever had a greater incidence during

any one year compared to the past year?

1. Yes __2. No _ 276

3.

If yes, what
most greatly

__lo
__2-
__3-
_‘+ -

__5-

dry cow management factor(s)
reduced incidence? (9 responses)*

Change in mineral program (0%) Prim. _ 277
Change in roughage program (22%)
Change in grain program (11%) Sec. 278

Dry cow separation from milking herd (0%)
Shorter dry period (0%) Tert. _ 279
Other-specify (67%)

 

*Only one secondary and no tertiary responses.

168.

169.

108

Metritis

1.
2.

30

Is this incidence normal for a one year
period? __1. Yes __2. No

Have you ever had a greater incidence during
any one year compared to the past year?

__1. Yes __2. No

If yes, what dry cow management factor(s)
most greatly reduced incidence? (6 responses)*

1. Change in mineral program (17%) Prim. _ 282
__2. Change in roughage program (66%)
__3. Change in grain program (0%)
__9. Separation of dry cows (0%)

__5. Other-specify (17%)

*Only three secondary and no tertiary responses.

280

281

._ 283
_ 289

Sec.

Tert.

 

Ketosis

1.
2.

3.

Is this incidence normal for a one year
period? __1. Yes __2. No _
Have you ever had a greater incidence during
any one year compared to the past year?

__1. Yes __2. No _ 286
If yes. what dry cow management factor(s)

most greatly reduced incidence? (18 reSponses)*

1. Reduction or elimination of grain during

285

dry period (0%) Prim. _ 287
__2. Putting on major weight gain in late

lactation rather than dry period (6%)
__3. Restricting fermented silage during

dry period (12%) Sec. _ 288
__9. Increasing amount of dry hay to dry

cows (0%) Tert. _ 289

__5. Separation of dry cows (6%)
6. Other-specify (76%)

 

*Only two secondary and one tertiary responses.

170.
1.

2.

3.

171.
l.

2.

30

Milk fever

109

Is this incidence normal for a one year

period? __1.

Yes __2. No 290

Have you ever had a greater incidence during
any one year compared to the past year?

__1-

Yes __2. No _ 291

If yes. what dry cow management factor(s)
most greatly reduced incidence? (18 primary,

9 secondary)*

1.
2.

__3-
_9-
__5-

__7-
8.

Prim. _ 292
Reduction of corn silage (11%, 0%)**
Reduction or elimination of hay (0%, 25%)
Increased hay to dry cows (6%,O%)Sec. _ 293
Reduction of legume percent in hay (6%,O%)
Change in mineral program (21%, 50%)
Separation of dry cows (6%,O%) Tert. _
Prepartum treatment of potential milk
fever cows (0%, 0%)

Other-specify (50%, 25%)

299

*Only one tertiary response.

**First figure prim. source, second figure sec.

source 0

Mastitis

Is this incidence normal for a one year

period?

__1. Yes __2. No _ 295

Have you ever had a greater incidence during
any one year compared to the past year?

__1-

Yes __2. No 296

If yes. what dry cow management factor(s)
most greatly reduced incidence? (17 responses)*

1.

__2-
__3-
9

AdOption of dry cow mastitis therapy
program (91%) Prim. _ 297
Adoption of new drying off procedure (0%)

Less grain during dry period (0%)Sec. _ 298
Less corn silage during dr period (6%)
Separation of dry cows (0%) Tert. _ 299

Other-specify (53%)

 

' *Only one secondary and no tertiary responses.

172.

173.

179.
175.

176.

177.

178.

179.

180.

110

V. GENERAL MANAGEMENT--DRX QQWS
What is the average number of dry days per
cow in your herd? _‘_ 300
How many times after last normal milking is
dry cow milked? _,_ 301
How many days does it take? ___ 302
If dry cows are sorted from the milking herd,
when are they moved out? (27 responses)
__1. Last normal milking (90%)
__2. One week after last normal milking (56%) _ 303
__3. Two or more weeks after last normal
milking (9%)
Is roughage intake reduced at drying off time?
__1. Yes __2. No _ 309
Is grain intake reduced at drying off time?
__1. Yes __2. No _ 305
Which dry cow mastitis management program do you
follow? (59 responses)
__1. Bacteriological culture and treatment (2%)
__2. Screening test reaction (treat only
positive quarters) (0%) _ 306
__3. Treatment of previously clinical quarters (37%)
__9. Treat all--no test used (99%)
5. Combination (6%)
__6. No treatment (11%)
How would you describe the mastitis incidence in
your dry cows over the past 5 years? (59 responses)
__1. Increased (9%)
__2. Decreased (39%) _ 307
3. No change (57%)
If decreased, why? (20 responses)*
__1. Better drying off practices (5%) Prim. _ 308
__2. More rigid dry cow mastitis prevention (70%)
__3. Better milking cow practices (0%) Sec. _ 309
__9. Better housing and handling facilities for
dry cows (0%) Tert. _ 310
5. Improved dry cow feeding program (25%)

*Only two secondary and no tertiary responses.

181.

182.

183.

189.

185.

186.

187.

188.

111

What percent of your cows have you treated
for udder edema in the past year? 311
Where do your cows calve during the summer

season? (59 primary, 15 secondary)*

__1. Special maternity stall (93%.l3%)** Prim. _ 312
__2. Dry lot area (93%, 59%) Sec. _ 313
__3. Pasture (12%. 20%) Tert. _ 319
__9. Other (2%, 13%)

*No tertiary responses.

**First figure prim. source. second figure sec. source.

Where do your cows calve in the winter
season? (59 primary, 16 secondary)*
__1. Special maternity stall (83%,13%)** Prim. _ 315

__2. Dry lot area (9%, 63%) Sec. _ 316
‘13' Stanchion (9%. 6%) Tert. _ 317
.__ . Other (9%, 18%)

*No tertiary responses.
**First figure prim. source, second figure sec. source.

If special maternity stalls are provided, what

is the area in square feet? _ _ _ 318
Is maternity area cleaned and bedded after every
calving? __1. Yes __2. No _ 319
What type of bedding is utilized in calving

area? (98 responses)

__1. Straw (88%) _ 320

__2. Sawdust or shavings (2%)
__3. Other-Specify (10%)

 

How would you describe bedding moisture at time of
calving? (98 responses)

__1. Dry (50%) __3. Wet (2%) _ 321
.__2- Damp (48%) __9. Very wet and sloppy (0%)

What is the calf mortality in your herd the past

12 months including stillborns? 322

112

189. What individua1(s) in your dairy enterprise is given
major responsibility of dry cow management
including through calving? (59 primary. 15 secondary)*

__1. Owner(s) (99%, 13%)** Prim. _ 323
__2. Wife of owner(s) (0%, 33%)

__3. Children of owners (0%. 27%) Sec. _ 329
__9. Hired labor (6%, 27%)

__5. Other (0%, 0%) Tert. _ 325

*Only three tertiary responses.
**First figure prim. source, second figure sec. source.

190. What percent of the cows in your herd have peaked
at the following levels in the first 95 days
of calving within the past year?

22.22201
1. Above 100 pounds _,_ 326
2. 90 to 100 pounds _,_ 327
3. 80 to 89 pounds _4_ 328
9. 70 to 79 pounds _H_ 329
5. 60 to 69 pounds _._ 330
6. 50 to 59 pounds _,_ 331
191. Are you satisfied with your present dry cow
management program? __1. Yes .__2. No _ 332

192. If no, what would you like to change?
(16 primary, 10 secondary)*
__1. Separate dry cows from milking herd
(50%. 20%)“
__2. New feeding and housing facilities Prim. _ 333
for dry cows (38%, 50%) Sec. ,_ 339
__3. More individual attention to dry Tert. _ 335
cows (0%, 0%)
__9. Feed more hay (0%, 20%)
__5. Other-specify (12%. 10%)

 

*Only two tertiary responses.
**First figure prim. source, second figure sec. source.

193. Plans for changes in dry cow management in next
five years.

 

 

 

 

113

199. General comments about present dry cow management
program.

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

119

 

 

 

TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Quantitative
Variables of Survey Herds.
591Survey Herds 10 Large Herds
Variable Std. Std.
__Number and.Name Number Mean Dev. Number Mean Dev.
6 No. of cows 59 67.8 36 10 379.8 378
7 Milk level 59 13611 2069 10 12855 933
8 Fat level 59 501 80 10 977 35
9 % test 59 3.7 .1 10 3.7 .1
10 % DIM 59 87.0 3.6 10 87.1 2.9
11 No. of owners 53 1.5 .7 7 2.1 .7
12 'Age-owner 1 53 97.6 11.2 7 53.9 10.7
13 Age-owner 2 21 39.9 11.6 6 36.7 8.9
19 Age-owner 3 5 26.2 6.2 2 25.5 6.9
17 Yrs. housing- 59 16.7 19.7 10 8.9 5.3
milk cows
21 Yrs. housing- 59 12.3 16.3 10 9.7 5.6
dry cows
32 Lbs. free choice 62.6 20.2 2 66.0 5.7
corn sil.--summ. (milk cows)
33 Lbs. fixed corn 23 30.2 10.6 2 90.5 13.9
sil.--summer (milk cows)
35 Lbs. free choice 11 58.0 19.3 3 69.0 5.3
corn sil.--wint. (milk cows)
36 Lbs. fixed corn 91 38.6 11.3 6 90.2 16.8
. si1.--wint. (milk cows)
90 Corn 311. moist. 52 65.2 3.7 9 66.6 2.6

115

 

 

270 days p.p.-milk cows

TABLE 1. (Cont'd.)
59 ngvsy Hezds 0 e Herds
Variable Std. Std.
Number and Name Number. Mean Dev. Number Mean Dev.
97 Lbs. free choice 17 59.9 11.8 3 97.7 6.8
hay1.--summer (milk cows) '
98 Lbs. fixed hayl.- 21 33.6 19.9 2 20.0 19.1
summer (milk cows)
50 Lbs. free choice 3 99.0 7.9 1 50.0 0.0
hayl.--winter (milk cows)
51 Lbs. fixed hayl.- 21 22.9 8.5 3 18.3 7.6
winter (milk cows)
72 Lbs. hay-summer 35 12.9 5.2 8 8.5 3.8
milk cows
73 Lbs. hay-winter 93 2.7 .9 8 9.5 9.8
milk cows
89 Days on past. 9 116 96 O 0.0 0.0
90 Daily dry matter 59 28.3 3.6 10 27.3 2.3
rough.-milk cows
91 Wt.-mi1k cows 59 1276 59 10 1272 92
92 Daily rough. 59 3.3 .2 10 2.1 .2
D.M./th.
milk cows
98 As fed grain @ 59 19.8 5.9 10 23.7 5.5
90 days p.p.-milk cows
99 D.M. grain @ 90 59 16.9 9.5 10 19.2 9.9
days p.p.-milk cows
.100 AS fed grain @ 59 12.9 9.8 8 13.1 3.2
270 days p.p.-milk cows
101 D.M. grain @ 59 10.2 3.7 8 10.5 2.1

116

 

 

TABLE 1. (Cont'd.)
59 Suyvey Nerds IQ Large Nerds
Variable Std. Std.
Number and Name Number _Mean Dev. Number .Mean Dev.

102 Max. as fed 59 25.8 8.2 10 27.3 6.1
grain-milk cows

103 Max. D. M. 59 21.9 7.1 10 22.1 5.0
grain-milk cows

109 D. M. grain 59 19.3 3.1 10 15.7 1.6
protein-milk cows

119 % magnets 3 39 15 l 16 0.0

193 Total D. M. @ 59 99.9 5.0 10 96.1 9.9
90 days p.p.-milk cows

199 Total D. M. @ 59 38.2 9.7 10 35.7 5.3
270 days p.p.-milk cows

151 Lbs. free choice 1 85.0 0.0 1 65.0 0.0
corn si1.-summer (dry cows)

152 Lbs. fixed corn 16 29.9 10.7 3 99.7 8.1
sil.-summer (dry cows)

159 Lbs. free choice 5 62.0 16.0 1 65.0 0.0
corn si1.-winter (dry cows)

155 Lbs. fixed corn 39 31.1 12.6 9 39.3 9.6
si1.-winter (dry cows)

159 Corn 811. moist. 99 65.9 3.3 10 66.9 2.5

166 Lbs. free choice 16 55.3 12.2 0 0.0 0.0
hayl.-summer (dry cows)

167 Lbs. fixed corn 15 32.1 15.3 1 10.0 0.0
sil.-summer (dry cows)

169 Lbs. free choice 2 96.0 8.9 0 0.0 0.0
hay1.-winter (dry cows)

170 Lbs. fixed hay1.-15 22.3 12.6 2 21.5 9.2

winter (dry cows)

117

 

 

TABLE 1. (Cont'd.)
59 Sugvey Herds 10 Large Nerds
Variable Std. Std.
Number and Name Number Mean Dev.. Number Mean Dex.

185 Lbs. hay-summer 31 15.0 10.0 8 19.6 8.7
(dry cows)

186 Lbs. hay-winter 96 19.0 9.6 10 12.1 1.9
(dry cows)

201 Days on past. 19 138 98 l 178 0.0

202 Daily roughage 59 27.9 3.5 10 27.3 3.9
D. M. (dry cows)

203 Wt.-dry cows 59 1376 61 10 1380 33

209 Daily D.M./th. 59 20.2 2.3 10 19.9 2.7
(dry cows)

205 % cows rec. 39 99.3 19.5 9 100 0.0
grain @ end of dry period

206 D.M. grain @ end 39 6.8 9.1 9 3.3 1.0
of dry period

207 % cows rec. 39 90.0 22.6 9 100 0.0
grain @ 1 wk. prepart.

208 D.M. grain @ 1 39 6.9 9.0 9 3.3 1.0
wk. prepartum

209 % cows rec. 32 88.0 25.1 9 100 0.0
grain 2 wks. prepart.

210 D.M. grain @ 2 32 5.6 3.9 9 3.3 1.0
wks. prepartum

211 % cows rec. 25 87.8 25.7 3 100 0.0
grain 9 wks. prepart.

212 D.M. grain @ 9 25 5.6 3.7 3 3.0 1.0
wks. prepartum

213 % cows rec. 25 86.1 28.9 3 100 0.0

grain all dry period

118

 

 

 

TABLE 1. (Cont'd.)
59 Survev Herds 10 Large Herds
Variable Std. Std.
Number and Name ._Number Mean Dev. Number Meang_Qev.
219 D.M. grain all 25 5.6 3.7 3 3.0 1.0
dry period
222 D.M. grain prot. 39 16.2 11.0 9 13.8 3.3
231 Daily D.M./cwt. 59 22.3 3.5 10 20.6 2.8
(dry cows)
255 N0. of Dis. Ab. 59 1.1 2.1 10 5.3 9.5
256 % Dis. Abomasum 59 1.3 2.9 10 1.5 1.6
257 No. Ret. Plac. 59 10.0 7.9 10 90.8 29.8
258 % Ret. Placenta 59 19.7 7.5 10 13.5 7.1
259 No. Metritis 59 12.5 19.8 10 51.3 33.3
260 % Metritis 59 17.9 15.5 10 16.3 10.1
261 N0. Ketosis 59 3.0 9.7 10 7.6 12.3
262 % Ketosis 59 9.9 8.1 10 2.2 3.9
263 No. Milk Fever 59 9.7 6.9 10 9.7 9.9
269 % Milk Fever 59 7.0 7.1 10 3.6 2.1
265 No. Mastitis 59 13.1 9.5 10 50.9 30.8
266 % Mastitis 59 21.3 19.6 10 17.0 9.3
268 No. Downer Cows 59 .15 .5 10 .5 1.1
269 % Downer Cows 59 .22 .7 10 .2 .9
'300 Number-dry days 59 55.2 9.6 10 57.7 13.2
301 X milked after 35 3.1 1.8 3 9.3 3.1
last normal
302 Days to dry off 35 9.7 2.2 3 7.0 5.0

120

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2. Responses to Questions Requiring Yes or No
Answers in Survey Herds.
59 Survey Herds 10 Large Herds
Variable Percent Percent
Number and Name Number Yes Number Yes
18 Drylot-milk cows 59 85 10 100
22 Dry cows hous. sep. 59 50 10 100
from milk cows-winter
23 Dry cows hous. sep. 59 99 10 100
from milk cows-summer
29 Dry cows hous. with 59 52 10 50
heifers
28 Dry cows drylot-all yr.59 78 10 9O
29 Corn sil. fed milk 59 99 10 90
cows
37 NPN added at ensiling 52 38 9 28
99 Haylage fed milk cows 59 72 10 5O
65 Mgt. problems haylage 39 23 5 0
70 Hay milk cows 59 81 10 80
87 Suff. bunk space-milk 93 89 8 87
cows
88 Summer past.-milk cows 59 17 10 0
106 L. P. N.-mi1k cows 59 9 10 0
115 Milk cows grouped 59 6 10 90
117 Grain adj. for prod. 59 6 10 10
and.maint.-milk cows
118 Supp. Ca & P-milk cows 59 98 10 100
128 Mineral change-milk 59 72 10 50
cows
137 Vit. supp.-mi1k cows 59 81 10 60

121

TABLE 2. (Cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

59 Suryey Herds 10 Large Herds
Variable Percent Percent
__Nsmber agg.Name Number Yes Number Yes
139 Fat test problems 59 28 10 20
197 Dry cows fed rough. 59 98 10 100
sep.

198 Corn silage dry cows 59 18 10 100
156 NPN added at ensiling 99 61 10 20
163 Haylage dry cows 59 57 10 30
182 Summ. green chop 59 9 10 20
183 Hay dry cows 59 85 10 100
200 Pasture dry cows 59 29 10 10
218 Diff. ration-dry cows 39 15 9 75
229 L. P. N.-dry cows 59 9 10 0
232 Supp. Ca & P-dry cows 59 87 10 90
292 Mineral change-dry cows59 59 10 50
251 Vitamin supp.-dry cows 59 98 10 20
267 Fat cow problem 59 9 10 20
270 Dis. Ab. inc. normal 59 87 10 90
271 Greater Dis. Ab. inc. 59 28 10 90
275 Ret. Plac. inc. normal 59 67 10 80
276 Greater Ret. Plac. inc.59 17 10 10
280 Metritis inc. normal 59 76 10 80
281 Greater metritis inc. 59 ll 10 20
285 Ketosis inc. normal 59 87 10 90

286 Greater ketosis inc. 59 33 10 30

122

TABLE 2. (Cont'd.)

 

 

59 Survey Herds 10 Large Herds

 

Variable Percent Percent

Number and Name Number Yes Number Yes
290 Milk fever normal 59 91 10 100
291 Greater milk fever inc.59 33 10 20
295 Mastitis inc. normal 59 76 10 90
296 Greater mastitis inc. 59 30 10 10
309 Rough. red. drying off 59 13 10 10
305 Grain red. drying off 59 83 10 70
319 Maternity area cleaned 98 39 9 33
332 Satisfied with present 59 7O 10 80

dry cow management

 

123

TABLE 3. Subdivision of Certain Positive Responses to
Dry Cow Survey.

 

 

Variable
_Number and Name Number
29 Dry cows housed with heifers? (52% yes) 28
25 Springing heifers 26
26 Bred heifers 23
27 Open heifers 7
99 Haylage fed to milk cows? (72% yes) 39
53 First cutting 39
59 Second cutting 18
55 Third cutting 16
56 Fourth cutting 16
99 Haylage fed to milk cows, why? (72% yes) 39
61 Ease of handling and less labor 25
62 Fits feeding system-highly mechanized ll
63 Nutritive value 21
69 Fits rotation and means to beat weather 17
65 What mgt. problems with haylage harvesting 9
and storing? (23% yes)
66 Chopped too fine-fat test and herd health 0
problems -
67 Chopped too coarse-poor packing 1
68 Chopped too dry-excessive heating 8

69 Chopped too wet-high seepage 1

129

TABLE 3. (Cont'd.)

 

 

Variable .
_Number. and Name Number

Herd health problems from more or less hay

78 DiSplaced abomasum 2

79 Retained placenta l

80 Metritis l

81 Mastitis O

82 Ketosis 0

83 Milk fever 1

89 Fat cow 3
Where is grain fed to milking cows?

109 Manger in barn 22

110 Milking parlor 23

111 Outside bunk 7

118

112 Magnetic feeder
113 Other

Are you feeding supp. Ca & P to milk cows? (98%) 53

121, Dicalcium phosphate
122 Steamed bonemeal

123 Limestone (CaCo3)
129 Monosodium phosphate
125 Commercial

126 Other

10

125

 

 

TABLE 3. (Cont'd.)
Variable

__Number and Name Number

How is salt fed to milk cows?

139 Fixed amount in grain ration 91
135 Free choice loose in feeder 36
136 Free choice block in feeder 16

163 Is haylage fed to dry cows? (57% yes) 31
172 First cutting 31
173 Second cutting 12
179 Third cutting 9
175 Fourth cutting 2

Herd health problems with more or less hay.

192 Displaced abomasum 7
193 Retained placenta 3
199 Metritis 3
195 Mastitis 1
196 Ketosis 2
197 _Milk fever 2
198 Fat cow 6

126

TABLE 3. (Cont'd.)

 

Variable
flumber;and Name Number

Where is grain fed to dry cows?

226 Manger in barn 14
227 Milking parlor 7
228 Outside bunk lb
229 Magnetic feeder O
232 Are you feeding supp. Ca & P to dry cows? 47
235 Dicalcium phosphate 3
236 Steamed bonemeal 3
237 Limestone (CaCo3) O
238 Monosodium phosphate 4
239 Commercial mineral supplement #5
240 Other 1
How is salt fed to dry cows?
2u8 Fixed amount in grain ration ll
2h9 Free choice loose in feeder 3h

250. Free choice block in feeder 18

 

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

lllllllllllllflllll
8058

312

 

lllHlllllllllm lHI ill
931

0122