ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICODAIRY NEWSLETTER

COOPERATIVE EXTENSIONThe University of Arizona

New Mexico State University

January 2008

THIS MONTH’S ARTICLE:

Commingling Dairy Cows: Pen Moves, Stocking Density and Health

Ken Nordlund, DVM Nigel Cook, MRCVS

Garrett Oetzel, DVM, MSDepartment of Medical Sciences,

School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706

~~~~~

Dairy Day is coming!The 2008 Arizona Dairy Day will be

Thursday, April 3 at the Caballero Dary - 2943 W. Harmon Road - Eloy, Arizona

Dairy Day and Golf details inside.~~~~~

Make plans to be at

Caballero Dairy Farms 2943 W. Harmon Road

Eloy, AZ 85231

Thursday, April 3, 2008 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM

Bring your family And enjoy the day with food & fun

Lunch provided by

For more information contact Julie Stefanic at (520) 626-9382 Email at stefanic@ag.arizona.edu or visit our website at

http://ag.arizona.edu/extension/dairy/index.html

Caballero Dairy Farms2943 W. Harmon Rd

Eloy, AZ 85231

Thursday, April 3, 2008

Space will be available to vendors at the following prices:Booth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $400 Extra booth space available for additonal costTractors, feed trucks or other equipment . . . . . . $100/piece

For more information contact Julie Stefanic at (520) 626-9382 via email at stefanic@ag.arizona.edu or visit our website at http://ag.arizona.edu/extension/dairy/index.html

Please mail form with check payable to: The University of Arizona, PO Box 210038 - Department of Animal Sciences, Tucson, AZ 85721-0038

One table and two chairs furnished with each space

Company/Organization__________________________________________________________

Contact Person ________________________________________________________________

Address _____________________________________________________________________

City, State, ZIP________________________________________________________________

Phone _________________________________ FAX _________________________________

Email address _________________________________________________________________

(check one)

Booth Space ($400) = _______________ Equipment (Tractors/Feed Trucks/Scrapers/Other Equipment):

______ (# Pieces) X $100 = _______________

Power, water, additional table(s) and chair(s) are available if necessary, but we must know requirements ahead of time to arrange for generators, etc.

(additional services) Power Type___________ Water_____ Tables_____ Chairs_____ (quantity) (quantity)

®

36 THE AABP PROCEEDINGS—VOL. 39

Commingling Dairy Cows: Pen Moves, StockingDensity and HealthKen Nordlund, DVM; Nigel Cook, MRCVS; Garrett Oetzel, DVM, MSDepartment of Medical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706

Abstract

In modern confinement dairies, cows move betweengroups depending on management needs for special ra-tions and special handling requirements. With eachmove, each cow must establish rank within the newgroup. Extended stays in pens characterized by newarrivals every day appear to present substantial healthrisks to some cows. Overstocked pens present challengesregarding both stall and feed bunk access. Provision of30 inches (76 cm) of bunk space per cow in the weeksbefore and after calving, and minimizing pen moves,appears to be consistent with improved fresh cow healthand productivity.

Résumé

Dans les fermes laitières confinées d’aujourd’hui,les vaches se déplacent entre groupes selon les besoinsde régie pour des rations spéciales et quand des soinsparticuliers sont requis. La vache doit établir son rangdans un nouveau groupe après chaque déplacement. Delongs séjours dans des enclos où de nouvelles vachesarrivent chaque jour semblent créer des problèmes desanté substantiels pour certaines vaches. Des enclos avecune trop forte densité accroissent les problèmes d’accèsaux mangeoires et aux stalles. L’allocation de 30 pouces(70 cm) d’espace par vache dans les semaines précédantet suivant le vêlage et la réduction du nombre dedéplacement entre enclos semblent promouvoir la santéet la productivité des vaches vêlées récemment.

A Changing Clinical Perspective of Fresh CowMetabolic Disease

Over the past 17 years of herd investigations byour clinical service, the complex of ketosis, fatty liverand displaced abomasum has emerged as the most fre-quently investigated herd problem, and cow behaviorand social factors have emerged as the primary risk fac-tors in these herds. Where poorly formulated rationsand inaccurate delivery systems were once the primaryrisk factors, we increasingly see poorly staged pen movesand overstocking as the key risk factors in our industrytoday. We hypothesize that the mechanism is disrup-tion of dry matter intake for vulnerable cows, leading to

ketosis or hepatic lipidosis followed by the cascade ofrelated diseases, and resulting in high turnover ratesin early-lactation cows.

The primary variant we observe in dairies todayis Type II ketosis as summarized by Holtenius andHoltenius,8 characterized by an onset of clinical diseaseat about five to 15 days in milk and usually triggered bynegative energy balance in the pre-fresh period. In con-trast, a majority of the herd ketosis problems seen 15years ago were considered to be Type I, characterizedby an onset of clinical disease at about 20 to 40 days-in-milk and associated with energy-related problems in thepost-fresh groups. While both forms remain as prob-lems, the relative importance of each has been reversed.

Over this same period of time, our clients havechanged from predominantly tie-stall herds of 50-100cows to freestall herds typically in the range of 300-3,000cows. In the tie-stall herds, cows were familiar withtheir environment, remained in the same group of cows,and were subjected to management changes withoutleaving their stalls. The only changes they faced with anew ration were the nutrients themselves. In contrast,virtually any change in ration or management group inthe larger freestall dairies requires introduction to a newpen, familiarization with new pen fixtures, stalls, andheadlocks, and establishment of rank within a differentgroup of cows. Each of these aspects can present sig-nificant challenges to low-ranking cows and if a suffi-cient minority of the pen succumbs to disease, a herdproblem emerges.

This paper will summarize some behavioral re-search findings that provide useful perspectives on theclinical situation, and will present some of our evolvingimpressions as investigators of herd problems.

Basics of Cow Behavior Relative to ModernDairy Systems

Our clinical experience suggests that regroupingand overstocking cows in the vulnerable weeks just be-fore and after calving has the most adverse effects oncow health. While it is obvious that cows are social herd-ing animals, there are several aspects of cow behaviorthat affect how well individual cows adapt to moderndairy systems. Behaviorists describe cows as crepuscu-lar, meaning that they are particularly active in the

SEPTEMBER, 2006 37

twilight hours of dawn and dusk.1 Cows are also cat-egorized as allelomimetic, meaning that they all wantto do the same thing at the same time.1 These charac-teristics have consequences on stocking density regard-ing requirements for stalls and feeding space.

When a cow is moved into a new group in a largeherd, she experiences stress and must establish her rankwithin the social order of the pen. Cows form dominancehierarchies, strongly associated with age, body size, andseniority in herd.6 In general, cows resident in a pentend to maintain their rank, compared to new arrivals.18

While rank within a pen is relatively stable, Hook ob-served a complete reversal of rank in one study whenthe dominant cow was removed and a new cow added toa small group.9 Konggaard and Krohn reported thatearly lactation cows were more affected by regroupingthan mid-lactation cows.11 Lamb cites a trial where cowswere given access to different diets through Calan gates,some a high energy diet and others a low energy diet.12

Cows losing weight also lost rank within a group, whilethe cows gaining weight tended to gain dominance. Thismay have impact on fresh cow health, as the early post-partum period is typically a period of significant weightloss for most cows.

Many of our concerns about cow behavior haveemerged with the advent of grouped cows in confine-ment freestall barns. Miller and Wood-Gush comparedthe behavior of a herd of cows on a British pasture inspring to their behavior in freestall confinement in thewinter.15 Feeding, lying and agonistic behavior or con-flicts were monitored throughout the day. While cowsin both systems showed crepuscular behavior, almostall cows were observed feeding at the same time whileon pasture, whereas a smaller proportion ate simulta-neously in confinement. The allelomimetic tendency forlying behavior was more synchronized on pasture thanin freestalls. Agonistic interactions occurred with abouteight times the frequency in confinement compared topasture, although all cows were familiar with each otherand rank was well established.

Older work suggests that the reestablishment ofrank takes perhaps a week,18 but more recent studiesindicate that stability is achieved in three to four days.Kondo and Hurnik established two new groups of 16cows in each, and after five weeks removed eight cowsfrom each group to form a third commingled group.10

They monitored the number of agonistic interactions perday and characterized them as physical (bunting, push-ing, fighting, etc.) or non-physical (threatening andavoidance posture and movement). The number of ago-nistic interactions was highest on the day of cominglingand was reduced to approximately one-third within twodays. On the days that the cows were mixed, approxi-mately 80% of the agonistic interactions were physical,but two days later about 40% were physical and 60%

were postural. This suggests that the groups are rea-sonably well stabilized within two days.

Moving Fresh Cows through the Pens of ModernDairy Systems

Larger scale dairies have developed grouping sys-tems of cows so that specialized management practicesor rations can be implemented with simplified and mini-mized labor. A suggested series of pens or managementgroupings before and after calving (with time periodsrelative to calving date) might include a far-off dry cow(-60 to –21 days), close-up dry cow freestalls (-21 to –3days), maternity pen – bedded pack (-3 to 0 days), colos-trum pen – bedded pack (0 to 3 days), fresh pen freestalls(3 to 14 days), sick pen (variable), and various lactationgroupings.19 First lactation cows are typically com-mingled with mature cows for the first time in the far-off or close-up dry pens, but may be kept separate insome herds.

Each pen move entails some stress and requiresthe establishment of a rank order, but all pen movesshould not be considered equal. Presumably there issome memory of rank in smaller herds. Movement frompens in close proximity to each other is likely to be easier,particularly if pen fixtures such as stalls, headlocks,water source and milking parlor are similar.

Social Turmoil Profile of a Pen

As we began to collect data on the duration of stayin pens, we found conflicting results. In some pens, longstays appeared to be very desirable, but in others, longstays appeared to be detrimental. It was not until wecreated the concept of a “social turmoil profile” of a pen,shown in Figure 1, that the findings made sense. Theprofile is constructed conceptually by superimposing two

Figure 1. Graphic depicting the social turmoil profileof agonistic interactions in a pen characterized byweekly entries of new cows, compared to a pen withdaily entries.

38 THE AABP PROCEEDINGS—VOL. 39

days of high rates of agonistic interactions, mostly physi-cal, upon intervals of cow introductions into a pen. Forexample, close-up dry cow pens are usually character-ized by weekly introductions, i.e., Tuesday, of new cows.The social turmoil profile of such a pen with weekly cowintroductions on Tuesdays would be high turmoil onTuesday and Wednesday, followed by five days of rela-tive calm. We would speculate that short stays of a fewdays would be adverse, because all or most of the timein the pen would be in social turmoil, only to be followedby another move into another pen. In contrast, calvingpens populated by cows expected to deliver calves in thecoming three days would be characterized by daily ad-ditions and departures of cows. The social turmoil pro-file of a calving pen would have continuous high ratesof agonistic interactions, and we would speculate thatlonger stays should be avoided.

Close-up Pens

Controlled prospective studies of the effect of du-ration of stay in close-up pens have not been found, butthere is widespread clinical opinion that short stays inthe close-up pen has an adverse effect on fresh cowhealth. A nutritional study by Robinson et al showed asubsequent production advantage for first lactation heif-ers exposed to the pre-fresh ration for five or more days,compared to shorter exposures.17 Mature cows were notaffected by days exposed to the ration. While the focusof this study was exposure to the ration, it is reasonablethat the advantage of longer stays in a pen with inter-vals of several days to a week between cow additionswould be particularly beneficial to younger, lower rankcows.

Maternity Pens

Our group has assembled data from several fieldinvestigations that suggests that extended stays in ma-ternity pens has adverse consequences on subsequentcow health. In general, rates of culling in the first 60days after calving; ketosis and displaced abomasum aredoubled for cows that spend three or more days in thepen, compared to cows that calve within two days onthe pack. There was no evidence of bias by herd man-agers moving problem cows into the maternity pen early.These observations are consistent with the idea thatextended periods of time in pens with constant socialturmoil would adversely affect fresh cow health.

There are several approaches to managing mater-nity pens to minimize cow stress and turmoil. One ap-proach is to move cows at two days or less prior to actualcalving, and there are dairies where records show thatuncommonly skilled herdsmen are achieving this for95% of cows. The more common practice in larger herds

with round-the-clock labor is to move cows into a ma-ternity pen only after the cow has started labor and/orthe calf ’s feet are visible. Another approach would be todevelop multiple-bedded pack areas managed as all-in,all-out groups. A group of close-up dry cows would en-ter as one group. As individual cows calve, a temporarymovable fence would be used to separate them withinthe pen, allowing them to move for milking and be moni-tored as fresh cows. As more cows calve, the movablefence would be moved stepwise down the length of thepen. When all cows had calved and were judged ready,the entire group could be moved on to lactation pens.

Sick Pens

Sick pens are another group with daily entries ofnew cows and are in a state of constant social turmoil.Mastitis is usually the predominant reason that cowsare in a sick pen. Sick pens have also been shown to bethe most highly salmonella-contaminated spaces ondairies.16 Because of the concentration of both mastitispathogens and salmonella, these pens present substan-tial risks to cows that are introduced to these groups.Many dairies move all fresh cows through their sick penuntil the colostrum has cleared. While grouping all “non-salable” milk producers may be convenient for labor, itis a high-risk practice that should be discontinued. It ispreferable to keep the colostrum-producing cows sepa-rate or with other fresh cows, and separate their milkin buckets in the parlor. In the fresh cow group, metri-tis is typically the most common reason given for anti-biotic treatment. With the advent of labeled antibiotictreatments for metritis such as Excenel RTUa (ceftiofurhydrochloride) that do not require milk withholding,cows with metritis can be left in the fresh cow pen,treated and not exposed to the concentration of patho-gens in the sick pen nor the social turmoil of anotherpen move.

Stocking Density

Because of the cost of dairy housing, there has beensubstantial pressure to overstock pens and barns in ourdairy industry.2 While overstocking of barns is also arisk factor for lameness and respiratory disease,4 thisdiscussion will focus on feed intake, milk production andketosis problems caused by overstocking.

In most discussions of stocking density, the focusis on cows per stall. As we work with our data fromboth field investigations and research with transitioncows, we are shifting our emphasis to inches of bunkspace per cow. It is our opinion that bunk space per cowis vastly more important as a risk factor for transitioncow ketosis than stall stocking density, and the currentfocus on stall stocking density frequently misses the

SEPTEMBER, 2006 39

most important underlying factor in fresh cow disease:decreased dry matter intake.

As we consider the issues that determine crowd-ing at a feed bunk, there appear to be three general fac-tors. Figure 2 is a graph made from one of our videostudies and illustrates the percentage of headlock spacesover the feed platform that are filled throughout theday in the high production pen of a commercial dairy.First, there is the allelomimetic tendency of cows to wantto all eat at the same time. This is suggested by thethree feeding peaks that occur in the day. Second, thereappears to be a particular drive to eat after the deliveryof fresh feed and after milking. This is illustrated wherethe peak number of occupied headlocks occurred afterthe delivery of fresh feed and the return from milking.The second and third-highest headlock fill periods oc-curred after the other two milkings, when the feed wasnot fresh. Third, the tendency to eat together is con-founded by the physical width of the cows when bunkpressure is intense, a tendency to spread out while feed-ing, and the influence of dominant cows to clear out sub-ordinate cows in competitive feeding situations. Notethat the highest occupancy rate was approximately 80%,which translates to approximately 30 inches (76 cm) per

cow. Based upon 24-hour video studies of 12 dairies, cowsdo not fill more than 80% of 24-inch (61 cm) headlocksexcept in the most unusual situations, such as manualforcing for palpation, etc. Mature Holstein cows are sim-ply wider than the standard 24-inch headlocks of ourindustry. Also note that the peak feeding periods last arelatively short period of time, usually less than 90 min-utes. Once the peak bunk pressure starts to subside,dominant cows can be seen forcing subordinate cowsfrom the adjacent headlocks, repeatedly moving fromspace to space down the line, and sometimes taking updiagonal standing positions at the feedbunk.

Prior studies have suggested a wide range of ac-ceptable bunk space per cow.7 A widely referenced studyby Menzi and Chase suggests that because there werefew periods of full bunk use in a 24-hour period, bunkspace of 14 to 16 inches (35.6 to 40.6 cm) per cow did notnecessarily limit access to feed.14 As shown in Figure 2,there are many periods of time when there is open spacefor cows to access the bunk. However, these conclusionsreflect an assumption that cows are time-sharing ani-mals content to eat in shifts and that dry matter intake(DMI) is not reduced in these conditions.

Field data collected by Buelow from two dry lot

0 .0 0

0 .1 0

0 .2 0

0 .3 0

0 .4 0

0 .5 0

0 .6 0

0 .7 0

0 .8 0

0 .9 0

Time of day

13:14

push up

14:12

milking

16:02 all back

16:47 push up

17:44 push up

18:19

push up

21:50

milking

22:12 push up

23:03 all back

0:07

push up

4:47

push up

6:20 milking

6:50 push up

7:46 all back

8:20 feed delivery

9:44

push up

Figure 2. Graph of the % of headlocks filled through a period of 25 hours in the high-production group pen on acommercial dairy. The headlocks were spaced at 24 inches on center.

40 THE AABP PROCEEDINGS—VOL. 39

New Mexico dairies in Figure 3 supports the hypothesisthat average dry matter intake is reduced when all cowscannot eat at the same time.3 In two pens of dry cows,average daily dry matter intake was monitored by weigh-ing feed delivery and refusals. As the number of cowsper headlock increased, average dry matter intake de-creased. It is likely that the maximal fill rate of widepregnant cows would be less than 80%. As these werepens of dry cows with no activities outside of the pen,individual cows would have had many opportunities tofind access to feed after the dominant cows had eaten.Two plausible explanations are that intake will be re-duced if the allelomimetic behavior is suppressed or thatthe feed available to the secondary shifts of cows is lesspalatable.

Data collected by us demonstrates that overstock-ing of mixed first lactation and mature cows during thepre-fresh period has an adverse effect on production af-ter calving. Over the period of several months duringwhich a prepartum feed additive was being evaluated,the pre-fresh pen stall-stocking density ranged from 62to 138%. Stocking densities greater than 80% of stallsin the pre-fresh group in a two-row pen adversely af-fected milk production of the primiparous cows through

the first 83 days of the subsequent lactation. Modelingof data demonstrated that for each 10% increase in pre-fresh stocking density above 80%, there was a 1.6 lb(0.72 kg) per day decrease in milk production in the firstlactation cows.

In this example, a stall-stocking density of 80% ina two-row pen yields approximately 30 inches of bunkspace per cow. While individual cows were not rankedfor dominance, the first lactation cows in mixed groupsare generally lower in the dominance hierarchy. Even iflactation groups are separated, there will still be a sub-ordinate group in each pen of cows, and we would ex-pect the lowest-rank third of the pen to show reducedproductivity when bunk space is limited.

In a recent study, DeVries reported on the effect ofincreasing feed space on feeding behavior within 90minutes of fresh feed delivery.5 Because individual cowintake cannot be monitored in group feeding situations,cows were fitted with devices that measure the numberof downward motions to retrieve feed. Feeding “hits”were monitored when the cows were allowed 3.28 feet(1 meter) of bunk space per cow versus 1.64 feet (0.5meters) per cow. Dominant cows tended to maintainthe same feeding activity regardless of bunk space, but

Pre-Fresh DMI and Pen Crowding(Two New Mexico dairies)

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Dry

mat

ter

inta

ke, l

b/da

y

Cows in pen / headlocks, %Dairy 1 Dairy 2Linear (Dairy 1) Linear (Dairy 2)

Figure 3. Group average dry matter intake of dry cows and stocking density of headlocks on 24-inch centers.Unpublished data from Kenn Buelow.

SEPTEMBER, 2006 41

subordinate cows reduced feeding activity when bunkspace was reduced.

Figure 4 is a scatter plot that presents the first-test 305-day projected milk plotted against days sincefreshening for individual cows in a Wisconsin dairyherd.13 This particular dairy had acted on concernsabout overstocked pens both before and after calving,and reduced both pens to an 85% stall-stocking rate.The highest first-test projections did not change, butthe number of projected milk values below 20,000 lb(9,091 kg) disappeared. Clinicians who work with freshcow production data know that 10,000 to 15,000 lb (4,545to 6,818 kg) first test projected milk values reflect sickcows. In this example, reduction in stocking densitywas rewarded with tremendous reductions in fresh pendisease.

Our current recommendations to optimize freshcow health include the provision of 30 inches of bunkspace per cow in the close-up and fresh cow pens. Count-ing the number of stalls or headlocks does not adequatelyexplain the available bunk space per cow. Obviously,fully stocked three-row pens of freestalls reduce the bunkspace per cow substantially compared to two-row pens.However, pen stocking rate, number and width of cross-over alleys and other factors make the actual bunk spaceper cow measurements highly variable. Perhaps theprimary clinical recommendation when evaluating ke-tosis problem herds is to stop counting stalls and start

counting cows and measuring inches of bunk space.

A Perspective on Fixed Pens, Variable GroupSizes, and Overhead Cost

Most of the problems related to pen moves andoverstocking are driven by the goals of minimizing la-bor and building costs. Labor and overhead costs aresimple to calculate. However, the impact on cow healthand productivity is difficult to measure and evaluate.The prior discussions are offered to provide informationfor the disease cost side of the equation.

One of the ongoing problems in modern confine-ment dairies is the flow of irregular numbers of cowsthrough special needs pens of fixed size. Dairy housingis usually designed to fit some “normal” expectations ofnumbers of cows in each management group. However,events occur that result in ebbs and flows in the num-bers of fresh cows. Because the special needs pens forclose-up cows, maternity pens, fresh pens and sick pensare usually designed for a very small proportion of theherd, these pens are easily overwhelmed by surges innumbers of calvings.

Our observations of management approaches to theebb and flow of fresh cows show four general practices.Some simply move the cows on an established schedule,usually dictated by computerized move schedules, andallow overstocking to occur. Some managers reduce the

Figure 4. Scatterplot of first-test projected milk values and days since freshening for cows in a herd that con-structed additional barn space approximately 110 days previously. The additional barn space allowed for areduction of stall-stocking density in the pre-fresh pens from 120% down to 85%, and a reduction in the fresh cowpens from 100% to 85%. Unpublished data from Paul Meagher.

42 THE AABP PROCEEDINGS—VOL. 39

duration of stay in the close-up pen or fresh cow moni-toring pen, choosing to avoid overstocking and accept-ing other negative consequences. Some managersdevelop temporary and additional groupings, such asan extra close-up group. This approach can work satis-factorily if the extra pen is managed as a separate andequal group, but is not successful if all cows are movedthrough the extra pen sequentially. Finally, some man-agers have facilities that allow them to expand the sizeof a particular pen, allowing them to maintain stockingdensity on the critical transition cow pens and transferthe pressure to other, perhaps less vulnerable, groups.

Perhaps the most successful approach is to buildspecial needs pens to accommodate the extremes, ratherthan the average. Using costs offered by Smith, dou-bling the typical size of all special needs pens in a newdairy construction increased the annual total dairy fa-cility cost by approximately $60 per cow, per year.19 Itis not difficult to calculate a combination of reduceddeath rate, early lactation culling, treatments and in-creased production to yield $60 per cow per year. As weaccumulate data on disease and production costs relatedto compromised transition cow housing, we expect thatsizing the special needs pens to handle the surges willbecome the sensible decision for both economics andwelfare.

References

1. Barrows EM: Animal Behavior Desk Reference, Boca Raton, FL,CRC Press, 2001.2. Bewley J, Palmer RW, Jackson-Smith DB: Comparison of free-stallbarns used by modernized Wisconsin dairies. J Dairy Sci 84:528-541,2001.3. Buelow, Kenn: Personal communication, June, 1996.4. Cook NB, Nordlund KV: Behavioral needs of the transition cow andconsiderations for special needs facility design. Vet Clin North AmFood Anim Pract 20:495-520, 2004.

5. DeVries TJ, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM: Effect of feedingspace on the inter-cow distance, aggression, and feeding behavior offree-stall housed lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 87:1432-1438, 2004.6. Dickson DP, Barr GR, Johnson LP, Wieckert DA: Social dominanceand temperament of Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 53:904, 1970.7. Grant RJ, Albright JL: Effect of animal grouping on feeding behav-ior and intake of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 84(E. Suppl.):E156-E163,2001.8. Holtenius P, Holtenius K: New aspects of ketone bodies in energymetabolism of dairy cows: a review. J Am Vet Med Assoc 43:579-587,1996.9. Hook, SL, Donaldson SL, Albright JL: A study of social dominancebehavior in young cattle. Amer Zool 5:714, 1965.10. Kondo S, Hurnik JF: Stabilization of social hierarchy in dairycows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 27(2):287-297, 1990.11. Konggard SP, Krohn CC: Performance of first-calf heifers in twodifferent grouping systems. Rep Nat Inst Anim Sci Copenhagen, Den-mark. 1978.12. Lamb RC: Relationship between cow behavior patterns and man-agement systems to reduce stress. J Dairy Sci 59(9):1630-1636, 1976.13. Meagher P: Personal communication, May 2006.14. Menzi W, Chase LE: Feeding behavior of cows housed in freestallbarns, in: Dairy Systems for the 21st Century. Amer Soc Agric Engi-neers, St Joseph, Michigan, 1994, pp 829-831.15. Miller K, Wood-Gush DGM: Some effects of housing on the socialbehavior of dairy cows. Anim Prod 53:271-278, 1991.16. Peek SF, Hartmann FA, Thomas CB, Nordlund KV: Isolation ofSalmonella spp from the environment of dairies without any historyof clinical salmonellosis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 225:574-577, 2004.17. Robinson PH, Moorby JM, Arana M, Hinders R, Graham T,Castelanelli L, Barney N: Influence of close-up dry period proteinsupplementation on productive and reproductive performance of Hol-stein cows in their subsequent lactation. J Dairy Sci 84(10):2273-2283,2001.18. Schein MW, Fohrman MH: Social dominance relationships in aherd of dairy cattle. Br J Anim Behav 3:45-50, 1955.19. Smith JF, Harner III JP, Brouk MJ: Special needs facilities. Rec-ommendations for housing pregnant, lactating and sick cows. KansasState University Agricultural Experimental Station and CooperativeService, EP100. Manhattan, KS, 2001.

HIGH COW REPORT December 2007

MILK

Arizona Owner Barn# Age Milk New Mexico Owner Barn # Age Milk *Stotz Dairy 18,764 05-02 38,980 S.A.S. Dairy 8,655 3-11 37,362 *Danzeisen Dairy 2 4,814 06-01 37,080 *Wayne Palla Dairy 2,559 6-00 37,070 *Stotz Dairy 18,213 05-06 36,620 *Wayne Palla Dairy ----- 4-04 37,050 *Stotz Dairy 17,666 06-00 35,960 *Butterfield Dairy 1,492 6-06 36,720 *Stotz Dairy 8,455 04-04 35,450 *Providence Dairy 697 6-00 36,520 *Stotz Dairy 20,452 04-07 35,300 Caballo Dairy 551 3-09 36,410 *Stotz Dairy 21,073 04-01 35,290 *Providence Dairy 905 6-00 36,400 *Danzeisen Dairy, LLC. 5,162 05-02 35,270 *Providence Dairy 300 6-06 36,400 *Stotz Dairy 18,468 05-04 35,210 Pareo Dairy 166 5-11 35,723 *Stotz Dairy 18,371 05-05 35,200 Caballo Dairy 9,524 4-05 35,590 FAT

*Stotz Dairy 8,455 04-04 1,465 *Goff Dairy #2 3,684 4-03 1,923 *Stotz Dairy 18,764 05-02 1,461 *Providence Dairy 6,015 4-11 1,485 *Stotz Dairy 20,754 04-04 1,443 *Providence Dairy 5,898 5-03 1,384 *Stotz Dairy 22,060 03-03 1,435 *Goff Dairy #2 6,292 3-04 1,374 *Shamrock Farms 12,651 04-03 1,429 *Providence Dairy 5,388 6-02 1,371 *Stotz Dairy 21,972 03-03 1,418 *Vaz Dairy ----- 4-00 1,370 *Stotz Dairy 20,059 05-00 1,376 *Wayne Palla Dairy ----- 4-04 1,370 *Stotz Dairy 19,902 05-06 1,355 *Providence Dairy 6,636 4-06 1,349 *Stotz Dairy 20,752 04-03 1,355 *Providence Dairy 9,052 7-01 1,332 *Danzeisen Dairy, LLC. 4,581 06-09 1,351 Stark Everett Dairy 4,086 5-06 1,330 PROTEIN

*Stotz Dairy 18,764 05-02 1,086 *Wayne Palla Dairy ----- 4-04 1,155 *Stotz Dairy 18,213 05-06 1,079 Caballo Dairy 551 3-09 1,138 *Stotz Dairy 8,455 04-04 1,072 *Goff Dairy #2 3,684 4-03 1,130 *Danzeisen Dairy, LLC. 5,162 05-02 1,046 S.A.S. Dairy 8,655 3-11 1,128 *Stotz Dairy 21,972 03-03 1,037 *Wayne Palla Dairy 2,559 6-00 1,116 *Stotz Dairy 21,073 04-01 1,035 Caballo Dairy 9,524 4-05 1,113 *Goldman Dairy 9,993 04-08 1,032 *Providence Dairy 300 6-06 1,100 *Danzeisen Dairy, LlLC. 5,204 05-00 1,029 *Butterfield Dairy 5,978 5-06 1,071 *Stotz Dairy 18,371 05-05 1,020 *Goff Dairy #2 5,100 4-03 1,060 *Withrow Dairy 6,151 06-01 1,015 S.A.S. Dairy 5,207 8-01 1,060 *all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking

ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b

DECEMBER 2007

OWNERS NAME Number of Cows MILK FAT 3.5 FCM DIM

*Stotz Dairy West 2,203 28,405 1,038 29,108 240 *Red River Dairy 9,734 26,789 897 26,124 *Danzeisen Dairy, Inc. 1,459 25,426 930 26,070 203 *Stotz Dairy East 1,335 24,252 881 24,768 213 *Mike Pylman 6,745 23,989 866 24,411 241 *Goldman Dairy 2,329 24,472 846 24,295 208 *Zimmerman Dairy 1,299 23,740 851 24,060 202 *Arizona Dairy Company 5,576 23,422 844 23,809 *Butler Dairy 622 23,733 833 23,765 *Parker Dairy 4,573 22,455 851 23,504 213

NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b

DECEMBER 2007

OWNERS NAME Number of Cows MILK FAT 3.5 FCM CI

*SAS 1,945 28,730 971 28,169 13.00 MCatharn 1,068 27,429 940 27,103 13.30 Pareo 3,525 26,518 915 26,304 13.40 *Pareo 2 1,633 25,495 930 26,105 13.60 *Butterfield 2,130 25,549 877 25,269 13.63 *Do-Rene 2,301 24,687 883 24,993 13.92 *Red Roof 1,611 25,686 852 24,923 13.70 *Hide Away 2,859 24,958 844 24,478 12.98 *Milagro 3,481 23,801 874 24,464 13.82 *Providence 3,056 23,835 854 24,155 13.50 *Vaz 1,972 22,991 857 23,838 14.90 Vaz 2 1,969 22,942 857 23,817 14.00 Tee Vee 944 22,032 823 22,872 14.22 Stark Everett 3,267 21,525 792 22,150 14.02 * all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking b average milk and fat figure may be different from monthly herd summary; figures used are last day/month

ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO HERD IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY FOR OFFICIAL HERDS TESTED DECEMBER 2007

ARIZONA NEW MEXICO

1. Number of Herds 32 280

2. Total Cows in Herd 60,538 60,750

3. Average Herd Size 1,892 2170.

4. Percent in Milk 87 87

5. Average Days in Milk 197 197

6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day 59.3 61.64

7. Average Percent Fat – All Cows 3.8 3.66

8. Total Cows in Milk 52,171 19,473

9. Average Daily Milk for Milking Cows 68.8 71.89

10. Average Days in Milk 1st Breeding 85 74

11. Average Days Open 163 145

12. Average Calving Interval 14.2 14.04

13. Percent Somatic Cell – Low 86 81

14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium 9 15

15. Percent Somatic Cell – High 5 4

16. Average Previous Days Dry 63 63

17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd 32 32

STATE AVERAGES Milk 21,916 22,443 Percent butterfat 3.72 3.62 Percent protein 3.05 3.08 Pounds butterfat 806 857

Pounds protein 668 677

Sponsorship is greatly appreciated and will be

$200 per hole.

Organization________________________________________________Address____________________________________________________City/State/ZIP_______________________________________________Contact Person_______________________________________________Phone_____________________Fax______________________________Email____________________________________________________Article to give away_____________________________________________

2008 Dairy Day Golf TournamentHole Sponsorship

Please make check for $200.00 payable to: UA Foundation Dairy Extension Program Coordinator Dept. Animal Sciences PO Box 210038 Tucson, AZ 85721-0038

Sponsorship includes:Sign with your company name (If received by March 14th, 2008)

If you would like to give golf balls, towels, pencils, etc., contact Julie Stefanic at 520-626-9382 or stefanic@ag.arizona.edu http://ag.arizona.edu/extension/dairy/index.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Return by March 14, 2008

Golf

Dairy Day

The entire amount of hole sponsorship is considered a tax-deductible donation.

®

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Registration form. Please detach and return to address above.

Name(s)______________________________________________________Organization________________________________________________Address____________________________________________________City/State/ZIP_______________________________________________Phone______________________________________________________Team Members:_________________________________________________________________________________

Please make check payable to UA FoundationIndividuals will be assigned to a team.

Individual Team

Club West Golf Club16400 S. 14th Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85045

Dairy Day Golf TournamentRegistration

Entry Fee: $90.00 per personShotgun Start: 1:00 p.m.Contact Person: Julie Stefanic PO Box 210038 - Dept of Animal Sciences Tucson, AZ 85721 (520) 626-9382 ~ stefanic@ag.arizona.edu http://ag.arizona.edu/extension/dairy/index.html

Friday, April 4, 2008

Number of players _________ x $90.00Total amount due $__________

Golf

Dairy Day

Mulligans will be available the day of the tournament. Neither the tournament fee nor mulligans are considered a tax-deductible donation.

®

Department of Animal SciencesPO Box 210038

Tucson, AZ 85721-0038

Phone: 520-626-9382Fax: 520-621-9435

Email: stefanic@ag.arizona.edu

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDTUCSON, ARIZONA

PERMIT NO. 190

Upcoming EventArizona Dairy Day - Thursday, April 3, 2008

Caballero Dairy Farms - Eloy, Arizona

Arizona Dairy Day Golf - Friday, April 4, 2008Club West Golf Club - Phoenix, Arizona