1. Implementing Milk Quality Programs On Farms Pamela Ruegg, DVM, MPVM University of Wisconsin Madison

2. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Key Contagious Mastitis Control Practices Effective teat dipping Effective teat dipping  97% adoption Dry cow therapy of all quarters of all cows Dry cow therapy of all quarters of all cows  93% adoption Appropriate treatment of clinical cases Appropriate treatment of clinical cases  No data Culling chronically infected cows Culling chronically infected cows  35% of all cows culled are for mastitis Regular milking machine maintenance Regular milking machine maintenance  43% analyze yearly WI Parlors (n=101) 335,000 cells/ml WI Stallbarns (n = 78) 430,000 cells/ml WI Parlors (n=101) 335,000 cells/ml WI Stallbarns (n = 78) 430,000 cells/ml

3. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Why is mastitis a problem? Improving milk quality is technically easy Improving milk quality is technically easy There is lots of knowledge about basic methods to improve milk quality There is lots of knowledge about basic methods to improve milk quality Most farms want to improve milk quality but……… Most farms want to improve milk quality but………  Too many competing issues Rodriques & Ruegg, 2004 Food Protection Trends 24:670-675

4. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Why is mastitis a problem? Improving milk quality is technically easy Improving milk quality is technically easy There is lots of knowledge about basic methods to improve milk quality There is lots of knowledge about basic methods to improve milk quality Most farms want to improve milk quality but……… Most farms want to improve milk quality but………  Too many competing issues Rodriques & Ruegg, 2004 Food Protection Trends 24:670-675

5. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved What are the real challenges? 2004 Survey of Wisconsin Dairy Farms Mailed 1000 surveys & received 584 back Summarized by herd size  Overall  >200 cows (n = 34 herds) Hoe & Ruegg, JDS May 2006

6. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Farms are dynamic & facilities are Limited The calving pen is also used to house sick cows The calving pen is also used to house sick cows  73 % Overall  25 % Big herds Purchased Cattle in last 3 years Purchased Cattle in last 3 years  44 % Overall  33 % Big herds Of those purchasing, % buying lactating cows Of those purchasing, % buying lactating cows  62% Overall  52% big herds

7. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Our recommendations are hard to implement Sick Cows housed with Healthy cows Sick Cows housed with Healthy cows  73 % Overall  25 % Big herds Milk Mastitic Cows using Separate Barn or Unit Milk Mastitic Cows using Separate Barn or Unit  27 % Overall  19 % Big herds Use same unit to milk Use same unit to milk  12% Overall  8% big herds

8. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Modern Mastitis Control programs have to include the whole farm and all workers

9. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Who Is Working with Milk Quality? Opinion survey of professionals working with MM teams Opinion survey of professionals working with MM teams  N= 165 surveys  79% response  42 vets; 35 ext. agents; 21 DFR; 17 VoAg instr.; 15 other Rodrigues & Ruegg, J Food Prot Trends, 2003

10. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Improving Milk Quality Using Self-Directed Teams Farmer led effort to improve milk quality Farmer led effort to improve milk quality Supported in part by Wisconsin dairy producers Supported in part by Wisconsin dairy producers Farms enroll and commit to form a milk quality team that meets monthly for 4 months Farms enroll and commit to form a milk quality team that meets monthly for 4 months Use Program material to help organize meetings and reach results Use Program material to help organize meetings and reach results

11. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved History of Milk Money Evolving program based on responding to needs of industry Evolving program based on responding to needs of industry 1998 – benchmarked the industry based on SCC 1998 – benchmarked the industry based on SCC  Our performance = “average” Wisconsin has special challenges Wisconsin has special challenges Developed a 56 herd pilot project Developed a 56 herd pilot project  Vets & Extension agents as leaders  Goal was to test the team concept

12. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved History of Milk Money Pilot project showed tremendous results Pilot project showed tremendous results  Increased BMP  Increased premiums  Decreased SCC & clinical mastitis Also identified challenges Also identified challenges  Infrastructure for team support  Revision of materials  Marketing of program The support of the Wisconsin Dairy Producers Has been fundamental To the success of Milk Money

13. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Using Milk Money to Make Money for Dairy Farmers Milk Money is designed to help farms: Milk Money is designed to help farms:  Define clear milk quality goals  Create a focused milk quality plan  Adopt best management practices  Make more money

14. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved How Does Milk Money Work? Producers and their LOCAL experts work TOGETHER in a farmer-directed team Producers and their LOCAL experts work TOGETHER in a farmer-directed team How often do teams meet? How often do teams meet?  Once a month for 4 months  Reassess at 4 th meeting

15. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved What happens at a team meeting? Use provided forms to: Use provided forms to:  Come to consensus on farm goals  Determine an action plan  Determine how actions will be tracked  Assign responsibility  Follow-up

16. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Who has participated? About 400 farms have enrolled About 400 farms have enrolled  1107 total team members We have to market the program to get participation We have to market the program to get participation Facilitation of the teams is the most challenging aspect Facilitation of the teams is the most challenging aspect Most veterinarians are paid but most other team members are not Most veterinarians are paid but most other team members are not

17. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Management Of Wisconsin Dairy Herds Enrolled in Milk Quality Teams Rodrigues et al., J Dairy Science, July 2005

18. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Performance of Herds Enrolled Monthly data from meeting 1 & 4 (n=113) Monthly data from meeting 1 & 4 (n=113) Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Spring 2004 Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Spring 2004 Data was collected and recorded by trained team leaders using MM program forms Data was collected and recorded by trained team leaders using MM program forms Data sources included Data sources included  milk plant receipts  farm records  DHI data (n = 82)  Farmer recall

19. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Smaller Herds that Enrolled had Poorer Performance Characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by cow housing type Facility type P OutcomeStallbarn (n = 101) Freestall (n = 78) Total lactating cows (n) 86.7 86.7 377.2 377.2 < 0.001 Yield per cow per day (kg) 28.1 28.1 31.9 31.9 < 0.001 Cows milked per hour per person 25.3 25.3 40.0 40.0 < 0.001 Milk price ($/cwt) 11.25 11.25 11.70 11.70 < 0.001 Bulk milk SCC premium ($/cwt 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.014 0.014 Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 430,221335,762 0.006 0.006 Monthly rate of clinical mastitis 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.058 0.058 Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%) 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.0 0.073 0.073

20. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Smaller Herds Adopt Less BMP

21. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Characteristics of Herds by SCC BMSCC category OutcomeLowBMSCC < 250,000 (n = 36) Medium 250,000 ≥ BMSCC ≤ 400,000 (n = 83) HighBMSCC > 400,000 (n = 61) P Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 197,611 a 317,265 b 564,623 c < 0.001 Standard plate count (cfu/ml) 5,943 a 5,943 a 10,105 b 10,105 b 19,237 b 19,237 b < 0.024 Total lactating cows (n) 214 a b 214 a b 326 a 326 a 167 b < 0.003 Yield per cow per day (lb) 70.0 a 70.0 a 68.9 a 68.9 a 63.4 b 63.4 b < 0.020 Cows milked per hour per person (n) 32.2 32.2 35.3 35.3 32.0 32.0 < 0.998 Monthly Inc. of subclinical mastitis (%) 9.3 9.3 9.5 9.5 11.4 11.4 < 0.984 Monthly Prev. of subclinical mastitis (%) 22.7 a 22.7 a 31.0 b 31.0 b 41.6 c 41.6 c < 0.002 Monthly clinical mastitis (per 100 cows) 6.0 a 6.0 a 5.0 a 5.0 a 10.0 b 10.0 b < 0.002 Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%) 0.7 a 0.7 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 2.1 b 2.1 b < 0.056

22. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Consultation with Dairy Professionals Before MM

23. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Farmers Perception of Cost of Mastitis Subclinical losses Subclinical losses  Milk not produced  $3.96/cow/month  Premiums  $8.36/cow/month Clinical Mastitis Losses Clinical Mastitis Losses  Estimated:  $6.04/cow/month  Standardized  $7.85/cow/month

24. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Financial Losses per Month Financial characteristics of WI dairy farms stratified by BMSCC category BMSCC category OutcomeLowMediumHighP Standard milk production loss per cow ($) 2.12 a 3.77 b 5.35 c 5.35 c < 0.001 Milk quality premium loss per cow ($) 4.69 a 7.33 b 11.79 c < 0.037 Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per cow ($) 7.25 a b 7.25 a b 4.67 a 7.23 b 7.23 b < 0.040 Low SCC: $14.06 per cow per Month Medium SCC: $15.77 per cow per Month High SCC: $24.37 per cow per Month 100 cow High SCC Herd -$29,244 per year

25. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Milking Management Data from WI freestall farms (n = 101) Data from WI freestall farms (n = 101)  377 cows per herd  SCC = 335,000 cell/ml High adoption of recc. practices High adoption of recc. practices  89% gloves; 97% postdip; 98% predip; 89% forestrip 6 pp milking each month 6 pp milking each month  Range of 2 – 16 Training was rare  Frequent: 22%  At hiring: 49%  Never: 29% Only 41% had written milking routine  6% of stall barns WI stall barns (n = 78)  86 cows per herd  3 pp milking each month  54% never train milkers

26. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Influence of T & Routine Milking Speed Influence of Training & Routine Milking Speed

27. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Influence of Training & Routine Monthly Rate of Clinical Mastitis Frequent Training Results in Fastest Milking Speeds & Lowest Rate of Clinical Mastitis

28. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved What we learned – Part 1 Smaller herds adopt fewer best management practices and have poorer milk quality Smaller herds adopt fewer best management practices and have poorer milk quality Training of milking personnel is infrequent and is related to milk quality Training of milking personnel is infrequent and is related to milk quality Few veterinarians are perceived as actively working with milk quality on farms Few veterinarians are perceived as actively working with milk quality on farms There is a large and real opportunity to rapidly improve financial performance based on improvements in milk quality There is a large and real opportunity to rapidly improve financial performance based on improvements in milk quality

29. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Actions & Outcomes of Wisconsin Farms Completing Milk Quality Teams Rodrigues & Ruegg, J Dairy Science, 88:2672-2680 July 2005

30. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Data used in study Monthly data from meeting 1 & 4 (n=113) Monthly data from meeting 1 & 4 (n=113) Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Spring 2004 Enrolled from Fall 2001 to Spring 2004 Data was collected and recorded by trained team leaders using MM program forms Data was collected and recorded by trained team leaders using MM program forms Data sources included Data sources included  milk plant receipts  farm records  DHI data (n = 82)  Farmer recall

31. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Use of Management Practices Before & After Adoption Rate is adoption of each practice by non-users at meeting 1

32. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Consulting Activities Before & After

33. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Consultation with Dairy Professionals

34. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Results Differences in monthly outcomes Outcome Before program After program DifferenceP Bulk milk SCC (cell/ml) 385,838307,951-77,887 < 0.001 Standard plate count (cfu/ml) 14,564 14,564 10,433 10,433 -4,131 -4,131 0.014 0.014 Yield per cow per day (kg) 29.8 29.8 30.6 30.6 0.82 0.82 0.223 0.223 Monthly rate of clinical mastitis (%) 6.8 6.8 4.9 4.9 -1.9 -1.9 0.016 0.016 Monthly incidence of subclinical mastitis (%) 10.9 10.9 9.2 9.2 -1.8 -1.8 0.033 0.033 Monthly prevalence of subclinical mastitis (%) 35.8 35.8 30.8 30.8 -5.0 -5.0 0.008 0.008 Monthly cows culled for mastitis (%) 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.8 -0.7 -0.7 0.023 0.023 Standard milk production loss per cow ($) 3.88 3.88 2.75 2.75 -1.12 -1.12 < 0.001 Bulk milk SCC premium ($/45kg) 0.07 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.20 < 0.001 Milk quality premium loss per cow ($) 9.21 9.21 5.97 5.97 -3.24 -3.24 < 0.001 Estimated loss from clinical mastitis per cow ($) 6.48 6.48 4.42 4.42 -2.06 -2.06 0.002 0.002

35. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Results At meeting 1: At meeting 1:  Areas of financial opportunity  subclinical mastitis (13%)  clinical mastitis (27%)  quality premiums (60%) No individual practice was independently related to milk quality No individual practice was independently related to milk quality At meeting 4: At meeting 4:  63% of the herds reported that they had achieved their milk quality goals  99% agreed that teams were useful for improving milk quality  83% planned to continue team meetings

36. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Changes In Performance By SCC at Meeting 1 Bulk Tank SCC Bulk Tank SCC  Low: - 33,478  Med: - 53,108  High: -181,446 Rate of clinical Mastitis Rate of clinical Mastitis  Low: -1.4%  Med: -0.3%  High: -3.6% % of Cows Culled % of Cows Culled  Low: -0.9%  Med: -2.2%  High: -1.6% Milk Money Reduced Losses by: $7,752 - $22,956 Per 100 cows per year

37. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved A typical MM success “Lakeside Dairy” Husband and wife manage the dairy operation of a large farm. Husband and wife manage the dairy operation of a large farm.  2X / day milking  209 milk cows  Milk/cow/day = 60 lbs  SCC of 337,000 Team members  Three producers  Extension agent was team leader  Dairy field representative  Veterinarian  Nutritionist

38. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved “Lakeside Dairy” Financial Impact & Goals Subclinical production loss-no data. Subclinical production loss-no data. Premium opportunity for goal at BTSCC 150 = $ 1932 / month. Premium opportunity for goal at BTSCC 150 = $ 1932 / month. Clinical mastitis loss = $1833. Clinical mastitis loss = $1833. Total Impact = $3,765. Total Impact = $3,765. Goals:  Lower Bulk Tank SCC to 150,000  Identify contagious mastitis cows  Decrease clinical mastitis cases  Group cows

39. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Teat end quality Teat end quality Milking routine Milking routine Milker training Milker training Farm records Farm records Consistency of milking routine Consistency of milking routine Team Identified Critical Management Factors

40. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved “Lakeside Dairy” Action Plan Meeting One Meeting One  Begin treatment records  Monthly bulk tank culture  Begin on farm culturing  Develop treatment protocols  Update milking procedures protocol Meeting Two  Re-culture two mycoplasma positive cows  Culture high SCC cows  Develop milking procedures poster  Weekly bulk tank culture

41. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved “Lakeside Dairy” Outcome SCC reduced 34% SCC reduced 34% Premium Change Premium Change  $.03 to $.40. Increased monthly income Increased monthly income  $1,450

42. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Why do some Milk Quality Programs Fail? Some herds can never improve milk quality Some herds can never improve milk quality Failure is often related to: Failure is often related to:  Lack of commitment to change  Inability to communicate effectively  Failure to manage personnel Herds that failed in Milk Money reported  Lack of time  69%  Other farm problems  16%  Lack of focus  16%  Seasonal problems  14%

43. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Anatomy of a MM Failure 54 cow dairy enrolled by veterinarian in Oct 2005 54 cow dairy enrolled by veterinarian in Oct 2005 History of BTSCC >750k History of BTSCC >750k Previous history of extensive treatment of cows for Staph aureus Previous history of extensive treatment of cows for Staph aureus Farm owner somewhat disabled Farm owner somewhat disabled  1 ft employee lived on farm  2 high school students helped milk

44. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved MM Failure Meeting 2 No Change in BTSCC No Change in BTSCC No Change in Yield No Change in Yield Implementation of actions? Implementation of actions? 1. Milking time observation 2. Stop feeding waste milk 3. Develop segregation plan 4. Make treatment plan 5. Treat heifers precalving 6. Change milking prep to include forestripping

45. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved MM Failure: Meeting 3 2 months elapsed due to scheduling 2 months elapsed due to scheduling BTSCC increased to >1,000,000 BTSCC increased to >1,000,000 6 cows had to be culled to stay legal 6 cows had to be culled to stay legal Prevalence increased to >64% of herd Prevalence increased to >64% of herd NIR = 21% NIR = 21% No actions completed by farm No actions completed by farm The success of Milk Money is dependent On Commitment Of Team Members

46. © 2006, Pamela L. Ruegg, all rights Reserved Conclusion Ability to implement management practices is the most important aspect of improving milk quality Ability to implement management practices is the most important aspect of improving milk quality Implementation is dependent on Implementation is dependent on  Development of standardized procedures  Ability to clearly communicate value  Continued training of personnel There is a large opportunity for more veterinary involvement in this area but There is a large opportunity for more veterinary involvement in this area but  We must market our services or lose the turf