2
Partnering with:
Management Team
For further detail visit the
SIDDC website
Barry Bethune, Farm Manager
Dexter Mag-Abo, Herd Manager
Jerome Pellazar, Herd Manager
Karl McDougall, Farm Assistant
www.siddc.org.nz
‘Sthld Demo Farm’
re information on the Farm
Walk Notes, Weekly Data,
Production graphs, Monitor
Farm Weekly Summaries etc.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
HAZARDS NOTIFICATION
Children are the responsibility of their parent or guardian
Normal hazards associated with a dairy farm
Other vehicle traffic on farm roads and races
Crossing public roads, including busy State Highway
Underpasses may be slippery
Please follow instructions given by event organisers or farm staff
3
VISION STATEMENT
Economic, social and environmentally sustainable solutions for the
Southern South Island dairy farming community.
INTRODUCTION
The 295 hectare property was leased by Southland Demonstration Farm Limited (SDF), controlled by the
Southland Demonstration Dairy Farm Trust, on 1st June 2007, to operate as a commercial demonstration farm
which provides a focal point for the dissemination of information to Southern South Island dairy farmers.
The milking platform is approximately 260 ha, with a further 35 ha (approximately) per year of brassicas and
fodder beet for winter feed. The farm winters 790 -800 cows and supplies Fonterra’s Edendale Factory targeting
annual production of 300,000 kg/MS [1000 kgMS per total ha / 1150kgMS/ha of the milking platform].
KEY OBJECTIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Economic sustainability [profit] of Southern South Island dairying.
Environmental sustainability [land, water, animals] of Southern South Island dairying.
Social sustainability [labour] of Southern South Island Dairying.
To provide a central focal point for the dissemination of information to assist farmers to meet the
challenges going into the future.
CLIMATE
Mean Annual Maximum
Temperature (ºC)
Mean
Annual
Minimum
Temperature (ºC)
Mean daily temperature (ºC)
Spring
14
Summer
18
Autumn
15
Winter
10
Annual
14
5
9
5
1
5
10
13
10
5
10
SOILS
Soil Types
Makarewa - Heavy poorly drained gley soil
Makarewa moderately deep
Mataura - Recent flood plain soil, Silty - Well drained
Tomoporakau - Poorly drained silt loam prone to water logging
Northope - Imperfectly drained silt loam, variations in topsoil
Edendale - Deep well drained Soil, Silt Loam
Gore – well drained alluvium base, Silt Loam topsoil
% Farm
42%
8%
19%
16.5%
13%
1%
0.5%
4
SOIL TEST AVERAGE RESULTS
Date
pH
OlsenP
K
Mg
Ca
Na
7.4
Sulphate
Sulphur
7.5
2007/08 Average
6.1
29.8
10.7
23.2
12.7
2008/09 Effluent
2008/09 Non Effluent
2009/10 Effluent
2009/10 Non Effluent
2010/11 Effluent
2010/11 Non Effluent
6.3
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
28.5
34.1
35.5
34.6
35.0
34.4
9.0
6.9
10.0
5.8
7.0
5.7
5.5
9.9
8.5
9.6
8.3
8.9
31.0
22.0
36.0
22.1
27.8
20.2
14.5
11.3
14.5
11.1
12.3
9.0
18.5
13.7
16.5
9.9
14.5
8.3
2011/12 Effluent
2011/12 Non Effluent
6.3
6
33
31.8
8
7.9
10
8.8
34
23
14
10.8
20
11.7
Organic
S
6.5
TBK
1.8
5.2
3.6
3.6
12
8.5
RECENT FERTILISER APPLICATIONS
2008/09
Non Effluent
Effluent
N
180+
100
P
41
27
K
20
0
S
50
32
Lime
250kg/ha
250kg/ha
2009/10
Non Effluent
Effluent
N
170
120
P
38
18
K
40
0
S
35
22
Lime
400kg/ha
400kg/ha
2010/11
Non Effluent
Effluent
New Grass Paddocks
N
180+
100+
197
P
41
18
64
K
40
0
40
S
48
22
77
Lime
400kg/ha
400kg/ha
400kg/ha
N
P
90
4
42
22
K
40
0
41
0
S
121
121
51
27
Lime
400kg/ha
400kg/ha
400kg/ha
400kg/ha
2011/12
Capital P Areas
*250kgN/ha
No P Areas
*250kgN/ha
Rest of Non Effluent
Effluent
*250kgN/ha
*250kgN/ha
*Average 250 kgN/ha across whole farm area including winter crops.
PASTURES / PASTURE RENEWAL
Pastures are progressively being renewed each year through a renewal programme that incorporates both
winter crops such as swedes, kale and fodder beet and short term ryegrasses prior to new permanent pasture
being sown. Typically half of the winter-crop area is returned to new pasture each year and the other half
cropped for a second season. The farm has re-grassed approximately 1/3 of the property in the past 4 seasons.
Each new pasture is a perennial ryegrass/white clover combination, with strategic placement of particular
cultivars across the farm differing in ploidy (diploid/tetraploid), flowering date and more recently different novel
endophytes. A small area of the farm was sown directly in short term ryegrass without clover to increase the
amount of re-grassing on the farm and address some of the weed issues on farm. The ryegrass acts as a forage
crop in its own right, this will be wintered cropped and returned to permanent ryegrass / white clover.
Permanent pastures are sown at 20kg/ha diploid ryegrass and 25kg/ha tetraploid ryegrass with 6kg/ha white
clover.
STAFFING & MANAGEMENT
SDF has a part time farm supervisor (15 hours/week), full time farm manager, 2IC and two farm assistants.
Additional relief staff employed as required to assist with calf rearing and relief milking.
The normal roster is 8 on / 2 off till Christmas, 9 on / 3 off after Christmas
Milking Times – Morning: cups on 5.00 am Afternoon: cups on 2.30 pm
5
HERD DETAILS AND MATING PROGRAMME
Cows AI for 6-8 weeks followed by bulls. Heifers - AI to Friesian or Cross-Bred for 2 weeks then run
with Jersey bulls.
Breeding Worth: 102 / 47
Production Worth: 105 / 65
Ancestry: 91%
Calving start date: Heifers - 1 August, Cows – 10 August 2012
Calving date – Mid point: 22 August 2012
Mean Calving date: 25 August 2012
Mating start date: Heifers – 21 October 2012, Cows – 30 October 2012.
PRODUCTION DETAILS / FINANCIAL RESULTS
Farm Details
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Milking Platform area (ha)
273
264
259
262
259
259
crop area (ha)*
22
31
36
33
36
36
Total kg/MS supplied
290,200
256,300
285,200
275,450
317,941
Average kg/MS/cow
399
352
399
364
422
Average kg/MS/ha (Total Farm)
984
869
967
934
1078
Average kg/MS/ha (Milking
Platform)
Est. Pasture Eaten (Dairybase)
(tDM/ha)
Purch. Suppl - fed [kgDM/cow]
1063
971
1101
1052
1228
144
287
0
0
148
166
195
250
Made on dairy-platform
[kgDM/cow]
Applied N / 295 eff. Ha
1 July cow numbers
778
803
810
814
789
Max. cows milked
728
728
715
755
754
Stocking rate Cows / Milking
platform ha
Stocking rate Kg liveweight / ha
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
Cows wintered on farm
628
375
Farm Working Expenses / kgMS
$3.31
Dairy Operating Profit / Total
farm area
Dairy Operating Profit/ Milking
Platform
Payout [excl. levy] $/kg (incl
Dividend where appropriate)
$4,264
1400
398
814
789
$4.83
$3.85
$4.12
4.09
$392
$2,488
n/a
$4,607
$438
$2,833
n/a
$7.62
$5.2
$6.37
No. Yearlings grazed On / Off
No. Calves grazed
Dated: Oct 2012
On / Off
$7.90
$6.30
6
CONTENTS
Pages
Southland Demonstration Farm [SDF] Information
The Facts Around Suspension of Eco-n
2-5
7
Financial Results – Year to Date
8-9
Seasonal Update
10
Rainfall and Soil Temperature
10
Woodlands Pasture Growth Rate
11
SDF Pasture Growth Rate
11
SDF Cumulative Pasture Grown
11
Pasture Management and Production, BCS, and Milk Production 2010/11
to 2012/13
12-15
Improving Herd Performance through Genetics
16-19
SDF Reproduction Review and Improvement Opportunities
20-25
MINDA Weights and the importance of growing young stock to target
26-30
Genemark – DNA Parentage Testing
31-32
SDF Farm Walk Notes – 29 January 2013
33-36
Fertility Focus Report
37
The facts around suspension of eco-n
What’s the background?
Ravensdown introduced eco-n for dairy farmers in February 2004. Developed in conjunction with
Lincoln University, it reduces nitrate leaching from urine patches, lowers emissions of the greenhouse
gas, nitrous oxide and increases pasture production. Eco-n contains the nitrification inhibitor
dicyandiamide (DCD). DCD’s effectiveness has been confirmed in three years of national trials which
started in 2009 supported by Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Fonterra, DairyNZ and the fertiliser
industry.
On Thursday 24 January 2013 Ravensdown announced that eco-n sales were suspended due to the
detection in New Zealand of minute traces of DCD in milk products, and to protect and strengthen NZ’s
excellent international reputation as a food exporter. The last eco-n applications were in September.
Why were sales of all DCD products voluntarily suspended?










DCD is safe (10 times safer than salt #). MPI Director General, Wayne McNee said that based
on the highest of the levels detected in some milk powder, a 60kg person would have to drink
130 litres of liquid milk per day to reach the European commission’s limit for an acceptable daily
intake and considerably more to have any health effects.
Because DCD contains nitrogen, it has the potential to be seen as a possible milk protein
adulterant.
Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration added DCD to its lists of compounds to scan
for with its increasingly sophisticated scanning equipment.
In early December 2012, we were told that Fonterra had detected occasional presence of minor
traces of DCD in milk powder (at decimal points of parts per million) around the time of
applications.
Fonterra and MPI confirmed there are no food safety issues, not just because of the minute
levels detected, but also because DCD is such a safe compound.
However, there is no international standard for DCD residues in food because DCD has not
been considered to be a risk to food safety and has been around for over 30 years and
therefore has not been included in the World Health Organisation’s Codex list.
This created a technical problem, because with no codex standard, some countries NZ exports
to would default to a standard of zero detection.
This meant that any detection of DCD had the potential to become a trade risk and damage
NZ’s exceptionally good reputation as a food producer.
After looking at all the options, there was no way anyone could guarantee zero detection in milk
for the coming season, so Ravensdown voluntarily suspended sales of eco-n.
Because DCD is a totally biodegradable compound and does not accumulate in the soil, MPI
confirms the chance of any further detection is minimal.
What will Ravensdown do now?


Act with transparency and integrity as a long term participant in the NZ agricultural sector.
Continue to invest in science and evidence-based innovation and look at ways to mitigate any
trade risk from DCD.
 Partner with others in the industry, specifically contributing on the MPI’s Technical Working
Group, seeking an internationally agreed food standard for DCD.
 Using its technical knowledge, the co-operative will push hard for DCD’s return for the benefit of
farmers facing pressure to reduce nitrate leaching.
 Continue offering services such as whole farm testing, nutrient management planning and
precise fertiliser application to help lower environmental footprint whilst lifting production.
Any questions - contact your Account Manager or call 0800 100 123 to speak to one of the eco-n team.
# For LD50’s refer to OECD SIDS – cyanoguanidine 461-58-5 (2004), and MSDS for Sodium Chloride 7647-14-5.
8
Financial Results – Year to Date
YTD Financial NOTES
1.
Production is up over 11% YTD, this is helping correct an earlier variance in income relating to last seasons
deferred milk payments.
2.
Some brief background to the variances YTD:
o We have found R&M has been difficult to control particularly given the age of the dairy shed, vehicles
and machinery that we have on SDF.
o Drainage on SDF has been a significant spend, we are currently discussing this spend with the owners
to achieve a shared distribution of costs, currently these costs are with SDF.
9
o
o
o
o
The majority of the Animal Health variance is attributed to coding of autopsies (approx. $4000),
increased requirement of minerals for the herd and young stock (approx. $6000) and also a post
budget decision to Eprinex the herd (approx. $4000).
The variance in administration is due to coding the ACC spend into here rather than wages ($10000).
This will be coded to wages, which will show wages as above budget, this is because of bonuses due
from last season paid into this season that weren’t budgeted for.
The wintering variance is due to timing, more baleage has been made on farm YTD. Also taking
advantage of favourable pricing, we have purchased baleage earlier than budgeted. This is expected to
be back on budget at the end of the year.
Along with Production, Feed is tracking ahead of budget (current saving of ($14,000 year to date), less
silage required and favourable pricing relative to budget ($86/tonne PKE) have had a positive effect.
3.
The items that are under budget aren’t seen to offset higher spend in other areas. We remain committed to
reaching those targets without using these gains.
4.
How are we tracking on our goal from the previous Focus Day to achieve a further 20c/KgMS saving?
o Clearly we haven’t been able to control spending enough in all of the areas that we targeted as much
as we had liked. However we are still working towards that goal with the view that we will minimise
any further variances as much as possible.
o We have seen a significant reduction in interventions this mating and while not achieving the desired 6
week in calf rate, it has remained the same as last year but with far less interventions this season.
o The introduction of an order number system is helping with coding and relating items to budget better.
 In simple, all purchases require an order number (O/N), Suppliers have been informed not to sell to
SDF without an SDF order number.
 O/N’s are generated via paper order book in triplicate…
 O/N’s include the expenditure code so invoices are matched to order numbers and expense codes
and require the supervisors’ signature.
 Administration costs are expected to decrease and financial control increase as the O/N system is
bedded in.
o Continue to work on formulating preventative maintenance agreements with our main service agents
to assist with identifying minor repairs before they become costly and major
Year End Forecast:
-
Current Expenses are $88,000 above budget. If all remaining budgeted expenses occur as budgeted (but
no additional increases occur), SDF will have total Farm Working Expense of $666,842 + $698,389 =
$1.37million.
-
Annual Expenses were budgeted at $1.28 million or $4.00/kgMS. To hold expenses at $4.00/kgMS will
require an increase of 22,000kgMS (7% above budget)
-
Milk Production to the end of December was 9% ahead of last year and on track to exceed budgeted milk
production (319,000 kgMS).
-
Forecasted milk production to the end of May 2013 is 350,000kgMS, dependant on weather conditions
through the autumn and particularly in May.
-
If SDF achieves 350,000kgMS and holds expenses to no more than $1.37mill, FWE will be $3.91/kgMS.
10
Seasonal Update
11
12
Pasture Management and Production, BCS, and Milk Production – 2010/11 to 2012/13
H.C de Klerk
Southland Demonstration farm was an ambitious project to provide farmers of Southland with a commercial
scale farm that could demonstrate good farming practices. Like any new venture, it had it’s fair share of
teething problems which lead to some criticism. So how has the demo farm performed over the last 3 seasons?
Total Milk Production
One of the parameters that we can measure is milk production. This can be measured as total production,
production per hectare or production per cow. Total production to Fonterra in 2010/11 was 274,000 kg MS. In
2011/12 this improved to 318,000 kg MS – or a 16% improvement. The current season has delivered around
210,000 kg MS by end of January and is on target to do 340,000 kg MS. This could potentially be a 25%
improvement in overall milk production over 3 seasons. The production per month is shown below.
Milk production per hectare
Milk production per hectare has also improved. Annual production per ha has improved from 1060 kg MS/ha in
2010/11 to 1200 kg MS/ha last season and on track to do 1300kg MS/ha this season.
Last month the average production/ha was 5.12 kg MS/ha/day compared to the long term average of past
seasons of only 4.4 kg MS/ha/day in January.
SDF Production - kgMS/ha/day
6
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
Apr
May
5
4
3
2
1
0
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
13
Milk production per cow
Milk production per cow has also obviously followed a similar trend. Three seasons ago it was 363 kg MS/cow,
last season produced 420 kg MS/cow and this season the cows are on track to do 450 kg MS/cow. The average
production per cow per day in January averaged 1.8 kg MS/cow/day compared to the long term average of 1.54
kg MS/cow/day in January.
No matter which metric one prefers, the production has shown a marked improvement.
How has SDF achieved these gains?
The improvements can be ascribed to 3 main areas that management has relentlessly targeted

Improved pasture management

Achieving body condition targets

Consistent and improved feeding
Improved pasture management
A number of small cumulative improvements have been made over the past seasons. This begins in autumn with
the correct autumn plan to achieve the desired average pasture covers at the end of the season. The farm has
been targeting APC of around 2000 kg DM/ha at the end of the season with a good wedge. This ensures enough
grass at the start of the next season and reduces the amount of supplement required. To achieve this, the last
round in autumn begins on 20 April – a 40 day round length to finish the season.
The spring rotation plan is carefully worked out to allocate the pasture on hand, as well as expected growth, on
a pro-rata basis. Cows are supplemented with silage in spring as there is not enough pasture available. To
achieve a respectable peak and maintain the lactation curve, cows need to be adequately fed.
Annual N applications of around 200kgN/ha have been used over the past few years. This season, it has been
more strategically applied – smaller amounts and more closely following the cows. This has ensured good
response rates to the N and less chance of leaching.
Managing pasture quality has also contributed to the improvement. Target pre-grazing covers are set in order
to ensure residual targets (1600 kg DM/ha) are achieved. If paddocks are too long, they are stepped over and
made into baleage. The farm has also made strategic use of pre-graze mowing as a tool to assist in managing
pasture quality and intakes. During late spring, when the grass is heading, mowing has been used for a round to
maintain quality – preferably mowing ahead of cows. This controls quality while increasing intakes, so long as
the pasture mown ahead of grazing is high quality. If we don’t mow and the cows leave an untidy residual, we
fix the residual by topping behind the cows (seldom) or preferably target that paddock for baleage in the next
round.
14
Achieving BCS targets
People attending SDF Focus days will be aware of the campaign the farm has run to achieve the target BCS.
Improving BCS takes time and on-going attention. All cows must calve at 5 BCS – not an average of 5 BCS – with
some cows at a 3 BCS and others at 7 BCS – but all cows at 5 BCS.
This also starts in autumn. Ideally cows are dried off at BCS5, and no less than 4.5 to 4.75 BCS as the farm has
consistently been able to put ½ BCS on cows during winter – achieving that 5 BCS for MA cows and 5.5 BCS for
heifers and 2nd calvers. This has been fully covered in previous Focus days (see SIDDC website), but basically
involves managing cows with differing BCS differently in both the autumn and winter. Cows are all individually
body condition scored in autumn and managed accordingly. Thin cows (4 BCS) may be put on OAD milking and
offered PKE from beginning of April. Cows at 4.5 BCS will continue on TAD milking but receive PKE supplement.
Fatter cows, above 4.5 BCS will continue on TAD and receive less PKE – either lesser amounts or start later. The
detail depends on the season, but 90 tons (120 kg/cow) have been budgeted for use during this autumn (no
silage).
Winter feeding is crucial if cows are to continue to gain the ½ BCS required. Managing the winter crops to
prevent wastage is important – as is transitioning the cows onto and off crop. Without careful transitioning
cows can end up losing weight during the first 3 weeks. Enough feed must be offered – up to 10 kg DM of crop
and 5-6 kg of roughage. By the end of winter and the start of calving this season, most of the cows had a 5 BCS+.
After all this hard work during autumn and winter, it is easy to strip condition off the cows in spring if
insufficient feed is available. Cows that are decking paddocks are hungry cows and they will be losing more
weight than well fed cows. Any well bred milk cow will lose weight after calving – this is normal. But losing too
much weight and condition can result in cows with a lower BCS at mating. Analysis of SDF data has shown the
negative effect a lower than 4 BCS has on reproductive performance. This information is also available on SIDDC
website. Cows need to consistently receive adequate feed and be supplemented when not enough pasture is on
offer.
Supplementing cows
The first question that most farmers ask when seeing improved production, especially when seeing a new silo on
farm, is how much extra supplement did the farm feed to achieve these results? The short answer is very little if any extra at SDF this season. Were the cows better fed? To gain weight, improve BCS, make more milk etc all
takes energy – so cows must have been better fed. But this does not necessarily mean all the extra feed came
from supplement – the basis starts with enough pasture available to the cow – and supplementing the shortfall.
In 2010/11 the cows received 270 kg DM of silage per cow for the season. Last year this increased to 544 kg DM
per cow – a fair amount of silage (100 tons DM / 135kgDM/cow) being fed out during the unseasonal summer
dry in December and January. To date this season 250 kg of DM has been fed. Another 120 kg of PKE has been
budgeted for the autumn. If all goes according to plan around 370 kg of supplement will be fed per cow this
season. This is only 100 kg DM/cow more than 3 seasons ago, and 174kgDM/cow less than last season.
The main difference has been in what we have been feeding and how it has been fed. Last season the cows
were supplemented with PKE during the autumn instead of silage. This was not only cheaper per kg DM and per
MJME, but less PKE is required than silage to gain a kg LW. DairyNZ suggests 210 kg of PKE is required for a 1
BCS gain, compared to up to 340 kg DM for lower quality silage. There was is also less wastage of PKE. This is
why the farm has contracted PKE for this coming autumn.
The farm does however also use some silage during the spring or any time when pasture is in serious short
supply. The farm staff find it more practical to use silage during the spring when the amount of pasture may be
lacking. It is easier to feed transitioning springing cows silage and a small amount is also fed to cows in milk until
pasture growth meets demand.
15
90 tons or 120 kg/cow of crushed barley has been fed per cow during this season. This has been used mainly to
top up the cows with a bit of extra energy. While pasture is a fantastic feed, there are limits to what a cow can
physically consume in a day – time available and bite size can impose a restriction to DM intake. Analysing
Lincoln data showed that cows were able to consume around 3.6 - 3.7% of LW from standing pasture – around
18 to 19 kg DM/cow/day. For cows to maintain 2.2 kg MS/day without losing too much weight requires around
20-21 kg DM/day. Crushed barley was used to fill this gap and prevent cows losing too much weight and
remaining in a negative energy balance for too long.
The protein % trend in the milk is often used as a good indicator of the cows energy balance. A dropping protein
% usually indicates a period of negative energy balance, while a gaining protein % indicates a positive energy
balance. The graph below tells a story. In the previous 2 seasons (and all the preceding seasons) the protein %
only started to increase in January. This season the protein % started to rise at the end of October – despite a
higher MS production/cow – so it is not a dilution effect. The graph clearly shows the cows were starting to get
into a positive energy balance by end of October. The date is not of no consequence either. Getting the cows
into a positive energy balance before mating is much better for reproduction than achieving a rising plane after
the bulls come out. This should have positive consequences on reproductive performance. This season only 50
odd cows were CIDR’d because of failing to cycle – last year it was 100 odd, and 200 odd the season before. The
improving BCS however also played a role in this improvement.
Summary
Did the crushed barley and PKE result in the increase in production? Can one say that the extra 90 kg MS/cow
(on track) compared to 3 seasons ago is because of the extra 120 kg of barley/cow? Certainly not! If all the
barley’s energy was utilised 100% for milk production alone (impossible) then the barley could only account for
around 20 kg MS/cow. The PKE could potentially account for another 18 kg MS/cow – if 100% was utilised for
milk production (also impossible). This clearly shows that it is a combination of more and better quality grass,
better BCS at calving (cow reserves), and better and more consistent feeding, that has contributed to the
ongoing improvement at SDF. There is no one silver bullet.
16
LIC has a farm in Southland
Improving herd performance
Southland Demonstration Farm, February 2013
Peter Gatley, General Manager Genetics, LIC
• Balfour deer farm
• Deer industry income
– Venison 80%
– Antler 10%
– By-products 10%
• Venison productivity index – four traits
• Deer Improvement has bred 28 of the top 30 stags on
the deer industry “RAS List”
• Return to first principles
Genetic Gain in deer
Driving genetic gain in any species
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Identify what traits are economically important
Accurately measure performance
Keep meticulous records
Use the best available genetic evaluation methodology
Drive selection intensity
Maintain a broad genetic base
Shorten the generation interval
17
The importance of generation interval
Rate of
Genetic
Gain
=
Selection intensity x Accuracy x Gen Variation
_____________________________
Generation Interval
Generation interval
• Halve Generation Interval, and you will double the rate
of genetic gain
• In deer, venison production is known before the animal
can breed so elite matings including ET are carried out
with yearling hinds and stags
• Dairy bulls are “proven” at 5 years of age
• Identifying genetic merit of bulls as yearlings has long
been the holy grail of dairy cattle breeding
• Gene discovery
Gene discovery
Genomics
•
•
•
•
• Postulated 2001
• Large numbers of SNPs identified in large numbers of
progeny tested bulls
• Computer analysis to identify patterns associated with
specific traits
• Patterns recognised in young sire DNA
• Specific to breed, strain and environment
• Genomics is not a technology that can be bought
“off the shelf” from overseas
LIC investment began 1994
World’s first milk production genes patented
Not simple additive effects
Discovery of complexity….
– Numbers of genes
– Interactions with other genes
– Interactions with the environment
18
Progress
Genomics must be marketed
• Genomics is increasing the reliability of young sire
evaluations the world over
• Over-estimation has been a consistent problem
• Adjustments are being made
• Progress in NZ somewhat limited by number of progeny
tested bulls in DNA archive
• Is genomics ready for commercial release in NZ?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Higher BW average delivered to all
Higher rate of genetic gain in future
Genetic diversity
Choice
Rapid response to changing breeding goal
Expected performance advantage
“Learning by doing”
Increasing semen demand
Premier Sires “Forward Pack”
What would we do?
What do we do?
- in contract mating
- in our own dairy herd
• Best of both worlds
– 30% of insems by top progeny tested bulls
– Team of elite young sires doing ~5% each
• $5 premium on young sire semen
– Average ~$3.50 per insem overall
• Team advantage by breed 5-25 BW units
19
Contribution of genetics
Summary
• Genetics is the biggest contributor to productivity
improvement on dairy farms
• Genomics is the future of genetics
80
70
60
50
– The biggest development since the invention of AI
Kg 40
• Genomically selected bulls must be available
• Genomics is not for everybody
30
20
10
– Daughter Proven option remains, you have a choice
0
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
Milksolids Performance Trend
97
19
98
19
99
19
00
20
01
20
02
20
Milksolids Genetic Trend
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
Liveweight Genetic Trend
08
20
09
20
• Genomics will benefit you whether you use it or not
20
SDF Repro Review
&
Improvement opportunities
SDF Focus Day February 2013
Greg McNeil
6 week In‐calf Rate
National / Regional
9%
8%
Comparisons
6wk in calf rate South, Lower
Detailed
7%
6%
Southland Demonstration
Farm Ltd
Trends Over Time
5%
4%
National
3%
2%
1%
Industry Target
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0%
Number of herds
&
21
6 Week In‐Calf Rate
Herd Wk3 Submission Rate
South, Lower Detailed
Southland Demonstration
Farm Ltd
7%
85%
6%
80%
5%
75%
4%
70%
3%
National
2%
Number of herds
3wk Submission Rate
65%
60%
55%
1%
50%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0%
45%
40%
2009
Industry Target
2010
2011
2012
Empty Rate
Conception Rate
8%
16%
7%
14%
Conception Rate South,
Lower Detailed
6%
12%
5%
Southland Demonstration
Farm Ltd
10%
4%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
3%
20
10
0
National
8%
2%
6%
1%
4%
0%
2%
0%
Industry Target
2009
2010
2011
2012
22
6 Week Calving Pattern
Herd
Heifers
100%
95%
90%
85%
INPUTS
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
2009
3 Week Calving Pattern
Herd
Heifers
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
2009
PSM 1/11
2010
30/10
2011
2012
31/10
26/10
2010
2011
2012
23
3 Week Submission Rate
Herd
Heifers
95%
90%
GAP
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
2009
2010
2011
2012
BWLX 2012 RIA
40
36
32
28
24
DRIVERS
20
16
12
8
4
0
1
2 ‐ 7
8 ‐ 12
13 ‐ 17 18 ‐19 20 ‐ 21 22 ‐ 24 25 ‐ 38 39 ‐ 45 46 ‐ 60
> 60
24
WHOLE HERD ‐ Calving Pattern
OUTCOMES
Before PSC
Early calvers
Medium calvers
Late calvers
Very late calvers
TOTAL
<0wks
1‐3wks
4‐6 wks
7‐9 wks
10+ wks
COUNT
04‐Aug
24‐Aug
14‐Sep
05‐Oct
Age group breakdown
124
160
466
7
757
2010 born ‐ Calving pattern
<0wks
1‐3wks
4‐6 wks
7‐9 wks
10+ wks
04‐Aug
24‐Aug
14‐Sep
05‐Oct
<0wks
1‐3wks
4‐6 wks
7‐9 wks
10+ wks
Extra DIM @ 6 weeks 778 days
Extra DIM @ 8 weeks 1195 days
<0wks
1‐3wks
4‐6 wks
7‐9 wks
10+ wks
16%
21%
62%
1%
04‐Aug
24‐Aug
14‐Sep
05‐Oct
04‐Aug
24‐Aug
14‐Sep
05‐Oct
3
81
58
15
3
160
32%
47%
19%
2%
0%
115
148
387
3
653
93%
93%
83%
43%
86%
37
55
21
2
0
115
93%
95%
91%
67%
93%
3 week Submission Rate
2%
51%
36%
9%
2%
2
79
55
11
1
148
3%
45%
30%
11%
11%
14
195
124
41
13
387
COUNT
16
211
141
49
49
466
90%
93%
90%
81%
26%
86%
3 week Submission Rate
COUNT
2008 ‐2004 born ‐ Calving pattern
Before PSC
Early calvers
Medium calvers
Late calvers
Very late calvers
Group Total
40
58
23
3
0
124
53
330
201
55
14
653
3 week Submission Rate
COUNT
2009 born ‐ Calving pattern
Before PSC
Early calvers
Medium calvers
Late calvers
Very late calvers
Group Total
8%
47%
30%
9%
7%
COUNT
2010 born
2009 born
2008 ‐ 2004 born
2003 born and prior
TOTAL
Before PSC
Early calvers
Medium calvers
Late calvers
Very late calvers
Group Total
59
353
224
68
53
757
3 week Submission Rate
67%
98%
95%
73%
33%
93%
3 week Submission Rate
88%
92%
88%
84%
27%
83%
Lost mature cow milking days - Two year old
heifers have 165 DIM, 3 year olds 151 and the herd
average is 149
Pregnancy rate
3 weeks 6 weeks
51%
69%
52%
75%
45%
68%
29%
59%
0%
19%
44%
67%
Pregnancy rate
3 weeks 6 weeks
52%
74%
44%
67%
42%
66%
29%
43%
44%
67%
Pregnancy rate
3 weeks
6 weeks
60%
78%
55%
76%
35%
65%
33%
67%
52%
74%
Pregnancy rate
3 weeks 6 weeks
33%
67%
51%
74%
45%
66%
13%
47%
0%
0%
44%
67%
Pregnancy rate
3 weeks 6 weeks
31%
50%
51%
76%
46%
70%
35%
63%
0%
20%
42%
66%
25
Repro Improvement opportunity
Opportunity
6 wk ICR
MT Rate
(Maximising SR & CR)
Desired Performance
Current Performance
78%
8%
67%
13%
• 4800 Extra days in milk
• 35 Extra AB calves
• 38 less empty cows
• 38 more targeted culls
• Lower replacement rates
• Estimated financial gains $70,000 Herd Improvement opportunity
Empty cow opportunity
• Herd PW 106
• Bottom 5% (38 animals) - PW -87 (Differential - 193)
• New Herd PW 115.5
• $7200
AB Replacement opportunity
• Selection pressure – keep best 200 / 235
• Worth around 0.2 BW points / extra hfr reared
• +7 BW points across line
• 7 x 5 lactations x 200 hfrs = $7000
Doing well
• Earlier mating / less intervention / More DIM
• 2 yo performance – preferential treatment
• Heat detection – first round
Work ons
• Improving calving pattern / preventing slippage
• Second round heat detection
• Hfr condition & stature
• Mixed age cows
• Performance of intervention?
26
73% of heifers were more than 5% below their target liveweight at 22 months of age.
MINDA Weights & the importance of growing young stock to target
Rob Young
February 2013
Heifer Liveweight Trends
% of animals 5% above target, with 5% of target and below 5% of target 80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6 mths
>5% above target
The Research
In a study of over 105,000 animals, 73% were >5% below target live weight at 22 months of age
(McNaughton & Lopdell)
The Problem
15 mths
5% above to 5% below target
22 mths
>5% below target
27
The Brutal Facts
The Production Effect
Holstein-Friesian
Average
Jersey
35
Lost milksolids in first lactation
(kgMS/heifer)
• It costs $1360 to raise a heifer to calving as a 2 y/o
• Heifers don’t break into profit until their 2nd lactation
• Study of 2007 born animals (28,271)
• 15% did NOT record a 2nd calving
• 35% did NOT record a 3rd calving
• 10% of MINDA users with liveweights on database
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
Liveweight gap (%)
% loss in reproductive performance
The Repro Effect
Replacements by Breed
25
6-week in-calf rate (%)
Empty rate (%)
KX (dark)
HF
KX (status quo)
KX (light)
KX (first x)
Jersey
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
Based on Australian and New Zealand data
10
15
20
Liveweight gap (%)
25
30
37%
23%
23%
8%
6%
4% 25
28
Analysis to Action
Would you be happy with this performance?
What might be driving this?
The Impact of Birth Date
Born:
15‐Jul‐11
35 kg
Born:
15‐Aug‐11
35 kg
Born:
1‐Sep‐11
35 kg
PSM 29‐Sep‐12 (to calve 1‐week prior to herd)
Target = 302 kg
Required Gain:
Required Gain:
Required Gain:
0.60 kg/day
0.65 kg/day
0.68 kg/day
+8.3%
+5%
Introducing MINDA Weights
29
30
The Benefits of Better Liveweights
• Young stock have the best opportunity to get in calf
• Heifers are set up for good fertility for life
• Positive effect on 6‐week ICR & empty rate
• More days in milk
• Positive effect on milk production
• More choice at culling/more selection pressure
• Improved genetic merit of the herd
Analysis to Action
• Monitor the mob trend
• Identify individual animals that may require attention
• Physically inspect the animals
• Validate the parentage data (Mis‐mothering?)
• Validate the weight data (Mis‐recording?)
• Make sure late born animals are catching up
• Review feed allocation & availability
• Review the health of the animals
MINDA Weights
• Free to MINDApro users
• Access via MINDA Home on the desktop, or
• Access at www.minda.co.nz
• Liveweight data is entered via MINDApro
• More information at www.lic.co.nz/mindaweights
31
GeneMark & Southland Demonstration Farm
The average mis-recording rate in a well recorded herd has historically been between 15 and 20%, but recent
studies by the LIC Diagnostics team today puts that figure at more than 25%.
Our case studies show that in general, the larger the herd, the higher the mis-mothering rate is. But we have
had smaller herds of 270 and 160 cows with mis-mothering rates of 30%.
SDF’s Parentage-Testing Results:
Birth Year
2010-born
2011-born
2012-born
Number heifer calves DNA tested
72 calves
203 calves
244 calves
Percentage mis-recorded to Dam
26.4%
51%*
n/a
*SDF has used DNA parentage testing since the beginning of the farms operation. Knowing DNA parentage
testing would correctly identify parentage, effort on farm was directed to ensuring calved cows were identified
and calves were promptly picked up. This was particularly relevant in periods of wet weather in spring 2011.
Advantages of Parentage Testing for SDF:
 SDF’s herd ancestry currently sits at 91% - the higher the level of recorded ancestry, generally results in
better sale prices, generating more profit.
 SDF has the option of increasing the length of their AB, aiming to have surplus heifer calves and when the
results return, they can choose to keep the very top BW calves for themselves.
 If selling surplus heifer calves, a buyer can be happy to pay a higher price as they knows exactly what they
are buying.
 Ensure the investment with HT, AB, Feed, Animal Health, Tags etc is being well spent on the best animals.
Ie. The average cost of a straw is $22. If you inseminate a cow for 5 years, you’ll spend an approx $150
minimum. Parentage testing is $25 on an animal ONCE to ensure you aren’t inbreeding the progeny and are
making the right decisions.
 When weighing stock you can be confident in the results showing in your MINDAweights report as to which
animals are under, over, or on their target liveweight BV. As the liveweight BV is calculated from half the
dam and half from the sire.
Accurate parentage = Accurate liveweight BV.
Repro – Ensuring your young stock are on target liveweight to improve their chances of getting in calf early.
 When BVD testing animals. If a persistently infected BVD calf is found, you can track back via the parentage
results to know exactly who the calf’s dam is, to double check her for BVD as well.
It costs SDF approx $5,500/yr to parentage test 200 calves.
They know the value and are doing the right thing, as the potential implications of not parentage testing are:
Inbreeding – A father-daughter mating means the progeny will lose approx $1000 in lost production, a siblingsibling mating means the progeny will lost approx $500 in lost production.
OPPORTUNITY COST = SAVING $5,500/YEAR
OR
EXAMPLE:
If 25% of 200 calves are mis-mothered = 50 calves. If 10% of the 50 calves are inbred, the potential loss of
production could cost them between $2500 - $5000.
Selective mating – If the goal is to inseminate 15% of the top yearlings based on PW & BW. You could
potentially be putting top straws in heifers you most likely wouldn’t, and some of the heifers which should be in
the top 15%, aren’t, due to being mis-mothered. Resulting in missing out on genetic gain opportunities.
32
Selling stock – If required to sell heifer calves, yearlings – based on PW and BW you could be selling some of
your top animals, and keeping some of the bottom end due to mis-mothering.
Mating – When a cow has a short-return the ideal situation is to put the same straw in her, and if it’s not
available then the progeny could end up being an “Uncertain-Sired” animal, due to the MINDA rules based on
the insemination date and the cow calving date – in some cases we cannot be sure which straw the cow held to.
With parentage testing the calves, regardless of how many times a cow is inseminated with different bulls, the
parentage test can pick up which sire the calf is the progeny of.
Time and Hassle Savings:
How much would you pay yourself per hour to stand in the paddock and try match calves to dams?
What else could you be doing with that time?
Calving – Focus more on animal welfare than parent-verifying.
Stress less knowing the parentage verifying is taken of, so your AB, HT, tags etc investment is well spent on the
right animals.
Staff – No matter who is working on the farm during calving, the parentage testing is taken care of, and labour
can be more productive elsewhere.
Farmer Comments:
“GeneMark helps me to get it right and saves so much time during calving! Our main reason for doing GeneMark
is to have confirmation of correct parentage on replacement stock”. Waikato Farmer, 320 cows.
“The information we give to the technician is far more accurate than in previous years, it helps hugely to
decrease our inbreeding risks...The first year we did GeneMark we still recorded in the yellow notebook. The
first week we did alright, the second week got worse and the third week was a complete disaster, our misrecording rate was around 50%!”Waikato Farmer, 760 cows.
“We now keep every heifer calf and sell them when we have their parentage results...It’s better to keep extra
calves and sell off the true bottom end, to know you’re keeping the very best instead of rearing some duds and
when they come into milk it’s like oh, what do we have here”. Northland Farmer, 200 cows.
“I always get up early to mother calves up, but now I can send someone else out and know that the parentage is
taken care of. GeneMark gives me more flexibility. 10 calves and 8 mums on one day...hmmm?” Southland
Farmer, 930 cows.
“We know when every cow has calved we know exactly who the mothers and fathers are and yet we don’t
record anything”.
33
SDF Farm Walk Notes
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
Total Effective Ha: 295ha
Winter Crop Ha: 36ha
Area in Grass Ha: 259ha
CRITICAL ISSUES FOR THE SHORT TERM
1.
2.
Manage pasture surplus
Monitor crops
COW NUMBERS
1.
736 cows on farm – 0 deaths, 13 deaths STD, 34 culls STD.
2.
732 in milk and 4 dry cows.
3.
68 are on OAD and 7 pennies.
MILK PRODUCTION
This week
Per cow (kgMS/cow/day)
Per ha (kgMS/ha/day)
kgMS/day
Month to date %
Season to date %
1.79
5.02
1300
 or  compared to last
week
 0.01
 0.13
35
 or  compared to
last year
 27
 11.2
4.
Delivery to date was 217,706 kg MS – up 11% on last season
5.
SCC is 100k
PASTURE MANAGEMENT AND FEEDING LEVELS
6.
Cows were supplemented with 0.5 kg barley/day.
7.
The round was 25.6 days – 9.77 ha/day. Pre-grazing covers required on a 24 day round are 2.9SR x 18.5kg
DMI x 24RL + 1600 residual = 2900 kg covers.
8.
Cows were grazing to 1650 kg DM/ha due to higher covers.
9.
Around 120 tons of silage was bought in for next spring. The farm buys in silage in one hit rather than
make it on the platform. All surplus is made into baleage - which is effectively “exported” off for winter
feed. The one offsets the other – just more practical making smaller quantities of baleage at a time.
PASTURE GROWTH AND AVERAGE PASTURE COVER
10. APC is up to 2391 kg DM/ha.
11. Growth rate was up 32 kg/day to 76kg DM/ha/day – been exceptionally warm with good soil moisture
12. Currently 12.3 ha shut up for baleage – accounts for higher covers.
34
13. The accumulated total DM grown/ha to date for this season, is shown below. The long term average
growth per ha is 14.27 tons DM per year. This season is now ahead of last season YTD.
14. Below is comparison of pasture cover for this season compared to the previous season.
35
NITROGEN AND FERTILISER USE
15. 3.53 tons of urea was applied to 61 ha – 26.6 kg N/ha.
16. Cows will continue to be followed with urea at 50 kg urea/ha (25 kg N/ha).
ANIMAL HEALTH & BCS
17. 0 deaths this week
18. 16 culls
19. Average weight of cows through the shed was 556kg – questionable scales this week?
20. All calves received an oral drench.
21. Around 80 calves that were growing below target were put back onto meal.
MATING
22. Bulls left the farm today.
23. The first scan has revealed the following:
47% conceived to first service, 86% 3 week submission rate, 57% non return rate
53% in calf by 4 weeks
68% in calf by 6 weeks
78% in calf by 8 weeks
24. 74 cows calved less than 30 days before mating commenced.
552/740 cows pregnant to AI
27/740 pregnant to bulls
CLIMATE DATA AND COMPARISONS
25. Soil temperatures at 9 am have averaged 17.9°C.
26. The graph below shows how the average weekly 9am (10cm) soil temperature is tracking throughout the
season and compares against the last two seasons.
36
27. The farm had a total of 4 mm rain last week.
28. The graph below shows the weekly rainfall and accumulated total for the season.
FUTURE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
The weekly management meeting will be on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 @ 10.30 am.
Fertility Focus 2012: Seasonal
Report date:
PTPT:
Southland Demonstration Farm Ltd
C/O McIntyre Dick & Partners Limited
PO Box 848
Invercargill 9840
Herd Code:
No of cows included:
These cows calved between:
Mating start & stop date:
(estimated from AI or rectal
pregnancy test data)
Planned start of calving:
1 Overall herd reproductive performance
04/02/13
BWLX
Version 1.0
6/5664
757
18/06/12 and 24/12/12
26/10/12 - 24/12/12
04/08/13
6-week in-calf rate
Empty rate
Percentage of cows pregnant in the first 6 weeks of mating
Percentage of cows not pregnant after 9 weeks of mating
Your herd
68%
Your herd
Aim above
78%
Aim for
Your herd's 6-week in-calf rate has been estimated - Supply results of early rectal pregnancy testing for greater accuracy.
% of herd in calf after:
3 weeks
6 weeks
9 weeks
12 weeks of mating
Top result
Average
A graph of % herd in calf through the mating period could not be plotted.
Below average
Supply the results of early rectal pregnancy testing.
2 Drivers of the 6-week in-calf rate
3-week submission rate
Non-return rate
Conception rate
% of cows that were inseminated in the first 3 weeks
of mating
% of inseminations that were not followed by a
return to heat
% of inseminations that resulted in a confirmed
pregnancy
Your herd
86%
Your herd
57%
Aim above
90%
Aim above
64%
Seek
advice
Your herd
Aim above
3 Key indicators to areas for improvement
Calving pattern of first calvers
Calving pattern of whole herd
Well managed heifers get in calf quickly and calve
early.
Did late calvers reduce in-calf rates?
Pre-mating heats
A high % of well managed cows will cycle before the
start of mating.
Calved by
Week 3
Week 6
Calved by
Week 3
Week 6
Week 9
Your herd
66%
Your herd
79%
98%
Your herd
54%
84%
93%
Aim above
85%
Aim above
75%
92%
Aim above
60%
87%
98%
3-week submission rate of first calvers
Well managed heifers cycle early
Heat detection
A high % of early-calved mature cows should be
inseminated in the first 3 weeks of mating.
Non-cycling cows
Treated non-cyclers get in calf earlier.
Your herd
93%
Your herd
91%
Treated
Aim above
90%
Aim above
95%
Your herd
Rating
What does
it tell me?
Top result
Average
Below average
No result
What should I do?
Ideal - keep up the good work!
Not enough information provided - seek help with records.
0%
Wks 1-3 Wks 4-6
0%
0%
Performance after week 6
If you ran bulls after week 6 of mating, empty rate
helps assess bull performance.
Empty rate
Getting there - focus on getting the details right.
Plenty of room to improve - seek professional advice.
By PSM
Your herd
Expected
(C)Copyright DairyNZ Ltd September 2007. All rights reserved. (Incorporates components of (C)Copyright Dairy Australia 2005. All rights reserved.)
No warranty of accuracy or reliability of the information provided by InCalf Fertility Focus is given, and no responsiblity for loss arising in any way from or in
connection with its use is accepted by DairyNZ Ltd, or the provider of this report. Users should obtain professional advice for their specific circumstances.
Behind Your Intermediate Fertility Focus Report
Report period: Cows calved between 18/06/12 and 24/12/12.
Report date:
This was the most recent period with sufficient herd records that enabled an analysis
to be completed.
PTPT:
04/02/13
Version 1.0
BWLX
Calving system: Seasonal
Herd Code:
Your herd has been classified as seasonally calving because most calvings occurred
in a single batch lasting less than 21 weeks.
Calvings up to this date
requested for analysis:
Level of analysis: Intermediate.
No of cows included:
To obtain a more detailed and accurate report, pregnancy test more cows at an early
stage of pregnancy. Pregnancy testing including age of pregnancy at less than 17
weeks is recommended.
These cows calved between:
Mating start & stop date:
Part A) Herd records cross check
(estimated from AI or rectal
pregnancy test data)
Check that the herd records in the table are complete and correct.
2012/13
Jun
No. of calvings
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
36
457
212
57
4
217
780
No. of AI matings
Dec
Jan
6/5664
21/01/13
757
18/06/12 and 24/12/12
26/10/12 - 24/12/12
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Total
766
160
1157
No. of aged preg tests
577
577
No. of non-aged preg tests
1
1
16
41
No. of cows culled or died
3
5
7
2
5
3
Part B) Notes on the calculations
Use the following notes to see how your results were calculated.
1 Overall herd reproductive performance
6-week in-calf rate
Empty rate
The 6-week in-calf rate reported HAS BEEN ESTIMATED from the mating
information you provided. An actual result can only be calculated if early
pregnancy test results are available. Supply results of early rectal pregnancy
testing including age of pregnancy for greater accuracy.
An empty rate COULD NOT BE CALCULATED because insufficient pregnancy test
results were available. Supply pregnancy test results for at least 85% of cows.
2 Drivers of the 6-week in-calf rate
3-week submission rate
Non-return rate (1-24 days)
Conception rate
757 cows had calving dates in the required range
and 86% of these were submitted during the first 21
days of mating.
894 eligible inseminations were used in calculating
the non-return rate.
A conception rate COULD NOT BE CALCULATED
because insufficient pregnancy test results were
available. Supply pregnancy test results to confirm
the success or failure of at least 50 inseminations.
3 Key indicators to areas for improvement
Calving pattern of first calvers
Calving pattern of whole herd
125 cows with eligible calving dates were recorded
as calving at less than 34 months of age. The calving
pattern of first calvers was calculated from their
records.
766 cows had calving dates that were eligible for this
report.
3-week submission rate of first calvers
Heat detection
124 first calvers had calving dates in the required
range and 93% of these were submitted during the
first 21 days of mating.
274 cows at least 4 years old at calving had calved at
least 8 weeks before planned start of mating and
91% of these were submitted during the first 21
days of mating.
(C)Copyright DairyNZ Ltd September 2007. All rights reserved.
(Incorporates components of (C)Copyright Dairy Australia 2005. All rights reserved.)
No warranty of accuracy or reliability of the information provided by InCalf Fertility Focus is given,
and no responsiblity for loss arising in any way from or in connection with its use is accepted by
DairyNZ Ltd or the provider of this report.
Users should obtain professional advice for their specific circumstances.
Pre-mating heats
757 cows had calving dates in the required range
and 502 of these had a pre-mating heat recorded.
Non-cycling cows
No cows were identified as being treated for
non-cycling. If you did treat non-cycling cows, please
supply records to ensure those cows are identified.
Performance after week 6
Early pregnancy test results are required to allow
performance after the first six weeks of mating to be
assessed.
Induced cows
34 cows (4%) of cows were identified as having
induced calvings.