Dairy Herd Health Programs

Robert Van Saun, DVM, MS, PhD

Extension Veterinarian
Department of Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences
Penn State University
Email: rjv10@psu.edu

Use of herd health programs has become an essential part of managing a dairy farm as not only
does application of such a program bring economic return, there are outside interests from product
consumers that are asking questions regarding animal well-being, animal care and management
practices and risk potential for residues in their food. This presentation will provide an overview of
disease conditions present on dairy farms in the U.S. and how prevention practices in a herd health
program have been applied to the dairy farm to reduce their incidence and economic impact.

Evolution of Herd Health Practices

Practices used to address disease in farmed animals go back for more than 100 years in the
domestication of food producing animals. In the early stages (prior to 1940’s) individual animals were
diagnosed and treated to the best of one’s ability given there were no antibiotics available. Most
significant animal health concerns were those with zoonotic potential and thus governmental programs
were enacted in an effort to eradicate the disease through methods of vaccination, testing and culling as
applicable. Following the initial availability of antibiotics in the 1940’s and recognized value to selling
animal-based products, more emphasis was placed on properly diagnosing individual animal disease
conditions and instituting appropriately documented therapeutic intervention.
In the mid 1960’s both producers and veterinarians recognized benefits of preventive health and
improved production. Diagnostic capabilities and therapeutic interventions (including aseptic surgery)
were being instituted as well as early stages of organized health programming. Focal areas such as
mastitis control and reproductive evaluations became the cornerstone for routinely scheduled health
programs. Organized preventive programs expanded with more proactive vaccination and parasite
control practices as biologic and therapeutic agents become available. However, much of the early
development of organized herd health programs continued to be based on individual animal disease
diagnosis and treatment, but expanded to the herd as a whole. Over the ensuing decades, herd health
programs continued to evolve in expanding to more records analysis as a means to recognize problems
as well as to evaluate the economic impact or return from intervention. The main protagonists of these
programs were the producer and veterinarian with minimal input from consultants.
Later in the 1990’s as herd health programs continued to be refined, a shift in the paradigm
occurred where the basis of the program was more the herd and its collective performance rather than
the individual animal. As this evolution continues into the 21st Century, veterinarians are becoming more
herd consultants than primary care givers. Economics of agricultural production has dictated a greater
need for less individual animal diagnosis and care by the veterinarian with this activity being replaced by
appropriately trained farm workers. Thus the role of the veterinarian is changing from traditional
modalities. As we continue to evolve into what is now termed production or performance medicine,
veterinarians need to be versed in non-traditional roles of personnel training, records evaluations,
facility design and impact and nutritional management and monitoring. Much of the decision process for
intervention will be made not on an individual animal basis, but herd-based productivity and economic
assessment through extensive records analysis and continued monitoring.
Disease Challenges in Dairy Herds

In essence disease concerns within the dairy herd have both stayed the same and somewhat
evolved with herd health programs. In U.S. dairy herds governmental programs to eradicate both
brucellosis and tuberculosis have come to fruition with only sporadic flare-ups in regional trouble-spots.
Because of the successful brucellosis program, calfhood vaccination is no longer mandatory in nearly all
U.S. states. Tuberculosis remains a challenge in the upper Midwest due to biosecurity breeches with
wildlife interactions. Mastitis remains the single most common and costly disease in dairy production.
This is closely followed by lameness and reproductive infertility in current dairy production systems.
These assessments are reflected in the 2007 National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) report
(see Figures 1 and 2; NAHMS, 2007). One must be cautious in interpreting these data as they are based
on producer diagnosis and not veterinary diagnosis. Additionally, some cows may have fit into more
than one category.

Figure 1. Data from NAHMS, 2007 report on producer identified health problems in dairy cows
(USDA. 2007. Dairy 2007, Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management
Practices in the United States, 2007 USDA-APHIS-VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO, #N480.1007).
Figure 2. Data from NAHMS, 2007 report on producer reasons for cows being removed from the
dairy (USDA. 2007. Dairy 2007, Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management
Practices in the United States, 2007 USDA-APHIS-VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO, #N480.1007).

Postpartum diseases have not really changed much in their overall prevalence, though the
incidence of specific diseases has changed slightly over the years (Table 1). With increasing productivity
today’s dairy cows experience more problems with ruminal acidosis, lameness and displaced abomasum
than in the past; a consequence of high grain feeding. Recent studies have shown that more than 50% of
all calving cows will experience one or more disease event postpartum. This lack of effective change in
disease may be the result of increasing herd size as well as greatly improved diagnostics and recognition
of subclinical forms of disease (i.e., metritis, hypocalcemia, ketosis). Recent work over the past decade
has shown that subclinical forms of disease, namely hypocalcemia, ketosis and endometritis, are much
more prevalent disease processes compared to the clinical disease process. Subclinical diseases are
defined by specific criteria such as blood calcium or beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) concentration or
percent inflammatory cells. Specific thresholds were defined based on significant association with
impaired performance when compared to other cows not having met the defined threshold. For
example, cows having prepartum or postpartum blood calcium concentration below 2.0 mmol/L were
3.8 and 4.0 times more likely, respectively, to have some postpartum disease process (Van Saun et al.,
2005). Chapinal and colleagues (2012) reported a greater risk for displaced abomasum, lower milk
production and reduced risk for pregnancy at first insemination when cows had < 2.1 mmol/L blood
calcium in the two weeks surrounding calving. Although effects of subclinical disease are somewhat
subtle, the impact of their presence is felt through the much higher prevalence rate within a herd
compared to clinical disease.

Table 1. Summarized postpartum disease incidence risks and associated disease event costs
(adapted from Kelton et al., J Dairy Sci 1998;81:2502-2509 and other sources).

Median Incidence Risk, Range of Incidence Estimated cost

Disease
% Risk, % $USD/case

Hypocalcemia 6.5 3-22 $335

Subclinical
22 8-54 $125
hypocalcemia
Retained fetal
8.6 1.3-39.2 $285
membranes

Metritis 10.1 2-37 $359

Subclinical
53 37-74 ???
endometritis

Ketosis 4.8 1.3-18.3 $145

Subclinical ketosis 43 26-55 $67

Displaced
1.7 0.3-6.3 $340
abomasum

Lameness 7.0 1.9-30 $400

Clinical mastitis 14.2 1.7-54.6 $185

Subclinical mastitis 30 15-60 ???

Performance Medicine Health Programs

The foundation of the “performance medicine” approach to herd health programs is that all
decision making is guided by economic assessments. To properly utilize such an approach one needs to
use a benchmarking process to critically evaluate the state of the different enterprises (milking system,
youngstock, reproduction, nutrition, transition cow, etc.) that comprise the complete dairy herd. To
critically evaluate different aspects of the dairy herd to identify the “weak links” or “bottlenecks” of
productivity and efficiency, one needs to have target criteria for comparison to current status. Table 2
provides some examples of target and intervention level criteria in assessing various aspects of the dairy
farm. The intervention level is a point where some change to improve the situation needs to be enacted
as the herd is most likely losing money. To properly use such an approach the dairy farm must collect
and maintain sufficient and accurate records of all productive enterprises. The ongoing monitoring
Table 2. Suggested target goals and intervention levels for various production, reproduction and
health parameters on the dairy farm (modified from Reneau J, Kinsel M. Record systems and
herd monitoring in production-oriented health management programs, 2001).

Parameter Target Goal Intervention level

Production Level
Milk per cow, 2x > 75 lbs < 70 lbs
Milk per cow, 3x > 85 lbs < 80 lbs
Peak milk, 1st lactation > 95 lbs < 90 lbs
Peak milk, 2nd+ lactation > 80 lbs < 75 lbs
Peak milk ratio (1st / 3rd lactations) 0.75-0.80 < 0.75 or > 0.80
Reproduction
Average days in milk 160-170 d > 180 d
Pregnancy rate > 22% < 20
Heat detection rate 70 % < 50 %
Conception risk 50 % < 40 %
Average days dry 40-55 d < 30 or > 70
Calving to conception interval 110 d > 130 d
Culling
Leaving, 1st lactation 10 % > 15 %
Leaving, others 15 % > 20 %
Total turnover rate 20-30 % > 35 %
< 60 DIM Turnover rate <6% >9%
Culling rate for specific disease <5% > 10 %
Milk Quality and Mastitis
Average bulk tank SCC, x103/ml < 200 > 300
New infections <5% > 10 %
No. new clinicals/100 cows/month <2 >3
Linear Score < 5 > 85% < 80 %
Linear Score > 6 <4 >5
% Cows with Linear Score > 3.9 < 30 % > 35 %
Disease Prevalence
Hypocalcemia <2% >5%
Retained Fetal Membranes < 10 % > 15 %
Metritis < 10 % > 15 %
Displaced Abomasum <2% >5%
Clinical Ketosis <5% > 10 %
Lameness <5% > 10 %
Youngstock
Stillborn calves <8% > 12 %
Preweaning calf death loss <3% >5%
Postweaning to 1 year death loss <2% >3%
Age at first breeding 13-15 mo > 16 mo
Age at first calving 22-24 mo > 26 mo
Body weight at calving (Holsteins) 1200-1300 lb < 1200 lb
process can be overseen by the herd veterinarian given their collective expertise, but is best achieved
through a team approach including veterinarian, herdsperson, nutritionist, banker and possibly others as
needed for a given situation. Targets (Table 2) are based on summary data across dairies, but should
truly be defined by economic and management criteria specific for the herd. Not all herds may
necessarily want to achieve the highest level of production, but they must want to achieve some level of
profitability to remain in business. Dr. Ken Nordlund at the University of Wisconsin developed a
worksheet that allows farms to calculate the economic losses from various enterprises of the dairy farm
and decide which is in greatest need for correction (see document at end of paper).
Once a significant problem is identified, then the team can work on developing a plan for
correction. Again, input from various parties, including specific management area workers, is critical in
developing a mitigation plan for improvement that has a good chance for success. Nordlund has also
provided criteria in deciding if a proposed plan should be implemented (Figure 3). In considering the
potential outcome of a proposed plan, if most of the consideration factors are in the “YES” column, then
there is good potential for a positive and financially rewarding outcome. This process can be used to
determine a priority order for proposed plans addressing various management area problems that were
identified.

Figure 3. Criteria used to decide on practicality of implementation for an intervention plan.

Decision for Plan Implementation:

Consideration Factors
No Yes
Potential return Low High
Cost to implement High Low
Interval to effect (response) Months to Years Weeks
Odds of plan success Questionable Certain
Impact of plan failure Bankruptcy Minimal

In organizing a tailored herd health program to address herd productivity and health, there are a
number of management area components that can be built into a comprehensive herd health program
specifically addressing the concerns of a given dairy as identified in the process described above.
Organization of the scheduled herd health program will depend upon the herd and capabilities of farm
workers, but should comprise the following scheduled activities:

• Sick cow evaluations and treatment, emergency calls – veterinarian’s role will depend
upon farm worker competency and skill level
• Reproductive exams, body condition scoring, vaccinations, other procedures –
veterinarian’s role may vary farm to farm based on worker competency and skill level
• Analytic evaluations (records assessment, 5-Key performance indicators, goals,
performance reviews), ongoing staff trainings and protocol modifications or
development – Primary function of veterinarian
• Quality control assessments – nutrition, youngstock, milking performance – Primary
function of veterinarian

As indicated above, the veterinarian’s primary role in a performance medicine based herd health
program is to provide the critical assessments to farm records to evaluate and monitor overall
performance and identify potential areas of concern. Additionally, the veterinarian would provide
service in training of work staff on basic procedures and how to follow designed protocols. Monitoring
of quality control for key management areas relative to nutritional program, youngstock development
and milking procedures is fundamental to assessing consistency within herd procedures. The following
are brief descriptions of activities that might be associated with these different management areas and
associated standard operating procedures (SOP) or protocols for describing worker activities as well as
specific records monitoring in assessing performance.

Transition Cow Management

This management area includes all worker activities and facilities from when the cow gets dried
off through early lactation. This is one of the most important management areas as it has significant
impact on mastitis and postpartum cow health and performance. It equally involves important aspects
of early calf management. Depending upon herd size, this management area may encompass multiple
worker groups responsible for maternity pen, fresh cows and newborn calves.

Protocols: Dry cow treatment; Calving management; Newborn calf care; Fresh cow
examinations; Specific disease treatment protocols; Colostrum feeding;

Monitoring: Somatic cell count changes over dry period; Fresh cow disease prevalence;
Colostrum feeding adequacy; Calf survival; Calving scores; Start-up milk yield and
composition;

Milking System – Mastitis Surveillance

This management area specifically addresses activities associated with harvesting milk. This
would include all milking parlor activities and oversight of milking machine and milk holding system.

Protocols: Milking procedures; Machine cleaning; Mastitis identification; Mastitis therapy

procedures;

Monitoring: Milking efficiency: milking time, parlor throughput, milk per worker hour; Milk
quality: SCC, bulk tank milk measures (SPC, PIC); Clinical mastitis prevalence; Teat
scoring; Milking machine evaluations

Reproductive Management
This management area is often the one most readily recognized as this was the basis of herd
health programs in the past. Palpation of cows to stage estrous cycle and potential for breeding was the
foundational component of veterinary activity on the dairy farm. It is well recognized that reproductive
performance of the collective dairy herd has declined over that past few decades in concert with an
increase in milk yield. As a result, more emphasis must be placed on achieving timely and successful
breeding of the dairy herd to maintain profitability. Research has provided some opportunities to better
management reproductive performance of the dairy herd through estrous synchronization programs,
though these bring some challenges.

Protocols: Heat detection; Synchronization programs: injection timing and compliance; Disease
monitoring and treatment (metritis);

Monitoring: Reproductive performance parameters: heat detection efficiency, pregnancy rate,

conception risk, days in milk, % pregnant by 150 days, intervals to breeding, conception,
etc.; Compliance efficiency with synchronization protocols;
Youngstock
All aspects of calf and heifer development would be included in this management area. This
program provides the improved genetics for the dairy farm and has financial impact from the number of
heifers available to replace cows. Heifer growing costs are the second most significant costs related to
milk production.

Protocols: Newborn calf care (navel dipping, identification); Calf colostrum feeding; Calf
colostrum absorption status (total protein by refractometer); Liquid feeding practices;
Cleaning practices for calf feeding utensils; Disease management and treatment
protocols (preweaned calves, heifers); Weaning practices; Heifer estrus detection and
breeding;

Monitoring: Calf and heifer mortality and morbidity rates; Heifer growth (height and weight)
monitoring; Age at first breeding and calving; financial costs for raising calf to weaning
or heifer to calving;

Disease Management
Application of disease management practices can be incorporated into other respective
management areas such as transition cows or youngstock. Overall disease control programs should be
managed by the herd veterinarian and titrated to specific disease concerns identified for the herd.
Disease management should be comprised of a recommended vaccination protocol, parasite control
program and herd biosecurity practices. All disease prevention programs for the herd should be based
on identified disease concerns and not a blanket approach using most or all of the available commercial
vaccines. Parasite control practices are essential for calves and heifers, but may also include cows on
pasture. Biosecurity practices should be developed to prevent disease entry to the farm and minimize
disease transference around the farm.

Protocols: Vaccine program for various groups of animals; Parasite control programs for animal
groups; Biosecurity practices for various management areas and collectively for the
farm; Handling protocols for therapeutic compounds used in each of the vaccine and
parasite control programs;

Monitoring: Disease morbidity rates; Diagnostic screening tests for specific disease entities;

Nutritional Monitoring
The nutritional program for the farm is most often overseen by a consulting nutritionist, either
working independently or in association with a feed company. The veterinarian can play an important
role as an independent agent monitoring the consistency of the feeding program. The veterinarian has
direct assessment of disease status and reproductive performance that are good proxy monitors of the
quality and adequacy of the nutritional program.

Protocols: Body condition scoring; feed mixing practices; feed delivery practices; feedbunk
management; feed ingredient sampling and testing; TMR audit process; feed equipment
maintenance; ensiled feed evaluation and inventory; feed ingredient inventory, dry
matter determinations of ensiled feeds

Monitoring: Body condition changes; milk yield and composition production by groups; blood
testing for metabolic disease prevalence; metabolic disease prevalence; changes in feed
 delivery rates; particle size distribution of mixed, delivered and refused feed; Dry matter
intake by pens; inventory shrink;

Records Analysis
The entire performance medicine approach to herd health is predicated on the utilization of
records to assess the current status and monitor changes following implementation of some planned
change. Obviously within each management area there will be some need to analyze records to make an
assessment of the situation. Records could be based on Dairy Herd Improvement data generated for
each farm or from farm-based computerized records systems.
In using records to identify potential problem areas, five key performance indicators (KPI) have
been developed as a first general screen of farm productive status. These KPI include milk production
per day (milking cows), average days in milk for the herd, herd somatic cell count, pregnancy rate and
culling (turnover) rate. Criteria (Table 2) or goals have been established to interpret individual herd
values for the KPI. If a herd does not meet the established goal, then this directs further investigation
into potential specific causes of the abnormal KPI. One or more KPI might not be with the target goals. In
using this approach it helps to narrow down the further investigation process and hopefully improve the
time frame in which corrective actions might be enacted.

References

Chapinal N, LeBlanc SJ, Carson ME, et al. 2012. Herd-level association of serum metabolites in the
transition period with disease, milk production, and early lactation reproductive performance. J
Dairy Sci 95:5676–5682.
Kelton DF, Lissemore KD, Martin RE. 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence
of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 81(10):2502-2509.
Nordlund K. 2005. GoalForm version 23. Food Animal Production Medicine, University of Wisconsin,
http://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/dms/fapm/fapmtools/1econ/Goal-Form23.pdf (accessed Aug 18,
2013).
Reneau JK, Kinsel ML. 2001. Records systems and herd monitoring in production-oriented health
management programs in food producing animals. In Radostits OM, ed. Herd Health: Food
Animal Production Medicine, 3rd ed., WB Saunders: Philadelphia, pp 107-146.
Ruegg PL. 2001. Health and production management in dairy herds. In Radostits OM, ed. Herd Health:
Food Animal Production Medicine, 3rd ed., WB Saunders: Philadelphia, pp 211-254.
USDA. 2007. Dairy 2007, Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the
United States, 2007 USDA-APHIS-VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO, #N480.100
Van Saun RJ, Todd A, Varga GA. 2005. Serum mineral concentrations and risk of periparturient disease.
Proc Am Assoc Bov Pract 38:178-179.

Other Resources

Radostits OM. 2001. Herd Health: Food Animal Production Medicine, 3rd ed., WB Saunders: Philadelphia,
PA, 884 pages (ISBN 0-7216-7694-4).

Risco C, Melendez Retamal P. 2011. Dairy Production Medicine, Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, IA, 380 pages
(ISBN 978-0-8138-1539-8).

Green M (ed). 2012. Dairy Herd Health, CABI: Oxfordshire, UK, 312 pages (ISBN 978-1-84593-997-1).
• UW-SVM Dairy Production Medicine GOALFORM Version 23: Ken Nordlund, July 20, 2005

CLIENT: ___________________________________ Date: ___________________Vet:______________________

REPLACEMENT HEIFERS
† LOSSES DUE TO EXCESS HEIFER MORTALITY

Inventory: Number of heifers on farm: ____________________

No. heifer deaths past year: ______ + _________ + _________ = ___________

Stillborn Preweaning Wean-Calve Total # deaths
Goal <1.5% <5.5% <2% <9%

Population at risk: ( ___________ + _________ + ________ ) = ___________

Hfrs on farm # dead / yr # sold / yr

(Total dead)
$
_______________ = 0.______ - .09 = 0._______ x __________ x ___________ =
Death Goal Excess Population Avg. value Annual loss
Population at risk) rate deaths at risk to excess deaths

† LOSSES DUE TO OVERAGE HEIFERS

$
( ___________ - 24 months ) x 30 x ____________ x ______________ =
Avg Age 1st days/mo $/day No. hfrs / yr Annual Loss to
Calving, Months Overage calving

† LOSSES DUE TO UNDERSIZED HOLSTEIN HEIFERS

Size of recent 1st lactation cows: Heart Body Wt Differential from

Girth, at Calving 1200 lb target wt,
_____________ ________________ inches (lbs) lbs. milk 1st lact.
Avg. Heart Girth Avg. Withers Height 71.5 1001-1050 -842
73 1051-1100 -583
74 1101-1150 -427
75.5 1151-1200 -211 Keown,
77 1201-1250 0 DHMgt,
78 1251-1300 41 Aug.86
79 1301-1350 172
80 1351-1400 212
81 1401-1450 222
>82 >1450 168

$
(_______________________ x ________________ ) x ____________________ =
No. Heifers enter herd/year Lbs milk lost Milk price per lb Annual production loss
to undersized heifers
CULLING
Weighted average cull value: Class No. Value Total
Dairy sales _______ $_______ $________
Culls _______ _______ ________
Deads _______ _______ ________
Wtg Average Cull Price = Sum of all animals sold / number sold =____________

Culling Transaction Cost: $_______________ - $ ____________ = _______________

Replacement heifer Avg Cull Price Avg.Cost per Cull
$
† ___________ x ( 0._____________ - 0.25 ) x _____________ =
Rolling # cows Annual turnover Goal turnover Avg. cost Annual cost of
in herd rate rate per cull excess culling
• UW-SVM Dairy Production Medicine GOALFORM Version 23: Ken Nordlund, July 20, 2005

UDDER HEALTH
† PRODUCTION LOSSES DUE TO SUBCLINICAL MASTITIS

Lactation No. Avg Production Lbs milk lost

Group Head LS Goal Loss/Unit LS per Group

1st Lactation: _________ x ( _________ - 2.0 ) x 220 lb = _____________

Other Cows: _________ x ( _________ - 2.5 ) x 440 lb = _____________

______________ x _____________ =
$
Total Lbs Lost Milk price per lb Annual production loss
to subclinical mastitis

† OPPORTUNITY FROM MILK QUALITY PREMIUMS

Maximum SCC premium from your milk plant: $ 0. _____ per cwt ( at 150,000 SCC)

Average quality premium received last year: $ 0. _____ per cwt (avg SCC past year = ______________ )

Potential premium difference: $ 0. per cwt

$
_____________________ x _____________ x _____________________ / 100 =
Rolling Herd Average Milk Rolling #. Cows Pot. Premium. Diff per cwt Annual premium opportunity

† LOSSES FROM ACUTE MASTITIS:

_________________ - _____________________ x $107 =

$
Estimated # of Target # of cases / yr Annual loss to clinical cases
mastitis cases/year (15% of R# cows)

The average mastitis flareup will cost $107, as a combination of $12 in medication, $90 in discarded and decreased milk, $2
in veterinary cost, and $3 in labor. (Hoblet, NMC 1991)

GENETICS

† LOSSES DUE TO SEMEN SELECTION RELATIVE TO TOP HERDS

>30,000 NM$ No. Identified
Lactation Group NM$ 6/05 Your herd Difference. Cows

First Lact. Cows 187 - (__________) = (__________) x (___________) = ________

2nd Lact. Cows 135 - (__________) = (__________) x (___________) = ________

Later Lact. Cows 95 - (__________) = (__________) x (___________) = _______ $

Total =
Annual NM$ losses
† LOSSES DUE TO HERD BULLS OR UNIDENTIFIED SIRES
Total cows No. No. not Genetic
(Cassell,1990)
Lactation Group in Group IdentifiedIdentified Loss

First Lact. Cows (__________) - (__________) = (__________) x $134 = __________

2nd Lact. Cows (__________) - (__________) = (__________) x $134 = __________

Later Lact. Cows (__________) - (__________) = (__________) x $134 = __________

Total = $
Annual non-AI losses
• UW-SVM Dairy Production Medicine GOALFORM Version 23: Ken Nordlund, July 20, 2005

REPRODUCTION: Average Days in Milk (Lactating Cows ONLY) 1_____________

Reproduction problems result in 2_____________
cows having extended lactations. 3_____________
The herd average days in milk is 4_____________
very reflective of long term 5_____________
reproductive status of the herd. 6_____________
7_____________
Because average days in milk is highly variable 8_____________
in seasonally calving herds, a Rolling Average 9_____________
Days-In-Milk should be calculated by averaging 10_____________
The herd average days in milk over the previous 11_____________
12 months. 12_____________
Sum above and divide by 12 = _____________
Rolling ADIM

† MILK SALES LOST DUE TO MILKING LATER AND LOWER IN LACTATION CURVE
$
(___________ - 160 ) x ___________ x 0.17 x $_________/ lb x 365 days x 0.89 =
Rolling ADIM days Rolling # Cows lb/day* Milk price %DIM Annual loss to long DIM
* Western Regional Ext. Pub. 0067
† PRODUCTION LOSS DUE TO LONG DRY PERIODS

( _______________ - 55 ) x _____________ x $3.00/day

*
=
$
Avg Days Dry days # 2(+) lact cows Annual loss to long dry days

NUTRITION: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PEAK MILK

nd
Calculate a weighted average peak milk of 2 and 3+ Cows: No CowsAvgPeak Product
2nd ________ ________ __________
3+ ________ ________ __________
Total ________ __________
Total Product _____________ / Total # cows __________ = Wtg Avg Peak _____________

RHA milk Avg Peak, Your Avg Peak, Your

Lbs 1st Lact 1st Lact Peaks Mature cows 2+ peaks
30,000 93 ________ 128 _______
29,000 92 ________ 124 _______
28,000 90 ________ 121 _______
27,000 87 ________ 117 _______
26,000 85 ________ 113 _______
(Circle 25,000 82 ________ 110 _______ (AgSource, regression
RHA closest 24,000 80 ________ 106 _______ of Dec 2001 data)
to your 23,000 77 ________ 103 _______
herd avg) 22,000 75 ________ 99 _______
21,000 72 ________ 95 _______
20,000 70 ________ 92 _______
19,000 67 ________ 88 _______
18,000 65 ________ 85 _______
17,000 62 ________ 81 _______
Goal increase
No cows from current peak Milk price/lb

1st Lact __________ x _____________ x 390 lb / lact x __________ = __________________

2(+) Lact __________ x _____________ x 280lb / lact x ___________ = __________________

Preliminary Total = __________________

(To avoid double counting factors that increase peak milk, subtract $ amounts from other areas that would increase peak
milk. If increased peak goals were stated for only 1st or older cows, subtract amounts from other categories designated to
that parity group only.)
$
† _______________ (-) _____________ (-) __________ (-) ___________ =
Preliminary peak $ Heifer size Genetic SCC Linear Annual $ from increased peaks
Losses losses Score Losses
• UW-SVM Dairy Production Medicine GOALFORM Version 23: Ken Nordlund, July 20, 2005

Goal Form Summary for Herd: Date:

Item Goal-form categories Categories related to

related to increased cost control or price,
milk production but not production
Replacements
Excess calf mortality

Age at first calving

Size at first calving

Culling
Excess cull rate

Mastitis
Subclinical mastitis

SCC Premiums

Excess clinical cases (80%) (20%)

Genetics
PTA$ relative to top herds

PTA$ from unidentified sires

Reproduction
High rolling days-in-milk

Excess days dry (50%) (50%)

Nutrition
Peak milk opportunities

Total

Check:

_________________ / ____________ / __________ = __________________

Production $ increase Milk price per lb No. of cows Increase per cow per yr
• UW-SVM Dairy Production Medicine GOALFORM Version 23: Ken Nordlund, July 20, 2005

AREAS FOR ATTENTION

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

MANAGEMENT GOALS

1._________________________________________________________________________________________________

2._________________________________________________________________________________________________

3._________________________________________________________________________________________________

4._________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLANS / NEXT STEP

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________