Primary tools to help manage this contagious, costly disease in your dairy herd.

By Norman D. Stewart, D.V.M., M.S.

As cattle pinkeye season approaches, it’s important to put an effective management program in place and take the necessary steps to control this contagious, costly disease. Like a three-legged stool, vaccination, fly control and environmental management comprise the primary tools for managing pinkeye. They work together to provide an effective pinkeye control program and help maintain your animal’s health, productivity and profitability.

Vaccination
The first leg of pinkeye control is vaccination. Pinkeye is caused when bacterial organisms, such as Moraxella bovis, infect the surface and fluids of the eye. Pinkeye vaccines stimulate the production of antibodies in tears that bathe the eye, limit infection and reduce the severity of eye lesions.

Consider these three best management practices for pinkeye vaccination.

• Work with your veterinarian or animal health provider to identify a broad-spectrum vaccine that is effective against a wide variety of common infectious strains and isolates to address pinkeye on your operation.

• Vaccinate animals three to six weeks prior to the onset of pinkeye season to allow time for the animals’ immune system to develop an effective immune response.

• Administration times vary from product to product, so always follow label directions.

Fly control

Because flies can spread pinkeye quickly, fly control is critical. Face flies can expose animals to different strains of Moraxella bovis by transporting bacteria from the eyes of animal to animal and traveling significant distances between herds. Other flies of concern are stable and horn flies.

Although these flies do not spread pinkeye, they are responsible for losses in milk production. Stable flies decrease milk production as a result of feeding on the lower body and legs of cattle, and horn flies can transmit mastitis-causing bacteria on the teat ends.

To reduce the effect flies have on milk production and the spread of pinkeye, consider these management practices.

• Use fly control products that are effective, long-lasting and easy to administer, and always follow label directions.

• For calves, heifers and cows, apply a low-volume pour-on for rapid knockdown of the existing fly population.

• Use an insecticide on the animal's premises, such as a microencapsulated product, that delivers superior, long-lasting control on a wide variety of surfaces in and around livestock facilities.

• Use additional fly control measures, such as ear tags in growing replacement heifers and back-rubbers, oilers and other devices as needed on pasture or in the milking parlor as cows exit the facility.

• Eliminate organic debris such as wet/rotting hay, straw, feed, silage and manure. These are ideal breeding grounds for stable flies.

• Conduct an audit of all of your facilities to evaluate existing fly and environmental control measures on the animals and premises, in addition to identifying areas for improvement.

• Reapply insecticides throughout the fly season.

Environment

Managing the environment is the third piece of your pinkeye control program. Management practices, such as pasture mowing, dust control and man-made or natural shades, are important to minimize eye irritants like pollen, seed heads, dust and ultraviolet light. These environmental factors cause irritation and physical damage, allowing infectious pinkeye organisms to attach to the surface of the eye.

Eye irritants also can cause the eye to tear. Tearing, watery eyes can attract face flies, which feed on the watery secretions from the eye and surrounding tissue. Flies can rapidly spread the infectious bacteria throughout the herd, which results in a dramatic and sudden increase of pinkeye.

Ultimately, managing pinkeye requires a planned attack. To maintain your animal’s health, productivity and profitability, remember the three-pronged approach of vaccination, fly control and environmental management this season.

Dr. Norman D. Stewart is a dairy technical services manager for Merck Animal Health. He lives in Illinois and can be contacted at norman.stewart@merck.com.

Follow these three steps for success.

By Dr. Elliot Block, Senior Manager, Technology, Arm & Hammer Animal Nutrition

The easy way to accomplish sound ration formulation with any cropping conditions, but especially when crops are suspected to be variable, is to use the phenomenal modeling programs and lab analytical capabilities that are at your disposal.

Follow these three steps for success:

1. Know which model your ration balancing platform uses.

The major platforms use either CNCPS 5.0 (CPM Dairy), CNCPS 6.1 (AMTS and NDS) or NRC 2001. If you use other platforms, determine which model your platform most closely emulates.

2. Completely analyze forages for the components used in your nutritional model.

Simply knowing the starch value is insufficient, particularly this year. It is just as important to get the correct value for the fermentability of that starch. Corn Silage NDF values alone are not sufficient either. Use the values for rate and extent of NDF digestibility to get the diet closer to correctly predicting animal performance.

• In this regard, NDF is not always NDF and the type of NDF analysis that is best suited for your ration formulation model will differ (see below). Every forage lab conducts the analyses requested and has different forms and formats for requesting the analytical procedures. Make certain to ask for the correct analyses best suited to your ration formulation model.

In addition to the standard nutrient analyses, obtain results for these analyses:
• aNDF: NDF done with the use of Na Sulfite which solubilizes most, but not all, of the protein out of the NDF residue. It is used in the CNCPS 6.1 and NRC 2001 models.
• aNDIP: This is the crude protein measured on the aNDF residue and is used in CNCPS 6.1 and NRC 2001 models.
• NDR: This is the NDF analysis performed without Na Sulfite and is used in the CNCPS 5.0/CPM model.
• NDRIP: This is the protein done on the NDR residue and is used in the CNCPS 5.0/CPM model.

Determine which NDF digestibility assays will be most critical.

• The models currently support the measurement of NDFd at 24 and 30 hours.
• Next year the industry will move to a two-pool model as suggested in the 2009 Cornell Nutrition Conference proceedings. This will mean 30, 96 or 120 and 240 in vitro digestibilities. The 240-hour uNDF will replace the need to do lignin testing and will better recognize the indigestible fiber, which is variable within plant species as well as among plant species. This will allow us to better fine-tune rations for the amount of forage that can be fed—but that is for next year.

Know starch fermentability.
• Ask for a 7-hour starch digestibility. This is a starting point and allows nutritionists to develop Kds (rate of digestion). Researchers are working with the various forage labs to develop a more robust multi point measurement that will increase the robustness of the predicted single-pool Kd.
• It is important that field nutritionists truly understand what to request in an analysis based on ration balancing tools used. For example, if CPM is used, ask for NDR and NDRIP. If 6.1 is used, ask for aNDF and aNDIP.

Lastly, don’t forget, stressed crops may contain more mycotoxins; therefore a mycotoxin analysis is essential as you work with silage.

3. Enter the data obtained from the above into the nutrient profile of the feed.

At this point you can reoptimize the ration and come much closer to accurately knowing how the cow will perform and which ingredients may have to be changed.

By using these available tools, you can avoid weeks or months of subpar performance or nutritionally induced health issues because you decided to use "typical values" for these parameters.

NIR (Near Infra-Red) CAUTION NOTE: Some of the forage analytical labs have robust equations to give reliable estimates of digestibilities by NIR but other labs do not. While NIR will result in accurate estimates for major nutrients (except minerals) in forages, if the forage you work with is not "mainstream," consider requesting wet chemistry for digestibilities and fermentabilities.

Contact Dt. Block at Elliot.block@churchdwight.com; or visit Arm & Hammer's dairy website.

Understanding the differences between killed and modified-live vaccines can provide better protection from disease.

Dr. Brian Miller, Professional Services Veterinarian, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc.

Vaccination plays an integral role in keeping dairy herds healthy and productive, but despite having such a fundamental role, the function of the vaccines we choose is quite complex.

Understanding the differences between modified-live virus (MLV) vaccines and killed vaccines allows veterinarians and producers to use them properly and at appropriate times.

Let’s look at the definitions of these two categories. A modified-live vaccine contains a small quantity of bacteria or virus that has been altered, so that it is no longer capable of causing clinical disease, but is still capable of mimicking natural infection by replicating within the animal, creating an immune response and subsequent immunity. A killed vaccine, however, has been altered so the virus or bacteria is dead and cannot replicate. Typically, killed vaccines contain large amounts of antigen and utilize adjuvant(s) to enhance the immune response.

Both modified-live and killed vaccines have a place on the dairy, and their function can be summed up in two words: robustness combined with safety when used on label, and safety respectively. A simplified description, perhaps, but these two words carry heavy meaning for vaccines.

For example, a modified-live vaccine generally provides a more robust, long-lasting response, because the animal "sees" all the different stages of the replicating (multiplying) virus or bacteria. Modified-live vaccines like Express® FP 10 are commonly used in a dairy herd because they provide greater and longer-lasting immunity.

A common concern when using modified-live vaccines is safety. EXPRESS FP 10, when used according to label directions, is safe to use in pregnant cows provided they were vaccinated, according to label directions, with any EXPRESS FP vaccine within the past 12 months. If you choose not to use a modified-live vaccine during pregnancy, a killed vaccine is an alternative choice. Consult with your veterinarian regarding this decision.

With killed vaccines like Triangle®, we typically think of safety. Modified-live vaccines should not be used in pregnant animals with an unknown vaccination history. When dealing with this type of situation, killed vaccine products are a safer choice.

Disadvantages of killed versus modified-live vaccines include a slower onset of immunity, shorter duration of immunity, the need for multiple doses to stimulate initial immunity, and unresolved issues regarding the robustness of the immune response following their use.

There are regional differences when it comes to vaccine usage but many dairies use a core vaccine protocol that includes a 10-way (five-way viral and five-way Lepto) and a seven- or eight-way clostridial. While these two vaccines often serve as the foundation of a vaccine protocol, additional vaccines used might include protection against respiratory bacteria, Salmonella or pink eye.

To develop the most effective vaccine protocol utilizing both modified-live and killed vaccine products, work closely with your herd veterinarian. Take compliance seriously, and remember to always follow label directions to optimize immunity in each animal, and provide greater overall immunity and protection for your dairy herd.

Regardless of MLV or killed vaccination preferences, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc has the broad vaccine portfolio with proven protection to satisfy the needs that are most important to you and the success of your herd.

For more information, visit www.bi-vetmedica.com/cattle.

Express and Triangle are registered trademarks of Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. ©2013 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc.

If your first instinct is to consider the cost of each product, make sure you don’t stop there. Consider these wellness costs to evaluate that aren’t written on the bottle.

By Mark Kirkpatrick, Dairy Technical Services, Zoetis

If you find a case of metritis, what treatment do you reach for? A case of metritis can cost between $304 and $354 in losses of production and performance¹, so you need a cost-effective treatment — something you can count on.

If your first instinct is to consider the cost of each product, make sure you don’t stop there. The product that costs less off the shelf could come with hidden costs and risks, especially if you use that treatment in an extra-label fashion. Here are some dairy wellness costs to evaluate that aren’t written on the bottle.

Hidden cost 1: Less chance of curing the disease
Understanding the disease process itself will help you identify which treatment is most effective. For example, metritis has a bacterial species progression that makes it difficult to treat. Typically, a case of metritis begins when an Escherichia coli (E. coli) infection develops in the uterus and paves the way for subsequent infections from other bacteria. An antibiotic such as penicillin does not have the range to attack an E. coli infection and going off-label won’t help. Treating metritis with penicillin may not fully address the cause of the metritis and require additional treatments.

Hidden cost 2: Protocols requiring more treatments
Treatment protocols are designed to consider length of therapy as well as both route and amount of a therapeutic agent to be delivered to address the disease condition. Depending on the drug you choose, protocols will vary in order to effectively address the condition. Protocols must be completed in both dose and duration to minimize the chance of a relapse and treatment failure.

Hidden cost 3: Greater risk of a drug residue
Some treatments aren’t necessarily dairy-friendly, especially if you want to use the drug in an extra-label fashion. Work with your veterinarian to review treatments options and updated withdrawal times if you both decide an extra-label treatment is necessary. Treatments requiring a milk withdrawal must be followed to avoid violative drug residues. If your raw milk tests positive for an antibiotic, you could be charged to cover the cost of the tanker plus additional fines from food safety officials. Treatments that come with zero milk discard remove the potentially hefty hidden cost of a residue violation.

Hidden cost 4: Reduced performance after a pen move
Treatments that require a milk withdrawal also means a cow must be moved to a pen with other treated cattle. Every time a cow is moved to a different pen, she needs to familiarize herself with her new surroundings and establish her social rank in the new group. Studies have shown that it can take two to five days for a group of cows to become socially stable after any pen move.² Even when moving back to the original pen, social stress causes cows to spend less time eating and lying down. When milk production declines, the hidden costs of the treatment add up.

Hidden cost 5: Additional disease exposure with a pen move
Pen moves also can be costly if a cow contracts another illness. When a cow is already ill, her immune system is compromised and the risk of contracting another disease is high. For example, cows in hospital pens are 11 times more likely to contract Salmonella from shedding carriers in the pen.³ A new disease could require additional treatments, different medicines and more money spent.

Avoid hidden costs, extra-label therapy, drug residues and ineffective therapeutic outcomes by visiting with your veterinarian to discuss treatment options and protocols. Your veterinarian can help you determine which treatment is best suited for your operation and develop a treatment and record-keeping protocol to avoid these serious risks. If you have questions about drug residues and steps you can take to avoid them, visit www.AvoidResidues.com.

¹ Metritis: Modified from Overton M, Fetrow J. Economics of Postpartum Uterine Health, in Proceedings. Dairy Cattle Reproduction Council Convention, 2008:39-44.
² Boe KE, Faerevik G. Grouping and social preferences in calves, heifers and cows. Appl Anim.Behav Sci 2003.;80(3):175-190.
³ Cobbold RN, Rice DH, Davis MA, Besser TE, Hancock DD. Long-term persistence of multi-drug-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Newport in two dairy herds. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006;228(4):585-591.

Are you and your employees actually following these steps for your most expensive input?

By Travis Thayer, Diamond V

Record grain and forage costs are cause to maximize the efficiency of your feeding program. As a member of the Diamond V TMR AuditTM team I have been able to help dairies improve feeding efficiency. A TMR Audit is a value-added service that Diamond V offers our customers. It involves a comprehensive evaluation of the feeding program; including ingredient inventory management, mixing and bunk management. Key areas to increase your feeding program efficiency include, but are not limited to, ingredient management, equipment maintenance, bunk management, and communication.

Feed Ingredient Storage and Management
Reducing shrink, especially losses associated with silages and wet feeds, are areas of opportunity to increase efficiency and savings. It starts with having a plan prior to ensiling. Properly packed and covered piles will promote proper fermentation and reduce shrink and spoilage. Using a quality silage inoculant can promote fermentation and dry matter recovery. Removing only one or two days of plastic while maintaining a smooth and vertical face will minimize exposure to oxygen and prevent spoilage. This practice also prevents dangerous overhangs. Remove only what is needed during the current feeding period. Loose silage left on the feeding pad for extended periods of time will cause excessive heating and spoilage, which will decrease nutrient value, palatability and can lead to digestive upsets. To prevent excessive spoilage and exposure to oxygen, only uncover enough silage for one to two days of use.

Keep the feed center area clean and organized. Store commodities in a covered area that is protected from the environment and pests. Be sure to rotate ingredient bay and implement "FIFO" (First–In-First-Out) to reduce waste and lose. The use of a Super Mix (combining ingredients) will improve mixing efficiency and accuracy. The feed center is an area of high traffic with large equipment and at times with limited visibility. We need to remind our employees of the importance of safety when entering the feeding center and silage piles.

Equipment Maintenance
Lack of proper mixer maintenance is another key area that can decrease the effectiveness of a feeding program. Maintenance schedules can vary significantly from manufacturer recommendations depending on farm size, ingredient choices, and environmental conditions. Mixer knives and kicker plates need to be inspected for wear on a regular basis. In vertical mixers, the kicker plate lifts the feed and begins the mixing process. Make calibration of scales part of your maintenance schedule. It is impossible to accurately load and deliver a TMR if you cannot measure it.

Feed Delivery and Bunk Management
The feeder should distribute a consistent TMR evenly along the entire feed bunk. Access to a consistent TMR is the most important aspect of bunk management; therefore, feed delivery and push up schedules should be reviewed to promote optimum DMI. Higher feed prices have caused the dairy industry to reevaluate appropriate refusal amounts. A key component to achieving desired refusal levels is correctly reading bunks. Ideally, this would be done as close to the feed delivery time as possible. If bunks are read once a day for all pens, it is important that they are evaluated at a consistent time with pen counts and movements communicated. If corrected action is needed, check moisture levels of feeds, pen counts and prior day’s ration accuracy.

Employee Training
Provide language appropriate (usually Spanish) training and regular refresher courses for your employees on proper feeding procedure. Communicate the dairy’s expectations, and provide regular feedback about employee performance. Even the best employees are destined to fail if they are not properly trained, don’t know what is expected of them, or don’t know how they are performing.

My job duties at Diamond V involve employee training in Spanish in a variety of areas, and that often involves feeder schools. Many customers have reported huge improvements to their feeding programs after their employees went through feeder training. I have found that employees generally take great pride in their jobs and are very eager to learn how to do them better. Check in with your feeders regularly – they are doing the work every day, and are often the first people to detect any problems that may occur. Make sure safety is a part of training sessions and performance evaluations as well. Safety on the dairy farm cannot be emphasized enough.

As owners, managers, and feeders we should strive to provide our cows a consistent TMR prepared in an efficient and timely manner that is in synch with other activities in the dairy. Small improvements in the feeding program will have large impacts in productivity, health, efficiency and profitability.

After obtaining a B.S. in Microbiology and a DVM Degree at UC Davis, Dr. Thayer practiced dairy production medicine in California’s Central Valley. He joined Diamond V in 2011 as Dairy Technical Trainer. For more information on TMR Audits™ or employee training in Spanish, contact him at tthayer@diamondv.com, or your local Diamond V representative.