Constraints for nutritional grouping in Wisconsin and Michigan dairy farms

23Citations
Citations of this article
55Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

A survey was conducted in Wisconsin (WI) and Michigan (MI) to quantify the proportion of farms that use a single diet for all lactating cows and to better understand the reasons for current grouping strategies and the limitations to grouping for better nutritional management. A questionnaire was mailed to all WI dairy farmers with ≥200 lactating cows (971 farms) and to a random sample of grade-A MI dairy farmers (800 farms) of varying herd sizes. The survey return rate was 20% in WI (196 farms) and 26% in MI (211 farms; 59 of them had ≥200 lactating cows). Feeding 2 or more different diets to lactating cows was predominant: 63% in WI (124 farms, all ≥200 lactating cows), 76% in MI farms with ≥200 lactating cows (45 farms), and 28% in MI farms with <200 lactating cows (43 farms). Farmers feeding more than 1 diet used 1 or more of the following criteria for grouping lactating cows: stage of lactation, milk production, or body condition score. Overall for both states, 52% of the farms (211 from 407 farms) feeding more than 1 diet grouped cows according to their nutritional needs. However, a notable population of farms fed the same diet to all lactating cows: 37% in WI (72 farms), 24% in MI (14 farms) for herds of ≥200 lactating cows, and 72% in MI for herds of <200 lactating cows (109 MI farms). "Desire to keep it simple" and "milk drops when cows are moved to a different group" were identified as main constraints to having more groups within a farm for nutritional purposes. Farm facilities and labor were also limiting factors to grouping in farms with herd sizes of <200 lactating cows.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Contreras-Govea, F. E., Cabrera, V. E., Armentano, L. E., Shaver, R. D., Crump, P. M., Beede, D. K., & VandeHaar, M. J. (2015). Constraints for nutritional grouping in Wisconsin and Michigan dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 98(2), 1336–1344. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8368

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free