Brotzman R L, Döpfer D, Foy M R, Hess J P, Nordlund K V, Bennett T B, Cook N B
School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, 2015 Linden Drive, Madison 53706.
School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, 2015 Linden Drive, Madison 53706.
J Dairy Sci. 2015 Nov;98(11):8245-61. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-9264. Epub 2015 Aug 28.
A survey of management practices was conducted to investigate potential associations with groupings of herds formed by cluster analysis (CA) of Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) data of 557 Upper Midwest herds of 200 cows or greater. Differences in herd management practices were identified between the groups, despite underlying similarities; for example, freestall housing and milking in a parlor. Group 6 comprised larger herds with a high proportion of primiparous cows and most frequently utilized practices promoting increased production [e.g., 84.4% used recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)], decreased lameness (e.g., 96.9% used routine hoof trimming for cows), and improved efficiency in reproduction [e.g., 93.8% synchronized the first breeding in cows (SYNCH)] and labor (e.g., mean ± SD, 67 ± 19 cows per 50-h per week full-time equivalent worker). Group 1 had the best mean DHI performances and followed most closely group 6 for the rate of adoption of intensive management practices while tending to outperform group 6 despite a generally smaller mean herd size (e.g., 42.3 ± 3.6 kg vs. 39.9 ± 3.6 kg of energy-corrected milk production; 608 ± 352 cows vs. 1,716 ± 1,405 cows). Group 2 were smaller herds with relatively high levels of performance that used less intensive management (e.g., 100% milked twice daily) and less technology (33.3 vs. 73.0% of group 1 used rbST). Group 4 were smaller but poorer-performing herds with low turnover and least frequently used intensive management practices (e.g., 39.1% SYNCH; 30.4% allowed mature, high-producing cows access to pasture). Group 5 used modern technologies and practices associated with improved production, yet had the least desirable mean DHI performance of all 6 groups. This group had the lowest proportion of deep loose-bedded stalls (only 52.2% used sand bedding) and the highest proportion (34.8%) of herds not using routine hoof trimming. The survey of group 3 herds did not reveal strong trends in management. The differences identified between herd groupings confirm significant variation in management practices linked to variation in overall herd performance measured by DHI variables. This approach provides an opportunity for consultants and outreach educators to better tailor efforts toward a certain type of dairy management philosophy, rather than taking a blanket approach to applying recommendations to farms simply because of their larger herd size.
开展了一项管理实践调查，以研究与通过对557个存栏200头及以上奶牛的美国中西部上游地区牛群的奶牛群改良（DHI）数据进行聚类分析（CA）形成的牛群分组之间的潜在关联。尽管存在潜在的相似性，但各群体之间仍存在牛群管理实践的差异；例如，采用散栏式牛舍和在挤奶厅挤奶。第6组包括较大规模的牛群，初产母牛比例较高，且最常采用促进产量增加的做法[例如，84.4%使用重组牛生长激素（rbST）]、减少跛足（例如，96.9%对奶牛进行常规蹄部修剪）以及提高繁殖效率[例如，93.8%对奶牛首次配种进行同期发情处理（SYNCH）]和劳动力效率（例如，平均±标准差，每50小时每周全职等效工人负责67±19头奶牛）。第1组的平均DHI表现最佳，在采用集约化管理实践的比例方面最接近第6组，尽管平均牛群规模通常较小，但往往表现优于第6组（例如，能量校正奶产量分别为42.3±3.6千克和39.9±3.6千克；奶牛数量分别为608±352头和1 ,716±1 ,405头）。第2组是规模较小但生产性能相对较高的牛群，采用的集约化管理较少（例如，100%每天挤奶两次），使用的技术也较少（第1组使用rbST的比例为73.0%，而第2组为33.3%）。第4组是规模较小但生产性能较差的牛群，周转率低，最不常采用集约化管理实践管理实践（例如，39.1%进行同期发情处理；30.4%允许成熟的高产奶牛进入牧场）。第5组采用与提高产量相关的现代技术和实践，但在所有6组中平均DHI表现最不理想。该组深松卧床牛舍的比例最低（只有52.2%使用沙床），未进行常规蹄部修剪的牛群比例最高（34.8%）。对第3组牛群的调查未发现管理方面的明显趋势。牛群分组之间的差异证实了与通过DHI变量衡量的总体牛群性能差异相关的管理实践存在显著差异。这种方法为顾问和推广教育工作者提供了一个机会，使其能够更好地针对特定类型的奶牛管理理念调整工作，而不是仅仅因为农场牛群规模较大就采取一刀切的方式向农场应用建议。
