Upload
henk-hogeveen
View
249
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This was the opening presentation I gave at the 2014 Congress of the LIvestock Health and Production Group of the South African Veterinary Association. The organization asked me to give an overview of recent developments in the Dutch dairy sector. i have chose to pick three developments that are, in my opinion, interesting for veterinarians: 1. the ongoing automation of the sector, 2. the abolisment of the quota system (and a little background) and 3. the reduced use of antibiotics.
Citation preview
New developments in the Dutch dairy industry
Henk Hogeveen
Lion’s tail
Thanks Willem for a great tour!!
Who am I
Born on a dairy farm
Animal science at Wageningen University
●Epidemiology (simulation model of management regarding cystic ovaries)
●Economics (long term effects of herd health management programs)
PhD at Fac. Veterinary Medicine (AI to diagnose mastitis)
Professor in Animal health managementIn between Wageningen University and Faculty of Vet. Med. (since 2001)
@henkhogeveen
animal-health-management.blogspot.com
www.slideshare.net/henkhogeveen
Outline
Structure
Automation
Milk quota
Antibiotics
Cattle through the last 10 years (* 1,000)
2000 2005 2011 2012 2013
4,068 3,796 3,885 3,879 3,999
1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 20143650000
3700000
3750000
3800000
3850000
3900000
3950000
4000000
4050000
4100000
Number of farms is decreasing
Bron: CBS Landbouwtelling
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80Sterk gespecialiseerd Gespecialiseerd Overig Dieren/bedrijf
Grass-based system
Summer
●Fresh grass + corn silage + concentrates
Winter
●Grass silage + corn silage + concentrates
●Half mixed ratio
Milk price
1.2 billion kg milk per year (2.4% of world production)
1 large co-operation (FrieslandCampina) ~80 % of milk
Based on:
●Kg fat (€ 3.25)
●Kg protein (€ 4.58)
On average: € 0.34 per kg milk
Processing:
●50 % cheese
●20 % fluid productions (regional market)
●20 % powder (far away export)
●10 % other
Dairy processing
Consumption milk & products: 8 %
Cheese: 55 %
Cream and butter: 8 %
Condensed milk: 7 %
Milk powder: 12 %
Other: 10 %
More than 50 % exported
Milk prices over time (€/100 kg)
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 201520
25
30
35
40
45
Dutch dairy sector
Increasing farm seize
Half grass-based system
●Grazing under pressure (farm management)
●Stimulated (societal preference)
Volatile milk prices (relatively high)
More challenge on management
Outline
Structure
Automation
Milk quota
Antibiotics
Two reasons for automation
Labour savings
●Hired labour is expensive
●More cows with the same (family) labour
Improved (health) management
●Less time per cow
●(societal) pressure to improve health and welfare
●Precision dairy farming
Automatic milking
1970’s: Individual animal identification
1980’s: Sensor development
1990’s: Automatic milking
Five systems, different brands
First commercial farms: 1992
15% of Dutch dairy farms
Lely
DeLaval
Immense effects on dairy farming
No fixed milking times
●On average 2.8 times per day milking
●But in reality a large variation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
length of milking interval (hours)
freq
uenc
y (%
)
Effects on udder health
Milking per quarter (+)
More milkings per teat cup (-)
Shorter intervals (mostly +)
Longer intervals (-)
Automated detection of mastitis (-)
Relation between milking frequency and SCC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
<5 5-7 7-9 9-11 11-13 >13
Milking interval (hr)
SC
C *
1,0
00
ce
lls/m
l
EU directive 89/362/EEG – milk hygiene
… the milker should control the physical characteristics of the milk. If any physical abnormality is detected, the milk should not be delivered.
Current systems
Sensor information
●Conductivity
●Colour
●Milk production (24h)
●Temperature (MQC 2)
●SCC (optional)
Algorithm → Udder health report
●Potential cases of mastitis
Needed performance
●High sensitivity and very high specificity
Anderen vinden veel betere getallen
Sensitiviteit Specificiteit
Cavero et al., 2006 81 94
De Mol & Ouweltjes, 2001 100 96
De Mol & Woldt, 2001 100 99
De Mol et al., 1997 59 98
De Mol et al., 2001 71 97
Kamphuis et al., 2008 80 92
Kamphuis et al., 2008 50 99
Maatje et al., 1992 100 ?
Maatje et al., 1997 90 98
Mottram et al., 2007 56 82
Nielen et al., 1995 77 69
Nielen et al., 1995 84 97
Norberg et al., 2006 43 93
Sheldrake & Hoare, 1981 49 79
Uitzetten tegen tijd-raam
80
85
90
95
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total time window (days)
Sp
ecif
icit
y (%
)
Plus sensitiviteit
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total time window (days)
Sp
ecif
icit
y/se
nsi
tivi
ty (
%)
Detection results
Current systems
●Sensitivity 21% - specificity 99 %
●Sensitivity 50 % - specificity 90 % (Mollenhorst et al., 2009)
Theory
●Sensitiviteit 57 % - specificiteit 98 % (Kamphuis et al., 2010)
●Can be improved by adding SCC
Performance for farmer
Practical problem: low prevalence
100 cows -> ~ 66,000 milkings/year (each milking = test)
30 cases of clinical mastitis to be detected
Prevalence -> ~ 0.005 (0.5 %)
Predictive value positive is low (10-15 %)
Consequences in practise
Study on 7 farms, 5 visits, all alerts checked by researcher
Only 3,5% of the alerts are checked by the farmer!
Reasons to check (n=15)
Combination of:
●Milk production decrease alarming
●Flakes/clots on milk filter
●High conductivity
●Failure in milking
●History of teat damage
●Earlier flakes/clots in milk
Reasons not to check (n=421)
No flakes/clots on milk filter 28%
Milk production decrease not alarming 19%
Repeatedly on list 10%
No time 10%
Conductivity level is not alarming 5%
Malfunctioning AMS 4%
Other 24%
Not much found
Checked clinical mastitis
Unchecked clinical
mastitis
Subclinical mastitis
26%
74%
100%
So what?
Data show clinical mastitis goes down….. Really
●Severe cases?
Somatic cell count goes up: average 210 -> 260
Udder health decreases?
Is it bad we miss the mild clinical mastitis cases?
Should we create new “rules of treatment”?
Sensors for individual cow management
Individual cow management easy
Individual cow management difficult (or impossible)
Don’t even think about it
The idea
Larger herds -> group management
Modern tools -> individual cow management
Does it pay?
Automated oestrus detection
Step counters
3d accelerometers
Oestrus detection rate: 80 %
What if oestrus is detected: inseminate or not?
Economic loss of increasing VWP (€/cow/year)
Voluntary waiting period (weeks)
7 9 11 13 15
Milk production 2 12 24 40 57
Calves 0 0 1 1 2
Calving mangement -0 -0 -1 -2 -3
Culling 0 2 4 7 10
AI -1 -1 -2 -2 -2
Total 2 12 26 44 65
Individual cows differ
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
VWP (wks)
Ave
rag
e a
nn
ua
l lo
sse
s (
€/c
ow
)
Individual cows differ
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
VWP (wks)
Pe
rce
nt
of
co
ws
Av
era
ge
of
An
nu
al
Ne
t E
co
no
mic
Lo
ss
es
(€
/co
w)
So ….
Individual management of insemination decisions saves money
●Voluntary waiting period (tool available)
●When to quite inseminating (cull cow)
Connect to sensors
Disease treatment decisions
●Drying off
●Metabolic disorders
●Mastitis
●…….
Field is gaining importance
Outline
Structure
Automation
Milk quota
Antibiotics
History
Fluctuating prices because of differing grass production
Market intervention: buying out milk at low prices
Guaranteed (low) milk price
Over production
New intervention: quota (plus intervention)
Effects on Dutch dairy production ….
Supply and demand -> equilibrium
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
S
Quantity
Price
Qe
Pe
D
Supply and demand -> equilibrium
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
S
Quantity
Price
Qe
Pe
D
Producer surplus
Supply and demand -> equilibrium
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
S
Quantity
Price
Qe
Pe
D
Consumer surplus
Producer surplus
Consumer surplus+
Producer surplus=
Social welfare
Milk quota
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
S
Quantity
Price
Q"e
P’e
D Quota
Producer surplus
Quota lower than equilibrium
New equilibrium
High milk price
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
S
Quantity
Price
Q"e
P’e
D Quota
Producer surplus
Consequences:Consumers: -Producers: +/-
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time
Mil
k p
rice
($/
CW
T)
US Class 1 base (3.5% fat) NL base (3.7 % fat)
Other effects for farmer
High costs to buy quota (= right to produce milk)
Up to € 2 /kg milk
Inflexible farm
Biosecurity risks to fill quota (end of year)
General feeling of being limited
But also effect for veterinarian
Cattle (production) diseases are less costly
~30 – 50 % of costs of diseases due to milk production
Without quota:
●Nr of cows is production capacity
●Diseases -> less milk per cow -> less milk per farm
●Less returns, savings on feed costs: ~ € 0.25/kg
With quota:
●Quota is production capacity
●Diseases -> less milk per cow -> equal milk per farm
●More cows needed to fill quota: ~ € 0.15/kg
Costs of diseases
Now 2015
Mastitis€ 71 € 118 per average cow
Calving interval 415 days€ 28 € 73 per average cow
Other diseases ……..
So there is an opportunity
Outline
Structure
Automation
Milk quota
Antibiotics
Human use of antibiotics
Antibiotic use for animals
melkvee zeugen/biggen vleesvarkens vleeskuikens0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6,3
24,5
12,9
19,1
5,8
22,2
10,3
22,5
5,4
27,8
11,8
30,1
5,7
22,4
16,4
32,9
6,6
22
17
37
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Less antibiotics in animal sector
Antibiotic resistance in humans
● MRSA (Staphylococ aureus)
● ESBL (E.coli, Klebsiella)
Links to animal sector
High use of antibiotics in animals compared to humans
How much use in dairy cattle?
Expressed in daily doses per cow per year
400 farms over 2 years
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >14
DD/DJ
Aan
tal b
edri
jven
2010 2011
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
Droogzetters Mastitis Baarmoeder Via de bek Injectie
Toedieningswijze
Per
cen
tag
e
2010 2011
Distributed over various applications
62%
400 dairy farms
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >14
DD/DJ
Aa
nta
l b
ed
rijv
en
2010 2011
4.6
8 11.5
Convenant
In 2010:
In 2011, a reduction of 20 % related to 2009
In 2013, a reduction of 50 % related to 2009
In 2012:
Realisation of the 50% goal
For dairy sector
Responsible prescription
●Guaranteed vets (registration)
●Farm health plans
●One on one relation vets-farmers
Transparency in antibiotic use
●Per farm (registration)
●Per sector
Quality programs
●Animal medicine authoroty
The ongoing debate on dry-cow therapy
50% of Antibiotics as dry cow therapy (blanket)
Dry-cow therapy has two uses
●Curative
●Preventive
“We” do not want preventive use of antibiotics (anymore)
Which cows to dry-off with antibiotics?
Current rules:
●Cow > 50.000
●Heifer > 150.000
Consequences for the veterinarian
Less sales from antibiotics
More advisory work (health plan)
●Only once a year
●Maybe more prevention ???
Should focus more on veterinary herd health and management programs
Challenge!!
Thank you for your attention
@henkhogeveen
animal-health-management.blogspot.com
On-line courses on Veterinary Economics on:
www.elevatehealth.eu