dairy herd improvement association
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

38
(FIVE YEARS 0)

H-INDEX

8
(FIVE YEARS 0)

EDIS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2005 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Russ Giesy ◽  
Albert De Vries ◽  
Dave Bray ◽  
Dan Webb

The Dairy Business Analysis Program (DBAP) is a cooperative effort of the Universities of Florida and Georgia, Southeast Milk Inc., and Southeast Dairy Herd Improvement Association, Inc. (DHIA). This project annually surveys participating dairy farms about their revenues, expenses, and investments.  This document is DS179, one of a series of the Animal Science Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date July 11, 2005. 


2013 ◽  
pp. 3259-3264 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Andres Contreras B ◽  
Walter M. Guterbock ◽  
Juan Muñoz R ◽  
Phillip M. Sears

ABSTRACTObjective. To compare four different dry cow treatments (DCT) and establish their effectiveness in reducing intramammary infections (IIM). Materials and methods. DCTs included systemic tylosin (12g) alone or accompanied by cefapirine intramammary infusions and or an internal teat sealant. A total number of 278 cows at the end of lactation period were randomly assigned to one of 4 dry cow treatment groups: CESE Group (n=89), intramammary cephapirin and teat sealant. TYCESE Group (n=84), intramammary cephapirin, tylosin 12 g intramuscular and teat sealant. TYSE Group (n=86), 12 g intramuscular tylosin and teat sealant; TY Group (n=76) 12 g intramuscular tylosin only. Milk samples for culture were collected at dry-off and 1 and 2 weeks after calving. Somatic cell counts (SCC) were taken from Dairy Herd Improvement Association (DHI) tests at dry-off, and the first two test days after calving. Results. Bacteria cure rate for Gram-positive intramammary infections (IMI) for TYCESE group was 93.6%, CESE group 78.9%, TYSE group 88.2%, and TY group 78.1%. All four groups showed a decrease in the SCC upon the first and second test after calving. Conclusions. The use of systemic tylosin in combination with intramammary antibiotics increased DCT effectiveness improving the Gram-positive cure rate IMI. Furthermore, systemic tylosin alone plus teat sealant is as effective as cephapirin plus teat sealant when used as DCT.


2008 ◽  
Vol 37 (9) ◽  
pp. 1607-1616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anamaria Cândido Ribeiro ◽  
Alan Jackson McAllister ◽  
Sandra Aidar de Queiroz

This study was aimed at defining profitability measures designed for prediction of breeding values (EBV) in dairy cows. Performance and economic data recorded in herds enrolled in the DHIA (Dairy Herd Improvement Association) program in Kentucky, USA, were used to evaluate economic functions which included the following profitability measures: lifetime net income (LNI), efficiency (EF), milk income over feed costs (IOFC), net income per day of productive life (NIPL), net income at the end of the first lactation (NI1), and milk income over feed costs at the end of the first lactation (IOFC1). The estimated averages for LNI, EF, IOFC, NIPL, NI1 and IOFC1 were respectively US$ 532.13, 1.04, US$ 3038.19, US$ -0.16, US$ -69.34 and US$ 1293.77. The heritability estimates for these traits ranged from 0.06 to 0.09. The EBV and Spearman correlation estimates were positive, ranging from moderate to high values, suggesting a direct linear relationship among the profitability measures. LNI was the best profitability measure and genetic correlation estimates between LNI and economic measures recorded in first lactation (NI1 and IOFC1) were moderate (<0.56). NI1 was the most efficient profitability measure, but it would be easier to record data to calculate IOFC1. Overall, results do not suggest any economic function measured in the first lactation as a selection criteria for LNI. The profitability measures were affected by the short productive life of the animals in the herds. Selection based on different profitability measures would not result in similar ranking of sires.


2001 ◽  
Vol 62 (8) ◽  
pp. 1262-1265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret L. Khaitsa ◽  
Thomas E. Wittum ◽  
Kenneth L. Smith ◽  
Janet L. Henderson ◽  
Kent H. Hoblet

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document