• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
New developments in the Dutch dairy sector
 

New developments in the Dutch dairy sector

on

  • 99 views

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 ...

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
99
Views on SlideShare
99
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    New developments in the Dutch dairy sector New developments in the Dutch dairy sector Presentation Transcript

    • 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 management In 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 3750000 3800000 3850000 3900000 3950000 4000000 4050000 4100000 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
    • 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 80 Sterk 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) 20 25 30 35 40 45 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
    • 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) frequency(%)
    • 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) SCC*1,000cells/ml
    • 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) Specificity(%)
    • Plus sensitiviteit 40 60 80 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Total time window (days) Specificity/sensitivity(%)
    • 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 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Averageannuallosses(€/cow) VWP (wks)
    • Individual cows differ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Percentofcows VWP (wks) AverageofAnnualNetEconomicLosses(€/cow)
    • 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 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 S Quantity Price Qe Pe D
    • Supply and demand -> equilibrium 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 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 14 0 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 14 0 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 14 0 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 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Time Milkprice($/CWT) 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 vleeskuikens 0 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 Aantalbedrijven 2010 2011
    • 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 Droogzetters Mastitis Baarmoeder Via de bek Injectie Toedieningswijze Percentage 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 Aantalbedrijven 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