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.

1. New developments in the
Dutch dairy industry
Henk Hogeveen

2. Lion’s tail

3. Thanks Willem for a great tour!!

4. 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

6. Outline
 Structure
 Automation
 Milk quota
 Antibiotics

7. 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

8. 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

9. Grass-based system
 Summer
● Fresh grass + corn silage + concentrates
 Winter
● Grass silage + corn silage + concentrates
● Half mixed ratio

11. 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

12. Dairy processing
 Consumption milk & products: 8 %
 Cheese: 55 %
 Cream and butter: 8 %
 Condensed milk: 7 %
 Milk powder: 12 %
 Other: 10 %
 More than 50 % exported

13. Milk prices over time (€/100 kg)
20
25
30
35
40
45
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

14. 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

15. Outline
 Structure
 Automation
 Milk quota
 Antibiotics

16. 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

17. 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

18. Lely

19. DeLaval

20. 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(%)

21. Effects on udder health
 Milking per quarter (+)
 More milkings per teat cup (-)
 Shorter intervals (mostly +)
 Longer intervals (-)
 Automated detection of mastitis (-)

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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

26. Uitzetten tegen tijd-raam
80
85
90
95
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total time window (days)
Specificity(%)

27. Plus sensitiviteit
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total time window (days)
Specificity/sensitivity(%)

28. 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

29. 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 %)

30. 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!

31. 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

32. 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%

33. Not much found
Checked clinical
mastitis
Unchecked clinical
mastitis
Subclinical
mastitis
26%
74%
100%

34. 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”?

35. Sensors for individual cow management
Individual cow management easy
Individual cow management
difficult (or impossible)
Don’t even think about it

36. The idea
 Larger herds -> group management
 Modern tools -> individual cow management
 Does it pay?

37. Automated oestrus detection
 Step counters
 3d accelerometers
 Oestrus detection rate: 80 %
 What if oestrus is detected: inseminate or not?

38. 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

39. 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)

40. 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)

41. 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

42. Outline
 Structure
 Automation
 Milk quota
 Antibiotics

43. 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 ….

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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)

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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

52. Outline
 Structure
 Automation
 Milk quota
 Antibiotics

53. Human use of antibiotics

54. 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

55. 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

56. How much use in dairy cattle?
 Expressed in daily doses per cow per year

57. 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

58. 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%

60. 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

61. 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

62. 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

63. 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

64. 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!!

65. Thank you for your attention
@henkhogeveen
animal-health-management.blogspot.com
On-line courses on
Veterinary Economics on:
www.elevatehealth.eu