Action Plan To set appropriate targets to increase your herd profitability by up to 2p/litre. 1 2 3 4 Trace Your Fertility Losses Use culling and other records to pinpoint the main areas in which you are losing money through less than ideal fertility Quantify Your Losses Assess the production and culling costs you are incurring by failing to achieve the fertility levels of better-performing UK herds Set Clear Targets* Establish realistic targets for your key all-year calving herd fertility measures, appreciating the interrelationships between them Structure Your Action Focus your improvement efforts on the areas of fertility performance most out-of-line with the appropriate targets. Page 5-1 Page 5-2 Page 5-4 Page 5-7 * See Section 9 for 3:10/07 5
Actual Losses The direct and indirect costs associated with infertility primarily arise from: Loss of milk production through too many dry days or peak yield traded for later lactation yield Enforced culling resulting in more replacements being reared or bought Reduced calf sales Additional AI costs Veterinary treatment costs and associated welfare issues Linkage with other problems such as nutritional imbalances and production shortfalls Disruption to the calving season and milk production pattern Loss of mature animal milk yields through early culling Loss of valuable genetics. The use of up-to-date records, feed intake recording, condition scoring, milk protein monitoring, three-week breeding diaries and CuSums allows timely intervention to prevent such losses. Similarly, delayed and unnoticed losses associated with poor Failure to Conceive Culling Rates can often only be identified through a good analysis of culling figures. An essential starting point in assessing herd fertility performance is an analysis of the level and the reasons for culling within the herd. Tracing Fertility Losses The actual costs of poor fertility tend to be poorly appreciated because of the diverse and often unseen nature of the losses. The time lag between the cause of a fertility problem and its eventual expression in losses is another complicating factor. While the link between feeding and milk production is immediately apparent and measurable, the equally strong link between feeding and fertility can easily go unnoticed. Insufficient energy in the ration at the beginning of October, for instance, may not be apparent in losses for fully 12 months. Under these conditions: The fertility of July and August calving cows may not be affected since they have retained sufficient condition through their critical service period The October calvers, however, lose too much condition, and suffer delayed heats and poor Pregnancy Rates This problem may not become apparent and so cannot be corrected until later in the service period perhaps in January The delay in getting the October calvers re-bred means they don t calve again until the following November leading to a noticeable fall in the next October s production figures. Worksheet 3 provides a pro-forma for analysing herd culling figures against benchmarks Recognising Differences Major fertility management differences need to be recognised between herds with no specific season of calving and those which calve strictly within the same 2-3 month period each year or split their calving into two similarly tightly-defined seasons. The priority of such block-calving herds to retain the same calving pattern is, naturally, far less of an issue for all-year calving herds. As a result, block-calving herds need to employ somewhat different fertility targets including a different interpretation of Voluntary Waiting Period related to a rigid calendar date rather than a period of days after calving, and much higher Submission Rates (Section 9). Their emphasis also needs to be focused on several different performance measures. While the 100-Day In-Calf Rate is a good performance indicator for all-year calving herds, the 6-Week In-Calf Rate is much more appropriate for block-calvers (Section 2). 3:10/07 5-1
The priority placed on maintaining the calving season means that Failure to Conceive Culling Rate is a particularly significant measure for block-calving herds (Section 2). The fact that herds calving within a three-month period have a maximum of four oestrus cycles available in which to get animals in-calf underlines the scale of their particular challenge (Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1: The Relationship Between Failure to Conceive Culling Rate, Calving to Conception Interval and Number of Oestrus Cycles 25 3 20 Number of oestrus 4 Failure to cycles available Conceive 15 5 Culling 10 Rate (%) 6 5 7 8 0 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Calving to Conception Interval Source: Esslemont (personal communication). The main cost to block-calving herds wishing to achieve a tight Calving to Conception Interval within the 3 or 4 oestrus cycles available is a high Failure to Conceive Culling Rate In contrast, all-year calving herds with more cycles available to them are able to maintain a lower Failure to Conceive Culling Rate but at the expense of a delayed Calving to Conception Interval and consequent production losses. Quantifying Production Losses University of Reading analyses of data from herds recorded through the DAISY system over many years have established a set of definitive physical and financial fertility performance standards. These standards establish the cost of failing to achieve the fertility levels attained by better-performing herds, taking into account lost calf income, additional AI fees and veterinary treatment costs as well as any savings in concentrate and quota costs. The DAISY standards allow herds to quantify their production losses on the basis of current fertility performance at different production levels (Tables 5.1 and 5.2). Table 5.1: The Costs of Delayed Conception: 6,000 litres/cow/year Target Good Problem Severe Problem Calving Interval (days) 365 366-380 381-395 396-425 Calving to Conception Interval (days) 85 86-100 101-115 116-145 Net cost of lost time ( /cow/day) Cumulative cost Cumulative cost (p/litre) 1.73 2.30 2.86 26 60 146 0.43 1.00 2.43 Source: The Costs of Poor Fertility and Disease in UK Dairy, Esslemont and Kossaibati. Table 5.2: The Costs of Delayed Conception: 10,000 litres/cow/year Target Good Problem Severe Problem Calving Interval (days) 365 366-380 381-395 396-425 Calving to Conception Interval (days) 85 86-100 100-115 116-145 Net cost of lost time ( /cow/day) Cumulative cost Cumulative cost (p/litre) 1.33 1.68 2.47 20 50 125 0.20 0.50 1.25 Source: The Costs of Poor Fertility and Disease in UK Dairy, Esslemont and Kossaibati. Fact Sheet 3 details the calculations and assumptions behind the DAISY fertility costings 5-2 3:10/07
At the current UK average 410-day Calving Index (or 130-day Calving to Conception Interval) a 6000-litre average herd is losing 103/cow/year or 1.72p/litre in milk, calf and other costs through failing to achieve the Calving to Conception Interval target Losses of 1p/litre are associated with significantly better but still well below target performance in the same 6000-litre herd For a 10,000-litre herd, however, the costs of a similar below-target fertility performance are diluted by the higher yield to a more modest loss of 0.5p/litre. This can be reduced still further where the lactation is more persistent and the lactation curve flatter. Quantifying Culling Losses An evaluation of the fertility losses associated with Failure to Conceive Culling Rate, more relevant to block-calving herds, has also been made using the DAISY data (Table 5.4). Table 5.4: The Costs of Failure to Conceive Culling Target Good Problem Severe Problem Failure to Conceive Culling Rate (%) < 6 6-10 11-14 > 14 Cumulative Cost ( /cow/day) Cumulative Cost (p/litre) Source: The Costs of Poor Fertility and Disease in UK Dairy, Esslemont and Kossaibati. 24 50 > 62 0.4 0.83 > 1.00 This scale of costs reinforces comparative studies conducted with Milkminder-costed herds in the 1980s showing every day s delay in Calving to Conception Interval recorded by the poorest performing herds was associated with a loss of 312 litres of milk, coupled with extra concentrate feeding (Table 5.3). Table 5.3: The Performance of Milkminder Costed Farms Average interval to assumed conception (days) Average Calving to First Service Interval (days) Top 10% Bottom 10% Services per assumed conception 1.70 1.81 Milk yield (litres/cow) 5862 5550 Concentrate fed (kg/cow) 1645 1664 Source: Checkmate (1985), FMS Information Unit 85 111 64 77 Fact Sheet 3 details the calculations and assumptions behind the DAISY fertility costings At the current UK average of 12-18% culling through failure to conceive, a 6000-litre average herd is losing 38-75/cow/year or 0.63-1.26p/litre through not achieving the Failure to Conceive Culling Rate target Where the Failure to Conceive Culling Rate is approaching double figures there is a significant cost, and where it exceeds 14%, the cost could be one of the major losses in many herds The cost is even higher in the higher-yielding herd since these animals are more valuable. Worksheet 3 provides a pro-forma for analysing herd culling figures against benchmarks 3:10/07 5-3
The fact that Culling Rate appears to be closely associated with the Calving to First Service Interval provides an excellent opportunity to influence it positively by good early breeding season management (Table 5.5). Table 5.5: The Relationship Between Calving to First Service Interval and Culling Rate Interval to First Service (days) Short Interval to First Service Long Interval to First Service Culling Rate (%) 24.7 36.1 Source: Recent Research in Dairying (2002) Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland. Fact Sheet 4 details the current state of dairy herd culling and longevity 72 99 Using the average UK Calving Interval and Failure to Conceive Culling Rate reveals losses amounting to 2.35p/litre, 141/cow and 14,100/year for a typical 100-cow, 6000-litre average herd (Example 5.1). Worksheet 4 provides a pro-forma for using FERTEX to assess individual herd fertility losses Targets and Outcomes The financial losses associated with poor fertility performance in the majority of UK herds are highly significant. Quantifying the Total Costs The total cost of fertility in any herd can be quantified from the components of production and culling losses using the FERTEX calculation developed at the University of Reading. This calculation recognises the extent to which a very good Calving to Conception Interval or Calving Index can be obtained at the expense of a high Culling Rate, factoring-in both elements to achieve a complete estimate of fertility costs. Example 5.1: Calculating Total Fertility Costs with FERTEX Components Actual A Target B Excess over target C = A B Cost per unit ( ) D Cost per E = C x D 1. Calving Interval (days) 2. Failure to Conceive Culling Rate (%) 3. Total Cost = 1 + 2 4. Herd Size 5. Total Cost ( /herd) = 3 x 4 6. Average Yield (litres/cow) 7. Total Cost (p/litre) (3 6) x 100 410 12 365 6 45 6 2.30 6.30 103 38 141 100 14,100 6000 2.35 Key fertility measures should be used to assess current herd performance in terms of both primary physical targets and the main target outcomes of achieving them, depending on herd calving pattern (Tables 5.6 and 5.7). Table 5.6: Primary Physical Targets Voluntary Waiting Period 45 days A set calender date Submission Rate 70% 90% Calving to First Service Interval 60 days 65 days First Service Pregnancy Rate > 55% > 55% Return to Service Detection Rate > 70% > 80% Overall Pregnancy Rate > 55% > 55% Assumed Pregnancy Rate > 65% > 65% Source: The Costs of Poor Fertility and Disease in UK Dairy, Esslemont and Kossaibati. 5-4 3:10/07
There may be adjustments to the Voluntary Waiting Period and Calving to First Service Interval in the case of the highest yielding and more persistent herds. In all-year calving herds, in particular, seasonal differences in the Voluntary Waiting Period and the Calving to First Service Interval targets are advisable. Specifically: Early in the calving season a slightly longer Voluntary Waiting Period of 55 days and Calving to First Service Interval of 70 days may be appropriate to prevent early season calvers becoming even earlier next year Late in the calving season it will be more appropriate to shorten the targets towards 40 days and 55 days respectively in an effort to get later calvers to catch-up time. Table 5.7: Target Outcomes Calving to Conception Interval 85-95 days 85-90 days Calving Interval 365-375 days 365-370 days Percent Conceiving of Calved > 89% > 87% Percent Conceiving of Served > 95% > 93% Days Open 95-105 days 95-100 days Failure to Conceive Culling Rate < 6% < 8% 100-Day In-Calf Rate > 90% > 95% 200-Day Not In-Calf Rate < 6% < 8% 6-Week In-Calf Rate > 75% Fact Sheet 5 details the interrelationships between primary fertility targets and target outcomes In target-setting it is vital to appreciate the interrelationship between the various performance measures (Table 5.8). Table 5.8: Important Fertility Measure Interrelationships Heat Detection Rate (%) Pregnancy Rate (%) 50 60 70 40 60 40 60 40 60 A B A B A B A B A B A B Average Calving to First Service Interval (days) 80 125 21 116 8 121 15 111 4 118 10 106 2 70 115 19 106 7 115 15 101 4 108 8 96 2 60 110 17 99 6 110 15 92 3 101 7 87 1 A = Calving to Conception Interval (days) B = 200-Day Not in-calf Rate (%) effectively the Failure to Conceive Culling Rate 3:10/07 5-5
FERTEX financial estimates can usefully be related to the fertility targets to provide a ready-reckoner for individual herd assessments (Table 5.9). Table 5.9: The Financial Implications of Meeting Different Fertility Targets Heat Detection Rate (%) Pregnancy Rate (%) Calving to First Service Interval (days) Calving to Conception Interval (days) Failure to Conceive Culling Rate (%) Production Losses Culling Rate Losses Total Losses Total Losses (p/litre) 70* 60 60 87 1 0 0 0 0 70 60 70 96 2 15 0 15 0.25 70 60 80 106 2 35 0 35 0.58 70 40 60 101 7 24 6 30 0.50 70 40 70 108 8 40 12 52 0.87 70 40 80 118 10 63 24 87 1.45 60 60 60 92 3 9 0 9 0.15 60 60 70 101 4 24 0 24 0.40 60 60 80 111 4 47 0 47 0.78 60** 40 60 110 15 44 54 98 1.63 60 40 70 115 15 56 54 110 1.83 60 40 80 121 15 70 54 124 2.07 50 60 60 99 6 21 0 21 0.35 50*** 60 70 106 7 35 6 41 0.68 50 60 80 116 8 58 12 70 1.17 50 40 60 110 17 44 66 110 1.83 50**** 40 70 115 19 56 78 134 2.23 50 40 80 125 21 83 90 173 2.88 * A 70% Heat Detection Rate with a 60% Pregnancy Rate and 60-day Calving to First Service Interval is excellent in every respect, giving a good Calving to Conception Interval, no pressure on culling and negligible losses. ** A better-than-average 60% Heat Detection Rate, below-average 40% Pregnancy Rate and good 60-day Calving to First Service Interval give losses totalling 1.63p/litre, attributable to production and culling. *** An average 50% Heat Detection Rate, good 60% Pregnancy Rate and less than ideal 70-day Calving to First Service Interval adds up to losses of only 0.68p/litre by virtue of the high Pregnancy Rate. **** An average 50% Heat Detection Rate, below-average 40% Pregnancy Rate and 70-day Calving to First Service Interval, on the other hand, means losses of 2.23p/litre. Acceptable fertility performance can only be achieved with a combination of good heat detection, short Calving to First Service Interval and high Pregnancy Rate. 5-6 3:10/07
Structured Action An effective improvement programme can only be implemented once the extent to which an individual herd falls short of the desired fertility targets and the financial consequences of this performance have been assessed. Focusing on Heat Expression and Detection Action is required if the following targets are not being met: For greatest value the programme should: Use the most appropriate herd recording tools and key fertility measures to establish current herd performance levels (Sections 2 and 3) Set targets for improvement that are understood and agreed by everyone involved in herd fertility management (Section 4) Identify specific problem areas for management, nutritional or veterinary attention (Sections 6, 7 and 8) Monitor progress closely using the selected recording tools and measures (Sections 2 and 3). Voluntary Waiting Period 45 days A set calendar date Submission Rate 70% 90% Calving to First Service Interval 60 days 65 days Return to Service Detection Rate > 70% > 80% Focusing on Pregnancy Rates The focus of improvement efforts should always be on the areas in which current performance is most out-of-line with the appropriate targets. Action is required if the following targets are not being met: First Service Pregnancy Rate > 55% > 55% Overall Pregnancy Rate > 55% > 55% Percent Conceiving of Calved > 89% > 87% Percent Conceiving of Served > 95% > 93% Focusing on Culling Action is required if the following targets are not being met: Failure to Conceive Culling Rate < 6% < 8% 3:10/07 5-7
Summary The costs of poor fertility are often badly appreciated and unnoticed At the current UK average Calving Interval and Failure to Conceive Culling Rate a typical 100-cow, 6000-litre average herd is losing 2.35p/litre, 141/cow and 14,100/year through failing to achieve the required fertility targets Acceptable fertility performance can only be achieved with a combination of good heat detection, short Calving to First Service Interval and high Pregnancy Rate The focus of improvement efforts should always be on the areas in which current performance is most out-of-line with the appropriate targets. Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Section 9: Defining Your Terms Identifying the Critical Records Planning Your Approach Managing Heat Detection Optimising Herd Nutrition Addressing Herd Management Managing See also Section 11: Fact Sheet 3: Fertility Costs Fact Sheet 4: Herd Culling and Longevity Fact Sheet 5: Fertility Performance Interrelationships Section 12: Worksheet 3: Analysing Herd Culling Figures Worksheet 4: Assessing Herd Fertility Losses 5-8 3:10/07