Almost everyone is aware of the basic management practices that are the the oundation of animal health in general and udder health in particular. In this article I would like to explore several often overlooked principles and procedures that have a strong influence on udder health.
CARE OF THE NON-LACTATING UDDER
Drying-off is a critical time for udder health and any extra care given at this time will pay big dividends throughout the next lactation. Prepare the cow for the stressful transition from lactating to non-lactating by using your favorite herbs, homeopathy preparation, colostrum products, acupuncture, or others to boost her immune system and help relieve stress.
After this period of preparation, just quit milking her. She must have a tight udder for about five days for her hormonal system to get the message to quit producing milk. Milking her out to relieve the pressure and discomfort before this time is up only prolongs the process.
After about five or six days, when the udder swelling begins to recede, sanitize the teats and milk out some milk. Normal appearing milk indicates a healthy udder. If this is the case, completely milk-out the udder, sanitize the teats and rejoice in the knowledge that for now at least the udder is healthy.
Occasionally at this time the milk will show abnormalities such as chunks, clots, watery, slimy, bloody streaks or anything that does not look like normal milk. In that event, milk out the udder, begin your treatment of choice and rejoice that you have discovered the problem before it gets worse. Continue the treatment, check the milk and strip out the udder every few days for as long as necessary to clear up the problem. If you let her go completely dry while she has an infection, she will almost certainly have the same problem when she freshens.
If drying-off was accomplished successfully, the next critical time for the udder begins about two weeks before freshening and continues until a week or so afterwards. When she begins to “bag-up“ and has a tight udder, sanitize her teats, milk out some milk and examine it. Early in the "bagging-up" phase, normal secretion will usually resemble a clear amber fluid somewhat like honey and progress from that to regular milk as she gets closer to calving;. If normal, be happy.
If the secretion is not normal … chunks, clots stringy, slimy or bloody … milk her out completely and begin your favorite treatment. Continue to milk her twice a day until she freshens. This "Pre-milking" procedure will save many udders that would normally be lost if the infection was allowed to go unchecked all the way to calving.
Colostrum is produced shortly before calving. Save the milk right before and after calving and give it to the calf. It will provide all the protection they need even though the volume will be less.
These procedures provide a way to check the status of the udder at key periods during the dry period and allow you to begin remedial action if and when a problem occurs. If you follow these procedures you will know 100 percent more about udder health than those that only infuse with antibiotics at dry-off and then wait until freshening to see if it worked or not.
INSURE A GOOD 'LET-DOWN"
The best stimulus to the "let-down" reflex mimics the suckling of the offspring … warmth, moisture, some pressure or massage, and removing milk. When these stimuli are applied as the cow is prepared for milking, oxytocin is released. Within a minute, myo-epithelial cells surrounding the alveoli contract, thus forcing milk out into the duct system. If milking is delayed past one minute oxytocin begins to clear the system and the let-down reflex does not proceed to completion. If one does not "prep" adequately and does not begin milking within one minute, milk yield decreases and "residual milk" increases. Residual milk makes great food for bacteria. The more you leave in, the higher the chance for infection. (see Streptococcus below)
EVALUATION OF UDDER HEALTH
One of the best way to evaluate udder health is routine culturing (bacteriologic examination) of milk from any animal either showing mastitis or lower than normal milk production. Over time, these reports will allow you to arrive at a herd profile of the type infection present. Results interpreted on a herd basis rather than on an individual basis are of great value in managing the herd for maximum health.
Culture reports will not be meaningful if the samples are contaminated. If the germ that ends up in the tube comes from your hand or from a teat that was not properly cleaned, you could be misled into thinking it was the organism causing your problem. Contaminated samples are worse than no sample at all. Results of culturing must always be correlated with symptoms. If an animal has been treated with antibiotics in the previous 10 to 14 days as the results will usually be negative.
CULTURE INTERPRETATION
Almost any bacteria can cause mastitis under certain circumstances, but most mastitis is caused by Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Escherichia coli and Enterobacter (Aerobacter) aerogenes. It is not known why at times these bacteria become virulent but stress is certainly a factor. If a high percentage of samples reveal the same pathogen, this is presumptive evidence of a cause and effect relationship between the pathogen and a specific environmental influence. These relationships are not absolute but they do provide clues about where to look first for answers. The following guidelines may help you match your problem to it’s cause.
STAPHYLOCOCCUS bacteria have the ability to invade living tissue. Any physical damage, however slight, to body tissues opens the door for Staph infection. Of all the bacteria, Staph seems to have the greatest ability to quickly become resistant to antibiotics. Confirmation of this lies in the high incidence of post-surgical, antibiotic resistant, staph infections in humans. This condition is even known as ”a hospital staph infection”.
In dairy situations, two common causes of injured tissue that may lead to a Staph infection are improperly adjusted milking equipment and the use of irritating teat dips. Frostbite, stepped-on teats and other injuries may also be predisposing factors. Don’t overlook the possibility of trauma just because you milk by hand. Hard stripping or milking entirely by stripping with wet hands can also damage the teat lining and open the door for Staph infection.
If you have an ongoing problem with Staph infection, look for anything that causes injury to the teats or udder.
STREPTOCOCCI are not generally invasive but live on the surface of the udder tissue and in residual milk that is always present in varying amounts in the udder. Strep infection is generally seen when good milking techniques are lacking. It can also be associated with stray voltage or any other problem that interferes with milk let-down.
If you have an ongoing problem with Strep infection, look first for anything that interferes with “let-down”, “milk–out” or anything else that increases residual milk.
ESCHERICHIA COLI … known as the manure bacteria … is found in all feces. Thus, mastitis caused by this bacteria is usually associated with unsanitary conditions. Some observations seem to indicate a higher incidence of E. coli when the ration contains excess protein, high levels of nitrates in feed or water or the addition of urea or other NPN’s to the ration. If you have an ongoing problem with E. coli infection, look for anything that causes unsanitary conditions and check the water for nitrates and the feed for nitrates or excess protein.
ENTEROBACTER (formerly Aerobacter) aerogenes is often related to contaminated drinking water especially if animals have access to unsanitary water tanks, ponds, streams or puddles in the barnyard. If you have an ongoing problem with this infection, first check for the possibility of a contaminated water supply.
Some laboratories report E. Coli, Enterobacter and other Gram-negative simply as “coliforms”. If a culture report lists any of these, I would strongly suggest culturing the water if you have not already done so. If the water is contaminated, remedial action should be taken at once.
Corynebacterium mastitis is sometimes seen in herds that have a problem with abscesses.
MASTITIS: TREAT THE CAUSE, NOT THE EFFECT.
After spending so much time on bacteria, I should point that it is a mistake to approach mastitis strictly as a bacterial problem. There is no question that bacteria are part of the problem, but I believe their role to be more of an effect rather than the actual cause.
Simplistic medical thought encourages us to treat the bacterial infection …the effect, while holistic principles would have us zero in on the cause, which is usually a stress induced immuno-suppression.
I question whether anything should ever be infused into the udder, except possibly as a last resort. Even under the most sanitary conditions, the risk of introducing pathogens into the udder far outweighs any anticipated benefit. If one must infuse the udder, use a blunt infusion cannula and only insert it about one-fourth inch (just past the teat sphincter). Inserting the cannula to the full depth … almost an inch in some cases … is known to cause internal damage to the teat lining. Never use an injection needle.
Also consider this, any foreign substance (honey, egg-whites, lactobacillus cultures, other folk remedies and antibiotics) introduced into the udder will act as an irritant and cause a non-specific inflammatory response (NSIP), with a concurrent increase in white blood cells. The common result is that the NSIP will sweep away any mild mastitis infections along with the foreign substance that originated the NSIP. I believe it is a mistake to speak of these irritants as “cures” when actually the relief from the symptoms of mastitis is a secondary effect of the body ridding itself of the foreign substance. This is not to say that these therapies are not often effective, but I believe it is helpful to know the actual mode of action and the great risk of causing a more severe infection.
One of the best ways to treat mastitis is to strip out the affected udder as often as you can … even as often as every 15 to 30 minutes if possible. This has the effect of removing bacteria and their toxins, reducing swellings and improving blood supply. You can augment this procedure with your favorite alternative immuno-stimulant such as homeopathy, herbs, acupuncture, refined colostrum antibodies, massage with warming liniments, hot or cold compresses, etc.
Whatever the nature of the treatment used, it will usually be unsuccessful until the adverse predisposing factors are removed. When that is accomplished the incidence of clinical mastitis and the need for treatment diminishes dramatically.
Thursday, August 13, 2020
Wednesday, August 5, 2020
Evaluating Response to Treatment
An ocean storm had caused hundreds of starfish to be stranded on a beach where they would soon perish. A man walking on the beach would stop every few steps, pick up a starfish and fling it back out into the waves. His companion ridiculed his efforts and observed that statistically his puny efforts would make little if any difference to the starfish population as a whole. Undaunted, the man tossed
yet another starfish into the sea and replied; “It’ll make a big difference to this one!”
I believe this same attitude should apply when treating animals. Even though a negative statistical analysis of one alternative treatment modality may cause some to scoff at and demean all holistic endeavors … the fact remains, most of the time they work, and “It makes a big difference to that one!”
Research statistics aren’t really all that useful anyway. Most drug research is akin to insurance company actuary tables, which can project how many houses will burn down in a given time period and area but cannot tell you exactly which houses will be destroyed. In the same way, drug advertisement may tout a 60% effectiveness but only the response to treatment will tell you if your animals are in the 60% group or the 40% group. In my opinion, the only valid way to evaluate the success of any treatment is … did it work for you or didn't it.
I did not arrive at this pragmatic outlook in the sterile confines of a library, a laboratory or a classroom but in the rough and tumble arena of a general farm veterinary practice. Your success as a vet was judged on the basis of results … did the animals get better or did they not? If you were called to treat an animal and it got better the owner would probably consult you again should the need arise. If it did not get better, the next time they needed a vet they’d probably call some one else. It didn’t help at all to quote figures from the latest drug company research that indicated that the drug should have worked at least 60 percent of the time.
Then, as now, a plethora of veterinary drug salesmen called on veterinary clinics to offer the latest fruits of modern veterinary science … a new more powerful antibiotic, the broader spectrum vaccine, a better insecticide with fewer side effects. Being more gullible in my younger days, I fell for their sales pitch. Occasionally their products would perform as promoted and I would continue to use them. Unfortunately, a lot of the pharmaceuticals and vaccines were not consistently effective and many caused a variety of side effects guaranteed to make a practitioner look bad. Needless to say, these were seldom used again.
After a few years of less than optimum results with conventional medicine I began to take a closer look at alternative folk medicine as practiced by animal husbandmen for centuries. Some were out and out quackery … but many were based on years of sound empirical observation and made a lot of sense. As I cautiously began to use some of these old folk remedies in my practice I found that many of them worked as well or better than conventional treatments and were a lot less expensive.
Let me give you an example. A short time after I graduated from Vet school, a good friend called me about his mare. Her front legs were so grossly swollen from the knees down that they looked more like tree stumps than legs. Confidently, I opened my medicine bag of modern drugs and began treatment. I used antibiotics; I used anti-histamines; I used enzymes; I used steroids … alone and in every combination imaginable. I gave it all I had for over a week and nothing worked, if anything she got worse.
Finally we took her to the University Vet Clinic. One of my former instructors (one that I had always considered to be old-fashioned and outdated) was assigned to the case. He looked briefly at the mare and gave me a bottle of an old-time remedy, “Dr. X’s Leg Brace”. His instructions were, “Wet her legs down with this, and cover it with cotton batting and a leg wrap. Do it again in 24 hours, if you need to. She’ll be OK in a couple of days.”
As we were leaving, his good-natured parting shot to me was that I must have missed his class on the day he lectured on this condition. Ouch!
So, as a last resort, I followed his instructions. By the next morning, only 12 hours later, the swelling had diminished so dramatically that the bandages had peeled off like a loose sock and were laying loose in the stall. I treated her one more time and she made a complete recovery.
What was in the medicine that worked after every modern pharmaceutical had failed? … Fluid extract of Belladona, witch hazel and glycerine in a base of rubbing alcohol.
To this day, I don’t know the cause of the swelling nor can I explain how or why the old remedy worked, but I do know this … “It made a big difference to that one!”
Critics might say, “Why, that stuff couldn’t have done anything, she probably recovered on her own.” or “The original drugs finally began to work.” To them, any possibility, no matter how far fetched, would be more acceptable than admitting that an old folk remedy had actually worked.
The truth is that conventional medical science today is not far enough advanced to critically evaluate most alternative treatments. Holistic modalities, by their very nature, cannot be analyzed or explained using conventional thinking. Unfortunately, many so called scientists disparage anything they cannot explain.
The bottom line is; whether animal or human, holistic or conventional; patient response is the only meaningful way to evaluate the efficacy of any treatment.
TREATMENT RESULTS
An old drug response rule-of-thumb states that 25% of recipients will show no response, 50% will show a beneficial result of one sort or another and the remaining 25% will show a greater than normal response (adverse reaction). Obviously, these percentages can vary considerably. Holistic therapy may show a marginally greater incidence of no response but compensate by having almost no side effects. Let’s take a closer look at the 5 possible outcomes of any treatment.
1. NO RESPONSE. It is rare for treatment to have absolutely no effect. I believe there is almost always some effect even though it may be so slight or subtle that it does not manifest itself by any observable change in the patient’s symptoms or condition.
2. SUPPRESSION OF SYMPTOMS. At first, this sudden cessation of symptoms may make the Doc or the drug look pretty good. The casual observer may even believe that a cure has taken place. However, in the long term, the patient fails to fully recover and other, more serious symptoms may appear later on. Some Vets may consider this new set of symptoms to be a separate condition but a holistic care giver recognizes them as an indication that the underlying problem has not been corrected but only covered up. Do not confuse suppression of symptoms with the diminution of symptom as true recovery takes place.
3. PALLIATION or ALLEVIATION is considered by some to be the most common response to treatment. The severity of the symptoms is reduced or abated, but only as long as treatment is continued. When the treatment "wears off" or is discontinued, the same old symptoms reappear. To maintain relief, it is often necessary to repeat the treatment at more frequent intervals and at higher doses. No cure takes place and the patient fails to do well overall. This response can be very costly to the owner but lucrative for the practitioner.
4. A COMPLETE CURE is the ultimate goal. When this does occur, the results are astonishing. The response is much more than can be explained merely by the removal of symptoms. Health, vitality and productivity are improved even in areas seemingly unrelated to the original condition. Even with this increased vitality, some symptoms may linger for awhile longer. Remember it takes time for a complete recovery to take place. Chronic disease doesn’t develop overnight nor does the body heal itself over night. When a complete cure does occur, the transformation in the vitality of the patient often exceeds all expectations.
5. ADVERSE REACTIONS or SIDE EFFECTS. Adverse drug reactions are common with modern pharmaceuticals and range from mild allergic reactions to anaphylactic shock and sudden death. More and more long term detrimental effects to individuals and the environment are also becoming apparent. According to a recent article in the Journal if the American Medical Association, adverse drug reactions are responsible for 140,000 human fatalities in the U.S. every year. If livestock owners continue to use modern drugs I would suggest that they obtain a supply of epinephrine from their Vet along with instructions on how to use it to treat drug reactions.
Adverse side effects from holistic medicines or procedures are uncommon. Those that do occur are mild and non-fatal, unless, of course, they are the result of gross negligence or ignorance.
Keep in mind that occasionally, what appear to be adverse side effects may occur as part of the normal healing process. Many times the recovering patient will go through a ‘healing crisis’ before complete recovery takes place. During this ‘crisis’ symptoms may intensify as the body begins to rid itself of toxins as healing progresses. An example of this is often seen when treating mastitis. As the udder begins to heal and the swelling recedes, the formerly dammed-off abnormal milk, pus and tissue debris is released. The sudden appearance of this “gargot” in previously normal looking milk causes the uninformed to think the mastitis is getting worse when in actuality it is only the body’s way of cleansing itself.
IN CONCLUSION
Practitioners of the healing arts need to be skilled in the use of a variety of therapies and sensitive enough to know which ones will best serve the needs of each individual patient. When making this choice it is also their responsibility to take into consideration the short term and long term effects on the patient, as well as the ultimate effects on the local and global environment.
The real challenge to a good practitioner is to know how to choose the treatment that will be of most benefit to each individual patient.
The real challenge to the owner is how to realistically evaluate the response to treatment.
For each of them, this is an art more than a science.
I believe this same attitude should apply when treating animals. Even though a negative statistical analysis of one alternative treatment modality may cause some to scoff at and demean all holistic endeavors … the fact remains, most of the time they work, and “It makes a big difference to that one!”
Research statistics aren’t really all that useful anyway. Most drug research is akin to insurance company actuary tables, which can project how many houses will burn down in a given time period and area but cannot tell you exactly which houses will be destroyed. In the same way, drug advertisement may tout a 60% effectiveness but only the response to treatment will tell you if your animals are in the 60% group or the 40% group. In my opinion, the only valid way to evaluate the success of any treatment is … did it work for you or didn't it.
I did not arrive at this pragmatic outlook in the sterile confines of a library, a laboratory or a classroom but in the rough and tumble arena of a general farm veterinary practice. Your success as a vet was judged on the basis of results … did the animals get better or did they not? If you were called to treat an animal and it got better the owner would probably consult you again should the need arise. If it did not get better, the next time they needed a vet they’d probably call some one else. It didn’t help at all to quote figures from the latest drug company research that indicated that the drug should have worked at least 60 percent of the time.
Then, as now, a plethora of veterinary drug salesmen called on veterinary clinics to offer the latest fruits of modern veterinary science … a new more powerful antibiotic, the broader spectrum vaccine, a better insecticide with fewer side effects. Being more gullible in my younger days, I fell for their sales pitch. Occasionally their products would perform as promoted and I would continue to use them. Unfortunately, a lot of the pharmaceuticals and vaccines were not consistently effective and many caused a variety of side effects guaranteed to make a practitioner look bad. Needless to say, these were seldom used again.
After a few years of less than optimum results with conventional medicine I began to take a closer look at alternative folk medicine as practiced by animal husbandmen for centuries. Some were out and out quackery … but many were based on years of sound empirical observation and made a lot of sense. As I cautiously began to use some of these old folk remedies in my practice I found that many of them worked as well or better than conventional treatments and were a lot less expensive.
Let me give you an example. A short time after I graduated from Vet school, a good friend called me about his mare. Her front legs were so grossly swollen from the knees down that they looked more like tree stumps than legs. Confidently, I opened my medicine bag of modern drugs and began treatment. I used antibiotics; I used anti-histamines; I used enzymes; I used steroids … alone and in every combination imaginable. I gave it all I had for over a week and nothing worked, if anything she got worse.
Finally we took her to the University Vet Clinic. One of my former instructors (one that I had always considered to be old-fashioned and outdated) was assigned to the case. He looked briefly at the mare and gave me a bottle of an old-time remedy, “Dr. X’s Leg Brace”. His instructions were, “Wet her legs down with this, and cover it with cotton batting and a leg wrap. Do it again in 24 hours, if you need to. She’ll be OK in a couple of days.”
As we were leaving, his good-natured parting shot to me was that I must have missed his class on the day he lectured on this condition. Ouch!
So, as a last resort, I followed his instructions. By the next morning, only 12 hours later, the swelling had diminished so dramatically that the bandages had peeled off like a loose sock and were laying loose in the stall. I treated her one more time and she made a complete recovery.
What was in the medicine that worked after every modern pharmaceutical had failed? … Fluid extract of Belladona, witch hazel and glycerine in a base of rubbing alcohol.
To this day, I don’t know the cause of the swelling nor can I explain how or why the old remedy worked, but I do know this … “It made a big difference to that one!”
Critics might say, “Why, that stuff couldn’t have done anything, she probably recovered on her own.” or “The original drugs finally began to work.” To them, any possibility, no matter how far fetched, would be more acceptable than admitting that an old folk remedy had actually worked.
The truth is that conventional medical science today is not far enough advanced to critically evaluate most alternative treatments. Holistic modalities, by their very nature, cannot be analyzed or explained using conventional thinking. Unfortunately, many so called scientists disparage anything they cannot explain.
The bottom line is; whether animal or human, holistic or conventional; patient response is the only meaningful way to evaluate the efficacy of any treatment.
TREATMENT RESULTS
An old drug response rule-of-thumb states that 25% of recipients will show no response, 50% will show a beneficial result of one sort or another and the remaining 25% will show a greater than normal response (adverse reaction). Obviously, these percentages can vary considerably. Holistic therapy may show a marginally greater incidence of no response but compensate by having almost no side effects. Let’s take a closer look at the 5 possible outcomes of any treatment.
1. NO RESPONSE. It is rare for treatment to have absolutely no effect. I believe there is almost always some effect even though it may be so slight or subtle that it does not manifest itself by any observable change in the patient’s symptoms or condition.
2. SUPPRESSION OF SYMPTOMS. At first, this sudden cessation of symptoms may make the Doc or the drug look pretty good. The casual observer may even believe that a cure has taken place. However, in the long term, the patient fails to fully recover and other, more serious symptoms may appear later on. Some Vets may consider this new set of symptoms to be a separate condition but a holistic care giver recognizes them as an indication that the underlying problem has not been corrected but only covered up. Do not confuse suppression of symptoms with the diminution of symptom as true recovery takes place.
3. PALLIATION or ALLEVIATION is considered by some to be the most common response to treatment. The severity of the symptoms is reduced or abated, but only as long as treatment is continued. When the treatment "wears off" or is discontinued, the same old symptoms reappear. To maintain relief, it is often necessary to repeat the treatment at more frequent intervals and at higher doses. No cure takes place and the patient fails to do well overall. This response can be very costly to the owner but lucrative for the practitioner.
4. A COMPLETE CURE is the ultimate goal. When this does occur, the results are astonishing. The response is much more than can be explained merely by the removal of symptoms. Health, vitality and productivity are improved even in areas seemingly unrelated to the original condition. Even with this increased vitality, some symptoms may linger for awhile longer. Remember it takes time for a complete recovery to take place. Chronic disease doesn’t develop overnight nor does the body heal itself over night. When a complete cure does occur, the transformation in the vitality of the patient often exceeds all expectations.
5. ADVERSE REACTIONS or SIDE EFFECTS. Adverse drug reactions are common with modern pharmaceuticals and range from mild allergic reactions to anaphylactic shock and sudden death. More and more long term detrimental effects to individuals and the environment are also becoming apparent. According to a recent article in the Journal if the American Medical Association, adverse drug reactions are responsible for 140,000 human fatalities in the U.S. every year. If livestock owners continue to use modern drugs I would suggest that they obtain a supply of epinephrine from their Vet along with instructions on how to use it to treat drug reactions.
Adverse side effects from holistic medicines or procedures are uncommon. Those that do occur are mild and non-fatal, unless, of course, they are the result of gross negligence or ignorance.
Keep in mind that occasionally, what appear to be adverse side effects may occur as part of the normal healing process. Many times the recovering patient will go through a ‘healing crisis’ before complete recovery takes place. During this ‘crisis’ symptoms may intensify as the body begins to rid itself of toxins as healing progresses. An example of this is often seen when treating mastitis. As the udder begins to heal and the swelling recedes, the formerly dammed-off abnormal milk, pus and tissue debris is released. The sudden appearance of this “gargot” in previously normal looking milk causes the uninformed to think the mastitis is getting worse when in actuality it is only the body’s way of cleansing itself.
IN CONCLUSION
Practitioners of the healing arts need to be skilled in the use of a variety of therapies and sensitive enough to know which ones will best serve the needs of each individual patient. When making this choice it is also their responsibility to take into consideration the short term and long term effects on the patient, as well as the ultimate effects on the local and global environment.
The real challenge to a good practitioner is to know how to choose the treatment that will be of most benefit to each individual patient.
The real challenge to the owner is how to realistically evaluate the response to treatment.
For each of them, this is an art more than a science.
Monday, August 3, 2020
Hey, Doc, my cows are eating dirt. Waddya got for that?
A few years ago, I posed this question at several dairy seminars in the Midwest: “Do your animals chew on wood or eat dirt if they have the chance?” A few said their cows would chew on wood. Almost all indicated their cows would eat dirt if available. One fellow said that he had to haul in dirt around the foundations of his buildings to replace the soil his cows had eaten over a period of years. Strangely enough, a few even told of their cows licking or drinking from urine puddles if they could get to them. As bad as that sounds, it is even more alarming when conventional opinion regards this eating behavior as being almost normal because it is so common. It’s the “everybody’s doing it, so it must be OK” syndrome. And it may be “normal” in the sense that it is appropriate, compensatory behavior for animals forced to subsist on a mineral deficient ration. Eating dirt and other abnormal appetites are attempts to secure some vital element or attain some nutritive balance that is not otherwise present in their diet. It should be considered a signal that something is amiss in the ration.
To examine the problem from a holistic viewpoint, let’s go back in time and look at the effect of domestication on today’s dairy cattle. Most authorities agree that primitive cattle or Aurochs (Bos taurus primigenius) were first domesticated about 8000 years ago. Before domestication, cattle lived a lifestyle similar to that of bison in the American west. They were free to roam over wide, naturally fertile areas. Specific imbalances of soil in one area would be offset by excesses or adequacy of the same element in other areas. A multitude of different plants were available. Many plants had the ability to absorb and concentrate different minerals and trace mineral giving the grazers even greater nutrient options. Thus, over a period of time they could seek out and obtain balanced mineral and nutritional needs. Predators strengthened the genetic pool by culling the weak and unfit. It’s a lot different today. Dairy cattle have been genetically modified to produce at levels never intend by nature, increasing their need for minerals.
Ever more restrictive confinement limits their ability to seek out and consume adequate diets. In a natural grazing situation herbivores probably had hundreds of different plants from which to choose. Today they are limited to 6 or less: grass, alfalfa, corn, soybeans, cottonseed and maybe some oats or barley. Seeds and grains in the amount currently fed are detrimental to dairy cow health. Cow are ruminants and need a high-forage diet!
Crop quality has declined. Every crop harvested or animal removed from a farm or ranch takes with it a finite amount of life supporting nutrients. Major elements can be replaced but it is difficult to restore a natural balance that includes high organic matter, adequate trace minerals, and vibrant biological life. Intensive NPK fertilization results in higher yields at the expense of nutritive values and mineral content in the crops.
“AVERAGE” IS A MYTH! A total mixed ration (TMR) is the industry standard feeding strategy that purports to provide, in one total mix, all the nutrition required by the ‘average’ cow in the group. This concept fails to consider the individuality of each animal’s nutrient requirements. No two animals have the same needs. Variables such as breed, age, pregnancy, stage of lactation, weather, season of the year and others have a marked influence on the need for mineral supplementation. With a TMR probably no one animal will get exactly what it needs. A few may get pretty close but many will be lacking in some nutrients while others will have excesses. This limits their production, eventually depresses their immune response and ultimately may result in various herd health problems. Eating dirt, if available, is their way of responding to these imbalances.
Unfortunately, mainstream nutritionists tend to downplay the ability of animals to balance their nutritional needs. Anyone who doubts that cattle can make valid nutritional choices needs to watch cows graze in a mixed pasture. They do not just mow grass like a lawn mower, but pick and choose each mouthful. They avoid eating the bright green grass surrounding ‘cow pies’ in the pasture but will search the fence-rows for weeds that concentrate various essential trace minerals. Given the chance, they will balance their nutritional needs during each feeding period.
The following incident illustrates another aspect of this ability. Weather had made it a bad year for crop quality. In late winter, a good client called me about two problems. His cattle were eating excessive amounts of mineral and his heifers would abort a live calf about 10 days before they were due to calve. The calf would live, but the heifer would usually die. Focusing first on his mineral problem, he decided to try a “cafeteria” mineral program in which each mineral was fed separately. He had to carry each bag of mineral through his cow-lot to get to the mineral feeder. His first few trips were uneventful. Then suddenly several of the normally docile cows surrounded him, tore a bag of mineral from his arms. chewed open the bag and greedily consumed the contents … a zinc supplement.
Within a week after the mineral change, consumption returned to normal and his remaining heifers calved normally. Apparently, the previous year’s stressful growing season had resulted in crops that were deficient in zinc or perhaps high in zinc antagonists. His mineral mix was high in Calcium with only small amounts of zinc. Their quest for zinc impelled them to over-eat the mixed mineral. Excess calcium interferes with zinc absorption. Every mouthful they took increased the imbalance and escalated their need for zinc. Inevitably, metabolic problems began in the most vulnerable group - young, growing heifers in the last stages of pregnancy. Finally they just gave up and checked out ... all for want of a few grams of zinc.
If your cows are eating dirt or if you just want to experiment; give your cows a chance to participate in their own diet formulation. Do not change your current ration, but do provide separate free-choice sources of these 6 items: salt, bentonite, bicarb, a basic mixed mineral with a 2 to 1 Ca/P ratio, one with a 1 to 2 Ca/P ratio, and kelp. Cows with rumen acidosis will prefer bicarb or bentonite. The separate sources of Ca and P allow them to adjust that critical ratio. If they lack trace minerals they may also eat a lot of kelp. If kelp consumption remains high you may want to provide separate sources of some of the trace minerals. There are commercial companies that provide a broad range of separate free-choice minerals and trace minerals.
We should use our nutritional knowledge to formulate dairy rations, but also rely on the nutritional wisdom of animals to fine-tune their individual needs. It doesn’t hurt to have two opinions ... one from your nutritionist’s computer and one from the real experts, your cows. I will leave it to you to decide which one is the most reliable.
Originally printed in the Oct 2007 issue of the Progressive Dairyman. Used here by permission.
To examine the problem from a holistic viewpoint, let’s go back in time and look at the effect of domestication on today’s dairy cattle. Most authorities agree that primitive cattle or Aurochs (Bos taurus primigenius) were first domesticated about 8000 years ago. Before domestication, cattle lived a lifestyle similar to that of bison in the American west. They were free to roam over wide, naturally fertile areas. Specific imbalances of soil in one area would be offset by excesses or adequacy of the same element in other areas. A multitude of different plants were available. Many plants had the ability to absorb and concentrate different minerals and trace mineral giving the grazers even greater nutrient options. Thus, over a period of time they could seek out and obtain balanced mineral and nutritional needs. Predators strengthened the genetic pool by culling the weak and unfit. It’s a lot different today. Dairy cattle have been genetically modified to produce at levels never intend by nature, increasing their need for minerals.
Ever more restrictive confinement limits their ability to seek out and consume adequate diets. In a natural grazing situation herbivores probably had hundreds of different plants from which to choose. Today they are limited to 6 or less: grass, alfalfa, corn, soybeans, cottonseed and maybe some oats or barley. Seeds and grains in the amount currently fed are detrimental to dairy cow health. Cow are ruminants and need a high-forage diet!
Crop quality has declined. Every crop harvested or animal removed from a farm or ranch takes with it a finite amount of life supporting nutrients. Major elements can be replaced but it is difficult to restore a natural balance that includes high organic matter, adequate trace minerals, and vibrant biological life. Intensive NPK fertilization results in higher yields at the expense of nutritive values and mineral content in the crops.
“AVERAGE” IS A MYTH! A total mixed ration (TMR) is the industry standard feeding strategy that purports to provide, in one total mix, all the nutrition required by the ‘average’ cow in the group. This concept fails to consider the individuality of each animal’s nutrient requirements. No two animals have the same needs. Variables such as breed, age, pregnancy, stage of lactation, weather, season of the year and others have a marked influence on the need for mineral supplementation. With a TMR probably no one animal will get exactly what it needs. A few may get pretty close but many will be lacking in some nutrients while others will have excesses. This limits their production, eventually depresses their immune response and ultimately may result in various herd health problems. Eating dirt, if available, is their way of responding to these imbalances.
Unfortunately, mainstream nutritionists tend to downplay the ability of animals to balance their nutritional needs. Anyone who doubts that cattle can make valid nutritional choices needs to watch cows graze in a mixed pasture. They do not just mow grass like a lawn mower, but pick and choose each mouthful. They avoid eating the bright green grass surrounding ‘cow pies’ in the pasture but will search the fence-rows for weeds that concentrate various essential trace minerals. Given the chance, they will balance their nutritional needs during each feeding period.
The following incident illustrates another aspect of this ability. Weather had made it a bad year for crop quality. In late winter, a good client called me about two problems. His cattle were eating excessive amounts of mineral and his heifers would abort a live calf about 10 days before they were due to calve. The calf would live, but the heifer would usually die. Focusing first on his mineral problem, he decided to try a “cafeteria” mineral program in which each mineral was fed separately. He had to carry each bag of mineral through his cow-lot to get to the mineral feeder. His first few trips were uneventful. Then suddenly several of the normally docile cows surrounded him, tore a bag of mineral from his arms. chewed open the bag and greedily consumed the contents … a zinc supplement.
Within a week after the mineral change, consumption returned to normal and his remaining heifers calved normally. Apparently, the previous year’s stressful growing season had resulted in crops that were deficient in zinc or perhaps high in zinc antagonists. His mineral mix was high in Calcium with only small amounts of zinc. Their quest for zinc impelled them to over-eat the mixed mineral. Excess calcium interferes with zinc absorption. Every mouthful they took increased the imbalance and escalated their need for zinc. Inevitably, metabolic problems began in the most vulnerable group - young, growing heifers in the last stages of pregnancy. Finally they just gave up and checked out ... all for want of a few grams of zinc.
If your cows are eating dirt or if you just want to experiment; give your cows a chance to participate in their own diet formulation. Do not change your current ration, but do provide separate free-choice sources of these 6 items: salt, bentonite, bicarb, a basic mixed mineral with a 2 to 1 Ca/P ratio, one with a 1 to 2 Ca/P ratio, and kelp. Cows with rumen acidosis will prefer bicarb or bentonite. The separate sources of Ca and P allow them to adjust that critical ratio. If they lack trace minerals they may also eat a lot of kelp. If kelp consumption remains high you may want to provide separate sources of some of the trace minerals. There are commercial companies that provide a broad range of separate free-choice minerals and trace minerals.
We should use our nutritional knowledge to formulate dairy rations, but also rely on the nutritional wisdom of animals to fine-tune their individual needs. It doesn’t hurt to have two opinions ... one from your nutritionist’s computer and one from the real experts, your cows. I will leave it to you to decide which one is the most reliable.
Originally printed in the Oct 2007 issue of the Progressive Dairyman. Used here by permission.
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
Research — Reading Between the Lines
We rely on university research in many of our management decisions. But unfortunately, often the conclusions or summary statement in a research report does not match the actual data or results. Here is an example of an erroneous conclusion drawn by some researchers.
In 1977, a study was done at South Dakota State University entitled, “Cafeteria Style Free-Choice Mineral Feeder for Lactating Dairy Cows” by L. D. Miller, L. V. Schaffer, L. C. Ham, and M. J. Owens. 1977 J Dairy Sci 60:1574-1582.
The authors stated - “Little evidence was found that dairy cows offered minerals and vitamins free choice consumed to a specific appetite or need under the two nutritional regimes.”
Let’s take a closer look at some of the excerpts from that study along with some comments.
“Trial 1 was 16 weeks in which two groups of cows in mid-lactation (10 cows / group) were group-fed rations with either corn silage or alfalfa hay as the sole forage, and all supplemental minerals and vitamins were provided free choice.” This is too small a group and too short a time to really evaluate the nutritional wisdom of animals. A full 12 months would be better as that would encompass the gamut of lactation, dry period, parturition, and back to lactation. Even better would be a multi-year experiment that examines the health and productivity of the calves born to the two research groups, thus evaluating the multi-generational effect.
“Minerals and vitamins were provided in a “cafeteria style” mineral feeder, one feeder per group. The feeder was sheltered and afforded protection from wind and rain. Mineral and vitamin mixes were: calcium, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and sulfur trace mineral, bicarbonate of soda, sodium bentonite, sodium chloride, iodine mix and vitamins A, D, and E. Intake of each individual mineral was determined weekly for each group.”
“Intake of phosphorus, potassium, and vitamins differed between rations. A higher free choice intake of phosphorus by cows fed alfalfa was not expected.” It should have been expected, as it is well known that cattle need to balance their Ca/P ratio. “Cows could possibly have been consuming more P to narrow the wide Ca:P ratio due to high Ca intake from alfalfa.” Of course they ate more P to balance the high Ca in alfalfa. That’s what free choice is all about – giving them the opportunity to self regulate their needs.
“Cows fed corn silage consumed more potassium free-choice, but additional intake still was needed to meet requirements.” Whose requirement are they trying to meet - NRC standards or what the cow actually needs? The authors could not explain why this group’s milk production exceeded the alfalfa group even with their assumed K deficiency.
“Little evidence was found in these two short trials that lactating dairy cows have a specific appetite for individual minerals. Where corn silage and alfalfa, forages that differ in mineral content, were fed as the sole forages to two groups of cows, only in the cases of potassium and vitamins did cows fed corn silage consume large amounts free-choice possibly to compensate for a dietary deficiency.” Actually the main mineral ratios were balanced by the cow’s mineral preferences. They balanced the critical Ca/P ratio by eating more P to compensate for the high Ca in alfalfa. The cows in the alfalfa group took almost no K, while the corn silage group consumed 36 times more K than the alfalfa group.
Given the above perspective, it’s difficult to understand how the authors concluded that cattle could not balance their own mineral needs.
It pays to “read between the lines” when evaluating research reports. It is also helpful to know who paid for the research, who did the research and where did the researcher worked before and after he did the research. A good dose of common sense is also indicated.
In 1977, a study was done at South Dakota State University entitled, “Cafeteria Style Free-Choice Mineral Feeder for Lactating Dairy Cows” by L. D. Miller, L. V. Schaffer, L. C. Ham, and M. J. Owens. 1977 J Dairy Sci 60:1574-1582.
The authors stated - “Little evidence was found that dairy cows offered minerals and vitamins free choice consumed to a specific appetite or need under the two nutritional regimes.”
Let’s take a closer look at some of the excerpts from that study along with some comments.
“Trial 1 was 16 weeks in which two groups of cows in mid-lactation (10 cows / group) were group-fed rations with either corn silage or alfalfa hay as the sole forage, and all supplemental minerals and vitamins were provided free choice.” This is too small a group and too short a time to really evaluate the nutritional wisdom of animals. A full 12 months would be better as that would encompass the gamut of lactation, dry period, parturition, and back to lactation. Even better would be a multi-year experiment that examines the health and productivity of the calves born to the two research groups, thus evaluating the multi-generational effect.
“Minerals and vitamins were provided in a “cafeteria style” mineral feeder, one feeder per group. The feeder was sheltered and afforded protection from wind and rain. Mineral and vitamin mixes were: calcium, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and sulfur trace mineral, bicarbonate of soda, sodium bentonite, sodium chloride, iodine mix and vitamins A, D, and E. Intake of each individual mineral was determined weekly for each group.”
“Intake of phosphorus, potassium, and vitamins differed between rations. A higher free choice intake of phosphorus by cows fed alfalfa was not expected.” It should have been expected, as it is well known that cattle need to balance their Ca/P ratio. “Cows could possibly have been consuming more P to narrow the wide Ca:P ratio due to high Ca intake from alfalfa.” Of course they ate more P to balance the high Ca in alfalfa. That’s what free choice is all about – giving them the opportunity to self regulate their needs.
“Cows fed corn silage consumed more potassium free-choice, but additional intake still was needed to meet requirements.” Whose requirement are they trying to meet - NRC standards or what the cow actually needs? The authors could not explain why this group’s milk production exceeded the alfalfa group even with their assumed K deficiency.
“Little evidence was found in these two short trials that lactating dairy cows have a specific appetite for individual minerals. Where corn silage and alfalfa, forages that differ in mineral content, were fed as the sole forages to two groups of cows, only in the cases of potassium and vitamins did cows fed corn silage consume large amounts free-choice possibly to compensate for a dietary deficiency.” Actually the main mineral ratios were balanced by the cow’s mineral preferences. They balanced the critical Ca/P ratio by eating more P to compensate for the high Ca in alfalfa. The cows in the alfalfa group took almost no K, while the corn silage group consumed 36 times more K than the alfalfa group.
Given the above perspective, it’s difficult to understand how the authors concluded that cattle could not balance their own mineral needs.
It pays to “read between the lines” when evaluating research reports. It is also helpful to know who paid for the research, who did the research and where did the researcher worked before and after he did the research. A good dose of common sense is also indicated.
This item was originally posted to a previous issue of Doc Holliday's Blog on November 24, 2018
Monday, July 27, 2020
If minerals are team players, what about the playing field?
We often refer to minerals as team players and compare them to members of a sports team. I’d like to add another dimension to that analogy – the playing field. The attributes and condition of the playing field can have a great influence on the ultimate performance of the team players.
What is the playing field like for your animals, and what can you do to make it better?
Basketball players would not do well if the court floor was dirty and had missing or warped flooring. Outdoor sports were the same. I can remember the bygone era when sports events were played outdoors without benefit of the now almost universal domed stadiums.
Many baseball games were delayed or cancelled because of inclement weather. Late season football games were seldom delayed by the weather, and many football games we played in the mud and sometimes even during a blizzard of snow. What a mess!
Mineral feeding can also be affected by aberrations in the playing field. If we can identify and alleviate some of the “playing field” problems we can enhance the performance of the mineral team.
Here are some examples — there may be others!
- Poor quality feed will increase consumption of Vitamin A and Vitamin B
- Gross excesses of any one mineral will affect the utilization of many other minerals. (Check out: https://docrjhollidaydvmblog.blogspot.com/2020/05/are-obfa-minerals-suitable-for.html
- Poor water quality. High levels of nitrates in the water will increase the need for Vitamin A as will urea or NPN in the feeds.
- Stress of any kind — stray voltage, social stress, heat, cold — will usually increase consumption of Vitamin B and Vitamin A.
To illustrate the range of possible ‘playing fields’, consider the overall environment of a holistically managed, grass-fed dairy farm compared to a conventional factory-farm mega-dairy.
What is the playing field like for your animals, and what can you do to make it better?
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
The Evolution of a Holistic Veterinarian, Continued
The previous blog article ended in 2007. In early January of 2008, we had a meeting in Waukon, Iowa with the Impro folks and with Jim and Gwen Helfter, the owners of Advanced Biological Concepts of Osco, Illinois. We were hoping to be able to combine the sales efforts for Impro and ABC Mineral, but alas, it was not to be. Impro proposed so many unattainable stipulations, it was obvious such a relationship would never survive. I immediately resigned from Impro and became a full-time employee of ABC.
It was one of the best decisions I ever made.
I had worked with Impro for 23 years. It had been a good experience. The folks there are fine people. We accomplished many good things for the company and for the clients that we served.
My experience with cafeteria-style mineral feeding began in the early 1960s when I fed similar products to my own small group of animals. The products were made by the long defunct “Morea” company in Crete, Nebraska. A small feed store next to my clinic handled the products and many of my clients used them. Thus, I was able to observe their value in many different circumstances. These and other experiences over the years made my association with ABC a ‘natural’ match.
Advanced Biological Concepts is the premier manufacturer and distributor of cafeteria style minerals and many other nutritional products for the organic livestock industry.
Unfortunately, Jim Helfter, the founder and CEO of Advanced Biological Concepts passed away October 26, 2014 while out riding a horse — a fitting exit for a great man who loved horses. His wife, Gwen Helfter, is now the CEO of Advanced Biological Concepts and is doing a great job carrying on the tradition of excellence started by Jim many years ago. I have been gratified to be able to continue my association with ABC, although on a more limited basis since my move to Idaho.
Finally, here is a summary of my veterinary activities over the years.
- 1959 to 1984: I was basically in a one man, all species vet practice. I did a lot of ‘grunt’ work — dehorning, castrations, and vaccinations. If called to treat a sick animal, I would use conventional drugs and therapies — treating the symptoms.
- 1984 - 2008: During this time I was gradually phasing into more holistic thinking, but in essence I was still treating symptoms, only now with so-called holistic treatments and practices.
- 2008 to present: I believe animal and human health depend on good nutrition, especially mineral balance. All metabolic processes are controlled by enzymes which have minerals and trace minerals as their core. Linus Pauling, (1901-1994), the only person to win two unshared Nobel prizes, said, “You can trace every disease and every infection to a mineral deficiency from unequally yoked energy fields.” There are many others.
Suffice it to say that maintaining mineral balance is the basic and ultimate act of preventing disease. I am happy to have been part of the enlightenment this concept has brought into much of our agricultural thinking today.
Thursday, July 16, 2020
The Evolution of a Holistic Veterinarian
Originally printed in the June 2007 issue of the Progressive Dairyman. Used here by permission.
I believe that a broad based interest in soil conservation began in the 1930’s as a result of the devastating “dust bowl” era when the shortcomings of the then current agricultural practices became apparent. This trend continued on many fronts and the most visible one at present is the “organic movement”. It is well to remember that “organic” is only one part of a much larger trend toward sustainable agriculture that is changing the very nature of the way farming is done here in the United States and in many other parts of the world as well. My evolution as a holistic veterinarian roughly paralleled this broader national movement.
In High School I read Louis Bromfield’s books Pleasant Valley and Malabar Farm in which he detailed his success in rebuilding worn-out farms near his boyhood home in Ohio. These books were my earliest exposure to alternative agriculture. They are still a good reference for anyone interested in soil conservation and the early history of at least one part of the natural farming movement.
In undergraduate studies at the University of Missouri I had the opportunity to study soils under the renowned Dr. William A. Albrecht. It was years later that I fully appreciated the importance of his work … that it takes healthy soils to make healthy crops and healthy crops to make healthy animals. His book, Soil Fertility and Animal Health is a classic. Dr. Albrecht’s influence and acceptance in the realm of sustainable or biological agriculture is greater now than while he was alive. One of his sayings was, “Study books and observe nature; if they do not agree, throw away the books.” I have tried to follow this advice throughout my career. It has paid huge dividends in insights and knowledge gained.
In Vet school I was fortunate that most of my clinical instructors were former veterinary practitioners. They gave us a practicality in our approach to medicine that kept the mind open to anything that worked. One of our large animal clinician/instructors, Dr. Stanley Smith, was 88 years old when I was a senior in Vet school. His inquisitive mind was an inspiration to all students. He would try any sort of treatment at least once, to judge it’s worth. The results of some of these unorthodox remedies and therapies were at times astounding. He taught us to not be bound by tradition and not be afraid to try something new or to explore a new idea.
One day one of my good “natural farming” clients took me on an impromptu field trip. We drove to an area where his cornfield joined his neighbor’s. Both fields were basically the same as to soil type, variety and stage of growth. His neighbor’s corn was tall with dark green undamaged leaves. Kenny’s corn was just about as tall and green but the plants in several rows around the perimeter of his field were severely damaged. He explained. “My neighbor uses all the modern chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides. I use only naturally occurring soil amendments like manure, lime, gypsum and rock phosphate. Deer will walk through miles of ‘chemical’ corn without taking a bite and then feast on my crops because it tastes better.” We did a taste test. The sap from his corn tasted sweet … almost like sugar cane. One row away, just across the fence, the sap was bland and had a bitter aftertaste. He then suggested that I notice the number of empty pesticide cans in the trash dumps on the farms where I made most of my sick animal vet calls and look for a correlation.” There definitely was. I have never forgotten his words and I have seldom found them in error. He taught me two natural principles … animals can recognize and will seek out healthy nutrition if available and there is an adverse relationship between heavy use of ag-chemicals and animal health.
1940 saw the publication of An Agricultural Testament by Sir Albert Howard, an English researcher working in India to develop composting methods to increase soil fertility. He found that animals were healthier when fed highly nutritious feed grown on high organic matter soils. He reported that his work-oxen fed on these “organically grown” feeds remained healthy even when directly exposed to Foot and Mouth disease.
Sir Albert’s book is reputed to have been the impetus for J. I. Rodale to begin publication of the magazine “Organic Gardening and Farming”. This magazine was instrumental in popularizing the health benefits of organic farming for animals and humans alike. In the 60’s and 70’s it was our program guide as we tried to farm our small acreage organically and apply natural principles to our own health and that of our animals. It also inspired me to become more holistic in my vet practice.
Acres USA is another national publication that has been a tremendous advocate for ecological agriculture for over 30 years. The publisher, Charles Walters, is a pioneer in this field and has written extensively on this subject.
In 1984 I became employed as a technical services veterinarian for a company that produces and markets colostrum-whey based animal health and nutrition products. For the last 23 years I’ve been able to apply holistic principles to various health problems as I consulting with large and small, organic and conventional dairymen across the country. In 1988 I witnessed the birth of the CROPP Cooperative and I have been peripherally associated with Organic Valley ever since. In 1989 I took advanced training from the International Veterinary Acupuncture Society and became board certified in Veterinary Acupuncture. The study of 5000 year old holistic medical technology added a whole new dimension to my understanding of health and disease.
When the Rodales’ first popularized the term “organic” it referred to the goal of building fertile, biologically active soils high in organic matter. At present, the emphasis of organic regulation seems to have shifted somewhat from soil building to restricting the use of prohibited substances. The USDA defines the requirements to qualify as organic and the National Organic Standards Board insures compliance with some of the more important natural principles. It is interesting to note that while organic certified dairies are regulated by the government, all dairies are subject to the constraints imposed by natural principles and the innate nature of the cow.
I have been privileged to watch and participate in the growth of sustainable or organic agriculture over several decades. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)