Prepared by Casey Odom May 6, 2013 Report on Mastitis Management and Labor Management This is a report on some of the

data collected with the Quality Milk Alliances survey A Survey of Mastitis Management on Dairy Farms. This report focuses on the questions that addressed labor management issues and how labor management practices are related to mastitis management. Introduction Mastitis has become a problem for dairy farmers around the world. Mastitis is simply defined as an infection of the mammary gland in the udder. These infections can be caused by a number of different bacteria but they mostly have similar results. Due to the cows immune response, the udders become inflamed and the white blood cells produced to fight the infection, get mixed into the milk they produce. Because the white blood cells in the milk make it less pure, mastitis is an indicator of lower quality milk (Barkema et al 1999). Obviously, mastitis and low quality milk is a problem for everyone involved. The farmers cannot sell their milk to premium markets, so they make less money per gallon of milk produced. The farmers also have to treat the cattle to try to cure the infection. Antibiotics and veterinary farm visits can quickly become expensive for the farmers, thus decreasing their profit margins even more. Also, once the cows are treated with antibiotics, they are removed from the regular milking line so that the antibiotic residues that will be in their milk do not contaminate the rest of the milk produced by the other cows on the farm (Gonzalo et al. 2010). The farmers pockets take a hit once again since they are producing less milk that is eligible for sale or consumption while the cow is withdrawn from production for treatment. Mastitis often can decrease the amount of good nutrients in the milk, as well. Consumers who consume dairy products made from this milk receive fewer of the beneficial vitamins and minerals found in milk, such as calcium. Lastly, as you can imagine, mastitis is not a comfortable infection to have. Lets just say that these are not exactly happy cattle. Since mastitis causes problems from the farm to the cereal bowl, the Quality Milk Alliance (QMA) has developed this survey to assess some of the practices that farmers employ to manage mastitis on their farm (N=628). Eventually, QMA will use the data produced by the survey to help farmers manage their individual issues with mastitis and improve their milk quality. Dairy Farm Labor Any dairy farmer will tell you, running a dairy farm is hard work. There are three options that dairy farmers have for managing daily farm work. In a few cases, farmers purchase robotic milking systems which can greatly reduce the milking workload, but are very expensive and often unreasonable for dairy farmers. Other farmers have family members who help them on the farm, paid or unpaid. Oftentimes, however, farmers do not have enough relatives on the farm to handle all the tasks that need to be done in a day, so they must hire part-time or full-time employees to help them get the work done.

Laborer Descritptives As you can see in Table 1, of the dairy farmers who responded, there are approximately 4 family workers and only 1.5 non-family workers on each farm. Since many farmers have demonstrated that they are not the only ones working on their farm, it is important to understand how those extra workers may or may not be affecting mastitis and their mastitis management practices.
Table 1 - Family and Non-Family Workers Family Non-Family 0 0 Minimum 50 120 Maximum 3.9322 1.6314 Mean 2.7758 5.07537 Std. Deviation 2967 2665 Valid Total Missing Total 87 3054 389 3054

Since the farmers have workers on their farm, examining the amount of people who are milking the cows is important when examining how the farms manage their labor. Table 2, below, shows how many total milkers are present on the farm and then how many milkers are present at each individual milking (since there are usually at least 2 milkings per day). Looking at Table 2 we can see that there are many more total milkers on average (n=82) than there are milkers present at each milking on average (n=13).
Table 2 Amount of Milkers Total number Total number of of milkers milkers per milking Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Valid Missing Total 1 82 3.3241 2.6432 2961 93 3054 1 13 1.18415 0.712 2953 101 3054

While we can see that many farmers hire non-family employees, we should also examine how those employees work and who those employees are. Table 3 shows that on average, most employees work full time (i.e., more than 40 hours a week). However, there are also part-time employees who are probably important for certain farm operations. 2

Table 3 In 2012, how many of your employees typically worked: Less than 20 20 to 40 More than 40 hrs/week hrs/week hrs/week Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Valid Missing Total 0 9 2.2 1.707 782 2272 3054 0 25 2.09 1.916 936 2118 3054 0 100 3.42 5.252 1259 1795 3054

We should also look at farmers retaining employee. As you will see later in this report (Table 7), retaining employee is important to many famers. Below, Table 4 shows how many part-time and full-time employees are retained from year to year. Table 4 shows that there are more employees, on average, who have are full-time and have been working on the same farm for at least 2 consecutive years. Table 4 also shows that many more part-time employees have worked on the same farm for at least 2 consecutive years. This suggests that farmers are more likely to keep the same hired work, from year to year.
Table 4 How many of your employees have worked on your farm: Part time for Part time for Part time for Full time Full time 1 - 12 12 - 24 more than 24 for 1 - 12 for 12 - 24 Months months months months months Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Valid Missing Total 0 6 1.43 1.134 392 2662 3054 0 9 1.67 1.643 393 2661 3054 0 16 2.51 2.199 769 2285 3054 0 20 2.09 2.481 218 2836 3054 0 20 2.03 2.609 205 2849 3054 Full time for more than 24 months 0 60 3.75 4.61 1188 1866 3054

Labor Management One issue with having family or hiring non-family to do farm work can be the management practices for mastitis. If the family members or the hired labor are new workers on the farm, they may not know of the problems that mastitis can cause. An easy way to fix this problem is to teach the employees the protocols that are used for mastitis management. QMAs survey of dairy producers asked the participants to rank how often they trained their employees in mastitis treatment protocols. 3

Table 5 - Train employees in mastitis protocols Valid Cumulative Percent of Farmers Response Frequency Percent Percent with Employees Valid Never 354 13.0 13.0 17.2 Sometimes 379 14.0 27.0 18.5 Frequently 416 15.3 42.3 20.3 Always 903 33.3 75.5 44.0 N/A, Other 664 24.5 100.0 Total 2715 100.0 100.0 Missing 339 Total 3054 2052

As shown in Table 5, of the farmers that responded (n1=2715), the highest percentage answered that they always train their employees in mastitis protocols (n=903). This is a very good sign because training is an easy way to increase the quality of the milk produced by each farm (Stup et al. 2006). However, 13% of respondents report that they Never train their employees in mastitis protocols and 14 % report that they only sometimes train employees in mastitis protocols. While a large portion of the farmers train their employees in their mastitis protocols, the results show that only 1/3rd (n=1113) of the total respondents hold meetings with their employees throughout the year about the quality of their milk. If you subtract the farmers who do not have employees from the total, however, over 50% of the farmers who have employees never hold team meetings (3054 1075 = 1979 / 1113). This may be due to the fact that these farmers do not have a problem with the quality of their milk. However, it may also allow less than excellent milk quality to go unnoticed or unreported by the workers. Below, Table 6 shows the meeting scheduling practices of the farmers.
Table 6 - How often do you hold team meetings with milkers and other employees/professionals Valid Cumulative Percent of Farmers Response Frequency Percent Percent with Employees Valid Never 1113 38.1 38.1 60.7 1 or 2 times per year 294 10.1 48.2 16.0 Quarterly 100 3.4 51.6 5.5 Once a month 231 7.9 59.5 12.6 At least twice a month 96 3.3 62.8 5.2 N/A, no employees 1075 36.8 99.6 Other 11 .4 100.0 Total 2920 100.0 100.0 Missing 133 Total 3054 1834

In Table 6 we should examine the subgroup of farmers who have employees and exclude the farmers who do not. As you can see, totaling up the amount of respondents who meet with their team of milkers and/or employees at least once or twice a year results in almost 40% of the total 4

respondents (n=721). Its a good sign that a portion of the respondents are having at least yearly meetings with their employees because it allows the employees to voice concerns or confusion they may have about milk quality, milking practices, or mastitis protocol and it allows the farmers to inform the employees about any changes that might be made. However, over 60% of those farmers responded that they Never hold team meetings. This suggests that there may be poor communication between employees and farmers. One of the issues with managing employees is communication. As we have seen in Table 6, there may be some issues with opportunities for farmers and workers to communicate. One might conclude that the farmers are not holding meetings with their employees because there are language and/or cultural barriers to communicating with their employees, so there would be no way to have a meeting. Table 6, however, shows that very few farmers reported that there are language barriers that prevent them from communicating.
Table 7 - Are there any cultural/language barriers in communicating with employees?

Response
1 Yes No N/A, no employees Total Missing Total

Frequency 120 1486 1277 2883 171 3054

Valid Percent 4.2 51.6 44.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 4.2 55.7 100.0

Percent of Farmers with Employees

7.5 92.5

2 3

100.0 1606

1+2

1606

As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, training and meeting regularly with employees are things that are important to the farmers who participated in this study for managing mastitis and milk quality. The following figure, Table 8, demonstrates just how important the management of employees is to their employers. Note, Table 8 is a compilation of questions into one table. When looking at Table 8 below, one can see that generally, employees are important to the farmers. Many of the farmers answered Important or Very Important for almost every question.
Recruiting Good Employees Table 8a - Importance of Managing Employees A Retaining Motivating Correcting Good w/ Neg. w/ Neg. % Employees % Feedback % Feedback
28 8 120 312 670 1138 1915 3054 2.4 .7 10.5 27.4 58.8 100.0

Very Unimportant Unimportant Neither Important Very Important Missing Total

Closely Supervising Employees

40 3.5 19 1.7 143 12.4 416 36.1 533 46.3 1152 100.0 1902 3054

36 3.2 11 1.0 117 10.2 501 43.7 481 42.0 1147 100.0 1907 3054

72 6.5 184 16.5 365 32.8 377 33.9 115 10.3 1112 100.0 1941 3054

23 2.0 67 5.9 236 20.7 609 53.5 203 17.8 1138 100.0 1915 3054

Setting Goals for Employees Very Unimportant Unimportant Neither Important Very Important Missing Total

Table 8b - Importance of Managing Employees B Including Including Evaluating Employees Employees employee in Setting in Farm Performance % Goals % Decisions % 33 2.8 66 5.7 339 29.4 577 49.9 141 12.2 1155 100.0 1899 3054 47 4.1 129 11.4 382 33.7 506 44.6 70 6.2 1135 100.0 1919 3054

Providing Employee Training

20 1.7 72 6.3 377 33.1 566 49.7 103 9.1 1138 100.0 1915 3054

14 1.2 48 4.2 316 27.6 627 54.8 140 12.2 1144 100.0 1909 3054

18 1.6 64 5.5 306 26.7 614 53.5 145 12.7 1147 100.0 1907 3054

Table Note: The questions in this survey asked the participants to mark the importance of each employee management strategy.

There are some inconsistencies with the data in Table 8a Table 8b and the data presented earlier in Table 5 and Table 6. A majority (53.5%, n=614) of the participants said that, when managing employees, it was Important and to provide training opportunities for their employees. Another 12.7% (n=145) said that it was Very important to provide training opportunities for their employees. In Table 5 a much larger amount (n=1319) of respondents said that they train their employees in mastitis protocols Always or Frequently. While there were fewer participants who answered the questions in Table 8, it still creates some confusing information when looking at all three tables. This may indicate that training on mastitis protocols are more available than general employee training. On the plus side of this data, the majority of farmers reported they understand the value of training their employees, and the general importance of their employees. Incentivizing Employees Nightingale et al. (2008) have demonstrated that premium programs for higher quality milk have increased the quality of milk produced by dairy farmers. One of the ways that dairy farmers encourage their employees to follow mastitis management and treatment protocols is passing some of that premium incentive on to the employees. If the employees produce higher quality milk over a certain period of time, the dairy farmers will sometimes give them bonus pay. A small minority of the farmers who participated in this study, however, use any type of incentive program to motivate their employees (n=316), as is shown in Table 9.
Table 9 Employees received a financial or other incentive based on milk quality Valid Cumulative Response Frequency Percent Percent

1 Yes 2 No 1 + 2 (Valid Total) Missing Total

316 2217 2534 520 3054

12.5 87.5 100.0

12.5 100.0

Farmers also sometimes punish their employees for producing poor quality milk by reducing their pay. As you can see in Table 10 however, an even smaller portion of farmers who participated in this study reported that they use financial penalties to incentivize their employees (n=75). This small value is interesting when looking back at Table 8a because over 85% (n=982) of the respondents said that it was either Important or Very Important to motivate their employees with negative feedback, but financial penalties are obviously not the preferred form of negative feedback.
Table 10 Employees received a financial or other penalty if SCC increases

Response 1 Yes 2 No 1 + 2 (Valid Total) Missing Total

Valid Frequency Percent 75 3.0 2459 97.0 2534 100.0 520 3054

Cumulative Percent 3.0 100.0

Labor and Mastitis Management Now that we have seen that most dairy farmers think it is important to provide training opportunities to their employees, lets examine the following tables (Table 11 Table 12) concerning the farmers feelings about mastitis management on their farms.
Table 11 Mastitis is a problem on my farm Valid Cumulative Response Frequency Percent Percent Strongly disagree 193 6.6 6.6 Disagree 804 27.4 33.9 Neither 624 21.3 55.2 Agree 1143 38.9 94.1 Strongly agree 173 5.9 100.0 Total 2938 100.0 116 3054 997 33.9 1316 44.8

1 2 3 4 5 Missing Total 1+2 4+5

Table 11 shows that there are farmers believe they have a mastitis problem and also farmers who believe they do not have a mastitis problem. The most common response is agree with 38.9% of respondents agreeing that mastitis is a problem on their farms. Note that there are more farmers who believe they have a mastitis problem (combining Agree and Strongly Agree, n=1316, 44.8%) than there are farmers who believe they do not have a mastitis problem (combining Disagree and Strongly Disagree, n=997, 33.9%). There is also a group of participants in the middle who neither agree nor disagree that mastitis is a problem on their farm (n=624). This data is important to keep in mind while examining the next two tables. 7

1 2 3 4 5 Missing Total 1+2 4+5

Table 12 - Problems with following protocol Response Milking % Treatment % Strongly disagree 477 16.7 497 17.5 Disagree 1305 45.7 1458 51.3 Neither 667 23.3 631 22.2 Agree 368 12.9 235 8.3 Strongly agree 39 1.4 18 .6 Total 2856 100.0 2840 100.0 198 214 3054 3054 1782 1955 407 253

Table 12 combines two questions that were used to ask the participants for similar information, Is not following protocol a problem on your farm? A common response from the respondents was that not following milking protocol is not a problem (Table 12 Milking: Disagree and Strongly Disagree, n=1782). The most common response from participants was that not following (mastitis) treatment protocols is not a problem (Table 12 Treatment: Disagree and Strongly Disagree, n=1955). Now, looking at Table 13, we can see that a majority of the farmers think that employees play an important role in mastitis management (combining Agree and Strongly Agree, n=1752).
Table 13 - Employees play an important role in mastitis problems Valid Cumulative Response Frequency Percent Percent 146 5.5 5.5 1 Strongly disagree 175 6.6 12.1 2 Disagree 579 21.8 33.9 3 Neither 1228 46.3 80.2 4 Agree Strongly agree 524 19.8 100.0 5 Total 2652 100.0 Missing 402 Total 3054 321 1+2 1752 4+5

As you can see, there are inconsistencies in these responses. The majority of farmers think that employees play an important role in creating mastitis problems but not a majority believe that protocol drift is a problem on their farm. This raises questions about what exactly the owners and managers believe employees are doing to contribute to mastitis. Further analysis will look at the relationship between these questions and use focus group data to inform analysis.

Protocol Design The last section raises some questions about how mastitis treatment protocols are designed by the farmers. Table 14 below shows how many employees administer antibiotic therapy.
Table 14 How many people administer antibiotic therapy? Antibiotic Administrators Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Valid Missing Total 0 10 1.5289 0.95865 2884 170 3054

As you can see, on average, only 1.5 people administer antibiotics on these dairy farms. This is also relevant the issues brought into question in the last section. If so few employees are administering antibiotics, but employees play an important role in mastitis problems, are the mastitis treatment protocols affecting the incidence of mastitis more than the farmers think? To examine this issue a little closer, Table 15 shows the results from a question from the survey that asks the farmers if they develop their mastitis management protocols with or by their veterinarian.
Table 15 - My mastitis plan was designed with or by my veterinarian Valid Cumulative Response Frequency Percent Percent 1 Yes 860 31.1 31.1 1905 68.9 100.0 2 No (Valid 2764 100.0 1+2 Total) Missing 289 Total 3054

The table above shows that only 31.1% of the respondents involve their veterinarian in planning their mastitis treatment program. This is a minority of the respondents, but it is a very large minority, considering the veterinarians are supposed to prescribe antibiotics to the farmers before they can purchase and use them.

Works Cited Barkema, H.W., J.D. Van Der Ploeg, Y.H. Schukken, T.J.G.M. Lam, G. Benedictus, and A. Brand 1999 Management Style and Its Association with Bulk Milk Somatic Cell Count and Incidence Rate of Clinical Mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 82(8): 1655-663. Gonzalo, C., J. A. Carriedo, M. C. Garcia-Jimeno, M. Prez-Bilbao, and L. F. de la Fuente. 2010 Factors influencing variation of bulk milk antibiotic residue occurrence, somatic cell count, and total bacterial count in dairy sheep flocks. The Journal of Dairy Sciences. 93:1587-1595. Nightingale, C., K. Dhuyvetter, R. Mitchell, and Y. Schukken. 2008 Influence of Variable Milk Quality Premiums on Observed Milk Quality. Journal of Dairy Sciences. 91:1236-1244. Stup, R.E., J. Hyde, and L.A. Holden. 2006 Relationships Between Selected Human Resource Management Practices and Dairy Farm Performance. Journal of Dairy Science 89.3 (2006): 1116-120.

10