Shur-Gain Quebec - English

Spring 2016
Free copy
your
Optimize
profitability
Testimonials:
Ferme Berni
Ferme Yves Croteau et fils
Ferme B.M. Cotnoir et fils
Hatfield Farms LLC
Richard Lizotte, T.P.
Ruminant Business Manager
Shur-Gain East Canada Region
Focus on the Bottom Line
I’m very excited about the content of this issue
of At A Glance magazine. The main focus is
on economics and the effect of key decisions
on your bottom line. This is a critical point of
discussion because, while many dairy producers
worldwide are struggling with “thinner” profit
margins, the same scenario is also occurring
in Canada. We have seen a significant reduction
in the gross milk price over the year, but
an increase in demand for milk components.
What are the key parameters and opportunities
that you need to examine to ensure a strong
bottom line?
Dr. Rick Grant, from the Miner Institute in Chazy, New York,
examines some great opportunities for improving cow
comfort to increase milk production. Dr. Alex Bach, Director
of the Department of Ruminant Production of IRTA (Spain),
classifies this as marginal milk. Marginal milk refers to milk
that cows can produce through their genetic potential once
a limiting constraint (feed, management, environment)
is removed. This milk presents the greatest opportunity
for increased profitability.
Our own Dr. Bryan Van Gorp explores an area that
Shur-Gain is very passionate about: income over feed
costs. In Shur-Gain, we have calculated hundreds of IOFC
calculations with our L-16 tool with our customers to ensure
that, as a key partner, we are on the right track for optimum
profitability; we are always proud to be a part of these
critical discussions.
We hope you enjoy this issue of At a Glance, which
contains some great information that focuses on your
bottom line!
To subscribe, fill out this coupon
and mail it to the following address:
4780, Martineau Street, Saint-Hyacinthe (Quebec) J2R 1V1
or write to us at the following address
[email protected]
Last Name:
First Name:
Address:Apt.:
City:
Province:
E-mail:
I wish to receive a paper copy.
2 I wish to receive an electronic copy.
Postal Code:
IN THIS ISSUE
✁
2
Editorial
3
Cow comfort economics
6
Using Income Over Feed
Cost to Evaluate Nutrition’s
Contribution to Profitability
9
Understanding Replacement
or Turnover Costs
Testimonials:
10 Ferme Berni
12 Ferme Yves Croteau et fils
14 Ferme B.M. Cotnoir et fils
16 Hatfield Farms LLC
18 Our clients shine
Rick Grant, Ph. D.
President
Wiliam H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute
Chazy, N.Y. USA
COW
COMFORT
ECONOMICS
Predictable Economic Benefits
Quality of on-farm management explains over half the variation
among farms in milk production. Top-end producers realize
that modest investments in housing, or changes in their cow
management routines, can pay large dividends in better cow
health, reproduction, and performance. As we look to the future
and continuing volatility in feed and milk prices, we need
to sharpen our focus on the consistent economic benefits
of improved cow comfort - information we can literally “take
to the bank” for barn renovation or construction projects.
Poor Management = Lower Milk Yield
The impact of the management environment was measured
by Bach et al. (2008. J. Dairy Sci. 91:3259) on 47 dairy farms with
similar genetics and fed the same total mixed ration. Mean daily
milk yield across these dairy farms was 29.5 kg/cow (65 lb/cow)
with a range of 20.5 to 33.6 kg/cow (45.2 to 74.1 lb/cow).
Non-dietary factors (i.e. management) explained 56% of the variation
in milk yield not attributable to diet. The most important management factors included presence or absence of feed refusals,
whether feed was pushed up or not, and number of free stalls
per cow. Herds that ensured adequate feed availability averaged
1.6 to 4.0 kg/d (3.5 to 8.8 lb/d)more milk. Stall stocking density
alone explained approximately 32% of the variation in milk yield
among these farms. Herd milk yield was unaffected between
80 and 120% stocking density, but herds lost an average
of 5 kg/d (11 lb/d) above 120%.
Research at Miner Institute has shown that overstocking the feed
bunk and stalls cuts into lying time, encourages slug feeding,
reduces rumen pH, and lowers milk fat output. Overcrowding
is also an overlooked contributor to reduced reproductive
performance: as bunk space decreases from 60 to 30 cm/cow,
% of cows pregnant by 150 days in milk decreases from
70 to 35% along with cow fertility (Caraviello et al., 2006. J. Dairy
Sci. 89:4723).
Time is Money for the Cow
The 24-h time budget represents the net behavioral response
of a cow to her social and physical environment and provides
the foundation of her well-being. Dairy cows at 100% stocking
3
density in free-stall housing spend 3 to 5 h/d eating, consuming
9 to 14 meals per day. They ruminate 8 to 9 h/d, spend approximately
30 min/d drinking, 2.5 to 3.5 h/d outside the pen for milking
and other management practices, and require approximately 10 to
12 h/d of lying time (Grant and Albright, 2001. J. Dairy Sci. 84: E156).
If cows are outside their pen for more than about 3.5 h/d, they
usually sacrifice resting and/or eating time. Recent on-farm data
collected for high-producing cows from 40 herds in the northeastern
US and 39 herds in the western US found a range of 2.3 to 7.7 hours
per day outside the pen – so clearly there is room for herds
to improve! Minimal time outside the pen is the cornerstone
for successful time budgeting by dairy cows.
reluctant to remodel existing facilities or to build new facilities
with larger stall dimensions. Why? It is likely related to the fact
that the costs are known, but the potential cow response on any
given farm is not.
Virtually no controlled research has examined stall design and
productive responses. But, observed benefits of stall improvement
in several well-controlled case studies were: greater milk (1.4 to
6.4 kg/cow/day (3.1 to 14.1 lb/cow/day)), lower turnover rates
(-6 to -13%), lower somatic cell count (-37,000 to -102,000), and
less lameness (-15 to -20%; Cook, 2006. Proc. of the VitaPlus
Dairy Summit, Lansing MI). We ignore these consistently
positive responses at our own economic peril.
Does time budgeting have any measureable economic
impact for the dairy? Matzke and Grant (2002. J. Dairy Sci.
85:372) observed the effect of 3 versus 6 h/d outside the free-stall
pen. Multiparous cows gained over 2 h/d of rest and nearly
2.3 kg/d (5.1 lb/d) milk when they were outside the pen for only
3 versus 6 h/d. Incredibly, first-calf heifers gained 4 h/d of rest
and 3.6 kg/d (7.9 lb/d) more milk. When cows were away from
their pen for more than 3.7 h/d, no farm was able to reach
the recommended herd median lying time of 12 h/d (Charlton
et al., 2014 J. Dairy Sci. 97:2694).
Failure to meet time budget needs may also affect longer term
health status of the cow, such as lameness. Espejo and Endres
(2007. J. Dairy Sci. 90:306) found that prevalence of lameness in
high-producing pens was most highly associated with greater time
outside the pen. So, poor time budgeting is a double economic
whammy for the herd: lost milk up-front and lameness later on.
Inadequate Rest =
Lost Performance and Profit
The dairy cow has an over-riding behavioral need for adequate
rest. Dairy cattle are highly motivated to lie down with an inelastic
demand for about 12-13 h/d of rest (Jensen et al. 2005. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 90:207). Lying behavior takes precedence over
eating and social behavior when opportunities to perform these
behaviors are restricted (Munksgaard et al., 2005. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 92:3). Physiological function, health, and productivity
are impaired when the resting requirement is not met and it is
critical to cow well-being. Van Eerdenburg et al. (2013. pp 36-38
in 16th Internat. Soc. Anim. Hygiene Congress, Nanjing, China)
found a significant positive correlation between free stall comfort
and milk yield, with greater comfort being associated with higher
milk production.
For every additional hour of resting time that a cow achieves beyond
7 h/d, there is a milk response of approximately 0.9 to 1.7 kg/d
(2 to 3.7 lb/d) (Grant, 2004. pp 65-76 in Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf.).
Cost of Stall Renovation…
Cost of Not Renovating?
Despite the accumulating data demonstrating a positive relationship
between cow comfort, productivity and health, farmers are often
4
Heifers Need Their Space
There are numerous natural differences between primi- and
multiparous cows. Heifers take smaller bites, eat more slowly,
and spend more time feeding. They are also typically less
dominant and more easily displaced from the feed manger, stalls,
or water tank. Work at Miner Institute indicates that heifers that
are forced to lie in a stall known to be preferred by a dominant
cow will actually ruminate up to 40% less than a heifer lying
in a less preferred stall.
Lactating primiparous cows may benefit from separate grouping
(Grant and Albright, 2001; Østergaard et al., 2010. J. Dairy Sci.
93:3533). They have greater growth requirements, smaller body
size, greater persistency of lactation, and frequently a lower
position in the group’s dominance hierarchy. Phelps (1992.
Feedstuffs. May 11:11) reported that separately grouped primiparous cows produced 729 kg (1,607.2 lb) more milk per lactation
than heifers that had to compete with older cows in commingled
groups. Grant and Albright (2001) reviewed the research on
grouping dairy cattle by parity and concluded that when first-calf
heifers were separated from mature cows: eating time increased
by 11.4%, silage intake increased by 11.8%, lying time increased
by 8.8%, and milk yield increased by 9%. More recently, Bach et al.
(2006. J. Dairy Sci. 89:337) assessed primi- versus multiparous cows
housed together and found that primiparous cows experienced
greater loss of bodyweight and lower efficiency of fat-corrected milk
production during the critical first 30 days in milk.
With a predictable loss of about 10% in milk production
– plus less quantitated effects on health – the economic
benefits of proper grouping is clear.
Cow-Human Interaction
The most important factor in cow comfort and well-being is the
human-cattle interaction (Berry, 2001. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc.
219:1382). Considerable research has shown productive benefits
of more gentle handling and vocalizations when cows are being
milked in terms of more milk production or less residual milk.
Seabrook (1984. The Vet. Rec. 115:84) observed that cows
produced 13% more milk with gentle compared with aversive
handling in the parlor. Later, dePassillé and Rushen (1999. pp
347-360 in Advances in Dairy Technology. Vol. 11) found that
just the presence in the parlor of someone who had previously
treated the cows aversively (i.e. not the milker) was associated
with a 47% increase in residual milk. Interestingly, Hanna et al.
(2006. Animal. 3:5, p.737) found a 3.6% increase in milk yield
when the milking team had greater positive vocal and physical
contact with the cows – both appeared to be important.
Gentle treatment of cows, especially while in the parlor,
results in 3.5 to 13 percent greater milk yield and is
associated with up to 900 kg/yr (1,984.2 lb/yr) greater
milk production. Gentle handling approaches do not cost
any more than aversive handling!
Perspectives on Cow Comfort
Economics
Optimal cow well-being and farm profitability are not an either/
or choice. In fact, herds that ensure good cow well-being
almost always enjoy greater farm profitability. There are very
real economic consequences associated with improvement
(or neglect) of cow comfort. Research makes it clear that there
is a predictable link between management, cow behavioral
responses, productivity, and health. We need to take advantage
of what we know about improving cow comfort to predictably
improve the farm’s bottom line.
5
Bryan Van Gorp, D.V.M.
Technical Services Manager
Shur-Gain Central Region
Using
Income Over
to Evaluate Nutrition’
to
Feed cost, turnover cost and labor cost are the three big contributors to the cost
of producing milk. Together, these three costs account for 2/3-3/4 of production costs.
Feed is the single largest cost. However, turnover and labor are often more variable
and may provide a better opportunity to decrease production costs.
Feed programs are evaluated in many different ways by various producers.
Examples of different measures are:
1.
Price per ton of feed, but this fails to consider milk production,
components, and feeding rates.
2.Feed cost per cow per day, but this fails to consider milk
production and components.
3.Feed cost per liter or cwt of milk produced, but this number could
be the same at different production levels, and profitability will
generally be higher with increased production or components.
4.Feed efficiency, but this does not consider milk production,
components, or feed costs.
Below is an example of results from 130 herds in Quebec over the last year with the L-16 tool.
Milk $/c/d
Milk/c/d
BF %
Feed $/c/d
Feed $/HL
IOFC
IOFC/year
Average
$24.25
29.7 L
4.06
$7.18
$24
$17.09
$6,237.85
Top 20%
$27.37
33.6 L
4.04
$7.56
$22
$19.80
$7,227.00
Bottom 20%
$20.67
25.5 L
4.03
$6.79
$26
$13.86
$5,058.90
Everything else being equal, the difference in income from
the top 20% to the bottom 20% would be $2,168 per cow being
milked per year. That is real money. This illustrates the benefit
of IOFC compared to feed cost/c/d. The bottom 20% have
the lowest feed cost but also lower income generated from
milk sales, so a lower IOFC.
None of these measures take all the variables listed below
into consideration, but IOFC does. Therefore, these are not as useful
in evaluating a nutritional program’s impact on profitability.
The variables considered in IOFC are:
1. Milk production
2.Components
3. Dry matter intake
4. Feeding rates
5. Costs of feed ingredients
6
It is clear that a higher cost per ton, higher feed cost per cow
per day, and even a higher feed cost per liter/cwt of milk
produced or a lower feed efficiency could all result in higher
profit if all the variables are considered. IOFC is simply the milk
income per cow per day minus the total feed cost being fed
per cow per day. It is what is left from the milk check after all
lactating feed costs are paid for. (See table on next page).
As you can see, the higher price per ton resulted in lower feed
costs per cow per day. Higher feed cost per cow per day had
a higher IOFC. Feed efficiency was also not correlated with
IOFC in the example. Feed cost per cwt for Farm A was $21.27
and for Farm B was $23.13, which is almost the same, but
higher cost per cwt resulted in higher IOFC. This example uses
the same ration except for the supplement and the same milk
price to make an apples-to-apples comparison. For this number
to have meaning and to be able to be compared across farms,
the IOFC calculation must be done in a standardized way.
Feed Cost
s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
Contr
y
t
i
l
i
b
a
t
i
f
Pro
$/ton
Rate
$/c/d
Feed
efficiency
Prod.
(Litre)
IOFC
IOFC/year
Farm A
$700
2.72 kg (6 lb)
$7.55
1.4
32.9 L
$16.13
$5,887.45
Farm B
$500
4.54 kg
(10.01 lb)
$8.12
1.4
35.2 L
$17.19
$6,274.35
IOFC calculation
IOFC is actually quite simple to calculate with the L-16 tool. First,
milk income per cow per day must be determined. This is done
by simply taking the milk pay for the month and dividing by the
number of days in the month and then dividing by the average
number of cows milked in the month. This number corrects
for variation in components, production per cow, and premiums
or deductions. It is the milk income per cow per day.
Next, feed costs per cow per day must be calculated. Feed
costs must include forage costs and any other on-farm feeds.
The preconceived idea that these feeds are free or do not have
a cost is simply not correct. These feeds include land cost,
seed cost, machinery costs, fertilizer and chemical costs, and
labor. If this feed was not fed to the cows, it could be sold at
market value, or another crop that could be sold could have
been raised. For example, if corn was not harvested as silage
or high-moisture corn, it could have been harvested as dry
corn and sold. This represents the opportunity cost or what
the crop is worth on the market if it was not fed.
There are two potential ways of defining the cost of home-grown
feeds. The first is to use the cost to raise those feeds. The
problem with this method is that almost no one really knows
that cost and it will result in a long debate on how to calculate
that number. Even if it were known, it does not represent
the real value of that feed. Some producers will grow feeds at
above-market price and others will grow them at below-market
price. This represents success or failure of the crop enterprise
and does not reflect the success of the dairy enterprise. In these
cases, either the dairy is subsidizing the crop enterprise
or the crop enterprise is subsidizing the dairy.
vv
7
vv
It also prevents a meaningful comparison across farms
because now we are measuring agronomic practices, soil
quality, and growing conditions rather than the quality of the
nutritional program and how the dairy is performing.
The second method is to use market value at the time of harvest.
The reason for using market value at harvest time rather than
feeding time is that once the decision to harvest forages
or HMC is made, it is no longer available as a marketable
crop and the value is determined. It also avoids the need to
constantly change the value with market fluctuations. To simplify
this, we can price all home-grown feeds at one time each fall
at harvest time. Using the same price on all farms also allows
for an across-farm comparison. All crops should be converted
to 100% dry matter basis to eliminate the variation in various
moisture levels in the feeds.
There are standard approaches to pricing silages. For example,
a ton of corn silage at 33.3% DM is worth 10 times the price
of a bushel of corn. So, if corn is worth $4 per bushel, then
corn silage is worth $40 dollars per ton at 33.3% DM or $100
per ton on a DM basis. This number would then apply for
a whole year for an entire area or province. That is what the
producer would have made or lost had he harvested the crop
as corn and sold it at harvest. A similar operation can be done
with hay. In a given geographic area, hay will have a certain
price in the fall. Say it is $140 per ton on an as-fed basis for
hay; that equals $165 per ton on a DM basis. Based on this,
haylage at 40% DM would be worth $66 per ton. HMC can
simply be corrected for moisture.
All purchased feeds or commodities are priced at the on-farm
delivered price. This would include purchased hay or any other
forage. As such, when Newton® is being loaded, we simply
enter the price as defined above for each feed ingredient.
By doing this, the Newton® ration will actually give us a feed
cost per cow per day. For feed costs, we must use the number
of cows mixed for rather than the number of cows in the pen.
For example, there may be 100 cows in pen but the feeder may
be delivering feed for 110 cows; therefore, the cost must be
corrected by taking the feed cost from Newton® and multiplying
it by 110 and then dividing by 100 to get the price of the feed
actually delivered per cow per day.
We then subtract that number from the milk income per cow
per day to get the IOFC on a per cow per day basis. This
number is then comparable across farms and within a farm
over time. Obviously, this number will fluctuate over time
depending on milk price, milk production, feed prices, and
forage quality. The real value of this number comes in comparing
it to a larger data set. For example, if a farm is in the top 10%
for IOFC, it can feel pretty good about having a solid nutritional
program and good feeding management. On the other hand,
if it is below average, it should be looked at this as an opportunity.
8
Some people will not want to do this thinking it may be off
a penny here or there. Don’t let the fact that we might be off
by a few pennies prevent you from knowing this valuable
information. There will be several dollars’ difference between
farms in the same area selling at the same milk price. Focus
on the dollars, not the pennies.
Doing this on a monthly basis is simple and requires
a minimum of math. You need: 1 . The milk check for
the month, 2. Ration cost from Newton® using proper
inputs for feed ingredients, 3. Number of cows milked
on average for the month and the number of cows fed
for on average for the month—just three numbers.
Example using the forage costs above:
A 100-cow dairy has a milk check of $69,300 for
a month containing 30 days. The milk income is
$23.10 per cow per day.
$69,300/100 cows/30 days
The ration consists of 24.5 kg (54 lb) DMI, 6.8 kg (15 lb) DM
corn silage, 6.8 kg (15 lb) DM haylage, 6.8 kg (15 lb) DM corn,
and 4.1 kg (9 lb) DM supplement ($852 per ton as fed).
The producer is feeding on the feed chart.
(6.8 kg (15 lb) corn silage at $100
Total feed costs
per ton or 11 cents per kg (5 cents per lb) is $0.75)
(6.8 kg (15 lb) of haylage at $165 per ton or
18.2 cents per kg (8.25 cents per lb) or $1.24)
(6.8 kg (15 lb) of corn at $4 per bushel as fed
or 18,1 cents per kg (8.21 cents per lb) DM or $1.23)
(4.1 kg (9 lb) supplement at $852 per ton as fed
or 76.1 cents per kg (34.5 cents per lb) DM or $3.85)
$7.07 feed cost per cow per day.
feed cost of $7.07
Milk income of $23.10
IOFC of $16.03 per cow per day or $5,850.95 per cow per year.
Again, the value lies in the comparison to a larger data base
to see how the farm is doing relative to the industry at large.
This is also useful in evaluating management changes to see
whether or not they actually improved IOFC.
Bryan Van Gorp, D.V.M.
Technical Services Manager
Shur-Gain Central Region
Understanding Replacement
or Turnover Costs
Next to feed cost, the second largest expense on
your dairy is the herd replacement program. Herd
replacements are necessary to maintain your current
herd size or to increase your herd if you are expanding.
Either way, having the correct number of replacements can significantly impact your profitability.
Replacement cost is not simply the cost of raising the animal
from birth to calving. Replacement cost and “turnover cost” are
different terms for the same thing and are defined as the cost
of replacing animals that die or are culled. It is impacted by:
1. The turnover rate,
2. The cost of raising replacements, and
3. The value of animals that leave.
The turnover rate is impacted primarily by the need for involuntary
culling. Of course, all death loss is involuntary culling. Improvement
in the herd or in efficiency is only made when culling is voluntary.
Voluntary culling decisions are based on profit. This consists
of substituting a cow with a replacement on the basis that the
new animal is expected to be more profitable and not because
the cow is not profitable and must be replaced.
The cost of raising replacements varies significantly. For example,
in the U.S., the most efficient producers are raising replacements
for around $2,000 USD each, while the cost can be as high
as $3,500 USD for some producers. There are many variables
to consider but certainly age at first calving is considered as one
of the most important.
Example of turnover cost of two 100-cow dairies with
the same milk production. Both are realistic scenarios
and not extreme.
Farm A
Turnover rate
Farm B
35%
45%
Cost to raise heifer
$1,800
$2,400
Age at calving
23 mo.
25 mo.
5%
10%
Price of sold cows
(thin cows)
$1,120
$840
Total cull cow income
$33,600
$29,400
Cost of replacements
$63,000
$108,000
Total turnover cost
$29,400
$78,600
$294
$786
Cow death loss
Replacement cost per cow
With everything else being equal, this illustrates a $492 difference
in profit per cow per year or $1.35/c/d. No reduction in feed cost
can have this much impact. In addition, it is unlikely that you
can increase production enough to net the same level of profit.
This is a large and frequently ignored opportunity on many farms.
To optimize your dairy’s profitability, you need to raise
the appropriate number of replacements for your dairy
and minimizing involuntary culls and maximizing their
salvage price.
The value of animals that leave is also quite variable but critical in
determining your replacement costs. The value for dead animals
is zero but could be greater than $1,000 USD for some animals
in good condition. Broken or thin animals not only weigh less but
also bring in less per pound.
According to Alex Bach, the primary contributors to the cost
of producing milk are:
1. Feed cost at 53%,
2. Replacement at 17%, and
3. Labor at 9%.
As you can see, these three items alone account for about 80%
of the cost of production and so the rest is not all that important.
Of course, these costs will vary significantly from farm to farm,
and the opportunity to impact or improve them will also vary greatly.
9
Ferme Berni
TESTIMONIAL
Optimizing production
to maximize profitability!
Every detail counts
The story of Ferme Berni began in 1960, when Michel and
Denise Bernier owned just eight Holstein cows and 45 acres of land.
In 1986, they handed over the operation—40 Holstein cows and
245 acres—to their sons, Jacques and Germain. The business
subsequently expanded following a series of acquisitions.
Another major change in 1998 involved introducing a free-stall
set-up with a rotary milking parlour, and in 2013, the brothers
purchased four milking robots. Today, Michel and Denise’s sons,
Jacques and Germain, run the farm and are very grateful for their
parents’ hard work. “Our parents were very important to us at
the beginning. When we first started working for the farm, they
involved us in decisions from the very start, even before we were
owners,” the brothers said.
Despite their already above-average production, Jacques,
Germain, and Shany (Germain’s son) had been faced with
stagnant results for the past few years, which is what prompted
them, with support from their Shur-Gain Dairy Nutrition Advisor
at Meunerie Ducharme, to implement an action plan to improve
their herd’s profitability.
“We were thrilled to see results sooner than expected. It takes
time to get results on a dairy farm, which is why you must have
a clear plan that you need to apply rigorously. It’s also important
to be surrounded by good people. Today, we’re very happy
with the improvements and the increase in our profitability,”
the owners state.
Improvements from 2013 to 2015
Measurements
2013
Today
Improvement
Average
production/cow
10,000 kg
(22,046 lb)
12,075 kg
(26,621 lb)
+ 2,075 kg
(+4,575 lb)
20%
29%
+ 9%
175,000
150,000
- 25,000
Gestation rate
Leukocyte count
A few elements of the action plan
that led to good results
Heifer rearing: A crucial step
For Jacques and Shany, rearing young animals is a crucial step
in developing their future “top” producers. No detail is too small,
and they rigorously apply the Optivia® program in order to boost
10
their animals’ full potential. Key factors in Ferme Berni’s success
include choosing an acidified milk replacer to ensure better
health and optimal development in the first weeks of life, followed
by a Rumimax® ration, a simple concept that translates into
heifers that are better developed and prepared for first calving.
The owners have achieved an average
daily weight gain of 1.2 kg (2.6 lb).
As such, the average age at first calving for the herd is 23 months
compared to the Quebec average of around 26 months.
Assuming that it costs $3.42 per day to rear a heifer, that
translates to a savings of $307.80 per heifer compared
to the Quebec average.
Cow nutrition and management: key factors
The introduction of milking robots has definitely played a role
in achieving these results, among others, allowing for better
measurement of the various aspects of production and
management. The adaptation and transition period was carefully
managed with the help of their advisor. However, the results
came about as a result of all improvements combined. The
nutrition strategy allows the cows to optimize their production,
regardless of stage of lactation. This is combined with the use
of value-added products, feed supplements, and the use
of robots, all of which contribute to achieving Ferme Berni’s
average of 37 kg/day per cow (81.6 lb/day per cow).
Other important factors
Cow comfort, transition to calving, and forage quality are three
other key factors in Ferme Berni’s success—non-nutritional
factors that have a major impact on results! Sand bedding
helped to improve the cows’ productivity, udder health, and milk
quality. Fresh cows also have very few metabolic problems
at calving, which helps with the results.
A profitable action plan
Remarkably, production has increased by an average
of 2,075 kg/cow (4,574.5 lb/cow), for an average production
of 12,075 kg/cow (26,620.8 lb/cow), in addition to achieving
an average of 1.5 kg (3.3 lb) of fat/cow/day.
The strategies implemented by Jacques and Germain are
definitely paying off, especially since the profit margin per cow
after feeding costs was around $7,874.19 in 2014! “In 2015, we’re
expecting to see a decrease of $300-$400 due to the drop in milk
prices,” the owners say. These numbers prove that the quantity
of milk produced is the main factor in a dairy farm’s profitability.
Ferme Berni
Top photo: Jacques, Germain and Shany Bernier. Bottom photo (left to right): David Allaire Maillot, Benoît Allaire,
Michel Bernier (Jacques and Germain’s father), Yan Gauthier and Germain Bernier. Absent: Alexandra Béliveau.
One vision, one team
“We can’t achieve these kinds of results alone—they’re the
result of teamwork with the best professionals in the area.
We’ve been working closely with Meunerie Ducharme since
1960. The advice and support that we receive allow us to
perform at our best every day!,” the owners of Ferme Berni state.
The next generation at Ferme Berni:
a long-term success factor
While the owners obtain good results on-farm, there’s no
question of them being content with the status quo; objectives
for the coming years include making improvements in
reproduction, genetics, and production. Germain’s children,
Shany and Meggie, share their father’s passion and are poised
to take over the farm. The future looks bright with these
two skilled individuals at the helm.
Company profile
Shany is passionate about dairy production and shows a keen
interest in genetics. Since he became involved in the farm,
considerable progress has been made in animal genetics.
Notably, they have been able to improve their classification
through the purchase of specific animals, embryo transfers,
bull selection, and genomic testing.
Before Shany’s
involvement
With Shany’s
involvement
GP
61%
82%
VG
8%
36%
Meggie is studying animal production and will graduate in
two years’ time. She has worked on the farm since childhood.
Her goal for 2016 is to further her knowledge of crop production.
The
future looks bright for Ferme Berni!
Ferme Berni
Ste-Élizabeth-de-Warwick (Bois-Francs), QC
Owners: Jacques and Germain Bernier
Cows in milk: 155
Quota: 233 kg (513.7 lb)
Area of land: 1,860 acres
Service centre: Meunerie Ducharme
Dairy Nutrition Advisor: Simon Martel, T.P.
“It’s a privilege to act as advisor for Ferme Berni. Jacques, Germain, and Shany are innovative, professional
producers. Their results and successes are no coincidence—they deserve full credit for their accomplishments.
They are true managers. And, with the qualified and talented next generation poised to take over, the future
looks very bright for Ferme Berni.”
Simon Martel, T.P.
11
Ferme Yves Croteau et fils
TESTIMONIAL
A model of determination
Company history
The owners of Ferme Yves Croteau et fils are a remarkable
example of determination. The company, based in Upton, in the
Montérégie region of Quebec, went from 50 cows in milk in 1992
to 129 cows in 2016. However, the owners suffered a setback in
2009, when a fire tore through the farm, resulting in their buildings
and herd having to be rebuilt from scratch. So, it was with
a slightly less genetically strong herd that Yves Croteau’s sons,
Danny and Patrick Croteau, took up the reins at the farm and
to the challenge of growing the business. “We are passionate
people and there was no other option than to continue what
our father had already started,” the owners state.
Of course, it wasn’t easy to start all over again after the 2009 fire.
However, the Croteau brothers decided to spare no expense in
rebuilding. “In this industry, you need to invest if you want to stay
on top of your game,” Danny says.
Important aspects in dairy production
The Croteau brothers focused on specific areas for
improvement in order to achieve the goal of optimizing
the performance of their dairy farm:
1. Cow comfort
Cow comfort is perhaps the area in which the most improvement
can be seen in recent years at the farm. Patrick views optimizing
the animals’ well-being as an investment. “When we care about
the animals’ comfort, we see results in terms of productivity and
performance.” In recent years, they have purchased a manure
press, which allows them to recycle the manure by drying it for
bedding. This means that the cows spend more time lying down.
“It’s not uncommon for us to walk into the barn and see every
single cow lying down!,” Patrick says.
2. Herd nutrition
Nutrition is very important at Ferme Croteau. Even though this
represents a major expense for the farm, the owners know
that cutting back on feed costs is not what will ultimately boost
their bottom line. They compare feeding their herd to feeding
themselves. “During hard times, should food really be the first
thing that I cut back on? Of course not, and the same applies
for my cows,” Danny says.
They have always trusted Shur-Gain and its research and
development program to feed their herd, with very good results.
The Croteau brothers feel it is important to stay on top of new
developments in animal nutrition. “We follows our advisor’s
recommendations and we know we’ll see a good return on
investment by using their products,” Danny says.
3. Management and health of fresh cows
The feeding strategy for fresh cows has also been revised
in recent years, with conclusive results. The owners have seen
an increase at peak milk production of 4 L for cows and 5 L
for heifers. In addition to the feeding strategy, the comfort
of transition cows was also improved by reorganizing the stalls
to maximize the available space in order to avoid metabolic
problems and ensure a good start to lactation. Improvements
in genetics also played an important role in obtaining these
superior results at the start of lactation.
These are profitable changes considering that for each heifer, a
5-L increase at peak production represents an additional $615.60
per year, and a 4-L increase for each cow represents $365.76.
Today, peak production is 36 L for heifers and 47 L for cows.
4.Reproduction
Another key aspect of the farm’s success is reproduction, which
is managed very closely, allowing them to achieve good results.
The herd average is currently 164 DIM, compared to the Quebec
average of 180 DIM. This represents close to $36,600* more
in annual income, based on a benchmark price of $72/HL
for the entire herd.
*Shur-Gain CD tool with benchmark price of $72/HL
24-hour breakdown of a cow’s time
0.5; 2% 1.1; 5%
0.3; 1%
2.5; 10%
Elite cow
(10% higher)
Hours; %
6%
9%
14.1; 59%
Average cow
5.5; 23%
%
49%
2%
11%
23%
12
Standing in stall
Aisles
Drinking
Milking
Eating
Lying down
Grant and Matzke, 2003
Ferme Yves Croteau et fils
Danny and Patrick Croteau
The representative’s role
According to Danny and Patrick, their Shur-Gain representative’s
experience, enthusiasm, and dedication were pivotal for them
in achieving these results. Shur-Gain’s vision, the support
given to Ferme Croteau, and the owners’ involvement enabled
them to excel and obtain profitable results. “There’s a whole
team behind us. It’s this synergy, and the full range of services
and advice that we receive that have allowed us to excel as
producers. It’s all about teamwork!,” the brothers exclaim.
Results that speak for themselves
Company profile
All of this hard work has paid off, with Ferme Croteau
currently posting $6,830 per cow in profits, made
possible through the attention they give to nutrition,
comfort and environment, cow health, forage, and the
quality of the milk they produce. All of these factors allow
them to be profitable at a profession they are passionate
about. The Croteau brothers see a very promising future ahead
for their farm. They are already passing on their passion to their
children (Patrick’s four and Danny’s two) to make sure the next
generation is ready to take over the family farm!
“We are passionate
people and there was
no other option than
to continue what
our father had
already started,”
the owners state.
Ferme Yves Croteau et fils
Upton (Montérégie), QC
Owners: Danny and Patrick Croteau
Cows in milk: 129
Quota: 172.41 kg (380.1 lb)
including margin
(plus additional days)
Current fat/cow: 1.33 kg (2.9 lb)
Service centre: Willie Dorais
Dairy Nutrition Advisor: Geneviève Gauthier, T.P.
“Danny and Patrick are enthusiastic, hardworking guys, who are great to work with. They’re open to new
things and are always willing to try a new technology or method that could increase their farm’s profitability.
They trust me and Shur-Gain to get the job done, and I’m thrilled to play a role in their success.”
Geneviève Gauthier, T.P.
13
Ferme B.M. Cotnoir et fils
TESTIMONIAL
A company
in constant evolution
Company history
The main success factors
Ferme B.M. Cotnoir et fils, located in Saint-Herménégilde,
in the Eastern Townships area of Quebec, is a highly successful
family farm. In operation since 1929, the business has steadily
grown throughout four generations of the Cotnoir ownership.
Today, the farm continues to thrive under the direction of Robin
Cotnoir, his wife, Marie-Andrée, and his father, Benoît Cotnoir.
It is also important to mention the contribution of Michel Cotnoir,
Benoît’s brother and former co-owner, who continues to pitch
in even after having sold off his share in the family business.
Benoît’s wife, Jeanne, who has a background in dairy production,
always has valuable advice for the family. The farm also has
two employees: Guillaume, who works full time, and Sébastien,
who works part time. Teamwork is a central value at The Cotnoir
farm and contributes to a better quality of life by freeing up more
time to spend with family.
Ferme Cotnoir entrusts its animal nutrition needs to Shur-Gain
and, along with representative Maxime Lepage from Meunerie
HL Boisvert, they set herd management strategies to achieve
consistently better results day after day. Here are the main
aspects that contribute to their positive results:
Provincial
average
Current
results
9,223 kg*
(20,333.2 lb*)
12,100 kg
(26,675.9 lb)
Gestation rate
at 60 DIM
18%**
32%
Gestation rate
at 60 DIM
2.34*
1.94
Average production/
cow
*Valacta 2014 annual report
**Gestation rate (DS@HR 2011)
14
1. Cow comfort
Cow comfort is without a doubt the most important factor
for the owners. In recent years, they have invested strategically
in this area, knowing full well they would see a return on their
investment, even if it’s not in the short term.
“Every decision we make needs to be based
on return-on-investment. As for the comfort of
my cows, there’s no doubt in my mind that I’ll
get my money’s worth,” Robin says.
Several changes have been made in the past few years,
specifically in the choice of bedding and bedding guards, water
bowls, the harness bar, and ventilation.
2.Heifer rearing
In the area of dairy production, results aren’t achieved after a few
days or even a few weeks. It’s a long process that requires a
clear vision of the objectives combined with a rigorous approach.
With this in mind, a cow’s production is shaped from the first day
of its life, which is why Robin concentrates in having a good
strategy for rearing his heifers to calving, starting with the use
of an acidified milk replacer at a young age. Lastly, the owners
built a new building to improve the comfort of their heifers aged
6-10 months, and 14 months to calving. Proof that the strategy
works is the age at first calving, which is 22 months compared
to the provincial average of 26 months.
3.Nutrition
Cows need the best possible feed to be able to produce to their
full potential. The use of value-added products combined with a
custom feed strategy developed with input from their Shur-Gain
representative and using Shur-Gain tools contributes to achieving
the animals’ full production potential. A balanced feed ration
leads to healthy, fit animals, which results in optimal, more
consistent milk production. “Cutting back on rations is definitely
not a way to save money,” Robin confirms.
Marie-Andrée, Robin and Benoît
Ferme B.M. Cotnoir et fils
From left to right. Top: Benoît, Marie-Andrée, Olivier, Sandrine and Marie-Soleil. Bottom: Robin, Marianne, Sébastien and Guillaume.
The representative’s role
“A good relationship with my representative is crucial to helping
me achieve my objectives. The relationship needs to be based
on trust and honesty. I expect my representative to challenge me
to reach new heights and to recommend ways to improve on
our current methods,” Robin states. The Ferme B.M. Cotnoir et fils
has been dealing with Shur-Gain and Meunerie HL Boisvert for
close to 50 years. From the service provided by the representative
and the mill to the hard work by the Shur-Gain team, no stone
is left unturned in helping Robin to achieve his objectives.
More milk = more profits
Company profile
With an average of 12,100 kg/cow/year (26,675.9 lb/cow/year),
it is clear to see that the improvements made in recent years
are paying off. Specifically, the profit margin per cow in 2015
is $6,676.33, despite a milk-to-feed ratio of 2.89. This clearly
shows that it’s the quantity of milk that has the most impact on
the profit margin in the end. “Measuring results is not something
to be overlooked. Having the numbers in front of us allows us
to identify areas that need improvement and determine the
impact of our decisions. The ultimate goal is to implement
strategies that will make us more money,” Robin says.
Future objectives
The future looks bright for Ferme Cotnoir. Marie-Andrée just gave
birth to the couple’s third child, Olivier, two months ago; he joins
his big sisters, Sandrine, 3, and Marianne, 4. One of Robin and
Marie-Andrée’s goals is in fact to produce good results in order
to enjoy family life to the fullest. Achieving a good work-life
balance is very important to them. Maintaining reproduction
and herd longevity, and obtaining an average classification of
85 points in addition to 2 kg fat/cow (4.4 lb fat/cow) are just a few
of their goals for continuing to increase the company’s profitability
in the short and long term!
Ferme B.M. Cotnoir et fils
Coaticook (Eastern Townships), Quebec
Owners: Robin Cotnoir, Benoît Cotnoir
and Marie-Andrée Morin
Cows in milk: 62
Quota: 0 kg (198.42 lb)
9
10% margin included
Classification:
7 VG – 36 GP – 19 G
Service centre: Meunerie HL Boisvert
Dairy Nutrition Advisor: Maxime Lepage, Agr.
“I enjoy working with Robin for many reasons, one of which is his desire to see concrete results. It’s refreshing
to work with someone who shares my passion for continuous improvements. Robin can definitely be called
an innovator because he’s not afraid to make the changes required to achieve his herd’s full potential. I also
admire his philosophy that being successful means enjoying what you do, and his dedication to spending
time with his family every day.”
Maxime Lepage, Agr.
15
Hatfield Farms LLC
TESTIMONIAL
Two owners coming together
for one goal: to maximize
success through profits
“I can still remember that day, November 4, 2009, when we
switched to milking cows in robots,” recalls Marcia Hatfield
from Hatfield Farms LLC. “We used to milk 85 cows in a
double-4 stall herringbone with computer feeders in the
parlor and a fully automated feeding system that brought
the feed on conveyers from the silo to the mixer and finally
to the cow. Robots were very attractive to us because we
wanted to manage cows, equipment and technology versus
people,” says Marcia Hatfield. Now Hatfield farms milks
about 235 Holsteins in four Lely A3 robots.
On January 1, 2014, Steve Patt, owner of neighboring farm
Visionquest Dairy, in Lansing, NY, joined the team at
Hatfield Farms LLC. “It was an opportunity that became available,
and I had always liked the idea of managing several farms.
Hatfield seemed like a good fit as it was relatively close to my
home farm,” says Steve.
Making changes for the better
“Since I started working with Hatfield Farms in 2014, we’ve made
a lot of changes—both in management and to the barns—that
have resulted in high returns,” says Mary Murray, their Dairy
Nutrition Advisor. The dry cows, bred heifers, and pre-fresh cows
are housed in the old milking barn. Stalls were redone and better
sized to fit the cows, the mattress stalls were remodeled for
deep-bedded sand stalls, and a hoof bath was added. “The stall
renovations were a huge benefit; cows are cleaner and they lay
down more,” notes Mary. The cows used to be fed through
the conveyer system, where feed took some time to reach
the cow. With the remodeling, the barn has been turned into
a drive-through barn, making it very efficient. The other major
change made in 2014 was making sure the stalls in the dairy barn
were not only full, but full with profitable cows—something they
are continuing to do. A way to ensure profitable cows fill the robot
is through reproduction. Hatfield Farms averaged a 30%
pregnancy rate in 2015, which allowed them to consistently have
fresh cows with low/no metabolics. They are able to achieve this
high pregnancy rate thanks to a good herdsman, heat detection
collars, and the intermittent use of a presynch/ovsynch program.
16
The importance of support
“In 2014, I spent most of my time learning the robots and what
they are capable of. It was a real reality check,” remembers Steve.
Conversations like this one with Steve and with the other robotic
farms that Mary works with led her to start a robot discussion
group consisting of about 10 farms, with discussions focusing
on financial management and cow management in robots. “The
group Mary started has helped me to better understand where
other robot herds are at in terms of financial and production
benchmarks. This allows us to set achievable goals each year,”
says Steve. “I really enjoy going to these meetings,” Marcia
states, “It’s nice knowing that other producers with robots go
through the same struggles as you do, and hearing how they’ve
overcome them is something I really appreciate.”
In 2015, Hatfield Farms continued to make changes that helped
them ship 2 million more pounds of milk than in 2013. They
expanded the milk cow barn to make room for calving packs and
free stalls for the close-up cows. “This was a huge benefit,”
explains Mary. “Before, the pre-fresh cows where in the old barn
where they also calved. Not having someone constantly down
there proved to be a challenge. Now that the cows are in the milk
cow barn, there are very few hours that someone isn’t around.”
A profitable balancing act
Also, in 2015, Hatfield Farms started fully integrating and taking
advantage of having both a parlor at Visionquest Dairy and
a robot at Hatfield. In October 2015, many of the heifers at
the end of their lactation were sent to Visionquest, where they
have stayed, and fresh mature cows have moved into Hatfield.
As heifers continue to go dry, they are moved to Visionquest,
and fresh mature cows have filled Hatfield’s robots. This allows
each robot to really maximize output. “We have to control our cost
in order to be competitive in this milk market. And there are two
ways to do that: 1. Lower the cost of production, and 2. Increase
production. At Hatfield, we’ve been able to do both while not
setting back Visionquest,”says Steve. “I’ve been really fortunate
in terms of how hands-on I can be at Hatfield, and I owe a lot
of that to my team at the home farm. Some of my crew has been
with me at Visionquest for over eight years and, without that,
I think our success in achieving a balance between the two farms
would have been hindered.”
Hatfield Farms LLC
Feed blade was added when the barn
was extended in 2015
Marcia Hatfield and Steve Patt
Another huge key to success, particularly in controlling robot
costs for Hatfield, has been hiring a full-time mechanic, who does
a lot of preventative maintenance on the robots as well
as trouble-shooting. Having two dairies with a total of about
700 milking cows allows them not only to share cows but also
share the cost of this mechanic, who has helped control robot
repair costs immensely.
Long term, both Steve and Marcia are considering building
another robot barn and increasing their cow numbers. “We need
to walk before we run,” says Steve. “There are still things I think
we need to improve before we expand, and based
on the progress we’ve made, I think we’re heading in the right
direction.”
Hatfield LLC goals 2016 written
on barn office wall
Company profile
“Since I started working with Hatfield Farms in 2014, we’ve made a lot of changes—
both in management and to the barns—that have resulted in high returns,”
says Mary Murray
Hatfield Farms LLC, Scipio Center, NY
Owners: Steve Patt and Marcia Hatfield
235 milking in four A3 robots
30 dry cows
Avg. production: 43 kg (95.01 lb) of milk avg/day,
3.5% fat, 3.0% true protein
Breeds: Holstein
Acres: 470 tillable
Service centre: Strykersville, N.Y.
Dairy Nutrition Advisor: Mary Murray
“Annual goal setting, holding each other accountable, and taking a team approach to achieve these goals
is something I’ve really appreciated Steve and Marcia allowing me to be involved in. Together, we make
decisions on areas outside of what the cows eat and it’s been really rewarding,” says Mary Murray.
Mary Murray
17
Our clients shine
Congratulations to all the breeders who stood out during the 2015 show season, at local,
regional, provincial, national, and international shows alike.
This page presents the highlights from the major shows in fall 2015.
World Dairy Expo, Madison, WI
Jacobs Goldwyn Valana
Ferme Jacobs Inc.
Cap-Santé
Champion Bred & Owned
and Reserve Grand Champion
Ferme Jacobs Inc.
Cap-Santé
1st Breeder’s Herd
Ferme Jacobs Inc.
Cap-Santé
Breeder Banner
Supreme Dairy Show, Saint-Hyacinthe
HOLSTEIN
Malic Mr Aussie Maya
Ferme Malic, Loubel Holstein Inc.
Lévis/Saint-Boniface
Junior Champion
RF Goldwyn Hailey
Gen-Com Holstein Ltée
Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil
1st 60,000 kg and
+ Lifetime Production
and Reserve Grand Champion
Jacobs Atwood Vedette
Ferme Jacobs Inc.
Cap-Santé
Champion Bred & Owned
Ferme Jacobs Inc.
Cap-Santé
1st Breeder’s Herd
Ferme Jacobs Inc.
Cap-Santé
Breeder and Exhibitor Banners
ROUGE ET BLANC
Deslacs Talent Alyana Red
Ferme Deslacs Holstein/
Ferme Gilaro
Victoriaville
Reserve Intermediate Champion
Ferme Deslacs Holstein
Victoriaville
1st Breeder’s Herd
JERSEY
Ferme Etel
Wotton
1st Junior Breeder’s Herd
Rencie Amaretto Terriso
Ferme Rencie Inc.
Inverness
Honourable Mention
Intermediate Champion
JL Vincent Sapphira
Yvon Sicard and Pierre Boulet
Saint-Justin
Honourable Mention Grand Champion
AYRSHIRE
Lagace BB Modestar-ET
Ferme Lagacé et Fils
Saint-Hyacinthe
Reserve Grand Champion
Ferme Lagacé et Fils
Saint-Hyacinthe
Exhibitor Banner
CANADIENNE
18
Bisson Polka Soucy
Ferme Beauvoie
and Gaétan Tourigny
Saint-Valérien
Intermediate Champion
and Grand Champion
Beauvoie Cansey Marcella
Ferme Beauvoie
Saint-Valérien
Reserve Intermediate Champion
Montbriant Champion
Choupette
Ferme Beauvoie
Saint-Valérien
Reserve Grand Champion
Ferme Beauvoie
Saint-Valérien
1st Breeder’s Herd
Ferme Beauvoie
Saint-Valérien
Junior Breeder Banner and Senior
Breeder and Exhibitor Banners
Shur-Gain congratulates you!
Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Toronto
HOLSTEIN
Desnette Beautiful Shadow
Desnette Holstein
Warwick
Champion Bred & Owned
Ferme Jacobs Inc.
Cap-Santé
1st Breeder’s Herd
RED AND WHITE
Etel Lili Heztry Red
Deslacs Talent Alyana-Red
Ferme Etel
Wotton
1st Junior Breeder’s Herd
Ferme Etel
Wotton
Junior Champion
Ferme Deslacs Holstein
Victoriaville
1st Breeder’s Herd
Ferme Deslacs Holstein/
Ferme Gilaro
Victoriaville
Grand Champion Bred & Owned
JERSEY
JL Vincent Saphira
Yvon Sicard and Pierre Boulet
1
Honourable Mention
Grand Champion
Saint-Justin
2
4
3
5
8
6
9
1. Jacobs Goldwyn Valana 2. RF Goldwyn Hailey 3. Jacobs Atwood Vedette 4. Malic Mr Aussie Maya
5. Deslacs Talent Alyana Red 6. JL Vincent Sapphira 7. Lagace BB Modestar 8. Bisson Polka Soucy
9. Desnette Beautiful Shadow 10. Etel Lili Heztry Red
7
10
19
Our clients shine
70 years of passion for agriculture
at Alfred Couture Ltée!
On Saturday, November 7, at La Cache à Maxime in Scott,
Quebec, the Couture family, along with over 450 guests,
including clients, employees, suppliers, friends, and
dignitaries, raised their glasses to toast the 70th anniversary
of Alfred Couture Ltée.
Seventy years after it was first founded, the family business, today
run by Bernard and Laurence Couture, son and daughter of
Irénée and Thérèse, still relies on Shur-Gain’s expert knowledge
and technologies to ensure the success of its clients and of its
own herds.
The company operates in the dairy, pork, grain, broiler chicken,
turkey, and egg production sectors in the Bellechasse, Beauce,
Quebec City, and Charlevoix regions. It owes its success to the
leadership of Laurence and Bernard, who have helped to make
the company what it is today, making them respected visionaries
within the industry.
The pride of the province and of Quebec industry
The HACCP-certified Meunerie Trans-Canada Inc. plant, one
of the most modern in North America, is a model of innovation
and a point of pride for the agrifood industry.
Bernard, Irenée and Laurence
Congratulations to Laurence and Bernard Couture,
Congratulations to the Master Breeders
Deliska
Gen-i-beq
Name of farm: Deliska Holstein
Municipality: Les Éboulements
Owners: Déliska Dufour-Boivin,
Gilles and Francis Boivin
Herd fed by: Lactech
Name of farm: Syndicat Gen-I-Beq
Municipality: Saint-Patrice
Owners: Germain Lehoux, Robert Chabot,
Jacques Chabot and Armand Leclerc
Herd fed by: Lactech
Photo: Émilie Desgagnés
Gilles Boivin, Déliska Dufour-Boivin, Francis Boivin, and his fiancée,
Mary-Josée Maltais, in front of the family farm in Les Éboulements.
Jacques Chabot, Armand Leclerc, Germain Lehoux and Robert Chabot
RETURN ALL MAIL THAT CANNOT BE DELIVERED IN CANADA TO: Shur-Gain Communications Department, 4780 Martineau Street, Saint-Hyacinthe (Quebec) J2R 1V1
SG151937 Copyright: Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 2002. National Library of Canada, 2002.
and to their entire team, on 70 years of enterprise, vision,
determination, and passion for agriculture!