Eastern Dairy Grist Winter 2024

PO Box 726, Cambridge ON, N1R 5W6

1006704

Dairy Grist VOLUME 26, ISSUE 4

CENTRAL & ATLANTIC EDITION A PERIODIC NEWSLETTER PRODUCED

BY GRAND VALLEY FORTIFIERS WINTER 2024

Belated Christmas greetings and blessings on our milk producing friends in 2025!

We are pleased to share this information packed edition of the Dairy Grist with you as we step into a new calendar year which will, no doubt, be filled with challenges and opportunities to work through together on the farm. The results of two studies that our GVF team members undertook through 2024 are summarized here. The first was conducted by Emily DeKlein, a Master of Science candidate from University of Guelph, sought to understand the correlations between butterfat depression and environmental, cow comfort, genetic and management practices on farm. The second, designed and conducted by Gennadii Bondarenko researched the impact of the administration of ASA boluses during the transition period on heifer and mature cow milk yield. You will be interested to read of the results of both of these studies!

We are also pleased to announce the addition of Amber Zupan to the GVF Nutrition Team and the promotion of Kathleen Shore to Manager, Ruminant Nutrition.

Application of ASA boluses to reduce inflammation by: Gennadii Bondarenko Ph.D. Ruminant Nutritionist

As we wrote in one of the previous Dairy Grist editions (Why Inflammation Matters - Grand Valley Fortifiers), there is convincing research that systemic inflammation in the transition period impacts metabolic status of fresh cows and productivity after calving. Recent research from Penn State University demonstrated high Effecacy of aspirin (ASA) boluses in transition period, that resulted in reduction of health problems, improved milk production and fertility, lower somatic cell count in milk (Barragan et al., 2020).

To prove Effecacy of ASA boluses, a series of mini trials on five high producing dairy herds in Southwestern Ontario (3 robot and 2 parlor) was conducted. The

1-800-567-4400 grandvalley.com

Kathleen has been key member of the GVF Ruminant Nutrition team for the last five and a half years, and after spending much of 2024 focusing on the advancement of our Pricing systems and processes, is returning to our Ruminant Nutrition department as leader. This coincides with the retirement of Mark Bowman at the end of 2024. Mark has served GVF ruminant customers, his teammates and the company faithfully for just over 40 years. We all owe Mark a debt of gratitude for his dedication and passion to see herds perform well, dairy customers serviced well and for his assistance in building and developing the extensive dairy team that Grand Valley Fortifiers has become known for. I am sure that the many dairy producers who have had the opportunity to work with Mark over the years will join us in congratulating Mark on his illustrious and impactful career as a Ruminant Nutrition and wish him and his wife Rhoda a very blessed and healthy season of retirement.

Sincerely, Ian Ross Chief Executive Officer, GVF group of companies

farmers were provided ASA boluses with concentration of 15.5 g of ASA per bolus and starting from mid April 2024, the farmers randomly selected every other mature cow and every other heifer for treatment. Mature cows obtained the first treatment (8 boluses) within 12 hours of calving and the second treatment (8 boluses) 24 hours after the first application. Pregnant heifers received one treatment (8 boluses) approximately 14 days before expected calving date. The farmers recorded all health events and production information for treated (AS group) and untreated animals (control group). Udder health control was done either by measuring somatic cell count in milk (on four farms) or electrical conductivity (on one robot farm). Altogether, 203 cows participated in the trial - 99 cows in ASA group and 104 cows in control group. Productivity data was analyzed as average daily milk yield, fat percentage and protein percentage within the first 90 days after calving. Milk yield was adjusted to fat and protein content (4% butterfat and 3.3% true protein), using the methodology of

Ian Ross, Chief Executive Officer | JD D'Elia, President David Ross, VP of Customer Advocacy & Experiential Marketing Ruminant Nutritionists: Amber Zupan, Gennadii Bondarenko, Kathleen Shore, Jer Plesman, Lisa McGregor, Sarah Robson | Layout Editor: Curtis Ebanks

Dairy Grist Winter 2024

International Dairy Federation (2015).

Table 1 summarizes the average for all farms. Numerical differences were observed in a variety of areas though on average ketotis was the largest health incidence improved with treatment. There was a 10% reduction of SCC in ASA group. Although the average productivity was very high in both groups (about 50 kg of FPCM within the first 3 months after calving), the animals treated with ASA in transition period still had 1.3 kg higher milk as compared to control.

Table 3: Results on heifers (by farm)*** Parameter

ASA group

Control group

Difference (ASA – Control)

Farm B (robot herd) Number of 1st calved heifers

10

6

+4

Average milk conductivity, Sxcm2/mol

65.7

69.1

-3.5

Average FPCM*, kg

38.0

41.8

-3.8

Farm C (milking parlor herd)

Table 1: Overall results (average of all farms)

Number of 1st calved heifers

7

5

+2

Average SSC, x1000

310.4

208.5

+102

Average FPCM*, kg

39.0

35.1

+3.9

Parameter

ASA group

Control group

Difference (ASA – Control)

Number of cows

99

104

-5

Incidence of retain placenta, %

10.1

10.6

-0.5

Incidence of metritis, %

6.1

6.7

-0.6

Incidence of ketosis, %

4.0

8.7

-4.7

Cases of clinical milk fever, %

5.1

6.7

-1.6

Incidence of clinical mastitis, %

4.0

4.8

-0.8

Death losses, %

2.0

2.0

0

Average SSC, x1000

161.9

179.1

-17.2

Average milk conductivity**, Sxcm2/mol

69.2

69.5

-0.3

Average of all farms

Average FPCM*, kg

50.6

49.3

+1.3

Number of calved heifers

26

27

-1

Average SSC, x1000

238.4

139.4

+98.9

Average milk conductivity, Sxcm2/mol

65.7

69.1

-3.5

Average FPCM*, kg

38.9

37.9

+1.0

* FPCM – Fat and Protein Corrected Milk, calculated for 4% fat and 3.3% True protein (methodology of International Dairy Federation, 2015). ** One of the robot farms in the trial used conductivity for udder health control

When individual farms are evaluated independently, we observe quite a big heterogeneity (diversity) in response to ASA treatment in both mature cows and heifers (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2 evaluates mature cows. Three farms demonstrated positive response in milk production and milk response varied from +1.1 kg (Farm C), to +3.6 kg (Farm B) and even +5.0 kg (Farm A). Farm D showed no difference in milk, and Farm E demonstrated negative response (-1.8 kg). Overcrowding in close-up and fresh cow pens was occurring at Farm E, the added stress could potentially impact Effecacy of ASA boluses application. As to the udder health parameters, four farms demonstrated reduction of SCC in ASA group and response varied from just 2600 to almost 99000 SCC. The robot farm B, which used milk conductivity as udder health control, showed very slight increase in milk conductivity in ASA group (+1.3 conductivity units).

Table 2: Results on multiparous cows (by farm) Parameter

ASA group

Control group

Difference (ASA – Control)

Farm A (robot herd)

Farm D (robot herd) Number of 1st calved heifers

6

13

-7

Average SSC, x1000

78.1

82.5

-4.4

Average FPCM*, kg

41.1

39.3

+1.8

Farm E (milking parlor herd) Number of 1st calved heifers

3

3

0

Average SSC, x1000

126.5

133.1

-6.6

Average FPCM*, kg

36.8

34.1

+2.7

*** Farm A was not able to apply ASA boluses to heifers 2 weeks before calving

The large-scale trials, conducted by Penn State University, demonstrated +1.45 kg of energy-corrected milk yield increase in ASA treated multiparous cows within first 60 days in milk, and +5 kg of milk yield improvement in ASA treated heifers (Barragan et al., 2020, 2021).

Based on GVF numbers, a larger response was seen in mature cows and a lower response in heifers. The low response in heifers may be explained by difficulties applying ASA boluses 2 weeks before calving or the fact that many were sold the summer of the trial thanks to high prices such that they left the herd before final measurements could be taken.

Overall, GVF trials show that application of ASA boluses in transition period could be considered a viable strategy to reduce systemic inflammation. With reduced inflammation comes improved productivity and reduced SCC after calving.

If you are interested in learning more about this study and potentially utilizing ASA boluses in your operation, contact your GVF Nutrition Consultant or visit: farmersdepot.ca/asa-bolus for product details.

Number of cows

12

10

+2

Average SSC, x1000

271.9

370.8

-98.9

Average FPCM*, kg

51.7

46.7

+5.0

Number of cows

20

22

-2

Average milk conductivity, Sxcm2/mol

J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103:8443–8452 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17966

70.9

69.6

+1.3

A. A. Barragan, S. Bas, E. Hovingh, and L. Byler. Effects of postpartum acetylsalicylic acid on uterine

Average FPCM*, kg

59.9

56.3

+3.6

diseases and reproductive performance in dairy cattle. JDS Communications 2021; 2. https://doi.

Number of cows

17

19

-2

Average SSC, x1000

78.7

129.5

-50.8

Average FPCM* (first 3 months in milk), kg

55.5

54.4

+1.1

Farm B (robot herd)

References: A. Barragan, E. Hovingh, S. Bas,J. Lakritz, L. Byler, A. Ludwikowski, S. Takitch, J. Zug, and S. Hann. Effects of postpartum acetylsalicylic acid on metabolicstatus, health, and production in lactating dairy cattle.

org/10.3168/jdsc.2020-0047

Farm C (milking parlor herd)

International Dairy Federation. (2015). A common carbon footprint approach for the dairy sector. The IDF guide to standard life cycle assessment methodology. (Bulletin of the IDF n° 479/2015).

Farm D (robot herd) Number of cows

15

19

-4

Average SSC, x1000

102.1

187.1

-85.0

Average FPCM*, kg

50.1

50.1

0

Farm E (milking parlor herd) Number of cows

9

7

+2

Average SSC, x1000

137.1

139.7

-2.6

Average FPCM*, kg

47.7

49.6

-1.8

Number of cows

73

77

-4

Average SSC, x1000

142.2

190.1

-47.8

Average milk conductivity, Sxcm2/mol

70.9

69.6

+1.3

Average FPCM*, kg

54.1

52.4

+1.7

Average of all farms

Table 3 evaluates heifers. Out of five farms that participated in the trial, Farm A was not able to arrange ASA boluses application on heifers 2 weeks before calving, so we have data only on 4 farms, that include 26 treated and 27 untreated heifers. Three farms found positive milk effect that varied from +1.8 kg (Farm D) to 2.7 kg (Farm E) and 3.9 kg (Farm C), but farm B showed negative response in milk yield (-3.8 kg). As to the udder health parameters, three farms demonstrated slight reduction of SCC and electrical conductivity of milk, but one farm showed increase of SCC content in milk of ASA treated heifers.

1–800–567–4400 | grandvalley.com

A Summer Study: Farm Audits to unlock Butterfat Depression Risks by: Emily Deklein, M.Sc. (in progress) GVF Ruminant Summer Student

Butterfat levels in dairy production are influenced by a complex set of factors, posing numerous challenges, particularly during the summer when butterfat values tend to decrease. Understanding butterfat composition is crucial for dairy producers aiming to maximize their milk cheque returns and maintain herd productivity/health.

In the context of dairy cow rumen health, biohydrogenation—a process conducted by rumen microbes—plays a central role in producing various fatty acids. Under normal conditions, biohydrogenation proceeds without disrupting milk fat synthesis in the mammary gland. However, certain risk factors can trigger an alternative biohydrogenation pathway, resulting in altered fatty acid intermediates that may inhibit milk fat synthesis. This can lead to milk fat depression (MFD), a common challenge in dairy herds. Factors such as genetics, season, physiological state, and especially diet impact milk fat concentration, contributing to its variability within and across farms.

Today, varying degrees of MFD are frequently observed in dairy herds, both in

Central & Altlantic Edition

intensive and extensive systems. These levels are often below the cow’s genetic potential for milk fat production, indicating a dietary or environmental influence.

Onset of diet-induced MFD typically signals a shift in ruminal fermentation and, in more severe cases, may be associated with ruminal acidosis and reduced efficiency in the rumen. Although increasing energy intake through concentrates can boost milk production, it may inadvertently harm rumen microbial balance, thus lowering butterfat levels. Addressing MFD requires careful management of risk factors, which are not the same across farms.

In this study, data collection involved both on- and off-farm evaluations. Onfarm assessments, for both core-farms and single-visit farms included analysis of feed particle size with the Penn State particle separator, corn silage quality, manure sieve evaluations, temperature/humidity monitoring, milk fatty acid analysis and an overall management questionnaire. Off-farm evaluations looked at ration composition, nutrient content, forage tests, and feed formulations.

Key parameters such as genetics, herd health, and mammary health were not measured in this study but play significant roles in butterfat concentration.

Given the diversity of risk factors influencing butterfat, it’s essential to approach each farm individually. For instance, farms with high butterfat levels may exhibit strong feed management practices with minimal sorting, but the same may hold true for farms with lower butterfat levels. As a nutritionist, it is crucial to identify the unique risk factors for each operation and determine realistic butterfat targets.

Seasonal fluctuations also naturally reduce butterfat as a response to longer daylight hours and higher temperatures. Even in temperate climates with minimal temperature or humidity variation, milk fat synthesis in dairy cattle declines in the summer months. The extent of this decline is influenced by factors such as genetics, environmental stressors, and seasonal forage quality changes.

Results and Insights from Data Collection Following the data collection process, approximately 200 parameters were analyzed to identify those most closely correlated with butterfat. To refine the analysis, herds were divided into the top and bottom 25% based on butterfat values, highlighting key factors with meaningful correlations.

Across the 77 farm visits, average butterfat was 4.07 kilograms per hectolitre, with an average milk yield of 38.75 litres per cow per day.

Milk fatty acid analysis was conducted with core farms, collecting samples over five days prior to each farm visit. Strong correlations emerged between butterfat and specific milk fatty acid levels, suggesting a close relationship between fatty acid composition and butterfat.

Butterfat and Fatty Acids

Fatty acids, g/100g milk

1.7 1.5

Butterfat and Mixed FA

1.3

Butterfat and De Novo

1.1

Butterfat and Preformed FA Linear (Butterfat and Mixed FA)

0.9

Linear (Butterfat and De Novo)

0.7

Linear (Butterfat and Preformed FA) 0.5 3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1 Butterfat, kg/hl

4.3

4.5

Understanding the Role of Fatty Acids in Butterfat Composition The study underscored that higher fatty acid levels correspond to higher butterfat, though understanding how these fatty acids interact offers deeper insights into cow health and productivity.

De Novo Fatty Acids: These fatty acids are not derived directly from the cow's diet but are synthesized in the mammary gland using precursors produced by rumen microbes. High levels of de novo fatty acids are associated with effective rumen fermentation, supported by a diet rich in effective fiber and fermentable carbohydrates. Elevated de novo fatty acid synthesis generally indicates a healthier rumen environment and improved milk quality.

Mixed Fatty Acids: Originating from both dietary sources and endogenous production, mixed fatty acids contribute to milk fat’s fluidity and firmness. They essentially serve as a bridge between de novo and preformed fatty acids, adding stability and energy density to milk.

Preformed Fatty Acids: These fatty acids come from dietary fats or body fat mobilization, particularly during times of negative energy balance, such as early lactation. To support butterfat concentration, cows should receive adequate energy to minimize unnecessary fat mobilization. Controlled inclusion of dietary fats can also balance milk fat composition without causing MFD or metabolic issues.

On-Farm Trends and Best Practices for Butterfat Management Analysis revealed key trends among herds with higher butterfat scores. Farms with higher butterfat typically experienced less feed bunk sorting, lower feed bunk temperatures, higher airflow at cow resting levels, more consistent manure scores, and a greater percentage of cows with an ideal manure score of 3.

For effective butterfat management, it’s beneficial to use these indicators as tools rather than strict standards. Regularly monitoring of various factors— such as feed management, rumen health, and cow comfort—can help identify areas for improvement. Milk fatty acid analysis is a strong tool, offering concrete insights into the sources of butterfat within the cow.

It was a great opportunity to work with an amazing group of people at Grand Valley Fortifiers. Special thank-you to the specialists and producers that assisted us with this project!

Scene & Herd with: Henry Verhoog, Senior Dairy Specialist

Why did we not ship enough milk in the Fall of 2024?

As we close out another year, I always find it an interesting time to reflect on what we saw at farm level and perhaps more importantly the fall of 2024. Overall, it was a great growing season and no serious issues throughout the summer or fall apart from some extended heat stress. In turn most people harvested good quality forages and on paper things looked pretty good.

So why did we as a province barely fill 30% of the fall incentives in August and September? We did a little better than 40% in October and November. Moreover, like most years, just when incentives come off in December, cows are starting to settle in and magically we have lots of milk for the winter.

To me personally, the number one issue that has played out and came to fruition this fall was a result of all the excitement and encouragement from many folks in our industry to breed a lot of our good dairy cows to beef. This has resulted in fantastic prices for 1 week old bull and heifer crosses. Truly, prices we have never seen in my lifetime, and perhaps may never see again. Some producers who went heavy on sexed semen for over half their herd still maintained a nice balance with enough replacements.

This trend was fueled by the fact that for many years nobody was making much money selling nice fresh heifers for $2000 to $2500. Thus, it is not hard to see why so many people went the route of breeding for beef. Our American farmers to the south have taken the same approach with their herds.

However, what eventually played out on many farms this fall was simply a lack of homebred and raised heifer replacements. So, we end up keeping everything that remotely looks like a milk cow no matter how unproductive. We calved in groups of heifers that we normally would have culled the lower bunch out, but shucks now we couldn’t because we sold those nice beef calves 2 years ago.

For many producers, this pattern will remain basically the same on both sides of the border. If you are up for a good challenge, I would suggest that from a financial and herd productivity standpoint maybe we should start raising a few more Holstein or dairy heifers to meet the growing demand for both replacements and growing milk markets to come over the next several years.

I fully realize that nobody including myself really knows how long these strong replacement prices will remain or for that matter how long we will maintain strong beef prices.

Perhaps the most significant factor I have seen this fall with those farms that raised lots of replacement heifers is the fact that even on well managed farms we sometimes calve in mediocre heifers, sometimes a few too many three teaters, or slow milkers. When you calve in 10 heifers and only truly need 7 of them, your herd quickly gets better at a quicker pace. Even with all the genomic testing and top-quality bulls we can choose from, we still sometimes calve in some plain heifers. At the end of the day, it costs exactly the same amount of money to raise an average heifer as it does to raise a good one. We all need a bit of good luck also along the way.

I fully realize that the cost of raising replacement heifers continues to rise, but compared to a couple of years ago when corn was $8 per bushel and soybeans were $18 per bushel, perhaps growing a little more alfalfa or grass for heifers is not quite as expensive in comparison. For those of you who have the barn space

Follow us on

/grandvalleyfortifiers

and are good at raising heifers and enjoy doing this, I believe you will be well rewarded for doing so. Most importantly if more producers did this, we would have plenty of milk to fill our fall incentives and oh yes, sell lots more of those good Canadian heifers to the US for $3500 to $4000. As our Canadian dollar appears to be sputtering a bit for a while, this makes selling heifers State side very attractive.

warning is unlikely. A nutritionally related milk freezing point problem could only be considered a possibility where a starvation type of diet was fed for a period of time. There is no evidence that lack of salt or mineral imbalance could cause a milk freezing point problem unless again, a rare case where starvation type feeding is evident, unbalanced feeding programs or nutrition should not be the first item discussed when freezing point warnings occur.

Just some thoughts to ponder over the winter season.

Conclusion – Freezing point concerns are caused by:

Q&A

Water in the milk. Starvation driven by poor access to feed or very poor health.

with: Mark Bowman, M.Sc. Senior Dairy Nutrition Advisor

Does Nutrition Affect Freezing Point in Milk?

Out of the archives sometimes topics are worth revisiting. After 40 years as a dairy nutritionist in this industry it was just a few weeks ago that this topic came up at a local meeting. Originally, a few nutritionists, including myself, studied this topic nearly 20 years ago to bring information to the industry. As I step into retirement, I decided this article was worth a revisit to ensure that what drives freezing point issues on farm is well understood.

Milk freezing point estimates are used by marketing boards to indicate milk with water added. Average milk freezing point is –0.540 oHortvet (H).

High milk freezing point is widely recognized to be caused by freezing of the milk during cooling, or water added to the milk either due to rinse water in the tank or straight water. An unbalanced ration, including factors such as low energy or lack of grain, and lack of salt or minerals are frequently cited as other possible causes of high milk freezing point when problem cases are investigated.

Little research has been published about the effect of rations on milk freezing point. Reviews of older published research (1983 and 1993) indicate that nutrition can influence milk freezing point. Lactose, chloride, citrate and lactic acid account for 79 – 86 percent of milk freezing point depression relative to water. However, these components are not independent of each other. In most cases variation in one component is compensated for by variations in the other components to keep the freezing point constant. Given these tight constraints within the cow on milk freezing point it is unlikely that nutritional factors have a large impact except in extreme cases where cow health is severely compromised.

Low energy diets driven by low grain feeding and/or poor quality forages are often indicated as a possible cause of elevated milk freezing point. In Australia, 4 Jersey heifers were fed energy & restricted roughage rations compared with a high energy ration (pasture plus 8 lbs/day corn) and a normal pasture ration (no supplement). The animals on the low roughage, low energy rations lost weight rapidly, milk yield was depressed and the SNF content of the milk declined by approximately 20%. These rations were essentially starvation level. Milk freezing point was –0.538 oH versus – 0.547 oH for the animals fed the control (pasture) rations, an increase of 0.009 oH. Although the milk freezing point remained well below the warning level in this case, an increase of this magnitude could possibly elevate milk freezing point to the warning level.

In a trial involving 18 cows during weeks 8 to 40 of lactation the effect of fibre levels on milk freezing point was measured by feeding TMR’s ranging from 51% forage 49% concentrate to 9% forage 91% concentrate. These diets ranged from normal lactating dairy diets to feedlot finishing type diets (high grain, low fiber). Milk freezing point was 0.005 oH higher, -0.548 oH, for the 9% forage diet compared to –0.553 oH for the 51% forage diet. The results indicate that extremely high grain – low fibre diets can increase milk freezing point, but not enough to reach the warning level.

Salt is often cited as a possible nutritional factor affecting milk freezing point.

Research that compared 0, 1, 2 and 4 percent salt levels fed to Holstein cows milking approximately 20 kg/day over 2 week feeding periods found little to support that hypothesis. Feeding no salt resulted in milk freezing point of –0.548 oH, an increase of 0.003 oH, compared to –0.551 oH for the normal salt (1%) diet.

Increasing salt up to 4% only reduced milk freezing point by an additional 0.002 oH to –0.553 oH. These results indicate that lack of salt will not increase milk freezing point enough to reach the warning level. If no source of sodium were included in the diet for longer periods of time it would result in depressed feed intake, lower milk production and severe health problems long before it would cause a milk freezing point problem.

In conclusion, based on the limited data and my 40 years of experience, the probability of an unbalanced feeding program causing a milk freezing point

Join us in Welcoming Our Newest Dairy Nutritionist!

Amber Zupan Ruminant Nutritionist, M.Sc. Amber is our newest addition to the Ruminant Nutrition team – she has been working with us since November getting to know our ration formulation philosophies and diving into getting rations done for our customers. Amber has past experience working on a dairy farm so she is no stranger to the intricacies of putting something on paper that our producers can feed practically on the farm. Her previous experience in industry includes spending the past 4 years with Grober Nutrition running R&D projects with calves and formulating milk replacers. We are thrilled to have her passion and dedication to Ruminant Nutrition on the GVF team.

Please join us in welcoming Amber to the team.

If you have any questions for our team, please feel free to contact Amber at: amberzupan@grandvalley.com

A Fond Farewell and Thank You! After 40 dedicated years at Grand Valley Fortifiers Mark Bowman is retiring at the end of 2024. His passion to learn and teach have been the backbone of our Ruminant Nutrition department. Over the years, Mark has served our customers with keen intelligence and compassion. He has always put the customer first and approached all situations with professionalism. He leaves two generations of Nutritionists well trained and equipped to carry on his legacy with the same humble confidence that Mark has led with for the past 4 decades. We wish Mark all the very best as he plans some exciting travels with his wife and continues with volunteer work at his church not to mention the most important role of being a grandfather. Thank you Mark for the positive influence you have had on the GVF team and a hearty congratulations on reaching this milestone.

You will be missed!

Thought of the Day! “When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger.

Luke 2:15-16 Throughout the Bible, we can see how frequently God chose to use shepherds to further His plan in preparing the way for a Saviour, Christ the Lord. We see this of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and King David all of whom were shepherds before God chose to use them in mighty ways. It’s intriguing to see how God continues in this vein and choose to announce the birth of Jesus Christ his son, first to shepherds. The shepherds were keeping watch over their flocks at night when the Angles appeared bearing the good news of Christ’s birth. Immediately, the shepherds went to Bethlehem to see the Christ, the Great Shepherd who came to shepherd humanity and provide a way back into relationship with our Lord. This Christmas remember the Great Shepherd and ponder all He has done for you.