August 15, 1998
Volume 1, Issue 9
Inside this Issue
A Christmas Present
Tunnel Ventilation - Fad or Fan?
15 Measures of Competitiveness
Milk Price Outlook
Hay Auction Prices
News Updates
A Christmas Present
Normand St-Pierre
Extension Dairy Specialist
You may want to set aside December 8 and 9 in your agenda book and calendar. On these two days, OSU will deliver its first Ohio Dairy Conference with focus on “Restructuring Ohio Dairy Industry”. This conference is being organized to address the critical need for a statewide event where producers can learn on ways to improve farm profitability regardless of breed, farm size, feeding system preference, or location within the state. In short, this is not an expansion conference, although expansion issues will be discussed. It is not a grazing conference, although grazing issues will be discussed. It is just a darn good conference!
Monsanto will be sponsoring a pre-conference the morning of December 8. This pre-conference will focus on past, present and future changes in the industry and what they mean to Ohio dairy producers. The featured speaker, Monte Hemenover will submerge you with amazing facts and figures. I heard Monte speaking at a conference once and I can insure you that nobody was thinking of leaving the room early. He is simply a fascinating speaker.
The OSU conference will start shortly after lunch on the 8th. The conference itself is divided into five sessions: Financing, Specializing, Labor, Records, and Facilities and Environment. A reception will be held for all attendees the first evening, with a short address by a secret guest.
We are aware that, for many producers, it is difficult to get away from the farm for two full days. This is why a single day, half program registration will be available.
Program description and registration material will be mailed in mid-September to every Ohio dairy producers on record. We expect a strong participation by agribusiness representatives and hope to see you in Columbus for the first Ohio Dairy Conference.
Tunnel Ventilation - Fad or Fan?
Richard Stowell
Extension Agricultural Engineer
I have received numerous questions from dairy producers this year about tunnel ventilating freestall barns. Unfortunately, very little information is available on system and cow performance with these systems and almost all of this information pertains to summertime use in renovated tiestall (generally bank) barns. The following summarizes my observations from visits to several first-generation tunnel ventilated freestall barns and discussion with peers outside Ohio.
System description:
In a tunnel ventilation system, the barn functions as a duct.
The basic design (see figure) draws air from one end of the barn using
a bank of exhaust fans and brings in fresh air through large openings in
the opposite endwall (typically, alley doors serve as air inlets).
Ideally, air flows at a constant velocity or as a uniform “wall” of air
through the length of the barn.
The system design is fairly straight-forward in that the required airflow rate (fan capacity) is simply a product of the desired velocity and the barn’s cross-section area [Qfans = v x Ac ]. Generally, new systems are designed to generate 350 feet per minute (4 mph) with all fans operating. For perspective, a three-row gable barn requires roughly 300,000 cfm (a bank of fans is required). Most systems place sets of fans on thermostats to allow for varying the airflow.
Preliminary evaluation:
The primary advantages of well-designed tunnel ventilation systems
are that they can always provide more than the minimum recommended hot
weather air exchange rate (assuming power to the fans is maintained) and
keep interior air moving noticeably. To reap a tangible financial
advantage, a tunnel ventilated barn must be able to maintain milk production
for enough additional days each summer compared to a naturally ventilated
building to offset the annualized installation and operating costs of the
fans. Tunnel ventilation systems seem quite attractive this year.
But keep in mind that as of August 10th, Columbus had experienced 50% more
cooling degree days than normal.
Designed systems flush stale air from a barn quite adequately. Recognize that air naturally flows toward and down alleys that are free of cows and that “dead air zones” exist immediately downwind of side openings, along sidewalls (i.e. outer row of stalls in tail-to-tail arrangements), and leeward of any obstructions (including other cows). This implies deviations from the basic system design disrupt desired airflow patterns. It also means the only way to adequately evaluate the environment is to leave the comfort of the feed alley and “walk among the cows”.
Research and experience show that to handle increasingly higher levels
of heat, cows need:
1) Adequate air exchange, followed by
2) Direct flow of air past their bodies (especially in holding pens
and at feed bunks), and
3) Supplied evaporative cooling (and eventually air conditioning if
it were affordable).
Regardless of the ventilation system selected, these criteria need
to be addressed when planning a new freestall barn. Other items to
consider with tunnel ventilation include:
* Tight construction is required, may “protect” perimeter stalls from
the weather.
* A well thought-out plan for cold and mild weather ventilation is
essential.
* Response to power outages must be immediate.
* Fly (and possibly bird) control is improved with steady airflow.
* Bunching of cows may be reduced (cow behavior issue possibly related
to light/shade levels).
* On really hot, muggy days, air movement alone will not sustain milk
production.
* Evaporative cooling pads may be used as alternative to sprinkler/mister
systems.
* There are limits to barn length and width.
* Spacing between barns is less critical.
* Planning of traffic patterns and
management of doors is very
important.
There is very little margin for error when attempting to “optimize” these systems (by using short, solid sidewalls and shallow roof-lines or suspended ceilings.
Obviously, there are many factors to consider, with little or no data available now to evaluate true environmental effects and economic consequences. I am evaluating historical weather data from six sites in Ohio, as well as surrounding states, to help determine when and where different heat stress mitigation systems make sense.
Summary:
Tunnel ventilation systems require unique management, which depending
on the operation, may be considered more or less than for naturally ventilated
facilities. Similarly, strongly held (personal) preferences for one system
or the other are the norm. The bottom line... my standard recommendation
remains naturally ventilated barns w/fans over the cows at the feed bunk
based on the known good year-round performance of these systems.
I recommend tunnel ventilation for retrofitting barns that are not accommodating
to natural ventilation and for new barns that cannot be situated for good
wind exposure. If dairy facilities follow those of swine and poultry,
and several untested concerns are addressed, I expect tunnel ventilation
to eventually carve out a sizable niche of the barn market.
15 Measures of Competitiveness
Ernest Oelker, Agriculture Agent
This month: Milking herd feed costs per hundredweight
(cwt.) of milk sold
Competitive Level: Less than $4.00 per cwt.
(May range from less than $3.50 to $5.00, depending on current feed prices)
Calculation: (Total
quantity of each feed fed) X (market price per unit)
total cwt. of milk sold for the same period
Example:
$200,000 purchased feed
+ 180,000 homegrown feed
= $380,000 total feed cost
90,000 cwt. (lb./100) of milk sold
= $4.22 milking herd feed costs per cwt. milk sold
To quickly evaluate feed cost control or to find out if more detailed analysis of feed costs is necessary, this measure can be calculated on a daily cost basis. Remember that feed costs fluctuate with the market price of feeds.
If feed costs are above the desired level:
Evaluate forage quality and cost of ration ingredients.
Make sure ration is balanced for a reasonable level of production and
cows are eating what you think they are eating.
Eliminate causes of low production such as poor cow comfort, mastitis,
and poor feed bunk management.
Milk Price Outlook
Cam Thraen, Agricultural Economist
The announced Basic Formula Price (BFP) for July is $14.77 per cwt. for milk testing 3.5 percent butterfat. This price is up $1.67 over the July price and $3.91 higher than July 1997. The current butterfat differential for July is 22.3 cents. A year earlier the butterfat differential was 11.0 cents.
A key to profitable marketing is an understanding of how the BFP is determined each month. The calculation is rather simple. Each month the National Agricultural Statistics Service, NASS, compiles a price survey from dairy plants in Minnesota and Wisconsin which reports the price actually paid for manufacturing grade milk. This survey price, the M/W base month price, is reported by NASS for the month prior to the current BFP price report. For June this survey price averaged $13.17, which is $2.12 higher that the base month price for May. To arrive at the announced July BFP, NASS adds an adjustment to this price to reflect the prices observed in the product markets (mostly cheese value). For July this adjustment is a plus $1.60, therefore the announced BFP is $13.17 + $1.60 = $14.77.
Hay Auction Prices (July 30, 1998)
Location First Second Third Large Round/bale
Damascus (/bale)
$.25 - 1.00
$1.00 - 3.85
Ashland County (/ton) $45.00 - 80.00
$40.00 - 125.00 $90.00 - 125.00
$20.00
Farmerstown (/ton)
$60.00 - 140.00 $105.00
$105.00
$23.00
Mt. Hope (/ton)
$55.00 - 150.00 $120.00
$15.00 - 22.50
Kidron (/ton)
$55.00 - 140.00 $50.00 - 140.00
$5.00 - 21.00
Carrollton (/bale)
$.75 - 1.75
$1.75 - 2.75
News Updates
Doty Over-ruled
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals over-turned Judge David Doty’s 1997
ruling that USDA’s setting of Class I differentials was “arbitrary and
capricious.” The Appellate Court ruled it was “time for the judiciary
to stay its hand.” In the decision, the Court said: “Regulatory reform
is a difficult, time consuming task best conducted by Congress and the
Executive, the branches of government directly responsible to the electorate.
In the midst of the long, politically sensitive debate over how to reform
an antiquated regulatory regime, Congress has now intervened in a decisive
fashion, and the Secretary has begun implementing this new mandate.”
MMPA released a statement vowing to fight on. MMPA will petition
for a rehearing with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals within the next few
weeks. National Milk Producer Federation CEO Jerry Kozak was hopeful
the 8th Circuit’s decision will shift focus from Class I differentials
to overall Federal Order reform. “This decision should allow that
process to proceed without concern as to whether the judicial system also
will jump into the fray.”
(Source: Dairy Today FAX)
Second-largest Corn Crop Coming
USDA released its first survey-based forecast of the 1998 corn
crop, projecting a total yield of 9.6 billion bushels. That would
be the second-largest crop on record, and at 130 bu/a, the third largest
yield ever. When all is said and done, ending stocks of feedgrains
will balloon to 52 million tons by marketing year end. Overall hay
production is expected to decline 2.5% from last year, though alfalfa production
will be up 1%. Texas hay production is down an astounding 51%
due to drought. Still, more than adequate supplies elsewhere suggest
continued moderating prices.
(Source: Dairy Today FAX)