:

Dairy Dollars: Feed Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Milk Income

Andie Majewski, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The cost of feedstuffs for the dairy industry in the US is constantly fluctuating and Ohio is no exception. Figure 1 shows that the average cost of most feedstuffs reported in the article has decreased since the previous issue. However, Figure 2 reveals that many of these same feedstuffs are still not considered a bargain, despite the price decrease compared to those reported in the previous issue. These slight changes in the cost of feedstuffs can directly impact the income over feed costs for dairy producers.

Figure 1. The percentage change of the actual cost of 21 feedstuffs fed on Ohio dairy farms from March 26, 2025, to May 25, 2025. Feedstuffs that decreased in price since the previous issue are shown in green, while those that increased in price are colored red. The cost of corn silage did not change since March because it is priced on a biannual basis.

Figure 2. Actual and predicted cost of feedstuffs with 75% confidence interval (CI) of 21 feed commodities fed on Ohio Dairy Farms; May 25, 2025. Feedstuffs that are priced above the upper prediction price limit are overpriced (red bars). Feedstuffs that fall within the upper and lower limits of the predicted prices are breakeven feeds (grey bars). Feedstuffs that are priced below the lower prediction price limit are considered a bargain (green bars).

Economic Value of Feeds

Figure 2 displays the costs for the 21 reported commodities in Ohio. These results were produced by SESAME^TM for the central Ohio region on May 25, 2025. In Figure 2, the bargain feedstuffs (green), the overpriced feedstuffs (red), and the breakeven feedstuffs (grey) are displayed, along with their average costs and predicted costs. These prices and estimates are from a point in time and their economic classification may change from what is reported, though they remain as a useful tool to predict the cost of feedstuff changes in a ration and to summarize market trends in the Ohio region. In May, there are more feedstuffs classified as overpriced than in March. Whole roasted soybeans and soybean meal continue to be costly commodities. This month, corn gluten meal is overpriced, despite being classified as a bargain in the previous issue. Common feedstuffs such as dried distillers grains and wheat middlings continue to be classified as bargain buys. While it is necessary to consider the costs of feedstuffs, the prices are not the only thing that should be considered when formulating a ration. Some of the “bargain” priced commodities can have a place in a dairy cattle ration, though it is important to consider the investment opportunity that might come from feeding “overpriced” feedstuffs.

The appraisal set, shown in Table 1, predicts the prices for the commodities that did not have a current local price. These commodity prices were predicted by SESAME^TM and represent the estimated value at one specific point in time and are therefore subject to change. These values may be used as a benchmark if you are considering purchasing these ingredients for your dairy farm.

Table 1. Estimated feedstuffs prices not reported for Ohio, May 25, 2025.
Feed Nutrient Prices

The cost of net energy of lactation (NE_L) experienced about a 76% change since March, increasing to $0.0301/ lb. This change is not favorable to producers. However, the cost of metabolizable protein (MP) experienced a decreased 11% change. Though the cost of physically effective fiber (e-NDF) changed by about 0.6% less than the previous month, it remains relatively constant. Values of nutrients are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Prices of nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2025, compared to March 26, 2025.
Milk and Milk Component Prices

The Class III milk price was $20.37/cwt in May, increasing about $0.20/cwt from the previous issue. However, the price of butter fat and milk protein each decreased by about $0.48/lb and $0.36/lb, respectively. The Cow-Jones Index estimates the profitability of milk production, considering factors including the nutrient input costs displayed in Table 2, cow production metrics, and the current milk and component prices which are shown in Table 3. The prediction formula uses a 1500 lb cow, producing milk with 4.09% fat and 3.22% protein. This month, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 85 lb/day and 70 lb/day is about $11.40/cwt and $10.94 /cwt, respectively. Both estimates are expected to be profitable, despite not including factors such as replacement and cull cows in the herd. However, these margins of profitability are much narrower than those seen in recent issues.

Table 3. Prices of milk and milk components, sourced from the Federal Marketing Order 33, for Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2025, compared to March 26, 2025.In May, the Ohio dairy industry experienced a slightly reduced cost of production and an increase in Class III milk. However, there was also a decrease in the price received for butter fat and milk protein. Additionally, many feedstuffs are not classified as bargains in this issue. These combined effects resulted in a reduced predicted profitability for dairy producers in the month of May.
Preparing Grain for the Feedbunk

Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The primary goal of processing grain is to enhance nutrient digestion, optimize animal production, and ultimately increase profitability. We can grind, ensile, and steam flake grain to improve nutrient digestion but not all grain processing leads to identical digestibility characteristics or performance results. Some processes lead to more rapid starch degradation than others which change site of digestion and the downstream metabolic processes involved in putting milk into the bulk tank. Thus, selecting which grain processing approach suits you depends on the details: the whole diet, the cows its being fed to, and what the goal for that group is. Selecting the best grain processing method also requires understanding some details of each processing method.

1. Grinding

The simplest way to process grain is to reduce its particle size by grinding. Reducing particle size of grain can be achieved using a hammer or a roller mill. Each has advantages and disadvantages. One primary difference that will be apparent at the farm is that roller mills produce a more uniform particle size than hammer mills. Whether this is important for production outcomes from livestock consuming ground grain is not known.

Reducing particle size of grain increases the surface area that is accessible to microbes and enzymes which should enhance digestibility of the grain. Reducing particle size certainly increases the digestibility of corn grain analyzed in a laboratory. For example, as the particle size is reduced, both 7 and 16 h ruminal starch degradability increase (Goeser and Shaver, 2020).

When feeding corn grain of different particle sizes to a cow, we can expect some changes as well (Ferraretto et al., 2013). Dry matter and starch digestibility increase as particle size is reduced from 4,000 to <1,500 μm, but increased digestibility was not observed for reductions beyond 1,500 μm (Figure 1). In this meta-analysis, milk yield and milk component yields were similar for each particle size group, but milk urea nitrogen (MUN) was reduced as particle size of corn grain was reduced.

Figure 1. Effect of particle size on total track digestibility of starch (Ferraretto et al., 2013).

More recently, a team in Canada observed that reducing corn grain particle size from 1,080 to 730 μm increased digestibility, but there were not differences in milk or energy-corrected milk yields. They observed that milk protein yield was 40 to 80 g/day greater when feeding corn grain at 840 μm particle size compared to 730 or 1,080 μm particle size. This experiment did have abnormally low milk component concentrations so take the results with a grain of salt (Ahmadi et al., 2020). Particle size investigations may need to be conducted with higher milk component producing cows to be more translatable to current production norms.

Ideal Particle Size?

Many dairy farms are feeding grain that is much smaller than was previously investigated by researchers. We need to update our research of corn grain particle sizes to investigate how grain particle sizes of <1,000 μm affect animal performance. The particle size of corn grain should certainly be less than 1,500 μm, with some data suggesting that 800 μm was optimal for milk protein production. Additional reductions in particle size may be beneficial, but there are not concrete peer-reviewed data to suggest that.

2. Ensiling

We can also ensile grain as “high-moisture” to enhance the digestibility and change characteristics of the feed. For this article, I will be specifically focusing on high moisture corn.

The corn kernel dry matter should be between 28 and 32% when harvesting for high moisture corn. Corn grain harvested too wet may cause instability or heating at feed-out while too dry of kernels would reduce starch digestibility and increase risk of improper fermentation.

High moisture corn increases the rate of starch degradability compared to dry corn which usually results in an increase in ruminal starch degradability. In one example, in vitro 7-h starch degradability for dry ground corn was 44% but 62% for high moisture corn (Albornoz and Allen, 2018). Other factors also contribute to the increase in degradability, such as corn maturity. The increased degradability of high moisture corn is also reflected when feeding cattle. In a study with steers, ruminal starch degradability was 90% for cattle fed high moisture corn, whereas ruminal starch degradability was 78% when dry ground corn was fed (Galyean et al., 1976). If ensiled properly, high moisture corn can increase starch degraded in the rumen.

The increased rumen degradability presents risk, too. With more rapid starch degradability and more rumen fermentation, there is a risk for ruminal acidosis and milk fat depression. Less total diet starch should be fed if dairy cows are being supplied high moisture corn that was properly harvested and ensiled. Dairy cows consuming high moisture corn had reduced feed intake, milk yield, and milk fat yield compared to dry ground corn in a diet with 28% starch (Albornoz and Allen, 2018).

One final consideration to keep track of when feeding high moisture corn is storage time. As storage time increases, the degradability of the corn will increase (Gomes et al., 2020). A newly ensiled high moisture corn will feed differently than one that has been in a silo for a year. The diet should shift accordingly by reducing the rumen fermentable starch supplied in the ration.

3. Steam Flaking

Another option for processing corn grain is through steam flaking. Steam flaking is a process by which corn grain is subject to steam then passed through a set of rollers to flatten the kernel. This process disrupts the starch-protein matrix and thus increases starch degradability of the grain.

Steam flaking increases the ruminal degradability of starch compared to dry rolling or grinding corn grain. It does not increase ruminal starch degradability as much as ensiling the corn grain as high moisture corn. The ruminal starch degradability was 83% for steam-flaked corn compared to 90% for high moisture and 78% for dry rolled corn (Galyean et al., 1976). In a recent study in Canada, feeding steam flaked corn resulted in similar feed intake and component milk yields compared to feeding dry ground corn that ranged from 730 to 1,080 μm (Ahmadi et al., 2020).

Take-Homes

Be strategic when selecting your starch source and processing method. If you simply want to maximize ruminal starch digestibility, then high moisture ensiling of grain at proper moisture may be most promising. Feeding such highly fermentable starch comes with risks of ruminal acidosis and milk fat depression. If you’re feeding more fermentable starches, like high moisture corn, you probably should reduce the total diet starch and increase dietary NDF or forage NDF compared to if you’re feeding dry ground corn.

If you’re feeding dry ground corn, it must be less than 1,500 μm. Most feed mills will meet this expectation, but due diligence is always a good idea. Further reductions in particle size may be beneficial, but the peer-reviewed data need to catch up to provide a clearer recommendation.

One last note - if you’re changing starch sources in the diet by switching the processing, then you need to pay attention to your cows. Keep close attention to feed intake, milk yield, milk fat concentration, MUN, and rumination (if you have a monitoring system). Based on these factors, you may need to make dietary adjustments like increasing NDF, forage NDF, or reducing starch and rumen fermentable starch.

References

Ahmadi, F., G.R. Ghorbani, A. Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi, M. Heydari, H. Rafiee, and K.A. Beauchemin. 2020. Performance and feeding behavior of dairy cows fed high-concentrate diets containing steam-flaked or ground corn varying in particle size. J. Dairy Sci. 103(4):3191-3203. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17344

Albornoz, R.I. and M.S. Allen. 2018. Highly fermentable starch at different diet starch concentrations decreased feed intake and milk yield of cows in the early postpartum period. J. Dairy Sci. 101(10):8902-8915. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14843

Ferraretto, L.F., P.M. Crump, and R.D. Shaver. 2013. Effect of cereal grain type and corn grain harvesting and processing methods on intake, digestion, and milk production by dairy cows through a meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 96(1):533-550. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5932

Galyean, M., D. Wagner, and R. Johnson. 1976. Site and extent of starch digestion in steers fed processed corn rations. J. Anim. Sci. 43(5):1088-1094.

Goeser, J.P. and R.D. Shaver. 2020. Commercial ground corn grain samples vary in particle size metrics and in situ rumen starch digestibility. Applied Animal Science 36(5):610-614. https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-01981

Gomes, A.L.M., A.V.I. Bueno, F.A. Jacovaci, G. Donadel, L.F. Ferraretto, L.G. Nussio, C.C. Jobim, and J.L.P. Daniel. 2020. Effects of processing, moisture, and storage length on the fermentation profile, particle size, and ruminal disappearance of reconstituted corn grain. J. Anim. Sci. 98(11). 10.1093/jas/skaa332
Sulfur Management for High-Quality Silage Corn

Dr. Emma Matcham and Dr. Osler Ortez, Assistant Professors, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

Factors affecting silage corn production include genetics, environment, and management practices (including nutrient management). Sulfur (S) is an essential nutrient in four amino acids, which are the basic components of protein molecules. This article will provide a basic overview of sulfur management, including the sources, rates, and timings that can impact corn silage yields and nutritive value.

Sulfur Overview

To determine if sulfur application might benefit your silage corn field, it is important to understand how much sulfur is necessary to grow a good crop of silage corn. We estimate that each ton of silage corn will remove about 1.1 lb of sulfur. In other words, around 27 lb of sulfur are removed per acre when yields are 24 ton/acre (TriState Fertilizer Recommendations, linked below).

Corn’s sulfur requirement can be met from a wide range of sources. Acid rain and other forms of atmospheric deposition of sulfur to soils were historically major contributors of sulfur to silage corn fields. However, atmospheric sulfur deposition has significantly declined since the 1990s due to changes in air quality regulations. More recent estimates are that Ohio fields receive around 5 to 6 lb of sulfur deposition per acre per year, sometimes more. Manure is another important sulfur source, and dairy manure typically contains 1.4 to 2.7 lb sulfur per 1000 gallons of liquid manure. Atmospheric deposition and a 5000 gallon per acre manure application will typically meet over half of the sulfur requirements for your silage corn crop (learn more about S rates in manure using ManureDB, linked below). Another source of sulfur is from organic matter mineralization and fertilizers. Many fertilizers like diammonium phosphate (DAP) contain around 2% sulfate (Camberato et al., 2023), and minor sources of sulfur entering your fields include ammonium sulfate (AMS) and other spray tank additives, many micronutrient fertilizers, and some fungicides.

When making sulfur application decisions, consider the 4Rs for nutrient management: Right rate, Right source, Right place, and Right time. For instance, the timing of sulfur application depends on nutrient source. Plants take up sulfur from the soil in the form of sulfate ions (SO₄^-1). Other forms of sulfur, such as elemental sulfur (S₂) or organic sulfur (compounds with both sulfur and carbon atoms), must be converted to sulfate before they are plant available. The sulfur in DAP, AMS, and atmospheric deposition are usually in the sulfate form and can be immediately available for plant uptake. Sulfur utilization from these sources is higher when they are applied to a growing crop (with existing nutrient demand), since sulfate ions are highly mobile in the soil profile (like nitrogen) and can leach out of the root zone following heavy precipitation events. Manures can contain a mix of sulfate-sulfur and organic sulfur, so around half of the sulfur from manure is available in year 1 and around half will become available in future years after it gets mineralized. If you are looking to correct a S deficiency in the short-term during the growing season, products like gypsum (calcium sulfate), AMS, or other sulfate sources are more suitable.

Recent Sulfur Application Trial Results

Since 2013, 53 field trials with S applications in corn were conducted in Ohio, primarily with grain corn and primarily using spring-applied S in forms such as gypsum, AMS, or thiosulfate. Sulfur applications typically increased S concentrations in leaf tissue and grain, but that did not always translate to yield gains—only 44% of trials showed a positive response to S. These findings suggested that S deficiency is not a widespread problem in Ohio, but some corn fields can positively respond to S fertilization. Yield increases associated with S fertilization are more common on fields that have sandy soils with low organic matter and lack a history of manure application.

These results align with more recent studies. Four on-farm trials in 2022 and 2023 were conducted in Sandusky County to evaluate silage and grain corn’s response to S fertilizer across two contrasting soil types. Grain yields were maximized with 20 lb/acre of S, but only in the sandy soil. No statistical differences were found in the clay loam soil. Silage yields did not show statistical increases in yield associated with S fertilization. This work was taken one step further by evaluating the protein and amino acid (AA) profile response to S in both corn harvested for silage and for grain. Sulfur AA (cysteine and methionine) are part of the five limiting AA for animals (cysteine, methionine, lysine, threonine, and tryptophan), and these are often supplemented in dietary rations. The largest increases in protein content related to S application was observed on sandy soils, and even small changes in protein content can have large impacts on dairy ration costs.

Identifying Sulfur Deficiencies

Identifying S-deficient corn fields can help predict which fields may have increases in yield or protein content if S fertilizer is applied. The most prominent visual symptom of S deficiency is yellowing of leaves, especially younger leaves towards the top of the plant. Vegetative corn plants may have interveinal striping patterns instead of an even yellowing across entire leaves (Figure 1). Since similar symptoms can be caused by many different conditions, a tissue test is useful for identifying S deficiency. Generally, if corn leaves have 0.16-5.0% S content, they do not have a sulfur deficiency. More information about sufficiency ranges and tissue sample collection can be found in the Ohio Agronomy Guide and the Plant Tissue Test factsheet (both are linked below).

Figure 1. Sulfur deficient corn plant during early vegetative stages in Ohio, 2025. Source: Taylor Dill, The Ohio State University.

Further Reading

Learn more about manure nutrient content at ManureDB: http://manuredb.umn.edu/

Learn more about crop removal of nutrients in the TriState Fertilizer Recommendations: https://extensionpubs.osu.edu/tri-state-fertilizer-recommendations-for-corn-soybean-wheat-and-alfalfa-pdf/?searchid=0&search_query=974

Learn more about sulfate in fertilizers from Camberato et al. (2023): https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cft2.20248

Learn more about the Ohio-Michigan Silage Test, results available from 2005 to 2022: https://u.osu.edu/perf/archive/

Learn more about plant tissue testing in the Plant Tissue Test factsheet by Greg LaBarge: https://agcrops.osu.edu/sites/agcrops/files/publication-files/Tissue%20Testing.pdf

Learn more about corn management and nutrient sufficiency ranges in the Ohio Agronomy Guide: https://extensionpubs.osu.edu/ohio-agronomy-guide-16th-edition-pdf/
Cool Tips for Managing Heat Stress in Dairy Cows

Israel Obadare, MS Graduate Student and Dr. Grazyne Tresoldi, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

As the summer approaches, dairy producers across the US are once again reminded of the importance of taking proactive steps to keep their herds cool. Effective heat stress management is essential for maintaining good animal welfare and productivity. Research shows that the impact of heat stress can extend across generations - calves born to dry cows that had access to shade only (without active cooling) have shorter lifespans and produce up to 14.3 lb/day less milk as adults. Some studies even suggest that these effects may carry into subsequent generations.

Cows naturally produce a lot of body heat from digesting feed, moving around, and making milk. While they also lose heat to their surroundings, they can gain heat from it too. To stay cool, cows adjust their behaviour (Figure 1) and body functions - but when heat builds up faster than they can get rid of it, they become uncomfortable. This leads to higher, fever-like body temperatures, poor fertility, and lower milk production.

While it’s easy to spot cows in visible distress (Figure 2), subtle signs of heat stress are often missed. Research shows cows begin seeking shade at just 61°F and start using sprinklers (soakers) around 72°F - well before most of us would consider it hot. Picking up on these early cues is essential for timely intervention. Ideally, cows should breathe fewer than 60 times per minute and lie down for 9 to 12 hr/day.

The most effective and efficient cooling strategies combine shade (outdoors), fans, and soakers (Figure 3). But simply having these tools isn’t enough - how they are managed makes all the difference. Proper placement, timing, and maintenance are critical to maximizing cooling while conserving water and energy. Many US dairy farms already use fans and soakers, yet heat-related milk losses are still common, often due to inconsistent or suboptimal use. Research shows that, in the Midwest, a well-managed cooling system typically pays for itself in under three years. Calves, heifers, and dry cows also show better performance and welfare when kept cool. Prioritizing animal comfort is vital to meeting growing consumer expectations for ethical and sustainable dairy practices.

Fans and soakers should ideally be installed together over the feed bunk, where cows spend much of their standing time. Cows cool most effectively when their bodies are soaked first and then dried by moving air - this combination promotes efficient heat loss. It takes about 30 seconds of soaking at a flow rate of 0.9 to 1.4 gal/min to thoroughly wet a cow’s coat. Nozzles can be arranged to cover three cows at a time, with overlapping spray zones for full coverage. While using more water may improve cooling, it often leads to inefficiency. Using a short soaking cycle (30 seconds), followed by 4 to 5 minutes of fan-only time accomplishes effective cooling.

To maximize airflow, fans should face the direction of prevailing winds and be slightly tilted downward so that the moving air reaches cows’ backs, where cooling is most effective, at speeds of 8 to 10 ft/sec. Fan spacing and angle depend on fan size and type. For example: 48- to 55-inch panel or basket fans should be spaced every 24 to 30 feet, while 72-inch cyclone fans may be spaced every 40 to 60 feet. If you have extra fans, consider placing them in resting areas to increase airflow and encourage cows to lie down. Research shows that air speeds of at least 3.3 ft/sec, measured about 1.6 feet above the stall surface (the height of a lying cow), can significantly improve comfort during warm weather.

Cooling in holding areas is especially important. We’ve observed spikes in body temperature when fans and soakers are turned off during afternoon milking. For pasture-based dairy farms, consider using holding pens as designated cooling areas.

Don’t wait until cows are hot - start cooling early and use automated controllers. It’s much easier to prevent rising body temperatures than to cool cows down afterward. In Midwest climates, this means your system should begin running when the temperature-humidity index (THI) is between 65 and 68, roughly 70 to 75°F with moderate humidity. To avoid forgetting, ensure consistency, and reduce water waste, use automated controllers to turn fans and sprinklers on and off as needed. Make sure temperature and humidity sensors are placed where cows actually feel the heat, such as at cow height in the holding or resting areas - not near an office or breezy walkway.

Clean, fresh drinking water is equally important to all the strategies discussed above. Water intake increases during warm weather, so ensure access is easy and plentiful. Keep troughs clean, shaded when possible, and place them near resting, feeding, and exit areas to minimize walking distance.

Taking a few extra steps now can make a big difference all summer long. By fine-tuning your cooling strategies, you can improve animal welfare, boost productivity, and conserve water and energy.

Free Assessment

As part of our research, we’re offering a free, on-farm heat stress assessment to help you evaluate how your current cooling practices are performing, while also allowing us to benchmark the effectiveness of cooling strategies across Midwest dairy farms. Interested in participating? Visit https://go.osu.edu/awer_dairy, call (614) 292-5248 or email us to learn more!

Figure 1. Cows crowding under shade is a sign they’re warm. Increasing shade availability helps reduce their overall heat load. Pasture-based system in the Sacramento Valley, California (Source: G. Tresoldi).

Figure 2. Open-mouth panting is a clear sign that cows are struggling to cope with heat and likely have elevated body temperatures. Cross-ventilated barn in southeast Brazil (Source: G. Tresoldi).

Figure 3. The most effective and efficient cooling strategies combine shade, fans, and soakers. However, it's not just about having these tools—proper management is what truly makes them work. Free-stall system in the Central Valley, California
(Source: G. Tresoldi).

References:

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-021-00666-7

https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17351

https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18154

https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1422937

https://doi.org/10.56169/NFGC1866

https://thedairylandinitiative.vetmed.wisc.edu/home/housing-module/adult-cow-housing/ventilation-and-heat-abatement/
Tackling Heat Stress with Precision: The Role of Technology in Dairy Cow Welfare and Production

Lyndsay Ritzler, MS Student and Dr. Grazyne Tresoldi, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Heat stress is a challenge that affects dairy cow welfare and production across the United States. With global temperatures on the rise and cows bred for higher milk yields, preventing and managing heat stress is more critical than ever. Fortunately, new tools are emerging to help producers monitor their animals and act early —part of a growing field known as precision livestock farming (PLF), which uses automated technologies in animal agriculture. These tools have become increasingly popular in recent years, thanks to advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning, making it easier to analyze large volumes of data. As a result, more companies are offering affordable, farm-ready technology to monitor cow health, production, reproduction, behavior, and the environment.

A wide range of precision tools is now available in dairy production, including collars, rumen boluses, pedometers, ear tags, and automated feeding systems. Brands like AfiMilk, MooMonitor+, CowMed, AllFlex/SCR, Lely, CowScout, Farmfit, CowManager, Grow Safe, RumiWatch, SmaXtec, and Nedap offer systems that track activity, feeding behavior, and body temperature—three key areas for early detection of heat stress. While many of these products are marketed for profitability, producers should carefully consider how accurate the data are, whether it applies to their specific herd, and most importantly, whether they can use the information to guide day-to-day decisions.

Activity Tracking

Changes in cow behavior are often early signs of heat stress. For example, cows tend to lie down and move less, often spending more time standing idle as they try to cope with the heat. Activity is typically tracked by using pedometers on the leg or sensors built into collars and ear tags. The AfiAct II (Figure 1), for instance, is a popular pedometer validated by multiple studies, though some studies report it may overestimate step counts (Borchers et al., 2016; Marques et al., 2024). Rumination collars track a range of measures, including rumination and lying time. A noticeable drop in lying behavior or rumination could signal early signs of heat stress and warrant closer attention.

Feed Intake and Behavior

Another key indicator of heat stress is a drop in feed intake or eating time. Systems like Grow Safe and Lely can track individual feed and water intake in real time, but their use on farms is still limited. More accessible tools include collars (Leso et al., 2021; Figure 2) that monitor rumination, since less chewing can signal lower intake—though rumination isn’t a perfect stand-in for consumption. Some ear tags, like CowManager (Figure 3), estimate eating time, but results vary. Collars also track feeding behavior, and while exact timing may be off, trends in eating time generally reflect changes in intake. RumiWatch noseband sensors aim to measure intake directly, though they’re more accurate for tracking rumination than actual feeding (Ruuska et al., 2016). While cows may eat less during the hottest hours, consistent intake over 24 hours is key. Tracking feeding patterns can help catch problems early.

Body Temperature Monitoring

One of the clearest signs of heat stress is a rise in core body temperature. Several rumen boluses on the market (e.g., SmaXtec) track internal temperature and have been validated in independent studies. However, because rumen readings can be influenced by feed and water intake—especially cold drinking water—producers should interpret them with caution. Some ear tags now include temperature sensors and offer additional insight, though they may still fall short of capturing true core temperature. Vaginal temperature remains the gold standard, but no commercial system currently provides continuous real-time data. Ideally, cows should maintain a body temperature at or below 102°F to avoid the negative effects of heat stress.

Balancing Costs and Practical Use

While the benefits of precision technologies are promising, adoption still depends on cost, ease of use, and how well the tools fit your farm’s needs. In regions like the Midwest, heat stress can cost producers up to $99/cow/year – losses that add up quickly in even mid-sized herds.

When considering a new system, ask yourself whether the data are accurate, whether it benefits your specific herd, and most importantly, whether it can support daily decision-making. In many cases, producers may already be using tools, like collars for reproduction or health monitoring, that can also help flag early signs of heat stress. Making full use of these existing systems can be a cost-effective first step. The right tool is the one that provides clear, useful insights for your cows and your conditions, helping you protect both welfare and production when the heat is on.

Why it Matters

Heat stress affects more than just milk yield – it compromises cow comfort, health, and overall well-being. PLF tools give producers a way to monitor behavior, feeding, and body temperature in real time, making it easier to respond early and prevent bigger losses. This not only supports production goals but also helps improve the overall quality of life for cows, strengthening both the economic and ethical foundation of dairy farming.

References:

Borchers, M. R., Chang, Y. M., Tsai, I. C., Wadsworth, B. A., and Bewley, J. M. 2016. A validation of technologies monitoring dairy cow feeding, ruminating, and lying behaviors. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(9), 7458–7466. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10843

Leso, L., Becciolini, V., Rossi, G., Camiciottoli, S., and Barbari, M. 2021. Validation of a commercial collar-based sensor for monitoring eating and ruminating behaviour of dairy cows. Animals, 11(10), 2852. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102852

Marques, J. C. S., Burnett, T. A., Denis-Robichaud, J., Madureira, A. M. L., and Cerri, R. L. A. 2024. Validation of a leg-mounted pedometer for the measurement of steps in lactating Holstein cows. JDS Communications, 5(1), 67–71. https://doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2023-0403

Ruuska, S., Kajava, S., Mughal, M., Zehner, N., and Mononen, J. 2016. Validation of a pressure sensor-based system for measuring eating, rumination and drinking behaviour of dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 174, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.005

Figure 1. AfiMilk brand pedometer (AfiAct II) mounted on a cow’s
leg to monitor activity levels (Source: afimilk.com)

Figure 2. Allflex Heatime HR collar being used on a free stall dairy farm
(Source: G. Tresoldi).

Figure 3. CowManager ear sensor attached to the ear of an animal
(Source: cowmanager.com)
The Protect One Health in Ohio Initiative
Dr. Alecia Naugle, Professor and Chair, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Many rural areas across Ohio and the United States have limited or no veterinary services for livestock and horses. These gaps in service directly impact the health and welfare of animals, and weaken surveillance for infectious diseases, increase the potential for zoonotic diseases in people, and compromise food safety and security. Without intervention, Ohio and Ohio's agriculture industry is at risk.

Ohioans rely on food animal and equine veterinarians to safeguard our robust $125 billion agriculture industry. Unfortunately, nearly 1/3 of Ohio's counties are USDA-designated rural veterinary shortage areas and research indicates an overall shortage of 600 to 1,000 veterinarians in Ohio by 2030. Gaps in our veterinary workforce will exacerbate challenges in animal and human health, particularly in rural areas where veterinary access is already limited.

The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine, the only veterinary college in Ohio, is essential to expanding Ohio’s veterinary workforce that protects our economy, promotes food safety, and prevents infectious disease outbreaks in animals and people. The college is requesting an additional $15 million per year over the FY 2026-2027 biennium to help launch Protect One Health in Ohio (OHIO).

The Protect OHIO initiative has three pillars with specific goals for each (Figure 1):
- Educate more Ohio veterinarians to serve rural and large animal needs
  - Enroll up to 35 more Ohio students per class year.
  - Enhance student education, mentoring and other support programs by adding additional faculty and staff.
  - Expand large animal hands-on training and rural community immersion opportunities.
- Mentor and support large animal and rural veterinarians
  - Build a pipeline of Ohio students interested in careers in large animal and rural veterinary medicine by partnering with schools and youth development programs like 4-H and FFA.
  - Provide scholarships for veterinary students interested in rural practice.
  - Collaborate with rural communities to create financial incentives to recruit graduates and support sustainable veterinary practices.
- Establish an Emerging Infectious Disease Center
  - Expand proactive research on top-priority diseases for animal agriculture in Ohio.
  - Strengthen disease monitoring and risk assessment to detect and respond to threats early.
  - Work with Ohio producers to support best practices that reduce disease transmission risks.
Partnerships are essential to the success of Protect OHIO. Through building connections and relationships with individuals, organizations, and communities, we will design and deliver programs that encourage and incentivize students to enter veterinary medicine and animal science fields and return to large animal practices and other related jobs in rural Ohio. The College of Veterinary Medicine will:
- Collaborate with the College of Food Agriculture and Environmental Sciences and OSU Extension.
- Engage with Ohio’s agricultural and livestock commodity organizations, including producers, veterinarians, and rural communities. Examples include Ohio Cattlemen’s Association, Ohio Dairy Producers Association, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Pork Council, Ohio Poultry Association, and Ohio Sheep Improvement Association.
- Develop relationships with rural communities and their civic organizations to explore innovative models for practice ownership and financing to enhance recruitment and retention.
- Engage funding agencies focused on workforce development in rural communities, such as Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, American Farm Bureau Federation, Farm Journal Foundation, and JobsOhio.
- Create a network of large animal veterinarians in Ohio and engage them in veterinary student mentoring and externship programs.
- Develop curricula, experiential learning activities, and career exploration materials for guidance counselors in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Education, public schools, and youth agricultural programs, including 4-H and FFA. 
The Ohio Senate is currently deliberating the state operating budget, House Bill 96, which includes funding to support the Protect OHIO initiative. The legislature is expected to agree on the final version of the budget by late June, where it will then go to Governor DeWine to sign the bill with any line item vetoes by June 30.

To learn how you can advocate for this important initiative, visit the Buckeye Government Advocates website.
Joe Miley – 2025 Recipient of the Dairy Science Hall of Service

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University
In 1952, The Dairy Hall of Service was formed at The Ohio State University to recognize individuals who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at OSU. The 2025 recipient is Joe Miley, a dairy farmer from West Salem, OH. He was recognized on Friday, April 11 during the annual banquet of the Buckeye Dairy Club held at the Fawcett Center on the Columbus campus.

After graduating from The Ohio State University in 1982 with a degree in dairy science, Joe returned to the farm and began his career as a successful purebred dairy cattle breeder. He has provided service and leadership to many leading dairy organizations. He has been a member of the Ohio Holstein Association for more than 30 years, having served as president, treasurer, District 7 Board representative and sale chair, as well as a member of several other committees. He has served as a delegate to the National Holstein Convention many times and has participated in many district, state, and national shows over the last 40 years. Joe was honored with the Ohio Holstein Association Distinguished Service Award and both the Junior and Senior Buckeye Breed Builder Awards.

He was elected in 2011 to the Board of Directors for the Ohio Dairy Producers Association (ODPA), the advocacy organization for Ohio’s dairy farm families. His leadership was quickly recognized, having served as chair of the ODPA Board since 2015. As a representative of ODPA, he volunteered his time to the Dairy Sub-Committee of the Ohio Care Livestock Standards Board during 2011-2012. On behalf of ODPA, he serves on the Ohio Dairy Research Fund Committee and the OSU Waterman Dairy Planning Committee.

In 2018, Joe was elected by dairy farmers to serve on the American Dairy Association Mideast Board of Directors to provide direction for the dairy promotion checkoff program. He has served as treasurer of the ADA Mideast Board since 2020. He also served as chair for the Smith Dairy Advisory Board for several years.

Joe has a passion for developing tomorrow's dairy student leaders. He and his wife, Diana, served as Ohio Junior Holstein advisors when their children were involved and as 4-H advisors to the Cream of the Crop 4-H Club for 10 years. Joe helped coach and host dairy judging practices for the Wayne County teams for many years, and today, he continues to host Ohio State ATI dairy judging classes and teams.

Joe is highly respected for his commonsense approach, his desire for progress of the dairy industry, his steady hand at leadership, and his great working relationship with the organizations he serves. He and his family are also well known throughout the state for success of the Miley dairy farm. Based on his service to the dairy industry, leadership to dairy organizations, and his commitment to Ohio State programs, Joe Miley is most deserving as a recipient of the Dairy Science Hall of Service award.
The North American Manure Expo Comes to Wauseon, Ohio

Dr. Glen Arnold, Field Specialist, Manure Nutrient Management, Ohio State University Extension

The North American Manure Expo is coming to Ohio this summer on July 30^th and 31^st at the Fulton County Fairgrounds. Starting in 2001, this event was created to showcase research, innovation, and solutions found within manure management. The event brings manure haulers, applicators, brokers, nutrient management specialists, researchers, producers, manufacturers, custom operators, and Extension personnel together for two days of learning, networking, and evaluation of new technology, research, equipment, and opportunities. Over the two days, we have an industry trade show, live demonstrations, and educational sessions.

The first morning of the Expo is dedicated to tours that showcase innovative manure solutions. Attendees can purchase tickets on-line to one of the four tours:

Tour #1: Andre Farms & Stuckey Farms – visit one of Ohio’s largest Class II EPA composting facilities, followed by a beef and grain operation that will showcase how they have gotten more out of compost through a variety of projects.

Tour #2: Bridgewater Dairy – see how this farm is leading the way in manure management and renewable energy. Tour guests will see their new methane digester, manure irrigation system, and a manure pipeline, followed by hearing about their long-term approach to sustainability.

Tour #3: Precision manure irrigation – See the Rain360 irrigation system in action. Farmers and experts will cover the systems real-world performance, economic benefits and environmental advantages.

Tour #4: Seiler Farms – This tour will showcase innovative water management practices, including a two-stage ditch, a proven method for improving drainage, reducing nutrient runoff, and enhancing water quality. See how they protect water resources while maintaining crop production.

Day one also includes manure pond agitation demonstrations with boats and sticks at a nearby dairy farm, manure separation demos, rapid manure transfer from tankers to frac tanks demonstrations, confined space safety training, and the always popular pressurized hose release safety demonstration.

Day two of the Expo kicks off with 16 educational sessions in the morning. These are followed by both solid and liquid manure tanker and drag hose application demonstrations and a manure spill containment and stream water restoration demonstration.

Exhibitors will have booths in the trade show both days, featuring new and manure innovative technology so you can visit and learn from these equipment makers. Puck will once again have their always-well-attended pump school.

Attendees can register online to join a tour or access to the Expo grounds for both days. For the full schedule, information on the educational sessions, registration information, and to purchase tour tickets, visit ManureExpo.com.
Dairy Palooza 2025

Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Dairy Palooza is a unique youth program offered every spring. To our knowledge, it is a “one of a kind” opportunity to include quality assurance (QA) training and educational workshops combined in the same day with live cattle included. In fact, this year three states were represented on April 26^th at the Canfield fairgrounds and facilities with over 300 in attendance. Our sponsors are generous, and banners of appreciation decorate the main facility. Our registration fees are minimal and yet the rewards include a rope halter, a variety of dairy foods, t-shirts, and plenty of printed material.

The morning focus includes training on the Good Production Practices and also time is spent learning how to author a thank you. After a break for lunch, the afternoon hosts a variety of current workshops with timely information about clipping, fitting and feeding dairy projects, showmanship, basics of care, health, nutrition of heifers and cows, pedigrees, and marketing, plus the science of dairy products. The goal is to spend time reinforcing what is learned in QA and then apply it to the dairy project and the book that will need completion. A special Cloverbuds program is offered with many activities that are relevant for the age group.

Nothing would ever be possible without a corps of volunteers and enthusiasts who keep the day MOOving along and making sure everyone has a place to learn and even experiment.

The day is planned and coordinated by a committee. Input is welcomed and appreciated. For more details on the program, sponsors, and content, please visit www.dairypalooza.com or our FACEBOOK page, Ohio Dairy Palooza.

In 2026, the event returns to the Wayne County Fairgrounds with the same goal of reaching out to dairy youth and sustaining their involvement within the industry.
Help Shape the Future of Extension Communication!

Dara Barclay, Instructor, Department of Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership, The Ohio State University

Are you a reader or regular visitor of Ohio State University Extension websites or blogs? We want to hear your experience!

A team of researchers at The Ohio State University is exploring how digital platforms - like those used by OSU Extension - can better serve you and your community. By sharing your feedback, you'll help us enhance the quality, accessibility, and impact of Extension information. Thank you for your support strengthening communication in CFAES!

Take the short survey here:

https://osu.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_89bqXTpeh5q8ayi

We value your time and privacy. That's why this survey takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete, and your responses are confidential. Data collected will be solely used for academic research purposes.

Dairy Dollars: Feed Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Milk Income

Andie Majewski, Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Despite its frequent fluctuation, feed remains the largest cost of production on dairy farms. Recently, the overall cost of feedstuffs has decreased in Ohio. In the month of March, the average cost of soybean meal (48% CP) decreased by about 7%, while the cost of whole roasted soybeans decreased by 9% (Figure 1). This is significant as soybeans are a commonly fed protein source for animals of all stages of growth and production on dairy farms. These slight changes in the cost of feedstuffs can directly impact the income over feed costs for dairy procedures.

Figure 1. Percent change of the actual cost of 21 feedstuffs fed on Ohio dairy farms from January 27, 2025, to March 26, 2025. Feedstuffs that decreased in price since the previous issue are shown in green, while those that increased in price are colored red. The cost of corn silage did not change since January, as it is priced on a biannual basis.

Figure 2. Actual and predicted cost of feedstuffs with 75% confidence interval (CI) of 21 feed commodities fed on Ohio Dairy Farms; March 26, 2025. Feedstuffs that are priced above the upper prediction price limit are overpriced (red bars). Feedstuffs that fall within the upper and lower limits of the predicted prices are breakeven feeds (grey bars). Feedstuffs that are priced below the lower prediction price limit are considered a bargain (green bars).

Economic Value of Feeds

Figure 2 displays the costs for the 21 reported commodities in Ohio. These results were produced by SESAME^TM for the central Ohio region on March 26, 2025. In simple terms, Figure 2 represents the bargain feedstuffs (green), the overpriced feedstuffs (red), and the breakeven feedstuffs (grey). This month, the prices of many commodities fall within their expected range. However, dried distillers grain and corn gluten feed are generally bargains, while canola meal, blood meal, and whole roasted soybeans are generally overpriced. Remember, these prices and estimates are from a point in time and their economic classification may change from what is reported. While it is important to consider the costs of feedstuffs when formulating a ration, the prices are not the only thing that should be considered. Some of the “bargain” priced commodities may have a place in a dairy cattle ration, though it is important to consider the investment opportunity that may arise by feeding “overpriced” feedstuffs.

The appraisal set, shown in Table 1, predicts the prices for the commodities that did not have a current local price. These commodity prices were predicted by SESAME^TM and represent the estimated value at one specific point in time and are therefore subject to change. These values may be used as a benchmark if you’re considering purchasing these ingredients for your dairy farm.

Table 1. Estimated feedstuffs prices not reported for Ohio, March 26, 2025.

Feedstuffs	Estimated price with 75% CI¹
Alfalfa hay – 32% NDF², 24% CP³, 190% RFV⁴, $/ton	210 (194 - 228)
Alfalfa hay – 36% NDF, 22% CP, 170% RFV, $/ton	215 (197 - 234)
Alfalfa hay – 44% NDF, 18% CP,130 RFV, $/ton	221 (198 - 245)
Alfalfa hay – 48% NDF, 16% CP, 110% RFV, $/ton	224 (198 - 251)
Bakery byproduct meal, $/ton	129 (106 – 152)
Beet sugar pulp, dried, $/ton	189 (174 - 205)
Citrus pulp dried, $/ton	129 ( 115 – 143)
Fish menhaden meal, mech., $/ton	544 (521 – 568)
Molasses, sugarcane, $/ton	84 (65 - 104)
Tallow, $/ton	205 (127 – 284)
¹Confidence Interval ²Neutral detergent fiber ³Crude protein ⁴Relative Feed Value

Feed Nutrient Prices

Since our January issue, the cost of net energy of lactation (NE_L) decreased by about half of its previous cost, though the cost of metabolizable protein (MP) increased by about 10% in March. The cost of physically effective fiber (e-NDF) increased by 24%. Values of nutrients are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Prices of nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2025, compared to January 27, 2025.

Milk and Milk Component Prices

In the month of January, the ending Class III milk price was $18.62/cwt, but it has since increased to $20.18/cwt. The price for fat in milk decreased by about $0.10/lb since the previous issue and is currently $2.82/lb. The price for protein increased by $0.57/lb, resulting in it being $2.53/lb in the month of March.

The Cow-Jones Index estimates the profitability of milk production, considering factors including the nutrient input costs displayed in Table 2, cow production metrics, and the current milk and component prices which are shown in Table 3. The prediction formula uses a 1500 lb cow, producing milk with 4.09% fat and 3.22% protein. This month, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 85 and 70 lb/day is about $15.52 and $15.06 /cwt, respectively. Both estimates are expected to be profitable, despite not including factors such as replacement and cull cows in the herd.

Table 3. Prices of milk and milk components, sourced from the Federal Marketing Order 33, for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2025, compared to January 27, 2025.

In a slight change of course since the previous issue, the decreased feed costs and elevated milk price for class III milk and milk components have led to a reduced cost of production in the month of March for Ohio dairy farmers.

How Grain Source Plays in to Ration Strategies

Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Introduction

Cereal grains are an affordable and readily available energy source for dairy cattle because they contain greater concentrations of starch than forages which results in more digestible energy for the cow.

Its important to understand one key concept – not all starch is the same. The starch within cereal grains behaves differently depending on the grain type. This article will highlight the different things to keep in mind when feeding or selecting grains to feed in your dairy cattle rations.

1. Corn is less fermentable than barley, wheat, or oats.

Corn is the most prominent grain fed in dairy cattle rations; this is especially so in diets that include corn silage as the main, or sole, forage source. About 75% of the starch from corn is degraded in the rumen of cattle while starch from barley, wheat, or oats ranges from 80 to 93% rumen degradable.

Figure 1. The rumen degradability of different grain sources. Adapted from Huntington, 1997.

Why is starch degradability important to consider when formulating rations? The greater the rumen degradability of the starch, the greater risk of reduced rumen pH and ruminal acidosis which can depress fiber digestibility. Thus, a more rumen-fermentable starch source like wheat or oats will likely have a greater impact on the rumen environment than a less fermentable starch source like corn. These subtle differences must be factored in when balancing a ration.

2. Vitreousness of the grain effects fermentability.

What the heck is vitreousness? Vitreousness is the level of protein encapsulation of the starch within the grain. Floury grain has a white, opaque appearance, while vitreous grain (meaning “glass like”) has a yellow and glassy appearance. As the vitreousness (or protein encapsulation) of grain increases, the rumen digestibility of the grain steadily decreases which has been observed consistently in research.

How can you measure vitreousness? The kernel must be manually dissected to determine the percentage of vitreousness. Another measure that correlates with vitreousness is kernel density. As kernel density increases, vitreousness increases too. A denser grain will likely have reduced ruminal starch degradability. If you’re feeding a highly vitreous grain, you may be able to feed additional grain without risking ruminal acidosis because its rumen fermentability will be lower.

3. More fermentable grain → reduce total dietary starch to reduce ruminal acidosis risk

If you’re considering switching from less fermentable to more fermentable sources of grain (i.e. from corn to wheat), then you may need to adjust your overall ration. All other things being equal, you may want to reduce total dietary starch in this situation because the more fermentable starch source will more severely reduce rumen pH which increases the risk of ruminal acidosis and reduced fiber digestibility.

When you’re switching grain sources, keep an eye on manure scores, milk fat percentage, milk urea nitrogen, and feed intakes to make sure you’re not running into rumen problems. This is another way to enhance the use of technology like rumination collars or rumen boluses which can monitor rumen pH and rumination times. If either are reduced when changing grains in the diet, you may want to adjust the ration accordingly because ruminal acidosis may be occurring.

Conclusions

Providing fermentable starch from grain is a great strategy to deliver digestible energy to dairy cows in an affordable manner, but don’t forget that each grain source is unique. Corn is a moderately fermentable source of starch; if you switch from corn to oats, wheat, or barley, you may want to consider reducing the dietary starch concentration. Also, the vitreousness and maturity of the grain also play a role in starch fermentability. Pay close attention to the grain you’re feeding and make sure the cows and the rumens can handle it.
Inflammation: Complex Physiological Processes

Elizabeth Plunkett, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Inflammation is traditionally defined as "a local response to cellular injury that is marked by capillary dilation, leukocytic infiltration, redness, heat, and pain and that serves as a mechanism initiating the elimination of noxious agents and damaged tissue" (Merriam-Webster). While this definition highlights inflammation's core features, it fails to capture the complexity of this physiological process. To understand inflammation’s role in health and disease, we must acknowledge its nuance and understand its overall goal.

The ultimate goal of the inflammatory process is to restore homeostasis. Although the inflammatory response can be launched to neutralize the initial stimulus, normal tissue may be an unsuspecting casualty during this effort. Inflammation is necessary to create an environment to eliminate the stimulus, but unfortunately, many of the initial host responses also damage host tissue during the process. The absence of effective homeostasis creates an opportunity for sustained inflammation to develop into a chronic inflammatory state and ultimately tissue pathology, resulting in impaired tissue function. It is often tempting to label inflammation as inherently harmful, especially given its historical association with disease. However, this simplification overlooks inflammation’s role in normal physiological processes.

The immune system is complex and plays a key role in coordinating responses to maintain homeostasis. Yet, when it is improperly regulated or repeatedly triggered, inflammation can become maladaptive, resulting in chronic inflammatory states and disease susceptibility. A comprehensive understanding of inflammation requires recognizing its sophistication. While inflammation is frequently studied in pathological contexts, it also plays essential roles in maintaining health. By focusing on its physiological functions, we can better differentiate between beneficial and detrimental inflammatory responses. How we assess inflammation and confront inflammation is approached differently by scientists and veterinarians.

A Scientist’s Perspective:

Inflammation is often exacerbated during critical periods, such as the transition period, when animals are faced with marked physiological changes. The cow gives birth, changes pens, is fed a new ration, and must successfully navigate the biggest homeorhetic adjustment of her lifetime, lactation. The cow is charged to do this for multiple lactations. Additionally, during this time, we often forget about the other physiological adjustments and tissue changes that are occurring (e.g., uterine involution). Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, emphasizes the importance of minimizing stressors during this time. “Every insult during a cow’s life cycle matters, and we need to do everything in our power to not cause repeated insults. By stacking stressors, we are compromising our first line of defense, which makes the job of the second line of defense more challenging,” he said. Continued pressure on initial defenses leads to the introduction of opportunistic pathogens during a time of altered immune function (e.g., transition period), further amplifying inflammatory conditions.

Dr. Krogstad further went on to state, “We must think about the whole system and that inflammation results from different signals.” The stimulatory agent initiating the inflammatory cascade sets the stage for the magnitude of inflammation and subsequent outcomes. For example, E. coli mastitis cases are often acute and severe, while Staph. aureus mastitis is known to be more persistent and chronic. Identifying and understanding how different stimuli initiate inflammatory processes is important, especially when studying chronic inflammation as a pathology. Chronic inflammation is a buzzword in both human and animal sciences, as its impact can lead to unfavorable phenotypes for both. “Chronic inflammation accompanies malfunctioning tissue,” he highlighted. Normal tissue changes can trigger normal physiological inflammation (e.g., leukocyte infiltration of the uterus following calving to initiate uterine involution). In this context, inflammation is a normal and necessary physiology; however, repeated insults, new insults, or tissue maladaptation during this time can create a state of chronic, unresolved inflammation with pathological presentation. Krogstad concluded our discussion by stressing that, “Inflammation is too general a term and we must acknowledge the nuance.” Only when we can identify the constraints of assigning a generalized definition to a process we have yet to fully elucidate, can we progress in our understanding of how to manage it more effectively.

A Veterinarian’s Approach:

Dr. Shaun Wellert, DVM, MS, DACVPM, Assistant Professor, Agricultural Technical Institute, highlights the complexities involved in deciding when to treat and when to let inflammatory processes run their course. “When deciding treatment, we need to think about what the withdrawal periods are, side effects, ease of administration, and whether it is going to help,” he states. Additionally, he emphasized, “animal welfare is a major factor in treatment decision-making.” If the animal is in pain and we know the inflammation occurring will do lasting damage, then treatment is a priority. He also highlighted the importance of being proactive with anti-inflammatory treatments before dehorning, castration, surgery, etc. It is also important to note that the physiological state of the cow (e.g., early or late lactation) can be a driving factor dictating nutrient usage and distribution by the host and the immune system. Therefore, recognizing the stage of life for the cow can affect outcomes and should influence treatment decisions.

The challenge of managing and treating inflammation lies in its context-dependent nature. However, identifying the root cause of why inflammation is occurring is where our resolution resides. “Inflammation is the manifestation of disease, and we need to identify the cause,” he said. Over the years, we have begun to identify many management strategies that reduce stress and inflammation during critical time points in a cow’s life (e.g., gradual weaning of calves). While this area of research is growing each day and drawing more conclusions, we need to be mindful of our interpretation of the results. We have spent too long studying inflammation as a pathology that we have inadvertently removed it from physiology. Inflammation is not inherently a pathology but rather a physiology that has a large pathological potential if left unchecked. Furthermore, Dr. Wellert emphasized that “Inflammation does not happen in a vacuum”, meaning that inflammation does not occur in isolation or without any external influences or context.

Eliminating every possible risk that could cause adverse physiology in a dairy cow is untenable. Sometimes, cows just get sick. But, limiting insult occurrence and duration is a step in the right direction. It is important to note that not all inflammation should be viewed as ‘bad’ inflammation. Inflammation can be a normal physiological process that is necessary for tissue to change and adapt. However, physiological inflammation that occurs during normal tissue changes leaves the host vulnerable to internal and external risks that have the potential to turn inflammation into a pathology. Inflammation can also be the manifestation of disease, meaning it is an indicator or symptom of disease affecting the body, but it is not the disease itself. When identifying treatment strategies, animal welfare should be considered; still, anti-inflammatory treatments often suppress symptoms (e.g., inflammation) and cannot be assumed to ‘fix’ the underlying issue. Targeting the root cause of inflammation should be the ultimate plan for managing the negative outcomes that can result if left unchecked. As our understanding of inflammation evolves, it is essential to reconsider outdated views and embrace the complexity of this physiological process. Only by acknowledging inflammation’s nuance can we leave behind our reductionist mindset and approach dogma and new findings with a questioning, holistic attitude.

The author appreciates the valuable insights shared by Dr. Kirby Krogstad and Dr. Shaun Wellert, faculty at Ohio State University.

Disclaimer: This article is intended to explain and inform readers about some common physiological responses observed in ill lactating cows. It does not constitute veterinary advice or recommendations for treating animals. For specific concerns and treatment plans, please consult a licensed veterinarian.
Understanding the Risk of Salmonella Dublin in Dairy-Beef Operations

Alejandra Arevalo-Mayorga, Sam Locke, Andreia Arruda, and Greg Habing, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

What is Salmonella Dublin?

Salmonella Dublin (S. Dublin) is an emerging concern in dairy and dairy-beef operations. This bacteria primarily affects cattle but can also pose risks to human health. Unlike other strains of Salmonella, S. Dublin often causes invasive systemic infections, leading to high levels of death loss in calves, chronic carrier states, and economic losses in dairy and dairy-beef operations.

How Prevalent is Salmonella Dublin in Dairy-Beef Farms?

The prevalence of S. Dublin in dairy-beef farms, along with key risk factors associated with its detection, was examined between June 2023 and November 2024 across 63 dairy-beef farms in seven states (Figure 1). The One Herd Lab at Ohio State University (OSU) collaborated with veterinary clinics to conduct a survey assessing farm demographics, herd management, calf movement, and biosecurity practices. Additionally, environmental samples (up to seven boot swabs per farm) were collected from calf housing areas, including pre-weaned alleys, milk mixing rooms, and post-weaned pens. These samples were analyzed using multiplex PCR to detect S. Dublin.

Figure 1. This map illustrates the county-level distribution of 63 dairy-beef farms enrolled in the study. The size of each red dot represents the number of farms in that location, with larger dots indicating a higher concentration of sampled farms. Neighboring states are grouped into three categories for regional analysis: Indiana-Ohio-New York (blue), Iowa-Wisconsin (purple), and Kansas-Missouri (green).

S. Dublin was detected in 33.3% of dairy-beef farms (21 out of 63 farms surveyed), with 19.8% of environmental samples (48 out of 243) testing positive. In most positive farms (56.5%; 12 out of 23), only one environmental sample tested positive.

Additionally, S. Dublin was consistently detected across different sample locations, with approximately 20% of samples from pre-weaned calf alleyways, milk mixing rooms, and post-weaned pens testing positive (Figure 2). This finding highlights widespread environmental contamination within operations, emphasizing the need for effective management strategies to reduce pathogen spread.

Figure 2. Prevalence of S. Dublin in dairy-beef farms by PCR at both the farm level (red bar), sample level (grey bar), and across different environmental sampling locations (outlined bars).

What Are the Risk Factors Associated with S. Dublin Detection?

The study found that frequent calf introductions and purchasing animals from auctions or calf dealers were the two biggest risk factors for S. Dublin in dairy-beef farms.

Farms that bring in new calves more often—specifically, every 9 weeks or less—had twice the risk of detecting S. Dublin compared to farms that introduce calves less frequently. About 32% of farms that brought in new calves frequently tested positive for S. Dublin, compared to 18% of farms that introduced calves less often.

Farms that buy calves from auctions were 1.5 times more likely to detect S. Dublin compared to farms that purchase directly from local dairy farms. Specifically, about 22% of farms sourcing calves from auctions tested positive, whereas farms with local dairy-sourced had a lower risk. This indicates that calves from auctions or dealers may carry a higher risk of introducing S. Dublin onto the operation.

Regardless of management practices or biosecurity measures, our study did not find a clear link between S. Dublin detection and factors such as farm type (pre-weaned only, post-weaned only, or both), calf age at weaning or exit, continuous vs. all-in/all-out calf flow, downtime between groups, farm size, or geographic location.

This does not necessarily mean these factors have no effect—it is possible that our sample size was not large enough to detect a relationship. In fact, some of the practices, including managing in an all-in-all-out pattern, are well known to reduce the risk for some pathogens. Further research is needed to better understand how these factors might contribute to S. Dublin transmission.

How Can Dairy Producers Reduce the Risk of Salmonella Dublin?

While changing the timing of new calf introductions may not be practical, limiting direct contact between calves from different sources, along with thorough health monitoring, can help reduce S. Dublin transmission. Whenever possible, selective calf sourcing is recommended—purchasing calves from trusted suppliers with known health histories can significantly lower the risk of introducing S. Dublin into your operation. Additionally, enhancing farm biosecurity is key to preventing environmental contamination. This includes maintaining proper cleaning and disinfection of calf housing areas, using separate protective equipment for different age groups, and ensuring that workers handling young calves follow strict hygiene protocols. Implementing these measures collectively strengthens disease prevention and improves overall herd health.

Final Thoughts for Ohio Dairy Farmers

Salmonella Dublin remains an important health and management challenge for dairy and dairy-beef producers. While completely eliminating the risk is difficult, implementing better sourcing decisions, improving calf introduction strategies, and biosecurity measures can significantly reduce its impact.

For more information on S. Dublin, contact Dr. Greg Habing, habing.4@osu.edu.
H5N1 in Current Dairy Issues

Jason Hartschuh, Assistant Professor, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University

The past 12 months have been an interesting time of challenges and learning about how a virus such as H5N1 moves from avian species into dairy cattle and how the virus affects dairy cows, spreading from farm to farm and even to farm workers. Since the outbreak began, over 989 confirmed farms have reported outbreaks in 17 states. Luckily, there was only one confirmed case on a dairy farm in Ohio. The majority of these cases were linked to one movement of the virus from avian to dairy cows. However, in the last few months, there have been three additional instances of new transmissions from avian to dairy cattle.

In addition to its impact on dairy cows, research has also been conducted on food safety. The initial studies focused on the use of pasteurization to deactivate the H5N1 virus shed in milk, demonstrating that pasteurization is an effective tool for keeping everyone safe. However, a recent study found that aged raw milk cheese may still contain the virus that is capable of causing infection. Lower pH values deactivated some of the virus but not all of it. More details on this study and the others on dairy food safety can be found here: https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-information/investigat...

While there are still many unknowns about H5N1 in dairy cows, we do know that on-farm biosecurity measures are crucial in preventing the spread between farms and between cows and farm workers. A team of Extension personnel from across the country has been working with the National Extension Foundation to create a resource center for farm owners and farm workers regarding H5N1 in dairy cows: https://h5n1.extension.org/ These resources include biosecurity information and information about disease detection.

H5N1 requires a different style of educational messaging than most topics we discuss with dairy farm workers. To improve the messaging around H5N1 and develop future educational resources for farm workers, a group of Extension professionals from Washington State University will visit Ohio for the first two weeks of April to interview farm workers and learn about their responses to these resources. If you are interested in helping to create better messaging materials, see the information below about this program. Participants can either come to a local Extension office, or if 5 people from the farm are interested in participating in this project, they will come directly to the farm. For more information on the message testing in both English and Spanish see below:

Dear Dairy Farm Owner,

I’m reaching out to seek your support in a unique project focused on testing and developing messages about risks that the H5N1 Avian Flu virus presents to dairy farms. The objective of this project is to gain practical insights that can guide the production of messages that most effectively resonate with and empower dairy farm producers and workers to take science-based action to protect their farms.

The H5N1 virus poses real threats to the financial and physical health of dairy farms. Unfortunately, this virus has moved into dairy cattle through three separate transmissions from birds to dairy cows increasing the risk even more than previously predicted. This project is part of an on-going effort to effectively communicate with dairy farmers about the importance of taking action to protect farms against the financial and physical health risks to animals and humans due to the spread of the H5N1 virus.

This project involves Neuromarketing based testing. Neuromarketing is a unique method for using brain science to inform the design of effective messages. Lessons learned from this testing not only help with H5N1 messaging but also a better understanding of how messages are received, which will allow for more effective communication on husbandry and personal safety risks. Dr. Paul Bolls, from Washington State University, will be coming to Ohio with his Neuromarketing lab to run message testing sessions with both dairy farm producers and workers as participants. The goal is to recruit a total of 50 participants for this project.

Participants will need to physically come to a data collection location, which could be on the farm if 5 participants are from one farm. The test session will take one hour for a single participant to complete. We will be in the Mercer County, Extension office and area April 1st- 5th and the Wayne County Extension office and area April 7th -11th, but we can travel to other locations in the state. Participants will receive a $50 gift card for participation incentive. The test session will involve the collection of bodily responses (e.g. heart rate and eye tracking). This will involve placing some sensors on the hand, arms, and face. Participants will view several messages about H5N1 while bodily responses are being recorded, will answer some questions about each message, and will complete a short interview after message testing.

The support we are seeking from partners like you is assistance with identifying and securing message testing locations and help with participant recruitment by sharing announcements and information sheets with potential participants.

We appreciate your consideration. Please contact Dr. Paul Bolls with any questions. You can reach him at pbolls@wsu.edu or by cell phone at 509-338-7761.

Sincerely,

Dr. Paul Bolls and Jason Hartschuh

Asunto: Solicitud de participación en la investigación sobre pruebas de mensajes del H5N1

Hola,

El Departamento de Extensión de la Universidad Estatal de Ohio en Asociación con el Dr. Paul Bolls, de la Universidad Estatal de Washington, está desarrollando pruebas para medir la efectividad de mensajes comunicacionales sobre la protección de las granjas lecheras contra los riesgos causados por la propagación del virus de la gripe aviar H5N1. El objetivo de estas pruebas de mensajes es obtener información práctica sobre cómo comunicar de manera efectiva con los productores y trabajadores de granjas lecheras sobre el virus H5N1 y riesgos similares que puedan ocurrir en el futuro. Las lecciones aprendidas de estas pruebas no solo ayudaran con los mensajes sobre el virus H5N1, sino también ayudaran a comprender mejor cómo se reciben los mensajes, permitiendo una comunicación más efectiva sobre los riesgos de manejo y seguridad del personal en las lecherías. Su participación es importante y valiosa para desarrollar mensajes que empoderen a los productores lecheros como usted a tomar medidas basadas en la ciencia y así proteger a las granjas lecheras del virus H5N1. La información precisa, basada en la realidad de las operaciones de las granjas lecheras, que se comunica de manera efectiva, es crucial para proteger granjas como la suya.

La información recopilada a través de estas pruebas de mensajes guiará la producción de mensajes sobre el virus H5N1. Este virus representa amenazas reales para la salud financiera y física de las granjas lecheras. Los mensajes desarrollados a través del proyecto estarán diseñados para proporcionar a individuos como usted información que les ayude a proteger su granja. Nos gustaría que considerara ayudarnos a probar estos mensajes y mejorar la efectividad de estos mensajes para personas como usted.

Participar en nuestras sesiones de prueba de mensajes requerirá que acuda físicamente al lugar de la prueba, a menos que haya 5 participantes en la misma granja, en cuyo caso iremos a su granja, para una cita de una hora por participante. Estaremos en el área del condado de Mercer del 1 al 5 de abril y en el área del condado de Wayne del 7 al 11 de abril, pero podemos viajar a otras ubicaciones en el estado. Cada participante recibirá una tarjeta de regalo de $50 por participar en la sesión de una hora. Durante esta sesión, se les expondrá a varios tipos de mensajes sobre el H5N1. Sus opiniones son importantes, por lo que le haremos algunas preguntas sobre sus opiniones acerca de estos mensajes. Esta sesión también incluirá el registro de algunas de sus respuestas corporales (por ejemplo, la frecuencia cardíaca) mientras está expuesto a los mensajes que estamos probando. Un investigador colocará varios sensores en su mano, antebrazos y cara para registrar estas respuestas. Los sensores no deberían causar incomodidad, pero entendemos que algunas personas podrían sentirse incómodas con esto. No debe inscribirse para participar si cree que esto podría hacerle sentir incómodo.

Por favor, para inscribirse en una cita para participar o si tiene alguna pregunta contacte al Dr. Paul Bolls. Puede comunicarse con él al correo electronico pbolls@wsu.edu o por teléfono celular al 509-338-7761.

Gracias por considerar nuestra solicitud.

Atentamente,

Dr. Paul Bolls, Washington State Univeristy and Jason Hartschuh OSU Extension
Using Dairy Manure with Newly Planted Corn and Soybeans

Glen Arnold, Field Specialist, Manure Nutrient Management, Ohio State University Extension

In recent years, dairy farmers and commercial manure applicators have been moving towards applying dairy manure to newly planted corn and soybeans. This has been in response to delayed planting due to cooler and wetter spring planting conditions.

Applying dairy manure to fields after crops are planted in the spring offers some advantages over applying manure before crops are planted. One advantage is corn or soybean planting not being delayed by the added moisture from the liquid manure. This delay can be costly if wet weather further delays spring planting. The second advantage is the liquid manure adding moisture to the soil that can enhance crop germination and emergence, especially if the weather turns off dry.

As soon as a field is planted, the manure can be applied. This is true for both corn and soybeans. The seed is protected by an inch or more of soil. In university research, the application of 10,000 gallons/acre of dairy manure has not negatively impacted crop germination and emergence on corn or soybeans. If the crops are emerging, manure can still be applied to corn but not soybeans. Newly emerging soybeans can easily be killed by the application of liquid manure. Corn can tolerate the drag hose from the spiking stage up to the V-4 stage of growth without an issue.

The nitrogen in the dairy manure will be a boost to the emerging crop. It is difficult to know how much of the ammonium nitrogen in the dairy manure will be available to the crop. The organic nitrogen portion will be a slow release over several years. The ammonium nitrogen in the dairy manure can be lost to volatilization and possibly leaching. In university trials of surface applied dairy manure, only about half the ammonium nitrogen applied seemed to be available for crop growth.

When a drag hose is utilized, the drag hose applicator commonly applies the manure at an angle across the field. The field needs to be firm enough to support the drag hose to avoid scouring the soil surface and burying small corn plants or further burying seeds. Fields that are spring tilled are not good candidates for a drag hose. No-till fields, stale seed beds, fields with dead or alive cover crops, and tilled fields that have been packed with heavy spring rain are usually good fields for a drag hose.

Additional on-farm manure side-dress plot results can be obtained by clicking on the On-farm Research link on the OSU Extension Agronomics Crops team website at http://agcrops.osu.edu/ or E-fields at https://digitalag.osu.edu/efields or follow OSU Extension’s manure research on Facebook at: Ohio State Extension Environmental and Manure Management. Also, Ohio State University Agronomics Crops Team Youtube channel is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0nhw3GG6Q8&t=1s
Spring Nitrogen Fertilization for Winter Annual Cereal Grain Forages

Kendra Rose, Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Crawford County and Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, The Ohio State University

Nitrogen fertilization of cereal grains for forage is important for both yield and quality. Using an application method split between the spring and fall is important and can increase yield and tillering, can help spread the risk of nitrogen loss, and improve the nitrogen use efficiency. Knowing what your target yield is will help you determine how much the split application will be.

When fertilizing in the spring, it’s important to have the correct timing and apply the nitrogen as the crop breaks dormancy. This allows there to be less of a chance for runoff and leaching and the ground is not frozen, allowing the nitrogen to move into the soil to be utilized by the crop. Dormancy will break at different times in the spring depending upon the species grown. Cereal rye and triticale will green up first, while wheat and barley will be much slower. Nitrogen applied in the fall or split between the fall and spring will result in more constant forage production throughout the season compared to one spring application, though, spring applied nitrogen was found to increase yields up to 200 lb/ac compared to other methods based on work done in Oklahoma.

In recent research studies, we have found that in order to optimize yield, you need to add at least 30 lb/ac of nitrogen in the fall. To help determine a realistic yield potential, look at the yield from the past five years, take out the highest and lowest yield and average the remaining three yields (Lindsey and Lentz, 2025). This will should reflect a realistic yield potential to help determine the optimum nitrogen rate. We have found that crude protein in cereal rye was significantly increased by a 25 lb/ac increase in spring nitrogen application, regardless of the fall nitrogen rate. The dry matter yield can be increased by using the fall and spring split application method. Our studies have found that 20 lb/ac of fall nitrogen had a significant increase in cereal rye yield of at least 1 ton/ac of dry matter. The addition of 20 lb/ac or more of spring nitrogen to the current recommendation of 50 lb/ac can significantly increase the dry matter yield by 0.5 to 1 ton/ac.

The crude protein levels can also be improved through split nitrogen applications. The spring nitrogen application is the primary driver of crude protein; one of our studies showed that an application of 70 lb/ac of nitrogen has been found to increase crude protein. Though, one of our studies shows that 90 lb/ac of fall applied nitrogen can statistically increase the crude protein. Other quality factors such as total digestible nutrients (TDN) can also be affected by nitrogen fertilization. In our research, TDN in cereal rye was found to be negatively affected by higher spring nitrogen rates but was not influenced by fall nitrogen treatments. Applying nitrogen in the fall has also been seen to increase neutral detergent fiber (NDF) compared to trials where no nitrogen has been applied. This may be due to slightly more advanced growth stages at harvest when the fall nitrogen was applied compared to only spring nitrogen.

Another thing to be mindful of when applying nitrogen fertilizer is your soil type. Sandier soil may require higher nitrogen rates compared to loamy or clayey soil due to lower water holding capacity and organic matter levels. Drainage within your field is also important; soils that are waterlogged in the spring during critical periods of growth and development can reduce the yield and maturity, and there could be a significant portion of applied N lost due to denitrification

To help make management decisions, a few tools can be used to measure canopy cover. Two examples of tools to use are Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI; White, 2023) and Canopeo (Patrignani and Ochsner, 2015). NDVI is a sensor that is used in a non-destructive way to estimate the biomass’s nitrogen content. In our studies and others, NDVI has been found to be equal or superior to other indices in predicting percent ground cover. Canopeo is an automatic color threshold image analysis tool to determine ground coverage. One known limitation of Canopeo is the need to keep the camera an adequate height above the canopy. A forage analysis should also be used to determine the nutritional value of the forage for livestock performance. Utilizing the crude protein content of your forage test and knowing your yield per acre allows you to calculate if you removed all the nitrogen you applied to your soil for the forage production. Knowing the nutritional levels of a feed will help you make better decisions of what to feed and if you need any additional ration supplements.

References

Altom, W., Rogers, J. L., Raun, W. R., Johnson, G. V., and Taylor, S. L. 1996. Long-term rye-wheat-ryegrass forage yields as affected by rate and date of applied nitrogen. Journal of Production Agriculture, 9(4), 510–516. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1996.0510

Culman, S., Fulford, A., Camberato, J., and Steinke, K. 2020. Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations. Bulletin 974. College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, Columbus, OH, The Ohio State University.

Lindsey, L., and Lentz, E. 2025. Spring Nitrogen Recommendations for Winter Wheat. Agronomic Crops Network, March issue. https://agcrops.osu.edu/newsletter/corn-newsletter/2025-06/spring-nitrogen-recommendations-winter-wheat

Patrignani, A., and Ochsner, T. E. 2015. Canopeo: A powerful new tool for measuring fractional green canopy cover. Agronomy Journal, 107(6), 2312–2320. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj15.0150

Prabhakara, K., Hively, W. D., and McCarty, G. W. 2015. Evaluating the relationship between biomass, percent groundcover and remote sensing indices across six winter cover crop fields in Maryland, United States. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 39, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.03.002

White, C. 2023. Using an NDVI sensor to estimate cover crop nitrogen content. Penn State Extension, May 28 issue. https://extension.psu.edu/using-an-ndvi-sensor-to-estimate-cover-crop-nitrogen-content

Dairy Dollars: Feed Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Milk Income

Andie Majewski, Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Feed is the largest cost of production on dairy farms; therefore, it important to monitor the costs of feedstuffs on a local level. Since November, the overall price of feedstuffs has increased in Ohio (Figure 1), directly impacting the income over feed costs for dairy farms. While the greatest $/ton price increase is seen in blood meal, the price of all corn products increased by some amount except for corn silage, which is priced on a biannual basis. This is significant as corn is commonly incorporated into rations for lactating dairy cows.

Figure 1. Actual cost of 21 feedstuffs fed on Ohio dairy farms on January 27, 2025 (red) compared to the actual costs of feedstuffs on November 18, 2024 (gray).

Figure 2. Actual and predicted cost of feedstuffs with 75% confidence interval (CI) of 21 feed commodities fed on Ohio dairy farms; January 27, 2025. Feedstuffs that are priced above the upper prediction price limit are overpriced (red bars). Feedstuffs that fall within the upper and lower limits of the predicted prices are breakeven feeds (gray bars). Feedstuffs that are priced below the lower prediction price limit are considered a bargain (green bars).

Economic Value of Feeds

Figure 2 displays the costs for the 21 reported commodities in Ohio. These results were produced by SESAME^TM for the central Ohio region on January 27, 2025. In simple terms, Figure 1 represents the bargain feedstuffs (green), the overpriced feedstuffs (red), and the breakeven feedstuffs (gray). Despite the overall rise in cost of feedstuffs in January, corn-based feeds were generally a bargain as in the previous report. Other byproducts, such as cotton seed meal, canola meal, and blood meal, were generally overpriced. Remember, these prices and estimates are from a point in time and their economic classification may change from what is reported. While it is important to consider the costs of feedstuffs when formulating a ration, the prices are not the only thing that should be considered. Some of the “bargain” priced commodities may have a place in a dairy cattle ration, though it is important to consider the investment opportunity that may arise by feeding “overpriced” feedstuffs.

The appraisal set, shown in Table 1, predicts the prices for the commodities that did not have a current local price. These commodity prices were predicted by SESAME^TM and represent the estimated commodity prices at one specific point in time and are therefore subject to change. These values may be used as a benchmark if you’re considering purchasing these ingredients for your dairy farm.

Table 1. Estimated feedstuffs prices not reported for Ohio, January 27, 2025.

Feedstuffs	Estimated price with 75% CI¹
Alfalfa hay – 32% NDF², 24% CP³, 190 RFV⁴, $/ton	205 (186 - 224)
Alfalfa hay – 36% NDF, 22% CP, 170 RFV, $/ton	208 (187 - 229)
Alfalfa hay – 44% NDF, 18% CP,130 RFV, $/ton	206 (180 - 232)
Alfalfa hay – 48% NDF, 16% CP, 110 RFV, $/ton	206 (176 - 235)
Bakery byproduct meal, $/ton	150 (124 - 176)
Beet sugar pulp, dried, $/ton	191 (175 - 208)
Citrus pulp dried, $/ton	141 (125- 158)
Fish menhaden meal, mech., $/ton	532 (505 – 560)
Molasses, sugarcane, $/ton	99 (76 - 121)
Tallow, $/ton	264 (174 - 354)
¹Confidence Interval ²Neutral Detergent Fiber ³Crude Protein ⁴Relative Feed Value

Feed Nutrient Prices

The cost of net energy of lactation (NE_L)and metabolizable protein (MP) increased slightly by about 1% and 0.25% respectively, from our previous report in November. The cost of physically effective fiber
(e-NDF) decreased by about 4.6%. Values of nutrients are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Prices of nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, January 27, 2025, compared to November 18, 2024.

Nutrient Name	Jan. Estimate		Nov. Estimate		Price Change
NEl - 3x (2001) (Mcal/kg), $/lb	0.0344	~	0.034	~
Metabolizable Protein, $/lb	0.5477	**	0.5463	**
e-NDF, $/lb	0.1448	**	0.1518	**
ne-NDF, $/lb	0.0036		-0.0049
- A blank means that the nutrient unit cost is likely equal to zero - ~ means that the nutrient unit cost may be close to zero - * means that the nutrient unit cost is unlikely to be equal to zero - ** means that the nutrient unit cost is most likely not equal to zero

Milk and Milk Component Prices

In the month of January, the ending Class III milk price was $18.62/cwt. January’s milk fat and protein prices were $2.91/lb and $1.96/lb, respectively (Table 3). While the price of fat decreased slightly by $0.18 since the month of November, the price of protein decreased significantly, by $1.36 since the last report. The price of class III milk dropped from $22.85 to 18.62/cwt.

The profitability of milk production with the nutrient costs displayed in Table 2 is estimated using the Cow-Jones Index. The prediction formula uses a 1500 lb cow, producing milk with 4.09% fat and 3.22% protein. This month, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 85 and 70 lb/day is about $13.73 and 13.42/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are expected to be profitable, despite not including factors such as replacement and cull cows in the herd.

Table 3. Prices of milk and milk components, sourced from the Federal Marketing Order 33, for Ohio dairy farms, January 27, 2025, compared to November 18, 2024.

Milk/ Component price	Jan. Estimate	Nov. Estimate	Price Change
Milk fat, $/lb	2.91	3.09
Milk protein, $/lb	1.96	3.32
Class III Milk¹, $/cwt	18.62	22.85
¹Class III milk is used for hard cheese

Considering the increased feed costs, reduced milk price for Class III milk and milk components, in addition to the slight increase in feed nutrient prices, the overall cost of production increased for Ohio dairy farmers at the start of the new year.

New Extension Forage Agronomist

Dr. Emma Matcham, Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

We are excited to introduce the newest Extension state specialist for integrated forage management, Dr. Emma Matcham. Prior to joining the faculty at OSU, Emma was an Assistant Professor of nutrient cycling and agronomy at the University of Florida and became a certified crop advisor (CCA) in 2020. She earned her BS and MS from OSU, and her PhD from the University of Wisconsin—Madison.

As an assistant professor and Extension state specialist, her lab focuses on applied forage systems research that helps address the needs of Ohio farmers. She has initiated one field trial so far, which investigates how nitrogen management impacts yield, protein, and other qualities for winter annual forages. She’s also starting trials on summer annual planting dates and stand evaluation methods this year, since that information is helpful when managing farms during droughts and other environmental stressors. She’s involved in continuing education and other opportunities for CCA and Certified Livestock Managers.

This winter you can meet Dr. Matcham at a variety of winter meetings, including the Ohio Dairy Producers Association annual meeting, Ohio Forage and Grassland Council annual meeting, and Conservation Tillage and Technology Conference.
Corn Hybrid Selection for Disease Management

Jason Hartschuh, Assistant Professor, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University

Corn hybrid selection is critical to maximizing your cow's production. When selecting hybrids, we usually consider factors like digestibility, energy, crude protein, milk per ton, and milk per acre. Foliar corn disease susceptibility is a critical factor to consider as it can affect both grain and forage quality, requiring a multi-prong approach to managing feed quality. Stalk and ear rots can be even more detrimental as they produce mycotoxins. Deoxynivalenol (DON), also known as Vomitoxin, can cause significant feed quality challenges in both silage and grain. The same fungus that produces DON can produce Zearalenone (ZEA), an estrogen mimicking mycotoxin that can also create many challenges for dairy cows.

Foliar Disease

Foliar diseases can reduce yields but cause fewer grain quality issues unless they kill the corn plant prematurely, lowering test weight. However, foliar disease can cause feed quality issues in silage. Tar Spot is the most concerning as it is an aggressive disease that can kill corn plants rapidly, leading to silage moisture that is too low for proper fermentation. Even when a foliar disease does not kill the corn plant, it can lower the digestibility of the corn silage, decreasing the energy and milk per ton. When a corn plant is infected with a foliar disease, its natural response to fight off the disease, which includes hardening the cell walls around the infection so that the disease does not spread further along with the death of plant tissue in the infected area. As the cell walls around the disease area thickens, they become less digestible and so does the dead plant tissue in the diseased area, lowering the quality of your silage. Under severe disease pressure, we have seen highly digestible brown midrib (BMR) corn hybrids become less digestible than a non-BMR silage-type hybrid.

Management of corn diseases starts with hybrid selection; however, for emerging diseases such as Tar Spot, there may not be resistance ratings available in the seed catalogs. Selecting hybrids that have good disease resistance for Gray Leaf Spot and Northern Corn Leaf Blight is your first step so that those diseases are managed through plant genetics. Then discuss with your seed salesman what they are experiencing for Tar Spot resistance. Layering genetic resistance with fungicide applications when disease is present can maintain forage quality. When using a fungicide for foliar disease control, be sure to select one that controls the diseases you have presently. Information on fungicide efficacy for foliar disease can be found here: https://cropprotectionnetwork.org/publications/fungicide-efficacy-for-control-of-corn-diseases.

Gibberella Ear and Stalk Rot

The fungus Fusarium Gaminearum can infect the corn stalk by causing stalk rot, which includes rot in the stalk, cob, and grain. In both locations (ear and stalk), the mycotoxins can be produced with major concerns coming from DON and ZEA. With your support from the Ohio Corn Marketing Board and Ohio Dairy Research Fund, OSU Extension and OSU Plant Pathology have been researching a systems-based approach to DON management. This systems-based approach includes hybrid resistance screening of both corn grain and corn silage, hybrid infection reaction characterization, fungicide application method screening, weather modeling to predict disease levels, and post-harvest cleaning of corn grain.

Our first hybrid screening project for DON was done in 2023 with only corn grain, but in 2024, we conducted a screening of both grain and silage hybrids. We will continue this program in 2025. The grain screening results can be used to help with hybrid selection for both grain and silage, but corn silage can have DON toxins from both the grain and the stalk. There is no correlation between high amounts of DON in the stalk and high quantities of DON in the grain and ear. The plant resistance traits for these two areas of disease infection are probably different so there is a chance that a corn hybrid with partial resistance to DON development in the ear may not have resistance to DON development from stalk rot.

In 2024, we lost half of our silage screening plots to due to flooding after planting at the research station. This led to us only having results from the Enogen plots, which were grown in a different area of the farm to maintain the stewardship guidelines. Weather conditions for disease development in 2024 were not favorable, so across all screening trials, DON levels were low. The results from the Enogen hybrids are in Figure 1 below. Hybrids with a different letter at the top of the bar had statistically different DON levels. These plots had higher DON levels than most corn silage in the State this year. The plots were inoculated with fungal spores to cause ear rot and DON during pollination. These hybrids ranged from 0.06 to 1.46 ppm DON. Of the 11 hybrids submitted, 3 of them averaged greater than 1 ppm and 7 averaged less than 0.5 ppm. Under high disease pressure such as inoculation, no hybrid is 100% resistant. When using results from these screening trials, consider that hybrids with higher DON levels are susceptible while low hybrids are partially resistant. Under favorable weather conditions for disease development, some of the low hybrids may have been higher. One strategy to evaluate the hybrids that you grow is to test every hybrid every year. If using silage bags, test each hybrid at feed out; for bunkers and silos, sample hybrids as they are put in. DON levels can change during the first 30 to 60 days fermentation. The goal for high-producing dairy cows is to keep the complete ration below 1 ppm DON.

^abcdHybrids with different superscripts differ.

The corn grain hybrid screening project had 80 hybrids submitted in 2023 and 90 hybrids submitted in 2024. DON levels in 2023 were much higher than in 2024. Of the 80 hybrids submitted for evaluation, 24 of them had DON levels greater than 5 ppm in at least 1 of the 3 locations and 28 hybrids averaged less than 2 ppm across the 3 locations. The DON levels were much lower in 2024, with the 2 locations we have completed the data analysis only averaging 0.4 ppm DON across all 90 hybrids. The range however was from no DON detected to 3.7 ppm. Grain hybrid DON screening data can be found at: go.osu.edu/vomitoxin

Hybrid selection is an important first step to producing feed that has low levels of DON and other mycotoxins. The second step to consider is a fungicide application; however, only Proline and Miravis Neo currently have labels for the control of Gibberella Ear Rot. Using fungicide for Gibberella Ear Rot management requires perfect timing. The fungicide must be applied while the silks are wet and must reach the silks during application. Once the silks turn brown and dry, the fungicide doesn’t move into the ear where the fungus is hiding. A fungicide can only lower the DON levels but cannot lower a susceptible hybrid to 0 ppm DON when weather conditions favor disease development. Through an integrated pest management approach, DON can be controlled so that you have clean corn silage.
Property Owners and Unidentified Drones

Peggy Kirk Hall, Director, Agricultural and Resource Law Program and Ryan McMichael, Agriculture and Natural Resource Educator, Mercer County, The Ohio State University

Drones, or more accurately named Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), have helped provide new methods of pesticide applications and agronomic data collection to assist farmers with productivity and efficiency. Yet, the possibility of unknown drones flying over a farm property can cause concerns. Recent conversations and sightings of drones in rural areas have producers raising questions, such as “what can I do about suspicious drone activity” and “can I shoot down a drone over my property?” Federal and state laws provide answers to these questions. Here are several points farmers need to know about dealing with UAV traveling over their properties.

1. Shooting a drone is a crime under Federal and state laws. Federal law prohibits a person from intentionally harming UAV and other aircraft. It is a Federal felony to willfully “damage, destroy, disable, or wreck any aircraft,” and the Federal government has prosecuted persons for doing so. The potential punishment can be severe: a fine of up to $250,000 and 20 years of imprisonment. Ohio law also establishes a crime for “endangering aircraft.” A person who knowingly discharges a firearm, air gun, or spring-operated gun at or toward any aircraft can be subject to misdemeanor or felony charges, fines, and imprisonment, depending upon the risk of harm resulting from the endangerment.

2. Shooting a drone can create safety risks and potential civil liability. The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) and other aviation professionals warn against the unintended consequences of injuring an airborne drone. Once disabled, a UAV is no longer under the control of an operator and will eventually crash. Some compare an injured drone to a “missile” that can harm people, animals, and property upon impact. A recent case in Florida illustrates this danger, with a child suffering serious harm when a drone crashed and struck him. A person who intentionally harms a drone not only creates this safety risk but also opens up the possibility of being liable for injuries caused by the drone or its debris. Additionally, the owner of the drone may seek compensation for the loss of the aircraft.

3. The recommended action is to report suspicious drone activity. If a UAV poses a danger, an observer should report it right away to local law enforcement or the county Emergency Management Agency, who can investigate the situation. It’s helpful to share location information and videos and photos of the aircraft. If a drone doesn’t pose an immediate danger but appears to be operated in violation of FAA rules, an observer can report the activity to the nearest FAA flight standards district office. There are FAA district offices in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. Contact information is available on the FAA website.

4. Federal laws require registration and tracking technology for drones. A drone owner must register the aircraft with the FAA and provide the owner’s address, e-mail, and telephone information, along with the model and serial number for the UAV. The FAA issues an information or “N-number” the owner must display on the vehicle, and the agency also provides an online tool for looking up an aircraft by its N-number. An additional FAA rule also requires a registered drone to have “Remote ID” technology. A Remote ID acts as a drone’s “digital license plate” by broadcasting a signal identifying the drone, its location, and the location of its control station. The registration and Remote ID requirements increase the likelihood that law enforcement or the FAA can ascertain who owns or is operating the aircraft.

5. New laws for UAV will soon be effective in Ohio. While the Federal government has sole authority to regulate UAV, states can also enact drone laws as long as they don’t conflict with the Federal regulations. The Ohio legislature recently did so, enacting a bill last December with requirements and prohibitions on private use of drones. The new law, which is not effective until April 9, 2025, will prohibit a person from operating a UAV “in a manner that knowingly endangers any person or property or purposely disregards the rights or safety of others.” The penalty for a violation includes a fine of up to $500 and imprisonment of up to six months. The new law offers another reason to report suspicious drones, and its penalties could help reduce potentially harmful drone activity.

It can be unnerving and threatening to site an unknown drone flying over one’s property, but shooting at the drone is not a viable solution to the concern. An injured UAV can harm people and property. A shooter could not only be liable for that harm but could also face criminal felony and misdemeanor charges for endangering or harming aircraft, along with hefty fines and imprisonment penalties. The preferred solution for dealing with drone activity is to report it to local law enforcement or the FAA. Taking action quickly could result in identification of the owner and an explanation of the drone’s activities. If that activity is suspicious or endangering, Federal and state laws can penalize the offender and eliminate the drone activity.
Federal Order Reform Passed in All 11 Federal Orders: Considerations for FMMO 33 Milk Prices
Jason Hartschuh, Assistant Professor, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University

On January 17^th, USDA published the Final Federal Order Rules amending the uniform pricing formulas in all 11 Federal milk marketing orders (FMMO). The full final rules can be found at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/dairy/hearings/national-fmmo-pricing-hearing. These rules will go into effect on June 1, 2025 for all of the following changes except for the changes to the skim milk composition factors. The changes to the skim milk composition factors will be implemented on December 1, 2025. The changes will apply to all milk marketed after these dates and will be reflected in both the advanced pricing released before the milk is marketed and the class and component prices announced after the close of the month.

Final rules announced and passed by all 11 FMMO’s and considerations for milk price
- Updating the skim milk composition factors to 3.3% true protein, 6.0% other solids, and 9.3% nonfat solids (not implemented until December 1, 2025)
  - This change brings skim milk prices more in line with what is being produced in the industry as genetics and cow nutrition programs have changed. The modern cow is producing a more nutrient-dense product. This change will be reflected in the calculated skim milk class prices. It will also raise the Class I price in all orders, resulting in a slight increase to the pool value. The most impact will be for producers in the 3 skim-fat Federal orders where producers are paid for set protein and other solids levels, along with the fat they produce and are not compensated for any increase in milk protein or other solids.
- Removing the 500 lb barrel cheddar cheese price from the Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting Program survey.
  - This change will adjust how cheese price is calculated by only using the 40 lb block cheddar cheese price in the monthly calculation. Over the past 5 years, the cheddar block-barrel spread has been large as these commodities move independently of each other. If only block price had been used for the last 5 years, it would have increased Class III milk price by $0.47/cwt.
- Updating the Class III and IV manufacturing allowances to $0.2519 for cheese, $0.2272 for butter, $0.2393 for nonfat dry milk, and $0.2668 for dry whey, all on a per pound basis, and updating the milk fat recovery factor to 91%.
  - This change may feel counter-productive to dairy producers as it will lower pay price, but it is an important step in the reform process to ensure processor long-term sustainability. While processors of commodity dairy products may have the benefit of knowing what they will make per pound of product processed, the only way they have been able to maintain profits as input costs like electricity or labor increased was to become more efficient. In some instances, this has led to decreased investments in processing plants and decreased producer premiums offered for high-quality milk.
- Returning the base Clase I skim milk price formula to the higher-of the advanced Class III or IV skim milk prices for the month. In addition, the adoption of a Class I extended shelf life (ESL) adjustment for all ESL products will equal the average-of-mover plus a 24-month rolling average adjuster with a 12-month lag.
  - Over the last several years, the spread between Class III and IV milk prices has been large for multiple months. In 2020, there was a point when the Class III-IV spread was greater than $8.00/cwt; any time the class spread is over $1.50/cwt, this change will increase Class I milk price. In 2024 for over half of the year, this change would have resulted in a higher Class I milk price, putting more money in the pool and raising the statistically uniform price. This change will also help with depooling as there should be minimal times when Class I milk price falls below Class III or IV prices for over a month. This should only occur when there is a rapid change during the month from when the Class I milk price is calculated the month prior during the advanced price calculation, and when the Class III and IV prices are calculated after the end of the month. This may, however, change your risk protection strategy when using Dairy Revenue Protection or the futures and options market as you will no longer know as closely how much of your milk check will be based on the underlying Class III or IV milk prices. Choosing the higher contract between these two to hedge the portion of your milk represented by Class I prices is probably the most reliable strategy. Keep in mind that if your milk is pooled on the Federal order, the price you receive is a blend between all four classes of milk based on the processing utilization that month in the order. In most months, this change will bring more value to the FMMO 33 Pool.
- Updating the Class I differential values to reflect the increased cost of servicing the Class I market.
  - Class I location differentials are fixed values that increase the regulated fluid milk price in a county based on the need for fluid milk and the distance milk needs to travel to consumers in that county. This location differential only applies to Class I fluid milk. The location differential is for the county where the milk is processed, not the county it is produced in. In Ohio, this location differential increase was between $1.30 and 2.30/cwt for Class I milk, but across all of FMMO 33, the increase ranged from $1.10 to 2.30/cwt. This increase will bring slightly more money into the pool from Class I milk with about a third of milk in FMMO being utilized for Class I. It will also help cover the hauling cost of moving milk into major fluid milk deficit areas, such as the southeast, hopefully bringing enough milk into these regions so that consumers always have access to fluid milk and decrease milk dumping.
In the end, the FMMO reform will have variable changes to the farm gate milk price, depending on each FMMO. In FMMO 33, Mideast, if these changes had been in place from January 2019 to December of 2023, the Statistically Uniform Price average at actual fat test would have increased $0.50/cwt. These changes may impact how you use market-based tools in the future to manage risk between Class III and IV. It should assist at least some processors in investing in processing plants to allow for increased capacity as national milk production grows and the possibility for more competition between processors. While these recommendations were back-tested to determine their consequence, only time can tell us how these changes will play out in the markets and affect producers' bottom line. An increase in milk price often leads to an increase in production. Higher milk prices can also lead to higher dairy product prices on the store shelves and decreased consumption, all factors that cannot be accounted for in back-testing.
Dairy Margin Coverage and Dairy Risk Management for 2025
Jason Hartschuh, Assistant Professor, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University

The dairy industry has a history of volatility in profits coming from both income (milk price and the beef market) and expenses (feed prices). Using multiple strategies to manage these risks in 2025 can help protect your operation from volatility. Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is one of these tools that allows producers to manage both milk price risk and feed cost risk together. This program allows producers to protect their operations from market fluctuations. Over the past 15 years if DMC was available as it is today, the first 5 million pounds of milk production history covered with a $9.50/cwt margin would have had a positive net benefit (Indemnity payments minus premiums) 13 of the 15 years. Enrollment for DMC begins January 29, 2025 through March 31, 2025 at your local USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) office.

Current DMC outlook

The current market projections using the DMC feed cost calculation can be found at: https://dmc.dairymarkets.org/. This tool can be used to evaluate the current market projects for feed cost and milk price using DMC calculations. The current All Milk Price forecast by month ranges from $22.63 to 23.86/cwt with an average for the year of $23.16/cwt. The feed cost for the year using the DMC calculation ranges from $9.45 to 9.79/cwt with an average of $9.60/cwt. These milk price and feed cost projections lead to a DMC margin range of $13.09 to 14.19/cwt, with a year average of $13.56/cwt. This range is well above the maximum DMC protectable margin of $9.50, but either a downturn in milk price or an increase in feed costs could lead to the DMC program triggering a payout. A lot can happen in the world markets over a year, potentially increasing feed costs through domestic or internal weather challenges that lower corn and soybean production. While domestic demand for dairy products has shown great resilience, milk prices could see challenges from international markets or increases in domestic cow numbers and production. As a risk management tool, DMC costs $0.15/cwt for $9.50/cwt margin coverage, which is significantly less than most other risk management tools for both milk price and feed costs.

Dairy Margin Coverage Highlights
- Provides protection when milk prices and feed costs create tight margins
- A $9.50 margin for Tier 1 coverage only costs $0.15/cwt
- Provides an affordable safety net against unpredictable market fluctuations
- Coverage for extremely tight margins of $4.00/cwt is available for only an administrative fee of $100.
- Enrollment is necessary, even if enrolled in the past and coverage election is unchanged
- Enroll through your local USDA FSA office
- Enrollment is January 29, 2025 through March 31, 2025
Other Risk Management Strategies

Dairy Margin Coverage is the first step for managing risk, but many other opportunities are available. Through the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA), the same group that provides crop insurance is the Dairy Revenue Protection (DRP) program, which can be used to set a floor under your milk price. This program can protect from a decline in milk price based on available milk futures and component futures. The protectable price available is 95% of the futures market price or a producer can choose a lower protection amount of the futures price. This program has a higher cost per hundredweight than DMC, with the Quarter 2 2025 protection starting at about $0.26/cwt after subsidies for Class IV coverage and increasing if competent coverage is added or later quarters are protected. The price and availability of DRP contracts vary daily based on futures market trading. With higher milk prices and low feed costs, this program may be a tool to ensure current milk price projects are a reality on your farm. One of the best strategies when using this program is to do contracts when the protected price minus the contract cost is above your cost of production, allowing you to set a profitable milk price floor. Alternatively, a producer can set a higher milk price floor under their milk price using a put option directly from the Board of Trade, but this is more costly since it is unsubsidized and at a milk price closer to where the futures are actually trading.

With lower feed cost projections, risk management strategies should also be considered for your purchased feeds. The most common strategy is a direct forward contract of feeds with your supplier with a set cost. Some feed suppliers also offer alternative programs that only set a ceiling on your feed cost, allowing the producer to take advantage of price declines. These options typically have a higher ceiling than the set price forward contract, but it allows you to take advantage of feed price declines if they occur. For some feeds, a call option can also be used from the Board of Trade to set a ceiling on your feed cost. The other feed cost risk management program available through RMA is the Livestock Gross Margin-Dairy Program which can be used to protect the margin between Class III milk prices and corn and soybean meal prices.

As you consider risk management strategies, keep in mind that depending on your Federal order, your milk price is a combination of all four classes of milk, which are based on both Class III and IV milk prices that have been moving independently of each other. If you are in Ohio and your milk is pooled in Federal Order (FMMO) 33, approximately a third of your milk check comes from Class III milk and a third from Class I with the remaining third coming from Class II or IV. Currently, Class I price is an average of Class III and IV plus $0.74/cwt, but with the Federal order reform starting in June of 2025, Class I milk prices will be higher than Class III or IV milk prices. For risk management, the time between the amount of your milk check and risk based on Class III or Class IV prices could change. However in FMMO 33, at least a third of your milk price will continue to be based on Class III milk price, and as long as Class IV remains higher than Class III, a significant percentage will be based on Class IV milk price. When managing risk using alternative programs beyond DMC, protecting your milk price with both Class III and IV risk protection strategies will be vital.
Hidden Defenses: How Cows Fight Disease
Elizabeth Plunkett, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Disease presents a significant threat to animal productivity, leading to billions of dollars in annual losses. As a producer, you do everything in your power to mitigate disease risks in your operation, but unfortunately, disease is opportunistic and will strike when least expected. While disease can be challenging to mitigate, it is often easy to spot by observing cow behavior and productivity. The signs that we initially observe and associate with disease are the consequences of physiological adjustments that are a part of the host’s response to an abnormality. At first glance, these responses might seem counterproductive. For example, why would a cow go off feed at a time when her metabolic requirements increase exponentially? However, the physiological adjustments present at the onset of disease are a set of highly organized and calculated survival mechanisms that have been evolutionarily favored for centuries. Understanding the biological rationale behind these responses reveals how they collectively contribute to the cow’s initial defense against pathogens.

Reduced Feed Intake:

Interleukin-1 (IL-1) is a cytokine that plays a crucial role in regulating the immune response. When IL-1 is released, it triggers a decrease in appetite. Although it might appear unfavorable when sick cows stop eating, it is actually a protective mechanism. Listed below are several plausible reasons why this is a beneficial response during sickness, and for more information into this perplexing phenomenon, I encourage you to read Brown and Bradford (2021), which reviews these mechanisms in greater detail.
1. When cows consume less feed they divert less energy towards digestion, which is an energetically costly process. Creating less energy usage allows for more energy to go towards fighting the infection and fueling vital organs.
2. The pathogen may be present in the feed so limiting intake helps reduce overall pathogen load. Additionally, if the pathogen is in the feed, reducing intake would allow the gastrointestinal tract time to heal and prepare for future intake.
3. Cows may simply lack the motivation to eat. If feeding requires them to walk a great distance or fight for their food, they may not feel up to the challenge when they are sick. It may be more energetically costly for them to approach a feed bunk rather than staying put to conserve energy.
4. Looking at this from an evolutionary perspective, limiting feed intake during sickness is a prey instinct. Historically, cows are grazing animals; therefore, during times of sickness, it is unwise to put themselves in such a vulnerable position when they can’t promptly respond.
5. Eating less helps reduce iron intake which is an important mechanism to ‘starve’ the invading bacteria. Some bacteria require iron for proliferation and growth; therefore, limiting intake helps reduce nutrient availability for the invading pathogen.
Decrease in Plasma Iron Concentration:

Iron is an essential mineral for some bacteria as they need it to grow and proliferate. During bacterial infections in cattle, we see a reduction in iron concentrations. This reduction is not due to increased excretion but rather the redistribution of iron throughout the body. For example, during mastitis, transferrin concentrations in milk will increase as transferrin will work to bind free iron to keep bacteria from acquiring it and utilizing it to multiply. The release of IL-1 also causes iron concentrations to decrease. Additionally, the reduction in iron concentration acts synergistically with fever to hinder bacterial growth in the early stages of disease. While they both work to suppress bacterial growth, one is not dependent upon the other and one can occur while the other does not.

Fever:

Fever is a temporary increase in the body temperature set point, not to be confused with hyperthermia which is an increase in body temperature without an adjustment made to set point. Fever is controlled by IL-1, and it helps make the body less welcoming to infections as some bacteria and viruses can’t survive at higher temperatures. Immune cells also have enhanced performance during fever, primarily due to the actions of IL-1, but also due to the heat fever creates. To reach and hold this new higher temperature, the body must make several changes. It does this by reducing heat loss and/or generating more heat. For example, sick animals often curl up in an attempt to reduce their surface area and limit heat loss. Additionally, blood flow will shift to internal organs, leaving the extremities to feel cold to the touch (e.g., cows’ ears feed cold). Another way the body reduces heat loss is called piloerection, which is when hair follicles stand up. While the body does everything it can to retain heat, sometimes this is not enough. If it can’t hold the heat, the body will increase heat production by speeding up metabolism, which is energetically costly. Fever can increase overall metabolism by 30-50%, creating more stress on the cow if this response is prolonged.

Depression and Lethargy:

Just like when we are sick and all we want to do is stay in bed, cows behave in similar patterns. There are multiple benefits of depression and lethargy during disease. Cows may curl up and move less as a strategy to conserve body heat and minimize the use of nutrients for non-essential functions. IL-1 also plays a role in inducing sleepiness, as it is involved in promoting rest and reducing activity in response to illness. This is why an activity monitoring system can help us detect illness in cows because they will be moving less to conserve energy. This depressive state helps the cow conserve energy for essential functions, allowing her to focus on launching her defense.

These physiological adjustments that occur during disease work with one another to provide an initial defense mechanism against invading pathogens. These responses work together to protect the host, but they neither the same purpose nor do they depend upon one another. Even cows subjected to the same pathogen will have variations in these responses and may present with different clinical signs. Making the approach to resolve the issue is difficult and case-dependent. While these mechanisms are biologically normal, their prolonged presence can create just as much damage as the invading pathogen. Leading furthermore to the question, we continue to ask ourselves: When do we treat and when do we let these processes run their course?

Stay tuned for the next article which will answer this question and many more!

Disclaimer: This article is intended to explain and inform readers about some common physiological responses observed in ill lactating cows. It does not constitute veterinary advice or recommendations for treating animals. For specific concerns and treatment plans, please consult a licensed veterinarian.

Sources:
1. Brown, W.E., and B.J. Bradford. 2021. Invited review: Mechanisms of hypophagia during disease. Journal of Dairy Science 104:9418–9436. doi:10.3168/jds.2021-20217.
2. Hart, B.L. 1988. Biological basis of the behavior of sick animals. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 12:123–137. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(88)80004-6.
Update on the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak in Germany
Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Professor, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Oho State University

On January 10, 2025, Germany announced an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in water buffalos near Berlin. This is the first FMD outbreak since 1988. The National Reference Laboratory for FMD, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute in Germany, has pinpointed the virus serotype O responsible for the recent outbreak.

What is FMD?

FMD is a severe, fast spreading viral disease affecting cows, pigs, sheep, goats, deer, and other animals with divided hooves. Most infected animals survive, but FMD causes significant losses in milk and meat productivity, as well as economic impact due to the closure of export markets. FMD was first discovered in the United States in 1870 and eradicated 1929.

What is the source of the FMD outbreak?

The exact origin and route of entry into Germany is still unknown. The FMD virus serotype O has been found in many countries, primarily in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Knowing the serotype is critical for effective vaccine deployment within a few days from the national vaccine bank once activated by regulatory agencies. For FMD, the vaccine must match precisely the virus serotype, as vaccines against other serotypes do not protect animals.

How many serotypes of FMD are there?

To date, seven FMD serotypes are known: O, A, C, Asia 1, SAT1, SAT2, and SAT3, which are further divided into more than 60 subtypes and strains. The global map from the USDA provides more details.

Is FMD a threat to human health or food safety?

No. FMD is not transmissible to humans (it is not a zoonosis) or a food safety threat. Also, the disease is not related to hand, foot, and mouth disease, a common childhood illness caused by a different virus.

What are the clinical signs?

The first clinical signs of FMD typically appear within 2 to 14 days after infection:
- Fever
- Blisters and/or vesicles (tongue and lips, in and around the mouth, on the mammary glands, and around the hooves)
- Erosions. When blisters pop, they leave raw, eroded areas surrounded by ragged fragments of loose tissue.
- Excess salivation (sticky, foamy, and stringy saliva)
- Loss of appetite due to painful tongue and mouth blisters may lead animals to eat less.
- Lameness and a reluctance to move or stand
- Abortions
- Drop in milk yield
- Heart disease and death, especially prevalent in newborn animals
FMD can easily be confused with other diseases that produce blisters, such as vesicular stomatitis, bluetongue, bovine viral diarrhea, foot rot in cattle, and swine vesicular disease.

What should I do if I observe blisters on the mouth or feet of my animals?

Please report them immediately to your herd veterinarian for further examination and testing. The only way to tell if the blisters are caused by the FMD virus is through laboratory testing.

How can FMD be prevented from entering the United States?

If you are travelling outside of the United States, you can help prevent FMD by taking these steps:
1. 1. Report signs of FMD.
  2. When outside of the United States, don’t bring back any prohibited items, dirty footwear, or clothing that could potentially move the FMD virus.
  3. Declare to U.S. Customs and Border Protection any visits to farms, ranches, zoos, fairs or any other facilities where animals were exhibited.
  4. Follow a “5-day” rule: Avoid contact with livestock, zoo animals, or wildlife for 5 days after returning to the United States if you visited a farm or had livestock contact.
  5. If you're returning with pet dogs or cats: Before returning to the United States, ensure your pet’s feet, fur, and bedding are clean of dirt, mud, straw, or hay, bathe your pet upon arrival, and keep it away from livestock for at least 5 days.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Livestock producers should remain vigilant and work closely with their herd veterinarian to protect both animal health and the agricultural market from the potentially devastating impacts of this disease.

Rumen Acidosis in Dairy Cattle – A Cause for Concern?

Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Background

Ruminal acidosis (RA) is a general term used to describe a condition where dairy cow rumen pH is depressed below optimal levels. RA can be acute (observable symptoms such as off feed, lethargic) or subacute. In dairy cattle, we are usually concerned about subacute RA (SARA), or RA that occurs in the absence of clinical symptoms. It’s important to remember that SARA can impact both confined and pasture fed cattle. Remember, lush pasture has high concentrations of digestible carbohydrates that can reduce ruminal pH.

Definitions of SARA are most often based on the amount of time that the rumen pH for a cow is below a threshold, usually 5.6 or 5.8. When the rumen pH declines to less than these cutoffs, fiber digesting microbes and fiber digestibility can be depressed. Reducing rumen pH can reduce ruminal fiber digestion by up to 30%. By these definitions, SARA is highly prevalent in dairy cattle – up to 33% of dairy cattle experience SARA during their lactation. Up to 40% of pasture cattle also experience pH below 5.8.

The tricky part about managing SARA in lactating dairy cattle is that many factors interact to reduce rumen pH and cause SARA. Some of those factors are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. A list of potential factors to consider when managing ruminal acidosis on your farm.

Starch concentration

Starch source

Starch processing

Forage fiber

Physically effective fiber (peNDF) and forage particle size

Supplemental buffers or alkalinizers

Level of feed intake

Pasture maturity and species

Cow comfort and lying space

Since managing SARA is a multi-factorial challenge, it is difficult, if not impossible, to provide concrete recommendations for reducing the prevalence of SARA when feeding dairy cattle. In spite of that, there are concepts and guidelines that are helpful and can serve as a compass when managing dairy cattle nutrition and feeding programs.

Managing SARA

The primary concept of managing SARA is applying management strategies that increase rumen pH or ruminal buffering capacity. In this article “buffering” refers to the ability of the cow to neutralize fermentation acids that are produced during ruminal feed digestion. The cow’s ability to enhance buffering can be done through increasing forage fiber, physically effective fiber, providing buffers, increasing lying time, and reducing fermentation load by considering different starch sources or differently processed grains.

Forage and Physically Effective Fiber

The primary method that cow’s use to buffer their rumen is absorbing the acids that are produced during feed digestion. Rumination and cud chewing is another substantial way that cows buffer their rumen because their saliva contains compounds that neutralize acids. Feeding increased forage fiber or increased physically effective fiber increases rumination and chewing time which drives saliva production and thus increases rumen pH by increasing rumen buffering capacity. Generally, increasing forage fiber or physically effective fiber in the diet will increase rumen pH, but it does come with risks. Increasing forage or physically effective fiber can reduce feed intake and milk yield because the bulkiness of forage physically limits how much feed cows can consume. It also contains less digestible energy than other feeds, like grains, which risks reducing milk production. An “optimum” forage or physically effective fiber concentration is the ultimate goal.

Forage NDF concentrations below 17% risks reduced rumen pH and feed efficiency while forage NDF above 23% risks reducing feed intake and milk production. Also, updated physically effective NDF recommendations suggest that >50% of particles in a ration should be retained on the 8 mm sieve of the Penn State Shaker Box.

Buffers

Another strategy for managing SARA is through the supplementation of buffers like sodium bicarbonate, sodium sesquicarbonate, limestone, or calcareous algae products. These products neutralize acids in the rumen and aid in maintaining a stable rumen pH. Some of these buffers also have the benefit of increasing the dietary cation-anion difference which has been shown to increase milk fat production. Some buffers also provide readily absorbable minerals. If you consider feeding a buffer, look into all it offers in addition to buffering (DCAD, minerals, etc.) and determine which may be most economical for you. Buffers should be included at 0.25 to 0.50 lb/head/day in most cases if you’re concerned about SARA in your dairy cows.

Cow Comfort

Dairy cows ruminate more and produce more saliva while lying down. Thus, cow comfort is a critical part of SARA management as cows with more opportunities and time to lay down and ruminate should be able to buffer their rumen to a greater degree than cows in overcrowded pens. Ensure that you’re maintaining a comfortable, dry, and clean lying surface to enable a healthy rumen in your dairy herd.

Bunk Management

Feed availability, uniformly mixed feed, and consistent feed delivery is also part of SARA management. Cows with less access to the feed bunk may be more prone to large meals and “slug feeding” which reduces ruminal pH. This problem is compounded if a ration is poorly mixed or easily sorted. When these issues occur, a cow may eat more grain than the diet allots. Solid all-round nutrition management is necessary to reduce SARA and maintain rumen health.

Take Homes

SARA is a multifactorial challenge which is best managed by implementing a variety of mitigation strategies. These include feeding increased forage fiber, use of buffers, cow comfort, and sound feed bunk management. None of these approaches will eliminate SARA incidence, but used together, they can minimize the risk of SARA occurring in your dairy cows while also maximizing your herd’s rumen and animal health.

Dairy Dollars: Feed Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Milk Income

Andie Majewski, Graduate Teaching Associate and Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Feed is the largest cost of production on dairy farms. Because of this, it is critical to know the regional economic value of feeds and their predicted change in prices. Additionally, the costs of feedstuffs directly impact the producers feed nutrient prices and income over feed cost.
Figure 1. Actual and predicted cost of feedstuffs with 75% confidence interval (CI) of 21 feed commodities fed on Ohio Dairy Farms (November 18, 2024). Feedstuffs that are priced above the upper prediction price limit are overpriced (red bars). Feedstuffs that fall within the upper and lower limits of the predicted prices are breakeven feeds (gray bars). Feedstuffs that are priced below the lower prediction price limit are considered a bargain (green bars).

Economic Value of Feeds

Figure 1 displays the results for the 21 reported commodities for Ohio. These results were produced by SESAME^TM for the central Ohio region on November 18, 2024. In simple terms, Figure 1 represents the bargain feedstuffs (green), the overpriced feedstuffs (red), and the breakeven feedstuffs (gray). In November, corn-based feeds were generally a bargain, while other byproducts, such as canola meal and blood meal, were not. Remember, these prices and estimates are from a point in time and that their economic classification may change. While it is important to consider the costs of feedstuffs when formulating a ration, the prices are not the only thing that should be considered. Some of the “bargain” priced commodities may have a place in a dairy cattle ration; however, it is important to understand the investment opportunity that may arise by using “overpriced” feedstuffs.

The appraisal set (Table 1) predicts the prices for the commodities that did not have a current local price. These commodity prices were predicted by SESAME^TM and represent the commodity prices at one specific point in time and are therefore subject to change. These values may be used as a benchmark if you’re considering purchasing these ingredients for your dairy farm.

Table 1. Estimated Feedstuffs Prices Not Reported for Ohio, November 18, 2024.¹

Feedstuffs	Estimated price (75% CI)
Alfalfa hay – 32% NDF, 24% CP, 190 RFV, $/ton	212 (200 - 224)
Alfalfa hay – 36% NDF, 22% CP, 170 RFV, $/ton	215 (202 - 227)
Alfalfa hay – 44% NDF, 18% CP,130 RFV, $/ton	210 (194 - 225)
Alfalfa hay – 48% NDF, 16% CP, 110 RFV, $/ton	208 (190 - 226)
Bakery byproduct meal, $/ton	126 (106 - 146)
Beet sugar pulp, dried, $/ton	161 (147 - 175)
Citrus pulp dried, $/ton	113 (99 - 129)
Fish menhaden meal, mech., $/ton	497 (478 - 515)
Molasses, sugarcane, $/ton	70 (52 - 88)
Tallow, $/ton	187 (114 - 26)

¹CI= confidence Interval, NDF = neutral detergent fiber, CP = crude protein, and RFV = relative feed value.

Feed Nutrient Prices

The cost net energy for lactation (NE_L) decreased about 56% from our previous report in September (Table 2). Previously, the NE_L had progressively increased for the past 6 months of 2024. The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) increased by 8.6%, and the cost of physically effective fiber (e-NDF) increased by about 4.5%.

Table 2. Prices of Nutrients for Ohio Dairy Farms, November 18, 2024, Compared to September 24, 2024.

Nutrient Name	November Estimate		September Estimate		Price Change
NE_L - 3x , $/Mcal	0.0340	~	0.0602	~
Metabolizable Protein, $/lb	0.5463	**	0.5031	**
e-NDF, $/lb	0.1518	**	0.1453	**
ne-NDF, $/lb	-0.0049		-0.0453
- A blank means that the nutrient unit cost is likely equal to zero. - ~ Means that the nutrient unit cost may be close to zero. - * Means that the nutrient unit cost is unlikely to be equal to zero. - ** Means that the nutrient unit cost is most likely not equal to zero.

Milk and Milk Component Prices

In the month of November, the ending Class III milk price was $22.85 /cwt. November’s milk fat and protein prices were $3.09 and $3.32/lb, respectively. Fat decreased about $0.47/lb from September, while protein increased from its prior price of $2.18/lb in September. The Class III milk price is predicted to increase slightly in the next month to $23.09/cwt.

The profitability of milk production with the nutrient costs displayed in Table 2 is estimated using the Cow-Jones Index. The prediction formula uses a 1500 lb cow producing milk with 4.09% fat and 3.22% protein. This month, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 85 and 70 lb/day is about $18.61 and $18.17/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are expected to be profitable, despite not including factors such as replacement and cull cows in the herd.

Table 3. Prices of milk and milk components, sourced from the Federal Marketing Order 33, for Ohio dairy farms, November 18, 2024, compared to September 24, 2024.

Milk/ Component	November Prices	September Prices	Price Change
Milk fat, $/lb	3.09	3.56
Milk protein, $/lb	3.32	2.18
Class III Milk¹, $/cwt	22.85	23.42
¹Class III milk is used for hard cheese.

If Cows Make Their Own B-vitamins, Should We Worry About Supplementing Them? – Part II

Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Introduction

In part 1, we introduced the fundamentals of B-vitamin nutrition for dairy cows. Ruminants have a unique advantage when it comes to B-vitamins because the microbes in their rumen provide them with their own personal source of B-vitamins. When we consider that microbes supply dairy cattle with B-vitamins, it’s worth asking the question of whether supplementation of additional B-vitamins is needed, or beneficial, for dairy cows.

How to Supplement B-vitamins?

The rumen degradation of B-vitamins is different for each of the B-vitamins (Table 1). Previous research in beef and dairy cattle demonstrate that nearly all the riboflavin and niacin are degraded in the rumen before they reach the intestine. Folic acid is also extensively degraded in the rumen. Thiamin and cobalamin had intermediate rumen degradation, while biotin and pyridoxine had the least apparent rumen degradation.

Table 1. Apparent ruminal degradation (%) of B-vitamins.

B-vitamin	Santschi et al. (2005)
Thiamin	67.8
Riboflavin	99.3
Niacin	98.5
Pyridoxine	41.0
Biotin	45.2
Folic Acid	97.0
Cobalamin	62.9

Since most of the B-vitamins are extensively degraded in the rumen, they usually require rumen protection technology to deliver them to the small intestine in adequate quantities for intestinal absorption and use by the animal. There are many commercial sources of rumen protected B-vitamins for cattle (side note: if you’re considering rumen-protected B-vitamins, make sure that the rumen protection technology is effective). These rumen-protected supplements are often sold as B-vitamin blends, but some individual B-vitamin supplements are marketed as well.

The research on supplementing B-vitamins to dairy cattle is blurry and full of nuance. Some nutrients have been more thoroughly investigated than others, some B-vitamins have been provided by injection while some others have been fed through the bunk as a supplement, and some B-vitamins have been consistently effective while others have not.

What Does the Research Say?

Cobalamin and Folic Acid

In a 2017 experiment, injections of folic acid, cobalamin, or both were given to cows weekly from 3 weeks prior to calving until 7 weeks after calving. They did not observe any changes in milk yield or component yields due to treatment (Duplessis et al., 2017). Interestingly, this same research group observed that folic acid and cobalamin injections during this window around calving reduced days to first breeding (Duplessis et al., 2014). Other experiments have also observed improved fertility and reductions in culling when providing B-vitamins to dairy cattle through a rumen-protected supplement (Juchem et al., 2012). In this experiment, they did not observe changes in milk production from the B-vitamin blend supplement.

In general, cobalamin and folic acid have neutral results on milk production with possible health or fertility benefits for dairy cattle.

Biotin

Research has indicated that increasing biotin in the diet increases milk yield during lactation. Fortunately, there are enough data investigating the supplementation of biotin to dairy cattle that a meta-analysis was published on the topic. They summarized data from 11 experiments that included 238 cows (Chen et al., 2011). Their analysis concluded that 20 mg/day of biotin increased milk yield by 1.7 kg/day (3.7 lb/day) without any effect on milk component concentrations which resulted in greater milk component yields.

Niacin

Niacin, or vitamin B3, has very intriguing effects that could be beneficial for dairy cow health. Supplementing rumen-protected niacin reduces body fat mobilization after calving and has reduced ketones after calving. Recent research in dairy cattle has also shown that rumen-protected niacin is anti-inflammatory which may improve animal health during times of stress (Krogstad et al., 2024). In a recent abstract at the American Dairy Science Association meeting, the researchers suggest that rumen-protected niacin supplementation may increase milk yield throughout lactation as well, but it is the only experiment to monitor cows for a whole lactation when supplemented niacin during the transition period. Overall, the results for niacin are encouraging but require greater scrutiny to confirm the increased milk yield that was observed as a result of rumen-protected niacin supplementation

Bottomline on B-vitamins?

Supplementing B-vitamins to cows, in most cases, requires that they be rumen protected because they are extensively degraded by rumen microbes. The results of research from supplementing B-vitamins to dairy cattle depends on which B-vitamin was investigated. Biotin supplementation increases milk yield from dairy cattle, while supplementing folic acid and cobalamin has neutral effects on milk production. In some cases, providing folic acid and cobalamin improved fertility and reduced culling of dairy cows. Supplementing rumen protected niacin has increased milk yield in one instance and has demonstrated anti-inflammatory effects that require closer scrutiny. For your operation, look at the data, pencil out the costs, and calculate the benefits to determine which B-vitamin supplements may work best in your herd!

References

Chen, B., C. Wang, Y. M. Wang, and J. X. Liu. 2011. Effect of biotin on milk performance of dairy cattle: A meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 94(7):3537-3546. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3764

Duplessis, M., C. L. Girard, D. E. Santschi, J. P. Laforest, J. Durocher, and D. Pellerin. 2014. Effects of folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation on culling rate, diseases, and reproduction in commercial dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97(4):2346-2354. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7369

Duplessis, M., H. Lapierre, D. Pellerin, J. P. Laforest, and C. L. Girard. 2017. Effects of intramuscular injections of folic acid, vitamin B12, or both, on lactational performance and energy status of multiparous dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 100(5):4051-4064. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12381

Juchem, S. O., P. H. Robinson, and E. Evans. 2012. A fat based rumen protection technology post-ruminally delivers a B vitamin complex to impact performance of multiparous Holstein cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 174(1):68-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.03.004

Krogstad, K. C., J. F. Fehn, L. K. Mamedova, M. P. Bernard, and B. J. Bradford. 2024. Effects of rumen-protected niacin on inflammatory response to repeated intramammary lipopolysaccharide challenges. J. Dairy Sci. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-24974

Santschi, D. E., R. Berthiaume, J. J. Matte, A. F. Mustafa, and C. L. Girard. 2005. Fate of supplementary B-vitamins in the gastrointestinal tract of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88(6):2043-2054. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72881-2

Using Antibiotics on Your Dairy Farm? How to Monitor for Improved Practices

Rafael Portillo-Gonzalez, Samantha Locke, and Greg Habing, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Why is it Important to Monitor Antimicrobial Use on Your Farm?

Antimicrobial resistance occurs when bacteria evolve to survive antimicrobial treatments, making infections harder to treat. Although this process happens naturally, it is accelerated by the misuse and overuse of antimicrobials. On dairy farms, bacterial infections such as mastitis, metritis, diarrhea, respiratory diseases, and lameness significantly affect animal health. Improper management of these infections can lead to the development of resistant bacteria, which will make treatment of previously minor infections in cattle difficult or impossible. Additionally, some resistant bacteria can spread to humans, causing serious health issues. Responsible use of antimicrobials minimizes the risk of resistant infections, protects animal welfare, and improves treatment outcomes. Monitoring antibiotic use at the farm level is key to maintaining responsible use and complying with regulations. It also optimizes farm efficiency by reducing the risk of antimicrobial residues in food products. By tracking antibiotic use, farmers can make data-driven decisions to improve animal health, reduce the need for antimicrobials over time and contribute to the global fight against antibiotic resistance.

How Do We Measure and Monitor On-farm Antimicrobial Use?

Antimicrobial use (AMU) is measured by determining how frequently animals on a farm receive antimicrobial treatments over a specific period (Figure 1). One common method to assess antibiotic use is by calculating the Animal Daily Dose (ADD). This metric standardizes the definition of a “dose” for each antibiotic and shows the number of doses of antibiotic used for a standard population size over time. For instance, 10 ADD per 1000 cow-days means that a farm uses, on average, 10 doses of antibiotics every day for every 1000 cows on the farm. This standardized metric helps identify patterns in antibiotic use within farms or allows apples-to-apples comparisons across farms, leading to better decision-making regarding responsible and effective use.

Figure 1. Record keeping is very important in management of antimicrobial use.

Monitoring antibiotic use alongside disease metrics, such as metritis or mastitis incidences, provides a comprehensive view of antibiotic use and treatment practices at the farm level. Disease incidence indicates how frequently health issues occur, while antibiotic use metrics reveal how antimicrobials are used in response. Together, these measures help identify patterns such as overuse or under-treatment, enabling more informed management decisions.

How Much Variation in Antibiotic Use is There Between Farms?

The variation in antibiotic use between farms can be substantial, influenced by how each farm manages animal health, identifies disease, and designs treatment protocols. A recent study published by our research team aimed to describe and quantify on-farm antibiotic use in large dairy farms in Ohio and California. The study found substantial differences in AMU among enrolled dairy farms. The overall mean treatment ADD was 11.8, with values ranging from 1.7 to 71.6 ADD/1,000 cow-days (Portillo-Gonzalez et al., 2023; Figure 2). This considerable variation highlights opportunities to reduce antimicrobial use on some farms, promoting more responsible practices. (Link to the study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38056568/)

Figure 2. Mean Animal Daily Dose (ADD)/1,000 cow-days by farm for the whole study period (180 days). The overall mean ADD for all the farms (n=18) was included as a reference.

Why does the Amount of Antibiotic Use Vary so Much Between Farms?

Variation in the amount of on-farm antibiotic use can be influenced by disease incidence, disease case definitions, and the design of on-farm treatment protocols. Farms with weaker disease prevention practices, such as inadequate vaccination, biosecurity, or barn hygiene, naturally tend to rely more heavily on antimicrobials. Also, the disease case definition plays an important role. Some farms may be very selective with antimicrobials by using alternatives (fluids, anti-inflammatories) or by identifying only the cases most likely to benefit from treatment. Lastly, the dose and duration specified in the veterinary treatment protocol significantly impact total antimicrobial use on the farm. For example, some farms in our study treated mastitis for a longer duration than was necessary. Changing the protocol to a shorter, yet equally effective, duration resulted in a marked reduction in antibiotic use.

How Can Farms Monitor Their Own AMU?

Farms can monitor their AMU by keeping appropriate records of each antimicrobial treatment,

including antimicrobial name, dosage, route of administration, withholding period, the number of animals treated, and the reason for use. Herd management software can help organize treatment records, which can then be used more easily for analysis. Farms can work with their veterinarian to calculate ADD, monitor sales records, and monitor inventory. Analyzing these records alongside other performance indicators can help identify areas where enhanced disease prevention measures or adjustments to treatment protocols may be needed.

What Can Producers Do to Reduce Their AMU?

Dairy farmers can reduce AMU by focusing on four key strategies. The first and most obvious strategy is to reduce disease incidence and therefore reduce the need for antimicrobials. This can be achieved through appropriate nutrition, vaccination, improved biosecurity, and early disease detection, which helps prevent outbreaks and reduces the need for antimicrobial treatments. Second, farms should work closely with their veterinarian to regularly review the adherence to treatment protocols. The protocol should include clear directions on the disease case definition so that antimicrobials are only administered to cows likely to benefit from the treatment. Accurate disease identification requires substantial training and experience, and some infections may resolve or worsen without antimicrobials. Treatment alternatives, such as fluids and anti-inflammatories, can further lower antimicrobial dependence. Third, producers should also review treatment protocols with their veterinarian to ensure that the dose and duration of treatments are appropriate. Adjusting these factors can prevent overuse while maintaining treatment efficacy. Lastly, producers might consider selective dry cow therapy, which targets antimicrobials only for cows at higher risk of infection or those with existing infections, such as high somatic cell counts (SCC). On some farms, this method has successfully reduced AMU while maintaining udder health.

Reductions in unnecessary antibiotic use can improve animal health, enhance farm sustainability, and play a vital role in combating antibiotic resistance, which is critical for public health and the future efficacy of antimicrobials.
FDA Letter Asks Veterinarians to Discontinue Use of Unapproved Aspirin Products in Lactating Dairy Cattle
Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Professor, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

In October 11, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a “Dear Veterinarian Letter” informing veterinarians and their clients to discontinue use of unapproved aspirin products to treat pyrexia and pain in lactating dairy cattle. A total of 616 confirmed dairy herds in 15 US states were reported positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) as of November 22, 2024. Aspirin is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that is being used on some dairy farms to treat cattle infected with HPAI. In the past, FDA considered aspirin products to be of low regulatory concern. However, because the increased use of unapproved aspirin and the availability in the US market of labeled products for treatment of pyrexia (fever) in cattle, the FDA has shifted this stance to state such use as illegal.

The letter states that “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration understands that veterinarians and dairy farmers may be treating lactating dairy cattle for pyrexia and pain with aspirin and wants to clarify that there are no FDA-approved aspirin products for use in cattle”. Furthermore, the letter indicates that “There are FDA-approved products for controlling pyrexia and pain in lactating dairy cattle that are safe, effective, and have established milk and meat withdrawal periods.”

Regarding the use of aspirin products available in the US market, the letter states that “Although other human aspirin products are marketed under an over-the-counter monograph, that monograph is not an approval and, therefore, these products cannot be used in an extralabel manner. Given the impracticality of dosing cattle with a sufficient amount of the approved human product, the FDA understands that veterinarians and dairy farmers may instead be using unapproved aspirin products that are not legally marketed. The extra label use of unapproved drug products in food-producing species is prohibited.” On November 1, 2024, the Food Animal Residue Database (FARAD) indicated that aspirin products are not FDA-approved in any veterinary species.

What species are impacted by the FDA letter? Although the letter was issued to veterinarians and their dairy clients, the use of aspirin is also impacting swine and potentially other species.

What should I do if aspirin was accidentally administered to food animals? Please contact and work with your veterinarian. FARAD will work with veterinarians to determine case-by-case withdrawal interval recommendations (milk and meat) following accidental aspirin administration to food animals.

What drug is approved to treat pyrexia and pain in cattle? Banamine transdermal (Flunixin) is the only FDA-approved drug for beef and dairy cattle for control of control of pyrexia (fever) associated with bovine respiratory disease and acute bovine mastitis, and the control of pain associated with foot rot. Additionally, there is one FDA-approved human aspirin product (Vazalore) that is currently marketed and veterinarians might use in food producing species under specific conditions, according to the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA). Please contact your veterinarian for more information.

What does this federal regulatory change mean to you and your livestock operation as well as veterinary practices?

This means that livestock operations would need to establish a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) to treat animals experiencing pyrexia and pain. Consult your veterinarian for more information. Although there currently are over-the-counter unapproved FDA aspirin products available in the US market, retail suppliers who were able to sell these drugs/products in the past may no longer sell them.

What is a veterinarian-client-patient-relationship?

A veterinarian-client-patient-relationship (VCPR) is defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association as the basis for interaction among veterinarians, their clients, and their patients and is critical to the health of your animal(s). The practical explanation is that it is a formal relationship that you have with a veterinarian who serves as your primary contact for all veterinary services and is familiar with you, your livestock/animals, and your farm operation. This veterinarian is referred to as your Veterinarian of Record (VoR), and both the VoR and the client should sign a form to document this relationship.

Helpful Resources:
1. Dear Veterinarian Letter regarding use of aspirin products in lactating dairy cattle. News release. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. October 11, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/dear-veterinarian-letter-regarding-use-aspirin-products-lactating-dairy-cattle.
2. FDA warns against use of unapproved aspirin in lactating dairy cattle. News release. American Veterinary Medical Association. October 23, 2024; updated on October 29, 2024. https://www.avma.org/news/fda-warns-against-use-unapproved-aspirin-lactating-dairy-cattle?utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=todays-headlines-news.
3. Aspirin in dairy cattle: Challenges and consideration. Food Animal Residue Database (FARAD). http://www.farad.org/publications/FARAD_Aspirin_DairyCattle_10-24.pdf. November 1, 2024.
4. Download a VCPR template developed by the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association Drug Use Task Force at: https://extension.vet.osu.edu/general-food-fiber-animal-resources.
Free Flu Vaccine for Dairy Farmers and Farm Workers

Jason Hartschuh, Assistant Professor, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has allocated more than 100,000 doses of seasonal influenza vaccine to 12 states that have had dairy herds test positive for H5N1 bird flu. This is part of a CDC initiative announced this summer to provide several supplemental free seasonal influenza vaccines to farm workers across states affected by H5N1 to prevent the spread of seasonal flu in these communities and safeguard public health. The 12 states include: California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, and Texas. All states with dairy herds that have tested positive for H5N1 bird flu were invited to apply to receive additional doses of seasonal influenza vaccine – allocated specifically for farm workers – beyond what the states were already planning to provide. States will conduct screening to ensure that these doses are going to farm workers and will track the number of doses given monthly by age. While a seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against H5N1 bird flu, expanding access to seasonal flu vaccines among farm workers can prevent severe illness and help reduce the strain of the flu season on rural healthcare systems. Reducing the prevalence of seasonal flu also can help public health agencies better detect cases of H5N1 bird flu, should they occur. And fewer people infected with seasonal flu means fewer opportunities for the very rare possibility of co-infection with both a human seasonal virus and an avian virus. For more information on receiving these free flu vaccines, see the inserted document listed below or contact your local health department.

Click on image below for pdf version with links.
Starter Success for Dairy Calves
Elizabeth Plunkett, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

At birth, a calf’s rumen is not fully functional, and milk bypasses the rumen via the esophageal groove to be digested in the abomasum. As the calf grows, a healthy, active rumen becomes more and more essential for its long-term success. The transition from a nonfunctional to a fully functional rumen is heavily diet-dependent. Offering starter feed early on encourages rumen fermentation, which produces butyrate, a vital compound for developing the rumen’s lining and papillae. The earlier you provide access to a clean, dry starter, the sooner you can supply the rumen with all the essential compounds it needs for a smooth weaning. So, what steps can you take to boost starter intake and give your calves the best start possible?

1. Water intake drives starter intake.

Water is often overlooked as an essential nutrient but can be a key driver for starter success. Restricted access to water can lead to reduced weight gain and starter intake in calves (Kertz et al., 1984). Providing ad libitum access to clean, fresh water as early as the first week of life is a simple, yet powerful, tool that can benefit your calves.

2. Start with a shallow bowl.

While calves are known to be curious, many shy away from sticking their head into a deep, unfamiliar bucket. Providing a handful of starter into a shallow bowl creates an invitation for calves to explore something new without added stress. In most cases, you can find dog bowls that will fit in the same holder and act as the feed bucket until intake increases. Offering small amounts at the start also helps reduce waste, as calves typically don’t begin eating significant amounts of starter until three weeks of age.

3. Refresh starter daily for young calves.

Young calves who are new to starter should receive a fresh supply daily (or at least weekly). Stale starter can leave a bitter taste in a calf’s mouth, and you want their first experience consuming starter to be enjoyable so they will be a repeat customer. Starter dishes can also quickly become a breeding ground for mold and bacteria, creating unwanted and unnecessary challenges. Starter refusals that are clean and dry from young calves can be fed to older calves, helping to reduce waste and make the most of your feed.

4. Gradual weaning.

Gradual weaning is a proven strategy for increasing starter intake and improving overall weight gain (Sweeney et al., 2010). A key consideration when implementing gradual weaning is that milk intake should not be reduced until calves demonstrate consistent consumption of starter. Once calves begin showing a substantial interest in starter, a reduction in milk can be initiated to stimulate further starter consumption. This approach encourages higher starter intake prior to complete milk removal, optimizing both growth performance and feed efficiency. Consider talking with your nutritionist to develop a gradual weaning program that best suits your goals.

5. Group housing calves.

Extensive research has demonstrated the positive effects of group housing during the weaning period (Costa et al., 2016). One of the benefits of this approach is that calves can learn feeding behaviors from each other, leading to improved feed intake and growth rates. Post-weaning, group housed calves tend to have greater competitive success at the feed bunk compared to calves housed individually. While group housing calves may offer many benefits, it should be implemented carefully. Prior to grouping calves, it is important to consider factors such as size differences and health status of the calves. Disease transmission is a potential concern, as group housing can increase the risk of health issues among calves. With proper backgrounding and sanitation protocols in place, group housing calves can be an effective strategy to enhance starter intake.

6. Limit bulky, low-quality forages.

Feeding hay during the preweaning period is a complex topic and should be approached with extreme caution. Forages are low in energy and provide unnecessary bulk in the rumen at a time when we need energy-dense feed for calves (i.e., starter). Introducing forages too early may discourage calves from consuming starter, lowering energy intake. Forages do little for rumen development, as their primary role is to provide abrasiveness to prevent keratin build-up on papillae, aiding in greater absorption of nutrients. You can achieve the same effect by feeding a texturized starter which is more nutrient-dense.

Weaning does not have to be a stressful event for you and your calves. By focusing on ensuring that calves are eating enough starter, the weaning process will be smoother and reduce stress for everyone. It is important to base weaning on starter intake rather than days of age. Calves should be consistently eating 2 to 3 lb/day of starter for at least three consecutive days before you begin weaning. A successful weaning sets the stage for calves to grow into healthy, productive cows that will perform in the parlor.

Sources:
1. Costa, J.H.C., M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, and D.M. Weary. 2016. Invited review: Effects of group housing of dairy calves on behavior, cognition, performance, and health. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2453–2467. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10144.
2. Kertz, A.F., L.F. Reutzel, and J.H. Mahoney. 1984. Ad libitum water intake by neonatal calves and its relationship to calf starter intake, weight gain, feces score, and season. J. Dairy Sci. 67:2964–2969. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(84)81660-4.
3. Sweeney, B.C., J. Rushen, D.M. Weary, and A.M. De Passillé. 2010. Duration of weaning, starter intake, and weight gain of dairy calves fed large amounts of milk. J. Dairy Sci. 93:148–152. doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2427.
Practical Tips to Improve Calf Welfare in Cold Weather
Dr. Grazyne Tresoldi, Assistant Professor, Animal Welfare, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

As winter approaches, low ambient temperatures and high humidity pose serious challenges for all calves, with very young ones being especially at risk. When temperatures drop below 50°F, calves must expend extra energy to maintain their body temperature. This increased energy demand can quietly lead to slower growth, weakened immunity, and higher susceptibility to disease. If calves are unable to cope with the cold, they may exhibit signs of stress, such as shivering, reluctance to stand, and frostbite on extremities. In severe cases, cold stress can be fatal.

Here are research-backed and practical strategies to mitigate cold stress and protect your calves:

Optimize Housing
- Provide windproof, draft-free shelters, such as well-ventilated hutches or barns. Remember, draft-free doesn’t mean airtight - ventilation is critical to reduce humidity and airborne pathogens that can worsen respiratory issues.
- Use deep, dry straw bedding to insulate calves and allow for "nesting," where calves can burrow for warmth. Replace bedding regularly to prevent moisture buildup, which compromises insulation.
- House calves in pairs or small groups to enable huddling (Figure 1), which improves thermal comfort through shared body heat.
- Consider overhead heat lamps, especially for newborn calves, to provide targeted warmth in colder conditions.
Adjust Feeding Strategies
- Increase milk or milk replacer allowances during cold weather to meet higher energy demands for thermoregulation and support growth.
- Consider ad libitum feeding; calves will self-regulate their consumption based on energy needs. In colder conditions, their intake may exceed the average of 15 to 20% of body weight daily. For group-housed calves, automated feeders can help ensure consistent access to sufficient milk or replacer.
- Incorporate liquid fat into diets as an option but consult a nutritionist to ensure the crude protein to metabolizable energy ratio is balanced.
Provide Layers
- Use insulated calf jackets to retain body heat and conserve energy for growth and immunity (Figure 2). Ensure jackets are clean, dry, and properly fitted to avoid restricting movement or creating pressure points.
Engage with Experts
- Collaborate with veterinarians, nutritionists, and educators to design a cold stress management plan tailored to your farm’s unique needs. Routine assessments of housing, nutrition, and calf health are essential to prevent issues before they arise.
By implementing these strategies, Ohio dairy farmers can help their calves stay healthy and thrive throughout the winter, fostering robust growth, development, and improved welfare within their herds.

Sources:

1. Roland et al., 2016. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9901.

2. Van Os et al., 2024. https://doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2023-0443.

Figure 1. Pair-housed calves with access to two hutches often prefer to huddle together in one hutch during winter, conserving body heat. Photo credit: Kimberly Reuscher.

Figure 2. Calf jackets are an effective way to reduce heat loss during cold weather, helping calves conserve energy. They are also machine washable for easy maintenance. Photo credit: FutureCow.
Winter Calf Management

Jason Hartschuh, Assistant Professor, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

I was slightly more ready for cold weather this year than the last couple. I had the fans taken down so that my calf barn doors would slide shut when the first cold night came around, but still, I was not ready for the dusting of snow I received last week. I was scrambling to make sure my calves would be comfortable. The thermoneutral zone for calves is 50 to 68⁰F, meaning when temperatures in their environment are below the lower critical temperature of 50⁰F, they need extra energy to stay warm. This can be a challenge since 50⁰F at night often has highs of 70⁰F during the day. Usually, calves deep bedded with straw manage this variation by nesting with their legs covered at least to the middle of the back leg when lying down. The next step is adding calf jackets to help keep calves warm. Studies show that calf jackets improve gain by 0.22 lb/day compared to those without jackets. Adding jackets when it is warm out may cause the calves to sweat under the jacket and get chills at night. If you have a calf born prematurely, putting the jacket on at night and taking it off during the day is extra work but may help calves that cannot regulate their body temperature very well. The calf jacket material should be breathable with a water-resistant shell. It is recommended that producers start using jackets once the pen temperature averages less than 50⁰F for newborn calves up to 3 weeks old. Once calves are over 3 weeks of age, they are comfortable until average pen temperatures are below 40⁰F. The lower critical temperature is higher as the calf’s rumen develops, creating heat to keep them warm. One important management step with calf jackets is to keep the jackets dry, which means calves should be dry before putting jackets on. If the calf is still damp, you will need to change jackets after a few hours. In order to put jackets on dry calves, you should have clean towels to dry the calves. One thing that works very well when calving barn temperatures fall below freezing, or even 40⁰ F, is to have towels in a cabinet in the calving pen to help the cow to quickly dry the calf.

When calves are first born and they start shivering, they are burning precious energy. For each 1-degree drop in temperature below the lower critical temperature, a calf needs a 1% increase in energy to meet maintenance requirements. There are many different calf-feeding programs. With all programs to increase growth, more milk solids have to be fed but solids concentration should not exceed 16%. The most common way to increase energy intake is to feed either more per feeding or add a third feeding. While 8 hours apart is ideal for three feedings, the most important part is to make timing consistent. Feed the same amount at each feeding, even if that means adding a lunch feeding between your normal feeding times.

Another beneficial practice is to provide warm water at 63 to 82⁰F to calves within 30 minutes of finishing their milk. Water intake improves starter intake by 31%. However, it lowers their rumen temperature, requiring energy to warm the water and even more energy to maintain weight and allow for growth.

Pay close attention to winter ventilation, keeping barns or hutches warm is not the goal. Keeping the air fresh to minimize disease while not allowing a draft on the calves is the goal. There are many ways to do this. With hutches, it usually means having either permanent winter windbreaks or temporary windbreaks, like straw bales. Winter winds seem to change and bring cold nasty weather out of every direction, even the south. In calf barns, pens are a microenvironment affected by ventilation and pen design. Studies have found that solid sides slow disease spread but are only beneficial if the front, back, and top of the pens are open; otherwise, they create a high disease microenvironment. When disease and ventilation are challenging your calves, a properly designed positive pressure tube providing ventilation at a rate of 15 cubic feet/calf/minute can improve calf health without creating a chill. Having written ventilation protocols for your calf barn and hutches along with thermometers placed both inside and outside your calf-raising area can help everyone remember to make the necessary ventilation adjustments as day and nighttime temperatures fluctuate.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparisons of Feedstuffs Prices

Andie Majewski, Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

My name is Andie Majewski. I began pursuing a Master of Science degree in the Department of Animal Sciences at The Ohio State University this fall of 2024. I completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science with a minor in dairy cattle management at the University of New Hampshire in spring of 2024. At OSU, my research will center around dairy cattle nutrition, with a focus on rumen health. My faculty advisor is Dr. Kirby Krogstad on the Wooster campus.

Milk Prices

In the month of September, the ending Class III milk price was $23.42/cwt. September’s milk butterfat and protein prices were $3.56 and 2.18/lb, respectively. Butterfat remained about the same as it did in the previous month, only increasing $0.02/lb, while protein increased from its prior price of $1.95/lb in July. The Class III milk price is predicted to drop slightly in the next month to $23.30/cwt.

Updated Corn Silage Prices

The corn silage price used in this report is updated each year around the time of harvest. The updated price for corn silage in Ohio was used in this report’s calculations. The updated price of the 32 to 38% dry matter (DM) corn silage is $4.14/bu or $50.68/ton. This price is lower than the 2023 price, which was $56.40/ton making a total of decrease of $5.72/ton since last year.

Nutrient Prices

To put Table 1 into greater context, it is helpful to estimate the profitability of a herd using the nutrient prices listed. The NE_L decreased about 33% from the previous month of July. The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) increased by 10.63%, and the cost of physically effective fiber (e-NDF) increased by about 33%. Previously, the NE_L has progressively increased for the past 6 months of 2024. Despite this, with the new price of corn silage factored in, the NE_L has decreased.

The profitability of these nutrients is estimated using the Cow-Jones Index. The prediction formula uses a 1500 lb cow, producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. This month, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 85 and 70 lb/day is about $15.10/cwt and $14.62/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are expected to be profitable, despite not including factors such as replacement and cull cows in the herd.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, September 24, 2024.
A screenshot of a calculatorDescription automatically generated

Economic Value of Feeds

Presented in Table 2 are the results for the 21 reported commodities for Ohio. These results were produced by the SESAME^TM analysis for the central Ohio region on September 24, 2024. Listed in Table 2 are the actual and predicted prices for each feed commodity, in addition to the upper and lower limits generated by the 75% confidence interval. The appraisal set predicts the prices for the commodities that did not have a current local price. These commodity prices were predicted by SESAME^TM and represent the commodity prices at one specific point in time and are therefore subject to change.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted), and 75% confidence limits of 21 feed commodities used on Ohio Dairy Farms, September 24, 2024. A screenshot of a computerDescription automatically generated A screenshot of a computer screenDescription automatically generated

To more comprehensively interpret the above values, Table 3 uses the outcome from the SESAME^TM analysis to compare the economic classification of the listed feedstuffs. The feedstuffs that are priced above the upper limit of the predicted prices are overpriced. Those that fall within the upper and lower limits of the predicted prices are breakeven feeds. The feedstuffs that are priced below the lower limit of the predicted price are considered a bargain. Since the prices of feedstuffs are frequently changing, these columns do not represent these historical values, but rather their temporary economic classification. The feeds included in the Appraisal set from Table 2 are not included in Table 3.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, September 24, 2024.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn grain	Alfalfa hay- 40% NDF	Blood meal
Corn silage	Whole cotton seed	Canola meal
Distillers grain	Feather meal	Cottonseed meal
Gluten feed	Meat meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Gluten meal	Soybean hulls	44% Soybean meal
Hominy		48% Soybean meal
Soybean meal expellers		Soybean seeds
Wheat middlings		Wheat bran

While it is important to consider income and the costs of feedstuffs when forming a dairy cattle ration, the prices listed in the table above are not the only thing that should be considered. While some of the “bargain” priced commodities may have a place in a dairy cattle ration, it is important to know the investment opportunity that may exist with some feedstuffs in the “overpriced” column.

Appendix

Table 4 shares the values of the estimated nutrient costs for those who consider rumen degradable protein (RDP) and digestible rumen undegradable protein (digestible RUP) instead of the metabolizable protein that is presented in Table 1.

Table 4. Prices of nutrients using the 5-nutrient solutions for Ohio dairy farms, September 24, 2024.
A screenshot of a computerDescription automatically generated

B-vitamins Basics in Dairy Cattle Nutrition – Part I

Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

B-vitamin 101

B-vitamins are water soluble vitamins that are essential nutrients for metabolism of mammals. Ruminants, like dairy cattle, are provided B-vitamins by their rumen microbes. Since the rumen microbes provide B-vitamins to the animal, they are not supplemented in their rations because we assume that microbial sources meet the animal’s B-vitamin requirements. As dairy cattle continue to increase their milk production, additional B-vitamins may be helpful. Revisiting B-vitamin’s role in the dairy cow is necessary as we continue to enhance efficiency of dairy cattle.

There are 8 vitamins in the “B-vitamin complex”. They, and some of their primary functions, are listed in Table 1. Clearly, this class of vitamins is essential to some of our most critical metabolic reactions in the body. Choline is not listed but is often considered a “B-vitamin like” molecule, but it won’t be included in this discussion.

Table 1. List of B-vitamins with important functions they fulfill. Adapted from NASEM (2021).

Name of Vitamin	Function
Thiamin (B₁)	Carbohydrate metabolism, energy metabolism, branched-chain amino acid catabolism, and fatty acid oxidation.
Riboflavin (B₂)	Essential component of flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) and flavin mononucleotide. Involved in more than 100 metabolic reactions.
Niacin (B₃)	Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP). Involved in critical pathways like glycolysis, lipolysis, ketogenesis, and the Krebs cycle.
Pantothenic acid (B₅)	Essential component of Coenzyme A which is involved in energy metabolism (i.e. Kreb’s Cycle). Component of enzyme required for fatty acid elongation.
Pyridoxine (B₆)	AA metabolism and glycogen utilization.
Biotin (B₈)	Component of carboxylase enzymes (pyruvate carboxylase, propinyl-CoA carboxylase, others) involved in energy and amino acid metabolism.
Folate (B₉)	DNA replication, damage, repair, and methyl donor.
Cobalamin (B₁₂)	Essential for two enzymes: methylmalonyl CoA mutase and methionine synthase. Critical for methyl donation, propionate metabolism, and gluconeogenesis.

Rumen Supply

How many B-vitamins do the rumen microbes supply to the cow? Very, very small amounts, which demonstrates that these molecules are very potent. For a cow eating 55 lb/day of dry matter (DM), she will be supplied between 1.3 and 6.6 g/day of total B-vitamins (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Estimated B-vitamin supply from rumen microbes of a dairy cow consuming 55 lb/day of DM. Estimates were calculated from NASEM, 2021. Image created with BioRender.com.

To further complicate matters, a recent meta-analysis has demonstrated that the basal diet fed to the cows will change the amount of these B-vitamins that flow out of the rumen and get taken up by the cow (Brisson et al., 2022). Generally, increasing rumen fermentable carbohydrates will increase the amounts of B-vitamins that exit the rumen. One exception to that generality is cobalamin (vitamin B₁₂) which is reduced when increasing the amount starch in the diet. For example, a 10% increase in dietary starch would increase thiamin by 3%, riboflavin by 5%, and folate by 6%, while reducing cobalamin by 2%.

Dairy and B-vitamins for People?

Since the rumen provides cows with B-vitamins, the cows deposit some of these B-vitamins into their milk. One cup of bovine milk can provide approximately 10% of our thiamin needs, 40% of our riboflavin needs, 1% of our niacin needs, 20% of our pantothenic acid needs, 7% of our pyridoxine needs, 4% of our folates, and 50% of our cobalamin needs (Graulet and Girard, 2017). Clearly, dairy is an excellent source of these essential nutrients for humans.

Conclusion

One of the rumen’s superpowers is to synthesize B-vitamins for the cow. We’ve long assumed that these B-vitamins meet the cow’s requirements. The diet fed to the cows changes the amounts of B-vitamins that exit the rumen each day. Increasing dietary starch increases B-vitamins except for cobalamin; increasing starch slightly reduces the amount of cobalamin that exits the rumen. Also, the B-vitamins in milk can provide a significant portion of the B-vitamins that humans require, which demonstrates some of the benefits of dairy product consumption by humans.

References

Brisson, V., C.L. Girard, J.A. Metcalf, D.S. Castagnino, J. Dijkstra, and J.L. Ellis. 2022. Meta-analysis of apparent ruminal synthesis and postruminal flow of B vitamins in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 105(9):7399-7415. 10.3168/jds.2021-21656

Graulet, B., and C.L. Girard. 2017. Chapter 15 - B Vitamins in Cow Milk: Their relevance to human health. Pages 211-224 in Dairy in Human Health and Disease Across the Lifespan. R. R. Watson, R. J. Collier, and V. R. Preedy, ed. Academic Press.

Footbath Practices for Lameness Prevention

Jason Hartschuh, Assistant Professor, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

Whether you are milking cows in a traditional parlor or through an automated milking system, a cow's locomotion is important. She needs to make a minimum of 2 trips to the parlor and 9 to 14 trips to the feed bunk to eat. When a cow has a sore foot, she doesn’t feel like walking anywhere and will eat less frequently. While in a conventional parlor, she will still be herded with the rest of the cows to get milked. A cow with a sore foot will make fewer trips to the robotic milker and often appears on the fetch list. Each case of lameness costs approximately $336.91 in lost milk production, treatment of lameness, reduced reproductive performance, and increased culling. Also for each additional week a cow is lame beyond the first signs of clinical lameness, this cost goes up $13.26. Barn hygiene practices, such as preventative hoof trimming and regular alley scrapping, are critical for hoof health, but these practices also need to include the regular use of a footbath with a disinfectant to control foot rot and digital dermatitis.

The more regular your footbath practices, the easier it will be to get the cows to walk through the footbath. While many locations can work for a footbath, it needs to be in a location that all cows will walk single file through it and be easy for setting it up. A cow needs to step in a foot bath a minimum of 2 times with each foot. For this to happen, the foot bath should be a minimum of 10 feet long with no additional benefit for footbath lengths being over 12 feet. The solution depth in the foot bath should be 4 inches deep, with a recent study showing that the step in height can be up to 10 inches which will retain the chemical solution better and not impede cow flow through the footbath. The higher step-in height maintains the appropriate chemical depth of at least 3.5 inches after 300 cows pass through the footbath. The minimum width a cow will pass through is 20 inches, but 24 inches for the footbath is better. Cows will move better through a footbath with solid walls at least 3 feet above the footbath and tapered outwardly at a 70° angle. These high walls ensure cattle are getting their feet in the treatment. One side should be removable in case a cow goes down in the footbath.

Proper footbath management includes the selection of an effective disinfectant, determining the number of times a week to use the footbath, and the number of cows passing through the footbath before too much manure has caused the disinfectant to be ineffective. Footbaths are effective for approximately 150 to 350 cow passes. Barns with automated manure removal and cleaner hooves will be at the higher-end, but barns that are only scraped 2 or 3 times a day will be at the low end. The number of times a week a cow needs to pass through a footbath solution varies, but on average, each cow should pass through a footbath 3 times a week. When an outbreak of digital dermatitis is experienced, increase the number of times a cow passes through an effective footbath to 4 or 5 times per week.

While there are multiple products available to use in a footbath, only three of them have multiple scientific studies conducted on them. These three are copper sulfate, formalin, and zinc sulfate. No matter what antibacterial product is used, the solution pH should be between 3.5 to 5.5 so that it doesn’t damage the skin with a normal pH of 4.0 to 5.5. Copper sulfate is the best option due to its antibacterial properties and the hardening effect on the claw horn at a cost of about $42 per cow per year with 4 uses per week. Unfortunately, organic matter rapidly neutralizes copper sulfate, so dirty footbaths are less effective. Copper sulfate concentrations should be maintained between 3 to 5%. The biggest issue with copper sulfate is the environmental concern of copper accumulation in the soil leading to plant toxicity. If manure applications are appropriately managed so that other nutrients are applied at crop removal, copper build-up will be slow, but soils should be monitored.

Formalin also kills bacteria and hardens the claw horn but is a suspected carcinogen. Over time, formalin breaks down into water and carbon dioxide. Treatment concentrations of formalin should be maintained at 3 to 5%, with caution to not exceed 5% due to risk of chemical burn. Formalin is not as effective at temperatures below 50° F, and open claw lesions may heal slowly after walking through formalin, making it a better product for control than treatment. If using formalin, be sure to store and use in a well-ventilated area.

Zinc sulfate is not as widely researched but has efficacy in controlling digital dermatitis at a concentration of 5 to 20% zinc sulfate. Unlike the other antibacterial products, zinc sulfate is less soluble, making it harder to get into solution. Some companies offer premixed solutions that are much easier to mix into the footbath. When using these premixed products, be sure to follow the product mixing directions.

When the foot bath needs to be changed multiple times each day, it can be beneficial to have a premix tank for the footbath solution. This allows the old footbath to be drained, and the new solution quickly pumped into the footbath. This allows one person to mix up the day’s footbath solution using the proper personal protective equipment to handle the full-strength chemicals, and others would only need to handle the diluted solution.

Utilizing proper footbath practices will help keep cows walking to the feed bunk and milking parlor. Lowing the number of clinical and subclinically lame cows on the farm also boosts employee morale as they have fewer cows that don’t want to move causing them to be frustrated.
USDA Publishes Final Rule on Animal Disease Traceability in Regards to Use of Electronic Identification Eartags
Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) published the final Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) rule on the Use of Electronic Identification Eartags as Official Identification in Cattle and Bison on May 9, 2024. Beginning November 5, 2024, all official ear tags sold for or applied to cattle and bison must be readable both visually and electronically. This applies to all sexually intact cattle and bison 18 months of age and older, all dairy cattle (including dairy-beef crosses), and all rodeo and exhibition cattle moving interstate.

This final rule does not change the categories of animals that are exempted from official identification requirements, including beef feeder cattle under 18 months, direct to slaughter cattle (including cull cattle), and cattle or bison that do not move interstate.

Additional Resources:
- USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
  - Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) website
  - FAQ on Animal Traceability Rule 9 CFR 86 (published 4/26/24)
- Ohio Department of Agriculture, Animal Health Division
  - Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) website:
  - Handout on the updated ADT rule
  - How to obtain Free RFID Tags for Cattle
  - Additional resources on How to Obtain RFID Tags
- InterstateLivestock.com

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

Class III milk closing price for June was $19.87/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $2.05 and $3.54/lb, respectively. The Class III closing price for May was $18.55/cwt, also lower than predicted in the last issue. Milk protein price has somewhat recovered from lows earlier this year. In this issue, the Class III future for August is $20.45/cwt and rising to $21.49/cwt in September.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The cost of net energy for lactation (NE_L) has increased again by about 35% compared to May and remains lower than the 5-year average by about 10% ($0.09/Mcal). The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) decreased, and the cost of physically effective fiber increased compared to May, both by about 18% ($0.44 and $0.08/lb, respectively). Over the last 6 months, the cost of NE_L has climbed steadily while MP decreased, but effective fiber has remained relatively stable in price for 2024.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the July 2024 issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $13.50 and $13.97/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are higher than May and expected to be profitable. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, July 26, 2024.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on July 26, 2024 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set for this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, July 26, 2024.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, July 26, 2024.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn silage	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	41% Cottonseed meal
Distillers dried grains	Wheat bran	Blood meal
Gluten feed	Whole cottonseed	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Gluten meal	Feather meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Hominy	Soybean hulls	44% Soybean meal
Meat meal		Whole, roasted soybeans
Wheat middlings		Tallow
_{Corn, ground, dry}		48% Soybean meal
_{Soybean meal - expeller}

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences, as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, July 26, 2024.

Sustainability Series III: What is the Deal with These Carbon Markets?
Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The first, and most important, thing to recognize is that carbon markets are not a new concept. Carbon market systems have been around since at least 1997 when the first international carbon market system was established. Also, now that carbon markets are taking center stage, they will probably change rapidly as they mature and draw more participants.

Carbon assets being generated are not like a tractor that sits in the barn, they’re not nearly as tangible. Tracking and calculating carbon credits will be challenging, but best practices will emerge and change as the markets continue to develop. In the meantime, there are 3 important fundamentals to understand, and I’ll detail them below:
1. What are “scope 3” emissions? - Scope 3 Inventory Guidance | US EPA
Large companies or corporations that are working to reduce emissions place them into three buckets: scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 (Figure 1).
1. Scope 1 are direct emissions from that company’s activities.
2. Scope 2 emissions are controlled by the company, but they are indirect sources of emissions. For example, scope 2 includes emissions generated through utilities purchased from a utility provider by that company.
3. Scope 3 are emissions that are not owned or controlled by the company but are emissions that are part of their supply chain – this is where dairy farms come into play for large corporations and milk users. When you hear “Scope 3”, it just means it is an emission in the supply chain of a company, but the company does not own or control the assets that generate the emissions.
Figure 1. A depiction of what is included within scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Adapted from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (ghgprotocol.org).

For large milk ingredient buyers and users like Nestle, FairLife, Starbucks, or any other end-user, dairy farm emissions are scope 3 emissions. When calculating the carbon footprint of their business, the end-users include the carbon emitted during the production of milk on the dairy farm. The milk end-users (Nestle, Starbucks, DFA, etc.…) do not own the dairy farms or the cows, but they must include the emissions from the dairy farms into their greenhouse gas footprint, so they have a vital stake in the ability of dairy farms to reduce their carbon footprint.
1. Inset vs offset?
The next bit of vocabulary that will come to the fore is “insetting” and “offsetting.” The dairy industry, at this point, is generally focusing on a carbon “inset” approach. An inset means that the benefit of a carbon credit will stay within the supply chain which uses the product that was generated. Here is how that looks in the context of milk production – if you feed an additive that reduces enteric methane emissions from cattle, you can then sell those credits to your milk buyer who can then apply that carbon credit to their carbon footprint. The carbon credit which you generated on the dairy farm stayed within the supply chain that uses it; it is an inset. This is beneficial for dairy farmers because they can receive cash for the carbon credit and have a lower carbon footprint for their milk at the grocery store.

Offsets, on the other hand, are carbon credits which are applied outside of the supply chain for which they were produced. In the dairy context, this would be like generating carbon credits by feeding an enteric methane mitigating feed additive and then selling those credits to Delta Airlines, Google, or Microsoft so that they can use the credit to offset their company’s carbon footprint. A farm would still receive financial benefit of having sold the credit, but they can no longer claim the carbon mitigated because it was sold to someone else to apply to their footprint. We can’t double count emission reductions!
1. Are credits being created, bought, and sold right now?
Yes! The carbon market for dairy carbon mitigating practices is growing and credits are being generated, bought, and sold. Actually, Dairy Farmers of America bought the first feed additive carbon credits from a livestock carbon market place which were generated on a dairy farm in Texas. The carbon credit marketplaces are facilitated by carbon market platforms that verify carbon mitigation practices, such as feeding enteric methane reducing feed additives, are being employed correctly. The platforms will also do the accounting to estimate the amount of carbon mitigated and will facilitate the selling of the credits which have been generated. For this service, they will retain a portion of the revenue of each carbon credit sold.

The other important item to note is, currently, there is no regulatory authority overseeing these marketplaces. There are 3^rd parties who provide verification and review the scientific research for new carbon mitigating practices, but there is no government regulation of these markets. It is reasonable to presume this may change with time.

What is the bottom line?

The main thing to be conscious of is that our dairy carbon credit system is growing quickly. It will most certainly change rapidly as it grows. Also, the demand for credits will be there so long as companies and governments stick to their carbon or greenhouse gas commitments. Stay informed, reach out if you have questions, and please share information as you learn it as well. These carbon markets are going to grow in the number of credits generated, and hopefully, their value will increase as well.
Fall Forage Management

Dr. John Yost, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

The fall is a critical time in our yearly forage management calendar. Regardless of how the growing season has progressed, your fall management practices will set the stage for getting the next spring off on the right foot. In this article, we will give some recommendations on soil fertility, fall planting of new alfalfa stands, and when to take the last forage harvest for the season.

Your soil fertility program is far and above the most critical component of your alfalfa management. While current weather conditions and harvest timing will most influence the quality of a single cutting, a well-balanced fertility program will ensure that the plant has the available resources to perform within its environment. Again, the goal is to finish the growing season with a healthy plant that has had sufficient time to accumulate top growth that will protect the crown from cold temperatures during the late fall and winter. Allowing for enough top growth will also allow the plant to increase its energy reserves to initiate rapid growth in the spring.

We have to begin any soil discussion with a reminder to soil test. As you implement your testing procedures, remember that you are submitting a few ounces of soil to the lab, and you will take those results and develop recommendations that will apply to the whole field. You need to have a high level of precision between sampling years so that you can accurately track your progress. Whether you use whole field, grid, or zone sampling, incorporating GPS technologies to mark sampling locations will help increase your accuracy. At a minimum, you should be collecting 15 cores for every 25 acres. These cores can be combined to create one pooled sample for submission to the lab. To determine soil nutrients, you need an 8-inch core, or if you are only interested in pH, you can sample the top 4 inches. Remember to remove the surface layer of soil so that crop debris is not included. Soil sampling should be done at least every 5 years, and recommended fertilization can be estimated off crop removal rates. For every ton of alfalfa harvested, you are removing approximately 12 pounds of P₂O₅ and 49 pounds of K₂O. The recommended soil test ranges for phosphorus and potassium are 30 to 50 ppm and 120 to 170 ppm, respectively. Subsoil pH should be approximately 6.8.

When considering a fall alfalfa seeding, it is important to have pH and soil nutrients at the recommended levels. This will facilitate rapid stand establishment, so that the plants are prepared for the coming winter. Most importantly, if soil pH is below a 6.5, you may need to consider making your lime application and delaying planting until next spring. If soil fertility is adequate, a fall seeding of alfalfa can be the most productive. In the fall, there will be less weed pressure and a nurse crop is generally not recommended as compared to the spring. Weeds that emerge with the crop are the most damaging. Your goal should be for the first 60 days after planting to be weed free. If you will be no-till seeding, it is important to control existing vegetation prior to planting, especially perennial weeds. You can determine which herbicides to use, based on your existing weed populations, by consulting the 2024 Ohio, Indiana, Illinois Weed Control Guide. Seeding rates can range from 10 to 20 pounds per acre depending on planting method and soil type. If no-till seeding, you should be in the 15 to 20 pound range, and when seeding into a prepared seedbed, you can reduce seeding rates to 10 to 15 pounds per acre. Your planting depth should be ¼ to ½ inch. When no-till seeding, make sure that your no-till coulter depth is not deeper than your seed placement depth.

It is unlikely that you will have an opportunity to harvest your fall seeding prior to winter dormancy. The recommendation is to complete planting 8 weeks prior to the first expected frost. In established stands, the last cutting should be made no later than 6 weeks prior to the first frost. For most of northern Ohio, the first potential frost date is October 6^th. Once the plants have entered winter dormancy, they have stopped photosynthesis, and it is possible to take a post dormancy harvest. This isn’t recommended for newly seeded stands. As mentioned previously, it is important to ensure that there has been sufficient growth to help the plant overwinter and initiate growth next spring. Sufficient top growth will help protect the crown from heaving. The added benefit of the top growth is supporting any snow load, which can insulate the crown when temperatures drop below 25^oF.
Corn Silage Pricing

Jason Hartschuh, Assistant Professor, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

Pricing Corn Silage

Corn silage is the most economical forage ingredient in dairy cattle diets based upon Sesame ingredient pricing. Corn silage constitutes from 35 to 60% of the total ration intake and is 25 to 40% of the total lactating cow feed cost. A proper economic value to corn silage is important to optimize farm income.

Three ways to price corn silage. Actual production expense (fixed land cost & variable inputs), alternative ingredient market value, or an agreed upon cost from a neighbor for standing corn silage. This article will cover these three alternatives.

Actual production cost

The actual production expense provides a method to account for the variable costs (seed, fertilizer, chemicals, machinery, labor, insurance, etc.) and fixed costs (land, taxes, etc.) associated with the effort to plant, grow, harvest, and feed corn silage. The Ohio State Extension 2024 corn budget calculator values 183-bushel corn grain variable costs at $550/acre and fixed land, labor, and management costs at $444/acre for a total cost of $994/acre to grow and harvest corn grain. Corn silage yield of 23 ton/acre calculates to a value of nearly $43/ton standing in the field with a range of $26 to 46/ton varying by tonnage harvested. Your specific fixed and variable farm costs can be used to find your farm corn silage cost. The 2022 OSU Extension silage budget allows users to input their specific farm costs and can be downloaded at: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/enterprise-budgets.

Corn silage total cost into a ration requires adding the harvest, haul, pack, inoculate, storage losses (shrink), and feed out costs. The OSU Extension 2024 custom rate survey (https://farmoffice.osu.edu) provides the range for chopping, hauling, and packing costs at $8.25 to $15/ton. Industry costs for inoculant range from $0.50 to $1.50/ton, storage shrink $4 to $8/ton, and feed out costs of $0.60 to $2/ton.

Corn market price

Another option is to use the OSU corn silage pricing tools which assist in calculating corn silage value based on market prices, which can be found at: https://go.osu.edu/cornsilageprice. This tool allows you to enter your yield estimates and corn grain market price to arrive at a price per ton and per acre. The tool then also allows the users to include the harvest cost of grain and silage to arrive at a fair market price for both the buyer and the seller. At Poet in Marion, OH, the current new corn crop price for October/November is $3.83/bu. With current corn prices, the market value of the corn silage ranges from $27 to $47/ton as fed. When including the harvest cost that the seller doesn’t incur, the bottom value of the corn silage is $27.50/ton as-fed, while the upper value for the buyer based on feed value is $42/ton as-fed.

Alternative market ingredient value

Alternative ingredient market value (Sesame) calculates an economic value for corn silage based on market costs of ground corn grain, alfalfa hay (silage) and various co-products. The Buckeye Dairy News regularly publishes and archives historical ingredient values and calculates predicted prices of various ingredients. Corn silage value per ton in recent years has been predicted at $73, 92, 100, and 85/ton in years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively. Corn grain ($/bu) and 48% soybean meal ($/ton) in those same years was $3.70/$300, $6.00/$376, $6.45/$470, and $6.60/$435, respectively. “Home grown” corn silage is an economical and valuable ingredient into dairy cattle rations. Get it grown, chopped, and packed properly.

Pricing Standing Corn Silage

Purchasing standing corn indicates that current silage inventory is limited, and more forage is required. Prior to buying standing corn, evaluate these options for alternative forages: 1) Plant a fall or winter cover crop. Spring oat, spring triticale, and annual/Italian ryegrasses are options for early August plantings. Oat and triticale can produce 2 to 2.5 ton /acre DM yield by mid-October in boot stage or possible 3 ton/acre at head stage in early November. 2) Reduce current corn silage usage and replace with optional economically priced co-products. A dairy nutritionist educated in ration software optimization can provide “best cost” pricing of byproducts that could supply cost savings over purchasing standing corn silage. 3) Reduce lactating or replacement herd inventory. Cull inefficient low-producing cows and reduce replacement heifer inventory to 75% of mature cows if expansion is not in the future.

Purchasing standing corn for silage can be accomplished in multiple ways. The agreement must be fair for both buyer (dairy farmer) and seller (crop farmer). Purchasing standing corn silage starts with determining the yield of grain of the standing corn. Then a grain price can be figured out by local cash markets, forward-contract, or delayed pricing. Add on the value of the silage fodder that is removed and deduct a harvest charge the seller will not incur. Each aspect of this pricing will be reviewed.

Determining the grain yield of standing corn can be estimated in several ways. Grain yield can be estimated in multiple ways: 1) Leave multiple test blocks in each field that can be harvested as dry corn grain for yield. 2) Use the grain yield estimate calculated by crop insurance. 3) Harvest the standing corn as silage. Obtain tonnage and moisture at time of chopping. Adjust total silage tons to a 35% dry matter basis. Calculate the bushels of corn grain in each ton by using the equivalent factor of 0.15 tons of corn silage harvested equals one bushel of corn grain. Another general rule is each ton of corn silage contains 7 bushels of dry shelled corn.

Add the stover value of the corn silage removed. Corn silage has roughly 50% stover on a dry basis. Value the stover based upon good quality grass hay. Every ton of harvested corn silage would remove about 400 lb of stover on a dry hay equivalent basis (15% moisture). The 400 pounds of grass hay at $120/ton market price would equate to $24 value of fodder per ton of corn silage removed.

Remove the dry grain harvest cost for the seller since the grain producer will not be harvesting the crop as dry corn. The OSU Ohio custom rates survey has a value of $10.50/ton to harvest, haul, and fill a corn silage bunker.

Example. Standing corn silage that yields 25-ton/acre corn silage (35% DM). The 0.15 factor equates to 167-bushel corn grain. This factor may be low in high-yielding grain corn where a ton of silage may contain 8.6 bushels of corn. Corn price of $3.80/bu generates $635/acre for grain yield. The $635 divided by 25-ton corn silage equals $25.40/ton for corn silage. Add the $24 value of fodder and subtract the $10.50 harvest charge. Final price of corn silage: $25.40 + $24 - $10.50 = $38.90/ton.

Summary

Corn silage is a critical and key part of the production and economic return for your dairy farm. Prepare the equipment, set and monitor the correct chop length and kernel rolls, put people safety first, and review equipment safety and update as needed. Continuously scout silage fields for proper fungicide application. Communicate with silage contractors and neighbors on establishing the corn silage price. Have a safe, abundant, and blessed silage season.
Corn Silage Harvest Safety Should Be Priority One

Jason Hartschuh, Assistant Professor, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock; and Chris Zoller, Interim Assistant Director, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ohio State University Extension

Corn silage harvest is a busy time of year, with the quality of corn silage determining your ability to produce milk for the next year. During this busy time of year, safety is critical with equipment moving all over the farm and harvest causing many long days and short nights.

Hazards of Silo Bag/Bunker Gases

While silo gases are the most dangerous, these same gases are trapped in closed bags and bunkers during fermentation. These deadly gases, nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide, are a natural result of ensiling. Nitrogen dioxide is heavier than air and may be seen as a reddish to yellowish-brown haze. Since it is heavier than air, it can be found near the base of a recently filled silo. It has a bleach-like smell, and you will experience a burning sensation in your nose, throat, and chest. Instant death may result from nitrogen dioxide inhalation.

Carbon dioxide fills the headspace of the silo, replacing the air. Exposure to these two gases happens most often in the first three weeks after the silo is filled. Tower silos and areas around stored silage should be treated as confined spaces. Due to this risk of exposure, it is suggested that you stay out of the silo for the first three weeks, unless wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus.

Besides holding deadly gases, silos can also become the sites of fires and explosions. Silo fires often result from ensiling feeds too low in moisture, usually below 45% moisture. The heating of the materials in combination with air leaks in the silo structure can allow a fire to start anywhere within the structure and to continue burning for long periods of time. Once a fire starts, it is very difficult to control or stop.

Safety Around Machinery

During silage harvest, there are risks of mechanical injuries around equipment, falls, roadway accidents, and crushing. To help prevent these injuries, be sure all shields and guards are always in place on equipment. Repairing a broken shield is as critical as replacing a broken chain. While you can have the best of intentions to not get caught in moving parts, all it takes is one slip or trip for major injuries to occur. Also be sure PTO shields are in place on silage wagons; the operations levers are only inches away from that shaft. Silage harvesters have many fast-moving unguarded parts around the head and the velocity of the silage leaving the chopper alone can cause injury. Make sure the machine is turned off when leaving the seat and that all moving parts have stopped before beginning repairs. Also, never allow anyone else near the chopper while it is running.

Be very cautious of falls. These can happen when climbing a silo, covering a bunker, or repairing a piece of equipment. Use ladders when climbing and look for ways to use a safety harness when over 6 feet in the air. In other industries, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires fall protection practices to be implemented when working over 6 feet in the air.

Often during harvest, silage is hauled down the road. Now is the time to inspect lights and turn signals on tractors, trucks, trailers, and wagons. Also be sure any slow-moving vehicle (SMV) is equipped with a highly reflective SMV sign. During harvest, be sure to wash SMV signs and lights so that they can easily be seen. Also make window and mirror washing on all equipment a daily requirement. If tractors do not have a left-hand mirror, look for a way to add one so that you can easily check for motorists that may be passing you while you are trying to turn left.

With all the additional moving equipment around the farm, be cautious of people walking around moving equipment. First be sure everyone is aware of the additional equipment moving around the farm. If backup beepers have been turned off or disabled in any way, now is the time to turn them back on or repair them. While they are loud and annoying, they do save lives. One additional safety strategy is to have everyone wear bright colors so that they can be easily seen, especially if working after dusk. The addition of reflective vests improves visibility.

Rollover Safety

Tractor rollover is a concern when packing silage piles and bunkers. According to the National Ag Safety Database, tractor overturns account for an average of 130 deaths per year in the U.S., with 80% of overturns occurring by experienced operators and one in 10 operators will overturn a tractor in their lifetime.

A properly sized tractor must be equipped with a rollover protective structure and a seat belt. Rollover protective structures became available in the mid-1960s. These structures were not available for all new tractors until the mid-1970s. They were not standard equipment on new tractors until 1985. But these structures and seat belts are 99.9% effective in preventing deaths due to tractor overturns.

Summary

Silage harvest is a busy time and brings with it potential hazards that can cause injury or death. We encourage you to take the time now to inspect equipment, make needed repairs or adjustments, and use extreme caution.

Additional resources are available from the Ohio State University Extension Ag Safety and Health Program at: https://agsafety.osu.edu/.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Ms. April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the March issue, the Class III milk futures for April and May were $15.72 and $16.35/cwt, respectively. Class III milk closing price for April was $15.50/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $0.83 and $3.33/lb, respectively. The Class III closing price was lower than predicted, as well as lower than for March when prices closed at $16.34/cwt. The rising price of milk fat continues to negatively impact protein price, driving the value of protein below a dollar per pound in May. In this issue, the Class III future for June is $20.48/cwt, falling in July to $20.02/cwt.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Although the cost of net energy for lactation (NE_L) has increased by about 60% compared to March, it remains about a third lower than the 5-year average ($0.09/Mcal). The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) and physically effective neutral detergent fiber (pe-NDF) decreased by about 10 and 20%, respectively, but both remain higher than the 5-year averages ($0.44 and $0.08/lb, respectively).

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the May 2024 issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $9.35 and $9.78/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are substantially lower than in March, but they are still expected to be profitable. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, May 17, 2024.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on May 17, 2024 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, May 17, 2024.
For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Thus, you will notice there were no feeds that changed columns for this issue of Buckeye Dairy News. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, May 17, 2024.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn silage	Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF	41% Cottonseed meal
Distillers dried grains	Corn, ground, dry	Blood meal
Gluten feed	Whole cottonseed	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Gluten meal	Feather meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Hominy	Soybean hulls	44% Soybean meal
Meat meal	48% Soybean meal	Whole, roasted soybeans
Wheat middlings	Soybean meal - expeller	Tallow

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein (RDP) and digestible rumen undegradable protein (RUP), see the Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, May 17, 2024.

Dairy Sustainability Part 2: Methane Mitigating Feed Additives

Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University and Dr. Joanne Knapp, Fox Hollow Consulting, LLC

As we discussed in the first article of our series, enteric methane, produced in the digestive tract of dairy cows, is one of the largest greenhouse gas emission sources on a dairy farm. Fortunately, there are a tremendous number of interventions being investigated for their potential to reduce enteric methane emissions. These include compounds like 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP; Bovaer), monensin (Rumensin), essential oils (Agolin, Mootral), seaweed (Asparagopsis species), nitrate, saponins, tannins, and direct fed microbials. In this brief article, we’re going to focus on the two most potent methane mitigators (3-NOP and Asparagopsis) and two commercially available products (monensin and essential oils) which have associated carbon credits. At this time, 3-NOP and Asparagopsis are not approved for livestock feed in the United States.

What is the Story on Each Additive?

For an in-depth discussion and description of the potential methane mitigating feed additives, I’d refer you to an excellent and thorough review by Hegarty et al. (2021; Table 1). They discuss not only the methane mitigation potential but also bottlenecks, limitations, and future challenges to their use.

The two most potent enteric methane mitigating feed additives are 3-NOP and Asparagopsis. Both act as methane inhibitors, which means they interfere with the process that microbes use to synthesize methane in the rumen. They are currently under development and are not commercially available in the United States as of this writing.

With over 30 feeding studies, 3-NOP has a rigorous and highly consistent body of evidence that demonstrates it reduces enteric methane emissions on average by 20 to 40% without affecting feed intake or milk yield (Kebreab et al., 2023). It does slightly increase milk fat – a 0.19 unit increase in milk fat percentage which translates to an increase of 0.2 lb/day of milk fat (Hristov et al., 2022).

Asparagopsis, a genus of seaweed, has reduced methane from dairy cattle by up to 67% (Roque et al., 2019). Unfortunately, as inclusion rates increased, it also reduces feed intake, so determining the optimal feeding dose will be critical. Generally, as Asparagopsis inclusion increased, it also reduced milk, milk fat, and milk protein yields. Another challenge for using Asparagopsis is that it reduces methane because it contains bromoform compounds which are carcinogens that can be transferred to milk (Stefenoni et al., 2021) and meat and may also contribute to ozone depletion. While Asparagopsis is a potent methane mitigant, it has many challenges to overcome before it can be widely used.

Monensin and essential oils, both of which are commercially available for cattle now and have associated carbon credits being marketed with them, are rumen modulators. They do not directly inhibit methane but alter rumen fermentation or the rumen microbiota in such a way that they reduce methane produced during fermentation. Monensin has been exhaustively investigated in cattle over the past 40 years. A recent meta-analysis with 18 experiments observed that methane was reduced by 5% when monensin was fed (Marumo et al., 2023). Whether the reduction in enteric methane is sustained over time with feeding monensin is unknown (Knapp et al., 2014; Marumo et al., 2023). The upside for monensin is that it reduces feed intake and increases milk yield, thus increasing feed efficiency (Duffield et al., 2008).

Essential oils have also shown promise but are complicated. Essential oils are metabolites isolated from plants, and there are literally thousands of these compounds which exist. The compounds have been isolated from things like garlic, thyme, and cinnamon (Beauchemin et al., 2020). Some of these compounds have reduced methane production in vitro, but when fed to a cow, the data are less consistent. Some essential oil blends have shown promise when fed to dairy cattle. A meta-analysis from Belanche et al. (2020) suggested that an essential oil blend reduced methane production by 8.8%, increased milk yield by 4%, and increased feed efficiency by 4%. Unfortunately, much of the data in the analysis were unpublished field reports so conclusions should be drawn carefully. Hegarty et al. (2021) specifically noted that additional properly designed research is necessary to increase confidence in the efficacy of essential oils to reduce methane production in cattle. Nonetheless, there are programs paying dairy farmers for the potential carbon mitigation from essential oils (e.g., Agolin and Mootral).

Does Mitigating Methane Pay?

This is the $1 million question – so to speak. Currently, the carbon credits accumulated from mitigating methane through feed additives is valued at approximately $30/ton CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). With that in mind, does it pay to feed monensin or essential oils to reduce the enteric methane that cows produce?

For this exercise, we assumed that we had a 1,000 milking cows. We assumed that both supplements cost $0.055 animal/day to feed, which means it costs $20,075 to supplement 1,000 milking cows for 365 days. The current protocol for monensin assumes a methane reduction of 5%, while the protocol for a commercial essential oil blend is approximately 8.8% which equates to approximately 20 and 35 g of methane mitigated per cow per day, respectively. At a carbon price of $30/ton of CO2e, feeding monensin to 1,000 cows for 1 year would generate in $6,745 in revenue, while feeding essential oils would generate $11,871 (Figure 1). The methane mitigation alone does not cover the cost of supplementation but that is without factoring in performance benefits which may occur. Currently, the methane mitigation payments may act as a subsidy to feed these additives, thereby increasing the return on investment when the performance benefits are factored in. For your own investigations – please use our Dairy C Calculator.

Who are buying and selling these carbon credits? How is the market working? What should be expected in the future? We’ll dive into some of that in the final article of our dairy sustainability series.

Table 1. Summary of methane reduction potential and level of confidence in various feed additives.¹

Name	Methane Reduction Potential	Confidence in Efficacy²
Monensin	Low	5
Essential oils	Low	2
3-NOP	Very High	5
Asparagopsis	Very High	1

¹Data from Hegarty et al. (2021)
²Confidence in efficacy rated on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 corresponding to low agreement and limited evidence and 5 corresponding to high agreement and robust evidence.

Figure 1. Potential methane mitigation payments from feeding monensin or essential oils depending on the price of carbon credits ($/ton CO2e). The horizontal black line is total cost of feeding the supplements (breakeven point).

References

Beauchemin, K. A., E. M. Ungerfeld, R. J. Eckard, and M. Wang. 2020. Review: Fifty years of research on rumen methanogenesis: lessons learned and future challenges for mitigation. Animal 14(S1):s2-s16. 10.1017/S1751731119003100

Belanche, A., C. J. Newbold, D. P. Morgavi, A. Bach, B. Zweifel, and D. R. Yáñez-Ruiz. 2020. A meta-analysis describing the effects of the essential oils blend Agolin Ruminant on performance, rumen fermentation and methane emissions in dairy cows. Animals (Basel) 10(4). 10.3390/ani10040620

Duffield, T. F., A. R. Rabiee, and I. J. Lean. 2008. A meta-analysis of the impact of monensin in lactating dairy cattle. Part 2. Production effects. J. Dairy Sci. 91(4):1347-1360. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0608

Hegarty, R. S., R. A. Passetti, K. M. Dittmer, Y. Wang, S. W. Shelton, J. Emmet-Booth, E. K. Wollenberg, T. McAllister, S. Leahy, and K. Beauchemin. 2021. An evaluation of emerging feed additives to reduce methane emissions from livestock. Edition 1. A report coordinated by Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (NZAGRC) initiative of the Global Research Alliance (GRA).

Hristov, A. N., A. Melgar, D. Wasson, and C. Arndt. 2022. Symposium review: Effective nutritional strategies to mitigate enteric methane in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 105(10):8543-8557. 10.3168/jds.2021-21398

Kebreab, E., A. Bannink, E. M. Pressman, N. Walker, A. Karagiannis, S. van Gastelen, and J. Dijkstra.^.2023. A meta-analysis of effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane production, yield, and intensity in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 106 (2):927-936.

Knapp, J. R., G. L. Laur, P. A. Vadas, W. P. Weiss, and J. M. Tricarico. 2014. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 97(6):3231-3261. 10.3168/jds.2013-7234

Marumo, J. L., P. A. LaPierre, and M. E. Van Amburgh. 2023. Enteric methane emissions prediction in dairy cattle and effects of monensin on methane emissions: A meta-analysis. Animals 13(8):1392.

Roque, B. M., J. K. Salwen, R. Kinley, and E. Kebreab. 2019. Inclusion of Asparagopsis armata in lactating dairy cows’ diet reduces enteric methane emission by over 50 percent. Journal of Cleaner Production 234:132-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.193

Stefenoni, H. A., S. E. Räisänen, S. F. Cueva, D. E. Wasson, C. F. A. Lage, A. Melgar, M. E. Fetter, P. Smith, M. Hennessy, B. Vecchiarelli, J. Bender, D. Pitta, C. L. Cantrell, C. Yarish, and A. N. Hristov. 2021. Effects of the macroalga Asparagopsis taxiformis and oregano leaves on methane emission, rumen fermentation, and lactational performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 104(4):4157-4173. 10.3168/jds.2020-19686

3-NOP (Bovaer™) Receives FDA Approval
Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The News!

This week, on May 28^th, the Food and Drug Administration announced that Bovaer met their safety and efficacy requirements. Bovaer is the commercial name for 3-Nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) which is a potent methane mitigator that can now be fed to lactating dairy cattle to reduce enteric methane emissions. The product is being marketed in North America by Elanco and dsm-firmenich. Bovaer is also expected to have an associated carbon credit that will be paid to cooperating farmers.

How Effective is 3-NOP at Reducing Methane?

Feeding 3-NOP to lactating dairy cattle reduces enteric methane emissions by approximately 30% (Figure 1). Two independent meta-analyses concur with this finding.
1. A recent meta-analysis conducted at Pennsylvania State University observed that 3-NOP reduces enteric methane emissions by 123 g/day or 28%. They also observed that 3-NOP did not affect feed intake or fluid milk yield. Interestingly, they observed that 3-NOP tends to increase milk fat yield by 90 g/day. Read the entire meta-analysis here: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21398.
2. The other meta-analysis from UC-Davis observed a 33% reduction in enteric methane emissions. What these authors observed was that the efficacy of 3-NOP was reduced as the concentration of fiber in the diet was increased. Also, reducing dietary fat increased the efficacy of 3-NOP. Read the details from this meta-analysis here: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22211 mented with 3-NOP.
Figure 1. The observed reduction in enteric methane emissions from lactating dairy cattle supplemented with 3-NOP.

Long-term feeding of 3-NOP?

One limitation of the data with methane mitigants like 3-NOP is how long-term feeding, like feeding it for a whole lactation, effects milk production of dairy cows. Currently, one experiment from Europe supplemented 3-NOP to cows for an entire lactation. They observed that methane production was reduced by 21% without affecting dry matter intake. Interestingly, they observed a 6.5% increase in energy-corrected milk yield from cows supplemented with 3-NOP. The entire study can be reviewed here: https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(24)00500-9/fulltext. More full-lactation experiments under conditions mirroring United States production systems are necessary to build confidence in the response observed in this investigation.

Will it Pay?

Using our Dairy Carbon Return Calculator, I investigated the breakeven cost of 3-NOP. I made the following assumptions:
1. Carbon price of $30/ton
2. Milk price of $17.50/cwt
3. Ration cost of $0.15/lb DM
In the first scenario, I assumed that a farm could expect the average changes in milk production (+3%) and feed intake (+1.6%) when 3-NOP is fed. Under this scenario, the breakeven cost for feeding 3-NOP is $0.41 to 0.45/hd/day. If I assume no change in milk production or feed intake, the breakeven cost of feeding 3-NOP is $0.10 to 0.14/hd/day. These estimates will continue to change based on the carbon markets and any potential regulations for carbon markets. Also, the return on investment for these feeding strategies may depend on where your milk is going, what its used for, or who is using it.

Bottomline?

The approval of a feed additive for methane mitigation is a watershed moment – it’s the first of its kind. Surely, there will be more to follow. 3-NOP reliably reduces enteric methane production, but it must be economically viable for a farm. If you’re considering 3-NOP for your farm, or your client’s dairy farm, use our Dairy Carbon Return Calculator or other tools to determine if it is a good fit.
Beat the Heat Before It's Late: Cooling Strategies for Dairy Cattle

Dr. Grazyne Tresoldi, Assistant Professor, Animal Welfare, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Feels like summer has already arrived in Ohio, and the National Weather Service has already predicted above-normal temperatures for this season. Moving recently from California to Ohio, I found it to be much warmer than expected, reminiscent of the sticky summers in Brazil. While I’m not a fan of comparing animals to humans, it’s important to remember that cattle start to feel warmer much earlier than we do and way before it hits the bulk tank. By focusing on the behavioral and physiological responses of dairy cattle, you can identify those animals experiencing high heat load early on. Coupled with the adoption of appropriate mitigation strategies, this proactive approach can help reduce losses and maintain cow comfort.

Cattle communicate discomfort through various behaviors. You may notice they shift their use of resources like lying in stalls, eat less, become more inactive, and exhibit higher respiration rates, often followed by panting, which starts with a simple drool string (Picture 1). To accurately assess this discomfort, it is important to measure these behaviors systematically for at least a few hours (about 6 hours) over a few days to capture weather variations. This simple assessment can highlight the strengths and weaknesses of your facilities, enabling you to make informed decisions. Don’t have the time? Don’t worry! I am preparing a team of students to help you with that!

The solution to mitigate high heat load is clear and consistent across climates: shade, soakers, and fans. During summer, cattle enjoy shade and avoid sunny areas during peak heat. Additionally, combining fans to increase convective heat loss with misters or soakers to promote evaporative cooling is the most effective way to cool cattle. For enhanced efficiency and effectiveness, it’s recommended to place both soakers and fans together at the feed line (Picture 2), as air removes more heat from a wet cow than a dry one.

Turning on soakers earlier helps cows keep cool from the start and is more efficient than trying to cool them down once body temperature has already risen. In temperate climates like Ohio, cattle start feeling hot usually when the air temperature is about 72°F or when the Temperature-Humidity Index (THI) is above 65. To ensure water is turned on and off only when needed by the animals, automated controllers help keep things consistent. These controllers should be placed in the barn to capture the weather conditions experienced by cattle.

Wetting cattle for 30 sec (enough to soak their coat) every 4 to 5 minutes and using fans that deliver a wind speed of 9 to 10 ft/sec (~3 m/sec) at the animal level is ideal. Higher flow rates result in larger droplets and more water sprayed per unit of time. While lower flow rate soakers (e.g., 0.4 gal/min) can abate heat, the fine droplets can drift to the bunk and affect feed quality. Therefore, using soakers that deliver larger droplets is preferred. Both 0.9 and 1.3 gal/min nozzles effectively cool cows, but using 1.3 gal/min has been shown to results in an extra 3 lb/day of milk per cow.

If your barn is not ready for this summer, the combination of the above items is also effective in waiting areas near the milking parlor. Research I have conducted in the past showed that a 45-minute cooling session reduced body temperature for 50 to 75 minutes, depending on the volume of water applied.

Cooling strategies for other categories of dairy cattle, such as calves, growing heifers, and dry cows, are less studied but still essential beyond providing shade alone and plenty of drinking water.

There is a misconception that calves are more resilient than other life stages; however, researchers have found that they are more sensitive to high heat load, even in temperate climates like ours. For calves housed outdoors, it's crucial to offer additional overhead shade and enhance airflow by elevating hutches or adding openings to improve air exchange (Pictures 3 and 4, respectively). In barn settings, mechanical ventilation systems like fans help facilitate air movement to aid calves in directly dissipating heat.

Dry cows are indeed more resilient than lactating ones; however, research has shown that combining sprinklers with forced air during the dry period can effectively reduce heat stress and improve the performance of fresh cows. Moreover, these interventions have demonstrated long-term benefits for the unborn offspring, including increased milk yield in their future lactations.

Would you like more information about something else? Send your questions my way at Tresoldi.3@osu.edu or through your county Extension educator. As a newcomer to Ohio (and the Midwest), I am eager to hear about your achievements and concerns. I would love to visit your dairy with a team of students to assess how your animals are coping this summer. Additionally, I am collaborating with a team of researchers, and we would love to hear more about your weather-related concerns and how they have been impacting your dairy farm.

Picture 1. String drooling, as pictured, usually appears before other panting signs like open mouth and tongue out. For more details on how to assess panting you can visit: https://tuckerlab.ucdavis.edu/heat-stress.html. (Source: Grazyne Tresoldi)

Picture 2. Fans and soakers placed together at the feed line are more efficient than either alone, reducing the need for excessive soaking overall. (Source: Grazyne Tresoldi)

Picture 3. Calf hutch with a concrete block elevating its back. (Source: Moore et al., 2012)

Picture 4. Calf hutch with adjustable ventilation at the back. (Source: Calf-Tel, https://calftel.com)
Feeding Roasted Soybeans to Dairy Cattle
Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

With summer approaching on the calendar, and even recent temperatures causing it to feel like summer is already here, leads to the excitement for grilling outdoors and roasting over a campfire. Those associated smells and flavors get the salivary glands to work. Interest in roasting home-grown soybeans has recently increased again with the availability of high-oleic soybeans (Plenish Soybeans, Pioneer). We have known for many years that heat treatment of some plant protein sources increases rumen undegradable protein (RUP) which can be advantageous for increasing milk and/or milk protein yields. However, overheating such feed ingredients can reduce protein digestibility. Also, the heating inactivates enzymes that can cause oxidation of fatty acids leading to rancidity and inactivate trypsin inhibitor that can cause a reduction in protein digestibility.

When soybeans are processed for removing the oil, the oil is removed either by solvent extraction or extrusion (or expelling). The hulls are removed from the seed before solvent extraction and can be used as a livestock feed or added back to the soybean meal. If the hulls are left separate, the soybean meal typically contains 48% crude protein (CP), but if they are mixed with the soybean meal, the protein level in the soybean meal is typically 44%. These protein levels are expressed on an as-fed basis. Whole soybeans typically contain about 36 to 38% CP (as-fed basis), whether they are either conventional or high-oleic soybeans. Both types of soybeans typically have similar levels of fat at about 20% (DM basis; 18% as-fed basis). However, the conventional soybeans are high in linoleic acid (C18:2, a polyunsaturated fatty acid) and the Plenish soybeans are high in oleic acid (C18:1, a monounsaturated fatty acid). Polyunsaturated fatty acids are more likely to disrupt ruminal fermentation in dairy cows which may cause a decrease in feed intake, fiber digestibility, milk yield and/or milk fat concentration and yield. With the current pricing of milk, the price of milk fat ($3.33/lb) is the pace setter for revenue.

Based on the Ohio State crop enterprise budgets, the current cost of production for soybeans is about $11.50/bu (60 bu/acre yield), the USDA forecast for average farm price for soybeans during 2024/2025 is $11.20/bu, and the cost of roasting soybeans is typically $35 to 45/ton (~$1.20/bu). Based on the current feed prices as reported in this issue of Buckeye Dairy News, whole roasted soybeans have an actual price of $454/ton ($13.62/bu) and the predicted value is $352/ton ($10.56/bu). Thus, they are overpriced at this time in respect to some other feed ingredients; however, if you grow your own soybeans and add the cost of roasting, the price at $12.70/bu is more favorable than the purchasing of roasted soybeans at $13.62/bu. Even though these prices are for conventional soybeans, these price trends can be used in context for high oleic soybeans. One must keep in mind that the price for Plenish soybeans is at a premium since they are primarily grown for human food ingredients (e.g. the high oleic oil), and when considered for livestock, they are preferred over conventional soybeans. Some considerations for use of roasting soybeans include:
1. The temperature for roasting should be 290 to 315^oF (desirable temperature varies based on type of equipment and duration of the heating process). Then the soybeans need to be steeped for 30 minutes or longer (few hours), with the duration of steeping depending on roasting temperature and storage container after roasting (i.e., ability to maintain heat). Steeping is especially important if roasting occurs at the lower temperatures and with limited holding times within the roaster. After the roasting and steeping, the soybeans need to be cooled. This can be done by pushing or pulling air through the beans. For example, if a gravity flow wagon or other rather small on-farm containment is used, an aerator should be placed in the beans at the end of the steeping time. Soybeans heated at too high of temperature or steeped too long can have reduced protein digestibility. Some laboratory tests are available as indicators of underheating or overheating of soybeans, and these can be useful in monitoring processing methods, but they my not reflect what actually happens within the animal because of impacts of the ruminal fermentation and rate of digesta passage.
2. During the roasting process, there will be some shrink. This is primarily due to loss of some moisture, hulls, and pod trash.
3. After roasting, the soybeans can be fed as ground or cracked soybeans. Earlier Ohio State research found that the soybeans fed in quarters or eights improved digestibility in comparison to feeding whole soybeans without reducing the RUP levels in the soybeans as observed with feeding them ground.
4. Inclusion level in diets for lactating dairy cows ranges from 10 to 20%, depending on other ingredients in diets, production levels in the cows, and target levels of protein and unsaturated fat.
References

Bales, A.M. and A.L. Lock. 2024. Feeding high oleic acid soybeans to lactating dairy cows. Proceedings Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, pgs. 105-117. https://www.tristatedairy.org/proceedings

Dhiman, T.R., A. C. Korevaar, and L D Satter. 1997. Particle size of roasted soybeans and the effect on milk production of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 80:1722-1727.

Khonkhaeng, B., R. Bomberger, and K.J. Harvatine. 2020. Effect of increasing levels of roasted high oleic soybean on milk fat yield in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 103 (Suppl. 1): 253.

Lopes, J.C., M.T. Harper, F. Giallongo, J. Oh, L. Smith, A. M. Ortega-Perez, S. A. Harper, A. Melgar, D. M. Kniffen, R. A. Fabin, and A. N. Hristov. 2017. Effect of high-oleic-acid soybeans on production performance, milk fatty acid composition, and enteric methane emission in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 100:1122–1135.

Nicholson, C.F., M.W. Stephenson, L. Armentano, and K. Harvatine. 2024. Economic analysis of high-oleic soybeans in dairy rations. J. Dairy Sci. 107:3642-3650.

Tice, E.M., M.L. Eastridge, and J.L. Firkins. 1993. Raw soybeans and roasted soybeans of different particle sizes. 1. Digestibility and utilization by lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 76:224-235

Weld, K.A., and L.E. Armentano. 2018. Feeding high oleic acid soybeans in place of conventional soybeans increases milk fat concentration. J. Dairy Sci. 101:9768-9776.
Tri-State Manure Field Day

Mr. Glen Arnold, Extension Field Specialist, Manure Management, Ohio State University Extension

A Tri-State Manure Field Day will be held on July 11th, 2024 at GreenTop Acres, LLC 3315 State Route 114, Payne, Ohio 45880. The premise of the field day is to connect livestock producers, manure applicators, and agricultural professionals together. This field day will foster an opportunity for the attendees to develop personal and professional connections within the agricultural community to further strengthen their network.

Registration for this event in Paulding County will begin at 8:00 am. The field day will start at 8:30 am. Lunch will be included, thanks to a grant from the North American Manure Expo and local sponsors.

The field day will include field demonstrations of the 360 Rain, Emergency Spill Response, and a Rainfall Stimulator.

Educational sessions will include Manure Safety and Manure Regulations - Indiana and Ohio. A tour of the dairy farm is optional at the end of the field day.

Contact Mary Wilhelm at the Putnam County SWCD (419)-523-5159 or mary.wilhelm@putnamcountyohio.gov for more information.
2024 Dairy Hall of Service Recognition

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Senior Associate Chair, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

In 1952, The Dairy Hall of Service was formed at The Ohio State University to recognize individuals who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at OSU. The 2024 recipient is David Thorbahn, President and CEO of Select Sires, Inc., and he was recognized on Friday, April 19 during the annual banquet of the Buckeye Dairy Club held at the Nationwide 4-H Center on the Columbus campus.

David Thorbahn was born and raised on Crimson Lane Registered Holsteins in Vickery,
Ohio, where his desire and passion to improve the dairy industry originated. He received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Agriculture from The Ohio State University majoring in Dairy Science, where he received the University’s highest honors as a recipient of the Outstanding Senior Award. In addition, he has been recognized by Ohio State with the Young Professional Achievement Award and the Distinguished Alumni Award. He received a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Dave worked for 15 years in the artificial insemination industry as a sales manager, sire analyst, and manager of dairy sire selection. He began his employment at Select Sires Inc. in August 1999 as President and Chief Executive Officer. During the past 25 years in this role, he has shaped the business plan of Select Sires to achieve growth in sales and lead the organization through many significant milestones.

In addition to his own accomplishments, Dave encourages others to pursue excellence and to enhance their careers, including promoting opportunities for countless college students to gain knowledge of the dairy industry and find careers within. He is proud that Select Sires fosters the next generation of dairy leaders through multiple internships and scholarships through FFA and other avenues. He has been a speaker for the Buckeye Dairy Club, and always encourages students to visit the Select Sires facilities. He was one of the founders of the North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge (NAIDC) which began in 2002 at Michigan State University. Since its formation, the NAIDC program has grown to include four regional programs and the Dairy Challenge Academy held at the same time as the national contest. Dave was awarded one of the NAIDC Founder Awards in 2017. After being off of the Board of Directors for a few years, he has again joined the Board.

He has served as a board member for World Wide Sires (Chair), National Association of Animal Breeders (Chair), U.S. Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding, and National Dairy Shrine. He is a former board member of World Dairy Expo and The Ohio State University Dairy Science Advisory Committee, and he is a current member of both the Ohio Holstein and National Holstein Associations. Within the community, he was a founding member of the Union County Agriculture Association (Chair) and has served as a member of the Marysville FFA Advisory Committee. Dave and his wife, Nancy, live in Plain City, OH. They have two grown daughters, Jenna and Kelsey, who are both registered nurses.

Nominators of David for the award shared reflections of “notorious for investing in the education of employees for the future of the cooperative and the industry by encouraging others to pursue excellence and to enhance their careers. On a personal level, Dave has always been a humble and caring person.” and “Dave recognizes that our greatest asset lies within our people. Dave’s leadership transcends profit margins’, it’s about empowering minds, fostering growth, and leaving a legacy that extends far beyond the board room.” With his many contributions to leadership in the dairy industry, developing opportunities and fostering people to work in the dairy industry, encouragement to students, and service within his local community, David Thorbahn is a most deserving recipient of the Dairy Science Hall of Service.
Up for the Challenge – Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge (NAIDC) program began in 2002 (https://www.dairychallenge.org/) and the first regional program began in the northeast in 2003. Since that time, midwest, southern, and western regional dairy challenges have been organized. In addition, Ohio State hosts a local dairy challenge each fall semester to provide training for students in the dairy herd management course and other college students. Students from the Agricultural Technical Institute also have participated for several years, and sometimes, students from Wilmington College participate.

Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped into teams of three to four individuals. Locally, veterinary and graduate students are invited to attend the farm visit and participate in a meeting later in the evening with the contest judges to discuss observations on the farm. A farm in central Ohio is selected and records from the farm are made available to students. Typically, students are taken to the farm for a visit to interview the owner and to observe the facilities for about two hours. Then the teams of students return to campus to finalize their assessment into a presentation for the following day. The students present their findings to a panel of judges consisting of individuals from the University and from allied industries.

Ohio Dairy Challenge

The program this year was held November 3-4, 2023 and was sponsored by ABVista, ADM Animal Nutrition, Cargill, CSA Animal Nutrition, D&D Ingredients, Provimi North America, Purina Animal Nutrition, ST Genetics, DSM-firmenich, and Feedworks. The farm selected for the contest this year was the Ayers Farms in Perrysville, OH owned by Steve and Janet Ayers; Carl and Debbie Ayers; Kathy Davis; and Jesse Ayers. The family’s operation includes about 685 cows and 600 youngstock. The cows are milked 3X/day in a double-18 herringbone parlor with milk yield at 100 lb/cow/day, 3.92% fat, and 3.13% protein. There were 53 students (11 students from ATI, four graduate students, four veterinary students, and 34 students from the Columbus campus) that participated in the program this year. During the Saturday morning presentations, the students had 20 minutes to present their findings and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the program this year were Jim Aldrich (CSA Animal Nutrition), Candace Lease (ST Genetics), Gabriella Maidini (Provimi), Laura Tavera (Purina Animal Nutrition), Michele Lahmers (DSM), Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), Brian Lammers (ADM Animal Nutrition), Benjamin Wenner (Associate Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), and Morgan Westover (Cargill).

The top two teams consisted of: 1) Natalie Braun, Grant DeBruin, Garrett Hastings, and Abby Whitsel, and 2) Molly Cordonnier, Allix Cotterman, Danielle Jones, Elena Rango. From the Ohio event, students were selected to participate in the Midwest Regional and National Dairy Challenge programs.

Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge

Students from the Columbus campus participated in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge hosted by University of Wisconsin-Madison in Green Bay, WI during February 7-9, 2024. The students participating from Ohio State were Natalie Braun, Molly Cordonnier, Allix Cotterman, Grant DeBruin, Garrett Hastings, Kara Flaherty, Juliana Reising, Alexandra Tanner, Braydon Thompson, and Abby Whitsel. All of the students were placed on aggregate teams whereby they were on teams with students from universities other than Ohio State, with 17 schools and 120 students participating. First place rankings were received by the teams with OSU students of Molly Cordonnier and Garrett Hastings. Abby Whitsel’s team received a second place. The program provided a tremendous learning opportunity for all of the students.

National NAIDC

The National NAIDC Contest and Dairy Challenge Academy was held April 4-6, 2024 in Visalia, CA. Kara Flaherty, Garrett Hastings, Juliana Reising, and Alexandra Tanner were on the Ohio State contest team, visiting the well-known River Ranch farm with about 5,600 cows. Natalie Braun and Molly Cordonnier participated in the Dairy Challenge Academy, with each one being on a team with students from other universities; however, all of the Academy students visited the Curtimade Jersey Farm. Due to the presence of avian influenza in some dairy herds in the US, the students were unable to visit dairy farms on Thursday as typical to better understand the management systems used on western farms. However, we were fortunate that the program was able to continue as planned. At the National program, 32 teams competed and 84 students participated in the Academy from the US and Canada and five students participated in the social media corps. The Dairy Challenge program on the Columbus campus is coached by Dr. Maurice Eastridge.

Pictured is the group that travelled to Visalia, CA: Front row –
Alex Tanner (team), Kara Flaherty (team), Juliana Reising (team)
and Back row – Natalie Braun (academy), Dr. Maurice Eastridge
(coach), Garrett Hastings (team), and Molly Cordonnier (academy).
Dairy Palooza 2024

Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The classic movie line says, “If you build it, they will come.” And the Canfield fairgrounds did just that! During months of planning, the 2024 version of Dairy Palooza was held in the new event center, and the hospitality was nothing short of spectacular. In the past 13 years, the committee has transformed a grass roots idea into a major educational opportunity for all dairy 4-Hers.

In representation, there were 22 counties in attendance and a family from New York even came to learn! Nearly 300 attendees of all ages were actively engaged in programs for all ages and interests.

The morning registration was efficient and timely as each participant collected a Buckeye Scarlet and Gray rope halter and a digital thermometer. Each had a significant role in the morning’s QA training. With a bountiful supply of donuts to sweeten any wait time, the crowd enjoyed plenty of conversation.

The morning sessions included quality assurance (QA) training being taught by Extension educators Ashlee Meardith, Katie Cole, and Beth Smith. As part of the rotation, there was also time focused on writing thank yous to the multiple sponsors. They were further honored by their own banners hung for all to see in the main area.

Lunch was served! Pizza and complimentary milk shakes were on the menu. However, the group photo was a captured moment as each attendee took time to sign our new mascot, “Polly Palooza” and slip on their souvenir t-shirts.

With programs in hand, everyone made their first choice of 4 separate sessions. Each had a suggested level of Junior, Intermediate, or Senior. The program was cleverly crafted with skill and catchy titles.

There was a line-up of cattle represented by every breed and attendees of the showmanship and clipping and fitting programs had actual demonstrations. Other options included a veterinarian with a “how to “session on injections, herdsmanship and the basics, and another on science fun with dairy foods. If feeding and nutrition was what suited your needs, selecting “Cow Chow” made sense. An area of great interest was the actual reproductive tracts and training on AI. Other sessions included information on goats and dairy feeders. Even adults had their own topics that addressed current issues. Then there was the excitement and business of the Cloverbuds! Eventually, they became their own dairy superheroes in red capes. A Quiz Bowl group even set up a quick round of questions as they buzzed in with answers related to the good production practices (GPPs) taught.

As the afternoon concluded, there was an outstanding conclusion to the day! Cow cookies were the special treat as the committee was formally introduced, but this year we honored Mike Janik who has worked tirelessly and even more so this year as the event made its way back to his home county. A special plaque was presented to him amidst a round of applause.

Then the drawings served as a farewell for all as one lucky fellow won the new hand-crafted show box. As the crowd slowly said their good-byes, there was a genuine sense of accomplishment for all ages in whatever reason brought them to Dairy Palooza.
New Factsheet: Avian Influenza Detected in Dairy Cattle

A new factsheet on “Avian Influenza Detected in Dairy Cattle” has been developed and posted on the front page of our web site: https://dairy.osu.edu/
Current Dairy Industry Outlook and Dairy Margin Coverage Sign-Up

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

Dairy margin coverage (DMC) sign-up is currently underway at your local Farm Service Agency (FSA) office through April 29^th. The DMC program provided about $2.80/cwt of support in 2023 for the first 5 million pounds of milk production history if producers enrolled at the $9.50/cwt margin level. Farms received 2 months of catastrophic payments when the margin fell below $4/cwt. Figure 1 shows the actual program margin from January 2021 through January 2024 with the projection for 2024. Over the past 3 years, the DMC program when enrolled at a $9.50/cwt margin more than covered the total program premium. All current indications are for stronger milk prices in 2024 and lower feed costs; however, risk management is still critical. For tier-one coverage, there is currently a guaranteed margin payout for January and February totaling almost 60% of the program premium. While March and the rest of 2024 is projected to have margins above the $9.50/cwt level, many different domestic or international events could affect this projection by either increasing feed costs or lowering milk price. As a risk management strategy against either one of these two events, the DMC program is a very useful tool for producers. Also during the 2024 sign up, producers have the option to make a one-time adjustment to their established production to include the supplement coverage they may have had based on their 2019 production history. Figure 1. Actual and forecasted dairy margin coverage.

In March, USDA raised the 2024 all-milk price forecast to $21.25/cwt with a reduced domestic supply and continued strong domestic demand. Butter prices are staying strong and cheddar cheese prices have had gains recently with a 2 cents yearly price projection increase. The current 2024 Class IV price forecast is $20.10/cwt. Class IV milk prices decreased recently due to a lower nonfat dry milk price forecast with weaker international demand, even though butter prices have increased. The Class III milk price forecast has increased to $17.15/cwt on stronger cheddar cheese prices, even though the whey price forecast has been lowered with weaker international demand.

The US dairy herd continued to shrink in January of 2024 by about 23,000 head compared to December 2023 or 76,000 head less than the year prior in January of 2023. Heifer inventories do not show a rapid recovery in cow numbers in 2024, but a slow recovery my begin late in 2024. Monthly milk production fluctuates in a cycle each year with January production increasing over December production and setting the production trend for the year as season herds and the spring flush begins. The January 2024 milk production was 7 lb/hd head lower than January 2023, leading to a projected lower yearly production per cow. Milk solids concentrations have been steadily increasing as shown in Figure 2. Milk fat percentage has increased 0.35% in January since 2018 when the average was 4% and in 2024 was 4.35%. The higher concentration of milk solids (fat, protein, lactose and minerals) increases processor efficiency by decreasing the amount of raw milk needed. Thus, milk with higher components is more valuable per cwt. Figure 2. Percentages of milk fat and solids from 2018 to 2024.

U.S. milk prices are being supported by strong domestic demand; however, our dairy products are less competitive on the international market. Our strong domestic demand for butter products lead to a 68 million pound import increase in January 2024 over January 2023. While we are also still exporting milk fat products, the 2024 export volume is projected to be 11.1 billion pounds on a milk fat basis, which is lower than 2023 exports. US dairy products are projected to lack price competitiveness in 2024 on the international market. The international market is also projected to continue to have weaker demand. These two factors will weigh on US milk prices throughout 2024.

With the first quarter of 2024 coming to a close, hopefully you have reviewed your entire 2023 cost of product to look for areas to improve cost control. Now is also a good time to review your cost of production for 2024 and improve your cost controls as you can begin to project home-grown feed costs for the year. As you look over your farm’s data, be sure to evaluate if your milk solids are keeping up with national trends of more dense milk. If your milk fat and non-milk fat solids have not increased from 2018 levels, it is time to investigate why. There are many reasons why milk fat may not be increasing, including nutrition, genetics, or even facilities. Reviewing your production and economic data at least quarterly can improve farm profitability for 2024.

Assessing Forage Stands and Winter Damage

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

Spring is here and now is a great time to walk fields and note how the forages faired. Winter damage is difficult to predict and the variability of temperatures this past winter across the state can present some difficult conditions for forages. Depending on the location and what type of forage field, winter damage may be a major concern, particularly for forages with taproots like alfalfa. Stands should be assessed carefully during spring green-up for concerns, such as heaving and crown and root diseases. A thorough and timely assessment will allow for planning any necessary adjustments for the 2024 season.

Assessment

When making a stand assessment, it is important to not only make aboveground observations by way of a stem count but to also dig up plant samples and assess the below-ground biomass. To make an aboveground assessment, select a random one square foot in the field and count the number of living stems within that square foot area. Repeat that random selection and counting of stems, 4-5 times for an area of 20-25 acres. When scouting, the more samples or locations assessed the more accurate the estimate will be. The average stem density of a field can be a useful tool to gauge the yield potential for the coming year. For alfalfa stand assessments, the University of Wisconsin Extension has a useful publication; “Alfalfa Stand Assessment: Is this stand good enough to keep?”, in which they provide the following table as a reference for stand assessment and decision making.

Number of Stems/ Square Foot	Expected Result or Action
Over 55	Stem density is not yield-limiting
40-55	Some yield reduction is expected
39 or less	Consider stand replacement

While assessing the stem density of a forage stand, take note of where on the plant shoot growth is active. Healthy plants will have numerous shoots growing evenly around the crown. A damaged plant will have a lower number of total shoots and often have more or all stems on one side of the crown. Damaged plants will be lower yielding and have a lower survivability for the following winter.

Heaving

With temperature variability and freeze-thaw cycles, heaving is a common form of winter damage seen in the field. This is a more common problem in heavier clay soils and poorly draining soils. Warmer temperatures occurring sporadically in February and March, followed by short freezes, similar to what we have seen this year, can heave and expose the root system to a severe enough level that plants may not survive into May. Plants that experience heaving and survive are more susceptible to disease and the stress of heaving accumulates over the lifespan of the crop, lowering the yield potential and life expectancy of the stand. If significant heaving is observed but crown health is minimally affected, adjustments to harvest practices prior to the first cutting may be necessary. Cutting too low at any point during the year on heaved crowns can not only damage the crown and slow regrowth but can also damage the root system, often causing immediate death and no additional cuttings. Making obvious notes in the mower tractor or flagging the field entrance can help you remember throughout the year that mower adjustments need made to not damage the stand. A stand with increased heaving may be limped through this year by managing cutting but will usually need to be rotated to another crop next year.

Stem and Root Concerns

Even if no heaving is observed, it is important to dig up plant samples and observe crown and root health. Similar to assessing stem density, select multiple random plants and split the crown and root. The table below can help you rate crowns. A healthy stand will have less than 30% of crowns rating 3 or 4 and no crowns in the count rating 5, which are dead plants.

Once a stand assessment is completed, if renovations are needed there are a couple of options. Stands can be improved with grasses and clover to extend the production of the forage for a few years. Another option is terminating after a first cutting and plant silage corn or possibly a warm season forage, such as sorghum, sudangrass, or sorghum-sudan as a high-yielding alternative to meet forage production needs. Based on your operation practices, options such as Teff grass, Italian ryegrass, or Berseem clover are good options for dry hay. Summer annual cereal grain forage such as oats, spring triticale, or spring barley could be made as dry hay but may be easier to harvest as silage or baleage. To fulfill forage needs, spring seeding alfalfa is an option and planted with a companion crop can provide forage this year and set up a stand ready for maximum yield next year.

Spring Forage Establishment
Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

As soil temperatures rise and the chances of a morning frost decline, the window to spring-establish forages is open. In the spring, the combination of weather and plenty to do make planting opportunities scarce. To take advantage of those short planting windows, the following are items to consider to improve chances for a successful forage establishment this spring.
1. Soil Fertility and pH: Set up your forages with the best starting conditions you can by providing sufficient available nutrients and a soil pH that allows for those nutrients to be taken up. Follow the Tri-state Soil Fertility Recommendations (https://forages.osu.edu/forage-management/soil-fertility-forages). Phosphorus levels for grass are optimal in the 20-40 ppm range, while the range for legumes is 30-50 ppm. When it comes to potassium, the optimal range is 100-130 ppm for sandy soils with a cation exchange capacity (CEC) less than 5; for loam and clay soils with a CEC greater than 5, the range is 120-170 ppm. No matter the nutrients in the soil, if pH isn’t taken care of the forage will not be as productive. Most forages are productive at a pH above 6.0, but for alfalfa, a pH of 6.5-6.8 is necessary, and if the pH is below that, it is worth considering pushing alfalfa establishment to the late summer planting window and applying lime and maybe planting an annual grass for forage in the interim. As for nitrogen fertilization, an application of 30 lb/acre of starter nitrogen for pure cool-season grass stands or 10-20 lb/acre for grass-legume mixes can help with seedling vigor in low-nitrogen soils.
1. Weed Control: Prior to forage establishment, weed control is important to lower potential competition throughout the lifespan of a stand. Weeds can choke out and limit forage establishment, and once a forage is established, the option to control weeds is reduced. Decisions can be made in the selection of the field for establishment to avoid areas where there are known weed problems. Chemical control can be used to manage a variety of weeds, but be sure to take extra caution to follow replant intervals. Another option for weed control and a good practice for particularly competitive perennial weeds is a tillage pass.
1. Prepared Seedbed: Planting into a well-prepared seedbed improves seedling germination and uniformity. For conventional systems, an ideal seedbed is firm, smooth, clod-free, and weed-free. As soon as soils are fit, prepare seedbeds for plants, but be careful to not overwork soils depleting soil moisture and increasing the risk of soil crusting following a rain event. When seeding in a tilled seed bed, drills with press wheels are best to ensure good seed-to-soil contact. Excellent tools to firm soil to improve seed-to-soil contact are cultipackers and cultimulchers. Where erosion is a concern in no-till systems, or if there is residue over 35%, the use of a no-till drill is recommended. No-till forage establishment is most successful in silt loam soils and soils that are well-draining. Timing for seedbed prep should be based more on conditions than the calendar, so be sure tillage equipment is ready to go early.
2. Seed Selection: Select a high-quality and reputable seed variety. Be sure that the seed used has good germination for a relatively recent germination test and that the variety is well suited to our region. The forage stand is a multiyear crop, so planting “common” seed (variety not stated) usually proves to be a very poor investment, yielding less even in the first or second year and having shorter stand life.
1. Companion Crops: Select forages and forage mixes that will meet desired production. Direct seedings without a companion crop will allow for 2-3 high-quality harvests in a successfully established seeding year. If looking to increase forage tonnage in the first year of a forage crop, a small grain companion crop can be successful. Companion crops have the added benefits of erosion protection and weed competition in susceptible fields. Important considerations with companion crops to not out-compete the perennial forage are: (i) select an early maturing, stiff strawed variety so other forages are not smothered, (ii) plant companion small grains at 1.5-2.0 bu/acre, (iii) remove companion crop as pasture or silage in the early boot stage to limit competition, and (iv) do not apply additional nitrogen to the companion crop.
2. Timing of Planting: The recommended spring planting window for forages in Ohio is mid-March to mid to late April for southern Ohio and late March to early May for northern Ohio. Warm-season forages and annual forages can effectively be established later in the growing season (reference the Ohio Agronomy Guide for species-specific planting windows). Timely planting allows for forages to be established before the environmental stresses of summer and allows forages to better compete with weeds. Later forage planting can struggle to establish lowering the potential yield and lowering quality due to a large presence of weeds. If spring planting is delayed, consider planting a summer annual and waiting to establish a perennial forage in August. With the warmer than normal February and March we had this year, soil temperatures and spring green up are nearly two weeks ahead of schedule, which means weed germination is also, and we should plan accordingly, as May 1 might be too late this year.
3. Seeding Rate: Forage seeds can vary in size, shape, and whether or not they are coated. Getting an accurate seeding rate can be difficult, particularly with mixes. Take the time to calibrate seeders ahead of time. The seeding rate is important to establish a uniform stand that is productive and competitive with weeds. An excellent resource for calibration is the video “Drill Calibration” at https://forages.osu.edu/video/. If mixing grass seed with alfalfa seed, have it professionally blended by the seed supplier if possible, and ask them for any information they may have on drill settings, and seeding rates. If you cannot have it pre-blended, consider planting it separately to ensure the accuracy of seeding rate. If you do plan to drop mixed seed through a drill, calibration is a must and will vary so plan accordingly and be sure to test your drop rate.
4. Seeding Depth: Forages are small-seeded crops, so plant depth is very important for uniform establishment. A seeding depth of 1/4 to 1/2 inch deep with good seed-to-soil contact is optimal for most forage species and soil types. In sandy soils, a depth of 1/2 to 3/4 inch may be appropriate. Be sure to check the actual planting depth when first planting and if any field conditions change. Take particular note in no-till fields and with no-till drills to ensure seeding depth accuracy. In our experience, visibility of up to 25% of the seed on the surface, or in the seed slot but uncovered behind the drill indicates that most seeds are at the proper depth. Tender legume seedlings will have a very hard time reaching the soil surface if they germinate too deep, especially on heavier soils where any amount of crusting may take place following planting.
1. Post Planting Scouting: The first 2 months of a newly established forage are critical for the longevity and long-term production of a stand. Early weed competition is most detrimental to an establishing forage stand. When looking to control a weed problem, for post-emergence application, be sure to double-check the label to not harm forage seedlings. A similar concern is present with insect pests like potato leafhopper damaging legumes as soon as late May to early June. Even in established forages, it is best to scout for pests yearly when each pest is seasonally present.
2. Harvest Management: Unless there is weed or pest pressure, it is ideal to delay the first harvest of a new seeding until early flowering for legumes. For first harvest of pure grass stands, harvest depends on stand vigor and weather conditions; grasses for the most part establish slower than legumes and 70 days after planting is generally the timing for the first harvest. If the harvest method is grazing, take extra precautions to limit trampling damage. If there is a weed problem, clipping may be necessary to prevent weed seed production.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the January issue, the Class III milk future for March was $16.33/cwt. Class III milk closing price for February was $16.08/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $1.23/lb and $3.10/lb, respectively. The rising price of milk fat continues to negatively impact protein price. For this issue, the Class III future for April is $15.72/cwt, returning in May to $16.35/cwt.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. With some lower reported feed prices since the January issue, the cost of net energy for lactation (NE_L) has decreased by more than 50%. The cost of NE_L is about 55% lower than the 5-year average ($0.09/MCal). However, the cost of metabolizable (MP) has increased since the January issue. It remains higher than the 5-year average ($0.44/lb) by about 40%. These changes can be largely attributed to a lower reported cost of feeds providing primarily energy to the ration.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the March 2024 issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $10.19 and $10.61/cwt, respectively. Both values are higher than the January estimates and are expected to be profitable. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 15, 2024.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the SESAME™ analysis for central Ohio on March 15, 2024 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set for this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, March 15, 2024.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, March 15, 2024.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
		41% Cottonseed meal
Corn silage	Whole cottonseed	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Corn, ground, dry	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Gluten meal	Soybean hulls	Solvent extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	48% Soybean meal	44% Soybean meal
Meat meal	Soybean meal - expeller	Whole, roasted soybeans
_^Hominy	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Tallow
_{^{Wheat middlings}}	Feather meal

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, March 15, 2024.
A table with numbers and textDescription automatically generated with medium confidence

US Dairy Herds and Policy and the 2022 Census of Agriculture
Dr. Carl Zulauf, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, The Ohio State University and Dr. Gary Schnitkey, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois¹

The exit of dairy operations since 2017 has attracted considerable attention (see, for example, MacDonald, J. M., J. Law, and R. Mosheim, July 2020). The 2022 Census of Agriculture confirms a profound decline, even within the context of the long-standing decline in dairy herds. The economic pressure for fewer dairy herds is abating but remains notable. An important question is, “What role did current dairy policy play in the post-2017 consolidation?”

Dairy Farms: According to the 2022 Census, 24,094 US farms sold milk during 2022 (see Figure 1). The largest number of dairy farms with milk sales had 50-99 cows.

Another 11,942 farms had milk cows on December 31, 2022 but had not sold any milk during 2022. Of these farms, 97% had less than 10 cows.
Milk Sales: In 2022, the 2,013 farms with 1,000 or more cows accounted for 66% of all US milk sales (see Figures 1 and 2). The comparable share was 57% in 2017.
Dairy Farm Transition, 2017-2022: Fewer US farms sold milk in 2022 than 2017 at all herd sizes except those with 2,500 or more cows (see Figure 3). The latter increased from 714 to 834 farms. Herds of 20-49 cows declined the most on a percentage basis, followed by herds of 50-99, 10-19, and 10-199. In total, 39% fewer US farms sold milk in 2022 than 2017.
Dairy Farm Transition, Historical Perspective: The -39% decline in all US farms that sold milk between the 2017 and 2022 Census of Agriculture was the largest decline between adjacent Census dating back to the 1982 Census (see Figure 4). The next largest declines were -27% between the 2007 and 2012 Census and -26% between the 1992 and 1997 Census. Large percentage declines in US dairy farms have been an on-going story, but the most recent decline stands out.
A question that emerges from Figure 4 is, “What caused higher exits from dairy farming during 2017-2022?” One factor was huge losses occurring over an extended period of time. Since the decision to exit (and enter) dairy farming is a strategic investment decision, a 10-year sum was calculated of the net return above the economic cost of producing milk as computed by USDA, ERS (US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service). The 10-year sum starts with 1989 because 1980 was the first year USDA, ERS published the cost of producing milk. An economic cost includes a cost assigned to unpaid labor and farm-produced feeds.

The cumulative 10 year net return to economic cost has been less than -$10/cwt since 1998 and less than -$30/cwt from 2009 through 2018 (see Figure 5). The largest 10-year losses were -$37/cwt in 2013 and -$36/cwt in 2015. Since 2015, 10-year losses have declined almost 50%, equaling -$19/cwt in 2022.
Additional perspective is gained when Figure 4 is combined with the large economies of size that exist in US milk production (see Figure 6). Economies of size are much greater for non-feed than feed cost. Over 2016-2022, highest and lowest feed cost differ by $2.50/cwt ($12.87 - $10.37) but by $19.59 for non-feed cost ($27.96 - $8.37). The large economies of size mean financial pressure from low returns to producing milk is much more acute for smaller herds, as the larger percent decline in smaller dairy herds between 2017 and 2022 illustrate (see Figure 3). An interesting feature of the economies of size relationship is that non-feed exceed feed cost for herds of less than 1000 cows while the opposite is observed for herds of more than 1000 cows and especially herds of more than 2000 cows.

The large difference in the relative roles of feed and non-feed cost across herd size is consistent with the large difference in feed cost’s role in year-to-year changes in total cost across herd size. The difference between year-to-year change in feed cost and total cost per cwt has been minimal for herds of 2000 or more cows since 2015 (see Figure 7). In other words, feed cost accounted for most of the year-to-year change in total cost for the herds. As herd size declines, the difference between the average year-to-year change in feed and total cost becomes larger, implying that the year-to-year change in feed cost explain less of the year-to-year change in total cost. It is important to note that considerable variation exists across years in the relationship between year-to-year changes in feed cost and total cost for a given herd size.

The relationship between feed cost and total cost has policy significance. The 2014 farm bill authorized a Dairy Margin Protection Program that made payments when the margin difference between the US average all milk price received by farms and the cost of feeds (corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa) was below a specified value. The 2018 farm bill renamed the program, Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC). Many payment parameters and calculations used in the formula were modified, but the basic policy design was retained. For a brief but longer history of US dairy policy, see the discussion in the farmdoc daily of November 22, 2021.

Discussion:

Even relative to the notable historical decline in US dairy herds over the last 50 years, the decline between the 2017 and 2022 Census of Agriculture was large.

A likely important factor underpinning the sizable decline between 2017 and 2022 is US dairy sector financial stress that dates to the turn of the 21^st Century. Dairy sector financial stress is likely abating but still remains notable.

Another likely important factor is the sizeable economies of size that exist in producing milk. They exacerbate sector financial stress for all but the largest dairy herds.

The sizeable economies of size are largely due to non-feed cost per cwt of milk produced. Given the large difference in non-feed cost per cwt across dairy herds, it is not surprising that changes in feed cost per cwt have a much larger role in changes in total cost per cwt for larger dairy farms.

The preceding point suggests a program that bases dairy policy payments on the milk price-feed cost margin, such as the current DMC program, is likely to provide the most protection against lower milk profitability for the largest dairy farms, although it is important to note that quantity of milk that can receive a DMC payment is capped.

If policy deliberations come to the conclusion that dairy policy should be more attentive to the financial stress on smaller dairy farms, policy options include the following:
1. Scale DMC payments by the ratio of non-feed costs to feed costs for a given size dairy herd. In essence, DMC payment per cwt could be higher than 100% for smaller dairy herds.
2. Create a new payment program based on non-feed cost per cwt.
3. Make a per cow payment for a limited number of cows per dairy operation. Because implementing payment limits of any type is difficult since farms rearrange their operation to qualify for payments, a payment per cow could be made to all dairy farms up to the given number of cows. Smaller dairy farms would however receive the most benefit since a larger share of their cows would qualify for a payment.
None of these policy options would change current DMC payment calculations.

¹This article was reprinted from: Zulauf, C. and G. Schnitkey. "US Dairy Herds and Policy and the 2022 Census of Agriculture" farmdoc daily (14):38, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, February 23, 2024.

References

MacDonald, J.M., J. Law, and R. Mosheim. July 2020. Consolidation in U.S. Dairy Farming. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service ERR-274.

The National Agricultural Law Center. February 2024. United States Farm Bills. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/farmbills/

US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. February 2024. Commodity Costs and Returns. October. https://www.ers.U.S.da.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns.aspx

Zulauf, C., G. Schnitkey, K. Swanson, and N. Paulson. November 22, 2021. US Dairy Market and Policy Overview. farmdoc daily (11):158. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. November 22, 2021. http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/
Dairy Sustainability – The Jargon, the Dairy Story, and the Opportunity (Part I)

Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University and Dr. Joanne Knapp, Fox Hollow Consulting, LLC

Everyone wants to talk about carbon, but who is going to do anything about it? Dairy farmers and allied dairy industry partners are stepping up to the plate! They’ve been investing in and researching new strategies that will shrink our greenhouse gas footprint while also returning value to the farm-gate. This article series aims to get us on the same page about the dairy system and its sources of greenhouse gas emission, about the emerging technologies that will enable us to reduce enteric methane emissions from cattle, and discuss what carbon credits are, how they are being bought and sold, and what that means for the dairy farms and the dairy industry.

First, we need to get some context on the dairy carbon story and the current dairy carbon emissions picture.

How Much Carbon Does the U.S. Dairy Industry Emit?

“Carbon” is actually carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e). Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are the three major contributors of CO₂e. In total, its estimated that man-made activities in the US emit about 6,300 million metric tons of CO₂e each year. Of that, dairy production accounts for 139 million metric tons, or about 2% of the total emission (Figure 1). Although we’re a relatively small emitter relative to other US sectors, if the US dairy sector were its own country, it would rank in the top 1/3 of all countries on a total emission basis. We mustn’t shirk our responsibility – and we’re not!

Figure 1. United States Greenhouse Gas inventory. Dairy cattle comprise 2% of total USA emissions. Data from epa.gov.

The Dairy Industry’s Commitment: What Does “Net-zero” Mean?

Companies, organizations, and governments are making sustainability commitments left and right; The US dairy industry is no different. The Innovation Center for US dairy has committed to achieving “greenhouse gas neutrality” by 2050 – what does that mean?

Being greenhouse neutral, as US Dairy has committed itself, is defined as the point where anthropogenic (from human activity) emissions are balanced by anthropogenic removal. This is a very difficult mark to achieve, but a worthy task nonetheless. Another common benchmark is climate neutrality; climate neutral means that human activities have no net-effect on the climate system; some have described this as being equivalent to “warming neutral” or not adding to warming of the globe. Fortunately, the dairy industry is within striking distance of climate neutrality. Place et al. (2022) determined that a 23% reduction in farm-gate emissions for US dairy farms will mean that dairy farms no longer add to the warming of the climate. If we go beyond 23% reduction means we’re really part of the solution!

Reaching greenhouse gas neutrality may prove to be more difficult and will most certainly require soil carbon sequestration or alternative methods of atmospheric carbon removal. One way to inch toward this goal of greenhouse gas neutrality is the use of methane mitigating feed additives. Incentives are coming into view for such a practice to have an economic return, but we will cover both methane mitigating feed additives and the carbon markets associated with them over the next couple of articles.

The Dairy Story: What are the Sources of Emissions on a Dairy Farm?

So where do dairy farm emissions come from? The major sources of greenhouse gas emissions on most dairy farms are manure methane and nitrous oxide emissions (33%), enteric methane emissions (35%), feed production (26%), and energy use (6%; Figure 2). Of course, this can vary tremendously from farm to farm. A farm’s greenhouse gas footprint is especially dependent on the manure management practices and feed efficiency of the whole herd. For example, capturing methane from manure using anaerobic digestion reduces the greenhouse gas emissions from manure by 50%. Solid separation technologies can also reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from manure by 20% (Aguirre-Villegas et al., 2014).

Figure 2. Greenhouse gas emission sources for U.S. dairy farms. Adapted from usdairy.com.

Opportunities: What Do These Sustainability Initiatives Mean for the Future (or the present)?

Sustainability commitments and initiatives are here to stay. Fortunately, the dairy industry has an encouraging story to tell. Some dairy farms are already using manure methane to fuel cars and power buildings. Some electric cars are even being juiced up on dairy cow manure! Reduced and no-till cropping practices have improved soil carbon sequestration. Over the past two decades, genetic selection for yield of milk components, along with supporting approaches in forage selection and harvesting, herd health, parlor technologies, and feeding management, have reduced emissions intensity. Combined, these strategies reduced the carbon footprint of milk by 19% from 2007 to 2017 (Capper and Cady, 2019).

The emerging opportunity for dairy farms to continue enhancing their sustainability is through the use of enteric methane reducing feed additives. There’s plenty of promise along with challenges – we’ll chat about those next time….

References

Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., R. Larson, and D. J. Reinemann. 2014. From waste-to-worth: energy, emissions, and nutrient implications of manure processing pathways. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 8(6):770-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1496

Capper, J. L., and R. A. Cady. 2019. The effects of improved performance in the U.S. dairy cattle industry on environmental impacts between 2007 and 2017. J. Anim. Sci. 98(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz291

Place, S. E., C. J. McCabe, and F. M. Mitloehner. 2022. Symposium review:Defining a pathway to climate neutrality for US dairy cattle production. J. Dairy Sci. 105(10):8558-8568. 10.3168/jds.2021-21413.
Why Do Cows Bunch?

Dr. Dwight Roseler, Adjunct Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The dairy farmer will look over the cow pen and notice the cows are bunched up and huddled into a big group. The farmer scratches his head and asks, “Why do cows congregate into a group?” They were not like that before. Unsure of what to do, he gets in the pen and separates the cows, only to find the same group of cows a couple hours later all bunched up again.

I know dairy farmers that have a “cow whisperer” ability. They observe cows keenly and can tell what their cows are thinking! In my many years of dairy consulting, I have observed some unusual bunching behavior of dairy cows in well managed and comfortable barns. I enjoy watching cows and have learned to be a keen observer of dairy cows. My teachers of cow behavior have been my livestock and my “cow whisperer” farmer clients.

A first question to ask is, “Why does it matter that cows bunch together?” When cows bunch together, it compromises production, health, and welfare of the animals. Bunching increases heat stress of the affected cows, increases standing, splashes manure on the udder, and elevates stress hormones. These changes increase risk of lameness, reduces ruminations and feed intake, and results in subsequent loss in milk production that is lower in milk fat.

Dairy farmers provide their cows with quality feed, housing, stalls, and environment. The cows are their livelihood, and their best care is top priority. They remove stressors, and cows then perform to their genetic potential. Cows under stress do not perform well. Bunching of cows is an indicator of some external stressor not initiated or solicitated by the farmer. Why do cow’s bunch in well managed and comfortable barns?

Cow Behavior

Cows were created with a four chambered stomach to consume grass and bunch together as a herd. Herd animals stay together as a group with a social dominance structure. The dominant “boss cow” will direct the herd with subordinate followers. Cows, sheep, and wild animals, including deer, zebra, and a favorite, the wildebeest, are ruminant prey animals. Prey animals are a source of food for predator animals, like lions and cheetahs. Prey animals will congregate together in herds or bunches for protection and survival. In the wild, the wildebeest grazing on the African safari grass will bunch together as a predator cheetah approaches the herd. This is a truly amazing nature sight to behold in person. The catch is exhilarating to watch, but not for the prey. We don’t have cheetahs in our dairy barns as a threat to our cows, but the response to stress is similar – bunch together! Cows will bunch together when under stress because of their God designed instincts.

Bunching can occur in well managed barns as a result of stress of social interactions, environmental stress, flies, electrical stimuli like stray voltage, or limited access to feed or water. A brief review of these factors that cause cows to bunch and possible solutions will follow. Read along and learn.

Social Interactions

Cows reside in herds where a unique social dominance hierarchy exists in each herd. The “boss cow” is the one that gets her way with whatever she desires. First in the parlor, first to the feed bunk, the clean free stall, and she will dictate her preferences with head butting, ear twitching, and tail movement responses. The lower social order cows are typically the first calf heifer that recently calved. Social stress will cause cows to retreat and bunch up. Research has proven that first calf heifers when housed in a separate pen from older cows will perform better. This is partly due to less social distress. If your facilities allow, a separate first calf heifer group is beneficial. Social hierarchy and conflict are most significant in pens of milking cows of all ages when the pen size is 150 cows or less. Automated milking dairy farms with all cows in same pen will observe more social dominant stressors and potential bunching. As a farm manager, do not overcrowd pens, especially with automated milking systems.

Environmental Temperature

Cow bunching can start with as few as three to five cows that are initially stressed, and as environmental temperatures increase, more cows are affected and the bunching group grows in size. Research and time-lapse camera observations would indicate that the most frequent time to observe bunching is 3:00 to 8:00 pm. The initial bunching can start when temperatures are at 68 degrees F or higher. This often can occur in May in the US eastern corn belt. Walk your barns during late afternoon each day and be a “cow whisperer”. What are your cows telling you? If they are standing more and bunching even in small groups or standing near a waterer or drinker, then evaluate the factors that impact bunching. Ask a qualified ventilation technician or cow comfort specialist to conduct an air flow and cow comfort audit to identify areas of each barn that are not properly ventilated or designed. Intervene as soon as bunching occurs, as once cows start to bunch, it is difficult to untrain them.

Microclimates

The external perimeter of the barn can also impact the internal barn environment. A California dairy study from 20 large dairy farms indicated that crops grown adjacent to free stall barns can elevate potential for cow bunching. Trim weeds and brush growing near free stall barns and do not plant corn crops close to free stall barns. Researchers speculated that internal barn airflow is modified when crops or tall weeds were near the barns. Even when fans are present in barns, restrictions to outside airflow can create a micro-environment in pens that initiate cow bunching. High stocking density can compound cow bunching during hot weather. Do not overcrowd, as individual cows in groups are exposed to hotter individual temperatures in the inner circle of the cow’s groups.

On pasture cattle, the reason why cattle may bunch in the warm conditions is not well understood, but one possibility is that bunching may occur around shaded areas as a strategy to reduce heat load. In free stall-housed cattle, they are blocked from direct sunlight during midday. However, radiant direct sun into barns will occur in the US eastern corn belt in the early morning or late afternoon. Sun rays that enter a barn and expose cows to direct sunlight will stratify cows and cause bunching when cows are exposed to direct sun rays.

Cow bunching will be more common in hot summer months. A barn orientation where direct sunlight enters the sides, high producing cows, long day length, and uneven air flow within the barn are all possible causes of cow bunching. Prepare for summer heat by cleaning fan blades and housing mesh. Dirty fans move less air and will create areas of the barn that do not offer airflow. Remove pen pack manure as extra heat and potential for flies is generated from these systems.

Electromagnetic Fields

Farmers have perceived magnetic fields from high voltage lines, automated milking systems, or solar panels as possible causes of bunching behavior in their cows. Housed dairy cows are a greater risk for stray voltage than pastured animals due to the exposure of fans, parlor, automatic milking, and electric panels in housed barns. Dairy cow sensory stimuli start at a much lower voltage than humans. A Danish study evaluated 60 dairy farms and identified bunching on several farms. The risk factors were newly constructed barns, measured stray voltage, and presence of fans in barns. The presence of fans in the barn as a factor for bunching is difficult to speculate the cause, but the observations and research would support that cows standing in front of fans would indicate they locate in front of fans to avoid hot spots in other areas of the barn. Cows will bunch in areas of good airflow to avoid flies, similar to pasture cows that stand in the mud. Fans are electronic devices that can cause stray voltage when in use, and if not properly grounded, they can create stress and cows will bunch. One research study indicated that the noise from fans can initiate a stress response in cows and initiate bunching.

Pests

Stable flies are blood seeking flies that bite the legs of cattle. A California study of 20 commercial free stall herds measured fly counts on cows using traps and observations. Trap counts as few as 50 flies per trap per pen or just 1 fly per leg will cause cows to bunch in free stall pens. The stress of the fly bites causes cows to stand in a tight group with their heads to the center of the group and their tails to the outside to protect themselves against the stable fly attack. Dairy cows are known to have thinner hides than beef cattle, and thus, dairy cows are more susceptible to biting flies. Fly repellent behaviors include tail flicking, foot stomping, head tossing, skin twitching, and ear trembling to reduce the fly attack. An effective fly control program must include a combination of cleanliness, larval control through feed, regular sprays, ear tags and parasitic wasps. Fly control must start early (April / May) to prevent mid to late summer fly issues.

Feed and Water

Cattle will increase drinking in hot temperatures, and they will often bunch around drinkers in hot temperatures. When cows congregate and bunch around drinkers or empty feed bunks, it is a response to stress which can begin a bunching response. Provide extra waterers during the summer. Drinkers should provide a minimum of 25 linear water distance per 100 cows. Water capacity as measured by flow rate is also important that the drinkers are not empty. TMR feed bunks must provide continuous access to fresh feed. A mold inhibitor added to the TMR will maintain freshness and stability of the ration during hot summer months. Provide a minimum of 200 feet of bunk length per 100 cows or 24 inches per cow. Overcrowded pens or limited bunk space with limited feed availability can create opportunities for cows to bunch up, especially during hot weather.

Summary

Dairy farmers provide quality care for their cows by providing proper feed, water, comfort, ventilation, and housing. As a result of quality care, cows respond by providing consumers with high quality, nutritious milk we can all enjoy. As a dairy farmer, take time now to get the barns in order for summer time. Keep the predators of stress away with proper prevention. Areas to manage to prevent bunching this summer include effective cleaning of fans, proper fly control, trim grass and weeds around barns, and check for stray voltage, especially from fans and drinkers. Most of all, monitor the barns each afternoon to observe and head off any potential stressors that may cause cows to bunch up.
Using Dairy Manure with Newly Planted Corn and Soybeans

Glen Arnold, Extension Field Specialist for Manure Nutrient Management, The Ohio State University

In recent years, dairy farmers and commercial manure applicators have been moving towards applying dairy manure to newly planted corn and soybeans.

Applying dairy manure to fields after crops are planted in the spring offers some advantages over applying manure before crops are planted. One advantage is corn or soybean planting not being delayed by the added moisture from the liquid manure. This delay can be costly if wet weather further delays spring planting. The second advantage is the liquid manure adding moisture to the soil that can enhance crop germination and emergence, especially if the weather turns off dry.

As soon as a field is planted, the manure can be applied. This is true for both corn and soybeans. The seed is protected by an inch or more of soil. In university research, the application of 10,000 gallons per acre of dairy manure has not negatively impacted crop germination and emergence on corn or soybeans. If the crops are emerging, manure can still be applied to corn but not soybeans. Newly emerging soybeans can easily be killed by the application of liquid manure. Corn can tolerate the drag hose through the V3 stage of growth without an issue.

The nitrogen in the dairy manure will be a boost to the emerging crop. It is difficult to know how much of the ammonium nitrogen in the dairy manure will be available to the crop. The organic nitrogen portion will be a slow release over several years. The ammonium nitrogen in the dairy manure can be lost to volatilization and possibly leaching. In university trials of surface applied dairy manure, only about half the ammonium nitrogen applied seemed to be available for crop growth.

When a drag hose is utilized, the drag hose applicator commonly applies the manure at an angle across the field. The field needs to be firm enough to support the drag hose to avoid scouring the soil surface and burying small corn plants or further burying seeds. Fields that are spring tilled are not good candidates for a drag hose. No-till fields, stale seed beds, fields with dead or alive cover crops, and tilled fields that have been packed with heavy spring rain are usually good fields for a drag hose.

Additional on-farm manure side-dress plot results can be obtained by clicking on the On-farm Research link on the OSU Extension Agronomics Crops team website at http://agcrops.osu.edu/ or E-fields at https://digitalag.osu.edu/efields or follow OSU Extension’s manure research on Facebook at: Ohio State Extension Environmental and Manure Management.

Ohio State University Agronomics Crops Team Youtube channel is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0nhw3GG6Q8&t=1s
Disease Prevention: Making the Most of Your Spring (and every day) Cleaning Practices
Drs. Samantha Locke, Alex Fonseca-Martinez, and Greg Habing, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Cleaning and disinfection (C&D) practices are often laborious and time-consuming, but successful C&D is critical to reducing cattle exposure to pathogens, even if you don't see an immediate response. Many factors can influence the effectiveness of your cleaning and disinfection practices on any given day. Some things are difficult to control, for example, temperature and relative humidity can impact the success of your hygiene practices. However, there are strategies you can implement to make the most out of your C&D (Figure 1).

The Basics
- Plan your C&D. Organize your C&D in a way that would minimize the impact of pathogen spread. For example, when possible, clean and disinfect starting with the youngest animals moving to the oldest. In lactating barns, scrape beds before flushing alleyways. After flushing, scrub water troughs.
- Don't forget the cleaning in cleaning and disinfection! Organic material, such as manure or feed residue, that are left on surfaces can interact with disinfectants and reduce their effectiveness. Rinsing or sweeping away any visible contamination from surfaces is the first step to successful C&D.
- Include a washing step. Washing equipment or surfaces with soap or detergent can remove residue that was left behind after rinsing/sweeping an area – some soaps can even eliminate certain microorganisms. Scrubbing can also help remove strongly adhered residues or biofilms that would interfere with disinfectants. Just make sure to rinse away any product used, as disinfectants can be inactivated by soap. Note: it can be tempting to use pressure washers to efficiently clean heavily soiled areas; however, these should be used with caution. Some pathogens, like Salmonella, can be spread further with pressure washing and can cause animal and human health concerns.
- Let areas/equipment dry before disinfection. Extra water can dilute disinfectants, reducing their working concentration and effectiveness. If allowing an area to dry completely is not possible, try to allow at least 5 to 10 minutes before applying a disinfectant.
- Have a plan for cold weather C&D. Cold temperatures can negatively impact disinfectants. If temperatures are predicted to rise throughout the day, consider moving your C&D to whenever the warmest temperatures will be reached. Alternatively, some disinfectant companies have instructions on how to add antifreeze to their products to preserve their effectiveness in winter conditions.
How Much C&D is Enough?

If you want your C&D to be successful, routine is important, but it can be difficult to identify how often different areas or equipment should be cleaned. Supplies like calf bottles, esophageal tubers, and calving chains should be cleaned after each use. Daily cleaning of animal housing areas is often not considered feasible from a time and labor standpoint. Intermittent cleaning (for example, weekly or monthly) allows bacteria to establish biofilms. Biofilms are communities of microorganisms that attach to a surface and produce a protective “slime". They are extremely resistant to disinfection and can persist in environments for a long time, consistently causing contamination issues with farm equipment. Biofilms can even result in animal infections. Porous surfaces and areas with lots of cracks, crevices, and hard to reach corners are difficult to clean, and provide lots of opportunities for biofilm formation. In laboratory settings, Salmonella can form biofilms within 48 hours. Currently, very few disinfectants have been tested to determine their effectiveness against biofilms. If C&D of animal housing can't be completed daily, consider adopting a more rigorous protocol in order to disrupt biofilm formation and make sure that your efforts are having an impact.

What is the Best Disinfectant?

Disinfectant choice is specific to your facility and which pathogens you are most concerned with. Discuss with your veterinarian what disinfectants and C&D protocols may work best for your herd. However, here are some tips to make sure the disinfectant you choose will give you the most bang for your buck.
- Check the label. Companies often list the organisms that a disinfectant has been tested against in the lab and found effective. Double check to make sure the microorganisms that cause the most problems in your herd are covered.
- Actively manage your disinfectants. Some products - like bleach - can lose strength over time. Test strips are available for most disinfectants to ensure that: 1) Concentration of your stock is known and 2) Disinfectants are mixed appropriately when diluted. Disinfectants applied at lower concentrations than instructed on the label are usually ineffective.
- Follow the contact times listed. The ability of disinfectants to inactivate or kill microorganisms is a function of concentration and contact time. Failing to follow label guidelines regarding concentration and contact times will negatively impact C&D.
Unfortunately, there is no perfect cleaning and disinfection protocol available. However, if you keep in mind the information provided above, you can avoid common mistakes that reduce the effectiveness of C&D protocols.

If you’re interested in learning more about cleaning and disinfection and how to develop your C&D program, check out https://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/infection-control/disinfection/.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the November issue, the Class III milk future for January was $16.38/cwt. Class III milk closing price for December was $16.04/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $1.45 and $2.98/lb, respectively. The price of milk protein and fat have decreased since the previous issue, a trend typically seen through post-holidays through winter. In this issue, the Class III future for February is $15.95/cwt with March at $16.33/cwt.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Since the November issue, the cost of net energy for lactation (NE_L) has decreased by about 27%. The cost of NE_L is about even with the 5-year average ($0.09/Mcal). The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) has increased slightly since the November issue, but it is still currently about 5% higher than the 5-year average ($0.44/lb).

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the January 2024 issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $9.32 and $9.79/cwt, respectively. Both values are expected to be profitable even though they experienced a post-holidays decline. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, January 12, 2024.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on January 12, 2024 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set in this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, January 12, 2024.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, January 12, 2024.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Wheat bran	41% Cottonseed meal
Corn silage	Whole cottonseed	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Hominy	Mechanically extracted canola meal
_{Gluten meal}	Wheat middlings	Solvent extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Soybean hulls	44% Soybean meal
_{Meat meal}	48% Soybean meal	Whole, roasted soybeans
	Soybean meal - expeller	Tallow
	Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF
	Feather meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NEL and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, January 12, 2024.

Who is the New Guy?

Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had a whirlwind start to 2024. Before it gets crazier, I want to introduce myself to all of you Buckeye Dairy News readers. My name is Kirby Krogstad, and I just joined the faculty at The Ohio State University at the Wooster Campus. I have a research and Extension position, so I will be getting to know the Ohio dairy community very well, and hopefully you’ll all get to know me, too!

I grew up on dairy farms in South Dakota (Krogstad Bros. Dairy) and Minnesota (Garlin Dairy). I grew up like many other farm kids – I spent a lot of time playing sports and showing cattle. After high school, I went to South Dakota State University (Go Jacks!) where I studied dairy production and ag business. In college, I was involved in student government, dairy club, and dairy judging. I also had my first research experience as an undergraduate with Dr. Jill Anderson. I am still a passionate Jackrabbit sports fan. All this is to say, If I am ever wearing blue and yellow, don’t worry – it is Jackrabbit blue and yellow!

After graduating from SDSU, I went to Lincoln, NE to complete a M.S. degree with Dr. Paul Kononoff. We studied ethanol coproducts, forage feeding strategies, and fiber digestion models. The best thing about living in NE was meeting my wife–more about her later. After studying at University of Nebraska – Lincoln, I headed off to Michigan State University to study with Dr. Barry Bradford. We did quite a wide range of research during my PhD. We investigated Enogen silage, ruminal acidosis, and supplementing B-vitamins as a strategy to improve animal health. I hope to continue investigating all of these topics in my new role, but I’ll keep you all filled in on our team’s progress as it happens.

My wife, Sydney, and I moved to Wooster just before Christmas. We’re settling in and are quite excited to get to know the area. Both being from the high plains, we’re really enjoying the rolling hills and beautiful scenery. We both love to read and drink good wine, so please when you have the chance, let us know the best book or bottle you’ve experienced recently. I enjoy books about history and consequential leaders, especially their memoirs. My wife enjoys Sci-Fi and fantasy novels. I’m also an avid golfer – I look for, and accept, most any reason to hit the links. If I am not at my desk, a dairy farm, or a meeting…then I’ll be at the course! We also have a shih tzu dog named Oliver who we enjoy cuddling with.

I have only one request, if you’re willing to show me your corner of the Ohio dairy industry, please reach out so we can get it on the schedule – just email me at krogstad.6@osu.edu. Or if you’re in the Wooster area and want to grab a lunch or coffee or you just want to introduce yourself, then please shoot me a note. I am eager to get to work for the Ohio dairy industry and I’m most excited to get to know all of you. Time to get to work!
New Faculty Member in Animal Welfare

Dr. Grazyne Tresoldi, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

I was born in the small town of Campo Ere (which means “fields” in the native indigenous language) in rural Brazil, into a family with deep-rooted ties to food production, particularly in the hospitality and meat industry. However, my passion for companion animals guided me towards a career in veterinary medicine. Along the way, I found my true calling in the field of dairy cattle, realizing that my mission is to enhance the well-being of farm animals and champion sustainable farming practices.

To pursue this mission, I received additional professional training in animal behavior and welfare, which granted me the privilege of collaborating with producers and institutions worldwide. This journey led me to California in 2012, where I started researching heat stress in dairy cattle, with a strong focus on optimizing cooling strategies for lactating cows. After completing my PhD at the University of California-Davis, I assumed a position as an Assistant Professor at California State University-Chico.

In this new chapter of my life at OSU, I am particularly interested in examining how Ohio's dairy industry addresses challenges posed by adverse weather conditions and developing strategies to mitigate potential risks in the future. Additionally, I am committed to raising awareness and knowledge about food animal welfare among students and dairy industry allies, equipping them to address challenges in responsible food production. My goal is to inspire positive change in the dairy industry to benefit both animals and those who rely on them for sustenance.

I moved to Columbus in late December with my spouse, Joao, and our two mutts – Dove Solange and Spike. As a southern Brazilian and granddaughter of a butcher, I enjoy barbecuing regardless of the season. I also like exploring nature, traveling, cross-stitching and photographing animals.
Current 2024 US Dairy Outlook

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

With the first month of 2024 coming to a completion, hopefully you have had time to review your 2023 profit and losses to prepare your farm for 2024. The U.S. all-milk price for 2023 will be about $20.60/cwt, only the fourth time in 20 years that the all-milk price was over $20/cwt. Unfortunately, the inflation-adjusted milk price was also the fourth lowest in the past 20 years, leading to record low milk-to-feed margins and record high dairy margin coverage (DMC) payments. The milk to feed margin in the DMC program was below the $4/cwt coverage level for 2 months in 2023. The cull cow market though was a bright spot for 2023, with the last part of the year having cull cow prices above $100/cwt. While each farm is different, on average dairy farms will have positive profits per cow for 2023.

2024 promises to be its own interesting year for dairy farmers. Current projections are for cow numbers to be about 9.35 million head, slightly lower than 2023 but about 300 lb/cow more milk. The January USDA dairy forecast has the all-milk price average for the year slightly below 2023 at $20/cwt. The cull cow and bull calf market should stay strong in 2024, with the average fed cattle market prices projected to be 2% higher in 2024 than it was in 2023. Feed costs are also projected to be lower in 2024. The lower average feed cost though will also lower DMC payments for 2024. The current projection is for the milk-to-feed margin for 2024 to be $10.70/cwt, with at least 2 months below the $9.50 margin. When DMC coverage sign-up opens for 2024, even with the higher projected margins covering the maximum amount of milk, a $9.50 margin in tier one will still be a good risk management strategy. There are a lot of unknowns in both the milk and feed markets; your grain farming neighbors are hoping for corn and soybean prices to go up, which will in turn raise dairy feed costs. While the DMC margin forecast shows a more profitable year for dairy farms than 2023, many farms grow the majority of their feeds, and the projected corn production cost is only about $31/acre lower than it was in 2023. With crop input costs not seeing the same reductions as market prices, some producers are going to find 2024 to be a very slim margin year.

Domestic consumption of dairy products continues to be a bright spot, especially for butter consumption. Domestic demand is shown in Figure 1. While early 2023 fat equivalent milk was below the trend line, the end of 2023 consumption was back to a trend line increase. The strong demand for butter and milk fat continues to be reflected in the projected Class IV milk price being above Class III. The projected Class IV 2024 forecast is $19.35/cwt, while Class III is only $16.10/cwt. The all-milk price is based on Class III and Class IV milk’s manufactured commodities; in Federal Order 33, approximately 23% of the milk price is based on Class IV milk. This will lead to statistically uniform prices during much of 2024 for Federal Order 33 slightly below Class IV prices. When you work on your 2024 budgets, be sure to consider your actual milk fat and protein production; statistically uniform milk has a fat content of 3.5%, while the average fat content in Federal Order 33 is 4.1%. These additional pounds of milk fat provide a great value, adding about $1.50/cwt to the statistically uniform price for farmers that are producing the average amount of fat in Federal Order 33.

Figure 1.

The export market is expected to grow in 2024 with higher levels of cheese, butterfat products, and whey products. Figure 2 shows the total volume of U.S. dairy exports for 2022 and 2023; total exports are expected to grow by 0.7% in 2024 compared to 2023. Of the 5 major dairy-exporting countries, only the United States and Australia are projected to see growth in their exports. Total milk production is expected to decline in Argentina, New Zealand, and the European Union. U.S. milk protein, whey, and non-fat dry milk are very competitive currently on the world market, with butter prices falling between EU and New Zealand prices.

Figure 2. U.S. Dairy exports for 2022 and 2023, from the U.S. Dairy Export Council.

Even though milk prices are projected to be slightly lower in 2024, there are still opportunities for dairy farm profitability. Using marketing tools to keep the lower feed prices a reality for your purchased feeds, even if grain prices increase, could benefit your operation. Also using tools when profitable Class III or Class IV milk futures are available can help protect your milk check. Figure 3 shows the current milk futures for the year. Both classes are projected to increase during 2024, but Class IV is a much smaller increase. Class III milk futures increase by over $3.00/cwt by the fourth quarter of 2024.

Figure 3.
Safeguarding Your Herd: How Biosecurity Keeps Salmonella Dublin at Bay
Drs. Alex Fonseca-Martinez, Samantha Locke and Gregory Habing, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Understanding Salmonella Dublin

Salmonella Dublin is a bacterial pathogen that presents a significant risk to both the dairy industry and human health. While there are many different strains of Salmonella that circulate in livestock, S. Dublin is primarily adapted to cattle and is one of the most commonly identified serotypes from clinically ill animals. Historically, Salmonella Dublin was a herd-health issue in the western United States. In recent years, on-farm outbreaks have occurred throughout the eastern United States and in Canada.

Infection can manifest in various ways, mainly affecting calves aged one week to twelve weeks. Common symptoms include diarrhea, dehydration, unresponsive pneumonia, septic arthritis, and mortality in calves. Diagnosis can be difficult because infected dairy calves, especially older calves, often show symptoms similar to respiratory disease with or without gastrointestinal symptoms. Some calves that survive become long-term, silent carriers that can shed bacteria when stressed. Severe bouts with the disease can also result in unthrifty calves that are less productive in the milking herd or are culled. The primary transmission route for Salmonella is fecal-oral. However, Salmonella Dublin is also known to spread via contaminated colostrum, milk, nasal secretions, and saliva. Establishing effective preventive measures are critical to avoid Dublin introduction to herds or, if Dublin is already present, limit disease spread and resulting negative impacts to animal health and business profitability.

Biosecurity: The Key to Salmonella Defense

The encouraging news is that dairy producers can take proactive steps to protect their herds. Biosecurity practices are not a new concept to most, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of face masks, frequent hand washing, isolation in case of symptoms, etc., are just some of the biosecurity measures that come to mind when we remember the practices adopted to avoid contracting and spreading the disease. Many of these practices were familiar to animal producers, who had long been using similar methods to protect their animals from diseases. Washing buckets, bottles, trailers, and the use of vaccines are examples of biosecurity elements commonly used by producers to prevent diseases.

Biosecurity encompasses a comprehensive set of measures and management strategies designed to protect animals and humans from the introduction and spread of diseases or harmful biological agents. These practices are crucial for food safety, environmental preservation, and business continuity, ensuring the safety of animals and animal products. There is no single solution to prevent Salmonella from entering or spreading on a farm. Biosecurity offers a comprehensive set of ongoing practices aimed at keeping the disease out (bioexclusion) or contained within the farm (biocontainment).

It's important to recognize that not all farms have the same biosecurity requirements. The level of biosecurity varies based on factors like herd size, farm location, production type, and animal health status. If Salmonella Dublin is present on your farm, establishing excellent biosecurity protocols with the help of your veterinarian, especially in the calving pen and in the rearing of youngstock, will help to control this bacterium. The following elements are part of standard biosecurity procedures to reduce the risk of exposure to Salmonella and other infectious diseases, serving as a minimum requirement for any production facility:

Personnel Training: Ensure that all farm employees are well-trained in biosecurity practices and understand the importance of disease prevention.

Controlled Access: Restrict access to your farm by implementing controlled entry points and visitor protocols, reducing the risk of introducing pathogens.

Animal Housing: If group housing is used in youngstock, utilize an all-in, all-out system to group similarly aged calves together. This can limit the spread of a potential outbreak. When possible, promptly isolate sick calves from the group, providing appropriate care while reducing the chance for animal-to-animal transmission.

Animal Health Monitoring: Like other Salmonella, Dublin can cause diarrhea in calves. However, unresponsive respiratory disease and swollen joints can also be signs of Dublin infection. Diagnostic testing may be beneficial to confirm S. Dublin presence and inform treatment options. Work with your veterinarian to determine the best treatment protocols to adopt for your operation.

Calf Feeding: In confirmed Dublin-affected herds, feeding waste milk is an exposure risk for calves. Consider pasteurizing colostrum and waste milk before use. Acidification of milk has also been shown to help reduce transmission risk.

Hygiene Practices: Maintain strict cleaning and disinfection regimens for equipment and animal environments. Consistent cleaning and disinfection in maternity pens are critical to reduce the risk of transmission to calves. Remove and replace soiled bedding regularly and make sure to clean and sanitize equipment such as chains and esophageal tube feeders. In calf barns, clean and disinfect bottles, nipples, and water buckets or troughs daily. Do not power wash facilities or trailers. Power washing may result in aerosolization of S. Dublin and further bacterial spread.

Organize Workflow: If employees cannot be designated to work with calves only, make sure to work with youngstock before moving to the milking herd. Within calf populations, work from the youngest to oldest animals. If possible, work with ill animals last in order to reduce pathogen spread. Clean and sanitize boots when moving between animal pens, barns, or different age groups.

Manure Management: Properly manage and dispose of manure to minimize disease transmission. Consider composting or other safe disposal methods.

Vehicle and Equipment Hygiene: Clean and disinfect vehicles and equipment entering and leaving the farm, including feed trucks and machinery in contact with the herd.

To enhance biosecurity practices, producers can prepare by:
- Drafting Operation-Specific Biosecurity Plans: These plans can be implemented, especially during outbreaks. You can find the BQA Daily Biosecurity Plan for Disease Prevention, along with a sample plan, at: https://www.bqa.org/resources/templates-assessments
- Accessing Enhanced Biosecurity Training: Employee training materials and facility signage for the dairy industry are available through the Secure Milk Supply Plan (SMS) https://securemilksupply.org/training-materials/biosecurity/
- Creating Customized Biosecurity Plans: Utilize the online tool at https://farmbiosecurity.cfsph.iastate.edu/#Plan to develop a personalized biosecurity plan for your farm.
By prioritizing action from the BQA Daily Biosecurity and SMS materials based on your current practices and abilities, dairy producers can reduce the risk of introducing and spreading pathogens. This safeguarding ensures the future of their farms, making biosecurity not just a wise investment but a critical necessity.
Precision Livestock Farming for Dairy Producers

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

This winter, the OSU Extension Digital Ag team is offering a 6-part Zoom series on precision livestock farming. Click here to view the flyer. Programs will begin on Wednesday, January 31^st from noon to 1:00 pm and continue for 6 weeks. Each program will feature a different speaker on various precision livestock topics. Three of the topics will be of particular interest to dairy producers. The first on January 31^st will focus on utilizing drones and remote imagery to determine forage quality and quantity in pasture and hay fields. Dr. Josh Jackson, Assistant Extension Professor with the University of Kentucky, will be our featured speaker for this presentation. The next program of interest will be on February 28^th on using activity and temperature monitoring for dairy calf, heifer, and cow management. The featured speaker for this presentation will be Jason Hartschuh, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock. The last topic while being a beef-focused presentation will be on March 6^th featuring new technology for pen-side diagnosis of the pathogen that is causing Bovine Respiratory Disease in your cattle to improve treatment recommendations. The featured speaker for this presentation is Dr. Mohit Verma, Assistant Professor, Agriculture and Biological Engineering at Purdue University.

Other programs will feature technology for sheep, swine, and poultry producers.

To sign up for these programs, register for free at go.osu.edu/plf24
Dairy Judging Team Update

Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

On a very cold and early morning in January, dairy judging hopefuls made their way to Fort Worth, Texas to compete in the Stock Show Dairy Judging Contest. After many delays, they arrived only to be surprised by even colder temperatures. For many, it was their first time visit to Texas where the highways are stacked one on top of the other and the lone star state offers quite a cultural experience.

That first day allowed very little time for rest, but we did walk the streets of old Fort Worth and watched the longhorns being herded, as well as our evaluation of their appearance, care, and handling. Admittedly, we felt out of place without fancy boots and big hats. From there, we ate at the old and rather famed Joe T. Garcias authentic Mexican restaurant. Then onto the “Cowboy Ranch” rodeo night, which was entertaining enough to keep everyone awake and involved in the atmosphere and pageantry.

Our first morning included a farm visit and two excellent classes of Brown Swiss cows at Sandy Creek Farm. They also sell raw milk and a wide variety of dairy products. Actually, we judged and listened to quite an interesting perspective on the dairy business, Texas style. The rest of day included reasons, more touring, and preparation for the contest.

Contest day followed the next morning and the temperature was at -2 degrees as the first class paraded into the ring. At least, our reasons were given in a warmer location. Then the recognition banquet followed with the forecast of snow and wet and freezing rain. Despite Mother Nature’s attitude, we had a presence with our 2^nd place win in the Jersey breed, 5^th in Holstein, 4^th in reasons, and 5^th team overall.

The five students and their coach attending at pictured below (left to right); Bonnie Ayars (coach), Cole Pond, Lindsay Davis, Rachel Sherman (10^th high individual), Grant DeBruin (11^th high individual), and Brady McCumons. For each, there were moments of excitement and then the heavy sigh at the Brown Swiss cow class.

Their adventure continued the next day as we watched some of the dairy shows before heading to the airport with more delays and a return home at 4:00 am the following morning. Travel in the winter is an enigma, but these warriors braved it for the sake of another contest and another time to judge cattle.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the September issue, the Class III milk future for October was $16.83/cwt and November was $17.02/cwt. Class III milk closing price for October was $16.84/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $1.05/lb and $3.71/lb, respectively. The price of milk protein has decreased since the previous issue, and nutritionists feeding for components may find additional value in feeding for milk fat. In this issue, the Class III future for December is $16.18/cwt, with January 2024 at $16.38/cwt.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Since the September issue, the cost of net energy for lactation (NE_L) has increased. The cost of NE_L is about 44% higher than the 5-year average ($0.09/Mcal). The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) has decreased since the September issue and is currently about 5% higher than the 5-year average ($0.44/lb).

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the November issue, the income over nutrient costs (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day are about $10.45 and $10.88/cwt, respectively. Both values are expected to be profitable even though they continue a slight decline since July. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2023.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 28, 2023 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set in this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2023.

A screenshot of a computerDescription automatically generated

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words, moved a column to the right since the last issue are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are in undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, November 28, 2023.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	_{Wheat bran}	41% Cottonseed meal
Corn silage	Whole cottonseed	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
_{Feather meal}	Meat meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Soybean hulls	44% Soybean meal
Hominy	48% Soybean meal	Whole, roasted soybeans
Wheat middlings	Soybean meal - expeller	Tallow
	_{Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF}

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2023.
A blue and white table with numbers and textDescription automatically generated with medium confidence

Molds and Mycotoxins in Dairy Cattle: Effects, Diagnosis, and Control
Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Professor and Extension Veterinarian, Dairy Cattle Health and Management, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University
1. Molds and mycotoxins are present in feed worldwide with negative implications on cattle health and performance. Most toxins are produced in the field (forages) but molds could produce toxins during storage. Prevention and control of mycotoxins in cattle feed require an effective and integrated management strategy. The following webinar provides an overview of health effects, laboratory diagnosis, interpretation of results with risk levels, and a practical approach to troubleshoot and control mycotoxins. The link to access the webinar in English “Molds and mycotoxins in dairy cattle: Effects, diagnosis, and control”: https://youtu.be/rGC8jH8HTok
1. Los mohos y las micotoxinas están presentes en los alimentos en todo el mundo, con implicaciones negativas para la salud y performance del ganado. La mayoría de las toxinas se producen en el campo (forrajes), pero los mohos pueden producir toxinas durante el almacenamiento. La prevención y el control de las micotoxinas en los alimentos para el ganado lechero requieren una estrategia de manejo eficaz e integrada. El siguiente webinar proporciona una descripción general de los efectos sobre la salud, el diagnóstico de laboratorio, la interpretación de resultados con niveles de riesgo y un enfoque práctico para solucionar problemas y controlar las micotoxinas. Aquí está el enlace para acceder el webinar en Español “Hongos y micotoxinas en ganado lechero: Efectos, diagnostico, y control”: https://youtu.be/E4rkHQvw5dA
National Dairy FARM Program to Release Animal Care Version 5
Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) program was launched in 2009. It was developed by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) in partnership with Dairy Management, Inc. The program helps ensure the success of the entire dairy industry by demonstrating U.S. dairy farmers are committed to producing high quality, safe milk with integrity. The National Dairy FARM Program is open to all U.S. dairy farmers, milk processors and cooperatives. As science and best practices evolve, the FARM Program’s goal is to continue showing customers and consumers that we’re holding the dairy industry to the highest standards.

The FARM Program focuses on five program areas – animal care, antibiotic stewardship, biosecurity, environmental stewardship and workforce development. Each program area provides participants with resources such as science-based standards, verifications, metrics and other tools that can be leveraged to improve best management practices in each respective pillar.

The FARM Animal Care Program standards are revised every three years to reflect the most current science and best management practices within the dairy industry. Standards, rationale, and accountability measures are reviewed and revised by the FARM Animal Care Task Force and NMPF Animal Health and Well-Being Committee with input from industry stakeholder groups including farmers, animal scientists, and veterinarians. The NMPF Board of Directors provides final approval on version standards. FARM is currently facilitating the development of FARM Animal Care Version 5.

The following changes were approved by the NMPF Board of Directors in March 2023 to be implemented in FARM Animal Care Version 5:
1. Locomotion: Establish benchmark for moderate lameness 15% with associated Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP)
2. Disbudding: Elevate pain management standard from CIP to Mandatory Corrective Action Plan (MCAP). Acceptable methods: Caustic paste and cautery.
3. Calves: Revision to how colostrum feeding standards are evaluated: a) Meet quantity (10% birth weight), quality (visual, colostrometer, etc.) and timeliness (within 6 hours) guidelines, or b) Evidence of successful transfer of passive immunity.
4. Continuing Education: Elevate Family Employee standard from CIP to MCAP
5. Euthanasia: Identification of primary and secondary individuals for euthanasia implementation and confirmation of death in protocol.
6. Program Implementation: Establish discovery process between FARM & co-op/processor for farms that exceed animal observation benchmarks significantly.
The Animal Care Version 5 standards will be in place from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2027. Additional information about the program is available at: https://nationaldairyfarm.com/
Additional Links to Relevant Information

Nuisance Bird Economics, Prevention, and Control for Livestock Farms

Production Trends in the US Dairy Sector

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences,The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the July issue, the Class III milk future for August was $16.94/cwt and September was $17.33/cwt. Class III milk closing price for August was $17.19/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $2.09 and $3.02/lb, respectively. Both component prices are increased compared to the July issue, with protein rising by nearly $0.50/lb. This issue, the Class III future for October is $16.83/cwt, with the November at $17.02/cwt.

Updated Corn Silage Price

A new corn silage price used throughout this article was calculated as corn silage harvest winds down in Ohio. This year’s approximate price for normal corn silage (32-38% dry matter), based on a $4.84/bu corn grain price at the end of day September 28, 2023, was $56.40/ton. This marks a $15.41/ton decrease in the calculated price of corn silage for 2023, leaving the feed ingredient cost closer to that of 2021. Based on its nutritive value, home grown corn silage continues to be a bargain feed in dairy cattle rations.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Compared to the July issue, nutrient costs are more closely aligned with the 5-year averages. The cost of net energy for lactation (NE_L) is about 4% lower than the 5-year average ($0.09/Mcal). The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) has increased since the July issue and is currently about 37% higher than the 5-year average ($0.44/lb).

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the September issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $10.84 and $11.25/cwt, respectively. Both values are expected to be profitable even though they are lower than in July. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, September 28, 2023.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on September 28, 2023 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, September 28, 2023.

A screenshot of a computerDescription automatically generated

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words, moved a column to the right since the last issue are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, September 28, 2023.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	41% Cottonseed meal	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn silage	Whole cottonseed	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Feather meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Meat meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Gluten meal	Soybean hulls	44% Soybean meal
Hominy	48% Soybean meal	Whole, roasted soybeans
_{Soybean meal - expeller}		Tallow
Wheat middlings		Wheat Bran

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace MP by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, September 28, 2023.

A screenshot of a calculatorDescription automatically generated

Dairy Outlook: September 2023

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

In mid-September, the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) released its monthly Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook. The latest report is available here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/107464/ldp-m-351.pdf?v=6487.8. This article will summarize portions of the dairy section of the report.

Supply and Use

According to the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), milk production in the United States totaled 19.075 billion lb (615 million lb/day) in July 2023, 0.5% lower than July 2022. Milk cows on farms averaged 9.4 million head in July, down 13,000 head from July 2022. The average milk production per cow was 2,029 lb in July 2023, down 9 lb from July 2022. Very high temperatures and dry weather are the primary factors in reduced milk production.

Dairy Margin Coverage milk margins dropped below $4 in June and July. Values below $4 are considered “catastrophic” by the program, triggering indemnity payments to all participants. The table below summarizes the all-milk price and feed costs.

Price Forecast: 2023-2024

The September report revised milk prices up slightly for the remainder of 2023. The milk supply typically responds to changes in prices with a lag of several months. The low margins experienced in 2023 are expected to contribute to further contraction of the dairy herd in the first half of 2024. However, some rebuilding of the milking herd is expected in late 2024 as milk prices improve and feed costs moderate.

Class

Projection for 2024

III

$17.55/cwt

IV

$18.00/cwt

All-milk

$20.30/cwt

Moving Forward

While the price projections from the latest USDA ERS report have been revised upward, profitability will continue to be an issue for many dairy producers. Enrolling in the OSU Extension Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program can help evaluate your financial position and assist with future planning. Please see https://farmprofitability.osu.edu/ for additional information.

Feed Market Outlook: Tight Cattle Supply Continues to Hold Cull Cow Prices

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension and Dr. Seungki Lee, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, The Ohio State University

Feeder Cattle Price Reached an All-Time High in September 2023

The feeder cattle price is at a historic high, and the price rally is expected to continue through 2024 because of the tight supply. Figure 1 illustrates the recent cash future prices of several livestock commodities and the Bloomberg (Bberg) index. Clearly, the cattle-related prices show a remarkable increasing trend, compared with hogs and the general ag commodity index (i.e., Bberg AG Commodity). In this article, we will look over the current cattle stocks, which is the reason for the current strong cattle price and the feed market outlook.

Low Cattle Stock is the Factor

On September 22, 2023, USDA released a new “Cattle on Feed” report, presenting that the current inventory is 2% below where we were in the previous year (Figure 2). According to the report, during August, placements in feedlots totaled 2 million and marketings of fed totaled 1.88 million head, which is, respectively, 5% and 6% below 2022.

Feed Market Outlook – Moderate Demand Increase Expected, but Local Issues Matter

Major commodities for feed are useful references to check the feed market outlook. Table 1 shows a snapshot of feed-related grains on the USDA’s September WASDE report. Because of the larger corn acreage, USDA forecast a 9.7% higher corn supply in the 2023/24 market. In contrast, the soybean supply is forecasted at 3.4% less than the previous year due to the smaller acreage. Interestingly, while the soybean production is expected to be smaller, the soybean meal supply is forecasted to be 2.7% bigger in the 2023/24 market. This prediction is grounded on the rebalancing between the domestic use and exports of soybeans. In the report, USDA projected the US soybean export would be 1.79 billion bushels in 2023/24, which is about 10% down from the previous year. As shown in Table 1, the soybean meal export is forecasted to be higher by 4.9% in 2023/24. So, we can understand the increased consumption forecast for soybean meal is attributed to the higher domestic demand for soybean oil and lower foreign demand for beans. In fact, USDA predicted the biofuel use of soybean oil would be 12.5 million pounds, which is 5.9% greater than last year. When looking at the feed and residual use, corn is forecasted to be increased by 3.7% in 2023/24, but wheat is forecasted to be the same as the previous year. Thus, overall, the feed-related demand is expected to be moderately greater in 2023/24.

Since the commodity prices are projected to be lowered by and large in 2023/24, buyers will try to lock in at attractive prices, whereas sellers will try to sell when prices are high. As we move through the harvest season, sooner or later, we are going to see the final picture of grain supply, which will help with a better understanding of the supply side move in the feed market.

For Ohio farmers, it can be useful to see the Ohio hay prices in relation to the national hay prices and soybean meal prices. Figure 3 displays the price trends of hay and soybean meal, where hay prices are presented in three ways: 1) all hay products, 2) hays except for alfalfa, and 3) alfalfa only. As depicted in Figure 3, the national hay prices are largely correlated with soybean meal price, alluding to a substitute relationship. Specifically, we can see that alfalfa is the major factor of the high correlation. However, Ohio hay prices are clearly less correlated with the national price trends, which is not surprising because the majority of transactions of feed grain happen in the Western Corn Belt Plains. Ohio’s hay market is unique compared to the national market with much of the hay going through the market being used by small load buyers who won’t substitute hay for other protein sources. With a potentially large soybean meal supply, producers will need to watch the hay cost to soybean meal balance next year. Therefore, local market circumstances will be much more critical for Ohio growers, although the macro-level feed market moves will still need to be factored.

Table 1. Feed-related commodities snapshot in the U.S.

Item	2022/2023	2023/2024	Change from 22/23
	Estimate	Forecast	(%)
Supply
Corn supply (mil bu)	15,147	16,611	9.7%
Soybean supply (mil bu)	4,581	4,426	-3.4%
Soybean meal supply (1,000 ton)	53,500	54,925	2.7%
Wheat supply (mil bu)	2,470	2,444	-1.1%
Demand
Corn: Feed and residual (mil bu)	5,425	5,625	3.7%
Wheat: Feed and residual (mil bu)	90	90	0%
Soybean meal (1,000 ton)	53,150	54,525	2.6%
Soybean meal export (1,000 ton)	14,400	15,100	4.9%
Prices
Corn ($/bu)	6.55	4.90	-25.2%
Soybeans ($/bu)	14.20	12.90	-9.2%
Soybean meal ($/ton)	455	380	-16.5%
Wheat ($/bu)	8.83	7.50	-15.1%

(Source: USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates)

Figure 1. Daily futures price trends.
(Source: Barchart CmdtyView, accessed on September 26, 2023)

Figure 2. Cattle on feed inventory on 1,000+ capacity feedlots in the US.

(Source: USDA NASS)

Figure 3. Hay prices and soybean meal cash (CBOT) trend.
(Source: USDA NASS and Barchart CmdtyView)

Fall Application of Dairy Manure

Glen Arnold, Manure Management Field Specialist, OSU Extension

Corn silage harvest is the start of serious manure application efforts by dairy farmers and commercial manure applicators across Ohio. We have experienced unusually dry weather in much of Ohio, so fields are suitable for manure application.

The field application of manure, milking parlor water, outdoor lot runoff, and silage leachate is a necessary part of dairy farming. Manure transport and application is a significant expense on dairy farms and can easily approach $150 to $175/cow annually. The rapidly increasing prices of pumps, hoses, and manure application equipment in recent years has forced commercial manure applicators to raise the prices they charge dairy farmers for manure application.

To best capture the fall applied manure nutrients, manure should be incorporated during application or as soon as possible afterwards. Livestock producers should also consider using cover crops to capture more of the manure nutrients, especially the nitrogen, and also to prevent soil erosion. Another benefit of cover crops that overwinter is the uptake of nitrogen early in the spring when fields are not yet suitable for traffic in March and April and manure nitrogen is still available for plant uptake.

The most common cover crops used with livestock manure are cereal rye, wheat, and oats. However, farmers have also used radishes, clover, annual ryegrass, Sudan grass, or almost anything they are comfortable growing. If a farmer is participating in the H2Ohio program, be sure to work with your Soil and Water Conservation District to be certain your cover crop mixture meets the necessary application rate(s) and also meets the requirement to live through the winter months.

A cover crop that is excellent at recycling nitrogen is wheat. Like cereal rye, wheat germinates at low soil temperatures, overwinters, and is an easy cover crop to control the following spring or become a forage crop as wheat silage. It will capture large amounts of the available nitrogen from fall applied livestock manure. Dairy producers can spur growth with one or two applications of manure as the wheat grows next spring.

Cereal rye is the most commonly planted cool-season grass for capturing excess nitrogen. Because rye over-winters, research has shown it can capture and hold 25 to 50 lb/acre of nitrogen in the organic form as roots and plant tissue. It germinates at lower temperatures than oats so it may be planted later, but less nitrogen will be recycled the later in the fall the rye is seeded. This is another cover crop that could be used as a forage crop in the spring.

Oats are sometimes used as a cover crop in the fall and need to be planted soon after silage harvest. Drilling oats improves germination and growth before frost. Some farmers in northwest Ohio have had great success surface seeding oats and incorporating with shallow tillage.

Cover crops can help livestock farmers recapture manure nutrients and conserve soil by reducing erosion. Livestock producers should consider Best Management Practices, such as setbacks, when applying manure. The goal should be to combine nutrient recovery and to protect water quality. Manure application rules in Ohio are influenced by watershed location. Check with your local Soil and Water Conservation District about the most current rules in your area.

Keep Forage Nitrate Toxicity in Mind This Year

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

This year has been a weather rollercoaster with multiple spells of drought and flooded conditions. These adverse growing conditions can cause unforeseen challenges with the forages you have stored away. We have had multiple reports of high nitrate levels this year. The first reports of high nitrate levels were in June harvested oats after the early season drought. Recently, we have had additional reports of dangerously high nitrate levels in millet hay with the recently dry weather. Producers have also told us that they are struggling with excessive silo gas coming from corn silage.

Plants readily take up nitrates from the soil, even under cooler conditions. Once in the plant, nitrate is converted to nitrite, then ammonia, and finally into amino acids and plant protein. Any environmental stress that significantly slows down plant photosynthesis and metabolism can lead to excessive nitrate levels in the plant because the nitrate uptake from the soil will be faster than its metabolism into plant protein. Such stresses include frost, extended cold weather, cloudy conditions, hail damage, or drought. While frost is a concern for increasing nitrates in forage, the sorghum family also has prussic acid concerns when plants die quickly because of a frost. Prussic acid and nitrate poisoning are not the same.

When ruminants consume excessive levels of nitrate in their diet, the nitrate is converted to nitrite by rumen microbes faster than it can be converted to ammonia, amino acids, and eventually to protein. Accumulated nitrite in the rumen is then absorbed into the bloodstream where it prevents oxygen transport, which leads to death. Livestock sensitivity to nitrates ranked from highest to lowest is: pigs > cattle > sheep > horses. Older or sick animals are generally more sensitive than young healthy animals. The fetus in pregnant animals is very sensitive to high nitrates ingested in the diet.

One of the common solutions for forages that have slightly elevated levels of nitrates is to mix them with another forage source that is low in nitrates. The best way to do this is to truly mix the two forages so that your cattle eat both at once as a balanced lower nitrate diet. When this is not possible, feed the low nitrate forage first, allowing them to fill up on it, then offer the higher nitrate forage keeping them full for the day alternating forages each feeding. This year it may be important to test those dilution forages to be sure they are truly low in nitrates. Nitrate levels in forage are commonly reported in 3 different ways, ppm NO₃ DM, percent NO₃, and ppm NO₃-N (DM). Table 1 below summarizes how to interpret the results.

Table 1: Interpretation of nitrate forage test results.

ppm NO₃ (DM)	Percent NO₃	ppm NO₃-N (DM)	Interpretation of results
0-3,000	0-0.3%	<350	Generally safe for all cattle.
3,000-5,000	0.3-0.5%	350-1130	Generally safe for non-pregnant beef cattle. Low risk of reduced breeding performance and early-term abortions. Total ration for dairy cattle should be less than 2500 ppm NO_3.
5,000-10,000	0.5-1.0%	1130-2260	Some risk for all cattle. May cause mid to late-term abortions and weak newborn calves. May decrease growth and milk production.
>10,000	>1%	>2260	Potentially toxic for all cattle. Can cause abortions, acute toxicity symptoms, and death.

Any time forage growth has been significantly slowed due to extended cold nights, cloudy weather, dry conditions, or premature plant death, nitrates may be an issue. All these stresses can lead to higher nitrate levels in plants due to slowed growth. Nitrogen fertilizer or manure applications made to forages increase the risk for higher nitrate levels in plant tissue, especially if excess nitrogen is available and forage growth is slow.

Nitrate accumulation is possible in many forage species, including all cool-season perennial forage grasses, alfalfa, all cereal forages (oat, rye, triticale, wheat, barley, spelt, etc.), and brassicas (might be present in cover crop mixes). Nitrates can also accumulate in warm season annuals (corn, sorghum species, millet, and many weeds). Weed species are heavy nitrate accumulators, including lambsquarter, pigweed, dock, some mustard species, horse nettle, nightshade, quackgrass, and jimsonweed. Heavy infestations of those weeds when harvested with the forage will increase the risk of nitrate toxicity.

Nitrate levels are generally higher in younger than more mature growth. Delaying forage harvest to the dough stage and other forages to flowering/heading stages can significantly reduce nitrate levels. Cutting height can also affect levels as nitrates accumulate in the lower one-third of plants more than in the upper two-thirds.

Plant nitrate concentrations are higher in the morning than later in the day (plant metabolism during daylight drives the conversion of nitrate to plant protein). Mowing hay late in the afternoon on a sunny day can reduce nitrate levels in forage, especially with the longer fall nights. Once hay is mowed, nitrate levels do not change much during the drying process, so dry hay levels will be similar to levels at the time you mow. Prior to mowing, nitrate levels vary across the field based on plant growth and variable soil nitrogen. This variability increases even more in a field based on mowing time. If we start in the morning and mow all day, the evening mowed forage should have lower nitrate levels.

However, ensiling can reduce nitrate levels from 10 to 65% provided fermentation is good. But if the forage is initially very high in nitrates, the silage could yet contain toxic nitrate levels, so this is not an automatic fail-safe option. Be very cautious as high nitrate forages ferment, the bacteria break down the nitrate and release deadly nitrogen gas. Nitrogen oxide gases are heavier than air, may be reddish or yellow-brown in color, and have a bleach-like smell. Nitrogen oxide gases will accumulate in low-lying places, such as around the base of a silo or in the feed room below a tower. When ensiling forage that may have high nitrate concentrations, do not enter the silo for at least three weeks after harvest. If you must enter the silo to level or cover the silage, do it immediately after filling and leave the blower running while anyone is in the silo. If you usually run the blower for an hour prior to entering the silo, it may be necessary to run it for 2 hours to be sure the gas is cleared and fresh air is present.

Silage must be harvested at the proper moisture for complete fermentation (Table 2). When forages are harvested too dry, they do not ferment properly and nitrate reductions will be less. Baleage is often harvested on the drier side, and even when it is harvested in the ideal moisture range, reductions will not be as much as well-packed silage. Baleage densities are much lower than properly packed silage, so the additional oxygen slows fermentation. If nitrate levels are reduced in silage in about 3 weeks, it will take 6 or more weeks for levels to be reduced in baleage. Since nitrate levels can vary across a field, the harvested forage can be quite variable in nitrate concentration.

Table 2. Ideal moisture content for forage stored as silage or baleage.

Type of Silo	% Moisture Content	% Dry Matter Content
Horizontal (bunker) silo	65% - 70%	30% - 35%
Bag silo	65% - 70%	30% - 35%
Tower silo	62% - 67%	33% - 38%
Oxygen-limiting tower silo	55% - 60%	40% - 45%
Baleage	50% - 60%	40% - 50%

The bottom line is that if you suspect the forage could be high in nitrate, the safest thing to do is to sample the forage and have it tested before it is harvested, because if levels are high, you can delay harvest to reduce the levels. You should certainly sample the stored forage before feeding it if you suspect higher levels! Call your forage lab and follow their guidelines closely for sampling the forage, packaging, and shipping the sample to them.

Forage Testing Now Available Through Ohio State

Dr. Marilia Chiavegato, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences and Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

The Ohio State University Sustainable Agroecosystems Laboratory is now offering forage analysis. Two forage testing options are available to be done by the lab located on Coffey Road in Columbus.

Package 1 ($18.50) includes dry matter, crude protein, fiber (NDF and ADF), minerals (Ca, P, K, and Mg), digestibility, ash, fat, lignin, and starch. Package 2 ($20.50) includes all analyses listed in Package 1 plus calculation of total digestible nutrients (TDN) and relative forage quality (RFQ). There is a $2.00/sample grinding fee.

Helpful test interpretation is provided with both packages! For more information, including shipping and price quotes, scan the QR code below or contact: Marilia Chiavegato, Assistant Professor at chiavegato.1@osu.edu or (614) 625-7512.

Next Year’s Winter Annual Cereal Grain Forage Success Starts Now

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

Winter annual forages can be a very economical feed for dairy cows and heifers. The four most common winter annuals are rye, triticale, wheat, and barley. Of these four crops, the most challenging is barley, with it having less winter survivability in our research projects. The benefit to barley is a slightly higher crude protein (CP) and smaller stems, allowing this species to dry better than the other three for hay. Barley CP stays higher even as the crop matures with similar CP levels at pollination to the other species' CP just before the head emerges. In a 3-year study conducted at the Ohio State research stations in Jackson, Fremont, and Custer, cereal rye had the highest yield when harvested just before the head emerges, averaging 1.92 ton/acre of dry matter (DM). Harvesting later once the head emerged increased the DM yield of triticale the most with a yield average of 2.81 ton/acre and a top location average for triticale at 5 tons/acre. In this study, 50 lb/acre of spring nitrogen were applied. Yield and quality data from this trial can be found in Table 1. Species that have a 10.0 after them were harvested at Feeks 10.0 or head in the boot, while those with a 10.5 after them were harvested at Feeks 10.5 head fully emerged and in flower.

Table 1: Winter annual cereal grain species yield and quality average over 3 years and 3 locations. Results in the same column with similar superscripts statistically had the same yield or quality.¹

Treatment	DM Yield (ton/acre)	Crude Protein (%)	NDF (%)	TDN (%)
Barley 10.0	1.62^cd	13.71^a	53.2^d	63.6^ab
Barley 10.5	1.98^bcd	12.06^b	61.6^b	58.4^de
Hybrid Rye 10.0	1.37^d	11.11^bc	50.4^d	69.5^a
Hybrid Rye 10.5	1.85^bcd	9.28^d	65.9^a	56.9^ef
Rye 10.0	1.92^bcd	10.89^bc	57.0^c	61.8^bc
Rye 10.5	2.34^ab	9.60^d	68.5^a	55.2^f
Triticale 10.0	1.88^bcd	10.90^bc	57.2^c	61.2^c
Triticale 10.5	2.81^a	9.36^d	68.2^a	55.3^f
Wheat 10.0	1.79^bcd	11.55^b	46.4^e	65.7^a
Wheat 10.5	2.26^abc	10.20^cd	57.4^c	60.3^cd

¹DM=dry matter, NDF = neutral detergent fiber, and TDN = total digestible nutrients.

Not only did species affect yield, but it also impacted forage quality. Barley and wheat had higher CP and total digestible nutrients than both triticale and wheat at either harvest timing. NDF was also lower for barley and wheat. While barley is a good feed, we lost our stand to winter injury at all locations one year and at one location an additional year. All varieties in this study were variety unstated.

Winter annual cereal forage varieties have very different yields, even within the same species. Within species, yield and quality greatly differed between varieties. One cereal rye variety in a Penn State variety trial yielded 3.63 ton/acre of DM while another only yielded 2.91 ton/acre. The cereal rye varieties also had a 14-day maturity window between varieties. When planting cereal rye, we often plant a variety unstated as it is cheaper, easy to get, and often used as a cover crop.

Triticale also has huge differences in yield, but all varieties mature in a much tighter number of days than the cereal rye. The top yielding triticale variety in the Penn State trial was BCT 19004, with a yield of 4.94 ton/acre of DM with 11.62% CP. The lowest yielding variety was BCT 19003, with a yield of 3.29 ton/acre of DM and 11.46% CP. Many of the other varieties you may be planting yield somewhere in the middle like TriCal Thor that yielded 4.17 ton/acre of DM with a CP of 14.17%. There are many more varieties available that will do well in Ohio. When selecting varieties, look for agronomic information on winter survival and disease tolerance.

Nitrogen management is a critical part of winter annual forage production. Over the last 2 years, we conducted a trial in Fremont, Ohio at the North Central Research Station on nitrogen and sulfur management on cereal rye. Our research showed higher yields of 0.27 ton/acre DM in 2022 and 1.5 ton/acre more DM in 2023 when 20 lb/acre of nitrogen was applied in the fall at planting after soybeans compared to no additional nitrogen. Fall nitrogen had little effect on forage quality. We also compared two spring nitrogen rates of 50 and 70 lb/acre plus 20 lb/acre of spring sulfur. Spring nitrogen rates of 70 lb/acre had no effect on yield compared to 50 lb/acre in 2022, but more spring nitrogen in 2023 increased yields by a ton when sulfur was also applied. Full trial results for 2023 can be found in Table 2. Spring nitrogen had a significant increase in CP. Seventy pounds of spring nitrogen increased CP by 0.5 to 2% over 50 lb/acre of spring nitrogen. Sulfur application in the spring of 20 lb/acre did significantly increase yield in 2023 when 70 lb/acre of nitrogen were applied. Our trials only achieved CP values of 12.3%. Our top-yielding treatment was 6.8 ton/acre of DM and had 90 lb/acre of nitrogen applied. This crop removed 270 lb/acre of nitrogen. From our field trial without historical manure applications, additional consideration is needed if CP would increase from more nitrogen applied; however, we must be careful not to increase CP at the expense of crop lodging.

Table 2: Cereal rye yield and quality in 2023 affected by nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) applications. Results in the same column with similar letters had statistically the same yield and quality.¹

Treatments	TDN (%)	CP (%)	NDF (%)	Yield (ton/ac DM)
Fall N-0#, Spring N-70#	64.7^ab	12.3^ab	56.5^b	4.99^d
Fall N-0#, Spring N-50#	65.1^a	12.2^ab	56.0^b	4.77^d
Fall N-20#, Spring N-50#,	64.4^ab	11.3^ab	57.9^ab	6.28^bc
Fall N-20#, Spring N-50#, Spring S-20#	64.3^ab	11.3^b	58.5^ab	5.82^c
Fall N-20#, Spring N-70#	65.0^a	11.7^ab	56.2^b	6.53^ab
Fall N-20#, Spring N-20#, Spring S-20#	63.4^b	12.3^a	59.9^a	6.86^a
Least significant difference:	1.4	1.0	2.7	0.57
Coefficient of variation (%):	1.8	7.2	3.9	7.9

¹TDN = Total digestible nutrients, CP = crude protein, NDF = neutral detergent fiber, and DM = dry matter.

When trying to maximize forage profitability per acre, consider managing your forage crop more like an agronomic crop. Consider variety selection for your needs looking at both yield and nutritional value. Also, consider nitrogen rate and timing. Your nitrogen may come from commercial fertilizer or manure. Work from New York also showed that unless there was residual nitrogen left over from the previous crop, a fall nitrogen application increased tillering and forage yield. This work also showed that if the field didn’t have fall manure or a history of manure application, a spring nitrogen application increased yield. By increasing your winter cereal grain forage management, you can return even more to your operation’s profitability.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences,The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the May issue, the Class III milk future for June was $16.55/cwt and July was $17.41/cwt. Class III milk closing price for June was $14.91/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $1.51/lb and $2.76/lb, respectively. Class III milk closed over two dollars lower than predicted in the previous issue, and the price for protein decreased by nearly a dollar. The Class III future for August is $16.94/cwt, with the September at $17.33/cwt.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Compared to the May issue, nutrient costs are largely stable, with the cost of net energy for lactation (NE_L) about 81% higher than the 5-year average ($0.09/Mcal), although $0.02 lower than in May. The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) has increased since the March issue and is currently about 11% lower than the 5-year average ($0.44/lb).

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the July issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $12.40 and $12.83/cwt, respectively. Both values are expected to be profitable, and both are higher than the respective values in May. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, July 25, 2023.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on July 25, 2023 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, July 25, 2023.

A screenshot of a computerDescription automatically generated
For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, July 25, 2023.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	^{41% Cottonseed meal}	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn silage	Whole cottonseed	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Feather meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Meat meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
^{Gluten meal}	Soybean hulls	Soybean meal - expeller
Hominy	^{48% Soybean meal}	44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings	^{Wheat bran}	Whole, roasted soybeans
		Tallow

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values [i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein (RDP) and digestible rumen undegradable protein (RUP)], see the Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, July 25, 2023.
A purple and white table with text

Description automatically generated

Dairy Outlook: July 2023

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook was released July 18, 2023. This report summarizes economic changes based on reporting from the USDA WASDE and other monthly reports. The full report is available here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/106951/ldp-m-349.pdf?v=4081. This article will focus on highlights from the dairy section of the report.

Supply and Use Data

According to data compiled by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), milk production, cow numbers, and milk per cow were all higher compared to the same period one year ago.

Category	May 2023	Difference from May 2022
Milk production	19.875 billion pounds	Up 0.6%
Milk cows	9.430 million head	Up 13,000 head
Milk per cow	2,108 pounds (per month)	Up 10 pounds

According to USDA NASS, items factored to calculate the dairy farm margin for the Dairy Margin Coverage program were mixed. The margin in May 2023 declined to $4.83, which was $7.68 lower than May 2022. This is the lowest dairy farm margin so far in 2023.

A graph of a farm priceDescription automatically generated
Input costs and drought conditions have contributed to high dairy cow slaughter so far this year. The chart below shows weekly slaughter and compares 2023 to 2022.

A graph of milk cow slaughterDescription automatically generated

Milk Forecast 2023

The Class III milk price is projected at $16.05/cwt because of expected lower prices for cheese and dry whey. This represents a reduction of $0.65/cwt from the forecast last month. Class IV and the all-milk price are projected down compared to the previous month forecast. Class IV is forecasted at $18.20/cwt and the all-milk price for 2023 is at $19.55/cwt.

Milk Forecast 2024

Unfortunately, price projections for 2024 are expected to drop compared to 2023. The Class III milk price is forecasted at $15.95/cwt. Class IV is expected to be $17.45/cwt and the all-milk price for 2024 at $19.10/cwt.

Moving Forward

If these projections hold true, attention to detail and a critical review of all expenses will become increasingly more important. Ask questions of your Extension Educator, veterinarian, lender, and other trusted advisors to develop a plan.

Forecasting and Benchmarking the Financial Bottom Line
Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Currently, a lot of focus is on the volatility in the dairy industry. Of course a hearing on the Federal order pricing system is scheduled (see article elsewhere in this issue of Buckeye Dairy News), but any changes are well into the future. As we sit just beyond the halfway mark for the year and look toward yearend, we should evaluate our current financial situation and project some “what if’s” for the yearend. Milk component prices are rather volatile at the moment due to many factors within the pricing system, although cheese prices are showing some promise. Cull cow prices have been quite good recently, along the overall positive beef cattle prices. Although Ohio is not included, you might want to monitor the new Livestock Auction Dashboard provided by USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (Livestock Auction Dashboard | MMN (usda.gov)) as shifts in beef prices will influence the price for cull cows and dairy calves. The feed price situation is somewhat uncertain at the moment given the drought conditions that remain in some parts of the Midwest, and we are still somewhat too far out from harvest for good estimates on overall grain yields for the primary growing states. First-cutting of forage was quite good in quality but lower yields than often occurring due to low rainfall. Major challenges have occurred for many farmers in getting second or third cuttings harvested in a timely manner due to frequent rains.

After you develop those “what if’s” on the revenue and costs, there are various sources to benchmark against:
1. Ohio Dairy Farm Business Summary: The 2011 through 2021 dairy and crop business summaries are provided at: Ohio Farm Business Summaries | Ohio Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program (osu.edu)
2. Data summaries from the Cornell University Dairy Farm Business Summaries: https://dyson.cornell.edu/outreach/extension-bulletins
3. Northeast Dairy Farm Business Summaries: https://www.farmcrediteast.com/en/resources/Industry-Trends-and-Outlooks/Reports/2022NEDairyFarmSummary2023MidYearOutlook
4. University of Minnesota, Center for Farm Financial Management: Reports can be run for crops or dairy by year and also some data are available by herd size: https://finbin.umn.edu/
Of course one of the major challenges is that each year is different, but at least one of the reports provides a midyear outlook. Best wishes with harvests during the next few months and as you plan for the yearend on financial management.
Federal Milk Marketing Order Hearing Planned to Begin in August
Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service has announced details about the hearing that will begin on Wednesday, August 23, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss 22 different proposals that would amend milk prices in the 11 Federal Milk Marketing Orders. A total of 40 proposals were submitted for consideration. The full hearing announcement can be found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/24/2023-15496/milk-in-the-northeast-and-other-marketing-areas-notice-of-hearing-on-proposed-amendments-to

Testimony will be heard by subject area in the order they are listed:
1. Milk composition
2. Surveyed commodity prices
3. Class III and Class IV formula factors
4. Base Class I skim milk price
5. Class I and Class II differentials
6. AMS proposal
The public hearing will be held at the 502 East Event Centre, 502 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, IN. Each proposal will be presented and testified on with each witness having 60 minutes to present their proposals.

Dairy farmers may testify in person at any time during the hearing, or virtually via Zoom on Fridays. Starting Friday, September 1, 2023, and each Friday thereafter during the hearing, beginning at 12:00 p.m. ET, ten (10) time slots will be available for dairy farmers to testify virtually. Dairy farmers must pre-register to testify virtually, as outlined in the instructions provided on the Hearing website. Each registered dairy farmer will be allocated up to 15 minutes to present testimony. Additional time may be requested. There will be no time limit on cross-examination. The hearing will continue until the presiding judge determines it is complete. At that time, USDA will issue their recommended decision with an open comment period to follow on those recommendations. If the process progresses as expected, it should be completed by July 2024.

The full proposals, hearing recordings, and additional information on participating can be found at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/dairy/hearings/national-fmmo-pricing-hearing
Corn Silage Price, Processing, Performance, and Preparation

Dwight Roseler, Adjunct Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, and Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

A high-performance football coach knows, the work is done in the weight room and practice field prior to the opening kickoff. Many players dread the summer two a day football practice. But the motivation was the Friday night lights and the game wins! In football, there are several chances to make course corrections and improve in season. Corn silage harvest will soon be upon us! Unlike football, corn silage harvest only has one chance to get it right during harvest! No going back for more practice. The farmers weight room work out of having quality corn silage starts with prepping the soil, proper fertility, reputable seed, weed control, correct planting, field scouting, fungicide (if needed), and correct harvest moisture, chop length, kernel processing, pack density, and feed out. Corn silage is the foundation of dairy rations, and corn silage quality is a top 5 factor in profit for dairy farms. Get it done right, no second chances!

Corn Silage Preparation - Chop Length and Kernel Processing

Silage chopper chop length and kernel processing requires regular adjustment and monitoring as usage will alter the chop length and processing rolls. Corn silage chop length will need to be adjusted by farm depending upon TMR forage percentage in the ration, forage neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and ration starch and undigested NDF (uNDF) levels. The proper corn silage chop length is critical for efficient milk cow performance. 100% of kernels need to be processed on every load. Assign your pack tractor manager as the gate keeper to make sure the particle length and kernel processing is correct and adjusted properly. Check initial loads and several loads per hour throughout each chopping day. Both variety and planting date can influence kernel size, therefore affecting processing score. Checking processing scores in each field will improve your processing consistency. On farm tests are available to evaluate kernel processing and particle length. Only one chance each year to get it right!

Silage Safety

Safe equipment and safe people. People safety is number one and the silage safety motto from Dr. Keith Bolsen’s website (https://www.silagesafety.org/) is “send everyone home healthy and safe”. The website has resources for safety training during silage season. Silage season involves multiple equipment with drivers moving in various paths. Coordinated traffic patterns and highly visible safety vests for all workers should be mandatory. Keep small children and uninvited farm guests away from busy farm driveways.

Silage chopper routine maintenance is a given. Just do it, “always”! The safety maintenance on equipment often can be forgotten. Keep a fire extinguisher up to date. A silage chopper should have both an ABC dry chemical and a water cannon foaming agent extinguisher on board. Clean and replace worn out lights, backup beepers, and slow moving vehicle (SMV) emblems. Silage equipment should be blown off daily to keep free of plant material that may heat up and catch on fire.

Pricing Corn Silage

Corn silage is the most economical forage ingredient in dairy cattle diets based upon Sesame ingredient pricing. Corn silage typically constitutes from 35 to 60% of the total ration and is 25 to 40% of the total lactating cow feed cost. A proper economic value for corn silage is important to optimize farm income.

Three ways to price corn silage: 1) Actual production expense (fixed land cost and variable inputs), 2) alternative ingredient market value or 3) an agreed upon cost from a neighbor for standing corn silage. The information below addressed these three alternatives.

Actual production cost

The actual production expense provides a method to account for the variable costs (seed, fertilizer, chemicals, machinery, labor, insurance, etc.) and fixed costs (land, taxes, etc.) associated with the effort to plant, grow, harvest, and feed corn silage. The Ohio State Extension 2022 corn silage budget calculator values corn silage variable costs at $570/acre and fixed land costs at $390/acre for a total per acre cost of $960/acre to grow and harvest corn silage. Corn silage yield of 23 ton/acre calculates to a value of nearly $42/ton standing in the field, with a range of $37 to 45/ton varying by tonnage harvested. Your specific fixed and variable farm costs can be used to find your farm corn silage cost. The OSU Extension silage budget allows users to input their specific farm costs (Enterprise Budgets | Farm Office (osu.edu) ).

Corn silage total cost into a ration requires adding harvest, hauling, packing, inoculation, storage losses (shrink), and feed out costs. The OSU Extension 2022 custom rate survey (https://farmoffice.osu.edu) rates for chopping, hauling, and packing range from $7 to 15/ton. Industry costs for inoculation range from $0.50 to 1.50/ton, storage shrink at $4 to 8/ton, and feed out cost of $0.60 to 2.00/ton. Final in ration corn silage cost of $59/ton (range $50 to 68/ton). OSU has a new corn silage pricing tool that will be released around August 15^th to assist with these decisions. Check at https://dairy.osu.edu/ after this date for more information.

Alternative market ingredient value

Alternative ingredient market value (Sesame) calculates an economic value on corn silage based upon market costs of ground corn grain, alfalfa hay(silage) and various co-products. The Buckeye Dairy News regularly publishes and archives historical ingredient values and calculates predicted prices of various ingredients. Corn silage value per ton in recent years has been predicted at $73, 92, 100 and 85/ton in years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively. Corn grain ($/bushel) and 48% soymeal price ($/ton) in those same years was $3.70/$300, $6.00/$376, $6.45/$470 and $6.60/$435, respectively.   “Home grown” corn silage is an economical and valuable ingredient into dairy farm rations. Get it grown, chopped, and packed properly.

Pricing standing corn silage

Purchasing standing corn indicates that current silage inventory is limited and more forage is required. Prior to buying standing corn, evaluate these options for alternative forages: 1) Plant a fall or winter cover crop. Spring oats, spring triticale, and annual/Italian ryegrasses are options for early August plantings. Oat and triticale can produce 2 to 2.5 ton /acre DM yield by mid-October in boot stage or possible 3 ton/acre at head stage in early November. 2) Reduce current corn silage usage and replace with optional economically priced co-products. A dairy nutritionist educated in ration software optimization can provide “best cost” pricing of byproducts that could replace some of the forage in the ration and supply cost savings over purchasing standing corn silage. 3) Reduce lactating cow or heifer inventory. Cull inefficient low-producing cows and reduce replacement heifer inventory to 75% of mature cows if expansion is not in the future.

Purchasing standing corn for silage can be accomplished in multiple ways.    The agreement must be fair for both buyer (dairy farmer) and seller (crop farmer). Purchasing standing corn silage starts with determining the yield of grain of the standing corn. Then a grain price can be figured out by local cash markets, forward-contract, or delayed pricing. Add on the value of the silage fodder that is removed and deduct a harvest charge the seller will not incur. Each aspect of this pricing will be reviewed.

Determining the grain yield of standing corn can be estimated in several ways: 1) leave multiple test blocks in each field that can be harvested as dry corn for yield, 2) use grain yield estimate calculated by crop insurance, or 3) harvest the standing corn as silage. Obtain tonnage and moisture at time of chopping. Adjust total silage tons to a 35% dry matter basis. Calculate the bushels of corn grain in each ton by using the equivalent factor of 0.15 tons of corn silage harvested equals one bushel of corn grain. Another general rule is each ton of corn silage contains 7 bushels of dry shelled corn.

Add the stover value of the corn silage removed. Corn silage has roughly 50% stover on a dry basis. Value the stover based upon good quality grass hay. Every ton of harvested corn silage would remove about 400 lb of stover on a dry hay equivalent basis (15% moisture). Thus, 400 lb of grass hay at $160/ton market price would equate to $32/ton value of fodder for corn silage removed.

Remove the dry grain harvest cost for the seller since the grain producer will not be harvesting the crop as dry corn. OSU Ohio custom rates survey has a value of $10.50/ton to harvest, haul, and fill a corn silage bunker.

Example. Standing corn that yields 25 ton/acre of corn silage (35% DM). The 0.15 factor equates to 167 bushel/acre of corn grain. This factor may be low in high-yielding grain corn where a ton of silage may contain 8.6 bushels of corn. Corn price of $6/bushel generates $1002/acre for grain yield. $1002 divided by 25 ton of corn silage equals $40/ton corn silage. Add $32/ton value for the fodder and subtract the $10.50/ton for the harvest charge. Final price of corn silage per ton $40 + $32 - $10.50 = $61.50/ton.

Summary

Corn silage is a critical and key part of the production and economic return for your dairy farm. Prepare your silage team now for the fall silage super bowl game as you only have one time to get it right. Prepare the equipment, set and monitor the correct chop length and kernel rolls, keep people safety first, and review equipment safety and update as needed. Ongoing scout silage fields and provide proper fungicide application if needed. Communicate with silage contractors and neighbors on establishing the corn silage price. Have a safe, abundant, and blessed silage season.
Corn Silage Ear Rot and Foliar Disease Management

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

Currently early planted corn is from full pollination to just beginning brown silk, while later planted corn is still in the vegetative stage but will be pollinating over the next couple weeks. The ideal time to scout corn for fungal disease and for fungicide application is from tassel through pollination. Most fields we have scouted this year show low disease pressure, but we have had humid overcast conditions over the last week which may increase disease challenges. We do have a gray leaf spot confirmed in a few locations across the state, and tar spot has been confirmed in southern Michigan.

When fungal disease is present in corn silage at harvest, research shows a fungicide application at VT-R1 to control these fungal diseases reduced fiber concentration and improved nutritional value compared to the untreated control. Corn treated with fungicide had improved fermentation and more consistent dry matter values. When disease was severe, dry matter yield was also improved. When fungal disease infects corn, one of its natural responses to stop the spread of the disease is to increase lignin around the infected area which reduces digestibility.

2021 was the first-year tar spot was found in Ohio, and pressure was low in 2022. Multiple universities across the Midwest are working on tar spot, but we only have limited knowledge on its management and effects on corn silage. Currently, there are no confirmed outbreaks of tar spot in Ohio this year, but a few samples that look like tar spot have been submitted to the lab for diagnosis. It has been confirmed in southern Michigan and southern Ontario, Canada. Previous years have shown us that later planted corn may be at the greatest risk of losses from tar spot. One of the greatest risks to corn silage is from severe infection causing premature plant death. Tar spot reduces silage moisture, digestibility, and energy value which can also lead to poor fermentation with lower silage moisture and plant sugars. Scouting for tar spot is critical and should be done weekly from tassel through R3. Lesions will be small, black, raised spots appearing on both sides of the leaves along with leaf sheaths and husks. Spots may be on green or brown dying tissue. Spots on green tissue may have tan or brown halos. If tar spot is found in fields, a fungicide application can help slow disease spread, but be cautious of the preharvest interval of the fungicide used with some being as long as 30 days and others as short as 7 days. With silage harvesting beginning around R4 growth stage, 50% milk line, the decision to use fungicide should be closely monitored. Another option is to make sure your harvesters are ready if the corn dies prematurely so that silage moisture is at least correct, with tar spot killing plants in less than two weeks under ideal conditions. Tar spot development is driven by cool temperatures (60 to 70^oF), humid conditions (>75% relative humidity), and prolonged leaf wetness (>7 hours). These weather conditions often occur over night and in the morning in early August.

Other leaf diseases, such as gray leaf spot, northern corn leaf blight, common rust, and southern rust can also decrease digestibility and fermentation, just not as rapidly as tar spot. Gray leaf spot has gray to tan lesions developing between the veins and are distinctly rectangular with smooth, linear margins along the leaf veins. Lesions are slow to develop, needing 14 to 21 days, and begin in the lower leaves. Northern corn leaf blight lesions typically have a tan color and are elliptical or cigar shaped with smooth rounded ends. Common rust is what we usually have in Ohio, but on occasion, Southern rust may be present. Common rust is rarely of economic concern, but the development of southern rust can have economic yield impacts. The colors are different between the two; common rust is brownish to a cinnamon-brown while Southern rust has a reddish orange appearance. Southern rust mostly develops on the top of the leaf and may be on the stems and husks, while common rust is on both sides of the leaves and generally only on the leaves. The last difference is in shape and distribution; common rust pustules are large and oval to elongated with a scatted appearance over the leaf. Southern rust is small, circular, and evenly distributed over the leaf. Identifying the diseases present in your corn field can help you choose the best fungicide when they are needed.

Each disease has slightly different environmental conditions tin which they thrive, but these conditions can overlap or happen within days of each other. Gray leaf spot is favored by warm temperatures between 70 and 90°F and high relative humidity. Northern corn leaf blight also favors wet conditions but prefers cooler weather of 64 to 80°F. Tar spot is a cool weather disease favoring temperatures from 59 to 70°F during humid conditions of 85% relative humidity or more keeping leaves wet for greater than 7 hours. Another cool weather disease is common rust with optimal disease conditions being temperatures of 61 to 77°F and 6 hours of leaf wetness. Southern rust is more of a late season disease, preferring the warmer temperatures of 77 to 88°F.

Maybe the biggest concern for dairy producers is mycotoxin contamination of corn silage and high moisture corn, with many nutritionists encouraging levels below 1 ppm in corn utilized in the lactating ration. Fungicides may have the ability to reduce mycotoxin levels and improve silage digestibility.

Deoxyinvalenol (DON) is one of the primary mycotoxins in Ohio corn. It is caused by the fungus Fusarium graminearum and causes both Gibberella stalk rot and Gibberella ear rot, making it of concern for both the grain and forage quality. Gibberella ear rot and DON production increase when the 21 days after tasseling are cool and wet. One study under low Gibberella disease pressure, revealed that in all cases but one, an application of fungicide at R1 reduced DON levels by at least 50%. The trial was then expanded for the second year, which was a high disease pressure with DON levels as high as 17.9 ppm in one hybrid and 30.3 ppm in the other hybrid. Again, fungicide had little effect on yield of these two brown midrib (BMR) hybrids or forage quality, but a few products did consistently lower DON levels. A 2021 corn silage trial in Ohio showed a vomitoxin reduction from 3.1 ppm in the control to 0.5 ppm with Miravis Neo application. In 2022, a project at the Northwest Research Station in Custar, OH compared DON levels among 3 varieties and 3 fungicide application methods. There was a difference between varieties in corn silage DON levels, with the varieties containing better disease resistance having lower DON levels. The fungicide application method also affected DON levels, with all treatments being lower than the control. Interestingly, our application over the top at 20 gal/acre had the lowest DON levels followed by drops. The application over the top did a better job of covering the plant from tassel to root with fungicide, which may help with stalk rot management. An earlier project showed better coverage at ear height when using 20 gal/acre compared to 15 gal/acre.

The products that consistently lowered DON levels contained a triazole as one of their active ingredients, with prothioconazole being the most common. Three products that researchers across the country are seeing lower DON levels with when disease is present are Proline, Delaro, and Miravis Neo. The ideal application window from multiple studies has been R1 which is from the point when silks emerge until they become dry about 10 days later. This application is primary for Gibberlla ear rot which infects the ears during pollination. An important part of ear rot control with fungicides is that the fungicide must reach the silk in order to be absorbed at the ear to prevent fungal infection.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the March issue, the Class III milk future for April was $19.63/cwt and May was $18.64/cwt. Class III milk closing price for April was $18.52/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $2.56 and $2.70/lb, respectively. Class III milk closed over a dollar lower than predicted in the previous issue, although the price for components increased. The Class III future for June is $16.55/cwt, with the July future less than a dollar higher at $17.41/cwt.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Compared to the March issue, nutrient costs are largely stable, with the cost of net energy for lactation (NE_L) remaining just shy of double the 5-year average ($0.09/Mcal). The cost of metabolizable (MP) has decreased since the March issue and is currently about 24% lower than the 5-year average ($0.44/lb).

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the May issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $10.64 and $11.13/cwt, respectively. Both values are expected to be profitable, and both are higher than the respective values in March. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, May 15, 2023.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on May 15, 2023 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set for this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, May 15, 2023. A screenshot of a calibration setDescription automatically generated with medium confidence
A screenshot of a computer screenDescription automatically generated with low confidence

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, May 15, 2023.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Corn silage	Soybean meal - expeller	Whole, roasted soybeans
Distillers dried grains		Wheat bran
Gluten feed	Gluten meal	44% Soybean meal
Hominy	Meat meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Wheat middlings	Whole cottonseed	Blood meal
	Soybean hulls	41% Cottonseed meal
Feather meal		48% Soybean meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace MP by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, May 15, 2023.
A picture containing text, screenshot, display, numberDescription automatically generated

Do Not Let Your Dairy Cows Strike Out this Summer

Dr. Dwight Roseler, Adjunct Professor Department of Animal Sciences and Purina Midwest Dairy Nutrition Consultant

Summertime brings thoughts of ice cream and baseball. The post-game little league event brings both teams to the local ice cream store to enjoy a refreshing ice cream cone. Dairy cows do not play baseball, but they do work hard and expend a lot of energy producing high quality, nutritious milk. A dairy farmer is a coach to their cows, as a dairy manager provides the proper resources to allow their cows to win during the summer.

Summertime heat brings serious consequences to dairy cows. The visible signs of summer heat to dairy cows can be one or a combination of the following signs in your cows: lower feed intake, higher respiration rates, more standing and less chewing, variable manure consistency, higher somatic cell count, and lower milk components. The invisible signs of summer heat stress which occur inside the cow include lower rumen pH, increased body temperature, lower immunity, leaky intestines, and lower blood glucose.

A good on-farm method to evaluate heat stress for your dairy herd is to monitor respiration rate. It will only take 5 minutes per day. Quietly walk into your dairy cow barn late afternoon and observe cows when no other feeding, milking, or manure scraping activities are occurring. Count respirations for 30 seconds on 10 individual cows. Double that number to get respirations per minute. Average respirations above 40 to 50 are evident of heat stress. Respirations above 60 indicate mild heat stress, above 80 moderate heat stress, and over 100 severe heat stress. Cows with pneumonia, mastitis, or are sick can have higher respirations due to sickness.

Peak milk production on early lactation cows is affected more by summer heat than a late lactation cow. Summer slump is evident in early autumn when cows that calved in June and July were supposed to achieve their peak production. These mid-summer calving cows do not achieve peak milk because summer heat lowered their peak milk which leads to the entire herd not performing well in early autumn.

What can you do to reduce the effect of summer heat on your dairy cows? Lactating dairy cow’s optimal environmental temperature is 40 to 60°F. Heat stress is a product of both temperature and humidity. The midwest has high humidity many days, thus fans need to be turned on when temperatures will be above 68°F during the day. Four to six mile per hour air must flow over the cow lying in a stall. Water sprinklers improve the effectiveness of heat removal from the dairy cow’s body. Remember the hot summer days when you stepped out of the pool, you feel cool. That is the same benefit cows gain by intermittently being sprinkled with water.

Nutritional interventions and additives can be put in place to reduce the effects of heat stress. However, if fans and sprinklers are not installed or properly operating, nutritional interventions will have little impact.

Consult with the online resources listed below for additional information on environmental and housing interventions to implement to help coach your dairy cows to a successful summer.

Heat abatement strategies for dairy cows.

https://thedairylandinitiative.vetmed.wisc.edu/home/housing-module/adult-cow-housing/ventilation-and-heat-abatement/

https://www.ag.k-state.edu/outreach/ffa/Elanco%20Heat%20Abatement%20Guide.pdf

https://dairy.osu.edu/newsletter/buckeye-dairy-news/volume-24-issue-4/recognizing-and-managing-heat-stress-dairy-cattle

Milk Price Modernization Proposals

Jason Hartschuh, Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

Over the past year, there has been a lot of discussion about how to modernize milk prices through the Federal Order system to recognize industry changes since the last major update in 2000 and correct a change made in the 2018 farm bill that greatly affects Class I milk price. The major change in 2000 that affects the pay calculation was a switch from milk prices being based on competitive pay prices for Grade B milk in Minnesota and Wisconsin to the current system that bases raw milk class prices on survey data from select wholesale processed products. The Federal Order system was created in the 1930’s to establish orderly milk markets and return market power to the producers. The market disorder was caused by the perishable nature of fluid milk, the seasonal variability in production that didn’t match the fluctuation in consumer consumption, and the multiple uses of milk. Today, these challenges still exist with the Federal Order working to ensure consumers have an adequate supply of fresh fluid milk. Also, it works to assist dairy farmers in developing stable and reliable milk markets, along with promoting and maintaining orderly milk marketing conditions.

National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) submitted the most comprehensive Federal Order hearing request on May 1^st with 5 areas of proposed amendments. While in late March, the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association and the International Dairy Foods Association each submitted a petition for a hearing to amend the Federal Order but only focuses on their processor’s concerns over the make allowance. The other four areas that NMPF is requesting amendments to that we will discuss in future weeks are: 1) returning to the higher of Class I mover, 2) discontinuing the use of barrel cheese in the protein component price formula, 3) update the milk component factors for protein, other solids, and nonfat solids in the skim milk price formula for Class III and Class IV, and 4) update the Class I differential pricing surface throughout the United States. The additional four areas proposed by NMPF should have a positive effect on dairy producers’ bottom line and counter the decrease in milk price caused by the updated make allowance discussed below.

Federal Orders establish minimum prices for raw milk but do not establish minimum retail prices. They also do not guarantee dairy farmers a milk market or a profitable milk price. Through make allowances, they do establish the amount of make a processor will retain from the wholesale price of select products on which milk prices are based. Since the last major Federal Order reform in 2000, milk prices are based on a voluntary survey of dairy product manufacturers that sell bulk wholesale butter, nonfat dry milk, dry whey, and cheddar cheese in 40-lb blocks and 500-lb barrels. This information is used to calculate the prices of butter fat, protein, and other solids. These formulas also have a yield factor which is the amount of cheese made from a pound of protein or butter made from a pound of butterfat.

Make Allowance Change

The proposed make allowance changes are based on a voluntary survey in the upper Midwest that had low participation rates with only a third of processors providing data. The voluntary data was also not audited for accuracy. A study from California found that current manufacturing costs compared to current make allowances are 51% higher for cheddar cheese, 49% higher for dry whey, 39% for butter, and 59% higher for nonfat dry milk. These cost increases come from many areas with increases since 2019 of wages-20.2%, health policy premiums-20.9%, electricity-14.1%, natural gas-68.9%, cultures-15.8%, sale-18.8%, cardboard packaging-25.8%, and plastic packaging-36%.

Make allowance changes:

Component	Current Make Allowance ($/lb)	NMPF Proposed Make Allowance ($/lb)
Butterfat	$0.1715	$0.2100
Nonfat solids	$0.1678	$0.2100
Protein	$0.20003	$0.2400
Other solids	$0.1991	$0.2300

Hearing requests acknowledge the need for a better way to determine and update make allowances through a mandatory survey of manufacturers’ cost of production and product yield. One-way plants have improved profitability is to improve product yield. These future mandatory surveys would provide much better accuracy for updating the make allowances by having all processors participate and having the data be auditable. While USDA has the authority to do this data collection, congress will have to fund this survey data collection, making the mandatory survey somewhat separate from the Federal Order hearing.

NMPF predicts that the proposed updated make allowances will have a negative initial effect on producers if done alone from other 4 proposals. It would reduce the national all-milk price by $0.54/cwt, Class III price by $0.58/cwt, and Class IV by $0.53/cwt. Increased make allowances long term should lead to increased investment in process facilities, increased production of higher-value products that are also more expensive to produce, and the ability for efficient plants to again pay producer premiums for high-quality milk.

Class I Mover Change

The Class I mover would return to the higher of Class III or Class IV skim milk price as it was prior to 2019. In 2019, the Class I milk price calculation was changed to the average of Class III and Class IV plus $0.74/cwt. This appeared to be a better way to calculate Class I milk price and allow for better risk management, but this has not been the case. The current average calculation allows for simpler risk management as producers and processors can hedge both Class III and Class IV skim milk and know that will be the basis of their milk price. Unfortunately, this has led to increased Class I volatility and decreased milk prices. There has also not been a significant increase in hedging as a risk management tool by producers or processors. As demand for manufactured products changes, the Class III and Class IV prices do not always move in the same direction or magnitude as each other, causing spreads greater than $1.48/cwt, which can lead to manufacturing classes of milk having a higher price than fluid milk. The monthly volatility between the advanced price that Class I milk is priced on and the final price for Class III and Class IV has also been made worse by the current calculation leading to increased negative producer price differentials. The average formula has also led to increased depooling, as for multiple-months manufacturing class prices have exceeded fluid milk prices, causing the Federal Order to work in reverse where manufacturing plants had to pay into the pool instead of receiving from the pool which could decrease the supply of fluid milk. Since the implementation of the current system in May of 2019, it is estimated that across all Federal Orders, this formula has reduced milk checks by $937.9 million dollars compared to the higher of the formula. While USDA corrected some of this with the Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance Program, a solution to this problem in the future is needed. For this reason, NMPF is proposing a return to the higher of the formula for the Class I milk price mover. This change should have a net positive effect on producers’ milk prices, helping to offset the negative effects of increased make allowances.

Protein Value Change by Removing 500-pound Barrels

The next proposal is the removal of 500-pound barrels of cheddar cheese from the protein price formula and only using 40-pound blocks. Approximately 28% of the cheese produced in the US is cheddar. Prior to 2017, blocks and barrels of cheddar cheese were closely correlated and stayed within $0.05/lb of each other. Since then, the block/barrel spread has increased to an average of $0.12/lb with blocks exceeding barrel price most of the time. Only 7% of US cheddar cheese is processed as barrel cheese but represents just under half the surveyed cheese price volume. This has decreased the value of milk protein and dairy producers’ milk checks, thus this change should have a positive effect on producer milk prices. From 2019 to 2022, this change would have increased protein price by $0.15/lb, Class III milk price by $0.45/cwt, Class I price by $0.20/cwt, or US average all milk price by $0.25/cwt.

Milk Component Factors in Skim Milk

While it will have minimal effect on component-based Federal Orders (FO) like FO33, the proposed adjustment to the component factors in the skim milk pricing formula will have a significant effect on non-component orders like FO5. In component-based Federal Orders, it should increase the Class I milk price and decrease the amount of depooling. The current proposal is to increase the calculated amount of components to 9.36 lb per hundred of nonfat solids, 3.35 lb per hundred of protein, and 6.01 lb per hundred of other solids. By increasing component factors in skim milk to represent current industry values, Class I milk price will increase by $0.55/cwt in all Federal Orders. For non-component-based Federal Orders, Class III would increase by $0.73/cwt and Class IV by $0.38/cwt.

Class I Differential Pricing Surface Model

Geographically, the US dairy industry has greatly changed where cows are located since 2000 with only modest changes to Class I differentials in the Appalachian, Florida, and Southeast Orders occurring in 2008. Since then, there has been drastic increases in transportation cost and the distance milk is traveling to ensure that all regions of the country have access to a fresh supply of fluid milk. The current Class I differentials are based on a time when it cost approximately $0.347 to 0.388/cwt per 100 miles that milk was hauled. Today, this cost is $0.920 to 1.00/cwt per 100 miles that milk is transported. Milk haulers are also struggling to find backhauls due to decreased citrus concentrate and limited time to add an extra wash once the milk tanker makes it back to the farm area. Tankers often need to be refilled quickly with milk. This increased cost of transportation is putting the fresh fluid milk supply in some areas of the country at risk of consumers not having access to freshly processed fluid milk. It is also adding a burden to dairy farms who are subsidizing the cost of trucking to supply these regions with a fresh supply of fluid milk. NMPF recommended changes to the Class I differential that would increase FO33 from $1.98 to $3.68/cwt or a $1.70/cwt net increase in Class I differential.

Together, these 5 areas should have a positive benefit to Ohio dairy farmers and processors. These changes would allow both groups to reinvest in the dairy industry. If a Federal Order hearing takes place, we will work to keep you updated on the process of what it means to your farm and how to participate.

References:

https://www.nmpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/NMPF-FMMO-Modernization-hearing-request-and-proposal-050123-1.pdf

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/WCMA_USDA_Petition_March2023.pdf

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/20230309_IDFAPetition4865_3290_0697.pdf

Employee Training Resources for Animal Care in the Dairy Industry

Ryan McMichael, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Mercer County, Ohio State University Extension

As our society continues to evolve, we can continue to see advancements in technology that leads to increased animal production, farm management efficiency, and a decreased need for the level of manual labor that was needed 30 years ago. While we could speculate how much manual labor on dairy farms will be needed 30 years from now, there will and should always be a commitment to proper animal care and welfare. As farms continue to bring in new personnel in the daily operations, we should train that workforce to uphold the proper animal care and welfare practices on our farms. If your farm doesn’t have a training program setup or perhaps it may need to be updated, there are several resources available to assist farms with their needs.

One of the resources would be to seek out and utilize the information that is already developed by the National Dairy FARM Program created by the National Milk Producers Federation in partnership with Dairy Management, Inc. in 2009. Many of our milk marketers and cooperatives are enrolled in the program and have requirements for their producers to meet the program standards. The program has resources developed in animal care, antibiotic stewardship, environmental stewardship, and workforce development, including videos, handouts, and signage. Many of these publications are developed in English and Spanish to assist with the trainings for a diverse workforce.

The Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) program has these different resources available for a minimal cost and several have no cost found on their producer’s resources webpage. For example, there is an “Calf Care and Quality Assurance Animal Care Reference Manual” available for $7.60 that covers the topics of calf health, animal handling, and other key management practices. An example of one of the free videos is a short 13-minute video on “End of Life Decision Making: Fitness to Transport”. There are also a series of free Dairy Stockmanship videos that could be used to educate new employees in proper handling. The list of searchable resources can be found on their website located at https://nationaldairyfarm.com/resource-library/farm-program/. Please note that the FARM Animal Version 5 changes were approved in March of 2023 and will be implemented starting July 1, 2024. It is expected that by the end of 2023, resource development will be taking place to update to the changes coming in version 5. More information can be found at their website, https://nationaldairyfarm.com/dairy-farm-standards/animal-care/animal-care-version-5-development/.

Another option for training resources would be Dairy Care365 developed by Merck Animal Health. This is an online library of video lessons, quiz questions, and standard operation procedures that participants can complete on their own and earn a certificate upon completion. The Dairy Care365 complements and helps to fulfill the animal care requirements of the National Dairy FARM Program, Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization, and various dairy cooperatives and processors. Information can be found at https://www.merck-animal-health-usa.com/dairy-care-365.

The Calf Care and Quality Assurance (CCQA) Program has a developing course catalog that can be utilized to help employees earn a certificate in CCQA by watching videos and answering questions during the lessons. While helping to meet training needs for producers in the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA; https://www.bqa.org/) program, the online modules could be utilized to assist dairy producers looking for resources dedicated for calf health, care, and management. This program is similar to the setup of Dairy Care365 and could be assigned to employees to work at their own pace and submit a certificate of completion when finished. The CCQA program can be found at https://training.calfcareqa.org.

The resources for training new employees or updating existing employees are not limited to those listed above, and producers may develop their own resources or utilize items provided to them by others. Every producer is welcome to contact their local Extension office to see if there are opportunities for local options for their county and area. It is important to remind ourselves that training and updating employees on proper animal care, welfare, and management is only a start; every individual on our dairy operations needs to commit daily to upholding the practices and principles that ensure our animals’ health and wellbeing.

List of Resources:

Farm Animal Care Program, National Milk Producers Federation
https://nationaldairyfarm.com
703-243-611

Dairy Care365, Merck Animal Health
https://www.merck-animal-health-usa.com/dairy-care-365
Email: dairycare365@merck.com

Calf Care & Quality Assurance Training and Resources
https://training.calfcareqa.org/
Email: ccqa@calfcareqa.org
2023 Dairy Hall of Service Recognition

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Senior Associate Chair, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

In 1952, The Dairy Hall of Service was formed at The Ohio State University to recognize individuals who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at OSU. Two recipients were recognized on Tuesday, April 18 during the Department of Animal Sciences’ Celebration of Excellence program held at the Fawcett Center on the Columbus Campus.

Mark Henry is a second-generation dairy farmer where he took over the family operation in West Liberty, OH in 1980 milking 60 cows. Over the course of 23 years, they expanded the herd to 120 cows. Then in 1995, Henry Farms expanded their herd to 300 cows and began milking three times a day. In March 2023, the dairy averaged 622 registered Holstein cows with a rolling herd average of 28,972 lb milk/cow with a 4.2% fat and 3.1% protein. The dairy has received many production and quality awards over the years, including lifetime production cow for Brown Swiss and Gold Standard DFA members.

Mark has served the dairy industry in many avenues. He has served on the COBA Board of Directors since 2015, including serving as Vice President. In March of 2019, he joined the Select Sires Board of Directors. He as very active in leadership at the Union Chapel Community Church, where he and his wife, Joan, attend.

For many years, Mark Henry has graciously opened up his dairy farm to University faculty and students. These visits have included class trips, use of his PCDart records for class, training students for Dairy Challenge programs, CVM capstone course for veterinary students, and the many veterinary students being at his farm while on their rotation at the OSU Large Animal Services in Marysville. In addition, faculty have conducted research on his farm. He also supports 4-H and FFA groups and has provided many farm tours to school-age children, church groups, and Farm Bureau events.

As provided by one of his nominators, “Mark is a great family man with deep personal convictions and morals. He is a friend and mentor to many and has contributed in countless ways to the education and betterment of Ohio State students too numerous to count”. Another nominator expressed that “He never stops trying to learn, become a better dairyman, and be a better steward of his cows.”

Dianne Shoemaker received her BS from the OSU Department of Dairy Science in 1982, and a MS in 1986 from OSU on “Factors Affecting the Profitability of Northeast Ohio Dairy Farms”. In 1986, became a county Extension Agent in Agriculture and Natural Resources. She became a District Dairy Extension Specialist in 1999, and in 2003, she was promoted as an Extension Dairy Specialist statewide. In 2012, she became a statewide Field Specialist in dairy production economics with providing leadership to the Ohio Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program and retired in July 2022.

She really enjoyed working with the Dairy Excel Team, traveling, learning, developing curriculum, and teaching Managing for Success and Farm business management modules. She worked with the ODA Dairy Division, state veterinarians, CVM, county and state Extension personnel, and others to address the needs of Ohio’s dairy industry. She provided leadership to many workshops, such as “So Your Dairy Client Wants to Expand”, dairy certificate programs for veterinarians, neonatal calf and heifer management, and labor management. Her leadership was invaluable to the publication of the 15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness, Farm and Dairy Business Analysis Summaries, and development of factsheets to help farmers understand the rapidly emerging programs during COVID in 2020. She provided leadership to the Dairy Working Group, dairy articles in the Farm and Dairy, and constant updates on dairy marketing and pricing.

Dianne and her husband, Steve (also an OSU graduate), operate a dairy farm in Columbiana County with 180 cows and 133 replacement heifers. The herd averages about 20,000 lb/cow, 4.87 % fat and 3.67% protein. They have two sons, Austen who graduated from OSU Agronomy and Ben who graduated in civil engineering from Youngstown State University. Dianne’s life has continuously invested into Ohio’s dairy industry. Her teamwork and leadership with agricultural agencies and OSU colleagues have led to lasting impacts to farmers, students, and Ohio’s agricultural industry.
Dairy Palooza Wrap-Up

Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Dairy Palooza was held on April 22 at the Wayne County Fairgrounds. As usual, we had the support of several donors who committed their resources to the dairy 4-H youth of Ohio. This year, we created a slightly different version with more focus on quality assurance (QA) training and assessment.

In the morning session, attendees made their usual rotation of each good production practice (GPP) and also the thank you writing session. After lunch and the group photo, we then had workshops focusing on clipping, fitting, and showmanship. We also incorporated hands-on learning activities for each of the GPP to reinforce what was taught in the morning. An added twist was a quiz bowl demonstration using all QA questions. Cloverbuds were also fortunate to have a separate format for the day.

More than 165 youth attended with many adults present who also could attend adult sessions on social media and dairy marketing update.

It takes a league of volunteers to plan and manage the day of activities. We appreciate all who make time to be a part of the action.

The 2024 Dairy Palooza will be held at the Canfield Fairgrounds in Mahoning County on April 20. We are pleased to return to this location and look forward to feedback from this year’s format while continuing to exercise the 4-H motto of “making the best better.”

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the January issue, the Class III for February was $17.95/cwt and March was $17.80/cwt. Class III milk closing price for February was very slightly lower than predicted at $17.78/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $2.37 and $2.72/lb, respectively. Skim milk price, protein, and butterfat prices are all lower for March than for January, contributing to a lower Cow-Jones Index in this issue. The Class III future for April is $19.63/cwt and the May future is $18.64/cwt, both improved compared to February and March.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Compared to the January issue, nutrient costs are largely stable, with the cost of net energy for lactation (NE_L) still just shy of double the 5-year average ($0.09/Mcal). The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) is still about 6% lower than the 5-year average ($0.44/lb).

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the January issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $8.62 and $9.21/cwt, respectively. Although still expected to be marginally profitable, both estimates are lower than those in January and continue the downward trend since November. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 29, 2023.
Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on March 29, 2023 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, March 29, 2023. TableDescription automatically generated

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, March 29, 2023.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry		Mechanically extracted canola meal
Corn silage	Soybean meal - expeller	Whole, roasted soybeans
Distillers dried grains		Wheat bran
Gluten feed	Gluten meal	44% Soybean meal
Hominy	Meat meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Wheat middlings	Whole cottonseed	Blood meal
_{Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF}	Soybean hulls	41% Cottonseed meal
_{Feather meal}	48% Soybean meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NEL and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace MP by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, March 29, 2023.
TableDescription automatically generated

USDA Dairy Report: March 2023

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

The United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) publishes a monthly Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook. The March report is available here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/106119/ldp-m-345.pdf?v=4174.3. This article will highlight portions of the dairy report.

Supply and Use

The most recent USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimate of U.S. milk production for 2022 was revised up 0.1 percent compared to 2021. For 2022, the number of milk cows was reduced by 2,000 head. The average number of cows and milk production per cow in January 2023 were higher than the same month a year prior.

Chart, line chart, histogramDescription automatically generated

Data from the NASS Agricultural Prices Report and the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service compare various costs for January 2022 and January 2023. These items are summarized in the table below.

Item	January 2023	Difference (compared to same month year prior)
All-milk	$23.10/cwt	-$1.10
Corn	$6.64/bushel	+$1.06
Alfalfa hay	$263/ton	+$48.00
SBM	$500.53/ton (Feb. 2023)	+$19.57

Based on the USDA, Dairy Margin Program, in January 2023, the spread between milk prices and feed costs ($7.94/cwt), narrowed compared to January 2022 ($11.54/cwt).

Chart, line chartDescription automatically generated

Dairy culling rates in the first few weeks of 2023 were at a brisk pace, as represented in the table below.

Chart, line chartDescription automatically generated

Restaurant Performance Index

According to data from the Restaurant Performance Index (RPI) from the National Restaurant Association, product sales were strong in January 2023. The index rose 0.9 percent from December 2022 to January 2023, the strongest monthly increase in 15 months. The National Restaurant Association is optimistic about sales growth, as 58 percent of operators expect sales growth to increase in the next six months.

Chart, line chartDescription automatically generated

Forecast for 2023

For 2023, USDA ERS is projecting an increase of 0.20 billion pounds of milk higher than last month, and 10,000 more milk cows than projected in the prior month’s report. However, cow numbers are expected to decline throughout the year because of lower numbers of replacements and higher cull cow prices.

Class	Price Forecast for 2023
Class III	$17.56/cwt
Class IV	$18.30/cwt
All-Milk	$20.45/cwt

Feeding for Milk Components
Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Yields of milk and milk solids per cow continue to increase each year. The annual milk solids yield per cow is higher in the US than for New Zealand, Germany, and Argentina (Figure 1). Except in only selective markets today in the US, dairy farmers are paid for milk by processors primarily on milk fat and protein yields. Therefore, considerable focus needs to be on the yields of milk solids, especially yields of fat and protein to improve farm profitability. In a recent survey (Nichols, 2023), benchmarking information from 35 Michigan and Indiana Holstein dairy farms was collected. The average herd size was 452 cows with herd size ranging from 90 to 2,000 cows and eight of the dairy farms used automated milking systems. Among the 35 herds, milk yield averaged 84.4 lb/day, DM intake 56.2 lb, milk fat 4.08%, and milk protein 3.21%. From these averages, feed efficiency was 1.65 lb energy-corrected milk/lb DMI, milk fat and protein yield (MFPY) was 6.15 lb/cow/day, and efficiency of MFPY was 0.11 lb/lb DMI.

The prices paid for milk fat and protein from January 2020 to February 2023 are provided in Figure 2. Traditionally, milk protein was at a higher price than milk fat, even as evidenced during most of 2020 and 2021 (even though this period of time was during the pandemic). However, much of 2022, fat was valued higher than protein. Fat and protein started 2023 being of similar value, but protein slipped below fat in February 2023 at $2.365/lb and 2.718, respecivelty. A summary of the primary feeding factors that affect milk fat and protien yields have been provided by Weiss and Shoemaker (2020). The main dietary factors that are related to increased milk protein yield are:
1. Increasing dietary starch concentrations (but not so much as to cause acidosis),
2. Increasing dietary inclusion of fermentable starch, such as high moisture corn,
3. Increasing concentrations of high-quality undegradable protein,
4. Improving amino acid profile by feeding specific protein sources or by feeding rumen-protected amino acids, especially methionine, and
5. Reducing the concentration of dietary fat (fat supplements, distiller grains, whole cottonseed, or whole soybeans).
The main factors related to increased milk fat yields are:
1. Reducing dietary starch concentrations,
2. Reducing dietary inclusion of fermentable starch sources,
3. Increasing inclusion rate of specific supplemental fat (e.g., sources of palmitic acid),
4. Increasing dietary cation anion difference (i.e., feed more potassium and sodium without increasing dietary chloride or sulfur), and
5. Reducing dietary sulfur concentrations to just meet requirements (practically this usually means reducing inclusion rate of distiller grains which are usually high in sulfur).
During 2023, the fat and protein prices paid to dairy farmers will likely be volatile. Therefore, farmers need to be attentive to these price shifts and work with their nutritionist to capatilize on optimizing fat and protein yields as markets shift.

Figure 1. Yield of milk solids per cow per year fior the US, New Zealand, Germany, and Argentina (Britt et al., 2021).

Figure 2. Prices paid for milk fat and milk protein in Federal Order 33 from January 2020 through February 2023.

References:

Britt, J.H., R.A. Cushman, C.D. Dechow, H. Dobson, P. Humblot, M.F. Hutjens, G.A. Jones, F.M. Mitloehner, P.L. Ruegg, I.M. Sheldon, and J.S. Stevenson. 2021. Review: Perspective on high-performing dairy cows and herds. Animal 15 (Suppl 1); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100298

Nichols, S. 2023. Benchmarking survey helps farms evaluate IOFC. VitaPlus Dairy Performance, Accessed March 30, 2023, https://www.vitaplus.com/dairy-performance/benchmarking-survey-helps-farms-evaluate-iofc/#.ZCZLGXbMJPY

Weiss, B.W. and D. Shoemaker. 2020. Consider dietary changes to take advantage of changes in milk component prices. DIBS # 43-20, Ohio State University Extension, Accessed March 31, 2023, https://dairy.osu.edu/sites/dairy/files/imce/DIBS/DIB%2043-20%20DIB%2043-20%20Consider%20dietary%20changes%20to%20take%20advantage%20of%20changes%20in%20milk%20component%20prices.pdf

Using Dairy Manure with Newly Planted Crops

Glen Arnold, Extension Field Specialist, Manure Nutrient Management, Ohio State University Extension

Coming out of a warm, wet winter most dairy producers have plenty of manure on hand going into spring. Rather than applying manure to fields prior to spring planting, and potentially facing planting delays, a growing trend in the Midwest is surface applying manure using a drag hose overtop newly planted corn or soybeans.

An application of 10,000 to 12,000 gallons per acre of dairy manure to newly planted crops will not hinder germination and can actually provide moisture to encourage emergence of the crop. The only precaution is that the field needs to be firm enough to support the drag hose to avoid scouring piles of dirt and burying the seeds too deep. Spring worked fields that have not been firmed up through rainfall are not good candidates for a drag hose.

For soybeans, the manure application needs to be within a few days of planting and definitely before the soybeans begin to emerge. Once emerged, soybeans can be killed by the application of manure until they reach the V3 stage of growth and can handle the damage from both the manure and the drag hose.

For corn, it is becoming common to make two dairy manure applications spaced a few weeks apart. The first is immediately after the crop is planted and the second application is anytime up to the V4 stage of growth (four leaves with collars). The smaller the corn, the less damage will be obvious from the tractor tires as the drag hose is pulled across the field.

A five-year drag hose treatment was conducted at the OARDC Northwest Station concluding in 2018 to determine what stand damage and potential yield loss may occur from the V1 to the V5 stages of corn (Table 1). A six-inch diameter drag hose, filled with water, was pulled across each plot twice (going in opposite directions) at corn growth stages V1 through V5.

Table 1. 2014-2018 OARDC drag hose damage corn plot results.

Year	2014		2015		2016		2017		2018
Corn stage	Stand, plants/ac	Yield, bu/ac	Stand	Yield, bu/ac	Stand	Yield, bu/ac	Stand	Yield, bu/ac	Stand	Yield, bu/ac	Five-year avg., bu/ac
No drag hose	30,166	145.1	31,850	167.2	28,625	145.1	35,000	164.5	30,750	217.8	167.9
V1	29,660	154.3	31,750	166.1	28,625	149.5	35,125	161.5	31,500	218.0	169.9
V2	30,166	157.9	32,000	165.3	28,500	141.2	34,750	159.6	30,750	217.7	168.3
V3	28,933	153.9	31,375	172.3	29,250	144.4	34,875	172.1	29,625	215.6	171.9
V4	29,264	149.7	31,375	164.3	27,500	152.1	33,750	166.5	28,750	209.1	168.4
V5	15,366	109.8	23,500	123.5	16,000	126.3	25,250	122.2	18,250	132.8	122.9

The results of this five-year research study suggest corn could be side-dressed or top-dressed with liquid livestock manure using a drag hose through the growth stage V4 without a yield loss. More than 60% of the corn plants snapped off at the V5 stage. While the snapped off plants regrew, they did not produce reasonable ears of grain.

Leaving manure on the soil surface will not capture as much of the manure nitrogen as incorporating the manure. Be sure to have a manure sample collected during the application process and use the analysis to understand what nutrients were applied.

Dairy manure can also be applied to wheat. A lone application of 10,000 to 12,000 gallons per acre will not provide enough nitrogen to maximize a grain yield, but the moisture and nutrients will spur crop growth, and this can make for a better wheatlage harvest. Using drop nozzles, some dairy farms make a 2^nd application to the wheat field a few weeks after the 1^st application. The drop nozzles place the manure at the soil surface and keep it off the leaves of the wheat plants.

JIT Inventory: Amazon-Yes, Dairy Producer-No

Dr. Dwight Roseler, Adjunct Professor Department of Animal Sciences and Purina Midwest Dairy Nutrition Consultant

Just in time (JIT) inventory provides Amazon customers with consumer items upon demand. No storage of consumer items needed. In the industrial manufacturing sector, JIT improves efficiency and saves money by coordinating inbound supply resources to meet daily manufacturing capacity. COVID-19 threw a wrench in the JIT process across the world as raw supply chain disruptions limited the resources for manufacturers. Agriculture was not exempt from that disruption and currently these supply limitations cause equipment delays and shortages. Fortunately, dairy producers do not use JIT forage inventory and were exempt from forage supply disruptions.

In feeding dairy cows, forages are harvested seasonally then stored fermented for the year in silo’s or dry as bales. Forage storage has a financial cost with storage cost and shrink. However, the highest forage cost is no forage or inadequate forage. When forage supply is limited, purchased feed costs go up, production can suffer, and profit declines. Nothing can replace good quality forage in a dairy ration.

Feed software programs that link with TMR weigh scales will manage forage inventory if the values are accurate. The software properly measures current inventory and calculates feed shrink when inbound tons are correct, shrink losses are low, and TMR scales operate properly.

A dairy farm client several years ago learned a hard lesson when corn silage supply was short. Alternatives to corn silage can be fed but often the performance is less than expected. In the middle of June, I received a phone call and was informed by the dairy manager to formulate a diet to reduce corn silage from 62 to 32 lb/cow and nothing was on the farm to replace it. Fortunately, wet gluten feed, ground corn, and chopped hay were available and reasonably priced during that year when corn was near $3/bushel. Cow health was maintained but performance suffered and purchased feed costs soared. The dairy survived but was financially constrained.

As a thumb rule, 1.5 to 2 acres of land per milking cow and replacement heifer can be used to determine forage land base for the herd. This land amount will vary based on soil quality, weather, forage yield, harvest and storage losses, and milk production per cow. In years of poor crop yields, this land base can be 2.5 to 3 acres per milking cow. High production herds (100 lb milk/cow) will require 15% more land (1.7 to 2.3 acres/cow) than herds at lower production (80 lb milk/cow). Higher forage yields per acre can also provide more forage for the farm. The number of replacement heifers will determine the acreage base for growing forage for the herd. In recent years, the number of replacement heifers has decreased per capita of milking cow from 95% to 78%. This not only reduces total feed costs on the dairy but also the land requirement for growing forages.

In years where forage yields are not adequate due to weather or uncontrollable circumstances, evaluate alternative forages. Plan and do not just feed whatever comes out of the silo. Options for years of short forage is to purchase corn silage from neighboring farms. Other options to consider include double cropping a cool season forage (triticale, rye, or wheat) for spring planting or spring plant short season (60 to 80 day) forages (forage sorghum or BMR sorghum). These spring forages can produce an abundant crop in 60 to 80 days with one harvest yields of up to 18 ton/acre of wilted forage. These forages will have high sugar content and will replace corn silage with added ground corn.

Plan for good quality and adequate forage acres for your dairy. Abundant good quality forage supports profitable farms that maintain healthy cows at high production. Just in time forages and feeding whatever is in the silo is never a good idea for dairy cows or profitable dairy farms.
Spring Hayfield Scouting

Allen Gahler, Extension Educator for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Sandusky County and Jason Hartschuh, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock Field Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

While things are muddy with hints of green in northern Ohio, we are hearing from colleagues in central and southern Ohio that spring is definitely here and bringing things to life, including pasture grasses and hayfields. After green-up happens in your part of the world, it’s the ideal time to be scouting hayfields and pastures for winter damage, legume crown health, heaving of the root systems, and pesky winter annual weeds. Over the next few weeks, it may be necessary to rescout fields as they receive additional frost freeze events and ponding rain fall.

Depending on where you are located and what type of forage fields you have, winter damage may be one of the most significant reasons to be scouting for now. In northern Ohio, where we do not have a lot of grass hayfields or pastures, but alfalfa fields are plentiful. This is yet another year for major concern. There was never a period of more than 5 to 6 days where the ground was frozen in most of the state, and the same can be said for snow cover. Both of these things can be good for an alfalfa field if they last. But when they do not and leave behind standing water, or provide for constant freeze-thaw cycles throughout the winter, alfalfa and other legumes can suffer and even die. Recent walks in some alfalfa fields in north-central Ohio have revealed just what we are concerned about...heaving of the crown and root system, which can lead to disease, less stems and lower yield, and eventual crown die-off. In some cases, as we saw in the spring of 2020, and again last year, when warmer temperatures occur sporadically in February and March, followed by short freezes, the roots will heave enough to expose the taproot and many plants will not even survive into April and May. Remember, alfalfa suffers from cumulative stress loads – once it is stressed in some way, its yield potential and life expectancy goes down permanently, and those stresses add up over the life of the stand. So be sure to get down to ground level when scouting and observe those alfalfa crowns to see if field renovation with grasses may be necessary, or if there may even be enough die-off to warrant crop rotation and an alternative forage plan for 2023.

If you do observe significant heaving, but crown health seems to be intact, or at least the plant will attempt to produce enough stems to offer a profitable tonnage, adjustments on the hay mower may be in order before first cutting. Cutting too low on heaved crowns can not only damage the crown and slow regrowth but can also damage the root system, often causing immediate death and no second cutting. Growers should certainly be looking at how many healthy crowns and/or stems per square foot are visible in alfalfa fields to make a decision on whether or not to keep that stand. Most forage specialists and researchers commonly use 55 and 40 as key numbers when assessing stem counts. This means a good stand of alfalfa has 55 or more healthy stems per square foot, and yield potential is still at or near 100%. When a field falls between 40 and 55 stems per square foot, yield is still acceptable and considered economically viable, but counts below 40 indicate that the stand should be rotated to another crop and a new field prepared. At 40 stems per square foot you can expect about an 80% yield, and when counts fall to 30 stems, yield declines to 60% of the maximum dry matter yield. Additional factors such as taproot health, asymmetrical growth out of a crown, or discolored crowns should also be considered along with stem count when assessing a field. When doing your stem count, don’t count the stems on crowns that are unlikely to survive first cutting, such as stems that have heaved more than 2 inches out of the ground. When reviewing crown health, the charts below can help you rate crowns (Undersander et al., 2011). A healthy stand will have less than 30% of crowns rating 3 or 4 and no crowns in the count rating 5, which are dead plants.

After you have completed your stand assessment and if renovations are needed to meet your forage needs, begin lining up seed now. Marginal stands can be improved with grasses and clovers for a couple more years of forage production. If stands are poor, there are many options for summer annual forages to meet your forage needs. Some of them are easier to make as dry hay, such as Teff grass, Italian ryegrass, or Berseem clover. Summer annual cereal grain forage such as oats, spring triticale, or spring barley are other forage options that could possibly be made as dry hay but may be easier to harvest as silage or baleage. Spring seeding new alfalfa fields is an additional option if planted with a companion crop, which can result in forage this year and a full stand ready for maximum yield next year. Higher-yielding options such as sorghum, sudangrass, sorghum-sudan, or corn silage can also be planted with higher yields achieved with May plantings than June plantings with all of these crops.

References:

Undersander, D., C. Grau, D. Cosgrove, J. Doll, and N. Martin. 2011. Alfalfa Stand Assessment: Is this stand good enough to keep? University of Wisconsin-Madison, Accessed March 30, 2023, https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/alfalfa-stand-assessment-is-this-stand-good-enough-to-keep/
Assessing Wheat Crop Grain Versus Forage Economics

Bruce Clevenger, Farm Management Field Specialist and Jason Hartschuh, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock Field Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Ohio’s soft red winter wheat is vulnerable to stresses by the weather and soil conditions during the winter and early spring. March is often the month judgements are made about plant health that will relate to potential grain yield and spring nitrogen applications. In 2023, areas of Ohio have received heavy rainfall causing water stress thus questioning the wheat grain yield potential.

Ohio National Ag Statistics Service 20-year trend yield for 2023 is 74 bu/acre. In the past 10 years, 4 of 10 years yielded below 74 bu/ac and 4 of 10 years yielded above 74 bu/ac, leaving 2 of 10 years yielding 74 bu/ac. Two noteworthy years below Ohio’s 74 bu/ac were 2015 (67 bu/ac) and 2019 (56 bu/ac). According to Ohio Wheat Performance Test growing season notes, low yields in 2015 were attributed to wet weather in June and July and delayed harvest, while low yields in 2019 were attributed to slow early season wheat growth and development due to cool temperatures and above average precipitation. High yields in 2016 (80 bu/ac) related to above average temperatures in March, which accelerated green-up with wheat surviving freezing temperatures in April and May. High yields in 2021 (85 bu/ac) related to cool temperatures and adequate moisture, leading to a long grain fill period with favorable harvest conditions.

The Chicago Board of Trade July 23 wheat futures contract price peaked in mid-February at $8.00/bu, fell to the $6.70 levels, and recently approached $7.00 the last week of March. Growers without confidence in wheat conditions most likely did not enter into a July 2023 wheat forward contract in February through March, leaving their commitments open to switching to other options if the wheat failed or was terminated. Options could include: 1) keep the current wheat through harvest, 2) terminate the wheat and plant full season corn or soybean, or 3) harvest wheat as a forage and follow with a soybean or corn crop. Keeping the current wheat may also be important if the grower needs straw production for use or sale.

Corn yields in central Ohio are generally maximized with planting dates April 23-29, closely followed by April 30 to May 7, with approximately 1 to 1.5 bu/day yield decline for delays beyond the first week of May. Soybean yields in central Ohio are also maximized with planting dates at the end of April, with approximately ¼ to more than 1 bu/acre/day decline for delays beyond May 1^st.

If terminating wheat is preferred, a full season corn or soybean crop remains realistic. However, if the wheat crop is to be harvested as a forage, delayed corn and soybean planting will occur. To maximize wheat as a forage, the crop will need to develop towards Feekes Growth Stage 10.0 (Boot) or 10.5 (Heading complete, pre flowering). These growth stages typically will occur mid to late May (10.0) and late May to early June (10.5). Using May 20 for Feekes 10.0, and planting corn or soybeans on May 21, the follow-up crop would have an estimated yield decline of 14 to 20 bu/ac and 4 to 14, respectively. Using June 1 for Feekes 10.5 and planting corn or soybeans on June 2, the follow-up crop would have an estimated yield decline of 26 to 40 bu/ac and 8 to 32 bu/ac, respectively.

Based on research conducted over two years at 3 OSU research stations, a wheat silage crop receiving 50 lb/acre of spring nitrogen had an average yield of 1.8 ton/acre of dry matter when harvested at Feekes 10 and 2.25 tons/acre of dry matter when harvested at Feekes 10.5. The average crude protein was 11.5% and total digestible nutrients (TDN) was 65.7% with a Feekes 10 harvest. The crude protein declined to 10.19% and TDN to 60.3% as the crop matured to Feekes 10.5. Based on nutrient values in the January Buckeye Dairy news, this silage would have a nutrient value of $305/ton at Feekes 10.0 or $282/ton at Feekes 10.5. This leads to a silage crop value of $546 to 648/acre. The earlier harvest of wheat silage compared to grain harvest allows for double crop forages to be planted sooner. The earlier planting allows for corn silage to be planted as a double crop, teff, forage sorghum, sorghum-sudan, or a grain crop. The earlier planting of forage crops allows for near traditional single crop yields. Increasing teff grass harvest from once as a double crop to two or three in a year is advantageous. Sorghum-Sudangrass can also be managed in a multi-cut system with the first cutting 45 to 60 days after planting and an additional cutting 45 days later. Research conducted in New York showed a 10 ton as-harvested difference between corn silage planted the first of June versus the middle of July. Brown midrib (BMR) sorghum sudangrass also resulted in a yield decline of 4 tons/acre across the same planting date range. With a corn silage value of $50 per acre, an extra 10 tons/acre of corn silage increased corn silage value by $500/acre.

Wheat yields are not 100% predictable in March. In fact, wheat yields can be surprisingly good or poor because there are conditions in the growing season coming later that will favor or lower grain yield. Critical conditions contributing to high wheat yield would be having a long grain fill period with adequate moisture and avoiding the impacts of foliar and head diseases. Prior to terminating or using alternative harvest of any wheat, always contact your crop insurance agent and check-in with the USDA-FSA office.
Memorial Scholarship Launched by the Ayars Family

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The parents of CFAES undergraduate Austin Ayars have launched a memorial scholarship fund in honor of their late son, Dr. Austin Ayars. Dr. Austin Ayars

Features of his life and information regarding the memorial fund are available at:

https://cfaes.osu.edu/stories/parents-cfaes-undergrad-austin-ayars-launch-memorial-scholarship-funds?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=faes_alumni-newsletter_fy22_cfaes-connect-mar&sfmc_id=59397428&sfmc_key=00517453

Also, a video sharing reflections of Dr. Ayars life are available at: https://buckeyefunder.osu.edu/project/34136, along with information on how to contribute to the fund to honor his life and support the education of students, aimed especially for those with interest in dairy cattle.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the November issue, the Class III future for December was $20.16/cwt and the January future was $20.00/cwt. Class III milk closing price for December was only slightly higher than predicted at $20.50/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $2.67/lb and $3.15/lb respectively. This issue, the Class III future for February is $17.95/cwt, and the March future is $17.80/cwt.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Compared to the November issue, the increased costs of both corn and soybean meal out of Chicago lend themselves to an increased cost of NE_L, double the 5-year average ($0.09/Mcal). However, the cost of MP more closely mirrors the 5-year average ($0.44/lb) at about 6% lower.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the January issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $12.28 and $12.79/cwt, respectively. Although still expected to be profitable, both estimates are lower than those in November. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, January 25, 2023.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on January 25, 2023 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set for this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, January 25, 2023.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, January 25, 2023.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
_{Corn, ground, dry}	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Corn silage	Soybean meal - expeller	Whole, roasted soybeans
Distillers dried grains	Feather meal	Wheat bran
Corn gluten feed	Corn gluten meal	44% Soybean meal
Hominy	Meat meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
_{Wheat middlings}	_{Whole Cottonseed}	Blood meal
	Soybean hulls	41% Cottonseed meal
	48% Soybean meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, January 25, 2023.

USDA ERS Dairy Outlook: January 2023

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

The United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) released its Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook on January 19, 2023. The full report is available here: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/g445cd121/gx41nx08z/hh63v522z/LDP-M-343.pdf. This article summarizes portions of the dairy report.

Dairy Supply and Use

The November estimate by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of milk production was 18.2 billion pounds. This represents a 1.3% increase from November 2021. Cow numbers were also reportedly higher – 1,000 more than the previous month and 38,000 greater than the year prior. Milk production per cow for November was 1,937 lb, an increase of 17 lb compared to November 2021.

Chart, line chartDescription automatically generated Numbers from the NASS Agricultural Prices report, with comparisons to 2021, are summarized in the table below.

Category	November 2022	November 2021
All Milk, $/cwt	$25.60	$20.70
Corn, $/bu	$6.49	$5.26
Alfalfa Hay, $/ton	$267	$213
5-State Avg. – Hay, $/ton	$331	$254
Soybean meal, $/ton	$436.75	$358.73

2023 Forecast

USDA is projecting a decline of 15,000 head of dairy cattle in 2023. This is the result of expected lower milk prices and steady to increasing feed costs. The January 31 Cattle on Feed Report from USDA will provide a better indication of future dairy numbers. Average milk production remained unchanged and is projected at 24,370 lb/cow.

USDA Projected 2023 Dairy Prices ($/cwt)

Type	Projected Price
Class III	$18.85
Class IV	$19.25
All Milk	$21.60

Moving Forward

Early indications are that 2023 will be a challenging year for dairy farms. While there has been a drop in fertilizer prices, many inputs look to remain steady or increase in price. This scenario will require budgeting, monitoring, and evaluation on a regular basis.

I encourage you to have open conversations with your lender, input suppliers, and Extension professional as you work through the year. There are many resources and people available to help you be successful.

Over-the-Counter Antibiotics Will Require Veterinary Oversight (Rx) Beginning in June of 2023
Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Oho State University

By June of 2023, all medically important antibiotics currently available at most feed or farm supply stores will now require veterinary oversight (written Rx) to be used in animals, even if the animals are not intended for food production. Examples of affected antibiotics include injectable penicillin and oxytetracycline. In addition, some retail suppliers who were able to sell these drugs/products in the past may no longer sell them after June of 2023. This means that small and large animal veterinarians should be prepared for an increase in calls and visits from animal owners who previously may have purchased these drugs over the counter at their local farm supply store. To continue using medically important antimicrobials, you may need to establish a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR). Consult your veterinarian for more information.

What is a veterinarian-client-patient-relationship?

A veterinarian-client-patient-relationship (VCPR) is defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association as the basis for interaction among veterinarians, their clients, and their patients and is critical to the health of your animal(s). The practical explanation is that it is a formal relationship that you have with a veterinarian who serves as your primary contact for all veterinary services and is familiar with you, your livestock/animals, and your farm operation. This veterinarian is referred to as your Veterinarian of Record (VoR), and both the VoR and the client should sign a form to document this relationship.

What species are included?

From companion dogs and cats to backyard poultry, and from rabbits and show pigs to large livestock farms. The same restrictions will apply to all companion and farm animal species.

How do your health protocols measure up?

Health protocols are customized for individuals and farm-specific, and practicing veterinarians are often asked to develop and write protocols for individual farms, particularly health protocols. Injectable antimicrobials alone will not work as intended if animals are experiencing pain (drop feed and water intake) and/or dehydration. OSU Veterinary Extension is available to review your health protocols but must submitted by a practicing veterinarian to Dr. Gustavo Schuenemann at schuenemann.5@osu.edu.

Resources:

Considering Dairy Farm Construction in 2023?

Jason Hartschuh, Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

Remodeling existing facilities to improve cow comfort can improve the longevity and production of your herd. When remodeling with a few improvements, you may consider free stall size, bedding material, water availability, lighting, floor grooving, and fan placement.

If an expansion is in your future, many of the same decisions will apply along with alley widths, the distance between cross-overs, and the alley cleaning system. All of these building projects will be affected by the availability and price of construction materials.

Inflation and rising interest rates are beginning to influence the construction industry, with fewer new construction projects being planned. In October 2022, the architecture billing rates index dropped below 50 which is considered the required amount for construction to remain fully booked (an index above 50 represents an increase in billed architectural plans and below 50 a decrease compared to the prior month). Construction will remain busy through 2023 with a 9 to 12-month lag between a decrease in architecture billing hours and construction projects. Since the architects complete most of their work prior to construction beginning there is a lag. Over the past year, construction has seen a 3.3% increase in total needed employees, but like other industries, it is struggling to attract enough employees which is causing delays in construction project completion.

Concrete costs have risen 11.6% over the last year and are expected to stay at these levels through most of 2023, with tight supplies of both cement and sand (Figure 1). Lumber prices are remaining strong as of September with soft lumber being up 14.5% and plywood up 19.6%. A few materials have come down, including steel which is 23.8% lower than last quarter but still 200% higher than 2018 prices. Since September, lumber has declined 9% from quarter 3 to quarter 4 of 2022 and is still about 110% higher than in 2018. Construction companies are expected to remain at full capacity through most of 2023 and building costs to not decrease until late into 2023. The location has a great effect on the construction market outlook.

Figure 1. Construction Connection, Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.ecmag.com/magazine/articles/article-detail/falling-into-place-2023-construction-outlook

When installing new free stalls, they should be sized to match the largest 25% of the cows in the group. Compromises do occasionally have to be made if your groups have a high percentage of first lactation cows in the group, especially if there is intolerance for manure on the back of stalls. Mature Holstein cows need 3 to 4 feet of open space in front of the stall for cows to lunge or they will lay at diagonally in your stalls, leaving manure in the corners instead of the alley. Stalls that are against a wall should be 10 feet from the back of the stall to the wall while head-to-head stall platforms should be a total of 18 feet. Even in head-to-head stalls when they are too close together, cows lunge to the side, especially cows who are socially intimidated by a dominant cow.

1000-pound cows should have stalls that are 42 inches on center with 64 inches from the curb to the brisket locator and 58 inches from the curb to the neck rail. A 1600-pound Holstein cow needs a stall that is 50 inches on center with 70 inches from the curb to the brisket locator and 64 inches from the curb to the neck rail. Other cow sizes can be found in Figure 2.

Animal Weight	Total Stall Length	Total Stall Length	Length to Brisket Tube or Board	Length to Neck Rail	Stall Width Center to Center	Height to Top of Partition	Height to Neck Rail	Brisket Board or Tube Height
(lb)	Closed Front	Open Front	(in)	(in)	(in)	(in)	(in)	(in)
	(inches)	(in)
900-1100	90-96	78-82	64-66	62-64	41-43	42-44	42-44	4-6
1100-1300	96-102	80-86	66-68	64-66	43-45	44-46	44-46	4-6
1300-1500	102-108	90-96	68-70	66-68	45-48	46-48	46-48	4-6
1500-1700	108-114	96-102	70-72	68-70	48-52	48-52	48-52	4-6

Figure 2. Freestall sizes based on animal weight. Dairy Freestall Housing and Equipment, Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State University, Ames.

Water availability is another critical component. Cows consume 30 to 60% of their water needs shortly after milking so waters need to be located close to the parlor or robot exits and throughout the barn. The stand-by has been 2 inches of assessable water trough perimeter per cow, but recent research has shown this needs to be 3 to 5 inches per cow, especially in the summer during heat stress periods. Each group of cows should have at least two waters so that more timid cows can access water when a dominant cow is controlling them. Barn crossovers and alleys with water or feed should be 14 feet wide so that eating and drinking cows are not disrupted by cows walking by.

Figure 3. Distance for fan air plume to reach cows and dissipate. Comparing the fans, the first black fan has a 20-foot gap before it reaches cow height. With a 24-foot spacing, the black, red, and blue fans can be shown to provide the overlap necessary to eliminate dead zones between fans. (The Dairyland Institute, https://thedairylandinitiative.vetmed.wisc.edu/home/housing-module/adult-cow-housing/ventilation-and-heat-abatement/)

Assessing barn ventilation also is critical during the building process. Stalls should have an air speed of 200 to 400 ft/minute at the cow lying height, about 2.5 ft off the stall surface. Air speeds over 400 ft/minute provide little additional heat abatement benefits. A 48-inch fan previously was used to cover 40 ft, but newer research shows that when these fans are pointed correctly for cooling while cows are lying down, they need to be closer at 24 ft apart or 5 times the blade diameter. It takes about 20 ft for air to reach the cow’s back from the fan, so fans that are 40 ft apart are really covering 60 ft with a 20-ft dead zone (Figure 3). Best wishes with your upcoming construction projects, whether it is a renovation or new construction.

Leadership Changes in the Department of Animal Sciences at The Ohio State University

Dr. Pasha Lyvers Peffer has been appointed as Professor and Chair of the Department of Animal Sciences after serving in the interim role since October 2021. Her four-year term began on January 1, 2023. Dr. Lyvers Peffer joined the Department of Animal Sciences as an assistant professor in 2005, becoming an associate professor in 2011, and was promoted to a full professor in 2018. She previously served as undergraduate program leader and chair of Academic Affairs in the Department of Animal Sciences from 2014–2017, as interim Associate Chair of Animal Sciences from 2016–2017, and as acting assistant dean of CFAES Academic Affairs from 2017–2018.

Since her appointment as Interim Chair, Dr. Lyvers Peffer has worked toward building identity and priorities within the Department. In moving forward as chair, Dr. Lyvers Peffer’s appointment will help provide leadership stability for the Department while continuing important work in solidifying short- and long-term priorities and inclusion of additional faculty from the Center for Food Animal Health. Dr. Lyvers Peffer can be contacted at lyverspeffer.1@osu.edu.

Dr. Maurice Eastridge has been appointed as Senior Associate Chair in the Department, effective January 1, 2023. He joined the faculty in March 1986 as an assistant professor, was promoted and tenured to Associate Professor in 1991, and was promoted to Professor in 1999. Since June 2018, he has served as Associate Chair in the Department. He will continue working with academic programs and conducting teaching, research, and outreach education in dairy cattle nutrition and management; however, special focus will be on outreach and stakeholder engagement for the Department and College. Dr. Eastridge resides on the Columbus campus and can be reached at eastridge.1@osu.edu.

Dr. Chanhee Lee has been appointed as Associate Chair in the Department, effective January 1, 2023. He joined the faculty as a researcher in dairy cattle nutrition as an assistant professor in 2015 and was promoted and tenured as an Associate Professor in 2021. He will continue in his research role while also taking on the administrative role. Dr. Lee resides on the Wooster campus and can be reached at lee.7502@osu.edu
Northeast Ohio Regional Dairy Conference

Dr. Shaun Wellert, Senior Lecturer, Agricultural Technical Institute, The Ohio State University

The 23^rd annual Northeast Ohio Regional Dairy Conference will be held Wednesday, February 15, 2023, at Fisher Auditorium on the Wooster campus of Ohio State University. This program is hosted by the Killbuck Valley Veterinary Medical Association. The keynote speaker will be Dr. Joao Costa from the University of Kentucky, an expert in animal behavior and precision dairy technologies, and he will be discussing activity monitoring systems for adult cows, automated calf systems, and the how to use the information that these systems provide to improve farm management. A discussion panel of local dairy farmers who use activity monitoring systems in the management of their farms will be held to allow anyone interested to ask questions and gain more insight about these game changing technologies. Along with the educational portion of the Conference, a trade show of over 50 vendors will be present to update attendees about their products and services. Thanks to generous sponsorship, the registration is free and breakfast and lunch will be provided. This is a great opportunity for learning and fellowship with fellow dairy farmers and industry professionals. Anyone interested is encouraged to attend, just please register before February 5^th to allow an accurate count for meals. For more information and to register, go to NEOdairy.com.
Upcoming Dairy Youth Events

Bonnie Ayars and Sherry Smith, Dairy Extension Program Specialists, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Youth Dairy Judging Clinic, Saturday, March 11, 2023, 10:00 am -1:00 pm, OSU Animal Science Building, 2029 Fyffe Court, Columbus

Note: There will be no registration fee for this clinic but there will also be no lunch. Please plan to eat before or after the clinic on your own this year. There is a parking fee for the Animal Science parking lot, please be sure you find the parking meter at the northwest corner of the lot and enter through the back door of the Animal Sciences Building on the west side of the building. For more additional information, please contact Sherry Smith at smith.10072@osu.edu, sbgs82@att.net, or 330.465.2376.

Ohio State 4-H Dairy Judging Contest, Thursday, March 30, 2023, Ohio State Expositions Center, Columbus, Coliseum Arena, during Spring Dairy Expo

Preregistration for the contest will be online at https://springdairyexpo.com/judging-contests/ (available by February 1). Registration will be from 8:00-9:00 am with the contest beginning at 9:00 am. The cost is $7.00 for each contestant if pre-registered, but $10.00 on the day of the contest. Lunch is not included in this fee. This contest will be used to help in the selection of the State 4-H dairy judging team. Individuals who would like to try out for the State team are expected to compete in this contest. For more additional information, please contact Sherry Smith at smith.10072@osu.edu, sbgs82@att.net, or 330.465.2376

Dairy Palooza, Saturday, April 2023, Wooster, OH

For 10 different years, Dairy Palooza has offered a wonderful educational opportunity for dairy youth. It grew in success due to excellent financial support and dedicated volunteers. In an effort to update and work on some of the challenges, we will be offering the 2023 Dairy Palooza: Version II. This year, we will make an attempt to teach advisors and kids how to use what they learn. It will be held on a Saturday during late April in the Wooster area. Additional information will be available soon at https://ohio4h.org/statewide-programs/animal-sciences/dairy/events or you can contact Bonnie Ayars at ayars.5@osu.edu or bonnieayars@yahoo.com.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for October and November were $21.95/cwt and $20.92/cwt, respectively. Class III milk closing price for October was slightly lower than predicted at $21.81/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $2.45/lb and $3.66/lb, respectively. The increase in component prices compared to the September issue aligns with typical yearly price cycles near the holidays. For this issue, the Class III future for December is $20.16/cwt and the January future is $20.00/cwt.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Since the September issue, the price of metabolizable protein (MP) has increased by about 5%, alongside a 13% decrease in the price of net energy for lactation (NE_L). However, the current prices of NE_L and MP are about 23 and 39% higher than the 5-year averages ($0.08/Mcal and $0.41/lb, respectively). These nutrient costs continue to reflect recent trends in ingredient costs, largely following swings in the cost of protein and energy ingredients.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the September issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $14.32 and $14.85/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are higher than in September and likely to be profitable. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 25, 2022.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 25, 2022 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set for this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 25, 2022. TableDescription automatically generated

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, November 25, 2022.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Wheat middlings	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feather meal	Soybean meal - expeller	Whole, roasted soybeans
Corn silage	Wheat bran
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	44% Soybean meal
Gluten feed	Meat meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
_{48% Soybean meal}	Corn, ground, dry	Blood meal
Hominy	_{Soybean hulls}	41% Cottonseed meal
		Whole cottonseed

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, November 25, 2022.

USDA Economic Research Service Dairy Outlook: November 2022
Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

The United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) released its Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook on November 16, 2022. The full report is available here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/105249/ldp-m-341.pdf?v=2499.5. This article will highlight the dairy portion of the report.

Dairy Supply and Use

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported that milk production in September 2022 was up 1.5% compared to the previous September. Milk cow numbers were 2,000 head less than August 2022, but 6,000 more than September 2021. Per cow milk production was 27 lb higher than the previous September. The graph below summarizes these numbers.

The September all-milk price came in at $24.10/cwt. This is a few cents higher than August, and $6.10/cwt greater than September 2021. The higher milk price (compared to the previous September) also brought higher prices for alfalfa and soybean meal.

Outlook for 2023

USDA NASS expects 10,000 fewer dairy cows in 2023, a 30-lb increase in milk production per cow (24,350 lb/cow), and unchanged production of 229.2 billion pounds. The export market for dairy looks positive in 2023. Cheese, butterfat, and dry skim milk exports are expected to be strong.

Price forecasts for 2023 are summarized in the table below.

Class

2023 Projected Price

III

$19.65/cwt

IV

$20.35/cwt

All-milk

$22.60/cwt

Looking Ahead

Anticipated milk price decreases and rising input costs make financial analysis, management, and planning even more important. Talk with your accountant, lender, and Extension professional about your financial performance this year and plans for 2023.

These resources may be helpful as you plan:
- OSU Extension Enterprise Budgets: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/enterprise-budgets
- OSU Extension Ohio Ag Manager Newsletter: https://u.osu.edu/ohioagmanager/
- Ohio Farm Business Analysis & Benchmarking Program: https://farmprofitability.osu.edu/

Dairy Margin Coverage 2023 Deadline Is Fast Approaching

Jason Hartschuh, Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

The Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program through the Farm Service Agency sign-up deadline is quickly approaching on December 9^th, 2023. DMC has payouts when the margin between the all-milk price and the DMC feed cost falls below the selected protection level of $4.00-9.50/cwt. Now is the time to consider if this program will improve your risk management in 2023. For the current year, 2022, 73.17% of Ohio dairy farms signed up for some level of coverage. While the first half of 2022 had strong margins well above $9.50/cwt, margins fell below the $9.50/cwt level in August to $8.08/cwt and in September was $8.62/cwt. The margins for the rest of 2022 have improved compared to earlier this month, but lower margins are predicted to continue into 2023.

With margin payouts currently forecasted for most of 2023, reviewing the DMC program could be beneficial for your operations bottom line. Table 1 shows the current forecasted all milk price, feed price, and the forecasted DMC margin for each month of 2023 from the DMC decision tool. The forecasted all milk price has a high of $23.53/cwt in November and bottoms out at $22.37/cwt in July, with a yearly average of $22.86/cwt. At the same time, forecasted average yearly feed cost is $13.59/cwt, reaching its highest in January at $14.53/cwt, and its lowest really depends on next year’s crop but is currently seen in December at $12.92/cwt. After reviewing these milk and feed cost forecasts, the margin forecast ranges from $8.65-10.48/cwt. After reviewing Table 1, you can start to make informed decisions about what level of margin coverage to utilize.

The DMC is a two-tiered program with you needing to make decisions on your production history below 5 million pounds, separate from your production above 5 million pounds. The premium cost for the first 5 million pounds is much more reasonable, with the $9.50/cwt coverage level costing $0.15 per cwt. With the current forecast on 5 million pounds of coverage, the producer premium is about $7,481, but the net total payout is about $22,200. The premium cost is covered by the payout during the first three months.

For production over 5 million pounds, the maximum coverage is $8.00/cwt, but the premium is $1.813/cwt. This coverage needs thought about carefully. There are no months below the $8.00 margin level at this time. This means you may only want to use the $4.00 margin coverage that does not have a premium or maybe the $5.00 margin which has a premium of $0.005/cwt in case the margin gets even worse for production history over 5 million pounds. Remember this is only a forecast, so hopefully milk price improves and so does income over feed cost margins so that the program doesn’t have payouts for all of 2023.

The DMC program does allow producers to participate in the other subsidized risk management programs that are administered through USDA-Risk Management Agency. Those programs include the Dairy Revenue Protection program, which allows producers to use a Class III, Class IV, or component blend futures-based program to set a floor under their milk price by quarter. Another program more like DMC is the Livestock Gross Margin-Dairy that allows producers to use Class III milk, corn, and soybean meal futures to lock in a margin above feed cost. These programs are available to all producers, regardless of pounds of milk shipped per month but could be a much better option for milk production over 5 million pounds.

Table 1. Forecasted all milk price, feed price, and DMC margin for each month of 2023.¹

Month	All Milk Price Forecast ($/CWT)	Corn Price Forecast ($/BU)	Premium/Supreme Alfalfa Hay Price Forecast ($/Ton)	Soybean Meal Price Forecast ($/Ton)	Feed Cost Forecast ($/CWT)	DMC Margin Forecast ($/CWT)
Jan	$23.45	$6.38	$334	$422.96	$14.53	$8.93
Feb	$23.07	$6.29	$332	$420.27	$14.39	$8.68
Mar	$22.82	$6.24	$310	$417.95	$14.01	$8.80
Apr	$22.72	$6.20	$296	$416.35	$13.77	$8.95
May	$22.39	$6.16	$296	$414.81	$13.72	$8.67
Jun	$22.24	$6.13	$290	$413.54	$13.59	$8.65
Jul	$22.37	$6.10	$287	$412.98	$13.51	$8.86
Aug	$22.50	$6.01	$286	$409.97	$13.38	$9.12
Sep	$22.80	$5.87	$284	$405.04	$13.16	$9.64
Oct	$23.07	$5.78	$283	$399.09	$13.00	$10.07
Nov	$23.53	$5.71	$293	$397.72	$13.07	$10.46
Dec	$23.39	$5.66	$287	$396.83	$12.92	$10.48
2023	$22.86	$6.04	$298	$410.63	$13.59	$9.28

¹November, 2022 margin forecast from dmc.dairymarkets.org.

Nuisance Bird Economics, Prevention, and Control for Livestock Farms

Dr. Dwight Roseler, Adjunct Faculty, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University and Technical Consultant, Purina Animal Nutrition

“Dashing through the snow” is a phrase to the song Jingle Bells that often brings fun joyful memories this time of year. Dashing into your dairy barns this time of year are sparrows, starlings, and pigeons that bring bad memories of birds leaving a foul-smelling unsightly mess. Ohio has one of the highest breeding densities of European starlings in the US according to survey. Flocks can range from a few hundred to over 10,000 on a single farm. Starlings are known to fly 15 to 30 miles from roosting sites to a desirable feed source. On dairy farms, starlings consume grain and leave droppings, which results in feed and possibly milk production losses. The starlings may spread disease through droppings and pose health risks to livestock and humans.

Feed loss

Starlings consume the grain and protein ingredients in dairy cow diets and reduce the nutrient content of the remaining TMR. A small flock of 1200 starlings can consume up to one ton of protein and grain per month from a 200-cow dairy farm. Various studies have shown the economic cost of bird infestation in excess of $8,000/year. Health losses and disease risk can increase this loss.

Health and disease

Ohio State research from 2008 has shown that bird droppings transmit E. Coli, salmonella, cryptococcidia, and histoplamosis. These diseases reduce cow health and intestinal health and increase risk of mastitis. Several strains of salmonella exist and increase the risk of calf death and disease.

Nuisance bird prevention and control

Prevention methods of bird infestation must start before snow fall and heavy infestations of birds. Prevention includes netting, visual scare devices, distress calls, roosting adaptations, and health modifiers. Check with state wildlife divisions for regulations regarding control of nuisance birds before implementing control measures.

Nets will not entangle birds. Netting may be draped across the front of buildings; fasten it tightly from above windows to below the ledge to discourage perching.   Visual scare devices and distress calls must be modified regularly throughout the year to be effective. Commercial sources of prevention tools can be evaluated at the websites www.birdbgone.com, www.birdgard.com and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR): Division of Wildlife (https://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/ ). Roosting adaptations include modifying the roosting surfaces with an angle of 60 degrees or greater. Birds prefer to perch on flat surfaces and angled surfaces reduce perching. Wood or metal sheathing cut at an angle can also be added to the problem area. Installation of porcupine wire on ledges and rails where birds roost will reduce roosting. Thinning tree branches around buildings can remove perch sites and reduce a source of wind protection, which may force the birds to move to another site. Combinations of noise (AM/FM radio, wind chimes, firecrackers, banging pots and pans, etc.) and visual stimuli (colored flags, reflective tape, rotating blank CD’s, revolving lights, balloons, replicas of hawks and owls, etc.) used persistently can evict birds. Control measures should be initiated and modified at various times throughout the year.

The ODNR Division of Wildlife provides a list of commercially approved nuisance wild animal control operators in your respective Ohio county. The Ohio list has over 400 commercial nuisance animal control operators, some of which may be licensed to manage bird control on commercial livestock farms. The Division also has information on options for prevention of nuisance birds.
Methane Mitigation Strategies for Dairy Farms
Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Greenhouse gas (GHG) production and climate change are constantly before us in the news, political agendas, and environmental sustainability discussions. The three primary GHG are carbon dioxide, methane (CH4), and nitrous dioxide. It has been estimated that agriculture contributes about 10% to the total GHG production in the US. Based on life cycle assessment (LCA), reduction in CH4 production from enteric fermentation and manure provides the greatest opportunity for reducing GHG production from the dairy industry.

In the December 2022 issue of the Journal of Dairy Science, Karen Beauchemin from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta, and co-authors published an article on the “Current Enteric Methane Mitigation Options” for ruminant livestock. In the article, the following options were discussed:
1. Increased animal productivity: Increased output per unit of input can lead to reduced CH4 per unit of product. This efficiency has been achieved through improved feeding practices, animal management, improved animal health and comfort, genetic advancement, and better reproductive performance.
2. Selection of low-methane producing animals: Individual differences in CH4 production exist among animals within the same herd and with the same feeding management, but heritabilities of CH4 production are low to moderate in dairy cattle. The use of this strategy to lower CH4 production is challenging because of the difficulty in measuring methane production or developing practical proxies for prediction of CH4 production, and the possible existence of undesirable associations between CH4 production and animal productivity.
3. Diet reformulation: a) It is well established that level, source, and processing feeds can affect CH4 production by changes in rate of feed passage from the rumen, digestibility, and impact microbial populations; however, the result is not always positive, especially when viewed in context of a LCA. Thus, further research should focus on evaluating total GHG emissions using an LCA for individual farms and geographical regions. b) Dietary lipid supplementation has been shown to decrease CH4 production by the replacement of starch and direct impacts on the microbial population. However, the impact on CH4 and the animal’s performance varies with level and source of fat supplementation. Further research is needed to identify cost-effective fat sources fed at the appropriate level that would reduce CH4 emissions without impairing feed digestibility and animal production.
4. Forage system: Forage production systems are highly variable and dependent upon farm conditions (e.g., soil type and fertility, water, and climate) and management practices. These factors affect forage yield and nutritive value, carbon storage in soils, animal performance, manure excretion, and ultimately, GHG emissions. Therefore, in all cases, a change in forage management to decrease enteric CH4 emissions needs to be assessed using regionally specific farm-level LCA that account for changes in forage and animal productivity, as well as emissions and sinks from all components of the farming system, including soil carbon.
  1. Increasing forage digestibility usually increases DMI and improves animal performance, which decreases CH4 yield and intensity. Furthermore, ruminant production systems fill the unique niche of consuming high-fiber, low-digestible feeds and crop residues and co-products not suitable for highly productive animals.
  2. Perennial forages fixate N, thus lower requirements for N fertilizer, may sequester more soil carbon than grasses, are lower in fiber than grasses, some legumes contain secondary compounds that reduce methane production, and the higher CP than with grasses reduces purchased protein supplements; therefore, a LCA is necessary with different management systems and geographical areas.
  3. Use of high-starch forages, such as corn silage and small-grain cereals, can increase starch and decrease fiber concentration of diets and thus reduce CH4 production. The greatest potential for high-starch forages to reduce total GHG emissions may take place when replacing another annual forage crop, but a LCA is necessary to take into account soil carbon changes.
  4. High-sugar cultivars of perennial ryegrass have elevated non-fiber carbohydrate concentrations at the expense of CP and/or NDF and this could result in a reduction of CH4 production. Because digestibility and DMI may be increased and varying yields occurs with different cultivars, additional animal studies and a LCA are needed.
  5. Grazing systems vary with climate, plant species, soil types, and livestock, and include season-long continuous grazing, rest-rotation grazing, deferred rotational grazing, and intensively managed grazing. Several of these management practices and the chemical composition of some of the forages can impact CH4 intensity.
  6. The effect of ensiling forage on CH4 production is expected to be highly variable depending upon the resulting forage quality and ensiling practices. Processing of forage by grinding and pelleting reduces particle size, which increases ruminal passage rate, decreases organic matter degradation in the rumen, and shifts fermentation toward propionate production with less CH4 production. However, forage preservation and processing increase the use of fuel for machinery and associated emissions compared with grazing fresh herbage. Before recommending a change in forage preservation or processing for CH4 mitigation, additional inputs required, effects on animal productivity, and whole-farm GHG emissions need to be considered.
1. Action on the ruminal fermentation:
  1. Ionophores, such as monensin, appears to have limited impact on CH4 production, but its improvement in feed efficiency decreases GHG emissions from feed production and per unit of output.
  2. 3-Nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) fed in small amounts can reduce CH4 production, but the impacts on milk production and composition have been variable. The greatest hurdles for the widespread adoption of 3-NOP or other chemical inhibitors that may be discovered in the future are the additional feeding cost from their inclusion in animal diets, if no consistent benefits in productivity are obtained, and the difficulty of delivering the required dose to grazing ruminants in extensive production systems in a format that works over extended periods.
  3. Macroalgae (seaweeds) have highly variable chemical composition, depending upon species, time of collection, and growth environment, and they can contain bioactive components that inhibit methanogenesis. Use of macroalgae as an antimethanogenic strategy may be feasible, but mechanisms for delivery to animals that do not reduce the efficacy of the bioactive compounds need to be designed.
  4. Alternative electron acceptors are organic (e.g., fumarate, malate) and inorganic (e.g., nitrate) compounds that draw electrons away from methanogenesis and incorporate them into alternative pathways. In general, the effects of fumarate and malate on animal productivity have been inconsistent and are limited by cost because of the relatively high levels of inclusion needed and the relatively small effects on CH4. Although nitrate has been shown to reduce CH4 production and intensity, it can only be used in production systems where feed intake is closely managed due to the risks of acute toxicity.
  5. Essential oils (e.g., oregano, thyme, garlic oil, and others) are complex mixtures of volatile lipophilic secondary metabolites that are responsible for a plant's characteristic flavor and fragrance and may exert antimicrobial activities against bacteria and fungi, including CH4 production. Given the variably of responses and the many different sources of essential oils, additional research is needed before firm recommendations can be made.
  6. Tannins and saponins are secondary plant compounds in some forages, e.g., legumes, that may reduce CH4 production. However, given the diversity of management systems with such feedstuffs, additional research in needed in how these compounds could be used to reduce CH4 production without negative consequences.
  7. Direct-fed microbials (e.g., yeasts, fungi, and lactic acid producing bacteria) are live microorganisms that when ingested can modify rumen fermentation. Although some coculture and mixed culture experiments have generated proof-of-concept that direct-fed microbials can reduce CH4 emissions, these results have seldom been confirmed with research in animals.
Early stage mitigation strategies are constantly under consideration. The global effort to curb CH4 emissions is driving significant investment and innovation by the private and public sectors. Recent advances in characterizing the rumen microbiome, genome sequencing of rumen methanogens, and an in-depth analysis of the enzymatic pathways involved in methanogenesis are leading to new CH4 mitigation approaches. Most of the research to date has focused on mitigation of CH4 from ruminants in confinement systems, but technologies to reduce emissions from grazing animals would have the largest effect on reducing emissions from global ruminant livestock. Some of the early mitigation strategies being researched include immunization against methanogens, early-life interventions to modify the microbiota in a manner that decreases CH4 emissions later in life, feeding enzymes with activity against methanogen cell walls, elimination of ruminal protozoa, and using a device that attaches to animals to collect CH4 and oxidize it.

Research continues on various approaches for reducing CH4 production, capturing CH4 on the farm, and effectively utilizing the captured CH4. All of the aspects discussed in this article have potential interest to farmers as they strive to reduce the carbon footprint of dairy production and gain financially from carbon credits.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for August and September were $20.67/cwt and $20.21/cwt, respectively. Class III milk closing price for August was $20.10/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $2.14/lb and $3.40/lb respectively. The component price for protein is reduced from the July issue, and butterfat price continues to increase alongside demand as the holidays approach. This issue, the Class III future for October is $21.95/cwt, and the November future is $20.92/cwt.

Updated Corn Silage Price

A new corn silage price used throughout this article was calculated this month as corn silage harvest winds down across Ohio. This year’s approximate price for normal corn silage (32 to 38% dry matter), based on a $6.70/bu corn grain price at end of day September 28, 2022, is $71.81/ton. Due to the increased December corn futures this year, corn silage has once again increased in value by ~$11/ton compared to 2021 season ($60.71/ton). However, based on its nutritive value, home grown corn silage continues to be a bargain feed in dairy cattle rations.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Since the July issue, the price of metabolizable protein (MP) has increased by about 17% alongside a 22% decrease in the price of net energy for lactation (NE_L). The current price of NE_L and MP are about 15 and 30% higher than the 5-year averages ($0.08/Mcal and $0.41/lb, respectively). These nutrient costs continue to reflect recent trends in ingredient costs, largely following swings in the cost of protein and energy ingredients.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the September issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $11.52 and $12.12/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are likely to be profitable. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, September 23, 2022.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on September 23, 2022 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, September 23, 2022.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, September 23, 2022.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	_{48% Soybean meal}	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feather meal	_{Soybean meal - expeller}	Whole, roasted soybeans
Corn silage	Wheat bran	Soybean hulls
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	44% Soybean meal
Gluten feed	Whole cottonseed	Solvent extracted canola meal
Meat meal		Blood meal
_{Corn, ground, dry}		41% Cottonseed meal
Hominy
Wheat middlings

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace MP by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, September 23, 2022.

Ohio Laws Governing Manure and Mud on Roadways
Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County; and Peggy Hall, Extension Agriculture and Resource Law Program, Ohio State University Extension

Fall brings an increase in farm equipment traveling roadways to harvest crops, haul grain, and transport silage from fields to the farm. This is also a time when tractors and manure spreaders are used to apply nutrients to harvested fields. During these operations, it is not uncommon to find mud or manure spilled on roadways.

An Iowa State University Extension survey found that transportation issues accounted for 28% of manure spills. A similar study in Wisconsin determined that 30% of manure spills were attributed to transportation issues. While these happen unintentionally, they do pose potential hazards to the environment and motoring public.

Ohio Law

An Ohio traffic law (https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4511.74) addresses “placing injurious materials” on roadways. The law states in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4511.74 that: “No person shall place or knowingly drop upon any part of a highway, lane, road, street, or alley any tacks, bottles, wire, glass, nails, or other articles which may damage or injure any person, vehicle, streetcar, trackless trolley, or animal traveling along or upon such highway, except such substances that may be placed upon the roadway by proper authority for the repair or construction thereof.” This provision has been applied to cases involving mud, manure, and even grass clippings left on roads, with enforcement by local law officials. A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor that can lead to no more than $1,000 in fines as well as jail time.

Another section of Ohio law, ORC 5589.10 (https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5589.10), also provides criminal penalties and states that “No person shall dig up, remove, excavate, or place any earth or mud upon any portion of any public highway or build a fence upon the same without authority to do so.” A violation of this section can lead to a fourth-degree misdemeanor charge with a maximum fine of $250 and jail time.

In addition, mud or manure on the roadway may result in property damage, injury, or death to people or damage to vehicles on the road. Harmed parties may bring a negligence claim and seek compensation for their personal and property damage. There was an Ohio case several years ago involving wet manure on the road that was determined to be the cause of an accident, and the farm operator was held liable under a negligence claim brought by the harmed party. Unfortunately, a person suffered physical injuries and the operator suffered a financial loss—all due to the failure to properly manage the manure on the roadway.

Your Responsibilities

The best advice to avoid problems is to practice good manure and equipment management. Do not overfill tankers or spreaders, ensure that hoses are properly attached, and inspect equipment for leakages. Maintain field access points to minimize tracking mud onto the roadway. Be aware of the roads you travel and whether your operations are leaving mud or manure on the roadways. If you are, you have a responsibility to remove it to prevent environmental damage and an accident. Where necessary, place safety cones or other warnings around the area until it’s cleared. If you rely on employees to haul manure or move equipment on roadways, train your employees to follow these practices. And if you receive a call from a local official or law enforcement or a complaint from a resident, act quickly to meet your responsibilities for keeping mud and manure off the roadway.

OSU Extension Resources

Ohio State University Extension has several resources if you are interested in more information related to this topic. We encourage you to visit:
- OSU Extension Ag and Resource Law Program: Roadway & Equipment Law https://farmoffice.osu.edu/our-library/roadway-and-equipment-law
- OSU Extension Ag Safety Program https://agsafety.osu.edu/
References

Manure Spills: What You Need to Know and Environmental Consequences, North Dakota State University Extension, https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/environment-natural-resources/manure-spills-what-you-need-to-know-and-environmental-consequences

Manure Spill Prevention & Management: https://extension.umn.edu/manure-management/manure-spill-prevention

Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules, Section 4511.74: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4511.74

Assessing Milk Price and Risk Management for 2023

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

With harvest well under way to feed the cows for 2023, it is important to make sure we are assessing what the 2023 milk price may be and how to manage the risk of a milk price downturn. Talking to input suppliers for commodity/feed crops, it appears that prices may be higher in 2023 to produce feed. This makes it very important to manage the milk price risk for 2023. The September USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report has both the 2022 and 2023 all milk price forecast being up from the previous month. The current 2022 all milk price forecast is $25.45/cwt, while the 2023 all milk price is less at $22.70/cwt. The increased price was due to slower growth in cow numbers than was originally projected. This may mean a tighter margin year ahead for 2023 as crop input costs increase, while all milk price decreases. When doing your 2023 budgets this fall, it may be best to consider what milk price floor you can protect along with the USDA price forecast.

The two most common risk management tools used in Ohio are the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program and the Dairy Revenue Protection (DRP) program. The DMC program covers the margin between the DMC calculated feed price and the All Milk price. The table below shows what the prices were that went into the 2022 DMC calculation so far and the resulting margin. The greatest margin was in May at $12.51/cwt and has declined to $9.92/cwt in July. If USDA’s milk price forecast is accurate, this may lead to margins falling above the upper DMC margin of $9.50/cwt. Comparing your feed cost over the first 7 months of 2022 to the final feed cost for DMC each month can help you asses the protection that the DMC program can provide for your operation.

Month	Corn ($/bu)	Premium Alfalfa Hay ($/ton)	Soybean Meal ($/ton)	All Milk ($/cwt)	Final Feed Costs for DMC($/cwt)	Milk Margin Above Feed Costs for DMC($/cwt)
January	5.57	262.00	421.21	24.20	12.66	11.54
February	6.10	266.00	480.96	24.70	13.72	10.98
March	6.56	269.00	493.98	25.90	14.35	11.55
April	7.08	271.00	476.70	27.10	14.81	12.29
May	7.26	274.00	441.28	27.30	14.79	12.51
June	7.37	277.00	445.93	26.90	14.98	11.92
July	7.25	333.00	467.87	25.70	15.78	9.92

The second subsidized program to consider is the DRP, which can be used to set a floor under your milk price at your cost of production or lock in a profit if one is available on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). The DRP is managed through USDA-RMA by working with your local crop insurance agency. DRP has many more individual decisions, including being by the quarter instead of for an entire year and the option to cover as much or as little milk as you would want. DRP coverage contracts can be purchased after the close of trading each day. While it is recommended that you study milk futures and don’t cover your entire year’s production at the same time. If you had covered all of your 2023 production on Monday, September 26^th using Class III coverage, your average covered Class III price would have been $19.20/cwt with a premium of $0.5790/cwt, making your coverage after marketing $18.62/cwt. Class IV prices have continued to be above Class III. If Class IV coverage was chosen, the 2023 average would have been $20.16/cwt with a premium cost of $0.701/cwt for a coverage after marketing of $19.45/cwt. While it is very possible that the high for each quarter of 2023 has not happened yet. If contracts had been purchased at the current high point, 2023 Class III coverage after premiums would give you protection at $19.44/cwt, and for Class IV, the coverage would have been $19.89/cwt. As a point of reference, Quarter 1 maximum prices so far were reached in April and June of 2022.

Besides trading futures and options as a method of risk management, you may also want to discuss with your processor if forward contracts are available. While forward contracting is straight forward, it is much more complicated with milk than grain since Class I fluid milk cannot be forward contracted. On the other hand, if you sell into a Class III market, your processor or cooperative has the option to offer forward contrasts. While 2023 does not currently appear to have as much profit potential as 2022, through careful management of your expenses a profit can still be achieved. Utilizing these risk management tools can help determine what milk price to use as you plan your 2023 budgets.

USDA ERS Dairy Outlook: September 2022

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

The United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) released its Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook on September 16. This article will summarize the dairy outlook. To read the complete report, please visit this link: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/g445cd121/9w033934q/5138kq43q/LDP-M-339.pdf.

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported July milk production of 19.140 billion pounds produced by an average of 9.416 million head of dairy cattle. July milk production per cow averaged 2,033 pounds.

The all-milk price in July was reported at $25.70/cwt, $1.20 lower than June but $7.90 above July 2021. Alfalfa hay in July was $31/ton higher than in June and $70/ton higher compared to June 2021, coming in at $276/ton. The milk-feed ratio has been declining since February 2022. While the January to June 2022 all-milk price increased, it was more than offset by the increase in feed prices.

Dairy Forecast: 2022

The average number of cows has been reduced to 9.4 million head, but average production per cow came in higher at 24,075 lb/year. Reduced cow numbers and even production per cow, the milk production forecast has been reduced 0.3 billion to 226.5 billion pounds.

Type

Projected Price for 2022

Class III

$21.65/cwt

Class IV

$24.45/cwt

All-milk

$25.45/cwt

Dairy Forecast: 2023

USDA ERS is expecting the rate of growth in cow numbers to slow. For 2023, they are projecting 9,415 million head – a reduction of 20,000 head. Milk per cow in 2023 is forecasted to be unchanged at 24,300 lb/cow and total milk production revised at 0.4 billion pounds lower to 228.8 billion pounds.

Type

Projected Price for 2023

Class III

$19.70/cwt

Class IV

$20.85/cwt

All-milk

$22.70/cwt

Planning Ahead

Planning and budgeting are always important, and continued uncertainty makes these tasks even more critical. Most inputs will likely increase in cost compared to 2022 and USDA is currently projecting a decline in milk price. I encourage you to utilize OSU Extension Enterprise Budgets (https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/enterprise-budgets), meet with your veterinarian, consultants, and Extension Educator to critically evaluate the need for each input.
Preparing Equipment for Corn Silage Harvest

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County and Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

Corn silage is a critical ingredient in rations fed to dairy cattle, and in just a few weeks, the harvesting process will begin. Making high-quality corn silage is time sensitive and breakdowns can be costly. A breakdown in the field can lead to delayed harvest and lower quality silage, resulting in poor milk production and animal performance. Now is the time to be reviewing, servicing, and preparing equipment used in the silage harvest process so that down time doesn’t decrease your silage quality.

Inspection

All parts of your forage harvester must be inspected from front to back. The machine was likely cleaned at the end of the last harvest. If not, now is the time to give it a thorough cleaning. Check the condition and tension of belts. Are there any that are worn, loose, or cracked? If so, adjust the tension or replace with new ones. Refer to the owner’s manual for areas to lubricate. If an auto lube system is on the machine, check each line and bearing that is lubricated to be sure it is working properly. Did rodents damage any wiring over the winter storage period? If so, make necessary repairs. While going over the machine, attempt to wiggle any shaft at the bearing. Once belts and bearings are inspected and lubrication is complete, run the machine at a low speed to check moving parts, gauges, and listen for anything that doesn’t sound correct – slipping belts, worn bearings, etc.

Check engine oil, brake fluid, gearboxes, and any other fluids. Are there seals or hoses that are cracked, leaking, and in need of replacement? If safety shields and guards were removed for some reason, make sure they are replaced to provide protection from injury or death. Check the fire extinguisher to be sure it’s still functional. Machines should carry two fire extinguishers, one that is an ABC dry chemical and another that is a water cannon with foaming agent. Check lights, back-up beepers, and condition of the slow-moving vehicle (SMV) emblem. Clean and/or replace any of these items that need attention.

Be sure to inspect wear parts and consider if they have enough hard surface left for the season. For knives, the minimum is 3 mm. Adjusting the cutter bar and knives prior to corn silage harvest so that the cutter bar has its full adjustment range can save on in-season hassles. Checking knife torque prior to harvest is also recommended so that no knives come loose during harvest, causing costly internal damage to the machine. On the corn head, inspect the cleaners so that weeds don’t wrap around the header.

Kernel processor operation is critical to making high quality corn silage. While the true inspection of kernel processing score comes during harvest, each time you change hybrids, a proper inspection will keep the processor working through the season. Roll spacing, tooth sharpness, and springs should be inspected. Springs can weaken over time and develop cracks that lead to critical failure in-season. The roll gap should be between 2 to 3 mm depending on the processor design. A nickel is 1.95 mm thick and older processors should leave marks in the nickel. While newer, more aggressive systems should brush a dime off, a nickel/dime stack or feeler gauges can be used to check if rolls are the proper gap. Check multiple areas across the rolls for wear. The in-season inspection of kernel processors is done with a water separation or visual inspection of a 1-quart sample of silage. Both methods look for the number of whole kernels, with a criterion that no more than one whole kernel is present in the sample. The water method uses a 5-gallon bucket to float most of the fodder off the sample to make kernel separation easier. Once fodder is removed, sort kernels looking for any that are not nicked by the processor.

Checking Other Equipment

Besides the harvester, thoroughly inspect and service all other equipment used for harvest, as each plays a critical role in keeping harvest on time. For equipment running on the road, determine whether all brakes, lights, and mirrors are in working order. Lastly, before pulling a silage wagon or trailer on the road, ask yourself if the truck or tractor can, if necessary, stop the load quickly. Just because a machine can move a load does not mean it should.

Have a safe and successful harvest.

Sources:

Getting Ready for Corn Silage Harvest, Cornell University, https://blogs.cornell.edu/nwny-dairy-livestock-field-crops/2020/09/11/getting-ready-for-harvesting-corn-silage/

(This article originally appeared in the Farm & Dairy Newspaper)
Corn Silage Price Calculation

Dr. Seungki Lee, Agricultural Economist and Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University

View article at this link: Corn Silage Price Calculation
Preparing Your Dairy Herd for the Fall Football Season

Dr. Dwight Roseler, Adjunct Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University and Dairy Nutrition Specialist, Purina Animal Nutrition, Great Lakes Dairy

Cows love cooler weather and good forage. Just like an effective football coach, you must prepare and coach your herd to perform properly in the fall and prepare the cow herd to win each game. Corn silage harvest is in the rearview mirror for most Midwest dairy farms, and the best coaches prepare their cow herd, facilities (weight room), and staff to prepare for top performance. The fall season can be difficult on your cow herd and negatively affect milk production if the herd is not prepared. Shorter day length, lingering summer heat, cow fertility, hoof quality, bird infestations, and new corn silage are among factors to prepare.

Day Length

The most consistent research response many university and farm data in the northern U.S. has been the response in milk production to long day lighting. An added 4 to 6 lb/day of milk per cow occurs when 18 hours are provided. Lighting intensity must be a minimum of 20 footcandles across the entire barn along with 6 hours of darkness or red light. Lights need to be cleaned yearly or upgraded to gain the benefit for the cows.

Feed Changes

2022 corn silage across Ohio has higher starch, lower neutral detergent fiber (NDF) corrected to an organic matter basis (NDFom) and similar NDF 30 hr digestion compared to 2021 corn silage. Initial rumen starch Kd will be lower but increase with fermentation time. These trends will vary by county. Feeding corn silage that is 60 days fermented or longer is ideal to allow rumen starch and fiber Kd to increase and fermentation to stabilize. Nutrition clients successful in feeding new corn silage without production decline take great care in proper corn hybrid selection (floury), in season plant care (fungicide, plant health), effective kernel chop processing score (>77), rumen starch Kd (20%), and ration formulation [NDF digestibility (NDFd) >60, effective undigested NDF (eUNDF), buffer, etc.] Diet additives need to be altered from summer to properly prepare for fall [Diflourobenzonon (DBZ), dietary cation-anion difference (DCAD), buffer, minerals, passage rate, enzyme, etc.).

Lingering effect of summer heat

Summer heat and humidity in the Midwest will have a lingering effect on the cows. Cows that peaked in the summer can have lower body condition repletion due to intake and priority of nutrient demand to milk production. As day length shortens, the cow body condition repletion will shift more energy to body condition and less towards milk production. Lower fertility from summer heat results in lower quality embryos and lower fertility of summer bred cows. In addition, longer days open can increase herd days in milk and reduce overall herd production. Cows that stand excessive hours due to heat stress will have poor quality hoof tissue and more potential lameness. Update diets and intensify reproductive focus and hoof trimming to maintain proper herd performance.

Fall health challenges

As birds mount their annual flocking, they are drawn to indoor feeding and nesting areas in dairy barns. Birds can transmit disease, dysentery, consume grain from TMR, and reduce performance. In some herds, fall can result in more confined and unclean calving pens and poor air quality. This can result in more metritis, mastitis, and respiratory health challenges. These health challenges can illicit an immune response that can reduce milk production, possibly with severe challenges by 8 lb/day of milk per cow. Feed treatment options are available, some experimental, to reduce health and performance challenges in your herd. Discuss options with your nutritionist.

Do not overlook the obvious

There are many factors unrelated to the fall season that affect milk production. The ABC of air, bunk, and comfort always need to be part of a winning team. Coach up your cow team this fall for a winning season and Go Bucks.
Fall Manure Application and Cover Crops

Glen Arnold, Extension Field Specialist, Manure Management, Ohio State University

Corn silage harvest completion is the start of serious manure application efforts by dairy operations across Ohio. For some producers, manure application will continue through soybean and corn harvest this fall. The field application of manure, milking parlor water, outdoor lot runoff, and silage leachate is a necessary part of dairy farming. Manure transport and application is a significant expense on dairy farms and can easily approach $125 to 150/cow annually.

To best capture the nutrients, manure should be incorporated during application or as soon as possible afterwards. Livestock producers should also consider using cover crops to capture more of the manure nutrients, especially the nitrogen, and to also prevent soil erosion. Another benefit of cover crops that overwinter is the uptake of nitrogen early in the spring when fields are not yet suitable for traffic in March and April.

The most common cover crops used with livestock manure are cereal rye, wheat, and oats. However, farmers have also used radishes, clover, annual ryegrass, Sudan grass, or almost anything they are comfortable growing. If a farmer is participating in the H2Ohio program, be sure to work with your Soil and Water Conservation District to be certain your cover crop mixture meets the requirement to live through the winter months.

A cover crop that is excellent at recycling nitrogen is wheat. Like cereal rye, wheat germinates at low soil temperatures, overwinters, and is an easy cover crop to control the following spring or become a forage crop as wheatlage. It will capture large amounts of the available nitrogen from fall applied livestock manure. Dairy producers can spur growth with one or two applications of manure as the wheat grows next spring.

Cereal rye is the most commonly planted cool-season grass for capturing excess nitrogen. Because rye overwinters, research has shown it can capture and hold 25 to 50 lb/acre of nitrogen, in the organic form as roots and plant tissue. It germinates at lower temperatures than oats so it may be planted later, but less nitrogen will be recycled the later in the fall the rye is seeded. This is another cover crop that could be used as a forage crop in the spring.

Oats are sometimes used as a cover crop in the fall and need to be planted soon after silage harvest. Drilling oats improves germination and growth before frost. Some farmers in northwest Ohio have had great success surface seeding oats and incorporating with shallow tillage.

Cover crops can help livestock farmers recapture manure nutrients and conserve soil by reducing erosion. Livestock producers should consider Best Management Practices when applying manure. The goal should be to combine nutrient recovery and to protect water quality. Manure application rules in Ohio are influenced by watershed location. Check with your local Soil & Water Conservation District about the most current rules in your area.

Use 2022 Profitability As a Catalyst for Retirement Savings

David Marrison, Professor and OSU Extension Educator, Coshocton County, Ohio State University Extension

Typically as we move into the final quarter of the year, farm managers will start to examine their financial records in order to estimate the potential net farm income for the year and make plans on how to avoid the proverbial ”tax-man.”

All indications point to positive income returns to the dairy sector for 2022. The September WASDE (World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates) released on September 12 forecasted the 2022 all milk price at $25.45/cwt and estimates the 2023 all milk price at $22.70/ cwt. The remainder of the year looks favorable due to the shrinking U.S. dairy herd and increasing demand for dairy products.

Additionally, operations may have seen increased revenue due to cash grain sales, in spite of rising input costs. So, if 2022 is looking profitable, what can I do to reduce my income tax obligation? For many farm managers, it typically means prepaying expenses for the upcoming year or by investing in buildings, machinery, and equipment.

While these strategies all are useful as tax mitigation strategies, I would remind you that it is not a bad thing to have a profitable year and to pay taxes. As an added bonus, earning income and paying self-employment taxes as a farm manager has an impact on future social security retirement benefits.

For many farmers, social security will make up a sizable portion of their eventual retirement income. To qualify for future benefits under Social Security, an individual must earn 40 quarters or 10 years of wages or net profits. For 2022, the minimum earnings per quarter is $1,510. Individuals can earn up to four credits per year, making the total minimum earnings equivalent to $6,040 for 2022. Getting to 40 credits makes you eligible for benefits, but how much you will receive for retirement benefits is based on your 35 highest years of earnings. If you pay in at the minimum level, your social security retirement will be minimal. In high profitability years, managers should maximize the wages or profit that is subject to social security tax (to help with 35 high year average).

According to the Social Security Administration, the average (2022) social security income per month for a retired worker is $1,657 or $2,753 for a couple. If a retired couple has a family living of $60,000, then social security provides only 55% or $33,036 of the needed retirement income. So, this leads to the question, how will you make up the remaining amount needed for retirement and account for inflation?

So, if this year has been profitable for you, I would challenge you to examine ways to invest into retirement for you and your employees. In fact, many would contend the best investment you can make for the junior partner of a farming operation is by putting money in their retirement account, early and often. In a time when labor wage inflation is increasing, having a retirement plan as part of your compensation package is also an excellent employee benefit.

It is recommended that farmers work with a financial planner who specializes in retirement planning to discuss options. The following is offered as a primer on retirement planning options:

Individual Retirement Options- Individuals can invest after-tax dollars into certificates of deposits, bonds, stocks, and mutual funds which could serve as income sources for retirement. Individuals can also make contributions to a traditional or Roth individual retirement account (IRA) to help fund their retirement years. Let’s take a closer look at the IRAs:

Traditional IRA- With a traditional IRA, individuals contribute pre- or after-tax dollars and the money grows tax-deferred. The 2022 contribution limit is $6,000 unless the individual is over the age of 50. If over the age of 50, the individual can contribute up to $7,000. Individuals need over $6,000 of earned income to be eligible to contribute to a traditional IRA. There are phase out limitations if the individual is eligible to participate in an employer retirement plan. Withdrawals are subject to penalty if withdrawn before 59.5 years old. Minimum distributions are required once an owner is 72 years old (70.5 if you reached this age by 1/1/2020). Withdrawals are taxed as current income. A person’s yearly IRA contribution may qualify for a deduction on the individual’s tax form.

Roth IRA- A Roth IRA is an Individual Retirement Account to which you contribute after-tax dollars. While there are no current-year tax benefits, the contributions and earnings can grow tax-free, and can be withdrawn tax and penalty-free after age 59½ and after the account has been open for five years. The 2022 contribution limit is $6,000 unless the individual is over the age of 50. If over the age of 50, the individual can contribute up to $7,000. There are no required minimum distributions.

Business Retirement Options- Several vehicles exist for small businesses to use to help build retirement for both owners and employees. Let’s take a quick look at a few business options for retirements.

Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees (SIMPLE) IRA- Simple IRAs are for businesses with under 100 employees. These plans allow for an employee to defer up to $14,000 of wages with an additional $3,000 if the person is over the age of 50. The employer must match the employee’s contribution (dollar for dollar) up to 3% or make a nonelective contribution of 2% of the employee’s compensation. Income taxes are paid upon distribution. These IRAs can fund retirement for both owners and employees.

401(k) Plan- 401(k) plans allow for the elective deferral of up to $20,500 ($27,000 for over 50) of salary. Employers can match 5%, 10%, 20%, or more to bring total contributions to $61,000. The employee’s deferral is limited to 100% of their wages. Employers have the option of adding Roth 401(k)s. It should be noted the percentage match that is made for a contributing owner must be the same for qualified employees.

Solo-401(k)- These 401(k) plans are for farm sole proprietorship. These plans are for a one-person business that has no full-time W-2 employees. Spouses can also contribute if they work for the business. The overall contribution limit is $61,000 for 2022 ($20,500 employee and $40,500 as employer).

Simplified Employee Pension Plan (SEP)- These plans allow for employers to set aside retirement for themselves and their employees. Employer contributes an equal percentage for all employees up to 25% of their pay limited to $61,000 in 2022. The percentage for employees has to match what is contributed for the owner. Employer contribution for employees is tax deductible. Employers do not have to make contributions every year, allowing the business some flexibility based on business conditions.

Retirement Contribution Limits	< 50 years old	> 50 years old
Regular IRA	$6,000	$7,000
Roth IRA	$6,000	$7,000
SIMPLE IRA	$14,000	$17,000
401(k) Elective Deferral	$20,500	$27,000
Overall 401(k) Contributions (Employee + Employer)	$61,000	$67,500
SEP Contributions for employee (up to 25% of wages)	$61,000	$61,000
SEP Contributions for self-employed individual	$61,000	$61,000

More information about retirement choices for small businesses can be found at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3998.pdf and more information about the different type of retirement plans can be found at: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-sponsor/types-of-retirement-plans

Other Retirement Sources: Besides social security benefits and individual and business retirement accounts, farm managers can also explore other options for income to fund their retirement years. Some of these options can be found below:

Earnings from work while “retired”
Rental of land, facilities & machinery
Sale of land, facilities & machinery
Crop share lease arrangements
Spouse’s retirement program
Off-farm pensions plans
Saving accounts
Dividends from investments

Sale of stocks & bonds
Sale of personal assets & collectibles
Sale of personal residence (downsizing)
Off-farm rental properties
Reducing expenses
Consulting agreements
Loans from life insurance
My kids will provide support!

Summary: Increased profits may be realized by dairy farms in 2022. As we enter the last quarter of the year, it is recommended that farm managers crunch their financial numbers to determine whether funding retirement accounts would be a sound and wise investment for their operation. Managers are encouraged to seek professional council from financial professionals in analyzing the pros, cons, and risk of individual retirement options.

Sources:

World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, WASDE 628. September 12, 2022. Access at: https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0922.pdf

Choosing a Retirement Solution for Your Small Business. Source: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3998.pdf

Publication 560 – Retirement Plans for Small Businesses. Access at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p560.pdf

Publication 225 – Farmers Tax Guide. Access at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p225.pdf

A Farm Advisory Team Can Help You Succeed

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

Managing all the complexities of a dairy farm is no easy task. Weather, animal nutrition and health, crop variety selection, managing people, and monitoring financial performance are just a few of the items that add to the complexity. Fortunately, there are several people available as a team of advisors to help you address the challenges and contribute to your success.

Farm Advisory Team

You likely are meeting and working with many of the potential team members already, just on an individual basis. Your veterinarian, nutritionist, agronomist, lender, attorney, and Extension Educator are a few of these people. Each brings their own set of knowledge, skills, and experience to the table to analyze, diagnose, and provide recommendations to address challenges and the direction of your farm.

Initial Planning

Before assembling your advisory team, develop a list of questions, issues, or concerns you want assistance and guidance from your team members. Divide the list into immediate, short-term (less than one year), medium-term (one to five years), and long-term (greater than five years) goals or issues you wish to address.

If you’ve never done it before, completing a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis of your farm business may be beneficial. This analysis can help guide discussion and direction.

This is also a time to consider who would be a good person to be the facilitator of the team. A good facilitator supports the use of teams, is a good listener, can work with groups, and is well organized. The role of the facilitator is to guide discussion, keep the team focused on their task, and communicate accomplishments and expectations. The facilitator may also assist with periodic check-ins to monitor progress.

Getting Started

Forming the advisory team is not difficult. Again, you are already working in some capacity with each potential team member. The goal here is to bring all the members together at the same time.

After you have developed your list of goals and completed your SWOT Analysis, now it’s time to invite team members. A phone call or personal visit with each member is suggested. This allows you to discuss your reason(s) for inviting them, what you hope to accomplish, gauge their level of interest, discuss time commitment, and identify potential meeting dates and times. A call or face-to-face visit with the person who you identify as the facilitator is important. This person is key to the success of the team and needs to understand their role and expectations.

First Meeting

A written agenda is strongly encouraged. This helps everyone see the task at hand and keeps the team focused and on track.

Begin the first meeting with an introduction of members, including their role. While most may think they have a good understanding, a brief overview of your farm operation gets everyone on the same page. Describe farm size, cow numbers, animal housing, etc.

Following introductions, share with the team your SWOT Analysis and the concerns you’ve identified previously. Allow members to review, digest, and react to these. The beauty of an advisory team is that each member will approach an issue from a different perspective and provide possible solutions that others might not have otherwise considered. Remember…two heads are better than one. The facilitator will take notes and lead much of the discussion among members.

Wrapping Up

As the established ending time approaches, the facilitator needs to summarize the discussion, reference notes they have taken, and identify next steps. The next steps include the date, time, and location for the future meetings and tasks to complete (along with the person responsible). These should be sent to all team members. Depending upon the complexity and number of topics you wish to address with the team, the frequency of meetings may vary. I believe you should meet with your advisory team at least once a year.

Summary

Farm advisory teams can bring together those with diverse knowledge and skills all focused on your long-term success. Devote time to completing a SWOT Analysis, developing your goals and areas of concern, and invite team members to join you.

If you have questions about advisory teams, I encourage you to consult the resources listed below. Your local Extension Educator is a great resource to help you navigate the process.

Sources

An Advisory Team Approach to Your Farm Management, ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273124170_An_Advisory_Team_Approach_to_Your_Farm_Management

Conducting a SWOT Analysis of Your Agricultural Business, Ohio State University Extension, https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-42

Dairy Advisory Teams Tools for Facilitators, Penn State University Extension, https://extension.psu.edu/dairy-advisory-team-tools-for-facilitators

What are Dairy Advisory Teams? Penn State University Extension, https://extension.psu.edu/what-are-dairy-advisory-teams

(Originally published in Farm and Dairy, September 22, 2022)

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences,The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for June and July were $24.34 and $24.47/cwt, respectively. Class III milk closing price for June was $24.33/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $3.42 and $3.33/lb, respectively. The component price for protein is unchanged from the May issue, with butterfat price increasing as we approach Autumn. For this issue, the Class III future for August is $20.67/cwt, continuing to further decrease in September to $20.21/cwt.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. Since the May issue, the price of metabolizable protein (MP) has decreased by about 13%, alongside a slight increase in the price of net energy for lactation (NE_L). The current price of NE_L and MP are about 75 and 12% higher than the 5-year averages ($0.08/Mcal and $0.41/lb, respectively), and physically effective neutral detergent fiber (pe-NDF) is about 5% lower than the 5-year average ($0.09/lb). These nutrient costs are reflective of recent trends in ingredient costs, largely following swings in the cost of protein and energy ingredients.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the July issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $15.70 and $16.28/cwt, respectively. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, July 22, 2022.

*Estimate of Nutrient Unit Costs*
Nutrient name	Estimate
NEl - 3X (2001)	0.147764	**
Metabolizable Protein (MP, g/kg)	0.459976	**
e-NDF	0.085522	~
ne-NDF	-0.119643	*
- A blank means that the nutrient unit cost is likely equal to zero
- ~ means that the nutrient unit cost may be close to zero
- * means that the nutrient unit cost is unlikely to be equal to zero
- ** means that the nutrient unit cost is most likely not equal to zero

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on July 22, 2022 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set in this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, July 22, 2022.

*Calibration set*
Name	Actual [/T]	Predicted [/T]	Lower limit	Upper limit	Corrected	75.0% CI	75.0% CI
Alfalfa Hay - 40 NDF 20 CP 150 RFV	210	263.233	225.063	301.403	289.744	251.574	327.914
Blood Meal, ring dried	1630	821.571	750.396	892.746	-	-	-
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	481	323.86	308.355	339.365	-	-	-
Corn Grain, ground, dry	230	304.954	269.43	340.478	-	-	-
Corn Silage, 32-38% DM	60.75	100.31	87.067	113.553	100.31	87.067	113.553
Cotton Seed Meal, 41% CP	430	389.104	364.367	413.842	-	-	-
Cotton Seed, Whole w lint	440	396.189	342.135	450.244	-	-	-
Distillers Dried Grains w Sol	250	311.232	285.165	337.299	-	-	-
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	600	652.305	610.108	694.502	-	-	-
Gluten Feed, dry	200	275.17	255.725	294.615	-	-	-
Gluten Meal, dry	660	673.063	626.915	719.212	-	-	-
Hominy	200	264.144	237.221	291.066	-	-	-
Meat Meal, rendered	515	519.284	487.323	551.246	-	-	-
Solvent Extracted Canola Meal	481	329.051	312.931	345.172	-	-	-
Soybean Hulls	208	148.139	102.68	193.599	-	-	-
Soybean Meal, expellers	534	547.72	519.828	575.612	-	-	-
Soybean Meal, solvent 44%	460	410.335	388.693	431.977	-	-	-
Soybean Meal, solvent, 48%	470	474.25	450.561	497.939	-	-	-
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	530	475.91	443.207	508.613	-	-	-
Tallow	1145	709.85	576.69	843.01	-	-	-
Wheat Bran	170	171.624	141.065	202.183	-	-	-
Wheat Middlings	175	203.483	177.114	229.853	-	-	-

*Appraisal set*
Name	Actual [/T]	Predicted [/T]	Pred.-Act.	75.0% CI	75.0% CI	Corrected
Alfalfa Hay - 32 NDF 24 CP 190 RFV	0	290.595	290.595	259.472	321.718	370.128
Alfalfa Hay - 36 NDF 22 CP 170 RFV	0	287.16	287.16	252.723	321.597	340.182
Alfalfa Hay - 44 NDF 18 CP 130 RFV	0	249.429	249.429	206.636	292.223	249.429
Alfalfa Hay - 48 NDF 16 CP 110 RFV	0	233.153	233.153	185.126	281.18	206.642
Bakery Byproduct Meal	0	299.521	299.521	261.036	338.007	-
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	0	224.624	224.624	198.274	250.974	-
Citrus Pulp dried	0	241.904	241.904	218.093	265.714	-
Fish Menhaden Meal, mech.	0	676.096	676.096	633.738	718.455	-
Molasses, Sugarcane	0	219.107	219.107	186.075	252.138	-

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, July 22, 2022.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	_{48% Soybean meal}	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feather meal	_{Soybean meal - expeller}	Whole roasted soybeans
Corn silage	Wheat bran	Soybean hulls
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	44% Soybean meal
Gluten feed	Whole cottonseed	Solvent extracted canola meal
Meat meal		Blood meal
_{Corn, ground, dry}		41% Cottonseed meal
Hominy
Wheat middlings

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace MP by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, July 22, 2022.

*Estimate of Nutrient Unit Costs*
Nutrient name	Estimate
NEl - 3X (2001)	0.141102	**
RDP	0.147803	~
Digestible RUP	0.424871	**
e-NDF	0.103028	~
ne-NDF	-0.076797	~
- A blank means that the nutrient unit cost is likely equal to zero
- ~ means that the nutrient unit cost may be close to zero
- * means that the nutrient unit cost is unlikely to be equal to zero
- ** means that the nutrient unit cost is most likely not equal to zero

Recognizing and Managing Heat Stress in Dairy Cattle

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

We have experienced high temperatures and uncomfortable humidity recently. These conditions are especially stressful for dairy cattle. This article will discuss the effects of and tips for managing heat stress in dairy cattle.

Cows generate heat through normal activities of eating, walking, and producing milk. Animals become stressed when the amount of heat produced is greater than what they can get rid of through breathing, sweating, or by natural or mechanical ventilation.

Heat stress is a concern because it costs you money. Reduced feed intake, lowered milk production, poor reproduction, and increased disease potential are all reasons to be concerned about the effects of heat stress on dairy cattle.

When Do Animal Experience Heat Stress?

Cows begin to feel heat stress at temperatures much lower than do people. Depending upon their level of production, temperatures as low as 65 to 72 degrees Fahrenheit can cause stress. The table below shows the effects of the temperature-humidity index (THI) on dairy cattle stress levels.

(Source: University of Minnesota)

Indicators of Heat Stress

In addition to air temperature as an indicator of potential heat stress, animals often exhibit signs that indicate their level of discomfort. These include physical appearance, respiration, body temperature, and milk production. Literature from the University of Minnesota is provided below to describe these heat stress indicators.

Animals breathing with their mouths open and panting with an extended neck are physical signs to observe. Dairy cattle have a normal respiration rate between 40 and 60 breaths per minute. If 10% or more of the animals have a rate exceeding 100 breaths per minute, steps must be taken immediately to cool these animals.

The normal body temperature of an adult cow is between 101.5 and 102.5 degrees Fahrenheit. If more than 5% of the animals have a body temperature greater than 105 degrees Fahrenheit, this is an emergency.

Milk production declines as animals experience greater levels of heat stress. Under mild conditions, a decline of 2.5 lb/head/day is not uncommon. Under mild to moderate conditions, a loss of 6 lb/head/day can be expected and under moderate to severe heat stress, a decline of about 9 lb/head/day is possible. A decrease of more than 10 lb/head/day is a life-threatening condition.

Techniques to Minimize Heat Stress

Penn State University recommends using heat abatement techniques including shade, air, and water (SAW). Discussion about each of these is provided below.

Shade is used to protect animals from solar radiation and may include trees, buildings, cloth, or structures. If shade areas are constructed, a minimum of 12 feet in height is recommended.

Air exchange and circulation are two important considerations. Providing air exchange about every minute or less is critical for removing gases, heat, and moisture from buildings. Mechanically ventilated buildings accomplish this with fans and inlets. Naturally ventilated buildings rely on proper building orientation and wind speed to maximize air exchange. Air circulation speeds of 3.5 to 5 miles/hour are accomplished with mechanical ventilation. The key is to use the appropriate size and number of fans strategically placed to maximize animal comfort.

Water is necessary for drinking and evaporative cooling purposes. According to Penn State University Extension, water consumption by dairy animals can increase as much as 20% during hot weather. Make certain you have adequate supplies of high-quality water available. Water used for evaporative cooling helps increase heat transfer from the animals. There are two types of evaporative cooling systems: direct and indirect. The direct system periodically applies water to the animal’s skin to draw heat from the body. The indirect system reduces the air temperature around the animals to increase the rate of heat transfer.

Summary

Heat stress is a concern when managing dairy cattle during the hot and humid months of the year. If not managed, heat stress can result in animal discomfort, health concerns, reproductivity issues, reduced feed intake, and poor milk production. I encourage you to talk with your veterinarian, nutritionist, and Extension professional for additional advice in managing heat stress.

Sources:

Heat Stress in Dairy Cattle, University of Minnesota

Heat Stress Abatement Techniques for Dairy Cattle, Penn State University Extension
(Originally published in Farm & Dairy, July 15, 2022)
Summer Mastitis – Insights on cause, signs, and prevention
Dr. Luciana da Costa, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Although it can happen year-round, cases of summer mastitis as the name implies increases from June to August, as the combination of wet weather and warmer temperatures encourage fly activity. It can affect beef and dairy cattle (heifers and dry cows as well). Below we briefly discuss the cause, the signs, and prevention measures for this important disease.

Cause

The primary causal organism is the bacteria Trueperella pyogenes (previously classified as Corynebacterium, Actinomyces and Arcanobacterium) in combination (or not) with other organisms (Streptococcus spp, Fusobacterium spp) to cause infection. Important to consider in the pathogenicity of disease are factors intrinsic to Trueperella pyogenes, such as the presence of virulence factors related to tissue damage (pyolisin) and others associated with mucosal adherence and colonization (neuraminidases, fimbriae, and collagen-binding protein). Additionally, Hydrotaea irritans, an insect closely related to the housefly is commonly considered to be the primary vector for the bacteria to cause summer mastitis in cattle. However, not only the presence of flies can cause the disease, but damage to the teat, trauma and irritation of the udder are also important risk factors.

Signs and Symptoms

Summer mastitis is a severe form of mastitis, causing udder damage with cows presenting high temperature and toxemia. Infected quarters become swollen, hard to touch, and not uncommonly lost. When stripping the infected quarter, the content can present a malodorous smell, and curds/traces of blood may appear as the damage to tissue progresses. Other symptoms can include irritability (as large numbers of flies often group around the udder, causing cows to kick frequently), high somatic cell count, reduction in milk yield, and a tendency toward increased culling risk since the recovery rate is low, even when treatment starts at an early stage. Still, some farmers decide to accept a loss in milk yield and sacrifice the infected quarter to save the cow – imperative in those cases is an early start on treatment and careful evaluation to preserve animal well-being. Better yet is to invest in preventive measures to reduce the chance of cows becoming sick.

Prevention Measures and Treatment

Not different from other diseases, prevention is the ideal strategy as much as possible. The main topics that should be considered to prevent or ultimately treat those affected cows include:
1. Fly control is the first line of defense against summer mastitis. In a non-organic system, a pour-on suspension applied early in the grazing season before eggs and larvae start to develop will prevent the fly population from being out of control. Several synthetic pour-on products, such as permethrin and deltamethrin, are available to control flies. Those products that are to be applied along the back of the animal usually will give protection for 4 weeks, but in times when the incidence of summer mastitis is high, they should be considered more frequently. Be aware of withdrawal time that varies among products (meat from 3 to 14 days and milk from 0 to 6 hours). Organic farms cannot apply these products and should rely on other strategies, such as fly traps, grazing management, teat stripping, and isolation of the animal (details below).
1. Grazing Conditions. Reduce larval habitats attractive to flies by removing overgrown vegetation and tall weeds which can provide cover for flies. Also, keep the area dry by eliminating standing water. Avoid cows to be near areas where likely there will be high numbers of active flies, such as soggy pastures and fields next to dense woods where flies can shelter.
1. Teat Damage. Monitoring fly numbers surrounding the udder is advised as a great number of flies will increase the likelihood of infection. Animals with any teat damage should be housed if possible.
1. Isolation of infected animals varies in accordance to the evaluation of condition or teat damage and the number of flies present in the environment. Affected animals should be isolated for better monitoring.
1. Stripping of the udder should be undertaken as often as practical but could present a challenge due to the painful and edematous teat/gland. Be careful when doing this as kicking is common due to discomfort. When stripping, please use a container (not stripping on the floor) to avoid the risk of spreading infection. More details on stripping can be found in English Stripping to control mastitis - what are the facts behind it_Final_English.pdf (osu.edu) or Spanish Stripping to control mastitis - what are the facts behind it_SPANISH_Final.pdf (osu.edu).
1. Consult your veterinarian that will consider various drugs, including parenteral antibiotic injections and/or intramammary antibiotics as well as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to reduce fever, swelling, and pain.
Seeding Perennial Forages in Late Summer
Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

August is the second good window of opportunity of the year for establishing perennial forages, spring being the first good planting time when conditions allow. August is also the ideal time for filling in gaps in seedings made this spring. The primary risk with late summer forage seedings is having sufficient moisture for seed germination and good plant establishment before cold weather arrives. The decision to plant should be made for each individual field, considering soil moisture status and the rainfall forecast. Rainfall and adequate soil moisture in the few weeks immediately after seeding is the primary factor affecting successful forage establishment. It is best to not use a companion crop with new late summer forage seedings because the companion crop can compete for moisture and slow the development of the desirable forage stand enough to compromise its winter survival.

No-Till Seedings

No-till seeding is an excellent choice to conserve soil moisture for seed germination in late summer. Make sure that the field surface is relatively level and smooth if you plan to no-till because you will have to live with any field roughness for multiple years of harvesting operations. No-till into wheat stubble would be an excellent option.

Sclerotinia crown and stem rot is a concern with no-till seedings of alfalfa or red clover in late summer in fields with a recent history of red clover. This pathogen causes white mold on alfalfa and clover seedlings and infects plants during the cool rainy spells in late October and November. Early August plantings dramatically improve the ability of alfalfa to resist or tolerate the infection. Late August or early September seedings are very susceptible to this disease, with mid-August plantings being intermediate.

In a no-till situation, minimize competition from existing weeds by applying glyphosate burndown before planting. Herbicide-resistant weeds, such as marestail, create a very difficult situation, and there are no effective control options in no-till management, so conventional tillage for seedbed prep is probably a better choice in those situations.

Conventional Tillage Seedings

Prepare a firm seedbed to ensure good seed-to-soil contact. Be aware that too much tillage depletes soil moisture and increases the risk of soil crusting. Follow the "footprint guide" that soil should be firm enough for a footprint to sink no deeper than one-half inch. Tilled seedbeds usually do not need a pre-plant herbicide.

Patching Spring Seedings

Where gaps exist in seedings made this spring, it is possible to drill in seed now, even in alfalfa. Autotoxicity will not be a limiting factor in alfalfa seedings made this spring. Alfalfa plants that are less than a year old do not release enough autotoxic compounds into the surrounding soil to harm new seedlings of alfalfa. So, this summer is the last opportunity to try to “patch-in” alfalfa in thin areas of alfalfa stands seeded this spring. By next spring, autotoxicity will be a concern.

Grass and/or broadleaf weeds are probably present in thin or weak areas of new spring seedings. As soon as possible, consider applying a grass herbicide to pure legume stands or a broadleaf herbicide if needed in pure grass stands. If broadleaf weeds are present in legume stands or mixed grass-legume stands, effective herbicide options are much more limited because most broadleaf herbicides labeled for use in alfalfa or other legume forages are only effective when the weeds are quite small. Before applying a herbicide, check the label for pre-plant time intervals that may be required. Use only herbicides with little or no time interval between application and seeding forages. Take a cutting in early August and then immediately drill seed into the thin areas. Try to time drilling the seed when you see some rain in the forecast, especially if the soil is dry.

The following steps improve the chances for stand establishment success, regardless of what type of seeding you are making:
- Soil fertility and pH: The recommended soil pH for alfalfa is 6.5 to 6.8. Forage grasses and clovers should have a pH of 6.0 or above. The optimal soil phosphorus level for forage legumes is 30 to 50 ppm Mehlich-3 and for grasses 20 to 30 ppm Mehlich-3. The optimal soil potassium level is 120 to 170 ppm for most of our soils.
- Check herbicide history of field. A summary table of herbicide rotation intervals for alfalfa and clovers is available at http://go.osu.edu/herbrotationintervals. Forage grasses are not included in that table, so check the labels of any herbicides applied to the field in the last 2 years for any restrictions that might exist for forage grass seedings.
- Seed selection: Be sure to use high quality seed of adapted varieties and use fresh inoculum of the proper Rhizobium bacteria for legume seeds. “Common” seed (variety not stated) is usually lower yielding and not as persistent, and from our trials, the savings in seed cost is lost within the first year or two through lower forage yields.
- Planting date: Planting of alfalfa and other legumes should be completed between late July and mid-August in Northern Ohio and between early and late August in Southern Ohio. Most cool-season perennial grasses can be planted a little later. Check the Ohio Agronomy Guide for specific guidelines (see http://go.osu.edu/forage-seeding-dates).
- Planter calibration: If coated seed is used, be aware that coatings can account for up to one-third of the weight of the seed. This affects the number of seeds planted in planters set to plant seed on a weight basis. Seed coatings can also dramatically alter how the seed flows through the drill, so calibrate the drill or planter with the seed to be planted and don’t depend on planter calibration charts. There is an excellent video on calibrating drills available at https://forages.osu.edu/video.
- Seed placement: The recommended seeding depth for forages is one-quarter to one-half inch deep. It is better to err on the side of planting shallow rather than too deep.
Do not harvest a new perennial forage stand this fall. The ONLY exception to this rule is perennial and Italian ryegrass plantings. Mow or harvest those grasses to a stubble height of two and a half to three inches in late November to improve winter survival. Do NOT cut any other forage species in the fall, especially legumes.

Scout your new forage seeding this fall on a regular basis. Post-emergence herbicide options exist for alfalfa to control late summer and fall emerging winter annual broadleaf weeds. A mid- to late fall application of Butyrac (2,4-DB), bromoxynil, Pursuit, or Raptor are the primary herbicide options for winter annual broadleaf weeds. Fall application is much more effective than a spring application for control of these weeds, especially if wild radish/wild turnip are in the weed mix. Pursuit and Raptor can control winter annual grasses in the fall in pure legume stands but cannot be used in a mixed alfalfa/grass planting. Consult the 2022 Weed Control Guide for Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois (https://extensionpubs.osu.edu/crops/field-crops/) and always read the specific product label for guidelines on timing and rates before applying any product.
Annual Winter Forage Following Wheat Harvest

Jamie Hampton, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Auglaize County, Ohio State University Extension

The wheat has been harvested and the fields are now ready for a different purpose. Some farmers will leave them fallow for the winter, others will plant double crop soybeans, but forages for winter grazing are an option.

Most producers look to extending the grazing season to help reduce the need for storage of feed. Extending the grazing season can be accomplished by seeding into a harvested wheat field. While grazing cover crops does reduce the need for winter storage, there are other benefits to acknowledge. Grazing cover crops provides the opportunity for a significant savings in feeding costs, improved soil health, and grazing offers higher nutrient values when compared to harvested and stored forages.

While corn silage and alfalfa are the most common selections for stored forage, the list of choices for grazing is extensive, including crops such as cereal grains, oats, annual ryegrass, peas, vetch, Sudan grass, brassicas, and clovers. The crop that is selected will depend on planting date and end goal. When grazing cover crops, most producers are looking to get the most out of the crop and tend to plant a multispecies mix to provide the best nutrition for their cattle.

Annual or Italian ryegrass can be planted in late summer to produce a high-quality forage in late fall to early winter. Sudan grass, sorghum x Sudan grass hybrids, pearl millet, and forage sorghum grow rapidly in summer and produce acceptable yields. The brown midrib trait in sorghum has been shown to produce a forage as good as corn silage with less starch.

Oats and spring triticale can produce a harvestable yield by mid-October when planted in late summer. By November, this crop could be in the boot stage. Oats will not die until temperatures dip to the mid-20’s for several hours, and other grasses can survive even longer before they go dormant. This allows for late fall and early winter grazing.

Annual legume crops offer high nutritional values as a grazed crop but only in the first harvest because they do not regrow. Companion planting with legumes encourages better development of the grass crop. Field peas or soybeans added to oats and spring triticale can increase crude protein 3 to 4 percentage points when planted together. Some other annual legumes to consider would be Alyce clover and lablab (bean plant).

When including brassicas, there are a few things that need to be considered. Brassicas have very high nutrient concentrations and should be considered a concentrated feed. Research has shown some brassicas to be 18% or more crude protein and have levels of total digestible nutrients equal to or greater than 70%. Brassicas should not be more than 75% of the animal’s diet. Brassicas are not as palatable as some other forages, so it is recommended to introduce them slowly so that the animal will acclimate to the taste of the forage or use an intensive grazing strategy.

There are some management practices to keep in mind when planning for extended grazing. The cover crops that are planted should be of high-quality seed because they are providing a crop that will be harvested, just not mechanically. Consider plant disease issues; for example, you do not want to plant brassicas in the same field for more than two consecutive years because this will lead to disease buildup. When choosing your crops, consider drought resistance and if they cause health issues in your livestock. When planning to graze your summer seeded cover crops, be sure to check for any regulations concerning government programs. For example, if you participate in the H2Ohio program, you must have a grazing management plan to go along with your nutrient management plan. You can do this with your Soil and Water Conservation Board.

Double cropping annual forages offers many opportunities to produce and utilize supplemental forage within cropping systems. It increases the efficiency of land use while protecting the soil, which would otherwise sit idle and without cover for an extended period (Mark Sulc, Ohio State University).

Resources cited:

https://hayandforage.com/article-2152-are-greens-good-for-you-.html

https://dairy.osu.edu/sites/dairy/files/imce/DIBS/DIBS31-16_Short_Season_Forages_to_Fill_Supply_Gaps_for_Dairy_Farms.pdf

https://ocj.com/2019/06/emergency-forages-for-planting-early-to-mid-summer/
Fertilizing Perennial Forages on Dairy Farms

Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science and Greg LaBarge, Agronomic Field Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Early fall is one of the best times to topdress maintenance fertilizer on perennial forages. Soils are usually firm in September, and autumn topdressing provides needed nutrients for good winter survival of the forage stand and vigorous regrowth the following spring. Remember that hay crops will remove about 50 lb of K₂O and 12 lb of P₂O₅ per ton of dry hay harvested. Adequate amounts of soil P and K are important for the productivity and persistence of forage stands. However, nutrient over-application harms the environment and can harm animals fed those forages.

A recent soil test should always guide what nutrients to apply and how much. If nutrient deficiencies are suspected, then tissue tests combined with the soil test values can be helpful in the diagnosis of nutrient issues. When recommendations call for high rates of phosphorus and potassium, there is an advantage to splitting the application, with half applied this autumn and the remainder applied next spring after the first cutting when soils are firm.

Ohio State University Extension has an Excel tool to help you determine the right rates to apply based on your soil test report. The OSU Fertility Recommendation Calculator and a user guide are available at https://forages.osu.edu/forage-management/soil-fertility-forages. We highly recommend using this tool to check any fertilizer recommendations you receive, as we have seen some fertilizer recommendations that are too high.

It is crucial not to over apply P and K. Many dairy farms have high levels of soil P, making the expense of fertilizer P unnecessary. When soil test P exceeds the agronomic level of 50 ppm, there is increased potential of P losses into streams and lakes. Applying too much K will result in luxury consumption by the forage plants, leading to excessive levels of K in the forage that can cause animal health problems.
Corn Silage and Foliar Disease

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

Corn planting this year happened over a two-month time frame, making pollination very spread out this year. Currently, the earlier planted corn is from full pollination to just beginning brown silk, while later planted corn is still vegetative. The ideal time to scout corn for fungal disease and for fungicide application is from tassel through pollination. Most fields we have scouted this year show low disease pressure.

When fungal disease is present in corn silage at harvest, research shows a fungicide application at VT-R1 to control these fungal diseases reduced fiber concentration and improved nutritional value compared to the untreated control. Corn treated with fungicide had improved fermentation and more consistent dry matter values. When disease was severe, dry matter yield was also improved. When fungal disease infects corn, one of its natural responses to stop the spread of the disease is to increase lignin around the infected area which reduces digestibility.

2021 was the first-year tar spot was found in Ohio. While it is not a new disease to the mid-west, it is to Ohio. Even while working with multiple universities across the Midwest, we only have limited knowledge on its management and effects on corn silage. Currently, there are no confirmed outbreaks of tar spot in Ohio this year, but a few samples that look like tar spot have been submitted to the lab for diagnosis. Previous years have shown us that later planted corn may be at the greatest risk to losses from tar spot. One of the greatest risks to corn silage is from severe infection causing premature plant death. Tar spot reduces silage moisture, digestibility, and energy which can also lead to poor fermentation with lower silage moisture and plant sugars. Scouting for tar spot is critical and should be done weekly from tassel through R3. Lesions will be small, black, raised spots appearing on both sides of the leaves, along with leaf sheaths and husks. Spots may be on green or brown dying tissue. Spots on green tissue may have tan or brown halos. If tar spot is found in fields, a fungicide application can help slow disease spread, but be cautious of the preharvest interval of the fungicide used with some being as long as 30 days and others as short as 7 days. With silage harvesting beginning around R4 growth stage, 50% milk line, the decision to use fungicide should be closely monitored. Another option is to make sure your harvesters are ready if the corn dies prematurely so that silage moisture is at least correct with tar spot killing plants in less than two weeks under ideal conditions.

Other leaf diseases, such as gray leaf spot, northern corn leaf blight, common rust, and southern rust can also decrease digestibility and fermentation, just not as rapidly as tar spot. Gray leaf spot has gray to tan lesions developing between the veins and are distinctly rectangular with smooth, linear margins along the leaf veins. Lesions are slow to develop, needing 14 to 21 days and begin in the lower leaves. Northern corn leaf blight lesions typically have a tan color and are elliptical or cigar shaped with smooth rounded ends. Common rust is what we usually have in Ohio, but on occasion, southern rust may be present. Common rust is rarely of economic concern, but the development of southern rust can have economic yield impacts. The colors are different between the two; common rust is brownish to a cinnamon-brown while southern rust has a reddish orange appearance. Southern rust mostly develops on the top of the leaf and may be on the stems and husks, while common rust is on both sides of the leaves and generally only on the leaves. The last difference is in shape and distribution. Common rust pustules are large and oval to elongated with a scatted appearance over the leaf. Southern rust is small, circular, and evenly distributed over the leaf. Identifying the diseases present in your corn field can help you choose the best fungicide when they are needed.

Each disease has slightly different environmental conditions that they thrive in, but these conditions can overlap or happen within days of each other. Gray leaf spot is favored by warm temperatures between 70 and 90°F and high relative humidity. Northern corn leaf blight also favors wet conditions but prefers cooler weather of 64 to 80°F. Tar spot is a cool weather disease favoring temperatures from 59 to 70°F during humid conditions of 85% relative humidity or more, keeping leaves wet for greater than 7 hours. Another cool weather disease is common rust, with optimal disease conditions being temperatures of 61 to 77°F and 6 hours of leaf wetness. Southern rust is more of a late season disease, preferring the warmer temperatures of 77 to 88°F.

Maybe the biggest concern for dairy producers is mycotoxin contamination of corn silage and high moisture corn with many nutritionists encouraging levels below 1 ppm in corn utilized in the lactating cow ration. Fungicides may have the ability to reduce mycotoxin levels and improve silage digestibility.

Deoxynivalenol (DON) is one of the primary vomitoxins in Ohio corn. It is caused by the fungus Fusarium graminearum and causes both Gibberella stalk rot and Gibberella ear rot, making it of concern for both the grain and forage quality. One study under low Gibberella disease pressure, revealed that in all cases but one, an application of fungicide at R1 reduced DON levels by at least 50%. The trial was then expanded the second year, which was a high disease pressure year with DON levels as high as 17.9 ppm in one hybrid and 30.3 ppm in the other hybrid. Again, fungicide had little effect on these two brown midrib (BMR) hybrids yield or forage quality, but a few products did consistently lower DON levels. A 2021 corn silage trial in Ohio showed a vomitoxin reduction from 3.1 ppm in the control to 0.5 ppm with Miravis Neo application. The products that consistently lowered DON levels contained a triazole as one of their active ingredients, with prothioconazole being the most common. Three products that researchers across the country are seeing lower DON levels with when disease is present are Proline, Delaro, and Miravis Neo. The ideal application window from multiple studies has been R1, which is from the point when silks emerge until they become dry about 10 days later. This application is primary for Gibberlla ear rot, which infects the ears during pollination. This does create some logistical issues with application, requiring high clearance sprayers with drops for best results then over the top booms followed by an aerial application.
Corn Silage Harvest Safety Should Be Priority One

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County and Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County

Corn silage harvest is a busy time of year, with the quality of corn silage determining your ability to produce milk for the next year. During this busy time of year, safety is critical with equipment moving all over the farm and harvest causing many long days and short nights.

Hazards of Silo/Bag/Bunker Gases

While silo gases are the most dangerous, these same gases are trapped in closed bags and bunkers during fermentation. These deadly gases, nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide, are a natural result of ensiling. Nitrogen dioxide is heavier than air and may be seen as a reddish to yellowish-brown haze. Since it is heavier than air, it can be found near the base of a recently filled silo. It has a bleach-like smell, and you will experience a burning sensation in your nose, throat, and chest. Instant death may result from nitrogen dioxide inhalation.

Carbon dioxide fills the headspace of the silo, replacing the air. Exposure to these two gases happens most often in the first three weeks after the silo is filled. Tower silos and areas around stored silage should be treated as confined spaces. Due to this risk of exposure, it is suggested that you stay out of the silo for the first three weeks, unless wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus.

Besides holding deadly gases, silos can also become the sites of fires and explosions. Silo fires often result from ensiling feeds too low in moisture, usually below 45% moisture. The heating of the materials in combination with air leaks in the silo structure can allow a fire to start anywhere within the structure and to continue burning for long periods of time. Once a fire starts, it is very difficult to control or stop.

Safety Around Machinery

During silage harvest, there are risks of mechanical injuries around equipment, falls, roadway accidents, and crushing. To help prevent these injuries, be sure all shields and guards are always in place on equipment. Repairing a broken shield is as critical as replacing a broken chain. While you can have the best of intentions to not get caught in moving parts, all it takes is one slip or trip for major injuries to occur. Also be sure PTO shields are in place on silage wagons; the operations levers are only inches away from that shaft. Silage harvesters have many fast-moving unguarded parts around the head and the velocity of the silage leaving the chopper alone can cause injury. Make sure the machine is turned off when leaving the seat and that all moving parts have stopped before beginning repairs. Also, never allow anyone else near the chopper while it is running.

Be very cautious of falls. These can happen when climbing a silo, covering a bunker, or repairing a piece of equipment. Use ladders when climbing and look for ways to use a safety harness when over 6 feet in the air. In other industries, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires fall protection practices to be implemented when working over 6 feet in the air.

Often during harvest, silage is hauled down the road. Now is the time to inspect lights and turn signals on tractors, trucks, trailers, and wagons. Also be sure any slow-moving vehicle (SMV) is equipped with a highly reflective SMV sign. During harvest, be sure to wash SMV signs and lights so that they can easily be seen. Also make window and mirror washing on all equipment a daily requirement. If tractors do not have a left-hand mirror, look for a way to add one so that you can easily check for motorists that may be passing you while you are trying to turn left.

With all the additional moving equipment around the farm, be cautious of people walking around moving equipment. First be sure everyone is aware of the additional equipment moving around the farm. If backup beepers have been turned off or disabled in any way, now is the time to turn them back on or repair them. While they are loud and annoying, they do save lives. One additional safety strategy is to have everyone wear bright colors so that they can be easily seen, especially if working after dusk. The addition of reflective vests improves visibility.

Rollover Safety

Tractor rollover is a concern when packing silage piles and bunkers. According to the National Ag Safety Database, tractor overturns account for an average of 130 deaths per year in the U.S., with 80% of overturns occurring by experienced operators and one in 10 operators will overturn a tractor in their lifetime.

A properly sized tractor must be equipped with a rollover protective structure and a seat belt. Rollover protective structures became available in the mid-1960s. These structures were not available for all new tractors until the mid-1970s. They were not standard equipment on new tractors until 1985. But these structures and seat belts are 99.9% effective in preventing deaths due to tractor overturns.

Summary

Silage harvest is a busy time and brings with it potential hazards that can cause injury or death. We encourage you to take the time now to inspect equipment, make needed repairs or adjustments, and use extreme caution.

Additional resources are available from the Ohio State University Extension Ag Safety and Health Program at: https://agsafety.osu.edu/.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for April and May were at $23.29/cwt and $23.50/cwt, respectively. Class III milk closed higher than predicted for May at $24.42/cwt, with protein and butterfat prices at $3.42/lb and $3.14/lb, respectively. The component price for protein is substantially increased over the March issue, exceeding the price per pound of butterfat. The improved component prices should help to offset increased feed costs due to changes in global feed ingredient markets. For this issue, the Class III future for June is $24.34/cwt, continuing with a slight increase in July to $24.47/cwt.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The current price of net energy for lactation (NE_L) and metabolizable protein (MP) are about 61 and 30% higher than the 5-year averages ($0.08/Mcal and $0.41/lb, respectively), and physically effective neutral detergent fiber (pe-NDF) is about 18% higher than the 5-year average ($0.09/lb). These nutrient costs are reflective of recent trends and the increased cost of protein sources continuing through the start of summer.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For the May issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $15.72 and $16.33/cwt, respectively. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, May 26, 2022.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on May 26, 2022 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, May 26, 2022.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, May 26, 2022.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
_{Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF}	41% Cottonseed meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feather meal	Corn, ground, dry	Soybean meal - expeller
Corn silage	Wheat bran	48% Soybean meal
Distillers dried grains	_{Soybean hulls}	44% Soybean meal
Gluten feed	Whole cottonseed	Solvent extracted canola meal
Meat meal	Gluten meal	Blood meal
Hominy		Whole, roasted soybeans
Wheat middlings

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace MP by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, May 26, 2022.

Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute: Dairy Outlook
Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri recently released its latest U.S. Agricultural Markets Outlook. The full report is available here: https://www.fapri.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2022-U.S.-Agricultural-Market-Outlook.pdf. This article provides a summary of the dairy outlook presented in the report.

Introduction

The latest FAPRI report establishes projections for dairy to the year 2031. The data used to make these projections were based on information available in January 2022. FAPRI recognizes much has changed since information was gathered, especially the war in Ukraine. The authors of the report acknowledge that several factors may potentially impact the predictions. These factors include exports, commodity prices, input expenses, net farm income, government farm programs, and consumer food prices.

The projections in this report assume no new ad-hoc government payments (like those related to the COVID-19 pandemic) will be provided and provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill will continue. On a macroeconomic level, the authors recognize the uncertainty of oil markets, the likelihood interest rates will rise, and estimate corn variable costs will increase 2.2% per year.

Dairy Outlook

The number of dairy cows in the United States has dropped more than 130,000 head from the peak in May 2021. Rising feed costs and reduced profitability are major reasons for the drop in inventory. Milk prices have improved substantially, with dairy producers expected to increase cow numbers later this year. Milk production is expected to increase only 0.6% this year, the second smallest since 2013.

The FAPRI outlook shows encouraging numbers for price, exports, and demand. International demand for U.S. dairy products is expected to remain positive.

While the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program is not expected to make a payment this year, it continues to be an important risk management tool. Improved prices will likely result in increased cow numbers which are projected to result in declining prices, resulting in a decline in the margin.

Moving Forward

The projections provided in this report are well researched given the information available today but are subject to change. Weather, geopolitics, and many other factors are unknown and can’t be controlled. However, I encourage you to manage what you can control and consider the following recommendations:
- Know your cost of production. What is it costing you to produce each 100 pounds of milk? If the price forecast in this report is true, can you make money? If not, what changes do you need to make?
- Consider enrolling in the OSU Extension Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program (https://farmprofitability.osu.edu/) to complete a whole-farm and enterprise analysis.
- Use budgets and scenarios to plan. OSU Extension Enterprise Budgets for corn, corn silage, and alfalfa are updated and available here: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/enterprise-budgets.
- Meet with your Extension Educator to review budgets and plans.
- Talk with your input providers. What are they able to tell you about input price projections?
- Keep your lender informed of your finances and plans.
- Talk to family members about the future of your business.
- Stay tuned to what is happening around the globe and the potential impacts to agriculture and your business.

USDA ERS Dairy Outlook: May 2022

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

The latest Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook (https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/g445cd121/1g05gj33z/wh247x14t/LDP-M-335.pdf) was released May 18, 2022. In this outlook, the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) provided an analysis of projections for each of these commodities. This article provides a summary of the dairy sector outlook.

Supply & Use Data

Data provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) indicate a mixed bag of inventory and production numbers. Compared to March 2020, U.S. milk production was 0.5% lower in March 2022. The number of milk cows in March 2022 (9.395 million) was 15,000 head more than the previous month but 87,000 fewer than the inventory in March 2021.

Compared to March 2021, milk production per cow increased eight pounds to 2,096 pounds per head. After a steady decline in milk cow numbers from June 2021 to January 2022, there was an increase in cow numbers in February and March of 2022.

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

Feed Price Outlook

Not surprisingly, the corn price projection increased from $5.90 per bushel (2021/2022 marketing year) to $6.75 per bushel (2022/2023 marketing year; see table below). This outlook does estimate a slight decline in soybean meal and a slight increase in alfalfa.

Commodity	2021/2022 Marketing Year	2022/2023 Marketing Year
Corn	$5.90/bushel	$6.75/bushel
Soybean Meal	$420/ton	$400/ton

The alfalfa hay price in March 2022 was $221 per ton, an increase of $7 compared to February and $44 greater than the March 2021 price. The five-state weighted average for premium alfalfa was $269 per ton in March. This is an increase of $3 per ton compared to February 2022 and $59 greater compared to March 2021.

Infant Formula Shortage

In mid-February 2022, a major manufacturer of infant formula issued a recall of certain powder produced domestically. USDA is encouraging states to take advantage of flexibilities being offered through the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) program to allow families to get the essential formula nutrients needed.

Demand for lactose and whey protein concentrate (WPC) products that meet the strict requirements for infant formula is strong, but supplies are very tight. The current shortage may have increased imports of preparations suitable for infants. While imports have increased, supplies remain tight because of domestic demand.

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

2022 Forecasts

For 2022, the U.S. milking herd is expected to average 9.4 million head, 30,000 more than last month’s forecast. Milk cow numbers are expected to increase during the third quarter of the year before leveling off in the fourth quarter.

Milk per cow is expected to average 24,120 pounds in 2022. With an expected increase in cow numbers, total milk production for 2022 is estimated at 226.7 billion pounds, an increase of 0.4 billion from last month’s forecast. Class III milk is expected to be $22.75 /cwt. Class IV was lowered $0.25 to $23.80/cwt, and the all-milk price for 2022 is projected to be $25.75/cwt.

2023 Forecasts

For 2023, the U.S. miking herd is expected to average 9.4 million head. Milk per cow is expected to increase 1.2% to 24,420 pounds per head. Total milk production is forecast to increase 1.2% more than 2022, to a total of 229.5 billion pounds.

Greater milk production combined with relatively stable demand is projected to negatively impact milk pricing. Price projections for 2023:

Class III $20.50 per cwt
Class IV $21.40 per cwt
All-milk $23.55 per cwt

Planning

Yes, much will change between now and 2023, but I encourage you to consider this and other reliable information as you plan. If these milk price projections are true, can you be profitable? If not, what changes will you need to make?

I encourage you to develop various budget scenarios, talk with input suppliers, and lean on your trusted advisors.

Whole Cow’s Milk to Aid in Infant Formula Shortage

Jamie Hampton, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources and Sarah Amelung, Program Assistant, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Education Program, Auglaize County, Ohio State University Extension

Cow’s make some of the most nutrient dense foods that we know of. But can we feed it to infants? This is the million-dollar question. There is no short answer. With the formula shortage and parents struggling to find milk for their babies, the light has turned to the dairy industry to help provide that answer.

For children over 6 months of age that are on a regular formula and do not have any specific dietary issues or restrictions, whole cow’s milk may be an option. This does not include any other animal milk option. If you are out of formula and cannot find formula, call your pediatrician and discuss with them the option of using whole cow’s milk for a brief period. It is not recommended to use cow’s milk for more than a week for children of this age.

Cow’s milk provides many essential nutrients, including protein, phosphorus, calcium, vitamin A, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B12, potassium, zinc, choline, magnesium, and selenium. But there are some nutrients that babies need that is lacking in cow’s milk, such as iron and vitamin C. The protein and fat in cow’s milk cannot be digested properly by infants under 1 year of age, causing stress on their kidneys and intestines.

If you find yourself in a position that you need to use cow’s milk for your infant, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that you start with a half formula, half whole milk mixture. This will help the child with the change in taste, and it will help the gut of the child adjust to the new digestion that will need to take place. It is important to use full fat milk and monitor your child for possible food allergies during this transition and to keep in contact with your child’s pediatrician. Signs of allergies can include blood in the stool, vomiting, signs of dehydration and/or rash. If you notice these signs, call your pediatrician right away.

You may be wondering when is a good time to introduce baby to dairy? According to an article by Dr. Elizabeth Zmuda DO FAAP, FACOP, babies that can sit up and start to show interest in solid food usually around 6 months of age. As the baby moves from purees to thicker foods, you can start to introduce foods such as cottage cheese and yogurt. It used to be advised to wait to introduce foods that may cause an allergy until the baby is one to two years old; however, it has been shown that earlier exposure decreases the risk of food allergy. If your family has a history of food allergies, talk to your pediatrician before introducing this food.

At 12 months, a baby can begin to transition from breastmilk or formula to whole cow’s milk. Milk provides essential nutrients; with 2 to 3 servings of dairy products per day, your baby will continue to get the nutrition they need to grow and develop. Health experts recommend water and cow’s milk as the primary beverage for children 1 to 5 years of age. Dairy can be part of a healthy diet throughout life, thus drinking milk with your child models a healthy lifestyle for them.

Web based references:

American Academy of Pediatrics (Aap.org)

Healthychildren.org

US Department of Agriculture (Usda.gov)

Drink-milk.com/guidance-for-feeding-babies
Over-the-Counter Antibiotics Will Require Veterinary Oversight (Rx) Beginning in June of 2023
Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Oho State University

In June of 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that all medically important antimicrobials will move from over-the-counter (OTC) to prescription (Rx) within a 2- year implementation period. The Center for Veterinary Medicine guidance for industry #263 (GFI 263) outlines the process for animal drug suppliers to change the approved marketing status of certain antimicrobial drugs for use in non-food (companion), food-producing animals, or both, that are currently approved with OTC marketing status. In 2003, FDA ranked antimicrobials according to their relative importance to human medicine: “critically important,” “highly important,” or “important.” The FDA considers all antimicrobial drugs listed in Appendix A to GFI #152 to be “medically important”.

On September 14, 2018, the FDA unveiled a 5-year action plan for supporting antimicrobial stewardship in veterinary settings. The FDA is implementing GFI #263 as part of its broader plan to control antimicrobial resistance via the judicious use of antimicrobials in animals within our community and food supply. This process is driven by the concept that medically important antimicrobial drugs should only be used in animals when deemed necessary for the treatment, control, or prevention of specific diseases. The FDA, via GFI #263, places the responsibility for the use of medically important antimicrobials under the oversight of a licensed veterinarian (from large to small animals).

What species are included?

From companion dogs and cats to backyard poultry, and from rabbits and show pigs to large livestock farms. The same restrictions will apply to all companion and farm animal species.

When will these new changes become effective?

Beginning in June of 2023, or sooner, depending on when the manufacturer changes their labeling.

What do these federal regulatory changes mean to you and your livestock operation, as well as veterinary practices?

By June of 2023, all medically important antibiotics currently available at most feed or farm supply stores will now require veterinary oversight (written Rx) to be used in animals, even if the animals are not intended for food production. Examples of affected antibiotics include injectable penicillin and oxytetracycline. In addition, some retail suppliers who were able to sell these drugs/products in the past may no longer sell them after June of 2023. This means that small and large animal veterinarians should be prepared for an increase in calls and visits from animal owners who previously may have purchased these drugs over the counter at their local farm supply store. To continue using medically important antimicrobials, you may need to establish a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR). Consult your veterinarian for more information.

What is a veterinarian-client-patient-relationship?

A veterinarian-client-patient-relationship (VCPR) is defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association as the basis for interaction among veterinarians, their clients, and their patients and is critical to the health of your animal(s). The practical explanation is that it is a formal relationship that you have with a veterinarian who serves as your primary contact for all veterinary services and is familiar with you, your livestock/animals, and your farm operation. This veterinarian is referred to as your Veterinarian of Record (VoR), and both the VoR and the client should sign a form to document this relationship.

Prevention and Future Considerations

There are effective ways to reduce the dependency of antimicrobials. Every livestock operation is an integrated system; decisions made in one area of the farm will have an impact on other areas of the farm. Perhaps reviewing the consistency of your feeding program (making sure animals receive a balanced diet), vaccination program, considering the genetic selection of animals for improved health, or visiting new housing facilities designed for best animal comfort are holistic ways of reducing antimicrobial use at the herd or flock level. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Look for more upcoming articles on prevention and ways to reduce antimicrobial use.

Helpful resources:
1. You can download a VCPR template developed by the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association Drug Use Task Force at: https://vet.osu.edu/extension/general-food-fiber-animal-resources.
1. CVM GFI #263 Recommendations for Sponsors of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs Approved for Use in Animals to Voluntarily Bring Under Veterinary Oversight All Products That Continue to be Available Over-the-Counter: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory- information/search-fda-guidance-documents/cvm-gfi-263-recommendations-sponsors- medically-important-antimicrobial-drugs-approved-use-animals/
1. List of Approved New Animal Drug Applications Affected by GFI #263: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/judicious-use-antimicrobials/list-approved-new- animal-drug-applications-affected-gfi-263/.
1. Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD): https://vet.osu.edu/sites/vet.osu.edu/files/documents/extension/Brochure_VFD.pdf
1. FDA 2003. Guidance for Industry #152, “Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs with Regard to their Microbiological Effects on Bacteria of Human Health Concern,” Appendix A. https://www.fda.gov/media/69949/download.
Alternative Forages – What are they really?
Haley Zynda, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

The talk of alternative forages has really taken the grazers and haymakers by storm, and I, too, have been swept up in the promise of extending grazing seasons and beating the summer slump with warm season annual grasses. I had the pleasure of attending the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference in Fort Wayne, Indiana in April with the likes of professors, graduate students and Extension personnel from Michigan State, Purdue, and Ohio State Universities and industry dairy nutritionists. Alternative forages happened to be one of the topics presented by Dr. Ferreira of Virginia Tech.

He started off with three questions to frame the conversation:
1. Does the definition of an alternative forage exist?
2. These forages are alternative to what?
3. Why do we need an alternative forage?
He proceeded to unpack a lot of information in his 40-minute presentation and gave a new perspective on forages in general and what to consider when planning an alternative forage route. Let’s start off with the first question.

What is the definition of an alternative forage? An alternative forage is one that is outside the norm that aids the producer in meeting production goals or better fits in with the mission of the farm business. Essentially, this definition will vary from operation to operation; there is no one definition that fits all production practices because each operation has differing goals and missions.

This leads to question two – alternative to what? In the world of dairy nutrition, corn silage is king and alfalfa is his leguminous queen. Small grain silages, sorghum-sudangrass silages, and even mixed grass hay (scandalous!) are all considered alternative forages for dairy cattle. While all the former feedstuffs are valid in their nutritional content, they may just be less efficient at supplying the required nutrients to lactating cows than corn silage or alfalfa silage may be. It’s along the lines of, “there’s more than one way to skin a cat,” but there’s usually a quicker or most efficient way to do it.

So why are we needing an alternative forage? Question three brings the alternative forage scheme full circle; there are a plethora of reasons as to why producers select alternative forages. The broad umbrellas that the goals may fall under are land use, environmental concerns, costs, and nutritional needs.

Perhaps the easiest example to discuss first is the use of small grains as a cover crop in a corn and soybean cropping system; this falls under the land use umbrella. In a perfect system where the weather cooperates to allow corn to be planted and harvested on time, the small grain to be promptly planted after the corn is off, and then small grain harvest/straw production to happen early enough in the summer to allow for a crop of beans to be put in, the benefits would be twofold – the cover crop would prevent soil erosion and be an additional forage source for the herd.

Now, given that we are usually dealt a more difficult hand when it comes to weather events, the benefits of the double crop may actually be overestimated. According to Dr. Ferreira, the key to actualizing the maximum benefit of this system is to plant the small grain as soon as possible. Perhaps this means selecting an earlier maturing corn variety but realize this may result in a corn yield discount compared to long-season varieties. He concluded in saying double cropping may not always lead to increased forage tonnage as compared to two full-season crops, and careful analysis and measurement is warranted before decisions are made. Sometimes, the value of cover crops may only be in preventing soil erosion if harvest interferes too greatly with other full-season crops.

The alternative forage discussion is not easily kept to just one article so stay tuned for more information to come in the next edition of Buckeye Dairy News. I’ll continue with Dr. Ferreira’s work on the cost of alternative forages – the results may just surprise you!
Bring on the Heat
Haley Zynda, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

With warm weather on the forecast, it is time to start thinking about heat stress and its impacts on your dairy cattle. Just as we have our comfortable temperatures in which we keep our homes in the summer or winter, dairy cows are the same. They have upper and lower critical temperatures, or temperature thresholds at which cows must expend extra energy to cool or warm themselves. Dairy cows have a pretty large threshold – between 25 and 65 degrees Fahrenheit – meaning that below 25 or above 65 degrees, their energy requirements will change. However, humidity also plays a large role in heat stress. Because of daily variability in humidity and temperature, the temperature-humidity index (THI) has been developed to neatly portray the weighted effects across a wide range of values for each factor. According to researchers at the University of Arizona, the THI at which heat stress begins is 72. So, for example, on a sunny July afternoon in Ohio, the temperature may be 84˚ with 5% humidity. The THI in that case is 70, below the threshold. Now, let’s say it’s the same July day except a pop-up shower just rolled through. Now, the humidity is 15%. That bumps the THI to 72 and your cows may start to feel the effects of the heat.

But what are these effects that we’re concerned about when temperature and humidity are on the rise? The negative impact of heat stress on milk production is likely the greatest concern when we approach these warm months. The decrease in production has a 1 to 2-day lag time from the time that the heat was impactful; however, some research has shown the THI needs to be 74 or greater for at least 4 days before lactation is affected. Milk and milk fat yields is cyclical to begin with and bottoms out in the summer, but adding extreme heat to the mix can likely exacerbate the issue. This decrease in milk yield is probably attributed to the decreased dry matter intake during the heat spell. Cows tend to decrease their appetite when they are hot to minimize the endogenous heat production caused by ruminal fermentation.

Additionally, rebreeding cows may also be delayed in the summer for several factors related to heat stress. Estrous behavior is noted to be reduced in both time and intensity, decreasing the chance for visual observation. If estrus detection aids are used, such as a breeding indicator patch, cows may still be missed for rebreeding as mounting behavior is also decreased in summer.

Other changes that may be observed in heat stressed dairy cows are increased thirst and respiration rate (panting). Dairy cows become severely dehydrated when water loss equals 12% of their body weight, and with exhalation being a main form of water loss, panting and water loss go hand-in-hand. On extremely hot days, providing enough water is essential to prevent hyperthermia and its effects, such as inability to quench thirst and muscle fatigue.

To prevent your cows from hitting the summer slump too hard, consider the following heat abatement strategies:
- Industrial fans – The THI can be decreased by 1 unit with every 1 mph increase in wind speed. High-volume, low-speed fans or box fans are both options depending on space availability, but make sure to keep up on maintenance of both for optimum air and electrical efficiency.
- Misters – Spraying a fine mist into fans can cool the air in the barn, thus decreasing the temperature of the air cows breathe in.
- Sprinklers – Setting up overhead sprinklers to soak the cows’ hide works in the same way that sweating does, except the cow doesn’t have to spend the energy to perspire.
- Adding shade structures – If cows are housed on pasture, a tree, shade cloth, or simple roofed structure can provide some relief from direct sunlight.
- Barn architecture – If a new or remodeled facility is in your future, think about its position for both sunrise/sunset and prevailing winds. University of Kentucky Extension recommends an east/west direction to prevent as much direct sunlight as possible and likely matches natural wind direction. A 4:12 roof pitch with ridge vent and cap are suitable for moving hot air up and out of the barn. Large enough sidewall gaps are also essential for maximum airflow in the summer.
Regardless of the tactic you use, be sure to remain vigilant in monitoring your cows for signs of heat stress or dehydration and remember to stay cool yourself!
Duane Logan Inducted into the Dairy Hall of Service

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

In 1952, The Dairy Hall of Service was formed at The Ohio State University to recognize individuals who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at OSU. The 2022 recipient of this award is Duane Logan.

Duane Logan received the BS in Dairy Science from Ohio State University in 1978 and was a member of the OSU dairy judging team. In 1999-2000, he participated in the OSU Ohio Leadership Education and Development (LEAD) Program.

Duane served as herd manager of his family’s 195-cow registered Holstein herd in Trumbull County until it was dispersed in 1994. From 1986-1994, Duane served as a member of the Ohio Holstein Sale Committee, and in 1994, he received the Buckeye Breed Builder award from the Ohio Holstein Association. Duane served as a director of COBA/Select Sires and the Ohio Dairy Farmers Federation, and on the advisory board for Farm Credit Services.

In 1994, Duane was hired to oversee the COBA/Select Sires field staff in the states of Ohio and western Pennsylvania, as well as managing the inventory and distribution of semen to employees. In 2013, Duane was selected as the fifth General Manager of COBA/Select Sires, and he served in that role until he retired in December 2021. In 2020 Duane received the Purebred Dairy Cattle Association’s Honor Award.

Having been a member of the 1973 Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging team and the Ohio State team in 1976, Duane recognized the importance of encouraging dairy youth. For many years in his various roles, especially as general manager of COBA, he continually supported the educational development of youth through scholarships.

As described by one of his nominators, he is an “example of a leader that has demonstrated passion, commitment, and service to the dairy industry.” His support for the development of youth, regardless of age, has been continually exemplified. Duane currently resides in Arizona. We thank him for his many years of service to the dairy industry and his commitment to youth. We congratulate him on this well-served award as an inductee into the Dairy Hall of Service.
Happy Retirement to Dianne Shoemaker

Haley Shoemaker, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Columbiana and Mahoning Counties and Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Tuscarawas County, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ohio State University Extension

After more than 30 years with Ohio State University Extension, Dianne Shoemaker, Field Specialist, Dairy Production Economics, is retiring June 30, 2022.

Growing up in Worthington, Ohio didn’t exactly lend itself to her being around many dairy farms early on; however, Dianne’s interest in cattle and the dairy industry was peaked during regular family visits to Wisconsin. This interest developed into a tangible goal and vision for her career throughout her time as a student at the Ohio State University, where she dove into the world of dairy “boots first” while working at the university dairy farm.

This experience led to a six-month internship in Switzerland milking Simmentals, along with the opportunity to tour with Elsie the cow during her days as an undergraduate student.

Following graduation, Dianne worked as a herdsperson at a dairy in Highland County and was a DHIA Supervisor before returning to OSU to earn her master’s degree. Dianne then began her career with Ohio State University Extension in 1986.

As the first female county ag agent in Ohio, Dianne knew that simply “doing her job” wouldn’t cut it. By approaching each task and project with honesty and a refreshing sense of integrity, she quickly earned the trust and confidence of both her co-workers and clientele. It is because of this consistent approach to her work that she has enjoyed a very successful career educating farmers and farm families throughout Ohio.

Like many county-based Extension professionals, Dianne has seen a lot over her career and has had to adapt to the everchanging needs of her clientele. In Northeast Ohio in the 1980s and early 90s, that meant switching gears from dairy and milk to a crop most would probably associate with Idaho – potatoes. With limited knowledge of potato production and harvesting, Dianne made numerous farm visits to gain hands-on experience. These farm visits helped her create lasting relationships with farmers that would continue as her career evolved.

Throughout her time in Extension, Dianne has also become known as a visionary leader. At a time of downsizing and restructuring within OSU Extension, Dianne recognized the need to bring together a group of university professionals to address the issues facing Ohio’s dairy producers. As a result, the OSU Extension Dairy Working Group was formed and still meets to this day. Under Dianne’s leadership, the group has taught numerous educational programs, developed a website to house dairy resources, written fact sheets, conducted team study tours, and produced the popular “Dairy Excel 15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness” bulletin. This bulletin has been used by farmers and advisors across the United States.

Another example of Dianne’s visionary leadership is with the OSU Extension Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program. This program uses a computerized software to analyze the financial performance of farm businesses. Since her start with the program, she has successfully secured grant dollars to aid in the completion of analyses and produce annual statewide dairy and crop financial summaries. In recent years, upon hiring additional technicians, she has also been able to expand the program and continue Ohio’s contribution of farm financial data to the national database. This expansion has allowed the program to include more grain farms and crop acres across Ohio, providing vitally important information to a larger segment of Ohio agriculture.

You’ve likely also seen Dianne’s smiling face in the Farm and Dairy newspaper. With approximately 180 articles authored by Dianne published in the Farm and Dairy and numerous others printed in state and national publications, her work has reached far beyond the borders of Ohio agriculture.

Dianne has been recognized by her peers for her outstanding teaching, leadership, and service to her profession, having received the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association of County Agricultural Agents. She also received the OSU Excellence in Extension Award and was recognized as the North Central Region Excellence in Extension Award winner for farm business management education efforts that help dairy farms improve profitability and sustainability.

Dianne has led a storied and distinguished career with OSU Extension and has made a lasting impact with the many colleagues, dairy farms, and farm families who had the pleasure of working with her. It is safe to say that her work has laid a strong and sturdy foundation for those to come; however, filling her shoes will be no easy task.

As for future plans, there will likely be many days spent with family, friends, and spoiling her grandchild!

We wish Dianne the best in her retirement, and hope that we can someday look back on our careers with the same pride and sense of accomplishment.

And to Dianne – we thank you for your tireless dedication to OSU Extension and to Ohio’s farmers. May your retirement be full of joy, new adventures, and reasons to laugh – you’ve earned it!
Tenth Anniversary of Dairy Palooza

Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Although it was a long time coming, the 10th anniversary of Dairy Palooza took place at the Wayne County Fairgrounds on April 30. It was a “leap of faith” as the committee began making plans back in the winter. However, not one soul was willing to dismiss the idea of planning the big goals needed to undertake the project. Evidently, our sponsors believed too, as their response was equally as strong in their commitment.

Although our surroundings are somewhat rustic and possibly lack some technology, we delivered on our promise of “making the best better” for this special anniversary. Our purple color reflected that of champions in all our publicity and the fact that complimentary halters and souvenir t-shirts were also coordinated in that shade. We even gave digital thermometers for each attendee, but they were unavailable in purple.

Palooza began as a simple idea for dairy club members to learn through hands-on activities. The Grammers were generous and provided their farm as our first setting. As they say, the rest is history. Then through the generosity and support of so many volunteers, educators, and businesses, we quickly grew by leaps and bounds. So for 2022, we reflected on our memories and even a display of all the t-shirts.

The morning program was consumed with the quality assurance (QA) topics and a writing workshop dedicated to thank yous. After a hearty dairy lunch and networking, there was a photo opportunity in those purple t-shirts. The afternoon program content included multiple workshops for all ages on all subjects related to a dairy 4-H project. Showmanship and clipping and fitting, plus Dr. Horton’s science antics are perennial favorites. However, there was another workshop on animal welfare by Dr. Pempek of OSU and others that included an actual udder and reproductive tract. Turn a corner and American Dairy Association Mid-East displayed all kinds of products with taste sampling. Even oranges served a grand purpose with a veterinarian demonstration on injections, and bovine nutrition was also spotlighted. If you had dairy feeders, there was a time slot for your special interests and there was an entire sample farm display where 4-Hers could demonstrate cattle movement practices! Every workshop had a goal of connecting to the content provided in the morning QA workshops. Even Cloverbuds were offered a separate program with superhero dairy capes, flag folding, creating a dairy feed ration, plus artistry as they painted their favorite cow. Not to be outdone by a focus on youth, the program included adult sessions on social media, showmanship guidelines, dairy products, and State updates. One of the real highlights for advisors was the “unveiling” of the new Dairy Heifer and Cow project book!

As the program came to a close, useful door prizes were presented to those who stayed for the entire day. One lucky young lady came with a dream and a hope to win the handmade show box. She was speechless when her name was called out. Her story is not unlike other attendees, but she was the fortunate and thankful recipient.

Dairy Palooza is a one-of-kind event not offered in any other state. Our content has been the recipients of grants, state awards, and even written up in Hoard’s Dairyman. It does not take place without the efforts and quality time provided by our planning committee of Lisa Gress (Chair), Mike Janik, Julie Martig, Eileen Wolf, Sarah Thomas, Sherry Smith, and myself. Layer in all the presenters, donators, and behind the scenes people and you have an extraordinary group of selfless people dedicated to the cause of educating the next generation. If you would like to view our programs and a special celebration video, visit our Facebook page, Ohio 4-H Dairy Palooza.

Whether you were a seasoned attendee at Dairy Palooza or this was your first time, the focus of the day was to educate and train all attendees to become “champions” with and for their dairy projects (Figure 1). That purple halter is just a beginning to what happens at the rope’s end!

Figure 1. Picture of participants at the 10^th anniversary of Dairy Palooza.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences,The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for February and March were at $20.21/cwt and $21.32/cwt, respectively. Class III milk closed slightly higher than predicted for February at $20.91/cwt, with protein and butterfat at $2.32/lb and $3.02/lb, respectively. Compared to January, the component price for protein decreased by about $0.27/lb, while butterfat price is about $0.73/lb higher.The improved butterfat price should help to offset increased feed costs due to changes in global feed ingredient markets. In this issue, the Class III future for April is $23.29/cwt, continuing to increase in May to $23.50/cwt as we approach summer.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The current price of NE_L and MP are about 60 and 42% higher than the 5-year averages ($0.08/Mcal and $0.38/lb, respectively), while pe-NDF is about 60% lower than the 5-year average ($0.08/lb). These nutrient costs align well with recent trends, and although nutrient cost per cow may be higher than in previous issues, the Cow-Jones Index is fairing well.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For March’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $13.04 and $13.53/cwt, respectively. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2022.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on March 26, 2022 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set in this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2022.
For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words, moved a column to the right since the last issue are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, March 26, 2022.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Gluten meal	41% Cottonseed meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feaher meal	Corn, ground, dry	Soybean meal - expeller
Corn silage	Wheat bran	48% Soybean meal
Distillers dried grains	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	44% Soybean meal
Gluten feed		Solvent extracted canola meal
Meat meal		Soybean hulls
Hominy		Whole, roasted soybeans
^{Wheat middlings}		Blood meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2022.

USDA Releases March Dairy Report
Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

The United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) released its March 2022 Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook. The complete report is available here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/103524/ldp-m-333.pdf?v=1835. This article will provide a summary of the dairy portion of the report.

Supply and Use

The graph below shows U.S. milk production for 2020, 2021, and January 2022. According to USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), U.S. milk production in January 2022 was 1.6% below January 2021. This is the largest year-over-year percentage decline in average daily production for any month since 2002.

Milk cow numbers in January 2022 were 82,000 less than the inventory in January 2021 and milk production per cow in January 2022 was 15 lb less than the January 2021 production level. USDA ERS reports that high input prices, increased feed costs, and corn silage quality issues likely contributed to lower milk production.

Feed Price Projections

Corn for the 2021/2022 marketing year is now expected to average $5.65/bu, an increase of $0.20 from last month’s projection. Price increases for other feed inputs were also reported. Soybean meal is estimated at $420/ton and the January alfalfa hay price was $211/ton, an increase of $43/ton compared to January 2021. The five-state weighted average for premium alfalfa hay was $262/ton in January 2022, $56 higher compared to January 2021.

Dairy Forecasts for 2022

Milk production and milk cow numbers are expected to decline in 2022. Higher input prices, improved cull cow prices, and low numbers of replacement heifers are contributing factors. Milk per cow is anticipated to average 24,160 lb/head, a year-over-year increase of 212 lb.

Wholesale prices have been raised because of relatively high domestic and international prices. The 2022 prices are forecast at: $21.65/cwt for Class III, $23.70/cwt for Class IV, and the all-milk price forecast is $25.05/cwt.

Summary

The increase in milk price is positive, but with uncertainty continuing given high input costs and impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I encourage producers to continue to pay close attention to budgets. As you budget and plan, speak with your Extension Educator, nutritionist, lender, and veterinarian.

These resources may be of interest with planning and budgeting:
- University of Minnesota FINBIN: https://finbin.umn.edu/LvBenchOpts/LvBenchIndex
- Ohio State University Extension Farm Business Analysis & Benchmarking Program: https://farmprofitability.osu.edu/
- Ohio State University Extension Crop Enterprise Budgets: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/enterprise-budgets
Pricing Standing Forage Crops – Your One-Stop Shop
Dianne Shoemaker, Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension; Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science; and Dr. William Weiss, Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Warmer weather is just around the corner. As forage crops break dormancy, so does the perennial question of how to price standing forage crops. Whether they are vegetative small grain crops, pure grasses, grass and legume mixes, or pure legume stands, the fundamental considerations are the same:
1. Determine market price of an equivalent crop
2. Calculate and apply deductions:
  1. Cost of harvest, including mowing, tedding, and raking
  2. Cost of baling
  3. Cost of hauling
  4. Risk – nutrient variation
  5. Risk – weather, etc.
3. Adjustments: These optional adjustments can be made if a forage analysis is done post-harvest:
  1. Dry matter
  2. Feed value – If this option is chosen, then there is no deduction made for risk of nutrient variation (d above).
Clearly, this is not a quick process, but when broken down into these steps, it is doable, easy to document, and provides a framework for the buyer and the seller to agree on a process and price that is acceptable to both parties before the crop is harvested.

Tools are available to assist with this process, all available at https://forages.osu.edu/forage-management/forage-economics.   These include:

Factsheet: “Assigning Value to a Standing Forage Crop”. This factsheet discusses each step listed above in detail, including links to helpful resources.

Spreadsheet: “Pricing Standing Forage Worksheet”. This spreadsheet follows the steps to calculate the ceiling price a buyer should pay based on the market price of equivalent forages and the costs of harvesting and transporting the crop, as well as considering adjustments for dry matter, quality, shrink, and risks that are transferred from seller to buyer.

Factsheet: “Pricing a Standing Oat/Spring Triticale Haylage”. Some farms grow these crops for cover crops while they are a dual-purpose crop for dairy farmers – winter ground cover and spring forage source. Sometimes dairy farms have the chance to purchase these crops out of the field, extending feed supplies. This factsheet walks through the process of pricing these standing crops harvested as haylage.

Spreadsheet “Pricing a Standing Oat or Triticale Haylage Worksheet Tool”. Save a little time with this spreadsheet as you work through pricing a standing crop, whether you are the buyer or the seller.

Setting the final, fair price for a hay or small grain forage crop rests on an understanding of the needs of both the buyer and the seller. It is critical that both parties agree on price, payment method and timing, crop yield measurement, restrictions, and similar details before the crop is harvested! Ideally, the agreement should be in writing and signed by both parties. These agreements are especially important when large quantities of crops (and money!) are involved. While this type of contracting may be uncomfortable for some producers, mainly because they are not used to conducting business on more than a handshake, it forces the parties to discuss issues up front and minimizes troubling misunderstandings after harvest.
Time to Assess Forage Legume Stands
Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

With the onset of recent warm temperatures, forage stands are beginning to green up. Wet soil conditions and widely fluctuating temperatures have presented tough conditions for forage stands this winter. This is especially true of tap-rooted legumes, like alfalfa and red clover. Many forage stands suffered significant fall armyworm feeding damage late last summer and into the fall, so those stands should be carefully evaluated this spring as they green up. It is time to start walking forage stands (especially in southern and central Ohio) to assess their condition so decisions and adjustments for the 2022 growing season can be planned if necessary.

Forage stand evaluation can be performed when 3 to 4 inches of new shoot growth is present. Select random sites throughout the field and count the plants in a one-foot square area. Check at least 4 to 5 random sites in each 20- to 25-acre area. Random sampling will give the best unbiased overall evaluation of the field.

Plant heaving is always a concern in northeast Ohio and wherever heavy clay soils are present with poor drainage. Crops such as alfalfa and red clover are particularly susceptible to heaving damage. The likelihood of heaving is greater in wet, saturated clay soils with high shrink/swell potential that were exposed to rapid freeze/thaw cycles. Plants can be physically lifted (heaved) out of the soil, exposing the plant crowns to low temperatures and/or physical injury from wheel traffic at harvest time. In severe cases, the plant can be heaved several inches or more out of the soil, breaking the taproot and killing the plant.

While plant counts are useful, crown and root tissue should be evaluated for an indication of how the plant will hold up to stresses in the coming growing season. Dig up 5 to 6 plants in each random field location you sample and split the crowns and roots lengthwise. A healthy plant will have a creamy white color with little to no discoloration in the crown and taproot. These healthy plants will also have numerous shoots that are evenly distributed around the crown of the plant.

Damaged plants often have fewer stems, and those stems often are more numerous on one side of the crown (i.e., shoot growth is not symmetrical). Splitting roots and crowns will reveal darker tissue than the creamy white color of healthy plants. The color tends towards a tan. There also may be obvious areas of root and crown rot that are dark brown to black in color. Streaks of brown might be seen running down the length of the taproot. Generally, these plants green up in the spring of the year and might appear productive, but because of their compromised root system, they may not survive the entire production year, especially if we have a hot, dry year, or periods of excessive wetness followed by dry spells.

In general, yield potential is significantly reduced if more than 30% of the split roots have brown streaks running down the root and/or black areas of root/crown rot that cover greater than 30 to 50% of the root diameter. The grower may want to consider alternative forage options, such as terminating the stand after a first cutting and planting to silage corn or possibly to a warm season annual forage crop (e.g., sudangrass or sorghum x sudangrass; BMR varieties are preferred for dairy cattle).

If the alfalfa stand looks tough, it might be a blessing in disguise. Consider that yield declines as the stand ages, especially in year 4 and 5 for alfalfa. Consider also that a terminated forage legume stand can supply all the nitrogen needs for first year corn (or sorghum grasses) and will even supply a significant amount of N to second-year corn after alfalfa is terminated. This too should be considered when deciding whether to keep an old forage legume stand that might not be so productive this year, especially considering the current high price of fertilizers. Perhaps the old alfalfa stand will serve you better as a N supplier and yield booster for your corn, with the opportunity to plant a new alfalfa or other forage stand where you would have planted the corn.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that alfalfa N credits can supply all the nitrogen needs of first year corn, including first year no-till corn following alfalfa. If it makes you sleep better, apply a little starter or sidedress N (30 lb/acre or less) to “prime the pump” in anticipation of the organic nitrogen release from the forage legume stand. But most studies show no response to any fertilizer N on first year corn after alfalfa. In addition, second year corn after alfalfa has a substantial N-credit from the alfalfa! What’s more, corn will yield more following alfalfa than soybeans. Yes, your grandfather was smarter than you might think with that corn – alfalfa (or red clover) rotation he always used! There are many more benefits to that rotation, not to mention the nutritional complimentary benefits of alfalfa/red clover and corn in a dairy cow ration!

For more details on winter injury evaluation in forages, please refer to the Corn, Soybean, Wheat, and Forages Field Guide available at https://extensionpubs.osu.edu/corn-soybean-wheat-and-forages-field-guide/.

Although winter temperatures, snow cover, and soil wetness are primary driving factors affecting tall forage legume winter survival, there are several management factors that can affect the degree of winter injury suffered by forage stands. Those factors include:
- Variety selection: Varieties with good winter hardiness and disease resistance generally survive longer.
- Soil fertility: Adequate soil potassium is associated with enhanced tolerance to winter injury.
- Soil drainage: Tiling and improving drainage helps prevent ice-sheeting and heaving and slows development of crown and root diseases.
- Harvest management: Frequent cutting is associated with a higher risk of winter injury, particularly if the last fall cut was made in late September to mid-October.
I have not written much here about assessing grass stands, but grass hay and pasture stands should also be walked early to assess their spring vigor and growth as the stands green up. This is especially true where armyworm feeding was severe last fall.

Taking the time to do a stand evaluation and further assess forage plant health and the extent of winter injury will allow the grower to have a better idea of the yield potential of the stand. This will help inform if the stand can continue another year or would be better suited as a rotational crop this year.
Nitrogen Management of Forage Winter Cereals

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

Winter annual cereal crops for forage are greening up very nicely, thanks to the warm weather over the last several weeks. Over the next several weeks before stem elongation, you will be deciding how much nitrogen to apply, and by the end of April, checking fields to select a harvest date. Nitrogen rates and harvest timing greatly effects forage yield and quality.

Nitrogen is not only a driving factor of yield but an even bigger driver of crude protein (CP) content but has little effect on digestibility. A study from New York found on average cereal rye removes 121 lb/acre of nitrogen with an average dry matter (DM) yield of 2.37 tons/acre. Selection of the most economical nitrogen rate revolves around yield potential, species planted, manure application history, and soil drainage. When a fall application of manure was made containing over 120 lb/acre of nitrogen on well drained soils and the crop was planted before October 1^st, multiple studies have found little yield benefit to spring applied nitrogen at green up. A linear increase was found though in CP content from about 12% CP at zero nitrogen to 20% CP when 120 lb of spring nitrogen was applied. Even though CP greatly increased with nitrogen fertilization, the economic return was often negative. With current nitrogen price of a $1/lb or more, the 120 lb/acre of nitrogen would need to increase CP from 12 to 16.8%. If it was really increased to 20%, the fertilizer dollar value as CP to replace soybean meal would be about $196, making it a positive investment. This investment though can be quickly lost if the rye matures too much prior to harvest.

On poorly drained soil with a history of manure applications, a spring nitrogen application of 50 of 60 lb/acre at green up improved both yield and CP. When the field did not have a fall manure application, the most economical spring nitrogen rate was 70 lb/acre, but some fields had positive returns with nitrogen rates as high as 120 lb/acre. On average, winter annual cereal crops need 15.5 lb of spring nitrogen per ton of forage DM produced. Utilizing higher rates than required may leave nitrogen in the soil for the following crop, but also increase the potential for lodging, which will cause harvest challenges. Lodging is also affected by harvest timing and species. Rye is the most likely to lodge, followed by triticale and then wheat.

Manure is an excellent source of nitrogen. Liquid manure can be applied before jointing. The thickness of your liquid manure should be considered though. Thick straw manure may still be present at harvest time and be harvested with the forage. This can be a concern with disease transfer from the manure to the livestock eating the forage. When looking at manure nitrogen, the ammonia and nitrate nitrogen fractions are available for the cereal grain forage crop. While the organic nitrogen will probably not be available for the current crop, it will be released over time to future crops. If you have swine manure available, applying it to your cereal grain forage can be a great synergy between your two operations. The swine manure has more nitrogen, is thinner, and will not transmit Johne’s Disease or Bovine Leukosis Virus if some of the manure resides in the harvested forage. If more manure nitrogen is applied than the crop utilizes, this nitrogen can be calculated into your corn nitrogen budget. This can be done by calculating how much nitrogen was applied minus removed nitrogen by the cereal forage crop. Also, a pre-sidedress nitrate test is suggested to determine how much nitrogen is in your soil at corn sidedress time.

When selecting the correct nitrogen rate and harvest timing, knowing your livestock’s nutrient requirements is important. For lactating cows, higher CP and digestibility is the goal. Applying 50 to 70 lb/acre of nitrogen at green up and planning to harvest all species between feeks 9 (last leaf is emerged but head is still down in the plant and stem in not fully elongated) and 10 (grain head is in the boot at the top of the plant but is not visible yet) will allow you to have the best forage possible. For heifer and dry cow rations, a delayed harvest at feeks 10 to 10.5 (head fully emerged and flowering has begun) may provide more tonnage and high enough quality feed. If harvest is delayed further, forage value will peak again when the grain is in soft dough stage. At this point, you are maximizing non-fiber carbohydrates instead of CP and digestibility. Late harvest forages will store much better as silage since it is very hard to get the soft dough grain dry enough at this point for dry hay and fermentation as baleage is often poor.
Heifer Nutrition

Haley Zynda, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

Heifers are their own beasts when it comes to nutrition. We have to first make sure they successfully develop into mature ruminants, then we must ensure they grow at an appropriate rate and not become overweight, then we must make sure they smoothly transition into a member of the lactating herd. The presentation “Heifer Nutrition” can be found on YouTube and it goes over feeding heifers during different stages of life, as well as money saving tips when it comes to feed cost. The link to the video is at: https://youtu.be/tc6ow3NeZJs
2022 Animal Health and Handling Certificate Program

Dr. Shaun Wellert, Agricultural Technical Institute, The Ohio State University

Are you interested in gaining hands-on experience working with cattle and calves in key management areas? Faculty at The Ohio State University are offing a two-day in-person program for farm owners and employees that aims to provide marketable skills for participants while promoting the health and welfare of dairy animals. The Animal Health and Handling Certificate Program will offer participants hands-on experiences in the following areas of proper drug administration (IV, Intramammary, IM, SQ, oral), low-stress animal handling, dehorning, record keeping and residue avoidance, and clinical examinations. For additional information and to register, click HERE for the program flyer.
Winter Dairy Webinar Recordings

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

This winter, the OSU Dairy working group hosted a series of four webinars to help producers with challenges on their operations. If you missed these webinars, they were recorded and can be viewed at your convenience on YouTube at the following links.

Dairy Risk Management Programs for 2022: Dairy Margin Coverage and Dairy Revenue Protection

Risk management is critical to any farm operation. There are two USDA subsidized programs available to dairy farmers to help manage risk. One protects the margin between milk price and feed cost, while the other allows for protection from a price decline. While milk price and futures are strong now protecting that strong futures price may be a worthwhile investment on your farm. Learn more about they Dairy Margin Coverage Program for 2022 from Dianne Shoemaker and the Dairy Revenue Protection program from Jason Hartschuh by watching this recording:

Recording: https://youtu.be/aR2VQGIq1SA

Dairy Market Outlook for 2022

Dairy market conditions are ever changing and greatly effected by world events. Dr. Chris Wolf from the Cornell University joined us on Feb 18^th to discuss dairy markets and the supply and demand situation at the time. A lot may have changed in the world since then, but many of his points are still true today and can help you budget and manage your farm.

Recording: https://youtu.be/mt_wDNQ--ZA

Safety on the Dairy farm

Agriculture is the 7^th or 8^th most dangerous industry in the US, depending on the year. Two big risks on dairy farms include handling manure or working in other confined spaces, such as silos and grain bins. Join OSU Extension educators Taylor Dill and Jamie Hampton as they discuss safety on the farm and making sure everyone stays safe on the farm.

Recording: https://youtu.be/oZ8hKNOgSeQ

Manure Utilization and Maximize Manure Nutrient Utilization

Manure management on your dairy farm is critical, especially with rising fertilizer costs. Maximizing manure usage as a fertilizer source can turn it from an expense into a profit center. Learn from OSU Extension personnel Chris Zoller, Eric Richer, Glen Arnold, Chris Shoup, and Haley Zynda about the fertilizer situation, composting of dry manure to reduce volume to be hauled, utilizing liquid manure to maximize nitrogen utilization, understanding manure variability, and possible ration changes to decrease nitrogen emissions. Learn more about these topics by listening to this recording.

Recording: https://youtu.be/W3aEQ0AOa4o

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for December and January were at $17.95/cwt and $18.23/cwt, respectively. Class III milk again closed higher than predicted at $18.36/cwt in December, with protein and butterfat at $2.59/lb and $2.29/lb respectively. While component prices are still strong, the price of protein has decreased compared to the November issue. For this issue, the Class III future for February is $20.21/cwt, followed by a further increase in March to $21.32/cwt.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The price of net energy for lactation (NE_L) is about 25% lower than the 5-year average ($0.08/Mcal), while metabolizable protein (MP) and physically-effective neutral detergent fiber (pe-NDF) are 55 and 25% higher than the 5-year averages ($0.38/lb and $0.08/lb, respectively). Although in line with typical seasonal cycling of nutrient cost, these prices yield an overall nutrient cost to feed that is slightly higher than the 5-year average.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For January’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $11.36 and $11.83/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are increased by about $2/cwt compared to the November issue and are likely to be profitable. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, January 26, 2022.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on January 26, 2022 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set for this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, January 26, 2022.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, January 26, 2022.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Gluten meal	Wheat middlings	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feather meal	Corn, ground, dry	Soybean meal - expeller
Corn silage	Wheat bran
Distillers dried grains	48% Soybean meal	44% Soybean meal
Gluten feed		Solvent extracted canola meal
Meat meal	_{Soybean hulls}
_Hominy	_{Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF}	Whole, roasted soybeans
	_{41% Cottonseed meal}	Blood meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, January 26, 2022.

USDA Economic Research Service Dairy Outlook: January 2022

Chris Zoller, Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

The United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) released its Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook on January 19, 2022. The entire report is available here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/103066/ldp-m-331.pdf?v=2330.5. This article will provide a summary of the dairy section of the report.

Supply and Use

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimates the number of milk cows in November was just over 9 million head, 10,000 lower than October and 47,000 lower than November 2020. The milk per cow estimate for November was 1,922 pounds, 3 pounds above November 2020.

In their most recent Milk Production report, the USDA NASS November U.S. milk production was estimated at just over 18 billion pounds (a little more than 600 million per day), a drop of 0.4% from November 2020.

Chart, line chartDescription automatically generated

Feed Price Outlook

Feed	Price
2021/2022 Corn	$5.45 per bushel
2021/2022 Soybean Meal	$375 per ton
Alfalfa (as of November 2021)	$210 per ton
5-State Weighted Average – Alfalfa	$246 per ton

Dairy Estimates – 2021

Time Period & Category	Production
4^th Quarter – 2021 Cow Numbers	9.385 million head (10,000 head less)
4^th Quarter – 2021 Milk Yield Per Cow	5,905 lb/head
2021 Milk Production	226.2 billion lb

Dairy Forecast – 2022

The latest report projects a slight increase in cow numbers in the second half of 2022, from 9.380 to 9.385 million head. Average milk per cow is expected to be 24,265 lb.

Class	Price
Class III	$19.65/cwt
Class IV	$20.90/cwt
All Milk	$22.60/cwt

Summary

The January 2022 USDA ERS Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook (https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/103066/ldp-m-331.pdf?v=2330.5) indicates cautious optimism in the dairy industry for 2022. However, continuing high input prices and supply chain issues make it critical that dairy farms analyze budgets and develop plans (with alternatives) for this year.

Additional information is available by contacting your local Extension Educator and using these OSU Extension resources:

OSU Farm Crop Budgets https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/enterprise-budgets
Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations https://extensionpubs.osu.edu/search.php?search_query=974&section=product
Fertility Calculator for Ohio Recommendations: https://go.osu.edu/ohiofertilitytool
Ohio Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program https://farmprofitability.osu.edu/business-summaries

Antibiotic Stewardship in Calves – Part 3

Haley Zynda, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

We’re back with the final installment of the Antibiotic Stewardship in Calves program from Veal Quality Assurance. The final module is treatment protocols, a natural wrap-up to the program after learning about both the role of antibiotics and clinical evaluations. The goal of Part 3 is to improve treatment accuracy according to veterinarian protocols, and by the end of it, we should be able to select strategies for individual calves (a one-size-fits-all approach is too broad when it comes to veterinary medicine).

So why are veterinary protocols important? Well, given the title of the course, one of the reasons is to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Additionally, avoiding illegal use of medicine, improving treatment success, improving animal welfare (a biggie in today’s consumer perspectives), and to decrease the risk of meat residues. Each protocol your vet gives you will have a set list of components: disease signs, medication and dosing, route of administration, use and frequency of treatment, length of treatment, meat withdrawal (if applicable), and follow-up. We’ll walk through each of these components with an example. With the temperature fluctuation of late, pneumonia is likely a “popular” illness right now, so we’ll use a respiratory disease example.

Think back to the clinical evaluation section and respiratory disease. Healthy calves should not have eye or nasal discharge, droopy ears, a cough, or abnormal breathing, scoring a 0 on all accounts. If a calf presents with any severity of the former list, they automatically receive a score of at least 2 for each sign. This is where decisions come into play; if the scores add to 2, don’t treat quite yet, just check on them the next day. If the scores add up to 4, take the calf’s temperature. A normal temperature indicates monitoring the calf further, but a temperature above 102.5˚F calls for treatment. Scores adding to 5 or more require immediate treatment, no temperature necessary. Decision trees can help guide when a certain type of treatment is necessary, but always consult with your veterinarian on specific antibiotic use!

Speaking of medications, there are several names that will appear on labels, depending on the brand you purchase. For example, Polyflex^® is a brand name drug, but the generic name is ampicillin. Likewise, for Liquamycin^® LA-200 (oxytetracycline) or Baytril^® 100 (enrofloxacin). Dosing will also be listed on the bottle (1 cc = 1 mL), as will the route of administration. Adhering to the proper route of administration is extremely important, just look up the results when Banamine^® is administered intramuscularly in horses. Medications can be given orally (per os), intravenously, subcutaneously (sub-q), or intramuscularly (IM); the neck is a popular spot for sub-q or IM injections because there are fewer economic losses down the line from site reactions in the muscle.

Frequency and length of treatment go hand-in-hand; frequency being how often you can administer medication, with length being the number of days the medication is given. Some drugs may have single-dose, single-day treatment options or multiple-day treatment options listed on the bottle, but check with your vet to ensure the correct one is given. Ensuring the correct drug is used for the disease at hand is also an essential part of the puzzle; using antibiotics for off-label use can ONLY be recommended by your veterinarian. So let’s put it all together.

We have a 100 lb calf with respiratory signs. Her eyes aren’t crusty, but she has labored breathing and some nasal discharge. These signs add up to a 6, so according to our decision tree, we can treat without taking her temperature (but can always do so for more information). After talking with our vet, it sounds like it may be pneumonia and is listed as a use for Polyflex^® (ampicillin). This drug is given at a rate of 1 mL per 50 lb of body weight either IM or sub-q. We can treat the calf with 2 mL of ampicillin once per day for 3 to 7 days. Our little heifer calf will stay on the farm to become a replacement, so no withdrawal time is expected. However, on a veal operation, we would need to wait 8 days before sending the animal to slaughter.

The last part of the equation is recordkeeping. Creating and maintaining thorough records allows producers to monitor progress, or lack thereof, of individual animals and reduce the risk of drug residues in meat. Records are the only way to prove a treatment occurred.

In summary of the three-part series, antibiotics are a necessary drug to treat bacterial infections but can lead to negative human and animal health impacts if not used judiciously. Recognizing the clinical signs of disease and having a good working relationship with your herd vet allows for accurate and consistent use of antibiotic treatments. Many thanks to Drs. Pempek and Habing from Ohio State University for putting together this comprehensive and essential training.
Ohio Dairy Producer Webinar Series

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

The OSU Extension Dairy Team will be offering a series of webinars this winter to provide producers with timely updates on risk management strategies, milk market outlook, farm safety, and maximizing manure value. The webinars will take place at 1 pm on the following Fridays:

February 11: Dairy Risk Management: The first two risk management tools many producers utilize are the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) and the Dairy Revenue Protection programs. Dianne Shoemaker will be covering changes that have been made to the DMC program, including the supplemental coverage which allows for an increase in milk production coverage. Jason Hartschuh will be covering the Dairy Revenue Protection program which can be used to set a floor under your milk price.

February 18: Milk Production, Demand, and Price Outlook for 2022: Dr. Chris Wolf, dairy economist at Cornell University, will be providing us updates on current dairy markets. Milk prices have been continuing to climb - what are the driving factors and how long will milk prices stay up? Even with higher milk prices, margins may stay tight.

March 4: Keeping Yourself and Employees Safe on the Farm: Dairy farms can be a dangerous place, thus keeping our families and employees safe is critical. Taylor Dill and Jamie Hampton will be talking about assessing safety risks on your farm and developing a plan to help keep everyone on your farm safe.

March 18: Utilizing Your Farm’s Manure to Maximize Farm Profit: Manure can be an income or an expense, depending how it is managed. Maximizing manure nutrient retention can help make it an income, especially with current fertilizer prices. Learn more about the current fertilizer situation and ways to better utilize manure from Glen Arnold, Chris Zoller, Eric Richer, Haley Zynda, and Chris Shoup.

To register for the webinar series, visit https://go.osu.edu/2022osudairyprogram. If you have question about these educational programs, please contact Jason Hartschuh at Hartschuh.11@osu.edu.
Sources of Hay Markets
Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, Ohio State University

Several questions have been received recently about availability of and prices for hay. It’s that time of the year when livestock owners are often inquiring about sources and prices for hay as inventories may be lowered than anticipated and owners of small farms often do not have ample storage for large purchases. There are many local communities that have hay auctions and the intent of the short article is not to capture all of them; however, the sources in this article are to provide potential sources beyond the local community. Some of these sources are Ohio based, but others provide market information across the US:
1. Kidron Livestock Market, Kidron, OH: https://www.kidronauction.com/market-reports
2. Mt. Hope Auction, Mt. Hope, OH, https://www.mthopeauction.com/market_reports (look under livestock market reports)
3. UDSA Reports: https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/hay-reports
4. Hay and Forage Grower sources: https://hayandforage.com/articles.sec-7-1-Markets.html
5. A couple of websites provide avenues for the buying and selling of hay:
  1. https://agrihayexchange.com/ahe#hay-listings
  2. https://allhay.com/
Although spring is not very far away on the calendar, we have about another month of potential intense winter yet and it is certainly a while after the arrival of spring before pasture will be able to graze. Stock up on the hay to keep the animals adequately fed relative to their needs and productive stages.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for October and November were at $17.46/cwt and $17.13/cwt, respectively. Class III closed higher than predicted at $17.83/cwt in October, with protein and butterfat at $3.01/lb and $1.94/lb respectively. Holiday demand for butter and other dairy products should keep these prices strong through the end of 2021. This issue, the Class III future for December is $17.95/cwt, followed by a further increase in January 2022 to $18.23/cwt.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The price of NEL is about 6% lower than the 5-year average ($0.08/Mcal), while MP and pe-NDF are 29 and 14% higher than the 5-year averages ($0.38/lb and $0.08/lb, respectively). Although in line with typical seasonal cycling of nutrient cost, these prices yield an overall nutrient cost to feed that is slightly higher than the 5-year average.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For November’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $9.18 and $9.63/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are likely to be profitable, although slightly lower than in the September issue. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 24, 2021.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 24, 2021 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 24, 2021.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are in undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, November 24, 2021.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Gluten meal	Wheat middlings	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feather meal	Corn, ground, dry	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn silage	Wheat bran	Soybean hulls
Distillers dried grains	48% Soybean meal	44% Soybean meal
Gluten feed	Soybean meal - expeller	Solvent extracted canola meal
_{Meat meal}	Hominy	41% Cottonseed meal
		Whole, roasted soybeans
		Blood meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, November 24, 2021.

Antibiotic Stewardship in Calves – Part 2

Haley Zynda, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

We’re back with the second installment of Antibiotic Stewardship in Calves, a part of Veal Quality Assurance training. The first module of this training involved understanding antibiotics and antibiotic resistance. The second module is titled “Clinical Evaluations,” an essential factor to determining proper course of action.

In part 2, the goal is to be able to evaluate and score clinical signs of disease, as pertaining to calves. Fun fact, a “disease symptom” is something you are personally feeling, while a “disease sign” is something you observe in someone else or in animals. In order to better score potential disease, it is necessary to understand what a healthy calf looks like, so a sick calf stands out and is appropriately treated. So, what factors need to be observed?

Calves are naturally playful; sometimes I see them referred to as “grass puppies” on social media because of their bouncy and curious personalities. Healthy calves also have bright eyes and alert ears, paying attention to the world around them. They will typically stretch upon rising. On the flip side, sick calves may seem lethargic or disinterested in their surroundings. Dull eyes or mucus coming from the eyes and nose is a clear sign of illness. They may not be as eager for their meals and potentially have greater respiratory rates.

If you happen to have a sick-looking calf, there are 5 major indicators in which you need to evaluate. The first is dehydration. If a calf is uninterested in eating or drinking, chances are it may become dehydrated. Water is lost from the body not only through urination or excessive salivation, but also through respiration (and if the breathing rate is increased as mentioned earlier, more water is lost from the body through the respiratory tract). You can pinch skin on the calf’s neck to check for dehydration; the skin should flatten in less than 2 seconds. If the skin remains tented for more than 4 seconds and the calf also has sunken eyes, it is slightly to moderately dehydrated and needs attention immediately. A calf can die when it is 10% dehydrated.

The second indicator is fever. Animals will likely feel hotter than normal on a summer day, but prolonged elevation of internal temperature is an indication of inflammation or infection. A normal temperature for a calf is below 103˚F in normal weather conditions (i.e., not sweltering heat). Temperature should be taken rectally over the course of several days at the same time to determine a baseline and how the temperature fluctuates if there is concern of illness. Defecation during temperature measurement calls for a second try.

Navel infections are the third indicator. The umbilicus is a vulnerable spot on a neonatal calf that welcomes any bacteria that would like to enter. Navel scoring is done through palpation to determine the severity of the infection; a score of 0 indicates no swelling, a score of 1 presents with swelling approximately the width of a finger, and a score of 2 presents with swelling the width of 2 fingers that is painful and with discharge. Therefore, if the navel is abnormal or joint ill occurs, this is a case where antibiotics are necessary for treatment because of the bacterial nature of the infection.

A fourth indicator is diarrhea, which is closely tied to dehydration. The tricky part about diarrheal diseases is that they can be caused by a plethora of pathogens – viruses, bacteria, and protozoa. Seldomly is diarrhea actually caused by bacteria, so if a calf is only mildly presenting with such bowel movements, they likely will not benefit from antibiotics. Non-pathogenic causes of diarrhea include poorly mixed milk replacer or sudden changes in feed. Therefore, if a couple of calves appear sick, take a look at calf management before heading to the medicine cabinet.

The final indicator is respiratory disease. It can not only affect welfare, but also reduce growth rates in calves. Respiratory illness also manifests in several different manners through the eyes, ears, muzzle, and breathing rate. Eyes can be scored according to discharge levels. A score of 0 is a healthy calf with no discharge; a score of 2 ranges from slightly apparent discharge to extreme crust buildup around the eyes and on the eyelashes. Ears are next, with alert ears being a normal score of 0. A score of 5 indicates 1 or both ears drooping and the presence of a head tilt. Muzzle scoring takes into account the mucus coming from the nostrils. A healthy calf will have a wet nose, but no serous (clear) or thick, green mucus coming from 1 or both nostrils. Lastly, if breathing is labored and there is a continuous cough, there is likely some degree of respiratory disease.

In conclusion of part 2, knowing the calves’ normal behavior and then evaluating them for dehydration, fever, diarrhea, navel infections, and respiratory disease can help make an educated decision on whether or not to use antibiotics. Again, having a close relationship with your veterinarian can help you work through treatment protocols and can give more insight on how to evaluate calves. Stay tuned for part 3, where the program concludes with treatment protocols.
Emergency Preparedness Through a Farm Walk Through

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

When something goes wrong on your farm and emergency service personnel respond either for a fire or farm accident and everything is moving fast, trying to remember every detail responders need to know can be a challenge. Emergency response personnel are required to have continuing education training in order to stay certified. One part of this training can be doing site visits. Unlike urban departments who often must inspect buildings on a regular basis, rural fire departments often never get to visit farms until there is an emergency. Even in rural fire departments, many of the responders are not directly connected to farms, and even if they are, many do not know the hidden hazards around your farm. The best way to bridge the gap between your farm and emergency responders is to invite them to walk around your farm, identify hazards, and help you create an emergency plan.

The emergency action plan can include the farm walk around, plus an equipment close-up review, especially of machinery that may not be utilized on many farms in your area. It will also be worth your time to do a short course on animal handling. You may want to have disposable plastic boots available for biosecurity and so that visitors can walk around in your barn.

Fire

Fires in livestock facilities can cause many challenges. The first two things that should be discussed is how to handle livestock during the fire, where to move them to, and how to shut the power and backup generators off. Livestock are often scared during a fire, and even once chased out of the barn, they may run back in unless they are secured in another location, not only endangering them but also the responders. One of the first safety steps fireman take during a fire is to shut the power off, making it safe to use water on the fire and not risk electrocution. Shutting the power off also stops fans that may still be running and fueling the fire. If you have any type of fuel going to the building, such as propane or natural gas, it is important to show responders where to turn the gas off. Chemical storage, especially flammables, need pointed out to responders. Even non-flammables can release toxic gases that will endanger responders. While outside the barn, be sure to point out any buried tanks that may be hazardous if firefighters happen to drive over them or attempt to use that area as a means of entry. A tour within the buildings can be very important, especially when we have put additions onto your barns to expand the facility. Pointing out to responders the areas where buildings are tied together or areas where the buildings have leveraged headers can keep everyone safe in the future. During the tour and discussion, it is important to discuss if hay is still stored in the haymows and if specialized equipment like an aerial fire truck may be needed to reach over the barn to a fire in the middle. As part of the fire tour, be sure to discuss the nearest water source where water can be pumped from and if there are any water storage tanks on the farm.

Rescue/Medical Responses

Emergency medical rescues are another area to have an action plan for with your local fire department. Do you have confined spaces on the farm, such as manure storage, upright silo, bulk milk tanks, or bulk fertilizer tanks? These are all areas that can be a hazardous on the farm and can be a risk to you and responders. One of the risks with confined spaces is dangerous gasses. While on the tour, have a discussion with first responders about gas detection equipment that they have available if they need to enter a confined space. Hydrogen sulfide, methane, carbon monoxide, and ammonia are gases of concern. Pit gases from any storage pit, whether closed, open, or under barn storage, can be toxic to both humans and livestock. H₂S gas concentration levels of 2 to 20 ppm will cause symptoms of nausea, headache, and dizziness. H₂S levels greater than 100 ppm will cause altered breathing, collapse, and death.

While all animals can turn dangerous on the farm, be sure to tell responders if you keep a bull on the farm. Let them know where he is housed and if any restraint devices are available to restrain him. Another consideration is pinching/crushing hazards on the farm, e.g., these are often air or hydraulic operated gates in milking parlors. Be sure to show responders the emergency shut offs and how to operate all gates. Other hazards are medications and chemicals stored on the farm. Show responders where material safety data sheets are kept and the different storage locations so that accidental poisonings or needle sticks can be responded to quickly. Lastly, be sure to discuss your farm location naming so that if responders are called, they know where to find the victim, such as the old pole barn, dry cow barn, and east addition.

By inviting your local fire department to your farm for a tour and emergency preparedness, planning can make a bad day on your farm a little less stressful.
Considerations for Managing Higher Fertilizer Prices on Your Dairy
Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County; and Greg LaBarge, Field Specialist, Nutrient Management, Ohio State University Extension

Fertilizer prices have been increasing rapidly. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has tracked bi-weekly fertilizer prices in Illinois since 2008. Prices of anhydrous ammonia, urea, and 28% are presented in Figure 1 (as of October 21, 2021). The average price of anhydrous ammonia was $1,135 per ton, up by $278 per ton from the price reported October 7, 2021.

The University of Illinois Farmdoc Daily, in their October 26 Weekly Farm Economics newsletter (https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2021/10/management-decisions-relative-to-high-nitrogen-fertilizer-prices.html) identified the following reasons for increasing nitrogen fertilizer prices:
- Hurricane Ida’s landfall in September closed anhydrous ammonia plants in Louisiana, leading to supply disruptions.
- Natural gas prices, a significant cost of producing nitrogen fertilizers, have been increasing in recent months. Natural gas and anhydrous ammonia prices are correlated (see farmdoc Daily, October 19, 2021).
- Corn prices have been rising. Fertilizer prices are positively correlated with corn prices (see farmdoc Daily, October 19, 2021), particularly since the rise in corn use for ethanol.
- General supply disruptions and labor issues associated with the aftermath of Covid that has impacted all industries also are impacting the fertilizer industry.
Spring 2022 Price Expectations

In their Weekly Farm Economics newsletter, the University of Illinois Farmdoc Daily reviewed price changes from October to April for the years 2008 to 2020. For anhydrous ammonia, 28% of the time the price was lower in April than in October. The largest decline ($441 per ton) occurred from 2008 to 2009, and the largest increase ($262 per ton) was realized between October 2020 to April 2021. Whether fertilizer prices will decline in 2022 is anybody’s guess. Manufacturing may increase, but uncertainties in winter heating or other delays can impact production and pricing.

Management Considerations

Soil Sampling & Testing

Soil testing is always an important management consideration, but its importance is an even better investment with the present fertilizer pricing situation. Sampling is recommended every three years to maintain proper soil fertility and promote healthy plants. Soil testing is also critical for determining soil pH and the need for lime applications. A target soil pH of 6.0 to 6.8 is ideal for most crops.

The Tri-State phosphorus and potassium recommendations define how vital the fertilizer application is in the upcoming year. Using the soil test value, we can answer the question, “Do I need to apply fertilizer this year, or can I wait into the future?” If your soil test value is above the critical level, added fertilizer is not expected to increase the yield of the upcoming crop. When soil test values are above the critical level, the chance of a yield response is highly unlikely. The critical phosphorus soil test level for corn and soybean is 20 ppm and 30 ppm for alfalfa and wheat. The critical potassium soil test does not differ by crop but by soil cation exchange capacity (CEC). For soil with a CEC greater than 5, it is 120 ppm, and when less than 5, it is 100 ppm. All these soil test values are for the Mehlich 3 soil test.

Manure Testing

When comparing P₂O₅ and K₂O availability in manure to commercial fertilizer, there are two things to know. First, the pounds of available P and K nutrient shown on the manure test is equivalent to commercial fertilizer. Therefore, those manure nutrients are a one-to-one replacement for commercial fertilizer. Second, manure is not a good substitute when starter fertilizer is needed.

Apply Recommended Rates

Applying the correct amount of fertilizer will optimize crop yield and minimize environmental concerns. The following tables are from the Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, and Alfalfa bulletin from OSU Extension. A pdf copy of this bulletin can be accessed here: https://go.osu.edu/tristatefertilizerrecommendationpublication
Nitrogen recommendations for corn following soybean:

Phosphorus recommendation for corn silage:

Potassium recommendation for corn silage:

Nitrogen recommendation for corn following corn:

Phosphorus recommendation for alfalfa:

Potassium recommendation for alfalfa:

Summary

Fertilizer is a significant investment in achieving maximum yields. We strongly recommend dairy producers soil test fields, complete a manure nutrient analysis, and apply the correct amount of fertilizer to optimize crop yields.

References
Farmdoc Daily, University of Illinois, https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2021/10/management-decisions-relative-to-high-nitrogen-fertilizer-prices.html

Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, and Alfalfa, Ohio State University Extension, https://go.osu.edu/tristatefertilizerrecommendationpublication

This article appeared originally in the Farm and Dairy.
Valuing Bedded-Pack Manure

Glen Arnold, Manure Management Field Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Due to the increase in fertilizer prices, there is renewed interest in the nutrient value of manure. This article will discuss bedded-pack manures that involve straw, sawdust, or wood chips to absorb moisture. The nutrients and organic matter in pen-pack manure are an excellent addition to farm fields.

The most common types of bedded manure are beef, dairy, and sheep or goats. Small ruminant bedded pack manure contains the most nutrients per ton followed by beef manure and dairy manure.

Pen-pack manure contains the macro nutrients nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash, along with a host of micronutrients. The nutrient content can vary depending on species, feed products fed, and the amounts of straw or sawdust used for bedding. The farm’s manure handling and storage practices also impact the nutrient content of manure. Manure stored under roof will usually maintain a higher nutrient value than manure exposed to rainfall.

Pen-pack manure nutrients are measured as pounds of nutrient per ton of manure. Typically, the nitrogen content will be 10 to 16 lb/ton. About 2 lb of this nitrogen is in the ammonium form and the remainder will be in the organic form. While ammonium nitrogen is immediately available to a growing crop, organic nitrogen takes time in a field to mineralize and become available over three or four years. The phosphorus content, in the P₂O₅ form, will usually be from 6 to 12 lb/ton. The potash content, in the K₂0 form, will usually be between 10 and 15 lb/ton.

Applying pen-pack manure can be more precise if you know the application rate being applied in tons per acre. If you are unsure how many tons per acre your solid manure spreader applies, there is a simple way to make a determination. Make a tarp that is 56 inches by 56 inches (21.8 square feet). Fasten it to the ground with weights on the corners and apply manure across the tarp. Fold up the tarp and weigh the manure captured. Many people use a bathroom scales for this. One pound of manure captured on the tarp is equivalent to one ton of manure applied per acre. Thus, if you captured 10 lb of manure, the application rate was 10 tons/acre.

We always want to keep water quality in mind when handing manure. The goal is to make good use of the manure nutrients and keep the manure nutrients out of streams and ditches.

For more information about how and when to sample manure, Penn State Extension has a good publication available on-line at http://extension.psu.edu/plants/nutrient-management/educational/manure-storage-and-handling/manure-sampling-for-nutrient-management-planning
Face-to-Face Again with the 2021 Ohio Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped generally into teams of three to four individuals. Fortunately, we were able to conduct the 2021 Ohio Dairy Challenge in-person this year in comparison to having to hold a virtual event in 2020. The program was held October 22-23, but earlier in the week, herd records, an aerial view of the farm, a farmer questionnaire, and feeding information were provided to students. On Friday afternoon, the students and judges spent about two hours at the farm viewing the operation and visiting with the owners. Students had to turn in their presentations by 8:00 am on Saturday morning. Presentations were judged on Saturday morning and an awards luncheon held on Saturday at the OSU Fawcett Center in Columbus.

The program this year was sponsored by ADM Animal Nutrition, Provimi North America, Purina Animal Nutrition, ST Genetics, Biomin, Perdue Agribusiness, and Elanco. The farm selected for the contest this year was the Brightbill and Gem-Hill Farms LLC in Loudonville, OH owned by Robert and Sue Brightbill, Greg Brightbill, and Mark Brightbill, with involvement by Matthew, Caleb, and Hayden Brightbill. The family’s operation includes about 690 cows and 700 youngstock. The cows are milked in a double-18 parlor with a RHA of milk at 24,455 lb, 4.3% milk fat and 3.1% milk protein. There were 55 students (5 students from ATI, 3 students from Wilmington College, 4 veterinary students, one graduate student and 42 students from the Columbus campus) that participated in the program this year. During the Saturday morning presentations, the students had 20 minutes to present their findings and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the program this year were Bob Hostetler (ST Genetics), Alan Chestnut (Cargill/Provimi), Paige Gott (Biomin), Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), Brian Lammers (ADM Animal Nutrition), Alex Tebbe (Purina Animal Nutrition), Logan Morris (Perdue Agribusiness), and Benjamin Wenner (Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences).

The top team consisted of Lydia Dunaway, Tori MacLoed, Allison Sanders, and Kalyn Strahley from the OSU Columbus campus. The second placed team consisted of Kaci McMullen, Leah Miller, Rachel Sherman, Danny Strauchon, and Marissa Topp from ATI. The third placed team consisted of Faith Hagelberger, Elizabeth Schafer, and Ashley Stroud. In addition, the Wilmington team received an honorable mention that consisted of Madelyn Altherr, Hayley Moore, and Madelyn Topp. Students will be selected to represent Ohio State at the National Contest and to participate in the Dairy Challenge Academy to be held March 31 - April 2, 2022 in Green Bay, WI. Students from ATI participated in the Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge held during October 14-16, 2021. Students from The Ohio State University, Columbus campus and Wilmington College will be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge to be held during February 16 -18, 2022 that is being hosted by Ohio State, Purdue, and Michigan State in Ft. Wayne, IN. The coach for the Dairy Challenge program at ATI is Dr. Shaun Wellert, Daryl Nash at Wilmington College, and Drs. Maurice Eastridge and Benjamin Wenner for the OSU Columbus campus. Additional information about the North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge program can be found at: http://www.dairychallenge.org/

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for August and September were at $16.50/cwt and $16.66/cwt, respectively. Class III closed lower than predicted at $15.95/cwt in August, with protein and milk fat at $2.45/lb and $1.85/lb, respectively. This marks a continued decline in both fat and protein prices since May of 2021. This issue, the Class III future for October is $17.46/cwt, followed by a slight decrease to $17.13/cwt in November.

Updated Corn Silage Price

A new corn silage price used throughout this article was calculated this month as corn silage harvest winds down across the state. This year’s approximate price for normal corn silage (32 to 38% dry matter), based on a $5.36/bu corn grain price at start of day September 27, 2021, is $60.75/ton. Due to the higher December corn future this year ($5.36/bu compared to $3.65/bu this time last year), corn silage is increased in value by ~$14/ton compared to last season ($46.63/ton). However, based on its nutritive value, home grown corn silage continues to be a bargain feed in dairy cattle rations.

Nutrient Prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The price of net energy for lactation (NE_L) is about 32% lower than the 5-year average ($0.08/Mcal), while metabolizable protein (MP) and physically-effective neutral detergent fiber (pe-NDF) are 36 and 59% higher than the 5-year averages ($0.38/lb and $0.08/lb, respectively). These fluctuations in nutrient price are in line with the seasonal adjustments to nutrient prices over the last 5 years.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For January’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $9.21 and $9.68/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are likely to be profitable. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, September 27, 2021.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on September 27, 2021 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, September 27, 2021

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, September 27, 2021.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Gluten meal	Feather meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
^{Wheat middlings}	Soybean hulls
Corn silage	Wheat bran	Soybean meal - expeller
Distillers dried grains	48% Soybean meal	44% Soybean meal
Gluten feed	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Solvent extracted canola meal
	^{41% Cottonseed meal}	Meat meal
	Corn, ground, dry	Whole, roasted soybeans
	Hominy

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, September 27, 2021.

Highlights from the Recent USDA Dairy Forecast

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County

The latest USDA Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook was released on September 16, 2021. The complete report is available here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/102168/ldp-m-327.pdf?v=6900. This article will highlight sections from the dairy portion of the report.

Supply and Use

July 2021 milk production was 2% higher than the same month in 2020, the number of dairy animals peaked in May 2021 at 9.509 million head, and the July number came in at 9.500 million head. Increased culling and slaughter of dairy cows at federally inspected plants contributed to these changes. Milk production for July 2021 was 14 lb higher than July 2020, averaging 2,015 lb/cow.

Corn and soybean meal prices were lowered in the recent report. The 2021-2022 marketing year average for corn was reduced to $5.45/bushel. Soybean meal for 2020-2021 is projected at $360/ton. The hay market continues to be strong. Alfalfa hay in July was $201/ton, up $2/ton from June 2021 and $29/ton more than July 2020.

Dairy Forecast

Milk cow inventory has been reduced by 15,000 from the previous month to 9.485 million head because of increased culling and higher slaughter numbers. The estimated milk at 24,010 lb/cow in 2021 is 10 lb lower than the previous month’s projection. USDA ERS is expecting milk production to be 227.8 billion lb for 2021.

Milk Price Forecast - 2021

Category Forecast Price

Class III $16.65/cwt

Class IV $15.55/cwt

All Milk $18.15/cwt

Milk Price Forecast - 2022

Category Forecast Price

Class III $16.45

Class IV $16.05

All Milk $18.40
Livestock Medication Records: Are They Really Necessary?
Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County and Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Professor and Dairy Extension Veterinarian, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Ohio State University Extension

At a recent Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) training session, we discussed livestock drug use, proper administration, the importance of following the label (and veterinary instructions), and the importance of keeping records of drugs administered.

Real-Life Example

A producer attending the session stood up and described to the group what happened when he had an animal test positive for a drug residue. An official from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) came to his farm multiple times until finding him at home. He was required to write a letter explaining what steps he would take to prevent the issue from arising again. The FDA determined the first letter wasn’t adequate in addressing their concerns. He was provided with websites to consult and had to write another letter addressing the concerns. The producer now keeps detailed medication records and strongly encouraged every livestock producer to do the same!

Food Producing Animals

In livestock production, a medication may be necessary to treat diseases and restore health. Feed additives containing medications must be used only according to the label instruction. However, if precautions are not taken, problems can arise when an animal tests positive for a drug residue violation in meat, milk, and eggs. Remember, these are food producing animals and it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that a safe product is available to consumers. Drug and chemical residues in meat, milk, and eggs are of public health concern.

The FDA regulates the use of livestock medications in the United States and establishes tolerance levels for residues in meat, milk, and eggs. Following label recommendations and maintaining accurate and proper treatment records helps ensure that violations do not occur.

Figure 1. Maintaining accurate and proper treatment records is just as important as having adequate working facilities!

Key Points

The following key points are from the document Adequate Drug Treatment Records Help Ensure Food Safety, available at this FDA website: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-health-literacy/adequate-drug-treatment-records-help-ensure-food-safety

Live animals sold for slaughter for human consumption are considered food.

Under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FFD&C Act), the definition of “food” includes “articles used for food or drink for man or other animals.” FDA considers live animals intended for food as “food” under the FFD&C Act.

Food held under insanitary conditions is adulterated under the law.

The FFD&C Act states that a food is adulterated “if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.”

Giving drugs to animals without keeping adequate records can constitute “insanitary conditions.”

In cases involving illegal drug residues in dairy cows, district courts have agreed with the U.S. government that the failure of a dairy farm to keep adequate records of the administration of drugs constituted inadequate control measures. The courts found that these inadequate control measures created “insanitary conditions” and, therefore, adulterated the food under the FFD&C Act.

Drug residues in edible tissues above a level set by FDA (the “tolerance”) are illegal.

When a food-producing animal is treated with a drug, residues of the drug sometimes remain in or on edible tissues from that animal. Residues include small amounts of leftover drug, or parts of the drug that aren’t completely broken down by the animal’s body. Immediately after administering a medication to sick animals, the drug enters the blood stream and is typically metabolized by liver and then eliminated by the kidney via urine. Most sick animals experience some degree of dehydration and low intake (feed and water) due to pain, and this may extend the drug clearance from the animal. Keep your treated animals fully hydrated to avoid residues in milk or meat.

FDA, through its Center for Veterinary Medicine, makes sure the residues that may be present in or on edible tissues from treated animals pose little risk to people. As part of the approval process for any drug intended for use in food-producing animals, the agency sets the drug’s tolerance and withdrawal period. The tolerance is the level of residues allowed to be in or on the edible tissues. Residues higher than this level are called “violative” because they violate (are above) the tolerance set by FDA.

The withdrawal period is the time from when the animal was last treated with the drug to when the animal can be slaughtered for food or selling milk. The withdrawal period allows for the drug (or parts of the drug known as metabolites) in the edible tissues of the treated animal to get to levels that are at or below the tolerance.

It is illegal for dairy farmers, livestock dealers, and other animal producers to sell an animal for food that has drug residues in its edible tissues that are above the set tolerance.

What enforcement action can FDA take if I have a violation?

The producer described above did not have to pay any fines for the violation he incurred. However, having to research information, make phone calls, work with the veterinary of record, and write two letters consumed much of his time. Let’s take a look at possible enforcement action FDA may take against violators:

Warning letters – Are sent to the individuals or firms, advising them of specific noted violations. These letters request a written response as to the steps which will be taken to correct the violation.

Injunction – An order by a court that requires an individual or corporation to do or refrain from doing a specific act.

Criminal prosecution – May be recommended in appropriate cases for violation of Section 301 of the Act. Misdemeanor convictions, which do not require proof of intent to violate the Act, can result in fines and/or imprisonment up to one year. Felony convictions, which apply in the case of a second violation or intent to defraud or mislead, can result in fines and/or imprisonment up to three years.

Criminal Fines for Food Drug and Cosmetic Act Violations

Misdemeanor fines under the Act may reach $500,000 under some circumstances. The Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 98-596) provides for fines for violations of Federal law. Although it is not part of the Act, the Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of 1994 applies to all fines levied under the Act, as well as other statutes that contain provisions enforced by FDA.

The following fines are applicable for each offense:
- Up to $100,000 for a misdemeanor by an individual that does not result in death.
- Up to $200,000 for a misdemeanor by a corporation that does not result in death.
- Up to $250,000 for a misdemeanor by an individual that results in death or a felony.
- Up to $500,000 for a misdemeanor by a corporation that results in death or a felony.
The maximum imprisonment for a misdemeanor under the Act remains a year for each offense.

What drug treatment information do I need to maintain?

When treating food animals with any medications, the following must be recorded:
- Name of the drug used;
- Identity of the animal treated;
- Date of each administration of the drug to the animal;
- The dose;
- Route of administration. How the drug was given (for example, by mouth or by injection into muscle);
- The lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian in the context of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship (if applicable);
- Name of the person who gave the drug;
- Length of the withdrawal period; and
- Date the withdrawal period ends (milk can return to the bulk tank or treated animal can safely be sent to slaughter on or after this date).
Veterinary Client Patient Relationship (VCPR)

A VCPR is just what it says – a working relationship with a veterinarian who is familiar with your animals, production practices, and works with you to develop plans to prevent, control and treat diseases. The veterinarian is referred to as your Veterinarian of Record (VoR), and both the VoR and the client should sign a form to document this relationship. If this is you, excellent! If emergency situations are the only times you see a veterinarian, maybe it’s time to schedule a visit to establish and document the VCPR.

Summary

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Drug and chemical residues entering the food chain (milk, meat, or eggs) are of public health concern. Review and adjust health protocols at least once per year with your veterinarian. It really is in your financial best interest to avoid residues entering the food chain to maintain your market channels. In the event you receive an FDA letter indicating a residue violation was found in milk or meat, please contact your veterinarian immediately to develop the response letter documenting the corrective actions.

Sources

Adequate Drug Records Help Ensure Food Safety, Food and Drug Administration, https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-health-literacy/adequate-drug-treatment-records-help-ensure-food-safety

Types of FDA Enforcement Actions, Food and Drug Administration, https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/resources-you/types-fda-enforcement-actions

Veterinary Feed Directive, https://vet.osu.edu/sites/vet.osu.edu/files/documents/extension/Brochure_VFD.pdf

Veterinary-Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR) Template, https://vet.osu.edu/extension/general-food-fiber-animal-resources
Antibiotic Stewardship in Calves – Part 1

Haley Zynda, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

You’ve likely heard of Beef Quality Assurance, but what about Veal Quality Assurance? Essentially, it is the same type of certification for the well-being and proper handling of veal calves. However, a new addition to the certification training is antibiotic stewardship – a concept translatable to almost every livestock operation out there. The goal of the program is for farm personnel to correctly identify calves for treatment using a treatment protocol written by the herd veterinarian, thus improving responsible use of antibiotics. Drs. Jessica Pempek and Greg Habing put together a three-part training, of which I’ll summarize each with their own article.

Part 1 of the Antibiotic Stewardship in Calves is titled “Antibiotic Use and Resistance.” Before we jump into details, do you know the specifics on different types of medication? What do antibiotics treat? If you answered viral, fungal, protozoal, or parasitic infections, unfortunately you’d be incorrect. An antibiotic is a medicine that inhibits the growth of or kills bacteria. Antibiotics are not to be used to treat any other type of infection.

How about vaccines? They’re a hot topic right now in human medicine, but their purpose is the same in livestock. They introduce a viral or bacterial pathogen in an inert form to prime the immune system to attack it, should the animal be exposed to the pathogen in real time later. Vaccines can be a modified-live form, killed form, or conjugate form, and cause the body to recognize and make antibodies against that specific disease-causing organism. Vaccines prevent disease, not cure it.

Lastly, what about NSAIDs, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? These drugs are the parallels to our ibuprofen or acetaminophen. These drugs do not prevent disease or cure infections, but instead reduce fever or inflammation that may be associated with an infection. Examples include flunixin meglumine, phenylbutazone, or meloxicam.

Now, back to antibiotics. It’s important to remember, not all bacteria are bad. There are very good bacteria that live in the digestive tract of calves and mature cows (the rumen wouldn’t function without them!). The bad bacteria are referred to as pathogens, and these bacteria cause the naval infections, pinkeye, and some pneumonia and diarrhea cases we see in calves. When using antibiotics, the medication does not pick and choose which bacteria it kills, other than using its mode of action (way of prohibiting bacterial growth). That means good bacteria along with pathogens are impacted when administering an antibiotic. Bacteria in the digestive tract unfortunately may take a hit, too. This will likely cause a disruption to the gut microbiome and digestion efficiency, and those good microbes will need to be repopulated again.

Overusing antibiotics or misusing them can lead to antibiotic resistance, or resistance by the bacteria to the antibiotic. Widespread resistance can eventually lead to bacterial populations unable to be controlled by medication for both livestock and humans. We, as humans, can be infected by the same or similar pathogens as livestock because we share segments of the gene pool (we’re all in the mammalian family). Therefore, antibiotic resistance not only affects livestock producers, but the lay people as well.

Overusing or misusing antibiotics causes resistance by selecting for the bacteria that are not killed or inhibited by the medicine. For example, let’s say there is a 5-day old calf presenting with diarrhea. For this age of calf, the causative pathogens may be E. coli, clostridia, cryptosporidium, rotavirus, or coronavirus. While waiting for the fecal culture results, you treat with an antibiotic. Fast forward after you’ve already given several doses of antibiotic – the culture is negative for bacteria and you’re dealing with a viral infection. Unfortunately, the antibiotics have already gotten to work. They’ve negatively impacted the good bacteria in the gut, and if there are any pathogenic bacteria in the system, have killed off the susceptible ones but left the resistant bacteria alone. The “lone rangers” will now have full access to replicate and pass on their resistant genes, potentially causing an issue down the line, especially if the same protocol is followed every time there is a sick calf.

Reducing the risk for antibiotic resistance starts with judicial antibiotic use. This means using the proper medication for the issue at hand. Having a veterinary-client-patient working relationship is essential to knowing when and when not to use an antibiotic. Discuss a treatment protocol with your vet. Using antibiotic alternatives may also reduce the chance of resistance. Minor infections may be handled simply using palliative care (giving an NSAID if the animal is in considerable pain, keeping a wound clean, providing fresh and dry bedding, etc.). Lastly, preventing disease before it occurs eliminates the need to use antibiotics entirely. Farm cleanliness, sick animal quarantine, and worker hygiene can all contribute to reduced disease transfer.

Reducing antibiotic resistance can start with anyone. Talk to your vet about antibiotic use on your farm and stay tuned for Part 2!
Answering Farmers’ Questions About the Pandemic in 2021

Dr. Gustavo Schuenemann, Professor and Extension Veterinarian, and Jeffrey Workman, Extension Program Coordinator, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

COVID-19 has certainly dominated the headlines and many of our daily conversations since March, 2020. For those directly involved in production agriculture, our lives and routines may have been disrupted, but our daily business and responsibilities of farming and raising livestock never stopped.

Times like these should remind everyone of the importance of having a robust food production system to ensure a nation’s food security. Below are the frequently asked questions we receive when visiting farms.

To answer these questions, we should look at the unbiased science. The challenge with looking at the science regarding COVID-19 is that portions of the science do not yet exist, or are not yet confirmed through replication and hard evidence. Time must pass in order to generate data.

Science is evolving as researchers around the world continue to study and learn more to create unbiased new knowledge that informs all of us. Answering one research question may lead to several new research questions, or the correct answer backed by science is no longer relevant moving forward as the virus has changed.

The “gold standard” that we typically use in the U.S. for sharing information and making decisions regarding public health are the recommendations coming from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC develops and changes their recommendations based on the available scientific data at any given time.

There are coronaviruses on my farm — is this the same as COVID-19?

No, there are animal coronavirus infections that are caused by different strains of coronavirus, such as calf diarrhea, winter dysentery in cows, and bovine respiratory disease complex (shipping fever). To prevent losses, producers vaccinate their animals to protect against diseases caused by coronavirus.

When and how will the COVID-19 pandemic end?

We can’t yet say exactly when the pandemic will end, but we do know that the pandemic will essentially be over when the individuals who make up the population achieve some level of immunity which ultimately stops the spread.

How do you get immunity?

Immunity may be natural, or infection-induced, in which a person is infected with the virus and recovers. Immunity can also be vaccine-induced in which a vaccine helps the body to produce antibodies. Individuals who make up the population must achieve immunity to stop the spread and ultimately end the pandemic.

What is herd immunity?

Herd (or group) immunity occurs when a large portion of the population (or herd) has some level of immunity to a virus. This means if someone who didn’t have enough immunity becomes exposed and infected, the likelihood of them passing it on to someone else is much less because the majority of their contacts in their surroundings already have immunity.

When a virus infects an individual, the individual either recovers or succumbs, and the virus can only survive by spreading to another host individual. We see in other viruses, such as the measles and mumps, in which the US population already has herd immunity, there are occasional small, isolated outbreaks, but the virus is unable to develop into a pandemic.

Is immunity a sure thing?

Typically, immunity from most viruses is never 100%. For example, we achieve immunity from the chickenpox virus through natural infection or vaccination, but there are still a few cases of reinfection identified worldwide. Influenza (flu) viruses have the ability to mutate, adapt, change, and jump across species.

As the flu virus changes, a person who has been vaccinated over several years, and also has some infection-induced immunity, may still become infected. However, they have some immunity that lessons the severity of their infection and results in a faster recovery.

Why should I get vaccinated?

The safest way to achieve some degree of immunity against COVID-19 is through vaccination. The current COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be as high as 94% effective at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. The Delta variant is the newest strain of concern because it appears to be more contagious and severe than earlier strains of COVID-19. All indications thus far are that individuals who are fully vaccinated have protection from the Delta variant. It is important to keep in mind, if we learn that immunity wanes over time, or that the virus has significantly changed so that the current vaccine-induced immunity (or infection-induced immunity) is no longer effective, there could be recommendations for booster shots or other vaccine formulations at some point in the future. Individuals should choose whichever vaccine is available and they have the opportunity to receive. Current efficacy percentages reported are developed from subsets of people, and the true efficacy numbers will become much more valid and reliable as datasets become much larger and time passes.

Keep in mind that the efficacy of the annual influenza vaccines is typically only 40 to 60%. All three COVID-19 vaccines have been found to be safe and effective. Everyone is biologically different and side effects vary. The reward (immunity or some degree of immunity from COVID-19) outweighs the risk (potential vaccine side effects).

To conclude, the safest way to achieve immunity or some degree of immunity is by becoming fully vaccinated (individuals need both doses of a two-dose series). If an individual doesn’t achieve immunity that fully prevents infection, they may achieve a degree of immunity that decreases the severity of symptoms and duration.

We all do personal risk assessments and consider the risk-benefit ratio each and every day without even thinking about it. There is risk in getting up in the morning and going to work. There is risk in driving a vehicle, operating machinery, flying on an airplane, and so on. Essentially everything we do in life has some degree of risk, but when individuals determine the benefit or reward outweighs the risk, they must carry on and move forward. Talk to your doctor or health care provider to discuss the best option for you and your family.
H2Ohio Cover Crop Usage

Jamie Hampton, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Auglaize County, Ohio State University Extension

A collaborative approach to the issues facing Ohio’s water is how the H2Ohio website defines their program. Launched in 2019 as a water quality initiative to address the inflow of nutrients into the water system of northern Ohio, the H2Ohio program has grown. Starting with 14 counties in the Northwest corner of Ohio along the Maumee River watershed, the program originally included: Williams, Defiance, Paulding, Van Wert, Mercer, Fulton, Henry, Putnam, Allen, Auglaize, Lucas, Wood, Hancock, and Hardin Counties. The area has grown to include Seneca, Huron, Erie, Wyandot, Ottawa, Crawford, Marion, Richland, Sandusky, and Shelby Counties.

With the expansion of counties, it will be beneficial to revisit some of the goals and guidelines associated with the best management practices (BMP) that the program recognizes. BMP’s are practices that help in the prevention or reduction in the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources. The H2Ohio program outlines 10 practices that they defer to for phosphorus reduction. Those practices are soil testing, variable-rate fertilization, subsurface nutrient application, manure incorporation, conservation crop rotation, cover crops, drainage water management, two-stage ditch construction, edge-of-field buffers, and wetlands. Combining these practices with a Voluntary Nutrient Management Plan (VNMP), there could be benefits to the water system as well as the producer.

Cover crops go hand-in-hand with several of the BMP’s that H2Ohio uses, allowing for higher levels of control of the nutrient movement on your operation. Cover crops are beneficial when used with some of the BMP’s that H2Ohio recommends. With manure applications, cover crops are required when applied after July 1 and where a growing crop is not present. Cover crops are available to be used in a conservation crop rotation with small grains. Both BMP’s can be combined with the overwintering cover crop BMP. This allows for a stacking of cash payments. According to Emily Kramer at the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), you may stack BMP’s if they are “compatible” with each other, i.e., a producer could plant a small grain ($35/acre), apply manure and incorporate it ($35/ acres for litter and $60/acre for all other types of manure) and plant an over wintering cover crop $25/acre). They would be able to receive all 3 payments as long as all requirements of the program are met. This is just a single scenario, but one of the most common ones.

Overwintering cover crop is the use of a plant for the purpose of protecting and enriching the soil. The H2Ohio program has very specific guidelines for the use of cover crops in their BMP guidance sheet. The cover crop must follow all of these guidelines in order to qualify for the payment. The purpose of the overwintering cover crops is to reduce erosion and water quality degradation, and to increase cropping system diversity. This is applicable to crop land in the designated area that are not receiving payment under any other county, state or Federal program.

Specifications for the use of overwintering cover crops according to the All BMP Guidance Sheets (Exhibit B) include the following:

A producer must:

1. Establish overwintering cover crop no later than October 15.

2. The completed practice must meet the criteria for seeding, establishment, and maintenance per
NRCS Appendix A, including seed quality and testing requirements.

3. Seed mix must include a minimum of 50% of full rate of an overwintering species.

4. Cover crop must be maintained until March 15.

5. Crop can be harvested as a forage or grazed after March 15.

6. Manure and/or fertilizer, based on the VNMP, may be applied prior to seeding or after March 15.

a. Manure shall not be applied on frozen, snow-covered, or saturated soils or applied when the
local weather forecast for the application area contains greater than a 50% chance of precipitation
exceeding one inch in a 12-hour period.

b. Fertilizer shall not be applied on frozen, snow-covered, or saturated soils or applied when the
local weather forecast for the application area contains greater than a 50% chance of precipitation
exceeding one inch in a 12-hour period.

7. Producers may apply for up to three years of this practice.

There are other responsibilities that come with using this BMP. The producer will need to provide a VNMP to the SWCD, maps where cover crops are established, and seed tags or tests. The SWCD will determine eligibility and exclude any acres that fall outside of the guidelines, enter all the information, and process the payment.

References:

https://h2.ohio.gov/

Best Management Practices Guidance Sheet

Emily Kramer, SWCD, Auglaize County

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for May and June were at $18.93/cwt and $17.63/cwt, respectively. Class III closed slightly lower than predicted at $17.21/cwt in June, with protein continuing to decline in price from $2.81/lb in May to $2.51/lb in July. The Class III future for August is $16.50/cwt, followed by a slight increase to $16.66/cwt in September.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The price of NE_L and peNDF are about 37 and 41% higher than the 5-year averages ($0.08/Mcal and $0.08/lb), while MP is 2% below the 5-year average ($0.38/lb). The price of MP in the SESAME model using this week’s feed prices is very close to the 5-year average, although the prices of many feeds providing protein to the ration continue to be higher than they were this time last year.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, July 21, 2021.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on July 21, 2021 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a local price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set for this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, July 21, 2021.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are in oversized text. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are undersized text. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, July 21, 2021.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Gluten meal	Whole Cottonseed	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Corn, ground, dry	Feather meal	41% Cottonseed meal
Corn silage	Soybean hulls	Soybean meal - expeller
Distillers dried grains	Wheat bran	44% Soybean meal
^Hominy	48% Soybean meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Meat meal
	Wheat middlings	Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, July 21, 2021.

USDA Releases July Dairy Outlook
Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

The United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS) released its monthly Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook (https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/101676/ldp-m-325.pdf?v=2053.7) on July 16, 2021. This monthly outlook provides supply and use projections based on the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate (WASDE) report. The WASDE report, also released monthly, is available here: https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde.

Production and Use Data

According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), milk cow numbers in the United States have increased each month since July 2020 (see graph below). The number of dairy cattle slaughtered at federally inspected facilities has been comparable to a year ago levels; however, for the week ending June 27, 2021, slaughter numbers were 4,100 higher than the same week one year ago.

Milk production in May was 0.5 lb less than April, averaging 67.4 lb/cow. Over the last 20 years, the only larger decreases from April to May occurred in 2012 and 2020. Possible reasons for this decrease, as described in the report, include:
- Actions taken by some cooperatives and handlers may have discouraged higher production
- Increased feed costs
- Hot, dry weather in the western U.S.
- The U.S. Agriculture Drought Monitor, as of July 13, reported 50% of milk cow inventory, 64% of alfalfa acres, 36% of corn acres, and 31% of soybean acres were in areas experiencing drought
Dairy Price Forecast – 2021

USDA projects 9.5 million head of dairy cows in 2021, 5,000 more than in the previous month’s forecast. Per cow production for the year is estimated at 24,020 lb, a reduction of 45 lb from last month’s report. Continued drought, high feed prices, and reduced milk prices result in the lowered forecast.

Milk Class Price/cwt

III $16.80

IV $15.40

All-milk $18.30

Looking Ahead – Milk Production and Pricing - 2022

The forecast for 2022 calls for an increase of 15,000 head compared to 2021, bringing the total estimated number for the year at 9,515 million head. USDA is expecting milk production to increase to 24,335 lb/cow, about 315 lb higher than 2021.

Milk Class Price/cwt

III $16.75

IV $15.75

All-milk $18.50

Summary

This forecast calls for an increase in cow numbers, a slight increase in production, and no real improvement in milk pricing. Dairy producers are encouraged to evaluate inputs, monitor expenses closely, and consult with trusted advisors to develop plans.

Dairy farmers and advisors are encouraged to consult the Ohio State University Extension Dairy Excel 15 Measures of Competitiveness bulletin available at: https://dairy.osu.edu/sites/dairy/files/imce/2019%2015%20Measures%20of%20Dairy%20Farm%20Competitiveness%20Final%20%281%29.pdf, Ohio State University Extension Farm Budgets available at: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/farm-budgets, and the Ohio State University Extension Ohio Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program at: https://farmprofitability.osu.edu/.

Sources:

USDA Economic Research Service Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, July 2021 https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/101676/ldp-m-325.pdf?v=2053.7

USDA Economic Research Service, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate (WASDE), July 2021 https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0721.pdf
Assessing Calf Death Losses in a Beef-Dairy Crossbreeding Program
Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Professor and Extension Veterinarian, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Many dairy herds are implementing a beef-dairy crossbreeding program for all or a portion of their lactating cows in order to add value to newborn calves. In beef cattle, there is a moderate to high correlation between heritability of growth traits and their genetic correlations with birth weight (e.g., yearling body weight has a heritability of 58% and a correlation with birth weight of 0.61). Although there are several considerations such as market for beef-dairy cross calves, replacement heifers needed, and calf death losses due to dystocia and the subsequent survival and performance of lactating cows, the potential for added value by implementing a beef-dairy crossbreeding program must not neglect the potential to increase calving difficulty due to increased birth weights.

A case study using data from a beef-dairy crossbreeding program was developed to illustrate a systematic approach to assess calf death losses. The case study was developed for educational purposes; and the information may or may not be applicable to other situations. The overall objective was to assess calf death losses at calving for a 12-month period (March 2020 to March 2021). Therefore, the patterns of calf death losses were assessed on the following variables by:
1. Length of dry period (primarily cows with <44 days),
2. Gestation length and twin pregnancies,
3. Parity (first calf heifer and multiparous cows),
4. Sire (beef and Holstein bulls),
5. Calendar week, and
6. Calendar month.
Background: A total of 6488 calvings during March 2020 to March 2021 from one Holstein dairy herd were assessed. All cows were housed in free-stall barns and fed a TMR to meet or exceed nutritional requirements. Prepartum cows and pregnant heifers were fed an anionic diet and postpartum cows were grouped for the first 21 days in milk. First calf-heifers were grouped separately from multiparous cows in both pre- and postpartum pens. All lactating cows were milked 3x per day (every 8-hour interval) with an average annual milk yield of 96 lb/day (3.3% milk protein and 3.5% milk fat, and ~160,000 SCC/mL). The reported voluntary waiting period was 60 days for lactating cows. All lactating cows were presynched (starting at 26 ± 3 DIM) and enrolled in Ovsynch 12 days later. Cows showing signs of estrus during Ovsynch were bred and the remaining animals were subjected to timed-AI (~60% of cows were bred on heat detection and ~40% of cows on timed-AI). Multiparous cows (lactation 2 or greater) were bred with beef bulls and lactation 1 cows were bred with sex-sorted semen for the first two services (3^rd or greater services with beef bulls). Breeding heifers were bred with sex-sorted semen following a simple reproductive program consisting of PGF_2α every 14 days plus heat detection. Pregnant first-calf heifers were moved to the farm ~45 days prior to calving. All replacement heifers were raised on-site at a different facility. Pregnancy diagnosis was performed weekly for cows (32 to 38 days post-AI) and first-calf heifers (42 to 48 post-AI). Regarding the reproductive performance, cows had an overall 42% conception rate (CR) with 28% 21-day pregnancy rate (PR) and replacement heifers had an overall 60% CR with 42% 21-day PR. The owners and their advising team requested an assessment of the maternity (overall calf death losses) to adjust, if necessary, their beef-dairy crossbreeding program. The dairy herd was enrolled in DHIA and maternity data available on calf losses were obtained from PCDART.

Case Study Outcomes:

The overall calf death loss at the maternity was 5.4% (340 out of 6488 calvings). The pattern of calf death losses (n = 340) at calving were further analyzed to identify opportunities for improvement within the beef-dairy crossbreeding program (calving difficulty was not recorded):

1. What is the pattern of calf death losses by length of dry period?

Pregnant cows experiencing short dry period length (≤44 days) accounted for 41.1% of all calf death losses (n=140/340; Table 1). Regardless of sires, male calves had ~37% more mortality (5.9%) compared to female calves (4.3%). When looking at length of dry period, keep in mind that there is an interaction with short gestation length and twin pregnancies. Pregnant cows and first-calf heifers with twin pregnancies have shorter gestation lengths.

Table 1. Calf death losses by length of dry period.

2. What is the pattern of calf death losses by gestation length and birth of twins?

Pregnant cows experiencing short gestation length (<270 days) accounted for 15% (n = 48) of the calf death losses (Table 2). In dairy cattle, successful pregnancy results in the birth of one calf. However, the birth of two or more calves could occur at a rate of 3 to 5%. Birth of twin calves has been associated with genetics, season, parity (1.2% in primiparous and 5.8% in multiparous), breeding program (timed-AI versus estrus detection), and high milk yield. It has been shown that high milk producing cows have reduced blood progesterone due to increased metabolism to support milk yield. This reduction of blood progesterone occurs at the time of peak milk yield and breeding during the selection of the preovulatory follicle around 60 days in milk. Cycling dairy cows inseminated following estrus detection are more likely to experience double ovulation resulting in twin pregnancies (10-15%) compared to cows bred following timed-AI (3-5%). Therefore, high milk producing cows bred following estrus detection increased the likelihood of twin pregnancies, and cows with twin pregnancies have shorter gestation length. In dairy cattle, the gestation length is 276±6 days, but pregnant cows/heifers could experience a short (255-269 days), average (270-283 days), or long gestation length (284-297 days). It is known that dairy cows experiencing short or long gestation length have more calf losses at calving.

Table 2. Calf death losses by gestation length and twin pregnancies.

3. What is the pattern of calf losses by parity (first-calf heifers and multiparous cows)?

First calf heifers had less calf death losses compared to multiparous cows (Table 3). This is due to the fact that all replacement heifers and the first two services of lactation=1 cows were bred using sex-sorted semen (Holstein bulls); thus, more females calves were born. About 52% of first-calf heifers calved with ≤21 months. Multiparous cows (lactation 2 or greater) were bred using semen from beef bulls. Also, it is important to note that about 60% of all multiparous cows were bred following observation of standing heat; thus, this increases the likelihood of double ovulation, resulting in twin pregnancies regardless of sires. The overall twining rate was ~1% for first-calf heifers, ~4% for lactation 1, and ~7% for multiparous cows. When removing calves born from twin pregnancies for multiparous cows (lactation=3 or greater), the overall calf death losses was 3.1%. Calf death losses appears to be associated with twin pregnancies, gender (male) and age at calving of heifers rather than type of sires.

Table 3. Calf death losses by parity.

Footnote: Lactation 1 cows became first-calf heifers after calving (bred with sex-sorted semen). Lactation 2 cows were bred with sex-sorted semen during lactation 1 and became lactation 2 after calving.

4. What is the pattern of calf death losses by sire (beef and Holstein bulls)?

A total of 111 bulls were assessed (8 beef and 103 Holsteins). Table 4 provides information for a subset of 17 bulls (3 beef and 14 Holsteins) with ~60% of the total calf death losses. Out of 8 beef bulls assessed, 3 beef bulls (Limousine, Simmental, and Simental-Angus cross) had 24% of all calvings (11-15% twin pregnancies) with ~39% of all death losses (n = 133). Also, the data reveled an important interaction between birth of twins and calf death losses, regardless of sires (beef or Holstein bulls). Cows with twin pregnancies from beef bulls likely had to deal with an added effect of increased calf birth weight (primarily for male calves) and delivery of multiple calves. Calf birth weight is the most important predictor for difficult calving. Calf mortality due to a dystocic birth increases by 0.35% for every increased pound of birth weight above the mean for the breed. When removing calves born from twin pregnancies from the analysis for cows with lactation=3 or greater, the overall calf death losses was 3.1%. Therefore, both beef and Holstein bulls had similar overall calf death losses.

Table 4. Calf death losses by sires.

5. What has been the pattern of calf death loss at birth by calendar week?

In the calendar week, Monday had above mean calf death losses (Figure 1). Typically, Mondays are a busier workday for dairy farms because personnel are trying to catch up from any unfinished work from the previous weekend or week. This trend highlights the importance to review and adjust protocols and tasks to allow personnel sufficient time to monitor the maternity area.

Figure 1. Calf death losses by day of week.

6. What has been the pattern of calf death loss at birth by month?

Overall, summer had above mean calf death losses compared with spring, winter and fall (Figure 2). This trend is likely due to a drop in prepartum DM intake experienced by heat stressed cows with the subsequent increase in blood non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) prior to calving. The process of calving is an active process that requires energy (glucose) and calcium to support strong uterine and abdominal contractions for the successful delivery of one or more calves.

Figure 2. Calf death losses by month.

For this case study, what are the top opportunities to reduce calf death losses?

At a minimum, the confounding effect of twin pregnancies, gender (male vs female), and parity, season and calendar week should be considered when assessing calf death losses for a beef-dairy breeding program. The overall calf death losses for this case study (5.4%) are similar to the overall for the US (5.1%). However, the top 10% dairy herds in the US, in terms of calf survival, are achieving <2% calf losses at calving. To reduce calf losses at calving, consider the following points:
1. Although beef bulls had similar proportion of calf death losses as Holstein bulls, select calving ease beef sires without neglecting growth traits for beef-dairy crossbred calves. Track the degree of calving difficulty using a 4-point scale and calf birth weights for all sires, including calves born from sex-sorted semen.
2. Adjust management for twin pregnancies:
  1. Increase the proportion of multiparous cows bred on timed-AI by reducing heat detection. This reproductive strategy allows most high milk producing cows to develop the pre-ovulatory follicle under the influence of high blood progesterone, thus increasing the likelihood of single ovulation.
  2. Extend the voluntary waiting period from 60 to 70 DIM to allow cows more time to recover their uterine environment and start breeding cows right after the peak milk yield when DM intake supports production and liver metabolism.
  3. Cows confirmed pregnant with twins should be moved into the prepartum pen with an anionic diet 10 days earlier than the rest of the cows (at 245 ± 3 days of gestation). Because cows pregnant with twins had reduced gestation length, this management strategy allows enough exposure to the anionic diet to prevent hypocalcemia.
3. Review and adjust the criteria for the replacement program: a) growth and development (e.g., double calf birth weight by 60 days of life, 1.9-2 lb/day of body weight gain from weaning to calving) and b) breeding criteria (age, body weight, and height). Calf death losses increase when first calf heifers are calving with ≤22 or >28 months of age and at <1200 lb of postpartum body wight (or <80% body weight of lactation 4 cows at 100-200 days in milk).
4. Train calving personnel and adjust daily tasks to allow consistent handling of the maternity workload within the calendar week.
5. Adjust the heat abatement system to overcome the negative effect of heat stress during summer.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Please have this discussion with your veterinarian, nutritionist, and breeding team. These little details make the difference at the end of the day.
Promising Vaccine Development to Control Johne’s Disease

Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann and Dr. Jeffrey D. Workman, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Ohio State University Extension

Johne’s disease is a chronic enteritis associated with ruminants caused by the intracellular pathogen Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP). MAP is a highly prevalent and costly disease worldwide in large and small ruminant species, such as cattle, sheep, and goats. In the US, it is estimated that over 90% of dairy herds are infected with MAP. The clinical signs are characterized by chronic diarrhea with body weight loss in the later stages of infection. It has been shown that the subclinical stages of MAP were associated with decreased milk yield and higher risk for other common production diseases due to body weight loss and debilitating immune response. Infected animals with MAP are difficult to identify and segregate from the herd or flock due to: (1) long incubation period (it could take years), (2) the absence of clinical signs until advanced stages, and (3) the lack of reliable diagnostic methods. Newborn animals are infected at the time of parturition by ingesting MAP via colostrum and milk as well as environmental exposure to MAP in manure from infected cows. Identification of MAP in feces is performed by culture or PCR, or sometimes by serum ELISA to identify antibodies against MAP. Although these testing methods are rapid and cost-effective, the efficacy of MAP detection is almost entirely dependent on the immune status of the host.

Vaccination is recognized as an effective method to prevent infections in livestock. There are a few commercially available vaccines for Johne’s disease worldwide (e.g., Gudair, Silirium); however, in the US, Mycopar^® was the only USDA-licensed vaccine available for use (discontinued in the US in 2019). Its use was restricted to cattle, and only under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian. The increasing prevalence of MAP requires new efficacious vaccines as an essential management tool to control MAP. A recent study assessed the effectiveness of pooled MAP recombinant proteins as a potential vaccine. Two separate studies were carried out: 1) In the first study, vaccinated two-week old calves were immunized with a total of 400 µg protein cocktail per dose and 2) the second study compared doses of 400 µg versus 800 µg of protein cocktail using another set of two-week old calves. Calves were vaccinated twice 14 days apart starting at two weeks of age, then vaccinated and nonvaccinated control calves were inoculated orally three times with live MAP isolated from infected cows. At the end of 12 months study period, the authors showed that vaccinated animals had significantly reduced tissue colonization with MAP compared to control animals. Calves immunized with the higher dose had improved protection with reduced MAP burden. Furthermore, there was a negligible level of cross-reactivity between M. avium and M. bovis antigens, suggesting that infection could be differentiated from vaccinated animals when using serology assays. The authors concluded that vaccination of calves with the pooled four recombinant MAP proteins was efficacious in reducing tissue colonization and fecal shedding. Although experimentally, this novel vaccine has the potential to prevent or reduce the spread of Johne’s disease in cattle.

This study was conducted at the USDA-ARS, National Animal Disease Center located in Ames, IA. Please find below the reference for additional details:

Stabel, J.R., and J.P. Bannantine. 2021. Reduced tissue colonization of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in neonatal calves vaccinated with a cocktail of recombinant proteins. Vaccine 39:3131–3140.

Key Mastitis Control Points for Best Milk Quality

Dr. Luciana Bignardi da Costa, and Dr. Gustavo Schuenemann, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Mastitis is the most common and costly disease affecting dairy cows, ranking within the top two reasons for early removal of cows within US dairy herds. This disease affects cow welfare and causes significant economic losses through decreased milk yield, reduced milk quality, early removal of cows from the milking herd, and increased treatments costs. Mastitis is caused by several pathogens which lead to mammary gland inflammation with the subsequent increase of somatic cell counts in milk. Somatic cell count (SCC) and standard plate count (SPC) are mandated by the federal Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), which specifies safety standards of Grade “A” milk. The quality of processed dairy products and fluid milk is greatly affected by the initial quality of the raw milk harvested at the farm level. Therefore, listed below are key points expanded from the National Mastitis Council control program to improve milk quality at the herd level:

Point #1: Establishment of goals for udder health.

The most important part of your mastitis control program is setting goals for udder health and milk quality (Tables 1 and 2).

Milk from uninfected mammary glands contains less than 100,000 somatic cells per mL. Research studies have shown that milk SCC of equal or more than 200,000 per mL is associated with an inflammatory response due to an infected or recovering mammary quarter, and that milk has reduced manufacturing quality properties.
The PMO requires the SPC to be less than 100,000 cfu/mL for Grade A farms and to be less than 300,000 cfu/mL for manufacturing grade milk. However, for being a critical control point for milk quality, some milk purchasers are more rigorous than the official regulations. Thus, realistic a goal for SPC can be set at <5,000 cfu/mL and usually a count of >10,000 cfu/mL is indicative of a problem.
The Preliminary Incubation Count (PIC) or PI counts recommended values are <10,000 cfu/mL but up to 20,000 cfu/mL is considered acceptable. Values higher than 50,000 cfu/mL suggest potential problems with cleaning and sanitation of the milking machine, poor pre-milking preparation (washing the teats with water, not using teat predip, and dirty teats) all known risk factors for mastitis.
The laboratory pasteurized count (LPC) is usually performed to distinguish organisms that survive pasteurization. High LPC numbers can be associated with improper sanitizing practices, unclean equipment, high water-hardness score, high alkalinity of alkaline detergent wash, or problems with cooling system/ plate cooler. The LPC values should be below 100 cfu/mL and values >200 cfu/mL are considered high.

Coliforms are fecal bacteria that are also commonly found in the environment. Thus, coliform count (CC) is an indication of the efficiency of procedures, such as cow’s milking preparation and cleanliness of the cows’ environment. The coliform count should be less than 10 cfu/mL. Coliform counts >50/ml suggest manure and soil on the teats, and counts higher than 100 cfu/mL usually indicate poor milking practices, dirty equipment, contaminated water, and/or cows presenting coliform cases of mastitis.

Table 1. Criteria for bulk tank parameters.

Parameter	Low	Medium	High
Bulk tank SCC (cells/mL)	<200,000	200,000 - 400,000	>400,000
Standard Plate Count (SPC; cfu/mL)	<5,000	5,000 - 10,000	>10,000
Preliminary Incubation Count (PIC; cfu/mL)	<10,000	10,000 - 20,000	>20,000
Lab Pasteurized Count (LPC; cfu/mL)	<100	100-200	>200
Coliform Count (cfu/mL)	<50	50 - 100	>100

Source: Oliver SP, Dairexnet, 2019.

Table 2. Sources of Microbial Contamination as Detected by Bacteriological Procedures.

Procedure	Natural Flora	Mastitis	Dirty Cows	Dirty Equipment	Poor Cooling
SPC>10,000 cfu/mL	Not Likely	Possible	Possible	Possible*	Possible
SPC>100,000 cfu/mL	Not Likely	Possible	Not Likely	Possible*	Possible*
LPC>200-300 cfu/mL	Not Likely	Not Likely	Possible	Possible*	Not Likely
PIC High vs SPC	Not Likely	Not Likely	Possible	Possible*	Possible*
SPC High/No Increase in PIC	Not Likely	Possible*	Not Likely	Not Likely, but Possible	Not Likely
CC High	Not Likely	Possible	Possible	Possible	Not Likely

* A more likely source.
Source: Murphy, SC. NMC Regional Meeting Proceedings, 1997.

Point #2: Maintenance of clean and comfortable environment.

The principles of best animal welfare are directly associated with cleanliness of housing and cow comfort (https://www.dcwcouncil.org/node/4006).

Keep bedding area dry and clean. Review frequently your bedding and grooming protocol, ensure appropriate ventilation, and avoid frequent social changes within transition cows (e.g. move groups of cows once per week)
A compacted bedding surface negatively affects laying time of cows. Dairy cows have strong behavioral need to rest, and this has a priority over dry matter intake, regardless of feed availability at the feed bunk.
Ensure adequate stocking density, feed availability within reach of cows, and water availability for pre- and postpartum cows. Transition cows should be less than 100% capacity relative to stalls available (1 stall per cow or less) and have a linear feed bank space of 30 inches per cow.
Water should not accumulate in alley ways and/or bedding area. A clogged flush line or leaky roof will flood alleys or add water to bedding surfaces, which in turn significantly increases the risk for environmental mastitis and lower milk quality.
Think about cow comfort as a hotel which could range from 1 to 5 starts in terms of comfortable amenities. For a given cow, the difference in terms of consistent lying time (hours/day) is that the best dairy farm provides 2 to 2.5 hours per day more lying time compared with the average farm. For every 3 minutes of lost rest, the cow will sacrifice 1 minute of dry matter intake (DMI). Therefore, poor cow comfort will likely reduce eating to 40 to 50 minutes per day or a drop of 3.3 to 4.4 lb/day of DMI.
Milk is 87% water and without sufficient water intake, milk production will suffer. An adequate ingestion of fresh, clean water promotes normal rumen function, high feed intake, digestion, and nutrient absorption - maximize water intake and you will maximize feed intake and consequently milk production.
To improve mammary gland health: (1) Feed and manage dry and prepartum cows to maintain proper body condition and avoid a drop in feed intake prepartum and excessive body condition score (BCS) loss early lactation, (2) Proper mineral nutrition of prepartum cows to prevent hypocalcemia, and (3) formulate a diet considering your water quality (bacteria and mineral contribution) to feed adequate, but not excessive amounts of trace minerals and vitamins (selenium and vitamin E are critical for the immune system).

Point #3: Proper milking procedures.

Allow milk to let-down properly by providing good practices on handling animals with care to the milking parlor and maintaining a calm (no yelling is necessary) and comfortable holding pen.
Strip 4-5 squirts of milk from each quarter before preparing the cow. Do a strip cup test routinely to identify the cases of mastitis at an early stage. Perform stripping correctly, avoiding spreading the milk skirts in other directions than the strip cup or floor.
Pre-dip teats with an effective germicide (iodine, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, lactic acid, glycolic acid, or chlorhexidine) and allow 30 seconds contact time.
Dry teats thoroughly using individual paper towels or cloths.
After preparation starts, one should wait approximately 60-90 sec before attaching the unit that should be properly aligned on the udder.
Post milking teat disinfection remains a foundation for the prevention of contagious mastitis. The effectiveness of the various products offered is well documented in the scientific literature.
Discard teat dip contaminated with manure or dirt- it has lost its efficiency.
Milk last or segregate those cows with contagious mastitis (e.g., Staphylococcus aureus infections).

Point #4: Proper maintenance and use of milking equipment.

With greater farm size, more herds are milking 3 – 4 times /day and adopting the use of robotic milking, thus the milking machine remains an important way of transfering contagious bacteria from infected to non-infected cows, particularly considering that more cows will be milked in the same milking unit.
Proper maintenance of milking equipment will assure proper vacuum to be applied to the teats, causing no damage to the cow’s teat-ends.
Make sure the cooling tank and any part or connection in the whole milk handling chain is cleaned. Water heating capacity must meet the requirements from the cleaning procedure.

Point #5: Good record keeping.

When treatment is needed, record the necessary information, such as cow identification, drugs used, start of treatment day, dose, route of administration or how the drug was given (e.g. oral, injection, intramammary), name of the person who gave the drug, length of the treatment, withdrawal period, and results of culture, stripping and/or CMT.

To evaluate the effectiveness of your mastitis control during the dry period and to make decisions regarding mastitis prevention, it is important to record how many cows are infected and how many are not infected at dry-off and then compare those numbers after freshening.

Point #6: Appropriate management of clinical mastitis during lactation.

About 50 to 80% of clinical cases of mastitis may not benefit from an antibiotic treatment labeled for intramammary administration. If the pathogen is known and susceptible, an antibiotic is indicated BUT CANNOT be the ONLY approach to overcome limitations with environment and/or management. Note that dehydration and pain management should be top priorities for severe cases of mastitis.
Does antibiotic treatment increase her chance of cure? The short answer is “yes” but only for susceptible pathogens.
How long should I treat? Follow the label and your vet’s recommendations. Duration of 2 days should work, but some cases may require an extended therapy of 5-7 days. Extending duration may reduce clinical failure but may have no effect on cure rate, SCC, or new intramammary infection.
Will she get better on her own? “No” for contagious pathogens or toxic cases, but “yes” for minor pathogens. A milk culture will be needed to identify the pathogen(s) causing the infection. On most farms, mild and moderate cases of mastitis will resolve within 4-6 days, regardless of treatment.
With the increased concern nowadays about the misuse of antibiotics in livestock, it is recommended to treat cases of clinical mastitis only after the identification of the causing organisms. This practice will not only reduce antibiotic usage, but also reduce the volume of milk withheld from the bulk tank because of antibiotic withdrawal.

Point #7: Effective dry cow therapy.

Mastitis disease is related to three major steps: 1) teat-end exposure to pathogens (environment), 2) pathogens entering the mammary gland (open teat-end); and 3) the ability of the pathogens to survive the host defenses and to invade the mammary gland epithelium (colonization).
Proper dry cow management is extremely important in maintaining and improving udder health, milk yield and milk quality.
Over 95% of new dry period infections occur in quarters with open teat canals.
Over 50% of clinical mastitis cases caused by environmental pathogens occurring in early lactation were acquired during the dry period.

High milk producing cows are very susceptible to new intramammary infections in the beginning and the end of the dry period (around calving).
In high milk producing dairy cows, reducing milk yield a week prior to dry-off (offering the dry cow ration would reduce milk yield by ~60% or milking 1x per day would reduce milk yield by ~40%) significantly enhances teat canal closure and formation of the keratin plug. It has been shown that lactating cows with >36 lb/day during the last week of lactation were over 7 times more likely to be infected at calving compared with lactating cows milking ≤24 lb/day.
New research showed that prepartum cows benefited by administering the mastitis vaccine at 28 days prior to parturition (dpp) followed by pen change with acidogenic diet at 21 dpp (greater serum glucose, ~46% reduction in subclinical hypocalcemia [from 31.9 to 17.3%], and 19% more colostral IgG at calving) compared to cows vaccinated plus pen change at 21 dpp.
Dairy cows confirmed with twin pregnancies almost always experience short gestation length and more hypocalcemia at calving. The transfer of IgG from blood into the mammary gland (colostrum and milk) is an active process that requires energy and calcium. Plan to vaccinate and move cows into the prepartum pen at least 7 days earlier than typically planned for cows confirmed with twin pregnancies.
The usage of an intramammary antibiotic is indicated if a cow has a persistent infection from her previous lactation, while a proper application of a teat sealant aims to prevent new infections. Follow the label indications for safe and correct use.

Point #8: Biosecurity for contagious pathogens and marketing of chronically infected cows.

Biosecurity refers to not just the management practices that reduce the chances of introduction of infectious diseases onto the farm (by animals or people) but also practices that prevents the spread of infectious disease on farms.
Keep the herd as closed as possible. If you purchase animals into your herd: 1) Ask for the somatic cell count information on milking cows and check the cow’s history on contagious mastitis in current and/or previous lactations; 2) Look for other health events; 3) When possible, test all purchased cattle for infection not just restricted to mastitis causing organisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae and Mycoplasma bovis, but others diseases such as BVD and Bovine leukosis; and 4) Immunization history.

Point #9: Regular monitoring of udder health status.

Be enrolled in a system that provides you with individual SCC, such as DHIA. If not possible, perform regularly CMT tests to screen for clinical cases of mastitis.
Assess the success of your treatment protocols. Successful treatment could be defined based on: 1) Cure rate (return to normal appearance of milk, duration of milk discard or days in hospital pen) and/or 2) Bacteriological cure (absence of causative bacteria in follow up culture).
Work with your veterinarian on monitoring goals for SCC and clinical cases of mastitis.

Point #10: Periodic review of the mastitis control program.

Meet regularly with your veterinarian to review and discuss the points listed above to improve, adjust, or change your milk quality program. Small changes can lead to bigger benefits for the cow’s udder health and profitability of your farm.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! There is no magic bullet to solve milk quality issues at the farm level, and proactive management practices matter when it comes to controlling mastitis. How to remain competitive is the “big” question. Considering this 10-point mastitis control program, along with genetic selection of animals for improved udder health, can improve milk quality and reduce antimicrobial use at the herd level. Please share this discussion with your veterinarian and nutritionist. These little details make the difference at the end of the day!

Forage Fertility: Where We Are and Why it Matters

Garth Ruff, Beef Cattle Field Specialist and Greg LaBarge, Agronomic Crops Field Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Hay and haylage crops are grown on just over 1 million acres in Ohio (NASS, 2019) and are grown on more Ohio farms (44% of all farms) than any other crop (Becot et al., 2020). In addition, there are over 1.3 million acres of pastureland on nearly 39,000 farms (50% of all farms) in the state of Ohio (NASS, 2017). Fertilizer costs represent 40 to 60% of the variable input costs of forage hay production (Ward et al., 2016, 2018), and so managing these costs is key to an Ohio forage producers’ ability to stay competitive. Furthermore, water quality issues in the state underscore the need for Ohio farmers to manage on-farm nutrients as efficiently as possible. A farmer’s ability to find this optimal balance between meeting crop nutrient requirements without over-application is highly reliant on the best available information.

In order to make better and up-to-date forage fertility recommendations, we want to hear back from producers as to what current practices are already implemented on farms across the state. Understanding current practices and limitations to forage fertility will guide us in determining the type and kind of related research to conduct in order to revise current recommendations.

Please take this short voluntary survey regarding current forage fertility practices. This survey is part of a research effort conducted by The Ohio State University and should take 10 minutes or less to complete. Once again, your feedback is appreciated as we evaluate current forage fertility guidelines.

Survey Link: https://osu.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4JcgVRSdXM16pmK

Results from this survey, in addition to forage fertility research, will allow for revision of current recommendations for forage crops, grasses and legumes that follow guidelines already established in the Tri-State Fertility Guide. If you have any questions regarding the survey, contact Garth Ruff at ruff.72@osu.edu.
Creeping Towards Harvest

Haley Zynda, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

Silage harvest - it’s the most wonderful time of the year! And by that, I mean stressful and tiring. However, if you were to ask if corn planting or harvesting is more enjoyable, the answer of, “Well there’s no such thing as ‘re-harvesting’ is there?” would sum up my answer quite succinctly.

Since there is only one shot to get it right, you have to make corn silage harvest count. The feed you make in a few days’ time will likely influence your milk yields for the next year. We need to not only be considering maximizing yield, but also maximizing quality. Corn moisture or dry matter, depending on which way you think about it, heavily influences silage yield and the quality of the fermentation and preservation once it is stored. Taking field samples will be essential in getting harvest timing right. You can start to sample for moisture when kernels begin to show denting (just before the appearance of the milkline), or 40 days after silking (for Ohio). Dry matter yield in tons/acre is maximized at a moisture content of 63% (37% DM) according to the University of Wisconsin. Furthermore, silage storage type will also determine how wet the crop should be prior to harvesting (Table 1). I think it’s safe to say that corn chopping will be occurring over the course of a couple days, so keep in mind that corn will lose 0.5-1.0% moisture per day. Therefore, do not start harvesting when the corn is of optimum moisture because the resulting average moisture will be drier than anticipated.

Table 1. Silage storage type and recommended moisture content for corn silage harvest.

Storage Type Moisture, %

Upright silo 60-65

Upright oxygen-eliminating silo 50-60

Bunker 65-68

Bag 62-68

Chop height is another factor to consider when harvesting. Average height of chop is between 7 and 18 inches and can alter the digestibility and yield of silage. According to Pennsylvania State University, raising the cutter bar from 7” to 19” will decrease neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content by about 8% and increase starch content by about 2 percentage points. However, the increase in cutter height decreased yield by about 7%. The trade-off of quality and yield paid off – you can see in Figure 1 the estimated milk yield per ton and acre of silage. Two other research studies also concluded that raising the cutter bar height from 14 to 20 inches or 5 to 18 inches increased daily milk yield by an average of 3 lb/day.

Chop length will also influence quality of silage. The theoretical length of cut (TLC) ranges from ½ to ¾ inch. Shorter cut silage will pack better but will not be as effective of a fiber source if it were longer. If you use a kernel processor, TLC is around the ¾ inch recommendation because the plant is being crushed and compaction in the bunk will be greater. Using a kernel processor will then not only increase digestibility and fermentation capacity of the silage, but indirectly increases the amount of physically effective fiber through increased TLC.

Figure 1. Corn silage cutting height trade-off.

Speaking of kernel processing, how can you tell if it’s working? First, take a dime and try to feed it through the rollers. If it won’t pass through, great! If it does, reset your roller clearance to a height of 0.08 to 0.12 inches. You can see how it affects the silage by taking a silage sample that fits in a 32 oz. cup (a freebie you may have gotten from a co-op or vendor show) and count the number of whole kernels you find in it. There should be no more than 2 to 3 whole or half kernels from silage that has been run through a kernel processor. By crushing the kernels, the starch is more readily accessed by rumen microbes during feeding, thus increasing the rumen starch digestibility.

Before heading to the field, there are a couple of other items to check on. First, make sure bunkers and silos are in proper condition. Clean out the old feed and scrape the edgesto remove any lingering or caked silage. You can also sweep out the dust using a push broom or broom attachment for a skid steer. If you use a bunker or bag silo, check the plastic for holes. Patch any plastic that has been perforated with silage tape to prevent spoilage. Think about covering the sides of the bunker to prevent rain spoilage. Ensure the leachate drainage system isn't clogged and there is adequate storage volume. Approximately 3 square yards of leachate will be produced for every 100 tons of silage stored with 70% moisture, not including any storm water that may interact with the silage (Michigan State University).

Secondly, making sure your chopper is in top working order is an essential part of the equation. Check your knives and shear bar to make sure they don’t need replaced. While you’re taking care of the business end of the chopper, don’t forget to pay attention to bearings and belts that may need to be replaced. Taking care of 20-minute jobs as they come up is preferrable to leaving them until they evolve into a 3-day ordeal.

Don’t forget, not only is harvest stressful and tiring, but it is also rewarding. Keep a log to track all the different aspects of silage harvest that you need to juggle. Knowing the knowledge and tools to make high quality feed not only sets YOU up for success, but also for your cows. Happy harvest!
Steps to Speed up Field Curing of Hay Crops

Dr. Mark Sulc, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science; Jason Hartschuh, Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Educator, Crawford County; and Allen Gahler, Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Educator, Sandusky County, The Ohio State University

The rainy weather in many regions of Ohio and surrounding states is making it difficult to harvest hay crops. We usually wait for a clear forecast before cutting hay, and with good reason because hay does not dry in the rain! Cutting hay is certainly a gamble but waiting for the perfect stretch of weather can end up costing us through large reductions in forage quality as the crop matures.

As we keep waiting for perfect haymaking weather, we will reach the point where the drop in quality becomes so great that the hay has little feeding value left. In such cases, it may be better to gamble more on the weather just to get the old crop off and a new one started. Some rain damage is not going to reduce the value much in that very mature forage.

Before cutting though, keep in mind that the soil should be firm enough to support equipment. Compaction damage has long-lasting effects on hay crops. We’ve seen many fields where stand loss in wheel tracks led to lower forage yields, weed invasion, and frustrating attempts to “fill in” the stand later.

This article summarizes proven techniques that can help speed up the process involved in storing good quality forage. While the weather limits how far we can push the limits, these techniques can help us improve the chances of success in those short windows of opportunity between rains, and hopefully avoid overly mature stored forages.

Haylage vs. Hay

Consider making haylage/silage or baleage instead of dry hay. Haylage is preserved at higher moisture contents, so it is a lot easier and quicker to get it to a proper dry matter content for safe preservation compared with dry hay. Proper dry matter content for chopping haylage or wrapping baleage can often be achieved within 24 hours or less as compared with 3 to 5 days for dry hay.

“Hay in a day” is possible when making hay crop silage. The forage is mowed first thing in the morning and laid in wide swaths to be raked in the late afternoon and chopped as haylage starting in early evening. Proper dry matter content for haylage ranges from 30 to 50% (50 to 70% moisture), depending on the structure used.

Wrapped baleage usually requires 24 hours to cure. Wrapped baleage should be dried to 40 to 55% dry matter (45 to 60% moisture).

Dry hay should be baled at 80 to 85% dry matter (15 to 20% moisture), depending on the size of the bale package. The larger and the denser the dry hay package, the drier it must be to avoid spoilage. For example, safe baling moistures for dry hay without preservatives are 18-20% for small square bales (80 to 82% dry matter), 18% or less for large round bales, and less than 17% for large square bales. See below for more information on baling with preservatives.

Mechanically Condition the Forage

Faster drying of cut forage begins with using a well-adjusted mower-conditioner to cause crimping/cracking of the stem (roller conditioners) or abrasion to the stems (impeller conditioners). Adjust roller conditioners so at least 90% of the stems are either cracked or crimped (roller conditioners) or show some mechanical abrasion (impeller conditioners).

Some excellent guidelines for adjusting these mower conditioners can be found in an article by Dr. Ronald Schuler of the University of Wisconsin, available online at https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/adjusting-the-conditioning-system-....

Consider Desiccants

Desiccants are chemicals applied when mowing the crop that increase the drying rate. The most effective desiccants contain potassium carbonate or sodium carbonate. They are more effective on legumes than grasses and most useful for making hay rather than silage or baleage. Desiccants work best under good drying conditions. They do not help increase drying rate when conditions are humid, damp, and cloudy, such as we have often experienced this summer. Consider the weather conditions before applying them.

Maximize Exposure to Sunlight

I once heard someone say "You can’t dry your laundry in a pile, so why do you expect to dry hay that way?"

Exposure to the sun is the single most important weather factor to speed drying. The trick is to expose to sunshine as much of the cut forage as possible.

The swath width should be about 70% of the actual cut area. The mowers on the market vary in how wide a windrow they can make, but even those that make narrow windrows have been modified to spread the windrow wider. Details can be found in articles at the University of Wisconsin website mentioned above (see especially “Getting the Most from the Mower Conditioner” by Kevin Shinners, https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/getting-the-most-from-the-mower-conditioner/).

Another way to spread out and aerate the crop for faster drying is with a tedder. Tedders are especially effective with grass crops. They can cause excessive leaf loss in legumes if used when the leaves are dry. Tedders can be a good option when the ground is damp because the crop can be mowed into narrow windrows to allow more ground exposure to sunlight for a short time, and then once the soil has dried a bit, the crop can be spread out with the tedder. Tedding twice may decrease drying time. Tedding shortly after mowing allows 100% ground coverage, then tedding the next day helps keep the crop off the ground. Be cautious to set tedder properly so that dirt is not incorporated into the hay but that all hay is lifted off the ground.

Take precautions to follow manufacturer recommendations on ground speed and RPM’s when tedding. Many of the modern in-line “fluffer” type tedders are ground driven and operators often exceed recommended speeds, which can result in bunching and wrapping of the hay, which will increase drying time and make raking more difficult.

When making haylage, if drying conditions are good, rake multiple wide swaths into a windrow just before chopping. For hay, if drying conditions are good, merge or rake multiple wide swaths into a windrow the next morning when the forage is 40 to 60% moisture to avoid excessive leaf loss.

Research studies and experience have proven that drying forage in wide swaths can significantly speed up drying. Faster drying in wide swaths results in less chance of rain damage and studies by the University of Wisconsin showed that wide swaths (72% of the cut width) result in lower neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and higher energy in the stored forage.

Consider Preservatives

Sometimes the rain just comes quicker than we have time for making dry hay. As mentioned above, making haylage helps us preserve good quality forage in those short rain-free windows. A second option is to use a preservative. The most effective preservatives are based on propionic acid, which is caustic to equipment, but many buffered propionic preservatives are available that minimize that problem.

Preservatives inhibit mold growth and allow safe baling at moisture contents a little higher than the normal range for dry hay. Carefully follow the preservative manufacturer’s directions and application rates for the hay moisture content at baling. Be sure the application is uniform to avoid spots that spoil. Most products are effective when hay moisture is less than 25% but become iffy between 25 to 30% and do not work if moisture is over 30%. When utilizing preservatives, safe baling moisture can go up to 26% on small squares and round bales, but only 23% on large squares, according to label guidelines on most propionic acid-based products. Baling at these moistures requires properly calibrated equipment to apply the correct amounts of preservative, and it does not guarantee that bales will not generate internal heat.

While the acid works to limit the production of mold and fungal spores that can lead to additional heating, any type of bale made over 20% moisture always has the potential to heat. Although mold production may be limited, discoloration and caramelization of the higher moisture stems can still occur. This heating can also degrade proteins in the hay, reducing overall feed quality, despite still helping to preserve the hay from spoilage and hopefully make it safe to store indoors. Keep in mind that preservative-treated hay should be fed within a year or less, as the preservative effect will wear off over time.

If baling on the wet side, watch those bales carefully! If hay is baled at higher moisture contents that are pushing the safe limits, keep a close watch on them for two to three weeks. Use a hay temperature probe and monitor the internal temperature of the hay during the first three weeks after baling. See the following article for more information on monitoring wet hay: https://agcrops.osu.edu/newsletter/corn-newsletter/15-2021/hay-barn-fires-are-real-hazard
Harvest Management of Sorghum Forages

Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science; Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Sciences; and Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, The Ohio State University

Summer annual grasses, such as sudangrass, sorghum-sudangrass, forage sorghum, pearl millet, and teff grass, are being used as additional sources of forage on dairy farms. This article discusses harvest and grazing management of these grasses.

The general guidelines for harvesting or grazing these summer annual grasses as listed in the Ohio Agronomy Guide are shown in Table 7-12.

Table 7-12: Harvest Information for Summer-Annual Grasses.

We planted a trial on July 19, 2013 near South Charleston, OH to evaluate the yield and fiber quality of a conventional sudangrass variety (hereafter designated “Normal”) and a sorghum-sudangrass hybrid carrying the BMR-6 gene for reduced lignin (hereafter designated “BMR”). Forage yield, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentration and NDF digestibility (NDFD) were measured on four dates after planting, with the forage being cut to a 4-inch stubble height at each harvest. The NDF digestibility (NDFD) was measured after 30-hours of in vitro fermentation in rumen fluid plus buffer, followed by removal of microbial contaminants with neutral detergent solution.

The results were not surprising in that yield and NDF increased while NDFD decreased sharply as the plants grew and matured (see Figures 1 and 2). The varieties were similar in yield and NDF, but there was a distinct NDFD advantage for the BMR hybrid over the non-BMR sudangrass variety (“Normal”).

In general, diets can be formulated for different classes of livestock based on the fiber quality of the forage. For lactating cows using these forages, the amount of forage that can be fed will be limited by the NDF level. For example, if harvest was delayed for higher forage yield, the NDF level was near 70%. At 70% NDF, the forage would probably have to be limited to 10% of the total diet of lactating dairy cows, on a dry matter basis.

For lactating cows, forage with NDFD levels of 50% are usually acceptable, and levels as low as 40% NDFD could probably work if necessary. However, higher producing herds or groups within herds are more sensitive to NDFD and require NDFD values greater than 50%. Based on these parameters, the “Normal” sorghum-sudangrass provided acceptable forage for lactating cow diets when harvested between 40 to 60 days after planting (30 to 50 inches tall). Heifer cow diets could utilize this forage harvested at about 60 days (50 inches tall).

The BMR hybrid provided a longer window of acceptable forage for dairy cows. In this study, the forage could have been harvested almost 80 days after planting (67 inches tall) and still be acceptable in lactating or heifer cow diets. This provides opportunity for significantly greater forage yields.

Figures 1 and 2. Dry matter yield, total fiber (NDF,) and 30-hour fiber digestibility (NDFD) of two varieties of summer annual grasses planted on July 19, 2013 near South Charleston, OH.

Forage having NDFD levels as low as 35 to 40% with high NDF levels are acceptable for dry cows or beef cattle provided they are part of a balanced diet and their mineral concentrations are not excessive relative to requirements. Based on the results shown above, the forage harvested from 60 to 80 days after planting (50 to 67 inches tall) would have been acceptable for dry cows or beef cattle.

The results from the experiment shown here agree with a study conducted by researchers at Cornell University (Kilcer et al., 2005), who concluded that BMR sorghum-sudangrass has a larger harvest window for producing forage for lactating cow diets. However, they recommended that BMR sorghum-sudangrass be harvested for lactating cows when stand heights are about 50 inches (2-cuts possible with early June planting) because this will occur before the shift from vegetative to reproductive growth that lowers quality, and earlier harvest reduces the amount of water that must be evaporated for ensiling as yields increase. The Cornell researchers stated that if plantings were to be delayed into July, a second harvest may not be feasible, and delaying harvest to heights greater than 50 inches might be advantageous if extra forage is needed on the farm and good drying conditions exist to get rid of the extra moisture.

In our study, we also investigated whether a 2-harvest system could provide similar forage yields with higher forage nutritive value compared with a single harvest after a mid-July planting date. The only combination of harvest dates that provided reasonable forage yields occurred when the first harvest was made at 35-days after planting with an 8-inch stubble height (to encourage faster regrowth) and the second harvest was made at a 4-inch stubble 48 days later (83 days after planting). Harvesting with an 8-inch stubble height may create some logistical challenges. Holding the machine up with the hydraulics causes the rolls to be higher than the cutter bar on many machines, which can cause issues with the crop feeding through the mower conditioner. However, many companies offer skids that can be used on mower conditioners to hold the head at this height and allow the rolls to run at the proper height. That 2-harvest combination produced a total dry matter yield of 3813 lb/acre for the BMR and 4870 lb/acre for the normal variety, with an average of 65% NDF for both varieties and 48% NDFD for the BMR and 45% NDFD for the normal variety. Therefore, we concluded the 2-harvest system showed no significant advantage over harvesting once at 60 days when plantings are made in mid-July.

In summary, non-BMR sudangrass and sorghum-sudangrass planted in mid-July should be harvested between 40 to 60 days (30 to 50 inches tall) for lactating dairy cows. Harvesting should occur about 60 days after planting (50 inches tall) for feeding to heifers and 60 to 80 days after planting (50 to 67 inches tall) for beef cattle or dry cows. The BMR hybrid provided a wider harvest window for lactating cows, with acceptable forage harvested nearly 80 days after planting.

Summer annual forage harvesting can be more challenging than other forages, especially if you are set up for a dry hay system. These summer annual grasses are best harvested as silage or baleage. Chopped silage stored in a bag, bunker, or silo is the best option. Harvesting at the proper moisture is critical because leaves and stems dry at different speeds. Over the last few years, we have had multiple silo fires due to these forages being put in the silo too dry. Similar to corn silage, 60 to 65% moisture is the ideal harvest moisture for silage made from summer annual grasses. Baleage should be slightly drier, between 50 to 60% moisture.

We have also had at least one barn fire in Ohio caused by sorghum bales that seemed dry but were indeed too wet. The thick stems of these grasses often retain moisture, making it very challenging to dry hay to 15% or less moisture in the fall. The dry leaves often cause baler moisture sensors to read drier than the forage really is. Forage from summer annual grasses should be bench tested for dry matter before attempting to make dry hay. This can be done by cutting plants up with scissors into 2-inch pieces and using a Koster tester, vortex drier, or microwave drying. Another challenge with baleage is getting the bales tight enough to exclude the oxygen. Having a rotary cutter on your baler can help with this issue. The rotary cutter also helps with feed out in a bale feeder, as the 6-foot long plants are sized better for less waste. Another challenge is that the stems of these grasses are tough and often break through the couple layers of plastic wrap. We highly recommend at least 6 layers of plastic over the last stem that breaks through, which means baleage will require 8 to 10 wraps to exclude oxygen and allow for proper fermentation.

Keep in mind that the sorghum grasses should be harvested or grazed prior to a frost because toxic levels of prussic acid can be produced in the forage after a frost. Details of this risk are available at https://forages.osu.edu/news/be-alert-late-season-potential-forage-toxicities.

Reference:

Kilcer, T.F., Q.M. Ketterings, J.H. Cherney, P. Cerosaletti, and P. Barney. 2005. Optimum stand height for forage brown midrib sorghum x sudangrass in North-eastern USA. J. Agronomy & Crop Science 191:45-40.
Seeding Perennial Forages in Late Summer
Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

The month of August provides a window of opportunity for establishing perennial forage stands or filling in seedings made this spring that have gaps. The primary risk with late summer forage seedings is having sufficient moisture for seed germination and plant establishment. The decision to plant or not will have to be made for each individual field, considering soil moisture status and the rainfall forecast. Rainfall and adequate soil moisture in the few weeks immediately after seeding is the primary factor affecting successful establishment.

No-till seeding in August is an excellent choice to conserve soil moisture for seed germination. Make sure that the field surface is relatively level and smooth if you plan to no-till, because you will have to live with any field roughness for several years of harvesting operations.

Sclerotinia crown and stem rot is a concern with no-till seedings of alfalfa in late summer where clover has been present in the past. This pathogen causes white mold on alfalfa seedlings and infects plants later during the cool rainy spells in late October and November. Early versus late August plantings dramatically improve the alfalfa's ability to resist the infection. Late August seedings are very susceptible to this disease, with mid-August plantings being intermediate.

In a no-till situation, minimize competition from existing weeds by applying glyphosate burndown before planting. If herbicide-resistant weeds are present, such as marestail, this creates a very difficult situation with no effective control options in no-till management, so conventional tillage for seedbed preparation is probably a better choice in those situations.

For conventional tillage seeding, prepare a firm seedbed to ensure good seed-to-soil contact. Be aware that too much tillage depletes soil moisture and increases the risk of soil crusting. Follow the "footprint guide" that soil should be firm enough for a footprint to sink no deeper than one-half inch. Tilled seedbeds do not need a pre-plant herbicide.

Patching in new 2021 spring seedings with gaps is possible this late summer, even for alfalfa. Autotoxicity will not be a limiting factor yet in alfalfa seedings made this spring. Alfalfa plants that are less than a year old will not release enough of those compounds into the surrounding soil that are toxic to new seedlings of alfalfa. So, this summer is the last opportunity to try to “patch-in” alfalfa in thin areas of alfalfa stands seeded this spring.

Grassy weeds are probably present in the thin areas of those new spring seedings, so consider applying a grass herbicide as soon as possible. If broadleaf weeds are present, effective herbicide options are much more limited because most broadleaf herbicides labeled for use in alfalfa are only effective when the weeds are quite small. Before applying a herbicide, check its label for pre-plant time intervals that may be required. Use only herbicides with little or no time interval between application and seeding forages. Do take a cutting in early August and then immediately drill seed into the thin areas. Try to time drilling the seed when you see some rain in the forecast, especially if the soil is dry.

The following steps improve the chances for stand establishment success, regardless of what type of seeding you are making:
- Soil fertility and pH: The recommended soil pH for alfalfa is 6.5 to 6.8. Forage grasses and clovers should have a pH of 6.0 or above. The optimal soil phosphorus level for forage legumes is 30 to 50 ppm Mehlich-3 and for grasses 20 to 30 ppm Mehlich-3. The optimal soil potassium level is 120 to 170 ppm for most of our soils.
- Check herbicide history of field. A summary table of herbicide rotation intervals for alfalfa and clovers is available at http://go.osu.edu/herbrotationintervals. Forage grasses are not included in that table, so check the labels of any herbicides applied to the field in the last 2 years for any restrictions that might exist.
- Seed selection: Be sure to use high quality seed of adapted varieties and use fresh inoculum of the proper Rhizobium bacteria for legume seeds. “Common” seed (variety not stated) is usually lower yielding and not as persistent, and from our trials, the savings in seed cost is lost within the first year or two through lower forage yields.
- Planting date: Planting of alfalfa and other legumes should be completed between late July and mid-August in Northern Ohio and between early and late August in Southern Ohio. Most cool-season perennial grasses can be planted a little later. Check the Ohio Agronomy Guide for specific guidelines (see http://go.osu.edu/forage-seeding-dates).
- Planter calibration: If coated seed is used, be aware that coatings can account for up to one-third of the weight of the seed. This affects the number of seeds planted in planters set to plant seed on a weight basis. Seed coatings can also dramatically alter how the seed flows through the drill, so calibrate the drill or planter with the seed to be planted.
- Seed placement: The recommended seeding depth for forages is one-quarter to one-half inch deep. It is better to err on the side of planting shallow rather than too deep.
Do not harvest a new perennial forage stand this fall. The ONLY exception to this rule is perennial and Italian ryegrass plantings. Mow or harvest those grasses to a two and a half to three-inch stubble in late November to improve winter survival. Do NOT cut any other species in the fall, especially legumes.

Scout your new forage seeding this fall on a regular basis. Post-emergence herbicide options exist for alfalfa that control late summer and fall emerging winter annual broadleaf weeds. A mid- to late fall application of Butyrac (2,4-DB), bromoxynil, Pursuit or Raptor are the primary herbicide options for winter annual broadleaf weeds. Fall application is much more effective than a spring application for control of these weeds, especially if wild radish/wild turnip are in the weed mix. Pursuit and Raptor can control winter annual grasses in the fall in pure legume stands but not in a mixed alfalfa/grass planting. Consult the 2021 Ohio, Indiana, Illinois Weed Control Guide and always read the specific product label for guidelines on timing and rates before applying any product (https://extensionpubs.osu.edu/2020-weed-control-guide-for-ohio-indiana-and-illinois-pdf/).

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Student, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for March and April were at $16.18/cwt and $17.20/cwt, respectively. Class III closed at $17.67/cwt in March, with protein continuing to decline slowly in price and butterfat climbing toward $2/lb ($1.95/lb in April). The Class III future for May is $18.93/cwt, followed by a decrease to $17.63/cwt in June.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The price of metabolizable (MP) and physically effective neutral detergent fiber (peNDF) are about 33 and 64% higher compared to the 5-year averages ($0.39/lb and $0.08/lb, respectively). Net energy for lactation (NE_L) is about 16% higher than the 5-year average ($0.08/Mcal), and closer to the price reported in January ($0.10/Mcal) after the decrease in the March issue. The price of MP is decreased compared to the March issue ($0.67/lb) but remains high alongside the cost of soy products and canola meal.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For January’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day was about $9.57 and $10.13/cwt, respectively. Both estimates exceed those in the previous issue by $1.00 or more and are likely to be profitable. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2021.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on May 25, 2021 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set in this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2021.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are in bold. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are underlined. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, May 25, 2021.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Gluten meal	Whole cottonseed	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Corn, ground, dry		41% Cottonseed meal
Corn silage	Soybean hulls	Soybean meal - expeller
Distillers dried grains	Whole, roasted soybeans	Blood meal
Feather meal	44% Soybean meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Molasses
48% Soybean meal	Hominy
	Wheat middlings
	Meat meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2021.

Heat Stress in 2021: Will it be Intense?

Mr. Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Crawford County, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ohio State University Extension, and Dr. Aaron Wilson, Climate Research Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Heat stress can lead to major challenges for lactating cows during peak milk production and dry cows during the transition period. It can even cause challenges for calves before and after birth. In the U.S., heat stress is estimated to generate between $1.69 and $2.36 billion in total annual loss to the livestock industry.

While the upper limit of the thermal neutral zone for dairy cows is 68°F and for calves at one month of age is 77°F, heat stress includes more than just temperature. Heat stress factors in the humidity as well. For this reason, we utilize a temperature-humidity index (THI). While cooling should begin as soon as we leave the thermal neutral zone, heat stress for cows begins around a THI of 72, with 72 to 79 causing mild stress. At 79 to 88 THI, cows enter moderate heat stress which occurs at 80°F and 90% relative humidity (RH) or 85°F and 60% RH. Low end mild heat stress results in a milk production loss of 2.5 lb/cow/day, while the upper end of mild to moderate heat stress leads to 6 lb/cow/day of lost production. Figure one can be a useful tool for operating your cooling system. In the Stress Threshold (tan zone), fans should be operating. As the stress increases, more heat mitigation practices are needed. Besides monitoring environmental conditions, signs of heat stress can include increased breaths per minute, which should be between 40 to 60 under normal conditions. While not convenient, rectal temperature may also be used, which under normal conditions is between 101.2 to 102.5°F. If over 5 to 10% of your herd exceeds 105°F, your herd is in the emergency level of heat stress and additional cooling is definitely needed.

Figure 1. Temperature Humidity Index (THI) for cattle. Lactating dairy cows are at greater risk for heat stress when the THI exceeds 68.

The latest summer outlooks from the Climate Prediction Center call for an elevated probability of above average temperatures in Ohio for the month of June, as well as the June-August period (Figure 2). There are also indications that precipitation is likely to be above average throughout the period as well. While predicting THI for individual days is not possible this far in advance, the outlooks suggest a tendency toward higher values (warm temperatures and more moisture), especially during the first half of the summer.

To mitigate heat stress, cattle respond in a few natural ways and we can assist in these efforts. First, providing shade cloth will assist cattle as they naturally seek shade, especially for calves living in hutches. Second, cattle increase their sweating. This can lead to dehydration even as it provides evaporative cooling. We can supplement this response with a well-designed soaker system. They will also increase water intake by 1.2 to 2 times normal rates, leading to water needs per cow of up to 52 gal/day. Frequent checking to ensure adequate available water is critical, including drinking space, well-capacity, and water flow rates to keep your cows cool this year. Also, work with your nutritionist to make plans for ration adjustments before heat stress sets in, not after the effects are felt in your bulk tank. Lastly, walk your barns on a regular basis to check fan performance. The ideal wind speed in your barn should be around 5 mph.

Figure 2. Probabilistic temperature (left) and precipitation (right) outlooks from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center. Colors represent the probability of above, below, and near normal conditions for June-August 2021.
Roseler and Weiss Inducted into the Ohio State Dairy Hall of Service

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences The Ohio State University

The Dairy Science Hall of Service was initiated in 1952 to recognize worthy men and women who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at the Ohio State University. The 2021 inductees were recognized on April 22 at the Department of Animal Sciences ‘Celebration of Excellence’ held virtually.

Dr. Dwight Roseler

Dwight Roseler grew up in Wellington, OH and has dedicated his career to assisting dairy farmers and those that work in the dairy industry. He graduated from The Ohio State University with his degree in dairy science in 1981. After graduation, Dwight worked as a field dairy nutritionist for local cooperatives in north central Ohio for seven years before continuing his education. Dwight earned a Master of Science degree in Ruminant Nutrition and Business Management in 1990 and a Ph.D. in 1994 in ruminant nutrition, both from Cornell University. After completing his graduate studies, he worked for a short stint in Indiana and then moved back to Ohio in 1996. For the past 25 years, Dwight has supported the Ohio dairy industry in his role as a Technical Dairy Specialist for Land O’ Lakes Purina Feed. In this role, he supports a dairy nutrition team of Purina employees and a much larger group of dairy nutritionists that work in the cooperative system in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. He has trained hundreds of future dairy specialists that work on with Ohio dairy farmers. Over the years, he has conducted many training sessions for producers to help improve their operations and participated in many programs for veterinarians. In addition, Dwight has served as the primary Dairy Nutritionist on numerous farms helping achieve success within their operation. In the past 3 years, Dwight has added the role of Dairy Tech Specialist for Bidco LLC in Kenya. In this role, he provides dairy technical training to a team that provides nutrition help to Kenyan dairy farmers. He was instrumental in the formation of the Midwest Chapter of the American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists, a professional organization for professional providing advice to dairy farmers. Dwight also is an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Animal Sciences at Ohio States. Over the years, he has participated in many Extension program, served on the Board of Directors for the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, served as a speaker in courses and seminars for undergraduate and graduate students, and supported the research for several OSU faculty. Dwight resides in Wooster, Ohio with his wife Vickie.Their four children are grown and have started families of their own. Dwight is passionate about the dairy industry and is dedicated to seeing dairymen everywhere succeed. “Dwight is a passionate and tireless contributor to all segments of the Ohio dairy industry”, wrote one of the nominators. The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Hall of Service acknowledges Dwight for his commitment to the advancement of the dairy industry by supporting dairy farmers, nutrition advisors, veterinarians, students, and researchers in countless endeavors.

Dr. William (Bill) P. Weiss

Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor in the Department of Animal Sciences at The Ohio State University, retired in January, 2021 after 33 years of being on the faculty. He grew up in Indiana and received his BS (1980) and MS (1981; dairy nutrition) degrees from Purdue University. Then, he enrolled in the graduate program at Ohio State in dairy nutrition and completed his PhD in 1985. He was a postdoctoral researcher at Ohio State prior to being on the faculty at North Dakota State University from April 1986 through December 1987, after which he returned to Ohio State as an assistant professor. Bill’s passion for the dairy industry started as a young man while working on a neighbor’s dairy farm. He is one of the rare faculty members who is equally an expert when walking on a dairy farm as when speaking, teaching, or writing. Throughout his career, his research has focused on forage utilization, energy values of feeds, feed management, and vitamin and mineral requirements. He has served as major professor to 29 MS and 5 PhD students, and served as a committee member to an additional 18 MS and 26 PhD graduate students. Bill has authored or co-authored 11 book chapters, 142 peer-reviewed articles, 102 abstracts, and 270 papers for an applied audience. His papers have been cited over 7500 times; moreover, he has 20 papers that have been cited ≥ 50 times, particularly documenting his renowned expertise in energy, vitamin E, and selenium nutrition. He has delivered over 216 national and 103 international presentations. He spoke at the first Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference in 1992 and has been a speaker at 22 of the 29 annual conferences, contributing to its growth from a regional to a national and international conference. The American Dairy Science Association (ADSA) recognized Dr. Weiss in April, 2019 for authoring or co-authoring 100 or more papers in the Journal of Dairy Science. He has received many awards based on national and international excellence, including 3 research awards from ADSA culminating in the 4th as a Fellow in 2015. In addition, he received both the junior and senior distinguished researcher awards granted annually by the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center at Ohio State. He has co-taught graduate level courses and served as guest lecturer in many undergraduate and veterinary student courses. He served as interim Department Chair for one year during 2016-2017. Bill developed a world-renown research program, but he never lost sight of sharing his research with local stakeholders, whether that be farmers, nutrition advisors, or veterinarians. The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Hall of Service acknowledges Bill’s commitment to the advancement of the dairy industry by supporting dairy farmers, nutrition advisors, veterinarians, students, and researchers in countless endeavors.
Ohio State Students Take First Place at the 2021 North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences The Ohio State University

The North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge (NAIDC) program began in 2002 (https://www.dairychallenge.org/) and the first regional program began in the northeast in 2003. Since that time, Midwest, southern, and western regional dairy challenges have been organized. In addition, Ohio State hosts a local dairy challenge each fall semester to provide training for students in the dairy herd management course and other college students. Students from the Agricultural Technical Institute also have participated for several years, and during the past two years, students from Wilmington College have participated.

Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped into teams of three to four individuals. Locally, veterinary and graduate students are invited to attend the farm visit and participate in a meeting later in the evening with the contest judges to discuss observations on the farm. A farm in central Ohio is selected and records from the farm are made available to students. Typically, students are taken to the farm for a visit to interview the owner and to observe the facilities for about two hours. Then the teams of students return to campus to finalize their assessment into a presentation for the following day. The students present their findings to a panel of judges consisting of individuals from the University and from allied industries.

Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge

The 2021 Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge was hosted by Ohio State, Michigan State and Purdue universities. We were planning to host the event in Ft. Wayne, IN, but due to the pandemic, the event had to be held virtually. With the virtual nature of the program, the structure was changed whereby it was held February 16 through March 2. Dr. Roger Thomson at Michigan State worked feverishly in gathering records and videos of a herd in MI to use for the program. Given the virtual nature of the program and the difficulty in students working remotely with students from other universities, the teams this year were organized by schools for which they attend. The two following teams from Ohio State participated: Team 4 - Paul Bensman, Deanna Langenkamp, Sarah Lehner, and Robert Vance; Team 11 - Brietta Latham, Amanda Schmitmeyer, Ashley Stroud, and Laura Tavera. Team 4 placed second among the teams in their grouping.

National NAIDC

Due to the onset of the COVID-19, the 2020 National NAIDC program scheduled for March 26-28 in Green Bay, WI was cancelled. With the ongoing pandemic, the 2021 National NAIDC program was held virtually during April 14-16 and was hosted by the NAIDC Board with the gracious offerings by a herd in WI. The Ohio State contest team consisted of Paul Bensman, Brietta Latham, Sarah Lehner, and Caleb Rykaczewski. They took first place among the teams in their judging panel. Paul graduated this semester and is seeking employment in the feed industry; Brietta has been accepted into a graduate program at Washington State University; Caleb will be pursuing a MS degree in the OSU Department of Animal Sciences; and Sarah will be a senior during this next academic year with dual majors in Animal Sciences and Agribusiness and Applied Economics. The coaches for the Columbus based campus students are Dr. Maurice Eastridge and Dr. Benjamin Wenner.

Ohio State University Team, 2021 NAIDC Virtual Contest, received a First Place (Left to Right): Paul Bensman, Brietta Latham, Caleb Rykaczewski, and Sarah Lehner.

Milk Production of Ohio Dairy Herds (2016 through 2020)

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

It is always important to monitor the yield of milk and the composition of milk, especially for the individual farmer, because the income of the dairy farm depends on this source of revenue. The yields of fat and protein are the primary determinants of the price received by farmers. The proportions of fat and protein are useful in monitoring cow health and feeding practices within a farm. The income over feed costs (IOFC) and feed costs per hundred of milk are important monitors of costs of milk production.

The average production of milk, fat, and protein by breed for Ohio dairy herds during 2016 through 2020 using the Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI; http://www.dhiohio.com) program are provided in Table 1. Not all herds on DHI are included in the table below because of the different testing options offered by DHI, some herds opt for no release of records, lack of sufficient number of test dates, and given that some of the herds consist of other breeds than the ones shown. In comparison, the average of milk yields from USDA data for all cows in Ohio during 2020 are provided.

The average production per cow increases about 2% annually and the most populated breeds, Holstein and Jersey, increased in milk yield by about 2.8% from 2019 to 2020. During this same time period, milk fat percentage increased about 2.6% for Holstein and 1% for Jersey and milk protein percentage remained the same. Using energy-corrected milk (accounting for the lactose, fat, and protein in milk), Holstein cows increased from 27,496 to 28,629 (4.1%) and Jersey cows increased from 21,855 to 22,596 lb/cow/year from 2019 to 2020. As noted earlier, milk fat and protein are the primary drivers of milk price for dairy farmers. Since fall 2019, protein has been priced higher than fat (Figure 1) and although the gap has closed, protein still remains at a higher price than for fat to date. Optimizing management, genetics, and feeding to maximize yields of fat and protein are very important for dairy farmers to impact profitability.

Table 1. Number of herds, milk yield, milk fat, and milk protein by breed for Ohio herds on DHI during 2016 through 2020.

Breed	Year	Number of Herds	Milk (lb/lactation)	Milk fat (%)	Milk protein (%)
Ayrshire	2016	9	16,919	3.83	3.25
	2017	6	16,145	4.00	3.25
	2018	4	16,346	4.29	3.25
	2019	3	16,225	4.53	3.22
	2020	5	15,431	4.01	3.21
Brown Swiss	2016	17	20,216	4.22	3.45
	2017	16	19,840	4.25	3.49
	2018	13	19,817	4.21	3.46
	2019	10	19,989	4.24	3.52
	2020	15	21,162	4.22	3.46
Guernsey	2016	6	17,606	4.73	3.41
	2017	5	17,063	4.76	3.45
	2018	5	15,800	4.60	3.39
	2019	5	14,787	4.52	3.37
	2020	7	15,932	4.54	3.36
Holstein	2016	272	25,202	3.69	3.08
	2017	245	25,625	3.87	3.18
	2018	198	25,506	3.79	3.09
	2019	171	25,843	3.85	3.11
	2020	198	26,588	3.95	3.11
Jersey	2016	62	17,600	4.85	3.65
	2017	62	17,865	4.82	3.58
	2018	44	17,438	5.04	3.65
	2019	37	17,673	4.88	3.64
	2020	50	18,164	4.93	3.64
Mixed	2016	24	23,481	3.90	3.21
	2017	21	24,441	4.02	3.22
	2018	17	22,852	4.21	3.31
	2019	15	24,233	4.19	3.40
	2020	29	22,292	4.56	3.41
Ohio¹	2016	2,512	20,875	---	---
	2017	2,337	21,284	---	---
	2018	2,220	21,359	---	---
	2019	1,868	21,614	---	---
	2020	1,745	22,118	---	---

¹Data available from United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Figure 1. Price ($/lb) for milk fat and protein during 2019 to current (graph courtesy of Dianne Shoemaker; FMMO = Federal Milk Marketing Order).

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Student, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for January and February were at $16.12/cwt and $15.56/cwt, respectively. Class III closed at $15.75/cwt in December, with protein maintaining lower than in the winter issues at $2.98/lb and milk fat at about half of that at $1.44/lb. The Class III future for March is $16.18/cwt, followed by an increase to $17.20/cwt in April.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The price of metabolizable protein (MP) and physically-effective neutral detergent fiber (peNDF) are about 74 and 62% higher compared to the 5-year averages ($0.39/lb and $0.08/lb, respectively). Net energy for lactation (NEL) is about 39% lower than the 5-year average ($0.08/Mcal) and about 50% of the price reported in January ($0.10/Mcal). The price of MP is nearly double the price of MP in March 2020 ($0.36/lb), reflective of the increased cost of protein-rich feeds, including soybean products this year.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For January’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $8.38 and $8.87/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are likely to be at least marginally profitable. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2021.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on March 26, 2021 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. Feeds for which a price was not reported were added to the appraisal set for this issue.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2021.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices. Feeds added to the appraisal set were removed from this table.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, March 26, 2021.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Gluten meal	Whole cottonseed	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Corn, ground, dry	Soybean meal - expeller	41% Cottonseed meal
Corn silage	Soybean hulls	44% Soybean meal
Distillers dried grains	Whole, roasted soybeans	Blood meal
Feather meal	48% Soybean meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
	Hominy
	Wheat middlings
	Meat meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2021.

Considering Corn Silage Cost of Production

Dianne Shoemaker, Dairy Farm Management Field Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

The cost of raising a ton of corn silage, like the cost of producing a hundredweight of milk, varies across farms and years. For example, in 2019 the 33 Ohio Farm Business Analysis corn silage enterprises reported an average yield of 18.8 ton/acre, but yields ranged from 10 to 25 ton/acre. Yields directly impact cost of production and subsequently feed costs.

When dairy farms participate in the Ohio Farm Business Analysis program, we do an enterprise analysis for the dairy, and most farms also complete enterprise analysis of their crop enterprises. Let’s take a closer look at corn silage production for the three-year period from 2017 through 2019 (Table 1).

Table 1. Annual and average yields and returns per acre for corn silage grown on owned and rented land, 2017-2019.

	2017	2018	2019	3-year Average
Enterprises	34	26	33
Yield, ton/acre	20.2	22.3	18.8	20.5
Value, $/ton	$41.10	$35.97	$39.27	$38.78
Crop insurance revenue, $/ac	$8.39	$3.61	$67.28	$26.42
Other crop income, $/ac	$0.31	$2.04	$33.08	$11.81
Gross returns, $/ac	$843	$807	$840	$830

Every year, at least a few of the farms experience poor local weather conditions, which explains much of the typical range of yields. On an annual basis, yield per acre ranged from 11 to 28 ton/acre in 2017, 17 to 28 ton/acre in 2018, and 10 to 25 ton/acre in 2019. While some corn silage yielded well in 2019, the $67 average crop insurance revenue per acre and lowest average yield per acre reflects 2019’s widespread weather challenges. 2019’s Market Facilitation Program payments are included in the “Other Crop Income” category whether they were received in 2019 or 2020 (the third tranche).

In this 3-year period, the average total cost of producing corn silage was $746 per acre (Table 3). What inputs were the biggest contributors? The largest are shown in Table 2. Seed, fertilizer, custom hire, and the cost of land represented by either cash rent, or for owned land, the cost of real estate taxes and mortgage interest.

Table 2. Five highest expenses per acre for corn silage grown on owned and rented land, annual and average for 2017-2019.

	2017	2018	2019	3-year Average
Seed	$124	$91	$122	$110
Fertilizer	$100	$104	$111	$105
Custom hire	$113	$95	$111	$103
Land rent¹	$99	$94	$108	$100
Real estate taxes & mortgage Interest²	$83	$100	$117	$100

¹Rented land only, ²Costs associated with land ownership, interest estimated.

For these dairy farms, home grown forage is “sold” or charged to the dairy enterprise at the total (direct + overhead expenses) cost of production per ton. Some farms also sell corn silage to other farms above their cost of production.

Once the crop is in the ground, the biggest factor impacting the farm’s cost of production per ton is the final yield. Keeping in mind the range in yields helps to explain the range in cost of production in 2019, from less than $18 per ton to more than $100 per ton. While some of the cost of the $100+ per ton corn silage might be offset by crop insurance revenues, low yields and the need to purchase replacement forages will impact those farms’ finances well into the future.

Table 3. Annual and average direct and total costs per acre and per ton for corn silage grown on owned and rented land, 2017 - 2019.

	2017	2018	2019	3-year Average
Direct costs, $/ac	$621	$570	$610	$600
Direct + overhead costs, $/ac	$747	$704	$787	$746
Direct costs, $/ton	$30.70	$25.64	$32.46	$29.60
Direct + overhead costs, $/ton	$36.90	$31.59	$41.77	$36.75

Cost of feed impacts dairy enterprise profitability. Input costs and yields impact costs of feed. In 2019, the median cost of production for corn silage was $37.32/ton. That means that half of the corn silage fed cost between $18 and $37.32/ton to feed, and half cost between $37.32 and $100+/ton to feed. Which side of $37 are you on? Which side do you want to be on?

If you want to choose sides, enroll in the 2020 Ohio Farm Business Analysis Program. Farms can enroll now and work with their technician to complete their analysis by the May 27^th deadline. The information you receive from your analysis will tell you where you were in 2020. Integrating that information with your agronomic decisions will help you choose sides and line up for a profitable future.C ontact me at shoemaker.3@osu.edu or 330.257.3377 to discuss analysis for your farm.

USDA Projects Dairy Production to 2030
Chris Zoller, Tuscarawas County Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ohio State University Extension

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released the interagency report: USDA Agricultural Projections to 2030. These long-term projections include several assumptions related to the Farm Bill, macroeconomic conditions, farm policy, and trade agreements. While long-term projections are based on assumptions and many unknowns, they do provide a glimpse of how U.S. farm commodity prices may perform over the next several years. Anyone interested in reading specific details is encouraged to see the report available here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/100526/oce-2021-1.pdf?v=3513.2. The following paragraphs and figure are taken from the report.

Milk production is projected to rise at a compound annual growth rate of 1.1% over the next 10 years, reaching 248 billion pounds in 2030. With slow growth in domestic demand as the economy recovers from the pandemic, the dairy herd will remain relatively flat in the middle of the decade but grow in the latter years. In 2030, milk cows are projected to number 9.43 million head. Economies of scale trends are expected to continue, leading to further farm consolidation. Technological and genetic developments will contribute to increasing yields. In 2030, milk production per cow is projected to average 26,295 pounds.
- Commercial use of dairy products is expected to rise faster than the growth in the U.S. population over the next decade. Demand for cheese is expected to rise because of continued greater consumption of prepared foods and increased away-from-home eating. Butter demand is also expected to grow significantly. The decline in per capita consumption of fluid milk products is expected to continue.
- Global demand for U.S. dairy products is expected to continue to grow over the next 10 years, with the largest increases being in exports of products with high skim-solids content, such as dry skim milk products (nonfat dry milk and skim milk powder), whey products, and lactose. By 2030, U.S. dairy exports are expected to be 4.0% of milk production on a milk-fat milk-equivalent basis and 22.6% on a skim-solids milk-equivalent basis.
- The all-milk price in 2021 is expected to be lower than 2020 as milk production increases significantly. At the time the projections were made, some Government purchase programs were scheduled to be discontinued at the end of 2020. Feed prices are expected to increase from 2020 to 2021. Milk production in 2022 is projected to grow at a rate slower than in 2020 and 2021 because of lagged supply response to relatively low milk prices and relatively high feed prices in 2021. With slow milk production growth in 2022 and an increase in demand as the economy is recovering from the pandemic, the all-milk price is projected to increase in 2022. As the industry adjusts, the-all milk price dips to lower levels in 2023-2025. The all-milk price then increases in nominal terms later in the decade.
Planning

There are many things that can/will change these projections, but they do provide one source of information dairy farmers can use to evaluate long-term plans. Based on these projections, what can you continue doing to be successful? What might you need to change to improve your success? I encourage you to work closely with your Extension Educator and other advisors to chart a course for long-term success.
Ventilation System Maintenance Is Critical to Keeping Cows Comfortable
Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Crawford County, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ohio State University Extension

March is one of the most challenging months on the farm to keep barns properly ventilated. We often see temperatures in the teens and less than a week later see highs in the 70’s. Our ventilation system recently roared to life as temperatures in the barn crossed 65°F, reminding me that we still had not gotten around to winter fan maintenance as belts squealed and louvers hung half shut.

Fan maintenance is critical to keeping your cows cool and saving energy. Ventilation systems often consume between 20 to 25% of the total energy used on the farm. Lack of cleaning can reduce fan efficiency by as much as 40%. Meaning that your electric bill stays the same, but less air is moving through the barn. Monthly maintenance through the summer is critical to keep fans clean. Even a thin layer of dirt on the fan blades, shutters, and protective shrouds decreases air movement and increases the power requirements from the fan. Heavy cleaners and a pressure washer work well to remove dirt from the fans.

Dirty fans in need of cleaning.

Be sure to disconnect the power supply before washing the fan and be extra cautious of water entering unsealed motors. After washing, allow fans to dry and grease bearings before turning the power back on. During washing, inspect the fans closely using the following maintenance checklist:
- Do all shafts turn smooth; are bearings showing wear?
- Inspect impeller for cracks.
- Are belts worn?
- Are pulleys still aligned?
- Bolts and set-screws tight.
While monitoring fan performance and wear can be challenging, there are a few tools that can help you. Fans should be monitored on a routine basis, such as every month in the summer or on the manufacturer’s recommended grease internal.

Logbook - If you assign a number to each fan on the farm, it will help track the maintenance cost of each individual fan. The logbook allows you to monitor when a fan is having increased belt wear or motors that are not lasting as long as they should, which is a sign of greater problems occurring. Recording air velocity also helps to notice wear issues before they become major problems.

Digital Anemometer - A anemometer is used to measure the air velocity to determine if fans are operating properly. Be sure to record these values in your logbook so that you can find changes in fan performance. Lower air velocity is often caused by either dirt build up or improper belt tension, allowing for slippage. Ideal wind speed through the barn is 5 mph.

Digital Tachometer - A tachometer is used to help determine why your fan may not be producing enough air velocity. This can be used to help determine the RPM of both your fan and the motor. When the motor is running at the correct RPM, but the blades are not, it may be due to poor belt tension, damaged or worn pulleys, or poor belt alignment.

Groove Gage - This can be used to identify pulleys that are worn and need replaced. Worn pulleys increase belt wear and slippage and decrease fan RPM. Belts should ride at the top of a pulley and not sunken into the pulley. The gage should fit tightly; if more than 1/32 inches of wear can be seen, poor belt life can be expected. If the gauge hits the bottom of the pulley, it is worn out.

Source: Dayton motor

Belt Tension Tester - This can be used to measure the force required to move a belt 1/64inch per inch of span. It helps troubleshoot fans that are turning slower than they should. If tension is correct but fans are turning too slow, pulleys or belts may be worn out. If belts with spring tensioners cannot be tensioned correctly, it may be a sign that the spring tensioner is weak or that belts are stretched or improperly sized.

Multi-Meter - This allows you to check the amperage draw of the fan motor; high amperage draws waste electric and can lead to premature motor failure. This can be caused by too high of belt tension, dirt build-up on blades and housing, or bearings that are binding and need replaced.

When adding new or replacing ventilation fans, it is important to look at more than the price. Many motors have electric efficiency ratings; the higher efficiency motors have more copper windings, increasing their cost. High efficiency motors usually pay for themselves with decreased electric consumption within one to three years. When adding or replacing fans, it is important to not buy the cheapest but also consider the fans efficiency rating for lifetime electrical use.

When inspecting ventilation systems and placing new fans, it is important to check air speed throughout the barn. The minimum cooling airspeed at cow resting height is 2.25 mph, which can be measured with an anemometer with little additional cooling effect found from air speeds over 4.5 mph. When measuring air speed throughout the barn, be sure to check for dead zones caused by fans having less air throw than expected. For example, depending on fan velocity, 36-inch fans may have to be placed every 24 feet instead of 30 to 32 feet. While large or more efficient fans can push air further; every cow acts as a baffle that disrupts air flow.

Through proper fan maintenance, we can keep ventilation systems working at maximum efficiency, keeping cows cool and comfortable. The ideal ventilation system will provide between 40 and 60 air changes per hour.
Forage Planting – How to Do It Well
Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science and Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

Early spring provides one of the two preferred times to seed perennial cool-season forages, the other being late summer. The outlook for this spring is for probabilities of above average precipitation in April and May. Planting opportunities will likely be few and short. An accompanying article on preparing now for planting, along with the following 10 steps to follow on the day you plant, will help improve chances for successful forage establishment.
1. Check now to make sure soil pH and fertility are in the recommended ranges. Follow the Tri-state Soil Fertility Recommendations (https://forages.osu.edu/forage-management/soil-fertility-forages). Forages are more productive where soil pH is above 6.0, but for alfalfa, it should be 6.5 – 6.8. Soil phosphorus should be at least 20 ppm for grasses and 30 ppm for legumes, while minimum soil potassium should be 100 ppm for sandy soils less than 5 cation exchange capacity (CEC) or 120 ppm on all other soils. If seedings are to include alfalfa and soil pH is not at least 6.5, it would be best to apply lime now and delay establishing alfalfa until late summer (plant an annual grass forage in the interim).
2. Plant high quality seed of known varietal source adapted to our region. Planting “common” seed (variety not stated) usually proves to be a very poor investment, yielding less even in the first or second year and having shorter stand life.
3. Calibrate forage seeders ahead of time. Seed flow can vary greatly for different varieties and depending on the seed treatment and coatings applied. A good video on this entitled “Drill Calibration” is at https://forages.osu.edu/video/.
4. Prepare a good seedbed as soon as soils are fit in April. The ideal seedbed for conventional seedings is smooth, firm, and weed-free. Don’t overwork the soil. Too much tillage depletes moisture and increases the risk of surface crusting. Firm the seedbed before seeding to ensure good seed-soil contact and reduce the rate of drying in the seed zone. Cultipackers and cultimulchers are excellent implements for firming the soil. If residue cover is more than 35%, use a no-till drill. No-till seeding is an excellent choice where soil erosion is a hazard. No-till forage seedings are most successful on silt loam soils with good drainage and are more difficult on clay soils or poorly drained soils. You will want no-till fields to be smooth because you do not want to bounce over them for all the years of this stand!
Try to finish seeding by the end of April in southern Ohio and by the first of May in northern Ohio. Timely planting gives forage seedlings the jump on weeds and the forages become established before summer stress sets in. Weed pressure increases with later plantings, and forages will not have as strong a root system developed by early summer when conditions
Gearing Up for Spring Planting
Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science and Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

The current weather outlook for early spring planting season is starting to sound like a broken record of the last few years – a wetter pattern than normal for Ohio and the Great Lakes region, along with a warmer than average pattern. So, it is more important than ever to be ready to take full advantage of any short windows of opportunity we will get to be in the fields this spring. This is particularly important because most forages should be planted earlier rather than later, the exception being the warm-season grasses like sorghum-sudangrass.

Start preparing by imagining your first day of planting forages. What will you do the day you plant? It might even help jog your thoughts to physically “walk through” those activities. List every single activity needed to get the whole job done.

Then ask the question, “What can I do NOW that will make that first planting day go smoothly?”

Below are some examples of preparations to do now:
1. Make sure your fuel supply is full and fill the tanks of all tractors that will be used. Service all tractors.
2. Get any needed fertilizer on hand or order it to be spread as soon as the field is fit (hopefully you pulled a soil sample last fall, and if not, do it ASAP and send to the lab).
3. Calibrate the fertilizer spreader.
4. Buy the seed (including any companion crops you will use) and have it on the farm, if not done already.
5. Buy inoculant if seed is not pre-inoculated.
6. Service all tillage equipment that will be used and have it ready to go, including hooking it to the tractor if possible.
7. Get the drill/planter out, service it, and set the planting depth so it is ready to go. Arrange for equipment you will rent or borrow. Consider contingency plans for your borrowed equipment if used to also plant forages on other farms each spring.
8. Calibrate the drill to the desired seeding rate using the seed that will be planted and then don’t touch the drill settings. Watch this video about calibrating drills: https://forages.osu.edu/video/drill-calibration?width=657px&height=460px&inline=true#colorbox-inline-239078345).
9. If contracting planting, get agreements and expectations in place now.
10. Finally, list the field work tasks that you will need to do when the weather and soils are fit, then prioritize them. Think through the tough choices you might have to make between competing activities. Think through contingency plans if each specific activity cannot be completed in a timely manner, or if it can’t get done at all this spring because of wet weather.
This last #10 item is the hardest. When the windows of opportunity are shorter than the list of work that can be accomplished, then tough choices are necessary. For example, how do you prioritize planting forages versus manure spreading in the spring? It will likely depend on the specific situation. If the manure is stored in a lagoon, then when the lagoon is full, the manure must be pumped out and spread on the field rather than planting forages, so the forage planting might have to wait. But planting forages too late in the spring brings a lot of risk to stand establishment and low yields (maybe only one cutting). If forage planting will be delayed past May 10, it might be better to plant a summer annual for a couple cuttings, then kill it and plant the perennial forages in August. But if the manure is a dry pack, perhaps it is better to take those first days of field work to plant the perennial forage and spread the manure later on other fields. Thinking through these choices and establishing a game plan will help you be more efficient and not waste time with indecision or making a less than optimal choice for the situation.

We surely all hope for good opportunities for planting this spring, but climatologists are forecasting another possibly challenging planting season. Do what is in your control now to prepare as much as possible for when planting time comes. You do not want to waste hours of potential field planting doing stuff you can do today. Try to be completely ready, as if you will be planting tomorrow morning…which we hope will be true one day very soon!
Beef Sire Selection for the Dairy Herd

Allen Gahler, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Sandusky County, Ohio State University Extension

Creating half-blood bull calves with sexed beef bull semen can increase profitability on the dairy farm. By some estimates, fed cattle that include dairy genetics make up something in the neighborhood of 25% of the U.S. beef supply. With improvements in the utilization of male-sexed beef bull semen, many dairy farmers are choosing to utilize beef genetics to add value to their calf crop.

On March 10, Al Gahler presented via Zoom during the OSU Extension Beef Team’s 2021 winter beef school on making beef cattle sire decisions for the dairy herd. Al covered Expected Progeny Differences (EPD’s) and traits to consider in order to maximize the value and marketability of crossbred beef on dairy calves. The session begins as OSU Extension Beef Field Specialist Garth Ruff introduces Al Gahler to discuss effectively utilizing beef sires to add value to the dairy based calf crop. The presentation can be viewed at: https://u.osu.edu/beef/2021/03/17/beef-sire-selection-for-the-dairy-herd-2/
Multi State Dairy Beef Program Being Offered

Garth Ruff, Beef Field Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Dairy producers over the past few years have faced a variety of challenges: low milk prices, increased feed costs, and often a surplus of heifers to enter the herd. In an effort to manage heifer numbers and add value to bull calves, breeding dairy cows to beef sires has become a more popular and common practice than ever before.

Join Ohio State University (OSU) Extension and Michigan State University (MSU) Extension on April 21, 28, and May 5 at 12:00 p.m. EST, for a series titled “Management Considerations for Beef x Dairy Calves.”

Dairy steers have been an important part of the beef supply chain for some time. This program will cover a variety of topics related to marketing, genetics, and management of crossbred beef x dairy cattle.

On April 21, Larry Rose, Head of Regional Cattle Procurement for JBS will be discussing marketing options and how crossbred dairy calves fit into the beef production system.

The April 28 meeting will feature Chip Kemp, Director of Industry Services at the American Simmental Association. Chip will be discussing which beef cattle expected progeny differences (EPD) and traits to consider to maximize the value and marketability of crossbred beef on dairy calves.

Jerad Jaborek, Beef Feedlot Systems Educator for MSU Extension and Garth Ruff, OSU Beef Cattle Field Specialist, will cover farm management strategies for dairy beef calves on May 5.

This webinar is free to anyone interested in the topic and we ask that you register online at go.osu.edu/beefmanagement. If you have any questions about registering for the program, contact OSU Extension Beef Cattle Field Specialist, Garth Ruff at ruff.72@osu.edu.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Student, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for November and December were at $23.10 and $16.09/cwt, respectively. Class III closed at $17.08/cwt in December, with protein at $3.03/lb and milk fat at $1.59/lb. Protein is ~$2 lower than in the previous issue. The Class III future for January is ~$1/cwt lower than December at $16.12/cwt, followed by a further decrease to $15.56/cwt in February.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The price of NEL and MP are about 22 and 21% higher compared to the 5-year averages ($0.08/Mcal and $0.39/lb, respectively). When comparing the nutrient costs to this time last year, however, NEL and MP are about 42 and 36% higher than January 2020 ($0.07/Mcal and $0.35/lb, respectively), while peNDF is 40% lower than its January 2020 price ($0.1077/lb).

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For January’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $8.73 and $9.18/cwt, respectively. These are both more $6/cwt lower than the estimates in the previous issue and are reflective of the lower protein and fat prices currently reporting. Both estimates are likely to be at least marginally profitable. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, January 26, 2021.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on January 26, 2021 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. For this issue, a price for ring-dried blood meal was not reported, so blood meal was added to the appraisal set in order to provide a price prediction range.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, January 26, 2021.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, January 26, 2021.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts	Whole cottonseed	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Corn,ground,dry	Soybean meal - expeller	Tallow
Corn silage	Wheat bran	Fish meal
Distillers dried grains	Whole, roasted soybeans	Blood meal
Feather meal	48% Soybean meal	Molasses
Gluten feed	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Solvent extracted canola meal
Hominy	41% Cottonseed meal	44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings	Beet pulp	Soybean hulls
Gluten meal		Citrus pulp, dried
Meat meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP content.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, January 26, 2021.

Thank You

Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

I came to The Ohio State University in January 1981 as a Ph.D. student working with Dr. Russ Conrad on the nutritional value of heat-damaged forages for dairy cows. About a year after I graduated, Dr. Conrad retired and a faculty position at OARDC in Wooster in the Department of Dairy Science (this was before we became Animal Sciences) opened up. It was my dream job, mostly research in dairy nutrition plus some Extension work. I applied for the position, and apparently, I convinced them I could do the job and have been doing this job for the past 33 years.

But all good things have to come to an end, and it is time for me to move on to other adventures. Therefore, I will be retiring at the end of January 2021. During my tenure at OSU, I have met and worked with lots of dairy farmers, nutritionists, veterinarians, and Extension agents (now educators). These relationships were very much two-way streets. I hope I provided you with useful research and helpful answers and I know you never failed to stimulate my thinking about a problem you encountered or perhaps just an observation you made. Those problems and observations often lead to years of research, and sometimes, we even came up with an answer to a problem or question. You were always willing to help when I needed research samples or data or had a group of visitors or students that wanted a tour of a dairy farm or feed mill. It has been a great 33 years; thank you for helping me have a successful career.
Technology and Data Management on the Dairy Farm – Miniseries

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

Session 1: February 17^th ,12:30 pm, register at go.osu.edu/precisiondairy1

Session 2: February 24^th ,12:30 pm, register at go.osu.edu/precisiondairy2

From milking parlors, to robots, to sophisticated software….Farmers are increasingly using technology to make management decisions on farms. Dairy farming has evolved greatly over the last few decades. If there was ever an industry in need of new technologies to become leaner and greener, it’s dairy farming. Many different kinds of technologies exist in the market today. The sheer number of various technologies and the information produced by them can be overwhelming and confusing. Technologies monitoring various parameters are available to farmers and often these technologies fall into categories including nutrition, production, animal health, fertility, and environment. The decision to adopt a technology depends on factors such as management style, familiarity with computers, ease of use, type of housing system, and perceived benefit to cost ratio. Farmers have many considerations before adopting and implementing dairy technologies. Farmers must consider their unique objectives, as well as family needs. Technology and increased access to data are enabling dairy farmers to make smarter day-to-day decisions to improve cow health, production, and on-farm efficiencies.

According to dairy tech expert Dr. Jeffrey Bewley, “technology can help farmers in many aspects on the farm and the farmers who can capitalize on the value of the data will have a competitive advantage in the future.”

Bewley, an expert in dairy analytics and technology and currently working at Holstein Association USA, will delve deeper into the role of technology on dairy farms on February 17^th starting at 12:30 p.m using the virtual meeting tool Zoom; to register visit: go.osu.edu/precisiondairy1.

Join us again virtually on February 24^th at 12:30 pm for a dairy farmer panel on utilization of technology on the farm. A panel of dairy farmers from across Ohio that use precision dairy farming technology in both robotic and parlor operations will be joining us to answer questions about how these technologies benefit their operation. The farmers on our panel each have unique experiences using technologies produced by many different manufactures. They will share with us how their farm management has changed to incorporate the technology to improve cow management, health, and production; to register visit: go.osu.edu/precisiondairy2.

Each session has a separate registration you will need to complete in order to receive the Zoom registration link. Both programs are free of charge.

Dairy Numbers Considered: A look at 2019 and 2020

Dianne Shoemaker, Dairy Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

The first half of 2019 was miserable, but as cow numbers finally trended down, milk prices gained strength with Class III increasing steadily from $13.96/cwt in January to $19.37/cwt in December. The industry looked forward to 2020 and a long-awaited opportunity to rebuild cash reserves.

The Federal Order 33 Statistical Uniform Price (Table 1) averaged $15.85/cwt in 2020, $1.36 lower than 2019’s $17.21/cwt. USDA’s 2020 Ohio All Milk Price (AMP) averaged $18.18/cwt, $0.55 lower than 2019’s reported $18.72/cwt. Ohio’s 2019 AMP is comparable to the average milk price received by farms in the 2019 Ohio Farm Business Summary, $18.62/cwt.

Table 1: Federal Order 33 Milk prices and USDA All Milk Prices 2019 and 2020 ($/cwt).

	2019	2020
Class III Price	16.96	18.16
Producer Price Differential	0.26	-2.31
Uniform Price	17.21	15.85
Ohio All Milk Price	18.72	18.18
US All Milk Price	18.60	18.30

Actual, on-farm milk prices vary from farm to farm based on component production, quality, and quantity. An unexpected factor in 2020 will be how individual Class III processors handled the massive negative producer price differentials in June, July, October, and November milk checks. Some Class III processors passed on the full deductions to their producers. Others passed at least some of the higher value of Class III milk back to their producers.

What annual averages cannot convey is the financial roller coaster experienced by farms in 2020 illustrated in Figure 1. The second-highest Class III price of $24.54/cwt posted in July (eclipsed only by September 2014’s $24.60/cwt) was battered down to a $16.52/cwt Uniform Price by a record negative $8.02/cwt Producer Price Differential in Federal Order 33. June, October, and November’s prices weren’t far behind. Most risk management tools are not designed to deal with producer price differential risk.

Figure 1. Class III, Producer Price Differential (PPD) and Statistical Uniform Price (SUP), Federal Order 33, January through December 2020.

How did 2019 look for Ohio’s Dairy Farm Business Summary Farms? Twenty-one farms participated in the 2019 analysis. We will look at data for 17 conventional farms with completed analyses. Herd sizes ranged from 60 cows to nearly 1,200 cows, with four herds milking more than 700 cows (average = 853), four milking 460 to 699 cows (average = 553), six herds milking 130 to 300 cows (average = 170), and three herds milking less than 110 cows (average = 88).

Net return per cow averaged $249 per cow, ranging from two farms generating more than $1,000 per cow to four farms generating net losses per cow up to $800. Positive net returns are needed to make principal payments, generate family living, pay income tax liabilities and provide funds to reinvest on and off the farm. Farms generating negative net returns must either use up cash reserves, take on additional operating debt, or accumulate unpaid bills. None of these options are sustainable over multiple years of low or negative returns.

Table 2 summarizes average cow numbers, milk sold per cow, feed cost and total cost per hundredweight, milk price received and net returns per cow for all farms, and those same numbers for the 4 farms that generated the highest average net return per cow.

Table 2: 17 Conventional Ohio Dairy Farms, 2019. High 20% sorted by Net Return per Cow.

	All Farms	High 20%
Number of cows	406	282
Milk sold per cow	25,010	28,319
Feed cost ($/cwt)	$10.47	$8.94
Total cost ($/cwt)	$19.30	$17.24
Milk price ($/cwt)	$18.62	$18.90
Net Return ($/cow)	$249	$897

The highest cost on dairy farms continues (and will continue) to be feed costs. On average, 54% of total costs were feed costs. For the high 20% farms, 51% of their total costs were committed to feeding the herd. These feed costs are comprehensive and include the feed for cows, calves, and heifers and includes all purchased feed, and home-grown feed which is valued at the crop’s cost of production. Because feed fed considers beginning and ending inventories and quantities and costs of feed produced, it also includes the cost of feed losses from field to feed bunk (shrink). The only feed cost that might not be included is feed costs that are included in custom heifer raising fees. This cost would be included in the custom heifer charge and in total cost of production.

The high 20% farms sold more milk per cow at a slightly higher milk price, which cost them more than $2/cwt less to produce than the average for all farms. While the four farms that generated negative net returns actually received an average milk price of $19.75/cwt, which was higher than the average price received by all farms and the high 20% farms, it was substantially lower than their $23.23/cwt direct and overhead cost of production and could not be “made up” by any additional dairy income received, which includes sales of cull cows and heifers, bull calves, and breeding stock.

If we learned anything in 2020, it was that the unexpected and unanticipated can happen without notice. The 2019 analysis showed that some farms made decent returns and others struggled. The 2020 analysis will show the same. That is good news and bad news, depending on which group you will fall in. The trick is getting and staying in the group that makes decent returns, even in years that we would characterize as not the best. Another piece of good news is that the farms that make the high 20% are not the same every year. Why is that good news? Because those farms are consistently in the top 30 to 40% and are positioned to have high 20% years.

How do farms get there and then stay there? Farm owners and managers must have real, accurate, accrual adjusted numbers. Then these accurate financial analysis numbers are intentionally used to evaluate the farm’s position and progress and used again to set goals and make informed management decisions.

Farm owners, managers and bookkeepers are now gathering, or have already assembled, information needed for income tax preparation and starting 2021’s bookkeeping. It is also time to get analysis started and finished. Much of the same information is used. Get started with your farm’s financial analysis starting with your 2020 business year. Find the Ohio Farm Business Analysis Technician closest to you at https://farmprofitability.osu.edu or contact Dianne Shoemaker at shoemaker.3@osu.edu to start your 2020 analysis now. All analyses must be completed by the end of May to receive personalized benchmark reports.

New Video on the Ohio State Dairy Program

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Dairy Working Group, a group of OSU Extension professionals, has developed a new video to highlight the dairy program in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences at The Ohio State University. Its purpose is to bring attention to the research, Extension, and teaching programs at Ohio State with focus on dairy cattle, including the Columbus and Wooster campuses and programs across the State. Dairy is third in agricultural receipts in the State, ranking behind corn and soybeans, and Ohio has an expansive dairy processing sector, including ranking first in swiss cheese production. The dairy programs at Ohio State focus on farm and animal management, food production and processing, dissemination of the research to the industry, and training students for opportunities in the dairy industry. The video can be viewed at: https://youtu.be/6TTYnf2b4dE
Are You Ready for Death to Knock on Your Farm Business Door?

David L. Marrison, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Coshocton County, Ohio State University Extension

As we each traverse through our lives, we all are presented with moments that make us pause and reflect on how precious the time is we have been given here on earth. This past year has been filled with such moments for many.

I personally had one of these moments at the end of 2016 when I was flying out of Columbus to teach two days of farm transition workshops for North Carolina State University. As our flight began its ascent to head south, the plane started shaking and I heard terrible back firing noises from the right engine. When I looked out my window over the wing, I was surprised to see the engine on fire. The next 15 minutes were quite nerve racking and soul searching for everyone on board. My quick disaster calculations had us only having a 50% chance of surviving at best.

Over those 15 minutes, I had time to think of all the things I had not completed and what the ramifications of my impending peril would be. Some of the things which flashed through my mind included: Why didn’t I finish the new version of my will? Does anyone know the combination to the safe? Does anyone know where to find all my passwords to all the accounts? Does anyone know where I hid the bars of gold and silver (that’s, right, I don’t have any). Thankfully, we were able to land on a runway cleared just for us, complete with emergency vehicles. I credit the entire flight crew for handling this situation with a great deal of calm and professionalism. They were literally life savers.

What will be your trigger or moment which will cause you to pause and think about your mortality? Granted, death is a topic that many are not comfortable talking about. However, our challenge as farm managers is to make time to undertake succession planning which will make life easier for our farm business and family once we are gone.

One of the hypothetical questions we pose in our OSU Extension farm succession workshops is, “What knowledge would you need to pass on if you knew you had only 2 months to live?” This exact scenario happened to our family and our dairy farm over a decade ago when my father was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

I am grateful that we had the seven weeks with my dad to make preparations. I challenge you to think how your farm and family would react to the loss of the principal operator. What knowledge and skills need to be transferred to the next generation so they can be successful without you? If there is no farming heir, what will happen to the farm? Will it be sold? Or does the family transition from owner-operator to an owner-landlord role?

To help jump start your family’s conversation, OSU Extension is pleased to offer a virtual three part “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” workshop on February 15, 22, and March 1, 2021, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. via Zoom. This workshop is designed to help farm families learn strategies and provide tools to successfully create a succession and estate plan that helps you transfer your farm’s ownership, management, and assets to the next generation.

Topics discussed during this series include: Developing Goals for Estate and Succession; Planning for the Transition of Control; Planning for the Unexpected; Communication and Conflict Management during Farm Transfer; Legal Tools & Strategies; Developing Your Team; Getting Affairs in Order; and Selecting an Attorney.

This workshop will be taught by members of the OSU Farm Office Team featuring Peggy Hall and Jeffrey Lewis, Attorneys from the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program, and David Marrison, Co-Leader of the Ohio Ag Manager Team.

Because of the program being held virtually, it is a great opportunity for parents, children, and grandchildren to join together, regardless of where they live in Ohio or across the United States to develop a plan for the future of your family farm.

Pre-registration is required as one packet of program materials will be mailed to participating families. Electronic copies of the course materials will also be available to all participants. The registration fee is $40 per farm family. The registration deadline is February 10. More information and on-line registration can be accessed at go.osu.edu/farmsuccession

We at OSU Extension hope many of you will join us to start your plan or use the webinar series as a chance to review and refresh your existing plan. Confront death before it knocks on your door.

More information about this series can be obtained at go.osu.edu/farmsuccession or by contacting David Marrison at the Coshocton County Extension Office at 740-622-2265 or by email at marrison.2@osu.edu.

CFAES provides research and related educational programs to clients on a nondiscriminatory basis. For more information: go.osu.edu/cfaesdiversity.
Ohio Dairy Risk Management Series Held in November 2020 Offered a Range of Important Information to Dairy Producers

Ben Brown, Farm Management Specialist, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics; Dianne Shoemaker, Dairy Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension; and Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Tuscarawas County, OSU Extension

Offered in three sessions during November, OSU Extension, in partnership with the Ohio Dairy Producers Association, delivered a dairy risk management webinar series covering three important topics: milk pricing and producer price differentials, outlooks for domestic and international milk product markets, and dairy risk management tools. Slides and recordings for all presentations can be found at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/events/archived-videos.

Session one was presented by Mark Stephenson from the University of Wisconsin discussing milk pricing and producer price differentials. Due to COVID-19 disrupting supply chains and a change in the 2018 Farm Bill using the average of Class III and Class IV milk prices instead of the higher of the two to set Class I milk prices, Ohio dairy producers experienced several months of historically large negative producer price differentials (PPD). According to Dr. Stevenson, these negative PPDs could continue for a couple more months and producers need to be aware of these when making business planning decisions. Dr. Stephenson’s presentation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpGfd5c0pi4.

Session two highlighted domestic and international markets. William Loux from the U.S. Dairy Export Council started off the session with a presentation on dairy supply and demand outside the United States. International demand for US dairy products is up in 2020, driven primarily by China and the Middle East/ North Africa Region. Southeast Asia also saw large year over year increases in dairy product imports. Loux pointed out there are a couple things to watch for in the next couple of months: COVID-19 resurgence, Brexit and the ability to trade with England, and the subsidization of dairy exports by India. He concluded by saying it is a good sign that the US continues to export dairy products in strong numbers, even with US dairy prices above world dairy prices. His session can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJsHMSkcHVc

Also in session two, Mike McCully from the McCully Group provided price expectations for US dairy markets over the next 12 months. Key points from his presentation included product specific outlooks with cheese prices being strong on solid demand, butter prices being extremely weak on burdensome supplies and milk prices being relatively stable. He continued that the outlook is mixed, with dairy markets having a bearish tone heading into the first quarter of 2021 on growing milk supplies and concerns over demand, but the second half of 2021 being more bullish given an expected reduction in milk supply growth and possible demand improvements. Mike’s full presentation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAy6Xy-Nb7s&t=119s

Session three focused on risk management tools for dairy producers. OSU Extension Educator Chris Zoller provided an overview of USDA’s Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program, which is authorized through the Farm Bill every year. Producers wishing to sign up for DMC need to contact their FSA office prior to December 11 to enroll for 2021. Chris’ presentation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR_4SukNX2I&t=24s

Dr. Kenny Burdine, Associate Extension Professor, University of Kentucky, also presented during session three. Dr. Burdine discussed Livestock Gross Margin Insurance- Dairy and gave a brief overview of using futures and options in milk price protection. Dr. Burdine suggested USDA’s DMC Program as the first level of protection for smaller producers, with Livestock Gross Margin Insurance- Dairy being the second level of protection. Kenny’s presentation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdjEijnDCMw

Session three concluded with a presentation by OSU Extension Educator Jason Hartschuh on Dairy Revenue Protection Insurance offered through the Risk Management Agency. Jason reviewed six decisions for dairy producers to consider and provided examples of how to use the program. Additional information about this topic can be found at dairy.osu.edu under Dairy Revenue Protection. Jason’s presentation from the webinar series can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B38TVJkrlQU

For any additional questions or thoughts for future risk management webinars, please reach out to Dianne Shoemaker at shoemaker.3@osu.edu, or Chris Zoller at zoller.1@osu.edu, or your local OSU Extension Office.
Beef Sire Selection Program Being Offered to Dairy Producers

Garth Ruff, Beef Field Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Dairy producers over the past few years have faced a variety of challenges: low milk prices, increased feed costs, and often a surplus of heifers to enter the herd. In an effort to manage heifer numbers and add value to bull calves, breeding dairy cows to beef sires has become a more popular and common practice than ever before.

With the increased focus on producing a higher value beef animal, it is important to understand what contributes to that value in terms of muscling, yield, and performance. Furthermore, we know that not every beef sire is the right fit for beef on dairy production, and it is important to identify those bulls with less desirable traits as well.

Join Ohio State University Extension on March 10 at 12:00 pm for a program titled “Beef Sire Selection for the Dairy Herd.” In this program, Allen Gahler, Extension Educator in Sandusky County and member of the OSU Extension Beef Team, will discuss which beef cattle EPD’s and traits to consider to maximize the value and marketability of crossbred beef on dairy calves.

This webinar is free to anyone interested in the topic and we ask that you register online at https://osu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Wk8Gb-GWQJipBkj96Q287Q or go.osu.edu/2021beefschool.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for September and October were at $16.35 and $18.86/cwt, respectively. The Federal milk order price for October protein and butterfat were $5.01/lb and $1.64/lb, respectively, and the Class III skim milk price continues to be about $4/cwt higher than Class I. The Class III future for November is ~$4/cwt higher than October at $23.10/cwt, followed by $16.09/cwt in December.

Nutrient prices

It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The price of MP and eNDF are about 23 and 31% lower compared to the 5-year averages ($0.42/lb and $0.08/lb, respectively). However, the bulk of total nutrient cost comes from the cost of NE_L(about 51% over the last 5 years), followed by MP (39%), and NDF (10%). Consequently, overall nutrient costs are heavily influenced by increases in the cost of NE_L, which in this issue is 55% higher than the 5-year average ($0.08/Mcal). Overall, nutrient cost is about $0.80 higher than the 5-year average ($7.21 vs. $6.45), but nutrient cost is not reliable as a sole predictor for profitability.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For October’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $15.06 and $15.52/cwt, respectively. This is more than a dollar higher than estimates for September ($13.85 and $14.30/cwt, respectively), and is likely to be profitable for Ohio dairy farmers. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows. Overall, current higher prices for components should help to offset the increase in nutrient costs.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 16, 2020.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 16, 2020 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. For this issue, a price for ring dried blood meal was not reported, so blood meal was added to the appraisal set in order to provide a price prediction range.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 16, 2020.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, November 16, 2020.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overprices
Bakery byproducts	Whole cottonseed	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Corn, ground, dry	Soybean meal - expeller	41% Cottonseed meal
Corn silage	Wheat bran	Fish meal
Distillers dried grains	Whole, roasted soybeans	Beet pulp
Feather meal	Gluten meal	Molasses
Gluten feed	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Solvent extracted canola meal
Hominy	Blood meal*	44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings	Meat meal	Soybean hulls
	48% Soybean meal	Citrus pulp, dried
	Tallow

*Price not reported.

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, November 16, 2020.

Recommended Adjustment when Pricing Forages

Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University and Dr. Alex Tebbe, Former PhD student (currently Dairy Consultant for Purina Animal Nutrition)

For several years, an article on cost of nutrients has appeared in this newsletter (currently written by April Frye White). The information in that article is based on a nutrient pricing method developed by a former colleague, Dr. Normand St-Pierre. The method is based on a statistical procedure that relates prices of several feeds to their nutrient composition. In articles appearing in Buckeye Dairy News, the prices are from central Ohio and the nutrients are NE_L, metabolizable protein (MP), effective NDF and non-effective NDF. The underlying assumption of that method is that cows require nutrients, not feeds and diets with the same nutrient composition, regardless of ingredients that will have the same effect on cows. This statement is not entirely true and can be very wrong when it comes to forages because of the effect ‘forage quality’ has on dry matter intake. To overcome that issue, several years ago we developed a quality adjustment based on NDF concentration and applied it to alfalfa hay. If you look at the nutrient pricing article in the second part of Table 2, you will see ‘Corrected’ values for alfalfa hays with different NDF concentrations. If NDF is less than 44%, the corrected value is greater than the predicted value and if NDF is more than 44%, the corrected value is less. We did this to account for the negative effect that high concentrations of NDF has on intake and subsequent milk production.

Using NDF to adjust for forage quality does not account for all the effects forage quality has on intake and milk production and does not work for corn silage. For the past few years, we have been working on improving the adjustment for forage quality and have recently developed an adjustment based on in vitro NDF digestibility (IVNDFD). This adjustment should work for legumes, grasses, mixtures, and corn silage. The basic procedure is you first calculate the price of the forage based on nutrient prices:

(Mcal of NE_L/ton x $/Mcal) + (lb of MP/ton x $/lb of MP) + (lb of NDF/ton x $/lb of effective NDF)

Note: For forages, all NDF is assumed to be effective.

Current nutrient prices can be found in the article on nutrient prices. The nutrient value is then adjusted up or down using its relative IVNDFD. Based on a relationship first published by Michigan State University, increasing IVNDFD 1 percentage unit is expected to increase DMI by about 0.26 lb/day and fat-corrected milk by 0.5 lb/day. The economic value of that change depends on feed and milk prices (i.e., an increase in IVNDFD is more valuable when milk is expensive and feed is cheap and less valuable when feed is expensive and milk is cheap). We developed factors to adjust forage price based on milk and feed prices (see Table 1). The IVNDFD correction is based on change, not on the absolute number. Therefore, you need to compare the sample IVNDFD you obtained from a lab to a standard. At this time, we are using the lab mean as the standard. You should be able to obtain mean values from the lab you are using. The mean must be for the specific forage you are using (e.g., corn silage, legume forage, or grass forage) and ideally from the same lab that you used to assay your sample. It does not matter whether you use 30- or 48-hour IVNDFD, but the mean and your assayed value must be from the same time point. After you get both numbers (lab mean and sample value), calculate the difference (Sample – mean). Then pick the appropriate number from Table 1 based on current milk and feed prices, and multiple by the difference. The number can be positive or negative. The resulting value is the quality adjustment per ton of dry matter for the forage.

As an example, you have a corn silage sample with 35% NDF, 4.6% MP (for forages, MP = 0.57 x CP) and 0.66 Mcal NE_L/lb. Using nutrient prices published in this edition of Buckeye Dairy News ($0.13/Mcal NE_L, $0.33/lb MP, and $0.056/lb eNDF), the predicted nutrient value of that silage is $241/ton of DM or $84/ton as-fed at 35% DM. If your silage had an IVNDFD (30 hours) of 49% and the lab average IVNDFD (30 hours) is 53%, then the difference is -4. Assuming a milk price of $17/cwt and feed DM price of $10/cwt, the adjustment factor (Table 1) is 5.4. Multiple 5.4 by -4, obtaining -$21.6/ton of DM. After adjusting for expected production differences, the corn silage would be worth $219/ton of DM ($241/ton - $22/ton) or $77/ton as-fed at 35% DM. The procedure is the same for all forages.

Table 1. Quality adjustment factors ($/ton of DM) for forages based on IVNDFD.¹

Feed price, $/cwt DM	Milk price, $/cwt
Feed price, $/cwt DM	$14	$17	$20	$23
$8	4.5	5.8	7.2	8.6
$10	4.0	5.4	6.7	8.1
$12	3.5	4.9	6.3	7.6

¹ To obtain quality adjustment, calculate the difference between your sample IVNDFD and lab average and multiply that value by the appropriate number in the table. The resulting number is added (or subtracted) from the nutrient value of the forage. A limitation of this method is that it assumes cows are fed 20 lb of DM of the forage (this was about the mean inclusion rate from the Michigan State work). However, at low inclusion rates, our method may over value the effect of forage quality.

Protein and Amino Acid Nutrition of Fresh Cows
Dr. Alex Tebbe, Former PhD student (currently Dairy Consultant for Purina Animal Nutrition) and Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

We recently completed a trial evaluating how dietary protein and amino acid supplementation affected production during the first 3 or 4 weeks of lactation and to determine how production was affected after treatments stopped (i.e., carry-over effects). The forage in the diets was a blend of about 68% corn silage and 32% alfalfa. The control diet (CONT) contained 17% crude protein (CP) and the concentrate was mostly corn grain and soybean meal. The second treatment (SOY) contained 20% CP with the additional protein coming mostly from treated soybean meal . The third diet (BLEND) also contained 20% CP but the additional CP came from a blend of soybean meal, treated canola meal, corn gluten meal, and rumen protected amino acids (the amino acid profile was formulated to mimic that of casein). The experiment contained another treatment that included several byproducts, but it will not be discussed in this article. When we increased CP in SOY and BLEND, we removed some corn grain and soybean hulls. All diets contained supplemental methionine from a rumen protected source. Cows were fed the treatment diets starting immediately after calving and continued until 25 days in milk, at which time all cows were switched to a typical high cow diet until 92 days in milk. We evaluated diet effects on both first lactation animals and older cows. The major findings were:
1. Both first lactation and older animals consumed more dry matter during the first 25 days of lactation when fed BLEND compared to the SOY
2. Feeding 20% CP in the fresh period increased energy corrected milk (ECM) for both first lactation and older cows compared to CONT, but source of the extra protein did matter.
3. During the carryover period (all cows were fed the same diet), first lactation cows that were fed the 20% CP during the fresh period produced similar amounts of ECM as cows fed CONT during the fresh period. For mature cows, feeding the SOY treatment may have reduced ECM yield during carryover, whereas feeding the BLEND increased ECM during carry over period.
The bottom line is that feeding a high protein diet (20% CP) with a good balance of amino acids for the first 25 days of lactation results in more ECM during the first 92 days of lactation than feeding a 20% protein diet not balanced for amino acids or feeding a diet with 17% CP during the fresh period. For first lactation cows, fresh cow treatment did not have significant effects on ECM yields across the first 92 days in milk. Detailed information on this experiment can be found in an upcoming Journal of Dairy Science article (accepted for publication on November 18, 2020).
Form 1099-NEC Now Used to Report Non-Employee Compensation
Dr. David L. Marrison, Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Coshocton County, The Ohio State University

(Source: go.osu.edu/1099-nec)

2020 has been a year of change and this holds true for tax management. Farm and agribusiness managers will need to be aware that significant changes have been instituted with regards to reporting non-employee compensation. The goal of this article is to share details on the return of IRS Form 1099-NEC and how it should be used instead of the IRS Form 1099-MISC when reporting compensation for nonemployees.

FORM 1099-NEC

Starting in tax year 2020, Form 1099-NEC will be used to report compensation totaling more than $600 (per year) paid to a non-employee for certain services performed for your business.

Previously, business owners would file Form 1099-MISC to report non-employee compensation (in box 7). Now, this compensation is to be listed in Box 1 on the 1099-NEC. It should be noted that Form 1099-NEC was previously used by the IRS until 1982 when the IRS added box 7 to Form 1099-MISC and discontinued the 1099-NEC form.

If the following four conditions are met, you must generally report a payment as non-employee compensation on Form 1099-NEC:
1. You made the payment to someone who is not your employee;
2. You made the payment for services in the course of your trade or business (including government agencies and non-profit organizations);
3. You made the payment to an individual, partnership, estate, or in some cases, a corporation; and
4. You made payments to the payee of at least $600 during the year.
Examples of “non-employee compensation” could include hiring a neighboring farmer to harvest, spray, or plant your crops or independent contractors, such as crop consultants, mechanics, accountants, and veterinarians. Payment for parts or materials used to perform the service (if supplying the parts or materials was incidental to providing the service) is included in the amount reported as non-employee compensation.

Reporting is needed for payments made to unincorporated businesses (i.e., sole proprietorship or LLC) in excess of $600. Generally, payments to a corporation do not require a 1099-NEC to be issued or payments made to LLC which have elected to be taxed as a corporation. One exception that should be noted is that payments over $600 to an attorney, regardless of business entity (corporation or unincorporated), need to be reported on the Form 1099-NEC.

A Form 1099-NEC can be issued even if the payment is below the $600 threshold or is to a party that you are in doubt as to whether you are required to issue this informational return. There are no prohibitions or penalties for doing this.

If you are required to file a Form 1099-NEC, you must furnish a statement to the recipient and to the IRS by January 31 of each year or the next business day, if the due date is on a weekend or holiday. For the tax reporting year of 2020, the form is due February 1, 2021.

Why the Change?

The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015 accelerated the due date for filing 1099 forms that include non-employee compensation from February 28 to January 30 and eliminated the automatic 30-day extension for forms that included non-employee compensation. This created a situation where there were two deadlines for the same form. Separating the non-employee compensation from the 1099-MISC to the 1099-NEC is expected to reduce fraud and to avoid fines for late filing.

Form 1099-MISC

The Form 1099-MISC will still be used to report a variety of income payments made to others. These include, but are not limited to:
- At least $10 in royalties (box 2) or broker payments in lieu of dividends or tax-exempt interest (box 8)
- At least $600 in:
  - Rents (box 1)
  - Prizes and awards (box 3)
  - Medical and health care payments (box 6)
  - Crop Insurance proceeds (box 9)
The 1099-MISC forms must be to the recipient by January 31 but remain under the old filing deadline to the IRS of February 28 or in the case of e-filed returns March 31.

Penalties

If you fail to file a correct information return by the due date (to the IRS or service provider) and you cannot show reasonable cause, you may be subject to a penalty.

The amount of the penalty for not correctly filing a 1099 form is based on when you file the corrected return. The penalties can be significant. More details can found at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099gi.pdf

IRS Forms

Producers can view the instructions for completing IRS Form 1099-NEC and 1099-MISC at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1099msc--2020.pdf

The 1099-NEC can be accessed at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099nec.pdf

The 1099-MISC can be accessed at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099msc.pdf

Disclaimer:

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes. This article was designed to provide accurate tax education information. Farm managers are encouraged to seek the assistance of a qualified tax professional with the completion of their taxes.
Dairy Labor Certificate Course Sponsored by Ohio State University Extension
Dr. Chris Zoller, Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Tuscarawas County, The Ohio State University

Dairy farm labor is one of the major costs of production, and farm labor is regularly described as an area of concern by dairy farmers. Therefore, Ohio State University is providing a certificate course to assist dairy farm owners and managers with labor management on farms. This course will provide opportunities for participants to examine labor costs, define labor needs, examine hiring processes, promote relationships among farm workers, increase retention, and identify ways to promote employee well-being.

Structure

This five-week course will be held weekly on Tuesdays from 12:30 to 2:00 pm in January and February 2021. All attendees will be registered with ScarletCanvas, an online platform by The Ohio State University. Materials relative to each topic will be posted there for use by attendees. Because of its virtual format, you do not have to travel to participate and learn very important topics by experts in the dairy and associated industries. Presenters from Ohio State University Extension, Michigan State University Extension, Iowa State University Extension, Cornell University Extension, and private industry will teach the program. Weekly assignments will be given, and interactive discussion will be important for the success of the program. Certificates will be provided to participants completing this program.

Dates and Topics
- January 12, 2021
  - Labor Management Benchmarks
  - So, You Need to Hire Someone – Developing the job description
- January 19, 2021
  - Recruiting Employees
  - Immigrate Labor
- January 26, 2021
  - Conducting an Interview
  - You’re Hired, now what? Building Success from Day One
- February 2, 2021
  - Building Long-Term Relationships and Team Meetings
  - Conflict Management
- February 9, 2021
  - Labor Laws
  - Farm Safety
Registration Details

The cost of the program is $75 per person and is limited to the first 30 people who register. For additional information, please see https://dairy.osu.edu/ or contact Chris Zoller, OSU Extension Educator, at 330-827-0249. Registration deadline is Friday, December 18.

(This article was originally published in Farm and Dairy)
Dairy Cattle Welfare Webinar Series
Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Professor and Dairy Extension Specialist and Dr. Jeff D. Workman, Veterinary Extension Program Coordinator, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Consumers today have a strong interest in where their food comes from, including how food animals are raised and handled. To help build consumer trust in dairy products, the Dairy Cattle Welfare Council (DCWC) is pleased to offer a webinar series. The webinars feature top-rated topics from previous DCWC Annual Symposiums, as well as other pertinent subject areas.

The live educational sessions are available at no cost to attendees from around the world, but you must register. Visit the following link https://www.dcwcouncil.org/webinar-series and click on the blue icon “Register Here”.

There are several recoded webinars, but past recordings are only available to active members of the DCWC (annual membership dues are $50, see membership information). All recoded presentations have the closed caption feature with CC capable in Spanish, French, etc. Continuing Education Credit is awarded on an hour-per-hour basis. Please contact DCWCouncil@gmail.com to request Veterinary CE documentation.

The next upcoming webinar listed below will be held on December 9, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time:
- "Transgenerational effects of late-gestation heat stress" by Dr. Jimena Laporta, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin
For a complete list of previously recorded webinars, please visit https://www.dcwcouncil.org/webinar-series
2021 Pasture for Profit Schools
Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, and Ms. Christine Gelley, Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Noble County, The Ohio State University

Pasture for Profit schools will be offered between January and March in 2021. Members of the OSU Forage Team, educators from the former Buckeye Hills EERA and beyond, and board members of the Ohio Forage and Grassland Council will offer the Pasture for Profit curriculum as a virtual course. One live webinar will be offered per month pairing “work at your own pace” videos and exercises with each webinar. The schedule is shown below.
- Webinar One- Core Grazing Education: 90 minutes | Wed., January 13^th| 7 p.m.
  - Evaluating Resources and Goal Setting (30 minutes)
  - Getting Started Grazing (30 minutes)
  - Soil Fertility (30 minutes)
- Webinar Two- The Science of Grazing: 90 minutes | Wed., February 3^rd| 7 p.m.
  - Understanding Plant Growth (30 minutes)
  - Fencing and Water Systems (30 minutes)
  - Meeting Animal Requirements on Pasture (30 minutes)
- Webinar Three- Meeting Grazing Goals: 90 minutes | Wed., March 3rd| 7 p.m.
  - Pasture Weed Control (30 minutes)
  - Economics of Grazing (30 minutes)
  - Creating and Implementing Grazing Plans (30 minutes)
A series of additional videos that complement each webinar will be accessible to registered participants. The videos will focus on more specific pasture management topics at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced manager levels.

Look for registration details soon at https://forages.osu.edu/.
Collegiate Dairy Judging Goes Virtual

Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

As the powerhouse cow shows of the United States fell like dominoes, so did our opportunities for dairy judging contests. Without contests, some could assume that we would give in to the 2020 trauma. I am pleased to let you know that we did sustain dairy judging. As a small group and outside at farms, we made provisions to practice and learn. Since July, some of us coaches kept discussing an online contest using classes at livetockjudging.com. Was it perfect and like real cows? Absolutely not, but we did come together to offer a secondary approach to students who have been waiting and planning for their opportunity. Instead of shavings stuck in their shoes, they dressed up and stepped closer to the screens of their computers. With the same officials and volunteers used at our traditional contests, the Virtual Contest made history. As the results were posted, 13 teams and a host of individuals earned their respective rankings.

Ohio State participants included Deanna Langenkamp, Preston Sheets, Lindsey L’Amoreaux, Sarah Quallen, and Sydney Good. Our team finished 5^th overall and 5^th in reasons. However, we were 3^rd in placings and 3^rd in the Holstein breed. Sarah had a good day as she was 3^rd in placings, 5th overall, and 10^th in reasons. The future is promising and especially for Deanna who will be graduating in the spring of 2021.

Follow us on Facebook, The Ohio State University Dairy Judging Teams.

As far as other youth news, we ARE planning Dairy Palooza for 2021. The committee is developing plans and educational opportunities for April 24 at the Canfield Fairgrounds.
Zooming in on the 2020 Ohio Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Due to the COVID-19 situation, the 2020 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held a little differently than in previous years. The program was held virtually during November 18-21, whereby herd records, pictures, videos, farm map, a farmer questionnaire, and feeding information were provided to students on Wednesday pm when students could begin evaluating the information. On Friday afternoon at 2:00 pm, a Zoom meeting was held with the farmer for the students to ask questions about the operation. Students had to turn in their presentations by 11:00 pm on Friday evening and they were judged via Zoom by a panel of judges on Saturday morning. The program this year was sponsored by ADM Animal Nutrition, Provimi North America, Purina Animal Nutrition, ST Genetics, Biomin, and Coloquick. Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped generally into teams of three to four individuals. The farm selected for the contest this year was the Sterling Heights Dairy in Sterling, OH owned by Jim, Anne, Matt, and Mark Saal. The family’s operation includes about 1100 cows that are housed and milked on two farms and another farm is used for raising heifers. They milk most of the cows 3x with at RHA of milk at 29,022 lb, 3.8% milk fat and 3.2% milk protein. There were about 50 students (10 students from ATI, 5 students from Wilmington College, and 35 students from the Columbus campus) that participated in the program this year. During the Saturday presentations, the students had 20 minutes to present their findings and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the program this year (Figure 1) were Bob Hostetler (ST Genetics), Alan Chestnut (Cargill/Provimi), Larissa Deikun (Coloquick), Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), Brian Lammers (ADM Animal Nutrition), Alex Tebbe (Purina Animal Nutrition), Shaun Wellert (Veterinarian and Instructor at ATI), and Benjamin Wenner (Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences). The top team consisted of Paul Bensman, Amanda Nall, Caleb Rykaczewski, and Laura Tavera from the OSU Columbus campus. The second placed team consisted of Sydney Good, Holly Schmenk, Joshua Strine, and Ashley Stroud from the OSU Columbus campus. In addition, an ATI team received an honorable mention that consisted of Mason Benschoter, Alexis Czarny, and Grace Maurer. Students will be selected to represent Ohio State at the National Contest and to participate in the Dairy Challenge Academy to be held April 15-17, 2021, most likely in a virtual format. Students from ATI participated in the Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge held virtually during October 29-30, 2020. Students from The Ohio State University, Columbus campus and Wilmington College will be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge to be held virtually during February 16 through March 2, 2021. This program is being hosted by Ohio State, Purdue, and Michigan State. The coach for the Dairy Challenge program at ATI is Dr. Shaun Wellert, Daryl Nash at Wilmington College, and Dr. Maurice Eastridge for the OSU Columbus campus. Additional information about the North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge program can be found at: http://www.dairychallenge.org/

Figure 1. Judges for the 2020 Ohio Dairy Challenge: Top row – Larissa Deikun (Coloquick), Maurice Eastridge (OSU), Brian Lammers (ADM); Middle row – Shaun Wellert (ATI), Bob Hostetler (ST Genetics) and Allan Chestnut (Provimi); and bottom row – Ben Wenner (OSU) and Alex Tebbe (Purina Animal Nutrition).

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April Frye White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for July and August were at $24.23 and $22.84/cwt, respectively. The Federal milk order price for June protein is $4.53/lb, leading to a higher Class III milk price. The Class III futures for September was ~$6/cwt lower than August at $16.35/cwt, followed by $18.86/cwt in October.

Updated Corn Silage Price

Nutrient prices

When comparing the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages, the current prices of nutrients are favorable. The price of NE_Lis about 36% higher than the 5 yr. average ($0.08/Mcal). However, the price of MP and eNDF are about 40 and 10% lower compared to the 5-year averages ($0.42/lb and $0.08/lb, respectively). The price of MP is about 40% lower than May ($0.43/lb), but the price of NE_L is 229% higher than the previous issue ($0.05/Mcal). These swings in nutrient prices are likely related to missing price information for ring dried blood meal, as well as some larger shifts in the prices of other feeds. Feed prices are shown in Table 2.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For September’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $13.85 and $14.30/cwt, respectively. This is lower than estimates for July ($15.97 and $16.39/cwt, respectively), but the current IONC is likely to be profitable for Ohio dairy farmers. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Volatile feed prices continue as in recent issues, but current feed and milk prices may offer some positive opportunities.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, September 22, 2020.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on September 22, 2020 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. For this issue, a price for ring dried blood meal was not reported, so blood meal was added to the appraisal set in order to provide a price prediction range.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, September 22, 2020.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, September 22, 2020.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts	Whole cottonseed	Mechanicall extracted canola meal
Corn, ground, dry	Soybean meal - expeller	4
Corn silage	Wheat bran	Fish meal
Distillers dried grains	Soybean hulls	Beet pulp
Feather meal	Gluten meal	Molasses
Gluten feed	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Solvent extracted canola meal
Hominy	Blood meal*	44% Soybean meal
Meat meal		Tallow
Wheat middlings		Whole, roasted soybeans
		48% Soybean meal
	*Price not reported

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, September 22, 2020.

Precautions for Feeding Frosted and Drought-Stressed Forages
Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

Livestock owners feeding forage need to keep in mind the potential for some forage toxicities and other problems that can develop this fall. High nitrates and prussic acid poisoning are the main potential concerns. These are primarily an issue with annual forages and several weed species, but nitrates can be an issue even in drought stressed perennial forages. There is also an increased risk of bloat when grazing legumes after a frost.

Nitrate Toxicity

Drought stressed forages can accumulate toxic nitrate levels. This can occur in many different forage species, including both annuals and perennials. Several areas in Ohio have been dry of late. Corn, oat and other small grains, sudangrass, and sorghum sudangrass, and many weed species, including johnsongrass, can accumulate toxic levels of nitrates. Even alfalfa can accumulate toxic nitrate levels under severe drought stress.

Before feeding or grazing drought stressed forage, send in a forage sample to be tested for nitrates. Most labs now offer nitrate tests, so it is likely that you can get a forage nitrate test by your favorite lab. Several labs are listed at the end of this article that do nitrate testing. This list is for your convenience and no labs are intentionally omitted. Check your chosen lab’s website or call them and follow their specific instructions about how to collect and handle the sample. The cost is well worth it against the risk of losing animals.

See the following references for more details:

Nitrates in Cattle Sheep and Goats (University of Wisconsin Extension) https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/nitrate-poisoning-in-cattle-sheep-and-goats/

Nitrates and Prussic Acid in Forages (Texas Cooperative Extension) http://forages.tamu.edu/PDF/Nitrate.pdf

Nitrate accumulation in frosted forages. Freezing damage slows down metabolism in all plants, and this might result in nitrate accumulation in plants that are still growing, especially grasses like oats and other small grains, millet, and sudangrass. This build-up usually is not hazardous to grazing animals, but greenchop or hay cut right after a freeze can be more dangerous. When in doubt, test the forage for nitrates before grazing or feeding it.

Prussic Acid Toxicity

Several forage and weed species contain compounds called cyanogenic glucosides that are converted quickly to prussic acid (i.e. hydrogen cyanide) in freeze-damaged plant tissues or under drought conditions. Some labs provide prussic acid testing of forages. Sampling and shipping guidelines should be carefully followed because prussic acid is a gas and can dissipate during shipping, leading to a false sense of security when no prussic acid is found in the sample.

Drought stress can affect prussic acid poisoning risk. Drought-stunted plants can contain or produce prussic acid and can possess toxic levels at maturity. Prussic acid poisoning can be associated with new regrowth following a drought-ending rain. Rain after drought plus young stages of plant maturity can combine to cause toxic levels of prussic acid in forage.

Plant age affects toxicity. Young, rapidly growing plants of species that contain cyanogenic glucosides will have the highest levels of prussic acid. Pure stands of indiangrass can have lethal levels of cyanide if they are grazed when the plants are less than 8 inches tall.

Species with prussic acid poisoning potential. Forage species that can contain prussic acid are listed below in decreasing order of risk of toxicity:
- Grain sorghum = high to very high toxic potential
- Indiangrass = high toxic potential
- Sorghum-sudangrass hybrids and forage sorghums = intermediate to high potential
- Sudangrass hybrids = intermediate potential
- Sudangrass varieties = low to intermediate in cyanide poisoning potential
- Piper sudangrass = low prussic acid poisoning potential
- Pearl millet and foxtail millet = rarely cause toxicity
Species not usually planted for agronomic use can also develop toxic levels of prussic acid, including the following:
- Johnsongrass
- Shattercane
- Chokecherry
- Black cherry
- Elderberry
It is always a good idea to check areas where wild cherry trees grow after a storm and pick up and discard any fallen limbs to prevent animals from grazing on the leaves and twigs.

Frost affects toxicity. Cyanogenic glucosides are converted quickly to prussic acid (i.e. hydrogen cyanide) in freeze-damaged plant tissues. Prussic acid poisoning potential is most common after the first autumn frost. New growth from frosted plants is palatable but can be dangerously high in prussic acid.

Fertility can affect poisoning risk. Plants growing under high nitrogen levels or in soils deficient in phosphorus or potassium will be more likely to have high prussic acid poisoning potential.

Fresh forage has more risk. After frost damage, cyanide levels will likely be higher in fresh forage as compared with silage or hay. This is because cyanide is a gas and dissipates as the forage is wilted and dried for making silage or dry hay.

Prussic Acid Toxicity Symptoms

Animals can die within minutes if they consume forage with high concentrations of prussic acid. Prussic acid interferes with oxygen transfer in the blood stream of the animal, causing it to die of asphyxiation. Before death, symptoms include excess salivation, difficult breathing, staggering, convulsions, and collapse.

Ruminants are more susceptible to prussic acid poisoning than horses or swine because cud chewing and rumen bacteria help release the cyanide from plant tissue.

Grazing Precautions Against Nitrate & Prussic Acid Poisoning

The following guidelines will help you avoid danger to your livestock this fall when feeding species with nitrates or prussic acid poisoning potential:
- Under drought conditions, allow animals to graze only the upper one-third to one-half of the plant or the leaves of coarse-stemmed forages if the nitrate level in these plant parts is safe. Monitor animals closely and remove them quickly when the upper portion of plants is grazed off.
- Generally, forage nitrate levels drop significantly 3 to 5 days after sufficient rainfall, but it is always safer to send in a sample for testing before grazing or feeding forage soon after drought stress periods.
- Making hay does not reduce nitrate levels in the forage, but the hay can be tested and diluted sufficiently with other feeds to make it safe for animals.
- Ensiling forage converts nitrates to volatile nitrous oxides, or “silo gases”. These gases are highly toxic to humans. Safety practices include removing tarps from a portion of the silo a day or two before removing the silage from the bunker.
- Do not graze on nights when frost is likely. High levels of toxic prussic acid are produced within hours after a frost, even if it was a light frost.
- Do not graze after a killing frost until plants are dry, which usually takes 5 to 7 days.
- After a non-killing frost, do not allow animals to graze for two weeks because the plants usually contain high concentrations of prussic acid.
- New growth may appear at the base of the plant after a non-killing frost. If this occurs, wait for a killing freeze, and then wait another 10 to 14 days before grazing the new growth.
- Do not allow hungry or stressed animals to graze young growth of species with prussic acid potential. To reduce the risk, feed ground cereal grains to animals before turning them out to graze.
- Use heavy stocking rates (4 to 6 head of cattle/acre) and rotational grazing to reduce the risk of animals selectively grazing leaves that can contain high levels of prussic acid.
- Never graze immature growth or short regrowth following a harvest or grazing (at any time of the year). Graze or greenchop sudangrass only after it is 15 to 18 inches tall. Sorghum-sudangrass should be 24 to 30 inches tall before grazing.
- Do not graze wilted plants or plants with young tillers.
Greenchop

Green-chopping will not reduce the level of nitrates and is not likely to greatly reduce the level of prussic acid present. However, green-chopping frost-damaged plants will lower the risk compared with grazing directly because animals are less likely to selectively graze damaged tissue. Stems in the forage dilute the high prussic acid content that can occur in leaves. However, the forage can still be toxic, so feed greenchop with great caution after a frost. If feeding greenchopped forage of species containing cyanogenic glucosides, feed it within a few hours of greenchopping, and do not leave greenchopped forage in wagons or feedbunks overnight.

Hay and Silage

Prussic acid content in the plant decreases dramatically during the hay drying process and the forage should be safe once baled as dry hay. The forage can be mowed any time after a frost if you are making hay. It is rare for dry hay to contain toxic levels of prussic acid. However, if the hay was not properly cured and dried before baling, it should be tested for prussic acid content before feeding to livestock.

Forage with prussic acid potential that is stored as silage is generally safe to feed. To be extra cautious, wait 5 to 7 days after a frost before chopping for silage. If the plants appear to be drying down quickly after a killing frost, it is safe to ensile sooner.

Delay feeding silage for 8 weeks after ensiling. If the forage likely contained high levels of cyanide at the time of chopping, hazardous levels of cyanide might remain and the silage should be analyzed before feeding.

Species That Can Cause Bloat After Frost

Forage legumes, such as alfalfa and clovers, have an increased risk of bloat when grazed one or two days after a hard frost. The bloat risk is highest when grazing pure legume stands and least when grazing stands having mostly grass.

The safest management is to wait a few days after a killing frost before grazing pure legume stands – wait until the forage begins to dry from the frost damage. It is also a good idea to make sure animals have some dry hay before being introduced to lush fall pastures that contain significant amounts of legumes. You can also swath your legume-rich pasture ahead of grazing and let animals graze dry hay in the swath. Bloat protectants like poloxalene can be fed as blocks or mixed with grain. While this an expensive supplement, it does work well when animals eat a uniform amount each day.

Frost and Equine Toxicity Problems (source: Bruce Anderson, University of Nebraska)

Minnesota specialists report that fall pasture, especially frost damaged pasture, can have high concentrations of nonstructural carbohydrates, like sugars. This can lead to various health problems for horses, such as founder and colic. They recommend pulling horses off of pasture for about one week following the first killing frost.

High concentrations of nonstructural carbohydrates are most likely in leafy regrowth of cool-season grasses, such as brome, timothy, and bluegrass, but native warm-season grasses also may occasionally have similar risks.

Another unexpected risk can come from dead maple leaves that fall or are blown into horse pastures. Red blood cells can be damaged in horses that eat 1.5 to 3 lb of dried maple leaves per 1000 lb of body weight. This problem apparently does not occur with fresh green leaves or with any other animal type. Fortunately, the toxicity does not appear to remain in the leaves the following spring.

Where to Test Forages for Nitrates (there probably are others not listed)

Brookside Laboratories, Inc.
New Bremen, Ohio
www.blinc.com/
419-977-2766

Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Waynesboro, PA
www.foragelab.com/
800-282-7522

Dairyland Labs
www.dairylandlabs.com
Wisconsin & Minnesota
608-323-2123

Dairy One
dairyone.com
Ithaca, NY
800-344-2697

Holmes Lab
holmeslab.com
Millersburg, Ohio
330-893-2933 or 330-893-1326

Rock River Lab
www.rockriverlab.com
Wooster, OH
330-462-6041

Spectrum Analytic
www.spectrumanalytic.com
Washington Court House, Ohio
800-321-1562

Sure-Tech
www.winfieldunited.com/research-and-innovation/suretech-laboratories
Indianapolis, Indiana
800-266-7176
Dairy Cash Flow Assistance UPDATED: CFAP 2 Program Application Open Through December 11, 2020, EIDL Still Available
Dianne Shoemaker, Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

2020 has certainly been an interesting year. So many things have not turned out as expected, and as a result, cash flow is still an issue on many dairy farms. Two programs are currently available that may be of assistance.

CFAP 2 – Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) – Part 2

The original CFAP program administered through the USDA Farm Service Agency provided direct assistance to farms with qualifying crops or livestock through funding from the CFAP and the CCC (Commodity Credit Corporation). That program closed on September 11^th, but the market challenges did not end. In response, the CFAP 2 Program was announced and is accepting applications from September 21 through December 11, 2020. CFAP 2 funding for dairy is provided through the CCC.

What does this mean for dairy farmers? There are some differences from CFAP 1. The dairy (milk) component is very straight-forward:

Cows milk is considered a “price-trigger commodity” for this program, meaning it suffered at least a five percent national price decline when comparing the average price from July 27 – 31, 2020 to the average price from January 13-17, 2020. CFAP 2 provides a $1.20/cwt payment for documented pounds of milk produced (sold) between April 1 and August 31, 2020, as well as predicted production from September through December 2020. Predicted production will be equal to the daily average milk sold from April through August times 122; the total number of days in September, October, November and December. Those pounds will also be multiplied by $1.20/cwt.

Farmers will need to provide records of milk produced and sold (the final milk check as documentation) from April 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020.

Sample Dairy Calculation:

While the milk portion is very strait forward, there are some differences from CFAP 1 for animals:
- Cull cows are not eligible for payments (whether cull dairy cows or cull beef cows).
- Payments for bull calves, beef feeders, dairy steers or cull heifers (animals have never calved) is $55 per head based on the highest one-day inventory between April 16 and August 31.
- For most dairy farms that do not raise feeders or finish cattle, that will likely be the day they sold the most bull calves or cull heifers during that time period.
- Animals that have calved or are intended for milk production are not eligible.
Work with your local FSA office for guidance as details continue to be addressed for CFAP 2. Eligibility requirements continue from CFAP 1, while payment limitations have been re-set. Detailed information on these subjects can be found at https://www.farmers.gov/cfap.

EIDL – Economic Injury Disaster Loan

This is a CARES-authorized Small Business Association (SBA) program which is currently open for farm and other small-business applications at the sba.gov website. Farm businesses and agricultural cooperatives with no more than 500 employees may apply for EIDL, which gives loans up to $2 million for businesses that suffer economic injuries due to COVID-19. Approved loans will incur 3.75% interest for terms up to 30 years. Collateral will be required for larger loans. Applications are taken on-line only. Find more information at http://sba.gov.
Dairy Pricing, Outlook, and Risk Management Series Coming in November
Dianne Shoemaker, Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

How in the world did we end up with a negative eight dollar producer price differential (PPD) in July? What do markets look like moving forward? What tools can a dairy farm use to manage price risk in the future?

These are excellent questions and the focus of a three-part mini-series for Ohio’s dairy industry coming in November. The meetings will be live via zoom, so grab your lunch and join us on your computer or listen in from your phone from noon to one pm for any or all of these sessions:

Thursday, November 5^th - How did we get to a -$8 PPD?
- Mark Stephenson, Director of Dairy Policy Analysis, University of Wisconsin
Tuesday, November 17^th – Dairy Fundamental Outlook and Trade
- William Loux, Director of Global Trade Analysis, Dairy Export Council
- Mike McCully, McCully Group
Tuesday, November 24^th – Dairy Risk Management Tools
- Kenny Burdine, Livestock Marketing and Management, University of Kentucky
- Jason Hartschuh, ANR Educator, The Ohio State University
- Chris Zoller, ANR Educator, The Ohio State University
Each session will last one hour with opportunities for questions. There is no cost for the program, but please register ahead at: http://go.osu.edu/DairyRiskManagement. You will receive an email with information about joining the program via the Zoom platform.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April Frye White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for May and June were at $12.22 and $17.52/cwt, respectively. The Class III component price for May closed just slightly lower than predicted at $12.14/cwt but closed $9/cwt higher in June at $21.04/cwt. The Federal milk order price for protein in June was $4.53/lb, leading to a higher Class III milk price. The Class III future for July is nearly double that of May at $24.23/cwt, followed by $22.84/cwt in August.

Nutrient prices

When comparing the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages, the current prices of nutrients are good. The price of NE_Lis about 40% lower than the 5 yr. average ($0.08/Mcal). However, the price of MP and eNDF are about 1 and 64% higher compared to the 5-year averages ($0.42/lb and $0.08/lb, respectively). The price of MP is about 8% lower than May ($0.47/lb), but the price of NE_L and eNDF are both 14% and 8% higher than the last issue ($0.04/Mcal and $0.12/lb, respectively). Feed prices are shown in Table 2.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For July’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $15.97 and $16.39/cwt, respectively. This is more than double the estimates from May ($7.13 and $7.56/cwt, respectively). The current IONC is likely to be profitable for Ohio dairy farmers and are reflective of the current high price for milk protein. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, for profitability changes related to culling cows, and the actual mailbox milk price received by dairy producers. Continued lower feed prices may provide some opportunity to recover from recent months.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, July 23, 2020.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on July 23, 2020 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, July 23, 2020.
A screenshot of a cell phone

Description automatically generated

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, July 23, 2020.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Whole cottonseed	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Corn silage	Bakery byproducts	41% Cottonseed meal
Distillers dried grains	Wheat bran	Fish meal
Feather meal	48% Soybean meal	Beet pulp
Gluten feed	Gluten meal	Molasses
Hominy	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Solvent extracted canola meal
Meat meal	Blood meal	44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings	Soybean hulls	Tallow
Soybean meal - expeller		Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, July 23, 2020.
A screenshot of a cell phone

Description automatically generated

Record Negative Producer Price Differential Slams June Milk Checks, Why and How?

Dianne Shoemaker, Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Helped by Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) legislated for the Food Box Assistance program dairy purchases, Class III prices made an amazing recovery in June, rising from May’s bitterly low $12.14/ cwt to the $21.04/cwt announced by the Milk Market Administrator on July 1, 2020 (Figure 1). The possibility of additional cash flow at the farm level quickly evaporated as the specter of a record negative producer price differential (PPD) surfaced.

Unfortunately, the June final milk check revealed a record-high negative $7.05 PPD for Federal Order 33, reflecting brutal, unintended consequences of a Federal Milk Marketing Order rule change. A change in how Class I price is calculated went into effect in 2019, driven by organizations representing processors and cooperatives and included in the 2018 Farm Bill. Unfortunately, bad things happen when there is a large spread between Class III and Class IV prices and prices rise rapidly. And it just did.

Figure 1: Class III price, July 2019 through June 2020, $ per cwt.

Negative Producer Price Differential (PPD)

Our Federal Order 33 is a component-based system, as are 6 other of the 11 Federal Orders. Class I (fluid or bottled) milk is usually the highest value milk in this system and that price is set off of the Class III and IV prices which are usually lower (Figure 2). In this “normal” scenario, the price farmers receive for their milk is the Class III price plus a share of the higher value of Class I milk pooled in the Federal Order (represented by the PPD) if their cooperative or processor participates in the Federal Order system. So typically, the Class I price is higher than the Class III price, the PPD is positive, and this adds dollars to the milk check.

Figure 2: Class prices, FMMO 33, January through May 2020, $ per cwt.

Every dairy farmer knows that sometimes the PPD has “gone negative”, and in spite of efforts to tweak pricing rules, it still happens. Negative PPD surfaced most recently in 2019, with negative PPD from September through December ranging from ($0.31) in September to ($2.44/cwt) in November.

June’s Class III price announced at $21.04/cwt was a welcome and dramatic increase from May’s dismal $12.14/cwt. At the same time, the Class IV price only increased from $10.67 to 12.90/cwt (Figure 3). Class III and IV milk prices are used to calculate the Class I price. Before the rule change, Class I was calculated using the higher of Class III or IV prices. Now it is calculated using the average of Class III and Class IV prices plus 74 cents (the historical difference between the two prices). Because of the change, Class III milk has a higher value than the Class I price for June, resulting in a negative PPD.

Figure 3: Class prices, FMMO 33, January through June 2020, $ per cwt.

How low could it go?

Before the June PPD was announced on July 13^th, what we did not know was how negative it would be. The unknown factor was how much Class III milk, normally pooled in the Federal order, would be depooled? The higher the amount of milk depooled, the higher the negative PPD would be. So, what does this mean? The federal order system is complicated with an extensive set of rules. Let’s take a simplified look at how it works:

Class I milk, or milk that goes into a jug for fluid consumption, has to be “pooled” on the Federal order. In other words, if a processor bottles milk, which is usually the highest value milk in our pricing system, they pay the difference in value between Class I and Class III into the Federal order pool each month. At the end of the month, an accounting is made of how many pounds of milk were pooled in the Federal order for the given month and how much was utilized as Class I, II, III, or IV (Figure 4). Based on dollars paid in and how many pounds were pooled, the PPD is announced. In theory, this shares the higher value of fluid milk with all participating farms, regardless of whether they have the opportunity to ship to a fluid milk processor, or their milk is going into cheese, butter, or some other manufactured product.

Figure 4: Milk utilization by class and total pounds of milk pooled in FMMO 33, January through May 2020.

While Class I processors have to participate in the Federal order system, Class III processors do not. They usually do because it allows them to pay more than the typically lower Class III price to their farmers in the form of the Class III price plus the producer price differential.

Class III worth more than Class I

However, when the Class III price is higher than the Class I price, the Class III processors are now in the position of having to pay into the Federal order. They can choose to pool fewer pounds of milk than they have normally pooled in the Federal order to minimize the dollars they would have to pay in. This is termed “depooling”. When this happens, there is not a pool of dollars reflecting the highest value of milk, and the PPD becomes negative, reflecting the value and use of the milk that was pooled on the Federal order.

In June, Class I milk was worth $13.42/cwt, while Class III hit $21.04/cwt. The final accounting was brutal for dairy farmers, with 429.5 million pounds less Class III milk pooled in June than the average Class III pounds pooled January through May in FMMO 33.This dropped Class III utilization from an average of 32% for the first 5 months to 9.8% in June (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Milk utilization by class and total pounds of milk pooled in FMMO 33, January through June 2020.

The FMMO 33 Class I price for July is above $18/cwt but will still likely be lower than the July Class III price. It is anticipated that we are in for several more months of negative PPD.

Additional resources

This is a very basic look at what happened. Two dairy market experts, Mark Stephenson, University of Wisconsin, and Andrew Novakovic, Cornell University, did an excellent job putting together a very readable paper “Making Sense of Your Milk Price in the Pandemic Economy: Negative PPD, Depooling, and Reblending”, which addresses additional issues not included here. This paper is worth reading and can be download from: https://dairymarkets.org/PubPod/Pubs/IL20-03.pdf
August 28 Deadline for Coronavirus Food Assistance Program is Fast Approaching

Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

2020 has not turned out as anyone expected, and the dairy industry received no exceptions. Good milk prices quickly reversed course, and what seemed to be improving prices did not materialize in on-farm milk checks. The Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) was developed to provide farms that have been buffeted by these unforeseen, uncontrollable, and on-going circumstances some cash flow assistance.

The intent of this program is to directly assist farms impacted by the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. Sign-up began at your local Farm Service Agency (FSA) office on Tuesday, May 26 and continues through August 28, 2020. FSA offices currently work with clients via email, fax, and phone by appointment.

The major assistance available to dairy farms is based on milk sold (or documented as dumped at the direction of the cooperative or processor) in January, February, and March. Additional assistance is available based on cull cows and younger animals sold for beef between January 15 and April 15. Farms can choose for which categories they would like to apply.

FSA especially welcomes farms who may not have participated in a program before to learn more about and apply for this program designed to support US food production. More information about the program can be found here: https://www.farmers.gov/cfap, including an on-line application as well as a link to find your local county FSA office.

More detailed information about how the CFAP program works for dairy farms can be found in the previous issue of Buckeye Dairy News here: https://dairy.osu.edu/newsletter/buckeye-dairy-news/volume-22-issue-3/economic-assistance-available-dairy-farms
Late Summer Establishment of Perennial Forages
Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science and Mr. Rory Lewandowski , Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Educator, Wayne County, The Ohio State University Extension

The month of August provides the second window of opportunity for establishing perennial forage stands this year. The primary risk with late summer forage seedings is having sufficient moisture for seed germination and plant establishment, which is a significant risk this summer given the low soil moisture status across many areas.

The decision to plant or not will have to be made for each individual field, considering soil moisture and the rain forecast. Rainfall/soil moisture in the few weeks immediately after seeding is the primary factor affecting successful establishment.

No-till seeding in August is an excellent choice to conserve soil moisture for good germination. Make sure that the field surface is relatively level and smooth if you plan to no-till seed because you will have to live with any field roughness for several years of harvesting operations.

Sclerotinia crown and stem rot is a concern with no-till seedings of alfalfa in late summer and especially where clover has been present in the past. This pathogen causes white mold on alfalfa seedlings and infects plants during cooler rainy spells in late October and November. Early August plantings dramatically improve the alfalfa's ability to resist the infection. Late August seedings are very susceptible to this disease, with mid-August plantings being intermediate.

In a no-till situation, minimize competition from existing weeds by applying a glyphosate burndown before planting. Using no-till when herbicide-resistant weeds are present, such as marestail, creates a very difficult situation with no effective control options, so tillage is probably a better choice in those situations.

Post-emergence herbicide options exist for alfalfa to control late summer and fall emerging winter annual broadleaf weeds. A mid- to late fall application of Butyrac (2,4-DB), bromoxynil, Pursuit or Raptor are the primary herbicide options for winter annual broadleaf weeds. Fall application is much more effective than a spring application for control of these weeds, especially if wild radish/wild turnip are in the weed mix. Pursuit and Raptor can control winter annual grasses in the fall in pure legume stands but not in a mixed alfalfa/grass planting. Consult the 2020 Ohio, Indiana, Illinois Weed Control Guide and always read the specific product label for guidelines on timing and rates before applying any product.

For conventional tillage seeding, prepare a firm seedbed to ensure good seed-to-soil contact. Be aware that too much tillage depletes soil moisture and increases the risk of soil crusting. Follow the "footprint guide" that soil should be firm enough for a footprint to sink no deeper than one-half inch. Tilled seedbeds do not need a pre-plant herbicide.

Finally, keep in mind the following factors to increase establishment success:
- Soil fertility and pH: The recommended soil pH for alfalfa is 6.5 to 6.8. Forage grasses and clovers should have a pH of 6.0 or above. The minimum or critical soil phosphorus level for forage legumes is 30 ppm Mehlich-3 and for grasses 20 ppm Mehlich-3. The critical soil potassium level is 120 ppm for most of our soils.
- Check herbicide history of field. A summary table of herbicide rotation intervals for alfalfa and clovers is available at http://go.osu.edu/herbrotationintervals. Forage grasses are not included in that table, so check the labels of any herbicides applied to the field in the last 2 years for any restrictions that might exist.
- Seed selection: Be sure to use high quality seed of adapted varieties and use fresh inoculum of the proper Rhizobium bacteria for legume seeds. “Common” seed (variety not stated) is usually lower yielding and not as persistent, and from our trials, the savings in seed cost is lost within the first year or two through lower forage yields.
- Planting date: Planting of alfalfa and other legumes should be completed between late July and mid-August in Northern Ohio and between early and late August in Southern Ohio. Most cool-season perennial grasses can be planted a little later. Check the Ohio Agronomy Guide for specific guidelines (see http://go.osu.edu/forage-seeding-dates).
- Planter calibration: If coated seed is used, be aware that coatings can account for up to one-third of the weight of the seed. This affects the number of seeds planted in planters set to plant seed on a weight basis. Seed coatings can also dramatically alter how the seed flows through the drill, so calibrate the drill or planter with the seed being planted.
- Seed placement: The recommended seeding depth for forages is one-quarter to one-half inch deep. It is better to err on the side of planting shallow rather than too deep.
Do not harvest a new perennial forage stand this fall. The ONLY exception to this rule is perennial and Italian ryegrass plantings. Mow or harvest those grasses to a two and a half to three-inch stubble in late November to improve winter survival. Do not cut any other species in the fall, especially legumes.
Short-Season Forages for Late Summer Planting on Dairy Farms

Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science and Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Short-season forages planted in late summer can be sources of highly digestible fiber in dairy rations.There are several excellent forage options that can be considered for no-till or conventional tillage plantings in the late summer or early fall planting window. These forages can be a planned component of the overall forage production plan. They can be utilized on land that would otherwise sit idle until next spring, such as following wheat or an early corn silage harvest.

Oat or Spring Triticale Silage

These cereal forages can be planted for silage beginning the last week of July and into early September. Dry matter yields of 1.5 to 3 tons per acre (about 5 to 5.5 tons at 30 to 35% DM) of chopped silage are possible if planted in late July to early August. Harvesting between late boot, or early heading, will optimize quality. Yields will be lower for plantings made in early September, in which case late autumn grazing would be a more viable option.

Potential feed value of oat silage can be similar to mid-bloom alfalfa. As a grass, maximum inclusion rates in a lactating cow diet are less than those for alfalfa, but it is a very acceptable feed.

Spring triticale is biotype of the hybrid cross between cereal rye and wheat (there is also a winter biotype that acts like winter wheat). In our research, oat averaged slightly higher fall yields than spring triticale, but this varied across years. If cut at the proper maturity, spring triticale forage has a higher feed value than oat, similar to early-bloom alfalfa. Seed cost for spring triticale is usually higher than oat, but it is later maturing than oat or barley and will maintain its forage quality for an extended harvest window.

About 50 lb/acre of nitrogen will be needed to optimize yield potential of these cereal forages following wheat. Following corn silage harvest and especially if manure is applied before planting the short-season forage, there likely will be no need for additional nitrogen application.

Check herbicide rotation restrictions from the previously planted crop. Other potential challenges include rust infection, especially with oat. Rust could impact yield and feed quality and depends on when the infection of rust occurs during the growing season.

Oat or Spring Triticale and Winter Cereal Mixed Silage

Planting mixtures of oat or spring triticale with cereal rye, winter wheat, or winter triticale will allow a fall harvest or grazing as well as a harvest or grazing of the winter cereal next spring. Keep in mind that the window for harvesting rye silage in the spring to obtain dairy-quality forage is usually very early and very short. Winter wheat and winter triticale mature later and more slowly in the spring than winter rye. Forage yields in the spring will be 2.5 to 3 tons/acre of DM of dairy-quality forage when harvested in boot stage. In the fall, the oat/winter cereal or spring triticale/winter cereal mix should yield slightly more than oat or spring triticale alone, with the potential for the spring cereal harvest. Corn silage can be planted after the winter cereal harvest in the spring.

Italian Ryegrass Silage

This grass emerges as fast as oats and could produce up to a ton of dry matter per acre in the fall if planted in August, and less yield if planted into September (it should be planted by mid-September at the latest). This crop would also be available for additional cuttings next year, starting in late April or early May and then every 25-30 days into June or early July.

In our research, a fall harvest and 3 additional harvests the following year have shown total yields between 3 to 5 tons of dry matter across all the harvests, when improved varieties of Italian ryegrass are planted and winter survival is good. Italian ryegrass can winterkill in severe winters. It is important to not allow a lot of growth going into the winter to avoid mold growth that damages the stand. To avoid this, make a late fall cutting or graze to a height of 3 inches late in the year. This crop will shut down by mid- to late-summer the year after a fall establishment. It would fit best in a rotation with sorghum-sudangrass or forage sorghum planted in early July.

Harvesting Italian ryegrass before heading optimizes quality, as with all grasses. When planted in September and harvested in late fall, the quality will be superb (NDF around 48% and NDF digestibility about 80%). August plantings harvested in late fall will be slightly lower in quality with crude protein in the mid-teens and NDF in the mid-50s. Next year, the crop will head out quickly at each harvest, and will be a medium quality forage. But with proper diet formulation, it can be used in lactating cow rations.

Summary

Utilizing short-season forages can provide excellent quality forage on dairy farms to supplement corn silage and perennial forages, while also increasing land use efficiency. Maintaining forage cover year-round protects the soil from erosion and contributes to building soil organic matter over the long-term.
Harvest Management of Sorghum Forages

Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science and Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Summer annual grasses, such as sudangrass, sorghum-sudangrass, forage sorghum, pearl millet, and teff grass, are being used as additional sources of forage on dairy farms. This article discusses harvest and grazing management of these grasses.

The general guidelines for harvesting or grazing these summer annual grasses as listed in the Ohio Agronomy Guide are shown in Table 7-12.

Table 7-12: Harvest Information for Summer-Annual Grasses.

We planted a trial on July 19, 2013 near South Charleston, OH to evaluate the yield and fiber quality of a conventional sudangrass variety (hereafter designated “Normal”) and a sorghum-sudangrass hybrid carrying the BMR-6 gene for reduced lignin (hereafter designated “BMR”). Forage yield, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentration, and NDF digestibility (NDFD) were measured on 4 dates after planting, with the forage being cut to a 4-inch stubble height at each harvest. The NDFD was measured after 30-hours of in vitro fermentation in rumen fluid plus buffer, followed by removal of microbial contaminants with neutral detergent solution.

The results were not surprising in that yield and NDF increased while NDFD decreased sharply as the plants grew and matured (see figures below). The varieties were similar in yield and NDF, but there was a distinct NDFD advantage for the BMR hybrid over the non-BMR sudangrass variety (“Normal”).

In general, diets can be formulated for different classes of livestock based on the fiber quality of the forage. For lactating cows using these forages, the amount of forage that can be fed will be limited by the NDF level. For example, if harvest was delayed in order to obtain highest forage yield, the NDF level was near 70%. At 70% NDF, the forage would probably have to be limited to 10% of the total diet of lactating dairy cows, on a dry matter basis.

For lactating cows, forage with NDFD levels of 50% are usually acceptable, and levels as low as 40% NDFD could probably work if necessary. However, higher producing herds or groups within herds are more sensitive to NDFD and require NDFD values greater than 50%. Based on these parameters, the “Normal” sorghum-sudangrass provided acceptable forage for lactating cow diets when harvested between 40 to 60 days after planting (30 to 50 inches tall). Heifer diets could utilize this forage harvested at about 60 days (50 inches tall).

The BMR hybrid provided a longer window of acceptable forage for dairy cows. In this study, the forage could have been harvested almost 80 days after planting (67 inches tall) and still be acceptable in a lactating or heifer diet. This provides opportunity for significantly greater forage yields.

Dry matter yield and total fiber (NDF) and 30-hour fiber digestibility (NDFD) of two
varieties of summer annual grasses planted on July 19, 2013 near South Charleston, OH.

Forage having NDFD levels as low as 35 to 40% with high NDF levels are acceptable for dry cows or beef cattle provided they are part of a balanced diet and their mineral concentrations are not excessive relative to requirements. Based on the results shown above, the forage harvested from 60 to 80 days after planting (50 to 67 inches tall) would have been acceptable for dry cows or beef cattle.

The results from the experiment shown here agree with a study conducted by researchers at Cornell University (Kilcer et al., 2005), who concluded that BMR sorghum-sudangrass has a larger harvest window for producing forage for lactating cows. However, they recommended that BMR sorghum-sudangrass be harvested for lactating cows when stand heights are about 50 inches (2-cuts possible with early June planting) because this will occur before the shift from vegetative to reproductive growth that lowers quality, and earlier harvest reduces the amount of water that must be evaporated for ensiling as yields increase. The Cornell researchers stated that if planting were to be delayed into July, a second harvest may not be feasible, and delaying harvest to heights greater than 50 inches might be advantageous if extra forage is needed on the farm and good drying conditions exist to get rid of the extra moisture.

In our study, we also investigated whether a 2-harvest system could provide similar forage yields with higher forage nutritive value compared with a single harvest after a mid-July planting date. The only combination of harvest dates that provided reasonable forage yields occurred when the first harvest was made at 35-days after planting with an 8-inch stubble height (to encourage faster regrowth) and the second harvest was made at a 4-inch stubble 48 days later (83 days after planting). That 2-harvest combination produced a total dry matter yield of 3813 lb/acre for the BMR and 4870 lb/acre for the normal variety, with an average of 65% NDF for both varieties and 48% NDFD for the BMR and 45% NDFD for the normal variety. Therefore, we concluded the 2-harvest system showed no significant advantage over harvesting once at 60 days when plantings are made in mid-July.

In summary, non-BMR sudangrass and sorghum-sudangrass planted in mid-July should be harvested between 40 to 60 days (30 to 50 inches tall) for lactating dairy cows. Harvesting should occur about 60 days after planting (50 inches tall) for feeding heifers and 60 to 80 days after planting (50 to 67 inches tall) for beef cattle or dry cows. The BMR hybrid provided a wider harvest window for lactating cows, with acceptable forage harvested nearly 80 days after planting.

Keep in mind that the sorghum grasses should be harvested or grazed prior to a frost, because toxic levels of prussic acid can be produced in the forage after a frost. Details of this risk are available at https://forages.osu.edu/news/be-alert-late-season-potential-forage-toxicities.

Reference:

Kilcer, T.F., Q.M. Ketterings, J.H. Cherney, P. Cerosaletti, and P. Barney. 2005. Optimum stand height for forage brown midrib sorghum x sudangrass in North-eastern USA. J. Agronomy & Crop Science 191:45-40.
Oats as a Late Summer Forage Crop

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Crawford County; Al Gahler, Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Sandusky County; and Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Oats is traditionally planted as the first crop in early April as a grain crop or an early season forage. One of the beauties of oats is its versatility in planting date. Oats can also be planted in the summer as an early fall forage for harvest or grazing.

Summer oats has a wide planting window but performs much better with an application of nitrogen and may benefit from a fungicide application to improve quality. During the summer of 2019, we conducted a study to examine the planting of oats from July 15 through early September to examine tonnage and forage quality. Through this trial, we examined planting date, yield, forage quality and an application of foliar fungicide to control oats crown rust.

Usually the best scenario for growing oats for forage is to plant them into wheat stubble, which is normally available by mid-July at the latest. However, The typical recommendation is to plant oats between August 1 and 10 to maximize tonnage and quality, since the shorter day length triggers oats to grow more leaf instead of producing seed, but if planted too late in the year, there is not enough time for growth. The oats in this study were harvested between 60 and 75 days after planting, with full head emergence. Figure 1 shows how yield changed based on plating date and nitrogen rate. Similar to previous studies, applying 46 lb/acre of nitrogen significantly increased yield on all planting dates, but applying 92 lb/acre only increased yield during the late July planting. The July planting date did not receive rain for 8 days then received about 1.5 inches, possibly leading to a loss of nitrogen. Adding this study to others, the recommended nitrogen rate for summer oat forage is to apply 50 lb/acre of nitrogen at planting. When planted in early September, yields fall to an average of a half-ton per acre, making it less economical to mechanically harvest as stored forage and more economical to graze.

Figure 1. Oats yield based on planting date and nitrogen application (lb/acre).

Not only does nitrogen rate affect yield but also the feed value of the oats. In 2019, the oats were severely infected with crown rust. Fungicide was sprayed on the plots based on recommendations in the 29^th issue of the 2019 C.O.R.N newsletter. The fungicide application significantly reduced the presence of rust. Without a fungicide application, over 50% of the leaf was coved by rust, while the fungicide application prevented the severe outbreak and decreased the rust content to less than 1% coverage on average. Figures 2 and 3 show the crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrients (TDN) over the 4 planting dates across 3 rates of nitrogen with and without fungicide. Fungicide application had no effect on yield but did affect forage quality. The application of nitrogen increased forage quality but only the mid-August planting resulted in a difference between 46 and 92 lb/acre of nitrogen for both CP and TDN. The application of fungicide improved oats digestibility, increasing protein by 1 to 2% and TDN by 5 points. A consistent increase in energy concentration occurred over all treatments based on planting date. Crude protein averaged around 14% when nitrogen was applied but only 10% without nitrogen. TDN had an average of 57% with a nitrogen application and 40% without the nitrogen application.

Figures 2 and 3. Concentrations of crude protein and total digestible nutrients (TDN) in oats with different planting dates and nitrogen applications (T = fungicide treatment, U = no fungicide treatment).

Based on previous trials, we recommend seeding oats at 2 to 3 bushels per acre and applying 50 lb/acre of nitrogen at planting. With most seed oats or triple cleaned feed oats commonly used for fall forage, test weight is normally much higher than the standard 32 lb, so a more accurate assessment for planting rate may be to seed 80 to 100 lb/acre, regardless of the source. The oats should be planted into moisture up to 1.5 inches deep if needed. No-till planting is the ideal seeding method, but shallow conventional tillage may be required to incorporate nitrogen, assist with weed control, and improve seed to soil contact if drills are not closing the seed slot. Just keep in mind that if mechanical harvest is the intention, loose soils from conventional tillage may contribute to significant soil in the harvested crop, leading to higher ash content in the feed. If weeds are present, a chemical application of Glyphosate plus 2,4-D can be used to clean fields up before planting or before oats have emerged. When harvested as a stored forage, oats often need harvested as silage or baleage. If weather allows for dry harvest, the oats usually need tedded multiple times, and in late September or October, 6 or more days of drying may be required.

Oats make an excellent double crop after wheat. When planted between mid-July and mid-August and fertilized with at least 46 lb/acre of nitrogen, average yields are in the range of 1 to 1.5 tons/acre of dry matter, and with ideal conditions, 3 or more tons/acre are very possible. The nutritional value of oats without fertilizer is about $250/ton of dry matter, and when fertilized, the value increases to about $280/ton. Oats make an excellent forage for dairy heifers, dry cows and when made early, even milking cows. Planting after wheat harvest provides forage and increases farm profitability, with return on investment rivaling and often surpassing the potential for double crop soybeans.
Rory Lewandowski Retirement

Chris Zoller, Agricultural Extension Educator, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State University Extension

Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wayne County, is retiring from Ohio State University Extension on July 29, 2020. Rory has served agricultural clientele in Guernsey, Noble, Athens, and Wayne Counties during his 23 years with Ohio State University Extension.

As an Extension Educator and Certified Crop Advisor (CCA), Rory focused much of his teaching on forages, pesticide use, nutrient management, and farm financial management. Rory worked tirelessly to serve the needs of his clientele. Farmers locally and across Ohio benefitted from his knowledge and expertise. His ability to make every lesson unique and meet the needs of his audience is commendable.

Rory was a member of the Ohio Joint Council of Extension Professionals, National Association of County Agricultural Agents, Epsilon Sigma Phi National Extension Fraternity, Ohio Sheep Industry Association, and Ohio Cattleman’s Association. Rory was recognized with numerous awards for his exemplary teaching, research, and service, including the Steven D. Ruhl Award for Outstanding Teaching, Leadership, and Service from Ohio State University Extension; Distinguished Service Award from the National Association of County Agricultural Agents; Mid-Career Award from Epsilon Sigma Phi; and the Ohio Sheep Industry Distinguished Service Award. In addition, Rory was recognized by professional associations for his outstanding teaching, winning 11 awards.

Rory and his wife Marcia have accepted a three-year assignment in Cambodia with the Mennonite Central Committee. They will focus on peace and justice as they help people learn to work out their differences as opposed to resorting to violence. This is not their first experience with the Mennonite Central Committee, having served in Bolivia from 1989 – 1992 and 1996-2000.

Those of us who have had the pleasure of working with Rory are better because of his teaching, leadership, and friendship. His efforts have made an impact on the communities he has served, and he will carry his style of servant leadership into retirement.

In keeping with Rory’s wishes, an in-person gathering will not be held. However, anyone interested in sharing memories, pictures, stories or well wishes may do so by clicking on this link: https://www.kudoboard.com/boards/yIDiZU6S

We wish Rory the best in his retirement!
August 28 Deadline for Coronavirus Food Assistance Program Fast Approaching

Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

2020 has not turned out as anyone expected, and the dairy industry received no exceptions. Good milk prices quickly reversed course, and what seemed to be improving prices did not materialize in on-farm milk checks. The Coronavirus Food Assistance Program was developed to provide farms that have been buffeted by these unforeseen, uncontrollable, and on-going circumstances some cash flow assistance.

The intent of this program is to directly assist farms impacted by the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. Sign-up began at your local FSA (Farm Service Agency) office on Tuesday, May 26 and continues through August 28, 2020. FSA offices currently work with clients via email, fax, and phone by appointment.

The major assistance available to dairy farms is based on milk sold (or documented as dumped at the direction of the cooperative or processor) in January, February, and March. Additional assistance is available based on cull cows, and younger animals sold for beef between January 15 and April 15. Farms can choose which categories they would like to apply for.

The Farm Service Agency especially welcomes farms who may not have participated in a program before to learn more about and apply for this program designed to support US food production. More information about the program can be found here: https://www.farmers.gov/cfap including an on-line application as well as a link to find your local county Farm Service Agency office.

More detailed information about how the CFAP program works for dairy farms can be found in the previous issue of Buckeye Dairy News here: https://dairy.osu.edu/newsletter/buckeye-dairy-news/volume-22-issue-3/economic-assistance-available-dairy-farms

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April Frye White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for March and April were at $16.23 and $15.73/cwt, respectively. The Class III component price for March closed very close to the predicted price at $16.25/cwt but was more than $3/cwt lower in April at $13.07/cwt. The Class III future for May is lower than April component prices at $12.22/cwt, followed by a sizeable increase to $17.52/cwt in June. Longer term market outlooks are starting to normalize, but prices may continue to be volatile as the global market starts to recover.

Nutrient Prices

When comparing the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages, the current prices of nutrients are acceptable.The price of net energy of lactation (NE_L)is about 48% lower than the 5-year average ($0.08/Mcal). However, the price of metabolizable protein (MP) and effective neutral detergent fiber (eNDF) are about 10 and 20% higher compared to the 5-year averages ($0.42/lb and $0.08/lb, respectively). The price of MP is about 30% higher than March ($0.36/lb), but the price of NE_L and eNDF are both 3% and 30% lower than the last issue ($0.06/Mcal and $0.17/lb, respectively). This is reflective of the increased cost of several high protein feed ingredients, as well as the lower prices of several high energy feed ingredients, shown in Table 2.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For May’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $7.13 and $7.56/cwt, respectively. This is more than $3/cwt lower than estimates from March ($10.61 and $11.13/cwt, respectively). The current IONC is likely not profitable for Ohio dairy farmers. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows.

Overall, milk price has dropped to a greater degree than the prices of feeds, and prospects to pay down debt may be limited in the near future.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, May 26, 2020.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on May 26, 2020 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, May 26, 2020

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, May 26, 2020.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry		Soybean hulls
Corn silage	Bakery byproducts	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Wheat bran	Fish meal
Feather meal	48% Soybean meal	Beet pulp
Gluten feed	Gluten meal	Molasses
Hominy		Sovent extracted canola meal
Whole cottonseed		44% soybean meal
Wheat middlings		Tallow
Soybean meal - expeller		Whole, roasted soybeans
		41% Cottonseed meal
		Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
		Meat Meal
		Mechanically extracted canola meal

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, May 26, 2020.

Economic Assistance Available for Dairy Farms
Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

One hundred and fifty days. In only 150 days we have gone from anticipating a solid year of recovery for the dairy industry to seeing an April Class III price of $13.07 per cwt, the lowest Class III milk price in 10 years, with May announced at $12.14 on June 8th. In that same time period major market disruptions occurred for nearly every commodity with impacts all along the food chain. The response to the anticipated economic impact at the farm level has been swift, with a variety of options available to assist dairy farms. We will touch on a few of them here, including links for additional information. Every farm should review these options and see if there are opportunities to assist with cash flow shortfalls.

PPP - Paycheck Protection Program

At the end of May, there were still funds available for the PPP. This low-interest loan program, authorized by the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Assistance Act) is administered through the SBA (Small Business Administration) to assist small businesses, including farms. The maximum loan amount is calculated as up to 2.5 months of qualifying payroll expenses as well as sole proprietor income. While loan proceeds can be used for any business expense, if it is used for specific expenses including payroll, utilities, mortgage interest or some rental payments within a specified time period, some portion or all of the loan may be forgiven. Farms must apply through an SBA approved lender. Find approved lenders and more information at http://sba.gov. Recipients must apply for loan forgiveness. Applications for forgiveness are now available, but specific guidance on eligible items and time periods continues to be announced.

EIDL – Economic Injury Disaster Loan

This is another CARES-authorized SBA program which is currently open only for farm applications at the sba.gov website. Farm businesses and agricultural cooperatives with no more than 500 employees may apply for EIDL, which gives loans up to $2 million for businesses that suffer economic injuries due to COVID-19. An “emergency advance” component provides an advance of up to $10,000 even if the loan is not approved. The advance may be forgiven if the farm does not also have a PPP loan that is forgiven. Clarification is pending. Approved loans will incur 3.75% interest for terms up to 30 years. Collateral will be required for larger loans. Applications taken on-line only. Find more information at http://sba.gov.

CFAP – Coronavirus Food Assistance Program

The intent of this program is to directly assist farms impacted by the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. Sign-up began at your local FSA (Farm Service Agency) office on Tuesday, May 26^th and continues through August 28^th. FSA offices currently work with clients via email, fax, and phone by appointment.

Two funding sources are being used for this program, CFAP ($9.5 billion), and CCC, the Commodity Credit Corporation, ($6.5 billion). The sources and uses are being tracked separately by FSA, but the payments will be combined and distributed to farms as a single payment. Payment limits have been raised for this program only, to $250,000 per farm or up to $750,000 for farms that are set up as corporations, limited liability companies, or limited partnerships (corporate entities). If these entities have up to three shareholders who meet eligibility requirements, they may be eligible for up $750,000 of assistance. Eligibility requirements include gross farm income levels, wetland, and conservation compliance, and for individuals involved in multiple-shareholder situations, time spent actively working or managing in the farm business. Once a farm has been approved, they will receive a first payment of 80% of the total calculated payment up to $200,000 per entity (80% of the $250,000 payment limitation). If there are still funds available, the remaining 20%, or a prorated amount based on remaining funds available, will be paid at a later time.

The CFAP program is based on the change in futures prices between the weeks of January 13 – 17, and April 6 – 9, 2020. Commodities that experienced a decline of greater than 5% are included in this program. For dairy, that decline was around 33%, or $5.88 per cwt., calculated by USDA as the weighted average of the Class III price (60%), and the Class IV price (40%) which was selected as a reasonable representation of the trend of the US all-milk price.

Dairy markets took a severe beating since January and only recently trended upward in June – and will only actually settle at decent price levels going forward if supply aligns with demand. We cannot keep milking more and more cows.

The program’s dairy (milk) section will yield the greatest assistance to qualifying farmers. Cull cows, bull calves and dairy steers are included in the cattle section. Farms that sell qualifying grain crops which were subject to price risk in the first quarter of 2020 will also find assistance in that section.

CFAP Dairy Calculation

Milk produced in January, February, and March (first quarter 2020) that was not priced through a forward contract, is eligible for assistance. The formula for dairy is:

1^st quarter milk production (cwt.) x $4.71/cwt. (CARES act rate)

plus

1^st quarter milk production x 1.014) x $1.47/cwt. (CCC rate)
- The CARES rate of $4.71/cwt represents the price loss in Jan, Feb, and March.
- Part two of the equation applies a projected 1.4% production increase.
- The CCC rate represents anticipated price losses in April, May, and June.
Example:

These program payments are not subject to sequestration deductions.

The increase in payment limitations for this program has increased the assistance available to larger farms. Using the simple example above, a herd with 500 milking cows shipping 80 pounds per cow per day would have a calculated total payment of $227,050, leaving an opportunity to apply for some assistance based on cull cows and bull calves sold between January 15 and April 15, 2020 before reaching the $250,000 payment limit.

Cull Cows

Dairy cull cows qualify for assistance in the “Slaughter Cattle – Mature Cattle” category. The definition for these animals is “culled cattle raised or maintained for breeding purposes, but which were removed from inventory and are intended for slaughter.” For animals sold between January 15 and April 15, the payment rate is $92 per head. The dairy breeding stock herd is not eligible for a per-head payment.

Bull Calves, Dairy Steers

These animals, because they are going into beef production channels, qualify as either “Feeder Cattle less than 600 pounds” or “Feeder Cattle more than 600 pounds”. Cull heifers sold for beef production would also be included in these categories depending on weight. Animals less than 600 pounds are eligible for $102 per head (CARES Act rate) if they were sold between January 15 and April 15. Animals greater than 600 pounds sold in the same time period are eligible for assistance at $139 per head (CARES). For farms that finish steers (or heifers for beef) that meet weight requirements of 1,400 pounds liveweight or more with an average carcass weight greater than 800 pounds intended for slaughter are eligible for $214 per head (CARES rate). The CCC rate applied to these animals is based on the highest inventory between 4/16/2020 and 5/14/2020. If the farm keeps an inventory of animals for beef production, the highest inventory of animals between 4/16/2020 and 5/14/2020 is eligible for a $33 per head payment. For cull cows, it appears that the highest inventory will be the total number of cows culled between 4/16 and 5/14. For bull calves, the highest inventory between 4/16 and 5/14 would be equal to the largest group of calves sold in that time period.

Feed and Grain

Clarifications issued by FSA indicate that corn silage converted to bushels of grain is eligible for the CFAP program as well. Farms that also sell grain and other eligible commodities can make application for those commodities.

Applying for CFAP

Farm Service Agency offices are working with farms via phone, fax, US mail, and internet. Most FSA offices will ask for supporting documentation for milk and livestock sales at the time of application. Participating farms should also keep records of those sales for at least three years.

At the FSA office, information is collected via a user-friendly spreadsheet found along with additional program information at https://www.farmers.gov/cfap. Farmers who have not previously applied for FSA programs can find information for first-time applicants at this web site or call 877-508-8364 for additional assistance. While documentation is not collected at time of application, it may be requested for verification or spot checking during the next three years.

Dairy prices have taken tremendous hits, which were painfully obvious in the April final milk checks. The Class III milk price of $13.07 is the lowest since April 2010 and even with a positive producer price differential of $1.15, well below cost of production. May will be more of the same.

These programs will help with some of the resulting cash shortfall. Find more information about all these programs and others that may assist with COVID-19 related employee-related leave and unemployment issues at http://dairy.osu.edu and http://farmoffice.osu.edu.

Dairy farms are facing huge challenges this spring and have to make many unanticipated decisions. Our OSU Dairy Working Group is responding with DIBS (Dairy Issue Briefs) to help inform those decisions. These “breaking news” DIBS are posted regularly at http://dairy.osu.edu
Should You Consider Reducing Mineral Supplementation in Periods of Low Milk Prices?

Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The cost of mineral and vitamin supplementation is low compared to the cost of providing adequate energy and protein to dairy cows. However, that does not mean those costs should not be scrutinized closely in periods of low milk prices. Calcium and salt are so inexpensive they should be fed in slight excess (e.g., about 20%), totally independent of milk prices. Magnesium and supplemental phosphorus are expensive, but deficiencies can be quite costly. In most situations, you should not buy any additional supplemental P once lactating cow diets contain 0.35 to 0.38% P (diet dry matter basis). However, diets with byproducts, such as distiller grains, wheat midds, and corn gluten feed, often have P concentrations greater than those levels but that P is inexpensive. Magnesium is almost always deficient in basal diets and will need to be supplemented. Cows have very little Mg reserves so if diets are deficient, deficiency signs can develop quickly. Furthermore, basal diets often contain excess potassium which inhibits Mg absorption, increasing the risk of deficiency. In most situations, diets with 0.20 to 0.25% Mg is adequate for lactating cows. The quality of magnesium oxide (most common form of supplemental Mg) varies widely. Be leery of very cheap magnesium oxide because the Mg may not be available to the animal. Feeding products that increase the DCAD (concentration of potassium + sodium – concentrations of chloride + sulfur, expressed as milliequivalents per kg of diet) often increase milk fat yield. Based on a study from University of Maryland, for every 100 unit increase in DCAD (mEq/kg), milk fat yield is expected to increase about 0.75 lb/day. Compare the cost of the buffers to the value of milk fat when determining whether to include buffers in the diet.

Trace mineral supplementation should be evaluated closely during periods of low milk prices. Often these minerals (copper, manganese, iron, selenium and zinc) are over supplemented and simply reducing supplementation rates so that total (basal plus supplemental) minerals are approximately equal to NRC recommendations will cut supplementation costs. In most cases, diets should have 10 to 13 mg/kg (ppm) Cu, 35 to 40 ppm Mn, and 40 to 50 ppm Zn. Supplemental Se should be fed at 0.3 ppm (this does not include basal). Supplemental iron is almost never needed and should be removed from the diet. Cows store trace minerals in the liver so even if these rates are not quite adequate, short term deficiency is very unlikely because of mobilization from the liver. For most cows, in the short term (weeks to a few months) copper supplementation could be reduced below NRC because of liver stores. However because of the effects zinc may have on bacteria within the digestive tract, it should not be reduced much below the concentrations stated above. In the short term, Mn could be reduced to around 25 ppm for lactating cows, but dry cows should be fed at least 40 ppm to maintain normal fetal development. Essentially every study conducted evaluating the economic benefits of selenium supplementation show a very positive return on investment and all diets should continue to be supplemented with 0.3 ppm Se. Another cost consideration is form of trace minerals. The sulfate forms are commonly fed and are usually the least expensive source of minerals. Several commercial forms of organic trace minerals are available, but they almost always cost more than sulfates. Positive responses to high quality organic Zn are likely and some of these responses have longer term implications, such as on hoof health. If you are currently feeding organic Zn, you may want to consider using 50% organic Zn and 50% sulfate Zn to reduce costs but continuing to include some organic Zn is a good idea. Several studies have shown that a blend of organic and inorganic trace minerals works well. Organic Cu should be used when antagonists, such as high sulfur water or high sulfur diets are fed, but if antagonists are not a problem, copper sulfate is probably adequate. The value of organic Mn is not clear and manganese sulfate is likely acceptable. In most situations, selenite or selenite are acceptable forms of supplemental Se, but because of transfer to the fetus, dry cows should be fed a blend of selenite and high-quality selenium yeast.

Because of supply issues, the prices of several vitamins are much higher than typical. Often vitamins are over supplemented; however, most data show that feeding vitamins A, D, and E at about NRC levels (approximately 70,000, 25,000 and 500 IU/day for lactating cows) is adequate. The first recommendation to reducing vitamin costs is simply reduce supplementation to those rates. If additional savings are needed, vitamin A could be reduced below NRC because liver stores are probably adequate in most cows to last several months. Cows do not store large amounts of vitamin D and E in forms readily available to the cow so supplementation should not be reduced much below the above recommendations. An exception is grazing cows because fresh pasture is an excellent source of vitamin E, and sun exposure allows the cow to make vitamin D. For grazing cows, supplementation rates for vitamin D and E could be cut in half without any issue.

Supplemental biotin increases milk production and improves hoof health. Unfortunately, the price of biotin is quite high now because of manufacturing issues. Hoof health has long term implications; therefore, if you are feeding biotin to improve hoof health, I would not remove it from the diet. Studies with beef cattle suggest that 10 mg/day (rather than the standard 20 mg/day) may be enough; therefore, consider leaving biotin in the diet but at half the normal supplementation rate.

Milk Production of Ohio Dairy Herds (2016 through 2019)

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

It is always important to monitor the yield of milk and the composition of milk, especially for the individual farmer, because the income of the dairy farm depends on this source of revenue. The yields of fat and protein are the primary determinants of the price received by farmers. The proportions of fat and protein are useful in monitoring cow health and feeding practices within a farm. The income over feed costs (IOFC) and feed costs per hundred of milk are important monitors of costs of milk production.

The average production of milk, fat, and protein by breed for Ohio dairy herds during 2016 through 2019 using the Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI; http://www.dhiohio.com) program are provided in Table 1. Not all herds on DHI are included in the table below because of the different testing options offered by DHI, some herds opt for no release of records, lack of sufficient number of test dates, and given that some of the herds consist of other breeds than the ones shown. In comparison, the average of milk yields from USDA data for all cows in Ohio during the same time period are provided.

Table 1. Number of herds, milk yield, milk fat, and milk protein by breed for Ohio herds on DHI during 2016 through 2019.

Breed	Year	Number of Herds	Milk (lb/lactation)	Milk fat (%)	Milk protein (%)
Ayrshire	2016	9	16,919	3.83	3.25
	2017	6	16,145	4.00	3.25
	2018	4	16,346	4.29	3.25
	2019	3	16,225	4.53	3.22
Brown Swiss	2016	17	20,216	4.22	3.45
	2017	16	19,840	4.25	3.49
	2018	13	19,817	4.21	3.46
	2019	10	19,989	4.24	3.52
Guernsey	2016	6	17,606	4.73	3.41
	2017	5	17,063	4.76	3.45
	2018	5	15,800	4.60	3.39
	2019	5	14,787	4.52	3.37
Holstein	2016	272	25,202	3.69	3.08
	2017	245	25,625	3.87	3.18
	2018	198	25,506	3.79	3.09
	2019	171	25,843	3.85	3.11
Jersey	2016	62	17,600	4.85	3.65
	2017	62	17,865	4.82	3.58
	2018	44	17,438	5.04	3.65
	2019	37	17,673	4.88	3.64
Mixed	2016	24	23,481	3.90	3.21
	2017	21	24,441	4.02	3.22
	2018	17	22,852	4.21	3.31
	2019	15	24,233	4.19	3.40
Ohio¹	2016	2,512	20,875	---	---
	2017	2,337	21,284	---	---
	2018	2,220	21,359	---	---
	2019	1,868	21,614	---	---

¹Data available from United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

April Frye White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for January and February were at $19.91 and $17.01/cwt, respectively. The Class III component price for January closed nearly $3/cwt lower at $17.05/cwt and was only slightly lower in February at $17.00/cwt. The Class III future for March is slightly lower than February component prices at $16.23/cwt, followed by a drop to $15.73/cwt in April. Longer term market outlooks are uncertain as global health events continue to impact the economy and demand.

Nutrient prices

As in previous issues, feed ingredients commonly used in Ohio were analyzed using the software program SESAME™ developed by Dr. St-Pierre at The Ohio State University. The resulting analysis can be used to appraise important nutrients in dairy rations, estimate break-even prices of ingredients, and identify feedstuffs that are significantly underpriced as of March 26, 2020. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NEL, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1.

When comparing the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages, the current prices of nutrients are good. For NE_Land MP, they are both about 23% and 15% lower compared to the 5-year averages ($0.08/Mcal and $0.43/lb, respectively). However, the price of e-NDF is still about 20% higher compared to the 5-year average. The price of MP and e-NDF are both about 5% and 62% higher than January ($0.35/lb and $0.11/lb, respectively). This is reflective of the quality of forage harvested last year, as well as the increased cost of several high protein feed ingredients shown in Table 2.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For March’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 and 85 lb/day is about $10.61 and $11.13/cwt, respectively. This is nearly $3/cwt lower than estimates from January ($13.39 and $13.83/cwt, respectively). The current IONC should be profitable for Ohio dairy farmers. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows.

Overall, the lower forecasted milk prices but stagnant to low feed prices should still give producers a chance to continue to pay down debts the rest of 2020.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2020.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on March 26, 2020 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2020.
For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, March 26, 2020.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Soybean hulls
Corn silage	Bakery byproducts	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	41% Cottonseed meal	Fish meal
Feather meal	48% Soybean meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Beet pulp	Molasses
Hominy	Wheat bran	Solvent extracted canola meal
Whole cottonseed	Meat meal	44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings		Tallow
Soybean meal - expeller		Whole, roasted soybeans
		Gluten meal

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP content

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2020.

Turbulence in the Dairy Industry

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Spring is underway, and thus, we expect it to be windy. However, the direction from which the wind is blowing can affect the warmth or chill experienced. In addition, the magnitude of the gusts can determine the impact of the wind. This somewhat describes the current pandemic situation on the direct and indirect impacts to the dairy industry. Domestic demand and exports are in flux on the dairy product side. On Friday, March 27, prices for all market classes fell for dairy products given the uncertainly of domestic demand with suspension of the operation of restaurants, fluctuating demand in retail stores, and uncertainly of the benefit of recently approved USDA funds to benefit farmers. An article appearing in Hoard’s Dairyman during March (https://hoards.com/article-27491-covid-19-will-dairy-demand-hit-the-ditch.html) estimates that milk equivalent usage drops 1.3% for a COVID-19 month compared to a normal month. Among other changes are the shifts in components prices, mainly the focus on fat and protein, as discussed in the January Issue of Buckeye Dairy News.

With less travel in the US with the ‘shelter in place’, fuel use for automobiles has drastically dropped and thus so has gas prices. The average US gas price today is $2.02/gal, which is $0.67 less than one year ago, $0.43 less than a month ago, and $0.11 less than one week ago, with some areas reporting $1.30/gal or less. With this lower demand for fuel, the demand for ethanol follows. Because of this lower demand, some ethanol plants are reducing production and others are closing. This is having a gusty impact on the availability and price of distillers grains and a downward impact on the price of corn. Distillers grains are fed to livestock for energy from the fiber and fat and for protein. Thus, the reduced availability of distillers grains will increase the demand and price for soybean meal as an alternative protein source. These trends are already been observed in the market place with increased prices for 48% soybean meal and distillers grains and a reduction in the price of corn from January to March as evidenced by the article written by April Frye in each issue of the Buckeye Dairy News (Table 1). From January to March, the price of distillers gains increased $22/T, corn decreased $4/T, and soybean meal increased $16/T. Although each of these feeds are ‘good buys’ based on the predicted values, this will not remain for distillers grains because of lack of availability. At current prices, the substitution of corn and 48% soybean meal for the distillers grains will have minimum effect on feed cost. In addition to soybean meal, be observant to other sources of protein that may be economical for feeding (see Table 3 in April’s article in this issue of BDN).

As storms develop, we often are unable to measure the impact until after the event due to the uncertainty of the damage before it hits. While many of us were focusing on the many aspects of COVID-19 on our personal life, our work situation, and some segments of the dairy industry, we were not expecting the impact on feed prices by closure of ethanol plants. There will most likely be other direct and indirect impacts yet arise. With the current changes in the price for milk components and the changes in feed ingredient prices, a careful look at rations with your nutritionist is necessary and then monitor income over feed costs after ration changes are made. Be watchful and know when to take cover and when to keep plowing ahead.

Table 1. Actual and predicted prices for corn, distillers dried grains, and soybean meal for January and March, 2020.

Feed	January 2020		March 2020
Feed	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted Value ($/T)	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted Value ($/T)
Corn, dry ground	153	183	149	172
Distillers dried grains	152	239	174	223
Soybean meal, 48% CP	296	303	312	297

On Farm Biosecurity to Keep Us and Employees Safe
Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Crawford County;
Dr. Gustavo Schuenemann, Extension Dairy Veterinarian, The Ohio State University Extension

Agriculture is no stranger to contagious disease. Drawing on sanitation experiences from outbreaks, such as avian and swine influenza or the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom in 2001, can help us through the current pandemic. Looking back at many of these experiences, we know that we can pull together maybe from a distance and get through the current human viral outbreak and keep our farms running. Unless they are sick, farmers don’t usually tell their workers to stay home, but through keeping social distance on the farm and increasing many of our tried and true disinfection protocols, we can all stay healthy. One big difference is that instead of disinfecting our boots, we need to disinfect all surfaces around us and all our employees touch. This may also be a good time to review the visitation requirements you have on your farm. To keep you and your service providers safe, be sure to follow all their company requests and keep your distance when they come onto the farm or respect their calling instead of coming for a visit.

This first thing that came to mind looking around our farm and the feed tractor is the need to do a deep cleaning before any disinfectant can work. Most disinfectants won’t work if the surface has any organic material present. I often remember one professor at OSU saying “you can’t Disinfect shit”. As a first step, wear a pair of disposable gloves and scrub all surfaces that are touched so that you can use a disinfectant on them. Once all surfaces are clean, filling a one-gallon hand sprayer with disinfectant to spray all surfaces down at the end of each shift can be helpful. If this sprayer was previously used for pesticides, be sure to triple rinse it with a tank cleaning agent or ammonia. The EPA has many different disinfectant options available: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2. Concentration is very important, but a few common active ingredients on this list are sodium hypochlorite, sodium chlorite, ethanol, quaternary ammonia, and hydrogen peroxide. If using a bleach solution, the goal is a minimum of 1000 ppm sodium hypochlorite or for household bleach, 1/3 cup of bleach per gallon of water.

High Touch Surfaces

A few high touch surfaces to consider are tables, hard-backed chairs, doorknobs, light switches, power switches for large motors, phones, tablets, touch screens, keyboards, handles, desks, toilets, sinks, cabinet handles, mailbox handle, shop hand tools, welders, all tractor controls, tractor seats, hand rails, high touch areas in the barn, rattle paddles, all controls in milking parlor, and anything else people may touch.

Porous Surfaces on the Farm

For porous surfaces, such as tractor seats, it may be beneficial to wrap them in plastic to allow for better cleaning. Once wrapped in plastic, these surfaces can be treated the same as all other high tough areas. Vinyl seats should be treated as a hard surface, high touch.

Electronics

Discourage farm workers from using their personal electronic devices while at the farm. If you have an electronics cleaner, use that; otherwise, keyboards, mouse, and touch screens can be cleaned with at least a 70% alcohol disinfectant spray or wipe. Plastic covers may be available for keyboards and touch screens.

Sharing Objects

Be cautious when handling and sharing objects (e.g., pens, clipboard, etc.) that are used as part of your daily routine. Many objects are often used by multiple employees during the same or different shifts. Hand-washing, disinfection, and wearing disposable gloves is recommended for all employees on the farm. If possible, provide additional supplies of these items that are typically shared and assign them to each employee, so they no longer must share them.

Additional considerations:
- Have employees always wear gloves.
- Each person should have their own welding gloves and other personal protective equipment (PPE)
- When possible, assign a tractor to a single person.
- Maintain the 6-foot social distance when having a conversation; stay a cow length apart.
- Assign individual projects when safely possible (e.g., one shop project per person).
- Put hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol in all machinery and work areas.
Resources:

Questions Regarding the Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19) on Farms with Employees: https://wayne.osu.edu/sites/wayne/files/imce/COVID-19%20Farm%20Employees%20FAQ%27s%20English.pdf

Disinfection in On-Farm Biosecurity Procedures: https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/vme-8

Cleaning and Disinfection for Households: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cleaning-disinfection.html

Biosecurity Fundamentals for Extension Personnel: https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/vme-5
Using Protocols to Train Farm Employees

Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

Establishing and teaching protocols for crucial farm tasks forms the foundation of training farm employees. Strictly speaking, protocol is defined as a set of rules or standards to guide conduct or format. Within the context of a farm, protocols are defined as a set of steps or procedures that guide or define how a larger task is accomplished. Protocols are useful because they lay out the details of a specific task. Protocols allow a farm employee to know what the farm manager/owner and/or their supervisor expects of them regarding the task. In this time of dealing with the impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus, protocols are useful to cross train farm employees and build some resiliency into the farm operation.

Whether the farm utilizes only family labor, family plus non-family labor, or only non-family labor, protocols can be used to improve communication and expectations about how a specific task should be accomplished. Good protocols have two basic characteristics; they are followed by employees and second, they produce a desired result. Unfortunately, just putting something down in writing does not guarantee employees will follow the instruction, or if they do, that the results are positive. Sometimes protocols are poorly written, too long, too complicated, or they may use terms, words, and expressions that are not understood. Sometimes protocols don’t account for the actual work environment and are not practical.

Use the following tips to write useful, effective protocols.Take a team approach. Team members can include industry professionals/consultants, as well as farm employees and family members. As an example, for health-related tasks, such as a vaccination protocol or treatment protocol for an illness, work with the farm’s veterinarian. If the protocol involves equipment maintenance, work with the appropriate equipment dealer. To help increase the readability of a protocol, include photos, drawings, charts, or graphs. If English is a second language for some of your employees, can you have the protocol written in their native language? An article I read on writing farm protocols from Michigan State Extension suggested that successful protocols are based or built upon solid research, adapted to your farm situation.

Training around the written protocols is essential to ensuring the protocols are used by farm employees. Training should include clear explanations of why the farm wants a specific task done in this way. Employees are more likely to follow a procedure if they understand the why behind the procedure. For example, why should a pre-dip be left on cow teats for 30 seconds before wiping it off? Why is 90 to 120 seconds needed between the time the udder is first touched until the milking unit is attached? If the employee just sees this kind of timing as a rule, the temptation is to speed the process up, cut some corners, and save time. Understanding why helps the farm employee to take ownership of the protocol.

Protocol training is not a one and done type of deal. Over time, it is natural to see drift away from protocols, and whether intentionally or unintentionally, a step gets left out or it is not followed completely. It is common to see protocols get modified over time by employees in the interest of saving time. For this reason, it is necessary to have regular and consistent refresher sessions. This is a good reminder for experienced employees and helps newer employees as well. In some cases, adherence to protocols can be tied into job performance expectations and/or bonuses.

Another key to making sure protocols achieve good results and improve farm efficiency and profitability is to use a farm team to review protocols annually. Does each protocol still make sense? Has there been some type of change in the farm or farm operation that requires the protocol to be changed or modified? For example, a new piece of equipment or machinery, remodeling of facilities, etc. Has anything changed regarding how we understand a specific management practice? Protocols can be updated, edited, added, or removed. Ask employees for feedback on protocols; ask them what can be improved.

As an example, a milking protocol might include the following steps. The milker should wear disposable gloves. Before attaching the milking unit, dry wipe any bedding material from the teats/udder. Forestrip three to four streams of milk from each teat. Pre dip each teat, covering the lower ¾ of the teat. Repeat on 3 to 5 cows. Return to first cow, wipe off teat dip and teat end. Attach milking unit at 90 to 120 seconds after the first contact with this cow’s udder. Adjust milking unit and proceed to the next 3 to 5 cows, maintaining the pre-milking unit attachment order.

Farm managers should embrace written protocols as a tool to train farm employees. The goal of protocols is to ensure consistency in performance among employees and give employees more confidence in doing their job.

Update to the OARDC Feed Energy Equation

Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster

The equation used by many feed testing labs to estimate net energy for lactation (NEL) values is based on equations developed at OARDC in 1984 and 1992. Minor adjustments have been made since then, but our lab is in the process of making a major update to the equation. Because the equation is summative, an equation component for one nutrient can be changed without affecting the other components. The original simplified equation estimated the digestible energy (DE) provided by crude protein (CP), non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC), fat, and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) as:

Protein DE (Mcal/lb) = 0.023*CP

NFC DE (Mcal/lb) = 0.018*(100-NDF – Ash – CP – Fat)

Fat DE (Mcal/lb) = 0.042*Fat

NDF DE (Mcal/lb) = 0.015*((NDF-Lignin)*(1-[(Lignin/NDF)^0.667]))

where all nutrients are entered as % of DM.

Those values are summed and metabolic fecal energy (0.14 Mcal/lb) is subtracted to yield the DE concentration (Mcal/lb) of the feed. Then standard equations are used to convert DE to metabolizable energy (ME) and finally to NEL:

ME (Mcal/lb) = (1.01*DE) – 0.20

NEL (Mcal/lb) = 0.66* ME

When our equation was developed, commercial feed testing labs did not measure starch, but it is now a routine assay. One improvement we are making to our equation is to replace NFC with starch and a fraction we call residual organic matter (ROM) which is comprised of sugars, soluble fiber, fermentation acids, and several minor components. The concentration of ROM is calculated as: 100 – Ash – CP – NDF – Fat – Starch (all nutrients as % of DM). The NFC fraction of grains and corn silage is mostly starch, but for many other feeds, ROM predominates.

From experiments conducted at Ohio State, we found that the true digestibility of ROM is very high (96%) and is uniform across a diversity of diets. On the other hand, starch digestibility by dairy cows can vary from < 80% to essentially 100%, depending on the feed, and we know many of the factors responsible for that variation. Our revised equation will be as the one above except the NFC term is deleted and replaced with these 2 terms:

ROM (Mcal/lb): 0.017*(100-NDF-Ash-CP-Fat-Starch)

Starch (Mcal/lb): StDig*0.019*Starch

where StDig is the digestibility of starch, which varies depending on the feed. Current best estimates of starch digestibility for major starch sources are in Table 1. For feeds not shown, assume a starch digestibility of 92% (entered in the equation as 0.92). The data in Table 1 are from a variety of published sources.

Table 1. Average starch digestibility for major starch sources.¹

Feed	Starch Digestibility
Finely ground dry corn (particle size <1000 um)	0.92
Medium ground dry corn (1500-3000 um)	0.89
Coarse ground dry corn (>3500 um)	0.80
Ground high moisture corn (>27% moisture)	0.96
Rolled high moisture corn (>27% moisture)	0.90
Steam-flaked corn (<28 lb/bushel density)	0.94
Rolled dry barley	0.91
Rolled dry wheat	0.93
Immature corn silage (<30% DM)	0.91
Normal corn silage (32-37% DM)	0.88
Mature corn silage (>40% DM)²	0.84

¹Ranges in particle size and DM are not continuous, indicating the uncertainty with the estimates. If particle sizes or DM are not in the table, you can interpolate between rows.
²If kernel processed through rollers with < 3 mm gap, increase starch digestibility to 0.87 (Ferraretto and Shaver, 2012; Prof. Animal Scientist 28:141).

Replacing the NFC term in our energy equation with ROM and starch improves the accuracy of predicting NEL, especially for feeds that are not ‘average’, such as mature corn silage, very finely or very coarsely ground corn, or extensively processed steam- flaked corn.

Future articles will outline additional changes we are making to the equation.

Effects of Dietary Protein Level in Dry Cows and Heifers on Milk Production

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

In a recent meta-analysis conducted at the University of Florida, Husnain and Santos (2019) determined how the crude protein (CP) level fed to dry cows and heifers before calving affects milk production in early lactation. The researchers collected over 125 treatment means from published journal articles. Most studies used Holstein dry cows and heifers. About 20% of those studies provided separate production data for 1^st lactation and 2+ lactation cows, which were used to investigate whether effects of protein level differ based on parity. They also collected all diet information and calculated metabolizable protein (MP) intake using the NRC (2001). Husnain and Santos (2019) hypothesized that heifers would require a greater MP intake than dry cows to maximize milk production. This is because heifers are still growing before calving unlike dry cows, and more MP would be required for heifer growth in addition to requirements for maintenance and pregnancy (i.e., fetal and mammary growth).

In heifers, increasing MP intake from 800 to 1,100 g/day linearly increased dry matter (DM) intake after calving (+3.7 lb/day), yields of milk (+2.4 lb/day), milk fat (+0.11 lb/day) and protein (+0.07 lb/day), and body weight (+ 33 lb). The authors found similar responses for MP concentration. A MP intake of 1,100 g/day would be about 11% MP of diet DM or 14 to 15% CP of diet DM for a late gestation heifer consuming 22 lb/day of DM.

In dry cows, increasing MP intake from 800 to 1,100 g/day did not improve intake or milk yields after calving (averages of 43 lb/day of DM intake and 81 lb/day of milk). The only benefit of dry cows consuming greater than 800 g/day of MP was for cows producing >80 lb/day of milk, which had increased milk protein yields (+0.07 lb/day); lower producing cows (<65 lb/day) did not have increased milk protein yield. The authors found similar responses for MP concentration. Around 8% MP of diet DM or 12 to 13% CP of diet DM are adequate for most dry cows.

Overall, results from the meta-analysis confirmed the NRC (2001) recommendations that heifers require more MP than cows. If management conditions allow feeding late gestation heifers and dry cows separately, income over feed costs could be improved by feeding heifers more MP (11% MP of diet DM) compared to dry cows (8% MP of diet DM).

References

Husnain, A., and J. Santos. 2019. Meta-analysis of the effects of prepartum dietary protein on performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 102: 9791-9813.

NRC. 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
How to Get Ready for Spring Planting Now
Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist;
Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Crawford County;
and Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, The Ohio State University

The weather outlook for our spring planting season is not encouraging, as it is expected to be wetter than normal again, although hopefully not as bad as 2019. The purpose of this article is to stimulate our planning and preparation now so we will be ready to take full advantage of what is expected to be very short and few windows of opportunity to be in the fields this spring. In this article, we focus on planting forage crops, but the process and many of the ideas will pertain to other spring field work activities.

Begin your planning by mentally walking through what you will do the day you plant. It might even help jog your thoughts to actually physically “walk through” those activities. List every single activity needed to get the whole job done. Then ask the question, “Which of these activities can I do today, or what can I do now that will make that activity go smoothly and efficiently on planting day?” Then start doing everything that is possible to do ahead of time, so that no time is wasted on the day you can get in the field. Below are some examples.
1. Make sure your fuel supply is full and fill the tanks of all tractors that will be used. Service all tractors.
2. Get any needed fertilizer on hand or order it to be spread as soon as the field is fit (hopefully you pulled a soil sample last fall, and if not, do it now and send to the lab).
3. Calibrate the fertilizer spreader.
4. Buy the seed (including any companion crops you will use) and have it on the farm, if not done so already.
5. Buy inoculant if seed is not pre-inoculated.
6. Service all tillage equipment that will be used and have it ready to go, including having it hooked up to the tractor if possible.
7. Get the drill/planter out and service it so it is ready to go. Arrange for equipment you will rent or borrow.
8. Calibrate the drill to the desired seeding rate using the seed that will be planted and then don’t touch the drill settings. Watch this video about calibrating drills: https://forages.osu.edu/video/drill-calibration?width=657px&height=460px&inline=true#colorbox-inline-239078345).
9. If contracting the planting, get agreements and expectations in place now.
10. Finally, list the field work tasks that you need to do this spring when the weather and soils are fit, then prioritize them. Think through the tough choices you might have to make between competing activities. Think through contingency plans if each specific activity cannot be completed in a timely manner, or if it can’t get done at all this spring because of wet weather.
This last #10 on the list is the hardest. When the windows of opportunity are shorter than the list of work that can be accomplished, then tough choices are necessary. For example, how do you prioritize planting forages versus manure spreading in the spring? It will likely depend on the specific situation. If the manure is stored in a lagoon, then when the lagoon is full, the manure must be pumped out and spread on the field rather than planting forages, so the forage planting might have to wait. But planting forages too late in the spring brings a lot of risk to stand establishment and low yields (maybe only one cutting). In that case, it might be better to plant a summer annual for a couple cuttings, then kill it and plant the perennial forages in August. But if the manure is a dry pack, perhaps it is better to take those first days of field work to plant the perennial forage and spread the manure later. Thinking through these choices and establishing a game plan will help you be more efficient and not waste time being undecisive or making a less than optimal choice for the situation.

We surely all hope for a better spring than in 2019, but we are also being told it probably will be challenging. Thus, prepare as much as possible now so you can make good decisions when the time comes. You don’t want to waste hours of potential field planting doing stuff you can do today. Try to be completely ready, as if you will be planting tomorrow morning…which we hope will be true one day very soon!
Establishing New Forage Stands
Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

Early spring provides one of the two preferred times to seed perennial cool-season forages, the other being late summer. Two primary difficulties with spring plantings are finding a good window of opportunity when soils are dry enough. The outlook for this spring is for planting opportunities to be few and short. As planting is delayed, the risk increases because of more competition from weeds and summer heat when seedlings are small and vulnerable to drying out. An accompanying article on preparing for planting along with the following 10 steps will help improve your chances for successful forage establishment in the spring.
1. Make sure soil pH and fertility are in the recommended ranges. Follow the Tri-State Soil Fertility Recommendations (https://forages.osu.edu/forage-management/soil-fertility-forages). Forages are more productive where soil pH is above 6.0, but for alfalfa it should be 6.5 to 6.8. Soil phosphorus should be at least 15 ppm for grasses and 25 ppm for legumes, while minimum soil potassium in ppm should be 75 plus 2.5 x soil cation exchange capacity (CEC). If seedings are to include alfalfa, and soil pH is not at least 6.5, it would be best to apply lime now and delay establishing alfalfa until late summer (plant an annual grass forage in the interim).
2. Plant high quality seed of a known varietal source adapted to our region. Planting “common” seed (variety not stated) usually proves to be a very poor investment, yielding less even in the first or second year and having shorter stand life.
3. Plant as soon as it is possible to prepare a good seedbed in April. Try to finish seeding by the end of April in southern Ohio and by the first of May in northern Ohio. Timely April planting gives forage seedlings the best opportunity to get a jump on weeds and to be established before summer stress sets in. Weed pressure will be greater with later plantings, and they will not have as strong a root system developed by early summer when conditions often turn dry and hot. Later plantings also yield less, so if planting is delayed, it might be better to plant a summer annual and establish the perennial forages in August.
4. Plant into a good seedbed. The ideal seedbed for conventional seedings is smooth, firm, and weed-free. Don’t overwork the soil. Too much tillage depletes moisture and increases the risk of surface crusting. Firm the seedbed before seeding to ensure good seed-soil contact and reduce the rate of drying in the seed zone. Cultipackers and cultimulchers are excellent implements for firming the soil. If residue cover is more than 35%, use a no-till drill. No-till seeding is an excellent choice where soil erosion is a hazard. No-till forage seedings are most successful on silt loam soils with good drainage and are more difficult on clay soils or poorly drained soils.
5. Be sure to take time to calibrate forage seeders because seed flow can vary greatly even among varieties, depending on the seed treatment and coatings applied. A good video on this entitled “Drill Calibration” is at https://forages.osu.edu/video/.
6. Plant seed shallow (¼ to ½ inch deep) in good contact with the soil. Stop and check the actual depth of the seed in the field when you first start planting. This is especially important with no-till drills. In my experience, seeing some seed on the surface indicates most of the seed is about at the right depth.
7. When seeding into a tilled seedbed, drills with press wheels are the best choice. When seeding without press wheels or when broadcasting seed, cultipack before and after dropping the seed, preferably in the same direction the seeder was driven.
8. In fields with little erosion hazard, direct seedings without a companion crop in the spring allows harvesting two or three crops of high-quality forage in the seeding year, particularly when seeding alfalfa and red clover. For conventional seedings on erosion prone fields, a small grain companion crop can reduce the erosion hazard and will also help compete with weeds. Companion crops like oats can also help on soils prone to surface crusting. Companion crops usually increase total forage tonnage in the seeding year, but forage quality will be lower than direct seeded legumes. Take the following precautions to avoid excessive competition of the companion crop with forage seedlings: (i) use early-maturing, short, and stiff-strawed small grain varieties, (ii) plant companion small grains at 1.5 to 2.0 bu/acre, (iii) remove companion crop as early pasture or silage, and (iv) do not apply additional nitrogen to the companion crop.
9. During the first 6 to 8 weeks after seeding, scout new seedings weekly for any developing weed or insect problems. Weed competition during the first six weeks is most damaging to stand establishment. Potato leafhopper damage on legumes in particular can be a concern beginning in late May to early June.
10. The first harvest of the new seeding should generally be delayed until early flowering of legumes, unless weeds were not controlled adequately and are threatening to smother the stand. For pure grass seedings, generally harvest after 70 days from planting, unless weeds are encroaching, in which case the stand should be clipped earlier to avoid weed seed production.
Prepare a firm seedbed for conventional forage seedings.

Determining Forage Moisture Content

Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County;
Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Crawford County;
and Dr. Mark Sulc, OSU Extension Forage Specialist, The Ohio State University

Stored forage is an important component of many livestock operations. Stored forage quality is dependent upon several key factors, including forage maturity at harvest, forage moisture content at harvest, and forage storage conditions. Stored forages are produced and fed primarily as either dry hay, baleage, or silage. After forage maturity, the quality of a stored forage is greatly dependent upon moisture content at harvest. Given that moisture content is so important, what tools and methods are available to help producers determine forage moisture content to make good harvest decisions?

The primary methods used to determine forage moisture are either some type of hand grab, twist, or squeeze test or the use of some instrument/tool. By far, the most common method of determining forage moisture content is some variation of the hand test. For forage that will be baled, grab a sample from the windrow and tightly twist it. Depending upon how quickly the grab sample springs back or “untwists” determines if the forage is too wet, too dry, or ready to be baled. Table 1 shows guidelines published years ago in Hoard’s Dairyman for estimating moisture ranges in hay that will be baled. For a chopped forage, a hand sample is grabbed and squeezed into a ball. Upon release, the sampler watches how quickly the ball falls apart to determine if the forage is ready to be ensiled.

Table 1. Sensory assessment of moisture content of drying hay.

Moisture	Condition
30-40%	Leaves begin to rustle and do not give up moisture unless rubbed hard. Juice easily extruded from stems using thumbnail or knife or with difficulty by twisting with hands.
25-30%	Hay rustles – a bundle twisted in the hands will snap with difficulty but should extrude no surface moisture. Thick stems extrude moisture if scraped with thumbnail.
20-25%	Hay rustles readily – a bundle will snap easily if twisted, leaves may shatter, a few juicy stems remain.
15-20%	Swath-made hay fractures easily, snaps easily when twisted, juice difficult to extrude.
Reproduced from Hoard’s Dairyman, Vol. 132, 1987.

There is as much art as there is science to the various hand methods and experience plays a role in the “calibration” process. There is no denying that a lot of good quality stored forage gets made with these methods of determining forage moisture, so it can’t be pooh-poohed and written off. However, for those who may want more certainty and an actual forage moisture percentage number, there are some other tools that can be considered.

Tools available to determine forage moisture include a microwave oven, commercial forage moisture testers, hand-constructed vortex dryers, moisture probes, and moisture sensors built into harvest equipment. Each has some advantages and disadvantages, but each used with the proper knowledge and protocol can help the forage producer more accurately determine forage moisture. Each of the following tools/testers requires that a good representative sample is collected to produce a reliable result. As with most sampling systems, taking an average of several samples increases the confidence level of the moisture reading. When sampling windrows, be sure to sample the entire cross section (top, middle, and bottom) from multiple areas of the field.

The microwave oven is commonly available and can provide forage moisture determination to within 1 to 2% of actual forage moisture in about 20 minutes. The biggest drawback to using a microwave is that the forage material can catch on fire if the sampler is not being careful as the forage dries down to its endpoint moisture. The procedure involves weighing out 100 grams (fresh weight) of a representative forage sample that has been cut into pieces no larger than one inch in length. On a microwave safe plate, place a paper towel. Weigh and record this “plate” weight. Add the forage sample, spreading it as evenly as possible over the paper towel on the plate. Weight the plate, towel and forage and record this initial weight. Place a 10- or 12-ounce coffee mug of water inside a corner of the microwave, place the plate and forage sample in the center, set the microwave setting on high and “cook” the sample for about 3 minutes. Remove the plate and sample, weigh it and record the weight. Change the water in the cup. Replace the water cup and sample in the microwave and cook it for another 2 minutes. Again, remove the sample, weigh it and record the weight. Repeat this process until the weight does not change by more than one gram. Record that weight as the final weight. Important note: As the forage gets closer to its final moisture content, run the microwave in shorter time intervals and change water as necessary to avoid igniting the sample. To calculate the forage moisture of the sample, use the following equation:

Moisture % = [(Initial weight – Final weight) / (Initial weight – Plate weight)] x 100

Commercial forage moisture testers use either heat or electrical conductivity to come up with a moisture reading. Heat type testers include a heating unit and a fan. Like a microwave, they need to be plugged into a power source to work. They determine moisture content by forcing heated air through a forage sample of known weight. Unlike a microwave, they do not require constant supervision/monitoring. Depending upon the initial forage moisture, the process takes 25 to 35 minutes. Accuracy is within 3% of oven dried samples. Forage samples should be in pieces that are 1 to 2 inches in length. The advantage over a microwave is that the risk of setting fire to the sample is reduced. For many producers, the biggest disadvantage of this type of tester is the cost. The Koster forage moisture tester is a familiar name and can be purchased for approximately $350 to $400, depending upon the model and need for a scale, from many sources, including NASCO. The “Best Harvest” silage, hay crop moisture tester brand is another example, with a cost of $400 to $450.

Forage moisture testers that use electrical conductivity include probes and sensors mounted on balers/harvest equipment. The advantage of these types of testers is that they provide near instantaneous moisture readings. Cost is a factor. Depending upon the model of the tester probe, they can cost anywhere from $180 to $300 or more. Sensors on your baler or harvesting equipment may add $275 to $400 to the price tag. For the most advanced systems that can mark hi-moisture bales, the cost can be over $1000, or when systems also manage variable rate preservative application, cost can be over $2500. Depending on the system, the accuracy may only be ±5%. There are some other factors with these testers that affect their reliability. Probes generally do not do a good job of measuring moisture of forage in a windrow. The electronic moisture testers are most accurate in densely packed forage. To increase reliability, grab a representative forage sample from a windrow and pack it into a PVC tube. Insert the probe into the densely packed forage material and take various forage moisture readings at different depths in the tube (a description of this method is available in an article at https://www.progressiveforage.com/forage-production/equipment/windrow-moisture-testing-made-easy). Sensors on balers and harvesting equipment begin to lose accuracy and reliability as forage material over time leaves gummy residues on the sensor. Periodic cleaning and calibration of the sensor is needed to maintain accurate readings.

A final option that combines the accuracy of a heat drying tester with a more reasonable price tag is the vortex dryer. Penn State Extension developed the vortex dryer. It uses a common hand-held hair dryer, some CPVC tubing, some galvanized steel, a furnace filter, window screen, and some plywood. Cost will be approximately $50 to $60 to assemble in the farm shop. Forage sample size in the vortex dryer is 200 grams. The procedure is basically the same as with a microwave oven, starting with an initial weight and drying the sample until the weight does not change more than one gram. Accuracy is within 1% of a drying oven. Hay samples will take 20 to 25 minutes to dry, while forage silage/corn silage samples can take 40 to 60 minutes to get a final moisture determination. More information about the Penn State Vortex Dryer, including a list of materials, how to assemble, and how to use the dryer are available online at https://extension.psu.edu/a-vortex-forage-and-biomass-sample-dryer.

Determining forage moisture can help producers make more accurate decisions regarding timing for baling and ensiling to ensure a safe and stable final product. There are tools available to help with that decision.

Keeping Cows and Calves Cool Through Ventilation System Maintenance
Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

Spring is in the air, with the tulips and daffodils starting to bloom, and alfalfa fields coming back to life. It is also the time when our barn ventilation systems roar back to life to keep our cows and calves cool. While an inefficient system may not create problems now, it is wasting energy, and by summer, it will be creating problems when your livestock are experiencing heat stress. Ventilation systems often consume between 20 to 25% of the total energy used on the farm.

Fan maintenance is critical to keeping your cows cool and saving energy. Lack of cleaning can reduce a fan efficiency by as much as 40%. This means that your electric bill stays the same, but less air is moving through the barn. Monthly maintenance through the summer is critical to keep fans clean. Even a thin layer of dirt on the fan blades, shutters, and protective shrouds decreases air movement and increases the power requirements from the fan. Heavy cleaners and a pressure washer work well to remove dirt from the fans.

Dirty fans in need of cleaning.

Be sure to disconnect the power supply before washing the fan and be extra cautious of water entering unsealed motors. After washing, allow fans to dry and grease bearings before turning the power back on. During washing, inspect the fans closely using the following maintenance checklist:
- Do all shafts turn smooth and are bearings showing wear?
- Inspect impellers for cracks.
- Are belts worn?
- Are pulleys still aligned?
- Are bolts and set-screws tight?
While monitoring fan performance and wear can be challenging, there are a few tools that can help you. Fans should be monitored on a routine basis, such as every month in the summer or on the manufacturers recommended grease internal.

Logbook- If you assign a number to each fan on the farm, it will help you to track the maintenance cost of each individual fan. The logbook allows you to monitor when a fan is having increased belt wear or motors that are not lasting as long as they should, which is a sign of greater problems occurring. Recording air velocity also helps to notice wear issues before they become major problems.

Digital Anemometer-This is used to measure the air velocity to determine if fans are operating properly. Be sure to record these values in your logbook so that you can find changes in fan performance. Lower air velocity is often caused by either dirt build up or improper belt tension which allows for slippage.

Digital Tachometer-This is used to help determine why your fan may not be producing enough air velocity. This can be used to help determine the revolutions per minute (RPM) of both your fan and the motor. When the motor is running at the correct RPM, but the blades are not, it may be due to poor belt tension, damaged or worn pulleys, or poor belt alignment.

Groove Gage- This is used to identify pulleys that are worn and need replaced. Worn pulleys increase belt wear and slippage and decrease fan RPM. Belts should ride at the top of a pulley and not sunken into the pulley. The gage should fit tightly; if more than 1/32 inches of wear can be seen, poor belt life can be expected. If the gauge hits the bottom of the pulley, it is worn out.

Source: Dayton motor

Belt Tension Tester- This is used to measure the force required to move a belt 1/64inch per inch of span. It helps to trouble shoot fans that are turning slower than they should. If tension is correct but fans are turning too slow, pulleys or belts maybe worn out. If belts with spring tensioners cannot be tensioned correctly, it may be a sign that the spring tensioner is weak or that belts are stretched or improperly sized.

Multi-Meter-This instrument allows you to check the amp draw of the fan motor; high amp draw wastes electricity and can lead to premature motor failure. This can be caused by too high of belt tension, dirt build-up on blades and housing, or bearings that are binding and need replaced.

When adding new or replacing ventilation fans, it important to look at more than the price. Many motors have electric efficiency ratings, but the higher efficiency motors have more copper windings which increases their cost. Often high efficiency motors pay for themselves with decreased electric consumption within one to three years. When adding or replacing fans, it is important to not buy the cheapest one but also consider the fans efficiency rating. For tunnel ventilation fans, look for a minimum efficiency rating of 20 cfm/watt at 0.05-inches static pressure. Tunnel ventilation and exhaust fans are rated under static pressure because they create a pressure difference from one side to the other, with the higher the rating the better. Circulation fans, on the other hand, have efficiency ratings based on thrust measured as pounds of force per kilowatt (Lbf/kW). The ideal minimum efficiency rating for circulation fans is 21 Lbf /kW. Similar to tunnel ventilation fans, the higher the rating the better. Larger fans often have better efficiency ratings and sometimes when paired with a variable rate controller and ran slower are more cost effective due to the increased efficiency than smaller fans.

Through proper fan maintenance, we can keep our ventilation system working at maximum efficiency, keeping cows cool and comfortable. The ideal ventilation system will provide between 40 and 60 air changes per hour.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbeand April Frye, Graduate Research Associates, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Passing the Torch

It seems like yesterday that Dr. St-Pierre was teaching me (Alex Tebbe) how to interpret milk prices and use the SESAME software. Now, after nearly five years of writing this article, I must step down as my days are numbered, and I will soon be graduating. I have thoroughly enjoyed writing these articles, but I must pass the torch to April Frye, another bright and ambitious graduate student at The Ohio State University. Currently, April is working on her MS with Dr. Luis Moraes and has plans to continue her PhD in the Department of Animal Sciences. Because of April’s strong dairy background and prior experience working with feed prices, I know she is a great fit for sustaining this section of the Buckeye Dairy News. I will be excited to sit on the other side of the desk and read what April writes.

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for November and December were at $18.44 and $20.68/cwt, respectively. The Class III component price for November closed about $2/cwt higher at $20.45/cwt and was slightly lower in December at $19.37/cwt. The Class III future for January is slightly higher than December component prices at $19.91/cwt, followed by a nearly $3/cwt drop to $17.01/cwt in February.

Unfortunately, the $19 to 20/cwt Class III prices that we have seen the past 3 months probably will not last long. The higher than normal prices are primarily from a recent surge in exports as cheese and skim milk powder. This surge, however, has begun to tamper out. This is reflected in the lower Class III futures price. From now to deep into the late summer months, Class III futures are trading at around $17.50/cwt. The USDA has also projected a similar Class III price for 2020. Given no drastic changes in current tariffs or trade agreements, $17.50/cwt is probably an accurate estimate for all of 2020. If the Class III price stays between $17 to 18/cwt, producers should be able to make a profit but definitely not a fortune.

Nutrient Prices

As in previous issues, feed ingredients commonly used in Ohio were analyzed using the software program SESAME™ developed by Dr. St-Pierre at The Ohio State University. The resulting analysis can be used to appraise important nutrients in dairy rations, estimate break-even prices of ingredients, and identify feedstuffs that are significantly underpriced as of January 27, 2020. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NEL, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1.

When comparing the prices in Table 1 to 5 year averages, the current prices of nutrients are pretty good. For NE_Land MP, they are both about 15% and 18% lower compared to the 5 yr. averages ($0.08/Mcal and $0.43/lb), respectively. However, the price of e-NDF is about 20% higher compared to the five-year average. This is, of course, from the difficultly in growing forages in Ohio during 2019. The net effect of decreased NE_Land MP, and increased e-NDF is about a 5% reduction on overall feed cost compared to the 5 yr average ($0.109 vs $0.115/lb of dry matter).

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For January’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $13.39 and $13.83/cwt, respectively. This is over $0.75/cwt more than estimates from November ($12.66 and $13.11/cwt, respectively). As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows. Overall, the above average milk prices and stagnant to low feed prices should be profitable, and they should give producers a chance to pay off debt or contract feed for 2020.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, January 27, 2020.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on January 27, 2020 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, January 27, 2020.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, January 27, 2020.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Beet pulp
Corn silage	Bakery byproducts	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	41% Cottonseed meal	Fish meal
Feather meal	Gluten meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Soybean hulls	Molasses
Hominy	48% Soybean meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Meat meal	Soybean meal - expeller	44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings	Wheat bran	Tallow
	Whole cottonseed	Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, January 27, 2020.

Consider Dietary Changes to Take Advantage of High Milk Protein Price

Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, and Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Farm Management Specialist, The Ohio State University Extension

Over the past several months, the value of milk protein has more than doubled while the value of milk fat is down about 10% (Table 1 and Figure 1). For a few years, up until August of 2019, milk fat was more valuable per pound than milk protein (Table 1 and Figure 1). Since September, milk protein has become substantially more valuable than milk fat. In November, milk protein was worth $3.91/lb compared to milk fat at $2.32/lb. The highest value for milk protein occurred in June of 2008 when it hit $4.72/lb.

Because of the change in milk component prices, diets may need to be changed to take advantage of the price of milk protein. Increasing dietary starch at the expense of fiber usually increases milk protein yield but unfortunately reduces fat yield. Because of the high price of milk protein, consider increasing starch concentration of the diet but not so much that it causes health issues. On average, assuming the diet has adequate forage and fiber (i.e., does not cause ruminal acidosis), increasing starch concentration about 5 percentage units and reducing neutral detergent fiber (NDF) by the same amount is expected to increase the daily yield of milk protein of an average Holstein cow by about 0.075 lb but reduce milk fat by 0.06 lb. If the starch is replacing byproduct NDF, such as that from soyhulls, we do not expect dry matter intake to change. The cost of the diet per pound of dry matter likely would not change greatly, but it would depend on what ingredients are being used. Using the average of the October and November component prices, a 5-percentage unit increase in starch could increase daily milk income by about $0.15 per cow with little effect on feed costs.

Feeding a proven source of rumen-protected methionine (RP-met) usually increases milk protein yield. The response varies depending on diet, but on average, feeding 20 g/day of methionine from RP-met is expected to increase milk protein yield by about 0.06 lb/day which is worth about $0.19/cow. The cost of the RP-met product needs to be deducted from that return to determine whether it is a profitable decision. Feed intake is not expected to change so only the cost of the product needs to be considered.

Because of the high value of milk protein, increased emphasis should be placed on ensuring adequate intake of metabolizable protein and on the amino acid balance of the diet. Highly digestible protein supplements with the proper balance of amino acids are not cheap, but with milk protein worth in excess of $3/lb., feeding inadequate metabolizable protein or a diet with improper amino acid profile will likely be more costly.

Several different sources of supplemental fat are available and they can affect milk component yields differently. However, in general, supplemental fat decreases milk protein percentage but usually has no effect on milk protein yield. Some supplements, such as saturated fatty acids, may increase milk protein yield by up 0.05 to 0.1 lb/day. Supplemental fat usually increases milk fat yield by 0.1 to 0.2 lb/day. Because of the generally consistent response in milk fat yield to supplemental fat along with the high price of milk fat observed earlier in the year, feeding some supplemental fat was usually profitable. However, with the lower price for milk fat, the effect a fat supplement has on milk protein yield has a major impact on the economic return from supplemental fat. Fat supplementation, specifically the type of fat, should be reevaluated based on current milk component prices and expected change in component yield.

Figure 1. Milk component prices over 2019 for Federal Order 33.

Data Source: USDA AMS Federal Milk Marketing Order 33

How long will milk protein be worth more than milk fat? Some projections suggest that protein prices will gradually trend down from a November high. To track trends, dairy farmers can find the announced prices either on their milk checks or at the Federal Milk Marketing Order 33 web site (http://www.fmmaclev.com/) in the “Class and Component Prices” report.

Table 1. Federal Milk Marketing Order 33 prices for milk fat and protein for first 11 months of 2019.

Month, 2019	Milk Fat, $/lb	Milk Protein, $/lb
January	2.50	1.19
February	2.53	1.18
March	2.55	1.63
April	2.54	1.99
May	2.57	2.11
June	2.66	2.00
July	2.68	2.40
August	2.66	2.44
September	2.49	2.86
October	2.40	3.17
November	2.32	3.91
AVERAGE	2.54	2.26

Video Updates for Dairy Management

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

Every year we try to come up with new programs to benefit dairy producers. This year, we are going to start a video series to help connect dairy producers with Ohio State dairy specialists. This series will update you on management practices to improve your operation and the latest research that is being conducted by OSU researchers. We will be doing our best to keep videos under 10 minutes, just the right length to watch while unloading feed, waiting on the milk system to wash, or waiting for a cow to have a calf. Videos will be uploaded throughout the year and released through our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/OhioDairyIndustryResourcesCenter/ and Buckeye Dairy News.

Enjoy our latest videos:

Udder Care

Dr. Luciana daCosta with Ohio State University, College of Veterinary Medicine discusses Udder Care procedures for the prevention of mastitis. https://youtu.be/34kxGdHOsP0

Parlor Preparation for Mastitis Control

Dr. Luciana daCosta with the Ohio State University, College of Veterinary Medicine discusses the importance of proper parlor routines to decrease the risk of mastitis. https://youtu.be/3bKRN20_dqA

Dairy Day, Dr. Bill Weiss

Dr. Bill Weiss discusses his extensive knowledge on dairy nutrition and some of his world travels for his research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vkir9JC2Dk&t=370s

Dairy Day, Dr. Lee

Dr. Chanhee Lee discusses his research on manure and nutrient management. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d41tgDBitLU&t=404s

Dairy Day, Dr. Ben Enger

Dr. Ben Enger discusses his specialization in mammary physiology and his research on mastitis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqNvmtfX1fk
Milk Quality Workshop on December 6, 2019

Wayne County Extension/Agriculture and Natural Resources is presenting the Milk Quality Workshop on Friday, December 6, 2019. For more information, please click on this Milk Quality Workshop link.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for September and October were at $17.48 and $17.82/cwt, respectively. The Class III component price for September closed about $0.80/cwt higher at $18.31/cwt and was slightly higher in October at $18.72/cwt. The Class III future for November is similar to September component prices at $18.44/cwt, followed by a $2.20/cwt jump to $20.68/cwt in December. Right now, milk prices are really good in comparison to the beginning of the year (January 2019 Class III price: $13.96/cwt).

Currently, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Class III future prices have been trading in the $17 to 18/cwt range. Milk prices in Ohio should average within this range or slightly higher for the beginning of 2020. This is because national demand for cheese and the price of milk protein continues to increase. Global demand for nonfat dry milk is also expected to pick up in the near future, which should drive milk prices even further. Lastly, although USDA projects total milk production for 2019 to be about the same or slightly higher than 2018, this may not be true given the 2019 forage crisis. I am predicting that the lower than average forage quality will probably hamper milk production, and the Class III milk price will average $18 to 19/cwt until spring of 2020. Regardless, these higher milk prices should allow producers an opportunity to pay off some long-term debt or contract feed for 2020.

Nutrient prices

As in previous issues, feed ingredients commonly used in Ohio were analyzed using the software program SESAME™ developed by Dr. St-Pierre at The Ohio State University. The resulting analysis can be used to appraise important nutrients in dairy rations, estimate break-even prices of ingredients, and identify feedstuffs that are significantly underpriced as of November 22, 2019. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NE_L, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1.

Currently, the daily nutrient cost of feeding cows ($6.00/cow/day) has also gone up about $0.40/cow/day since the last issue (September $5.64/cow/day). This is primarily because the cost of MPhas gone up since the last issue (September $0.30/lb) but is still much lower than the 5-year average for MP ($0.43/lb). The price of NE_L is down around 2¢/Mcal since September and its 5-year average ($0.084/Mcal). The price of e-NDF is not very different from September (12.7¢/lb), whereas ne-NDF has increased around 6¢/lb. The e-NDF and ne-NDF prices are both about 5¢/lb more than their 5-year averages and are reflecting the challenges of growing forage for the 2019 growing year.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For November’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows is about $12.66 and $13.11/cwt, respectively. This is over a $1.60/cwt greater than estimates from July ($11.00 and $11.47/cwt, respectively). Although overall cost to feed cows has gone up slightly, higher milk prices are still increasing IONC. The current IONC should also be very profitable for Ohio dairy farmers. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 22, 2019.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 22, 2019 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 22, 2019.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, November 22, 2019.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn silage	41% Cottonseed meal	Beet pulp
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	Blood meal
Feather meal	Soybean hulls	Fish meal
Gluten feed	48% Soybean meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Hominy	Wheat bran	Molasses
Meat meal		Solvent extracted canola meal
Soybean meal - expeller		44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings		Tallow
Whole cottonseed		Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, November 22, 2019.

Feeding High Ash Forages

Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

We have received reports of some forages, including cover crops that were planted in late summer, having very high concentrations of ash. Ash in forages is comprised of minerals contained within the plant (for example, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and copper) and soil contamination that either splashed onto the surface of the plant while in the field or was picked up during harvest. On average, cool season grasses, such as orchardgrass or fescue, harvested as hay or silage have about 7 to 9% ash and legumes, such as alfalfa, harvested as hay or silage average 10 to 12% ash. Generally, mineral concentrations decrease as plants mature and is greater in forages grown in soils that contain high concentrations of available potassium (luxury consumption). These factors will change plant ash concentrations but generally by only a few percentage points. On the other hand, harvest practices and soil conditions at harvest can increase ash concentrations by 5 to more than 15 percentage points with only small changes occurring in major mineral concentrations. Soil contamination can greatly increase concentrations of trace minerals, especially iron, manganese, and aluminum. A study from the University of Delaware evaluated the composition of corn silage that was harvested after severe flooding caused by Hurricane Irene. Normal corn silage has about 5% ash, but some samples from flooded corn had concentrations exceeding 20%. Iron averages about 250 mg/kg (ppm) in normal corn silage, but silage made from flooded corn averaged about 2500 mg/kg. Concentration of aluminum averaged more than 5 times higher in flood-damaged corn silage compared with normal silage.

With the exception of potassium and sulfur, high concentrations of intrinsic minerals (those contained within the plant) in forages are not an issue; however, mineral supplementation should be adjusted based on the mineral concentration in the forages. Forages with high concentrations of potassium reduce magnesium absorption and increase the risk for grass tetany. Additional magnesium should be fed in that situation. High potassium forages also increases the risk of milk fever when fed to dry dairy cows. In that situation, inclusion rates of the high potassium forage should be limited if possible or anionic diets should be fed prepartum. Forages with high concentrations of sulfur can interfere with copper and selenium absorption. In that situation, additional copper and selenium should be fed (within FDA regulations for Se) and high bioavailability sources should be used.

More problematic are forages with high concentrations of ash caused by soil contamination. Several problems can occur:

1. Ash has no energy. If everything else is equal, as ash concentration increases, energy concentration decreases linearly.

2. The high concentrations of trace minerals (iron, copper, and maybe aluminum) can be toxic to rumen bacteria which will reduce fiber digestibility. This will reduce the energy value of the forage and can reduce feed intake.

3. If soil is high in clay, this will greatly reduce absorption of copper and zinc which are required nutrients for cattle and sheep.

4. Total dietary iron concentrations greater than about 500 ppm can be toxic to animals; however, the iron in soil-contaminated forage is mostly iron oxide (rust) which has very poor bioavailability and low toxicity. Increasing dietary vitamin E to about 1000 IU/day (based on dairy cow experiments) helps alleviate some of the issues associated with high iron. Because of low bioavailability, high iron from forages is unlikely to cause direct toxicity to cows, but an experiment conducted at North Carolina State University found that iron from soil that was mixed with forage and then ensiled had increased bioavailability as storage time increased. This is likely because of the effect silage acidity had on the iron. As silage storage time increases, high iron silage may become more of an issue. This will not occur with high iron hay.

5. Probably the greatest potential risk of high ash forages is ruminal or abomasal impaction. The soil particles that the animal consumes can settle out in the rumen or abomasum (the gastric stomach), filling up the organ and eventually blocking passage of digesta. Clinical signs include lethargy, inappetence, constipation, and eventually death. Upon necropsy, the abomasum will be filled with soil particles. This is a bigger problem with dense soil particles, such as sand. Lighter soil particles can flow through the digestive system.

The first step in evaluating ash in forages is to determine whether the elevated ash is intrinsic (inside the plant) or from soil contamination. Forages with less than about 250 ppm iron usually do not have much soil contamination, but as iron increases above that level, ash contamination from soil is likely. If your forages have substantial ash concentration and high iron, the forage should be diluted with low ash feeds and mineral supplementation may need to be modified. However, we do not know how much ash is too much. A case study from Saskatchewan found absomasal impaction in some beef cows that consumed forage with about 15% ash and 9000 ppm iron (normal ash in the forage would be about 8% and iron would be around 300 ppm). In a survey, 40% of the farmers that fed the flooded corn silage described above reported some animal health effects (there was no control so we do not know how many farmers not feeding the flood damaged corn silage would have reported health issues). Because definitive data are not available on toxic ash levels, producers should be very cautious about feeding forages with more than 4 or 5% increased ash when it comprises the total diet. Forages with more than about 13 or 14% ash (assuming it is soil contamination as indicated by very high iron) should probably be diluted with feeds not contaminated with soil.

References/other information:

Erickson and Hendrick. 2011. Sand impactions in Saskatchewan beef cow-calf herd. Canadian Veterinary Journal 52:74

Kung et al. 2015. Chemical composition and nutritive value of corn silage harvested in the Northeastern United States after tropical storm Irene. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2055.
Winter Calf Management

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

Winter roared in this year way before most of us were ready. Corn still in the field, barn doors not dug out and winter calf supplies still in the back corner of the barn. Even though we know winter is coming, it never seems like we are ready when the first blast of winter comes.

Calves are most comfortable when the outside temperatures are between 50 to 68⁰F, which is a calf’s thermoneutral zone. When temperatures are below the lower critical temperature of 50⁰F, calves need extra energy to stay warm. At times during winter, this can be a challenge since 50⁰F at night can have highs of 70⁰F during the day. Usually calves deep bedded with straw manage this variation by nesting with their legs coved at least to the middle of the back leg when lying down.

As temperatures continue to fall, adding calf jackets to help keep calves warm will be beneficial. Studies show that calf jackets improve gain by 0.22 lb/day compared to those without jackets. Adding jackets when it is warm out may cause the calves to sweat under the jacket and get chills at night. If you have a calf born premature, putting the jacket on at night and taking it off during the day is extra work but may help calves who cannot regulate temperature very well. Calf jacket material should be breathable with a water resistant shell. It is recommended that producers start using jackets once pen temperature averages less than 50⁰F for newborn calves up to 3 weeks old. Once calves are over 3 weeks of age, they are comfortable until average pen temperatures are below 40⁰F. The lower critical temperature continues to decrease as the calf’s rumen develops, creating heat to keep them warm. Calves who are not eating as much starter grain may not be comfortable at these lower temperatures due to less rumen activity. One important management step with calf jackets is to keep the jackets dry, which means calves should be dry before putting jackets on. If the calf is still damp, you will need to change jackets after a few hours. In order to put jackets on dry calves, you should have clean towels to dry the calves.

One thing that works very well when calving barn temperatures fall below freezing, or even 40⁰ F, is to have towels in a cabinet in the calving pen to help the cow dry the calf quickly. Putting calves in a warm room or calf warmer can also help warm and dry them off. The warm air going in their lungs warms the insides but be sure it is warm enough and ventilated well so that the calf fully dries within a couple hours. Poor ventilation leads to the calf not drying and air quality becoming poor enough to cause pneumonia. When calves are first born and they start shivering, they are burning precious energy. A newborn calf has about 18 hours of brown adipose tissue reserves, making colostrum extremely important. Cold shivering calves can burn though these reserves even faster.

For each 1 degree drop in temperature below the lower critical temperature, a calf needs a 1% increase in energy to meet maintenance requirements. There are many different calf-feeding programs. With all programs to continue growth, more milk solids have to be fed without solids concentration exceeding 16%. The most common way to increase energy intake is to feed either more per feeding or add a third feeding. While 8 hours apart is ideal for three feedings, the most important part is to make timing consistent. Feed the same amount at each feeding, even if that means adding a lunch feeding between your normal feeding times.

Another beneficial practice is to provide warm water at 63 to 100⁰F to calves within 30 minutes of finishing their milk. Water intake improves starter intake by 31%. These calves are then better able to stay warm as their rumen digests the grain. Cool water may also improve starter intake but it lowers their rumen temperature, requiring energy to warm the water and even more energy to maintain weight and allow for growth.

Close attention needs to be paid to winter ventilation; keeping barns or hutches warm is not really the goal. Keeping air fresh to minimize disease while not allowing a draft on the calves is the goal. There are many ways to do this. With hutches, it usually means having either permanent winter wind breaks or temporary wind breaks, like straw bales. Winter winds seem to change and bring cold nasty weather out of every direction, even the south. In calf barns, pens are a microenvironment affected by ventilation and pen design. Studies have found that solid sides slow disease spread but are only beneficial if the front, back, and top of the pens are open; otherwise, they create a high disease microenvironment. When disease and ventilation are challenging your calves, a properly designed positive pressure tube providing ventilation at a rate of 15 cubic feet / calf / minute can improve calf health without creating a chill.
Change Your Employee Recruitment and Interview Mindset

Rory Lewandowski, Agriculture Extension Educator, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

Labor is an important component of any farm operation. Beyond just checking the box that a certain task has been completed, farm profitability often turns on how well a task was completed, the attention to detail, and protocol. Improving employee recruiting and interviewing skills increases the chance of hiring the right employee for your farm situation. For many farms, employee recruitment, interviewing, and hiring requires a mindset adjustment.

How do you attract dependable farm employees? What is your goal and objective when you hire a farm employee? I once heard Bernie Erven, professor emeritus of The Ohio State University and human resource management specialist, say that too many farms do not manage the employee recruitment and interview process. Desperate for labor, the only job requirement seemed to be that the person could walk and breathe. Interview questions consisted of “Have you worked on a farm before? and Do you want the job?” A management mindset involves developing a recruitment strategy and a process to find employees that are the right fit for your farm. Donald Cooper, an international management consultant, says that businesses become what they hire. If your goal is high performance and excellence, you need to recruit and hire above average, high quality persons.

Employee recruitment starts before there is a job vacancy. Effective recruitment has both an outward and an inward focus. An outward focus is about developing relationships with persons, organizations, and institutions that could provide a contact or recommend a potential employee to the farm. Some examples include FFA chapters/advisors, career centers, and farm service persons, such as veterinarians, feed and equipment dealers, technicians, and ag lenders. Also, contacts with educational institutions are sources of potential farm employees. If you run into someone with the potential to be a good employee, even if you currently don’t have a vacancy, at least collect contact information. Some farms may even create a temporary position for the person. Inward recruitment focus is about building a reputation as a great place to work. If someone were to drive around the county and ask the question, who is the best farm to work for, would the questioner hear the name of you or your farm?

The next important piece in recruitment and interviewing is the job description. Job descriptions guide the interviewing and hiring process. Specific information included in a job description includes a job title, a short summary of the major job responsibilities, the qualifications for the job including knowledge, education and/or experience necessary, the specific job duties/tasks along with the frequency with which each needs to be performed, who supervises the job and/or supervisory requirements of the job, and finally, something about the expectations for hours and weekly or monthly work schedule.

The job description, when well written, helps to provide a prepared list of questions for the employee candidate interview. Questions should provide the candidate with the opportunity to talk about their skills, knowledge, experience, and personal attributes that match the job description. According to Bob Milligan of Dairy Strategies, the interview should be designed to determine the qualifications of the candidate and their fit for not only the job requirements but also their fit within the culture of your farm. The interview should be structured so that the farm owner or manager is promoting the farm and the position in a positive light so that the candidate is likely to accept the job if it is offered to them.

Ask questions that provide you with information about the candidate’s knowledge, ability and attitudes. Examples of these type of questions are; what are two practices in the milking parlor that can improve milk quality? Describe an equipment related problem you have solved in the past year. How did you go about solving it? I read an article by the founder of a company called Ag Hires entitled “Top 3 Interview Questions Every Farm Should Ask”. They are: 1) In your past jobs, of the various tasks, roles, and projects, what have you enjoyed doing the most and what have you enjoyed the least? 2) What is your superpower; what is it that you are naturally good at and bring to the table wherever you work? and 3) If we spoke to your co-workers and managers and asked them what’s it like to work with you, how would they describe you?

These questions are designed to learn what the candidate is passionate about, what they enjoy, what they have a natural tendency toward, and how they interact with others. Quoting that article, “farm managers have a tendency to place too much emphasis on someone’s work history and not enough emphasis on whether the person is the right fit for the farm. Smart people with the right attitude, motivation, and natural tendencies that align with the farm culture will get up to speed quickly.”

Every farm hire is an important hire. Farm managers with employee recruitment and interviewing skills increase the rate of successful hires.
2018 Dairy Farm Business Summary Now Available

Dianne Shoemaker, Field Specialist, Dairy Production Economics, Ohio State University Extension

The 2018 dairy analysis work is in the books and is very reflective of Ohio’s dairy industry. Several farms took a hard look at their numbers and chose to discontinue milking cows. Other farms joined the analysis program for the first time. In all, 20 farms, 19 conventionally and one organically managed, completed the analysis. These farms are located in 11 counties across Ohio, but mainly concentrated in the northeast. Herd sizes were very representative of Ohio farms, ranging from less than 50 cows to more than 1,000.

Unfortunately, this year’s results aren’t surprising. With dairy farmers dealing with the 4^th consecutive year of sustained low prices, the average net return for the 19 conventional dairy farms that completed an analysis for 2018 was a loss of $155 per cow. The good news is that the high 25% averaged a net return of $748 per cow (Table 1), which while positive, is also down from previous years. What did not change is the range between the lowest and the highest net returns per cow, nearly $3,000 in 2018. Ten of the 19 farms generated negative net returns per cow in 2018.

These numbers continue to reinforce that the top third of dairy farms, while not exempt from financial challenges in down markets, on average continue to generate substantial positive net returns. If those returns are “enough”, depends on the size and debt position of the farm, as well as the number of families the farm is supporting.

Table 1. Selected factors from 2018 Ohio Dairy Farm Business
Summary for the 19 conventionally managed dairy farms.

The 2019 analysis work will start in January. Following a dismal start to 2019, milk prices have trended upward, bringing needed cash into dairy farms’ checking accounts. As 2019 began, January and February milk prices looked alarmingly like a repeat of 2018 (Table 2); only very strong producer price differentials kept the statistical uniform prices for January and February above 2018’s brutal levels. Fortunately, the national herd numbers started to decline, one of the factors supporting improved milk prices.

Improving milk prices does not lessen the farm’s need for accurate financial analysis to both evaluate the farm’s position and progress and to make informed management decisions. We encourage you to participate in financial analysis starting with your 2019 business year. Contact Dianne Shoemaker at shoemaker.3@osu.edu or 330-533-5538 to talk about the options.

You can download the complete 2018 Dairy Farm Business Summary at http://farmprofitability.osu.edu

Table 2. Mideast Marketing Area, Federal Order 33 Milk Price, Dairy Margin Coverage Program and Margin Protection Program prices, 2018–2019.
Ohio Dairy Challenge, November 2019

Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The 2019 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held November 1-2 and was sponsored by ADM Animal Nutrition, Cargill Animal Nutrition, Provimi North America, Purina Animal Nutrition, Sexing Technologies, and Biomin. Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped into teams of three to four individuals. Veterinary and graduate students are invited to attend the farm visit and participate in a meeting later in the evening with the contest judges to discuss observations on the farm. The farm selected for the contest this year was the Mills Dairy Farm in Hayesville, OH owned by Greg and Mark Mills. They began milking nine cows in 1968 and have been milking cows continuously since then at the same location, even though facilities have been rebuilt from tornado and fire damages. They have about 1200 cows, and the cows are milked 2 times-a-day in a double 16 parallel parlor. The forages grown on the farm include corn silage, alfalfa, and rye. There were 65 undergraduate students (18 teams; 6 students from ATI, 5 students from Wilmington College, and 54 students from the Columbus campus), 6 veterinary students, and 7 graduate students that participated. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Friday afternoon, interviewing the owner and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. During Friday evening, the undergraduate teams spent three to four hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities for the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation that had to be turned in on Friday evening. On Saturday, the undergraduate students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the program this year were Ryan Aberle (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Bob Hostetler (Sexing Technologies), Luis Moraes (Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), Alan Chestnut (Cargill/Provimi), Tana Dennis (Cargill/Provimi), Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), Brian Lammers (ADM Animal Nutrition), Rich Nisen (ADM Animal Nutrition), Dwight Roseler (Purina Animal Nutrition), Benjamin Wenner (Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), and Kelly Mitchell (Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences). Shaun Wellert with ATI and Daryl Nash from Wilmington College also assisted with the program. The awards banquet was held on Saturday, November 2 at the Fawcett Center on the OSU Columbus campus. The top team consisted of three ATI students: Owen Greene, Korey Oechsle, and Kenneth Ramsier. The second place team was from the Columbus campus and consisted of: Kylie Chronister, Brietta Latham, Katie O’Hara, and Sydney Sweet. The third place team was also from the Columbus campus and consisted of: Abby Bonnot, Marissa Farmer, Johnathan McCandlish, and Paul Bensman. Students will be selected to represent Ohio at the National Contest and to participate in the Dairy Challenge Academy to be held in Green Bay, WI during March 26-28, 2020. Students from ATI participated in the Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge hosted by Alfred State and held November 17-19, 2019 in Rochester, NY. Students from the Columbus campus will be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge hosted by University of Wisconsin-River Falls during February 12-14, 2020. The coach for the Dairy Challenge program at ATI is Dr. Shaun Wellert and Dr. Maurice Eastridge is the coach for the Columbus campus. Additional information about the North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge program can be found at: http://www.dairychallenge.org/

First-Place Team (left to right): Korey Oechsle, Kenneth Ramsier, and Owen Greene.

Second Place Team: Brietta Latham, Sydney Sweet, Kylie Chronister, and Katie O’Hara.

Third Place Team: Johnathan McCandlish, Paul Bensman, Marissa Farmer, and Abby Bonnot.
Buckeyes Win National Dairy Judging Contest

Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

It has been widely publicized that our OSU Dairy Judging Team earned the National Title at World Dairy Expo. It has been 33 years since triumph has come back to Ohio State. To add to our magical, year, we only “Won by One!” In a moment prior to the contest on one of our farm workouts, the students were talking about visiting Switzerland and seeing Brown Swiss cows in their original setting. I responded by mentioning that if they won the contest, we would go.

Promises made are promises kept and luck was once again on our side. We teamed up with a trip coordinated through New Generation Genetics and Brown Swiss USA. Even as you read this, we are preparing for our trip on November 25th through December 1st.

We are looking for any corporate or individual donations for our trip. General dairy judging funds will not be used. The students will be responsible for a portion of the expenses. Many of you have generously responded and we are appreciative. For more information/details, please contact me through email or a call. If you would like to follow our trip, we will post daily photos on our Facebook Page, Ohio State University, Dairy Judging Teams.

We all can take pride in this unique group of judging students. You may have worked with them, seen them managing the parlor at the Ohio State Fair and Spring Dairy Expo, or watched them grow up with 4-H or FFA projects. This State and your support of youth have brought them to this honor.

Left to right: Coach Ayars, Lauren Almasy, Billy Smith, Ian Lokai, and Sarah Lehner

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for July and August were at $16.13 and $17.37/cwt, respectively. The Class III component price for July closed about $1.40/cwt higher at $17.55/cwt and was similar in August at $17.60/cwt. The Class III future for September is similar to July and August component prices at $17.48/cwt, followed by a small jump to $17.82/cwt in October. Overall, milk prices are pretty good compared to the 4-year Class III average ($15.36/cwt).

Looking further in advance, I do not expect the Class III milk price to change much until 2020. Currently, Class III futures are steady and trading between $17.50 and $18.00/cwt. The number of cows being milked in the US are also still going down and have reduced total milk production about 2% compared to 2018. However, exports are down about 2%, and any improvements in price because of lower milk production will likely be a wash.

Nutrient prices

As in previous issues, feed ingredients commonly used in Ohio were analyzed using the software program SESAME™ developed by Dr. St-Pierre at The Ohio State University. The resulting analysis can be used to appraise important nutrients in dairy rations, estimate break-even prices of ingredients, and identify feedstuffs that are significantly underpriced as of September 22, 2019. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NE_L, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1.

Overall, commodity prices are starting to go down as crops are beginning to be harvested. The daily cost of feeding cows has also gone down slightly ($5.93 vs. $5.64/cow/day). This is mainly because the cost of NE_Lhas gone down and is 27% lower than July (11¢/Mcal). The price of e-NDF is not very different from July (12¢/lb), whereas the costs of MP and ne-NDF have increased around 6 and 4¢/lb, respectively. In the near future, I would suggest producers and their nutritionist start locking in low prices on commodities and reformulating rations to enable feeding bargain feedstuffs in the long term.

In this issue, I also calculated a new corn silage price for the 2019 growing year: $48.26/ton (35% dry matter). This price is about 8% higher than the 2018 growing year ($44.60/ton) but is still a bargain compared to other common ingredients. The price I calculated is based on the crop value as if it was harvested for corn grain rather than silage. Because corn silage is dual purpose and provides marked amounts of both NE_L and e-NDF for dairy cows, the true value of corn silage to the producer should actually be around $80.56/ton, about 40% higher than my calculation. However, corn silage quality varies considerably based on location (e.g. weather and growing conditions), harvesting and storage conditions, or practices as well as the corn hybrid planted. Using the 75% confidence intervals defined in Table 2 are better predictors of what corn silage may actually be worth to producers when accounting for this real world variability. The intervals, however, still do not contain the calculated value based off corn grain (i.e., the $48.26/ton estimate). Bottom line, corn silage should be a no brainer for making up the majority of the forage component for rations during the upcoming year, but only if you have stored enough – running out of corn silage in August will be a huge financial burden.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For September’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows is about $11.00 and $11.47/cwt, respectively. This is almost $2.00/cwt more than estimates from July ($9.17 and $9.67/cwt, respectively) and should be profitable for Ohio dairy farmers. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, September 22, 2019.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on September 22, 2019 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, September 22, 2019.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, September 22, 2019.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground,dry	Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn silage	Beet pulp	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	Citrus pulp
Feather meal	Soybean hulls	41% Cottonseed meal
Gluten feed	48% Soybean meal	Fish meal Mechanically extracted canola meal
Hominy	Soybean meal - expeller	Molasses
Meat meal	Whole cottonseed	Solvent extracted canola meal
Wheat middlings	Wheat bran	44% Soybean meal
		Tallow
		Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, September 22, 2019.

NEW RELEASE: 15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

In an effort to strengthen the financial stability of dairy farm families, a group of Extension personnel at Ohio State published the first copy of the 15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness in 1997. The publication was revised in 2008 to mostly update some of the benchmarks for the respective 15 measures. The new release of this publication in 2019 not only provides updates to all of the measures, but some of the measures were totally revised and some new measures provided. The financial benchmarks were primarily developed from data provided by the Ohio Farm Business Summaries, New York data published by Cornell University, and the Northeast Dairy Farm Summaries published by Northeast Farm Credit. The 15 measures described in the publication are listed in Table 1.

During the 22 years since the first publication on the 15 measures, the dairy industry has incurred many changes. During this time period, the average milk yield per cow in Ohio has increased about 5,600 lb, yet the rate of return has ranged from $36 (2015) to 1,263 (2014) per cow. You will also note that the time period from the highest to the highest rate of return was only one year. During the 22-year time period, the average US milk price ranged from $12.11 (2002) to 23.97/cwt (2014). These magnitudes of volatility in net farm income and milk prices create many challenges for dairy farm families, thus management of key financial measures is a must for survival. During the past 22 years, the average number of cows in the US has remained somewhat constant (~ 9.3 million cows), but the Ohio dairy herd has decreased from 280,000 to 253,000 cows. The number of farms has decreased from 123,700 to 37,468 and from 6000 to 2100 for the US and Ohio, respectively.

The new publication was prepared by ten OSU personnel to provide the most up-to-date information on dairy farm financial management and to address other key issues of management on dairy farms. The complete publication is available at: https://dairy.osu.edu.

Table 1. List of the measures in the new publication “15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness”.

Measure	Category	Description	Benchmark
1	Rate of Production	Pounds of milk sold per worker	>1,000,000 ECM¹
2	Cost Control	Feed cost per cwt milk sold and income over feed cost	Top 25%
3	Cost Control	Operating expense ratio	<70%
4	Capital Efficiency	Dairy investment per cow	<$11,000
5	Capital Efficiency	Assess turnover ratio	>0.60
6	Profitability	Net farm income per cow	>$1,300
7	Profitability	Rate of return on farm assets	>10%
8	Liquidity	Current ratio (CR) and working capital (WC)	CR 3.0 to 3.5 WC >25% gross revenue
9	Repayment Schedule	Scheduled debt payment	<10% gross receipts <$400 per cow
10	Solvency	Debt to asset ratio	<30%
11	Solvency	Debt per cow	<$3,000 if not expanding <$4,300 if expanding
12	Mission Statement	Management team agrees on why they are in business	Written mission statement
13	Maintain Family’s Standard of Living	Maintain or increase standard of living	5 to 10% of gross farm income
14	Motivated Labor Force	Managers use personnel management practices which lead to commitment to the mission and goals of the farm	Well-trained, enthusiastic, and empowered family members and employees
15	Manure Nutrient Management	Proper utilization of manure nutrients	Minimize the cost of nutrient management and reduce environmental risks

¹ECM = Energy-corrected milk

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Production is Stagnant but Prices are Rising

In the last issue, the Class III futures for May and June were at $15.76 and $16.44/cwt, respectively. The Class III component price for May closed about $0.60/cwt higher at $16.38 and then became slightly lower in June at $16.27/cwt. The Class III future for July is similar to June’s component price at $16.13/cwt followed by a jump to $17.37/cwt in August. Overall, milk prices are getting better and continue to be on the rise.

An explanation for the continued rise in milk prices seems to be from increased demand and not supply. According to the USDA, monthly milk production in 2019 and in the major 24 milk producing states has been nearly identical to their respective months in 2018. However, product sales and dairy exports are both experiencing growth and making the overall price increase. Some economists are even suggesting the increase in demand could push Class III milk prices over $18/cwt before the end of 2019.

Although total milk production is stagnant, production per cow continues to be increasing but at the same rate that US cow numbers are decreasing. According to the USDA, 2019 milk production per head was up about 0.8% compared to 2018. Conversely, cow numbers in the major 24 states were down around 60,000 head compared to one year ago (July 2018: 8.84 million head). Given the long lag time it takes for cow numbers to respond to milk prices, I would expect cow numbers to continue decreasing for at least another 6 months. Nutrient prices are also on the rise (see below), which should start causing US cow numbers to drop even faster than the current rate. Considering these aspects together, we can probably expect total milk production to decrease in the near future, and the resulting drop in supply should also help the Class III price surpass $18/cwt.

A Bad Spring Equals Worse Nutrient Prices

The weather conditions that farmers experienced during spring of 2019 have been nothing short of a disaster, and later planting dates and poor forage crop harvests are already taking a toll on commodity prices. For alfalfa, prices have increased 5% since I wrote this column in May. For soybeans, prices have increased over 7%. For corn and cottonseed, the price hikes are even worse at 17% and 26%, respectively. As expected, the cost to feed cows the nutrients required to produce milk is also getting worse.

As in previous issues, feed ingredients commonly used in OH were analyzed using the software program SESAME™ developed by Dr. St-Pierre at The Ohio State University. The resulting analysis can then be used to appraise important nutrients in dairy rations, estimate break-even prices of ingredients, and identify feedstuffs that are significantly underpriced as of July 29, 2019. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NE_L, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1.

Based on July’s appraisal, the cost to feed protein continues to drop as the cost to feed energy continues to increase. For MP, its current value is down nearly $0.04/lb since May ($0.27/lb), whereas the cost of NE_Lhas gone up 2¢/Mcal (May: 9.2¢/Mcal). The price of e-NDF has also increased $0.04/lb, whereas ne-NDF has decreased about $0.05/lb since May. Overall, the total cost of feeding lactating dairy cows is up about 10% since May.

To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For July’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows is about $9.17/cwt and $9.67/cwt, respectively. Although this is about $0.80/cwt less than estimates from May ($9.97/cwt and $10.38/cwt, respectively), July’s IONC are still profitable for Ohio dairy farmers but barely. However, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, which would likely make profit margins even slimmer.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, July 29, 2019.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on July 29, 2019 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, July 29, 2019.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in price) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, July 29, 2019.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Beet pulp
Corn, ground, dry	Gluten meal	Blood meal
Corn silage	Soybean hulls	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Distillers dried grains	48% Soybean meal	Citrus pulp
Feather meal	Soybean meal - expeller	41% Cottonseed meal
Gluten feed	Whole, roasted soybeans	Fish meal
Hominy	Whole cottonseed	Molasses
Meat meal	Wheat bran	Solvent extracted canola meal
Wheat middlings		44% Soybean meal
		Tallow

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, July 29, 2019.

Management Strategies for Limited Forage Supply on Dairy Farms
Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

With the excessive rainfall in 2019, forage harvests were delayed which reduced supply of high quality of forage, excessive heaving during the winter devastated many alfalfa fields which has severely reduced forage supply, and late corn plantings leave many dairy farmers with the uncertainty of yields and extent of ear development by time of frost. It is an understatement that forage yields and quality have been compromised for 2019. Thus, management strategies on the farm need to be initiated now to deal with these situations. Some suggestions include the following:
1. Work with your nutritionist to re-formulate diets with lower forage levels. Diets typically contain 21 to 23% forage neutral detergent fiber (FNDF), but diets with as low as 16% FNDF can be fed with proper balancing of the diet for starch (20 to 25% of dietary DM), adjusting diet formulations for degradability of the grain sources (such as dry ground corn versus high moisture corn versus other types of processed corn or other cereal grains), and providing for adequate particle size of forage for stimulation of rumination. Addition of a buffer to the diet to help maintain rumen pH is advised. Additional suggestions have been provided in the article titled “What can I do to stretch forage supplies at my farm?” (https://dairy.osu.edu/sites/dairy/files/imce/PDF/Feed_PDF/Stretching%20forage%202019%20weiss%20FINAL%20B.pdf).
2. Reduce shrink of forages harvested and stored on the farm. Reducing shrink (wastage) of forages should be a focus during harvesting (field losses), storage (rapid filling and proper coverage of silage), and during feeding (losses from feed bunk and minimizing refusals).
3. Sale unprofitable cows, extra heifers, and cows in the dry pen that are not pregnant. The focus here is to remove excess animals from the farm to reduce the forage demand. Many farms have an excessive number of heifers in inventory. Generally, 0.85 to 1.0 heifer for every cow is sufficient on the farm, but some farms carry 1.2 heifers for every cow. In certain situations, reduction of herd size for lactating cows may be necessary, especially if barns are overstocked.
4. Feed low quality forages and feeds with variable composition in low quantities. The low quality forages on the farm should be fed primarily to the dry cows and heifers, but a small amount of low quality forage can be added to lactating cow diets to provide some of the FNDF. Also, use of various byproduct feeds can help reduce feed costs and manage low inventories of forage, but those with variable composition should be fed in low amounts.
5. Plan to plant some cereal grains in August for Spring harvest as forage; see article titled “Forage Production Options for Ohio”
  (https://dairy.osu.edu/sites/dairy/files/imce/PDF/Feed_PDF/Summer%20Forage%20Options%20late%20June%202019%20Final-b%20Branded.pdf)
6. Begin making plans for harvesting additional corn silage this fall, possibly from neighbors with corn not well-eared. This could be done in current storage space or plan for putting corn silage in bags. Actually, diets with corn silage as the sole forage can be fed, but you will need to work with your nutritionist for careful balancing of the diet and monitoring cow responses. Some additional information on harvesting corn for silage that may be useful in making these decisions are:
  
  a. Corn silage yield can be estimated from grain yield using the following equation: Grain yield (bu/acre) divided by 7 = silage yield (ton/acre; 35% DM)
  
  b. See article on “Pricing Standing Corn for Silage” (https://dairy.osu.edu/sites/dairy/files/imce/PDF/Feed_PDF/Pricing%20silage%202002%20Final.pdf) and adjust the prices found in the article with the prices in the July 2019 Buckeye Dairy News.
Management of these aspects of feeding dairy cows will hopefully assist in your weathering of the 2019 forage crisis and aid in improving profitability of the farm.
Foliar Fungicides for Corn Silage: A Benefit or an Expense?

Mr. Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, The Ohio State University Extension

2019 has been a difficult year in much of Ohio might be an understatement. We have corn tasseling in one field while right next to it in another field, or even in the same field, it is 2 feet tall. Many of the fungal corn disease we battle in Ohio show up late enough in the season that they cause little damage. With the late planting and harvest this year, how will that be different and what effect might it have on corn silage digestibility and mycotoxins. To learn more about Delayed Corn Planting the Disease Risk in Corn, visit last week’s CORN newsletter at: https://agcrops.osu.edu/newsletter/corn-newsletter/2019-23/delayed-corn-planting-disease-risk-corn.

When a fungal disease infects the plant, you often see a natural response to the disease of an increase in lignification of the fiber, which results in decreased NDF digestibility. The other challenge with fungal infections is that they may bring high levels of mycotoxins into the feed, but interestingly, the level of visual fungal disease symptoms does not correlate to the level of mycotoxins present. A study from the University of Illinois looked at treating silage corn with Headline or Headline AMP at V5 or R1 and the performance of Holstein cows compared to untreated corn. They used best management practices for disease selecting a corn variety with high levels of disease resistance. At the time of fungicide application, there were no diseases detectable. At harvest, mycotoxins were detected in the silage across all treatments, but levels were reduced for the fungicide applications, with greater reductions at the R1 treatment timing. Milk production was the same among treatments, but feeding the corn with lower mycotoxin concentrations (treated with fungicide) resulted in increased energy corrected milk and better feed efficiency due to lower dry matter intake when the corn for silage was treated with a fungicide.

Deoxynivalenol (DON) is one of the primary toxins of concern. It is caused by the fungus Fusarium graminearum and causes both Gibberlla stalk rot and Gibberlla ear rot, making it of concern for both the quality of the grain and forage. Over the last two years, Wisconsin has been working to better understand DON concentrations in silage. Interestingly, when they use a high quality BMR hybrid, they did not see any improvement in digestibility with the fungicide. The first year under low disease pressure, they saw that in all cases but one that an application of fungicide at R1 reduced DON concentrations by at least 50%. This R1 application window is from the start of silking until 10 days after. The trial was then expanded for 2018, which was a high disease pressure year with DON concentrations as high as 17.9 ppm in one hybrid and 30.3 ppm in the other hybrid. Again, fungicide had little effect on these two BMR hybrids yield or forage quality, but a few products did consistently lower DON concentrations. Interestingly the timing of application was not the same this time across all effective products. Proline at R1, Delaro at R2, and Miravis Neo at V6 all lowered DON concentrations, but concentrations were still over 7 ppm. The study also compared DON concentrations in the ears and the stalk. Interestingly the two hybrids were not the same; one had higher concentrations in the stalk and the other had higher concentrations in the ear. The ability to have high toxin level in the stalk means we will need to scout even late planted corn that may have low grain yields.

What does all this mean? First, there is still a lot of work needed in this area, but for DON control, the most common beneficial timing is R1 stage of growth. Scouting will be important in 2019, especially for late-planted fields, as there is increased potential for disease development, especially of diseases that do not over winter locally.

References

Smith, D., B. Mueller, and J. Goeser. 2018 Corn Silage Fungicide Trial Results: A Story of Vomitoxin
https://badgercropdoc.com/2018/10/12/2018-corn-silage-fungicide-trial-results-story-vomitoxin/

Haerr, K.J., N.M. Lopes, M.N. Pereira, G.M. Fellows, and F.C. Cardoso. Corn silage from corn treated with foliar fungicide and performance of Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98:8962-8972.
Addressing 2019 Agricultural Challenges -or- Dealing with the Impacts: Q&As for a Weird Weather Year
Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Farm Management Field Specialist, The Ohio State University Extension

To help address emerging issues and questions evolving from 2019’s challenging weather and market conditions, the College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences has convened a task force charged with providing answers to help farmers address wide-ranging issues.

Visit this web site https://u.osu.edu/2019farmassistance/home/ to find science-based answers to frequently asked questions about:
- Federal assistance programs
- Cover crops on prevented plant acres
- Cover crop selection and management
- Livestock and forages
- Manure management
- Agronomic crops
- Farm stress
New Q&As and webinars are added as needs are identified. Have a question? Is there another issue that should be addressed? Click the “submit a question” tab and let us know what you are thinking about.

Check out other helpful sites, including your OSU Dairy Industry Resources Center at https://dairy.osu.edu/, Ohio Ag Manager at https://u.osu.edu/ohioagmanager, the C.O.R.N. Newsletter at https://agcrops.osu.edu/newsletter/corn-newsletter, and the OSU Beef Cattle Newsletter at https://u.osu.edu/beef.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices

In the last issue, the Class III futures for March and April were at $13.78 and $15.09/cwt, respectively. The Class III component prices for the month of March and April closed about $1/cwt higher than predicted at $15.04 and $15.96/cwt, respectively. The class III future for May is similar to April’s component price at $15.76/cwt followed by a jump to $16.44/cwt in June. Overall, it appears that milk prices are on the rise.

Nutrient prices

When looking at the appraised nutrient prices, the price of protein has gone down and NE_L has gone up. For MP, its current value is down nearly $0.15/lb (March: $0.45/lb), whereas the cost of NE_Lhas gone up 3¢/Mcal (March: 6.3¢/Mcal). The price of e-NDF and ne-NDF are nearly identical to last month.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For this issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $9.97/cwt and $10.38/cwt, respectively. These IONC are $1.70/cwt greater than what I estimated in March ($8.23 and $8.60/cwt, respectively). The current IONC also suggest Ohio dairy farmers may actually be making a profit for a change. Granted, these IONC may be partially overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, May 23, 2019.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on May 23, 2019 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, May 23, 2019.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, May 23, 2019.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts	Gluten meal	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn, ground, dry	Soybean hulls	Beet pulp
Corn silage	48% Soybean meal	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Soybean meal - expeller	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feather meal	Whole cottonseed	Citrus pulp
Gluten feed	Wheat bran	41% Cottonseed meal
Hominy		Fish meal
Meat meal		Molasses
Wheat middlings		Solvent extracted canola meal
		44% Soybean meal
		Tallow
		Whole, roasted soybeans

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, May 23, 2019.

Living with Lower Quality and Limited Amounts of Forage
Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The numerous freeze-thaw cycles and wet ground last winter were very hard on alfalfa stands, resulting in substantial winter kill. Numerous stands across the State were completely destroyed. Other stands may have suffered less damage, but first cutting yields will likely be substantially lower than normal. In addition to first cutting yield loss, nutritional quality may also be lower than normal because of increased proportion of grass and other weeds in the stands. To make matters worse, many producers rely on rye or small grains to provide late spring and early summer forages. The wet spring delayed harvest on many farms, turning what usually is a good quality forage into lower quality ‘heifer feed’. This double whammy will put significant pressure on forage inventories and especially high quality forage supplies. Although less than ideal, several options exist that will stretch forage inventory and allow inclusion of lower quality forages without substantial negative effects on milk yield.
1. Estimate inventory of corn silage and determine if you can increase the feeding rate without running out before the new crop is harvested. If increased feeding rate of corn silage is an option, increase inclusion of corn silage and reduce concentrations of other lower quality forages. The concentration of forage NDF should be kept around 20% of dietary dry matter (DM). Diets will likely need more supplemental protein because alfalfa and rye have more protein than corn silage. Cows may also benefit from increased supplementation of potassium and/or sodium buffers. High corn silage diets are usually low in Dietary Cation-Anion Difference (DCAD) which can reduce milk fat yields.
2. Include lower quality forages but keep forage NDF concentration at <20% of dietary DM. At lower inclusion rates, the negative effect of lower quality forage on feed intake is reduced. Keeping forage NDF at 19 to 20% of dietary DM reduces (but does not eliminate) the negative effect of low quality forage on intake. Because the more mature forages have more NDF, the percentage of forage in the diet will decrease which may raise concerns about reduced milk fat yields. However, the amount of forage fiber, not total fiber, is what is important with respect to milk fat. Reducing the amount of forage in the diet means that inclusion rates of other feeds must increase. Be careful about replacing forage with corn grain; maintain diet starch concentrations around 25% as forage is reduced. Byproducts, such as wheat midds, soyhulls, brewers, or distiller grains, can replace some of the forage if excess starch is an issue.
3. Based on cow responses, whole cottonseed can replace normal forage almost on a pound for pound basis. Whole cottonseed has about 40% NDF (similar to average alfalfa) which means replacing 8 lb of alfalfa silage or hay dry matter with 8 lb of whole cottonseed should have little effect on the cow (protein and minerals may need to be adjusted and supplemental fat, if fed, may need to be reduced).
4. If forage inventory is not adequate to last until the end of summer, options for growing more forage include Brown Midrib (BMR)-summer annuals or pea-small grain mixes. Pea-small grain mixes produce good quality forage, but they need to be planted soon, probably no later than mid-May. They should be harvested in about 60 days. The mix has higher nutritional value than small grains by themselves. BMR sorghum, BMR sorghum-sudan, or BMR sudangrass can be planted beginning in late May and early June when soil temperatures are at least 60 to 65^oF and up to late June in northern Ohio and mid-July in central and southern Ohio. They are ready to harvest in 50 to 60 days (early August to late August). The resulting silage from BMR sorghum is almost as good as regular corn silage (although lower in starch) when fed to dairy cows. The nutritional value of BMR sudangrass or BMR sorghum-sudan have not been evaluated with dairy cows but likely is similar to that of BMR sorghum. Fiber digestibility is very good with the BMR summer annuals and inclusion rates can be high.
Overall, several options are available for using lower quality forages. The key is to limit forage fiber. Because lower quality forages are high in fiber, diets will contain less forage and more concentrate than typical, which will likely increase ration costs, but feeding too much low quality forage will reduce milk yields which is worse than higher feed costs.

Emergency Forages for Planting Early to Mid-Summer

Dr. Mark Sulc, Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science and Dr. Bill Weiss, Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Many dairy producers are facing a critical forage shortage to feed their herds. Forage stands were damaged across Ohio this past winter, and the wet spring has further deteriorated the few stands that initially appeared they might recover from winter damage. It is now too risky to try to establish new perennial forage stands, with the warmer summer weather coming on. We should wait until August to establish perennial stands. Meanwhile, what options can we consider for growing forage this year?

We are well past the time when cool-season species like oats, triticale, Italian ryegrass, and spring barley can be planted. As we move into late May and early June, we must switch to planting warm-season species.

Corn silage is still the top choice for an annual forage in terms of overall greatest dry matter (DM) yield and nutritive value compared with the other summer annual options. Even if planted so late as to prevent grain formation, the feeding value of corn is at least equal to that of the other summer annual grasses, and forage yields are likely to be higher. However, corn silage won’t be an option for every situation, especially where forage supplies are already critically short.

Sudangrass, sorghum x sudangrass hybrids, pearl millet, and forage sorghum grow rapidly in summer and yield a total of 3.5 to 5 tons of DM with acceptable nutritive value. Forage sorghum can produce up to 8 tons/acre of DM in a single cut in Ohio. For dairy cows, varieties with the brown-midrib (BMR) trait should be planted, as BMR produces forage almost as good as regular corn silage (although lower in starch) with very good fiber digestibility. Variety performance data are available at:

Ohio: https://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/forage2008/table15.asp
Ohio: https://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/forage2008/table16.asp
Kentucky: http://forages.ca.uky.edu/variety_trials (see Annual Grass Report)

Soil temperatures should be at least 60 to 65^oF before planting the sorghum species. They can be planted up to late June in northern Ohio and mid-July in central and southern Ohio. For those needing additional forage as soon as possible, sudangrass and sorghum x sudangrass, including the BMR varieties, can be ready for harvest in as little as 40 days at which time up to 2 tons/acre of DM is possible. Additional cuttings are possible thereafter.

In the fall, the sorghum species will have the danger of prussic acid poisoning potential after frost events. Pearl millet is essentially free of prussic acid poisoning potential. Nitrate toxicity is possible with all summer annual grasses and management steps should be taken to reduce that risk under high nitrogen conditions and if the summer becomes very dry. Ensiling reduces risk of both prussic acid and nitrate poisoning.

Teff is a warm-season grass that can be used for hay, silage, or pasture. Soils should be at least 60 to 65^oF before planting Teff. The first crop should be ready in 40 to 50 days. It produces 3 to 4 tons/acre of DM over several cuttings and can tolerate both drought-stressed and waterlogged soils. More details on managing this forage can be found in a factsheet from Cornell University (http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/publications/factsheets/factsheet24.pdf).

Brassica species can be planted in May to early June for late summer grazing or fall grazing by cattle or sheep. These species contain high moisture content, so they should be used for grazing only. Brassicas have very low fiber and high energy and should be treated more like a concentrate than as forage in diets. For more information on brassicas for forage, see the Penn State factsheet at: http://www.forages.psu.edu/topics/species_variety_trials/species/brassica/index.html.

Seeding Rates and Mixtures

Plant high quality seed of a known variety, which will ensure high germination rate and avoid unpleasant surprises regarding varietal identity and crop characteristics. Table 1 outlines recommended seeding rates and dates for the different annual grasses. Mixtures of summer-annual grasses and legumes, such as field peas and soybeans, are marketed by some seed dealers. The legumes can increase protein content but only in the first harvest because they don’t regrow after cutting. Legumes increase the seed cost, so consider the benefit of including legumes versus supplementing with other protein sources.

Harvesting/Grazing Options

Chopping and ensiling or wet wrapping are the best mechanical harvest alternatives for most of the summer annual grasses. Wilting is often recommended; storage and harvest costs are greater; and fermentation quality can be poor with crops less than about 30% DM. Ideally, silage should be left undisturbed for at least two weeks to allow the forage to reach stable fermentation. If forage is needed sooner, consider daily green chopping of forage or wet wrapping individual bales for feeding until the silage is ready. Except for Teff, dry baling the summer annual grasses is a challenge. Grazing is really the only option for the brassicas because of the high moisture content.

Table 1. Guidelines for seeding various annual forages. Ranges for yield and nutritive values are for forages stored as silage, which vary greatly with maturity stage at harvest. Generally for hay, expect lower crude protein (CP) and higher neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentrations.

Forage crop	Seeding rate (lb/acre)	Planting dates¹	Dry matter yield (ton/acre)	CP (%)	NDF (%)
Corn silage	28 - 34k²	4/20 - 6/15	5.0 - 9.0	6 - 9	38 - 50
Forage sorghum	8 - 12	5/1 - 7/15	4.5 - 8.0	7 - 12	50 - 66
Sudangrass, sorghum-sudan	20 - 25	5/1 - 7/15	3.5 - 5.0	9 - 15	55 - 68
Pearl millet	15 - 20	5/1 - 7/15	3.0 - 4.5	8 - 17	56 - 67
Teff	4 - 5	5/15 - 7/15	2.0 - 4.0	13 -16	55 - 65

¹ Planting date range for Ohio. In southern Ohio, the spring dates should be in the early range, and in the fall, they can be in the later range.
² 28,000 to 34,000 seeds per acre; seed companies provide hybrid specific planting rates.

Making High Quality Baleage

Mr. Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, The Ohio State University Extension

Spring 2019 has been challenging to say the least. Hay fields have disappeared due to winter kill and small grains matured before we could make hay. Making the forages that you have at the highest quality possible will be key. One way to maintain forage quality with small dry weather windows is to make silage or baleage instead of dry hay. The ideal conditions for baleage is to bale the hay between 40 to 65% moisture and wrap within 2 hours of baling. This process uses anaerobic conditions and the acids produced in fermentations to preserve hay. Baleage fermentation is slower than in haylage, often taking 6 weeks. When forage is baled between 25 to 40% moisture, it will not ferment properly and baleage at these moisture levels should be considered as temporary storage. During such situations, preservation is primarily a function of maintaining anaerobic, oxygen-limiting conditions. Mold is very likely at this moisture; higher bale densities and more wraps of plastic is required to better seal out oxygen. Baleage at this moisture will not maintain quality very long in storage, and thus, it needs to be fed as soon as possible. Baleage can be utilized as a plan or as a backup, but the best baleage is a plan and not a rescue.

If you are thinking baleage might be a needed option for you, either as planned or when your dry hay window disappears, start your plan before you are calling around to find a bale wrapper. The first consideration is how fast will you be able to feed the forage? This is a major consideration when selecting the type of bale wrapper you will buy or rent. The two options are individual wrappers, which are usually ideal if feeding 50 head or less from these bales. These machines can usually wrap 20 to 30 bales per hour and use twice as much plastic as a line wrapper. Line wrappers can wrap 40 to 50 bales per hour using less plastic, but they require uniformity between bales. When bales aren’t uniform, there is oxygen captured between bales, often leading to spoilage within the tube of bales where bales meet. They require higher feed-out rates of ideally two bales per day. With a line wrapper, the end of the next bale is exposed to oxygen when you remove one bale to feed and the spoilage clock begins.

Determining where you will be storing bales ahead of time is very important. Making sure that the plastic is not punctured, allowing oxygen to enter and spoil the forage, due to storage site selection is critical. Ideal storage is in a well-drained location with year around access. Stone pads can work well as long as they don’t puncture the plastic. Be weary of storing on stubble, grassy areas, or under trees. These areas often attract rodents, lead to plastic damage, or have sticks that fall and puncture the plastic. Stored forage should be checked weekly for damage and holes taped as soon as they are found.

While KEEPING OXYGEN OUT is the most important part of making high quality baleage, it starts with mowing. When baleage is the planned storage method, your harvest capacity-limiting factor will be how many bales you can wrap an hour with the ideal goal of wrapping the bales within 4 hours. Based on research done at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, we recommend laying swaths as wide as your mower will allow, helping preserve forage quality and speeds up drying to 65% moisture by 10.8 hours. When baling, your goal needs to be for the highest density bales that you can make. A study from Penn State shows that by increasing bale density from 6 lb/ft³ to 8lb/ft³,you gain an extra 12 hours of bunk life in the haylage due mostly to better bale fermentation. It is important to wrap bales as soon as possible after baling to avoid spoilage. The temperatures of bales that were wrapped each day from at baling to 4 days after baling are provided in Figure 1 (data from University of Wisconsin). With the temperature on day one representing the actual day of wrapping. These data show that just 24 hours after baling, the bales that are not wrapped were over 120ºF. While wrapping bales even 4 days after baling stopped the heating process, the quality of these bales still declined.

Most bale wrap is one mil low-density polyethylene and bales need a minimum of 5 mils of plastic to seal out oxygen, requiring a minimum of 6 wraps. Types of plastic vary greatly in their stretchiness, which can reduce thickness by up to 25%. Some stretch is necessary so that the plastic stays sticky and seals well between the layers of plastic. Be cautious when wrapping in the rain as this will reduce the stickiness and allow more oxygen to penetrate, causing spoilage. Also, be cautious when wrapping forages that poke through the plastic which will require more layers. When oxygen enters the bale, they start to heat and quality declines when temperatures are over 120ºF. The amount of time until bales are wrapped and the number of mils of wrap significantly effects internal bale temperature. Figure 2 shows that 6 to 12 mils of plastic maintained similar bale quality. With less wraps than this, bale spoilage is often prevalent. The general recommendations for layers of bale wrap are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. General recommendations for layers of bale wrap.

Moisture (%)	Fermentations	Layers of plastic
< 30%	Possible, but not ideal for fermentation. Some mold growth likely	8 layers minimum to ensure oxygen exclusion
30 to 45%	Possible, but not ideal for fermentation. Some mold growth could occur	8 layers minimum to ensure oxygen exclusion
45 to 60%	Ideal for baleage production and fermentations	Use 6 layers of 1 mil film
60 to 70%	Possible, but high moisture can result in spoilage and low palatability	8 layers of wrap to ensure oxygen exclusion
>70%	Too wet for proper fermentation, baleage production is not recommended	Wait for the forage to dry down further before bailing

After bales are wrapped, handle them carefully using a squeeze so that plastic is not torn. If plastic is torn in storage, the tears should be taped as soon as you notice them. For this reason, bales should be inspected weekly in storage. Never use bale spears to move wrapped haylage until the day you are going to feed it. It is recommended that bales be fed within a year of wrapping. Haylage that is to wet, over 60% moisture, should be feed within 3 months, and haylage that is below 40% will not ferment well and should be fed within 6 months. Most of the time when we make baleage as a rescue, it falls in the range of needing to be fed within 6 months. When done right, baleage can last a year and make excellent feed that often has 5% better quality than dry hay. When done wrong, haylage can spoil, mold, and grow organisms that will make your animals sick; use your eyes and nose to be sure that the forage your going to feed is of high quality. Don’t force animals to eat forage they don’t want.

References

Undersander D., “Making Baleage” UW Extension, January 2015, https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forages/files/2015/06/Making-Baleage.pdf

Hall M., and J. Williamson, “Bale Density Effects on Baleage Quality” Penn State Extension, May 2019, https://extension.psu.edu/bale-density-effects-on-baleage-quality Accessed May 2019

Undersander D., and C. Saxe, “Field Drying Forage for Hay and Haylage” UW Extension Focus on Forage”, April 2013, https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/drying-forage-for-hay-and-haylage/ Accessed May 2019

What Are Your Bedding Options - is $100/ton Straw an Option?

Mr. Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Crawford County, The Ohio State University Extension

Wheat fields are thin and straw is hard to find this year. Straw price went sky high last winter and appears to be staying there for 2019. Some farmers who have high quality wheat have been talking about $75 to100 per ton for unbaled wheat straw in the field. As you weigh your options, be sure to consider alternative agronomic crop fodder or cover crops as a bedding source. The two most common beddings, wheat straw and sawdust, are both already in short supply across the state.

Precut Rye Straw

The first harvestable option is to look at cover crops you or a neighbor have planted and have not been able to kill with all the recent rains. One option that has gained some popularity is precut rye straw. There are two options when making precut straw, both of them take place just after the head emerges but before pollination and seed formation. The most common process is to spray the rye with Glyphosate and let stand in the field as it dries and bleaches yellow. The Pre Harvest Interval (PHI) for cereals on some glyphosate products is 7 days between application and grazing or harvest. The best rye straw comes from having a couple tenths of rain on the rye, removing the wax from the plants. Once plants are dry, mow and leave lay for a day then rake and bale. The other option is to mow and let lay in wide windrows until dry for baling. Usually the rye needs tedded at least twice in order to get it dry. Average yields for rye straw are 1 ½ to 2 tons per acre; it is recommended that you do not use spring nitrogen fertilizer because it causes rye to lodge if rates are too high. Seeding rates of one bushel or less tend to allow for more air movement within the rye, helping it dry faster. While this is becoming a more common practice with rye, it could also work with wheat and allow for earlier soybean planting. Remember, we will be removing some phosphorous and potassium in the straw.

Corn Stalks and Soybean Stubble

More producers are moving to baling residue that is left over after harvesting corn and soybeans. This can be a great bedding source but also removes coverage that helps prevent winter soil erosion. One option for this may be to bale the residue and then plant a cover crop to protect the soil from erosion and maintain organic matter. While we may bring the residue back in manure, the cover crop helps prevent erosion. Even if it is oats that does not over winter, the cover helps avoid erosion. On average, one ton of residue is produced per 40 bushels of corn or 30 bushels of soybeans. This leads to about 2 tons/acre of soybean stubble and 4 to 5 tons/acre of corn stalks to harvest. Soybean stubble is dusty but can be fairly easy to bale as long as you don’t have green stems. Often when making soybean stubble straw, you remove the spreader to make windrows but leave the chopper on either slowing it down or removing the knifes so that it is sized but not dust. This creates windrows that can be baled within hours of combining, making it easier to bale than corn stalks. Soybean residue does wear more on balers than wheat straw but is gentler than corn stalks. Another challenge is that soybean stubble bales need stored inside so that they do not get wet and rot. Corn stalks are very commonly used for feed and bedding. The challenge is with falls like this past year, it rains every two days and corn harvest is delayed, thus it can be difficult to make dry corn stalks for bedding. Corn stalks are much harder on harvest equipment than wheat straw; some older square balers struggle to make stalk bales and need the knotters cleaned more often than with other crops. Some producers make corn stalk bedding by windrowing the cobs, leaves, and a few stalks that come out of the combine. This leads to low tonnage yields and more wear on the pickup but less erosion. The more common method is to use a flail mower to mow the stalks and chop them; a bush hog can work but this does not size the stalks as well. After stalks are mowed and dry, they are raked and baled. With both corn stalks and soybean stubble, nutrients are removed from your field (see Table 1 to calculate nutrient removal). It is also important to make sure your bedding will be able to keep your barn dry. A study from Canada revealed that wheat straw actually holds less pounds of water per pound of bedding than other crop residues. If the bedding material weighed 1 lb before soaking and 3.5 lb after, the absorbency factor is: (3.5 - 1) = 2.5, which means the material has the capacity to hold 2.5 times its weight in water.

Table 1. Crop Nutrients and Absorbency.

Nutrient	Corn (lb/ton)	Soybeans (lb/ton)	Wheat (lb/ton)
N	17	17	11
P₂O₅	4	3	3
K₂O	34	13	15
S	3	2	2
Absorbency factor	2.5	2.6	2.1
Value of nutrients per ton (no S)	$20.70	$12.60	$10.87

There are a few alternative bedding sources, some of which are more expensive. Some are also tasty but have low digestibility, leading to decreased feed efficiency. Most organic materials can be used for bedding, including kiln-dried sawdust, shavings, shredded/chopped paper, barley and oats straw, over mature hay or low quality hay made from waterways and buffer strips if not in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Just because you need straw doesn’t mean it will be a profitable decision to keep a poor wheat stand that will have low yields and low straw tonnage. One last option is to purchase straw from out of state, but the most risky part of this option is the potential for importing noxious weeds onto your farm that are herbicide resistant.

Manure Sampling for Nutrient Analysis

Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator Wayne County, The Ohio State University Extension

Applying livestock manure based on nutrient content is one factor involved in using manure more effectively. There are two main challenges to sampling manure for a nutrient analysis, determining when to sample and then collecting a representative sample. Ideally, a manure sample is submitted before application and the results are used in calculating the field application rate. In practice, this is difficult, especially for liquid manure systems that require agitation before application. In reality, manure is easiest to sample at the time of application, when it is being loaded and hauled to the field.The main disadvantage of this time period is that the results are not available to guide the present application. However, manure nutrient values typically remain fairly consistent and constant within a farm, provided the livestock production system does not change significantly between years. In this case, the analysis results can serve to guide future applications. Annual manure sampling across manure types will allow the farm to establish baseline nutrient values.

The second challenge is collecting a representative sample to send to the lab. The small sample sent in to the lab must accurately represent many tons of manure in a solid system or thousands of gallons of manure in a liquid system. In order to accurately represent the quantity of manure being applied, it may be necessary to collect several different samples throughout the hauling and application period. Manure sampling guidelines are similar to recommendations for soil and forage sampling. Take several subsamples, combine them together, mix, and take a composite sample to send to the lab. Typically, samples are sent to the lab in either plastic bottles (liquid) or one-gallon heavy-duty zip-lock bags. Often, labs will provide the containers. The next question is how is the sample to be collected? What is the sampling procedure and what tools are needed?

For solid manure systems, sample while the spreader is being loaded or when the manure is being spread in the field. Collect samples that represent the beginning, middle, and end of the process. If sampling during loading, use a plastic bucket to collect a representative sample of what is going into the spreader. Try to collect at least five samples (more is better) during the application process. As each bucket is collected, empty it on to a tarp or a clean surface. Mix all the samples together thoroughly and take a subsample from the composite mix that will be sent to the lab. To sample during spreading, lay out a tarp or sheet of heavy plastic in the field. Collect the manure from the tarp after the spreader has passed over or by it and place the manure in a bucket. Repeat this for at least five loads. Once again, mix the different samples together and then collect a representative subsample from the composite mix to send to the lab.

In liquid manure systems, the pit or lagoon must be agitated to get a uniform sample. Depending upon the size of the pit or lagoon, the agitation equipment, and the objective of the manure application, the agitation process can take several hours or even the better part of an entire day. Without adequate agitation, nutrients are stratified. This has implications for both field application rates and sample results. Sampling directly from the storage structure is usually more difficult and causes more variation in the nutrient analysis results than when sampling directly during loading into the spreader. University of Massachusetts Extension has a publication entitled “Sampling Dairy Manure” (https://ag.umass.edu/crops-dairy-livestock-equine/fact-sheets/sampling-dairy-manure) that describes how to sample dairy manure, including how to make a PVC sampling probe that can be used to sample directly from manure lagoons. The key is to sample from multiple locations around the lagoon and to the full depth of the lagoon. Mix those subsamples in a bucket and collect a representative sample to send to the lab.

Sampling during loading is similar to the procedure for solid manure. Collect at least five samples during the process of loading the spreader. Save these samples in a separate bucket and when finished collecting samples, mix thoroughly and obtain a representative sample to send to the lab. For liquid samples, if the sampling process is going to occur over a period of hours, keep the subsamples on ice to prevent ammonia losses. To sample during spreading for surface application spreaders, place buckets around the field to collect samples. Place buckets to collect samples from multiple spreader loads. Collect samples after each load, keep them on ice to prevent ammonia loss, combine samples, mix thoroughly, and obtain a representative sample to send to the lab.

Penn State University Extension has a very good publication entitled “Manure Sampling for Nutrient Management Planning” that provides information on sampling procedures, sending a sample for analysis, lab test results, and use/interpretation of results. It is available online at https://extension.psu.edu/programs/nutrient-management/educational/manure-storage-and-handling/manure-sampling-for-nutrient-management-planning. Manure sampling requires some forethought and effort to get a reliable nutrient analysis, but it is an important component of a nutrient management plan.
Heat Stress in Dairy Cows

Ms. Morgan Westover, Senior, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

At $900 million a year, heat stress has a large financial burden on the U.S. Dairy Industry (St. Pierre et al., 2003). Therefore, managing heat stress in dairy cows is an important challenge that all producers should be working to overcome. With summer rapidly approaching, it is important to prepare now for the high temperatures that will be seen throughout the next three to four months. Heat stress results when an animal can no longer keep their body temperature low and there is an accumulation of heat load within the animal (Tucker et al., 2019). Usually, this occurs when the primary means of cooling, radiation, conduction, and convection are no longer effective. Heat stress can be detected from elevated body temperature, respiration rate or panting, or environmental monitoring (Tucker et al., 2019). Although the exact threshold an animal becomes heat stressed may vary slightly, a cow with a high heat load will attempt to dissipate heat by sweating, seeking shade, increasing their respiration rate, increasing their time spent standing, consuming less feed, and drinking more (Tucker et al., 2019).

The temperature humidity index (THI) is one example of environmental monitoring for heat stress. THI is shown to have a large negative correlation with dry matter intake (DMI; West, 2003). Milk yield is also negatively impacted as THI rises. With each unit increase on the THI index, it is estimated that milk production drops 0.70 lb/day (West, 2003). This negative effect increases as relative humidity goes up. When relative humidity is 90%, yields from Holstein cows decreased to 69% of normal production (West, 2003). Aside from decreased DMI and lowered milk production, there are also other consequences for a heat stressed animal, such as lowered fertility, potential lameness, and longer calving intervals (Tucker et al., 2019). On the other hand, dry cows also experience negative effects from heat stress. Active cooling during the dry period not only decreases body temperature of the animal but leads to significantly higher milk production during the subsequent lactation, especially during the first 60 days of the lactation (Tao and Dahl, 2013). Like lactating animals, heat stress can also lead to decreased DMI (Tao and Dahl, 2013). In addition, cows that experience heat stress prepartum have reduced development of the mammary gland and less functional mammary cells (Tao and Dahl, 2013).

So, it is important to make sure that your farm is equipped to handle high temperatures this summer. Aside from shading cows, there are a variety of methods to cool cows. Evaporative cooling is one means of cooling cows that is very effective as long as the humidity is not too high (Tucker et al., 2019). Sprinklers are one option to complete this. When utilized every 15 minutes for 1.5 minutes, sprinklers can improve milk production by 11.6% (West 2003). Utilization of fans to increase airflow is also another way to cool cows (West, 2003). Utilizing a combination of both typically provides the most relief from heat and the best cooling (West, 2003). In addition to the types of tools available for heat abatement, producers should also consider where they are utilizing them. It is critical to make sure that heat abatement is utilized in the parlor holding area, along the feed alley, and over free stalls.

With that, it is also vital to make sure that the maintenance of fans and sprinklers is kept up. Debris around fans, belt wear, misalignment of pulleys, and dust accumulation are all signs that fans need some attention. Water lines and nozzles are important areas to check for wear on sprinkler systems. If the facility has a natural ventilation system, it is also essential to ensure that curtains are being opened. Routine checks of these can allow you to get ahead of the heat of summer, as it is important to make sure all fans and sprinklers are up and running and ready to go now before the warm days of June, July, and August are upon us.

References

St. Pierre, N.R., B. Cobanov, and G. Schnitkey. 2003. Economic losses from heat stress by US livestock industries. J. Dairy Sci. 86:E52-E77.

Tao, S., and G. E. Dahl. 2013. Invited Review: Heat stress effects during late gestation on dry cows and their calves. J. Dairy Sci. 96: 4079-4093.

Tucker, C.B., A. Drwencke, J.M. Van Os, G. Tresoldi, and K.E. Schütz. 2019. Detecting and abating heat load in dairy cows. Proc. Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference. The Ohio State University, Columbus. Pages 11-16.

West, J. W. 2003. Effects of heat-stress on production in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 86: 2131-2144.
2019 Dairy Margin Coverage Program – Sign-up Coming Soon!

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Farm Management Field Specialist, The Ohio State University Extension

Occasionally it is nice to catch a break…and breaks have been hard to find in the cow-milking business for a while now. So, put on your mitt because it is nearly time to play ball. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) plans to open the sign-up period on June 17, 2019 for the newly renovated Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) Program, re-named and re-configured in the 2018 Farm Bill. The changes you will see in the DMC Program attempt to fix some of the problems that rendered the Dairy Margin Protection Program largely ineffective until initial adjustments were implemented early in 2018.

Two of the biggest changes that will positively impact farms of all sizes include: 1) adding 3 new margins, $8.50, $9.00 and $9.50, at reasonable premiums, and 2) allowing farms with base production of more than 5 million pounds to make a second margin election for pounds over the first 5 million.

There are also opportunities to recover program participation net losses from 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017. Repayment can be received either as cash (50% of the net loss), or by applying it to premiums for participation in the new program (75% of the net loss). What does this mean? If a farm purchased $6.50 margin coverage in 2016, paid a premium of $3,500 and received a total indemnity payment of $500, they had a $3,000 net loss. The farm can now choose to receive half the difference, or $1,500 as a cash payment. The other option is to receive $2,250, or 75% of the amount, as a credit toward premiums for DMC Program participation. If you participated in any or all of those years, you will receive notification from your Farm Services Agency office with your amounts and options.

So why should you step up to the plate? Just like 2018, when sign-ups were re-opened for the updated program, sign-ups for 2019 will open well after January, but participation will be retroactive to January 1. When the sign-up period opens on June 17, we will know exactly what the margins will be for January ($7.99), February ($8.22), March ($8.85), and April. Signups will end September 20, so you could wait and know what the actual margins are through at least July. As USDA announces new monthly margins, you can find them posted at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/Dairy-MPP/index

No need to wait

For farms with up to 5 million pounds of base production, indemnity payments for January through March more than cover the premiums at the highest margin ($9.50).

Example:

Base milk: 5,000,000 lb (about 200 cows)
Farm elects to cover 95% of their base, 4,750,000 lb, or 47,500 cwt
Coverage level selected: $9.50 margin costing $0.15/cwt
The program assumes that production is equal across months, or 47,500/12 = 3,958 cwt/month.

Because we know the January, February, and March margins, we can calculate the current indemnity payments. These payments are made on the difference between the purchased margin coverage level ($9.50 in this example) and the announced margin, times the monthly cwt covered:

Jan      $1.51 x 3,958 cwt = $5,977
Feb      $1.28 x 3,958 cwt = $5,066
March $0.65 x 3,958 cwt = $2,573
Total payments                 = $13,616

Less
6.2% Sequestration        =     $844
Administration fee          =     $100
Premium                         = $7,125
Difference                       = $5,547 paid to the farm

Since the signup is retroactive to January 1, we know that not only will the known indemnity payments cover all program costs, we also know there will be net positive dollars to help pay a few bills.

How many total net dollars for 2019 is unclear and changing. Two weeks ago, projections indicated that there would be announced margins less than $9.50 well into the summer. If recent milk market rallies hold and show up in milk checks, then there could few or no further indemnity payments. We all hope that that will be the case!

Second election for base pounds over 5 million

A major change that impacts farms with more than 200 cows is the opportunity to make a margin selection for the first 5 million pounds of base milk and a different margin selection for any base over 5 million pounds. The Tier 2 premiums for the > 5 million pounds are substantially higher than premiums for the first 5 million pounds (Table 1). To be allowed to make a second selection, the farm must purchase coverage at $8.50, $9.00, or $9.50 for the first 5 million base pounds (Tier 1 milk and premiums).

Table 1. Tier 1 Margins and Premiums for the Dairy Margin Protection Program (2014 – 2018), and Dairy Margin Coverage Program (2019 – 2022).

Tier 2 premiums are the same as Tier 1 premiums for $4.00, $4.50, and $5.00 margins (Table 2). The premium for the $5.50 Tier 2 margin costs more than three times as much as the corresponding Tier 1 premium, with premiums increasing exponentially until they reach $1.813 for the $8.00 margin. The higher coverage levels quickly become cost prohibitive and are unlikely to make sense for most farms.

However, with the new 2-election option, farms with base production of more than 5 million pounds should seriously consider maximizing coverage in Tier 1 and electing the $4.00, $4.50, or $5.00 margin coverage on their Tier 2 base for 2019.

Table 2. Margins and Tier 1 and Tier 2 Premiums, Dairy Margin Coverage Program, 2018 Farm Bill.

Long-term commitment = 25% off premiums

Another option for farmers to consider as they sign up this year is the 25% premium discount option. There is a large string attached to the 25% discount, as you have to commit to your election for 5 years.

Decision Tool

How to make a decision? Particularly if you are considering the five-year commitment, use the decision tool developed by Mark Stephenson and crew at the University of Wisconsin. The new DMC Decision Tool, which incorporates the changes legislated in the 2018 Farm Bill, is now up and running at https://dairymarkets.org. This is a very handy tool that allows farmers to enter their historic production (still starts with the highest of 2011, 2012, or 2013 production – verify your current production history with your FSA office) and explore the cost and potential returns of different coverage percentages and levels. It will lay out your costs for 2019 participation, expected payment, and also lay out the premium with the 25% discount and total 5-year cost if you want to consider that option.

There is also a button to plug in your MPP Premium Repayment amount supplied to you by your FSA office. It will tell you how much you could receive as a cash payment and how much of your current selection’s premium would be covered if you chose that option. The decision tool’s milk and feed price data are updated nearly daily, so you may receive different “expected payment” results depending on what the markets are doing.

OSU Extension and FSA offices will be working together and offering educational programs before and early in the sign-up period to review the changes and options for farmers. Look at the options for your farm. Batter up.
Dairy Palooza 2019

Mrs. Bonnie Ayars, Extension Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

It all began with a simple idea cultivated by loyal volunteers. However, the only way Dairy Palooza comes to life is the constant stream of donors, supporters, advisors, parents, and the enthusiasm of every participant! On April 27th, the Canfield Fairgrounds was the host site of our 9th consecutive version of this innovative program. It was a sunny day and the hospitality was even brighter as nearly 400 people were in attendance! With quality assurance training and a session on writing thank-yous in the morning, we also offered special sessions for adults. Lunch included a special recognition for the Grammers and their initial “leap of faith” when they agreed to host our very first version of the program in 2011. Time was set aside for everyone to show off those Palooza shirts and capture the group photo.

There was something for everyone in the afternoon sessions. Each 45-minute rotation offered a wide range of topics. There was science and an experiment for Milk in Motion and yet a barnyard display offered the opportunity and training on cattle movement and animal welfare. Dr. Bob, a perennial favorite, kept everyone involved and having fun. Of course, the traditional showmanship, clipping and fitting demos, and artificial insemination basics were on the agenda. Kids also could learn more about connecting with consumers and first-aid as it relates to farm safety. Dairy feeders and goats also had time on the program. Our presenters are the best of the best, including OSU faculty, Extension educators, a registered nurse, and industry professionals who work hard to include a variety of hands-on activities. Even Cloverbuds had their own identity with a fun-filled program that transformed them into caped, super cow crusaders.

At the closing, two lucky individuals were drawn for $50 Amazon gift cards and others had their tickets drawn for door prizes. The semen raffle winners were also announced and pleased to collect their $100 gift certificates.

Beyond the teaching and learning, all participants go home with a folder filled with materials, a souvenir t-shirt, a first-aid kit, a clipboard, and a heavy canvas bag so all is kept in order.

Dairy Palooza has its own Facebook and web page with special branding and logos developed over the years. Check these social media sources often for updates. Come be a part of our special First Decade celebration in 2020!

Dairy Palooza 2019 group photo.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk prices: the surge to $16/cwt

In the last issue, the Class III futures for January and February were at $13.80 and $14.00/cwt, respectively. The Class III component prices for the month of January and February closed at similar prices of $13.96 and $13.89/cwt. The Class III future for March is similar to January and February component prices at $13.78/cwt followed by a jump to $15.09/cwt in April.

The $1.25/cwt jump for the April Class III advanced price is like a ray of sunshine in what has been a field of darkness for the dairy industry. For nearly all of 2018, the Class III price averaged around $14.50/cwt. The beginning of 2019 has not been any better, and prices have averaged less than $14/cwt. However, this increase in the Class III price over $15/cwt should be the beginning of a surge to $16/cwt. Looking at Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Class III futures, they are trading at or above $16/cwt starting in July and for the remainder of 2019. If the CME futures are right, this would be good because $16/cwt is what I would consider breaking even based on current feed prices. Whether prices can surge far beyond $16/cwt is a tossup and will largely depend on if total milk production starts to decline in the U.S., which is likely given steady decreases in total cow numbers.

Nutrient prices

When looking at commodity and nutrient prices, they are about the same as the previous issue. For MP, its current value has decreased $0.03/lb from January’s issue ($0.45/lb), whereas the cost of NE_Lis similar to January (5.8¢/Mcal). The price of e-NDF and ne-NDF are also close to last month at 7.8¢/lb and -2¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For this issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows is about $8.23/cwt and $8.60/cwt, respectively. These IONC are better than what I estimated in January ($8.07/cwt and $8.45/cwt, respectively). These IONC may also be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows. Nonetheless, current IONC suggests profits for dairy farmers in Ohio are still less than breaking even.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 24, 2019.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on March 24, 2019 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, March 24, 2019.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in price) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, March 24, 2019.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground dry	Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn silage	Feather meal	Beet pulp
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	Blood meal
Gluten feed	Soybean hulls	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Hominy	48% Soybean meal	Citrus pulp
Meat meal	Whole cottonseed	41% Cottonseed meal
Soybean meal - expeller	Wheat bran	Fish meal
Wheat middlings	Whole, roasted soybeans	Molasses
		Solvent extracted canola meal
		44% Soybean meal
		Tallow

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, March 24, 2019.

Early-Spring Planted Forages for Dairy Farms

Dr. Mark Sulc, Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science and Dr. Bill Weiss, Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Challenging growing conditions in 2018 left many dairy farms looking at short forage supplies heading into the 2019 growing season. So, what are the options for short-season forages planted in early spring this year?

Before we discuss short-season forage options, it should be emphasized that corn silage is the number one choice for an annual forage in terms of overall yield and nutritive value.

If forage is needed before corn silage can be ready, acceptable short-season forages for dairy cows include spring oats, spring triticale, spring barley, and Italian ryegrass planted in early spring and harvested at the proper stage of maturity this summer (Table 1).

Oats are commonly grown in Ohio and are better than barley adapted to cool wet soils. Forage varieties have been developed and are marketed.

Spring barley will usually produce tonnage that is a little lower than oats or triticale and is best established on well-drained soils that are not heavy textured. Barley is the earliest maturing of the small grains planted in the spring.

Spring triticale is a cross between wheat and rye and is well-adapted to a range of soils. It has better tolerance to low soil pH than wheat but not as good as rye.

Italian ryegrass is usually biennial in longevity, so it can usually produce some forage into the second year, depending on winter conditions. It establishes as quickly as the small grain species and can provide high yields of high-quality forage. It will produce forage ready for harvest in 60 days from seeding and then throughout the first year on about 25 to 30-day intervals.

Agronomic Management

Plant high quality seed of a named variety to avoid unpleasant surprises. For mixtures of small grains, the seeding rate of each component can be reduced to 70% of the full rate. Forage peas can be included in the mixture to increase crude protein content, but peas are generally higher in seed cost.

Small grains can be planted about 1.5 inches deep as early in the spring as soil conditions allow. Italian ryegrass should be planted any time after April 1 and by May 1 at no more than 0.5-inch deep. A burn-down application of glyphosate is a cost-effective weed control practice prior to planting. For small grains, nitrogen may be needed at 30 to 50 lb/acre at planting. Manure applications can replace some or all the N fertilizer need, depending on the amount of readily available N in the manure. When growing Italian ryegrass, additional nitrogen (~50 lb/acre) will be needed after the first or second harvest.

Nutritional Value and Yields

When harvested at similar stages of maturity, the nutrient composition of the different small grains is similar, i.e., maturity affects composition more than does species. The nutritional value of small grain forage declines rapidly with increasing maturity. Small grain forage harvested in the pre-boot stage has about 20% crude protein (CP; varies with how much N fertilizer applied), 40% NDF, 30% ADF, and in vitro digestibility of about 80%. Compared to corn silage, small grain forage harvested in the boot stage has energy concentrations similar to corn silage but greater concentrations of CP. Small grain forage (boot stage) has more energy and about the same CP content as high-quality alfalfa. At the milk stage, CP averages 12%, NDF averages 48%, ADF averages 35%, and in vitro digestibility averages 62%. In the milk stage, small grains typically have about 10% less energy than corn silage but 3 to 4 percentage units more CP than corn silage. Compared with alfalfa, milk stage small grain forage has about the same energy content but lower CP. When harvested in the boot stage, dry matter (DM) yields should range between 1.5 and 2.5 tons/acre. When harvested at the milk stage, yields range from 3 to 4 tons/acre.

Italian ryegrass trials planted in central Ohio produced yields from 2.5 to 4.6 tons/acre of DM in the first year and from 1.0 to 4.5 tons/acre in the second year. Types known as true Italian types will usually have little to no reproductive growth in the first year and will produce higher quality forage than true annual types. Italian ryegrass generally has NDF concentrations around 50% and CP concentrations between 12 and 16%. Invitro NDF digestibility is high. When fed as the sole forage in a diet, milk production will not be as good compared to cows fed corn silage-based diets, but when it comprised 15 to 20% of diet DM, milk production, milk composition, and feed efficiency was good. It often is very high in potassium so it is important to ensure cows are fed adequate supplemental magnesium.

The harvested forage should be tested, and the lab nutritional values used in balancing rations that incorporate these supplemental forages.

Harvesting/Grazing

Stage of maturity at harvesting will greatly affect the yield and forage nutritive value, as mentioned above. Chopping and ensiling or wet wrapping are the best mechanical harvest alternatives for these supplemental forages. Dry baling is especially a challenge for small grains because the small grains dry about half as fast as grass hay. Ryegrasses are also slower to dry than other grasses. When using seed treated with fungicides, observe harvest and grazing restrictions on the label.

Grazing can provide an effective and affordable alternative for utilizing the forage. Strip grazing can be an option for dry cows or heifers. Small grain forages can cause bloat if the growth is young and lush, so feeding high quality grass hay, silage and/or a bloat preventative can provide some protection. Remove lactating dairy animals from small grain pastures two hours before milking to reduce the problem of off-flavored milk.

Summary

Short-season annual forages can be planted in early spring to produce good yields and high-quality supplemental forage. Proper management in planting, and especially harvest timing and storing, will greatly affect the overall quality of the feed. Small grains harvested in the boot to milk stage stored as silage are acceptable forages for dairy cows. Italian ryegrass harvested 60 days after seeding and on 25 to 30-day intervals thereafter can also produce acceptable forage for dairy cows. Farmers should have the forages tested and balance the diet according to the test results. Yields are typically lower than alfalfa or corn silage. Small grain forage harvested in the boot stage is similar in energy to corn silage and similar in CP to alfalfa. At the milk stage, small grain forage has about 10% less energy than corn silage (similar to alfalfa) and about 4 percentage units more CP than corn silage.

Table 1. Guidelines for seeding rates, seeding dates, average yield, and nutritive value ranges for various annual forage silages. Yield and nutritive value ranges are for silage, which vary greatly with maturity stage at harvest. Generally, for hay expect lower CP and higher NDF values.

Forage crop	Seeding rate (lb/acre)	Planting dates¹	Dry matter yield (ton/acre)	CP (%)	NDF (%)
Corn silage	28-34k²	4/20 - 6/15	5.0 - 9.0	6 - 9	38 - 50
Spring oats	75-100	3/15-4/15 or 8/1-9/7	2.5-3.5 or 0.8-3.0	10-16	52-65
Spring barley	100-120	3/15-4/15	1.8-2.3	10-15	52-65
Spring triticale	90-110	3/15-4/15 or 8/1-9/7	2.5-3.5 or 0.8-3.0	10-18	50-65
Italian ryegrass	20-25	4/1-5/1 or 8/1-9/7	2.5-4.0 (spr. seeded)	12-16	50-60

¹Planting date range for Ohio. In southern Ohio, the spring dates should be in the early range, and in the fall, they can be in the later range.
²28,000 to 34,000 seeds per acre; seed companies provide hybrid specific planting rates.

Assessing Winter Damage and Evaluating Alfalfa Stand Health

Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County and Mark Sulc, Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

The winter of 2019 has been characterized by a lot of variability including large temperature swings, snow cover, no snow cover, rain, sleet, and ice. One constant for most areas of the state is that soils have remained wet and/or saturated throughout the fall and winter periods. Add all of this together and there is the potential for some significant winter injury. Forage growers should plan to spend time assessing winter damage and evaluating the health of their forage stands, particularly alfalfa stands. Assessment and stand health evaluation can begin once plants start to green up and produce 2 to 4 inches of growth.

One of the primary concerns is the possibility of heaving damage. Tap rooted crops, such as alfalfa and red clover, are particularly susceptible to heaving damage. Conditions that increase the likelihood of heaving are wet, saturated clay soils with high shrink/swell potential, exposed to rapid freeze/thaw cycles. During these conditions, plants can be physically lifted (heaved) out of the soil, exposing the crown of the plant to possible low temperature damage and/or physical injury from harvest operations. In severe cases, the plant can be heaved several inches or more out of the soil, breaking the taproot and killing the plant.

Forage stand health evaluation includes stem counts and digging plant roots. Select random sites throughout the field and evaluate the plants in a one-foot square area. Check at least one site for every 5 to 10 acres. Increasing the number of random samples provides a more accurate assessment. Begin your stand health evaluation by counting the number of stems per crown. Do this evaluation in at least 4 to 5 random locations for every 20 to 25 acres. Stem density counts provide an indication of the yield potential of the stand. The following table is taken from University of Wisconsin Extension publication A 3620; “Alfalfa Stand Assessment: Is this stand good enough to keep?”

Stem number/square foot	Expected result or action
Over 55	Stem density not limiting yield
40 to 55	Some yield reduction expected
Less than 39	Consider stand replacement

While you are counting stems, take note of where growth is taking place. Healthy plants have symmetrical, even growth on both sides of the crown. Damaged plants often have more stems on one side of the plant than the other.

While plant and stem counts are useful to get a true determination of stand health, crown and root tissues should be evaluated to provide an indication of how the plant will hold up to stresses in the coming growing season. This involves digging up plants and splitting the crowns/roots. Dig up five to six plants in those 4 to 5 random locations per 20 to 25 acres. Split the plant open. A healthy root will have a creamy white color and no to very little discoloration in the crown and taproot. These are the plants that have numerous shoots and the shoots are evenly distributed across the crown of the plant.

Discolored crowns and roots indicate a plant health problem. They are a darker white, tending towards a tan color. There may be obvious areas of root rot and crown rot that are dark brown to black in color. There may be streaks of brown running down the root. These plants typically have fewer stems coming out of the crown and those stems may tend to be more numerous on one side of the crown as compared to the other. Generally, these plants green up in the spring of the year and appear productive, but because of their compromised root system, they may not survive the entire production year, especially if we have a hot, dry year.

In general, if more than 30% of the split roots have brown streaks running down the root and/or black areas of root/crown rot that cover greater than 30 to 50% of the roots diameter, then yield potential is significantly reduced. The grower may want to consider alternative production options, such as terminating the stand after first cutting and planting to corn for silage or possibly to a warm season annual forage crop, such as sudangrass or a sorghum x sudangrass. The previously mentioned University of Wisconsin publication has a root health rating system, along with color photo illustrations, that can be used to make a root health assessment (https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/alfalfa-stand-assessment-is-this-stand-good-enough-to-keep/).

Taking the time to assess the extent of winter injury to forage and to do a stand health evaluation will allow the grower to determine the yield potential of the stand and whether or not the stand needs to be replaced at some point this year.

Staying Connected with the OSU Dairy Working Group

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

OSU Extension Dairy Working Group works hard to meet the needs of dairy farmers in every corner of Ohio. Over the past year, we have been working to connect better with dairy farmers in every corner of the State more often using Facebook and YouTube. As we conduct programs around the state, we have been recording them to post on our YouTube page “OSU Extension Dairy Working Group”. We also post these program recordings and articles that we have written to our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/OhioDairyIndustryResourcesCenter/ Some of the latest programs we have posted include: feed cost control, fattening up the milk check, and farm transition. We also share national Extension dairy education programs on our Facebook page; follow us to stay up-to-date on programs we are doing around the State. If you are looking for other dairy resources visit https://dairy.osu.edu/
Media Release: Agersens to Work with Ohio State University to Test eShepherd in US Beef and Dairy Industries

Agersens and The Ohio State University have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that paves the way for the two organizations to implement research trials to determine the efficacy and economics of the eShepherd system for local conditions.

eShepherd is a smart collar system for livestock, enabling cattle producers to create “virtual fences” and use their smart device to remotely fence, move and monitor their livestock around the clock from anywhere in the world.

Ian Reilly, CEO of Agersens, said the team at The Ohio State University had the expertise and knowledge the company needed to better understand local cattle and dairy markets and determine how virtual fencing technology can help Ohio farmers get the most out of their land and livestock.

“eShepherd is set to revolutionize livestock management by unlocking value from the digital transformation of the American beef and dairy industries and will make farming more efficient, more manageable and less labor intensive,” said Mr. Reilly.

“Farmers in Ohio understand that improved grazing control creates more productive, profitable properties and are eager to adopt technologies that enable controlled grazing without the associated time constraints and labor costs.”

This latest MoU comes on the heels of similar Memorandums struck with the University of Idaho and Kansas State University last year, as well as an extended collaboration agreement with the CSIRO formalized last November.

Land-Grant Universities in the United States have a unique role in providing farm extension services through their agricultural education mission for agricultural producers. In contrast such services are typically offered by Australian state government agriculture departments and Research and Development Corporations.

“Ohio State will be seeking to add eShepherd to their kit of extension service technologies that can help farmers increase their efficiency and maximize productivity,” Mr. Reilly said.

Dr. John Foltz, Chair of the Department of Animal Sciences at Ohio State, recognizes the technological and economic opportunities that eShepherd brings to Departmental research faculty and livestock producers in Ohio.

“The virtual fence is an exciting technology, which we hope to utilize in numerous research projects to understand its potential as a livestock management tool,” said Dr. Foltz.

“It appears to have some very unique capabilities and also generates large amounts of precision livestock data, which will be valuable to our research scientists.”

The transformative eShepherd technology uses a GPS-enabled, solar-powered smart collar containing a CSIRO-developed algorithm and an audio cue to train cattle to stay within their prescribed virtual boundary.

The ability of the GPS-enabled collars to monitor and move the herd in real-time using mobile technology appealed to Animal Sciences Associate Chair, Dr. Anthony Parker.

“The position of the cattle can be observed in real-time from the office on a tablet or computer. The technology has many practical applications for cattle producers in Ohio from avoiding riparian, protected or overgrazed areas to moving cattle over a landscape to ensure an even grazing pressure,” said Dr. Parker.

“The e-Shepherd technology fits within existing research being undertaken at The Jackson Agricultural Research Station and the Eastern Agricultural Research Station with global positioning systems to better understand cattle behavior.”

The eShepherd virtual fencing technology was patented by the CSIRO and licensed exclusively to Agersens worldwide. The business has already received orders for thousands of eShepherd collars in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada and the UK.

End of Media Release

About Agersens

Headquartered in Melbourne, Agersens is an innovative agritech company revolutionizing livestock production globally by applying virtual fencing technology developed by CSIRO – to which Agersens holds the worldwide exclusive license.

The Agersens team includes engineers, beef and dairy producers, animal behavior and welfare scientists and business leaders committed to delivering this important innovation globally.

Global partners include Ohio State University, Kansas State University, University of Idaho, the CSIRO, State and Federal Governments, Meat & Livestock Australia, Dairy Australia, agricultural research organizations, cattle and dairy farmer associations and natural resource managers.

About The Ohio State University

For 149 years, The Ohio State University's campus in Columbus has been the stage for academic achievement and a laboratory for innovation. The university's main campus is one of America's largest and most comprehensive.

As Ohio's best and one of the nation's top-20 public universities, Ohio State is further recognized by a top-rated academic medical center and a premier cancer hospital and research center. As a land-grant university, Ohio State has a physical presence throughout the state, with campuses and research centers located around Ohio.

The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) is a large, diverse college supporting 10 academic units, the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University Extension, and two-year degree programs offered by the Agricultural Technical Institute.

The college has campuses in Columbus and Wooster and has a presence in all 88 Ohio counties. It serves as the home for 330 faculty, more than 4,100 undergraduate and graduate students, and 1,230 staff.

The Department of Animal Sciences at The Ohio State University is housed within the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. Research in the Department of Animal Sciences aims to increase the economic profitability of agricultural animals and quality of their products, improve animal welfare, and lessen the environmental impact of animal systems.

Media enquiries: Agersens
                          Marcus Tainsh
                          Pesel & Carr (on behalf of Agersens)
                          E marcus.tainsh@peselandcarr.com.au
                          P +613 9036 6900
                          M +61 421 717 252

Media enquiries: The Ohio State University
                           Amber Robinson
                           The Ohio State University
                           E robinson.1965@osu.edu
                           P 614-688-1083
Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge

Ms. Morgan Westover, Senior, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The 2019 Midwest Dairy Challenge was hosted by the University of Illinois in Freeport, Illinois and it took place from February 13^th to 15^th. Coach Dr. Maurice Eastridge took eight students from Ohio State: Paul Bensman, Hannah Dye, Katia Hardman, Hunter Meese, Sarah Schuster, Kate Sherman, Morgan Westover, and Megan Whalin. The students were put in teams with students from other universities. From the participants, Hunter Meese’s team placed first in their division and Megan Whalin’s team placed second in their division. The three-day program included educational sessions regarding topics such as robotic milking, farm financials, and farm evaluation tools. The main contest took place at three area farms who graciously allowed their farms to be used as models for the event.

As a student, the contest was an excellent opportunity for me to learn how to evaluate management practices on a dairy farm. I attended the Midwest Dairy Challenge in 2018 and 2019. We worked in teams of four, with individuals from other schools to evaluate the farm’s management, cow health, reproductive program, nutrition, replacement program, and financials. As a team, we then identify areas that the farm is performing well in and areas that have opportunity for improvement that would allow increased efficiency and financial viability. This information is compiled into a report which is presented to a panel of industry professionals. It is a great example of applied learning because it has allowed me to utilize knowledge and information that I have gained from classes at Ohio State and apply and problem solve on a farm. Not only did I utilize knowledge gained from a multitude of different classes, but it also provided me with the opportunity to work with students from other universities and technical schools throughout the Midwest. From this, we combined a variety of ideas into the best report possible, all the while learning from each other and working as a team.

The Midwest Dairy Challenge provided a great opportunity to learn more about dairy farming and herd management, but it also served as a great opportunity to learn from and network with industry professionals. All the skills and knowledge I gained from participating in Dairy Challenge have served as a catalyst for me to become more involved in the industry. They set me up for success in my previous internships and are certain to propel me forward in my future career. I am very thankful for the support from the event sponsors and industry professionals. Because of them, I have been able to reap many benefits from the continued learning and experience that Dairy Challenge has provided me over the years. It has been a great extension to my education that has allowed me to develop a better understanding of the dairy industry and how to be a successful contributor to it.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Mr. Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Low Milk Prices: How Long Will This Last?

In the last issue, the Class III component prices for November and December were at $15.52 and $14.50/cwt., respectively. The Class III component prices for the month of November and December actually closed much lower at $14.44 and $13.78/cwt. Class III futures for January and February are about the same as December component prices at $13.80 and $14.00/cwt. Overall, current milk prices are not good, and producers will have to continue pinching pennies if they want to make any money.

Historically, it is not abnormal for milk prices to temporarily go down during the beginning of the year. However, producers can partially counteract low milk prices because the beginning of the year is also when cows should be producing the largest volumes of milk and milk components. These trends then suggest that milk prices will start to increase in March and April as milk production plateaus. But, how much will they increase?

According to some economists and the USDA, the 2019 milk price is predicted to be around $1/cwt more than 2018 (OH Class III average of $14.60/cwt). This is primarily because steady, above average beef prices are encouraging US cow numbers, and therefore, total milk supply to both decrease. The USDA forecast also predicts domestic demand to be fairly stable in the future. Looking at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange futures, they are currently trading around $15.40/cwt, which also suggests that the $1/cwt greater forecast for 2019 could be accurate. If I were to guess, I expect the Class III milk price to stay under $15/cwt until May or June and then go over $16/cwt by the end of summer.

Nutrient Prices Continue to be Low

When looking at commodity and nutrient prices on a historical basis, they are low. For MP, its current value has increased $0.05/lb from November’s issue ($0.39/lb) but is slowly approaching the 5 year average ($0.48/lb). The cost of NE_Lis 1¢/Mcal lower than November (6.7¢/Mcal) and about half as expensive as the 5-year average (11¢/Mcal). The price of e-NDF and ne-NDF are not very different from last month at 7.6¢/lb and -1¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively, which are also close to their 5-year averages (7¢/lb and -2¢/lb).

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For this issue, the income over nutrient costs (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $8.07/cwt and $8.45/cwt, respectively. If we use current fat and protein averages for Ohio dairy farms (4.0% fat and 3.25% protein), the IONC are better at $8.74/cwt and $9.11/cwt. Regardless, these IONC are worse than November ($9.78/cwt and $10.17/cwt, respectively). These IONC may also be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows; however, they should be profitable when greater than about $9/cwt. This suggests profits for dairy farmers in Ohio are currently at or below breaking even.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, January 27, 2019.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on January 27, 2019 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, January 27, 2019.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in price) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, January 27, 2019.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Bakery Byproducts	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn silage	Beet pulp	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Distillers dried grains	Blood meal	Citrus pulp
Gluten feed	41% Cottonseed meal	Fish meal
Hominy	Feather meal	Molasses
Meat meal	Gluten meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Soybean meal - expeller	Soybean hulls	44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings	48% Soybean meal	Tallow
	Whole cottonseed	Whole, roasted soybeans
	Wheat bran

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, January 27, 2019.

Cold Weather Dairy Calf Care

Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

Cold winter weather presents some additional challenges to keeping dairy calves healthy, comfortable and growing. The biggest challenge is the increased nutritional requirement for body maintenance, especially for dairy calves in unheated facilities. Nutritional maintenance is what is required to keep all body systems functioning normally while maintaining a healthy body temperature and neither gaining nor losing weight. Cold weather nutrition requires understanding the concept of lower critical temperature. Lower critical temperature is the lower boundary below which the animal needs additional nutrients, primarily energy, to meet maintenance requirements. If the nutrient level is not increased, then the animal must burn fat reserves to meet the need. The lower critical temperature for calves from birth to 7 days of age is 55°F. Between 7 and 30 days of age, the lower critical temperature is in the 48 to 50°F range. For older calves, the lower critical temperature increases to 32°F.

Cold weather nutrition for young calves is critical for a couple of reasons. One is the fact that calves are born with only two to four percent of their body weight as fat. This means that if diets are not meeting maintenance needs, the calf can quickly burn up fat reserves. Calves stop growing and worse, the immune system of the calf becomes compromised leading to sickness. Livestock depend upon an insulating hair coat to provide protection from the cold and to moderate that lower critical temperature. That is one reason that the lower critical temperature for older calves is higher as compared to younger calves, but it takes time and energy to grow and develop that hair coat. Breed of calf will also influence cold weather nutritional requirements because small breed calves, for example, Jerseys, have approximately 20% larger surface area per unit of body weight than a large breed calf, such as a Holstein.

A rule of thumb for feeding calves housed in unheated conditions in cold weather is that for every 10°F below 32°F, the calf needs 10% more milk to meet its nutritional needs. At 0°F, this requires 32% more milk. The best strategy to meet this need is to add an additional feeding. For example, if normally the calf is fed 3 quarts twice a day, add an additional 2-quart feeding. If milk replacer is used, it should contain at least 20% protein or in the 26 to 28% range for accelerated growth programs. The fat content should be at least 15%, and higher fat content milk replacers of up to 20% fat are preferred as temperatures decline. The solids content of liquid milk replacer can be increased in cold weather from a typical 12.5 to 16%, but be careful in going above this content as diarrhea can result, and recognize that the calf may not be receiving enough water. Always offer calves clean, fresh water in addition to milk or milk replacer. Another key to feeding calves in cold weather is to provide all liquids at 105°F target temperature for consumption. With regard to free-choice water, this means offering water several times per day in cold weather. Beginning a few days after birth, offer calves free access to a calf starter grain mix with a minimum protein content of 18%.

There are a couple of other management practices that help to increase calf comfort and aid in keeping calves growing and healthy in cold weather and these involve bedding, providing extra layers of cold protection and ventilation. Straw is the best bedding choice for calves. To provide the most effective thermal insulation, it has to be deep and dry. Calves can nestle down into the straw during cold weather. The goal is to provide enough bedding so that when the calf is nestled down, you don’t see its legs. Dryness is important to keeping the calf warm. Test the dryness of the bedding by kneeling down into it. If your knees get wet, more bedding is needed. Calf jackets offer a good option to add another layer of insulation and cold protection for calves, especially calves under a month of age. Calf jackets should have a water repellent outer shell, an insulation that wicks moisture away from the calf, fit the calf well, be easy to wash and dry, and constructed to withstand outdoor environments. Do not forget about ventilation during winter months in closed structures. The goal is to provide adequate air turnover to prevent ammonia accumulation while avoiding any direct drafts on the calf. A general recommendation for winter weather is four air exchanges per hour.

Cold weather calf care requires more time and labor, but it is necessary to keep calves comfortable, healthy, and growing.

Dairy Cost of Production

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Sadly, milking cows in 2018 was like a flashback to 2016. The average Class III price plus the Federal Order 33 Producer Price Differential (the Statistical Uniform Price or SUP) for 2018 was $15.21/cwt…a whopping 18¢ higher than 2016. 2017 provided a small measure of relief with the SUP averaging $16.57/cwt.

How much are you paying for the privilege of milking cows?

Sadly, more cows and more milk in domestic and foreign markets, as well as a relatively strong dollar and uncertain policy, continue to wreak havoc on milk markets.

Controlling expenses continues to be an important factor in the search for short and long-term profitability of dairy farms. The challenge continues to be controlling costs without negatively affecting production, reproduction, growth, and animal and personnel welfare. With that in mind, regular review of overall costs is in order.

The more things change…

The more they stay the same. Feed, labor, depreciation, and supplies were the top four expenses for all farms and the top 20% of farms in 2017 (Table 1). These were consistently the top four expenses for the last four years.

What is the take home? For most herds, the four highest costs will be feed, labor, depreciation, and supplies. How much potential - and realistic - savings are there for your farm? We cannot cut costs only to negatively impact current and future health and production.

Depreciation of machinery, equipment, and buildings is a hard number to change. This number (7% of the cost-basis balance sheet inventory value for machinery and equipment, 15% for titled vehicles, and 5% for buildings and improvements) represents normal wear, tear, and use of these items in the course of business for the year. The biggest opportunity to impact that number is before machinery, equipment, and buildings are purchased. Is a purchase a want or a need? Is it realistic to expect cows to pay for this item or improvement? How much will it cost per cwt or per cow? What benefits and economic returns will it provide?

The best tools for comparing your farm to other Ohio farms are the benchmark reports included in the Ohio Dairy Enterprise Analysis Summaries which can be found at http://farmprofitability.osu.edu. Directions on the charts explain their use. Bottom line, you can see the range of income and expense items for other Ohio farms. Specifically, these allow farms to set realistic goals for trimming expenses.

Combine this review with an evaluation of net return per cow. Is it positive? This has been a challenge for farms in this extended down price cycle. If it is positive, is it high enough to cover all the demands for principal, family living, income taxes, etc.? Finding the balance will be the ongoing challenge for today’s dairy farm businesses.

Choose 2019 to be the year you focus on really knowing your farm business’s numbers. Money may be tight, but the $100 invested in analyzing your 2018 business year will be the best $100 you spend this year. Technicians are available to work with farms now through the end of May. Contact Dianne Shoemaker at shoemaker.3@osu.edu or 330-533-5538 to get started.

Table 1. Average expenses, dollars per hundredweight, and percent of total direct and indirect expenses, for 25 conventional Ohio farms and high 20%¹of farms, Ohio, 2017²

	Avg. all Farms	% Total Expenses³	High 20%	% Total Expenses
Feed	$9.58	51.15	$9.33	52.74
Hired Labor	2.44	13.03	1.59	8.99
Breeding Fees	0.36	1.92	0.45	2.54
Veterinary	0.63	3.36	0.55	3.11
Supplies	0.82	4.38	0.78	4.41
Contract Production	0.51	2.72	0.24	1.36
Fuel & Oil	0.27	1.44	0.23	1.30
Repairs	0.52	2.78	0.37	2.09
Custom Hire	0.29	1.55	0.25	1.41
Utilities	0.44	2.35	0.41	2.32
Hauling & Trucking	0.58	3.10	0.55	3.11
Marketing	0.33	1.76	0.62	3.50
Bedding	0.35	1.87	0.22	1.24
Total Direct Expenses	$17.12		$15.59
Farm Insurance	0.14	0.70	0.14	0.80
Depreciation	0.75	4.00	1.26	7.12
Interest	0.41	2.19	0.49	2.77
Miscellaneous	0.32	1.70	0.21	1.19
Total Overhead Expenses (OH)	$1.61		$2.10

Total Direct & OH Expenses	$18.73		$17.69

¹Farms sorted by net return per cow.
²Ohio Farm Business Summary Dairy Enterprise Analysis,
including Benchmark Reports 2017; The Ohio State University.
³Percent of total direct and overhead expenses.

Considerations When Fat-Reduced Corn-Distillers Grain with Solubles Is Fed to Dairy Cows

Dr. Chanhee Lee, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Corn dried distillers grains with solubles (DG) is a common feed ingredient for lactating cows due to its high protein and fiber contents. Because of its lower price compared with soybean meal (SBM), inclusion of DG in a diet can lower feed costs. However, production responses to a DG diet can vary dependent upon its inclusion rate. Typical DG contains high fat (10 to 13% on a dry matter (DM) basis) and polyunsaturated fatty acids. So, if a diet includes high DG (20 - 30% of dietary DM), feed intake and fiber digestibility can be negatively affected and milk fat depression of cows often occurs.

Reduced-fat corn dried distillers grains with solubles (RFDG; 5 to 8% fat on a DM basis) are another type of DG and produced by partial fat removal from DG. Because of low fat content of RFDG, negative effects that were observed with DG (e.g., milk fat depression) are assumed to be alleviated when RFDG are fed compared with DG. However, little information is available about RFDG, such as its safe inclusion rate without affecting production of lactating dairy cows. According to a few previous studies, RFDG was included in dairy rations up to 30% (DM basis) by replacing SBM, corn, and/or some forages and did not have negative effects on production of dairy cows (e.g., feed intake, milk yield, and milk fat yield). However, most experiments were conducted in a short-term Latin square design (2 weeks of diet adaptation followed by 1 week of production observation). Therefore, we conducted an experiment to examine effects of RFDG at about 30% in dietary DM on production of dairy cows. In this experiment, 12 cows per treatment were used and production was monitored for 11 weeks.

In this experiment, the diet containing SBM and soyhulls was used as Control and RFDG replaced the soybean products for the 30% RFDG diet. Although the 30% RFDG diet did not affect milk yield (Table 1), it significantly decreased milk fat and protein yields. Importantly, the decrease in DM intake and milk fat yield became severe as the experiment progressed (11 weeks). In this experiment, although the inclusion of RFDG in a diet replacing SBM lowered feed cost, the income from milk and component yields also decreased due to milk fat and protein depression (Ohio prices of feeds and milk components when the experiment was conducted in 2017 were used). As a result, the income-over-feed-cost was lower for cows fed the 30% RFDG diet compared with the SBM diet. This experiment indicates that inclusion of RFDG in a ration at 30% (DM basis) can negatively affect production of cows, especially milk fat, and may decrease producers’ profits. The full version of the experiment can be found in the Journal of Dairy Science (2018; 101:5971-5983).

If RFDG is available as a feed ingredient in your farm, the following are the tips that you may need to keep in mind and check before and during feeding RFDG to your cows. First, producers need to know what type of corn distillers grain with solubles they have (DG or RFDG). Potential risk of negative production effects (e.g., milk fat depression) is lower for RFDG compared to DG because of lower fat concentration when included at the same level in a ration. However, when purchased, corn distillers grain with solubles may not be labeled as DG or RFDG. Then, check the fat level on the tag and if the fat level is below 8%, then it is RFDG. Second, if what you have is RFDG, we suggest it to be included at a maximum of 15 to 20% in a ration (DM basis). A diet with 25% of RFDG may be okay, but this needs scientific confirmation. Third, when you include RFDG in a diet, monitor production of your cows closely (feed intake, milk yield, and milk fat yield) for at least 5 to 6 weeks. In our study, the decreases in DM intake and milk fat yield of cows fed the 30% RFDG diet become more severe as the experiment progressed, indicating that negative production effects may not be realized in the first 2 to 4 weeks. Fourth, if your ration contains monensin, be careful when RFDG is included in the ration. Inclusion of monensin in the 30% RFDG diet further decreased feed intake, milk yield, and milk fat yield compared to the control diet in our study (Table 1).

Table 1. Dry matter intake and production of lactating Holstein cows fed a diet containing about 30% reduced fat distillers grain (RFDG) with or without monensin.

Diet
Items	Control	30% RFDG	30% RFDG with monensin
Dry matter intake, lb/day	58.1	55.9	53.7
Milk yield, lb/day	89.8	90.9	86.2
3.5% Fat-corrected milk yield, lb/day	94.2	83.8	75.9
Milk fat, lb/day	3.41	2.71	2.38
Milk protein, lb/day	2.90	2.81	2.64

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the Class III component price for July and August were similar at $14.10 and $14.95/cwt, respectively. For the month of September, the Class III future was projected to decrease slightly to $14.85/cwt and then jump almost a $1.50/cwt to $16.33/cwt in October. The Class III component price for the month of September and October closed at $16.09 and $15.53/cwt, respectively. Class III futures for November are about the same at $15.52/cwt followed by a $1/cwt drop in December to $14.50/cwt.

Nutrient Prices

Per usual, commodity and nutrient prices are down. For MP, its current value has increased $0.03/lb from September’s issue ($0.35/lb) and is about 23% lower than the 5 year average ($0.48/lb). The cost of NE_Lis about the same as September (7.7¢/Mcal) and lower than the 5-year average (11¢/Mcal). The price of e-NDF and ne-NDF are not very different from last month at 8¢/lb and -3¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively. Now would be a good time to start locking in good prices on commodities and reformulating rations to enable feeding bargain feedstuffs long term.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index for cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For this issue, the income over nutrient costs (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $9.78 and $10.17/cwt, respectively. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows; however, they should be profitable when greater than about $9/cwt. The IONC for December are better than September ($9.15 and $9.53/cwt, respectively). Overall, profits for dairy farmers in Ohio are marginal to breaking even.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 25, 2018.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 25, 2018 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 25, 2018.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in price) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, November 25, 2018.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Corn silage	Bakery byproducts	Citrus pulp
Distillers dried grains	Beet pulp	Fish meal
Feather meal	Blood meal	Molasses
Gluten feed	41% Cottonseed meal	Solvent extracted canola meal
Hominy	Gluten meal	44% Soybean meal
Meat meal	Soybean hulls	Tallow
Soybean meal - expeller	48% Soybean meal	Whole, roasted soybeans
Whole cottonseed	Wheat bran
Wheat middlings

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, November 25, 2018.

Livestock Building Rental Considerations
Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

Recently, I have gotten some questions about rental of livestock buildings, specifically dairy facilities. Typically, callers want to know a charge per square foot or a rental rate based on a per head basis, or for a dairy facility, based on number of free stalls. The reality is that there is no one correct answer. Several methods or approaches generate a dollar figure for rental. However, you should view that number as a starting point in a rental negotiation. There are additional factors that affect the final rental rate. Those factors include the age and condition of the building, location of the building, the functionality or obsolescence of the building, the demand for rental of this type of building, and the character and personality of the parties involved in the rental agreement.

The simplest and most direct way of calculating a building rental rate is to use a commercial rate, a known market. While these types of figures are available for grain storage and some equipment storage markets, they are not available for livestock building rentals. We don’t have a commercial livestock building rental market. A second method is to use survey data. Survey data are commonly used to provide rates for custom farm work and cropland rental. The reliability of those numbers is dependent upon getting significant numerous responses. The issue with livestock building rental surveys is that there are a very limited number of surveys and those surveys generally have a small number of responses, so use results with caution. You can get an answer that is fast, easy, and very wrong for your situation. The most recent farm building rental survey that I know of is a May 2014 document by the North Central Farm Management Extension Committee. It is available on line at http://tiny.cc/farmbldgrentalsurvey. The number of responses for dairy building rental varies between three and nine.

The best method for determining a rental rate for livestock buildings is to actually calculate some building ownership costs and use those figures as a starting point in coming to a rental rate agreement. There are two basic categories of building ownership costs, variable and fixed. Variable costs are dependent upon building use and the level or intensity of building use. Those costs include utilities, use-related repairs and maintenance, and possibly costs of additional wear and tear beyond depreciation. Often variable costs increase as the number of animal units or production level in the building increases.

Fixed costs are incurred regardless of the level of building use. Fixed costs remain even if the building sits empty. The fixed costs of building ownership include depreciation, interest, repairs (maintenance not related to building use), taxes, and insurance. The low end of any building rental agreement must cover at least the variable costs of using the building. There must be some way to measure these costs, especially costs such as electricity, fuel, and water. However, the building owner realizes no gain until at least some portion of the fixed costs are included in a rental agreement.

The North Central Farm Management Extension Committee publication “Rental Agreements for Farm Buildings and Livestock Facilities”
(http://tiny.cc/NCFMfarmbldgrental) contains a good worksheet to help building owners estimate ownership costs. A basic starting point for determining ownership costs requires an estimate of the current value of the building to calculate depreciation. One method commonly used is to determine a replacement cost for the current building along with an estimate of the useful life, generally in the 15 to 25 year range. Next, determine how many years of useful life remain in the current building. Depreciation is the replacement cost divided by useful years of life remaining in the current building. If the building is under loan, then the interest cost is the actual interest payments on the building loan. With no loan, calculate interest costs as a return on investment by multiplying an annual interest rate times the current value of the building. The interest rate used could be the current rate to borrow money, the rate for invested dollars, or possibly an average of the two. The county auditor’s office can provide the building tax rate. Use the actual insurance policy for insurance costs. Alternatively, multiply the current building value by 1.5% to get an estimate of tax and insurance costs. The most accurate way to get cost of building repairs is from farm records. According to an Iowa State University publication entitled “Computing a Livestock Building Cash Rental Rate” (https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c2-26.html), a value of 2 to 4% of the replacement (not current) value of the building provides a reliable estimate if records are not available.

For example, let’s say I investigate and find that it would cost $325,000 to build a new free-stall dairy barn of similar size, function, and with comparable technology and features to what is currently present on the farm. That building would have a 20-year life. My current building is 8-years old, so I have 12 years of useful life remaining, equivalent to 60% (12 divided by 20) of the building replacement value. The current value of my building is therefore $325,000 x 0.60 or $195,000. The annual depreciation cost is $325,000 divided by 12 (years of useful life left) equals $27,083. Note that in some cases, buildings may still be serviceable after their useful live and so depreciation expense could be zero. For this example, assuming no outstanding loan on the building, I am going to calculate a conservative return on investment using an interest rate of 3% times the current value of the building ($195,000) equals $5,850. To calculate taxes and insurance costs, ideally I use actual values, but in this example, I will use 1.5% times the current building value which equals $2,925. Next, I need to estimate repair costs. I will use 3% times the replacement value ($325,000) which equals $9,750. My total estimated fixed cost of building ownership is the sum of these calculations or $45,608 annually.

Knowing the fixed costs of building ownership can guide a rental negotiation. The ideal situation is that the building renter, in addition to paying all the variable building costs, will cover the fixed costs as well. In most markets, that may not be realistic. The next best-case scenario is that the cash costs of building ownership are covered after building variable costs. Those costs include taxes, insurance, and repairs. In our example, those cash costs equal $12,675. From a purely economic point of view, if an empty building can’t generate enough rental income to cover cash expenses in the foreseeable future, it is reasonable to consider demolishing the building.

I have found a couple of spreadsheets available on-line that can help to calculate building costs and potential rental rates. They are available at https://www.agmanager.info/ksu-building-cost-rent, and
https://dunn.uwex.edu/agriculture/farm-management/farm-lease-information/. Click on “Lease Payment Evaluators”, then “Building Rental Evaluator”.

The most important piece of any building rental is a written lease. The lease spells out not only the rental rate but also specifies dates of rent payments, what happens if rent is late, and how the rental agreement is renewed or terminated. The lease contains provision about how repairs are handled, how water and utilities are paid for and maintained, limitations on modifications to the building, how many livestock can be housed, rights of entry and inspection, and even how manure will be handled and where it will be applied. The North Central Farm Management Extension Committee publication “Rental Agreements for Farm Buildings and Livestock Facilities” contains a sample lease agreement that can serve as a starting point.

Finally, the characteristics of the potential renter are another consideration in a lease agreement. Things like how they care for property, personal habits, reliability, honesty, temperament, and how you get along with them can all matter and might influence the rental price either upwards or downwards.

References and Livestock Building Rental Resources:
- Computing a Livestock Building Cash Rental Rate, Iowa State University Extension, Publication C2-26.
- North Central Farm Management Extension Committee publication “Rental Agreements for Farm Buildings and Livestock Facilities”, NCFMEC-04.
- Figuring Rent for Existing Farm Buildings, Purdue University, Publication EC-451.

Corn Silage Harvest Fall 2018

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Change is ever present, including in forage harvesting conditions. Even without listening to the weather report, we know by the challenges in harvesting forages this fall, the limited days to apply manure, and the constant muddy conditions in animal lots that the amount of precipitation in the Midwest is above average. We may have already forgot how wet it was in July 2017 (Figure 1) which created difficulty in harvesting legumes and grasses, but our focus at the moment is on the challenges of the current wet conditions and its consequences. Actually for the Columbus area (data used for Table 1), the precipitation to date since April 1 is only about one inch greater than the same time period in 2017. However, since August 2018, we have experienced about 2.3 inches additional rainfall compared to 2017. Especially notable in this time period is the 5.4 inches of rain in August when corn silage harvest began in several areas.

Based on the 2018 weather conditions since August, it appears that in general the corn silage yields have been rather good (not in every situation by no means), but general comments from the field have implied some quality concerns. Some have expressed that the wet conditions delayed harvest and the plant exceeded optimal maturity. In these situations, advanced kernel maturity may result in lower starch digestibility, especially if a plant processor was not used or if proper settings were not used. Data from Cumberland Valley Analytical Services (Waynesboro, PA; https://www.foragelab.com) for corn silage were summarized over two time periods, January 2016 through July 2018 and August 2018 through November 2018 (Table 1) to look for potential changes in composition. The concentrations of DM, CP, ADF, and NDF were similar among the two populations; however, the starch digestibility was lower in fall 2018 by 5.3 percentage units and NDF digestibility tended to be lower for the same comparison. Of course, these digestibility measures do not reflect the potential magnitude of differences in total tract digestibility of these two major carbohydrate fractions, but they can reflect potential changes in digestibility and thus animal performance.

At this point in the season, the corn silage is in storage and thus if analyses indicate that digestibility may be less than typical, then the following considerations should be made:

Can the corn silage be left in storage longer before feeding? Longer storage time may increase starch digestibility.Are there economical options for lowering the inclusion level in the diet of the corn silage with lower digestibility?
If feeding rates are adequate for having two storage units for corn silage open, feed the lower digestibility silage to later lactation cows and growing heifers.
With the wet field conditions and corn being in the field longer for damage to kernels, be watchful for signs of molds that produce mycotoxins.

Table 1. Analytical values for corn silage samples from the Mid-Atlantic region of the US (data from Cumberland Valley Analytical).

Item	January 2016 through July 2018	August 2018 through November 2018
Number samples	46,047	7,509
DM, %	36.0	36.7
CP, %	7.85	7.62
ADF, %	23.3	23.1
NDF, %	38.6	38.6
NDF 30 h digestibility,%	56.2	55.4
Starch, %	34.4	35.7
Starch 7 h digestibility, %	72.7	67.4

Figure 1. Precipitation in Columbus, OH for April through November during 2017 and 2018.

Ohio Dairy Challenge, October 2018

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The 2018 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held October 26-27 and was sponsored by ADM Animal Nutrition, Cargill Animal Nutrition, Provimi North America, Purina Animal Nutrition, Sexing Technologies, and Balchem. Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped into teams of three to four individuals. Veterinary and graduate students are invited to attend the farm visit and participate in a meeting later in the evening with the contest judges to discuss observations on the farm. The farm selected for the contest this year was the Ruprecht Dairy Farm in Butler, OH owned by Ken, Marilyn, and Lyle Ruprecht. The Ruprecht family moved to their current location in 1997 with about 35 cows and continued to steadily expand over the years to whereby today they have about 200 cows. In 2016, they built a new calf barn, freestall barn, sand separation lanes, lagoon, and a bunker silo. Cows are milked 3 times-a-day in a double 6 herringbone parlor. The forages grown on the farm include corn silage and alfalfa. There were 48 undergraduate students (13 teams; 7 students from ATI and 41 from the Columbus campus), 24 veterinary students, and 3 graduate students that participated. The undergraduate teams this year were again divided into novice and experienced divisions for judging purposes. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Friday afternoon, interviewing the owner and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. During Friday evening, the undergraduate teams spent three to four hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities for the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation that had to be turned in on Friday evening. On Saturday, the undergraduate students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the novice division were:Larissa Deikun (Cargill/Provimi), Bob Hostetler (Sexing Technologies), Luis Moraes (Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), and Greta Stridsberg (Balchem). The judges for the experienced division were: Alan Chestnut (Cargill/Provimi), Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), Brian Lammers (ADM Animal Nutrition), and Dwight Roseler (Purina Animal Nutrition). Shaun Wellert with ATI also assisted with the program. The awards banquet was held on Saturday, October 27 at the Fawcett Center on the OSU Columbus campus. The top two teams in the novice division consisted of: Arden Bishop, Marisa Lake, Heather Kaplan, Heather Pechtl, Rebekah Fries, Emily Gaglione,

Hilary Kordecki, and Katia Hardman. The top team in the experienced division consisted of Lexie Nunes, Morgan Westover, Kate Sherman, and Hunter Meese. Students will be selected to represent Ohio at the National Contest and to participate in the Dairy Challenge Academy to be held in Tifton, GA during March 28-30, 2018. Students from ATI participated in the Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge held November 8-10, 2018 in Fairlee, VT, and students from the Columbus campus will be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge hosted by University of Illinois during February 13-15, 2019 in Freeport, IL. The coach for the Dairy Challenge program at ATI is Dr. Shaun Wellert and Dr. Maurice Eastridge is the coach for the Columbus campus. Additional information about the North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge program can be found at: http://www.dairychallenge.org/

Pictured (left to right): Lyle, Marilyn, and Ken Ruprecht.
Novice Division (left to right): Heather Pechtl, Arden Bishop,
Marisa Lake, and Heather Kaplan.
Novice Division: Katia Hardman, Emily Gaglione,
Hilary Kordecki, and Rebekah Fries.
Experienced Division: Lexie Nunes, Kate Sherman,
Morgan Westover, and Hunter Meese.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices: Where are we now and where are we heading?

In the last issue, the Class III component price for May and June were similar at $15.18 and $15.21/cwt, respectively. For the month of July, the Class III future was projected to rise slightly to $15.36/cwt and then decrease over a $1/cwt to $14.08/cwt in August. The Class III component price for the month of July actually closed at about $1/cwt lower than its future at $14.10/cwt, whereas the August Class III component price closed higher than its future price at $14.95/cwt. Class III futures for September are about the same at $14.85/cwt, followed by a $1.50 jump in October to $16.33/cwt.

For almost 4 years now, the annual Class III milk price has averaged around $15 to 16/cwt (4 year average of $15.32/cwt). Compared to the record year of 2014 (year average of $22.30/cwt), this price is obviously a disappointment. The low price is simply because average milk production and cow numbers keep growing. Back in 2014, production averaged 22,260 lb/cow/year with nearly 9.34 million cows in the U.S. As I write today, average production is just over 23,360 lb/cow/year with over 9.40 million milk cows. Doing the math, this amounts to a 5.8 million ton difference in annual milk production between 2014 and today – has the demand for dairy products gone up that much as well? The answer, no.

For the milk price to go back up, cow numbers need to decrease. The USDA does expect cow numbers to come down in 2019, but this will be a slow process. This being said, the average Class III average price will probably continue to go down and be in the $14.50 to15.50/cwt range for the remainder of this year and maybe even the first part of 2019. Times will continue to be tough for dairy producers.

Nutrient Prices: Two thumbs up CC

Per usual, commodity and nutrient prices have went down as crops are being harvested in the majority of the Midwest. For MP, its current value has dropped $0.05/lb, from July’s issue ($0.40/lb) and is about 38% lower than the 5 year average ($0.48/lb). The cost of NE_Lis also lower than July (9¢/Mcal) and lower than the 5-year average (11¢/Mcal). The price of e-NDF and ne-NDF are not very different from July at 8¢/lb and -6¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively. Needless to say, now would be a good time to start locking in good prices on commodities and reformulating rations to enable feeding bargain feedstuffs long term.

In this issue, I also calculated a new corn silage price for the 2018 growing year: $44.60/ton (35% dry matter). This price is about $1.40 more than the 2017 growing year ($43.20/ton) but is still a bargain compared to other common ingredients. The price I calculated is based on the crop value as if it was harvested for corn grain rather than silage. Because corn silage is dual purpose and provides marked amounts of both NE_L and e-NDF for dairy cows, the true value of corn silage to the producer should actually be around $66.60/ton, about 50% higher than my calculation. However, corn silage quality varies considerably based on location (e.g. weather and growing conditions) and harvesting and storage conditions, as well as the corn hybrid planted. Using the 75% confidence intervals defined in Table 2 are better predictors of what corn silage may actually be worth to producers because of this real world variability. The intervals still do not contain the calculated value based off corn grain (i.e., the $44.60/ton estimate). Bottom line, corn silage should be a no brainer for making up the majority of the forage component for rations during the upcoming year, but only if you have stored enough – running out of corn silage in August will be a huge financial burden.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index for cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For this issue, the income over nutrient costs (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $9.15/cwt and $9.53/cwt, respectively. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows; however, they should be profitable when greater than about $9/cwt. The IONC for September are also better than July ($8.41/cwt and $8.85/cwt, respectively). Overall, profits for dairy farmers in Ohio are marginal to breaking even.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, September 25, 2018.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on September 25, 2018 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, September 25, 2018.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, September 25, 2018.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground,dry	Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn silage	Beet pulp	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Feather meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Soybean hulls	Citrus pulp
Gluten meal	48% Soybean meal	41% Cottonseed meal
Hominy	Wheat Middlings	Fish meal
Meat meal	Whole, roasted soybeans	Molasses
Soybean meal - expeller		Solvent extracted canola meal
Whole cottonseed		44% Soybean meal
		Tallow
		Wheat bran

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, September 25, 2018.

Manure Spill Prevention

Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

            Typically, dairy farms have an opportunity after corn silage harvest to pump down lagoons and get manure hauled and applied. Hopefully, all goes well, without any accidents or manure spills, but hope is not a spill or accident prevention plan. Livestock operations that store, haul, and apply manure need to have an emergency response plan to handle manure spills and escapes. Preventing manure spills is one important component of that plan. A good start to preventing manure spills is to understand some common reasons manure spills occur, as well as where in the process from storage to application spills commonly occur.

            At the 2018 Manure Science Review in late July in Hardin County, Glen Arnold, OSU Extension Manure Management Specialist, gave a presentation on manure spills and escapes. During his presentation, Arnold said that manure spills/escapes occur at three different locations and/or phases of manure management. One area is on the farmstead itself, close to farm buildings and facilities. Most of these manure incidents are actually escapes and are the result of manure pit overflows, manure pond overflows, and/or lot runoffs. Manure spills can happen during the transport of manure. As farms and applicators strive to do a better job of matching up manure nutrients with fields needing those nutrients, manure is getting transported longer distances. During transport, manure spills are the result of flipped manure tankers or semi-truck tankers, manure hose leaks, or improperly secured manure loads. The third area where manure spills/escapes happen is on the field, during or shortly after the manure application. These spills are the result of surface runoff or rapid movement through the soil profile and into field tile.

Kevin Erb, from the University of Wisconsin Extension in a webinar on the topic of manure spills, said that generally manure spills happen for one or more reasons. One is mechanical failure of equipment used in the handling and application of manure. Often these cases are truly accidental due to unforeseen situations and circumstances. Another reason is the improper application of manure or improper storage management. Improper application is over application of manure based on field conditions or field fertility level. Improper storage management includes not monitoring storage closely enough, resulting in an overflow situation. Finally, manure spills can occur due to negligence. Negligence can be defined as failure to exercise reasonable care or maybe even knowingly increasing the risk of a manure spill. This could be something like failure to maintain equipment in good working order, performing tasks when under serious sleep deprivation, or ignoring a manure plan or weather forecast.

            Identifying the where/when manure spills/escapes occur is useful, especially when combined with an analysis of why manure spill/escapes happen. Taken together, they identify areas of risk that include both manageable factors as well as those factors outside of the farm’s or applicator’s control. With each of these causes, the farm manager needs to identify what can be done to minimize risk, including such things as periodic and regular equipment checks/maintenance, emergency shut-offs, employee/applicator training, work schedules that provide adequate rest, up-to-date manure management plans that guide application rates, weather monitoring, and record keeping.

Manure spills/escapes happen despite planning, preparation, and best intentions. Therefore, the farm needs an emergency plan. The plan should spell out what to do, who will do it, and who to contact in case of a manure spill/escape. Quick response can minimize detrimental effects; delays make a bad situation worse. In his presentation, Arnold said that your spill plan should contain cell phone numbers of key people who can help and you need to know who responds to text messages. You should know: Who has equipment to block a ditch or stream? Who has equipment to pump manure out of a stream or ditch? Who has tile plugs? Who can transport the spilled product you are cleaning up? When manure gets into a stream, be prepared to pump 20 to 25 times the volume of the manure that entered the stream according to Arnold. Where will this pumped product go? How will you get oxygen back into the stream and who has that equipment? As part of their preparedness, some farms keep a manure spill kit available. A list of some materials and resources to include in a manure spill kit is available at: http://tiny.cc/manurespillkit.

A publication entitled “Emergency Action Planning for Livestock Operations” by Purdue and Michigan State Universities lists four “C’s” of a manure spill response plan: 1) control the source of the spill/escape, 2) contain the spill, 3) clean up the spill, which involves assessing the extent of the damage and restoring the affected area, and 4) comply with reporting requirements. That publication, along with other manure spill response resources, is available on-line at: http://articles.extension.org/pages/28679/manure-spills-and-emergency-planning.
Transitioning of Herds to Automatic Milking Systems

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

            Interest in the use of automatic milking systems (AMS) continues to be high, even in a stressed dairy economy. Some of the primary reasons reported for this change in milking technology include: 1) reduction in labor, especially hired labor, 2) more flexible life-style, and 3) potential improvement in cow heath and milk yield. At present (September 2018), we have about 2140 dairy farms in Ohio and 52 farms with AMS, with about 143 AMS on Ohio farms. Thus, about 2.4% of the dairy farms in Ohio have the AMS. The vendors are primarily Lely and DeLaval, with one farm now having installed the GEA system. Although the adoption rate in Ohio is growing, it is certainly less than in Europe, Canada (6.8% in 2015), and several other states in the US. One of the aspects of adopting the AMS system that can be challenging, at least for a few weeks, is the transition period from the conventional milking system to the AMS.

            A study conducted by four major universities in Canada titled “Producer experience with transitioning to automatic milking: cow training, challenges, and effect on quality of life” was reported in the 2018 October issue of the Journal of Dairy Science. Producers (n = 217 responses) from 8 Canadian providences using the Lely and DeLaval AMS were surveyed during 2014 and 2015. Overall, 42% of the producers trained animals to the AMS before the first milking. Feeding in the AMS was often practiced during training, but spraying of teats was less frequent. During training, small groups of cows (< 20) were commonly used. For producers who used a training program, it typically took 7 days to train a cow or heifer. It was estimated in the study that it would take 30 days to adapt a herd to an AMS, and the length of this duration was not different for those herds that did or did not train animals prior to the first milking in the AMS. About 2% of the cows within the herds were culled for not adapting to the AMS, with the range being 0 to 40%.

            Some of the challenges experienced by dairy producers in the transition to the use of AMS included:

Challenge                                Some common solutions expressed

Learn to use AMS                  Time and patience, help from dealer

Cow training                            Time and patience, creating small groups for training,
                                                recruiting extra help during training period

Feeding                                   Working with nutritionist

Trusting the AMS                     Time and patience

Other challenges stated included: demanding during the first few days/weeks, changing health management, non-AMS transition issues caused by converting from tiestall to freestall, building modifications, technical issues, feet and leg issues, being on call, lack of support, decreased milk quality, finances, and employee management and training. Overall, producers positively scored all improvement and expectation statements, indicating a high level of satisfaction with the AMS.

            Obviously, changing to an AMS system requires a lot of planning. Initially, the mission and succession plans for the dairy operation need to be clarified and the financial plan fully developed. During even the initial phases, it is important to visit with equipment dealerships to discuss cost, service, and start up help provided and to visit operations whereby the use of the AMS has been in effect for different periods of time, e.g. 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, etc., to learn how transitioning occurred, any development of problems over time, and dependability of service from the dealer. Once the decision is made to install an AMS but prior to the transition, plans need to be made for the practices used during transition (e.g. training), personnel needed during the transition, and time of year relative to when other major events will be taking place on the farm or for the family. With all of the challenges in the transition, time and patience were the major points identified. A well-organized plan can provide for a more smooth transition and working closely with the dealer, nutritionist, and other professionals before and during the transition can reduce the risk and duration for challenges during the transition.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Mr. Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

In the last issue, the May Class III futures price was set at $14.44/cwt and forecasted to jump to $15.25/cwt in June. The May and June Class III prices actually closed slightly higher at $15.18 and $15.21/cwt, respectively. The Class III price future for July is slightly higher at $15.36/cwt. but is expected to take a large drop in August to $14.08/cwt.

The current value of NE_L and MP are nearly identical to May’s issue (9.0¢/Mcal and $0.40/lb, respectively). The price of e-NDF is about 4¢/lb higher than May, whereas ne-NDF is relatively unchanged from March (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount).

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index for cows milking 70 lb/day or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. In the May issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated to be $8.21/cwt for cows milking 70 lb/day and $8.61/cwt for cows milking 85 lb/day. For July, the IONC for our 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows are slightly higher than May at $8.41/cwt and $8.85/cwt, respectively. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows. Overall, IONC prices for July are slightly better than May but are still not great.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, July 25, 2018.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on July 25, 2018 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, July 25, 2018.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, July 25, 2018.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF
Corn silage	Beet pulp	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Feather meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Gluten feed	Soybean hulls	Citrus pulp
Gluten meal	48% Soybean meal	41% Cottonseed meal
Hominy	Wheat middlings	Fish meal
Meat meal	Whole, roasted soybeans	Molasses
Soybean meal - expeller		Solvent extracted canola meal
Whole cottonseed		44% Soybean meal
		Tallow
		Wheat bran

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, July 25, 2018.

Margin Protection Program Update

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Production Economics, Ohio State University Extension

The Dairy Margin Protection Program (DMPP) underwent a substantial change earlier this year, resulting from language included in the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act. Program enrollment was re-opened from April 9 through June 8, 2018. Significant changes benefiting dairy farmers included a one million pound increase in a farm’s production history eligible for new Tier 1 premium rates. This change meant that the first 5 million pounds of a farm’s annual production history was eligible for substantially reduced premiums. Tier 2 premiums applicable to any production history above 5 million pounds remained unchanged. Other changes included monthly margin calculations and payments of any indemnities, and the 2018 sign-up being retroactive to 1/1/18.

As a result of these changes and 2018’s challenging milk prices, 888 Ohio dairy farms enrolled in the updated MPP program according to the Ohio Farm Service Agency. By July 26, 876 of those farms had been approved. USDA Farm Service Agency announced that through July 11, $7,071,360 in program payments were processed for Ohio dairy farmers, averaging $8,072 before premium costs for the 876 approved farms. Individual farm payments vary depending on each farm’s production history and margin coverage selections.

On June 25, 2018, the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Dairy Division reported 2,206 dairy farms in Ohio. This is a substantial decline from the 2,312 dairies recorded in October 2017. Since the Margin Protection Program was initiated in September 2014, 1,091 Ohio dairy farms have established their production history with the USDA Farm Service Agency. The current sign-up is 81.39% of farms that have established base with the FSA, or 40% of all Ohio dairy farms. It is unlikely that Ohio would experience a near-100% enrollment as the large population of Ohio’s Anabaptist farmers are not likely to participate in this type of program.

Find more details about the new MPP program and resources at: https://dairy.osu.edu/sites/dairy/files/imce/2018%20Margin%20Protection%20Program%20Update.pdf
Raising Dairy Calves: Reading Personality of the Calves can be Important
Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

We know that personality of children in the same family can vary immensely, caused by genetics, birth order, changing parenting styles, and other factors. Have you ever related these differences to dairy calves? Previous research has revealed that food animals that are generally calmer or less reactive, versus more excitable, have improved growth rates, meat quality, and milk production; improved immune function, and decreased physiological responses to stressful events. Dairy cows that are more excitable in the milking parlor produce less milk, milk out slower, and have reduced lifetime production efficiency. Given this prior knowledge, researchers at the Animal Welfare Program at the University of British Columbia conducted a study with 56 dairy calves to identify personality traits that may be associated with feeding behavior and performance. Calves were housed in seven groups with eight calves in each group with access to automatic milk feeders and free choice water, hay, and calf starter. Calves were assigned to 1 of 4 milk-feeding allowances (1.6, 2.1, 2.6, or 3.2 gal/day of milk) within each group of eight calves, with each group containing two calves on each allowance. Milk was reduced to 50% of the allowance at 42 days of age and reduced by 20%/day from day 50 until calves were completely weaned at day 55. At 27 and 36 days of age, each calf was subjected to three novelty tests (novel environment, human approach, and novel object). Seven different behaviors were scored, but interactive, exploratory-active, and vocal-inactive were the most important in explaining calf behavior. Calves with more exploratory-active began to consume starter at an earlier age and had greater starter intake and overall average daily gain. Calves that were more interactive and vocal-inactive (less vocal) had more unrewarded visits to the milk feeder during the weaning phase. Calf starter also was fed through the automated feeder system, and overall, it took 19 days for the calves to eat 0.10 lb/day, 36 days to first eat 0.50 lb/day, and 42.5 days to eat 1.5 lb/day of calf starter.

Some general conclusions from this research are:
- Personality traits explain individual variability in the development of feeding behavior, solid feed intake and weight gains, and behavioral responses of dairy calves.
- It is important to identify calves that are struggling to make the transition from milk onto solid feed so that performance and welfare are not compromised. Calves that are struggling with the transition can have an extended transition or other exceptions to assist them with the changes during this critical period.
- Characterization of calf personalities at around three weeks of age can identify animals that are most likely to make this transition smoothly and to identify calves that would benefit from additional assistance.
- Calf behavior and performance have been used to access when individual calves are ready to move to an automated milk feeder. Additional evidence is still needed, but information collected during the time calves are using the automated milk feeder may help to identify potential personality differences among calves that warrant variation in the transition of calves to a weaned state.
Even though the dairy industry in moving toward more group housing of pre-weaned calves, using the data collected in the automatic milk feeding system and careful daily monitoring of the calves by employees can help to identify health, performance, and personality differences for individual management of the calves to best meet their needs.
Effective Employee Management
Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension (originally published in the Dairy Excel column of Farm and Dairy)

The average number of dairy cows per farm continues to increase. Ironically, as dairy profit margins become tighter, many farms add cows and production to generate minimum levels of income needed to stay in business. As cow numbers increase, so do labor needs and as a result, most dairy farm owners find themselves in the position of managing employees. Employee management requires another skill set that is quite different from the skill set required to milk cows. I recently read several articles on employee management, some dairy related and others not, and all of them had some good ideas regarding how to work with and manage employees more effectively. My summary of those articles includes four practices: 1) develop good job descriptions, 2) provide effective training programs, 3) improve morale and 4) address productivity issues.

            A good place to start with employee management is the job description. A good job description helps to clarify what is involved in the job and provides an idea of the expectations for that job. For example, you want someone to milk the cows. It might seem simple to you; milk the cows what more do I need to say? However, stop and think about the job. Do you have a parlor routine that needs to be followed when milking the cows? Do you want the employee to report any milk abnormalities they might spot or any sick or injured cows? How should they communicate that? Is parlor cleanup included with milking? What is obvious to you may not be to the employee. Spend some time analyzing all the steps involved in the task. The job description begins with a job title that is specific and provides an idea of the expectations required of the employee. Next, define the knowledge (level of experience, degree, certificates, training, etc.), skill set (measurable and/or demonstrative), and abilities (team player, self-starter, etc.) needed for the job.

            An article in the Harvard Business Review entitled “How to Teach Employees Skills They Don’t Know They Lack” referenced data that said employees are “unconsciously incompetent” in typically 20 to 40% of areas critical to their performance. Managers need to provide and design training programs that engage employees and empower them to admit what they don’t know. Employees may be doing the job adequately but feel unsure of what they are doing, or why they are doing certain actions. It could be a case of accidental success. Managers need to recognize differences in skill levels and competencies between employees and provide training that allows the employee to understand the skills required and feel confident about performing the required task. Managers need to build a culture of continuous improvement. Part of this is to track errors and mistakes and then openly discuss those errors and mistakes. Why did this happen? Often a mistake or error is not intentional but the result of knowledge or skill gaps. Identifying and providing training to address mistakes and errors is a better solution than blaming the employee and seeking some form of discipline.

            Good managers have a high employee retention rate. If your farm is experiencing a high employee turnover rate, it might be time to look in the mirror. People often leave a job due to bad management. Good managers build employee morale and keep workers happy. In an article entitled “Six Things That Kill Morale,” author Travis Bradberry lists the following as practices that create job dissatisfaction, and lead to high employee turnover:
- Overworking people
- Holding people back: Good managers provide employees with opportunities for advancement and ways to improve or expand their skill set.
- Playing the blame game: Good managers do not publicly shame or place blame on an employee. The better strategy is to create a team atmosphere, discuss mistakes, and focus on solutions.
- Frequent threats of firing: This makes people feel like they are disposable and depends upon fear as a motivation to work better. This is not an environment that makes an employee feel valued or a part of a team.
- Not letting people pursue their passions: Good managers are open to allowing employees to grow and expand their focus and interests. Productivity increases in these circumstances.
- Withholding praise: Good managers look for opportunities to recognize employees for a job well done and for ways of rewarding employees.
There are times when employee performance is not what it should be. There are too many mistakes and/or productivity is low. Bob Milligan, consultant with Dairy Strategies, in his June 2018 newsletter, says that in this situation, you have three options as a manager, do nothing, investigate, or blame the employee. Bob makes as case for investigating the performance issue sooner rather than later. A normal reaction is to blame the employee, but even if the blame is well founded, that will not solve the problem. Investigating the reason for poor employee performance requires non-threatening communication with the employee. Some communication keys are to ask questions and to practice active listening. The goal is to create an environment where the employee can see that the manager wants to solve the problem and help them become more proficient and effective.

Effective employee management does not happen by accident. It requires recognizing our shortfalls as managers and the need to develop new skill sets. It may push us out of our comfort zone, but the results in terms of increased employee competency, happiness, and retention are worth it.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the March Class III futures price was set at $13.36/cwt and forecasted to jump to $14.10/cwt in April. The March and April Class III prices actual closed slightly higher at $14.22 and $14.47/cwt. The Class III price future for May is about the same price at $14.44/cwt and is supposed to increase to $15.25/cwt in June. Looking further in advance, the CME Class III futures for summer and fall are currently trading at $16.40 to $16.90/cwt. Overall, milk prices are steadily increasing – this will give producers a little sigh of relief as we wrap up on the 2018 planting season.

Nutrient Prices

For MP, its current value is 10¢/lb less than March’s issue ($0.50/lb). However, the cost of NE_L has gone up 2¢/Mcal since March (7.8¢/Mcal). The price of e-NDF is about the same at 5¢/lb, whereas ne-NDF is relatively unchanged from March at -8¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount).

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index for cows milking 70 lb/day or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. In the March issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated to be $7.26/cwt for cows milking 70 lb/day and $7.61/cwt for cows milking 85 lb/day. For May, the IONC for our 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows are about $1/cwt higher than March at $8.21 and $8.61/cwt, respectively. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows. In summary, these IONC prices are better than March but are still not great.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2018.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on May 25, 2018 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2018.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, May 25, 2018.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts	Gluten meal	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn, ground, dry	Soybean hulls	Beet pulp
Corn silage	Wheat bran	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Whole cottonseed	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feather meal		Citrus pulp
Gluten feed		41% Cottonseed meal
Hominy		Fish meal
Meat meal		Molasses
Soybean meal - expeller		Solvent extracted canola meal
Wheat middlings		44% Soybean meal
		48% Soybean meal
		Tallow
		Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2018.

Feeding for Milk Components: Brief Overview

Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

          Current milk markets are putting a higher value on milk fat and a lesser value on milk protein which is opposite of the historical norm of protein being more valuable. Significant variation exists in both milk fat and milk protein concentrations among herds. Much of this variation is genetics, but a substantial amount is likely nutritional. A survey of the Mideast Federal Order conducted by Penn State (https://extension.psu.edu/milk-components-understanding-milk-fat-and-protein-variation-in-your-dairy-herd) found that milk fat averaged about 3.76% but based on the reported standard deviation, 16% of herds sold milk with greater than 4.1% fat and 16% of herds sold milk with less than 3.4% fat. Some of the high testing herds were probably colored breeds, but breed cannot account for all the high testing herds. The average protein concentration of milk sold in that order was 3.05%, but 16% of herds had milk protein concentrations greater than 3.3% and 16% of herds had protein concentrations less than 2.9%. Concentrations of milk components are important, but the milk check is based on yields of components, not concentrations. Nutritional modifications that increase the concentrations of milk components but decrease their yields are not something you want to do.

          Increasing energy intake from starch usually increases both the concentration and yield of milk protein. This can be accomplished by replacing fiber with starch (as long as you do not cause ruminal acidosis), by maintaining starch concentrations but improving forage quality so cows eat more, or by maintaining starch concentrations but replacing some forage fiber with byproduct fiber so that cows eat more. Over a wide range of energy intakes, the effect on milk protein yield and concentration was linear. Perhaps surprisingly, dietary protein concentrations do not have a large impact on milk protein yield or concentration. In a study from Ohio State, increasing dietary crude protein from 13 to 17.5% increased milk protein concentration and yield; however, the effect was not linear and once dietary protein concentration reached 16%, it had no effect on milk protein. Most diets fed to lactating cows are usually at least 16% crude protein. Feeding supplemental rumen-protected (RP) amino acids can increase milk protein. Most studies report that feeding RP-methionine at about 20 grams/day increases milk protein with an average increase of about 3% in both yield and concentration of protein. Responses to other amino acids are less consistent. Feeding supplemental fat often decreases milk protein percentage but usually maintains or increases milk protein yield.

          Milk fat is more responsive to nutritional modifications than is milk protein. Starch has the opposite effect on milk fat as it does on milk protein. The effect starch has on milk fat yield depends on the type of forage in the diet. When alfalfa silage made up more than about 55% of the forage in the diet (the rest being corn silage), starch in the range of 22 to 30% did not have much effect on milk fat yield (starch was from dry ground corn and corn silage). As the concentration of alfalfa silage decreased below 55% and the concentration of corn silage increased, starch had a greater negative effect on milk fat yield. At the highest corn silage concentration tested (75% of the forage as corn silage and 25% as alfalfa), milk fat yield decreased linearly as starch increased from 22 to 30% of the diet. The generally positive effect alfalfa has on milk fat is caused in large part by the minerals in alfalfa. Increasing the dietary cation-anion difference [DCAD calculated as: (dietary sodium + potassium) – (dietary chloride + sulfur), where minerals are expressed as milliequivalents per kilogram of diet] linearly increases milk fat concentration and yield. On average, the DCAD concentration in alfalfa is about 3 times greater than that of corn silage. Sodium bicarbonate, potassium carbonate and other buffers increase DCAD and often increase milk fat yield.

          Feeding more forage usually increases milk fat concentration but may not increase milk fat yield. If forage is not highly digestible or you feed too much forage fiber and dry matter intake decreases, milk fat yield often decreases. High forage diets can support high yields of milk fat, but their quality must be good. Replacing starch with byproduct fiber can increase milk fat percentage and yield when diets are high in corn silage and have more than 25 to 27% starch.

          Feeding supplemental fat usually increases milk fat yield, but the response is dependent on the type of fat fed. Based on a meta-analysis published in the Journal of Dairy Science in 2012, increasing dietary fat concentration 2 or 3 percentage units by feeding calcium soap similar to Megalac, oilseeds, or prilled fat increased milk fat yield by 0.1 (oilseeds) to 0.18 (soaps) lb/day, whereas supplementing tallow had no effect on milk fat yield. The gain in milk value caused by increased milk fat yield will need to be tempered if the fat supplement reduces milk protein yield.

          In summary, nutritional modifications can affect milk component yields. Unfortunately, several of the dietary changes affect milk protein and fat in different directions. Because of the high market value of milk fat currently, diets should emphasize increasing milk fat yield at the potential expense of reduced milk protein yields. This will change as milk markets change.
Management in Today’s Dairy Economy
Chris Zoller, Extension Educator in Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tuscarawas County, Ohio State university Extension

The dairy economy is extremely difficult today and there is no definitive answer as to when it might improve. I have talked and sat around the kitchen table with a number of families who are concerned about their situation and future. Times are not easy and the decisions that need to be made are difficult and filled with emotion. While it will not solve the problem, understand you are not alone and most of your peers are facing the same difficult decisions.

There are a number of potential options to consider when analyzing farm financial records and looking at ways to trim expenses. There is no ‘recipe’ for solving each situation because each farm is unique. Below are some things I’ve talked with farm families about when exploring options.

Communication - is always important and becomes more critical when finances are tight. Open communication must occur between and with:
- Business partners and spouses
- Lender
- Veterinarian, nutritionist, suppliers, etc.
- Items such as new equipment purchases vs. repairing existing equipment, knowing your financial situation, developing a plan to stay or get current with your expenses, are examples of items to communicate.
Present Situation

Start by knowing where you are today. Regardless of the system you use to track farm income and expenses, analyze the numbers you have. Do you know your cost of production? Has your farm historically been profitable or have you struggled for a long period of time to be profitable? What’s holding you back from achieving consistent profitability? Have you analyzed the profitability of individual enterprises that make up your farm?

Potential Options

Every farm is different and each situation is unique when it comes to evaluating options. Factors such as the number of cows, number of family and employees, level of milk production, debt, number and type of crop acres, among others, make it impossible to give a ‘recipe’ that will be appropriate for each farm. Based on my discussions with families, below are thoughts on possible options.
- Evaluate areas for potential cost savings.
  - Talk to your nutritionist. Ask questions about ration ingredients, their purpose and cost. Can you remove something from a ration without negatively impacting animal health or milk production? Can you adjust the dry cow diet or management to reduce expenses without a negative result?
  - Can changes be made in your cropping program? Are you soil testing? If so, are you following the recommendations? Lime is sometimes the first crop input to be reduced, but I caution you in doing so. A pH imbalance can result in poor nutrient uptake and reduced yields. OSU Extension has conducted a number of on-farm research studies you may find useful when looking to reduce costs. Consult your OSU Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator for more information.
- Talk to your lender
  - Explain your situation, goals, and ask about options. Can you stretch any of your debt over a longer period? What is your plan to pay the debt? How will it cash flow?
- Sell scrap and/or unused equipment
  - This is a one-time cash infusion that will not help over the long-term.
- Sell timber/coal/other minerals
  - Selling timber or other resources provides cash for the immediate term, but does little to help in the long-term. In the case of timber, depending upon a number of factors, it may 20 or more years before another harvest can occur.
- Sell livestock
  - Again, this gives some cash, but you can’t keep selling the cows that are producing milk. However, you should eliminate from the herd those cows that are poor producers, have health issues, are difficult breeders, etc.
- Sell land
  - Is there some acreage that you don’t need, is poor quality, or doesn’t yield well? Depending upon your level of debt, this may be a viable option worth consideration. Can you retain enough acres to continue with a different venture?
- Off farm employment
  - You or your spouse may need to explore potential off farm employment. The extra income can help lessen the burden on the farm and reduce stress.
- Sell the farm
  - It isn’t what you want to do, but may be your only option.
Consider Implications of Your Decisions

This list of potential options is not exhaustive but is meant to serve as a starting point for discussion. Some options may not be viable, while others may be worth giving consideration. Regardless of the decision you make, keep in mind there may be tax or legal implications for which you must prepare. Make certain you contact professionals in these areas who can answer questions and provide direction.

Seek Outside Advice

Don’t be afraid to ask for help. There are plenty of people, including family, clergy, friends, OSU Extension professionals, licensed therapists, and counselors, willing to listen, provide support, and assist you. The decisions to be made are often filled with much emotion. While understandable, allowing emotions to drive your decision making can result in poor outcomes. Seek the advice of an outside party to help you and your family evaluate options and arrive at a decision that best suits everyone.
How to Manage Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa

Jeff Stachler, Auglaize County Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Educator, Ohio State University Extension

Even though alfalfa has not been seeded yet, it is time to start thinking about managing weeds in seedling alfalfa in order to be ready. Greater than 95% of weed control in alfalfa is due to competition from a healthy stand. Proper fertilization, use of disease-resistant varieties, insect control, cutting management, and use of herbicides are necessary to provide a competitive alfalfa stand providing significant weed control.

If weeds become a problem, they can compete or interfere for light, nutrients, water, and space directly influencing yield, quality, and standability. Alfalfa yields may be improved at least 8% over the life of the stand if weeds are controlled in seedling alfalfa. Keys to managing weeds in spring alfalfa seedings include: 1. Weeds emerging with the crop are the most competitive; 2. Maintain forage relatively weed-free for the first 60 days; 3. Weeds emerging beyond 60 days usually will not reduce future alfalfa yields; 4. Weeds emerging beyond 60 days may reduce forage quality; and 5. Broadleaf weeds are generally more competitive against alfalfa than grassy weeds.

Hopefully, perennial, biennial, and annual weeds in no-tillage alfalfa were controlled prior to seeding. Summer annual weeds will be emerging with the alfalfa and can continue emerging into June if the stand is not good. Perennial and biennial weeds may also emerge after seeding. The most problematic weeds in spring alfalfa seedings are lambsquarters, pigweed, common and giant ragweeds, smartweed, and annual grasses, with lambsquarters usually the most prevalent.

Herbicides available to control broadleaf weeds postemergence in seedling alfalfa include bromoxynil; 2,4-DB; Pursuit; and Raptor. Bromoxynil controls lambquarters most effectively, followed by Raptor and 2,4-DB. Pursuit and Raptor provide the most effective pigweed control, followed by bromoxynil and 2,4-DB. Bromoxynil and 2,4-DB effectively control common ragweed, followed by Raptor. Giant ragweed is best controlled with 2,4-DB, followed by bromoxynil. Smartweeds are best controlled with bromoxynil and Pursuit, followed by Raptor. Pursuit and Raptor will not control common ragweed, giant ragweed, and pigweeds (including waterhemp) that is resistant to these herbicides.

Apply 2,4-DB, Pursuit, and Raptor to alfalfa between the second and fourth trifoliate stage and bromoxynil at the fourth trifoliate stage. Apply these herbicides to small weeds. Pursuit is the safest to the alfalfa and 2,4-DB causes the greatest injury. Read and follow label restrictions for tank-mixing any of these broadleaf herbicides. Read and follow labels for adjuvant use in order to maximize weed control and minimize crop injury.

Clethodim and Poast can be applied to control annual grasses. Poast and clethodim can be mixed with the broadleaf herbicides, but grass control can be reduced if Poast is mixed with Pursuit. Pursuit and Raptor will provide some control of grasses.

In Roundup Ready alfalfa, Extreme and glyphosate can be applied postemergence. In Roundup Ready alfalfa, apply glyphosate at 1.125 to 1.5 lb acid equivalent per acre (32 to 44 fluid ounces of a Roundup product) or Extreme at 3.3 to 4.4 pints per acre when alfalfa is in the third to fourth trifoliate leaf stage. It is best to make a glyphosate application to Roundup Ready alfalfa, regardless of the density of weeds in order to control the non-Roundup Ready plants in the population and better stand establishment. The application of Extreme will provide some residual control of certain weed species, especially at 4.4 pints per acre.
Managing for High Quality Stored Forage

Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Agriculture Extension Educator, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

The forage harvest season is well underway, starting several weeks ago with some of the small grains, particularly cereal rye, and progressing into our more traditional forage legumes or legume/grass mixtures. Bill Weiss, Ohio State University dairy nutritionist located at OARDC in Wooster, says the three laws of forage harvesting are: 1) You can’t win, 2) You can’t breakeven, and 3) You can only lose. Therefore, harvesting high quality forage is dependent upon minimizing biological and mechanical harvest system losses.

Although there are others, two important biological factors affecting forage quality are plant maturity and plant respiration losses after mowing. Forage maturity, in particular for our first harvest during May, is the number one determinant of forage quality. Once that forage plant moves into the reproductive growth stage, beyond bud formation in legumes and beyond boot stage in grasses, there is a significant decline in quality for each day of harvest delay. Research suggests that relative feed value (RFV) or relative feed quality (RFQ) values decline about 4 points per day. Rates of decline are not as steep in July and August. The point here is that there is a narrow window of opportunity during spring and early summer harvests for the producer to make high quality forage so observation and monitoring are important. Once the forage plant is cut, the priority is to dry it down to an acceptable harvest moisture as soon as possible.

After mowing, plants continue to respire at a significantly high rate until forage moisture falls below 60%. Respiration is essentially the loss of starch and sugar, which are 100% digestible. The majority of this respiration loss occurs in the leaves of the plant. Conditioning helps to increase drying of the stems but does not speed drying of the leaves. Average dry matter (DM) losses due to plant respiration after cutting are 4 to 5% but can be as high as 8% in some situations. According to Dan Undersander, Extension forage specialist at the University of Wisconsin, a 4% loss in starch and sugar raises neutral detergent fiber (NDF) by 3% and results in a drop of almost 20 points on the RFQ scale. Management practices that will minimize respiration losses include mowing early in the day to maximize sunshine and drying conditions, and very importantly, spread the forage in a wide swath that occupies 60 to 80% of the cutter bar to expose leaves to those drying conditions.

Besides these biological losses, there are losses due to the mechanical harvesting system involved with mowing, raking, tedding, baling, chopping, hauling and storage operations. Quality losses are highly correlated with leaf loss. The degree of leaf loss and shatter generally depends upon how aggressively the forage is handled and the moisture content at the time of the mechanical operation. The harvesting operation results in DM, crude protein, and digestible DM declines and increases in NDF. Looking at DM only, average losses due to mowing are 3.0%, raking 5.0%, tedding 3.0%, and baling 4.5%. The upper end losses for each of these operations is double (or worse) of these averages. The drier the forage is when it is handled, the greater the possibility of increased leaf loss and shatter.

Regardless of the production system used, the goal is to avoid the quality losses caused by a rainfall event. The losses due to rainfall depend upon the amount and timing of the rain event. Research has demonstrated that a one inch rainfall on a forage close to being ready to bale in a dry hay system can cause DM losses of 8 to 17%, results in NDF content increases of 6% and TDN decreases of 7%. That same rainfall within a few hours after cutting will have a less detrimental impact. Wrapped hay (baleage) and chopped haylage (silage) systems result in harvesting at higher moisture contents that can reduce quality losses due to leaf shatter. These systems also work as a strategy to avoid losses due to rainfall by decreasing the time between mowing and harvesting

One key to making high quality baleage is to harvest forage at the proper maturity stage and moisture range. Because the forage is not chopped, one concern with baleage is overly mature forages. These forages have more fiber and less soluble sugars, resulting in poorer fermentation and a higher pH, which increases the risk of toxin producing clostridial bacteria in the baleage. Small grains, such as cereal rye, oats, wheat, and barley, are particularly at risk when used for baleage after head formation. Harvest baleage in the 45% to 55% moisture range. Moisture above 67% increases the risk of spoilage organisms like clostridial bacteria. Included in that family are botulism organisms. Tightly packed, dense bales are necessary to exclude air and promote anaerobic fermentation. Finally, wrap bales with six or more layers of 1.5 mil plastic within 24 hours after baling; sooner is better. Many producers aim for wrapping within 12 hours of baling.

The keys to good quality haylage production begins with harvest between 55 to 62% moisture. Chop the forage at 3/8 inch theoretical length of chop to help improve packing. Fill the silo quickly to limit surface exposure to air, and in bunker silos, pack to achieve greater than 44 lb/cubic foot of silage. Bill Weiss always says that when you think you have packed enough, pack some more. Seal the bunker silo with an oxygen barrier film within hours of finishing silo filling, and then cover it on top of that with a 6 mil plastic to reduce spoilage. Research has shown a return of about $8 for each one dollar invested in sealing a bunker silo.

In a dry hay production system, forage baled too wet will mold and heat in storage. As interior bale temperatures get above 150 degrees F, the risk of a hay fire greatly increases. At 175 degrees, a hay fire is imminent and you need to call the fire department. For hay made without the use of a preservative, safe moisture levels are 20% for small square bales, 15 to 16% for large round bales, and 13 to 15% for large rectangular bales. The goal for long-term storage and stability is a moisture content of 15% or lower. The larger and more densely packed a bale is, the less likely it is to lose moisture during storage and achieve stability, so the moisture at harvest becomes more critical.

Preservatives allow baling at higher moisture contents, but they have to be used correctly and there are limits. The most effective preservatives are propionic acid based. Research shows that they are generally very effective at allowing forage to be baled between 20 and 25% moisture, they are iffy between 25 to 30% moisture, and none of them are effective above 30% moisture. The keys to making them work in their effective range include providing enough product and making sure application is even and uniform as the bale is being formed. You need 10 lb/ton of actual propionic acid on the hay for moisture levels below 25% and 20 lb/ton of actual propionic acid on hay for moisture levels between 25 and 30%. The other limit is that the effectiveness decreases over time because the acid volatilizes and dissipates from the bale.

(References are available on request)
2018 Dairy Palooza

Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Every now and then, in the midst of today's dairy economy, we just need a positive notion to hold onto! Perhaps the photo below will capture that feeling.

On April 21, more than 300 4-Hers and adults gathered for our 8th annual Dairy Palooza. It was held at the Wayne County Fairgrounds in Wooster, Ohio on a sunny day. Our morning agenda included the customary Quality Assurance (QA) training sessions taught with hands-on activities by Extension educators. During this time, adults and advisors were also provided an opportunity to attend educational sessions created to also provide updates and timely information. With some time out for lunch and the group photo, attendees then rotated to three sessions of workshops in the afternoon. The topics covered included preparing for the fair, clipping and fitting, showmanship, build a calf, dairy nutrition, selecting sires, and science fun with dairy foods. Cloverbuds were also given their very own program that was taught by actual elementary teachers! Let me also mention that every session leader was a volunteer giving up a Saturday to share their expertise! It was impressive.

Each and every registered participant received a weigh tape and a thermometer which aligned to some of the QA training. Those who were able to complete the entire day had an additional opportunity to be included in door prizes, including a handmade show box and a set of new clippers. There was a semen raffle valued at $400 that generated additional interest.

In case you would like to know more about this large dairy event, we have a web page at www.ohiodairypalooza.com. However, this event could not take on such epic proportions without the support of generous sponsors who generously "give back" to youth. For their names, please view the link for our program on the web page.

Dairy Palooza evolved as a simple idea created by volunteers who cared! For those of us on the planning committee, we are amazed how this signature program has grown by leaps and bounds. In 2019, we will change locations to the Mahoning County Fairgrounds! We are always looking for more sponsors and more volunteers, so please contact us for information.

Thank you Susan Mykrantz of Ohio Jersey News for capturing the below scene and all the other photos.
Ohio State Places Second at National North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Ohio State University placed second at the 17th annual North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge^® (NAIDC) held April 12-14 in Visalia, CA. There were 36 teams that participated in the national contest and 94 students that participated in the Dairy Challenge Academy. In total, 238 students from 35 US and 3 Canadian academic programs attended this educational event. These students are training for careers in the dairy industry as farmers, researchers, educators, financial analysts, nutritionists, farm service providers, and veterinarians. This year, nine contest teams competed on each of four farms. Each contest team received information about their assigned dairy farm, including production and farm management data. After an in-person inspection of the dairy, students interviewed the herd owners. Each team developed a farm analysis and recommendations for nutrition, reproduction, milking procedures, animal health, housing and financial management. Ohio State’s team consisted of Alexandra Houck (Oregonia, OH), Jaclyn Krymowski (Homerville, OH), Hannah Meller (Wauseon OH), and Marina Sweet (London, OH) (see photo provided below). Students from the top two teams at each farm received a plaque and a monetary award, and all Dairy Challenge contest participants received a lifetime membership to Dairy Shrine.

The Dairy Challenge Academy was developed in 2013 to expand this educational and networking event to more college students. Academy student-participants also analyzed and developed recommendations for a dairy farm; however, the Academy was organized in mixed-university teams with two advisors to help coach these students. Due to travel costs, there were no students from the OSU Columbus campus that participated in this year’s Dairy Challenge Academy; however, five students from the Agricultural Technical Institute participated that were assisted by Dr. Shaun Wellert.

In its 17-year history, Dairy Challenge has helped train more than 5,200 students through the national contest, Dairy Challenge Academy, and four regional contests conducted annually. NAIDC is supported completely through generous donations by many agribusinesses and dairy producers, and programs are coordinated by a volunteer board of directors. The 2019 National Contest and Academy will be held March 28-30 in Tifton, GA. For more information, visit www.dairychallenge.org or www.facebook.com/DairyChallenge.

2018 Ohio State Dairy Challenge Team:
Jaclyn Krymowski, Hannah Meller, Alexandra Houck, Marina Sweet,
and Dr. Maurice Eastridge (coach).
Success of the 2018 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 2018 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference was very successful with an attendance of 529 and 72 exhibitors. The pre-conference workshop on dairy nutrition software was well attended, and there were 9 undergraduates, 6 MS students, and 13 PhD students that competed in student presentations. The pre-conference symposium was sponsored by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services, the Hot Topics breakfast was hosted by Multimin USA, Inc., and the post-conference program was hosted by Mycogen. This was the 27^th year for the Conference, with attendees from across the US and other countries, including Canada and Hungry. The 2019 Conference to be held April 22-24. A feed sampling workshop in conjunction with the Association of American Feed Control Officials will be held on April 22, and Elanco Animal Health will be the sponsor for the pre-conference symposium on April 23. Mark your calendars for plans to attend an excellent program and make sure you bookmark the Conference’s web address: tristatedairy.org.
Tedrick and Thraen Inducted into 2018 Dairy Hall of Service

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Dairy Science Hall of Service was initiated in 1952 to recognize worthy men and women who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at the Ohio State University. The 2018 inductees were recognized on April 13 at the Department of Animal Sciences ‘Celebration of Excellence’ held at the Animal Sciences Building on campus.

Roger Tedrick

Roger Tedrick grew up in Barnesville, OH and received his BS and MS in agricultural economics from The Ohio State University. While in college, he worked at Superior Dairy in Canton, Ohio. He then accepted a position as a field supervisor for Milk Marketing, Inc., now known as Dairy Farmers of America (DFA). In 1999, he joined the Dairy Division at the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). He was a registered sanitarian and served as Plant Section Head. In 2008, he became Assistant Chief of the Dairy Division, in 2010 was named as active Chief of the Department, and then was named Chief in 2011, a role he continues in today.

Roger has been very active in the CFAES Alumni Association, having served as President of the organization. He annually hosts OSU students to the Dairy Division to describe the role the Department plays in insuring the quality and safety of Ohio’s milk supply. He has been very active in the state and national dairy industry. He is an Executive Board Member of the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) and vice-chair of the NCIMS Appendix N Committee; he has been a member of the Ohio Association of Food Protection; and a member of the OSU Food Science and Technology External Advisory Board.

“Roger has a deep-seeded commitment to the dairy industry”, wrote one of the nominators. The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Hall of Service acknowledges Roger for his commitment to the Ohio and US dairy industry for ensuring milk safety and in continually supporting the education of students interested agriculture.

Cameron Thraen

Emeritus Professor Dr. Cameron Thraen has made significant impact in the field of dairy economics for students, faculty, and the dairy industry in Ohio and across the US. In the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, he had a 45% appointment as the Ohio State University Extension Specialist in Dairy Markets and Policy, a 25% teaching appointment, and a 30% research appointment.

In his position as Extension specialist, his educational responsibilities included the dissemination of economic and policy research. He was an active member of the Ohio State Extension Dairy Team. Dr. Thraen was a regular presenter for the yearly Ag Outlook program held throughout Ohio. He maintained an updated web site and wrote regularly in numerous agricultural publications on dairy markets, prices, and policy.

Dr. Thraen's teaching responsibilities included AEDE 3102: Principles of Agribusiness Marketing; AEDE 4002: Quantitative Analysis for Agribusiness; a graduate level course AEDE 6120: Quantitative Analysis II Applied Mathematical Optimization; and teaching the milk marketing course.

The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Science Hall of Service Award acknowledges Dr. Thraen’s many contributions to the dairy industry and the training of OSU students.
Buckeye Dairy Club Annual Reception Held

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Buckeye Dairy Club held its annual awards reception on April 21 at the Der Dutchman in Plain City, with about 85 in attendance. Those recognized included the dairy judging and dairy challenge teams and the Club’s committee chairs and outgoing officers. The Buckeye Cow Tales yearbook was dedicated to Erin Williams for her support to the Club. The Outstanding Club member awards went to: Freshman – Cameron Hupp (Lowell, OH), Sophomore – Kate Sherman (Sunbury, OH), Junior – Hannah Meller (Wauseon, OH), and Seniors – Marina Sweet (London, OH) and Thomas Shaw (Greenville, OH). The Prestigious Member Award (includes $500 toward college costs) went to Skylar Buell (Temperance, MI). The Buckeye Dairy Club in conjunction with John and Bonnie Ayars awarded the Austin Ayars Memorial Scholarship ($5,000), with the second-year recipient being Kate Sherman. The 2018-2019 Officer Team is: President - Lexie Nunes, First Vice-President - Sarah Schuster, Second Vice-President - Cameron Hupp, Recording Secretary - Amanda Schmitmeyer, Corresponding Secretary - Billy Smith, Treasurer - Hunter Meese, Assistant Treasurer - Kate Sherman, and CFAES Representative - Hannah Maggard. The program concluded by recognizing the seniors in the Club.

Pictured: Some of the seniors of the Buckeye Dairy Club: Front row – Rachel Patton, Andraya Starr, Hannah Meller, Marina Sweet, Jaclyn Krymowski, Molly Cleveland, and Mary Wilhelm. Back row – Katherine Wolfe, Grace Moeller, Hannah Jarvis, Thomas Shaw, Joshua Keller, Chase Thut, and Jake Blackburn.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices: Have we hit rock bottom?

Starting off 2018, milk prices have been nothing short of disappointing. As I write, the Class III component price for January closed at $14.00/cwt and then took another drop in February to $13.44/cwt. The March Class III futures price is slightly lower at $13.36/cwt, but is projected to jump up to $14.10/cwt in April.

Fortunately, this jump back above $14/cwt may be the start of a steady rise in prices. Current demand for milk solids have been on the rise in Asian countries, namely China. Colder temperatures world-wide have also contributed to the projected bump in price as world-wide milk production has been relatively stagnant. Looking at Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) futures, they are currently trading at $14.50/cwt but are projected to push the $16/cwt mark come late summer or fall. The increase in price would be faster; however, cold stores of cheese and butter are 4 to 5% greater than one year ago and are backing the recent surge in demand.

Nutrient Prices: Oilseeds are overpriced

Although exports of milk solids have been increasing at a fast pace, exports of oilseeds have also been on the rise. Since the last issue, soybean and canola meals have both increased nearly 15 and 12%, respectively. This is a large jump that may or may not be temporary. In South America, harvest is just over half way from completion, which would suggest the price should begin to come back down. However, parts of South America have also suffered adverse weather throughout the growing season, and the harvest may not be as bountiful as expected. The futures price for soybeans and canola is also fairly stable for the next couple of months. In short, the bump in price may be here to stay, but this will largely depend on weather conditions for the upcoming U.S. growing season.

For MP, its current value ($0.50/lb) is higher than January’s issue ($0.43/lb). The cost of NE_L is nearly identical to January (7.7¢/Mcal) and is lower than the 5-year average of 11¢/Mcal. The price of e-NDF decreased from 7¢ to 3¢/lb, whereas ne-NDF is relatively unchanged from January at -8¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index for cows milking 70 lb/day or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. In the January issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated to be $9.23/cwt for cows milking 70 lb/day and $9.62/cwt for cows milking 85 lb/day. For March, the IONC for our 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows are about $2/cwt lower than November at $7.26/cwt and $7.61/cwt, respectively. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows.

In summary, these IONC prices are not very good, and dairy producers will need to cut cost whereever possible for the next couple of months to find a profit margin (if there is one).

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2018.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on March 26, 2018 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2018.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, March 26, 2018.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery Byproducts	Blood meal	Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF
Corn, ground, dry	Gluten meal	Beet pulp
Corn silage	Soybean hulls	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Distillers dried grains	48% Soybean meal	Citrus pulp
Feather meal	Wheat bran	41% Cottonseed meal
Gluten feed	Whole cottonseed	Fish meal
Hominy		Molasses
Meat meal		Solvent extracted canola meal
Soybean meal - expeller		44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings		Tallow
		Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP content.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the table below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2018.

Establishing Alfalfa

Jeff Stachler, Extension Educator, Auglaize County, The Ohio State University

There were a few fields of alfalfa lost last year due to excessive rains but not like in 2015. We are approaching a good time period to establish alfalfa seedings. Have you thought about what needs to be done to successfully establish alfalfa?

The first task is to obtain a soil sample or samples. If the field is less than 15 acres, then a single soil sample will suffice. If the field is larger than 15 acres, take multiple samples based upon management zones or based upon a grid pattern. It is best to start sampling by a grid method before going to a zone method, so you can more accurately vary the rate of fertilizer and/or lime. Management zones can be based upon soil type, topography, soil organic matter, or a combination of these. If a field has been in no-till and the field will remain untilled, obtain soil samples at two depths, one at a 4” depth for pH and another at an 8” depth for fertilizer recommendations.

For good establishment of alfalfa, soil pH needs to be 6.8 for mineral soils having subsoil pH less than 6.0 and 6.5 for mineral soils having subsoil pH greater than 6.0. Bray P1 soil test phosphorus (P) levels should be between 25 and 50 parts per million (ppm). The Mehlich III soil test P levels should be between 40 and 79 ppm.

The recommended rate of potash is based upon the soil test level in ppm, the cation exchange capacity, and yield goal. If lime is required and the Bray P1 soil test value for phosphorus is below 25 ppm, delay planting until the fall or next spring as stand establishment will likely be poor due to the poor fertility. Fertilizer and lime should be incorporated to maximize nutrient efficiency. If you are surface applying lime and fertilizer, it is even more important to wait a year before establishing alfalfa.

Select varieties having the best disease resistance (the best way to fight diseases), good forage quality, best fit to soil types, and high yields. Have seed inoculated with nitrogen-fixing bacteria to improve nitrogen uptake and treated with fungicides to manage seedling diseases, especially when planting in the spring.

Prepare a proper seedbed. A smooth firm seedbed allows for good soil to seed contact, leading to improved establishment. Control all weeds prior to establishment. Control perennial weeds the year before establishment. For no-tillage seedings, control grass sod with glyphosate at least one month in advance of seeding and manage previous crop residue for good soil to seed contact.

Seed alfalfa as early in the spring as possible. For southern Ohio target March 15^th and for northern Ohio target April 1^st. For fall seedings, plant as close to August 1^st as possible.

Seed alfalfa to a depth of ¼ to ½ inch in clay and loam soils and ½ to ¾ inch in sandy soils.

The seeding rate for alfalfa is 15 lb per acre or 80 seeds per foot of row. If the seedbed is in excellent condition and you are using a brillion packer seeder or something similar to it, the seeding rate can be reduced by 25 to 30%.

It is critical to properly manage leafhoppers in seedling alfalfa to keep it healthy. Successful establishment ensures the healthiest, longest lasting, and highest yielding alfalfa.

Milk Production of Ohio Dairy Herds

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Table 1. Number of herds, milk yield, milk fat, and milk protein by breed for Ohio herds on DHI during 2016 and 2017.

Breed	Number of Herds		Milk (lb/lactation)		Milk fat (%)		Milk protein (%)
	2016	2017	2016	2017	2016	2017	2016	2017
Ayrshire	9	6	16,919	16,145	3.83	4.00	3.25	3.25
Brown Swiss	17	16	20,216	19,840	4.22	4.25	3.45	3.49
Guernsey	6	5	17,606	17,063	4.73	4.76	3.41	3.45
Holstein	272	245	25,202	25,625	3.69	3.87	3.08	3.18
Jersey	62	62	17,600	17,865	4.85	4.82	3.65	3.58
Mixed	24	21	23,481	24,441	3.90	4.02	3.21	3.22

Buckeyes Participate in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge

Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The annual Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge was hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and was held in Madison during February 7-9. Alexandra Houck, Hannah Jarvis, Jaclyn Krymowski, Hannah Meller, Kate Sherman, Marina Sweet, and Morgan Westover participated in the event. The teams that Alexandra Houck and Hannah Meller were on placed first for their farm, and Kate Sherman’s team placed second for their respective farm. There were 110 students from 20 universities and technology schools that participated in the Midwest Dairy Challenge. Alexandra Houck, Jaclyn Krymowski, Hannah Meller, and Marina Sweet will represent Ohio State University at the National Contest to be held in Visalia, CA during April 5-7, 2018.

Students participating in the Midwest Dairy Challenge (left to right): Alexandra Houck, Hannah Meller, Marina Sweet, Jaclyn Krymowski, Kate Sherman, Hannah Jarvis, and Morgan Westover.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Mr. Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices: The Ugly

For the current issue, the Class III component price for November closed at $16.88/cwt and then decreased to $15.44/cwt in December. The January Class III futures price is unchanged at $15.44/cwt, but it is projected to drop down to $14.25/cwt in February. The USDA has also dropped their predicted all milk price for 2018 to $15.80, down about $0.80/cwt since the last issue. In short, milk prices will not be very good for a little while.

Nutrient Prices

Although milk prices are very low, nutrient prices also continue to be relatively low. For MP, its current value ($0.43/lb) is the same as November’s issue ($0.43/lb). The cost of NE_Lincreased 1¢/Mcal to 7.7¢/Mcal, which is lower than the 5-year average of 11¢/Mcal. The price of e-NDF increased from 3¢/lb to 7¢/lb, whereas ne-NDF is nearly identical to September at -7¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount).

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index for cows milking 70 or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. In the November issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated to be $11.63/cwt for cows milking 70 lb/day and $11.94/cwt for cows milking 85 lb/day. For January, the IONC for our 70 and 85 lb/day cows are about $2.35/cwt lower than November at $9.23 and $9.62/cwt, respectively. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows.

In summary, these IONC prices are not very good, and dairy producers will need to cut cost wherever possible for the next couple of months to find a profit margin (if there is one).

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, January 21, 2018.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on January 21, 2018 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“corrected”) value in a lactating cow diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, January 21, 2018.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in price) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, January 21, 2018.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Beet pulp
Corn silage	Bakery byproducts	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feather meal	Soybean meal - expeller	Citrus pulp
Gluten feed	Soybean hulls	41% Cottonseed meal
Hominy	44% Soybean meal	Fish meal
Meat meal	Wheat bran	Molasses
48% Soybean meal		Solvent extracted canola meal
Wheat middlings		Tallow
Whole cottonseed		Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, January 21, 2018.

Update on Magnesium Nutrition of Dairy Cows

Dr. Bill Weiss and Mr. Alex Tebbe, Department of Animal Sciences, OARDC/The Ohio State University, Wooster

Unlike all other macrominerals, a clinical deficiency of magnesium is not uncommon in the U.S. dairy cattle population. One reason is because cows have very small labile pools of magnesium; therefore, if cows do not absorb adequate magnesium on an almost daily basis, deficiency signs will develop very quickly. The other reason is that absorbability of magnesium varies greatly among diets. The two major reasons for the variation in absorption are source of supplemental magnesium and the dietary concentration of potassium. Magnesium oxide is the most common source of supplemental magnesium, but because of differences in manufacturing practices (for example, calcination temperature and particle size), the availability of magnesium from magnesium oxide can vary up to 5-fold across sources. The availability of magnesium from magnesium sulfate is less variable and has been thought to be substantially more available than magnesium oxide. The major site of magnesium absorption in cattle is the rumen, and the major mechanism controlling magnesium absorption across rumen epithelial cells is an electrical gradient in cells (inside of the cell is negative which helps pull in positive ions such as magnesium). Potassium is also positively charged and disrupts the electrical gradient and inhibits magnesium absorption. Because the concentration of potassium ions can be more than ten times that of magnesium ions, the antagonism is substantial. A 50% reduction in absorption of magnesium is possible over the range of potassium concentrations commonly observed in diets. An additional dietary factor that could affect magnesium absorption is monensin. Based on studies conducted about 30 years ago with beef cattle, monensin supplementation can increase magnesium absorption by 15 to 20%.

We conducted an experiment to determine whether monensin affected magnesium absorption in dairy cows fed high potassium diets and whether that effect differed by magnesium source. All diets had about 2.1% potassium (about 1.3% from feeds and 0.8% from potassium carbonate). Diets had either magnesium sulfate or magnesium oxide (each increased dietary magnesium by about 0.15 percentage units) and either 0 or 14 mg/kg of diet of monensin (approximately 360 mg/day). On average, source of magnesium did not affect magnesium absorption, but there was a significant interaction between monensin and magnesium source. Without monensin, magnesium sulfate was a better source of available magnesium than magnesium oxide, but when monensin was in the diet, magnesium oxide was better. When magnesium oxide was fed, monensin increased apparent absorption of magnesium by about 25%. However when magnesium sulfate was fed, monensin decreased magnesium absorption by about 30%.

When the most commonly used source of supplemental magnesium (i.e., magnesium oxide) was included in the diet, monensin substantially increased absorption of magnesium. Inclusion of monensin increases feed efficiency and the enhancement of magnesium absorption is an additional benefit. Because of cost and the potential negative effects of sulfur on fiber digestion, intake and trace mineral absorption, magnesium sulfate is rarely fed to lactating cows. However, because it can reduce the dietary cation anion difference (DCAD), it is commonly fed to dry cows. Monensin is also commonly fed to dry cows. The diets fed in this experiment were typical lactation type diets and results may not be extrapolatable to dry cows. However, these data raise concerns regarding supply of available magnesium when cows are fed monensin and magnesium sulfate. These data suggest that dietary magnesium concentrations should be increased by about 15% when magnesium sulfate and monensin are fed. Data using dry cows fed typical dry cows diets are needed to verify this recommendation. (Note: Full details regarding this experiment are available in the Journal of Dairy Science; Tebbe et al., 2018)
Ninety-five Percent Approval Rating for Dairy Housing and Animal Care from Consumers Who Have Been Down on the Farm!

Dr. Ted Ferris, Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; Dr. Julie Smith, Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; and Mr. Eric Richer, Ohio State University Extension, Fulton County

What do consumers really think about how dairy farmers care for dairy cows and modern dairy cow housing once they’ve been down on the farm?

Not what the media sometimes presents or what some special interest groups want people to believe! The public hears in the media and from special interest groups that animals are housed in poor conditions and treated poorly (forced to perform at high levels). So what do consumers think after they’ve toured a modern, and in some cases, very large modern dairy farms? In general, over 90% leave with a positive or very positive impression about animal housing and 90-95% have high or very high trust the dairy farmers will do the right things with regard to caring for their animals. These values represent a large shift from their assessment before their farm visits, especially for those visiting dairy farms for the first time in 20 years.

These values come from exit surveys from individuals participating in Breakfast on the Farm (BOTF) educational farm tours involving dairy farms ranging from 200 to 3,500 cows in Michigan, Ohio and Vermont. These tours are educational farm tours that involve a tour route through the farm facilities with educational stations on information about numerous topics that are of interest to the public. The stations include educational signs, and volunteers including veterinarians, nutritionist, farmers and other professionals who try to answer questions for participants. Exit surveys from events in three states show that consumers are giving high ratings for animal care and dairy housing. Since its inception in 2009, Michigan’s Breakfast on the Farm, coordinated by MSU Extension, has held events on 29 dairy farms, three beef operations, one apple orchard, and three crop farms. These events have hosted over 85,000 visitors. Ontario has hosted several events patterned after the Michigan events and in 2015, both Ohio and Vermont began hosting Breakfast on the Farm events.

Early Michigan events show farm tours greatly improve impressions

Breakfast on the Farm events were held on 10 dairy farms in 2010 and 2011 with over 16,000 in attendance. Data from 1,500 exit surveys show a large shift in their impressions about how dairy cows are housed BEFORE and AFTER their educational farm tour. Figure 1 shows the shift in distribution BEFORE and AFTER their farm tour on a 5-point scale with 1 being very negative to 5 being very positive impression. Herd sizes for these farms ranged from 200 to 3,500 milking cows. No real differences occurred between farms with different sized herds.

Figure 1. Shift in the public’s general impression about housing provided to dairy cows BEFORE and AFTER their farm tour.

The percent of farm tour participants that rated their impression of dairy housing as positive or very positive shifted from 62% before the tour to 95% after the farm tour (Figure 1). They did this rating as they completed a survey upon exiting the farm, so their before assessment was done at the same time as their after assessment.This allowed them to indicate their change in impressions on the same scale. The percent that rated their impression of housing as very positive doubled from 35% to 76% and the 8% who rated housing negative or very negative before their visit dropped to 0.5% negative and 0.1% very negative after the tour. Interestingly, in this dataset, 17 of 31 who rated housing very negative before their tour rated housing very positive after the tour, suggesting that they came with misconceived concepts of how dairy animals are housed on modern farms.

First-time visitors (n= 610), those who had not been on a working dairy farm in the past 20 years, had a larger shift, from 26 to 76% with very positive impressions, while only 49% had a positive and very positive impression before. This resulted in 93% leaving with positive and very positive impressions. Of the 1^st-time visitors, only 0.2 and 0.7% left with very negative and negative impressions, respectively.

Events in 2015

In 2015, events held in Ohio hosted by Ohio State University Extension and Vermont, hosted by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets attracted 3,009 and 550 participants, respectively at dairy farms with 700 cows and 250 cows, respectively. Five Michigan events in 2015 included dairy farms ranging from 500 to 3,500 cows hosting 12,068 participants. BOTF is designed to attract those who have not been on farms recently. The percentage making their first visit to a working dairy farm in the past 20 years were 37, 60, and 25%, respectively for MI, OH and VT. In 2010, Michigan first time visits were 44% of the total. Since then, a number of participants have returned to events.Vermont has a number of educational farms that individuals may have visited, making their number a bit lower.Those who had made 5 or less prior visits included 73% in MI, 88% in OH, and 62% in VT. Data from MI, OH, and VT included 1406, 578 and 220 surveys, respectively, and were analyzed to determine the change in participants’ level of trust in several management areas. We focus here on animal housing and care.

Trust that farmers will do right

Exit surveys from participants in the 2015 events show that their level of trust that producers will do the right thing with regard to providing good housing for dairy animals increased significantly! On a 5-point scale, from 1 being very low trust to 5 being very high trust, those who rated their level of trust as high or very high, i.e., a 4 or 5, increased from 74% for MI, 72% for OH, and 66% for VT before the tour to 96% for MI, 92% for OH, and 92% for VT after their tour.

As with earlier results, 1^st-timer visitors’ level of trust was lower than for all participants before their tour with values of 61, 65, and 65% for MI, OH, and VT, respectively, with high or very high trust. Based upon their assessment as they exited, 96% in MI, 91% in OH, and 96% in VT, left with high or very high trust. In all three states, about 30% were undecided or neutral about their level of trust before their visit. Few left with low or very low trust that farmers will do the right thing regarding animal housing, i.e., values dropped from 8.6 to 0.6%, 8.5 to 1.3% and 4 to 2% for MI, OH and VT, respectively.

Once consumers saw and understood how animals benefited from modern housing they apparently approved and trusted that farmers would make the right decisions regarding housing their animals. One individual from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) commented to a volunteer at the exit survey tent at a Michigan event in Mason County, that they were going to tell their membership that the cows they saw were clean and well cared for on this dairy farm. Not what they expected.

So what kind of housing do consumers find down on the farm?

They don’t see a red barn and vertical silos from the past, which are on some milk cartons and jugs. They experience a cool, well-ventilated open-air barn with curtain walls that go up during the summer months, making them especially comfortable on hot, sunny days and down in the winter months to block the wind and snow (Figure 2). They see housing that is well-managed to protect animals from wind, rain, snow, and mud. Maybe some day, we will learn to put a different photo on milk containers.

Figure 2. A well-ventilated open-air curtain wall freestall dairy barn where cows roam and have free access to a mixed well-balanced diet.

Cows do better in freestalls because they have free access to a total mixed and well-balanced ration, clean, dry stalls, and outstanding shelter, far better than our old tiestalls or stantions in the red barn of the 50’s or the bedded packs of the 60’s. Walking through housing systems used on well-managed modern dairy farms provides an experience you can’t get in the newspaper or on the internet.

Change in trust that dairy farmers are caring for their animals

Consumers have concerns about animal care. When asked to rate their level of trust that dairy farmers will do the right thing with regard to caring for food-producing animals, 77% of all and 66% of 1^st-time visitors in MI, 74% of all and 68% of 1^st-timers in OH and 68% of all and 61% of 1^st-timers in VT had a high or very high levels of trust before their tour. Their assessments increased to 96% for all and 96% for 1^st-timers in MI, 94% for all and 92% for 1^st-timers in OH, and 91% for all and 94% for 1^st-timers in VT, leaving with high or very high trust that farmers will do right with regard the care of dairy animals.

Some came with concerns!!

Seventeen percent in MI and 28% in OH indicated that they came with concerns about current food production methods. Their change in trust was greater than those who didn’t indicate that they came with this concern. A comparison in the mean level of trust on the 5-point scale, showed that MI participants’ increased in level of trust in animal care was 0.73 vs. 0.43 for those with and without concerns about modern food production methods, respectively. The increase in trust in animal housing was 0.81 for those with concerns and 0.50 for those without concerns. For OH, the increase in trust for those with concerns vs. those without concerns was 0.73 and 0.46 for animal care and 0.76 and 0.45 for housing, respectively.

The opportunity to openly walk on a modern farm, talk to farmers and others involved in the dairy industry, and to see and read about the advantages of modern animal housing and steps that farmers take in caring for their animals creates a significant shift in participants impressions and trust, even for those who come with concerns.

Summary

Consumers are bombarded with many messages about their food, from how unhealthy it is to how poorly it is produced in the U.S. When they get a chance to experience an operating dairy farm, their trust in how dairy farmers house and care for their animals goes up substantially, particularly for those who are visiting a working dairy farm for the first time in recent years. Seeing housing systems being used on modern, well-managed dairy farms provides an experience you can’t get in the newspaper or on the internet. Once people see how animals are actually housed and cared for on a typical dairy farm, they get the sense that animals are receiving good care from farmers. They like the way cows are housed and cared for. Participants are very thankful to the farmers who open their doors, they appreciate the hard work to produce safe food and care for animals. They are giving high marks for housing and animal care and they buy more dairy products and tell others about their positive experience touring a dairy farm. The shifts in impressions and trust speak well of the educational farm tour approach to helping consumers better appreciate how their food is produced and to the farmers who graciously open their doors to provide a very transparent look at modern agriculture. One primary reason for increased trust is that the public can see how the animals are housed and fed. From the educational displays and talking to volunteers, they learn about the care given to animals and to balancing rations, and how professional nutritionists and veterinarians are involved on farms. They also appreciate the opportunity to walk through host farms. This transparency has an impact even with operations with 3500 milking cows. Participants also see the community support from the 200 to 400 volunteers. This overwhelms some participants, as does the number of people attending the breakfast. Some neighbors come to see how things are done because of concern or comments they have heard about agriculture’s impact on the environment. They learn how farmers are working hard to protect the land and the environment, not that everything is perfect. As for negative comments, there are very few. In summary, educational farm tours allow for transparency, personal observations, education and conversations! If you are wondering how you can have an impact on the publics’ trust, open your doors and provide consumers an opportunity to learn how you do things on your farm. And finally, we should thank those farm families that have opened their farms to the public!!! As Tim Hood, a Michigan Breakfast on the Farm host put it; “It just irks me to think that someone could be driving by my farm and thinking we don't take care of our animals. They have read, heard or even seen on TV animal mistreatment on farms. They assume that all animals kept in buildings are unhappy or mistreated. I believe that is part of the reason they like to see animals outside.”
IN THE NEWS …
Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University
1. On January 19, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency filed a motion with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to further delay issuance of the mandate for reporting of air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms. Thus, no reporting is required until the Court issues its order, or mandate, enforcing its decision to eliminate the reporting exemptions for farms. Additional information about this issue can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/cercla-and-epcra-reporting-requirements-air-releases-hazardous-substances-animal-waste-farms
1. The Center for Food Integrity recently released a report titled “A Dangerous Food Disconnect When Consumers Hold You Responsible But Don’t Trust You” from some research that they had conducted. Food regulatory agencies and food companies were the top two groups that were deemed responsible for ensuring safe food; however, they were eighth and eleventh, respectively, among those trusted sources for safe food. Family and the family doctor were the two top choices for trust of safe food. On the positive side, farmers were ranked third for both being responsible for ensuring a safe food supply and held the same ranking for trust. Additional information from the report is available at: http://www.foodintegrity.org/
Ohio State Dairy Judging Team Competes in Texas

Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

For 10 consecutive years, the college Dairy Judging Team has flown to Fort Worth, Texas for the Annual judging contest. We have high hopes of escaping the winter weather for a more desirable temperature. On the trip there, we barely escaped a winter storm in Columbus and even departed when Fort Worth was bracing for an ice storm. Despite the weather, our trip was quite productive and resulted in a favorable outcome.

The OSU team of Tanner Topp, Kate Sherman, and Levi Plocher made the trip south from January 12th-15th. The contest included 13 teams from as far as California and Michigan. At the results banquet, we were 3rd overall and 3rd in reasons, and 2nd in Jersey. Tanner was 2nd high in reasons, 4th high individual, and 2nd in Jersey and Swiss. Kate was 9th high individual and 4th in the Jersey breed. The trip was also filled with farm visits and locations of cultural interest.

Pictured (left to right): Tanner Topp, Kate Sherman, and Levi Plocher.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Mr. Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices: Past, present and future

Looking back on 2017, Class III milk prices have been more stable (Figure 1A) and higher than 2016 (average: $16.20 vs. $14.90/cwt), but they were still 8% lower than the 5 year average ($17.55/cwt). The Class IV milk price was also consistently about $1.60/cwt higher compared to 2016 (average: $15.44 vs $13.76/cwt) and lower than the 5 year average ($17.03/cwt; Figure 1B).

For the current issue, the Class III component price for September closed at $16.36/cwt and then increased to $16.69/cwt in October. The November Class III futures price are relatively unchanged at $16.41/cwt, but it is projected to jump up about $0.50/cwt come December. All in all, we can expect the Class III milk price to average around $16.50/cwt, and producers can expect a mailbox price somewhere between $17.75 to $18.25/cwt for the remainder of the year.

Whether the Class III milk price will stay above $16/cwt in 2018 is the current question up for debate. Unfortunately, I do not think this will happen. The reason being is global milk production continues to increase while the value of exported milk products is declining, and fast.

In regards to increasing milk production, this “consequence” is compounded by both parts of the equation – increased cow numbers and annual cow production. In 2017, the number of cows being milked in the US was about 1% or about 100,000 cows greater than the previous year (USDA, 2017). Annual milk production per cow also increased 200 lb/cow (22,900 vs 22,750 lb/cow/year), causing total milk produced to be 1.5% or 4 billion lb greater than 2016. The European Union and New Zealand also have increased their total production by about 4 billion lb, now leading us to the question – do we have a place for all of this extra milk?

Looking at the export market, both the total value and total amount of milk products exported in the US were consistently higher from January to June 2017 compared to these months in 2016. However in July and August, total milk value exported became similar and was significantly lower in September. The 2018 CME Class III and IV futures are reflecting the sudden dip now trading below $14.50 and $14.00/cwt, respectively, and suggest a bearish market is upon us. Inevitably, this will not be good for the domestic milk price.

Figure 1: The monthly Class III (A) and IV (B) milk prices for Federal Order No. 33 during the 2016 and 2017 years.

Nutrient Prices

In light of a potential drop in milk price, nutrient prices continue to remain relatively low as they have been for the past three years. For MP, its current value ($0.44/lb) has increased slightly from September’s issue ($0.42/lb), but it is lower than the 5 year average ($0.48/lb). The cost of NE_Lwas decreased by 0.5¢/Mcal to 6.6¢/Mcal, which is lower than the 5-year average of 11¢/Mcal. The price of e-NDF also dropped from 7¢/lb to 3¢/lb, whereas ne-NDF is nearly identical to September at -6¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount).

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index for cows milking 70 lb/day or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. In the September issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated to be $10.68/cwt for cows milking 70 lb/day and $11.06/cwt for cows milking 85 lb/day. For November, the IONC for our 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows is about $1/cwt higher than September at an estimated $11.63/cwt and $11.94/cwt. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows; however, they should be profitable when greater than about $9/cwt.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2017.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 28, 2017 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2017.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price, or in other words moved a column to the right, since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in price) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, November 28, 2017.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF
Corn silage	Blood meal	Beet pulp
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	Mechanically extracted canola meal
Feather meal	Soybean meal - expeller	Citrus pulp
Gluten feed	Soybean hulls	41% Cottonseed meal
Hominy	48% Soybean meal	Fish meal
Meat meal	Whole cottonseed	Molasses
Solvent extracted canola meal	Wheat bran	Tallow
Wheat middlings		44% Soybean meal
		Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution
for Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2017.

Secure Milk Supply: Ohio’s Role

Dr. Eric Gordon, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious foreign animal disease that infects cattle and other cloven-hooved livestock, such as swine, sheep, goats, and deer. FMD is not a public health or food safety concern. Clinically, the virus results in blisters on the animals feet, mouth, and on teats. Other signs include drooling, lameness, fever, nasal discharge, and going off feed. FMD virus is the most contagious animal virus and is shed in saliva, breath, milk, semen, urine, and manure. It can be spread quickly between animals or indirectly on workers clothing, footwear, farm vehicles, and equipment.

Currently, FMD virus is found in more than 2/3 of the world, most notably in parts of South America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The United States has been free of FMD for nearly 100 years. The last outbreak in the U.S. was in 1929. Currently, there is also no FMD in Canada, Mexico, and Central America.

Many experts believe another outbreak of FMD in the United States is inevitable. Given that the modern U.S. dairy industry is more “national” than in 1929, an outbreak today would spread much faster and prove to be very costly. This could be potentially devastating to the dairy industry and to U.S. agriculture.

Should one or more cases of FMD, hereinafter to be referenced as hoof and mouth (HMD) Disease so as not to confuse the disease with human hand, foot, and mouth virus, are identified in the U.S., responsible regulatory officials (local, state, tribal, and federal officials, as appropriate) have the authority and responsibility to establish control areas around HMD infected premises and to manage animal and animal product (e.g., milk) movement within, into, and out of the control area. In other words, should a dairy farm premises become infected with HMD, a control area of about 25 square miles, or more, would be set up around the farm. Other dairy farms within that control area that are not infected would have restrictions placed on the movement of milk, animals, and vehicles on and off the farm.

The Secure Milk Supply (SMS) Plan provides a workable business continuity plan for dairy farms that are under movement restrictions but not infected with HMD. The plan offers movement guidance for producers, haulers, processing plants, and officials managing the outbreak. It helps dairy farms in the control area, whose cattle have no signs of HMD, to continue to move milk, thereby limiting the milk disposal problems and lost income for dairy farms, haulers, processors, and grocers. Additionally, this plan works to maintain the supply of milk and milk products to consumers.

Furthermore, the plan provides biosecurity and surveillance tools for producers. The biosecurity performance standards outlined in the SMS Plan are good for all dairy farms to consider before a serious health event occurs. Those biosecurity principals can help protect your dairy from other contagious diseases that can be harmful to your animals, such as Bovine Viral Diarrhea, Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis, Johnes, Anaplasmosis, and more.

In late 2016, Ohio officially joined the Mid-Atlantic regional group of states to participate in the M-A-SMS Plan. The M-A SMS Plan provides additional guidance, beyond that described in the national SMS Plan, to the Mid-Atlantic States’ dairy industry to be eligible to request raw milk movement permits from dairy farms to processing with no evidence of HMD infection in a control area. Due to the extensive movement of raw milk to processing between states in the Mid-Atlantic region, regional cooperation enhances the effectiveness of these efforts to support the continuity of business of the dairy industry.

Components of the M-A SMS Plan for permitting raw milk movement from Grade “A” farms in a control area to processing include measures to be put in place before (pre-event) an HMD outbreak and post-event. These measures are designed to prevent the introduction of the disease and to prevent moving the disease from one farm to another via milk trucks/tankers and haulers/drivers. The measures apply to dairy operation premises, the milk truck/tanker, the milk truck hauler/driver, milk processing plants, and milk receiving stations.

You can protect your dairy from diseases that would adversely affect your animals and your bottom line. You can also help ensure that you will be able to continue to move your milk during a substantial foreign animal disease outbreak by participating in the SMS Plan. If you would like more information about the SMS Plan, how to protect your business during a disease crisis, or just want to have better biosecurity on your dairy, contract one of Ohio’s SMS Plan consultants: Dr. Bill Yost (yostie6@gmail.com) or Dr. Eric Gordon (gordon.46@osu.edu).
Milking Procedures Affect Milk Quality

Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

In today’s competitive milk market, the production of high quality milk is a must. An article by Jeffrey Reneau from the University of Minnesota entitled “Milk Quality in the 21^st Century” says that high quality raw milk is free of undesirable flavors, chemicals, or antibiotic residues; is low in somatic cells and bacteria; and contains a minimum of 3.5% butterfat, 3.1% protein, and 4.8% lactose. One important aspect of producing quality milk that has a low somatic cell count and bacteria level is the establishment of a consistent milking procedure that emphasizes udder and teat hygiene, along with cow care. Managers should periodically review milking procedures with milkers. Observe milking routines and evaluate milkers to insure that procedures are followed correctly and consistently.

Pre-milking preparation begins as cows enter the parlor. Cows should enter calmly. Milkers need to work in a calm manner as well. I have heard this described as “working at cow speed”. Milkers should wear nitrile gloves as they work through the cow preparation and milking procedures.

Dr. Pamela Ruegg, formerly at the University of Wisconsin and currently chair of the Department of Animal Science at Michigan State University, and Dr. Jeffrey Reneau at the University of Minnesota are big proponents of implementing standardized milking procedures on the farm and training all milkers to follow those procedures during the milking routine. Cows are creatures of habit; they like routines. They do not favor change or surprises. Dr. Reneau cites a year-long Denmark study that found when cows were milked in a standardized routine where pre-milking cow prep and prep-lag time were optimized, 5.5% more milk was produced compared to cows milked in a non-standardized minimal milking routine. Dr. Ruegg has identified seven habits of successful milking routines that she advises milkers to practice; the publication is available on-line at https://learningstore.uwex.edu/Assets/pdfs/A3725.pdf. In this article, I’ll focus on Dr. Ruegg’s advice concerning cow preparation and milking procedures.

Cow preparation involves cleaning the udders and teats and stimulating milk let down. The goal here is to start with cows that are clean upon entry into the milking parlor so that milkers are only doing a dry wipe of the udders and teats to remove bedding material, such as sand or straw, before proceeding to a pre-dip and forestripping. The purpose of pre-dipping is to disinfect the teat ends and control environmental pathogens. Consistent and complete coverage of the teat end with a disinfectant dip can reduce teat surface bacteria by 75% and reduce the incidence of mastitis. Effective disinfection requires 30 seconds of contact time before wiping off the dip.

Milk let down is a response to a release of oxytocin from the pituitary gland, along with stimulation of the nervous system and muscles in the udder. Typically, 10 to 20 seconds of manual stimulation will provide optimal milk let down and result in higher milk yield, milk flow rate, and reduced milking unit on time as compared to no stimulation. One excellent way to provide this manual stimulation is to forestrip the udder, removing 3 to 4 streams of milk from each teat. In addition to providing stimulus for milk let down, it allows milkers to perform a check for any visual symptoms of abnormal milk that should not go into the bulk tank. Research done by Dr. Ruegg on Wisconsin dairy farms demonstrated that milkers might either pre-dip then forestrip or forestrip and then pre-dip. The order does not matter as long as both are done and the pre-dip is on the teat for 30 seconds.

Dry teats with an individual cloth or paper towel after disinfecting. This is a critical step because wet teats allow skin bacteria easy access up the teat canal and wet teats reduce the friction between the teat and milk inflation, resulting in more slips and greater opportunity for environmental pathogens to enter the system.

The next step in the milking routine is to attach the milking unit. The time from initial contact with teat surfaces until milker unit attachment is termed prep lag time. The prep lag time goal is 60 to 120 seconds. This time frame synchs milker attachment with peak oxytocin concentrations in blood, resulting in milk flow immediately after milking unit attachment. Properly align and center the milking unit under the udder to minimize liner slips and facilitate milking unit removal. I think it is worth mentioning at this point that keeping cows calm and contented throughout the prep and milking time is a key factor in the release of oxytocin and the subsequent milk let down and milk out. If at any point in this process the cow becomes upset, startled, or scared, this triggers the release of adrenalin, which trumps oxytocin and stops the milk let down process.

Shut off the vacuum and remove milking units when milking is completed. Automatic take offs are set to shut off the vacuum when milk flow rate falls below a pre-set level (typically between 0.5 to 1.0 lb/minute) and then remove the milking unit after a short delay. Cows will normally have 2 to 4 cups of milk remaining in the udder upon completion of milking. Do not over milk. This can cause teat end damage and result in mastitis.

After milking unit removal, dip at least the lower one-third of each teat with an antiseptic product. As part of a mastitis prevention program, ensure that cows remain standing for at least 30 minutes after milking to allow the teat sphincter muscle to fully close.

Like all routines, over time, attention to detail can slip and variation can creep in. Periodic review of milking procedures and the milking routine can aid in maintaining quality milk production.
Update on the Dairy Margin Protection Program

Ms. Dianne Shoemaker, Field Specialist in Dairy Production Economics, The Ohio State University

The Dairy Margin Protection Program, developed and launched as part of the 2014 Farm Bill, is considered a major disappointment in the dairy community. Changing from an industry-wide price support program to an individual-farm margin protection program, farmers could choose to “protect” a $4/cwt difference between the all-milk price and a calculated feed cost for a $100 per year enrollment fee. If you desire to protect a higher margin, then you can “buy up” coverage to protect up to an $8/cwt margin.

Unfortunately, “disappointment” is a proven evaluation as the program provided little or no support in 2015 or 2016, back-to-back poor years. Overall, most farms that “bought-up” coverage were lucky if they recouped the cost of the additional premiums which ranged from a penny to $1.36/cwt, depending on how much milk a farm produced and the coverage level desired.

While the signup for 2018 (currently the final year of the program depending on the next farm bill) was originally set to begin this July, it was delayed until September 1 and will continue through December 15, 2017.

The original program rules stated that once a farm enrolled in the program, they were committed to at least minimum participation through 2018. That meant that the farm would pay at least the $100 per year administrative fee plus any additional premiums if they desired a higher level of margin protection each year.

While industry groups, such as the National Milk Producers Federation, are putting forth proposals for improving the program as the next farm bill is debated, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue was able to change the annual participation requirement for 2018. This change allows farmers who signed up to participate before 2018 the opportunity to not participate in 2018, saving them the $100 annual administrative fee.

The proposals for change seek to address serious deficits in the calculation of feed costs, which the current model underestimates. The original farm bill proposals calculated a more representative feed cost, but were adjusted so the plan would potentially cost less. It worked too well. Any reworks need to consider the regional differences in feed costs, as well as the validity of the base formulas.

If you participated in the Dairy Margin Protection Program in the past 4 years, you have one or two decisions to make between now and December 15^th. Decision #1: Will you participate at all? If you do not want to participate, then there will be no administrative fee and no protection (little as that has been).

Decision #2: If you choose to participate, even at the minimum level, you must contact your local Farm Service Agency office and pay the $100 administrative fee that “protects” a $4/cwt margin on 90% of your base production. Then, decide if you want to protect a margin above $4/cwt and use the decision tool at https://dairymarkets.org/MPP/ to look at predicted margins and premium costs. While current projections show margins at or above $8/cwt through February 2019 (based on data available on 11/21/2017), staying in and paying the $100 administrative fee for the final year would provide some very cheap catastrophe-level insurance. Contact your local Farm Service Agency office and let them know what your decisions are for 2018 before the December 15^th deadline.
Results from 2017 Ohio Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences,The Ohio State University

The 2017 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held October 20-21 and was sponsored by ADM Animal Nutrition, Cargill Animal Nutrition, Commodity Blenders, Provimi North America, Purina Animal Nutrition, Sexing Technologies, and VitaPlus. Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped into teams of three to four individuals. Veterinary and graduate students are invited to attend the farm visit and participate in a meeting later in the evening with the contest judges to discuss observations on the farm. The farm selected for the contest this year was the JIMAN Dairy Farm in Shreve, OH owned by Jim and Ann Obrecht. The Obrecht family started milking at the facility in 1978 with about 45 cows and continued to expand over the years to whereby today they have about 300 cows. Cows are milked 3 times-a-day in a double 6 herringbone parlor. The forages grown on the farm include corn silage, alfalfa, and grass. There were 59 undergraduate students (15 teams; 12 students from ATI and 47 from the Columbus campus) and 22 veterinary students that participated. The undergraduate teams this year were again divided into novice and experienced divisions for judging purposes. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Friday afternoon, interviewing the owner and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. During Friday evening, the undergraduate teams spent about three hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities for the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation that had to be turned in on Friday evening. On Saturday, the undergraduate students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the novice division were: Larissa Deikun (Cargill/Provimi), Brian Lammers (ADM Animal Nutrition), Luis Moraes (Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), and Dwight Roseler (Purina Animal Nutrition). The judges for the experienced division were: Nicole Colgren (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), Bob Hostetler (Sexing Technologies), and Owen Mickley (VitaPlus). Shaun Wellert with ATI also assisted with the program. The awards banquet was held on Saturday, October 21 at the Fawcett Center on the OSU Columbus campus. The top two teams in the novice division were: First Place – Molly Michael, Megan Retallick, Loren Schmidt, and Allie Schroeder; Second Place – Cole Courtney, Adam Miley, Christian Steiner, and Brady Weaver. The top teams in the experienced division were: Frist Place – Ella Jackson, Grace Moeller, and Kate Sherman; Second Place – Kyle Daugherty, Nate Leland, Rianne Kruiter, and Courtney Lund. Students will be selected to represent Ohio at the National Contest and to participate in the Dairy Challenge Academy to be held in Visalia, CA during April 5-7, 2018. Students from ATI participated in the Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge held October 26-28, 2017 in Auburn, NY, and students from the Columbus campus will be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge hosted by University of Wisconsin-Madison during February 7-9, 2018. The coach for the Dairy Challenge program at ATI is Dr. Shaun Wellert and Dr. Maurice Eastridge is the coach for the Columbus campus. Additional information about the North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge program can be found at: http://www.dairychallenge.org/

Novice Division, First Place (left to right): Allie Schroeder, Loran Schmidt, Megan Retallick, and
Molly Michael.

Novice Division, Second Place: Cole Courtney, Adam Miley, Christian Steiner, and Brady Weaver.

Experienced Division, First Place (left to right): Kate Sherman, Grace Moeller, and Ella Jackson.

Experienced Division, Second Place (left to right): Kyle Daugherty, Rianne Kruiter, Courtney Lund, and Nate Leland.
Reporting Requirements for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste on Farms

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides the oversight for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) which require facilities to report releases of hazardous substances that are equal to or greater than their reportable quantities within any 24-hour period. Following a hazardous substance reportable release, a facility owner or operator must notify federal authorities under CERCLA and state and local authorities under EPCRA. On December 18, 2008, EPA published a final rule that exempted most farms from certain release reporting requirements in CERCLA and EPCRA, specifically exempting farms releasing hazardous substances from animal waste to the air above threshold levels from reporting under CERCLA. For EPCRA reporting, the rule exempted reporting of such releases if the farm had fewer animals than a large concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO). Thus, all farms were relieved from reporting hazardous substance air releases from animal waste under CERCLA, and only large CAFO were subject to EPCRA reporting. On April 11, 2017, the US Court of Appeals struck down the final rule, eliminating the reporting exemptions for farms. EPA sought additional time from the Court to delay the effective date so that EPA could develop guidance materials to help farmers understand their reporting obligations. Once the mandate was issued, farms were expected to submit an initial continuous release notification to the National Response Center for qualifying releases that occur within a 24-hour period and this initially became effective on November 15, 2017. The EPA requested from the Court a further delay in the mandate to further prepare guidance documents, and then on November 22, 2017, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals granted EPA’s motion to further stay the mandate until January 22, 2018.

The EPA specifically identifies ammonia and hydrogen sulfide as two hazardous substances commonly associated with animal wastes that will require emissions reporting, with each substance having a reportable quantity of 100 lb. If a farm releases 100 lb or more of either substance to the air within a 24-hour period, the owner or operator must notify the National Response Center. So at this point, the livestock industry needs to remain aware of these potentially new air emissions reporting requirements and expect to receive further directives in January 2018 about such requirements. Additional information from EPA about these issues is available at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/cercla-and-epcra-reporting-requirements-air-releases-hazardous-substances-animal-waste-farms
Agricultural Industry Updates
Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Some updates that I want to share with the agricultural industry include:
1. There are a couple of changes in the Ohio Livestock Care Standards that become effective as of January 1, 2018: a) veal calves must be housed in group pens by 10 weeks of age and whether housed in individual stalls or group pens, the calves must be allowed to turn around and cannot be tethered; and b) tail docking on dairy cattle can only be performed by a licensed veterinarian and if only medically necessary. The news release from the Ohio Department of Agriculture about these changes can be found at: http://www.ohioagriculture.gov/public_docs/news/2017/11.13.17%20ODA%20Announces%20Changes%20to%20Ohios%20Livestock%20Care%20Standards.pdf
1. The Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics at The Ohio State University has released a report on “The Economic Contribution of Agricultural and Food Production to the Ohio Economy” that provides some valuable insights about changes in agriculture and its impacts on Ohio’s economy. The report can be found at: https://aede.osu.edu/sites/aede/files/publication_files/The%20Economic%20Contribution%20of%20Agricultural%20and%20Food%20Production%20to%20the%20Ohio%20Economy_FINAL%20Nov%2028%202017.pdf

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the Class III component price for May and June closed at $15.57 and $16.44/cwt, respectively. For the month of July, the Class III future was projected to stay stagnant at $16.58 and then decrease over a $1/cwt to $15.29/cwt in August. The Class III component price for the month of July actually closed at about $1/cwt lower than its future at $15.45/cwt, whereas the August Class III component price closed more than $1/cwt higher than its future price at $16.57/cwt. Class III futures for September and October are expected to remain relatively unchanged from the August Class III component price at $16.59 and $16.44/cwt, respectively.

Nutrient Prices

In this issue, I have also calculated a new corn silage price for the 2017 growing year: $43.20/ton (35% dry matter). This price is nearly identical to the 2016 growing year ($42.50/ton) and is still a bargain compared to other common ingredients. The price I calculated is based on the crop value as if it was harvested for corn grain rather than silage. Because corn silage is dual purpose and provides marked amounts of both NE_L and e-NDF for dairy cows, the true value of corn silage to the producer should actually be around $65.40/ton, about 40% higher than my calculation. However, corn silage quality varies considerably based on location (e.g., weather and growing conditions), harvesting and storage conditions, or management practices, as well as the corn hybrid planted. Using the 75% confidence intervals defined in Table 2 are better predictors of what corn silage may actual be worth to producers because of this real world variability. The intervals still do not contain the calculated value based off corn grain (i.e., the $43.20/ton estimate). Bottom line, corn silage should be a no brainer for making up the majority of the forage component for rations during the upcoming year, but only if you have stored enough – running out of corn silage in August will be a huge financial burden.

Nutrient prices continue to remain relatively low as they have been for the past three years. For MP, its current value ($0.42/lb) has increased slightly from July’s issue ($0.37/lb) but is about 13% lower than the 5 year average ($0.48/lb). The cost of NE_Lis 7¢/Mcal, slightly lower than the July price at 9¢/Mcal and is lower than the 5-year average of 11¢/Mcal. The price of e-NDF at 7¢/lb is slightly lower than the July price (5¢/lb) and ne-NDF at -7¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount) is identical to the July price.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index for cows milking 70 lb/day or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. In the last issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated to be $10.40/cwt for cows milking 70 lb/day and $10.78/cwt for cows milking 85 lb/day. For September, the IONC for our 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows are slightly higher than July at an estimated $10.68/cwt and $11.06/cwt, respectively. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows; however, they should be profitable when greater than about $9/cwt. Overall, farmers producing milk in Ohio should be making money.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, September 25, 2017.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on September 25, 2017 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used
on Ohio dairy farms, September 25, 2017.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price, or in other words moved a column to the right, since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in price) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, September 25, 2017.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Beet pulp
Corn silage	Bakery byproducts	Blood meal
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	Canola meal
Feather meal	Meat meal	Citrus pulp
Gluten feed	Soybean meal - expeller	41% Cottonseed meal
Hominy	Soybean hulls	Fish meal
Solvent extracted canola meal	Whole cottonseed	Molasses
48% Soybean meal	Wheat bran	Tallow
Wheat middlings		44% Soybean meal
		Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the table below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution
for Ohio dairy farms, September 25, 2017.

Effect of Increased Somatic Cell Count on Herd Level Yield of Milk and Milk Components

Hannah Walczyk, Undergraduate Student, and Maurice Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Introduction

Dairy is an essential component to the human diet. With this being said, it is important that farmers continue to improve their productivity in order to supply the fast-growing population with dairy products (De Vliegher et al., 2012). Additionally, increasing the cow’s yield of milk, protein, and fat will benefit the farm economically. Unfortunately, there are many factors that can negatively affect the quantity of milk, as well as its quality. One of these factors is disease, especially mastitis. Mastitis is one of the most common and harmful diseases among dairy cows (De Vliegher et al., 2012). Mastitis is the inflammation of the mammary gland caused by an intra-mammary infection. Infection can be caused by multiple species of bacteria which enter the teat orifice and invade the mammary gland (De Vliegher et al., 2012). Diagnosis of mastitis can be achieved by evaluating the concentration of somatic cells in the milk. If the cow shows high concentrations of somatic cells, then mastitis is present in the gland.

Mastitis is not only harmful to the cow’s biological functions but also to the profitability of the farm. As stated by Losinger (2005), there have been many past reports which have proven that an increase in somatic cell count (SCC) results in a decrease in milk production, thus resulting in financial loss to the farm. In fact, the economic loss in the US per cow per year for one clinical mastitis case has been estimated to be $80 (Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi et al., 2010). In our study, levels of SCC, somatic cell score (SCS), milk yield, milk fat, and milk protein on a herd basis were evaluated in order to determine the impact of increased SCC and SCS on yields of milk, fat, and protein.

Materials and Methods

During this study, data collected from Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI Cooperative, Inc., Columbus, OH) were used to assess the impact of increased SCC and SCS at the herd level on yields of milk, fat, and protein. The data included the rolling herd averages (RHA) for SCC and yields of milk, fat, and protein from Ohio dairy farms for the years 2012 through 2015. The data were sorted to meet the following criteria: > 100 cows, and Holstein or mixed breed. The RHA SCC (1000 cells/mL) was used to calculate the RHA SCS using the following equation (Wiggans and Shook, 1987):

Subsequently, data were analyzed using SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). The simple statistics for number of cows, SCC, SCS, and yields of milk, fat, protein, and energy corrected milk (ECM) are shown in Table 1. The PROC CORR procedure of SAS was used for determination of the correlation coefficients for the variables of interest. The PROC MIXED procedure of SAS was used to estimate the impact of SCC and SCS on stated yields on a herd basis, with herd set as a random variable and year as a repeated variable. Data were considered to be significant if the P < 0.05 and a trend if P < 0.10.

Table 1. Number of cows, somatic cell count (SCC), somatic cell score (SCS),
and rolling herd average yields of milk, fat, protein, and energy corrected milk (ECM).

Variable	Mean	Std Dev	Minimum	Maximum
Cows/farm	265	266	100	2,675
Milk, lb	23,720	3,387	12,102	33,109
Fat, lb	888	132	480	1,375
Protein, lb	735	97	390	1,058
SCC, 1000 cells/mL	196	82	42	596
SCS	3.84	0.61	1.70	5.60
ECM, lb	24,890	3,415	13,137	34,720

Results/Discussion

As expected, milk yield and SCC were negatively correlated (Table 2). This means that as SCC increases, milk yield will decrease. Milk yield and SCS also were negatively correlated, with the coefficient only being slightly higher than for milk and SCC. In addition, it was observed that yields of fat and protein also were negatively correlated with SCC and SCS. Thus, an increase in SCS would be expected to decrease the quality of milk and the yields of milk, fat, and protein, which would all contribute to a loss of income to the dairy farmer. Each of the correlation coefficients provided in Table 2 were significant.

Finally, the impact of increased SCC on milk yield was determined. From this analysis of milk yield and SCC, the y-intercept was 23,661 lb, and the slope was -1.56. Thus, the relationship between milk yield and SCC is expressed as:

Milk (lb) = 23,661 - 1.56x,

where x is defined as SCC (1000 cells/mL). The same analysis was performed in order to evaluate the relationship between milk yield and SCS. In this case, the intercept was 24,151 lb and the slope was -207. The following equation was used to express this relationship:

Milk (lb) = 24,151 - 207x,

where x is defined as SCS (0 to 9 linear scale).

When examining the relationship between milk yield and SCC, it was determined that for every 1000 cells/mL SCC increase, there would be a 1.56 lb RHA milk loss. Thus, if a herd had an SCC of 400,000 cells/ mL, then the RHA milk yield would be expected to decrease by 624 lb (400 x 1.56 = 624). Using this example, a 624 lb decrease in RHA milk yield for a 500 cow herd could result in about a $56,000 loss in income (assuming $18/cwt for milk). Likewise, for every 1 SCS increase, there would be a 207 lb loss in milk. Thus, a SCS of 5 (equivalent to 400,000 cells/ mL SCC) would result in about 1035 lb (5 x 207) decrease in RHA milk yield (Table 3). Using $18/cwt for milk with a 500 cow herd, this could result in about $93,000 of loss revenue. The slopes for both SCC and SCS tended to be significant (P < 0.10), but they differed in magnitude of milk loss (for the example above: 624 vs 1035 lb loss RHA milk). However, it has been determined in previous research that SCS has a better relationship than SCC with milk loss (Wiggans and Shook, 1987). The results of this study were somewhat different compared to the generally accepted milk losses used in the DHI system which are differentiated by parity (Table 3). For every linear score increase, or doubling of SCC, above SCS 2, there is estimated a loss of 200 lb/lactation for parity one cows and 400 lb/lactation of milk loss for those with 2+ lactations. The results of this study showed a loss of 207 lb of milk in RHA per SCS increase. Some of this difference between the estimated milk loss using the DHI system and our findings is because our study was on a RHA basis and not separated by parities of individual cows. If you assume that a typical herd consists of about one third parity one cows and two-thirds of cows with two or more parities, then the weighed estimated milk loss would be 334, 668, 1002, and 1336 lb/lactation for SCS of 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. These would compare to the 621, 828, 1035, and 1242 lb RHA milk, respectively, using the SCS coefficient from our study. Understanding the relationship between SCS and milk yield is important for improving mammary health within a herd and improving profitability for the farm.

Conclusions

Mastitis is a costly disease on dairy farms. Its impact on animal health and farm profitability are well recognized. The impact on the farm economics results from the costs associated with the disease on the farm (e.g. loss of milk, cost of treatment, labor, etc.) and the premiums for milk quality from the processor. Understanding the relationship of SCS on milk loss is important since over 50% of the cost of mastitis is caused by loss of milk sales. Monitoring this relationship can assist in culling decisions and making management changes and facility modifications to improve the mammary health status of the herd. Whether using the estimates of milk loss from this study or those referenced in the DHI system, it is very apparent that mastitis can be very costly on a dairy farm.

Table 2. Correlation coefficients and P-values for milk, fat, protein, somatic cell
count (SCC), somatic cell score (SCS), and energy- corrected milk (ECM).

	Milk	Fat	Protein	SCC	SCS	ECM
Milk	1.00	0.8421 <0.0001	0.9712 <0.0001	-0.2867 <0.0001	-0.3003 <0.0001	0.9568 <0.0001
Fat		1.00	0.8583 <0.0001	-0.1867 <0.0001	-0.2018 <0.0001	0.9603 <0.0001
Protein			1.00	-0.2618 <0.0001	-0.2704 <0.0001	0.9619 <0.0001
SCC				1.00	0.9590 <0.0001	-0.2422 <0.0001
SCS					1.00	-0.2562 <0.0001
ECM						1.00

Table 3. Comparison of estimated milk loss for the DHI adopted system
versus the equation derived in this study.¹

		Milk Loss, Per cow (lb/lactation)²
SCS	SCC (1000 cells/mL)	Parity 1	Parity 2+	Milk Loss, RHA milk³ (lb/lactation)
0	12.5	---	---	---
1	25	---	---	---
2	50	---	---	---
3	100	200	400	621
4	200	400	800	828
5	400	600	1,200	1,035
6	800	800	1,600	1,242
7	1,600	1,000	2,000	---
8	3,200	1,200	2,400	---
9	6,400	1,400	2,800	----

¹SCS = Somatic cell score, SCC = somatic cell count, and RHA = rolling herd average.
²Based on system adopted by DHI (NMC, 2017)
³Based on the SCS equation in this paper; estimated RHA loss only provided for
SCS 3 to 6 because of range of data used for deriving the equation.

Works Cited

De Vliegher, S., L.K. Fox, S. Peipers, S. McDougall, and H.W. Barkema. 2012. Invited review: Mastitis in dairy heifers: Nature of the disease, potential impact, prevention, and control. Journal of Dairy Science, 95:1025-1040. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3168/jds.2010-4074

Losinger, W. C. 2005. Economic impacts of reduced milk production associated with an increase in bulk-tank somatic cell count on US dairies. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 226(10), 1652-1658. doi:10.2460/javma.2005.226.1652

NMC. 2017. The value and use of Dairy Herd Improvement somatic cell count. National Mastitis Council Fact Sheet, http://www.nmconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-Value-and-Use-of-Dairy-Herd-Improvement-Somatic-Cell-Count.pdf (accessed August 3, 2017)

Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi, A., M. Moradi-Shahrbabak, A. Nejati-Javaremi, S.R. Miraei-Ashtiani, and Amer. 2010. Estimation of economic values and financial losses associated with clinical mastitis and somatic cell score in Holstein dairy cattle. Animal, 5(01), 33-42. doi:10.1017/s1751731110001655

Wiggans, G., and G. Shook, G. 1987. A lactation measure of somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science, 70(12), 2666-2672. doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(87)80337-5

Dairy Feed Bunk Management

Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

            The current state of the dairy economy has dairy farm managers looking for ways to improve cow productivity and reduce expenses. One management area that may offer some of these returns is the feed bunk. It is important to work with the herd nutritionist to provide a ration that will allow the dairy cow to produce a high level of milk, but beyond the nutrient composition of the ration, the manager must understand and work with cow feeding behavior to promote maximum dry matter intake (DMI). The following comments are based upon an eXtension article entitled “The Feeding Behavior of Dairy Cows: Considerations to Improve Cow Welfare and Productivity.”

            Dairy cows managed in an indoor production system typically spend 4 to 6 hours per day eating, ideally divided into 9 to 14 separate meals or feeding sessions. The delivery of fresh feed is a major stimulus to cow feeding and research demonstrates that the 60 minutes following fresh fed delivery produces a peak feeding pattern. Research has also shown that there is benefit to coordinating the delivery of fresh feed with a return from the milking parlor. Cows that had access to feed after milking stood longer (48 versus 21 minutes) than cows that did not have access to feed after returning from milking. The additional standing time is beneficial from the standpoint of providing adequate time for the teat sphincter muscle to fully close, thus reducing the risk of intramammary infection from exposure to environmental bacteria when cows lie down too soon after milking. Based on this research, adding an additional fresh fed delivery could help to improve DMI intake or, more likely, result in a more even feeding time distribution. Increased feed delivery can reduce diurnal fluctuations in rumen pH and possibly reduce the risk of subacute ruminal acidosis in some situations.

            If an additional fresh fed delivery is out of the question, more frequent feed push-up is another management practice that can offer a number of benefits, including higher DMI, greater fat-corrected milk yields, less feed refusal, and an increase in standing time after milking. Typically, sorting occurs by the first cows to eat the freshly delivered feed, which create holes in the feed pile. Cows that eat later do not have the same ration consistency as those first cows. Pushing feed up remixes the feed pile, which provides a better ration to those cows that follow the first eaters. When feed is pushed up, it can also stimulate another feeding session for the cows, creating another meal opportunity. The goal is to get cows to eat more frequent, smaller meals throughout the day. This creates a better pH balance within the rumen as compared to a situation where cows slug feed with fewer, larger meals. Slug feeding can disrupt rumen pH balance and lead to milk fat depression. After the initial feeding period, the feed bunk piles are often scattered, providing a large surface area for oxygen to degrade the forage portion of the ration, in particular ensiled forages. Pushing feed up puts feed back into piles with less surface area, which can help to prevent or reduce heating and reduce feed waste by refusal. If feed is not delivered after milking, then pushing up feed after milking can stimulate cows to eat and increase standing time after milking, allowing more time for the teat canal to close.

            A final factor to look at to help improve the DMI and distribution of feeding times and meals for cows is stocking density. The eXtension article says, “recent research suggests that overcrowding at the feed bunk may have deleterious effects on feeding behavior.” In 2000, Batchelder (Proceedings from Dairy Housing and Equipment Systems: Managing and Planning for Profitability, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania) reported that using 30% overcrowding (1.3 cows/headlock) reduced daily DMI and resulted in substantially fewer cows eating during both the hour following milking and following delivery of fresh feed. Other research has shown that in overcrowding situations, cows will stand and wait for a feeding spot. Increased standing times are associated with a higher risk of developing hoof and leg injuries. In addition, some researchers have noted increased aggression in feeding areas when cows are overcrowded and this behavior can lead to higher incidences of hoof lesion development and lameness.

            Dairy managers have opportunities to increase productivity and reduce costs by improving feed bunk management to take advantage of cow feeding behaviors. The entire eXtension article is available online at http://tiny.cc/cowfeedingbehavior.
Veal Calf Care – Starts at the Dairy Farm: Best Practices for Dairy Bull Calves
Dr. Marissa Hake, Midwest Veal, LLC @CALFVET on FB and Instagram

**At a Glance -- Calf care on the dairy farm is critical to early success of calves entering the veal market **

Veal calves are a small, but successful portion of the U.S. dairy industry. As a veterinarian who works exclusively with veal calves, I’ve found there is a lot of misunderstanding about the veal industry, even among dairy farmers. The success of calves entering the veal market is highly dependent on early care at the dairy farm. All of the same principles of calf care used for heifers should be applied to care of bulls, regardless if they are entering the beef or veal market.

What is a veal calf? The American veal calf industry is split into two major markets, the formula-fed veal calf and the bob veal calf. USDA reports 479,900 calves were harvested in 2016.

Formula-fed Veal (also known as milk-fed or special-fed)
- Approximately 85% of the veal consumed in the U.S. is formula-fed veal. These calves are marketed around 6 months old (approximately 450 to 500 lb) and are consuming milk and grain, which makes them very different than their bob-veal counterparts.
- Drug residues originating from the dairy farm are less likely in this class of veal because of age at processing.
Bob Veal
- Less than 10% of total volume of all veal marketed today is bob veal. Bob veal calves are usually sold directly from the dairy farm to a meat processor or through a sale barn to a meat processor for harvesting. Calves typically weigh less than 150 lb.
- Because of bob veal’s proximity to slaughter, the potential for residue violations originating at the dairy is higher.
- Dairy producers should be very careful not to use medications that can cause residues.
Best practices for on-farm care of dairy bull calves entering the veal market include:
- Most importantly - Adequate, clean and timely colostrum is given even if immediately transported off of the farm – 10% of calf’s body weight should be fed within 2 hours of birth^1,2
- Navels are disinfected with 7% tincture iodine or 1:1 Chlorhexidine/70% alcohol within 30 minutes of
  birth ²
- Adequate food and water is provided to maintain health, growth, and vitality ²
- Vaccines, if needed, given for enteric and respiratory diseases are approved by a veterinarian
- Clean, dry and sanitary housing is provided with proper ventilation and biosecurity
- All calves have identification ³
- Veal calves do not need to be castrated or dehorned
- Care and oversight is provided from trained calf care takers
- Do not sell or transport sick or injured calves
Communication and transparency between dairy and calf buyer/veal grower
- Have a good relationship and open communication between both parties
- Ensure that all medication, treatments and vaccines are documented and provided as needed
- Know which market the calves will be entering - special-fed veal or bob veal
Medications and Treatments
- Veal calves should not be denied treatment for disease on the dairy farm if warranted – Follow all withdrawal times
- Keep records of all treatments and identify calves
- Medicated milk replacer and milk from treated cows should be avoided in calves intended for veal
- Avoid treating calves with medications that are not labeled for use in veal calves
- Work with veterinarian to develop appropriate treatment protocols for dairy bulls entering the veal market
Calf Handling
- Calves are handled in a calm, controlled and gentle manner
- Calves are moved from the dairy onto the truck or in the auction market by walking or lifting them, or using clean, properly designed mechanical transport devices.
- Animal caretakers are trained to handle and restrain calves with minimum stress to the animal
- The consequences of inhumane handling are known and enforced. Calves can be injured if they are dragged, pulled or caught by the neck, ears, limbs, tail or any other extremities, or if they are thrown. The Veal Quality Assurance program does not tolerate abusive behavior of animals.⁴
Calves, regardless of gender and future use, should have proper care to ensure they can thrive and prosper. Young calf treatment should not be based on financial motivations, but rather considered a welfare standard for all calves.

About The Beef Checkoff:

The Beef Checkoff Program (www.MyBeefCheckoff.com) was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. The checkoff assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. In states with qualified beef councils, states may retain up to 50 cents of the dollar and forward the other 50 cents per head to the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval.

Best Practices for Dairy Calf Care are provided as part of the Veal Quality Assurance Program funded by the beef checkoff.

_____________________________________________________________________________

¹Dairy Calf and Heifer Association – Gold Standard – Colostrum Harvest and delivery
²Dairy Calf and Heifer Association – Gold Standard – New Born Care
³http://www.nationaldairyfarm.com/sites/default/files/Version-3-Manual.pdf
⁴http://www.vealfarm.com/certification-resources/

More information and resources are available on www.VealFarm.com
Launch of the Dairy Farm Manager Academy Program

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Extension Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Finding employees for dairy farm labor and the management of the labor force has become a struggle for many dairy farmers. Many times in recent years, dairy farmers have contacted university personnel looking for a dairy farm manager. Given the need to fill such positions and the expertise needed by these individuals, we at Ohio State felt compelled to develop the Dairy Farm Manager Academy program. As we looked around the country, similar programs with this focus are quite limited. The Academy is a four-module program with the expectation that an individual would participate in all four modules. Each module will occur over 2 days (Friday and Saturday), with a new module being offered every other month. Two of the modules will be taught in Wooster and two taught in Columbus near the campus of The Ohio State University. During the month between modules, a webinar with participants will be held to reinforce the content in the previous module and encourage completion of the homework. Participants will receive a certificate of completion at the end of the program. The program will be held for the first time February through August, 2018. A brochure describing the program and providing registration information is available at https://dairy.osu.edu/sites/dairy/files/imce/PDF/Dairy Manager Academy Brochure.pdf . Although the first module does not begin until February 2018, the registration deadline has been set for December 1 so we can have about two months to prepare for the program, including the inviting of guest speakers.

The purpose of the Dairy Farm Manager Academy is to provide training for dairy farm managers to increase their skills for managing dairy cattle, personnel, and the aspects affecting the financial success of the operation. Using science-based practices, the goal is to train dairy farm managers to meet the current demands for the dairy industry and successfully manage modern dairy operations. Improving the skills and job satisfaction of managers and reducing turnover are expected outcomes of the program.
Ohio State Wins at the Pennsylvania All-American

Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The 2017 All-American Invitational Youth Dairy Cattle Judging Contest was held on September 18 at the Farm Show Complex and Expo Center in Harrisburg, PA. Contestants judged 10 classes of cattle and then gave oral reasons on four or five of the classes depending on their division. By a margin of over 20 points, the Ohio State Dairy Judging Team won the Pennsylvania All American Contest in the collegiate division. Members of the team included Alex Houck, Ella Jackson, Lexie Nunes, and Tanner Topp. Ella also captured the High Individual Honors and was 5^th in Reasons overall. It is noteworthy to mention that Lexie presented a set of reasons that scored a perfect 50 and another set earned a 49. In the breed divisions, the placings by the Ohio State team were as follows: 1^st in Ayrshire and Ella was High Individual; 5^th in Brown Swiss; 3^rd in Guernsey; 3^rd in Holstein; and 4^th in Jersey. The team is coached by Bonnie Ayars. Congratulations to the Buckeyes!

Pictured: Ella Jackson, Tanner Topp, Lexie Nunes, Alex Houck,
and Bonnie Ayars (coach)

Pictured: Ella Jackson and Bonnie Ayars (coach)

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the Class III price for March and April closed at $15.81 and $15.22/cwt, respectively. For the months of May and June, the Class III price was projected to be stagnant at $15.20 and $15.30/cwt, respectively. The Class III component price for the month of May actually closed slightly higher at $15.57/cwt, and then increased about 90¢/cwt in June ($16.44/cwt). The price for July is expected to be similar to June at $16.58/cwt, followed by an over $1/cwt drop to $15.29/cwt for the month of August.

The Class III prices for this summer have been quite optimistic, especially when we look back at the price of milk in June 2016 (Class III $13.22/cwt). The increased price is also in spite of total milk produced for the Federal Milk Marketing Order No. 33 (includes Ohio) being increased about 7% compared to one year ago. The higher amount of milk produced is probably sparked from both higher pounds of milk per cow and more cows being milked in Ohio. According to the USDA, the national production average is estimated to be 65 lb/day per cow with a total of 9.39 million milking cows compared to 62 lb/day per cow with a total of 9.33 million milking cows one year ago. The USDA projects cow numbers will continue to rise nationally up to 9.44 million, but the average cow production to decrease and slow overall growth in total milk production.

If the USDA is right and we extrapolate national trends to Ohio, one can expect the Class III price to stay around the $14.50 to 16.00/cwt range for the remainder of the year. However, why average milk production (lb/cow) would decrease below the previous year in Ohio is unknown. Rather, I would project production to continue to increase and surpass last year’s production. The resulting milk price would then be expected to be at the lower end of this predicted range. Realize predicting the price this far in advance is a long shot at best. Many economic (and political) changes will likely occur within the next 4 to 5 months and can affect the price.

Nutrient Prices

In light of my prediction for milk prices to stay stagnant or decrease, nutrient prices continue to remain relatively low as they have been for the past three years. For MP, its current price ($0.37/lb) has dropped slightly from May’s issue ($0.40/lb) and is about 23% lower than the 5 year average ($0.48/lb). The cost of NE_Lincreased about 1¢/Mcal to 9¢/Mcal, but the NE_Lprice is still lower than the 5-year average of 11¢/Mcal. The price of e-NDF and ne-NDF are nearly identical to last month at 5¢/lb and -7¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index with cows milking 70 lb/day or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. In the last issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated at $9.23/cwt for a cow milking 70 lb/day and $9.60/cwt for a cow milking 85 lb/day. For July, the IONC for our 70 and 85 lb/day milk yield for cows will be about 12% higher than May at an estimated $10.40/cwt and $10.78/cwt. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows; however, they should be profitable when greater than about $9/cwt. Overall, farmers producing milk in Ohio should be making money.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, July 25, 2017.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on July 25, 2017 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price. One must remember that Sesame compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, July 25, 2017.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in price) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, July 25, 2017.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF	Blood meal
Corn silage	Bakery byproducts	Canola meal
Distillers dried grains	Beet pulp	Citrus pulp
Feather meal	Gluten meal	41% Cottonseed meal
Gluten feed	Soybean meal - expeller	Fish meal
Hominy	48% Soybean meal	Molasses
Meat meal	Soybean hulls	Tallow
Wheat middlings	Whole cottonseed	44% Soybean meal
	Wheat bran	Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer a savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, July 25, 2017.

Acute Bloat Syndrome in Dairy Calves

Hannah Walczyk, Undergraduate Student, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Bloat is a common disorder seen in ruminants, such as cattle. However, bloat observed in young calves is very different from bloat seen in cows. According to Smith (2010), bloat in cows is a result of free gas building up in the rumen (the first component of the bovine’s stomach) and causes distention, or enlargement, of the rumen. This distention of the rumen can impair breathing and result in suffocation of the animal. In contrast, bloat in young calves results from gas build-up in the abomasum, the last of the four compartments of the bovine’s stomach (Smith, 2010). The abomasal bloat observed in young dairy calves is often referred to as Acute Bloat Syndrome (ABS). In a survey conducted by Shoemaker et al. (2007), 276 veterinarians across the country reported ABS to occur on a median of four farms per practitioner. ABS is becoming a widely occurring syndrome, and it is important that dairy farmers are aware of this disorder and remain updated on current research. In order to better understand ABS, it is necessary to know which cattle can be affected, the symptoms associated with the syndrome, the potential causes, the treatments, and the preventative measures for ABS.

Acute bloat syndrome occurs in calves. In most cases, calves are usually 4 to 21 days of age (Shoemaker et al., 2007). According to Marshall (2009), ABS occurs sporadically in dairy calves. Some farms will have multiple cases of ABS at one time. Not only is it a good idea to know when calves are susceptible to ABS, but it is also important to recognize the symptoms.

Understanding the symptoms of ABS is critical because calves that develop the syndrome often die within 6 to 48 hours. According to Van Metre and Callan (2006), the case fatality rate is a very steep 75 to 100%. Although the likelihood of saving the calf is low, it is only possible if symptoms are recognized early. Symptoms of ABS include abdominal distension, depression, colic signs, grinding of teeth and salivation, anorexia, fluid slosh in the abdomen, and dehydration. Less common symptoms include diarrhea and high temperature (Shoemaker et al., 2007). According to Panciera et al. (2007), after experimental induction of ABS in calves, the necropsy showed distention, hemorrhage (internal bleeding), inflammation, mucosal necrosis, and mural emphysema (air build-up in the wall of the stomach). The symptoms of ABS usually include a rapid onset and sometimes are not even observed before death occurs. Calves will eventually die from shock or compromised respiration due to the enlarged stomach, according to Van Metre (2017).

The causes of ABS are not well understood; however, experimental induction of ABS in calves led researchers to believe that the cause of ABS is large quantities of highly fermentable carbohydrates and high concentrations of bacteria containing enzymes capable of fermenting the substrate (Panciera et al., 2007). As a result of these two factors, high levels of gases are produced in the abomasum, causing distention. Although researchers are not certain which exact species of bacteria cause ABS, Clostridium perfringens, Sarcina spp, Streptococcal spp, Escherichia. coli, and Salmonella typhimurium have been identified in the abomasum of affected calves. Further research must be done in order to determine the specific role these bacteria play in ABS. Other factors that can contribute to ABS are related to nutrition and include high volumes of milk replacer, cold milk, high osmolality of milk, high protein and fat contents in milk, high-energy oral electrolyte solutions, and inconsistent feedings. All of these can cause a slower emptying rate of the abomasum. According to Burgstaller et al. (2017), feeding practices that significantly prolong abomasal emptying can increase rates of gastrointestinal diseases in calves. This is because the bacteria have more time to ferment the feedstuff, thus producing more gas in the abdomen. Familiarity with these causes of ABS will aid in proper decision-making regarding treatment and prevention of the disorder.

Measures for controlling ABS mainly involve dietary management in lieu of medications or procedures (Marshall, 2009). There are no reliable data on whether or not conventional vaccines are helpful. It is thought that vaccines containing inactivated toxins given to pregnant cows will produce antibodies in the colostrum and help protect the calf (Van Metre, 2017). Antibiotics, such as penicillin or oral Beta-lactam which would target Clostridium spp, can be used, but these are not the best treatment option because the species of the ABS-causing bacteria may be different. Other medications that can be given include rumen tonics and anti-inflammatories (Shoemaker et al., 2007). Bloat-relieving procedures, such as placing a stomach tube or puncturing the abomasum to release air, are not necessarily effective treatment options. Since a stomach tube cannot reach the abomasum, the calf’s front end must be elevated in order to allow the gas to pass to the rumen and out the tube (Van Metre, 2017). Puncturing the abomasum must be done while the calf is dorsally recumbent (lying on its back) because there is a high risk of leakage of abomasal contents into the abdomen (Marshall, 2009). For these reasons, procedures and medications are usually not the best treatment options. Dietary management strategies are the preferred ways to prevent ABS. These include feeding the calves multiple, small meals on a consistent basis, mixing the milk replacer correctly according to manufacturer’s instructions in order to lower osmolality, feeding warm milk, and providing adequate amounts of water (Smith, 2010). These dietary management strategies are easy to apply and will increase the passage of feed through the abomasum to the small intestine. Although these are good treatment options and preventative strategies, farms that were rated good to excellent, based on their management practices, still struggled with ABS.

ABS is a spontaneous and puzzling disease that affects many dairy farms. The calves at risk for ABS, associated symptoms of ABS, the potential causes of ABS, and the treatment and prevention of ABS are important factors that must be studied and understood. Unfortunately, there are still many uncertainties and unknowns about this disorder, and further research is needed in order to learn more about the syndrome and the specific species of bacteria that cause it.

Works Cited

Burgstaller, J., Wittek, T., and Smith, G.W. 2017. Abomasal emptying in calves and its potential influence on gastrointestinal disease. J. Dairy Sci. 100:17-35.

Marshall, T.S. 2009. Abomasal ulceration and tympany of calves. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 25(1):209-2020.

Panciera, R.J., Boileau, M.J., and Step, D.L. 2007. Tympany, acidosis, and mural emphysema of the stomach in calves: Report of cases and experimental induction. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 19(4):392-395.

Shoemaker, D., Rajala-Schultz, P., and Midla, L. 2007. A survey of bovine practitioners to determine the prevalence of and factors associated with acute bloat syndrome in pre-weaned dairy heifers. Buckeye Dairy News, Vo. 9, Issue 3, The Ohio State University Extension, Columbus. Retrieved June 20, 2017, from https://dairy.osu.edu/newsletter/buckeye-dairy-news/volume-9-issue-3/res...

Smith, G. 2010. You can prevent bloat in calves. Hoard’s Dairyman, Fort Atkinson, WI. Retrieved June 20, 2017, from http://hoards.com/article-1303-You-can-prevent-bloat-in-calves.html

Van Metre, D. 2017. Abomasal bloat and abomasitis in calves. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Retrieved June 20, 2017, from http://veterinaryextension.colostate.edu/menu2/Cattle/Abomasitis.pdf

Van Metre, D.C., and Callan, R.J. 2006. Abomasitis and abomasal bloat. Western Dairy News, Vol. 6, No. 3. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Retrieved June 20, 2017, from https://www.cvmbs.colostate.edu/ilm/proinfo/wdn/2006/March%20WDN06.pdf
Milking Excellence
Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

It is a rough go for dairy farmers these days. While milk price has improved a little from the disastrous prices of a couple of years ago, the current price is very close to breakeven production costs for many dairy farms. Profitability depends upon managing costs and doing things that improve production and milk quality. Dianne Shoemaker, OSU Extension Dairy Production Economics Field Specialist, is able to show that each year, regardless of milk price, the top 20 to 25% of dairy producers are able to show some profit per cow. In low price years, the average producer is going to struggle to break even and probably loses money. So, what can be done to help improve the odds of being profitable? I recently came across an article by Dr. Pamela Ruegg, a DVM in the Department of Dairy Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, entitled “The 10 Smart Things Dairy Farms Do To Achieve Milking Excellence”. Here is her list and some excerpts from that article:
1. Set Performance Goals. Dr. Ruegg suggests that some of those goals should include zero antibiotic residues in milk, bulk tank somatic cell count (SCC) at least below 250,000 cells/mL, and obtaining individual cow SCC values to manage subclinical mastitis. Managing subclinical mastitis should focus on controlling new infections with a specific new subclinical infection rate goal of less than 5% per month.
2. Rapidly Identify Problems. Develop methods that monitor herd performance and the milking process that can detect problems, such as clinical mastitis, early on.
3. Milk Clean Cows. Dirty cows take longer to milk and reduce parlor throughput. Clean and groom stalls frequently. Scrape or remove manure from alleyways and isles frequently. Develop and implement effective pre-dipping routines.
4. Standardize Milking Routines. Consistent milking routines are a key to quality milk production. Communicate and teach those routines to those who milk. Start by developing a written set of routines and work from that.
5. Train Staff. Spend time teaching, training, and periodically reviewing routines and milking procedures. Make sure employees understand them, which may mean developing some materials in a different language to help with the process.
6. Maintain and Update Milking Systems. High quality milk is dependent upon a properly functioning milking system. The system should be regularly evaluated and updated.
7. Develop Treatment Protocols. Treatment protocols define standard treatments for common diseases and injuries. Involve your veterinarian in developing these protocols. The judicious use of antibiotics is an important component of a veterinarian/client/patient/relationship (VCPR).
8. Have a Mastitis Biosecurity Plan. Keep your dairy cattle safe from contagious mastitis pathogens. Practice quarantine procedures for any purchased cattle, buy healthy cattle from healthy herds, and culture samples from the bulk tank when new, purchased cattle are entering the herd.
9. Take Care of Dry Cows. Provide spacious, clean, and dry environments for non-lactating cows. Do not group these cows near sick animals. Provide good nutritional programs.
10. Use Appropriate Consultants. Develop a team of people with expertise in various areas to help sort through complex issues and to help make informed decisions.
The entire document with much more detail is available on line at http://milkquality.wisc.edu/milking-management/.
European Dairy Industry Study Abroad

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

            This marked the fourth year for the OSU Dairy Industry Study Abroad, with the three previous trips occurring in 2007, 2011, and 2014. The first two trips were to the Netherlands, but the two most recent trips included the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium. The group consisted of myself and Dr. Katy Proudfoot, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, as resident directors and 20 students from Animal Sciences; Agricultural Education; Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering; Agricultural Communications; Zoology; and the Agricultural Technical Institute. The trip occurred from May 7-21, and with our arrival during late spring, we missed most of the tulip blooming season in the Netherlands. However, we were able to observe several fields in bright colors, and we were able to tour the Keukenhof, a park with many beautiful flowers, the week prior to its closing for the season. We certainly ate and/or purchased our share of cheese and yogurt, stroopwafels, Belgium waffles, mussels in Brussels, and fine chocolates. We visited Wageningen University, which is the primary agricultural university in the Netherlands, including a tour of their dairy unit on the main campus and at the Dairy Campus in Leewarden and their livestock metabolic chambers at the Wageningen campus that allows some impressive research on energy utilization and gaseous emissions from animals. We visited Utrecht University, which is the only university in the Netherlands with a veterinary program, that included a tour their food animal clinic with a small dairy herd. We also visited the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp (Bergen, Germany), Anne Frank house (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Lely manufacturing plants for dairy and forage equipment (Rotterdam, Netherlands), two cheese markets (Alkmaar and Gouda, Netherlands), a cheese plant (Muenster, Germany), Osnabreuck Holstein Genetics (Melle, Germany), and much more.

            During the visit, we toured about 5 dairy cow farms having just a few cows up to about 250 cows. Most of these farms had Holstein Friesian, but one of them had the Blaarkop breed. Two of the farms were organic (or biologic as they refer to such systems) and another one of them was transitioning to become organic. In addition, we visited three university dairy facilities, two that were affiliated with Wageningen University and the one at Utrecht University. The research facility at Dairy Campus aligned with Wageningen was very impressive; it had been totally rebuilt since our visit in 2014, having opened the new facility in May 2016 with 550 cows, a 40-stall rotary parlor, and the capacity for conducting research in nutrition, animal health, animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and housing systems. We visited a cheese processing plant and one of the farms had on-site processing of milk, ice cream, and/or yogurt. Two of the dairy farms had diversified businesses of a restaurant and/or farm games. Technology observed on farms included either the DeLaval or Lely robotic milker units, Lely Juno automatic feed pusher, Lely Discovery barn cleaner, automatic milk feeders for calves, and automated bedding systems.

            We also visited a sheep dairy farm that processed milk for sale at the farm as fluid milk and cheese (aged and fresh) and they had a few cows that were milked by a Lely robot. They were making sheep cheese, cow cheese, and cheese from a mix of cow and sheep milk. We visited a goat dairy that consisted of 1650 Saanen goats with does being milked in a 72-stall rotary parlor. The does averaged about 1200 kg/year with 4.10% fat and 3.54% protein. We visited a farm that milked Belgium mares for selling fluid milk, dried milk, or about 14 human health or cosmetic products. The mares were milked with a DeLaval unit. Although we were unable to visit a farm this year with Belgium Blue cattle, we saw several of these cattle from the roadway and several of the dairy farms were breeding some of their cows with Belgium Blue semen to improve the value of the calf for beef.

            There continues to be increased restrictions in the European Union related to animal health and welfare, such as no tail docking, restricted use of antibiotics, calves have to be 14 days of age to transport, dehorning with hot iron requires an anesthetic which must be administered by a veterinarian, and etc. However, even with these regulations, comfort of cows housed inside is often less than desirable with uncomfortable free stall surfaces, improperly designed and maintained free stalls, and inadequate ventilation. The aesthetic focus on a clean farmstead and cows on pasture is not necessarily reflective of the conditions within animal housing areas. The European Union eliminated the milk quota system in 2015 and the number of cows per farm and thus total milk production have been increasing, resulting in an over supply of milk and weak milk prices. In the meantime, environmental regulations have increased, especially limiting the amount of phosphorus that can be land applied. Thus, even though the milk quota has been discontinued, the environmental regulations have been limiting the expansion of dairy farms. The continued ‘desire of the consumer’ to see cows on pasture and to know where their milk comes from is driving more farmers to use production systems with cows on pasture for 120 to 180 days per year (‘meadow milk’ with about $1.12/cwt premium) or to transition to being an organic farm (similar premium as found in US for organic versus milk from conventional systems).

            It was certainly apparent of the increased focus on energy and natural resource conservation in Europe over the past ten years of the program. There is increased use of solar panels on farms (usually placed on barn roofs), continued focus on wind and water power, and soil nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) balance. Manure storage systems are to be covered to reduce volatilization of nitrogen, and like in the US, research is being conducted at reducing methane production by cows and increasing feed efficiency.

Pictured- Back row (L to R): Joel Sonnenberg, Louis Liming, Morgan Kessler, Jake Parkinson, Jacquelyn Blanchard, Grace Moeller, and Dr. Maurice Eastridge.
Middle row: Dr. Katy Proudfoot, Emilia Sgambati, Christine Balint, Marina Sweet, Allison Carpenter, Hannah Jarvis, and Lauren Haney.
First row: Skylar Buell, Alexandra Houck, Emily Winson, Lydia Flores, Molly Michael, Loren Schmidt, Breanna Sharp, and Taylor Andrews.
OSU Dairy Judging News

Click on the link below for the OSU Dairy Judging News.

https://dairy.osu.edu/sites/dairy/files/imce/OSU_Judging_Summer_2017_Final.pdf

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the February Class III price closed at $16.88/cwt and was projected to remain unchanged in March ($16.90/cwt) followed by an 85¢/cwt drop to $16.05/cwt for the month of April. The Class III component price for the months of March and April actually closed about $1/cwt lower than expected at $15.81 and $15.22/cwt, respectively. The price for the months of May and June is expected to be similar to April at $15.20 and $15.30/cwt, respectively.

Although prices have taken about a $1.50/cwt cut since January, the price of milk is still optimistic and about $2/cwt higher than the average of spring 2016 ($13.37/cwt). Spring is also the time of year when markets naturally take a dip as farms reach a peak in production and cause a temporary surplus and drive down price. However, the current drop will likely not be a temporary one because of the Canadian “Class 7” pricing policy that was implemented at the end of March. In short, Canada is reducing the amount of imported American value-added products (e.g. ultrafiltered milk) to stimulate their own milk price. The sudden reduction has now forced some Midwestern and Northeastern producers to find alternatives (e.g. coops) or new processors to sell their milk. The government’s solution to now counter the policy will undoubtedly take more time than it did for the Canadians to implement the policy. As a result, I suspect the Class III price will likely take a hit, but it may not be until after the heat of summer. A price drop is especially convincing considering total milk production in the US for 2017 has routinely been about 1to 3% higher than last year. Bottom line, milk prices may again be a challenge to producers in the near future. If they will fall to levels comparable to two years ago is the ultimate question.

Nutrient Prices

Nutrient prices continue to remain relatively low as they have been for the past three years. For MP, its current price ($0.40/lb) has dropped slightly from the March issue ($0.44/lb) and is about 20% lower than the 5 year average ($0.48/lb). The cost of NE_Lincreased about 0.5¢/lb to 8¢/lb but is much lower than the 5-year average of 11¢/lb. The price of e-NDF and ne-NDF are nearly identical to last month at 5¢/lb and -7¢/lb (i.e. feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index with cows milking 70 lb/day or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. In the last issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated at $10.80/cwt for a cow milking 70 lb/day and $11.18/cwt for a cow milking 85 lb/day. For May, the IONC for our 70 lb/day and 85lb/day cows will be about 17% lower than March at an estimated $9.23/cwt and $9.60/cwt, respectively. This is also about 25% lower than they were in the January issue ($11.57/cwt and $11.94/cwt, respectively). These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows; however, they should be profitable if greater than about $9/cwt. Overall, low nutrient prices should help producers remain afloat but expect margins to be very tight for the upcoming months.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, May 22, 2017.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on May 22, 2017 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price. One must remember that Sesame compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, May 22, 2017.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the Sesame analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e. decreased in price) are green. These shifts (i.e. feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, May 22, 2017.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF	Blood meal
Corn silage	Bakery byproducts	Canola meal
Distillers dried grains	Beet pulp	Citrus pulp
Feather meal	Gluten meal	41% Cottonseed meal
Gluten feed	Soybean meal - expeller	Fish meal
Hominy	48% Soybean meal	Molasses
Meat meal	Soybean hulls	Tallow
Wheat middlings	Whole cottonseed	44% Soybean meal
	Wheat bran	Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer savings opportunity and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the table below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, May 22, 2017.

Managing Dairy Cow Heat Stress
Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

Summer temperatures mean heat stress for dairy cattle. Heat stress has negative impacts on both lactating and dry dairy cows. In addition to decreasing milk production in lactating dairy cows, heat stress causes decreased feed intake, reproductive performance, and immune function in cows. The amount of heat stress experienced by a dairy cow depends upon the air temperature and the humidity. Research has shown that high producing dairy cows (> 77 lb/day of milk) start to decrease milk production when the temperature-humidity index (THI) exceeds 68. As an example, a temperature of 72^oF with 45% relative humidity or a temperature of 80^oF with no humidity both produce a THI of 68. Research indicates that dairy cows can experience a negative impact on fertility factors, such as estrus expression, conception rate, and embryo survivability, at even lower THI in the 55 to 60 range.

In order to minimize the detrimental effects of heat stress, the dairy manager needs to make sure they have an effective heat abatement program in place. Cattle sweat at only 10% of the human rate, so any heat abatement program must include the use of fans and sprinklers to provide evaporative cooling. A June 2016 article on the eXtension Dairy site entitled “Dairy Feeding and Management Considerations during Heat Stress” listed the following key points regarding the use of fans and sprinklers:
- Fans over freestalls, in the housing area, and over feed bunks should be automatically programmed to turn on when the temperature and humidity reach a THI of 68.
- In more humid climates, fans should be used in combination with sprinklers (nozzles need to deliver 0.5 gallon/minute of water, 20 to 40 lb/square inch of pressure [psi]) which will wet the hair coat of cows. Sprinklers should generally be on for 1 to 3 minutes, then off for the remainder of a 15-minute cycle. The length of time sprinklers run should increase with increasing temperature. Fans should run continuously. (Janni, University of Minnesota Engineer, Evaporative systems for cooling dairy cows)
- Fans and sprinklers (in humid environments) should be used in the holding pen to cool cows waiting to be milked, and time in the holding pen should be kept to a minimum.
- Adequate number of fans should be spaced at about 12 feet high along the length of the freestall barn. The recommended distance between fans is 30 feet for 36-inch fans and 40 feet for 48-inch fans (Gay, Virginia Tech Extension Engineer, Pub 442-763).
- Check fans to make sure they are angled correctly (20-degree angle) and are operating properly. Fans should be cleaned regularly.
Good ventilation is necessary for sprinklers to be an effective cooling option. Water added to a poorly ventilated area will produce a more humid environment and make the heat stress worse.

Drinking water is a critical component of heat abatement. A dairy cow’s water consumption will increase by 29% as air temperature increases from 64 to 86^oF. Cows will drink about 50% of their total daily water intake immediately after milking, so having access to plenty of cool, clean water at this time is very important. Clean waterers on a routine basis to encourage water consumption.

Dry matter intake decreases when a cow is heat stressed, a contributing factor to reduced milk production. In addition to the energy requirement for lactation, there is an additional energy requirement due to increased respiration rates and panting associated with heat stress. There may be a 30% increase in energy needs during periods of high heat stress. In order to meet those needs when feed intake is declining, dairy managers need to pay attention to diets. According to the eXtension article mentioned previously, consider the following when formulating dairy rations during periods of heat stress:
- Maintain effective fiber intake to insure rumination and rumen buffering. Decreasing fiber content and increasing the amount of starch in the diet in an attempt to increase the energy content could result in ruminal acidosis. High quality forages are essential during periods of heat stress.
- Add yeast cultures to the diet. Yeast culture can help improve fiber digestion and stabilize the rumen environment. Several studies have even shown yeast supplementation to increase milk production by heat stressed cows.
- Modify the mineral content of the diet. Potassium and sodium needs increase as cows sweat. Increasing these minerals while maintaining an adequate cation-anion difference (DCAD) in the diet will require additions of sodium bicarbonate, potassium bicarbonate, or both to the diet.
Finally, when implementing a heat abatement program, do not neglect dry cows. An article in the April 2017 University of Kentucky Dairy Notes entitled “Heat Abatement for Dry Dairy Cows” included the following list of detrimental effects:
- Cows that were heat stressed during the dry period gave birth to calves 13 lb lighter.
- Heifers born to heat stressed dams had lower milk production compared to heifers born from dams not heat stressed.
- Cows heat stressed during the dry period had lower milk production in the next lactation.
Heat abatement is a necessary management practice to maintain cow comfort and keep dairy cows healthy and productive.

References:

Dairy Feeding and Management Considerations during Heat Stress. Donna M. Amaral-Philips, University of Kentucky. eXtension web site: http://articles.extension.org/pages/67811/dairy-feeding-and-management-considerations-during-heat-stress June, 2016.

Heat Abatement for Dry Dairy Cows. Sarah Mac, and Donna M. Amaral-Philips. University of Kentucky Dairy Notes, April 2017.

Minimize heat stress to maximize milk production and quality. Amanda Stone, Mississippi State University. Southeast Quality Milk Initiative, Spring 2017.
Variation in Milk Urea Nitrogen in Ohio Dairy Herds

Marisa R. Joldrichsen, Undergraduate Research Assistant, and Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Introduction

Milk urea nitrogen (MUN) is commonly used by dairy producers as an indicator of protein utilization in the rumen of the cow. It is also correlated with the amount of urea found in blood and the urine. The relationship between MUN and urea excreted in the urine is linear over a wide range of MUN concentrations, and this relationship has been observed in both Holstein and Jersey cows (Kauffman and St-Pierre, 2001). Many countries use MUN as a reference for the amount of N excreted by the dairy cow (or a farm) for its environmental implications. With the importance of protein utilization on the production and financial stability of dairy farms and the emphasis today on the effects of agriculture on the environment, this study was conducted to investigate different non-nutritional factors that may effect the concentrations of MUN at the farm level.

Materials and Methods

MUN was evaluated using Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI; provided by DHI Cooperative, Inc., Columbus, OH) data on 1325 dairy cows from 22 Ohio herds. These data were collected between January 2015 and July 2016. The data collected by DHI included herd number, cow number, breed, date of milk sampling, days in milk (DIM), milking frequency, milk yield, milk fat percentage, milk protein percentage, somatic cell score (SCS), and MUN concentrations.

Results

All of the variables examined were significantly correlated to MUN, but the correlation coefficients were low. The highest correlation with MUN was fat percentage in the milk, r= 0.18, P<0.0001. MUN was higher for three times-a-day milking with 14.62 mg/dL, versus two times a day milking with 11.12 mg/dL (P<0.001). It was also observed that the Jersey breed had a higher MUN concentration than the Holstein breed (P<0.0001) (Figure 1). MUN was also highest among the months of September through November and lowest among the months of March through May (P<0.0001) (Figure 1). MUN concentrations followed the lactation curve by peaking shortly after peak milk yield (Figure 2). An equation for calculating MUN using the variables presented was developed: MUN (mg/dL)=12.54+(DIM*0.001291)+(milk, kg/day*0.00284)+(fat, %*0.488)-(protein, %*1.0123)-(SCS*0.1462).

Most of the results were similar to research conducted previously. According to Moore and Varga (1996), target values for MUN should be between 10 to 15 mg/dL, with the average concentration in our study of 12.54 mg/dL. According to Rajala-Schultz and Saville (2003), MUN concentrations were lowest during the first months of the lactation and the MUN concentrations peaked around the time of peak milk yield, which is similar to our observations (Figure 2). As reported by Wattiaux et al. (2005), Jersey cows have a higher MUN than Holstein cows, which is similar to our results (Figure 1). These authors also found that three times-a-day milking of cows results in a higher MUN than two times-a-day milking, which we also found with our analysis. Even with all of these similarities, there were some differences in that most of the research suggests that MUN concentrations are highest during the spring months (March to May), but within our study, we observed MUN to be highest during the fall months (September to November) (Figure 1). This observation may reflect that only few of the farms in our study may have been using pasture in the spring, or in other words, they likely feed a total mixed ration all year.

Conclusions

With these data and other studies, it can be concluded that MUN concentrations can be affected by many different factors at the farm level in addition to nutritional feeding. In addition, MUN concentrations can also be predicted from several different production factors. MUN concentrations changed depending on the time of the year; cows in lactation from September to November had higher MUN concentrations. This does not necessarily relate to the intake of pasture in the fall because MUN concentration in the spring was among the lowest of the seasons. MUN increased with DIM as intake of protein increased and then declined at a slower rate than milk yield, likely because protein intake remained rather high during the time that its requirement was decreasing. Using this information and further studies can help dairy producers best maximize profitability and reduce nitrogen excretion into the environment.

References

Kauffman, A., and N. St-Pierre. 2001. The relationship of milk urea nitrogen to urine nitrogen excretion in Holstein and Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84(10): 2284-2294.

Moore, D.A., and G. Varga. 1996. BUN and MUN: Urea nitrogen testing in dairy cattle. Comp. Cont. Edu. Pract. Vet. 18:712-721.

Rajala-Schultz, P., and W. Saville. 2003. Sources of variation in milk urea nitrogen in Ohio dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 86(5):1653-1661.

Wattiaux, M., E. Nordheim, and P. Crump. 2005. Statistical evaluation of factors and interactions affecting Dairy Herd Improvement milk urea nitrogen in commercial midwest dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 88(8):3020-3035.
Cow Comfort is a Requirement for Making Milk

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

This past winter, the OSU Extension Dairy Working group hosted a series of webinars looking at facility design and feed access. We recorded two of our three speakers, which are now available on YouTube for viewing at your convenience.

The first recorded speaker was Dr. Katy Proudfoot, OSU Veterinary Preventative Medicine, who presented on improving facilities in the close-up, maturity, and fresh cow areas of the barn. Her presentation has been broken into three sections. The first section is on close-up cows, looking at how feed intake during this period affects future health, if perching or standing more increases the risk of lameness, and if providing pasture during this time affects lameness during lactation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ahVIWlpAZQ&t=10s&spfreload=10

The second section focuses on maternity pens, stages of calving, how moving a cow to a calving pen at various times affects length of labor, and if a cow prefers to calve with the group or off in a slightly more secluded area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEUlEDQ73KM&t=121s&spfreload=10

The last section focuses on fresh cows, looking at what they do after calving, the benefits of a fresh pen, grouping, and how to mitigate stress during this time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1gNFry7bQ&t=25s&spfreload=10

The presentation by Dr. Trevor DeVries at the University of Guelph also was recorded. The first section addresses why we need to consider eating behavior and how it affects dry matter intake, rumen function, nutritional management, and ultimately milk components.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjQQKrOF8sM&t=8s&spfreload=10

The second session applies your knowledge of eating behavior to management, such as how do we stimulate cows to spend more time eating, improve feed efficiency and milk components, the need for feed consistency, and effects of stocking density on production.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKt9AQA-o6U&spfreload=10
Ohio State Places Second at National North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Ohio State University placed second at the 16th annual North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge^® (NAIDC) held March 30 – April 1 in Visalia, CA. There were 36 teams that participated in the national contest and 89 students that participated in the Dairy Challenge Academy. In total, 230 students from 25 states and three Canadian provinces, and from 37 colleges across the U.S. and Canada attended this educational event. These students are training for careers in the dairy industry as farmers, researchers, educators, financial analysts, nutritionists, farm service providers, and veterinarians. This year, nine contest teams competed on each of four farms. Each contest team received information about their assigned dairy farm, including production and farm management data. After an in-person inspection of the dairy, students interviewed the herd owners. Each team developed a farm analysis and recommendations for nutrition, reproduction, milking procedures, animal health, housing and financial management. Ohio State’s team consisted of Brittany Webb (Milford, DE), Angie Evers (Coldwater, OH), Jacob Triplett (New Philadelphia, OH), and Greta Stridsberg (London, OH) (see photo provided below). Students from the top two teams at each farm received a plaque and a monetary award, and all Dairy Challenge contest participants received a lifetime membership to Dairy Shrine, compliments of Allflex USA and Lely North America.

The Dairy Challenge Academy was developed in 2013 to expand this educational and networking event to more college students. Academy student-participants also analyzed and developed recommendations for one of two dairy farms; however, the Academy was organized in mixed-university teams with two advisors to help coach these students. Due to travel costs, there were no students from the OSU Columbus campus that participated in this year’s Dairy Challenge Academy; however, five students from the Agricultural Technical Institute participated that were assisted by Dr. Shaun Wellert.

In its 16-year history, Dairy Challenge has helped train more than 5,000 students through the national contest, Dairy Challenge Academy, and four regional contests conducted annually. NAIDC is supported completely through generous donations by many agribusinesses and dairy producers, and programs are coordinated by a volunteer board of directors. The 2018 National Contest and Academy will be held April 12-14 and will again be held in Visalia, CA. For more information, visit www.dairychallenge.org or www.facebook.com/DairyChallenge.
Miedemas and Hogan Inducted into 2017 Dairy Hall of Service

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Dairy Science Hall of Service was initiated in 1952 to recognize worthy men and women who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at the Ohio State University. The 2017 inductees were recognized on April 8 at the Department of Animal Sciences ‘Evening of Excellence’ held at the Nationwide and Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center.

In 2002, Andy and Itske Miedema moved from the Netherlands to begin their family’s new dairy operation in Circleville, OH. Today, their farm consists of about 1300 cows, with a manure separator for using solids for bedding and the liquid for flushing alleys and irrigation and a covered lagoon for trapping methane. As stated by their veterinarian, “I came to respect their intellect, wit, progressive approach to the dairy business, and concern for their cows. The thing that I learned from Andy that made a lasting impression upon me and helped me to become a better veterinarian and a better person came from a statement that he often made after listening to one of my bright ideas: “Everything is possible.””

They are members of the Ohio Farm Bureau, and they were recognized in 2010 with the Ohio Dairy Producers Association‘s (ODPA) Environmental Stewardship Award in association with the Ohio Livestock Coalition (OLC). In recognition of the award, the OLC Executive Director said of the Miedema family “… consistently demonstrated that their commitment to quality extends not only to the animals they raise, but also to the environmental practices they implement daily on the farm.” Andy has served on the Board of Directors for the ODPA and represented the dairy industry on the Concentrated Animal Feeding Facility Advisory Committee with the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

Andy and Itske have been involved in the education of Ohio State students in many ways, including welcoming many undergraduate, graduate, and veterinary students to their farm. They have opened their farm for hosting the Ohio Dairy Challenge and in training students to participate in the National Dairy Challenge. All three of their children, Rixt, Sytske, and Jan, have degrees from Ohio State. Both Jan and Sytske have been members of Ohio State’s team at the National Dairy Challenge. Rixt was on OSU’s rowing team when they won the NCAA national championship in 2014.

The Miedema family has continuously welcomed Ohio State faculty and graduate students to conduct research at their farm. They always accept the requests for classes at Ohio State to be brought to the farm, and in addition, they have readily accepted the request to speak to classes on campus. Itske has devoted considerable amount of her personal time in arranging visits for the OSU European Dairy Study Abroad.

Andy and Itske always display a positive attitude and have been devoted to their community, Ohio State, and the Ohio dairy industry. Recognition of their support of the dairy industry and the educational and research programs at Ohio State as recipients of the Dairy Hall of Service is most fitting for this Ohio dairy farm family.

Dr. Hogan is a native of Jonesboro, Louisiana. He obtained his BS degree from Louisiana State University in 1981, his MS degree from the University of Kentucky in 1983, and his PhD from the University of Vermont in 1986. Dr. Hogan became a post-doctoral researcher in 1986 with the Mastitis Laboratory at OARDC. In 1987, he was promoted to a Research Scientist in the Department of Dairy Science, OARDC. He became an Assistant Professor in 1992, was promoted to Associate Professor in 1995, and Professor in the Department of Animal Sciences in 2001. In 2004, Dr. Hogan was appointed as the Associate Chair of the Department, a position he held until his retirement in 2016. In 2011, Dr. Hogan served as the Interim Chair of the Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University.

In addition to his service to The Ohio State University, serving on numerous College and Departmental Committees, Dr Hogan has contributed in several significant ways to the American Dairy Science Association, the National Mastitis Council (NMC), and the International Dairy Federation (IDF). In all of the groups, he chaired numerous important committees and served as President of NMC during 2006. For IDF, he served on the Standing Committee on Animal Health from 2003 to present and Mastitis Action Team from 2002 to present and was Chair of the Action Team from 2003 to 2005.

Dr. Hogan always maintained an internationally recognized research program in the area of mastitis control and production of quality milk in dairy herds. The emphasis was on control of environmental mastitis, the role of dietary vitamin E and selenium in resistance to mastitis and role of bedding in teat end exposure to pathogens, and ways to reduce pathogen loads in bedding materials. His research resulted in 119 peer-reviewed journal articles, 16 book chapters, 87 scientific abstracts, 226 lay articles, 39 invited symposium presentations, and 239 invited seminar presentations. In 1994, Dr. Hogan was awarded the Distinguished Research Award as the Top Junior Scientist at OARDC and received the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA), West-Agro Research Award. In 2014, he received the ADSA Elanco Award for Excellence in Dairy Science.

Dr. Hogan advised 13 graduate students, was a gifted teacher, and his classes were sought out by undergraduate students. The primary courses he taught were Animal Health and Milk Secretion. Teaching evaluations were always in the excellent category and he received the 1995 Teaching Excellence Award from CFAES and the 2011 Gamma Sigma Delta Teaching Award. The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Science Hall of Service Award acknowledges Dr. Hogan’s contributions to the Department and University, the Ohio dairy industry, and dairy farmers globally.
Success of the 2017 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 2017 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference was very successful with an attendance of 538 and 70 exhibitors. The pre-conference workshop on feed analyses was well attended, and there were 12 undergraduates, 5 MS students, and 9 PhD students that competed in student presentations. The pre-conference symposium was sponsored by DiamondV, the Hot Topics breakfast was hosted by ADM Animal Nutrition, and the post-conference program was hosted again by Balchem. This was the 26^th year for the Conference, with attendees from across the US and other countries, including Canada and Hungry. The 2018 Conference to be held April 16-18 and Cumberland Valley Analytical Services will be the sponsor for the pre-conference symposium on April 17. Mark your calendars for plans to attend an excellent program and make sure you bookmark the Conference’s web address: tristatedairy.org.
Buckeye Dairy Club Annual Reception Held

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Buckeye Dairy Club held its annual awards reception on April 22 at the Der Dutchman in Plain City, with about 82 in attendance. Those recognized included the dairy judging and dairy challenge teams and the Club’s committee chairs and outgoing officers. The Buckeye Cow Tales yearbook was dedicated to Ray and Colleen Jackson and their family for providing the cow for ‘Milk a Cow on the Oval’ and additional support to the Club. The Outstanding Club member awards went to: Freshman – Sarah Schuster (Columbus, OH), Sophomore – Hannah Meller (Wauseon, OH), Junior – Molly Cleveland (Green Springs, OH), and Senior – Rachel Park (Ravenna, OH). The Prestigious Member Award (includes $500 toward college costs) went to Marina Sweet (London, OH). The Buckeye Dairy Club in conjunction with John and Bonnie Ayars initiated the Austin Ayars Memorial Scholarship ($5,000), with the first recipient being Joel Sonnenberg (Malinta, OH). The 2017-2018 Officer Team is: President: Marina Sweet, First Vice- President: Hannah Meller, Second Vice-President: Chase Thut, Recording Secretary: Hannah Jarvis, Corresponding Secretary: Lexie Nunes, Treasurer: Joel Sonnenberg, and CFAES Representative: Katherine Wolfe.
Austin Ayars Memorial Scholarship Launched

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Buckeye Dairy Club in conjunction with John and Bonnie Ayars launched the Austin Ayars Memorial Scholarship at the Buckeye Dairy Club’s annual awards reception banquet held at Der Dutchman in Plain City on April 22.

About Austin Ayars

Dr. Austin T. Ayars grew up on a notable, purebred dairy farm in Mechanicsburg, Ohio. Land of Living Farm Guernsey and New View Swiss has been a premier site for dairy judging teams from across the United States to visit and evaluate high quality dairy cattle. During his youth, Austin was very involved in the family’s farm and in showing dairy cattle at local, state, regional, and national shows, as well as an active participant in junior breed association activities at all levels. Recognitions included Salutatorian of his class, All American Farm Degree, 4-H Boy of the Year, and he was a member of the 1999 national winning 4-H dairy judging team. In June of 2003, he graduated Cum Laude from The Ohio State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Sciences. While at OSU as an undergraduate student, he was an avid learner and demonstrated his leadership ability in many extracurricular programs. He was a member of the College Student Council for four years and served as President during in senior year, as well as being named a top 20 senior in the college. He was also a member of Buckeye Dairy Club and Collegiate 4-H and served as a math and chemistry tutor while residing in Norton/Scott.

Austin received the Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine from Ohio State in June 2007. Receiving this degree had been his lifelong dream! Upon graduation with his DVM degree, he married and moved to Arizona to practice in a group specializing in dairy. He later established his own mobile veterinary clinic, received several veterinary grants, and even coached rugby at a local school. Two of his three children were born while he practiced in Arizona.

In March of 2015, Austin and his family moved back to Ohio to begin the process of building a large commercial dairy on the family farm. However on June 7, he died in a tragic farming accident on the family’s farm at the age of 34. This scholarship has been created in his honor to recognize his passion for learning and teaching, for his determination to succeed, his work ethic balanced with his love for his wife and children, and his absolute joy of life!

The Scholarship

The scholarship will be $5,000 awarded annually to an undergraduate student enrolled at The Ohio State University in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences with at least two semesters remaining prior to graduation. The student must be an active member of the Buckeye Dairy Club for at least one year and demonstrate an active interest in dairy, whether that be demonstrated by involvement with dairy cattle in 4-H and/or FFA, dairy judging, dairy challenge, dairy internships, etc. They must have a passion for a career in the dairy industry, demonstration of work ethic, and evidence of leadership potential.

The first recipient of the scholarship selected for 2017 is Joel Sonnenberg of Malinta, OH who just finished his junior year at Ohio State with a major in Agribusiness and Applied Economics and a minor in Production Agriculture. Some of his accomplishments include: American Farmer FFA Degree, member of OSU Dairy Judging Team, President and Vice-President of Delta Theta Sigma, member of Alpha Zeta Partners which included a study abroad to Brazil, two years as treasurer of the Buckeye Dairy Club, peer mentor for the College, and just completed the European Dairy Study Abroad to the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium.

Pictured: Joel Sonnenberg with Bonnie Ayars

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the December Class III price closed at $17.40/cwt and was projected to remain relatively unchanged in January at $17.45/cwt, followed by a nearly 75¢/cwt drop to $16.73/cwt for the month of February. The Class III price for the months of January and February actually closed at $16.77 and $16.88/cwt, respectively. For the month of March, the price is expected to stay stagnant at $16.90/cwt and drop 85¢/cwt in April to $16.05/cwt. Producers should expect February and March mailbox prices to be very similar at around $16.90 to 17.00/cwt.

Nutrient Prices

Nutrient prices continue to remain relatively unchanged as they have been for the past two years. For MP, its current price ($0.44/lb) has risen slightly from January’s issue ($0.38/lb) as a result of the recent surge in animal byproducts. Soybean prices have also risen slightly; however, the MP price is still similar to the 5 year average ($0.43/lb). The current price will likely decrease after the planting season is over because of the surge in seed sales and the projected 5 million more acres of soybeans to be planted in 2017 compared to last year according to the USDA. The South American harvest ongoing will drive protein price down even further as they are currently on track for a record year.

The cost of NE_Ldecreased nearly 2¢/lb to 7.5¢/lb, while the price of e-NDF and ne-NDF are nearly identical to last month at 5¢/lb and -4¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient levels, I used the Cow-Jones Index with cows milking 70 lb/day or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For January’s issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated at $11.57/cwt for a cow milking 70 lb/day and $11.94/cwt for a cow milking 85 lb/day. For March, the IONC for our 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows are slightly lower at an estimated $10.80/cwt and $11.18/cwt, but this should still be profitable.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2017.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on March 26, 2017 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price. One must remember that Sesame compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2017.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the Sesame analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price, or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue, are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in price) are green.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, March 26, 2017.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn, ground, dry	Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF	Blood meal
Corn silage	Bakery Byproducts	Canola meal
Distillers dried grains	Beet pulp	Citrus pulp
Feather meal	Gluten meal	41% Cottonseed meal
Gluten feed	Soybean meal - expeller	Fish meal
Hominy	48% Soybean meal	Molasses
Meat meal	Soybean hulls	Tallow
Wheat middlings	Whole cottonseed	44% Soybean meal
	Wheat bran	Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer savings opportunity and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences, as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2017.

Pay Attention to Dairy Cow Stocking Density

Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

In a dairy free-stall barn, stocking density is most typically defined in terms of cows per stall or used as a percentage. For example,1 cow/stall is equal to a 100% stocking density and 1.3 cows/stall is equal to a 130% stocking density. Stocking density is an important number to pay attention to because stocking density affects cow behavior, how a cow uses its time, and stocking density affects cow health and milk production. In short, stocking density has an impact on the economics of a dairy operation.

To understand how stocking density can affect a dairy cow, you have to know something about how a dairy cow ideally will budget her day in terms of time given to certain activities. In a February 13 webinar to Ohio dairy producers, Dr. Peter Krawczel from the University of Tennessee, Animal Science Department talked about stocking density, cow comfort, and cow productivity. According to Dr. Krawczel, in a healthy environment, the typical lactating dairy cow spends 3 to 5 hours /day eating, about 0.5 hours/day drinking, 2 to 3 hours/day in socializing, walking, grooming, and estrous activity, and 10 to 14 hours /day lying and resting, which leaves 2.5 to 3.5 hours/day for milking. When you look at that time budget, you can see that lying and resting time is very important in the life of a dairy cow. So obviously, anything that negatively impacts on that behavior is probably going to impact on health and milk production.

The amount of time a dairy cow spends lying down and resting is not because the cow is bored and there is nothing else to do. It is necessary for cow health and productivity. How important is this time? During his webinar presentation, Dr. Krawczel talked about studies done to evaluate the importance of rest to dairy cows. When dairy cows are deprived of that 10 to 14 hours/day to lie down and rest, blood cortisol levels, associated with stress, increased while growth hormone levels, associated with milk production, decreased. In fact, dairy cows will prioritize rest over other daily activities. Cows will sacrifice feeding time and social behaviors to maximize lying/resting time. To get the needed lying/resting time, a cow must have access to a comfortable stall.

Access to a stall goes back to stocking density. An important question is: At what level does stalking density have a negative impact on cow health and milk production? Is there an acceptable level of overstocking? Research that has been done on stalls per cow reveals that it is not necessary to have a strict one cow per one stall ratio, which would be considered a 100% stocking density. Some level of overstocking is acceptable, but generally should not exceed 120% or 1.2 cows/stall. Barn design and layout can influence the exact number, as well as barn management. As farms exceed that 120% stocking density, milk yield or potential milk production begins to decline, and there can be health issues associated with overcrowding that negatively impact milk production.

Stocking densities of greater than 120% are common on some farms, and there are the stories of farms that maintain stocking densities in excess of 150%, with apparently good herd milk production. Often economics drive overstocking in free-stall barns. The barn facility is a fixed cost. If more cows are put into the facility, the fixed cost is spread over more animals and the cost per head is lower. In times of low milk prices and low returns per cow, there is a tendency to add more milk cows to try to retain the same income level, thus overstocking occurs. Sometimes overstocking occurs because more heifers are being retained for a planned herd expansion. Until that expansion is completed with the expanded housing, overstocking occurs. Finally, because of the cow’s ability to adjust and make sacrifices in overcrowded conditions, the farm manager may not be aware of the decreased milk production potential or the increased health issues. The level of milk production and the health issues has become the normal operating condition.

When stocking densities exceed 120%, cows begin to compete for stalls. This is a stressor. If cows don’t get adequate rest time, their immune system can become compromised and they are more susceptible to illness. Often, standing time will increase and incidence of lameness or other foot problems increase.
Dr. Krawzcel talked about research conducted on the time to lie down following milking. Ideally after milking, the cow should remain standing or walking around for at least half an hour to allow teat ends to seal and prevent possible mastitis causing organisms from entering via the teat canal. At stocking densities of 100 to 120%, time to lie down after milking averaged 38 to 39 minutes, which is considered very good. At rates higher than this, the time drops to under 30 minutes. Basically, cows know that stalls are in demand and they may hurry a meal or cut out some other activity to grab a stall as quickly as possible. Stocking density of dry cows has health implications as well. In a March 13 webinar, Dr. Katy Proudfoot, OSU Extension Animal Welfare/Behavior Specialist, presented some information that showed when cows are crowded in the transition period, the risk of metritis and ketosis in early lactation increases.

A final factor to consider in regard to stocking density is not only cow access to a stall, but cow comfort when a stall is available. Stall bedding must be clean and dry. The stall design and size must be matched to cow size. Paying attention to stocking density with a goal to not exceed 120% can decrease production costs while maintaining or increasing milk production.
Ohio Livestock Coalition Launches New Website

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The Ohio Livestock Coalition (OLC) has launched the new web site for the Livestock Environmental Assurance Program (LEAP) – a voluntary program to help Ohio's livestock farms take a proactive approach in protecting the land, air, and water on and around their farms. The LEAP program was founded in 1997 to help farmers identify and address key management issues affecting environmental quality by providing helpful evaluation tools and resources. The new web site is located at: www.ohleap.org.

Milk Production of Ohio Dairy Herds

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

It is always important to monitor the yield of milk and the composition of milk, especially for the individual farmer, because the income of the dairy farm depends on this source of revenue. The yields of protein and fat are the primary determinants of the price received by farmers. The proportions of fat and protein are useful in monitoring cow health and feeding practices within a farm. The income over feed costs (IOFC) and feed costs per hundred of milk are important monitors of costs of milk production.

The average production of milk, fat, and protein by breed for Ohio dairy herds in 2016 using the Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI; http://www.dhiohio.com) program are provided in Table 1. Not all herds on DHI are included in the table below because of the different testing options offered by DHI, some herds opt for no release of records, lack of sufficient number of test dates, and given that some of the herds consist of other breeds than the ones shown. In comparison, the average of milk yield for all cows (266,000) in Ohio for 2015 was 20, 875 lb milk with 3.78% fat.

Table 1. Number of herds, milk yield, milk fat, and milk protein by breed for Ohio herds on DHI during 2016.

Breed	Number of Herds	Milk (lb/lactation)	Milk fat (%)	Milk protein (%)
Ayrshire	9	16,919	3.83	3.25
Brown Swiss	17	20,216	4.22	3.45
Guernsey	6	17,606	4.73	3.41
Holstein	272	25,202	3.69	3.08
Jersey	62	17,600	4.85	3.65
Mixed	24	23,481	3.90	3.21

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Mr. Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue, the October Class III price closed at $14.82/cwt and was projected to remain relatively unchanged in November, followed by a $2/cwt rise to $16.88/cwt for the month of December. The Class III price for the month of November and December actually closed at $16.76 and $17.40/cwt, respectively. For the month of January, the price is expected to stay stagnant at $17.45/cwt and drop 72¢/cwt in February to $16.73/cwt. Although prices rose at the tail end of 2016, domestic demand in the state of Ohio is currently sluggish and total milk produced has risen. As a result, there is no added bonus from the producer price differential for milk checks in the months of November and December and Ohio farmers should expect their mailbox price to be around $15.40 and $16.80/cwt, respectively; much below the actual prices listed above.

The recent surge in the milk prices can be attributed to increased export prices and the demand for nonfat dry milk in Asia. This is reflected in the nearly 50¢/lb rise of the milk protein prices since October. However, US milk exports and Oceania and EU domestic prices are rising at similar rates. Total production across the US is also rising. To say the least, there is quite the level of uncertainty where the milk price will head for 2017. In the coming months, I expect prices to stay the same or decrease based on the historical trends of the milk price (Figure 1; USDA) during election years and when new presidents are inaugurated. Given nutrient prices, this is not as bad as it sounds and dairy farming should remain relatively profitable regardless.

Figure 1: Average milk price paid ($/cwt) to farmers in the Federal Milk Marketing Order by month since 2007.

Nutrient Prices

Although milk prices are currently at a standstill, nutrient prices are still low and will more than likely continue to decline. For MP, its current price ($0.38/lb) has stayed the same from November’s issue ($0.37/lb) and is lower than the 5 year average for MP ($0.43/lb). The cost of NE_Ldecreased 2¢/lb to 9¢/lb, while the price of e-NDF and ne-NDF are nearly identical to last month at 4¢/lb and -8¢/lb (i.e. feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient levels, I used the Cow-Jones Index with a cow milking 70 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein eating 50 lb/day of DM. For November’s issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) were estimated at $8.05/cwt and $8.46/cwt. for a cow milking 85lb/day and eating 56 lb of DM. For January, the IONC for our 70 lb/day and 85lb/day cows are estimated to be at $11.57/cwt and $11.94/cwt, which should be highly profitable. Using actual component averages for Ohio (3.9% fat and 3.2% protein) cows averaging 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day should be making even more money at $12.13/cwt and $12.50/cwt, respectively. Bottom line, as long as there is no sudden spike in nutrient prices, a drop in milk prices may not excessively harm the profitability of Ohio dairy farmers.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, January 25, 2017.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on January 25, 2017 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price. One must remember that Sesame compares all commodities at one point in time, mid January in this case. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, January 25, 2017.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, January 25, 2017.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery Byproducts	Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF	Beet pulp
Corn, ground, dry	41% Cottonseed meal	Blood meal
Corn silage	Canola meal	Citrus pulp
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	Fish meal
Feather meal	Soybean meal - expeller	Molasses
Gluten feed	48% Soybean meal	Tallow
Hominy	Soybean hulls	44% Soybean meal
Meat meal	Whole cottonseed	Whole, roasted soybeans
Wheat middlings	Wheat bran

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer savings opportunity and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see the Table 4 below.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, January 25, 2017.

Introduction of Dr. Luis Moraes, A New Faculty Member at Ohio State

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Dr. Luis Moraes joined the Department of Animal Sciences at The Ohio State University on December 15, 2016. He grew up in Brazil where his family owns and manages a beef cattle operation. Dr. Moraes has been always involved with agriculture through his family business and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Agronomic Engineering from the University of Sao Paulo at the ESALQ campus. Following his graduation, he moved to California where he received two Master of Science degrees, one in Animal Biology and one in Statistics, and a PhD in Animal Biology, all from the University of California-Davis. He worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the UC Davis in the Department of Animal Science until he joined the faculty at Ohio State as an Assistant Professor. His research focuses on the application of statistics, mathematics, and economics to the animal sciences. He is particularly interested in the use of economic optimization models for dairy management. While at UC Davis, he developed linear and goal programming models that simultaneously minimized diet costs and methane emissions. He has also worked on the application of statistical methods for describing nutrient utilization in cattle. For instance, multivariate mixed models, nonparametric growth curves, and Bayesian methods are examples of techniques that he has used to better understand energy and protein metabolism in growing and lactating cattle. At OSU, his research plans are to develop mathematical models that incorporate nutrient management information into diet optimization. Further, he will continue to develop and apply statistical modeling techniques for the extraction of meaningful information from animal science data and for the improved understanding of biological processes. His office is at 2029 Fyffe Court, 221A Animal Science Building, Columbus, OH 43210 and he can be contacted at 614-292-6507 or ferrazdiasdemoraes.1@osu.edu.
2017 Ohio Forage and Grasslands Council Conference

Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

The Ohio Forages and Grasslands Council Annual Conference will be held February 3, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Ohio Department of Agriculture in Reynoldsburg, OH. The program theme is “High Quality Forages.” The keynote speaker will be Dr. Kim Cassida, Forage Extension Specialist at Michigan State University, who will discuss “Managing Grass-Legume Mixtures” based on extensive research and experience in Michigan and her prior work in West Virginia. She and Dr. Jeff McCutcheon (OSU Extension, Southeast Region Director) will discuss “High Energy Pasture for Grass-Finished Beef” and two Ohio producers, Bill Lawhon of Knox County and Jeff Ramseyer of Wayne County, will expand on that topic by discussing how they utilize annual and perennial forages in their grass-based beef operations. Lin Karcher, a dairy producer in Meigs County, will discuss the transition to grass-based dairy production. Don and Megan Burgess of Hancock County will discuss how sheep breed affects utilization of annual forages in their operation. Todd Hager of Allen County will discuss his commercial hay operation that includes baling cover crops within grain crop rotations and reprocessing big square bales of alfalfa into small squares prior to marketing. A six-state evaluation of “Reduced Lignin Alfalfa” will be discussed by Angie Parker (Ohio State University Graduate Research Assistant) and Dr. Mark Sulc and Dr. Dave Barker (The Ohio State University) will provide a Research Update on several projects, including optimizing animal intake on tall fescue pastures, revising potato leafhopper thresholds for leafhopper-resistant alfalfa and alfalfa-grass mixtures, and effects of different harvest schedules on alfalfa-grass mixtures.

Details of the program and a registration form is available at http://www.afgc.org/ohio.php.

Registration is due by January 27, 2017. For more information contact Gary Wilson at osuagman@gmail.com and (419) 348-3500, or Dr. Mark Sulc at sulc.2@osu.edu and (614) 292-9084.
Dairy Program Updates

Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

One might think that 4-H winds down during the winter months, when in fact the homework is in place for all that will follow when spring arrives. Many dairy judging opportunities take place around the state and all can help to lead up to Spring Dairy Expo when the state 4-H and FFA contest will take place on April 1 (no kidding). Spring Dairy Expo (springdairyexpo.com), March 30 - April 1, serves as the transition from one season to another and also allows dairy enthusiasts to gather for shows, sales, showmanship contests, and social gatherings.

Here at the University, there also are many recognition programs that take place for students and alumni. On March 4, the CFAES Alumni Awards Luncheon will take place at the Fawcett Center and you will note some familiar dairy names within that group. On April 8, the Animal Sciences Department Recognition Banquet will be held at the 4-H Center on the OSU Columbus campus. Each year, the dairy judging program recognizes the anniversary teams of 50, 25, and 10 years, along with current members. There are a few members on the 50 year team for which I could use updates and addresses. If you know of Tom Criblez or Harold Meeusen, please help me to make sure they have a formal invitation.

To finish out April, Dairy Palooza programs will be held at the Wayne County Fairgrounds on April 22 and then at the Auglaize County Fairgrounds on April 29. The website is updated and filled with information at ohiodairypalooza.com. Please encourage youth and adults alike with dairy interests to attend these workshops AND Quality Assurance training will be provided. We also have adult programs based around updates that will assist advisors in planning effective meetings.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Mr. Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Milk Prices

In the last issue of Buckeye Dairy News, the September Class III price closed at $16.63/cwt and then was projected to drop a mere 3¢/cwt in October. The Class III price for October actually closed much lower than expected at $14.82/cwt. The advanced Class III price for November is projected to remain relatively unchanged from October at $14.78/cwt and then rise over $2/cwt. to $16.88/cwt for the month of December.

These current prices will average around $14.50/cwt for the 2016 year. The future, however, is looking bright for the year to come, despite the political and economic changes on-going in the US and the rest of the world.

Nutrient Prices

Nutrient prices continue to be low when looking at the 5-year averages. According to our price estimates of net energy lactation (NE_L, $/Mcal) and metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), the year of 2016 is 3¢/Mcal and 2¢/lb, respectively, lower than since 2011 (13¢/Mcal and 43¢/lb, respectively).

As in previous issues, these feed ingredients were appraised using the software program SESAME™ developed by Dr. St-Pierre at The Ohio State University to price the important nutrients in dairy rations, to estimate break-even prices of all commodities traded in Ohio, and to identify feedstuffs that currently are significantly underpriced as of November 28, 2016. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NE_L, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1. For MP, its current price ($0.37/lb) has decreased slightly from September’s issue ($0.52/lb) in response to a high yielding 2016 harvest. The cost of NE_L, e-NDF, and ne-NDF are nearly identical to last month at 11¢/lb, 5¢/lb, and -13¢/lb (i.e. feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient levels, I used the Cow-Jones Index with a cow milking 70 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein eating 50 lb/day of DM. In this model, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) for September’s issue were estimated at $9.49/cwt and $9.94/cwt for a cow milking 85lb/day and eating 56 lb of DM. These IONC were calculated under the combination of low nutrient prices and decent milk prices and should be highly profitable. Milk price has decreased slightly since, and in this issue, our 70lb/day and 85lb/day cows are estimated to be making less at $8.05/cwt and $8.46/cwt., respectively, which still should be profitable.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2016.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 28, 2016 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price. One must remember that Sesame compares all commodities at one point in time, mid November in this case. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2016.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, November 28, 2016.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF	Beet pulp
Corn, ground, dry	Canola meal	Blood meal
Corn silage	Gluten meal	41% Cottonseed meal
Distillers dried grains	Soybean meal - expeller	Citrus pulp
Feather meal	48% Soybean meal	Fish meal
Gluten feed	Whole cottonseed	Molasses
Hominy	Tallow	Soybean hulls
Meat meal	Wheat bran	44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings		Whole, roasted soybeans

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer savings opportunity and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP content.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2016.

A Quick Look at the 2015 Ohio Dairy Farm Business Dairy Summary

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Field Specialist, Dairy Production Economics, The Ohio State University Extension

2015 was not a kind year for many Ohio farms. Class III milk price averaged $15.80/cwt with the Federal Order 33 Producer Price Differential adding another $0.40/cwt, resulting in an average statistical uniform price of $16.13/cwt for the year. This is the minimum price that all Grade A shippers should have received for milk at test. 2014 was a much different year with an average statistical uniform price of $22.34/cwt. This dramatic drop in milk price resulted in net return per cow dropping from $1,266/cow in 2014 to $36.42/cow in 2015. For the first time in 5 years, the average net return for the high 20% of herds (sorted on net return per cow) dropped below $1,000 to $905/cow, down from a 5-year high of $1,976/cow in 2014.

There were 40 dairy enterprises included in the 2015 summary. The summary includes 37 conventionally managed herds and 3 organic herds, with 3 conventional herds utilizing robotic milkers. These farms chose to invest their time to analyze the business performance of their farms, dairy, and crop enterprises.

Table 1. Average of selected performance indicators of Ohio dairy farms participating
in the Ohio Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program, 2011 through 2015.¹

¹Home grown feeds were valued at cost of production.
*Including other revenue adjustments (less the value of cull cows or heifers, bull calves, and breeding stock sold per cwt).
**Does not include a labor and management charge.

Table 2. Selected performance indicators of Ohio dairy farms participating in the Ohio Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program, 2011 through 2015. Averages are shown for the high 20% farms sorted by net return per cow.¹

¹Home grown feeds were valued at cost of production.
*Including other revenue adjustments (less the value of cull cows or heifers, bull calves, and breeding stock sold per cwt).
**Does not include a labor and management charge

2016 has continued to be a challenge for Ohio dairy farms with the Statistical Uniform Price averaging only $14.82/cwt through October. Benchmark reports that are included in the Dairy Summary are a useful tool that can help farmers identify areas of concern and opportunity as they work to survive this extended period of depressed milk prices.

The complete 2015 Ohio Farm Business Summary and benchmark reports for dairy, crop, and whole farm business analysis will be posted soon on the Ohio Farm Business Analysis & Benchmarking Program Website at http://farmprofitability.osu.edu.
2016 Ohio Dairy Challenge Contest Huge Success

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The 2016 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held October 21-22 and was sponsored by Cargill Animal Nutrition, Elanco, Purina Animal Nutrition, Renaissance Nutrition, Sexing Technologies, and VitaPlus. Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped into teams of three to four individuals. Veterinary and graduate students are invited to attend the farm visit and participate in a meeting later in the evening with the contest judges to discuss observations on the farm. The farm selected for the contest this year was the Three Flags Dairy in Forest, OH owned by Geert and Wiesje Kruiter. The Kruiter family started milking at the facility in 2010, and there are about 715 cows in the operation. Cows are milked 3 times-a-day in a double 16 herringbone parlor. The forages grown on the farm include alfalfa and grass silages, corn silage, and small grain silage. There were 69 undergraduate students (19 teams) and 16 graduate and veterinary students that participated. The undergraduate teams this year were again divided into novice and experienced divisions for judging purposes. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Friday afternoon, interviewing the owner and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. During Friday evening, the undergraduate teams spent about four hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities for the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation that had to be turned in on Friday evening. On Saturday, the undergraduate students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the novice division were: Allan Chestnut (Cargill/Provimi), Bob Hostetler (Renaissance Nutrition), Dr. Andrew Kniesly (VitaPlus), and Michelle Lahmers (Cargill Animal Nutrition). The judges for the experienced division were: Ryan Aberle (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Mark Armfelt (Elanco), Laura Homan (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Dwight Roseler (Purina Animal Nutrition), and Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences). Dr. Shaun Wellert with ATI also assisted with the program. The awards banquet was held on Saturday, October 22 at the Fawcett Center on the OSU Columbus campus. The top two teams in the novice division were: Sarah Hartzler, Allison Mangun, and John Paulin; Hannah Donley, Lydia Flores, Ella Jackson, and Kate Sherman. The top team in the experienced division was: Angie Evers, Brianna Justice, Jacob Triplett, and Brittany Webb. Students will be selected to represent Ohio at the 2016 National Contest and to participate in the Dairy Challenge Academy to be held in Visalia, CA during March 30 - April 1, 2017. Students from ATI participated in the Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge held November 3-5, 2016 in Glen Falls, NY and students from main campus will be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge hosted by University of Wisconsin-Madison during February 8-10, 2017. The coach for the Dairy Challenge program at ATI is Dr. Shaun Wellert and Dr. Maurice Eastridge is the coach for the Columbus campus.

Novice Division (left to right): Sarah Hartzler, John Paulin,
and Allison Mangun.

Novice Division (left to right): Ella Jackson, Kate Sherman,
and Lydia Flores (Hannah Donley, not pictured).

First Place Team, Experienced Division (left to right):
Jacob Triplett, Brittany Webb, Bryanna Justice, and Angie Evers.
Managing Farm Financial Stress
Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, The Ohio State University Extension

Farmers are facing a tough agricultural economy. Grain, livestock, and dairy producers are all coping with prices that result in slim to breakeven profit margins. For a number of farms, operating in the red is their reality. Unfortunately, the price outlook for most agricultural commodities does not offer much hope in the near future. Farming under these financial conditions is causing stress among farm families and within farm operations. Some farmers are wondering how much longer they can continue to operate their farm, or if they should continue.

Recognizing the level of stress that exists in the farm community, a program entitled “Managing Farm Financial Stress” has been scheduled for Friday, December 16 at Fisher Auditorium, 1680 Madison Avenue on the OARDC campus in Wooster. The program will provide participants with tools and information that can help them manage through the current financial situation and make sound decisions regarding their farm operation. Registration begins at 9:30 am. The program begins at 10:00 am and will conclude at 3:15 pm. There is no charge for this meeting and lunch and refreshments will be provided. Program and lunch expenses are being covered by sponsorships from Farmers National Bank, WG Dairy, Commodity Blenders, Gerber Feed, and the Wayne-Ashland Dairy Service Unit.

The program features a general session in the morning with afternoon break-out sessions offering participants their choice of three different tracks. Morning topics and speakers include:
- Mental Wellness: Recognizing and managing/coping with the stress of financial hardship; Jim Foley, Director of Community Education and Prevention; Counseling Center of Wayne and Holmes Counties
- Gathering and Using Farm Financial Information; Dianne Shoemaker, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Production Economics
- Dairy Price and Market Outlook; Cam Thraen, OSU (Emeritus) Dairy Market Specialist
Afternoon breakout tracks feature multiple presentations focusing on Financial Management, Legal Considerations, and Healthy Family, Healthy Farm. Participants will have the opportunity to attend three presentations/discussions and can mix and match between themes. Specific presentation topics and presenters include:
- Calculating your Cost of Production and Using Cost of Production Benchmarks; Dianne Shoemaker, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Production Economics
- Working with Your Lender to Re-structure Debt; Lender Panel with representatives from Farmers National Bank, Farm Credit Mid-America, and Wayne Savings Community Bank
- Exiting the Farm Business, Tax Implications for Exiting the Farm Business, and Moving Ahead with Helpful Business Structures; Robert Moore and Ryan Conklin, Wright and Moore Law Co. LPA
- Moving Towards Mental Health; Jim Foley, Counseling Center of Wayne and Holmes Counties
- Moving Forward with a Farm Advisory Team; Mark Thomas, Stark County Dairy Farmer
- Healthy Family Communication; Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County
The meeting is open to farmers and anyone working with farmers and farm families. As mentioned previously, there is no charge to attend, but pre-registration is requested by calling the Wayne County Extension office at 330-264-8722 by Friday, December 9 to ensure enough meals are prepared.

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Alex Tebbe,Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences,The Ohio State University

Milk Prices: Better But Not Best

In the last issue, the July Class III future price was projected to be $13.16/cwt and then jump to $15.07/cwt in August. The Class III price for July and August actually closed much higher than expected at $15.26/cwt and to $16.91/cwt, respectively. One year ago, the Class III milk price in Ohio was over $1/cwt higher at $16.33 for July and $0.64/ cwt lower at $16.27/cwt in August of 2015. Currently, the Class III future price is set marginally lower at $16.63/cwt for September but higher than the $15.84/cwt of September 2015, when the market really started to take a turn for the worst.

Typical of when the kids go back to school, the price of milk has temporarily spiked to cover the demand. But this spike is only partially compensatory for the low average Class III price we have had for 2016 thus far ($14.16/cwt). To have an equivalent year to that of 2015 (2015 Class III average $15.80/cwt), the Class III milk price would have to average at least $20.80/cwt for October, November, and December, which is probably unrealistic. Overall, the milk prices of July and August are good in comparison to the previous 12 months but most definitely fall short of the 5 year average of all milk sold in Ohio ($18.46/cwt). The future of 2017, however, looks slightly brighter than this year according to the USDA price forecasts that predict all milk classes should average around $15.75 ± 1.00/cwt. This number, however, should be taken with extreme caution and be simply used as a rough estimate.

Nutrient Prices: Still The Good Side

In the last issue, the potential for a very volatile market forth coming was discussed. Now at the brink of the harvest, the future looks extremely good for the animal production industry as nutrient prices are expected to continue to fall. The majority of the Midwest is expected to have yet another good year in terms of bushels per acre but not in terms of dollars per bushel. This will be especially true for corn prices which are already approaching $3.00/bu and will likely go lower; prices we have not seen since the ethanol boom. The price of soybeans has also dropped 80¢/bu since the last issue when it temporarily spiked in price to $10.87/bu. Needless to say, now would be a good time to start locking in good prices on commodities and reformulating rations to enable feeding bargain feedstuffs long term.

In this issue, a new corn silage price for the year of $42.50/ton (35% dry matter) was calculated. This price is about $4/ton lower than last year’s and still a bargain compared to other ingredients. The calculated price is based upon the value of shelled corn rather than the nutritive value of the corn silage fed. The value, however, can vary considerably based on location (e.g. weather and growing conditions) and harvesting and storage conditions or practices, as well as the hybrid of corn planted. Thus, 75% confidence intervals are defined in Table 2 to reflect the real world variability in the nutritional value of corn silage and its range in net worth based on the price of other ingredients. This is especially true for the state of Ohio, as many areas did not experience the best growing conditions. Corn silage in these areas will likely differ in nutritive value (higher protein and lower energy) and also generate lower yields. Bottom line, regardless of variability, corn silage should be a no brainer for making up the majority of the forage component of rations for the upcoming year, but only if you have stored enough; running out of corn silage in July will be a huge financial burden. For more information about corn silage, I recommend readers look further into this issue of the Buckeye Dairy News for an article dedicated to the topic.

As in previous issues, these feed ingredients were appraised using the software program SESAME™ developed by Dr. St-Pierre at The Ohio State University to price the important nutrients in dairy rations, to estimate break-even prices of all commodities traded in Ohio, and to identify feedstuffs that currently are significantly underpriced as of September 20, 2016. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NE_L, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1. For MP, its current price ($0.52/lb) has increased slightly from July’s issue ($0.45/lb). The cost of NE_L, e-NDF, and ne-NDF are nearly identical to last month at 10¢/lb, 8¢/lb, and -13¢/lb (i.e. feeds with a significant content of ne-NDF are priced at a discount), respectively.

To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient levels, the Cow-Jones Index with a cow milking 70 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein eating 50 lb/day of DM was used. In this model, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) in July’s issue were estimated at $6.61/cwt for this 70 lb/day of milk and $7.04/cwt for a cow milking 85 lb/day and eating 56 lb of DM. These IONC were calculated under the combination of low nutrient prices and poor milk prices and are likely unprofitable. However, milk price has increased since, and in this issue, our 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows are estimated to be making much more per cwt of milk at $9.49/cwt and $9.94/cwt, respectively. Even though the current price of all milk is $2.50/cwt below the five-year average ($18.46/cwt) and may not seem high, the current nutrient prices are staying low driving the cost of production down. Taken all together and using this index, milking cows should no doubt be profitable again using these market prices.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, September 20, 2016.

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on September 20, 2016 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price. One must remember that Sesame compares all commodities at one point in time, mid September in this case. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, September 20, 2016.

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the Sesame analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e. decreased in price) are green.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, September 20, 2016.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay - 40% NDF	Blood meal
Corn, ground, dry	Beet pulp	Canola meal
Corn silage	Brewers grains, wet	Citrus pulp
41% Cottonseed meal	Gluten meal	Fish meal
Distillers dried grains	Hominy	Molasses
Feather meal	48% Soybean meal	Soybean hulls
Gluten feed	Whole, roasted soybeans	44% Soybean meal
Meat meal	Whole cottonseed	Tallow
Soybean meal - expeller		Wheat bran
Wheat middlings

As coined by Dr. St-Pierre, readers must be reminded that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer savings opportunity and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Also, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, your nutritionist might be using some molasses in your rations for reasons other than its NE_L and MP contents.

Appendix

For those of you who use the 5-nutrient group values (i.e., replace metabolizable protein by rumen degradable protein and digestible rumen undegradable protein), see Table 4.

Table 4. Prices of nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for
Ohio dairy farms, September 20, 2016.

Does TMR Sampling Provide Useful Nutrient Composition Data?

Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor, Interim Department Chair, and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University¹

Laboratory data from total mixed ration (TMR) samples have potential value when evaluating consistency and accuracy of the diet that was delivered to a pen of cows including:

Assessing within bunk variation in nutrient delivery. When evaluating consistency of TMR mixing and delivery, samples are taken at various locations across the bunk, analyzed for nutrients or particle size, and then some measure of variation, such as coefficient of variation (CV) or standard deviation (SD), is calculated and compared to a benchmark.
Assessing day-to-day consistency of TMR delivery. The same basic approach as above except the TMR is sampled over multiple days and then variation is calculated among the daily samples.
Determining whether the delivered ration matches the formulated one. Because of normal variation in ingredient composition and random or systematic errors associated with the individual doing the feeding and the scales on the mixer wagon, the delivered diet may differ markedly from the formulated diet. To evaluate accuracy (how close the delivered diet matches the formulated diet), samples are taken and results are compared to the specifications of the formulated diet.

Although using TMR composition data to evaluate diets and troubleshoot nutritional problems has potential, to be useful TMR data must meet the following to criteria:

Sampling variation (e.g., variation among results from samples taken at the same location within a feedbunk on a given day) must be known. Without knowing sampling variation, you might conclude that mixing is poor because you have a high CV across the feedbunk (or across days), but in reality, the high CV might have been caused by poor sampling technique.
The nutrient composition of the sample must accurately reflect what was delivered to the pen (i.e., sample results must be accurate). If sample results do not match formulated expectations, you might assume ingredients have changed or blame the feeder for not following the recipe, when in reality, it might be the sample (or the sampler) that is to blame.

Should sampling error be a concern for TMR data?

Sampling error (or sampling variation) simply means that if you take multiple samples from the same population, you obtain different values. A TMR is comprised of particles that vary in density, size, shape, and nutrient composition. A stem of hay is light, long, and is generally high in fiber; whereas, a grain of salt is heavy, small, and has no fiber. The extreme heterogeneous nature of TMR makes them extremely difficult to sample accurately, thus sampling error is indeed a major issue with TMR data. In a field study (conducted by The Ohio State University) of commercial dairy farms across the U.S., sampling variation contributed 36 to 70% of the total within farm variation in TMR composition over a 12-month period.

Bottom Line:

When assessing day-to-day variation, duplicate samples should be taken and then averaged. Variation among the daily averages should be calculated.
When evaluating within bunk variation, the process should be replicated and results averaged.
For example, you could take 5 samples across the bunk, measure particle size on those samples, and calculate the CV; that entire process should be repeated and the 2 CV should be averaged.

Comparing TMR sample results to the formulated diet

An experiment was conducted at Ohio State (see 2016 Tristate Dairy Nutrition Conference Proceedings for full details) to determine whether TMR sample results accurately reflect the TMR that was delivered. The TMR was sampled immediately after it was delivered to the pen using the protocol outlined below. Three different TMR mixes were sampled over 6 days. One TMR mix contained only silages and concentrate; another contained dry hay, silages, and concentrates; and the third contained hay, silages, whole cottonseed, and concentrate. Type of TMR did not have much effect so data from individual TMR will not be discussed. Each day ingredients were sampled and analyzed and amounts of each ingredient put into the mixer was electronically recorded using commercial TMR software. Actual inclusion rates and ingredient composition data were used to calculate the ‘true’ composition of the TMR which was compared to composition determined on TMR samples.

Are TMR samples accurate?

Accuracy has a flexible definition depending on how good is good enough. If you were constructing a nuclear submarine, tolerances might be expressed in nanometers, but if you are digging a hole for a fence post, tolerances may be several inches. For this project, if a sample result was within 5% of the true value, the result was considered accurate. Using that definition, a single TMR sample can accurately reflect the TMR for some nutrients but for other nutrients, even averages of multiple samples are unlikely to be accurate.

Dry Matter (DM) Comparisons:

For DM, a single sample of TMR (using the protocol outlined below) was almost always within 5% of the true value (Table 1) and no sample was more than 10% away from the true value. Although a TMR sample was accurate for DM, the value of knowing the DM concentration of a TMR is questionable because diets are usually not formulated to a specific DM percentage.

Crude Protein (CP) Comparison:

A single TMR sample was usually accurate for CP, but occasionally (approximately 1 out of every 15 samples) sample values were really wrong.

NDF Comparison:

A single TMR was not reliable to evaluate NDF concentration of TMR with approximately 1 out of every 6 samples being more than 10% wrong.

Mineral Comparisons:

A single TMR sample had no value in estimating the mineral concentrations of the delivered TMR. This finding may have practical implications for phosphorus-based nutrient management plans. If phosphorus intake is calculated by multiplying TMR delivery rates by phosphorus concentration of a TMR sample, estimated phosphorus intake could often be wrong by more than 20%.

Single versus duplicate samples of TMR:

For NDF and all minerals, single TMR samples were not accurate. But, what about means of duplicate samples? Taking 2 TMR samples and averaging them greatly improved the accuracy for NDF. The mean of duplicates were accurate 75% of the time and only about 1 out of 12 times was the mean more than 10% wrong. Averaging TMR samples, however, did not greatly improve accuracy for minerals. Less than 20% of the averages of duplicate samples were accurate for any mineral and between 1 out of every 2 means to 1 out of every 5 means were wrong by more than 10%.

Table 1. Sampling accuracy of TMR based on analytical data of various dietary components. Values represent the percentage of TMR samples (36 samples were taken) that were within 5% of the true values or more than 10% away from the true values¹.

Nutrient	< 5% Deviation	>10% Deviation
Dry matter, %	95%	0
CP, %	75%	6%
NDF, %	58%	17%
Phosphorus, %	3%	83%
Sodium, %	8%	67%
Copper, ppm	14%	86%
¹ See: http://tristatedairy.org/Proceedings 2016/Bill Weiss.pdf

Recommended TMR sampling protocol

Another objective of the projected outlined above was to test different sampling protocols. Details are available in the paper discussed above but based on results from that study the following sampling protocol is recommended.

As you walk the feedbunk carrying a clean container such as a 5 gal bucket, take a handful of TMR approximately every 10 to 30 ft and place it into the bucket. For shorter bunks sample at 10 ft intervals but for very long bunks sample at 30 ft intervals. You want to have at least 10 handfuls by the time you reach the end of the bunk.
Alternate samples so that the top, middle and bottom third of the TMR is sampled.
When taking the handful, ensure that your palm is facing up to avoid dropping small particles.
After you have walked the entire feedbunk, mix the contents of the bucket and then dump the contents onto a clean floor or large piece of plastic.
Spread the contents out into a circle, divide the circle into quarters and then using a scoop to ensure you get all the particles, place one of the quarters into a sampling bag and send to the lab. The sample should be larger than a softball but smaller than a volley ball.

Conclusions

Using a simple, yet good sampling technique for obtaining TMR samples was generally accurate for DM and CP; however, using results from a single sample had a high risk of being wrong (>10% different) with respect to NDF and minerals. Taking duplicate samples and averaging NDF values reduced the risk of being wrong to an acceptable level. Sampling TMR did not accurately assess mineral delivery and should not be used.

¹Published initially in the dairy nutrition series of DAIReNET, the dairy resource area of eXtension, at: http://articles.extension.org/pages/73922/does-tmr-sampling-provide-useful-nutrient-composition-data

2016 Corn Silage Crop in Ohio

Dr. Maurice Eastridge and Dr. Bill Weiss, Extension Dairy Specialists, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The weather conditions have been variable in Ohio this summer. Some areas have been extremely dry and other areas have been very wet during the past two to three months. Thus, corn silage yields will likely be quite variable across Ohio this year. For those areas that have been very dry, yields will be adversely affected, but generally the concentrations of protein and energy will be better than average. Therefore, many dairy farmers in Ohio may need to purchase additional corn for silage or identify other ingredients to replace corn silage in the diet. Now is the time to make such decisions while some corn may still be standing in the field, other forages are readily available, and commodities will be less expensive near harvest time.

Harvesting Corn Silage

Chop at the correct dry matter (DM) concentration. The factor primarily responsible for obtaining a good fermentation is the DM concentration of the plant when chopped. This is the same whether it is a beautiful, record breaking corn crop or a severely drought stressed field with short plants containing no ears. Chopping corn silage at the wrong DM concentration will increase fermentation losses and reduce the nutrient value of the silage. The recommended ranges for silage DM are:

Bunker: 30 to 35% Upright: 32 to 38%
Bag: 32 to 38% Sealed upright: 35 to 38%

Drought-stressed corn plants are often much wetter than they appear, even if the lower plant leaves are brown. Before starting to chop, sample some plants (cut at the same height as they will be with the harvester) and either analyze DM using a Koster tester or microwave or send to a commercial lab (turn-around time may be a few days if you send it to a lab). If the plants are too wet, delay chopping until the desired plant DM is reached. By delaying harvest, the plant may continue to accumulate DM (increase yield), and you will not suffer increased fermentation losses caused by ensiling corn that is too wet.

Use a proven inoculant. When silage is worth upwards of $80/ton (35% DM), reducing shrink by 2 percentage units has a value of about $2/ton. Homolactic inoculants (these are the ‘standard silage inoculants’) produce lactic acid which reduces fermentation losses but sometimes can increase spoilage during feedout. The buchneri inoculants increase acetic acid which slightly increases fermentation losses but greatly reduce spoilage during feedout. Severely drought-stressed corn can have a high concentration of sugars because the plant is not depositing starch into the kernels. High sugar concentrations can increase spoilage at feed out because it is a food source for yeasts and molds. Use of a good (from a reputable company with research showing efficacy) buchneri inoculant may be especially cost-effective with drought-stressed corn.

Check for nitrates. Because of the growing season this year, the risk of nitrate accumulation is not extremely high, but you should still test silage from drought-stressed corn plants. Ideally, corn plants should be sampled and assayed for nitrates prior to chopping (most labs offer very rapid turn-around times for a nitrate assay). If values are high, raising the cutting height will reduce nitrate concentrations in the silage because the bottom of the stalk usually has the highest nitrate concentrations. However, do not raise the cutting height unless necessary to reduce nitrate concentrations because this will reduce yield. Nitrate concentrations are often reduced during silage fermentation so that high nitrates in fresh corn plants may end up as acceptable concentrations in the fermented corn silage. Silage with more than 1.5% nitrate (0.35% nitrate-N) has a high risk of causing nitrate toxicity in cattle. The yellow or brown gas you might see coming from a silo a day or two after filling is a result of the conversion of nitrates to other compounds. CAUTION - this gas is very toxic to humans and animals.

Chop at correct particle length. Do not chop the corn too finely such that the effective fiber concentration of corn silage is reduced. If the corn plants have limited ear development, fine chopping is not needed for good starch digestibility. Generally a theoretical length of cut (TLC) of about ½ inch is acceptable (longer with kernel processing and BMR silage), but this varies greatly between choppers and crop moisture concentration. If using a Penn State particle size sieve, aim for 5 to 10% on the top screen at the time of chopping.

Reduce Shrink. Fill quickly, pack adequately, cover, and seal the silo as soon as you are done chopping. Practicing good silage-making techniques can reduce shrink by more than 5 percentage units, which can be worth more than $4/ton of corn silage (35% DM).

Additional recommendations on harvesting corn silage are available on the eXtension web site in the dairy cattle section where feature articles have been posted on forages and other topics: http://articles.extension.org/pages/71253/dairexnet-feature-article-series. Delaying the feeding of the silage for about 60 days will increase the digestibility of the silage, and thus optimize animal performance from consuming the silage. If the harvest of the corn is delayed and frost occurs, frosted corn can still be a valuable feed, but you have to be careful with the rapid dry-down to harvest the silage at the proper DM.

Pricing Corn Silage

The price for corn silage depends on its nutrient composition and the price of other feed ingredients in the market. In each issue of the Buckeye Dairy News (BDN) (https://dairy.osu.edu/newsletter/buckeye-dairy-news), an article is provided that provides the predicted value of feeds based on chemical composition and current prices of commodities, including the predicted price for corn silage. For example, in this issue (September 2016) of BDN, corn silage is reported at an actual price of $42.50/ton but having a predicted price of $76.70/ton (95% confidence interval of $69 to 85/ton). Some articles are available on the OSU dairy web site for pricing standing corn for silage and for pricing drought-stressed corn for silage: https://dairy.osu.edu/resources/feeding-and-nutrition.

However the ultimate determinant of price is still supply and demand in a local market (corn silage cannot be transported long distances). If a local area has a lot of corn that is not worth harvesting for grain, the price of the standing corn may be substantially less than its nutrient value.

Dietary Replacement of Corn Silage

Corn silage is certainly a valuable ingredient in diets for dairy cattle. It is a very efficient crop to grow in Ohio, and it provides valuable energy and fiber usually at bargain prices in diets of high-producing dairy cows. Typical chemical composition of corn silage is provided in Table 1. Some strategies for stretching the supply of corn silage or replacing it in diets are as follows:

Reduce the amount of corn silage in the diet to stretch the supply by increasing the inclusion level of high-quality legume or grass hay or silage.
You can stretch the supply of corn silage by removing it from rations for the growing heifers and dry cows and feeding them all hay or haycrop forages.
All of the corn silage in the diet of the lactating cows can be removed and effective fiber and nutrients balanced using other high-quality forages and concentrates. Some University of Georgia researchers several years ago advocated the feeding of up to 10 to 15 lb/day of an artificial corn silage consisting of 40% soybean hulls, 30% cottonseed hulls, 25% ground corn, and 5% cottonseed meal. This results in a mixture with the composition of 11.9% CP, 53.5% NDF, 19% starch, and about 0.63 NE_L/lb. Given that soybean hulls have been overpriced for quite some time (see latest issue of BDN mentioned above), wheat middlings was used to formulate a different mixture consisting of 40% wheat middlings, 34% cottonseed hulls, and 26% ground corn (11.9% CP, 45.9% NDF, 19.7% starch, and 0.64 NE_L/lb). Caution is expressed in using cottonseed hulls in OH due to their cost; presently, they are only valued at $23/ton using the nutrient values published in the July BDN. However, the bottom line on this approach is to work with your dairy nutritionist so a diet can be formulated without corn silage that can provide the nutrient supply needed, keep the rumen healthy, and not limit intake of the animal. Then you will want to monitor animal performance with the new feeding strategy so adjustments can be made if necessary.

With variable weather conditions throughout the State, composition of corn silage will likely be quite variable in Ohio this year. Thus, as usual, multiple samples will need to be analyzed so diets can be adequately formulated. Hopefully, yield of corn and soybeans will be good which will help to keep feed prices moderated. At the moment, milk prices are low and on the bubble, hopefully tipping upward. So carefully monitoring income over feed costs will be pivotal in the upcoming months. You and the nutritionist will need to be on each other’s speed dial.

Table 1. Typical composition of corn silage based on samples submitted from May 1, 2000 to April 30, 2016
to the Dairy One Forage Lab in Ithaca, NY (http://dairyone.com ).¹

Item	Average	SD	CV	Typical Range
DM, %	33.7	9.3	27.6	24.4 - 43.0
CP, % of DM	8.27	1.06	12.8	7.21 - 9.32
Starch, % of DM	31.8	7.5	23.6	24.3 - 39.3
ADF, % of DM	25.8	4.1	15.9	21.7 - 29.9
NDF, % of DM	43.6	5.9	13.5	37.7 - 49.6
NDFD 30 hr, % of NDF	52.5	6.1	11.6	46.4 - 58.6
¹DM = dry matter, CP = crude protein, ADF = acid detergent fiber, NDF = neutral detergent fiber, NDFD = NDF digestibility, SD = standard deviation, and CV = coefficient of variation ((SD/average) * 100).

Dairy Farm Tour to Argentina and Uruguay

Dr. Alejandro Relling, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

We are trying to organize a dairy farm tour to Argentina and Uruguay for dairy farmers. The trip will be in mid-March and will last 10 days. We will visit some different dairy farming systems and visit the cities of Buenos Aires and Montevideo as little side cultural visits. To be able to do the trip, we need a minimum of 18 people and a maximum of 21. If you are interested in going or you want more information, please contact Dr. Alejandro Relling (relling.1@osu.edu, or 330-263-3900).
Not the state lottery

but yes, you are getting something from the state! OSU has some of the most knowledgeable researchers in dairy science and one of the top extension systems in the nation. We thought that it was time for Ohioans to learn about it.

Buckeye Dairy News will be published 12 times a year around the 15th of the month. We intend to keep its content factual, informative and to the point. We will feature monthly columns on milk, grain, hay and culled cows pricing. Some of the best brains with two legs will explain new knowledge acquired through research and will provide you with tips to help you in all dimensions of modern dairy herd management. This months invited contributions deal with forage inventory management, pasture, farm measures of competitiveness, and a great update on the ugly tax law. Next months feature article by Dr. Bernie Erven should be a classic. We are bullish on the Ohio dairy industry, so our tone will be upbeat, positive, yet challenging.

This first issue is not perfect, but it is out! We will improve with time. The next issue, however, will not come automatically to you. There are three ways that you can keep receiving this newsletter. (1) Fill out the form on page 3 and return it with a $10 check. Each issue will cost you less than a slice of pizza at the county fair (2) Contact your county extension office. The cost will vary depending on the county. (3) Buy it in bulk and save! Group rates (>10) are available and we are only a phone call away.

Sit down, learn and enjoy!

Normand St-Pierre
Dairy Extension Specialist, Editor
Six things to do to reduce income tax pains.

David Miller
District Specialist, Farm Management

In planning for the upcoming tax season, farm business owners will need to look at what tax law provisions will affect this year?s returns. Although there are many tax law changes, the following are tips to help you prepare for filing your 1997 tax return.

1. Get the business? records up-to-date. Most people don?t like keeping records, but waiting until the last minute increases the stress level of the record keeper and increases the chances of mistakes. Up-to-date records are the basis for deciding about tax management strategies that are to be carried out before Dec. 31. Good decisions cannot be made on records that are not current.

2. Separate breeding and dairy livestock sales into sales made before May 7, 1997 and sales made after May 6, 1997. The rates for long term capital gains have been reduced to 20% from 28%, and 10% from 15% for sales after May 6. Sales of breeding and dairy livestock made prior to May 7 will be taxed at the higher 15 and 28% rates The holding period for cattle to qualify for long term gains is still 24 months. Sales of dairy cattle held less than 24 months will be taxed at the higher rates (15 or 28%) for short-term gains. All breeding and dairy livestock sales subject to capital gains treatment are not subject to self employment tax.

3. Carefully review expenditures made for repairs. Repairs are made to keep the property or equipment in a normal, operating condition. Capital expenditures extend the life of the property or equipment, increase the value of the asset or adapt the property to a different use. Repairs are fully deductible in the year of the expense. Capital expenditures are recovered over a period of years as a depreciation allowance.

4. The section 179 expensing allowance increases to $18,000 for 1997. It increases each year to a maximum of $25,000 in 2004. The qualifying assets purchased must contribute to the profitability of the dairy business.

5. The self employed health insurance deduction increases to 40% of qualifying expenses for 1997. The percentage deducted increases each year to 100% in the year 2007.

6. Capital gains may result in exclusion from the earned income credit. Dairymen may often show a loss or little profit on Schedule F, but have significant capital gains income from cull cow sales reported on 4797. Capital gains income of $2200 or more will keep the taxpayer from qualifying for the earned income credit.Even though 1997 may have been a bad year, cull cow sales exceeding $2200 will keep you from taking advantage of this refundable credit.
Milk Price Outlook
Gary Schnitkey
- The Basic Formula Price (BFP) in October was $12.84 per cwt., its highest level during 1997. The BFP likely will decline throughout the remainder of 1997. Coffee, Sugar Cocoa Exchange futures prices place the BFP around $12.70 in November and $12.30 in December. Declining milk prices result from slackening demand for cheese and other dairy products.
- Even though the BFP may decline, prices farmers receive for Grade A milk should increase during November due to Class I forward pricing in the Federal Orders. November milk prices should be about $.40 per cwt. above October prices. December prices will likely fall by $.10 per cwt.
- Current supply and demand conditions suggest that milk prices will decline through the early part of 1988. The BFP likely will fall to $11.90, the historical average price, by February or March.
Milk Price Outlook
Gary Schnitkey
- The Basic Formula Price (BFP) during November rose $.13 per cwt. over the October price reaching $12.96 per cwt., the highest price yet during 1997. The November price increase was unexpected. Commercial use of milk during the third quarter rose from year earlier levels. Stocks of dairy products, in particular cheese, declined. Both of these factors lead to the price increase.
- Some forecasters are suggesting that milk prices may be above average during 1998. Optimistic price projections are based on projected small gains in U.S. milk production. I still look for milk prices to decline during the spring of 1998, but the declines might not be as dramatic as projected.
Who's Who

Lanny Anderson
(614) 292-2366

Lanny will be leaving the OSU Extension at the end of the year after more than 30 years of work for Ashtabula County residents. A 1963 OSU graduate in Agronomy, Lanny remembers how he first struggled with the diverse agriculture in the county: grape growing, dairy, agronomy. He earned his credibility by spending time with the best farmers to learn their business and their technology. Many memorable events occurred in his career, but the bus trip to Wyoming County NY that he organized in the late 1980's had a profound effect on the rest of his career. He became a charter member of the Dairy Excel Team and has served as an educator to innumerable producers in the northeast Lanny is taking new responsibilities as Sales Manager for Western Reserve Farm Cooperative. His enthusiasm and professionalism will be missed. Best of luck to you, mon ami!

Rick Stowell
(614) 292-2366

Rick is a faculty member and Extension Ag. Engineer in the Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering at OSU with responsibilities related to livestock production systems. His background, expertise and primary interest is in planning dairy facilities. He consulted for a time with dairy producers considering expansion before joining OSU. Rick is recognized nationally for his work in natural ventilation and handling of sand-laden dairy manure. He is active in ASAE, including serving on the program committee for the upcoming International Dairy Housing Conference. Rick's input is frequently being sought to address manure handling issues that producers face in Ohio. Now he just has to figure out which Big Ten team to follow on Saturdays!
Managing Stress
Chris Zoller
Extension Agent, Tuscarawas County
Steve Schumacher
Extension Agent, Belmont County

Many dairy farmers across Ohio have been experiencing elevated stress levels for the past several months as a result of lower than expected milk prices, crop and weather concerns, and uncertainty about the future. What can be done about this? The following paragraphs will help you understand what stress is and some tips you can use to better manage it.

What is stress? It's a part of life. To a certain degree stress is positive because it keeps you active and productive in meeting the goals of your farm business. However, too much stress can have a negative impact on you, your family, your employees, and the long-term success of your business. In addition to the stresses that nonfarm individuals and families face, farm families face additional stresses. These include: weather, variable crop and livestock prices, large debt loads, long work hours, and equipment repairs. These and other factors combine to make agriculture one of the top 10 most stressful occupations in the United States. In fact, a recent study by the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety examined 130 occupations and found that laborers and farm owners had the highest rate of deaths due to stress related conditions like heart and artery disease, hypertension, and ulcers.

What are the signs of stress? Signs and symptoms can be divided into several categories including physical, emotional, and behavioral. Common symptoms in these categories include headaches, rising blood pressure, frustration, depression, low self-esteem, difficulty sleeping, and verbal or physical abuse.

How can you manage the stress of farm life? There are several things you can do to help manage the day-to-day stresses. We realize sometimes these are easier said than done, but select one or two and commit to using them. Below are some examples:
- Accept the fact that your occupation is stressful
- Spend 15 minutes of each day planning your agenda for the day
- Use "to do" lists and prioritize the items on the list
- Maintain a positive attitude and associate with others who share that attitude
- Spend time with your family - do activities everyone enjoys
- Occasionally get away from the farm for a few days or a week
- Clarify responsibilities for each of the members of your farm
- Set reasonable goals for yourself
- Become involved in a social group
- Meet with other farmers once a month for breakfast or lunch to share ideas
- Discuss your problems and concerns with family, professionals or a trusted friend
- Make time for a hobby you most enjoy
- Involve professionals and other dairy farmers in the planning and goal setting of your business (i.e., veterinarian, lender, nutritionist, etc).
- Accept that change has and will continue to occur in the dairy industry and be willing to adapt and consider opportunities in or outside the dairy business
- Implement control systems in your business to monitor activities (i.e., maintain accurate, up-to-date records and refer to them when making decisions)
COBA/Select Sires Annual Meeting Series
Columbus, OH COBA/Select Sires is once again sponsoring a series of Management Seminars during its 1998 Annual Meeting Series. Topics to be discussed are:
- Where will your farm fit tomorrow? to be presented in Districts 1, 2, 3N and 8N by Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University,
- Understanding the estrus cycle What better way to get cows bred to be presented in Districts 3S, 4, 7 and 8S by Dr. Bill Beal, Professor of Animal Sciences, Virginia Tech, and,
- Restructuring dairy farms for the future by Dr. K. Larry Smith, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, in Districts 5, 6, 9 and 10.
Meetings will be held at the following locations in Ohio:
Monday, February 23:
Athens, Ohio University Inn
Brookeville, Robs Restaurant

Tuesday, February 24
New Bremen, American Legion Hall
Sugarcreek, Dutch Valley Restaurant

Wednesday, February 25
Marion, Gateway Smorgasboard
Lancaster, Fairfield Co. Extension Office

Thursday, February 26
Napoleon, Paramount Inn
Wilmington, Staceys Restaurant
Middlefield, Grandview Inn

Friday, February 27
Smithville, The Barn Restaurant
N. Georgetown, American Legion Hall

Please make your reservation by calling COBA/Select Sires at (800) 837-2621.
NOBA District Membership Meetings

Tiffin, OH Two dairy companies and two land-grant universities are cooperating to present Competitive Dairying in 2005 and Beyond at the NOBA/CRI district membership meetings, to be held January 26 through 30, 1998, in Ohio.

Presenters will include Normand St-Pierre, The Ohio State University; Stuart Johnson, Ohio DHI (Dairy Herd Improvement); and Dr. Ivan Mao, Michigan State University. Each presenter will discuss critical success factors for dairies and specific strategies to increase profitability in a competitive dairy industry.

Meetings will be held at five Ohio locations:

Monday, January 26
Smithville, The Barn Restaurant

Tuesday, January 27
Sugar Creek, Dutch Valley Restaurant

Wednesday, January 28
Delaware, The Delaware Hotel

Thursday, January 29
Wapakoneta, Holiday Inn

Friday, January 30
Tiffin, T.J. Willies
Milk Price Outlook

Gary Schnitkey

The Basic Formula Price (BFP) for January was released on February 5th. For January, the BFP was $13.25 per cwt. This is the second month in a row that the BFP has been above $13.00.

Currently, BFP futures contracts for February are trading above $13.00. This trading, along with most analys projections, places the February BFP above $13.00. It's highly likely that we will have 3 months of BFPs above $13.00 per cwt.

BFPs above $13.00 per cwt. will place producer pay prices for milk in the mid to high $14.00 range for both January and February.

High milk prices are occurring because of below expected milk production increases. December milk production was up only .9 percent from year earlier levels. Moreover, cheese prices were strong and held steady in the $1.40 per pound range during January.

How long will high milk prices last? Most analysts now are projecting declines in milk prices from February to June. In June, the BFP will likely be around $12.00 per cwt., near its historical average. Then, the BFP is projected to rise into the fall and winter months. If this scenario occurs, we are looking at an average milk price for 1998 that is about $1.00 higher than the historical average.
Factors to Consider in a Program for Heat Detection

Dr. Joe Ottobre, Associate Professor
Department of Animal Sciences

Data from DHI summaries of Ohio dairy herds indicate that the average estrous (heat) detection rate in Ohio is approximately 45%. Thus, Ohio dairy producers are missing 55% of the opportunities to breed cows, or are breeding at the wrong time, resulting in delays in conception and substantial economic loss. It is estimated that the calving interval in Ohio herds could be reduced by at least 40 days if more heats (>70%) were accurately detected.

Detecting dairy cows in heat is challenging because the duration of estrus in cattle is short. Estrus normally lasts from 10 to 18 hours, but could be as short as two to six hours - especially under hot environmental conditions. Even with twice-a-day heat checking, you may not observe heat in the cows with the shortest estrous periods. There is an advantage of the short estrous period of cows that should be appreciated, though. Estimation of time of ovulation and determining the best time to breed can be done more accurately in cattle than in some of the other domestic species.

An important point to remember about estrous detection in cattle is that the only definitive sign that a cow is in heat is that she will stand to be mounted. Cows mounted on the run are not displaying true standing estrus. Cows that mount other cows may or may not be in heat. It is true that estrous cows tend to be more active than herdmates, but to verify that they are in heat, you must see them stand.

There are secondary signs that you might use as clues that a cow is in heat, but these signs do not tell you for sure. Sometimes clear mucous secretions can be seen coming from the vulva. At the time of estrus, mucous secretions from the cows reproductive tract are more voluminous and less viscous than at other stages of the estrous cycle. The vulva may be swollen and pink. As mentioned above, cows are more active at the time of estrus. They may display an increase in vocalizations, nudging, and sniffing, and may attempt to mount other cows. Pedometers have been used to get an objective measure of their activity. Other secondary signs are decreased milk production and depressed appetite.

Occasionally, a small amount of blood may appear in the mucous secretions or a patch of blood may be observed on the tail. This is called metestrous bleeding and occurs about 35 to 45 hours after the end of estrus. This is not an indication of conception or failure to conceive. Observation of this phenomenon indicates that estrus and ovulation have already occurred. Therefore, if heat was not observed in a cow with metestrous bleeding, she should not be bred until her next detected heat.

To increase the rate at which cows are observed in heat, it is best to have cows in a situation where they are most likely to attempt to mount one another. Naturally, cows will be more inclined to attempt to mount when they have secure footing. Potentially slippery surfaces, such as concrete, and sloppy conditions, tend to discourage cows from mounting.

Cows that are distracted by other things, such as eating, are not very likely to investigate each other for estrous cues. As such, there is not much value in checking heat while cows are eating. Obviously, cows that are laying down will not mount other cows, nor will they be mounted. Therefore, cows should be encouraged to move around and interact during the observation period.

To optimize heat checking conditions, observations should be made while cows are in a clean area with good footing. A well-drained, dirt exercise lot works well, or a pasture if the cows are not too distracted by grazing. The cows feet should be properly trimmed. Cows with sore feet are less likely to mount other cows, or stand to be mounted. The cows should be grouped in reasonably close proximity, to encourage them to investigate one another. If they are spread out in a wide open space, group them so that they are closer together; however, they should not be grouped so tightly that their movement is restricted.

Observe the behavior of the cows for at least 20-30 minutes two times per day. Additional periods of observation would further improve detection rate. Since cows often come into estrus in the middle of the night, it is best to check as early in the morning and as late in the evening as possible. Take note of the animals that stand still and allow other cows mount. If the cows do not seem to be investigating one another, move them around to improve the opportunity for a cow to pick up the scent of an estrous cow.

It is important to keep good records of the occurrences of estrus, secondary signs of estrus, and even metestrous bleeding. Such records can be used to predict when the cow is due to return to heat. The estrous cycle of a cow ranges from about 18-24 days and averages 21 days. If a cow is showing estrus more frequently than this, she may have a cystic follicle that is stimulating estrous behavior repeatedly. In this case, the cow should be examined by a veterinarian.

There are various aids to estrous detection that the dairy producer could consider using. Aids, such as heat check patches, can be very helpful, but do not substitute for a conscientious program of regular observation for estrus. The electronic recording of mounts is an emerging technology that may prove to be effective. Methods for estrous/ovulation synchronization should also be considered for optimization of reproductive success. (See accompanying article entitled: Emerging Technologies for Estrous Synchronization.)

In summary, detection of estrus is critical for a successful breeding program. As such, the dairy producer should take this responsibility seriously and consider assigning this duty to a well-trained staff person. Higher estrous detection rates translate into improved fertility in the herd and ultimately result in greater economic benefits.
15- Measures of Competitiveness
Dianne Shoemaker, Agriculture Agent

This month: Debt per cow
Competitive Level: Less than $2000 per cow
Less than $3000 per cow during an expansion
Calculation: Total farm debt/(lactating cows + dry cows)
Example: $800,000 debt / 300 cows (249 lactating + 51 dry) = $2,667 debt per cow

Often farmers ask: how much debt can my dairy handle? While the debt to asset ratio looks at the overall debt position of the farm, debt per cow looks at how the farm will repay the debt. As the profit center of a dairy, cows generate the money needed to make principal payments.

If debt per cow is too high
- When debt per cow is above $2000, businesses may have difficulty making all principal and interest payments.
  Solutions include:
  -sell unproductive assets and pay down debt
  -increase number of cows with little additional debt
  -increase net income per cow and pay down debt
  -withdraw less from the farm for family living and pay down debt (this is not a good first choice!)
If debt per cow is too low
- If debt per cow is very low and the business is profitable, the management team should assess the business to see if moderate investments could increase efficiency and profitability. While a common goal in our grandparent's generation was to pay off all debt, that is not necessarily a practical goal today. Continuing to invest in new technologies and improved facilities will be an important strategy for growing Ohio dairy businesses as they compete with dairymen around the world.
Who's Who

Normand St-Pierre
(614) 292-6507

Normand is a faculty member in the Department of Animal Sciences with an 80% Extension and 20% research appointment. His primary area of responsibility is dairy herd management. He is a new faculty member in the Department, arriving July 1, 1997. Many of you may have already known Normand prior to his arrival at OSU. He received the B.S. and M.S. degrees from Universite Laval in Quebec, Canada and the Ph.D. in 1985 from OSU. He worked in the feed and related industries before and after completion of his doctoral degree. His immediate employment prior to becoming a faculty member at OSU was serving as President of two agricultural firms. He brings a lot of human and fiscal resource management skills to the position as well immense knowledge of and experience with the dairy industry. His schedule has been quite packed with speaking engagements since his arrival. He has become a very active member of the Ohio Dairy Team and the OSU Dairy Restructuring Team, and he is the editor of this outstanding newsletter that you presently reading. He is a pleasure to work with, having a sense of humor, high level of motivation, and an ability to get others excited. We welcome him and encourage him to continue to keep the trail ablaze!

Tough Management Yields - Dairy Profits

Donald J. Breece Ph.D., Southwest District Specialist, Farm Management
Ohio State University Extension

The last three years in the dairy business has required decisive action and tough management by dairy farmers. Yet, those Ohio dairy farms that controlled costs, especially feed, have shown good profits. Farmers that did not plan for feed purchases or that failed to take control of production efficiency saw profits deteriorate.

Results of the Ohio Farm Business Summary clearly demonstrates the potential for profits on well managed dairy farms. This report summarized over 90 Ohio farm businesses that used FINPACK for year-end analysis. The report represents farms from 31 Ohio counties. Participation is voluntary, through educational programs offered by The Ohio State University Extension and several FBPA programs.

The FINPACK computer program is a comprehensive financial planning and analysis system. The data in the Ohio report were not collected from a random sample. Therefore, caution should be exercised in generalizing results to the situation of Ohio farms. Rather, it is a useful example of differences between farms resulting from improved management. The dairy enterprise analysis is sorted by return to overhead and is separated by lower and upper third of farms participating in the summary.

The management function most required by dairy managers is controlling. It is measuring performance in order to ensure that plans are achieving enterprise objectives. There are four steps in the control process:
1. Establish performance objectives and standards,
2. Measuring actual performance,
3.Comparing performance to standards, and
4. Taking corrective action.

"Milk prices are what they are; a farmer must control his own efficiencies." Cost control, quantity and quality production, are within a farm managers own realm of influence. A farmer may choose $6.50 per hundred weight of milk as a performance objective for covering feed costs of the cows and replacements. Feed records, including feed inventory changes, are required to measure performance. Comparing results from records analysis and taking corrective action will follow. Corrective actions may include improving forage quality, changing rations, controlling waste or using a total mix ration system.

The table, representing the top third of dairy farms, demonstrates the results of tough management and cost control. Even with the higher than normal feed cost of 1996, net return per cow remains very good at $689 vs $358 for average farms.

"Our farmers, who get half their income from milk, are in economic trouble. Add a penny to the price paid to farmers and you will add half a billion to their income." No, this is not a modern quote, it comes from an article in Readers Digest, September 1942. If we think about the changes in dairy farming, since 1942 can we really expect less for the future. Certainly, milk price is an important factor in dairy farm profits, as it has always been. But, it will be the tough dairy farm manager that will take control of their own efficiencies and make superior profits in the competitive dairy business.

Average Rsults of Top 33 % of Dairy Farms -Ohio Farm Business Summary, 1996 -
Gross Return	$15.64
Direct Expenses	$9.29
Overhead Expenses	$2.99
Net Return	$3.36

Constructing New Buildings On the Farm
Joe Beiler
Extension Agent, Mercer Co.

There are three basic methods for construction on farms:
(1) Perform all construction with farm labor,
(2) Act as a general contractor and hire sub-contractors, or
(3) Hire a general contractor to construct the building.

Good planning helps in choosing a construction method. The following are reasons for considering different options in choosing a building method:
- Cost savings,
- Time frame for construction completion (ask the contractor when he can complete the project not when he can start the project).
- The quality of building layout and construction, which will depend on what method is selected, and,
- The operation of the dairy during construction.
The best construction method will be different for each dairy operation. The best one is the one that best fits your operation, resulting in a successful completion of the building project. Insurance must be considered when choosing a construction method. Who will insure farm labor, sub-contractors, and general contractors? Who will provide building construction insurance, and worker's comp?

There are several questions that you must consider before choosing a construction method. If you consider building by yourself, do you have the necessary time? Who will manage current operations? Will there be losses in production during construction? Where will the additional labor come from (farm labor vs. hired labor)? Will the labor be proficient at construction work?
Do you have access to all the equipment required for construction? Do you have sufficient expertise in building construction and layout?

If you consider acting as a general contractor, are your plans specific enough to tell sub-contractors what is needed? Are the interior details already decided on? Are the sub-contractors all bidding on the same things? Will contracts be used, and if so, who will write the contracts? How will the sub-contractors be chosen (lowest bid, qualifications, reputation, friends)? Who will do the scheduling and coordination of the sub-contractors? Who will settle arguments for the sub-contractors?
Are all sub-contractors insured and what are they insured for? Are you responsible for workers on your property?

If you are thinking of hiring a general contractor, how will you choose the contractor (bids, qualifications, reputation or ability to get the job
done)? Does he have the equipment required to do the construction? Do all general contractors have appropriate insurance coverage for buildings and workers? Who will write up the contracts for the construction project? Planning the building must be done before construction begins.

Remember, additional planning is required to bring the building into production: buying additional animals, additional management concerns of new animals and possibly other construction or expansion required in other buildings on the farm.

Benefits
Building With Farm Labor
- Cost savings
- Control over the construction
Drawbacks
Building With Farm Labor
- Time frame
- Labor input
- Expertise in construction and layout
Benefits
Acting As The General Contractor
- Cost savings over hiring a general contractor
- Better time frame for construction completion
- Expertise in building details
- Less labor input from the farm
Drawbacks
Acting As The General Contractor
- Coordinating sub-contractors
- Settling disputes between contractors
- Less control over construction details
Benefits
Hiring A General Contractor
- No labor input from the farm
- Set time line for completion
- Expertise in building construction & layout
Drawbacks
Hiring A General Contractor
- Cost
- Less control over construction
Milk Price Outlook
Gary Schnitkey
Dairy Farm Management Specialist
- The February 1998 Basic Formula Price (BFP) is $13.32 per cwt., up $.07 from the January 1998 BFP. This BFP will place average pay prices for Ohio milk producers in the $14 to $15 per cwt. range BFPs for the last three months have been above $13.00 per cwt., well above the average $11.90 BFP for the last ten years.
- The March BFP will likely fall, possibly more than $.50 per cwt. Indicators of a price decline include March futures contracts trading in the mid $12 range. In addition, cheese prices in late February began to decline.
- After March, the BFP likely will continue to fall through the summer. Expect the BFP during summer to be around $12.00 per cwt.
First Harvest of Forages is Just Around the Corner!

Mark Sulc & Thomas E. Noyes

The first harvest of forage crops is just around the corner, in fact orchardgrass for dairy cattle will be ready for harvest in the southern part of the state as soon as fields dry out, if it isn't ready already. First harvest of forage crops and planting of row crops will probably be in conflict this spring. This is a tough choice to make, but for dairy farmers high quality forage is essential, and should be given priority over row crop planting, especially if the row crop to be planted is silage corn.

The optimal time of harvest depends on your forage quality goals. Harvest in the boot stage for high quality orchardgrass, ryegrass, tall fescue, and reed canarygrass. Timothy and bromegrass harvest should be delayed to the early heading stage, because they are not very tolerant of cutting in the pre-heading stages.

For pure stands of alfalfa, we can estimate the quality of the standing forage, and base the optimal timing of harvest on that estimate Fiber concentration, particularly neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content, is the primary variable of concern when evaluating quality of alfalfa for use by ruminant animals.

On May 1st, the estimated NDF content of alfalfa was 32.4% at Columbus, 32%
near Millersberg, and about 29% northeast of Wooster in Wayne county. Last spring, alfalfa did not reach 32% at Columbus until May 20, so alfalfa development this year is well ahead of 1997 (this should come as no surprise, given the early spring this year). The optimal NDF content of alfalfa for lactating dairy cows is 40%. We would expect alfalfa NDF to increase by about 5 or 6 NDF units in the next 7 to 10 days. The bottom line is that alfalfa development is well ahead of last year, so be prepared to make an earlier harvest this year to achieve quality forage. Hopefully the rains will slow down soon so we can get planting and harvesting done in a timely manner!
Supplementation Of The Lactating Cow In A Grazing System

Thomas E. Noyes
Extension Dairy Agent, Wayne Co.

Spring is upon us and it's great to see green grass, although winter was very kind to Ohio this year. Spring management and supplementation of the lactating cow is the most challenging time during the grazing season. At this time forage growth is the most rapid and quality changes quickly make management more intense during the spring flush.

Ideally we would like to keep the grazing height of the forage under 12 inches if you're grazing the tall species (orchard grass and red clover) and under 10 inches if you're predominantly bluegrass and white clover. If you're able to manage your pastures in this manner you will be grazing forage that can be from 24-30 percent crude protein with relatively low fiber with NDF values in the 35 percent range.

The goal of a supplementation program is to feed the cow to capture as much of the protein as possible and to perhaps provide some fiber to slow down the rate of passage. This can be accomplished by continuing to feed a TMR while you begin to turnout on grass, gradually reducing the amount fed over a 7 to 10 day period. Over that period of time your length of grazing has increased from several hours to now all day grazing. If a TMR is not being used follow a similar program of gradually reducing hay and silage feeding as you increase the length of grazing.

Many beginning graziers ask about the continued feeding of a forage throughout the grazing season and on many farms this is practiced. I think there can be continued use of the TMR mixer to feed what I call a PMR (partial mixed ration) while grazing. For the high producing cow this is an ideal way of getting adequate grain intake without "slug" feeding. It slows down the rate of passage capturing more of the degradable protein.

In a grazing system the nutrient most lacking for high production is energy. Therefore, grain feeding should be at a rate consistent with the production goals of the herd but limited to a maximum of 18-22 pounds per day. The content of the grain mix should be primarily a combination of finely ground and coarsely ground corn and perhaps a fibrous carbohydrate like soy hulls along with salt and minerals. By varying the grind of corn and using a fibrous CHO source you vary the rate of fermentation in the rumen thus capturing more of the degradable protein. By incorporating this grain mix with corn silage you've further improved the efficiency of the fermentation process while the cow is grazing.

In the earlier years of adopting management intensive grazing it was thought that due to the high rate of protein degradability of forage being grazed that a rumen undegradable protein source would be needed. However, feeding trials as Purdue University, here at OSU-ATI and recently at Penn State showed there was no increase in milk production by feeding by-pass protein supplements or by increasing the protein percent in the grain mix to 16 percent.

Recent Milk Urea Nitrogen (MUN) studies in New York and in Pennsylvania showed as much variation in MUN levels of grazing herds as with confinement herds and there appears to be no advantage to feeding expensive RUP sources. Excess protein actually utilizes energy for removal therefore avoid overfeeding protein.
Common Questions Regarding Coliform Mastitis Vaccines

Dr. Joe Hogan

Coliform mastitis vaccines have been commercially available throughout the US for several years. These vaccines are based on the immunization of cows with Gram-negative bacteria that have common core-antigens naturally exposed whereby the cows can mount immune responses that will cross-react with a large number of bacterial strains. Most of these vaccines use either Escherichia coli J5 or Salmonella typhimurium Re17 as the antigens. While these vaccines are generally considered safe and effective, a large number of questions have arisen concerning the proper administration and expected results from using these vaccines.

Q: What improvements will I see in the herd?
A: The most common change seen in herds using these vaccines are fewer clinical cases at calving and during the first month of lactation. The proper use of Gram-negative core antigen vaccines reduces the incidence, severity, and duration of clinical signs due to intramammary infections caused by coliform bacteria. These vaccines will not prevent intramammary infections, but enhance the ability of cows to fight the infections once bacteria enter the gland.

Q: Will I have to vaccinate each dry period or will one series of injections last the life of a cow?
A: Unfortunately, cows have little immunological memory toward these vaccines. The protective antibodies in blood return to pre-vaccination concentrations within a couple of months after the last immunization. Cows should be vaccinated during each dry period to maximize protection at calving and during early lactation.

Q: Will the Gram-negative core antigen vaccines reduce all types of mastitis?
A: Most labels of Gram-negative core antigen vaccines specify efficacy against only Escherichia coli. Data from field trials suggest that these vaccines also reduce clinical cases of mastitis by Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas spp., Serratia spp., and Proteus spp. These vaccines have no effect on mastitis cause by staphylococci, streptococci, or other Gram-positive bacteria.

Q: Should I use a product that requires two injections or a product with three injections?
A: Some products instruct the use of two immunizations during the dry period while others direct the use of two injections during the dry period and a third at calving. The three injection protocol does elevate antibodies in blood at 30 days after calving compared to the two injection regime. Whether the increased antibody titers relate to a decrease in clinical cases during early lactation is currently unknown.

The timing of the first two injections is constant among products and crucial to the success of the Gram-negative core vaccines. The first injections should be given at the time of drying off with a booster injection given 28 to 30 days later. This will maximize protection during the weeks around calving in cows averaging a 60-day dry period. A vaccination regime that does not protect cows is to vaccinate only at drying off and at calving. The lapse of time between injections is too great for animals to adequately respond to the vaccine.

Q: Can I treat clinical mastitis with the vaccine?
A: Treating clinical cases of mastitis with Gram-negative core antigen vaccines is not recommended. The average duration of an E. coli intramammary infection is less than two weeks. The blood and milk antibody responses to vaccination is maximum 28 days after immunization. Therefore, the infection has almost certainly been eliminated by the cow?s own defenses before the vaccine has an opportunity to affect the disease. These bacterins act as preventative vaccines, not therapeutic drugs.

Q: Will vaccination cause my cows to abort?
A: Controlled trials have shown no adverse effects of these vaccines on pregnancy, feed intake, or milk production. The concern voiced by some experts was that the endotoxin in these vaccines might cause elevated temperatures in cows. Administering the vaccines according to label direction should not affect animal health during pregnancy.

Q: When starting my herd on a Gram-negative core antigen vaccine, should I immunize the whole herd at once or only as cows enter the dry period?
A: Vaccinating cows during lactation is not recommended. The time of greatest susceptibility to coliform mastitis is during the weeks surrounding calving. Label directions for use of the vaccines are intended to maximize protection during this time of greatest risk. As lactation progresses, risk of coliform mastitis greatly diminishes. The use of these vaccines in lactating cows will probably have little beneficial effects and not be cost effective.

Q: Will the use of coliform mastitis vaccines in first calf heifers be beneficial?
A: A trial recently completed in Ohio showed that the advantages seen in vaccinated cows also were realized in first lactation animals that received a primary injection 60 days prior to calving, a booster 30 days later, and a third injection within 24 hours after calving.
Beyond the Law of Supply and Demand for Forages

M.L. Eastridge and J.L. Firkins
Department of Animal Sciences

The law of supply and demand apply to forages large supply, low demand, low prices; low supply, high demand, high prices. On the other hand, marketability is another issue, especially with respect to silages, with proximity to market being a key point. But because of the requirement for fiber in the diet, forages can not be totally replaced in the ration with nonforage feeds, even if supply is very limited and prices are quite high. Variability in weather conditions often causes havoc with forage production, and although it is a little early to tell for this year, we need to be prepared to adjust feeding programs to the supply and quality of forages available.

Current research in the Department of Animal Sciences at OSU has shed some light on the amount of forage needed in rations for lactating dairy cows. But, before we discuss the lactating cows, lets take a snapshot at the dry cow program. Far-off dry cows should be fed primarily forage and a small amount of grain, with the grain serving principally as a carrier of minerals and vitamins. At 21 days prepartum, cows should be switched to a ration designed to transition cows for the ration that will be fed postpartum. The transition ration should contain about 14 to 15% CP, consist of 8 to 10 lb of grain, and the forages be those that will be fed postpartum. Always preserve the highest quality forage on the farm for the close-up dry cows and the lactating cows.

Given that forages are needed to provide fiber, what is the amount of forage needed in the diet to supply the minimum amount of effective fiber? Oops, lets first define effective fiber. It is the fiber in the diet that will stimulate rumination (cud chewing) more chewing, more saliva flow to buffer the rumen. Effectiveness of the fiber is determined by the source of the fiber and the particle size of the fiber source.
Milk Price Outlook

Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Extension Specialist

The May Basic Formula Price (BFP) plunged to $10.88, down $1.13 from the April BFP. This BFP will place average pay prices for Ohio milk producers in the low $12 per cwt. range. The BFP drop was considerably more than what most economists were expecting. There has to be a reason for the sharpness of the drop, but I haven't heard a very convincing one yet.

Before you get discouraged, you should also know that recent cheese prices have surged dramatically. Block cheese on the Chicago Mercantile climbed 14 cents the first week of June. So the low milk prices should be out of the picture come July 4th. BFP futures contracts are also up, with July and August contracts near $14/cwt.

Your guesses for milk prices this fall are as good as mine.
15- Measures of Competitiveness

Ernest Oelker, Agriculture Agent

This month: Total feed costs per hundredweight (cwt.) of milk sold

Competitive Level: Less than $6.00 per cwt. of milk sold
(May range from below $5.00 to around $8.00, depending on feed prices)

Calculation: Total cost of all feeds fed to all dairy cows and replacement heifers
? total cwt. of milk sold for the same period

Total feed cost per cwt. of milk sold measures the effectiveness of management in controlling the largest cost items in producing milk. You should carefully calculate the total cost of producing home grown feeds, including interest and taxes on real estate and depreciation on machinery and storage facilities. Compare this figure to market values to see if your crop production costs are reasonable. Many dairy farmers can purchase feed more cheaply than they can grow it.

If feed cost is above $6.00 per cwt. of milk sold:

Evaluate feed quality, feed production costs, and purchased feed costs. Frequently balance rations for all groups based on current feed analyses. Feed for high production if cows have the genetic potential. If cows do not reach their potential, evaluate facilities.

Keep dry periods below 60 days. Keep culling rates below 25 percent. Keep age at first calving below 24 months. Consider using BST.
Milk Price Outlook

Cam Thraen, Agricultural Economist
The announced Basic Formula Price (BFP) for June is $ 13.10 per cwt. for milk testing 3.5 percent butterfat. This price is up $2.22 over the May price and $2.36 higher than June 1997. The adjustment to the M/W base month price of $11.05 is a plus $2.05. The current butterfat differential for June is 21.7 cents. A year earlier the butterfat differential was 11.4 cents.

The strength of the $2.22 increase in the BFP was fueled primarily by the strong cheese and butter market prices in June compared to May. Remember the change in the BFP reflects the change in the MW base month price and the current month adjustment in the product prices. While the base month price declined from April's $11.82 to May's $11.05, cheese and butter prices showed strong increases.

What is ahead for July? In trading on July 9th both barrels and blocks remained unchanged from the previous week at $1.545 and $1.6075 respectively. The butter market remained unchanged in trading on July 10 with Grade AA prices at $1.985. At prices this high buyers are doing what they can to adjust their demand and it is likely that we will see more sideways trading and therefore the upward adjustment to the June MW base month price will not be as large as the previous month.

The current CME BFP futures prices for July and August are $14.50 and $14.08 respectively. The market is saying that, barring an unlikely strong reversal in the butter and cheese markets over the next three weeks, the July BFP should move up again into the $14.00 - $14.50 range.
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.
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 barns 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.
Milk Price Inversion in Ohio Federal Milk Marketing Orders

Cameron Thraen
Dairy Economist, OSUE
Agricultural, Environmental & Development Economics

Consider the following set of events. You open up the envelope from your favorite milk buyer expecting to find a price per hundredweight of $14.77 plus some additional money. BIG SUPRISE, instead you find that your milk price is short of $14.77! What is going on here? You know that the announced July BFP is $14.77 and that this price represents the Class 3 price for milk in Ohio. You also know from experience that Class 1 and Class 2 prices are always higher than the Class 3 price. You know that your milk is being pooled under one of the Ohio Federal Milk Marketing Orders, either FMMO 33 or 36. As an informed milk producer you also know that the utilization for Class 1 typically runs about 50% (53% #36) and Class 2 about 25%(13% #36) in July of the year. That leaves Class 3 at 25%(34% #36) With these typical utilization rates and Class 1 and Class 2 price higher than the Class 3 price, then how could your milk check be for a price LESS than the Class 3 or BFP price? This raises a number of questions. The primary one of course is why is there a deduction in my milk price for July? And, second, what happened to the money that was deducted?

In this short article I will attempt to provide an answer to each of these questions. In case you are in a hurry and inclined not to read the entire explanation, I will provide a short answer to each of these questions before a more detailed explanation is offered.

First, why is there a deduction in my milk price? The answer is that in July of 1998 sets of events occurred that are not typical of Ohio milk markets. Class 1 and Class 2 milk prices are LESS than the Class 3 price. Because of this "class price inversion" the typical addition to the Class 3 price becomes a subtraction from the Class 3 price.

Second, why are Class 1 and Class 2 prices less than Class 3 price? The BFP has increased very strongly after reaching its low price in May of $10.88. Your Class 1 and Class 2 milk prices are based on the May price of $10.88, NOT the July Class 3 price, $14.77 and the relative amounts of milk being pooled in each class.

Third, what happened to the money represented by the deduction? Who received this money? The answer here is simple.From the perspective of the market pool the deduction is an accounting adjustment only. It keeps the current total value of the milk in the Federal Order Pool in line with the Uniform Milk Price based on all uses of milk in the pool; Class 1 and 2 as well as Class 3.

Fourth, when will I see the benefit of these high Class 3 prices? Your milk check for milk delivered in August, September and October will reflect the high Class 3 prices recorded in June ($13.10), July ($14.77) and August ($14.99). If you are in Order 33 these prices (not accounting for farm specific factors) for August, September and October will be $15.14 and $16.81 and $17.03. If you are pooled in Order 36 the August Class I price will be $15.10, the September $16.77 and October $16.99.

Now, having read the short answer version of my explanation if you are interested in the details about how your milk price is determined get a cup of coffee, have a chair and read on! Here is my explanation (as brief as I can be and still get across the key points) for why the Uniform Milk Price announced for July of 1998 is $ 12.47 in the Ohio Valley Federal Milk Order-33 and $13.33 in the Eastern-Ohio Western Pennsylvania Order-36, while the announced July BFP is $14.77.

The key to understanding why there can be an announced BFP price that is greater than the announced Uniform Price is (1) the timing of the pricing calculation for the Class 1 and Class 2 prices, (2) a rapid rise in the BFP from May 1998 to July 1998, and (3) the effect of less Class 3 milk being pooled in an Order and therefore an increase in the Class 1 and 2 utilization rates. I will explain each of these items in turn but first we need to review the calculation of the Uniform Price for both Orders 33 and 36.
Milk Price Outlook

The announced Basic Formula Price (BFP) for the month is $16.04 per cwt. for milk testing 3.5 percent butterfat. This price is up $0.94 over the last month price and $3.21 higher than a year earlier. The current butterfat differential for is 27.3 cents. A year earlier the butterfat differential was 15.3 cents. Keep in mind that the BFP is equal to the base month M-W price of $15.18 plus a butter/powder/cheese price adjustment from August to September of $0.86. This adjustment is primarily a result of a strong cheese price increase from August to September.

The important news from the latest numbers is that milk production, milkfat and protein levels are up in most areas of the nation. Milk cow numbers continue strong. In the 20 reporting states there are only 3,000 fewer cows than one year earlier. Back in January there where 57,000 less milk cows than one year earlier. Record milk prices over the coming months, low feed costs and low cull cow prices will continue to contribute to seasonal increases in milk production.

The November 17th BFP contract on the CME closed at $16.73 and the December BFP contract closed at $16.55. In the product markets, block cheese prices were steady at $1.8625 and the AA butter price was down at $1.75. Grade A nonfat dry milk was unchanged at $116.50. The good news is that strong cheese prices for November provide an indication that the November BFP to be announced December 4th will be another record milk price.
15 Measures of Competitiveness

You see mission statements everywhere these days. Is it just the current "thing" to do or is it an important tool for your business. Of course, I'm going to say it is an important tool! But why It is critical for the long-term success of your business that your management team agrees about why they are in business. Sounds simple, but lack of common goals has caused the breakup of more than one family business. In some of the worst cases, it has also irreparably damaged family relationships as well.

A well thought out mission statement will give the business focus:
- for setting goals
- for making decisions
- for resolving conflicts
- for revisiting and revising the mission statement over time

How do you get started?Sounds simple, but the first step is to commit to doing it! Then decide whom to involve in the process It might be the owners, husband and wife, brothers and spouses, parent, child and spouses or it might be the whole management team and employees.Ask questions:
- Why are we in this business?
- What are we trying to achieve?
- What values are important to us?
- How do we want this business to impact our employees, families, customers and the industry?
- How would we like the business to look in 7-10 years?

Mission statement quick start:
- List 6 things that are important to you
- List 6 reasons why you farm
- Rank them most to least important
- Have each person involved do this
- Use as a basis for developing your mission statement
Ohio's Dairy Industry is Turning it Around

Out of forty producers who attended a mini conference on the future of the dairy industry in Ohio, forty stood-up to show their commitment to establishing a new association of progressive dairy producers in Ohio.

The problem of a declining dairy industry is not new to Ohio. To address the issue, the industry, under the leadership of Ohio Senator Grace Drake, formed the Ohio Dairy Strategic Planning Task Force in December 1993. An extensive report, Ohio Dairy Industry Strategic Plan was issued in June 1995. One of the recommendations was To form an Ohio Professional Dairy Producers organization. Ohio State University Extension, in partnership with Monsanto, organized a mini conference where forty dairy producers were asked to reflect on the status of their industry. Late that evening, Dr. Bernie Erven, a well known OSU Agricultural Economist addressed the crowd and asked Those of you willing to commit and support a professional dairy producers association, please stand up Not one person remained seated.

An interim Board was elected and consists of: Dale Arbaugh (Jewett), Debbie Ayars (Perrysville), Doug Billman (Burbank), John Douglass (Marshallville), Michael Fullenkamp, (Fort Recovery), Ron Hatfield (Centerburg), John Mast (Millersburg), Ed Pfeifer (Bucyrus), Robin Steiner (Creston), and Randy Winner (Yorkshire). John Douglass was elected interim President of the Progressive Dairy Producers of Ohio (PDPO).We want this association to set the agenda for the dairy industry in Ohio, as opposed to being told what the agenda is said Douglass.We are currently defining the issues that affect all class of dairy producers in the state. We want to form an extensive network of producers to determine research needs, education opportunities, and share our management experiences. We want to insure a next generation of dairymen in Ohio he added.
Milk Price Outlook

Cameron Thraen, Dairy Economist

The announced Basic Formula Price (BFP) for the month is $16.84 per cwt. for milk testing 3.5 percent butterfat. This price is up to $0.80 over the last month price and $3.88 higher than a year earlier. With weakening butter prices, the current butterfat differential is 17.8 cents. A year earlier the butterfat differential was 16.7 cents. Remember the current BFP is equal to the base month M-W price @ 3.5 of $16.26 plus a butter/powder/cheese price adjustment from August to September of $0.58. This adjustment is primarily a result of continued strong cheese price increases this fall. The USDA reports that milk production across the U.S. continues strong for this time of year.

The key factors influencing the BFP price over the next couple of months will be the growth in production and the demand in the cheese market. The current CME cheese price has remained at the 1.90 level and may have reached a plateau. The seasonal break for schools will leave milk looking for an outlet and this could translate into a turn down in cheese prices. If so, November may be the peak for the BFP this year. We will have to wait and see what happens with holiday demand.

All CME BFP contracts out through June traded down on December 11th. The December contract settled at $16.20, off 10 cents from the day before. The January BFP contract closed at $16.17, off 26 cents. In the product markets, block cheese prices were steady at $1.90 and the AA butter price was down at $1.3950. Grade A nonfat dry milk was trading at 1.5550, trading down from a week ago
Key Factors to Success

Don Rogers, a keynote speaker at the Ohio Dairy Conference, suggests 10 key factors for success in the dairy industry.

1. Herd size. It's not that you are big or small, but rather that you are sized to match your resources efficiently. Herds of less than 100 cows should focus on maintaining low capital inputs, family labor, and not fancy facilities in a one crop system. Herds larger than 200 cows must focus on capital, labor and facilities efficiency. Herds in the 100 to 200 cow size appear to be in a very awkward situation and should either downsize or expand.

2. Herd Production. Again, balance is emphasized. Aggressive managers can target 24,000 lbs/cow using bST and three milkings/day. Herds can also be successful at less than 20,000 lbs/cow with two milkings per day and no bST by using management intensive grazing, for example. The point is that herd production should be in relationship with the production intensity (input costs).

3. Labor efficiency. This measure is very important to the bottom line. Reasonable benchmarks are 800,000 lbs. of milk per worker with total labor costs 15% or less of milk sales.

4. Cost control. This is the number one measure. We need to remember that the dairy industry is primarily a wholesale manufacturing business. When you produce and sell at the first stage of the food chain, your main driving factor is to produce at the lowest cost per hundredweight. All dairy managers should know their costs per hundredweight.

5. Investment/cow. Too much high-priced land, fancy equipment and facilities will make it very difficult to get any return. Goals should be:

* Equipment: < $1,200/cow

* Land and facilities: <$3,500/cow

6. Replacement program. The following goals should be met at a reasonable cost:

* Calf mortality < 5%

* First freshening < 24 months

* Body weight > 1,200 lbs at calving.

7. Reasonable culling rate. The ideal culling rate 28 to 32%. Voluntary culling is another important measure. Half or more of the cullings should be for low production, not because of poor feet or such.

8. Risk management. We have seen some wide savings in dairy profitability. Add to this weather and disease uncertainty and the risk tolerance level is very critical to long run financial strength. These are responsible risk levels:

* Debt/cow under $2,500 when not in expansion mode.

* Debt/cow during expansion phase should not be over $3,500/cow for more than 3 years.

* Net worth should always be over 50% of total assets and above 40% during expansion.

9. Quality of life. Being tired and burned out all the time is not healthy. It results in mistakes, labor problems and divorces. You and your employees need time off, vacation and profit- sharing.

10. Leadership. Put simply, leadership is simply taking charge of your destiny. To be effective, you need to know where you are going and prepare diligently to get there. People love to be led by someone who has their act together. At a dairy seminar, a herdsperson asked "The biggest problem is the owner - how do we replace him?"

Normand St-Pierre
Dairy Extension Specialist
A Great Success!

With over 300 attendees, the first Ohio Dairy Conference attracted considerably more people than expected by the organizing committee. Despite the strain imposed by this unexpected attendance, the program was kept on schedule and most of the attendees relished the opportunity to gather and talk about a diversity of dairy topics.

The conference was preceded by the Monsanto pre-conference where close to 200 people learned the dynamics of the U.S. dairy industry, the changes in eating and demand patterns of U.S. consumers and how marketing of dairy products will be key to the future of our industry.

A survey was distributed to all attendees who answered unanimously that this conference should be held again on a regular basis.

For those who could not attend, copies of the Proceedings are available for $25 by contacting Jennifer Winkler at (614) 688-3143.

Normand St-Pierre
Dairy Extension Specialist, Editor
Milk Price Outlook

Cameron Thraen, Dairy Economist
thraen.1@osu.edu

Milk Prices/Incomes High in 1998, Expect Declines but not Disaster in 1999.
January 28, 1999
Expected stronger growth in milk production and softening of commercial demand to push milk prices back to near normal levels.

Milk prices and cash income favorable in 1998
The 1998 dairy economy turned out to be very favorable for farmers. What appeared to be a lackluster year during the first five months has turned out to be a new record year for producers. The Basic Formula Price (BFP), which determines all other milk prices, started out in January of 1998 at $13.25. This was higher than the previous three years, but by May the BFP had retreated to $10.88 which was more inline with May of 1997 price. By December the BFP had advanced steadily to $17.34 and has set a record high for the year average at $14.20. This is $2.15 more than the $12.05 average for 1997. Based on these high milk prices, cash receipts from the sale of milk, are at record levels in 1998. Income from the sale of milk off the farm is running far ahead of 1997 and for the period January through September, is 11.9 percent higher than the same period in 1997.

Expect strong production growth and weaken milk check prices
The overall picture for milk production suggests strong growth in 1999. With low feed prices, low concentrate prices, low cull cow prices and a very favorable September milk-feed price ratio of 3.94, milk cow numbers are holding strong at this time. For the National Agricultural Statistical Service 20 reporting states, December cow numbers were up 14,000 head over January 1998. With these favorable milk price, feed prices, and weather conditions, milk production is expected to return to near normal rates of growth at 2% - 2.5% in 1999.

The expected growth in milk production will likely move milk prices and cash receipts back to levels similar to those experienced in 1995 and 1997. Commercial demand can be expected to grow by 1.5% in 1999. With demand projected to increase at about 1.5% in 1999 and milk production projected to expand at the brisk clip of 2.3 to 2.5%, the BFP is expected to retreat back to the $11.75-$13 dollar range. The average for 1999 should be close to the average of 1995/97 at $12.50 to $12.75 per cwt.

When all said and done, dairy producers need to keep in mind that the BFP is projected to stay above the 5 year average for all months of the year in 1999, and while not the high of 1998, this will give dairy farmers the third highest average milk price on record!

BFP Forecast for January 1999
The BFP for January will be released on Friday, February 5. At this time we can only forecast the BFP. To do this we need to know four items: (1) the Minnesota / Wisconsin base month price for December, 1998; (2) the Minnesota / Wisconsin average milkfat test; (3) the price of 1/10 pound of butterfat; (4) the December to January change in the average price of cheddar cheese #40 blocks as reported by the National Agricultural Statistical Service. As none of these items are publicly available prior to the February 5 release date, we out here in the industry can only "guestimate" what these figures may be and then forecast the announced BFP.

Here are my "guestimates":
Minnesota / Wisconsin Base Month Price: To know this we must guess at what grade B cheese plants reported they paid producers for milk during December 1998. My guess is that they will report that they paid somewhere in the $17.00 - $17.50 range for 3.5% milk. Remember, that although everyone is now focused on the decline in the cheese price, the Wisconsin Assembly Point average price was at its peak in December '98 at $1.9245.

Change in the Average Price of Cheddar Cheese: This number is the difference between the average price for December '98 and January '98 as reported by NASS. Keep in mind that this price is NOT the average price reported on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. While the CME price has declined dramatically the survey price reported by NASS has not followed along. For the week ending January 22nd, the CME average price was $1.28 and the NASS survey price was reported at $1.8177. This is a $0.5377 difference. What this means is that the decline in the price of cheese as reflected on the CME market will not show up until the NASS prices influence the February BFP calculation.

January 1999 BFP Forecast: I expect the announced BFP to be in the $16.30 to $16.50 range. Looking at the BFP futures contract price trading on January 28th of $15.70 I think that the market is focusing on the CME cheese prices and not the NASS cheese prices. This price of $15.70 is TOO low and I forecast that the BFP futures contract will increase over the next week to reflect the reality of a high Base month price in December and higher NASS cheese prices and not CME cheese prices.
Planning: A Vital Function of Management

For most dairy producers, this is a slower time of the year. With a bit of free time in your hands, you should manage to make room for planning. We know that you dont like sitting behind a desk to scribble numbers on a piece of paper. Thats a female job I was once told. But this female job is a vital component of management.

First, you must do some short-term planning. What meetings will you attend in the next 2-3 months. Getting a free hat should not be an important criterion to your selection of meetings! In this issue of Buckeye Dairy News, we suggest a few meetings/conference/workshops that you, your spouse or employees should consider attending.

Second, the tax season should provide you with an incentive for long-range planning. In Northeast Ohio, Dairy Excel is offering four workshops titled Positioning Your Dairy. Participants will learn how to prepare long-range plans and what factors should be considered in the process. If you have an interest in the workshop but do not reside close to any of the four locations, call your county Ag. Extension agent. We'll see how we can accommodate your needs.

Why should you waste your time planning for the future if the world is coming to an end? The issue of Y2K is getting more and more attention by the news media. Some even predict an end to human life as we know it! What are facts and what is fiction? What should you do? To help you manage Y2K in your herd, we are reprinting an article written by Dr. Roger Cady from Washington State University that explains the problem, how it will affect you and how you should manage the crisis. Sit down, relax and enjoy (then start planning)!
Milk Prices Flatten as Milk Output Stays in High Gear!

WHEW! In my April report (put out March 25th) I stated that the March BFP would come in at $11.57 and explained what was behind the significant decline in the February BFP. For March I was off by only 5 cents and I can live with it! Now let's turn our attention to prices for April (to be announced on May 5). Using the same logic that I took you through in the last issue (and if you missed it you can find it on my OhioDairyWeb at the URL http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/faculty/cthraen/ohdairy/) I think that the April BFP will be up slightly from the March BFP and will be announced at $11.71. My black box for coming up with this number is very transparent. This increase is due to a slight increase of 6 cents in the product price adjustment and the base month price being at or near the $11.62 March BFP

What's Ahead for the April BFP and Class Prices?

With March margins in the $1.48 range, the best bet is that cheese plants very likely will have paid close to the announced $11.62 for milk. The following table shows my method for getting a fix on the current month BFP. The gross value of cheese and butter/powder for each 100 pounds of milk has not changed much from March to April. Based on these gross values my calculations suggest that a BFP of $11.65 + $0.06 = $11.71 is a reasonable estimate. Looking at the CME BFP futures contract price trading on April 26th of $11.61, my estimate is not too far from the mark, although I am a little more bullish than the market.
Harvest Alfalfa Based on Quality Goals

How many times have you heard the statements: Timely harvest is critical for achieving optimal quality of alfalfa forage and high forage quality is critical to good performance in high producing lactating cows? But how do you know when alfalfa is at the optimal quality for cutting? How often have you harvested and stored alfalfa without any knowledge of its chemical composition? If you are like most of us you make a best guess, watch the weather forecast, and then decide when to start cutting. Having lab results of forage quality on the standing crop would be nice, but getting them is not practical. Now for the good newsyou can quickly and easily estimate the forage quality of alfalfa in your fields, and you can do so with reasonable accuracy. Sounds too good to be true? Read on.

A method was developed recently at the University of Wisconsin to estimate alfalfa fiber composition of the standing crop. The Wisconsin method has been dubbed PEAQ, for Predictive Equations for Alfalfa Quality. The PEAQ method uses the longest stem and the most mature stem in an alfalfa sample to estimate neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentration. The accompanying chart describes how to use this method. The charted values are calculated from a regression equation of the relationship between NDF concentration and stem length and maturity stage of alfalfa. The original method included a more detailed maturity staging scale, but we have found that a simple 3-stage scale (vegetative, bud, and flower) works just as well as the more detailed staging system. This simplification was agreed to in cooperation with the How reliable and accurate is PEAQ? We have tested the PEAQ method in production fields across Ohio and over multiple years, locations, and cuttings. It has also been validated in New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, South Dakota, and California. After collecting 545 samples across these six states, we can conclude that the PEAQ method does indeed estimate NDF with reasonable accuracy. The estimated NDF (using PEAQ) was within 3 units of the actual wet chemistry NDF in 77% of the samples we collected. In 58% of the samples, the PEAQ NDF was within 2 units of the actual value, and in 88% of the samples the estimated NDF was within 4 units of the actual NDF. The PEAQ method performed consistently across a wide range of environments. It worked as well in other states as it did in Wisconsin, where it was originally developed. An important advantage of PEAQ over other prediction methods (such as the GDD method) is that it can be used during the entire growing season, not just on the first crop. So it provides a reasonably accurate guide for timing harvests according to your forage quality goals all season long.

What should my forage quality goal be? The NDF content of pure alfalfa forage should be near 40% in order to optimize profitability in a 50% concentrate ration fed to dairy cows. This will usually maximize cow performance and minimize supplementation costs. Optimal NDF concentration for pure grass forage fed to lactating dairy cows is between 50 and 55%. For mixed grass-legume stands (50:50 mix), the forage at feeding should contain 46 to 48% NDF.

When should I begin harvesting? The PEAQ method can be used to monitor the NDF content as the alfalfa crop develops. Use your judgement of how often this needs to be done, but you should make a first estimate at least one week before your expected date of harvest. If the goal is 40% NDF in alfalfa at feeding time, then cutting must begin well before the standing crop reaches 40% NDF. Harvest and storage losses can raise the NDF concentration by 2 to 6 units under good conditions. In our experiences, NDF concentration of well-made silage is about 2 percentage units higher than in fresh forage. Losses with hay harvest will be higher. You also need to adjust for the time it takes to harvest all your acres. During the spring, NDF increases about 5 points per week. So a reasonable goal is to begin harvesting alfalfa when it reaches 35 to 36% NDF as estimated by PEAQ. Harvesting should be completed by the time the standing crop reaches an estimated 40% NDF, assuming the forage is to be fed to lactating dairy cows.

If grass is present in the alfalfa stand, begin harvesting earlier. How much earlier will have to be your judgement, based on the grass maturity and amount present. There are currently no methods for estimating NDF concentration of grasses or grass-legume stands. But in pure grass stands, harvesting should occur in late vegetative to very early boot stage in the spring (head still enclosed in the flag leaf), and at 25- to 28-day intervals thereafter. If the stand is over 50% alfalfa, then the first harvest date and intervals between cuttings should be intermediate between those for a pure grass stand and a pure alfalfa stand.

Precautions when using PEAQ. Be sure to pay attention to technique. Measure the LONGEST stem in the sampling area from the soil surface near the base of the plant (as described in the chart), and correctly identify the MOST ADVANCED stage of maturity. The PEAQ method is designed for pure alfalfa stands, and will not accurately reflect the NDF concentration of mixed grass:alfalfa stands or weedy stands. The method is not reliable for alfalfa shorter than 16 inches or taller than 40 inches. The PEAQ procedure is NOT intended to replace laboratory analyses once the forage is stored. It should only be used to give a rapid first estimate of quality of the standing alfalfa forage for purposes of making informed harvest management decisions. Decisions regarding ration balancing should be based on laboratory analyses after the crop is harvested and stored.

Summary. The PEAQ method provides a reliable guide for optimizing quality of harvested alfalfa. It is more reliable than timing harvests by calendar date, age, or by maturity stage alone. Although rainy weather can foul up the best laid plans, using PEAQ in conjunction with weather forecasts should help you come closer to your desired forage quality goal. It can help you decide the order in which to harvest different fields based on forage quality. The estimated NDF content may also be useful when deciding where to store the forage, such as putting lots of similar quality together
Milk Production Gains Strong - Outlook for Prices is Revised

Yikes! The USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Report is now out and in that report, the projected milk production for the United States is set at 161.5 billion pounds for the marketing year ending September 1999. This is up 3.2 percent over the previous marketing year. If we achieve this level of increase, this will set a record level of production for the United States! The 3.2% expansion will be the largest such expansion since the production rebound of 1991. The report also projects that for the marketing year 2000, milk production, driven by productivity increases, will be up another 2.4 percent. While this is good news for consumers, if it comes to pass, it is not so good news for producers Why? With this level of production expansion, and total consumption projected to increase only 2 percent, there will be real downward pressure on milk prices!

What is Going on with Production Anyway?

Milk production in the 20 selected states was 12.0 billion pounds in April. This is according to the USDA's "Milk Production Report", released May 17th. Milk production for these 20 states is up 3.2 percent over a year ago. Cow numbers were up 4,000 head over March and down only 1,000 head from a year ago. On the productivity side of things, milk per cow expanded 3.5 percent over a year ago. Corn prices per bushel are expected to remain in the $1.95 to $2.05 range, as ending corn stocks are forecast to be 1.77 billion bushels, up 36% over last year and twice that of two years ago
Rations for Good Rumen Health

The first priority of dairy rations should be to maintain rumen health. Traditionally, forages of sufficient particle size are used to stimulate cows to chew feed during eating and cud-chewing (the latter is called rumination). Dairy cows spend about 10 hours/day chewing. Besides being the major source of buffer, chewing the cud is the universal sign of cow contentment. However, with todays hard-working bovines, fine-tuned rations are needed to balance rumen health with high productivity.

Because of the variation among various forages, most people balance rations for fiber concentration in the diet. Many use acid detergent fiber (ADF) because it is an easier lab procedure. The NRC recommends a minimum of 19-21% ADF, 75% of which should be from forage. However, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) is more accurate. The dairy NRC recommends 25 to 28% NDF, with 75% of this from forage. Therefore, 28% NDF x .75 = 21% minimum forage NDF in the diet. Forage NDF is a better measurement of fiber requirements unless you use only alfalfa as the major forage source because requirements by the NRC for 21 and 28% ADF and NDF more closely approximate the ADF to NDF ratio of alfalfa (about 30:40) than corn silage (28% ADF and 51% NDF) or other grasses. Of course, this requires periodic testing of forages for fiber concentration for best results. Estimation of fiber concentrations of pasture actually consumed is more tricky but can be done.

Forage particle size also has a big role in maintaining rumen health by stimulating rumination and therefore salivation. Because cows tend to chew only well enough during eating to swallow feed, larger particles of forage in the diet cause particles in the rumen to be larger, which increases time spent ruminating. As forage particle size decreases, fibrous byproducts, especially cottonseed, probably become more effective (stimulate more chewing during rumination) compared with byproducts in diets with large forage particles. Also, dietary buffers are more beneficial and are good insurance in low forage diets, especially with corn silage as the major forage.

Corn silage needs to be chopped more finely than alfalfa to break up the cob to reduce its wastage and also to at least partially open the kernel to increase starch digestibility. Finer chopping also allows better packing. Kernel processing should allow the corn to be chopped more coarsely while still disrupting the kernel and cob for good digestion.

Alfalfa haylage in bunkers can be chopped more coarsely than alfalfa in upright silos (coarser chop may plug unloaders) or corn silage. However, as particle size of forage increases in length, an increasingly larger particle size causes a progressively lower increase in additional chewing (i.e., a limiting returns). Long hay has only a minor advantage compared with coarsely chopped haylage. Conversely, very finely chopped haylage has considerably reduced effectiveness compared with moderately chopped haylage. Forages with moderate particle sizes can be used effectively so long as there is enough forage NDF, the particle size is not too fine, and starch is reduced compared with the same diets containing forages of larger size.

Even if forage particle size is appropriate, farmers need to be careful to follow the manufacturers mixing times for mixer wagons to prevent a drastic reduction in particle size during mixing. Conversely, total mixed rations help reduce slug feeding of highly digestible grains over the day. Component feeders should strive to feed grain about four times per day if there is a lot of rapidly degradable starch (e.g., finely ground or steam-flaked corn).

Rumen degradability of carbohydrates is another major factor influencing rumen pH. While saliva from chewed forage helps buffer pH, fermentation of carbohydrates produces the acids that decrease pH in the first place. In typical diets with only forage and grain (no byproducts), research at Ohio State and other universities has shown that you should have not much more than 30% starch. Because starch is difficult to measure, most ration balancing programs calculate nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC) as 100% - ash - fat - protein - NDF. Alfalfa has about 10% pectin, which is part of the fibrous cell wall but which gets dissolved in NDF solution. Because NDF underestimates fiber in alfalfa, the pectin is actually included in the NFC portion. An alfalfa-based ration containing 40% NFC may have only 30% starch. However, with all corn silage in the diet, 40% NFC may be over 35% starch, because corn silage has essentially no pectin. Although highly digestible, pectin apparently does not ferment to lactic acid. Therefore, a 40% NFC diet with corn silage would have more fermentable starch than a 40% NFC diet with alfalfa and probably would be more likely to cause acidosis.

Corn grain has a lot of variation in starch digestibility in the rumen Coarsely rolled corn has a similar digestibility in the rumen as does NDF from good forages.However, when corn is ground or rolled very finely, steam-flaked very aggressively (<25 lb/bu density), or fed as high-moisture corn (especially if rolled), then ruminal digestibility may be increased by 20 or 30 percentage units in high producing cows One study that progressively replaced starch from barley (which is very digestible) with starch from corn (all had 33% starch and >33% NDF) linearly decreased feed intake from 50.2 to 42.9 lb/day of dry matter and reduced milk production by over 11 lb/day. The high rumen degradability of barley starch increased production of acids, which are important regulators of feed intake. With corn silage diets, besides having more starch relative to NFC than with alfalfa diets, you automatically provide high moisture corn in the silage. With corn silage as the sole forage, you should consider using fibrous byproducts to reduce ruminally digested carbohydrates to lower levels (say 35 to 38% NFC compared with 38 to 40% NFC for alfalfa diets) to help maintain rumen health.

Cows on pasture can select the forage they want to eat. This forage is typically lower in fiber and higher in rapidly degradable sugars than harvested forage. Reducing NFC concentration by feeding less corn, more fibrous byproducts, or fat within guidelines should help prevent a lower rumen pH and butterfat depression. Butterfat test is a relatively accurate indicator of rumen health within individual farms (compared with previous history) but is less accurate across farms because of the variety of factors besides rumen pH that affect it.

Good managers could reduce forage NDF down to about 18% (or possibly lower). However, this does increase the risk of laminitis. We have noted very low rumen pH values in some of our trials with corn silage as the sole forage. Therefore, reducing forage below NRC recommendations should be done with extreme caution with diets high in corn silage. NFC should be reduced 1 to 1.5 percentage unit for every 1 percentage unit decrease in forage NDF percentage below NRC recommendations or values found to be previously acceptable on that farm. Fresh cows (first 3 to 4 weeks) should avoid low forage diets altogether. They are most prone to acidosis-related problems because their rumens and rumen microbes are not yet adapted to low forage, high grain diets.
Wet Conditions Increase the Chances for Pesticide-Contaminated Forages

The use of organochlorine pesticides such as DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, lindane, etc., has been banned for approximately 30 years. Therefore, they should not present a risk of actionable residues in milk or meat products. Unfortunately, the latter statement is not quite true. Each year there are a few instances of unsuspected contamination, and these usually occur following periods of wet weather. By understanding the conditions that contribute to the contamination of forages, the likelihood of an expensive incident can be reduced.

Organochlorine pesticides were the first formulations to receive widespread use beginning with the production of DDT in the 1930's. Large quantities of these materials were used before they were discovered to be persistent in the environment and accumulate up the food chain. As the undesired side effects of these chemicals became known, tolerances were established to limit exposures to human foods, and ultimately in the late 1960's and early 1970's, organochlorine pesticides were banned or severely restricted in their use. So how can they still be a problem today?

The foremost characteristic of this class of chemicals is that they are extremely stable compounds and readily do not degrade. Likewise, they remain persistent in the soils where they were applied. Organochlorine pesticides are relatively insoluble in water. As a result, they do not leach downward through the soils but remain near the soil surface or within the plow zone. They may migrate with surface water, but it is usually a case where the pesticides move attached to soil particles or organic materials. These chemicals are also lipophilic, which means that they will associate with fats and oils. Thus, when consumed by animals they will accumulate in adipose tissues and will be excreted in milk fat if the animal is lactating. With the stringent tolerances that are in place for residues in milk and meat, only small amounts of these pesticides need be consumed to result in exclusion from the market.

Where dairy production is concerned, as long as these pesticides remain bound in the soil, there should not be a problem. The problem occurs when there is a route of transfer to the cattle. Fortunately, these pesticides do not translocate through the roots of plants into the forage or seed portions of plants.However, two routes of transfer have been identified. The first is fairly obvious. If animals consume sufficient quantities of contaminated soil, they will accumulate organochlorine pesticides. Whether this will become a problem depends on the amount of soil consumed and the concentration of the pesticide in that soil. Studies have been conducted that have shown that cows on pasture will consume up to 4.5 pounds of soil per day. Lesser amounts were consumed when pastures were lush, because grazing was higher on the plants, with less ground contact and with less soil material splashed on to the forage. Certainly, with a sufficient pesticide concentration in soil, consumption can result in undesirable residue concentrations in milk and meat, yet it is rare.
Maintaining Quality Grain in Storage

If you had $15,000 to $30,000 in cash sitting in a grain bin, would you check it often? You know you would. So why not check your grain that is worth that much?

When you store wheat, oats, rye, barley, grain sorghum, shelled corn, or any other grain on your farm for extended periods, you must take steps to preserve its quality and prevent economic loss from insect and mold damage.

Properly managing grain in your storage bins, it is important to maintain quality. Factors that can cause grain to go out of condition are:

1. Presence of insects
2. The amount of fines and foreign-material left in the stored grain during filling of the storage
3. Initial quality of grain going into storage
4. Grain moisture content

The market or feed value of infested grain may be substantially reduced if the number of insect-damaged kernels is sufficient to lower the grade of the grain to be designated infested on the grade certificate. Producers often have to pay discounts to buyers finding live insects in their purchased grain. And some grain dealers may refuse to accept heavily infested grain that might contaminate their storage facilities.

Heavy infestation of insects and mold greatly reduces the feed value of grain. Molds can produce toxins that can cause abortions, low fertility, poor production and poor growth rate.

Insects in farm-stored grain will also affect its eligibility in the Grain Reserve Program for farmers. Conditioning of the storage structure and that of the stored grain are factors that must be considered by the Farm Service Agency commodity inspectors when determining eligibility for a farm-storage loan. When a loan is approved, the storer, who is often the producer, is responsible for any loss in quantity or quality of the commodity caused by insect and mold infestation or rodent damage during storage.

Grain temperature must be controlled to limit moisture movement through the grain. Lower grain temperature decreases molds and insect activity and increases safe storage times. More grain goes out of condition due to temperatures not being controlled than for any other reason.

As spring and summer temperatures warm up, it is very important to monitor the temperature and moisture in the stored grain. Temperatures can increase quite rapidly and that will increase insect activity. The grain in storage needs to be monitored often to prevent temperature and moisture increases and increase in insect activity.

There are insect traps available that can be inserted into the grain mass to monitor insect activity. If you value your money in the bin, keep a watch on the grain for insect activity, temperature rise, and excess moisture.?
Cheese Inventories Dip - Cheese Prices Roar!

Holy Hot Cows! High heat and humidity throughout most of the United States is slowing the torrid pace of milk production this summer. The latest USDA July 15 milk production report shows production gains, while still high, are off in most of the high producing states. In the 20 state total overall milk production for June was up 3.4% over last year. Out West, for the month of June, California up 9.0%, Arizona up 5.2%, Idaho up 8.6%, New Mexico up 6.3% and Washington up 2.2%. Only Texas posted a decline of 1.7%. Closer to home, Wisconsin production was up 2.1%, Minnesota up 2.3%, New York 3.0%, Pennsylvania up 2.7%. Ohio posted an increase of 1.3% on the strength of more output per cow but fewer cows.

The Cheese Market is all the Rage in this market!

The current market is being driven by inventory concerns in the cheese market. According to the latest USDA Cold Storage report, inventories of American cheese declined in June.Demand for cheese is strong and those that have it are hanging on to it - confident that the price will continue to rise for the present. Heat and humidity are cutting cheese yields at the plant and will continue to do so through July. Those in the know are suggesting that cheese prices could rise has high as $2.00 on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The July 23rd Dairy & Food Market Analyst reports a cheese price high between $1.80 and $1.90 is very likely over the next 45 days.

Look for the bang in milk prices, but be alert for the bust!
CHEESE INVENTORIES DIP - CHEESE PRICES ROAR!

Cameron S. Thraen
AED/ The Ohio State University/ OSUE
Dairy Economist / Extension Specialist

What is going on here? What can I say! The cheese market is incredible. Repeat after me: "It has been very, very good to me." The 40-pound block cheese price has continued to sail to new heights this summer. Back in late May it looked as if all was lost but then - walla - the price was off and running, increasing from a measly $1.21 per pound to a record $1.9725 on August 20th What the heck happened?

In the field of commodity economics there is an area of study aptly called "Impact of News Announcements". In brief, the point of the research is to determine the extent to which "news announcements", e.g., market reports, crop reports, inventory reports, etc., move the market. Well, the cheese market clearly got a boost upward from the USDA's June Cold Storage Report. That report signaled lower than anticipated commercial stocks of cheese on hand and sent the cash and futures market prices seeking new highs. Demand is strong, production off and inventories not as high as anticipated. A recipe for high cheese prices.

Now along comes the July Cold Storage report and guess what? The USDA has revised the June numbers UP a whopping 65.4 million pounds. Add to this a reported increase in July commercial stocks of 15.4 million pounds and we have over 554 million pounds in commercial inventory. This is whopping 20.3% larger than last year. Total July 31 cheese inventory is put at 762.5 million pounds, 28% higher than last year at this time.

What about the effect of "news in announcements"? From August 13th to August 20th, the November and December futures contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange declined over $2.00 per hundredweight. According the Dairy & Food Market Analyst Report, Inc. of August 20th, if you had been tracking the BFP futures contracts carefully you could have locked in the equivalent of $16.69 BFP for the 4th quarter of 1999! To put this in perspective, this is over $4.00 higher than the average BFP for the typically experience in the last quarter of the year.

What about by the time you read this report? You can still lock in some very good fall prices if you know your cost of production and have learned to follow the markets. However, if you wait to see what the highest price will be you will miss the boat. The $16.69 equivalent price vanished after August 12 as the market reacted to the "news" that there is a lot more cheese out there than formerly anticipated. When the market breaks, and you can take it from me it will break, the price will come down faster than water off a tin roof and it will be too late to act.

What does mean for your operation? If you are tapping into the wealth of information on the markets out there - good for you If not, now is the time to make this a priority. As the new Federal Order provisions come into place, the tie between the dollars in your milk check and the behavior in the product markets will only become more pronounced. These are the "new rules" of the game in the dairy business.
DROUGHT CONCERNS: BEWARE OF NITRATES!

William P. Shulaw DVM, Extension Veterinarian; Kent H. Hoblet DVM, Extension Veterinarian; Diane F. Gerken DVM, Veterinary Toxicologist.

Drought Concerns

Reminiscent of 1988, we are facing possible problems with feeding drought-stressed plants and potential toxic plant consumption by animals that are short on feed because of the drought. Recently, the Ohio Department of Agricultures Consumer Analytical Laboratory has announced free testing of corn/corn silage for nitrates because of the drought. Although not all areas of Ohio are affected, most concerns center around animals being fed, or allowed to graze, stressed plants or plants not normally used for animals. This article will focus on nitrate toxicity but cyanide (prussic acid toxicity) and the consumption of toxic plants by animals are also a concern during drought periods.

Nitrates

Nitrate, itself, is not highly toxic. Problems develop when nitrate (NO3) is converted to nitrite (NO2) in the ruminant animals digestive system. Plants normally convert soil nitrate to plant protein However, when stressed by dry weather, plants may be unable to totally effect this conversion and nitrates may accumulate. In the live animal the nitrite which is formed binds to the hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells and produces methemoglobin which prevents oxygen transmission to tissues and cells.
ROASTED SOYBEANS AND COPPER INCREASE SPONTANEOUS OXIDIZED MILK FLAVOR

Jennifer S. Timmons, M. S., Donald L. Palmquist, Ph.D.
Department of Animal Sciences

Ration composition of lactating cows has been altered over recent years to supply the energy required to support enhanced milk production. One way to accomplish this is to supplement with a fat source such as roasted soybeans. Roasted soybeans contain approximately 20% fat that is high in polyunsaturated fatty acids: 50% to 55% linoleic acid (18:2) and 6% to 8% linolenic acid (18:3)Some of the unsaturated fatty acids in roasted soybeans bypass the rumen and are digested in the small intestine; these are directly incorporated into the milk fat. The polyunsaturated fatty acids are highly susceptible to oxidation; oxidation of milk fat leads to development of spontaneous oxidized flavor (SOF) in milk. The flavor in some cases occurs instantaneously from the cow and intensifies in susceptible milk during refrigerated storage Milk may taste normal at the farm, but develops a flavor characterized as tasting metallic, cardboardy or tallowy with time. The off-flavor may cause consumer rejection, a shorter shelf life and a decrease in the demand for milk. In 1996, Reiter Dairy / Dean Foods contacted OARDC about this off-flavor problem that had lead to rejection of tanker loads of milk. An initial survey showed that polyunsaturated fatty acids were higher in milk from herds fed whole soybeans. OARDC then obtained funding through Dairy Management Incorporated to investigate causative factors related to off-flavor development and to explore possible preventative measures. A commercial field study was performed to determine the role of roasted soybeans (RSB) and milk components in off-flavor development. Twenty commercial dairy farms in the vicinity of Wooster, Ohio were selected based on the feeding of roasted soybeans. Herd size ranged from 35 to 432 head with a RHA of 14,500 to 30,800 lbs/yr. Cows in herds were fed typical Ohio diets of haylage, corn silage, high moisture corn, and a range of 0 to 15% of the diet dry matter as RSB. Bulk tank milk was sampled after the AM milking prior to milk tanker pickup and analyzed for milk fat composition, vitamins, minerals and off-flavor development on 0, 3, and 8 days post-sampling. The development of SOF was related to an increase in the polyunsaturated milk fatty acids (linoleic and linolenic acids), caused by the feeding of RSB, a decrease in milk antioxidants (vitamin E and beta-carotene) with increasing time of storage, and increased concentrations of pro-oxidants (copper).

From the data an equation was developed to predict the development of off-flavor at 8 days post-sampling (approximate time for fluid milk to be bottled, shelved, and purchased by the consumer). The development of SOF was found to be predictable, with one half of the variation in flavor attributed to the amounts of xanthine oxidase (a pro-oxidative enzyme), copper and polyunsaturated fatty acids in the milk. According to these prediction equations, feeding RSB at 15% of the diet DM in the presence of low copper from feed and water would not develop off-flavor. However, in the presence of high copper the amount of RSB (% of diet DM) would need to be decreased below 15% of diet DM to prevent the development of off-flavor. Dairy processors using the prediction equation could pool milk according to its potential for development of SOF. Milk likely to produce oxidized flavor could be converted to alternative uses and milk with low susceptibility to oxidation could be used for fluid milk. These measures should increase shelf life of milk and diminish consumer rejection of milk due to off-flavor. It should be noted that spontaneous oxidized milk flavor is not a wide-spread problem currently because of the low concentration of polyunsaturated fatty acids in the milk supply (3 - 8%); further, homogenization greatly protects against oxidized flavor development. However, the potential for off-flavor development exists, especially with the increased feeding of RSB as a bypass protein and a fat source. Therefore, the cost of potential dumped milk must be weighed against the advantages of feeding high levels of RSB. Farmers feeding RSB need to be aware of the potential of milk with higher unsaturation to develop off-flavor and the repercussions this may have on the dairy industry in the future.
Now that the Forages are Harvested
Maurice Eastridge, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University
Department of Animal Sciences
- Sum up the quantity of forage available on the farm (supply) and determine tons needed until next harvest season (demand) to identify if hay will need be to purchased or the rations will be to be balanced with less forage.
- If purchases are needed, buy NOW! Price will be higher later and consider the economies of purchasing large quantities, which may necessitate neighbors purchasing loads of hay together.
- Now is the time to consider contacting for grain and other concentrate ingredients. Minimize the risk of feed prices by contracting. Seek bids from two or more companies and make sure they are aware that competition exists for your business.
- If possible, let silages ferment for two to four weeks before feeding.
- Forages need to be analyzed NOW for nutrient composition. Considerable variation in composition of corn silage may occur this year across the state because of the variable rainfall.
- Grain (moist and damaged kernels) and corn silage (relatively dry) are at high risk for mycotoxins. If mycotoxins are suspected, analyze for their presence so feeding practices can be adjusted, if necessary, before clinical symptoms are apparent.
Handling Dairy Manure
Richard Stowell, Ph..D.
Department of Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering

A progressive dairy producer must consider ways of handling and managing manure that will prove reliable, efficient and economical into the coming years. Unfortunately, there is no single system of choice that will satisfy the needs of the variety of operations in place today or being planned. Experience and research have improved our ability to evaluate systems and make recommendations, however, and I will summarize a few of those key points.

The choice of bedding material is critical to the implementation of a good manure handling system. Changing a system of facilities to handle manure that is laden with a bedding material that was not accounted for in the systems design is very frustrating and potentially costly, if not unworkable.

The design of stall bed used in freestalls largely determines the bedding material that is selected. Two stall-bed designs have risen to the top as the choices of managers seeking cow comfort: the deep bed of sand and the baffled mattress with a covering of loose bedding, usually wood shavings or some other organic material. On the basis of cow comfort and performance alone, sand-based stalls have advantages over their mattress-based counterparts when given similar management attention. Producers need to evaluate (obtain an evaluation of) the expected costs/benefits of each of these designs to cow performance on their own operation.

Also, consider the available and preferred means of applying manure onto cropland. If all or most of the manure must be pumped a long distance, irrigated or injected, sand must be separated from the manure stream or mattresses should be used instead of sand-based stalls. On the other hand, if all or most of the manure is to be handled using a front-end loader and spread using a box or V-spreader, there is little or no advantage of handling loose manure from mattress-based stalls. In most cases, the available options for handling manure lie somewhere between these extremes, meaning either stall-bed design and bedding material could be used and comparisons should be made on an individual, system basis that includes producer preferences.

Given the bedding material, a handling system can be put together that suitably matches manure characteristics with prioritized facility and management needs. Sand-laden manure should be handled in one of the following ways:
- Undiluted, within a covered, concrete storage,
- In two or three steps (skim-and-haul) as liquid and solid, or as liquid, semi-solid and solid materials, using a storage with a concrete bottom and ramp, or
- As a well-diluted liquid with the sand removed and handled separately.
Manure from freestall barns having mattress-based stalls can be handled in several ways. Opportunities exist to utilize gravity-flow transfer systems, centrifugal pumps, and slatted floors. The primary considerations revolve much less around the manure itself and more around labor requirements, local topography, and specific manure management constraints.
CORN SILAGE FEEDING MANAGEMENT

Thomas E. Noyes
The Ohio State University Extension, Extension Agent
Wayne County

Corn silage is being fed at a higher percentage of the forage dry matter today as compared to years ago.
There is good reason for this as todays cows are capable of higher levels of milk production and need a
much higher level of energy intake, including that coming from forage. Corn silage furnishes this energy
along with its uniform quality and palatability.

Corn silage is also a relatively easy and economical crop to grow, requiring less labor and management
compared to a hay crop. There has also been significant improvement in varieties of corn grown for silage,
especially in the area of improved fiber digestibility. We now have whopper choppers with kernel
processors that make harvesting fast and improve the quality of the silage. The cracking and crushing of
kernels increase the starch availability (digestibility) of the corn silage.

This years drought in many parts of Ohio has added another factor to the corn silage that was harvested and
will be fed this winter. Due to the dry growing season, the total dry matter yields per acre were lowered, due
mostly to a reduced forage portion of the silage. Surprisingly, the grain yields in the silage were very good.
Thus, on many farms, we have corn silage with much higher grain content than normal.

What does all this mean to managing corn silage in your feeding program? For the high producing groups
of cows, there is additional potential for acidosis Feeding corn silage with a higher grain content, that was
kernel processed, and combined with the potential of less effective fiber can put the cows in potential
problems. If you experience lower butterfat tests and suddenly you have seen milk production jump two to
three pounds per cow per day, than you might want to review the rations being fed with your nutritionist.
Also, check to be sure that the TMRs are not being over-mixed, which also reduces the effective fiber in the
diets of the cows.

Feeding relatively high corn silage diets this winter will require good management. You should use a Penn
State forage particle separator box if you have concerns about the level of effective fiber in your forages
and rations. Contact your County Extension Office if you need assistance.
SHOULD I USE BST OR GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS? WHETHER OR NOT I USE GENETIC ENGINEERING, HOW WILL IT AFFECT FARMING AND THE DAIRY INDUSTRY?

Jim Skeeles
The Ohio State University Extension, Extension Agent
Lorain County

Genetically engineered products are not new. Firmer and longer keeping tomatoes were one of the first
genetically engineered products. The controversial, genetically engineered hormone called BST, which
induces dairy cows to give more milk, has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
has now been adopted my many American dairymen. It is not permitted in Canada. Corn seeds genetically
modified to be resistant to a specific boring insect have been available for several years. However, the most
dramatic adoption of genetic engineering has been by farmers using the Roundup Read soybeans
developed and marketed by Monsanto. More than one-third of the soybeans planted in the United States and
in northeastern Ohio are Roundup Ready. This means that the soybeans have been genetically engineered to
be resistant to Roundup, a chemical weed killer also developed and marketed by Monsanto. More recently,
Monsanto has also developed Roundup Ready corn.

Many are concerned about genetic engineering because it is not natural One main concern is the
healthfulness of the genetically engineered food. There are also concerns about how humane it is to inject
a genetically engineered hormone into dairy cattle so they will unnaturally increase milk production.
Some are concerned that those genetically engineered traits will be transferred to other plants in the
environment. Others are concerned about reduction in bio-diversity as a result of genetic engineering.

The government, (Environmental Protection Agency, EPA), regulates unnatural agricultural practices, such
as chemical fertilizers and weed and bug killers, and the government will continue to regulate genetic
engineering. Chances are if you have been unhappy with the risks allowed by EPA with chemicals in
agriculture, you will not be happy with the risks allowed by the government with genetic engineering.

Those who favor genetic engineering contend that the United States and individual farmers need to adopt
this new technology as quickly as possible in order to maintain their competitive edge. Indeed, we in the
United States pride ourselves in our productivity. Yes, we essentially feed the world and do it more
efficiently and at a lower cost than most of the rest of the world. We do indeed enjoy a competitive edge in
agriculture. We enjoy that edge because of our willingness to develop and adopt new technology, because
of our productive soils/climate, and because farmers fiercely compete against each other. Economists call
our system perfect competition. Ironically, this perfect competition forces out of business those farmers
who can't or won't adopt technology that lowers the cost of production .

With every revolution in agriculture, the less productive farmers have been forced out of business. The
industrial revolution started a long trend of fewer and fewer farmers, with tractors replacing horses and
machines replacing the labor of farm family members. The introduction of hybrid seed corn and plants bred
to yield more with chemical fertilizers further increased productivity, so farmer numbers took another dive.
Herbicides allowed crop production with less or even no tilling of the land, and insecticides assured
consistently higher crop yields. Thus, productivity continued to increase, production costs decreased and
more farmers were forced to leave the farm.

So how will agriculture and the dairy industry change with the adoption of genetic engineering? Farmers
will be forced to adopt the new technology to stay in business, and those least successful with the new
technology will be forced out. Granted, some will find other ways to stay in business, with or without
genetic engineering, such as segregating, marketing and/or retailing their product. However, typical
farmers (who do not directly market to the consumer the commodity they produce) will continue to fiercely
compete with each other, to produce at an inflation- adjusted lower cost, to operate larger farms but own
less of them, and to adopt efficiency-enhancing technology.
TRAINING NEW EMPLOYEES FOR PRODUCTIVITY AND LONGEVITY ON YOUR FARM
Ernie Oelker
The Ohio State University, Extension Agent
Trumbull County

Who ever heard of training a dairy farm employee? Don't you just hire people who already have the skills
and experience that you need? Perhaps not. It appears that candidates for dairy farm jobs are increasingly
less likely to have valuable experience. Besides, every dairy farm is different, so it is important that all new
employees have adequate training and orientation in order to get off to a good start. Good training can
eliminate many mistakes. Well-trained employees have better morale and improved performance compared
to those who are forced to learn from their mistakes. Many of the mistakes dairy farm employees make are
due to inadequate training and unclear expectations of job performance. Good managers provide training for
every employee, new as well as experienced ones.

Training

Loosely defined, training is any attempt to improve current or future performance by increasing employee
ability. Training consists of planned programs designed to improve performance at the individual, group,
and/or organizational levels. Improved performance, in turn, implies measurable changes in knowledge,
skills, attitudes, and/or social behavior.

The purpose of training is to:
- Promote high performance. Well trained workers get more work done with less effort.
- Increase productivity. Fewer mistakes mean fewer accidents, lower costs and less down time.
- Enhance workforce flexibility. Well trained workers are more confident in their abilities and skills. They are less afraid to tackle new responsibilities or to fill in for co-workers.
- Improve worker commitment. Workers who see the commitment you make to their success show more commitment to their role in the success of your business.
- Lower absenteeism and worker turnover. Well trained workers get more satisfaction from their work. Job satisfaction is more important than pay rate in keeping workers happy and productive.
There are three main types of training. Each plays an important role in getting workers prepared to do a
job and keeping them motivated and effective.

Orientation

Generally, dairy farm managers take time to show new recruits around the operation, introduce them to
other employees and management team members. Sometimes it works better to have a trusted employee do
the orientation of new hires. Orientation is extremely important to the overall training program. Orientation
is the introduction of the new employee to the organization, the industry, the requirements of the job, the
social situation in which he or she will be working, and the organizations culture. Therefore, orientation
must be much more than just Ashowing the new employee around. Orientation is the time to help the new
employee adapt to your operation and become assimilated into the social structure of the workplace. The
overall goal is to help new employees learn about their new work environment.

1. Create a Favorable First Impression
A. Provide sufficient information about when and where to report for work.

B. Get all relevant paperwork handled efficiently.
C. Have personable and efficient people to assist with orientation.

2. Enhance interpersonal acceptance
A. Ease the employee=s entry into the work group.
B. Assure proper orientation to the management team and procedures.
C. Consider a buddy" or mentoring system to insure interaction of newcomers and Ainsiders.

3. Increase individual and organizational performance.
A. Reduce adjustment problems by creating sense of security, confidence and belonging.
B. Employees perform better because they learn faster.
C. Employees exhibit stronger loyalty through greater commitment to values and goals.
D. Lower absenteeism.
E. Higher job satisfaction.

The following orientation check list may help you to do a more thorough job of covering the important
things new employees need to know:

A. Organization and policies
B. Insurance benefits
C. Other benefits
D. First day schedule and duties
E. Location of important facilities
F. Working hours
G. Pay policy
H. Employees' second day activities and schedule
I. Employees' first two weeks activities and schedule
J. Other items
K. Opportunity for reorientation

Specific Job Training

The second type of training is specific job training. This is where you or your manager train the new
employee to do his or her specific job. You need to decide on some important issues before you structure the
training program for new employees:

A. What are the training needs for this person for this job? (What level of skill does the applicant have
now, and what level is required to do the job?) Consult job descriptions for each position.
B. How and where is the teaching to be done?
C. What methods or type of training will be used for each task?
D. What are the acceptable levels of performance for this person in the position?

Now that you have decided what, how, and where training needs to be done, it is time to prepare your
training plan. Dr. Bernie Erven, Ohio State University Extension Specialist in Human Resource
Development, uses a simple approach to help trainers get their message across effectively. He calls it
"Prepare, Tell, Show, Do, Review."

The following are the steps that Dr. Erven suggests:

1. Prepare or motivate the trainee to improve his or her performance.
2. Tell or clearly illustrate the desired skills you want the trainee to learn.
3. Show the trainee what you want done by doing it for them.
4. Have the trainee DO the task and practice it until he or she is comfortable with it. Encourage the trainee
to ask questions.
5. Review and provide timely feedback on the trainee=s performance during the training and during the first
weeks of work.
6. Provide reinforcement while the trainee learns.
7. Structure the training from simple to complex tasks.
8. Be adaptable to solve learner problems.
9. Make sure the trainee makes a positive transfer from the training to the job.

Retraining

The third important type of training is retraining. Retraining is training to overcome initial training
deficiencies or to prepare workers for job changes, new routines, or new equipment. Every training program
should include provisions for retraining. In order to assess the need for retraining, you must evaluate the
performance of your employees. Besides helping you to determine the needs for retraining, evaluation of
employee performance is important in determining wage increases and motivating them to continued high
performance. A good training program is important in developing and retaining productive, happy
employees on your farm.
AND THE WINNER OF THE 2005 DARWIN AWARD IS...

Normand St-Pierre, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University

Summary

The Darwin Awards go annually to people who have shown incredible, stupid behavior and an apparent
complete disregard for basic common sense. The human species is better served by having their genes
removed from the gene pool. At times, the dairy industry in the Tri-State area shows behavior worthy of a
Darwin Award. The area is blessed with an unmatched array of natural resources and is located strategically
next to large, growing dairy markets. Despite these natural blessings, the area has progressively lost market
share of the growing national milk supply. To remain a long-term, viable and competitive dairy region, our
industry must address issues of structure, economic impact, animal waste, research, and leadership.

Have you ever heard of the Darwin Awards? For those who have not, these awards are given to those who,
out of their own stupidity, are improving the human species by removing their genes from the gene pool.
Some of the nominees for 1999 include the following.

Nominee No. 1, from the San Jose Mercury News: An unidentified man, using a shotgun like a club to
break a former girlfriend's windshield, accidentally shot himself to death when the gun discharged, blowing
a hole in his chest.

Nominee No. 2, from the Kalamazoo Gazette: James Burns, 34, a mechanic from Alamo, Michigan, was
killed as he was trying to repair what police described as a "farm-type truck". Burns got a friend to drive the
truck down the highway while Burns hung underneath so that he could ascertain the source of the troubling
noise. Burns' clothes caught on something, however, and the other man found Burns "wrapped around the
drive shaft".

Nominee No. 3, from the Hickory Daily Record: Ken Charles Barger, 47, accidentally shot himself to death
in Newton, NC. Awakening to the sound of a ringing telephone beside his bed, he reached for the phone,
but grabbed instead a Smith & Wesson 0.38 Special, which discharged when he drew it to his ear.

Nominee No. 4, from the Indianapolis Star: Sheriff investigators said that Gregory David Pryor died in his
parent's rural Dunkirk home while cleaning a 54-caliber muzzle loader that had not been firing properly.
The gunpowder ignited and the weapon discharged in his face when he used a cigarette lighter to look into
the barrel.

Nominee No. 5, from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette: Two local men were injured seriously when their
pick-up truck left the road and struck a tree near Cotton Patch on State Highway 38. Thurston Poole and
Billy Ray Wallis were returning home after a frog-gigging trip. Poole's pick-up truck headlights
malfunctioned due to a burned out headlight fuse. A replacement fuse was not available, but Wallis
noticed that a 0.22 caliber bullet from his pistol fit perfectly into the fuse box located next to the steering
wheel column. Upon inserting the bullet, the headlights began to operate and the two men proceeded
eastbound toward White River Bridge. After traveling approximately 20 miles and just before crossing the
river, the bullet apparently overheated, discharged and struck Poole in the right testicle. The vehicle
swerved sharply to the right and struck a tree. Poole suffered only minor cuts and abrasions from the
accident, but will require surgery to repair the wound. Wallis sustained a broken clavicle. Upon being
notified of the wreck, Poole's wife Lavinia asked how many frogs the boys had caught, and whether anyone had gotten them from the truck.

What is the connection between the Darwin Awards and the Tri-State Dairy Industry? As you read the list
of nominees for 1999, you must have realized that in all instances the nominees ended up on the list because
they failed to realize in time the potential negative impact of their actions. As you read through, surely you
must have thought "how can someone be so stupid?" Well, as I look at the behavior of our industry in
Indiana, Michigan and Ohio, I am sometimes very worried that we are positioning ourselves to receive a
Darwin Award in 5 or 10 years from now.

From a natural resource standpoint, the Tri-State Area possesses the critical elements to foster a dynamic
dairy industry. The climate is near ideal to dairy production. Crop production is extensive and the
availability of good quality feedstuffs rarely is questioned. In all three states, the dairy infrastructure ranges
from adequate to extensive. Land Grant Universities and other colleges offer a wide range of programs to
address the needs of the industry. The combined milk production in all three states, estimated at 12 billion
pounds in 1998, meets only 80% of the 15 billion pounds of the total milk demand of its growing
population. The dairy processing sector is extensive and easily could handle substantially more milk. South
and east of us is a region experiencing a constant milk production decline combined with a steady increase
in population. Currently, the Southeast must import over 3 billion pounds of milk per year just to supply its
demand for fluid milk. This deficit in fluid milk is projected to keep increasing for years to come. Our
states are strategically located to capture this growing market. However, we have failed to grow our
industry to even follow the national pace of growth in demand for dairy products. In 1970, Indiana,
Michigan and Ohio produced 11.4 billion pounds of milk altogether, or 9.7% of the total national milk
supply In 1996, the same three states produced 11.9 billion pounds of milk, or 7.8% of the national
production. I don't know of any business that can continuously loose market share and expect to remain
viable in the long-term. Our industry is sometimes hopelessly divided on issues that shouldn't be issues in
the first place. Many, if not most, are content with myopic solutions equivalent to using 0.22 caliber bullets
as fuse replacements because "they work", that is, they keep the headlights on...... Until.........
TRAINING DAIRY FARM WORKERS
Introduction

What do you like to do that you don't do well Easy question for most people! Nothing! Now imagine having your first job on a dairy farm and not knowing how to do what you have been hired to do. Most people gain more satisfaction from doing a job well than stumbling along on their own trying to learn. New employees need and want training.
The importance of training programs has increased dramatically. Margins for acceptable error have decreased. Equipment has become more complicated. Farm work is complex. People with all the necessary skills and experience for success cannot be hired Many new employees were not raised on a farm. New employees who have worked for another dairy farmer are likely to bring habits that need to be changed. Training is essential!

Getting Ready to Train

Dairy farmers should separate getting ready to train from doing the actual training. Trainers are often so experienced in what they are teaching that taking time to prepare for training seems like a waste of time. "I don't have time to prepare" or "I know this job so well I don't need to think about how to teach it" are usually foolish attitudes. Muddled instructions increase the time spent on training.

Confusion causes frustration for both trainer and employee.

Two important questions guide preparation for training. First, what is the objective of the training? Define specifically what the workers are to know or be able to do at the conclusion of the training. Does the new milker need to know how to do preventive maintenance on the milking equipment? Does the tractor driver need to know how do determine when a field is too wet to work? An acceptable level of performance and timetable for the training should also be established. What is excellent work? Is anything less than excellent acceptable? What is the difference between good enough and excellent? Who will notice or care about how well a job is done?

Second, what are the principal steps in the task and in what sequence should they be done? Analyzing each task can be helpful. Develop tips to make the job easier to do, to do more quickly and to do with less frustration. Keep in mind that a new worker needs help that builds on what he or she now can or cannot do.

Having determined the objectives of the training and the principal steps in the job, the trainer is ready to prepare equipment, materials, learning aids and the work place for the actual training. Stopping training to look for equipment or supplies leaves the learner suspicious that the trainer is careless or incompetent or both.

The actual training of a new employee can be aided by a five-step teaching method:

1. PREPARE the learner. Learners are prepared when they are at ease, understand why they need to learn the task, are interested in learning, have the confidence that they can learn and the trainer can teach. The most important part of learner preparation is creating a need to know or desire to learn. Each of the following is helpful in preparing the learner: show enthusiasm for the task, relate the task to what the learner already knows and help the learner envision being an expert in the task. It also helps to add fun and prestige to the task and to associate the task with respected co-workers.

2. TELL the learner about each step or part of the task.

3. SHOW the learner how to do each step. In demonstrating the task, explain each step emphasizing the key points and more difficult steps. Remember the little and seemingly simple parts of the task. Get the learner involved by asking questions about what is being shown.

4. Have the learner DO each step of the task while being observed by the trainer. Ask the learner to explain each step as it is performed. If steps or parts of the task are omitted, reexplain the steps and have the learner repeat them. Then have the learner do the steps without the trainer observing.

5. REVIEW each step or part of the task with the learner, offering encouragement, constructive criticism and additional pointers on how to do the job. Be frank and honest in the appraisal. Encourage the learner toward self- appraisal.
These five steps work! They help create an ideal learning situation based on the following guidelines and assumptions:
- All employees can learn.
- Trainers should make learning an active process.
- Learners need and want guidance and direction.
- Learning should be step-by-step.
- Learners need time to practice.
- Learning should be varied to avoid boredom.
- Learners gain satisfaction from their learning.
- Trainers should encourage and reinforce learner progress.
- Learning does not occur at a steady rate, i.e., plateaus follow spurts of progress.
- Getting Started
Improved training offers dairy farm managers a way to increase employee job satisfaction and progress. Deciding what can be accomplished through better training is a good starting point. Creating a positive environment for learning helps both the trainer and the employees. Preparing before jumping in avoids confusion and frustration. Using a five-step method, Prepare-Tell- Show-Do-Review, steers both trainers and employees toward greater success.
A Few Tactical Changes to Improve Your Bottom-Line

Normand St-Pierre
Department of Animal Sciences

We all know that current milk prices are ... well... dismal. And there are no sign of much relief on that front anytime soon. But milk price is only one component of the net income equation. The number of cows being milked, their daily milk production and the costs incurred to produce that milk are all as important as milk price in the determination of net farm income. So, what are some of the things that you can do to improve your bottom line during these low milk price times?

1. If you are using BST, you should use it on a high proportion of the herd. Either BST is profitable for you, or else it is not. If it is, then use it to its fullest. You wouldn't milk only the front quarters on your best cows. Then don't do the same with technology.

2. Milk the same number of cows, but go to a 3X-milking schedule. Going 3X is a great cash flow enhancer because it doesn't require any additional fixed capital assets (buildings, machinery, equipment, etc...). It is however, a pain on the management!

3. Milk more cows 2X compared to milking fewer cows at 3X. Milking facilities are used more efficiently when a parlor is fully used on a 2X schedule.

4. Raise your replacement heifers so that they freshen by 23 months of age, weighing 1,250 lbs (after freshening), for less than $1,200.

5. Feed your lactating herd for less than $4.00/cwt of milk. Do a critical assessment of all the feed additives that you may be using. Review feed shrink during storage and feeding.

6. Make extensive use of soil and feed analyses for balancing crops and feeding programs. Check the moisture of you ensiled forage on a weekly basis.

7. Overcrowd pens according to animal performance. A four-row barn can support more overcrowding than a six-row barn. High groups can be stocked up to 110% of capacity (number of stalls). Low groups can tolerate up to 125% of capacity. Many factors affect the maximum pen capacity. So be careful with this one.

8. Use only one person in the parlor for as many hours as possible. Keep distraction out of the parlor. This includes the "cow pusher". We have made many measurements of cow throughput in Ohio parlors and the one rule that seems to be universal is that cow throughput drops when the cow pusher steps in the parlor "to help". Tell him to drink coffee if he has nothing else to do. Your parlor operation will improve the more coffee he drinks!

9. Mark December 4, 2000 on your calendar. This is when you should attend the second Ohio Dairy Conference and learn on more ways to improve your operation and its profitability.
Progressive Dairy Producers Begin 2000 Membership Drive

Deb Ayers, PDPO Treasurer, Perrysville, OH

Progressive Dairy Producers of Ohio (PDPO) is currently working on membership for 2000. Active membership fees for new members will be $50 per herd and $0.50 per mature cow over 100 cows. Current members renewing their membership within 90 days after receipt of the renewal reminder will be eligible to save $25 on their renewed membership. The renewal reminder will be sent in the near future. All active members, new or renewals, will also be credited $50 towards conferences that PDPO sponsors throughout the year. OSU dairy students will be eligible for a free associate membership, which will be valid as long as they are students. All members will receive a membership card and certificate.

Many of you will be receiving more information regarding PDPO membership in the mail. For more information, please contact Deb Ayers at (419) 928-7707 (email: dcdairy@bright.net) or Dale Arbaugh at (740) 946-5212 (email: arbavue@eohio.net).
Third Annual Dairy Farm Employee Short Course

The Third Annual DAIRY FARM EMPLOYEE SHORT COURSE will be held March 15-17 at the Agricultural Technical Institute in Wooster, OH. The Short Course is designed for recently hired dairy farm employees or individuals pursuing work as dairy farm employees. Participants can select from either the milking or feeding management modules. First-time participants must attend all three days, but individuals having previously attended can choose another module and attend on March 16 only. The registration fee is $235 for 3 days and $120 for March 16 only. For additional information, contact Tom Noyes, Extension Dairy Agent, 330-264-8722 or Jan Elliott, ATI Continuing Education, 330-264-3911 Ext. 1220.

Price Outlook

Cameron S. Thraen
Agricultural, Environmental, and Developmental Economics, The Ohio State University
Dairy Economist, Extension Specialist

The Class IV market continues to be the driver for the class prices. Cheese is now moving to government storehouses in the form of processed cheese product. CME Class III futures contract prices continue to trade between $9.58 for the nearby to a high of $12.62 for the October contract. Cow numbers and cow productivity continue to keep prices low. The USDA released its long-term rainfall report this week and forecast a widening drought across much of the Corn Belt. Prepare for the worst with low milk prices and high feed prices this summer.?

Here is a look at the Advanced Prices for April 2000.

Butter/lb	Nonfat Dry Milk/lb	Cheese/lb	Whey/lb
0.9264	1.0091	1.1073	0.1789

NASS Prices to Component Prices

Butterfat	Nonfat Solids	Protein	Other Solids
0.9907	0.8550	1.9461	0.0433

Compoment Prices to Class Prices

Class I & II Mover	Class I Price	Class II Skim	Class II Solids
$7.70 cwt	$10.90 cwt	$8.40 cwt	$0.9333 lb

Should I Sell My Development Rights?

Jim Skeeles
Extension Ag Agent, Agriculture & Natural Resources/Community Development
Lorain County

First, let's make sure we know what it means to sell development rights.

What does selling development rights mean Most of us own real estate as fee simple. If you own your property fee simple, in general you own that property and can do with it what you wish. In other words, none of your property rights have been "officially" dolled out. However, it is common to divvy out property rights, either officially or unofficially. Property rights are officially separated when recorded as such at the courthouse. Title searches are conducted to discover any property rights that have been officially dolled out. Cash rents, crop share lease, oil and gas leasing and easements are examples where property rights have been dolled out.

The right to build on open land, or the right to develop open land can be separated from your other property rights and given, leased or sold. Development rights can be given, leased or sold to another individual, to a trust that holds land rights (often called a land trust) or to a public entity such as a park district, township, county, state or federal agency.

Can you sell your development rights?

Some farmers on the east and West Coast have had the opportunity to sell their development rights to a public entity that holds a "conservation easement." But no farmers in the middle of the U.S. have thus far had that option. So, most of us, even if we wanted to, could not sell our development rights. There has been no one to buy our development rights, even if we were willing to sell. However, that may change for those in Medina County this March election day! Medina County has a quarter percent property tax on the ballot. If the tax passes, Medina County farmers will be the first in the state of Ohio that will have the opportunity to sell their development rights. The Medina County issue will be the first test in Ohio to see if the public is willing to pay their tax dollars to purchase your development rights. If the Medina County issue passes, who knows, your county may be next.

How can you sell development rights, if you ever can?

Let's suppose the quarter percent property tax is approved in Medina County. Farmers will then be asked to make application to sell their development rights each year. The properties put forth on the application will then be assessed. An offer to purchase development rights will be made for only a portion of the properties submitted that year. It may take years before Joe Farmer in Medina County has the opportunity to sell his development rights. Even on the east and West Coast where development right purchase programs have been in place for years, farmers who would like to sell their development rights have not yet had the opportunity.

How much will development rights sell for?

Development rights will sell just as other property rights have sold, for what the market will bear. Development right purchase agencies on the east and West Coast have had more development rights offered for sale than the agencies have had dollars to purchase. Therefore, generally farmers are asked to "bid down" the purchase price so agencies can purchase more development rights per dollar.

The maximum most agencies have paid for development rights has been the difference between the value for farming and the value for development. Current Agriculture Use Value (CAUV) is assigned to farmland in Ohio according to soil type and a rolling average of crop prices. CAUV is most frequently used as the value of land for farming and can easily be obtained from the county auditor's office. Development value is considered to be essentially the current sale price and is best estimated by an appraiser by assigning a value similar to that of like properties that have sold recently. If CAUV value is $1,000 and the appraised value is $4,000 per acre, the
corresponding value of development rights would be $3,000.

Should you sell your development rights if you can?

Most farmers I have talked to will not consider selling their development rights unless the farmer and his or her heirs are able to and willing to continue farming well into the future, through future generations. So, development rights should not be sold in hopes of making a non-viable farming operation into a viable one. A one time cash infusion seldom turns an unprofitable farm into one that is profitable. If the farm isn't making money now chances are it still won't be making money after the proceeds from the sale of development rights are gone.

Once development rights are sold the right to develop or to sell for development is not available to future generations. The benefit derived by this generation may be at the expense of future generations, especially if a future generation chooses not to or is unable to continue farming. Therefore, careful evaluation needs to be done concerning the next generation's ability and willingness to continue farming. To stay in business the next generation must be better managers and more savvy businessmen or women than were the older generation. The next generation will be farming in an increasingly competitive future agriculture.

Because of the possible negative impact on future generations it is more important that junior generation(s) be comfortable with the sale of development rights than the senior generation. At the very least, if and when the sale of development rights becomes possible, the senior generation should not consider sale without conferring with the junior generation.
Safety Training

Terry Beck
Agriculture and Natural Resources Agent, The Ohio State University Extension
Wayne County

What do you tell your new employees about safety? The old timers I have talked to say that their safety training was, There is the shovel, there is the pile, now get busy Not much of an orientation on farm safety!

By now everyone has heard that agriculture is one of the most dangerous occupations. So, why would a farm business skip a safety orientation for someone new on the job? Would a good reason be no time to do it? How about, I was smart enough to still have all my fingers so you should be too! Obviously, it may be hard to find a valid reason to ignore safety training for farm employees.

Everyone has a close call safety story; here is mine. I was 14. The family had been baling hay all day. It was 5 p.m. and it was time to quit, if for no other reason than everyone was hungry. I went with my uncle to get the last load of hay in the field. The wagon that we were loading was a metal floor wagon that had a floating metal bed with a great ability to tip. I do not know if it was made that way or not, but I remember the day we got rid of it and there were no tears shed! Anyway, I helped hitch the wagon to the tractor and climbed up on top of the hay for the ride home. After all, riding on a Farmall 300 as the second person is dangerous! The field had steep hills and as we crossed the hillside the wagon tilted and sliding off came the hay about two tiers at a time and I rode it down to the ground. Wheee! I did not even have time to think about jumping it happened so fast! I have a vivid picture to this day of my uncle's face as he watched the hay and me go towards the ground! I think the tilt bed wagon saved the tractor from being tipped. It never crossed my mind as a 14 year old that the wagon would tip. After all, my uncle had enough skill and had been working in that field for years and nothing had ever happened! After he saw that I was okay his next thought was probably how do we get this all reloaded without anyone seeing it!

Cute story, but what is the point? The point is this: do farms give their family members employee safety orientations? I am going to let that topic go, but do not forget the family when it comes to safety.

Incorporating safety into the first day training tells an employee that he or she is important to the operation and you do not want them to hurt themselves. If a new employee is just part-time this adds more complexity on just how much training is needed.

We need to be honest and remember that most employees on their first day are concerned about when they will get paid, where is the break room and where do they fit in. That does not lend itself to meaningful safety training.

More safety training is retained when it is done in small doses. Yes, the first day should include the general/specific job rules and reasons for the rules. One might have to tell employees that they are not trained to do certain things and cannot do the work until fully trained. Employees should be told to report near misses, potential hazards and accidents. Above all, be sure the message comes across to the employee that safety is serious business and that all accidents are preventable.

A trusted veteran employee is also a good trainer to help the employee learn the job for the first couple of days. He should be someone the employee can ask questions to and ensure that the new employee can work safely.
After the first couple of days you will need to touch base with the new employee. Is the employee following the rules and instructions that are given? If it is a simple misunderstanding, retraining is necessary. If not, a heart to heart talk is needed. A farm business does not need the heartache of the accident that a careless employee can cause. Weed out the non-compliant, non-motivated employees early! We all have heard the saying about someone owning the farm. Just be sure it does not become a reality!

After a couple of days a refresher is in order. You or a trusted employee can ask some simple questions to see if the new hire retained the information provided the first day. Ask them questions that pertain to their job. Where is smoking permitted, what should they do if they saw someone unconscious in a silo, a machine guard off and the like. When they get their first paycheck is a good time to review safety. It may not hurt to link the concept of safety with money.

Further training will depend upon how long the employee is hired for and what their specific job(s) will be.

I wish I could give a long list of safety training rules but everyone needs to make up their own depending on the situation. On a farm there are many areas to be aware of safety, fire extinguisher use, working around large equipment, large animals, chemicals, shop work, and so on.

Do not skip some form of safety training and bet the farm that nothing will happen!
Is Your Herd Positioned for Profit?

John M. Smith, Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Community Development Agent, The Ohio State University Extension
Auglaize County

Is Your Herd Positioned for Profit?
John M. Smith
OSU Extension, Auglaize County
Agriculture & NRCD

With the current price of milk, dairymen must take a serious look at their operations. A total effort must be made to reduce costs and improve profits. Herds that produce profit usually have many things in common:

1. Good Forages  Forage quality must be consistent and high quality. It is very expensive to upgrade poor forages with other feeds.

2. Clean, Fresh Water Water is the cheapest most important nutrient and the one most often ignored. Big, high producing cows will drink up to 50 gallons per day in the summer. A good place to have a water tank is in the parlor return alley. Many cows will drink heavily returning from the parlor. Cows will drink more warm water (70oF) than they will cold water (55oF). If they won't or can't drink water, they can't make milk. At times it helps to add water to rations. Many herds do add up to 5 pounds of water per cow to the total mixed ration and find that the cows eat the feed better. However, try to keep the ration consistent at about 50% moisture.

3. Low Somatic Cell Count and Good Milking Techniques  High SCCs indicate hidden production losses and could be due to many causes: poor milking habits; milking equipment not working properly; free stalls that need cleaned, repaired, bedded or not designed properly; untreated mastitis, etc.

4. Good Genetics  The genetics of a herd can make a 25% difference in production. AI all heifers and cows.

5. Good Heat Detection  Without it you cannot have a successful breeding program.

6. Maintain and Use Accurate Records  Records of production, financial, herd health, breeding and feeding. Without the use of good records, a herd manager is lost.

7. Know How Much You Are Feeding and Where It Is Going  Errors of up to 25% are common on some farms. This is not only expensive, but can be very wasteful. A mixer with a scale can be one of your best management tools. Many farms have a 10-15% feed wastage at the feed bunk due to improper design or repair of the feed bunk.

8. Have a Sound Dry Cow Program  This part of the lactation/gestation is extremely important to the next lactation. If a cow does not calve properly, due to a poor dry cow program, she will not milk well or breed back easily. This is one area that is too often ignored.

9. Cull Unprofitable Cows  If a cow is not making you money, you can't afford to keep her.
Environmental Streptococcal Mastitis

J. S. Hogan and K. L. Smith, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Introduction

Environmental streptococci have emerged as pathogens that uniquely affect mammary health as a primary cause of both subclinical and clinical mastitis. The bovine mammary gland appears to be most susceptible to environmental streptococcal intramammary infections during the dry period and early lactation. The importance of the dry period in control of environmental streptococcal mastitis can not be over emphasized. Rate of new IMI during the dry period is 5.5 fold greater than the rate during lactation in a total confinement herds practicing total dry cow therapy. The rate of new infection is not constant across the dry period, but is elevated during the 2 weeks following drying off and the 2 weeks prior to calving. Dry cow therapy reduces the rate of new environmental streptococcal infections during the early dry period. The high rates of new infection following drying off may relate to the lack of flushing action due to milking, changes occurring in the composition of the mammary secretion that appear to enhance streptococcal growth , and/or the lack of a keratin plug in the streak canal. The increase in susceptibility to infection in the two weeks prior to parturition may reflect the absence of milking when the gland is accumulating fluid, loss of keratin plugs from streak canals, or immunosuppression associated with the pariparturient period. Conventional dry cow therapy has no effect on rates of infection prior to calving and prepartum teat dipping was reported to be of little or no value. The environmental streptococci are a frequent cause of mastitis in heifers at calving and heifers generally suffer as many infections at calving as do older cows.

During lactation, the incidence of clinical mastitis is greatest the first week after calving and decreased throughout the first 305 d in milk. Interestingly, rate of environmental streptococcal clinical cases increases in cows with extended lactations (>305 d) to that comparable of cows in peak lactation. Therefore, the use of management practices that encourage the use of extended calving intervals, thus a larger percentage of cows with > 305 d in milk, may impact the prevalence of environmental streptococcal mastitis in a herd.
Agricultural Reflections

Ben Schmidt
OSU Extension Agent, Paulding Co.

Every once in a while we should stop and reflect on life and the world around us. It is really important to have time to reflect so that one can put things in perspective. It just so happens that I have been doing a lot of reflection on agriculture lately.

The reason that I have been spending some time thinking about agriculture should come as no surprise to most people. Agriculture is changing. You know what, it has been changing for the past 50 years or even longer. Parts of agriculture are undertaking changes that any rational business would do in a capitalistic system; they are becoming more efficient in order to maintain profitability while producing a commodity product.
Large farms (or factory farms as some like to call them) have been forming as early as the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Actually, farms have been consolidating. Do you know who created some of the first large farms? Grain producers. Think about vegetable producers; they have some rather large farms! But, do we consider grain and vegetable farms factory farms? We should if we are to label medium-large sized livestock farms as factory farms. Grain producers are efficient and, after all, that is what a factory is all about.

Ohio livestock farms began to consolidate in the 1980s because consumers demanded low-cost, high-quality products. First to consolidate in the livestock sector were the chicken farms, followed by turkey farms, then beef and pork. Currently, dairy farms are catching up with the rest of the agricultural community. Why are dairy farms consolidating? For the same reasons that grain and other livestock farms consolidated: efficiency. Do you know who is contributing to farm consolidation Take a look in the mirror and you'll find the answer.

Consumers are one of the most powerful forces in our economy. Consumers can make or break a business by choosing to buy or not to buy a product. From choices that they make, consumers are casting a vote for or against a certain business. Consumers are, in effect, creating large farms from the choices that they make and the products they demand. That's a huge responsibility that was given to every consumer by the founders of this country we call the United States of America. Do YOU know where the milk that you buy comes from? The grocery store is not a valid answer! Do you know where the chicken that you buy comes from? Do you know the origin of the cotton that was used to make your shirts? Do you get the idea? When you buy a product, you support how it was produced.
Ohio Will Host the Professional Heifer Growers

Thomas Noyes
OSU Extension Wayne County

The Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association was established in 1997 at the National Meeting of Dairy Heifer Growers in Atlanta, Georgia. Today there are almost 500 members including heifer growers, veterinarians, extension and industry representatives. This rapidly growing and important organization has as their mission:

Heifer growers dedicated to growing high quality dairy replacements.

One of the goals of the organization is to provide educational programs and professional development opportunities for heifer growers. That opportunity will be available on November 1 & 2, 2000 in Akron, Ohio. The northeast region of the Professional Heifer Growers Association has planned an excellent meeting and tour to be held at the Radisson Hotel, Akron City Centre.

The program will begin the evening of October 31 with a dinner and program Getting Started as a Heifer Grower with Dr. John Foley, Cargill Dairy Nutrition. The conference on November 1 will begin at 8:30 a.m. and conclude with an evening dinner and a presentation by Maynard Moen of Land O'Lakes on facility options. Conference speakers will discuss transportation stress, Johnes, biosecurity, vaccinations, contracts and a panel of growers.

On November 2 will be an optional tour of area heifer operations. Tour stops will include: heifer grower Ray Ruprecht raising heifers for a high producing Holstein herd; the 1100 cow herd at Stoll Farm's calf facility; the 600 head contract raiser Orrson Farms; and heifers in a grazing system at the Doug Billman farm.

Registration for the conference, if made before October 1, is $35 and after October 1 is $45. The evening dinner and program is $20 and the farm tour is $25. The pre-conference symposium is $20. For a program brochure and registration information, contact your local extension office or contact Tom Noyes at the Wayne County Extension office at 330-264-8722.
Cost of Production Records: The First Key to Marketing Management

Ernie Oelker
Trumbull County, Extension Agent

Total economic cost of production is a very important number that all dairy farmers should carefully monitor. According to Dr. Cameron Thraen, Dairy Marketing Specialist, Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, Ohio State University, without knowing your costs of production, there is no way you can answer this question: What is a good milk price? Having a sound working knowledge of your farms total economic cost (cash and non-cash) of producing a hundredweight of milk is key to formulating a good marketing risk management program.

Cost of production includes physical capital (facilities and equipment), labor, energy, livestock, feed costs and all other costs incurred in producing the total output of the dairy farm. The total economic cost includes all opportunity costs of land ownership, foregone interest on your equity, and the opportunity cost of unpaid owner and family labor. Proper costing treats the dairying activity as a separate enterprise and does not commingle costs from other farming operations such as crop or forage production, heifer raising, etc. Only the actual costs of producing milk should be included.

In today's agricultural environment, dairy farmers face substantial risks which arise from many different sources. The USDA's Risk Management Education program identifies five primary sources of risk: 1) production risk, 2) financial risk, 3) legal risk, 4) human resource risk, and 5) marketing risk. Marketing risk is the risk associated with unexpected changes in input and output prices. It is the risk associated with not having a marketing plan and with not knowing your costs of production of milk.

I have been privileged to be part of a team of Extension professionals which planned and conducted a series of meetings on dairy farm risk management. We presented information on dairy farm risk assessment and put participants through a series of exercises designed to help them work with dairy farmers to complete dairy farm risk assessments. The participants in these workshops (about 50 in total) represent agricultural credit organizations, farm service and supply industry, and veterinarians. They were quite serious in their participation in the risk assessment workshops. They seemed to be in agreement that risk assessment on dairy farms is a serious challenge and that more needs to be done to help dairy farm management teams deal with the issue of risk, especially price risk.

Marketing or price risk is one of the most important areas your management team should address. Since market forces (not government policy) control the prices you will receive for your milk, you need to learn how to protect your business against price fluctuations, because these fluctuations are a fact of life. Understanding the milk pricing system will help you to understand the monthly fluctuations in your milk check. But, understanding is not enough! You need to know your costs of production and use the milk marketing tools available to you to lock in a profit margin, or at least cover production costs during times of low prices.

I suggest that you work with your cooperative field representative or your local Extension agent to find out more about dairy futures options. Become familiar with the terminology of milk marketing; basis, hedging, margin accounts, etc., and begin to explore the alternatives available. Next, try some on paper transactions to see how these tools could work for you. As you learn about the new milk pricing system and the marketing tools available, get a system in place to help you determine your total actual costs of production per cwt. Information is power. Collect it and use it to improve your profitability.
Dangerous Gases and Fires Can Make Silos Death Traps

John M. Smith
Auglaize Co., Ext. Agt.

This is the time of year when farmers begin storing their silage feeds for the coming winter. And their silos can become towers of death if safety practices are not followed carefully.

Silos can be dangerous in two serious ways. They can become cylinders of highly toxic gases as well as the site of fires and explosions.

Toxic gases are a side effect of the necessary process that turns green plant materials into silage. Silage is formed by natural chemical fermentation that takes place in the chopped materials. Fermentation begins shortly after the plant material is placed into the silo.

During the ensiling process, several gases -- including carbon dioxide, methane and nitric oxide are released. All of these can seriously threaten human and animal life. Normally, they are present in low enough concentrations in silos such that they are not of great concern. The real danger, however, occurs when nitric oxide combines with oxygen. The resulting gas, nitrogen dioxide, is highly toxic and can cause death or permanent lung damage.

Nitrogen gases have a disagreeable odor and range in color from red to orange and dark brown. Also, because these gases are heavier than air, they will naturally settle to the lowest possible level, near the silage surface level. Therefore, great caution should be taken when working near the base of a tower silo during the first few weeks after filling.

Caution should also be exercised when working in barns and stables located near a recently filled silo. These can become death traps for man and animal when nitrogen gases are present. The greatest danger occurs one to three days after harvest, but can continue for up to three weeks in some situations. A potential toxic gas hazard also exists when silos are being opened the first time for feeding.
Unfortunately, it is possible to work in the presence of toxic silo gases for some time without ever feeling major discomfort. The resulting lung damage, however, may cause death just a few hours later. No one should assume that they are safe just because they have not been affected by silo gases in the past.

OSU offers the following GAS-SAFETY RULES FOR SILO WORKERS:

1) Run the silage blower for 15 or 20 minutes before entering a partially filled tower silo. Keep the blower running while anyone is within the structure.

2) It's best to stay out of the silo for two weeks after filling. Never enter a silo under any circumstances without a safety harness and unless someone else is nearby.

3) Leave the blower pipe close to the silage level to draw off gas.

4) At the slightest indication of coughing or throat irritation, get out of the silo and into the fresh air at once. Immediate medical attention will reduce lung damage and stop pneumonia from developing.

5) Keep children and animals away from the silo during the filling period and for at least one week afterward.

6) Keep the door between the silo room and the barn closed during the danger period to protect livestock.

7) Ventilate the silo room for at least two weeks after filling the silo by opening any available outside doors and windows to carry away any toxic gases. Removing chute doors to the level of the settled silage will permit natural ventilation at the point where gas tends to concentrate.

8) If gases are present, an air line or an air backpack is a must for entering the silo. The best rule is to stay outside, but if there is a necessary reason for entering the silo use supplied air.

Besides holding deadly gases, silos can also become the sites of fires and explosions. Silo fires often result from ensiling feeds too low in moisture, usually below 45% moisture. The heating of the materials in combination with air leaks in the silo structure can permit a fire to start anywhere within the structure and to continue burning for long periods of time. Once a fire starts, it is very difficult to control or stop.

Ensiled materials should contain 50% or more moisture for safe storage in conventional tower structures and 45-48% for haylage in oxygen limiting structures. In addition, cracks and leaks at the base of the silo and silo doors should be sealed before filling. After filling, keep the silo sealed until the silage is needed.

Contact your local OSU County Extension Service offices for additional information on silo hazards and safety procedures for proper and safe handling of silo emergencies.
Using Total Quality Management to Organize Labor and Work

Chris Zoller
Extension Agent ANR/CD
Tuscawaras County

What is Total Quality Management?

Total Quality Management (TQM) is an approach to managing a business, including a dairy business. The approach is directed at attaining quality in both production and process. Although in the dairy industry quality is often thought of as an attribute of the milk produced and sold, quality also includes all parts of the farm and the people that make up the farm. TQM is not just a change in process. Rather, it represents a commitment to continual improvement of quality. The success of TQM is dependent on identifying and communicating your quality goals, understanding the systems on your dairy, defining the processes and work to achieve your quality goals. In addition, it is necessary to collect information and monitor the process to verify that you are meeting your quality goals, and making changes in processes and goals to reflect your progress toward quality. The obvious benefit of TQM to a dairy producer, regardless of herd size, is that it simplifies your work life because it defines the important farm quality goals, how they will be achieved, and what needs to be done to produce the quality product. The following example may help illustrate the use of TQM in a dairy farm business.

Organizing Work

John and Heather are third generation dairy producers milking 75 cows. They raise their own heifers and grow forages and corn. John and Heather are hard workers, but are experiencing problems. Production is not as high as it could be, the reproductive program is not working well, and improvements could be made to the facilities.

Heather and John knew they were ready for a change and saw the most important area as the reproductive program. Too many cows were open more than 120 days and John knew it was because he made the program too complicated. As John and Heather met with their veterinarian to begin work on correcting the problem, they developed a flow chart describing the breeding and conception process. They also developed goals they wanted to achieve and recorded those goals on paper.

Monitoring for Success

As they developed their plan for improving reproductive performance, John and Heather made sure to build in several areas where they could simply and effectively monitor progress. Simple graphs were used to chart progress toward achieving goals. The monitoring and records that were kept resulted in positive changes to the work process and improvement in reproductive performance. The continuous improvement through monitoring and evaluation is the essence of TQM.

TQM and Hired Labor

Some people believe that employee motivation to do a quality job is more a function of providing the tools an employee needs to accomplish the tasks or work and less a matter of psychological efforts. A good employee will fail if they do not understand what they are trying to achieve and how they should do the work to meet the goals. TQM provides structure to the job so employees can function successfully with less frustration. To make this work it is essential that employees become part of the planning team for the systems they are responsible for and receive the feedback and guidance for accomplishing their job. This TQM structure changes attitudes on the dairy from simply working to finish a job to working to achieve an outcome.

If you hire a person to manage your dairy�s reproductive program, or any other program, it will be easier for you and the hired employee if you can agree on the goals of the program, how the program will be done, and how it will be monitored. A TQM plan will establish exactly who is responsible for work and the approach allows constant feedback on job performance. A TQM plan will establish exactly who is responsible for work and the approach allows constant feedback on job performance. Importantly the employee becomes part of the team and can provide important insights on the day-to-day operation which you as a supervisor may not appreciate. The TQM plan becomes part of an employees job description and is the standard operating procedure for the dairy.

Effectively hiring and supervising employees is more complicated than developing a TQM plan but the implementation of TQM short circuits a common failure in employer-employee relationships: poor communication of job expectations. The approach helps everyone on the dairy focus on the important issues of defining and achieving outcomes.

TQM and Dairy Production

Total Quality Management is an effective tool to help you simplify and organize your dairy. It requires that you as management (whether you own 40 or 4000 cows) define your enterprise goals and organize the dairy into systems. When you define your dairy systems, then you and your employees (this includes your veterinarian, AI technician, nutritionist, crop advisor, and anyone else you contract or pay for services) will define the processes and work to meet goals. Once the programs are implemented you must have records and monitors to follow your progress. The process is continual with constant feedback and communication with all members of the team. The most difficult part of the program is setting up the time to plan and outline the approach. Ultimately the time spent will result in a more satisfying experience for both owner and employees.
Compare Your Dairy Farm With NY Dairy Farms

Jim Poulson
District Specialist Farm Management
Northeast District Extension, Wooster, OH

Ohio and New York dairy farms have many similarities. Therefore the 1999 New York dairy summary of business and financial records contains much information of interest to progressive Ohio milk producers. The NY analysis measures farm profitability, cash flow, financial performance, and costs of producing milk of 314 New York dairy farm businesses.

Labor and management income per operator measures the return to one full-time operators labor and management. In the chart below, we see that in the first 7 years of the 90s labor and management income per operator never exceeded $20,000. Labor and management income per operator in 1998 jumped to an all time high of $55,000. 1999 was also a very good year for many milk producers with labor and management income per operator of nearly $43,000.

Records are not yet available for 2000 but it is unlikely that profits were similar to 1998 or 1999. Therefore one must be careful when comparing year 2000 records with 1999 records. It is also important to note that the average herd size of participants in the summary increased from 107 cows to 224 cows during the last decade.

The three hallmarks of a successful dairy (or any business) are: knowing the quality goals of the dairy, understanding the system so that work can be described and organized to meet the dairys goals, and managing the herd and workers so that goals are met. These three processes are interdependent so that quality goals dictate how work is organized which results in a management tool for the producer and dairy consultants. One method for doing this is Total Quality Management.

Your Milk Check is Under Attack! Where are all the Federal Order 33 Pool $$'s Going?

Cameran Thraen
OSU Extension State Specialist, Marketing and Policy

In this column I am going to address an issue that should be of concern to every dairy farm family in Ohio and the Federal Order 33 marketing area. In fact it should be a great concern to each person who relies on the economic health of the dairy economy in the Mideast Federal Order 33 for their own economic well-being! First, some preliminary background short (as I can make it) and to the point. In this article I am using published data from the Federal Milk Market Order 33 Administrator Office and freely available at the Federal Order 33 internet website. I am also making a number of calculations that are approximations and are not official numbers from the Federal Order 33 reports.

Question: I have been told that dollars in my milk check are made up of two primary parts, is this correct?

Yes, this is so. In the Mideast Federal Order 33 (and those that value milk on a component basis) milk products distributed throughout the Mideast geographic take on additional value because of the classified pricing system pricing milk by how it is used by consumers Class I and Class II. This value exceeds the value of the milk in its direct component form, valuing milk by how much butterfat, protein and other solids it contains. For example, over the 14 months of January 2000 through February of 2001, the aggregate value of this "pooled" milk was $2.071 billion. Federal order language specifies that this value must be paid back to producers (after some adjustments which I will ignore because they are relatively small net adjustments). To reach this $2.071 billion dollars the amount of milk "pooled" on the Mideast Federal Order was 16.761 billion pounds or $12.76 per hundredweight. The aggregate value of the milk components shipped by dairy farmers to the Mideast Federal Order was $1.690 billion. Now the way the Federal Order accounting system works is that dairy producers (or their representatives such as Cooperatives) are paid directly for the value of the components. They are paid the $1.690 billion dollars out of a total market value of $2.071 billion dollars. This leaves an excess value (your classified pricing system at work) of $381.7 million, over and above the component value, to be divided equally across all milk in the Mideast pool. This amounts to dividing $381.7 million by 16.761 billion pounds of milk - $2.28 per hundredweight. This dollar amount is what the Federal Order terms the Producer Price Differential (again ignoring some minor adjustments). Now if we take the total pool value of $12.76 and subtract the Producer Price Differential of $2.28 we can determine that the average component value in the Mideast Federal Order 33 over this period has been $10.48. The average dairy farmer whose milk is eligible for pricing under the Federal Order provisions therefore has received his or her revenue from two sources (1) $10.48 as payment for the components that were produced and shipped and (2) $2.28 as payment for his or her share of the "producer pool value" in excess of the component value. Now before reading on, go back and read this paragraph one more time because understanding this arithmetic is critical to understanding why your milk check is under attack!

Question: OK, I understand the two sources of revenue that make-up my milk check. Now please explain how my milk check is under attack?

I thought you would never ask! As a producer of milk components you are paid directly for each pound of component that you produce and ship to market. The aggregate price you receive is determined by the pricing rules of the Federal Order system and these rules are the same and hold for every producer in each of the component-based federal orders. The total revenue you receive in each monthly milk check, for your components, is the product of the announced rate per pound and the total pounds that you ship to market. This revenue is unassailable by anyone in the market and only increases or declines as either you ship (planned or otherwise) more or less product and/or the market valuation for each of the components varies. Each dairy farmer is paid in exactly the same manner for their total value of their components expressed per hundredweight of milk. If, as a producer, you shipped precisely a standard composition of milk components, the value would be the Class III milk price. This same statement cannot be made for the excess pool value part of your milk check. The size of this revenue pie is determined by how the milk is used after it goes to the plant and is distributed throughout the Federal Order marketing area. This is unique (or used to be) to each Federal Order marketing area. A general rule is that the more milk that is sent out to consumers as Class I or II product, relative to Class III or IV product, the greater the excess pool value. Therefore, those Federal Orders, such as the Mideast Order, with a higher Class I use will have a greater excess pool value than with another Federal Order (such as the Upper Midwest) that has a much lower Class I use.

Question: How does what you just explained put my milk check dollars at risk?

For any given amount of milk that is pooled on a Federal Order, the greater the excess pool value, then the Producer Price Differential that is paid out to each dairy farmer will be higher. If a producer or their representative can find a way to get milk priced on one Federal Order which has a large excess value rather than on their own Federal Order which has a small excess value, then some of the higher Producer Price Differential revenue can be bled off and returned to these producers or representatives. This process lowers the Producer Price Differential in one Federal Order (ours) and raises it in another. The only thing that prevents this from happening are provisions within each Federal Orders rules, and unfortunately in Federal Order 33 these rules are not much of a deterrent. Qualifying milk that is not actually needed to satisfy consumer demand on a higher valued Order without actually moving all of the milk is called pool-riding.

Question: I have heard that in the Mideast Federal Order we are a deficit milk producing area. Don't we need this extra milk to satisfy consumer demand?

We may be a deficit producing area but this is not remedied by pool riding. In pool riding, very little, to almost none of the milk actually arrives in Federal Order 33. In fact, just about all of the milk continues to go to its normal buyers outside of the Mideast Federal Order. The total quantity of new milk only appears to be coming here solely for the purpose of being counted when it comes time to divide up the excess revenue pool.

Question: I think I understand what you are discussing but, how much money are we talking about? Is this really important to my dairy farm income?

That is a very good question and I have put together some numbers that will show you the magnitude and importance of the problem here in the Mideast Federal Order. In Table 1, I will show this and illustrate the size of the Producer Price Differential with pool-riding and without pool-riding and the cost to you in terms of lost revenue on a hundredweight basis. I will take the period September of 2000 through February 2001. I have selected these months because this is when I believe pool-riding has become "pool-raiding" in the Mideast Order. I have put the Class I and Class III utilization in the table to demonstrate that the Mideast Market is now pricing more lower valued Class III milk than Class I milk. Normal use rates would show Class I at 48% - 52% and Class III at 22%-from outside the normal supply area for the Mideast Market Area qualified for "our" pool revenues, you gave away $0.26 per hundredweight to those outside producers or their representatives. By my calculations this increased to $0.85 per cwt. in November of 2000. The average for this six-month time period amounts to $0.60 per cwt. This is revenue that should have stayed in your pocket but was siphoned off to the pockets of producers in areas that do not normally share in your Mideast Area revenue pool. The aggregate cost to producers just in Ohio, based on the reported volume of milk pooled for these six months, is approximately $10 million dollars and will continue to increase! By my estimates the accumulated dollar loss to all non-pool-riding milk producers in the Mideast Market Area is $36.4 million dollars and increasing each month!

Question: I can now clearly see that our milk check is under attack. What can I do about it?

Unfortunately, in the short term there is really nothing that you can do to stop the flow of dollars out of your Mideast order. You may be tempted after looking at the numbers in the last column of the table to conclude that because the amount is declining and only $0.55 per cwt. in February that the process is ending. This is definitely not the situation. As long as extra milk is attached to the Mideast Order solely for the purpose of extracting some of the excess revenue pool, the net result is a reduction in the blend price paid to Mideast producers. As long as our Producer Price Differential remains relatively large compared to the other orders (i.e. those orders with high class III and low class I utilization) then this process will continue to bleed dollars from our Federal Order. The Federal Order language spells out clearly what can be done about this and how to go about making necessary modifications to the Mideast Federal Order. For more information on this issue and what steps can be taken to address the problem, contact the Federal Order 33 Market Administrator Office in Cleveland, Ohio at 440-826-3220 . You can also contact the USDA / Agricultural Marketing Service, Dairy Programs, Richard McKee at 202-720-4392 or email:

Richard.McKee@usda.gov.

Table 1. Milk Pooled, Calculated Pool-riding and PPD in Federal Order 33.

	Total Milk Pooled	Total Milk Riding the Pool	Class I and Class III Utilization in Order 33	Producer Price Differential* (unadjusted)	Producer Price Differential without Pool Raiding #	Loss of Revenue as a result of Pool Raiding
	Billion lbs.	Millions lbs.	Percent	Dollars/cwt.	Dollars/cwt.	Dollars/cwt.
September 2000	1.259	165	45.8/33.5	$1.72	$1.97	$0.26
October 2000	1.313	247	43.3/38.8	$1.95	$2.40	$0.45
November 2000	1.264	262	45.7/39.8	$3.25	$4.10	$0.85
December 2000	1.245	277	46.4/43.5	$2.73	$3.52	$0.78
January 2001	1.385	307	42.5/41.7	$2.47	$3.17	$0.70
February 2001	1.195	263	43.4/46.7	$1.94	$2.48	$0.55

* These are not the same as those reported by the Federal Order Administrator Reports because I have not taken into account a number of adjustments and so these are gross amounts. They are however very close to the reported numbers and can be used to get a good estimate of the dollars.
# These numbers are my calculations and are not official numbers from the Mideast Federal Milk Market Administrators Office. They will be very close to actual numbers.

Dairy Policy and Market Watch

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

Policy Watch

I have just returned from Chicago were a 50 plus group of who's who in the dairy industry gathered for a two-day brainstorming event. Sponsored by Cornell's Dairy Markets and Policy group and by invitation only, representatives from industry, cooperatives, government, and universities got together to look into the industry and policy crystal ball. Here is a condensed list of what these folks see as front-burner items and which every dairy farm family should be aware of and following.

Federal Milk Marketing Orders: The current pooling arrangements for Class I revenues is just not working and this is creating distortions and unhappiness in the dairy industry. Look for at least some of the industry to begin to get on board with the concept of a national pooling for all Class I revenues. All Class I revenues would be put into a great big pool of dollars and each milk producer would share equally on a hundredweight basis.

New Class 3 and Class 4 pricing rules: No one (save the USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service) is really ok with the newly adopted, but not yet implemented, pricing rules. Look for a court challenge just as soon as the USDA/AMS announces their implementation.

Federal Price Support Program: The current program offers no real support as witnessed by Class III prices that were in the mid eight-dollar range in 2000 and 2002. Many in the industry believe that the current (and expensive) Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program would not be needed if the support price program really provided support for the milk price. What to do about this is not clear. Increasing the support price level is most likely out of the question, although some will continue to argue this position. Broad U.S. trade liberalization desires will likely push us toward less support, not more. We may have to be satisfied that we have the program as it is and be ready to save it in the next round of agricultural legislation.

Trade Liberalization: The World Trade Organization and the current round of new trade talks will dwarf any real concerns or challenges that the dairy industry might present. Trade is a conundrum for the U.S. dairy industry. On the one hand, we do not wish to see a single import item enter this country, yet our industry realizes that we must become players in the international trade field, and to do so, we need lower barriers not higher.

Market Watch

In this section of the column, I will provide a short-term outlook for milk component prices, market prices, the MILC payment, and a representative milk check. These forecasts are generated by my staring into my personal crystal ball. However, truth in advertising forces me to tell you that I use information from many varied sources to arrive at my guesses for the future.

Here is the Class III price outlook from those active in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Futures and Options market.

Table 1. Futures Class III Prices: Quarterly Average Settle Prices as of 01/07/2003.

1st Quarter 2003	2nd Quarter 2003	3rd Quarter 2003	4th Quarter 2003
$10.15	$11.48	$12.96	$12.29

This market is betting that a combination of weak, if not declining milk production, along with a rebirth in general economic activity, will work down the large supply of butter and cheese and provide a solid third quarter price. If you use the futures markets to hedge the Class III part of your milk check, now is a good time to get some price protection in the summer and autumn months.

Table 2. Forecast National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) average dairy product prices and the Class III price.

Dairy Product	January - March 2003	April - June 2003
Grade AA Butter ($/lb)	$1.1393	$1.1345
Cheddar Cheese ($/lb)	$1.1674	$1.1387
Whey ($/lb)	$0.1780	$0.1994
Nonfat Dry Milk Solids ($/lb)	$0.8349	$0.8028
Class III Milk Price	$10.10	$9.93
Producer Price Differential	$0.97	$0.96
MILC Payment Rate	$1.3470	$1.5495

Figure 3. Forecast Average Market Pay Prices for Butterfat, Protein, Other Solids, and Nonfat Solids.

Milk Component	January - March 2003	April - June 2003
Butterfat ($/lb)	$1.2493	$1.2433
Protein ($/lb)	$1.8393	$1.7484
Other Solids ($/lb)	$0.0393	$0.0614
Nonfat Solids ($/lb)	$0.6949	$0.6628

My analysis suggests that the commercial markets will be weaker than that implied by the current futures contract settlement prices. Note, that I foresee a substantially lower average Class III price for the April to June period than that anticipated by the futures market ($9.93 Class III vs. $11.48). Clearly one of us is wrong. I am betting that the market is over-estimating both the growth in commercial demand and the decline in milk production. If I am correct, then those prices on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) contracts for April through June look very good, and at least some of your milk should be priced on the CME at this time. Putting together the Class III price plus the producer price differential, the gross milk check price looks to be $11.07 for January through March and $10.89 for April through June. The MILC payment will add another $1.35 and $1.55 to the first 24,000 hundredweight in each period.

Western Dairy Management Conference and Study Tour

Tom Noyes
Ohio State University Extension and the Agricultural Technical Institute are coordinating a dairy study tour to the Western Dairy Management Conference in Reno, Nevada followed by a tour of northern California's dairy and agriculture industry. The tour will give participants the opportunity to attend the premier Dairy Management Conference in the country and the opportunity to meet and talk with some of the top dairy managers. The tour to California will afford participants the opportunity to visit some growing and dynamic well-managed dairy farms in the Central Valley north of Sacramento. We also will see other agriculture, such as rice production, alfalfa hay, and grapes and wine. The trip will take us to the coast, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Muir Woods National Monument redwoods.

This will be the fifth study trip that Royce Thornton and I have conducted to this conference with a follow-up tour. Each one has been excellent and very memorable. We have airline and hotel reservations made for 20 tour participants. Therefore, the following projected costs are for the first 20 who register and every effort will be made to accommodate additional individuals beyond the first 20 registrants. Spouses and other individuals who would like to participate and not attend the conference will receive a $250 reduction.

The projected cost per person is:
Double Room Occupancy: $1,025.00
Single Room Occupancy: $1,225.00

TOUR SCHEDULE
March 11 Flight from Columbus to Sacramento
Depart 6:40 p.m. - Arrive 10:45 p.m. and stay in Sacramento
March 12 Drive to Reno 7:00 a.m. and attend Dairy Conference
March 13 Western Dairy Conference 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Afternoon - optional tour to Fallon, Nevada to visit a dairy farm and irrigated alfalfa production
March 14 Dairy Management Conference 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Depart for California by way of Virginia City and Carson City Nevada and Lake Tahoe.
March 15 Dairy and agriculture visits in Central Valley north of Sacramento
March 16 Dairy and grape/wine visits, Golden Gate Bridge, Muir Woods redwoods, and the Pacific Ocean.
March 17 Flight from Sacramento at 12:00 noon - Arrive Columbus at 9:30 p.m.
If you desire to participate in Western Dairy Study Tour, please call one of the tour hosts right away. A reservation deposit of $650 is due by February 1, 2003 and final payment is due on February 20, 2003. Refunds, minus all incurred costs, will be made for cancellations. Checks should be made payable to: Ohio State ATI Dairy Judging Team and sent to Royce Thornton, OSU/ATI, 1328 Dover Road, Wooster, OH 44691. Reservations can be made by calling Tom Noyes at 330-264-8722 or Royce Thornton at 330-264-3911 ext. 1313.
A New Voice for Ohio Dairy Producers

Tim Demland, Additional information about Ohio Dairy Producers

Over the course of time, individual dairy producers have disagreed on many issues. With the current availability of technology, wide market fluctuations, and increased regulation, however, all should be able to agree that the challenges of being successful will continue to mount. To help producers meet these challenges, it is widely believed that one voice is best on legislative and regulatory issues.

In Ohio's past, several different organizations have been representing the interests of their respective memberships, whether being based on marketing preference or supplies and services purchased. To some extent, this representation was effective but with dairy farm numbers decreasing dramatically over the last forty years, even the largest voices have lost a lot of their local strength. Part of this has been due to the trend towards national and global companies. As one state industry leader stated, "we are giving the car keys to another driver." This approach works great when addressing national and global issues, but without close supervision, state and regional issues can easily be overlooked. Also, as organizations grow larger, individuals are less likely to be actively involved.

During the past year, two organizations that have been speaking on the behalf of dairy producers in Ohio have decided to join forces, uniting their strengths. One organization, the Ohio Dairy Farmers Federation (ODFF), had an established track record of working cooperatively with groups like the Ohio Livestock Coalition and of having great industry support. They also initiated and administered the Ohio Dairy Research Fund. Another group, the Progressive Dairy Producers of Ohio (PDPO), concentrated on educational programming for Ohio's dairy producers in cooperation with Ohio State University. These two groups joined to form the Ohio Dairy Producers, Inc. (ODP).

During the December 2002 Ohio Dairy Management Conference the Ohio Dairy Producers (ODP) held its "Membership Kick-Off", offering dairy producers and industry representatives the opportunity to sign up for the 2003 membership year. During the event, organizational members COBA, DFA, DHI, and Genex provided "special edition" ODP hats.

The dairy producers that organized the Ohio Dairy Producer's (ODP) have developed the following mission statement to express their goal of representing all dairy producers in Ohio, regardless of their geographic location, marketing preference, or operation's size:
"Supporting Ohio's Dairy Production Industry, Optimizing Productivity and Profitability, and Addressing Issues Affecting Dairy Producers"

Immediate benefits that are available to ODP members are reduced conference and seminar rates at selected OSU and ODP educational events, access to reduced workers compensation group rates, and as announced by Farmshine's editor Dieter Krieg at the Ohio Dairy Management Conference, a two-year subscription to Farmshine's weekly Ag Newspaper. To help foster increased communication in the industry, members will also receive a quarterly ODP newsletter and, for those with fax or email access, a biweekly "ODP Enews Update". These updates will include events and developments that directly affect Ohio's dairy production industry.

Several types of ODP memberships are available. Memberships are classified as Organizational, Individual Producer, Industry Associate, and Individual Associate memberships. Much like ODFF and PDPO, dairy producer organizations and allied industries form the financial base of the new organization. Organizational memberships are open to dairy producer owned and controlled organizations and associations. The COBA/Select Sires Inc., CRI/Genex, DFA, Ohio DHI, Ohio Jersey Breeders, Ohio Guernsey Breeders, and Ohio Holstein Association are ODP's founding organizational members. Dairy producers affiliated with these groups will be considered as having a "representational" membership and will receive benefits as determined by each representative organization. Each organizational membership is entitled to a seat on the board, and multiple memberships are available to each organization. Dues for each new organizational member are $1000. Industry Associate membership dues are $200 and enables allied industries to be listed as a supporter in many ODP publications.

Individuals can either join as "Individual producers" (only one membership is required per farm) or as "Individual associates". Individual producer members will have a "direct" membership and will be put on ODP's membership roster to receive future publications. Only individual producers are eligible to vote or run for the 10 producer director seats that are distributed into five geographic areas. Individual associates are not allowed to vote. Both of these membership's dues are $50.

Other than offering direct immediate benefits to its members, the true benefits of ODP to producers will lie in its collaborative efforts in Legislative Awareness, Regulatory Involvement, and Educational/Extension Programming. The existing Ohio Dairy Research Fund will also be administered by ODP, allowing producers to voluntarily contribute to Extension and research projects that will provide benefits to producers.
The ODP leadership has already initiated these tasks and continues to develop contacts with Ohio's legislative and regulatory authorities in attempts to improve communication and to inform agencies of Ohio's Dairy Producers' new voice. To become an active apart of Ohio's Dairy future, contact Tim Demland at (419) 523-6294 or demland.2@osu.edu. You can also get more information about the Ohio Dairy Producers on the web at http://putnam.osu.edu/ag/ODP.html.
Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Releases New Rules for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)

Maurice Eastridge
On December 16, 2002, the Federal EPA released the new revisions to the Clean Water Act for CAFO. To be considered a CAFO, an operation must first meet the definition of an animal feeding operation (AFO). An operation is an AFO if animals are confined for at least 45 days in a 12-month period and there is no grass or other vegetation in the confinement area during the normal growing season. The CAFO then are categorized as large or medium CAFO. A large dairy CAFO is a dairy AFO with at least 700 dairy cows or 1000 dairy heifers. A medium dairy CAFO is a dairy AFO with at least 200 dairy cows or 300 dairy heifers and either a man-made ditch or pipe carries manure or wastewater from the operation, or the animals come into contact with the surface water running through the area where they are confined. Regardless of the size of the operation, if an AFO is allowing pollutants to surface waters, it may be required to file for a CAFO permit. A CAFO permit requires that you meet certain conditions for the production area (area where animals are housed and manure is stored) and the land application areas. Permits will require you to implement nutrient management plans, with these records needing to be maintained for five years, and submit annual reports to the permitting authority. The permit requirements will be much more strict for large than medium CAFO. Under the new rules, all CAFO will be required to apply for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which will require the development of plans for handling, storing, and applying manure and wastewater. This new requirement, nullifies the previous exemption for a CAFO from applying for a NPDES permit if they only discharge during large storms (25-year, 24-hour storm event). In Ohio, the authority to issue permits to a CAFO is with the Ohio Department of Agriculture, Livestock Environmental Permitting Program, 614-387-0470, FAX 614-728-6335, lepp@odant.agri.state.oh.us, . The Ohio EPA has the authority to issue NPDES permits (Division of Surface Waters, 614-644-2021). For more information about the new Federal CAFO rules, go to: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm. The Ohio Livestock Coalition has set up two meetings, along with ODA and Ohio EPA, to discuss issues about these new regulations: January 21, Fisher Auditorium, Wooster, 7:00 pm; January 22, auditorium of the Lake Branch Campus of Wright State University, St. Mary's, 7:00 pm.
Working With Creditors When Times Are Tight

Dianne Shoemaker
A dairy farm may operate with no debt and a few do. The majority of dairy farms, however, use some form of credit to finance their operations. Credit use ranges from long-term mortgages to finance the purchase of land, to loans for buildings, cattle, machinery, or equipment, to operating lines of credit , and to interest charges on open account balances. As a result of poor milk prices and poor crops in 2002, some farms have found themselves owing more money than they have been able to cash flow.

Symptoms include balances on open accounts that are higher than normal, existing lines of credit that are at maximum, loan payments made late or missed, family living that may have been dramatically reduced and/or no cash in the checking account. This situation is uncomfortable for the farm family and to those that they owe money. How can both parties work through these situations? Three important actions for both parties are to talk, evaluate, talk, plan, and talk.

Talk it over. The best time to start talking to creditors is when you first see a problem developing. Many customers of commercial lenders understand that paying their notes first is a priority because they call the soonest if a payment is late. However, supplier's margins are tight, just as dairy producer's margins are. Suppliers are much less likely to carry open accounts for as long or for as much money as they did in the past. Many are hiring specialists to help keep their open accounts to smaller, more manageable levels.

Call or stop in and visit with the business that you will not be able to pay in full as scheduled. Explain the situation and discuss payment options. Can you stay current from now on and pay off the existing balance over the next few months? Can you negotiate an interest rate less than the 18 to 30% frequently charged on open accounts? Farm suppliers also have businesses to run and bills to pay. They will be much more willing to discuss options before a big balance develops, which hurts their ability to do business as well as your farm's.

Evaluate. When accounts have unpaid balances, you forgo opportunities to get cash or early payment discounts,which costs your farm additional money. At some point, you will need to discuss an operating line of credit with your lender. If your current line is at maximum, you may be able to refinance some or all of the debt over a longer term. Extreme caution must be used before this strategy is followed. You must take a serious look at why the credit was allowed to reach the maximum limit. Was the line of credit truly used for operating expenses (such as feed, seed, fertilizer, supplies, etc.,) or was it used to buy cattle, equipment, machinery, or other items that should have been financed over a longer period of time to begin with?

If longer-term assets were purchased with the line of credit, the lender may fairly easily be able to refinance those over a longer term. If not, refinancing may be more difficult and costly. It is vital for the long-term survival of your dairy enterprise that current debt (whether it was used for operating or longer term expenses) not be rolled over into longer-term debt without determining why it was necessary and carefully planning, monitoring profitability, and cash flow in the future. A successful farm cannot afford to do this more than once or twice during its business lifetime.

Plan. Planning is important from two perspectives. First, thoughtfully and realistically develop a payment plan to pay off balances on open accounts, while keeping current with new purchases. No one is saying that this process will be easy. Planned purchases or projects may have to be delayed. The "extra" labor that just quit may temporarily not be replaced. If a workable plan cannot be developed, then hard questions have to be asked about the long-term viability of the farm as it currently operates.

What were the factors that brought the farm to this situation? Beyond the major factors of price and drought, each farm's situation will be slightly different. Then ask the hard questions such as "How can we be sure this will not happen again?" "What were some of the signals that we should have seen earlier?" "What were some of the actions we could have taken earlier to prevent the situation from getting as far as it did?"

Finally, keep talking. There may still be bumps in the best-made plans. Keeping family and creditors informed and talking keeps the lines of communication and understanding open and reduces the stress during tight times for all involved.
Livestock Need Fresh Air

John Smith

Just because it is winter and cold outsid,e don't close up the livestock buildings. Good ventilation is important to animals as well as humans, all year around.

When the weather turns cold, the natural tendency is to shut the livestock buildings up to keep them warmer. This traps moisture, odors, and gases in the building. Fresh air in the building is important to the health of the animals and the people taking care of them.

Poor ventilation can cause poor animal response to growth and production due to respiratory problems. Odors, high humidity, and condensation of moisture on the walls are an indication of poor ventilation. Good ventilation in a livestock building will remove air-borne diseases, excess moisture, and gases.

Some ventilation tips from Dr. Mike Veenhuizen, Consultant, and Agricultural Engineer:

1. Don't completely close other vents and exhaust openings needed to bring in the proper amount of fresh air in wintertime. Fresh air is needed; drafts aren't.

2. You can cut drafts in long buildings by building partitions across the building from floor to ceiling every 50 feet to 75 feet.

3. Don't close windward air inlets; it will create negative air pressure in the building and draw snow and cold air down through ridge vents.

4. Use hovers - low hanging ceilings - or heat lamps over small animals. This is especially helpful in swine buildings where baby pigs need a much warmer environment than the sow.

5. Keep fan shutters and blades clean - dirty blades alone can cut your ventilation capacity as much as 40 % and add to the dust in the building.

6. Make sure thermostats and controls are calibrated to keep mild weather ventilation fans and heaters from running at the same time.

7. If the building has a manure storage pit under it, be absolutely sure that the pit is properly ventilated: Fumes backing up into the building can be deadly.

Milk Pricing and Policy

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

Policy Watch

In the policy arena, the event to watch is the introduction of Federal legislation specifically aimed at stemming the flow of imported dairy proteins in the U.S. market. The Milk Import Tariff Equity Act (MITEA) of 2003 has been introduced into both the House and the Senate. Major sponsors of the legislation are Senators Larry Craig (R-ID), Mark Dayton (D-MN) and Representatives Don Sherwood (R-PA) and David Obey (D-WI). It has been reported that the Senate version has over 15 co-sponsors and the House version more than 55 co-sponsors. Look for a good battle on this one with the National Milk Producers Federation (supporting) squaring off against the International Dairy Foods Association (opposed). My viewpoint is that the real issue is not one of tariffs or lack thereof, but a support price for nonfat dry milk that is out of whack with market realities. Simply put, the net return for producing nonfat skim milk powder and selling it to the government is a better deal than producing milk protein concentrates and selling them to the food processing industry. Until this is fixed, the economic problem and political debate will be with us.

New Class 3 and Class 4 pricing rules: The new Class III and IV prices are set to go into effect for milk shipped starting April 1, 2003. These new rules will impact the calculation of the advanced pricing of Class I for April. There is the rumored threat of legal action to stay the implementation of the new rules. Western dairy interests, not in California, claim that the new rules will put them at a distinct disadvantage price-wise with the California industry. I expect they will find a sympathetic judicial ear in Seattle and the battle will be engaged. Let's hope reasoned judgment prevails.

Market Watch

The near-term outlook for dairy commodity prices, milk component prices, and Class prices is not very encouraging at this time. The one bright spot I can find shows up in my forecast for the April Milk Income Loss Compensation (MILC) payment. If I am correct on the dairy commodity advanced prices forecast, this payment could reach a record $1.87 per hundredweight. This is achieved for the April MILC payment through a combination of the new Class III / IV pricing rules and a forecast record low Class I mover of $9.53 for April.

Here is what the markets look like at the end of the first week of March 2003:

Table 1. Futures Class III Prices: Quarterly Average Settle Prices as of 03/07/2003.

1st Quarter 2003	2nd Quarter 2003	3rd Quarter 2003	4th Quarter 2003
$9.50	$9.79	$11.04	$11.41

Class III prices on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) lost substantial support for all quarters in 2003 with the release of the January and February milk and dairy products reports and the USDA dairy products and CME inventory reports. Until some news comes in that suggest a significant tightening of production relative to inventories and commercial demand, the markets will struggle to rise above these low levels.

Table 2. Forecast National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) average dairy product prices and the Class III price.

Dairy Product	January - March, 2003	April - June, 2003
Grade AA Butter ($/lb)	$1.0504	$1.0460
Cheddar Cheese ($/lb)	$1.1114	$1.0704
Whey ($/lb)	$0.1663	$0.1860
Nonfat Dry Milk Solids ($/lb)	$0.8137	$0.8108
Class III Milk Price	$9.49	$9.28
Class IV Milk Price	$9.84	$9.68
Producer Price Differential	$1.17	$0.97
MILC Payment Rate	$1.5705	$1.8195

Figure 3. Forecast average market pay prices for milk fat, protein, other solids, and nonfat solids.

Milk Component	January - March, 2003	April - June, 2003
Fat ($/lb)	$1.1407	$1.1173
Protein ($/lb)	$1.7861	$1.7411
Other Solids ($/lb)	$0.0272	$0.0278
Nonfat Solids ($/lb)	$0.6737	$0.6641

At this time, it seems that no ray of hope for better prices to the dairy producer are on the horizon. There is, however, a developing trend that may indicate higher prices by the third quarter of 2003. A careful evaluation of dairy cow slaughter numbers published in the weekly Dairy Market News by USDA/AMS indicates that for the first eight weeks of 2003, dairy cow slaughter is running about 12% ahead of last year. Looking back over the last 10 years at comparable periods of low milk prices and high feed prices, this pattern of increased slaughter pulled prices up by anywhere from $1.00 to $2.00/cwt by the third quarter of the year. If history is a reasonable guide, these high slaughter rates will put a brake on the rate of increase in milk production over the next two quarters. The effect of this will show up as a very modest increase in milk output from the first to the second quarter, and then a significant decline in output during the third quarter of 2003. If the general economy can muster some strength that translates into personal income growth and decent commercial demand over the next six months, we very well could see milk prices strengthen by one to two dollars.

Estimating Manure Phosphorus Excretion by Dairy Cows

Dr. Bill Weiss

Manure nutrient management plans are required for large dairy operations and eventually may be required for all dairy farms. An important component of nutrient management plans is phosphorous (P) balance. On average, 55 to 65% of the P fed to a lactating cow is excreted via manure; however, using an average excretion rate is not adequate when developing nutrient management plans. To assist producers in developing nutrient management plans, we summarized several digestibility experiments with Holstein cows conducted at the OARDC. In those experiments, we measured the amount of feed consumed, the concentration of P in the diet, output of feces, fecal P concentration, urine production, and milk production of 130 cows fed 30 different diets. The diets fed were extremely diverse. Forage ranged from 40 to 60% of dietary dry matter (DM). The forage portion of the diet ranged from 100% corn silage to 100% hay crop forage (most of the hay crop forage fed was alfalfa silage, but some studies used alfalfa hay and orchardgrass silage). A wide variety of concentrates were fed, including corn grain, soybean meal, and a host of byproducts. The concentration of P in the diets ranged from 0.32 to 0.46% (average was 0.38% of dietary DM). To meet the NRC (National Research Council, Nutrient Requirement of Dairy Cattle, 2001) P requirement, the average cow in this data set should have been fed a diet with about 0.35% P. On average, diets contained about 8% more P than required.

To estimate manure P excretion for the lactating dairy cows on a farm, the dairy producer must enter DM intake, the P concentration of the diet fed, and milk production into the following equation:

Manure P (grams/cow/day) = P intake (grams) - P secreted in milk (grams) - 3.9

Where:
P intake (grams/cow/day) = (Pounds of DM intake/2.2) x (% diet P x 10)
P secreted in milk (grams/cow/day) = Pounds of milk/day x 0.41

To convert grams of P excreted/day to pounds divide by 454.

For example, a farm has a single group of 120 lactating cows, the average DM intake is 45 lb/day, the diet contains 0.4% P (DM basis), and average milk production is 65 lb/day.

Phosphorous intake = (45/2.2) x (0.4 x 10) = 81.8 g/day per cow.

Milk P secretion = 65 x 0.41 = 26.7 g/day per cow.

Manure P = 81.8 - 26.7 - 3.9 = 51.2 grams/cow/day. In pounds, 51.2/454 = 0.11 lb/day/cow of P or 0.11 x 120 cows = 13.5 lb/day of P for the farm (lactating cows only).

If multiple groups are fed different diets, the same approach is followed except that you have to calculate P intake and milk P for each group. For example, Group 1 has 100 cows with an average intake of 50 lb of DM, the diet has 0.38% P, and milk production averages 80 lb/day. Group 2 has 35 cows with an average DM intake of 40 lb/day with 0.35% P and milk production averages 45 lb/day. Phosphorous intake per cow for Group 1 is (50 lb of DM/2.2) x (0.38 x 10) = 86.4 g (86.4/454 = 0.19 lb). Milk P per cow for Group 1 is 80 x 0.41 = 32.8 g (32.8/454 = 0.072 lb). Manure P per cow for Group 1 = 86.4 - 32.8 -3.9 = 49.7 g (0.109 lb), and manure P for the entire group (100 cows ) is 0.109 lb x 100 cows = 10.9 lb/day. For Group 2, P intake/cow = (40 lb/2.2) x (0.35 x 10) = 63.6 g and milk P per cow = 45 x 0.41 = 18.5 g. Manure P per cow for Group 2 = 63.6 - 18.5 - 3.9 = 41.2 g (0.091 lb). The entire group is excreting 3.2 lb/day of P (0.091 x 35 cows). For the whole lactating herd (135 cows), manure P excretion = 10.9 + 3.2 = 14.1 lb/day.

If you do not know average milk production per group but know herd average production, that number should be used. Using the example above, herd average milk production = 70.9 lb [((100 cows x 80 lb) + (35 cows x 45 lb))/135 cows]. Average milk P = 70.9 lb of milk x 0.41 = 29.1 g. Average P intake for the herd is [((86.4 g x 100 cows) + (63.6 g x 35 cows))/135 cows] = 80.5 g. Average manure P per cow = 80.5 - 29.1 - 3.9 = 47.5 g (0.105 lb) and for the whole herd manure P = 0.105 x 135 cows = 14.1 lb/day.

We have not collected data on P balance of dry cows; however, manure P should be approximately equal to P intake (grams) - fetal retained P (grams) - 3.9. The NRC estimates that fetal retention of P for a dry cow averages 4.5 g/day. Therefore, estimated manure P for a dry cow (grams) = P intake (grams) - 8.4. For example, if a dry cow consumes 25 lb of DM that has 0.29% P, estimated manure P = (25/2.2) x (0.29 x 10) - 8.4 = 24.5 grams (0.054 lb/day).

Although these equations were developed from data collected from Holstein cows, they should work reasonably well for Jersey cows (the manure P for a lactating Jersey cow may be 1 or 2 g/day less than estimated and 3 or 4 g/day less for a dry Jersey cow). A spreadsheet is available that will do these calculations for herds with 1 to 10 groups of lactating cows and 1 to 2 groups of dry cows. You need to input the number of cows per group, DM intake per group, percent P in the diets, and milk production.

The single most effective way (also the easiest and cheapest way) to reduce excretion of P in manure is to feed only enough P to meet a cow's requirement. For most lactating cows, diets with 0.32 (lower producing cows) to 0.38% (higher producing cows) should be adequate. All P fed in excess of the requirement is excreted via manure.
Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference

Dr. Maurice Eastridge

The 12th annual Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference (TSDNC) will be held April 8 & 9, 2003 at the Grand Wayne Center in Fort Wayne, IN. The objective of the Conference is to disseminate current information on the feeding of dairy cattle primarily to individuals who provide nutritional advice to dairy farmers. Feed industry personnel, nutrition consultants, Extension personnel, veterinarians, and interested dairy producers are encouraged to attend. The record attendance for the Conference occurred last year at 535. The Conference is sponsored by The Ohio State, Michigan State, and Purdue Universities and allied industries. The registration fee is $130 per person (discounts available for groups of 10 or more) and is due by March 21. The late registration fee is $155. The registration fee includes refreshments during breaks and the reception, one breakfast, and a copy of the Proceedings. Additional copies of the Proceedings will be available at $20/copy.

A free pre-conference program is sponsored by Mycogen Seeds with the theme of "Impact of Quality Forages". This program occurs from 8:00 am - 12:00 on April 8. Registration for the TSDNC begins at 11:00 on April 8, with the program beginning at 1:00 pm. The Conference concludes at 12:30 pm on April 9. The themes this year are Nutrition and Animal Health, Carbohydrates, Effective Fiber Sources, and Current Issues. Three speakers are from Canada, and other speakers are from IL, KS, PA, WI, MI, OH, and IA. For additional information or to register, contact Amanda Hargett at OSU (614) 688-3143 or go to our web site: http://tristatedairy.osu.edu. Additional information also is available by contacting: Dr. Maurice Eastridge, The Ohio State University, (614) 688-3059; Dr. Herbert Bucholtz, Michigan State University, (517) 355-8432; or Dr. Timothy Johnson, Purdue University, (765) 494-4810.
Dairy Heifer Replacement Programs

Ms. Amanda Hargett

Ohio State University Extension is holding a series of Dairy Heifer Replacement programs at locations around Ohio. Topics of discussion are: Heifer Nutrition, Housing Heifers, Business Management, Heifer Reproduction, and Keeping Heifers Healthy. Speakers will include Bill Weiss, Maurice Eastridge, Normand St-Pierre, Dianne Shoemaker, Tom Noyes, Joe Beiler, and Amanda Hargett; however, speakers will differ by location. If you are interested in getting into raising heifers, already raise heifers, or want to improve heifer management on your dairy farm, check the schedule below for the location nearest you!

These are scheduled as one-day programs. Registration fees include a comprehensive notebook and lunch. Registration fees may differ by site. Extra notebooks are available at $20 each; contact Amanda Hargett at 614-688-3143 or hargett.5@osu.edu.

April 1, 2003 - Williamsfield, OH. Contact Dave Marrison at 440-576-9008.
April 2, 2003 - Ottawa, OH. Contact Glen Arnold or Tim Demland at 419-523-6294.
April 3, 2003 - OSU Centers South in Piketon, with satellite links to: South Centers in Jackson, Fayette County Extension Office, and Southern State Community College - Fincastle. Contact Dave Mangione at 740-286-2177.
April 10, 2003 - Dutch Valley Restaurant, Sugarcreek OH. Contact Chris Zoller at
330-339-2337.
Cost of Nutrients in Feedstuffs

Dr. Normand St-Pierre

From feeds to nutrients

In appearance, dairy cows are feed converters. They ingest feeds and produce milk. But, we know that the amount of milk produced per unit of feed ingested is not constant across all feedstuffs. This is because fundamentally, feeds are carriers of nutrients. It is these nutrients that cows really need to produce milk. Cows have requirements for nutrients and not for feeds. Cows do not need hay but need effective fiber. Cows do not need corn but need energy. Thus, in essence, when you buy a feed you actually are buying a mixture of nutrients.

From apples to oranges

Imagine that a bag of fruits sells for $6. There are 3 apples and 1 orange in it. Neither do we know the price of one apple, nor do we know the price of one orange. All we know is that 3 apples and 1 orange cost $6. Next to this bag, we find a basket of fruit with 1 apple and 3 oranges. It sells for $10. Just looking at the basket, we don't the price of one apple; neither do we know the price of one orange. However, if we combine the information from the bag of fruit with that from the basket of fruit, we can determine the price of one apple and one orange. You may have forgotten the algebra required to do this, but by trial and error, you would eventually determine that one apple costs $1 and one orange costs $3.

When feeding cows, feedstuffs are the equivalent of the bag and the basket. Nutrients are the equivalent of the apples and oranges. If we have enough feedstuffs (bags and baskets) being traded and if we know their prices, we can calculate the implicit cost of nutrients (apples and oranges). With many feedstuffs and many nutrients, finding the best solution is not trivial, which is why we wrote a software program, Sesame, to do this for us. Check with you local Extension office to inquire about a training workshop in your area for how to use this software.

The cost of nutrients: Ohio, March 2003

We used the nutrient composition table from the National Research Council (2001) for 24 feedstuffs available in Ohio. Prices used were wholesale prices for North Central Ohio for the first week of March 2003, with the addition of $20/ton to account for mixing and delivery charges. These prices approximate a farm delivered price in large, bulk quantities as commodities or blends of commodities. For nutrients, we selected Net Energy for lactation (NEL), rumen degradable protein (RDP), rumen undegradable protein (RUP), effective neutral detergent fiber (e-NDF), and non-effective neutral detergent fiber (ne-NDF). Other nutrients (e.g. minerals, such as phosphorus) may also have a value, but their contributions to the price of the selected commodities are generally small and negligible.

Estimated costs of nutrients are reported in the following table. The numbers in this table are costs expressed in dollars per unit. For example, the cost of one mega-calorie of NEL is about $0.07. Similarly, the cost of one pound of digestible RUP is about $0.22 and one pound of e-NDF is approximately $0.10.

Take note that based on current market conditions, RDP and ne-NDF both have an implicit cost of $0.00. That is, the current market does not attribute any cost to these two nutrients.

Now that we know the unit costs of nutrients, it is very easy to calculate the break-even price (i.e., the market value of the nutrients) for each commodity. This price is reported in the following table in the column labeled "Predicted".

Sesame uses statistical procedures to estimate the cost of nutrients. This enables the software to calculate a "probable" range for the break-even prices. Take bakery by-product meal (bakery waste) as an example. The current market price is $115/ton and the break-even price is estimated at $126.96/ton, with a probable range of $112.82 to $141.10. Thus, bakery by-product meal is currently priced under its break-even price but not enough to make it a real bargain. Gluten feed would be an example of a bargain feed, whereas soybean hulls are currently grossly overpriced. The same information is reported visually in the following figure.

Feeds located above the top red line (very top line) are considered overpriced; those between the two red lines (very top and very bottom lines) are priced according to their respective nutrient content; those under the bottom red line (very bottom line) are bargains.

This does not mean that a balanced diet (ration) can be made exclusively of bargain feeds. What this implies is that opportunities to reduce feed costs exist by maximizing the use of bargain feedstuffs while minimizing the use of overpriced ones. A nutritionist equipped with a valid ration balancing software is still required to determine the amounts of feedstuffs to be mixed to produce a sound ration.
Are Your Cows Hot Yet?

Dr. Normand St-Pierre and Ms. Dianne Shoemaker

Did you know that, on an average, Ohio gets two days of heat stress in the month of April and ten days during the month of May? Thus, you shouldn't wait to start planning and implementing a heat abatement strategy for your herd. Otherwise, you will likely end up loosing an average of $120/cow this summer.

To help you plan and design a cost effective heat abatement system, Buckeye Dairy News will publish a Special Issue: The Nuts and Bolts of Efficient Cow Cooling. This special issue is scheduled for release on April 18 and will cover: the economics of heat stress in Ohio, what happens during heat stress, measuring heat stress, basic cow cooling systems, and management and nutrition aids to reduce the impact of heat stress. Software, tables, and figures will be provided with all the details to design an effective system for your farm.
Dairy Farm Labor

Mr. Robert Fleming

About a year ago, I wrote: "Several trends are quite clear in the broad area of farm management. More farms are using hired labor, family or non-family, regularly to accomplish their goals. Farm labor laws, while still retaining some exceptions, are becoming more consistent with non-farm laws and regulations. Human resource management is important in the long-run success of the farm, regardless of the size or type of farming operation." Let's review some major employment rules for agricultural labor including dairy farms.

Federal Tax Withholding (http://irs.ustrea.gov)

Since January 1, 1990, agricultural employers have been required to withhold Federal income taxes on their employees. Agricultural labor has always been subject to FICA taxes and its withholding, with a few exceptions, but the withholding of income taxes had been optional. Agricultural employers must now withhold, deposit, report, and pay income taxes and Social Security taxes on their employees.

Who Is Subject?

The withholding of income taxes will affect agricultural employers who are paying wages subject to FICA (Social Security) taxes. Those include any employee receiving cash wages of $150 or more during the year or all employees if the employer paid wages of $2,500 or more during the year. Cash wages paid to a spouse are subject to FICA taxes. Children under the age of 18 at the start of the year in the employ of a parent, who is a sole proprietor, are not subject to FICA taxes. Farmers who expect to exceed either of the tests should withhold income and FICA taxes at the start of the year. Wages paid in commodities are not currently subject to withholding or FICA taxes but do count toward the $2,500 test. See "How Do Employment Taxes Apply to Farm Work" from IRS Circular A, 2003.

Changes In The Employment Tax Deposit Rules

The IRS updated regulations in 2001 covering how often deposits of federal employment taxes must be made.

General Rules

Under the rules, each agricultural employer will be classified as either a monthly or semi-weekly depositor of payroll taxes. Your deposit status will depend on the amount of employment taxes, including withheld federal income taxes, reported for a one-year "lookback" period. The "lookback" period for agricultural employers is the second calendar year preceding the current year. For example, the lookback period for calendar year 2003 is calendar year 2001.

If the employment taxes reported during the lookback period were more than $50,000, you will be classified as a semi-weekly depositor. If the employment taxes reported were $50,000 or less, you are a monthly depositor. The IRS will notify employers each November as to what your deposit status is for the coming year.

Exceptions

As an agricultural employer, if you accumulate less than $2,500 of employment taxes for the entire year, no deposits during the year are required. You can pay the employment taxes for the year with Form 943, Employer's Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees, by January 31st. An option is to make a deposit by December 31st to take the deduction during the current year for the employer's share of Social Security taxes.

If you are uncertain that your employment taxes will be less than $2,500 during the current year, make deposits under the appropriate rules (monthly deposits) to avoid the possibility of being penalized. That is, for any amount you pay employees, make a deposit of the employment taxes by the 15th of the following month. Doing so will avoid potential problems if your total payroll tax bill for the year turns out to be $2,500 or more. See Circular A (Publication 51), Agricultural Employers Tax Guide, Rev. January 2003.

State & School District Income Taxes (http://www.state.oh.us/taxfarm)

Farmers are not required to withhold Ohio income taxes or School District income taxes from their farm employees unless the employee requests it and the employer agrees.

If an employee's Ohio plus School District income taxes total more than $500, he/she must file an estimated tax declaration and make quarterly estimated tax payments unless the withholding will meet their obligation.

Ohio New Hire Reporting (http://newhirereporting.com/oh-newhire)

Under Ohio Revised Code (Sec. 5101.312), all employers including farm employers are required to report all new hires within 20 days of employment. The required report includes seasonal, part-time, and employees under 18 years of age and there is no exception for family members. Reporting can be by fax, mail, electronic, file transfer protocol, magnetic tape, or diskette.

Workers' Compensation (http://www.ohiobwc.com)

Workers' compensation coverage is required of all farm owners and operators with one or more employees. Employees covered include farm workers under the age of 18, part-time, full-time, and seasonal employees. Family members who are employees of the business must also be covered. There is optional coverage for the officers of a farm corporation.

Workers' compensation coverage does not extend to an independent contractor and his/her employees. Wages reported for premium determination must include any wages paid in commodities to farm employees.

Workers' compensation pays for all employees' medical care related to occupational injuries or diseases. Workers' compensation also provides compensation to the worker and/or dependents in the case of job related disabilities or death. The employer's own private health and accident insurance policy may not cover expenses that should have been covered by Worker's Compensation.

Federal Minimum Wage (http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd)

The minimum wage is currently $5.15 per hour. Agricultural employees who employ more than 500 man-days of labor in any calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year must pay at least the minimum wage. Agricultural employers using less than the 500 man-days of labor are exempt from the minimum wage provisions. A man-day is any day during which an employee does agricultural labor for at least one hour. Five hundred man-days is about equivalent to seven employees working fulltime in a calendar quarter.

The employer's immediate family who are employees are not included in the 500 man-day test unless the employer is a farm corporation.

Immigration Reform and Control Act (http://www.immigration.gov)

The Immigration Reform and Control Act affects all American employers. The law makes it illegal to hire unauthorized aliens. ALL employers must establish employment eligibility and the identity of new employees by completing Form I-9. Employers need to keep completed I-9's for three years or one year after an employee leaves. Form I-9 is available from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice.

Summary

There are other farm labor provisions such as Child Labor, O.S.H.A., E.P.A. and others that may affect farm labor. Here are some additional websites that provide farm labor management and regulation information:

Mid-American Agr & Hort Services, Inc., http://www.midamservices.org
Gempler's Alert, http://www.gemplers.com/alert.htm
Northwest Extension District, http://northwest.osu.edu
Department of Agricultural, Environmental & Development Economics,
The Ohio State University, http://aede.osu.edu/people
(go to Agribusiness/Farm Management and Bernie Erven publications)
Agr. Business Enhancement Center, http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~abe

Properly and legally managing labor will help dairy farms make progress toward their mission statement, goals, and objectives.
Ohio Dairy Industry Forum (ODIF) Hosts Trade Discussion

Mr. Tim Demland

On February 11th, several Ohio dairy stakeholders attended ODIF's quarterly business meeting and trade discussion, with the following special guests: National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) Trade Specialist, Jaime Castenada; Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) Dairy Division Chief, Lewis Jones: and OSU Extension Milk Marketing Specialist, Cameron Thraen. The main focus of the discussion was the effect that shipments of Canadian raw milk were having in the Midwest and what efforts could be taken to assure that market equitability in the region is sustained.

Currently, shipments of raw milk continue to move into Ohio's neighbors, Pennsylvania and Indiana. Ohio's Department of Agriculture has avoided these shipments by asserting that comprehensive antibiotic testing of Canadian milk will be required before unloading. Certain drugs considered carcinogenic and prohibited in the US are allowed for use in dairy cattle in Canada.

Concern was raised that if this disallowing of the milk into Ohio continues, Ohio's dairy processors may be put at a competitive disadvantage. In the past, it was agreed that efforts should be made to encourage a level marketing environment, which would also include the opening of Canadian markets for finished products. Currently, Canada's trade policy discourages shipments of dairy products into the country.

The milk being exported into the US is classified as "non-quota" milk in Canada, and is therefore, not regulated by their milk program. In light of the World Trade Organization's (WTO) recent decision against Canada's milk export programs, this may not be the case for long. Mr. Castenada encouraged attendees and dairy producers across the region to initiate and participate in grass root efforts that contact government officials urging stricter and immediate enforcement of the WTO ruling. He also suggested that the best-case scenario to restore a more equitable marketing environment is for Ontario and Quebec officials to start regulating "non-quota" milk. If this is done, the milk will "disappear" because under Canada's quota system, there is no provision for "non-quota" milk.

Until enforcement of current marketing agreements is more strict, it will be important to encourage USDA, the Pasteurized Milk Ordnance (PMO), and Interstate Milk Shipment (IMS) enforcement agencies not to grant Canadian farms Grade A milk marketing status. Charles Twining with the ODA stated that there are three scenarios that foreign produced milk can be granted Grade A status: (1) when a state or authorized entity performs all regulatory functions in the foreign country exporting the milk, (2) when the exporting country completely adopts the PMO and IMS standards, or (3) when the FDA determines that the exporting country's milk program is equivalent to the PMO and IMS standards enforced by the states.

Another major concern raised during the meeting was that once raw milk crosses the border, there are no established means to track the location or use of the milk. This effectively eliminates any ability to monitor product safety, biosecurity, and raises definite concerns during this time of increased security against terrorist activities. Mr. Castenada said that the FDA was not required to track such shipments and that these efforts are at the sole discretion of Customs officials.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties attending decided that increased communication between the parties was needed and it was agreed that the ODIF should act as a liaison to gather and distribute information on future events.
Risk Management Education
Mr. Robert Fleming

Milk producers and the milk industry are faced with a new management challenge - managing their risk due to volatile milk prices. Understanding the complex milk marketing area requires effort and dedication but does offer substantial returns.

Milk producers and others are invited to enroll in a letter-study course on "Achieving Risk Management Success in Dairy" written and edited by the Ohio Dairy Risk Management Team as a part of the multi-state A.R.M.S. program. This 18-issue course will include topics such as:
- Milk Price Risk Management Strategies
- Marketing Plans & Your Risk Tolerance
- Understanding How Milk is Priced
- Following and Using Outlook and Pricing Trends
- Income Tax Aspects
- Relationships with Brokers and Lenders
- Tools for Managing Price Risk in Milk Markets
To register for this letter-study course, send your name and address to:

Robert D. Fleming
District Specialist, Farm Management
OSU Extension - N.W. District
1219 West Main Cross
Suite 202
Findlay, OH 45840

Because of budget constraints and required cost recovery, the registration fee is $65.00/per person. The mailing will begin weekly by mid-April.

A letter-study course lets you participate at your convenience and review as often as you want. There will also be a special offer made to participants at the end of the course. Will spending a few dollars and a few hours on Risk Management help you progress toward your mission statement, goals and objectives? To learn more, register now.

Milk Pricing and Policy

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University,
Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

Policy Watch

In the policy arena, the current issue taking center stage is the Milk Import Tariff Equity Act (MITEA) of 2003. This act, now in identical forms in the House (H.R.1160) and the Senate (S. 560) has continued to pickup sponsors. The reported number of sponsors on the House side is 100 (55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 Independent) and on the Senate side, 24 sponsors.

The act would impose Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQ) on imported milk protein concentrates and on casein products intended for use in food and animal feed. If passed, the new TRQ's would have to be consistent with existing GATT rules.

The intent of this legislation is to stem or slow the importation of milk protein concentrates into the United States. Supporters of the legislation contend that low milk prices and large Commodity Credit Corporation stocks of nonfat dry milk powder are a direct result of these imports. Opponents charge that the trouble lies not with too much by way of imports but with a price support program that is out-of-touch with international market realities. Look for this one to be hotly debated by both sides in the coming weeks.

Market Watch

The near-term outlook for dairy commodity prices, milk component prices, and Class prices continue to sit on the price support floor as the year unwinds. My forecast for the June Milk Income Loss Compensation ( MILC) payment based on forecast dairy commodity advanced prices is $1.79/cwt. At this time, I am forecasting the Class I mover to be $9.71/cwt for June.

Here is what the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) markets look like at the end of the first week of May 2003.

Table 1. Futures Class III Prices: quarterly average settle prices as of 05/07/2003.

3rd Quarter 2003	4th Quarter 2003	1st Quarter 2004	2nd Quarter 2004
$11.42	$11.84	$11.59	$11.56

Class III futures prices on the CME have been bouncing around on speculative action as the trade attempts to figure out how effective the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) Cooperative Working Together (CWT) milk supply control program will be over the next 12 months. However, until some solid news comes in that suggests a significant tightening of production relative to inventories and commercial demand, the markets will stay at these low levels.

Table 2. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) average dairy product prices and the Class III price.

Dairy Product	April - June, 2003	July - September, 2003
Grade AA Butter ($/lb)	$1.0790	$1.1312
Cheddar Cheese ($/lb)	$1.1145	$1.1598
Whey ($/lb)	$0.1577	$0.1690
Nonfat Dry Milk Solids ($/lb)	$0.8016	$0.8014
Class III Milk Price	$9.55	$10.07
Class IV Milk Price	$9.74	$9.95
Producer Price Differential	$0.88	$0.71
MILC Payment Rate	$1.80	$1.74

Table 3. Average market pay prices for milk fat, protein, other solids, and nonfat solids.

Milk Component	April - June, 2003	July - September, 2003
Fat ($/lb)	$1.1568	$1.2194
Protein ($/lb)	$1.8414	$1.9216
Other Solids ($/lb)	$-0.0013**	$0.0103
Nonfat Solids ($/lb)	$0.6550	$0.6548
** Whey price is less than the 15.9 make allowance.

As I reported in the last issue of BDN, dairy cow slaughter numbers published in the weekly Dairy Market News by USDA/AMS continue to indicate that for the first 18 weeks of 2003, dairy cow slaughter is running about 12 to 13% ahead of last year. Looking back over the last 10 years at comparable periods of low milk prices and high feed prices, this pattern of increased slaughter pulled prices up by anywhere from $1.00 to $2.00/cwt by the third quarter of the year. Let's hope that a slowing of production from this increased slaughter rate, coupled with growing demand as we approach the ice-cream season at full throttle, will serve up better prices for producers.

Cost of Nutrients: Ohio, May 2003,

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

The cost of major nutrients remains high. The average cost per megacalorie (Mcal) of net energy lactation (NEL) has steadily gone up over the last 6 to 8 months. As of May 2003, NEL was costing an Ohio dairy producer an average of 7.5 cents per Mcal, a figure which is historically high. Effective fiber (e-NDF) is also relatively expensive at 9.7 cents/lb. Fortunately, these are counter-balanced by reasonable (rumen degradable protein, RDP at 3.3 cents/lb) to low prices (digestible rumen undegradable protein, D-RUP at 16.7 cents/lb; non-effective fiber, ne-NDF at -3.1 cents/lb) for other nutrients. This indicates that proper ration balancing, especially for energy and effective fiber, is currently an important factor in controlling feed costs in our dairy herds.

Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs.

Nutrient name	Estimates
NEL - 3X (2001 NRC)	$0.075442	**
RDP	$0.032721
Digestible RUP	$0.167530	**
ne-NDF	$-0.031147	~
e-NDF	$0.097004	**

- A blank means that the nutrient unit cost is likely equal to zero.
- ~ means that the nutrient cost may be close to zero.
- * means that the nutrient cost is unlikely to be equal to zero.
- **means that the nutrient cost is most likely not equal to zero.

It is also a time to look closely at the ingredients making up the dairy diets. There are some bargains out there, notably bakery byproduct, gluten feed, distillers dried grains, and wheat middlings. Any producer currently using beet pulp, canola meal, or citrus pulp should talk to their herd nutritionist. It may be time to strategically re-think the feeding program. Unless you are feeding high producing cows (>100 lb/day), the use of blood meal should be minimized. Even if one factors amino acids into balancing dairy diets, fish meal should be considered a grossly overpriced feed ingredient and the same results can be achieved using combinations of other ingredients at a much lower cost.

Table 2. Calibration set.

Table 3. Appraisal set.

Name	Actual [$/T]	Predicted [$/T]
Blood Meal, ring dried	485.00	335.467
Fish Menhaden Meal, mechanized	600.00	283.372

These estimates were derived using the software SESAME Version 2.05 written at The Ohio State University. For additional information, please refer to Buckeye Dairy News Vol. 5, Issue 2, March 2003.

Are Ohio Dairy Farmers Satisfied With Local Suppliers?

Dr. Brian Roe, Livestock Economics Specialist, Ohio State University

The face of dairy farming in Ohio is changing. The structure of dairy farming has evolved immensely in the past few years with regard to technology, size of operation, and the geographical location of farms. One of the consequences of these changes is that the business structure that supports dairy farms (e.g., feed mills, equipment suppliers, and veterinarians) might not react quickly enough to meet the changing demands of dairy farmers. Whether because of farm size or geographical location, farmers could be lacking the necessary farm inputs locally because the local business structure has not realized or has not been able to respond to these changing needs.

Analysis of 450 responses to a survey administered to a random sample of Ohio dairy farmers in the summer of 2002 confirms these general trends concerning the business infrastructure supporting dairy farms. The survey gathered information on various topics, one of them being the farmers' satisfaction with his or her local supply network.

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement, "I can find most of the inputs and services I need to run my dairy operation within my home county," farmers replied with mixed results, mostly segregated by region and farm size. Statewide, almost 73% of farmers agreed with the statement. They were happy with their local supply network and saw no need for change. The remaining 27% that did not agree came mostly from the South and Northwest districts, with only 42% and 59% agreeing, respectfully.

The most satisfied region was the Northeast, with almost 87% of farmers voicing their approval of their respective supply networks. When throwing herd size into the equation, the most satisfied were farmers milking less than 30 cows, with over 84% of the farmers agreeing. The least satisfied were farmers milking over 200 head of cattle. Only 43% of the farmers from this group agreed with the statement. Herds milking between 30 and 100 cows had an average agreement rating of roughly 65%, while those milking 100 to 200 cows had 70% of the farmers agree with the statement.

Looking at these numbers, it is clear that farms in the South and Northwest districts and herds with over 200 head are not receiving the support system of farm inputs that they think are needed. Expansion and relocation are probably the main reasons for this. More and more herds have moved into the Northwest region of the state. As dairy herds move from one area to another, it may take time for suppliers to react to demand that is diminishing in one region and increasing in another. Consequently, when a farmer moves to a new region, they might be without some of the inputs they used to take for granted. According to the survey, this may be the case for the Northwest region of the state.

The survey also states that farms with over 200 cows are the least satisfied with local supply networks. More than likely, these herds may have also recently relocated and/or expanded in the recent past. The same principle about relocation holds true when talking about expansion. When herds take on rapid growth, the supply system they used before may not be ready to meet farmers' increased demands for traditional products and demands for services not commonly desired by smaller farms (e.g., heifer raising or forage supply). Until local suppliers identify the new and increased demand and adapt, the farmer will more than likely be forced to buy elsewhere and the local supplier will be missing business opportunities.

The reasons that the Northwest district and herds over 200 cows are not satisfied with their support system and the reasons that the Northeast district and herds milking less than 30 cows are overwhelmingly satisfied with the farm input system represent opposite sides of the same coin. The Northeast district of Ohio has long been a dairy hotbed. Many suppliers are based out of this area. The demand for a dairy support system was firmly established many years ago and companies entered and adapted to meet that demand. Today, that support system is still in place and meets the demand of most of the farmers in the area. It is no coincidence that the Northeast district is home to many of the small dairy farms in the state, which explains their satisfaction with their availability of farm inputs.

As time evolves and patterns of dairy farms shift, the support system that these farms depend on will eventually shift with them, taking advantage of the opportunities that present themselves.

To see a copy of the survey or to see additional analysis of the results, click on the 'Purchasing and Sales Patterns of Ohio Dairies" link under the papers and presentations section at: http://aede.osu.edu/people/roe.30/livehome.htm

Stretching Corn Silage Supplies

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

In many areas of Ohio, corn silage yields were much lower than average last year because of the drought. Forage supplies are tight and hay prices are extremely high, but on the bright side, first cutting of alfalfa is approaching rapidly. Diets with less than typical concentrations of corn silage can be fed safely. The following steps should be followed if forage supply is limited.

1. Determine current corn silage inventory.

Example. 1000 tons of corn silage was harvested last September. The silage is fed to 150 lactating cows at the rate of 40 lbs/day. Since harvest, 660 tons have been fed (150 cows x 40 lbs x 220 days) leaving 340 tons.

2. Determine maximum amount of corn silage that can be fed based on available inventory.

Example (continued). As of May 1, 340 tons of corn silage is available. At the current feeding rate (40 lb X 150 cows = 3 tons/day), the remaining corn silage will last about 113 days (340 tons remaining divided by 3 tons fed/day). New crop corn silage will be available on October 1 (150 days). The maximum amount of corn silage that can be fed is 340 tons divided by 150 days = 2.3 tons/day or about 30 lb/head/day. To ensure adequate supply, reduce that value by 10%. The maximum amount of corn silage that should be fed is 27 lb/day per cow.

3. If inventory is not adequate based on current feeding rate, immediately reduce the amount fed to that value calculated in step 2. Changing now, rather than later, will reduce the magnitude of the change.

4. If the amount of corn silage fed must be reduced, replace it with logical alternatives.

Alternative feeds

In typical diets, forage is the major source of dietary fiber (expressed as neutral detergent fiber, NDF) and effective fiber (fiber that stimulates chewing and rumination). Several byproduct feeds have concentrations of NDF equal to or greater than that found in typical forages (Table 1) and can be used to provide NDF. Byproducts, with the exception of whole cottonseed, however, are not good sources of effective NDF.

Feeding diets with inadequate concentrations of NDF and effective NDF is a substantial risk factor for ruminal acidosis. Diets with low concentrations of NDF typically have high concentrations of nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC). In the rumen, NDF usually ferments slower and less extensively than NFC, resulting in less acid production and a higher rumen pH. Effective NDF is important because it stimulates chewing and salivation. Saliva is an excellent buffer and helps maintain rumen pH. When low forage diets are fed, dietary concentrations of NDF, effective NDF, and NFC must be adjusted properly to maintain rumen health.

Table 1. Average concentrations of NDF and crude protein (CP) in common byproducts.

Feed	Average NDF	Average CP
	% of Dry Matter
Beet pulp	45	10
Brewers grains	47	29
Corn gluten feed	35	24
Cottonseed, whole	47	24
Distillers grains	39	30
Soyhulls	60	14
Wheat bran	42	17
Wheat midds	37	18

Options when corn silage is limited

1. Replace corn silage with hay crop forages. New crop grass and legumes will be available in Ohio in mid to late May. If these forages will be available, increase their concentrations in the diet and reduce the amount of corn silage. The diet must be reformulated (especially with respect to protein and minerals) when hay crops replace corn silage. If increased feeding of hay crops during the summer will mean that the inventory of hay crops will not be adequate for winter feeding, more acres of corn silage should be planted and chopped.

2. Replace corn silage with byproducts. When low forage diets are fed, dietary concentrations of NDF must be increased and concentrations of NFC must be reduced. Typical diets in Ohio have NDF concentrations in the 27 to 30% range and NFC concentrations in the 38 to 41% range. Low forage diets should contain at least 32% NDF and no more than 38% NFC. Several experiments have shown that diets with 17 to 18% of the dry matter (DM) as forage NDF can be fed to cows without problems as long as the concentration of total NDF in the diet is increased to dilute out NFC and reduce acid production in the rumen. As forage is removed from the diet, it must be replaced with high fiber byproducts, not by starchy feeds such as corn grain. A general rule is for every 1 percentage unit forage NDF is reduced below typical values (approximately 21% of diet DM), total diet NDF should be increased by 2 percentage units. For example, if the amount of forage in a diet is reduced by 2.5 lb/day of DM, the amount of forage NDF fed will be reduced by 1.1 lb (assuming the forage has 45% NDF). To account for a loss in effective NDF, total NDF intake should be increased by 1.1 x 2 = 2.2 lb/day. Soyhulls have about 60% NDF; therefore, 3.7 lb of soyhull DM would be needed to provide 2.2 lb of NDF (i.e., 2.2/0.6 = 3.7). In this example, 2.5 lb of forage and 1.2 lb of corn grain would be replaced with 3.7 lb of soyhulls (all amounts are on a DM basis). Depending on the protein content of the forage, some changes in soybean meal might also be needed. For moderately low forage diets, replacing a portion of the forage and corn grain with a high fiber byproduct may be all that is necessary. The choice of which byproduct to use should be based on cost of the nutrients provided by the feed (see Cost of Nutrients article by Normand St. Pierre) and the need for supplemental crude protein.

If forage supply is severely limited (< 17% of diet DM as forage NDF), the approach outlined above may not be adequate. Dietary NDF concentrations must be increased to dilute NFC as described above and additional sources of effective NDF might also be needed. The only byproduct commonly available in Ohio that is a good source of effective NDF is whole linted cottonseed. Diets with 10 to 15% (DM basis) whole cottonseed can be fed without problems. The minimum amount of cottonseed that should be fed is based on the amount of forage NDF provided in the diet. A general guideline is that forage NDF plus the NDF from cottonseed should equal or exceed 17% of diet DM. For example, if forage NDF is 14%, at least 3 percentage units of dietary NDF should come from whole cottonseed. The minimum amount of cottonseed in the diet equals 3 divided by 0.47 (NDF concentration of cottonseed) = 6.4% of diet DM. Total dietary NDF should be increased from 27% (minimum concentration for adequate forage diets) to about 35% (i.e., 21% forage NDF (requirement with adequate forage diets) minus 17 (amount of NDF from forage and cottonseed in this example) times 2). For this example, the diet would consist of 35% forage (assuming the forage is 40% NDF), 6.4% whole cottonseed, and 58.6% concentrate mix that contains 30% NDF.

Estimating Alfalfa Neutral Detergent Fiber in the Field

Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Specialist, Ohio State University

First harvest of alfalfa is fast approaching. Timely cutting is critical for obtaining high quality forage. For lactating dairy cows, the optimal range for neutral detergent fiber (NDF) of alfalfa is around 40 to 42%. You can quickly and easily estimate the quality of alfalfa in your fields using the method outlined below. This method, developed at the University of Wisconsin, has been referred to as PEAQ, for Predictive Equations for Alfalfa Quality.

This method has been thoroughly tested in Ohio and provides reasonable accuracy for timing harvest operations. It can be used during the entire growing season, not just on the first crop. Use it to monitor alfalfa NDF as the crop develops. If the goal is 40% NDF in stored alfalfa, then cutting must begin before the standing crop reaches 40% NDF because of the effect of harvest and storage losses. In our experiences, NDF concentration of well-made silage is about 2 percentage units higher than the standing crop. Changes in NDF during a hay harvest will be higher. One must also adjust for the time it takes to harvest all acres. During the spring, NDF will increase approximately 5% each week.

The PEAQ method is designed for pure alfalfa stands and will not accurately reflect the NDF concentration of mixed grass-alfalfa stands or weedy stands. If grass is present in the alfalfa stand, begin harvesting earlier. As a reference point, pure grass stands should be cut in late vegetative to very early boot stage for dairy quality feed and by early heading for other classes of livestock.

The PEAQ procedure is NOT intended to replace laboratory analyses for balancing rations once the forage is stored. It should only be used to give a rapid first estimate of quality of the standing alfalfa for making informed harvest decisions. Alfalfa NDF sticks for field use have been developed which simplify the procedure. If you would like to purchase one, contact your county Extension agent.

Although rainy weather can foul up the best plans, using PEAQ in conjunction with weather forecasts should help you come closer to your desired forage quality goal for alfalfa this spring and summer.

Estimating Alfalfa NDF using PEAQ

Step 1: Choose a representative 2-square-foot area in the field area to be harvested.

Step 2: Determine the most mature stem in the 2-square-foot sampling area using the criteria shown in the table at right.

Step 3: Measure the length of the tallest stem in the 2-square-foot area. Measure it from the soil surface (next to plant crown) to the tip of the stem (NOT to the tip of the highest leaf blade). Straighten the stem for an accurate measure of its length. The tallest stem may not be the most mature stem.

Step 4: Based on the most mature stem and length of the tallest stem, use the chart below to determine estimated NDF of the standing alfalfa forage. Example: tallest stem is 28 inches, most mature stem has buds, but no open flowers; NDF = 38.0%.

Step 5: Repeat steps 1 through 4 in four or five representative areas across the field. Sample more times for fields larger than 30 acres. Average all estimates for a field average.

NOTE: This procedure estimates alfalfa NDF content of the standing crop. It does not account for changes in quality due to wilting, harvesting, and storage. These factors may further raise NDF content by 3 to 6%, assuming good wilting and harvesting conditions. This procedure is most accurate for good stands of pure alfalfa with healthy growth.
Fertility Management of Meadows and Pastures

Mr. Tom Noyes, Dairy Extension Agent, Wayne County

With milk prices at record lows, dairy producers look for ways to cut costs and one possibility would be not applying fertilizer to pastures and other forages. Is this a wise decision? Well, that depends. What are the soil fertility levels, what forage productivity do you want, and are there legumes in the stand?

The OSU Extension fact sheet on "Fertility Management of Meadows" provides excellent recommendations for fertilizing pastures and forage crops. It doesn't matter how the forage is harvested (grazed or mechanical), it will remove from the soil the three major nutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K). The amount removed depends on the yields. For each ton of tall grass or legume forage, it will remove 13 lb of phosphate (P2O5) and 50 lb of potash (K2O). These nutrients can come from soil reserves, through commercial fertilizers, manure, or livestock nutrient cycling (grazing livestock).

Let's first address the soil levels of these nutrients. Nitrogen soil reserves are relatively low so N needs to be applied or derived from legumes. For good yields of forage, soil P levels need to be maintained at 15 to 25 ppm (30 to 50 lb/acre). Potassium soil levels should be 125 to 200 ppm (250 to 400 lb/acre). On many livestock farms that have regularly applied manure, the levels of P and K may have increased to levels where a year of no commercial fertilizer application will not affect crop yields. Soil P levels of over 35 ppm and K levels of over 200 ppm can provide normal forage yields from soil nutrient reserves, especially for pastures where considerable nutrients are being recycled by the grazing livestock without additional fertilizer.

For N, it is a different story. Applying N and how much to apply will be determined by the legume content of the forage stand. The OSU fertilizer recommendations omit applications of N when the forage content is made up of 35 to 40% or more legumes. When the stand is less than 20% legumes, consider it a grass stand and apply N. Applying small amounts of N to pastures with 20 to 25% legume will increase forage quality and yields.

When grass is the predominant forage species, N fertilization is extremely important. Economic returns have been demonstrated when a total of 150 to 175 lb/acre/year of N are split applied, three times during the growing season. By the time you read this article, the spring application times will have passed, so there will be an opportunity for two more applications.

An application towards the end of June, timed with a potential ½ inch rain, would pay dividends in reducing mid-summer slump. Apply 35 to 40 lb/acre of actual N with a stable N source like diammonium phosphate (DAP) or ammonium sulfate.

For extended grazing in the fall, an application of 30 to 50 lb/acre of N in late August will give you a flush of grass much like spring, which will provide increased forage quality and yields well into the late fall months.
Heat Stress - Where Do You Start?

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

In an average year, heat stress costs $19.0 to $33.5 million to Ohio's dairy industry, or $70 to $125/cow/year. That's a lot of money being left on the table, especially in these times of low milk prices. In an average year, our cows are stressed an average of 1,200 hours. During an average heat stress hour, the ambient temperature - humidity index (THI) exceeds the upper threshold of cow comfort by 5.6 units. The problem is becoming more acute because our cows are producing an increasingly amount of heat due to their higher levels of production. A good Holstein cow producing 100 lb/day of milk is generating approximately 6,500 BTU/hour. This is the amount of heat energy that must be dissipated to the environment, every hour of the day, if we want to maintain constant normal body temperature of 101.5 (± 1.0)°F. Otherwise, feed intake drops, the number of meals eaten per day decreases, followed by a decline in milk production, a decrease in conception rate coupled with an increase in early abortion rates, an increase in subclinical acidosis, and an increase in death losses. As Murphy would say, that's not good!

Where should you start? In Table 1, we prepared a prioritized list of actions for reducing the negative impact of heat stress. Availability of clean water is a must. Cows can easily drink an additional 8 to 10 gallons/day during periods of heat stress. Production will suffer if this happens when your well is running dry or if your watering system was not designed to accommodate this increased water demand. In freestall housing, two feet of tank perimeter is adequate for every 15 to 20 cows in the winter (2.4 to 3.2 linear inches/cow), but not in the summer when 4.0 to 5.0 linear inches/cow are needed.

Solar radiation can increase substantially the heat load, and thus, the level of heat stress experienced by cows. Inexpensive shade cloths can be very effective in this regard.

Milking parlors are often the primary areas of intense heat stress for cows during the summer. Our better cows produce 6,500 BTU/hour, regardless of their location. In the holding pen, the floor surface area is reduced from 75 to 80 square feet/cow in the freestall barn to less than 15 square feet/cow. Consequently, the intensity of heat abatement must be considerably higher in the holding pen than in the freestall barn. The standard recommendation is to install rows of fans every 30 feet across the holding pen, with 36 inch fans spaced eight feet center to center along each row. In our evaluation, this recommendation is too conservative and does not provide enough air volume and velocity. Our recommendation is to center 36 inch fans on six feet center to center and to set the rows a maximum of 24 feet apart. Our recommendation reduces the surface area from 240 square feet down to 140 square feet per fan. Additionally, low-pressure sprinklers should be installed and set on a timer to operate for one minute every 5 to 6 minutes. You will know that your holding pen cooling is sufficient when a minimum of 8 cows out of 10 have normal body temperature and respiration rate as they exit the parlor.

In case you are wondering about the economics, each dollar invested in cow cooling (equipment cost and operating cost) results in an additional $3.50 of additional income. Not a bad investment, even at $10/cwt milk!

Table 1. Priorities for reducing heat stress.

1. Adequate water
2. Provide shade
3. Reduce walking distance to parlor
4. Reduce time in holding pen
5. Improve holding pen ventilation
6. Improve freestall ventilation
7. Add holding pen and exit lane cooling
8. Cool fresh cows and early lactation cows
9. Cool pre-fresh cows
10. Cool mid and late lactation cows
For the Birds

Ms. Dianne Shoemaker, District Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

Not once have I ever heard a dairy farmer complain that they just can't seem to attract birds as well as the neighbors. Doesn't matter whether the culprits are starlings, crows, sparrows, pigeons, seagulls, or brown-headed cow birds, farmers covet the barns without the birds. Actually, there is one bird that is welcome. The hawk. Why will they hang out at one farm and not another when they both have more fresh fowl-on-the-wing just waiting to be eaten than a busy Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru? If I only knew!

Unwanted birds have become an extremely frustrating problem for dairy farms. The very barn designs that optimize cow comfort also provide favorable habitat for birds. One of the features that makes rafter barns attractive, besides fewer timbers to impede air flow, is that it also provides almost no places for birds to roost. The few places that are available, however, the birds will find.

Management practices such as having TMR in front of the cows 24 hours a day also means that there is TMR available to birds 24 hours a day. You think a cow can sort? Just watch a bird eat all your high-priced grains and supplements. It may sound humorous at first, but the huge flocks of birds that infest some farms can cost thousands of dollars as they consume dry matter intended for the animals. Additional feed, the barn, and farmstead are also contaminated with bird feces and noise.

Birds have the potential to carry and spread diseases harmful to both livestock and people. According to John Paul Seman, Wildlife Biologist with USDA, APHIS Wildlife Services, Salmonella, E. coli 0157, and Campylobacter are three diseases that can be transmitted to cattle, and possibly then to humans when cattle ingest infected bird feces. While these may or may not cause problems for the cows, if transmitted to humans, they can cause gastrointestinal distress and even death in extreme cases.

"European Starlings," fact sheet E-109 from the "Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage" series is available from your county Extension office. This extensive fact sheet describes many ways to try to control starlings through exclusion, habitat modification, frightening, repellants, toxicants, trapping, and shooting. In many dairy operations, actions such as exclusion, frightening, and repelling have minimal practicality or impact. Other suggestions, such as shooting, have limited application, especially within barns. If shooting is attempted in barns, it is likely that moisture problems will increase as "spot" ventilation appears in the roof.

To help address the growing problem with starlings on dairy farms, the USDA Wildlife Services has begun the DRC-1339 Program. This program involves conditioning pest birds to eat a bait and then using an avicide applied to the bait to control 70 to 90% of an infestation. The DRC-1339 is a slow acting toxicant that appears to be painless in birds. Wildlife Services times applications during months that songbirds are not present (usually November through February). During the actual time that treated bait is made available to starlings, an employee watches to be sure that no songbirds, animals, people, or other non-target species go near the bait.

The farm is responsible for collecting and disposing of dead birds on their property and on other property that the birds may fly to before they die. It is strongly encouraged that you talk to neighbors ahead of time!

The fee for the baiting program is set to help recover application costs. For anyone who has experienced a bad bird infestation (this program is available to those farms with infestations of 1000 birds or more), a $550 fee to cover the cost of bait, avicid, and technical assistance is a good investment.

Want more details or ready to sign up? Contact USDA Wildlife Services at (330) 726-3386 or (614) 892-2514. Participation in the program is first-come, first-served. Since the winter weather if over, DRC-1339 baiting will not take place until next winter. They can however, give you some suggestions for rolling out the un-welcome mat in the meantime.
Environmental Rules - Are you in compliance?

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency released the new revisions to the Clean Water Act for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) on December 16, 2002. The staff in the Livestock Permitting Program at the Ohio Department of Agriculture has been working on bringing the fairly new Ohio rules in compliance with the new Federal rules. As the staff has made the suggested changes, these changes have been reviewed by the Concentrated Animal Feeding Facility Advisory Committee. Ohio House Bill 152 has been introduced to the 125th General Assembly to revise Ohio's environmental rules for CAFO to abide by the new Federal rules. In the next few issues of the Buckeye Dairy News, we will be focusing an article on helping dairy farmers being environmentally compliant. All dairy farms, regardless of size, need to be environmentally friendly and can be impacted by the new rules.

Two questions will be addressed this month: 1) What is manure and a discharge? and 2) What are some potential sources of discharges on dairy farms? Manure is defined as "wastes used in or resulting from the production of agricultural animals or direct agricultural products such as milk or eggs, animal excreta, discarded products, bedding, process waster water, process generated waste water, waste feed, silage drainage, and compost products resulting from mortality composting or the composting of animal excreta." A discharge is "to add from a point source to waters of the state." The potential for discharge of manure from a dairy farm exists from the manure storage and handling area, land application of manure, feed storage, silo, uncovered surface lots used for animal housing, milking parlor, and mortality composting. If "manure" from any of these sources enter the waters of the State, then a discharge has occurred and you are in violation of Ohio laws. Is your milk parlor waste being contained? In other words, it is not being discharged directly into a ditch - is it? Hay crop forages will be harvested for silage over the next few weeks, thus are containment measures in place to control silo seepage from becoming a discharge? The environmental laws apply to everyone, not to just the big guns (e.g. permitted operations). The old adage that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" certainly applies to the environmental aspects of livestock production. Whether we like it or not, the food production system in the U.S. is under continued scrutiny by the consuming public. This scrutiny is from the farmstead to the retail center - watch out, there are eyes observing what you are doing.
What are LEAP and OFAER?

Mr. Dave White, Executive Director, Ohio Livestock Coalition

Livestock Environmental Assurance Program

To help Ohio's livestock and poultry producers identify and address key management issues affecting environmental quality, the Ohio Livestock Coalition (OLC) developed the Livestock Environmental Assurance Program (LEAP), which provides producers with the opportunity to take a proactive approach in blending sound production economics with concern about environmental quality. The LEAP is coordinated by the OLC in cooperation with the Ohio State University (OSU) Extension, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' (ODNR) Division of Soil & Water Conservation, United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and various commodity and farm organizations.

The LEAP is a voluntary and confidential environmental assurance program for all major livestock species in Ohio - sheep, beef and dairy cattle, swine, and poultry - and some areas may also be applicable for equine. It will help livestock and poultry producers profitably manage environmental challenges that are critically important to the success of the business and effectively assess how farmstead practices affect water quality. That kind of knowledge gives producers the power to operate and grow their livestock operation with environmental assurance, confidence, and security.

LEAP Level 1 is designed primarily for confined animal feeding operations.
LEAP Pasture is designed primarily for pasture or grazing-based livestock systems, including, but not limited to, beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep, and equine.

In both LEAP Level 1 and Pasture:

GENERAL CONCEPTS provide a primer for environmental assurance fundamentals.

APPLICATIONS focus on specific topics for individual commodity producers.

IMPLEMENTATION provides resources, contacts, and references specific to Ohio that will assist you in applying the action plan you develop at the completion level.

LEAP Level 2 is designed to help livestock, dairy, and poultry producers gather the information and identify best management practices (BMP) necessary to develop a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP).

Funds are available to help livestock, dairy, and poultry farmers who participate in LEAP 2 obtain soil fertility tests and manure nutrient analyses, which are two very important and necessary pieces of information for initiating a CNMP.

Participation in a local LEAP Level 1 or 2 training session is required of farmers who wish to become eligible recipients for agricultural pollution abatement grants available through the local SWCD. Producers who are considering applying for Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) grants through the USDA/NRCS should also participate in a LEAP training session to earn points towards qualifying for the grant.

On-Farm Assessment & Environmental Review Program

Had a check-up lately? While an annual physical check-up is a good idea for everybody, an On-Farm Assessment and Environmental Review (OFAER) is also prudent for Ohio's livestock and poultry farms.

The goals of this pro-active program are to promote environmental stewardship, minimize livestock impact on watersheds, improve the public's perception of livestock production and move agriculture, particularly animal production agriculture, toward self-regulation.

All sizes of farms are eligible to participate in the OFAER program, and it is open to beef, dairy, poultry, turkey, and pork operations. Data from the program indicates that environmental challenges are similar in type no matter what the size of the operation is and that well-managed operations of any size can be environmentally successful. When risk areas are identified, producers find that by addressing such areas, several valuable benefits occur - a reduction in potential liability exposure, an enhancement in community acceptance, and a savings in operating costs and expenses.

An on-farm assessment and review is the logical next step for producers who have already conducted a self-analysis and evaluation of their operation by participating in LEAP and want to make sure they have not overlooked any problems.

Unlike a visit to the physician's office, the OFAER program is of no cost to the producer. When risk areas are identified on farms, most of these risks can be addressed by developing and implementing BMP. Cost-share funding for implementing BMP and structural changes may be available from the USDA/NRCS or the local SWCD office.

To initiate an on-farm assessment, please contact the OLC at dwhite@ofbf.org or (614) 246-8288.

Milk Production Enters Slow Growth Phase - Will Milk Prices Rebound?

As we approach the midpoint of the 2003 calendar year it is time to take stock of where we are milk price-wise and where we are likely to go in the last seven months remaining for 2003.

The roller coaster that we know as the U.S. dairy market

As we look back at the dairy markets over the last four years, 1999 through 2002, we certainly can recall those familiar opening lines from Charles Dicken's Tale of Two Cities:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,
It was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.

As a recap on the "spring of hope" and the "winter of despair", recall that milk supply and demand were in tight balance as 1999 came to a close, with National Agricultural Statistical Service, USDA reporting the average All Milk Price at $14.35 and gross income from the sale of milk at a near peak of $23.3 billion dollars. Times were indeed, good! The performance for 2000 lived up to the billing of the worst of times. Milk production grew by 2.98% responding to high prices and cash inflow. However, as often happens with farm production, and dairy is not the exception, rapid production growth outpaces growth in commercial demand. Commercial disappearance, as measured by fat equivalence, grew by 2.54% for 2000 over 1999. By the end of 2000, this imbalance between production and use had sent the all milk price declining by 13.6% and gross income from the sale of milk declining by 11% to 20.8 billion dollars.

As 2001 began, it appeared that more despair was on the way! This was not to be, however, as difficult weather created harsh production conditions, and milk per cow struggled to keep up with the trend, and finally posted a significant reversal of direction and declined by 0.4% for the year. Even with demand now showing real weakness, this was enough to push the average value of the All Milk Price back up by 21.4% and send gross cash income from the sale of milk soaring to $24.9 billion dollars. It was the best of times once again!

As is the case for the US dairy, all of that cash income flowing onto the farms was put to good use by producing more milk. With the weather back to more normal conditions for most of 2002, production picked up again, cow numbers increased, yields went up, and US milk production posted a 2.5% gain over 2001. What happened to milk price? You guessed it! The average All Milk Price declined again. This time it fell by a staggering 19.5%. The annual average All Milk Price in 2001 was $15.05, and by the end of 2002, it had declined to $12.11! My, how the winter of despair had returned!

Why such a large decline in the milk price from 2001 to 2002? The answer to this rests squarely on the recognition that with weak consumer demand across the board, there is too much milk production taking place to support the higher prices we experienced in 1999 ($14.35) and 2001($15.05). Commercial disappearance grew by only 0.3% in 2001 and 0.5% in 2002! In addition, and this is a big factor for the future milk price outlook, we are starting each new production year with an ever increasing inventory of unsold dairy products - butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk.

On a fat equivalent basis, commercial inventories increased by 11% in 2001 and by 2.95% in 2002. On a solids-equivalent basis, inventories held by the Commodity Credit Corporation also increased by 284% in 2001 and 50.4% in 2002, primarily as skim milk powder. This is the explanation for why a 2.98% increase in production from 1999 to 2000 resulted in a 13.5% price fall and a smaller, 2.5% increase in production from 2001 to 2002 resulted in a 19.5% price fall.

Dairy product inventories flatten milk prices

A seasonal pattern occurs for butter stocks to production ratio (BSPR). Stocks tend to rise during the first half of the year as cream is flush and butter production is full throttle. In the second half of the year, when cream is less available, stocks are drawn down relative to butter production. High milk price years need high butter prices. This is a fact! High butter prices require a moderate to low BSPR. In 2003, the BSPR is running at least two times higher than we would normally expect this time of the year. In fact, we are carrying inventories of butter that we would not expect to see until the peak in the June - August period. This strongly suggests that we will not see wholesale butter price move above the $1.10 to $1.20 range this year, unless something happens to soak up a significant quantity of this butter in commercial storage.

As with butter but not as obvious, a seasonal pattern occurs for the cheese stocks to production ratio (CSPR). Stocks relative to production tend to rise during the November to February months, and then again during the March to July period. In the second half of the year, when farm level protein tests fall, the cheese industry pulls from stocks to satisfy demand and stocks are drawn down relative to cheese production. Just as we discussed for butter, high milk price years need high cheese prices. And as with butter, higher cheese prices require a moderate to low CSPR. In 2003, the CSPR is running at 4 percentage points higher than we would normally expect this time of the year. While this is higher than we would like to see at this time of the year, this is not nearly as significant as the BSPR. With a pickup in commercial demand, we can anticipate a real rise in the wholesale cheese price. How high can the cheese price rise? Without a return to robust consumer demand, I do not expect to see the reported National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) monthly average wholesale cheese price to move above the $1.20 to $1.35 range for the remainder of 2003. In my opinion, the cash cheese price rally posted on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on the opening days of July is not sustainable as a long-term price level.

A little good news please

From the latest USDA Milk Production report, it does appear that the prolonged financial pain of the past year is beginning to show as a reduced rate of growth in cow numbers, yield per cow, and US milk production. Couple this with weekly numbers from the USDA Federal Inspected Livestock Slaughter - Dairy Cattle report, which indicates that dairy cow slaughter is continuing to run an average of 10 to 11% ahead of last year at this time. If this continues, I expect that we have turned the corner on milk production growth and can expect to see much slower growth on a percentage basis over the next year. If the past is a guide, it will take 3 to 5 quarters of reduced milk output growth with the last couple of those showing a negative rate of growth over the year earlier period for the supply and demand balance to become tight enough for the All Milk Price to show a sustained and substantial increase. When this happens, you can expect to see a $1.50 to $2.00 increase in the monthly value of the All Milk Price by year end.

Let's take a look at what is ahead for market prices in the last half of 2003 and the first part of 2004

Until we get a better balance between the inventory of dairy products and commercial disappearance, you should look for the current wholesale price levels of Grade AA butter and Cheddar cheese to remain lethargic for the remainder of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004. The 2003 forecast, June through December, for dairy commodity prices (butter, nonfat dry milk, cheese, and whey), given by quarter, is shown in Table 1. These forecast prices translate into the average milk check value shown in Table 2. The producer differential and the gross milk check price are applicable to producers in the Mideast Federal Milk Marketing Order 33, Cleveland base zone. Milk component pay prices, given the 2003 forecast dairy product prices, will be quite moderate, which will be good news for processors of dairy products facing weak consumer demand and not so good news for dairy producers. Class prices in the remaining months of 2003 will not be as robust as they were in 2002 (Table 3).

Table 1. Forecast dairy commodity wholesale prices ($/lb), 2002 and 2003..

Forecast for Planning Year	Grade AA Butter	Nonfat Dry Milk	Cheddar Cheese	Whey Protein
2002 Annual Average	$1.0952	$0.9077	$1.1857	$0.1993
2003 Quarter I	$1.063	$0.812	$1.115	$0.166
2003 Quarter II est.	$1.076	$0.803	$1.127	$0.147
2003 Quarter III est.	$1.160	$0.801	$1.267	$0.160
2003 Quarter IV est.	$1.200	$0.802	$1.313	$0.172
2003 Annual Average Forecast	$1.125	$0.805	$1.206	$0.161

Table 2. Forecast milk component pay prices and Class III price, 2003.

	Grade AA Milk Fat	Protein	Other Solids	Nonfat Solids	Base Milk Value	MILC Payment*
2002	$/lb	$/lb	$/lb	$/lb	$/cwt	$/cwt
Annual Average	$1.30	$2.01	$0.06	$0.76	$10.93
Forecast for 2003
Quarter I	$1.156	$1.778	$0.026	$0.672	$9.515	$1.156
Quarter II est.	$1.153	$1.887	-$0.012	$0.657	$9.612	$1.153
Quarter III est.	$1.254	$2.229	$0.001	$0.655	$11.064	$1.254
Quarter IV est.	$1.302	$2.329	$0.013	$0.656	$11.599	$1.302
Annual Average	$1.216	$2.056	$0.007	$0.660	$10.448	$1.216

*MILC = Milk Income Loss Compensation

Table 3. Forecast class prices 2003 with comparisons for 1999 through 2002.

Calendar Year	Class I	Class II	Class III	Class IV
Calendar Year	$/cwt	$/cwt	$/cwt	$/cwt
1999	15.87	13.15	12.44	12.26
2000	13.61	12.65	9.74	11.83
2001	16.26	14.53	13.10	13.76
2002	13.01	11.56	10.43	10.85
2003 (estimated)	12.64	10.75	10.45	9.99

Projected MILC payment rates

Now that we have the complete suite of price forecasts for FY2003, we can calculate the implied payment rates under the MILC program (Table 4). In doing this, keep in mind that these are only estimates of the rates and will change as new market and production information becomes available. Remember MILC payment rates increase as the Class III and/or Class IV advanced mover prices decline. A higher MILC payment rate is not what is desired as it lifts only some boats, while across the board strength in all milk prices raises all of the dairy boats.

Table 4. The FY2003 forecast Milk Income Loss Compensation (MILC) payment rate ($/cwt) by month.

Month	Days	Forecast MILK Payment Rate (Actual **)
Oct '02	31	$1.5930 **
Nov	30	$1.3905 **
Dec	31	$1.3950 **
Jan '03	31	$1.4085 **
Feb	28	$1.557 **
Mar	31	$1.746 **
Apr	30	$1.8225 **
May	31	$1.791 **
Jun	30	$1.7775 **
Jul	31	$1.7640 **
Aug	31	$1.485
Sep	30	$1.1655
Oct	31	$1.0215
Nov	30	$0.873
DEC	31	$0.9405

Winding up

It is hard to be up-beat and rosy with quarterly average prices that look, at this point, not to be much better than 2000 or 2002. It is fair to ask what could alter my dairy product and milk price forecasts for 2003. Ignoring the unpredictable element of weather, there are really three economic factors at this point. One factor on the production side and two factors on the demand side.

First, higher feed costs and extremely unfavorable margins over feed costs are beginning to show up in reduced rate of growth in production per cow and in milk cow numbers. This must continue and grow in strength over the remainder of the year. For those of you who like to follow the numbers, early signs of better prices will be USDA reported cow numbers running 0.5 to 1% below year earlier levels, accompanied by output per cow coming in at 0.5 to 1.5% below year earlier levels. This is what is required to adequately slow the rate of growth in milk production and dairy product inventory and could push wholesale market prices and milk prices higher.

Second, the current slow recovery in the general US economy must continue to gain momentum. We are now headed toward the traditional peak consumer demand months for dairy products, and we need a real strong growth to get consumers back into the buying mood. If this happens, we could see consumer demand gain in strength, indicated by more rapidly declining inventories of butter and cheese. We could see prices for butter and cheese rise above those in this forecast and would be welcome news indeed for dairy producers.

Third, the current low wholesale price will slowly be reflected in prices in the supermarkets, pizza parlors, and sub-shops. Low prices do perform the function of making dairy products a better value for the dollar and this increases consumer demand that eats away at excessive inventories. Slowly, yes - but it does happen, and this will get market supply back into a better balance with consumer demand. Remember, it was just the right kind of poor weather that rescued milk prices and dairy farm revenue in 2001 from the lows of 2000, perhaps it will do so again in the remaining months of 2003!

Cost of Nutrients in Feedstuffs

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

The summer season always brings opportunities for reducing feed costs if one is attentive enough to the changes occurring in the markets. The supply of some high-fiber byproducts increases noticeably in the summer months (e.g., wheat middlings), while the demand for feeds drops due to pasture utilization and reduced animal intake from the warmer weather. Thus, there can be real buying opportunities for those who realize that corn and soybean meal are not perfect price drivers (i.e., everything is not priced based on the cost of these two feed ingredients). Understanding that feedstuffs are vehicles of nutrients and that markets are indirectly pricing nutrients when they are pricing feedstuffs is an important concept in valuing feedstuffs.

As of early July, unit costs of some major nutrients have dropped compared to those calculated in mid-spring (Table 1). The costs per pound of rumen degradable protein (RDP), digestible rumen undegradable protein (d-RUP), and effective NDF (e-NDF) have dropped by 1.47, 1.57, and 0.80 cents per pound, respectively. The cost per unit of net energy lactation remains high, at about 7.5 cents per megacalorie. Non-effective NDF is actually traded at a discount of negative 2.5 cents per pound.

Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs.

Nutrient name	Estimates
NEL - 3X (2001 NRC)	$0.074940	**
RDP	$0.018090
Digestible RUP	$0.151839	**
Non-effective NDF (ne-NDF)	$-0.025063	~
e-NDF	$0.088950	**

Because of these changes, it may be time to reconsider the ingredients in your dairy diets. Based on prevailing prices in Central Ohio during early July, the following ingredients can be purchased at a significantly lower price than what they are worth nutritionally (Table 2): ground corn, distillers dried grains, corn gluten feed, corn hominy, and wheat middlings. These are the ingredients that when used in a balanced ration can significantly reduce your feed costs. Likewise, the following ingredients are currently over-priced: beet pulp, canola meal, citrus pulp, meat meal, molasses, and soybean hulls. Their use in dairy rations should currently be minimized. Menhaden fish meal and blood meal should be avoided completely unless your cows' level of productivity warrants balancing for amino acids (70 to 75 lb/day of milk for a Holstein herd). Even if amino acids are factored in the evaluation, fish meal is still grossly overpriced and should be avoided entirely.

You feed your cows to provide them with the nutrients required to sustain a desired level of production. There are many sources of such nutrients (feeds). Thus, there are many combinations of feeds that can make a good, balanced ration for your cows. Some of these combinations of feedstuffs can be considerably cheaper than others.

Table 2. Calibration set.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, OH Buckeye D	150	150.834	135.028	166.640
Bakery Byproduct Meal	118	131.140	118.119	144.161
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	155	115.503	103.952	127.108
Brewers Grains, dried	142	142.114	130.989	153.239
Brewers Grains, wet	30	31.515	28.801	34.229
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	175	144.365	133.880	154.850
Citrus Pulp, dried	139	113.901	104.127	123.675
Corn Grain, ground dry	106	128.478	114.697	142.258
Corn Silage, 32-38% DM	40	55.296	49.942	60.651
Cottonseed, whole w lint	211	217.144	197.329	236.960
Distillers Dried Grains, w sol	123	144.285	134.928	153.641
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	230	257.928	241.607	274.249
Gluten Meal, dry	98	137.156	129.719	144.593
Gluten Feed, dry	257	265.074	245.064	285.084
Hominy	106	119.187	109.470	128.904
Meat Meal, rendered	235	213.434	200.217	226.650
Molasses, sugarcane	118	92.399	80.287	104.511
Soybean Hulls	97	79.761	63.339	96.183
Soybean Meal, expellers	253	230.922	217.337	244.506
Soybean Meal, solvent 44%	203	183.298	169.858	196.737
Soybean Meal, solvent 48%	213	202.605	190.987	214.222
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	250	252.429	239.896	264.961
Wheat Bran	80	91.960	80.587	103.333
Wheat Middlings	73	101.942	92.065	111.820

Table 3. Appraisal set.

Name	Actual [$/T]	Predicted [$/T]
Blood Meal, ring dried	445.00	312.080
Fish Menhaden Meal	600.00	264.543

These estimates were derived using the software SESAME Version 2.05 written at The Ohio State University. For additional information, please refer to Buckeye Dairy News Vol. 5, Issue 2, March 2003.

Delay Placing Fly Control Ear Tags

Dr. William Shulaw, Extension Veterinarian, Ohio State University

Did you realize that cattle raisers during the Civil War didn't have to worry about the horn fly, and my grandfather didn't have to worry about the face fly? Both pests were introduced (about 1860 for the horn fly and the 1950s for the face fly) to the US. Today, flies are an economically significant problem for cattle farmers.

The horn fly only lays its eggs in fresh manure, and it is generally recommended not to begin control efforts using tags and sprays until the fly numbers reach an economic threshold - about 100 to 200 flies per animal. Treatment with these methods too early isn't cost effective, and since you never really get all of them (or your cattle are parasitized by your neighbor's flies), early treatment doesn't usually prevent a buildup.

If you use ear tags for horn fly control, treatment too early may actually be counter productive. Many of these tags have an effective lifespan of five months. If they are put in during the early spring, the drug may be nearly gone by the time fly numbers peak (late summer). If the tags remain in the ear after their effective period of use is over, the pesticide (drug) may be below effective killing concentration at that time, and the flies can quickly develop resistance to it. Resistance was observed in a relatively short period of time after ear tags for horn fly control were first introduced. Therefore, it is recommended not to put fly tags in place until the economic threshold of horn flies is reached and to take them out when the manufacturer indicates the tag should be removed.

Unfortunately, spring turnout is often a convenient time for producers to apply ear tags. In fact, it is the observation of many veterinarians and parasitologists that fly tags are usually put in and removed when it is convenient, rather than at the time when they will do the most good. Taking them out when the cattle are brought off pasture or when they are worked in October or November (beef cattle) is a common practice and almost surely has contributed to the resistance problem.

Feed additive larvacides or growth regulators can be used to control horn fly populations. These chemicals work by preventing the development of flies in the manure. They are administered in feed, loose mineral, or block form, and all animals in the group must consume the recommended dosage for effective control. Because horn flies can move from herd-to-herd over a distance of several miles, oral larvacides must be used rather extensively across an area or region in order to be effective. They are not effective in controlling other fly populations that breed in sites other than manure.

Certain systemic dewormers, now commonly used, also provide a significant measure of horn fly control and may be useful in an integrated approach to control of horn flies. However, some controversy exists surrounding some of these products and other products that provide control of fly larvae in the manure. Research has indicated that populations of some beneficial insects that use the manure for some part of their life cycle, such as the dung beetle, may be harmed or reduced. Dung beetles reportedly can aid in the control of horn flies by removing and burying manure before the life cycle of the horn fly is completed.

Field observations and field research indicate that sustainable horn fly control may be best attained by an integrated approach that involves within-season rotation of chemical classes and treatment approaches. Reliance on just one chemical class or one strategy usually results in poor control and may select for resistant horn flies.
Feeding Lower Quality Hay Crop Forages

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

This year's rainy spring had negative effects on the quality of first cutting hay crop forages. Rain either delayed cutting, caused substantial weather damage to mowed crops that could not be removed quickly from the field, or forced farmers to harvest hay or silage at improper moisture contents.

Delayed harvest means that forages were more mature when they were eventually cut. Fiber (NDF) and lignin concentrations increase and protein and energy decrease as forages mature. The negative effects of maturity are greater for grasses than for legumes. Rations should be formulated to contain adequate, but not excessive concentrations of forage NDF (usually between 18 and 21% of dietary DM). High concentrations of forage NDF in diets reduce DM intake and milk production. Intake depression becomes substantial when diets have more than about 25% of the DM as forage NDF. If forages have high NDF, diets should contain less forage. For example, if corn silage makes up 25% of dietary DM and has 44% NDF, it will provide 11% forage NDF (0.25 x 44). If alfalfa has 40% NDF and the dietary target is 21% forage NDF, the diet should contain 25% alfalfa (21% in total diet - 11% from corn silage = 10; 10/0.40 = 25% alfalfa). If the alfalfa contained 50% NDF, then the diet should contain 20% alfalfa (21 - 11 = 10; 10/0.5 = 20%). Additional supplemental protein may be needed because of the lower concentration of protein in the more mature forage.

Weather damage reduces the concentrations of protein, energy, and soluble carbohydrates, and increases the concentration of fiber. These changes are caused by rain leeching away soluble compounds and concentrating the less soluble compounds. Although the cause of quality loss is different for weather damage and maturity, the results are the same - DM intake decreases. Indeed, depression of intake can be greater in weathered forages than mature forages because of the development of mold and other anti-quality factors. The same diet modifications as described above should be made when weather-damaged forages are fed.

Silage made with too much moisture because of poor wilting conditions can undergo an abnormal fermentation. Wet silage (especially when moisture is >70%) can have high concentrations of acetic and butyric acids and a low pH and often adversely affects intake. About the only solution to this problem is to feed less of the poorly fermented silage. Some experiments have shown positive effects on intake when wet silage with low pH is treated with sodium bicarbonate (2 to 4% of silage DM) immediately before feeding. Positive results were reported for corn silage only, not hay crop silages.

Hay baled with too much moisture usually becomes moldy and heats. Heat-damage reduces the digestibility of energy and protein, but proper diet formulation can minimize those effects. Effects of mold are more complicated. Moldy alfalfa hay that contained no detectable mycotoxins reduced intake by dairy heifers (approximately 300 lb of body weight) but not beef steers (about 600 lb of body weight). Cattle in both experiments sorted against severely molded hay. Moldy hay also can contain mycotoxins which may adversely affect health and production. Because of the risks, moldy hay should not be fed to high producing dairy cows. Several commercial binding products are available, but their value has not been proven in controlled experiments with dairy cows.

Recommendations for feeding low quality hay crop forages

1. Have the forage analyzed. Concentrations of NDF and available protein are important quality measures. Alfalfa with > 44% and grasses with > 53% NDF can reduce milk production.

2. If possible, feed lower quality forages to animals with lower nutrient needs, such as growing heifers and late lactation cows. Feed early lactation cows the highest quality forage available on the farm.

3. If forage quality is poor because of high NDF concentrations, reduce the amount of forage in the diet but ensure that the diet still contains adequate NDF. Diets with >25% of the DM as forage NDF usually reduce intake.

4. If forage quality is poor because of a bad fermentation (wet silage), reduce the amount of that particular silage in the diet. Neutralization of the acids in wet silage with sodium bicarbonate may help increase intake.

5. If forage quality is poor because of mold (wet hay), intake may be poor and toxicity risks are present. This type of forage should not be fed to high producing cows and may or may not be acceptable to other types of cattle. Moldy hay can increase sorting which may increase ruminal acidosis. Other than not feeding or severely limiting the amount fed, little can be done to overcome the problems with moldy hay.
Reporting of Independent Contractors

Mr. Robert Fleming, District Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University

Farm labor laws continue to evolve and become more consistent with non-farm labor requirements. Managing farm labor effectively requires following current regulations. Since October 1, 1997, all Ohio employers, including farmers, have been required to report all newly hired, re-hired, or returning-to-work employees within 20 days of hire or rehire date. Now, recent changes in Ohio law requires employers to report some independent contractors as well to the Ohio New Hire Reporting Center.

Provided below are some common questions/answers from the Ohio New Hire Reporting Center:

1) What is the new law that requires independent contractors to be reported as new hires?

The statute defining who must be reported as a new hire has changed. The new definition requires that Independent Contractors also must be reported as new hires. Pursuant to section 3121.891 of the Ohio Revised Code, employers are obligated to report all employees who reside or work in the state of Ohio. Ohio Revised Code, section 3121.89 defines an "employee" as "an individual who is employed to provide services to compensation to an employer and includes an individual who provides services to an employer under a contract as an independent contractor and who is an individual, the sole shareholder of a corporation, or the sole member of a limited liability company."

2) When did this change occur?

This law is now in effect. You should begin reporting independent contractors as soon as possible.

3) Do I need to report all independent contractors, both individuals and companies, which I use?

ORS Section 3121.891 defines an independent contractor for new hire reporting purposes as outlined in question 1. Companies should only be reported if they meet these requirements.

4) How should I report an independent contractor?

Employers may report new hires via one of the manual methods listed below:

New Hire Form
· A printed list
· A copy of the employee's W-4 form with employer information, employee date of birth, date of hire, and work state added.
· A copy of the independent contractor's W-9 form with the independent contractor's social security number, date of birth, date of hire, and work state as well as employer information added.

When reporting an independent contractor, please be sure to indicate their status as a contractor on your submission.

Independent contractors can be reported either electronically or manually. Request or print the current New Hire Form, brochure, and more information from:

Ohio New Reporting Center
P.O. Box 15309
Columbus, OH 43215-0309
http://www.oh-newhire.com
Fax: 888-872-1611
Phone: 888-872-1490 or 614-221-5330

5) What information should I report for an independent contractor?

Ohio Revised Code Section 3121.892 requires the following information to be reported for both employees and independent contractors:

· Employee name, address, date of birth, and social security number; date of hire, rehire, or return to work; and state of hire, and
· Employer name, address, and federal employer identification number.

6) I do not have a social security number for the independent contractor I am reporting. Can I use their federal employer identification number instead?

No, ORC section 3121.892 and OAC 5101:1-30-12 require that the social security number be reported.

7) What are the potential penalties for noncompliance?

An employer who fails to make a new hire report can be fined up to $25.00 for each failure to report. If the failure to make a report is the result of a conspiracy between the employer and the employee not to report or to supply false or incomplete information, the fine can be up to $500.00 for each failure to report.

Summary

Human resource management is a skill that can be acquired by farm employers through education, experience, and commitment to the directing function of management. Following legal requirements is a part of that management effort. Progress toward your mission statement, goals, and objectives is enhanced by actions consistent with these functions.
Nutrition of Jersey Cows - Little Holstein Cows or a Breed Apart?,

Dr. Chris Reynolds, Department of Animal Sciences, Ohio State University

The Jersey breed has a passionate following, and there is ample evidence that this is justified. Surveys and research have indicated that when compared with Holstein cows, Jersey cows have earlier first calving, easier calving, reduced mastitis and lameness, and greater longevity, while their temperament and size means they are friendly to both farmer and pasture. Although their total milk yield is lower, the Jersey cow typically produces more milk solids per pound of body weight (BW). Milk from Jersey cows has a higher fat (and therefore energy) content, as well as a higher milk protein content and manufacturing quality. A higher dry matter (DM) intake per pound of BW generally accompanies this higher milk energy output.

As a consequence of the above factors, it is likely that interest in the Jersey breed will continue to increase. In addition, there is currently an increase in the use of Jersey cows in cross-breeding programs. However, it is now recognized that in many ways, the Jersey cow cannot be treated simply as a mini-Holstein cow in terms of nutrition and ration formulation, but only limited scientific information is available on which guidelines for Jersey cows can be based. This article reviews some of this information.

Feed efficiency: A number of research summaries have indicated that the Jersey breed has advantages in terms of the milk solids output relative to metabolizable energy intake and the production of milk energy from forage. Her energetic advantage is largely due to a greater milk energy output relative to total maintenance requirement, which is associated with the higher solids content of her milk. These comparisons also assumed that the maintenance requirement of the Jersey cow is the same as for the Holstein cow, but there is evidence from non-lactating animals that the maintenance requirement of the Jersey cow is higher.

Intake and feed digestion: As the DM intake of Jersey cows per unit of BW is often higher than Holstein cows, their intake can not be predicted from BW and milk yield using equations developed for Holstein cows. Increased rate of passage of digesta through the gut has been observed for the Jersey cow. This may be a consequence of increased milk energy output, driving higher DM intakes or, alternatively, more effective mastication and rumination may increase the rate of passage and allow greater DM intake. Regardless, the higher intake in Jersey cows relative to her body size does not appear to reduce diet digestibility.

Milk fat composition and ration fiber content: The higher milk fat content of Jersey milk is associated with an increase in the relative proportion of shorter-chain fatty acids. These fatty acids and other medium length fatty acids are synthesized in the mammary gland, using lipogenic volatile fatty acids produced in the rumen. As the production of these precursors is promoted by forage digestion, it is generally believed that Jersey cows may need higher fiber levels in their rations. However, feeding too much fiber may impose a limit on their DM intake. Further research is needed to clarify the 'effective fiber' requirements of the Jersey cow and the consequence of errors in balancing rations for fiber, starch, or fat. Indeed, articles in the popular press have suggested that Jersey cows are more tolerant of low fiber rations than Holstein cows, and should be fed less long fiber to achieve maximal DM intake.

Milk fever and transition diets: One disadvantage of Jersey cows is that they have a higher incidence of milk fever. This has been attributed to fewer vitamin D receptors in the intestine. These receptors increase calcium absorption in early lactation via mechanisms which are inhibited by high blood pH. Therefore, it has been recommended that the cation-anion difference of transition rations for Jersey cows be adjusted for a lower target urine pH (5.8-6.2) than for Holstein cows (6.2-6.7), but the basis for these recommendations is sketchy and the potential negative effects of supplemental dietary anions on metabolism and health must also be considered.

Energy metabolism: Two calorimetric comparisons of lactating Jersey and Holstein cows from the first half of the century suggested little difference between the two breeds in terms of energy metabolism. However, more recent research conducted at USDA in Beltsville, USA indicates that:

· Relative yield potential of the two breeds was similar for the individuals studied; fat corrected milk yield per pound of metabolic BW (BW^0.75) at peak lactation and DM and energy intake per kg BW^0.75 were not different. Thus, the genetic merit of the cows used provided a good basis for a breed comparison.
· Metabolizable energy intake as a percentage of intake energy was not different: digestibility of energy was higher in the Jersey cows, but this was countered by slight increases in urine and methane energy losses.
· Energy balance (milk plus body tissue energy) as a percentage of intake energy also was not different between breeds; higher milk fat content for the Jersey cows was associated with greater milk energy output, but corresponding tissue energy retention was numerically lower. This was an important difference between the breeds.
· This study did not detect differences in the maintenance energy requirement of lactating animals, but higher metabolizable energy intake was required to avoid tissue energy loss in the dry Jersey cows. This may in part be due to differences in body composition, as well as a genetic difference between the breeds.

Conclusions: When compared on the basis of milk energy output per pound of metabolic body size, the energy requirements of lactating Jersey and Holstein cows are remarkably similar. Differences in milk energy output also explain differences in DM intake and body energy balance between the two breeds. Although further research is needed, factors which should also be considered when formulating rations for the Jersey cow include a higher rate of digesta passage, the higher incidence of milk fever, and the fiber content of the ration.
Monitoring MUN in Dairy Cows - Ohio Data

Milk urea nitrogen (MUN) is related to dietary protein intake, as well as protein-energy ratio in the dairy cow's diet. The normal/target values for MUN are within the range from 10 to 15 mg/dl. High values typically indicate inefficient protein utilization, either because of feeding of excess protein or insufficient amount of energy in relation to protein in the diet. Low values, on the other hand, may indicate insufficient protein feeding.

The Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine at the OSU College of Veterinary Medicine and Ohio DHI collaborated in a study, evaluating MUN concentrations in 24 randomly selected Ohio dairy herds over a one-year period. Half of the herds (n = 12) were defined as low producers (Rolling Herd Average (RHA) milk production < 16,000 lb) and half (n = 12) as high producers (RHA milk production > 23,000 lb). The MUN concentration was measured in the DHI laboratory from individual cow's monthly test day milk samples. The study herds comprised of 1681 cows altogether.

Based on these Ohio data, MUN concentrations, on average, were higher in the high than in the low-producing herds. The herd level MUN concentrations varied between 5.0 and 15.1 mg/dl in the low producing herds (overall average 11.3 mg/dl) and between 10.1 mg/dl and 19.2 mg/dl in the high producing herds (overall average 13.9 mg/dl). The MUN concentrations varied with month of lactation, as well as with the season of the year. Great variability in MUN was observed from test day to test day in both production groups, and therefore, it is advisable to monitor MUN monthly to establish a baseline MUN concentration for a herd. If the average for the herd (or for a particular group of cows) is outside the target range, it is a good idea to try to determine the cause. The data from this study indicated that herds with RHA milk production over 24,000 lb can have overall MUN as low as 10 to 11 mg/dl. This suggests that using MUN measurements as a practical monitoring tool might provide an opportunity to improve protein feeding efficiency, reduce feed costs, and improve profitability of the herd.

The association between MUN and fertility of dairy cows was also evaluated from these data. Increasing MUN concentrations were negatively correlated with fertility of cows and were associated with a lower likelihood of detectable pregnancy at herd checks. Cows with MUN concentrations below 10.0 mg/dl in early lactation were 2.4 times more likely and cows with MUN levels between 10.0 and 12.7 mg/dl were 1.4 times more likely to be confirmed pregnant than cows with MUN values above 15.4 mg/dl (the values are adjusted for cow's milk yield). Negative effects on reproduction have previously been reported when MUN concentration is above 19 or 20 mg/dl. The results from this Ohio study would suggest that the levels of MUN that are adversely associated with fertility are likely lower than reported earlier. However, when evaluating reproductive problems in a herd, it is always important to consider MUN in the context of the entire herd management and not to target at low MUN just to improve reproduction without considering the associations between MUN, nutrition, milk production, and reproduction in a herd.
Environmental Rules for Animal Agriculture - Who Are You Going to Call?

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

There was a cartoon a few years ago, the "Ghostbusters". The central focus was that evil ghosts prowled upon people and capturing the ghosts required the special skills of the "Ghostbusters". The theme song contained the words, "So who are you going to call, The Ghostbusters." Sometimes I think environmental risks are viewed somewhat like ghosts in the cartoon. Environmental risks are everywhere but not at my place, at least I don't think so. But come to think about it, I really haven't given it much thought. Then it happens, the Environmental Busters got a tip from someone and they are invading - "What is going on, who are these people?" Or better yet, maybe you have questions to ask so that you can be better prepared at lowering environmental risks - so who are you going to call? Well, in Ohio it's not that simple - we have many different agencies with different responsibilities. So let's review the primary agencies that can help us with environmental compliance on livestock farms:

Ohio Department of Agriculture: regulatory authority for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) and monitors point source discharge from animal facilities, (614) 387-0470, lepp@odant.agri.state.oh.us, http://www.state.oh.us/agr/LivestockRegIndex.HTML

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR):
Division of Wildlife - protects waterways thorough enforcement of stream litter and wildlife protection laws, 1-800-wildlife, wildinfo@dnr.state.oh.us, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/default.htm
Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Administers non-point source pollution control assistance, state cost share, and pollution abatement complaint programs, (614) 265-6610, dswc@dnr.state.oh.us, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/soilandwater

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Division of Surface Water): authority to implement laws and regulations regarding water quality standards, (614) 644- 2001, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service: provides information on soil capabilities, surface and subsurface drainage, and erosion control measures, (614) 255-2472, http://www.oh.nrcs.usda.gov; locate local offices at http://www.oh.nrcs.usda.gov/contact/directory/directories.html

The most accessible, local contact that will help you follow through the channels of environmental rules is the ODNR-Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Each county has a local soil and water conservation district (SWCD). You can find the phone number in the local telephone directory or go to: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/soilandwater/swcds.htm. Being PROACTIVE is good. Get to know the SWCD personnel and the assistance that they can provide.

Note: Ohio House Bill 152 was introduced to the 125th General Assembly to revise Ohio's environmental rules for CAFO to abide by the new Federal rules. The Ohio Legislature passed Bill 152 and it remains in Governor Taft's office for signature.

Milk Production Growth Slows - What's Up for Milk Prices?

As we pass the midpoint of the 2003 calendar year, it is time to take stock of where we are milk price-wise and where we are likely to go in the next 17 months. In this column, I will review the August 2003 USDA Milk Production Report, look at the relationship of butter and cheese inventories to high and low milk prices, and finally stick my neck out and provide a forecast for the remainder of 2003 and for 2004.

August 2003 USDA milk production report disappoints the market

Over the last 10 trading days the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) cash cheese market has idled time away with not nary an up-tick nor a down-tick in either the block or barrel price. Why? The market has been eagerly awaiting the release of the USDA Milk Production Report for a read of the July production numbers. With it would come one of two possibilities: 1) the current run-up in the cheese price on the CME is only the beginning of a sustained period of higher cheese prices and hence, higher milk prices, or 2) the lack of momentum over the last two weeks in the CME cheese market is an indication that the run-up has made its course and this is about as high as it will go.

Well, the report is out and it is now old news. The much anticipated 1.5 to 2.0% drop in July milk production in California was not evident, with CA milk production off only -0.6% from July 2002. This was based on a reported increase in cow numbers and flat production per cow over the upward revised June 2003 USDA numbers.

Despite the heat, Idaho turned in an 8% increase in production over July 2002. This was accomplished with slightly fewer cows and a stunning 40-pound per cow increase in productivity over last month's numbers. Texas turned in a 7.2% milk production increase and New Mexico managed a 3.5% increase.

Here in the lake states, Wisconsin milk production was up 2.9% and Minnesota up 0.7%. Ohio turned in a respectable 3.3% increase in milk production and Michigan 4.4%, while New York (-2.4%) and Pennsylvania (-4.4%) lost ground. The southeastern states continue to slide with Florida losing 7.5%, Kentucky 8.7%, and Virginia 9.2% over July 2002.

The numbers coming out of this report do not lend significant strength to the current CME cash cheese market. However, much of the damage from the heat in the west may not be observed until the August numbers are released in the September report. Others I have talked to expressed the view that the cheese market continues to be tight in the west and this will only be exacerbated by the resumption of the schools across the country. Overall, I expect that this report will not substantially deflate the current futures market for the coming months but will certainly not push it higher. If you are not paying attention to the prices offered on the CME Class III contract, you certainly should be or perhaps you have a rich uncle.

Continuing good news on dairy cow slaughter

The latest weekly numbers from the U.S.D.A. Federal Inspected Livestock Slaughter - Dairy Cattle report indicates that dairy cow slaughter continues to run ahead of last year at this time.

Let's look at what is ahead for market prices

Until we get a better balance between the inventory of dairy products and commercial disappearance, you should look for the current wholesale price levels of Grade AA butter and Cheddar cheese to remain lethargic for the remainder of 2003. The 2003 forecast, June through December, for dairy commodity prices (butter, nonfat dry milk, cheese, and whey), given by quarter, is shown in Table 1. These forecast prices translate into the average milk check value shown in Table 2. The producer differential and the gross milk check price are applicable to producers in the Mideast Federal Milk Marketing Order 33, Cleveland base zone.

Table 1. Forecast dairy commodity wholesale prices ($/lb).

Forecast for Planning Year	Grade AA Butter	Nonfat Dry Milk	Cheddar Cheese	Whey Protein
2002 Annual Average	$1.0952	$0.9077	$1.1857	$0.1993
2003 Quarter I	$1.063	$0.812	$1.115	$0.166
2003 Quarter II est.	$1.076	$0.803	$1.129	$0.147
2003 Quarter III est.	$1.160	$0.801	$1.433	$0.151
2003 Quarter IV est.	$1.200	$0.802	$1.333	$0.192
2003 Annual Average Forecast	$1.125	$0.805	$1.252	$0.164

Table 2. Forecast dairy commodity wholesale prices ($/LB).

Forecast for Planning Year	Grade AA Butter	Nonfat Dry Milk	Cheddar Cheese	Whey Protein
2004 Quarter I forecast	$1.182	$0.806	$1.224	$0.205
2004 Quarter II forecast	$1.268	$0.804	$1.244	$0.188
2004 Quarter III forecast	$1.332	$0.803	$1.393	$0.197
2004 Quarter IV forecast	$1.191	$0.802	$1.209	$0.220
2004 Annual Average Forecast	$1.243	$0.804	$1.267	$0.203

Component pay prices

Milk component pay prices, given the forecast 2003 dairy product prices, will be quite moderate, which will be good news for processors of dairy products facing weak consumer demand and not so good news for dairy producers. Tables 3 and 4 list my 2003-2004 component pay prices. With the rapid rise in the cheese price, we have seen the producer price differential turn negative. This happens because the rise in the cheese price pushes the Class III price for July above the Class I price, and it does not pay for Class III users to pool on the Federal Order. By not pooling, Class III utilization drops dramatically (this is the class that is not pooled) and Class I reported use climbs dramatically. The result is that the Producer Price Differential (PPD) calculation turns in a negative amount. For July, this was -10 cents. October should return to a more normal value for the PPD.

Table 3. Forecast milk component pay prices and Class III price for 2003.

	Grade AA Milk Fat	Protein	Other Solids	Nonfat Solids	Class III	MILC Payment*
	$/lb	$/lb	$/lb	$/lb	$/cwt	$/cwt
2002 Annual Average	$1.30	$2.01	$0.06	$0.76	$10.93
Forecast for 2003
Quarter I	$1.156	$1.778	$0.026	$0.672	$9.515	$1.57
Quarter II est.	$1.153	$1.891	-$0.012	$0.657	$9.624	$1.79
Quarter III est.	$1.254	$2.766	-$0.008	$0.657	$12.620	$1.09
Quarter IV est.	$1.302	$2.394	$0.035	$0.656	$11.914	$0.94
Annual Average	$1.216	$2.207	$0.010	$0.660	$10.918	$1.35

*MILC = Milk Income Loss Compensation

Table 4. Forecast milk component pay prices and Class III price for 2004.

	Grade AA Milk Fat	Protein	Other Solids	Nonfat Solids	Class III	MILC Payment*
	$/lb	$/lb	$/lb	$/lb	$/cwt	$/cwt
Forecast for 2004
Quarter I forecast	$1.281	$2.065	$0.048	$0.659	$10.929	$1.12
Quarter II forecast	$1.383	$2.020	$0.030	$0.657	$11.054	$1.25
Quarter III forecast	$1.461	$2.417	$0.039	$0.657	$12.568	$0.65
Quarter IV forecast	$1.291	$2.006	$0.063	$0.656	$10.879	$0.87
Annual Average	$1.354	$2.127	$0.045	$0.657	$11.358	$0.97

*MILC = Milk Income Loss Compensation

A look ahead at class prices

Table 5 lists my 2003-2004 forecasts for Federal Order 33 and a comparison to the 1999 - 2002 prices. For annual averages in 2003, I have Federal Order 33 Class I milk at $12.35/cwt; Class II at $10.70/cwt; Class III at $10.21/cwt; and Class IV at $9.93/cwt.

Table 5. Forecast class prices 2003 with comparisons for 1999 through 2002.

Calendar Year	Class I	Class II	Class III	Class IV
Calendar Year	$/cwt	$/cwt	$/cwt	$/cwt
1999	15.87	13.15	12.44	12.26
2000	13.61	12.65	9.74	11.83
2001	16.26	14.53	13.10	13.76
2002	13.01	11.56	10.43	10.85
2003 (estimated)	12.69	10.76	10.92	9.99
2004 (estimated)	13.53	11.15	11.36	10.45

Projected Milk Income Loss Compensation (MILC) payment rates

Now that we have the complete suite of price forecasts for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, we can calculate the implied payment rates under the MILC program. In doing this, keep in mind that these are only estimates of the actual rates and will change as new market and production information becomes available. The actual and projected FY2003 rates and the forecast rates for FY2004 are shown in Table 6. Remember MILC payment rates decline as the Class III and/or Class IV advanced mover prices increase. The notable point here is the September 2003 payment rate. If the announced National Agricultural Statistics Service advanced cheddar price approaches the $1.55/LB mark, the MILC payment will approach zero as the Class I mover will exceed $13.69/cwt, given my forecasts at that cheese price point. A higher MILC payment rate is not what is desired as it lifts only some boats, while across the board strength in all milk prices raises all of the dairy boats.

Table 6. The FY2003 forecast Milk Income Loss Compensation (MILC) payment rate ($/cwt) by month.

Month	Days	FY2003 MILC Payment Rate (Actual **)	FY2004 MILC Payment Rate (Forecast)
Oct '02 / '03	31	$1.5930 **	$0.8235
Nov	30	$1.3905 **	$0.963
Dec	31	$1.3950 **	$1.044
Jan '03 / '04	31	$1.4085 **	$1.125
Feb	28	$1.557 **	$0.8955
Mar	31	$1.746 **	$1.332
Apr	30	$1.8225 **	$1.35
May	31	$1.791 **	$1.2555
Jun	30	$1.7775 **	$1.1295
Jul	31	$1.7640 **	$1.0305
Aug	31	$1.224**	$0.63
Sep	30	$0.288	$0.315

Cost of Nutrients in Feedstuffs

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

The good news is that milk prices will show a substantial recovery this Fall. For how long is anybody's guess at this time. The bad news is that feed prices are high in historical terms and the markets are showing no sign of dropping anytime soon. Yet, there are many opportunities for dairy producers to significantly reduce feed cost without impacting negatively the health or production of their cows. Some byproducts are well-priced and are worth considering.

As of late summer, unit costs of rumen degradable protein (RDP) and non-effective NDF (ne-NDF) are down 2.9 and 1.6 units per pound, respectively. The cost per unit of net energy lactation remains very high, approaching 8.5 cents per megacalorie. Effective NDF (e-NDF) is also very pricey, at 8.5 cents per pound.

Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs.

Nutrient name	Estimates
NEL - 3X (2001 NRC)	$0.084597	**
RDP	-$0.010984
Digestible RUP	$0.168174	**
Non-effective NDF (ne-NDF)	$-0.040968	~
e-NDF	$0.085035	**

A good look at the ingredients used on your farm may reveal cost saving opportunities. Currently, the following feed ingredients are priced well-below what they are worth: bakery byproduct meal, ground shelled corn, corn silage, distillers dried grains, hydrolyzed feather meal (with strong reservation due to the considerable range in quality), hominy, roasted soybeans, wheat bran, and wheat middlings. There are also some feedstuffs that are overpriced: beet pulp, canola meal, porcine meat meal, molasses, soybean hulls, 44% and 48% soybean meal, blood meal, and fishmeal. Blood meal is actually priced correctly when the value of lysine (an important amino acid) is factored in our evaluation. Fishmeal, however, is still considerably overpriced ($150 to $200/ton) even when methionine and lysine are factored in the evaluation. These lists should serve as guidelines. It may be justified to use an ingredient from the overpriced list to fit the specific conditions of a herd. In general, nutritionists should try to maximize the use of discounted feedstuffs and minimize the use of overpriced ones. As always, a properly balanced ration, based on sound nutrition must be used. But, the individual components (feedstuffs) making the ration can be changed (increased, decreased, or substituted) without impacting animal performance. What was a bargain a year ago (e.g. soyhulls) may no longer be a bargain.

Table 2. Calibration set.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, OH Buckeye D	150	150.49	132.75	168.22
Bakery Byproduct Meal	118	139.83	131.03	148.64
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	155	117.78	104.60	130.97
Brewers Grains, dried	138	141.12	128.94	153.29
Brewers Grains, wet	30	30.24	27.40	33.08
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	175	141.44	130.14	152.73
Citrus Pulp, dried	160	120.31	113.09	127.52
Corn Grain, ground dry	103	139.94	131.75	148.14
Corn Silage, 32-38% DM	40	56.51	50.41	62.61
Cottonseed, whole w lint	219	220.68	197.99	243.37
Distillers Dried Grains, w sol	125	144.95	134.23	155.66
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	240	270.15	252.10	288.21
Gluten Feed, dry	102	136.46	127.97	144.95
Gluten Meal, dry	282	285.16	262.27	308.10
Hominy	90	124.98	117.61	132.35
Meat Meal, rendered	250	221.68	206.58	236.78
Molasses, sugarcane	118	101.96	94.75	109.18
Soybean Hulls	97	71.43	53.27	89.60
Soybean Meal, expellers	262	245.71	230.56	260.86
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	211	184.20	169.04	199.36
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	222	207.79	194.54	221.03
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	245	263.03	249.93	276.13
Tallow	360	346.96	319.24	374.68
Wheat Bran	73	86.34	73.42	99.25
Wheat Middlings	67	98.55	87.24	109.86

Table 3. Appraisal set.

Name	Actual [$/ton]	Predicted [$/ton]
Blood Meal, ring dried	445.00	336.669
Fish Menhaden Meal, mechanized	600.00	282.822

The estimates were derived using the software SESAME Version 2.05 written at The Ohio State University. For additional information, please refer to Buckeye Dairy News Volume 5, Issue 2, March 2003.

Update on Corn Silage Harvesting Practices

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

As corn silage harvest approaches, important decisions must be made regarding silage harvest. The quality of the silage made this fall will have an impact on the herd for the next 12 months.

When to chop. The decision to chop should be based on the dry matter (DM) concentration of the corn plants. Corn silage that is excessively wet can reduce intake when fed to dairy cows and can produce effluent (seepage) during storage. Silage that is too dry has poorer digestibility and can heat in the silo and feed bunk. The ideal DM concentration for corn silage is between 30 and 38% (bunkers should be at the low end of this range, bags in the mid portion of the range, and upright silos at the upper end of this range). Although kernel milk line is related with DM concentration of corn plants, milk line is not accurate enough to make harvesting decisions. Based on a study from Ohio, average DM concentration of corn plants was 35% (range was approximately 30 to 40%) at one-quarter milk line (milkline one-fourth of the way down from the tip to the base of the kernel) and 39% (range was approximately 35 to 45%) at one-half milk line stage. Planting time and hybrid affected the relationship between milk line stage and DM concentration. A sample of corn plants from the field should be chopped and analyzed for DM using either a microwave or Koster tester before filling the silo. Monitoring DM should begin at the full dent stage.

Kernel Processing. Kernel processing allows corn silage to be chopped coarsely without decreasing digestibility of the kernel (i.e., starch). The goal of processing is to damage or break most (more than 90%) of the kernels. If more than a few whole kernels are found after chopping, the processing rolls were not set close enough. Most studies have reported increased starch digestibility by dairy cows when fed kernel processed corn silage; however, digestibility of DM (an estimate of the energy value of the diet) is often not affected by kernel processing. Likewise, averaged across studies, milk production is not greatly increased by kernel processing, but some individual studies have reported large increases in milk production. Hybrid appears to be one factor affecting the response to kernel processing. Unfortunately, at this time, we do not know which hybrids are likely to respond to kernel processing.

Inoculation. Conventional corn silage inoculants provide specific lactic acid producing bacteria. Inoculated corn silage usually has a higher lactic acid concentration and lower fermentation losses than uninoculated corn silage. Milk production is seldom affected greatly by corn silage inoculation. On average, the use of lactic acid producing inoculants on corn silage probably has a slightly positive return on investment. A newer type of inoculant (Lactobacillus buchneri) promotes increased acetic acid concentrations in silage. Acetic acid is inhibitory to many yeasts and mold, and silage inoculated with L. buchneri is much more stable when exposed to air than untreated silage. This should reduce storage losses and prolong bunk-life of TMR containing inoculated silage. Limited research has found no effects on intake or milk production when cows were fed corn silage inoculated with L. buchneri. If silage feed out rate will be slow (less than about 6 inches/day) and/or the silage will be fed in the summer, L. buchneri could be quite useful.
Getting the Last Cutting of Alfalfa
Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Specialist, Ohio State University

Early September is ideal for taking that last yearly cutting of alfalfa. The timing of this last cutting can be very important to the long-term health of the stand. In this article, we will review what is known about fall cutting management of alfalfa.

Alfalfa should not be cut during the 5 to 6 week period before a killing frost. During this critical period, cold resistance and energy reserves for winter survival are built up. A killing frost for alfalfa occurs when temperatures drop to 25^oF or less for several hours. So the period from mid-September through October is the critical fall rest period in our region. Harvesting during this period disrupts accumulation of energy reserves and development of cold hardiness.

Producers often harvest alfalfa during the critical fall period despite the increased risk of winter injury. This year rainy weather has delayed cutting schedules throughout the growing season, pushing back the time when the crop will be ready for a last harvest. The tonnage expected from a fall cutting and the need for the forage should be high before considering a cutting during the critical fall period.

When harvesting alfalfa during the critical fall period, several factors can moderate the risk of winter injury:
- Young, healthy stands are less susceptible to winter injury from fall harvesting than older stands. On the other hand, more future production potential is lost if a younger stand is injured from fall cutting.
- Forages in well-drained soils will be at lower risk of injury than those with marginal drainage. Fall cutting should not be attempted on soils prone to heaving! Removal of the top growth cover increases the potential for heaving injury.
- Length of harvest interval during the growing season is often more important than the actual date of fall cutting. Making a 3rd cutting during the fall is less risky than making a 4th cutting in the fall, because a 3-cut schedule allows longer intervals for plant recovery between cuttings compared with a 4-cut schedule. Likewise, a growth interval of 45 days BEFORE a fall harvest will reduce the risk of injury compared with a pre-harvest growth interval of 30 days. The longer growth period allows more energy buildup before the fall harvest, lessening the amount of energy reserves needing to be built up after harvest.
- Fields with optimal soil fertility levels (pH, P, and K) are at less risk than where fertility levels are lower.
- Disease resistant and winter hardy varieties lessen the risk of injury from fall cutting.
- Alfalfa that was protected from potato leafhopper injury during the summer will be at lower risk than where leafhoppers caused severe injury. Any stress (like wet soils) that weakened the crop during the year can increase the risk of damage from fall cutting. This is the case in many of our alfalfa fields this year.
- Cutting AFTER a killing frost (25^oF for several hours) in late October or early November can be an option for well-drained soils. Leave a 6-inch stubble after late fall cutting. Cutting this late in the year prevents regrowth that burns up energy reserves; however, late removal of plant cover increases the risk of frost heaving! Fall cutting should not be practiced on soils prone to heaving.
Environmental Stewardship - Minimizing Risk and Being Prepared

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

We live in a world full of risks -it's just a factor of life. Yet, a general mindset seems to have settled among us that we demand a risk-free society. Of course, we know that this is not possible. Risk is defined as the "possibility of loss or injury" and is associated with uncertain outcomes. We can purchase insurance for almost any risk. Purchasing insurance just transfers the financial burden of a loss, should it occur, to another party. Insurance can neither replace life nor fully compensate for pain, suffering, and quality of life. So, it is very important for all of to be active in controlling risks, thereby reducing the potential for loss or injury. Controlling environmental risks on dairy farms should address the following:

Manure storage facilities:

Designed to provide adequate containment (i.e. not leaking)
Provide sufficient capacity
Provide adequate ventilation when appropriate

Land application of manure:

Apply proper amount for conditions
Identify and implement needed setbacks
Control drainage systems

Silage storage:

Control seepage
Provide adequate ventilation when appropriate

Control all potential sources of runoff

With all of the best efforts, accidents to occur and then rapid efforts are needed for response to the loss or injury. Therefore, all farm owners need to have in place an Emergency Action Plan. If there is a fire, we fully expect the fire department to respond immediately, to be well trained, and to have a plan that all of the department's staff knows "like the back of their hand". On the farm, an Emergency Action Plan also is very critical. An emergency action plan to avoid environmental risks relative to manure storage and handling on livestock farms should contain at least four items (Iowa State University): 1) a plan of action to prevent the release of manure or prevent environmental contamination, 2) a detailed map of the site and application fields 3) a list of contact names and numbers included with the plan and posted near the phone, and 4) a clean-up plan. In addition to developing an Emergency Action Plan to address manure management, the plan should also address any medical emergency, potential weather-related emergencies; electrical, plumbing, or other mechanical failures; animal health emergencies, including biosecurity; and milk hauling and processors contacts. Items to consider in developing a plan of action to an emergency are: 1) assess the situation, know what factors are at risk (human health, animal welfare, the environment, or livestock structures), 2) reduce risk through implementation of the planned steps, 3) contact appropriate authorities to report emergencies or accidents, and 4) assess damages.

The motto of the Boy Scouts of America is "be prepared". We learn a lot as a child, whether in the sand box, from parents, youth organizations, etc. These lessons still apply throughout life - we need to be prepared to reduce risks and to respond to emergencies when they do occur. If you don't have an Emergency Action Plan, don't plan to do the Plan (because you may never get around to doing it) - why not start on it now.
The MILC Program - Time to Act for the 2.4 Billion Pound Plus Producers

Ms. Dianne Shoemaker, District Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

The beginning of the next Milk Income Loss Compensation (MILC) program fiscal year (October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004) is fast approaching. For producers who ship less than the 2.4 million pounds of milk sold payment cap, no action is necessary. However, producers who will ship more than that must act quickly if their designated start month was October 2002.

Over-the-cap producers have the option of deciding which month they will begin to receive payments for a program year. Many initially chose October of 2002 because prevailing milk prices led to a $1.59/cwt program payment. Payments continued monthly until the 2.4 million pound cap was met. Unless a producer changed the designated starting month (this must be done by the 15th of the preceding month), the program will begin payments again starting in October 2003 for the 2003/2004 program year.

Program payments decline as milk prices increase. For instance, September's payment will be $0.00. It is anticipated that the October 2003 payment will be zero or near zero. It is important to note that pounds of milk produced are accrued, regardless of the amount of the program payment. In other words, if the monthly payment is zero, the producer will not receive a payment. However, the pounds of milk sold in that month will still be counted against the 2.4 million pound annual maximum.

Producers shipping more than the 2.4 million pound production cap should check with their local Farm Services Agency Office before September 15th to see if their start month is where they want it to be.
Bus Trip to Northeast Regional Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association Conference

Ms. Amanda Hargett, State Dairy Extension Associate, Ohio State University

Do you want to learn new information and/or improve the management of your heifers? This trip is NOT just for professional heifer growers. There is information for all who are interested in improving their management of young dairy stock. Elanco Animal Health is arranging to sponsor a bus trip to the Northeast Regional Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association Conference, October 28-29, in Batavia, NY. If you are interested in attending, please contact Amanda Hargett at 614-688-3143 or hargett.5@osu.edu by September 26, 2003. The tentative plan is to leave on October 27 and return very late on October 29 after the tours. Pickup locations will be determined later depending on where those who are interested in attending are located. For information on the meeting, please visit the Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association website at: http://www.pdhga.org. Click on "Future Meetings" and go to Northeast Regional meeting for an agenda and registration flyer.

Futures Market Offers 'Premiums' to Cash: What you need to know?

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University,
Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

In this offering for the Buckeye Dairy News, I am going to take a departure from the traditional policy and price outlook to show you how you can 'read' the prices being set on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Futures & Option market and do a little forecasting on your own.

Ok, it has finally gone and happened. After an impressive run, which began back on July 31 of this year, the cash cheese market on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange has finally gone and taken the plunge! As I write this article the block cheese price has retreated $0.18/lb, from the high of $1.60/lb and the barrel cheese price $0.20/lb from its high of $1.57/lb. Of course, we all 'knew' that unless the whacky workings of the cheese market had gone completely off-kilter, these lofty prices just could not last. Good thing that it lasted long enough to set milk prices for August, September, and October, and Advanced prices for November! This shot in the arm moved the class III price steadily up from $9.75/cwt back in June to a welcomed $14.39/cwt for October. The Uniform Price in the Mideast Federal Order moved up from $10.63/cwt in June to $13.93/cwt for September and should be over $14.40/cwt when announced this week.

Now with cheese prices making a typical seasonal retreat back to what will likely be the $1.25 to 1.35/lb level, and the butter price trading in the $1.14 to 1.19/lb range, it may appear to you that all of the good times and market pricing opportunities are over for the foreseeable future (the next 6 months anyway). The good news is that this is just not the case. If you are a proactive pricer, that is, one who proactively takes action to secure your price when the opportunity appears, rather than waiting to see what the market will give you, then this column is just for you. By watching the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Class III futures prices and knowing what to expect as 'average cash prices', there may be 'premiums' or 'discounts' to what we might expect to receive in the cash market. Let me elaborate.

In Table 1, I show the average announced class III price, by month, for differing number of years used to compute the average. From these averages, I have computed the 'premium' or 'discount' that exists in the current CME futures class III prices. The premium is computed as the CME futures class III price (as of 11-05-2003) minus the average class III price using the following averages: (a) 3-year, (b) 5-year, (c) 7-year, (d) 10-year, and (e) 14 year periods.

Table 1. "Premium / Discount" currently in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Class III Futures Price for 2004.

	January	February	March	April	May	June
Class III Settle Price ($/cwt)	11.50	11.26	11.29	11.26	11.26	11.90
3-year average	0.95	0.98	1.11	0.73	0.05	-0.12
5-year average	-0.09	1.23	1.03	0.79	0.50	0.35
7-year average	-0.38	0.48	0.41	0.50	0.56	0.13
10-year average	-0.46	0.11	0.00	0.08	0.20	-0.12
14-year average	-0.38	0.21	0.17	0.08	0.05	-0.22

	July	August	September	October	November	December
Class III Settle Price ($/cwt)	12.40	12.75	13.30	12.55	12.00	11.65
3-year average	-0.69	-1.46	-1.87	-1.74	0.93	0.73
5-year average	-0.66	-1.46	-1.93	-0.74	1.62	0.87
7-year average	-0.85	-1.62	-2.08	-1.37	-0.05	-0.69
10-year average	-0.86	-1.51	-1.96	-1.41	-0.24	-0.59
14-year average	-0.75	-1.22	-1.59	-1.20	-0.48	-0.63

Let's take January as an example. If you think that this coming January will be very much like the average of the last three, e.g., 2001 to 2003, you can see from the entry in the table coinciding with the 3-year average that the current futures price is $0.95/cwt over the 3 year average class III price for January. If you wish to include more January cash class III prices, then look at the 5-year average in the next row down. The 'premium' is now a minus $0.09/cwt. No premium at all, but a discount. As you work down the column and take in even more January prices, you can see that the discount grows. Now you have to make a decision. Are the current conditions, supply versus demand, more likely to be represented by the last three years, five years, or 14 years? If you are thinking 'surely the January price cannot be less than $11.55/cwt, recall that in 2001, the class III price slid from a September high of $15.90 to 11.87/cwt by January of 2003! When the cheese market retreats, it can have a major impact on the Class III price. I am not saying that this is the current situation today, just that it can and has played out this way in the past.

Now look at the numbers in Table 1 for the February through April months. Up to the 7-year average, the current futures market Class III contract is offering a decent 'premium'. For example, February and March contain in excess, a dollar premium for the three and five year averages. At this time, buyers and sellers of Class III futures contracts do not see milk prices sinking toward the historical lows for these months.

As we get to the summer and early fall months of July through October, we can see that the current CME futures prices are all 'discounts' to what we have received, on average, during these months. This is exactly what you should expect. Futures prices for commodities that are not storable, such as milk, reflect the futures market participants' forecasts of what they expect the market price to be in the � what else? � future. And as the weather (and its impact on production) is the big uncertainty during the summer and early fall months (witness 2001 and 2003), these same market participants are conservative in forecasting bad weather and therefore unwilling to pay any premium at this time.

If you have access to a computer with an internet connection, you can find this 'Premium / Discount' table displayed on my website: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy. The table of premiums and discounts is updated after the close of trading each day. If you would like to become more knowledgeable about the milk and dairy markets, and would like to become a "ProActive Pricer", I will be offering my course Pricing Milk and Dairy Products in the United States through The Ohio State University - ATI, Wooster, Ohio, January 8 through March 13, 2004. This is a comprehensive course designed to broaden your knowledge of milk and dairy product pricing, Federal Milk Marketing Order pricing rules, and the factors that determine your milk check. The course provides practical hands-on experience with the dairy futures and options markets and pricing. The course meets each Thursday from 12:00 - 3:00 pm. If you would like more information on this course, contact Jan Elliott, Business Training & Education, The Ohio State University-ATI, (330) 287-7511, or email to elliott.3@osu.edu. The course Pricing Milk and Dairy Products in the United States will not be offered again until 2006, so do not miss this opportunity!

Controlling Feed Cost: What to do when the protein market goes ballistic?

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University

When it rains, it pours! Just when we thought that feed prices had reached their peaks in late summer, news of a short U. S. soybean crop reached trading markets, resulting in skyrocketing protein prices, especially high protein sources. With whole soybeans trading near $8.00/bu, it is unlikely that we will see much reduction in protein prices until the next soybean crop in the Southern hemisphere. Meanwhile, you can make tactical and strategic changes to your dairy rations and save some money. To do so, you first must understand how nutrients are currently being priced on the commodity market. The software Sesame is specifically geared to do this. Using 26 commodity prices (FOB, Central Ohio, TTL), we can extract the implicit prices of major nutrients in dairy diets. Results, as of early November 2003, are reported in Table 1.

Unit cost of net energy lactation (NE_L) ($0.067 per Mcal) is within the normal range experienced during the last decade. Thus, energy is currently not particularly expensive and your dairy diets should probably not aim at reducing this nutrient to its strict minimum. Rumen degradable protein (RDP), however, is very expensive ($0.12/lb), a net result of the high soybean meal price combined with most of the protein market moving up in sympathy. The normal ration of a high producing cow ration is generally balanced to supply 5 to 6 lb/cow/day of RDP. Thus, supplying adequate RDP currently costs an average of $0.60 to 0.72/cow/day and represents a significant increase in nutrient costs. On the other hand, the price of digestible, rumen undegradable protein (RUP) is normal ($0.20/lb), and so are the prices of non-effective (ne-NDF) ($-0.01/lb) and effective neutral detergent fiber (e-NDF) ($0.05/lb).

Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs.

Nutrient name	Estimates
NE_L - 3X (2001 NRC)	$0.067	**
RDP	$0.122
Digestible RUP	$0.202	**
Non-effective NDF (ne-NDF)	$-0.012	*
e-NDF	$0.052	**

A good look at the ingredients used on your farm may reveal cost saving opportunities. Currently, the following feed ingredients are priced well-below what they are worth (Tables 2 and 3): bakery byproduct meal, ground shelled corn, corn silage, distillers dried grains, gluten feed, hydrolyzed feather meal (with strong reservation due to the considerable range in quality), hominy, and wheat middlings. There are also some feedstuffs that are overpriced: beet pulp, canola meal, expeller-soybean meal, 44% and 48% soybean meal, roasted soybeans, blood meal, and fishmeal. Blood meal is actually priced correctly when the value of lysine (an important amino acid) is factored in our evaluation. Fishmeal, however, is still considerably overpriced ($100 to 150/ton) even when methionine and lysine are factored in the evaluation. Canola meal is a classical case of the lemming syndrome (when everybody seems to be following everybody else in the wrong direction). Canola is cheaper than soybean meal on a per ton basis, but its value is only approximately 70% that of 48% soybean meal. Strategically, it is time to minimize the supplementation of RDP from plant proteins and optimize the use of non-protein sources (urea) and of processed grain by-products (gluten feed and wheat middlings). These recommendations should serve as guidelines. It may be justified to use an ingredient from the overpriced list to fit the specific conditions of a herd. As always, a properly balanced ration, based on sound nutrition must be used. But, the individual components (feedstuffs) making the ration can be changed (increased, decreased, or substituted) without impacting animal performance.

Table 2. Calibration set.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, OH Buckeye D	140	148.44	125.24	171.63
Bakery Byproduct Meal	118	139.24	120.10	158.38
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	150	112.73	94.87	130.59
Brewers Grains, wet	35	39.70	35.48	43.92
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	253	188.00	172.46	203.56
Citrus Pulp, dried	122	111.08	96.76	125.40
Corn Grain, ground dry	102	130.03	109.78	150.28
Corn Silage, 32-38% DM	40	49.37	41.43	57.31
Cottonseed, whole w lint	192	208.72	179.67	237.77
Distillers Dried Grains, w sol	145	176.87	162.26	191.48
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	275	341.29	317.34	365.23
Gluten Feed, dry	118	158.80	147.58	170.03
Gluten Meal, dry	316	317.11	287.49	346.72
Hominy	110	127.91	113.68	142.13
Meat Meal, rendered	290	277.78	258.34	297.22
Molasses, sugarcane	117	90.85	72.87	108.84
Soybean Hulls	115	101.22	75.41	127.04
Soybean Meal, expellers	321	269.00	248.75	289.26
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	271	244.26	224.59	263.94
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	281	264.65	247.64	281.66
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	302	281.66	263.23	300.08
Wheat Bran	100	117.93	100.59	135.29
Wheat Middlings	98	128.29	113.33	143.26

Table 3. Appraisal set.

Name	Actual [$/ton]	Predicted [$/ton]
Blood Meal, ring dried	565.00	390.29
Fish Menhaden Meal, mechanized	585.00	330.22
Tallow	500.00	273.71
Urea	370.00	591.30

The estimates were derived using the software SESAME Version 2.05 written at The Ohio State University. For additional information, please refer to Buckeye Dairy News Volume 5, Issue 2, March 2003.

The estimates provided in Table 1 can easily be used to calculate the break-even price of a commodity for which a nutritional composition is available (at least approximately). To facilitate this calculation, we prepared a spreadsheet that can be used either electronically or as a template for manual calculations. In this example, we are assessing the break-even price of a dry (90% DM) food by-product containing 14% crude protein, estimated at 40% rumen undegradability, with 80% of the RUP being digestible post-ruminally, and 20% neutral detergent fiber (NDF) of which only 10% is effective (i.e., induces chewing and rumination). The nutritional composition is entered on a DM basis because this is the universal basis used by laboratories to report chemical composition of feeds. Costs of nutrients are entered on a per unit basis (per pound, except for energy with per Mcal) exactly as they appear in the Sesame printout. Although diets are balanced on a DM basis, commodities are sold on an "as is" basis. Thus, the nutritional content must be translated to reflect the "as is" amounts of each economically important nutrient per ton of feedstuffs. This is exactly what the section titled "Amounts per Ton" does. Thus, one ton of our by-product contains 1486.8 Mcal of NE_L, 80.6 lb of digestible RUP, 151.2 lb of RDP, 36 lb of e-NDF, and 324 lb of ne-NDF. The last section (Value per Ton (as is basis)) calculates the value of each nutrient per ton of by-product. Although the feed contains a moderate concentration of protein (14%), more than 75% of its nutritional value (99.62/132.34) is actually derived from its energy content. The value of the fiber (NDF) in this feed is very close to zero ($1.87 minus $3.89) because so little of the NDF is rumen-effective. Historically, ne-NDF has been implicitly priced at zero (or even small negative values) on the Ohio market. Essentially, suppliers of ne-NDF (mainly grain by-product feeds) are paying users of ne-NDF to use this nutrient.

Selenium Yeast for Dairy Cattle

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, Ohio State University

A few months ago, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of selenium (Se) yeast for dairy and beef animals. Prior to this approval, sodium selenite and sodium selenate were the only approved sources of supplemental Se. In Ohio, all diets fed to dairy animals (calves, heifers, and dry and lactating cows) should be supplemented with the maximum legal amount of Se (currently 0.3 ppm). The question is, "Should you use inorganic Se (selenite or selenate) or Se-yeast?" The inorganic sources are substantially less expensive per unit of Se than Se-yeast, and based on clinical responses, they appear to work adequately in most situations. Based on enzyme responses, the Se in Se-yeast under normal conditions is 10 to 20% more available than inorganic Se. Under conditions that reduce Se absorption, Se-yeast may be substantially more available than inorganic Se. The most common situation in which Se absorption is impaired is when cows consume large amounts of sulfate. Dietary sulfate is usually not a problem; however, in certain areas of Ohio, water can contain very high concentrations of sulfate. In an experiment conducted at OARDC, sulfate intake equivalent to drinking water with approximately 300 ppm sulfate-sulfur (900 ppm sulfate) reduced absorption of Se from selenate by 20% compared to cows fed no sulfate.

Cows fed Se-yeast consistently have much higher concentrations of Se in milk, colostrum, and muscle than cows fed an equal amount of Se from inorganic sources. The increased Se concentration in milk and muscle may help improve human diets. Feeding Se-yeast to dairy cows during the dry period should improve the Se status of baby calves. The calf will be born with higher concentrations of Se in tissues, and colostrum from cows fed Se-yeast is very high in Se. Improved Se status of calves has been related to improved calf health.

In conclusion, replacing inorganic Se with Se-yeast will increase feed costs probably by 2 to 4 cents per head per day. Under normal conditions, the improved availability (10 to 20%) of Se-yeast will not greatly change Se status of cows. Se-yeast should be considered in areas that have water with high concentrations of sulfate. The addition of Se-yeast to diets for dry and prefresh cows may improve calf health. The current regulation allows feeding both inorganic Se and Se-yeast as long as total supplemental Se does not exceed 0.3 ppm of the diet.
The 2003 Tax Legislation - How much will it affect your dairy business and your family?

Mr. David Miller, Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 contains provisions for reducing capital gains rates, reducing the rates for taxation of dividends, widening the 10% tax bracket, increasing the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly, increasing the child tax credit, and reducing all tax rates by at least 2%. Business provisions include increasing the allowable limit for Section 179 expensing to $100,000 and a 50% first-year depreciation allowance. How will all these changes affect the 2003 tax bill for your dairy operation and your family?

To estimate the potential impact of the new legislation for various family situations, a dairy operation with the following income and expense figures was used. The farm has projected income of $350,000 consisting of $285,000 milk sales, $6,250 calf sales, $12,000 cull cow sales, $28,150 Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) payments, $7,000 other agricultural program payments, and $11,600 other farm income. Projected farm expenses are $318,500 including depreciation. Net farm income would be $31,500 consisting of $19,500 from Schedule F and $12,000 of capital gains from the sale of the raised dairy cows.

For a married couple filing jointly (MFJ) with no other dependents, the "old" law tax bill would be $1,607 income tax plus $2,755 self-employment (SE) tax for a total bill of $4,362. Under the provisions of the new legislation, the total tax bill is $3,807, $1,052 for income taxes and $2,755 for SE tax. The new legislation saves $555 in Federal income taxes for this family situation. For a married couple filing jointly, but with two dependent children over the age of 17, the income tax reduces from $997 (old law) to $442 (new law) and the SE tax of $2,755 remains constant. Again the new law results in a savings of $555. A third scenario is the same married couple, but with two dependent children under the age of 17 who qualify for the child tax credit. Under these facts, the income taxes are reduced by $555, the same as before, but the child tax credit offsets all the income taxes and partially reduces the SE tax of $2,755 owed in both the old and new law scenarios.

Since most farm families also have some off-farm income, $10,000 was added to the net farm income of $31,500 to see how the families above would fare. The results are similar. For the married couple with no other dependents, the income tax savings are $659 ($2,711 vs. $2,052); for the family with two dependents over the age of 17, the income tax savings are $555 ($1,997 vs. $1,442). For the family with the two children under the age of 17, the tax savings is $555, but the child tax credit reduces the income taxes to $797 and $0, respectively, resulting in an overall decrease of $797.

A dairy farmer can further reduce taxable income and income taxes by using strategies such as pre-paying expenses or using Section 179 expensing. However, the objective of year-end tax management is to have at least enough taxable income to absorb the allowable exemptions and the standard deduction; $21,700 for MFJ with two other dependents and $15,600 for MFJ with no other dependents. In the scenarios where there is only farm income, an increase of $15,600 (MFJ and no other dependents) or $9,000 (MFJ and two other dependents) from Section 179 or pre-paying expenses would reduce taxable income to a level that just absorbs the allowable exemptions and the standard deduction in each case. With addition of the $10,000 off-farm income, the increased expense amounts of $25,600 or $19,000 are needed to reduce taxable income to zero. These increased amounts are well below the new $100,000 limit for Section 179, so this provision is of limited value to this dairy farm business. The same would be true of the new 50% first depreciation allowance.

How well does this dairy farm family fare under the new 2003 tax legislation? There are tax savings but maybe not to the degree envisioned. Using the above examples, the tax savings come from the increased standard deduction for married filing jointly, widening of the 10% tax bracket, reducing the capital gains tax rates, and increasing child tax credit. If incomes were higher for this family, the tax savings would be greater and the business provisions of the increased Section 179 and the special first depreciation allowance would be of more value.
On-Farm Assessment & Environmental Review (OFAER) Program

Mr. David White, Ohio Livestock Coalition and Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, Ohio State University

The goals of the pro-active OFAER program are to promote environmental stewardship, minimize livestock impact on watersheds, improve the public's perception of livestock production, and move agriculture, particularly animal production agriculture, toward self-regulation.

The OFAER provides a critical overview of beef, dairy, poultry, and pork farms in areas relating to overall site management, livestock housing and feeding systems, manure management, nutrient management, livestock mortality management, and non-regulatory assessment of the livestock production site. The resulting confidential verbal and written report identifies strengths, challenges, and recommendations for use in the livestock or poultry operation as the farmer chooses.

The OFAER was developed in cooperation with the USDA- NRCS, Extension specialists, private agriculture consultants, livestock producers, and commodity organizations. On a national basis, the program is administered by America's Clean Water Foundation (ACWF), a national non-profit organization that received federal funding for the program. Environmental Management Solutions (EMS) of Des Moines, Iowa handles scheduling of the on-farm assessments and oversees the operation of the program. The Ohio Livestock Coalition (OLC) coordinates the program in Ohio and works in cooperation with ACWF and EMS to make sure farmers who wish to participate in the program properly complete the producer checklist prior to scheduling the on-farm assessment and review.

The EMS has trained a variety of agricultural professionals as assessors, with many of them being Extension agents, NRCS or SWCD professionals, private ag or environmental consultants, or agricultural, mechanical, or civil engineers. During an on-farm assessment, a team of two assessors with different backgrounds evaluate environmental risks, such as surface-water pollution, groundwater contamination, odor, and pests.

All sizes of farms are eligible to participate in the OFAER program, and it is open to beef, dairy, poultry, turkey, and pork operations. Data from the program indicates that environmental challenges are similar in type, no matter the size of the operation and that well-managed operations of any size can be environmentally successful. When risk areas are identified, producers find that by addressing such areas several valuable benefits occur - a reduction in potential liability exposure, an enhancement in community acceptance, and a savings in operating costs and expenses.

Unlike a visit to the physician's office, the OFAER program is of no cost to the producer. Also, when risk areas are identified on farms, most of these risks can be addressed by developing and implementing best management practices (BMP). Specifically, more than 90% of the risks identified have been addressed by BMP. Structural changes were needed to address only 9% of the identified risks. And, cost-share funding for such practices and structures may be available from the USDA - NRCS or the local SWCD office.

Ohio dairy producer, Jim Comp, has participated in OFAER and was featured in the September 2003 issue of Dairy Herd Management. To initiate an on-farm assessment, contact the OLC at dwhite@ofbf.org or (614) 246-8288.
Robotic Milking: Are we there yet?

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University

Imagine this: you get up in the morning and the cows are already milked. In fact, the cows milked themselves and they routinely do this three times a day. You no longer have to deal with kicking a lazy teenager out of bed or a hired hand who doesn't show up. This sounds good, doesn't it? In essence, this is what robotic milking was supposed to be. The reality has been somewhat different. A certain proportion of cows do not adapt well to robotic milking. There are still issues related to mammary health and increased somatic cell counts. The economics of robotic milking is largely dependent on numerous assumptions. In general, robotic milkers are not competitive with conventional systems in the US. Many of these issues will be resolved with time. Likewise, we expect to see a decline in the price of milking robots due to increased competition among manufacturers, larger production volumes, and more efficient manufacturing. During our last Ohio Dairy Management Conference in December 2002, Mr. Jack Rodenburg of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food presented an excellent summary of the Canadian experience with robotic milkers. For those who want to read more about it, you can either order your own copy of the proceedings ($15/copy) by contacting Mrs. Amanda Hargett (hargett.5@osu.edu) or by downloading the following document from our website (Robotic Milkers: What, Where, and How Much?).

But, why don't we see more milking robots in the United States? It is simply because all Grade A milk produced in the US must meet the requirements stipulated by the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO). The PMO is written by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and it sets the minimum standards to be implemented by regulators in each individual state. Readers with an interest in the details of the PMO can consult the latest version of the document at: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/pmo01toc.html. Within the PMO is a list of guidelines regarding manufacturing equipment for the harvest and transport of raw milk. These are called the 3-A standards. These set the minimum standards to be met by all milking equipments, including of course, the milking function of robotic milkers. Currently, robotic milkers face five challenges from the PMO regulations:

1. Inspection of fore-milk,
2. Detection of abnormalities,
3. Diversion of unacceptable milk,
4. Proper and effective preparation of teats prior to attachment, and
5. Separation of the milking area from the animal housing area.

The first three items raise considerable technical and regulatory difficulties. On the technical side, the automatic screening of milk needs to be done very rapidly under a robotic system. More importantly, engineers must be provided with a clear physical definition of what is normal and what is abnormal milk. Definitions that were sufficient under a conventional milking system where decisions are made by a human being are no longer adequate under automation. It is expected that the FDA will issue a new statement regarding the definition of normal and abnormal milk in July 2004. This should clear the way for state regulators to apply the PMO to robotic milkers.

Regarding the effective preparation of teats prior to attachment (item 4), the PMO requires that teats must be completely dry prior to the attachment of the milking unit. Of course, this is not actually met in the strictest sense of the word "dry" in most milking parlors, and it is not met at all by any of the current robotic systems. New interpretations of the word "dry" will have to be issued for robots to meet the PMO.

Lastly, the PMO requires a physical separation between the free stall area and the milking center to prevent the introduction of unacceptable odors and air contaminants into the system. Many of the designs associated with robotic milkers are challenging the interpretation of the term physical barrier. There again, regulators are forced to re-think or clarify their definitions.
2003 Dairy Farm Price and Marketing Management Practices Survey - Your help is needed!

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Dairy Specialist and Mr. David Miller, Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Please be on the lookout for this survey that will arrive in the mailboxes of most Ohio Grade A milk producers in late December. Many questions still surround the use of risk management practices and tools on Ohio's dairy farms. Are they being used? If not, why not? How effective are they? This survey will help us answer these and other related questions.

Whether you use risk management tools or not, please take 15 minutes to complete the survey and return it in the postage-paid envelope included in the mailing. We appreciate your willingness to increase our ability to serve Ohio's dairy industry.
Timing Your FY-2004 Milk Income Loss Contract Payments: What you need to know!

Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

We are now fully four months into the fiscal year 2004 Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program payments. For the first three of these months, milk prices were high enough to send the MILC payment rate into the negative zone and set payments at zero. The first MILC non-zero payment for FY-2004 is this current month of January and the rate is $0.828/cwt. Front and center on every dairy producer's financial planning radar screen for the remainder of the fiscal year is the need to plan for the most likely pattern of milk prices and the associated MILC payments. There are a few simple rules that you need to keep in mind.

Rule One: If your rate of milk production is such that it takes all 12 months of the fiscal year to reach the marketing cap of 2.4 million pounds, then you should already have started your payments. There is no benefit to timing your start month to catch the highest MILC payment rates.

Rule Two: If your rate of production is such that it takes less than the 12 months of the fiscal year to reach your marketing cap of 2.4 million pounds, then you need to sit down and evaluate the most likely pattern of milk prices and MILC payments to determine when you should commit to your start month. There are a number of key factors that you need to consider when making this decision. First, how many months does it take you to reach the full marketing cap? If you meet this with a single months shipping, then you have a market timing challenge. If your objective is set the start date so as to receive the maximum payment, then you have to accurately forecast the lowest point for the Class I price mover and that, in turn, requires accurately forecasting the lowest combination of Grade AA butter, cheddar cheese, and whey prices for the first two weeks of the month preceding the month that you expect to receive the MILC payment.

Rule Three: If your production rate is such that it takes two to six months to reach the cap, then you must think about the average payment received over the months you are eligible for the MILC payment. You do not want to focus exclusively on the month that you think will be the lowest Class I mover and therefore the highest MILC payment. If you do, you may well miss setting your starting date so that you receive the highest average payment, taking into account both the payment rate and the number of days of shipment in each eligible month.

Now consider a concrete example. For this exercise I will use the current 2004 price forecast, as published by Bill Brooks, eDairy/Down's-O'Neill Economist, for butter, cheese, nonfat dry milk, and whey prices. I will use these as the basis for calculating the forecast Class I mover and MILC payment rates. Let's look at four possible cases that you may identify with, and for each, I will calculate the total MILC payment, the month to start receiving the MILC payment, and the average payment.

Case I: Remaining nine months to meet the MILC cap. The MILC payment start month is January 2004. The total MILC FY-2004 payment is $25,475, and the average payment is $1.063/cwt. If you identify with this case, then you need to be eligible to receive your MILC payments for all of the remaining FY-2004 months.

Case II: One month to meet MILC cap. The MILC payment start month is April 2004. The total MILC FY-2004 payment is $32,292, and the average payment is $1.346/cwt. Forecast prices used to calculate the April Class I mover reach their lowest FY-2004 point during the first two weeks of March. You need to be signed-up and eligible to start receiving payment for April milk shipments.

Case III: Three months to meet the MILC cap. The MILC payment start month is April 2004. The total MILC FY-2004 payment is $31,217, and the average payment is $1.301/cwt. This is the same as Case II. With milk prices hitting bottom in early March, the MILC payment rates will peak and then begin to decline over the next nine months.

Case IV: Five months to meet the MILC cap. The MILC payment start month is March 2004. The total MILC FY-2004 payment is $29,941, and the average payment is $1.248/cwt. Here you need to consider the impact of averaging the MILC payment. Waiting until the peak payment rate forecast for April will cost you on the months further out. If you identify with this situation, then you need to be eligible to receive MILC payments beginning with March 2004.

If you would like to work out scenarios that more closely match your production rate you can do so by downloading the MILC_CALC Microsoft Excel Workbook from my Ohio Dairy Web 2004 website. Look on the front page for the link to MILC_CALC. Download this to your computer, and using Microsoft Excel and this workbook, you can do your own tracking of the likely MILC payment rates as market price forecasts change. The workbook contains all instructions for its use and even allows you to use the CME Class III and Class IV futures prices as forecasts. And, of course, it is provided free of charge for educational purposes only.
Milking Machines and Milk Quality

Dr. Kent Hoblet, Chair and Dairy Extension Veterinarian, Ohio State University

Machine milking involves a complex physical interaction between mechanical equipment and living tissue. Moreover, this activity occurs two or three times daily for 300 or more consecutive days. As such, the milking machine may be a causative factor in the occurrence of mastitis in three ways:

(1) The machine may physically facilitate the transfer of bacteria from an infected gland to a noninfected gland either on the same cow or to another cow,

(2) The machine may cause damage to tissue, thus enhancing the ability of bacteria to gain entrance to the gland, and

(3) Abrupt vacuum instability within the machine may result in the reverse flow of milk droplets causing teat-end impacts. If bacteria are present, these impacts may permit their entrance into the gland.

The machine consists of five components. Typically, these include: (1) vacuum pump, (2) vacuum controller in most systems, (3) pulsation system, (4) milk transport system (pipeline or buckets), and (5) milker unit or cluster (bowl and teat cup assembly). To function properly, each of the above components must be of proper design and maintained in good working order. No one component is more important than another. Furthermore, it must be noted that an excellently designed machine kept in proper working order can be improperly operated. In fact, over 18 years of observation and troubleshooting herd mastitis problems, leads me to the conclusion that, all things being equal, excellence in operator performance is often more important than a perfectly functioning machine.

Pump - The pump removes air from the system to create a partial vacuum. A principle of cow milking is that milk should be removed under vacuum and then transported by gravity. Therefore, everything else being equal, a low pipeline system is preferred to a highline system. A general guideline is that any pipeline system's pump capacity should be a minimum of 35 cubic feet per minute (CFM), with an additional 3 CFM per milker unit.

Vacuum levels and vacuum controller - The National Mastitis Council (NMC) recommends an average vacuum in the claw during milking of 10.5 to 12.5" Hg. This normally indicates that the set or nominal vacuum on the system should be 12.5 to 13.5" Hg for low lines and bucket milkers and 14 to 15" Hg for high lines.

Measurement: Measurement of effective reserve and manual reserve on a regular basis are necessary to ensure that air extraction and vacuum controller operation are optimal. A guideline for good cow milking is that vacuum stability should vary by no more than 0.6" Hg when measured in the milk pipeline. Effective Reserve (ER) is essentially the amount of air that can be admitted into the system without changing vacuum more than 0.6" Hg. This measurement is made with the regulator functional. Manual Reserve (MR) is the same measurement made with the regulator inactivated. The fraction (ER / MR) x 100 = efficiency of the vacuum controller which should be > 90%. When variable speed pumps are used, only the ER can be determined.

An approximation of the effectiveness of pump capacity, vacuum controller, and piping system can be made by simulating a unit drop-off. In a properly sized and functioning system, the simulated drop-off of one unit (in a system with up to 16 units) should not result in > 0.6" Hg decrease in vacuum. There should be no observable override of vacuum levels.

Pulsation - Pulsators should be monitored regularly for function. The optimal pulsation ratio (the ratio of time spent in vacuum creation:air admission) is 60:40 (range 50:50 to 70:30), with an optimal rate of 60 pulsations per minute (range of 50 to 60). A frequent source of teat damage is failure to have adequate pulsation. This failure can be a result of holes in short and long pulsation air hoses, as well as malfunctions of the pulsator itself. Recording vacuum in the milker unit while cows are actually being milked is an excellent method of determining the adequacy of vacuum stability. In low line systems, we expect that there should be less than 1" Hg (2" in high line) vacuum difference between the pulsated and milk sides of the system and less than 2" Hg fluctuation recorded in the claw.

Cluster - There should be a provision for release of vacuum in the claw prior to removal of the milker unit from the cow. Synthetic rubber molded liners should be replaced every 1200 cow-milkings. Another guideline is to use liners no more than 90 wash cycles, even if the 1200 cow-milkings have not been exceeded. A frequent observation in herds with an elevated prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus infections is prolonged use of liners beyond these recommendations.

Automatic detacher - There has generally been a tendency to have the end of milking and the time delay for removal of the unit set such that udders are milked too dry. Such overmilking can result in trauma and hyperkeratosis (callous formation) at the teat end. Producers and others frequently (and mistakenly) refer to hyperkeratosis as prolapsed teat ends. Good guidelines to consider are that after the milker units are removed:

(1) Teat ends should not be reddened or edematous,
(2) There should be an easily obtainable stream of milk remaining in each quarter, and
(3) Cows should not flinch or kick when teats are touched after the milker unit is removed.

In summary, maintaining a properly functioning machine is an important component in achieving excellence in mammary health. Cold weather often seems to accentuate the role of the machine in udder health. Most Ohio farms could probably benefit from a greater investment in preventive machine care.

Fast Changing Feed Markets Bring Opportunities

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University

The abrupt swing in the protein market, compounded with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) case in Washington, has brought substantial changes in commodity prices. In these instances, some producers prefer to keep purchasing the same feed components, arguing that consistency in a feeding program is conducive to higher milk production. Although there is little doubt that ration variability affects performance, one should not confound variability (changes in nutrient density) with ingredient substitution (changing the source of nutrients). Using good nutrition practices, substantial savings in feed cost can be achieved by exploring the feed market for sources of nutrients. As usual in this column, we used the software SESAME to compare 28 feed commodities available in Ohio and partition them into three sub-groups: bargain feedstuffs, break-even feedstuffs, and overpriced feedstuffs. To do so, we priced the five most important nutrients from an economic standpoint in dairy diets: net energy lactation (NE_L), rumen degradable protein (RDP), digestible rumen-undegradable protein (D-RUP), effective neutral detergent fiber (e-NDF), and non-effective neutral detergent fiber (ne-NDF).

Compared to November 2003, prices of nutrients show (Table 1):

1) No change in the price of energy, which remains at a level modestly high from a historical basis,

2) A 50% drop in the cost of RDP, now being moderately high,

3) A significant increase of approximately $0.06/lb for D-RUP (representing an approximate increase of $0.12 to $0.15/cow/day in nutrient costs),

4) No change in the cost for ne-NDF, which is about priced at its historical average, and

5) A modest increase of $0.01/lb for e-NDF, which is priced a bit above its historical average.

In Tables 2 and 3, we report the results for all 26 feed commodities. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. In short, feed ingredients can be grouped as follows in January 2004:

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts Brewers grains, wet Corn, ground, shelled Corn silage Distillers dried grains Gluten feed Hominy Brewers dried grains	Alfalfa hay (20% CP, 40% NDF) Whole cottonseed Gluten meal Expeller soybean meal 48% soybean meal Wheat bran Wheat middlings Urea	Beet pulp Canola meal Citrus pulp Meat meal Molasses Soybean hulls 44% soybean meal Roasted soybeans Blood meal Fish meal Tallow

These results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the bargains column. Feeds in that column offer savings opportunity, and their use should be maximized while respecting nutritional constraints, as well as other restrictions such as storage space, inventory turnover, etc.

Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs.

Nutrient name	Estimates
NE_L - 3X (2001 NRC)	$0.0663	**
RDP	$0.0651	~
Digestible RUP	$0.2592	**
Non-effective NDF (ne-NDF)	$-0.0076
e-NDF	$0.0632	**

Table 2. Calibration set.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, OH Buckeye D	140	142.51	129.46	155.56
Bakery Byproduct Meal	119	133.01	122.24	143.77
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	150	121.47	111.42	131.52
Brewers Grains, wet	35	38.34	35.96	40.71
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	186	176.21	167.46	184.96
Citrus Pulp, dried	125	110.41	102.35	118.46
Corn Grain, ground dry	102	129.18	117.79	140.57
Corn Silage, 32-38% DM	40	50.65	46.18	55.12
Cottonseed, whole w lint	193	203.80	187.46	220.14
Distillers Dried Grains, w sol	160	177.12	168.89	185.34
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	320	348.50	335.03	361.97
Gluten Feed, dry	140	151.89	145.57	158.20
Gluten Meal, dry	352	345.51	328.85	362.17
Hominy	110	124.36	116.35	132.36
Meat Meal, rendered	300	267.88	256.94	278.82
Molasses, sugarcane	115	87.24	77.12	97.35
Soybean Hulls	120	102.57	88.05	117.09
Soybean Meal, expellers	290	286.38	274.99	297.78
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	240	228.48	217.41	239.55
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	250	255.37	245.80	264.94
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	287	273.11	262.75	283.48
Wheat Bran	107	109.89	100.13	119.65
Wheat Middlings	100	120.57	112.15	128.99

Table 3. Appraisal set.

Name	Actual [$/ton]	Predicted [$/ton]
Blood Meal, ring dried	790.00	428.54
Brewers Grains, dried	105.00	174.82
Feed urea	320.00	315.87
Fish Menhaden Meal, mech.	585.00	347.43
Tallow	520.00	271.88

These estimates were derived using the software SESAME Version 2.05 written at The Ohio State University. For additional information, please refer to Buckeye Dairy News Volume 5, Issue 2, March 2003.

Using Nutrient Cost to Benchmark Your Nutrition Costs

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University

In my regular column, I have explained how we can extract the implicit cost of nutrients from market prices of feedstuffs. In our software, SESAME, we apply this method to compare feedstuffs and determine which ones are bargains and which ones are rip-offs. The method of valuing nutrients yields an additional approach for feed evaluation: one can establish reasonable benchmarks for nutrition costs. Traditionally, this has been measured using feed costs. Although it is reasonably easy to calculate an estimate of feed cost for a group of animals, it is not so easy to establish a benchmark - to estimate a reasonable figure for what feed costs should be. Using the output from SESAME and the publication on Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle from the National Research Council (2001), this can be easily done with reasonable accuracy.

In Table 1, I prepared a set of estimates for three sets of cows. Cow A represents a Holstein cow typical of a herd with very good production (roughly 25,000 lb of milk/cow/year); cow B is for a Holstein cow in a sub-average herd (18,000 lb of milk/cow/year); and cow C is representative of a Jersey cow in a very good herd (18,000 lb of milk/cow/year). Daily requirements for net energy lactation (NE_L), rumen degradable protein (RDP), digestible rumen-undegradable protein (d-RUP), effective neutral detergent fiber (e-NDF), and non-effective neutral detergent fiber (ne-NDF) are basically from NRC (2001), assuming a diet with 21% e-NDF, 9% ne-NDF, and 68% total digestible nutrients (TDN). Unit costs of nutrients and milk component prices are provided in Table 2. The rest is just simple arithmetic. For example, a 1500 lb cow producing 77 lb/day of milk with 3.5% fat and 3.0% true protein requires 34.8 Mcal/day of NE_L. A unit of NE_L (Mcal) cost on an average 6.63 cents. Thus, the cost of supplying the required energy is 34.8 x $0.0663 = $2.31. The calculations are done in a similar fashion for all nutrients of economic importance. We must also account for the cost of mineral and vitamin supplementation, which is typically around $0.20/cow/day. Hence, the cost of supplying the animal with all required nutrients equals $4.10/day in January 2004. The same calculations done on an animal of lower productivity results in a benchmark estimate of $3.35/day. At a same level of milk production (55 lb/day), the Jersey cow has a higher estimate ($3.81/day) due to additional nutrients needed to support the higher fat and protein concentration in the milk. Thus, the nutritional costs of the lower producing Holstein cow are substantially less than those of the high-producing Holstein cow or the high-producing Jersey cow. So, if one's objective was to minimize nutrient costs (feed costs), lower milk production would be desirable. This illustrates the fallacy of the absolute cost minimizer, i.e., those who try to reduce costs at the expense of production. This becomes clear when we calculate the value of the milk produced (milk gross income) and, finally, the income over nutrient costs (a figure analogous to income over feed costs). The high-productivity Holstein cow yields an income over nutrient costs that is $1.90/cow/day higher than that of the low-productivity Holstein cow. It is not my intent to do a profitability comparison across breeds. Additional factors would have to be considered to make a fair comparison of Holstein versus Jersey cows. Nevertheless, it should be apparent that the high-producing Jersey cow can be very profitable. Relative productivity within breed is probably a much more important factor to overall competitiveness than breed.

In the next issue of Buckeye Dairy News, we will show you how you can calculate a nutrition cost benchmark for your own herd and diagnose the source of the problem if your costs exceed the benchmark.

Table 1. Estimating nutrition costs (feed costs) using nutritional requirements and estimates of nutrient costs.¹

	Cow A	Cow B	Cow C
Body weight (lb)	1500	1500	1000
Milk yield (lb/day)	77	55	55
Milk fat (%)	3.5	3.5	5.0
Milk true protein (%)	3.0	3.0	3.5
Expected DMI (lb/day)	52.0	43.2	41.9
Required NE_L (Mcal/day)	34.8	27.5	29.4
Required RDP (lb/day)	5.05	4.28	4.03
Required D-RUP (lb/day)	2.34	1.95	3.35
Required e-NDF (lb/day)	10.92	9.07	8.80
Expected ne-NDF (lb/day)	4.68	3.89	3.77

Nutrient Cost ($/cow/day)
NE_L	2.31	1.82	1.95
RDP	0.33	0.28	0.26
D-RUP	0.61	0.51	0.87
e-NDF	0.69	0.57	0.56
ne-NDF	-0.04	-0.03	-0.03
Minerals and vitamins	0.20	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	4.10	3.35	3.81
Nutrient Cost ($/cwt of milk)	5.32	6.10	6.92
Milk Gross Income ($/cow/day)	9.25	6.61	8.37
Income Over Nutrient Costs ($/cow/day)	5.15	3.25	4.56

¹DMI = dry matter intake, NEL = net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein,
D-RUP = digestible rumen undegradable protein, e-NDF = effective neutral detergent fiber,
and ne-NDF = noneffective NDF.

Table 2. Unit costs of nutrients and milk component prices, Ohio, January 2003.

NE_L ($/Mcal)	0.0663
RDP ($/lb)	0.0651
D-RUP ($/lb)	0.2592
e-NDF ($/lb)	0.0632
ne-NDF ($/lb)	-0.0076

Milk fat ($/lb)	1.3688
Milk true protein ($/lb)	2.2997
Milk other solids ($/lb)	0.0362

Managing Feed Costs for Lactating Cows

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, Ohio State University (top of page)

Feed costs account for the single highest portion of the variable costs of producing milk. Feed costs usually range from $0.06 to 0.08/lb of dietary dry matter (DM). The cost per cow per day will then depend on DM intake. To relate the feed cost to milk yield, we calculate feed costs per hundredweight of milk, which generally should be < $4.00/cwt. However, the value of the milk will depend on its protein and fat composition (plus some quality indicators). Therefore, we stress the importance of monitoring the income over feed costs (IOFC). With the increased price for protein supplements and the marginal milk prices expected for this year, IOFC should be watched carefully. The goal for IOFC is > $6.00/cow/day. There has been more emphasis recently on monitoring feed efficiency on dairy farms. One of the common methods to calculate feed efficiency is: 3.5% fat-corrected milk (FCM, lb) / DM intake (lb) and 3.5% FCM (lb) = 0.432 x lb milk) + (16.23 x lb milk fat). The desired range for this feed efficiency is 1.4 to 1.6. Our goal is usually to increase DM intake, but if the intake increases without a response in milk yield, then some other positive response should be occurring or the increase in feed costs is not making an economic return. Also, factors other than DM intake may be limiting milk yield, resulting in a low efficiency. A short-term, high feed efficiency may be reflective of excessive body weight loss, which increases the risks for several metabolic diseases. A spreadsheet has been developed at OSU to help manage these aspects relating to feed costs, with a separate spreadsheet available for Holstein versus Jersey cows.

Planning for Spring Forage Management, Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Specialist, Ohio State University (top of page)

The next couple of months provide a good opportunity to plan ahead and prepare our forage management program for this coming spring. The weather patterns the last couple of years have demonstrated the importance of being well prepared in order to have any hope of achieving forage production goals. Being prepared is a key component to timeliness of forage production practices, which is critical to achieving high yields of quality forage. Below are 10 items to consider as you begin preparing for the coming season.

1) Plan your forage inventory for the coming year and calculate the budget for the forage enterprises. Investigate ideas on reducing costs or increasing income from forages in your operation.

2) Plan new forage seedings and have contingency plans to meet your forage inventory needs. For example, what will you do if forage stands suffer severe winter injury and need to be replaced? Forage stands sometimes suffer winter injury in Ohio, and advance thought will pay off if it happens this year.

3) Order seed and supplies for spring plantings. Consider both yield potential and forage quality goals when making variety selections. Study variety performance data from several sources (Ohio Forage Performance Trial data are available, with links to results in other states).

4) If you buy or sell forages, communicate with your suppliers or customers to update contracts and establish plans for the coming year.

5) If you utilize contract planting or harvesting services, meet with your service supplier to coordinate plans for the coming forage season.

6) Order supplies such as fertilizer, herbicide, pesticides, and fencing according to anticipated needs. Nitrogen fertilization is especially critical to good production of grasses and should be applied early in the spring when grasses begin to grow and soils are suitable for transport of equipment. Potassium and phosphorus topdressing should wait until after the first harvest, when soils are firmer. Soils release more potassium after winter, so topdressing potassium later after the first harvest reduces the potential for elevated levels of this nutrient in the spring harvested forage. Always base fertilizer applications on current soil test results.

7) Begin routine maintenance and repairs on forage planting and harvesting equipment. Order parts for haybine or disc mowers, choppers, and rakes or tedders. Order supplies such as twine, balage wrap, inoculants, etc.

8) Frost seed legumes into small grains or pastures in late February to early March.

9) If you utilize grazing, carefully consider what adjustments you will make to your grazing management during the coming season. How will you manage that spring flush of forage growth so as to maintain high quality pastures throughout the season?

10) Keep snowmobiles and other traffic off alfalfa stands during the winter.

Although the disease has been recognized since at least 1895, Johne's disease is now considered a major disease problem for the cattle industry. Current estimates from the USDA place the prevalence of the disease at about 22% of dairy herds and 8% of beef herds. These are conservative estimates. As evidence of the concern expressed by the livestock industries about this disease, in 2003 the USDA made available about $20 million to the states for Johne's disease control efforts. It is likely that there will be similar funding for the next fiscal year.

Why all this concern? Johne's disease doesn't cause high death losses like the bovine respiratory disease complex (shipping fever) or reproductive losses like another important disease, bovine virus diarrhea (BVD). Johne's disease is a chronic infection that usually enters the herd silently, but once it is established, it may affect a large proportion of the herd and cause production losses, premature culling, and loss of marketability of breeding stock. The infection is incurable, and eradicating it is very difficult, time consuming, and expensive.

Johne's (pronounced Yo'n-ees) disease is a chronic bacterial infection of the intestines that affects all ruminants. It occurs worldwide and is caused by a bacterium called Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP), a hardy germ related to those that cause tuberculosis and leprosy. The signs of the disease in cattle include a chronic watery diarrhea that does not respond well to treatment and progressive, severe weight loss. In infected sheep and goats, diarrhea usually does not occur, or only occurs sporadically, and severe weight loss is the predominant sign. Most cattle become infected with MAP in the first few weeks of life, but they do not develop signs of the disease until at least two years later. Animals as old as 10 or 12 years-of-age may show signs of the disease, but the usual age is 2 to 6 years old. In cows, the disease frequently shows up after the stress of freshening, and beef bulls often begin to show signs after the breeding season. Unfortunately, infected animals may shed MAP in their manure for months to years before the signs of the disease are obvious.

Infected animals often shed billions of MAP in their manure daily, and it may only take a few thousand to infect a calf. The MAP can survive in the environment for about a year. The key to control of the disease is sanitation and preventing young animals from ingesting the bacteria. Recommended control practices include:

Reduce environmental contamination by identifying infected animals and culling them from the herd.
Provide clean, well-drained areas for calving. Dirty udders and cows are sources of MAP for the young calves at the time they are most susceptible.
Calves should be removed from the calving area a soon as possible and placed in clean rearing facilities.
When possible, raise heifers separate from adults. Adult cattle represent potential carriers of infective bacteria. Do not spread manure on heifer pastures.
Isolate unthrifty animals or animals with diarrhea until a diagnosis is made or until the animal is culled.

If you do not already have Johne's disease, DON'T BUY IT. Ask about the status of a seller's herd before purchasing if possible. Purchasing animals from herds participating in a testing program, such as Ohio's Johne's Disease Test-Negative Status Program, and finding out how long they have been testing is far, far less risky than buying from herds with unknown status.

A series of meetings are being held around Ohio this winter in an effort to inform producers about this disease and the programs available in our state for testing and control. Topics to be covered include symptoms and description of Johne's disease, methods of prevention and control, testing procedures, and regulatory issues regarding the disease. The speakers will be from the ODA, the USDA, Extension, and producer members of the Cattle Health Advisory Committee to the ODA. These meetings will be held both in the afternoon and evening at some sites.

Date and Location	Contacts
March 9, 2004 12:30 - 3:00 pm Salem First United Methodist Church 244 S. Broadway Salem, OH AND 7:00 - 9:30 pm Millcreek Metroparks Mahoning County Farm McMahon Hall, 7574 S R 46 Canfield, OH	Ernie Oelker, (330) 424-7291, oelker@ag.osu.edu Dianne Shoemaker, (330) 263-3831, shoemaker.3@osu.edu
March 10, 2004 1:00 - 3:30 pm Fisher Auditorium Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Wooster, OH	Tom Noyes, (330) 264-8722, noyes.1@osu.edu Terry Beck, (330) 264-8722, beck8@postoffice.ag.ohio-state.edu Roger Amos, (419) 281-8242, amos.1@osu.edu Dean Slates, (330) 674-3015, slates.1@osu.edu
March 15, 2004 12:00 - 3:30 pm Knights of St. John Hall Maria Stein, Ohio Food will be served and a registration fee will apply	Joe Beiler, (419) 586-2179, beiler.1@osu.edu Roger Bender, (937) 498-7239, bender.5@osu.edu Woody Joslin, (937) 498-7239, joslin.3@osu.edu John Smith, (419) 738-2219, smith.132@osu.edu Steve Foster, (937) 548-5215, foster.99@osu.edu
March 15, 2004 7:00 - 9:30 pm Shelby County Extension office 810 Fair Rd. Sidney, Ohio 45365-2949	Joe Beiler, (419) 586-2179, beiler.1@osu.edu Roger Bender, (937) 498-7239, bender.5@osu.edu Woody Joslin, (937) 498-7239, joslin.3@osu.edu John Smith, (419) 738-2219, smith.132@osu.edu Steve Foster, (937) 548-5215, foster.99@osu.edu
March 24, 2004 7:00 - 9:30 pm Highland County (Location to be announced)	John Grimes, (937) 393-1918, grimes.1@osu.edu Jeff Fisher, (740) 947-2121, fisher7@postoffice.ag.ohio-state.edu Ray Wells, (740) 702-3200, wells.1@osu.edu

New Environmental Resources

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University (top of page)
The Ohio Livestock Coalition and associated partners have recently released two publications that can be very helpful to dairy producers and they can be printed from the web:

1) Guidelines for Livestock Operations (http://www.ohiolivestock.org/images/1_livestock_guidelines03.pdf) - The purpose of the 23-page booklet is to help individuals better understand the types of regulations, rules, permits, and plans that may be required of certain farming operations. The roles and contact information for various agencies are provided.

2) It takes Two to be a good Neighbor (http://www.ohiolivestock.org/images/It%20takes%20two1.pdf) - This 2-page document was designed to help livestock farmers and rural residents/country dwellers to realize that each have a responsibility to be neighborly in the community. Tips for each party are outlined, and some typical farming practices are described.
Are You Playing Blackjack With Your Milk Price?

We all have played the card game Blackjack at one time or another. In this card game, we are dealt two cards, one face up and the other face down. The dealer also gets two cards, one face up and the other face down. The object is to get a score on our cards as close to 21 but not 'bust' by going over 21 points, and to have a score or point total that is greater than the dealer's point total. We get to see the one card from the dealer and then we can request additional cards for our hand. In Blackjack, there are rules guiding whether or not we request additional cards or 'stand-pat' with what we have on the table. For example, if our two card total is 19 points, we do not request another card, hoping to get an ace or deuce for 21, but we 'stand-pat' and wait to see what the dealer has for total points.

The current Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) cash and Class III futures market is very much like the Blackjack game. You, the producer, have been dealt a very good hand. The dealer, that is the market, is showing cash prices for both Grade AA butter and Cheddar cheese (blocks and barrels) at levels that have not seen before at this time of the year. The Grade AA cash butter price rose above the $2.00/lb mark on March 5th to settle at $2.11/lb. The Grade AA CME cash price average for the week of March 1 to 5 was $2.00/lb. This will calculate to a milk fat price of $2.262/lb. The last time producers earned this much for milk fat was back in August of 2001. As for cheese, the CME average price for the same week will pay producers $1.9198/LB of protein. Put both of these cash market prices together, along with expected prices for nonfat dry milk and whey, and the implied Class III price is $13.69/cwt.

The CME March Class III futures contract is currently trading in the $13.58 to $13.63/cwt range. The last time producers experienced $13/cwt plus milk in March, under current Federal Order pricing rules, was, well never. Even if we do not constrain ourselves and look back to the decade of the 90's, we still cannot find a March price anywhere near this high. Now, looking at the CME Class III futures prices for April ($14.60 to 14.71/cwt), May ($15.23 to 15.39/cwt), June ($15.20 to 15.45/cwt), July ($15.33 to 15.50/cwt), August ($15.35 to 15.65/cwt), and September ($15.50 to 15.75/cwt), our 'price hand' is showing CME futures prices that start at $14.70/cwt for April and go up from that month through September (Figure 1). On March 8th, the average for the April through September contracts is $15.38/cwt. As it stands, this is a very good hand indeed! In fact, to achieve this average milk price, we require an average of $2.30/LB Grade AA butter and $1.65/LB Cheddar cheese to hold over the next six months.

Like the Blackjack player, having been dealt a hand of 19, or even 20, you must make a decision. Do you stand-pat and price your milk at the current level, or do you take the risk that you will draw a deuce or an ace and win out with even higher milk prices over the next six months? Current prices for the CME futures contracts are the cards that you see on the dealer's side of the table. What you do not see is the market card still face down. That card will play out over the next six months. Will the impact of the reduced availability of bovine somatotropin (rBST) be greater or less than anticipated? Will dairy cow numbers continue to decline or will higher prices slow the rate or even reverse the direction? Have we seen a significant slow-down in dairy cow culling? Will the border with Canada be opened? Will the general economic recovery be stronger or weaker than anticipated? Will product inventories continue to decline or begin to build? What will the weather be like over the next six months? Will the market deal an even tighter supply to demand balance and push prices up or will the final card dealt result in better that expected production and lower that expected commercial demand and lower prices?

The final result for each of these questions is difficult to anticipate. Right now, you have been dealt an excellent hand and you should be pricing a good share of your monthly milk shipment through forward price contracts, futures contracts, or using options on futures to put floors under the current Class III market prices. In fact, and you may think I have lost my mind, you should price your milk at these CME futures prices, produce milk like gang-busters, and hope for a decline in the actual Class III price for each of these coming months. Why? With lower actual Class III prices you will receive higher Producer Price Differential (PPD) payments (Class III prices and PPD are negatively correlated), and with a lower Class III price, you may even receive a Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) payment on top of your locked-in $15/cwt plus Class III price. What better 'price-hand' could you expect!

How are you going to respond? Do you 'stand-pat' with the 'price-hand' already dealt or do wait it out and hope to draw an Ace or a Deuce and risk 'going bust'?
Evaluating Forage Stands After the Winter Season

Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Specialist, Ohio State University

As winter releases its grip, forage crops initiate new spring growth. April is a good time to walk hay fields and pastures to assess stand density and plant vigor. I don't expect any major problems with winter survival this year, but there are always isolated cases where stand density is less than desirable. Take a close look at stands that were marginal at the end of last year and summer seedings that were planted late.

As forage stands greenup, walk your fields and estimate the number of live plants per square foot. Actual counts in several spots can be made with a 2 x 2 foot square. If the planting is in rows, measure off a known area and make plant counts in the rows. Second year stands should have 8 to 12 plants per square foot, and third year or older stands should have 5 to 6 plants per square foot.

Visually estimating ground cover of desirable forage plants is also a useful way to assess stands. This should be done when there is about six inches of growth. Stands with more than 80% ground cover should produce excellent yields, 60 to 80% ground cover should produce normal yields, 40 to 60% ground cover will likely yield in the 60% range of normal, and 20 to 40% ground cover will yield less than half the normal potential. Weeds will be a problem in thinner stands, so over seeding with grass and clover or destroying the stand and rotating out of it should be considered.

It is useful to dig up alfalfa plants and split the crown and taproot lengthwise to evaluate general root health. This gives some indication of stand vigor and future life span. Very healthy plants have creamy and firm internal root and crown tissue. Some crown rot (dark discoloration of inner tissue) will be present in older stands. Healthy stands have fewer than 30% of the plants with significant discoloration and rot in the upper taproot and crown region. Stands showing more than 50% of the plants with significant rot across the entire diameter of the taproot or crown are likely to go downhill during this coming growing season.

Chickweed and other winter annuals can be a real problem in late summer seedings, especially those with poor vigor. So walk those fields and be prepared to make necessary herbicide applications in a timely manner, before the winter annuals get too big.

While it is important to evaluate forage stands in early spring, recent research in Ohio and Missouri has shown that more alfalfa plants die during the growing season (between spring and fall) than during the winter. Of course, there are some winters when catastrophic heaving causes complete stand loss. But during most years, alfalfa stand density changes more during the growing season than during the winter. Winter injury and other stresses during the growing season can accumulate and weaken plants, causing them to die at some point during the growing season. So as you walk your fields this spring, make a mental note to walk them again in the fall.
How to Adjust a POSILAC® Supplementation Program to a Temporarily Limited Supply of POSILAC

Dr. Mark Armfelt, DVM, DABVP; Adjunct Faculty, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Ohio State University; Technical Service Representative, Monsanto Dairy Business (top of page)
There is currently a limited supply of POSILAC® (a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC, St. Louis, MO) available. Many dairy producers find themselves in a situation where they cannot supplement all the cows they normally would if the supply were not limited. This article will suggest some ways to deal with this limited supply and make you aware of some choices to avoid when dealing with this situation.

POSILAC provides maximum value when supplementation is started at 57 to 70 days in milk (DIM) and continued until the end of lactation. It takes 4 to 6 weeks (ramp-up period) for cows to maximize milk production and dry matter (DM) intake in response to POSILAC. When supplementation begins at the time approved by the FDA (57 to 70 DIM) and continues to the end of lactation, cows will then spend the maximum number of days at the expected response of 8 to 12 LB/day of milk. When supplementation of POSILAC is discontinued at the end of lactation, cows return to the level of production they would have been had supplementation never occurred.

When considering the biology of POSILAC as described in the previous paragraph, the logical approach to dealing with a limited supply is to supplement fewer cows at label recommended times. Once you determine the number of cows you can supplement (your Monsanto representative can help you with this), there are a couple of things you can do to help you reduce the number of cows being supplemented. One is to immediately stop adding new cows to the supplementation list. The other is to stop supplementing open cows due to be culled, or cows in their terminal lactation. Caution: Stopping supplementation in late lactation may cause milk production to decline to a level that is not profitable, forcing producers to market open cows or dry-off pregnant cows.

Do not use extra-label approaches such as the following [Note: FDA regulations do not allow production drugs such as POSILAC to be used in an extra-label manner.]:

1. Do not extend the interval beyond 14 days. This can cause unwanted variation in DM intake and could lead to a loss of body condition.
2. Do not split injections. Using one dose of POSILAC on more than one cow will increase the risk of disease transmission, increase the risk of injection site abscesses, and increase the labor costs without getting an increase in milk production.
3. Do not start cows later than label recommendations. This is associated with an increased risk of udder edema, and a loss of economic opportunity because cows spend a larger percent of their supplementation period in ramp-up.

If you have any questions, please contact your local Monsanto Dairy representative.

Viable Alternatives for Animal Protein Feeds

Dr. Maurice Eastridge and Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialists, Ohio State University

In an attempt to reduce the risk of spreading Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE; Mad Cow Disease) and to lower the associated human health risks, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has prohibited since 1997 the feeding of ruminant derived meat or meat and bone meal to ruminants. To further reduce these risks in the event that additional cases of BSE exist in the US, the FDA has proposed prohibiting the feeding of mammalian blood to ruminants (uncertainty remains whether the additional restriction will be only ruminant or all mammalian blood). These new rules will affect the availability and prices for protein sources fed to dairy cattle. These animal protein sources have primarily been targeted as sources of rumen undegraded protein (RUP) for lactating cows. Generally, a balance between corn-based (lower in lysine) and legume-based protein (lower in methionine) sources will provide a rather balanced supply of lysine and methionine to the small intestine for absorption. For Ohio, the grain byproducts listed in Table 1, especially brewers grains, corn gluten feed, corn gluten meal, soybean meal, and distillers grains, should be selected based on availability in local markets, price, and nutrients most limiting in the ration formulation. However, most of these grain byproducts are low in lysine and may not the best choice for meeting the amino acid requirements of dairy cows, especially with high corn silage rations. If additional RUP and energy are needed, whole-roasted soybeans should be considered. If additional RUP is needed for the high-producing cows, commercially available, high RUP soybean meal or fish meal may be economical alternatives. Rumen-protected amino acids should only be considered for very high-producing cows. If economically priced, feather meal can be used but is not a preferred feed for high-producing cows because of its lower digestibility of RUP and lower quality protein (low in methionine and tryptophan). For more information on pricing of feedstuffs, see the article titled "Fast Changing Feed Markets Bring Opportunities" in the January 2004 issue of the Buckeye Dairy News.

Table 1. Protein fractions in feed ingredients commonly available in Ohio.^1,2

Feed	CP (% of DM)	RUP (% of CP)	RUP Digest (%)	Lys (% of CP)	Met (% of CP)
Animal Protein Feeds
Meat and bone meal	54.2	58.2	60	5.18	1.40
Blood meal	95.5	77.5	80	8.98	1.17

Alternative Protein Sources
Brewers grains, wet	28.4	35.4	85	3.40	1.93
Corn gluten feed	23.8	30.0	85	2.74	1.61
Corn gluten meal	65.0	74.6	92	1.69	2.37
Cottonseed meal	44.9	47.9	92	4.13	1.59
Distillers grains	29.7	50.8	80	2.24	1.82
Feather meal	92.0	65.4	65	2.57	0.75
Fish meal, menhaden	68.5	65.8	90	7.65	2.81
Soybean meal, 48%	53.8	42.6	93	6.29	1.44
Soybeans, whole roasted	43.0	39.4	85	5.98	1.40

¹Taken from NRC (2001).
²CP = crude protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, RUP Digest = digestibility of the RUP, Lys = lysine, and Met = methionine.

Economics of Dairy Production in Ohio

Dr. Don Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension

Analysis of dairy enterprises found in the Ohio Farm Business Summary¹ reveals feed cost as the number one reason for the difference in profitability of Ohio dairy farms. In the past seven years, the feed cost per hundredweight of milk sold has averaged about $2.20 difference between the lower and highest profit third of producers participating in the summary. At 19,970 LB of milk sold (2002 DHIA average), that would suggest a difference of $433 in net return per cow.

An attainable goal is $6.50 feed cost per hundredweight of milk produced, including purchased feed and the value of home grown feed. About a third of this feed cost is used for raising the replacement heifer. When feed cost per hundredweight of milk is too high, often it is found that the cost of raising replacements is out of line. Therefore, separate enterprise analysis of the replacement herd would assist producers in identifying problems.

The Ohio Farm Business Summary reports data from Ohio farms using the FINPACK computer program FINAN for year end analysis. The summary is published by Ohio State University Extension. Participation in this summary is voluntary, through educational programs offered by Ohio State University Extension and several Farm Business Planning and Analysis programs.

FINPACK is a comprehensive financial planning and analysis system developed and supported by the Center for Farm Financial Management, University of Minnesota. It is designed to help farmers understand their financial situation and to make informed decisions. RANKEM was the summary program used to compile the data and describe the averages for all farms, the lower third, and upper third of farms. The whole farm analysis is sorted by net farm income. Enterprise data are sorted by return to overhead.

Homegrown feed is valued at the opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is the cost of using a resource in one way based on the return that could be obtained from using it in the best alternative way. For example, feeding shelled corn that could otherwise be sold for an average of $2.24 per bushel (2002).

Tables 1 and 2 describe differences in milk production costs of a sample of Ohio dairy farms over a seven-year period. The data within the summary report, however, were not collected from a scientifically chosen sample. Therefore, the financial information cannot necessarily be used to generalize the situation of Ohio farmers. It is useful, however, to identify the resulting differences in cost control, production management, and marketing that separates the most profitable from the average operations.

Table 3 compares the 2002 Ohio data with a larger number of dairy farms from Minnesota. These numbers are very comparable and are useful to assist a producer to establish benchmarks. An enterprise analysis of farm records, therefore, will provide comparative numbers to bounce off of these benchmarks. A team of OSU Extension agents from across Ohio are available to assist producers in completing an enterprise analysis, using the FINPACK computer program. Contact your local Extension office for assistance.

¹The Ohio Farm Business Summary Report coordinator is Donald J. Breece, Ph.D., Agriculture and Natural Resources Specialist - Farm Management, Ohio State University Extension - West District, 1219 West Main Cross, Suite 202, Findlay, Ohio 45840, (419) 422-6106.

Table 1. Average costs per hundredweight of milk for Ohio dairy farms using Finpack analysis.

	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
Dairy farms¹	29	15	14	11	16	13	10
Cows/farm	99.0	97.4	82.9	135.4	91.4	100.4	94.9
Milk yield (LB/cow)	18,791	19,039	19,268	21,535	17,434	18,325	19,828
Milk price ($/cwt)	15.23	13.45	15.11	15.62	13.20	15.46	12.70
Feed costs ($/cwt of milk; includes replacement)	8.21	8.67	7.15	6.16	6.95	7.52	6.94
Hired labor ($/cwt of milk)	1.38	0.83	0.69	2.18	1.73	1.77	1.60
Total direct expense ($/cwt of milk)	11.12	11.03	10.24	9.40	10.21	11.20	10.25
Overhead costs ($/cwt of milk)	3.19	2.68	2.26	4.13	2.99	2.95	3.26
Total costs ($/cwt of milk)	14.32	13.71	12.50	13.53	13.19	14.15	13.51
Net return ($/cwt of milk)	1.90	-0.83	2.97	2.05	1.35	3.44	1.32
Net return ($/cow)	358	-158	572	442	235	630	261

¹Not necessarily the same farms each year.

Table 2. Costs for high-profit third of Ohio farms using Finpack.

	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
Dairy farms	10	5	5	No data	5	4	4
Cows/farm	90.7	97.2	69.0	No data	108.4	---	81.8
Milk yield (LB/cow)	20,429	20,547	19,832	No data	17,815	---	21,528
Milk price ($/cwt)	14.84	13.25	15.34	No data	13.44	---	13.16
Feed costs ($/cwt of milk; includes replacement)	6.99	7.35	6.75	No data	6.47	5.92	6.07
Hired labor ($/cwt of milk)	1.41	1.19	0.77	No data	1.53	2.00	1.29
Total direct expense ($/cwt of milk)	9.40	9.09	9.26	No data	8.83	10.53	10.06
Overhead costs ($/cwt of milk)	3.13	3.38	2.59	No data	3.21	2.72	2.79
Total costs ($/cwt of milk)	12.52	12.48	11.85	No data	12.04	13.26	12.85
Net return ($/cwt of milk)	3.37	1.73	4.59	No data	3.03	5.77	3.09
Net return ($/cow)	689	176	911	No data	539	1,037	665

	Feed Values¹
Corn ($/bushel)	3.90	2.73	2.24	1.98	1.92	1.93	2.24
Alfalfa hay ($/ton)	125	185	125	116	120	117	137

¹Feed prices used for enterprise analysis were the annual average commodity prices received by Ohio farmers, Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, January-December.

Table 3. Average costs to produce milk in 2002 for Ohio and Minnesota farms using a Finpack analysis.

	Ohio	Minnesota
Dairy farms	10	349
Cows/farm	94.9	101.9
Milk yield (LB/cow)	19,828	20,249
Milk price ($/cwt)	12.70	12.58
Feed costs ($/cwt of milk; includes replacement)	6.94	6.26¹
Hired labor ($/cwt of milk)	1.60	1.27
Total direct expense ($/cwt of milk)	10.25	9.41
Overhead costs ($/cwt of milk)	3.26	3.52
Total costs ($/cwt of milk)	13.51	12.92
Net return ($/cwt of milk)	1.32	1.14
Net return ($/cow)	261	232

¹Feed costs for Minnesota herds ranged from $7.47/cwt of milk for the lowest profit herds to $5.86/cwt of milk for the highest profit, a $1.61/cwt of milk
difference when divided in 20th percentile groups.

Tips for Spring Application of Manure

Mr. James J. Hoorman, Water Quality Extension Agent, Hardin County Extension

Spring applications of manure can cause livestock producer's problems with the preferential flow of manure to tile lines. If not addressed by proper manure management, preferential flow can negatively impact the environment, particularly water quality. The damage is typically indicated by fish killed in nearby streams. In the past three decades, the number of fish kills related to agriculture has increased by 72%. In the past four years, 560,000 fish covering 430 miles of Ohio streams have been killed. Agriculture is the number one cause of fish kills in Ohio and accounted for 80 fish kill cases (22.5%) of the 356 Ohio fish kills in the last four years. Livestock and manure accounted for 72% of all fish kills related to agriculture during this four-year time period.

Anything that promotes good drainage may increase preferential flow and can lead to an increase of manure flowing to and through subsurface (tile) drainage outlets. Liquid manure acts just like water! Through gravity, water and manure move downward through the soil profile following a path of least resistance. Liquid manure moves through deep cracks in the soil, root channels from old and new plants, and earthworm channels. There are many factors that can contribute to increases in preferential flow occurrences: excess precipitation, saturated soils, excessive manure application rates, poor management decisions due to lack of manure storage, concentrated manure applications, operator error /equipment failure, high pressure/deep injection, and damaged or shallow tile. Producers should be especially aware of weather conditions (rain, excess moisture) and management decisions (application rates, calibration, and equipment limitations) to avoid problems.

To prevent manure in tile lines, livestock farmers should consider adopting and following various management practices. Appropriate application rates must be followed. Basing the application rate upon the moisture holding capacity of the soil and calibrating manure application equipment can accomplish this goal. Producer management decisions on when to apply manure are critical. Often, producers may make bad decisions when manure storage gets too full. By regularly monitoring manure storage and applying manure in a timely manner, livestock producers can avoid applying the manure when conditions may not be optimal.

Manure application equipment should be designed to allow for calibration and spreading of large volumes of manure evenly over or into soil at low rates and low pressure. Keep in mind that each piece of equipment (irrigation, tankers, dragline, and solid spreaders) has distinct advantages and disadvantages. The type of equipment utilized should not only be economical to operate but should also allow for manure to be applied in an environmentally friendly, responsible, and sensitive manner. Ideally, manure application equipment should allow for manure to be applied evenly to the top three to five inches of the soil surface.

Application rates depend upon the available water capacity (AWC) of the top eight inches of the soil. Manure should not be applied above the AWC. Generally, liquid manure should never be applied at rates greater than 1/2 inch or roughly 13,500 gallons per acre. Lower manure application rates decrease the chance for liquid manure to flow to tile lines because the soil has a better chance of absorbing the liquid manure. Multiple applications of 1/4 inch per acre or 7,000 gallons per acre is better than one large manure application to prevent the flow of liquid manure to tile lines.

Different species of livestock produce manure with distinctively different characteristics, and this should be taken into consideration as well. For example, the make-up of swine manure is typically 95 percent water and five percent solids, while dairy manure usually consists of 97 to 98 percent water and two to three percent solids. Waste from eggwash or milk house operations is typically very thin but contains a very high BOD5, which is the five-day biochemical oxygen demand and is deadly to fish. As water content increases, solid content decreases and viscosity (stickiness) of manure decreases so it flows easier. Liquid manure acts just like water because it is basically dirty water with the ability to kill fish and humans if it is untreated. Agitating the manure to increase the solids content can help decrease the potential for manure flowing to tile lines.

The presence of earthworm burrows, which prefer loamy soil types and are typically present within one to four meters of tile lines, may further exasperate preferential flow problems. Tile plugs and control structures may provide some type of relief. Keep in mind, however, that tile plugs are an emergency measure and fail about 50% of the time because of improper use and installation. Tile plugs should not be used if tile lines are flowing with water nor should liquid manure be applied if tile lines are flowing because the soils are too saturated with water. Drainage outlets should be inspected regularly if manure is being applied. Control structures are a great tool but must be installed and managed correctly to be effective. Check with your local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) or United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office to see if cost-share assistance is available for installing control structures.

As it is with many issues, management is the key to preventing preferential flow of manure. Therefore, you'll need adequate storage (minimum of six months recommended, one year preferred) and well-maintained and calibrated equipment that applies manure evenly. Additionally, you'll need to know the location of all tile lines and outlets, repair broken tile, maintain buffer zones and setback distances (100 feet from waterways), and inspect tile outlets regularly when applying manure. Manure should not be applied above the AWC of the top eight inches of the soil and should never be applied if tile lines are flowing. If possible, the soil should be tilled to a depth of three to five inches to disrupt macropores (cracks), especially during dry seasons. Lower manure application rates should also be given high consideration. An emergency management plan should be a part of your manure management plan, and accurate records should be maintained to document manure applications and, if any problems occurred, how these problems were addressed and resolved. If you utilize custom applicators for manure application, take time to educate them about this issue. Plan on attending the Manure Science Review August 24 to 26, 2004 or Farm Science Review September 21 to 23, 2004 for more information on manure management and application.
Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference

Ms. Amanda Hargett, State Dairy Extension Associate, Ohio State University (top of page)

The 13th annual Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference (TSDNC) will be held April 27 & 28, 2004 at the Grand Wayne Center in Fort Wayne, IN. The objective of the Conference is to disseminate current information on the nutrition and feeding of dairy cattle primarily to individuals who provide nutritional advice to dairy farmers. Feed industry personnel, nutrition consultants, Extension personnel, veterinarians, and interested dairy producers are encouraged to attend. The Conference is sponsored by The Ohio State, Michigan State, and Purdue Universities and allied industries. The registration fee is $130 per person (discounts are available for groups of 10 or more) and is due by April 9, 2004. Registration after the deadline and at the door is $155. The registration fee includes refreshments during breaks and the reception, one breakfast, and a copy of the Proceedings. Additional copies of the Proceedings will be available at $20/copy.

A free pre-conference program is sponsored by Alpharma Animal Health titled "Maximizing Calf and Heifer Performance by Minimizing Disease". This program takes place from 8:00 am to 12:00 noon on April 27, with a complimentary breakfast buffet starting at 7:00 am. Registration for the TSDNC begins at 11:00 am on April 27, with the program starting at 12:50 pm. The Conference concludes at 12:30 PM on April 28. The themes this year are Nutrition and Animal Health, Heifer Management, and Feed Ingredients.

The Ruminant Feed Analysis Consortium has invited all TSDNC attendees to a Wine and Cheese Reception and Public Information Session for those individuals interested in feed composition and ration formulation on April 26 at 8:00 PM Contact Paul Kononoff for more information at (603) 862-1815.

For additional information on the Conference or to register, contact Amanda Hargett at OSU (614) 688-3143 or go to our web site: http://tristatedairy.osu.edu. Additional information also is available by contacting: Dr. Maurice Eastridge, The Ohio State University, (614) 688-3059; Dr. Herbert Bucholtz, Michigan State University, (517) 355-8432; or Dr. Timothy Johnson, Purdue University, (765) 494-4810.

Dairy Policy and Market Watch

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University,
Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

Policy Watch

The real pressing issue for Federal Order 33 producers is the depooling of milk caused by the joint effect of advanced pricing for Class I and the volatility currently exhibited in the cheese and butter markets. I have written about this issue over the past two months and it still remains a serious issue for our Federal Order. Let me illustrate. Back in January of 2004, the total pounds of Class I milk pooled equaled 584.1 million. The Class I price for January, set by dairy commodity prices back in the first two weeks of December 2003, was $13.85/cwt. Class I utilization was a reported 38.6%. Milk used in Class III and pooled during January 2004 was 648.4 million pounds, 111% of the Class I pounds. January Class III price was $11.61/cwt. The Uniform price paid to producers for January 2004 was announced at $12.51/cwt. This is the Class III price plus a positive $0.90 / cwt return to producers for the added value of Class I and Class II milk utilization.

Now fast forward to April 2004. Class I milk pooled was 544.1 million pounds. Class III milk pooled on Federal Order 33 dropped a whopping 93% to 44.7 million pounds. Class III utilization for pooled milk diminished to a miniscule 5.1%. Class I utilization soared to 62.3%. The Uniform or Blend price paid to producers pooled on the Federal Order 33 was only $15.88 / cwt. The rapidly rising cash market prices for cheese and butter set the stage for an announced April 2004 Class III price of $19.66/cwt. The only way to reconcile this discrepancy between the Uniform price and the Class III price is to reduce the Class III price by the difference of $3.78/cwt. The return to producers for the added value of Class I and Class II milk utilization was now a negative $3.78/cwt.

The same scenario was replayed in May 2004. Class III utilization increased a very small amount to 5.5%. The Class I utilization declined to 54.6%. The Uniform price increased to $18.99 / cwt. However, this was still not enough of an increase in the Uniform price. With the announced Class III price still riding high at $20.58/cwt, the only way to reconcile a Class III price which exceeds the Uniform price is by a negative producer price differential. The announced May 2004 producer price differential was a negative $1.59 / cwt.

In just two months, those milk producers who remained tied to the Federal Order 33 pool lost $5.37/cwt on milk shipped during April and May. This exceeds the cumulative $2.07/cwt they earned during the January through March months by $3.30 / cwt. A good question to be asking about now is where did this money go? Into the pockets of those milk producers whose milk was depooled during this two month period? Into the pockets of those dairy firms who choose not to pool milk on Federal Order 33 during the April and May months? Clearly this $3.30/cwt is real money; otherwise, why bother to depool in the first place? I cannot directly answer the question as to where this money went. If your milk is typically pooled in Federal Order 33 and you belong to a dairy cooperative and did not see at least some of this money, you should be asking questions. If you are an independent producer and did not see some of this money, you also know where to go to ask questions.

Besides the obvious equity issues stemming from the negative producer price differential, why is this an important issue for Federal Order 33 producers? Producers, and their representatives, operating in Federal Order 30 are attempting to close the door on Class III depooling in that order. Cass-Clay Creamery, Inc, Dairy Farmers of America, Foremost Farms, USA, Land O'Lakes, Mid-West Dairyman's Company, and four other cooperatives representing producers in Federal Order 30 have filed a petition with the USDA / AMS / Dairy Programs requesting an emergency hearing on pooling requirements for Federal Milk Marketing Order 30. If they succeed in closing the door on depooling in Federal Order 30, you can be certain that Federal Order 33 will become a target for a renewed interest in outside Class III milk to be pooled and depooled on our Federal Order. If this happens, you can expect to find yet more erosion in the average value of the Federal Order 33 producer price differential and even larger negative impacts from depooling when market conditions return, such as we witnessed last year July through October and again in April and May of this year. And, unless real changes are made in the Federal Order provisions, this will happen again.

Market Watch

For a complete update on current market conditions, futures, and options markets, and policy issues of importance to Ohio and Federal Order 33 producers go to my website, Ohio Dairy Web 2004, and click on Cam's Price Outlook.

We have just set a new record for milk price in the U.S. The June blend price for Ohio hit $20/cwt. This would be a devastating low price in Japan but not here. For us, this is a new record high. It is very tempting at times like these to relax the intensity of our management, especially the controlling function of management. Most (if not all) of our dairy farms have gone through severe economic times during the last two years. It is normal and expected to take a "breather" when you have survived "the perfect storm". But, while you enjoy more favorable milk prices, you shouldn't lose your vigilance regarding feed costs. Across markets, feed prices are currently very high and could be taking away some or even all the benefits of higher milk price.

I used the software SESAME^TMto estimate nutrient prices and break-even prices of 25 feed commodities available in Ohio in early July. Table 1 reports estimated nutrient prices. Effective NDF (e-NDF) and digestible-rumen undegradable protein (D-RUP) prices are up compared to May 2004, whereas net energy lactation (NE_L) rumen degradable protein (RDP) and non-effective NDF (ne-NDF) prices are down somewhat.

Based on wholesale prices, central Ohio commodities can be partitioned into the three following groups:

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts Corn, ground, shelled Corn silage Distillers dried grains Gluten feed Gluten meal Meat meal Wheat middlings	Alfalfa hay Brewers grains, wet Canola meal Citrus pulp Whole cottonseed Hominy Molasses Tallow Wheat bran	Beet pulp Blood meal Soybean hulls Expeller soybean meal 44% soybean meal 48% soybean meal Roasted soybeans Fish meal

A properly balanced ration cannot be made using exclusive ingredients in the "Bargains" column. But, you should try to maximize the use of feed ingredients in the "Bargains' column, minimize the use of those in the "Overpriced" column, and use as needed those in the "At Breakeven" column. Details on the estimated break-even prices (labeled "predicted") and 75% confidence limits on break-even prices are reported in Table 2.

But what about forage prices? In the past, we have used SESAME to estimate what various forages were worth. We realized, however, that while the method used was sound, it didn't properly value forages of either excellent or poor quality. This is because forages, beyond being primary sources of nutrients, vary in quality, and forage quality affects production through changes in dry matter intake. Dr. Bill Weiss at OARDC studied this problem. Based on his research and that of others, he has worked out different equations to correct the break-even price of forages based on the quality (NDF content). These equations have been incorporated in SESAME (Version 3.01 - to be released in mid-August) and their output now appears in the standard SESAME report. This column will be reporting the corrected prices of qualities of grass hay, four qualities of mixed hay, and four qualities of legume hay. The nutritional composition of each hay is from the latest publication of the National Research Council on Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle (2001). Results are reported in Table 3. The corrected break-even price of an immature legume hay (35% NDF) is $82/ton, more than that of a mature legume hay (51% NDF) at a milk price of $18/cwt. For grass hay, the difference between immature (50% NDF) and mature (69% NDF) is even more pronounced, amounting to $95/ton. This underlines the substantial economic value associated with forage quality and the importance of an accurate feed analysis when purchasing hay.

Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs - OH, July 2004.

Nutrient name	Estimates
NE_L - 3X (2001 NRC)	$0.087028	**
RDP	$0.023205
Digestible RUP	$0.342179	**
Non-effective NDF (ne-NDF)	$-0.058122	~
e-NDF	$0.053600	~

Table 2. Estimated break-even prices of commodities - OH, July 2004.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, OH Buckeye D	130	150.16	117.25	183.08
Bakery Byproduct Meal	127	153.51	138.59	168.43
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	160	122.10	98.51	145.68
Blood Meal, ring dried	600	540.48	501.31	579.65
Brewers Grains, wet	35	36.30	31.13	41.48
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	189	180.58	161.17	199.99
Citrus Pulp, dried	126	122.03	109.30	134.77
Corn Grain, ground dry	110	156.39	142.12	170.66
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	40	52.96	42.50	63.41
Cottonseed, whole w lint	208	220.59	182.34	258.85
Distillers Dried Grains, w sol	156	183.65	163.91	203.39
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	330	421.87	395.25	448.50
Gluten Feed, dry	102	155.05	140.22	169.88
Gluten Meal, dry	369	429.53	400.61	458.46
Hominy	132	137.02	124.14	149.90
Meat Meal, rendered	280	317.27	290.98	343.57
Molasses, sugarcane	105	106.96	94.87	119.06
Soybean Hulls	112	73.52	39.84	107.21
Soybean Meal, expellers	380	343.77	323.23	364.31
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	336	252.96	226.83	279.08
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	345	293.74	270.73	316.76
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	380	317.82	295.14	340.49
Tallow	370	357.20	308.87	405.54
Wheat Bran	79	93.01	70.34	115.69
Wheat Middlings	71	111.58	91.78	131.39

Table 3. Break-even prices of forages - OH, July 2004.

Name	Predicted [$/ton]	Corrected [$/ton]
Grass Hay, Immature <55% NDF	159.00	174.42
Grass Hay, Mature, >60% NDF	152.91	79.57
Grass Hay, Mid mature, 55-60% NDF	150.22	128.97
Grass Hay, all samples	151.93	97.72
Grass-Leg Hay, immature <51% NDF	159.67	154.66
Grass-Leg Hay, mature >57% NDF	152.68	88.58
Grass-Leg Hay,mid mature 51-57% NDF	159.78	128.69
Leg Hay, immature, <40% NDF	150.45	185.55
Leg Hay, mature, >46% NDF	134.52	103.32
Leg Hay, mid mature, 40-46% NDF	139.60	144.58

Even With $20/cwt Milk, Controlling Feed Cost Is Important,

Mr. David Marrison, Ashtabula County Agriculture & Natural Resources Extension Agent, Ohio State University

In the previous edition of the Buckeye Dairy News, we discussed the need for dairy managers to develop procedures to adequately address heat detection. The failure to detect estrus (heat) in dairy cows can lead to economic loss due to extended calving intervals, additional cost of heat detection aids and semen, and loss of milk production. The first three steps in this approach [ 1) establish a heat detection protocol for your farm. 2) visual heat detection-two eyes are better than none, and 3) develop and maintain cow records] were shared in the previous edition (you can view this article at https://dairy.osu.edu/bdnews/v006iss03.htm). In this month's issue, we will focus on the final three steps.

#4: Minimize herd health problems
Herd health can be a major factor in reproductive failure. Managers should work to maintain a sound nutrition program, an up-to-date vaccination program, and a dry, safe and comfortable environment. Special attention should be given to cows with sore feet as they will not mount or permit other cows to mount. Managers should treat infected or sore feet immediately. Additionally, managers should work with their nutritionist to feed a quality transition ration so feed intake is maximized and postpartum problems are eliminated or minimized during the voluntary waiting period.

#5: Use Heat Detection Aids & Estrus Programs Wisely
A manager's ability to detect heat cycles can be enhanced when visual observations are supplemented with some type of aid. These aids are especially important to help the manager detect standing heats that may have occurred during a time in which no visual observation was conducted. The most important aid is a good record keeping system.

Besides record keeping, the most common heat detection aids being used are the pressure sensitive mount detectors and tail chalking. Additional heat detection aids available include electronic mount detectors, videotape, heat detector animals, pedometers (activity monitors), and vaginal electrical resistance probes.

Heat detection aids should only be used as a supplement to visual observation and management. Research indicates that standing heat identification is incorrect less than 3% of the time, while various other methods are incorrect up to 20% of the time (University of Nebraska). Table 1 shows research conducted by the University of Arkansas with regards to the effectiveness of heat detection aids.

Table 1. Accuracy and efficiency of heat detection aids during continuous observations for cows with more than one mount.

Items	Three 30 min Observations per 24 hours	Mount Detector	Chalk	Mount Detectors Plus Chalk
Efficiency of cows in estrus (%)	60.6	93.9	93.9	93.9
False positives	0	28	38	3
Accuracy of detection (%)	100	52.5	44.9	91.7

Source: Jodie Pennington, University of Arkansas

Managers may also use progesterone (milk or blood) testing to confirm a suspected heat. Cows with low progesterone levels could be in heat. Milk progesterone should be high 21 days after breeding if the cow is pregnant or at mid-cycle. Dozens of progesterone tests are currently on the market to help farmers confirm early pregnancies or stages of heat cycles.

Managers can also utilize hormonal synchronization programs to induce heat or ovulation. The GnRH, PGF2_a, and CIDR^® hormonal treatment programs will help increase the probability of detecting estrus or allows for timed inseminations. It is vital that synchronization programs are followed by a good visual heat detection program to catch cows that return to estrus in three weeks.

#6: Develop goals for your breeding program
Just as a producer sets financial and production goals for their operations, they should also establish goals for their breeding programs. Using the worksheet below, managers can obtain reproduction information from their DHIA records or computer records to monitor the herd's reproduction status.

Goals	My Farm
Voluntary waiting period (50 to 60 days)
Days in milk at first breeding (60 to 85 days)
Days open (goal of 100 to 115 days)
Calving interval (goal of 12 months)	___________last ____________next
Heat detection (goal of > 65%)
Services per conception (goal of < 2)
Age at first calving (goal of 22-24 months)
Cows bred	______AI _______natural service _______both
Heifers bred	______AI _______natural service _______both

Using these data, the manager should develop specific and measurable goals for the upcoming reproductive year. Some of the goals that a manager may consider include:

Observe 85% of cattle in estrus by 60 days postpartum,
To breed healthy cows starting at 50 to 60 days postpartum,
To observe 75% of all heats,
To maintain a conception rate of more than 40% for all services and greater than 50% for the first service,
Maintain an average days to first service at 75 to 80 days,
To maintain 60% of the estrus intervals between 18 and 24 days,
To maintain an average days open at 100 to 110 days,
To maintain a services per conception goal of < 2,
To have an average age at first calving of 22 to 24 months,
To visually observe cows three times a day for 30 minutes per observation, and
To take an artificial insemination refresher course.

Final Thoughts

Improving reproduction efficiency on dairy farms takes time and the willingness to examine the current reproduction program. Each dairy farm must design a reproduction program that is suited for their facilities, record keeping management, personnel, and daily schedule. Contact your local County Extension office or your local breed organization for assistance in determining the areas of need for your farm's reproduction program.

Heat Detection in Dairy Cattle - Part II

Recently, I received a phone call from a farm advisor who had concerns regarding the milk fat content in the herd of one of his clients. Cows were producing quite well, averaging 80 lb/day of milk, but the milk fat was hovering near 3.0%. Milk protein appeared relatively normal, at 3.9%. Herd health was normal, indicating that the low milk fat had not been associated with acidosis (at least to this point). The producer did not want to implement changes in the feeding program because he feared that if milk fat was brought within the normal range (3.5 to 3.7% for Holstein), milk production would drop and his milk paycheck would be severely reduced. What this producer needed to understand is that due to the last Federal Milk Marketing Order reform, milk in Federal Order 33 is now priced based on components: fat, protein, and other solids. A few other factors affect the monthly milk check (e.g. somatic cell counts), but these are relatively small and are not relevant to the analysis we are about to proceed with. Also, this producer needed to understand that nutrients are needed to produce the "other solids" fraction of milk.

Nutritional requirements change with the composition of the milk produced. The analysis must factor in the amount of milk components produced, their respective prices, the amounts of each nutrient required, and their respective prices. We used nutritional requirements calculated using the 2001 edition of the National Research Council publication, "Nutritional Requirements of Dairy Cattle". Costs of nutrients were those calculated for Ohio for July 2004 using the software SESAME. Price of milk components were those for Federal Order 33 in June 2004. Calculations were made for the current situation: 80 lb/day of milk with a 3.0% fat content. Calculations were also made for an alternate scenario where milk production was dropped 6 lb/day to 74 lb/cow/day, while raising the milk fat to 3.6% and maintaining other milk components at the same levels.

Results of our calculations are presented in Table 1. Under the new scenario, cows would produce an additional 0.26 lb/day of fat, but production of protein and other solids would drop by 0.17 and 0.35 lbs/day, respectively. The gross milk income would remain virtually unchanged to approximately $13.05/cow/day.

Because of the different nutrient requirements, the cost of providing the necessary nutrients to support milk production would actually be reduced under the new scenario by a calculated $0.08/cow per day. The income-over-nutrient cost favors marginally the new scenario by $0.06/cow/day. The point is that this producer could afford losing 6 lb/cow/day in milk production to correct the milk fat content problem without any negative financial impact. It is very likely that correcting the milk fat problem would not result in a loss of 6 lb/cow/day. Depending on the exact cause of the milk fat depression, one could actually see an increase in the volume produced. The lessons to be learned for this exercise are:

1. You are now mostly paid for the pounds of components shipped. The volume of milk is somewhat irrelevant.
2. There is no free lunch. It costs something to produce milk components. For the other-solids fraction (lactose, minerals, and other small components), it costs you more to provide the nutrients required to their production than what you are getting paid for them ($0.134/lb in June).

For those who want to explore other scenarios, we prepared an Excel spreadsheet (click here).

Table 1. Analysis of income-over-nutrient costs under two different scenarios.

Item	Current	Alternate
Milk production (lb/cow/day)	80	74
Fat (%)	3.0	3.6
Protein (%)	2.9	2.9
Other solids (%)	5.9	5.9
Production (lb/cow/day)
Fat	2.40	2.66
Protein	2.32	2.15
Other solids	4.72	4.37
Nutritional requirements
Net energy lactation (Mcal/day)	33.83	33.96
Rumen degradable protein (lb/day)	5.24	5.29
Rumen undegradable protein (lb/day)	2.71	2.39
Non-effective NDF (lb/day)	4.57	4.63
Effective NDF (lb/day)	10.67	10.80
Gross income from milk ($/cow/day)
Fat	5.22	5.80
Protein	7.21	6.67
Other solids	0.63	5.90
Total gross income	13.07	13.05
Nutrient costs ($/cow/day)
Net energy lactation	2.94	2.96
Rumen degradable protein	0.12	0.12
Rumen undegradable protein	0.78	0.68
Non-effective NDF	(0.27)	(0.27)
Effective NDF	0.57	0.58
Minerals and vitamins	0.20	0.20
Total nutrient costs	4.35	4.27
Income-over-nutrient costs	8.72	8.78

Milk Volume or Components: What Should You Aim For?

Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Specialist, Ohio State University (top of page)

Late summer can be an excellent time to establish forage crops, provided there is sufficient moisture for germination and good seedling growth. It is also a good time to seed in bare or thin spots in forage stands established this past spring. The following steps will improve the chances for successful forage stand establishment in late summer.

1. Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil test and control problem perennial weeds ahead of seeding. Be careful with herbicide selection because some have residual soil activity and will harm new forage seedings of proper waiting periods are not observed. Read the labels for details.

2. Prepare a firm seedbed if using tillage. Loose seedbeds dry out very quickly. Deep tillage should be completed several weeks ahead of seeding so rains can settle the soil before final seedbed preparation. A cultipacker or cultimulcher is an excellent last-pass tillage tool. The soil should be firm enough for a footprint to sink no deeper than 3/8 to 0.5 inch.

3. No-till seeding is an excellent way to conserve moisture, provided weeds are controlled prior to seeding. Remove all straw after small grains. Any remaining stubble should either be left standing, or clipped and removed. Do not leave clipped stubble in fields as it forms a dense mat that prevents good emergence.
CAUTION: No-till or reduced-till summer seedings of legumes are at risk of infection by Sclertotinia crown and stem rot, especially in fields where clover or alfalfa were present recently. Mid- to late-August plantings dramatically increase the risk of damage by this disease compared with planting earlier. It is best to avoid no-till where clover was grown recently.

4. Don't plant alfalfa immediately after older established alfalfa, because autotoxic compounds are released by old alfalfa plants that inhibit growth and productivity of the new stand. It is best to rotate to another crop for a year before going back to alfalfa. Thickening up Spring 2004 seedings is fine.

5. Seed when soil moisture is adequate or a good rain system is in the forecast. It is very risky to place seeds into dry soil, as there may be just enough moisture to germinate the seed but not enough for seedling establishment.

6. Seed as early as possible. Seedlings require 6 to 8 weeks of growth after emergence to have adequate vigor to survive the winter. Seed by August 15 to 20 in northern Ohio and by September 1 in southern Ohio. Slow establishing species like birdsfoot trefoil or reed canarygrass should be planted in early August. Fast establishing species like red clover, alfalfa, and orchardgrass can be seeded up to the dates listed above if moisture is present. Kentucky bluegrass and timothy can actually be seeded 15 days or more later than the dates listed above. Keep in mind that the above dates assume sufficient moisture to establish the crop. Planting later than the dates mentioned above is sometimes successful depending on fall and winter weather patterns, but there is increased risk of failure and reduced yield potential for the stand as planting is delayed. A good rule of thumb for alfalfa is to have 6 to 8 inches of growth before a killing frost.

7. Plant seed shallow and in firm contact with the soil. Carefully check seeding depth, especially when no-tilling. Drills with press wheels usually provide the greatest success in the summer. Broadcasting seed on the surface without good soil coverage and without firm packing is usually a recipe for failure in the summer.

8. Use high quality seed of known varieties. Cheap seed often results in big disappointments and shorter stand life. Make sure legume seed has fresh inoculum of the proper rhizobium.

9. Do not harvest new summer seedings this fall. The only exception to this rule is perennial ryegrass. If perennial ryegrass has tillered and has more than six inches of growth in late fall, clip it back to 3 to 4 inches before snowfall.

10. Scout new seedings for winter annual weeds in October to November, and apply herbicides as needed. Winter annual weeds are much easier to control in late fall than in the spring.
Manure Application to Alfalfa

Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Specialist, Ohio State University (top of page)

Applying manure to alfalfa is becoming increasingly common for a variety of reasons. There are several environmental, agronomic, and management advantages and potential concerns with applying manure to alfalfa. This article provides a brief synopsis of those issues, taken from the North Central Regional Research Report 346, "Applying Manure to Alfalfa", authored by K.A. Kelling and M.A. Schmitt at the Universities of Wisconsin and Minnesota. At the end of this article, I provide information on how to obtain a copy of the complete report.

The advantages of applying manure to alfalfa include the following: 1) it provides substantial cropland for spreading manure throughout the summer months, 2) alfalfa can utilize the macro and micronutrients provided in manure, including excellent utilization of the nitrogen applied in manure, and 3) alfalfa's deep root system extracts mobile nutrients such as nitrogen, sulfur, and boron at greater depths than corn. One nutrient concern, however, may be over application of potassium through the manure. This can lead to unacceptably high potassium levels in the forage. Soil test results are an essential tool to utilize when planning manure application to alfalfa or any other forage.

There are three basic timing strategies for applying manure to alfalfa and each has its advantages and risks. Careful management can improve the success of each of these strategies, as discussed below:

Applying Manure Before Alfalfa Establishment. This is a relatively new approach, and may provide the best combination of agronomic performance and reduced environmental risk. Research studies have shown that pre-plant manure applications generally have a positive effect on seedling-year alfalfa yield if weeds are adequately controlled. The yield response may be carried over into the first full production year. The increased weed pressure usually does not persist past the first cutting in the seeding year. In pure alfalfa stands, there are several good herbicide options to deal with this potential problem. When spreading manure ahead of seeding, avoid compacting soil and be sure that the manure is incorporated thoroughly in the soil so seed is not planted directly into areas with high amounts of manure. Do not apply more than 75 tons/acre of solid dairy manure or 20,000 gallons/acre of liquid dairy manure ahead of seeding to ensure healthy alfalfa growth and avoid environmental problems. If applying more than 40 tons/acre of dairy manure equivalent, apply at least 6 weeks before seeding. Other types of manure with higher salt and ammonia levels should be applied at lower rates than these.

Topdressing Manure on Established Alfalfa. This practice is risky because of potential for compaction injury, salt burn to alfalfa leaves, stand suffocation, and increased weed pressure. Some research results showed reduced alfalfa yields with topdressed manure on established alfalfa. Applications on frozen soils run the risk of large nutrient runoff losses, so exercise extreme care and judgment in those situations and avoid it if possible. Consider topdressing manure only on older stands with the most grass, which tolerates topdressed manure better than alfalfa (this may cause further loss of the alfalfa in the stand but tends to increase forage yield via stimulating grass growth). Topdress manure only where the nutrients are needed. Apply no more than 3000 gallons of liquid or about 10 tons of solid dairy manure per acre in a single application, and spread manure as soon as possible after harvest to avoid burn potential and palatability or forage quality problems with the forage regrowth. Topdressing manure after substantial regrowth is present may also negatively impact the ensiling process of haylage. Make sure equipment is adjusted for uniform application, and spread only when soils are firm to minimize damage to alfalfa crowns.

Applying Manure Immediately Before Terminating Alfalfa Stand. The most common strategy for applying manure to alfalfa ground is to spread it immediately before rotating the field to a grain crop, most notably corn. Advantages are that alfalfa injury is no longer a concern, labor is usually available in late summer to accomplish the task, and the field is still smooth and firm (before any tillage is performed). But, there is significant risk of loading the field with more nitrogen than the following crop can use, even if it is corn. Research has demonstrated that there is little, if any, response to additional nitrogen on corn following alfalfa. The environmental risk of nitrate leaching may be high with this practice. Limit the manure rate applied at the end of the alfalfa rotation to that amount which will supply the nitrogen required by the following crop AFTER accounting for the alfalfa nitrogen credit. Apply only to the very poorest hay fields where all alfalfa top growth has been harvested prior to manure application. The legume nitrogen credit increases as amount of topgrowth and alfalfa stand density increase. Apply manure immediately before primary or secondary tillage to reduce risk of direct manure runoff losses. Use a pre-sidedress nitrogen test before applying any additional nitrogen fertilizer to the following corn crop.

Reference:

Kelling, K.A., and M.A. Schmitt. 2003. Applying Manure to Alfalfa. North Central Regional Research Report 346. For copies contact Keith Kelling, Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin, 1525 Observatory Dr., Madison, WI 53706-1299. Phone (608) 263-2795, email: kkelling@wisc.edu. Also available online at http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/publications/Manure%20Alfalfa.pdf
Ohio to Host 2004 Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association Regional Meeting

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Dairy Extension Specialist, OSU Extension

What is a "Professional Dairy Heifer Grower"? Ask the Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association (PDHGA) and their response will be "Heifer growers dedicated to growing high quality dairy replacements." That is exactly the type of heifer grower that this year's regional meeting is designed for.

Whether you raise heifers for your own or a client's dairy operation, reserve November 9th and 10th to participate in the PDHGA Regional Meeting at Wooster. Choose to participate in one or both days. Day one features a conference focusing on the basics of good management, managing feed costs, feeding alternative feeds, research updates, and key components of marketing plans that keep a professional grower's barns full. Day two features a tour of good heifer operations in the Holmes/Wayne county area.

The meeting will be held on the OARDC campus in Wooster. Registration materials will be posted on the http//dairy.osu.edu web site as they become available.
Manure Science Review

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University

The 2004 Manure Science Review will be held in three locations. On Tuesday, August 24, it will be held in Reed Hall on the OSU Lima campus; on Wednesday, August 25, it will be held at the Fayette County Fairgrounds in Washington Court House; and on Thursday, August 26, it will be held at the Fisher Auditorium on the OARDC campus in Wooster. Topics will include feeding practices to reduce nutrients in manure, air quality, public perception of livestock operations, water quality and preferential flow, manure application, and liability issues. For more information, contact John Smith at (419) 738-2219 or Mary Wicks at (330) 202-3533 or go to http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/ocamm.

Dairy Leaders Honor Ohio's World Championship Industry During June Dairy Month Celebration,
Dairy Leaders Honor Ohio's World Championship Industry During June Dairy Month Celebration

Mr. Tim Demland, State Dairy Extension Associate, Ohio State University (top of page)

On Tuesday June 1, 2004, the Ohio Dairy Industry Forum (ODIF) kicked off "June Dairy Month" by taking time to acknowledge the dairy industry's significant contributions to the region and to honor several individuals and companies that have contributed greatly to its success.

During the business meeting portion of the day, Ohio's dairy industry representatives agreed to increase visibility by establishing a web site designed to feature dairy's contributions and highlights, ODIF activities, and news updates of many issues that are of particular interest to Ohio's dairy stakeholders.

The group also heard an update by Dr. David Glauer, Director of Ohio Department of Agriculture's Animal Industry Division, on the implementation of the U.S Animal Identification program and several areas that will need legislative approval.

After discussing several pertinent issues facing Ohio's dairy industry, such as animal identification and the current heated debate over the influx of new "Mega-Dairy" farms, forum participants turned their attention to matters slightly less controversial as they focused on the positive achievements of several Ohio dairy stakeholders.

One of those honored by participants was ODIF's first Chair, Dr. Leon Weaver. Dr. Weaver was selected as the original chair at ODIF's organizational meeting in April of 2001 and served until late last year when his term expired. Leon was honored by the group for his proactive leadership and visionary foresights that he unselfishly shared with the group in order to better enhance Ohio's entire dairy industry. He will continue to serve as an ODIF board trustee and also on the past chair's committee.

Pearl Valley Cheese and the Biery Cheese Company were also awarded Certificates of Achievement from the ODIF in recognition of their award winning performances at the World Cheese Contest held in March of 2004. According to Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association's Executive Director, John Umhoefer, "The international community of cheese makers and butter makers has made the competition the "Olympics of Cheese Making". Ohio was represented extremely well at the event and additional luggage was required for their return trip. Pearl Valley Cheese was awarded the Silver Medal in the highly competitive Colby cheese category with a Colby Deli Horn, while Biery Cheese was awarded "Best of Show" in two different Pasteurized Processed Cheese categories. Biery topped all other competitions in both the Pasteurized Process Cheese, with their White American and the Flavored Pasteurized Process Cheese with a Hot Pepper Cheese. Their Horseradish Cheese was also awarded a Bronze Medal in the Flavored Pasteurized Process Cheese class. Chuck Ellis, General Manager & co-owner, accepted the award on behalf of Pearl Valley Cheese and Dennis Biery received the certificate for Biery Cheese from ODIF's current chair Connie Finton. When asked "How could an Ohio cheese maker become so successful at such a prominent international contest?", Dennis Biery simply smiled and said, "Only an Ohio cheese maker has full access to Ohio milk".

Representatives from Ohio's dairy producers, processors, allied industry, and retail/distribution sectors have come together to form the Ohio Dairy Industry Forum which, through quarterly forums, publications, and other proactive measures, strives to address and respond to pertinent and timely issues through consensus. This is accomplished by enhancing lines of communications and endeavoring to create an environment that fosters the creation of mutually beneficial relationships between all those that have a vested interest in Ohio's dairy industry.

Go to http://putnam.osu.edu/ag/ODIF.html to get additional information on the ODIF and other News Release.
Ohio Dairy Producers Will Be Operating the Dairy Stand at 2004 Ohio State Fair

Mr. Tim Demland, State Dairy Extension Associate, Ohio State University (top of page)

The Ohio Dairy Producers (ODP) will begin operating a dairy stand in the Food Pavilion during the 2004 Ohio State Fair that runs from August 4th through the 15th. The American Dairy Association and Dairy Council Mid East (ADA & DC Mid East), which has operated both the Food Pavilion stand as well as the Dairy Products Building in the past, has provided this opportunity to the ODP. "This is just one way that we can show our support for the ODP", said Scott Higgins, ADA & DC Mid East's General Manager. "The operation of two stands was a problem at times and having ODP run the smaller stand will enable them to offer some new and cutting edge products."

The menu plans are not complete, but we are looking to serve all the flavored milk products that have been offered in the past as well as soft serve ice cream cones, sundaes, and hopefully four flavors of "Razzles"�. (similar to McDonald's McFlurries).

To make the most of the opportunity and to help assure its success, the ODP board has agreed to solicit volunteers to operate the stand. If you or your group are interested in working in the stand, please contact Tim Demland at 419-523-6294 so we can get you scheduled. The ODP will reimburse fair admission fees, and volunteers will receive a small gift of appreciation.
Dairy Policy and Milk Marketing

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University,
Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

He who hesitates is lost and this applies to the milk markets as well!

In the March 2004 issue of the Buckeye Dairy News, I titled the article "Are You Playing Blackjack With Your Milk Price?" In that article, I discussed the need to watch the markets and make a decision about pricing your milk or waiting to see what the market would provide by way of a price.

In this article, I will assess what has happened over the last two months. First take a look at the chart below. This is the chart that was published back in the March issue of the Buckeye Dairy News.

By the time the article appeared in the March issue, it was too late to do much about the March 2004 price, but the April 2004 through January 2005 prices were a different matter. The announced April 2004 price was $19.66/cwt. If you had used the futures contract to lock in your milk price at the time of my article, you would have left something in the neighborhood of $5.06/cwt in Class III value on the table. The May 2004 price is yet to be announced, but the current futures price is trading around $20.35/cwt. Had you locked in May, you would have left another $5.00/cwt on the table. Now, back on March 5, the average Class III price for the months of June through September looked about $15.45/cwt. Today these prices average $14.98/cwt. You would be ahead of the game by $0.47/cwt on four months of production. For the remaining period, October through January 2005, the earlier period averaged $13.30/cwt. The current Class III futures prices for these months average $12.87/cwt. You would have been ahead by $0.43/cwt shipped.

So, how would you have done over the entire period? On the two months of production, April and May, you would be feeling pretty bad. You would have left $5.00/cwt on the table. For the remaining eight months, you would be ahead by $0.45/cwt shipped. What should you have done in this situation? Perfect foresight would have told you to do nothing for April and May, and lock in June through January. Unfortunately, none of us possess perfect, or anywhere near, really good foresight into the future. By not doing anything for the April and May prices, we will feel really good about our decision. By not doing anything about the June through January 2005 price, we will feel like an opportunity has gotten away. The moral of this story is that you must have a proactive plan to price your milk out into the future. Working by the seat of the pants will not suffice. It is too difficult. As the second chart shows, the current Class III futures contract settle prices through April 2005 are sliding substantially back toward more normal price levels. The Chicago cheese market and butter market are beginning to slide backward and this showing up in the Class III settles prices giving back most of the premiums that they held just a week back. I project that this cash price slide will continue to erode the milk price over the remaining months of 2004 and into 2005. So, now is the time to answer the following question: What am I going to do about my milk price? Will I continue to be a reactive pricer or will I adopt a more proactive price management plan?

For an up-to-date look at anticipated dairy product and milk component prices connect to the Ohio Dairy Web 2004 and click on Cam's Price Outlook.

Dealing With an Uncommon Feed Market

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University

I recall just a few months ago when the soybean meal market jumped above $250/ton. I received numerous phone calls and emails requesting help on how to deal "with these obscene soybean prices". I imagine that most dairy producers wouldn't mind still paying $250/ton for soybean meal. But the rapid changes in soybean and corn prices have opened many opportunities for judicious ingredient substitutions in dairy diets. There are bargains out there!

As usual in this column, I used the software SESAME that we developed at Ohio State to price the important nutrients in dairy rations to estimate break-even prices of all major commodities traded in Ohio, and to identify feedstuffs that currently are significantly underpriced. Price estimates for net energy lactation (NE_L, $/Mcal), rumen degradable protein (RDP, $/lb), digestible rumen undegradable protein (D-RUP, $/lb), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1. Compared to January 2004, the cost per unit of net energy is up by 44%, RDP is up by 29%, D-RUP is up by 27%, ne-NDF is down by 6.5¢/lb, and e-NDF is also down by more than 4.0¢/lb. Thus, although the sticker shock associated with soybean meal has focused our attention on the protein prices, it is the energy that has seen the most dramatic increase. In fact, we have tracked down the NEL cost in the Midwest market all the way back to 1981, and we have never seen a cost exceeding $0.09/Mcal before. We shall expand more on this later.

Based on early May wholesale prices, central Ohio commodities can be partitioned into the three following groups:

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts Corn, ground, shelled Corn silage Distillers dried grains Gluten feed Gluten meal Hominy Wheat midds	Alfalfa hay Blood meal Brewers grains, wet Canola meal Citrus pulp Whole cottonseed Meat meal Molasses Expeller soybean meal 48% soybean meal Tallow Wheat bran	Beet pulp Soybean hulls 44% soybean meal Roasted soybeans

As usual, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the bargains column. Feeds in the "bargains" column offer savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet.

One must remember that SESAME compares all commodities at one point in time, early May in our case. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis. As a matter of fact, all commodities would be considered expensive on a historical basis. There are some feeds that are relatively more expensive than others.

In Tables 2 and 3, we report the results for all 26 feed commodities. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices.

We can use estimated nutrient costs to benchmark feeding costs. Refer to the article "Using Nutrient Cost to Benchmark Your Nutrition Costs" in the January 2004 issue of Buckeye Dairy News. Table 4 reports the nutrient costs for a 1500 lb cow producing 77 lb of milk at 3.5% fat and 3.0% protein for September 2003, January 2004, and May 2004.

From this table, one can see that the costs of nutrients have gone up by approximately $0.53/cow/day since January (or equivalently of $0.69/cwt of milk). The $0.53 increase is the result of $1.00/day increase in NE_L, $0.10/day in RDP, and $0.16/day in D-RUP, but a drop of $0.46/day in the cost of e-NDF and a drop of $0.26/day in ne-NDF. Thus, the proper usage of energy sources combined with a wise selection of byproduct feeds can result in substantial savings in feed costs. Savvy buyers will keep a close watch to the commodity market during the summer month as we can expect rapid changes in prices due to seasonal changes in supply and demand of some commodities (e.g., wheat midds and wet brewers grains).

Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs - OH, May 2004.

Nutrient name	Estimates
NE_L - 3X (2001 NRC)	$0.095020	**
RDP	$0.084275	~
Digestible RUP	$0.330053	**
Non-effective NDF (ne-NDF)	$-0.064981	**
e-NDF	$0.020673

Table 2. Estimated break-even prices of commodities - OH, May 2004.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, OH Buckeye D	140	150.55	129.82	171.27
Bakery Byproduct Meal	137	174.58	164.53	184.63
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	160	121.30	105.01	137.59
Blood Meal, ring dried	580	566.38	538.52	594.24
Brewers Grains, wet	40	40.99	37.51	44.48
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	213	209.95	196.55	223.35
Citrus Pulp, dried	132	131.65	122.91	140.39
Corn Grain, ground dry	117	172.40	162.79	182.00
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	40	50.69	43.62	58.31
Cottonseed, whole w lint	215	222.53	195.92	249.15
Distillers Dried Grains, w sol	151	204.17	190.87	217.47
Gluten Feed, dry	140	172.57	162.52	182.61
Gluten Meal, dry	415	449.18	428.97	469.39
Hominy	130	153.77	145.09	162.44
Meat Meal, rendered	350	361.83	342.50	381.16
Molasses, sugarcane	125	123.44	115.04	131.83
Soybean Hulls	130	82.88	60.06	105.70
Soybean Meal, expellers	380	363.62	349.46	377.77
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	336	295.02	276.37	313.67
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	345	335.07	318.18	351.95
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	380	348.15	332.42	363.89
Tallow	420	389.71	357.09	422.33
Wheat Bran	119	112.14	96.87	127.41
Wheat Middlings	113	131.89	118.55	145.22

Table 3. Estimated break-even prices of outliers - OH, May 2004.

Name	Actual [$/ton]	Predicted [$/ton]
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	335	463.84
Fish Menhaden Meal, mechanized	630	463.40

Table 4. Benchmarks of nutrient costs - Ohio.¹

Nutrient	September 2003	January 2004	May 2004
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
NE_L	2.94	2.31	3.31
RDP	-0.06	0.33	0.43
D-RUP	0.39	0.61	0.77
e-NDF	0.93	0.69	0.23
ne-NDF	-0.19	-0.04	-0.30
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20	0.20

Total	4.21	4.10	4.63
Cost/cwt milk	5.47	5.32	6.01

¹Costs are for a 1500 cow producing 77 lb of milk at 3.5% fat and 3.0% true protein.

Summer Coliform Mastitis,

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University (top of page)

As I write this column, outside temperatures are well above 80^oF in Ohio and we are just in early May. Is this unusual? Well, considering that the average of our daily maximum temperature is approximately 70^oF in central Ohio during the first half of May, these daily highs are certainly above average. But, it is not unusual to experience a "heat wave" where temperatures exceed 80^oF in early May. Actually, it would be very unusual not to have at least three days where temperatures exceeded 80oF in the first two weeks of May. If we look at weather data for Central Ohio, in 67 out of the last 70 years, we have experienced three or more days of daily maxima exceeding 80^oF in the first two weeks of May. Factoring the relative humidity, which averages 55% in mid-afternoon, we quickly realize that our cows do experience episodes of heat stress in Ohio during the month of May. On an average year, there are eight days during the month of May where the temperature-humidity index (THI) exceeds 70, putting our cows under heat stress. And heat stress is expensive, costing $19.0 to 33.5 million per year to Ohio's dairy producers. You can greatly reduce these losses by:

1) Starting now. If you have fans, clean them up. The crud that accumulates on the blades and screens can easily reduce their efficiency by 50%. If you have sprinklers, verify each nozzle, clean the water line, and don't wait until it gets really hot to see if the sprinkler system works. If you have movable sidewalls, windows, etc., it is time to open them up. From now on, your cows are considerably more likely of getting too hot than of getting too cold.

2) Starting at the right place. Have a close look at your operation and identify where your cows are most challenged by thermal stress. On some farms, this is in the yard where cows have to stand by an uncovered feed bunk to slowly get cooked by solar radiation. A simple and inexpensive shade cloth can really make a difference in these instances. In general, however, our holding pens are the biggest culprit when it comes to heat stress. In older parlors with lower ceilings and low sidewalls, it is very difficult to move out of the facilities the heat produced by a bunch of milking cows stacked tightly with less than 15 ft2 per cow. It takes fans (and a lot of them) to control heat stress in a holding pen: somewhere around one 36" fan per 120 to 150 ft2 (or roughly one fan per 10 cow capacity in the holding area). Adequate use of sprinklers (one minute on per five-minute cycles) can be very effective at reducing heat stress as long as adequate outside air can be drawn into the holding area. Otherwise, the water evaporating from the cows' backs saturates the air, resulting in one big sauna and a gigantic heat-stress mess.

Alleviating heat stress does not have to be overly expensive. Returns on investments generally exceed 3:1 (a $30/cow per year in equipment depreciation, interest, and maintenance plus the operating costs results in an additional $100 in gross returns).

Just don't wait!
Heat Stress - Where Should You Start?

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Dairy Extension Specialist, OSU Extension (top of page)
"The highs will be higher and shorter (in duration); the lows will be lower and last longer than the highs." A major cause is consolidation coming at us hard and fast, driven primarily by food companies. This prediction of what dairy farmers can expect in the future was made by David Kohl, Professor Emeritus, Virginia Polytechnic Institute at the recent NE Ohio Dairy Management Conference. Any dairy person familiar with the numbers on their farm should not find this hard to believe. Kohl also made another important observation: "...when prices are high, prepare for the lows...don't do anything stupid."

"Be Clean on Credit"

Absolutely, the first priority with improved income is to make sure all accounts are current. Interest charges on open accounts at 1.8 to 2% per month may sound minor but are equivalent to annual rates of 20 to 24%. For example, if a farm owed $10,000 to a feed mill, did not make any payments and simply accumulated 2% per month interest charges (not a situation the feed mill would support), in 12 months, the amount owed would be the original $10,000 plus $2,795 in interest. None of which is deductible on Schedule F until it is actually paid.

Equally important is to pay off outstanding credit card balances. Credit card use is growing in the agricultural sector. Nationally, Kohl stated that more than 70% of people regularly carry an unpaid balance on credit cards. With increased use come horror stories of credit card misuse and abuse. Besides the amazing story of an older farmer running up credit card debts of $80,000 twice in three years (gambling, a trophy wife, and obviously a slow learner), Kohl particularly got the attention of younger members of the audience with examples such as the following:

If a credit card holder has a $2000 balance on a credit card with an 18% interest rate and only makes minimum payments, it will take 16 years to pay off the balance (without making additional charges!). Conversely, if that same minimum monthly payment was invested in a mutual fund generating an 8% return for the same 16 years, the investor would save and earn more than $12,000.

Make a habit of checking your credit rating regularly. Items can mistakenly land on your credit report, which if left uncorrected, can damage your credit rating and ability to get loans approved.

Make budgeting and strategic planning part of how you do business. Most important, let information and facts, not emotion, guide these activities. It is particularly important to be careful of investing in land. Remember that cash flow and earnings pay the bills and pay back debt, not necessarily ownership of land.

This is a particularly challenging issue where land values are rapidly increasing out of agricultural use value because of its' desirability as a location to build the "Ken and Barbie" houses (those huge fancy multi-zillion dollar houses) that are crowding out agriculture on the fringes of urban and suburban development. Kohl did note that eventually the homeowners will discover that these huge houses on multiple acres "own" them with their demanding and costly upkeep�but not soon enough to keep new construction from gobbling up farm ground and driving up land prices.

Budget additional expenses and income for the year. Currently, high feed prices will pick off some of the additional income on many farms. High fuel prices will also take their toll as we enter spring planting and forage harvest.

Pay down lines of credit. Not only will you save interest on the balance, but you are rebuilding credit reserves to help you through the next downturn.

Put some money back - checking accounts that pay interest, certificates of deposit, or whatever investment vehicle pushes your buttons. It needs to be safe, should generate some return, and be readily available for your use during the next down cycle.

"Don't do something stupid"

One of the biggest challenges during market peaks is to not do something stupid with the money. New paint disease is particularly contagious when milk prices are high. I guarantee that someone in your community will start buying stuff. Who cares? Their decisions (which may or may not be good) should not guide yours. Ask several questions before purchasing:

1) Is this a purchase that we were planning before milk prices increased?
2) How will this ________ machine, tractor, cow, building, or 4-wheel-drive king-cab super truck (fill in the blank) increase my farm's profitability?
3) How will we pay for this when milk prices are back to average or below average?
4) Will this purchase compromise our cash reserves?

If this purchase was not in the long term plans and won't increase the farm's bottom line, reconsider. If how the purchase will be paid for in less than optimal milk price times is unclear, just don't do it.

Be aware of what is happening in your industry. Start to think in terms of higher and shorter highs, lower and longer lows. Integrate information-based short term and strategic planning into your business priorities. Carefully monitor cash flow and credit. Fill in any chinks in the mortar of your dairy business's foundation. With careful planning and restraint, the current milk prices give us a chance to do just that.
Kohl Speaks at Northeast Ohio Dairy Conference
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University (top of page)

Mark your calendars for December 2 and 3, 2004. On those two days, you will want to be in Columbus for the fourth biannual Ohio Dairy Management Conference. The organizers are lining up an outstanding set of speakers to cover a wide array of applied topics such as (more details will follow shortly):
- Components of successful heat detection
- Modern milk marketing
- Biological testing for metabolic problems
- Human resource management
- Fresh cow protocols
- Planning on expansion
- Short dry periods
- Milking frequency in early lactation
- Hoof health
- Transition cow management
- Working with your family
OSU Dairy Challenge Team Competes in 2004 National Contest , Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, Ohio State University (top of page)

OSU team members took part in the North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge (NAIDC), April 2-3, in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Created to inspire students and enhance university programs nationwide, the NAIDC is a dairy management contest that incorporates all phases of a specific dairy business in a fun, interactive, and educational forum. Students, Lauren Ward and Chad Knueve (Front Row); and Calvin Keller and Cynthia Smith (Back Row) participated in the two-day program of farm evaluation and oral presentation, along with 24 other teams from 22 universities. The dairy farm enterprise that the OSU team evaluated constituted of 540 cows, cows were milked three times-a-day in a double-8 parallel parlor, and the cows averaged 24,550 lb of milk per year. The team received a Silver Award and was coached by Dr. Maurice Eastridge.
Harvesting and Storing Corn Silage
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, Ohio State University

Dairy producers that feed corn silage must make several important decisions regarding corn silage harvest in the upcoming weeks. These decisions must be made whether dairy farmers harvest the corn themselves, have it custom-harvested, or purchase the forage. Questions that must be answered include:

1. When should the corn be harvested?
2. How high should the plants be chopped?
3. What is the correct chop length (particle size)?
4. Should the material undergo kernel processing?
5. How long should the silage be left undisturbed after filling?

The use of inoculants also should be considered. See the Corn Silage Update article in the September, 2003 edition of Buckeye Dairy News for details.

When should the corn be harvested? Corn plants should be chopped when they reach the correct dry matter concentration. The ideal dry matter for corn silage is between about 30 (for bunkers) and 38% (uprights). See the Corn Silage Update article in the September, 2003 edition of Buckeye Dairy News for details.

How high should the plants be cut? The least digestible part of the corn plant is the stalk. It has high concentrations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and lignin. When cutting height is increased, more stalk is left in the field which reduces the proportion of corn silage that is stalk and increases the proportion that is leaves and ears. Typical stubble height for corn is 4 to 6 inches and most of the research on high cut corn had stubble heights of 15 to 18 inches. Based on research studies:
- High cut reduces dry matter yield 4 to 6% (this means production costs for the silage will increase 4 to 6% per ton of dry matter),
- High cut will increase dry matter concentration by 2 to 4 percentage units,
- High cut will decrease NDF concentration by 2 to 4 percentage units and increase starch by about 2 percentage units, and
- High cut will decrease lignin concentration slightly and usually increases in vitro NDF digestibility.
When high cut and low cut were compared in feeding trials with lactating cows, most studies report either no difference in milk production and composition or a slight (statistically insignificant) increase in milk production with high cut. Increasing cutting height will unquestionably reduce yields, but based on research, it is unlikely to result in substantial increases in milk production.

What is the correct chop length? The ideal chop length for corn silage is a compromise between what is good for silage fermentation and what is good for the cow. Fine chopping promotes good packing and increases the rate of fermentation in the silo, but fine chopping may result in silage that does not promote adequate chewing when fed to the cow. Extremely coarse chopping may cause problems with fermentation in the silo and can increase sorting when fed to cows. Historically, chop length has been described as the theoretical length of cut (TLC) at which the chopper was set, but TLC is a poor descriptor of actual particle size of the silage. A better approach is to actually measure particle size at the time of chopping with a device such as the Penn State Particle Separator. Corn silage that had not been kernel processed with 3 to 6% of the silage on the top screen and 60 to 65% on the second screen (8 mm hole diameter) of the Penn State Separator was equal or better than more coarse silage based on chewing time, rumen pH, milk fat percentage, and starch digestibility. For processed corn silage, a very wide range in particle sizes (equivalent to approximately 2 to 21% on the top screen) had no effect on chewing time, rumen pH, milk fat, sorting, intake, or digestibility. In that experiment, the processing rolls were set at 1 mm for all chop lengths. As long as the rolls are set properly (i.e., most kernels are physically damaged), setting the chopper so that about 10% of the corn silage is on the top screen is a good guideline. Particle size evaluation should be done when you start chopping so that adjustments can be made.

Should kernel processing be used? The main advantages to proper kernel processing is that corn silage can be chopped coarser without decreasing digestibility of the kernel (starch) and it makes particles more homogenous (makes sorting more difficult). Proper kernel processing is when most of the kernels are physically damaged. The response to kernel processing is a function of the maturity of the corn plant and hybrid. Processing usually increases the nutritional value of mature (or drier) corn silage. On average, corn silage at two-third milk line or more mature that is processed has about 7.5% more available energy than unprocessed corn silage at the same maturity. Processing may decrease the energy value of immature corn silage (less than one-third milk line). The average response to processing for corn between one-third and two-thirds milk line is negligible. Hybrid appears to be one factor affecting the response to kernel processing. Unfortunately, at this time, we do not know which hybrids are likely to respond to kernel processing.

How long should the silage be left undisturbed after filling? Most studies with corn silage show that pH and acid concentrations become stable by 7 to 14 days post-ensiling if the silage is left undisturbed. Yeast and mold counts may require up to 60 days before stabilizing. Opening a silo will probably increase these times. If possible, a silo should be left sealed for at least 14 days. Consider making extra corn silage (enough for 2 to 4 weeks) this fall and storing it so that it can be fed during silo filling next year.

Forage Inventory Needs for Dairy Farms

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, Ohio State University

The amount of forage eaten by a lactating dairy cow is a function of dry matter (DM) intake and the concentration of forage in the diet. The DM intake can be accurately estimated for a herd, but the concentration of forage in the diet depends on economics, nutrient content of forages and other ingredients, and production and health goals of individual farms. The values presented below are for an 'average' farm and should be adjusted for specific situations.

Table 1. Expected dry matter (DM) intake and annual forage DM needed (tons) for lactating cows at different milk yields (lb/day per lactating cow).

		% of Dietary DM that is a Specific Forage
Milk Yield	DM Intake	10%	20%	30%	40%
Holstein cows	(lb/day)	(tons of forage DM needed per 365 days per lactating cow¹)
60	47	0.9	1.9	2.8	3.8
80	54	1.1	2.2	3.3	4.3
100	61	1.2	2.4	3.7	4.9
Jersey cows
40	35	0.7	1.4	2.1	2.8
50	39	0.8	1.6	2.3	3.1
60	43	0.9	1.7	2.6	3.5

¹Assumes 10% shrink during storage and feeding and to account for feed refusals. In some situations, shrink could be as much as 20%.

To calculate the amount of a specific forage needed by the lactating herd, the forage numbers in the table should be multiplied by the average number of lactating cows in the herd. For example, if a Holstein herd averages 100 cows that are being milked, average production is 70 lb/day (average for only lactating cows) and the diet contains 40% corn silage (DM basis), 100 cows x 4.05 (average of 3.8 and 4.3 in the table) = 405 tons of corn silage DM is needed to feed the lactating cows for the year. Divide that number by the proportion of DM in the silage to obtain the amount of as-fed silage needed. For example, if the silage averages 35% DM, 405 tons/0.35 = 1157 tons of as-fed corn silage will be needed for the lactating cows.

If the forages fed to lactating cows are also fed to dry cows and heifers, those amounts need to be added. Expected DM intake for a dry Holstein cow is 30 lb/day and 22 lb/day for a dry Jersey cow. The amount of lactating cow forage needed by dry cows = DM intake x the expected concentration of lactating cow forage in the dry cow diet x the average number of days cows are dry x average number of dry cows. For example, if the dry cow diet is expected to be 25% corn silage (same silage as fed to lactating cows), the dry period averages 60 days, and on average you have 15 dry cows, the corn silage needed by dry cows (Holstein herd) would be 30 x 0.25 x 60 x 15 = 6750 lb (3.4 tons). That value should be adjusted for shrink (10%) and added to the number obtained for the lactating cows. On average, DM intake will be 2.2 to 2.3% of body weight for a growing heifer that is gaining at an appropriate rate. Therefore, on average (assuming a normal distribution of ages), a herd of growing Holstein heifers will consume about 16 lb/day of DM (11 lb/day for a Jersey heifer herd). Multiplying the appropriate number by the concentration of lactating cow forage in the diet and by the number of heifers and 365 will equal the amount of lactating cow forage fed to growing heifers. For example, a Holstein herd averages 100 heifers and the diet is 20% corn silage (same silage as fed to lactating cows), the corn silage needed for heifers will be 16 x 0.20 x 100 x 365 = 58.4 tons of DM. After adjusting for shrink (10%), the amount needed is 64.2 tons/year.

In summary, the amount of a specific forage needed for lactating cows is calculated using numbers in Table 1. The amount (if any) of that forage fed to dry cows and growing heifers is calculated and added to the lactating cow number. The sum equals the amount of a specific forage needed by the farm for a year. The actual forage needed by specific farms could be as much as 10% higher.

Getting that Last Cutting of Alfalf
Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Specialist, Ohio State University

Early September is ideal for taking that last yearly cutting of alfalfa. The timing of this cutting can be very important to the long-term health of the stand. Let's review what is known about fall cutting management of alfalfa.

It is best for alfalfa to not be cut during the 5 to 6 week period before a killing frost. During this critical period, cold resistance and energy reserves for winter survival are built up. A killing frost for alfalfa occurs when temperatures drop to 25^oF or less for several hours. So the period from mid-September through October is the critical fall rest period in our region. Harvesting during this period disrupts accumulation of energy reserves and development of cold hardiness.

Producers often harvest alfalfa during the critical fall period despite the increased risk of winter injury. Research shows that often the tonnage gained by cutting during the critical fall period is lost in the first cutting the following year. Plus, there is the increased risk of winter injury and ultimately shorter stand life by stressing alfalfa in this way.

This year, rainy weather has delayed cutting schedules throughout the growing season, pushing back the time when the crop will be ready for a last harvest. The tonnage expected from a fall cutting and the need for the forage should be high before considering a cutting during the critical fall period.

When harvesting alfalfa during the critical fall period, several factors can moderate the risk of winter injury:
- Young, healthy stands are less susceptible to winter injury from fall harvesting than older stands. On the other hand, more future production potential is lost if a younger stand is injured from fall cutting.
- Forages in well-drained soils will be at lower risk of injury than those with marginal drainage. Fall cutting should not be attempted on soils prone to heaving! Removal of the topgrowth cover increases the potential for heaving injury.
- Length of harvest interval during the growing season is often more important than the actual date of fall cutting. Making a 3rd cutting during the fall is less risky than making a 4th cutting in the fall, because a 3-cut schedule allows longer intervals for plant recovery between cuttings compared with a 4-cut schedule. Likewise, a growth interval of 45 days BEFORE a fall harvest will reduce the risk of injury compared with a pre-harvest growth interval of 30 days. The longer growth period allows more energy buildup before the fall harvest, lessening the amount of energy reserves needing to be built up after harvest.
- Fields with optimal soil fertility levels (pH, P, and K) are at less risk than where fertility levels are lower.
- Disease resistant and winter hardy varieties lessen the risk of injury from fall cutting.
- Alfalfa that was not under stress during the summer will be at lower risk. Any stress (wet soils, potato leafhopper injury, etc.) that weakened the crop during the year can increase the risk of damage from fall cutting. This is the case in many of our alfalfa fields this year.
Cutting AFTER a killing frost (25^oF for several hours) in late October or early November can be an option for well-drained soils. Leave a 6-inch stubble after late fall cutting. Cutting this late in the year prevents regrowth that burns up energy reserves; however, late removal of plant cover increases the risk of frost heaving! Fall cutting should not be practiced on soils prone to heaving.

Dairy Policy and Market Watch

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University,
Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

Policy Watch

Is it too early to start thinking about the expiration of the current farm bill? No. For dairy producers, there are important elements of that legislation that will expire before discussion on the next agricultural legislation begins in earnest. First, the Milk Income Loss Program Contract (MILC) program runs through the end of FY 2005, which begins October 2004. That is correct, the MILC program will terminate with the final payment month being September 2005. Without an extension authorized by Congress, this could come about at just the same time that market prices are being pressed lower by increased domestic milk production. Second, and much more immediate, the Forward Pricing Pilot program, a program which allows producers to forward price their milk within the Federal Milk Marketing Order system, is set to expire on December 31, 2004. Currently, there are two pieces of legislation in Congress H.R. 3308 and S. 2565 which would authorize a permanent status for this program. With passage of these two bills, all dairy farmers would have the ability, on a voluntary basis, to smooth out the fluctuations in market prices and forward price their milk.

The last item to mention is the National Dairy Equity Act (NDEA). This piece of legislation has been drafted by Congressman Reynolds from New York and has a number of backers. There is not enough space here to go into detail, but suffice it to say, this legislation would create a group of competing compact-like regions within the United States, attempt to set regional premiums in excess of Federal Order prices, and institute a system of 'equalization payments' among producers. This legislation envisions a new layer of control and price-setting for the United States dairy industry. It is not too early to begin to learn about, assess, and evaluate the merits and demerits of the NDEA.
Market Watch
The near-term outlook for dairy commodity prices, milk component prices, and Class prices is fairly robust. A general tight supply and demand balance in the U.S. dairy markets, with new strength in the nonfat dry milk market, spells a continuation of decent prices for dairy producers. With forecast dairy prices above that required to trigger a positive MILC payment, it does not appear that we can expect a positive payment until December 2004 or January 2005. Higher prices in 2004 will translate into increases in cow numbers and increased production in 2005, which will moderate prices back to more normal long-term levels. My forecast for the remainder of 2004 and a preliminary forecast for 2005 is provided in the following tables.

Market Watch

The near-term outlook for dairy commodity prices, milk component prices, and Class prices is fairly robust. A general tight supply and demand balance in the US dairy markets, with new strength in the nonfat dry milk market, spells a continuation of decent prices for dairy producers. With forecast dairy prices above that required to trigger a positive MILC payment, it does not appear that we can expect a positive payment until December 2004 or January 2005. Higher prices in 2004 will translate into increases in cow numbers and increased production in 2005, which will moderate prices back to more normal long-term levels. My forecast for the remainder of 2004 and a preliminary forecast for 2005 are provided in the following tables.

Table 1. Actual and forecast (f) for average dairy product prices ($/lb) from the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

2004	Butter	NFDM¹	Cheese	Whey
Quarter I	1.72	0.81	1.40	0.19
Quarter II	2.09	0.84	2.01	0.28
Quarter III f	1.72	0.86	1.56	0.24
Quarter IV f	1.58	0.85	1.45	0.21
Annual Average	1.78	0.84	1.60	0.23

2005	Butter	NFDM¹	Cheese	Whey
Quarter I f	1.42	0.83	1.33	0.20
Quarter II f	1.53	0.83	1.32	0.19
Quarter III f	1.65	0.83	1.46	0.20
Quarter IV f	1.33	0.81	1.25	0.19
Annual Average	1.48	0.83	1.34	0.19

¹NFDM = Nonfat dry milk.

Table 2. Actual and forecast (f) average quarterly market pay prices for milk fat ($/lb), protein ($/lb), other solids ($/lb), nonfat solids ($/lb), and the Class III milk price ($/cwt).

2004	Milk Fat	Protein	Other Solids	Nonfat Solids	Class III Price
Quarter I	1.93	1.95	0.03	0.66	12.77
Quarter II	2.37	3.44	0.13	0.69	19.31
Quarter III f	1.92	2.46	0.08	0.71	14.55
Quarter IV f	1.76	2.27	0.06	0.71	13.28
Annual Average	1.99	2.53	0.07	0.69	14.98

2005
Quarter I f	1.57	2.11	0.14	0.69	12.03
Quarter II f	1.69	1.94	0.03	0.68	11.90
Quarter III f	1.84	2.22	0.04	0.68	13.33
Quarter IV f	1.46	1.95	0.03	0.67	11.15
Annual Average	1.70	2.09	0.04	0.68	12.42

As a final note, the announced by Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) program will attempt to remove some 47,000 head of producing dairy cows from the national milk herd this fall. Expenditures of CWT monies will be 80% on cow removal and 20% on export subsidies. There will not be a production reduction program this round.

Depooling: A call to action

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University

Data recently made public by the Federal Order 33 Market Administrator Office shines a very bright light on the financial cost of depooling in our Mideast Federal Order, and the cost of not taking action. First a short refresher. Milk not destined for a bottling plant is pooled on a voluntary basis. That means that milk used in all but Class I can be depooled. Depooling occurs when a buyer decides not to participate in the market pool. This decision is made at the end of each month, after all class prices are known. The decision not to participate in the market pool is determined by the relative position of the Class prices to the Uniform price (utilization weighted average of Class I through Class IV prices). A Class II, III, or IV price which exceeds the Uniform price signals reduced pooling of that class. For a more complete explanation go to my Ohio Dairy Web 2004 web site: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy.

Losses Begin in 2003

According to detailed data compiled by the Mideast Federal Order 33, the total volume of milk depooled during 2003 was 1.87 billion pounds. Ninety three percent of this total was Class III milk removed from the market pool during the months of July through October. And what was the cost of this collective decision to not participate in the market pool? A significant $7.4 million dollars! If your milk was pooled during this period you lost an average of $0.18/cwt on your total shipment for these four months.

Cost Soars in 2004!

Milk depooled from Class III during April and May totaled 1.3 billion pounds. The cost to producers who remained pooled on the Mideast Federal Order was a staggering $21.3 million dollars. Yes, that is right, go back and read that number again. How does this
affect your bottom line? Take your total hundredweight of milk shipment for April and May and multiply by a $1.19 and that is what you lost as a direct result of the collective decision to depool milk on the Mideast Order during these two months.

Now, I am sure you have heard the argument that these are not really dollars lost to producers in the Federal Order, but instead are collected primarily by cooperatives to be paid out to producer members at a later date. Therefore, there is no need for alarm or concern. Let's look at the facts at this point. The following is a hypothetical example designed to mirror what is very likely going on in the Midwest Order.

Yes, but we all gaindon't we?

First, consider three different types of plants pooling milk on the Mideast Order. The first is a small supply plant with a 35% Class III utilization and a location differential of a plus $0.10. The second is a large volume supply plant with a 35% Class III utilization and a location differential of zero. The third is a manufacturing plant with an 85% Class III utilization and a location differential in the Mideast Order of a minus $0.25/cwt from the base zone. The Class III price for April is $19.66/cwt. The Uniform or Blend price is $15.88/cwt. The gain-loss calculations by depooling for each of the three types of plants are shown in the following table.

	Small Supply Plant	Large Supply Plant	Manufacturing Plant
Class III (%)	35	35	85
Location differential ($/cwt)	+ 0.10	+ 0.00	- 0.25
Class III ($/cwt)	19.66	19.66	19.66
Less: Location adjusted Uniform Price ($/cwt)	15.98	15.88	15.63
Dollars gain by no pooling Class III milk ($/cwt)	3.68	3.78	4.03
Average gain on total milk ($/cwt)¹	1.288	1.323	3.425
Producer Price Differential Impact ($/cwt)	-1.66	-1.66	-1.66
Net Producer Impact ($/cwt)	-0.372	-0.337	+1.765

¹Dollars gained are weighted by the plant's Class III percentage.

Looking at these numbers, it appears that the decision to not pool is the right one based on the dollars earned by receiving the Class III price and paying out only the adjusted Uniform price. However, gain is earned only on the milk that is Class III. When weighted by the Class III percentage the apparent gain is reduced significantly for both the small and large supply plants. The manufacturing plant still gains considerably, even with the large negative location differential.

If this were the end of the story, then perhaps the argument is correct that these dollars will eventually be paid back to cooperative members supplying milk to these plants. Unfortunately, this is not the end. Remember the depooling of such a large amount of milk has reduced all producers Uniform pay price by an additional $1.66/cwt. The last row in the table shows the net price impact on producers. The negative impact of the Producer Price Differential (PPD) swamps the gain from depooling, and all producers are worse off. The only real winner is the manufacturing plant pooling and depooling distant milk on the Mideast Order. This manufacturing plant earns a positive $1.765/cwt. Some or all of this gain may flow back to producers provided the manufacturing plant is supplied by a cooperative. If the plant's milk is supplied from independent producers, then the distribution of this gain is determined by the plant owners.

Looking at the Federal Order data, one does not have to speculate as to why milk pooled on the Mideast Order, coming from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa dropped 93% from 318 million pounds in January to 22 million pounds in April. And you can bet the cow that it will come right back again now that the Class III price is under the Uniform price, earning a positive PPD. Federal orders are about ensuring orderly marketing and this is not orderly marketing!

What can you do about this situation?

What you cannot do is sit on your hands while those in surrounding Federal Orders actively move to adopt language that will severely limit the ability to freely move milk onto and out of the order. The major cooperatives representing membership in the Upper Midwest Federal Order 30 are requesting just such a change for Federal Order 30. Recently Dairy Farmers of America and Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. have requested a change in the pooling provisions for the Central Federal Order 32.

Doing nothing in the Midwest Order will make the Midwest Order the balancing pool for others. Distant milk will flow into the Mideast Order in an ever growing volume, reducing the average PPD when the Class III price is below the Uniform price. During periods of price volatility, and it appears that this is becoming more likely, this large volume of milk will just as quickly be depooled, imposing yet another price penalty on our producers.

The Federal Order language spells out clearly what can be done about this and how to go about making necessary modifications to the Mideast Federal Order. Dairy cooperatives
have taken a leadership role in Federal Orders 30 and 32, but they have not done so to date in the Mideast Order. "Why not" is a good question. Be reminded that Federal milk marketing orders belong to the producers of the order and an individual producer can get the ball rolling. The best recourse at this point is to contact the USDA. All that is required is a formal request to amend the order language for the purpose of tightening up on depooling and limiting the economic damage being caused the current relaxed order provision. Fancy language is not required. Send your written request to Deputy Administrator: Stop 0225, Room 2968-S; USDA, AMS, Dairy; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-0225.

Nutrient Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Income Over Nutrient Costs

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University

In this column, I periodically use a software program that we developed here at Ohio State (SESAME) to estimate the cost of major nutrients required for milk production and break-even prices of feed commodities in Ohio. Results can be used to identify potential feed bargains or feeds that appear overpriced. Based on wholesale prices, central Ohio, commodities can be partitioned into the three following groups in mid-September 2004.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts Corn, ground, shelled Corn silage Distillers dried grains Feather meal Gluten feed Gluten meal Hominy Wheat middlings	Alfalfa hay Blood meal Brewers grains, wet Canola meal Whole cottonseed Molasses Expeller soybean meal 48% soybean meal Tallow Wheat bran	Beet pulp Citrus pulp Fishmeal Meat meal Soybean hulls 44% soybean meal Roasted soybeans

Details on the estimates of nutrient unit costs, break-even prices of commodities, and break-even prices of forages are given in Tables 1, 2, and 3. For forages, the column labeled "corrected" uses correction factors that Dr. Bill Weiss and I have developed. These corrected break-even prices are more accurate and should be used when making purchasing decisions.

Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs.

Nutrient name¹	Estimates²
NE_L - 3X (2001 NRC)	$0.086	**
RDP	$-0.051	~
Digestible RUP	$0.227	**
Non-effective NDF (ne-NDF)	$-0.041	*
e-NDF	$0.061	*

¹NE_L = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, ne-NDF = noneffective neutral detergent fiber, and e-NDF = effective neutral effective fiber.
²Estimates are for $/LB except for energy which is at $/Mcal.
- A blank means that the nutrient unit cost is likely equal to zero.
- ~ means that the nutrient cost may be close to zero.
- * means that the nutrient cost is unlikely to be equal to zero.
- **means that the nutrient cost is most likely not equal to zero.

Table 2. Estimated break-even prices of commodities - OH.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, OH Buckeye D	120	129.08	109.00	149.15
Bakery Byproduct Meal	122	139.00	129.91	148.10
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	155	118.14	103.76	132.53
Blood Meal, ring dried	425	387.32	363.43	411.21
Brewers Grains, wet	30	28.95	25.79	32.10
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	145	133.79	121.95	145.63
Citrus Pulp, dried	136	117.35	109.58	125.11
Corn Grain, ground dry	100	143.42	134.78	152.12
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	35	51.23	44.86	57.61
Cottonseed, whole w lint	196	193.48	170.14	216.81
Distillers Dried Grains, w sol	120	149.33	137.29	161.37
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	255	292.35	276.11	308.58
Gluten Feed, dry	87	128.04	118.99	137.08
Gluten Meal, dry	287	320.85	303.21	338.49
Hominy	109	124.31	116.46	132.17
Meat Meal, rendered	250	226.37	210.33	242.41
Molasses, sugarcane	110	99.17	91.80	106.55
Soybean Hulls	116	71.42	50.87	91.96
Soybean Meal, expellers	257	267.71	255.18	280.33
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	211	179.41	163.47	195.34
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	222	209.98	195.94	224.01
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	268	253.93	240.10	267.76
Tallow	370	354.19	324.72	383.67
Wheat Bran	73	80.97	67.14	94.81
Wheat Middlings	66	94.60	82.52	106.68

Table 3. Break-even prices of forages - OH (mg = mostly grass).

Name	Predicted [$/ton]	Corrected [$/ton]
Grass Hay, Immature, <55% NDF	142.14	154.12
Grass Hay, Mature, >60% NDF	148.72	91.68
Grass Hay, Mid mature, 55-60% NDF	140.85	124.32
Grass Hay, all samples	146.69	104.50
Grass-Leg Hay, mg, immature <51% NDF	142.24	138.35
Grass-Leg Hay, mg, mature >57% NDF	144.29	94.52
Grass-Leg Hay, mg, mid mature 51-57% NDF	144.30	120.11
Grass-Leg Hay, 50/50 mix, immature	134.45	145.27
Leg Hay, immature, <40% NDF	125.57	152.79
Leg Hay, mature, >46% NDF	119.11	94.84
Leg Hay, mid mature, 40-46% NDF	118.79	122.66

We know relatively well the nutrients required to produce a certain amount of milk. Now that we have a method for calculating the implicit costs of nutrients, it is relatively straightforward to calculate a benchmark of nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs. The benchmarks published in this column will be for a 1350 LB cow producing 75 LB/day of milk at 3.6% fat, 3.0% protein, and 5.9% other solids. Component prices are those paid in the previous month (we don't know yet what component prices will be in September), whereas the nutrient prices are those for the reported month (i.e., based on September 2004 commodity prices for the September 2004 nutrient prices). Results for this month are compared with those of July 2004 and September 2003 in Table 4.

Table 4. Nutrient costs, milk gross income, and income over nutrient costs.¹

Nutrient	September 2004	July 2004	September 2003
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	2.97	3.00	2.93
RDP	-0.27	0.12	-0.06
Digestible-RUP	0.49	0.74	0.36
ne-NDF	-0.19	-0.27	-0.19
e-NDF	0.67	0.58	0.92
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20	0.20
Total	4.21	4.10	4.63
Milk gross income
Fat	4.84	5.88	3.38
Protein	5.55	6.99	7.07
Other solids	0.30	0.59	0.01
Total	10.69	13.46	10.46

Income over nutrient costs	6.83	9.09	6.30

¹Costs and income for 75 LB/cow/day, 3.6% fat, 3.0% protein, and 5.9% other solids.
²NE_L = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, ne-NDF = noneffective neutral detergent fiber, and e-NDF = effective neutral effective fiber.

To put these numbers in perspective, the long-term nutrient costs would average about $4.00/cow/day, milk gross income, $9.75/cow/day, and income over nutrient costs about $5.75/cow/day. Thus, although milk prices have dropped from their early summer highs, reduction in commodity prices result in a benchmark income over nutrient costs that currently exceeds the expected long-term average by 6.83 - 5.75 = $1.08/cow/day. In a well managed herd of 100 milking cows, this equates to an additional $3,240/month over the long-term average. This should help compensate for the terrible months this industry went through recently.

Milking Frequency in Early Lactation: The jury is still out

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University (top of page)

It is well known that milking frequency affects milk production. A review paper by Dr. Mark Varner at the University of Maryland estimated an average 12% response in milk yield from 3x vs. 2x milking, and an additional 8% response from 4x vs. 3x. Of course, these are averages and the actual response varies from farm to farm. Production responses to milking frequency do not come without additional costs. Cows have to be moved through the milking center more frequently, and one milking is unavoidably in the middle of the night. The extra labor equipment and utility costs can be significant, and the additional stress on the management is an important reason that many farms abandon or never use increased milking frequencies. Recently, research done predominantly by Dr. Geoffrey Dahl at the University of Illinois has shown that increasing milking frequency during the first 21 days of lactation results in a persistent increase in milk yield that continues after treatment has ceased. This seems like a free lunch! Imagine, one only has to increase milking frequency in the first three weeks of lactation to reap the benefits the rest of the year. Recent research presented at the joint annual meeting in St. Louis should reduce our expectations somewhat.

In a first trial reported by Matt Von Baale at the University of Arizona, two hundred multiparous cows were randomly assigned to one of five milking frequencies at calving to investigate the effect of increased milking frequency on milk yield with and without bST. Treatments were 6x milking for 0 (control; milked 3x), 7, 14, or 21 days in milk (with bST initiated at 9 weeks of lactation), or 6x for the first 21 days of lactation but without bST for the entire lactation. So far, only the data for the first 63 days of lactation have been summarized. Treatment effects on milk yield were small and not significant (90.8, 87.7, 91.5, 86.2, and 90.4 LB/day, respectively). Treatments did not affect milk fat (average 3.80%), true protein (average 2.80%), and somatic cell count (average 220,000 cells/ml).

The second study was conducted at Cornell University and reported by J. Fernandey. One hundred and five Holstein cows entering second or greater lactation were assigned at calving to either a control (2x milking during the entire lactation) or an increased milking frequency treatment (4x milking at 5 to 7 hour intervals from day 1 to 21 post calving, followed by 2x milking for the rest of the lactation). For the first nine months of lactation, cows milked 4x during the first 21 days had a 4.6% greater milk yield (78.l vs. 74.7 LB/day) compared to the cows milked 2x but also had a lower milk fat (3.37 vs. 3.52%) and milk true protein (2.83 vs. 2.93%) such that yields of milk fat (2.65 vs. 2.65 LB/day); 3.5% fat-corrected milk (77.6 vs. 75.4 LB/day), and true protein (2.23 vs. 2.20 LB/day) were not affected by treatments.

Based on these results and those of previous experiments, it appears that management and nutrition factors may modulate the response to milking frequency. For example, it has been suggested that holding times (time elapsed between the exit time and the return time for the last cow in a pen) in excess of 150 minutes/day negatively affects milk production. Many facilities designed to milk a pen of cows in 75 minutes twice a day cannot milk a fresh cow pen four times a day in less than 40 minutes per milking. Under these conditions, it is possible that the gain from the increased milking frequency is negated by the loss from excessive holding time.

There are other trials underway at university and commercial herds. These and other results will be reviewed by Dr. Geoff Dahl during our next Ohio Dairy Management Conference, December 2 and 3, 2004.

Length of Dry Period - Don't just jump on a band wagon without knowing if you really want to go that way

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, Ohio State University

The traditional length of the dry period for dairy cattle has been 60 days. It is well established from research conducted many years ago and just recently that continuous milking (no dry period) reduces milk yield in the subsequent lactation. However, with the increase in milk yield per cow whereby challenges occur in drying the cow off, new management strategies such as use of bovine somatotropin and greater than two-times-a-day milking, and with the focus more on managing cows by groups rather than as individuals, the traditional length of the dry period is being questioned.

Presently, about 16% of the cows in the Midwest calve with less than 40 days dry, but about 25% of the cows calve with greater than 70 days dry (Dairy Records Management Systems, Raleigh, NC). So on the one hand, producers should be reviewing why so many cows have extended dry periods. Long dry periods reduce milk yield and increase costs. As for reducing length of the dry period to less than 60 days, several factors need to be considered.

Most of the recent attention has been on the dry period being 30 to 60 days in length. Retrospective analysis of production data revealed that cows with about 30 versus 60 days dry had lower milk yield. However with these types of data, we must keep in mind that the 30-day dry period may have occurred as a result of disease implications or twins. Few studies have been done whereby the 30 versus 60 day dry period was planned, but of those conducted, milk yield was generally similar. Milk composition and quality were not affected by length of the dry period. However, if cows are managed as groups for a target days dry of 30, several will calve with less than 30 days dry. Therefore, a 30-day dry period is likely too short in the field given our inability to know exactly when a cow will calve.

It has been known for many years, including the use of DHI records in an OSU study reported in 1982, that optimum dry period is affected by numerous factors, including lactation number and calving interval:

Between Lactations	Calving Interval
Between Lactations	< 341 days	341 to 410 days	> 410 days
1 and 2	65	63	60
2 and 3	65	50	35
3 and 4	60	35	30
4 and 5	60	30	30

Although these results are from a retrospective analysis, they seem to match well with recommendations from recent studies where the length of the dry period was managed (planned). Yet, differential days dry requires individual cow management. Therefore, with group management strategies, several things must be considered with dry periods as short as 30 days:

1) There may be increased risks for antibiotic residues in milk.
2) Reducing the dry period length may eliminate the need for a far-off dry cow group, but feeding anionic salts is not warranted for the increased length of the "close-up" group.
3) Although continuous milking greatly reduces colostrum quality, a shortened dry period should result in similar quality as compared to a 60-day dry period. However, the colostrum should be checked with a colostrometer.

Dairy producers should review the factors that are causing cows to have dry periods beyond 60 days and try to correct these with changes in management. Producers who desire to implement a shortened dry period should set their target on about 40 days. This will minimize the number of cows that will calve with less than 30 days dry and will accommodate the longer dry period needed by younger animals in the herd. (Additional information on dry period length will be presented by a guest speaker at the 2004 Ohio Dairy Management Conference to be held in December).

Dairy Policy and Market Watch,

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University,
Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

Policy Watch

By the time that you read this, it will be old news that dairy product prices for butter and cheese have fallen following the peaks reached in early 2004. Right along with these commodity price declines have come the decline in pay prices for producers. The 2004 came in like a lamb, roared like a lion, but will not go out with a whimper. Overall, 2004 will be a year of record milk prices, and now, producers and processors alike want to know where dairy and milk prices are headed in 2005. Look for the current price levels of butter and cheese to hold steady through the first half of 2005 and then strengthen some in the third and fourth quarters of 2005. My forecasts for dairy commodity prices (butter, nonfat dry milk, cheese, and whey) by quarter are shown in Table 1. These forecast prices translate into the average milk check value shown in Table 2. The producer differential and the gross milk check price are applicable to producers in the Mideast Federal Milk Marketing Order 33.

Table 1. Dairy commodity price ($/lb) forecast for 2005.

Forecast for Planning Year	Grade AA Butter	Nonfat Dry Milk	Cheddar Cheese	Whey Protein
2004 Averages	1.7846	0.8365	1.6145	0.2325
2005 Quarter I	1.4637	0.8325	1.3322	0.2203
2005 Quarter II	1.5133	0.8267	1.3378	0.2165
2005 Quarter III	1.5595	0.8208	1.4570	0.2131
2005 Quarter IV	1.4933	0.8200	1.4433	0.2083
2005 Annual Average Forecast	1.5075	0.8250	1.3926	0.2146

Table 2. Dairy component ($/lb) and milk check price forecast for 2005 (FO = Federal Order).

Forecast for Planning Year	Grade AA Milk Fat	Protein	Other Solids	Nonfat Solids	Base Milk Value	Estimated Producer Price Differential FO 33	Estimated Gross Milk Check Price
Test@Market %	3.5	2.99	5.69	5.9	$/cwt	$/cwt	$/cwt
2004 Averages	2.004	2.561	0.176	0.690	15.105	0.30	15.40
2005 Quarter I	1.6184	2.0569	0.0632	0.6856	12.1775	1.02	13.21
2005 Quarter II	1.6780	2.0121	0.0592	0.6798	12.2295	0.74	12.98
2005 Quarter III	1.7334	2.3380	0.0557	0.6740	13.3779	0.40	13.78
2005 Quarter IV	1.6540	2.3775	0.0508	0.6732	13.1904	0.91	14.07
2005 Annual Average Forecast	1.671	2.196	0.057	0.678	12.75	0.75	13.50

Class prices in 2005 will not be as robust as they where in 2004. Table 3 lists the 2005 forecasts for Federal Order 33 with a comparison to the 1999 to 2004 prices. The statistical uniform price estimate is based on an assumed historical average utilization for each class of milk.

Table 3. Comparison of Class prices in Federal Order 33 from 1999 to 2004 with a forecast for 2005.

Calendar Year	Class I ($/cwt)	Class II ($/cwt)	Class III ($/cwt)	Class IV ($cwt)
1999	15.87	13.15	12.44	12.26
2000	13.67	12.65	9.74	11.83
2001	16.26	14.42	12.93	13.49
2002	13.01	11.56	10.40	10.82
2003	13.39	10.76	11.42	10.00
2004*	16.95	13.69	15.10	13.00
2005*	15.11	12.72	13.00	11.98
Statistical Uniform Price Estimate: $13.50/cwt

*Quarter IV: 2004 forecast and Quarter I to IV: 2005 forecast.

It is fair to ask, "What could alter the dairy product and milk price forecasts for 2005?" Let's consider these factors as they may push prices up or down going into 2005.

Price enhancing factors

Return to more aggressive culling and a tight heifer replacement market. The current situation shows cull cow prices increasing into 2005. This will provide added incentive to increase dairy cow slaughter back to 2003 levels. Couple this with the Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) program, slated to remove 49,000 head from the milking herd during the last quarter of 2004, and we have the makings for a tight milk supply situation going into 2005. In addition, a post-election rebound in the general economy may cause dairy commodity prices to remain strong. Without any indication that the flow of animals across the U.S. - Canada border will begin anytime soon, these conditions could add another 40 to 50 cents/cwt to the price forecast.

Price reducing factors

Cow numbers are rebounding from their lows in early 2004 and output per cow is also showing that it is getting back on trend. With the announcement by Monsanto, stating that bovine somatotropin (BST) allocations would be increased from 50 to 70% on December 1, 2004, we could look for the tight supply - demand situation evident in 2004 to lessen in 2005. If this is coupled with a growing weakness in consumer demand (due to escalating energy and utility prices and continued weakness in the investment and employment markets), we could see prices for butter and cheese stay lower than those forecasted. This would remove 40 to 50 cents/cwt from my current forecast.

Policy Issues: Mideast Federal Order 33

The number one issue facing dairy farm families in the Mideast Federal Order is that of re-pooling and its impact on the Uniform Market Price. Emergency hearings to consider re-pooling have been granted and are underway in our sister orders, Federal Order 30 and Federal Order 32. Time is a critical element in this process. Fortunately, leadership on this issue is being taking by the Ohio Dairy Producers Association and Ohio Farmers Union. Both of these organizations, representing the interests of Ohio and Federal Order 33 dairy producers, have submitted a formal request to the USDA/AMS Dairy Division, asking for an emergency hearing on this issue.

Nutrient Prices - Everything is Getting Cheap

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University

Everything seems to be getting cheap this fall. Finally, by-product feeds have followed the substantial drop of the corn and soybean markets. Based on average nutritional composition and prevailing market prices in Ohio in the second week of November 2004, commodities can be partitioned as follows:

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts Corn, ground, shelled Corn silage Distillers dried grains Feather meal Gluten feed Hominy Soybean meal, expeller Wheat middlings	Alfalfa hay Blood meal Brewers grains, wet Whole cottonseed Gluten meal Soybean hulls 48% soybean meal Tallow Wheat bran	Beet pulp Canola meal Citrus pulp Fishmeal Meat meal Molasses 44% soybean meal Roasted soybeans

Details on the estimates of nutrient costs, break-even prices of commodities, and break-even prices of forages, as calculated by the software Sesame V3.01, are provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3.

Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs.^1,2

Nutrient name	November 04	September 04	November 03
NE_L - 3X (2001 NRC)	0.072	0.086	0.085
RDP	-0.066	-0.051	-0.011
Digestible RUP	0.180	0.227	0.168
Non-effective NDF (ne-NDF)	-0.022	-0.041	-0.041
Effective-NDF	0.060	0.061	0.085

¹NE_L = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, and NDF = neutral detergent fiber.
²Estimates are for $/lb except for energy which is at $/Mcal.

Table 2. Estimated break-even prices of commodities - OH.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, OH Buckeye D	110	107.10	89.78	124.40
Bakery Byproduct Meal	103	114.08	106.24	121.93
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	145	104.02	92.62	117.43
Blood Meal, ring dried	325	303.16	282.56	323.77
Brewers Grains, wet	26	24.21	21.49	26.93
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	129	105.41	95.20	115.62
Citrus Pulp, dried	140	99.83	93.13	106.52
Corn Grain, ground dry	79	118.42	110.92	125.92
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	30	44.56	39.06	50.06
Cottonseed, whole w lint	142	160.44	140.32	180.56
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	109	124.28	113.89	134.66
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	185	222.56	208.55	236.56
Gluten Feed, dry	77	105.35	97.56	113.16
Gluten Meal, dry	247	255.05	239.84	270.26
Hominy	90	103.70	96.93	110.48
Meat Meal, rendered	185	171.15	157.32	184.97
Molasses, sugarcane	113	80.62	74.26	86.98
Soybean Hulls	82	68.45	50.73	86.17
Soybean Meal, expeller	203.50	215.98	205.18	226.79
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	159.50	135.99	122.26	149.74
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	168.50	160.18	148.08	172.28
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	216	201.11	189.19	213.04
Tallow	295	293.98	268.56	319.40
Wheat Bran	58	70.20	58.28	82.13
Wheat Middlings	60	79.92	69.51	90.34

Table 3. Break-even prices of forages - OH (mg = mostly grass).

Name	Predicted [$/ton]	Corrected [$/ton]
Grass Hay, immature, <55% NDF	119.55	131.54
Grass Hay, mature, >60% NDF	131.08	74.05
Grass Hay, mid mature, 55-60% NDF	121.60	105.07
Grass Hay, all samples	128.56	86.40
Grass-Leg Hay, mg, immature <51% NDF	119.46	115.57
Grass-Leg Hay, mg, mature >57% NDF	125.53	75.75
Grass-Leg Hay, mg, mid mature 51-57% NDF	122.77	98.58
Grass-Leg Hay, 50/50 mix, immature	111.92	122.73
Leg Hay, immature, <40% NDF	102.08	129.30
Leg Hay, mature, >46% NDF	101.02	76.75
Leg Hay, mid mature, 40-46% NDF	98.25	102.12

Using these nutrient prices, we can calculate nutrient costs, milk gross income, and income over nutrient costs. The benchmarks published in this column are for a 1350 lb cow producing 75 lb/day of milk at 3.6% fat, 3.1% protein, and 5.9% other solids. Component prices are those paid for the previous month because we don't know yet what component prices will be for November 04. Results of our calculations are presented in Table 4. Gross income from milk is slightly higher than in September and slightly lower than in November 03 (notice the substantial change in the relative value of milk fat and milk protein). The substantial decrease in the cost of nutrients from September 04 is primarily due to a substantial drop in the cost of energy in dairy diets. Total nutrient costs dropped by $0.92/cow/day from September to November 2004. Consequently, income over nutrient costs currently is a healthy $7.68/cow/day. Nutrient costs represent 30% of gross milk income, a substantial drop from the 39.4 and 37.5% two months ago and a year ago, respectively. With proper nutrition, there is a lot of money to be made milking cows right now. Make sure that you use these extra dollars wisely.

Table 4. Nutrient costs, milk gross income, and income over nutrient costs - Ohio.¹

Nutrient	November 2004	September 2004	November 2003
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	2.49	2.97	2.94
RDP	-0.35	-0.27	-0.06
Digestible-RUP	0.41	0.49	0.38
ne-NDF	-0.10	-0.19	-0.19
e-NDF	0.65	0.67	0.92
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.29	4.21	4.19
Milk gross income
Fat	5.14	4.84	3.39
Protein	5.54	5.55	7.63
Other solids	0.30	0.30	0.14
TOTAL	10.97	10.69	11.16

Income over nutrient costs	7.68	6.83	6.97

¹Costs and income for a cow producing 75 lb/day of milk, with 3.6% fat, 3.0% protein, and 5.9% other solids.
²NE_L = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, ne-NDF = noneffective neutral detergent fiber, and e-NDF = effective neutral effective fiber.

Control of Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD or Pneumonia)

Dr. William B. Epperson, Extension Veterinarian, Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Ohio State University

Bovine respiratory disease is associated with a large number of pathogens, including viruses (BVD, IBR, BRSV, Coronavirus, and many others) and bacteria (Mannheimia haemolytica [formerly Pasteurella haemolytica], Pasteurella multocida, Haemophilus somnus, Mycoplasma sp, and others). These pathogens nearly always gain entry to the lungs through the upper respiratory tract (nose, throat, and trachea).

Before birth, the respiratory tract is sterile, but pathogens begin to inhabit the upper respiratory tract soon after birth. If samples from several healthy calves are collected, some will yield major bacterial pathogens. Pathogens can be present and cause no illness because host defenses limit them to the upper airways. The ability to recover organisms from apparently healthy cattle is increased by "stressing" them - moving to a new location, commingling with others, withholding water, changing feed, etc.

When calf defenses cannot contain pathogens to the upper airways, respiratory disease will result. Calves with pneumonia act as "incubators", expelling pathogens in respiratory mucus. Presence of a sick calf forces healthy penmates to increase their host defense to compensate for increased exposure. If the healthy calf can do this, it will remain healthy; if it cannot increase host defenses, then it will become sick too.

Why are young calves so susceptible to bovine respiratory disease (BRD) compared to yearling age and older cattle? It has a lot to do with host defense. While older cattle aren't "bulletproof", they are far less likely to be affected with BRD, unless they are commingled from multiple sources and stressed.

Young calves have a less capable defense system. The antibodies in the colostrum they received shortly after birth decay by 50% every three weeks - so many calves may have little antibody left at weaning. Calves are less able to cope with adversity. They are not accustomed to other animals, feedbunks, and water tanks, so they may not eat well. They may not find a place to rest. They are more susceptible to the stress of change.

The control of BRD relies on control of stressors in the environment, and improvement of the calf defense response.

Stress control:

1. Weaning (withdrawal of milk and replacement with solid feed) is an unavoidable stress. Generally, it is not recommended to wean prior to four weeks of age. Weaning stress can be minimized by transitioning onto high quality feedstuffs over a period of time. Transition options include:

a. Decreasing milk feeding to 50% for 1 week then withdrawing milk.
b. Leave calf in the individual pen or hutch for one to two weeks or more after weaning to avoid stresses associated with grouping.
c. Leave calves on calf starter for an additional 2 weeks after re-grouping. This avoids a dietary stress on top of a group stress.

2. Dietary changes should be made slowly, bearing in mind that the digestive system may take two weeks to adapt to new feedstuffs. A dense, palatable diet is essential. The BRD will be a constant problem if major nutrients cannot be delivered to calves. Weaned calves should be consuming at least 2 lb of concentrate daily and should be gaining at least 1.25 lb/day.

3. For housing, weaned calves need a dry environment protected from the elements to lay down to rest and access to adequate clean feed and fresh water. They do not need a heated space. Do not allow humidity in calf facilities to go above outside humidity. Weaned calves should not have direct contact with older animals. Provide at least 30 ft2/animal and 18 inches of feeding space per calf, with dividers to define eating positions.

4. Group and social stress should be managed. Calves are best weaned as groups of four to six calves of similar age. Once this group is established, new calves are not added. This procedure allows calves to become exposed to pathogens in a controlled manner. Starting with large groups of calves or adding new calves to a group allows more risk of pathogen transmission. The result is a seemingly "chronic" pen of calves that take a long time to return to health.

5. Dehorning, ear tagging, vaccinating, and other stressful treatments should be timed so they do not add to weaning stress.

6. Weather is commonly blamed for respiratory disease outbreaks, yet controlled research to measure the effect of weather on BRD is practically non-existent. Day-to-night temperature extremes and moisture can be stressors, and these conditions are typical of fall weather. Often, weather is blamed in a BRD outbreak, when in reality, either housing is inadequate or calf nutrition is poor.

Host defense:

1. Colostrum - Calves that do not get adequate colostrum are at increased risk of disease pre- and post-weaning.

2. Nutrition - It takes energy and protein to support an immune response. Again, adequate nutrition is essential.

3. Vaccination can be a useful adjunct to other good management procedures. However, immunity resulting from vaccination of young calves is often less than that in adult animals. Selection and timing of specific vaccines can overcome part of this difficulty. Producers must work with their veterinarian to establish a good program.

4. Administration of antibiotics before illness (metaphylaxis) can significantly decrease BRD. Producers should consult with their veterinarian about this and should ask their veterinarian to recommend a legal, approved product. Some products used for beef cattle are not legal for use in dairy cattle.

Other points:

1. Even with great conditions, some calves will be affected with BRD. Watch calves carefully after weaning. Realize that in high stress environments, BRD may appear within 7 to 14 days after weaning. In moderate to low stress environments, BRD may not appear until 3 to 4 weeks after weaning.

2. Antibiotic treatment for BRD is used to control bacterial infection. While both bacteria and viruses cause respiratory disease, controlling the bacterial infection will greatly decrease clinical signs and limit lung damage. Antibiotics work by reducing bacterial load in the respiratory tract. Antibiotics decrease bacterial load to the point where the calf's defense system can clear the remaining bacteria. Calves that are extremely immune deficient may not mount a normal response and may either not respond to the antibiotic or require more treatments. Ask your veterinarian for a specific recommendation of a modern antibiotic to use for pneumonia treatment.

3. Calves that die of suspected respiratory disease should be necropsied by a veterinarian, especially when an outbreak is in progress. Why?

a. To confirm that respiratory disease was the cause of death. Sometimes, the actual cause of death was something else. Confirmation of the true cause of death may dictate a change in treatment programs. It is not uncommon to find liver failure, kidney failure, certain poisonings, and lungworms in calves that have died from what the producer assumed was simple respiratory disease. In these cases, other treatments can be applied to the group, and productivity can be returned to normal.
b. Find other disease. The Bovine Virus Diarrhea (BVD) is a very common infection that may present as respiratory disease. The fact that the calves were vaccinated does not preclude BVD infection. If BVD is diagnosed in calves, a major change in herd management may be needed.
National Animal Identification System for Cattle

Dr. William B. Epperson, Extension Veterinarian, Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Ohio State University

Overview and Objectives

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a voluntary program administered by USDA in cooperation with State/Tribal governments to provide a nationwide system for unique identification of animals and to allow tracking of animal movements. The stated mission of the NAIS is to provide the capability to identify all animals and premises that have had direct contact with a foreign animal or domestic disease of concern within 48 hours after discovery. A nationwide animal identification system would:

1. Enhance foreign animal disease surveillance, control, and eradication,
2. Improve biosecurity of the national livestock population,
3. Provide positive identification for animals from herds participating in voluntary or mandatory disease control/eradication programs,
4. Allow accurate identification and sourcing of biological products for medical or diagnostic use that originate from animals, and
5. Facilitate health certification of herds in states and regions of the US for purposes of export or international trade ("regionalization").

Forms of Animal Identification

Since the late 1800's, hot iron brands have been used for identification of cattle, and they still serve as a legal means of identification for purposes of ownership in many western states. Brands are inexpensive, simple, and visually clear. Disadvantages include the necessity to re-brand as ownership changes, concerns with animal welfare, and the hide damage associated with brands. Brands are read and interpreted by visual means, so may not be easily adaptable to automated high throughput reader systems.

Ear notches have been used in swine and cattle and have similar advantages and disadvantages as brands. Uniquely identifying animals across herds and time is the main disadvantage to ear notches.

Ear tags/back tags and other visually read devices are commonly used today. They are easy to apply and scale neutral. However, reading tags and reporting tag numbers is labor intensive. In addition, a system must be in place to provide unique identification over time and between states.

Nose prints have been used in exhibitions. They are unique to the animal but can be difficult to read on a recurring basis.

Electronic identification includes radio frequency identification device (RFID) ear tags. This is presently the technology of choice. These are moderately inexpensive devices to apply but require some specialized reader equipment. They support automated data capture, though are not tamperproof and can be lost. The RFID implantable devices (chips) are available, but there is concern that those devices may migrate in the body.

Retinal imaging uses a picture of blood vessels in the retina to verify identification. Retinal vessel pattern is said to be unique to each individual and does not change through the life of the animal - similar to fingerprints. Retinal imaging does require a specialized scanner. Currently, a US company "Optibrand" is developing this technology. Retinal imaging is tamperproof and has been used to verify identity for exhibition and for specific marketing programs. Its sister technology, iris imaging, has lost popularity since the iris changes through life and images are difficult to acquire.

DNA fingerprinting is probably the ultimate in identity verification. At present, it is not practical in the field.

The Need for a National System

The need to track animals was evident following discovery of a Washington cow with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) on December 23, 2003. The European Union, Australia, and Canada (http://www.canadaid.com) have or will have animal identification and systems capable of lifetime tracking of an animal. This sort of system will become an expectation of countries exporting and importing animals or animal products. Animal identification is an element in the procedures and Standards of Veterinary Services in the 2004 Terrestrial Animal Health Code published by the Office of International des Epizooties (OIE), so it appears that a nationwide animal identification system will ultimately be necessary for the US to effectively compete in international trade.

Today, travel from one point to nearly any other point on the globe is possible within 24 hours. Additionally, livestock enterprises have become increasingly concentrated so that exposure at a major collecting point or large integrated facility would lead to tremendous agent multiplication and/or dispersion in a short period of time. Therefore, compared to years past, the risk of foreign animal disease introduction is probably greater, as well as the risk of transmission.

The Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001 demonstrated the need for animal identification and tracking. That outbreak initiated in swine, but spread to nearby sheep flocks, which showed very few clinical signs (i.e. lameness and mouth lesions) but were able to spread the virus to other animals. The outbreak was not officially detected for some 2 to 3 weeks, due to insidious spread of the barely clinical condition. As a result of this delay, many animals were exposed from contact at marketing centers, and the virus was widely disseminated. Tracking potential contacts in the United Kingdom proved to be an arduous task due to inadequate identification and records of movement. The outbreak halted export of animals and animal products from the entire country, and over 10,400 farms were affected, requiring the slaughter and disposal of 4.2 million animals. Direct government cost to contain the outbreak was $5 billion (US), with losses from tourism estimated at $3.6 to 7.2 billion (US).

A national animal identification program would enable rapid tracking of contacts and allow quarantine of exposed herds before further transmission occurred. It would also potentially allow identification of affected regions of the US and could facilitate more rapid recovery of animal movement and trade in those areas not in the exposed region.

The fact that many foreign animal diseases affect not only food producing animals makes it necessary to include non-food animal species (including horses, cervidae, and camelids) in the national identification program. Knowing potential exposures of these non-food animal species is also important in controlling foreign animal disease outbreaks.

It is likely that voluntary disease control programs will become more commonplace in the future and can offer a niche market to producers. Examples of such programs in place today include those for Johne's disease, Bovine Leukosis Virus, and Bovine Virus Diarrhea. Specialty manufacturers or herds raising transgenic animals have inquired about products (i.e. colostrum) from herds known to be free of specific disease(s). Along similar lines, national identification programs enhance source verification, which has become a major issue of some marketing programs.

The Basic Function

As a first and necessary step, all premises on which animals are housed, managed, or held will need a unique premise identification number. This includes farms, ranches, feedlots, auction barns, and exhibition sites. States are responsible to assign these numbers and maintain a database of the numbers, location, and responsible person to contact in the event of an emergency. Ohio has received $130,000 to install the computer software that will support allocation of the numbers and storage of the necessary information. The Ohio system will be linked to a national system, so that key information will be available to national regulatory authorities. Since animal disease outbreaks often cross multiple state lines, sharing of information involved in disease tracking is necessary.

The RFID ear tags that will be initially used in the NAIS will encode a 15 character code (numbers and letters). Each time an animal is sold or moved to a place where it is co-mingled with other animals, the animal's identification will be reported to the database, allowing exposure and movement of animals to be tracked. As animals are sold or moved, they will compile a series of premise numbers and dates where changes occurred for each premise they resided. All cattle on a single premise will have that one premise number associated with them while they reside on that premise. For example, given a 100-cow herd, each cow will have a unique ear tag number, but all 100 cows will all be associated (in a computer database) with the one premise number of the owner. Animals sold to another owner keep the same ear tag, but a new premise number is associated with the ear tag number in the computer database, reflecting the premise number of the new owner. If an animal is sold through an auction market, then the animal is associated with the premise number of the auction market for the dates it is there, and then is associated with the premise number of the new owner, starting on the date it arrives at the new premise. Each time an animal is sold or commingled, the changes will have to be registered within the national system.

Controversies

There are currently several fundamental controversies with the program. One is confidentiality from public record - opinions differ as to who should have access to portions of these data. Most producers do not want the information in the public domain, for fear it could be used for purposes other than to track animal health emergencies. From comments made by Undersecretary Bill Hawks at a recent USDA listening session, it appears that the USDA can participate and still maintain confidentiality as long as the program is voluntary.

However, in order to monitor and track animal disease outbreaks, regulators must have access to the data. Very often, animal disease emergencies are completely handled by state regulators, so it is important that they have access to this information. Basically, access to the national identification database allows regulators to do their job better and faster - which benefits the livestock industry. Denying them access places the industry in some jeopardy in the event of an animal health emergency.

The second big controversy is funding. Who will pay to start this program, and how will it be maintained? The true cost of the NAIS is not known, though many cost estimates have been made. A seemingly popular estimate is for a cost of around $75 million per year for the next 3 to 5 years. The USDA released $20.3 million earlier this summer for NAIS, and the 2005 fiscal budget proposes another $33 million. The NAIS is being proposed as a government-industry cooperative program, with each partner sharing the cost.

Immediate Outlook

Premise numbers for Ohio locations will start to be issued on a larger scale in calendar year 2005. Specific instructions on how that is to be done will come from the Ohio Department of Agriculture. This will be a ramp-up process and will involve not only producers, but veterinarians, auction markets, order buyers, and packers. This is an obvious burden, especially to auction markets and packers. Projecting timelines beyond this year are tenuous. Much depends on how implementation goes, but interested persons can go to http://www.usaip.info/ to view some projections.

1. The National Animal Identification System - at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/Animal-ID_Brochure.pdf
2. The United States Animal Identification Plan - at http://usaip.info/documents.htm
3. Stanford, K., J. Stitt , J.A. Kellar , and T.A. McAllister. 2001. Traceability in cattle and small ruminants in Canada. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epitz 20(2) 510-522.
4. Premises identification - the first step toward a national animal identification system. Program Aid No. 1800, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/Premises_ID_Brochure.pdf
5. Foot and Mouth Disease 2001: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry Report. Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/inquiries/lessons/index.htm
Don't Be Surprised, Do Tax Management for 2004 Now

Mr. David Miller, Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

As the end of 2004 approaches, dairy farmers need to be thinking about the income and social security tax liability that will be due March 1 (or April 15th) of 2005. While milk prices have improved over the past year and beef prices for cull cows have remained high, they need to focus on their net farm income since the costs of inputs have also risen. How does the projected 2004 net farm income for your dairy compare to 2003? 2002? Is it up? Down? About the same? Once that question has been answered, then decisions about tax management strategies for 2004 can be made. Since year-to-year fluctuations in taxable income cause a taxpayer to pay more income taxes over time, the objective of tax management is to level out those fluctuations so less tax is paid.

Keep in mind also that normally 70 to 75% of the total tax bill for a dairy farmer is for self-employment (SE; social security) taxes. Depending on the situation, paying SE taxes protects the dairy farmer's family by keeping them qualified for death and disability benefits and ultimately for retirement benefits. While minimizing the income tax bill may be desirable, not paying SE taxes is hardly an option.

If the net farm income is up for 2004, then consider strategies to reduce net income. These include paying all past due bills, purchasing inputs for 2005, postponing the sale of cows and calves if their sale is close to year's end, paying the interest up-to-date on all outstanding farm loans, and replacing additional, but needed, capital items and place them in service in 2004. Investing in a traditional individual retirement account (IRA), if eligible, will reduce taxable income for the family and is a good way to set aside additional funds for retirement. This is something all farm families should take advantage of whether it has been a good year or not.

If net farm income is down for 2004, then the strategies are just the opposite. Postpone paying bills until after January 1, sell any cows and calves before December 31 to claim the income in 2004, collect money that might be owed to you, and postpone purchasing capital items that would be placed in service in 2004.

For new capital items placed in service during 2004, choice of depreciation methods can also affect net farm income. If you need additional deductions, consider various combinations of accelerated depreciation, 179 expensing, and the additional 30% or 50% first year depreciation. If you don't need additional depreciation deductions, use slower straight line methods and use the 179 expensing and additional first year depreciation options sparingly. Be sure to check with your tax accountant about the various requirements and conditions for using 179 expensing and the additional first year depreciation. Decisions about depreciation on new items placed in service during 2004 can be made up until the tax return is completed.

To avoid any unpleasant surprises, tax planning should also include an estimate of the tax liability due in March or April. While it is good to have adequate cash to purchase tax-deductible items by December 31, make sure there are enough available funds to pay the 2004 tax bill. It is better for you to pay taxes with available cash and borrow the funds necessary to purchase items for your business; interest on an operating loan is deductible on Schedule F, while interest on money borrowed to pay your taxes is not deductible anywhere.

Tax planning before the first of the year is always important to determine the projected net income of your dairy business for the current year. With that information, the manager can then make better decisions about what strategies are needed to better manage the tax situation. Be sure to check with your tax accountant to make sure what is best for your operation.

Rumensin® Approved for Lactating Dairy Cows

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, Ohio State University

Ionophores (monensin and lasalocid) have been approved as feed additives for use in dairy replacement heifers for several years but not for lactating dairy cattle. However, the Food and Drug Administration approved on November 3, 2004 the use of Rumensin® (monensin sodium) for increased milk production efficiency in dairy cows. The product is produced by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company, Greenfield, Indiana. It is already approved in feed for therapeutic and production uses in feedlot cattle, pasture cattle (beef and dairy heifers, and slaughter, stocker feeder cattle), beef cows, and calves excluding veal calves. The FDA concluded that the meat and milk derived from dairy animals fed monensin sodium are safe when the animals are fed according to the approved labeling; therefore, there is no withdrawal period for the product. Previous caution statements on the label will remain, including not feed it to horses or other equines because ingestion of monensin sodium by horses has been fatal.

Rumensin® can be fed to dry and lactating dairy cows, with the suggested initial feeding rate being 11g/ton (DM basis) and the continual feeding rate between 11 and 22 g/ton). The base product released by Elanco is Rumensin 80®, which contains 80 g/lb of monensin; carefully follow mixing instructions. The generally expected responses are as follows:

Variable	Response	Variable	Response
DM intake	Decrease (no change in transition period)	Body condition score	No change to increase
Milk yield	No change to increase	Body weight	No change to increase
Milk fat (%)	Decrease	Rumen acidosis	No change to decrease
Milk protein (%)	No change to decrease	Ketosis	No change to decrease
Milk fat yield	No change to decrease	Feed efficiency	Increase
Milk protein yield	No change to increase

Determining the economic impact of using this product in a specific herd can be done by using the MS Excel file on the OSU dairy web site: https://dairy.osu.edu/resource/feed/feedmgt.html, click on the link titled "Monitoring Economics of Ration Changes for Lactating Cows".

Dairy Policy and Milk Marketing

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University,
Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

With the beginning of 2005, there is a lot of uncertainty about where the all-important commodity prices (cheese, butter, whey, and nonfat skim milk powder) will be heading over the next 12 months. Currently, the cash markets are very robust for this time of year. Cheese on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) is resisting a fall below the $1.45/lb mark. Likewise, butter on the CME is staying above the $1.58/lb level. With world supplies of skim powder being in tight supply, there is upward movement in the nonfat dry milk commodity market. This strength at the commodity level has forged itself into the CME futures market for Class III. While the futures contract level for 2005 has retreated some from levels reached last fall, there still is a good premium in the market, especially for the January through March contracts. To get a daily update on the premiums or discounts in the CME futures market, check out my website at http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ and select the heading "2005 Class III Futures Price Premiums".

Table 1. Dairy commodity price ($/lb) forecasts for 2005.

Forecast for Planning Year	Grade AA Butter	Nonfat Dry Milk	Cheddar Cheese	Whey Protein
2004 Averages	1.8275	0.8406	1.6437	0.2354
2005 Quarter I	1.5286	0.8848	1.4630	0.2343
2005 Quarter II	1.5267	0.8815	1.4644	0.2182
2005 Quarter III	1.5850	0.8710	1.5756	0.1808
2005 Quarter IV	1.4900	0.8467	1.4989	0.1932
2005 Annual Average Forecast	1.53	0.87	1.50	0.21

Table 2. Dairy component ($/lb) and milk check price forecast for 2005 (FO = Federal Order).

Forecast for Planning Year	Grade AA Milk Fat	Protein	Other Solids	Nonfat Solids	Base Milk Value	Estimated Producer Price Differential FO 33	Estimated Gross Milk Check Price
Test@Market %	3.5	2.99	5.6935	5.9	$/cwt	$/cwt	$/cwt
2004 Averages	2.055	2.601	0.079	0.694	15.421	-0.03	15.39
2005 Quarter I	1.6964	2.3961	0.0776	0.7374	13.55	0.24	13.74
2005 Quarter II	1.6940	2.4033	0.0609	0.7341	13.47	0.67	13.14
2005 Quarter III	1.7640	2.6877	0.0225	0.7237	14.34	0.75	15.19
2005 Quarter IV	1.6500	2.5606	0.0352	0.6996	13.64	0.40	14.04
2005 Annual Average Forecast	1.7011	2.5119	0.0491	0.7237	13.75	0.73	14.48

Class prices in 2005 will not be as robust as they where in 2004. Table 3 lists the recent 2005 price forecast for Federal Order 33 with a comparison to the 1999 through 2004 prices. The statistical uniform price estimate is based on an assumed historical average utilization for each class of milk during the calendar year.

Table 3. Comparison of class prices in Federal Order 33 from 1999 to 2004 with a forecast for 2005.

Calendar Year	Class I ($/cwt)	Class II ($/cwt)	Class III ($/cwt)	Class IV ($cwt)
1999	15.87	13.15	12.44	12.26
2000	13.67	12.65	9.74	11.83
2001	16.26	14.42	12.93	13.49
2002	13.01	11.56	10.40	10.82
2003	13.39	10.76	11.42	10.00
2004	16.95	13.69	15.10	13.00
2005*	16.08	13.34	13.75	12.24
Statistical Uniform Price Estimate: $13.96/cwt

*Quarter I through Quarter IV: 2005 forecast.

It is fair to ask what could alter the dairy product and milk price forecasts for 2005. Let's consider these factors as they may push prices up or down going into 2005. Feed prices are down and the milk-feed price ratio is at its highest point in the last three years. At this time, it appears that 2005 will be another very good year for milk prices and dairy farm income.

Price enhancing factors:

First, a return to more aggressive culling and a continued tight heifer replacement market. The current situation shows cull cow prices increasing into 2005. This will provide added incentive to increase dairy cow slaughter over the 2004 level which was down 17% from 2003. Second, the Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) program is slated to remove 49,000 head from the milking herd during the first half of 2005. Put these two together and we have the makings for an even tighter milk supply situation going into the summer of 2005. Couple this with the rebound in the general economy and dairy commodity prices will remain strong. Without any indication that the flow of dairy heifer replacement animals across the U.S. - Canada border will begin anytime soon, these conditions could add another $0.20 to 0.30/cwt to the price forecast.

Price reducing factors:

Cow numbers are rebounding from their lows in early 2004, and output per cow is also showing that it is getting back on trend. With the announcement by Monsanto, stating that bST allocations would be increased from 50 to 70 percent on December 1, 2004, we could look for the tight supply - demand situation evident in 2004 to lessen in 2005. If this is coupled with a weakness in consumer demand (due to escalating energy and utility prices and renewed weakness in the investment and employment markets), we could see prices for butter and cheese stay lower than those forecasted. This would remove $0.20 to 0.30/cwt from the current forecast.

Policy Issues: Mideast Federal Order 33

This warrants repeating. The number one policy issue facing dairy farm families in the Mideast Federal Order is that of re-pooling and its impact on the Uniform Market price. Emergency hearings to consider re-pooling are complete in our sister orders, Federal Order 30 and Federal Order 32. The proposal period terminated on January 7, 2005. We now await the official notice of a hearing, most likely scheduled for mid to late March 2005. The entire process will culminate in a producer vote on new order language sometime in late spring or early summer. Plan to vote when this referendum is scheduled- it is crucial to your paycheck.

Nutrient Prices - Seasonal Increases, High Returns

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University

Markets of both primary feeds (grains and oilseeds) and by-product feeds (e.g., corn gluten feed and distillers dried grains) have been very steady since the Presidential election. Thus, the implicit prices of nutrients have changed little since November (Table 1). The average cost of energy is slightly higher due to the seasonal rise in the price of fat sources. Rumen degradable protein (RDP) can be sourced through some commodities at much discounted prices. Thus, unless there are other compelling reasons, this is not a time to feed rations with tight margins of safety for RDP. The fiber sub-groups are at about their historical averages.

Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs.^1,2

Nutrient name	January 05	November 04	January 04
NE_L - 3X (2001 NRC)	0.082	0.072	0.066
RDP	-0.072	-0.066	0.065
Digestible RUP	0.211	0.180	0.259
Non-effective NDF (ne-NDF)	-0.043	-0.022	-0.008
Effective-NDF	0.050	0.060	0.063

¹NE_L = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, and NDF = neutral detergent fiber.
²Estimates are for $/lb, except for energy which is at $/Mcal.

Details on break-even prices of commodities and forages of various qualities as calculated by the software Sesame v3.01 are provided in Tables 2 and 3. Recall that for forages, the column labeled "corrected" uses the correction factors developed by Dr. Bill Weiss at O.A.R.D.C. in Wooster and are probably the best break-even figures to use for forages.

Table 2. Estimated break-even prices of commodities - OH.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, OH Buckeye D	110	109.06	91.55	126.58
Bakery Byproduct Meal	103	127.70	119.76	135.64
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	155	106.76	94.20	119.31
Blood Meal, ring dried	360	354.51	333.67	375.36
Brewers Grains, wet	28	24.61	21.86	27.36
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	148.5	113.75	103.42	124.09
Citrus Pulp, dried	127	107.60	100.83	114.38
Corn Grain, ground dry	97	133.74	126.15	141.34
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	32	45.43	39.87	51.00
Cottonseed, whole w lint	158	168	147.65	188.36
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	109	132.49	121.98	143.00
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	235	260.94	246.77	275.11
Gluten Feed, dry	79	111.02	103.12	118.91
Gluten Meal, dry	310	294.06	278.66	309.45
Hominy	87	113.34	106.49	120.19
Meat Meal, rendered	220	200.29	186.29	214.28
Molasses, sugarcane	125	92.79	86.36	99.23
Soybean Hulls	72	60.52	42.59	78.45
Soybean Meal, expeller	221.5	244.52	233.59	255.45
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	177.5	154.65	140.75	168.56
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	186.5	184.39	172.15	196.64
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	225	225.88	213.81	237.95
Tallow	350	337.68	311.96	363.40
Wheat Bran	72	68.55	56.49	80.62
Wheat Middlings	65	81.58	71.05	92.12

Table 3. Break-even prices of forages - OH (mg = mostly grass).

Name	Predicted [$/ton]	Corrected [$/ton]
Grass Hay, immature, < 55% NDF	122.08	138.06
Grass Hay, mature, > 60% NDF	128.45	71.41
Grass Hay, mid mature, 55-60% NDF	121.57	105.04
Grass Hay, all samples	126.20	84.04
Grass-Leg Hay, mg, immature < 51% NDF	121.94	118.05
Grass-Leg Hay, mg, mature > 57% NDF	124.29	74.52
Grass-Leg Hay, mg, mid mature 51-57% NDF	123.26	99.08
Grass-Leg Hay, 50/50 mix, immature	114.99	125.80
Leg Hay, immature, < 40% NDF	106.68	133.89
Leg Hay, mature, > 46% NDF	100.50	76.23
Leg Hay, mid mature, 40-46% NDF	100.05	103.92
Leg Silage, immature, < 40% NDF	49.45	62.07
Leg Silage, mature, > 46% NDF	45.94	35.21
Leg Silage, mid mature, 40-46% NDF	45.17	46.61

As usual in this column, we calculated the costs of feeding these nutrients for a 1350 lb cow producing 75 lb/day of milk at 3.6% fat, 3.1% protein, and 5.9% other solids. Component prices used in Table 4 are those paid in Federal Order 33 for the month preceding each column. The cost of providing the nutrients to support this milk production is slightly up ($0.20/cow/day) compared to November 2004, but considerably less ($0.59/cow/day) than the same costs a year ago. This, combined with much above average prices for milk fat, protein, and other milk solids, results in a very high figure for income over nutrient costs (IONC; the historical average is approximately $6.50/cow/day in Ohio). In fact, the IONC for January 2005 is nearly twice the estimate for January 2004. These historical high margins should help our producers recover from the devastating milk prices that they experienced in 2003 and part of 2004.

Table 4. Nutrient costs, milk gross income, and income over nutrient costs - Ohio.¹

Nutrient	January 2005	November 2004	January 2004
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	2.85	2.49	2.30
RDP	-0.38	-0.35	0.35
Digestible-RUP	0.48	0.41	0.59
ne-NDF	-0.20	-0.10	-0.04
e-NDF	0.54	0.65	0.69
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.49	3.29	4.08
Milk gross income
Fat	5.50	5.14	3.70
Protein	6.62	5.54	5.35
Other solids	0.38	0.30	0.16
TOTAL	12.50	10.97	9.20

Income over nutrient costs	9.01	7.68	5.12

When is the Best Time to Market Cull Cows?

Mr. Dusty Sonnenberg, OSU Extension Educator, Henry Count, and Dr. Michael Looper, USDA-ARS

Ask five dairy producers when they think it is the best time to market cull cows and you will most likely get five different responses. Some may say it is in the fall so they don't use any unnecessary feed, bedding, or barn space needed for the rest of the herd during the winter months. Others will say it is once the cow drops below a specific production point in terms of daily milk production. Still others may say it is while the cow can still get-up and walk on the trailer. Based on the operation's goals, all these responses are correct to a varying degree.

Another response, however, may be that the best time to market a cull cow is when the cull cow market is at its high point. In the cattle market, like all markets, there are highs and lows throughout the year, and numerous factors exist which impact that market price. There are also product quality factors that impact the price received. Among other things, the body condition score of the cull cow has some bearing on the final price received by the producer.

Simply taking these two components into further consideration can enable a dairy producer to realize a greater return from the market for the same animal.

Seasonality is an important aspect of increasing profitability of market cull cows. Data from the USDA over the past 10 years suggest that the best time to market cull cows is not in the fall of the year. Prices are generally lowest during the months of November and December, while the highest prices are received during the months of March, April, and May. The reduced prices in the fall months are attributed to the sale of culled beef cows after weaning calves. Maintaining and feeding market dairy cows until the spring months should increase profit from the sale of market dairy cows.

Research has also indicated that additional feeding of market cull cows can increase the body condition score, carcass value, and carcass characteristics. A 1997 study at Colorado State University revealed that average daily gain in market cows was less efficient for the first 14 days on feed; however, average daily gains increased consistently from 28 to 56 days in market dairy and beef cows. In addition, fat color whitened within 28 days of feeding. This fat whitening was greatest in dairy breeds in the study. White fat has been associated with increased consumer acceptance of palatable steaks. Market cull cows with moderate body condition yield higher quality carcasses that can be further processed into boneless primal cuts. It is a common misconception that cull cows are used solely for ground beef. Considering the fact that approximately 33% of beef production in the U.S. is from market dairy cows, beef from these animals is often used as entrée items in family steakhouses, on airlines meals, and in sliced beef sandwiches in fast food restaurants.

In addition to realizing a potentially greater market price due to seasonality of the market and improved body condition score, feeding cull cows has benefits in terms of product quality and reduced potential for drug residue in the meat products entering the U.S. food system. The economics to consider in the additional feeding of cull cows and antibiotic residue withdrawal time from meat tissues will be discussed in a future article in Buckeye Dairy News.
Risk Factors for Early Lactation Diseases

Dr. Päivi Rajala-Schultz, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Most - if not all - diseases we deal with in dairy production are multi-factorial. In other words, several factors that are often interrelated work together in a complex network to impact the occurrence of a disease. These factors are called determinants of a disease or simply risk factors for a disease. They can be divided into three categories: host, environment, and pathogen related risk factors. Host factors are associated with the cow, such as her age, days in milk, immunological status, disease history, genetics, milk production, etc. Environmental factors can include, for example, geographical location, season of the year, housing (type of stalls, bedding, stocking density, and social groups), and nutrition. Pathogen risk factors are related to infectious diseases and include the ability of the organism to cause severe disease and its ability to be transmitted among animals. Let's take a look at some of these factors.

Transition period, starting two to three weeks prior to calving and continuing two to three weeks after calving, is the most stressful time in the lactation cycle of a dairy cow. She goes through a number of profound physiological changes due to the increasing demands of the fetus and the development of the mammary gland and initiation of milk synthesis. Besides the hormonal and metabolic changes, cows often go through changes in ration as well as in social groups during the transition period. Stress caused by these changes weakens the immune system of the cow and makes her susceptible to diseases. Therefore, it is no surprise that disease occurrence peaks around calving and early lactation.

The most common diseases that occur at and around calving are dystocia (difficult calving), milk fever, retained fetal membranes, metritis (infection of the uterus), mastitis, ketosis, displaced abomasum, and other digestive disorders. It is important to realize that diseases do not occur independently of each other, instead they are often strongly interrelated. A great example of a disease involved in such an intertwined network is milk fever. Hypocalcaemia, i.e., milk fever (either clinical or subclinical), increases the likelihood of cows experiencing difficulties with calving (due to decreased muscular tonicity). This increases the risk of retained fetal membranes and uterine infections, which in turn increases the likelihood of infertility problems later on. A cow with milk fever has difficulties rising up and teat injuries can occur in conjunction with the unsteadiness. Cows with teat injuries have been reported to be 8 times more likely to contract clinical mastitis than cows without them. Cows with milk fever are also at 30% higher risk of experiencing ketosis during the lactation. Cows with ketosis, on the other hand, can be 6 times more likely to develop displaced abomasum than cows without it. This association can go both ways - abomasal disorders can also increase the risk of ketosis. Clinical ketosis increases also the risk of silent heat, cystic ovaries, and other infertility disorders. So, once the disease process starts, there is a cascade of events that can have a profound effect on the entire lactational performance.

Occurrence of most diseases in early lactation is directly or indirectly influenced by nutritional factors. Dry matter intake decreases and cows require more energy than they can consume, resulting in a negative energy balance, mobilization of body tissues, and loss of body condition. This is a normal and necessary process to help the cow meet the energy requirements of the lactation. It is not until some weeks after the peak milk production that dry matter intake reaches its maximum and the cow can regain the lost body weight. In addition to this, cows typically go through several ration changes during the transition period and unless these changes are gradual enough and the rumen microbes are provided enough time to adjust to the new ration and the ration is well balanced to meet the nutritional demands of the cow, digestive disorders and other diseases easily follow.

Mastitis is also an excellent example of a disease with multifactorial background. Risk factors in all three groups (host, agent, and environment) contribute to the occurrence of the disease. The rate of new intramammary infections is typically higher during the dry and transition periods than during the rest of the lactation. This is one of the reasons that has prompted the use of routine antibiotic dry cow therapy in control of the disease. However, focusing the control efforts on the agent is usually not enough. For effective mastitis control, we need to remember also the host (cow) and environmental factors. After the cessation of milking, the teat ends continue to be exposed to environmental pathogens, but the flushing effect of milking is gone. A dry, clean environment is extremely important to a dry cow. Recent studies have shown that even in cows that have been treated with antibiotics at dry-off, the risk of having a new infection during the dry period, or at least one quarter infected with environmental pathogens at calving, increases significantly with increasing milk yield at dry-off. The higher the milk production of the cow at the time she is dried off, the more likely she is to be infected at calving. Increased intramammary pressure from a full gland may cause leaking of milk, and the teat canal is more likely to stay open longer into the dry period. The slower formation of the protective keratin plug in the teat canal allows entry of the environmental pathogens into the mammary gland. It has been shown that cows that leak milk following dry-off are four times more likely to develop clinical mastitis during the dry period. Reducing the level of milk production prior to dry-off may directly help to reduce the rate of new intramammary infections during the transition period and increase the resistance of the mammary gland in the early dry period.

In conclusion, the transition period is probably the most important time in the production cycle of a cow in determining her health, lactation performance, and longevity in the herd. Good balanced nutrition and a dry, clean environment during the transition period can not be emphasized enough in maintaining healthy cows. It is also extremely important to remember that everything works in a complex network and in solving, or preferably in prevention, of health problems the entire, complex picture with all factors need to be considered.
Best Management Practices for Winter Manure Application
Over the past several years, manure application to farm fields has come under additional scrutiny, particularly the applications of manure to frozen and/or snow covered ground. Livestock producers and custom manure applicators should always exert extreme caution, follow best management practices (BMP) and utilize best available technologies (BAT) when applying manure, particularly when field conditions are less than ideal, which would definitely include winter-time application. The top priority of any application of nutrients to the land should be to protect water quality.

No matter the size of a livestock, dairy, or poultry facility and if it is an animal feeding operation (AFO), it may be designated a CAFO, if after being inspected by a permitting authority, it is found to be adding pollutants to surface waters. It is also important to note that the US EPA permit will cover both the production and land application areas.

These types of situations could be avoided by following standards established by the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in its Waste Utilization Practice Standard (#633), which may be accessed by logging onto http://www.ohleap.org/FactSheets/index.html.

By adopting and following this respective USDA-NRCS Practice Standard, livestock farmers and custom manure applicators can significantly reduce the risk of pollution problems, but they should keep in mind that with fluctuating weather conditions, application of manure can still be risky and pose a threat to water quality.

Application of manure to frozen or snow covered ground is not recommended unless it becomes necessary due to extreme situations. Such situations typically arise from a lack of storage capacity (a minimum of six months capacity is recommended; one year is ideal). If manure application becomes necessary on frozen or snow-covered soils, only limited quantities of manure should be applied to address storage limitations until non-frozen soils become available.

If wintertime application becomes necessary, applications are to be made only if ALL of the following criteria are met:
- Application rate is limited to 10 wet tons/acre for solid manure more than 50% moisture and 5 wet ton/acre for manure less than 50% moisture. For liquid manure, the application rate is limited to 5,000 gallons/acre.
- Applications are to be made on land with at least 90% surface residue cover (e.g. good quality hay or pasture field, all corn grain residues remaining after harvest, or all wheat residue cover remaining after harvest).
- Increase the application setback distance to 200 feet "minimum" from all grassed waterways, surface drainage ditches, streams, surface inlets, and water bodies. This distance may need to be further increased due to local conditions (e.g., higher slopes, or sensitive or high quality streams in the area).
- The rate of application shall not exceed the rates specified in Table 4 of USDA/NRCS Practice Standard 633 - Determining The Most Limiting Manure Application Rates for winter application.
- Additional winter application criteria for fields with significant slopes more than 6% include manure shall be applied in alternating strips 60 to 200 feet wide generally on the contour, or in the case of contour strips, on the alternating strips.
Livestock farmers and custom manure applicators need to note that USDA-NRCS Practice Standard 633 allows for winter manure application; however, it is not recommended, particularly for operations that produce significant volumes of manure. A manure management plan should not include routine winter application. If winter application is unavoidable because of extenuating circumstances, only apply enough to address storage limitations until non-frozen soils are available.
2004 Ohio Dairy Management Conference - Recap of Ray Nebel's presentation: Keys to a Successful Reproductive Management Program

Ms. Amanda Hargett, Dairy Extension Associate, The Ohio State University

The 2004 Ohio Dairy Management Conference was held December 2 & 3, 2004 in Columbus, OH. There were approximately 135 dairy industry personnel, dairy producers, and Extension and agribusiness personnel gathered for information on topics such as herd management, communicating with employees and family, and reproductive management. Plan now to attend the December 2006 Conference! See below for a recap of Dr. Ray Nebel's talks on "Keys to a Successful Reproductive Management Program". For a copy of the Proceedings, please contact: Ms. Amanda Hargett, 222C Animal Science Building, 2029 Fyffe Rd, Columbus, OH 43210, or 614-688-3143.

Several factors can affect reproductive performance, and the keys to managing these factors were discussed by Dr. Ray Nebel during the Ohio Dairy Management Conference. The key areas addressed were: herd health, management, cow fertility, and insemination procedures. However, before any producer addresses these issues, there are a few questions that should be asked before any changes are made: 1) How is CURRENT performance? 2) Is it getting worse or better? 3) If it is "broken", what needs to be "fixed"? 4) Are there predictable patterns you can apply resources to?, and 5) Are you willing to make changes? The last question is probably the most important question.

Some traditional tools that are used for measuring reproductive performance and their goals are as follows: 1) days open: 130 days, 2) days to first service: 75, 3) pregnancy rate: >20%, 4) conception rate, 1st service: >40%, 5) heat detection rate: >60 %, and 6) age at first calving, 24 months.

Several factors can affect reproductive success; some are easily manageable, and some are not. Those areas that are easily influenced are personnel, cow comfort/facilities, heat detection, nutrition, insemination technique, timing of insemination, semen handling, and transition cow management. In the management of space and time, focus on one area and probably one of the most important ones: Personnel. A producer wants someone who enjoys working with the cows, is motivated to do a good job, is a team player, and also knowledgeable. Remember though that individuals can be taught about cows, but you cannot teach them to love the cows and to want to do a good job. While writing up Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and policies can be very time consuming and often are not high priorities on many farms, they can help you manage your employees much better.

For more details, see the Proceedings of the 2004 Ohio Dairy Management Conference.
The Marks of a "Real" Ohio Dairy Producer,

Mr. Tim Demland, Dairy Extension Associate, The Ohio State University

Ohio has more than 3600 dairy producers; 2638 grade A producers and 1050 manufacturing grade producers. Some milk in parlors, some in stanchions. Some milk 30 cows, some 300, and others 3,000. Some cows are housed in free stall barns and others are grazed. Many producers chose to market milk through a co-op, while many others chose to ship milk as independents. Some even market products directly to consumers. There are indefinite numbers of ways that one can define or label dairy farmers.

Other than obvious physical classifications, one can also categorize dairy farmers by their core goals. Some are milking cows because that's what they have always done or that it is all they know. Others milk as a hobby or as a secondary occupation because "It's Fun". Some view dairying as a temporary arrangement, while others are in it for one generation, and still others endeavor to create an entity that will endure from generation to generation.

Get Real!

Regardless of what definition is used, to be a real dairy producer, dairy farmers need to pay attention to more than just business management, nutrition, breeding, forage, cow health/care, labor, and milk marketing. They also need to be aware of some things that they may not have considered to be very important.

As margins shrink, price fluctuations increase, competition grows, public opinion wavers, and regulatory pressures continue to mount, Dairy Producers Need to Invest Time, Energy, and Resources and "Get REAL"!

The marks of a "R" "E" "A" "L" dairy producer are defined by their participation in Regulation, Research, Education, Awareness, Activity, and Legislation. A producer's involvement in these areas determines whether or not they are, in fact, a "R E A L" complete dairy producer.

R - Regulation & Research

"REAL" dairy producers actively participate in the development and implementation of new regulations. They also initiate, support, and direct new research which will be beneficial to dairy production. In Ohio, this can be done by contributing to the Ohio Dairy Research Fund.

E - Educated, Engaged, and Environmental

"REAL" dairy producers are continually seeking educational opportunities and developing their managerial abilities, especially when it comes to the environment. They also use their knowledge to become actively engaged in the problem solving process.

A - Awareness & Activity

"REAL" dairy producers are truly aware of the issues that affect their day to day operations, as well as the entire industry. This includes the management roles of planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling, as well as traditional tasks such as feeding and breeding. Not only are they aware of the issues, but they are active participants in them.

L - Legislation and a Loud Voice

"REAL" dairy producers have a legitimate legislative presence and use a loud voice to express their concerns. They understand that in order to effectively communicate their point, they need to join in the political process, regardless of how ugly it appears. They also understand that the people in the State House are going to make decisions regardless of who speaks up.

So in other words "REAL" dairy producers are members of state dairy commodity groups like the Ohio Dairy Producers (ODP) or the Professional Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania (PDMP) organizations.

The ODP is a group of non-partisan dairy producers from every geographic region of the state who, regardless of size, marketing preference, breed, or production strategy, share a genuine concern for the future of Ohio's dairy industry. It is our mission to optimize profitability and productivity by addressing issues that affect dairy producers.

Over the past two years, ODP has been particularly successful in developing important regulatory and legislative contacts, while tirelessly monitoring a myriad of regulatory issues. We are especially proud of our ground breaking initiative as we seek federal market order reform that will address the negative affects of "depooling" and exaggerated negative producer price differentials.

Membership dues are not just another business expense; they are an investment in the continued growth and strength of Ohio's dairy production industry.

The ODP organization has set as our goals for 2005 to become even more active in addressing Research, Regulations, Education, Environmental Management, Awareness building Activities, and as well Legislation.

Without the support, participation, and involvement of producers and allied dairy industries, the ODP would be severely handicapped. Without a collective voice, the well being of all Ohio dairy producers will continue to be even more severely challenged in the future.
Mideast Federal Order Hearing Held on March 7, Wooster, Ohio

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University,
Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

By now, anyone with an interest in the dairy industry here in Ohio, Michigan, Western Pennsylvania, Indiana, Northern Kentucky, parts of West Virginia, western New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and a host of other states, knows that on Monday, March 7, an event of high importance kicked off in Wooster, Ohio, at the Schisler Conference Center on the campus of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC).

The opening day was long awaited for the Mideast Federal Order 33 hearing on depooling and repooling of milk on the Mideast Federal Order. This hearing was requested by the Ohio Dairy Producers Association and the Ohio Farmers Union. It followed directly on the heels of two identical hearings, one held this past December 2004 on behalf of the producers in the Central Federal Order 32 and the first, held at the request of the Midwest Federal Order 30 producers during August 2004.

I hope you were able to attend at least part of the hearing program. It was very informative and fascinating look into the inner workings of your Federal Milk Market Order. Normally, the hearing program starts off with a very useful, in not somewhat dry, presentation of facts and figures on the Mideast Federal Order. Not so for our hearing. On the first morning, there was a presentation from the Federal Order 33 Market Administrator office setting the stage for the remainder of the hearing session. Thereafter, the testimony followed on behalf of those dairy entities who submitted proposals to be considered for rewriting the Federal Order language. This process was one of direct interview by lawyers on behalf of the proposal writers and then cross examination by lawyers on behalf of those dairy entities opposed to a particular proposal or set of proposals.

Now, what is the central subject matter of this Federal Order hearing? To answer my question, I must provide a brief digression on Federal milk market orders. A central tenant of Federal Milk Market Orders, going all the way back to the enabling legislation of 1937 which codified what was already a practice in the then unregulated milk markets, is that consumers should and will pay more for milk (and all of its components) when used in fluid or semi fluid form. You know these as Class I and Class II products. This added market value was not left to the market to determine but was added directly into the pay price for raw milk used in these products. You know this as the Class I and Class II differentials. Milk producers whose milk went into this fluid market earned this added return in their milk checks. However, at the time that the first Federal Order was codified, it was recognized that this had the potential to cause a real problem for dairy producers. Those with fluid milk outlets received more for their milk than did their neighbors without access to the fluid milk market. In an attempt to avoid cut-throat competition for access to fluid milk markets and to rectify this equity of pay problem, the authors of the Federal Order language added the notion that all producers should share in this enhanced return by averaging or blending together the various pay prices for milk used in fluid and also manufacturing (cheese and butter) uses.

This solved one problem and created yet another problem. In a market with a high percentage of milk produced flowing into the fluid market, there was only a marginal amount of milk in the manufactured market to be considered and this was thought of as a reserve supply for the fluid market. As such, it made sense, or at minimum an argument could be put forward that it made sense, that producers of this reserve supply should be able to share in the higher returns from the fluid milk market as an incentive to be a reserve supply. But what about markets where the proportion of milk in the fluid market was small relative to milk used in the manufactured products? Surely, not all of this milk was needed as a reserve supply for the fluid market. Surely not all of this milk deserved to share in the added returns from the fluid milk market. To resolve this problem, a set of rules, i.e. performance rules, were designed and used to determine which producer's milk would or would not be eligible for this blending of the fluid market returns. This is known today as pooling or being on the market pool. Pool participation is mandatory for those supplying milk to fluid milk plants and voluntary for all others. Performance rules were and are somewhat broad in order to provide the needed flexibility for milk to flow between uses.

Now just what is the current Federal Order hearing, and the other two hearings as well, all about? This was a hearing to determine whether or not a language change is warranted as to who is entitled to share in the proceeds of the added market value built into milk used for Class I and Class II products, and what should be the rules by which entitlement to this added value is determined? Yes, there are other issues that came up during the two to three days of testimony, such as expanded transportation credits, some directly related and some only red herrings, but entitlement and performance was the focus of this particular hearing. Remember that your milk price in 2005 will be excellent by any standard.

Currently the cash markets are very robust for this time of year. Cheese on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) is resisting a fall below the $1.55/lb mark. Likewise, butter on the CME is staying above the $1.50/lb level. When world supplies of skim powder are in tight supply, there is upward movement in the nonfat dry milk commodity market. This strength at the commodity level has forged itself into the CME futures market for Class III. While the futures contract level for 2005 has retreated some from levels reached last fall, there still is a good premium in the market, especially for the March through August contracts. To receive weekly updates on my price forecasts or to receive a daily update on the premiums or discounts in the CME futures market, check out my website at http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/

Table 1. Dairy commodity price forecast 2005.

Table 2. Milk Component Value Forecast, 2005.

It is fair to ask what could alter my dairy product and milk price forecasts for 2005. Let's consider these factors as they may push prices up or down going into 2005. Feed prices are down and the milk-feed price ratio is at its highest point in the last three years. At this time, it appears that 2005 will be another very good year for milk prices and dairy farm income.

Price Enhancing Factors:

I think it sums up to this - continued lousy milk production weather in the West, Pacific Northwest, New Mexico, West Texas, and Idaho. As I have said many times before in this column, weather is the most effective supply management tool we have today. If the west continues to get soaked over and over again, look for the 2005 average Class III price to move up another $0.40 to 0.60/cwt.

Price Reducing Factors:

Here, I think that it all depends on the health of the general economy. If a weakness in consumer demand (due to escalating energy and utility prices and renewed weakness in the investment and employment markets) materializes, we could see prices for butter and cheese stay lower than forecasted. This would remove $0.20 to 0.30/cwt from my current forecast.

Remember, if you fill life's jar with sand, there will be no room for life's gem stones.

For a complete update on current market conditions, futures, and options markets, and policy issues of importance to Ohio and Federal Order 33 producers go to my web site, Ohio Dairy Web 2004, and click on Cam's Price Outlook.
When is the Best Time to Market Cull Cows?

Mr. Dusty Sonnenberg, OSU Extension Educator, Henry County; Dr. Stephen Boyles, Extension Beef Specialist, The Ohio State University; and Dr. Michael Looper, USDA-ARS

The national average cull rate for dairy cows is 35% in the United States. With this in mind, the question is not if a cow should be culled, but rather when. As discussed in a previous article, a variety of factors go into determining when a producer culls a cow. In most years, the average dairy producer will cull 1 out of 3 cows. Often, these are the milk cows with poor feet and legs, udder and teat problems, high somatic cell counts, and chronic mastitis.

This presents an interesting component to discuss when considering an impact on the beef (meat) industry in terms of quality assurance. Withdrawal times and holding milk out of the tank are watched very closely for treated cows in milk. Nonetheless, approximately 3,000 tanker loads of milk are condemned annually in the United States due to drug residues being detected in the milk. That is an average of 8 to 9 tanker loads of milk condemned per day.

When cows with high somatic cell counts and chronic mastitis are culled, often they were being treated. Most likely that drug has both a withholding time for the milk, but also a withdrawal time for the slaughter of that animal. Just like the contaminated milk tankers, while unintentional, if the proper withdrawal time is neglected and the drug residue is detected during an ante mortem or postmortem inspection, that carcass will be condemned. This situation is compounded by the fact that oftentimes the medications are being administered as a dosage based on the weight of the animal. A well-intentioned producer can easily overestimate the weight of an animal being treated and administer too high a dose. In addition, if the cow is sick, the metabolism may be functioning slower than normal, thus the drug may not be processed by the body as quickly as under normal conditions. Yet, another factor to consider is extra label drug use as prescribed by a veterinarian. In an extra label use prescription, the withdrawal period will be extended from what is listed on the medication and must be re-calculated. The end result is that the withdrawal listed often is not sufficient for the cow's system to purge itself, and a drug residue situation will occur.

In a recent study of antibiotic residue rates in dairy cull cows compared to beef cull cows, three times the antibiotic residue rate was found in cull dairy cows. From a beef (meat) industry quality assurance standpoint, feeding cull dairy cows for a given period of time after they are taken out of the milking herd not only can improve body condition score and potentially yield grade, as discussed in the January 2005 issue of Buckeye Dairy News, but also can do a great deal in alleviating potential drug residue concerns in cattle being processed for beef.

In terms of the economics of feeding cull dairy cows, many variables must be calculated in the decision making process. The rate of gain is greatest when feeding cull cows from 28 to 56 days. One reason is during this period they have lower maintenance requirements. Feeding cull cows grain-based diets much longer than 2 months shows a decline in the rate of gain and will thus increase feed cost per pound of gain. The idea is to feed to facilitate cheap gain. There have been some questions asked regarding feeding left-over or waste feed from the previous feeding from the milk herd back to the cull cows. Producers should be cautious if considering practice, as it is not typically recommended due to biosecurity issues.

The most profitable feeding management scheme is affected by the cost of feed inputs. Based on information from feeding cull beef cows, slower gains over the winter may be profitable if the cost of hay is relatively cheap. Expect dry matter intake (DM) of cows fed grain-based diets to be approximately 2.5 to 3% of bodyweight. Normally, there should be 60 to 80% concentrate in a grain-based diet. One can expect 3 lb/day or better of gain if the diet contains 80% grain and compensatory gain is expected.

The protein requirement of cull cows does not appear to be particularly high. Crude protein levels of 9.5 to 11% of dietary DM are probably adequate. Keep in mind that the mineral supplementation program for grain-based diets and roughage-based diets are not the same. Calcium supplementation will be higher than phosphorus supplementation if feeding a high grain ration.

Other livestock costs such as veterinary and medical expenses, farm utilities, power and fuel, and marketing expenses can be around $0.10/lb of gain. Excluding labor, management, and facilities, costs per pound of gain can range from $0.45 to 0.50.

One final point to consider is the overall health of the cull cow being considered. Health and ability to gain weight are extremely variable in cull cows. Not all cull cows are suitable for additional feeding. Dairy producers should evaluate each cull cow on an individual basis.

With an average of 33% of the U.S. beef production consisting of meat from market cull dairy cows, there is an obvious opportunity to increase the overall net farm profits by proper management of this often overlooked segment of the enterprise. With that opportunity, however, comes the responsibility to ensure a safe and quality meat product being supplied to the marketplace.
Ammonia Emissions from Dairy Farms - The Basics

Dr. Bill Weiss, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Dairy cows consume substantial amounts of nitrogen (otherwise known as crude protein or CP) each day. If cows are fed diets that approximately meet their requirements for protein, about 33% of the N consumed will be secreted in milk and retained by the cow (for example, by a growing fetus) and 67% will be excreted in urine and feces. The proportion of dietary N used for productive purposes (milk secretion and body retention) is reduced when cows are overfed CP. At the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC), we have accumulated a large set of manure excretion and manure nutrient excretion data collected from lactating cows (see article on factors affecting manure production). In that dataset, average N intake was 564 g/day (equal to 7.8 lb of CP). Of the N consumed, on average, 4% (22 g) was apparently retained by the cow, 28% (158 g) was secreted in milk, 32% (181 g) was excreted in urine, and 36% (203 g) was excreted in feces.

Cows excrete very little ammonia via feces, urine, and respiration; however, manure is a very significant source of ammonia on most farms. Of the N excreted via urine by a typical lactating dairy cow, 65 to 75% is in the form of urea. Urea can be broken down to ammonia and carbon dioxide by an enzyme called urease. Urease is produced by numerous bacteria that live in soil and feces. The rate at which ammonia is produced under field conditions is primarily a function of:

1. The amount of urea in the system (greater amounts = greater ammonia production),
2. Degree of mixing of urine (source of urea) and feces (source of urease) (greater mixing = greater ammonia production), and
3. Temperature (higher temperatures = greater ammonia production).

Under laboratory conditions where urine and feces are well-mixed and held at temperatures ranging from approximately 70 to 80^oF, 40 to 50% of the N in manure can be converted to ammonia within 48 hours. Based on the average N excretion data from our experiments (384 g of manure N/day per cow), approximately 200 g of ammonia (not ammonia-N) could be produced from dairy cow manure within 48 hours of being excreted. The actual amount produced under field conditions will likely be less because of differences in mixing and temperature between laboratory and barn conditions.

Ammonia that is produced from manure is not necessarily volatilized into the atmosphere. The quantity that is volatilized is a function of a multitude of factors, including the amount of ammonia in the manure slurry, surface area of the slurry, temperature, air flow across the slurry, and pH of the slurry. The pH of the slurry determines how much of the ammonia that is present is in the potentially volatile form. Depending on the pH of the solution, ammonia exists as either NH3 (ammonia) or NH4+ (ammonium); NH3 is volatile. As the pH of a solution increases, the relative proportion of NH3 increases and ammonia volatilization increases. In a solution that has a pH of 9.4, approximately 50% of the ammonia is NH3 and 50% is NH4+. The pH of fresh dairy cow manure averages about 8.2 (substantial variation exists depending on diet). At a pH of 8.2, approximately 6% of the ammonia will be NH3 (the volatile form) and 94% will be NH4+, but at a pH of 8.6, 15% of the ammonia will be NH3. Although we can calculate with reasonable accuracy the amount of NH3 in manure that can be volatilized, we cannot calculate accurately the amount of NH3 that is actually volatilized because of the complexity of the system. However, the following general relationships are correct:

1. Increased surface area increases ammonia volatilization (a thin film of manure will result in greater ammonia emissions than a deep pile of manure),
2. Increased air movement above the slurry will increase ammonia volatilization,
3. Increased temperature increases ammonia volatilization, and
4. Reducing the pH of the slurry will reduce ammonia volatilization (although we can formulate diets that will result in significantly reduced manure pH, this is not recommended currently as a means of reducing ammonia emissions because of metabolic effects on the animal).

By far, the easiest and most effective means of reducing ammonia volatilization is to simply feed diets that provide adequate, but not excessive, amounts of protein. Numerous studies have shown that if protein fractions are balanced correctly, diets with 14 to 15% CP will support in excess of 70 lb/day of milk. In a recent experiment that we conducted, the excretion of manure N was 90 g/day per cow (a 20% reduction) lower when Holstein cows were fed a diet with 14% CP compared with a diet containing 17.5% CP. Milk production (averaged 80 lb/day) and milk protein yield were not affected by treatment.
Prevention and Treatment of Hairy Heel Warts

Dr. William B. Epperson, Extension Dairy Veterinarian, The Ohio State University

Lameness is an important condition on dairy farms. Dairy farms of midwestern states appear to have a 33% higher prevalence of lameness than dairy farms of the West or Southeast US. Lameness disproportionately affects high producing dairy cows, and has been associated with a 792 lb reduction in 305 day milk yield in one study. Multiple cross-sectional studies indicate that the prevalence of lameness on dairy farms is approximately 22%. That is, at any one time, 22% of cows are lame on the average dairy farm. From field investigations, we have conducted that 30% lameness prevalence is not uncommon on Ohio dairy farms.

Papillomatous Digital Dermatitis (PDD; a.k.a. digital dermatitis, hairy heel warts, heel warts, hairy foot warts, digital warts, strawberry foot, strawberry foot disease, raspberry heel, and interdigital papillomatosis) can be the most common single cause of lameness in a herd. Currently, spirochetes of the genus Treponema are regarded as the principle bacteria involved in PDD. Dairy farms have seen a great increase in PDD over the last 10 years, though PDD was described in the early 1970's. Increased risk of PDD in a herd has been found to be associated with herd size, large dairy breeds, addition of outside animals, muddy lots, and generally poor foot hygiene.

Diagnosis of PDD is usually made by observation of feet. The PDD is characteristically located just above the heels on the rear feet. Lesions may extend between the claws, into the interdigital space, and appear on the front side of the foot. The condition is contagious, and lesions are very painful. Photos of lesions can be accessed at http://www.cowdoc.net/. Click on foot lameness, then hairy warts.

Herds differ dramatically in response to specific treatment programs for PDD. What works in one herd may not work in another. PDD is generally controlled through use of direct application of antibiotics or disinfectants to the affected area. There are 3 ways to make such an application - directly under a bandage, by topical spray, or through a footbath. Foot bandages need to be removed in 3 days, but response is generally very good. Tetracycline solution has been used under a foot wrap, though other non-antibiotic products have been promoted for use under bandages as well. Topical sprays are applied using a garden sprayer or other spray applicator. Sprays work better if they are applied to a foot free of mud and debris. A wide variety of compounds, both antibiotics and disinfectants, are available that are promoted for use as sprays. Tetracycline and lincomycin are two antibiotics that have been used with good effect in treatment and control of PDD. Twenty to 30 ml of mixed solution is applied to each foot, being sure to cover the affected lesion. Use of these products constitutes an extra-label use, so a veterinarian must be consulted for dosage, application instructions, and warnings. Generally, sprays are applied for 5 days out of 7. This treatment may be repeated as needed. As always, antibiotics must be used with some caution to avoid milk residues. Proper use of topical antibiotic solutions has not resulted in milk residues to date.

Non-antibiotic (disinfectant) products are also used in PDD control programs. Compared to the antibiotics listed above, disinfectants may require re-dosing at frequent intervals. A number of commercial formulations are available. These products are generally proprietary but are based on organic acids or other GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) compounds. Efficacy data may be available on some of these products. Disinfectants including formalin (5%), chlorine bleach, copper sulfate, and zinc sulfate have all been used, often to a limited degree of success.

Footbaths may be used in control and treatment of PDD. In general, traditional footbaths are the least efficacious method of application. Traditional footbaths offer a limited contact time and often became heavily contaminated. There are new footbath systems that manage solutions or allow extended contact time. In traditional footbaths, solutions should be changed when they are grossly contaminated, or for every 150 cows, whichever comes first. Footbaths may be more applicable for routine control, rather than for treatment. Copper sulfate (5 to 10%) and tetracycline (1 to 10 g/liter of finished solution - an extra label use) have been used with moderate success. Producers should carefully consider the cost of application via footbath, as it will often exceed the cost of topical spraying.

A vaccine for PDD is available (Trep Shield HW- Novartis Animal Health). Producers should consult their herd veterinarian for a recommendation on use of this vaccine. Vaccination may best be thought of as an aid to the control of PDD. It appears that vaccination is probably most effective in heifers prior to joining an already infected milking herd. Results have been variable, but it appears that vaccination may help decrease new cases of PDD in unaffected animals and may be of limited benefit to cows already exposed to the organisms. Therefore, consideration of the herd, the magnitude of the problem, and the source and status of replacement heifers should be considered.

In summary, PDD is a serious disease causing lameness in dairy cattle. Currently, Treponema bacteria are thought to be the primary agents. Short term control measures focus on the use of antibiotics or disinfectants on feet at some periodic interval. Treatment is best accomplished with foot wraps, topical sprays, and footbaths (in that order). A commercial vaccine is available and has been shown to provide some protection in unexposed heifers. Improving foot hygiene and foot defense are key to long-term control of PDD.
Update on Ohio's Program for Controlling Johne's Disease

Dr. Bill Shulaw, Extension Beef and Sheep Veterinarian, The Ohio State University (top of page)

Johne's disease continues to receive considerable national attention as an important livestock disease. Previous research has indicated that this disease may cost the US dairy industry as much as $250 million annually. Reports concerning the possible role of the causative agent, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP), in Crohn's disease of humans and the finding of this organism in pasteurized milk have added new dimensions to the concern. Perhaps, the most tangible evidence of this concern is the availability of several million dollars in Federal funding over the past 3 to 5 years for research in Johne's disease and for efforts to control it.

In mid 2002, uniform standards for the Voluntary Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program (VBJDCP) were published by the USDA in cooperation with the National Johne's Disease Working Group and the United States Animal Health Association. This document outlines minimum standards for control of Johne's disease. The three basic elements are: 1) education, to inform producers about the disease and strategies to control it; 2) management, to provide producers with management and control strategies specific to their farm; and 3) guidelines for herd testing and classification programs to help separate infected herds from test-negative herds.

Ohio has been at the forefront of efforts to educate producers and assist them in the control of this disease. State and federally employed veterinarians and private practitioners have been valuable resources in this effort. The publishing of the VBJDCP program standards and the availability of Federal monies for support to the states have led to some changes. The first of these is the appointment of a Designated Johne's Disease Coordinator. Dr. Ned Cunningham of the Ohio Department of Agriculture's (ODA) Division of Animal Industry and Dr. Roger Krogwold of the UDSA APHIS serve as co-coordinators in Ohio. They provide oversight of all aspects of the program in Ohio. This includes providing additional training for private practitioners who are then called "Johne's Certified Veterinarians". Last year, in addition to seven educational producer meetings, four meetings were held to provide this training and certification to private practitioners. As well as providing new information on Johne's disease diagnosis and control, veterinarians were trained to conduct on-farm risk assessments and to develop specific farm management plans for Johne's disease.

Conducting a risk assessment involves a one-on-one meeting between the producer and the certified veterinarian and examination of several key areas where the disease may be introduced to the farm or where transmission of the infection may be more likely. These include such items as: a) examination of the calving area with attention to manure build up in the environment or on the cows and the time calves spend in the calving area; b) feeding and sanitation practices used in the management of pre-weaned calves; and c) management of calves post weaning with respect to opportunities for spread of the disease by contamination with infected manure. Each of six key areas is given a numerical score, and the weighted scores are totaled. This gives the producer an idea of "risk" on his/her farm and helps identify the areas that need the most attention for improvement. In practice, going through the risk assessment process is an educational activity and helps producers put the elements of Johne's disease control in perspective. Many people come to realize that the management strategies used to control transmission of Johne's disease are also very helpful in controlling other calfhood disease problems. When the risk assessment process is completed, a prioritized management plan is developed, and it is to be reviewed annually. Herd testing is not required for producers to participate in the risk assessment/management plan process. Currently, Federal monies of $350/farm are available to support the initial risk assessment/management plan. Support for subsequent risk assessments will likely be available, but the exact amount has not yet been determined.

Herd owners who do not know their herd's infection status or who believe they are infected, can elect to do some diagnostic testing. Currently, if they have completed the risk assessment process, their veterinarian can receive $4 per sample submitted (one time per cow yearly) to support the cost of sample collection. This is available as a result of the strong Federal support for Johne's disease control. Blood can be collected for ELISA screening or fecal samples can be submitted for culture. Whole herd cultures do have to be scheduled in advance and must be received early in the week in order for them to be processed.

Herd owners who believe their herd is not infected may want to enter the Ohio Johne's Disease Test Negative Status program. This program is designed and implemented for herd owners that wish to establish their herd's test negative status, and it is especially useful if they wish to market animals for breeding purposes. Negative ELISA results on all animals in the herd two years old or older will allow the herd owner to apply for Level 1 status. Herds advance through the five levels of the Test Negative Status Program by subsequent annual whole herd tests alternating between fecal culture and ELISA. Herd additions from off the farm are allowed, but all animals added must have had a negative fecal culture for Johne's disease within the previous twelve months or had a negative serum antibody test within thirty days after the animal was purchased. Click here for more information on the Test Negative Status Program.

An area of intense research has been in development of improved diagnostic tests. The Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory of the ODA has evaluated several new diagnostic tests and techniques. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology is now available to confirm the presence of MAP in suspicious colonies found on the traditional solid culture medium and selected tissue specimens. The evaluation process for a new liquid culture media system has largely been completed. This system should allow a more rapid turnaround time of about 8 weeks for culture of fecal samples. In addition, this new system will have better sensitivity than the traditional solid media. This means that it is likely that more infected animals will be found on a herd test using this new method. It is anticipated that the laboratory will convert to use of this system for fecal cultures as soon as renovations can be completed to house the necessary equipment.

Three herds in Ohio have been identified for intense study and the generation of educational material. The first round of testing in these herds was conducted in the fall of 2004, and they will be tested again in the spring of 2005. Again, Federal monies have been available to support this educational effort in Ohio and 18 other states. Data from these herds is being submitted to the USDA for eventual analysis that will help us better understand control strategies that are most helpful. As a part of this effort, samples from the farm environment are being collected and cultured for MAP. Although it comes as no real surprise, preliminary data from our herds here in Ohio indicate that it is relatively easy to find MAP on the udder of cows on an infected farm, even if the cow herself has a negative fecal culture.

Although progress in the control of Johne's disease seems to be very slow, it is being made. The tools and knowledge we already have can allow us to make substantial improvement in reducing the disease's impact on individual farms. Producers should talk with their veterinarian about conducting a risk assessment and development of a management plan to control the disease or to prevent its introduction to the herd.
Information on the Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality Program
Dr. Lingying Zhao, Extension Agricultural Engineer, The Ohio State University

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the Air Quality Compliance Agreement (the Agreement) on January 21, 2005. The Agreement was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2005. The EPA solicited public comments for 30 days on the Agreement. Producers with animal feeding operations (AFO) should decide whether or not to participate in the Agreement before May 1, 2005.

The primary goals of the Air Quality Compliance Agreement are to ensure that AFO are in compliance with the Clean Air Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and Environmental Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) provisions and promote a national consensus on methodologies for estimating emissions from AFO.

Key obligations of dairy producers to join the Agreement are to:
- Pay a civil penalty of $200 (< 700 cows or 1,000 heifers), $500 (700 to 7000 cows or 1,000 to 10,000 heifers), or $1000 (>7000 cows or 10,000 heifers),
- Pay $2,500 into a fund for a nationwide emissions monitoring program, and
- Make facilities available for monitoring.
Key protections and benefits for dairy producers joining the Agreement are:
- Receive a covenant not to be sued by EPA for past violations of the Clean Air Act and CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 hazardous substance reporting requirements arising from releases of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from animal confinement structures and agricultural livestock waste lagoons, and
- Receive a covenant not to be sued for the period of the national emissions monitoring program (3.5 to 4 years from now).
  
  For detailed information about the Agreement, click here.
2005 Ohio Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 2005 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held January 28-29 and was again sponsored by Cargill Animal Nutrition. The Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for undergraduates at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format whereby students are grouped into teams of three to four individuals, and the first place team received $800, the second place team $300, and the third place team $200 from Cargill Animal Nutrition. The farm selected for the contest this year was Layman Dairy, Inc. located in Utica, OH and owned by Dave and Brett Layman and their families. They have a herd of 275 Holstein cows that are housed in free stalls and are milked in a double-8 herringbone parlor. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Friday evening, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the operation by interviewing the owners and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. On Saturday, the teams spent four to five hours reviewing their notes and DHI records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities of the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation. The students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges were Mr. Fred Martsolf (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Steve DeBruin (Veterinarian for Layman Dairy, Inc.; Feeder Creek Veterinary Services), Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU), and Dr. K. Larry Smith (Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU). The teams that participated this year were: Team #1 (Third Place) - Kelly Epperly, Nathan Goodell, and Dan Ziegler; Team #2 - Neil Moff, Stacey Shipley, and Amy Sprunger; Team # 3 (Second Place) - Mike Allerding, Rick Ellerbrock, and Andrea Keener; and Team #4 (First Place) - Christy Lahmers, Mike Klein, Matt McVey, and Jason Nuhfer. The Awards Banquet was held at the Buckeye Hall of Fame Café, where the students and judges were joined by the Layman families.

The North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge is a national contest created to inspire students and enhance university programs nationwide. It is a dairy management contest that incorporates all phases of a specific dairy business in a fun, interactive, and educational forum and is supported financially through generous donations by industry and coordinated by a volunteer steering committee. The fourth annual national contest will be held April 8-9 and will be hosted by Penn State University. The students selected to represent Ohio State at this years national contest include: Mike Allerding, Kelly Epperly, Matt McVey, and Stacey Shipley. Dr. Maurice Eastridge will be serving as their coach.
Mideast Federal Order Hearing Held on March 7, Wooster, Ohio

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

If you are a regular to my Ohio Dairy Website (http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/), you will be familiar with a chart that I post on the opening page each day. This chart appears under the heading 'Mideast Price Watch @ a Click.' On the chart, I show the current Class III futures price for the next 12 months and the average Class III prices where the averages are calculated over a 3, 5, 7, 10 and 14 year period. What is the point of posting this chart daily? What information do I wish to convey to you - the dairy farmer?

Despite all of the sophisticated, complicated, and oftentimes intractable quantitative models which will tell you precisely how much of your upcoming milk production you should hedge or protect with a price floor using the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), only you can make that decision. The information on the website chart shows you the current opportunities relative the past average prices and puts this in the form of premiums or discounts. Premiums if the current Class III futures prices are above the past averages and discounts if below. If a chart is not to your liking with the click of your mouse button, you can also retrieve the information as a table. The table below is an example from May 19, 2005. The first 4 months provide information for 2006 (as 2005 is already history) and the remaining data show the premiums and discounts for May through December 2005. Entries in RED are discounts and show you that the current Class III futures prices are below that particular average. On this same web page, you can access a print version of this table that you can hang daily in your milk house office.

Currently, the futures market has turned from very robust to rather weak. There are still premiums available in this market but they are nothing like those available only a few months ago. Just back on March 1st premiums for May through August where all well over two dollars with most above $2.50/cwt! Hopefully, you took advantage of these premiums and priced at least some of your May through September milk with a direct hedge or an option contract. With rational expectation that milk production across the United States would come roaring back, spurred by record high prices the last half of 2003 and all of 2004, these price premiums where too good to pass-up. Or did you? Now, the reality of high milk prices curing high milk prices has taken hold in the markets and the premiums must be weighed carefully against their cost. The reality is that we will have plenty of milk and this is evident in the eroding premiums as we move further out into 2005 and then 2006.

Are there any opportunities still in the market for this year or have they all vanished? Take a close look at the pricing opportunities for November and December. Current Class III futures prices are above the long-term median price for these months. They may not remain there for long. I suspect that one more U.S. milk production report (June 16th) showing robust cow numbers and yields will all but end the good times for prices for at least the next 12 months.

Well, it is time to drag my horse back into the barn. If you like to stay up-to-date as to the opportunities (or lack thereof) for getting better than average prices for your milk, be sure to bookmark my Ohio Dairy Website (http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/) and visit daily. My current milk price outlook can be viewed on the web. I update this outlook each month. Check it out at http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ProActivePricing/priceforecast.htm.

For a complete update on current market conditions, futures, and options markets, and policy issues of importance to Ohio and Federal Order 33 producers go to my web site, Ohio Dairy Web 2004, and click on Cam's Price Outlook.

When is the Best Time to Market Cull Cows?

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University

Here are a few things that we know. The price of milk is dropping. It rains as soon as you start the first cut of hay. Feed prices keep changing. All of these events create headaches and opportunities. In this column, we concentrate on the opportunities offered from changes in commodity markets.

Springtime generally brings substantial changes in the relative price of feedstuffs. This year is no exception. There have been significant changes in the relative prices of many commodities lately. Now is a good time to re-evaluate your purchasing strategy. To help you with the process, we evaluated current commodity markets in Central Ohio using the software SESAME (available at www.sesamesoft.com). The appraisal would be slightly different for other Ohio regions, but not markedly so.

Compared to January 2005, prices of nutrients (Table 1) show:

1) An increase of 1.3¢ per Mcal of net energy lactation,
2) A drop of 4.1¢ per pound of degradable protein,
3) An increase of 4.1¢ per pound of undegradable protein,
4) A drop of 3.4¢ per pound of non-effective NDF, and
5) A drop of 0.6¢ per pound of effective NDF.

Therefore, as a general rule, it is currently wise to reduce the safety margins of dairy rations for net energy and undegradable protein. Meanwhile, the markets are willing to pay you for increasing your usage of rumen degradable protein and non-effective NDF. In practical terms, this means that there are some high fiber by-products that are currently real bargains. These are identified in Table 2.

In Tables 2 and 3, we report the results for 27 feed commodities traded or available in Central Ohio. Table 2 conveniently groups commodities into three groups: bargains, at breakeven, and overpriced. If all the ingredients in your rations are from the overpriced column, it is time to visit with your nutritionist. Details of commodity pricing is shown in Table 3. In this table, the column labeled "actual" is the price for tractor trailer loads (TTL) FOB Central Ohio. The "predicted" column is the calculated breakeven price per ton; lastly, the "lower limit" and "upper limit" are the 75% confidence range for the breakeven price.

Nutrient prices can be used to calculate a benchmark for feed costs. All these years of research have resulted in relatively precise nutrient requirements for milk production. Results of the calculations using the National Research Council (2001) requirements are presented in Table 4. The cost of feeding for a milk yield of 75 lb/day has gone up by 9¢/cow/day since January but is considerably less ($1.05/cow/day) than it was a year ago. Milk prices, although still decent from a historical perspective, are not as strong as they were a year ago, or even what they were last January. Consequently, income-over-feed costs (IOFC) has dropped $2.09/cow/day from last year, and $1.26/cow/day from January 2005. Historically, however, this benchmark averages $5.50 to 6.00/cow/day. Thus, IOFC is still strong relatively speaking and good profits should still be the norm for Ohio dairy operations.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	May 2005	January 2005	May 2004
Net energy lactation ($/Mcal)	0.095	0.082	0.095
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.113	-0.072	0.081
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.252	0.211	0.286
Non-effective NDF ($/lb)	-0.077	-0.043	-0.064
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.043	0.049	0.021

Table 2. Groupings of commodities, Central Ohio, May 2005.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts Corn grain Corn silage Cottonseed meal Distillers dried grains Feather meal Gluten feed Hominy Wheat middlings	Whole cottonseed Gluten meal Meat meal Expeller soybean meal Roasted soybeans Tallow Wheat bran	Alfalfa hay - 44% NDF, 20% CP Beet pulp Blood meal Brewers grains, wet Canola meal Citrus pulp Molasses Soybean hulls 44% Soybean meal 48% Soybean meal Fish meal

Table 3. Commodity assessment, Central Ohio, May 2005.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	121	99.21	77.35	121.06
Bakery Byproduct Meal	107	136.45	125.76	147.14
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	145	104.10	87.27	120.92
Blood Meal, ring dried	440	406.88	378.99	434.77
Brewers Grains, wet	25	21.15	17.55	24.75
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	129	106.63	93.14	120.13
Citrus Pulp, dried	146	112.42	103.32	121.52
Corn Grain, ground dry	99	147.73	137.53	157.94
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	35	45.75	38.12	53.37
Cotton Seed Meal, 41% CP	133	157.15	145.75	168.56
Cottonseed, whole w lint	153	172.46	144.31	200.62
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	99	127.86	113.92	141.80
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	235	289.90	271.15	308.65
Gluten Feed, dry	72	105.79	95.45	116.13
Gluten Meal, dry	327	333.20	312.60	353.79
Hominy	88	117.11	107.90	126.31
Meat Meal, rendered	235	217.82	199.18	236.46
Molasses, sugarcane	143	105.00	96.37	113.62
Soybean Hulls	72	36.09	12.14	60.05
Soybean Meal, expeller	257	269.61	255.03	284.19
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	213	157.25	138.85	175.64
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	222	195.46	179.26	211.66
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	237	243.43	227.12	259.74
Tallow	405	389.79	355.46	424.12
Wheat Bran	50	51.34	35.32	67.45
Wheat Middlings	33	69.16	55.14	83.18
Name		Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Corrected ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 38% NDF, 22% CP		--	99.41	121.32
Alfalfa Hay, 48% NDF, 17% CP		--	100.47	85.73
Menhaden Fish Meal, mech.		645	323.33	--

Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, Central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	May 2005	January 2004	May 2004
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	3.30	2.85	3.31
RDP	(0.60)	(0.38)	0.43
Digestible-RUP	0.57	0.48	0.77
ne-NDF	(0.36)	(0.20)	(0.30)
e-NDF	0.47	0.54	0.23
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.58	3.49	4.63
Milk gross income
Fat	4.58	5.50	6.75
Protein	6.29	6.62	7.56
Other solids	0.45	0.38	0.16
TOTAL	11.32	12.50	14.47

Income over nutrient costs	7.75	9.01	9.84

¹Costs and income for a 1400 LB cow producing 75 LB/day of milk, with 3.6% fat, 3.1% protein, and 5.9% other solids. Component prices are for Federal Order 33, April 2005.
²NE_L = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, ne-NDF = noneffective neutral detergent fiber, and e-NDF = effective neutral effective fiber.

Ammonia Emissions from Dairy Farms - The Basics

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Similar to other sectors of agricultural production, the dairy industry is undergoing constant change. There is less than 2% of the human population today involved in agricultural production, yet the growth in population is demanding an increasing supply of food. Therefore, food production enterprises have increased their number of productive units (acres or animals) and made advances in improving productive efficiency per unit.

Ohio's dairy industry has been following the national trends: decrease in number of farms, increase in number of cows per farm, and an increase milk yield per cow. The number of dairy farms has decreased by about 70% since 1970, but during this time period, the number of cows per farm has more than doubled from about 25 cows/farm to 58 cows/farm. This change in herd size in conjunction with the increase in milk yield per cow (about 2% per year), has resulted in a somewhat stable milk supply for the State, allowing the State to maintain its rank of 11th in the nation for total milk production. With this milk supply, plus milk from other states, the milk processing industry in Ohio has remained strong despite the decrease in total number of manufacturing plants (Ohio's ranks 5th for number of manufacturing plants). This processing capacity has helped the State to maintain a strong dairy industry and for the State to maintain its rank of being 1st in Swiss cheese production.

The dairy industry in Ohio is a major contributor to Ohio's economy. The value alone of the milk produced in 2003 was $588 billion, and for each dollar generated on a dairy farm, in excess of $2 is generated elsewhere in the economy. For every employee on a dairy farm, about 2.25 jobs are generated elsewhere in the State for processing dairy products and providing goods and services to the dairy industry. The economic development impacts of the dairy industry are significant.

There have been increased environmental and social concerns with the increasing size of dairy operations. This has occurred with the increased number of nonfarm people moving to live in rural residences and with more animals per unit of land base in given areas. Actually for Ohio, the number of agricultural acres per animal unit (based somewhat on animal size) has increased from about 5.7 to 7.6 acres (data exclude horses and poultry). The increase in number of animals within a given community and the extensive use of liquid manure systems have contributed to these concerns. Even though some large dairy farms are on a relatively small amount of acreage, the farmers contract with local crop farmers for feed production and for land application of manure to provide nutrients for the cropping system. Nutrient balance and manure storage and handling systems will continue to be major points of focus for dairy farms. Environmental stewardship and social responsibility are of focus by today's dairy farmers. However, new regulations for reducing the risks for water and air contamination are going to have cost implications to the dairy farmer without notable increases in the price they receive for their food product.

Within Ohio, the regional distribution of the dairy industry has begun to shift. Traditionally, the northeast and west central areas have been the most concentrated areas for dairy farms. In northeast Ohio, the number of herds is decreasing midst an increase in tourism and the increase in lot size for residences within a densely populated area of the State. The northwest area of Ohio in increasing in number of herds and they are of large size. This has been an attractive area because of the land base for feed production and the lower population density. With the new herds moving into Ohio and expansion of herds already in Ohio, the number of cows in the State increased between 2003 and 2004. There have been dramatic decreases in number of farms with less than 29 cows and 50 to 99 cows, but the number of farms with 29 to 50 cows has remained somewhat stable because of small increases in herd size by farms that sale manufacturing grade milk and with the possibly of only one family member needing to work off of the farm. The number of farms with 100 to 199 cows has also remained somewhat stable, but farms with 200 cows or more have been increasing in number; at the end of 2004, Ohio had 35 herds with 500 or more cows.

Ohio has the feed resources and dairy industry infrastructure to sustain a vibrant industry. The increase in number of large farms and increase in herd size of most farms will result in stable to upswings in number of cows and total amount of milk produced in the State. Although there has been consolidation in the processing industry and loss of some small processors, Ohio will continue to have more capacity to process milk than supplied from within the State. Increasing input costs, including changes in feed costs based on weather and other market forces, and volatility of milk prices require that dairy producers operate their enterprise in an economic manner. In addition, responsibilities for sustaining the environment and being attentive to social issues will have cost implications. Yet, the pride in providing a high-quality food source midst a desirable way-of life and the desire to work with animals will continue to be motivating forces for Ohioans to remain in the business of producing food.

Year	Total Milk (million lb)	Milk/cow (lb/yr)	Cows (x 1000)	Herds	% Milk from Herds with > 200 cows	Manufacturing Dairy Plants
1970	4,420	9,705	454	--	--	167
1975	4,259	10,635	400	14,800	--	124
1980	4,310	11,493	375	12,600	--	107
1985	4,870	12,552	388	11,000	--	84
1990	4,667	13,143	342	9,000	--	80
1995	4,600	15,917	289	6,800	12.0	74
2000	4,461	17,027	262	5,500	19.5	56
2001	4,295	16,519	260	5,200	23.0	56
2002	4,475	17,080	262	5,000	27.0	54
2003	4,490	17,269	260	4,700	32.0	51
2004	4,560	17,338	263	4,500	34.0	46

Prevention and Treatment of Hairy Heel Warts

Gene McCluer, Extension Educator, Hardin County, The Ohio State University

Generally speaking, sanitation around the barn remains the backbone of fly control. Removal of potential breeding sites will slow the build-up of fly populations. Pyrethrins can be used in misters or foggers for quick knockdown of active fly problems, but they don't offer residual control. These include, but are not limited to, Pyrethrins+Piperonyl butoxide, Ectiban, and Vapona. These products can often be purchased in concentrates or in aerosol cans for use in milk rooms (or the pickup truck). Always read the label before using in livestock facilities.

Residual fly sprays can be used on walls, ceilings, posts, and other fly resting places. This type of product can have from 1 to 7 weeks of control. It may be necessary to remove the cows for 4 hours or until the spray dries. Usually, the manufacturer cautions that you not contaminate feed or water. See specific labels for application recommendations. Products for this use include, but are not limited to: Countdown 2 or Countdown 25% WP, Grenade 10% WP, Atroban 11%, Ecitban 5.7%, Permectrin II 10%, Spinosyn, and Elector. The same materials may be used on fly resting sites outdoors.

For pastured cattle and control of stable flies, face flies, and horn flies, ear tags, dust bags and back or face rubbers may have a place. Make sure the products are labeled for lactating cows, dry cows, or whatever type of animals that are being treated. Baits also can have a place in the fly control program. For more details, see University of Kentucky fact sheet ENT-42 at: http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/PAT/recs/livestk/recbeef/beeffly.htm.

Other resources that are helpful include several lists of insecticide products at Kansas State University. The products are listed according to insecticides and common chemical names at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/entomology/extension/InsectInfo/ciiiiccn.pdf. They are also listed in alphabetical order at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/entomology/extension/InsectInfo/ciitrade.pdf, and by method of application at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/entomology/extension/InsectInfo/ciiiform.pdf.
Update on Ohio's Program for Controlling Johne's Disease
Dee Jepsen, Ag Safety and Health Specialist, The Ohio State University

The State Safety Office has received questions about farmers being solicited by a poster service, and the mandatory poster requirements for farm operations.

We have reviewed the federal and state regulations and found this IS a labor regulation, and that farmers NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. An informational flyer has been put together to help answer these questions and was sent to county Extension offices (click here for a copy of the flyer).

Here's a summary of the regulations:
- The poster requirements apply to ALL EMPLOYERS in the state of Ohio. So this is not an agricultural regulation, but one that affects businesses that hire employees. More specifically, it is regulated under the Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Labor and Worker Safety.
- There are no exemptions for agricultural operations, and the requirements apply if at any time during the year an employee is hired (even for one hour).
- Three posters are mandatory:
  State of Ohio Minimum Wage (614-644-2239)
  Unemployment Compensation Coverage (877-644-6562)
  Ohio Fair Employment Practices Law (614-466-2785)
- If the farm hires minors, then the Ohio Minor Labor Law poster is also required. If the farm hires large labor forces (more than 500 man hours in a year) or migrant workers, and/or contracts with the federal government, there are several other poster requirements.
A useful website for farmers to know about is: http://www.dol.gov/elaws/posters.htm. This service walks farm employers through a series of questions to determine their exact poster requirement for federal compliance.

The solicitation many Ohio farmers received was from a service, of which a fee was imposed on the farmers to help get them into compliance for the type of poster they needed. While these service providers are legitimate and will certainly provide the posters meeting the regulations, they may not be tailored to the farm operation. In other words, the farmer will still have to decide which posters to have displayed.

We have also found these posters are FREE from the respective regulatory agency (see telephone numbers listed above). It will require a call to order the 3 required posters, but this is cheaper than the $60 charge from the poster service company.

Information on the Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality Program

Barry Ward, Extension Leader, Production Business Management, The Ohio State University

Whether you're a custom farmer or someone in the market for custom farm work, rising fuel prices may have something to say about the price charged for your next custom farming job. Custom farming rates have changed very little in the last several years as tradition seems to govern many long-term custom rate arrangements. Well, we've charged Johnny Farmer $21/acre to harvest his corn for the last 3 years, so that's what it'll be this year. Times may be changing. Diesel fuel price increases during the last several months have caused many to rethink their custom farming rates.

Diesel fuel prices have increased significantly over the last 24 months at the farm gate. Survey work has shown that diesel prices in the spring of 2003 averaged around $1.10/gallon, while today's diesel prices for farm usage are about $1.85/gallon.

If we look only at fuel price increases as they relate to in-field operation of the farm equipment, we see a significant increase in the cost of many farm operations. This assumes we ignore the effects of fuel price increases to the manufacturing and cost of the implements, cost of oil and lube, and cost of driving or transporting the equipment to the field. The following list highlights the fuel requirements of farm equipment operations and increase in fuel cost from April 2003 to April 2005.

Implement	Gallon/Acre Diesel¹	Fuel Cost/Acre 2003²	Fuel Cost/Acre 2005³	Increase 2003 to 2005
Combine Corn - 6 row	1.93	$2.12	$3.57	$1.45
Combine Soybeans - 25 ft hd	2.02	$2.22	$3.74	$1.52
Chisel Plow - 23 ft	0.64	$0.70	$1.18	$0.48
Disk/V-Ripper - 17.5 ft	1.69	$1.86	$3.13	$1.27
Planting Corn - 12 row	0.34	$0.37	$0.63	$0.26
Round Bale - 1000 lb	0.77	$0.85	$1.42	$0.57

¹Gallons per acre diesel fuel values are estimates borrowed from the "Farm Machinery Cost Estimates for 2005" publication. See the full publication and estimates for diesel fuel use per acre for other implements at: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/businessmanagement/DF6696.pdf
²Diesel Fuel Price used for 2003 is assumed to be $1.10/gallon.
³Diesel Fuel Price used for 2005 is assumed to be $1.85/gallon.

So what now? You may decide that changing custom rates will change other relationships with your customer that you may not want to forfeit. So you swallow the price increase and continue to spread your fixed costs over more acres. Or, you may decide that it's time to rachet your custom rates up a little to avoid a lower return to your time and management.

If you are having second thoughts about raising those rates, you might want to consider adding a "fuel surcharge" to your existing custom rate to offset the rise in fuel prices. This method may make it more palatable for your customer. Fuel surcharges have been used in the trucking industry and may be an option for custom farm operators. A base custom rate and a base fuel price are parts of this equation. As fuel prices increase from the base price, clients pay the difference between the base fuel price and the spot fuel price. This is a simple example that doesn't take into account higher machinery, fuel, lube, or transport costs.

Whatever you decide, understand that these cost increases are real and will impact the custom farming business, whichever side of the transaction you are on.

¹Reprinted from: Ohio Ag Manager Newsletter, May 2005 issue; http://ohioagmanager.osu.edu.

A Look at the Pricing Opportunity on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME)

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

In the last issue of my article for the Buckeye Dairy News, I discussed my "Premiums and Discounts" chart which can be viewed on my Ohio Dairy Website (http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/) under the heading 'Mideast Price Watch @ a Click.' In this article, I will introduce another chart posted on the website and accessible under the heading "A Look at the Pricing Opportunity on the CME". On this chart, I show the current Class III futures price for the next 12 months, along with Median Class III prices and the upper and lower 25 percentile price lines. What is the point of posting this chart daily? What information do I wish to convey to you - the dairy farmer or milk processor?

The information on the Website chart shows you the relative position of the CME futures prices and the Median Class III price by month, calculated from the time period 1996 through the latest information in 2005. Why use the Median Class III price rather than the average Class III price for comparison? The reason is that the average price gives you a distorted impression from historical data. Because dairy prices are limited on the downside and not limited on the high side, reported prices are bunched-up on the lower side and spread-out on the upper side. The average price will suggest that the high side prices occur too often over time. The average price will suggest a 'typical' price that is too high. Without getting into the statistics of this, the median price shows you the Class III price for each month at which 50% of the Class III prices were either above or below this median price. For example, in the chart reproduced in this article, you can see that the median price for the month of July is $13.59/cwt. This tells you that over the 1996 to 2004 period, 50% of the Class III prices were announced below $13.59/cwt and 50% were above this price. Also shown on the chart are the current Class III futures prices. For our example, you can see that the July CME Class III futures price is trading in the neighborhood of $14.88/cwt. How 'good' a price is this futures price? Viewing the chart, we can see that it is substantially above the median price and therefore looks like a 'good' price. But, how good is the next question to address.

On this chart, you can see two additional price lines shown as an upper line and a lower line. These lines show you the boundary for 75 and 25% of the announced Class III prices. Again, working with the July month you can see that the upper or 75% price line is $14.77/cwt and the lower or 25% price line is $10.86/cwt. This is quite a spread for July prices. That is the first piece of information. This 'spread' between the upper and lower price lines gives you a visual clue as to the possible variation you can expect for any selected month. Between the upper and lower price lines, 50% of all reported July Class III prices have occurred during the 1996 to 2004 time frame. Now to answer the question, the current CME futures price of $14.88/cwt appears to be a very good price for the July month. Only 1 out of four years has the July month price been above the $14.77/cwt level. Does this mean that when announced, the July 2005 Class III price will be at $14.77/cwt or better? No, but using the past as a guide, there is only a 1 in 4 chance that will happen.

Taking an overview of the entire chart, you can see that the CME futures prices for the next 12 months (July 2005 through June 2006) are looking very good. This tells us two things. First, those buying and selling Class III futures contracts, factoring in their own forecasts for milk supply and consumer demand, are anticipating a good year price-wise. With only a couple of exceptions, the CME Class III futures price is above the historical median price and near or above the upper 75% line. Using the CME futures prices as a guide, this puts the average CME price over the next 12 months at $13.58/cwt and this is $1.16/cwt higher than the average of the median prices. In Federal Order 33, the mailbox price adds another $1.25/cwt to the Class III price.

Second, the futures market prices suggest that over the next 12 months that the market will give up about a $1.00/cwt on the Class III milk price. This is consistent with the month-to-month Class III price changes over the last 6 months. Coming off of the high price in May 2004, the Class III price has drifted down to the $14.00/cwt level, and the market is telling you that it expects this to continue down to the $12.80 - $13.00/cwt level before leveling out by June 2006.

If you like to stay up-to-date as to the opportunities for getting better than average prices for your milk, be sure to bookmark my Ohio Dairy Website (http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/) and visit daily. My current milk price outlook can be viewed on the web. I update this outlook each month. Check it out at http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ProActivePricing/priceforecast.htm.

For a complete update on current market conditions, futures, and options markets, and policy issues of importance to Ohio and Federal Order 33 producers go to my web site, Ohio Dairy Web 2004, and click on Cam's Price Outlook.

Cost of Nutrients in Feedstuffs

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University

It is this time of the year where rumors of a possible drought in the Midwest can send corn and soybean prices through the roof. So, Mother Nature sends the requested rain and rumors emerge about a bumper crop. Prices collapse. One can quickly loose his/her sanity over these price gyrations. Fortunately, you are feeding dairy cows. They don't NEED corn or soybeans to produce milk. They need NUTRIENTS, such as energy (measured as Net Energy for Lactation - NE_L), rumen degradable protein (RDP), digestible rumen undegradable protein (d-RUP), effective neutral detergent fiber (e-NDF), and non-effective NDF (ne-NDF). Although corn and soybean meal can be important suppliers of nutrients, other combinations of feedstuffs can achieve the same results. Corn and soybean meal are also important market drivers of feed commodities, but other commodities, especially high fiber by-products, have markets and seasonal patterns of their own. Thus, if soybean meal goes up by 10%, you should NOT think that the price of protein has gone up by 10%. If you are feeding a lot of soybean meal and its price goes up by 10%, then it is time to look at your nutrition program and consider other combinations of feed ingredients. You should also consider known seasonal trends. We know that people drink more beer in summer time. Thus, more beer is brewed. Therefore, the supply of brewers grains increases. The good old law of supply and demand works, and the price of brewers grains falls. Likewise, winter wheat is harvested in early summer. And guess what, some people are milling this wheat! Thus, the supply of wheat middlings (often shortened to wheat midds) increases, while the demand by the feed industry to manufacture pelleted feeds drops. The same law of supply and demand works again; the price of wheat midds falls. I received a call last week from an old feed broker friend. He had about 200 tons of wheat midds that could be picked up for $10/ton FOB Buffalo, NY. If I tell you that wheat midds has about the energy and fiber content (although non-effective) of corn silage, but contains 18 to 20% crude protein (mostly degradable), would you think that $10/ton for wheat midds could fit nicely in many feeding programs?

Sesame^TM(available at www.sesamesoft.com) is a software developed at Ohio State to extract the cost of nutrients from all commodities traded in a given market and to estimate break-even prices of these commodities. In each issue of the Buckeye Dairy News, we use Sesame to help dairy producers and their advisors in their selection of nutrient sources (feeds) for their herds. As usual, we calculated the prices of nutrients for central Ohio in early July. Results are presented in Table 1. Not much has changed between May and July of this year. Notice, however, that many nutrients are priced substantially lower than at the same time last year. Commodities are grouped into three broad categories in Table 2. Tactically, you should try to maximize the use of commodities in the "bargains" column, while minimizing the use of those in the "overpriced" one. This is not to say that excellent nutrition programs can be developed without any of the ingredients in the "overpriced" column, but from an economic basis, their use should be reduced to a strict minimum. A more detailed analysis of break-even prices is presented in Table 3.

Using these nutrient prices and milk component prices for Federal Order 33 released by the Market Administrator on July 1, we calculated our standard benchmarks of nutrient feeding costs and income over nutrient costs (Table 4). The cost of putting the required nutrients through a cow to produce our standard 75 lb/day of milk at 3.6% fat and 3.0% protein has not changed from May 2005, essentially at $3.60/cow/day. The declining milk prices, however, resulted in a $0.58/cow/day reduction in income over nutrient costs. At $7.17/cow/day, however, income over nutrient costs is still substantially higher than the historical average of about $6.00/cow/day. Above-average profits should still be the norm for Ohio dairy producers.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	July 2005	May 2005	July 2004
Net energy lactation ($/Mcal)	0.094	0.095	0.087
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.090	-0.113	0.023
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.269	0.252	0.342
Non-effective NDF ($/lb)	-0.085	-0.077	0.058
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.040	0.043	0.054

Table 2. Groupings of commodities, Central Ohio, July 2005.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts Corn grain Corn silage Cottonseed meal Distillers dried grains Feather meal Gluten feed Hominy Wheat middlings Wheat bran	Whole cottonseed Gluten meal Expeller soybean meal Roasted soybeans Tallow Blood meal Brewers grains, wet	Alfalfa hay - 44% NDF, 20% CP Beet pulp Canola meal Citrus pulp Molasses Soybean hulls 44% Soybean meal 48% Soybean meal Fish meal Meat meal

Table 3. Commodity assessment, Central Ohio, May 2005.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	125	102.19	77.66	126.72
Bakery Byproduct Meal	107	137.23	125.23	149.22
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	145	100.50	81.62	119.38
Blood Meal, ring dried	455	431.74	400.44	463.04
Brewers Grains, wet	21	21.79	17.75	25.83
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	169	114.40	99.26	129.55
Citrus Pulp, dried	155	110.66	100.45	120.88
Corn Grain, ground dry	95	147.90	136.45	159.36
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	35	44.89	36.34	52.45
Cotton Seed Meal, 41% CP	133	167.76	154.97	180.56
Cottonseed, whole w lint	156	176.11	144.51	207.71
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	100	130.50	114.85	146.15
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	262	313.69	292.64	334.73
Gluten Feed, dry	62	108.86	97.26	120.46
Gluten Meal, dry	357	349.55	326.44	372.67
Hominy	90	117.03	106.70	127.36
Meat Meal, rendered	265	235.55	214.63	256.46
Molasses, sugarcane	145	105.57	95.89	115.26
Soybean Hulls	77	30.98	4.10	57.86
Soybean Meal, expeller	264	279.77	263.41	296.13
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	221	171.50	150.85	192.14
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	229	211.23	193.05	229.41
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	245	254.65	236.35	272.96
Tallow	400	385.46	346.93	423.98
Wheat Bran	30	50.54	32.51	68.57
Wheat Middlings	30	69.56	53.85	85.32
Name		Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Corrected ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 38% NDF, 22% CP		--	103.45	125.36
Alfalfa Hay, 48% NDF, 17% CP		--	102.19	87.45
Menhaden Fish Meal, mech.		660	341.46	--

Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, Central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	July 2005	May 2005
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	3.26	3.30
RDP	(0.48)	(0.60)
Digestible-RUP	0.61	0.57
ne-NDF	(0.40)	(0.36)
e-NDF	0.43	0.47
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.62	3.58
Milk gross income
Fat	4.30	4.58
Protein	5.98	6.29
Other solids	0.50	0.45
TOTAL	10.79	11.32

Income over nutrient costs	7.17	7.75

¹Costs and income for a 1400 lb cow producing 75 lb/day of milk, with 3.6% fat, 3.1% protein, and 5.9% other solids. Component prices are for Federal Order 33, April 2005.
²NE_L = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, ne-NDF = noneffective neutral detergent fiber, and e-NDF = effective neutral effective fiber.

Observations from Tour of Matlink Dairy in New York

Mr. Tom Noyes, OSU Extension Educator, Wayne County, The Ohio State University

A bus-load of dairy producers, OSU research and Extension faculty, students, and agri-business people took a one day tour to Matlink Dairy. Located in Clymer, NY (the very southwest corner of New York) just outside the village of Clymer, the 600+ cow dairy farm needed to make improvements in the dairy manure management and handling area. The manure generated at Matlink Dairy was stored in a lagoon and spray-irrigated on the ground in March, April, and November. With the farm just upwind from the village, it quite often caused an odor problem. There was also a possibility that leaching of manure into the ground water was causing an increase in the nitrate-nitrogen concentration.

With support from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYTSERDA), Ted Mathews, owner of Matlink Dairy, began construction of an anaerobic digester in 2000 and completed it in 2001. In addition to the manure from the cows, other feedstock to the digester included food wastes. Currently, liquid wastes from cheese plants and fruit juices are mixed with the manure. This increases the biogas production with higher methane content.

Heat and Electricity Generation

Biogas flow from the digester is used by the engine generator at a rate of approximately 76,400 ft³/day or about 113 ft³/cow/day. This biogas consists of methane (about 65%), carbon dioxide (about 35%), a small amount of sulfide compounds, and other trace gases. The biogas is collected and fed into a Waukesha engine attached to a Marathon generator (130 KW) that uses 22-25 ft³/KWH. The engine will operate 90-95% of the available hours per year.

This engine-generator set produces about 884,000 KWH/year, which meets the electricity needs for the dairy farm and provides some excess electrical power for sale to the local utility, Niagara Mohawk. The heat generated also provides hot water to heat the digester and other on-farm needs which saves the farm over $500 per month.

Profit Centers

Accepting food wastes is profitable. The tipping fees make the manure treatment system a profit center for the farm. The food wastes are high in energy, having three times the gas production per unit of mass than manure; yet, the nutrient content is comparable to manure so imported nutrients are kept low. The increased gas production leads to increased electric generation. After digestion, the treated slurry is pumped to a screw press slurry separator. The separated solids are composted. Up to 65% of the composted solids are used on the farm, and the remaining solids sold at $5/yard can generate revenue of $500/month. The anaerobic digester - electric generating system is a win-win situation for Matlink Dairy.
Dairy Quality Assurance: Past, Present, and "Oh!", What A Future!
Mr. Tim Demland, OSU Extension Associate and Executive Director Ohio Dairy Producers

Quality assurance has been around for many generations. At least at one level or another, producers and handlers have always taken precautions to ensure that a desired standard of quality has been met. In order to help assure dairy's reputation as one of nature's most perfect foods, the dairy industry has wisely placed a priority on providing a high quality, safe, and nutritious product through both market incentives and industry regulation.

Competition for a place in consumers diets from other protein sources demands that the dairy industry continues to work toward these ends. In today's marketplace, retailers were some of the first to recognize the trend of escalating consumer expectations and have adjusted their marketing practices to keep pace. Therefore, in keeping with the dairy industry's tradition of providing a top notch product, it will be prudent for dairy stakeholders to anticipate consumer demands, and then fine tune production philosophies to better meet these new market opportunities.

It does not take much time for one to come to the realization that the customers of tomorrow will continue to require more. Not only will there be a call for high quality and safe products, there also will be greater expectations that foodstuffs be produced in a manner that is both environmentally friendly and humanely sound. There also will, most likely, be a requirement for a practical means to verify that these production conditions are met.

At first, these prerequisites might appear to be unrealistic, but when one considers all the events that have been taking place throughout the world, it actually becomes quite logical. Increasing consumer expectations in reality are about the only way that an informed society can practically respond to the "News" of our day, such as the latest health "study", continual threats of terrorism, and the increased activities and notoriety of anti-livestock groups.

An Example Has Already Been Set!

Fortunately, several livestock industries have already begun to address these issues, and it may be helpful for dairy stakeholders to explore their initiatives to get a better understanding of what quality assurance programs are all about. In response to marketplace demands, both the poultry and pork industries have implemented programs to help producers meet consumer's expectations. One of the most successful means has proven to be the implementation of the on-farm quality assurance programs. These programs help producers identify improvements that can be made in daily activities that not only boost customer confidence but also assist producers in becoming as efficient as possible. Through the programs, producers are instructed in the proper use of practices that have been proven to be the most effective.

Upon completion of on-farm third party audits and verifying the regular use of Best Management Practices (BMP), producers are eligible to receive certification in their respective quality assurance (QA) program. In many cases, processors have accepted the programs so completely that they require certification in order to gain access to the market. These QA programs have become widespread as an industry standard because of this marketplace support.

The situation is somewhat different in the dairy industry because the industry has developed a standard of quality performance supported by product testing and regulation to provide access to its markets. This system of inspection and testing has proven reliable in meeting past standards of quality and safety, but today's marketplace expectations are changing! Besides looking just for a wholesome, high quality product, consumers have begun to ask questions, such as: "How was this produced?" "How were the animals treated?" and "Did the production process harm the environment?"

Many industry experts have spent abundant hours attempting to affirmatively answer these questions, some of which are unmistakably fundamental to a dairy producer's daily routines. Yet, certain doubts continue to arise regardless of the industry's best efforts to appease consumers concerns. Therefore, the question remains, "How does the dairy industry meet the increased needs and demands of the consuming public as well as providing producers the best possible opportunity to remain sustainable?"

Fortunately again, the dairy industry does not have to reinvent the QA process. A wonderful foundation has already been laid by other livestock industries. All that is needed is a little industry specific expertise to develop and implement a dairy quality assurance (DQA) program and the industry's own set of BMP. Of better news yet is the fact that the dairy industry has already been active in this area and that there are several options that can be utilized.

California, through the use of government funds, has implemented the California Dairy Quality Assurance Program and adopted a "voluntary program that provides education, resources, and funding for the certification of dairy producers in the following areas":

1. Environmental stewardship,
2. Johne's Disease,
3. Food safety and emergency preparedness, and
4. Animal welfare.

Producers who have completed the program consider it a worthwhile investment. One participant provided his impression: "We wanted to do the right thing and getting certified through the third party evaluation was a way of earning recognition for the work we'd done. We also were able to identify a few other minor alterations that needed to be worked on. The solutions were surprisingly practical and straightforward. We saved money by knowing what really needed to be fixed and what was fine. Now we're really confident that our dairy is in compliance. The investment has paid for itself in peace of mind." (taken from the California DQA program brochure)

There is also a good example on the east coast of DQA programs. The New York State Cattle Health Assurance Program (NYSCHAP) "is an integrated disease prevention program which utilizes a team of advisors in developing a farm specific herd health plan". The NYSCHAP offers a series of educational modules that assist NY dairy producers to:

1. Define farm goals and areas of concern,
2. Assess health risks to the herd,
3. Develop a herd plan,
4. Review the herd plan with dairy personnel to ensure its proper implementation, and
5. Review the plan quarterly with the herd veterinarian and annually with the entire herd health team.

Much of the information that NYSCHAP offers is available through a detailed on-line program, but the success of the program relies on the active participation from the producer, herd veterinarian, nutritionists, key employees, and any other advisor the manager deems to be a vital link in the success of his operation (http://nyschap.vet.cornell.edu).

Ohio Dairy Producers and Dairy Quality Assurance

In response to current market trends and taking the example of other livestock industries into consideration, the leadership of the Ohio Dairy Producers has begun to investigate and to establish an Ohio DQA certification program. The merits of a proactive and producer driven program far outweigh any drawbacks that can be foreseen because meeting the needs of a viable and growing market has to be the top priority of any industry in order for it to remain healthy and sustainable. Dairy producers, like most other product suppliers, need to move past the idea of correcting problems as they occur. They need to move towards and accept the concept of identifying critical control points along the production process and then implement the BMP available. The goal is to stop problems/inefficiencies before they occur. When this is done, then records can be used to critique and adapt these BMP to increase efficiencies even more.

In other words, if dairy producers in Ohio are to continue to compete with producers in other states and around the world, they will need to identify and implement systems that enable them to improve productive performance and assist them in maintaining compliance with an ever increasing level of governmental regulation and environmental responsibility.

The Five-Star Dairy Quality Assurance Certification Program

Before a program can be adopted, certain perimeters must be established. First, the program must be practical and effective in identifying the industry's generally accepted BMP. Secondly, the program must have a reliable means of evaluation and a high level of credibility. Thirdly, the program must guarantee confidentiality! Fourth, it must be able to adapt new technologies and regulations as well as be able to give sound evidence as to the viability of its standards. Fifth, it must be broad in scope, encompassing great diversity, yet firmly promoting fundamental practices. Finally, a successful DQA program will need to be widely accepted by the entire industry.

In considering all these factors, the Ohio Dairy Producers has identified the FIVE-STAR Dairy Quality Assurance Program as just such a program. Its authors and administrators are the same as those that have developed the Milk and Dairy Beef Quality Assurance Program - a program that dairy producers across the entire Nation have come to know because of its use as an educational enforcement tool to address milk adulteration and antibiotic violations.

The FIVE-STAR Dairy Quality Assurance Program is a national voluntary quality assurance program for the dairy industry. Its developers state� "It's not enough to just do business as usual and assume everything is OK! Each dairy needs to prove its case, to be able to 'show the evidence'." Consumers want proof that the owner, the management team, and/or the employees:
- Provide approved animal care,
- Manage nutrients to protect the soil, water, and animals,
- Utilize family and hired labor correctly,
- Provide safe and high quality milk,
- Implement pathogen management to protect the public, and
- Market safe and wholesome beef.
"The FIVE-STAR Dairy Quality Assurance Program goes beyond the law! It is not a 'meet the minimum' program."

FIVE-STAR also comes with a host of industry endorsements. Organizations such as the Food Marketing Institute, National Council of Chain Restaurants, Holstein Association, National Mastitis Council, Milking Machine Manufactures Council, Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association, and American Association of Bovine Practitioners are just some of those who have given their support to its use.

One of the great advantages to the Program is that the individual producer is allowed to determine the extent to which he/she would like to become involved. The first step in earning recognition in the Program is to complete a Producer Self-Audit using DQA Consultation Guides or other appropriate materials. When this has been completed, producers then can request a "Walk-Through" verification. This is the second step of the program and is done by a DQA Certified Professional Consultant. Upon the completion of a successful "Walk-Through", the farm will be awarded either THREE STARS for above average dairy farms or FOUR-STARS for dairy farms that are committed to meeting the DQA standards. However, only the best dairy farms earn the FIVE-STAR Rating. A producer can also request additional "Walk-Through" in order to obtain a higher rating.

"When completed, each individual certification will serve as positive proof that the dairy industry is committed to providing consumers with products that are consistently safe, high quality, and produced in a responsible manner that is cost effective for producers."

"Quality is not a destination-it is a continuous journey."
(http://www.dqacenter.org/fivestar.htm)
Health Benefits, Risks, and Regulations of Raw and Pasteurized Milks

Dr. Valente B. Alvarez and Francisco Parada-Rabell, Department of Food Science and Technology, The Ohio State University

Milk from healthy cows contains relatively few bacteria (10²-10³ /mL), and the health risk from drinking raw milk would be minimal. However, milk is a natural food that has no protection from external contamination and can be contaminated easily when it is separated from the cow (Rosenthal, 1991). Raw milk normally has a varied microflora arising from several sources, such as the exterior surfaces of the animal and the surfaces of milk handling equipment such as milking machines, pipeline, and containers (Burton, 1986). Therefore, milk is susceptible to contamination by many pathogenic microorganisms, which result in infection and threat to consumer's health. Additionally, there is the potential that disease of cows such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, typhoid, and listeriosis can be transmitted (Spreer, 1998). The average standard plate counts (SPC) for can and bulk milk are ~700,000 bacteria/mL and ~100,000 bacteria/mL respectively, depending on temperature and handling conditions. The microbial standards for grade "A" raw milk are 100,000 bacteria/mL; for individual producer milk, 300,000 bacteria/mL; and as commingled milk, 750,000 cells/mL as somatic cell count (SCC) (PMO, 2001). These standards are the maximum allowed and most dairy producers provide milk with concentrations considerably below the maximum allowable limits. Another indicator of milk quality is the preliminary incubation count (PI) with a maximum allowable count of 100,000 bacteria/mL on load, storage tank, or individual producer samples, although results of 25,000 bacteria/mL or less are desirable (DPC, 1997). Milk can be classified as a potentially hazardous food if it is not properly processed, handled, or stored.

Raw milk has been, and continues to be, a staple in the epidemiological literature; it has been linked to campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, tuberculosis, brucellosis, hemorrhagic colitis, Brainerd diarrhea, Q fever, listeriosis, yersiniosis, and toxoplasmosis to name a few (Plotter, 2002). Outbreaks associated with the consumption of raw milk routinely occur every year. In 1995, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration published guidelines that established a list of pathogen organisms transmitted through raw milk and milk products, such as Salmonella spp., Staphyloccocus aureus, Campylobacter jejuni, Yersina enterocolitica, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli (both enterotoxic and enteropathic), E. coli 0157:H7, Shigella spp., Streptococcus spp., and Hepatitis A virus. Among the 50 states and Puerto Rico, 24 states, including Ohio, do not permit the sale of raw milk directly to the consumer. Twenty-seven states permit the sale of raw milk for human consumption either at the farm where produced, in retail outlets, or through cow-share agreements. Twenty-nine states have recorded foodborne outbreaks traceable to raw milk consumption (NASDA, 2004).

Pasteurization is a thermal process widely used in the food and dairy industry with the objective of minimizing health hazards from pathogenic microorganisms and to prolong product shelf life. There are several temperature-time combinations to pasteurize milk that range from 63^oC (145^oF)/30 minutes or 72^oC (161^oF)/15 seconds to 100^oC (212^oF)/0.01 seconds. The bacteria standards for Grade "A" pasteurized milk are 20,000 bacteria/mL and <10 coliform/mL (PMO, 2001). Heat may denature milk proteins. This effect is not considered a disadvantage from the nutritional point of view because it only involves changes in the specific arrangement of the casein protein. There is no breakdown of peptide linkages; therefore, casein can be considered a thermal-resistant compound. Although -lactoalbumin is relatively heat stable, other whey proteins can be denatured as a result of heating. These denatured proteins are more digestible than their naturally occurring form because the protein's structure is loosened and enzymes can act easier (Renner, 1986). Pasteurization does not impair the nutritional quality of milk fat, calcium, and phosphorus (Beddows and Blake, 1982). Pasteurization temperature does not affect fat-soluble vitamins (A, D and E), as well as the B-complex vitamins riboflavin, pantothenic acid, biotin, and niacin. The losses of vitamins, such as thiamin (<3%), pyridoxine (0-8%), cobalamin (<10%), and folic acid (<10%) are considered lower than those that take place during the normal handling and preparation of foodstuffs at home (Lund, 1982). Most of the vitamin C is lost during handling, pasteurization, packaging, and oxidation of milk; about 70% of the remaining vitamin C and 90% of riboflavin can be destroyed by sunlight exposure during storage (Renner, 1986).

Scientific research has shown that the detrimental effects of pasteurization on the nutritional and physiological values of milk are negligible considering the safety benefits in regards to consumers' health.

References

Beddows, C.G., and C. Blake, J. 1982. The status of fluoride in bovine milk. II. The effect of various heat treatment processes. J. Food Technol.17:63-70
Burton H. 1986. Microbiological aspects of pasteurized milk. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation No. 200 Chapter III pp. 9-14.
DPC.1997. Guidelines for troubleshooting on -farm bacteria counts in raw milk. The Dairy Practices Council. Keyport, NY.
Lund, D.B.J.1982. Growth of thermoresistant streptococci and deposition of milk constituents on plates of heat exchangers during long operating times. J. Food Protection. 45(9): 806-812, 815.
NASDA. 2004. Raw milk survey. Dairy Division of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. September Annual Meeting. St. Paul, MN.
Plotter, H.M. 2002. Raw milk and milk products for human consumption. Dairy Division, Indiana State Board of Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN.
PMO. 2001 Revision. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Washington, DC.
Reener, E. 1986. Nutritional aspects -Part I- Biochemical composition of pasteurized milk. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation No. 200 Chapter VII pp. 27-29.
Rosenthal, I. 1991. Milk and Dairy Products Properties and Processing. Ed. Balaban Publishers VCH, New York, NY pp. 70-71.
Spreer, E. 1998. Milk and Dairy Product Technology. Ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, NY pp. 39-41.

Forage Harvesting Information

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The rainfall has been quite limited in many areas of Ohio this growing season, but reasonable rainfall has occurred in some localized areas. The average precipitation in Ohio since January 1 of this year is 79% of that for last year and 57% since June 1 compared to last year (Table 1). Forage yields for this cropping year are going to be somewhat dependant on the precipitation that is occurs during the next month and a half. Yet, harvest time for corn silage and other forages will be he here soon. For helpful information on harvesting forages, check out the articles on Ohio Dairy Industry Online Resources Center:

Special Forage Edition, Buckeye Dairy News, August 2004 (https://dairy.osu.edu/bdnews/v006iss05.htm)
Harvesting and Storing Dry Corn Silage (https://dairy.osu.edu/resource/feed/Dry%20Corn%20Silage%202003.pdf)
Immature Corn Silage (https://dairy.osu.edu/resource/feed/immature%20corn%20silage.pdf)
Nitrates in Dairy Rations (http://ohioline.osu.edu/as-fact/0003.html)
Pricing Standing Corn Silage (https://dairy.osu.edu/resource/feed/Pricing%20silage%202002%20Final.pdf)
Pricing Soybeans for Silage (https://dairy.osu.edu/resource/feed/Pricing%20Standing%20Soybeans%20for%20Silage-Revised.pdf)
Valuing Corn Silage - How much is it worth? (https://dairy.osu.edu/resource/feed/Valuing%20Corn%20for%20Silage%202003.pdf)
Feeding Frosted Forages (https://dairy.osu.edu/resource/feed/Feeding%20Frosted%20Forages.pdf)

Table 1. Precipitation (inches) in Ohio (National Weather Service, as of July 14, 2005; number in parentheses is the average for 2004).

City	Since January 1	Since June 1
Cincinnati	22.8 (25.7)	4.5 (5.6)
Cleveland	18.4 (21.7)	1.7 (3.8)
Columbus	24.9 (26.4)	3.4 (6.2)
Dayton	23.1 (26.4)	3.7 (5.9)
Mansfield	21.3 (27.5)	3.9 (8.5)
Toledo	14.2 (14.0)	1.3 (4.2)
Youngstown	22.6 (23.8)	3.8 (5.1)

Results of 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 2005 Ohio 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl contest was held on May 14 on the OSU campus in Columbus. There were seven junior teams that competed, with teams coming from Champaign, Mahoning, and Wayne Counties. Champaign County was the champion junior team, and one of the Wayne County teams was the reserve champion junior team (see pictures below).There were not enough seniors this year to conduct a senior division contest, thus Ohio will not have a team at the national contest held in November at the North American International Livestock Exposition held in Louisville, KY. However, Ohio will have a senior team consisting of youth from Wayne and Fairfield Counties at the Quiz Bowl Contest held in October at the World Dairy Expo in Madison, WI. The Quiz Bowl program is an excellent opportunity for youth to focus on learning about the broad scope of the dairy industry in a fun, competitive environment. The Ohio Quiz Bowl Contest is sponsored by American Dairy Association & Dairy Council Mideast, Farm Credit Services, Ohio Purebred Dairy Cattle Association, and Vreba-Hoff Dairy Development. You are encouraged to consider becoming a leader in your area to foster youth to participate in this excellent program.

Champaign County (First Place) - Back row: Ann Randall, Rachel Townsley,
and Tad Nelson. Front row: Garrett King, Hillary Jackson, and Ethan Starkey.

Wayne County (Second Place) - Paige Moore, Jordan Moore, Diane Gress,
and Eileen Gress.
Manure Science Review

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 2005 Manure Science Review will focus on "Liquid-Solid Separation" and will be held on August 31 at the Ohio Department of Agriculture, 8995 East Main Street, Reynoldsburg. Topics will include crop rotation; water management; economics; mechanical, gravity, and belt systems; phosphorus; and separating swine manure. The program will be held from 9:00 am - 3:00 pm and the pre-registration fee of $35 is due by August 24 ($60 for walk-ins). For more information, contact Mary Wicks at (330) 202-3533 or wicks.14@osu.edu.
Per Capita Demand for Dairy Products a Review

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

Much discussion these days centers on national milk production and how it can be managed, voluntarily or involuntarily, with the aim of keeping milk prices strong. But, the truth of the matter is that a strong and growing demand for product is what is required over the long haul to ensure good market prices for milk. A demand that continues to grow will simultaneously absorb a growing supply and provide good market prices. In this article, I will review some of the longer term trends in per capita demand for fluid milk and dairy products. My source of data is the USDA Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldp). The time period is 1975 through 2004 (see Figure 1). The dairy products are: fluid milk, cheese, ice cream, butter, cottage cheese, and yogurt.

Fluid Milk Products: The news here is not good. The long term trend for all beverage milk products is down. Per capita sales of all beverage milk is only 74% of what it was in 1975. Whole milk is down to 35% of 1975 levels. Lower fat milk peaked in the early 1990's at 100 lb per capita and has declined over the last decade to 50 lb per person. In spite of clever and attractive ads and renewed efforts to get younger people back to drinking milk, the beverage group continues to lose out to other types of beverage drinks.

Cheese: The news here is much better than the fluid beverage category. The All Cheese group (American, Italian, and Miscellaneous) has increased steadily over the 1975 to 2004 period. All cheese per capita consumption was 14 lb in 1975 and was 32 lb in 2004. The real growth product in the cheese group has been the Italian Mozzarella. Mozzarella use per person was 2 lb in 1975 and increased to 10 lb in 2004. For the natural American cheeses, Cheddar leads the way with 11 lb per capita in 2004. However, this has not been a growth product since the mid 1980's. In the miscellaneous group (cream cheese, Neufchatel, Swiss, Munster, and others), it is the cream cheese and Neufchatel group showing the growth potential. This category accounts for just over 2 lb per capita in this group which showed 5.5 lb per person use in 2004.

Butter and Cottage cheese: There is not much to report for these products. Per capita butter use has been flat over the past 30 years. It appears that we have a use for just under 5 lb per person and no more than that amount. Per capita cottage cheese use has declined over the 30 year period from about 5 lb to just over 2 lb per person.

Ice Cream and Yogurt: The trend for ice cream over the 1975 to 2004 period is down. Per capita use for ice cream was just over 26 lb back in 1975 and now stands at 23 lb. Yogurt, on the other hand, has increased over this period from 2 lb per person to 9 lb.

In summary, this chart tells us what we need to know about the demand for dairy products in the United States (source: Marketing Service Bulletin, FMMO 32, August 2005). On a milk equivalent basis, we consume over 300 lb of milk in the form of cheese. This is 100 lb more than our consumption of fluid milk and cream products.

Figure 1. Per capita consumption of dairy products in the US from 1975 through 2004.

If you like to stay up-to-date as to the opportunities for getting better than average prices for your milk, be sure to bookmark my Ohio Dairy Web (http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/) and visit daily. My current milk price outlook can be viewed on the web. This outlook is updated each month (http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ProActivePricing/priceforecast.htm).

For a complete update on current market conditions, futures, and options markets, and policy issues of importance to Ohio and Federal Order 33 producers go to my web site, Ohio Dairy Web 2004, and click on Cam's Price Outlook.

Stable Nutrient Costs and Income for September

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page)

We have had a few ups and downs in the feed commodity markets this summer, but in all, there hasn't been much excitement one way or another. The effect of Katrina on feed prices, especially in the cottonseed complex, is still very speculative.

Milk prices have been amazingly resilient to substantial increases in supply. We must remember, however, that statistics on changes in milk supply use the prior year as the base. At this time last year, milk supply was lagging that of the prior year (2003). Thus, the current national supply is just slightly above where it was two years ago. In addition, there have been substantial changes in the structure of the U.S. dairy industry lately, enough so that old price benchmarks may not be appropriate anymore. There will be more about this in the December issue of Buckeye Dairy News.

Prices of nutrients, as calculated by Sesame using early September, prices are reported in Table 1. Overall, the price of net energy has gone DOWN during the last two months. Prices for fats and high fat byproducts have generally been trading lower, thus driving the cost of a unit of energy down. Digestible, rumen undegradable protein prices have been going up through the last 12 months, mostly reflecting changes in the marketing of animal protein products. Prices of effective and non-effective fibers are relatively stable and close to historical averages.

Based on wholesale prices in central Ohio, feed commodities can be partitioned into three groups in mid-September 2005 as shown in Table 2. A more detailed analysis of break-even prices is presented in Table 3.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	September 2005	July 2005	September 2004
Net energy lactation ($/Mcal)	0.075	0.094	0.086
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.073	-0.090	-0.051
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.300	0.269	0.227
Non-effective NDF ($/lb)	-0.067	-0.085	-0.041
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.065	0.040	0.061

Table 2. Groupings of commodities, Central Ohio, September 2005.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn grain Corn silage Distillers dried grains Feather meal Gluten feed Expeller soybean meal Wheat bran Wheat middlings	Alfalfa hay Bakery byproducts Brewers grains, wet Cottonseed meal Whole cottonseed Gluten meal Hominy Meat meal Soybean hulls 48% Soybean meal Roasted soybeans Tallow	Beet pulp Blood meal Canola meal Citrus pulp Molasses 44% Soybean meal

Table 3. Commodity assessment, Central Ohio, September 2005.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	120	109.74	85.16	134.33
Bakery Byproduct Meal	107	116.81	104.78	128.84
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	145	105.98	87.05	124.91
Blood Meal, ring dried	470	435.25	403.88	466.62
Brewers Grains, wet	25	24.12	20.07	28.18
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	175	116.55	101.37	131.73
Citrus Pulp, dried	165	99.48	89.24	109.71
Corn Grain, ground dry	97.50	126.59	115.11	138.07
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	35	45.87	37.29	54.44
Cotton Seed Meal, 41% CP	185	175.77	162.95	188.60
Cottonseed, whole w lint	150	177.02	145.35	208.69
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	116	133.05	117.37	148.73
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	267	312.05	290.96	333.14
Gluten Feed, dry	69	109.30	97.68	120.93
Gluten Meal, dry	342	348.51	325.34	371.68
Hominy	95	104.44	94.09	114.79
Meat Meal, rendered	235	222.43	201.46	243.39
Molasses, sugarcane	145	85.80	76.10	95.51
Soybean Hulls	72	47.34	20.40	74.29
Soybean Meal, expeller	237	275.76	259.36	292.16
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	197.40	165.77	145.08	186.46
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	206.40	203.97	185.75	222.19
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	241	238.70	220.35	257.04
Tallow	300	308.38	269.76	346.99
Wheat Bran	26	55.33	37.26	73.40
Wheat Middlings	19	71.01	55.24	86.79

Using published milk prices for August 2005 in combination with the calculated costs of nutrients reported previously and known nutritional requirements, we can calculate the cost of providing the necessary nutrients to support the production of 75 lb/cow/day of standardized milk. Results from these calculations are reported in Table 4. Both July and September results are substantially greater than the historical average of about $6.00/cow/day. Thus, profitability of Ohio dairy farms should still be good and above historical average.

Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, Central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	September 2005	July 2005
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	2.61	3.26
RDP	(0.39)	(0.48)
Digestible-RUP	0.68	0.61
ne-NDF	(0.25)	(0.40)
e-NDF	0.70	0.43
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.55	3.62
Milk gross income
Fat	4.93	4.30
Protein	5.03	5.98
Other solids	0.58	0.50
TOTAL	10.54	10.78

Income over nutrient costs	6.99	7.16

¹Costs and income for a 1400 lb cow producing 75 lb/day of milk, with 3.6% fat, 3.1% protein, and 5.9% other solids. Component prices are for Federal Order 33, August 2005.
²NE_L = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, ne-NDF = noneffective neutral detergent fiber, and e-NDF = effective neutral effective fiber.

Update on Pricing Standing Corn for Silage Harvest

Dianne Shoemaker, Bill Weiss, and Normand St-Pierre, The Ohio State University Extension

How to price corn silage as a corn crop standing in the field is a perennially challenging question. The optimal answer will vary depending on your point of view. Are you buying or are you selling? Realistically, there is a range within which a reasonable price can be negotiated. We will take a look at pricing and other considerations from each party's point of view.

The Seller

This corn silage pricing discussion is based on a corn crop standing in the field. While what it costs to grow the corn crop is important to the profitability of the crop farmer, it does not impact the final decision on a price for the standing crop. Presumably, the crop farmer wants to maximize income from the crop.

The grain market puts a value on the standing corn based on either the current market price, the anticipated market if the grain is stored for later sale, or the price at which the crop is contracted with a buyer of grain. In order to get that price, the grain farmer has to harvest and deliver the corn. Therefore, those costs must be deducted to calculate the net income for the crop sold as grain.

For example, if a farm can get $1.87 per bushel out of the field in early September and the crop will yield 120 bushels per acre, income per acre is $164.50 after harvest costs. Harvest costs are estimated from the OSU Extension publication "Farm Custom Rates Paid in Ohio, 2002", and Purdue Extension's "Indiana Custom Rates 2004" and adjusted for current energy prices.

If that 120 bushel/acre crop yields ~16 T of corn silage per acre, then the farm's lowest logical price should be $164.50 ÷ 16 = $10.28 per ton. If the dairy farmer is not willing to pay at least the equivalent amount for the crop as silage, the crop farmer will be better off to sell the crop as grain rather than silage.

In early September, cash grain markets are very low. It is unlikely that a market price of $1.87 less harvest costs will cover total costs of production for many farms. There is opportunity for the grain farmer to negotiate a price that covers their cost of production in the difference between the income from the crop sold as grain and the nutrient value of the crop harvested as silage to the dairy farmer. Each crop farmer should review their grain harvest costs and yield potential to calculate the value that best represents their farm.

To the grain farmer, the corn crop may have more value than just the income from the sale of grain. If the crop is sold as silage, the corn fodder is no longer available as ground cover and/or as a source of some nutrients and organic matter. This creates a potential opportunity for the dairy farmer to provide some nutrients and organic matter to the corn fields from manure.

The crop farmer may also have concerns about a different method of harvest (chopping vs. combining) and the potential impacts on the soils and access roads into the corn fields. What if soil conditions are wet when the corn crop is at its' optimum moisture level for harvest as silage? How is a decision reached to proceed with harvest? These are questions that need to be addressed between the buyer and seller before harvest begins.

The Buyer

Corn silage is not required by dairy cows; it is only a vehicle containing nutrients required by cows. Therefore, the value of the silage is based on its nutrient composition and the prices of alternative feeds. If a dairy farmer can purchase the nutrients provided by corn silage less expensively from other sources and provide a balanced and productive ration, they should not buy the silage.

To value silage based on nutrients provided, we need to estimate the dry matter (DM), energy (NE_L), protein (CP) and fiber (NDF) provided by the silage. The NRC 2001 nutrient values are used for "normal" silage. The SESAME computer program was used to value each nutrient based on the September 2005 or estimated "historic" values of alternative feedstuffs that could be used in Ohio. The estimated "historic" prices give a slightly lower value for the nutrients, but represent a more realistic longer-term value to price a feed that will be used over an extended time in the coming year.

Based on the nutrient values calculated with the SESAME program, silage would be valued at $45.87/ton at September 2005 prices, or approximately $35.46/ton at "historic" prices determined for the fall 2003 silage harvest. These values are for the silage sitting in the feed bunk in front of the cow at feeding.

These are not the prices that a dairy farmer should pay for the crop standing in the field. The standing crop has not been harvested, fermented, or stored. Costs for these steps must be deducted from the value at feeding to arrive at an "in the field" price.

Standing corn must first be chopped, then ensiled, and stored before it is fed. Costs, losses, and risks are associated with each of these steps. The cost of chopping usually ranges from $4 to $7 per ton of silage (assumed to contain 35% dry matter). Historically, we have used a charge of $5 per ton. To reflect increasing fuel costs over the past few years, an additional $0.40 per ton was added. Chopping costs per ton decrease as per acre yields increase. Storage costs typically range from $3 to $4 per ton.

On average, about 10% of the material put into a silo is lost via fermentation (shrink). Additional storage and feeding losses do exist but are borne solely by the dairy farmer and do not enter into the equation to price standing corn.

Based on these assumptions, standing corn has a value of approximately $32/ton (35% dry matter) to a dairy farmer based on September 2005 nutrient values. In comparison, average normal corn silage with average yield has a value of approximately $23/ton (35% dry matter) using historic prices for alternative feeds. Final prices should be further discounted to reflect risk concerns.

The last factor affecting the value of standing corn is risk. A farmer purchasing standing corn is assuming risk (Is the corn high in nitrates? Will it ferment properly? Can it be harvested at exactly the right time? What will the final nutrient content be?, etc.).

The price for the standing crop should be discounted to recognize these risks. What is the right amount to discount? This is not an easy question and is one of the factors to consider when the buyer and seller are negotiating a final price. Setting the final, fair price for corn silage rests on an understanding of the needs of both the buyer and the seller and negotiating a price that ensures a reasonable profit for both.

Finally, it is critical that both parties agree on price, payment method and timing, crop measurement, restrictions, and similar details before the crop is harvested! Ideally, the agreement should be in writing and signed by both parties. These agreements are especially important when large quantities of crops (and money!) are involved. While this type of contracting may be uncomfortable for some producers, mainly because they aren't used to conducting business on more than a handshake, it forces the parties to discuss issues up front and can minimize troubling misunderstandings after harvest.
OARDC Biomass to Energy Program

Dr. Lynn Willett, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The rapid escalation of energy prices in the wake of Hurricane Katrina only provides an exclamation on the fact that the United States and world will not be able to sustain energy needs based on petroleum. Alternative and renewable energy sources will need to be developed to meet the increasing demand for environmentally friendly energy. Approximately four years ago, scientists from the Department of Animal Sciences initiated a program based on the biological conversion of biomass to energy through anaerobic digestion. An initial survey of resources indicated that Ohio was in a preferential position to produce heat and/or electrical energy from by-products of agricultural and food production.

Although anaerobic digestion of livestock manures to produce methane-based biogas for limited heating and electrical generation is an established technology, the cost of systems and the suboptimal typical biogas composition of approximately 60% methane and 35% carbon dioxide compromise economic returns in comparison to systems using fossil fuels. Anaerobic digestion with manure as the sole feedstock is generally a stable process but provides low energy and economic yield. In contrast, use of high-strength food waste feedstocks with their higher potential for energy and economic returns, often results in unstable anaerobic digestion and unreliable production of biogas. Clearly, the biological processes and digester designs must be improved for the incorporation of high-energy feedstocks. A better understanding of bioprocesses associated with the anaerobic digestion of high-energy food wastes would provide a basis for anaerobic digestion of manure-food waste feedstock combinations that could improve the composition and yield of biogas while preserving process reliability. Improved biogas quality may be applicable to new technologies for improved efficiency for electricity and heat production.

With the leadership of Dr. Floyd Schanbacher, Director, OSU/OARDC Biomass to Energy Program, faculty were identified with resident expertise in biology, biochemistry, microbiology, analytical chemistry, nutrition, and economics, which could provide an interdisciplinary approach to the conversion technologies needed. Whereas the central core of these faculty resides in the Department of Animal Sciences, researchers from other departments play key roles in the research program. Further, a group of industrial collaborators, food processors, and producers provide support to the program. The collaborations have been organized in a "hub and spoke" model which allows for multiple collaborators, focused on different market niches, to work toward a common objective. As a result of this research and its innovative organizational model, the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center was awarded a prestigious 2005 NorTech Innovation Award. In part the citation reads:..."This ability to simultaneously pursue multiple independent commercial paths based on a single core technology will rapidly accelerate the development of innovative new products and services for our economy, and brings together in a unique way our state's agricultural and technology communities in what we hope is just the beginning of a new trend in agricultural technology ventures."

The researchers collaborating in this Biomass to Energy Program have attracted significant grant funding from the Ohio Third Frontier Wright Project program, the U. S. Department of Energy, U. S. Department of Agriculture, plus industrial and university sources which will be primarily creating the physical and laboratory facilities to conduct the needed biological research. Aside from specialized laboratory equipment, a section of the Krauss Dairy Center is being renovated for biomass to energy research. It will house two research-scale (1,600 gallon each) and multiple smaller-scale research anaerobic digester systems. These will be coupled to solid-oxide fuel cells to convert biogas to electricity. An additional major component of the research program will be a 3-stage pilot-scale anaerobic digester with an 8,000 gallon capacity. This unit will be located near major biomass producers. This research unit will provide biogas for heat production to power fuel cells or to evaluate turbine and internal combustion technologies, while providing verification of operational efficiencies and yield at near commercial conditions and scales.

It is anticipated that the results of this research will allow Ohio livestock and food production entities to become competitive contributors to regional energy needs. It is hoped that, in many instances, the production of energy will become a major source of income to Ohio agricultural producers.
New Information on Feeding Behavior and Intake by Lactating Cows

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University

At this year's Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) annual meeting, several presentations were given on management and facility factors that can affect feeding behavior and dry matter intake. One study conducted at the University of British Columbia examined how stocking density (inches of feed bunk space per cow) and type of feed barrier (post and rail vs. headlocks) affected cow behavior. On average, Holstein cows in a post and rail system spent 20 more minutes per day eating than cows fed with headlocks (a 7% increase). With both systems, eating time decreased as bunk space decreased (Figure 1). Going from 1 headlock per cow (24 inches of bunk space) to 1 headlock per 3 cows (8 inches) decreased eating time by 17%. That was the same percentage decreased observed when bunk space decreased from 24 inches to 8 inches with a post and rail system. Cows with 16 inches of bunk space in a post and rail system spent the same amount of time eating as did cows with 24 inches of bunk space in a headlock system (1 headlock/cow).

Figure 1. Effect of bunk space and feeding system on eating time by lactating Holstein cows. With the headlock system, 24 inches = 1 headlock/cow, 16 inches = 2 headlocks/3 cows, and 8 inches = 1 headlock/3 cows. Data from Huzzey et al., 2005. J. Dairy Sci. 88 (Suppl. 1): 392.

Cows that spend less time eating must either reduce dry matter intake (intake was not measured in this experiment) or increase their rate of consumption (i.e., more feed consumed per minute spent eating). Both of these can have negative effects on productivity. Reduced feed intake usually results in decreased milk yields and/or excessive loss of body condition. Cows that consume feed too rapidly are at risk for ruminal upsets. These data suggest that if cows are moderately crowded, a post and rail system may be better than a headlock system with respect to feed intake and ruminal health (headlocks have advantages when working with cattle that must also be considered). Severe crowding in both systems most likely will result in reduced feed intake and increase the risk for rumen acidosis.

The effect of feeding frequency was examined in another study conducted at the University of British Columbia. Cows had 24 inches of bunk space and were fed either once, twice (about 8 hours apart), or 4 times (about 6 hours apart) per day. For cows fed once daily, feed was pushed up 3 times/day and for cows fed twice daily, feed was pushed up twice per day (feed pushing occurred at the same times as cows in the 4 X group were fed). Compared with cows fed once daily, feeding twice daily increased eating time by 10 minutes/day (about a 3% increase) and feeding 4 times increased feeding time by 24 minutes (an 8% increase). These rather modest increases in eating time may not be adequate to justify the increased labor costs of more frequent feeding. Whether these responses would be the same when cows are crowded (< 24 inches of bunk space) is not known.

The effect of amount of feed refusal on eating behavior and intake was examined in a study conducted at the University of Idaho. They fed Holstein cows (average production about 90 lb/day of milk) the same diet to two groups of cows. One group was offered enough feed so that about 5% was remaining 24 hours later (actual refusal was 5.5%). The other group was offered enough feed so that about 2.5% was remaining 24 hours later (actual weighback was 3.4%). Feeding for less refusal did not affect milk production or dry matter intake (averaged 57 lb), but it did affect eating patterns. Eating time was reduced by almost 60 minutes/day, and the rate of eating (grams of dry matter per minute) was increased by almost 25% for cows fed for low feed refusal. Although feeding for less feed refusal will reduce feed costs, it may increase the risk for acidosis because of the increased rate of feed consumption. This should be considered before implementing this feeding program.
Controlled Lighting in Dry Period Increases Production in the Following Lactation

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Wooster

Increased milk production of 5 to 10% is a well-documented response by lactating dairy cattle to controlled lighting. For lactating cows, 16 hours of light followed by 8 hours of dark elicits this response. This simple strategy is a cost-effective method of increasing income per cow.

Estimates of annual profit range from $4400 to $10,400 (at milk prices of $9.50 and $14.50 per cwt., respectively) in an 80-cow tie stall facility (Dahl, 2001). Estimates for a 250 cow freestall barn range from $24,000 to $43,000 for the same milk prices. These calculations include increased milk income, feed intake and electricity use. They do not include the potential initial investment in additional lighting needed in some barns.

Continuing research is increasing our understanding of the mechanisms behind the increase in daily milk yield. Light hitting the cow's eyes signals the cow to suppress release of the hormone melatonin. Longer periods of light, such as the 16 hours of light recommended for lactating cows, means shorter periods of time of high melatonin levels.

These shorter periods of higher melatonin levels then impacts the levels of prolactin and IGF-1 (used as an indication of immune system response) circulating in the cows' blood. Over the course of a few weeks, this chain of events causes the cow to increase milk production. Increased feed intake follows to support the increased milk production.

For lactating cows, a minimum of 6 hours of uninterrupted dark is recommended for cows milked 3X per day. Eight hours of uninterrupted darkness is optimal for cows milking 2X. Low wattage (7 to 15 watts,) red incandescent lights can be used when moving cows to and from the parlor in 3X situations to help achieve 6 to 8 hours of uninterrupted darkness. These lights provide adequate illumination to work the cows but are not perceived as "light" by the cows.

Recent research at the University of Illinois (Hall et al., 2005) is exploring the impact of controlled lighting in the dry period on milk production in the following lactation. Cows receiving 8 hours of light (SDPP, or Short Day Photo Period) and 16 hours of dark for the full dry period achieved higher production in the following lactation than control cows housed in ambient (naturally occurring) lighting conditions.

A 2-year study at the University of Maryland, (Miller et al., 2000), documented a 7 lb increase in milk production for the first 16 weeks of the following lactation for cows receiving the SDPP treatment during the dry period compared to cows exposed to long-day photoperiods (LDPP). Interestingly, their hypothesis was that the LDPP dry cows would out-produce the SDPP dry cows!

In this study, all cows were housed together in ambient (naturally occurring) lighting conditions after calving. The benefits of the dry period lighting conditions carried forward into the following lactation.

More recently, heifers housed in SDPP conditions for the last 60 days of gestation also showed increased production in their first lactation compared to heifers housed in ambient lighting conditions. It is not yet clear if their response is as great as older cows.

Current research results indicate that the SDPP is needed for the full dry period. The increased milk production response was not seen in animals receiving the SDPP for only 21 days prepartum. Peticlerc et al. (1998) also found that simply supplementing cows and heifers with melatonin during the dry period did not increase production in the following lactation.

Restricting light to dry cows and pre-fresh heifers is not an easy management practice to implement. In naturally-ventilated buildings, it may be nearly impossible in all but the winter months. However, it may be a realistic way to achieve a controlled lighting response on farms where 3X or 4X milking practices make it difficult to achieve a continuous 6 to 8 hour period of darkness for lactating cows.

When considering new construction, can this practice be economically implemented? Restricting light to 8 hours per day narrows housing options to enclosed, mechanically ventilated facilities nearly year-round. Typically, these structures will increase housing costs. Actual costs at the individual farm level should be weighed against the potential increase in milk production from controlled lighting.

Additional information about controlled lighting, an example lighting system design and calculations can be viewed at http://www.trail.uiuc.edu/photoperiod/ .

Dahl, G. E. 2001. Update on photoperiod management of dairy cows. Proceedings of the 4-State Applied Nutrition and Management Conference. pp. 139-142.

Hall, E.H., T.L. Auchtung-Montgomery, G.E. Dahl, and T.B. McFadden. 2005. Short Communication: Short-day photoperiod during the dry period decreases expression of suppressors of cytokine signaling in mammary gland of dairy cows. J. Dairy SCI 88:3145-3148.

Miller, A.R.E., R.A. Erdman, L.W. Douglass, and GE Dahl. 2000. Effects of photoperiodic manipulation during the dry period of dairy cows. J. Dairy SCI 83:962-967.

Peticlerc, D., C.M. Vinet, G. Roy, and P. Lacasse. 1998. Prepartum photoperiod and melatonin feeding on milk production and prolactin concentrations of dairy heifers and cows. J. Dairy SCI 81 (Suppl.1):251.
Appointment of Laurie Winkelman

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Beginning October 1, 2005, Ms. Laurie Winkelman will begin in the position of Dairy Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University. She will be taking the position formerly held by Amanda Hargett. Her primary responsibilities will be in organizing and conducting dairy cattle and goat educational programs for adults and youth. Laurie is originally from Watertown, WI and received B.S. degrees in dairy science and agricultural journalism from the University of Wisconsin in 2003. She is nearing the completion of a M.S. degree in ruminant nutrition with Dr. Chris Reynolds in the Department of Animal Sciences at Ohio State University. In addition to growing up on a dairy farm, she brings a tremendous amount of experience in working with the dairy industry and in working with youth. She is a freelance writer for Hoard's Dairyman, and she helped to develop the dairy youth ethics publication "The Rules are Black and White - And They Apply to All Breeds". She assisted in the development of an interactive CD-ROM on "Dairy Cattle Judging Made Easy". She completed an internship in CA with Cargill Animal Nutrition and has worked with the Equity Livestock Cooperative in Johnson Creek, WI. She has been very active in dairy judging as a participant and now as a judge and coach. She is still involved with her family's farm - ask her about her favorite breed (hint: BIG brown cow with about 4% fat and 3.4% protein in milk). She certainly has already established herself as a leader in the dairy industry, and we look forward to her assistance with the dairy programs at Ohio State. You can contact her at: 222C Animal Sciences Building, 2029 Fyffe Court, Columbus, OH 43210-1095, winkelman.6@osu.edu, (614) 688-3143, FAX (614) 292-1515.

Results from Ohio State Fair Dairy Cattle Skillathon

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Dairy Skillathon during the 2005 Ohio State Fair (OSF) was held on August 4 and 12. There were 94 youth who participated in this educational program, about the same number as for 2004. However, less than half (44%) of the youth with dairy cattle on exhibit participate in the skillathon. In addition, youth do not have to have an exhibit at the OSF to participate in this Skillathon, thus your help in encouraging participation is requested.

The stations in the Dairy Skillathon this year were: Feeds and Nutrition (feedstuff identification, digestive tract anatomy, and record book); Quality Assurance; Milk Production and Dairy Products; and Animal Well-Being (calf housing and animal diseases). The tie-breaker was a genetics task and a set of questions relating to information on a DHI Individual Cow Page.

From the two combined sessions of the Skillathon, the top ten individuals in each age category received a ribbon, and the high scoring individual in each age category received a cash award and a decorative walnut box. The overall winner received a banner and a director's chair. The winners for the 2005 Dairy Skillathon were:

Age Division (years old)	Name	County
9	Chelsea Skidmore	Darke
10	Jordon Moore	Wayne
11	Eileen Gress	Wayne
12	Rachel Townsley*	Champaign
13	Tad Nelson	Champaign
14	Hayden Gress	Wayne
15	Allison Bay	Guernsey
16	Matthew Weeman	Wayne
17	Sherri Gress	Wayne
18	Tim Lamb	Champaign
*Overall winner

Milk and Dairy Product Production Climbs - What's Down the Road for Milk Prices?

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

As we enter the fall of the 2005 calendar year, it is time to take stock of where we are with milk prices and where we are likely to go in the next 15 months. In this column, I will review the trends observed in the cash markets for dairy commodities; take a look at the relationship of butter and cheese inventories to high and low milk prices; and finally stick my neck out and provide a forecast for the remainder of 2005 and for 2006. Let's get to it!

Cheese Market

After peaking at $1.73/lb in the last week of January 2005, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) average cheese price has followed a general downward trend through mid-August. Over the last 10 weeks, the CME cash cheese market has traded in a narrow band between $1.45 and $1.55/lb. The last week of October and the first week of November witnessed a fundamental adjustment in the cheese market. The CME cash cheese price fell into the mid $1.30's/lb - levels not seen since February of 2004. The last time CME cash price for cheese #40 blocks traded below this level was back on June 27, 2003 with a close of $1.275/lb. The Dairy Market News reports that cheese markets are weak and may remain so over the next couple of months. Look for the cheese price to remain low for sometime to come. My crystal ball has the National Agricultural Statistics Service cheese price dipping into the $1.28 to $1.30/lb range by March 2006. Higher cheese production costs as a result of soaring energy costs have severely squeezed cheese to milk margins and made life difficult for the cheese industry. For an in-depth look at the relationship between Federal Order formula pricing and cheese processing margins, check out the "Federal Order Product Price Formulas and Cheesemaker Margins" by Jesse and Gould at http://aae.wisc.edu/future/ under 'publications'.

Butter Market

The CME butter market has followed a different path, peaking only recently at $1.72/lb during the third week of September. However, in the last three weeks, the CME butter market has also lost steam and has slid down to $1.48/lb on the CME cash market. The new cash-settled butter futures trading on the CME suggests butter prices in the $1.45 to $1.50/lb range through May 2006. My forecast suggests that butter prices will rebound and trade in the $1.59/lb range, sliding toward $1.52/lb by the end of 2006. If not, be prepared for a substantial drop in milk prices this spring!

Skim Powder and Whey Markets

The powder markets have been on an upward trend through all of 2005. Nonfat dry milk, benefiting greatly from a very tight world market for skim powder, has increased steadily from a low of $0.88/lb to the current price of $0.97/lb. The whey market has moved in lockstep with the skim powder market, rising from a low of $0.24/lb to the current high of $0.30/lb. This matches the high reached during May 2004!

So, what we have here is a reversal of the roles typically played for these key dairy commodities. The butter and cheese markets are showing signs of weakness, while the powder derivative markets are showing signs of strength. This signals a growing imbalance in the all important domestic market for milk and dairy products, with available supply out-pacing commercial demand and an imbalance in the derivative protein market with commercial demand out-stripping available supplies.

Implications for the Class I Mover

With the cheese price showing the greatest sign of trading lower and butter and powder prices remaining strong, it is possible that we could see a return of the Class IV price as the Class I mover sometime around mid-January of 2006! The last time the advanced Class IV skim price functioned as the Advanced Class I mover was back in February 2002. This is not good news. The Advanced Class IV skim becomes the mover whenever the cheese market is weak, and this generally is associated with lower butter prices and low farm milk prices. Recall the milk prices at the farm level received during 2002 through July of 2003. The Class III price averaged only $10.33/cwt during this period. Let's hope that we are not headed too far in that direction!

Dairy Product Inventories Can Flatten Milk Prices

I have included three charts: one for Butter, one for Cheese, and a dairy commodity price forecast chart at the end of this article. The Butter and Cheese charts show the relationship between product inventories, production, and high or low milk prices. In each chart, I have plotted the ratio of dairy product stocks to dairy product production by month, averaged for the three high price years (1999, 2001, and 2004), the three low price years (2000, 2002, and 2003). The price forecast chart is shown directly below these two charts.

The first chart on the left shows the Butter stocks to production ratio (BSPR) and where we are sitting at the present time. The seasonal pattern is obvious. Stocks tend to rise during the first half of the year as cream is flush and butter production is in full throttle. In the second half of the year, when cream is less available, stocks are drawn down relative to butter production. What is also apparent and very important for our outlook on the butter price is the relative position of each of the charted lines. High milk price years need high butter prices. High butter prices have been associated with a moderate to low BSPR. Now look at where we are sitting in 2005. The BSPR is 1.64 to 1. This is higher than we have observed this time of the year for the 'high-price' years but much lower than that observed during the 'low-price' years. This suggests that we will not see wholesale butter price move below $1.40/lb in the coming months unless something happens to limit commercial demand or further advance milk production.

The second chart on the right shows the Cheese stocks to production ratio (CSPR) and where we are sitting at the present time. As with butter, the seasonal pattern is there but not as obvious. Stocks relative to production tend to rise during November through February, and then again during the March to July period. In the second half of the year, when farm level protein tests fall, the cheese industry pulls from stocks to satisfy demand, and stocks are drawn down relative to cheese production. Higher average cheese prices require a moderate to low CSPR. Now look at where we are sitting in 2005. At a ratio of 1.06 to 1, the CSPR is running below what we would normally expect this time of the year and indeed what we have experienced during high price years. With continuing strong commercial demand, we can anticipate that the wholesale cheese price will not decline much below $1.30/lb. While this seems low when viewed in the light of the past 18 months, remember that the last time we experienced a strong surge in milk production, cheese price retreated to support levels of $1.10 to $1.15/lb and stayed there for many months. The third chart directly below the Butter and Cheese charts shows what can happen to the class III milk price IF demand weakens and production stays strong going into the spring of 2006. Relative to the last couple of years, this is a very pessimistic outcome. The class III milk price declines over the next six months into the upper $11/cwt range. I remind you that spring-time, Class III prices in the $11.75 to $12.20/cwt range were much more typical of the long-run averages than are the $14.00 to $20.00/cwt prices that we have seen in the past two years.

Let's Take a Look at What is Ahead for Milk Prices

With milk cow numbers increasing, dairy slaughter low, and the specter of energy prices siphoning disposable income from the consumer pocketbook, we can anticipate a drop in milk prices over the next 15 months. However, if we can keep a balance between commodity stocks and production, the decline will be gradual and not wrenching. My long-term forecast for the last quarter of 2005 and for all of 2006 is based on this assumption and shown in Table 1 and Table 2. These forecast prices translate into a Class III milk price of $14.07/cwt for 2005 and $13.71/cwt for 2006. For those producers who participate in the Federal Order 33 pricing program, you can add an additional $0.30 to $.40/cwt to this price to arrive at an estimate of their mailbox price. For 2005, this gives us a price of $14.37 to $14.47/cwt and for 2006 a range of $14.01 to $14.10/cwt. It remains to be seen what impact the Cooperative Working Together (CWT) program will have on these forecasts. Recall that the program is set to remove 65,644 cows over the next couple of months. According to National Milk Producers Federation, this represents a production capacity of 1.2 billion pounds of milk annual rate. Perhaps, more important at this point is the export subsidy program. The trigger price for cheese and butter is $1.40 and $1.30/lb, respectively. Let's hope that these measures are not needed in the coming months. I strongly suspect they will be put into action as we move into 2006.

Table 1. Forecast component and Class III price, 2005.

Forecast for Planning Year	Milk Fat ($/lb)	Protein ($/lb)	Other Solids ($/lb)	Nonfat Solids ($/lb)	Class III Price ($/cwt)
2004 Annual Average	2.055	2.601	0.079	0.694	15.41
2005 Quarter I	1.7454	2.5644	0.0922	0.7517	14.3052
2005 Quarter II	1.6124	2.6254	0.1067	0.7756	14.1048
2005 Quarter III	1.8375	2.3062	0.1323	0.8083	14.0833
2005 Quarter IV forecast	1.7754	2.2671	0.1446	0.8253	13.8194
2005 Annual Average Forecast	1.7427	2.4408	0.1190	0.7902	14.08

Table 2. Forecast component and Class III price, 2006.

Forecast for Planning Year	Milk Fat ($/lb)	Protein ($/lb)	Other Solids ($/lb)	Nonfat Solids ($/lb)	Class III Price ($/cwt)
2006 Quarter I	1.8375	2.3062	0.1323	0.8083	14.0833
2006 Quarter II	1.7754	2.2671	0.1446	0.8253	13.8194
2006 Quarter III	1.7005	2.1864	0.1294	0.8117	13.2289
2006 Quarter IV forecast	1.6821	2.0122	0.1240	0.8283	12.6129
2006 Annual Average Forecast	1.7712	2.2532	0.1354	0.8151	13.71

For a complete update on current market conditions, futures, and options markets, and policy issues of importance to Ohio and Federal Order 33 producers go to my web site, Ohio Dairy Web 2004, and click on Cam's Price Outlook.

Charts 1, 2, and 3. Total U.S. butter and cheese stocks production ratios and dairy commodity price forecast, November through April 2006.

Feed and Nutrient Pricing

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University

Feed and dairy markets have been relatively stable this fall, with little change expected in the near future. On the feed side, there were concerns for the cottonseed and its by-products from damages caused by Katrina. So far, there has been no measurable effect.

Milk prices still are amazingly resilient to substantial increases in supply, a consequence of greater average productivity, as well as an increase in the national herd.

Prices of nutrients, as calculated by SESAME using early November prices, are in Table 1. Feed commodity prices and their calculated break-even prices are reported in Table 2.

Calculated income over nutrient costs went up by $0.56/cow/day between September and November 2005 (Table 3). Historically, we are experiencing strong returns in milk production. This should make for a nice Christmas among our family of dairy producers.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	Estimate
Net energy lactation - 3X ($/Mcal)	0.083407	**
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.148448	*
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.332989	**
Non-effective NDF ($/lb)	-0.045611	~
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.066382	~

- A blank means that the nutrient unit cost is likely equal to zero.
- ~ means that the nutrient unit cost may be close to zero
- * means that the nutrient unit cost is unlikely to be equal to zero
-**means that the nutrient unit cost is most likely not equal to zero

Table 2. Commodity assessment, Central Ohio, November 2005.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	120	100.23	74.18	126.28
Bakery Byproduct Meal	102	122.15	109.41	134.89
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	145	120.99	100.95	141.05
Blood Meal, ring dried	515	457.22	423.98	490.46
Brewers Grains, wet	26	23.58	19.29	27.87
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	161.50	105.11	89.03	121.19
Citrus Pulp, dried	187	108.17	97.32	119.01
Corn Grain, ground dry	90	137.03	124.86	149.20
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	35	48.23	39.21	57.39
Cotton Seed Meal, 41% CP	182	170.67	157.08	184.26
Cottonseed, whole w lint	139	169.68	136.13	203.24
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	108	139.32	122.70	155.93
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	245	306.62	284.27	328.96
Gluten Feed, dry	73	105.83	93.51	118.15
Gluten Meal, dry	367	369.13	344.56	393.68
Hominy	90	110.82	99.85	121.78
Meat Meal, rendered	210	208.65	186.43	230.86
Molasses, sugarcane	144	90.60	80.32	100.88
Soybean Hulls	82	58.14	29.59	86.69
Soybean Meal, expeller	231.40	292.62	275.24	309.99
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	186.40	147.59	125.67	169.51
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	196.40	191.06	171.76	210.37
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	237	231	211.56	250.44
Tallow	350	342.34	301.43	383.25
Wheat Bran	48	55.37	36.23	74.52
Wheat Middlings	41	70.86	54.15	87.58

Table 3. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, Central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	November 2005	September 2005
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	2.89	2.61
RDP	(0.79)	(0.39)
Digestible-RUP	0.75	0.68
ne-NDF	(0.21)	(0.25)
e-NDF	0.72	0.70
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.57	3.55
Milk gross income
Fat	4.93	4.93
Protein	5.53	5.03
Other solids	0.66	0.58
TOTAL	11.12	10.54

Income over nutrient costs	7.55	6.99

Forage Planting Decisions: Corn Silage or Alfalfa?

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University

There is no 'best' forage for lactating dairy cattle. All forages provide the three nutrients needed in the greatest quantities by cows; energy (NE_L), protein, and fiber (NDF). The nutrient provided by forages that is must difficult to replace is effective fiber. Energy and protein provided by forages can be readily obtained from other feeds (for example, corn grain and soybean meal), but fiber provided by forages must be replaced by other forages or to a lesser extent by whole cottonseed. The amount of forage grown on a farm should be a function of the fiber requirements of that farm. An important assumption made for this article is that both the corn silage and alfalfa silage were harvested at the correct maturity for dairy cows. Corn silage harvested too wet or too dry and alfalfa harvested too mature will reduce milk production and alter the conclusions. In addition, all the following calculations were made assuming a conventional corn hybrid is used. Hybrids with high in vitro NDF digestibility can increase milk production and alter the results (for details on comparing different hybrids see https://dairy.osu.edu/resource/feed/cornsilforweb.pdf).

When making planting decisions, you will not know the actual nutrient composition of the forage and you will not know the actual yield. Therefore, decisions should be based on expected or probable results. If you have previously grown alfalfa and corn silage, you can classify your farm as having below average, average, or above average yield potential for corn and alfalfa. For this discussion, calculations were based on the yields in Table 1. Estimated costs (OSU Enterprise Budgets) are in Table 2. Estimated storage costs were $22/ton of dry matter (DM) for corn silage and $11/ton of DM for alfalfa (assumed two fillings per year for alfalfa).

For this article, I assumed that all the forage fiber required by the cows on a farm would be grown on that farm (e.g., no purchased hay). A Holstein cow with an average milk yield of 70 lb/day will require approximately 3300 lb of forage NDF for a 305-day lactation. Assuming corn silage and alfalfa silage average 44% NDF and using the yield data in Table 1 and assuming shrink was 5% for corn silage and 8% for alfalfa silage, the acres of each forage that would be needed to provide 3300 lb of forage NDF are in Table 3. If available land is quite limited, less land is needed to meet the fiber needs of the herd when corn silage is planted, even at a very low yield. Based on the forage cost in Table 3, at all yield potentials, alfalfa is a more expensive source of fiber than corn silage. However, protein supplementation costs are lower for alfalfa-based diets than corn silage-based diets. Using nutrient composition from NRC and average prices for corn grain, soybean meal, and expellers soybean meal, the concentrate needed for cows fed corn silage as the sole forage will cost about $67 (for 305 days) more than the concentrate needed when alfalfa silage is the sole forage. When the increased cost of the concentrate is added to the cost of the forage, on average, cows fed diets based on corn silage will be cheaper than those fed alfalfa silage. However, the average difference between forages is only 3% (probably within the error of all the assumptions used). Yield had a much greater influence than forage species. The cost difference between low and high yields for corn silage was 13% and for alfalfa it was 28%.

Because of increased risk and because of increased variability in diet composition, diets with a single forage are generally less profitable than diets with two sources of forage. Research data show that milk production is equal when cows are fed diets with various corn silage:alfalfa ratios when diets are balanced correctly. Therefore, gross income should be similar and the decision as to which forage should predominate in a diet is a function of cost. Based on the total cost data in Table 3, the ratio of corn silage to alfalfa varies based on yield potential (Table 4). When land is poorly suited for alfalfa (low yield potential), the predominant forage should be corn silage, independent of the yield potential for corn silage. When land is well-suited for alfalfa (high yield potential), then alfalfa should be the major or predominant forage in the diet.

Table 1. Dry matter yields (tons/acre) used for calculations.

Yield Potential	Corn silage	Alfalfa silage
Below average (25% less than average)	4.9	3.4
Average	6.5	4.5
Above average (25% more than average)	8.1	5.6

Table 2. Estimated total production, harvesting, and storage costs ($/acre).

Yield Potential	Corn silage	Alfalfa silage
Below average (25% less than average)	405	360
Average	490	415
Above average (25% more than average)	575	470

Table 3. Acres needed to provide enough forage NDF to meet the requirements of one lactating cow (average production = 70 lb/day) for 305 days and costs based on yields in Table 1.

	Corn Silage			Alfalfa Silage
	Low	Average	High	Low	Average	High
Acres needed/cow	0.81	0.61	0.49	1.20	0.91	0.72
Forage cost, $/cow	328	299	282	432	378	338
Concentrate cost¹, $/cow	67	67	67	0	0	0
Total cost, $/cow	395	366	349	432	378	338

¹Increased cost of concentrate needed to meet the metabolizable protein requirements for cows fed a diet with corn silage as the sole forage compared with a diet with alfalfa silage as the sole forage.

Table 4. Forage source that should result in lowest feed costs based on expected yield potential for corn silage and alfalfa silage¹.

	Corn Silage Yield Potential
Alfalfa Yield Potential	Low	Average	High
Low	++ Corn	++ Corn	++ Corn
Average	+ Alfalfa	+ Corn	+ Corn
High	++ Alfalfa	+ Alfalfa	+ Alfalfa

¹++ Corn = forage should be predominantly corn silage; ++ Alfalfa = forage should be predominantly alfalfa silage; + Corn = forage should be slightly more corn silage than alfalfa; and + Alfalfa = forage should be slightly more alfalfa silage than corn silage.

Protecting Teat Skin During Winter

Dr. Joe Hogan, Mammary Health Specialist, The Ohio State University

Cold, winter weather usually has harsh effects on unprotected teat skin. A couple of common sense practices can be helpful in preventing teat skin damage and subsequent mastitis. Dr. Leo Timms at Iowa state University has published a number of papers available through the National Mastitis Council (www.nmconline.org) outlining practical management tools to prevent teat skin chapping and cracking. A couple of his main points are listed below:

Temperature. Wind chill temperatures of less than -25 ^oF put teats at extreme risk to freezing and frost bite. Less extreme chapping and cracking is likely at wind chill temperatures less than 0 ^oF. Appearance of skin problems is usually obvious within 2 to 3 days after exposure. Climate control for cows is usually not practical, but preventing cows from exposure to wind while teats are wet will help prevent cracking and lesions.

Windbreaks. Provide windbreaks for cows as they leave milking parlors. Feed and house cows inside if possible during times of wind chill temperatures below 0 ^oF. Avoid drafts in barns that create wind tunnels that allow rapid movement of cold air. Wet teats are more likely to be damaged by cold, so use bedding in stalls that is as dry as possible.

Milking Hygiene. Avoid using excessive water for preparing teats for milking in cold weather. Washing removes natural oils and the drying action associated with using large quantities of water can be abrasive to skin. Water not dried can freeze and harm the teat skin. Sanitize teats with a germicidal predip containing skin conditioner. Blot teats dry instead of rubbing.

Post-Milking Teat Dips. Use a germicidal teat dip that does not harm the teat skin. Various products claim enhanced skin health due to addition of skin conditioning components. These may be beneficial in cold weather to help reduce drying and chapping of teat skin. The current recommendations are to dip and blot excess dip from the teat end before releasing the cow from the parlor. In extreme cold, quitting dipping for one or two milkings may be a realistic route to reduce the risk of cold weather damage. However, because omitting post dip application will increase the risk of spreading contagious mastitis pathogens, stopping teat dipping is not a practical long term solution.

Barrier teat dips should not be used during times of extreme cold because these dips may take over twenty minutes to dry. Dips with over 50% emollients have also been slow to dry and also leave teats sticky and wet. Powder dips have shown minimal activity against contagious pathogens, but they do dry teats. Use of powder products has been suggested as an alternative to not dipping for a day or two. Finally, avoid salves. Most salves have diminished antimicrobial activity and can attract dirt, bedding, and other contaminates to teat skin.

Dairy Enterprise Economics from Ohio Producers

Mr. Don Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Lima

For 12 years dairy farm financial information and enterprise data have been collected from Ohio farms participating in Extension and Farm Business Planning and Analysis programs. These farms use the FINPACK computer program for analysis. There data are also included on a national data base located at the Center of Farm Financial Management, University of Minnesota. The data base is called FINBIN and is found at: www.cffm.umn.edu. Here is a summary of Ohio data (from 10 to 16 farms per year) for the past 5 years. More complete details may be found in the Ohio Farm Business Summary 2004 - a copy is located at local Extension offices.

Table 1. Net returns for Ohio dairy farms.¹

	Averages			High Profit Third
Year	Feed ($/cwt milk)	Return ($/cow)	Year	Feed ($/cwt milk)	Return ($/cow)
2000	6.95	235	2000	6.47	539
2001	7.52	630	2001	5.92	1037
2002	6.94	261	2002	6.07	665
2003	7.24	33	2003	7.78	609
2004	7.81	547	2004	7.47	1065

5 yr average		341	5 yr average		783

¹Includes replacement costs and opportunity costs for home grown feeds (N = 10 to 16/yr for Ohio); MN 5 year averages (FINBIN Data; N = 1923); feed cost average = $6.72/cwt milk, and average net returns = $485/cow.

A New Income Tax Deduction

Mr. Don Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Lima

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 created a new domestic deduction based on income attributable to domestic production. Qualifying property includes receipts derived from what is grown or produced. This new deduction begins for the 2005 income tax year and is limited to the lesser of:

1. 3% of qualified production activities (QPAI),
2. 3% of taxable income of an entity or adjusted gross income for an individual taxpayer, or
3. 50% of W-2 wages paid during the year by the taxpayer.

Qualified production property for cash-basis farmers includes receipts for sales of livestock, produce, milk, grains, and other products raised by the farmer. Proceeds from the sale of raised breeding stock, reported on Farm 4797, also qualify. However, sales of purchased breeding or dairy animals will not qualify unless these were purchased as young stock and a substantial part of the animals value resulted from the farmers expense in raising the animal to maturity. Sales of land, machinery, and equipment are also excluded from domestic production gross receipts. Furthermore, custom hire is also excluded.

The 50% of W-2 wages limitation may become the most limiting factor for many farmers wishing to qualify for this deduction or wanting to take the maximum advantage of it.
One way to increase W-2 wages is to pay wages for unpaid family labor; however, the increase of FICA taxes and decrease in self-employment wages for the operator would need to be factored in as a result of this change. Also, note that the following wages are not included for the calculation of qualified wages:

1. Wages paid in commodities,
2. Wages paid to a child (under age 18) of the farmer, and
3. Compensation paid in non-taxable fringe benefits.

Although the domestic production activities deduction is limited to 3% of QPAI for tax years 2005 and 2006, it will be 6% for 2007 to 2009, and 9% for years after 2009. The tax form for this new deduction is Form 8903. See your income tax practitioner or the IRS web site at www.irs.gov for further information.
Commercial Activity Tax Update

Mr. Don Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Lima

Farmers with gross sales of over $150,000 join other commercial businesses subject to a new Ohio tax (and no, it is not a tax on your barn cats!). As result of this years Ohio Budget Bill, the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) came into being. In a question to the Ohio Department of Taxation, whether farms were included, the reply was as follows: "The CAT was intended as a broad based, low rate privilege tax. As such, it applies to farmers and other agricultural enterprises, once these entities reach $150,000 in taxable gross receipts." A second question was asked about milk and other livestock sales from Ohio farms to out-of-state markets. Would these sales be a part of the gross income figure and subject to the tax? The answer was that "the gross receipt has to be sitused to Ohio. If the dairy farm milk is sold outside Ohio, the farm is not subject to CAT. See the Ohio Revised Code 5751.033 for situsing provision."

For businesses with gross receipts below $150,000, no CAT is due. For businesses with gross receipts between $150,000 and 1 million dollars, a flat $150 tax will be paid. A tax rate schedule will kick in for businesses with gross receipts over 1 million dollars. All businesses with receipts of over $150,000 per year must pay a one time registration fee; $20 will cover most farms ($200 maximum fee). On line registration is encouraged (a reduced $15 is charged for web registration), and after November 30, a fee will not be charged. For the fees already paid, they will be deducted from the tax due. A web link is available to explain more about the CAT and other new Ohio tax information at: http://tax.ohio.gov/.
Tom Noyes, Wayne County Extension Dairy Educator, Has Retired After More Than 30 Years

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Wooster

After more than 31 years as the Extension Dairy Agent in Wayne County, Tom Noyes has retired from Ohio State University Extension. Arriving in Ohio, the Rhode Island native brought a love of the dairy industry and a Master's Degree from the University of Rhode Island. His specialization and interest in dairy nutrition remained a passion throughout his career.

In addition to dairy cattle nutrition, Tom's contributions in the areas of dairy management and intensive grazing management were many. Tom was a founding member of the Dairy Excel Team and taught many of the more than 500 graduates of the Managing for Success workshops. He organized and led many of the study tours and workshops that followed Managing for Success.

Designing and implementing management intensive grazing systems for dairy farms, grazing tours, pasture walks, and financial analyses of farms practicing management intensive grazing are just a few of the contributions that Tom has made in the area of managed grazing. Research trials involving forage varieties were also conducted at OARDC.

In Wayne and neighboring counties, Tom planned and conducted hundreds of dairy programs and tours for local producers. On-farm consultations helped answer nutrition, management, and financial concerns of those requesting assistance.

Tom will be missed for his many contributions and willingness to assist others both within and outside of Wayne County.

We wish Tom the best as he joins his wife, Rosalie, in retirement frequently spent at their family's dairy farm milking Jersey cows and the occasional Ayrshire. Also anticipating his retirement are numerous grandchildren in Wayne and Geauga counties.

Congratulations, Tom and remember, we're always looking for a few good volunteers
New OSU Dairy Resources Brochure Available

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Wooster

We're not just "Dairy Science" anymore

What resources does Ohio State University Extension offer today's dairy industry? Animal health and well-being, dairy cattle nutrition, farm business management, housing and facilities, environment, social issues, and youth development are the main categories that begin to describe the wide-ranging expertise available through OSU faculty and staff located on the Columbus and Wooster campuses and throughout Ohio in County Extension Offices.

The dairy industry does not stand alone. Expertise from two colleges and seven departments support our dynamic industry. A new brochure, "Resources for Ohio's Dairy Industry" provides links to available expertise. "Resources" is available on-line at https://dairy.osu.edu or request a hard copy by contacting Laurie Winkelman at 614-688-3143, winkelman.6@osu.edu.
Changes in Appointment for Tim Demland

Mr. Tim Demland, Executive Director of Ohio Dairy Producers

On October 13th, the Board of Directors of the Ohio Dairy Producers (ODP) decided to enter into an administrative and operations agreement with the American Dairy Association and Dairy Council (ADADC) Mid East to become effective November 1, 2005 to share staff and facilities. The decision was reached by both the boards of the ODP and the ADADC Mid East after many months of discussion between the dairy producer leaders of the two groups.

For the past five years ODP has been working jointly with The Ohio State University Extension for staff services, primarily through the Extension Associate Dairy position that I held, and we are extremely grateful. But one of the foundational goals of ODP was to become completely supported and run by dairy producers. This agreement fulfills those goals.

The new partnership creates the opportunity for two dairy farmer owned organizations to work together on behalf of Ohio's dairy production industry. Viewed as a win-win arrangement, the contract provides ODP with the resources and expertise necessary to represent dairy farmers in legislative and regulatory areas - areas that the check-off program is prohibited from working. Dairy farmers will now have the organizational structure, the separation of duties, and an enhanced membership organization to address these vital non-check-off functions.

Under the agreement, I will continue to serve as the executive director of ODP but will transfer employment from OSU to ADADC Mid East. In addition to my duties to ODP and the Ohio Dairy Industry Forum, I will also serve as an industry relations manager for ADA and assist with producer communications.

The Board and I are extremely excited about the wide range of opportunities that have now been opened for all dairy producers. We also continue to covet your continued support and input in identifying those issues that will most effectively enhance the productivity and profitability of Ohio's dairy production industry.
Collegiate Dairy Judging Team Results for 2005

Mr. Bernie Heisner, Coach and Executive Director of COBA/Select Sires

The Ohio State University Dairy Cattle Judging Team of Brian Baird, Kingsville, OH; Dan Sanders, Waynesfield, OH; Stacey Shipley, Newark, OH; and Zach Stammen, New Weston, OH; coached by Bernie Heisner earned many honors in regional and national contests this fall.

At the National Contest held at the World Dairy Expo in Madison, WI, the team was 5th high out of 23 teams. The OSU team was 1st in Holstein, 3rd in Jersey, and 3rd in Linear. Three OSU students received "All-American" recognition for placing in the top 25 in this national contest: Zach Stammen was 12th high, Brian Baird was 15th, and Dan Sanders was 22nd. The OSU students receiving top 10 honors in the individual breeds included: Dan Sanders - 5th Brown Swiss; Zach Stammen - 3rd Guernsey; Zach Stammen - 2nd Holstein, Brian Baird - 10th Holstein; Zach Stammen - 8th Milking Shorthorn; Brian Baird - 9th Red and White; Zach Stammen - 4th Linear; and Zach Stammen - 9th Reasons.

Earlier in the fall, this OSU team was 2nd Overall at the Eastern States Exposition contest held in West Springfield, MA. Stacey Shipley led the team at this contest, earning the 3rd high individual overall and she was 1st in Ayrshire. The OSU team was 1st in Ayrshire. Dan Sanders claimed the 5th high individual award, and Zach Stammen was 10th high. The team also competed at the All-American Dairy Show, Harrisburg, PA and placed 7th as a team and Dan Sanders was 10th high individual.

Many younger OSU students gained experience by competing in the Mid-South Fair Contest, Memphis, TN. The OSU graduate, Kelly Epperly, Anna, OH, served as assistant coach for the two OSU teams consisting of Whitney Beck, Wauseon, OH; Greg Hartschuh, Lykens, OH; Dan Lahmers, Malta, OH; Neil Moff, Columbiana, OH; Sheryn Schlairet, Mt. Vernon, OH; Cade Stockberger, Utica, OH; and Dan Ziegler, Belleville, WI.

Dan Ziegler was high individual in Holstein in the Mid-South contest. Cade Stockberger was 16th high individual overall, and Whitney Beck was 17th. The two teams ranked 7th and 12th at Mid-South contest.

The top four OSU individuals from Memphis - Cade Stockberger, Whitney Beck, Neil Moff, and Dan Ziegler earned the opportunity to compete in the North American International Livestock Exposition contest at Louisville, KY. The team finished 10th of 18 teams, and Cade Stockberger was 15th high individual and Neil Moff was 28th.

The Ohio State University is proud of the efforts and the accomplishments of the 6 teams involving 11 students which competed in 5 collegiate dairy cattle judging contests in the Fall of 2005.

The 2005 OSU University Dairy Cattle Judging team at World Dairy Expo
included: (from left to right) Bernie Heisner, Coach, Brian Baird, Stacey Shipley,
Dan Sanders and Zach Stammen.
Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging Team Results

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Youth in Ohio competed in two contests in 2005. Allison Stammen (Darke County), Jodi Reutter (Holmes County), Esther Rupp (Wayne County), and Erin Bardall (Harrison County) competed at the World Dairy Expo on October 3 in Madison, WI. The team placed 7th overall out of 30 teams and placed 9th in reasons, 3rd in Brown Swiss, and 6th in Jersey. At the North American International Livestock Exposition held in Louisville, KY during November, the Ohio 4-H team consisted of Joel Bourne ( Darke County), Laura Gordon (Wayne County), Kaleb Kohler (Fairfield County), and Matt Weeman (Wayne County). The team placed 11th overall out of 23 teams and placed 2nd in Ayrshire, 3rd in Brown Swiss, and 5th in Holstein. Matt Weeman was 5th in Brown Swiss and 9th in Holstein. The team was coached by Mr. John Lemmermen with the OSU Department of Animal Sciences.

The 2005 Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging team at the North American International
Livestock Exposition included: (from left to right) John Lemmermen, Coach,
Laura Gordon, Matt Weeman, Kaleb Kohler, and Joel Bourne.
National and Regional 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl Contest Results

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Ohio was represented at the Dairy Quiz Bowl Contest held during World Dairy Expo in Madison, WI. The team was from Wayne County and consisted of Sherri Gress, Hayden Gress, Laura Gordon, and Kerby Hershey. The team placed 4th out of 7 teams and was coached by Lisa Gress.
The 26th National 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl competition was held at the North American International Livestock Exposition November 4-5 in Louisville, KY. Ohio did not have a team in the competition this year, but Drs. Maurice Eastridge and Peter Spike served as judges in the Contest. Nineteen state 4-H teams competed in this year's event. The top four teams were, respectively: New York, Maryland, Iowa, and Minnesota, with Georgia and Illinois receiving honorable mentions. Your help in encouraging youth to participate in this wonderful learning program would be appreciated.
Deconstruction of a Speculative Attack on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Class III Futures Contract

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

After being out on the road Friday, January 6, I returned to the office on Monday, January 9 and in reading my email news letters, I found these two very interesting discussions. The first was provided by a very knowledgeable colleague and professional in the dairy markets, Mr. Phil Plourd, Vice President Economics, Blimling & Associates. In his January 6 newsletter, Mr. Plourd writes (italics mine):

"When making a shopping list for commodities to buy early in the New Year, at least one speculative fund apparently decided not to skip the dairy aisle. Not long into Tuesday's first-day-of-2006 action, reports from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) floor indicated that a broker representing a large commission house was eagerly buying February Class III milk contracts.

It didn't make any difference in the cheese market. Blocks closed the week at $1.3675/lb and barrels at $1.3400/LB - both unchanged. And, no loads of either product changed hands. The buying spree did, however, create more than a little excitement. All morning on Tuesday, prices ratcheted higher, exhausting sell-side interest in the process. A one-two-three closed cheese market session did little to slow things down, as nervous locals stopped selling futures and started buying. By noon, February had traded at as high as $13.20/cwt, up $0.29/cwt on the day. Other months moved higher as well. When the day was done, February had closed at $13.17/cwt, with volume in that month alone at 596 contracts.

Wednesday saw some follow through from the same buyer. Nervous commercial buyers also seemed to join in the fray, with the market bid higher from the opening bell. On-floor speculators were buyers, as well. The cheese market featured a bid at unchanged for blocks, making some market participants all the more edgy. On Thursday morning, however, speculative buying interest did not materialize early. While an unfilled bid for three cars in the cheese market raised some questions (Is someone short? Where is the sell-side interest?), the rally began to fizzle. Outside selling was gathering above the market and commercial buying was a bit more cautious. Locals began to sell strips of contracts in an effort to quietly lighten their load. By the close, prices were down on the day across the board. For example, after making a new life-of-contract high in the morning at $13.29/cwt, February settled at $13.13/cwt, down $0.12/cwt on the day.

Opening bell buying by floor traders on Friday morning was beat into a quick retreat by broader outside selling and an absence of commercial buying interest. Values eroded further when no bids were posted in the spot cheese session."

After reading this paragraph a couple of times to let it sink in, I began to ask myself the following questions: What is a 'speculative fund'? and Why does it have an interest in buying in the dairy futures market?; who are commercial buyers and why would they wish to tag along with the speculative fund?; ditto for on-floor speculators and floor traders (see Figure 1 for the Class III price over its contract life.

Figure 1. February 2006 Class III Futures Prices.

So, what is a Speculative or Hedge fund?

A hedge fund is a private investment limited partnership that invests in a variety of securities. Hedge funds are pooled investments; all the partner's capital amounts are pooled together for the purpose of trading in securities. All hedge funds follow some sort of trading strategy and are pretty much free to use any financial instrument they wish. Hedge funds are similar to mutual funds in that they both are pooled investment vehicles that accept investors' money and generally invest it on a collective basis. Hedge funds differ significantly from mutual funds, however, because hedge funds are not required to register under the federal securities laws. They are not required to register because they generally only accept financially sophisticated investors and do not publicly offer their securities. In addition, some, but not all, types of hedge funds are limited to no more than 100 investors.

Why would such a fund or pool of investment dollars be interested in the February CME Class III futures contract?

First of all, note that this is speculative investment money, and second, it is in the market to make a profit. Hedge funds are buying contracts; therefore, they must be of the opinion that the price tomorrow will be higher that the price paid today. As Mr. Plourd points out, this interest and buying behavior received no support from the direction of the CME cheese market. In fact, everything looks like it is slowly sliding in the opposite direction. Last year, at this time, the February contract was trading at $11.50/cwt and finally cashed settled $ 0.39 higher at $11.89/cwt. On a 2,000 cwt contract, this is a gross gain of $780. If repeated this year, this is not a bad return for a marginal investment. Just figure, for each 100 contracts, this is a gross gain of $78,000. Ok in my book. The March contract could be purchased at $11.50/cwt and settled out at $14.49/cwt, with the April at $11.65/cwt and May at $11.65/cwt. The March contract earned a gross $5,980. April's settle was $19.61/cwt, a gross gain of $15,920 per contract and May's $20.58/cwt for a gross gain of $17,860. On a 100 contract batch, this 'strip' of February through May would have earned $3,515,800. Now you can see why the speculative or hedge fund managers are paying attention to the dairy markets.

So are others. As Mr. Plourd points out, commercial (non-speculators) and local on-floor speculators, guessing that the hedge fund might know something that they had missed, began to buy also. The rally continued through early trading on Thursday. But, without confirming support, that is, without the cash cheese market making a supporting move upward, those same buyers rethought there earlier buying enthusiasm and began to SELL 'strips of contracts' (this is a basket of contracts with different cash settle dates). By not selling just the February contract, which they may have purchased near the peak of the price rally, this 'strip selling' is designed to mask ones panic from the market as one tries to get out of what now appears to be an unsupportable position.

Is this interest by speculative hedge funds a good or bad development?

This is a question that I am asked repeatedly. I think folks at Valley Trading in their January 6 market commentary do a good job of addressing this question. Read below the commentary on this same hedge fund activity as presented by the fine folks at Valley Trading. They wrote, in their market news letter covering the week ending January 6, 2006, the following (italics added):

General Market Comment:
"When discussing/trading the commodity markets, and specifically the dairy markets, it seems that words like "surprising," "amazed," and "unexpected" are used quite a bit. You would think that when trading commodity futures contracts, we all would expect the unexpected.

With that said, most were surprised by a sudden rally in the milk futures markets, especially since cheese prices held unchanged all week. No one seems to know for sure what happened, but it appears that a hedge fund came into the milk market as a buyer. As a result, the "locals" reacted and became buyers as well. In the end, without a supportive rally in the cheese markets, the milk market gave back some the early week gains.

Currently, hedge funds and index funds are active in the commodity markets and recently have been in a buying frenzy. Over the years, these funds have grown tremendously and are becoming a major player in the markets. At times, they create price distortions in a market, which has added an extra variable to commodity pricing.

As a final perspective, commodity markets are not as flexible when absorbing investment money as the stock market. Case in point, currently the total value of all Google Inc.'s stock in the marketplace is worth ~$135 billion. This is only one company of the thousands listed in the New York Stock Exchange alone. To put this into context, you would "only" need ~$25 billion to be able to purchase the entire 2005 U.S. corn crop!

With many billions of dollars flowing to these funds each year, they keep looking for markets to trade. Possibly this week, a fund "found" the milk market and decided that it was too cheap. This type of action might become commonplace in the future. As long as these funds remain buyers, it could be a welcome development for dairy producers by possibly creating great selling opportunities, just like this week has been."

If, after reading the commentary by Mr. Plourd, and my exposition on this hedge fund activity, you are ready to decry the nasty speculator, keep the Valley Trading comment in mind. Hedging requires two sides to the short-sell transaction. Price risk must be transferred to someone, and this requires the speculator, interested in earning a profit, to be willing to BUY the short-sold CME Class III contract, just as it happened last week for the February contract. Last week, the savvy hedger could have locked-in or put a floor under the Class III price above the $13.00/cwt mark. This is substantially above the upper 25% price of $12.56/cwt for February Class III milk. So, keep in mind that without speculative interest and willingness to buy, there would be no opportunity to sell at this higher price and no opportunity to lock in a price or floor a price $1.50 to 2.00/cwt over the long term median price.

Next time, I will look at what we know about the habits and motivations of small scale speculators. This is a very fascinating topic.

Check out my website: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy for the latest dairy product and milk price forecasts.
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 Passed the House

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page)

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 passed the House on February 1 by only two votes. The Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) provisions are: "Sec 1101 National Dairy Market Loss Payments (MILC Payments)" amends the payment structure and extends MILC payment authority; from 2006 FSRIA: "Payments to a producer under this section shall be calculated by multiplying (as determined by the Secretary) the payment quantity for the producer during the applicable month..."

($16.94/cwt) minus (Class I milk price per hundredweight in Boston under the applicable Federal milk marketing order) times (45%).

The Deficit Reduction Bill substitutes the following for the 45%:

Ending September 30, 2005, they get 45% of the payment;
Beginning October 1, 2005, and ending on August 31, 2007, they get 34% of the payment; and
Beginning on September 1, 2007 and ending September 30, 2007, farmers get 0% of the payment effectively ending the program.

The maximum payment quantity remains at 2.4 million pounds. It looks like the sign up period and duration of coverage is extended to September 30, 2007. Note that the September 1, 2007 through September 20, 2007 rate is 0.0%. You might wonder why such a convoluted way to end the program. As always, there is method to the madness. If the current farm legislation is extended and a 2007 farm bill becomes a 2009 farm bill, the MILC program will be extended at a rate of 0.0%. Meaning? Any direct extension of the MILC would have to be re-authorized at that time to have a rate of payment greater than 0.0%.

Twin Row Corn Silage Research Plot Results

Mr. Stephen Foster, Extension Educator, Darke County, The Ohio State University

Steve Foster and Harold Watters, both Agricultural Educators for Ohio State University Extension, have been conducting twin-row corn production research plots at the Darke County Research Farm for the last 3 years. Last year, they were asked if corn planted at high populations in a twin row system would be beneficial for corn silage production, so this year they planted a test plot that compared 2 different dual purpose corn hybrids at populations of 34,000 seeds per acre and 50,000 seeds per acre in 30 inch rows and twin rows.

A Great Plains Precision Plant no-till drill was used to plant the "30" and "twin row" plots. The Precision Plant drill has a seeding mechanism capable of handling seed corn reasonably well. The twin row plots were set up on 30-inch centers, with two rows 7.5 inches apart every 30 inches. Plot sizes planted were 15 feet wide by 300 feet long, with 10 feet of the middle harvested (center four rows of six) for corn yield comparisons.

The hybrids were chosen based on their characteristics as a dual purpose variety (silage and grain production). Croplan DS107 with Cruiser is a 107-day relative maturity hybrid that has a high tonnage per acre and a high dry matter digestibility rating. It also has a medium high population rating by Croplan. The Seed Consultant SC1082 with Maxim XL is a 112-day relative maturity hybrid with high ratings for grain quality and test weight. It also is ranked high for stress tolerance and it's recommended planting populations for soils with greater than 15 cation exchange capacity (CEC) is 28,000 to 31,000 seeds per acre.

Planting was done on May 7th and harvest for the silage plots was conducted on September 7th and 12th, 2005. A hand harvested sample was taken from 1/1000th of an acre from each of the 4 replications. The samples were then chopped weighed. Silage samples were collected and analyzed for dry matter (DM) content, NDF, and CP concentrations by The Ohio State University, Department of Animal Sciences. On November 22, 2005, harvesting of all plots was done with a Case IH combine; yield and moisture were determined with an on-board yield monitor.

Data analysis of the plots indicated that there were no significant differences among any of the treatments for tons of 100% DM produced per acre. The range of 100% DM was 8.81 to 10.03 tons/ac. There also was no difference among the treatments for concentrations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and crude protein (CP). The NDF ranged from 52.49 to 60.84% and the CP ranged from 7.59 to 8.52%.

There was, however, differences among the treatments for corn grain yield. Hybrid DS107 planted at 34k seeds/ac out yielded the DS107 planted at 50k seeds/ac in both the twin row and 30" row plots. Hybrid SC1082 planted at 34k in twin row plots out yielded the twin row plots planted at 50k seeds/ac. Croplan DS107 yielded better at 34k population than the plots planted at 50k seeds/ac in 30" rows. There was no difference between the plots of SC1082 planted in 30" rows and twin rows, planted at 34k and 50k seeds/ac (Table1).

Table 1. Corn grain yields for two hybrids in two different planting systems
at two different seeding rates, Greenville, Ohio, 2005.

Treatment¹	Yield (bu/ac)¹
TR DS107-34k	136.71
TR DS107-50k	109.16
TR SC1082-34k	153.24
TR SC1082-50k	118.49
30 DS107-34k	131.59
30 DS107-50k	99.37
30 SC1082-34k	149.93
30 SC1082-50k	145.65

¹TR = twin row
²P < 0.10; least significant difference = 11.02 bu/ac.

Although this study did not indicate any improvement in planting corn silage at high populations and in a twin row system, weather may have been an issue. Extremely hot and dry weather was experienced during the pollination and kernel development stages. As with most on-farm studies, more than one year of data are usually required to determine accurate results of different treatments. Additional studies using different hybrids, under a variety of weather conditions, may be required to prove if this system is beneficial to corn silage production.

Water Usage on Dairy Farms

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

As we always say "water is the most important nutrient", but all too often it is the most ignored nutrient when we are thinking of nutrition and animal performance. However, it is the first target when environmental risks are being addressed. Therefore, we must constantly monitor water quality and quantity on dairy farms for animal health and performance and for protecting the environment.

About 80% of the water intake by animals is from drinking and other 20% is consumed via the feed. The amount provided by the feed depends on how much of the diet consists of silage and wet commodities (e.g. wet brewers grains). Animals can not go without water for very long, but it is important to recognize that younger animals are at greater risk for dehydration from water deprivation than older animals; the younger the animal the greater proportion of the body that is water (range for body water content is 70 to 50% for cattle). Lactating dairy cows will respond quickly to problems with water availability and quality, but the most immediate response will be a drop in milk yield (milk consists of 87% water). In a lactating cow, about 24% of the daily water intake is secreted in milk, 12% is in the feces, 10% is excreted in the urine, and the remaining 54% may be lost via evaporation and the extent of water loss by evaporation is highly dependent on environmental temperature and humidity in the animal's living environment (in other words, not just based on the readings from the outside wall of the barn). Typical water intakes are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Water intake by dairy animals (gallons/day, unless noted otherwise).¹

Dairy Animal	Air Temperature
Dairy Animal	40^oF	80^oF
Heifer, 300 lb	2.9	5.2
Heifer, 900 lb	6.8	11.5
Cow, dry, 1400 lb	9.7	16.2
Cow, lactating, maintenance²
1000 lb	5.3	8.1
1400 lb	7.0	10.7
Cow, lactating, milk production, gal/lb 4% fat-corrected milk²	0.25	0.35

¹Taken from Linn, Four-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, 1991, pg. 80-96.
²The intake for maintenance and milk production must be added together for total daily intakes.

Intake of water by animals is also dependent on its availability. Generally, it is recommended that 2 linear ft of water space be available for every 20 to 25 cows. The floor surface around the waterers should not discourage animals from approaching them and need to be placed in multiple locations in large sections of free stalls so cows do not crowd around them and so the cow will not have to walk very far to get a drink. Cows usually are thirsty after leaving the parlor, so a water trough should be placed in the return alley from the parlor to the housing area. Oftentimes, this is the trough that water from the plate cooler will be discharged into. Cows drink by sucking water into their mouth, so they should place their nose in the water to get a drink. If you see an animal lapping water, this is abnormal and stray voltage should be suspected. The waterer should be routinely cleaned; tip tanks work extremely well for easy cleanout - the opposite are the water bowls with the floating balls that hide the filth in the bowls.

Water intake and the animal's performance can be affected by the quality of the water (Table 2). Water can be analyzed at many different laboratories in Ohio (see fact sheet located at http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0315.html). Water treatment options do exist, but these are usually quite costly considering the available technology and the quantity of water used on a dairy farm. One of the first approaches to dealing with water concerns in addition to chemical analysis is determining water intake. This can be most effectively done on most dairy farms by placing a meter in the water line (see related article in this issue of Buckeye Dairy News) or by placing a water tank in the facility and recording the amount filled and amount drank by the animals. Sometimes if quality is a problem, locating an alternative source may be the most favorable option (i.e. digging a new well, changing from surface water to a well, or in some cases, using a municipal water source). Well heads should be adequately set back from animal lots and the ground surface should slope away from the well head to prevent surface water from running down the well casing.

Table 2. General guidelines for water quality for animals.

Item	Concentration	Comments
pH	6.8 - 7.5	May affect intake
	---------------------- ppm --------------------
Sulfates	1 - 250	May reduce Cu and Se absorption
Sulfate sulfur	0 - 83	May reduce Cu and Se absorption
Ca or Mg	0 -200	Usually not a problem, but really high levels may decrease intake
Sodium	0 - 300	High levels reveal the use of a water softener
Iron	0 - 0.3	May decrease water intake; look for red stains on surface of water holding vessels
Nitrates (NO₃)	< 20
Nitrites (NO₂)	< 10
Coliform bacteria	None (0 counts) for potable water; <1000 fecal counts/ 100 ml tolerated by adult animals

Water usage on dairy farms also includes that for cleaning the parlor, holding pen, and milking equipment (possibly up to 17 gal/cow/day), and in some cases, for flushing the alleys in the free stall barns. Water from cleaning and any water that comes into contact with manure becomes, by definition, manure. Therefore, it is important to minimize runoff from cow lots by having them under roof and by placing gutters on buildings so the water can be diverted away from coming into contact with the manure. Manure storage should provide at minimum for six months of capacity, but given the typical weather conditions in Ohio, 8 to 12 months of storage capacity is recommended. Other areas of focus for reducing environmental risks pertaining to water is capturing the seepages from silos and making sure that animals do not have direct access to streams.

Water is an extremely valuable natural resource. The amount needed on dairy farms should be planned, availability and quality for animals continually monitored, and risks for contamination be minimized.

An Experience with Monitoring Water Usage on Dairy Farms

Mr. Dusty Sonnenberg, Extension Educator, Henry County, The Ohio State University

Water is the most important nutrient for any living organism. Wise use and management of that water is and will become an increasingly important function of dairy producers. Vmark, LLC is an Ohio-based company whose corporate theme is "rethinking water management". This organization has recently completed a water metering project at a commercial dairy in northwest Ohio in conjunction with Dr. Mike Brugger of The Ohio State University. Vmark, LLC specializes in the design and installation of water purification systems that are customized for large dairy farms. This organization believes that in order to facilitate wise water management decisions, we must first understand where all the water is going.

In this project, which started in August 2004, meters were installed on a relatively large, expanding dairy farm operation. The purpose of the metering project was to determine exactly where water is being used in this operation. Reliable data has been generated since January 2005. Through the metering project, valuable data were gained regarding this dairy's operation, such as the actual overall average daily drinking water per cow, the actual average daily waste water per cow, and the actual overall average water used per cow per day.

Metering the flow of water through this particular dairy's operation proved to be an effective management tool, as demonstrated by detection of an equipment failure (faulty valve), observations of shorter and/or longer wash down cycles, and documentation of shorter than recommended wash down cycles for the bulk tank. Another result of the metering project was the significant reduction of water usage by lowering the flow of water through the plate cooler while ensuring continued proper cooling of the milk. With metering data available, water usage was also reduced by adjusting the daily wash cycles to eliminate an extra security washing that had been completed each day.

The next goal is to develop and market a water filtration system that cleans the water immediately following its use. This system will be individually designed for each dairy, based on the water usage patterns and the characteristics of the waste water being generated by that operation. Rethinking water management is the most efficient way to conserve our planet's most valuable natural resource, water. The organization believes it has a viable, cost effective, long term alternative to offer commercial dairy farms an opportunity to accomplish this goal. More information can be gained at http://vmarkwater.com.

Genetically Modified Organisms - Feeds and the Food Chain

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Biotechnology is part of our everyday lives, whether in the medical community or food industry. However, the word "biotechnology" gives rise to anxiety for some people because it is associated with unnatural changes that lead to unknown implications. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) result from the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques (e.g. rDNA) or fusion of cells to overcome the natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not traditional techniques for breeding and selection (FAO and Food Nutrition Paper, 2004). In other words, they result from the change in genetic makeup other than by traditional breeding and selective practices to achieve desirable characteristics. It is important to understand the benefits of biotechnology and how people and the environment are protected from potential adverse effects of GMO.

Risks associated with GMO on human health and the ecology are the primary foci for evaluating their potential use. With respect to human health, allergenicity (response to certain proteins), potential toxicity, and simultaneous effects on more than one characteristic of an organism are evaluated. From the ecological perspective, potential effects on nontarget species, effects of gene flow (from one organism to another), and evolution of resistance (e.g. pest resistance to pest-protected plants) are assessed.

Many years of research are conducted in laboratories before a potential GMO can be considered for public use. During this research, the risks described previously must be reviewed and the total implications to the food chain assessed. For example, a new GMO corn could directly enter the food chain or be fed to animals which results in the need to assess the effects of the GMO on the animals and the animal products that enter the food chain (Figure 1). The regulatory authority for GMO lies with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Association (FDA) , and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Table 1). These agencies have joined together for working with GMO; see the United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology web site: http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/. These agencies have developed a "US Database of Completed Regulatory Agency Reviews" that can be found at: http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/database_pub.asp. These reviews establish approval for the three following categories of use:

"Food" use means that a product has completed an FDA review for consumption by humans, and if the product is a plant that contains a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), the PIP has completed EPA reviews (cPIP),
"Feed" use means that a product has completed an FDA review for consumption by animals and cPIP; and
"Planting" use means that a product has completed USDA-APHIS review for cultivation in the United States and cPIP.

Figure 1. Relationship between research, new plant developments, feedstuffs for animals, and the food chain.

Table 1. Regulatory authority for genetically modified organisms.¹

Agency	Jurisdiction	Laws
USDA (safe to grow)	Plant pests, plants, veterinary biologics	Federal Plant Pest Act
FDA (safe to eat)	Food, feed, food additives, veterinary drugs, human drugs, medical devices	Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
EPA (safe for the environment)	Microbial and plant pesticides, new uses of existing pesticides, novel microorganisms	Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide, Act; FFDCA; Toxic Substances Control Act

¹Taken from NRC, 2000.

Some GMO may fall into the category of Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS), whereby a company has to file a request to FDA for the said GMO to be acknowledged as a GRAS and the burden falls to FDA to identify why the item should not be accepted as GRAS. A list of substances for which GRAS status has been requested and FDA's action is located at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~rdb/opa-gras.html. The GRAS process relays somewhat on the principle of "substantial equivalence", which embodies the idea that existing organisms used as food, or as a source of food, can be used as the basis for comparison when assessing the safety of human consumption of a food or food component that has been modified or is new (Genetically Modified Crops: Assessing Safety, 2002).

Some examples of GMO in crops are:

Glyphosate (Round-up®) tolerance for soybeans, canola, corn, beets, alfalfa, and cotton {herbicide resistance},
YieldGard® (Monsanto, St. Louis, MO) for corn {insect resistance; corn borer; protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)},
Bollgard® (Monsanto, St. Louis, MO) for cotton (Bt; genetic resistance to tobacco budworm, pink bollworm, and cotton bollworm}, and
Hopperguard® (Land O' Lakes, St. Paul, MN) for alfalfa {genetic resistance to potato leafhoppers}.

These crops can also be fed to animals that then provide foods for human consumption. An example of direct GMO use in the dairy industry is in the use of bovine somatotropin (bST; Posilac®, Monsanto, St. Louis, MO. A plasmid from Escherichia coli is removed, the bovine gene for somatotropin (growth hormone) is inserted into the plasmid, and the plasmid in reintroduced back into the E. coli. The bacteria then are grown in a fermentation system, and afterwards, the bST produced by the bacteria is separated, purified, mixed with a carrier, and dispensed into single use syringes. This bST was introduced in February, 1994 and today, Monsanto is selling the product to about 13,000 dairy producers among the 50 US states (http://www.monsantodairy.com/about/general_info/index.html).

The US has among the most efficient food production system and the most safe food supply. It will continue to be a high priority to provide for safety of the food supply for humans and animals and to protect the environment, whether it be from influences from GMO or otherwise. Research must continue to provide the scientific foundation for addressing the risks and benefits of biotechnology.

References

Genetically Modified Crops: Assessing safety. K.T. Atherton, ed. Taylor and Farncis, New York.
National Research Council. 2000. Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants. Science and regulation. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Animals, Including Fish. 2004. FAO and Food Nutrition Paper 79, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO).

Northeast Ohio Dairy Management Conferences, March 29, 2006

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Wooster

Formulating a ration to get the same amount of milk production but less manure. Covering the bunker silo in the fall but not having to uncover and handle plastic and tires before feeding. Futuristic? Yes. Impossible? No. Practical? You bet. These topics as well as a panel focusing on harvesting quality forage and a look at managing Johne's Disease in the herd based on results of the newer, more sensitive fecal test results round out your day at the biennial Northeast Ohio Dairy Management Conference.

Edible, practical, spoilage-reducing bunker silo coverings have been a topic of interest and research for Larry Berger, nutritionist at the University of Illinois for several years. Dr. Berger will share results of his latest field trials and how this technique can be implemented on-farm. Current results show great promise, not only reducing spoilage, but actually adding some feed value from the ingredients of the cover itself.

Tired of hauling manure? When will the ground be fit? What ground is available? Potential nutrient overload? Bill Weiss, ruminant nutritionist at OSU, will share ways rations can be formulated to maintain milk production but decrease manure and/or manure nutrient secretion.

Good speakers, interesting discussion with fellow dairy farmers, students and dairy industry types as well as a fine prime rib lunch await those who register for the conference. The Raintree Country Club, just north of the Akron/Canton airport in Stark County, is easily accessible from I-77.

Full conference details and registration materials will be posted at https://dairy.osu.edu. They are also available at your county Extension office or by contacting Dianne Shoemaker at the Extension Center in Wooster at (330) 263-3799. Registration is $25 per person until March 15th or $35 per person after the early registration deadline.
Neonatal Calf Management Workshop: A Cool Experience for the Serious Calf Raiser

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Wooster

The future of every successful dairy operation depends on a steady supply of healthy, productive replacement heifers calving between 22 and 24 months of age. If the dairy is not expanding, sales of excess heifers should be an additional revenue stream for the farm. If the farm is raising calves for others, producing healthy, productive animals is essential to the long-term success of the calf raising enterprise.

This intense, 2-day workshop focuses on understanding and managing the calf from the calving process through weaning. Sessions on March 21st and 22nd include:

1) It's a girl!...managing the newborn (the same principles apply for those raising bull calves!);
2) Health diagnosis, treatment, and prevention;
3) Nutrition and growth; and
4) Managing the calf enterprise.

Hands-on labs include:

1) Assessing calf health;
2) Dealing with drugs and administering fluid therapy;
3) Why did this calf die? Posting a calf and studying calf anatomy; and
4) Avoiding on-the-job injury.

For the people working with calves, it is highly rewarding to work with a barn full of healthy, content calves. Dealing with chronic morbidity and mortality is discouraging for the people working with the calves and unprofitable, as well as unsustainable for the farm. From a purely economic perspective, with common calves less than a week old easily selling for $500 to $700 at local sale barns, dairy farms should strive for a death loss well under 5%.

The Neonatal Calf Management Workshop is designed for calf managers and care-givers who are dedicated to doing the best job possible raising their calves. A detailed agenda and registration materials are available to download at https://dairy.osu.edu or by contacting Dianne Shoemaker at (330) 263-3799. Register early as class size will be limited to assure plenty of hands-on experiences for participants.

The Neonatal Calf Management Workshop will be held near Wooster on the campus of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. The calf workshop will be followed by another workshop focusing on the replacement heifer from weaning through growing, breeding and freshening in June 2006.

Dairy Facts: A look at Ohio dairy farm numbers 2002 to 2005

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

Each February, the United States Department of Agriculture, in the report Milk Production, releases estimates of the number of dairy farm operations by state and the entire United States. These numbers are reported for all operations with at least one milk cow, and beginning in 2003 they provide a separate estimate of licensed dairy operations. They also release information on the number of dairy farm operations classified by the number of cows in the operation. Tables 1 and 2 below show you a summary of this information for Ohio over the time period 2001 to 2005. During this period, the number of US dairy operations, with at least one milk cow, decreased by 14.8%, from 91,990 in 2002 to 78,295 in 2005. The US licensed operations declined by 8% over 2003 to 2005. Today, there are an estimated 64,555 licensed dairy operations in the United States.

Table 1. Ohio dairy operations with at least one cow by herd size.

Year	1-29 Head	30-49 Head	50-99 Head	100-199 Head	200-499 Head	500+ Head	Total Operations
2002	2300	860	1200	480	135	25	5000
2003	2100	860	1100	470	140	30	4700 (3960)¹
2004	2000	800	1000	525	140	35	4500 (3780)¹
2005	1900	850	950	500	150	50	4400 (3610)¹

¹Number of licensed operations.

Table 2. Ohio dairy operations with at least one cow by herd size (%).

Year	1-99 Head	100-199 Head	200-499 Head	500+ Head
2002	87.2	9.6	2.7	0.5
2003	86.4	10.0	3.0	0.6
2004	84.4	11.7	3.1	0.8
2005	84.1	11.4	3.4	1.1

Milk and Dairy Product Production Climbs - What's Down the Road for Milk Prices?
Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University

As we enter the start of the 2006 calendar year, it is time to take stock of where we are milk price-wise and where we are likely to go in the next 12 months. In this column, I will review the trends observed in the cash markets for dairy commodities. If you would like to follow my weekly price projections for the milk and dairy product markets, you can do so by accessing my Ohio Dairy website at this address: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ . Here, you will find a wealth of information on the Ohio dairy industry, current cash and futures markets, and my 24 week forecast.

Cheese market

After peaking at $1.73/lb in the last week of January 2005, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) average cheese price has followed a general downward trend through the end of 2005. Over the last 16 weeks of 2005, the CME average cash cheese price has fallen from the comfortable $1.50's/lb to the not so comfortable $1.35/lb mark. This is a price not seen since February of 2004. The last time CME cash price for cheese 40 lb blocks traded below this level was back on June 27, 2003, with a close of $1.275/lb. By the week ending March 4, the CME average cheese price had declined further to $1.115/lb. The last time CME cheese dropped this low was back in April of 2003. The Dairy Market News reports that cheese markets are weak and may remain so well into the first half of 2006. Look for the cheese price to remain low for sometime to come. My crystal ball has the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) cheese price staying in the $1.11 to 1.13/lb range through July 2006. Higher cheese production costs as a result of soaring energy costs have severely squeezed cheese to milk margins and made life difficult for some parts of the US cheddar cheese industry.

Butter market

The CME butter market has followed a different path, peaking only recently during the third week of September at $1.72/lb. However, by the end of February 2006, the CME butter market has also lost steam and has slid down to $1.185/lb on the CME cash market. The NASS butter prices have followed this downward slide and were at $1.20/lb by the last week of February. My forecast suggests that butter prices will trade in the $1.20 to 1.23/lb range before regaining strength toward the last quarter of 2006.

Skim powder and whey markets

The powder markets have been on an upward trend through all of 2005. Nonfat dry milk (NFDM), benefiting greatly from a very tight world market for skim powder, increased steadily from a low of $0.88/lb to its high of $1.00/lb. In the opening weeks of 2006, NFDM has lost some stream and is currently trading at a price of $0.85/lb. At the current rate of milk production, with the balancing going to the skim powder market, the NASS price for NFDM could drop back to the support price of $0.80/lb by May 2006. Over the past year, the dry whey market moved in lockstep with the rising skim powder market, increasing from a low of $0.24/lb to the current high of $0.35+/lb. World supply and demand reporting for the international market suggests that this price may be the high for the coming year, with the price retreating back to the $0.30/lb level.

Let's take a look at what is ahead for milk prices

With milk cow numbers increasing, dairy slaughter low, and the energy prices siphoning disposable income from the consumer pocketbook, we can anticipate low milk prices over the next 12 months. Projected Federal Order 33 producer prices for 2006 are shown in Figure 1. With butter and cheese prices staying just above support price levels, the estimate for the 2006 Federal Order 33 mailbox price is $12.63/cwt. At the low Class III prices, the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program will contribute another $0.60 to 0.80/cwt on eligible milk shipments.

It remains to be seen what impact the Cooperative Working Together (CWT) program will have on these forecasts. The membership of CWT voted this past week to double the program's current $0.05/cwt assessment, in order to accumulate the additional financial resources necessary to address the surge in US milk production that is beginning to depress farm-level prices. The higher assessment will begin on July 1 and run through 2007. In addition to voting for a higher assessment, members also modified several other features. The regional safeguard levels in the northeast, southeast and midwest were raised. Whole milk powder (WMP) was added to the list of dairy products eligible for export bonuses, and Mexico, a major market for WMP, was added to the list of eligible destinations for WMP. The target price for cheese under the export assistance program was lowered from $1.40 to 1.30/lb. The target butter price remains at $1.30/lb.

Figure 1. Federal Order 33 Mideast price information: 2000 to 2006 (estimate).¹

¹Blend = Federal Order 33 Uniform or Blend Price ($/cwt), PPD = Federal Order 33 Producer Price Differential ($/cwt), MBPrice = Calculated Federal Order 33 Mailbox Price ($/cwt), and Year 1= 2000, 2 = 2001, etc.

The 2006 prices are generated to be consistent with the CME Class 3 futures contract prices as of March 13, 2006. The producer price differential (PPD) and the mailbox price (MBPrice) for 2006 are estimates based on the average CME Class 3 futures price for 2006 and historical price averages for Federal Order 33. Consistent with the 2006 price, the 2006 MILC payment will average $0.59/cwt on a maximum of 2,400 cwt. For comparison, the MILC payment averaged $1.20/cwt in 2002 and $1.63/cwt in 2003, both years of low Federal Order 33 mailbox prices.

Useful MILC web links
- Dairy producers can apply for MILC at local Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices and online at: www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/psd/.
- More information on MILC is available at local FSA offices and in the FSA MILC fact sheet located online at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/html/milc06.htm.
- A Microsoft Excel Workbook useful for calculating MILC payments and revenue alternatives can be found at: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ProActive_pricing.htm.

Feed and Nutrient Pricing

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University

Commodity feed markets have been relatively flat for the last 6 months. Besides the usual seasonal trends for commodities, such as brewers grains and wheat middlings, commodity prices have remained relatively constant over the last semester. Consequently, the implicit prices of nutrients as calculated by the software SESAME have remained relatively constant and near their long-term averages (Table 1).

Currently, there are great opportunities to reduce feeding costs through the judicious selection of ingredients to be included in the ration (Table 2). Ingredients that are currently trading well under their break-even prices are: bakery by-product, corn, corn silage, whole cottonseed, distillers dried grains, gluten feed, hominy, and wheat middlings. These are the current bargains. Feed ingredients trading significantly above their break-even prices are: alfalfa hay, beet pulp, canola meal, citrus pulp, meat and bone meal, molasses, soybean hulls, blood meal, and fishmeal. The use of these overpriced ingredients should currently be minimized.

Milk prices have been dropping abruptly since the beginning of the year. The large increase in milk supply resulting from the increase in the size of the national herd (number of cows) compounded with substantial increases in cow productivity (lb/cow/day) have led to a 5.9% annual increase in milk supply during February 2006. Although the demand for milk and dairy products has been very strong, the markets cannot keep absorbing huge increases in supply without significant price adjustments. Milk prices have been relatively strong over the last 2 years. Dairy farm profitability has ranged from good to excellent over that period of time. Unless unforeseen events occur to curb milk supply, we can expect relatively low milk prices in the foreseeable future. As shown in Table 3, income over nutrient costs dropped by $1.71/cow/ day between November 2005 and March 2006. On most farms, this reduction equates to the average daily profit made on a lactating cow. Consequently, things are once again getting tough on our dairy farms.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	Estimate
Net energy for lactation - 3X (NRC, 2001; $/Mcal)	0.078607	**
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.036663	*
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.208090	**
Non-effective NDF ($/lb)	-0.027429	~
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.049624	~

Table 2. Commodity assessment, Central Ohio, March 2006.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	130	109.77	91.20	128.34
Bakery Byproduct Meal	102	130.69	121.41	139.97
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	145	111.94	97.42	126.46
Brewers Grains, wet	30	28.69	25.62	31.75
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	160	129.90	118.16	141.63
Citrus Pulp, dried	153	109.67	101.95	117.39
Corn Grain, ground dry	97.50	133.30	124.67	141.94
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	35	46.56	40.10	53.02
Cottonseed Meal, 41% CP	182	169.65	159.58	179.72
Cottonseed, whole w lint	149	173.70	149.84	197.55
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	129	145.58	133.73	157.43
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	255	273.13	254.48	291.78
Gluten Feed, dry	93	122.34	113.43	131.34
Gluten Meal, dry	307	296.85	272.65	321.04
Hominy	88	118.00	110.12	125.88
Meat Meal, rendered	230	212.42	196.62	228.21
Molasses, sugarcane	152	91.12	83.74	98.51
Soybean Hulls	101	77.33	57.06	97.61
Soybean Meal, expeller	235	249.54	233.37	265.71
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	191	171.27	155.50	187.05
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	200	198.38	184.66	212.10
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	227	233.76	219.95	247.56
Tallow	330	322.64	293.57	351.70
Wheat Bran	72	83.72	69.71	97.73
Wheat Middlings	65	95.25	83.03	107.46

Table 3. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, Central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	March 2006	November 2005
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	2.73	2.89
RDP	(0.19)	(0.79)
Digestible-RUP	0.47	0.75
ne-NDF	(0.13)	(0.21)
e-NDF	0.54	0.72
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.61	3.57
Milk gross income
Fat	3.64	4.93
Protein	4.93	5.53
Other solids	0.88	0.66
TOTAL	9.45	11.12

Income over nutrient costs	5.84	7.55

Spring Applications of Manure and Inorganic Fertilizer to Cool Season Grasses

Drs. Robert Mullen, Mark Sulc, and Maurice Watson, School of Environmental and Natural Resources, OARDCDairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University

Fertilization of cool season grasses with either organic manure or inorganic, commercial fertilizer should be done to optimize the production system and meet your goals as a producer. The goal of this article is to provide some information on fertility management of cool season grasses.

Pre-establishment fertilization

Soil testing to determine soil nutrient status is the best way to quantify the amount of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) you need to supply as a manager. With the cost of these inputs rising over the past few years, routine soil sampling should be utilized. Soil testing should be conducted the same way as we recommend for row crop production. Collect 15 to 25 random soil cores to a depth of 8 inches, make a composite sample, and submit it to a soil testing laboratory for analysis. Recommendations for fertilizer P and K based upon soil test levels are available online in the Ohio Agronomy Guide in the Forage Production chapter (http://ohioline.osu.edu/b472/0008.html).

Ideally, P and K should be applied and incorporated prior to seeding based on the recommendation. A small amount of nitrogen (N) should also be supplied prior to planting, whether as commercial fertilizer or as manure to promote good stand establishment. The amount of N needed is around 30 lb/ acre. If you are supplying manure for N, remember that you are also supplying P and K, so make certain to quantify the amounts you are supplying. Knowing the amount of nutrients you are providing will ensure that they are not at a level that will limit production. Additional information on nutrient content of various manures can be found at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/b604/b604_15.html. Manure applied should be adequately incorporated into the soil, and seeding should not be done immediately after manure application. Seeding just after manure application (especially at high rates) can inhibit seed germination. Avoid gross over-application of both N and K (which includes manure), as they can lead to forage nutrient balance issues, especially early in the spring. Quick growth and excessive K uptake can decrease plant uptake of magnesium (Mg). Ruminant animals being fed this Mg deficient plant material can develop grass tetany. Dry cows being fed a forage high in K can develop milk fever.

Maintaining an optimum soil pH for the grass you are growing is also important for stand longevity. Different grasses require different pH levels, so know where you need to be with soil pH. If soil pH is too low (acidic), lime can be applied to adjust soil pH to the optimum level. Ideally, lime should be applied well before seeding (preferably 6 months), but if you need to make an adjustment, make the application whenever possible. Make certain that the lime is adequately incorporated into the soil so that it can neutralize soil acidity as fast as possible.

Fertilizing established stands

Soil test information is the best guide for making fertilizer decisions on established stands. The recommendations for established stands are the same as they are for pre-establishment. When soil nutrient levels are above optimum, the timing of P and K application is not critical; it can be done anytime during the growing season. When soil test levels are below the optimum, split applications is the best way to supply needed nutrients. The recommended split is after the first cutting in the spring and after the final cutting in fall. This is especially true for K due to grass tetany and milk fever concerns. Care should be taken when utilizing manure as the nutrient source in the spring. Remember, manure not only supplies N, but it also supplies K, so applying manure to get the desired N response can lead to high K levels, which can represent risk to animals. In addition, avoid smothering the grass with an excessive manure application.

Nitrogen application should also be split to ensure that N is available throughout the growing season. The current recommendation is that N be supplied at a rate to match yield potential and that the total N budget be split between N applied prior to green-up and after each cutting. Forty percent of the total budget should be applied prior to green-up in the spring and 30% of the budget should be applied after each cutting. Nitrogen recommendations for cool season grasses can be found in the Ohio Agronomy Guide in the Forage Production chapter (http://ohioline.osu.edu/b472/0008.html).
Manure Storage and Land Application - Where are we going? How fast can we get there?

Mr. Jon Rausch, Waste Management Extension Associate, The Ohio State University

In today's economic climate, manure nutrients have more value than ever. The cost of commercial nitrogen (N) is at an all time high and continuing to increase. Phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) are following this same trend. The demand for animal manure as a viable nutrient resource is once again being determined by economic forces. What has changed is the addition of environmental protection through regulations and the voice of society.

Historically, animal manure has been spread very close to the animal production facility, resulting in soil nutrient levels in excess of plant requirements. As farm size, environmental concerns, and crop nutrient input cost increase, the need to move nutrients further has become more necessary and more economical.

Water and air quality standards should drive the environmental requirements placed upon manure handling, storage, and nutrient recycling practices. Water quality impacts from land use activities are becoming more evident as restrictions to point source discharges become more stringent. This translates into increased scrutiny of non-point sources in an attempt to advance water quality improvements. These non-point sources primarily stem from land use activities, and the largest land owners have traditionally been rooted in agriculture.

Air quality standards are looming on the horizon as research efforts begin and air quality issues play out in the scientific, policy, and public opinion arena. Gas, odor, and particulate emissions associated with the animal production facilities are the primary concerns relative to air quality. Air quality recommendations and regulations will most likely develop in much the same manner as today's water quality standards, but probably at a faster pace.

Social acceptability of animal manure handling, storage, and nutrient recycling may be the largest unknown for many producers, especially as farm size increases. Finding a system that strikes a balance between the economic requirement for the farm and the need to mitigate environmental and social concerns will continue to be a significant challenge. Certainly, the costs of manure management will increase. These additional costs will have to be off-set by some source of revenue (cost reduction).

One source is fully recycling manure nutrients on and off the farm. Efficient utilization of these nutrients can be used to reduce the out-of-pocket cost of purchasing commercial fertilizer or become a revenue source from the sale of these nutrients. Many animal operations have the potential to broker/sell manure nutrients and associated agronomic benefits. However, this typically requires more time and resources dedicated to the management of manure.

Manure requires management to minimize adverse impacts to farm profitability, the environment, and neighbors. As crop production costs and the pressure from outside sources continue to increase, those individuals that find less costly alternatives will be more profitable. Animal manure may be one of these alternatives and as the demand for this commodity increases, the need to increase management will also increase. For example, to reap maximum return from manure may require minimizing the water content to concentrate the nutrients. Again, this may require more financial and human capital to provide a product that would demand such a premium.

Manure management is different on every farm. For some, the sale of manure nutrients and "mining" excess nutrients currently available may be more economical than transporting manure further from the production site. For others, investing capital in nutrient segregation technologies, such as liquid-solid separation, may be more economic. Yet, others may find the addition of adsorbing organic sources will transform a relatively sloppy manure mix into a stackable and marketable commodity with the addition of financial and human capital. The speed at which producers move toward changing manure handling, storage, and application practices will be driven by economic, environmental, and social demands.

2005 Average Milk Production for Ohio Dairy Herds by Breed

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The average production of milk, fat, and protein by breed for Ohio dairy herds in 2005 using the Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) program are provided in the table below. Not all herds on DHI are included in the table below, given that some of the herds consist of other breeds than the ones shown and some herds have a mixture of breeds. Information about the programs provided by the DHI Cooperative, Inc. in Ohio is provided at: http://www.dhiohio.com.

Breed	Number of Herds	Milk (lb/lactation)	Milk fat (%)	Milk protein (%)
Ayrshire	10	17,748	3.93	3.17
Brown Swiss	21	19,324	3.98	3.32
Guernsey	5	16,397	4.63	3.37
Holstein	477	21,743	3.71	3.06
Jersey	69	15,355	4.68	3.63

Appointment of New Extension Associate in Animal Welfare - Dr. Naomi Botheras

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Beginning February 13, 2006, Dr. Naomi Botheras began in the position of Animal Welfare Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University. Her primary responsibilities will be in the development of professional programs for producer and youth education in the area of animal welfare, specifically related to dairy, swine, and poultry production. She will particularly be involved in the development and introduction of computer-based training packages for US food animal producers that target employee behavior. The training aims to improve animal welfare and productivity, and also job satisfaction and labor retention. These packages have been developed at the Australian Animal Welfare Science Centre, where Naomi has been based for the past 5 years.

Naomi is originally from the state of Victoria, in Australia, and received a bachelor of science degree in zoology from The University of Melbourne in 2001 and has just completed a PhD degree in dairy cow behavior and welfare also from The University of Melbourne. She grew up on a beef and sheep farm about 2 hours from Melbourne and is actively involved in the management of the farm - well as much as she can be from the other side of the world! She has conducted research on swine and dairy cow behavior and welfare, and brings with her extensive experience and knowledge of animal behavior and welfare. Naomi is keen to get out and observe and learn about food animal production methods in the US, as most animals in Australia are managed outdoors all year round. She is also eager to work with farmers to introduce animal welfare as a positive concept, both for farm profitability and animal well-being.

You can contact Naomi at: 222 Animal Sciences Building, 2029 Fyffe Court, Columbus, OH 43210, botheras.1@osu.edu, (614) 292-3776, FAX (614) 292-1515.
2006 Ohio Dairy Challenge Contest

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 2006 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held February 17-18 and was again sponsored by Cargill Animal Nutrition. The Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for undergraduates at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format whereby students are grouped into teams of 3 to 4 individuals, and the first place team received $800, the second place team $300, and the third place team $200 from Cargill Animal Nutrition. The farm selected for the contest this year was Assen Dairy LLC in London, OH, and it is owned by Pieter and Johannes Assen and their families. They have a herd of 670 Holstein cows that are housed in free stalls and are milked 3-times-a day in a double-24 herringbone parlor. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about 2 hours at the farm on Friday evening, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the operation by interviewing the owners and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. On Saturday, the teams spent 4 to 5 hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities for the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation. The students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges were Mr. Keith DiDonato (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Steve DeBruin (Veterinarian for Assen Dairy LLC; Feeder Creek Veterinary Services), Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU), Dr. K. Larry Smith (Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU), and Dr. Richard Meiring (Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, OSU).

The contest was very successful this year, with a record year for the number of participants. The students among the teams that participated were: Team #1 -Julie Fluharty, Melissa Gibbons, and Annette Rubeck; Team #2 - Jarred Converse, Tim Lamb, Kristen Meiers, and Kathleen Zann; Team #3 ( Third Place) - Greg Hartschuh, Bryan Hirschbach, Matt Jackson, and Dan Ziegler; Team #4 - Gina Berry, Alicia Kissell, Sheryn Schlairet, and Erin Stone; Team #5 - Craig Link, Daryl Pena, John Schroeder, and Eric Weitzel; Team #6 - Matt Hartlein, Dan Sanders, Zach Stammen, and Kyle Warvel; Team #7 (First Place) - Brian Hartschuh, Mike Klein, Michelle Lahmers, and Jason Nuhfer; Team #8 (Second Place) - Mary Beth Fulk, Anton Henry, Amy Sprunger, and Allison Stammen; and Team #9 - Becky Galioto, Stacey Moritz, Maureen O'Brien, and Amanda Todd. The top 4 individuals for the contest selected to potentially represent Ohio at the 2006 National Contest were Michelle Lahmers, Jason Nuhfer, Dan Sanders, and Amanda Todd. The awards banquet was held at the Buckeye Hall of Fame Café, where the students and judges were joined by Pieter Assen and his fiancé.
2006 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 15th annual Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference (TSDNC) will be held April 25 & 26, 2006 at the Grand Wayne Center, Ft. Wayne, IN. The Grand Wayne Center is newly renovated with much more space than before.

The objective of the Conference is to disseminate current information on the nutrition and feeding of dairy cattle, primarily to individuals who provide nutritional advice to dairy farmers. Feed industry personnel, nutrition consultants, Extension personnel, veterinarians, and interested dairy producers are encouraged to attend. The Conference is sponsored by The Ohio State, Michigan State, and Purdue Universities and allied industries. The registration fee is $130 per person (discounts are available for groups of 10 or more) and is due by April 7, 2006. Registration after the deadline and at the door is $155. The registration fee includes refreshments during breaks and the reception, one breakfast, and a copy of the Proceedings. Additional copies of the Proceedings will be available at $20/copy.

A free pre-conference program is sponsored by Monsanto. This program takes place from 8:00 am to 11:45 on April 25, with a complimentary breakfast buffet starting at 7:00 am. Registration for the TSDNC begins at 11:00 am on April 25, with the program starting at 12:50 pm. The Conference concludes at 12:30 PM on April 26. The themes this year are Nutrition and Animal Health; Ration Formulation and Forages; and Nutrition and the Environment.

For additional information on the Conference or to register, contact Laurie Winkelman at OSU (614) 688-3143 or go to our web site: http://tristatedairy.osu.edu. Additional information also is available by contacting: Dr. Maurice Eastridge, The Ohio State University, (614) 688-3059; Dr. Herbert Bucholtz, Michigan State University, (517) 355-8432; or Dr. Timothy Johnson, Purdue University, (765) 494-4810.
Milk Prices Begin to Firm as U.S. Production Begins to Cool Off

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

As we enter the summer 2006 calendar year, it is time to take stock of where we are milk price-wise and where we are likely to go in the next 12 months. In this column, I will review the trends observed in the cash markets for dairy commodities. If you would like to follow my weekly price projections for the milk and dairy product markets, you can do so by accessing my Ohio Dairy 2005 website at this address: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ . Here, you will find a wealth of information on the national, regional, and Ohio dairy industries. Also, you will find current cash and futures markets charts and data, and my 24 week forecast for butter, nonfat dry milk (NDM), cheese, whey, and milk prices.

Cheese market

After peaking at $1.73/lb in last week of January 2005, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) average cheese price has followed a general downward trend through the end of 2005. Over the first 20 weeks of 2006, the CME average cash cheese price has fallen from the just-okay of $1.35's/lb to the not-okay $1.18/lb mark. The somewhat better news is that the bottom of this slide appears to have passed during the first week of March 2006 when the CME average cheese price hit $1.11/lb. This is a price not seen since May of 2003. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Dairy Market News reports that cheese markets are firm, and it appears that the abundance of production relative to demand is correcting. Rising cheese prices, along with promotional specials, are moving inventory. While this is good news, do not look for the cheese price to regain its old glory anytime soon. My crystal ball has the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) cheese price staying in the $1.18 to 1.21/lb range through September 2006. Could this change quickly? Certainly! Consider the two marketing years 2002 and 2003. In 2002, CME cheese prices fell all summer long and only recovered to $1.22/lb during the first week of October, before again retreating. Now consider 2003. The CME cheese prices started off low, $1.07/lb in March, and stayed there through June. Then, due to a hot, hot summer in the west, the CME cheese price moved up from $1.11/lb the last week of May to trade at $1.58/lb most of the weeks of August through early October of that year. For this to happen again, we need a serious slowing of milk production over the coming months.

Butter market

The USDA Dairy Market News reports that butter markets are showing some firming at the current price of $1.18/lb. Opinions are mixed as whether this is the bottom or not. The CME butter market has declined slowly after peaking only recently during the third week of September, at $1.72/lb. The CME cash butter has been trading at or under $1.17/lb since mid February. The NASS reported butter prices have followed this downward slide and were at $1.17/lb by the second week of May. My butter market forecast suggests that butter prices will begin to increase and reach $1.26/lb toward the third quarter of 2006. Like cheese prices, butter prices can move up very quickly given the right conditions. The NASS butter prices were reported at $1.15/lb for the week of October 17, 2003, and by April 23rd, 2004, they hit a market high of $2.30/lb! On the other hand, butter prices hardly traded over $1.10/lb during the entire period of May 2002 through July of 2003. Getting a handle on milk production will be the key to how quickly butter prices recover.

Skim powder and whey markets

The powder markets had been on an upward trend through all of 2005. The NDM, benefiting greatly from a very tight world market for skim powder, increased steadily from a low of $0.88/lb to its high of $1.00/lb. The first twenty weeks of 2006 have experienced a reversal of this trend. With NDM prices in the west at support, product has move steadily to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Current CCC NDM inventory, at 38.7 million pounds, is 21.7% above the same period in 2005. During 2005, the dry whey market moved in lockstep with the rising skim powder market, increasing from a low of $0.24/lb to the current high of $0.35+/lb. Early estimates on world supply and demand suggested that this price may be the high for the coming year with the price retreating back to the $0.30/lb level. This has been realized. Current whey prices reported by NASS are 27.68 cents per pound and declining. The expectation is for the market to continue to decline to the mid 20 cent per pound range for the coming months.

Let's take a look at what is ahead for milk prices

With milk cow numbers increasing, dairy slaughter low, and the energy prices siphoning disposable income from the consumer pocketbook, we can anticipate low milk prices over the next 12 months. Projected Federal Order 33 producer prices for 2006 are shown in Figure 1. With butter and cheese prices staying just above support price levels, the estimate for the 2006 Federal Order 33 mailbox price is the $12.63/cwt. At the low Class III prices, the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program will contribute another $0.60 to 0.80/cwt on eligible milk shipments.

Figure 1. Federal Order 33 Mideast Price Information: 2000 to 2006 (estimate);
Blend = Federal Order 33 Uniform or Blend Price, PPD = Federal Order 33
Producer Price Differential, MBPrice = Calculated Federal Order 33 Mailbox Price,
and Year 1= 2000, 2 = 2001, etc.

The 2006 prices are generated to be consistent with the CME Class III futures contract prices as of May, 2006. The Producer Price Differential (PPD) and the mailbox price (MBPrice) for 2006 are estimates based on the average CME Class III futures price for 2006 and historical price averages for Federal Order 33. Consistent with the 2006 price, the 2006 MILC payment will average $0.60/cwt on a maximum of 2,400 cwt. For comparison, the MILC payment averaged $1.20/cwt in 2002 and $1.63/cwt in 2003, both years of low Federal Order 33 mailbox price.

Cost of Nutrients and Benchmarks of Profitability for Ohio Dairy Farms

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University.

Here are a few things that we know. The price of milk is dropping. It always rains as soon as you start the first cut of hay. Feed prices keep changing. All of these events create headaches and opportunities. In this column, we concentrate on the opportunities offered from changes in feed commodity markets.
Springtime generally brings substantial changes in the relative price of feedstuffs. With a few exceptions, this year has been an exception so far. There has been no significant change in the relative prices of most feed commodities lately. But, it is always good to periodically re-evaluate your purchasing strategy. To help you with the process, we evaluated current commodity markets in central Ohio using the software SESAME (available at www.sesamesoft.com). The appraisal would be slightly different for other Ohio regions, but not markedly so.

Compared to March 2006, prices of nutrients (Table 1) show:

1) A drop of 0.7¢ per Mcal of net energy lactation,
2) An increase of 2.4¢ per pound of degradable protein,
3) A drop of 0.8¢ per pound of undegradable protein,
4) No change in the price of non-effective NDF, and
5) An increase of 1.5¢ per pound of effective NDF.

Therefore, as a general rule, it is currently wise to reduce the safety margins of dairy rations for degradable protein and effective NDF. Meanwhile, the markets are willing to pay you for using additional non-effective NDF. In practical terms, this means that there are some high fiber by-products that are currently real bargains. These are identified in Table 2.

In Tables 2 and 3, we report the results for 27 feed commodities traded or available in central Ohio. Table 2 conveniently groups commodities into three groups: bargains, at breakeven, and overpriced. If all the ingredients in your rations are from the overpriced column, it is time to visit with your nutritionist. Details of commodity pricing are shown in Table 3. In this table, the column labeled "actual" is the price for tractor trailer loads (TTL) FOB central Ohio. The "predicted" column is the calculated breakeven price per ton; lastly, the "lower limit" and "upper limit" are the 75% confidence range for the breakeven price.

Nutrient prices can be used to calculate a benchmark for feed costs. All these years of research have resulted in relatively precise nutrient requirements for milk production. Results of the calculations using the National Research Council (2001) requirements are presented in Table 4. The cost of feeding for a milk yield of 75 lb/day has gone up by 3¢/cow/day since March. Meanwhile, milk prices have plummeted. Consequently, income-over-feed costs (IOFC) has dropped $1.02/cow/day from March 2006, and $2.93 from May 2005. Historically, this benchmark has averaged about $6.00/cow/day. At $4.82/cow/day, IOFC is well below this average, resulting in meager profits, if any, for our Ohio dairy farms. Considering that the national supply of milk is very strong, one needs a good dose of optimism to see any light at the end of this low milk price tunnel. Management on our dairy farms must be prepared for an extensive period of low prices and very marginal profits at best.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	March 2006	May 2006
Net energy for lactation - 3X (NRC, 2001; $/Mcal)	0.079	0.072
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.037	-0.013
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.208	0.200
Non-effective NDF ($/lb)	-0.027	-0.027
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.050	0.065

Table 2. Grouping of feed commodities, central Ohio, May 2006.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay - 44% CP	Beet pulp
Corn grain	Brewers grains - wet	Canola meal
Corn silage	Gluten meal	Citrus pulp
Whole cottonseed	Meat meal	Cottonseed meal
Distillers dried grains	Expeller soybean meal	Molasses
Feather meal	48% Soybean meal	Soybean hulls
Gluten feed	Roasted soybeans	44% Soybean meal
Hominy	Tallow
Wheat bran
Wheat middlings

Table 3. Commodity assessment, central Ohio, May 2006.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	130	120.01	100.11	139.91
Bakery Byproduct Meal	105	122.35	112.40	132.30
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	142	108.04	92.48	123.61
Brewers Grains, wet	28	28.53	25.24	31.82
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	157	130.80	118.23	143.37
Citrus Pulp, dried	153	104	95.73	112.28
Corn Grain, ground dry	103	123.60	114.35	132.86
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	35	47.63	40.71	54.55
Cottonseed Meal, 41% CP	185	170.10	159.31	180.90
Cottonseed, whole w lint	158	183.67	158.10	209.23
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	125	139.38	126.68	152.08
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	235	268.44	248.46	288.43
Gluten Feed, dry	93	122.38	112.78	131.98
Gluten Meal, dry	287	285.20	259.27	311.23
Hominy	90	111.03	102.58	119.48
Meat Meal, rendered	220	209.42	192.49	226.35
Molasses, sugarcane	154	84.62	76.71	92.53
Soybean Hulls	101	72.27	50.54	94.00
Soybean Meal, expeller	244	239.14	221.81	256.47
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	199	171.69	154.78	188.59
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	208	196.49	181.78	211.19
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	240	233.34	218.54	248.13
Tallow	285	293.95	262.80	325.10
Wheat Bran	52	80.51	65.49	95.52
Wheat Middlings	45	91.58	78.50	104.67

Appraisal Set
Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Corrected
Alfalfa Hay - 38% NDF, 22% CP	150	118.86	138.43
Alfalfa Hay - 48% NDF, 17% CP	120	120.53	107.37
Blood meal, ring dried	510	344.90
Fish Menhaden Meal, mech.	715	280.18

Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	May 2005	March 2006	May 2006
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	3.30	2.73	2.49
RDP	0.60	(0.19)	(0.07)
Digestible-RUP	0.57	0.47	0.45
ne-NDF	0.36	(0.13)	(0.13)
e-NDF	0.47	0.54	0.71
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.58	3.61	3.65
Milk gross income
Fat	4.58	3.64	3.33
Protein	6.29	4.93	4.47
Other solids	0.45	0.88	0.67
TOTAL	11.32	9.45	8.47

Income over nutrient costs	7.75	5.84	4.82

Harvesting Hay Crop Silage

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University

In Ohio, the first cutting of alfalfa and cool season grasses usually makes up about 45% of the total annual yield. Therefore, the quality of first cutting will affect your cows for a substantial period of time. Milk production and income over feed costs are almost always better when good forages are fed.

1. Cut the forage at the correct maturity because quality doesn't improve after the crop is cut; it only gets worse. The best single index of hay crop forage quality is NDF. We found that with alfalfa, milk production decreases about 0.3 lb/day for every 1 unit increase in NDF concentration above about 37%. A good compromise between yield, quality, and stand longevity is to cut alfalfa so that the resulting hay or silage has about 40% NDF. A useful tool to determine when to cut alfalfa is an Alfalfa Quality Stick (if interested in purchasing contact Mark Sulc, sulc.2@osu.edu ). You go out into a field and measure the height of the longest stem with the stick, and it will tell you the approximate NDF concentration. Because NDF concentration increases during hay and silage making, cut alfalfa when it is about 38% NDF and the resulting feed will have about 40% NDF. Cool season grasses with an NDF concentration of about 50% is nutritionally equivalent to alfalfa with 40% NDF. To obtain that concentration, grasses need to be cut before they head (probably too late by the time you read this)

2. Get the crop to the correct dry matter as soon as possible. Mow early in the day to take advantage of sunlight and lower humidity during the entire afternoon. Wide swathing helps increase drying rate, but the swath has to be really wide (swath width at least 70% as wide as the cutter) to see a big effect. Tedding increases drying rate, but it should be done soon after alfalfa is mowed so that leaf shatter is minimal, and labor and fuel costs must be considered. With wide swathing, tedding is probably unnecessary. Mechanical conditioning greatly increases drying rate of first cutting alfalfa, especially under good drying conditions. Responses are much less for subsequent cuttings.

3. Chop at the correct dry matter (DM) concentration. For hay crop silages, DM percentages should be in the low 30's for bunker silos and around 40 for uprights and bags. At the DM that alfalfa is chopped for silage, the moisture concentration can decrease by several percentage units in an hour. If you have a lot of acres, chopping should start when the crop is slightly wetter than desired so that when you are finished, it will not be too dry.

4. A good lactic acid bacterial inoculant is often profitable (reduces fermentation losses) when applied to first cutting hay crops. If you use them, make sure they are well-distributed during application (either at the chopper or at the blower).

5. Fill the silo quickly, pack well, and cover or seal the silo as soon as possible. Delaying sealing by 24 hours causes a measurable decrease in fermentation quality and a measurable increase in fermentation losses.
Tail Docking of Dairy Cattle: Is it beneficial or a welfare issue?

Dr. Naomi Botheras, Animal Welfare Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

Tail docking of dairy cattle has become common in the United States. Farmers suggest that the practice of tail docking reduces the transmission of diseases carried by cows, such as Leptospirosis, to workers. Producers also suggest docking improves ease of milking, and makes milking more comfortable for the workers because the shortened tail is less likely to hit people. Importantly, docking is also thought to improve cow cleanliness and udder health and hygiene, thereby decreasing somatic cell count (SCC) and the risk of mastitis.

While there are several perceived benefits of tail docking, it is also important to consider the effects of tail docking on the welfare or well-being of dairy cattle. There may be both short-term and long-term disadvantages to the cow associated with tail docking. These may include acute pain associated with the docking procedure, the possibility of chronic (long-term) pain in the tail stump, reduced ability of the cow to use its tail for communication and other normal functions, and altered ability of the cow to avoid flies. These possible disadvantages for the cow are welfare issues that should be considered alongside any possible benefits of tail docking.

Interestingly, a number of scientific studies have found no effect of tail docking on several of the suggested hygiene and cleanliness benefits of tail docking. Tucker et al. (2001) found no difference in a commercial free-stall barn between cows with intact tails and those that had been docked in terms of cleanliness, SCC, or cases of mastitis. Matthews et al. (1995) found similar results for cows on pasture with docked versus intact tails, with no difference in udder cleanliness, SCC, or incidence of mastitis. Eicher et al. (2001) also found no difference in udder cleanliness or SCC for docked and intact cows housed in a tie-stall barn, but they did find that docked cows were cleaner on their rear-quarters. In a substantial study with a large number of cows on 8 commercial free-stall farms observed over a 9-month period, Schreiner and Ruegg (2002) found no difference in SCC or intra-mammary infections between docked and intact dairy cows. These authors also found no difference in udder cleanliness scores, although there was a trend for docked cows to have slightly cleaner legs.

An obvious question is whether the welfare of tail docked cows is reduced because of either the inability of the animal to avoid flies or the disruption of important behaviors (such as feeding and lying) by the use of alternative fly-avoidance behaviors. Typical fly avoidance behaviors include running away, stomping, kicking, tail swishing, skin twitching, and head or ear movements. Increased fly loads are associated with disruption and alterations of eating patterns and increased energy expenditure in fly avoidance behaviors, which have implications for feed efficiency and consequently milk production and animal performance. It has been found that fly numbers are actually greater on tail docked cows and that docked cows show increased fly avoidance behaviors (Ladewig and Matthews, 1992; Eicher et al., 2001; Eicher and Dailey, 2002), which may have serious implications for animal performance.

Several European countries, including the United Kingdom, have prohibited tail docking of dairy cattle; however, no legislation in North America currently addresses this issue. However, tail docking is prohibited or not recommended in several animal welfare assurance/certification programs that have been developed for the U.S. dairy industry. Furthermore, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) opposes routine tail docking of cattle, stating "current scientific literature indicates that routine tail docking provides no benefit to the animal and that tail docking can lead to distress during fly seasons. When medically necessary, amputation of tails must be performed by a licensed veterinarian".

While some studies have indicated minimal adverse short-term effects from docking tails of dairy cattle using a rubber ring, no positive benefits to the cows have been identified, and potential long-term adverse effects of tail docking remain a possibility. These results suggest that with the possible exception of improved worker comfort, producers (and their cows) have little to gain from adopting the practice of routine tail docking of dairy cattle, as there may be disadvantages for the cows (e.g., pain and increased fly loads leading to increased fly avoidance behaviors) and also lack of cleanliness and udder health benefits. Until benefits for the cow of tail docking can be scientifically established, the routine tail docking of dairy cattle cannot be recommended. Investigation of alternative ways of improving cleanliness are warranted, as management decisions other than tail docking may play a more significant role in determining udder cleanliness and milk quality. For example, trimming the switch of the tail may offer an acceptable alternative to tail docking and should be considered whenever possible. Importantly, as tail docking of dairy cattle actually increases the fly load on the cow, if it is necessary to tail dock cows, particular attention to fly control is essential. This is important not only for the consideration of the cow's well-being, but also in terms of limiting effects on animal performance due to increased fly avoidance behavior.

References

Eicher, S.D., and J. W. Dailey. 2002. Indicators of acute pain and fly avoidance behaviors in Holstein calves following tail-docking. Journal of Dairy Science 85:2850-2858.

Eicher, S.D., J.L. Morrow-Tesch, J.L. Albright, and R.E. Williams. 2001. Tail-docking alters fly numbers, fly-avoidance behavior, and cleanliness, but not physiological measures. Journal of Dairy Science 84:1822-1828.

Ladewig, J., and L.R. Matthews. 1992. The importance of physiological measurements in farm animal stress research. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 52:77-79.

Matthews, L.R., A. Phipps, G.A. Verkerk, D. Hart, J.N. Crockford, J.F. Carragher, and R.G. Harcourt. 1995. The effects of tail docking and trimming on milker comfort and dairy cattle health, welfare and production. In: Animal Behaviour and Welfare Research Centre, Hamilton, NZ, pp 1-25.

Schreiner, D.A., and P.L. Ruegg. 2002. Effects of tail docking on milk quality and cow cleanliness. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 2503-2511.

Tucker, C.B., D. Fraser, and D.M. Weary. 2001. Tail docking dairy cattle: Effects on cow cleanliness and udder health. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 84-87.
New Diagnostic Testing for Johne's Disease in Ohio

Dr. Bill Shulaw, Extension Beef and Sheep Veterinarian, The Ohio State University

Since the middle of last summer, a new diagnostic process for Johne's disease fecal cultures has been in place at the Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory at the Ohio Department of Agriculture in Reynoldsburg. At the center of this process is the Trek ESP liquid culture system.

In contrast to the older system of culture on solid media, this system utilizes a liquid media, or "broth" as it is sometimes called, in which to grow the causative bacteria - Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP). Following standard fecal sample preparation procedures, a small quantity of the processed sample is placed in a sealed vial of the liquid media along with specific growth supplements and certain antibiotics to control non-specific bacterial and fungal growth. The vial is then placed into a specialized incubator and connected to sensors that monitor changes in pressure which signal growth inside the vial. Several of these incubators are connected to a computer that monitors the changes in each vial several times each hour. These data are stored in the computer and continually matched to a preprogrammed formula that mimics the typical growth of MAP. When the match is close enough, the computer signals the microbiologist that the sample is positive.

Liquid from the positive vials is stained to look for typical organisms and stain-positive specimens are then subjected to a procedure called PCR which stands for polymerase chain reaction. This reaction tests for the presence of DNA specific for MAP. In fact, two different PCR reactions are used to be sure positive samples really contain MAP. Although samples may be positive as soon as 10 to 14 days, the vials which are not identified as positive by the computer are incubated for a total of 42 days. At the end of this time, they are also stained to look for the typical bacteria. If they are seen, the sample is tested by PCR in the same way. This is important, because not all positive fecal specimens will be detected without this step. The final accounting and reporting are complete about eight weeks after the process begins. This is a significant improvement in the incubation time required for the older solid media cultures which were incubated for a total of 16 weeks before the final report was issued.

Perhaps, the most significant advantage of the liquid media-based system over that of the solid media method is its apparent overall increase in positive fecal samples. An exhaustive comparison of this system with the solid media method has not been done, but research has suggested that the improvement should be at least 40 to 50% and possibly considerably more depending on herd history and specific situations. This is similar to the experience of other laboratories using this system and research done in Ohio with other liquid culture systems. Although not all the factors are known, it is likely that the liquid supports the growth of MAP better than the solid media.

For producers, the increase in sensitivity may be a "good news, bad news" situation. The good news is that more cows shedding MAP in their manure will be detected, especially those shedding low numbers. For producers attempting to eliminate the infection, more rapid progress can be made. In addition, we can have increased confidence in the status of "test-negative" herds that have been cultured. The possibility of detecting animals shedding low numbers of MAP in pooled samples from several animals is improved, thus facilitating some kinds of testing strategies. The "bad news" is that for some producers, it may appear that their control efforts are going in the wrong direction. For example, a producer annually testing 100 cows who has typically found 10 test-positive animals may see 15 positive animals on the next test using the new culture method, assuming their situation stayed the same. A similar increase in sensitivity of culture occurred a few years ago when the laboratory adopted an improved sample preparation technique that resulted in more MAP being available to inoculate on the media.

An additional advantage of this liquid culture-based method is that it reduces labor by eliminating the need to pull thousands of solid media tubes out of walk-in incubators and visually inspect them for growth. This is partially offset by the need to routinely stain all liquid cultures and perform the PCR tests on positive samples. However, the net effect of this method, along with some changes in laboratory procedures, is to allow a modest increase in the number of samples that can be processed each week.

The biggest disadvantage of the liquid-based culture method is cost. The supplies and equipment needed to perform the cultures are somewhat more expensive than the solid media and the supplies to conduct the confirmatory PCR tests are also fairly expensive. This means that in times of tight state and federal budgets, it will become increasingly difficult to provide the high level of testing support currently enjoyed by Ohio's producers.

For years, producers and veterinarians have asked for better tests for Johne's disease. Science continues to provide incremental improvements, and tests will continue to get better as has fecal culture. Will we ever have a test that will positively identify an infected heifer at six months of age with a single test? Although this is highly desirable, the answer is, "Probably not." The biology of this disease and the nature of the animal's response to the infection suggest that this will be very difficult. Consider the situation with human tuberculosis caused by the related bacteria, Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This disease affects about one-third of the world's population, and someone is newly infected every second of every day. One person will develop active tuberculosis every three seconds. The diagnostic screening tests for human tuberculosis are still a skin test and a chest x-ray, and culture of the patient's respiratory secretions remains the confirmatory test. No satisfactory vaccine for human tuberculosis exists. Although our tests for Johne's disease get better nearly every year, and this newest method of culture is very good, testing and culling alone will never be enough to control or eradicate the disease.
Results from Research Supported by the Ohio Dairy Research Fund

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Ohio Dairy Research Fund was developed to support research by voluntary dairy producer contributions. Much research is needed to address today's complex issues relative to dairy production, milk quality, and milk products. Since 1982, over $730,000 in producer investments have funded research that has greatly benefited Ohio's dairy industry. From time to time, results of this research will be included in the Buckeye Dairy News. For this issue, the results from two recent projects are provided below.

Occurrence and Control of the Fescue and Ryegrass Toxicosis Endophytes in Ohio Dairy Pastures
Dr. Landon H. Rhodes, Department of Plant Pathology, and Dr. David J. Barker, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

Objective 1: Determine the incidence and distribution of endophytes in ryegrass and tall fescue in Ohio dairy pastures.

A significant finding was that 11% of the ryegrass pastures sampled in 2003 had high (> 40%) incidence of endophyte infection. Intensive grazing on such pastures is likely to result in poor animal performance or animal health problems. Those pastures with moderate levels of endophyte (5 to 40% endophyte infection) are also cause for concern, with 24% of the ryegrass pastures sampled falling into this category. Of the fescue fields tested, 3 (18%) had moderate infection and 8 (47%) had high infection. For those fields re-sampled in 2004, levels of endophyte were similar to those found in 2003. The factor most consistent with high endophyte levels in ryegrass and tall fescue was greater seed of unknown origin. This finding points out the importance of obtaining endophyte-free seed for establishing new pastures. The use of endophyte-free seed to establish new ryegrass (and tall fescue) pastures is probably the best method to ensure that endophytes will not become a problem.

Objective 2: Determine the ability of selected fungicides to eradicate or permanently reduce the incidence of endophytes in established tall fescue and ryegrass.

A field experiment was conducted to determine if certain fungicides could eradicate or reduce the incidence of endophyte in established pasture. Results indicated that none of the 10 fungicide treatments significantly reduced endophyte levels. The unsprayed control plots had 47.5% incidence of endophyte. Considering that plots received four applications of each fungicide and that the maximum label rate of each fungicide was used each time, it appears unlikely that fungicide eradication of endophytes in established pastures will be successful. However, it should be noted that neither the antibody method nor the staining method used to assess endophyte levels in plant tissue are capable of discriminating between living and dead endophyte. Fungicides may have killed some of the endophyte within the grass plants, but these samples would appear identical to samples with live endophyte. Further work is necessary to assess the amount of dead versus living endophyte in tissue samples.

Additional Implications of Findings: Data obtained from these studies has led to improvements in methodology that may be helpful in assessing endophyte levels in the future. In 2003, pre-application sampling in small plots (96 square feet) revealed high spatial variation in endophyte distribution at both Columbus and Jackson. Therefore, in summer 2004, we initiated two field studies (Columbus and Coshocton) investigating the spatial variability of endophyte using 'precision agriculture' methodologies. In each study, 425 tillers were sampled from a 192 square foot area and analyzed for endophyte. We were able to draw spatial maps that showed distinct spatial variability in the distribution of endophyte. Patches ranged from 60 to 100% within the 192 square foot areas. Future work will aim to repeat the spatial mapping studies in an additional year, as well as investigate the implications of this spatial variability (e.g. on livestock grazing patterns). Also, we will continue studies on the mechanisms of endophyte re-infestation of endophyte-free tall fescue pastures, including financial analysis of the costs and returns to livestock producers.

Production of Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) Rich Milk
C. K. Reynolds, S. Loerch, V. Cannon, P. Tirabasso, D. Clevenger, and G. Lowe, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Justification: Milk and dairy products are the major source of dietary CLA for humans, and 'naturally' enriched high CLA butter has been shown to reduce the number and incidence of mammary tumors in rats. There is now considerable interest in the development of 'naturally' enriched CLA milk and milk products for niche markets.

Objectives: Assess the effects of ration forage type (corn silage versus alfalfa pellets or haylage) and novel oil supplements (combination of soybean and marine algal oils) on the enrichment of milk fat conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) content.

Results: Two studies were conducted in 2 calendar years using lactating ewes at the OARDC sheep center. Ewes were used as a model for cows in order to increase the number of observations obtained, and the studies were designed to be complimentary to studies in cows conducted simultaneously at the University of Reading in England using grass- and corn silage-based rations.

Study 1. Feed dry matter intake was lower for corn silage and was reduced by feeding oil. Milk yield was not affected, but milk fat concentration was increased by feeding oil. The concentration of medium chain (12 to 16 carbon) saturated fatty acids was relatively high compared to cows. Their concentration was decreased by feeding oil with alfalfa, but increased by feeding oil with corn silage. The concentration of total (largely cis-9, trans-11) CLA was higher for corn silage than alfalfa and increased by feeding oil, and the response was greater for alfalfa. As for CLA, the total trans-18:1 isomer concentration was higher for corn silage and increased by oil, but the response to oil was greater when corn silage was fed. This difference in total trans-18:1 concentration was due to differences in both trans-10 and trans-11 isomers.

Study 2: As in study 1, feed dry matter intake was reduced by feeding oil and tended to be lower when corn silage was fed. Milk yield was reduced by feeding oil with alfalfa haylage but increased by feeding oil with corn silage. Milk fat concentration was increased by feeding oil with alfalfa haylage, but reduced by feeding oil with corn silage. In contrast to study 1, the concentration of CLA (largely cis-9, trans-11) was higher for alfalfa haylage and increased by oil, and the response to oil was greater with alfalfa haylage. The concentration of trans-10, cis-12 CLA (a known inhibitor of milk fat synthesis in cows) was also increased by oil and was higher when corn silage was fed. As in study 1, the concentrations of trans-11 C18:1 and total trans C18:1 were higher when corn silage was fed, were increased markedly by feeding oil, and the response was greater when oil was fed with corn silage.

Conclusions: The response of milk fatty acid concentrations to supplemental oil was influenced by the type of forage fed, but reasons for the greater increase in CLA concentration when oil was fed with alfalfa in both studies are not certain. Based on diet analysis, the greater basal CLA concentration was associated with greater intakes of linoleic acid in both studies. This suggests that the fatty acid content of the forage fed is an important determinant of basal concentration of milk CLA. In contrast, the greater response of CLA to supplemental oils when alfalfa was fed may be due to greater fiber intake relative to starch, which has been shown to influence CLA levels in milk of dairy cows fed similar oils with diets differing in forage level. This may be due to the effects of diet carbohydrate type on rumen microbes and their ability to saturate fatty acids.

In both studies, the concentration of trans-C18:1 isomers were higher when corn silage was fed, were increased by feeding oil, and the response to oil was greater for corn silage. This also may relate to differences in the amount of starch consumed relative to fiber, and subsequent effects on rumen microbes.

Despite large increases in trans-fatty acid concentration, including trans-10, cis-12 CLA, total milk fat concentration was increased by feeding highly unsaturated oils to ewes. This is opposite to the expected response based on a number of studies in cows. Reasons for this difference are not certain, but if they can be identified, then our understanding of the causes of milk fat depression in dairy cows, and how to manage it, will be improved.
2006 Inductions to Dairy Science Hall of Service

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Dairy Science Hall of Service was initiated in 1952 to recognize worthy men and women who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at the Ohio State University. The desirable qualifications for the award include outstanding leadership, demonstrated creativity, willingness to share, and proven ability to inspire and motivate others for the improvement of the dairy industry. The annual induction occurs at the Department of Animal Sciences Dairy Banquet and portraits of the inductees are hung in the halls of Plumb Hall on Columbus campus of The Ohio State University.

This year's inductees were Drs. R. David Glauer and David Zartman. Since 1993, Dr. Glauer has served as Ohio's State Veterinarian and as the State's top animal health official. He oversees a state field staff comprised of livestock inspectors and veterinary medical officers, in addition to administering Ohio's Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (ADDL). Dr. Glauer will be retiring this summer. Dr. David Zartman has been on the faculty at The Ohio State University since 1984, serving in roles as a Department Chair from 1984 to 1999, actively engaged in outreach education relating to management intensive grazing, and being an acclaimed teacher. Dr. Zartman retired from Ohio State on January 31, 2006. Both of these men have made major contributions to Ohio's dairy industry - our THANKS to them for their many years of dedicated service.
2006 National Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge (http://www.dairychallenge.org) is a national contest created to inspire students and enhance university programs nationwide. It is a dairy management contest that incorporates all phases of a specific dairy business in a fun, interactive, and educational forum and is supported financially through generous donations by industry and coordinated by a volunteer steering committee. The fifth annual National Contest was held on March 31 and April1, 2006 in Twin Falls, ID and was hosted by the University of Idaho and Washington State University. The event attracted 27 teams from the United States and Canada, challenging them to put their textbook and practical knowledge to the ultimate test - analyzing dairy farms. The format started with a walk-through at the dairy farms, followed by the opportunity to ask questions of the owners, and analyze farm-specific data. Student teams used this information to develop management recommendations, and then presented their management recommendations to a panel of five dairy industry judges. The placement categories for the contest are platinum, gold, and silver, with the team from The Ohio State University doing an excellent job by placing in the gold category. The students that represented Ohio at the 2006 National Contest were Michael Klein, Stacey Moritz, Dan Sanders, and Amanda Todd, with Dr. Maurice Eastridge serving as their coach. The farm evaluated by Ohio's team consisted of 2700 Holstein cows, double-29 and double-20 parallel parlors, milked 3-times-a-day, and the rolling herd average for milk was 25,636 lb. Other large farms and a calf ranch were visited during the program. In 2008, the National Contest will be held March 30-31in Sioux Falls, SD. Iowa State University and South Dakota State University will be co-hosting the event.

The team that represented Ohio and placed in the gold
category at the 2006 National Dairy Challenge were:
Front row: Amanda Todd and Stacey Moritz; Back row:
Dan Sanders, Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Coach), and Michael Klein.
2006 Ohio 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl

Ms. Laurie Winkelman, Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 29th annual Ohio 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl competition was held on Saturday, May 20. Both junior and senior competitors started the day by taking a written exam to determine seeds for the contest set-up. Receiving the highest scores on the junior exam was Rachel Townsley from Champaign County. Topping the competition in the senior division was Kathy Phillips from Mahoning County.

Eight junior teams representing four Ohio counties competed in a double elimination tournament-style competition. A combined team from Champaign and Logan Counties surged from the bottom of the bracket to beat Team A from Mahoning County twice in the final round. Members of the winning Champaign/Logan team included: Rachel Townsley from Urbana, Garret King from West Liberty, Ethan Starkey from Mechanicsburg, and Hillary Jackson from DeGraff. The winning team was coached by Mark and Lorraine Townsley of Urbana. Mahoning's runner-up team consisted of Austen Shoemaker from Salem, Billy Grammer from Sebring, and Megan Wyss and Jonathan Dye, both from Beloit. Jane Moff and Katey Lora coached the Mahoning County team.

In the senior competition, 11 youth participated in a Dairy Jeopardy contest. After two rounds of competition, the top 6 youth were selected to compete in the finals. Winning the Senior Dairy Jeopardy contest was Tad Nelson from Champaign County. The second place senior was Samantha Grizzell from Ross County. Rounding out the top six were: 3rd - Heidi Moff (Mahoning), 4th - Kourtnie Buchanan (Ross), 5th - Kathy Phillips (Mahoning), and 6th - Hayden Gress (Wayne).

A combined team from Champaign and Logan Counties won the 2006
State 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl Jr. Contest. The team (from left to right) consisted
of Ethan Starkey, Hillary Jackson, coach Mark Townsley, Garret King,
Rachel Townsley, and coach Lorraine Townsley.

Mahoning Co. juniors placed second in the 2006 State 4-H Dairy
Quiz Bowl contest. From left to right are: coach Katey Lora,
Megan Wyss, Jonathan Dye, Austen Shoemaker, Billy Grammer,
and coach Jane Moff.

Senior 4-H quiz bowl contestants competed in a Dairy Jeopardy contest.
The top 6 youth are pictured above. From left to right are Hayden Gress -
6th place, Wayne Co., Kathy Phillips - 5th place, Mahoning Co., Kourtnie
Buchanan - 4th place, Ross Co., Heidi Moff - 3rd place, Mahoning Co.,
Samantha Grizzell - 2nd place, Ross Co., Tad Nelson, 1st place, Champaign
Co., and Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist.
Milk Prices May Firm as the Summer Heats Up and U.S. Milk Production Cools Off

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

As we enter the second half of the HOT - HOT - HOT 2006 summer, it is time to take stock of where we are milk price-wise and where we are likely to go in the next 12 months. In this column, I will review the trends observed in the cash markets for dairy commodities. If you would like to follow my weekly price projections for the milk and dairy product markets, you can do so by accessing my Ohio Dairy 2006 website at this address: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ . Here you will find a wealth of information on the national, regional, and Ohio dairy industries; current cash and futures markets charts and data; and my 24-week forecast for butter, nonfat dry milk (NDM), cheese, whey and milk prices.

Cheese market

Over the first 28 weeks of 2006 the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) average cash cheese price has fallen from the just-okay of $1.35's/lb to the not-okay $1.14/lb mark. It appeared that the bottom of this slide passed during the first week of March 2006 when the CME average cheese price hit $1.11/lb. This is a price not seen since May of 2003. After recovering to the $1.24/lb mark during the first week of June, prices have retreated back to support levels. The USDA Dairy Market News reports that cheese markets are unsettled to weak. Commercial demand is slower as buyers wait for yet lower prices. However, with record heat across all of the U.S. dairy production regions, milk production gains will vanish and this will put more upward pressure on cheese prices in the coming weeks. If the heat wave does not let up soon, look for any tightness in the cheese market to be reflected in a rally in the CME cheese price.

Butter market

The USDA Dairy Market News reports that butter markets are generally steady with an adequate supply in inventory to supplement a slowing milk production. The CME butter market has declined slowly after peaking only recently during the third week of September at $1.72/lb. The CME cash butter has been trading at or under $1.17/lb since mid February. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported butter prices have followed this downward slide and were at $1.129/lb by the first week of July. Commercial demand has responded to lower prices, increasing 17% on an average daily basis, February - April 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. With the hot weather, I am still looking for butter prices to begin to increase and move into the mid $1.20's/lb toward the third quarter of 2006.

Skim powder and whey markets

Both the NDM and dry whey markets have fallen over the 28 weeks of 2006. With NDM prices in the West at support, product continues to move steadily to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Current CCC NDM inventory, at 66.0 million pounds, is 112% above the same period in 2005. During 2005, the dry whey market moved in lockstep with the rising skim powder market, increasing from a low of $0.24/lb to the current high of $0.35+/lb. Early estimates on world supply and demand suggested that this price may be the high for the coming year with the price retreating back to the $0.30/lb level. This has been realized. Current whey prices reported by NASS are $0.27 to 0.28/lb. The expectation is for the market to continue to trade in this range for the coming months.

Let's take a look at what is ahead for milk prices

My forecast is unchanged from the May issue of Buckeye Dairy News. The factor to watch is the duration of the hot humid weather across the United States, which has forced down milk production per cow and significantly slowed the rate of increase in milk production for the U.S.
{Check this out http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/quickchart/cowsandyield.htm }
If the oppressive heat continues, particularly in the west and southwest and southeast, this could have a significant impact on prices later in the year. It is too early to call this one, and we will have to wait to see how long the heat wave lasts. Projected Federal Order 33 producer prices for 2006 are shown in Figure 1. With butter and cheese prices staying just above support price levels, the estimate for the 2006 Federal Order 33 mailbox price is the $12.63/cwt. At the low Class III prices, the Milk Income Loss Program will contribute another $0.60 to 0.80/cwt on eligible milk shipments.

Figure 1. Federal Order 33 Mideast price information: 2000 to 2006 (estimated) {Blend = Federal Order 33 Uniform or Blend Price, PPD = Federal Order 33 Producer Price Differential, MBPrice = Calculated Federal Order 33 Mailbox Price, and Year 1= 2000, 2 = 2001, etc.}. The 2006 prices are generated to be consistent with the CME Class III futures contract prices as of May, 2006. The PPD and the MBPrice for 2006 are estimates based on the average CME Class III futures price for 2006 and historical price averages for Federal Order 33.
Effects of Overstocking on Cow Behavior, Welfare, and Productivity

Dr. Naomi Botheras, Animal Welfare Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

Due to costs associated with the construction and maintenance of free stall barns, dairy farmers may limit the number of feeding and/or resting places available for cows to maximize utilization of facilities. Facility design, such as whether there are two or three rows of stalls per feeding line, may also influence the number of cows which have to share a particular resource. However, the impact of overcrowding on cow behavior, welfare, and productivity should be considered. At pasture, dairy cows tend to synchronize their grazing and lying behavior. That is, most cows will eat or lay down at the same time. Indoors, such synchronization may be less pronounced, but is often still evident and may be strongly influenced by management procedures, such as the delivery of fresh feed and milking. The synchronization of dairy cattle behavior, along with a limited number of feeding and/or lying places, means that not all cows will be able to eat or lay down at once.

Overcrowding free stalls

Studies which have investigated the effects on cow behavior of a limited number of free stalls found that the total lying time of cattle over a 24-h period was reduced due to overcrowding (Friend et al., 1977; Wierenga and Hopster, 1990; Leonard et al., 1996; Dippel et al., 2005). Even at relatively low overstocking rates (25% overcrowding, or 1.25 cows per free stall), Wierenga and Hopster (1990) found reductions in the total daily lying times of some cows. At low overstocking rates, the lying times of only low-ranking cows seem to be affected, while at higher overcrowding rates, the lying times of all cows are affected. Under conditions of one stall per cow, very often 90% or more of the cows are in the stalls during the night, and very few cows stand inactive in the alleys at any time throughout the day. However, time spent standing inactive in the alleys is significantly higher in overcrowded conditions, and this is particularly evident during the night. Furthermore, overcrowding may lead to cows (particularly low ranking cows) lying in the alleys at night when all stalls are occupied, but cows are highly motivated to lay down (Wierenga and Hopster, 1990; Leonard et al., 1996). This aberrant behavior has obvious implications for cow cleanliness and the risk of mastitis.

Reduced daily lying times (Colam-Ainsworth et al., 1989; Leonard et al., 1994, 1996; Chaplin et al., 2000) and increased time standing on hard surfaces (Greenough and Vermunt, 1991; Singh et al., 1993) are behaviors that have been associated with increased rates of hoof lesions and lameness. Hence, a reduction in lying time (and consequently increased time spent standing in the alleys) due to overcrowding may increase the risk of lameness, with obvious implications for cow welfare and productivity. Furthermore, adequate rest is necessary to ensure high production, and blood flow to the udder is increased when cows are lying down. Cows also tend to ruminate (chew their cud) when lying down compared to when standing up, so maximizing lying time is also important for optimizing rumination time. Disturbed rest leads to physiological changes in cattle that are usually indicative of stress and which are likely to affect cow health and milk production. Therefore, to maintain high levels of production, health, and welfare, it is essential that dairy cows are able to optimize their time spent resting.

Overcrowding the feeding area

Friend et al. (1977) found that time spent eating was not reduced until only 0.1 m of feeding space per cow was provided (space allowance ranged from 0.5 m to 0.1 m per cow), and Collis et al. (1980) found total feeding time did not change when feeding space was gradually reduced from 1.05 m to 0.15 m per cow. Similarly, Wierenga and Hopster (1990) found that overcrowding the number of feeding places by 25 to 55% had almost no consequences on eating time. It was suggested that the limited effect of overcrowding on total eating time may be due to the relatively short amount of time that cows spend eating each day (around 4 hours), which would enable a cow to easily compensate for changes in the opportunity to eat that occur due to overcrowding.

However, in contrast to findings from earlier studies, more recent research by DeVries et al. (2004) found that when cows had access to more feeding space (1.0 m vs. 0.5 m of feeding space per cow), cows increased their feeding activity throughout the day and especially during the 90 min after fresh feed was provided. At 30% overcrowding of headlocks (1.3 cows per headlock), Batchelder (2000) found reduced daily dry matter intakes and substantially fewer cows eating during both the hour following milking and following delivery of fresh feed. Interestingly, Batchelder (2000) also found that overcrowded cows spent significantly less time ruminating during a 24-h period than did cows that were not overcrowded. Huzzey et al. (2006) found that for both post-and-rail and headlock feed barriers, overcrowding resulted in reduced feeding times and increased time spent standing inactive in the feeding area. These changes were most obvious during the times of peak feeding activity (within 60 min following the delivery of fresh feed). Mentink and Cook (2006) compared free stall pens with 2 or 3 rows of stalls per pen, which provide for very different amounts of feed space per cow when free stalls are stocked at similar rates. These authors found that the extra feed space per cow in a 2-row pen improved access to feed at peak feeding times.

All cows are motivated to access feed when fresh feed is delivered, but when feeding space is inadequate, some cows may be prevented from feeding at the time of fresh feed delivery, and consequently, may be forced to shift their feeding time. Research has indicated that cows will sort a TMR, and hence feed quality declines throughout the day. Thus, cows that are forced to delay their feeding time due to overcrowding may consume a poorer quality diet. Furthermore, when cows do not have access to feed when they want to eat, they may over-eat following a period of feed deprivation. This could happen when cows have limited access to feed because of overstocking. Increased feeding competition may reduce intake and increase feeding rate, possibly increasing the risk for metabolic problems, such as left displaced abomasums and subacute ruminal acidosis (Shaver, 1997, 2002). Increased aggression in the feeding area when cows are overcrowded has also been noted (Olofsson, 1999; DeVries et al., 2004; Huzzey et al., 2006). Aggression could have consequences for hoof lesion development and lameness. Shaver (2002) also suggested that the potential for laminitis may be greater when overcrowding of free stalls coincides with limited feeding space (as is often the case), because cows may spend more time standing on concrete rather than lying in stalls, and consume fewer, but larger, meals, or have reduced feed intake.

It is important to realize that even when free stalls are not overstocked, social and environmental factors may still reduce the number of available or preferred resting places. For example, stalls in some locations may not be used due to close proximity to a water trough or high volume of cow traffic, or because they are located in a draft. Low-ranking cows will also prefer not to use a stall adjacent to a higher-ranking cow, and a cow lying in a stall may occupy part of a neighboring stall with their legs, head, or back, which would prevent another cow from lying down in the vacant stall. Thus, the implications of overstocking resting and/or feeding areas for cow behavior, health, production, and welfare should be carefully considered.

*A complete list of research references is available on request.
Minimizing Heat Stress in the Dairy Facility
Dr. Mike Brugger, Extension Livestock Housing Specialist, The Ohio State University

As I right this article, it is 92 ºF and 42% relative humidity and a light breeze in Wooster. Thanks to the air conditioning in my office, I am comfortable and can be productive. Are you providing an environment in your dairy barn so that the cows can be productive? While it is not economical to air condition your free stall barn, there are some things you can do to reduce heat stress. Here are some points to help you evaluate your facility and plan for improvements as needed.

The combination of soaking and blowing air across the cow gives the maximum cooling. Use a spray nozzle that will quickly wet the cow and not one that provides a fine mist. If you have a system installed, be sure that it is working properly. Clean fans provide the most airflow for the cost of operation. Keep them clean. The spray nozzles should provide about 0.33 gallons per cow per wetting cycle. The on time for a cycle will depend on the nozzle flow rate and spacing. A properly sized nozzle may not be getting the desired wetting effect if the water supply line limits the flow.

In adding cooling, the first place to look is the holding pen. Here the cows are crowed together and the natural airflow can be limited by other buildings. Fans blowing down on the cows will reduce the heat stress. Provide one 36-inch diameter fan for each 150 sq ft or one 48-inch diameter fan for each 300 sq ft of holding area. Place the first row of fans right outside the holding area for blowing toward the back of the holding area. Add another row of fans every 20 to 24 ft for 36-inch diameter fans and 30 to 36 ft for 48-inch fans. Mount fans as low as possible without interfering with equipment. Use a thermostat to turn the fans on when the holding pen temperature reaches 72ºF.

A soaker system for the holding area should supply about 1 gallon per 150 sq ft of holding area. The soaker should have an on-off cycle of 1 minute on and 5 minutes off. Turn the soakers on when the temperature reaches 72 ºF.

In the free stall barn, a combination of fans and soaker system at the feed line and fans over the free stalls is the best approach. Use the same fan spacing recommendation as for the holding area. Adding soaker nozzles to wet the cows will improve the cooling affect. A recommended flow of 0.33 gallons per cow per cycle will produce the desired effect. The one time per cycle will depend on the nozzle size and spacing and will generally be one to two minutes. Increase the soaking frequency with temperature according to the chart below:
- 70 - 80 ºF; every 15 minutes,
- 81 - 90 ºF; every 10 minutes, and
- > 90 ºF; every 5 minutes.
Size the water line to the nozzles based on the number of nozzles and flow per nozzle. For example, a 1.5-inch diameter pipe can supply 60 nozzles that supply 0.5 gpm but only 30 nozzles that supply 1 gpm. If the nozzles are spaced 8 ft center to center, the allowable length is 480 ft with the 0.5 gpm nozzles and 240 ft for the 1 gpm nozzles. A 2-inch diameter line can handle 50 nozzles at 8 ft spacing for a total length of 400 ft. These examples are based on limiting the maximum flow velocity in the pipe to 5 ft per second.
Heat and Colostrum, Friend and Foe

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Wooster

Hot environmental temperatures, combined with high humidity, can negatively impact colostrum production in first calf heifers. Conversely, heat treatment of colostrum can have more than one benefit according to data presented at the 2006 American Dairy Science Association (ADSA) Annual Meetings.

Generous colostrum feeding guidelines ensure that most calves will receive sufficient immunoglobulins (IgG; antibodies) to achieve a successful transfer of immunity. Success depends on the individual calf's ability to absorb IgG and the calf being fed enough IgG. We know that the calf's ability to absorb antibodies is negatively effected by the time that has elapsed since birth and the relative difficulty of the birth process. While absorption rates can approach 50% shortly after birth, they decline rapidly towards zero within the first 24 hours.

Environmental heat

Heat stress of first calf heifers is likely to cause a drop in IgG concentrations in their first milking. An Italian study using 12 Holstein heifers kept in environmentally controlled rooms reported a 19% decrease in IgG production from the heifers exposed to higher temperatures (89°F daytime and 79°F nighttime) compared to the control heifers (65°F, all heifers experienced 72% relative humidity.) Heifers were exposed to these environments for approximately 3 weeks before calving.

Is this happening with your heifers? The only way to know for sure is to measure the IgG concentrations in each dam's colostrum before feeding it to the calf. In the Italian study, yield (volume) of colostrum did not differ between heifers subjected to heat stress and the control heifers. Evaluating quality of colostrum based on volume produced will be useless. Simple on-farm methods of quality evaluation include using either a colostrometer or commercial "quick tests". These tools are readily available from farm supply catalogs or stores.

Heat treatment

Pasteurization of colostrum is generating increased interest as herds seek additional tools to control the transfer of disease pathogens, such as Johne's bacteria, through colostrum.
Godden at the University of Minnesota reported new data at this year's ADSA meeting from a study on the impact of pasteurizing colostrum on the apparent efficiency of IgG absorption.

Early attempts at pasteurization of colostrum were frustrating as the HTST (high temp, short time) pasteurization methods created a pudding like mass that plugged up the equipment and was impossible to feed. Longer time, lower temp methods are more successful, although some thickening can also occur.

Two important questions are: "Will the heat treatment harm the IgG?" and "Will pasteurization impede a successful transfer of immunity?" To help answer these questions, batches of colostrum were divided in half. Using a 60 min, 140oF pasteurization method, one half of the batch was pasteurized and one half of each batch was not. Pairs of calves were fed either the pasteurized or the fresh colostrum.

All fifty calves achieved a successful passive transfer of immunity. However, calves fed the pasteurized colostrum achieved significantly higher blood IgG concentrations than the calves fed fresh colostrum (22.3 mg/ml for pasteurized and 17.5 mg/ml for fresh). After calves were tested for blood IgG levels, the apparent efficiency of absorptions were calculated. Calves fed the fresh colostrum averaged 27% apparent absorption, while calves fed pasteurized colostrum averaged 35%.

Bottom line, the higher the efficiency of absorption, the better chance a calf has to achieve a successful transfer of passive immunity. Based on this study, the pasteurization process not only did not reduce the IgG concentration in colostrum, but the bacteria "kill" of the pasteurization appeared to allow more IgG to be absorbed compared to unpasteurized colostrum.

It has been demonstrated that bacteria that get into the calf's gut before colostrum is fed can interfere with IgG absorption. This study provided a strong indicator that bacteria may interfere with IgG absorption when they are fed with the colostrum as well. Dairy farms must have protocols and practices in place to ensure that colostrum is harvested and handled as cleanly as possible.

*A list of research references is available on request.
Don't Forget Quality Assurance While Preparing for Summer Fairs and Shows

Ms. Laurie Winkelman, Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

With the summer show season in full swing, youth throughout Ohio are washing, clipping, training, and showing dairy projects at many shows and county fairs. With sights set on the prized blue ribbon, youth diligently work in the moments right before the show blowing up toplines and fluffing tails. Besides those last minute details that give the finishing touch, exhibitors and youth must also keep quality assurance in mind, not only at the show, but during the entire project year.

Before the show

Success with dairy project animals and quality assurance starts long before the animal ever steps foot in the show ring. Proper care, nutrition, housing, and management of dairy project animals early in the year and throughout the spring and summer will all add to the success of the project. Though this article is a little late in the year to fully address proper care and management of project animals, here are a few guidelines to keep in mind when working with dairy projects animals at home.

1. Provide clean, fresh water for your animals. Water is the most important nutrient for dairy cattle. Also, water is very important during hot weather to keep animals hydrated and prevent heat stress. Heat stressed animals do not perform to their best.

2. Ensure proper feeding and nutrition. Heifers easily gain weight and become 'too fat' for dairy shows, so youth and exhibitors must carefully monitor the nutrition program to keep animals at the desired condition. It is never acceptable to completely restrict feed from heifers or cows to make them lose weight.

3. Provide dry and clean bedding. Clean bedding not only keeps the animal healthier and cleaner, but also reduces the amount of scrubbing and washing the exhibitor needs to do!

4. Stay up to speed on health needs. Work with your veterinarian to ensure that vaccinations are up to date and health requirements are met. Many state and national shows have specific health tests that each animal must pass. Check the entry book for each show to make sure that the cattle will meet the health requirements. If antibiotics are given to an animal, be sure to carefully follow the instructions on the label.

At the show

All of the guidelines discussed above apply to care for animals at the fair, too. However, preparing for show day also brings more guidelines to attention. Though all exhibitors want their animals to look their best on show day, quality assurance must be kept in mind at all times.

Showing a milking animal presents some unique considerations for quality assurance. Taking cows to new places often affects their milk production and general contentment. Try not to disrupt the normal routine for the cow, and keep milking times as close to the regular herd schedule as possible. Always be sure to practice proper milking routines at the fair. Milking parlors at almost all fairs and shows are community parlors, with many cows from many different farms using them. Therefore, it is important to properly dip and disinfect teats and milking units to prevent the spread of mastitis organisms.

To make cows look their best, many exhibitors 'bag' their cows to make sure the udders are full of milk at show time. Overbagging can cause discomfort for the cow, increases the risk of mastitis, and displays a poor image for the public and the consumer. While cows can tolerate a little more than 12 hours of milk in their udders, it is best to avoid extremes when preparing your cow for the show and have no more than 18 hours of milk in a cow's udder.

Despite an exhibitor's best efforts to prevent sickness or health problems, it is not uncommon for heifers or cows to become ill at a show. If an animal becomes sick, have a veterinarian check the animal. If the veterinarian prescribes any medications, be sure to follow the instructions on the label, paying close attention to milk or meat withhold times.

More than just cow care

Above and beyond basic animal care at the show, exhibitors should also do their best to maintain a positive image for the dairy industry. For many people, a fair or show is the only place they see dairy cattle. Therefore, your display, actions, and animal care heavily influence the thoughts of those people. To keep a positive image for the dairy industry, follow these guidelines:

1. Keep the animals neat and clean. Picking up manure, having adequate bedding, sweeping aisles, and making sure the animals are fed and watered are essential to maintain positive perceptions about the dairy industry. Strive to keep the animals clean at all times.

2. Be courteous and well-behaved. It is important for exhibitors to dress appropriately when working with your animals at the fair. Avoid clothing with rips, holes, and tears. Also, if fair-goers have questions about the animals or the dairy industry, be sure to politely answer their questions. Excessive horseplay is strongly discouraged because it not only may scare the animals, but also does not put forth a good view for the public.

3. Have an educational exhibit. Sometimes a county or state fair is the only place people come into contact with dairy animals and learn about them. Educational displays are great tools to educate the general public. The display does not have to be elaborate and should be kept simple and clear. Besides the educational display, be sure to have a sign for each animal in your exhibit that gives the vital information about the animal, such as name, birthdate, sire, dam, and production records.

Ask yourself one question

Quality assurance in youth projects is a broad topic that extends beyond the show-ring. Defining what is right or wrong in dealing with project animals can sometimes be difficult. As you show your animals this summer, you can ask yourself one question to make sure you have the best interest of the public AND animal in mind. Ask yourself "Would the consumer of this product be upset if they knew about what I was doing?" If you say 'yes' to that question, you should find another way to manage or work with your animal. Consumer acceptance and production of high quality products should be the number one priority, regardless of whether you are taking care of 3 animals at a show or 300 cows in a herd at home.

After the show

Even after the show is over and the cattle return home, exhibitors still must keep quality assurance and animal health in mind. Cattle exhibited at fairs and shows come into contact with many animals from many different places and disease backgrounds. Though the cattle may not have signs or symptoms of a disease or problem after a fair, they could carry it home and risk infecting other animals in the herd. To prevent the potential spread of disease to the cows and heifers that stayed at home, it is a good idea to keep the show animals in a separate area for 3 weeks after they return home from the show. While this is not always easy to accomplish, exhibitors should strive to protect the health of all their animals.
Management of Dry Cows to Promote Udder Health

Dr. William B. Epperson, Extension Dairy Veterinarian, The Ohio State University

Mastitis is generally regarded as the most costly infectious disease on dairy farms. For most farms, the main bacteria causing mastitis have shifted to the environmental bacteria (coliforms and environmental streptococci), which are transferred to teat ends at times other than milking.

The dry period is an important time for the establishment of environmental intramammary infection (IMI). Of environmental streptococci IMI present in lactation, 50.5% originated in the non-lactating period (Todhunter et al., 1995). Similarly, 61.2% of clinical coliform mastitis cases observed in lactation were due to organisms that originated with infection in the dry period (Todhunter et al., 1991). Together, these facts emphasize the relative importance of the dry period on mammary gland health.

Within the traditional 8 week dry period, the first 2 weeks and the last 2 weeks have been shown to be high risk times for new IMI (Smith et al., 1985). These times are the transitions into and out of involution, and are accompanied by high volumes of milk/colostrum in the gland. Therefore, preventive strategies that impact either or both of these high risk times are likely to be beneficial.

Numerous field studies have related high environmental bacterial loads to increased mastitis. Providing a clean, comfortable dry cow environment will decrease teat end exposure to pathogens. Inorganic bedding materials support lower bacterial loads, improving hygiene and leading to improved udder health. Cracked skin on teat ends, as commonly seen with hyperkeratotic teat ends (often termed "teat rings", "prolapsed sphincters" or the like) has been shown to increase risk of IMI in the dry period, probably by promoting bacterial colonization (Dingwell et al., 1994).

Teat canal plug formation following dry off is an important event in limiting movement of bacteria into the mammary gland. Due to intramammary pressure immediately after dry off, the teat canal is forced to dilate. Epithelial cells accumulate and fill the canal, causing constriction over 1 to 2 weeks (Dingwell et al., 2003). If these cells are not removed, the canal eventually seals closed. Teat canals that remain open in the dry period are almost twice as likely to acquire a new IMI. A recent study indicated that about 50% of teat canals close in the first week. However, by the 6th week, only 77% were closed, suggesting a considerable fraction of quarters remained open in the dry period.

Factors which impact teat canal closure are not known, but presumable include milk yield, teat shape and anatomy, and trauma. Recent work has indicated that milk production of > 46 lb/day the day prior to dry off was associated with a delay in teat canal closure. A preliminary report from Ohio indicted that with each 11 lb/day increase in milk production above 27.5 lb on the day prior to dry off, IMI at calving increased 77% (Rajala-Schltz et al., 2005). Future udder health programs may include specific recommendations for managed decrease of milk production immediately prior to dry off in an effort to improve teat canal closure and limit dry period IMI.

Teat canal sealing products were devised to lessen the impact of delayed teat canal closure. Administration of the internal teat sealant (Orbeseal®, Pfizer Animal Health) has been shown to decrease new IMI at calving by approximately 30% (Godden et al., 2003). In addition, reductions of clinical mastitis and early lactation somatic cell counts have been observed in some studies. External teat sealers are specially formulated teat dips intended to produce a film barrier on the teat skin. No work with these products has been reported in scientific journals. While the internal teat sealer has been shown effective and is broadly recommended (concurrent with dry cow therapy), external teat sealers have not undergone the same study and scrutiny, and therefore, are not universally recommended at this time.

Optimal nutrition promotes host defense and contributes to the overall well-being of the cow and the mammary gland. The benefit of adequate levels of vitamin E (1000 mg/head/day in diet) and selenium (minimum of 0.3 ppm in diet) in mammary health are well known (Hogan et al., 1993). Dry and transition cows with energy imbalance will often express ketosis shortly after calving. Cows with ketosis within 1 week after calving have an increased risk of clinical mastitis in the period from calving to 63 days in milk (Leslie et al., 2001). Cows with postpartum metritis show a tendency for increased susceptibility to subsequent IMI (Epperson et al., 1993). As each of these conditions (mastitis, ketosis, and metritis) is associated with decreased white blood cell function, the occurrence of one disease identifies those cows at risk of other diseases.

Antibiotic therapy of all quarters of all cows at dry off (total dry cow therapy; DCT) has been a longstanding recommendation for US dairy producers. This is based on the following facts:

1) DCT will help eliminate a high proportion of existing IMI caused by Streptococcus agalactiae, C. bovis, and coagulase negative staphylococci (Dingwell et al., 2003),
2) DCT enhances the cure rate of Staphylococcus aureus (Dingwell et al., 2003),
3) Available evidence indicates that DCT will prevent new environmental streptococcal IMI from establishing in the early dry period (Smith et al., 1985), and
4) There is no substantial evidence to indicate that antimicrobial resistance in mastitis pathogens is emerging in a widespread manner as a consequence of DCT (National Mastitis Council, 2004).

Present day DCT products are active principally in the first weeks of the dry period. Antimicrobial activity declines to negligible levels by the final 2 weeks of the dry period. The cost:benefit of DCT continues to be re-evaluated, and new products/techniques may offer alternatives to DCT. However, until that time, total DCT is recommended.

*A complete list of research references is available on request.
Homeland Security Steps Up Interior Immigration Enforcement

Mr. John Wargowsky, Executive Director - Mid American Ag and Hort Services

Mid American Ag and Hort Services (MAAHS) is highlighting recent announcements and actions by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The DHS unveiled a comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy for the nation's interior on April 20. It includes worksite enforcement designed to: 1) punish knowing and reckless employers of illegal aliens, 2) eliminate Social Security abuses that support illegal immigration, and 3) work with Congress to build an employer compliance system. The complete news release is available at www.midamservices.org under "What's New."

Also on April 20, DHS announced that its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigative unit arrested seven managers of a nationwide pallet company and 1,187 of the firm's illegal aliens in 26 states. Roughly 53% of the firm's employees during 2005 had invalid / mismatched Social Security numbers. This complete release is also found at www.midamservices.org under "What's New."

The MAAHS has received a number of calls from members concerned over this issue. As a result, MAAHS has compiled a set of links to MAAHS and governmental published guidance to assist employers in complying with employment eligibility verification, Social Security "no match" letter handling and more. The link to this page may be found under Immigration and is only accessible to paid MAAHS members who have requested members' only access.

The interior investigative and enforcement (ICE) agency within DHS is responsible for ensuring the departure of illegal aliens from the United States through fair enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. There are three ways that ICE may contact you:

An I-9 audit. This is the most common way for an investigation to begin. If you are advised that ICE wishes to audit your records, you should ask for 3 days to prepare for the audit. It is advisable to contact a qualified attorney to assist you with this preparation.

Arrest warrant. An agent may have a warrant to arrest a person who is in the U.S. illegally and has committed a felony. In this case, you should discreetly cooperate with the agent with as little fanfare as possible. If ICE believes the person is armed and dangerous, he/she may enter your property without seeking permission or even notifying you.

Search warrant. The ICE or another federal or state agency may obtain an administrative search warrant based on probable cause of illegal activity. You should obtain a business card and a copy of the warrant, read the warrant, and allow the agency or person specified in the warrant to conduct the actions specified. Do not allow agents from other agencies to enter the property, unless they have their own warrant. Get the business card of every person who enters your property. As soon as you have read the warrant, contact your attorney.

What should you tell your workers?

Workers must be instructed that they should not run, that the safest place for them is at work, and that they may not grant permission for any government agent to enter your property. Crew leaders and workers should be prepared to give the name and phone number of the person or persons you have designated to work with state or federal agents who seek access to your property.

The ICE agents may question any individual, and they have discretion to detain a person they encounter in a public place if the person he/she encounters lacks the legal right to be here, regardless of whether such person is the suspect being sought in connection with criminal activity. On the other hand, if workers remain within the confines of a private building or business, ICE may only detain the individual specified in an arrest warrant. Workers should always carry valid identification and should be prepared to identify themselves to any law enforcement official.

Workplace procedures

Develop a clear company policy regarding who can grant access to your property and post signs directing visitors to report to the office. If you are confronted with an agent seeking access to your business, try to find out the purpose of the visit, obtain a business card, and determine which of the 3 circumstances from above (audit, arrest warrant, or search warrant) applies.

If you discover an agent on your property, identify the agent, politely ascertain his/her business, and ask to see any warrant. If the agent does not produce a warrant, inform him/her that you have not granted permission to enter, invite him/her to make an appointment, and ask him/her to leave. Contact your attorney or county sheriff to report the incident.

The MAAHS is a unique non-profit consortium of associations, organizations, and employers organized to create widespread human resource management strengths in Mid American agricultural and horticultural businesses. One of the methods is to serve as a resource for a wide array of human resource issues through newsletters, manuals, a web site, phone consultation and workshops. Contact MAAHS at 614-246-8286, labor@ofbf.org, or www.midamservices.org to become an employer member. You may subscribe to MAAHS' free e-newsletter by visiting www.midamservices.org and clicking the "Join Our FREE Email List" button.
American Dairy Association and Dairy Council Mid East (materials available)

Ms. Kim Haines, Communications Manager, ADADC Mid East

The American Dairy Association & Dairy Council (ADADC) Mid East is the local dairy farmer-funded promotion organization responsible for increasing demand for milk and dairy products. We work closely with Dairy Management, Inc., the national dairy promotion organization, to implement advertising, promotion, education, and research programs nationwide.

The ADADC Mid East recognizes that dairy farmers have a strong voice within their communities and are pleased to provide materials to assist with local dairy and agricultural promotions. Some of these materials include pencils, key chains, bumper stickers, posters, and brochures.
Materials are free to dairy farmers, princesses, and processors within the ADADC Mid East territory. Materials are also available at no charge to agriculture Extension educators and agriculture-related organizations who are conducting dairy or agriculture promotions. To order these items, please visit www.drink-milk.com or call 1-800-292-MILK.
Awards to Animal Sciences Personnel During the Annual Meeting of the American Dairy Science Association

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Annual Meeting of the American Dairy Science Association was held July 9-13 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Awards received by OSU personnel included: 1) Dr. Normand St-Pierre was awarded the Merial Dairy Management Research Award, 2) Dr. Bill Weiss was awarded the Pioneer Hi-Bred Forage Award, 3) Alejandro Relling (conducted his research under the direction of Dr. Chris Reynolds) was awarded the first place recognition by the Land O'Lakes, Purina Feed LLC for the Graduate Student Poster Contest in Dairy Production, 4) Laurie Winkelman (conducted her research under the direction of Dr. Chris Reynolds) was awarded the first place recognition for outstanding Graduate Student Presentation in Dairy Production by the National Milk Producers Federation, 5) Laurie was also awarded the second place recognition for the Graduate Student Poster Contest in Dairy Production, and 6) Amanda Todd (conducted her research under the direction of Dr. Maurice Eastridge) was recognized for third place in the ADSA undergraduate student paper competition (original research category).
Cyclical U.S. Milk Production and Price in the Dairy Industry

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

Now that we have passed the nadir of the summer heat, we are entering a period when milk production and component levels rebound across the country. In this column, I will make a departure from past columns and take a look at the milk production - price cycle relationship in the United States dairy industry. This is a dynamic relationship which I find very informative as I look to the future for price direction. This relationship is depicted in a chart that is available on my website and is updated each month on the same day that the USDA releases its Milk Production report. You can get a copy of this chart and my price projections for the milk and dairy product markets by accessing my Ohio Dairy 2006 website at this address: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ . Here, you will find a wealth of information on the national, regional, and Ohio dairy industry. Current cash and futures markets charts and data and my 24-week forecast for butter, nonfat dry milk (NDM), cheese, whey, and milk prices.

Dairy production and price cycles

Quite some time ago, when I was a student in an agricultural economics pricing class, I spent a good deal of the time studying the United States hog cycle. The idea was that there where certain dynamics operating with enough regularity that a cycle between production and price was apparent in the U.S. hog industry. At that time, and I will not say how long ago that was for me, there was no discussion of a similar set of dynamic regularities for the milk production and milk price cycle. Now, I believe that there is such a relationship and you can see it in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The milk production and price cycle.

As the title of Figure 1 indicates, you are looking at the percent change in annual milk production calculated as a 12-month rolling average. For those of us who need a little refresher, the 12-month rolling average is calculated each month by taking the current and previous 11 months of milk production, summing this up to get an annual number, and dividing by 12. From this number, we calculated the percent change from one month to the next. For example, beginning with January 2000 and looking at Figure 1, we can see that milk production in the United States was increasing at a rate of 3.2%. This rate of growth continued through August 2000 with a peak of 4.0%. Now looking at Figure 1, you can readily see the milk production cycle. After the August 2000 peak, the rate of increase in U.S. milk production began to slow over the next 15 months. By September 2001, the rate was a negative 1.75%. This pattern appears to have repeated itself two full cycles since 2000 and is now beginning to complete the third cycle in 2006 and 2007.

Now factor in the milk price

Imposed on Figure 1 are the Class 3 milk prices recorded, at specific points in time, over this cyclical pattern. I have indicated both the month for peak growth and the month for the lowest Class 3 milk price. For example, the peak growth of 4.0% occurred in August 2000. By November 2000, the Class 3 price had bottomed out at a record low of $8.57/cwt. Again in December 2002, peak growth occurred at just over 2.5%, and in March 2003, the Class 3 price again bottomed out at a low $9.11/cwt. And again this year, peak growth occurred in March 2006, and the Class 3 reached bottom in May 2006 at $10.83/cwt. What does this tell us about the growth or expansion of milk production and the milk price in the United States? As dairy producers expand milk production relative to demand, the price must drop to clear the markets. This is fundamental economics 101. More milk equals lower prices. Figure 1 shows us this fundamental relationship as faster rate of growth equals lower price. It also shows that the lowest price occurs with a 3 month lag after the rate of growth in milk production peaks.

Of course, this lower price translates to reduced dairy farmer cash income from the sale of milk and a reduced incentive to continue the production expansion. Now look at Figure 1 and observe the production price reaction to a slow down in the growth rate. For example after the August 2000 peak, the rate of growth in milk production slowed to a negative 1.75%. What was the reaction of the Class 3 price to this slowdown? The Class 3 price increased by 86% to $15.90/cwt! How many months did it take to reach this higher price? Fifteen months, if you are counting. Now look at the second complete cycle beginning with January 2002 and ending with May 2004. The rate of growth in milk production picked up steam, fueled by the $15.90/cwt milk price and the expansion continued over the next 13 months. The milk price fell back to $9.11/cwt. This signal to the nation's dairy producers was clear. Over the next 16 months, the rate of growth in U.S. milk production declined. The milk price responded by soaring to a record high Class 3 price of $20.58/cwt! Parenthetically, this high price was aided by some extra-ordinary factors (extreme prolonged western heat, Posilac® (Monsanto Dairy Business, St. Louis, MO) scarcity, and a border closing with Canada), without which I believe the price would have topped out near the $15.00/cwt mark.

The current production - price cycle

Now, we are in the downward side of the third cycle since 2000. Milk production in the United States responded to the record prices of the previous cycle by expanding for a record 20 months. Over this period of expansion, the Class 3 milk price fell by 47% to a low of $10.83/cwt in May 2006. Now, we have to wait to learn how long the down side of this cycle will last before we see milk prices improve. With the past as a general guide, we can expect the down turn to last between 15 and 17 months from the peak. With the peak of the rate of growth turned-in with March 2006, this would put the end of this cycle between June and August 2007. During this slowing of growth phase, we can expect milk prices to steadily increase as we simultaneously slow the positive rate of growth in production and work off already existing product inventories through lower prices. How far milk prices will rise is not an easy question to answer. Looking at the past I would expect to see the Class 3 price move back toward the $14.25 to $15.00/cwt range near the end of this cycle, at which time, we will start all over again.

Updated 24 week price forecast

You can check out my just updated 24-week price forecast available on my website at:
http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/quickchart/nass52.htm. This forecast is based on the assumption that the rate of growth in milk production will continue to decline at a rate sufficient to bring total supply back into balance with demand.
Impact of Human-Animal Interactions on Farm Animal Behavior, Welfare, and Productivity
Dr. Naomi Botheras, Animal Welfare Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

Extensive research in a number of livestock industries around the world has identified the impact of the interactions between stockpeople (animal handlers) and farm animals on farm animal behavior, welfare, and productivity. Specifically, relationships between the animal's fear of humans and productivity of animals have been found in the dairy industry, and also in the egg, meat chicken, and pig industries. Significant sequential relationships have also been found in the dairy industry between the stockperson's attitudes and behavior toward animals and the behavioral response of farm animals to humans (i.e., fear of humans). This relationship is depicted in the model in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A model of human-animal interactions.

While the impact of these human characteristics (attitudes and behavior) on animal productivity and welfare has been documented, human-animal interactions have also been shown to impact on other important job-related characteristics (Figure 2). Job satisfaction, work ethic, and motivation to learn may affect stockperson work performance, and thus also affect animal productivity and welfare. For example, during situations in which the attitude and behavior of a stockperson towards the animals are negative, the stockperson's commitment to the surveillance of, and the attendance to, welfare and production issues is questionable. Ultimately, lack of job satisfaction due to the working conditions created by poor human-animal interactions may affect staff retention. Thus, the attitudes and behavior of stockpeople may have marked effects on animal productivity and welfare, both directly via fear of humans by the animal, and indirectly via work performance of the stockperson.

Figure 2. Job-related characteristics may also be affected by human-animal interactions.

In Australia, the newly revised "Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs" recognizes that good stockmanship is the key factor to good animal welfare, because no matter how otherwise acceptable a system may be in principle, without competent, diligent stockmanship, the welfare of animals cannot be adequately addressed. Hence, stockmanship is at the core of the revised Model Code, and the Code will propose new stockperson and staff training and verification measures to ensure good stockmanship and care for animals. In the U.S., the importance of good stockmanship and stockperson training is recognized in many of the animal welfare audit and assessment programs which have been developed for the dairy industry. For example, in the FIVE-STAR Dairy Quality Assurance^SMprogram, the very first quality control point deals with producer and employee attitudes, knowledge, and competencies, and stresses the importance of training about appropriate animal handling.

Training of stockpeople as professional managers of animals has generally been ignored. In recognition of the vital role that stockpeople play in the overall health, welfare, and productivity of the animals under their care and control, the Australian Animal Welfare Science Centre has developed Professional Handling (ProHand) training packages for stockpeople in the livestock industries, including the dairy industry. ProHand Dairy Cows targets the attitudes and behaviors of stockpeople, resulting in improved productivity and animal welfare. ProHand Dairy Cows is a validated training program that has been shown to be a very effective and specific tool for training stockpeople to minimize handling stress and improve both animal performance and welfare, through improvement of the quality of human-animal interactions.

The ProHand Dairy Cows training program aims to:
- Develop an understanding of the impact of the interactions between stockpeople and farm animals on farm animal behavior, welfare, and productivity,
- Outline why farm animals become fearful of humans and how this fear can markedly affect animal productivity and welfare,
- Identify appropriate and inappropriate behaviors of stockpeople towards farm animals,
- Demonstrate how to recognize fear in farm animals, and
- Provide professional handling guidelines, which are designed to maximize animal productivity and welfare, as well as to ensure that farm animals are easy to handle, move, and milk.
Benefits following training include up to a 5% increase in milk yield, improvements in ease of handling and milking cows, and improved job satisfaction and work ethic, all without additional capital investment.

In collaboration with the Animal Welfare Science Centre, The Ohio State University is introducing ProHand Dairy Cows training programs for stockpeople on Ohio dairy farms. If you would like to receive further information about these training programs or to enroll for training, please contact Naomi at (614) 292-3776 or botheras.1@osu.edu.
More Milk - Good for Me? Good for Our Industry?

Dr. Mark Armfelt, DVM, DABVP, Technical Service Representative, Monsanto Dairy Business

"Doc, if I implement your suggestion, I will put more milk on the market and that will lower milk price. What good does that do me?" This is a question I have heard many times over the 23 years I was in practice and the 6 years I have worked in industry. The change we are discussing might be 3X milking, long day lighting, or use of Posilac® (Monsanto Dairy Business, St. Louis, MO). Let's take a closer look at what implementing one of these practices means for the dairy, as well as its effects on milk price and our industry.

First, let me acknowledge that when a dairy farm implements any of the changes mentioned above, they do put more milk in the bulk tank and more milk on the market. That also holds true for other production enhancing practices, such as feeding balanced rations, cooling cows in summer, selecting superior genetics, and many other practices we take for granted every day. I believe that more milk per cow is a good thing for that dairy farm.

Everyone knows the number of dairy farms in the country is declining. When I was a senior in high school, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon and there were 10 times as many dairy farms in the country as there are today. If you are in the dairy business today, "Congratulations", you have beaten some significant odds. Dairy farms that have survived and thrived are farms that simply have money left in the checkbook at the end of the month. And more is better! To quote Dr. John Fetrow at the University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, this can be accomplished in two ways. "First, make more milk. Second, cut expenses if that can be accomplished without a loss in production." I know this is a little bit oversimplified, but it holds true a vast majority of the time.

When a dairy farm increases the amount of milk they sell from each cow, a smaller percentage of their milk check goes to pay monthly bills and more is left for discretionary spending. That is and always will be good for that farm, if they want to stay in business. If he or she chooses not to implement my suggestion (e.g. does not sell the extra milk and the milk price does not change), it merely puts that farm at a disadvantage in the market place. As we see in Figure 1, the amount of milk per cow has increased at the rate of about 250 lb per cow per year for the past 45 years. Milk price has fluctuated up and down in spite of that constant increase.

Figure 1. Changes in milk production per cow, genetic gain, and Class III milk price from 1959 to 2004 (Cady, 2005).

Since milk is sold into a simple supply and demand market, we have to look at both sides of this equation. First, let's look at the supply of milk. If more milk per cow does not set the price of milk, what does? I submit the answer lies in how many cows are in production. This is determined by how dairy farmers respond to milk prices.

When the price of milk is $17.00/cwt, most dairy farmers I work with will keep some cows in production that they would sell if milk were $12.00/cwt. Typically, these cows are low producers, not bred, have a higher somatic cell count, or for some other reason will soon be culled. When milk price is high, the dairy farmer is willing to keep cows in the herd a while longer to capture the additional milk at high value. When dairy farmers do this, there is an increased amount of milk going into the market. When milk volume increases to the point whereby we are oversupplying the market by about 1%, the milk price goes down. When the milk price goes down, dairy farmers will sell those marginal cows, and the supply finally goes below demand and milk price goes up, and the cycle starts again. It is changes in cow numbers that determines milk price.

Figure 2. Changes in numbers of cows and milk price from 1998 to 2006 (USDA, NASS, 2005).

Figure 2 provides the all-milk price as compared to changes in cow numbers. The average decrease in cow numbers during the last 10 years is about 0.5% annually, indicated by the dark line in Figure 2. We see a very strong inverse relationship between milk price and cow numbers above and below that line. According to Peter Vitaliano, Vice President, Economic Policy and Market Research, National Milk Producers Federation, the primary reason the all-milk price did not fall as dramatically as one might expect when cow numbers rose in 2005 was a 3.7% increase in consumption that year.

We must recognize as well the importance of the demand side of the equation. There are great resources going into research and development of new dairy food products which are attractive to diverse consumer groups. This includes specialty cheeses, on-the-go snacks like yogurt in a tube, and new milk-based sport drinks. The nutrition and health advantages of dairy products for the consumer are becoming better documented and will also help overall consumption trends.

Fifty years ago, there were 12 million cows in the country; today there are 9 million. Total milk consumption has increased almost 50% in those 50 years, and today's dairy farmers are meeting that demand with 25% fewer cows! The increases we have seen in milk per cow have helped today's dairy farmer compete in a global economy and have softened the impact of the dairy industry on the environment.

What happens when dairy farmers make good decisions to increase the amount of milk produced by each cow? It helps the individual dairy farm's profitability, keeps them competitive in a consolidating industry, and reduces the farm's impact on the environment. That is good for the dairy farm, our dairy industry, our end consumers, and the world.
Information from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Employing Teenagers
Mr. John Wargowsky, Executive Director - Mid American Ag and Hort Services, Inc. and Director, Labor Services - Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently offered tips to companies that employ teenagers and called on the employer community to promote fair, inclusive, and discrimination-free workplaces for millions of young people. At the height of last summer (July 2005), more than 7 million young people age 16 to19 joined the U.S. workforce, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. The EEOC encourages industries to create an environment in which young workers can learn, develop, and thrive. The EEOC says the next generation of workers will carry the lessons you share throughout their careers. The EEOC offered employers the following tips to promote voluntary compliance and prevent harassment and discrimination cases involving young workers:
- Encourage open, positive, and respectful interactions with young workers,
- Remember that awareness, through early education and communication, is the key to prevention,
- Establish a strong corporate policy for handling complaints,
- Provide alternate avenues to report complaints and identify appropriate staff to contact,
- Encourage young workers to come forward with concerns and protect employees who report problems or otherwise participate in EEO investigations from retaliation,
- Post company policies on discrimination and complaint processing in visible locations, such as near the time clock or break area, or include the information with a young worker's first paycheck,
- Clearly communicate, update and reinforce discrimination policies and procedures in a language and manner young workers can understand,
- Provide early training to managers and employees, especially front-line supervisors, and
- Consider hosting an information seminar for the parents or guardians of teens working for the organization.
Ohio Dairy Manager's Conference

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Ohio Dairy Producers and The Ohio State University, Department of Animal Sciences are jointly hosting the 2006 Ohio Dairy Manager's Conference on October 17. The Conference will feature Steve Larson, Hoard's Dairymen, as the keynote speaker to address "Today's Dairy Issues", and other recognized dairy experts in milk markets and pricing forecasts, production strategies, and quality milk production. This will be a great opportunity to obtain information on current issues facing Ohio's dairy industry and to network with others in the industry. The Conference will be held at The Arden Shisler Center on the OARDC campus in Wooster from 9:00 am to 3:30 pm. For more information, go to https://dairy.osu.edu and click on "Ohio Dairy Manager's Conference" or contact Tim Demland, Ohio Dairy Producers, (614) 890-1800 Ext.123, TDemland@drink-milk.com.
From Weaning to Freshening, Dairy Heifer Care and Management Workshop: Fun for the Serious Heifer Raiser

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Dairy Extension Specialist, OSU Extension

The future of every successful dairy operation depends on a steady supply of healthy, productive replacement heifers calving between 22 and 24 months of age. If the dairy is not expanding, sales of excess heifers should be an additional revenue stream for the farm. If the farm is raising replacement heifers for others, producing healthy, productive animals is essential to the long-term success of the custom heifer enterprise.

This intense, 2-day workshop picks up where the Neonatal Calf Care and Management Workshop left off in March. Participants will focus on understanding and managing the heifer from weaning through the pre-fresh period. Sessions on October 31 and November 1 include:

1) Growth and nutrition,
2) Health diagnosis, treatment, and prevention,
3) Managing the heifer enterprise,
4) Housing heifers,
5) Designing safe and efficient handling systems,
6) Successful reproduction, and
7) Communications.

Hands-on labs include:

1) Up close with reproductive tracts,
2) Successful heat detection and use of heat detection tools, and
3) Measuring and tracking growth.

For the people working with heifers, it is highly rewarding to work with barns full of healthy, content heifers that grow well and settle to the first service. Dealing with chronic morbidity, mortality, and bred-but-open heifers is discouraging for the people working with the heifers and unprofitable as well as unsustainable for the farm.

At an average total cost of $2 a day to raise bred heifers, each month a heifer is open after 22 months of age costs the farm at least $60. Getting heifers grown and bred to calve by 22 to 24 months of age will produce an animal that is generating net income, not costing the dairy business money.

The Heifer Care and Management Workshop is designed for heifer managers and care-givers who are dedicated to doing the best job possible raising their heifers. It will be held near Wooster on the campus of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. A detailed agenda and registration materials are available to download at https://dairy.osu.edu or by contacting Dianne Shoemaker at (330) 263-3799. Register early as class size will be limited to assure plenty of hands-on experiences for participants.
2007 Neonatal Calf Care and Management Workshops

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Dairy Extension Specialist, OSU Extension

There will be two sessions of the Neonatal Calf Care and Management Workshop offered in 2007. The date and location of the first session will be announced in November. This session will be similar to the March 2006 workshop. The second session, scheduled for March 20 and 21 at OARDC, will focus on new topics. Watch the https://dairy.osu.edu web site in October for more information.
Worker's Compensation 1K Program Expands to 5K

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Dairy Extension Specialist, OSU Extension

Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage is designed to protect employees. It is not optional and represents a significant expense for Ohio's farm businesses. Premium costs can reach 25% of gross payroll without careful management. Each farm business must make employee safety a priority. Proper training and maintenance are critical investments towards achieving a safe workplace.

Other tools to minimize Worker's Compensation premiums are available to all farm businesses and have been discussed in previous issues of the Ohio Ag Manager Newsletter. Recent passage of Senate Bill 7 increased the payment limit in the $1,000 Medical-Only or 1K Program. Claims with a date of injury occurring on or after June 30, 2006, will now fall under the $5,000 Medical-Only or 5K Program.

An employer must be enrolled in the program before a claim occurs. Once enrolled and if an accident occurs, an employer can pay all medical expenses up to $5,000 if no more than 7 days of work are lost. An employer has the option of telling the Bureau of Worker's Compensation that it does not wish to pay the medical bills for a particular claim and allow it to follow the regular claim process through their designated MCO (managed care organization).

If the employer chooses to pay the medical bills for a qualifying accident, the accident will not be part of the employer's Worker's Compensation claim history. This claim history is used to determine eligibility for and discount level of group rating program participation. Claims involving more than $5,000 of medical expenses or 7 days of lost work time must go through the regular Worker's Compensation claim process. Follow this link to find more detailed information on this program:
http://www.ohiobwc.com/basics/guidedtour/generalinfo/empgeneralinfo26.asp
Human Resource Managers' Forum Will Feature Job Description and At-Will Employment Guidance

Mr. John Wargowsky, Executive Director - Mid American Ag and Hort Services, Inc. and Director, Labor Services - Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Inc. (top of page)

Mid American Ag and Hort Services (MAAHS) is pleased to announce the fifth Ohio Ag and Hort Human Resource Managers' Forum for fostering professional development and advancing effective human resource practices for human resource managers in agricultural and horticultural businesses. The Forum will be held Wednesday, November 8 at the Franklin County Farm Bureau office in Hilliard, Ohio from 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

The featured topic at the Forum will be "The Value and Common Sense of Job Descriptions," presented by Dr. Bernie Erven of Erven Human Resource Services, LLC. Dr. Erven has 35 years of experience in teaching, Extension, and research focusing on employee management and family business relations.

In the afternoon, Ms. Cheryl Basinger with Competitive Edge Human Resources will present "Employment-At-Will Issues." Ms. Basinger has a 25-year track record of success in diverse assignments in human resources, sales, and marketing. The program will include opportunities for open discussion and networking for those with human resource responsibilities in agriculture and horticulture businesses.

The registration fee of $50 for MAAHS members and $70 for non-MAAHS members includes lunch and materials. Participation in the Forum is limited to the first 40 registrants and reservations are requested by November 1. Contact MAAHS at 614-246-8286, maahs@ofbf.org, or visit www.midamservices.org for more information.
Resignation of Andy Spring as OSU Dairy Farm Manger After 27 Years

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

Andy Spring, Dairy Farm Manager at the OSU Waterman farm in Columbus, accepted a Research Assistant position with the OSU Department of Horticulture and Crop Science and the position will be located at the Waterman Headquarters Building. Andy has served as the Farm Manager for 27 years and will be deeply missed for his collegiality, astute management of the dairy facility, and his being a mentor for students. His last working day at the dairy farm was Friday, September 29. We wish Andy the best in his new position.
Dairy Youth Compete in Events During the Ohio State Fair

Ms. Laurie Winkelman, Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

Dairy youth from throughout Ohio competed in two major events during the Ohio State Fair in August. All dairy youth had the opportunity to participate in Dairy Skillathons and Dairy Judging Clinics, both offered twice during the Fair.

Skillathon participants were tested on their knowledge of nutrition and feeds, genetics and pedigrees, management tool identification, and diseases. During both weeks of the Fair, 71 youth completed the Skillathon. Awards, sponsored by Toyota Trucks and the Ohio State Fair, were presented to the winners in each age division.

Taking home top honors in the Dairy Skillathon included (Pictures 1 and 2): Morgan Eades, age 9, Champaign Co.; Dianne Gress, age 10, Wayne Co.; Hillary Jackson, age 11, Logan Co.; Eileen Gress, age 12, Wayne Co.; Rachel Townsley, age 13, Champaign Co.; Ashlee Dietz, age 14, Trumbull Co.; Laura Gordon, age 15, Wayne Co.; Kaleb Kohler, age 16, Fairfield Co.; Matt Weeman, age 17, Wayne Co.; and Sherri Gress, age 18, Wayne Co. Receiving the highest score overall in the Skillathon was Sherri Gress from Wayne Co.

Picture 1. Taking home top honors overall in the 2006 Dairy Skillathon was Sherri Gress of Wayne Co.
Pictured from left to right are: Laurie Winkelman from OSU, Gress, and Dr. Maurice Eastridge from OSU.

Picture 2. Age division winners received special awards sponsored by Toyota Trucks and the Ohio State Fair.
Pictured from left to right are: Laurie Winkelman from OSU, Laura Gordon - Wayne Co., Sherri Gress - Wayne Co.,
Eileen Gress - Wayne Co., Diane Gress - Wayne Co., Matt Weeman - Wayne Co., and Ashlee Dietz - Trumbull Co.

Dairy judging clinics were held during both weeks of the Fair, and scores from both weeks were totaled together to name the top dairy judges in the Junior and Senior Divisions. A total of 44 juniors and 22 seniors participated in one or both of the clinics. The top 10 individuals in the junior and senior divisions are listed below.

Junior Division:

1. Michelle Funk
2. Taylor Justice
3. Ben Klier
4. Tanner Topp
5. Ashlee Dietz
6. Nick Fugate
7. Tessa Topp
8. Matthew Arp
9. Tyler Topp
10. Brennan Topp

Senior Division:

1. Neil Duncan
2. Sherri Gress
3. Kaleb Kohler
4. Amanda Hoover
5. Laura Gordon
6. Tom Grim
7. Matt Weeman
8. John Neider
9. Jason Miley
10. Joel Bourne
Changes to Federal Order Pricing Rules May Lower 2007 Milk Prices

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

On November 20, 2006, the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Federal Order Branch, announced changes to the Class IV and Class III pricing rules. These changes are to the make allowance values, i.e., those values, expressed on a dairy product pound basis, which processors are allowed to deduct before arriving at the fat, protein, other solids and skim solids values to be paid to producers. You can access the complete Federal Order decision document at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/proposals/classIII_IV_make_all.htm

I have posted a copy of the expected price impacts by components and milk class on my Ohio Dairy 2006 website at this address: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ . The bottom line is that milk producers will begin receiving less value for their milk as early as February 2007, or possibly March 2007. A positive referendum will require a 2/3 majority of producers voting individually or block voted by their cooperative association to approve the changes. Remember, that as stipulated under Federal Order procedural rules, the vote is to approve the new language authorizing the increased make allowance values. A 'no' vote is a vote to terminate your Federal Order. Not a small matter to consider.

Looking ahead, the time-line for implementation on this decision is:

November 22, 2006: Federal Register publication of the Tentative Final Decision (TFD) is adopted on an Interim Final and emergency basis. The 60-day comment period started on November 22, 2006 and runs to January 22, 2007. With the finding of an emergency basis, there will be a referendum concluded no later than 30 days from November 22, 2006, which was December 21, 2006. On December 22, a producer YES or NO vote is recorded. If the TFD is approved, then sometime shortly after this date, a Interim Final Rule(IFR) will be issued and the make allowance changes can go into effect for as early as February or March 2007. After the comment period closes on January 22, 2007, the comments will be reviewed and a Final Decision will be issued. This will be followed by a second referendum and the issuance of a Final Rule.

There are two very important items on the Federal Order agenda. On December 5, 2006 in Washington DC, the USDA held an information program on the issue of class pricing rules and proposals it has received for more changes to these pricing rules. Also scheduled for December 11, 2006 in Pittsburgh, PA, there was begun a national hearing on proposals to change Class I and Class II pricing rules. If you would like more information on these hearings, contact your Federal Market Administrator at 330-225-4758.

Cost of Nutrients and Benchmarks of Profitability for Ohio Dairy Farms

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University.

Feed markets have dramatically changed the dairy nutrition landscape this Fall. Corn prices buoyed by the increased demand from ethanol plants, combined with an exuberant interest from speculators, and have risen to heights historically seen in low production years (e.g., 1996). The dramatic changes that will result from the phenomenal growth in ethanol production will require substantial and significant changes to the way that we approach dairy nutrition and ration balancing. We will discuss these in a future issue of Buckeye Dairy News. For now, dairy producers and their nutritionists should at least ensure that feeds used on their farms, either as commodities or as ingredients used in commercial feeds, are justified on an economic basis. To assist in the process, we evaluated current commodity markets in central Ohio using the software SESAME (available at www.sesamesoft.com). The appraisal would be slightly different for other Ohio regions, but not markedly so.

Compared to May 2006, prices of nutrients (Table 1) show:

1. A 17% increase in the unit cost of dietary energy,
2. A 7¢/lb drop in the cost of degradable protein,
3. An increase of 5 ¢/lb of digestible rumen undegradable protein (RUP),
4. A drop of 1.4¢/lb of non-effective neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and
5. No change in the price of effective NDF.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	May 2006	November 2006
Net energy for lactation - 3X (NRC, 2001; $/Mcal)	0.072	0.084
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.013	-0.083
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.200	0.250
Non-effective neutral detergent fiber (NDF; $/lb)	-0.027	-0.041
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.065	0.065

From a historical standpoint, net energy lactation is currently very highly priced (10-year average is about 7¢/Mcal), whereas rumen degradable protein (RDP) is much below its historical average of about 0¢/lb. Therefore, as a general rule, it is currently wise to reduce the safety margins of dairy rations for net energy of lactation. Meanwhile, the markets are willing to pay you for using additional rumen degradable protein and non-effective NDF. In practical terms, this means that there are some high RDP and high fiber by-products that are currently bargains.

In Tables 2 and 3, we report the results for 27 feed commodities traded or available in central Ohio. Table 2 conveniently groups commodities into three groups: bargains, at breakeven, and overpriced. If many ingredients in your rations are from the overpriced column, it is time to question your nutritional plan. Details of commodity pricing are shown in Table 3. In this table, the column labeled "actual" is the price for tractor trailer loads FOB central Ohio. The "predicted" column is the calculated breakeven price per ton; lastly, the "lower limit" and "upper limit" are the 75% confidence range for the breakeven price.

Table 2. Grouping of feed commodities, central Ohio, November 2006.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn silage	Bakery byproducts	Alfalfa hay - 44% NDF
Whole cottonseed	Brewers grains - wet	Beet pulp
Distillers dried grains	Corn grain	Blood meal
Feather meal	Cottonseed meal	Canola meal
Gluten feed	Soybean hulls	Citrus pulp
Gluten meal	48% soybean meal	Molasses
Hominy	Roasted soybeans	44% Soybean meal
Meat meal	Tallow
Expeller soybean meal	Wheat bran
Wheat middlings

Table 3. Commodity assessment, central Ohio, November 2006.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	150	120.01	99.61	140.58
Bakery Byproduct Meal	130	133.03	123.04	143.02
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	150	124.82	108.72	140.92
Blood meal, ring dried	495	461.99	432.43	491.55
Brewers Grains, wet	30	28.42	25.05	31.79
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	173.60	137.02	124.46	149.59
Citrus Pulp, dried	172	115.34	106.69	123.99
Corn Grain, ground dry	135	141.23	131.66	150.80
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	35	51.92	44.66	59.19
Cottonseed Meal, 41% CP	186	179.11	168.06	190.16
Cottonseed, whole w lint	161	190.09	163.69	216.50
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	115	156.64	143.53	169.75
Gluten Feed, dry	97	124.10	114.42	133.77
Gluten Meal, dry	319	342.57	324.55	360.58
Hominy	105	120.06	111.42	128.71
Meat Meal, rendered	205	239.39	220.71	258.06
Molasses, sugarcane	154	95.15	87.08	103.21
Soybean Hulls	92	75.20	52.51	97.88
Soybean Meal, expeller	247	278.24	265.61	290.88
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	202.60	169.81	151.30	188.33
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	211.60	205.01	188.25	221.77
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	250	253.62	238.05	269.16
Tallow	350	346.58	314.43	378.74
Wheat Bran	76	76.04	61.04	91.04
Wheat Middlings	69	87.76	74.60	100.92

Appraisal Set
Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Corrected ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay - 38% NDF, 22% CP	170	118.61	140.53
Alfalfa Hay - 48% NDF, 17% CP	130	121.68	106.94
Blood meal, ring dried	235	384.50
Fish Menhaden Meal, mech.	920	332.27

Nutrient prices and milk component prices can be used to calculate a benchmark for feed costs and income over nutrient costs. Results are presented in Table 4. The cost of feeding for a milk yield of 75 lb/day has gone up by $0.12/cow per day since May and is $0.20/cow per day greater than at the same time last year. This occurred while the price of corn went up from $32/ton (90¢/bu) in May 2006 to $45/ton ($1.26/bu) in November 2006. This indicates that although prices of traded commodities move up or down in "sympathy" with the corn/soybean markets, they do have markets of their own.

Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	November 2005	May 2006	November 2006
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	2.89	2.49	2.93
RDP	(0.79)	(0.07)	(0.44)
Digestible-RUP	0.75	0.45	0.56
ne-NDF	(0.21)	(0.13)	(0.19)
e-NDF	0.72	0.71	0.71
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.57	3.65	3.77
Milk gross income
Fat	4.93	3.33	3.82
Protein	5.53	4.47	4.83
Other solids	0.66	0.67	0.90
TOTAL	11.12	8.47	9.55

Income over nutrient costs	7.55	4.82	5.78

Handling and Transporting Neonatal Calves

Dr. Naomi Botheras, Animal Welfare Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

Traditionally, most dairy cattle lived on one farm from birth to death. However, transportation of young animals has now become a routine management practice on many dairy farms. Heifer calves are frequently moved off the farm to separate rearing facilities within the first week of life, and then perhaps moved again during the first year, before returning to the farm prior to calving. Furthermore, most bull calves are also transported off the farm very early in life, typically either to a grower facility to be raised for veal or dairy-beef production. Research suggests that handling and transport can be a severe stress for animals, and the welfare of calves may be at particular risk during transport. The welfare of calves during handling and transport has been comprehensively reviewed by Trunkfield and Broom (1990), and several other reviews of cattle transport are also available (Tarrant, 1990; Hemsworth et al., 1995; Grandin, 1997; Knowles, 1999; Eicher, 2001).

Transportation can be subdivided into several elements: handling, loading and unloading, mixing of unfamiliar animals, confinement and space limitations, unfamiliar environment, feed and water deprivation, fluctuating and/or extreme temperatures, and motion of the vehicle during transit. The ability of the animal to cope with these elements of transport varies with age, and importantly, the immune status of the animal influences the animals' coping response.

Loading and Unloading

Two of the greatest difficulties with handling and transporting very young calves are that they are often unable to walk without assistance, and they also fail to display following behavior, thus preventing them from being effectively herded. Consequently, these young weak animals are often difficult to handle and herd, and in many cases, forced movement results in the calves being mishandled and roughly treated when trying to move them on the farm and load and unload them from transport vehicles. Use of an electric prod or biting dogs to force calves to move, and throwing or dragging calves on or off trucks, all represent totally unacceptable ways of managing young calves. Loading and unloading of calves appear to be the most stressful stages of transport, as indicated by rises in the blood concentration of the stress hormone cortisol during this transport event (Trunkfield and Broom, 1990; Eicher, 2001). Calves find it difficult to navigate ramps and inclines, and calves often fail to remain upright during unloading from trucks, particularly if the unloading ramp is steep. The welfare of calves falling or sliding down a ramp is compromised, and in many situations, bruising may also occur, with welfare and economic consequences. In one study of 7,500 transported calves, an average of 80% of calves failed to remain upright during unloading from decks with a ramp incline of 18.8° (Bremner et al., 1992), and in another study of 16,400 transported calves, 50% of the calves had bruised stifles (McCausland et al., 1977).

Mortality and Shipping Fever

Transportation of calves has been shown to increase mortality rates of calves (Hemsworth et al., 1995; Knowles, 1995). However, few calves usually die during transport, but succumb to a secondary infection within the following 4 weeks. Neonatal animals are usually immuno-suppressed, and this makes it more difficult for the animal to cope with the additional stress of transport. A strong negative correlation exists between age at transport and mortality rate, such that mortality rates are reduced as calf age at transport increases. While death is an extreme consequence of transport, the welfare of a significant number of other calves is also likely to be compromised when mortality rates are high. Transport or shipping fever, also known as bovine respiratory disease, is generally considered to be caused by stress-induced changes in the immune system during transport, which increases susceptibility to viral and bacterial infections. Hence, transport may increase the rates of illness and disease. Furthermore, preliminary evidence suggests that calves are particularly vulnerable to transport stress at 4 days of age. Calves shipped at 4 days of age show a much lower immune response and ability to fight pathogens than calves transported before and after that age, suggesting that transporting calves at 4 days of age should be avoided.

Weight Loss

During transport, calves may lose weight. It appears that this weight loss results from food and water deprivation, and defecation and urinary losses, which can lead to acute dehydration and hypoglycemia (Trunkfield and Broom, 1990). Calves that are subject to long journeys are increasingly susceptible to acute dehydration and chronic hypoglycemia, and transportation is often associated with problems of scouring, which in turn may also lead to dehydration. Electrolytes given orally during or after transport, or subcutaneously after transport, have both been found to be beneficial, particularly in the young calf. The major effects are reduced dehydration, earlier return to interest in eating and improved growth rates, immune stimulation, and reduction of losses in both liveweight and carcass weights (Knowles, 1999; Eicher, 2001).

Physical and Environmental Effects

Neonatal calves prefer to lie down during transport, so sufficient space needs to be provided to allow animals to do this. A suitable bedding material, such as straw, also needs to be provided so the animals are comfortable, warm, and dry. Calves have little natural tolerance of the cold, so protection from wind chill and rain during transport in cold weather is very important. However, adequate ventilation must still be maintained to ensure suitable air quality. Care must also be taken when handling and transporting calves in hot weather, and particularly, if it is also humid. It may be necessary to reduce stocking density in such conditions, and extra patience when moving animals to prevent overexertion is important. The length of the journey, and thus the length of feed and water deprivation also need to be considered. It is suggested in the Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Land Transport of Cattle (2002) that all calves must be fed as close as possible to, and at least within 6 hours of, the time of transportation, and calves must not be deprived of appropriate liquid feed or water for more than 10 hours in total, including the mustering and holding period prior to transport, the actual transport, and the time after unloading. The Canadian Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: Transportation (2001) recommends that calves be provided with suitable feed and water at least every 12 hours. The metabolic (feeding) needs of the young calf have been linked to critical body temperature, so the need to maintain the critical temperature of the neonate is apparent. Colostrum also increases a calf's tolerance to cold temperatures.

Conclusions

Transport has various effects on the calf, and the evidence suggests that many are adverse. The extent to which calves are able to cope with transport, and the extent of their suffering, are questions which must be answered if good welfare of calves in transit is to be ensured. Due to the difficulties in handling and transporting very young calves, and the associated welfare (and economic) risks, it has been suggested that calves should not be transported until they have dry, withered navel cords, and that they must be fit and strong enough to be transported, i.e., calves must be bright and alert, robust, and able to rise and walk without assistance (UK Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order, 1997; Canadian Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: Transportation, 2001; Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Land Transport of Cattle, 2002). The importance of all calves (heifers and bulls) receiving an adequate quantity of high-quality colostrum as soon as possible after birth, preferably within one hour, also cannot be emphasized enough. Providing an adequate volume of high-quality colostrum is critical to calf health and is the single most important factor to prevent illness of young calves. Studies have indicated that as few as 20% of calves entering veal production units in the United States have acquired adequate transfer of Immunoglobulin G from colostrum (Wilson et al., 1994).
Managing Colostrum and Waste Milk on Farms with Johne's Disease
Drs. William P. Shulaw and William B. Epperson, Extension Veterinarians, The Ohio State University

In recent months, the topic of colostrum management in herds with Johne's disease has surfaced frequently. We have known for some time that the causative organism, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP), may be found in colostrum and milk taken from the udders of infected cows. Work done in Ohio and published in 1995 reported that MAP was isolated from the colostrum of 22% of infected cows and from the milk of about 8% of infected cows. Cows that were heavy fecal shedders of MAP were more likely to shed the organism in their colostrum than were light fecal shedders. Research done in Pennsylvania showed a slightly higher shedding level in milk (11.6%) and shedding in milk was also more likely in cows that were heavy fecal shedders. Colostrum was not examined in that study. It is important to note that the numbers of MAP recovered from milk in these studies would be considered quite low -- from 2 to 8 colonies from a 50 ml (cc) milk sample.

In recognition of both the potential risk that infected colostrum might pose in establishing an infection in a newborn calf and the importance of colostrum in protecting against other diseases in young calves, some producers and veterinarians have attempted to identify cows that might be of higher risk of having MAP in their colostrum in order that their colostrum might not be used for heifer replacements. Although it was designed to be a screening test to select HERDS (and animals) for additional testing using a more definitive test, such as fecal culture, ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) is commonly being used for this purpose because it is cheap and fast relative to culture. It is usually performed at dry-off.

To our knowledge, only one research study has attempted to address the ability of ELISA to detect cows that are shedding MAP through their mammary gland. In that work, Sweeney and colleagues reported the results of tests on samples of feces, supramammary lymph nodes, milk, and serum taken at slaughter from 86 cows not showing clinical signs of Johne's disease. The samples were tested by culture (feces, lymph nodes, and milk) and complement fixation, ELISA, and agar-gel immunodiffusion (AGID; done on blood serum).

Relevant findings included:
- Heavy fecal shedders of MAP were more likely to have culture positive milk and lymph nodes than intermediate or light shedders, and "The trend for an increased proportion of culture-positive milk or supramammary lymph node samples with an increased fecal shedding rate is significant (P < 0.05)." In this study, 7 of 37 (19%) cows that were heavy fecal shedders had MAP in their milk.
- "There is a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the ELISA scores between cows with culture-positive and -negative lymph nodes, but no difference was demonstrated for milk samples." This implies that ELISA might be useful to detect cows with MAP in the mammary lymph nodes but not the milk.
The authors concluded "Thus, the serologic status of the cow [as assessed by ELISA, AGID, or complement fixation] appears to be of little use in predicting the risk of milk or supramammary lymph node infection." It is important to note that the ELISA technique used in this study was not the same as current ELISA in use in the USA today, although it is similar to them.

The current practice of discarding colostrum from ELISA-positive animals seems to stem from our observations that these animals are most likely to be moderate to heavy fecal shedders of MAP, and the inference from the studies cited is that heavy shedding animals are more likely to have MAP in their milk. Although on the surface this approach seems appropriate, there are several significant cautions of which producers should be aware. The first of these is that currently available ELISA probably only detect about 70% of heavy shedders (including from unpublished Ohio observations, 2006). This means that up to 30% of heavy shedders will not be detected by ELISA. Furthermore, ELISA detection of low to moderate fecal shedders is variously reported to be only 2 to 30% (including from unpublished Ohio observations, 2006). In the Sweeny study, 1/9 (11%) intermediate fecal shedders and 1/31 (3%) light fecal shedders DID have positive milk samples. In addition, 2 of 9 intermediate shedders (22%) and 2 of 33 light shedders (6%) had culture positive supramammary lymph nodes.

In light of these observations, it would seem well for producers to be aware that ELISA-negative animals may have a risk of having MAP in their milk similar to that of ELISA-positive animals.

Secondly, in the milk and colostrum culture studies cited above, samples were collected from the udder after thorough teat end cleaning and disinfection of the skin. Therefore, the results reflect the status of the mammary gland itself. Because fecal material from infected cows in amounts as small as a gram (about the size of a large pea) may contain billions of MAP bacteria, a few infected animals can contaminate the dairy environment to a very significant degree. Work done on farms in Ohio in 2005 and 2006 has shown that contamination of the environment with MAP in an infected herd can result in heavy contamination of the skin of the teat and udder - in some cases in a very high percentage of the herd. In fact, skin swabs taken from the skin of the teat and udder of fecal culture-negative cows, using just a 4-inch square gauze sponge, have yielded MAP upon culture in amounts equivalent to fecal samples taken directly from the rectum of infected cows. A very small amount of this contamination can result in a bucket of colostrums, potentially containing an infectious dose of MAP for every calf fed from it. Consequently, If producers are not paying close attention to teat and udder cleaning at the time of colostrum (or milk) collection, small amounts of fecal contamination from environmental sources could completely wipe out any value of assessing an individual cow's infection status with either blood or culture tests. This very real potential for bacterial contamination during harvest has recently been shown.

Some producers may wish to consider the purchase of a pasteurizer for waste milk and colostrum. Some studies have shown significant economic and calf health benefits from pasteurization of waste milk. Although there are mixed results from studies examining the efficiency of pasteurization of milk or colostrum to kill MAP, most studies have shown at least a 99.9% reduction in MAP numbers. In addition, recent work has shown that heating colostrum at a lower temperature for a longer time than typical batch pasteurization may fully inactivate MAP without turning it into a semi-solid and without major losses in antibody content (1400 F for 60 to120 minutes). Because some of this work was done in a laboratory setting, it will need to be determined whether these study findings can be successfully replicated using commercial on-farm batch pasteurization equipment. However, these results are very encouraging and suggest that, for some producers, on-farm pasteurization may be a very useful tool to reduce MAP in colostrum and waste milk.

The "take homes" are:

1. ELISA-positive cows are more likely to be heavy shedders of MAP than ELISA- negative cows, and removing ELISA-positive cows as colostrum/calf milk donors may decrease the burden of MAP in the colostrum/calf milk pool, since some (8 to 22%) of these positive cows may shed MAP in colostrum.
2. However, ELISA will not identify the majority of MAP-positive cows shedding intermediate or low levels of MAP in their manure, yet from 3 to 11% of these cows appear to shed MAP into milk. Because there are usually many more intermediate and low shedders in a herd than heavy shedders, they may be responsible, collectively, for more direct mammary gland shedding of MAP than the heavy shedders identified by ELISA. In addition, ELISA will not identify all heavy shedders.
3. The level of MAP in the manure (organisms/ml) of infected cows is potentially millions of times HIGHER than in milk. Therefore, fecal contamination of the colostrum/milk at milking is probably a greater factor driving the level of MAP in milk/colostrum than MAP infection originating in the udder and subsequently shed directly into milk.
4. Finally, MAP infection in a herd can result in TREMENDOUS contamination of cow contact surfaces. Cows not infected with MAP have been shown to have large numbers of MAP on their teat and udder skin (picked up from fecal contamination in the environment) so even milk/colostrum from truly uninfected cows may be contaminated with MAP if milk is contaminated at milking (i.e. pre-milking preparation is inadequate).

Using ELISA testing to identify cows to remove from the colostrum/calf milk pool will decrease the MAP burden but will likely do so in a relatively small way. In herds infected with MAP, data suggest that fecal contamination remains the main way colostrum/calf milk is contaminated. A focus on environmental management (clean cows) and meticulous pre-milking cow preparation should remain centerpieces of a MAP control program. Pasteurization offers a promising adjunct to provide a method to greatly reduce contamination of colostrum/calf milk.

*A complete list of research references is available on request.
Update on Footbaths for Dairy Cattle

Dr. William B. Epperson, Extension Dairy Veterinarian, The Ohio State University

Footbaths are used as a tool to assist in control of infectious diseases of the claw and interdigital area of the foot. Foot rot and hairy heel warts are the main infectious diseases of the foot, and each respond only partially to footbath use. Both diseases are directly related to the level of environmental hygiene. Footbaths are generally viewed as helpful when disease is present at a low (<10%) level. When more animals are affected with disease, such as hairy heel wart, other methods must be employed for treatment.

Environments that are mostly free of manure buildup offer very little challenge to foot health, and therefore, require less footbath use and maintenance. If more than 50% of cows are clean (area between coronary band to ½ way up hock shows only small drop splashing of manure), then footbath use may be constrained to 2 days/week or much less. This might be typical of well managed tie stall housed cows. Many dairy farms with freestalls will not have this level of hygiene (though it can be achieved) and will require footbath use the majority of days, and maybe continuously. Obviously, a focus on frequent cleaning will improve hygiene, and will improve many aspects of health - foot, mammary, and reproductive.

If footbaths are necessary, consider targeting higher risk groups to limit costs. Early lactation cows seem most at risk for infectious foot disease, so intense use of footbaths for cows in this stage of lactation may be justified. Later lactation cows may require 50 to 75% the frequency of footbath use as for the early lactation groups.

Improving design and function of footbaths may improve their effect and limit the need for repeated treatment. Size the treatment bath to be at least 8 and preferably 10 feet long. Maintain a 5-inch solution depth. Locate the bath in the return ally, far enough away from the parlor to avoid a "cow jam" leaving the parlor.

If feet are clean entering the bath, the disinfectant solution has a better chance to work. A 2 stage footbath is an option, with the first stage footbath being water and detergent to clean the feet, followed immediately by the treatment footbath containing the active disinfectant.

When not in use, route cows around the footbath. If that is not possible, put something in the footbath. An empty footbath can create a manure pit cesspool that cows must walk through.

Using chemicals strategically can also limit disinfectant costs. Footbath solutions really have 2 potential functions: 1) assist in simple cleaning of the foot, and 2) disinfect the skin of the interdigital space. These are separate functions, and each contributes to foot health.

Soaps and rock salt are among those additives that assist mostly in cleaning. When dispersed in water, they help remove debris. This is helpful in exposing the foot to oxygen and inhibiting the bacteria that typically produce foot rot and heel warts. But, they have little disinfecting action.

Disinfectants include copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, formalin, and a number of commercial products. Antibiotics are sometimes used in footbaths when a heel wart outbreak is occurring. Antibiotic use in footbaths is an extralabel use and requires veterinary direction. Following a course of antibiotic treatment, footbaths are then maintained with a disinfectant. Most footbath chemicals are effective for around 150 to 200 cow passes.

Copper sulfate at 5 to 10% has been the most common disinfectant used in footbaths. Substituting a cleaning agent for copper sulfate on some days will reduce use. Additives can also be used to extend copper sulfate (check with your chemical/equipment supplier). Some acid additives claim to allow a lower concentration of copper sulfate (i.e. 2%) to be used. Ask your supplier about effectiveness of the products; some available products have little efficacy data available, so it may be difficult to predict which ones will work.

Zinc sulfate at 5 to 10% can be used to replace copper sulfate, but it is hard to get dissolved into solution when mixed with cold water. Again, there are commercial solutions containing zinc sulfate that alleviate this problem. Some commercial solutions, such as Double Action (West Agro, Inc.) have been tested and shown to be effective in footbaths, and may be used as replacements. Formalin (2 to 5%) is used in footbaths, but it should be handled with caution, as it is a carcinogen and irritant. While formalin does appear to be an effective disinfectant, its use in a food production setting is difficult to justify.
Health Insurance Deductions and Health Savings Accounts

Mr. Donald J. Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Lima

Health insurance costs are a major farm family expense. As a result, much attention is focused on adopting a health insurance strategy that will save on taxes. For any given strategy, the effect on Social Security (both Self Employment and FICA tax) must be considered in addition to income tax savings.

Sole proprietorships, partnerships, and LLC's taxed as a partnership, are not allowed to provide tax-free fringe benefits (other than qualified retirement plans) to the proprietor and family. The farm operator is not an employee. However, the farmer can employ the spouse and the dependents. This may be done under IRS Code Section 105. The spouse must be a bona fide employee and must be paid a reasonable salary plus benefits, based upon the duties performed. With this strategy, the farmer may deduct the cost of family health insurance (in the spouse's name) as a business expense, thus saving both income tax and self-employment tax. However, the spouse's wages are subject to Social Security (FICA) and Medicare taxes. If the spouse is not employed by the business, the farmer can claim self-employment health insurance as a deduction on line 28 of the Form 1040. Under this deduction; however, self-employment tax is not reduced.

If a partnership pays the health insurance for the partner, the payment is treated as income to the partner for both income and self-employment taxes. The partner can claim the self-employed health insurance deduction, same as the sole-proprietor. The S Corporation rules for fringe benefits are much the same as a partnership, however, unlike a partnership, no social security (FICA) tax is imposed on the value of the premiums. Thus, the total tax liability is less for an S Corporation shareholder-employee than that for a partner or LLC member receiving the same health insurance benefits.

A farmer can achieve the most favorable tax treatment of fringe benefits by utilizing a C or regular corporation. The corporation furnishes the health insurance and deducts the premiums. However, no income is attributed to the shareholder-employee. Also, no FICA or Social Security tax is imposed on the health insurance benefit.

Health Saving Accounts (HSA) first became available in 2004, under IRC Section 223. The HSA are custodial accounts or tax-exempt trusts that are created to pay qualified medical expenses for the account holder, spouse, and dependents. Contributions to HSA are deductible if made by an eligible individual, an employer, or both. Distributions from the HSA are tax-free if they are used to pay for qualified medical expenses. In addition, investment earnings are not taxable. Distributions used for non-medical expenses are taxable and subject to a 10% penalty.

Eligibility requirements for an HSA include:

1. Must be covered by a high deductible health plan (HDHP). A HDHP must have an annual deductible of at least $1,050 for individual coverage and $2,100 for family coverage, and an annual out-of-pocket expense limit of $5,250 for individual coverage and $10,500 for family coverage.
2. Can not be covered by other health plans that are not a HDHP.
3. Can not be entitled to Medicare benefits.
4. Also, can not be eligible to be claimed by another taxpayer.

The maximum contribution to a HSA is the lesser of the annual deductible of the HDHP or for self coverage $2,700 in 2006 (each year will be adjusted for inflation) and $5,450 for family coverage (also to be adjusted for inflation). Individual policyholders and covered spouses who are 55 or older are allowed a "catch-up" amount of $700 for 2006 (this will increase by $100 per year to $1,000 by 2009).

There is no "use-it-or-lose-it" provision for HSA. Therefore, unused contributions can be carried forward and used for eligible medical expenses after the beneficiary has retired. The beneficiary can also withdraw funds penalty-free after age 65, thus treating the HSA as the equivalent of a traditional IRA.

Quality Milk and Quality Beef

Dr. Steve Boyles, Extension Beef Specialist, The Ohio State University

Dairy cows are a major source of beef. Cows marketed to slaughter can represent up to 15% of a dairy's income. Meat packers are implementing Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point plans and are focusing on the quality of cattle coming into the packing plant.

Dairy producers contribute to the beef supply through elimination of cull cows and bulls (non-fed beef). Approximately one-third of the total non-fed beef production originates from dairy cows, and one-half of all cows processed for beef in the U.S. are dairy cattle. Dairy producers were losing approximately $70 for every cow and bull marketed due to quality defects.

Some people think that the beef from cull cattle is used for ground beef. Products from the rib and round areas are used to form deli and steak sandwich meats. Ribeye steaks and tenderloins from cull cows and bulls are marketed to "family" steakhouses. There are strategies that producers may use to prevent monetary losses and improve the quality of beef from culled animals.

Injection Site Lesions

A Colorado State University (CSU) study found 58% of rounds from dairy carcasses had at least one injection site. A majority of these abscesses were in the back of the leg and were the result of intramuscular injections. Avoid intramuscular injections when possible (i.e., use subcutaneous). If no alternative exists, consider injecting products in the neck or shoulder region. No more than 10 cc of any product should be administered in any one-injection site.

Drug Residues

Dairy cows and veal calves are the two classes of cattle with the greatest violation of antibiotic residues according to the USDA National Residue Monitoring program. Withdrawal time is often not the same for meat and milk.

Lame Cattle

An average of $70 is lost for every disabled or non-ambulatory cow processed. Processing costs increase because of carcass trimming due to increased bruising and the likelihood that the carcass will be condemned. Decrease the incidence of downer cows by selling cull animals prior to deterioration of health.

Hide Damage

Hide defects among dairy cows cost producers $5.21 per head, or 16.6 million dollars annually. Damage to hides usually results from brands, scratches, and (or) insect/parasite infestation. Eliminate sharp, protruding objects in milking and handling areas. An external parasite program should reduce insect and parasite damage to hides. If possible, move the brand from the rib to the rump region and this will reduce the amount of leather that tanners have to remove from the hide. Most folks don't want your cow number in the middle of their leather car seat!

Body Condition

Cows in poor condition are more susceptible to bruising. Cows with excess body fat must be trimmed in order to market a more desirable carcass. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) audit calculated the following value losses due to carcass characteristics:

Characteristic	Value Lost per Animal
Yellow external fat	$6.48
Dark cutting	$1.41
Inadequate muscle	$18.70
Over fat	$10.17
Light weight	$1.28
Total	$38.04

Source: NCBA/CSU, 1999.

Consider putting market cows that are in poor body condition on feed for a short time before marketing them. Feed the refusal feed from the milking string plus a little grain. If a cow is lame, it gives her time to heal. Keeping them on a dirt lot would be great.

A Cornell study found that fattening cows from 70 to 90 days prior to marketing could add body weight, result in a more desirable fat color, and give producers the opportunity to watch for higher market price days to sell.

Summary

Dairy cows at the end of their productive lives have been considered cull cows. These cows can contribute one last time to the bottom line of a dairy farm.

Using Manure with Growing Crops

Mr. Glen Arnold, Extension Agriculture Educator, Putnam County

Applying animal manure to a growing crop can add an additional window of time rarely utilized for manure application. Also, applying animal manure to a growing crop allows the farmer to capture more of the manure's nutrients and potentially save on purchased fertilizer. The OSU Extension has applied swine manure to growing crops on several research plots in recent years in an attempt to make maximum use of the available nitrogen.

In addition to phosphorus, potassium, and a host of micro nutrients, livestock manure contains organic nitrogen and ammonium nitrogen. More than half the nitrogen in liquid livestock manure is typically ammonium nitrogen. The ammonium nitrogen and approximately one third of the organic nitrogen in livestock manure is available to growing crops during the season of application. The OSU Extension research plots attempted to determine if the nitrogen in livestock manure could replace the purchased nitrogen normally applied to corn and wheat.

Three replicated research plots were undertaken in 2005 and 2006, comparing swine manure to 28% nitrogen as a sidedress nitrogen source to a growing corn crop. Sidedress nitrogen was applied at the agronomic rate needed by the growing crop according to pre-sidedress nitrogen testing. This was typically 150 units per acre. Manure application equipment was calibrated, as closely as possible, to match the amount of nitrogen applied as 28%. Generally, plots required 3000 to 4000 gallons per acre of manure. The manure was applied using a tanker fitted with narrow wheels and an AerWay toolbar with rolling tines that incorporated the manure.

There was no statistical yield difference between the corn plots receiving purchased 28% nitrogen and the corn plots receiving swine manure in 2005 or 2006. One of the plot replications in 2006 involved "spiking" the livestock manure with 28% nitrogen to cut the needed manure application rate in half. Approximately 16 gallons of 28% nitrogen was added to a 3500 gallon manure tank to double the acreage the manure could cover and still provide the needed nitrogen rate. Plot yields using the spiked manure were similar to the other plots.

Swine manure was also applied to a growing wheat crop in Putnam County in the spring of 2006 and compared with urea as a source of nitrogen to topdress wheat. The manure and the urea were both applied in early March and the plot was replicated four times. Approximately 100 units of nitrogen was applied as urea and approximately 3250 gallons per acre of manure was applied using an AgCo AgChem Grassland Applicator. The tool cut a narrow slot in the ground at 7.5 inch spacing using a smooth coulter. A boot located immediately behind the coulter allowed the liquid manure to flow into the slot.

The wheat top dressed with manure out yielded the wheat top dressed with urea by approximately eight bushels per acre. There was no difference in harvest moisture or test weight of the wheat in any of the replications.

These plot results indicate livestock manure is an excellent source of nitrogen for growing crops. However, the large volume of manure needed to meet the nitrogen needs of the growing corn crop makes it difficult to efficiently apply using current technology.

Research plots in 2007 will focus on applying livestock manure as a sidedress to corn after the crop is planted but prior to emergence. Depending on soil temperatures, a window of 7 to 15 days could be available to apply manure as a sidedress using a dragline system immediately following corn planting.

Feeding Calves to Grow in Cold Weather

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Wooster

Growing and staying healthy - 2 universal objectives for raising calves from birth to weaning. As the seasons change, so must our management practices to achieve these two goals. Why?

First, a calf is born with approximately 3% body fat. There is barely enough of that fat available to the calf to meet her energy requirements for the first 18 hours of life. Colostrum has twice the level of fat than normal milk to start addressing the calf's need for energy at birth.

Second, there is a finite range of temperatures where an animal does not require additional energy to simply maintain the body. In other words, the body functions properly, but neither gains nor loses weight. Calves are the most sensitive to external temperatures of any bovine age group.

Newborn calves (from birth to 7 days,) have a lower critical temperature of around 55°F. In other words, when the temperature in their environment drops below 60°F, Calves require additional nutrients to simply maintain their body temperature (and weight). After the first week of life, they can handle a few more degrees of cold.

How much extra milk or milk replacer is needed simply to maintain body weight? The following table shows the increasing amounts of 20:20 (Protein:Fat) milk replacer required to meet maintenance requirements of different size calves at varying environmental temperatures.

Remember, these increases represent maintenance requirements. We also want the calf to grow. Additional milk replacer or milk must be fed to achieve your desired growth rates.

Amount of Milk Replacer/Milk Dry Matter Required to Meet Maintenance Requirements
Body weight, lb	Temperature, ^oF
Body weight, lb	68	50	32	15	5	-5	-20
60	0.6	0.8	0.9	1.0	1.1	1.2	1.4
80	0.8	0.9	1.1	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.7
100	1.0	1.1	1.3	1.6	1.7	1.8	2.0
120	1.1	1.3	1.5	1.7	1.9	2.0	2.3
Taken from VanAmburgh, 2006.

Students Represent Ohio State at National Dairy Judging Competitions

Ms. Laurie Winkelman, Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Ohio State University Dairy Judging Team recently completed its 2006 season. The dairy judging season officially started during the Ohio State Fair in August when students worked extremely long hours in the milking parlor and dairy cattle barn during the run of the Fair. Over Labor Day Weekend, the students traveled to Timonium, Maryland and judged more than 20 classes at the Maryland State Fair.

Before Fall Quarter classes started, 2 teams were sent to contests in Viroqua, Wisconsin and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Four undergraduate students represented The Ohio State University by competing in the Accelerated Genetics Intercollegiate Dairy Judging Contest in Viroqua, WI on September 16. After placing 10 classes and preparing 5 sets of oral reasons, the team placed 16th overall and 5th in Brown Swiss. Team members included Allison Stammen (New Weston, OH), Danielle Hulit (Mansfield, OH), Brian Hartschuh (Bloomville, OH), and Matt Jackson (Muskingham Co.). The team was paced by Stammen, who placed 27th overall. Kelly Epperly from Anna, OH, a recent graduate from the Department of Animal Sciences, served as Assistant Coach and traveled with the team to Wisconsin.

On the same weekend, four other undergraduate students competed in the All American Intercollegiate Dairy Cattle Judging Contest in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on September 18. After placing 10 classes and preparing 5 sets of oral reasons, the team placed 12th overall, 5th in linear evaluation, and 8th in Jersey. Team members included Dan Ziegler (Belleville, WI), Cade Stockberger (Utica, OH), Michele Lahmers (Ashland, OH), and Sheryn Schlairet (Mt. Vernon, OH). Stockberger led the team by placing 33rd overall.

The Harrisburg team also represented Ohio State at the National Intercollegiate Dairy Judging Contest at World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin. During the first week of October, the students traveled to Madison and participated in numerous farm practices before World Dairy Expo. In an extremely high scoring contest, the OSU team placed 14th overall out of 21 teams. The team placed 9th in Ayrshire and Red and White Holstein. At the World Dairy Expo contest, Ziegler was 8th in Milking Shorthorn, 15th in Brown Swiss, 28th in Guernsey, and 11th in Linear Evaluation. Stockberger placed 3rd in Ayrshire and 29th in Guernsey. Schlairet and Lahmers placed 22nd and 24th, respectively, in Red and White Holstein.

The season wrapped up with the North American International Livestock Exposition Intercollegiate Dairy Judging Contest in Louisville, Kentucky. At the beginning of November, Stammen, Hartschuh, Schlairet, and Hulit joined forces to participate in the contest. In a challenging contest, the Ohio State team placed 14th overall out of 16 teams. The team was led by Stammen, who placed 22nd overall, 2nd in Holstein, 15th in Brown Swiss, and 17th in Guernsey. Schlairet placed 6th in Brown Swiss. Hartschuh was 20th in Ayrshire.

The team is coached by Laurie Winkelman, Dairy Program Specialist for The Ohio State University. The team wishes to thank COBA/Select Sires for their continued financial support of the team, and the many farms that opened their doors for practices during the judging season.

2006 World Dairy Expo team: Dan Ziegler, Sheryn Schlairet, Michele Lahmers,
and Cade Stockberger.

2006 Louisville Team: Allison Stammen, Sheryn Schlairet, Danielle Hulit,
and Brian Hartschuh.
Ohio 4-H Judges Excel in Fall Competitions

Ms. Laurie Winkelman, Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

Eight dairy youth from throughout Ohio had the opportunity to travel this fall as members of the Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging Team. Two teams comprised of 4 youth per team represented Ohio at 3 national competitions in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Madison, Wisconsin; and Louisville, Kentucky.

The dairy judging season started with an intense practice over Labor Day weekend. Eleven youth vying for 8 team spots traveled to Timonium, Maryland and judged more than 20 classes at the Maryland State Fair. After a few more local practices, the teams were selected and continued preparation for the national contests.

The first competition was the All American 4-H Dairy Cattle Judging Contest in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in the middle of September. The Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging team placed 3rd overall (tied for 2nd, with tie broken on oral reasons), with 15 teams competing in the contest. The team placed 3rd in linear evaluation, 4th in Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, and Holstein, and 3rd in Jersey.

At the Harrisburg contest, the team was led by Neil Duncan from Warsaw, Ohio (Coshocton Co.). Duncan, who is a first-year student at OSU-ATI in Wooster, placed 5th overall, 1st in linear evaluation, 1st in Jersey, 10th in Guernsey, and 13th in oral reasons. Kaleb Kohler of Baltimore, Ohio (Fairfield Co.) placed 11th overall, 9th in Ayrshire and Guernsey, and 12th in oral reasons. Joel Bourne of Ansonia, Ohio (Darke Co.) was 13th high individual overall. Rounding out the team was Matthew Weeman, freshman in the Department of Animal Sciences at OSU, from Orrville, Ohio (Wayne Co.) placed 3rd in Ayrshire and was 27th overall.

The same four youth represented Ohio at the National 4-H Dairy Judging Contest at World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin during the first week of October. The team placed 8th overall out of 31 teams. The team placed 11th in Ayrshire, 13th in Brown Swiss, 8th in Jersey, 9th in Holstein, and 6th in Jersey.

At the Madison contest, the team was again led by Duncan who was the High Individual Overall. The last time Ohio 4-H had a high individual in the contest was in 1999, when OSU alumnus Emily Stammen from New Weston, Ohio (Darke Co.) won the contest. Duncan was also 16th in Brown Swiss, 11th in Guernsey, and 15th in Holstein.

Weeman placed 29th overall and was 5th in Jersey. Kaleb Kohler of Baltimore, Ohio (Fairfield Co.) placed 17th in Ayrshire, 20th in Brown Swiss, and 20th in oral reasons.

Four different youth made up the Ohio 4-H team that competed at the North American International Livestock Exposition 4-H Dairy Judging Contest in Louisville, Kentucky during the first week of November. In a challenging contest, the team placed 8th out of 23 youth teams. In breed competition, the team placed 5th in Holstein and 7th in Jersey.

The Louisville team was led by Jason Miley of West Salem, Ohio (Wayne Co.). Miley placed 16th overall and was 10th high in oral reasons. He was also 8th in Holstein. Other team members included: Sherri Gress, sophomore in the Department of Animal Sciences at OSU, of Wooster, Ohio (Wayne Co.) who placed 38th overall, 30th in oral reasons, and 19th in Holstein; Tom Grim from New London, Ohio (Lorain Co.) who was 3rd in Brown Swiss; and Amanda Hoover from Tiffin, Ohio (Seneca Co.) who placed 9th in Ayrshire.

This year's team had support from numerous businesses and individuals, including the Ohio Purebred Dairy Cattle Breeders' Association, COBA/Select Sires, Smith Dairy Products Co., and Brewster Cheese. The Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging Team is coached by Laurie Winkelman, the Dairy Program Specialist at The Ohio State University. If you would like more information about becoming a part of the Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging Team, please contact Ms. Winkelman at 614-688-3143 or email winkelman.6@osu.edu.

2006 4-H Louisville team: Tom Grim (Lorain Co.), Amanda Hoover
(Seneca Co.), Sherri Gress (Wayne Co.), and Jason Miley (Wayne Co.).

Matthew Weeman (Wayne Co.), Joel Bourne (Darke Co.), Neil Duncan
(Coschocton Co.), Kaleb Kohler (Fairfield Co.), and Laurie Winkelman, coach.
Fall 2006 Ohio Dairy Challenge Contest

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Fall 2006 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held November 9-10 and was again sponsored by Cargill Animal Nutrition. The Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for undergraduates at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format whereby students are generally grouped into teams of three to four individuals, and the first place team received $800, the second place team $300, and the third place team $200 from Cargill Animal Nutrition. The farm selected for the contest this year was Shipley Farms in Newark, OH, and it is owned by Phil, Tim, and David Shipley and their families. Returning to the farm after receiving her B.S. degree in March 2006 from Animal Sciences at Ohio State, Stacey Shipley and her father, Tim, were the primary hosts. Actually, Stacey was a member of the Ohio team that placed in the top category of the 2005 National Dairy Challenge. The Shipleys have a herd of about 250 cows that are housed in free stalls and are milked in a double-12 parallel parlor. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Thursday evening, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the operation by interviewing the owners and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. On Friday, the teams spent four hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities of the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation. The students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges were Mr. Ryan Aberle (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Todd Birkle (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU), and Dr. K. Larry Smith (Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU). The students among the teams that participated were: Team #1 -Erin Cole, Brooke Downey, Becky Schoellman, and Eric Weitzel; Team #2 - Mary Beth Fulk, Danielle Hulit, Jackie Lennartz, and Adam Shipley; Team #3 - Craig Link, Jessica Smith, Jesse Whinnery, and Adam Zimmerman; and Team #4 (Second Place) - Nate Cooley, Lara Gilligan, Anton Henry, Ben McClure, Jamie Schneider, and Kyle Uhlenhake; Team #5 - Sally Adams, Maria Menchaca-Howell, Amanda Pettit, and Amanda Prouty; Team #6 (First Place) - Brian Hartschuh, Colleen Lyden, Jason Nuhfer, and Steve Otte; Team #7 - Jarred Converse, Matt Jackson, Daryl Pena, and John Schroeder; and Team #8 (Third Place) - Gina Berry, Paige Gott, Alicia Kissell, and Sheryn Schlairet. The top 4 individuals for the contest that were selected to potentially represent Ohio at the 2007 National Contest were Gina Berry, Brian Hartschuh, Jason Nuhfer, and Steve Otte.
Dairy Policy and Market Watch

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

I have just returned from sunny Orlando, Florida, where I attended the 2007 Dairy Forum. Dairy Forum 2007, sponsored by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), is an annual event where representatives from across the dairy industry, including milk producers, dairy cooperative leadership, members of the Federal Milk Marketing Order Branch, and university dairy economists, get together to look into the industry and policy crystal ball. Here is a condensed list of what these folks see as front-burner items and for which every dairy farm family should be aware of and following in the coming year.

Federal Milk Marketing Orders: The current pooling and pricing arrangements for Class I and Class II revenues is just not working, and this is creating distortions and unhappiness in the dairy industry. This, along with the entire price-by-rule approach, appears to be under intense pressure. What is being discussed? One item is a renewed look at the concept of national pooling for all Class I and Class II revenues. Also, some are pressing for an end to Federal orders in their entirety. Nothing is certain other than a general state of frustration with the current situation.

New Class III and Class IV pricing rules: No one, and this includes the USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Federal Order branch, is really okay with the current Class III and Class IV pricing rules. Look for continued pressure on the USDA/AMS to scrap the current pricing formulas for Class III and Class IV. Talk of returning only to minimum pricing for Class I is in the air. A ruling favoring the plaintiffs in the court challenge filed here in Toledo, Ohio (Bridgewater Dairy, LLC, et al. -vs- USDA) will push the USDA/AMS to consider a new national hearing on all aspects of these pricing rules.

Federal Price Support Program: All agreed on the fact that the current floor price program offers no real support to milk producers. Many in the industry believe that the current Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program should replace the federal price support program. Some, such as IDFA, are calling for elimination of the MILC program in favor of the federal support price program but not both. A restart of World Trade Organization negotiations will likely push us toward less price support, not more. Look for a real discussion of replacing price floors with some type of MILC program, one which will pass the trade test in the up-coming farm bill.

Trade Liberalization: The general consensus is that we are becoming a major player in the export side of the world trade market for dairy proteins. This is a good thing, and we do not want to put in place obstacles to the future expansion of this market opportunity. It has been estimated that 80% of the improvement in the Class III price on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) futures market can be traced to the rising price of whey proteins. The challenge in the trade arena is how to provide support to producers in a manner that is decoupled from current production decisions.

Market Watch

I have recently updated my 24 week forecast for the dairy commodity prices and the Class III price. This can be found at the Ohio Dairy Web 2007 website. The link is: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/quickchart/nass52.htm

What I see at this time is a very bullish Class III price forecast for the next 24 weeks. This forecast is driven by price improvement in the cheese protein market and the strength in the nonfat skim and whey markets. Cheese based protein will average $0.46/lb higher than last year, nonfat dry milk price will average $0.20/lb higher than the same period in 2006, and the whey price also will average $0.20/lb higher. This translates into a Class III price that will average $2.58/cwt higher than the same period last year. The Class III price will average $13.99/cwt over the coming 6 months. Butter and cheese prices will be firm but not outstanding. Any disruption in the international protein markets or rapidly weakening domestic demand will knock the wind out of these prices and send them into a free-fall. Currently, the CME futures prices are posting substantial premiums over historical Class III averages. For more information on the dairy industry, prices, and policy, link to my Ohio Dairy Web 2007 at: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/

Cost of Nutrients and Benchmarks of Profitability for Ohio Dairy Farms

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University.

Feed markets have turned wild, the results of speculation, substantial increase in corn demand from ethanol plants, and a USDA report that reduced the size of the 2006-2007 corn crop. Results that are presented in this column were obtained using feed prices in effect in early January when corn was trading on our local market at $3.70/bu.

Using Sesame (available at www.sesamesoft.com), implicit market prices of nutrients were calculated using market prices of commodities in central Ohio (Table 1). Net energy lactation is currently very highly priced, exceeding 11¢/Mcal compared to a 10-year average of about 7¢/Mcal. Importantly, both degradable and undegradable protein are currently priced at much discounted prices. Fiber fractions are priced near their historical averages. Thus, we are in a time where dietary energy is very expensive, whereas, protein is relatively inexpensive. This should effect the nutritional strategy used by nutritionists when balancing dairy rations.

In Tables 2 and 3, we report the results for 27 feed commodities traded or available in central Ohio. In spite of its relative high price ($3.70/bu), corn grain was actually underpriced compared to other commodities. There are still feeds available at a relative bargain price compared to other feeds, although most commodities are being traded at prices well above their historical averages. But relatively speaking, there are still some bargains that can significantly reduce feed costs if used properly.

Nutrient prices and milk component prices can be used to calculate a benchmark for feed costs and income over nutrient costs. Results are presented in Table 4. The cost of feeding for a milk yield of 75 lb/day has gone up by $0.62/cow/day since May and is $0.50/cow/day greater than this last November. Improvements in milk prices, however, more than compensate for the increases in feed costs. The income over nutrient cost is currently $1.35 and $0.39/cow/day greater than it was last May and November, respectively. At $6.17/cow/day, income over nutrient cost is approaching its historical average of $6.25 to 6.50. Thus, although current milk prices are greater than their historical averages, the difference is completely cancelled by higher feed costs.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	May 2006	November 2006	January 2007
Net energy for lactation - 3X (NRC, 2001; $/Mcal)	0.072	0.084	0.115
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.013	-0.083	-0.096
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.200	0.250	0.171
Non-effective neutral detergent fiber (NDF; $/lb)	-0.027	-0.041	-0.040
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.065	0.065	0.037

Table 2. Grouping of feed commodities, central Ohio, January 2007.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproduct	Alfalfa hay - 44% NDF	Brewers grains
Corn grain	Beet pulp	Canola meal
Corn silage	Cottonseed meal	Citrus pulp
Distillers dried grains	Whole Cottonseed	Gluten meal
Feather meal	48% Soybean meal	Meat meal
Gluten feed	Roasted soybeans	Molasses
Hominy	Tallow	Soybean hulls
Expeller soybean meal	Wheat bran	44% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings

Table 3. Commodity assessment, central Ohio, January 2007.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	130	116.64	99.45	133.83
Bakery Byproduct Meal	141	177.75	169.15	186.34
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	140	137.32	123.88	150.77
Brewers Grains, wet	40	32.07	29.23	34.91
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	170	141.90	131.04	152.76
Citrus Pulp, dried	177	147.57	140.42	154.72
Corn Grain, ground dry	142	181.41	173.41	189.41
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	40	56.14	50.16	62.12
Cottonseed Meal, 41% CP	185	174.55	165.22	183.88
Cottonseed, whole w lint	190	196.93	174.85	219.02
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	147	170.84	159.86	181.81
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	255	276.38	259.11	293.65
Gluten Feed, dry	123	143.08	134.78	151.37
Gluten Meal, dry	355	316.10	293.70	338.50
Hominy	125	156.78	149.48	164.08
Meat Meal, rendered	250	231.48	216.85	246.11
Molasses, sugarcane	154	127.96	121.12	134.80
Soybean Hulls	124	94.83	76.06	113.61
Soybean Meal, expeller	240	279.09	265.12	294.06
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	202	184.90	170.30	199.51
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	210	213.80	201.09	226.50
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	261	271.84	259.05	284.62
Tallow	495	471.09	444.17	498.00
Wheat Bran	112	104.34	91.37	117.31
Wheat Middlings	105	117.95	106.64	129.26

Appraisal Set
Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Corrected ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay - 38% NDF, 22% CP	170	118.61	140.33
Alfalfa Hay - 48% NDF, 17% CP	130	121.68	101.98
Blood meal, ring dried	505	364.01
Fish Menhaden Meal, mech.	970	306.28

Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	May 2006	November 2006	January 2007
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	2.49	2.93	3.98
RDP	(0.07)	(0.44)	(0.51)
Digestible-RUP	0.45	0.56	0.39
ne-NDF	(0.13)	(0.19)	(0.19)
e-NDF	0.71	0.71	0.40
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.65	3.77	4.27
Milk gross income
Fat	3.33	3.82	3.64
Protein	4.47	4.83	5.67
Other solids	0.67	0.90	1.13
TOTAL	8.47	9.55	10.44

Income over nutrient costs	4.82	5.78	6.17

Free Stall Bedding Options: Important considerations from the cow's perspective

Dr. Naomi Botheras, Animal Welfare Program Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page)

Most dairy cows are now housed indoors for most, if not all, of their lives. Very few cows are moved to pasture or dirt lots during the dry period or when weather permits. Concrete is the prevalent flooring surface in dairy barns and so cows may stand and walk on concrete their whole life. The consequences of standing on concrete are considered to be very important in the development of hoof lesions and lameness, as concrete can cause excessive stress on cows' feet and legs. Lameness is one of the major reasons cows are culled, and it results in economic losses, delayed estrus, poor breeding performance, shortened lactation, reduced milk yield, loss of body condition, and poor cow welfare. Several studies have reported increased incidence of claw lesions and lameness in cows exposed to concrete flooring compared with cows housed on flooring surfaces such as dirt (Vermunt and Greenough, 1996) and straw yards (Laven and Livesey, 2004). Somers et al. (2003) found that cows housed in straw yards had significantly fewer claw disorders than cows housed with concrete flooring, and Vanegas et al. (2006) found more cows were treated for lameness when housed in a free stall barn with concrete floors compared to cows housed in a free stall barn with rubber alley mats. Furthermore, cows on concrete flooring were 5 times more likely to be diagnosed as lame than cows on rubber flooring. These findings suggest that softer flooring surfaces reduce foot trauma experienced by cows housed indoors and are beneficial for hoof health.

While the provision of softer flooring surfaces may be beneficial for cow health and welfare, this may not be a practical or cost-effective option under modern systems of dairy cow management. However, this limitation may be overcome to some extent by providing a comfortable and inviting free stall for cows, to maximize resting time and thus the time spent off concrete. It is also essential that dairy cows have enough time to lie down and rest to maintain good health and welfare and high levels of productivity. Free stall design, bedding choice, and management all affect the behavior, health, longevity, and performance of cows, and ultimately profit of the farm. While use of free stalls may be greatly influenced by the physical design of the stall, the bedding surface is also important in determining whether cows will utilize free stalls. Lack of comfort and difficulty rising both discourage free stall use.

Producers have a very wide range of choices of bedding surfaces for free stalls (e.g., mattresses, mats, sand, etc.); however, the optimal stall surface should provide softness (cushion), comfort, traction, low risk of abrasion, thermal insulation, be clean and dry, and also be easy to maintain and clean. One of the most important benefits of providing a comfortable stall for the cow is to maximize lying time. Restricted blood flow to the hoof has been found during prolonged standing, and increased lying behavior is associated with a reduction in the occurrence of lameness, increased rumination, and increased blood flow to the udder, which may ultimately increase longevity, lower health costs, increase productivity, and improve cow welfare. Another benefit of providing a comfortable stall for cows to stand and lie in is the opportunity for hooves to dry out, which can reduce entry of infectious agents that predisposes the hoof to lameness and reduces softness of hooves, which can reduce traumatic lesions. Signs that stalls are uncomfortable or unsatisfactory can include swollen hocks and knees, hair loss and abrasions on joints, perching behavior (cow standing with front feet in the stall and rear feet in the alley), cows standing idle in the alleys (or stalls) and prolonged time taken for cows to lie down, and unsuccessful lying attempts.

Cows tend to spend more time lying on softer surfaces, and preference testing (allowing the cow to choose which stall bedding they prefer) has shown that cows prefer mattresses and solid rubber mats over concrete stalls, and mats are less preferred than mattresses (Tucker et al., 2003). In a comparison of 13 commercially available free stall bases (9 mattresses, 4 mats, and 1 waterbed), Fulwider and Palmer (2004) found a very strong relationship between the softness of the stall surface and both the amount of time the stall was occupied and lying time, illustrating cows' preference for softer free stall bases. Tucker et al. (2003) also found that cows rarely chose a mattress stall when given a choice of a deep-bedded sawdust or deep-bedded sand stall, and when cows were restricted to the non-preferred mattress surface, the lying time was reduced and standing time increased. Providing a large quantity of sawdust bedding material on top of a mattress, similar to the amount found in deep-bedded stalls, also improved the attractiveness of the stall, with cows preferring to use this stall and increasing their lying time compared to stalls with none or only a small amount of sawdust (Tucker and Weary, 2004). These findings suggest cows find deep-bedded stalls most comfortable.

Mattresses and mats have been found to be associated with a higher incidence and more severe hock lesions compared to deep bedding with either sand or sawdust, or housing in straw yards (Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Livesey et al., 2002). On average, 92% of cows on farms using mattresses had skin lesions on the hock, while only 24% of cows on farms using sand bedding had lesions (Weary and Taszkun, 2000). Cows kept on solid rubber mats also had significantly worse or more hock lesions than cows housed on chopped-rubber mattresses (Rodenburg et al., 1994; Livesey et al., 2002). Together, the cow preference and hock lesion results suggest that additional bedding improves the comfort of mattresses and reduces the risk of injury. Mats and mattresses with none or only a thin layer of bedding material cause more skin friction as cows move around when lying down, leading to more hair loss and skin abrasions on the hocks. Mattresses also provide a significantly less traumatic bed than mats, as mattresses better mould to the shape of the cow. Therefore, the provision of a sufficient quantity of bedding material on mattresses and mats is important to reduce friction and also provide a more conforming surface. The bedding material also helps to absorb moisture.

Although mattresses and mats are associated with a higher incidence of hock lesions, lesions can still be a problem when using deep-bedded sand stalls. Lesions are thought to occur when the rear curb becomes exposed if sand is maintained below the level of the curb. As the depth of sand in deep-bedded stalls declines, dairy cows respond by spending less time lying down, indicating compromised comfort in poorly bedded stalls (Drissler et al., 2005). Therefore, to reduce injuries and improve cow comfort in deep-bedded sand stalls, it is important to consider the length of the stall and also to regularly groom the sand surface and frequently add new bedding to prevent the curb from becoming exposed. Deep sand as free stall bedding is generally considered the gold standard. Sand contributes to cow comfort (cushioning surface that reduces pressure on projecting bones and body parts), good udder health (poor medium for bacterial growth), and clean cows. Sand kicked into the alleys can also improve cow footing; however, excessive hoof wear is also possible. One of the only reasons for not using sand has little to do with cow comfort and udder health but with the difficulty the use of sand poses for manure handling systems.

Research has indicated that lameness prevalence in herds housed on sand stalls is lower than herds housed on mattresses (11% and 24% mean lameness prevalence, respectively). Furthermore, the behavior of lame cows in herds that have mattresses on free stall surfaces may contribute to the higher prevalence of lameness observed in these herds (Cook et al., 2004). In herds with sand in free stalls, lame and non-lame cows behave similarly, spending a similar amount of time lying down, feeding, and standing in the alley or stall. Non-lame cows in herds with mattresses also behave similarly to cows in herds with sand bedding, aside from a greater time spent standing in the stall. However, lame cows in herds with mattresses stand for significantly longer in the stall, and this reduces daily feeding and lying times. The difference in stall standing behavior may be explained by the presence of a painful foot condition which makes it more difficult for the cow to lie down and stand up. Sand, because of its ability to supply cushion and traction, allows cows, especially lame cows, to perform the process of laying down more easily, without fear of slipping and also probably less pain. The fear of slipping and pain associated with rising and lying on a mattress surface are possible reasons for extended bouts of standing in the stall by lame cows. Ultimately, an extended time spent standing in the stall may be detrimental to claw health, increasing the duration of the lameness event and contributing to the higher prevalence of lameness observed in herds with mattresses. The sequences shown in the following photos (Figure sets 1 and 2) demonstrate the potential benefits of a deep-bedded sand stall for assisting lame (and non-lame) cows to stand. The rear foot is cushioned and gains traction in a deep loose bed of sand, making standing, even with a sore foot, relatively easy.

In the past, stall design has largely focused on keeping stalls cleaner to reduce stall maintenance and save labor. However, this increased efficiency may have come at the cost of reduced cow comfort. While certain stall features may be associated with cleaner stalls due to controlling where the cow lies down, it is important to note that such stalls may also be used less often, and this decreased usage itself reduces the chances of the stalls becoming soiled (Tucker et al., 2006). In short, limited-use stalls stay clean, and stalls that are used a lot get dirty! Clean cows and clean stalls are clearly desirable, but reducing cow comfort is a poor way of achieving this goal. Thus, there is a compromise between designing a stall that controls the cow to ensure optimum cleanliness and giving the cow a spacious area for ultimate cow comfort. However, free stalls designed on the basis of meeting the fundamental needs of the cow will lead to the greatest success. Therefore, if stalls are made more comfortable for the cows, greater maintenance and cleaning may be required.

Ease of maintenance, durability, and cost effectiveness are all important considerations for dairy producers when selecting a free stall bedding surface, but animal comfort and cleanliness should also be among the primary concerns. Whatever the bedding material chosen, good stall maintenance is essential. Manure and wet bedding needs to be removed on a frequent basis (several times each day), and bedding needs to be added regularly. More comfortable stalls that are used more often are more likely to become soiled, so improving the attractiveness of the stall for the cows may that mean more attention to stall cleaning and maintenance is required. More frequent cleaning of alleys may also aid in reducing the amount of manure carried into the stalls on the cows' feet and legs.

*A complete list of research references is available on request.
Selecting Corn Hybrids for Silage

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page)

The ideal silage hybrid is the one that maximizes profitability under a specific set of conditions (i.e., your farm). A multitude of factors influence profitability, but for hybrid selection, the list can be reduced to:

1. Cost of production of the silage,
2. Effect the silage hybrid has on total diet cost, and
3. Effect on milk production.

To select the most profitable hybrid for your farm, you need to know how much it will cost to produce each hybrid, its yield and nutrient composition, the cost and nutrient composition of other ingredients, intake and milk production when cows are fed the silage, and the price of milk. And, you need to know this information months before the seed goes into the ground and more than a year before you will finish feeding the silage. The chance of you choosing the "perfect hybrid" is about zero. This article will provide some general guidelines that should assist you in narrowing your choices to a group of hybrids that are likely to be more profitable than the 'average' hybrid.

Cost of production

Differences in yield (first and foremost), seed costs, and agronomic traits (for example, insect resistance) are how hybrid affects production cost of silage. Based on the average corn silage yield reported in Ohio, silage yields among hybrids could vary by about 4 tons/acre. On average, we would expect corn silage from the lowest yielding hybrid to cost about $4/ton more than the highest yielding hybrid (assuming seed prices were equal but other variable costs increased with increasing yields). At typical feeding rates and assuming everything else is equal, that difference in production costs will increase feed costs about $0.10/cow/day. A much bigger consideration is the increased land needed. If yields are 25% less, you will need 25% more land to provide the same amount of corn silage for your herd. Is using that additional land for corn silage more profitable than growing corn grain? The answer will likely differ when corn grain is selling for $1.80/bu (December, 2005, Chicago price) compared with $3.60/bu (December, 2006, Chicago price). Increased ethanol production is likely to cause a long term (at least several years) increase in the price of corn, making corn grain production a profitable enterprise for many farmers. Under current conditions, you should usually select hybrids with above average yields (even with their generally higher seed costs).

Yield, however, cannot be the sole criteria when selecting a hybrid. A high yielding hybrid will usually reduce the cost of the silage but that may not necessarily reduce the cost of feeding your cows a balanced diet. In addition, with corn silage, the primary return will be via milk income; therefore, potential effects of silage hybrid on milk production must be a factor in the selection decision.

Effect of silage hybrid on total diet costs

Composition of silage varies among hybrids, and therefore, hybrid can influence the ingredients used in a diet. Currently, the greatest difference among hybrids is in the carbohydrate fraction (starch and fiber). The concentrations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and starch vary markedly among hybrids, but concentrations of NDF and starch are negatively correlated. Hybrids with high NDF concentrations usually have lower starch concentrations and vice versa. Dairy diets need to contain a certain amount of NDF from forages (approximately 16 to 20% of the dry matter) and a certain amount of starch (approximately 24 to 30%) to achieve good milk production and maintain the health of the cow. A hybrid with high NDF will reduce the amount of forage needed in the diet but will increase the amount of corn grain needed (vice versa for a high starch hybrid). These changes in ingredient composition of diets can affect the cost of the ration. If you expect supplemental starch (e.g., corn grain) to be relatively high priced compared with the cost of supplemental forage fiber (e.g., hay), then hybrids with above average starch concentrations should be considered. A hybrid with above average NDF concentrations would likely be a better choice if the opposite is expected. Forage fiber is expensive and even with today's high corn grain price, using corn silage hybrids that are very low in NDF (and high in starch) usually will increase the cost of the total diet, and hybrids with moderate or above average NDF concentrations are usually the best choice. The quality of the NDF (i.e., in vitro NDF digestibility, IVNDFD) is important when choosing hybrids with higher concentrations of NDF.

Effect of hybrid on milk production

Unlike for alfalfa, NDF concentration of corn silage has not been shown to have an effect on intake and milk production; however, in most lactation studies, cows fed corn silage hybrids with higher IVNDFD ate more feed and produced more milk than cows fed corn silage with lower IVNDFD. You should select hybrids with above average IVNDFD.

General approach, in order

1. Get the seed catalogs out,
2. Identify hybrids with agronomic traits you consider necessary (for example, disease resistance, rootworm resistance, etc.),
3. From that list, choose a set of hybrids with above average IVNDFD,
4. From that list, choose a set of hybrids with above average silage yields,
5. From that list, choose a set of hybrids with average or above average NDF concentrations (consider seed price), and
6. You should never grow a single hybrid on a farm, so pick a few hybrids from that list to plant (consider seed price).

A note on brown-midrib (bmr) hybrids

Using the guidelines above, bmr hybrids would never make the cut because yields are usually lower than average (on the other hand, IVNDFD is usually well above average). Several studies have shown that feeding bmr silage increases intake and milk yield compared with conventional hybrids. Studies have also shown the response to bmr silage is much greater for early lactation, high producing cows than lower producing cows. If you group cows by stage of lactation and have the ability to maintain a separate inventory of bmr silage to feed only to that group, bmr, even with the low yield, can be profitable.

Cost of Nutrients and Benchmarks of Profitability for Ohio Dairy Farms

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University.

At the time of this writing, fears of a drought in the Eastern corn belt are accentuating, bringing the usual wild market speculations in the process. Weather will be the prime determinant of the corn and soybean markets in the next few months. Other feeds should follow more or less in sympathy. Thus, the results presented in this column could change very quickly in weeks ahead.

Using SesameTM (available at www.sesamesoft.com), implicit market prices of nutrients were calculated using market prices of 29 commodities in central Ohio (Table 1). Net energy lactation is currently at a record price, approaching $0.15/Mcal compared to a 10 year average of about $0.07/Mcal. Presently, feed energy is the predominant factor driving the price of commodities. On the other hand, both degradable and undegradable protein are currently priced at much discounted prices. Non-effective NDF (a major feature of byproducts) is also heavily discounted, whereas effective NDF (a major feature of forages) is about at its historical average. Thus, dietary energy is currently very expansive whereas protein and fiber are not. This should impact the nutritional strategy used by nutritionists when balancing dairy rations.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	May 2006	March 2007	July 2007
Net energy for lactation - 3X (NRC, 2001; $/Mcal)	0.072	0.117	0.148
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.013	-0.069	-0.163
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.200	0.206	0.169
Non-effective neutral detergent fiber (NDF; $/lb)	-0.027	-0.046	-0.095
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.065	0.033	0.044

In Tables 2 and 3, we report the results for 27 feed commodities traded or available in central Ohio. Most people think that corn grain at $3.95/bu is highly priced. Certainly, this is a high price by historical standards, but corn is currently a bargain when compared to all other feed sources. Most other commodities are being traded at prices well above their historical averages. I remember when tallow at $0.15/lb ($300/ton) was considered expensive. Now you can't find tallow under $0.30/lb. We live in a new era, a new "feed world".

Table 2. Grouping of feed commodities, central Ohio, November 2006.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproduct	Alfalfa hay - 44% NDF	Beet pulp
Corn grain	Cottonseed meal	Brewers grains
Corn silage	Whole cottonseed	Canola meal
Distillers dried grains	Gluten meal	Citrus pulp
Feather meal	Molasses	Meat meal
Gluten feed	48% Soybean meal	Soybean hulls
Hominy	Roasted soybeans	44% Soybean meal
Expeller soybean meal	Tallow
Wheat middlings	Wheat bran

Table 3. Commodity assessment, central Ohio, July 2007.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	140	132.26	105.90	158.61
Bakery Byproduct Meal	185	210.53	197.36	223.71
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	200	146.06	125.45	166.67
Brewers Grains, wet	39	29.07	24.71	33.42
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	191.60	138.59	121.94	155.24
Citrus Pulp, dried	214	173.30	162.35	184.26
Corn Grain, ground dry	151	219.72	207.46	231.98
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	50	65.44	56.27	74.61
Cottonseed Meal, 41% CP	185	174.52	160.22	188.81
Cottonseed, whole w lint	220	234.37	200.51	268.23
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	116	170.27	153.46	187.09
Feather Hydrolyzed Meal	260	295.90	269.43	322.37
Gluten Feed, dry	104	149.39	136.67	162.10
Gluten Meal, dry	383	351.54	317.20	385.88
Hominy	140	178.92	167.73	190.11
Meat Meal, rendered	285	255.33	232.91	277.75
Molasses, sugarcane	154	161.13	150.65	171.61
Soybean Hulls	115	68.17	38.40	95.95
Soybean Meal, expellers	275.10	309.56	286.61	332.51
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	235.10	192.29	169.91	214.68
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	244.10	228.78	209.31	248.25
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	299	317.32	297.73	336.92
Tallow	645	607.14	565.89	648.39
Wheat Bran	77	91.06	71.18	110.94
Wheat Middlings	70	111.29	111.29	93.96

Appraisal Set
Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Corrected ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay - 38% NDF, 22% CP	160	133.88	163.62
Alfalfa Hay - 48% NDF, 17% CP	130	133.77	113.76
Blood meal, ring dried	745	399.55
Fish Menhaden Meal, mech.	970	340.38

Nutrient prices and milk components prices can be used to calculate a benchmark for feed costs (nutrient costs, really) and income over nutrient costs. Results are presented in Table 4. The cost of feeding for a milk yield of 75 lb/day has gone up $0.40/cow/day since last March and is $1.24/cow/day greater than it was in May 2006. Improvements in milk prices, however, more than compensate for the increase in feed costs. The income over nutrient cost is currently $5.93 and $3.65/cow/day greater than it was in May 2006 and last March, respectively. At $10.75/cow/day, income over nutrient costs far exceeds its historical average of $6.25 to 6.50. These are good times for dairy producers. These good times should make up for the bad ones, such as those we went through for most of 2006.

Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	May 2006	March 2007	July 2007
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	2.49	4.05	5.13
RDP	(0.07)	(0.37)	(0.86)
Digestible-RUP	0.45	0.47	0.38
ne-NDF	(0.13)	(0.21)	(0.44)
e-NDF	0.71	0.36	0.48
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.65	4.49	4.89
Milk gross income
Fat	3.33	3.69	4.44
Protein	4.47	5.62	8.62
Other solids	0.67	2.28	2.58
TOTAL	8.47	11.59	15.64

Income over nutrient costs	4.82	7.10	10.75

¹Costs and income for a 1400 lb cow producing 75 lb/day of milk, with 3.6% fat, 3.1% protein, and 5.9% other solids. Component prices are for Federal Order 33, October 2006.
²NE_L = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, ne-NDF = noneffective neutral detergent fiber, and e-NDF = effective neutral effective fiber.

Drought-Stressed Corn for Silage
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University

The dry conditions in many parts of the State have greatly reduced hay and haycrop silage yields, which has reduced forage inventory on many dairy farms. In addition, corn plants are becoming stunted and grain yields are likely to be poor. Low forage inventory and the desire to salvage some value from corn fields means that much of the drought-stressed corn in the state will be chopped for silage. Drought-stressed corn silage can be a good feed for dairy cows and other ruminants if some guidelines are followed.
1. Chop at the correct dry matter: 30 to 38% dry matter. Corn plants, whether drought-stressed or not, must contain the proper amount of moisture for good fermentation in the silo. Corn plants that are chopped with less than about 30% dry matter (especially less than 27% dry matter) are at high risk of a poor fermentation (high acetic acid, low pH, etc). Corn plants chopped with much more than 38 to 40% dry matter usually undergo a limited fermentation and can mold and spoil during storage and feed out. Drought-stressed corn often is much wetter than normal corn because normal corn has more kernels and kernels are drier than the vegetative part of the plant. Before chopping drought-stressed corn for silage, cut some stalks and run dry matter analysis. If the crop is too wet to make silage, do not chop. Forage supplies are likely to be very tight this fall and winter. Do not exacerbate the situation by chopping at the incorrect dry matter concentration and making poor quality silage. Even under severe drought, it is extremely likely that corn plants are too wet to make into silage in mid-July.
2. Nitrates might be a problem and greenchopping corn plants is not recommended. Silage fermentation can greatly reduce nitrate concentrations. Therefore, very often silage is safe to feed even though the plants would have been toxic if fed fresh. If greenchopping must be done because of limited forage supplies, set the chopper high because nitrates accumulate in the lower portion of the stalk.
3. Nutrient value of drought-stress corn silage can be fairly high. Compared with normal corn silage, drought-stressed corn silage usually has 1 to 2 percentage units more crude protein, 10 to 20 percentage units more neutral detergent fiber (the fewer the number of ears, the higher the fiber concentration), and 15 to 25 percentage units less starch. Even though fiber concentrations are high and starch concentrations are low, energy values (TDN, net energy, etc.) of drought-stressed corn are usually 90 to 95% as high as normal corn silage because the fiber is highly digestible. The bottom line is that if drought-stressed corn silage ferments properly (see point #1), it is quite acceptable as a forage for even high-producing dairy cows. However, the nutrient composition of drought-stressed corn will be more variable than normal corn silage and it must be sampled and analyzed for nutrient composition and diets balanced accordingly.
Chopping Soybeans for Silage
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University

Because of dry conditions, soybeans may not mature adequately to justify harvesting the crop as beans. An alternative is to chop the entire plant and make silage out of it. If harvested at correct stage of maturity and good silage making practices are followed, soybean silage can be a good feed for cattle.
1. The crop must contain adequate water for fermentation. The best fermentation usually occurs when soybeans contain 35 to 45% dry matter (wetter silages for bunkers and drier silages for upright silos).
2. Excessive fat (oil) in the seeds can inhibit fermentation. Soybeans at the R-6 stage usually do not contain enough oil (6 to 9% of the whole plant dry matter) to cause problems. Under normal growing, R-7 stage beans contain about 10% fat (whole plant) which can cause some fermentation problems, but under drought conditions, R-7 may still ferment adequately. If your soybeans contain much more than about 10% fat, they should be blended with other crops (corn plants) at the time of ensiling.
3. Silage must be chopped relatively finely to encourage consumption of stems. A theoretical length of chop (TLC) of 3/8 inch should be adequate, but chop length should be evaluated at the time of cutting. Chop several feet of material and look at the forage. If several long stems remain, reduce TLC, if you cannot find any stem pieces that are about an inch long, increase TLC (not all the pieces should be 1 inch but you should be able to find some).
4. Nutrient value of soybean silage chopped at the R-6 stage is similar to early to midbloom alfalfa. Average concentrations (dry matter basis) of some nutrients are: crude protein - 19%, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) - 40%, and fat - 6%.
5. Certain herbicides that are used for soybeans may not be approved when harvesting the crop as silage. Check with your chemical supplier.
Testing for Nitrates
Dr. Maurice Eastridge and Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Specialists, The Ohio State University

With the dry conditions in many areas in Ohio, crop growth has been severely affected and producers are considering using grain corn for forage. With the dry conditions, concerns have arisen about the potential for nitrate toxicity of animals. Conditions favorable to high nitrate concentration and feeding guidelines are described in the OSUE fact sheet titled "Nitrates in Dairy Rations" (http://ohioline.osu.edu/as-fact/0003.html).

Options for testing for nitrates are sending samples to feed analytical laboratories or using field test kits. Many analytical laboratories test for nitrates with a very fast turnaround time for results, but the samples must be properly handled (call the laboratory for instructions before the sample is sent). The following laboratories, among many others, offer nitrate analyses:

Holmes Laboratory, Millersburg, OH, (800) 344-1101
DairyOne, Ithaca, NY, (800) 344-2697
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services, Maugansville, MD, (800) 282-7522
Spectrum Lab, Washington C.H., OH, (800) 321-1562

Field test kits are available from different suppliers, but many of these are designed for water and must be modified for feed. Some suppliers of test kits are:

QA Supplies (http://www.qasupplies.com), (800) 472-7205
Nasco (http://www.enasco.com), (800) 558-9595
Nitrate Elimination Co., Inc. (http://www.nitrate.com), (888) 648-7283

To use the test kits designed for water to analyze for nitrates in corn plants, follow the procedure below:
1. Chop a representative sample of corn plants into very small pieces and mix
2. Weigh about 20 grams of the chopped corn silage and add 100 ml of distilled water
3. Let the mix stand for about 10 minutes, shake vigorously, and repeat this step two or three times (a better approach would be to mix the silage and water in a blender)
4. Remove 5 ml of the solution and add 95 ml of distilled water and mix
5. Run the test using the kit that you have purchased.
6. Convert the results to a dry matter basis, using one of the following methods:
  a. Test result x 400 = ppm (DM basis, assuming the corn is 30% DM)
  b. Analyze the DM content of the corn silage and use the following equation: (test result x 120) / DM proportion, expressed as a decimal = ppm
  
  *If values are below the detection limit of the assay, nitrate concentration in the plants should not be a problem for the animals.
Planting Small Grains in Late Summer for Supplemental Forage

Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Specialist, The Ohio State University

Forage yields have been reduced this year due to the late spring frost and dry weather since May. Supplemental forage can be produced yet this year by planting small grain species on land coming out of wheat or corn silage production.

Planting oat or spring triticale for forage production are probably the best options remaining for producing supplemental forage for dairy animals yet this year, especially if the forage will be harvested by mechanical means. Oat seed usually can be purchased at a more economical price than spring triticale seed, but either species will produce good dry matter yields of high quality forage within 60 to 80 days of planting.

When planted in early to mid-August and with adequate rainfall for vigorous growth, oat and spring triticale can produce up to 5000 lb of dry matter by mid-October. At that point, they will reach the boot stage of growth, which provides the best compromise of yield and forage quality. If harvest is delayed until November, August planted oat will be heading out and yield near 6000 lb/acre of dry matter. Forage quality will be lower at that stage.

Oat and spring triticale can also be planted in early to mid-September, immediately after an early corn silage harvest. With the later planting date, yields will be much lower (1500 to 2000 lb/acre of dry matter) and harvest will be delayed into months with poor drying conditions (November to early December). On the positive side, forage quality will be very high - CP will be near 30% and NDF will be 30 to 35%. Green chopping or grazing will likely be the best options for harvesting oat or spring triticale forage planted after corn silage because of the high probability of poor drying conditions in late autumn.

When planting small grains in late summer, no-till seeding will conserve moisture and provide firmer soil for either harvesting equipment or grazing animals in the fall. Oat should be planted at 70 to 90 lb/acre and spring triticale at 90 to 110 lb/acre.

When planted after wheat or corn silage, oat or spring triticale will likely require additional nitrogen for good growth. If applying N fertilizer, apply from 50 to 80 lb/acre of N at planting. The higher rate should be used where wheat straw is not removed prior to planting. Manure applications prior to planting can replace some or all of the N fertilizer, depending on the amount of readily available N in the manure.

Wheat and winter triticale are not good options for autumn forage because they do not grow much in autumn. However, wheat and winter triticale will produce good yields of high quality forage in the spring. So they are good options for late September or early October planting for spring forage production. Winter rye is also an option for early spring forage. Some forage-type varieties of winter rye (e.g. Wheeler, Winter King, and Aroostook) will produce more forage in the fall than common cereal rye, but oats will usually produce more forage in the autumn than the forage-type winter rye varieties. On the other hand, winter rye will survive the winter and can provide early spring forage, whereas the oat will winterkill.

Many producers will likely need additional forage this coming autumn as well as early next spring. In that case, mixtures of oats with winter rye or oats with winter triticale are good options. The oats will produce the bulk of the autumn forage, and the winter cereal will produce significant forage yield in early spring.

Annual ryegrass is another possible option for producing high quality forage, especially for grazing in late autumn and early winter. Some varieties are more likely to survive the winter than others. Refer to the Ohio Forage Performance Trials for selecting varieties (http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/forage2006/default.asp). Plant 20 to 25 lb/acre of annual ryegrass seed and apply 100 to 120 lb/acre of urea either at planting or at the early tillering stage.

We have also planted annual ryegrass in early September the last two years, and one can expect 800 to 2000 lb/acre of dry matter by late November and early December, with yields of 3 to 5 tons/acre of dry matter the following year from improved varieties with good winter survival and high N fertilization. Annual ryegrass can be planted earlier in August, especially if soil moisture is favorable, which should provide higher yields in late autumn.

Sorghum sudangrass and pearl millet were good options for planting after wheat, if planted by July 15-20. After July 20, their production potential declines rapidly because of the diminishing number of warm days remaining. Those species require warm temperatures for rapid growth. In addition, late planting increases the potential for risk of prussic acid poisoning with sorghum-sudangrass because harvest is delayed to when freezing temperatures are more likely to occur.

Additional information on annual forages and their establishment and management is provided in Chapter 7 of the Ohio Agronomy Guide, 14th ed., available at Extension offices and at http://ohioline.osu.edu/b472/0008.html. Good management is important to achieve success with these alternative forages.
Feeding Glycerol to Dairy Cattle

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Are you a label reader? Probably not, unless you get bored when you are on "business" in the bathroom and you don't have the Readers Digest or the local daily newspaper in arms reach. But take a look at the labels on the bottles of hand or body lotion, sun screen, and skin moisturizer. Very high on the list (and ingredients are listed in order from highest to lowest concentration), you will find glycerin (another name for "glycerol"). You also will find it in teat or udder ointment. Glycerol is an odorless, colorless, and sweet tasting viscous liquid, even at low environmental temperatures. It is the backbone for fatty acids to form fat (or triglycerides). Fat from soybeans, tallow, restaurant grease, etc. is being used presently for biodiesel production. The fatty acids are the integral part of the fuel, but the glycerol is a byproduct from the process. Every gallon of biodiesel produced will general about 0.75 lb of crude glycerol. So, with the increased availability of glycerol as a byproduct of biodiesel production, it is being investigated as a feed ingredient for dairy cattle. The bacteria in the rumen (first stomach compartment) can use glycerol to primarily produce propionate and the propionate will be converted to glucose by the liver of the cow.

In a recent Purdue University study, 60 dairy cows were fed diets containing 0, 5, 10, or 15% glycerol (replaced corn). The diets contained 31.9% corn silage, 10% alfalfa haylage, 12.2% alfalfa hay, and 45.9% concentrate (including the glycerol). The concentration of nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC) across the diets was approximately 39%. Feed intake, milk yield, milk fat, and milk protein were similar among the dietary treatments (53.5 lb/day, 81.2 lb/day, 3.60%, and 2.85%, respectively). Concentrations of milk urea nitrogen were lower with diets containing glycerol and cows consuming 10 or 15% glycerol gained more weight than cows not fed glycerol. We also recently completed a study at OSU whereby 48 cows (averaged 112 days in milk) were fed different concentrations of glycerol and NFC: 1) 0% glycerol and 37% NFC, 2) 5% glycerol and 37% NFC, 3) 10% glycerol and 37% NFC, or 4) 10% glycerol and 42% NFC. Diets contained 37.4% corn silage, 9.1% hay, and 53.5% concentrate (including the glycerol). Feed intake, milk yield, milk protein, and milk urea nitrogen were similar among the dietary treatments (52.6 lb/day, 87.1 lb/day, 3.06%, and 14.3 mg/dl). Milk fat percentage was decreased with glycerol addition (3.52, 3.18, 3.19, and 2.93%, respectively), especially when 10% glycerol was fed with 42% NFC.

In each of these studies, cows were fed the diets for eight weeks, and based on the results from these two studies, as well as some other published research, we can conclude that glycerol has value as a feed ingredient for dairy cattle. Feeding glycerol may have to be limited more when diets are rather high in NFC. The effect observed in milk fat percentage in the OSU study may not be a negative effect on the ruminal fermentation because feed intake was not altered; therefore, the effect may be on fat synthesis in the mammary gland. Feeding glycerol at 5 to 10% of the dietary dry matter should be valuable nutritionally and should pose limited risks to animals. Given the viscous nature of the product, it may help reduce sorting of total-mixed rations by dairy cows.

However, there is caution with the findings of these two studies. Both projects were conducted using food-grade glycerol. Crude glycerol from biodiesel production will contain unused catalyst (e.g. sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide), methanol, and salts. The actual amount of glycerol in crude glycerin may range from 75 to 90%. The Food and Drug Administration has issued a letter stating that if methanol is over 150 ppm (0.015%), then it should not be used for animal feed. So, additional research is going to be needed to determine the variation in composition of crude glycerol, including the concentration of contaminates that are of particular risk to animal health. Once these are better identified, then more defined feeding guidelines for crude glycerol can be established based on not only the nutritional value of the ingredient but also the limitations due to the impurities that may cause some risks.

(This article first appeared in Farm and Dairy, 6/21/2007, http://www.farmanddairy.com)
Bonnie Ayars Hired as Dairy Program Specialist

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Bonnie Ayars started on Monday, June 4 in the Dairy Program Specialist position in the Department of Animal Sciences (position formerly held by Laurie Winkleman). Her responsibilities include coaching the 4-H and collegiate dairy judging teams, organizing the goat and dairy skillathons for the Ohio State Fair, and working with various youth and adult educational programs relating to dairy. Bonnie brings many years of experience in the dairy industry and in teaching to the position. She and her husband, John, own a dairy farm in Mechanicsburg, OH. Bonnie is very active in several Ohio and national dairy organizations. She has taught Family and Consumer Sciences in the Fairbanks and Urbana school systems and conducted some work for the Ohio Department of Education for about 6 months. She not only brings a lot of experience to the position but also a high level of enthusiasm and concern for the development of youth. As she expressed in her application for the position "My life has been devoted to cows, people, and my passion has been the opportunity to work with young people." Her office and contact information is: 222C Animal Science Building, 2029 Fyffe Court, Columbus, OH 43210, (614) 688-3143, FAX (614) 292-1515, email: ayars.5@osu.edu, web site: http://ansci.osu.edu/showdetails.php?FID=205.
Results of Ohio 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The annual Ohio 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl competition for youth ranging in age from 3rd grade through 18 years of age was held on Saturday, May 19 on the OSU Columbus campus. Nine junior (age 13 and under) teams and 24 senior (ages 14 through 18) individuals competed in the contest. The junior teams took a written exam and competed in a double-round elimination tournament. The senior individuals took a written exam and competed in a jeopardy-style tournament whereby 16 individuals advanced to Round 2 and 8 individuals advanced to Round 3. The 4-H members participating in the contest were from Champaign, Licking, Logan, Mahoning, Stark, and Wayne Counties. The Champaign/Logan Team A took first place (members of the team were Tarah Bishop, Garrett King, Hillary Jackson, and Ethan Starkey), and the second place team was Wayne County B (Diane Gress, Eileen Gress, Julie Gress, and Hannah Rennecker). The top junior for the written exam was Sam Weeman from Wayne County. The top placing seniors for the first through sixth places were, respectively: Laura Gordon (Wayne County), Rachel Townsley (Champaign County), Heidi Moff (Mahoning County), Issac Rummell (Stark County), Paul Gordon (Wayne County), Kathy Phillips (Mahoning County). Rachel Townsley had the high score on the written exam among the seniors.
2007 Recipients of the Dairy Science Hall of Service

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The annual Dairy Banquet for the Department of Animal Sciences and the Buckeye Dairy Club was held on Saturday, May 12 at the Der Dutchman in Plain City. One of the highlights of the banquet was the induction of Mr. Tom Noyes (Creston, OH) and Mr. Lowell Stevens (Urbana, OH) into the Dairy Science Hall of Service. This award was initiatied in 1952 with the objectives to recognize worthy men and women who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at the Ohio State University. The citations for the 2007 award recipients are provided below.

Tom Noyes grew up on a small farm in Johnston, Rhode Island and was a 10-year member of 4-H and Boy Scouts, attaining the rank of Life Scout. He spent his high school and college years working on family dairy farms and spent some time working at a wholesale produce market.

He graduated in 1967 with a B.S. in Agriculture from the University of Rhode Island, with a major in Animal Science and a minor in crops and agronomy. In 1974, he completed a M.S. in Agriculture from the University of Massachusetts with a major in Animal Science (dairy nutrition) and a minor in Agronomy.

His first position was with the University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service in Berkshire County, Massachusetts as an Extension 4-H Youth Agent (1967 to 1974). He had the responsibility of 4-H youth programs in Berkshire County and in conducting regional dairy programs for the 4-H youth. He coached the state dairy judging team, winning the national contest in 1972, and he assisted with the writing of the 4-H Dairy Project Material that was in use in Massachusetts.

From July, 1974 to October, 2005, he was the Extension Dairy Agent for Ohio State University Extension in Wayne County. As an Extension agent, he was responsible for planning, conducting, and teaching dairy Extension programs in Wayne County and northeast Ohio. He was a member of the OSU State Extension Dairy Team, Northeast Ohio Dairy Excel Team, OSU Extension Forage team, and the OSU Extension Sustainable Agriculture Team. He has conducted field research in dairy nutrition, forage production, and farm financial management. He wrote bi-weekly news columns for the Wooster Daily Record Newspaper, monthly columns for the Dairy Excel program, grazing articles for Farm and Dairy, and various articles for the OSU dairy newsletter known as the Buckeye Dairy News.

He has been involved in many professional organizations, including Ohio Extension Agents Association and the National Association of County Agricultural Agents, having received the Distinguished Service Award from both organizations; American Dairy Science Association; National Mastitis Council (served on Education Committee); Ohio Forage and Grassland Council (received Distinguished Service Award); American Forage and Grassland Council; American Jersey Cattle Association; Ohio Jersey Breeders Association (received Pioneer Service Award); and National Ayrshire and Ohio Ayrshire Breeders Associations. He served on the Planning Committee for the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference for 3 years.

Tom is currently retired from The Ohio State University Extension, and he owns and operates, along with his wife (Rosalie), daughter (Cheryl King), and son-in-law (Russell King), a 100-cow dairy farm that utilizes management intensive grazing. The dairy has been operating at 9959 Canaan Center Road, Creston, OH since 1983. He enjoys vegetable and flower gardening and playing golf, including assisting the local Boy Scout troop as advisor to gardening and golf merit badges. He is a member of the Wooster- Madisonburg Evening Lions (Past President), and he does some consulting on dairy management and teaching Extension dairy programs upon request, including teaching milking management schools and milking system trouble shooting for Amish dairy producers.

Throughout his life, Tom has exemplified a passion for the dairy industry. From his professional role as an educator to managing a family dairy operation, he has taken hold of the advancements in agriculture. He has shared his knowledge, skills, and leadership with many organizations connected with the dairy industry. The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Hall of Service Award is most fitting for his life of service to the Ohio dairy industry.

Lowell W. Stevens was born in Champaign County, OH on April 7, 1939, and he has been a part of the dairy industry ever since. He grew up showing Jersey cattle in 4-H and became a Dairy Herd Improvement milk tester after graduating from Urbana Local High School in 1957. During those 9 years as a milk tester, he met a girl on a Holstein farm named Julia Yoder, and they have now been married for over 43 years. Lowell and Julia have 2 daughters (Molly McCumons and Margaret Sennett) and 5 grandchildren.

Following a stint with the Air Force National Guard, Lowell began to work for NOB A in 1964, breeding cows for farmers in Champaign and Logan Counties. During the last 41 years, he has been with the organization as it has progressed from NOBA to Genex. Lowell has served as a breeding technician, Area Sales Representative, and during the past 8 years, he has served as an Area Program Consultant. Throughout his tenure at Genex, Lowell has developed a very profitable sales unit with a loyal customer base through his dependable service and valuable advice and training on sire selection and A.I. training, and his experiences have been priceless in training newer employees.

The Stevens family was in partnership with Mrs. F.E. Lowry, and in 1980, Lowell and Julia purchased his family's half of the Jersey herd. Club Hill Jerseys was formed from this very successful partnership, and over the next several years, Club Hill Jerseys and the Stevens family enjoyed much notoriety on the show circuit. For example, at the 1985 Ohio State Fair, Club Hill Jerseys enjoyed a banner day, winning Junior Champion, Grand Champion, and Premier Breeder and Exhibitor. His family has participated in the All-American Jersey Show for 12 years, with highlights including several Genetic Index Awards and breeding the 1989 Reserve Grand Champion. Club Hill Jerseys was always a regular stop for 4-H and collegiate judging teams from across the country, especially when practicing en route to the World Dairy Expo. In 1992, Club Hill Jerseys hosted a complete dispersal that commanded the highest sale average ($1700) and the highest selling female at public auction ($10,000) for the year.

Lowell's eye for good cattle has been realized in the steady improvement of his customers' herds and the accomplishments of his own herd, and it has also been recognized through his appointments as a judge. In addition to overseeing several county and district shows each summer, Lowell has judged many state and national shows, including being Associate Judge at the All-American Jr. Jersey Show.

Lowell was a director on the Champaign County Dairy Service Unit for 30 years, serving in many positions including President. Lowell's commitment to youth is evident as he has served as a Chair of the Junior OJBA, he has served as a 4-H advisor for 25 years, and he sat on both the county and state 4-H Advisory Boards. He served on the 2006 All-American Junior Jersey Activities Committee, a national committee that he has chaired twice. He has also served on the Spring Dairy Expo Committee, the State Ethics Committee, and the Host Day Committee for the 2000 National Holstein Convention. He was Co-Chair for the 2003 National Jersey Convention held in Ohio. Lowell currently represents Genex on the board of the Ohio Dairy Producers, and he is a member of OJBA (has served as President and represented District 9 for many years), Ohio PDCA, American Jersey Cattle Association, and National Dairy Shrine. For many years, Lowell has assisted Julia in managing the secretarial and treasury duties of the OJBA. Lowell is probably most well-known in Jersey circles on the state level for the outstanding Ohio Spring Classic sale that he manages every Memorial Day that consistently rates as one of the best state sales in the country.

Among the awards that he has received include: DHIA Superior Achievement Award (1966), Ohio Jersey Breeders' Pioneer Service Award (1990), 1995 Kentucky Colonel, Ohio State Fair Hall of Fame (2000), and Genex Mission Award (2006). Lowell is a member of the Urbana United Methodist Church where he has been President of the Methodist Men and served on the Church Administrative Board. The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Hall of Service Award is most fitting for commitment to advancing the Jersey breed, his dedication to educating youth, and his untiring efforts to advance the Ohio dairy industry.
Dairy Policy and Market Watch

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University

No group watches the dairy markets more closely than the good folks at the USDA Dairy Market News. Here is a synopsis of what they have to say about the current conditions in the dairy markets, domestic and international. Visit my OhioDairyWeb for up-to-date price, futures/options and price forecast information.

OhioDairyWeb 2007 can be found at http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy.

Domestic Markets

Butter: Butter markets across the country are generally firm. Domestic demand is seasonally fair with international buyer interest building. Domestic butter demand is fair at best. Stocks of butter in Europe are short and production is winding down seasonally. It would seem that the demand is there to buy more U.S. butter if pricing pencils out.

Cheese: The cheese market is firm, with blocks and natural varieties generally stronger than barrels. High cheese prices kept many buyers delaying purchases and high milk prices kept cheese makers from making uncommitted loads of cheese. Cheese production is down between competition from butter/powder, increased milk demand by bottlers for school accounts, steady to lower milk receipts, and low cheese yields.

Fluid milk: Milk production throughout the US is generally steady. Hot temperatures in the West and Southeast are very slowly deterring output in these regions. Manufacturing milk demand exceeds supply at some locations in the Midwest. A large number of loads of milk have been shipped into Florida and the Southeast for fluid use, totaling 1152 truckloads in just the past 2 weeks.

Dry products: Prices are trending steady to higher on buttermilk and non-fat dry milk, but whey-related product prices are lower.

US commercial disappearance: Commercial disappearance of dairy products during April through June of 2007 totaled 46.6 billion pounds, 1.8% above the same period in 2006.

International Dairy Market News

Western and Eastern Europe: Milk production is declining slowly in most areas with a noticeable decline in the hot and dry areas. Even in the favorable production regions, production continues to trail market opportunities. Demand for milk for both drinking and manufacturing needs is tight and very competitive. Competition for milk, especially at this time of the season, is strong. Demand for milk powders remains strong. Skim milk powder markets are firm, with prices holding steady. Traders and handlers state that prices are holding steady due to lack of supply. Milk production is declining seasonally and milk volumes remain competitive as they have for much of the current season.

Oceania: In Australia, the new milk production season has not resumed to any noticeable extent. Winter moisture amounts have been good, although still below needed volumes and desired surplus levels. Annual milk production figures for the 2006 - 2007 season were recently released which indicated that output for the year trailed last season by 5.1%. Skim milk powder markets remain firm, although prices are fluctuating. The milk production season in Oceania is just getting underway and when possible, milk is being directed toward milk powders versus other manufactured products.

Cost of Nutrients and Benchmarks of Profitability for Ohio Dairy Farms

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University.

What will be the average US corn yield this year? Is China buying corn? Can Brazil compensate for the US acreage reduction in soybeans? These are just a few among many questions whose answers will affect the US grains and oilseeds markets in the next year. Because of the uncertainty, be prepared for very volatile markets. Feed prices can change very quickly. What was a bargain feedstuff one month may be overpriced the next month.

At the time of this writing (early September 2007), most feedstuffs were expensive from a historical perspective. Some, however, were inexpensive relative to other feeds. As usual, SESAME^TM(available at www.sesamesoft.com) was used to estimate implicit prices of nutrients from market prices of 29 commodities available in central Ohio (Table 1). Net energy lactation is still at a very high price, approaching $0.14/Mcal compared to a 10-year average of about $0.07/Mcal. Rumen degradable protein is currently very inexpensive, whereas digestible rumen undegradable protein is priced about at the average long-term price. Non-effective neutral detergent fiber (NDF) is cheap (markets are discounting this nutrient), whereas effective NDF is priced at the upper end of its historical trends. In short, dietary energy is currently very expensive and should impact the diet formulation strategy used by field nutritionists.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	May 2006	July 2007	September 2007
Net energy for lactation - 3X (NRC, 2001; $/Mcal)	0.072	0.148	0.136
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.013	-0.163	-0.173
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.200	0.169	0.252
Non-effective neutral detergent fiber (NDF; $/lb)	-0.027	-0.095	-0.076
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.065	0.044	0.070

In Tables 2 and 3, we report the results for 27 feed commodities traded in central Ohio. Although corn price is high from a historical perspective, corn is currently a bargain compared to other feedstuffs in the market. The price of many feeds has risen in sympathy with corn, but many, such as tallow, have overshot their economic values.
Using nutrient prices and milk component prices, we can calculate a benchmark for feed costs and income over nutrient costs.

Table 2. Grouping of feed commodities, central Ohio, November 2006.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn grain	Alfalfa hay - 44% NDF	Beet pulp
Corn silage	Bakery byproduct	Brewers grains
Distillers dried grains	Canola meal	Citrus pulp
Feather meal	Cottonseed meal	Gluten meal
Gluten feed	Whole cottonseed	Meat meal
Hominy	Molasses	Soybean hulls
Expeller soybean meal	Tallow	44% Soybean meal
Roasted soybeans	Wheat bran	48% Soybean meal
Wheat middlings

Table 3. Commodity assessment, central Ohio, July 2007.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	140	141.14	112.91	169.38
Bakery Byproduct Meal	185	196.46	182.35	210.58
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	220	157.61	135.53	179.69
Brewers Grains, wet	41.6	31.35	26.69	36.02
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	155.60	142.64	124.80	160.48
Citrus Pulp, dried	229	167.33	155.59	179.07
Corn Grain, ground dry	149	208.39	195.25	221.52
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	50	68.32	58.50	78.14
Cottonseed Meal, 41% CP	190	194.60	179.28	209.92
Cottonseed, whole w lint	230	241.82	205.54	278.09
Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles	119	179.44	161.42	197.46
Feather Hydrolyzed Meal	275	327.85	299.49	356.21
Gluten Feed, dry	107	151.84	138.21	165.46
Gluten Meal, dry	435	393.87	357.08	430.67
Hominy	136	171.36	159.37	183.35
Meat Meal, rendered	305	260.10	236.07	284.12
Molasses, sugarcane	150	147.85	136.62	159.08
Soybean Hulls	137	78.69	47.85	109.52
Soybean Meal, expellers	296.5	335.56	310.97	360.15
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	252.5	194.25	170.27	218.24
Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP	261.5	236.28	215.42	257.14
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	313	317.23	296.24	338.22
Tallow	575	557.65	513.45	601.84
Wheat Bran	73	91.14	69.84	112.44
Wheat Middlings	66	110.55	91.98	129.13

Appraisal Set
Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Corrected ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay - 38% NDF, 22% CP	160	139.48	172.35
Alfalfa Hay - 48% NDF, 17% CP	130	145.00	122.89
Blood meal, ring dried	745	460.76	--
Fish Menhaden Meal, mech.	970	373.74	--

Results are presented in Table 4. The costs of feeding for a milk yield of 75 lb/day at 3.6% fat and 3.1% protein has gone up $1.32/cow per day since May 2006. This translates to an increase in feed costs of $1.76/cwt during the same period. Current milk prices, however, generate additional gross income over feed cost of $5.59/cow per day when comparing May 2006 to September 2007. At $10.41/cow per day, the current income over feed cost is substantially greater than the average of $6.25 to 6.50/cow per day that we have experienced over the last five years. Clearly, dairy production is currently very profitable, which compensates for the disastrous year that dairy producers went through in 2006.

Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	May 2006	July 2007	September 2007
	------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
Nutrient costs²
NE_L	2.49	5.13	4.71
RDP	(0.07)	(0.86)	(0.92)
Digestible-RUP	0.45	0.38	0.57
ne-NDF	(0.13)	(0.44)	(0.35)
e-NDF	0.71	0.48	0.76
Vitamins and minerals	0.20	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.65	4.89	4.97
Milk gross income
Fat	3.33	4.44	4.29
Protein	4.47	8.62	9.16
Other solids	0.67	2.58	1.93
TOTAL	8.47	15.64	15.38

Income over nutrient costs	4.82	10.75	10.41

Johne's Disease Testing Options: What has Changed?

Dr. William P. Shulaw, Extension Veterinarian, The Ohio State University

Producers in Ohio have enjoyed a very high level of support for Johne's disease testing for many years. Although warning signs that this could change have been visible for the past two to three years, the changes that came about in March of this year were a surprise to some producers and veterinarians. What changed?

Actually, not all that much. Ohio still has a Johne's program that mirrors the federal guidelines of the Voluntary Bovine Johne's Control Program. Veterinarians still administer risk assessments and help producers develop management plans, much as they have in recent years, and Ohio still has one of the best-equipped and best-staffed diagnostic laboratories for Johne's disease in the USA. And Johne's disease is still costing the Ohio cattle industry enormous amounts of money in lost milk production and premature culling of animals. The only real difference, admittedly a very important one, is that the Ohio Department of Agriculture has been required to begin charging substantial fees for fecal cultures and ELISA blood tests. And the timing couldn't have been much worse. Why?

For the past several years, the same issues that have affected the budgets of other state agencies have steadily eroded the state-supported budgets for our veterinary diagnostic laboratory and Animal Industry Division personnel. At the same time, costs for materials and supplies to perform diagnostic tests have steadily risen. In addition, other diseases, such as avian influenza, chronic wasting disease, and viral hemorrhagic septicemia in Great Lakes fish have absorbed increasing amounts of dollars and personnel time. Johne's disease control and assistance to farmers has been a high priority for this State, and until recently, federal contract monies have offset much of the cost of testing and allowed Ohio to keep testing for Johne's disease free. This was possible because of Ohio's nationally recognized leadership in Johne's disease control efforts and the volume of diagnostic testing conducted in Ohio.

At the federal level, from a Congressional support level of about $18 million in 2002 for assistance in controlling Johne's disease, monies available to the states have fallen dramatically. Ohio's share of federal support monies has fallen from $910,000 to just over $200,000 this year which is being used to maintain the Test Negative Status Herd Program. The timing of this reduction is unfortunate in that many producers in Ohio have just begun to realize the seriousness of this disease in their herds, at least in large part because of the efforts of practicing veterinarians in helping them to assess their risks and to develop a sound management strategy. The good news in all this is that Ohio still received proportionally more money this year than most other states, but the bad news is that combined with weak state support, this amount is no longer sufficient to maintain all the free testing we have enjoyed in the past. Currently, culture for the causative organism of Johne's disease, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis or MAP, costs $25.50 per sample and ELISA on blood samples is $4.50 per sample. Because these are real testing costs, excluding labor, producers can get some idea of ODA's historical commitment to Johne's disease control.

Lack of State and federal dollars does not change the need to manage Johne's disease effectively to prevent continued financial losses and spread of the disease. If your only approach to Johne's disease control was a "test and cull-the-positives" approach, you may not have seen much apparent improvement in your situation, especially in the past couple of years when culture methods in use at the laboratory became more sensitive in finding infected animals. Culling infected animals, especially heavy shedders, can be very helpful in reducing the overall burden of MAP on the farm. But, if adequate steps aren't taken to effectively prevent transmission to calves and heifers, progress will be likely be very slow or absent.

Environmental sampling in this State, and others, has shown that even when the prevalence of infected animals in the herd drops below 10%, it is not difficult to find MAP in the cow environment and on the udder. These recent findings underscore the importance of developing a management plan that reduces the potential for a young calf to ingest MAP. In one of the herds enrolled in our Johne's Demonstration Herd Project, this was done by prompt removal of the calf and allowing someone else to raise the heifers at a completely different, but clean, site. In another of these Demonstration Herds, a beef herd, the producer made the decision not keep his own replacement heifers at all until he could get the prevalence of MAP-infected cows in his herd to zero. This necessitated buying a few heifers from herds in the Test Negative Program to maintain herd numbers, but because beef herds don't usually have the luxury of removing calves right after birth, this may be the most important element of his control program. This herd has gone from a 10% infection level in 2003 to zero for the past two years.

The maternity area is the place most calves are likely to get their first exposure to MAP. The sooner they can be removed to a clean place, the less the risk of them ingesting it and becoming infected. Likewise, the greater the environmental burden of MAP in the maternity area, the more likely the calf is to get an infectious dose before it is removed from the cow. Some veterinarians are now using environmental sampling of the maternity area as a kind of "report card" for overall hygiene and the risk to the calf. These samples of bedding can be taken at periodic intervals, perhaps quarterly, to assess overall contamination and the need to improve hygiene of that area. Research has shown that the udder, belly, feet, and legs of cows can be heavily contaminated with MAP and that the dry cow area may be a source of contamination for the maternity area, even if a cow about to calve is placed in a freshly cleaned and bedded calving stall. The dry cow area can also be sampled to assess this risk. Work we have done so far suggests that five samples for culture can give a producer and the practitioner a glimpse of the level of contamination of maternity or dry cow areas and the need for corrective action.

Quite a few states, including Ohio, have investigated the possibility of using pooled fecal samples for culture to: 1) determine whether MAP is present on the farm, and 2) estimate the prevalence of MAP infection in the herd. Although culturing pooled fecal samples from five cows at a time can reliably determine if MAP is in the herd, sampling the environment is less costly and probably just as efficient for that purpose in dairy herds. In fact, environmental samples can now be used by dairy herds for entry into our Test Negative Status Program at level one.

Pooling of fecal samples will not likely be useful to producers who already know they have a serious problem with Johne's disease; however, this approach can be useful to assess strings of cows in large dairy herds, and it can be useful in estimating the overall prevalence of infection in some herds that do not already have an idea of the prevalence or which have just found out they have an infected cow. Currently, samples can be collected by producers and sent to the laboratory, through their herd veterinarian, for pooling and culture. This may be attractive for owners of small beef herds where the cows are not handled frequently. Pooled sample results can be used to determine which groups of five animals may have "heavy" MAP shedders. Further testing can identify these animals for culling or segregation. Pooling could also be used to assess infection in groups of purchased animals. Pooling in groups of five substantially reduces the cost of testing and can provide valuable information to the herd owner.

We are currently assessing the usefulness of culturing heifers to see if it is possible to identify MAP-infected animals at a younger age and redirect them to options other than the milking herd. In addition, Ohio and other states are currently evaluating some additional approaches to individual animal tests that may be more sensitive than ELISA and less costly than culture. However, in the short term, producers can still use testing strategies that will help them manage this disease. They don't have to be costly. Consult with your veterinarian for options that may be useful in your herd.
Grain Marketing for Buyers

Dr. Matthew Roberts, Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, The Ohio State University

Corn yield is currently forecast at 152.8 bu/ac nationwide. This is somewhat higher than the midpoint of estimates leading up to the report, and it has caused the corn market to extend the losses that started with the June report. With the 152.8 bu/ac yield, and 85.4 million acres harvested, a 13.05 billion bushel harvest is forecast. For Ohio, the forecast is for a 143 bu/ac yield this year, 16 bu/ac less than 2006.

The increased projected yield led to increases in usage, as well. Forecasted feed demand for the 07/08 marketing year was increased by 50 million bushels, and owing to higher availability and lower global production, exports were forecasted to rise by 150 million bushels over the previous estimate, to 2.15 billion bushels, compared to 2.1 billion bushels for the 06/07 marketing year. The expected increase in US exports is being driven primarily by the severe drought in Southeastern Europe, which has reduced expected European Union-27and Former Soviet Union coarse grain production by almost 7 million metric tons.

As long as August moisture is sufficient, all indications are that the domestic soybean harvest will be adequate this fall. However, the US, and the globe, cannot plan for another 300 million bushel decline of soybean inventories. New crop 2008 soybean futures are already displaying the markets' unease with '08 prospects. November 2008 soybean futures are currently trading at $9.05/bu and December 2008 corn contracts are trading at $4.01/bu, a 2.25:1 soy-to-corn ratio. In January/February of this year, new crop corn averaged $4.08 and soybeans averaged $7.96, for a ratio of under 2:1, which led to a loss of 11.4 million acres of soybeans and a gain of 14.6 million acres of corn. Many analysts are already predicting that corn will lose up to 2 million acres in '08. I think corn's willingness to do so is entirely contingent on the level of '07/08 ending stocks. If we do have an '07 yield near 150 bu/ac, then corn may cede a few acres.

Another major contributor to the acreage allocation discussion is the number of acres planted to soybeans this fall in South America. While soybean prices have rallied this summer, the fall in the US Dollar has offset some of those gains. At this point, it appears that South American plantings will rise 5% or less over last year, which is unlikely to significantly alter the balance of the global soybean market.

For at least the next year, the market will remain very tight, and much more attention than usual will be paid to deferred futures contract prices, such as harvest '08 and '09. From a marketing standpoint, I expect that this attention will be very clearly felt soon after harvest this year when attention turns to '08 harvest. Because no crops will have ample inventories by the end of the 07/08 marketing year, prices for '08 harvest will stay strong, which should create a "floor" for the 2007 crop prices, but the large number of bushels being harvested and stored this fall will nonetheless create heavy pressure on cash prices.

Therefore, feed buying opportunities will be best in November and December, when storage pressure will be highest. But by mid-January at the latest, the market will likely start the process of allocating acres for '08 plantings, a process that will probably see corn futures running up to $4.15/bu and soybeans to $9.50/bu After the March 31 report, all prices, but especially soybeans, should see price declines lasting into June, when weather worries begin.

Controlling Feed Costs for Dairy Cattle

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, and Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University

Feed costs account for the greatest portion of the variable costs of producing milk. The increase in corn prices driven by ethanol production, the subsequent rise in other commodity prices, limited supply of forage in many areas of the State due to growing conditions, and the increased cost (especially fuel costs) of growing feedstuffs have substantially increased the cost of feeding dairy cattle during recent months, and this situation will not change anytime soon. The following of corn prices by other commodities has been stronger than expected, including the price of distillers grains, and the slower than projected construction of ethanol plants has not yet resulted in an imbalance of supply and demand for distillers grains. Due to these economic forces, the cost of feeding dairy cattle has increased 5 to 30%. While this can strip away profitability when milk prices are high, it can quickly place a farm in financial hardship when milk prices are moderate to low.

There are different ways of assessing feed costs, and these methods are addressed in this article for lactating cows only. Feed costs usually range from $0.06 to 0.08/lb of dietary dry matter (DM), and thus the cost per cow per day will then depend on DM intake. To relate the feed cost to milk yield, we calculate feed costs per hundredweight of milk, which generally should be < $4.50/cwt. However, the value of the milk will depend on its protein and fat composition (plus some quality indicators). Therefore, we stress the importance of monitoring income over feed costs (IOFC). The goal for IOFC is to be at least > $6.00/cow/day. Feed efficiency on dairy farms affects IOFC. One common method to calculate feed efficiency is: 3.5% fat-corrected milk (FCM, lb) / DM intake (lb) and 3.5% FCM (lb) = 0.432 x lb milk) + (16.23 x lb milk fat). The desired range for this feed efficiency is 1.4 to 1.6. Our goal is usually to increase DM intake, but if the intake increases without a response in milk yield, then some other positive response (for example, improved body condition) should be occurring or the increase in feed costs is not making an economic return.
Using the scenarios presented in Table 1, some suggestions for controlling feed costs are provided.

Scenario A: At the onset, our greatest concern may be the increased cost of the ration, as illustrated by a 15% increase in feed costs resulting in $53/day less IOFC for 100 cows. Strategies to keep ration costs under control without affecting performance are: 1) working with the nutritionist to develop rations using less costly ingredients, including adjusting the portions of forage and concentrates as needed, 2) improve feeding management to reduce losses from storage and refusals (e.g. use good silo management to reduce spoilage, feed for 1 to 2% refusals and clean out refusals every other day and then feed to lower production group or heifers), and 3) contract for feed commodities to lock in favorable prices.
Scenario B: A 15% drop in milk price resulted in a $240 decrease in IOFC for 100 cows. Although our initial reaction may be "there is nothing I can do about this", on second thought, there are some things to consider: 1) Are milk fat and protein concentrations normal for the respective breed? If not, the feeding program may be causing these milk components to be too low, resulting in a loss of revenue. 2) Is the somatic cell count low? If not, you are loosing milk yield and may be either getting deducts per hundredweight or losing out on milk premiums. 3) Maybe you need to find a new buyer for your milk.
Scenario C: A 15% drop in feed efficiency (lower milk yield and higher feed intake which is a potential scenario with over feeding byproducts) resulted in a $181 loss in IOFC for a 100-cow herd, but the factors affecting the change in feed efficiency may be more under your control than the change in milk price in Scenario B. Housing, health, feeding, and DETAILS will need to be investigated for the cause of this change.
Scenario D: One strategy at times is to improve cash flow by reducing costs. Reducing feed costs in this scenario reflects that milk production will most likely decrease, resulting in a $188 drop in IOFC. Although there is less cash outflow for feed, there is a net loss in IOFC. So, the message is that improving IOFC is not as simple as reducing the daily feed costs.

Even with the high current feed costs, profits are still generally strong because of the high milk price; however, this is unlikely to continue and you should not become complacent. As illustrated in the scenarios, the impact of higher feed costs is going to be severe at lower milk prices and when decreases in feed efficiency occur. As we look to the future (months) when milk prices are likely to fall and feed prices remain high, the impacts can be overwhelming (Scenario E = A + B), necessitating changes in management now to reduce price risks later and improve the present financial standing of an operation.

Table 1. Comparisons of income over feed costs with changes in milk price, milk yield, dry matter intake, feed efficiency, and feed costs.

Scenario	Milk Yield (lb/day)	Milk Income ($/day)	DM Intake (lb/day)	Feed Efficiency (Milk/DMI, lb/lb)	Feed Costs ($/day)	Feed Costs ($/cwt milk)	IOFC ($/day)	Change in IOFC 100 cows ($/day)
Baseline ($20/cwt milk, $0.07/lb DM)	80	16.00	50.0	1.60	3.50	4.38	12.50	XXX
(A) 15% increase in feed costs ($0.0805/lb DM)	80	16.00	50.0	1.60	4.03	5.03	11.98	-53
(B) 15% decrease in milk price ($17/cwt)	80	13.60	50.0	1.60	3.50	4.38	10.10	-240
(C) 15% decrease in feed efficiency via lower milk and higher DM intake	72	14.40	53.0	1.36	3.71	5.15	10.69	-181
(D) 15% decrease in milk and DM intake	68	13.60	42.5	1.60	2.98	4.38	10.63	-188
(E) = A + B	80	13.60	50.0	1.60	4.03	5.03	9.58	-293

Guidelines for Feeding Low Forage Diets to Dairy Cows
Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Variation in forage quality, limited supply of forage, high prices for forage, and attempts to maximize milk yield are factors for why low forage diets are often fed to lactating cows. Certainly for this year, limited forage supply and high prices for forage (although prices for many other feeds are not going to be low) are conditions that exist. When considering the feeding of low forage diets, one must keep in mind that adequate effective fiber in the diet is critical for healthy, high producing dairy cows. Maintaining a stable rumen fermentation requires providing a minimum level of effective fiber and not exceeding a maximum level of nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC; e.g. starch). Forage NDF (FNDF) is a good indicator of effective fiber, but particle size of forage, source of NFC (e.g. corn vs. wheat), and fermentability of the NFC source (e.g., dry vs. high moisture corn) must be considered when formulating diets based on minimum FNDF. Low forage diets generally should not be fed to dairy cows during the first 30 days in milk because of the low dry matter (DM) intake at parturition and the risk of metabolic diseases. Intense feeding management is required when low forage diets are fed.

Generally speaking, diets should contain a minimum of 26 to 28% NDF using traditional diets consisting of little or no high-fiber concentrate feeds. Assuming that 75% of the NDF should be forage, 21% FNDF would be needed in the ration; however, research has revealed that lower FNDF can be fed. Based on several experiments, here are some guidelines for limiting forage in diets:
- Whole linted cottonseed (WCS) is the best concentrate source to use as a forage extender. Limit WCS to 5 to 6 lb/day per cow because of its unsaturated fat content. Dietary FNDF may be as low as 9 to 11% of DM when WCS is in the diet if dietary starch is limited to 25 to 30%. High fiber concentrate feeds, such as soybean hulls, distillers grains, brewers grains, wheat middlings, corn gluten feed, etc., can be used to limit the starch content in the ration.
- If WCS is not in the ration, the FNDF content should be at least 16 to 18% of dietary DM when using the high-fiber concentrate feeds to limit starch to 25 to 30% of the diet.
- The above suggestions are made assuming that corn silage is not the sole forage in the ration. If corn silage is the sole forage, the lower limits on FDNF should be increased 3 to 5 percentage units, and adequate particle size of the forage becomes even more important. This is because corn silage has fewer long particles than haylage and the corn grain is more rapidly degraded (more like high moisture corn) in the rumen than dry shelled corn.
- The above suggestions are being made assuming that dry corn is the principal concentrate providing starch to the ration. If more rapidly fermented starch sources are used (e.g., wheat, barley, high moisture corn, and steam-flaked corn), replace no more than 50% of the dry corn with one of these other starch sources or increase the amount of fiber in the ration.
- It is not necessary to add hay to a dairy cow ration, but hay does provide a safety net when feeding low fiber diets because of its particle size - provides for more cud chewing and a more dense rumen mat.
- Sorting of the total mixed ration should always be minimized but will especially be important when feeding low forage diets.
- Always add a buffer to the ration at about 0.8% of DM when feeding low fiber diets.
- When using these guidelines, keep in mind that a balance needs to be maintained between fiber and starch in the ration. When feeding low fiber rations without WCS, a ratio of FNDF:NFC of 0.45 to 0.50 appears adequate.
Management of low forage feeding programs must be very intense; without such intensity in management, greater risk in metabolic disease and negative animal performance is assumed by the dairy farmer. Changes in forage quality or particle size can result in major problems with little notice. Watch for the following as indicators of inadequate fiber intake: highly variable feed intake and milk yield, several cows within a group with inverted milk fat and protein percentages, or increased incidence of displaced abomasum, sore feet, and loose feces.

Feeding Corn Stover to Ruminants

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

With the dry conditions this year in many areas of Ohio, the yield of hay has been reduced and corn silage yields are going to be quite variable based on planting time and geographical area. Therefore, forage supplies are going to be quite limited this year, and several areas have been already reporting unreasonably high hay prices. Obviously, ruminants must have forage in their diets to remain healthy. Also with the current hay and grain prices, overall feed costs are going to be elevated for quite some time. With these conditions, alternative forage sources are being considered, including the feeding of corn stover (corn plant after grain harvest). The composition of corn stover is provided in Table 1, and it is compared to the composition of corn grain, corn silage, and wheat straw. The grain and forage components of corn are low in protein, but they especially contribute energy to the diet and in the case for the forage component, fiber for ruminal health. Because of the lower starch and higher fiber, corn stover provides less energy than corn grain or silage. The comparison of the composition of corn stover with wheat straw is made because wheat straw is sometimes fed at low concentrations (2 to 8% of dietary DM) to lactating dairy cattle as a source of effective fiber (fiber that stimulates rumination) and higher concentrations are sometimes fed to nonlactating, nongrowing ruminants. The price for wheat straw is often quite high and the supply often limited caused by the demand for its use as bedding and feed. When you consider that about 50% of the corn plant is stover and that at least 4 times more acres of corn are produced in Ohio compared to acres of wheat, the availability of corn stover is not limited. The composition of corn stover and wheat straw is somewhat similar and are similar in price values at the reported DM (Table 1), but at similar DM (e.g. 90%), corn stover is valued at about 5% more than wheat straw.

Some things that must be considered when feeding corn stover are:

Animals can be pastured on a corn field harvested for grain, but their presence in the field must be limited initially because they will eat too much grain that was left in the field. A considerable amount of feed wastage also occurs with pasturing corn fields.
Because of the low protein in corn stover and the limited intake that may occur, additional supplementation is usually necessary, even for nonlactating, nongrowing animals.
The feeding value of ammoniated corn stover is higher than for unammoniated stover. Ammoniated corn stalks (applied at 2 to 3% of DM; increase in CP by 6 to 8 percentage units) fed with 2 lb/day of grain supplement to 525 lb steers increased DM intake, DM digestibility, and N retention compared to unammoniated corn stalks fed with the same amount of supplement (Purdue University). Mature beef cows fed similar diets had higher DM intake and weight gain with ammoniated versus unammoniated corn stover.
Because of the large particle size of corn stover, challenges may occur when adding stover to a total mixed ration because cows can readily sort through the TMR, leaving the corn stalks in the bunk and having lower fiber intake than anticipated. Therefore, reducing the particle size before or during mixing will be important in reducing the risks for sorting.
The corn stover certainly can provide a considerable amount of energy and fiber as a forage source; however, very low inclusion rates in lactating cow diets can help to provide an effective fiber source (95% of the fiber in corn stover is regarded as effective fiber) and may also be used to reduce a small amount of starch from the ration. However, corn stover is not an effective replacement for grain, even if pelleted. For example, in an University of Illinois study reported this year, corn stover was treated with calcium oxide and water, mixed with distillers grains (3:1 corn stover:distillers grains), and then pelleted. Diets fed to lactating dairy cows contained 40% corn silage, 10% alfalfa silage, 5.5% soybean hulls, and either 0, 11, or 22% of the corn stover pellet to replace corn grain. As the amount of corn stover pellet increased, DM intake, milk yield, and milk protein percentage decreased. Thus, even with chemical processing and reduction to a small particle size, corn stover is not a replacement for corn grain as an energy source.

The supply of corn stover is plentiful and it should be evaluated as a source of forage in diets for ruminants during times of limited forage supply and when desiring to provide low amounts of additional effective fiber in diets for maintaining rumen health.

Table 1. Composition (DM basis) of corn-based feeds and wheat straw.

Item¹	Corn Grain	Corn Silage	Corn Stover	Wheat Straw
DM, %	88.1	35.1	85.0	90.0
CP, %	9.4	8.8	5.0	4.8
TDN, %	88.7	68.8	49.0	45.7
ME, Mcal/lb	1.42	1.06	0.79	0.65
NE_L, Mcal/lb	0.93	0.66	0.49	0.37
NE_m, Mcal/lb	0.98	0.71	0.50	0.38
NE_g, Mcal/lb	0.67	0.44	0.19	0.13
NDF, %	9.5	45.0	65.0	73.0
ADF, %	3.4	28.1	42.4	49.4
Lignin, %	0.9	2.6	10.0	8.8
Ash, %	1.5	4.3	7.2	7.6

¹DM = Dry matter, CP = crude protein, TDN = total digestible nutrients, ME = metabolizable energy,
NE_L = net energy for lactation, NE_m= net energy for maintenance, NE_g = net energy for gain,
NDF = neutral detergent fibe

Results from Research Supported by the Ohio Dairy Research Fund

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Ohio Dairy Research Fund was developed to support research by voluntary dairy producer contributions. Since 1982, about $731,000 in producer investments have funded research that has greatly benefited Ohio's dairy industry. From time to time, results of this research will be included in the Buckeye Dairy News. For this issue, the results from five recent projects are provided below.

Assessing Biotin Status of Lactating Cows
William P. Weiss and G. Ferreira, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The addition of supplemental biotin (a B-vitamin) to dairy diets is becoming more common. In research studies, the addition of biotin to dairy diets has consistently improved measures of hoof health. In many studies, but not all, biotin has also increased milk yield apparently independent of effects on hoof health. The objective of this study was to determine whether an index of biotin status could be identified that was related to the likelihood of obtaining a milk response. Based on previous studies, high producing cows are more likely to have a milk yield response to supplemental biotin than low producing cows. Therefore, we conducted an experiment with high producing (average yield = 95 lb/day) and low producing cows (51 lb/day). All cows were fed the same basal diet with and without supplemental biotin (approximate supplementation rate was 20 mg/day). Blood, milk, and urine were sampled and analyzed for biotin. In addition, cows were given an intraruminal infusion of valeric acid and urinary excretion of a metabolite was monitored. Valeric acid is a normal product of ruminal fermentation and its metabolism depends on biotin-containing enzymes. If biotin is limited, then providing additional valeric acid might overwhelm the normal biochemical pathways and an alternate metabolite (3-hydroxyisovaleric acid) will be produced and excreted in the urine.

Supplemental biotin increased milk yield by about 6 lb/day in high producing cows but had no effect on milk yield of low producing cows. The response by high producing cows occurred within 3 days of supplementation. Supplemental biotin increased concentrations of biotin in plasma, milk, and urine in both high and low producing cows, but responses were similar in both production groups. Urinary excretion of hydroxyisovaleric acid following the infusion of valeric acid was higher for high producing cows, but biotin supplementation had no effect. We were not successful in identifying a measure of biotin status in lactating cows that could be used to determine when cows were likely to respond to supplemental biotin.

Supplemental Rumen-Protected Choline and Methionine for Lactating Dairy Cows
Maurice Eastridge, Joanna Engel, and Claudio Ribeiro, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The primary purposes of the experiments were to establish the magnitude of protection of 3 commercially available, rumen protected choline (RPC) sources [Reashure® (REA), Balchem Encapsulates, New Hampton, NY; By Pass Choline (BPC), Robt Morgan, Inc., Paris, IL; and Pro-Choline^TM 40, Probiotech, Inc., St-Eustache, QC, Canada] and to determine the effects of supplemental rumen-protected choline (REA) and rumen protected methionine (Smartamine M^TM, Adisseo, Antony Cedex, France) on the metabolism and performance of lactating dairy cows. Using in situ procedures in Experiment I , Reashure was found to be more rumen stable than the other two choline sources. In Experiment II, 56 lactating dairy cows were fed one of 4 diets at parturition: 1) control [duodenal flow of lysine:methionine (lys:met) 3.8], 2) 0.26% rumen protected choline (RPC) (REA fed at 60 g/d to provide 15 g/d of choline; lys:met 3.8; REA-L), 3) 0.52% RPC (REA fed at 120 g/d to provide 30 g/d of choline; lys:met 3.8; REA-H), or 4) 0.096% rumen protected methionine (Smartamine M^TM; lys:met 3.0; MET). The diets were fed as a total mixed ration for 13 weeks and were composed of 52% forage (76% corn silage and 24% alfalfa hay), 9% whole linted cottonseed, and 39% concentrates. The diets were 16.8% crude protein, 39.2% NDF, and 20% forage NDF. Thirty-one Holstein and 17 Jersey (48 total) cows completed the trial. Dry matter intake (45.3 lb/day), milk yield (80.3 lb/day), milk fat (4.35%), and milk protein (3.14%) were found to be the same among all 4 diets. The milk urea nitrogen was the highest for REA-H (19.1 mg/dl) and intermediate for MET (18.1 mg/dl). Milk choline concentration was highest for MET, but plasma choline and non-esterified fatty acids were not different for the diets. Plasma glucose was higher for both the control and MET diets than for either REA diet. Plasma methionine was significantly higher for the MET diet than for other diets. Conclusions from the study were: 1) Reashure was more rumen stable than the other two choline sources, 2) milk choline is a better indicator of choline status than plasma choline, and 3) feeding MET to the periparturient dairy cow may be beneficial for reducing risks of metabolic diseases and improving animal performance related to choline status.

A Survey of Bovine Practitioners to Determine the Prevalence of and Factors Associated with Acute Bloat Syndrome in Pre-Weaned Dairy Heifers
Dianne Shoemaker, Department of Extension; Päivi Rajala-Schultz, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine; and Lowell Midla, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine; The Ohio State University

Acute Bloat Syndrome (ABS) has been identified by 276 veterinarians across the country on a median of four farms per practitioner. Common symptoms included abdominal distension, fluid slosh in the abdomen, colic, and dehydration. Symptoms did not commonly include either diarrhea or an elevated temperature. The majority of cases were seen in calves 4 to 21 days old. Knowledge of these common clinical signs can help calf managers detect problems in calves as early as possible and to begin treatment of the syndrome.

In calves exhibiting clinical symptoms, respondents suggested effective treatments and therapies. Some combination of antibiotics, rumen tonics, anti-inflammatories, and bloat-relieving measures may be effective in some cases. The majority of possible preventive therapies focused around the diet and feeding program. However, no particular diet or feeding strategy in place on any of the case farms precluded a case of ABS from occurring.

Notwithstanding that management was rated as good to excellent on most farms where a case had been seen, various improvements in calf management practices (e.g. consistency in feeding time intervals) were cited as being effective at preventing future cases. This underscores the idea that attention to detail cannot be overstated regarding calf management practices.

While isolation of Clostridia spp. from clinical cases in no way proves that Clostridia spp. are the causative agents of ABS, the frequency with which these organisms were isolated deserves to be noted. Sarcinia spp. were the second most common bacterial isolate. Sarcinia spp. have been associated with an abomasal bloat type syndrome in goat kids. Further research to clarify the role of Clostridia spp. and Sarcinia spp. in the pathogenesis of ABS is needed.

Capturing and Recycling Dairy Nitrogen Manure Nutrients with Winter Cover Crops
James J. Hoorman, James N. Lopshire, Chris L. Bruynis, Glen J. Arnold, Alan P. Sundermeir, and Steve C. Prochaska, The Ohio State University

Nitrogen prices have doubled, motivating producers to conserve nutrients with winter cover crops (WCC). With increased regulations on the winter application of manure, planting WCC's to capture fall and early winter applied manure nutrients is an option for livestock farmers. Ohio State University Extension assisted nine livestock farmers in saving nitrogen from the fall application of manure by planting WCC plots. The WCC treatments included annual ryegrass (ARG), cereal rye (CR), and oilseed radish (OSR) compared to bare land. Each treatment had three rates (0, 6,000, and 12,000 gallons) of dairy liquid manure applied. Measurements were recorded for soil nitrogen, soil nutrient losses, plant nitrogen, and survivability. Our research has shown that WCC are great scavengers of excess nitrogen (up to 500 lb/acre) and phosphorous (60 lb/acre). Plant biomass analysis showed that OSR and ARG absorbed significantly more nitrogen than CR (P < 0.01) and significantly more soil nitrate nitrogen (P < 0.0001) and soil total nitrogen for the next crop. Carbon was significantly higher for CR (P < 0.0001) and for carbon-nitrogen ratio (P < 0.01).

Preliminary data show that grass WCC such as annual ryegrass (ARG) and cereal rye (CR) have the potential to be utilized by livestock farmers to absorb manure nutrients and prevent manure winter runoff. The nitrogen in dairy manure can be recycled to the next crop if the WCC are killed in early April and the cover crops have time to decay and release nutrients back into the soil. Annual grass WCC are preferred to other cover crops (oil seed radish) because they provide the additional benefit of protecting the soil during the winter months from soil erosion. Additional research is needed to quantify the effects of cover crops on recycling other manure nutrients (phosphorous and potassium), coliform survivability, water infiltration, and water retention in the soil profile.

Determining Annual Trend of H₂S and Odor Levels at Dairy Manure Storage Ponds and Downwind Property Line for Effective and Economic Air Quality Management
Lingying Zhao, X. Wang, M. Darr, R. Manuzon, M. Brugger, E. Imernan, and G. Arnold, The Ohio State University

The study results indicated that there are large seasonal variations in ammonia (NH₃), hydrogen sulfide (H₂S), and odor levels at the dairy manure storage pond. Warmer months, such as May to August, were generally associated with high levels of NH₃ and odor. The H₂S levels varied without a trend. During the eight-month study period, the overall gas and odor levels at the manure storage pond were generally not high enough to cause air quality concerns. The mean NH₃ levels varied from 1.2 to 7.4 ppm; H₂S 2 to 72 ppb (parts per billion); and odor level 96 to 381 OU/m³.

Since odor is a subjective perception of an individual, it is difficult to say exactly what odor level is odor free and what level is very offensive. However, the study indicated that hot months generally had relative high odor levels. If odor is a concern to neighbors and limited mitigation can be afforded, then warmer months are the critical time for odor abatement practices.

The H₂S levels on the dairy farm studied were generally low. The H₂S dispersed well during noon sampling periods. The dairy facility did not significantly affect the ambient H₂S level at the 1000 ft downwind neighboring areas during the study period.

The NH₃ emission from the 650 to 700 cow operation was likely more than 100 lb/day in warmer months. However, H₂S was not a concern at all in reference to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act reporting requirements.
Changes in Iodine Availability for Dipping Calf Navels at Birth

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Wooster (top of page)

Completing one of the critical steps in newborn calf care will now take a little more planning. Having a constant supply of 7% tincture of iodine on the farm is more important than it was less than a month ago as the product is no longer available at local or through mail-order farm supply outlets.

Question: Why is 7% tincture of iodine no longer available at retail stores or through catalogs for dipping calf navels?

Answer: Creative illegal drug manufacturers and unscrupulous livestock supply dealers conspired to use 7% iodine to produce iodine crystals which were then used to produce methamphetamines. As a result, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) moved iodine, previously designated as a list 2 chemical, to a list 1 chemical. For us, that means that the DEA will now regulate sales of all products containing more than 2.2% iodine.

Question: Can I still purchase 7% iodine to dip calf navels?

Answer: Yes, but it can only be purchased through a vendor who is registered to handle controlled products. It is likely that your veterinarian is registered to handle other DEA controlled substances and may also carry 7% iodine for their clients. It will mean extra paperwork for the veterinarian's business. Talk to them before your current supply runs out!

Question: So, why bother dipping navels at all?

Answer: An important step in newborn calf care is dipping the calf's umbilical cord in a 7% tincture of iodine as soon after birth as possible. A tincture contains alcohol. The alcohol provides drying action, while the iodine has disinfectant properties. It is a long-held belief that this management practice plays a large role in preventing navel ill and other infections.

Logically, it makes sense. The umbilical cord is the calf's lifeline in the uterus, delivering nutrients and removing wastes during gestation. Following birth, it no longer serves those functions, but it is still a direct route into the calf's body until total closure takes place. Nature provides for the umbilical cord to close off, dry off, fall off, and heal over, just as nature provides for the calf to receive passive immunity through the dam's colostrum. Our management practices of navel dipping and hand-feeding colostrum are designed to help nature do its job.

Question: Is there a good substitute for 7% tincture of iodine?

Answer: Possibly, but right now anyone who tells you anything specific is probably guessing. A quick search of past and current research turns up no studies on this topic specifically

Question: Why not use one of the iodine-based teat dips?

Answer: We do know teat dips are not effective as navel dips. Iodine-based teat dips contain 1% iodine or less. They also don't contain the alcohols comparable to an iodine tincture. Tinctures containing 2% iodine will still be available over the counter. A short-term patch would be to use these for several days in a row until the umbilical cord is completely dried. Realistically, most farms are doing well to get a navel dipped once in 7% iodine, let alone re-dipping two or three more times.

Dipping navels in 7% tincture of iodine is an important management practice, helping to minimize illness and death loss in dairy calves. Keeping an adequate supply on hand will take a little more planning since the product is now a USDEA List 1 chemical. Don't use this change as an excuse not to dip calf navels. Eventually, a calf or calves will fall victim to septicemia or navel ill. Don't let your calves be victims of illegal drugs.
Results of Dairy Skillathon and Dairy Judging Clinics at Ohio State Fair

Mrs. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page)

With the 2007 Ohio State Fair now in the history books, I am pleased to report that all of our 4-H Dairy events were up in numbers. The 4-Hers, advisors, and exhibitors can take pride in this accomplishment! Thank you for your support, and if you have any comments and suggestions for 2008, just phone or email me. Following is a brief description of each activity. Click on the links below for more details and photos!

Dairy Skillathon: Even though we held only one skillathon this year, 75 ambitious youth completed all the stations with the expert assistance of our volunteers. It was also impressive to have Ohio's First Lady, Frances Strickland, visiting and taking part in our event! Matt Weeman of Wayne County was the Overall Winner.

Dairy Judging Clinics: Two judging clinics were held. Each had 3 classes and one set of oral reasons. A total of over 70 participated. In an effort to make this more of a clinic rather than just a contest, Bernie Heisner and John Ayars were on hand to discuss placing classes and also listened to reasons and providing suggestions for improvement. There was excellent discussion with the kids, but we need to find more time for our beginners too! Look for a Reasons Clinic later this year!

Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging Teams: Seven 4-H members traveled all over the state from August 23-25 in conjunction with Michigan 4-Hers. They placed 23 classes and gave 7 sets of reasons. It was a test of endurance, but everyone improved despite the heat, flooding, tornadoes, and very long days. Look for more updates on the first and second teams that will be out representing us this fall!

OSU Collegiate Dairy Judging Team: These students put their lives on hold to manage the Ohio State Fair milking parlor. From 4:30 a.m. to at least 9:00 p.m., the eight team members did their very best to fulfill an important commitment as well as provide a service to exhibitors. They gave up some of their summer income to prove their interest in dairy judging. Three of the students were even taking summer classes. Some days, the parlor barely had time to close down and after the 50^th Holstein Futurity, they were still washing the line at midnight. They should be commended for the tremendous effort put forth to help earn some income for their fall judging experiences. It was particularly pleasing to have cards and letters of appreciation sent to them after the fair. Also the "milk a cow" event continues to draw in hundreds of fair goers. With the help of Dr. Eastridge and some additional students, the judging kids also took care of the animals for this and shared their expertise with all those who couldn't wait to take a turn. As another outreach effort to consumers, facts and information from www.dairyfarmingtoday.org, were posted on the parlor windows. It is always interesting to note the kinds of questions that consumers have about dairying and this gave the aspiring judges an opportunity to become better at reasoning.

For all of the above activities, there are photos available if anyone would like to use them in publications: http://4hansci.osu.edu/dairy.htm. A new bulletin board outside of my office also helps to tell the story of our summer activities.
Dairy Management Workshops

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page)

A Risk Management Education grant was received to offer the program "Teaching Management Skills to Dairy Producers". This program will be conducted as a 3-day intense workshop one-day per week in different locations around the State:

Mercer County - February 13, 20, and 27; Host:Todd Mangen (419) 586-2179, mangen.8@osu.edu

Paulding County - February 19, 26, and March 4; Host: Jim Lopshire (419) 399-8225, lopshire.1@osu.edu

Ashtabula County - February 25, March 3, and March 10; Host: David Marrison, (440) 576-9008, marrison.2@osu.edu

Mahoning County - March 12, 19, and 26; Host: David Goerig, (740) 533-5538, goerig.1@osu.edu

Wayne County - March 13, 20, and 27; Host: Terry Kline, (330) 264-8722, kline.141@osu.edu

The program will include Finpack assessments and a visit to each farm by the instructors for assessing opportunities for improvement. If you have any additional questions about the program or about how producers can register, contact Chris Zoller, OSU Extension Educator, Tuscarawas County, 330-339-2337, zoller.1@osu.edu, or one of the local hosts.
Dairy Policy and Market Watch

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University

Market Watch

For dairy farmers, the milk price has been outstanding over the past 8 months. Will this price strength continue into 2008? To address his question, we will consider where this price strength has come from and what may lie ahead. Table 1 provides the Class 3 and Class 4 milk price for the months of May 2006, July 2007, and the last month, October 2007. In Table 1, you will find the contribution, both in dollars per hundredweight and as a percent of total milk price, by each commodity making up the price. For example, back in May 2006, the Class 3 price was announced at it lowest point, $10.83/cwt. The butter market contributed $4.40 (41%), the cheese market $5.72 (53%), and whey $0.71 (7%). Now look at the second column, July 2007. The whey market had taken off in an upward soar and contributed 15% or $3.15 to the Class 3 price. The butter market was adding $5.64 to the Class 3 price, and cheese was adding a whopping $12.58. Between July and October, the whey market had softened substantially and was contributing only $1.30 to the Class 3 price of $18.71. Butter had returned to the May of 2006 level, while cheese continued to add $12.47 to the milk price.

In the lower section of Table 1, you will find the same dissection of the Class 4 milk price. Back in May 2006, this was only 50 cents less than the Class 3 price. By October 2007, the Class 4 price had overtaken the Class 3 price as the all important Class 1 mover. Looking at Table 1, you can see that the dramatic rise in the price of nonfat dry milk (NDM), $0.82/lb in May of 2006 to $2.06/lb in October 2007, was responsible for 77% or $16.37 of the Class 4 price of $21.31.

Table 1. Classes 3 and 4 milk prices ($/cwt; NDM = nonfat dry milk).

Now looking ahead, it is clear that we need to focus on the four commodity prices, butter, cheese, whey, and NDM, to anticipate where the Class 3 and Class 4 milk prices may be headed. With butter price back down toward levels equal to May 2006, we cannot expect this commodity to carry the load. Whey has retreated from its July high and is currently nearing $0.40/lb. No real help from that commodity. This leaves cheese and NDM. Cheese is currently staying quite strong just above $1.91/lb. The NDM may have peaked during the week of November 3 at $2.06/lb and is currently trading at $1.92/lb.

Why are these two commodity prices staying high? Cheese demand is only fair at these prices. Cheese manufacturers are reluctant to increase production with these high milk prices. Cheese inventories are light, and this means that cheese manufacturers must buy to cover holiday contracts. Cheese export sales are strong with USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) reporting that for the first 9 months of the year, exports of cheese and curds are up 37% over the same period last year. We can expect some decline in the cheese price after the holiday season, but if the export demand remains strong, the market should not weaken dramatically. Therefore, the driver for Class 3 is the cheese market; where it goes, so will the Class 3 price.

Turning to the Class 4 milk price, it is apparent that NDM market has been phenomenal over the past six months. This has been driven by an almost insatiable export demand. Now, we are beginning to see some weakness in this market. Domestic NDM production and inventories are heavy as could be expected with plus $2/lb prices and domestic demand has slowed. According to the USDA FAS, export volumes are fulfilling past contract obligations, and new contracts are slow to materialize. Export sales for the first 9 months have declined by 18% as compared to the same period in 2006. Domestic cheese manufacturers will increase NDM use as the price falls below $1.90/lb, and this will help provide support. The driver for the Class 4, and also Class 1, is the NDM market. Where the NDM market goes over the next 6 to 8 months will determine what happens to the Class 4 price.

For more information on the dairy industry, prices, and policy, link to my OhioDairyWeb 2007 at: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/

Cost of Nutrients and Benchmarks of Profitability for Ohio Dairy Farms

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University. (top of page)

Who would have ever thought that $4.00/bu corn would be a bargain! Although corn prices have reached and exceeded $4.00/bu in the past, these have always been associated with expensive corn, not cheap corn. But, we have entered a new era in feed prices and as our analysis will show, corn priced at $4.00/bu is currently a bargain feed.
As we do in all issues of this newsletter, we used current market prices of 29 feed commodities traded or available in Ohio to determine the implicit costs of nutrients and estimate break-even prices of all these commodities using the SESAME^TM software developed here at Ohio State. Results for the nutrient costs are reported in Table 1.

Net energy for lactation is still at a very high price, close to two times more expensive than at this time last year. Feed markets are currently discounting rumen degradable protein: each additional pound of RDP in a feed results in an average reduction of $0.21/ton. Conversely, digestible rumen undegradable protein is priced at a historical premium being implicitly priced at $0.39/lb versus a historical average of $0.18 to 0.20/lb. The effective and non-effective fiber fractions are currently in their normal historical range. Thus, from a formulation standpoint, attention should be given to dietary energy (NE_L) and digestible rumen undegradable protein, making sure that rations contain minimum margins of safety.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	November 2006	September 2007	November 2007
Net energy for lactation - 3X (NRC, 2001; $/Mcal)	0.088	0.136	0.144
Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)	-0.055	-0.173	-0.212
Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)	0.193	0.252	0.385
Non-effective neutral detergent fiber (NDF; $/lb)	-0.032	-0.076	-0.065
Effective-NDF ($/lb)	0.055	0.070	0.073

At this time last year, corn was priced in the $3.50 to 4.00/bu, prices that were well above the estimated breakeven price for dairy. Thus, corn was then expensive, both from a historical perspective as well as when compared to other feed commodities available on the market. The situation has changed dramatically this year (Tables 2 and 3). In essence, a great number of other commodities have seen substantial price increases, some over-shooting what would be a normal equilibrium price (e.g., tallow).

Table 2. Grouping of feed commodities, central Ohio, November 2006.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn grain	Alfalfa hay - 44% NDF	Beet pulp
Corn silage	Bakery byproduct	Blood meal
Cottonseed meal	Brewers grains, wet	Canola meal
Distillers dried grains	Whole cottonsed	Citrus pulp
Feather meal	Corn gluten meal	Soybean hulls
Corn gluten feed	Meat meal	Soybean meal, 44% CP
Hominy	Molasses	Soybean meal, 48% CP
Expeller soybean	Roasted soybeans
Wheat middlings	Tallow
	Wheat bran

Table 3. Commodity assessment, central Ohio, July 2007.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	140	147.81	115.02	180.60
Bakery Byproduct Meal	200	213.03	196.99	229.07
Beet Sugar Pulp, dried	230	186.84	161.60	212.08
Blood Meal, ring dried	665	603.63	561.79	645.46
Brewers grains, wet	37	37.99	32.59	43.39
Canola Meal, mech. extracted	201	166.89	146.64	187.13
Citrus Pulp, dried	271	183.04	169.39	196.69
Corn Grain, ground dry	150	229.68	214.36	244.99
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	50	74.31	62.87	85.75
Cottonseed Meal, 41% CP	205	242.04	224.94	259.15
Cottonseed, whole w lint	253	255.41	213.18	297.65
Distillers Dried Grains, w/solubles	154	219.09	198.17	239.99
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	355	417.08	388.96	445.21
Gluten Feed, dry	136	171.60	156.09	187.10
Gluten Meal, dry	512	502.41	471.52	533.31
Hominy	140	190.05	176.25	203.86
Meat Meal, rendered	325	308.11	280.15	336.07
Molasses, sugarcane	150	156.93	143.99	169.87
Soybean Hulls	171	105.54	69.61	141.47
Soybean Meal, expellers	337	416.04	394.17	437.91
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	297	226.65	199.06	254.25
Soybean Seeds, solvent 48% CP	307	282.21	257.92	306.51
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	365	353.72	329.25	378.19
Tallow	620	592.04	540.55	643.53
Wheat Bran	106	107.06	82.96	131.16
Wheat Middlings	99	128.59	107.55	149.62

Appraisal Set
Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Corrected ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay - 38% NDF, 22% CP	160	145.86	167.77
Alfalfa Hay - 48% NDF, 17% CP	130	152.18	137.44
Fish Menhaden Meal, mech.	970	471.64	--

As usual, we used these results in combination with component prices for Federal Order 33 to calculate a benchmark for feed costs (which are really nutrient costs) and income over nutrient costs (Table 4). Gross income from a cow producing 75 lb/day at 3.6% fat and 3.1% protein is close to $5.00/day greater than it was at this time last year, but has dropped by $0.88/day from September due in large part from the drop in other solids prices. Income over nutrient costs (IONC) is $3.28/day greater this year than last year, but it has dropped by $1.35/day from September. Thus, compared to the 10-year IONC average of $6.00 to 6.50/cow/day, the current figure of $9.06 appears very strong and would indicate good profitability in the dairy industry. Other costs of production, such as energy and transportation, have risen substantially in the last 12 to 18 months, such that a target IONC of $7.00/cow/day is probably a more realistic figure for a probability benchmark. It is doubtful that the current profitability position of our industry will be maintained in the long-run. Wise producers should make good use of the extra income to shelter themselves from the next storm.

Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, central Ohio.¹

Nutrient	November 2006	September 2007	November 2007
Nutrient costs²	----------------------- $/cow/day ----------------------
NE_L	2.93	4.71	5.01
RDP	(0.44)	(0.92)	(1.13)
Digestible-RUP	0.56	0.57	0.87
ne-NDF	(0.19)	(0.35)	(0.30)
e-NDF	0.71	0.76	0.80
Minerals and vitamins	0.20	0.20	0.20
TOTAL	3.77	4.97	5.44
Milk gross income
Fat	3.82	4.29	3.80
Protein	4.83	9.16	9.69
Other solids	0.90	1.93	1.01
TOTAL	9.55	15.38	14.50
Income over nutrient costs	5.78	10.41	9.06

Busted: rbST Milk Myth Machine is Revealed

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University

If you believe the headlines of most major newspapers and magazines, the U.S. consumer is against the use of biotechnology in agriculture and prefers that his/her food be grown in a natural and organic fashion.

Recently, a few milk purchasers and resellers, including the Kroger Company, used this argument in deciding to stop purchasing milk from farms that use recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), a hormone produced by Monsanto using recombinant-DNA under the trade name of Posilac®.

Perspective

From the perspective of one who has spent over 25 years of his life working on improving dairy productivity and profitability by using modern management, nutrition, and biotechnology tools, this perception by the U. S. consumer would be disheartening if it was anywhere close to being true.

In a June 29 guest editorial in the New York Times (hardly a bastion of conservatism...), Henry I. Miller advocated "... the use of rBST to help increase the supply of milk and decrease current fluid milk price to consumers."

Miller was quick to point out that: "Bad-faith efforts by biotechnology opponents to portray rBST as untested or harmful, and to discourage its use, keep society from taking full advantage of a safe and useful product. The opponents' limited success is keeping the price of milk unnecessarily high."

Irony

The sad think is that no milk is free of BST; all milk contains BST and numerous other hormones, all produced naturally by our cows. In fact, all milk contains some hormones, and human milk can contain significantly greater amounts of progesterone and/or estrogen than good old bovine milk.

But, is there really a consumer worry?

For 12 years, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) has commissioned Cogent Research, an independent survey firm, to conduct a quantitative assessment of consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology and safety. The last survey was conducted at the end of July 2007. The study found that "consumer familiarity and overall impression of food biotechnology remains little changed from a year ago". Thus, the situation is certainly not deteriorating. In fact, changes were almost all in a positive direction.

Favorable

Favorable impression of animal biotechnology increased by 26% between 2006 and 2007. Nearly two-thirds of respondents answered that they were "somewhat" or "very likely" to buy meat, milk, and eggs from animals enhanced through genetic engineering.

In addition, two-thirds of consumers (66%) said that they had a positive impression of animal biotechnology when informed that "animal biotechnology can improve quality and safety of food", up from 59% last year. These numbers hardly support the claim by some that consumers are opposed to biotechnology in general and rBST in particular.

So who is stirring the pot?

What must be realized is that a small but very vocal group of activists have seized this issue in an effort to divide the dairy industry. In case you have never been a proponent of rBST and are considering its removal by so-called "market forces" a kind of a blessing, you may want to find out with whom your position on this issue associates you.

Opponents

Who are some of the opponents to the use of rbST? On the goveg.com website, you would find out that: "To keep producing milk, cows are forcibly impregnated through artificial insemination every year. The cow's babies are generally taken away within a day of being born - male calves are destined to veal crates, while females are sentenced to the same fate as their mothers."

"Mother cows on dairy farms can often be seen searching and calling for their babies long after they have been taken away. The mother cow will be hooked up several times a day to machines that take the milk intended for her calf. Through genetic manipulation, powerful hormones, and intensive milking, she will produce about three times as much milk as she would naturally."

You may want to reflect on this the next time that you hook up a cow to one of these horrible milking machines. And it gets worse.

Freegans

Freegans are also strongly opposed to biotechnology. In case you didn't know, freeganism is the latest lifestyle that is gaining notoriety. Freeganism is defined as a strategy for living "based on limited participation in the conventional economy and minimum consumption of resources." The lifestyle in question consists in salvaging discarded, unspoiled food from supermarket dumpsters that has passed the expiration date but is still edible.

According to Drover's Magazine, "Freegans claim that people sincerely committed to living the cruelty-free lifestyle espoused by vegans must strive to abstain not only from eating, wearing, and using animal skins, secretions (e.g., milk and its byproducts), flesh and animal-tested products, but must attempt to remove themselves from participation in the capitalist economy altogether as workers and consumers."

I suppose you can meet them near your local Kroger dumpsters, although it is unclear whether discarded milk from farms using rbST - still the norm at your Kroger store - can be consumed by freegans. Meanwhile, I'll keep drinking my hormone-laced milk produced by genetically manipulated cows, artificially inseminated, and milked by a horrific, nasty and awful milking machine.

Tax Advantaged Retirement Planning

Mr. Donald J. Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension at Lima (top of page)

In general, people do not put enough money aside for retirement. Furthermore, with life expectancies increasing, the nest egg required to fund a retirement has also continued to grow. Medical costs are increasing twice the rate of inflation, and Social Security will not be enough for a comfortable retirement. What should a person do? At least, fully fund Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), such as 401(k) or 403(b) plans, and if self-employed a SIMPLE IRA or Simplified Employee Pension (SEP). Often, money put into these plans are tax deferred or deductible, and at times, Uncle Sam even pays for some of it by an income tax credit.

For example, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 permanently extended the IRC Section 25b saver's credit. The non-refundable credit is calculated as a percentage of the qualified contributions made to a retirement account. The credit ceiling for any individual is $1,000. The percentage is based on annual gross income and filing status, and the credit phases out as income increases. Contributions qualifying for the credit include those made to traditional IRA, or Roth IRA, plus elective deferrals to I.R.C. 401(k) plans, I.R.C. 403(b) annuities, I.R.C. 457 governmental plans, SIMPLE IRA, SARSEP, and voluntary after-tax contributions to a qualified plan, such as the federal Thrift Saving Plan.

Form 8880, Credit for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions, is used to calculate the amount of the credit, which can be used to offset both income tax and alternative minimum tax. The income limits for each credit percentage increased for 2007 returns.

As an example, if a person that is married and files jointly with an adjusted gross income of $32,000, 20% of a $4000 IRA contribution would be eligible for a $800 tax credit. Even if a Saver's Tax Credit is not available because of higher adjusted gross income levels, the tax deferred aspect of retirement plan savings is still a valuable consideration (Table 1). For how much a person can contribute to various plans, see Tables 2 and 3.

Table 1. Savers Credit.¹

Credit Rate	MFJ Income	Head of Household	Single/MFS Income
50%	Up to $31,000	Up to $23,250	Up to 15,500
20%	$31,000 to 34,000	$23,251 to 25,500	$15,501 to 17,000
10%	$34,001 to 52,000	$25,501 to 39,000	$17,001 to 26,000

¹MFJ = Married filing jointly and MFS = married filing separate.

Table 2. Retirement plan contribution limits.¹

Year	IRA	Simple	401(k), 403(b) & SEP
2006	$4,000	$10,000	$15,000
2007	$4,000	$10,500	$15,500
2008	$5,000	TBA	TBA

¹IRA = Individual retirement account, SEP = simplified employee pension, and TBA = to be announced.

Table 3. Age 50 catch-up contribution limit.^1,2

Tax Year	IRA	Simple Plans	All Other Plans
2006	$1,000	$2,500	$5,000
2007	$1,000	$2,500	$5,000
2008	$1,000	TBA	TBA

¹The limit is adjusted annually for inflation in $500 increments.
²IRA = Individual retirement account and TBA = to be announced.

Some farm families are experiencing high incomes and should consider this as an opportunity to save for retirement. In the long run, it may pay a lot better than buying depreciable assets as a strategy to save tax dollars.

Now is the Time for Tax Planning

Mr. Donald J. Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Lima (top of page)

This time of year is a good time to do an income tax estimate. Cash basis tax payers have the opportunity to adjust income and expenses before December 31st. For example, if you are experiencing a low income year, consider selling enough farm products to take advantage of the standard deduction (Single is $5350 and Married is $10,700) and personal exemptions ($3400) which represent a “zero tax bracket” opportunity. Also, if livestock (other than poultry) held for any length of time for draft, breeding, or dairy purposes are sold because of weather-related conditions, the gain realized on the sale does not have to be recognized if the proceeds are used to purchase replacement livestock within 2 years from the end of the tax year in which the sale takes place. The 2-year replacement period is extended to 4 years if the weather condition that caused the excess sales also caused an area to be eligible for assistance by the federal government.

For farmers receiving crop insurance or disaster payments, there is an exception to the general rule that payments must be reported in the year they are received. It allows a cash-basis farmer to postpone reporting a crop loss payment by 1 year. (It does not allow the taxpayer to accelerate reporting the payment if the payment is received the year after a loss.) To qualify for the exception, a taxpayer must use the cash method of accounting and must be able to show that, under the taxpayer’s normal business practice, the income from the crop would have been reported in a year following the year of the receipt of the payment.

Farmers with high income have a number of options to save tax dollars. If they have children (that work on the farm), wages paid to them is a farm expense and is not subject to social security if the child is less than age 18. The single standard deduction is $5350; therefore, the child will pay no federal income tax up to that amount. Wages above this amount would be subject to a lower tax bracket than the parent as well.

If you use the cash method of accounting to report your income and expenses, your deduction for prepaid farm supplies in the year you pay for them may be limited to 50% of your other deductible farm expenses during the year (all Schedule F deductions except prepaid farm supplies). For livestock producers, you cannot deduct in the year paid the cost of feed your livestock will consume in a later year unless you meet all the following tests: 1) The payment is for the purchase of feed rather than a deposit, 2) The prepayment has a business purpose and is not merely for tax avoidance, and 3) Deducting the prepayment does not result in a material distortion of your income. Cash rent for next year can not be a prepaid expense; advanced payments must be deducted in the year that they apply.

The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 (SBWOTA), enacted May 25, 2007, increased the annual I.R.C. § 179 expense limitation and phase-out amounts for tax years that begin in 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010. The increased maximum annual expensing amount for the I.R.C. § 179 deduction is $125,000 for 2007 (subject to the phase-out threshold of $500,000).

Income averaging, using Schedule J, may also be an option for farmers with extra high income in 2007. It allows an elected portion of income for this tax year to be equally spread back over the previous three tax years, thus allowing unused, lower tax brackets from previous years to be applied to 2007 income.

Here are useful tables for your income tax planning:

Table 1. Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses.

If taxable income is:	The tax is:
Not over $15,650	10% of the taxable income
Over $15,650 but not over $63,700	$1,565 plus 15% of the excess over $15,650
Over $63,700 but not over $128,500	$8,772.50 plus 25% of the excess over $63,700
Over $128,500 but not over $195,850	$24,972.50 plus 28% of the excess over $128,500
Over $195,850 but not over $349,700	$43,830.50 plus 33% of the excess over $195,850
Over $349,700	$94,601 plus 35% of the excess over $349,700

Table 2. Single individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households).

If taxable income is:	The tax is:
Not over $7,825	10% of the taxable income
Over $7,825 but not over $31,850	$782.50 plus 15% of the excess over $7,825
Over $31,850 but not over $77,100	$4,386.25 plus 25% of the excess over $31,850
Over $77,100 but not over $160,850	$15,698.75 plus 28% of the excess over $77,100
Over $160,850 but not over $349,700	$39,148.75 plus 33% of the excess over $160,850
Over $349,700	$101,469.25 plus 35% of the excess over $349,700

Table 3. Capital gains rates (noncorporate taxpayers).

Category of Gain	Tax Rate
Gain on collectibles	28%
Unrecaptured Depreciation I.R.C. § 1250 gain	25%
Net long-term capital gain	15%
Reduced long-term capital gain rate if ordinary tax rate is 10% or 15%	5%

Recommendations for Special Needs Facilities

Mr. Gene McCluer, OSU Extension Educator, Hardin County (top of page)

As dairy producers plan to build new dairy facilities, a lot of time is spent on selecting and sizing the milking parlor and cow housing. A similar amount of time is well spent in designing special needs facilities. Special needs cows are cows and heifers from 21 days prior to calving (close-up) to 16 days after calving (fresh cows). This also includes high-risk lactating cows: those cows that produce milk which can be sold but need special attention, such as lame cows, older cows, slow milkers and cows that have just been released from the sick pen. These facilities also can be used to isolate mastitic and sick cows which have been treated, and from which milk must be withheld.

Special Facilities Needed for Special Animals

The transition from pregnancy to lactation represents the period of greatest challenge to the health and productivity of the dairy cow. The majority of metabolic and infectious diseases the cow will experience will occur in the first weeks of lactation. The sudden onset of milk production outpaces the animal’s ability to increase intake of nutrients placing the animal in negative balance for vital nutrients such as energy, protein and calcium. Cows failing this metabolic challenge can develop milk fever, ketosis and displaced abomasum. The hormonal changes associated with calving have a suppressive effect on the immune system of the animal, increasing its susceptibility to infectious diseases such as mastitis and Salmonellosis. To reduce disease and improve the productivity of the cow, we must design facilities and strategies to maximize feed intake and reduce “stress” on the transition cow.

Facilities for a number of activities will be needed in the special needs area. Special needs facilities may utilize lockups, a chute, palpation rails, a shipping area, a milking parlor, and maternity housing. The decision to use or not to use headlocks needs to be made early in the design process. If headlocks are installed along the feed barrier, many activities may be carried out in headlocks. The planning team must determine how all the activities are going to be performed by the management team. This facility must ensure the safety and well being of employees and minimize the stress on the dairy animals.

Grouping for Critical Nutritional Requirements

Close-up dry cows and springing heifers differ in nutritional requirements. Close-up cows have greater intakes and are more likely to develop milk fever than heifers. Close-up cows should be moved into a close-up pen 21 days prior to calving. The diet in this pen typically has greater concentrations of protein and energy as compared to the far off dry cow diet. In addition, the diet should be low in calcium and potassium or contain anionic salts with appropriate amounts of calcium and potassium to prevent milk fever.

Springing heifers may also benefit from a longer transition period than is normally allowed for cows. Thus, heifers and dry cows should be separated if possible. Milk fever is generally not a problem with heifers, but heifers may benefit from receiving the typical transition diet for 5 weeks rather than 3 weeks if they won’t get too fat. Thus, feeding a diet with higher levels of protein and energy without anionic salts for 5 weeks prior to freshening would be beneficial for heifers. Allowance in the special needs facilities must be made during the initial planning process if heifers are to be housed 28 to 35 days prepartum rather than 21 days.

Immediately (24 to 48 hours) prior to calving, close-up cows and heifers should be moved into a maternity pen with a well bedded area. Following calving, cows and heifers may be co-mingled or kept separate until the milk can be sold. This is the only area in the special needs facility where cows and heifers may be housed together. If the facilities allow, keeping the cows and heifers separated during this period is recommended. Cows and heifers should be segregated when they move out of the fresh non-sellable pen into the fresh pens. Cows and heifers should be housed in fresh pens for 14 days where rectal temperatures, dry matter intakes and general appearance can be monitored on a daily basis.

Additional Grouping Needs

Other pens for mature cows and heifers in the special needs facility can be a sick pen used to house cows treated with antibiotics and a high risk pen for lame cows and slow milkers producing sellable milk. An additional pen can also be supplied as a holding area for cows to be culled, dried off, or moved to another group of cows. Generally, a dry lot pen should be conveniently located near the shipping area. Space is needed near the maternity area to process and house calves after calving. Calf housing should be provided for the number of calves that will be born in a 24-hour period or sized according to the farm’s or calf grower’s pick-up arrangements.

With freestall housing, cows and heifers in the special needs facilities are housed in either free stalls or loose housing. There are advantages and disadvantages to the two different housing systems. Loose housing maximizes cow comfort but requires additional space, bedding material, and labor to maintain a sanitary environment. This is particularly true when organic bedding is used. Freestalls reduce the labor cost of maintaining the resting area.

Siting Special Needs Facilities

One of the issues with special needs facilities is where they will be located within the dairy facility. They will either be located near the milking parlor or at the back of the dairy barn. Locating these facilities near the milking parlor reduces walking distance to and from the milking parlor. It also allows employees who work in close proximity to the Parlor, to observe close-up cows. The advantage of locating the facilities at the back of the dairy barn is that it allows for easy movement to and from the special needs facilities of far-off dry cows, cull cows, and cows that have been dried off. Locating these facilities away from the main parlor may necessitate the need for a hospital milking parlor.

Handling Facilities for Special Needs Animals

Some guidelines have been established for handling facilities. A palpation rail is used to position a group of cows for rectal examination or insemination. The rails are 4 feet apart, with the neck rail about 32 inches high and an upper bar about 18 inches above it. The rump rail should be about 40 inches high. There needs to be 2 feet of space for their heads in front of the forward rail, and about 4 feet of working space behind the cows. Single lane chutes should be about 32 inches wide with walkways high enough on the sides so workers can reach over the fence, rather than through it. Squeeze chutes should have at least 3 or 4 feet of space all around. Space should be included for tools and medications used when handling cows. A tilting hoof trimming table requires an area of about 12 x 12 feet of floor space for the table and work area.

A pen for a sick cow should be at least 12 x 12 square feet, with water and feed provided. The pen should include a lockup and gate arrangement that allows one worker to catch the cow. There should be special equipment for supporting and manipulating sick or downer cows, and access from outside for delivery or removal of non-mobile cows.

For close-up and maternity pens, a typical herd will need space for 5% of the mature cows at any one time. To allow space for close-up heifers, increase this to about 7% of the herd size. Even more space may be required for herd growth or for non-uniform calving intervals.

A bedded area can allow groups of 6-10 cows to stay through calving. These pens should provide 150-200 square feet of well bedded area per cow. This is in addition to any area that is scraped along the feed bunk. A bedded area for 6-10 cows can have 100-150 sq. ft./animal if there is an adjoining 12’ x 12’ box stall for calving. Freestall housing for pre-fresh cows can be used, with adjacent maternity pens where cows are moved for calving. This method requires round the clock observation to prevent calving in free stalls. Freestalls should be larger than standard sizes for lactating cows to allow for their larger, pre-fresh size.

Post Fresh Housing

For post-fresh cows, during the two weeks following calving, providing a separate group and extra attention will typically result in improved performance throughout their lactation. This could be 5 to 6% of the milking herd. If using freestalls, provide extra large stalls with plenty of alley space for cow comfort. For cows unstable on their feet, a well bedded area with 75 to150 sq. ft. per cow is a good alternative. Good bedding maintenance is important to keep the enlarged udders clean. If headlocks are used, they should be 30 inches on center. It is best to use hospital or low curb headlocks to prevent further injury for a downed cow.

The special needs area also provides an excellent opportunity to reduce the risk of antibiotic contamination of milk, as treated animals can be effectively isolated from the lactating herd. This area can also be used to hold dry-off cows while they get a reduced ration for several days before milking is stopped, or if they are milked intermittently during the last week of lactation. This area should hold 0.5 to 0.7% of the milking herd and should provide feed, water, resting, and access to a loading chute.

Biosecurity Considerations

The special needs area provides an opportunity to manage risk through disease control measures. Animals housed in these facilities are particularly vulnerable to contracting new infections. This is especially true for fresh cows, which have suppressed immunity around the time of calving. The newborn calf is at risk to contract Johne’s disease (Mycobacterium paratuberculosis). Cleanliness and daily maintenance of the calving area and the special needs facilities are critical.

The highest risk for introduction of new disease into the herd comes from bringing in new cattle. An effective program of prescreening and isolation of new arrivals is an key element of an effective biosecurity program. A location for accepting, processing and quarantining new arrivals should be located at least one-half mile from the closest animal facility.

An additional biosecurity risk exists with movement of animals within multiple site operations. Consideration should also be given to cattle movement, people movement, vehicles and equipment, feedstuffs, birds, rodents, wild ruminants, and water and manure management. An effective biosecurity program needs to be provided in a written form and be clearly communicated to employees, consultants and visitors. Dairy farms should have appropriate signage to alert and remind people of the dairy’s policies and a drawing depicting the traffic flow plan for all activities on the farm.

Access to the special needs facilities should be limited to only those personnel that are necessary to carry out the daily activities. This minimizes the transfer in or out of organic material or contaminated equipment that could spread infectious diseases. Veterinarians, hoof trimmers, service persons, sales people and any other visitors to the dairy farm need to have easy access to defined areas where they are to perform their service.

References:

Proceedings of the 5th Western Dairy Management Conference, 2001, J.F Smith, Kansas State University and others.
Dairy Practices Council, Guidelines for Facilities for Special Needs Animals, No. 88, 2007, Robert Engle, Westfalia-Surge Inc., and Robert E. Graves, Penn State University.
Soybean Meal - They're Not All the Same
Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Soybean production is among the top for cash receipts for agricultural commodities in Ohio. In 2006, soybeans ($1.4 billion) ranked second to corn ($1.6 billion) for cash receipts. However, during this same time period, 1.5 more acres of soybeans were planted in Ohio than acres of corn. With the demand for corn to use in ethanol production, the balance between acreage of soybeans versus corn in Ohio has been titling more toward increasing production of corn, yet soybean production remains high. Right behind corn and soybeans relative to agricultural cash receipts in Ohio is dairy and poultry. Although we’re not just using a local, in-state market for soybean based products, the dairy and poultry industries in Ohio utilize a lot of the soybean meal (SBM) as a valuable animal feed. The value of this relationship between the crop and animal industries in the State is vital. If you haven’t noticed, the Ohio and American Soybean Associations have been advertised heavily during recent months the importance of the livestock industry to the market for soybean products.

Soybeans contain about 40% protein and 20% fat [dry matter (DM) basis]. Soybean meal has been a staple in animal diets for many years, to the extent that it is often not even viewed as a by-product from the oil extraction process. The “vegetable” oils that you purchase in the local grocery store are primarily soybean oil. The oil is primarily removed through a solvent extraction process, and this is very through in removing most all of the fat (about 1.5 to 3.0 % fat remains). The hull of the seed is removed, the seed is ground or flaked, the solvent hexane is used to extract the fat (hexane is then removed from the fat), and the meal is ground for uniform particle size. If the hulls remain separated (sold as a separate commodity), then the meal contains about 48% crude protein (about 54% CP, DM basis), but if the hulls are added to the meal, then the meal contains about 44% CP (about 50%, DM basis). These two feeds are readily available on the market. The protein in SBM is of high quality (based on amino acid profile), but much of this is degraded in the rumen compartment of ruminants. Increasing the supply of this high quality protein to the small intestine for digestion and absorption is worthwhile, and one of the ways to accomplish this is by heat processing of the SBM. Mechanically extracted SBM results whereby soybeans are reduced in particle size and exposed to extreme pressure to remove the fat. This process differs from solvent extraction in that more heat is generated, thus more of the protein becomes what we refer to as rumen undegradable protein (RUP), and less fat is removed (6 to 10% fat may remain depending on the processor).

Because of the value of RUP, mechanically extracted SBM may be worth 60% more than 44% CP SBM or 40% more than 48% CP SBM. The mechanically extracted SBM also contains more fat than solvent-extracted SBM which adds energy value to the feed. Why is this discussion so important at this time? There are two reasons: 1) with the increase in biodiesel production, more soybean oil is being extracted by mechanical extraction, even by small processors, and 2) with the high feed prices caused by the corn market for ethanol production, purchasing feed ingredients based on nutrient provided and costs is extremely important to farm profitability, especially when you consider that feed costs contribute more to the cost of food animal production than other variables. Some commercial sources of high RUP SBM are available, and some biodiesel producers are making efforts to market the resulting mechanically extracted SBM as a premium product. Some general considerations for purchasing such SBM sources are:
1. Although some heat application is good for increasing RUP, overheating during processing can reduce digestibility of protein in the small intestine. The SBM product should be deep yellow to light brown in color as a visual indicator for extent of heating.
2. Considerable variation can occur within a plant/facility on the efficiency of the extraction process, resulting in a variable amount of heat applied and amount of fat removed. For example, the amount of fat in mechanically extracted SBM in about 3 to 4 times more variable than in solvent-extracted SBM. So putting it in context, if you are purchasing the product based on relative high RUP and fat and the concentrations drop, then you are being over-priced for the feed. Assuring consistency of the product by the processor is very important to you as a buyer.
3. Some of the biodiesel producers are still refining their process, yet they have “product”, and some are quite small for the amount of SBM that they can provide relative to your needs. So your market can be quite valuable to them because you should be looking for a consistent supply of a high-quality product. Disruption in either of these two principles (supply and quality) means risk for you that must not be overlooked in pricing of the product by the processor. You are likely to be financially ahead by contracting SBM needs for a year from a large supplier than making intermittent purchases from a small processor and buying additional SBM on a non-contract basis from a large processor.
4. Current value of the SBM should be compared relative to the availability of other feeds based on nutrient profile and price (see price comparisons elsewhere in this newsletter in the article titled "Cost of Nutrients and Benchmarks of Profitability for Ohio Dairy Farms". All too often, feeding decisions are based on always feeding a certain commodity rather than from the approach of meeting the nutrient needs of the animals using more economically-price ingredients.
The SBM will remain an important feed ingredient for animal agriculture, and with the fuel production processes underway using oils and starch, some additional (new suppliers and increased amounts) protein feeds will be available to livestock producers.
Feed Sorting and Acidosis

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page)

On a semi-regular schedule, recent research that is interesting (at least to us) and may have direct application to dairy farms will be reviewed for the Buckeye Dairy News. The three abstracts discussed below were presented at the joint Dairy/Animal/Poultry Science meetings held this past July (J. Dairy Sci. 90, Suppl. 1).

A study from University of Minnesota (Endres and Espejo, Abstract 341, page 230) evaluated factors that promoted diet sorting. They collected data from 50 freestall herds in Minnesota. Sorting was quantified by measuring the particle size of the TMR (Penn State Particle Separator) when it was delivered to the pen, three times during the day, and immediately before new TMR was delivered.

1. On average, particle size of the diet increased as time after feeding increased. In other words, cows had a preference for small particles and left larger particles in the bunk. Larger particles tend to be forage and since forage usually contains more fiber than concentrate, intake of fiber would have been less than anticipated. Lower fiber diets and diets with inadequate particle size (i.e., insufficient ‘chewable’ pieces’) are associated with acidosis and its related problems, including hoof problems and milk fat depression. However, in this study at the herd level, there was no statistical relationship between sorting and milk fat percent or between sorting and cud chewing.

2. Sorting increased as the concentration of hay in the diet increased. Therefore, replacing a less coarse forage (for example, silage) with hay may reduce intake of fiber and chewable pieces and increase the risk of acidosis.

3. Sorting tended to increase as bunk space increased. If competition for bunk space was less, cows probably had more time to stand in front of the bunk and sort feed.

A study lead by Canadian and Swiss scientists (DeVries et al. and Dohme et al., abstracts 898 and 899, page 653) examined effects of diet and acidosis on sorting and cumulative effects of repeated bouts of acidosis. In those studies, cows were fed diets with 45 or 60% forage and after 2 weeks were given an ‘acidosis challenge’. The challenge consisted of restricting TMR intake for 1 day and then offering about 9 lb of a barley/wheat mixture to each cow. Cows were allowed to recover for 14 days and the challenge repeated two more times.

1. As in the Minnesota study, cows fed either diet selected against long particles, but cows fed the low forage diet also selected against very fine particles (in the pan of the 3-sieve Penn State separator). Cows apparently prefer to consume medium-sized particles, thus avoid extremes when formulating TMR.

2. After cows were challenged with acidosis, cows on the low forage diet selected for long particles and selected against fines to a greater degree than when not undergoing acidosis.

3. Severity of acidosis was greater for cows fed the low forage diet than the high forage diet.

4. Severity of acidosis increased as cows were exposed to more acidosis challenges. This occurred even though cows consumed less of the barley/wheat mixture after each acidosis challenge. During the first challenge, all cows consumed all of the wheat/barley mixture, but during the third challenge, only 3 of the 8 cows consumed all the grain. This means that cows become more susceptible to acidosis with repeated exposure, even though they attempt to remedy the situation by consuming less grain. The effect of repeated exposure to acidosis was greater for cows fed a diet with 45% forage compared with those fed a diet with 60% forage.

Take Home Messages:

1. Do not rely on a single measurement (e.g., sorting, cud chewing, milk fat, etc.) when assessing either the risk for acidosis or the presence of acidosis.

2. Adding hay to a diet can increase sorting and may increase the risk for acidosis. Avoid extremes in particle size of TMR (both long pieces and fines).

3. Repeated bouts of acidosis, even when separated by two weeks, have cumulative negative effects.

Feeding Newborn Calves to Thrive in Cold Weather

Mrs. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU Extension Center at Wooster (top of page)

The average temperature across northern Ohio last year was slightly more than 50°F. If the average temperature was the usual temperature, we would usually have decent conditions for raising neonatal calves. The lower critical temperature for calves from birth to 7 days of age is 55°F. In other words, calves do not require extra nutrients for maintenance until the temperature drops below 55° F assuming they are housed in a clean, dry, draft-free environment. Maintenance means the calves neither gain nor loose weight with all body systems functioning properly while maintaining a normal body temperature.

Between 7 and 30 days of age, calves can stand a little more cold stress before needing to consume extra nutrients to meet maintenance requirements, with the lower critical temperature in the 46° to 50°F range. After 30 days of age, the lower critical temperature drops to ~44°F.

As all calf feeders and anyone else who works outside on an Ohio dairy farm in winter knows, temperatures do not typically average 50°. Looking at the National Weather Service’s Climate Graphs for northern Ohio, Mansfield’s weather was fairly representative of conditions across the state with Toledo averaging a degree higher and Youngstown a degree lower.

In 2006, the average daily temperature was 32° F or less from mid-December thru February. Daily lows continued to dip below 32° F regularly thru mid April. To compound feeding challenges, temperatures fluctuated widely within that time period, with temperatures between January and March fluctuating from -8° F in February to 71° F a month later.

Maintenance Requirements for Neonatal Calves

So, how do we need to adjust nutrition for calves less than 3 weeks old in cold weather? Using the National Research Council (Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th rev. ed., 2001. Versions 1.0 computer program, 2000), let’s look at maintenance requirements first. With a 90 lb calf (Holstein heifer) and a 60 lb calf (Jersey heifer) as examples, we can see that a critical need for additional nutrition occurs as temperatures drop toward freezing (Table 1).

Table 1. 20:20 milk replacer dry matter (DM) needed to meet maintenance requirements for newborn calves.

Temperature,°F	60°	32°	15°	5°	-5°
90 pound calf	0.75	1.15	1.26	1.40	1.56
60 pound calf	0.55	0.85	0.93	1.07	1.15

Traditional industry milk replacer feeding recommendations are to feed large breed calves 1.0 lb of milk replacer powder split between two feedings per day (hence, the 8 ounce “cup”). When the weather is warm, that rate of feeding not only meets the 90 lb calf’s maintenance requirements but will also allow her to gain 0.5 lb/day of body weight.

However, as soon as the temperature drops, maintenance nutrient needs change dramatically. Between 60° and 32° F, both calves need 50% more milk replacer (DM basis) to simply meet maintenance requirements. Additional milk replacer must be fed beyond that if we expect the calf to grow. While the most dramatic change occurs in that first drop of almost 30° F, maintenance demands continue to increase as the temperature continues to drop.

During the first few weeks of life, nearly all of the calf’s nutrients come from their liquid diet, whether it comes from fresh milk, milk replacer, or a combination of the two. While we encourage starter consumption, it will not provide significant nutrients for the very young calves. Therefore, we will evaluate only milk-based diets in the following discussion.

Several factors are critical for newborn calves to thrive. An easy delivery in a clean, dry environment; quick feeding of enough quality colostrum leading to a successful transfer of passive immunity; and clean, dry and draft-free housing are just a few. Whether those factors were all met, or if the calf was stressed in some way, adequate nutrition will help her to maintain body condition and grow into a healthy calf that is able to fight off multiple challenges.

How Must Nutrition Change in Cold Weather?

Quite simply, the calf has to eat more. If she isn’t offered the nutrients, she simply won’t get them. If she doesn’t get enough nutrients, she will not grow in a “best case” scenario. More likely, if the deficiency lasts for any period of time, she will loose weight and her ability to fight off additional weather and disease challenges declines.

How much more milk or milk replacer these calves need is a function of temperature and our target rates of gain. Tables 2 through 4 illustrate DM requirements for our 60 and 90 lb calves receiving a 20:20 MR diet:

Table 2. Pounds of 20:20 milk replacer dry matter needed for maintenance and gain for a 90 lb heifer calf at declining temperatures.

Temperature, °F
Rate of gain	60	32	15	5	-5
0.0 lb/day¹	0.75	1.15	1.26	1.40	1.56
0.5 lb/day	1.00	1.45	1.50	1.70	1.80
0.75 lb/day	1.25	1.55	1.65	1.85	1.95
1.0 lb/day	1.60	1.70	1.80	2.00	2.20
1.5 lb/day	2.20	2.30	2.30	2.40	2.50

¹Maintenance diet.

Table 3. Pounds of 20:20 milk replacer dry matter needed for maintenance and gain for a 60 lb heifer calf at declining temperatures.¹

Temperature, °F
Rate of gain	60	32	15	5	-5
0.0 lb/day¹	0.55	0.85	0.93	1.07	1.15
0.5 lb/day	0.90	1.10	1.20	1.30	1.40
0.75 lb/day	1.20	1.20	1.30	1.40	1.50
1.0 lb/day	1.50	1.60	1.60	1.60	1.70

¹Maintenance diet.

Occasionally you will see the same amount of milk replacer supporting the same amount of growth at more than one temperature. In Table 3, this happens more than once. The given diet provides a finite amount of energy and protein available for growth once maintenance requirements are met. If protein is the limiting nutrient for growth, excess energy in the diet is stored as fat. Beyond an adequate body condition, we do not want to raise calves that are growing fat. We want them to add non-fat muscle, bones, etc. In the case of the 60 lb calf, if we desire a 1.0 lb/day rate of gain, the 1.6 lb of 20:20 milk replacer DM requirement provides enough protein for that level of gain. However, there is excess energy available which is sufficient to meeting increasing demands for energy to maintain the body during increasing cold stress until the temperature drops to 5° F where that diet is very well balanced. In other diets, energy is the limiting nutrient, and excess protein fed will be excreted by the calf.

Some farms feed fresh milk and may or may not pasteurize the milk. The exact composition of this milk will vary from day to day and farm to farm. The NRC program used to generate these tables provided fresh milk values of 3.175% protein and 3.85% fat. In milk with 12.5% solids, this would be equivalent to a 25:31 milk replacer analysis. Table 4 shows the milk dry matter maintenance and gain requirements for our 90 lb calf fed fresh milk.

Table 4. Pounds of 25:31 whole milk DM (3.175% protein and 3.85% fat) needed for maintenance and gain for a 90 lb heifer calf at declining temperatures.

Temperature, °F
Rate of gain	60	32	15	5	-5
0.0 lb/day¹	0.66	1.02	1.11	1.29	1.38
0.5 lb/day	0.90	1.25	1.35	1.50	1.60
0.75 lb/day	1.00	1.40	1.50	1.65	1.75
1.0 lb/day	1.30	1.50	1.65	1.80	1.90
1.5 lb/day	1.75	1.85	1.95	2.10	2.20

¹Maintenance diet.

Assuming that a typical calf bottle holds approximately half a gallon of liquid and if it is filled with fresh milk, it would deliver about a half pound of dry matter to the calf. On a per volume basis, the fresh milk at 25:31 provides more nutrients to our calf than a 20:20 milk replacer.

As temperatures spend more time near and below freezing, nutrition programs must be adjusted to provide calves nutrients for both maintenance and gain. While it is tempting to short the calves on milk or milk replacer dry matter to “force” them to eat starter and/or “save” money on milk replacer, calves less than three weeks old will start to eat grain, but will they either not gain or loose weight if underfed milk. Calves raised in those conditions will not have nearly the ability to deal with cold stress and fight off disease challenges that properly fed calves will.

How Should Additional Milk be Fed to Calves?

Healthy calves can easily eat more than the typical bottle or half gallon of milk or milk replacer fed at 12.5% DM per feeding. Actually, they would like to eat more than that. Large calves can and will eat a gallon per feeding. Small breed calves can handle a half to ¾ of a gallon with no adverse effects. If they have eaten most of their diet, but do not care to finish, do not force feed an otherwise healthy calf.

Calves are designed to handle 12.5% DM liquid diets (equivalent to fresh milk). Keeping diets close to this concentration is less likely to cause digestive issues than trying to concentrate more powder in a given volume of water. There is some suspicion that concentrated DM in liquid diets can contribute to the incidence of acute bloat syndrome, an infrequent, but usually fatal disease in neonatal calves.

Additional liquid intake will result in loose manure which should not be mistaken for scours. While calves can still contract scours when their manure is simply loose from a higher liquid intake, they will maintain a good appetite.

Feeding calves to gain does not decrease the need for good housing; clean, dry, fluffy bedding that calves can nestle down in; and top-quality care. Invest time and adequate nutrition in these calves. They are the future of your dairy farm business.

Release of eXtension for Dairy Cattle

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

eXtension (http://www.extension.org) is an educational partnership of more than 70 universities to help you improve your life every day with access to objective, research-based information and educational opportunities. The features of eXtension are: 1) provides information to you any time, any place, any format and on any Internet-ready device, 2) is available to you 24/7/365, whenever you need to make decisions to improve your life, to answer life questions, or to learn more about any topic available, 3) has the national shared strength of the Land Grant University System customized to focus on your needs where you live, 4) its content is dynamic and evolving, offering you timely information on topics that matter to you, and 5) complements and enhances the community-based Cooperative Extension System of the land-grant universities, a resource you now have at your fingertips. The topical areas in eXtension are referred to as Communities of Practice (COP). The internet content for the COP for Dairy Cattle (http://www.extension.org/dairy_cattle) was released on October 1, 2007, just in time for debuting at the World Dairy Expo.
Job Description Generator

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The OhioStateUniversity

Human resource management on a dairy farm is very critical to the success of the operation, and writing job descriptions for a position is important in the recruitment, hiring, and evaluation of farm employees. Penn State University, through their Dairy Alliance program, has developed an on-line resource for generating job descriptions. This resource may be of help to you and is located at: http://dairyalliance.psu.edu/hr/.
Results of State 4-H and Collegiate Dairy Judging Teams

Mrs. Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

For Ohio’s 4-H dairy judges, it was a very good year! After hours of practice in and around Ohio, the Ohio State Fair, Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin, over 3000 miles, and 40 plus host farms, 4-Hers took the spotlight at the Pennsylvania All American Contest. Not only did they emerge as the high team, Laura Gordon was high individual overall, and Jason Miley was high in reasons and 6th individual overall. Contributing to the team’s success were Curtis Bickel and Elizabeth Grim. All four combined to earn 1st in Guernsey, 3rd in Brown Swiss, and 4th in Jersey, and 5th in oral reasons. Individually, Laura was 3rd high in Ayrshire and 4th in Guernsey while Jason was 2nd in Guernseys.

At the national contest held in conjunction with World Dairy Expo, a team of Laura Gordon, Jason Miley, Curtis Bickel, and Greg Heiby placed 4th overall and 7th in reasons out of 30 teams competing. Jason achieved a rank of 7th high overall and proved that he could give reasons better than any other gentleman since he was 6th overall in reasons with 5 ladies above him. Laura placed 13th overall and was 19th in reasons. Laura and Jason both achieved “All American” status since they were in the top 25. For individual breed performance, the team was 5th in Ayrshire, 2nd in Guernsey, 4th in Holstein, and 9th in Brown Swiss.

The Ohio State University Dairy Judging team made up of Sherri Gress, Erin Bardall, Annie Specht, and Matthew Weeman also spent hours in and around Ohio, the Ohio State Fair, Kentucky, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin. These road trips covered 4000 miles and over 50 host farms! Not only did they travel with the 4-Hers, but they also spent time together with the ATI dairy judging team members in New York and at the Big E contest in Massachusetts. At this contest, Annie Specht was 2nd high individual. At the Pennsylvania All American contest, the team placed 4th. Annie earned 3rd place overall, with only 5 points separating her from the top score. She was also high individual for Brown Swiss and 6th in Guernsey. Erin Bardall achieved the high honors for the Holstein breed and a score of 49 for her reasons. The team was 2nd in Guernsey and 3rd in Holstein.

At the World Dairy Expo contest, 23 teams participated and after rescoring the contest two times, Annie concluded her dairy judging career as 6th high individual overall and 6th high in reasons. The team finished in the middle, but was 3rd high in Guernsey, 7th in Milking Shorthorn, and 8th in Red and White.

It was an absolute honor to travel with these fine young people. Coaches Bonnie Ayars and Bernie Heisner and assistant Kelly Epperly only have high praise for the experience. Much was learned about judging, but we also laughed and had fun, despite many late night sets of reasons. Points were scored at the contests, but also high marks were earned for the character of Ohio’s next generation. We would once again like to thank everyone for any of your input or contributions to the judging program.

4-H Dairy Judging Team (pictured): Jason Miley, Curtis Bickel, Elizabeth
Grim, and Laura Gordon. Coaches: Bonnie Ayars and Bernie Heisner.

Collegaite Dairy Judging Team (pictured): Matthew Weeman, Erin Bardall,
Sheri Gress, and Annie Specht. Coach: Bonnie Ayars.
Dairy Management Workshops Planned

Mr. Chris Zoller, OSU Extension Educator, Tuscarawas County

It may seem a long way off, especially as you are managing the fall harvest, but winter will be here before we know it and along with it comes a variety of outstanding Extension workshops and educational seminars to help you be a better dairy producer. This winter will be no different. A team of Ohio State University Extension educators and specialists applied for and successfully obtained a grant from the USDA North Central Risk Management Education Center to develop a three-day workshop to address three important topics all dairy producers will face. The workshops will be conducted at four locations across Ohio and are targeted at those producers who expect to be in the dairy business for the next twenty years.

Each day has its own theme and will address specific issues related to the successful management of a dynamic dairy industry. I am a Manager, is the theme of day one at all locations. This session will provide you the opportunity to learn more about yourself and those around you by completing a “Colors” exercise, identifying goals for your business, and developing a mission statement for your farm.

The theme for day two is Information I Need to Be a Better Manager and will focus primarily on the economics of dairy production and what future managers will need to know and understand as the industry changes. Topics will include determining your cost of production, evaluating business alternatives, and developing budgets for the business.

The final day is titled Managing for the Future. This session will focus on two important functions of operating a dairy business: having a well developed business plan and the need to manage labor.

Along with funding from the North Central Risk Management Education Center, an excellent group of co-sponsors has realized the need for this educational program and have agreed to assist with promotion and recruitment efforts. Our co-sponsors include: Farm Credit Services, Ohio Dairy Producers, Dairy Farmers of America, Land O’Lakes Purina Feed and Affiliated Dealers and Co-ops, and the Ohio Dairy Veterinarians Association.

Registration details will be available soon. If you have questions about the workshops, please contact Chris Zoller (330-339-2337) or Dianne Shoemaker (330-263-3799).
2007 Ohio Dairy Challenge Contest

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The OhioStateUniversity

The 2007 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held November 9-10 and was again sponsored by Cargill Animal Nutrition. The Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for undergraduates at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format whereby students are generally grouped into teams of three to four individuals, and the first place team receives $800, the second place team $300, and the third place team $200 from Cargill Animal Nutrition. The farm selected for the contest this year was Miedema Dairy in Circleville, OH, and it is owned by Andy and Itske Miedema. They built the facility during 2002 and began milking in it on December 24, 2002. The parlor is a double-12 parallel, and a second freestall barn was build in 2003. At present, they have about 550 cows, and construction is underway for a new free-stall barn whereby their herd can grow to 1000 cows. The Miedema’s have always welcomed students to their farm, e.g. they hosted the contest previously in 2004 and several faculty have taken classes to the facility or students in individualized training. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Friday afternoon, assessing the strengths and opportunities of the operation by interviewing the owners and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. During Friday evening, the teams spent about four hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities of the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation, and their final presentation had to be turned in on Friday evening. On Saturday morning, the students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges were Mr. Fred Martsolf (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Charles Garnder (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU), and Dr. K. Larry Smith (Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU). There were 6 teams and 25 students that participated in the program. The Awards Banquet was held on Friday, November 16 at the Buckeye Hall of Fame Café. The students among the teams that competed were: Team #1 (Second Place) – Kristen Heller, Stephanie Metzger, Danielle Stout, and Dionne Young; Team #2 (Third Place) – Sheryn Bruff, Alicia Kissell, Jeff Riethman, and Kyle Uhlenhake; Team #3 – Paige Gott, Grace Hill, Mark Lyons, and Renee Starkey; Team #4 – Erica Beathard, Sara Cole, Michele Runyon, Julie Schrader, and Marjorie Turpening; Team #5 – Matt Jackson, Craig Link, Jesse Whinnery, and Adam Zimmerman; and Team #6 (First Place) – Anton Henry, Allison Stammen, and Eric Weitzel. The top 4 individuals for the contest that were selected to potentially represent Ohio at the 2008 National Contest to be held April 4-5 and hosted by the University of Wisconsin were Anton Henry, Stephanie Metzger, Eric Weitzel, and Jesse Whinnery. The coach for the team will be Dr. Maurice Eastridge in the Department of Animal Sciences at Ohio State.
Dairy Policy and Market Watch

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page)

Market Watch

For dairy farmers, the milk price has been outstanding over the past 12 months. Will this price strength continue into 2008? To address his question, we will look to the futures market for some guidance. The included figure shows the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Class 3 futures price for each month in 2008. You can also find the premium or discount relative to the average announced Class 3 price for each of the months in 2008. The average is calculated for alternative time intervals starting with 3 years and ending with 14 years of Class 3 prices.

The January announced Class 3 price will be very near $19.35/cwt. The CME futures market is expecting a significant decline from this price to the February price of $16.95/cwt. The forecast prices for all of 2008 are in the range of $16.13/cwt for a low in May to the highs of $16.95/cwt for both February and March 2008. The premiums captured in this market are significant even for the 3 year average 2005 to 2007. These premiums hold well throughout the first quarter of 2008 and then fall off for the rest of the year.

The CME futures market is currently expecting a Class 3 price to average $16.66/cwt for all of 2008, with the near six-month price a bit higher at $16.99/cwt. The final six months will be down to an average of $16.33/cwt, which is excellent, if it were not for forecasts of $5/bu plus corn and $300/ton plus soybean meal prices for 2008. Increased cost of production will certainly eat into what otherwise would be excellent cash returns. You can find this chart at my Ohio Dairy Web 2008 website which is listed below. The chart is updated daily after the markets close.

Now looking ahead, it is clear that we need to focus on the four commodity prices, butter, cheese, whey and nonfat dry milk (NDM), to anticipate where the Class 3 and mailbox milk prices may be headed. With butter price back down toward levels equal to May 2006, we cannot expect this commodity to carry the load. Butter is now at the $1.20/lb level. Whey has retreated from its July high and is currently trading in the neighborhood of $0.40/lb. No real help from that commodity. This leaves cheese and NDM. Cheese is currently staying quite strong just above $1.70/lb. The NDM has seen its peak and is currently trading at $1.40/lb. While this appears low by recent high standards, you must recall that it was not that far back when NDM was trading at support of $0.80/lb.

Why are these two commodity prices staying high? Cheese demand has been only fair at these higher prices. Cheese manufactures are reluctant to increase production with the recent high milk prices. Cheese inventories are light and this means that cheese manufactures must buy to cover holiday contracts. Cheese export sales are strong with USDA FAS reporting that for the first nine months of the year, exports of cheese and curds are up 37% over the same period last year. We can expect some decline in the cheese price after the holiday season, but if the export demand remains strong, the market should not weaken dramatically. Therefore, the driver for Class 3 is the cheese market, thus where it goes so will the Class 3 price.

For more information on the dairy industry, prices, and policy, link to my OhioDairyWeb 2007 at: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/

Web links to Milk Marketing Information: Ohio Dairy Web - http://aede.osu.edu/programs/OhioDairy/; eDairy, Inc. - http://www.dairy.nu/
Dairy Policy and Market Watch

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University

Market Watch - 2008

For dairy farmers, the milk price has been outstanding over the past 12 to 13 months. Will this price strength continue into and throughout 2008? Clearly with significantly higher feed, and fuel and energy prices in 2008, it is critical to maintain adequate profitability on farms with hope that market prices do not collapse in the coming months.

To address his question, I will consider where this milk price strength has come from and what may lie ahead. The included table shows the average Class 3 and Class 4 milk price for 2006, 2007, and the first two months of 2008. In the table, you will find the contribution, both in dollars per hundredweight and as a percent of total milk price, by each commodity making up the price. For example, considering 2006, the Class 3 price averaged only $11.88/cwt. The butter market contributed $4.64/cwt (39%), the cheese market $6.26/cwt (53%), and the dry whey market $0.99/cwt (7%). Now look at the second column which shows the averages for 2007. The cheese and whey markets had taken off in an upward soar and contributed $10.51/cwt (58%) and an outstanding $2.39/cwt (14%) to the average Class 3 price of $18.04/cwt, respectively. The 2007 butter market increased modestly and added $5.14/cwt (29%) to the average Class 3 price.

In the lower section of the table, you will find the same dissection of the average Class 4 milk price. Back in 2006 this was only $0.82/cwt less than the Class 3 price. By the end of 2007, the Class 4 price had overtaken the Class 3 price as the all important Class 1 mover, averaging $0.32/cwt more than Class 3. Looking at the table, you can see that the impact of the dramatic rise in the market price of nonfat dry milk, averaging $0.87/lb in 2006 and increasing to $1.88/lb in 2007, was responsible for 72% or $13.22/cwt of the average 2007 Class 4 price of $18.36/cwt.

What lies ahead in the 2008 marketing year?

Now looking to 2008 it is clear that we need to focus on the four commodity prices, butter, cheese, whey, and nonfat dry milk (NDM), to anticipate where the Class 3 and Class 4 milk prices may be headed. With the butter price back down toward levels equal to 2006, we cannot expect this commodity to make a major contribution to either the Class 3 or Class 4 price. Whey has retreated to levels not seen since mid-2006 and is currently under $0.25/lb. Given current supply and demand conditions, I do not expect to see any real help from that commodity in 2008. This leaves cheese and NDM. Cheese is currently staying quite strong with the February 2008 price reported at $1.84/lb. The NDM peaked during December 2007 at the month average price of $2.10/lb. The NDM is currently trading at $1.30/lb on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Why are these two commodity prices staying high? Cheese demand is only fair at these prices. Cheese manufactures are reluctant to increase production with these high milk prices. Cheese inventories are light and this means that cheese manufactures must buy to cover holiday contracts. Cheese export sales are strong with USDA FAS reporting that for the first nine months of the year, exports of cheese and curds are up 37% over the same period last year. We can expect some decline in the cheese price after the holiday season, but if the export demand remains strong, the market should not weaken dramatically. Therefore, the driver for Class 3 is the cheese market where it goes so will the Class 3 price.

Turning to the Class 4 milk price, it is apparent that NDM market has been phenomenal over the past 15 to 16 months. This has been driven by an almost insatiable export demand. Now, we are beginning to see some real weakness in this market. Domestic NDM production and inventories are heavy as could be expected with plus $2/lb prices and domestic and international demand has slowed. According to the USDA FAS, export volumes are fulfilling past contract obligations and new contracts are slow to materialize. Export sales for the first nine months of 2007 have declined by 18% as compared to the same period in 2006. Domestic cheese manufactures will increase NDM use as the price falls below $1.30/lb and this will help provide support. The driver for the Class 4 price is the NDM market. Where the NDM market goes over the next 9 months will determine what happens to the Class 4 price.

For more information on the dairy industry, prices, and policy, link to my OhioDairyWeb 2008 at: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/

Web links to Milk Marketing Information: Ohio Dairy Web - http://aede.osu.edu/programs/OhioDairy/; eDairy, Inc. - http://www.dairy.nu/
rbST Safety Around the World
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page)

Summary
- rbST has not been legislatively banned in any country because of human safety concerns.
- Currently, rbST is registered for commercial sale in 20 countries. In addition, 56 countries have confirmed that rbST is safe and pose no human safety threats.
- The current legislation does not allow the use of rbST within European Union (EU) member countries, but it allows imports of milk and dairy products from rbST animals into the EU.
Details
- Technically speaking, no country has a regulatory ban on rbST. Registration of rbST for commercial use has simply not been completed in many countries. Some have imposed a legislative ban.
- No country has banned the importation of milk or milk products from the U.S. or from any of the countries where rbST has been approved and registered. Milk from cows supplemented with rbST can be exported anywhere in the world (U.S. Dairy Export Council).
- There are 20 countries that have a current registration of rbST for commercial sale. Chile is the most recent country to grant registration in 2006.
- There are 56 countries that have confirmed that rbST is safe and does not threaten the human food chain; these include Canada and most countries members of the EU.
- Although there are countries in which rbST has not received registration for commercial sale, the process is generally still open. In some countries, however, the process has been suspended or blocked (banned) through a legislative ban, mostly for political and economic reasons.
- The list of national and international scientific/medical/health/government organizations that have confirmed the human safety of milk and meat products from cows supplemented with rbST is very lengthy and include (not an exhaustive list):
  American Cancer Society; American Council on Science and Health; American Dietetic Association (ADA); American Medical Association (AMA); Canadian Animal Health Institute; Canadian Dietetic Association; Canadian Institute of Biotechnology; Canadian Medical Association; Canadian Network of Toxicology Centres; Canadian Pediatric Society; Children's Nutrition Research Center; Baylor College of Medicine; Council on Agricultural Science & Technology; European Union's Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Food and Nutrition Science Alliance; Food Marketing Institute; Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA); Health Canada; Institute of Food Technologists (IFT); International Dairy Food Association (IDFA); Joint FAO and WHO (World Health Organization), Expert Committee on Food Additive (JECFA); National American Wholesale Grocers' Association; National Dairy Council; National Institute of Health (NIH); Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons; The American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation; The Ohio State University - College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences; Toronto Biotechnology Initiative; University of California - Berkely; University of California - Davis; U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA); U.S. Food and Drug Administration - Response to Citizen Petition on bST; U.S. Dairy Export Council; U.S. Surgeon General Office
Some have erroneously stated that "Codex Alimentarius, the United Nations main food safety body, TWICE decided it could not endorse the safety of rBGH for human health". This statement is incorrect. The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines, and related texts, such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting the health of the consumers, ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations. The FAO/WHO has stated very clearly its position regarding the human safety of rbST:

After examining new evidence, an FAO/WHO independent scientific committee has reconfirmed that the treating of cows with the hormone bovine somatotropins (sic), known as BST, to increase milk production is safe. The Committee concluded that there are no food safety or health concerns related to BST residues in products such as milk and meat from treated animals. (http://www.fao.org/news/1998/980301-e.htm)

The Codex Alimentarius never did question the human safety of rbST. Twice it failed to reach a consensus regarding maximum residue limits (MRL) for products from rbST supplemented animals. During its 22nd session, the commission decided to suspend the consideration of the adoption of MRL for bovine somatotropin. The Chairperson of the Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods reported that the Fiftieth Meeting of JECFA had re-evaluated bST and that the previous MRL "not specified" for bST were confirmed when the substance was used in accordance with good veterinary practice. The Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, however, had been unable to reach a consensus on the adoption of the MRL because (1) some argued that MRL were unjustified based on JECFA 's finding, and (2) due to the lack of defined methods of analysis.

Statements such as "European nations and Canada have banned rbGH to protect citizens from IGF-I hazards" are grossly incorrect. In 1999, the Council of the European Union (a legislative body) decided to definitely ban the possible use of bovine somatotropin (rbST) in the EU. In support of its ban, it invoked animal welfare reasons. Prior to that decision, the European legislators had invoked different reasons, especially the impact on the European dairy policy, with varying success. Concerns over public safety were always cleared by the competent scientific committee, the Committee of Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP). In other instances, European Courts found concerns to be unfounded. Despite the scientific finding of safety to human and public health, which should have led to the establishment of a MRL, the EU legislative body decided to ban rbST. The current legislation does not allow the use of rbST within EU member countries, but it allows imports of milk and dairy products from rbST animals into the EU. If consumer safety was a concern, it would be hard to follow the logic of an approach that considers a product unsafe for consumers in the EU if it is administered within the EU, but safe if it comes from animals treated in other countries.

Adapted from "Bovine Somatotropin Safety around the World" by Dr. Terry Etherton, The Pennsylvania State University.
Testing Milk for rbST
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page)

Summary
- Tests based on monoclonal antibodies cannot distinguish rbST in the presence of the four other variants in milk. The theoretical concentration of rbST in milk under normal use is so low and the rbST molecule is so similar to the non-recombinant variants, that it is unlikely that any antibody-based method, especially monoclonal, will ever be successful at detecting milk from cows supplemented with rbST.
- A test based on changes in the fatty acid binding protein (FABP) appears unlikely to ever differentiate milk from rbST supplemented cows because so many factors affect the maintenance of mammary cells, and thus, FABP.
- It appears unlikely that a rapid, accurate, and sensitive test for detecting rbST supplementation in dairy cows using milk samples will be derived anytime soon.
Details
1. A paper by Erhard et al. (1994) based on a possible antigenic difference of recombinant and pituitary bovine growth hormone raised the possibility of using monoclonal antibody techniques to test for the presence of rbST in serum and milk of dairy cows. Unfortunately, the technique cannot distinguish recombinant bST in the presence of the four other variants in milk. More recent work has lead to the same conclusion. For example, a recent paper by Castigliego et al. (2007) showed the possibility of testing for some forms of rbST using immunodetection with a sandwich ELISA. The authors, however, concluded that the method's "discrimination ability still cannot provide support for any lawsuit, confirming the difficulty in immunologically discriminating rbST prom pituitary bST, especially if recombinant molecules with extremely reduced differences in primary sequence are involved. In fact, the more recent commercialized molecules overlap with one of the major natural NH2-terminus variants, representing a considerable problem in making an immunologically based assay that will discriminate effectively".
  
  The challenge of developing a test to specifically distinguish rbST in milk is several times more complex than finding any bST due to the fact that there are four natural forms (variants) of bST produced by dairy cows. The rbST in Monsanto's Posilac is derived from one of these variants.
  Monsanto did not put a "tag" on rbST. There is a methionine amino acid in the # 1 position on Monsanto's rbST molecule. It appeared there as a result of the recombinant process and was not removed because it had no impact on biological activity. Because all cows have a minimum of either 2 or 4 variants of bST (and there are actually more variants based on research conducted at Ohio University in the 1990's), each of two different lengths (190 or 191 amino acids), the methionine in the #1 position on Monsanto's rbST molecule can be viewed as either an additional amino acid to one of the 190 amino acid molecules resulting in a 191 variant, or a substitution of the first amino acid in one of the 191 variants. It is not involved in binding or the 3-D structure of the molecule. Because the methionine in the #1 position of the rbST molecule is in a non-biologically active portion of the molecule and does not change the bioactivity of the rbST molecule from its parent bST molecule, the FDA did not require its removal.
  
  The fact that the #1 position is a non-biologically active part of the molecule makes it EXTREMELY difficult to detect any changes that occur there. The challenge is trying to find a miniscule difference in an infinitesimally small amount. The amount of bST in raw milk is so small, (0.5 ng/ml, or 500 parts per trillion; Schams, 1990) it approaches the lower-limit of being detectable at all.
2. More recently, a patent was issued in 1997 to Dr. R. C. Gorewit of Cornell University for a test based on associated changes in a protein referred to as FABP (fatty acid binding protein). The test is based on comparing rates of phorphorylation of FABP. This involves the isolation of globular membranes that surround the milk fat droplets and purifying them by column chromatography techniques. The FABP fraction is then collected and concentrated by ultra-filtration. Finally, samples of the FABP preparation are incubated with radioactive phosphate (gamma 32P-ATP) and the extent of radioactive 32P incorporation is determined. The basis for this test has since been published by Spitsberg and Gorewit (2002). Dr. Gorewit ideas were somewhat speculative and were based on very limited work. Neither he nor anyone else has demonstrated an actual relationship between FABP in milk and use of rbST.
  The FABP is related to maintenance of mammary cells, and thus, varies widely. Factors such as milk yield, persistency of lactation, stage of lactation, pregnancy, parity, breed, diet, season, environmental temperature, and animal health all affect the maintenance of mammary cells. All of these factors would give expected changes in FABP similar to what is speculated to occur with rbST. This patent has since expired due to the owner of the patent failing to pay the renewal fees.
  
  Any test for rbST would require validation, including reasonable estimates of repeatability, sensitivity, variability, and accuracy. None of these have been reported for the FABP hypothetical method, and it is doubtful whether the actual methods used for FABP could ever meet reasonable minimum standards.
In spite of the huge economic incentive to develop a test for detecting milk from cows supplemented with rbST, such a test has not emerged and is nowhere close on any radar screen. Thus, it appears highly unlikely that a rapid, accurate and sensitive test for the detection of rbST in milk will be derived anytime soon. Also, because all constituents in milk from rbST supplemented cows are in the normal concentration ranges found with non-supplemented cows, it appears very unlikely that a rapid, accurate, and sensitive test to detect rbST use from constituents in the milk of rbST supplemented cows will be found in the near future.

(References are available on request.)

The Safety of Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I (IGF-I)

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University

Summary

The IGF-I in human plasma is found at concentrations that are 10.5 to 77 times greater than that in bovine milk.
The IGF-I concentration in bovine milk is quite variable regardless of whether the animals are supplemented with rbST or not. Many factors such as herd, stage of lactation, parity, and diet affect IGF-I concentrations to a greater extent than rbST supplementation.
Compared to gastrointestinal secretions in adults, bovine milk has in fact a very low IGF-I concentration. Daily ingestion from saliva and other digestive secretions in a normal adult equals the amount of IGF-I found in 95 quarts of milk.
Endogenous daily IGF-I secretions (i.e., body production) equal the IGF-I found in 3000 quarts of milk.
There has been some reports documenting an association between serum IGF-I and the risk of certain cancers. It is generally thought that the cancer cells are responsible for the elevated serum IGF-I and not the other way around. Regardless, the total daily IGF-I intake from milk is so low compared to endogenous secretions (less than 1% assuming that all IGF-I consumed is absorbed) that it seems highly unlikely that cancer would be directly related to IGF-I intake.

Details

One area of concern regarding the safety of rbST is that IGF-I in milk results in elevated IGF-I levels in humans after they consume milk from cows supplemented with rbST. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintained and continues to maintain that "levels of IGF-I in milk whether or not from rbGH supplemented cows are not significant when evaluated against the levels of IGF-I endogenously produced and present in humans".

The IGF-I is normally found in human plasma at concentrations much higher than those found in bovine milk (Schaff-Blass et al., 1984). The levels in human plasma range from a low in neonates of 14 ng/mL to a high of 686 ng/mL in late pubertal females. The mean values of IGF-I concentrations in human plasma are between 42 and 308 ng/mL.
The mean serum IGF-I concentration in cows not supplemented with rbST is approximately 4 ng/mL at mid lactation (Collier et al., 1991). In this survey of 100 bulk tanks from farms not utilizing exogenous somatotropin supplementation, the mean IGF-I concentration was found at 4.3 1.1 ng/mL, with a range of 1.3 to 8.1 ng/mL. In another study (Juskevich and Guyer, 1990), milk samples from 5 commercial dairy herds not supplemented with rbST had a mean IGF-I concentration of 2.54 ng/mL.
Reported percentage increases in IGF-I concentrations in milk of rbST supplemented cows are deceiving and misleading because the levels of IGF-I in milk are so low prior to any increase. The IGF-I concentration in milk of rbST supplemented cows is increased by 2 to 3 ng/mL (Juskevich and Guyer, 1990; Torkelson et al., 1988), thus leading to the 50 to 100% increase often stated. Nowhere can one find in the scientific literature a 10- fold increase (1000 %) in serum IGF-I concentration from rbST supplementation as has been stated in public comments and various internet sites. In addition, the effect of farm, parity, and stage of lactation have a greater effect on serum IGF-I concentrations than rbST supplementation (Collier et al., 1991).
The total daily production of IGF-I (the endogenous production) in an adult is approximately 10,000,000 ng/day (Guler et al., 1989). Gastrointestinal secretions in adults are estimated at 357,400 ng/day (Chaurasia et al. 1994; Vander, Sheman and Luciano (ed.), 1990). Thus, the daily IGF-I from saliva and other digestive secretions equal the IGF-I in 95 quarts of milk. The IGF-I from whole body production equal to the IGF-I in 3,000 quarts of milk. Milk is just a very low source of oral IGF-I. In fact, the IGF-I concentration in saliva is more than 50% greater than that of milk.

Table 1. Volume and IGF-I concentrations in gastrointestinal secretions of human adults.

Secretion	Volume (mL/day)	Concentration (ng/mL)
Secretion	Volume (mL/day)	Range	Average
Saliva	1500	2.8 - 9.1	6.3
Gastric juice	2000	11.2 - 73.5	24.5
Intestinal secretions	1500	22.4 - 294.7	172.2
Pancreatic juice	1500	3.5 - 56.7	25.2
Bile	500	4.2 - 7.7	6.3

The IGF-I comprise one-tenth of one millionth of total milk proteins. It is digested in the gastrointestinal tract like other dietary protein. There is little to no direct absorption of IGF-I (NIH, 1990; Houle et al, 1995; Phillips et al., 1995). In fact, a massive dose of IGF-I administered orally (8.45 µg/day) resulted in an increase of less than 5 nmol/L in serum IGF-I in training athletes (Mero et al. 1997). Interestingly, a one hour training session has a greater impact on serum IGF-I than the oral supplement.
The IGF-I is normally found in human breast milk in concentrations higher than those found in bovine milk. The IGF-I concentrations in human milk ranged between 13 and 40 ng/mL (Corps et al., 1988; FDA, 2000). These levels are 3.25 to 15.7 times greater than those of bovine milk.
There has been some reports of increased IGF-I serum concentrations after humans consume milk (e.g., Heaney et al. 1999). The IGF-I increased observed in this study must be viewed in light of the total daily adult endogenous production of IGF-I, which is in the milligram range while the daily levels of IGF-I consumed in milk are in the microgram range - this is a thousand fold difference (FDA, 2000). Even if all the IGF-I in 1.5 liters of milk was directly absorbed - which it is not - the plasma IGF-I would be altered by a maximum of 1%. Well-controlled studies have reported no significant change in serum IGF-I levels over a 2 year period for women supplemented with four 8-ounce glass of milk for the duration of the trial (Storm et al., 1998).
Some have asserted a connection between increases in levels of IGF-I and breast, prostate, and lung cancer (Chan et al., 1998; Hankinson et al., 1998; Yu et al., 1999). These papers note a possible relationship between increased risks for these cancers and elevated levels of IGF-I, but none of them showed a causal relationship. In fact, one paper states "that the increased IGF-I plasma levels may be part of the phenotype [i.e., expression] of certain types of cancer." Thus, the cancerous cells themselves may promote IGF-I to maintain accelerated cell cycle (FDA, 2000). The presence of oxygen (air) is essential to start and maintain a fire, but it does not cause the fire. In addition, these cancers generally appear much later in life than peak IGF-I which occurs in late puberty. Also, strenuous exercise increases IGF-I concentrations without having any positive association with these cancers.

(References are available on request.)

The Environmental Impact of rbST

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University

Summary

Often forgotten in the rbST debate is the positive environmental impact of technology in general, and rbST in particular.
A recent study calculated the amount of various pollutants that are not produced from one million dairy cows supplemented with rbST. Manure excretion is reduced by 3.3 billion pounds per year. The emission of CO₂ equivalents is reduced by 1.3 billion pounds per year - the equivalent of over 350,000 family cars.

Details

What has often been forgotten in the debate about the use of rbST is the very favorable impact that technologies such as rbST have on our environment. A recent study conducted by Capper et al. (2007) at Cornell University calculated the amount of various pollutants that are not produced and released into the environment from one million dairy cows supplemented with rbST. The numbers are staggering.

Millions and billions of pounds

Nitrogen excretion is reduced by more than 15 million lb/year; phosphorus excretion, by more than 3 million lb/year. The excretion of manure is reduced a phenomenal 3.3 billion pounds per year - that's billion with a "b". The emission of CO₂ equivalents (a form of universal "currency" to express green gas emission) is reduced by 1.3 billion pounds per year. As can be seen in Table 1, rbST has a significant and positive impact on our environment. Viewed this way, rbST is in fact a green technology.

Technology is green

Invariably, technology is being researched and used to address all sort of environmental concerns. Hydrogen fuel cells are being developed to power our cars in the future. High-technology synthetic compounds are being developed to improve the insulation of our homes. In fact, across all other industries, technology is the common denominator to finding green remedies to environmental problems. Technology is green. In dairy, we already have green technologies. They are called artificial insemination, rumen inert fats, synthetic vitamins, teat disinfectants, 3 times-a-day milking, sprinklers, rbST, organic minerals, estrus synchronization, sire proofs, fans, cation-anion balance, rumen buffers, pedometers, direct-fed microbials, rumen-protected amino acids, etc.

Table 1. Current annual resources saved from 1 million rbST-supplemented dairy cows.¹

Nitrogen excretion (lb/year)	15,651,950
Phosphorus excretion (lb/year)	3,086,300
Manure excretion (lb/year)	3,284,705,000
Methane emission (lb/year)²	54,230,700
Nitric oxide from manure (lb/year)	15,454
CO₂ equivalents (CH₄ and N₂O; lb/year)	1,252,156,000
Herbicides (lb/year)	192,012
Insecticides (lb/year)	40,122
Fossil fuels³ (MJ/year)	199,000,000
Electricity (kWh/year)	52,000,000

¹ Adapted from Capper et al., 2007
² Includes methane from enteric fermentation and methane emitted by manure fermentation.
³ Only includes fuel used for cropping.

(References are available on request.)

Costs and Returns on Ohio Dairy Farms

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University

A chart is attached which shows the net returns to dairying in Ohio by month over the 2003 through 2008 period. Net returns are expressed per hundredweight of milk. The data source is the USDA Cost and Returns data for Ohio. Gross returns are calculated for Ohio using the monthly Ohio Mailbox price. The mailbox price for January and February 2008 were based on projections. Non milk income and Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) income is not included in the calculation of gross return. As you can see, over the long pull, net returns are generally negative on the typical Ohio dairy farm. However, 2008 stands out as a stark exception. With the mailbox price declining and input costs continuing to rise, the net return has declined substantially for the first two months of 2008. Without a strong rebound in the skim milk powder and whey markets, this may hold for the remainder of 2008.

For more information on the dairy industry, prices, and policy, link to my OhioDairyWeb 2008 at: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/

Cost of Nutrients and Benchmarks of Profitability for Ohio Dairy Farms

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University.

As we do in all issues of this newsletter, we used current market prices of 29 feed commodities traded or available in Ohio to determine the implicit costs of nutrients and estimate break-even prices of all these commodities using the SESAME^TMsoftware developed here at Ohio State. Results for the nutrient costs are reported in Table 1.

Net energy for lactation is still at a very high price, close to two times more expensive than at this time last year; NE_L price has averaged $0.089/Mcal since August 2004. Likewise, metabolizable protein (MP: the sum of digestible rumen undegradable protein and digestible microbial protein from the estimated rumen fermentation of the feed) has also nearly doubled in price. Its implicit price is currently much greater than its long-term average ($0.193/lb since August 2004). The non-effective fiber fraction is currently severely discounted in the feed markets (its long-term average is -$0.076/lb). Effective NDF, however, is currently in its normal historical range ($0.018/lb since August 2004). Thus, from a formulation standpoint, attention should be given to dietary energy (NE_L) and MP, making sure that rations contain minimum margins of safety. Increasing dietary non-effective NDF (possibly by reducing starch) should lower the cost of the ration by about $0.15 for each pound of additional ne-NDF.

Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

Nutrient name	April 2007	March 2008	April 2008
Net energy for lactation - 3X (NRC, 2001; $/Mcal)	0.088	0.162	0.154
Metabolizable protein ($/lb)	0.165	0.288	0.294
Non-effective neutral detergent fiber (ne-NDF; $/lb)	-0.070	-0.147	-0.126
Effective NDF ($/lb)	0.002	0.002	0.014

Table 2. Grouping of feed commodities, central Ohio, April 2008.

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Bakery byproduct	Alfalfa hay - 44% NDF	Beet pulp
Corn grain	Blood meal	Canola meal
Corn silage	Brewers grains, wet	Citrus pulp
Distillers dried grains	Cottonseed meal	Whole cottonseed
Feather meal	Meat meal	Corn gluten meal
Corn gluten feed	Roasted soybeans	Soybean hulls
Hominy	Wheat bran	Soybean meal, 44% CP
Molasses		Tallow
Expeller soybean meal
Soybean meal, 48% CP
Wheat middlings

Table 3. Commodity assessment, central Ohio, April 2008.

Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Lower limit ($/ton)	Upper limit ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP	127	189	157	220
Bakery Byproduct Meal	240	280	266	295
Beet Pulp, dried	390	176	--	--
Blood Meal, ring dried	670	638	602	674
Brewers grains, wet	45	49	44	54
Canola Meal	297	253	240	266
Citrus Pulp, dried	236	216	204	227
Corn Grain, ground dry	225	282	268	295
Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM	38	78	68	88
Cottonseed Meal, 41% CP	295	306	291	321
Cottonseed, whole w lint	366	310	270	350
Distillers Dried Grains, w/solubles	180	260	240	280
Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal	490	525	501	549
Fish Meal, Menhaden	940	546	--	--
Gluten Feed, dry	189	230	215	244
Gluten Meal, dry	574	532	507	556
Hominy	210	240	227	253
Meat Meal, rendered	435	444	427	460
Molasses, sugarcane	170	208	196	220
Soybean Hulls	194	100	66	134
Soybean Meal, expellers	414	453	436	470
Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP	395	356	345	368
Soybean Seeds, solvent 48% CP	384	404	390	417
Soybean Seeds, whole roasted	482	468	447	490
Tallow	750	696	650	742
Wheat Bran	163	149	126	172
Wheat Middlings	141	178	158	198

Appraisal Set
Name	Actual ($/ton)	Predicted ($/ton)	Corrected ($/ton)
Alfalfa Hay - 38% NDF, 22% CP	--	220	249
Alfalfa Hay - 48% NDF, 17% CP	--	171	152

As usual, we used these results in combination with Class III component prices for Federal Order 33 to calculate a benchmark for feed costs (which are really nutrient costs) and income over nutrient costs (Table 4). In this column, we have in the past been using figures for a hypothetical Holstein cow producing 75 lb/day at 3.6% fat and 3.1% protein. From now on, costs and income figures will be calculated for a cow more representative of the average cow in Ohio, with a milk production of 65 lb/day, at 3.6% fat, 3.0% protein, and 5.7% other solids. In addition, all results will now be expressed on a per hundredweight basis.

Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, central Ohio.¹

	April 2007	March 2008	April 2008
	----------------------- $/cwt ----------------------
Milk income	16.26	18.18	16.94
Nutrient costs	5.62	9.12	9.07
Income minus nutrient costs: The Cow-Jones Index	10.64	9.06	7.87

¹Costs and income for a 1400 lb cow producing 65 lb/day of milk, with 3.6% fat, 3.0% protein, and 5.7% other solids. Component prices are for Federal Order 33.

Although milk prices are still very good from a historical basis, the large increase in the costs of providing the required nutrients to our cows (i.e., feed costs) has increased markedly. Since August 2004, the price of our standardized milk has averaged $15.12/cwt. The current standard milk price is close to $2 above this average. Nutrient costs, however, are now $3.51/cwt greater than the $5.56/cwt average over than same time span. Consequently, the amount of revenues left to cover all other expenses - the income minus nutrient costs, an index that we have named the Cow-Jones Index - has fallen to $7.87/cwt, which is $1.69/cwt under the $9.56/cwt that the index has averaged since August 2004. In prior year, when energy prices were considerably lower, a value of $8.00/cwt for the Cow-Jones Index was a good estimate of the break-even level of producing milk in this state. We now estimate that the break-even for the Cow-Jones Index is somewhere around $9.00/cwt.

Taking Control of Feed Costs
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension (top of page)

I remember thinking that $3.00/bu for corn was outrageous, that $300/ton for soybean meal was a rip-off, and that $200/ton for cottonseed must have been a revenge of the Confederates. How much I would like to see these prices again!

We've had high corn prices in the past; we've experienced high soybean meal and cottonseed prices also. Some years, hay has been very expensive as well. But, we were getting hit with only one calamity at a time. When hay was expensive, corn was cheap. What is unique about the current upsurge in feed prices is that all prices went up. And based on the current supply and demand situation, it is unlikely that we will see cheap feeds anytime soon. So what is a dairy producer to do?
1. Cows do not require corn, soybean meal, or cottonseed. Cows require nutrients and these are supplied by feeds. There are an infinite number of rations that can be put together to provide the same supply of nutrients, and thus, result in the same level of production. This is, in fact, the essence of applied nutrition science. Cows do not have a requirement for corn. So when corn is expensive, you can substitute some or all of the corn by a combination of other feeds. For example, the results of two well-controlled experiments have shown that cows milk just the same even when all the corn that made up 40% of the ration was substituted by barley. A good, professional nutritionist can be of great help to put together a good ration that is also cost effective.
2. Relax the ration formulation constraints on starch and non-fiber carbohydrates (NFC) levels. The recommended levels used by many nutritionists were generated in an era of cheap corn. The production response to starch and NFC is not large. When we aggregated the results from four well-controlled studies, we found that the optimum level of starch was somewhere between 24 and 41% of the ration dry matter (DM). The optimum NFC was between 37 and 49% of DM. These are hardly tight and narrow boundaries!
3. What was cheap last month may no longer be cheap. Feeds prices keep jockeying for room in livestock rations. Two years ago, soybean hulls were very cheap, about 1/3 the price of corn. Today, they sell at over 80% of corn prices; they are severely over-priced. So unless you have a very good reason for using soybean hulls, they should not be part of your dairy rations right now. Even at a price close to $6.00/bu, corn is currently a bargain compared to many other feeds. Last spring, at $3.25/bu, corn was actually overpriced.
4. Feed more forage of better quality. A large dataset from California showed that the difference between a fair quality corn silage (average of 46.5% NDF) and a very good quality corn silage (average of 39% NDF) resulted in an income difference of $91.50/100 cows/day. That's a lot of dough entirely within your reach.
5. Know what you are feeding. How often do you sample your forage for laboratory testing? How often do you check the moisture in your silages? Our research at Ohio State has shown that forages are sampled too infrequently on most of our farms. An optimal sampling schedule can generate an extra $90/cow/year. When feed prices go up and the profit margins are squeezed, it is very tempting to cut on the feed testing expenses. The opposite should be done to ensure that the rations fed are as close as possible to the rations that were formulated.
You can't control market prices of feeds, but there are ways to reduce the impact of high feed prices on your farm.
Controlling Flies on Farms

Mr. Steve Foster, Extension Agriculture Educator, Ohio State University Extension, Darke County

Flies are not just a nuisance; they're a major cause of disease and economic hardship around the world. All told, they are known to be involved in the transmission of more than 65 diseases to humans alone, including typhoid fever, dysentery, cholera, leprosy, and tuberculosis. They are also responsible for significant reductions in the production of farmed meat and dairy products. It's estimated that flies are responsible for global livestock and poultry production losses measured in the billions of dollars. Modern methods of livestock and poultry farming often provide an ideal breeding environment for flies, making control a major challenge.

Fly Biology

All flies pass through four life stages: egg, larva (maggot), pupa, and adult. During its life cycle, which is about 30 days, a house fly female can lay up to 1000 eggs. These eggs are deposited on moist manure or any type of moist rotten or decaying organic matter. The eggs hatch in 10 to12 hours and the maggots move into the wet manure. Fly maggots mature in 4 to 5 days under warm moist conditions. Pupation occurs in the drier parts of manure, with the adult flies emerging in 3 to 5 days. Under ideal conditions, a house fly can complete its life cycle in 9 to 14 days. The life cycle can be much longer in cooler temperatures. Although capable of movement up to several miles, house flies normally move no more than one half to three quarters of a mile from their breeding sites.

Sanitation

Flies around dairy buildings develop in moist manure or other wet decaying organic matter. No insecticide can be expected to control flies under poor sanitary conditions. A thorough sanitation program is a must to hold down fly populations in and around livestock buildings.

(a) Remove all manure from livestock pens as frequently as possible. Calf and bull pens with animals in them require special attention. It is best to clean these pens once a week. Using sawdust instead of other materials for animal bedding reduces fly development. A clean livestock barn has fewer fly problems.

(b) Spread the manure thinly outdoors in order that fly eggs and larvae will be killed by drying, or stack this waste and cover with a black, plastic tarp.

(c) Eliminate silage seepage areas, wet litter, manure stacks, old wet hay or straw bales, and other organic matter accumulations that may attract flies anywhere on the farm. Wet feed remaining at the ends of mangers will breed flies.

(d) Provide proper drainage in barnyards. Use clean gravel and other fill to eliminate low spots in livestock yards. Proper grading and tiling can reduce wet barnyards. Keep water troughs and hydrants leak-free.

Integrated Pest Management

To be successful in controlling flies, it is important that producers implement a control program that best fits their particular operation. Reliance on a single practice or pesticide product is not the best approach to achieving effective and economical pest control. A better approach is to combine routine sanitation with a variety of pesticide strategies, such as baits, residual sprays, space sprays, and larvicides whenever flies are a problem. Do not wait for heavy fly populations to build up. It is much easier and less expensive to prevent fly populations from increasing at the beginning of the season than to attempt to control them after they have reached unacceptable density levels. As fly populations begin to increase, take time and treat as needed.

Residual Sprays

The next line of defense is residual sprays applied to the outside and inside of buildings. Other practices such as the application of larvicides, space sprays, and baits should be considered supplementary to sanitation and residual sprays. Residual sprays are applied to walls, ceilings, partitions, stanchions, posts, and other fly resting places. These sprays are much more effective in stanchion barns than in loose-housing, open barns where landing and resting surfaces are minimal. Also, barn surfaces vary in the amount of spray that should be applied to them. Smooth surfaces require less spray than rough, porous surfaces. Thoroughly wet the surface to the point of runoff at low pressures of 80 to 100 lb per square inch. Avoid contaminating feed, drinking water, milk, milking utensils, and milk rooms. The importance of following directions exactly according to the label cannot be stressed enough when using any pesticide.

Long-Term Residual Treatments

(a) Fenvalerate [10%]. This product is labeled for use only in swine or horse buildings as a premise spray. Mix 1 quart product in10 gal of water and apply at the rate of 1 gal of spray per 750 sq ft. Remove animals before spraying. Keep animals out of treated buildings for at least 4 hours. Do not allow feed or drinking water to become contaminated.

(b) Permethrin [25%]. This product is not labeled for use in milk rooms. Mix 6.67 oz of product in 10 gal water and apply at the rate of 1 gal of spray per 1,000 sq ft. Do not make direct applications to animals, feed, or drinking water.

(c) Permethrin [10%]. Mix 1 qt of product in 25 gal of water and apply at the rate of 1 gal of spray per 750 sq ft. Can be used in barns, dairy barns, feedlots, stables, and poultry houses.

(d) Permethrin. Refer to label for directions regarding these and other permethrin products.

(e) Tetrachlorvinphos [50%]. Follow directions according to label. Remove calves and lactating animals before spraying. Keep them out of treated buildings for at least 4 hours. Do not allow feed or drinking water to become contaminated. Can be used in dairy barns, poultry houses, swine buildings, and other animal buildings.

(f) Tetrachlorvinphos [23%] and dichlorvos [5.3%]. Mix 1 gal of product in 25 gal of water (or 1 gal of product in 12.5 gal of water for extreme infestations) and apply at the rate of 1 gal of spray per 500 to 1,000 sq ft of walls, ceilings, or other areas where flies rest or congregate. Remove animals before spraying. Keep animals out of treated buildings for at least 4 hours. Do not allow feed or drinking water to become contaminated. Can be used in dairy barns, poultry houses, swine buildings, livestock sheds, and other animal buildings.

Medium-Term Residual Treatments

Deltamethrin [0.02%]. Controls stable flies, horn and face flies, house flies, deer flies, mosquitoes, and gnats in livestock and horse facilities. Apply thoroughly to surfaces until wet. Apply as needed but not more than once per week. Do not spray animals or humans. Do not contaminate feed or drinking water. Do not use in milk room or milking parlor.

Short-Term Residual Treatments

(a) Dichlorvos [43.2%]. Make up a 0.5% solution by mixing 1 gal of product in 100 gal of water and apply diluted spray as an overall premise application. Particular attention should be given to areas where flies congregate. Animals may be present during treatment. Do not allow feed, water or foodstuffs, milk, or milking utensils to become contaminated. Apply to cattle feedlots, stockyards, holding pens, and corrals.

(b) Naled [58%]. Follow directions according to label.

(c) Pyrethrins [0.1%] and piperonyl butoxide [1.0%]. Follow directions according to label. Apply as a space spray for quick knockdown and kill of house flies, stable flies, and horn flies in barns, milk rooms, and dairy barns.

(d) Pyrethrins [0.5%] and piperonyl butoxide [4.0%]. Controls stable flies and other flies, mosquitoes, fleas, and wasps in livestock, dairy, hog, and poultry facilities. Close all windows and doors and apply at a rate of 2 to 3 seconds/1,000 cubic feet of area. Do not remain in treated area and thoroughly vent treated area after 15 minutes.

Bait Treatments

Although fresh baits will help control flies, results may be poor if fly breeding is excessive. It is suggested that baits be applied following the removal of all floor litter and manure. For best control, use baits liberally and repeat as needed. It may be necessary to increase amounts when flies are breeding heavily, but check label for proper use directions for any bait product. Baits are most effective when used in conjunction with other control measures. Do not use bait in areas where animals can slip and fall or where children may come in contact with the bait.

(a) Methomyl [1%]. No mixing required. Bait can be used only around the outside of feed lots, broiler houses, livestock barns, and on walkways in caged layer houses. Scatter bait (do not put in piles) at a rate of approximately 0.25 lb per 500 sq ft of fly feeding area, keeping 1- to 2-inch intervals between particles. Do not allow food-producing animals to have access to treated areas. Do not allow contamination of feed or drinking water.

(b) Methomyl [1%] and (Z)-9-Tricosene [0.025%]. See label for use directions.

Space Treatments

Space sprays or aerosols can be effective for rapid knockdown and kill of adult flies. It is important to reduce air movement as much as possible. Follow directions according to label.

(a) Pyrethrins [0.1%] and piperonyl butoxide [1.0%]. Before spraying, close doors and windows. Apply as a fog or fine mist, directing spray toward ceiling and upper corners until area is filled with mist. Use about 0.5 oz of solution per 1,000 cu ft. Allow mist to settle on animals. Leave room closed for 5 minutes after treatment, remembering to ventilate area before reoccupying. Repeat as needed. Wash teats of dairy animals before milking. Avoid breathing fumes by wearing a mask or respirator of a type recommended by the U.S. Bureau of Mines.

(b) Dichlorvos [23.4%]. Apply by fogging or misting at a rate of 1 quart of 0.5% solution per 8,000 cu ft. Reduce air movement as much as possible before applying. Do not use in areas where animals have received a direct application within 8 hours. Do not allow feed, water, milk, or milking utensils to become contaminated.

(c) Dichlorvos resin strips. Suspend from ceiling as directed on label. Use 1 strip per 1,000 cu ft. These strips work best in closed rooms. Do not place over water or feed. Keep strips away from animals and children.

(d) Spinosad [2.46%]. Dilutable spray for control of stable and house flies on animal premises, including in and around poultry, beef, dairy, horse, swine, and sheep premises. Do not apply product in milking parlor or milk room. Mix 20 oz of product per 5 gal of water and apply at a rate of 1 gal solution per 500 to 1,000 sq ft. Do not use in overhead sprinkler system. Refer to label for more directions.

Larvicides

Oral Treatments

The use of oral larvicides such as cyromazine, tetrachlorvinphos, and diflubenzuron [9.7%], is not legal in all states. These feed additives and boluses often are not the answer to fly control unless used very extensively. All manure must be treated within an area in order to effectively reduce the fly population. In many cases, the area must be very large because flies rapidly move from one herd to the next over large geographic regions.

Oral larvicides work by preventing the development of flies in manure. They are not effective against existing adult flies and should be used in conjunction with a regular manure sanitation practice. Supplemental fly control often is needed where flies breed in manure from untreated animals or other organic sources.

(a) Diflubenzuron [9.7%]. This product is a controlled-release bolus for beef and dairy cattle
that aids in the suppression of house and stable flies. Administer 1/2 bolus to cattle weighing 300 to 550 lb, and 1 bolus to cattle weighing 550 to 1,100 lb or more. Do not administer to cattle weighing less than 300 lb. NEVER administer more than 1 bolus to any animal.

(b) Tetrachlorvinphos [97.3%]. Follow directions according to label. For beef cattle and lactating dairy cattle, feed at the rate of 70 mg of product/100 lb of body weight. Start feeding in early spring before flies begin to appear, and continue through the summer and fall until cold weather restricts fly activity.

Manure Treatments

(a) Tetrachlorvinphos [23%] and dichlorvos [5.3%]. Mix 1 gal of product in 25 gal of water and apply at the rate of 1 gal of spray per 100 sq ft of droppings. Repeat at 7- to 10-day intervals until droppings begin to cone up, then treat only "hot spots" (small areas found to have large numbers of maggots). Can be used in poultry and livestock facilities. Do not spray animals directly. Do not contaminate feed or drinking water.

(b) Tetrachlorvinphos [50%]. Apply at the rate of 1 gal of 1% solution per 100 sq ft of poultry droppings, manure piles, etc. Repeat every 7 to 10 days until control is achieved. Do not spray animals directly. Do not contaminate feed or drinking water.

Mineral Mixtures and Feed Additives

S-methoprene [10.5% and other formulations]. The Al in Altosid Cattle Custom Blending Premix is an insect growth regulator (IGR) that interrupts the development of the horn fly (and possibly other species of filth-breeding flies) in the manure of treated cattle. Begin use in the spring before horn flies appear on cattle and continue feeding until cold weather restricts horn fly activity. The product is safe for beef and dairy cattle, including breeding cattle, lactating cattle, and calves. The product can be fed up to slaughter and to lactating dairy cows without withholding milk. Refer to label for details on proper feed-to-weight blending ratios.

Perimeter Area Treatments

Citric Acid and crystalized propanetricarboxylic acid [100%]. Apply 1/8 cup per sq ft of treatment area. Treatment area should have a moderately salted appearance after application. Apply every 7 days during fly season. See label for specific area applications.

(References are available on request.)
New 15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness Available

Ms. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University Extension (top of page)

"How do I know if I am competitive?" "How can I become more competitive?" These were the questions from producers that led to the development and publication of "Dairy Excel's 15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness" in 1997. Those same questions are just as valid today and can be answered in the context of today's dairy industry using the newly released 2008 edition of the 15 Measures.

The 15 measures fall into 10 broad areas, which together provide a good view of the competitiveness of a dairy farm business. The 10 areas are:

1. Rate of production
2. Cost control
3. Capital efficiency
4. Profitability
5. Liquidity
6. Repayment schedule
7. Solvency
8. Mission
9. Maintain family's standard of living
10. Motivated labor force

These measures represent key characteristics of the most competitive dairy producers in the midwest. Some dairy producers already exceed many of the measures. While a single dairy business is unlikely to meet all 15 measures, dairy producers who meet most of the measures are competitive with dairy producers anywhere in the world and enjoy a high standard of living.

Following a complete listing of the 15 measures and their competitive levels, are pages describing each measure in detail. These pages explain each measure, tell how to compute and interpret it, and discuss the desirable range. The measures were designed to be easily calculated with information readily available on most farms. We also suggest changes to help a dairy operation move into the desirable range.

Some dairy businesses do not meet many of the measures. Without change, these producers will likely be exiting the dairy business within the next 10 years.

The new "15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness" is available on-line and as a for-sale publication which can be purchased through your local Extension Office.
Farm Financial Database

Mr. Donald Breece, Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension (top of page)

The Center for Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota provides FINBIN, one of the largest and most accessible sources of farm financial and production benchmark information in the world. Information is available on "Dairy Cost and Returns by Size or Location of Herd", "2006 Minnesota Organic Dairy Summary Report", and many other topics. The web site for the the farm financial database and valuable reports is: http://www.finbin.umn.edu/.
Dairy Producer Johne's Disease Survey

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Dairy Extension Specialist, Ohio State University Extension (top of page)

Over the past few years, efforts have been made nationally to implement a voluntary Johne's Disease program. To continue to move this effort effectively forward, input from dairy producers is needed. An online survey is available for dairy producers to provide feedback on improving the Johne's Disease programs. This project is being led by Penn State University and is funded by the Johne's Disease Integrated Program, a large consortium of scientists and Extension personnel. Dairy producers, vets, state and federal agencies, milk cooperatives, other allied industries, and Johne's researchers have helped to design the survey. The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete and is available at: https://online.survey.psu.edu/johnesdisease/
2008 Recipients of the Dairy Science Hall of Service Awards

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University Extension (top of page)

The annual Dairy Banquet for the Department of Animal Sciences and the Buckeye Dairy Club was held on Saturday, May 10 at the new Nationwide and Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center on the OSU campus in Columbus. One of the highlights of the banquet was the induction of Mr. Wayne Dalton (Wakeman, OH) and Dr. Kent Hoblet (Starkville, MS) into the Dairy Science Hall of Service. This award was initiatied in 1952 with the objectives to recognize worthy men and women who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at the Ohio State University. The citations for the 2008 award recipients are provided below.

MR. WAYNE DALTON

Pictured: Dr. Jim Kinder, Jane and Wayne Dalton, and Dr. Bobby Moser

Wayne Dalton was born in New London, Ohio on October 21, 1933. The Dalton family has been in farming and the registered Holstein business for 3 generations. The main farm at 3333 State Route 60, Wakeman was purchased by Wayne's parents in 1937. After graduating from Wakeman High School in 1951 and earning the FFA State Farmer Degree, Wayne attended OSU during 1952 to 1954 and was a charter member of the Buckeye Dairy Club. He served in the U.S. Army Artillery during 1956-1957 and then returned home to farm with his family. Wayne continues to express appreciation to his parents Byron and Edna Dalton for the many opportunities they provided him and the many enjoyable years working together, and to the originator of the farm, his grandfather Henry Dalton.

In 1962 Wayne married Jane Forney Temm, and through the 1960's, Wayne earned recognition and served his community. He was named Outstanding Young Farmer by the New London Junior Chamber of Commerce and also received the Huron County Efficient Dairyman Award. He was president of the Huron County Farm Bureau and secretary-treasurer of the Huron-Erie County Holstein Club. In 1969, he became a director of the Milk Producers Federation and was a charter director of Milk Marketing, Inc.

The 1970's were filled with activities and growth. By 1972, Wayne installed a Ross-Holm milking parlor, possibly only one of four outside of California. He also constructed a new, including being new for the area, bunker silo and free stall barn and switched his waste handling to a manure irrigation system. Dalwood Farms was incorporated in 1974 and expanded from 100 to 250 registered Holstein cows and from 500 to 2,000 acres. These innovations and expansions triggered many tours, field days, and media coverage. In the March 25, 1977 issue, he was featured on the cover of Hoard's Dairyman and as a participant in a nationwide round-table on the topic "Dairymen look to the future through recent expansion".

By 1981, Wayne was the first in Ohio to go on-line for DHI records. He also began a tree-planting program and now has a 250-acre farm planted with 220,000 hardwoods. He was active in Soil and Water Conservation and served on the Wakeman Township Zoning Board for 44 years. Throughout his career, Wayne earned many awards for conservation, crop production, and dairy production.

In 1979, Wayne and Jane began sponsoring an Ohio State University Dairy Science Scholarship that has continued for 29 years. The 1996-1997 Cow Tales was dedicated to Wayne and Jane Dalton. Wayne served on the OSU Dairy Science Advisory Board from 1992 to 1997 and on the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences Vice-President's Development Board from 1999 to 2008. The Ohio State University will benefit from a Charitable Remainder Trust funded by the gift of a 200-acre Dalton family farm. The Dalton's also have made recent contributions to the College's endowment fund to support the World Food Prize and Scarlet and Gray Ag Day programs.

Wayne has always been a willing mentor to young people, including the building of a 600 cow dairy farm over 11 years to developing a 3,000-acre grain farm over 29 years. Both of these operations continue today. Over the years, he has provided the opportunity for many students to gain experience on a modern dairy farm. Having sold his registered Holstein herd in 1994, Wayne traveled to Papua, New Guinea at the request of the Peace Corp to help the native bush people learn how to care for newly acquired dairy cattle. The Dalton's also have participated in the OSU Dairy Extension tours to Europe, China, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and California. Wayne has sponsored a trophy for "Outstanding Junior Dairyman" at the Huron County Fair since 1983. In 1996, he established the Dalton Community Park in Wakeman on 25 acres of donated land. In 2007, he began participating in the Western Reserve High School Endowment Scholarship for Agricultural Interest and provides scholarships for students graduating from the Wellington High School.

Wayne is a lifelong member, volunteer, and contributor of the Wakeman Congregational United Church of Christ. He is a 32nd Degree Mason and a 50-year member. Wayne credits his wife Jane for being a willing partner in the farm operation and altruistic endeavors. Through the years, they have especially enjoyed their family of three grown children, four grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.

Wayne has been a visionary dairy farmer with integrity and a widely respected record of service to the dairy industry. The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Science Hall of Service Award acknowledges not only his service to the dairy industry but also the generous service he has extended to his community, the growth and development of young people, and The Ohio State University.

DR. KENT HOBLET

Pictured: Dr. Larry Smith, Dr. Jim Kinder, Dr. Kent Hobet, Connie Hoblet,
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dr. Joe Hogan, and Dr. Bobby Moser

Dr. Kent Hoblet is a native of Henry County, Ohio and graduated with the Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine degree from The Ohio State University in 1971. He practiced veterinary medicine in Ashland County from 1971 to 1983. He returned to OSU and then in 1984, he received a Master of Science degree from the Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine and accepted an Assistant Professor position in the same department. He became an Associate Professor in 1988 and was promoted to Professor in 1983. He served as Acting Chair of the Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine from 1991 to 1992 and Chair from 1992 to 2006. Since 2006, Dr. Hoblet has been serving as Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Mississippi State University. During his career at OSU, he held an adjunct faculty appointment in the Department of Animal Sciences. Dr. Hoblet advised or co-advised 9 MS and PhD students while at OSU. He has been to Venezuela on at least 8 occasions as a dairy consultant. He also has provided professional instruction on milk quality and lameness in Egypt, Japan, Romania, and Thailand. He was selected as the Veterinarian of the Year in 2000 by the American Association of Extension Veterinarians and received the Distinguished Alumnus Award in 2007 from the OSU College of Veterinary Medicine.

For 22 years, Dr. Hoblet served the Ohio dairy industry as an Extension veterinarian. During the initial part of his career at OSU, he specialized in mastitis and mammary gland health. He presented numerous workshops and talks throughout Ohio on how to produce quality milk and prevent mastitis. Dr. Hoblet presented material with equal skill to both veterinary professionals and dairy farmers. He also made more than 450 farm visits to Ohio dairy farms, with many of these visits involved in solving a mastitis or milk quality problem. In the early 1990's, Dr. Hoblet started a research/Extension program on foot health and lameness. He was one of the first in the U.S. to conduct on-farm surveys to determine the magnitude of the problem (which was substantial). He developed a foot care workshop that was presented throughout the State geared mostly toward hoof trimmers. He also actively participated in conducting some of the first research demonstrating the benefits on hoof health of feeding biotin to dairy cows which has now become common practice.

Another Extension program developed by Dr. Hoblet that had, and continues to have, a substantial positive impact on Ohio's dairy industry was the Dairy Expansion Workshops. The participants in these workshops were veterinarians, bankers, feed company workers, Extension educators, and dairy farmers. In this workshop, participants learned how to evaluate dairy farms and determine whether they were viable candidates for expansion. This workshop was held throughout the State and most likely contributed to the growth of the dairy industry during the past several years.

Dr. Hoblet had a substantial positive influence on the Ohio dairy industry via his work with students. He often took veterinary students on farm visits so they could see how to address problems. He developed a problem-solving workshop for graduating veterinary students that had an interest in dairy herd health. In this very intensive workshop, students would go to several commercial herds that were experiencing various problems. The students learned how to obtain the necessary information, interpret it, and communicate recommendations back to the farmer. Dr. Hoblet, as chair, helped to strengthen the curriculum for future dairy veterinarians through course offerings in dairy records, dairy nutrition, and mammary gland health.

Dr. Hoblet's meek, gentle personality has portrayed to farmers, students, veterinarians, and industry personnel that "I care about you" and then in these conversations and efforts, his unequivocal passion for the dairy industry and the veterinary profession unfolded. The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Science Hall of Service Award acknowledges his impact on the Ohio dairy industry, the career of many students (undergraduate, graduate, and veterinary students), the advancement of the veterinary profession in food animal health, and the advancement in our understanding of mammary health and bovine lameness.
Ohio State's Participation in the Midwest and National Dairy Challenge Programs

Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University Extension (top of page)

Eight Ohio State students participated in the Fourth Annual Midwest Dairy Challenge, which ran Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 2008 and attracted 102 students from 13 universities and colleges to the heart of a blizzard in Merrillville, IN. The inclement weather forced the group to forge new territory for the Dairy Challenge, as buses were unable to transport students to the contest farms for tours. This year's contest was hosted by Purdue University. After they arrived, students joined their new teammates and had the opportunity to experience the Fair Oaks Dairy Adventure in Fair Oaks, IN. The next day, students were led in virtual farm tours of three dairy farms located in the Merrillville area by Midwest Dairy Challenge Committee members. After the virtual tours, students had time to meet with their teams and develop questions for the herd owners. The herd owners were then put in touch with the students either in person or via teleconference. Saturday was presentation day as the teams were given 20 minutes to offer their suggestions. This was followed by a question-and-answer session and a critique by the judges regarding their presentation and recommendations. The students from Ohio State who participated in the program were Paige Gott, Anton Henry, Stephanie Metzger, Jeff Riethman, Renee Starkey, Kyle Uhlenhake, Eric Weitzel, and Jesse Whinnery. Judges chose six teams as platinum winners, the contest's highest distinction. The students from Ohio State who comprised these teams included Renee Starkey, Stephanie Metzger, Anton Henry and Eric Weitzel.

It was a clean sweep for the Big 10 at this year's North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge (NAIDC), hosted by the University of Wisconsin and held April 4-5 in the Madison, WI area. Teams from the University of Minnesota, Michigan State University, University of Illinois and Purdue University earned the highest award - First Place Platinum - in the Seventh Annual NAIDC. A record number of 32 teams from the US and Canada participated, challenging them to put their textbook and practical knowledge to the ultimate test. The contest started with a walk-through at the dairy farms, followed by the opportunity to ask questions of the owners and analyze farm-specific data. Student teams used this information to develop management recommendations, and then presented their management recommendations to the herd owners and a panel of five dairy industry judges. Second Place Platinum award winners included: Iowa State University, The Ohio State University, Kansas State University, and North Dakota State University. The Ohio State team consisted of Anton Henry, Eric Weitzel, Jesse Whinnery and Stephanie Metzger with Maurice Eastridge serving as the coach. The farm analyzed by the Ohio State Team consisted of 200 cows milked in a double-8 parallel parlor averaging 30,000 lb RHA milk with 3-Xmilking. The owners also cropped about 3500 acres and raised dairy steers. In the 7 years of the contest, this is the second time that Ohio State has received a Platinum rating - congratulations!

Pictured: Front row: Stephanie Metzger and Anton Henry. Back row: Eric
Weitzel, Jesse Whinnery, and Maurice Eastridge (Coach).
Inside This Issue

Dairy Excel Team. 15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness.
Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

First published in 1997, this publication has been widely requested throughout the United States by dairy producers and their financial advisors. The original 15 measures remain strong indicators of profitable, sustainable dairy businesses. In this revised 2nd edition, the authors have adjusted some competitive levels to reflect current industry trends and realities. Overall, the measures continue to represent strong indicators of success in the dairy industry.

Income Tax Management vs. Managing Investment per Cow
Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Soon it will be income tax season again. This article provides a few items to take care of and resources where you can get help.

Costs of Nutrients and the Cow-Jones Index: Ohio, September, 2008.
Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University Extension

Feed prices continue their roller coaster ride, swinging widely every time that the weather gets a bit drier or wetter than normal. From a historical standpoint, feeds are expensive. But some are still relatively under priced and if used wisely can reduce significantly the costs of feeding dairy cows. Unfortunately, milk prices have been falling and based on the newly created Cow-Jones Index, dairy is currently unprofitable and, unless something changes drastically soon, profitability and cash-flow in dairy could sink back to the dismal levels experienced in 2006.

Dairy Cows and Global Warming: a lot of Warm Air.
Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University Extension

There has been a lot of press recently to a report by the United Nations regarding the carbon footprint of agriculture in general, and livestock agriculture in particular. Unfortunately, some people like to cite the report when in fact they don’t seem to actually have read it. When the correct figures are used, the contribution of the U.S. dairy industry to the total national green gas emissions is in fact very small.

Good Corn Silage Will Reduce Feed Costs.
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University

Following proper harvest and storage procedures reduce the cost of corn silage and improves its nutrient composition. This article highlights some key practices that should be followed as corn silage is harvested.
Foreword

The Game that Never Ends
Normand St-Pierre, Editor
st-pierre.8@osu.edu

Record high corn prices; record high soybean prices; record rain fall last spring; drought in the summer; record corn and soybean price drops; high milk prices; low milk prices… it just never ends! When you think that you have it figured out, the game changes on you. But the advice found in this issue of Buckeye Dairy News remains sound and solid across all sorts of physical and economic conditions. Enjoy!
Nutrition

Keeping an Eye on Feed Costs: Protein Supplements
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Extension Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Protein supplements represent a significant portion of most feed bills. This article provides information on how to compare common protein sources that are often fed to dairy cows in Ohio.

October 2008 Corn Silage Crop
Dr. Maurice L. Eastridge, Dairy Extension Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The 2008 corn growing season has presented some challenges that may impact the nutritional composition of the corn silage resulting from this year’s crop. This article provides suggestions on managing this year’s corn silage.

Frost Damage and Prussic Acid Poisoning
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Extension Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Frost damaged sorghums and sudangrasses can be toxic to cattle. This is a short review of the problem and how to avoid it.
Economics

The Ride is Getting Wilder by the Minute: The Costs of Nutrients and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio StateUniversity

Currently, feed costs account for close to 60% of milk revenues on the average Ohio farm. The Cow-Jones Index, a measure of profitability in the dairy sector, has been under the $8 profitability threshold for 3 months in a row. Careful selection of feeds can help in these times of tight margins.

Milk Price Outlook
Dr. Cameron Thraen, State Specialist, Dairy Markets and Policy,
The Ohio State University Extension, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics

Summary of projected production and price information issued by the USDA-Economic Research Service in its Livestock, Dairy, & Poultry Outlook report issued on September 19.

Cows and Credit: How Much Debt Can a Cow Carry?
Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist,
Ohio State University Extension

Credit issues are making headlines, but on-going, responsible management of credit plays a key role in successful dairy businesses. How much income do your cows have to generate to cover scheduled principal, interest, and capital lease payments each year? What can we reasonably expect cows to do? Measure 10: Scheduled debt payment, of the 15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness gives guidance about competitive levels and what to do if you are asking your cows to do too much.

Dairy Risk Management Programs in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 2008:
Milk Income Loss Contract Program and Livestock Gross Margin-Dairy Insurance
Dr. Cameron Thraen, State Specialist, Dairy Markets and Policy,
The Ohio State University Extension, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics

Learn the significant changes made by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 Dairy Title to the 2002 Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program. A summary of the new Livestock Gross Margin-Dairy insurance product is also provided.
Health and Animal Well-Being

Johne’s Disease: What Have we Learned from our Demonstration Herd Project?
Dr. William Shulaw, Extension Veterinarian, Cattle and Sheep
Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Learn about the National Johne’s Disease Demonstration Herd Project and the findings so far.

Protecting Consumer Trust and Confidence in the Dairy Industry:
National Dairy Animal Well-Being Coalition Launches Principles and Guidelines
Dr. Naomi Botheras, Program Specialist
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

On October 2, 2008, the National Dairy Animal Well-Being Initiative, a producer-led Coalition that includes members from every sector of the dairy industry, introduced the Initiative's Principles and Guidelines -- a uniform umbrella of assurance that the dairy industry is meeting its ethical obligations for dairy animal well-being. The goal of the Principles and Guidelines is to protect consumer trust and confidence in the dairy industry by demonstrating dairy producers’ commitment to animal well-being.
Judging

Dairy Judging: What you Should Know
Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Judging Coach and Program Specialist
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Learn how to train and try out for the Ohio 4-H or OSU college dairy judging teams.

Dairy Judging Teams Update
Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Judging Coach and Program Specialist
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Learn the most recent accomplishments of our 4-H and OSU collegiate dairy judging teams.
Nutrition

Feed Costs: Corn Silage or Alfalfa
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Extension Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Which forage is usually more economical for Ohio dairy farmers to produce and feed to their cows? This article provides the answer to that pressing question.
Economics

The Costs of Nutrients and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio StateUniversity

The cost of dietary energy took a tumble last month, whereas the cost of metabolizable protein went up. The Cow-Jones Index, a measure of profitability in the dairy sector, surged $2.54/cwt, a 37% increase over September, and stood at $9.34/cwt in October, indicating modest but positive profits on Ohio dairy farms. Regardless, careful selection of feeds to make up a dairy ration can still help improving margins.

Milk Price Outlook
Dr. Cameron Thraen, State Specialist, Dairy Markets and Policy,
The Ohio State University Extension, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics

Summary of projected production and price information issued in the Livestock, Dairy, & Poultry Outlook/LDP-M-171 / November 17, 2008 Economic Research Service, USDA.
Judging

2008 Ohio Dairy Challenge
Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Extension Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The 2008 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held November 14-15 and was again sponsored by Cargill Animal Nutrition. The farm selected for the contest this year was R-Style Holsteins in Edison, OH, and it is owned by Bill, Joyce, and Brian Rausch. There were 13 teams and 46 students that participated in the program, the largest participation ever.

OSU Youth Program News
Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Judging Coach and Program Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Results of the Invitational 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl, and news of our 4-H, FFA, and OSU Dairy Judging Teams.
Nutrition

Feed Costs: How Much Weighback?
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Extension Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University
Economics

The Costs of Nutrients and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio StateUniversity

Market and Price Report
Dr. Cameron Thraen, State Specialist, Dairy Markets and Policy,
The Ohio State University Extension, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics
Nutrition

The Costs of Nutrients

Break-even Prices of Feedstuffs
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio StateUniversity
Economics

Milk Price Outlook
Dr. Cameron Thraen, State Specialist, Dairy Markets and Policy,
The Ohio State University Extension, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics
Nutrition

The Costs of Nutrients, Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices and the Current Dairy Situation
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Extension Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University
st-pierre.8@osu.edu

The current financial situation in dairy production is quite disastrous. Find out which feeds could save you some money and which ones appear overpriced. Then learn about the Cow-Jones Index and the extent of our current financial disaster in dairy.
Economics

MILC and LGM-DAIRY: Two Programs to Help Manage your Market Price Risk
Dr. Cameron Thraen, State Specialist, Dairy Markets and Policy, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University Extension
thraen.1@osu.edu

Learn how these two programs can help you manage price risks in these volatile markets.

It is More than Finances at Risk…it is also our Families!
Bonnie Ayars, Dairy Judging Coach and Program Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University
ayars.5@osu.edu

Advice on how to help your family deal with the current economic crisis.
Management

Your Animals on Welfare
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Extension Specialist,Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio StateUniversity
st-pierre.8@osu.edu

Did you know that you have animals in your herds who are receiving the equivalent of a welfare check from your milking cows? In fact, the welfare check may be costing you up to $1.80/cwt of milk produced. Find out how you can implement your own welfare reform program in your herd.

Managing Debt to Preserve Future Profitability
Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, OSU-Extension
shoemaker.3@osu.edu

Controlling costs has been the front-line attack for dealing with pitiful milk prices. While it absolutely should be done, it is not enough to make up the cash flow shortfall. As cash reserves are depleted, it is critical that borrowing be done carefully so that the farm’s equity and future profitability are not endangered.

Dairy Cows: Lighting and/or rbST
John Smith, Extension Educator, Auglaize County
smith.132@osu.edu

Did you know that proper lighting can induce a milk response close to what is achieved with rbST? Read more on how to reap additional dollars just by providing adequate lighting.
Legal

Chapter 12 Bankruptcy
Hope for Financially Stressed Family Farms
Robert Moore, Attorney, Wright Law Co. LPA

Although bankruptcy might not be in your dialect, there are times when the bankruptcy laws are there to protect and assist you in difficult financial times.
Undergraduate Dairy Program

NEW! Dairy Certificate Program for OSU Undergraduates
Maurice L. Eastridge, Department of Animal Sciences, The OhioState University
eastridge.1@osu.edu

NEW! Dairy Certificate Program for OSU Undergraduates. A dairy focused program for undergraduate students enrolled at The Ohio State University has been developed. This program is viewed as being of interest not only to undergraduate students but also to employers of students who have interest and training in working in the dairy industry.
MarketView...U.S. Dairy Outlook Brief 2010

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

Chart 1 depicts the long term relationship between the Class 3 milk price (line, left axis) and the rate of change in U.S. milk production (bars, right axis). The inverse relationship between price and rate of increase in milk production is evident. The dashed horizontal line at 2% shows the annual rate of growth in demand for milk and milk products in the United States. Production expansion higher than this pushes down the milk price, while production expansion at a rate lower than 2% drives up the price of milk. The rapid rise in the milk price beginning in 2007 was caused by slow growth in U.S. milk production and, what is not shown on Chart 1, slow growth in milk production outside the United States. This in turn resulted in additional export demand for milk proteins from the U.S. and the historically high U.S. milk price. The 2008 collapse in U.S. and world demand, coupled with continued U.S. milk production expansion above the 2% line, resulted in the collapse of the farm milk price.

Chart 1

The rate of growth in U.S. milk production has been slowing for the past 12 months, finally nearing zero in June 2009. Over the first six months of 2009, this reduction in the rate of growth has not been severe enough to halt the decline in the U.S. milk price. While milk cows have been culled aggressively, milk yield per cow has not moderated. Overall production has slowed, but not enough.

Chart 2 shows the long term history of milk yield per cow (right axis) and the number of milk cows for the United States (left axis). The upward trend in milk productivity is evident. Average annual milk per cow grows at a rate of 1.7% per year. Milk cow on farms shows a much more varied history. Beginning in January 2004, the U.S. dairy herd started on an aggressive expansion path. This expansion ran out of steam mid-year 2008 and began a significant downward adjustment January 2009.

Chart 2.

For milk prices and dairy farm profits to return to a more sustainable level, a painful process needs to take place. The number of dairy cows in the United States must be reduced by a significant amount. The current level, 9,190,000 head is much too high. With the unabated increase in milk output per cow, the adjustment must come from increased dairy cow slaughter. The recent round of the Cooperatives Working Together dairy cow removal program will remove an additional 86,700 head when completed; however, this is not nearly enough. The U.S. dairy cow numbers must decline by at least another 200,000 head. U.S. milk cow numbers must get back to the level of January 2004. This means that a significant number of dairy farms operations will have to exit the industry over the coming months. Today, dairy producers expect the U.S. milk price to return to the $17 to $19 dollar range and this is only possible with a U.S. dairy herd below 9 million head.

As the financial pain is spread across the thousands of medium to small dairy operations in the U.S., the political pressure to rescue these operations is mounting. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture has increased the support prices offered on Cheese and Nonfat dry milk. The U.S. Senate has passed legislation supporting even higher effective support prices. There is pressure to increase payments under the Milk Income Loss Payment program. All of these measures will only serve to extend the pain. The only way to sustained higher prices for U.S. dairy farms is to reduce the number of milk cows and production. The process has started and now it needs to run its course over the coming months.
Dairy Critical Issue Briefs (DIBS): 24 now available online address issues facing dairy producers dealing with today’s continuing pitiful milk prices

Ms. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University Extension (top of page) pdf file

Dairy Issue Briefs (DIBS) target critical management issues facing Ohio’s economically bruised dairy farms. Cost-cutting decisions must be made with full awareness of both short and long-term production and economic consequences. OSU Extension’s Dairy Working Group, a collaboration of OSU Extension and OARDC faculty is identifying and addressing critical issues in five areas:
• Nutrition and feed costs,
• Reproduction and health,
• Calf and heifer management,
• Business issues, and
• People and stress management.

The emphasis is on “brief”, with a short explanation of the issue, the conclusion and contact information for the author(s) if you have further questions. DIBS can be found at the OSU Resources for Ohio’s Dairy Industry website: https://dairy.osu.edu.
Corn Silage Harvest
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

Because of high feed costs and low milk prices, maximizing the nutritional quality of your corn silage and minimizing shrink are more important than ever. At this time in the growing cycle, the most important manageable factor that will influence the nutritional value of this year’s corn silage is maturity at chopping. Harvesting corn silage too early (i.e., silage with less than about 30% dry matter) usually results in a lower starch concentration in the silage, which means more corn grain may need to be supplemented. Corn silage is usually among the least expensive ingredients in a diet and high inclusion rates will reduce feed costs. However, because wet silage can reduce feed intake by dairy cows, dietary inclusions rates for wet silage are usually less than for normal silage which can increase overall feed costs.

Over mature corn silage (silage with more than about 38% dry matter) also has less nutritional value than normal corn silage because of lower fiber and starch digestibility. Kernel processing partially reduces some of the negative effects of maturity on starch digestibility and is strongly recommended for mature corn silage, but it will not make mature corn silage equal to corn silage harvested at the optimal dry matter concentration (30 to 38% dry matter).

A portion of the crop that is harvested will be lost during fermentation and storage. That loss is considered shrink. Factors that affect shrink include:
1. Type of silo structure: (bags and sealed silos usually lowest, conventional upright silos intermediate and bunkers usually have greatest shrink).
2. Moisture concentration at filling. Wet silage can have high shrink because of excessive fermentation and seepage. Dry silage can have high shrink because of spoilage (for example, mold) during storage and feed out.
3. Chop length. Chopping too coarsely increases the amount of air trapped in the silage mass and reduces compaction. Chop just coarse enough to provide enough ‘chewable matter’ for the cows. Approximately 5% of the material on the top screen of the Penn State shaker box is usually adequate.
4. Rate of filling. Slow filling reduces the rate of fermentation so that pH stays high for a longer period of time which increases shrink. The faster you fill and pack (filling faster than you can pack will increase shrink), the less shrink.
5. Air trapped in the silage mass and air infiltration into the mass promotes yeast and mold growth causing shrink. Pack, pack, pack, and when you think you have packed enough, pack some more.
6. Not covering the silage in a bunker silo greatly increases shrink. Several studies have shown that covering a bunker with plastic returns around $8 in savings for every $1 invested in plastic and labor needed to cover the silo. For maximum benefit, cover quickly after the silo is filled.
7. Silage inoculants can increase, decrease, or not affect shrink (how is that for a useful statement). The standard silage inoculant (lactic acid bacteria) usually reduces fermentation losses slightly (i.e., reduces shrink) but often slightly increase spoilage losses during feeding. If spoiling during feed-out has been a problem on a specific farm, then use of lactic acid bacteria may increase overall shrink and would not be recommended. If spoilage has not been a problem on a specific farm, then use of lactic acid bacteria should be considered because of the reduction in fermentation losses. If spoilage has been a problem, propionic acid bacteria (Lactobacillus buchneri) is recommended. This inoculant often increases fermentation losses but usually reduces spoilage losses more.
Summary
- Maximize nutritional value of corn silage by chopping when corn is between 30 and 38% dry matter.
- Minimize shrink by chopping fine enough (but not too fine), filling rapidly, packing well and sealing the silo with plastic. Lactic acid bacterial inoculants will reduce shrink a bit if spoilage during feedout is not a problem. Lactobacillus buchneri inoculant will reduce spoilage during storage and feedout but will increase fermentation losses slightly.
MarketView...U.S. Dairy Outlook Brief 2010

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

The current discussion front and center for everyone involved in the U.S. dairy industry involves how broken the current system is and in what manner can this be repaired. My comments in this issue of BDN center on explaining what in the world is going on with U.S. dairy, milk prices, and dairy farm financial health. My comments center on the chart shown below:

This chart depicts the total number of milk cows in the U.S. herd over the period of January 1998 through September 2009. In particular, I wish to draw your attention to the three sub-periods; July 2000 through December 2004, January 2004 through July 2008, and January 2009 through September 2009.

In the first period the U.S. total milk cow numbers show that the national herd peaked in the first three months of 2000 at an average of 9.228 million milk cows. Just following this period, the Class 3 milk price reached its lowest price of $8.57/cwt in November 2000. Over the next 42 months, the number of milk cows declined (with a short period of reversal) from this 9.228 to 8.985 million head, a 2.5% reduction of 244,000 head. Balancing supply with demand, which over this period was essentially domestic use, the Class 3 milk price rose from the low of $8.57 to $20.58/cwt in May of 2004. Clearly reducing the number of milk cows produced a better and more profitable balance between milk supply and demand and a better bottom line for U.S. producers.

Now consider the period January 2004 through December of 2008. The total number of dairy cows in the U.S. dairy herd increased 3.87%, almost unabated, by 348,000 head to peak at 9.333 million head in December 2008. Over this period, the Class 3 milk price moved between a low of $10.83/cwt in May of 2006 to an all-time high of $21.38/cwt in July of 2007. What is different about this period versus the first period highlighted? Why with so many additional cows in milk, did the price manage to climb to over $20/cwt?

In the second period, the balancing of domestic supply with domestic demand was augmented with the new demand for export products from the United States. This impacted prices first in the skim milk powder market, absorbing all of our considerable government stocks of nonfat dry milk, then bleeding into the whey protein market and finally impacting on the supply and demand balance for cheddar cheese. High skim milk powder prices over this period had the impact of reducing the production of cheddar cheese as cheese processors sought less expensive ways of making cheese). It is the augmentation of domestic demand by export demand which fueled the unparalleled increase in the size of the U.S. milk cow herd.

Now to the last section to highlight. The period January 2009 through September 2009. With the economic growth in the world economies coming to a grinding halt over the period July 2008 to December 2008, this augmentation to domestic demand from exports vanished literally over a couple week period in mid December 2009. Without this additional demand to absorb the output from 9.3 million head of highly efficient dairy cows in the U.S., there was no manner in which milk prices could remain at the $20/cwt level. And of course they did not do so, falling almost immediately back to just under $10/cwt. The reaction in the U.S. dairy industry has been dramatic. In a space of only eight months, the industry has jettisoned 2.2% of its cows, 207,000 head. The current number of milk cows, 9,126 million head, represents a tremendous culling over a very short time period. Note that the time-frame is even more compressed as the real culling began in earnest after April 2009. Culling to date puts the number of milk cows back to the December 2006 level, a level commensurate to balance domestic demand, but not at the $20/cwt milk price, but at the $10/cwt level. The cows going to slaughter represent primarily herd expansions on farms that will continue to produce milk, and complete dairy farms, such as those herds purchased by the Cooperatives Working Together program, which have exited.

The question before us now is where do we go from here? The Chicago Mercantile Exchange futures price on Class 3 is projecting a $14.49/cwt average for the coming 12 months. The September 2009 USDA Livestock, Dairy and Poultry report projects a Class 3 price in the $13.75 to $14.75/cwt range. These prices reflect the view both in the market and from the dairy economists that the cow herd must be reduced more if we are to see prices better than these projections.

On the policy side, there are calls for a wait and see program, meaning do nothing on the supply management front, and let the natural exodus of cows and farms continue. At some point, the balance between supply and domestic demand will be restored and prices will rise. Will they rise back to the levels of 2007 and 2008? It depends on the depth of the retrenchment and the speed with which the domestic and international demands return. Clearly, a new balance will be achieved. As I have written in BDN before, I believe that the number of milk cows which will restore normal profit margins to U.S. dairy farms requires another 100 to 140 thousand head to exit the industry. This would put the U.S. industry back to the January 2004 level with a milk supply that will balance against domestic plus some small amount of export demand. Make no mistake about this reduction. It will be painful for many as most of the cows that have been sent to slaughter are from expansions and marginal producing cows. Those yet to exit will likely represent entire farms.

Others call for new federal programs designed to limit both the number of dairy cows and the efficiency of those cows on a farm by farm basis. These programs will work; they work in other countries such as Canada, but they do come at a cost to the U.S. industry. That cost is the overall efficiency of the U.S. dairy production sector. Supply management programs make it difficult for the dairy sector to react swiftly to new market opportunities, such as the growth of the export demand in 2007 and 2008. The cost of not implementing a supply management program of some type will be the continued swings in dairy prices, farmer income, and net returns. This is the thorny and difficulty challenge the industry will have to deal with in the coming months.

The Good News: Feed Costs Have Declined Over the Past Year

We’ve been tracking the cost of nutrients over the past three years, based on the estimates obtained from SesameIII predictions. Since last fall, the average cost of nutrients to feed a cow producing 75 lb/day of milk has decreased 70¢/day (Figure 1). Energy prices have declined by more than 50%, but some of this has been counter-balanced by the large increases in protein prices. Currently, it costs more to deliver metabolizable protein (MP) to the cow than energy (Figure 1).

Knapp Figure 1

Figure 1. Predicted nutrient costs to feed a 1500 lb Holstein cow producing 75 lbs/day of milk with 3.80% fat and 3.10% true protein. While the cost of energy has decreased over the past year, the cost of metabolizable protein has increased by more than 50%.

While some of this increased MP cost is derived from RDP (rumen degradable protein), the price of digestible RUP (dRUP; RUP = rumen undegradable protein) makes a larger contribution (Table 1). Work with your nutritionist or feed company representative to ensure that you’re getting the best quality (highly digestible and consistent) ingredients to provide RUP in your rations.

Date	Jul-08	Sep-08	Nov-08	Jan-09	Mar-09	Apr-09	Jun-09	Aug-09	Oct-09	Average
RDP ($/lb)	0.255	0.133	0.011	0.100	0.055	0.112	0.128	0.235	0.175	0.113
dRUP ($/lb)	0.336	0.307	0.315	0.372	0.479	0.334	0.590	0.485	0.450	0.390

Table 1. Estimated price of protein fractions in 2008 and 2009.

The cost of the key nutrients was estimated using SesameIII software and break-even prices of commodities and forages used in dairy rations were predicted (Table 2). Net Energy of Lactation (NEl) is estimated at 4.8¢/Mcal, which is substantially lower than what we’ve seen during the past three years. Metabolizable Protein (MP) at 61¢/lb is the highest we’ve seen historically. The prices of corn gluten meal and hydrolyzed feather meal are heavily impacting this value, while blood meal currently is a good value in providing digestible RUP. Non-effective neutral detergent fiber (neNDF) and effective NDF (eNDF) are –6.9 and 5.3¢/lb, respectively, well within their normal ranges. It is common for neNDF to be negative, as feeds that have high levels of this nutrient, such as by-products like distillers’ grains, corn gluten feed, etc., are discounted in the market relative to other feeds. Good- to high-quality, home-grown forages continue to be an excellent and inexpensive source of effective NDF.

Based on mid October wholesale prices for central Ohio, feed commodities fall into three groups:

Bargains	At Breakeven %	Overpriced
Brewers’ grains, wet Corn grain, ground Corn silage Distillers’ grains w/sol Expeller SBM Gluten feed Meat and bone meal Wheat midds	Alfalfa hay 44NDF 20% CP Bakery byproduct Blood meal Cottonseed, whole Feather meal Gluten meal Hominy Soybeans, whole Soybean meal, 48% CP Wheat bran	Canola meal Cottonseed meal, 41% CP Fish meal Molasses Soybean meal, 44% CP Soyhulls Tallow

The usual caveats with SesameIII™ results apply. You cannot formulate a balanced diet using only the feeds in the Bargains column. These feeds represent savings opportunities and can be utilized in rations to reduce feed costs within limitations for providing a balanced nutrient supply to the dairy cow. Prices for commodities can vary because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Feeds may also bring value to a ration in addition to their nutrient value, e.g. tallow as a “carrier” and dust suppressant in vitamin/mineral pre-mixes and molasses as a source of sugars.

The detailed results of the SesameIII™ analysis are given in Table 2. The lower and upper limits give the 75% confidence range for the predicted Break-Even prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” are either those that were completely out of price range (outliers) or had unknown prices, such as the alfalfa hays of different nutritional quality.

Table 2

Table 2. Prices of dairy nutrients, and actual wholesale, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits for feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms.

While feed costs are down and this will help improve income-over-feed costs, producers will still want to work closely with their nutritionists and feed sales representatives to control feed costs and maximize income over feed costs.

Pulse on Ohio’s Dairy Industry

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University Extension (top of page) pdf file

The economic crunch on Ohio’s dairy industry has been overwhelming. The rising costs of production with the decline in milk price created a situation of net loss. This crisis has been compared to the 56-month crisis of 1972-1977 in which both periods experienced extremely high feed prices (A Collapse in Demand Distinguishes the Current Dairy Crisis from the 56-Month Crisis of 1972-1977, Dale Leuck, Dairy Economist, Farm Service Agency). However, the drop in domestic and world demand of dairy products contributed in a major way to the current crisis. Increases in demand of dairy products and decreases in supply of milk would help to bring the price of milk up more rapidly. Although we certainly function within a national and global market, it is interesting to note the changes in Ohio’s dairy industry. Year-to-date (as of September) data reveal that the number of cows in Ohio has dropped only by 0.4% (approximately 1,000 cows) compared to 2008, but milk production has increased 0.6%. The mild summer temperatures, good feed supply, and improved management have contributed to this increase. In Figure 1, you will observe the small drop in cow numbers from September 2008 to September 2009. However, it is quite interesting to note the incremental increase in September milk production from 2007 through 2009. The increase in milk yield per cow is even more interesting. In 2007(47.8 lb/day), many farms in Ohio were using bovine somatotropin (BST). By September 2008, most farms shipping fluid milk had discontinued the use of BST because of the demands placed by processors for non-BST milk. Yet, milk yield per cow increased slightly in September 2008 (48.3 lb/day) compared to September 2007. Milk yield increased to 50.7 lb/day in 2009, a 5% increase compared to the prior year. Our concern has been that with the financial crisis, farmers would be cutting corners too sharp in feeding strategies due to the low cash flow, but milk yield does not reflect that has occurred. In Figure 1, the Ohio average for 593 Holstein herds on DHI was 55.9 lb/day (64.6 lb/day for milking cows), 10% above the average for all cows in Ohio. One of the solid messages is that management strategies to increase efficiency of dairy operations have been invoked and must continue. In general, the fall harvest of forage has resulted in high yields of good quality forage. The next six months will be a critical time for survival of Ohio’s dairy farm families. Debt load has continued to increase and in talking to people who have travelled around Ohio, bunkers on some farms were not filled with corn silage this fall. Management of cows, people, and finances will be the focus of those that survive this period of crisis.

Figure 1. Number of milk cows (x 1000), milk produced (million lb), and milk yield per cow (lb/day) during September 2007, 2008, and 2009 in Ohio, and average milk yield per cow of 593 Ohio Holstein herds on DHI as of October, 2009.
4-H and Collegiate Dairy Judging Results

Mrs. Bonnie Ayars, Extension Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University Extension

4-H

The World Dairy Expo contest results were their finest! The team finished 4th out of 27 participating state teams. Congratulations to the members who included Robin Alden (Danville), Michelle Funk (Jeromesville), Ty Etgen (Wapakoneta), and Jared Smith (Plain City). Jared was the star as the 4th high individual and also earned the highest score in placings. He will be featured in many national publication photos that report the contest. In breeds, the Ohio team was 1st place in Holstein, 3rd in Brown Swiss, and 5th in Jersey. Individually, Michelle was 2nd in the Jersey breed. Jared was 2nd in the Holstein breed followed in third by his teammate, Ty. Robin placed 13th for her reasons and Michelle and Jared were in the top 25 for their reasons. Ty was also 17th overall. Ty and Michelle are currently attending ATI and Robin and Jared are in high school.

At the Pennsylvania All American contest, the three team members competing were Ty, Robin, and Jared. All three finished in the top 25 with Robin in 6th, Ty in 14th, and Jared in 21st. As a team, they were 3rd in Ayrshire, 2nd in Brown Swiss, and 4th in Holstein and then overall, the team placed 4th. Robin completed her most successful outing as 7th in reasons, 8th in Ayrshire, 2nd in Brown Swiss, 5th in Holstein, and 4th in Jersey.

These 4-Hers should be congratulated for accepting the challenge and their outstanding results. These competitions are much more than judging cows. They are experiences that last a lifetime.

The team is coached by Bonnie Ayars, Extension Dairy Program Specialist. Many thanks to Mr. Bernie Heisner and Kelly Epperly for their assistance and also to Noel Alden, who accompanied the group on the Wisconsin trip and lended his invaluable expertise.

More information on all the results can be located at http://www.world-dairy-expo.com/nws.main.cfm for Madison results and for the PA All American, http://www.allamerican.state.pa.us/files/2009%20IYDCJC%204H%20Results.pdf

Collegiate

The OSU dairy judging teams are having a successful season with some excellent results to report, including a first ever for the OSU team. There were four separate contests in 3 states during the month of September in which the Buckeyes participated. The primary Scarlet team finished 4th at Eastern States with John Langel securing the 4th high individual designation. Other team members included Stephanie Neal, Rachel Foureman, and Paul Keener. At the PA All American contest, the team of Neil Duncan, Paul Keener, Stephanie Neal and John Langel were ranked 6th overall with three members finishing in the top 25. In reasons, the team was 4th and Neil Duncan was 7th in this category. We finished in the top 5 for two breeds. With a brief interlude to begin classes and work at Farm Science Review, the team then made their way to the national contest held at World Dairy Expo in Madison, WI. Teams from 19 universities were on hand to compete and once again OSU was the 6th high team, the most prestigious contest of them all. Stephanie, John, and Neil all finished in the top 25 overall in placings AND reasons to receive an All American distinction. Neil was 10th high individual. The team also finished in the top five of three separate breeds. Individually, Paul was 3rd in Brown Swiss and Neil was 1st and 5th in two breeds. An additional honor also went to Stephanie for earning a perfect 50 score for a set of reasons.

Results for World Dairy Expo contest: http://www.worlddairyexpo.com/you.intercollegiate.cfm
Results for PA All American Contest http://www.allamerican.state.pa.us/files/2009%20IYDCJC%20Collegiate.pdf
Results from Eastern States Contest http://www.thebige.com/agriculture/Results/09results/09agintcollegeteamsres.pdf

The understudy Gray team walked away with top honors at the Accelerated Contest in Viroqua, Wisconsin. This was the first time ever that Ohio State has won this contest. It was an exciting evening for the team composed of Hannah Thompson, Laura Gordon, Jason Miley, and Curtis Bickel. The results were most impressive! Jason was 3rd high overall, Curtis in 5th place, and Hannah in 7th. The team was 3rd in oral reasons, but Jason was 2nd overall in this portion. In the breeds, Jason was the winner in the Milking Shorthorn breed and Hannah was tops in Guernsey. The team was high for Holstein and Guernsey, 3rd in Jersey, and 2nd in Milking Shorthorn. Look for more details on this team as they compete in the North American Contest in Louisville, KY.

Accelerated Contest Results: http://www.accelgen.com/docs/dairy/jc2009results.doc

Web links to Milk Marketing Information: Ohio Dairy Web - http://aede.osu.edu/programs/OhioDairy/; eDairy, Inc. - http://www.dairy.nu/

Reviewing Nutrient Costs: 2009 vs. 2008 vs. 2007 Harvest Years

Dr. Joanne Knapp, Principal Technical Consultant, Fox Hollow Consulting, Columbus, OH (top of page) pdf file

The cost of providing NEl (Net Energy of lactation) in dairy rations this harvest year is closely paralleling the 2008-2009 crop year and is substantially down from the 2007-2008 crop year (Figure 1). In contrast, the cost of providing MP (Metabolizable Protein) is averaging higher than in the 2008-2009 crop year and twice that of the 2007-2008 crop year (Figure 2). Much of this cost is due to the price of feedstuffs that supply “bypass” or rumen undegradable protein, including the animal proteins (blood meal, hydrolyzed feather meal, and meat and bone meal), corn gluten meal, and whole cottonseed. Given the decreases in the livestock and poultry industries in terms of placement and slaughter numbers, the supply of the animal proteins will likely continue to be limited relative to demand and prices will stay up. However, don’t take these as golden predictions; I’m not an economist nor do I have a magic crystal ball!

Based on mid December wholesale prices for central Ohio, feed commodities fall into three groups:

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Brewers’ grains, wet Corn grain, ground Corn silage Distillers’ grains w/sol Expeller SBM Feather meal Gluten feed Meat and bone meal	Alfalfa hay 44%NDF 20%CP Cottonseed, whole Cottonseed meal 41%CP Gluten meal Hominy Soybeans, whole Soybean meal 48%CP Wheat midds	Bakery byproduct Blood meal Canola meal Fish meal Molasses Soybean meal 44%CP Soyhulls Tallow Wheat bran

MarketView...US. Dairy Outlook Brief 2010

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, The Ohio State University

In the last installment of Buckeye Dairy News (BDN), I discussed the ebb and flow of the U.S. dairy herd. To recap, I showed a chart with the growth and decline of the number of dairy cows in the United States over the time period January 1998 to September 2009. The chart showed the dramatic increase in that number over the period January 2004 through July 2008 and equally dramatic decline through September 2009. The new chart, which can be viewed each month on my webpage http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy shows the latest. Dairy cow numbers declined only 7 thousand head from October to November 2009. This is a dramatic slowing in the draw-down after declining an average of 34 thousand head each month over the preceding 5 months. The current USDA estimate puts the national herd at 9,091,000 head. This may be only a pause in the contraction or it may reflect the easing of the financial pain as milk prices have strengthened and input costs have fallen even more, resulting in positive gains in income over feed and other operating expenses (this chart is also available on my website).

My comments in this issue of BDN center on the chart shown below. Chart 1 shows the time path for (1) the Class 3 milk price (line) and (2) the annualized rate of change in milk production (bars) for the United States over the period January 1998 through November 2009.

Chart 1. United States: Class 3 milk price and annualized rate of change in milk production 2004-2009.

The chart visibly shows the inverse relationship between the rate of growth in milk production and the market clearing price. At the start of the period, early 2004, the U.S. milk production was contracting, growing at a negative rate, and the Class 3 milk price was increasing to peak at over $20 per cwt. The high milk price (and all other milk prices determined by this price) drew in more resources (mainly cows) and production growth returned to the positive, eventually reaching the 4 to 5% rate by mid 2005. Even before this period, while growth was well under 2% annualized rate, the Class 3 price declined to the $14 to 15/cwt level. The pattern of high(low) growth of U.S. milk production and low(high) milk prices continue over the decade.

Now consider the latest period shown in Chart 1. Milk production in the United States started to decline well before the infamous cheese price collapse of January 2009. The annualized rate of growth started its downward movement back in late 2007 and with the exception of two months in 2008, has been on a decline over the last 2 years. Contraction, as measured by negative annualized growth, occurred only in the months of August through November 2009. The slow rate of growth in U.S. production helped push the Class 3 milk price up from $10 to 14/cwt. The annualized rate of growth in milk production, while negative for November 2009, is showing the first sign of moving back toward expansion. If this indicates that the financial distress is easing for the nation’s dairy farms, this is good news. However, if this also forecasts that the contraction in the U.S. dairy herd is over, this may not be good news for the milk price and ultimately net returns to milk production. With aggregate domestic and international demand still weak, a too rapid return to positive growth in U.S. milk production will mean a weaker U.S. milk price in 2010.

The current Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) futures market is forecasting a Class 3 milk price for the coming year, January through December 2010 at $15.60/cwt. The December 17 issue of the USDA Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook has the Class 3 milk price in the $15.15 to 15.95/cwt range. The USDA price forecast is based on a continued decline in the U.S. milk cow numbers, falling to an average of 8.97 million head for 2010. This is a level last experienced in the United States in December 2003. If U.S. milk cow numbers continue to slide, milk prices for 2010 will remain above $15/cwt, and with some modest growth in international demand, could even reach the $16/cwt level by mid 2010. At that time, it might be a good decision to use the CME futures market to lock in these better prices or use the CME options market to put a floor under the milk price. Also, consider learning more about the Livestock Gross Margin Insurance product available to dairy producers. Each of these provide a management tool to which can assist in avoiding a repeat of 2009.
Molds and Mycotoxins
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University

Because of weather conditions during the past growing season, mold and mycotoxin contamination of some crops, particularly corn, is common. Molds are organisms and mycotoxins are chemicals produced by certain species of molds that are toxic to animals. Visibly moldy grain may or may not have mycotoxins and mycotoxins can be found on feeds that are not visibly moldy. Moldy corn that is not contaminated with mycotoxins is not as nutritious as clean corn. Molds consume nutrients, usually the most digestible one, thereby reducing the nutrient content of the corn. Moldy corn typically has higher concentrations of fiber and lower concentrations of starch and fat than clean corn. If allowed, cattle will select against consuming visibly moldy hay and fiber digestibility can be reduced when cattle are fed visibly moldy silage. Experiments directly evaluating the effects of feeding moldy grain to dairy cows are lacking. The consensus among nutritionists is that moldy feed most likely will reduce feed intake, which will then result in reduced milk production. Most of the research on moldy feeds have used hay or silage, and these typically comprise the majority of the diet. Corn and other grains usually make up less than one-third of the diet. Also because of all the mixing and blending that occurs during combining, storage, and feed manufacturing, mold is likely much less concentrated in grain than in hay or silage. This means that the increased amount of mold on corn grain this year may not be a general problem for cattle. However, if you observe visibly moldy corn (for example a moldy pocket in a bag) it should be discarded and not be fed to cows because of the potential decrease in intake and milk yield.

Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of different mycotoxins exist and unfortunately we know very little about most of them. The mycotoxins that are most commonly identified in feedstuffs this year are deoxynivalenol (DON; vomitoxin), T-2, zearalenone, and fumonisin, with DON being by far the most common.
1. Mycotoxin contamination of grain is not uncommon; cows (and people) have probably been consuming these compounds for centuries. Various surveys conducted in different years and in different countries typically find that 25 to 50% of feed commodities have detectable concentrations of DON (typically samples with detectable concentrations have concentrations less than 1 ppm). Therefore, you should not be overly concerned if grains have low, but measurable concentrations of DON (less than or equal to 1 ppm).
2. Distribution of molds and mycotoxins is not uniform. Tremendous variability in concentrations can occur within a single batch or bin of feed. This means that results from a single sample may not be meaningful. Multiple individual samples are needed to determine whether mycotoxin contamination is a concern. A single negative sample does not mean that the grain is mycotoxin free and a single sample with high concentrations of mycotoxins does not mean that the bin of feed should not be fed.
3. Distillers grain can be a substantial source of mycotoxins. Fermentation removes starch from the corn, resulting in an approximate 3X concentration of the remaining nutrients and contaminants. Corn that contained 1 ppm DON will produce distillers grain with about 3 ppm DON (on a dry basis). Some extremely high concentrations of DON have been reported in distillers grain this year. You should purchase only distillers grains that have been adequately sampled and analyzed for mycotoxins and contain an acceptable concentration (probably less than about 5 ppm DON on a dry basis). Because of the potential of mycotoxin contamination and other reasons (e.g., variable fat concentrations), the amount of distillers grains in dairy cows diets should be limited to 10 to 15% of diet dry matter.
4. The concentration of DON in the total diet that causes problems for dairy cows is not well defined but total diets with less than 3.5 ppm DON (dry basis) are probably okay when fed to lactating cows. Some studies that fed the specific compound (not actual contaminated grain) found no adverse effects at rates greater than 10 ppm, but most people think it is not a single mycotoxin that causes problems but the combination of different mycotoxins and molds that occur in naturally contaminated grain that cause the problem. A recent experiment was conducted with dairy cows fed diets with no detectable DON or a similar diet (3.5 ppm DON in the total diet) that included contaminated corn (7.5 ppm DON) and wheat (2.4 ppm DON) and they found no difference in feed intake (54.1 lbs/day for control and 52.8 lbs/day for the contaminated diet) and no difference in milk yields (73.5 and 78.3 lbs/day for control and contaminated treatments, respectively). The function of certain immune cells, however, was depressed in cows fed the contaminated grains. Another study that fed DON contaminated wheat found no effects on intake when the total diet contained approximately 5 ppm DON. However some field reports suggest that total dietary concentrations greater than about 2.5 ppm DON are associated with production losses. Fresh cows (first few weeks of lactation) may be more sensitive to mycotoxins than other cows because they are recovering from the stresses associated with calving, have relatively low intakes but high milk production, and can be immunosuppressed. Diets with up to 3.5 ppm DON (dry basis) may be acceptable for later lactation cows but may not be acceptable for fresh cows.
5. If you are faced with feeding mycotoxin contaminated feeds, the most effective solution is to limit the inclusion rate of contaminated feeds to dilute the concentration in the total diet. Certain feed additives are often included in diets to ‘bind toxins’. Data supporting these claims are generally quite limited. Many compounds will bind aflatoxin (a type of mycotoxin that should not be common this year) and reduce its concentrations in milk. The chemistry of aflatoxin is very different from many other mycotoxins, and compounds that bind aflatoxin often do not react with other mycotoxins. Limited data derived from cows suggest that some yeast-based products (e.g., glucomannans) may have some beneficial effects when fed with DON-contaminated diets. Field reports suggest that some clay-based compounds may also have some beneficial effects with DON-contaminated feeds. These compounds will increase ration costs and some of them can reduce the availability of certain minerals (especially copper and zinc) and vitamins. The safest and most effective method of reducing the impact of feeding mycotoxin contaminated feed is simply to dilute out the contaminated feed.
Income Tax Planning…Critical for 2009???
Ms. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University Extension (top of page) pdf file

Most dairy producers are glad to see this year come to a close and are looking forward to better conditions in 2010. Even though many farm families are facing net operating losses, income tax management is still an important issue that must be high on the “to-do” list as 2009 comes to a close.

Why are income taxes a concern if a farm lost money this year?
- It is possible for a farm that lost a considerable amount of money to still have a positive cash farm income and owe income taxes…and not have the dollars available to pay them.
How could a farm lose money all year and still owe income taxes?
- This depends on how the family has been able to handle their cash shortfall. If the farm had savings or a line of credit and is current on their bills because they used their savings, a line of credit or another loan to pay those expenses, then the expenses are deductible in this tax year. But, if the farm has open accounts, those dollars are not deductible expenses until they are paid.
What do you mean by open accounts?
- Normally, a farm will purchase feed, supplies, parts, or services and then be billed for them. Current accounts are those which are paid within 30 days. Once the balance due has been unpaid for more than 30 days, it is considered an “open” account. After 30 days, there is usually an interest charge on the dollars owed to the business. If the vendor is willing to extend this type of credit to a customer so they can keep purchasing inputs, these open account balances could become quite high.
Since the farm owes the money and will pay it eventually, why can’t they deduct the expenses now?
- For tax purposes, the farm business can’t deduct the expenses until they have actually paid for them. If a line of credit is used to pay the expense, or the payment is financed with a longer term loan, it is considered paid for tax purposes. As the line of credit or loan is paid off, only the interest on that repayment is deductible, not the principal paid…because it represents that expense already deducted on the farm’s taxes.
Back to the original question, how can a farm that lost a lot of money still owe income taxes?
- This is the frustrating situation that many unsuspecting families may face this year. Income was low and there were not enough dollars from the sale of milk, cull cows, crops, whatever, to stay current on their bills. If they did not have access to other dollars, their open accounts built up instead. All their dollars went to paying as many bills as they could plus family living expenses.
Even though their income could not cover everything, they can’t deduct the expenses they incurred, but couldn't pay for, in those open accounts. On paper, that can leave them with a positive net farm income (their family living expenses are not deductible) for which they could owe income taxes and self-employment taxes…and there isn't money to pay for them.

What about farms that were able to stay current on their accounts but will still have a loss this year?
- They will also need to be working with a good income tax practitioner. When there is a net operating loss, there are some opportunities to either carry that loss back or forward to offset an income tax liability in a previous or future year. Since 2007 was an excellent year for many dairy farm families, there may be an opportunity to carry a loss back which would generate an income tax refund.
What if a farm won’t generate a refund by carrying a loss back?
- If carrying this year’s net operating loss back will not generate an income tax refund, then the farm can elect to carry it forward for up to 20 years… in other words they could “save it” so to speak to use in a future good year.
How do you make these decisions?
- That is not an easy question! You can’t simply say “I have a $50,000 net operating loss this year and I had a $50,000 net operating income 2 years ago, that would offset each other, so I’ll carry it back.” There are deductions that were made when calculating the previous years’ tax liabilities that will have to be adjusted for a carryback decision. This is probably one of the areas that we should say “this should be done by a professional!”
Timeliness of this decision is also critical. If the farm decides to carry this year’s loss forward, because it will not result in little or no tax refund to carry it back, them the election to forgo the carryback must be made on a timely filed tax return.

Where does a family find help with these issues? It sounds like they will have to get on top of this as soon as possible!
- There are a couple routes to go here. Even if a farm uses a tax professional to help them make good decisions and prepare their taxes, farm managers should also read up on the current issues to be aware of what needs to be managed. Two good sources of information are the IRS’s Farmers Tax Guide, available at your local Extension office, and Purdue Extension’s “2009 Income Tax Guide for Farmers” which can be downloaded at http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/extension/pubs/taxplan2009.pdf
Finding a tax practitioner that has a good working knowledge of agriculture who can help with tax planning options and decisions is also important. Contact your local Extension Office for a list of practitioners who have participated in OSU’s Agriculture Issues Farm Income Tax Management Program. Many of these professionals participate annually, keeping up on current agricultural issues and earning professional continuing education credits. While we cannot endorse any person or persons in particular, if someone contacts our office, we can share that list of practitioners with them. They will know that the practitioner has dedicated some time to agricultural taxes.
2009 Ohio Dairy Challenge Contest – Even Larger Than Last Year’s Contest

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 2009 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held November 12-13 and was again sponsored by Cargill Animal Nutrition. The Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for undergraduates at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format whereby students are grouped into teams of three to four individuals, and the first and second place team members received gift certificates to the Barnes and Noble Bookstore, at $75 and $25 each, respectively. The farm selected for the contest this year was Harpercrest Dairy in Edison, OH (Morrow County), and it is owned by David and Beth Ertl and Stan and Cecelia Harper. Stan took over from his grandfather at the time when the herd was small and they milked in a flat stanchion. By 2004, the herd had expanded to 240 cows and this is when David began as the herdsman. The partnership was formed in 2009 between the Ertl and Harper families. The herd consists of about 550 cows of Jersey, Holstein, and Jersey-Holstein crosses. The parlor is a double-10 herringbone and cows are milked 3x per day. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Thursday afternoon, interviewing the owners and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. During Thursday evening, the teams spent about four hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities of the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation that had to be turned in on Thursday evening. On Friday, the students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges were Mr. Fred Martsolf (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Mr. Paul Colley (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU), and Dr. K. Larry Smith (Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU). There were 13 teams and 50 students that participated in the program, the largest participation ever. This surpassed last year’s record of 46 students. The awards banquet was held on Friday, November 13 at the Buckeye Hall of Fame Café. The students among the teams that competed were: Team #1(Honorable Mention) –Hannah Thompson, Laura Gordon, Matthew Borchers, and Kevin Jacque; Team #2 (Honorable Mention) – Karl Wedemeyer, Paul Keener, Neil Duncan, and Jason Miley; Team #3 – Linda Brahler, Jason Hartschuh, Kyle Brockman, and Rachel Foureman; Team #4 –Heather Moff, Ryan Langenkamp, Stephanie Neal, and Kelsey Holter; Team #5 – Melanie Green, Liz Brockson, Katie Cole, and Katherine Crist; Team #6 – Nathan Schulze, Chad Riethman, Derik Baumer, and Megan Buechner; Team #7 – Tony Borchers, Doug Beasancon, Andy Lefeld, and Gregg Homan; Team #8 (Honorable Mention) – Ryan Conklin, Andrea Tholen, Darrin Hulit, and Wendy Van der Burg; Team # 9 (ATI Team) – Francine Harris, Nathaniel Guy, and Ed Weisgarber; Team #10 (First Place) –Annie Eilenfeld, Bethany Stammen, Tyler Thompson, and Amanda Paulhamus; Team # 11 – James Reynolds, David Bowman, and Alex de Roziere; Team # 12 – Stephanie Adams, Hanna Lemle, Tim McCormick, and Justin Rawn; and Team # 13 (Second Place) –Teresa Smith, Catelyn Edgel, Kristin Hobble, and Alissa Hunter. The top 4 individuals for the contest that were selected to represent Ohio at the 2010 National Contest to be held April 9-10 in Visalia, CA were Annie Eilenfeld, Ryan Conklin, Heather Moff, and Amanda Paulhamus. Students from OSU will also be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge hosted by The Ohio State University in the Wooster area February 11-13, 2010. The coach for the Dairy Challenge is Dr. Maurice Eastridge in the Department of Animal Sciences at Ohio State.

First Place Team (left to right): Bethany Stammen,
Amanda Paulhamus, Annie Eilenfeld, and Tyler Thompson.

Second Place Team (left to right): Teresa Smith,
Kristen Hobble, Catelyn Edgel, and Alissa Hunter.
Bonnie's "Buckeye Moos" Update

Ms. Bonnie Ayars, Extension Dairy Program Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

As the end of the year approaches, I have spent time preparing a 2010 calendar for 4-H dairy activities. It is posted on the www.4hansci.osu.edu web page. There is also a current edition of my newsletter titled, “Bonnie’s Buckeye Moos.”

I hope you will take some time to encourage youth to participate in local and state wide programs. Once again, I am pleased to report that Ohio Dairy Productions Association (ODPA) and the American Dairy Association (ADA) Mideast will assist in sponsoring a program titled “Dairy COWreers.” The workshop will be an opportunity to link the dairy industry and the next generation, while creating an awareness of all the many career possibilities! I will be calling on many of you for your expertise and assistance. This April 10th “career fair” will be held in the 4-H Center here on campus.

Just this week, each participant in a state wide 4-H program, as well as every junior dairy exhibitor at the 2009 Ohio State Fair received a letter about dairy programs and the 2010 calendar. There were approximately 275 letters sent. It is my hope that this “grass roots” campaign will encourage interest to more dairy youth from all areas of the State.

As far as the collegiate level of judging, 5 students and I will be attending the Ft. Worth Stock Show in January. There is a dairy judging contest held there, and this is the first time OSU will be competing. Bernie Heisner will also accompany us on the trip, which will include some dairy farm visits, tours of local areas of interest, and a collaboration with the University of Wisconsin’s judging team.

The ODPA has established a Dairy Care Standards committee. I will be serving on this, and the first meeting was held December 15th. It was formed to begin the work of preparing a unified dairy industry approach that will be submitted for review of and the potential endorsement/certification by the Ohio Livestock Care Board. If you would like more details, please contact me or Jenny Hubble at ODPA.

Reviewing Nutrient Costs: 2009 vs. 2008 vs. 2007 Harvest Years

Dr. Joanne Knapp, Principal Technical Consultant, Fox Hollow Consulting, Columbus, OH (top of page) pdf file

The cost of providing NE_l Net Energy of Lactation) in dairy rations this harvest year is closely paralleling the 2008-2009 crop year and is substantially down from the 2007-2008 crop year (Figure 1). In contrast, the cost of providing MP (Metabolizable Protein) is averaging higher than in the 2008-2009 crop year and twice that of the 2007-2008 crop year (Figure 2). Much of this cost is due to the price of feedstuffs that supply “bypass” or rumen undegradable protein, including the animal proteins (blood meal, hydrolyzed feather meal, and meat and bone meal), corn gluten meal, and whole cottonseed. Given the decreases in the livestock and poultry industries in terms of placement and slaughter numbers, the supply of the animal proteins will likely continue to be limited relative to demand and prices will stay up. However, don’t take these as golden predictions; I’m neither an economist, nor do I have a magic crystal ball!

Fig 1 and 2

For a cow producing 75 lb milk with 3.7% milkfat and 3.0% true protein, the NE_l and MP costs are predicted to currently be $2.30 and $2.64/head/day, respectively. The MP is now the most expensive nutrient in a dairy ration. To obtain the most value out of the MP fed to your dairy cows, you should work closely with your nutritionist and feed company representative to ensure that the feeds used to provide rumen undegradable protein are high quality (highly digestible and consistent in nutrient content) and that rumen function and microbial growth are optimized. Balancing for amino acids will also allow the cows to use the MP more efficiently.

The cost of the key nutrients was estimated using Sesame III software, and break-even prices of commodities and forages used in dairy rations were predicted (Table 1). The NE_l is estimated at 6.6¢, a small decrease from December’s value. The MP at 50.7¢/lb is down from December, but is still high. Non-effective neutral detergent fiber (neNDF) and effective NDF (eNDF) are relatively unchanged at –8.7 and 5.5¢/lb, respectively. It is common for neNDF to be negative, as feeds that have high levels of this nutrient such as by-products like distillers’ grains, corn gluten feed, etc. are discounted in the market relative to other feeds. Good- to high-quality, home-grown forages continue to be an excellent and inexpensive source of effective NDF. Overall, we have not seen as many changes in feed prices post-harvest as we would in most years.

Based on mid December wholesale prices for central Ohio, feed commodities fall into three groups:

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn grain, ground Corn silage Cottonseed meal, 41% CP Distillers’ grains w/sol Expeller soybean meal Feather meal Gluten feed Meat and bone meal Soybean meal, 48% CP Wheat midds	Alfalfa hay, 44%NDF 20%CP Brewers' grains, wet Cottonseed, whole Hominy Soybeans, whole	Bakery byproduct Blood meal Canola meal Fish meal Gluten meal Molasses Soybean meal, 44% CP Soyhulls Tallow Wheat bran

The usual caveats with Sesame III™ results apply. You cannot formulate a balanced diet using only the feeds in the Bargains column. These feeds represent savings opportunities and can be utilized in rations to reduce feed costs within limitations for providing a balanced nutrient supply to the dairy cow. Prices for commodities can vary because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Feeds may also bring value to a ration in addition to their nutrient value, e.g. tallow as a “carrier” and dust suppressant in vitamin/mineral pre-mixes and molasses as a source of sugars.

The detailed results of the Sesame III™ analysis are given in Table 1. The lower and upper limits give the 75% confidence range for the predicted Break-Even prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” are either those that were completely out of price range (outliers) or had unknown prices, such as the alfalfa hays of different nutritional quality.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients, and actual wholesale, breakeven (predicted) and 75%
confidence limits for feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms.

Table 1

MarketView...U.S. Dairy Outlook Brief March 2010

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The MarketView installment of Buckeye Dairy News, December 2009, discussed the relationship between the annualized rate of change in U.S. milk production and the level of the Class 3 milk price. In that piece, I stressed the point that in order from U.S. milk prices to move up sharply and get back into the plus $16 level, the United States dairy herd would have to contract to less than 9 million head. This would contract U.S milk production to the extent necessary for weak domestic and international demand to balance out with supply and produce stronger prices. Now with the latest USDA milk production report released, it does not appear that we are headed in that direction going into 2010.

In this edition, I will take a look at the relationship between the change in the number of U.S. milk cows by month and the annualized rate of change in U.S. milk production. My comments center on the two charts shown below.

The first chart shows the change in the number of milk cows, from December 2008 through February 2010. January 2009 was the first month, going back to January 2004, which milk cow numbers in the United States did not increase from the prior month. Over the next 12 months, the number of milk cows in the U.S. dairy herd declined each month from the prior month. The total net decline in 2009 over 2008 was 224,000 head. The decline in average number of milk cows, 2008 to 2009, was 115,000 head. It is important to recognize that of the 224,000 head removed from the U.S. dairy herd in 2009, 201,500 were removed under the purchase-slaughter program of the Cooperative Working Together (CWT). The non-CWT removal over the entire year was only 22,700 head.

By the end of 2009, the net decline in the number of milk cows in the United States had slowed considerable, with only a 3,000 head reduction in November to December. With the release of the January and February 2010 milk cow number estimates by the United States Department of Agriculture, the U.S. dairy herd has begun to expand once again, increasing 6,000 head over the December 2009 level. With strong economic recovery in the domestic market and the international market yet to appear, this is not good for hopes of a stronger milk price in coming months.

Now look at the second chart. This chart shows the annualized rate of change, growth or decline, in U.S. milk production over the December 2008 through February 2010 period. The chart shows a significant production adjustment to support level prices in February 2009 followed by positive but nearly zero growth March through July 2009. What is also evident from the data is the fact that U.S. milk production growth, while slowing down considerably, did not contract in any meaningful way until the last 6 months of 2009. Over this period, U.S. milk production capacity contracted at an annualized rate of +0.6 of a percent each month through January 2010. In February 2010, milk production capacity in the United States ceased contracting and turned in a slightly positive growth. This is the result of increasing output per cow and more cows in milk.

The question is what will happen as we move further into 2010? Has the U.S. dairy financial situation turned a corner, with feed costs, utility and fuel costs enough lower, resulting in a return to marginal profitability for dairy farms? Is this reversal in the contraction of the U.S. dairy herd merely a short-term pause before regaining momentum for another contraction as happened back in 2002-2003?

The answer to these questions will determine what market price outlook will be for the rest of 2010. The USDA reports show that there are considerable dairy product stocks in inventory, especially cheese, and a return to positive growth in dairy cow numbers and with it milk production will mean that the modest gains in prices to date will be unsustainable in the coming months. If this happens, this will place renewed pressure on the already financial strapped dairy farm sector, and we could very likely see a renewed exodus of milk cows beginning in the second half of 2010, as ag lenders finally close the books on underwater dairy farmers. It would be a positive sign to see the number of milk cows contract again in the coming months. The CWT has announced that it will resume export subsidies for cheese in an attempt to remove some of the overburden. A renewed CWT dairy herd removal would also help at this stage; however, after the significant effort in 2009, this does not appear too likely in the coming months.

The current Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) futures market is forecasting a Class 3 milk price for the April through December 2010 at $14.50/cwt. This is down $1.00/cwt over the last 2 months as CME cheese, butter, and non-fat dry milk markets have all lost ground over the past 8 weeks of trading.

This would be a good time to learn more about the use of futures and options to protect your milk price should a pricing opportunity arise in the coming weeks or months. Also, consider learning more about the Livestock Gross Margin Insurance product available to dairy producers. Each of these programs provides a management tool to assist you in protecting your milk price in 2010 and 2011. You can find out more about this by visiting my website: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy. Look for the links to Livestock Gross Margin Insurance or Price Risk Management.

Milk Production for Ohio Dairy Herds

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

It is always important to monitor the yield of milk and the composition of milk, especially for the individual farmer, because the income of the dairy farm depends on this source of revenue. The yields of protein and fat are the primary determinants of the price received by farmers. The proportions of fat and protein are useful in monitoring cow health and feeding practices within a farm. The income over feed costs (IOFC) and feed costs per hundred of milk are important monitors of costs of milk production.

The average production of milk, fat, and protein by breed for Ohio dairy herds in 2009 using the Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI; http://www.dhiohio.com) program (official test option only) are provided in the Table 1. Not all herds on DHI are included in the table below because of the different testing options offered by DHI, some herds opt for no release of records, lack of sufficient number of test dates, and given that some of the herds consist of other breeds than the ones shown. Over the past 15 years for official herds on DHI, the number of Ayrshire cows has dropped by about 30%, Brown Swiss and Jersey dropped by about 50%, Guernsey dropped by about 80%, Holstein dropped by about 65%, and the mixed breed has increased by almost two-fold, reflective of the cross-breeding that is occurring today in dairy herds. During the same time period, the number of dairy farms in Ohio has decreased by about 50%.

Table 1. Number of herds, milk yield, milk fat, and milk protein by breed for Ohio herds on DHI during 2009.

Breed	Number of Herds	Milk (lb/lactation)	Milk fat (%)	Milk protein (%)
Ayrshire	12	16,722	3.95	3.20
Brown Swiss	16	19,328	4.01	3.38
Guernsey	5	14,481	4.51	3.33
Holstein	319	23,287	3.72	3.06
Jersey	49	16,914	4.87	3.66
Mixed	45	19,365	3.80	3.19

Some dairy industry statistics for Ohio and the US are provided in Table 2. Over the past 15 years, the average herd size in Ohio has almost doubled. The average herd size of DHI herds has increased by 60%, slightly less than the Ohio average. Although the number of herds on DHI has decreased, the proportion of herds on official DHI test has remained about the same over the past 15 years (~15%). It is important to note that many others herds are on other testing options with DHI, which overall has increased the proportion of herds using DHI services compared to several years ago. The average milk yield per cow, whether for all Ohio, Ohio herds on DHI, or for the US, has increased 1 to 2% per year. As has been discussed for a long time, the average milk yield in Ohio is lower that for the US, about 1800 lb in 2009. Some of this has been attributed to forage quality issues in Ohio and a higher proportion of colored breeds (especially Jersey) in Ohio compared to most other states. The average milk yield for Ohio DHI herds is higher than the average milk yield in Ohio and the US. Over the past 15 years, the average milk yield of Ohio DHI herds has been about 3400 lb higher than the average for all herds in Ohio. Even at $15/cwt, that would equate to about an additional $500/cow per year or $50,000 for a 100-cow herd or $250,000 for a 500-cow herd. But as we know, being average is not the benchmark in being able to survive in today’s dairy industry. The high DHI Holstein herd in 2009 averaged 33,225 lb/cow (150-cow herd) and the high Ohio Holstein herd in 1995 averaged 29,423 lb/cow (123 cows), each being 43% and 50%, respectively above the DHI breed average. With today’s high cost of production, the benchmark has to be set at being above “average”.

Table 2. Dairy industry statistics from 1995 to 2010.

All Ohio Herds					Ohio DHI Herds²			U.S.
Year	#Head¹	#Farms	Cows/ farm	Milk/cow (lb)	# Farms	Cows/ farm	Milk/cow (lb)	Milk/cow (lb)
1995	289	6800	43	15,917	1155	77	18,930	16,405
1996	285	6500	44	15,298	1084	79	18,640	16,433
1997	280	6000	47	15,768	962	83	19,580	16,871
1998	264	5900	45	16,705	905	85	19,162	17,185
1999	260	5700	46	17,077	833	88	19,371	17,763
2000	262	5500	48	17,027	816	95	19,808	18,197
2001	260	5200	50	16,519	736	91	19,365	18,162
2002	262	5000	52	17,080	848	88	19,930	18,608
2003	260	4700	55	17,269	734	103	20,718	17,759
2004	263	4500	58	17,338	742	114	20,936	18,960
2005	270	4400	61	17,567				19,550
2006	274	4300	64	17,737	613	126	22,172	19,895
2007	275	3700	74	18,042	678	148	22,754	20,204
2008	280			18,321	573	130	22,094	20,395
2009	277			18,744	447	126	22,178	20,576
2010	272	3275	83

¹Number of head x 1000.
²Herds on official DHI test only.

Bovine Calving Management: Impact of Dystocia on Dairy Calves and Cows
Dr. Gustavo Schuenemann, Extension Veterinarian, Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Dystocia is defined as an abnormal or difficult birth at any stage of labor. Dystocia has a direct negative impact on calves (e.g., prolonged hypoxia, significant acidosis, vigor, increased stillborn calves, etc.) and dams (e.g., trauma, paresis, metritis, endometritis, etc.). Stillbirth is defined as a calf born dead or dead within 24 hours after birth.1 Based on the degree of difficulty/assistance during calving, dystocia can be classified in five categories (1-5 scores): 1 = births without assistance, 2 = required some intervention by one person, 3 = required assistance of 2 or more people, 4 = required mechanical extraction, and 5 = required surgical procedure.¹ The main causes of dystocia are: 1) fetal-maternal size mismatch, 2) fetal malpresentation, and 3) dam related causes (e.g., uterine torsion). The fetal-maternal size mismatch (e.g., bull calves) is the most frequent cause of dystocia in primiparus dams, while fetal malpresentation and/or maternal related causes is the most frequent causes of dystocia in multiparus dairy cows. Overall, the frequency of dystocia (required assistance during calving) is higher in primiparus (19%) than multiparus cows (11%; Figure 1).² However, in some dairy herds and especially in primiparus dams, more than half (51.2%) of the calves required assistance during calving.¹

Severe dystocia is associated with increased risk of stillbirths, calves’ morbidity (e.g., respiratory diseases) and deaths within 30 days post-calving.¹ Additionally, postpartum cows subjected to severe dystocia are at increased risk of uterine diseases (e.g., retained fetal membranes, metrtitis, and endometritis) and are exposed to contamination of the uterus by recognized uterine pathogens (e.g., E. coli, A. pyogenes) that are associated with ovarian dysfunction (e.g., smaller follicle size, lower plasma estradiol and prolonged luteal phase).⁴

Recognizing the signs of calving: The normal calving process is classified into three stages, and recognizing the stages is critical for a successful outcome (for the dam and the calf).
- Stage I: is characterized by dilation of the birth canal and cervix, and initiation of uterine contraction. Usually, the cow/heifer is off-feed and appears restless. This stage lasts for approximately 2 to 6 hours in mature cows, but it may be longer in heifers.
- Stage II: is characterized by the appearance of the amniotic sac (or water bag), uterine and abdominal contractions are evident, and this stage ends with the expulsion of the calf (or calves). This stage lasts for approximately 2 hours in cows and up to 4 hours in first calving heifers. It is critical that good progress is observed during this stage to determine whether an intervention is required. If there is abdominal contraction but no calving progress after 1 hour of the water bag appearance, intervention is required.
- Stage III: is characterized by the expulsion of the fetal membranes (placenta). Usually, the fetal membranes are expelled within 3 hours of delivery. If the fetal membranes are not expelled within 8 to 12 hours post-calving, treatment might be needed.
When to intervene: Being able to recognize the calving stages (and signs) in a timely manner is critical for positive outcomes. Generally, once the water bag appears (or is broken), birth should occur within 2 hours for mature cows (and longer for heifers; ~2 to 4 hours). As a guideline, the cow/heifer needs intervention when there is not calving progress within 1 hour after the water bag’s appearance. The frequency of observations (approximately every 2 to 3 hours for first calving heifers and 4 to 5 hours for adult cows) is critical to determine when to start counting.

Guidelines for calving assistance:
- Hygiene should be a top priority. Wash the perennial region with soap and water, and use obstetrical lubricant and long sleeves.
- Check the size of the fetus in relation to the size of the birth canal (dam). Call your veterinarian if there is no progress within 30 minutes after your intervention.
- Use clean and sanitized obstetric chains (free of debris/dirt) and correct any malpresentation and/or malposition before pulling.
- For first calving heifers, once the nose/feet of the calf are out: help finish.
- For backward presentation: help out.
- Have written calving protocols for your dairy personnel (e.i., frequency of observations, when/how it is appropriate to intervene, etc.).
Implications: Losses due to dystocia can be very costly to dairy producers through an increased number of stillbirths and injury to dams. However, the impact of dystocia also compromises reproductive performance of lactating dairy cows, leading to increased uterine diseases, ovarian dysfunction, and decreased fertility. Therefore, education of dystocia management (and it effects on calves and dams) to dairy personnel should be a priority.

For more information, please consult with your local veterinarian or visit our web site (http://cvm.osu.edu/5997.htm).

References
1. Lombard, J.E., F.B. Garry, S.M. Tomlinson, and L.P. Garber. 2007. Impacts of dystocia on health and survival of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1751-1760.
2. USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH. 2007. Calving intervention on US dairy operations. Accessed on Mach 19, 2010; http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/dairy/.
3. Integrated Livestock Management. Colorado State University. Accessed on March 2010; http://www.cvmbs.colostate.edu/ilm/proinfo/calving/notes/home.htm.
4. Sheldon, I.M., J. Cronin, L. Goetze, G. Donofrio, and H-J. Schuberth. 2009. Defining postpartum uterine disease and the mechanisms of infection and immunity in the female reproductive tract in cattle. Biol Reprod 81:1025-1032.

Weebles Wobble

Ms. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University Extension (top of page) pdf file

“Weebles wobble, but they don’t fall down” was a popular slogan touting egg-shaped toys popular in the 1970’s. These toys (including a farm set complete with a purple cow) are weighted at the larger end, so even when pushed all the way over onto their sides, they quickly spring back up when released. Many dairy farms feel like that weeble cow, pushed way, way over by industry pressures. The question is, can they quickly spring back up when the pressure is relieved? That isn’t a simple question. While price pressure has eased somewhat, with Class III futures prices for March through July averaging under $13.20 as of this writing, we are looking at potential farm gate prices that will not reach the total cost of production on most farms. Again - just in time for spring planting, when cash flow demands are highest. So, we have to ask a few uncomfortable questions: “Where is the point where my dairy can’t bounce back?” and “What should we monitor to know if we are getting close to that point?” I would suggest several key numbers should be calculated and monitored:

Key Numbers	Competitive Level
Debt to asset ratio	< 40%
Debt per cow	$2,500 to $3,500 per cow
Scheduled debt payment per cow (annual)	< 15% of gross receipts -or- < $500 per cow
Working Capital	15 to 25% of annual expenses

Why? On average, dairy farms added $1,000 of debt per cow in 2009, just for the privilege of continuing to milk cows. While this number will vary from farm to farm based on costs of production, cash reserves and milk pricing strategies, this additional debt has to be carefully managed. Like it or not, this has huge ramifications for future profitability. Unless the debt will be repaid by some other non-cow source of income, we have to ask our cows to work harder simply to repay 2009’s additional debt. These key numbers are relatively simple to calculate. “Dairy Excel’s 15 Measures of Dairy Farm Competitiveness” lays out the formulas, including an example calculation and information for each key number. The 15 Measures bulletin is available through your Extension office, or easily downloaded at https://dairy.osu.edu. Look under the “New Publications” heading on the home page. A final, critical key number for your dairy farm business is the cost of producing milk per cwt. Knowing this number gives you a pretty specific indicator of when the dairy is likely to return to profitability based on projected milk prices. A set of worksheets to guide you through the process of calculating both historic and projected costs of production is also available at https://dairy.osu.edu under the “Timely Articles” heading. The cost of production number, combined with the 4 key numbers above will help each farm define the point where the business is unlikely to be able to bounce back.What a miserable topic. However, on an individual farm basis, an important one. We are not just talking about dairy farm businesses in an abstract sense. We are talking about people, families, lives. People who have committed to building or carrying on a dairy farm business because they love cows and farming. People who are providing jobs to other people and families. So why talk about it? Because it does involve people and what they have worked hard to build. Because it is better to anticipate and proactively deal with the potential situation and preserve as much of the equity that people have built through the years than to wait until it is all gone and someone else makes the decision for you.

Bovine Calving Management Training: Dystocia and Calf Care

Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Extension Veterinarian, Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

This bovine calving management course available from Veterinary Extension within the Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine offers educational knowledge and skills in a face-to-face and hands-on workshop environment for dairy personnel (Spanish- and English speaking workers). The course provides a framework to develop applied skills on bovine calving management for immediate use. Identification of calving signs, normal and abnormal presentations, techniques for assisting delivery, record-keeping, good hygiene practices, and management of the newborn will be covered in this short course. The course includes classroom instruction, followed by a hands-on wet lab in which participants will practice delivery techniques and newborn care management practices. The course lecture materials and notes will be available in Spanish and/or English. For more information, contact Dr. Gustavo Schuenemann at schuenemann.5@osu.edu or 614-292-6924.
2010 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 19th annual Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference will be held April 20 & 21, 2010 at the Grand Wayne Center, Ft. Wayne, IN. The objective of the Conference is to disseminate current information on the nutrition and feeding of dairy cattle, primarily to individuals who provide nutritional advice to dairy farmers. Feed industry personnel, nutrition consultants, Extension personnel, veterinarians, and interested dairy producers are encouraged to attend. The Conference is sponsored by The Ohio State, Michigan State, and Purdue Universities and allied industries. The registration fee is $165 per person (discounts are available for groups of 5 or more) and is due by April 9, 2010. Registration after the deadline and at the door is $195. The registration fee includes refreshments during breaks and the reception, one breakfast, and a copy of the Proceedings. Additional copies of the Proceedings will be available at $20/copy.

A free pre-conference program is sponsored by Zinpro. This program takes place from 8:30 to 11:30 am on April 20, with a complimentary breakfast starting at 7:30 am. Registration for the TSDNC begins at 11:00 am on April 20, with the program starting at 12:50 pm. The Conference concludes at 12:30 PM on April 21. The themes this year are Nutrition and Animal Health; Heifer Management; and Feeding Program Management.
For additional information on the Conference or to register, contact Michelle Milligan at OSU (614) 292-7374 or go to our web site: http://tristatedairy.osu.edu. Additional information also is available by contacting: Dr. Maurice Eastridge, The Ohio State University, (614) 688-3059; Dr. David Beede, Michigan State University, (517) 432-5400; or Dr. Tamilee Nennich, Purdue University, (765) 494-4823.
2010 Midwest Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The sixth annual Midwest Dairy Challenge drew 66 dairy and animal science students from 15 universities and colleges to the Shisler Center in Wooster, Ohio, February 11-13, 2010. This year’s contest was hosted by The Ohio State University and the allied dairy industry. Students from Ohio State participating in the contest were Ryan Conklin, Annie Eilenfeld, Heather Moff, Amanda Paulhamus, and Teresa Smith. Working in four- or five-person, mixed-university teams, students assessed all aspects of a working dairy farm and then presented their highest priority recommendations to a panel of judges and the dairy business owners. Judges chose three teams as Platinum winners, the contest’s highest distinction. The individuals who comprised these teams were Holly Bruns, South Dakota State; Ryan Conklin, Ohio State; Sabrina Eick, OSU-ATI; Andrea Eilenfeld, Ohio State; Allison Flinn, Iowa State; Tricia Gates, Lakeshore Technical College; Nathanial Guy, OSU-ATI; Katherine Harmelink, UW-Madison; David Hutchinson, UW-Platteville; Darci O’Brien, UW-Madison; Brenda Reiter, University of Minnesota; Stephanie Retz, UW-River Falls; Natalie Schreyer, Kansas State; and Ed Weisgarber, OSU-ATI.

The host farms for the 2010 Midwest Dairy Challenge were Steinhurst Dairy and Ayers Family Dairy. Steinhurst Dairy is a seventh-generation dairy farm. Myron Steiner and his three sons, Carlton, David and John, started with a 25-cow dairy in 1959. As time progressed, David and John took over the day-to-day operations. The family formed an LLC in 1995 with John, David, and David’s sons, Eric and Kurt. After the untimely death of David Steiner last February, the operation reorganized its leadership with John, Kurt, and Eric. All three of them are involved in various aspects of the operation. Currently, the farm consists of 410 milking cows and 1,200 acres. The Ayers Family Dairy is certainly a family-operated dairy farm. Carl Ayers returned home in 1968 to assume management responsibilities along with his brother, Steve, and parents Ed and Ina. Carl’s wife Janet and Steve’s wife Deb help manage the dairy full-time as well. Kathy Davis returned to help manage the farming operation full-time in 1994. Jesse Ayers returned to help manage the farming operation full-time in 2002. David Ayers is currently helping with the farming operation and taking agronomy courses in crop and soil science at OSU-ATI. Today, the herd consists of 693 cows and 630 heifers. THANKS is extended to the Ayers and Steiner families for hosting this outstanding program.
MarketView...U.S. Dairy Outlook Brief May through July 2010

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

In this installment of The MarketView, I will take stock of the current milk production situation in Ohio and contrast this with the U.S. dairy situation. At the end of this piece, I will explore how this translates into the outlook for market price.

Milk Cows and cow productivity: Ohio

In the first two charts, Chart 1 and Chart 2, you will see the number of milk cows in Ohio (Chart 1) and the yield per cow (Chart 2). Yields and production data are each adjusted to reflect a 30-day month.

Cows in milk peaked in Ohio back in the May through July period at 282,000 head. Looking at Chart 1, you can see two adjustment periods. The first period begins with August 2008 and ends December 2008. Milk cows moved down 6,000 head. The second period occurred in late 2009. In fact, milk cows increased marginally from May to September 2009 before starting down in earnest. This was due, no doubt, to the influence of the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) payments and a short lived resurgence in milk price during this period. This promoted an atmosphere of optimism that holding on just a bit longer might pay off. It did not, and over the period of October 2009 through March 2010, Ohio milk cow numbers declined by 10,000 head. With the average herd size for Ohio at 74 cows, this represents 135 producer-farms exiting the industry as the financial screws tightened.

Chart 2 shows the productivity on Ohio dairy farms. During the 2008 through April 2010 period, milk per cow per day has increased by 6 lb/day (13%). During the financial calamity that occurred in 2009, productivity on Ohio dairy farms actually increased from a low of 48 lb to 53 lb/day. The latest run shows productivity increasing sharply over the January through April 2010 period. Milk output has increased from 50 to 56 lb/day. This is a result of Ohio dairy producers culling low producing cows from the herd. Removing these low producers while shrinking the overall herd raises the average milk cow output.

Milk Cows and cow productivity: United States

In the second two charts, Chart 3 and Chart 4, you will find the number of milk cows, United States, (Chart 3) and the U.S. yield per cow (Chart 4).

The national dairy herd peaked during the April 2008 through January 2009 period at just over 9.3 million head. With the collapse of the milk price in February 2009, dairy producers began a more aggressive culling of low producing cows. The Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) program also began an aggressive campaign to use its farmer paid funds to remove dairy cows. This culminated in the dramatic slide in cow numbers nationally (see MarketView, BDN March edition for a detailed look at this culling activity). From a peak of 9.334 million head in December 2008 to a low of 9.082 million head in December 2009, the nations dairy herd declined 2.7%. With better milk prices and lower input prices, this slide ended in January 2010, and over the first four months of this year, the dairy producers have added back 14,000 dairy cows.

The productivity pattern for the national dairy herd is very similar to that experienced in Ohio. The latest numbers show milk productivity, measured by milk output per cow per day, as increasing rather sharply from 55 to 60 lb/day. With 14,000 more dairy cows in milk, this 5 lb/day rise means there is productive capacity for 70,000 lb/day of additional milk coming on the market.

Annual Milk Production, Ohio and the United States

Charts 5 and 6 show the annual production levels for Ohio and the United States. Each monthly production level shows the 12-month rolling average or the total production for the past 12 months. Looking at Chart 5, we can see that milk production in Ohio showed only a slight deviation from its trend during 2009. Milk production capacity is now approaching 5.2 billion pounds annually. Looking at the 12-month rolling average for the United States (Chart 6), we can see that the very significant trend in U.S. productive capacity for 2008 came to halt in 2009, dropping back for most of the year, and then declining over the last four months of 2009. With stronger milk prices in the early months of 2010, increasing cow numbers and milk productivity, milk production capacity is on the upswing, but still below the 2008 peak.

Ohio share of U.S. milk production

The final chart in the overview of Ohio and U.S. milk productive capacity is Chart 7. This chart shows the Ohio share of total milk production over the past two plus years. The message is clear. Ohio is increasing its share of milk production relative to the rest of the United States. This share has increased from a low of 2.67% in early 2008 to 2.74% as of April 2010.

Milk production capacity and the Class 3 price

Chart 8 shows the relationship between the rate of change in the U.S. capacity to produce and market milk and the Class 3 milk price. I have used this chart in past Marketview articles to reinforce the point that rates of growth in our milk production capacity, which exceeds 2% per year, is accompanied by Class 3 milk price below $15/cwt. The only exception to this occurred at the peak of the world speculative housing bubble, 2007 and early 2008. This was an anomalous time period, when all commodity markets including dairy commodity markets were off the chart on the demand side. Looking at Chart 8, and setting aside this anomalous 2007-2008 period, high milk prices are created by negative annualized growth rates, as with 2004, or with annualized growth rates sustained below 2% per year, as with July 2006 through June 2007.

Current market price outlook

The current Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Class 3 milk futures price is shown in Chart 9, along with the median Class 3 price and the upper and lower quartile bounds. As of May 19, 2010, the May 2010 futures price is $13.36/cwt. The median price for May 2000-2009 is $12.30/cwt. The CME Class 3 price pattern shows prices just a bit above the long-term median price through October 2010 and then increasing significantly for the months of November 2010 through April 2011. Why the dramatic increase in the latter part of the coming 12 months? The answer is one of two views. Either there will be a renewed culling beginning in earnest at the end of the summer due to continued financial pressure on the nation’s dairy farms, or the market is anticipating a resurgence in domestic and more importantly international demand toward the end of 2010, or possibly a combination of these two events. What will take place? I do not know. What I think you can take from this edition of the MarketNews is that the growing milk production capacity in the United States suggests that milk prices will remain below the $15/cwt mark over the summer. If a resurgence of international demand does come toward the end of 2010, the Class 3 price may be in the upper $14/cwt range. As a planning price, for those shipping milk in Ohio and the Mideast Federal Milk Marketing Order, I would suggest using a Class 3 price of $14.50/cwt. and add another $1.00 to get a blend price of $15.50/cwt.

In the next edition of MarketView for Buckeye Dairy News, I will review the demand side for the market. This will include a review of domestic disappearance and developments in the international markets. Stop back in July.
This would be good time to learn more about the use of futures and options to protect your milk price should a pricing opportunity arise in the coming weeks or months. Also consider learning more about the Livestock Gross Margin Insurance product available to dairy producers. Each of these provides a management tool to which can assist you in protecting your milk price in 2010 and 2011. You can find out more about this by visiting my website: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy. Look for the links to Livestock Gross Margin Insurance or Price Risk Management.

Does it Pay to Increase Milk Components at Current Prices?

Dr. Joanne Knapp, Principal Technical Consultant, Fox Hollow Consulting, LLC, Columbus, OH (top of page)

Yes! If you’re a believer, you can quit reading now and go do something more important. If you’re a skeptic, let’s keep going. With current component prices of $1.5810/lb milk fat and $2.1449/lb milk protein, fat is worth more than protein in terms of income over nutrient costs (IONC; Table 1) on a herd basis. However, every point of protein is worth more than the same point of milk fat. Generally, it is easier to achieve larger improvements in milk fat than protein. Fortuitously, quite often nutritional and feeding management changes aimed at improving milk fat will also result in increases in protein.

Table 1. Income and nutrient costs of milk components per month for a herd of 100 Holstein cows producing milk at 75 lb/day with 3.70% milk fat and 3.00% true protein. Income based on April Federal Milk Marketing (FMM) prices and nutrient costs from SesameIII analysis (below).

	Income (milk sales)	Cost (nutrients)	Net (IONC)
Body Weight	$ -	$ 4,273.17	$(4,273.17)
Fat	$13,417.58	$ 3,664.10	$ 9,753.48
Protein	$14,746.83	$ 6,020.88	$ 8,725.94
Other Solids	$ 2,271.35	$ 2,164.69	$ 106.66
Water	$ 801.54	$ -	$ 801.54
Total	$31,237.30	$16,122.84	$15,114.45

Currently, in FMM 30, herds are shipping milk with 3.73% milk fat and 3.06% true protein. There is substantial herd-to-herd variation. Figure 1 shows the increase in milk income for the fat and protein components at approximately 1 standard deviation above and below the average. What if your herd is above that average? In this situation, the IONC is $816/100 cows/mo more than the average herd at the same production level. Note that this accounts for the extra nutrients and feed required to produce the higher level of components. There are multiple nutritional and feeding management approaches to increase milk components. You should work closely with your nutritionist and feed company representative to implement these changes.

Figure 1. Income over nutrient costs (IONC) varies as a function of milk components at the same level of production (MF = milk fat, blue bars; TP = true protein, red bars; prt = protein; income and costs in Table 1 are provided.

The cost of the key nutrients was estimated using SesameIII software and break-even prices of commodities and forages used in dairy rations were predicted (Table 2). Net Energy increased from March’s value. Metabolizable Protein (MP) at 44.9¢/lb is down from March. This is the lowest we’ve seen it in the past year. It reflects the decrease in prices of ingredients with high rumen undegradable protein content, such as feather, meat-and-bone, and corn gluten meals. Non-effective neutral detergent fiber (neNDF) and effective NDF (eNDF) are relatively unchanged at –9.0 and 4.0¢/lb, respectively. It is common for neNDF to be negative, as feeds that have high levels of this nutrient, such as by-products like distillers’ grains, corn gluten feed, etc., are discounted in the market relative to other feeds. Good- to high-quality, home-grown forages continue to be an excellent and inexpensive source of eNDF. Overall, feed prices continue to have little change this crop year, unlike what has been seen in the past. The observation that corn and soybean prices have changed little despite the fast pace of corn planting and the very good Brazilian soybean crop this spring may indicate that these commodity markets are still being distorted by hedge fund investments.

Based on early May wholesale prices for central Ohio, feed commodities fall into three groups:

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Corn grain, ground Corn silage Cottonseed meal, 41% CP Distillers’ grains w/solubles Expeller soybean meal Feather meal Gluten feed Hominy Meat and bone meal Wheat midds	Alfalfa hay, 44% NDF 20% CP Bakery byproduct Brewers’ grains, wet Gluten meal Soybean meal, 48% CP Soybeans, whole	Blood meal Canola meal Cottonseed, whole Fish meal Molasses Soybean meal, 44% CP Soyhulls Tallow Wheat bran

Table 2. Prices of dairy nutrients and actual wholesale, breakeven (predicted), and 75% confidence limits for feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms.

Table 2

Annual Banquet for the Buckeye Dairy Club and the Department of Animal Sciences

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Annual Banquet for the Buckeye Dairy Club and the Department of Animal Sciences at The Ohio State University was held on May 8 at the Der Dutchman Restaurant in Plain City. It is held annually for recognizing students for their accomplishments as scholarship recipients, their involvement in co-curricular activities such as the OSU Dairy Cattle Judging Team and the Dairy Challenge, and their activities in the Buckeye Dairy Club; recognition by faculty and staff in the Department of Animal Sciences; and induction of dairy leaders into the Dairy Science Hall of Service. The scholarship winners were: AGS - Clair Jones – Chad Riethman; Lemmermen – Kevin Jacque; COBA/Select Sires Wallace Erickson –Stephanie Neal; Dairy Farmers of America – Jason Hartschuh; Wayne and Jane Dalton –Teresa Smith; Bob Gano – Sara Scheerer; Genex, Inc., Merle Starr –Laura Gordon; Ohio Agribusiness Association – Matthew Borchers; Salisbury – Andrew Lefeld; Ludwick – Linda Brahler; McMunn – Alissa Hunter, Rebecca Lehane, Laura Gordon, Kevin Jacque, and Andy Lefeld; Brakel – Kirk Massey; and H.E. & Florence Kaeser – Jason Miley and Greg Heiby.

The recognition to Buckeye Dairy Club members included: Outstanding Freshman – Ashlee Dietz; Outstanding Sophomore – Jason Hartschuh; Outstanding Junior – Andy Lefeld; and Outstanding Senior – Ryan Langenkamp. The Prestigious Member Award (plaque plus $500 scholarship) was granted to Kevin Jacque. The 2010 officers for the Buckeye Dairy Club are: President - Stephanie Adams; First Vice-President – Jason Hartschuh; Second Vice-President – Linda Brahler; Recording Secretary – Rachel Foureman; Corresponding Secretary – Hannah Thompson; Treasurer – Andy Lefeld; Assistant Treasurer – Kevin Jacque; CFAES Student Council Representative – Teresa Smith; and Web Page - Stephanie Neal.

Another highlight of the program was the induction of Mr. Tom Fleming (Harrod, OH), Mr. Bernie Heisner (Hilliard, OH), and Dr. Bernie Erven (Columbus, OH) into the Dairy Science Hall of Service. These three men have made major contributions to Ohio’s dairy industry – our THANKS to them for their many years of dedicated service.
Success at the 19th Annual Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 19th annual Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference was held on April 20-21 in Ft. Wayne, IN. Despite the economy, the attendance was up about 1% (440 in attendance) and the number of exhibitors was up by 26% (53 exhibitors). Zinpro sponsored the pre-conference program, and it too went very well. Although the Tri-State’s speaker from Spain was not able to make the Conference because of a cancelled fight due to the volcanic eruption in Iceland, his presentation with audio was sent electronically and then he was live via the internet to answer questions. The average attendance at the Conference is about 8 years, with about 65% of the attendees from the feed industry, 24% university personnel (faculty, staff, and students), 9% veterinarians, and 2% dairy farmers. About 29% of the attendees were from OH, 21% from MI, 12% from IN, and the remaining attendees were from 18 other states, Canada, Brazil, and Japan. The attendees were asked “During the economic crisis for the dairy industry, what changes have you observed in feeding and management?” The two major responses were: Calves and heifers: 1) Fed cheaper or less starter/grain mix, and 2) feed additives removed; Lactating and dry cows: 1) Less use of feed additives, and 2) More use of home grown feeds/forages. Additional results of the survey and the articles from the Proceedings are available at: http://tristatedairy.osu.edu/proceedings.htm. The Conference will be held April 19-20, 2011 – the 20th year with special features!
Ohio State, Cal Poly, Cornell, and UW-Madison Earn 1st Place at the 2010 National Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

Teams from The Ohio State University, California Polytechnic State University, Cornell University, and University of Wisconsin-Madison earned the highest award– First Place Platinum– in the ninth annual North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge (NAIDC), held April 9-10, in the Visalia, CA area.

The contest was hosted by Cal Poly and California State University-Fresno, attracting teams from 30 universities located throughout the United States and Canada. Each team of four was challenged to put their textbook and practical knowledge to the ultimate test– analyzing a dairy farm. The contest started with a walk-through at one of the four host dairy farms, followed by the opportunity to ask questions of the owners and analyze farm-specific data. Teams used this information and their observations to develop management recommendations, and then presented their recommendations to the herd owners and a panel of five dairy industry judges.

Members of the First Place Platinum teams received $200 scholarships. This was the second consecutive year for the teams from Ohio State and UW-Madison to earn the contest’s highest ranking.

Ohio State’s team, coached by Maurice Eastridge, consisted of Ryan Conklin, Annie Eilenfeld, Heather Moff and Amanda Paulhamus (pictured below).

"The Dairy Challenge brings the future of the dairy industry together in one location where knowledge and experiences are shared and gained, and where they gain a broader perspective of the market we participate in,” said NAIDC chairman Barry Putnam. “That is why the Dairy Challenge is so highly thought of by all of those who have participated throughout our history of now just over 2,000 future leaders."

Host dairies for the 2010 NAIDC were Delta View Farms, owned by Gregory “Butch” Dias Jr. and sons Greg and Darren; El Monte Dairy, operated by Art and Sandra Van Beek; Longfellow Farming Co., George and Bill Longfellow, owners; and Valley View Farms, operated by Ken and Joanne Walker and John and Hilda Knevelbaard.

Pictured: Heather Moff (Canfield, OH), Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Coach), Amanda Paulhamus (Linden, PA), Andrea Eilenfeld (Lucas, OH), and Ryan Conklin (Plain City, OH).

Corn Silage Harvest is Imminent

Dr. Mark Sulc, Dr. Peter Thomison, and Dr. Bill Weiss,The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

Corn development has been progressing at a rapid pace with the recent warm temperatures. Early planted corn is already being harvested for silage in some parts of Ohio. So it is time to check the whole plant moisture content now, if you haven’t done so already.

Ensiling corn at the proper dry matter (DM) content provides high quality preservation, resulting in good animal performance and lower feed costs. Harvesting corn too wet (low DM content) results in souring and seepage of the silage and reduction in animal intake. Harvesting too dry (high DM content) promotes mold development because the silage cannot be adequately packed to exclude oxygen. Harvesting too dry also results in lower energy concentrations and reduced protein digestibility.

Harvest Moisture Guidelines
Corn silage preserved between 30 and 38% DM (62 to 70% moisture) generally provides good silage fermentation and animal performance. The optimal DM content varies with type of storage structure (Table 1).

Table 1. Optimal dry matter contents for different storage structures.

Type of Structure	Optimal % DM
Horizontal bunkers	30 to 35
Bags	30 to 38
Upright, top unloading	33 to 38
Upright, bottom unloading	35 to 40*

*The higher DM concentration for bottom unloading silos is a compromise
between forage quality and unloader requirements.

Kernel Stage Not a Reliable Guide for Timing Silage Harvest

Dry matter content of whole plant corn varies with maturity. Research has demonstrated that the position of the kernel milk-line is not a reliable indicator for determining harvest timing. Geographic location, planting date, hybrid selection, and weather conditions affect the relationship between kernel milk-line position and whole plant DM content. In a Wisconsin study, 82% of the hybrids tested exhibited a poor relationship between kernel milk-line stage and whole-plant DM. In Ohio, we have seen considerable variation in plant DM content within a given kernel milk-line stage.

Determining Silage Moisture

The only reliable method of determining the optimal time to harvest corn silage is to sample the crop and directly measure the percent DM of whole plants. This information combined with average whole plant dry-down rates can be used to roughly predict the proper time to harvest corn silage.

How to Sample Fields

Collect about 5 representative plants from the entire field. The plants should be representative from an area with representative plant population and not from edge rows. Collect separate samples from areas that may have different dry down rates, such as swales and knolls. The moisture concentrations of plants can vary within a field (plants will be wetter in low lying area and drier on knolls) and this should be considered when collecting your sample plants.

Put plants in a plastic bag, keep them cool, and chop as quickly as possible. The plants should be uniformly chopped (using a cleaver, machete, chipper shredder, or silage chopper) and then mixed thoroughly to obtain a sample with representative grain to stover ratios for DM determination. Some farmers prefer sampling only 2 or 3 plants without any additional sub-sampling to reduce the chances of a non-representative grain to stover ratio that can affect the results. In this case, choosing representative plants is even more critical.

Determine the DM content by drying the plant material using a Koster oven tester, microwave, convection oven, taking to a lab or using a vortex dryer. For more details on these and other methods, see the following links:
http://www.extension.org/pages/Dry_Matter_Determination
http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0004.html
http://www.abe.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/i/I101.pdf).

Make sure the sample does not dry down and keep it cool until the DM determination is performed. The accuracy of the percent DM value will be largely determined by the care taken in sampling, drying, and weighing the samples. Whole kernels and cob pieces can be difficult to dry completely without burning the leaf tissue.

When to Begin Field Sampling

We know that kernel milk stage is not reliable for determining the actual harvest date, but it is a useful indicator of when to sample fields to measure plant DM. Corn in Ohio should be first sampled to measure DM at full dent stage (100% milk, no kernel milkline) for conventional tower or bunker silos, and at 1/4 milkline (milkline one-fourth down the kernel, 75% milk remaining) for sealed (oxygen-limited) tower silos. It is important to begin sampling early as a precaution against variation in dry down.

Predicting the Harvest Date

Once whole-plant percent DM is determined, an average dry down rate of 0.5% unit per day can be used to estimate the number of days until the optimal harvest moisture. For example, if a given field measures 30% DM at the early sampling date, and the target harvest DM is 35%, then the field must gain an additional 5% units of DM, thus requiring an estimated 10 days (5% units divided by 0.5 unit change per day).

This procedure provides only a rough estimate for the harvest date. Many factors affect dry down rate, including hybrid, planting date, general health of the crop, landscape position, soil type, and weather conditions. Early planted fields and hot and dry conditions like we’ve been experiencing can accelerate dry down rates to 0.8 to 1.0 % unit per day. Fields should be monitored closely and more frequently under these conditions. In general, corn silage that is slightly too dry is worse than corn silage that is slightly too wet. Therefore, starting harvest a little early is usually better than waiting too long.

Harvesting and Storing Corn Silage

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

Several important decisions regarding corn silage harvest must be made in the next few weeks and these decisions will affect the dairy herd for the next 12 months. Corn silage that is made and stored correctly is an excellent feed and one of the cheapest sources of nutrients in the Midwest. On the other hand, silage that is not made correctly can adversely reduce milk production when fed to cows and will have lower nutritional value resulting in higher supplementation costs.

The decisions that must be made (in order of importance) are:

1. When to chop the corn
2. Everything else

The “Everything else” category includes cutting height, chop length, kernel processing, use of inoculant, and how long the silage should be left before feeding. Although these are important, if the silage is not harvested at the correct stage, these other factors will not overcome the problems associated with either immature or mature corn silage.

When should the corn be harvested?

Corn silage that is chopped too early (i.e., too wet) often undergoes a poor fermentation that results in higher fermentation losses and can reduce intake when the silage is fed. Seepage also can occur which reduces the nutritional value and can cause environmental problems. On the other hand, wet silage usually does not heat or mold during feed out and digestibility can be high. Corn chopped too late (i.e., too dry) undergoes a limited fermentation, resulting in a substantially less stable silage. It often heats and molds at the silo face, during feedout, and in the feed bunk, and fiber and starch digestibility can be low. The ideal dry matter (DM) for corn silage is between 30 and 38% depending on the storage structure (closer to 30% for bunkers and closer to 38% for uprights). Slightly wet silage is usually better than slightly dry silage so err on the side of chopping early if necessary. Dry-down rates vary substantially because of hybrid and weather but ON AVERAGE corn plants gain about 0.5% units of DM each day after dent stage (can range between about 0.3 and 1% unit). Dry matter should be measured; do not rely on kernel milk line to make harvesting decisions.

How high should the plants be cut?

The least digestible part of the corn plant is the stalk. It has high concentrations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and lignin. When cutting height is increased, more stalk is left in the field which reduces the proportion of corn silage that is stalk and increases the proportion that is leaves and ears. Typical stubble height for corn is 4 to 6 inches and most of the research on high cut corn had stubble heights of 15 to 18 inches. The absolute certain response will be a 4 to 6% reduction in DM yield (this means a 4 to 6% increase in production costs). Usually NDF concentrations are reduced and starch and DM concentrations are increased by 2 to 4 percentage units when corn plants are cut high. However, milk production studies have failed to show consistent benefit. Because of the certainty of lost yield and the uncertainty of any positive response, I do not recommend this practice.

What is the correct chop length?

Fine chopping promotes good packing and increases the rate of fermentation in the silo, but fine chopping may result in silage that does not promote adequate chewing when fed to the cow. Coarse chopping may cause fermentation problems and can increase sorting when fed to cows. Chop length has been described as the theoretical length of cut (TLC) at which the chopper was set, but TLC is a poor descriptor of actual particle size of the silage. A better approach is to actually measure particle size at the time of chopping with a device such as the Penn State Particle Separator. Corn silage that had not been kernel processed with 3 to 6% of the silage on the top screen and 60 to 65% on the second screen (8 mm hole diameter) of the Penn State Separator usually ferments well and has good nutritional value. For processed corn silage, a very wide range in particle sizes (equivalent to approximately 2 to 21% on the top screen) had no effect on cows. If the processing rolls are set properly (i.e., most kernels are physically damaged), silage with 5 to 10% on the top screen is adequate. Particle size evaluation should be done during harvest so that adjustments can be made.

Should kernel processing be used?

Proper kernel processing is when most of the kernels are physically damaged which results in improved starch digestibility for kernel processed silage than conventional silage. However, the response is a function of the maturity of the corn plant and hybrid. Processing almost always increases the nutritional value of drier corn silage (but it is still not as good as silage made at the correct DM) and is a recommended practice. Processing silage made at the correct DM usually has a positive effect but the effect is much less than what is observed for dry silage. Processing immature corn can substantially decrease its energy value and is not a recommended practice. Chopped material should be visually examined during the harvest and if many undamaged kernels are observed, the processing rolls and/or chop length needs to be adjusted.

Should I use an inoculant?

The two types of inoculants for corn silage are lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and bacteria that produce acetic and propionic acid (bacterial species is Lactobacillus buchneri). Treating corn with LAB usually reduces fermentation losses because it ferments faster and has more lactic acid (and less acetic acid). On the other hand, L. buchneri increases acetic acid which increases fermentation losses but because acetic acid is inhibitory to yeasts and molds silage treated with L. buchneri is extremely stable during feed out which reduces storage losses. Conversely, silage treated with LAB often has reduced stability during feed out. The return on investment of LAB is usually slightly positive if feed out losses are not a problem. If spoilage and heating during feedout has been a problem or if silage feed out rate will be slow (less than about 6 inches/day) and/or the silage will be fed in the summer, L. buchneri could be quite useful.

How long should the silage be left undisturbed after filling?

Most studies with corn silage show that pH and acid concentrations become stable by 7 to 14 days post-ensiling if the silage is left undisturbed. Yeast and mold counts may require up to 60 days before stabilizing and opening a silo will increase that time. The digestibility of corn silage can continue to improve even after months of storage. Letting silage ferment undisturbed for several months has many benefits; however, maintaining silage inventory is not free. The best compromise is to let silage ferment undisturbed for 1 to 2 months before opening. This means that the first year you will need to harvest 13 or 14 months of silage and you need a place to store the silage that will not interfere with silo filling.
Pricing Standing Corn for Silage Harvest

Ms. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, and Dr. Bill Weiss, Extension Dairy Nutrition, The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

How to price corn for silage as a crop standing in the field is a perennially challenging question. The optimal answer will vary depending on your point of view. Are you buying or are you selling?

This corn silage pricing discussion is based on a corn crop standing in the field. The owner’s goal is to recover the cost of producing and harvesting the crop plus a profit margin. Their base price would be the price they could receive for the crop from the grain market less harvest/drying/storage costs. Hopefully, this would meet the goal of covering production costs and generating a profit.

To the grain farmer, the corn crop may have more value than just the income from the sale of grain. If the crop is sold as silage, the corn fodder is no longer available as ground cover and/or as a source of some nutrients and organic matter. This creates a potential opportunity for the dairy to provide some nutrients and organic matter back to the corn fields from subsequent manure nutrient applications.

To look at the value of the corn as silage, we can estimate that a ton of corn silage, on average, contains ~7 bushels of corn. If corn is worth $3.70 per bushel, then the standing corn for silage would be worth about $26/ton before the cost of harvesting for grain, or between $23.50 and $24.50/ton depending on yield, assuming a grain harvest cost of ~$40 per acre. This is a value for corn silage at 35% dry matter (DM). Prices also have to be adjusted for different DM concentrations. If actual DM was 30%, then the value is about $20/ton (i.e., 30/35 = 0.85 x $23.50/ton). Corn chopped at more than about 38 % DM or less than about 30% DM may not ferment properly and can be a problem. The price for this corn silage should be discounted.

At the 2009 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, Normand St-Pierre reviewed the difference between valuing corn silage using the 7 bushels of corn per ton method plus harvest and storage costs and an adjustment for 10% fermentation loss, versus pricing based on prevailing feed nutrient value (Sesame) pricing method. This method values the silage at what its nutrients are worth based on a wider selection of feed prices plus the harvest and storage adjustments. The ratio of the two methods for 2005 to 2008 was 1.27. In other words, the nutrient value of silage to the cow was potentially worth up to 27% more than value based on the market price for corn.

The SESAME value for Ohio corn silage is available in the most current edition of the Buckeye Dairy News available online at https://dairy.osu.edu. Remember that this is the nutrient value for corn silage delivered to the cow, so harvest, storage, moisture, shrink and risk costs must be deducted from the SESAME value.

So, what does this mean in the real world? The 7-bushel method is a good starting point. There could be additional feed value to the buyer which has to be balanced against the harvest and fermentation risks that the buyer is assuming.

The last factor affecting the value of standing corn is risk. A farmer purchasing standing corn is assuming risk (Will it ferment properly? Can it be harvested at exactly the right time? What will the final nutrient content be?, etc.).

The price for the standing crop should be discounted to recognize these risks. What is the right amount to discount? This is not an easy question and is one of the factors to consider when buyer and seller are negotiating a final price. Setting the final, fair price for corn silage rests on an understanding of the needs of both the buyer and the seller and negotiating a price that ensures a reasonable profit for both.

Finally, it is critical that both parties agree on price, payment method and timing, crop measurement, restrictions, and similar details before the crop is harvested! Ideally, the agreement should be in writing and signed by both parties. These agreements are especially important when large quantities of crops (and money!) are involved. While this type of contracting may be uncomfortable for some producers, mainly because they aren’t used to conducting business on more than a handshake, it forces the parties to discuss issues up front and can minimize troubling misunderstandings after harvest.

This article was adapted from “Pricing Standing Corn for Silage”, 2005. Shoemaker, Weiss, St-Pierre and “Economical Value of Corn Silage, St-Pierre, Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, 2009.

What is Your Corn Silage Worth?

Dr. Joanne Knapp, Principal Technical Consultant, Fox Hollow Consulting, LLC, Columbus, OH

Corn silage is a valuable feed ingredient in dairy rations, and its nutritional value is based on its starch and digestible neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content and lack of anti-nutritive compounds such as molds and mycotoxins. The starch and digestible NDF contribute to both NEl (Net Energy of lactation) and MP (Metabolizable Protein). The amount of starch and digestible NDF in corn silage is a function of maturity at harvest, how well the ears are filled, the cutting height, and how well the silage is preserved. Better corn silage will have more starch and less NDF (Table 1). Because starch in corn silage generally is more than 90% digestible in the total tract while the NDF is only 40 to 50% digestible, every point of starch is worth approximately twice as much as a point of NDF on a NEl basis. The starch contribution to MP depends on whether the starch is fermented in the rumen, providing energy for the rumen microbes to grow and produce the microbial protein portion of MP, or whether the starch is digested in the small intestine or fermented in the large intestine, neither of which contribute to MP.

Table 1. Nutritional value of corn silage in dairy rations. Comparisons were done at equal dry matter (DM) percentages (35%). At higher NDF contents, starch content is reduced and is reflected in lower NFC (non-fiber carbohydrate) contents and lower predicted nutritional values.

Corn Silage Quality	NDF (% of DM)	NFC (% of DM)	August 2010 Nutritional Value*
Poor Medium Very High	55 45 35	30.3 39.9 48.7	$61.30 $67.80 $72.20

*Predicted using wholesale feed prices and SesameIII software.

Obviously, how well the ears fill will affect the grain and starch content of silage. However, cutting height also affects it, because the lower the stalk is chopped, the more NDF there will be in the silage. Typically, this NDF is also of lower digestibility than the NDF in the upper portion of the corn plant. When I was in California, it was rare to see corn silage with NDF less than 40% since most farmers chopped at 4” above the ground. They were able to do this because fields were laser-leveled for irrigation purposes. However, few considered that the bottom of the plant was pretty poor in terms of nutrient digestibility and availability; they were trying to maximize dry matter (DM) yield per acre.

Note that the SesameIII predicted value of corn silage is higher than the $35 to $40/ton that most producers consider to be their costs of production (seed, fertilizer, fuel, bunker covers, inoculants, etc.). This is a reflection of the nutritional value of corn silage in comparison to other feedstuffs available in the Ohio market area. Corn silage delivers nutrients at a lower price than most other feedstuffs. This is important to keep in mind as you go into the harvest season.

Minimizing DM losses in the harvesting and ensiling process means that more inexpensive nutrients are retained, and less purchased feeds will be needed in the coming year. At 10% DM losses in average (medium quality) corn silage, nutrient losses will be $6.80/ton. At 15% and 20% DM losses, this drain grows to $10.20 and $13.60/ton. I don’t know many producers who would pay those price differences on purchased commodities or concentrate mixes!

Compared to May 2010, the average price of feedstuffs and most nutrients are slightly up for August. The exception is non-effective NDF (neNDF), which was down 5.4¢/lb to –14.4¢/lb. It is common for neNDF to be negative, as feeds that have high levels of this nutrient, such as by-products like distillers’ grains, corn gluten feed, etc., are discounted in the market relative to other feeds. The NEl is estimated at 9.3¢/Mcal, MP is at 46.7¢/lb, and effective NDF (eNDF) is 5.1¢/lb. Good- to high-quality, home-grown forages continue to be an excellent and inexpensive source of eNDF, NEl, and MP. The cost of the key nutrients was estimated using SesameIII software and break-even prices of commodities and forages used in dairy rations were predicted (Table 2).

Based on early August wholesale prices for central Ohio, feed commodities fall into three groups:

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Alfalfa hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP Bakery byproduct Corn grain, ground Corn silage Distillers’ grains w/sol Feather meal Gluten feed Hominy Wheat midds	Brewers’ grains, wet Cottonseed meal, 41% CP Expeller SBM Gluten meal Meat and bone meal Soybean meal, 48% CP Wheat bran	Blood meal Canola meal Cottonseed, whole Fish meal Molasses Soybean meal, 44% CP Soybeans, whole Soyhulls Tallow

The usual caveats with SesameIII™ results apply. nbsp; You cannot formulate a balanced diet using only the feeds in the Bargains column. These feeds represent savings opportunities and can be utilized in rations to reduce feed costs within limitations for providing a balanced nutrient supply to the dairy cow. Prices for commodities can vary because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Feeds may also bring value to a ration in addition to their nutrient value, e.g. tallow as a “carrier” and dust suppressant in vitamin/mineral pre-mixes and molasses as a source of sugars.

Table 2. Prices of dairy nutrients and actual wholesale, breakeven (predicted), and 75% confidence limits for feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms.

Table 2

MarketView...U.S. Dairy Outlook Brief May through July 2010

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

In this installment of The MarketView, I will take stock of the current milk production situation in Ohio and contrast this with the U.S. dairy situation. At the end of this piece, I will explore how this translates into the outlook for market price.

Milk Cows and Cow Productivity: Ohio

In the first two charts, Chart 1 and Chart 2, you will see the number of milk cows in Ohio (Chart 1) and the yield per cow (Chart 2). Yields and production data are each adjusted to reflect a 30 day month.

Cows in milk peaked in Ohio back in May through July 2008 at 282 thousand head. Looking at Chart 1, you can see two adjustment periods. The first period, beginning with August 2008 and ending December 2008, milk cows moved down 6000 head. The second period occurred in late 2009. In fact, milk cows increased marginally from May to September 2009 before starting down in earnest. This was due no doubt to the influence of the Milk Income Loss Contrast (MILC) payments and a short lived resurgence in milk price during this period. This promoted an atmosphere of optimism that holding on just a bit longer might pay off. Dairy cow herd expansion began in May 2010. The latest July numbers from the USDA put the Ohio dairy herd at 270,000 head.

Chart 2 shows the productivity on Ohio dairy farms. During the 2008 through April 2010 period, milk per cow per day increased by 6 lb (13%). During the financial calamity that was 2009, productivity on Ohio dairy farms actually increased from a low of 48 to 53 lb/cow/day. The latest run shows productivity increasing sharply over the January through April 2010 period. Milk output has increased from 50 to 56 lb/cow/day. This is a result of Ohio dairy producers culling low producing cows from the State herd. Removing these low producers while shrinking the whole herd raises the average milk cow output. Difficult weather, heat, and humidity is evident in the decline for June and July 2010.

Milk Cows and Cow Productivity: United States

In the second two charts, Chart 3 and Chart 4, you will find the number of milk cows, United States, (Chart 3) and the U.S. yield per cow (Chart 4).

The national dairy herd peaked during the April 2008 through January 2009 period at just over 9.3 million head. With the collapse of the milk price in February 2009, dairy producers began a more aggressive culling of low producing cows. The Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) program also began an aggressive campaign to use its farmer paid funds to remove dairy cows. This culminated in the dramatic slide in cow numbers nationally (see MarketView, BDN March edition for a detailed look at this culling activity). From a peak of 9.334 million head, December 2008 to a low of 9.082 million head in December 2009, the national dairy herd declined 2.7%. With better milk prices and lower input prices, this slide ended in January 2010, and over the first four months of this year, the dairy producers have added back 14,000 dairy cows. This trend continues into July 2010.

The productivity pattern for the national dairy herd is very similar to that experienced in Ohio. The latest numbers show milk productivity as increasing rather sharply from 55 to 60 lb/cow/day and then declining as the heat and humidity impacted productivity.

Annual Milk Production, Ohio and the United States

Charts 5 and 6 show the annual production levels for Ohio and the United States. Each monthly production level shows the 12 month rolling average, or the total production for the past 12 months. Looking at Chart 5, we can see that milk production in Ohio showed only a slight deviation from its trend during 2009. Milk production capacity is now slightly above 5.2 billion annually. Looking at the 12 month rolling average for the United States, Chart 6, we can see that the very significant trend in U.S. productive capacity for 2008 came to a halt in 2009, dropping back for most of the year, and then declining over the last four months of 2009. With stronger milk prices in the early months of 2010, increasing cow numbers and milk productivity, milk production capacity is on the upswing, but still below the 2008 peak.

Ohio Share of U.S. Milk Production

The final chart in the overview of Ohio and U.S. milk productive capacity is Chart 7. This chart shows the Ohio share of total milk production over the past two plus years. The message is clear. Ohio is increasing its share of milk production relative to the rest of the United States. This share has increased from a low of 2.67% in early 2008 to 2.74% as of July 2010.

Milk Production Capacity and the Class 3 Price

Chart 8 shows the relationship between the rate of change in the U.S. capacity to produce and market milk and the Class 3 milk price. I have used this chart in past Marketview articles to reinforce the point that rates of growth in our milk production capacity, which exceeds 2% per year, is accompanied by Class 3 milk price below $15/cwt. The only exception to this occurred at the peak of the world speculative housing bubble, 2007 and early 2008. This was an anomalous time period, when all commodity markets, including dairy commodity markets, were off the chart on the demand side. Looking at Chart 8, and setting aside this anomalous 2007-2008 period, high milk prices are created by negative annualized growth rates, as with 2004, or with annualized grow rates sustained below 2% per year, as with July 2006 through June 2007. We are currently increasing U.S. milk production in excess of what commercial demand will take and still yield Class 3 price above $15/cwt.

Current Market Price Outlook

The current Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Class 3 milk futures price is shown in Chart 9, along with the median Class 3 price and the upper and lower quartile bounds. As of August 18, 2010, the August 2010 futures price is $15.10/cwt. The median price for August 2000-2009 is $13.70/cwt. The CME Class 3 price pattern shows prices above the long-term median price through October 2010 and then increasing significantly above the long-term median for the months of November 2010 through July 2011. Why the dramatic increase in the latter part of the coming 12 months? The answer is one of two views. Either there will be a renewed culling beginning in earnest at the end of the summer due to continued financial pressure on the nation’s dairy farms, including the impact of the latest CWT cow purchase program, or the market is anticipating a resurgence in domestic and more importantly international demand toward the end of 2010 and into 2011. Or possibly a combination of these two events. What will take place? I do not know. What I think you can take from this edition of the MarketNews, is that the growing milk production capacity in the United States suggests that milk prices will remain below the $15.00/cwt mark over the summer. If a resurgence of international demand does come about toward the end of 2010, the Class 3 price may be in the upper $14/cwt range. As a planning price, for those shipping milk in Ohio and the Mideast Federal Milk Marketing Order, I would suggest using a Class 3 price of $14.80/cwt and add another $1.00 to get a blend price of $15.80/cwt.

This would be a good time to learn more about the use of futures and options to protect your milk price should a pricing opportunity arise in the coming weeks or months. Also consider learning more about the Livestock Gross Margin (LGM) Insurance product available to dairy producers. A number of important changes to the LGM-Dairy program will go into effect in September or October. These changes will make the insurance product less expensive and easier to purchase. Each of these provide a management tool to which can assist in you in protecting your milk price in 2010 and 2011. You can find out more about this by visiting my website: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy. Look for the links to Livestock Gross Margin Insurance or Price Risk Management.
Effect of AI Technique and Semen Handling on Dairy Cattle Fertility

Dr.Gustavo Schuenemann, Extension Dairy Veterinarian, The Ohio State University

Artificial insemination (AI) is a widely accepted technique in the dairy industry. Accurate animal identification, semen handling, hygiene of the AI procedure, and site of semen deposition are paramount to achieve acceptable reproductive outcomes. Professional inseminators must review the procedure on a regular basis (e.g., monthly) to obtain consistent field results. In large dairy operations, where numerous cows are inseminated on a daily basis, AI technicians routinely thaw multiple straws of semen at the same time in order to timely inseminate cows. Simultaneous thawing of straws of semen could potentially compromise the semen quality, thus lowering reproductive performance. The recommended semen handling protocol includes: 1) thawing the straws in a water bath at 35°C for a minimum of 45 seconds, 2) drying the straws, 3) assembling the AI gun, and 4) depositing the semen into the uterine body. Inseminators should perform AI under appropriate hygiene procedures.

Semen handling: Dalton et al. (2004) evaluated the effects of simultaneous thawing of 4 straws of semen at once and the subsequent sequence of inseminations (1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th) on conception rate. The time elapsed between the initiation of the thawing process and the final seminal deposition on dairy cattle fertility was evaluated under field conditions. This study showed that the sequence of AI (from 1st to 4th AI) and the time elapsed from the initial thawing process to the 4th AI (~7 to 10 minutes) did not affect conception rate.

Cleanliness of the AI procedure: An appropriate and clean AI technique is recommended to optimize reproductive outcomes in dairy cows. However, the AI procedure (i.e., hygiene, site of semen deposition, semen handling, etc.) is often overlooked. Bas et al. (2009) evaluated the effectiveness of using protective AI cover sheaths (PS) to minimize vaginal contamination of the AI gun at the time of AI on pregnancies per AI (PAI) in dairy cows. In this study, nearly 1,000 services performed by the same AI technician in one commercial dairy farm were assessed. For first services postpartum, PAI did not differ between cows inseminated with or without the use of PS at the time of AI. However, PAI was increased for second or greater services in cows inseminated with the use of PS (43.8 ± 2.9%) compared to cows inseminated without the use of PS at the time of AI (32.3 ± 2.6%).

Implications: Results from these studies suggested that: 1) the use of PS at the time of AI improved reproductive outcomes in lactating dairy cows and 2) simultaneous thawing of 4 straws may not compromise fertility when semen is deposited into the uterine body within 10 minutes after thawing. Cleanliness of the whole AI procedure must become a top priority for professional AI technicians. To achieve consistent reproductive results over time, the AI procedure should not be compromised for convenience.

References

Bas, S., Hoet, A., Rajala-Schultz, P., Sanders, D., and Schuenemann, G.M. (2009). Effects of using protective AI cover sheaths on fertility of lactating dairy cows. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 22:163-163.

Dalton, J.C., Ahmadzadeh, A., Shafii, B., Price, W.J., and DeJarnette, J.M. (2004). Effect of simultaneous thawing of multiple 0.5-mL straws of semen and sequence of insemination on conception rate in dairy cattle.
J. Dairy Sci. 87:972–975.
Applying Manure to Tiled Fields

Ms. Amanda Meddles, Extension Program Coordinator for Environmental Management, The Ohio State University

Most producers are aware of the rich nutrient found in manure and the value that manure provides to growing crops. Fewer are aware of the potential for the nutrients to exit fields through tile lines, contaminating surface waters. Manure also moves through cracks, worm holes, dead root channels, etc. This can be avoided by matching the water holding capacity of the soil and the manure application rate to avoid saturating the soil. However, dry cracked soil can be as much of a problem as saturation. The goal of this article is to express the importance of keeping manure nutrients in the root zone where crops can use them. The following article is an excerpt from the OSU Extension Fact Sheet Guidelines for Applying Liquid Animal Manure to Cropland with Subsurface and Surface Drains by James J. Hoorman, Jonathan N. Rausch and Larry C. Brown. It provides excellent tips to avoid nutrient loss through subsurface drainage. The entire fact sheet can be found at http://oema.osu.edu/OEMAPublications.htm under OSU Extension Fact Sheets.

The fact that liquid animal manure nutrients can be safely land recycled in some instances, but are discharged in subsurface drainage water under different circumstances, suggests a complex system that needs to be managed. Soil texture, available water holding capacity, tillage history, as well as the type and quantity of manure applied, application method, and timeliness of rainfall after application may all play a role in determining the fate of the manure. Suggested guidelines to minimize the downward movement of liquid manure are:

a. Identify subsurface drain outlets, and control or regulate discharge prior to application, or have on-site means of stopping the discharge from subsurface drains. Subsurface drainage outlets should be monitored before,
during, and after application for potential liquid manure discharge.

b. Liquid manure should not to be applied on soils that are prone to flooding, as defined by the National Cooperative Soil Survey (or in the Flooding Frequency Soil List posted in Section II eFOTG), during the period when flooding is expected. Manure can be applied if incorporated immediately or injected below the soil surface during periods when flooding is not expected.

c. Avoid applying manure when rainfall is predicted, eminent, or directly after a rainfall event. After a significant rainfall event, the site should be allowed to drain to below field capacity, so that the soil has the capacity to absorb additional water or liquid animal manure.

d. Repair broken drains and blowholes prior to application, and follow recommended/required minimum setback requirements (setback distances vary from state to state) for surface inlets. See fact sheet on Liquid Manure Application Rates for Subsurface and Surface Drained Cropland.

e. Liquid manure should not be applied to subsurface drained cropland if the drains are flowing. Generally, flowing subsurface drains indicate soil moisture levels that are near or exceeding the soil water holding capacity.

f. Application rates should be closely tied to nutrient requirements and available holding capacity of the soil. The method of application can influence application rates.

g. Liquid manure should be applied in a manner that will not result in ponding, or runoff to adjacent property, drainage ditches, or surface water regardless of crop nutrient need and should be uniformly applied at a known rate.

h. Fields with a history of downward movement of manure and/or bare/crusted soils may require some tillage to improve infiltration and absorption of the applied liquid. Prior to manure application, use shallow tillage to disrupt the continuity of worm holes, macropores and root channels (preferential pathways) to reduce the risk of manure reaching drain lines, or till the surface of the soil 3 to 5 inches deep to a condition that will enhance absorption of the volume of liquid manure being applied.

i. Clay soils with a high shrink swell capacity tend to have larger deeper cracks during dry conditions. These soils may require tillage to disrupt the cracks and macropores, and a lower initial application rate applied to the soil to help close the cracks.

j. Shallow injection is recommended for liquid manure. Till the soil at least 3 inches below the depth of injection prior to application, and/or control outflow from all drain outlets prior, during, and after manure application.

k. For perennial crops (hay or pasture) or continuous no-till fields where tillage is not recommended, all subsurface drain outlets from the application area should be monitored, and if manure laden flow should occur, all effluent should be captured. Crops with deep tap root systems (alfalfa) tend to have more problems than hay crops with fibrous roots (grass) because liquid animal manures may flow along the tap roots to subsurface drains and outlet to surface water.

These criteria may be waived if the producer can verify there is no prior history of manure discharge via subsurface drains, or if a system is in place to capture the discharge. However, if there is a discharge, the producer is liable for damages and is subject to being classified as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO).
Where are Your Records for Manure Application

Ms. Amanda Meddles, Extension Program Coordinator for Environmental Management, The Ohio State University

Knock. Knock. “We’ve received a manure complaint. Can we see your records?”

Will you be prepared if this happens to you? Keeping accurate and detailed application records could mean the difference between avoiding a complaint and being fined for misapplying. Good records should include details about everything from the field it was applied on to the wind speed at the time of application.
Dairy Youth Events at the 2010 Ohio State Fair

Mrs. Bonnie Ayars, Extension Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

No other singular event in Ohio does more to promote positive youth development than the Ohio State Fair. With livestock, we have an even more unique opportunity to “tell our story” to consumers.

2010 is recorded, but it was certainly one to remember for dairy youth. Whether it was the skillathons, judging clinics, or the OSU judging teams managing the parlor, it was more than an annual event; it was a learning experience!

The dairy business has been challenging, but we continue to bring out youth to become involved in the Extension programs designed to educate the next generation. Have hope, something positive is happening with these kids.

Skillathons

In the past three years, we have only offered one dairy skillathon! However, this year, we returned to one offered during the first portion of the fair and another during the second week. This method was used to accommodate each of the breed rotations that exhibit at the fair

Emerging as one of the largest skillathons at the fair, there were 128 kids that completed all of the challenging stations associated with topics such as cattle selection and reproduction, equipment and calf management, nutrition, animal welfare issues, and health. It takes an “army” of loyal volunteers to manage such an event.

At the conclusion of the second one, results were tabulated and awards presented. One individual earned a perfect score. Mark Gordon (Wayne County) was the recipient of the overall dairy skillathon winner after being named tops in the 14 year old age division. It was an amazing accomplishment!

If you are interested in any of our content that tests dairy aptitude, do not hesitate to contact me. All results of the dairy skillathon can be reviewed by clicking on this link http://4hansci.osu.edu/skillathon/dairy.php.

Dairy Judging Clinics

Our State 4-H dairy judging contest is held during Spring Dairy Expo, so we conduct clinics at the Ohio State Fair. Again, we hold two of these because of the rotation of breeds for dairy cattle. They are more than clinics, but also competitions in which top winners can earn premium money. Some can attend both, and yet others can only make the trip once. We announce winners for each week and post the results for two age divisions.junior and senior. Nearly 100 individual prospective judges stood on the tanbark to test their skills. Seniors are required to give reasons, while I provide some basic guidance to junior participants on how to compose reasons. These clinics also provide the premise for the selection of 4-H teams at the fall contests.

Again, another loyal army of volunteers is on hand to assist with registration, serve as officials, evaluate reasons, and also to tabulate scores. It is not a simple process, but one that uses valuable time to teach about dairy cattle evaluation.

I also must extend a big thank you to all the exhibitors who so willingly allow us to use their cattle for the classes. It is good to have them as contributors, leaders, and observers. This makes it a multi-generational event!

Results for the contest are attached here for juniors and here for seniors. There are junior and senior scores for each of the two clinics, plus the overall winners. If you know any of these youth, give them a vote of confidence by commending them for their efforts.

The Milking Parlor

It is a unique opportunity for college students to learn as they manage the parlor during the Ohio State Fair. Some days, the parlor must be open nearly 12 to 15 hours to accommodate the needs of the many shows. The facility at the Ohio State Fair is nearly 40 years old and the equipment had a tendency to alert us to that this year. There were two major mechanical issues, but Prengers was on hand each time to make sure that the parlor was up and running at the hours posted. Problematic as it was, the venture was successful and the judging teams earned money to assist with their travels.

Many thanks to the dairy staff at the fair for their assistance and support as well as John Spreng and Stacey French associated with the Ohio State Fair. I would also like to mention that our direct communication with the consumer whether near the parlor, in the aisle of the dairy barn, or at the “I Milked a Cow”, was a priceless opportunity to display our pride in what we do with cows.
MarketView...U.S. Dairy Outlook Brief October-December 2010

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

In this installment of The MarketView, I will take a look at the variability for both dairy commodity prices (butter, cheese, nonfat dry milk, and whey) and the Federal Order 33 Blend Price. This MarketView is a departure from the more traditional dairy cows and market prices review of past articles and tackles the question of variability and sources of variability in your milk price.

On Variability vs. Volatility

We hear a great deal today about the excess ‘volatility’ in milk prices. As an illustration, consider the following quote from Charles Nicholson, agribusiness professor at California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, addressing the USDA Dairy Industry Advisory Committee meeting this past September. Dr. Nicholson states “There is an issue. There is a problem. There has been an extreme level of volatility and the length and depth of the increases and decreases will grow greater and deeper” (italics added for emphasis).

Now, what is misleading about this statement is the fact that professor Nicholson is making the mistake of confusing volatility with variability. The fact that the dairy industry has experienced an increased level of price variability over the last 11 years is obvious. Increased volatility is not as obvious. Market price lows are at the safety net level; however, the high price levels are historic. However, it is not clear that this translates into an increased level of volatility in milk prices. Volatility has a very precise definition, and simply observing prices that vary, even vary a lot, over time, is not evidence that they are volatile. I will not go into the definition of volatility in this article, but we will save that discussion for the next article. Just keep in mind that the two concepts are not interchangeable.

Identifying the Variability in the Milk Price

Before getting directly at exploring the variability in the Federal Order Blend Price and the sources of that variability, it is necessary to explain the origin of the price series used to support this article. The price series are butter, cheese, nonfat dry milk, and whey. These prices are those reported for each week of a given year by the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) and used to calculate federal order milk prices. The Federal Order 33 blend price is constructed by me for each week by applying the federal order pricing rules (and a couple of other adjustments) to these NASS prices, just as they are done on a monthly basis. Doing this for each week provides more pricing information than using the announced monthly prices. Each price series is deflated (divided) by its standard deviation calculated over the data period, 2000 to 2010. This standardization allows a more direct comparison among the price series and does not change the pattern of variability over time.

Chart 1 shows the pattern of variability for the standardized prices over the past time period 2000 to 2010, 563 weeks. As you look over this chart, recall that in the years leading up to the Federal Order pricing reform, implemented beginning January 2000, the dairy industry, and in particular, dairy producers, wanted a milk valuation system that reflected the changing value of those primary dairy commodities into which milk was manufactured.

Chart 1. Pattern of variability of standardized prices for the Federal Order (FO) 33 blend price, butter,
cheese, nonfat dry milk (NDM) , and whey.

Federal Order 33 Weekly Blend Price:

Focus your attention on the solid line in the chart and its ups and downs over the almost 11 year period. Notice that there are three and one-half periods of price variability where the blend price is high relative to its standard deviation and then declines. For example, in the third period, beginning with week 341 and ending with week 482, and coinciding with the years 2007 and part of 2008, the blend price is almost eight times its standard deviation. Now let’s look at the contributors to this variability.

NASS Nonfat Dry Milk Price:

This price series is depicted by the dashed line. Notice that for the first two periods of blend price increases and declines, there is no real association between the nonfat dry milk price and the blend price. The significant association occurs in the third period when the nonfat dry milk price rises to over seven times its standard deviation. This occurs with the entry of the United States dairy industry, as an exporter, into the world skim milk powder market in 2007. The fact that nonfat dry milk prices were pulled up to this level was the result of a number of factors, including economic, political, and weather driven, which may or may not repeat in the future.

NASS Butter Price:

The NASS butter is depicted as the larger dashed line in the chart. The link between the variability of the butter price and the Federal Order blend price is most apparent. In the first and second major blend price upswing, the butter price plays an important role. Note that as the butter price peaks and declines, so does the blend price, unless the blend price is held up by another dairy commodity price. Even the latest surge in the butter price, occurring in the latter part of 2010, the influence on the blend price is apparent. Note that in the third period of high federal order blend price, the butter price was not a contributor.

NASS Cheese Price:

The NASS cheese price series is the dotted series shown on Chart 1. Note that it moves somewhat in tandem with the butter price, reinforcing both blend price highs and lows. When the cheese price is not in tandem with the butter price, it often carries the blend price itself, as evident in the weeks between 180 and 220 (mid 2002 on into 2003). This is especially evident for the period 2007 through mid-2008 (weeks 380 to 460). The nonfat dry milk price had already declined and the blend price was falling until the cheese price highs produced resurgence in the blend price in late 2008. By the time the cheese price collapsed in December of 2008, all of the other dairy commodity prices had retreated to lower levels, and the blend price came right along.

NASS Whey Price:

A look at the whey price series, shown as the light dotted line in Chart 1, indicates that the variability in this price series contributes to the overall variability in the federal order blend price. This contribution is apparent, although it is less pronounced than the other commodities in its contribution. Note that the whey price contribution to the record high blend price coincided initially with the general dairy commodity price run-up in early 2007 (data points 341 through 410), at which time it retreated, leaving the other commodities the task of keeping up the blend price. The whey price, while improved in the later part of 2010, is currently not a factor in the strengthening of the federal order blend price.

Wrap-up

Back in the mid to late 1990’s, the dairy farming sector was concerned that changing market prices for major dairy products were not being correctly or adequately reflected in the valuation of milk and milk components, as under the old Minnesota-Wisconsin or Basic Formula pricing rules. As consumers demanded and consumed more cheese, for example, dairy producers wanted the increased value of that cheese, in the form of protein and butterfat, reflected directly back into the milk price. Now that you have had the opportunity to review the role of the four major dairy commodity markets and their respective price variabilities into the level and variability of the all important federal order blend price, you can ask yourself the following question: Did we get what we wished for? Perhaps, more than we expected. Clearly, the milk price reflects the variability in the dairy commodity markets.
In the next MarketView, I will discuss and explore the nature of price variability versus price volatility. In doing this, I will address the question of whether or not dairy prices and the milk price have become more volatile over time, or are they simply more variable as we experience new market highs. I will also consider the prospects for the observed variability in dairy commodity prices to continue into the future.
To keep up with the dairy futures market and other important market news, visit the OhioDairyWeb 2010 website: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy.

Feed Prices are A-Changin'!

Dr. Joanne Knapp, Principal Technical Consultant, Fox Hollow Consulting, LLC, Columbus, OH

I expect that this will be my last Buckeye Dairy News contribution for a while, as Dr. St-Pierre has returned from his sabbatical leave and will take up this topic again.

It’s no surprise to anybody in the feed or livestock industries, but feed prices are changing rapidly this fall. Compared to August 2010, the average price of feedstuffs used for this analysis has stayed the same, but individual feeds have changed prices dramatically. Whole cottonseed has dropped $100/ton and is now predicted to be breakeven. Canola has gone from being overpriced to a bargain. These ingredient price changes are impacting nutrient values. The NEl is up 3 ¢/Mcal to 12 ¢/Mcal, while metabolizable protein is down 20 ¢/lb to 27 ¢/lb. Non-effective NDF and effective NDF are relatively unchanged from August. The cost of the key nutrients was estimated using Sesame III software and break-even prices of commodities and forages used in dairy rations were predicted (Table 1). Note that because market conditions are fluctuating substantially from week to week, these evaluations are good only as long as the relative price differences hold true.

Based on early October wholesale prices for central Ohio, feed commodities fall into three groups:

Bargains	At Breakeven	Overpriced
Brewers’ grains, wet Canola meal Corn grain, ground Corn silage Distillers’ grains w/sol Feather meal Gluten feed Hominy	Alfalfa hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP Bakery byproduct Cottonseed, whole Cottonseed meal, 41% CP Expeller soybean meal Meat and bone meal Soybean meal, 48% CP Wheat bran Wheat midds	Blood meal Gluten meal Fish meal Molasses Soybean meal, 44% CP Soybeans, whole Soyhulls Tallow

The usual caveats with Sesame III™ results apply. You cannot formulate a balanced diet using only the feeds in the Bargains column. These feeds represent savings opportunities and can be utilized in rations to reduce feed costs within limitations for providing a balanced nutrient supply to the dairy cow. Prices for commodities can vary because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. Feeds may also bring value to a ration in addition to their nutrient value, e.g. tallow as a “carrier” and dust suppressant in vitamin/mineral pre-mixes and molasses as a source of sugars.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients, and actual wholesale, breakeven (predicted)
and 75% confidence limits for feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms.
Table 1

Energy Balance of Cows and Mastitis: Potential Linkages
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

The risk that a cow will develop mastitis is a function of pathogen load at the teat end and the cow’s ability to prevent a bacterial infection from becoming established in the mammary gland. Practicing good cow hygiene (keeping stalls clean, frequent scrapping of allies, and following good milking procedures) will reduce teat end exposure, and good nutrition can improve immune function, thereby reducing infection rates and severity of mastitis. The highest rates of mastitis generally occur during early lactation, and early lactation is the time when most cows experience negative energy balance.

During early lactation, dry matter intake (DMI) by dairy cows is low, whereas nutrient demand is high, which leads to cows being in negative energy balance. Body fat is mobilized to provide the energy needed for maintenance functions and to produce milk. The energy deficient experienced by most cows usually starts a few days before calving and continues for several weeks after parturition. Normal, healthy cows lose 0.25 to 0.5 body condition score (BCS) units in early lactation and reach their BCS nadir by 4 to 7 wk of lactation. Some cows start losing body condition several days or even a few weeks before calving, continue losing condition after calving, and lose more than 1 BCS unit in early lactation. The concentrations of nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA) and beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA) in plasma increase as cows mobilize greater amounts of body fat, and experiments have shown that both high concentrations of NEFA and BHBA have direct negative effects on the functionality of certain immune cells in cattle. Other experiments have found that a statistical link exists between energy balance and the prevalence of mastitis; cows with more severe negative energy loss are at a higher risk for mastitis than cows that lose less body condition. However, during the peripartum period, negative energy balance and elevated concentrations of NEFA and BHBA coincides with numerous other events, including hormonal changes, hypocalcemia, and changes in vitamin status; therefore, it is not possible to determine unequivocally that energy balance has a direct effect on immune function. However, enough data are available to strongly suggest that excessive mobilization of body fat and the associated increase in NEFA and BHBA during the peripartum period contributes to immunosuppression. Management and dietary practices that should help reduce excessive body condition loss include:
1. Prevent cows from becoming too fat in late lactation and the dry period. This may require a pen dedicated to fat lactating cows so that they can be fed a low energy diet. Excess energy consumption is a common problem during the dry period because dry cows only require about 14 Mcal of NEL/day. To meet, but not exceed, the energy requirement, a diet based on less digestible feeds is needed so that the rumen gets full before overconsumption of NEL occurs.
2. Avoid a large decrease in DMI during the prepartum period. The DMI can decrease by more than 20% during the last 1 to 2 weeks of gestation. This large drop in intake causes cows to mobilize fat which can infiltrate the liver, causing fatty liver and ketosis. The drop in intake can be mitigated by feeding a less digestible diet to far-off dry cows so that average DMI for a Holstein cow during the dry period is around 25 to 27 lb/day. Cows with high DMI during the early dry period tend to have a greater decrease in DMI during late gestation than do cows that have more moderate DMI during the early dry period. The peripartum decrease in DMI can also be moderated by feeding a well-balanced prefresh diet (e.g., good forage, 30 to 35% dietary NDF, and 30 to 40% concentrate). Intake by specific animals can be reduced when pens are overcrowded. Make sure pens containing prefresh animals have adequate bunk space and stalls.
3. Promote a rapid increase in energy intake post calving which usually requires a rapid increase in DMI. Feeding excessive grain (i.e., starch) or fat to increase the energy density of diets (i.e., Mcal/lb) usually is counterproductive because it often reduces DMI. Feeding a well-balanced diet based on high quality forage that contains moderate concentrations of fiber (approximately 30% NDF) and starch (22 to 25%) and <5% total fat improves DMI. Overcrowding fresh cows greatly restricts intake of certain cows, putting them at greater risk of increased body fat mobilization and mastitis.

Composition of Corn Silage Harvested in 2010

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

With the limited amount of rainfall, and to some extent the wide swings in temperature, the dry down of corn was very rapid this year. Yields of corn silage have been quite variable across the state and even within a farm and field, from moderate to quite good based on rainfall and ridges versus valleys in fields. There were a lot of problems with molds and mycotoxins in the 2009 crop, but there is much less of a problem with mold this year. Based on the data from the Dairy One Forage Laboratory (http://www.dairyone.com/) in Ithaca, NY, the corn silage harvested this year has higher starch and lower NDF concentrations compared to the 2009 crop (Table 1). This likely reflects a higher ear to stalk ratio in the corn than for last year. At first glance, one would think that this means a higher energy value for the 2010 corn silage. However because of the rapid dry down, some farmers may have harvested the silage at higher DM than desired (harder kernels) and if a silage processor was not used, digestibility of the carbohydrates may be low. Digestibility should improve with advancing storage time. On the other hand, with proper stage of harvest and the higher starch (lower NDF) concentrations, rations need to be formulated with careful attention to physically effective fiber, particle size of the dry corn grain, and source of grain (dry versus high moisture versus steam flaked) that can affect ruminal pH and rate and extent of starch fermentation. The new crop corn silage should be analyzed, be allowed to stay in storage for at least several weeks if possible based on forage inventory, rations reformulated, and then observe cow performance (yield and composition of milk).

Table 1. Composition of corn silage harvested in 2010 versus 2009.¹

Item	PA/NY 2010 (n = 539)		May 2009 – April 2010 (n = 17,838)
Item	Average	CV	Average	CV
DM, %	33.3	13.7	32.8	19.2
CP, %	8.00	9.63	8.10	12.4
ADF, %	23.8	12.8	25.3	15.4
NDF, %	40.4	11.1	42.7	13.4
Starch, %	36.0	16.5	33.4	22.2
Ash, %	3.87	22.9	4.23	28.6

¹CV = Coefficient of variation [(standard deviation/average)*100], DM = dry matter, CP = crude protein,
ADF = acid detergent fiber, and NDF = neutral detergent fiber.

2010 Dairy Judging and Quiz Bowl Teams

Mrs. Bonnie Ayars, Extension Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

The September calendar includes the best cow shows in the nation, and the premier judging contests are held in conjunction with these events. These students have been quite visible in the parlor at the Ohio State Fair, as volunteers in 4-H state-wide programs, and as members of Buckeye Dairy Club. Many of the readers of this newsletter will have found themselves associated with these “judges.”

The OSU dairy judging teams have traveled in 8 different states, competing in 4 separate contests. The primary Scarlet team, including Hannah Thompson, Laura Gordon, Jason Miley, and Curtis Bickel, finished 4th overall at the Eastern States Exposition. Also traveling on this trip was another team composed of Linda Brahler, Katie Cole, and Sabrina Eick. The "Scarlet" team earned 1st place honors in Jersey and 3rd in Brown Swiss and Ayrshire. As an individual, Jason was high in Brown Swiss and 2nd in Jersey, while Sabrina Eick earned top honors in the Ayrshire division. Laura Gordon placed second in reasons as did the team.

Scarlet Team: Curtis Bickel, Jason Miley, Laura Gordon, Hannah Thompson, and
Coach Bonnie Ayars

At the Pennsylvania All American Contest, the "Scarlet" team was 5th overall and high in the Brown Swiss division. Individually, Laura Gordon had a very good day placing 3rd overall, and Hannah Thompson was 4th with her reasons. Onto the national competition at World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin, the "Scarlet" team was 5th overall out of 20 universities represented. They were 2nd team in Brown Swiss, 5th in Jersey, Guernsey, and reasons. Jason was 3rd in Brown Swiss, and Laura was 3rd in Holstein. The top 25 in the contest are presented with the title of “All American” and are eligible to apply for a variety of scholarships. Jason, Laura, and Hannah all received this status, with Hannah in 8th place, Laura in 12th, and Jason in 17th.

A core of volunteers assisted on these trips, and thanks are extended to them for contributing their time and expertise. These include Kelly Epperly, Bernie Heisner, and Julie Delavergne.

The "Gray" team traveled to the Accelerated Contest held annually in Wisconsin. Bill Langel (OSU alumnus) traveled with this group composed of Rachel Foureman, Matthew Borchers, Dan Nicol, and Derik Baumer. Dan had a positive day as 8th high individual. This team will also travel to the North American Dairy Show contest in November.

Gray Team: Bill Langel, Derik Baumer, and Matt Borchers (back row),
Rachel Foureman and Dan Nicol (front row).

Following are the links for more detailed results...

Eastern States: http://www.thebige.com/fair/agriculture/documents/10dairyjudging4yrres.pdf
Pennsylvania All American: http://www.allamerican.state.pa.us/PressReleases.aspx?PRID=366
World Dairy Expo: http://www.worlddairyexpo.com/media-news-releases-display.cfm?RecordId=449

Our 4-H team at Pennsylvania and Wisconsin included one member, Jacqueline Sherry. Jacqueline is now a freshman at Ohio State, and she finished right in the middle of both contests. What a great experience she had as she was mentored carefully by the collegiate teams. One of your good questions would be to inquire why we did not have a team of four. As you know, kids have many different activities…especially sports. I find it challenging when some of best talent makes a choice other than judging. Even my diligent efforts cannot make up for such pressures that 4-Hers and their parents must experience.

However, we did have plenty of 4-Hers training at our Maryland State Fair “boot camp” trip. They were disciplined and skilled, and were developing into a talented group. I learned many of these have the opportunity to be in 4-H for two more years. With the support of my volunteers, we decided to let them mature before using them in the major contests. Keep an eye on this group. They have been coming up through the ranks, and yet, some are “raw” talent discovered in our judging clinics at the State Fair. With their passion, you will be hearing more out of this group. Four of those include Dan Grim (Lorain County), Stacie Steel (Tuscarawas County), Eileen Gress (Wayne County), and Rachel Townsley (Champaign County). They will be judging in Louisville at the North American contest.

Ohio will also have a Quiz Bowl team competing in the national contest on November 6th in Louisville, Kentucky. The team includes Rachel Townsley, Eileen Gress, Sam Weeman, Brandon Meier, and alternate Billy Grammer. Their expertise has been enhanced by seasoned quiz bowl coaches, Lisa Gress and Lorraine Townsley, with support from Julie Martig.

Let’s wish all our “Buckeye” teams’ good luck!
What Does Discovery of Bovine Tuberculosis in a Herd in Ohio Mean for Ohio Livestock Farmers?
Dr. William Shulaw, Extension Veterinarian, Cattle and Sheep, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine,The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

The July 7, 2010, a press release from the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) announcing that a dairy herd had recently been detected with bovine tuberculosis (bTB) and subsequently depopulated was perhaps a surprise to some people, but to those who have been observing similar kinds of discoveries in other states, it was not. In fact, in an article in the Ohio BEEF Cattle Letter that appeared just before the ODA press release, we briefly discussed biosecurity and the concern of introducing diseases, like TB and others characterized by “silent” infections, into herds and flocks. In the short term, the impact of this discovery on Ohio farmers will be rather minimal and limited to the herd affected, the herds in which animals from this herd were traced, and the regulatory agencies charged with the tracing and testing activity (of course, they are supported with our tax dollars). Should additional herds be discovered in the next two years, the possibility of loss of our “free” status with respect to bTB exists. This could have a profound impact on Ohio farmers.

The current situation in Ohio and the U.S., with respect to bTB, does give us some insight into changes that have occurred over the past 20 to 30 years. Herd size has tended to increase, especially in the dairy industry. Some of this expansion occurred with retention of natural additions to herds, but for many herds, it also involved movement of animals from one herd to another. In some cases, bTB has been traced to Mexican cattle entering the US as Holstein feeder animals and roping/rodeo steers. Unfortunately, in a few cases, contact between these animals and other animals destined for breeding herds has occurred. This time frame has also seen the growth of farmed deer, elk, and bison herds, much of which was unregulated until recent years and in which some level of bTB may have persisted.

The conspicuous feature of this change is the nature and amount of animal movement. In a recent news article, it was reported that last year more than 19 million of the nation's 30 million beef cows and 9 million dairy cows crossed state lines (1). It is now fairly common for herds, both beef and dairy, to contain animals that were born in one state; raised, comingled with other animals, and bred in one or more different states; and relocated to yet another for breeding or production purposes. In fact, in the Ohio herd recently found with bTB, the animals in that herd had their origin in at least 17 different states and Canada. Much of this movement is done with no, or minimal, attention to the potential for introduction of disease. Some of it is done illegally; perhaps more than we would like to believe. The recent National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) surveys suggest that routine biosecurity measures for animal disease prevention are not regularly practiced by many farms (2). Diseases like bTB, Johne’s disease, anaplasmosis, and bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) are readily moved about by animals that are infected but which show no visible signs of disease. This tremendous amount of movement of animals back and forth across the country, which happens virtually every day, has led some people in the animal health field to observe that we now have a “national” herd merely split up among different temporary owners. To the extent that animals are moved without individual identification and records, the job of tracing disease outbreaks becomes enormous.

Perhaps this is a good time to discuss “health certificates.” Actually, the term “health certificates” is a bit of a misnomer since they do not really certify the complete “health” of the animals being moved. Although the term is still used almost universally, today it is reserved for forms and certificates provided by the USDA for interstate and international animal movement (including dogs and cats). Most states, including Ohio, now issue a “certificate of veterinary inspection” which perhaps more appropriately describes what they are. They are the paperwork that is usually required for interstate, and sometimes intrastate, movement of animals. They list all official forms of identification of each of the animals, their source/owner and destination, and the results of any tests that may have been required for movement to the destination. In some cases, no actual animal tests are required. They also require the signature of a veterinarian that indicates that he/she has performed the appropriate tests, that the information on the certificate is correct and complete, and that he/she has examined the animals for evidence of infectious or contagious disease. Some states require additional statements regarding the status of a specific disease for the source herd to be placed on the certificate. An accredited veterinarian and state of origin issue the certificate with the original accompanying the animal and copies sent to the state of destination.

Although the certificate of veterinary inspection is a very important legal document and does verify testing and examination for some kinds of diseases, it does not imply that the animals listed on the certificate are free of disease. For infectious diseases that have long incubation periods, like bTB, or diseases that may be transmitted from apparently healthy carriers or shedders, like Johne’s disease, BVD, or anaplasmosis, a “health certificate” may provide little protection to the farm or herd of destination. Furthermore, the requirements for interstate and intrastate movement may vary somewhat by state, depending on what a state believes is in the best interest of their citizens. For example, a disease of beef cattle that is getting more attention every year is trichomoniasis (commonly called “trich”), an infection carried by non-virgin bulls that can be transmitted to cows at breeding and cause early embryo loss and a high level of open cows at calving. It has been most common in several western states and is gradually spreading to other states. Some states require multiple tests for this infection on bulls prior to them entering their state, and some do not. Currently, a farmer in Ohio can buy a potentially infected bull from another state and move it to Ohio without any testing for this disease.

The United States embarked on a bTB eradication program in 1917 at a time when an estimated one in every nine human deaths was from TB. It has been estimated that 10% or more of those human TB cases were due to the bovine form acquired from cattle or indirectly from cattle products. (3) That estimate does not count the crippling, non-fatal infections. We made astounding progress in just the first few decades, thanks to the financial and moral commitments of your grandparents and mine, and we continued to make significant strides toward eradication through the early 1990s when most states were declared “Free” and granted that status by the federal government [For a very interesting account of this read (3)]. Today, many states do not require TB testing for cattle being imported from “Free” states.

So We Have bTB. “What’s All the Fuss About?”

Since the bTB eradication program began in 1917, huge changes in the livestock industry have taken place. By the late 1980s, most states had been given “Accredited Free” status with respect to bTB. Although the disease was not eradicated, the prevalence had become so low that infected herds were only infrequently detected. These herds were almost always depopulated quickly, and often no evidence for further spread was found.

In the early 1970s, the “every-six-years” bTB testing of cattle herds by township was discontinued in Ohio. Sometime in the early 1980s, routine testing of Ohio-origin cattle being exhibited in Ohio was discontinued (Yes, I am old enough to remember doing township TB testing and TB testing 4-H market steers going to the county fair). For many years, the primary form of surveillance for bTB has been routine post mortem inspection at state and federally inspected slaughter facilities, although some routine herd and individual animal testing is still done. The USDA does not currently require bTB testing for most classes of cattle if they move between Accredited Free states, and many states, but not all, have similar rules for importation of cattle into their state (4). Ironically, the success of the bTB eradication effort, along with the largely successful effort to eradicate bovine brucellosis, may have created a sense of complacency.

Having USDA “Accredited Free” status has been a major benefit for a state’s livestock producers. However, for sneaky diseases with long incubation periods and imperfect diagnostic tests, like bTB, the potential for spread is always present until they are completely eradicated. With the coming of today’s large, multi-source herds; the tremendous amount of movement of animals for breeding, feeding, grazing, and exhibition; and the reduced level of animal and herd testing, outbreaks of bTB in many states over the last decade are not too surprising. And the meaning of “free” may not mean the same thing now that it did in 1985. Until very recently, the finding of two or more infected herds within a state within a 48-month period caused it to lose its free status. The states of CA, NM, MI, and MN have all lost their free status over the past decade, and several more have discovered infected herds in very recent years (TX, NE, IN, KY, CO, SD, and now OH). For MI and MN, the discovery of wild white-tailed deer with bTB in the areas where cattle herds with bTB were found has tremendously complicated their efforts to regain free status. In the past, when a state lost its “Accredited Free” status, farmers and ranchers of that state who wished to sell or move their animals interstate or internationally had to test their animals or herds to be eligible for movement. The resulting costs to the individual and the state can be enormous as exemplified by the situation in Michigan since the discovery of bTB in the northeastern Lower Peninsula in 1994.

Last year, the USDA published its intent to develop a new approach to its management of bTB (5). This was driven by the recognition that the current rules were developed before changes in herd size and animal movements have come about and that the actual number of infected cattle in infected herds tends to be small. Requiring depopulation of all animals in infected herds, and paying indemnity for them, has become very expensive and harder to justify to a public that is more animal welfare conscious. The steps needed for a state to regain its free status require a tremendous investment in public and private resources, and the unaffected farms in that state share heavily in that burden. In a Federal Order issued on April 15, 2010, the USDA announced its intention to suspend its enforcement of federal law that downgrades a state’s “Accredited Free” status to a lower status when bTB is found provided that the state animal health officials:
- “Are maintaining all affected herds under quarantine;
- Have implemented a herd plan for each affected herd to prevent the spread of tuberculosis;
- Have implemented a program to periodically test the animals under quarantine for tuberculosis and remove and destroy those that do not test negative; and
- Are conducting surveillance adequate to detect tuberculosis if it is present in other herds or species.” (6)
In addition, cattle from herds in that state that are not known to be infected with, or exposed to, TB may be moved interstate without restriction for TB. Indemnity for herd depopulation will still be available “when the evaluation indicates that other options will not mitigate disease spread, there is an imminent public or animal health risk, and/or it is cost-beneficial to do so.” Similar policy is being extended to states that have had their status downgraded one level providing there is no evidence of a wildlife reservoir. The USDA intends to reevaluate this Order in two years.

This is good news for most producers in states that have had their status downgraded and for states that have already found a bTB infected herd within the last few months. It will ease the USDA-imposed bTB restrictions for interstate movement for them and reduce the cost of doing business. It also somewhat reduces the burden on state animal health officials.

However, for farmers whose herds are found to have bTB, little is changed. Indemnity may still be an option, but federal monies for indemnity have been very sparse in the past few years. Approximately $207 million of emergency funding has had to be infused into the bTB program since 2001 (5). Much of this went for indemnity payments and tracing efforts to and from infected herds. If the funds available for indemnity don’t change, it is possible, if not likely, that farmers will be expected to share more of the burden of having bTB. An infected herd may not have to depopulate, but they will remain in quarantine, and the herd plan will almost certainly require multiple years of intensive testing if they expect to regain uninfected status. Commercial dairy farms may be able to remain in business, but the animals that leave the farm will have to go directly to slaughter under supervision of the state authorities or into approved feeding facilities. Slaughter markets may be somewhat limited as not all plants may want to deal with the requirements for slaughter of cows from these herds. For commercial beef herds, requirements for animals leaving the farm may make marketing them very difficult. For purebred herds selling seed stock, being under quarantine could effectively end those sales.

The bigger picture requires answering the question of how we will decide to deal with bTB for the future. If we expect to really eradicate the disease, it will take a renewed commitment on the part of the livestock industry and government. Because government money comes from taxpayers, it may mean they will have to be convinced that there is benefit to everyone to justify the cost. Furthermore, since much of the risk to public health is controlled by pasteurization of milk and inspection of meat, there may be reluctance to support what might be viewed now, almost 100 years after eradication efforts began, as “only” a livestock problem that should not be supported with public monies. There is current precedent for this very opinion in the United Kingdom (UK) (7). The bTB in the UK has become an enormous problem where there are now several thousand farmers living with bTB restrictions on their herds. The bTB problem in the UK is complicated by a significant reservoir of the disease in wildlife, principally the European badger, and reluctance by government and the general public to cull them even in high-risk areas. We must not let the disease become established in wildlife populations – for many reasons. England’s Bovine TB Advisory Group report, published about a year ago, provides us with a glimpse of the challenges we face if our bTB situation deteriorates. A quote from that Report is instructive:

"Finally, there is a need to acknowledge the human costs of this disease. TB has negative effects not only on the health of animals and trade but also the health and well-being of the herd owners involved. It has become apparent in discussions with industry that the stress of dealing with herd breakdowns, particularly in areas of repeated or extended breakdowns, has very real effects on individuals that extend beyond the immediate cost of the animals that are slaughtered. Some form of support (both business advice and direct financial support) is needed to help farmers to manage the impact of living under disease restrictions.” (8)

If we expect to effectively manage, let alone eradicate, bTB, we must realize that our individual actions regarding the biosecurity of our herds and flocks impact everyone, including people not involved in livestock production (9). And, we must develop a more effective system of livestock traceability to enable livestock disease control officials to track the movements of diseased and exposed animals. Those herd owners that have had to deal with a bTB infection in their herds can attest to the value of having even minimal methods of identification and recordkeeping in reducing the impact on their farm.

Animal Identification (ID), Traceability, and the Future of bTB Control

When I first began veterinary practice in 1971, cows on many farms were identified by names such as “Blackie,” “Bonnie,” or “Sparky.” (Ah yes, I remember Sparky well!) Since then, there has been an explosion in the methods one can use to identify animals. These range from simple numbered metal and plastic ear tags to sophisticated electronic identification systems that allow storing much more information about an animal than just a number on an ear tag. Tags and boluses that not only identify the animal but which can also monitor body temperature and report it to a hand held device or computer are now available as well (10). Systems are being tested that could allow remote monitoring of an animal’s location via computers and GPS technology. In fact, one of my colleagues has been using this technology for some time to track wild ducks in his avian influenza research program.

Not all of these new systems will prove commercially viable for the livestock industries, but some have already proven their usefulness. As long as three years ago, I collected blood samples from animals in a 300-cow beef herd that were identified with radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, and we were able to scan their ID directly into a computer and print off bar-code labels for the blood vials right beside a working chute located far from a barn. The capability exists to use this technology to scan animal ID directly into animal health forms and for a laboratory to scan the bar code on the blood vial to put that information into their computer system and subsequent reports. This has tremendous potential to reduce human error in the testing process and to make work faster and easier at the farm and laboratory. The RFID tags used at this farm have had an extremely high retention rate and have frequently allowed the correct ID of animals that have lost their visual ID tag, making them a valuable tool in animal management.

It was recently reported that “Last year, more than 19 million of the nation's 30 million beef cows and 9 million dairy cows crossed state lines” (11). Available data suggest that only about 28% of adult cattle have any form of official ID that would readily allow tracing their movement in case of a disease outbreak (11). “Official” ID refers to a method of ID unique to an animal or premise that is specified by state or federal government. Approved methods vary somewhat by state, species, and class of livestock but are typically ear tags, registry numbers, and tattoos. Perhaps, the most familiar of these are the alphanumeric metal ear tags from the National Uniform Ear Tagging System and which are provided by the USDA. These typically begin with a two-digit number that is unique to a state, followed by capital letters and then four numbers, such as 31ATM4444. The “31” indicates that the tag was applied by a veterinarian to an animal that was located in Ohio. Official tags are now available that use the 15-digit international standard numbering system, including RFID tags. The national Scrapie Eradication Program uses a special premise ID numbering system, and all breeding sheep, most exhibition sheep, and any sheep over 18 months old must be identified when they change ownership or move in interstate commerce. This identification scheme has been in place since late 2001, and we are making remarkably good progress in eradicating scrapie.

Officially identified animals, accompanied by appropriate paperwork, allow animal disease officials to trace animals that may be exposed or otherwise involved in a disease outbreak after they have left the farm. However, the system is far from perfect and can fail us. Unfortunately, this may be when we need it most, such as in outbreaks of serious disease like bTB, brucellosis, or, heaven forbid, foot and mouth disease. There are some common ID problems animal health officials encounter in tracing animals involved in disease outbreaks. The first is that ear tags are notorious for becoming lost. If an animal that has lost its tag is not retagged, and is subsequently comingled with other animals without ID, its identity may be gone and finding it again may be very difficult. This problem is compounded by failure to keep records on animals and their comings and goings at the herd level. As an example of this, imagine a situation where an animal is exposed to bTB in one herd and is then sold for breeding or into another commercial channel where it finds its way to a second herd. Assume that a short time after it entered the second herd, it lost its tag and the tag was not replaced, or the replacement tag number was not recorded in such a way as to link it with the first one. If bTB is diagnosed in the original herd, tracing of animal movements from it may lead to the second herd, but finding that exposed animal may now be impossible, especially if the second herd is a relatively large one. This may require quarantining the entire second herd and testing all the animals until it can be fairly certain that bTB has not become established in it.

Another problem is the removal of ID tags after an animal is relocated. This might be done to facilitate the record keeping system at the second location or because the old tag was difficult to read. If the old tag number, and the available RECORDS on that animal, is not retained, future ID of it may be impossible. It is important to know that intentional removal of an official form of ID is against the law. Of course, the reason for this is to maintain a way to trace an animal’s movement or source in the event of disease exposure. Official ID tags from USDA, like those of the National Uniform Ear Tagging System, can be recognized by a shield with the characters “US” inside it printed or stamped on the tag.

A third animal ID problem regulatory veterinarians frequently encounter during disease investigations is that an animal is found with multiple tags; perhaps all of them Official ID tags. This indicates that the animal probably has been moved across state lines multiple times, but it may be impossible to track that movement, except for perhaps the most recent instance, and multiple tags could even delay the tracing effort. Multiple tags in an animal may happen for several reasons, but it is usually because the last time an animal was moved, it was difficult or inconvenient to read an existing tag, and it was simply easier to apply a new one. If multiple forms of official ID are present on an animal, all of them should be recorded on a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection and a new one should not be added. All official ID should be a part of an animal’s permanent record on the farm. Keeping those records is as much a protection for the owner as it is a tool for regulatory officials in tracking disease and exposures. Farm records need not be complicated or elaborate, but having them and being able to provide ID and information about an animal’s movement history in the event of a trace-out of disease to the farm may make the difference between experiencing an inconvenience and being quarantined and having to test the herd.

During USDA fiscal year 2009, six bTB cases in fed cattle (non-adult) were detected at slaughter (12). Fortunately, ear tags allowed ID of the source herds and travel history for three of those animals. However, no unique animal ID was available for one feedlot-origin animal, and multiple consignors had contributed to the feedlot pen from which it had originated. If animal ID is not available, or not recorded, at the slaughter plant where most surveillance for bTB is done, tracing investigations on all animals in a pen or shipment may be necessary to try to locate the source of the infection.

Even when the source herd for a TB-infected animal can be identified easily, the subsequent investigations can be an enormous effort. As just one example illustrates - in April of 2009, a cull cow with bTB was detected at slaughter, and the source herd of 800 adult beef cows in north central Nebraska was identified. Subsequent testing of this herd detected an additional infected cow (12). Investigation of the cow movements into and from this herd, as well as fence-line contacts, resulted in the quarantine of 61 herds in 20 counties and the testing of 21,764 animals (13). No additional infected herds were found, but the costs of testing, borne by taxpayers and herd owners, and the financial and emotional strain of quarantine on herd owners are not easily quantified.

Earlier this year, the USDA announced that it was abandoning its plan to develop a National Animal Identification System (NAIS) that has been in the development phase for several years and which was somewhat controversial. In February, it announced that it was initiating a new effort to develop a framework for animal disease traceability (14). It is holding a series of public meetings and has solicited the assistance of the stakeholders in the livestock industries in developing the plan. It would apply only to animals moving in interstate commerce and would be implemented by the states. Coordinating individual state plans for making traceability both usable and efficient will be a major challenge. Obviously, an effective system will be of benefit for tracking important diseases other than bTB.

In her report to the Committee on TB at the October 2009 meeting of the United States Animal Health Association, Dr. Alecia Larew Naugle, National TB Program Manager (and 1998 OSU Veterinary College graduate), suggested that farmers consider the following with respect to bTB and the need for a new approach to managing it:

“In this new approach, producers and industry will also have responsibilities:
- Advancing their knowledge about bovine TB and risk factors for introducing TB into their herds,
- Evaluating their management practices to identify if any of these risk factors are present and implementing mitigations to reduce these risks,
- Developing industry- and producer-driven components of the TB program and generating the funds necessary to support these activities , and
- Continuing to engage in discussions with State and Federal animal health officials concerning the TB program.” (12)
If we, collectively, decide that the bTB eradication program, started by our grandparents in 1917, is important to finish, we can do it. We have the technology and basic infrastructure to do so if we want to. Writing in the American Journal of Public Health in 1973, Roswurm and Ranney wrote: “The primary problem we face in tuberculosis eradication is a people problem.” and in the following paragraph: “The result is that in the animal health field, we have a few people that have considerable interest in seeing the bovine tuberculosis program completed; and many, many people who care little about this work. The people problem transcends all of the technical problems.” (15) We, the people, have to decide what inheritance we will leave our grandchildren.

References:
1. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_e8fb5028-a30a-11df-a254-001cc4c03286.html
2. http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov/beefcowcalf/beef0708/Beef0708_is_Biosecurity.pdf and http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov/dairy/dairy07/Dairy07_ir_Biosecurity.pdf
3. Olmsted, A. and Rhode, "An Impossible Undertaking: The Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis in the United States." 2004. The Journal of Economic History vol. 64, No. 3 at: http://www.unc.edu/~prhode/Impossible_Undertaking.pdf
4. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/tuberculosis/downloads/tb-umr.pdf USDA Uniform Methods and Rules for bTB
5. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/tuberculosis/downloads/tb_concept_paper.pdf “A New Approach for Managing Bovine Tuberculosis: Veterinary Services’ Proposed Action Plan”
  USDA Concept Paper, Issued July 2009 and available early fall 2009
6. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2010/04/printable/federal_order_tb.pdf Federal Order -- Bovine Tuberculosis: Requirements Applicable to Accredited-Free and Modified Accredited Advanced States or Zones . April 15, 2010.
7. Torgerson PR and Torgerson DJ. Public health and bovine tuberculosis: what’s all the fuss about? Trends in Microbiology 2010 Volume 18, No. 2 pp. 67-72.
8. http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/documents/tbag-finalreport.pdf “Bovine Tuberculosis in England: Towards Eradication” A Final Report of the Bovine TB Advisory Group. April 8, 2009.
9. http://beef.osu.edu/beef/beefJune1610.html the Ohio BEEF Cattle Letter, Issue # 691, June 16, 2010, Miller and Shulaw articles.
10. http://www.drovers.com/directories.asp?pgID=712 - a list of identification device suppliers.
11. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-08-livestock-usda-regulations_N.htm USA Today (online issue), August 8, 2010.
12. http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports/2009/report-tb-2009.pdf - Proceedings of the 113th United States Animal Health Association Meeting, report of the Committee on Tuberculosis, October 2009.
13. http://www.midwestagnet.com/Global/story.asp?S=12276490 Midwest AGnet, April 8, 2010.
14. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/ - announced February 5, 2010.
15. Roswurm JD, Ranney AF. Sharpening the attack on bovine tuberculosis. Am J Public Health 1973;63:884-886.
Dairy Market Outlook: January - February 2011

Dr. Cameron Thraen, Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

The USDA Milk Production report, released December 18, 2010, shows continued strength in milk production across the country. For November, the 23 state production was up 3.1% over last year and the U.S. total was up 2.7%. This is the sixth straight month that the 23 state total is up 2.7% or better.

Gains in milk production are coming from the western and some eastern states. Arizona production was up +8.7%, Oregon up +8.4%, Idaho up 7.2%, Washington up +6.0%, and California showing a 4.5% growth. Out east, New York added 4.6% and Pennsylvania upped production by 3.2% vs. last year. Midwestern states did not fare as well with Iowa down 3.3%, Minnesota down 1.5% and Wisconsin up marginally 0.5% for November versus last year.

Milk output per cow continues to be a major contributor to these production gains, but it is getting harder to maintain these gains as milk prices sink and feed prices rise. The USDA released its December Livestock, Dairy and Poultry (LDP) Report, December 20, 2010. The 2011 outlook for U.S. dairy is for a slight increase in milk production, up 1.4%, a slight reduction in imports due to international prices exceeding U.S. prices, and a decline in U.S. exports, from 8.3 billion pounds in 2010 to 6.3 billion pounds in 2011.

With the anticipation of weaker milk prices, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) 12-month Class 3 average for 2011 is right at $14.50/cwt, the real profit killer will be the USDA forecast for feed prices. According to the USDA LDP report, corn is expected to be in the $4.80 to $5.60/bu range for the 2010/11 crop year and soybean meal in the $310 to $350/ton range. Higher feed prices, coupled with a reduced milk price, the current near-term 6-month CME Class 3 price average is $14.00/cwt, will put the squeeze on dairy margins in the coming months. The impact will become evident by mid-2011. The CME Class 3 has this priced in with the out-6 months of 2011 averaging a dollar higher at $15.03/cwt.

If you have not explored the use of the Livestock Gross Margin (LGM) insurance product, this may be the time to take a careful look at this product and determine whether or not it will work for your dairy operation. If you looked at it earlier, you may take a new look as there are a couple of important changes which are just now going into effect. You can find detailed information at the University of Wisconsin website: http://future.aae.wisc.edu/lgm_dairy.html. At this site, you will find a web-based program which will allow you to test out the LGM using your numbers. Here in Ohio, you can also attend one of the up-coming OSU Extension workshops, to be held in mid February 2011 on this topic. Contact the OSUE Wayne County agricultural educator, Dianne Shoemaker (shoemaker.3@osu.edu) at the Wayne County OSU Extension office, for more details on these workshops.

The Cost of Nutrients, Comparison of Feedstuff Prices and the Current Dairy Situation

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

At this time of the year, I wish that I could bring you some good news. I am afraid, however, that what has been a modest recovery for our dairy farms starting in late spring is about to end. Most dairy farms, still under the shock of the 2009 financial disaster, now barely hold their heads above the water. What’s next? Feed prices have gone through the roof, and the November decline in milk prices is just the beginning of further declines based on the current cash prices of butter and especially cheese. Tight financial management will be the norm for the first half of 2011.

First, let us look at feed prices. As usual in this column, I used the software SESAME™ that we developed at Ohio State to price the important nutrients in dairy rations to estimate break-even prices of all major commodities traded in Ohio and to identify feedstuffs that currently are significantly underpriced. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NEl, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb – MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 2. Compared to historical averages (i.e., since January 2005), NEL is now priced at about average (10¢/lb). For MP, these figures stand at a premium of about 20¢/lb, or a 195 % premium over the 6 year average. Thus, although we have seen a substantial increase in the price of corn and other energy commodities this fall, the rise in the protein complex has been more substantial. One must keep in mind that over the last 20 years, dietary energy (NEL) has been priced at about 5¢/Mcal. Thus, the current dietary energy cost is still well above the long-run average. The cost of ne-NDF is currently discounted by the markets (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non effective NDF are price discounted), but the discount is at about the 6-year average. Meanwhile, unit costs of e-NDF are historically low, with a discount of about 2 ¢/lb over the 6-year average. Home-grown forages can be inexpensive sources of this important nutrient.

Based on mid December wholesale prices, central Ohio, feed commodities can be partitioned into the three following groups (Table 1). The disconcerting thing from this table is that only 4 feeds are currently in the bargain column, and nearly half of all feeds are in the overpriced column. This limits potential feed cost savings from feed ingredient substitution.

Table 1. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, mid-December 2011.

Bargains

At Breakeven

Overpriced

Distillers dried grains
Gluten feed
Meat meal
Soybean meal – expeller

Alfalfa hay
Bakery byproducts
Brewers grains, wet
Canola meal
Corn, ground, shelled
Corn silage
41% Cottonseed meal
Whole cottonseed
Gluten meal
48% Soybean meal
Wheat bran
Wheat middlings

Blood meal
Beet pulp
Citrus pulp
Feather meal
Fish meal
Hominy
Molasses
44% Soybean meal
Soybean hulls
Roasted soybeans
Tallow

As usual, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the bargain column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer savings opportunity, and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. In addition, prices within a commodity type can vary considerably because of quality differences as well as non-nutritional value added by some suppliers in the form of nutritional services, blending, terms of credit, etc. In addition, there are reasons that a feed might be a very good fit in your feeding program while not appearing in the “bargains” column. For example, molasses is often used to reduce ingredient separation in TMR. Molasses is also an excellent source of sugars. Some nutritionists balance rations for sugars. In those situations, molasses might not be at all overpriced.

One must remember that SESAME compares all commodities at one point in time, mid December in our case. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

In Table 3, we report the detailed results for all 27 feed commodities. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were either deemed outliers (completely out of price), or had an unknown price (e.g., alfalfa hay of different qualities).

Table 2. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, mid-December 2010.

Table 2

Table 3. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, mid-December 2010.

Table 3

Reducing the Use of Copper Sulfate in Footbaths
Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

The proper use of footbaths can be an effective component of a herd’s hoof health program. Digital dermatitis (also referred to as hairy heel warts, heel warts, etc.) and hoof rot are two hoof problems that can be controlled by the use of foot baths. The predominant active ingredient in most footbaths is copper sulfate and is quite effective. However, the cost of copper sulfate is high and because used foot bath solution is usually dumped into the manure stream, excessive copper loading of soils can occur when the manure is spread on fields. A recent study (Speijers et al., 2010. Journal of Dairy Science) evaluated different aspects of using copper sulfate footbaths. In one study, a 2% copper sulfate solution was compared with a 5% solution (both used for 4 consecutive milkings once per week) on cows that had a very high prevalence of digital dermatitis (65% of the cows had an active lesion on at least one foot). In a second study with cows that had a lower prevalence of digital dermatitis (~20% of the cows had an active lesion on at least one foot), the same comparison was made except cows walked through the footbath 4 consecutive milkings every other week.

A typical footbath holds 40 to 50 gallons of solution and should be changed after 150 to 300 cows walk through it. For a 200 cow herd that uses a footbath 4 consecutive milkings once a week, reducing the copper sulfate from 5% to a 2% would save about 2200 lb of copper sulfate per year. If the herd changed from a 5% solution weekly to a 2% solution every 2 wk, copper sulfate use would be reduced by about 3000 lb annually. However, these savings in copper sulfate must not come at the cost of increased hoof problems. The major findings of this study were:
1. When a group of cows with a high prevalence of digital dermatitis walked through a footbath 4 consecutive milkings once weekly, both the 2 and 5% copper sulfate solution significantly decreased digital dermatitis, but the 5% solution had a slightly greater effect. The prevalence decreased from 69 to 13% over an 8 week period (82% decrease) with the 5% solution and decreased from 66 to 18% (73% decrease) with the 2% solution. Overall, if cows are walking through a footbath once weekly for 4 consecutive milkings, a 2% solution appears to be acceptable.
1. When a group of cows with a moderate prevalence of digital dermatitis walked through a footbath 4 consecutive milkings every other week, a 5% solution was much more effective than a 2% solution. Prevalence of cows with an active lesion for digital dermatitis decreased from 20% to 7% (65% decrease) over an 8 week period when a 5% solution was used but only decreased 36% (from 22 to 14%) when a 2% solution was used.
Bottom line: Reducing the concentration of copper sulfate from 5 to 2% may not greatly affect the efficacy of a footbath when used weekly but will greatly reduce cost and environmental impact. On the other hand, reducing the frequency of using a footbath from weekly to every other week had a substantial negative effect on efficacy and a 2% solution was not adequate.
2010 Forage Performance Trials

Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 2010 Forage Performance Trial Results are available online at http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~perf/. The report summarizes data on commercial varieties of alfalfa, red clover, white clover and tall fescue in tests planted in 2008 to 2010 across three sites in Ohio (South Charleston, Wooster, and North Baltimore). Alfalfa varieties in established stands ranged in 2010 yield from 5 to 9 tons of dry matter per acre and in a spring seeding from 2 to 3 tons per acre. Alfalfa varieties with resistance to potato leafhopper yielded 7 to 19% more than the susceptible check varieties in an unsprayed (no insecticide) trial across three years of data. Tall fescue varieties ranged in 2010 yield from 4.7 to 5.3 tons per acre. Red and white clover trials were seeded in 2010 at South Charleston. The reported yield of red and white clover varieties was low because the first-harvest yields were not included due to a weed infestation during establishment. Dry weather also had a major impact on subsequent summer harvesting; however, good stands were established.
OSU Animal Welfare Symposium: A Big Success

Dr. Naomi Botheras, Animal Welfare Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Ohio State University’s 2nd Annual Animal Welfare Symposium was held on November 30 in Columbus. Approximately 350 people came to hear Dr. Temple Grandin and a number of other speakers address farm animal welfare issues of importance to Ohio agriculture.

The event was co-organized by Dr. Naomi Botheras (Department of Animal Sciences) and Dr. Candace Croney (Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine), and co-hosted by the Department of Animal Sciences and the College of Veterinary Medicine at The Ohio State University, who are partners in the Australian Animal Welfare Science Centre.

The program kicked off with presentations by Dr. Linda Lobao from the School of Environment and Natural Resources at The Ohio State University and Mr. Charlie Arnot from the Center for Food Integrity, who both spoke about results of recent surveys of consumers’ perceptions of farm animal welfare and the implications for Ohio. Dr. Grandin, Department of Animal Sciences at Colorado State University, discussed humane handling of farm animals, including compromised and non-ambulatory animals. Dr. Jan Shearer eloquently presented information about when compromised animals should be euthanized and correct euthanasia techniques. An update on the activities of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board was also provided by Dr. Tony Forshey, State Veterinarian and member of the Board. The afternoon wrapped up with a panel discussion of industry and professional organization representatives, including Mr. Scott Higgins from the Ohio Dairy Producers Association, describing their latest efforts to address animal welfare issues. Excellent questions and discussions from the audience followed each of the presentations.

Thanks to the Symposium sponsors Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Ohio Veterinary Medical Association, and Osborne Industries. Inc.

Video/audio recordings of all presentations from the Symposium are available to view on-line at: http://vet.osu.edu/preventive-medicine/AnimalWelfareSymposium.

Dr. Temple Grandin

Panel Discussion

A large crowd gathered at the 4-H Center.
2011 4-H Youth Programs

Mrs. Bonnie Ayars, Extension Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

Tis the season to wrap up 2010 and think ahead for 2011 4-H Youth Programs. The 2011 Dairy 4-H calendar is now posted on the opening page at www.4hansci.osu.edu/dairy. Just this month, the calendar and a letter was mailed out to every 4-H dairy youth that participated in any statewide event and also to every junior dairy exhibitor at the Ohio State Fair. This provided us an opportunity to reach everyone on a more personal level.

Also, posted on the web page is the current issue of my newsletter, Bonnie’s Buckeye Moos. It includes several updates on new programming, current events, news, and notes, as well as information about our recognition program for dairy 4-Hers. Each county will have the opportunity to nominate their members who attended any statewide event (judging contest, skillathons, state fair, clinics, Dairy COWreer Day, etc.) I will review all nominees and then award Gold, Silver, and Bronze certificates based on their participation. These will be sent in the mail in January. County programs will have the opportunity to recognize youth by awarding these at county dairy banquets. It could also encourage financial support from dairy committees.

A new program on the calendar is the Dairy Palooza on April 30th to be held at the Grammer Jersey Farm. We continue to have many interested dairy youth who live in the northeastern area but who do not often make it to state events. Therefore, we decided to take the message to them. It will be a day filled with hands-on activities focused on topics of interest. Topics will include how to select your 4-H dairy project, showmanship tips, clipping and fitting, animal husbandry, and a dairy science activity, and there will also be topics of interest for only Cloverbuds. Volunteers are going to make the day special, and we offer our gratitude to the Grammers for opening up their farm and cattle for this event.
Students Excel in 2010 Ohio Dairy Challenge Contest

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 2010 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held November 19-20 and was again sponsored by Cargill Animal Nutrition. The Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for undergraduates at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format whereby students are grouped into teams of three to four individuals, and the first, second, and third place team m0embers received gift certificates to the Barnes and Noble Bookstore at $100, $75, and $50 each, respectively. The farm selected for the contest this year was the Van Raay Dairy in South Charleston, OH (Clark County), and it is owned by Mr. Ted Van Raay. The farm was begun in 2004 with 800 Holstein cows and today it has 2055 cows, with plans for expansion underway. The parlor is a double-24 herringbone and cows are milked 3x per day. The rolling herd averages were 23,225 lb milk, 3.7% fat, and 3.2% protein. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Friday afternoon, interviewing the owner and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility. During Friday evening, the teams spent about four hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities of the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation that had to be turned in on Friday evening. On Saturday, the students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges were Mr. Fred Martsolf (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Mr. Bob Hostetler (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Ms. Michele Burky (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU), and Dr. K. Larry Smith (Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Sciences, OSU). There were 10 teams and 36 students that participated in the program. The awards banquet was held on Saturday, November 20 at the new Ohio Union on the OSU Columbus campus. Individuals listed below and designated with an asterisk were recognized as providing outstanding contributions to their teams. The first place team consisted of Andy Lefeld*, Teresa Smith*, Stephanie Neal*, and Alissa Hunter*, with the second place team consisting of Carly Kestler*, Jessica Simons, Kathleen Shircliff*, and Zachary Grauer. Linda Brahler, Jason Hartschuh*, Kyle Brockman, and Sabrina Eick were on the third place team. The students among the other teams (no particular order) competing were: Team #4 –Hannah Thompson*, Laura Gordon*, Matthew Borchers, and Kevin Jacque; Team #5 (ATI) – Abigail Styron and Arthur Stoller; Team #6 – Stephanie Adams, Darrin Hulit, Kelsey Holter, and Courtney Umhoefer; Team #7– Katelin Jarman*, Larissa Hileman, Alexandra Mailloux-Beauchemin, and Casey Skowron; Team #8 – Justin Rawn, Tricia Tenzek, Chad Riethman, and Derik Baumer*; Team #9 – Kathryn Lamar, Melinda Miller, and Tori Fraizer; and Team # 10 – Jason Miley*, Emily Severt*, and Lindsey Raubenolt. The top 4 individuals for the contest that were selected to represent Ohio at the 2011 National Contest, to be hosted by North Carolina State University during March 31 to April 2 in Hickory, NC, were Andy Lefeld, Teresa Smith, Stephanie Neal, and Alissa Hunter. Students from OSU will also be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge hosted by the University of Wisconsin – River Falls in Menomonie, WI to be held February 9-11, 2011. The coach for the Dairy Challenge is Dr. Maurice Eastridge in the Department of Animal Sciences at Ohio State.

First Place Team (left to right):
Teresa Smith, Stephanie Neal,
Andy Lefeld, and Alissa Hunter.

Second Place Team (left to right):
Zachary Grauer, Kathleen Shircliff,
Jessica Simons, and Carly Kestler.

Third Place Team (left to right):
Kyle Brockman, Linda Brahler,
Sabrina Eick, and Jason Hartschuh.
MarketView...U.S. Dairy Outlook Brief March - May 2011

Dr. Cameron Thraen, State Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

The USDA Milk Production Report, released February 18, 2011, contains some interesting numbers and charts on the trend in milk production for the United States over the last 10 years. This edition of MarketView will highlight a few of the major trends.

Milk Production

As you can see from the chart, milk production has resumed an upward trend after declining only a small amount in 2009. The impact of the fall in milk prices and higher feed prices back in early 2009 has all but vanished, as milk output has now returned to its long term upward trend.

Milk per Cow

Milk per cow over this 10-year period is also on par for the 10-year trend. Milk production per cow for all the United States exceeded 21,000 lb in 2010.

Milk Cows

The number of milk cows in the United States ended 2010 down from 2009. This decline matches the reduction which took place over the years 2003-2004.

Number of Licensed Dairy Herds

The number of licensed dairy herds operating in the United States declined from 54,932 in 2009 to 53,127 in 2010. This drop of 1,805 dairy operations represents a 3.2% decline in the number of dairy licenses. All states gave up some dairy farms last year. Ohio licensed dairy farms dropped by 1.8% (60 farms) from the 3,310 reported for 2009 production year to the 3,250 reported for the 2010 production year.

To keep up with the daily dairy futures market and other important market news, visit the OhioDairyWeb 2011 website: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy.
Feed and Nutrient Costs in Dairy Production: Will it Get Any Worse?

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

The spot market for corn has broken the $7/bu mark; will it get any worse? If I could answer this question with 100% certainty, I would not be working for Ohio State… The fact is that nobody knows what feed prices will be in 6 months from now or even next month for that matter. There are too many unpredictable factors involved in the corn and other feed markets to make any price forecast anything else than… maybe a good guess. Meanwhile, dairy producers do not have to remain on the sideline and watch their profit margins disappear – assuming that profit margins even existed to start with. In fact, the more turbulent corn and soybean markets are nearly always accompanied with bargain opportunities for other feedstuffs. All feeds move somewhat in sympathy with the corn and soybean markets, but they do not all share the same “sympathy”: some are over-exuberant, while others drag their feet – a bit like teenagers at chore time.

Feed Ingredients

An important thing to do when feed prices are rapidly changing is to ensure that most of the feed ingredients used in a ration are justified from a nutritional and economic basis. The economic viewpoint is obviously important. This can be done using a method that we have developed at Ohio State and have implemented in a software called Sesame. Using this method, feed ingredients are compared using the value of their nutrients. In dairy production, the economically important nutrients are net energy for lactation (NE_L), metabolizable protein (MP), effective neutral detergent fiber (eNDF), and non-effective NDF (neNDF). Using this approach and market prices of feedstuffs in central Ohio effective at the end of January 2011, one can compute what each available ingredient was worth, and categorize ingredients as bargains (clearly under-priced), at break-even (market price reasonably close to their calculated ‘worth’), or over-priced (market price clearly exceeding the economic value of the nutrients). Results are presented in Table 1.

Readers who have followed this column over the months will notice a new format used to present the results. This new table summarizes the information in regards to the prices used for the analysis (i.e., the market prices), the differences between market prices and the calculated values (what we call ‘Deviation’), and a categorization of feed ingredients into 3 categories: bargains, at break-even, or over-priced. As usual, we caution the readers that these results are time and location dependent. Market prices may have changed sufficiently between the time this analysis was done and the time of publication to affect the outcome of certain feeds. Also, we never imply that a balanced ration can be made solely of bargain feeds or without any over-priced feeds. A reasonable strategy should be to minimize the usage of over-priced feeds and maximize the usage of bargain feeds within the confine of a balanced ration.

Table 1. Market prices, deviations from break-even values, and categorization of feed ingredients used in dairy, central Ohio market, week of January 31, 2011.¹

¹Deviation represents the difference between market price and the calculated value of a feedstuff. For example, a deviation of $10/ton for alfalfa hay means that the market price is $10/ton above the value of the nutrients in alfalfa hay. The Class column categorizes ingredients as follows: X = ingredient is significantly over-priced, O = ingredient is significantly under-priced (i.e., a bargain), and a blank column means that the ingredient is priced about for what it is worth.

Price of Nutrients

As explained in previous columns, a nice byproduct of this type of analyses is that the implicit prices of the economically important nutrients are estimated. Results for the end of January are shown in Table 2. The cost of both dietary NE_L and MP are significantly above their 6-year averages, whereas the 2 fiber components are somewhat within their expected ranges.

Table 2. Estimated cost per unit of nutrients, central Ohio, week of January 31, 2011.

Returns to Dairy Producers: the Cow-Jones Index

Using a ‘standard’ cow producing milk at a level that approximates the national average, it is easy to calculate the cost of feeding this cow given the nutrient costs shown in Table 2. This ‘standard’ cow is a 1,500 lb cow producing 65 lb/day of milk at 3.6% fat and 3.0% protein. This cow requires 31.3 Mcal/day of NE_L, 4.64 lb/day of MP, 10.2 lb/day of eNDF, and 3.4 lb/day of neNDF. The total daily cost to supply these nutrients is $5.39/cow per day, or $8.29/cwt of milk. The average cost of the ration dry matter is estimated at 11.1 ¢/lb. Using Federal Order component prices for January, this cow generates $8.91/day of gross milk revenues, which equates to $13.70/cwt. The difference between the gross revenues per cwt and nutrient costs per cwt constitutes an index of milk revenues minus feeding costs without having to define a specific diet. We have named this index the Cow-Jones Index, as it mimics the information of the Dow-Jones Index for the U.S. stock market. In January, the Cow-Jones Index for Ohio stood at $5.41/cwt. A Cow-Jones of ~ $8/cwt indicates that milk is produced at break-even, whereas a Cow-Jones exceeding $9/cwt is indicative of profitability in the dairy sector. We have monitored this index since 1998 after the Federal Order reform. Results since January 2005 are shown in Figure 1. Clearly, one can observe the devastating situation that dairy producers were put under during 2009. What has not been fully recognized is that 2010, although better than 2009, was in fact NOT a profitable year for dairy producers. The severe bleeding of equity that was experienced in 2009 did stop for the most part, but the average dairy producer was still operating with milk prices below his/her cost of production, basically making a living out of the depreciation. Obviously, this situation is not sustainable. Although the futures markets for Class III and Class IV milk prices are historically high at the time of this writing, it is unclear how much of the additional gross revenues that are expected in the coming months will be spared from the increase in feed costs. Effective risk management might be imperative.

Figure 1. The Cow-Jones Index from January 2005 through January 2011. A Cow-Jones under $8/cwt (the red zone) indicates that milk is produced at less than average break-even costs of production. A Cow-Jones exceeding $9/cwt (the green zone) indicates that the average production is occurring under profitable conditions. The yellow zone is one of transition.
Roundup Ready Alfalfa Available for Planting in 2011

Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

In January, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa after a 46 month environmental impact assessment process. The ruling means that U.S. farmers are free to proceed with planting the genetically altered alfalfa with no restrictions.

Opponents to this ruling have been vocal in their disapproval. They have voiced concerns that without any restrictions the biotech alfalfa will easily contaminate organic and conventional alfalfa seed production and increase the occurrence of glyphosate-resistant weeds. Based on their response, further court battles over this product may be in store.

Whether you agree or disagree with this decision, the fact remains that Roundup Ready alfalfa has been approved for planted this spring. For those considering use of this new technology, what factors should be considered? Where might Roundup Ready alfalfa be of benefit?

We know that good managers have been able to control weeds in alfalfa to acceptable levels with current herbicides and best management practices for years. We also know that glyphosate is effective on many types of weeds, so it adds another tool to the toolbox in the battle against weeds in alfalfa.

Glyphosate may be especially helpful during stand establishment because it causes less injury to seedling alfalfa than most other herbicides labeled for establishing that crop. So seedling stands of alfalfa should develop faster with less injury when glyphosate is used instead of other herbicides.

We participated in a 5-year study of Roundup Ready alfalfa conducted across 6 states from 2006 to 2010. At all locations, glyphosate was used to control weeds in the establishment year, and it did an excellent job of weed control with no crop injury. Controlling weeds with either glyphosate or alternative herbicides resulted in greater alfalfa yield and greater forage quality compared with not using herbicides. Controlling weeds increased crude protein content by 3 percentage units and decreased NDF by 3.8 units.

During the seeding year of our study, alfalfa yield was 0.44 ton/acre higher in the glyphosate treatment than in the alternative herbicide treatment, but total herbage yields and forage quality did not differ between the herbicide treatments. After the seeding year at nearly all locations, no herbicides were needed for weed control, even into the fifth year of the stands. The alfalfa stands were vigorous and provided sufficient competition to keep weeds from re-invading for the remainder of the studies.

Keep in mind that these studies were conducted with small plot equipment where wheel traffic was not an issue. Under normal farm production conditions, alfalfa stands tend to be weakened by wheel traffic, and weeds can re-invade sooner than under our experimental plot conditions. So glyphosate or other herbicides are more likely to be needed to manage weed competition as the stand ages under farm production conditions. The Roundup Ready technology will be useful in those situations, especially where troublesome perennial weeds take hold later in the life of the stand. Examples of such perennial weeds include thistles, curly dock, and dandelions. Winter annual weeds can also be controlled well by glyphosate.

Roundup Ready alfalfa is being marketed by several companies. Based on variety testing results from trials established in 2006 before the ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa, the yield potential of Roundup Ready alfalfa varieties compared very well with conventional elite alfalfa varieties.

Roundup Ready seed will be more expensive, so the benefits and need for glyphosate for weed control in your situation should be weighed against the extra seed cost to use this technology.

Roundup Ready alfalfa should be grown judiciously because of the risk of developing glyphosate-tolerant weeds. Resistant weeds are likely to develop more rapidly if we use, and only use, glyphosate on all crops. Just as crop rotation is important, so is rotation of herbicide chemistries. In addition, some customers won’t buy genetically engineered crops, so you need to know what your customers will accept.

Roundup Ready alfalfa will be a useful technology for some people but may not be for others. As genetically modified alfalfa use increases, we will learn whether the concerns regarding genetically modified organisms (GMO) contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa are valid and if they can be adequately addressed. I hope they can, because there are other GMO traits that potentially are very interesting for alfalfa producers. A good example is the development of alfalfa varieties with lower lignin, which are already being developed and have been shown to result in greater milk production in lactating dairy cows.

In summary, Roundup Ready alfalfa is here. If you decide to use this new technology, use it wisely as part of an overall well-managed system.
Dietary Calcium and Magnesium Deficiency in Dry Cows

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University (top of page) pdf file

Subclinical and clinical milk fever (hypocalcemia) are common and expensive problems on many farms. Cows with hypocalcemia often require veterinary treatment, have reduced milk yields, and are a much greater risk for other health disorders, such as mastitis, metritis, and displaced abomasum. Proper nutrition of dry cows can greatly reduce the occurrence of hypocalcemia. The two primary approaches to controlling hypocalcemia are: 1) feed diets that are marginally deficient in available calcium and just adequate in phosphorus and 2) feed anionic diets [i.e., diets with a negative or dietary cation-anion difference (DCAD)], usually with excessive dietary concentrations of calcium. A recent study reported in the Journal of Dairy Science (Volume 94, pages 1365 to 1373) provides an additional concern when excessive calcium is fed to dry cows. In this experiment, cows were fed diets with approximately 0.5, 0.9, or 1.3% calcium (dry matter basis) during the last 3 weeks of the dry period. The diet with 0.5% calcium slightly exceeded the National Research Council (NRC) calcium requirements. Calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate were used to adjust dietary calcium concentrations. All diets were approximately +20 mEq/100 g and all diets contained 0.3% phosphorus, 1.6% potassium, and 0.18% magnesium (dietary potassium, phosphorus, and magnesium exceeded NRC requirements). Hypocalcemia was not severe for any treatment, but plasma calcium concentrations were lowest (7.8 mg/dL) for the highest calcium diet and greatest (8.6 mg/dL) for cows fed the lowest calcium diets. The greatest effects of dietary calcium were on magnesium absorption. Cows fed the highest calcium diet had the lowest plasma concentrations of magnesium the first 7 days of lactation (averaged approximately 1.6 mg/dL, which is indicative of subclinical magnesium deficiency). The low plasma magnesium in cows fed high calcium diets during the dry period was caused by significantly reduced absorption of magnesium. The apparent digestibility of magnesium by cows fed the low calcium diet was 17% (this absorption coefficient is very typical for dairy cows). The apparent absorption of magnesium by cows fed diets with the intermediate or the highest concentrations of calcium averaged 4 and 0%, respectively. The bottom line from this research is that there is no benefit from feeding high calcium diets to dry cows when anionic diets are not fed, but if high calcium is fed, then dietary magnesium needs to be increased substantially. Cows consumed approximately 16 g/day of magnesium, and based on the reported quantities of magnesium excreted in the urine, cows fed the higher calcium diets would need to consume 22 to 40 g of magnesium to maintain magnesium status (approximately 0.25 to 0.45% magnesium). The results from this study may or may not be applicable to cows fed anionic diets. There is little risk of feeding diets with 0.45% magnesium to dry cows, suggesting that when high calcium diets are fed, regardless of whether a negative DCAD diet is fed, substantially increasing dietary concentrations of magnesium is the prudent course of action.

Wanted: Excellent Ohio Dairy Farms for 2010 Farm Financial Analysis

Ms. Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist, Ohio State University Extension

Total cost of production per cwt, feed cost per cwt, and net farm income per cow. These are important numbers for every farm as they monitor profitability, develop and monitor risk management plans, and look for opportunities. These also are numbers that allow one farm to compare their production and financial management with similar farms.

How does your farm stack up against all of your competition? Against all farms your size? Against the top 20% (based on return to assets) of both groups? These are not difficult questions to answer if you become involved in the National Farm Benchmarking project this year.

Ohio is participating in this project led by the Center for Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota. While Ohio regularly contributes some farm data to the national database, we have the opportunity to expand the number of farms participating in financial analysis this year.

Through grant funding from the National Farm Benchmarking project, we are able to offer a full 2010 financial analysis, including enterprise analysis to 100 farms. Many of these will be dairy farms, but other types of farms are also welcome to participate. Analyses will be completed by either Extension or Farm Business Planning and Analysis (FBPA) personnel.

Participants in the project will work with their Extension or FBPA consultant to complete their farm’s analysis by June 2011. Maintaining each farm’s confidentiality is critical, and farm analyses are coded before submission to the database where data is only shared as group data (individual farms are not identifiable).

In July, Ohio’s farms are invited to participate in a meeting to review Ohio’s farm business summary and learn how to use an individual farm’s analysis, Ohio’s data, and the national database to enhance their farm’s financial and risk management.

A quick look at some historic dairy data, or: This is what “the pits” (2009) looked like…

Financials for 2009 looked about like we expected. It was a sorry year for many farms. While we are growing the Ohio database, we can get some useful information from other states that dairy under similar conditions to Ohio.

FINBIN data for Minnesota Dairy Farms, 2005 through 2009

	Average 2005-09	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005
Number of farms	2009	368	355	442	423	421
Avg # of cows/farm	135	149	151	135	128	116
Feed cost/cwt of milk	$7.85	$8.60	$9.51	$7.96	$6.42	$6.60
Direct & fixed costs/cwt	$15.89	$16.60	$18.37	$16.26	$13.84	$14.13
Avg. milk price/cwt	$16.20	$13.58	$19.50	$18.62	$13.38	$15.69
Net Return/cow	$410	($223)	$491	$811	$291	$683
Net Return over Labor & Mgt/cow	$167	($460)	$231	$562	$ 55	$442

The FINBIN database can be accessed at http://www.finbin.umn.edu/

We invite and encourage you to participate in Ohio’s dairy summary for 2010. This is a prime opportunity with the benchmarking grant covering the $600 per farm cost of analysis. Questions? Contact Dianne Shoemaker at (330) 257-3377 to discuss this opportunity.

Extension and FBPA consultants who can help you with this project include:

Dianne Shoemaker	Wayne County Extension	330-264-8722	shoemaker.3@osu.edu
Thomas Weygandt	FBPA, Buckeye Career Center	330-465-8019	tweyg@embarqmail.com
Tom Ackerman	FBPA, Wilmington	937-382-4760	tackerman32@gmail.com
Glen Arnold	Putnam County Extension	419-523-6294	arnold.2@osu.edu
Luke Baker	FBPA, Henry County	419-966-7330	klbaker@henry-net.com
Chris Bruynis	Wyandot County Extension	419-294-4931	bruynis.1@osu.edu
Bruce Clevenger	Defiance County Extension	419-782-4771	clevenger.10@osu.edu
Ann Gano McCleary	FBPA, Buckeye Career Center	330-339-7511	agano@bright.net
Don Garrett	FBPA, Miami Valley	937-286-047	don@agdatasolutions.com
Wes Haun	Logan County Extension	937-599-4227	haun.17@osu.edu
Jeff McCutcheon	Morrow County Extension	419-947-1070	mccutcheon.30@osu.edu
Heather Neikirk	Portage County Extension	330-296-6432	neikirk.2@osu.edu
Julia Woodruff	Erie County Extension	419-627-7631	woodruff.94@osu.edu

Midwest Dairy Challenge Held in Menomonie, Wisconsin

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

The seventh Annual Midwest Dairy Challenge, which ran February 9-11, 2011, attracted 68 students from 16 universities and colleges to the event hosted by the University of Wisconsin-River Falls.

This year’s contest was held in Menomonie, WI, and the temperature was -15^oF on Thursday morning when the students visited the dairy farms. It drew students from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Iowa State University, University of Minnesota, Michigan State University, University of Illinois, South Dakota State University, The Ohio State University, Kansas State University, University of Wisconsin-Platteville, Purdue University, University of Wisconsin-River Falls, Northeast Iowa Community College, UW Farm and Industry Short Course, Lakeshore Technical College, Chippewa Valley Technical College, and Northcentral Technical College.

The next day, the 16 teams of students were divided between two dairy farms located in the Menomonie area. All students are placed on aggregate teams. Students from The Ohio State University participating in the program were: Andrew Lefeld, Alissa Hunter, Melinda Miller, Stephanie Neal, and Teresa Smith. Their teams received either a gold or silver ranking. The judges chose two teams as platinum winners, the contest’s highest distinction. The individuals who comprised these teams are: Wesley Vanderstappen – Northeast Iowa Community College; Danielle Brown – UW-Madison; Ethan Ulness – UW Farm and Industry Short Course; Melissa Schmitt – Iowa State University; Karen Anderson – University of Minnesota; Heather Lammers – Lakeshore Technical College; Eric Sneller – Michigan State University; Scott Felten – UW Farm and Industry Short Course; and Joseph Ploeckelman – UW-River Falls.

The National contest will be held March 31 – April 2 in Hickory, NC and will be hosted by North Carolina State University. The following students will represent OSU at the contest: Andrew Lefeld, Alissa Hunter, Stephanie Neal, and Teresa Smith.

The North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge (NAIDC; http://www.dairychallenge.org) was established as a management contest to incorporate all phases of a specific dairy business. It strives to incorporate a higher-learning atmosphere with practical application to help prepare students for dairy industry careers. Supported financially through generous donations by industry and coordinated by a volunteer board of directors, the first NAIDC was held in April 2002.
Feed and Nutrient Costs in Dairy Production: Where are we now?

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

Rain, rain, rain… When is it ‘gonna’ stop? As I write this column, Ohio is still getting more than its share of rain. The Southwest is under drought, while the Eastern Cornbelt is flooding. On an average, we are OK… Considering that the corn carry-over is already projected to be very low at the end of this marketing year (i.e., in September), we should expect additional gyrations in the feed markets. Although we might not like to hear this, we must remember that it is the fluctuation in market prices that create buying opportunities. Let’s look at what these are right now in the middle of April.

Feed Ingredients

As usual in this column, we used the Sesame program to compare the different commodities available in Ohio based on the value of their nutrients. The nutrients that we used were: net energy for lactation (NE_L), metabolizable protein (MP), effective neutral detergent fiber (eNDF), and non-effective NDF (neNDF). Over the years, we have found that these 4 nutrients alone explain over 98% of the difference in prices across commodities. The prices used were for Central Ohio on a farm delivered TTL (tractor-trailer-load) basis. Your own local prices might be different but probably not by very much. The results obtained for all feeds in our analysis are reported in Table 1. This table summarizes the information in regards to the prices used for the analysis (i.e., the market prices), the differences between market prices and the calculated values (what we call ‘Deviation’), and a categorization of feed ingredients into 3 categories: bargains, at break-even, or over-priced.

How can you make use of this information? First, you should verify that the majority of the feeds that you use are either underpriced (o symbol in the class column in Table 1), or close to their break-even prices. Your nutritionist might have to use a few over-priced feeds to balance the rations in your herd, but these should be few and they should have a nutritional justification.

Some readers have asked me where I get my corn silage prices, or more specifically, why doesn’t the price of corn silage change from month to month. The corn silage price that I use is calculated from the prevailing cash corn price at the time of silage harvesting. This is when the decision is really made whether to let the corn fully mature to grain or to harvest the crop as silage. Once the cropped is chopped and ensiled, it is be pretty hard to reverse one’s decision and get the corn kernels out of the silage to market the crop as corn grain. Very little corn silage is traded in Ohio, so we can’t rely on good market information to price the silage. It is important to note that all feeds are priced ‘at the mixer wagon’. So for corn silage, the cost is not just the value of the corn standing in the field but also consists of the harvesting and storage costs, including the inevitable dry matter losses during storage.

Table 1. Market prices, deviations from break-even values, and categorization of feed ingredients used in dairy, central Ohio market, week of April 11, 2011.¹

¹Deviation represents the difference between the market price and the calculated value of a feedstuff. For example, a deviation of $28/ton for citrus pulp means that the market price is $28/ton above the value of the nutrients in citrus pulp. The Class column categorizes ingredients as follow: x = ingredient is significantly over-priced, o = ingredient is significantly under-priced (i.e., a bargain), and a blank entry in the Class column means that the ingredient is priced about for what it is worth.

Price of Nutrients

As explained numerous times before, a nice byproduct of this analysis is that the implicit prices of the economically important nutrients are estimated. Results for the middle of April are shown in Table 2. The cost of dietary energy, which is expressed as net energy for lactation, is currently very high, approaching a 175% increase over the six-year rolling average for this nutrient. Making good use of the energy contained in feeds is economically very important. Avoid things that can negatively impact feed digestibility, such as acidosis, corn grain that is too coarsely ground, or forage mean particle size too small due to long mixing time, etc. The current cost per unit of usable protein, the metabolizable protein, and that of the two fiber components are close to their historical ranges. So, it is the high cost of dietary energy that makes current feed costs so high.

Table 2. Estimated cost per unit of nutrients, central Ohio, week of April 11, 2011.

Returns to Dairy Producers: the Cow-Jones Index

Using a ‘standard’ cow producing milk at a level that approximates the national average, it is easy to calculate the cost of feeding this cow given the nutrient costs on a given month. This ‘standard’ cow is a 1,500 lb cow producing 65 lb of milk per day at 3.6% fat and 3.0% protein. This cow requires 31.3 Mcal/day of net energy, 4.64 lb/day of metabolizable protein, 10.2 lbs/day of effective NDF, and 3.4 lb/day of non-effective NDF. The total daily cost to supply these nutrients during the month of March was $5.86/cow/day, or $9.02/cwt of milk. Consequently, the average cost of the ration dry matter is estimated at 12.1 ¢/lb. Using Federal Order component prices for March, this cow generates $12.77/day of gross milk revenues, which equates to $19.66/cwt. The difference between the gross revenues per cwt and nutrient costs per cwt constitutes an index of milk revenues minus feeding costs. We have named this index the Cow-Jones Index as it mimics the information of the Dow-Jones Index for the U.S. stock market. In March, the Cow-Jones Index for Ohio stood at $10.64/cwt. A Cow-Jones of ~ $8/cwt indicates that milk is produced at break-even, whereas a Cow-Jones exceeding $9/cwt is indicative of profitability in the dairy sector. We have monitored this index since 1998. Results since January 2005 are shown in Figure 1. Although the index was much better in 2010 than in 2009, it still was not a profitable year. The substantial increases that we have seen in milk prices since January resulted in a break-even month in February and a profitable month in March. The cash market for cheese has dropped in the last few weeks and most dairy economists expect a softening of the Class III milk in April. One should note that March 2011 feeding costs ($9.02/cwt of milk for the lactating cows) in addition to the other costs of production ($8.00/cwt) result in a break-even milk price of about $17.00/cwt. It was not that long ago, in 2006 to be precise, that the break-even price was calculated at $12.76/cwt. In those days, a $15/cwt milk price was generating net returns that averaged about $2.25/cwt. Nowadays, the average dairy producer would be loosing about $2.00/cwt if milk prices were to drop to $15/cwt. What a difference can less than 5 years make!

Figure 1. The Cow-Jones Index from January 2005 through March 2011. A Cow-Jones under $8/cwt (the red zone) indicates that milk is produced at less than average break-even costs of production. A Cow-Jones exceeding $9/cwt (the green zone) indicates that the average production is occurring under profitable conditions. The yellow zone is one of transition.

Evaluate the Total Amount of Corn-Derived Protein in Diets When Considering Using Distillers Grains

Dr. Bill Weiss, Dairy Nutrition Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

Variety is not only the spice of life, it also can increase milk yields and concentrations and yields of milk protein. Researchers at Michigan State University (Hollmann et al., 2007, J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2022-2030) recently conducted a statistical analysis of multiple experiments evaluating corn distillers grains when fed to dairy cows. Across the individual studies, diets contained 0 and 42% distillers grains (DM basis), milk yields ranged from about 50 to 100 lb/day and milk true protein concentration ranged from about 2.6 to 3.2%. The forages were mainly corn silage and/or alfalfa, ground corn was the primary starch source, and soybean meal was the primary source of supplemental protein (at least in the diets without distillers grains). The concentration of crude protein (CP) in the diets averaged 16.7% and ranged from about 14 to 20%. Overall, control diets were fairly typical Midwestern diets.

Dietary CP was divided into corn CP (the protein provided by corn silage, corn grain, distillers grains, and other corn byproducts if they were fed) and non-corn CP (protein from alfalfa, soy products, wheat midds, grasses, brewers grains, etc.). Protein from corn products is a biologically low quality protein because of its amino acid profile. The protein is quite low in lysine and many other essential amino acids. The Michigan State study determined that when the concentration of non-corn CP in diets decreased below 6.5 to 8.5% of dietary DM, milk protein concentration and yield of milk and milk protein decreased. Ensuring diets contain a minimum of about 7.5% non-corn CP can be used to set maximum inclusion rates for distillers grains.

For the following examples, corn grain was 9% CP, corn silage was 8% CP, distillers grain was 29% CP, alfalfa was 20% CP, and soybean meal was 54% CP.

	Diet 1		Diet 2
	% of Diet DM	CP, % of Diet DM	% of Diet DM	CP, % of Diet DM
Corn silage	50	4.0	10	0.8
Alfalfa silage	10	2.0	50	10.0
Corn grain	20	1.8	32	2.9
Soybean meal (SBM)	17	9.2	5	2.8
Mineral/vitamin	3	0	3	0
Total CP		17.0		16.5
Non-corn CP (alfalfa+SBM)		11.2		12.8
Desired non-corn CP¹		7.5		7.5
Difference²		3.7		5.3

¹When the concentration of non-corn CP is less than 6.5 to 8.5%, yield of milk and milk protein can decrease.
²Difference = Non-corn CP minus Desired non-corn CP.

In diet 1 (high corn silage), you could replace up to 3.7 percentage units of non-corn CP with corn CP without likely affecting milk protein or milk yield. To maintain diet total CP at 17%, then for every 1 percentage unit of distillers grain added you need to remove 0.55 percentage units of corn grain and 0.45 units of soybean meal. The CP in that mix is approximately 24% non-corn CP and 5% corn CP. To estimate maximum inclusion of distillers that can be used without negatively affecting milk yield or milk protein, divide the difference value in the table (3.7 for diet 1) by the “apparent” non-corn CP concentration in distillers (24%, not 29% because both corn grain and soybean meal will be removed as distillers is added). For Diet 1, maximum distillers would be 3.7/0.24 = 15.4% of dietary DM (the amount of corn grain would be reduced by 15.4 x 0.55 = 8.5 units and SBM would be reduced by 6.9 units).

For diet 2 (high alfalfa), maximum inclusion is 5.3/0.24 = 22% (corn grain would be reduced by 12.1 units and soybean meal would be reduced by 9.9 units). Since the original diet only contained 5% SBM, you would have to increase the concentration of total dietary CP if you wanted to use the maximum amount of distillers grains. Potential changes in feed costs would have to be considered before making that decision.

The bottom line is that using a variety of feedstuffs derived from different plant sources (corn, soybean, and alfalfa) provides a blend of different protein sources which is needed to maximize milk protein yields. Diets typically fed in Ohio already contain substantial amounts of corn protein from corn silage and corn grain, and this may limit the inclusion rate of distillers grains.

Estimating Alfalfa NDF in the Field

Dr. Mark Sulc, Forage Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

First harvest of alfalfa is fast approaching. Timely cutting is critical for obtaining high quality forage. For lactating dairy cows, the optimal NDF of pure alfalfa ranges from 35 to 42%. You can quickly and easily estimate the forage NDF of alfalfa as it stands in your fields using the method outlined below. This method, developed at the University of Wisconsin, has been referred to as PEAQ, for Predictive Equations for Alfalfa Quality.

This method has been thoroughly tested in Ohio and provides reasonable accuracy for timing harvest operations. It can be used during the entire growing season, not just on the first crop. Use it to monitor alfalfa NDF as the crop develops. If the goal is 40% NDF in stored alfalfa, then cutting must begin before the standing crop reaches 40% NDF, since the harvest and storage operations will raise the NDF level of the final product. In our experience, NDF concentration of well-made silage is about 2 percentage units higher than the NDF of the standing crop just before cutting. Changes in NDF during hay curing will be higher. Be sure to also adjust for the time it takes to harvest all acres. During the spring, NDF increases about 5 units each week.

The PEAQ method is designed for pure alfalfa stands and will not accurately reflect the NDF concentration of mixed grass-alfalfa stands or weedy stands. If grass is present in the alfalfa stand, begin harvesting earlier. As a reference point, pure grass stands should be cut in late vegetative to very early boot stage for dairy quality feed. Harvest by early heading for other classes of livestock. Cornell University has developed a procedure for estimating NDF of grass-alfalfa mixtures. Their system has not been tested in Ohio, but the Cornell method for grass-alfalfa mixtures is described at http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/pdfs/pd2007october19.pdf.

The PEAQ procedure is NOT intended to replace laboratory analyses for balancing rations once the forage is stored. It should only be used to give a rapid first estimate of quality of the standing alfalfa for assisting in harvest timing decisions of different fields. Although rainy weather can foul up the best laid plans, using PEAQ in conjunction with weather forecasts and soil conditions should help you come closer to your desired forage quality goal for alfalfa this season.

Estimating Alfalfa NDF by Height and Maturity Stage

Step 1: Choose a representative 2-square-foot area in the field area to be harvested.

Step 2: Determine the most mature stem in the 2-square-foot sampling area using the criteria shown in the table at right.

Step 3: Measure the length of the tallest stem in the 2-square-foot area. Measure it from the soil surface (next to plant crown) to the tip of the stem (NOT to the tip of the highest leaf blade). Straighten the stem for an accurate measure of its length. The tallest stem may not be the most mature stem.

Step 4: Based on the most mature stem and length of the tallest stem, use the chart at the right to determine estimated NDF of the standing alfalfa forage.
Example: tallest stem is 28 inches, most mature stem has buds, but no open flowers; NDF = 38.0.

Step 5: Repeat steps 1 to 4 in four or five representative areas across the field. Take more samples for fields larger than 30 acres. Average all estimates to get a field average NDF.

NOTE: This procedure estimates alfalfa NDF content of the standing crop. It does not account for changes in quality due to wilting, harvesting, and storage. These factors may further raise NDF content by 3 to 6 units, assuming good wilting and harvesting conditions. This procedure is most accurate for good stands of pure alfalfa with healthy growth.
Ohio State Participates in the 2011 North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 10th anniversary of the North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge^® (NAIDC; http://dairychallenge.org) was March 31-April 2 in Hickory, NC. The contest attracted 127 college students from 30 schools across the United States and Canada. It was hosted by North Carolina State University.

Two pre-contest farm tours were made available to the students and their coaches: Myers Farms, Inc. and Lucky-L Jerseys. The four host dairy farms for the contest were Beams Dairy Farm, John Beam, III and John Beam, IV; Eaker Dairy Farm, Rusty and Cameron Eaker; Corey and Bridgette Lutz of Piedmont Jerseys; and Gar-Mac Farm, Inc., Gary and Sharon MacGibbon.

The two-day contest started with a walk-through by the team of the assigned dairy farm, analysis of farm data, and a question-answer session with owners. Then each team developed recommendations for the farm and presented them to a panel of five judges.

The highest award of Platinum was earned by teams from California State University-Fresno, Cornell University, The Penn State University, and University of Wisconsin-River Falls. The Reserve Platinum teams were University of Alberta, University of Idaho, Michigan State University, and Washington State University.

The next highest award is Gold and the third level is Silver. The team for Ohio State University received a gold award and consisted of Alissa Hunter, Andrew Lefeld, Stephanie Neal, and Teresa Smith. The team evaluated the Gar-Mac Farm and was coached by Dr. Maurice Eastridge. The 2012 contest will be hosted by Virginia Tech University in the Roanoke area.

Pictured: Back Row (L to R): Teresa Smith, Stephanie Neal, and Alissa Hunter.
Front Row: Dr. Maurice Eastridge (coach), and Andrew Lefeld.
Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference: Another Successful Year

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

The 2011 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference (http://tristatedairy.osu.edu) was held April 19-20 in Ft. Wayne, IN at the Grand Wayne Center. This was a monumental year for the Conference in that it was the 20th anniversary. It is hosted annually by Ohio State, Michigan State, and Purdue universities. Attendance was 455 this year, up about 5% from last year, and attendees consisted primarily of feed industry personnel, veterinarians, and university faculty, staff, and students. There were 55 exhibits this year, which was also an increase from last year. The pre-conference program held on Tuesday morning by Elanco Animal Health was well attended. On Tuesday evening, Prince Agri Products hosted the private consultant dinner and Balchem Corp. hosted the veterinary dinner. There were 14 speakers at the Conference, addressing the changes in feeding dairy cows and heifers over the past 20 years and future expectations; transition cow feeding and management; managing the feeding of colostrum and milk to dairy calves; feeding to minimize heat stress; designing feeding systems with robotic milking systems; and forage management.

The undergraduate student presentation contest was held on Tuesday with 9 student participating (2 from Ohio State, 2 from Purdue, and 5 from Michigan State). The graduate students research presentations were held on Tuesday evening with 6 students participating (4 from Ohio State, one from Purdue, and one from Michigan State). Winners of the two student programs are pictured below.

The 2012 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference will be held April 24-25 at the Grand Wayne Center in Ft. Wayne, IN.

Winners of the Undergraduate Presentation Contest (R to L): Alissa Hunter, Ohio State, First Place;
Jessica Shire, Michigan State, Second Place; and Stephanie Neal, Ohio State, Third Place.

Winners of the Graduate Student Research Presentation Contest (R to L):
Katie Boesche, Ohio State, First Place; Jessica Pempek, Ohio State, Second Place; and Lucien McBeth, Ohio State, Third Place.
2011 Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging Contest at Spring Dairy Expo

Mrs. Bonnie Ayars, Extension Dairy Program Specialist, The Ohio State University

The Ohio 4-H Dairy Judging contest was held on April 2nd during Spring Dairy Expo. Typically, our largest dairy event for youth, there were nearly 375 attending. Our contest is also held in conjunction with the Ohio FFA. With 6 classes to evaluate, the Expo exhibitors were generous in supplying us with quality animals. Some youth participate in both contests, and it is quite a rigorous day as they complete FFA tests and then make their way to Heritage Hall to prepare and present reasons to our officials. Intermediates presented reasons to Hannah Thompson and Laura Gordon (2010 collegiate team members) and Lucas Ayars and John Langel (OSU alumni and former judging team members). The day concluded around 3:00 PM and more than 200 sets of reasons had been given! Other officials for placings included Larry Schirm, Blaine Crosser, and Julie Delavergne.

To check on your hometown or county favorites, click on the following link for the results and also a news release and photo: www.4hansci.osu.edu/dairy

If you have not yet read about our Dairy Palooza event coming up, you will very soon! The support for this has been overwhelming! More information can also be found at the same link as above. If you have any youth unaware of 4-H events for dairy enthusiasts, I would suggest a quick peruse of all the programs/events we have to offer.
MarketView…Livestock Gross Market Insurance Product and Price Forcasts
Dr. Cameron Thraen, State Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

If you have been looking for the Ohio Dairy 2011 website and are unable to connect, this is because it is on the move. Recent changes to the College of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) and Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics (AEDE) website addresses have necessitated a new address for my Ohio dairy website. The most reliable link to reach the dairy website is to bookmark the AEDE department’s new web address and then link to the dairy website by selecting ‘Programs and Research / Ohio Dairy Web. The new AEDE website address is: http://aede.osu.edu. The direct link to Ohio Dairy Web 2011 is currently http://aede.ag.ohio-state.edu/programs/OhioDairy/ (note this direct link may change in the coming weeks).

Dairy Margin Management and the Livestock Gross Margin Insurance Product

Many of you are aware that the Livestock Gross Margin (LGM) Insurance program, after modifications to provide a premium subsidy up to 50%, exhausted all of its allocated underwriting funds with the sale of contracts at the March 2011 offering. If this underwriting authorization is renewed, and there is an expectation that this will happen, the LGM-Dairy contracts will again be available for purchase beginning October 2011. This product is also being put forth as an integral part of the next dairy title in the 2012 farm bill. If you would like more information on the LGM program, you can find two papers on the Ohio Dairy website: http://aede.ag.ohio-state.edu/programs/OhioDairy/LGM_Dairy.htm

In this edition, I will cover two topics. First will be a review of what we know about the premiums paid, payouts, and income distribution for the LGM - Dairy Insurance product. Second, I will review a price forecast for the coming 6 months.

A review of the LGM – Dairy program activity measures shows some interesting points.
1. During the 2011 insurance year, which runs from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, 1,409 policies where purchased, covering 46.2 million cwt. This represents approximately 2.4% of the total quantity of milk marketed by U.S. dairy farmers during the insurance year.
2. The gross margin insured was $770.2 million for an equivalent of $16.66 per cwt. The gross margin insured per cwt for the 2010 insurance year was $13.33.
3. The total actuarial premium cost was $25 million for a per cwt cost of $0.54.
4. The taxpayer funded subsidy on the premium cost was $10.7 million for a per cwt. subsidy of $0.23.
5. The total indemnity paid back to LGM contract owners to date has been $58,000. This represents $0.00125 per dollar of premium paid. The loss ratio, total indemnity divided by total premium, equals 0.0023 or just over 0.2%.
6. Breaking down the 2011 LGM insurance year, 48.9% of the total contracts were purchased during the months of July 2010 through January 2011. These contracts generated 9.1 million in premiums and paid out zero in indemnity.
7. For LGM contracts purchased at the February 2011 sales period, 28% of the total contracts were purchased, generating $9.1 million in premiums and incurring an indemnity of only $18,000.
8. The last sales period, March 2011, sold 22.5% of the total contracts and incurred an indemnity of $40,000 on a total premium of $6.8 million. This indemnity represents 68.9% of the total indemnity for the 2010-2011 contract year.
9. Combining the insurance years 2010 and 2011, the total cost of the LGM-Dairy program comes to 31.5 million dollars. Of this contract buyers premium obligation is 15.1 million, taxpayer premium subsidy is 10.7 million and taxpayer funded Administration and Overhead is 5.7 million dollars.
A review of these points leads one to ask the following question. Where do all the premium dollars paid in go? If I include the 2010 insurance year, the surplus was $25.4 million. As you can see from points 3, and 5, the net premium surplus for 2011 is $24,983,000. What happens to all of this money? According to the LGM documents, the program is designed, from a statistical position, to pay out as indemnities exactly what is paid in by way of premiums, plus cover the expense of the subsidy. In the current 2011 insurance year, contract buyers paid in $15 million and taxpayers kicked in $10 million. If a gross margin calamity did occur, contract owners would be paid back the full $25 million as an indemnity, in effect transferring the taxpayer contribution of $10 million to themselves. This is not a bad bargain by any definition. In effect, on average, LGM contract owners bought one dollar worth of insurance for 58 cents. Also, keep in mind that the concept of ‘actuarially fair’ applies only to the existing contracts. The general idea is that the statistical models show that given the current slate of futures-based milk prices, feed prices, and price volatility, it could happen, over the life of the contracts, that the indemnity would reach $25 million dollars. If that happens, then the payout equals the pay in. If it does not happen, and the existing contracts expire without a payout, then the $25 million is kept by the insurance companies and others in the insurance game. Each new contract starts a new game. There is no ‘carry-over’ of premium dollars. Remember that the 2011 gross margin insured was $770 million, so if the actual loss exceeded the $25 million paid in, then the insurance underwriters would have to dig into their pockets for the balance.

How much of this surplus $24.9 million dollars is used to pay the sellers commissions, plus some unspecified return to the owners of this LGM product, Iowa Agricultural Insurance Innovations Consortium, L.L.C. (mainly academics at Iowa State University)? Read on for the answer.

When the LGM premium is calculated, 3% is added to the cost. This 3% is held in reserve by the Federal Crop Insurance Agency as a contingency fund. In addition to this fee, a 22.2% fee is charged against the actuarial premium to cover administrative and operating expenses. For the combined 2010-2011 insurance period, this A&O amounts to $5.7 million. Contract buyers do not pay any portion of the A&O, which is funded entirely by the taxpayer. This money is collected by the insurance companies, their underwriters, and their reinsurers to cover the cost of doing business. Iowa Agricultural Innovators Consortium, LLC., the creators and owners of the LGM insurance product, earn an additional return based on a percentage of the gross actuarial premium. This fee is negotiated with the Federal Crop Insurance Board of Directors and is not disclosed. The Iowa Agricultural Innovators, LLC likewise earns money from both contract buyers and the taxpayer.

I am supportive of the LGM contract concept; however, I do believe it is reasonable to ask substantive questions about the contract design and operation. From our experience with LGM to date, and it is a short time span, it appears that this contract design is generating a substantial cash surplus. The idea that over the long term premium pay-in and indemnity pay-out will just match is based on statistical computing models, and we all know that these can be wrong, sometimes very wrong. Combining both insurance years 2010 and 2011, this premium plus subsidy equals $25,823,000. Conceivably, there could be a disastrous turn of events, e.g. rapid rise in feed costs accompanied by a substantial fall in the Class 3 milk price, which would absorb this surplus as indemnity payouts. As we move forward in 2011 and looking into 2012, this does not appear to be likely. Therefore, a legitimate question can be raised. In the event that there is no payout o

:

Breadcrumb Menu

Dairy Dollars: Feed Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Milk Income

Preparing Grain for the Feedbunk

Sulfur Management for High-Quality Silage Corn

Cool Tips for Managing Heat Stress in Dairy Cows

Tackling Heat Stress with Precision: The Role of Technology in Dairy Cow Welfare and Production

The Protect One Health in Ohio Initiative

Joe Miley – 2025 Recipient of the Dairy Science Hall of Service

The North American Manure Expo Comes to Wauseon, Ohio

Dairy Palooza 2025

Help Shape the Future of Extension Communication!

Dairy Dollars: Feed Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Milk Income

How Grain Source Plays in to Ration Strategies

Inflammation: Complex Physiological Processes

Understanding the Risk of Salmonella Dublin in Dairy-Beef Operations

H5N1 in Current Dairy Issues

Using Dairy Manure with Newly Planted Corn and Soybeans

Spring Nitrogen Fertilization for Winter Annual Cereal Grain Forages

Dairy Dollars: Feed Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Milk Income

New Extension Forage Agronomist

Corn Hybrid Selection for Disease Management

Property Owners and Unidentified Drones

Federal Order Reform Passed in All 11 Federal Orders: Considerations for FMMO 33 Milk Prices

Dairy Margin Coverage and Dairy Risk Management for 2025

Hidden Defenses: How Cows Fight Disease

Update on the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak in Germany

Rumen Acidosis in Dairy Cattle – A Cause for Concern?

Dairy Dollars: Feed Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Milk Income

If Cows Make Their Own B-vitamins, Should We Worry About Supplementing Them? – Part II

Using Antibiotics on Your Dairy Farm? How to Monitor for Improved Practices

FDA Letter Asks Veterinarians to Discontinue Use of Unapproved Aspirin Products in Lactating Dairy Cattle

Free Flu Vaccine for Dairy Farmers and Farm Workers

Starter Success for Dairy Calves

Practical Tips to Improve Calf Welfare in Cold Weather

Winter Calf Management

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparisons of Feedstuffs Prices

B-vitamins Basics in Dairy Cattle Nutrition – Part I

Footbath Practices for Lameness Prevention

USDA Publishes Final Rule on Animal Disease Traceability in Regards to Use of Electronic Identification Eartags

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

48% Soybean meal

Sustainability Series III: What is the Deal with These Carbon Markets?

Fall Forage Management

Corn Silage Pricing

Corn Silage Harvest Safety Should Be Priority One

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Dairy Sustainability Part 2: Methane Mitigating Feed Additives

3-NOP (Bovaer™) Receives FDA Approval

Beat the Heat Before It's Late: Cooling Strategies for Dairy Cattle

Feeding Roasted Soybeans to Dairy Cattle

Tri-State Manure Field Day

2024 Dairy Hall of Service Recognition

Up for the Challenge – Dairy Challenge

Dairy Palooza 2024

New Factsheet: Avian Influenza Detected in Dairy Cattle

Current Dairy Industry Outlook and Dairy Margin Coverage Sign-Up

Assessing Forage Stands and Winter Damage

Spring Forage Establishment

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Corn, ground, dry

US Dairy Herds and Policy and the 2022 Census of Agriculture

Dairy Sustainability – The Jargon, the Dairy Story, and the Opportunity (Part I)

Why Do Cows Bunch?

Using Dairy Manure with Newly Planted Corn and Soybeans

Disease Prevention: Making the Most of Your Spring (and every day) Cleaning Practices

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Hominy

Wheat middlings

Feather meal

Who is the New Guy?

New Faculty Member in Animal Welfare

Current 2024 US Dairy Outlook

Safeguarding Your Herd: How Biosecurity Keeps Salmonella Dublin at Bay

Precision Livestock Farming for Dairy Producers

Dairy Judging Team Update

Milk Prices, Costs of Nutrients, Margins, and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

41% Cottonseed meal

Gluten meal

Soybean meal - expeller