:

Septembrer 2011
In This Issue:
January 2009
In This Issue:
December 2008
In This Issue:
November 2008
In This Issue:
September 2008
In This Issue:
January 2008
August 2000
In This Issue:
April 2000
In This Issue:
December 1997
  1. 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 (NEL) 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.
    TableDescription automatically generatedEconomic 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 generatedTableDescription 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

     

  2. 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

    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

     

  3. 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

  4. 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 2nd application to the wheat field a few weeks after the 1st application. The drop nozzles place the manure at the soil surface and keep it off the leaves of the wheat plants.

     

     

  5. 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.  

     

  6. 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/

     

  7. 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 1st.

    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.

  8. 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.

     

  9. 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 NEL, 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.
    Table

Description automatically generated

    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 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 below.

    Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, January 25, 2023.

     

  10. 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 generatedNumbers 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.

  11. 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:

    1. Over-the-Counter Antibiotics Will Require Veterinary Oversight (Rx) Beginning in June of 2023
    2. Veterinary Client-Patient Relationship
    3. Veterinary Feed Directive
    4. List of Approved New Animal Drug Applications Affected by GFI #263
    5. PowerPoint Presentation: Dr. Amber McCoig discussing FDA Guidance for Industry #263 and #256
    6. Antibiotic Stewardship for Beef and Dairy Cattle
    7. Antibiotic Stewardship for Poultry
    8. Antibiotic Stewardship Sheep and Goats
  12. 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.     

  13. 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

  14. Northeast Ohio Regional Dairy Conference

    Dr. Shaun Wellert, Senior Lecturer, Agricultural Technical Institute, The Ohio State University

    The 23rd 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 5th to allow an accurate count for meals. For more information and to register, go to NEOdairy.com

  15. 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.netor 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.

  16. 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 (NEL). However, the current prices of NEL 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.
    Table

Description automatically generated

    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
    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, 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

    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, November 25, 2022.

  17. 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.

    Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

    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:

  18. 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 9th, 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.

     

     

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

     

  21. 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 (NEL). The current price of NEL 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.

    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 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 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, September 23, 2022.

  22. 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:

    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

  23. 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 26th 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.

  24. 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.

    Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

    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.

    Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

    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.

     

  25. 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)

  26. 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

     

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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

  30. 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)

  31. 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 (NEL). The current price of NEL 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 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 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

     

  32. 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.

    TableDescription automatically generated
    (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)

  33. 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 CorynebacteriumActinomyces 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.
  34. 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.  

  35. 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/

  36. 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.

     

  37. 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.

  38. 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/

  39. 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 (NEL) 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 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 below.

    Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, May 26, 2022.

     

     

  40. 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.

    Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

    The FAPRI outlook shows encouraging numbers for price, exports, and demand.  International demand for U.S. dairy products is expected to remain positive. 

     Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

    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.

    Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

    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.
  41. 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.

  42. 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

  43. 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.
  44. 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!

  45. 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!

  46. 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

    A person in a suit and tie

Description automatically generated with medium confidenceIn 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.

  47. 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

    Dianne Shoemaker | Agriculture and Natural Resources
    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!

     

  48. 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!

    A picture containing person, sport, crowd, auditorium

Description automatically generated

    Figure 1. Picture of participants at the 10th anniversary of Dairy Palooza.

  49. 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 NEL 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 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 below.

    Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2022.

     

  50. 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.

    Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

    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. 

    Chart, line chart, scatter chart

Description automatically generated

    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.

    Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

    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:

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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 1st, 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.     

  54. 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

  55. 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.

  56. 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 18th 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 7th or 8th 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

  57. 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 (NEL) 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 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 nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, January 26, 2022.

     

  58. 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

    4th Quarter – 2021 Cow Numbers

    9.385 million head (10,000 head less)

    4th 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:

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. 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.

  62. 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 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 below.

    Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, November 24, 2021.

     

     

     

  63. 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.

  64. 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.   

  65. 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. 

    Chart, histogramDescription automatically generated

    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:

     

    Table

Description automatically generated

     

    Potassium recommendation for corn silage:

     

     

    Nitrogen recommendation for corn following corn:

     

    Table

Description automatically generated

     

    Phosphorus recommendation for alfalfa:

     

     

     

    Potassium recommendation for alfalfa:

     

    Table

Description automatically generated

     

     

    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.

  66. 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

  67. 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/

  68. 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 (NEL) 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 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, September 27, 2021.

     

  69. 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.

    Chart, line chartDescription automatically generated

    Chart, line chartDescription automatically generated

    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
  70. 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

  71. 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!

  72. 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.

  73. 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

  74. 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 NEL 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.

    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 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $9.33 and $9.87/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are likely to be profitable, although they are lower than 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 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 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 the Table 4.

    Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, July 21, 2021.

  75. 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

  76. 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 (3rd or greater services with beef bulls). Breeding heifers were bred with sex-sorted semen following a simple reproductive program consisting of PGF 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.

     

  77. 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.

  78. 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!

  79. 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.

  80. 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!

  81. 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

     

  82. 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 an