Buckeye Dairy News: Volume 15 Issue 3

Market and Policy Watch June - August 2013

Dr. Cameron Thraen, State Extension Specialist, Dairy Markets and Policy, The Ohio State University

In mid-May, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry passed a Farm Bill with a 15-5 vote. The full bill moved to the Senate floor last week and received hundreds of amendments. The Senated considered and rejected cuts to supplemental nutrition assistance programs, but approved means testing for crop insurance and improvements to the Risk Management Agency’s (RMA) fraud detection effort. Action is expected to resume in the Senate on June 3.

The U.S. House of Representatives succeeded in getting a Farm Bill through committee this month with a three-quarter majority. The toughest battle lies ahead with a floor debate expected in begin mid June. Challenges on the U.S. House side include the lack of provisions tying conservation compliance to crop insurance benefits and a controversial supply-management style dairy market stabilization program.

The safety net provisions of the dairy subtile of the Farm Bill, when signed into law, will very likely be based on a margin insurance type program. This puts the focus on an income over feed cost (IOFC) margin. The point has been made in past issues of Buckeye Dairy News that an IOFC margin calculation based on U.S. average milk and feed values is pointless, as such a calculation may bear little connection to an individual dairy operator’s actual milk price or feed cost. While it cannot be argued that calculating IOFC with using the USDA reported All Milk price, corn price, soybean meal price, and alfalfa hay price is representative of specific IOFC on any given dairy farm, this observation misses the point.

As a dairy farmer you will be provided the opportunity to participate in an insurance type program with participation costs based on your dairy’s production size and premiums paid based on IOFC coverage levels selected. In return, you will be participating in potential financial payouts triggered by a macro measure of the IOFC for the entire United States dairy industry. This is purely a financial consideration. As a dairy farmer, you will have to decide whether or not to participate in this program, incurring cost and potential financial payouts, or to go another direction, relying on the private market instruments, such as futures market hedging, futures puts or calls, or possibly purchasing the USDA/RMA underwriten Livestock Gross Margin-Dairy Insurance.

The focus of income support for agriculture, including dairy, will be on providing the opportunity for farmers to particiapte in an insurance type program, whether that be crop insurance or IOFC insurance. Therefore for dairy, it is important to be able to forecast this national IOFC margin for the coming production year. Working with John Newton, Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, we have developed just such a forecast model for this IOFC. Our current IOFC forecast is based on a complex model which uses the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Group futures market price paths for feed inputs and milk price and the CME Group put and call option prices to capture anticipated price volatility. The IOFC time path over the coming 5 months suggests a steadily improving IOFC margin picture. Figure 1 shows the mean and upper 75% and lower 25% bands for this forecast.

The lower 25% boundary (LB) is the most pessimistic outlook, showing that a combination of low milk price and high feed input prices will result in an IOFC path staying under $8/cwt in the coming 5 months. This reflects continuing higher feed cost not offset by a higher milk price. The optimistic 75% boundary (UB) depicts an IOFC time path reflecting stronger milk prices and moderate or lower feed input prices. The low point is just above $7/cwt and steadily climbs to exceed $10/cwt by October 2013. This time path reflects a return to more normal crop growing conditions with a lower feed cost and higher late summer milk prices.
You can find monthly updates for this IOFC forecast chart on my website: http://aede.osu.edu/programs-and-research/ohio-dairy-web.

Figure 1. 2013 Forecast income over feed cost.

The Costs of Nutrients and Comparison of Feedstuffs Prices

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Extension Dairy Management Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Until the crops are in, feed markets will be highly reactive to Chinese buying rumors, dry or rainy spells, phases of the moon... This is human nature, and in a year when we expect a very low stock-to-use ratio (i.e., small carry-over), then small changes in projected supply or demand can have disproportionate effects on feed prices. The uncertainty might be hard to stomach until early fall. Meanwhile, feeding balanced diets based on economically priced feed ingredients can help maintaining positive dairy margins. The idea is to maximize the use of underpriced feeds and to minimize the use of overpriced ones.

Nutrient Prices

As usual in this column, I used the software SESAME™ that we developed at Ohio State to price the important nutrients in dairy rations to estimate break-even prices of all major commodities traded in Ohio and to identify feedstuffs that currently are significantly underpriced as of May 13, 2013. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NE_L, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb – MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1. Compared to its historical 6-year average of about 10¢/Mcal, NE_Lsub> is still a highly priced nutrient at 18.9¢/Mcal. This is important because a cow producing 70 lb/day of milk requires in the neighborhood of 33 Mcal/day of NE_L. Thus, you have to pay about 33 × $0.189 = $6.23/cow/day to supply the dietary energy required by a 70 lb/day cow. For MP, its current price (27.2¢/lb) is just about its 6-year average (28¢/lb). Thus, we are still currently in a period of very high dietary energy and moderate protein prices. The cost of ne-NDF is currently discounted by the markets (i.e., feeds with a significant content of ne-NDF are price discounted), and the discount of 10.0¢/lb is close to its 6-year average (-9¢/lb). Meanwhile, unit costs of e-NDF are also close to their historical average, being priced at 3¢/lb compared to the 6-year average of 3.3¢/lb. So, dietary fiber, whether effective or not is currently not a significant cost factor from a historical standpoint. Of course, this may depend on how bad your crops were affected by the drought last summer.

Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, mid-May 2013.
Figure 1 - NSP

Economic Value of Feeds

Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio in mid May are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were deemed outliers (completely out of price). One must remember that Sesame compares all commodities at one point in time, mid May in this case. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, mid-May 2013.
Figure 2 NSP

For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the Sesame analysis.

Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, mid-May 2013.

Bargains

At Breakeven

Overpriced

Bakery byproducts
Brewers grains, wet
Corn, ground, shelled
Corn silage
41% Cottonseed meal
Whole cottonseed
Distillers dried grains
Gluten feed
Gluten meal
Wheat middlings

Alfalfa hay – 40% NDF
Hominy
Meat meal
Molasses
Soybean meal – expeller
Tallow
Wheat bran

Beet pulp
Blood meal
Canola meal
Citrus pulp
Feather meal
Fish meal
44% soybean meal
48% soybean meal
Roasted soybeans

As usual, I must remind the readers that these results do not mean that you can formulate a balanced diet using only feeds in the “bargains” column. Feeds in the “bargains” column offer savings opportunity and their usage should be maximized within the limits of a properly balanced diet. 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.

Release of Columbo Dairy Software

Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Extension Dairy Management Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Columbo is computer software that calculates the optimal forage sampling program in dairy herds. Based on 12 inputs, such as herd size and price of milk, Columbo determines: 1) the optimum sampling frequency (i.e., how often you should sample), 2) sample size (i.e., how many samples), and 3) intervention level (i.e., when you should re-balance the rations). It is the outcome of a USDA funded research and Extension project conducted by Dianne Shoemaker, Normand St-Pierre, and Bill Weiss (OSU, OARDC, and OSU Extension). A copy of the self-extracting set-up program to install the Columbo software on a Windows operating system is available at: https://dairy.osu.edu/resource/OSU%20Dairy%20Pubs.html#computer.
Effect of Milking Personnel Performance and Turnover on Milk Losses in Dairy Herds
Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Extension Dairy Veterinarian, The Ohio State University

Background - It is common to observe large within-herd variation in milking personnel performance (MPP) and turnover (TO) over time. Assessing work team performance, resolution of conflicts, and comprehensive training of dairy personnel are critical tasks to achieve consistent performance of dairy herds. The effect of MPP (95 vs. 85%) and TO of personnel (5 vs. 30%) on milk losses of dairy herds was assessed.

Parameters Assessed - For the simulation, the performance of each milker (compliance with milking routine protocol) was set to 85 or 95%. Milk losses were set at 2.2 lb/cow/day due to lack of udder stimulation. An adjustment period of 14 day with a 66.5% performance was estimated for each new worker. The overall risk performance (%; RP) was estimated taking into account the team milking performance and the adjustment period of TO. The number of cows at risk (cows/day) was estimated based on the RP (10 milkers) and herd size (2000 cows). Milk price was set at $0.186/lb. Costs for herd audit were set at $1000 and training program at $1000 (for 4 sessions per year). Milk losses ($/year/cow) and return on investment (ROI) were estimated. Losses associated with the time and resources spent in recruitment, selection, and hiring, as well as the orientation and initial training of new personnel, were not included.

Results - For a 2000-cow herd, the overall effect of TO (5 vs 30%) on milk losses was $6,744 while the overall effect of RP (85 vs 95%) on milk losses was $27,920. Cows at risk and milk losses were higher ($14/cow/year) for RP 85% with 30% TO (342 cows/day) compared with RP 95% with 5% TO (110 cows/day). The ROI for high performance teams (RP 95% and 5% TO) was $18 for every $1 invested (herd audit and training). The estimated ROI assumes that facilities are adequate, participants are willing to learn and apply the newly learned concepts, and the herd audit correctly identifies the needs and the training program correctly addresses them.

Implications - Both TO and RP of work teams affect the bottom line of dairy herds. Frequent assessment of performance, educational needs, and training of dairy personnel should be top priorities for dairy operations to achieve a consistent and efficient herd performance over time.

Acknowledgements

The information provided in this article was generated through the OSU Veterinary Extension training program (Dairy Personnel School) and will be presented at the 2013 ADSA/ASAS joint annual meeting in July.

References
1. Bliss, B. 2013. The Advisor - Cost of Employee Turnover. www.isquare.com/turnover.cfm (accessed May 27, 2013).
2. Billikopf, G., and G. González. 2012. Turnover rates are decreasing in California dairies. California Agriculture 66(4):153-157.
3. Schuenemann, G.M., M.G. Maquivar, S. Bas, and J.D. Workman. 2013. Effect of milking personnel performance and turnover on milk losses in dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci (Abstr).
What Do Your Cull Cows’ Records Show?

Jason Hartschuh, ANR Program Coordinator Crawford County, The Ohio State University Extension

Can you look over your cull cow records from 2012 and tell when and why cows are leaving your farm? If accurate records were kept, it can help you make management decisions that can increase farm profitability.

One thing to look at is when cows are being culled. Usually one-third of those culled leave in the first 100 days and another third after 300 days in milk. Cull cow records also are used as a reflection of animal welfare in the dairy industry.

Every animal that leaves the farm should be entered into the farm record keeping system with the reason she left. Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) and other dairy records programs contain a list of codes specifying reasons why each cow left and a place to enter additional information. The first entry is simply sold or died; the sold number should match up with the number of cows that have sales receipts for the farm. One reason why these numbers do not always matchup is that some cows sold on the rail (carcass value sales) get condemned at the slaughter house for various reasons. When you get the notice that an animal was condemned, it is a good idea to enter that information into your herd records for why that cow left, noting the reason for condemnation, and that you received nothing for her when she left. If the cow was sold for beef, the true reason is very important to management decisions and welfare considerations. One option is culling for low milk production; however, often there is something else that leads to low production. There are a few cows that are sold because they do not have high enough production, but most cows have the production potential until a limiting factor prevents acceptable milk production levels. In several record programs, you can enter multiple codes for reasons left. If low production is entered, do you need another code to tell why she really left? A few other codes that are often used are feet and legs, reproductive, udder, and disease. These things all lead to low production which is usually the trigger for selling an animal once they reach a threshold production that makes it more profitable to cull the existing cow and replace her with another one. If an animal is culled for “disease”, be sure to include the nature of the disease. Disease can be a very broad category; knowing why cows really leave the dairy farm is crucial. If a large number of cows are sold for pneumonia, it may be a sign that facilities need ventilation improvements. If Johne’s Disease is a problem, tracking sales will help to determine the severity of the problem and assist with management decisions, such as developing best management practices to prevent transmission and testing of relatives or the whole herd if eradication is a goal. Udder also can be an area that requires more explanation. This often encompasses reasons such as mastitis, a blind quarter, an injured teat, poor udder attachment, or even cows difficult to milk. Another large category is reproductive culls. Late lactation sales for failure to conceive may have only been entered as low production, because they won’t breed back and they drop off in milk production. The real problem may be in breeding and reproduction more than in failure to milk enough. One final cull category for some programs is “other”. This category definitely needs a comment to reflect the real reason for the cull and may include such things as aggressive cows.

If an animal was sold, the second piece of information to capture should be if they were sold for dairy or beef. Some dairy farms may have a relatively high cull rate, but they are actually doing a very good job with herd replacements and herd health. These farms raise more replacements than they need, leading to high cull rates, but these culls are sold to other dairy producers.

As animal welfare audits become more common, some of them are incorporating culling records. Making correct entries of whether cows were sold for dairy or beef and why is very important. Enter all the reasons why an animal left under the number codes and add in a description to help you track problems.

Milk Production for Ohio Dairy Herds

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

It is always important to monitor the yield of milk and the composition of milk, especially for the individual farmer, because the income of the dairy farm depends on this source of revenue. The yields of protein and fat are the primary determinants of the price received by farmers. The proportions of fat and protein are useful in monitoring cow health and feeding practices within a farm. The income over feed costs (IOFC) and feed costs per hundred of milk are important monitors of costs of milk production.

The average production of milk, fat, and protein by breed for Ohio dairy herds in 2012 using the Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI; http://www.dhiohio.com) program are provided in the Table 1. Not all herds on DHI are included in the table below because of the different testing options offered by DHI, some herds opt for no release of records, lack of sufficient number of test dates, and given that some of the herds consist of other breeds than the ones shown.

Table 1. Number of herds, milk yield, milk fat, and milk protein by breed for Ohio herds on DHI during 2012.

Breed	Number of Herds	Milk (lb/lactation)	Milk fat (%)	Milk protein (%)
Ayrshire	10	17,024	3.87	3.25
Brown Swiss	18	20,109	4.14	3.41
Guernsey	10	17,616	4.47	3.32
Holstein	305	24,113	3.61	3.07
Jersey	61	16,818	4.80	3.61
Mixed	28	18,005	3.90	3.27

Goodlatte-Scott vs. the Dairy Security Act: Shared Potential, Shared Concerns and Open Questions

John Newton, Cameron S. Thraen, Marin Bozic, Mark W. Stephenson, Christopher Wolf, and Brian W. Gould; Midwest Program on Dairy Markets and Policy - 2013 Farm Bill Dairy Analysis Group

Executive Summary

            This paper reports our analysis to-date of expected short-term impacts of 2 major dairy safety net policy proposals popularly referred to as the Dairy Security Act (DSA) and the
Goodlatte-Scott Amendment (G-S). Our results suggest that both DSA and G-S are very effective in providing catastrophic risk insurance and revenue enhancement for farms with stable and moderately growing milk marketings.

            For sufficiently high DSA participation rate and sufficiently low price-elasticity of demand for milk in aggregate, the Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP) has the potential to reduce government outlays and accelerate margin recovery in low-margin states of the world, relative to outcomes expected under DSA with low participation rates and high price-elasticity.
Furthermore, the DMSP is not likely to provide long-term obstacles to growth for participating farms with an aggressive growth plan unless generous margin insurance induces a long-term
oversupply of milk. Our analysis suggests that under the provisions of G-S effective catastrophic margin insurance for aggressively growing farms is limited due to the fixed production history.
However, more complete margin risk protection may still be possible using private risk markets to complement government provided insurance.

            Both programs share contract design features that may result in strategic annual supplemental margin protection sign-up and reduce demand for private risk insurance products, inadvertently increasing policy cost. Under DSA, this problem is somewhat reduced as DMSP provides disincentives for forfeiting supplemental margin insurance in years when anticipated margins are moderately above the long run average.

            The analysis is parsimonious in structural model assumptions and relies on expected market conditions as reflected in Chicago Mercantile Exchange futures and options prices. As such, our primary focus is on expected short-run effects flowing from these alternative programs. The long-term impacts of these programs on the growth of milk supply, dairy exports, and liquidity of private dairy risk markets are among important open questions that we do not attempt to address.
Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents 2012-13

Dr. Barry Ward, Leader Production Business Management, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics (AEDE), The Ohio State University Extension

Ohio cropland varies significantly in its production capabilities and cropland values and cash rents vary widely throughout the state. Generally speaking, western Ohio cropland values and cash rents differ substantially from eastern Ohio cropland values and cash rents. This is due to a number of factors including land productivity and potential crop return, the variability of those crop returns, field size, field shape, drainage, population, ease of access, market access, local market price, potential for wildlife damage, and competition for rented cropland in a region. This factsheet is a summary of data collected for western Ohio cropland values and cash rents.

Ohio cropland values and cash rental rates are projected to increase in 2013. According to the Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey, bare cropland values are expected to increase from 6.8% to 15.4% in 2013 depending on the region and land class. Cash rents are expected to increase from 7.8% to 10.7% depending on the region and land class.

The “Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents” study was conducted surveying professionals knowledgeable about Ohio’s cropland markets. Surveyed groups include farm managers, rural appraisers, agricultural lenders, OSU Extension educators, farmers, landowners, and Farm Service Agency personnel.

Seventy-eight surveys were completed, analyzed and summarized. Respondents were asked to give responses based on 3 classes of land in their area; “average” land, “top” land and “poor” land. They were asked to estimate 5 year corn and soybean yields for each land class based on typical farming practices. Survey respondents were asked to estimate current bare cropland values and cash rents negotiated in the current or recent year for each land class. Survey results are summarized below for Western Ohio and regional summaries (subsets of Western Ohio) are presented for Northwest Ohio and Southwest Ohio.

Tables show the Average (mean) of each measure, Standard Deviation of the data for that measure (measure of variability), and Range (average minus and plus one standard deviation). These latter two numbers reported indicate a range within which about two-thirds of the responses in the data for that measure will fall.

Western Ohio Results

Survey results from Western Ohio are summarized in Table 1. See Figure 1 for counties included in this survey.

Average Cropland

Survey results for “average” producing cropland show an average yield to be 160.7 bushels of corn per acre. Results show that the value of “average” cropland in western Ohio was $6,516 per acre in 2012. According to survey data this “average” producing cropland is expected to be valued at $7,069 per acre in 2013. This is a projected increase of 8.5%.

“Average” cropland rented for an average of $197 per acre in 2012 according to survey results. “Average” cropland is expected to rent for $215 per acre in 2013. This equates to a cash rent of $1.34 per bushel of corn produced. Rents in the “average” cropland category are expected to equal 3.0% of land value in 2013.

Top Cropland

Survey results indicate that “top” performing cropland in western Ohio averages 192.3 bushels of corn per acre. Results also show that average value of “top” cropland in 2012 was $7,865 per acre. According to this survey “top” cropland in western Ohio is expected to be valued at $8,515 in 2013. This is a projected increase of 8.3%.

“Top” cropland in western Ohio rented for an average of $256 per acre in 2012 according to survey results. “Top” cropland is expected to rent for $283 in 2013. This equates to a cash rent of $1.47 per bushel of corn produced. Rents in the “top” cropland category are expected to equal 3.3% of land value in 2013.

Poor Cropland

The survey summary shows the average yield for “poor” performing cropland equals 127.2 bushels of corn per acre. Results also show that the average value of “poor” cropland was $5,053 per acre in 2012. According to survey data this “poor” producing cropland is expected to be valued at $5,645 in 2013. This is an increase of 11.7%.

“Poor” cropland rented for an average of $144 per acre in 2012 according to survey results. Cash Rent for “Poor” cropland is expected to average $156 per acre in 2013. This equates to a cash rent of $1.23 per bushel of corn produced in 2013. Rents in the “poor” cropland category are expected to equal 2.8% of land value in 2013.

Figure 1. Western Ohio.

Northwest Ohio Results

Survey results from northwest Ohio are summarized in Table 2.

Average Cropland

Yields for “average” producing cropland average 157.5 bushels of corn per acre or 48.87 bushels of soybeans per acre. Results show that the value of “average” cropland in northwest Ohio was $6,294 per acre in 2012. According to survey data this “average” producing cropland is expected to be valued at $6,960 per acre in 2013. This is a projected increase of 10.6%.

“Average” cropland rented for an average of $180 per acre in 2012 according to survey results and is expected to rent for $196 in 2013 which equals $1.24 per bushel of corn produced. Rents in the “average” cropland category are expected to equal 2.8 % of land value in 2013.

Top Cropland

Survey results indicate that “top” performing cropland in northwest Ohio averages 189.6 bushels of corn per acre or 60.9 bushels of soybeans per acre. Results also show that the average value of “top” cropland was $7,790 per acre in 2012. According to this survey “top” producing cropland in northwest Ohio is expected to be valued at $8,579 in 2013. This is a projected increase of 10.1%.

“Top” cropland in northwest Ohio rented for an average of $235 per acre in 2012 and is expected to rent for $260 in 2013 according to survey results, which equals $1.37 per bushel of corn produced. Rents in the “top” cropland category are expected to equal 3.0% of land value.

Poor Cropland

The survey summary shows the average yield for “poor” performing cropland in northwestern Ohio equals 126.8 bushels of corn per acre or 37.5 bushels of soybeans per acre. Results also show that the average value of “poor” cropland was $4,756 per acre in 2012 and is expected to average $5,488 per acre in 2013. This is a projected increase of 15.4%.

“Poor” cropland rented for an average of $130 per acre in 2012 and is expected to average $141 per acre in 2013 according to survey results which equals $1.11 per bushel of corn produced. Rents in the “poor” cropland category are expected to equal 2.6% of land value in 2013.

The northwest region for the purposes of this survey includes: Williams, Fulton, Lucas, Ottawa, Defiance, Henry, Wood, Sandusky, Paulding, Putnam, Hancock, Seneca, Van Wert, Allen, Hardin, Wyandot, Crawford, Marion and Morrow Counties. See Figure 2.

Figure 2. Northwest Ohio.

Southwest Ohio Results

Survey results from southwest Ohio are summarized in Table 3.

Average Cropland

Yields for “average” cropland equal 163.1 bushels of corn per acre. Results show that the value of “average” cropland in southwest Ohio was $6,680 per acre in 2012. According to survey data this “average” producing cropland is expected to be valued at $7,170 per acre in 2013. This is a projected increase of 7.3%.

“Average” cropland rented for an average of $210 per acre in 2012 and is expected to rent for $228 per acre in 2013 according to survey results which equals $1.40 per bushel of corn produced. Rents in the “average” cropland category are expected to equal 3.2% of land value in 2013.

Top Cropland

Survey results indicate that “top” performing cropland in southwest Ohio averages 194.4 bushels of corn per acre or 61.5 bushels of soybeans per acre. Results also show that average value of “top” cropland was $7,920 per acre in 2012. According to this survey “top” producing cropland in southwest Ohio is expected to be valued at $8,455 per acre in 2013. This is a projected increase of 6.8%.

“Top” cropland in southwest Ohio rented for an average of $271 per acre in 2012 and is expected to rent for $300 per acre in 2013 according to survey results which equals $1.54 per bushel of corn produced. Rents in the “top” cropland category are expected to equal 3.5% of land value in 2013.

Poor Cropland

The survey summary shows the average yield for “poor” cropland in southwestern Ohio equals 127.5 bushels of corn per acre. Results also show that the average value of “poor” cropland was $5,279 per acre in 2012. According to survey data this “poor” producing cropland is expected to be valued at $5,790 per acre in 2013. This is an increase of 9.7%.

“Poor” cropland rented for an average of $154 per acre in 2012 and is expected to average $166 per acre in 2013 according to survey results which equals $1.30 per bushel of corn produced. Rents in the “poor” cropland category are expected to equal 2.9% of land value in 2013.

The southwest region for the purposes of this survey includes: Mercer, Auglaize, Shelby, Logan, Union, Delaware, Darke, Miami, Champaign, Clark, Madison, Franklin, Preble, Montgomery, Greene, Butler, Warren, Hamilton, Clermont, Clinton, Fayette and Pickaway Counties. See Figure 3.

Figure 3. Southwest Ohio.

Additional Survey Results

Survey respondents were asked to give their best estimates for long term land value and cash rent change as well as projections for mortgage and operating loan interest rates for 2013.

The average estimate of cropland value change in the next 5 years is an increase of 0.79% (for the entire 5 year period). There was a large range in responses from survey participants for cropland value change in 5 years. Responses ranged from an increase of 25% to a decrease of 35%.

The average estimate of cash rent change in the next 5 years is an increase of 1.38%. There was a large range in responses from survey participants for cash rent change in 5 years. Responses ranged from an increase of 30% to a decrease of 35%.

The summary of these responses is presented in Tables 1 through 3 and includes:

Expected Percent Change in the Value of Cropland in the Next 5 Years, Expected Percent Change in the Cash Rental Rates in the Next 5 Years, Expected Average Interest Rate for Mortgage Loans for 2013, Expected Average Operating Loan Rate for 2013, Pasture Cash Rent per Acre and the Value of Pasture Land. Tables 1 through 3 below show the results of the survey for these measures for Western Ohio, Northwest Ohio and Southwest Ohio.

Summary

This study will add to existing research on Ohio farmland values and cash rents that can assist producers and landowners with purchase and rental decisions. Existing research includes:

Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents 2011-12 at:
http://ohioline.osu.edu/ae-fact/pdf/Western_Ohio_Cropland_Values_and_Cash_Rents_2011-12_AEDE-15-12.pdf

Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents 2010-11 at:
http://ohioline.osu.edu/ae-fact/pdf/11-AED-911.pdf

Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents 2009-10 at:
http://ohioline.osu.edu/ae-fact/pdf/AEDE-RP-0125-10.pdf

Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents 2008-09 at:
http://ohioline.osu.edu/ae-fact/pdf/cropland0809.pdf

Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents 2007-08 at:
http://ohioline.osu.edu/ae-fact/pdf/Cropland_Values_Rents_07_08.pdf

Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents 2006-07 at:
http://ohioline.osu.edu/ae-fact/pdf/cropland.pdf

Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents 2005-06 at:
http://aede.osu.edu/about-us/publications/ohio-cropland-values-and-cash-rents-2005-2006

Ohio Farm Real Estate Markets (2003) at:
http://aede.osu.edu/about-us/publications/2003-ohio-farmland-lease-and-real-estate-values

Also, check with your local OSU Extension Office for local land value/rental survey summaries. For additional information on farmland lease issues see the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics (AEDE) Farm Management webpage at: http://aede.osu.edu/Programs/FarmManagement/MgtPublications.htm
Buckeye Dairy Club’s 2013 Annual Reception

Jacquelyn Sherry, President, Buckeye Dairy Club

On Saturday, April 20, 2013, the Buckeye Dairy Club held its first annual reception at the home of John and Bonnie Ayars in Mechanicsburg, Ohio with about 60 people in attendance. In prior years, the Club and the Department of Animal Sciences held an annual dairy banquet, but in 2013, the Department held a broad spectrum recognition banquet for highlighting the achievements of all students. Thus, the Club initiated this reception that was held prior to the Department’s banquet. Upon arrival to the reception, family members and guests were treated to snacks as they mingled. Retiring President Ashlee Dietz lead the program recognizing outstanding members. Students who have put in a tremendous effort through the Club and other activities were honored with an embroidered duffel bag. The outstanding members were: Freshman - Kaitlyn Hinds, Sophomore - Joey Brown, Junior - Sarah Finney, and Senior - Ashlee Dietz. The prestigious member was awarded to Sarah Finney for her dedication to Buckeye Dairy Club and contributions to other activities around campus. Members of the dairy judging teams and dairy challenge teams were honored for their hard work throughout the year, competing at various contests around the United States. Graduating seniors were recognized and there was an exchange of officers.

The yearbook was dedicated to Bernie Heisner for his continued support of the Club and judging teams. He has been a key player in helping students to achieve goals as he traveled to many contests with students, listening to an endless number of sets of reasons for class placings.

President Jacquelyn Sherry spoke about future activities, such as the Midwest American Dairy Science Association-Student Affiliate Division (ADSA-SAD) Conference that will be hosted by Ohio State in February 2014, and an officer retreat planned for this summer where many activities for the year will be planned. The recognition program was wrapped up with a special thank you to the Ayars family and to Dr. Eastridge and John Lemmermen for all of their continued support.
Ohio State Participates in the 2013 Midwest and National Dairy Challenge Programs

Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Five Ohio State students participated in the Midwest Dairy Challenge, February 6-8, Manitowoc, WI and hosted by Lakeshore Technical College: Ashlee Dietz, Rixt Miedema, Felicia Nonnenmacher, Kyle Perry, and Erica Wilson. Ohio State, Michigan State, and Purdue universities hosted the 2013 North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge in Ft. Wayne, IN, April 4-6. The OSU team consisted of (pictured below): Ashlee Dietz, Felicia Nonnenmacher, Kyle Perry, and Erica Wilson. The following OSU students participated in the newly formed Dairy Challenge Academy: Sarah Finney, Caleigh Payne, Kara Uhlenhake, and Kristen Wright. There were 128 students and 32 universities that participated in the Dairy Challenge contest, and the newly organized Academy engaged 95 students from 29 schools, including two-year dairy programs. The 2014 Dairy Challenge program will again be hosted by Ohio State, Michigan State, and Purdue universities in Ft. Wayne, IN.

Front row: Felicia Nonnenmacher and Erica Wilson.
Back row: Dr. Maurice Eastridge (Coach), Ashlee Dietz, and Kyle Perry.