Buckeye Dairy News : VOLUME 19, ISSUE 6

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

    Mr. Alex Tebbe, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Milk Prices: Past, present and future

    Looking back on 2017, Class III milk prices have been more stable (Figure 1A) and higher than 2016 (average: $16.20 vs. $14.90/cwt), but they were still 8% lower than the 5 year average ($17.55/cwt).  The Class IV milk price was also consistently about $1.60/cwt higher compared to 2016 (average: $15.44 vs $13.76/cwt) and lower than the 5 year average ($17.03/cwt; Figure 1B).

    For the current issue, the Class III component price for September closed at $16.36/cwt and then increased to $16.69/cwt in October. The November Class III futures price are relatively unchanged at $16.41/cwt, but it is projected to jump up about $0.50/cwt come December. All in all, we can expect the Class III milk price to average around $16.50/cwt, and producers can expect a mailbox price somewhere between $17.75 to $18.25/cwt for the remainder of the year.   

    Whether the Class III milk price will stay above $16/cwt in 2018 is the current question up for debate. Unfortunately, I do not think this will happen. The reason being is global milk production continues to increase while the value of exported milk products is declining, and fast.

    In regards to increasing milk production, this “consequence” is compounded by both parts of the equation – increased cow numbers and annual cow production. In 2017, the number of cows being milked in the US was about 1% or about 100,000 cows greater than the previous year (USDA, 2017). Annual milk production per cow also increased 200 lb/cow (22,900 vs 22,750 lb/cow/year), causing total milk produced to be 1.5% or 4 billion lb greater than 2016. The European Union and New Zealand also have increased their total production by about 4 billion lb, now leading us to the question – do we have a place for all of this extra milk?

    Looking at the export market, both the total value and total amount of milk products exported in the US were consistently higher from January to June 2017 compared to these months in 2016. However in July and August, total milk value exported became similar and was significantly lower in September. The 2018 CME Class III and IV futures are reflecting the sudden dip now trading below $14.50 and $14.00/cwt, respectively, and suggest a bearish market is upon us. Inevitably, this will not be good for the domestic milk price.

    Figure 1: The monthly Class III (A) and IV (B) milk prices for Federal Order No. 33 during the 2016 and 2017 years.

    Nutrient Prices

    As in previous issues, these feed ingredients were appraised using the software program SESAME™ developed by Dr. St-Pierre at The Ohio State University to price the important nutrients in dairy rations, to estimate break-even prices of many commodities traded in Ohio, and to identify feedstuffs that currently are underpriced as of November 28, 2017. Price estimates of net energy for lactation (NEL, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1.

    In light of a potential drop in milk price, nutrient prices continue to remain relatively low as they have been for the past three years. For MP, its current value ($0.44/lb) has increased slightly from September’s issue ($0.42/lb), but it is lower than the 5 year average ($0.48/lb). The cost of NEL was decreased by 0.5¢/Mcal to 6.6¢/Mcal, which is lower than the 5-year average of 11¢/Mcal. The price of e-NDF also dropped from 7¢/lb to 3¢/lb, whereas ne-NDF is nearly identical to September at -6¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount).

    To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index for cows milking 70 lb/day or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. In the September issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated to be $10.68/cwt for cows milking 70 lb/day and $11.06/cwt for cows milking 85 lb/day. For November, the IONC for our 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows is about $1/cwt higher than September at an estimated $11.63/cwt and $11.94/cwt. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows; however, they should be profitable when greater than about $9/cwt.

    Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2017.

    Economic Value of Feeds

    Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 28, 2017 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

    Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2017.

    For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price, or in other words moved a column to the right, since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in price) are green. These shifts (i.e., feeds moving columns to the left or right) in price are only temporary changes relative to other feedstuffs within the last two months and do not reflect historical prices.

    Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, November 28, 2017. 

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

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


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

    Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution
    for Ohio dairy farms, November 28, 2017.


  2. Secure Milk Supply: Ohio’s Role

    Dr. Eric Gordon, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

    Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious foreign animal disease that infects cattle and other cloven-hooved livestock, such as swine, sheep, goats, and deer. FMD is not a public health or food safety concern. Clinically, the virus results in blisters on the animals feet, mouth, and on teats. Other signs include drooling, lameness, fever, nasal discharge, and going off feed. FMD virus is the most contagious animal virus and is shed in saliva, breath, milk, semen, urine, and manure. It can be spread quickly between animals or indirectly on workers clothing, footwear, farm vehicles, and equipment.

    Currently, FMD virus is found in more than 2/3 of the world, most notably in parts of South America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The United States has been free of FMD for nearly 100 years. The last outbreak in the U.S. was in 1929. Currently, there is also no FMD in Canada, Mexico, and Central America.

    Many experts believe another outbreak of FMD in the United States is inevitable.  Given that the modern U.S. dairy industry is more “national” than in 1929, an outbreak today would spread much faster and prove to be very costly.   This could be potentially devastating to the dairy industry and to U.S. agriculture.

    Should one or more cases of FMD, hereinafter to be referenced as hoof and mouth (HMD) Disease so as not to confuse the disease with human hand, foot, and mouth virus, are identified in the U.S., responsible regulatory officials (local, state, tribal, and federal officials, as appropriate) have the authority and responsibility to establish control areas around HMD infected premises and to manage animal and animal product (e.g., milk) movement within, into, and out of the control area. In other words, should a dairy farm premises become infected with HMD, a control area of about 25 square miles, or more, would be set up around the farm. Other dairy farms within that control area that are not infected would have restrictions placed on the movement of milk, animals, and vehicles on and off the farm. 

    The Secure Milk Supply (SMS) Plan provides a workable business continuity plan for dairy farms that are under movement restrictions but not infected with HMD. The plan offers movement guidance for producers, haulers, processing plants, and officials managing the outbreak. It helps dairy farms in the control area, whose cattle have no signs of HMD, to continue to move milk, thereby limiting the milk disposal problems and lost income for dairy farms, haulers, processors, and grocers.  Additionally, this plan works to maintain the supply of milk and milk products to consumers.

    Furthermore, the plan provides biosecurity and surveillance tools for producers. The biosecurity performance standards outlined in the SMS Plan are good for all dairy farms to consider before a serious health event occurs. Those biosecurity principals can help protect your dairy from other contagious diseases that can be harmful to your animals, such as Bovine Viral Diarrhea, Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis, Johnes, Anaplasmosis, and more.

    In late 2016, Ohio officially joined the Mid-Atlantic regional group of states to participate in the M-A-SMS Plan. The M-A SMS Plan provides additional guidance, beyond that described in the national SMS Plan, to the Mid-Atlantic States’ dairy industry to be eligible to request raw milk movement permits from dairy farms to processing with no evidence of HMD infection in a control area. Due to the extensive movement of raw milk to processing between states in the Mid-Atlantic region, regional cooperation enhances the effectiveness of these efforts to support the continuity of business of the dairy industry.

    Components of the M-A SMS Plan for permitting raw milk movement from Grade “A” farms in a control area to processing include measures to be put in place before (pre-event) an HMD outbreak and post-event. These measures are designed to prevent the introduction of the disease and to prevent moving the disease from one farm to another via milk trucks/tankers and haulers/drivers. The measures apply to dairy operation premises, the milk truck/tanker, the milk truck hauler/driver, milk processing plants, and milk receiving stations.

    You can protect your dairy from diseases that would adversely affect your animals and your bottom line. You can also help ensure that you will be able to continue to move your milk during a substantial foreign animal disease outbreak by participating in the SMS Plan. If you would like more information about the SMS Plan, how to protect your business during a disease crisis, or just want to have better biosecurity on your dairy, contract one of Ohio’s SMS Plan consultants: Dr. Bill Yost  (yostie6@gmail.com) or Dr. Eric Gordon (gordon.46@osu.edu).

  3. Milking Procedures Affect Milk Quality

    Mr. Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County, Ohio State University Extension

    In today’s competitive milk market, the production of high quality milk is a must. An article by Jeffrey Reneau from the University of Minnesota entitled “Milk Quality in the 21st Century” says that high quality raw milk is free of undesirable flavors, chemicals, or antibiotic residues; is low in somatic cells and bacteria; and contains a minimum of 3.5% butterfat, 3.1% protein, and 4.8% lactose. One important aspect of producing quality milk that has a low somatic cell count and bacteria level is the establishment of a consistent milking procedure that emphasizes udder and teat hygiene, along with cow care. Managers should periodically review milking procedures with milkers. Observe milking routines and evaluate milkers to insure that procedures are followed correctly and consistently.

    Pre-milking preparation begins as cows enter the parlor. Cows should enter calmly.  Milkers need to work in a calm manner as well.  I have heard this described as “working at cow speed”.  Milkers should wear nitrile gloves as they work through the cow preparation and milking procedures. 

    Dr. Pamela Ruegg, formerly at the University of Wisconsin and currently chair of the Department of Animal Science at Michigan State University, and Dr. Jeffrey Reneau at the University of Minnesota are big proponents of implementing standardized milking procedures on the farm and training all milkers to follow those procedures during the milking routine. Cows are creatures of habit; they like routines. They do not favor change or surprises. Dr. Reneau cites a year-long Denmark study that found when cows were milked in a standardized routine where pre-milking cow prep and prep-lag time were optimized, 5.5% more milk was produced compared to cows milked in a non-standardized minimal milking routine.  Dr. Ruegg has identified seven habits of successful milking routines that she advises milkers to practice; the publication is available on-line at https://learningstore.uwex.edu/Assets/pdfs/A3725.pdf.  In this article, I’ll focus on Dr. Ruegg’s advice concerning cow preparation and milking procedures.

    Cow preparation involves cleaning the udders and teats and stimulating milk let down. The goal here is to start with cows that are clean upon entry into the milking parlor so that milkers are only doing a dry wipe of the udders and teats to remove bedding material, such as sand or straw, before proceeding to a pre-dip and forestripping. The purpose of pre-dipping is to disinfect the teat ends and control environmental pathogens. Consistent and complete coverage of the teat end with a disinfectant dip can reduce teat surface bacteria by 75% and reduce the incidence of mastitis. Effective disinfection requires 30 seconds of contact time before wiping off the dip.

    Milk let down is a response to a release of oxytocin from the pituitary gland, along with stimulation of the nervous system and muscles in the udder.  Typically, 10 to 20 seconds of manual stimulation will provide optimal milk let down and result in higher milk yield, milk flow rate, and reduced milking unit on time as compared to no stimulation. One excellent way to provide this manual stimulation is to forestrip the udder, removing 3 to 4 streams of milk from each teat.  In addition to providing stimulus for milk let down, it allows milkers to perform a check for any visual symptoms of abnormal milk that should not go into the bulk tank. Research done by Dr. Ruegg on Wisconsin dairy farms demonstrated that milkers might either pre-dip then forestrip or forestrip and then pre-dip. The order does not matter as long as both are done and the pre-dip is on the teat for 30 seconds.

    Dry teats with an individual cloth or paper towel after disinfecting. This is a critical step because wet teats allow skin bacteria easy access up the teat canal and wet teats reduce the friction between the teat and milk inflation, resulting in more slips and greater opportunity for environmental pathogens to enter the system.

    The next step in the milking routine is to attach the milking unit. The time from initial contact with teat surfaces until milker unit attachment is termed prep lag time. The prep lag time goal is 60 to 120 seconds. This time frame synchs milker attachment with peak oxytocin concentrations in blood, resulting in milk flow immediately after milking unit attachment. Properly align and center the milking unit under the udder to minimize liner slips and facilitate milking unit removal. I think it is worth mentioning at this point that keeping cows calm and contented throughout the prep and milking time is a key factor in the release of oxytocin and the subsequent milk let down and milk out. If at any point in this process the cow becomes upset, startled, or scared, this triggers the release of adrenalin, which trumps oxytocin and stops the milk let down process.

    Shut off the vacuum and remove milking units when milking is completed. Automatic take offs are set to shut off the vacuum when milk flow rate falls below a pre-set level (typically between 0.5 to 1.0 lb/minute) and then remove the milking unit after a short delay. Cows will normally have 2 to 4 cups of milk remaining in the udder upon completion of milking. Do not over milk. This can cause teat end damage and result in mastitis. 

    After milking unit removal, dip at least the lower one-third of each teat with an antiseptic product. As part of a mastitis prevention program, ensure that cows remain standing for at least 30 minutes after milking to allow the teat sphincter muscle to fully close.

    Like all routines, over time, attention to detail can slip and variation can creep in. Periodic review of milking procedures and the milking routine can aid in maintaining quality milk production.

  4. Update on the Dairy Margin Protection Program

    Ms. Dianne Shoemaker, Field Specialist in Dairy Production Economics, The Ohio State University

    The Dairy Margin Protection Program, developed and launched as part of the 2014 Farm Bill, is considered a major disappointment in the dairy community.  Changing from an industry-wide price support program to an individual-farm margin protection program, farmers could choose to “protect” a $4/cwt difference between the all-milk price and a calculated feed cost for a $100 per year enrollment fee.  If you desire to protect a higher margin, then you can “buy up” coverage to protect up to an $8/cwt margin.

    Unfortunately, “disappointment” is a proven evaluation as the program provided little or no support in 2015 or 2016, back-to-back poor years.  Overall, most farms that “bought-up” coverage were lucky if they recouped the cost of the additional premiums which ranged from a penny to $1.36/cwt, depending on how much milk a farm produced and the coverage level desired.

    While the signup for 2018 (currently the final year of the program depending on the next farm bill) was originally set to begin this July, it was delayed until September 1 and will continue through December 15, 2017. 

    The original program rules stated that once a farm enrolled in the program, they were committed to at least minimum participation through 2018.  That meant that the farm would pay at least the $100 per year administrative fee plus any additional premiums if they desired a higher level of margin protection each year.

    While industry groups, such as the National Milk Producers Federation, are putting forth proposals for improving the program as the next farm bill is debated, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue was able to change the annual participation requirement for 2018.  This change allows farmers who signed up to participate before 2018 the opportunity to not participate in 2018, saving them the $100 annual administrative fee. 

    The proposals for change seek to address serious deficits in the calculation of feed costs, which the current model underestimates.  The original farm bill proposals calculated a more representative feed cost, but were adjusted so the plan would potentially cost less.  It worked too well.  Any reworks need to consider the regional differences in feed costs, as well as the validity of the base formulas.

    If you participated in the Dairy Margin Protection Program in the past 4 years, you have one or two decisions to make between now and December 15th.  Decision #1: Will you participate at all?  If you do not want to participate, then there will be no administrative fee and no protection (little as that has been). 

    Decision #2: If you choose to participate, even at the minimum level, you must contact your local Farm Service Agency office and pay the $100 administrative fee that “protects” a $4/cwt margin on 90% of your base production.  Then, decide if you want to protect a margin above $4/cwt and use the decision tool at https://dairymarkets.org/MPP/ to look at predicted margins and premium costs.  While current projections show margins at or above $8/cwt through February 2019 (based on data available on 11/21/2017), staying in and paying the $100 administrative fee for the final year would provide some very cheap catastrophe-level insurance.  Contact your local Farm Service Agency office and let them know what your decisions are for 2018 before the December 15th deadline.

  5. Results from 2017 Ohio Dairy Challenge

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

    The 2017 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held October 20-21 and was sponsored by ADM Animal Nutrition, Cargill Animal Nutrition, Commodity Blenders, Provimi North America, Purina Animal Nutrition, Sexing Technologies, and VitaPlus. Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students at Ohio State University to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped into teams of three to four individuals. Veterinary and graduate students are invited to attend the farm visit and participate in a meeting later in the evening with the contest judges to discuss observations on the farm. The farm selected for the contest this year was the JIMAN Dairy Farm in Shreve, OH owned by Jim and Ann Obrecht. The Obrecht family started milking at the facility in 1978 with about 45 cows and continued to expand over the years to whereby today they have about 300 cows. Cows are milked 3 times-a-day in a double 6 herringbone parlor. The forages grown on the farm include corn silage, alfalfa, and grass. There were 59 undergraduate students (15 teams; 12 students from ATI and 47 from the Columbus campus) and 22 veterinary students that participated. The undergraduate teams this year were again divided into novice and experienced divisions for judging purposes. The contest started by the students and the judges spending about two hours at the farm on Friday afternoon, interviewing the owner and examining the specific areas of the dairy facility.  During Friday evening, the undergraduate teams spent about three hours reviewing their notes and farm records to provide a summary of the strengths and opportunities for the operation in the format of a MS PowerPoint presentation that had to be turned in on Friday evening. On Saturday, the undergraduate students then had 20 minutes to present their results and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the novice division were:  Larissa Deikun (Cargill/Provimi), Brian Lammers (ADM Animal Nutrition), Luis Moraes (Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), and Dwight Roseler (Purina Animal Nutrition). The judges for the experienced division were: Nicole Colgren (Cargill Animal Nutrition), Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), Bob Hostetler (Sexing Technologies), and Owen Mickley (VitaPlus). Shaun Wellert with ATI also assisted with the program. The awards banquet was held on Saturday, October 21 at the Fawcett Center on the OSU Columbus campus. The top two teams in the novice division were: First Place – Molly Michael, Megan Retallick, Loren Schmidt, and Allie Schroeder; Second Place – Cole Courtney, Adam Miley, Christian Steiner, and Brady Weaver. The top teams in the experienced division were:  Frist Place – Ella Jackson, Grace Moeller, and Kate Sherman; Second Place – Kyle Daugherty, Nate Leland, Rianne Kruiter, and Courtney Lund. Students will be selected to represent Ohio at the National Contest and to participate in the Dairy Challenge Academy to be held in Visalia, CA during April 5-7, 2018. Students from ATI participated in the Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge held October 26-28, 2017 in Auburn, NY, and students from the Columbus campus will be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge hosted by University of Wisconsin-Madison during February 7-9, 2018. The coach for the Dairy Challenge program at ATI is Dr. Shaun Wellert and Dr. Maurice Eastridge is the coach for the Columbus campus. Additional information about the North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge program can be found at: http://www.dairychallenge.org/

    Novice DivisionNovice Division, First Place (left to right): Allie Schroeder, Loran Schmidt, Megan Retallick, and
    Molly Michael.

     Novice Division, Second Place: Cole Courtney, Adam Miley, Christian Steiner, and Brady Weaver.

     Experienced Division, First Place (left to right): Kate Sherman, Grace Moeller, and Ella Jackson.

     Experienced Division, Second Place (left to right): Kyle Daugherty, Rianne Kruiter, Courtney Lund, and  Nate Leland.

  6. Reporting Requirements for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste on Farms

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

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides the oversight for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) which require facilities to report releases of hazardous substances that are equal to or greater than their reportable quantities within any 24-hour period. Following a hazardous substance reportable release, a facility owner or operator must notify federal authorities under CERCLA and state and local authorities under EPCRA. On December 18, 2008, EPA published a final rule that exempted most farms from certain release reporting requirements in CERCLA and EPCRA, specifically exempting farms releasing hazardous substances from animal waste to the air above threshold levels from reporting under CERCLA. For EPCRA reporting, the rule exempted reporting of such releases if the farm had fewer animals than a large concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO). Thus, all farms were relieved from reporting hazardous substance air releases from animal waste under CERCLA, and only large CAFO were subject to EPCRA reporting. On April 11, 2017, the US Court of Appeals struck down the final rule, eliminating the reporting exemptions for farms. EPA sought additional time from the Court to delay the effective date so that EPA could develop guidance materials to help farmers understand their reporting obligations. Once the mandate was issued, farms were expected to submit an initial continuous release notification to the National Response Center for qualifying releases that occur within a 24-hour period and this initially became effective on November 15, 2017. The EPA requested from the Court a further delay in the mandate to further prepare guidance documents, and then on November 22, 2017, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals granted EPA’s motion to further stay the mandate until January 22, 2018.

    The EPA specifically identifies ammonia and hydrogen sulfide as two hazardous substances commonly associated with animal wastes that will require emissions reporting, with each substance having a reportable quantity of 100 lb. If a farm releases 100 lb or more of either substance to the air within a 24-hour period, the owner or operator must notify the National Response Center. So at this point, the livestock industry needs to remain aware of these potentially new air emissions reporting requirements and expect to receive further directives in January 2018 about such requirements. Additional information from EPA about these issues is available at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/cercla-and-epcra-reporting-requirements-air-releases-hazardous-substances-animal-waste-farms

  7. Agricultural Industry Updates

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

    Some updates that I want to share with the agricultural industry include:

    1. There are a couple of changes in the Ohio Livestock Care Standards that become effective as of January 1, 2018: a) veal calves must be housed in group pens by 10 weeks of age and whether housed in individual stalls or group pens, the calves must be allowed to turn around and cannot be tethered; and b) tail docking on dairy cattle can only be performed by a licensed veterinarian and if only medically necessary. The news release from the Ohio Department of Agriculture about these changes can be found at: http://www.ohioagriculture.gov/public_docs/news/2017/11.13.17%20ODA%20Announces%20Changes%20to%20Ohios%20Livestock%20Care%20Standards.pdf
    1. The Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics at The Ohio State University has released a report on “The Economic Contribution of Agricultural and Food Production to the Ohio Economy” that provides some valuable insights about changes in agriculture and its impacts on Ohio’s economy. The report can be found at: https://aede.osu.edu/sites/aede/files/publication_files/The%20Economic%20Contribution%20of%20Agricultural%20and%20Food%20Production%20to%20the%20Ohio%20Economy_FINAL%20Nov%2028%202017.pdf