Buckeye Dairy News: VOLUME 20, ISSUE 3

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

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

    Milk Prices

    In the last issue, the March Class III futures price was set at $13.36/cwt and forecasted to jump to $14.10/cwt in April. The March and April Class III prices actual closed slightly higher at $14.22 and $14.47/cwt. The Class III price future for May is about the same price at $14.44/cwt and is supposed to increase to $15.25/cwt in June. Looking further in advance, the CME Class III futures for summer and fall are currently trading at $16.40 to $16.90/cwt. Overall, milk prices are steadily increasing – this will give producers a little sigh of relief as we wrap up on the 2018 planting season.   

    Nutrient Prices

    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 May 25, 2018. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NEL, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1.  

    For MP, its current value is 10¢/lb less than March’s issue ($0.50/lb). However, the cost of NEL has gone up 2¢/Mcal since March (7.8¢/Mcal). The price of e-NDF is about the same at 5¢/lb, whereas ne-NDF is relatively unchanged from March at -8¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount).

    To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, I used the Cow-Jones Index for cows milking 70 lb/day or 85 lb/day at 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. In the March issue, the average income over nutrient costs (IONC) was estimated to be $7.26/cwt for cows milking 70 lb/day and $7.61/cwt for cows milking 85 lb/day. For May, the IONC for our 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows are about $1/cwt higher than March at $8.21 and $8.61/cwt, respectively. These IONC may be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows. In summary, these IONC prices are better than March but are still not great.

    Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2018.

    Economic Value of Feeds

    Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on May 25, 2018 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

    Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2018.

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

    Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs, Ohio, May 25, 2018.

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

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

    Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, May 25, 2018.

     


     


     

  2. Feeding for Milk Components: Brief Overview

    Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

              Current milk markets are putting a higher value on milk fat and a lesser value on milk protein which is opposite of the historical norm of protein being more valuable. Significant variation exists in both milk fat and milk protein concentrations among herds. Much of this variation is genetics, but a substantial amount is likely nutritional.  A survey of the Mideast Federal Order conducted by Penn State (https://extension.psu.edu/milk-components-understanding-milk-fat-and-protein-variation-in-your-dairy-herd) found that milk fat averaged about 3.76% but based on the reported standard deviation, 16% of herds sold milk with greater than 4.1% fat and 16% of herds sold milk with less than 3.4% fat. Some of the high testing herds were probably colored breeds, but breed cannot account for all the high testing herds. The average protein concentration of milk sold in that order was 3.05%, but 16% of herds had milk protein concentrations greater than 3.3% and 16% of herds had protein concentrations less than 2.9%. Concentrations of milk components are important, but the milk check is based on yields of components, not concentrations. Nutritional modifications that increase the concentrations of milk components but decrease their yields are not something you want to do.

              Increasing energy intake from starch usually increases both the concentration and yield of milk protein.  This can be accomplished by replacing fiber with starch (as long as you do not cause ruminal acidosis), by maintaining starch concentrations but improving forage quality so cows eat more, or by maintaining starch concentrations but replacing some forage fiber with byproduct fiber so that cows eat more. Over a wide range of energy intakes, the effect on milk protein yield and concentration was linear.  Perhaps surprisingly, dietary protein concentrations do not have a large impact on milk protein yield or concentration. In a study from Ohio State, increasing dietary crude protein from 13 to 17.5% increased milk protein concentration and yield; however, the effect was not linear and once dietary protein concentration reached 16%, it had no effect on milk protein. Most diets fed to lactating cows are usually at least 16% crude protein. Feeding supplemental rumen-protected (RP) amino acids can increase milk protein. Most studies report that feeding RP-methionine at about 20 grams/day increases milk protein with an average increase of about 3% in both yield and concentration of protein. Responses to other amino acids are less consistent. Feeding supplemental fat often decreases milk protein percentage but usually maintains or increases milk protein yield.

              Milk fat is more responsive to nutritional modifications than is milk protein. Starch has the opposite effect on milk fat as it does on milk protein. The effect starch has on milk fat yield depends on the type of forage in the diet. When alfalfa silage made up more than about 55% of the forage in the diet (the rest being corn silage), starch in the range of 22 to 30% did not have much effect on milk fat yield (starch was from dry ground corn and corn silage). As the concentration of alfalfa silage decreased below 55% and the concentration of corn silage increased, starch had a greater negative effect on milk fat yield. At the highest corn silage concentration tested (75% of the forage as corn silage and 25% as alfalfa), milk fat yield decreased linearly as starch increased from 22 to 30% of the diet. The generally positive effect alfalfa has on milk fat is caused in large part by the minerals in alfalfa.  Increasing the dietary cation-anion difference [DCAD calculated as: (dietary sodium + potassium) – (dietary chloride + sulfur), where minerals are expressed as milliequivalents per kilogram of diet] linearly increases milk fat concentration and yield. On average, the DCAD concentration in alfalfa is about 3 times greater than that of corn silage. Sodium bicarbonate, potassium carbonate and other buffers increase DCAD and often increase milk fat yield.

              Feeding more forage usually increases milk fat concentration but may not increase milk fat yield. If forage is not highly digestible or you feed too much forage fiber and dry matter intake decreases, milk fat yield often decreases. High forage diets can support high yields of milk fat, but their quality must be good. Replacing starch with byproduct fiber can increase milk fat percentage and yield when diets are high in corn silage and have more than 25 to 27% starch.

              Feeding supplemental fat usually increases milk fat yield, but the response is dependent on the type of fat fed. Based on a meta-analysis published in the Journal of Dairy Science in 2012, increasing dietary fat concentration 2 or 3 percentage units by feeding calcium soap similar to Megalac, oilseeds, or prilled fat increased milk fat yield by 0.1 (oilseeds) to 0.18 (soaps) lb/day, whereas supplementing tallow had no effect on milk fat yield. The gain in milk value caused by increased milk fat yield will need to be tempered if the fat supplement reduces milk protein yield.

              In summary, nutritional modifications can affect milk component yields. Unfortunately, several of the dietary changes affect milk protein and fat in different directions. Because of the high market value of milk fat currently, diets should emphasize increasing milk fat yield at the potential expense of reduced milk protein yields. This will change as milk markets change.

  3. Management in Today’s Dairy Economy

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

    The dairy economy is extremely difficult today and there is no definitive answer as to when it might improve. I have talked and sat around the kitchen table with a number of families who are concerned about their situation and future. Times are not easy and the decisions that need to be made are difficult and filled with emotion. While it will not solve the problem, understand you are not alone and most of your peers are facing the same difficult decisions.

    There are a number of potential options to consider when analyzing farm financial records and looking at ways to trim expenses. There is no ‘recipe’ for solving each situation because each farm is unique. Below are some things I’ve talked with farm families about when exploring options.

    Communication - is always important and becomes more critical when finances are tight. Open communication must occur between and with:

    • Business partners and spouses
    • Lender
    • Veterinarian, nutritionist, suppliers, etc.
    • Items such as new equipment purchases vs. repairing existing equipment, knowing your financial situation, developing a plan to stay or get current with your expenses, are examples of items to communicate.

    Present Situation  

    Start by knowing where you are today. Regardless of the system you use to track farm income and expenses, analyze the numbers you have. Do you know your cost of production? Has your farm historically been profitable or have you struggled for a long period of time to be profitable? What’s holding you back from achieving consistent profitability? Have you analyzed the profitability of individual enterprises that make up your farm? 

    Potential Options

    Every farm is different and each situation is unique when it comes to evaluating options. Factors such as the number of cows, number of family and employees, level of milk production, debt, number and type of crop acres, among others, make it impossible to give a ‘recipe’ that will be appropriate for each farm. Based on my discussions with families, below are thoughts on possible options.

    • Evaluate areas for potential cost savings. 
      • Talk to your nutritionist. Ask questions about ration ingredients, their purpose and cost. Can you remove something from a ration without negatively impacting animal health or milk production? Can you adjust the dry cow diet or management to reduce expenses without a negative result?
      • Can changes be made in your cropping program? Are you soil testing? If so, are you following the recommendations? Lime is sometimes the first crop input to be reduced, but I caution you in doing so. A pH imbalance can result in poor nutrient uptake and reduced yields. OSU Extension has conducted a number of on-farm research studies you may find useful when looking to reduce costs. Consult your OSU Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator for more information.
    • Talk to your lender
      • Explain your situation, goals, and ask about options. Can you stretch any of your debt over a longer period? What is your plan to pay the debt? How will it cash flow?
    • Sell scrap and/or unused equipment
      • This is a one-time cash infusion that will not help over the long-term.
    • Sell timber/coal/other minerals
      • Selling timber or other resources provides cash for the immediate term, but does little to help in the long-term. In the case of timber, depending upon a number of factors, it may 20 or more years before another harvest can occur.
    • Sell livestock
      • Again, this gives some cash, but you can’t keep selling the cows that are producing milk. However, you should eliminate from the herd those cows that are poor producers, have health issues, are difficult breeders, etc.
    • Sell land
      • Is there some acreage that you don’t need, is poor quality, or doesn’t yield well? Depending upon your level of debt, this may be a viable option worth consideration. Can you retain enough acres to continue with a different venture?   
    • Off farm employment
      • You or your spouse may need to explore potential off farm employment. The extra income can help lessen the burden on the farm and reduce stress.
    • Sell the farm
      • It isn’t what you want to do, but may be your only option.

    Consider Implications of Your Decisions

    This list of potential options is not exhaustive but is meant to serve as a starting point for discussion. Some options may not be viable, while others may be worth giving consideration. Regardless of the decision you make, keep in mind there may be tax or legal implications for which you must prepare. Make certain you contact professionals in these areas who can answer questions and provide direction.

    Seek  Outside Advice

    Don’t be afraid to ask for help. There are plenty of people, including family, clergy, friends, OSU Extension professionals, licensed therapists, and counselors, willing to listen, provide support, and assist you. The decisions to be made are often filled with much emotion. While understandable, allowing emotions to drive your decision making can result in poor outcomes.  Seek the advice of an outside party to help you and your family evaluate options and arrive at a decision that best suits everyone.

  4. How to Manage Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa

    Jeff Stachler, Auglaize County Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Educator, Ohio State University Extension

    Even though alfalfa has not been seeded yet, it is time to start thinking about managing weeds in seedling alfalfa in order to be ready. Greater than 95% of weed control in alfalfa is due to competition from a healthy stand. Proper fertilization, use of disease-resistant varieties, insect control, cutting management, and use of herbicides are necessary to provide a competitive alfalfa stand providing significant weed control.

    If weeds become a problem, they can compete or interfere for light, nutrients, water, and space directly influencing yield, quality, and standability. Alfalfa yields may be improved at least 8% over the life of the stand if weeds are controlled in seedling alfalfa.  Keys to managing weeds in spring alfalfa seedings include: 1. Weeds emerging with the crop are the most competitive; 2. Maintain forage relatively weed-free for the first 60 days; 3. Weeds emerging beyond 60 days usually will not reduce future alfalfa yields; 4. Weeds emerging beyond 60 days may reduce forage quality; and 5. Broadleaf weeds are generally more competitive against alfalfa than grassy weeds.

    Hopefully, perennial, biennial, and annual weeds in no-tillage alfalfa were controlled prior to seeding. Summer annual weeds will be emerging with the alfalfa and can continue emerging into June if the stand is not good. Perennial and biennial weeds may also emerge after seeding. The most problematic weeds in spring alfalfa seedings are lambsquarters, pigweed, common and giant ragweeds, smartweed, and annual grasses, with lambsquarters usually the most prevalent.

    Herbicides available to control broadleaf weeds postemergence in seedling alfalfa include bromoxynil; 2,4-DB; Pursuit; and Raptor. Bromoxynil controls lambquarters most effectively, followed by Raptor and 2,4-DB. Pursuit and Raptor provide the most effective pigweed control, followed by bromoxynil and 2,4-DB. Bromoxynil and 2,4-DB effectively control common ragweed, followed by Raptor. Giant ragweed is best controlled with 2,4-DB, followed by bromoxynil. Smartweeds are best controlled with bromoxynil and Pursuit, followed by Raptor. Pursuit and Raptor will not control common ragweed, giant ragweed, and pigweeds (including waterhemp) that is resistant to these herbicides.

    Apply 2,4-DB, Pursuit, and Raptor to alfalfa between the second and fourth trifoliate stage and bromoxynil at the fourth trifoliate stage. Apply these herbicides to small weeds. Pursuit is the safest to the alfalfa and 2,4-DB causes the greatest injury. Read and follow label restrictions for tank-mixing any of these broadleaf herbicides. Read and follow labels for adjuvant use in order to maximize weed control and minimize crop injury. 

    Clethodim and Poast can be applied to control annual grasses. Poast and clethodim can be mixed with the broadleaf herbicides, but grass control can be reduced if Poast is mixed with Pursuit. Pursuit and Raptor will provide some control of grasses.

    In Roundup Ready alfalfa, Extreme and glyphosate can be applied postemergence. In Roundup Ready alfalfa, apply glyphosate at 1.125 to 1.5 lb acid equivalent per acre (32 to 44 fluid ounces of a Roundup product) or Extreme at 3.3 to 4.4 pints per acre when alfalfa is in the third to fourth trifoliate leaf stage. It is best to make a glyphosate application to Roundup Ready alfalfa, regardless of the density of weeds in order to control the non-Roundup Ready plants in the population and better stand establishment. The application of Extreme will provide some residual control of certain weed species, especially at 4.4 pints per acre.

  5. Managing for High Quality Stored Forage

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

    The forage harvest season is well underway, starting several weeks ago with some of the small grains, particularly cereal rye, and progressing into our more traditional forage legumes or legume/grass mixtures. Bill Weiss, Ohio State University dairy nutritionist located at OARDC in Wooster, says the three laws of forage harvesting are: 1) You can’t win, 2) You can’t breakeven, and 3) You can only lose. Therefore, harvesting high quality forage is dependent upon minimizing biological and mechanical harvest system losses. 

    Although there are others, two important biological factors affecting forage quality are plant maturity and plant respiration losses after mowing. Forage maturity, in particular for our first harvest during May, is the number one determinant of forage quality. Once that forage plant moves into the reproductive growth stage, beyond bud formation in legumes and beyond boot stage in grasses, there is a significant decline in quality for each day of harvest delay. Research suggests that relative feed value (RFV) or relative feed quality (RFQ) values decline about 4 points per day. Rates of decline are not as steep in July and August. The point here is that there is a narrow window of opportunity during spring and early summer harvests for the producer to make high quality forage so observation and monitoring are important. Once the forage plant is cut, the priority is to dry it down to an acceptable harvest moisture as soon as possible.

    After mowing, plants continue to respire at a significantly high rate until forage moisture falls below 60%. Respiration is essentially the loss of starch and sugar, which are 100% digestible. The majority of this respiration loss occurs in the leaves of the plant. Conditioning helps to increase drying of the stems but does not speed drying of the leaves. Average dry matter (DM) losses due to plant respiration after cutting are 4 to 5% but can be as high as 8% in some situations. According to Dan Undersander, Extension forage specialist at the University of Wisconsin, a 4% loss in starch and sugar raises neutral detergent fiber (NDF) by 3% and results in a drop of almost 20 points on the RFQ scale. Management practices that will minimize respiration losses include mowing early in the day to maximize sunshine and drying conditions, and very importantly, spread the forage in a wide swath that occupies 60 to 80% of the cutter bar to expose leaves to those drying conditions.

    Besides these biological losses, there are losses due to the mechanical harvesting system involved with mowing, raking, tedding, baling, chopping, hauling and storage operations. Quality losses are highly correlated with leaf loss. The degree of leaf loss and shatter generally depends upon how aggressively the forage is handled and the moisture content at the time of the mechanical operation. The harvesting operation results in DM, crude protein, and digestible DM declines and increases in NDF.  Looking at DM only, average losses due to mowing are 3.0%, raking 5.0%, tedding 3.0%, and baling 4.5%. The upper end losses for each of these operations is double (or worse) of these averages. The drier the forage is when it is handled, the greater the possibility of increased leaf loss and shatter.

    Regardless of the production system used, the goal is to avoid the quality losses caused by a rainfall event. The losses due to rainfall depend upon the amount and timing of the rain event. Research has demonstrated that a one inch rainfall on a forage close to being ready to bale in a dry hay system can cause DM losses of 8 to 17%, results in NDF content increases of 6% and TDN decreases of 7%. That same rainfall within a few hours after cutting will have a less detrimental impact. Wrapped hay (baleage) and chopped haylage (silage) systems result in harvesting at higher moisture contents that can reduce quality losses due to leaf shatter. These systems also work as a strategy to avoid losses due to rainfall by decreasing the time between mowing and harvesting 

    One key to making high quality baleage is to harvest forage at the proper maturity stage and moisture range. Because the forage is not chopped, one concern with baleage is overly mature forages. These forages have more fiber and less soluble sugars, resulting in poorer fermentation and a higher pH, which increases the risk of toxin producing clostridial bacteria in the baleage. Small grains, such as cereal rye, oats, wheat, and barley, are particularly at risk when used for baleage after head formation. Harvest baleage in the 45% to 55% moisture range. Moisture above 67% increases the risk of spoilage organisms like clostridial bacteria. Included in that family are botulism organisms. Tightly packed, dense bales are necessary to exclude air and promote anaerobic fermentation. Finally, wrap bales with six or more layers of 1.5 mil plastic within 24 hours after baling; sooner is better. Many producers aim for wrapping within 12 hours of baling. 

    The keys to good quality haylage production begins with harvest between 55 to 62% moisture. Chop the forage at 3/8 inch theoretical length of chop to help improve packing. Fill the silo quickly to limit surface exposure to air, and in bunker silos, pack to achieve greater than 44 lb/cubic foot of silage. Bill Weiss always says that when you think you have packed enough, pack some more. Seal the bunker silo with an oxygen barrier film within hours of finishing silo filling, and then cover it on top of that with a 6 mil plastic to reduce spoilage. Research has shown a return of about $8 for each one dollar invested in sealing a bunker silo.

    In a dry hay production system, forage baled too wet will mold and heat in storage. As interior bale temperatures get above 150 degrees F, the risk of a hay fire greatly increases. At 175 degrees, a hay fire is imminent and you need to call the fire department. For hay made without the use of a preservative, safe moisture levels are 20% for small square bales, 15 to 16% for large round bales, and 13 to 15% for large rectangular bales. The goal for long-term storage and stability is a moisture content of 15% or lower. The larger and more densely packed a bale is, the less likely it is to lose moisture during storage and achieve stability, so the moisture at harvest becomes more critical.

    Preservatives allow baling at higher moisture contents, but they have to be used correctly and there are limits. The most effective preservatives are propionic acid based.  Research shows that they are generally very effective at allowing forage to be baled between 20 and 25% moisture, they are iffy between 25 to 30% moisture, and none of them are effective above 30% moisture. The keys to making them work in their effective range include providing enough product and making sure application is even and uniform as the bale is being formed. You need 10 lb/ton of actual propionic acid on the hay for moisture levels below 25% and 20 lb/ton of actual propionic acid on hay for moisture levels between 25 and 30%. The other limit is that the effectiveness decreases over time because the acid volatilizes and dissipates from the bale.

    (References are available on request)

  6. 2018 Dairy Palooza

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

    Every now and then, in the midst of today's dairy economy, we just need a positive notion to hold onto!  Perhaps the photo below will capture that feeling.

    On April 21, more than 300 4-Hers and adults gathered for our 8th annual Dairy Palooza.  It was held at the Wayne County Fairgrounds in Wooster, Ohio on a sunny day.  Our morning agenda included the customary Quality Assurance (QA) training sessions taught with hands-on activities by Extension educators.  During this time, adults and advisors were also provided an opportunity to attend educational sessions created to also provide updates and timely information. With some time out for lunch and the group photo, attendees then rotated to three sessions of workshops in the afternoon.  The topics covered included preparing for the fair, clipping and fitting, showmanship, build a calf, dairy nutrition, selecting sires, and science fun with dairy foods.  Cloverbuds were also given their very own program that was taught by actual elementary teachers! Let me also mention that every session leader was a volunteer giving up a Saturday to share their expertise! It was impressive.

    Each and every registered participant received a weigh tape and a thermometer which aligned to some of the QA training. Those who were able to complete the entire day had an additional opportunity to be included in door prizes, including a handmade show box and a set of new clippers.  There was a semen raffle valued at $400 that generated additional interest.

    In case you would like to know more about this large dairy event, we have a web page at www.ohiodairypalooza.com. However, this event could not take on such epic proportions without the support of generous sponsors who generously "give back" to youth.  For their names, please view the link for our program on the web page.

    Dairy Palooza evolved as a simple idea created by volunteers who cared! For those of us on the planning committee, we are amazed how this signature program has grown by leaps and bounds.  In 2019, we will change locations to the Mahoning County Fairgrounds! We are always looking for more sponsors and more volunteers, so please contact us for information.

    Thank you Susan Mykrantz of Ohio Jersey News for capturing the below scene and all the other photos.

  7. Ohio State Places Second at National North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge

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

    The Ohio State University placed second at the 17th annual North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge® (NAIDC) held April 12-14 in Visalia, CA. There were 36 teams that participated in the national contest and 94 students that participated in the Dairy Challenge Academy. In total, 238 students from 35 US and 3 Canadian academic programs attended this educational event. These students are training for careers in the dairy industry as farmers, researchers, educators, financial analysts, nutritionists, farm service providers, and veterinarians. This year, nine contest teams competed on each of four farms. Each contest team received information about their assigned dairy farm, including production and farm management data. After an in-person inspection of the dairy, students interviewed the herd owners. Each team developed a farm analysis and recommendations for nutrition, reproduction, milking procedures, animal health, housing and financial management. Ohio State’s team consisted of Alexandra Houck (Oregonia, OH), Jaclyn Krymowski (Homerville, OH), Hannah Meller (Wauseon OH), and Marina Sweet (London, OH) (see photo provided below). Students from the top two teams at each farm received a plaque and a monetary award, and all Dairy Challenge contest participants received a lifetime membership to Dairy Shrine.

    The Dairy Challenge Academy was developed in 2013 to expand this educational and networking event to more college students. Academy student-participants also analyzed and developed recommendations for a dairy farm; however, the Academy was organized in mixed-university teams with two advisors to help coach these students.  Due to travel costs, there were no students from the OSU Columbus campus that participated in this year’s Dairy Challenge Academy; however, five students from the Agricultural Technical Institute participated that were assisted by Dr. Shaun Wellert.

    In its 17-year history, Dairy Challenge has helped train more than 5,200 students through the national contest, Dairy Challenge Academy, and four regional contests conducted annually. NAIDC is supported completely through generous donations by many agribusinesses and dairy producers, and programs are coordinated by a volunteer board of directors.  The 2019 National Contest and Academy will be held March 28-30 in Tifton, GA. For more information, visit www.dairychallenge.org or www.facebook.com/DairyChallenge.

    2018 Ohio State Dairy Challenge Team:
    Jaclyn Krymowski, Hannah Meller, Alexandra Houck, Marina Sweet,
    and Dr. Maurice Eastridge (coach).

  8. Success of the 2018 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference

    Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

    The 2018 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference was very successful with an attendance of 529 and 72 exhibitors. The pre-conference workshop on dairy nutrition software was well attended, and there were 9 undergraduates, 6 MS students, and 13 PhD students that competed in student presentations. The pre-conference symposium was sponsored by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services, the Hot Topics breakfast was hosted by Multimin USA, Inc., and the post-conference program was hosted by Mycogen. This was the 27th year for the Conference, with attendees from across the US and other countries, including Canada and Hungry. The 2019 Conference to be held April 22-24. A feed sampling workshop in conjunction with the Association of American Feed Control Officials will be held on April 22, and Elanco Animal Health will be the sponsor for the pre-conference symposium on April 23. Mark your calendars for plans to attend an excellent program and make sure you bookmark the Conference’s web address: tristatedairy.org.

  9. Tedrick and Thraen Inducted into 2018 Dairy Hall of Service

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

    The Dairy Science Hall of Service was initiated in 1952 to recognize worthy men and women who have made a substantial and noteworthy contribution toward the improvement of the dairy industry of Ohio, elevated the stature of dairy farmers, or inspired students enrolled at the Ohio State University. The 2018 inductees were recognized on April 13 at the Department of Animal Sciences ‘Celebration of Excellence’ held at the Animal Sciences Building on campus.

    Roger Tedrick

    Roger Tedrick grew up in Barnesville, OH and received his BS and MS in agricultural economics from The Ohio State University. While in college, he worked at Superior Dairy in Canton, Ohio. He then accepted a position as a field supervisor for Milk Marketing, Inc., now known as Dairy Farmers of America (DFA). In 1999, he joined the Dairy Division at the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). He was a registered sanitarian and served as Plant Section Head. In 2008, he became Assistant Chief of the Dairy Division, in 2010 was named as active Chief of the Department, and then was named Chief in 2011, a role he continues in today.

    Roger has been very active in the CFAES Alumni Association, having served as President of the organization. He annually hosts OSU students to the Dairy Division to describe the role the Department plays in insuring the quality and safety of Ohio’s milk supply. He has been very active in the state and national dairy industry. He is an Executive Board Member of the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) and vice-chair of the NCIMS Appendix N Committee; he has been a member of the Ohio Association of Food Protection; and a member of the OSU Food Science and Technology External Advisory Board.

    “Roger has a deep-seeded commitment to the dairy industry”, wrote one of the nominators. The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Hall of Service acknowledges Roger for his commitment to the Ohio and US dairy industry for ensuring milk safety and in continually supporting the education of students interested agriculture.

    Cameron Thraen

    Emeritus Professor Dr. Cameron Thraen has made significant impact in the field of dairy economics for students, faculty, and the dairy industry in Ohio and across the US. In the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, he had a 45% appointment as the Ohio State University Extension Specialist in Dairy Markets and Policy, a 25% teaching appointment, and a 30% research appointment.

    In his position as Extension specialist, his educational responsibilities included the dissemination of economic and policy research. He was an active member of the Ohio State Extension Dairy Team. Dr. Thraen was a regular presenter for the yearly Ag Outlook program held throughout Ohio. He maintained an updated web site and wrote regularly in numerous agricultural publications on dairy markets, prices, and policy.

    Dr. Thraen's teaching responsibilities included AEDE 3102: Principles of Agribusiness Marketing; AEDE 4002: Quantitative Analysis for Agribusiness; a graduate level course AEDE 6120: Quantitative Analysis II Applied Mathematical Optimization; and teaching the milk marketing course.

    The recognition provided as a recipient of the Dairy Science Hall of Service Award acknowledges Dr. Thraen’s many contributions to the dairy industry and the training of OSU students.

  10. Buckeye Dairy Club Annual Reception Held

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

    The Buckeye Dairy Club held its annual awards reception on April 21 at the Der Dutchman in Plain City, with about 85 in attendance. Those recognized included the dairy judging and dairy challenge teams and the Club’s committee chairs and outgoing officers. The Buckeye Cow Tales yearbook was dedicated to Erin Williams for her support to the Club. The Outstanding Club member awards went to: Freshman – Cameron Hupp (Lowell, OH), Sophomore – Kate Sherman (Sunbury, OH), Junior – Hannah Meller (Wauseon, OH), and Seniors – Marina Sweet (London, OH) and Thomas Shaw (Greenville, OH). The Prestigious Member Award (includes $500 toward college costs) went to Skylar Buell (Temperance, MI). The Buckeye Dairy Club in conjunction with John and Bonnie Ayars awarded the Austin Ayars Memorial Scholarship ($5,000), with the second-year recipient being Kate Sherman. The 2018-2019 Officer Team is: President - Lexie Nunes, First Vice-President - Sarah Schuster, Second Vice-President - Cameron Hupp, Recording Secretary - Amanda Schmitmeyer, Corresponding Secretary - Billy Smith, Treasurer - Hunter Meese, Assistant Treasurer - Kate Sherman, and CFAES Representative - Hannah Maggard. The program concluded by recognizing the seniors in the Club.

    Pictured: Some of the seniors of the Buckeye Dairy Club: Front row – Rachel Patton, Andraya Starr, Hannah Meller, Marina Sweet, Jaclyn Krymowski, Molly Cleveland, and Mary Wilhelm. Back row – Katherine Wolfe, Grace Moeller, Hannah Jarvis, Thomas Shaw, Joshua Keller, Chase Thut, and Jake Blackburn.