Buckeye Dairy News: VOLUME 21, ISSUE 2

  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: the surge to $16/cwt

    In the last issue, the Class III futures for January and February were at $13.80 and $14.00/cwt, respectively. The Class III component prices for the month of January and February closed at similar prices of $13.96 and $13.89/cwt. The Class III future for March is similar to January and February component prices at $13.78/cwt followed by a jump to $15.09/cwt in April.

    The $1.25/cwt jump for the April Class III advanced price is like a ray of sunshine in what has been a field of darkness for the dairy industry. For nearly all of 2018, the Class III price averaged around $14.50/cwt. The beginning of 2019 has not been any better, and prices have averaged less than $14/cwt. However, this increase in the Class III price over $15/cwt should be the beginning of a surge to $16/cwt. Looking at Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Class III futures, they are trading at or above $16/cwt starting in July and for the remainder of 2019. If the CME futures are right, this would be good because $16/cwt is what I would consider breaking even based on current feed prices. Whether prices can surge far beyond $16/cwt is a tossup and will largely depend on if total milk production starts to decline in the U.S., which is likely given steady decreases in total cow numbers.    

    Nutrient prices

    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 significantly underpriced as of March 24, 2019. Price estimates of net energy lactation (NEL, $/Mcal), metabolizable protein (MP, $/lb; MP is the sum of the digestible microbial protein and digestible rumen-undegradable protein of a feed), non-effective NDF (ne-NDF, $/lb), and effective NDF (e-NDF, $/lb) are reported in Table 1.  

    When looking at commodity and nutrient prices, they are about the same as the previous issue. For MP, its current value has decreased $0.03/lb from January’s issue ($0.45/lb), whereas the cost of NEL is similar to January (5.8¢/Mcal). The price of e-NDF and ne-NDF are also close to last month at 7.8¢/lb and -2¢/lb (i.e., feeds with a significant content of non-effective NDF are priced at a discount), respectively.

    To estimate the cost of production at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.7% fat and 3.1% protein. For this issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day cows is about $8.23/cwt and $8.60/cwt, respectively. These IONC are better than what I estimated in January ($8.07/cwt and $8.45/cwt, respectively). These IONC may also be overestimated because they do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows. Nonetheless, current IONC suggests profits for dairy farmers in Ohio are still less than breaking even.

    Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 24, 2019.

    Economic Value of Feeds

    Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on March 24, 2019 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 27 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a price or were adjusted to reflect their true (“Corrected”) value in a lactating diet. One must remember that SESAME™ compares all commodities at one specific point in time. Thus, the results do not imply that the bargain feeds are cheap on a historical basis.

    Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 27 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, March 24, 2019.


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

    Table 3. Partitioning of feedstuffs in Ohio, March 24, 2019.

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

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

    Appendix

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

    Table 4. Prices of dairy nutrients using the 5-nutrient solution for Ohio dairy farms, March 24, 2019.

  2. Early-Spring Planted Forages for Dairy Farms

    Dr. Mark Sulc, Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science and Dr. Bill Weiss, Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Challenging growing conditions in 2018 left many dairy farms looking at short forage supplies heading into the 2019 growing season. So, what are the options for short-season forages planted in early spring this year?

    Before we discuss short-season forage options, it should be emphasized that corn silage is the number one choice for an annual forage in terms of overall yield and nutritive value.

    If forage is needed before corn silage can be ready, acceptable short-season forages for dairy cows include spring oats, spring triticale, spring barley, and Italian ryegrass planted in early spring and harvested at the proper stage of maturity this summer (Table 1).

    Oats are commonly grown in Ohio and are better than barley adapted to cool wet soils. Forage varieties have been developed and are marketed.

    Spring barley will usually produce tonnage that is a little lower than oats or triticale and is best established on well-drained soils that are not heavy textured. Barley is the earliest maturing of the small grains planted in the spring.

    Spring triticale is a cross between wheat and rye and is well-adapted to a range of soils. It has better tolerance to low soil pH than wheat but not as good as rye.

    Italian ryegrass is usually biennial in longevity, so it can usually produce some forage into the second year, depending on winter conditions. It establishes as quickly as the small grain species and can provide high yields of high-quality forage. It will produce forage ready for harvest in 60 days from seeding and then throughout the first year on about 25 to 30-day intervals.

    Agronomic Management

    Plant high quality seed of a named variety to avoid unpleasant surprises.  For mixtures of small grains, the seeding rate of each component can be reduced to 70% of the full rate. Forage peas can be included in the mixture to increase crude protein content, but peas are generally higher in seed cost.

    Small grains can be planted about 1.5 inches deep as early in the spring as soil conditions allow. Italian ryegrass should be planted any time after April 1 and by May 1 at no more than 0.5-inch deep. A burn-down application of glyphosate is a cost-effective weed control practice prior to planting. For small grains, nitrogen may be needed at 30 to 50 lb/acre at planting. Manure applications can replace some or all the N fertilizer need, depending on the amount of readily available N in the manure. When growing Italian ryegrass, additional nitrogen (~50 lb/acre) will be needed after the first or second harvest.

    Nutritional Value and Yields

    When harvested at similar stages of maturity, the nutrient composition of the different small grains is similar, i.e., maturity affects composition more than does species. The nutritional value of small grain forage declines rapidly with increasing maturity.  Small grain forage harvested in the pre-boot stage has about 20% crude protein (CP; varies with how much N fertilizer applied), 40% NDF, 30% ADF, and in vitro digestibility of about 80%.  Compared to corn silage, small grain forage harvested in the boot stage has energy concentrations similar to corn silage but greater concentrations of CP.  Small grain forage (boot stage) has more energy and about the same CP content as high-quality alfalfa.  At the milk stage, CP averages 12%, NDF averages 48%, ADF averages 35%, and in vitro digestibility averages 62%.  In the milk stage, small grains typically have about 10% less energy than corn silage but 3 to 4 percentage units more CP than corn silage.  Compared with alfalfa, milk stage small grain forage has about the same energy content but lower CP.  When harvested in the boot stage, dry matter (DM) yields should range between 1.5 and 2.5 tons/acre.  When harvested at the milk stage, yields range from 3 to 4 tons/acre. 

    Italian ryegrass trials planted in central Ohio produced yields from 2.5 to 4.6 tons/acre of DM in the first year and from 1.0 to 4.5 tons/acre in the second year. Types known as true Italian types will usually have little to no reproductive growth in the first year and will produce higher quality forage than true annual types. Italian ryegrass generally has NDF concentrations around 50% and CP concentrations between 12 and 16%. Invitro NDF digestibility is high. When fed as the sole forage in a diet, milk production will not be as good compared to cows fed corn silage-based diets, but when it comprised 15 to 20% of diet DM, milk production, milk composition, and feed efficiency was good. It often is very high in potassium so it is important to ensure cows are fed adequate supplemental magnesium.

    The harvested forage should be tested, and the lab nutritional values used in balancing rations that incorporate these supplemental forages.

    Harvesting/Grazing

    Stage of maturity at harvesting will greatly affect the yield and forage nutritive value, as mentioned above. Chopping and ensiling or wet wrapping are the best mechanical harvest alternatives for these supplemental forages. Dry baling is especially a challenge for small grains because the small grains dry about half as fast as grass hay. Ryegrasses are also slower to dry than other grasses. When using seed treated with fungicides, observe harvest and grazing restrictions on the label.

    Grazing can provide an effective and affordable alternative for utilizing the forage. Strip grazing can be an option for dry cows or heifers. Small grain forages can cause bloat if the growth is young and lush, so feeding high quality grass hay, silage and/or a bloat preventative can provide some protection. Remove lactating dairy animals from small grain pastures two hours before milking to reduce the problem of off-flavored milk.

    Summary

    Short-season annual forages can be planted in early spring to produce good yields and high-quality supplemental forage. Proper management in planting, and especially harvest timing and storing, will greatly affect the overall quality of the feed. Small grains harvested in the boot to milk stage stored as silage are acceptable forages for dairy cows. Italian ryegrass harvested 60 days after seeding and on 25 to 30-day intervals thereafter can also produce acceptable forage for dairy cows. Farmers should have the forages tested and balance the diet according to the test results.  Yields are typically lower than alfalfa or corn silage.  Small grain forage harvested in the boot stage is similar in energy to corn silage and similar in CP to alfalfa.  At the milk stage, small grain forage has about 10% less energy than corn silage (similar to alfalfa) and about 4 percentage units more CP than corn silage.

    Table 1. Guidelines for seeding rates, seeding dates, average yield, and nutritive value ranges for various annual forage silages. Yield and nutritive value ranges are for silage, which vary greatly with maturity stage at harvest. Generally, for hay expect lower CP and higher NDF values.


    Forage crop

    Seeding rate (lb/acre)


    Planting dates1

    Dry matter yield (ton/acre)


    CP (%)


    NDF (%)

    Corn silage

    28-34k2

    4/20 - 6/15

    5.0 - 9.0

    6 - 9

    38 - 50

    Spring oats

    75-100

    3/15-4/15 or 8/1-9/7

    2.5-3.5 or 0.8-3.0

    10-16

    52-65

    Spring barley

    100-120

    3/15-4/15

    1.8-2.3

    10-15

    52-65

    Spring triticale

    90-110

    3/15-4/15 or 8/1-9/7

    2.5-3.5 or 0.8-3.0

    10-18

    50-65

    Italian ryegrass

    20-25

    4/1-5/1 or 8/1-9/7

    2.5-4.0 (spr. seeded)

    12-16

    50-60

    1Planting date range for Ohio. In southern Ohio, the spring dates should be in the early range, and in the fall, they can be in the later range.
    228,000 to 34,000 seeds per acre; seed companies provide hybrid specific planting rates.

     

  3. Assessing Winter Damage and Evaluating Alfalfa Stand Health

    Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Wayne County and Mark Sulc, Extension Forage Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

    The winter of 2019 has been characterized by a lot of variability including large temperature swings, snow cover, no snow cover, rain, sleet, and ice. One constant for most areas of the state is that soils have remained wet and/or saturated throughout the fall and winter periods. Add all of this together and there is the potential for some significant winter injury. Forage growers should plan to spend time assessing winter damage and evaluating the health of their forage stands, particularly alfalfa stands. Assessment and stand health evaluation can begin once plants start to green up and produce 2 to 4 inches of growth. 

    One of the primary concerns is the possibility of heaving damage. Tap rooted crops, such as alfalfa and red clover, are particularly susceptible to heaving damage. Conditions that increase the likelihood of heaving are wet, saturated clay soils with high shrink/swell potential, exposed to rapid freeze/thaw cycles. During these conditions, plants can be physically lifted (heaved) out of the soil, exposing the crown of the plant to possible low temperature damage and/or physical injury from harvest operations. In severe cases, the plant can be heaved several inches or more out of the soil, breaking the taproot and killing the plant.

    Forage stand health evaluation includes stem counts and digging plant roots. Select random sites throughout the field and evaluate the plants in a one-foot square area. Check at least one site for every 5 to 10 acres. Increasing the number of random samples provides a more accurate assessment. Begin your stand health evaluation by counting the number of stems per crown. Do this evaluation in at least 4 to 5 random locations for every 20 to 25 acres. Stem density counts provide an indication of the yield potential of the stand. The following table is taken from University of Wisconsin Extension publication A 3620; “Alfalfa Stand Assessment: Is this stand good enough to keep?”

    Stem number/square foot

    Expected result or action

    Over 55

    Stem density not limiting yield

    40 to 55

    Some yield reduction expected

    Less than 39

    Consider stand replacement

    While you are counting stems, take note of where growth is taking place. Healthy plants have symmetrical, even growth on both sides of the crown. Damaged plants often have more stems on one side of the plant than the other.

    While plant and stem counts are useful to get a true determination of stand health, crown and root tissues should be evaluated to provide an indication of how the plant will hold up to stresses in the coming growing season. This involves digging up plants and splitting the crowns/roots. Dig up five to six plants in those 4 to 5 random locations per 20 to 25 acres. Split the plant open. A healthy root will have a creamy white color and no to very little discoloration in the crown and taproot. These are the plants that have numerous shoots and the shoots are evenly distributed across the crown of the plant. 

    Discolored crowns and roots indicate a plant health problem. They are a darker white, tending towards a tan color. There may be obvious areas of root rot and crown rot that are dark brown to black in color. There may be streaks of brown running down the root. These plants typically have fewer stems coming out of the crown and those stems may tend to be more numerous on one side of the crown as compared to the other. Generally, these plants green up in the spring of the year and appear productive, but because of their compromised root system, they may not survive the entire production year, especially if we have a hot, dry year. 

    In general, if more than 30% of the split roots have brown streaks running down the root and/or black areas of root/crown rot that cover greater than 30 to 50% of the roots diameter, then yield potential is significantly reduced. The grower may want to consider alternative production options, such as terminating the stand after first cutting and planting to corn for silage or possibly to a warm season annual forage crop, such as sudangrass or a sorghum x sudangrass. The previously mentioned University of Wisconsin publication has a root health rating system, along with color photo illustrations, that can be used to make a root health assessment (https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/alfalfa-stand-assessment-is-this-stand-good-enough-to-keep/).

    Taking the time to assess the extent of winter injury to forage and to do a stand health evaluation will allow the grower to determine the yield potential of the stand and whether or not the stand needs to be replaced at some point this year.

  4. Staying Connected with the OSU Dairy Working Group

    Jason Hartschuh, Extension Educator for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Crawford County, Ohio State University Extension

    OSU Extension Dairy Working Group works hard to meet the needs of dairy farmers in every corner of Ohio. Over the past year, we have been working to connect better with dairy farmers in every corner of the State more often using Facebook and YouTube. As we conduct programs around the state, we have been recording them to post on our YouTube page “OSU Extension Dairy Working Group”. We also post these program recordings and articles that we have written to our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/OhioDairyIndustryResourcesCenter/  Some of the latest programs we have posted include: feed cost control, fattening up the milk check, and farm transition. We also share national Extension dairy education programs on our Facebook page; follow us to stay up-to-date on programs we are doing around the State. If you are looking for other dairy resources visit https://dairy.osu.edu/

  5. Media Release: Agersens to Work with Ohio State University to Test eShepherd in US Beef and Dairy Industries

    Agersens and The Ohio State University have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that paves the way for the two organizations to implement research trials to determine the efficacy and economics of the eShepherd system for local conditions.

    eShepherd is a smart collar system for livestock, enabling cattle producers to create “virtual fences” and use their smart device to remotely fence, move and monitor their livestock around the clock from anywhere in the world.

    Ian Reilly, CEO of Agersens, said the team at The Ohio State University had the expertise and knowledge the company needed to better understand local cattle and dairy markets and determine how virtual fencing technology can help Ohio farmers get the most out of their land and livestock.

    “eShepherd is set to revolutionize livestock management by unlocking value from the digital transformation of the American beef and dairy industries and will make farming more efficient, more manageable and less labor intensive,” said Mr. Reilly.

    “Farmers in Ohio understand that improved grazing control creates more productive, profitable properties and are eager to adopt technologies that enable controlled grazing without the associated time constraints and labor costs.”

    This latest MoU comes on the heels of similar Memorandums struck with the University of Idaho and Kansas State University last year, as well as an extended collaboration agreement with the CSIRO formalized last November.

    Land-Grant Universities in the United States have a unique role in providing farm extension services through their agricultural education mission for agricultural producers. In contrast such services are typically offered by Australian state government agriculture departments and Research and Development Corporations.

    “Ohio State will be seeking to add eShepherd to their kit of extension service technologies that can help farmers increase their efficiency and maximize productivity,” Mr. Reilly said.

    Dr. John Foltz, Chair of the Department of Animal Sciences at Ohio State, recognizes the technological and economic opportunities that eShepherd brings to Departmental research faculty and livestock producers in Ohio.

    “The virtual fence is an exciting technology, which we hope to utilize in numerous research projects to understand its potential as a livestock management tool,” said Dr. Foltz. 

    “It appears to have some very unique capabilities and also generates large amounts of precision livestock data, which will be valuable to our research scientists.”

    The transformative eShepherd technology uses a GPS-enabled, solar-powered smart collar containing a CSIRO-developed algorithm and an audio cue to train cattle to stay within their prescribed virtual boundary.

    The ability of the GPS-enabled collars to monitor and move the herd in real-time using mobile technology appealed to Animal Sciences Associate Chair, Dr. Anthony Parker.

    “The position of the cattle can be observed in real-time from the office on a tablet or computer.  The technology has many practical applications for cattle producers in Ohio from avoiding riparian, protected or overgrazed areas to moving cattle over a landscape to ensure an even grazing pressure,” said Dr. Parker.

    “The e-Shepherd technology fits within existing research being undertaken at The Jackson Agricultural Research Station and the Eastern Agricultural Research Station with global positioning systems to better understand cattle behavior.” 

    The eShepherd virtual fencing technology was patented by the CSIRO and licensed exclusively to Agersens worldwide. The business has already received orders for thousands of eShepherd collars in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada and the UK.

    End of Media Release

    About Agersens

    Headquartered in Melbourne, Agersens is an innovative agritech company revolutionizing livestock production globally by applying virtual fencing technology developed by CSIRO – to which Agersens holds the worldwide exclusive license.

    The Agersens team includes engineers, beef and dairy producers, animal behavior and welfare scientists and business leaders committed to delivering this important innovation globally.

    Global partners include Ohio State University, Kansas State University, University of Idaho, the CSIRO, State and Federal Governments, Meat & Livestock Australia, Dairy Australia, agricultural research organizations, cattle and dairy farmer associations and natural resource managers.

    About The Ohio State University

    For 149 years, The Ohio State University's campus in Columbus has been the stage for academic achievement and a laboratory for innovation. The university's main campus is one of America's largest and most comprehensive.

    As Ohio's best and one of the nation's top-20 public universities, Ohio State is further recognized by a top-rated academic medical center and a premier cancer hospital and research center. As a land-grant university, Ohio State has a physical presence throughout the state, with campuses and research centers located around Ohio.

    The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) is a large, diverse college supporting 10 academic units, the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University Extension, and two-year degree programs offered by the Agricultural Technical Institute.

    The college has campuses in Columbus and Wooster and has a presence in all 88 Ohio counties. It serves as the home for 330 faculty, more than 4,100 undergraduate and graduate students, and 1,230 staff.

    The Department of Animal Sciences at The Ohio State University is housed within the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. Research in the Department of Animal Sciences aims to increase the economic profitability of agricultural animals and quality of their products, improve animal welfare, and lessen the environmental impact of animal systems.

    Media enquiries: Agersens
                              Marcus Tainsh
                              Pesel & Carr (on behalf of Agersens)
                              E marcus.tainsh@peselandcarr.com.au
                              P +613 9036 6900
                              M +61 421 717 252

    Media enquiries: The Ohio State University
                               Amber Robinson
                               The Ohio State University
                               E robinson.1965@osu.edu
                               P 614-688-1083

     

  6. Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge

    Ms. Morgan Westover, Senior, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    The 2019 Midwest Dairy Challenge was hosted by the University of Illinois in Freeport, Illinois and it took place from February 13th to 15th. Coach Dr. Maurice Eastridge took eight students from Ohio State: Paul Bensman, Hannah Dye, Katia Hardman, Hunter Meese, Sarah Schuster, Kate Sherman, Morgan Westover, and Megan Whalin. The students were put in teams with students from other universities. From the participants, Hunter Meese’s team placed first in their division and Megan Whalin’s team placed second in their division. The three-day program included educational sessions regarding topics such as robotic milking, farm financials, and farm evaluation tools. The main contest took place at three area farms who graciously allowed their farms to be used as models for the event.

    As a student, the contest was an excellent opportunity for me to learn how to evaluate management practices on a dairy farm. I attended the Midwest Dairy Challenge in 2018 and 2019. We worked in teams of four, with individuals from other schools to evaluate the farm’s management, cow health, reproductive program, nutrition, replacement program, and financials. As a team, we then identify areas that the farm is performing well in and areas that have opportunity for improvement that would allow increased efficiency and financial viability. This information is compiled into a report which is presented to a panel of industry professionals. It is a great example of applied learning because it has allowed me to utilize knowledge and information that I have gained from classes at Ohio State and apply and problem solve on a farm. Not only did I utilize knowledge gained from a multitude of different classes, but it also provided me with the opportunity to work with students from other universities and technical schools throughout the Midwest. From this, we combined a variety of ideas into the best report possible, all the while learning from each other and working as a team.

    The Midwest Dairy Challenge provided a great opportunity to learn more about dairy farming and herd management, but it also served as a great opportunity to learn from and network with industry professionals. All the skills and knowledge I gained from participating in Dairy Challenge have served as a catalyst for me to become more involved in the industry. They set me up for success in my previous internships and are certain to propel me forward in my future career. I am very thankful for the support from the event sponsors and industry professionals. Because of them, I have been able to reap many benefits from the continued learning and experience that Dairy Challenge has provided me over the years. It has been a great extension to my education that has allowed me to develop a better understanding of the dairy industry and how to be a successful contributor to it.