Buckeye Dairy News: VOLUME 22, ISSUE 6

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

    April F. White, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Milk prices

    In the last issue, the Class III futures for September and October were at $16.35 and $18.86/cwt, respectively. The Federal milk order price for October protein and butterfat were $5.01/lb and $1.64/lb, respectively, and the Class III skim milk price continues to be about $4/cwt higher than Class I. The Class III future for November is ~$4/cwt higher than October at $23.10/cwt, followed by $16.09/cwt in December.

    Nutrient prices

    It can be helpful to compare the prices in Table 1 to the 5-year averages. The price of MP and eNDF are about 23 and 31% lower compared to the 5-year averages ($0.42/lb and $0.08/lb, respectively). However, the bulk of total nutrient cost comes from the cost of NEL (about 51% over the last 5 years), followed by MP (39%), and NDF (10%). Consequently, overall nutrient costs are heavily influenced by increases in the cost of NEL, which in this issue is 55% higher than the 5-year average ($0.08/Mcal). Overall, nutrient cost is about $0.80 higher than the 5-year average ($7.21 vs. $6.45), but nutrient cost is not reliable as a sole predictor for profitability.

    To estimate profitability at these nutrient prices, the Cow-Jones Index was used for average US cows weighing 1500 lb and producing milk with 3.9% fat and 3.2% protein. For October’s issue, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 70 lb/day and 85 lb/day is about $15.06 and $15.52/cwt, respectively. This is more than a dollar higher than estimates for September ($13.85 and $14.30/cwt, respectively), and is likely to be profitable for Ohio dairy farmers. As a word of caution, these estimates of IONC do not account for the cost of replacements or dry cows, or for profitability changes related to culling cows. Overall, current higher prices for components should help to offset the increase in nutrient costs.

    Table 1. Prices of dairy nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 16, 2020.

    Economic Value of Feeds

    Results of the Sesame analysis for central Ohio on November 16, 2020 are presented in Table 2. Detailed results for all 26 feed commodities are reported. The lower and upper limits mark the 75% confidence range for the predicted (break-even) prices. Feeds in the “Appraisal Set” were those for which we didn’t have a 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. For this issue, a price for ring dried blood meal was not reported, so blood meal was added to the appraisal set in order to provide a price prediction range.

    Table 2. Actual, breakeven (predicted) and 75% confidence limits of 26 feed commodities used on Ohio dairy farms, November 16, 2020.

    For convenience, Table 3 summarizes the economic classification of feeds according to their outcome in the SESAME™ analysis. Feedstuffs that have gone up in price based on current nutrient values or in other words moved a column to the right since the last issue are red. Conversely, feedstuffs that have moved to the left (i.e., decreased in value) 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, November 16, 2020.

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

    *Price not reported.

    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 16, 2020.

  2. Recommended Adjustment when Pricing Forages

    Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University and Dr. Alex Tebbe, Former PhD student (currently Dairy Consultant for Purina Animal Nutrition)

    For several years, an article on cost of nutrients has appeared in this newsletter (currently written by April Frye White). The information in that article is based on a nutrient pricing method developed by a former colleague, Dr. Normand St-Pierre. The method is based on a statistical procedure that relates prices of several feeds to their nutrient composition. In articles appearing in Buckeye Dairy News, the prices are from central Ohio and the nutrients are NEL, metabolizable protein (MP), effective NDF and non-effective NDF. The underlying assumption of that method is that cows require nutrients, not feeds and diets with the same nutrient composition, regardless of ingredients that will have the same effect on cows. This statement is not entirely true and can be very wrong when it comes to forages because of the effect ‘forage quality’ has on dry matter intake. To overcome that issue, several years ago we developed a quality adjustment based on NDF concentration and applied it to alfalfa hay. If you look at the nutrient pricing article in the second part of Table 2, you will see ‘Corrected’ values for alfalfa hays with different NDF concentrations. If NDF is less than 44%, the corrected value is greater than the predicted value and if NDF is more than 44%, the corrected value is less. We did this to account for the negative effect that high concentrations of NDF has on intake and subsequent milk production.

    Using NDF to adjust for forage quality does not account for all the effects forage quality has on intake and milk production and does not work for corn silage. For the past few years, we have been working on improving the adjustment for forage quality and have recently developed an adjustment based on in vitro NDF digestibility (IVNDFD). This adjustment should work for legumes, grasses, mixtures, and corn silage. The basic procedure is you first calculate the price of the forage based on nutrient prices:

    (Mcal of NEL/ton x $/Mcal) + (lb of MP/ton x $/lb of MP) + (lb of NDF/ton x $/lb of effective NDF)

    Note: For forages, all NDF is assumed to be effective.

    Current nutrient prices can be found in the article on nutrient prices. The nutrient value is then adjusted up or down using its relative IVNDFD. Based on a relationship first published by Michigan State University, increasing IVNDFD 1 percentage unit is expected to increase DMI by about 0.26 lb/day and fat-corrected milk by 0.5 lb/day. The economic value of that change depends on feed and milk prices (i.e., an increase in IVNDFD is more valuable when milk is expensive and feed is cheap and less valuable when feed is expensive and milk is cheap). We developed factors to adjust forage price based on milk and feed prices (see Table 1). The IVNDFD correction is based on change, not on the absolute number. Therefore, you need to compare the sample IVNDFD you obtained from a lab to a standard. At this time, we are using the lab mean as the standard. You should be able to obtain mean values from the lab you are using. The mean must be for the specific forage you are using (e.g., corn silage, legume forage, or grass forage) and ideally from the same lab that you used to assay your sample. It does not matter whether you use 30- or 48-hour IVNDFD, but the mean and your assayed value must be from the same time point. After you get both numbers (lab mean and sample value), calculate the difference (Sample – mean). Then pick the appropriate number from Table 1 based on current milk and feed prices, and multiple by the difference. The number can be positive or negative. The resulting value is the quality adjustment per ton of dry matter for the forage.

    As an example, you have a corn silage sample with 35% NDF, 4.6% MP (for forages, MP = 0.57 x CP) and 0.66 Mcal NEL/lb. Using nutrient prices published in this edition of Buckeye Dairy News ($0.13/Mcal NEL, $0.33/lb MP, and $0.056/lb eNDF), the predicted nutrient value of that silage is $241/ton of DM or $84/ton as-fed at 35% DM. If your silage had an IVNDFD (30 hours) of 49% and the lab average IVNDFD (30 hours) is 53%, then the difference is -4. Assuming a milk price of $17/cwt and feed DM price of $10/cwt, the adjustment factor (Table 1) is 5.4. Multiple 5.4 by -4, obtaining -$21.6/ton of DM. After adjusting for expected production differences, the corn silage would be worth $219/ton of DM ($241/ton - $22/ton) or $77/ton as-fed at 35% DM. The procedure is the same for all forages.

    Table 1. Quality adjustment factors ($/ton of DM) for forages based on IVNDFD.1

    Feed price, $/cwt DM
    Milk price,  $/cwt
    $14 $17 $20 $23
    $8 4.5 5.8 7.2 8.6
    $10 4.0 5.4 6.7 8.1
    $12 3.5 4.9 6.3 7.6

    1 To obtain quality adjustment, calculate the difference between your sample IVNDFD and lab average and multiply that value by the appropriate number in the table. The resulting number is added (or subtracted) from the nutrient value of the forage. A limitation of this method is that it assumes cows are fed 20 lb of DM of the forage (this was about the mean inclusion rate from the Michigan State work). However, at low inclusion rates, our method may over value the effect of forage quality.




  3. Protein and Amino Acid Nutrition of Fresh Cows

    Dr. Alex Tebbe, Former PhD student (currently Dairy Consultant for Purina Animal Nutrition) and Dr. Bill Weiss, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    We recently completed a trial evaluating how dietary protein and amino acid supplementation affected production during the first 3 or 4 weeks of lactation and to determine how production was affected after treatments stopped (i.e., carry-over effects). The forage in the diets was a blend of about 68% corn silage and 32% alfalfa. The control diet (CONT) contained 17% crude protein (CP) and the concentrate was mostly corn grain and soybean meal. The second treatment (SOY) contained 20% CP with the additional protein coming mostly from treated soybean meal . The third diet (BLEND) also contained 20% CP but the additional CP came from a blend of soybean meal, treated canola meal, corn gluten meal, and rumen protected amino acids (the amino acid profile was formulated to mimic that of casein). The experiment contained another treatment that included several byproducts, but it will not be discussed in this article. When we increased CP in SOY and BLEND, we removed some corn grain and soybean hulls. All diets contained supplemental methionine from a rumen protected source. Cows were fed the treatment diets starting immediately after calving and continued until 25 days in milk, at which time all cows were switched to a typical high cow diet until 92 days in milk. We evaluated diet effects on both first lactation animals and older cows. The major findings were:

    1. Both first lactation and older animals consumed more dry matter during the first 25 days of lactation when fed BLEND compared to the SOY
    2. Feeding 20% CP in the fresh period increased energy corrected milk (ECM) for both first lactation and older cows compared to CONT, but source of the extra protein did matter.
    3. During the carryover period (all cows were fed the same diet), first lactation cows that were fed the 20% CP during the fresh period produced similar amounts of ECM as cows fed CONT during the fresh period. For mature cows, feeding the SOY treatment may have reduced ECM yield during carryover, whereas feeding the BLEND increased ECM during carry over period.  

    The bottom line is that feeding a high protein diet (20% CP) with a good balance of amino acids for the first 25 days of lactation results in more ECM during the first 92 days of lactation than feeding a 20% protein diet not balanced for amino acids or feeding a diet with 17% CP during the fresh period.  For first lactation cows, fresh cow treatment did not have significant effects on ECM yields across the first 92 days in milk. Detailed information on this experiment can be found in an upcoming Journal of Dairy Science article (accepted for publication on November 18, 2020).

  4. Form 1099-NEC Now Used to Report Non-Employee Compensation

    Dr. David L. Marrison, Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Coshocton County, The Ohio State University

    (Source: go.osu.edu/1099-nec)

    2020 has been a year of change and this holds true for tax management. Farm and agribusiness managers will need to be aware that significant changes have been instituted with regards to reporting non-employee compensation. The goal of this article is to share details on the return of IRS Form 1099-NEC and how it should be used instead of the IRS Form 1099-MISC when reporting compensation for nonemployees.

    FORM 1099-NEC

    Starting in tax year 2020, Form 1099-NEC will be used to report compensation totaling more than $600 (per year) paid to a non-employee for certain services performed for your business. 

    Previously, business owners would file Form 1099-MISC to report non-employee compensation (in box 7). Now, this compensation is to be listed in Box 1 on the 1099-NEC.  It should be noted that Form 1099-NEC was previously used by the IRS until 1982 when the IRS added box 7 to Form 1099-MISC and discontinued the 1099-NEC form.

    If the following four conditions are met, you must generally report a payment as non-employee compensation on Form 1099-NEC:

    1. You made the payment to someone who is not your employee;
    2. You made the payment for services in the course of your trade or business (including government agencies and non-profit organizations);
    3. You made the payment to an individual, partnership, estate, or in some cases, a corporation; and
    4. You made payments to the payee of at least $600 during the year.

    Examples of “non-employee compensation” could include hiring a neighboring farmer to harvest, spray, or plant your crops or independent contractors, such as crop consultants, mechanics, accountants, and veterinarians.  Payment for parts or materials used to perform the service (if supplying the parts or materials was incidental to providing the service) is included in the amount reported as non-employee compensation.

    Reporting is needed for payments made to unincorporated businesses (i.e., sole proprietorship or LLC) in excess of $600. Generally, payments to a corporation do not require a 1099-NEC to be issued or payments made to LLC which have elected to be taxed as a corporation.  One exception that should be noted is that payments over $600 to an attorney, regardless of business entity (corporation or unincorporated), need to be reported on the Form 1099-NEC.

    A Form 1099-NEC can be issued even if the payment is below the $600 threshold or is to a party that you are in doubt as to whether you are required to issue this informational return. There are no prohibitions or penalties for doing this. 

    If you are required to file a Form 1099-NEC, you must furnish a statement to the recipient and to the IRS by January 31 of each year or the next business day, if the due date is on a weekend or holiday.  For the tax reporting year of 2020, the form is due February 1, 2021.

    Why the Change?

    The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015 accelerated the due date for filing 1099 forms that include non-employee compensation from February 28 to January 30 and eliminated the automatic 30-day extension for forms that included non-employee compensation. This created a situation where there were two deadlines for the same form. Separating the non-employee compensation from the 1099-MISC to the 1099-NEC is expected to reduce fraud and to avoid fines for late filing.

    Form 1099-MISC

    The Form 1099-MISC will still be used to report a variety of income payments made to others.  These include, but are not limited to:

    • At least $10 in royalties (box 2) or broker payments in lieu of dividends or tax-exempt interest (box 8)
    • At least $600 in:
      • Rents (box 1)
      • Prizes and awards (box 3)
      • Medical and health care payments (box 6)
      • Crop Insurance proceeds (box 9)

    The 1099-MISC forms must be to the recipient by January 31 but remain under the old filing deadline to the IRS of February 28 or in the case of e-filed returns March 31. 


    If you fail to file a correct information return by the due date (to the IRS or service provider) and you cannot show reasonable cause, you may be subject to a penalty. 

    The amount of the penalty for not correctly filing a 1099 form is based on when you file the corrected return. The penalties can be significant.  More details can found at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099gi.pdf

    IRS Forms

    Producers can view the instructions for completing IRS Form 1099-NEC and 1099-MISC at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1099msc--2020.pdf

    The 1099-NEC can be accessed at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099nec.pdf

    The 1099-MISC can be accessed at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099msc.pdf


    The information provided in this article is for educational purposes.  This article was designed to provide accurate tax education information.  Farm managers are encouraged to seek the assistance of a qualified tax professional with the completion of their taxes.

  5. Dairy Labor Certificate Course Sponsored by Ohio State University Extension

    Dr. Chris Zoller, Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Tuscarawas County, The Ohio State University

    Dairy farm labor is one of the major costs of production, and farm labor is regularly described as an area of concern by dairy farmers. Therefore, Ohio State University is providing a certificate course to assist dairy farm owners and managers with labor management on farms. This course will provide opportunities for participants to examine labor costs, define labor needs, examine hiring processes, promote relationships among farm workers, increase retention, and identify ways to promote employee well-being.


    This five-week course will be held weekly on Tuesdays from 12:30 to 2:00 pm in January and February 2021. All attendees will be registered with ScarletCanvas, an online platform by The Ohio State University. Materials relative to each topic will be posted there for use by attendees. Because of its virtual format, you do not have to travel to participate and learn very important topics by experts in the dairy and associated industries.  Presenters from Ohio State University Extension, Michigan State University Extension, Iowa State University Extension, Cornell University Extension, and private industry will teach the program. Weekly assignments will be given, and interactive discussion will be important for the success of the program. Certificates will be provided to participants completing this program.

    Dates and Topics

    • January 12, 2021
      • Labor Management Benchmarks
      • So, You Need to Hire Someone – Developing the job description  
    • January 19, 2021
      • Recruiting Employees
      • Immigrate Labor
    • January 26, 2021
      • Conducting an Interview 
      • You’re Hired, now what? Building Success from Day One
    • February 2, 2021
      • Building Long-Term Relationships and Team Meetings
      • Conflict Management
    • February 9, 2021
      • Labor Laws
      • Farm Safety

    Registration Details

    The cost of the program is $75 per person and is limited to the first 30 people who register. For additional information, please see https://dairy.osu.edu/ or contact Chris Zoller, OSU Extension Educator, at 330-827-0249.  Registration deadline is Friday, December 18.

    (This article was originally published in Farm and Dairy)

  6. Dairy Cattle Welfare Webinar Series

    Dr. Gustavo M. Schuenemann, Professor and Dairy Extension Specialist and Dr. Jeff D. Workman, Veterinary Extension Program Coordinator, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

    Consumers today have a strong interest in where their food comes from, including how food animals are raised and handled. To help build consumer trust in dairy products, the Dairy Cattle Welfare Council (DCWC) is pleased to offer a webinar series. The webinars feature top-rated topics from previous DCWC Annual Symposiums, as well as other pertinent subject areas.

    The live educational sessions are available at no cost to attendees from around the world, but you must register. Visit the following link https://www.dcwcouncil.org/webinar-series and click on the blue icon “Register Here”.

    There are several recoded webinars, but past recordings are only available to active members of the DCWC (annual membership dues are $50, see membership information). All recoded presentations have the closed caption feature with CC capable in Spanish, French, etc. Continuing Education Credit is awarded on an hour-per-hour basis.  Please contact DCWCouncil@gmail.com to request Veterinary CE documentation.

    The next upcoming webinar listed below will be held on December 9, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time:

    • "Transgenerational effects of late-gestation heat stress" by Dr. Jimena Laporta, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin

    For a complete list of previously recorded webinars, please visit https://www.dcwcouncil.org/webinar-series 

  7. 2021 Pasture for Profit Schools

    Dr. Mark Sulc, Professor, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, and Ms. Christine Gelley, Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Noble County, The Ohio State University

    Pasture for Profit schools will be offered between January and March in 2021. Members of the OSU Forage Team, educators from the former Buckeye Hills EERA and beyond, and board members of the Ohio Forage and Grassland Council will offer the Pasture for Profit curriculum as a virtual course. One live webinar will be offered per month pairing “work at your own pace” videos and exercises with each webinar. The schedule is shown below.

    • Webinar One- Core Grazing Education: 90 minutes | Wed., January 13th | 7 p.m.
      • Evaluating Resources and Goal Setting (30 minutes)
      • Getting Started Grazing (30 minutes)
      • Soil Fertility (30 minutes)
    • Webinar Two- The Science of Grazing: 90 minutes | Wed., February 3rd | 7 p.m.
      • Understanding Plant Growth (30 minutes)
      • Fencing and Water Systems (30 minutes)
      • Meeting Animal Requirements on Pasture (30 minutes)
    • Webinar Three- Meeting Grazing Goals: 90 minutes | Wed., March 3rd| 7 p.m.
      • Pasture Weed Control (30 minutes)
      • Economics of Grazing (30 minutes)                                                    
      • Creating and Implementing Grazing Plans (30 minutes)

    A series of additional videos that complement each webinar will be accessible to registered participants. The videos will focus on more specific pasture management topics at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced manager levels.

    Look for registration details soon at https://forages.osu.edu/.

  8. Collegiate Dairy Judging Goes Virtual

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

    As the powerhouse cow shows of the United States fell like dominoes, so did our opportunities for dairy judging contests. Without contests, some could assume that we would give in to the 2020 trauma. I am pleased to let you know that we did sustain dairy judging. As a small group and outside at farms, we made provisions to practice and learn. Since July, some of us coaches kept discussing an online contest using classes at livetockjudging.com. Was it perfect and like real cows? Absolutely not, but we did come together to offer a secondary approach to students who have been waiting and planning for their opportunity. Instead of shavings stuck in their shoes, they dressed up and stepped closer to the screens of their computers. With the same officials and volunteers used at our traditional contests, the Virtual Contest made history. As the results were posted, 13 teams and a host of individuals earned their respective rankings. 

    Ohio State participants included Deanna Langenkamp, Preston Sheets, Lindsey L’Amoreaux, Sarah Quallen, and Sydney Good. Our team finished 5th overall and 5th in reasons. However, we were 3rd in placings and 3rd in the Holstein breed. Sarah had a good day as she was 3rd in placings, 5th overall, and 10th in reasons. The future is promising and especially for Deanna who will be graduating in the spring of 2021.

    Follow us on Facebook, The Ohio State University Dairy Judging Teams.

    As far as other youth news, we ARE planning Dairy Palooza for 2021. The committee is developing plans and educational opportunities for April 24 at the Canfield Fairgrounds.

  9. Zooming in on the 2020 Ohio Dairy Challenge

    Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Due to the COVID-19 situation, the 2020 Ohio Dairy Challenge was held a little differently than in previous years. The program was held virtually during November 18-21, whereby herd records, pictures, videos, farm map, a farmer questionnaire, and feeding information were provided to students on Wednesday pm when students could begin evaluating the information. On Friday afternoon at 2:00 pm, a Zoom meeting was held with the farmer for the students to ask questions about the operation. Students had to turn in their presentations by 11:00 pm on Friday evening and they were judged via Zoom by a panel of judges on Saturday morning. The program this year was sponsored by ADM Animal Nutrition, Provimi North America, Purina Animal Nutrition, ST Genetics, Biomin, and Coloquick. Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped generally into teams of three to four individuals. The farm selected for the contest this year was the Sterling Heights Dairy in Sterling, OH owned by Jim, Anne, Matt, and Mark Saal. The family’s operation includes about 1100 cows that are housed and milked on two farms and another farm is used for raising heifers. They milk most of the cows 3x with at RHA of milk at 29,022 lb, 3.8% milk fat and 3.2% milk protein. There were about 50 students (10 students from ATI, 5 students from Wilmington College, and 35 students from the Columbus campus) that participated in the program this year. During the Saturday presentations, the students had 20 minutes to present their findings and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the program this year (Figure 1) were Bob Hostetler (ST Genetics), Alan Chestnut (Cargill/Provimi), Larissa Deikun (Coloquick), Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), Brian Lammers (ADM Animal Nutrition), Alex Tebbe (Purina Animal Nutrition), Shaun Wellert (Veterinarian and Instructor at ATI), and Benjamin Wenner (Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences). The top team consisted of Paul Bensman, Amanda Nall, Caleb Rykaczewski, and Laura Tavera from the OSU Columbus campus. The second placed team consisted of Sydney Good, Holly Schmenk, Joshua Strine, and Ashley Stroud from the OSU Columbus campus. In addition, an ATI team received an honorable mention that consisted of Mason Benschoter, Alexis Czarny, and Grace Maurer. Students will be selected to represent Ohio State at the National Contest and to participate in the Dairy Challenge Academy to be held April 15-17, 2021, most likely in a virtual format. Students from ATI participated in the Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge held virtually during October 29-30, 2020. Students from The Ohio State University, Columbus campus and Wilmington College will be participating in the Midwest Regional Dairy Challenge to be held virtually during February 16 through March 2, 2021. This program is being hosted by Ohio State, Purdue, and Michigan State. The coach for the Dairy Challenge program at ATI is Dr. Shaun Wellert, Daryl Nash at Wilmington College, and Dr. Maurice Eastridge for the OSU Columbus campus. Additional information about the North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge program can be found at: http://www.dairychallenge.org/

    Figure 1. Judges for the 2020 Ohio Dairy Challenge: Top row – Larissa Deikun (Coloquick), Maurice Eastridge (OSU), Brian Lammers (ADM); Middle row – Shaun Wellert (ATI), Bob Hostetler (ST Genetics) and Allan Chestnut (Provimi); and bottom row – Ben Wenner (OSU) and Alex Tebbe (Purina Animal Nutrition).