Buckeye Dairy News: VOLUME 26: ISSUE 2

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

Dairy margin coverage (DMC) sign-up is currently underway at your local Farm Service Agency (FSA) office through April 29^th. The DMC program provided about $2.80/cwt of support in 2023 for the first 5 million pounds of milk production history if producers enrolled at the $9.50/cwt margin level. Farms received 2 months of catastrophic payments when the margin fell below $4/cwt. Figure 1 shows the actual program margin from January 2021 through January 2024 with the projection for 2024. Over the past 3 years, the DMC program when enrolled at a $9.50/cwt margin more than covered the total program premium. All current indications are for stronger milk prices in 2024 and lower feed costs; however, risk management is still critical. For tier-one coverage, there is currently a guaranteed margin payout for January and February totaling almost 60% of the program premium. While March and the rest of 2024 is projected to have margins above the $9.50/cwt level, many different domestic or international events could affect this projection by either increasing feed costs or lowering milk price. As a risk management strategy against either one of these two events, the DMC program is a very useful tool for producers. Also during the 2024 sign up, producers have the option to make a one-time adjustment to their established production to include the supplement coverage they may have had based on their 2019 production history. Figure 1. Actual and forecasted dairy margin coverage.

In March, USDA raised the 2024 all-milk price forecast to $21.25/cwt with a reduced domestic supply and continued strong domestic demand. Butter prices are staying strong and cheddar cheese prices have had gains recently with a 2 cents yearly price projection increase. The current 2024 Class IV price forecast is $20.10/cwt. Class IV milk prices decreased recently due to a lower nonfat dry milk price forecast with weaker international demand, even though butter prices have increased. The Class III milk price forecast has increased to $17.15/cwt on stronger cheddar cheese prices, even though the whey price forecast has been lowered with weaker international demand.

The US dairy herd continued to shrink in January of 2024 by about 23,000 head compared to December 2023 or 76,000 head less than the year prior in January of 2023. Heifer inventories do not show a rapid recovery in cow numbers in 2024, but a slow recovery my begin late in 2024. Monthly milk production fluctuates in a cycle each year with January production increasing over December production and setting the production trend for the year as season herds and the spring flush begins. The January 2024 milk production was 7 lb/hd head lower than January 2023, leading to a projected lower yearly production per cow. Milk solids concentrations have been steadily increasing as shown in Figure 2. Milk fat percentage has increased 0.35% in January since 2018 when the average was 4% and in 2024 was 4.35%. The higher concentration of milk solids (fat, protein, lactose and minerals) increases processor efficiency by decreasing the amount of raw milk needed. Thus, milk with higher components is more valuable per cwt. Figure 2. Percentages of milk fat and solids from 2018 to 2024.

U.S. milk prices are being supported by strong domestic demand; however, our dairy products are less competitive on the international market. Our strong domestic demand for butter products lead to a 68 million pound import increase in January 2024 over January 2023. While we are also still exporting milk fat products, the 2024 export volume is projected to be 11.1 billion pounds on a milk fat basis, which is lower than 2023 exports. US dairy products are projected to lack price competitiveness in 2024 on the international market. The international market is also projected to continue to have weaker demand. These two factors will weigh on US milk prices throughout 2024.

With the first quarter of 2024 coming to a close, hopefully you have reviewed your entire 2023 cost of product to look for areas to improve cost control. Now is also a good time to review your cost of production for 2024 and improve your cost controls as you can begin to project home-grown feed costs for the year. As you look over your farm’s data, be sure to evaluate if your milk solids are keeping up with national trends of more dense milk. If your milk fat and non-milk fat solids have not increased from 2018 levels, it is time to investigate why. There are many reasons why milk fat may not be increasing, including nutrition, genetics, or even facilities. Reviewing your production and economic data at least quarterly can improve farm profitability for 2024.

Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, Ohio State University Extension

As soil temperatures rise and the chances of a morning frost decline, the window to spring-establish forages is open. In the spring, the combination of weather and plenty to do make planting opportunities scarce. To take advantage of those short planting windows, the following are items to consider to improve chances for a successful forage establishment this spring.

1. Soil Fertility and pH: Set up your forages with the best starting conditions you can by providing sufficient available nutrients and a soil pH that allows for those nutrients to be taken up. Follow the Tri-state Soil Fertility Recommendations (https://forages.osu.edu/forage-management/soil-fertility-forages). Phosphorus levels for grass are optimal in the 20-40 ppm range, while the range for legumes is 30-50 ppm. When it comes to potassium, the optimal range is 100-130 ppm for sandy soils with a cation exchange capacity (CEC) less than 5; for loam and clay soils with a CEC greater than 5, the range is 120-170 ppm. No matter the nutrients in the soil, if pH isn’t taken care of the forage will not be as productive. Most forages are productive at a pH above 6.0, but for alfalfa, a pH of 6.5-6.8 is necessary, and if the pH is below that, it is worth considering pushing alfalfa establishment to the late summer planting window and applying lime and maybe planting an annual grass for forage in the interim. As for nitrogen fertilization, an application of 30 lb/acre of starter nitrogen for pure cool-season grass stands or 10-20 lb/acre for grass-legume mixes can help with seedling vigor in low-nitrogen soils.

2. Weed Control: Prior to forage establishment, weed control is important to lower potential competition throughout the lifespan of a stand. Weeds can choke out and limit forage establishment, and once a forage is established, the option to control weeds is reduced. Decisions can be made in the selection of the field for establishment to avoid areas where there are known weed problems. Chemical control can be used to manage a variety of weeds, but be sure to take extra caution to follow replant intervals. Another option for weed control and a good practice for particularly competitive perennial weeds is a tillage pass. 

3. Prepared Seedbed: Planting into a well-prepared seedbed improves seedling germination and uniformity. For conventional systems, an ideal seedbed is firm, smooth, clod-free, and weed-free. As soon as soils are fit, prepare seedbeds for plants, but be careful to not overwork soils depleting soil moisture and increasing the risk of soil crusting following a rain event. When seeding in a tilled seed bed, drills with press wheels are best to ensure good seed-to-soil contact. Excellent tools to firm soil to improve seed-to-soil contact are cultipackers and cultimulchers. Where erosion is a concern in no-till systems, or if there is residue over 35%, the use of a no-till drill is recommended. No-till forage establishment is most successful in silt loam soils and soils that are well-draining. Timing for seedbed prep should be based more on conditions than the calendar, so be sure tillage equipment is ready to go early.  
4. Seed Selection: Select a high-quality and reputable seed variety. Be sure that the seed used has good germination for a relatively recent germination test and that the variety is well suited to our region. The forage stand is a multiyear crop, so planting “common” seed (variety not stated) usually proves to be a very poor investment, yielding less even in the first or second year and having shorter stand life.

5. Companion Crops: Select forages and forage mixes that will meet desired production. Direct seedings without a companion crop will allow for 2-3 high-quality harvests in a successfully established seeding year. If looking to increase forage tonnage in the first year of a forage crop, a small grain companion crop can be successful. Companion crops have the added benefits of erosion protection and weed competition in susceptible fields. Important considerations with companion crops to not out-compete the perennial forage are: (i) select an early maturing, stiff strawed variety so other forages are not smothered, (ii) plant companion small grains at 1.5-2.0 bu/acre, (iii) remove companion crop as pasture or silage in the early boot stage to limit competition, and (iv) do not apply additional nitrogen to the companion crop.  
6. Timing of Planting: The recommended spring planting window for forages in Ohio is mid-March to mid to late April for southern Ohio and late March to early May for northern Ohio. Warm-season forages and annual forages can effectively be established later in the growing season (reference the Ohio Agronomy Guide for species-specific planting windows). Timely planting allows for forages to be established before the environmental stresses of summer and allows forages to better compete with weeds. Later forage planting can struggle to establish lowering the potential yield and lowering quality due to a large presence of weeds. If spring planting is delayed, consider planting a summer annual and waiting to establish a perennial forage in August.  With the warmer than normal February and March we had this year, soil temperatures and spring green up are nearly two weeks ahead of schedule, which means weed germination is also, and we should plan accordingly, as May 1 might be too late this year.
7. Seeding Rate: Forage seeds can vary in size, shape, and whether or not they are coated. Getting an accurate seeding rate can be difficult, particularly with mixes. Take the time to calibrate seeders ahead of time. The seeding rate is important to establish a uniform stand that is productive and competitive with weeds. An excellent resource for calibration is the video “Drill Calibration” at https://forages.osu.edu/video/.  If mixing grass seed with alfalfa seed, have it professionally blended by the seed supplier if possible, and ask them for any information they may have on drill settings, and seeding rates.  If you cannot have it pre-blended, consider planting it separately to ensure the accuracy of seeding rate.  If you do plan to drop mixed seed through a drill, calibration is a must and will vary so plan accordingly and be sure to test your drop rate.
8. Seeding Depth: Forages are small-seeded crops, so plant depth is very important for uniform establishment. A seeding depth of 1/4 to 1/2 inch deep with good seed-to-soil contact is optimal for most forage species and soil types. In sandy soils, a depth of 1/2 to 3/4 inch may be appropriate. Be sure to check the actual planting depth when first planting and if any field conditions change. Take particular note in no-till fields and with no-till drills to ensure seeding depth accuracy. In our experience, visibility of up to 25% of the seed on the surface, or in the seed slot but uncovered behind the drill indicates that most seeds are at the proper depth.  Tender legume seedlings will have a very hard time reaching the soil surface if they germinate too deep, especially on heavier soils where any amount of crusting may take place following planting. 

9. Post Planting Scouting: The first 2 months of a newly established forage are critical for the longevity and long-term production of a stand. Early weed competition is most detrimental to an establishing forage stand. When looking to control a weed problem, for post-emergence application, be sure to double-check the label to not harm forage seedlings. A similar concern is present with insect pests like potato leafhopper damaging legumes as soon as late May to early June. Even in established forages, it is best to scout for pests yearly when each pest is seasonally present.
10. Harvest Management: Unless there is weed or pest pressure, it is ideal to delay the first harvest of a new seeding until early flowering for legumes. For first harvest of pure grass stands, harvest depends on stand vigor and weather conditions; grasses for the most part establish slower than legumes and 70 days after planting is generally the timing for the first harvest. If the harvest method is grazing, take extra precautions to limit trampling damage. If there is a weed problem, clipping may be necessary to prevent weed seed production.

Dr. Carl Zulauf, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, The Ohio State University and Dr. Gary Schnitkey, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois¹

The exit of dairy operations since 2017 has attracted considerable attention (see, for example, MacDonald, J. M., J. Law, and R. Mosheim, July 2020). The 2022 Census of Agriculture confirms a profound decline, even within the context of the long-standing decline in dairy herds. The economic pressure for fewer dairy herds is abating but remains notable.  An important question is, “What role did current dairy policy play in the post-2017 consolidation?”

Dairy Farms:  According to the 2022 Census, 24,094 US farms sold milk during 2022 (see Figure 1).  The largest number of dairy farms with milk sales had 50-99 cows. 

Another 11,942 farms had milk cows on December 31, 2022 but had not sold any milk during 2022.  Of these farms, 97% had less than 10 cows. 
Milk Sales: In 2022, the 2,013 farms with 1,000 or more cows accounted for 66% of all US milk sales (see Figures 1 and 2). The comparable share was 57% in 2017.
Dairy Farm Transition, 2017-2022: Fewer US farms sold milk in 2022 than 2017 at all herd sizes except those with 2,500 or more cows (see Figure 3). The latter increased from 714 to 834 farms.  Herds of 20-49 cows declined the most on a percentage basis, followed by herds of 50-99, 10-19, and 10-199. In total, 39% fewer US farms sold milk in 2022 than 2017.  
Dairy Farm Transition, Historical Perspective: The -39% decline in all US farms that sold milk between the 2017 and 2022 Census of Agriculture was the largest decline between adjacent Census dating back to the 1982 Census (see Figure 4). The next largest declines were -27% between the 2007 and 2012 Census and -26% between the 1992 and 1997 Census.  Large percentage declines in US dairy farms have been an on-going story, but the most recent decline stands out.
A question that emerges from Figure 4 is, “What caused higher exits from dairy farming during 2017-2022?” One factor was huge losses occurring over an extended period of time.  Since the decision to exit (and enter) dairy farming is a strategic investment decision, a 10-year sum was calculated of the net return above the economic cost of producing milk as computed by USDA, ERS (US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service). The 10-year sum starts with 1989 because 1980 was the first year USDA, ERS published the cost of producing milk.  An economic cost includes a cost assigned to unpaid labor and farm-produced feeds.

The cumulative 10 year net return to economic cost has been less than -$10/cwt since 1998 and less than -$30/cwt from 2009 through 2018 (see Figure 5). The largest 10-year losses were -$37/cwt in 2013 and -$36/cwt in 2015.  Since 2015, 10-year losses have declined almost 50%, equaling -$19/cwt in 2022.
Additional perspective is gained when Figure 4 is combined with the large economies of size that exist in US milk production (see Figure 6).  Economies of size are much greater for non-feed than feed cost.  Over 2016-2022, highest and lowest feed cost differ by $2.50/cwt ($12.87 - $10.37) but by $19.59 for non-feed cost ($27.96 - $8.37).  The large economies of size mean financial pressure from low returns to producing milk is much more acute for smaller herds, as the larger percent decline in smaller dairy herds between 2017 and 2022 illustrate (see Figure 3).  An interesting feature of the economies of size relationship is that non-feed exceed feed cost for herds of less than 1000 cows while the opposite is observed for herds of more than 1000 cows and especially herds of more than 2000 cows.

The large difference in the relative roles of feed and non-feed cost across herd size is consistent with the large difference in feed cost’s role in year-to-year changes in total cost across herd size. The difference between year-to-year change in feed cost and total cost per cwt has been minimal for herds of 2000 or more cows since 2015 (see Figure 7). In other words, feed cost accounted for most of the year-to-year change in total cost for the herds. As herd size declines, the difference between the average year-to-year change in feed and total cost becomes larger, implying that the year-to-year change in feed cost explain less of the year-to-year change in total cost. It is important to note that considerable variation exists across years in the relationship between year-to-year changes in feed cost and total cost for a given herd size.

The relationship between feed cost and total cost has policy significance. The 2014 farm bill authorized a Dairy Margin Protection Program that made payments when the margin difference between the US average all milk price received by farms and the cost of feeds (corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa) was below a specified value. The 2018 farm bill renamed the program, Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC). Many payment parameters and calculations used in the formula were modified, but the basic policy design was retained. For a brief but longer history of US dairy policy, see the discussion in the farmdoc daily of November 22, 2021.

Discussion: 

Even relative to the notable historical decline in US dairy herds over the last 50 years, the decline between the 2017 and 2022 Census of Agriculture was large. 

A likely important factor underpinning the sizable decline between 2017 and 2022 is US dairy sector financial stress that dates to the turn of the 21^st Century. Dairy sector financial stress is likely abating but still remains notable.

Another likely important factor is the sizeable economies of size that exist in producing milk. They exacerbate sector financial stress for all but the largest dairy herds. 

The sizeable economies of size are largely due to non-feed cost per cwt of milk produced. Given the large difference in non-feed cost per cwt across dairy herds, it is not surprising that changes in feed cost per cwt have a much larger role in changes in total cost per cwt for larger dairy farms. 

The preceding point suggests a program that bases dairy policy payments on the milk price-feed cost margin, such as the current DMC program, is likely to provide the most protection against lower milk profitability for the largest dairy farms, although it is important to note that quantity of milk that can receive a DMC payment is capped.

If policy deliberations come to the conclusion that dairy policy should be more attentive to the financial stress on smaller dairy farms, policy options include the following:

1. Scale DMC payments by the ratio of non-feed costs to feed costs for a given size dairy herd. In essence, DMC payment per cwt could be higher than 100% for smaller dairy herds.
2. Create a new payment program based on non-feed cost per cwt.
3. Make a per cow payment for a limited number of cows per dairy operation. Because implementing payment limits of any type is difficult since farms rearrange their operation to qualify for payments, a payment per cow could be made to all dairy farms up to the given number of cows. Smaller dairy farms would however receive the most benefit since a larger share of their cows would qualify for a payment.

None of these policy options would change current DMC payment calculations.

¹This article was reprinted from: Zulauf, C. and G. Schnitkey. "US Dairy Herds and Policy and the 2022 Census of Agriculture" farmdoc daily (14):38, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, February 23, 2024.

References

MacDonald, J.M., J. Law, and R. Mosheim. July 2020. Consolidation in U.S. Dairy Farming. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service ERR-274.

The National Agricultural Law Center. February 2024. United States Farm Bills.  https://nationalaglawcenter.org/farmbills/

US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.  February 2024.  Commodity Costs and Returns.  October.  https://www.ers.U.S.da.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns.aspx

Zulauf, C., G. Schnitkey, K. Swanson, and N. Paulson.  November 22, 2021.  US Dairy Market and Policy Overview.  farmdoc daily (11):158.  Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  November 22, 2021.  http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/

Dr. Dwight Roseler, Adjunct Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The dairy farmer will look over the cow pen and notice the cows are bunched up and huddled into a big group. The farmer scratches his head and asks, “Why do cows congregate into a group?” They were not like that before. Unsure of what to do, he gets in the pen and separates the cows, only to find the same group of cows a couple hours later all bunched up again.  

I know dairy farmers that have a “cow whisperer” ability. They observe cows keenly and can tell what their cows are thinking! In my many years of dairy consulting, I have observed some unusual bunching behavior of dairy cows in well managed and comfortable barns. I enjoy watching cows and have learned to be a keen observer of dairy cows. My teachers of cow behavior have been my livestock and my “cow whisperer” farmer clients. 

A first question to ask is, “Why does it matter that cows bunch together?” When cows bunch together, it compromises production, health, and welfare of the animals. Bunching increases heat stress of the affected cows, increases standing, splashes manure on the udder, and elevates stress hormones. These changes increase risk of lameness, reduces ruminations and feed intake, and results in subsequent loss in milk production that is lower in milk fat. 

Dairy farmers provide their cows with quality feed, housing, stalls, and environment. The cows are their livelihood, and their best care is top priority. They remove stressors, and cows then perform to their genetic potential. Cows under stress do not perform well. Bunching of cows is an indicator of some external stressor not initiated or solicitated by the farmer. Why do cow’s bunch in well managed and comfortable barns?

Cow Behavior 

Cows were created with a four chambered stomach to consume grass and bunch together as a herd. Herd animals stay together as a group with a social dominance structure.  The dominant “boss cow” will direct the herd with subordinate followers. Cows, sheep, and wild animals, including deer, zebra, and a favorite, the wildebeest, are ruminant prey animals. Prey animals are a source of food for predator animals, like lions and cheetahs. Prey animals will congregate together in herds or bunches for protection and survival. In the wild, the wildebeest grazing on the African safari grass will bunch together as a predator cheetah approaches the herd.  This is a truly amazing nature sight to behold in person. The catch is exhilarating to watch, but not for the prey. We don’t have cheetahs in our dairy barns as a threat to our cows, but the response to stress is similar – bunch together! Cows will bunch together when under stress because of their God designed instincts. 

Bunching can occur in well managed barns as a result of stress of social interactions, environmental stress, flies, electrical stimuli like stray voltage, or limited access to feed or water. A brief review of these factors that cause cows to bunch and possible solutions will follow. Read along and learn.  

Social Interactions     

Cows reside in herds where a unique social dominance hierarchy exists in each herd. The “boss cow” is the one that gets her way with whatever she desires. First in the parlor, first to the feed bunk, the clean free stall, and she will dictate her preferences with head butting, ear twitching, and tail movement responses. The lower social order cows are typically the first calf heifer that recently calved. Social stress will cause cows to retreat and bunch up. Research has proven that first calf heifers when housed in a separate pen from older cows will perform better. This is partly due to less social distress. If your facilities allow, a separate first calf heifer group is beneficial. Social hierarchy and conflict are most significant in pens of milking cows of all ages when the pen size is 150 cows or less. Automated milking dairy farms with all cows in same pen will observe more social dominant stressors and potential bunching. As a farm manager, do not overcrowd pens, especially with automated milking systems. 

Environmental Temperature 

Cow bunching can start with as few as three to five cows that are initially stressed, and as environmental temperatures increase, more cows are affected and the bunching group grows in size. Research and time-lapse camera observations would indicate that the most frequent time to observe bunching is 3:00 to 8:00 pm. The initial bunching can start when temperatures are at 68 degrees F or higher. This often can occur in May in the US eastern corn belt. Walk your barns during late afternoon each day and be a “cow whisperer”. What are your cows telling you? If they are standing more and bunching even in small groups or standing near a waterer or drinker, then evaluate the factors that impact bunching. Ask a qualified ventilation technician or cow comfort specialist to conduct an air flow and cow comfort audit to identify areas of each barn that are not properly ventilated or designed. Intervene as soon as bunching occurs, as once cows start to bunch, it is difficult to untrain them.

Microclimates   

The external perimeter of the barn can also impact the internal barn environment. A California dairy study from 20 large dairy farms indicated that crops grown adjacent to free stall barns can elevate potential for cow bunching. Trim weeds and brush growing near free stall barns and do not plant corn crops close to free stall barns. Researchers speculated that internal barn airflow is modified when crops or tall weeds were near the barns. Even when fans are present in barns, restrictions to outside airflow can create a micro-environment in pens that initiate cow bunching. High stocking density can compound cow bunching during hot weather. Do not overcrowd, as individual cows in groups are exposed to hotter individual temperatures in the inner circle of the cow’s groups.

On pasture cattle, the reason why cattle may bunch in the warm conditions is not well understood, but one possibility is that bunching may occur around shaded areas as a strategy to reduce heat load. In free stall-housed cattle, they are blocked from direct sunlight during midday. However, radiant direct sun into barns will occur in the US eastern corn belt in the early morning or late afternoon. Sun rays that enter a barn and expose cows to direct sunlight will stratify cows and cause bunching when cows are exposed to direct sun rays.

Cow bunching will be more common in hot summer months. A barn orientation where direct sunlight enters the sides, high producing cows, long day length, and uneven air flow within the barn are all possible causes of cow bunching. Prepare for summer heat by cleaning fan blades and housing mesh. Dirty fans move less air and will create areas of the barn that do not offer airflow. Remove pen pack manure as extra heat and potential for flies is generated from these systems.  

Electromagnetic Fields 

Farmers have perceived magnetic fields from high voltage lines, automated milking systems, or solar panels as possible causes of bunching behavior in their cows. Housed dairy cows are a greater risk for stray voltage than pastured animals due to the exposure of fans, parlor, automatic milking, and electric panels in housed barns. Dairy cow sensory stimuli start at a much lower voltage than humans. A Danish study evaluated 60 dairy farms and identified bunching on several farms. The risk factors were newly constructed barns, measured stray voltage, and presence of fans in barns. The presence of fans in the barn as a factor for bunching is difficult to speculate the cause, but the observations and research would support that cows standing in front of fans would indicate they locate in front of fans to avoid hot spots in other areas of the barn. Cows will bunch in areas of good airflow to avoid flies, similar to pasture cows that stand in the mud. Fans are electronic devices that can cause stray voltage when in use, and if not properly grounded, they can create stress and cows will bunch. One research study indicated that the noise from fans can initiate a stress response in cows and initiate bunching.  

Pests  

Stable flies are blood seeking flies that bite the legs of cattle. A California study of 20 commercial free stall herds measured fly counts on cows using traps and observations. Trap counts as few as 50 flies per trap per pen or just 1 fly per leg will cause cows to bunch in free stall pens. The stress of the fly bites causes cows to stand in a tight group with their heads to the center of the group and their tails to the outside to protect themselves against the stable fly attack. Dairy cows are known to have thinner hides than beef cattle, and thus, dairy cows are more susceptible to biting flies. Fly repellent behaviors include tail flicking, foot stomping, head tossing, skin twitching, and ear trembling to reduce the fly attack. An effective fly control program must include a combination of cleanliness, larval control through feed, regular sprays, ear tags and parasitic wasps. Fly control must start early (April / May) to prevent mid to late summer fly issues.

Feed and Water

Cattle will increase drinking in hot temperatures, and they will often bunch around drinkers in hot temperatures. When cows congregate and bunch around drinkers or empty feed bunks, it is a response to stress which can begin a bunching response. Provide extra waterers during the summer. Drinkers should provide a minimum of 25 linear water distance per 100 cows.  Water capacity as measured by flow rate is also important that the drinkers are not empty. TMR feed bunks must provide continuous access to fresh feed. A mold inhibitor added to the TMR will maintain freshness and stability of the ration during hot summer months. Provide a minimum of 200 feet of bunk length per 100 cows or 24 inches per cow. Overcrowded pens or limited bunk space with limited feed availability can create opportunities for cows to bunch up, especially during hot weather. 

Summary           

Dairy farmers provide quality care for their cows by providing proper feed, water, comfort, ventilation, and housing. As a result of quality care, cows respond by providing consumers with high quality, nutritious milk we can all enjoy.  As a dairy farmer, take time now to get the barns in order for summer time. Keep the predators of stress away with proper prevention. Areas to manage to prevent bunching this summer include effective cleaning of fans, proper fly control, trim grass and weeds around barns, and check for stray voltage, especially from fans and drinkers. Most of all, monitor the barns each afternoon to observe and head off any potential stressors that may cause cows to bunch up.