Buckeye Dairy News: VOLUME 27: ISSUE 2

  1. Dairy Dollars: Feed Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Milk Income

    Andie Majewski, Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Despite its frequent fluctuation, feed remains the largest cost of production on dairy farms. Recently, the overall cost of feedstuffs has decreased in Ohio. In the month of March, the average cost of soybean meal (48% CP) decreased by about 7%, while the cost of whole roasted soybeans decreased by 9% (Figure 1). This is significant as soybeans are a commonly fed protein source for animals of all stages of growth and production on dairy farms. These slight changes in the cost of feedstuffs can directly impact the income over feed costs for dairy procedures.

    Figure 1. Percent change of the actual cost of 21 feedstuffs fed on Ohio dairy farms from January 27, 2025, to March 26, 2025. Feedstuffs that decreased in price since the previous issue are shown in green, while those that increased in price are colored red. The cost of corn silage did not change since January, as it is priced on a biannual basis.

    Figure 2. Actual and predicted cost of feedstuffs with 75% confidence interval (CI) of 21 feed commodities fed on Ohio Dairy Farms; March 26, 2025. Feedstuffs that are priced above the upper prediction price limit are overpriced (red bars). Feedstuffs that fall within the upper and lower limits of the predicted prices are breakeven feeds (grey bars). Feedstuffs that are priced below the lower prediction price limit are considered a bargain (green bars).

    Economic Value of Feeds

    Figure 2 displays the costs for the 21 reported commodities in Ohio. These results were produced by SESAMETM for the central Ohio region on March 26, 2025. In simple terms, Figure 2 represents the bargain feedstuffs (green), the overpriced feedstuffs (red), and the breakeven feedstuffs (grey). This month, the prices of many commodities fall within their expected range. However, dried distillers grain and corn gluten feed are generally bargains, while canola meal, blood meal, and whole roasted soybeans are generally overpriced. Remember, these prices and estimates are from a point in time and their economic classification may change from what is reported. While it is important to consider the costs of feedstuffs when formulating a ration, the prices are not the only thing that should be considered. Some of the “bargain” priced commodities may have a place in a dairy cattle ration, though it is important to consider the investment opportunity that may arise by feeding “overpriced” feedstuffs.

    The appraisal set, shown in Table 1, predicts the prices for the commodities that did not have a current local price. These commodity prices were predicted by SESAMETM and represent the estimated value at one specific point in time and are therefore subject to change. These values may be used as a benchmark if you’re considering purchasing these ingredients for your dairy farm.

    Table 1. Estimated feedstuffs prices not reported for Ohio, March 26, 2025. 

    Feedstuffs

    Estimated price with 75% CI1

    Alfalfa hay – 32% NDF2, 24% CP3, 190% RFV4, $/ton

    210 (194 - 228)

    Alfalfa hay – 36% NDF, 22% CP, 170% RFV, $/ton

    215 (197 - 234)

    Alfalfa hay – 44% NDF, 18% CP,130 RFV, $/ton

    221 (198 - 245)

    Alfalfa hay – 48% NDF, 16% CP, 110% RFV, $/ton

    224 (198 - 251)

    Bakery byproduct meal, $/ton

    129 (106 – 152)

    Beet sugar pulp, dried, $/ton

    189 (174 - 205)

    Citrus pulp dried, $/ton

    129 ( 115 – 143)

    Fish menhaden meal, mech., $/ton

    544 (521 – 568)

    Molasses, sugarcane, $/ton

    84 (65 - 104)

    Tallow, $/ton

    205 (127 – 284)

    1Confidence Interval
    2Neutral detergent fiber
    3Crude protein
    4Relative Feed Value

    Feed Nutrient Prices

    Since our January issue, the cost of net energy of lactation (NEL) decreased by about half of its previous cost, though the cost of metabolizable protein (MP) increased by about 10% in March. The cost of physically effective fiber (e-NDF) increased by 24%. Values of nutrients are shown in Table 2.

    Table 2. Prices of nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2025, compared to January 27, 2025.

    Milk and Milk Component Prices

    In the month of January, the ending Class III milk price was $18.62/cwt, but it has since increased to $20.18/cwt. The price for fat in milk decreased by about $0.10/lb since the previous issue and is currently $2.82/lb. The price for protein increased by $0.57/lb, resulting in it being $2.53/lb in the month of March.

    The Cow-Jones Index estimates the profitability of milk production, considering factors including the nutrient input costs displayed in Table 2, cow production metrics, and the current milk and component prices which are shown in Table 3. The prediction formula uses a 1500 lb cow, producing milk with 4.09% fat and 3.22% protein. This month, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 85 and 70 lb/day is about $15.52 and $15.06 /cwt, respectively. Both estimates are expected to be profitable, despite not including factors such as replacement and cull cows in the herd. 

    Table 3. Prices of milk and milk components, sourced from the Federal Marketing Order 33, for Ohio dairy farms, March 26, 2025, compared to January 27, 2025.

    In a slight change of course since the previous issue, the decreased feed costs and elevated milk price for class III milk and milk components have led to a reduced cost of production in the month of March for Ohio dairy farmers.

  2. How Grain Source Plays in to Ration Strategies

    Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Introduction

    Cereal grains are an affordable and readily available energy source for dairy cattle because they contain greater concentrations of starch than forages which results in more digestible energy for the cow.

    Its important to understand one key concept – not all starch is the same. The starch within cereal grains behaves differently depending on the grain type. This article will highlight the different things to keep in mind when feeding or selecting grains to feed in your dairy cattle rations.  

    1. Corn is less fermentable than barley, wheat, or oats.

    Corn is the most prominent grain fed in dairy cattle rations; this is especially so in diets that include corn silage as the main, or sole, forage source. About 75% of the starch from corn is degraded in the rumen of cattle while starch from barley, wheat, or oats ranges from 80 to 93% rumen degradable.

    Figure 1. The rumen degradability of different grain sources. Adapted from Huntington, 1997.

    Why is starch degradability important to consider when formulating rations? The greater the rumen degradability of the starch, the greater risk of reduced rumen pH and ruminal acidosis which can depress fiber digestibility. Thus, a more rumen-fermentable starch source like wheat or oats will likely have a greater impact on the rumen environment than a less fermentable starch source like corn. These subtle differences must be factored in when balancing a ration.

    2.  Vitreousness of the grain effects fermentability.

    What the heck is vitreousness? Vitreousness is the level of protein encapsulation of the starch within the grain. Floury grain has a white, opaque appearance, while vitreous grain (meaning “glass like”) has a yellow and glassy appearance. As the vitreousness (or protein encapsulation) of grain increases, the rumen digestibility of the grain steadily decreases which has been observed consistently in research.

    How can you measure vitreousness? The kernel must be manually dissected to determine the percentage of vitreousness. Another measure that correlates with vitreousness is kernel density. As kernel density increases, vitreousness increases too. A denser grain will likely have reduced ruminal starch degradability. If you’re feeding a highly vitreous grain, you may be able to feed additional grain without risking ruminal acidosis because its rumen fermentability will be lower.

    3.  More fermentable grain → reduce total dietary starch to reduce ruminal acidosis risk

    If you’re considering switching from less fermentable to more fermentable sources of grain (i.e. from corn to wheat), then you may need to adjust your overall ration. All other things being equal, you may want to reduce total dietary starch in this situation because the more fermentable starch source will more severely reduce rumen pH which increases the risk of ruminal acidosis and reduced fiber digestibility.

    When you’re switching grain sources, keep an eye on manure scores, milk fat percentage, milk urea nitrogen, and feed intakes to make sure you’re not running into rumen problems. This is another way to enhance the use of technology like rumination collars or rumen boluses which can monitor rumen pH and rumination times. If either are reduced when changing grains in the diet, you may want to adjust the ration accordingly because ruminal acidosis may be occurring.

    Conclusions

    Providing fermentable starch from grain is a great strategy to deliver digestible energy to dairy cows in an affordable manner, but don’t forget that each grain source is unique. Corn is a moderately fermentable source of starch; if you switch from corn to oats, wheat, or barley, you may want to consider reducing the dietary starch concentration. Also, the vitreousness and maturity of the grain also play a role in starch fermentability. Pay close attention to the grain you’re feeding and make sure the cows and the rumens can handle it.

  3. Inflammation: Complex Physiological Processes

    Elizabeth Plunkett, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Inflammation is traditionally defined as "a local response to cellular injury that is marked by capillary dilation, leukocytic infiltration, redness, heat, and pain and that serves as a mechanism initiating the elimination of noxious agents and damaged tissue" (Merriam-Webster). While this definition highlights inflammation's core features, it fails to capture the complexity of this physiological process. To understand inflammation’s role in health and disease, we must acknowledge its nuance and understand its overall goal.

    The ultimate goal of the inflammatory process is to restore homeostasis. Although the inflammatory response can be launched to neutralize the initial stimulus, normal tissue may be an unsuspecting casualty during this effort. Inflammation is necessary to create an environment to eliminate the stimulus, but unfortunately, many of the initial host responses also damage host tissue during the process. The absence of effective homeostasis creates an opportunity for sustained inflammation to develop into a chronic inflammatory state and ultimately tissue pathology, resulting in impaired tissue function. It is often tempting to label inflammation as inherently harmful, especially given its historical association with disease. However, this simplification overlooks inflammation’s role in normal physiological processes.

    The immune system is complex and plays a key role in coordinating responses to maintain homeostasis. Yet, when it is improperly regulated or repeatedly triggered, inflammation can become maladaptive, resulting in chronic inflammatory states and disease susceptibility. A comprehensive understanding of inflammation requires recognizing its sophistication. While inflammation is frequently studied in pathological contexts, it also plays essential roles in maintaining health. By focusing on its physiological functions, we can better differentiate between beneficial and detrimental inflammatory responses. How we assess inflammation and confront inflammation is approached differently by scientists and veterinarians.

    A Scientist’s Perspective:

    Inflammation is often exacerbated during critical periods, such as the transition period, when animals are faced with marked physiological changes. The cow gives birth, changes pens, is fed a new ration, and must successfully navigate the biggest homeorhetic adjustment of her lifetime, lactation. The cow is charged to do this for multiple lactations. Additionally, during this time, we often forget about the other physiological adjustments and tissue changes that are occurring (e.g., uterine involution). Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, emphasizes the importance of minimizing stressors during this time. “Every insult during a cow’s life cycle matters, and we need to do everything in our power to not cause repeated insults. By stacking stressors, we are compromising our first line of defense, which makes the job of the second line of defense more challenging,” he said. Continued pressure on initial defenses leads to the introduction of opportunistic pathogens during a time of altered immune function (e.g., transition period), further amplifying inflammatory conditions.

    Dr. Krogstad further went on to state, “We must think about the whole system and that inflammation results from different signals.” The stimulatory agent initiating the inflammatory cascade sets the stage for the magnitude of inflammation and subsequent outcomes. For example, E. coli mastitis cases are often acute and severe, while Staph. aureus mastitis is known to be more persistent and chronic. Identifying and understanding how different stimuli initiate inflammatory processes is important, especially when studying chronic inflammation as a pathology. Chronic inflammation is a buzzword in both human and animal sciences, as its impact can lead to unfavorable phenotypes for both. “Chronic inflammation accompanies malfunctioning tissue,” he highlighted. Normal tissue changes can trigger normal physiological inflammation (e.g., leukocyte infiltration of the uterus following calving to initiate uterine involution). In this context, inflammation is a normal and necessary physiology; however, repeated insults, new insults, or tissue maladaptation during this time can create a state of chronic, unresolved inflammation with pathological presentation. Krogstad concluded our discussion by stressing that, “Inflammation is too general a term and we must acknowledge the nuance.” Only when we can identify the constraints of assigning a generalized definition to a process we have yet to fully elucidate, can we progress in our understanding of how to manage it more effectively.

    A Veterinarian’s Approach:

    Dr. Shaun Wellert, DVM, MS, DACVPM, Assistant Professor, Agricultural Technical Institute, highlights the complexities involved in deciding when to treat and when to let inflammatory processes run their course. “When deciding treatment, we need to think about what the withdrawal periods are, side effects, ease of administration, and whether it is going to help,” he states. Additionally, he emphasized, “animal welfare is a major factor in treatment decision-making.” If the animal is in pain and we know the inflammation occurring will do lasting damage, then treatment is a priority. He also highlighted the importance of being proactive with anti-inflammatory treatments before dehorning, castration, surgery, etc. It is also important to note that the physiological state of the cow (e.g., early or late lactation) can be a driving factor dictating nutrient usage and distribution by the host and the immune system. Therefore, recognizing the stage of life for the cow can affect outcomes and should influence treatment decisions.

    The challenge of managing and treating inflammation lies in its context-dependent nature. However, identifying the root cause of why inflammation is occurring is where our resolution resides. “Inflammation is the manifestation of disease, and we need to identify the cause,” he said. Over the years, we have begun to identify many management strategies that reduce stress and inflammation during critical time points in a cow’s life (e.g., gradual weaning of calves). While this area of research is growing each day and drawing more conclusions, we need to be mindful of our interpretation of the results. We have spent too long studying inflammation as a pathology that we have inadvertently removed it from physiology. Inflammation is not inherently a pathology but rather a physiology that has a large pathological potential if left unchecked. Furthermore, Dr. Wellert emphasized that “Inflammation does not happen in a vacuum”, meaning that inflammation does not occur in isolation or without any external influences or context.

    Eliminating every possible risk that could cause adverse physiology in a dairy cow is untenable. Sometimes, cows just get sick. But, limiting insult occurrence and duration is a step in the right direction. It is important to note that not all inflammation should be viewed as ‘bad’ inflammation. Inflammation can be a normal physiological process that is necessary for tissue to change and adapt. However, physiological inflammation that occurs during normal tissue changes leaves the host vulnerable to internal and external risks that have the potential to turn inflammation into a pathology. Inflammation can also be the manifestation of disease, meaning it is an indicator or symptom of disease affecting the body, but it is not the disease itself. When identifying treatment strategies, animal welfare should be considered; still, anti-inflammatory treatments often suppress symptoms (e.g., inflammation) and cannot be assumed to ‘fix’ the underlying issue. Targeting the root cause of inflammation should be the ultimate plan for managing the negative outcomes that can result if left unchecked. As our understanding of inflammation evolves, it is essential to reconsider outdated views and embrace the complexity of this physiological process. Only by acknowledging inflammation’s nuance can we leave behind our reductionist mindset and approach dogma and new findings with a questioning, holistic attitude.

    The author appreciates the valuable insights shared by Dr. Kirby Krogstad and Dr. Shaun Wellert, faculty at Ohio State University.

    Disclaimer: This article is intended to explain and inform readers about some common physiological responses observed in ill lactating cows. It does not constitute veterinary advice or recommendations for treating animals. For specific concerns and treatment plans, please consult a licensed veterinarian.

  4. Understanding the Risk of Salmonella Dublin in Dairy-Beef Operations

    Alejandra Arevalo-Mayorga, Sam Locke, Andreia Arruda, and Greg Habing, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

    What is Salmonella Dublin?

    Salmonella Dublin (S. Dublin) is an emerging concern in dairy and dairy-beef operations. This bacteria primarily affects cattle but can also pose risks to human health. Unlike other strains of Salmonella, S. Dublin often causes invasive systemic infections, leading to high levels of death loss in calves, chronic carrier states, and economic losses in dairy and dairy-beef operations.

    How Prevalent is Salmonella Dublin in Dairy-Beef Farms?

    The prevalence of S. Dublin in dairy-beef farms, along with key risk factors associated with its detection, was examined between June 2023 and November 2024 across 63 dairy-beef farms in seven states (Figure 1). The One Herd Lab at Ohio State University (OSU) collaborated with veterinary clinics to conduct a survey assessing farm demographics, herd management, calf movement, and biosecurity practices. Additionally, environmental samples (up to seven boot swabs per farm) were collected from calf housing areas, including pre-weaned alleys, milk mixing rooms, and post-weaned pens. These samples were analyzed using multiplex PCR to detect S. Dublin.

    A map of united states with red dotsAI-generated content may be incorrect.

    Figure 1. This map illustrates the county-level distribution of 63 dairy-beef farms enrolled in the study. The size of each red dot represents the number of farms in that location, with larger dots indicating a higher concentration of sampled farms. Neighboring states are grouped into three categories for regional analysis: Indiana-Ohio-New York (blue), Iowa-Wisconsin (purple), and Kansas-Missouri (green).

    S. Dublin was detected in 33.3% of dairy-beef farms (21 out of 63 farms surveyed), with 19.8% of environmental samples (48 out of 243) testing positive. In most positive farms (56.5%; 12 out of 23), only one environmental sample tested positive.

    Additionally, S. Dublin was consistently detected across different sample locations, with approximately 20% of samples from pre-weaned calf alleyways, milk mixing rooms, and post-weaned pens testing positive (Figure 2). This finding highlights widespread environmental contamination within operations, emphasizing the need for effective management strategies to reduce pathogen spread.

    Figure 2. Prevalence of S. Dublin in dairy-beef farms by PCR at both the farm level (red bar), sample level (grey bar), and across different environmental sampling locations (outlined bars).

    What Are the Risk Factors Associated with S. Dublin Detection?

    The study found that frequent calf introductions and purchasing animals from auctions or calf dealers were the two biggest risk factors for S. Dublin in dairy-beef farms.

    Farms that bring in new calves more often—specifically, every 9 weeks or less—had twice the risk of detecting S. Dublin compared to farms that introduce calves less frequently. About 32% of farms that brought in new calves frequently tested positive for S. Dublin, compared to 18% of farms that introduced calves less often.

    Farms that buy calves from auctions were 1.5 times more likely to detect S. Dublin compared to farms that purchase directly from local dairy farms. Specifically, about 22% of farms sourcing calves from auctions tested positive, whereas farms with local dairy-sourced had a lower risk. This indicates that calves from auctions or dealers may carry a higher risk of introducing S. Dublin onto the operation.

    Regardless of management practices or biosecurity measures, our study did not find a clear link between S. Dublin detection and factors such as farm type (pre-weaned only, post-weaned only, or both), calf age at weaning or exit, continuous vs. all-in/all-out calf flow, downtime between groups, farm size, or geographic location.

    This does not necessarily mean these factors have no effect—it is possible that our sample size was not large enough to detect a relationship. In fact, some of the practices, including managing in an all-in-all-out pattern, are well known to reduce the risk for some pathogens.  Further research is needed to better understand how these factors might contribute to S. Dublin transmission.

    How Can Dairy Producers Reduce the Risk of Salmonella Dublin?

    While changing the timing of new calf introductions may not be practical, limiting direct contact between calves from different sources, along with thorough health monitoring, can help reduce S. Dublin transmission. Whenever possible, selective calf sourcing is recommended—purchasing calves from trusted suppliers with known health histories can significantly lower the risk of introducing S. Dublin into your operation. Additionally, enhancing farm biosecurity is key to preventing environmental contamination. This includes maintaining proper cleaning and disinfection of calf housing areas, using separate protective equipment for different age groups, and ensuring that workers handling young calves follow strict hygiene protocols. Implementing these measures collectively strengthens disease prevention and improves overall herd health.

    Final Thoughts for Ohio Dairy Farmers

    Salmonella Dublin remains an important health and management challenge for dairy and dairy-beef producers. While completely eliminating the risk is difficult, implementing better sourcing decisions, improving calf introduction strategies, and biosecurity measures can significantly reduce its impact.

    For more information on S. Dublin, contact Dr. Greg Habing, habing.4@osu.edu.

     

  5. H5N1 in Current Dairy Issues

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

    The past 12 months have been an interesting time of challenges and learning about how a virus such as H5N1 moves from avian species into dairy cattle and how the virus affects dairy cows, spreading from farm to farm and even to farm workers. Since the outbreak began, over 989 confirmed farms have reported outbreaks in 17 states. Luckily, there was only one confirmed case on a dairy farm in Ohio. The majority of these cases were linked to one movement of the virus from avian to dairy cows. However, in the last few months, there have been three additional instances of new transmissions from avian to dairy cattle. 

    In addition to its impact on dairy cows, research has also been conducted on food safety. The initial studies focused on the use of pasteurization to deactivate the H5N1 virus shed in milk, demonstrating that pasteurization is an effective tool for keeping everyone safe. However, a recent study found that aged raw milk cheese may still contain the virus that is capable of causing infection. Lower pH values deactivated some of the virus but not all of it. More details on this study and the others on dairy food safety can be found here: https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-information/investigat...

    While there are still many unknowns about H5N1 in dairy cows, we do know that on-farm biosecurity measures are crucial in preventing the spread between farms and between cows and farm workers. A team of Extension personnel from across the country has been working with the National Extension Foundation to create a resource center for farm owners and farm workers regarding H5N1 in dairy cows: https://h5n1.extension.org/ These resources include biosecurity information and information about disease detection.

    H5N1 requires a different style of educational messaging than most topics we discuss with dairy farm workers. To improve the messaging around H5N1 and develop future educational resources for farm workers, a group of Extension professionals from Washington State University will visit Ohio for the first two weeks of April to interview farm workers and learn about their responses to these resources. If you are interested in helping to create better messaging materials, see the information below about this program. Participants can either come to a local Extension office, or if 5 people from the farm are interested in participating in this project, they will come directly to the farm. For more information on the message testing in both English and Spanish see below:

    Dear Dairy Farm Owner,

    I’m reaching out to seek your support in a unique project focused on testing and developing messages about risks that the H5N1 Avian Flu virus presents to dairy farms. The objective of this project is to gain practical insights that can guide the production of messages that most effectively resonate with and empower dairy farm producers and workers to take science-based action to protect their farms.

    The H5N1 virus poses real threats to the financial and physical health of dairy farms. Unfortunately, this virus has moved into dairy cattle through three separate transmissions from birds to dairy cows increasing the risk even more than previously predicted. This project is part of an on-going effort to effectively communicate with dairy farmers about the importance of taking action to protect farms against the financial and physical health risks to animals and humans due to the spread of the H5N1 virus.

    This project involves Neuromarketing based testing. Neuromarketing is a unique method for using brain science to inform the design of effective messages. Lessons learned from this testing not only help with H5N1 messaging but also a better understanding of how messages are received, which will allow for more effective communication on husbandry and personal safety risks. Dr. Paul Bolls, from Washington State University, will be coming to Ohio with his Neuromarketing lab to run message testing sessions with both dairy farm producers and workers as participants. The goal is to recruit a total of 50 participants for this project.

    Participants will need to physically come to a data collection location, which could be on the farm if 5 participants are from one farm. The test session will take one hour for a single participant to complete. We will be in the Mercer County, Extension office and area April 1st- 5th and the Wayne County Extension office and area April 7th -11th, but we can travel to other locations in the state. Participants will receive a $50 gift card for participation incentive. The test session will involve the collection of bodily responses (e.g. heart rate and eye tracking). This will involve placing some sensors on the hand, arms, and face. Participants will view several messages about H5N1 while bodily responses are being recorded, will answer some questions about each message, and will complete a short interview after message testing.

    The support we are seeking from partners like you is assistance with identifying and securing message testing locations and help with participant recruitment by sharing announcements and information sheets with potential participants.

    We appreciate your consideration. Please contact Dr. Paul Bolls with any questions. You can reach him at pbolls@wsu.edu or by cell phone at 509-338-7761. 

    Sincerely,   

    Dr. Paul Bolls and Jason Hartschuh

    Asunto: Solicitud de participación en la investigación sobre pruebas de mensajes del H5N1

    Hola,

    El Departamento de Extensión de la Universidad Estatal de Ohio en Asociación con el Dr. Paul Bolls, de la Universidad Estatal de Washington, está desarrollando pruebas para medir la efectividad de mensajes comunicacionales sobre la protección de las granjas lecheras contra los riesgos causados por la propagación del virus de la gripe aviar H5N1. El objetivo de estas pruebas de mensajes es obtener información práctica sobre cómo comunicar de manera efectiva con los productores y trabajadores de granjas lecheras sobre el virus H5N1 y riesgos similares que puedan ocurrir en el futuro. Las lecciones aprendidas de estas pruebas no solo ayudaran con los mensajes sobre el virus H5N1, sino también ayudaran a comprender mejor cómo se reciben los mensajes, permitiendo una comunicación más efectiva sobre los riesgos de manejo y seguridad del personal en las lecherías. Su participación es importante y valiosa para desarrollar mensajes que empoderen a los productores lecheros como usted a tomar medidas basadas en la ciencia y así proteger a las granjas lecheras del virus H5N1. La información precisa, basada en la realidad de las operaciones de las granjas lecheras, que se comunica de manera efectiva, es crucial para proteger granjas como la suya.

    La información recopilada a través de estas pruebas de mensajes guiará la producción de mensajes sobre el virus H5N1. Este virus representa amenazas reales para la salud financiera y física de las granjas lecheras. Los mensajes desarrollados a través del proyecto estarán diseñados para proporcionar a individuos como usted información que les ayude a proteger su granja. Nos gustaría que considerara ayudarnos a probar estos mensajes y mejorar la efectividad de estos mensajes para personas como usted.

    Participar en nuestras sesiones de prueba de mensajes requerirá que acuda físicamente al lugar de la prueba, a menos que haya 5 participantes en la misma granja, en cuyo caso iremos a su granja, para una cita de una hora por participante. Estaremos en el área del condado de Mercer del 1 al 5 de abril y en el área del condado de Wayne del 7 al 11 de abril, pero podemos viajar a otras ubicaciones en el estado. Cada participante recibirá una tarjeta de regalo de $50 por participar en la sesión de una hora. Durante esta sesión, se les expondrá a varios tipos de mensajes sobre el H5N1. Sus opiniones son importantes, por lo que le haremos algunas preguntas sobre sus opiniones acerca de estos mensajes. Esta sesión también incluirá el registro de algunas de sus respuestas corporales (por ejemplo, la frecuencia cardíaca) mientras está expuesto a los mensajes que estamos probando. Un investigador colocará varios sensores en su mano, antebrazos y cara para registrar estas respuestas. Los sensores no deberían causar incomodidad, pero entendemos que algunas personas podrían sentirse incómodas con esto. No debe inscribirse para participar si cree que esto podría hacerle sentir incómodo.

    Por favor, para inscribirse en una cita para participar o si tiene alguna pregunta contacte al Dr. Paul Bolls. Puede comunicarse con él al correo electronico pbolls@wsu.edu o por teléfono celular al 509-338-7761.

    Gracias por considerar nuestra solicitud.

    Atentamente,

    Dr. Paul Bolls, Washington State Univeristy and Jason Hartschuh OSU Extension

  6. Using Dairy Manure with Newly Planted Corn and Soybeans

    Glen Arnold, Field Specialist, Manure Nutrient Management, Ohio State University Extension

    In recent years, dairy farmers and commercial manure applicators have been moving towards applying dairy manure to newly planted corn and soybeans. This has been in response to delayed planting due to cooler and wetter spring planting conditions.

    Applying dairy manure to fields after crops are planted in the spring offers some advantages over applying manure before crops are planted. One advantage is corn or soybean planting not being delayed by the added moisture from the liquid manure. This delay can be costly if wet weather further delays spring planting. The second advantage is the liquid manure adding moisture to the soil that can enhance crop germination and emergence, especially if the weather turns off dry.

    As soon as a field is planted, the manure can be applied. This is true for both corn and soybeans. The seed is protected by an inch or more of soil. In university research, the application of 10,000 gallons/acre of dairy manure has not negatively impacted crop germination and emergence on corn or soybeans. If the crops are emerging, manure can still be applied to corn but not soybeans. Newly emerging soybeans can easily be killed by the application of liquid manure. Corn can tolerate the drag hose from the spiking stage up to the V-4 stage of growth without an issue.

    The nitrogen in the dairy manure will be a boost to the emerging crop. It is difficult to know how much of the ammonium nitrogen in the dairy manure will be available to the crop. The organic nitrogen portion will be a slow release over several years. The ammonium nitrogen in the dairy manure can be lost to volatilization and possibly leaching. In university trials of surface applied dairy manure, only about half the ammonium nitrogen applied seemed to be available for crop growth.

    When a drag hose is utilized, the drag hose applicator commonly applies the manure at an angle across the field. The field needs to be firm enough to support the drag hose to avoid scouring the soil surface and burying small corn plants or further burying seeds. Fields that are spring tilled are not good candidates for a drag hose. No-till fields, stale seed beds, fields with dead or alive cover crops, and tilled fields that have been packed with heavy spring rain are usually good fields for a drag hose.

    Additional on-farm manure side-dress plot results can be obtained by clicking on the On-farm Research link on the OSU Extension Agronomics Crops team website at http://agcrops.osu.edu/ or E-fields at https://digitalag.osu.edu/efields or follow OSU Extension’s manure research on Facebook at: Ohio State Extension Environmental and Manure Management. Also, Ohio State University Agronomics Crops Team Youtube channel is:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0nhw3GG6Q8&t=1s

  7. Spring Nitrogen Fertilization for Winter Annual Cereal Grain Forages

    Kendra Rose, Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, Crawford County and Jason Hartschuh, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, The Ohio State University

    Nitrogen fertilization of cereal grains for forage is important for both yield and quality. Using an application method split between the spring and fall is important and can increase yield and tillering, can help spread the risk of nitrogen loss, and improve the nitrogen use efficiency. Knowing what your target yield is will help you determine how much the split application will be.

    When fertilizing in the spring, it’s important to have the correct timing and apply the nitrogen as the crop breaks dormancy. This allows there to be less of a chance for runoff and leaching and the ground is not frozen, allowing the nitrogen to move into the soil to be utilized by the crop. Dormancy will break at different times in the spring depending upon the species grown. Cereal rye and triticale will green up first, while wheat and barley will be much slower. Nitrogen applied in the fall or split between the fall and spring will result in more constant forage production throughout the season compared to one spring application, though, spring applied nitrogen was found to increase yields up to 200 lb/ac compared to other methods based on work done in Oklahoma.

    In recent research studies, we have found that in order to optimize yield, you need to add at least 30 lb/ac of nitrogen in the fall. To help determine a realistic yield potential, look at the yield from the past five years, take out the highest and lowest yield and average the remaining three yields (Lindsey and Lentz, 2025). This will should reflect a realistic yield potential to help determine the optimum nitrogen rate. We have found that crude protein in cereal rye was significantly increased by a 25 lb/ac increase in spring nitrogen application, regardless of the fall nitrogen rate. The dry matter yield can be increased by using the fall and spring split application method. Our studies have found that 20 lb/ac of fall nitrogen had a significant increase in cereal rye yield of at least 1 ton/ac of dry matter. The addition of 20 lb/ac or more of spring nitrogen to the current recommendation of 50 lb/ac can significantly increase the dry matter yield by 0.5 to 1 ton/ac.

    The crude protein levels can also be improved through split nitrogen applications. The spring nitrogen application is the primary driver of crude protein; one of our studies showed that an application of 70 lb/ac of nitrogen has been found to increase crude protein. Though, one of our studies shows that 90 lb/ac of fall applied nitrogen can statistically increase the crude protein. Other quality factors such as total digestible nutrients (TDN) can also be affected by nitrogen fertilization. In our research, TDN in cereal rye was found to be negatively affected by higher spring nitrogen rates but was not influenced by fall nitrogen treatments. Applying nitrogen in the fall has also been seen to increase neutral detergent fiber (NDF) compared to trials where no nitrogen has been applied. This may be due to slightly more advanced growth stages at harvest when the fall nitrogen was applied compared to only spring nitrogen.

    Another thing to be mindful of when applying nitrogen fertilizer is your soil type. Sandier soil may require higher nitrogen rates compared to loamy or clayey soil due to lower water holding capacity and organic matter levels. Drainage within your field is also important; soils that are waterlogged in the spring during critical periods of growth and development can reduce the yield and maturity, and there could be a significant portion of applied N lost due to denitrification

    To help make management decisions, a few tools can be used to measure canopy cover. Two examples of tools to use are Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI; White, 2023) and Canopeo (Patrignani and Ochsner, 2015). NDVI is a sensor that is used in a non-destructive way to estimate the biomass’s nitrogen content. In our studies and others, NDVI has been found to be equal or superior to other indices in predicting percent ground cover. Canopeo is an automatic color threshold image analysis tool to determine ground coverage. One known limitation of Canopeo is the need to keep the camera an adequate height above the canopy. A forage analysis should also be used to determine the nutritional value of the forage for livestock performance. Utilizing the crude protein content of your forage test and knowing your yield per acre allows you to calculate if you removed all the nitrogen you applied to your soil for the forage production. Knowing the nutritional levels of a feed will help you make better decisions of what to feed and if you need any additional ration supplements.

    References

    Altom, W., Rogers, J. L., Raun, W. R., Johnson, G. V., and Taylor, S. L. 1996. Long-term rye-wheat-ryegrass forage yields as affected by rate and date of applied nitrogen. Journal of Production Agriculture, 9(4), 510–516. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1996.0510

    Culman, S., Fulford, A., Camberato, J., and Steinke, K. 2020. Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations. Bulletin 974. College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, Columbus, OH, The Ohio State University.

    Lindsey, L., and Lentz, E. 2025. Spring Nitrogen Recommendations for Winter Wheat. Agronomic Crops Network, March issue. https://agcrops.osu.edu/newsletter/corn-newsletter/2025-06/spring-nitrogen-recommendations-winter-wheat

    Patrignani, A., and Ochsner, T. E. 2015. Canopeo: A powerful new tool for measuring fractional green canopy cover. Agronomy Journal, 107(6), 2312–2320. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj15.0150

    Prabhakara, K., Hively, W. D., and McCarty, G. W. 2015. Evaluating the relationship between biomass, percent groundcover and remote sensing indices across six winter cover crop fields in Maryland, United States. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 39, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.03.002

    White, C. 2023. Using an NDVI sensor to estimate cover crop nitrogen content. Penn State Extension, May 28 issue. https://extension.psu.edu/using-an-ndvi-sensor-to-estimate-cover-crop-nitrogen-content