Buckeye Dairy News: Volume 6 Issue 7
Dairy Policy and Market Watch,
Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University,
Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen
By the time that you read this, it will be old news that dairy product prices for butter and cheese have fallen following the peaks reached in early 2004. Right along with these commodity price declines have come the decline in pay prices for producers. The 2004 came in like a lamb, roared like a lion, but will not go out with a whimper. Overall, 2004 will be a year of record milk prices, and now, producers and processors alike want to know where dairy and milk prices are headed in 2005. Look for the current price levels of butter and cheese to hold steady through the first half of 2005 and then strengthen some in the third and fourth quarters of 2005. My forecasts for dairy commodity prices (butter, nonfat dry milk, cheese, and whey) by quarter are shown in Table 1. These forecast prices translate into the average milk check value shown in Table 2. The producer differential and the gross milk check price are applicable to producers in the Mideast Federal Milk Marketing Order 33.
Table 1. Dairy commodity price ($/lb) forecast for 2005.
Forecast for Planning YearGrade AA ButterNonfat Dry MilkCheddar CheeseWhey Protein 2004 Averages1.78460.83651.61450.2325 2005 Quarter I1.46370.83251.33220.2203 2005 Quarter II1.51330.82671.33780.2165 2005 Quarter III1.55950.82081.45700.2131 2005 Quarter IV1.49330.82001.44330.2083 2005 Annual Average Forecast1.50750.82501.39260.2146
Table 2. Dairy component ($/lb) and milk check price forecast for 2005 (FO = Federal Order).
Forecast for Planning YearGrade AA Milk FatProteinOther SolidsNonfat SolidsBase Milk ValueEstimated Producer Price Differential FO 33Estimated Gross Milk Check Price Test@Market %3.52.995.695.9$/cwt$/cwt$/cwt 2004 Averages2.0042.5610.1760.69015.1050.3015.40 2005 Quarter I1.61842.05690.06320.685612.17751.0213.21 2005 Quarter II1.67802.01210.05920.679812.22950.7412.98 2005 Quarter III1.73342.33800.05570.674013.37790.4013.78 2005 Quarter IV
2005 Annual Average Forecast1.6712.1960.0570.67812.750.7513.50
Class prices in 2005 will not be as robust as they where in 2004. Table 3 lists the 2005 forecasts for Federal Order 33 with a comparison to the 1999 to 2004 prices. The statistical uniform price estimate is based on an assumed historical average utilization for each class of milk.
Table 3. Comparison of Class prices in Federal Order 33 from 1999 to 2004 with a forecast for 2005.
Calendar YearClass I ($/cwt)Class II ($/cwt)Class III ($/cwt)Class IV ($cwt) 199915.8713.1512.4412.26 200013.6712.659.7411.83 200116.2614.4212.9313.49 200213.0111.5610.4010.82 200313.3910.7611.4210.00 2004*16.9513.6915.1013.00 2005*15.1112.7213.0011.98 Statistical Uniform Price Estimate: $13.50/cwt
*Quarter IV: 2004 forecast and Quarter I to IV: 2005 forecast.
It is fair to ask, "What could alter the dairy product and milk price forecasts for 2005?" Let's consider these factors as they may push prices up or down going into 2005.
Price enhancing factors
Return to more aggressive culling and a tight heifer replacement market. The current situation shows cull cow prices increasing into 2005. This will provide added incentive to increase dairy cow slaughter back to 2003 levels. Couple this with the Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) program, slated to remove 49,000 head from the milking herd during the last quarter of 2004, and we have the makings for a tight milk supply situation going into 2005. In addition, a post-election rebound in the general economy may cause dairy commodity prices to remain strong. Without any indication that the flow of animals across the U.S. - Canada border will begin anytime soon, these conditions could add another 40 to 50 cents/cwt to the price forecast.
Price reducing factors
Cow numbers are rebounding from their lows in early 2004 and output per cow is also showing that it is getting back on trend. With the announcement by Monsanto, stating that bovine somatotropin (BST) allocations would be increased from 50 to 70% on December 1, 2004, we could look for the tight supply - demand situation evident in 2004 to lessen in 2005. If this is coupled with a growing weakness in consumer demand (due to escalating energy and utility prices and continued weakness in the investment and employment markets), we could see prices for butter and cheese stay lower than those forecasted. This would remove 40 to 50 cents/cwt from my current forecast.
Policy Issues: Mideast Federal Order 33
The number one issue facing dairy farm families in the Mideast Federal Order is that of re-pooling and its impact on the Uniform Market Price. Emergency hearings to consider re-pooling have been granted and are underway in our sister orders, Federal Order 30 and Federal Order 32. Time is a critical element in this process. Fortunately, leadership on this issue is being taking by the Ohio Dairy Producers Association and Ohio Farmers Union. Both of these organizations, representing the interests of Ohio and Federal Order 33 dairy producers, have submitted a formal request to the USDA/AMS Dairy Division, asking for an emergency hearing on this issue.
For a complete update on current market conditions, futures, and options markets, and policy issues of importance to Ohio and Federal Order 33 producers go to my web site, Ohio Dairy Web 2004, and click on Cam's Price Outlook.
Nutrient Prices - Everything is Getting Cheap
Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, Ohio State University
Everything seems to be getting cheap this fall. Finally, by-product feeds have followed the substantial drop of the corn and soybean markets. Based on average nutritional composition and prevailing market prices in Ohio in the second week of November 2004, commodities can be partitioned as follows:BargainsAt BreakevenOverpriced
Corn, ground, shelled
Distillers dried grains
Soybean meal, expeller
Brewers grains, wet
48% soybean meal
44% soybean meal
Details on the estimates of nutrient costs, break-even prices of commodities, and break-even prices of forages, as calculated by the software Sesame V3.01, are provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Table 1. Estimates of nutrient unit costs.1,2
Nutrient nameNovember 04September 04November 03 NEL - 3X (2001 NRC)0.0720.0860.085 RDP-0.066-0.051-0.011 Digestible RUP0.1800.2270.168 Non-effective NDF (ne-NDF)-0.022-0.041-0.041 Effective-NDF0.0600.0610.085
1NEL = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, and NDF = neutral detergent fiber.
2Estimates are for $/lb except for energy which is at $/Mcal.
Table 2. Estimated break-even prices of commodities - OH.
NameActual ($/ton)Predicted ($/ton)Lower limit ($/ton)Upper limit ($/ton) Alfalfa Hay, OH Buckeye D110107.1089.78124.40 Bakery Byproduct Meal103114.08106.24121.93 Beet Sugar Pulp, dried145104.0292.62117.43 Blood Meal, ring dried325303.16282.56323.77 Brewers Grains, wet2624.2121.4926.93 Canola Meal, mech. extracted129105.4195.20115.62 Citrus Pulp, dried14099.8393.13106.52 Corn Grain, ground dry79118.42110.92125.92 Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM3044.5639.0650.06 Cottonseed, whole w lint142160.44140.32180.56 Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles109124.28113.89134.66 Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal185222.56208.55236.56 Gluten Feed, dry77105.3597.56113.16 Gluten Meal, dry247255.05239.84270.26 Hominy90103.7096.93110.48 Meat Meal, rendered185171.15157.32184.97 Molasses, sugarcane11380.6274.2686.98 Soybean Hulls8268.4550.7386.17 Soybean Meal, expeller203.50215.98205.18226.79 Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP159.50135.99122.26149.74 Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP168.50160.18148.08172.28 Soybean Seeds, whole roasted216201.11189.19213.04 Tallow295293.98268.56319.40 Wheat Bran5870.2058.2882.13 Wheat Middlings6079.9269.5190.34
Table 3. Break-even prices of forages - OH (mg = mostly grass).
NamePredicted [$/ton]Corrected [$/ton] Grass Hay, immature, <55% NDF119.55131.54 Grass Hay, mature, >60% NDF131.0874.05 Grass Hay, mid mature, 55-60% NDF121.60105.07 Grass Hay, all samples128.5686.40 Grass-Leg Hay, mg, immature <51% NDF119.46115.57 Grass-Leg Hay, mg, mature >57% NDF125.5375.75 Grass-Leg Hay, mg, mid mature 51-57% NDF122.7798.58 Grass-Leg Hay, 50/50 mix, immature111.92122.73 Leg Hay, immature, <40% NDF102.08129.30 Leg Hay, mature, >46% NDF101.0276.75 Leg Hay, mid mature, 40-46% NDF98.25102.12
Using these nutrient prices, we can calculate nutrient costs, milk gross income, and income over nutrient costs. The benchmarks published in this column are for a 1350 lb cow producing 75 lb/day of milk at 3.6% fat, 3.1% protein, and 5.9% other solids. Component prices are those paid for the previous month because we don't know yet what component prices will be for November 04. Results of our calculations are presented in Table 4. Gross income from milk is slightly higher than in September and slightly lower than in November 03 (notice the substantial change in the relative value of milk fat and milk protein). The substantial decrease in the cost of nutrients from September 04 is primarily due to a substantial drop in the cost of energy in dairy diets. Total nutrient costs dropped by $0.92/cow/day from September to November 2004. Consequently, income over nutrient costs currently is a healthy $7.68/cow/day. Nutrient costs represent 30% of gross milk income, a substantial drop from the 39.4 and 37.5% two months ago and a year ago, respectively. With proper nutrition, there is a lot of money to be made milking cows right now. Make sure that you use these extra dollars wisely.
Table 4. Nutrient costs, milk gross income, and income over nutrient costs - Ohio.1
NutrientNovember 2004September 2004November 2003------------------------------ $/cow/day -------------------------------- Nutrient costs2
Vitamins and minerals0.200.200.20
Milk gross income
Income over nutrient costs7.686.836.97
1Costs and income for a cow producing 75 lb/day of milk, with 3.6% fat, 3.0% protein, and 5.9% other solids.
2NEL = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, ne-NDF = noneffective neutral detergent fiber, and e-NDF = effective neutral effective fiber.
Control of Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD or Pneumonia)
Dr. William B. Epperson, Extension Veterinarian, Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Ohio State University
Bovine respiratory disease is associated with a large number of pathogens, including viruses (BVD, IBR, BRSV, Coronavirus, and many others) and bacteria (Mannheimia haemolytica [formerly Pasteurella haemolytica], Pasteurella multocida, Haemophilus somnus, Mycoplasma sp, and others). These pathogens nearly always gain entry to the lungs through the upper respiratory tract (nose, throat, and trachea).
Before birth, the respiratory tract is sterile, but pathogens begin to inhabit the upper respiratory tract soon after birth. If samples from several healthy calves are collected, some will yield major bacterial pathogens. Pathogens can be present and cause no illness because host defenses limit them to the upper airways. The ability to recover organisms from apparently healthy cattle is increased by "stressing" them - moving to a new location, commingling with others, withholding water, changing feed, etc.
When calf defenses cannot contain pathogens to the upper airways, respiratory disease will result. Calves with pneumonia act as "incubators", expelling pathogens in respiratory mucus. Presence of a sick calf forces healthy penmates to increase their host defense to compensate for increased exposure. If the healthy calf can do this, it will remain healthy; if it cannot increase host defenses, then it will become sick too.
Why are young calves so susceptible to bovine respiratory disease (BRD) compared to yearling age and older cattle? It has a lot to do with host defense. While older cattle aren't "bulletproof", they are far less likely to be affected with BRD, unless they are commingled from multiple sources and stressed.
Young calves have a less capable defense system. The antibodies in the colostrum they received shortly after birth decay by 50% every three weeks - so many calves may have little antibody left at weaning. Calves are less able to cope with adversity. They are not accustomed to other animals, feedbunks, and water tanks, so they may not eat well. They may not find a place to rest. They are more susceptible to the stress of change.
The control of BRD relies on control of stressors in the environment, and improvement of the calf defense response.
1. Weaning (withdrawal of milk and replacement with solid feed) is an unavoidable stress. Generally, it is not recommended to wean prior to four weeks of age. Weaning stress can be minimized by transitioning onto high quality feedstuffs over a period of time. Transition options include:
a. Decreasing milk feeding to 50% for 1 week then withdrawing milk.
b. Leave calf in the individual pen or hutch for one to two weeks or more after weaning to avoid stresses associated with grouping.
c. Leave calves on calf starter for an additional 2 weeks after re-grouping. This avoids a dietary stress on top of a group stress.
2. Dietary changes should be made slowly, bearing in mind that the digestive system may take two weeks to adapt to new feedstuffs. A dense, palatable diet is essential. The BRD will be a constant problem if major nutrients cannot be delivered to calves. Weaned calves should be consuming at least 2 lb of concentrate daily and should be gaining at least 1.25 lb/day.
3. For housing, weaned calves need a dry environment protected from the elements to lay down to rest and access to adequate clean feed and fresh water. They do not need a heated space. Do not allow humidity in calf facilities to go above outside humidity. Weaned calves should not have direct contact with older animals. Provide at least 30 ft2/animal and 18 inches of feeding space per calf, with dividers to define eating positions.
4. Group and social stress should be managed. Calves are best weaned as groups of four to six calves of similar age. Once this group is established, new calves are not added. This procedure allows calves to become exposed to pathogens in a controlled manner. Starting with large groups of calves or adding new calves to a group allows more risk of pathogen transmission. The result is a seemingly "chronic" pen of calves that take a long time to return to health.
5. Dehorning, ear tagging, vaccinating, and other stressful treatments should be timed so they do not add to weaning stress.
6. Weather is commonly blamed for respiratory disease outbreaks, yet controlled research to measure the effect of weather on BRD is practically non-existent. Day-to-night temperature extremes and moisture can be stressors, and these conditions are typical of fall weather. Often, weather is blamed in a BRD outbreak, when in reality, either housing is inadequate or calf nutrition is poor.
1. Colostrum - Calves that do not get adequate colostrum are at increased risk of disease pre- and post-weaning.
2. Nutrition - It takes energy and protein to support an immune response. Again, adequate nutrition is essential.
3. Vaccination can be a useful adjunct to other good management procedures. However, immunity resulting from vaccination of young calves is often less than that in adult animals. Selection and timing of specific vaccines can overcome part of this difficulty. Producers must work with their veterinarian to establish a good program.
4. Administration of antibiotics before illness (metaphylaxis) can significantly decrease BRD. Producers should consult with their veterinarian about this and should ask their veterinarian to recommend a legal, approved product. Some products used for beef cattle are not legal for use in dairy cattle.
1. Even with great conditions, some calves will be affected with BRD. Watch calves carefully after weaning. Realize that in high stress environments, BRD may appear within 7 to 14 days after weaning. In moderate to low stress environments, BRD may not appear until 3 to 4 weeks after weaning.
2. Antibiotic treatment for BRD is used to control bacterial infection. While both bacteria and viruses cause respiratory disease, controlling the bacterial infection will greatly decrease clinical signs and limit lung damage. Antibiotics work by reducing bacterial load in the respiratory tract. Antibiotics decrease bacterial load to the point where the calf's defense system can clear the remaining bacteria. Calves that are extremely immune deficient may not mount a normal response and may either not respond to the antibiotic or require more treatments. Ask your veterinarian for a specific recommendation of a modern antibiotic to use for pneumonia treatment.
3. Calves that die of suspected respiratory disease should be necropsied by a veterinarian, especially when an outbreak is in progress. Why?
a. To confirm that respiratory disease was the cause of death. Sometimes, the actual cause of death was something else. Confirmation of the true cause of death may dictate a change in treatment programs. It is not uncommon to find liver failure, kidney failure, certain poisonings, and lungworms in calves that have died from what the producer assumed was simple respiratory disease. In these cases, other treatments can be applied to the group, and productivity can be returned to normal.
b. Find other disease. The Bovine Virus Diarrhea (BVD) is a very common infection that may present as respiratory disease. The fact that the calves were vaccinated does not preclude BVD infection. If BVD is diagnosed in calves, a major change in herd management may be needed.
National Animal Identification System for Cattle
Dr. William B. Epperson, Extension Veterinarian, Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Ohio State University
Overview and Objectives
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a voluntary program administered by USDA in cooperation with State/Tribal governments to provide a nationwide system for unique identification of animals and to allow tracking of animal movements. The stated mission of the NAIS is to provide the capability to identify all animals and premises that have had direct contact with a foreign animal or domestic disease of concern within 48 hours after discovery. A nationwide animal identification system would:
1. Enhance foreign animal disease surveillance, control, and eradication,
2. Improve biosecurity of the national livestock population,
3. Provide positive identification for animals from herds participating in voluntary or mandatory disease control/eradication programs,
4. Allow accurate identification and sourcing of biological products for medical or diagnostic use that originate from animals, and
5. Facilitate health certification of herds in states and regions of the US for purposes of export or international trade ("regionalization").
Forms of Animal Identification
Since the late 1800's, hot iron brands have been used for identification of cattle, and they still serve as a legal means of identification for purposes of ownership in many western states. Brands are inexpensive, simple, and visually clear. Disadvantages include the necessity to re-brand as ownership changes, concerns with animal welfare, and the hide damage associated with brands. Brands are read and interpreted by visual means, so may not be easily adaptable to automated high throughput reader systems.
Ear notches have been used in swine and cattle and have similar advantages and disadvantages as brands. Uniquely identifying animals across herds and time is the main disadvantage to ear notches.
Ear tags/back tags and other visually read devices are commonly used today. They are easy to apply and scale neutral. However, reading tags and reporting tag numbers is labor intensive. In addition, a system must be in place to provide unique identification over time and between states.
Nose prints have been used in exhibitions. They are unique to the animal but can be difficult to read on a recurring basis.
Electronic identification includes radio frequency identification device (RFID) ear tags. This is presently the technology of choice. These are moderately inexpensive devices to apply but require some specialized reader equipment. They support automated data capture, though are not tamperproof and can be lost. The RFID implantable devices (chips) are available, but there is concern that those devices may migrate in the body.
Retinal imaging uses a picture of blood vessels in the retina to verify identification. Retinal vessel pattern is said to be unique to each individual and does not change through the life of the animal - similar to fingerprints. Retinal imaging does require a specialized scanner. Currently, a US company "Optibrand" is developing this technology. Retinal imaging is tamperproof and has been used to verify identity for exhibition and for specific marketing programs. Its sister technology, iris imaging, has lost popularity since the iris changes through life and images are difficult to acquire.
DNA fingerprinting is probably the ultimate in identity verification. At present, it is not practical in the field.
The Need for a National System
The need to track animals was evident following discovery of a Washington cow with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) on December 23, 2003. The European Union, Australia, and Canada (http://www.canadaid.com) have or will have animal identification and systems capable of lifetime tracking of an animal. This sort of system will become an expectation of countries exporting and importing animals or animal products. Animal identification is an element in the procedures and Standards of Veterinary Services in the 2004 Terrestrial Animal Health Code published by the Office of International des Epizooties (OIE), so it appears that a nationwide animal identification system will ultimately be necessary for the US to effectively compete in international trade.
Today, travel from one point to nearly any other point on the globe is possible within 24 hours. Additionally, livestock enterprises have become increasingly concentrated so that exposure at a major collecting point or large integrated facility would lead to tremendous agent multiplication and/or dispersion in a short period of time. Therefore, compared to years past, the risk of foreign animal disease introduction is probably greater, as well as the risk of transmission.
The Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001 demonstrated the need for animal identification and tracking. That outbreak initiated in swine, but spread to nearby sheep flocks, which showed very few clinical signs (i.e. lameness and mouth lesions) but were able to spread the virus to other animals. The outbreak was not officially detected for some 2 to 3 weeks, due to insidious spread of the barely clinical condition. As a result of this delay, many animals were exposed from contact at marketing centers, and the virus was widely disseminated. Tracking potential contacts in the United Kingdom proved to be an arduous task due to inadequate identification and records of movement. The outbreak halted export of animals and animal products from the entire country, and over 10,400 farms were affected, requiring the slaughter and disposal of 4.2 million animals. Direct government cost to contain the outbreak was $5 billion (US), with losses from tourism estimated at $3.6 to 7.2 billion (US).
A national animal identification program would enable rapid tracking of contacts and allow quarantine of exposed herds before further transmission occurred. It would also potentially allow identification of affected regions of the US and could facilitate more rapid recovery of animal movement and trade in those areas not in the exposed region.
The fact that many foreign animal diseases affect not only food producing animals makes it necessary to include non-food animal species (including horses, cervidae, and camelids) in the national identification program. Knowing potential exposures of these non-food animal species is also important in controlling foreign animal disease outbreaks.
It is likely that voluntary disease control programs will become more commonplace in the future and can offer a niche market to producers. Examples of such programs in place today include those for Johne's disease, Bovine Leukosis Virus, and Bovine Virus Diarrhea. Specialty manufacturers or herds raising transgenic animals have inquired about products (i.e. colostrum) from herds known to be free of specific disease(s). Along similar lines, national identification programs enhance source verification, which has become a major issue of some marketing programs.
The Basic Function
As a first and necessary step, all premises on which animals are housed, managed, or held will need a unique premise identification number. This includes farms, ranches, feedlots, auction barns, and exhibition sites. States are responsible to assign these numbers and maintain a database of the numbers, location, and responsible person to contact in the event of an emergency. Ohio has received $130,000 to install the computer software that will support allocation of the numbers and storage of the necessary information. The Ohio system will be linked to a national system, so that key information will be available to national regulatory authorities. Since animal disease outbreaks often cross multiple state lines, sharing of information involved in disease tracking is necessary.
The RFID ear tags that will be initially used in the NAIS will encode a 15 character code (numbers and letters). Each time an animal is sold or moved to a place where it is co-mingled with other animals, the animal's identification will be reported to the database, allowing exposure and movement of animals to be tracked. As animals are sold or moved, they will compile a series of premise numbers and dates where changes occurred for each premise they resided. All cattle on a single premise will have that one premise number associated with them while they reside on that premise. For example, given a 100-cow herd, each cow will have a unique ear tag number, but all 100 cows will all be associated (in a computer database) with the one premise number of the owner. Animals sold to another owner keep the same ear tag, but a new premise number is associated with the ear tag number in the computer database, reflecting the premise number of the new owner. If an animal is sold through an auction market, then the animal is associated with the premise number of the auction market for the dates it is there, and then is associated with the premise number of the new owner, starting on the date it arrives at the new premise. Each time an animal is sold or commingled, the changes will have to be registered within the national system.
There are currently several fundamental controversies with the program. One is confidentiality from public record - opinions differ as to who should have access to portions of these data. Most producers do not want the information in the public domain, for fear it could be used for purposes other than to track animal health emergencies. From comments made by Undersecretary Bill Hawks at a recent USDA listening session, it appears that the USDA can participate and still maintain confidentiality as long as the program is voluntary.
However, in order to monitor and track animal disease outbreaks, regulators must have access to the data. Very often, animal disease emergencies are completely handled by state regulators, so it is important that they have access to this information. Basically, access to the national identification database allows regulators to do their job better and faster - which benefits the livestock industry. Denying them access places the industry in some jeopardy in the event of an animal health emergency.
The second big controversy is funding. Who will pay to start this program, and how will it be maintained? The true cost of the NAIS is not known, though many cost estimates have been made. A seemingly popular estimate is for a cost of around $75 million per year for the next 3 to 5 years. The USDA released $20.3 million earlier this summer for NAIS, and the 2005 fiscal budget proposes another $33 million. The NAIS is being proposed as a government-industry cooperative program, with each partner sharing the cost.
Premise numbers for Ohio locations will start to be issued on a larger scale in calendar year 2005. Specific instructions on how that is to be done will come from the Ohio Department of Agriculture. This will be a ramp-up process and will involve not only producers, but veterinarians, auction markets, order buyers, and packers. This is an obvious burden, especially to auction markets and packers. Projecting timelines beyond this year are tenuous. Much depends on how implementation goes, but interested persons can go to http://www.usaip.info/ to view some projections.
1. The National Animal Identification System - at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/Animal-ID_Brochure.pdf
2. The United States Animal Identification Plan - at http://usaip.info/documents.htm
3. Stanford, K., J. Stitt , J.A. Kellar , and T.A. McAllister. 2001. Traceability in cattle and small ruminants in Canada. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epitz 20(2) 510-522.
4. Premises identification - the first step toward a national animal identification system. Program Aid No. 1800, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/Premises_ID_Brochure.pdf
5. Foot and Mouth Disease 2001: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry Report. Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/inquiries/lessons/index.htm
Don't Be Surprised, Do Tax Management for 2004 Now
Mr. David Miller, Farm Management Specialist, Ohio State University Extension
As the end of 2004 approaches, dairy farmers need to be thinking about the income and social security tax liability that will be due March 1 (or April 15th) of 2005. While milk prices have improved over the past year and beef prices for cull cows have remained high, they need to focus on their net farm income since the costs of inputs have also risen. How does the projected 2004 net farm income for your dairy compare to 2003? 2002? Is it up? Down? About the same? Once that question has been answered, then decisions about tax management strategies for 2004 can be made. Since year-to-year fluctuations in taxable income cause a taxpayer to pay more income taxes over time, the objective of tax management is to level out those fluctuations so less tax is paid.
Keep in mind also that normally 70 to 75% of the total tax bill for a dairy farmer is for self-employment (SE; social security) taxes. Depending on the situation, paying SE taxes protects the dairy farmer's family by keeping them qualified for death and disability benefits and ultimately for retirement benefits. While minimizing the income tax bill may be desirable, not paying SE taxes is hardly an option.
If the net farm income is up for 2004, then consider strategies to reduce net income. These include paying all past due bills, purchasing inputs for 2005, postponing the sale of cows and calves if their sale is close to year's end, paying the interest up-to-date on all outstanding farm loans, and replacing additional, but needed, capital items and place them in service in 2004. Investing in a traditional individual retirement account (IRA), if eligible, will reduce taxable income for the family and is a good way to set aside additional funds for retirement. This is something all farm families should take advantage of whether it has been a good year or not.
If net farm income is down for 2004, then the strategies are just the opposite. Postpone paying bills until after January 1, sell any cows and calves before December 31 to claim the income in 2004, collect money that might be owed to you, and postpone purchasing capital items that would be placed in service in 2004.
For new capital items placed in service during 2004, choice of depreciation methods can also affect net farm income. If you need additional deductions, consider various combinations of accelerated depreciation, 179 expensing, and the additional 30% or 50% first year depreciation. If you don't need additional depreciation deductions, use slower straight line methods and use the 179 expensing and additional first year depreciation options sparingly. Be sure to check with your tax accountant about the various requirements and conditions for using 179 expensing and the additional first year depreciation. Decisions about depreciation on new items placed in service during 2004 can be made up until the tax return is completed.
To avoid any unpleasant surprises, tax planning should also include an estimate of the tax liability due in March or April. While it is good to have adequate cash to purchase tax-deductible items by December 31, make sure there are enough available funds to pay the 2004 tax bill. It is better for you to pay taxes with available cash and borrow the funds necessary to purchase items for your business; interest on an operating loan is deductible on Schedule F, while interest on money borrowed to pay your taxes is not deductible anywhere.
Tax planning before the first of the year is always important to determine the projected net income of your dairy business for the current year. With that information, the manager can then make better decisions about what strategies are needed to better manage the tax situation. Be sure to check with your tax accountant to make sure what is best for your operation.
Rumensin® Approved for Lactating Dairy Cows
Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Dairy Nutrition Specialist, Ohio State University
Ionophores (monensin and lasalocid) have been approved as feed additives for use in dairy replacement heifers for several years but not for lactating dairy cattle. However, the Food and Drug Administration approved on November 3, 2004 the use of Rumensin® (monensin sodium) for increased milk production efficiency in dairy cows. The product is produced by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company, Greenfield, Indiana. It is already approved in feed for therapeutic and production uses in feedlot cattle, pasture cattle (beef and dairy heifers, and slaughter, stocker feeder cattle), beef cows, and calves excluding veal calves. The FDA concluded that the meat and milk derived from dairy animals fed monensin sodium are safe when the animals are fed according to the approved labeling; therefore, there is no withdrawal period for the product. Previous caution statements on the label will remain, including not feed it to horses or other equines because ingestion of monensin sodium by horses has been fatal.
Rumensin® can be fed to dry and lactating dairy cows, with the suggested initial feeding rate being 11g/ton (DM basis) and the continual feeding rate between 11 and 22 g/ton). The base product released by Elanco is Rumensin 80®, which contains 80 g/lb of monensin; carefully follow mixing instructions. The generally expected responses are as follows:VariableResponseVariableResponse
DM intake Decrease (no change in transition period) Body condition score No change to increase Milk yield No change to increase Body weight No change to increase Milk fat (%) Decrease Rumen acidosis No change to decrease Milk protein (%) No change to decrease Ketosis No change to decrease Milk fat yield No change to decrease Feed efficiency Increase Milk protein yield No change to increase
Determining the economic impact of using this product in a specific herd can be done by using the MS Excel file on the OSU dairy web site: https://dairy.osu.edu/resource/feed/feedmgt.html, click on the link titled "Monitoring Economics of Ration Changes for Lactating Cows".