U.S. dairy farms in crisis as milk prices turn sour

llinois farmer Linnea Kooistra expects to keep her 250-cow dairy farm afloat despite a rising tide of red ink caused by a collapse in milk prices, but other U.S. dairy farmers may be forced out of business.
Many of the more than 60,000 dairy farms in the United States have been cutting costs, selling off their cows, or leaving the dairy business altogether as milk prices plummet 35 percent in just the past two months while dairy farm operating costs remain uncomfortably high.
Some farms are losing $200 per head every month.

"We've dealt with 18 percent interest. We've dealt with farm recession. We've dealt with droughts and floods and this is by far the worst economic situation we have ever dealt with in our years of farming," said Kooistra, who has run Kooistra Farms in Woodstock, Illinois, with her husband since 1980.
"Right now, the price of milk will barely cover our feed costs and to pay our veterinarian. I'm not even counting all the other expenses that go along with keeping a farm running, the utilities, the fuel costs," she said.
"Our plan right now is to try to weather the storm. I just hope this doesn't last very long."
TUMBLING PRICES
Milk prices are down more than 50 percent from last summer after hitting all-time highs in 2007 and notching the second highest prices on record in 2008.
"Given the suddenness and severity of the plunge in farm-level milk prices, a significant number of farmers won't survive the winter," Jerry Kozak, president and chief executive of National Milk Producers Federation, said last month.
Analysts expect milk prices to remain depressed through at least the first half of the year, and prices later this year may only be high enough to cover production costs.
Benchmark Class III milk futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange fell to a six-year low of $9.24 per 100 lbs (45 kilograms) in January.
The U.S. Agriculture Department forecast the Class III price to average $10.60 to $11.40 in 2009, down from a $17.44 average last year.
"We could see the lowest prices here in January or February. By March or April, we could see prices come up about a dollar or so, but as we move into the second half of the year we could be moving closer to $15 or $16," Bob Cropp, dairy economist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
"It's going to be a tough year and we're going to get a supply response," he said, citing an industry herd culling program known as Cooperatives Working Together, or CWT.
Farmers have an opportunity to get paid for culling their herds via the farmer-funded CWT program, which was in the process of securing a line of credit to augment its efforts in 2009, according to NMPF's Kozak.
"I suspect that the attrition may be more among large western herds than it is among the small Midwest and Eastern dairy operations. The pain is greater on the West Coast," said University of Wisconsin dairy economist Ed Jesse.
Western producers have to buy most of their feed, while in the Midwest and the East farmers normally grow most of theirs.
Corn prices have dropped from a record-high of more than $7 a bushel last summer to less than $4, but dairy farmers are still struggling. Corn has averaged about $2 to $2.50 for much of the last 25 years.
"Feed is about 50 percent of a dairyman's total cost every year. When 50 percent of your total cost doubles then the bottom line suffers severely," said dairy farmer John Fiscalini, of Fiscalini Farms in Modesto, California.
SUPPLY/DEMAND IMBALANCE
Industry analysts say the reason for the steep drop in milk prices is simple-- too much milk and not enough demand for it.
Restaurant traffic is down in the United States as recession jitters have consumers reeling in their spending.
About 40 percent of U.S. milk production is made into cheese and roughly 60 percent of the cheese is used in the restaurant and food-service sectors, according to analysts.
Fluid milk consumption was expected to increase somewhat as people tend to drink more milk at home than at restaurants, but the benefit to prices will be minimal, analysts said.
Despite the plunge in wholesale milk prices, the cost at the supermarket has declined only slightly as retailers have been slow to adjust their prices. Based on a USDA survey of retailers in 30 U.S. cities, the average price of a gallon of whole milk was $3.67 in December, down 25 cents from its summer peak.
Dairy exports, which helped drive U.S. milk prices to the sky-high levels in 2007 and 2008, are also down sharply.
Importing nations are buying less amid global economic woes and a firmer dollar, which makes dollar-denominated commodities like milk more expensive for buyers holding other currencies.
Meanwhile, New Zealand and Australia, two top global suppliers, are exporting more milk products after severe drought slashed production in the past few years.
The European Union has reinstated export subsidies on a range of dairy products, essentially pricing U.S. supplies out of the market.
"U.S. commercial exports, without subsidies, are going to be much lower this year, probably a 25 or 35 percent cut if not more," Cropp said.
USDA projected commercial exports in 2009 at 6.7 billion pounds on a fat basis, versus an estimated 9.1 billion in 2008. On a skims-solids basis, exports are seen at 23.5 billion pounds, down from an estimated 26.5 billion in 2008.
Besides switching to cheaper feed rations, culling herds, and putting off big equipment purchases, dairy farmer options for weathering the market downturn are very limited.
"Even in the good times, you're always looking at ways to manage better and keep the costs down. When these extremes come along, it's pretty hard to find anything else to cut," said dairy farmer Brad Scott, of Scott Brothers Dairy Farm in San Jacinto, California.
"In a factory, when things get bad you can always just turn the key off and wait until things improve. In a dairy there's no key to turn off."

Hog market outlook remains strong

A blue moon -- when there are 2 full moons in the same calendar month -- has come around 15 times in the last 40 years. In that same time period, live hog prices have passed the $60-per-hundredweight mark 13 times.

So, $60-plus live hogs are rarer than a blue moon. But, that magic number was surpassed in May when live hogs hit $63/cwt. Though he expects the rarity of this occurrence to continue, Purdue University livestock economist Chris Hurt says it's definitely not a sign that the hog market's softening, at least for a while.

"The outlook is for strong and profitable prices to continue for some time, although with prices generally below the rare $60 mark," says Purdue University livestock economist Chris Hurt."

It's an optimistic projection for market conditions that have been good to hog farmers since spring. But, one thing that has changed in the outlook, Hurt says, is the expectation for expansion. Hog producers had simply been beaten around so much by market losses for so long, he says, that recovering from those losses likely trumps any immediate expansion plans for many farmers.

"The extraordinary profits this spring have some asking if producers will quickly expand. Losses eroded much of the equity of many producers, so they and their lenders want a period of profits to stabilize their financial position," Hurt says. "The extremely high May hog prices were a short-term aberration. Retail pork prices will continue to move higher this summer and will slow pork consumption. Retail pork prices already reached record highs in May at $3.04 per retail pound and the climb will continue into the summer. The economic recovery is slow and unemployment will remain high, contributing to overall weak retail demand and more moderate live hog prices.

And, there are signs that supplies will remain tighter than a year ago through this year; Hurt says pork supplies will be down 4% for the second half of 2010, while farrowing intentions are lower for the remainder of the summer and fall. This will keep prices higher at least through the summer.

"Live hog prices are expected to be in the higher $50s for the rest of the summer and then begin a seasonal decrease in September. Third quarter prices are expected to average in the $56 to $59 range," he says. "For the final quarter of 2010, the average price is expected to fall in a range from $50 to $53 with winter prices slightly lower."

What's it mean for profitability? Put those market prices together with expected lower feed costs, and Hurt says profits into 2011, though down from this year, will stay on in the black.

"Profit levels in the second quarter of 2010 were estimated to be near $33 per head and are projected to be $29 per head in the third quarter and about $15 in the final quarter. If so, this means 2010 profit per head would be near $21 compared to $24 of loss in 2009 and $17 of loss in 2008," he says. "The profit outlook for 2011 is positive, especially through the summer of 2011. By the fall, prices could fall closer to costs of production. Yield uncertainty for the 2011 crops could also greatly impact feed prices. Early projections for 2011 are for $11 per head of profits, but all coming in the first 3 quarters."

There's still one big-time variable that could influence these market conditions -- and possible future herd expansion -- in the next year or so.

"Those who believe corn prices will generally move back to $4.00 or higher would not want to expand hog production," Hurt says. "Alternatively those who believe corn will be under $3.50 might elect some moderate expansion in the range of 3% to 5%. Only time will tell who is correct."

Ohio farmers watching developing Russian wheat disaster

By Natalie Lehner , Communications Director, Ohio Wheat Growers Association

Wheat farmers throughout Ohio could be planting more wheat this fall, as the demand and price per bushel has increased because of a recently announced ban on wheat exports from Russia. 

Drought and wildfires are becoming common terms in Russia, as the wheat harvest is on the line. Approximately 20 percent of Russia’s wheat, a combination of hard red winter wheat and hard red spring wheat varieties, has been destroyed because of these natural occurrences.

In 2009, Russia was the world’s third-largest exporter of wheat, only trailing the United States and the European Union. 

“It’s very likely that overseas buyers will turn to the U.S. in the short term to fulfill their needs,” said Ohio Wheat Growers Executive Director Dwayne Siekman. “It’s too early to estimate the impact that it will have on planting decisions this fall for Ohio farmers; however, Ohio farmers are up for the challenge.” 

Ohio is the nation’s leader in growing soft red winter wheat, used in pan breads, general-purpose flour, cookies and crackers. Farmers in Ohio will plant wheat in the fall following the corn and soybean harvests. 



The Russian ban would go into effect Aug. 15, 2010, and last until Dec. 1, 2010, but some Russian sources say the ban could last until 2011 or even 2012. 

The situation in Russia is not the only trouble spot for wheat production throughout the globe. Australia and others are facing drought and poor production levels, which moved the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to reduce its production forecast this year.

“Seed distributors went from not being able to give wheat away to being worried if they will have enough,” said Mark Wachtman, President of the Ohio Wheat Growers Association (OWGA).



Despite the increase in wheat prices because of global production concerns, the FAO claims world-existing stocks will cover the production decline. Many are also waiting on the release of the World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates report August 12 that will be a stronger barometer about wheat, corn and soybean production throughout the world to determine long-term impacts. 


Understanding the true cost of mastitis

Focusing on the average cost of mastitis is misleading as to the "true" cost of the disease, said Martin Green, Nottingham University.

"The actual cost of clinical mastitis can range from £149-£250 a case, according to farm data from the DairyCo Mastitis Control Plan.

"I would argue the average cost of clinical mastitis and somatic cell counts (SCC) is irrelevant because the variation between farms is so large.

"It is, therefore, no longer possible or appropriate to deliver generic advice to a dairy unit and assume it will be cost effective for that individual farm," he said.

Control measures

It was vital to understand causes and reasons for mastitis on each farm and particularly the cost benefit of different control measures. "We need to look at the incidence on individual farms to promote more effective control."

The cost of mastitis included a lot more than just the cost of treatment. "The largest component to cost is damage to the udder causing less milk from current and later lactations as well as increased culling rates and added risk of mastitis spread."

However, the magnitude of these costs vary considerably between farms depending on individual circumstances.

A simulation model showed the cost of clinical mastitis equated to 0.7-6.6p/litre. However, in reality the range of cost on farm was far greater, with the true cost being up to 10p/litre.

"There are 30-40% of farms where the financial cost and incidence rate of mastitis is huge. As an industry we must do something to address this problem."

"The trouble is, we only have data on SCC and not on the number of clinical cases - sample data shows this is an area that must be looked at in more detail."

And knowing the cost of mastitis was not the end of the story. "It is what the costs represent in terms of the decisions we make that counts - cost helps us decide whether the changes we make are financially beneficial."

"The question is, what is the minimum payback we can expect to achieve from any intervention we make and does this cover the cost of mastitis?

"For example, rotating dry cow pastures has been shown to improve the rate of clinical mastitis in the subsequent lactation by an average of 20%. However, some farms will achieve just a 5% improvement where others will get a 20% improvement."

"The question is, which farm gets which benefit? The fact we don't know the size of the effect we will get must be worked into any management control plan.

"We need to do a 'best guess' of what is effective and continuously monitor the effect on clinical mastitis and SCC. Then we can re assess and adjust control accordingly."

Adapting mastitis control plans

And adapting mastitis control plans in line with specific pressures was something recognised by the New Zealand dairy industry, according to Katrina Roberts, The Animal Health Centre, New Zealand.

"Because the New Zealand system is seasonal and pasture based, environmental pathogens such as Strep uberis are our main problem when it comes to mastitis.

"And heifers are especially vulnerable, being two to three times more likely to develop clinical mastitis in the first few days of lactation in comparison to cows, with 50-60% of these cases attributed to Strep uberis."
As a result it might be necessary to adopt a different control approach for heifers. "It is commonly recognised the cause of mastitis is multi-factorial. There is no one intervention that will solve the problem - any control method will be specific to individual farms."

Heifers calving at three years old were also more likely to develop clinical mastitis than those calving at two years. "Breed, season at calving and milk leakage also increases the likelihood of developing mastitis - we need to think of ways to tackle these areas.

"Closer to calving, heifers are more likely to be dirty, teat canals are likely to be open and udder oedema increases. Strep uberis is also more likely to be present."

Using a teat sealant on heifers one month to six weeks prior to calving had been shown to reduce the incidence of new infection at and after calving by 66%. "We have used this method on 20% of our heifer population with great success.

"Teat spraying heifers three times a week pre-calving has also been shown to reduce the prevalence of Strep uberis on the teat-end one to two days before calving and reduce the prevalence of infection associated with Strep at the first milking after calving." However there was no reduction in the incidence of clinical mastitis.

"We must also question whether the benefits from spraying outweighs hassle of bringing heifers in along muddy tracks," she said.

Milking heifers pre-calving to reduce udder oedema was also an option, but this creates issues trying to manage another group of animals.

Removing calves and milking cows as soon as possible had also been shown to reduce the number of clinical cases of mastitis by 45%. "This may increase labour, but when farmers are experiencing 15-20% clinical mastitis in heifers, it may prove economical," she said.

Nutrition is key to controlling somatic cell counts

Nutrition was one of the tools available for farmers to control somatic cell counts, said Richard Vecqueray, vet and nutritional consultant.

"Nutrition can be linked through to some causal factors of mastitis, be it faecal consistency, teat end condition or cow immunity."

For example, modifying the ration prior to drying off could reduce milk yields and subsequently mastitis levels. "Cows with more than 21kg of milk in the udder at drying off are slower to produce a keratin plug in the early dry period and are more likely to develop dry period intra-mammary infection," he said.

To reduce the volume of milk in the udder to a significant level, rations should be modified accordingly. "Socially isolating cows that are not on target can be one way to manage yields - these cows can be placed on a low-energy dense diet typically containing a higher proportion of straw."

However, it is important to maintain dietary macro-minerals, such as magnesium and sufficient protein to maintain rumen function when using this strategy, he said.

"There may also be the option of shortening the dry period, although the jury is still out on the effect on cell counts - this could be a useful tool that could be applied according to individual cows."

Preventing milk fever was also essential to reduce the likelihood of infection. "Cows with milk fever are eight times more likely to suffer from mastitis and nine times more likely to be affected by E coli," he said.

This might be a result of reduced immune response or "downer" cows having a higher bacterial challenge at the teat end.

"Milk fever prevention relies on supplementing magnesium and removing potassium from the ration - it is all about what you take out of the ration. Plan ahead and ensure forages have less potash applied to them."

Acidification of drinking water with organic acids as a solution for post weaning diarrhoea

INTRODUCTION


Health and performance of the pigs is what drives profits in pig production. Therefore farmers want to build the most modern animal houses, to have a quality feed and to select pigs with the best genetics. It is easy to forget that drinking water is the most important nutrient for farm animals and that the animals drink at least twice as much as they eat solid feed.

Acidifying the drinking water can help to improve the quality of the ‘forgotten nutrient’. Increasing the quality of the drinking water can result in improved performance of the animals, with lower bacterial load in the water and in less chance of the formation of ‘biofilm’ (an organic layer of ‘slime’ in the pipes, in which bacteria and fungi grow).

This article describes the benefits of acidification of drinking water with organic acids and the special importance that it can have for piglets in the post weaning period.

Lowering the pH

Compared to feed, which usually has a high buffering capacity (due to protein sources and minerals), water has a very small buffering effect. The only parameter which can have an effect is the hardness of water. When applying a product which has one single acid ingredient in drinking water, the pH decreases very quickly and if the dosage is too high, the pH can lower too much, leading to a negative result (lower water intake with decreased performance). Therefore choosing a product which has a synergistic formulation of organic acids is more favourable to these single acid products.

These organic acids have a buffering effect which makes the pH decrease slowly. A synergistic mix of organic acids also has a greater antibacterial effect, is more palateable, and is less corrosive compared with a single acid.

How do organic acids work?

The general chemical formula of an organic acid is R-COOH (undissociated form). In this form they have the ability to split off a proton (H+), which lowers the pH of the environment. The pKa value is the pH at which 50% of the organic acids have split off their proton, and is different for each organic acid. Due to the lower pH the growth of pathogenic bacteria (e.g. E. coli, Salmonella and Campylobacter) is inhibited and the growth of beneficial bacteria (e.g. lactic acid bacteria) is stimulated. This pH effect is the only effect that single acids have, on the other hand organic acids also have an antibacterial activity.

The antibacterial activity of organic acids is related to the reduction of pH, as well as their ability to dissociate, which is determined by the pKa-value of the respective acid, and the pH of the surrounding environment. The antibacterial activity increases with decreasing pH-value. Organic acids are lipid soluble in the undissociated form, in which they are able to enter the microbial cell (see figure 1). Once in the cell, the acid releases the proton in the more alkaline environment, resulting in a decrease of the pH in the cell. This influences microbial metabolism inhibiting the action of important microbial enzymes and forces the bacterial cell to use energy to release protons, leading to an intracellular accumulation of acid anions. This accumulation depends on the pH difference across the membrane. Generally the antimicrobial effect of organic acids increases with increasing concentrations.

Organic acids exert their antimicrobial action both in the water and in the gastro intestinal tract of the animal. If the water is acidified, the pH in the digestive tract of the pigs will be lowered. This has a positive effect on the digestion especially in the stomach and the small intestines.

Control of weaning diarrhoea

Weaning is a complex step involving dietary, environmental, social and psychological stresses which interfere deeply with feed intake, gastro intestinal tract development and adaptation to the weaning diet. The first organ suffering from nutrient shortage immediately after the weaning is the gastro intestinal tract and this has dramatic consequences on its anatomy and functions, including barrier function against harmful antigens and pathogens. Therefore, addition of organic acids to the drinking water appears as critical for solving post weaning disorders.

The morphology of the piglet's gastrointestinal epithelia drastically changes at weaning. Villous height decreases and crypt depth increases; these changes appear to be induced by weaning and not by the creep feed offered at weaning. In the same time, there is a transient decrease in intestinal Lactobacilli and increase in coliforms.

A lot of just weaned piglets usually show a malabsorption syndrome known as non-infectious diarrhoea, which is characterised by increased excretion of fatty acids and carbohydrates in the faeces, watery stools and degenerative changes in the villi of the small intestine. In the majority of these cases, opportunistic pathogens take advantage of the presence of non-infectious diarrhoea and cause the post-weaning diarrhea syndrome (PWDS). The most important pathogens are:

1) TGE (Transmissible Gastroenteritis):

a) Caused by virus that belongs to a group called coronaviruses, and destroys digestive cells (villi) in pig’s intestines, thus no digestion/absorption, which can lead to diarrhoea.

b) The most deadly, and the most feared by producers.

2) Rotaviral diarrohea:

a) Caused by groups of rotavirus (groups A, B and C), and destroys the lining of the small intestine.

b) Rotaviruses are resistant to lipid solvents & many disinfectants, and they can survive for a long time.

3) Colibacillosis (E. coli):

a) Caused by certain E. coli strains that are classified as enteropathogenic, which can propagate rapidly, and produce toxins (enterotoxin).

b) Toxins can cause massive fluid and electrolytes losses from the body, and the result being a large amount of pale yellow, watery feces.

c) Its effects might be a secondary to the damage caused by TGE or rotavirus.

This major cause of these post-weaning disorders is that the weaned piglet lacks sufficient capacity to acidify its own stomach content by hydrochloric acid. Thus, the pH value in the stomach may stay at 4-5 for at least two hours after feeding, leading to suboptimal protein digestion and insufficient killing of microbes by low pH value. During this period, more than half of the dry matter already has been transferred from the gastric lumen to the duodenum; the resulting poor digestion and high bacterial count can easily lead to weaning diarrhoea.

Organic acids can simply be added to the drinking water with a dosing pump (see figure 3). The addition of organic acids to the drinking water increases the speed at which stomach contents reaches the optimal pH value of around 3, where the proteolytic enzyme pepsin has its optimum efficacy. Acidification also leads to lower gastric emptying which further contributes to an optimal digestion process. These mechanisms support the piglets in the stressful post weaning period and reduce the risk of having the post weaning diarrhoea syndrome.

Conclusion

It is clear that the addition of organic acids in the post weaning period support the piglets, this has beneficial effects on the health and performance of the piglets. It is favorable to use a mix of organic acids for the acidification of the drinking water, because they have a better buffering capacity and antibacterial activity, and are more palateable and less corrosive when compared with single acids.

EU legislation Salmonella prevention

Salmonella is classified as a zoonosis, which is a disease agent transmissible between animals and man.


The first European Union legislation for controlling several zoonotic diseases came in 1992 with Council Directive 92/117EEC. Data was collected in all EU countries on zoonotic diseases in production animals, and control programmes initiated in breeding poultry for Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium. An evaluation of the control programmes after a decade indicated that the control of the breeding poultry did not result in any decrease in Salmonella in the production birds, and the EU decided to extend the control measures to other production categories of poultry, and also lay down foundation for introducing controls in other production animals, such as turkeys and pigs.

The old directive 92/117/EEC was replaced by EU Regulation 2160/2003 that obliges farmers and member state authorities to work together to reduce Salmonella, especially serotypes of public health significance, such as S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium.

EU Directive 2003/99/EC on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents improved the old data collection system for zoonotic agents, including Salmonella. Two EU institutions, The European Public Health Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), collate data, publishing summaries, and advise on harmonized procedures for sampling and testing.

The annual reports of the Member States and the European Community summary reports, can be accessed on the website EFSA. EFSA also evaluated risks associated with Salmonella in food production animals, and the optimal control programmes.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/monitoring_zoonoses/reports.html

There are general legislation of Public Health that legislates that Salmonella should not be found in food. The EU Food Hygiene Regulation 852/2004/EC, on the hygiene of food stuffs states that the responsibility for the production of safe food lies with the food business operator and this includes the primary animal producer up through the food chain to the consumer; a farm-to-fork approach. Regulation 2073/2005/EC on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs has stringent rules on the absence of Salmonella in certain food products. The criteria apply during the whole shelf life and products must be withdrawn from the market if they do not comply.

There are also specific legislation that describes control programmes. The European Union has three regulations for reducing and controlling the prevalence of Salmonella in:

- breeding poultry: 1003/2005/EC

- broilers: 1168/2006/EC

- layers: 1177/2006/EC

- turkeys: 584/2008/EC

Targets for reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella in herds of slaughter and breeding pigs will be established at the end of 2009 and will apply to all Salmonella serotypes with public health significance. Strategies and reduction goals vary between countries depending how much Salmonella there is in the production animals.

Corn, soybean production costs holding steady Agriculture.com Staff

Iowa State University (ISU) ag economists don’t expect production costs for corn and soybeans to change much for 2011. Although they won’t release their final assessment of production costs until December, they were sharing some preliminary estimates with landowners and farm operators at a series of land leasing meetings being held in August.

Steve Johnson, a farm and ag business management field specialist with ISU Extension, says, “August is the prime time to negotiate cash rental rates for 2011, so we are releasing these preliminary cost of production estimates. Farmers are making decisions right now.” In Iowa, rental agreements have to be broken by September 1 or they remain in effect for the next crop year.

The ISU economists expect the cost of producing a bushel of soybeans to be down about 2 cents from last year. They think corn production costs will be about 4 cents per bushel higher.

Seed costs are expected to be down a little while rent and fertilizer costs are expected to be flat. However, nitrogen prices have increased some over the past few days.

The economists estimate the cost of producing 165 bushels of corn on medium quality land will be $3.94 per bushel ($650 per acre) where corn follows corn. They peg the cost of producing 145 bushels of corn following corn on lower quality land at $4.08 per bushel ($591 per acre). Their estimate for producing 185 bushels of corn following corn on higher quality land is $3.83 per bushel ($708 per acre).

Where corn follows soybeans, they estimate the cost of producing 180 bushels of corn on medium quality land will be $3.40 per bushel ($619 per acre). They estimate it will cost $3.50 per bushel ($560 per acre) to produce 160 bushels of corn following soybeans on lower quality land. Finally, they predict it will cost $3.39 per bushel ($677 per acre) to produce 200 bushels of corn following soybeans on higher quality land.

The ISU economists estimate it will cost $8.65 per bushel ($432 per acre) to raise 50 bushels of soybeans following corn on medium quality land. On lower quality land, they predict it will cost $8.87 per bushel ($339 per acre) to raise 45 bushels of soybeans following corn. The economists expect it to cost $8.47 per bushel ($466 per acre) to raise 55 bushels of soybeans following corn on high yielding land.

The 2011 estimates are not available online. However, the similar figures for 2010 are available at the ISU Ag Decision Maker site: www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm. Do a search for estimated costs of production. Input costs are broken out by various categories–land, crop inputs, machinery and labor.

Focus on… the cost of mastitis

The economic loss from one single case of clinical mastitis in Western Europe ranges from 200-300 euro. The magnitude of loss depends upon the bacteria involved, the herd’s production level, and the accuracy of farmer and veterinarian in detecting and treating animals with clinical mastitis. Most clinical mastitis cases occur in the first trimester of lactation. Both cows and heifers are concerned with mastitis. The proportion of heifers with mastitis around calving varies from 30-35%. Stress, negative energy status and metabolic disorders are believed to be important risk factors, however heifers can already be infected several weeks before their first calving.

The observed losses due to mastitis are: milk discarded during treatment and withholding periods, veterinary costs (treatment and visits), additional farm labour and occasional deaths and involuntary culling. Most of the time, one type of lost is unnoticed: drop in milk production for the remaining lactation period, while it is more than the three quarters of the total financial losses. The following table shows the repartition of the financial losses caused by mastitis.

This is even more underestimated in subclinical mastitis. In cases of a seemingly healthy herd, the subclinical form of mastitis, which occurs 20 to 50 times more often than the clinical form, can be very expensive. Research has demonstrated that 80% of occurrences of losses in milk-production-capacity are caused by the subclinical form of mastitis, without any visible disease symptoms.

Therefore, it is very important to PREVENT mastitis. Good hygiene is the solution to prevent spread of mastitis. The daily use of a predip, to prepare the teats, and a postdip, to protect them until next milking, together with cleaning and disinfecting the equipement used for milking are the keys to success.