Farm Level Milk Prices Rebound in 2011

The US All Milk Price will average around $20 per cwt. in 2011, which was welcome relief for dairy producers recovering from a brutal 2009 where the US All Milk Price averaged less than $13 per cwt and a 2010 market where prices averaged a little over $16. Prices have been supported in 2011 by strong component prices as cheese, dry whey, butter, and non-fat dry milk prices have all improved from 2010 levels.

As is typical, strong farm level milk prices led to increases in production in the second half of 2011. Mid-year dairy heifer development numbers suggest that expansion of the US dairy herd is ongoing. As this expansion continues, larger dairy cow inventory and generally increasing milk per cow should result in continued increasing production levels for 2012. As production increases, greater supply is likely to put downward pressure on farm-level milk prices in 2012. USDA is currently projecting farm level milk prices to decrease by $1-$2 per cwt.

The expansion taking place at the national level is not being seen in Kentucky. According to USDA's January estimates, Kentucky began the year with 77 thousand dairy cows, down from 80 thousand in January of 2010. The year 2010 marked the 10^th straight year that Kentucky dairy cow numbers have declined. Milk cow replacement numbers were also down in January, suggesting that Kentucky is likely to see another decrease in dairy cow inventory to start 2012. (Kenny Burdine)

10 Smart End-of-the-Year Investments During Good Dairy Years

By Jeffrey Bewley, UK Extension Dairy Specialist

A few years ago, I had a fun debate with a dairy producer about ways to avoid paying taxes at the end of a good year. This producer just couldn't stand the thought of paying taxes at the end of the year and wanted to do everything he could to avoid it. My response to him was that it's actually a good thing when you have to pay taxes at the end of the year because that means you actually made money that year. It's been a few years since we could even have this kind of debate. But, I've talked with enough farmers to recognize that this is a valid question again this year. Yes, feed prices are ridiculously high and many farms are still digging out of a hole; but milk prices have been good this year. Farms with low debt loads and reasonably high milk production have made money this year.

So, the question is coming up again "what can I do to avoid paying taxes?" Perhaps the question should be rephrased to "what can I do to minimize my taxes?" Trying to avoid paying taxes might result in a change of address to a prison. However, minimizing tax obligations through legal, smart investments is good business. But, the first temptation is to buy a new truck or a new toy (boats, electronic gadgets, etc.). Remember that tax savings will never make an unprofitable investment profitable. While those purchases may fulfill the goal of minimizing tax obligations they often erode future financial success. A new truck or toy doesn't do much toward ensuring the future financial success of the operation. And, if they result in a new loan, they may even come back to haunt in future, leaner years. The key to minimizing tax obligations is to make smart end-of-the-year investments. Invest in productive assets that are going to increase future profitability. Look for items with a high return on investment. Ask yourself "how much more milk will I get if I invest in this?" Use the cushion created in a good year to minimize the pain in bad years. Following is a list of items that are likely to result in a high return on investment along with their potential benefits. These may be good options to consider purchasing at the end of the year. These may not fit every farm situation. And, there are many other possibilities to add to this list. This year challenge yourself to look for items that will add more money to your bottom line in future years while searching for those opportunities to spend a little money at the end of the year.

Beef Quality Assurance Certification Training

A Beef Quality Assurance Certification training (BQA) will be held on November 14^th at 10:00 am at the Adair County Cooperative Extension Service. BQA training includes education on proper handling of livestock to protect the safety of yourself and consumers. Certification is good for three year. Participants will be assessed a fee of $5 payable to KY BQA program to maintain the certification program.

Managing a Grazing or Pasture System for a Milking Dairy Herd

By: Donna M. Amaral-Phillips, UK Dairy Nutritionist

Allowing dairy cows to graze forages versus harvesting and storing them can be a very economical means of providing some or all of a dairy cows’ forage needs. Grazed forages can provide as little as 15% of the forage needs of dairy cows or up to the majority of the forage component of their diets. The amount of grazed forage consumed can vary with growing conditions and/or the time of year.

Grazing forages for the milking dairy herd is nothing new. It has been practiced for years, but what has changed over time are some of the forage management practices. Today, we pay more attention to the forage species in the pasture fields, try extra hard to graze young, vegetative plants for higher quality forages through managing the rotation of fields or paddocks using temporary fencing, and making sure water is always close to the cows (within 800 ft). One of the biggest realizations is that the pasture systems must be managed closely and the movement of the cows must constantly evolve and change to match the availability of forages. Outlined in this article are some of the key components in managing a grazing system for the milking dairy herd.

1. Manage the forage rotation to allow the forage plants time to rest and regrow. In the summertime, rest periods need to be approximately 28 to 35 days between grazing periods. Grasses regrow from the tillers that are close to the soil surface, thus it is important for 3 to 4 inches of growth to remain after grazing orchardgrass or fescue plants. Closer grazing increases the time of regrowth, decreases survivability of the plants especially during drought conditions (see picture), and decreases the nutrition provided to the dairy cow. In contrast to grasses, alfalfa and red clover plants regrow from the carbohydrate stores in the plant’s roots thus a lower residual grazing height is possible. In stands that you want to favor the growth of the legumes, the stand is grazed lower. If you want to favor the growth of the grasses, graze the plants higher.

2. Graze young lush plants in their vegetative state. Vegetative plants contain more nutrients, such as carbohydrates, starches and sugars, for energy and protein that cattle can use for their nutrition. More mature plants have more lignin and are less digestible in the rumen. This results in forages “staying in the rumen longer” which in turn decreases intake and decreases milk production.

3. Dairy cows graze about 8 hours daily with the heaviest grazing periods in the early morning and later in the evening. Dairy cows do selectively graze forage types. In addition, the first bite of forage is from the top of the plant containing the highest concentration of nutrients. The next bite is the middle of the plant where the nutrition is somewhat less than the top. The lower part of plants contains more stem and thus fiber than the upper parts of both legume and grass plants (see table 1.) Requiring animals to consume most of the plant in a single grazing pass results in more even consumption of nutrients found in the plant. Strip grazing using temporary fencing allows one to achieve this objective. Remember with dairy cows we want to take half of the available forage and leave half behind.

Table 1. Concentration of nutrients found in an orchardgrass plant in October.

Orchardgrass – 9 inches tall on 10-5-98 in Northeast	Crude Protein (%)	NDF (%)	NEL (Mcal/lb)
Top 1/3	27.4	38.5	0.79
Middle 1/3	22.9	44.6	0.76
Bottom 1/3	14.0	60.0	0.67

Source: Karen Hoffman- eOrganic eXtension Webinar 9-16-2010

4. Like any feeding system, maintaining dry matter intake in dairy cows is important. Dry matter intake on grazed forages is determined by bite rate, time spent grazing, and the bite size. Cattle usually are capable of 50 to 70 bites of forage per minute, spend up to approximately 8 hours daily grazing, and average a bite size of 0.2 ounces per bite. Bite size is the most variable of these three factors that determine dry matter intake from grazed forages. Bite size is directly related to stand density and forage height. The take home message is that cows need to be able to consume a mouth full of feed from pasture plants to optimize forage intake.

5. Forage programs should be designed such that dairy cows have quality forage to graze at all times. Stored forages should be used when quality forages to graze are not available or the amount available does not match the dairy cow’s nutrient needs. In the summertime, cool season grasses such as orchardgrass and fescue do not grow when temperatures exceed 70 °F. Alfalfa, sudangrass, pearl millets or warm season perennials will grow during summertime temperatures and in full sun radiation. Brown midrib varieties of sudangrass improve digestibility since they contain less lignin.

6. Do not forget to provide plenty of cool, clean water in every grazing area. Limiting water intake can decrease milk production quickly. Dairy cows producing 50 lbs of milk drink approximately 25 gallons of water daily when the ambient temperature is 60°F. When the temperature increases to 90°F, water intake increases by approximately 5 gallons daily.

7. In the day time, provide plenty of shade or allow the dairy cows to return to the barn. Rotation of shade trees is important to prevent environmental mastitis. A study in the British Columbia showed that given a choice, dairy cows preferred the barn during the day and the pasture area at night.

8. Pasture plants contain protein which is highly degradable in the rumen and these plants are low in sugars and starches. In diets with higher amounts of forage from pasture, often times MUN’s are higher than conventional diets especially corn silage-based diets. Adding concentrates composed of starch and sugar sources (i.e. corn, hominy) for the rumen bacteria may help improve milk production and decrease MUN levels. Adding protein sources high in rumen undegradable protein (RUP), such as dried distiller’s grains has not resulted in a milk production response.

FSA News: Signup Continues for Livestock Indemnity Program

Livestock producers are reminded that the deadline to report death losses under the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) is no later than 30 calendar days after the loss becomes apparent to the livestock producer. Producers are eligible for compensation on livestock deaths in excess of normal mortality that occur due to adverse weather conditions.

Eligible causes of loss include extreme heat, extreme cold, lightning, tornado, floods, hurricanes, blizzards, wildfires, tropical storm, earthquake and typhoon. For cases of extreme heat or extreme cold the Kentucky State FSA Committee sets guidelines to determine the eligible days for payment that deaths occur on.

Producers must provide documentation according to one of the following:

Verifiable Documentation for proof of death may include, but is not limited to: (1) rendering truck receipts or certificates; (2) National Guard records; (3) veterinary records; (4) records assembled for tax purposes; (5) production records; or (6) FEMA records. Verifiable documentation may also include property tax records, private insurance documents, written contracts, purchase records, bank or other loan documents. Documentation must provide sufficient data that identifies the kind/ type/ weight range of livestock and the number of livestock lost.

Reliable Records may be provided if adequate verifiable proof of death records documentation is not available, in conjunction with verifiable beginning and ending inventory records as proof of death such as, but not limited to: (1) contemporaneous producer records existing at time of event; (2) Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) records; (3) vaccination/branding records; (4) brand inspection records; (5) pictures with a date; and (6) other similar reliable documents.

Third Party Certification may be accepted only when participant certifies in writing on an FSA-926 that no other form of proof of deaths is available and includes the number and physical location of livestock in inventory at time death occurs. Documentation must also be provided to support the number of livestock in inventory at the time the deaths occurred.

For additional information contact the Columbia FSA Service Center by phone at (270) 384-6431 or 1-888-758-6634 or come by the office at 961 Campbellsville Road, Columbia KY.

Community Outreach Program for Dairy Farmers

Click on Flyer for Details!

Do Your Cows Have A Comfortable Place to Rest?

By Jeffrey Bewley, UK Dairy Specialist

Providing a comfortable, soft surface cushion may be the most important factor affecting freestall usage and lying time. An ideal stall bed (1) conforms to the cow's shape, (2) provides cushion while the cow is getting up and lying down, (3) maintains effective traction to minimize slipping, and (4) remains dry to minimize bacterial growth and promote optimal udder health. Many different combinations of stall bases and bedding types can be effective; however, sand bedding generally best meets the cows’ needs. Stall usage and lying time tends to be higher for sand bedded freestalls than for mattress freestalls. Keeping sand filled to the curb increases stall use. In one study, daily lying time was 1.15 hours longer when sand stalls were filled to the curb compared to stalls with sand levels 2.44" below the curb. Although mattresses, waterbeds, and mats may reduce the amount of bedding needed, bedding still must be used to minimize friction while the cow rises from the stall and to absorb moisture. In a British Columbia study, cows spent 1.5 hours more lying down in mattress freestalls bedded with 16.5 pounds of sawdust than those with no sawdust. Thus, lying time can be improved considerably by providing cows with more bedding.

When cows are not provided with a comfortable place to rest, they will not utilize or occupy freestalls well. Hock injuries are commonly observed in situations where cows are forced to lie on a hard surface or when insufficient bedding is provided. Of course, the worst scenario is when cows are lying on concrete without any bedding. Bedding helps to minimize friction between the hock and the stall surface. In deep-bedded stalls, cows may dig out the bedding and effectively reduce their resting area if bedding is not replaced. This situation may also increase the effective height of the brisket board and stall dividers. In turn, cows may have difficulty getting in and out of the stall. Moreover, the potential for abrasions between the now-protruding rear curb and the cow’s hocks can lead to severe hock abrasions and ulcers. When mattress or mats are used, inadequate bedding may also lead to hock injuries and poor stall use. This problem is exacerbated when the mattress cushions have lost their flexibility and are utilized past their useful life.

The solution to this problem may often be as simple as using more bedding. This is particularly true for sand. Sand provides such a good resting material for cows that it will often mask other freestall design limitations. Hard or worn-out surfaces may need to be replaced with deep-bedded sand or new mattresses. When adding a mattress on top of concrete, caution must be used to be sure that the height for the cows stepping up into the stalls does not exceed 8 to 10.” In a deep-bedded scenario without a mattress or mat, a minimum of 6” of bedding material is required. When mattresses or mats are used, at least 3” of bedding must be added to the top of the stall base. Freestalls should be groomed, removing manure and wet areas 2 to 3 times per day. Deep-bedded stalls should be leveled at least twice per week. Bedding should be added at least once per week and possibly once per day depending on the type of bedding used, environmental conditions, and observations of cow cleanliness. Bedding savers may be used to minimize bedding waste. These small changes to freestall surfaces can have a dramatic impact on cow comfort, lameness, production, and animal well-being.

Tri-county short course deals with dairy marketing options

By Katie Pratt
COLUMBIA, Ky., (Nov. 25, 2009) – Low milk prices coupled with high input costs have created economic struggles for many Kentucky dairy farmers in 2009. Kentucky Cooperative Extension agriculture and natural resource agents from Adair, Taylor and Green counties recently hosted a three-day Dairy Futures Short Course to present information on ways dairy producers can hedge future economic losses.
According to the most recent statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Adair County is the second-largest dairy producing county in the state. Taylor and Green counties also have a substantial number of dairies. Typically, the three counties present an annual short course on dairy basics, but due to the economic climate of the dairy industry, they decided to present an additional course on marketing options this year.
“This program is an example of how extension is assisting dairy farmers in tough times,” said Nick Roy, Adair County extension agent for agriculture and natural resources.
During the program, specialists from the University of Kentucky and a consultant with the Kentucky Dairy Development Council presented options for managing risks including the basics of the futures market, contract specifications, hedging, basis and the USDA’s Livestock Gross Margin program. A milk broker presented additional information about the futures market in the last session.
Brian Newman, Green County extension agent, said the futures market is like an insurance policy that could help producers limit economic hardships in the future.
“With futures, you may not always get the highest price, but at least you know you’re making a profit,” he said
UK agricultural economist Kenny Burdine said producers can incorporate these strategies into their future marketing plans and cautioned against relying on only one form of marketing for an entire operation.
“Through this program, producers will gain enough information about the futures market to make an educated decision on whether it fits their operation,” said Pat Hardesty, agriculture and natural resources extension agent in Taylor County.
David Hutchison, an Adair County dairy producer, said the information he received in the program would help him make future marketing decisions.
“The futures market is something I’ve been thinking about and will probably be something I’ll apply to my operation when the time comes,” he said.

Dairy Enterprise Analysis

By Curtis Mahnken, KFBM

The difference between 2008 and 2009 for dairy farmers is staggering. All year we’ve heard and seen horror stories of what has been happening to our dairy neighbors here and across the U.S. To examine and identify areas of praise, concern and guidance for dairy farmers in Kentucky Farm Business Management, KFBM specialists performed enterprise analyses. In the study there were twenty-three dairy enterprises which averaged 164 cows and 18,439 pounds of milk sold per cow. Milk price received was $20.93, but feed prices were up which is reflected in $198 in returns per $100 of feed fed. The enterprises were examined several ways and key findings are included. (Note that all results come from the Dairy Enterprise Analysis report coming out soon).

The first factor that was considered when looking at these enterprises is herd size. There was evidence that bigger is better, which can be seen in key areas such as returns per $100 of feed fed. The over 200 cows group had $217 per $100 of feed fed, while enterprises falling in the 100-200 cow range experienced $204, and under 100 cows had returns of $180 per $100 of feed fed. When looking at milk sold per cow, bigger was better as well (>200: 19,810, 100-200: 18,246, <100: 17,296). However, this pattern was not maintained when examining expenses, as the lowest cost of production belonged to the 100-200 cow group ($19.49/cwt of milk sold), followed by the 200+ group ($20.12/cwt of milk sold), and the less than 100 cow group ($23.90/cwt).

The next factor examined was management returns. Enterprises were considered “low” if their management returns were less than $1/cwt of milk sold, “middle” if their returns were between $1 and $4/cwt of milk sold, and “high” if above $4. What is interesting is that size appears to have a general negative relationship with management returns. The high group averaged 135 cows, the middle group had 152, cows and the low group had 199 cows. When looking at production efficiencies, the high group had the best labor efficiency (45 cows per full time equivalent (fte), 783,212 lbs of milk sold/fte), though the middle and low group were mixed with labor efficiency (middle-36 cows/fte, 646,584 lbs milk sold/fte), (low-35 cows/fte, 682,510 lbs milk sold/fte). However, the low group had the best milk per cow (19,082 lbs milk sold/cow), followed by the high group (18,184 lbs/cow), and the middle group (18,037 lbs/cow). Costs of production were the lowest for the high group ($17.90/cwt of milk sold), followed by the middle group ($21.09/cwt of milk sold), and the low group ($24.31/cwt of milk sold).

By examining the costs of production from the management returns section we can get an idea of break-even prices. When $20/cwt of milk sold was a “typical” price, only the high management returns group was experiencing positive returns. Now that the milk price has plummeted and feed prices have retreated some, the high group will be feeling the pinch as well. However, there are areas of strength and areas that can offer relief. Milk sold per cow is solid given the climate of Kentucky, and there is tremendous room for improvement when looking at labor efficiency. It is vital for producers to examine their records and utilize whatever resources they can to survive the storm now and thrive when the next high price comes.

Dairy Enterprise Analysis

By Curtis Mahnken, KFBM

The difference between 2008 and 2009 for dairy farmers is staggering. All year we’ve heard and seen horror stories of what has been happening to our dairy neighbors here and across the U.S. To examine and identify areas of praise, concern and guidance for dairy farmers in Kentucky Farm Business Management, KFBM specialists performed enterprise analyses. In the study there were twenty-three dairy enterprises which averaged 164 cows and 18,439 pounds of milk sold per cow. Milk price received was $20.93, but feed prices were up which is reflected in $198 in returns per $100 of feed fed. The enterprises were examined several ways and key findings are included. (Note that all results come from the Dairy Enterprise Analysis report coming out soon).

The first factor that was considered when looking at these enterprises is herd size. There was evidence that bigger is better, which can be seen in key areas such as returns per $100 of feed fed. The over 200 cows group had $217 per $100 of feed fed, while enterprises falling in the 100-200 cow range experienced $204, and under 100 cows had returns of $180 per $100 of feed fed. When looking at milk sold per cow, bigger was better as well (>200: 19,810, 100-200: 18,246, <100: 17,296). However, this pattern was not maintained when examining expenses, as the lowest cost of production belonged to the 100-200 cow group ($19.49/cwt of milk sold), followed by the 200+ group ($20.12/cwt of milk sold), and the less than 100 cow group ($23.90/cwt).

The next factor examined was management returns. Enterprises were considered “low” if their management returns were less than $1/cwt of milk sold, “middle” if their returns were between $1 and $4/cwt of milk sold, and “high” if above $4. What is interesting is that size appears to have a general negative relationship with management returns. The high group averaged 135 cows, the middle group had 152, cows and the low group had 199 cows. When looking at production efficiencies, the high group had the best labor efficiency (45 cows per full time equivalent (fte), 783,212 lbs of milk sold/fte), though the middle and low group were mixed with labor efficiency (middle-36 cows/fte, 646,584 lbs milk sold/fte), (low-35 cows/fte, 682,510 lbs milk sold/fte). However, the low group had the best milk per cow (19,082 lbs milk sold/cow), followed by the high group (18,184 lbs/cow), and the middle group (18,037 lbs/cow). Costs of production were the lowest for the high group ($17.90/cwt of milk sold), followed by the middle group ($21.09/cwt of milk sold), and the low group ($24.31/cwt of milk sold).

By examining the costs of production from the management returns section we can get an idea of break-even prices. When $20/cwt of milk sold was a “typical” price, only the high management returns group was experiencing positive returns. Now that the milk price has plummeted and feed prices have retreated some, the high group will be feeling the pinch as well. However, there are areas of strength and areas that can offer relief. Milk sold per cow is solid given the climate of Kentucky, and there is tremendous room for improvement when looking at labor efficiency. It is vital for producers to examine their records and utilize whatever resources they can to survive the storm now and thrive when the next high price comes.

CWT ACCEPTS 154 BIDS, 26,000 COWS IN THIRD ROUND OF 2009

Source: CWT Press Release
ARLINGTON, VA – Cooperatives Working Together announced Tuesday that it has tentatively accepted 154 bids in the fourth herd retirement it has conducted in the last 12 months. The 26,412 cows and 517 million pounds of milk accepted in this round, combined with CWT’s three previous herd retirements since December 2008, equal a total reduction of milk production capacity of five billion pounds.

“Coming into 2009, CWT’s economists estimated that we would need to remove between five and six billion pounds of milk, the production of approximately 250,000 cows, through herd retirements,” said Jerry Kozak, President and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation, which administers CWT. “We are pleased that the participation in this third herd retirement of 2009 has brought us to our goal of aligning supply with demand, and hastening the recovery of farm-level milk prices that plunged because of the global recession.”

CWT member farmers in 33 states submitted a total of 168 herd retirement bids during the two-week bidding period which ended October 15th. This is the ninth herd retirement in the past six years of CWT’s existence, and featured a maximum acceptable bid threshold of $5.25 per cwt., the same price ceiling as in the retirement conducted in August.

“We felt it was important to help milk prices continue to strengthen by conducting another herd retirement as soon as we completed farms audits for the previous round one in the summer,” noted Kozak. He said in addition to the 26,000 cows, 465 bred heifers were also accepted this week.

Starting next week, CWT field auditors will begin visiting the 154 farms whose bids were accepted, checking their milk production records, inspecting their herds, and tagging each cow for processing. All farmers will be notified no later than November 16, as to whether their bid was among those accepted.

Once CWT field auditors inspect and finalize acceptance of the herds offered through the bidding process, farmers have 15 days in which to send their animals to a processing plant. CWT will again provide each farmer with the NMPF guidelines for the proper culling and transporting of dairy cattle, Kozak said.

As with the two most recent herd retirements in 2009, producers whose bids are accepted in this herd retirement will be paid in two installments: 90% of the amount bid times the producer’s 12 months of milk production when it is verified that that all cows have gone to slaughter, and the remaining 10% plus interest at the end of 12 months following the farm audit, provided both the producer and his dairy facility – whether owned or leased – do not become involved in the commercial production and marketing of milk during that period.

Cooperatives Working Together is being funded by dairy cooperatives and individual dairy farmers, who are contributing 10 cents per hundredweight assessment on their milk production through December 2010.
For more on CWT’s activities, visit www.cwt.coop.

Balancing Rations for Dairy Herds

Despite the previous two years of drought, plentiful rains this summer have allowed farmers to produce a bumper crop of corn for both silage and grain. Now with corn silage and other forages harvested, dairy producers are turning their attention to planning fall and winter feeding programs. To determine an economical and effective dairy feeding program, there are a few important steps you should follow.

The first element in creating a fall or winter feeding program is testing your available forages for nutrient content. When taking forage samples, be sure to collect a representative sample of the forage being fed. Hay samples should be collected using a hay probe from 20 different bales per field and cutting. Combine samples in a bucket and place a pint size sample in a resealable plastic bag to be sent to a forage testing lab. Corn silage samples should also be collected from multiple sites on the face of a bunker silo or throughout the length of the silage bag. Silage from upright silos should be collected after the silo has been opened unless samples were collected during harvest. It is best to keep your samples out of direct sunlight and avoid prolonged exposure to heat. If you would like to get your forages tested free of cost, give me a call at the Extension Office. Forage testing is being offered as a free service by the Adair County Ag Development Council.

Once you receive the analysis results, forages should be allocated to different cattle based on their quality. The best quality forages should be fed to the early lactation cows, if grouped together. If they are not grouped together, the best quality forages should be fed to the group with the greatest number of early lactation cows.

Forage testing results should also be used to balance rations. With corn prices down from last year, grain mixes designed to complement the quality and type of forages being fed should be more economical this fall. Contracting a year’s supply of grain mix is one way to lock in the price of grain mix over the upcoming months.

Rations should be balanced for the milking herd, as well as the heifers and dry cows. By balancing rations for heifers, feeding is more economical and still enables optimal growth to allow heifers to enter the milking herd around 24 months of age. Well designed and economical feeding programs can also give dry cows a good start to their next lactation and prevent health problems after calving. Ration balancing services are offered by the Adair County Cooperative Extension Service. Rations are balanced based on economics, availability of forages, and production levels.

For more information on forage testing and creating a fall feeding program, contact the Adair County Cooperative Extension Service at 384-2317.

Center of KY Dairy Futures Shortcourse

The Adair, Green, and Taylor County Cooperative Extension Service will be offering a three session educational program on using milk futures for price risk management. Click on the flyer for more information.

Risk Management Tool for Dairy- USDA Livestock Gross Margin (LGM) for Dairy

In April 2009, Kentucky dairy farmers became eligible to participate in a program offered by the Risk Management Agency of USDA. The Livestock Gross Margin (LGM) program for Dairy is an insurance program reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance program.

An article explaing how the LGM program for dairy works can be found in the October issue of Kentucky Dairy Notes at http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AnimalSciences/dairy/newsletters/2009oct/oct2009.pdf

CWT Announces Third Round

By Kenny Burdine, UK Ag Economist

CWT (Cooperatives Working Together) has announced another round of dairy herd buyouts. Bids are to be submitted by October 15. Producers bid a price per cwt. on a year’s worth of milk production per cow. As a quick example, a $5 per cwt. bid on 15,000 lbs of annual milk production would be $750. Then the producer would also receive the income from the sale of the cow at market. There is a list on the CWT website of member cooperatives. Many producers are likely already selling in participating coops and are therefore eligible.

Beef producers should primarily be aware of the timing. With bids accepted through October 15th, I would expect that slaughter would largely take place in November and early December.