2022 eBarns Report

Barns ReportCOLLEGEOFVETERINARYMEDICINECOLLEGEOFFOOD,AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 2022

2022 Research Recap 32 Total Studies • 7 Forages • 5 Dairy • 4 Beef • 7 Small Ruminant • 7 Manure Nutrients 16 Counties 19 Research Sites Disclaimer Notice: The information provided in

eBarns is a program at The Ohio State University dedicated to advancing production agriculture through the use of field-scale and applied research. The 2022 eBarns Report is a combination of the research conducted on partner farms and Ohio State agricultural research stations throughout Ohio. Current research is focused on enhancing animal production, growing high-quality forages, precision nutrient management and to develop analytical tools for digital agriculture. In this first addition of eBarns we have included research studies not only from the past year, but studies from previous years that have yet to be summarized in a producer friendly manner. It is our goal to continue to share results from applied livestock, forage, and manure nutrient management in this publication for years to come. this The Ohio State University. The Ohio State University

assumes no responsibility for any damages that may occur through adoption of the programs/techniques described in this document. 2022 eBarns Report “connecting science to farmers” eBarns

document is intended for educational purposes only. Mention or use of specific products or services, along with illustrations, does not constitute Endorsement by

NutrientsManure

The eBarns Report is published on an annual basis. To view past reports, visit our website at go.osu.edu/ebarnsreports

Welcome to the 2022 edition of the Ohio State eBarns Report. We are excited this is our first edition of the report and we want to extend our sincere thanks to all of those who have made the Ohio State eBarns Report possible in 2022. This project would not have happened without the support of our on-farm cooperators, OSU Extension educators, field specialists, faculty, staff, students, industry partners, and countless others who have devoted their time, energy, and expertise. It is truly the collaborative nature of everyone that allows us to ultimately provide data-driven information to thousands of farmers and their advisors in a timely, relevant, and actionable manner. With this being our first year for the eBarns Report we are grateful to everyone for their time and vision from the creation of the report and the needed on-farm linkages with farmers and their advisors. Specifically, we would like to thank people like the Ohio Top Farmers, who believe that the land-grant mission still exists and want to see CFAES expand its efforts helping Ohio farmers improve their operations. They have supported this project as we work to get timely information into the hands of farmers and supported getting eBarns off the ground. We appreciate the essential support from Ohio Top Farmers. This special edition is dedicated to them. As we reflect on the past couple of years, the COVID-19 pandemic continued to impact the agriculture industry and beyond. As we work through the pandemic, supply chain and labor issues created unique challenges. Some livestock research was able to continue during this time while other projects were delayed. Recently, supply shortages, labor, and now energy costs have impacted the supply and costs of inputs. Fertilizer prices are at an all-time high this year with it being difficult to purchase crop protection products. Fortunately for Ohio farmers, the 2021 growing season was favorable and livestock prices are at or near record highs, allowing for profit potential this year.

The eBarns team was able to report on 32 studies from 16 counties in this publication. We are excited about this continued growth of the program, and the eBarns team members are looking forward to more exciting projects in the future. We hope you find the 2022 eBarns Report informative and valuable. We look forward to continuing sharing all of the quality and variety of livestock, forage, nutrient management and research happening across the state of Ohio. If you are interested in cooperating with us in future years or have any feedback, please contact us at ruff.72@osu.edu. Sincerely, The 2022 eBarns Team

RuminantSmall Swine

Forages PoultryBeefDairy Editorial

Ohio State Digital Ag Program 6 Report Guide 8 eFields Contributors .............................................................................................................................. 10 2021 Growing Season Weather 12 Ohio Farm Custom Rates 14 Ohio State Forages Research Annual Forages Nutrition Summary 18 Annual Forages Nutrition Summary 20 Cover Crop Forage ............................................................................................................................. 22 Fall Oats Nitrogen Rate .......................................................................................................................24 Winter Annual Cereals 26 High Mold Levels Found in Corn ........................................................................................................ 28 DON Reduction ................................................................................................................................... 30 Fungicide and DON Reduction 32 Ohio State Dairy Research Farm Business Analysis & Benchmarking .......................................................................................... 34 Bob Veal 36 Benchmarking Calf Health .................................................................................................................. 38 DCAD Ammonia ...................................................................................................................................40 DDGs Dig 42 Ohio State Beef Research Ticks.................................................................................................................................................... 44 Corn Processing 46 Feeding Time x Corn Processing ........................................................................................................ 48 Feeding Time x Diet Formation ............................................................................................................50 Ohio State Small Ruminant Research Delayed Lamb Weaning ..................................................................................................................... 52 Fall Lambs & Annual Forages ............................................................................................................. 54 Soy Hulls Lambs 56 Goat Browsing .................................................................................................................................... 58 Sheep AI Summary ............................................................................................................................. 60 Sheep Water Preference 62 Ohio State Manure Nutrients Research Manure Dry Matter vs NPK ................................................................................................................. 64 Liquid Manure Nutrient Concentration 66 NIR Sensing for Manure Application ................................................................................................... 68 Manure Compost ................................................................................................................................ 70 Manure Compost 72 Manure Compost 74 Manure Compost ................................................................................................................................ 76 Meeting Tri-State Fertility Needs......................................................................................................... 78 Ohio State Swine Research Market Hog Space Requirements ....................................................................................................... 80 Ohio State Poultry Research Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 82 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................. 84 Glossary................................................................................................................................................. 86 Table of Contents 4 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

NutrientsManureForages PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine 2022 eBarns Report | 5 Ohio State University Department of Animal Science Advancing knowledge of animal sciences for the betterment of animals and humans… Our areas of research and teaching includes, • Growth, development, and meat science • Breeding, genetics, & reproduction • Mammary biology & milk quality • Animal welfare & behavior • Nutrition & microbiology • Waste management & bio-fuels • Human-Animal interactions Visit us at ansci.osu.edu. Our Purpose

• Partnering with farmers to translate innovation into long-term profitability for production agriculture.

WHAT IS DIGITAL AGRICULTURE?

ABOUT US The Digital Agriculture Program at The Ohio State University embodies the best of the land grant mission – creation, validation, and dissemination of cutting-edge agricultural production technologies. The central focus of this program is the interaction of automation, sensing, and data analytics to optimize crop production in order to address environmental quality, sustainability, and profitability. Research is focused on execution of site-specific nutrient management practices, development of handheld devices for in-field data capture, autonomous functionality of machinery, remote sensing solutions, and data analytics to enhance timing, placement and efficacy of inputs within cropping systems.

The premise of digital agriculture includes the advancement of farm operations through implementation of precision agriculture strategies, prescriptive agriculture and data-based decision making. Digital agriculture is a holistic picture of the data space in agriculture, trends related to services directing input management and the value of data usage for improving productivity and profitability of farm operations. “Digital Agriculture” combines multiple data sources with advanced crop and environmental analyses to provide support for on-farm decision making. STATE DigitalAgOhioStateDigitalAgProgram

OHIO

MISSION

VISION The Digital Agriculture Program at The Ohio State University strives to be the premier source of research-based information in the age of digital agriculture.

• Uniting the private and public sectors to drive innovation for the benefit of farmers.

• Delivering timely and relevant information for the advancement of digital agriculture technologies.

6 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Forages BeefDairy

Dairy Cattle

Swine In 2020, Ohio produced more than 1.3 million pounds of pork and sold more than 5.1 million information visit the Ohio Pork Information Center at porkinfo.osu.edu.

For

Poultry Ohio is ranked number two in the Nation for egg production. more information visit the OSU Poultry Team at u.osu.edu/poultry.

For

Manure

Small Ruminants Ohio is the largest sheep producing state East of the Mississippi River more information on small ruminant production visit the OSU Extension Sheep Team at sheep.osu.edu.

Poultry

Ohio State Livestock Production Resources Forages comprises of more than 1.4 million of Ohio farm land. more information visit the Integrated Forage Management Team at forages.osu.edu.

Right source, right rate, right time, right place, right technology more information visit the Ohio Composting and Manure Management at ocamm.osu.edu.

2022 eBarns Report | 7

For

For

Ohio is the number one Swiss cheese producing state. more information on dairy production visit the Ohio Dairy Resource Center at dairy.osu.edu. Nutrients

Pasture

NutrientsManure

For

Forhogs.more

For

RuminantSmall Swine

Beef Cattle Since 2018, Ohio ranks in the top five for Beef Quality Assurance certifications. more information on beef production visit the OSU Extension Beef Team at beef.osu.edu.

STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Location Box Look to see the county where the study was conducted. The study design provides a background on the study. This could include a brief history of research, observations that led to the implementation of this study, explanation of the study design, etc. Planting Date 5/3/2021 Harvest Date 10/20/2021 Variety Becks 6076V2P Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 70 Treatments 5 Reps 7 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, InsecticideHerbicide, Previous Crop Soybeans Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Crosby silt loam, 52% Celina silt loam, 48% Find study information, objectives, study design, graphs, and summary on the left page. Find results, summaries, project contact, and statistical summary on the right page. Report Guide 8 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY INFORMATION Start Date 10/15/2015 End Date 8/1/2016 Species Swine Start Point 50 lb. (DOF, DOA, DIM) End Point 300 lb (DOF, DOA, DIM) Treatments 5 Reps 4 Experimental Unit Pen Genetics Commercial Line Breed Yorkshire Cross x Duroc Sex Equal Barrow:Gilt Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # ResponseVariable Treatment Treatment Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ, P-value <0.05. RESULTS

NutrientsManureForages PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments(XXX) Avg.(plants/ac)Emergence Moisture(%) (bu/ac)Yield Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD:CV: SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE The observations section of the report allows us to provide any relevant information that the researchers noticed throughout the duration of the project. Observations allow for a deeper understanding of the study results. This section allows us to display the tools and technology used to make each study possible. The Project Contact section provides the name of the researcher along with their email address. We encourage you to contact them if you have questions about an individual study. RESULTS • The summary section proves results and findings from the study. • Thank you for taking the time to explore our 2022 eBarns Report! 2022 eBarns Report | 9

Christina Pfaff Farm Business Technician OSU Extension Brady AnimalDepartmentAssistantCampbellProfessorofSciencesTim OSUMarionExtensionBarnesEducatorCountyExtension Jessica eBarnsRyleeAnimalDepartmentAssistantPempekProfessorofSciencesCombs2022InternTim OSUFranklinExtensionMcDermottEducatorCountyExtension eBarns Contributors John EngineeringAgriculturalDepartmentProfessorFultonofFood,andBiological 10 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program Pierce DepartmentProfessorPaulof Plant Pathology Clint OSUAllenExtensionSchroederEducatorCountyExtension Haley OSUColumbianaProgramShoemakerCoordinatorCountyExtensionDianne Shoemaker Field Specialist OSU Extension Ryanna Tietje Student EngineeringAgriculturalDepartmentAssistantofFood,andBiological

NutrientsManureForages PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Greg OSUManagerEducationalLisaMedicineVeterinaryDepartmentAssociateHabingProfessorofPreventivePfeiferProgramExtension Alejandro Relling Associate AnimalDepartmentAssociateBenjaminAnimalDepartmentProfessorofSciencesWennerProfessorofSciences 2022 eBarns Report | 11 Garth Ruff Field Specialist OSU Extension Jason OSUCrawfordExtensionHartschuhEducatorCountyExtension Elizabeth Hawkins Assistant Professor, Field Specialist OSU Extension Dee EngineeringAgriculturalDepartmentAssociateJepsenProfessorofFood,andBiological Eric OSUFultonExtensionRicherEducatorCountyExtension Barry OSUBusinessLeader,WardProductionManagementExtension Aaron Byrd-PolarExtensionWilsonClimatologistClimateCenter Haley OSUWayneExtensionZyndaEducatorCountyExtension

2021 Growing Season Weather

12 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Continuing last year’s trend, 2021 delivered decent weather conditions for this year’s growing season for most farmers around Ohio. Highlights include one the driest winter and springs of the last decade, timely summer rainfall, and good fall harvest weather (for everyone not living in northwest Ohio). Through November, 2021 ranks as the 9th warmest and 47th wettest on record (1895-present) for Ohio according the National Centers for Environmental Information. The following is a summary of the growing season and seasonal breakdown of 2021. Spring (March – May) Spring got off to a warm start across the Buckeye State, as March ranked as the 13th warmest March on record (1895-present). This was followed by a modestly warm April but cooler than average May. Despite the cool late season conditions, most of Ohio experienced typical final freeze dates between April 21 and May 10 (Fig. 1). It was the driest spring since 2013, with an average of 8.34” or about 75% of normal rainfall. All three months averaged below normal. The dryness was widespread across much of the state, with the driest areas found across the northern counties. Ohio’s maximum coverage of drought conditions occurred on April 27 when 70% of the state was classified as abnormally dry and 22% was in moderate drought conditions. The dry weather allowed for a bump up in the reported number of suitable fieldwork days to NASS with 14.5 days in April, countering the declining trend experienced since 1995 (Fig. 2). Spring 2021 ranks as the 25th warmest and 40th driest for Ohio. Figure 1: Date of Last 32°F temperature in Spring 2021. Figure courtesy of the Midwestern Regional Climate Center mrcc.purdue.edu/).(https:// Figure 2: Suitable fieldwork days as reported to NASS for April (blue – solid) and October (orange – dashed) for 1995-2021. Dotted lines show the trends over the period for each month. Figure 3: Left) Total precipitation in inches for June –August 2021. Right) Percent of normal precipitation in percentage for June – August 2021. Figure courtesy of the Midwestern Regional Climate Center purdue.edu/).(https://mrcc. Summer (June – August) Summer was warmer than average with the 17th and 10th warmest June and August on record, respectively. Overnight low temperatures were particularly warm (tied with 1995, 2005, and 2010 as the 2nd warmest). Sandwiched in between was July, a rather mild and wet month. In fact, it was the 13th wettest July on record. July also featured frequent wildfire smoke-filled skies that helped limit incoming solar radiation and lead to a cooler than average month for Ohio.

Figure 5: Percent of normal precipitation in percentage for October 2021. Figure courtesy of the Midwestern Regional Climate Center (https://mrcc.purdue.edu/).

Figure 4: Date of First 32°F temperature in Autumn 2021. Figure courtesy of the Midwestern Regional Climate Center (https://mrcc.purdue.edu/). Autumn (September – November)

Figure 3 shows the rainfall distribution and percent of normal for the season. The state picked up between 10-20 inches of rainfall (statewide average of 14.15 inches or 117% of normal), about 40% of this falling in July. In August, western counties turned dry, running 1–3-inch deficits for the month across portions of Williams, Fulton, Henry, and Hardin Counties. Conditions dried considerably across Pickaway, Ross, and Pike Counties as well. However, drought coverage this summer was held to a minimum with only pockets of abnormally dry conditions scattered across the state. There were short periods of low stream flows and soil moisture deficits, but these challenges had minimal impact overall. Summer 2021 ranks as the 13th warmest and 15th wettest on record.

This tool (farm.bpcrc.osu.edu) allows users to define their locations of interest and receive 12- and 24-hour precipitation forecasts (current and historical) to aid in the application of fertilizer, manure, and/or pesticides. For inquiries about this project, contact... Dr. Aaron B. Wilson Extension Climate wilson.1010@osu.eduSpecialist

Forages Beef

2022 eBarns Report | 13

PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE TRADE FARM (Field Application Resource Monitor)

Fall was a bit of a roller coaster temperature wise. After a warmer than average September, which ranks as the 27th warmest on record, Ohio experienced its warmest October on record. This record warmth was driven strongly by overnight lows, averaging 51.3°F or 8.5°F above normal. This signifiantly delayed first freeze, with much of the state not experiecing the first 32°F temperature until November (Fig. 4). November turned chilly, about 2°F below average and ranks as the 55th coolest November on record. Precipitation varied across the season as well, starting and ending dry with a very wet October. Defiance, Fulton, Henry, Lucas, Williams, and Wood Counties all experienced their wettest October on record with 7-9 inches of rain across the area, more than double the normal monthly rainfall (Fig. 5). Conditions were much dier in November (ranks right in the middle third of the 127-year record), which helped much of the state complete fall harvest and activies, with slow improvement to field conditions in northwest Ohio. Fall 2021 ranks as the 6th warmest and 35th wettest on record.

Poultry

NutrientsManure

Dairy RuminantSmall Swine

• Cost margin differences for full-time custom operators compared to farmers supplementing current income

•

Custom work is common in farming, especially for tasks that require specialized equipment or expert knowledge of that task. Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management along with John Barker and Eric Richer (Extension Educators) worked to develop the 2020 Ohio Farm Custom Rates. This publication provides an extensive list of average custom rates that were derived from a statewide survey of 377 farmers, custom operators, farm managers, and landowners. The Ohio Farm Custom Rates publication is a resource you can use on your operation as a reference in your economic analyses. All the provided rates (except where noted) include the implement and tractor if required, all variable machinery costs such as fuel, oil, lube, twine, etc., and the labor for the operation. of the custom rates provided in the publication vary widely, due to the following variables: Type or size of equipment used Size and shape of fields Condition of the crop Skill level of labor

your own costs carefully before determining the rate to charge or pay. The data from this survey are intended to show a representative farming industry cost for specified machines and operations in Ohio. The Ohio Farm Custom Rates publication includes other resources that can help you calculate and consider the total costs of performing a given machinery operation. 14 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program Custom Farming (All machinery operations for harvesting) Avg Std Median Max Min Range Chop Corn Silage / Ton $6.50 $1.17 $7.00 $7.50 $4.50 $7.67 $5.33 Chop, Haul, Fill Corn Silage / Ton $10.10 $1.89 $10.00 $13.00 $8.00 $12.00 $8.22 Mowing / Acre $11.40 $2.56 $11.00 $15.00 $7.50 $13.94 $8.82 Mowing/Conditioning / Acre $13.10 $3.28 $14.40 $20.00 $6.00 $16.35 $9.79 Raking / Acre $7.10 $2.47 $7.00 $15.00 $4.00 $9.59 $4.65 Tedding / Acre $6.20 $1.68 $5.75 $10.00 $4.00 $7.87 $4.51 Small Square Bales Baled / Dropped in Field /Bale $0.90 $0.42 $0.78 $2.00 $0.40 $1.31 $0.47 Baled and Loaded on Wagon / Bale $1.00 $0.40 $1.00 $2.00 $0.35 $1.42 $0.62 Haul & Store / Bale $0.50 $0.09 $0.50 $0.50 $0.25 $0.55 $0.37 Baled, Loaded, Hauled and Stored / Bale $1.40 $0.39 $1.50 $2.00 $0.75 $1.77 $0.99 Large Round Bales 600-1000# Baled and Dropped in Field / Bale $9.60 $1.34 $10.00 $12.50 $7.00 $10.89 $8.21 Baled, Net Wrapped and Left in Field / Bale $10.10 $2.47 $9.00 $15.00 $7.00 $12.56 $7.62 (Plastic Included) / Bale Baled and Wrapped Wet in Plastic $16.20 $2.79 $15.00 $20.00 $13.00 $18.99 $13.41 (Plastic Included) / Bale $16.20 $2.86 $17.00 $20.00 $12.00 $19.06 $13.34 Large Square Bales Baled and Dropped in Field / Bale $10.20 $3.62 $9.75 $20.00 $7.50 $13.82 $6.57 Complete Hay Harvest - Cost per Ton $17.70 $4.89 $15.00 $28.00 $14.00 $22.55 $12.78

Ohio Farm Custom Rates

• Amount of labor needed in relation to the equipment capabilities

The custom rates provided in the publication summarize the survey respondents. The reported numbers are the average (or mean), standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and range. Average custom rates are a simple average of all survey responses. As a custom provider, the average rates reported in this publication may not cover your total costs for performing the custom service. As a customer, you may not be able to hire a custom service for the average rate noted in this fact sheet. Calculate

•

Some

•

•

NutrientsManureForages PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Planting Operations - Conventional Till Avg Std Median Max Min Range Plant Corn 30” Rows / Acre $20.00 $5.82 $20.00 $50.00 $10.00 $25.82 $14.19 Plant Corn w/ Starter Fertilizer 30” Rows / Acre $21.10 $5.91 $20.00 $50.00 $10.00 $27.06 $15.23 Variable Rate Corn Planting / Acre $22.00 $5.93 $20.00 $38.00 $14.00 $27.93 $16.07 Plant Soybeans 15” or 30” Rows / Acre $20.10 $6.19 $20.00 $50.00 $6.00 $26.28 $13.90 Variable Rate Soybean Planting / Acre $20.20 $4.87 $20.00 $35.00 $14.00 $25.02 $15.28 Drill Soybeans / Acre $18.00 $5.28 $17.25 $40.00 $8.00 $23.30 $12.74 Drill Small Grains / Acre $17.30 $3.99 $17.25 $27.00 $8.00 $21.31 $13.33 Planting Operations - No-Till Avg Std Median Max Min Range Plant Corn 30” Rows / Acre $20.10 $6.19 $20.00 $50.00 $10.00 $26.25 $13.88 Plant Corn w/ Starter Fertilizer 30” Rows / Acre $21.20 $6.68 $20.00 $50.00 $10.00 $27.88 $14.52 Variable Rate Corn Planting / Acre $22.30 $6.29 $20.00 $38.00 $14.00 $28.60 $16.02 Plant Soybeans 15” or 30” Rows / Acre $20.10 $6.46 $20.00 $50.00 $6.00 $26.53 $13.61 Variable Rate Soybean Planting / Acre $20.50 $4.13 $20.00 $28.00 $14.00 $24.63 $16.37 Drill Soybeans / Acre $18.00 $5.35 $16.85 $30.00 $8.00 $23.38 $12.68 Drill Small Grains / Acre $17.60 $4.72 $17.00 $30.00 $8.00 $22.29 $12.86 Fertilizer Application - Ground Avg Std Median Max Min Range Dry Bulk / Acre $7.00 $1.87 $7.00 $12.00 $3.85 $8.88 $5.14 Liquid Knife / Acre $11.30 $3.22 $10.50 $18.00 $7.00 $14.47 $8.03 Liquid Spray / Acre $7.60 $1.73 $7.00 $12.00 $4.50 $9.32 $5.87 Anhydrous / Acre $15.20 $4.80 $14.00 $26.00 $7.00 $20.04 $10.43 Late Season N Application - Coulters / Acre $13.20 $3.51 $14.00 $19.50 $7.00 $16.73 $9.71 Late Season N Application - Drops / Acre $11.60 $2.87 $12.00 $17.00 $7.00 $14.51 $8.76 Variable Rate Fertilizer / Acre $8.10 $2.31 $7.75 $15.00 $5.00 $10.43 $5.81 = PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE TRADE Enterprise Budget You can access the Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets by visiting go.osu.edu/enterprisebudgets or by using the QR code to visit the site. For inquiries about this information, contact... Barry ProductionWard Business Management ward.8@osu.edu You can access the Ohio Farm Custom Rates by visiting go.osu.edu/customrates20 or by using the QR code to visit the site. 2022 eBarns Report | 15

16 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program For 2021, eBarns forage research was focused on increasing forage production in Ohio. Some exciting and innovating projects were executed this year, with 4 unique studies being conducted across the state. 2021 Forage research presented in eBarns covers both precision nutrient management and species selection. Below are highlights of the 2021 eBarns Forage research: 10 acres of forage 7 forage studies For more forage research and feeding management from Ohio State University Extension, explore the following resources: Ohio Forage Performance Tests The purpose of the Ohio Forage Performance Test is to evaluate forage varieties of alfalfa, annual rye grass, and cover crops for yield and other agronomic characteristics. This evaluation gives forage producers comparative information for selecting the best varieties for their unique production systems. For more information visit: go.osu.edu/OhioForages. Agronomic Crops Team - Forages Research The Agronomic Crops Team performs interesting research studies on a yearly basis. Resources, fact sheets, and articles on alfalfa, winter annuals, and summer annuals can be found here on the Agronomic Crops Team website: go.osu.edu/CropTeamForages. Ohio PerformanceForageTests Agronomic Crops Team Forage Research Forage Team Dairy Team Beef Team Ohio State Forages Research

Soybean Silage Reasonable alternative to replace alfalfa forage. Check seed treatment and herbicide labels, many restrict forage use. Teff Grass Best suited to beef and sheep; lower yield than sorghum grasses. Can harvest as hay or silage. Millets Best suited to beef and sheep; many produce a single harvest. Best harvested as silage. Pearl millet does not produce prussic acid after frost damage.

Oat or Spring Triticale Plus Winter Cereals

Forage Sorghum SorghumSudangrassSudangrass

Best harvested as silage. Brown midrib (BMR) varieties are best for lactating cows. Conventional varieties are okay if BMR seed is not available. Can produce 3-4 tons of dry matter/acre. Risk of prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide gas) if frosted.

Swine Species for Planting by Mid-July Corn Plant Silage Highest single cut forage yield potential of all choices. Silage quality will be lower than with normal planting dates. Risk will be getting it harvested at right moisture for good fermentation.

Winter cereals (Winter rye, Winter wheat, Winter triticale) can be added to oat or spring triticale to add a forage harvest early next spring. Winter rye can also contribute a little extra autumn yield to the mixture.

Oat or Spring Triticale Can be mowed and wilted to correct harvest moisture. Harvesting as hay can be challenging. Earlier planting dates provide more autumn yield.

Mixtures of annual grasses with soybean Best harvested as silage. Mixtures of sorghum grasses or millets or even oats and spring triticale with soybean are feasible and can improve forage quality characteristics.

Species for Planting Late-July to Mid-September

Oat or Spring Triticale Plus Field Peas Field peas can improve forage quality (especially crude protein content) but will increase seed cost. Italian Rye grass Earlier planting dates provide more autumn yield. Excellent forage quality in the fall. Potential for three harvests next year starting in late April.

2022 eBarns Report | 17 Forages NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall

18 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Drone photo of all the forages and sheep. CFAES Wooster WayneOARDCCounty Seven annual forage varieties were planted as demonstration sheep grazing plots. Plots were sown in 4 replicates at the OARDC Small Ruminant Research Unit in August 2021. Varieties included both warm and cool season brassicas, grasses, legumes, and small grains. In October 2021, samples were collected with in a 2ft. x 2ft. Forage square. Forage yield and dry matter content were cal culated by drying the harvested in a forced air oven dryer at 100ºC. Forage nutrient analyses were conducted in an accredited forage testing laboratory using Near Infrared (NIR) technology. Planting Date 8/9/2021 Harvest Date 10/8/2021 Variety See Treatments Population Variable Acres 1.4 Treatments 7 Reps 3 Treatment Width 20 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Insecticide Previous Crop Fescue Pasture Row Spacing Broadcast Soil Type Ravenna Silt Loam, 44% Canfield Silt Loam, 31% Wooster-Riddles Silt Loam, 24% Examine forage quality of summer sown annual forages and determine whether or not sheep would graze selected forages. WEATHER INFORMATION Harvest DatePlanting Date 10090807060504030201000123F)°(TEMPERATUREMIN.ANDMAX.DAILYPRECIPITATION(IN) Annual Forages Nutrient Summary Growing Season Weather Summary APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total Precip (in.) 1.48 4.47 2.07 7.47 3.67 2.46 21.62 Cumulative GDDs 198 549 1181 1856 2580 3074 3074

2022 eBarns Report | 19 Forages NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments DM (%) CP (%) ADF(%) NDF (%) Purple Top Turnip 15.50 23.68 16.03 19.77 WinfredBrassicaForage 15.88 24.18 17.84 25.39 Daikon Radish 13.65 27.87 17.90 24.83 Everleaf Oats 17.49 28.86 23.90 41.98 Sorghum Sudan 26.78 18.87 29.33 52.31 Egyptian Wheat 25.32 18.61 31.09 55.51 Crimson Clover 13.29 31.25 21.74 30.08 ** Only providing forage quality results (i.e., DM, CP, ADF, NDF) here as yield results have been published in eFields SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE Liquid cattle manure was applied prior to planting to aid in softening the ground for soil cultivation. Conditions were dry at time of planting - rain was needed. A timely rain fell 2 days after planting. Slight burning occurred on the leaves of the turnips. This may be attributed to residual herbicide in spraying equipment when fields were treated with insecticide for army worm control. 2ft. x 2ft. Forage Square A calibrated forage square was used for forage collection to ensure uniform harvest for DM comparisons. Subsamples of forage clippings were collected for submission to determine nutrient analysis. For inquiries about this project, contact... Brady campbell.1279@osu.eduCampbell Haleyor Zynda zynda.7@osu.edu RESULTS • Under the conditions of the demonstration, all annual forages presented proved to be palatable and provided nutrients which met or exceeded the nutritional requirements of open ewes during the autumn season. • Brassica and legume type forages were lower in dry matter and greater in crude protein when compared with warm season annuals such as sorghum sudan grass and Egyptian wheat. • Sudan grass and Egyptian wheat had a great er concentration of fiber as shown by ADF and NDF values when compared with all other forage species. • Overall, annual forages as shown in this demon stration may serve as a viable alternative for feedstuffs in the fall and winter seasons.

20 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Winter forages handle excess rainfall at North Central Ag Research Station. CFAES OARDC Statewide This study was a 3 year, 3 location analysis of winter annual cereal forages yield and nutritional value. Each site was randomized complete block split plot design for harvest date. The the Locations were in Jackson, Custer, and Fremont Ohio. Plots were had harvested forages at each location when the cereal grain species with in the boot stage and when the head was fully emerged. Planting Date Fall 2018, Fall 2019, Fall 2020 Harvest Date Spring 2019, Spring 2020, Spring 2021 Variety See Treatments Population 2 bu/ac Acres 2 Treatments 8 Reps 7 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Minimum Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Varies Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Varies Evaluate forage value of winter annual cereal crops and their change in yield and nutritional value as they matured from head in boot, Feekes 10.0, to head fully emerged and beginning pollination at Feekes 10.5. FEEKES GROWTH STAGES Annual Forages Nutrient Summary

2022 eBarns Report | 21 Forages NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments YieldDMton/ac Crude Protein TDN NDF Wheat 10.0 1.06 11.55 66.17 46.43 Triticale 10.0 1.31 10.90 61.50 56.37 Cereal Rye 10.0 1.26 10.91 63.13 54.37 Hybrid Rye 10.0 1.02 11.29 64.87 50.10 Wheat 10.5 1.55 9.31 62.00 55.53 Triticale 10.5 2.03 8.87 58.50 66.90 Cereal Rye 10.5 1.66 8.61 55.57 68.47 Hybrid Rye 10.5 1.60 9.28 56.93 65.93 Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD: 0.2 LSD: 1.6 LSD: 3.5 LSD: 1.8 CV: 6.90% CV: 8.20% CV: 3.10% CV: 2.10% SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE Location had a significant effect on yield but did not effect the ranking of yield by species or the fact that yield increased while nutritional quality declined. All varieties handled spring moisture well. Maturity patterns were variable with the exception of Cereal Rye being the first forage to reach stage Feekes 10.5. Planting conditions varied across sites, ranging from full tillage to no-till and standing orchard grass. Wet Chemistry Forage analysis A precise method to measure the nutrients available to livestock in forages including energy, crude protein, and estimates of the forages digestibility.

• Maturity had a significant effect on yield and quality with yield increasing as species matured.

• Crude protein had a significant decline for all species between head in the boot and head fully emerged but not between species.

• TDN however significantly declined between har vest dates but was significantly higher for wheat than other species on both harvest dates.

• Total yield increase with maturity with Triticale and Cereal Rye having significantly higher yields at head in the boot and only Triticale having sig nificantly higher yield than other species at head fully emerged.

RESULTS

For inquiries about this project, contact... Jason ExtensionHartschuhEducator, Crawford County (419)hartschuh.11@osu.edu562-8731

22 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Trial layout with barley on the left and triticale on the right. Jackson Ag Research Station JacksonOARDCCounty Winter annual forages are a great way to maximize returns per acre for livestock farmers. Selecting the best winter annual cereal crop affects yield, forage quality, and speed of Allmaturity.treatments received 50 pounds of nitrogen and were planted at the same time. Harvest was determined by growth state for each species with the first harvest at Feekes 10.0 when the head was still in the boot and second harvest as at Feekes 10.5 during early pollination. Planting Date 10/8/2020 Harvest Date 5/11/2021 & 6/2/2021 Variety See Treatments Population 2 bu/ac Acres 2 Treatments 8 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Minimum Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Pasture Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Piopolis Silt Loam, 63% Omulga Silt Loam, 30% Evaluate four winter annual small grains for the forage value when harvested at boot stage and flowering. WEATHER INFORMATION Planting Date 10090807060504030201000123F)°(TEMPERATUREMIN.ANDMAX.DAILYPRECIPITATION(IN) Harvest Dates Cover Crop Forage Growing Season Weather Summary APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total Precip (in.) 3.22 8.65 3.6 2.42 3.25 6.25 27.39 Cumulative GDDs 259 458 642 894 1304 1961 1961

2022 eBarns Report | 23 Forages NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments TDN NDF Crude Protein (tons/acYieldDM) Rye 10.0 61.90 c 59.00 c 10.00 d 1.50 b Wheat 10.0 66.90 a 46.50 e 12.00 bc 1.80 ab Barley 10.0 65.00 b 50.90 d 13.10 ab 1.70 ab Triticale 10.0 62.90 c 58.00 c 10.50 cd 1.50 b Rye 10.5 52.60 e 72.70 a 10.90 cd 1.90 a Wheat 10.5 53.10 e 65.40 b 13.70 a 2.10 a Barley 10.5 54.80 d 63.70 b 14.20 a 2.00 a Triticale 10.5 51.90 e 74.10 a 9.90 d 1.80 ab Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD: 1.5 CV: 2.7% LSD: 3.2 CV: 4.2% LSD: 1.5 CV: 10.3% LSD: 0.3 CV: 15.3% SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE All species greened up quickly in the spring and grew well. They were slow growing to start following cooler spring temperatures. A stark example of this is that it took 3 weeks to progress from head in the boot to flowering. This usual takes one week in cereal rye and 2 weeks in other species. Grain Drill Grain drill for seeding cereal grains with good seed to soil contact and uniform seeding rate. For inquiries about this project, contact... Jason ExtensionHartschuhEducator, Crawford County (419)hartschuh.11@osu.edu562-8731 RESULTS

dates.

• Species and harvest date had a significant effect on both forage yield and

• Only cereal rye had a significant yield increase between the two harvest

• Unlike other studies crude protein did not significantly change between maturities but TDN significantly decreased with maturity.

quality.

• As plants matured, all species saw a significant increase in NDF.

• All species took about three weeks to change from head in the boot to head fully emerged which is one week longer than usual.

24 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Plot with 92 lbs N applied on the left, 138 lbs N applied to the middle, and 46 lbs N applied on the right. NC Ag Research Station SanduskyOARDCCounty This study was designed to assess effect of nitrogen rate and planting date on fall oats. Nitrogen rates were 46, 92, and 138 pounds of nitrogen per acre. Planting dates were August 3, August 17 and September 3. Plots were harvested just after the heads were emerged for the first two plantings dates and after a stunting frost for the third planting date. The study was laid out in a randomized complete block design. Planting Date 8/3/2021, 8/17/2021, 9/3/2021 Harvest Date 10/15/2021, 11/15/2021 Variety Feed Grade Oats Population 100 lbs/ac Acres 1 Treatments 3 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide Previous Crop Wheat Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay Loam, 100% Assess the effect of nitrogen rate on oats yield at multiple planting dates. WEATHER INFORMATION Harvest WindowPlanting Window 10090807060504030201000123F)°(TEMPERATUREMIN.ANDMAX.DAILYPRECIPITATION(IN) Fall Oats Nitrogen RateGrowing Season Weather Summary APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total Precip (in.) 2.69 4.37 4.13 6.65 2.73 4.09 24.66 Cumulative GDDs 138 448 1132 1879 2662 3210 3210

• The higher nitrogen rate of 138 lbs had a significantly higher yield than 46 lbs at the first two planting days.

2022 eBarns Report | 25 Forages NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE

instead

RESULTS

apply the exact amount of

plot for consistent research on nitrogen rates. For

• Planting date had the most significant effect on NDF.

Treatments TDN

(tons/acYieldDM) 8/3: 46 lbs Nitrogen 65.70 ab 58.10 c 7.80 e 2.00 cd 8/3: 92 lbs Nitrogen 67.00 a 55.60 d 9.50 cd 2.50 b 8/3: 138 lbs Nitrogen 62.60 b 56.40 d 12.70 a 2.70 ab 8/17: 46 lbs Nitrogen 62.80 b 60.00 b 8.70 de 1.60 d 8/17: 92 lbs Nitrogen 62.40 b 59.20 bc 10.50 bc 2.30 bc 8/17: 138 lbs Nitrogen 62.30 b 58.10 c 12.30 a 3.00 a 9/3: 46 lbs Nitrogen 53.30 c 62.30 a 10.40 c 0.60 e 9/3:92 lbs Nitrogen 49.60 cd 62.70 a 12.00 ab 0.70 e 9/3: 138 lbs Nitrogen 51.00 cd 62.60 a 12.20 a 0.90 e Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD: 1.6 CV: 2.2% LSD: 3.5 CV: 4.8% LSD: 1.5 CV: 11.5% LSD: 0.4 CV: 19.0%

We

contact...

• Nitrogen rate had a significant effect on crude protein with the higher nitrogen rates having higher crude protein.

to

• The middle nitrogen rate of 92 lbs had similar yields at the first planting date and significantly less yield with a mid-August planting date.

Oats were much slower growing this year with oats heading out around 75 days for the August planting date of 60 The September planting was still not in head when harvested. All three plantings had some crown rust at harvest, which we often only see in our early August plantings. did have warmer weather later in the growing season than Nitrogen Applicator Precision nitrogen applicator was used to nitrogen each inquiries about this project, Jason ExtensionHartschuhEducator, Crawford County (419)hartschuh.11@osu.edu562-8731

• Both planting date and nitrogen rate had a significant effect on both oats yield and forage quality.

days.

this

• The September planting date had the lowest NDF but it was also the least mature at harvest. NDF Crude Protein

normal. Precision

26 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION NC Ag Research Station SanduskyOARDCCounty Winter annual forages are a great way to maximize returns per acre for livestock farmers. Selecting the best winter annual cereal crop affects yield, forage quality, and speed of Allmaturity.treatments received 50 pounds of nitrogen and were planted at the same time. Harvest was determined by growth stage for each species with the first harvest at Feekes 10.0 when the head was still in the boot and second harvest as at Feekes 10.5 during early pollination. Plots were randomized complete block split plots to allow us to best compare maturity harvest differences and species. Planting Date 10/7/2020 Harvest Date 4/27/2021, 5/4/2021, 5/11/2021, 5/18/2021 Variety Winter Annual Cereal Species Population 2 bu/ac Acres 2 Treatments 8 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Minimum Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Wheat Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay Loam, 100% Evaluate four winter annual small grains for their forage value when harvested at Feekes 10 and 10.5. WEATHER INFORMATION Planting Date 10090807060504030201000123F)°(TEMPERATUREMIN.ANDMAX.DAILYPRECIPITATION(IN) Harvest Window Winter Annual CerealsGrowing Season Weather Summary APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total Precip (in.) 4.77 7.77 1.66 2.69 4.37 4.13 25.39 Cumulative GDDs 126 196 251 389 699 1383 1383 Spring triticale and oats in the plots.

2022 eBarns Report | 27 Forages NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments TDN NDF ProteinCrude (tons/acYieldDM) Rye 10.0 58.00 b 63.70 c 10.40 b 3.20 cd Wheat 10.0 63.90 a 46.00 g 9.40 b 2.90 de Barley 10.0 58.40 a 62.20 cd 9.70 b 2.70 ef Triticale 10.0 57.80 b 60.20 e 9.60 b 2.50 f Rye 10.5 55.00 c 66.50 b 12.40 a 4.00 b Wheat 10.5 62.50 a 54.90 f 11.90 a 3.80 b Barley 10.5 59.60 b 61.60 de 12.70 a 3.30 c Triticale 10.5 54.10 c 68.50 a 12.50 a 5.00 a Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD: 2.3 CV: 2.7% LSD: 1.6 CV: 1.8% LSD: 1.4 CV: 8.4% LSD: 0.4 CV: 7.1% SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE All species had zero lodging. There were large differences in the speed that species matured from boot stage 10.0 to anthesis 10.5. Rye still moved between these two growth stages with in a week. Other species such as Triticale took two weeks to move between growth stages. Wet Chemistry Forage Analysis Wet chemistry forage analysis was used to test the nutrient concentration of forages to determine its feed value. For inquiries about this project, contact... Jason ExtensionHartschuhEducator, Crawford County (419)hartschuh.11@osu.edu562-8731 RESULTS • This is the third year conducting this winter annual forage variety trial. • We saw similar results this year with the yields significantly increasing across all species as the plants matured. • We also saw the similar trend with all species experiencing a quality decline as they matured. The quality decline was not the same for all species. • One example of this was wheat which saw no significant change in TDN as it matured.

Anytime there is slow grain dry-down or late-season rainfall, there is potential for high levels of one or more ear rots (Gibberella, Fusarium, Diplodia and Trichoderma). Of these, Gibberella ear rot (GER) has been the most frequently reported and is the ear rot of greatest concerns since grain harvested from GER-affected fields will be contaminated with vomitoxin and other mycotoxins. One of the primary consequences of GER is vomitoxin contamination of dried distiller ’s grains with solubles (DDGS), a nutrient-rich co-product of ethanol production that is commonly sold as an ingredient for animal feed. Vomitoxin is not destroyed during ethanol production, nor is it removed in the ethanol fraction, but rather becomes concentrated in the grain fraction. This leads to three-fold higher levels of the toxin in DDGS over the levels found in the original grain. Consequently, ethanol plants may reject GER-affect grain with high levels of vomitoxin.

Sampling and testing to detect molds Moldy kernels are typically not evenly distributed in a grain lot, and as a result, toxin-contaminated grain are found in pockets (hot spots). Consequently, poor sampling and/or testing technique may lead to incorrect estimation of vomitoxin in the grain lot. For instance, a sample pulled from a hot spot may lead to an overestimation of the overall level of contamination on the load. Prior to testing, producers (or their agents) may request a second sample be drawn if they feel the first sample was not representative of the entire lot. Following vomitoxin testing, producers/agents have the right to reject the commodity testers’ results and ask the handler to send the sample to a federally licensed grain inspector for a re-test. Refer to Ohio Code 926.31 for Severelydetails.diseased

Gibberella zeae (also known as Fusarium graminearum), is the pathogen that causes stalk rot and Gibberella ear rot of corn. The fungus typically infects via the silk channel, causing a pinkish-white mold to develop at the tip of the ear. Relatively warm, wet weather (rainfall or high relative humidity) during and after silking (R1 growth stage) provides optimal conditions for the development of ear rot. During infection and colonization of the ear, the fungus produces several mycotoxins, including deoxynivalenol (DON), also called vomitoxin. As a result, high levels of Gibberella ear rot severity and resulting moldy grain are usually accompanied by high levels of vomitoxin. Moldy leaves and stubble It is not uncommon to see dust during harvest as fragments of dead, dry plant parts and soil particles become suspended into the air as the combine drives though the field. However, the concern in some years is that the dust can be excessive and particularly darker in color than usual. One possible explanation is that leaves died prematurely as a result for midto late-season diseases such as tar spot, gray leaf spot, and northern corn leaf blight. When exposed to wet, humid conditions these leaves will produce lots of fungal spores. For instance, under wet conditions, northern corn leaf blight lesions produce large amounts of dark-colored spore that are easily suspended in the air once the plants are disturbed by the combine. In addition, saprophytic fungi such as Alternaria, which also produce dark-colored spores, may also grow on dead plant tissue exposed to wet, humid late-season conditions, adding to the amount of dark particles in the dust cloud during harvest. Ear rot contributes to vomitoxin

28 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

High Mold Levels Found in Corn

and toxin contaminated grain are usually smaller than healthy grain and covered with fungal mycelium (mold). Compared to healthy grain, diseased grain break easily during harvest, transport, and other forms of grain handling, increasing the number of fine particles and the amount of dust in the grain lot. Fields with ear rot problems should be harvested as soon as possible and handled separately from healthy field, even if it means harvesting those field at a higher-than-usual moisture content. Adjust the combine to minimize damage to the grain and increasing the fan speed will help to remove lightweight grain and dust particles, and as a result, reduce the level of mycotoxin in the grain lot. Once harvested, grain should be dried down to below 15% moisture and storage in a clean dry bin.

Respiratory Alert – Harvesting and handling moldy grain may expose workers to mycotoxin and high dust concentrations Wear a respirator to protect against dusty, moldy and toxic substances. There are two types of disposable models to choose, either the N95 (which filters out 95% of airborne particulates) or the N99 (which filters out 99% of airborne Theparticulates).P100mask is form fitting and is not disposable. This style requires a respirator fit test to ensure the right size. It uses disposable air cartridges to offer the best protection against dusts and molds in the air Never wear a 1-strap mask on the farm, as they do not offer the level of protection needed in agricultural environments with high organic particles.

Agricultural Safety and Health Program For inquiries about this article contact Dee Jepsen (jepsen.4@osu.edu) or Lisa Pfeifer (pfeifer.6@osu.edu).

3. Always use both straps to hold the mask in place and prevent air from leaking in around the edges.

1. When the mask gets clogged beyond a comfortable condition, replace it with a new mask. Likewise, if the inside of the mask becomes dirty, dispose of it.

3. N95 and N99 masks are made to be disposable, they cannot be cleaned or disinfected.

2. The respirators are available in many sizes and various configurations, making sure the proper fit can be made.

PROJECT CONTACT How to wear the respirators correctly Make sure to wear either an N95, N99 or P100 mask whenever working in dusty and moldy environments, especially at the grain storage and handling bins.

There are no recommendations for how many minutes or hours a mask will last in agricultural environments. A face mask filter is rated to absorb a total mass of 200mg, however on the farm, the time to reach this level is not known. Each respirator will be affected by personal hygiene, breathing resistance and density of the air contaminants. Each job will vary - as will the heat, humidity and other environmental conditions while performing the job.

Minimizing the Risk of Vomitoxin in Storage

Summary High moisture corn has the potential to mold and emit mold spores during harvest and storage periods. Workers should protect themselves from grain dust, including the mycotoxins and fungi, with N95, N99 or P100 respirators. Single strap dust masks are worthless in many agricultural environments, especially moldy grain.

1. The mask should have a tight fit over your nose and mouth, and requires contact with smooth skin. Facial hair, eyeglasses and certain dental appliances can prevent the mask from making a seal around your face.

2022 eBarns Report | 29 Forages NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine

2. Replace masks if they become wet, torn or have stretched out straps.

There are no commercially available treatments for reliably reducing vomitoxin in harvested grain. Planting Gibberella ear rot resistant hybrids is the best approach for reducing the disease and toxin contamination in the field. Fungicide applications at R1 have shown promising results, but further research is needed. Toxin levels can increase in storage if conditions are not dry and cool. Warm, moist pockets in the grain promote mold development, causing the grain quality to deteriorate and toxin levels to increase. Aeration is important to keep the grain dry and cool. However, it should be noted that while cool temperatures, air circulation, and low moisture levels will minimize fungal growth and toxin production, these will not decrease the level of toxin that was already present in grain going into storage. Vomitoxin is very stable and will not be reduced with drying.

Consider the N95 and N99 respirators similar to the air filter in your vehicle.

When to throw out the N95 mask

30 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Grain cleaning slant. eBarns Collaborating Farm OSU CrawfordExtensionCounty This study was designed to look at the ability of a 1/4 inch slant screen to clean corn and reduce the DON levels in the corn. Samples were pulled as the corn entered the cleaner and as it left the cleaner and was loaded in the truck. Samples of the screening which were removed from the corn were also tested for DON levels. Crop 2021 Corn Cleaning Date 2/3/2021 Wind Speed 5.5 mph Wind Direction North Fill Speed 1,500 bu/hr Treatments 3 Reps 4 Bushels 2,000 Grain Cleaner Type 10 inch homemade slant with 1/4 inch screen Assess the effect of a slant screen grain cleaner on corn vomotoxin (DON) levels. DON Reduction Corn pre-clean on right, screening in the middle, and clean on the right.

2022 eBarns Report | 31 Forages NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments (ppm)DON Clean Grain 2.8 a Screenings 3.9 a Grain from load out 3.2 a Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD: 1.3 CV: 28.7% SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE During grain cleaning we could see visual differences between the sample entering the grain cleaner and exiting the grain cleaner. The sample going in the truck had less fines, broken kernels, and small black kernels in it. For inquiries about this project, contact... Jason ExtensionHartschuhEducator, Crawford County (419)hartschuh.11@osu.edu562-8731 RESULTS • Grain cleaning did not significantly lower DON levels in this trial. • We have seen instances where grain cleaning has lowered DON levels from the teens to single digits. • In this case through the grain was already in the single digits and we were not able to lower it as much as we were wanting. DON Quick Test To determine the level of DON in corn at the elevator before unloading the corn into there storage facility.

32 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Corn silage infected with tar spot. eBarns Collaborating Farm OSU CrawfordExtensionCounty This study was designed as a randomized complete block study comparing the application of Miravas Neo fungicide utilizing undercover drops to no fungicide application. The crop was harvest and silage and moistures corrected to 65% moisture for all treatments. Samples were then submitted for laboratory analysis of feed quality and vomitoxin concentration. Planting Date 5/18/2021 Harvest Date 9/10/2021 Variety DeKalb 57-99 Population 35,000 sds/ac Acres 49 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 15 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Cardington Silt Loam, 65% Tiro Silt Loam, 16% Bennington Silt Loam, 14% Evaluate the effect of foliar fungicide on corn silage yield and quality. WEATHER INFORMATION Harvest DatePlanting Date 10090807060504030201000123F)°(TEMPERATUREMIN.ANDMAX.DAILYPRECIPITATION(IN) Fungicide and DON ReductionGrowingSeasonWeather Summary APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total Precip (in.) 2.18 5.69 5.82 6.30 4.18 2.72 26.89 Cumulative GDDs 206 567 1222 1915 2643 3156 3156

2022 eBarns Report | 33 Forages NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE Low disease pressure was present during VT fungicide application but gray leaf spot was present. At corn silage harvest time there was significant tarspot and gray leaf spot pressure the disease level ratings for both were significantly higher though for the untreated control. For inquiries about this project, contact... Jason ExtensionHartschuhEducator, Crawford County (419)hartschuh.11@osu.edu562-8731 RESULTS • Miravis Neo fungicide application on corn intended for silage had a significant effect on yield, moisture, and vomitoxin levels. • Silage yield corrected to 65% moisture saw a 3 ton advantage to fungicide application. • The silage was also six percent wetter where fungicide was applied. • There was also a significant difference in vomotxoin levels with the untreated plots having DON levels of 3.1 which is higher than the recommendation of 1 ppm for high producing dairy cows. • The treated plots only had DON levels of 0.5 which is low enough for high producing dairy cow consumption. mentsTreat- Deoxynivalenol/Zearalenone ProteinCrude NEL aNDF Moisture(%) moisture)(tons/acYield@65% appliedFungicidewithUndercoverdrops 0.5/9 8.05 0.74 38.90 68.70 27.00 a NoapplicationFungicide 3.1/70.55 7.20 0.74 38.10 62.90 24.00 b Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD: 2.6 CV: 6.2% Lab DON Analysis To assess the level of mycotoxins present in the silage. High levels of mycotoxins can cause health and productivity issues in livestock.

are also summarized

hundredweight

Find the full report at https://farmprofitability.osu.edu

Farm STUDYAnalysisBusiness&BenchmarkingINFORMATION In

or per ton Help

Technicians work directly with farms to devel op and complete: • Balance Sheets, cost and market valua tions, beginning and end of year • Income Statement, accrual adjusted • Statement of Cash Flows • Enterprise Analysis • Cost of Production • Per cow, per cwt, per

Dairy

2020 was expected to be the year that milk prices returned to profitable levels following five years of very low prices. Increasing cow numbers challenged that expectation as the year began, and the COVID-19 shutdown of institutions and restaurants in March slammed that door shut. The following months’ Class III milk prices were a roller coaster with a low of $12.14 in May to a high of $24.54 in July – which was not seen in on-farm milk checks due to earlier changes to Class I milk price formulas. Food Assistance Programs made available to farmers were critical to most farms’ bottom line, with an average net return per cow of $759 (Table 1), the highest in four years (Table 2). Collaborating Farm OSU CooperatingExtensionCounties acre, bushel, Ohio’s farm families achieve success in today’s challenging marketplaces. 2021, 21 dairy farms participated in the 2020 Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program. Eighteen conventionally managed farms with 7,364 cows completed the analysis meeting all internal accuracy checks. These 18 farms provided detailed financial and production information to complete a whole farm analysis. They also completed of their dairy and crop enterprises. Herd size ranged from 72 to more than 1,200 cows. enterprise results are reported for the average of all farms and the high 25% sorted by net return per cow. Results by profitability group and by herd size. Benchmark reports are available both per cow and per (cwt) of milk. Shaded counties indicate farms participating in analysis.

analysis

Coronavirus

34 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY OBJECTIVEDESIGNOBSERVATIONS

eBarns

per

financial

SoybeanForages 2022 eBarns Report | 35 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE TRADE 2020 Ohio Farm Business Summary Whole farm business analysis monitors overall profitability, working capital and net worth change. Enterprise analysis provides complete cost of production data to effectively inform marketing and management decisions. Personalized benchmark reports identify opportunities to control costs and increase profitability. For inquiries about this project, contact... Christina Pfaff (pfaff.58@osu.edu) Haley Shoemaker (shoemaker.306@osu.edu) Clint Schroeder (schroeder.307@osu.edu) Dianne Shoemaker (shoemaker.3@osu.edu) RESULTS • Average net returns per cow were positive in 2020. 16 of the 18 enterprises generated positive net returns with all farms averaging $759 per cow. • Net returns were heavily impacted by non-milk income in 2020. This included indemnities from USDA’s Dairy Margin Coverage Program and participation in Coronavirus Food Assistance Programs. Without participation in one or both of these programs, eight of the farms would have experienced an average net loss of $303 per cow with 10 farms generating positive returns of approximately $325 per cow • Over time, net returns must be positive and of sufficient quantity to cover family living needs, principal payments and pay income tax liabilities. Additional dollars can be invested either in or outside of the farm business. Table 1. Direct and overhead costs and net returns per cow and per cwt, 18 Ohio dairy farms, Ohio Farm Business Analysis Program. Table 2. Comparison of total cost of production per cwt and net return per cow, conventional Ohio dairy farms, 2017-2020. ¹Accrual adjusted receipts less expenses including economic depreciation. ²Home raised feed valued at cost of production. 20172019 high 20%, 2020 high 25% sorted on net return per cow. 2020 Avg. of All Herds Avg. of High 25% By Net Return Per Cow Direct Costs $4,407 $5,128 Direct & CostsOverhead $4,832 $5,593 Net Return $759 $1,156 Per Hundredweight (cwt.) of Milk Feed Costs $10.40 $10.17 Total Direct Costs $17.60 $17.00 Direct & CostsOverhead $19.30 $18.54 Net Return $3.03 $3.83 Milk Sold Per Cow 25,036 lbs. 30,164 lbs. 2017 2018 2019 2020 4avg.year Number of Herds 28 19 17 18 Average of All Herds Direct & Over head COP per cwt. $18.73 $18.45 $19.30 $19.30 $18.95 Net Return per cow¹ $424 $155 $250 $759 $320 Average of High 20 – 25%² Direct & Over head COP per cwt. $17.69 $15.48 $17.24 $18.54 $17.24 Net Return per cow¹ $802 $748 $897 $1,156 $901

36 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Bob Veal team. eBarns Collaborating Farm IndustryWayneCollaborationCounty This cross-sectional cohort study was conducted at an abattoir in Northeastern Ohio. A sample size of 420 calves was selected. Data collection took place between June and September 2021. Blood samples and clinical health data from 420 calves across 12 cohorts were collected within 2 h after calves arrived at the abattoir The research team completed all clinical health examinations, using a standardized health scoring system adapted from previous research with young calves. Assess the condition of dairy calves destined for bob veal on arrival at an abattoir in Ohio, and determine risk factors for poor health outcomes. STUDY DESIGN Bob Veal Health Start Date 6/11/2021 End Date 9/3/2021 Species “Bob” veal calves Start Point Aprrox. 1 week End Point Approx. 3 weeks Treatments 0; Cross-sectional study Reps 0; Cross-sectional study Experimental Unit Calf Genetics Commercial Breed Various breeds Sex 52 Bulls : 48 Heifers Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # 2021A00000047 OutcomeHealth AnimalsTotal Normal Abnormal No. % 95% Cl No. % 95% Cl Arthritis 420 412 98.10 (95.7, 99.4) 8 1.90 (0.65, 4.29) Broken ribs or tail 419 395 94.30 (90.3, 98.3) 24 5.73 (1.70, 9.75) Dehydration 420 132 31.40 (19.9, 43.0) 288 68.60 (57.0, 80.1) Depression 420 348 82.90 (78.1, 87.6) 72 17.10 (12.4, 21.9) Diarrhea 420 356 84.80 (80.0, 89.6) 64 15.20 (10.5, 20.0) Thin body condition 417 251 60.20 (46.6, 73.9) 166 39.80 (26.1, 53.5) RESULTS

By assessing calf condition on arrival at abattoirs, we can design evidence-based interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality prior to arrival.

• Nearly one-fourth (23.4%) of calves had poor transfer of passive immunity, using a cutoff of 5.1 g/dL.

• In addition, 68.6% were considered dehydrated using a skin tent test, 39.6% had thin body con dition, and approximately one out of every four calves (25.7%) had navel inflammation.

• This suggests that calves did not receive an adequate volume of colostrum or colostrum of acceptable quality.

SoybeanForages 2022 eBarns Report | 37 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine

For inquiries about this project, contact... Jessica Pempek Animal Welfare (614)pempek.4@osu.eduSpecialist292-6099

SUMMARY

PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE

RESULTS

OutcomeHealth AnimalsTotal Normal Abnormal No. % 95% Cl No. % 95% Cl Failed transfer of passive immunity 419 321 76.60 (71.7, 81.5) 98 23.40 (18.5, 28.3) Fever 419 380 90.70 (85.5, 95.9) 39 9.310 (4.10, 14.5) Hypoglycemia 349 91 26.10 (18.7, 33.4) 258 73.90 (66.6, 81.3) Navel inflammation 420 312 74.30 (70.4, 78.2) 108 25.70 (21.8, 29.6) Respiratory disease 420 1 89.50 (86.3, 92.7) 44 10.50 (7.25, 13.7) health outcomes were considered for arthritis (joint score ≥ 2), broken ribs or tail (score = 1), dehydration via skin tent test (score ≥ 1), depression (score ≥ 1), diarrhea (fecal score = 1), thin body condition (body condition score = 1), failed transfer of passive immunity (total protein level < 5.1g/dL), fever (rectal temperature ≥ 103.0°F), hypoglycemia (blood glucose level < 4.95 mmol/L), navel inflammation (score ≥ 2), respiratory disease (eyes, ears, or nose scores ≥ 2)

¹Abnormal

On arrival to the abattoir, nearly all (95.5%; 401/420) calves had at least one abnormal health outcome, and 82.1% (345/420) of calves had two or more abnormal health outcomes. Within our study population, nearly half of the calves (48.1%; 202/420) were heifers. Breed was also a significant risk factor for thin body condition. Jersey and crossbreed calves were less likely to have a body condition score of 0 compared to HolsteinFriesian calves. Calves were sourced from three buying stations in New York; Pennsylvania; and Ohio. Body Condition Scoring

• The majority of calves were hypoglycemic (73.9%) on arrival at the abattoir, using a cutoff of 4.95 mmol/L.

38 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY OBJECTIVEDESIGN eBarns Collaborating Farm Industry Collaboration Statewide Two livestock dealers in Ohio were visited 2-3 times per week between May and September Calves2021. (n = 1,119) were clinically evaluated on arrival for signs of navel inflammation, dehydra tion, depression, arthritis, respiratory disease, diarrhea, and fever. One blood sample was obtained to determine FTPI, antibodies from colostrum. Determine the prevalence of failed transfer of passive immunity (FTPI) via colostrum intake, dehydration, and disease in dairy calves on arrival to livestock dealers; also determine risk factors for poor health outcomes in surplus dairy calves. Benchmarking Dairy Calf Health STUDY INFORMATION Start Date 5/1/2021 End Date 9/1/2021 Species Surplus dairy calves Start Point Approx. 1 day End Point Approx. 10 days Treatments 0; Cross-sectional study Reps 0; Cross-sectional study Experimental Unit Calf Genetics Commercial Breed Holstein/Jersey Sex 78 Bulls : 22 Heifers Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # 2019A00000039 Variable 0 1 2 3 Navel Inflammation 30.70 43.00 19.80 6.60 Dehydration 30.80 66.60 2.40 0.20 Depression 70.10 22.50 6.40 0.90 Arthritis 88.90 9.70 1.20 0.20 Eye Discharge 81.20 12.10 5.60 1.10 Nose Discharge 97.80 1.60 0.50 0.10 Ear Droop 96.20 2.70 0.30 0.90 Diarrhea 86.90 13.10 Fever 78.60 21.40 Percentage of calves with specific scores for each health outcome evaluated; clinically relevant scores bolded in red CALF HEALTH OBSERVATIONS Example of healthy calf.

SoybeanForages 2022 eBarns Report | 39 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine OBSERVATIONS The majority of dairy calves were male (78%, 826/1063), and 22% (237/1063) were female. Calves were from 180 different sources. Most calves (65%) were from dairy farms, but some (35%) were sourced from auctions or other livestock dealers, indicating they were sold multiple times. SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE TRADE Health Evaluation By assessing calf condition during marketing, we can potentially reduce morbidity and mortality prior to arrival at the abattoir / when calves enter “formula-fed” veal or dairy-beef industries. For inquiries about this project, contact... Jessica Pempek Animal Welfare (614)pempek.4@osu.eduSpecialist292-6099 RESULTS Failed Transfer of Passive Immunity (FTPI) • 21.4% of dairy calves had FTPI (<5.2 g/dL) • 40.2% dairy calves had fair or poor TPI (<5.8 g/ CalvesdL) had lower odds of FTPI when • Sourced from an auction / livestock dealer vs. a dairy farm (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.27 – 0.76) • Body weight >40.8 kg (OR: 0.62; 95% CI 0.44 –Conclusions0.89) • Approximately one out of every five dairy calves had FTPI, with ~43% having suboptimal TPI. • Low sale body weight was a risk factor for FTPI. • Male calves were more likely to have navel inflammation, eye discharge, and depression compared to female calves. • This research highlights the opportunity for im provements in surplus calf production to improve health before calves enter veal or dairy beef production. 20.6 16.7 20.6 27.5 15.6 20.2 43.1 35.61009080706050403020100 Male Female (%)Prevalence Excellent (>=6.2 g/dL) Good (5.8 to 6.1 g/dL) Fair (5.1 to 5.7 g/dL) Poor (<5.1 g/dL) 22.4 12.0 23.2 19.6 16.8 15.8 37.6 52.7 Dairy Auction or Dealer Proportion of male and female surplus calves from different sources with poor, fair, good and excellent serum total protein values. Recommendations For Transfer of Passive Immunity Calf Serum Protein Values Category STP Standards Excellent >6.2 g/dL >40% Good 5.8 to 6.1 g/dL ~30% Fair 5.1 to 5.7 g/dL ~20% Poor <5.1 g/dL <10%

40 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY OBJECTIVEDESIGN Krauss Dairy CFAES Wooster. CFAES Wooster WayneOARDCCounty Dietary cation-anion difference (DCAD) of the ration fed to cows affects production and health of dairy cows. 27 cows were fed an adjustment diet for 1 week prior to experimental treatments. Cows were fed experimental diets for 6 weeks. Production and intake was monitored. Feces and urine were collected during the last 3 days in spot sampling and incubated for 5 days to measure gas output. Determine the effect of decreased DCAD (not less than 0 mEq/kg DM) on milk production, dry matter intake, and manure ammonia emissions. Decreased DCAD decreases the pH of urine, therefore can potentially reduce the pH of the manure and the ammonia volatilization from manure. DCAD Manure Emissions STUDY INFORMATION Start Date 7/14/2021 End Date 9/2/2021 Species Dairy Start Point 95 ± 17 DIM End Point 137 ± 17 DIM Treatments 3 Reps 9 blocks Experimental Unit Head Genetics Commercial Breed Holstein Sex Cow Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # A201900000095 DCAD Level Diet Composition (%) High Medium Low Corn Silage 53.10 53.10 53.10 Alfalfa Silage 6.62 6.62 6.62 Corn Grain 9.68 9.43 9.18 Soybean Meal, 48% 13.60 13.30 13.00 Trace Mineral Mix 0.70 0.70 0.70 MegAnion 0 1.16 2.32 Urea 0.48 0.24 0 Soy hulls 11.00 10.80 10.60 Fat 2.31 2.31 2.31 Vit-Min Mix 2.56 2.41 2.26 *Fed with aim of 3% refusal Mid-Lactation Diet at Various DCAD Levels

OBSERVATIONSTRADE

SoybeanForages 2022 eBarns Report | 41 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine

Manure ammonia emission was not decreased as expected. A possible explanation for this result is the high fecal to urine ratio, thus increasing the buffering capacity of the manure. Total milk production decreased numerically, which is why milk protein content appears to be increased, but overall milk protein yield was not different among treatments. It was likely a dilution effect.

RESULTS

All diets resulted in lower milk fat percentage than expected. The milk fat decrease is potentially attributed to a greater than expected concentration of linoleic acid in the diet, leading to biohydrogenation in the rumen, resulting in diet-induced milk fat depression.

• Milk fat yield and energy corrected milk had a tendency to decrease with decreasing DCAD, but dry matter intake and total milk yield were unaffected.

PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE

• Decreasing DCAD from 193 mEq/kg DM did not reduce overall ammonia emissions significantly even though urine and manure pH was significantly reduced.

ResponseVariable High Medium Low SEM p-ValueLinear Quadraticp-Value DMI, kg/d 23.30 23.10 22.40 0.65 0.24 0.71 Milk Production, kg/d 39.80 40.50 37.80 1.22 0.16 0.21 Milk Fat, % 2.52 2.34 2.35 0.18 0.41 0.58 Milk Protein, % 3.00 3.05 3.14 0.04 0.03 0.70 Urine pH, at incubation 8.58 8.33 6.72 0.18 <0.01 <0.01 Manure pH, start of incubation 7.57 7.40 6.96 0.15 <0.01 0.46

SUMMARY

P values P ≤0.5 indicate statistically significant differences between high, medium, and low treatments.

Manure Incubators Manure incubation was used in this experiment to collect the gases coming off the surface of the manure. Air collection bags were changed every 24 hr over the course of 5 days. For inquiries about this project, contact... Haley Zynda Extension Educator, Wayne County zynda.7@osu.edu

Cumulative Ammonia, g/cow 35.80 33.60 30.80 2.75 0.16 0.89 Milk fat, kg/d 1.00 0.90 0.86 0.05 0.08 0.66 Milk Protein, kg/d 1.18 1.22 1.16 0.03 0.70 0.21

42 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY OBJECTIVEDESIGN Milk Bulk Tank, Krauss Dairy. CFAES Wooster WayneOARDCCounty 40 lactating Holstein cows were blocked by parity, DIM, and milk yield and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments. Cows were on trial for 6.5 weeks: 10 days of covariate, 2 weeks of adaptation, and 3 weeks of experimental observations. There were 10 blocks of 4 cows each. The study was split into 2 phases because of space constraints; therefore, 5 blocks were used for each phase. Milk production, feed intake, digestibility, and manure characteristics were all observed and recorded. Comparison of milk production among cows fed a soybean meal-based diet (CON), a high-protein corn distillers grain diet (DG), or a high-protein corn distillers with yeast diet (DGY). We also sought to evaluate manure characteristics and gas emissions from manure. In addition, we also made observations of the effect of DCAD and DDG on production. DDGs Digestibility STUDY INFORMATION Start Date 10/1/2019 End Date 1/1/2020 Species Dairy Start Point 98 ± 17 DIM End Point 143 DIM Treatments 4 Reps 10 Experimental Unit Head Genetics Commercial Breed Holstein Freisan Sex Cows Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # 2019A00000026 Percent DM Diet Composition CON DG DG-Y DG-DCAD Corn Silage 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 Grass/Legume Silage 9.70 9.70 9.70 9.70 Ground Corn 15.20 17.80 17.80 17.70 SB Meal 10.70 0.40 0.40 0.40 Soyplus 4.20 0 0 0 Cottonseed, whole 5.10 5.10 5.10 5.10 Urea 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 DDG 0 20.2 0 20.20 DDG w/ Yeast 0 0 20.20 0 Soy hulls 8.10 0 0 0 Fat 1.20 0 0 0 TM Salts 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Limestone 0.96 1.23 1.23 1.23 Dical Phosphate 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 Mag-Ox 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.12 Mag Sulfate 0.10 0 0 0 Copper sulfate 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 Potassium Cl 0.08 0.85 0.85 0 Potassium Carbonate 0 0 0 0.73 Sodium Bicarb 0 0 0 0.23 Mid-Lactation Diet at Various DM Levels

SUMMARY

Dry matter intake and total milk yield tended to decrease with distiller’s grains included at 20% of the diet. NDF digestibility also tended to decrease with the addition of distillers’ grains, therefore a possible explanation for decreased milk yield and milk fat production. Urine pH decreased with the inclusion of distillers’ grains because of their increased sulfur content (sulfur/sulfate acts as an anion) and decreased the DCAD of the diet. Elevated DCAD even with the distillers’ grains did not alleviate the digestibility effects of the distillers grains.

• Using DDG with yeast was observed to have no beneficial effect.

• However, digestibility was not affected by increasing the DCAD of a DDG diet.

PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE

Manure Gas Collection Manure was incubated using an air flow and collection bag system. Air was drawn into collection bags for 30 seconds every 30 minutes over 5 days. Collection bags were replaced every 24 hours. For inquiries about this project, contact... Haley Zynda Extension Educator, Wayne County zynda.7@osu.edu

• Including DDG at 20% of the diet tended to decrease milk yield and milk fat yield but did not affect DMI.

• Increasing the DCAD of a DDG diet is recommended to alleviate some effect of the DDG, such a milk fat yield.

RESULTS

• In regard to manure characteristics, increasing concentration of DDG in the diet increases hy drogen sulfide emissions from manure because of increased sulfur excretion.

SoybeanForages 2022 eBarns Report | 43 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine ResponseVariable CON DG DGY DCADDG- SEM p-Value DMI, kg/d 24.20 24.2 23.80 24.2 0.56 0.90 Milk yield, kg/d 42.40 39.9 39.50 40.2 0.78 0.06 Milk fat, % 3.65 3.15 3.28 3.47 0.17 0.17 Milk fat, kg/d 1.55a 1.24b 1.27b 1.43ab 0.08 0.03 Milk protein, % 3.14ab 3.18a 3.16a 3.06b 0.04 0.09 Milk protein, kg/d 1.33 1.26 1.25 1.22 0.03 0.07 Dry matter digestibility, % 67.10a 62.60b 63.00b 63.1b 0.81 <0.01 NDF Digestibility, % 44.60a 37.10b 37.80b 38.0b 1.58 <0.01 Urine pH, at incubation 8.46a 7.58b 7.89b 8.46a 0.12 <0.01 Manure pH, at incubation 7.16a 6.62b 6.47b 6.80ab 0.15 0.02 Cumulative ammonia, g/cow 40.70 41.70 46.30 45.70 4.81 0.55 Cumulative hydrogen sulfide, g/cow 595.00 891.00 937.00 741.00 193.30 0.36 Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ, P-value <0.10.

Black Legged or Deer Tick (Ixodes Scapularis) Lone Star Tick (Amblyomma Americanum)

Introduction Ticks and the diseases that they vector to livestock, companion animals and humans have become an increasingly larger public health risk. There are five tick species of medical importance in Ohio including the American Dog tick, the Black Legged or Deer tick, the Lone Star tick, the Gulf Coast tick and the Asian Longhorned tick.

The Asian Longhorned Tick is an inva sive tick that was recently identified in Ohio in 2020. This tick is unique in that it reproduces via parthenogenesis, meaning the female does not need a male to breed, allowing it to produce extreme numbers of ticks on its host. This tick has the ability to vector disease to cattle as well as cause mortality through feeding.

Ticks

The Gulf Coast Tick has recently become established in southwestern Ohio. This tick is worrisome as it has the potential to vector the zoonotic disease, Leptospirosis, to multiple species. This is tick prefers an open environment including meadows, pasture, and lawns.

The Lone Star Tick is an aggressive feeder and prefers wooded habitat. This tick is the report ed causative agent for the Alpha-gal or Mamma lian Muscle Allergy reaction where person who has an allergic reaction when bitten can become allergic to meat including beef, pork, and venison.

44 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

The American Dog Tick prefers a more open habitat including pasture, meadows, and lawns. This tick is a prominent vector of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and Tularemia. The Black Legged or Deer Tick prefers to live in wooded habitat. This tick is the primary vec tor for Lyme disease plus can also vector Babesia, Anaplasmosis and viral disease.

Types

A common misconception is that ticks are only active in the spring and summer. While ticks are more active in April through September, ticks have a multi-year life cycle, and can be encountered any month of the year. Ticks hatch from eggs as larvae, then as they feed and mature, they progress through their life cycle next becoming a nymph then an adult, feeding from multiple hosts in this process and it can take two to three years to fully complete this process depending on their species. Ticks hunt via questing, where the tick uses its back two pairs of legs to hold onto vegetation and its front two pairs of legs to grab prey as it walks past.

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 45 NutrientsManureBeef PoultryDairy RuminantSmall Swine Prevention Strategies List – A Personal and Family Bio-security Plan • Wear light colored long sleeve/long pant clothing when entering tick habitat. • Make sure to wear permethrin treated clothing and use repellents as labeled for prevention. Remember to read, understand, and follow all label instructions. • Talk to your veterinarian about what products you can use for your animals. For inquiries about this project, contact... Timothy S. McDermott Extension Educator, Franklin County (614)-292-7916mcdermott.15@osu.edu PROJECT CONTACT Proper Tick Removal • Do a thorough tick check after exiting tick habitat and when you shower • Familiarize yourself with the proper removal methods for embedded ticks: • Use pointy tweezers or a tick removal took. • Grasp the tick as close to your skin as possible. • Gently but firmly pull straight up to remove the tick. • Then disinfect the bite site and wash your hands with soap and water • Save the tick for identification. • Contact your physician if you have removed an embedded tick or suspect disease. Outreach on ticks for public health supported by a grant from USDA NIFA 2021700063556 American Dog Tick (Dermacentor Variabilis) Asian Longhorned Tick (Haemaphysalis Longicornis) Engorged Deer Tick. Proper Tick Removal.

46 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Cattle on feed at the Eastern Ag Research Station. Eastern Ag Research Station NobleOARDCCounty The study was designed to see if using whole shelled corn increases intramuscular fat (mar bling) deposition in feed lot cattle. Backgrounded Angus-cross cattle (initial body weight [BW] = 613 ± 21 lbs) were used in a feedlot setting for an average of 230 days. Cattle were allotted in 12 pens (6 pens per treatment with 8 animals per pen). Treatments were 1) cracked corn CC or 2) whole shelled corn WSC. Determine the effect of corn processing on growth and intramuscular fat deposition in feedlot cattle. CARCASS RESULTS Corn Processing Start Date 4/5/2017 End Date 12/1/2017 Species Beef Start Point Age End Point Days on Feed Treatments 2 Reps 4 Experimental Unit Pen Genetics Commercial Breed Angus Crossbreed Sex Equal Steer : Heifer Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # 2016A00000002 ResponseVariable WSC CC % USDA Quality Grade Choice 48.65 52.98 Prime 25.54 18.09 Hot Carcass Weight 765.00 761.00 Dressing Percent 59.90 60.20 % USDA Yield Grade 1-3 86.43 94.98 Ribeye Area 13.48 14.00 WSC: Whole Shelled Corn CC: Cracked Corn

•

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 47 NutrientsManureBeef PoultryDairy RuminantSmall Swine SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE

For inquiries about this

matter

in

(DMI)

was no

contact...

on hot carcass weight, dressing percentage, or

regardless of

of

• Cattle fed CC had reduced dry intake when compared with those fed WSC. This lesser DMI resulted improved gain:feed ratio cattle fed CC compared with cattle fed WSC. There effect corn processing mar

bling score. ResponseVariable Whole Shelled Corn Cracked Corn Body Weight (lbs) 1192.91 1184.09 ADG (lbs/day) 2.94 2.91 DMI (lbs/day) 20.11 18.76 Gain : Feed (lb:lb) 0.128a 0.145b Intramuscular Fat % 8.30a 7.81b Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ, P-value <0.05. Grow Safe Feeding System The Grow Safe system by reading the animals RFID tag is able to track feed intake throughout the day. This system provides valuable feed intake information at an individual animal level.

The transition to the feedlot diet occurred using a tworation blend. After being adapted to the finishing concentrate, forage inclusion was gradually reduced. After the diet transition period, feed offered was gradually increased. Bunks were observed daily and feed offered was increased 5% (DM basis) if bunks were clean 2 days in a row. A heifer on the WSC and a steer on the CC diet did not adapt to the feeding system and were removed from the experiment within the adaptation period. Cattle were individually weighed on days 0, 14, 28, and 56 and, then, every 28 d during the trial until the last day of the trial. project, Alejandro E. Relling Associate Professor, OARDC Animal Sciences Average daily gain and final BW similar, treatment.

were

for

•

(330)relling.1@osu.edu263-3900 PERFORMANCE RESULTS •

CFAES Wooster WayneOARDCCounty

The study was designed to see if the use of whole shelled corn would help to prevent digestive problems when feeding time was in a on and off schedule. One hundred sixty-five steers (initial body weight [BW] 609.8± 61.2 lbs) were blocked by initial BW and allotted to 24 pens. Pens within each block were randomly assigned based on a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. The two factors were CoP (whole shelled corn vs. ground corn [GC]) and feeding time (FT) (constant FT vs. 2 hours AnimalsOFT). were fed the same diet, only changing the CoP method depending on the treatment. Feed offered and feed refusals were collected daily. Body weight was collected at starting day of the experiment (day 1) and every 28 days until the end of the experiment. At the end of the experiment, animals were harvested in a commercial slaughter facility, and carcass data were collect ed by a USDA grader. effect of oscillating time of feeding and grain corn processing on growth and carcass characteristics in feedlot cattle. 61.2

Evaluate the

CARCASS FeedingRESULTSTimex Corn Processing Start Date 8/12/2016 End Date 6/15/2017 Species Beef Start Point 609.8±

48 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGNSTUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION

lbs End Point 0.5 in. of Back Fat Treatments 4 Reps 6 Experimental Unit Pen Genetics Commercial Breed Angus Crossbreed Sex Steer Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # 2015A00000113 ResponseVariable CONT-GC CONT-WSC OFT-GC OFT-WSC Hot Carcass Weight 751.30 745.80 761.20 754.60 Back Fat 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.62 Ribeye Area 12.46 12.24 12.65 12.39 Marbling 734.30a 712.80a 675.80b 715.50a CONT, constant feeding time; CoP, main effect of corn processing; FT, main effect of feeding time; GC, ground corn; OFT, oscillating feeding time; WSC, whole shelled corn. Marbling score scale: marbling 400–490 = slight, 500–590 = small, 600–690 = modest, 700–790 = moderate, 800–890 = slightly abundant. Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ, P-value <0.05.

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 49 NutrientsManureBeef PoultryDairy RuminantSmall Swine

ResponseVariable

CONT-GC CONT-WSC OFT-GC OFT-WSC Body Weight (lbs) 1235.08 1244.90 1258.52 1254.83 ADG (lbs/day) 3.11 3.09 3.16 3.37 DMI (lbs/day) 20.02 19.85 19.95 20.63 Gain : Feed (lb:lb) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE

For inquiries about this project, contact... Alejandro E. Relling Associate Professor, OARDC Animal Sciences (330)relling.1@osu.edu263-3900

SUMMARY

OBSERVATIONSTRADE

Steers in this study were not implanted or backgrounded for a period of time before entering the finishing phase. Changing FT might be a factor that stresses the animals; however, providing enough feed without drastic changes in DMI might make up for the effect of chang ing FT in a programmed and systematic manner. There is little data on feeding behavior and animal growth. Inconsistent feeding behavior has been associated with decreases in growth rate, and an increased risk of ruminal acidosis.

USDA Beef Carcass Grading

• In conclusion, a 2-hour oscillation in FT might not decrease steer feedlot performance. This may be due to the high degree of control of DMI with feed bunk management.

• Feeding time did not affect carcass characteristics.

• Oscillating feeding system tends to decrease marbling score when corn is processed, but not when it is fed as WSC.

CONT-GC: Steers fed at the same time with a diet of ground corn CONT- WSC: Steers fed at the same time a diet with whole shelled corn OFT-GC: Steers fed at the osculating feeding time (2-h difference) a diet with ground corn OFT-WSC: Steers fed at the osculating feeding time (2-h difference) a diet with whole shelled corn

• Marbling score tended to decrease (CoP × FT interaction; P = 0.08) due to a decrease in intramuscular fat deposition in the GC-OFT cattle compared with the cattle in the other three treatments.

USDA beef carcass grades are based off of the percentage of intramuscular fat within the ribeye (longissimus dorsi) between the 12th and 13th rib. Quality grades are used to help predict consumer eating satisfaction of beef. The grading card shown is a marbling score of Modest 0, Average Choice.

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

50 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Individually housed feedlot research at Wooster Beef Research Center. CFAES Wooster WayneOARDCCounty

CARCASS RESULTS Feeding Time x Diet Formation STUDY INFORMATION Start Date 8/15/2015 End Date 6/1/2016 Species Beef Start Point 617.3 ± 19.2 lbs End Point 0.5 in. of Back Fat Treatments 3 Reps 8 Experimental Unit Pen Genetics Commercial Breed Angus Crossbred Sex Steer Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # 2015A00000113 ResponseVariable CONT OFT ODF Hot Carcass Weight 722.40 732.10 734.50 Back Fat 0.45 0.48 0.50 Ribeye Area 12.70 12.90 12.70 Marbling 567.00 565.00 564.00 % Low Choice or Greater 83.90 84.00 76.70 USDA Yield Grade 2.67 2.69 2.84 Marbling score scale: marbling 400–490 = slight, 500–590 = small, 600–690 = modest, 700–790 = moderate, 800–890 = slightly abundant. Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ, P-value <0.05.

A total of 168 steers (initial BW 617.3 ± 19.2 lbs) were blocked by initial BW into 2 BW block groups and allotted to 24 pens, resulting in pens of steers in each block that had similar initial BW (566.6 ± 0.441 and 668 ± 1.323 lbs for light and heavy BW blocks, respectively). Pens within each block were then randomly assigned and equally distributed to 1 of 3 treatments:

(1) control diet (CONT), animals in this group received the same diet at the same time of day each day; (2) oscillating feeding time (OFT), these animals received the same diet as the CONT, but they were fed 1 hour earlier on odd numbered days and 1 hour later on even numbered days; and (3) oscillating diet formulation (ODF), these animals received the diet at the same time everyday, but diet formulation changed daily. Animal performance (BW, DMI, and G:F) was measured over 166 to 174 days. At the end of the experiment, steers were weighed and slaughtered, and carcass characteristics were evaluated. Evaluate the effect of oscillating time of feeding and diet formulation on growth and carcass characteristics in feedlot cattle.

• Steers on CONT show performance and carcass characteristic similar to what was expected for this type of diet.

SUMMARY

Control: Steers were fed the same diet at the same time every day

• Despite one of the treatments being oscillating feeding times, the oscillating diet formulation group was fed at a different time (2 hours later) than the control group, however there were no differences among groups for performance or carcass characteristics

• Bunk management can affect performance, carcass characteristic, and production efficiency of feedlot cattle.

ResponseVariable Control Oscillating Feeding Time (OFT) Oscillating Diet Formulation (ODF) Body Weight (lbs) 1243.62 1256.85 1256.85 ADG (lbs/day) 3.68 3.77 3.77 Feed Intake (lbs/day) 21.43 22.01 21.74 Gain : Feed (lb:lb) 0.17 0.17 0.17

ODF: Steers fed at the same time everyday, but nutrient composition changed daily. The average nutrient composition of the ONC was similar to that of the control, but 10 % (as fed bases) DDGS was added on the even days and 10% (as fed bases) removed on the odd days.

• There was no treatment effect difference for any variable.

OFT: Steers fed the same diet as the control diet but they were fed 1 hour earlier on the odd days and one hour later on the even days

PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE

Despite that there is general concern that feeding time and mixing accuracy are indispensable to increase feedlot productivity, slight changes in feeding time and diet composition, in systems with slick bunk management, may not decrease feedlot performance. More research is needed to establish the maximum daily variation in nutrient concentration and feeding time with different types of diets in which animal performance is not compromised.

• Small daily nutrient or feed delivery timing vari ations do not affect performance and carcass characteristics when whole corn is fed to feedlot cattle.

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 51 NutrientsManureBeef PoultryDairy RuminantSmall Swine

TMR Mixing Wagon

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Mixing wagons are useful tools to deliver a total mixed ration daily. This method of feeding ensures that each bite the animal takes is uniform in composition. For inquiries about this project, contact... Alejandro E. Relling Associate Professor, OARDC Animal Sciences (330)relling.1@osu.edu263-3900

52 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Ewe and lamb pair on pasture/paddock. CFAES Wooster WayneOARDCCounty 72 crossbred lambs and 27 Dorset based ewes were grazed during the summer of 2015 from July to September at the OARDC Small Ruminant Research Unit. Lambs were weaned at an industry average of 60 days of age and placed in one of four treatments. Each treatment, control of traditional weaning on pasture, lambs left on ewe, lambs with a social facili tator, and lambs weaned into feedlot was replicated three times and had six lambs per replicate. Animal body weight was monitored every 14 days over the course of the grazing period to determine lamb growth and average daily gain (ADG). Additionally, health parameters were collected every 14 days using FAMACHA © eye scores as well as fecal and blood samples. Fecal samples were used to determine the number of parasitic eggs being deposited by each lamb in terms of eggs/gram of fecal material. Blood samples were processed to determine anemia status using a measurement of packed cell volume (PCV - monitors proportion of red blood cells and plasma in a blood sample). Forage samples were collected to monitor forage quantity and quality. Evaluate the effects of alternative weaning strategies on lamb growth and health when placed on pastures known to be infected with parasites. FECAL EGG COUNT DATA Delayed Lamb Weaning Start Date 7/8/2015 End Date 9/2/2015 Species Sheep Start Point 60 days End Point 120 days Treatments 4 Reps 3 Experimental Unit Pasture/Paddock Genetics Commercial Breed Hampshire x Dorset and Suffolk x Dorset Crossbred lambs Sex 36 ewe lambs : 36 wether lambs Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # 2015A00000061 Fecaleggs/gCount,Egg PastureControl Ewe FacilitatorSocial FeedlotControl SEM¹ Actual d 28 5.5a 5.2ab 4.9ab 4.2b 0.4 d 42 7.0a 6.6a 7.4a 4.9b 0.39 d 56 8.3a 7.3a 7.8a 5.2b 0.46 Estimated d 28 234.7 171.3 124.3 56.7 d 42 1086.6 725.1 1626.0 124.3 d 56 4013.9 1470.3 2430.6 171.3 Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ, P-value <0.05.

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 53 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE Delayed weaning did not compromise future ewe reproductive performance as delayed weaned ewes rebred during the scheduled breeding period and remained productive within the flock. Grazing was cut short because of a decrease in forage dry matter availability. Parasite treatment was deemed necessary when lambs demonstrated a PCV value of 21% or less. Rising Plate Meter A rising plate meter is an excellent tool to quickly estimate forage dry matter production. This tool is only used for grass-based pastures and does require some calibtation that can be easily done using a forage square. For inquiries about this project, contact... Brady Campbell State Small Ruminant Extension Specialist (330)campbell.1279@osu.edu263-5563 RESULTS • Delay weaned lambs demonstrated an overall greater final BW and ADG. • Lambs weaned to pasture at 60 days of age demonstrated decreased growth rates (i.e., BW and ADG) and increased signs of parasitic infec tion (i.e., FEC). • Prolonging weaning in parasitized pastures had positive growth and health benefits for pasture PastureControl Ewe FacilitatorSocial Feedlot SEM BW, lbs. d 28 50.0b 55.8a 49.8b 42.1c 1.87 d 42 54.0b 66.8a 55.1b 50.3b 1.87 d 56 54.2b 69.4a 55.3bc 60.2c 1.87 ADG, lbs./day d 28 0.18ab 0.33a 0.15ab 0.09b 0.08 d 42 0.29b 0.79a 0.37bc 0.60ac 0.08 d 56 0.02b 0.18b 0.02b 0.71a 0.08 Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ, P-value <0.05.

WEATHER SUMMARY 60504030201001.41.20.80.60.40.201 F)(TemperatureAirAverage°(in)Precipitation Date Precipitation (in) Average Air Temperature (°F) Fall Lambs & Annual Forages Start Date 11/5/2019 End Date 12/31/2019 Species Sheep Start Point 60 days End Point 120 days Treatments 3 Reps 3 Experimental Unit Pasture/Paddock Genetics Commercial Breed Dorset and Suffolk x Dorset Crossbred lambs Sex 27 ewe lambs : 27 wether lambs Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # 2017A00000029 Average Daily Precipitation and Temperature Summary from the Eastern Agricultural Research Station: November 5, 2019 to December 31, 2019.

54 fall born lambs were grazed on one of three pastures (oat, turnip, stockpiled pasture) at the Eastern Agricultural Research Station. Lambs grazed for 56 days as environmental conditions and forage quality could no longer support animal growth. Lamb body weight was collected every 14 days to determine lamb growth and average daily gain Additionally,(ADG). lamb parasite status was monitored every 14 days by collecting FAMACHA © eye scores as well as fecal and blood samples. Fecal samples were used to determine the number of parasitic eggs being deposited by each lamb in terms of eggs/gram of fecal material. Blood sam ples were processed to determine anemia status using a measurement of PCV. Forage samples were collected to monitor forage quantity and quality. Investigate the effect of annual forages on the growth and parasite resilience of growing, fall-born lambs.

54 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Eastern Agricultural Research Station lambs grazing. Eastern Ag Research Station NobleOARDCCounty

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 55 RuminantSmall NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Turnip Oat Stockpiled SEM Body weight, lbs. 2.51 d 28 60.2 56.9 55.8 d 42 64.2a 54.5b 56.2b d 56 66.1a 55.1b 57.1b ADG, lbs./day 0.04 d 28 0.48a 0.19b 0.27b d 42 0.28a -0.17c 0.03b d 56 0.15 0.05 0.06 Overall ADG, lbs./day 0.05 0.24a 0.03b 0.07b Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ, P-value <0.05. SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE Average ambient air temperature over the course of the grazing experiment varied from 55 to 22°F. Oats will experience winter kill at temperatures of 28.5°F. As shown in Figure 1, oats experienced temperatures below this threshold on three separate occasions. As a result, forage quality decreased rapidly, further contributing to decreased growth rates shown with oat grazed Interestingly,lambs.brassicas (i.e., turnips) did not experience winter kill as the lower threshold for this forage species is 21°F, which was not experienced during the winter grazing period. No lambs required parasite treatment in this experiment. Two lambs from oat pastures were removed from the study due to reasons unrelated to grazing treatments. Flexinet Portable electric netted fencing used to subdivide pastures into grazing paddocks. Great for rotational grazing and easy to use. For inquiries about this project, contact... Brady Campbell State Small Ruminant Extension Specialist (330)campbell.1279@osu.edu263-5563 RESULTS • Lambs grazing turnips had the greatest BW and ADG when compared with lambs grazing oats and stockpiled pasture. • Oat and stockpiled pasture lambs had similar body weight and average daily gain. • Lamb parasite resilience did not differ between forage treatment groups. • Overall, in ambient temperatures above freezing (32°F), annual forages serve as a viable alternative to extend the grazing season as these forages retain high nutritive value in inclement weather conditions.

56 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY OBJECTIVEDESIGN Market lambs at the Eastern Ag Research Station. Eastern Ag Research Station NobleOARDCCounty To conduct the experiment 60 wethers were hosed in 12 pens, with 5 wethers per pen, and were assigned to either one of two diets. The first diet consisted of an energy, protein, mineral, and vitamin concentrate pellet fed at 76% and second-cut grass hay fed at 24% to the total diet. The second diet was similar, but instead of using hay, soybean hulls pellets were used as a fiber source. To guarantee that both groups had the same ratio of concentrate to forage, the hay was individually weighed every day and fed based on the previous days feed intake. Start Date MD/DD/2021 End Date MD/DD/2021 Breed/Genetics Sex M:F 00:00 Total Headage 00 Treatments 0 Reps 0 Start Point 0 End RowManagementPointHarvestedSpacingSoilType Soil Type, (52%) Soil Type, (23%) Evaluate the use of soybean hulls as a fiber source for finishing lambs in feedlot conditions, comparing with a hay diet. DIET COMPOSITION Soy Hulls & Lambs STUDY INFORMATION Start Date 6/1/2019 End Date 9/1/2019 Species Sheep Start Point 65 lbs End Point 89 days on feed Treatments 2 Reps 5 Experimental Unit Pen Genetics Commercial Breed Dorset Crossbreed Sex Wethers Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # 2018A00000031 Percent in DM Basis Soy Hulls Diet Hay Diet Ground Corn 62.60 62.60 Soybean Meal 11.10 11.10 Soy Hulls 24.10 Grass Hay 24.10 Crude Protein 14.85 14.19 NDF 22.11 20.72

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 57 RuminantSmall NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Hay Soybean Hulls Final Weight (lbs) 86.00 86.80 ADG (lbs/day) 0.36 0.38 DMI (lbs/day) 3.40 3.50 Gain : Feed (lb:lb) 0.11 0.11 SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE

This may not seem like much, but when feeding 100 head per day, that adds up to 10 extra pounds of feed needed per day. Again, not a large increase of feed needed, but an increase none the less.

• In addition, although not significantly different, lambs offered soy hulls tended to have a greater dry matter intake when compared to those lambs that were offered hay.

It was noted that there was a tendency for lambs that consumed soy hulls to have a greater dry matter intake when compared to lambs consuming hay. Therefore, those lambs that were offered soy hulls required more feed (0.1 lbs./head/day) on a daily basis.

Soybean Hulls Soybean hulls are a by-product of the ex traction of oil from soybean seeds. The beans are then cracked, and their hulls, which main ly consist of the outer coats, are removed. Hulls are fibrous materials with no place in human food, but are very valuable for ruminants.

RESULTS

• These results demonstrate that there are no differences in animal performance when comparing the fiber sources of hay to soy hulls.

• After reviewing the animal performance parameters, there were no differences in lamb final body weight, average daily gain, or gain to feed ratio.

For inquiries about this project, contact... Alejandro E. relling.1@osu.eduRelling or Brady campbell.1279@osu.eduCampbell

58 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Section of wooded area grazing plot.

To

Total vegetation biomass smaller than six and a half feet was estimated in 19 browsing plots. Vegetation was identified by the genus or species level. Eight female Boer crossbred goats were selected for the conservation grazing and twelve plots were assigned to either high or low browsing pressures. A high browsing pressure (equivalent to 412 goat days/acre) was implemented as a browsing period of four days in a 3,380 ft2 circle using eight goats, while a low browsing pressure (equivalent to 206 goat days/acre) had the same number of animals and area, but the browsing period lasted only two days. The remaining six plots were assigned to mechanical clearing. Using plant species and direct observations of goat behavior and bite-size, the species consumed by the goats were quantified using a “bite category” methodology. Browsed plant species were then collected for nutritional analysis with a commercial forage laboratory. Using vegetation biomass and plant species composition, the browsing plots were clustered and named using the most abundant species. The amount of bite-size was quantified to measure the browse intake by goats and an index known as the “Jacob selectivity Index” was implemented to estimate goat preference for various plant species using the total biomass present before conservation grazing and the biomass removed by the goats. describe the variation in browse quality of woody understory vegetation in an invaded oak-hickory forest and evaluate evidence for differences in browse selection based on vegetation composition and availability and browsing pressure.

in

STUDY DESIGN

Conservation Browsing Using Goats STUDY INFORMATION Start Date July 2020 End Date August 2020 Species Goats Start Point Day 1 End Point Day 14 Treatments 3 Reps 6 Experimental Unit Plot Genetics Commercial Breed Boer Crossbred Sex Does Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum

Goats during grazing period. Pomerene Forest Lab CoshoctonOARDCCounty

OBJECTIVE

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 59 RuminantSmall NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE

Goats consumed a similar amount of spicebush compared to multiflora, even when spicebush biomass was low. High variability of biomass intake and preference were observed based on browse clusters. The preference index (JSI) was generally positive for privet and spicebush with no significant variation between the browse clusters. There was a slight trending preference for privet and multiflora rose during days 3 and 4 (high pressure) compared to 1 and 2 (low pressure).

• Plant species and browse clusters were better predictors of selection than browsing pressure.

The most abundant vegetation was also the most consumed biomass (multiflora rose, spicebush, privet, and bittersweet).

• Goats appeared to select biomass based on complex trade-offs between the amount of available vegetation, the physical characteristics of the species (e.g. thorns), and the plants’ nutritional content.

• For greater control of invasive species by goats (e.g., multiflora rose), a high browsing pressure should be consid ered.

The most abundant species in the forest understory were the native shrub spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and the invasive species multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), privet (Ligustrum spp.), and oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus). In the browsed plots, four browse clusters were identified: multiflora-bittersweet, spicebush, privet-spicebush, and multifloraprivet. Spicebush had the highest protein and lowest acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and lignin. Total sugar content (NSC) and lignin were highest for the privet. Mineral content was similar among the four species; spicebush presented high concentrations of Mn and Zn, and oriental bittersweet was rich in Fe.

Electronet Portable electric fencing and a solar charging station. Implementing this set-up in your invaded woodlot would likely be more successful using a battery-powered fencing charger as sunlight required for solar charging is insufficient in the woods after two to three days. For inquiries about this project, contact... Benjamin wenner.20@osu.eduWenner Mattor Davies davies.411@osu.edu

RESULTS

• Despite the high consumption of multiflora rose, the goats generally avoided that species. Differences in browse selectivity between (b) species × browsing day irrespective of browse clusters. Points represent individual observations and whiskers indicate 95% confidence interval. Letters indicate significant (P < 0.05) differences species.

60 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY OBJECTIVEDESIGN Laparoscopic Artificial Insemination Technician performing insemination with frozen semen. eBarns Collaborating Farm OSUMarionExtensionCounty Laparoscopic artificial insemination (LAI) is an intrauterine method of insemination, to bypass the unique anatomically tortuous cervix in Successsheep. of LAI programs depend on proper implementation of the estrus synchronization program, animal selection, and knowledge of the LAI process. The data was collected from seedstock flocks using LAI technicians with multiple annual LAI opportunities. Start Date MD/DD/2021 End Date MD/DD/2021 Breed/Genetics Sex M:F 00:00 Total Headage 00 Treatments 0 Reps 0 Start Point 0 End RowManagementPointHarvestedSpacingSoilType Soil Type, (52%) Soil Type, (23%) Measure the Laparoscopic Artificial Insemination lambing rate using frozen semen in Ohio seedstock flocks. LAMBING PERCENTAGE Sheep AI Summary STUDY INFORMATION Start Date 2017 End Date 2022 Species Sheep Start Point >1 year End Point <7 years Treatments 1 Reps Multi. Year Summary Experimental Unit Head Genetics Seedstock Production Breed Various Sex Ewe Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum 80.00%70.00%60.00%50.00%40.00%30.00%20.00%10.00%0.00% 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Lambing Percentage from Frozen Semen Six Year Average = 60.9%

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 61 RuminantSmall NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine ResponseVariable Year Bred Lambed Birth Rate 2017 33 23 Birth Rate 2018 42 27 Birth Rate 2019 42 27 Birth Rate 2020 44 21 Birth Rate 2021 153 91 Birth Rate 2022 55 36 Total 369 225 SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE The body condition score of 3-4, reduced stress, and proper administration of LAI procedures result in higher lambing rates. 14 days after LAI turn out with cleanup ram for 4 days. Blood test for pregnancy at 28 days. Ultrasound for pregnancy at 40 days. Laparoscope Use veterinarian accepted procedures for Laparoscopic Artificial Insemination using frozen semen. For inquiries about this project, contact... Tim Barnes Extension Educator, Marion County (740)barnes.821@osu.edu914-3020 RESULTS • These results provide replication of the standard Laparoscopic Artificial Insemination procedure performed by technicians for Ohio seedstock producers. • Numerous variables exist which may influence the results for a specific flock. • This summary exhibits a 60.9% lambing rate using viable frozen semen for a six year period.

62 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY OBJECTIVEDESIGN Image of buckets demonstrating the buckets cleaned once daily (1), once every 4 days (4), and once every week (7). Waterman Agricultural Lab OSU Animal FranklinScienceCounty Sheep were divided into four pens (experimental units) consisting of two pens of wether lambs and two pens of pregnant ewes. In experiment 1, sheep were given water buckets of three colors (black, yellow, and blue) that were randomly ordered after cleaning twice daily. This study lasted 7 days. In experiment 2, sheep were given water buckets of a single color that were randomly ordered after following one of these cleaning routines: 1) cleaned daily with a scrub brush, 2) cleaned every 4 days with a scrub brush, or 3) cleaned every 7 days with a scrub brush. This study lasted 14 days. To determine the preference of sheep for color of waterer and cleanliness of waterer. DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION Sheep Water Preference STUDY INFORMATION Start Date 2021 End Date 2021 Species Sheep Start Point Day 0 End Point 14 days Treatments 3 Reps 4 Experimental Unit Pen Genetics Commercial Breed Dorset and Suffolk x Dorset Crossbred lambs Sex Equal Wethers : Ewes Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum IACUC # 2021A00000007. Average daily water consumption increased by blue or yellow bucket versus black bucket in the study on color preference by sheep. Different letters differ (P = 0.02). SE = 0.143. b a a

Sheep (and other species) prefer to drink water that is cleaner and from waterer’s where the bottom is more visible.

For inquiries about this project, contact... Benjamin Wenner Associate Professor, Animal Sciences (614)wenner.20@osu.edu688-1968

RESULTS

Different Colored Buckets Sheep have dichromatic vision. An understanding that sheep can recognize different colors leads to the possibility that they may prefer certain colors over others, giving producers the ability to manipulate the waterers to reflect the overall preference.

• Water consumption patterns of sheep became more imbalanced as time increased post-clean ing.

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 63 RuminantSmall NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine SUMMARY

Averaged proportion of daily water intake over the course of two-week study. Blue bars are buckets cleaned daily, striped bars are buckets cleaned every 4 days, and brown bars are buckets cleaned weekly.

Producers should inspect and clean waterer’s at least once weekly.

Since dry matter intake is driven by water consumption, feed intake can be improved in most growing livestock with availability of clean, fresh water.

• Sheep in experiment 1 drank more water from blue or yellow buckets than they did from the black bucket. This increase was nearly double.

• By day 7, roughly 70% of water consumed was from the cleanest bucket and it is likely that wa ter consumed from any other bucket was only by necessity rather than choice.

OBSERVATIONSTRADE

• Sheep in experiment 2 drank more water from buckets cleaned daily than buckets cleaned weekly. This increase was more than doubled.

PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE

A multi-farm study was conducted from May 2020 through September 2021 during liquid manure application in Darke, Auglaize, Wayne, and Williams Counties, with all manure sources being from swine pits along with additional sup port across the state. Manure was applied via a drag-line applicator with sampling ports installed on the outermost rows of the toolbar. During field application, manure samples were collected for the duration of pumping a pit at a time interval of 15 to 20 minutes. A complete sample analysis was done at Brookside Laboratories and the samples were evaluated for changes in manure dry matter and NPK concentrations. Data analysis was run on the sample test results comparing the changes of dry matter (DM) to NPK (Total N, P2O5 and K2O) using correlation analysis to de termine the strength of the relationship of each nutrient to Dry Matter. A correlation of 1.00 is perfect and a correlation of 0.99 - 0.75 is highly and any correlation that is negative expresses an inverse relationship.

64 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Manure Dry Matter versus NPK

STUDY OBJECTIVEDESIGN

Side-dressing liquid manure using draghose and an injection toolbar. eBarns Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Statewide

Understand the relationship between dry matter and NPK nutrients in liquid manure during application.

• Total N was correlated with DM for six of the eight pits with pits 1 and 8 resulting in low R values.

NutrientsManure

Correlation coefficients (R) comparing DM and nutrient concentrations.

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 65 PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Unagitated Pits Agitated Pits Pit 1 Pit 2 Pit 3 Pit 4 Pit 5 Pit 6 Pit 7 Pit 8 P205 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.81 0.90 0.79 Total N 0.40 0.90 0.97 0.91 0.92 0.85 0.75 -0.65 K2O 0.39 -0.08 -0.12 -0.28 0.45 0.59 -0.03 0.01 SUMMARY

• Of interest, agitation generated more consisten cy and higher N and P concentrations causing the N and P2O5 versus DM data to cluster more (see agitation figures).

PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE

RESULTS

Manure Pit Agitator Manure pits should be agitated prior to pumping to ensure that nutrients are evenly dispersed during pumping and application.

Sources of variation are present in all aspects of manure storage and management. Pit management varied from one collaborator to the next beyond agitation. The use of pit additives and pit management were unique to each farm. The variation in manure color changed as the dry matter changed throughout application. Depending on the manure pump, as the capacity of manure supplied to the field increased larger amount of concentrated solids were seen after application.

• P2O5 concentrations were highly correlated with DM for both the agitated and unagitated pits (R ranged from 0.79 and 1.00; see table and figures).

OBSERVATIONSTRADE

For inquiries about this project, contact... John Fulton Professor, Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering fulton.20@osu.edu

• K2O concentration was not correlated with DM for any of the pits.

OBJECTIVEDESIGN

66 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY

-

Liquid Manure Nutrient Concentration

Sample collection while side-dressing liquid manure in corn.

eBarns Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Statewide

A multi-farm study was conducted from May 2020 through September 2021 while liquid manure was being applied before planting, at side-dress in corn, or after harvest. The cooperating farms were in Darke, Auglaize, Wayne, and Williams Counties with all manure sources being from swine pits along with additional support across the state. During manure application samples were collected at the applicator to develop a data set of as-applied nutrients over time. Samples were collected for the duration of the application process at a time inter val of 15 to 20 minutes. Sample bottles were labeled and then taken to Brookside Laboratories for complete sample analy sis to determine Lost by Ignition + Mineral Matter (Dry Matter), Total N, Ammonia N, P2O5, K2O. Lab results were then summarized and then analyzed to evaluate changes in manure dry matter and nutrient concen tration for the pits. Pumping rate, agitation, and timing of sample collection were noted at each pit to clarify changes in nutrient concentra tion and identify trends from the data. Characterize potential variations in liquid swine manure nutrient concentrations as pits are pumped for field application.

P2O5 results collected from agitated swine pits.

P2O5 results collected from unagitated swine pits.

(lbs/1000gal) 21.00 27.00 26.00 27.00 35.00

(lbs/1000gal) 18.00 26.00 22.00 24.00 30.00

2.70

PROJECT CONTACT

25.00 CV

TOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE

5.80 Avg.

33.00 CV

• Agitation during pumping created a more homo geneous liquid manure as can be seen with the lower CVs for P2O5 and K20. Agitated Pit 1 Pit 2 Pit 3 Pit 4 Pit 5 Pit 6 Pit 7 Pit 8 Total N 49.00 43.00 Total N (%) P205 27.00 27.00 P205 (%) 22.50 K2O 36.00 34.00 K2O (%) 2.40

RESULTS

• For the unagitated pits, P2O5 tended to change as the pit was pumped whereas P2O5 varied for the agitated pits but was more constant over the time of application (see Figures).

9.10 4.90 10.50 15.20 4.80 8.70 6.30 5.30 Avg.

64.80 105.20 126.40 127.20 12.10 7.80

The development of a multiple year sampling reference is the best management practice to develop accurate application rates. Collect a sample during each application, avoiding crusted areas on the surface of the pit. These samples can be used together to calculate an ongoing optimal application rate. For inquiries about this project, contact... John Fulton Professor, Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering fulton.20@osu.edu

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 67 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine SUMMARY

Theincreased.agitated pits were more consistent regarding flow during pumping, and the color change was not as noticeable from beginning to end. Agitation did not break up all the solids, but it eliminated the visual inconsistency of color and minimized changes in viscosity. Of note, pit 1 had no pit additive used and had a noticeably higher amount of suspended solids near the surface. Application was also ended before emptying the pit, leaving a third of the pit to be applied in the spring, while pits 2, 3, and 4 used additives and were pumped completely.

Manure Sample Collection

Unagitated

42.00 CV

(lbs/1000gal) 1.00 9.00 8.00 6.00 19.00

• Concentration differences in Total N, P2O5 and K2O were different between pits (see Table). Total N varied for both the unagitated and agitat ed pits with Total N variation much higher for the unagitated pits (CV=9.1% to 23.2%; see Table). Of note, the average Total N (35-49 lbs/1000 gals) was higher for the agitated pits.

Avg.

2.40 1.70 1.90 1.60 2.20 1.90

During application, manure from the unagitated pits had visual changes in consistency from the beginning to the end of pumping in both color and viscosity. ln the unagitated pits manure became darker in color, the flow of the manure slowed as the pit emptied, and viscosity

• The average P2O5 was significantly higher for the agitated pits (19-27 lbs/1000 gals) but the variation in P2O5 concentration was very high for the unagitated pits with the CVs ranging be tween 64.8% and 131.7%.

NIR Sensing for Manure Application

eBarns Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Statewide An on-farm collaboration was set up between Ohio State, eFields collaborating farms, and John Deere to use the Harvest Lab 3000. The Harvest Lab 3000 is an NIR sensor that senses as-applied manure nutrients within slurry manure which can be installed on any liquid manure application equipment equipped with a flow meter. During application the sensor com municates with a GPS receiver mapping as-applied manure nutrients. The sensor displays all readings on the in cab display similar to the yield results in a combine. For this study, a calibration curve devel oped for swine manure was used to determine as applied nutrients. Throughout application samples were collected at the toolbar and then compared to the sensor readings looking for trends/bias and to see if the nutrient changes from beginning to end were captured in the maps. Understand how Near Infrared sensors can be utilized to estimate as-applied manure nutrients during liquid manure application.

OBSERVATIONS

There were visual differences in the manure during application at each location. As seen in the difference between Figures 1 and 2 if a single pit sample could be relied upon to predict the nutrients during application the maps should be the same. A singular pit sample concludes that all nutrients vary proportionally to each other but the Figures below show how the nutrients vary independently of one another. NIR sensors by design are very precise but are only as accurate as the calibration curves the sensors are referencing to determine nutrient value. The NIR calibration curves calibrated for the livestock production system here in North America are still be updated and developed to become as accurate as possible. With time the sensors could be as accurate as a lab but by creating a compact and mobil sensor, labs have an advantage in computing/processing capacity. As technology continues to progress so will the calibration curves and capacity of the sensor increasing the accuracy of this system. Of note, pit 2 was a mixed manure source 85% beef manure and 15% swine manure which a calibration curve does not exist for.

68 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY

Cab display screen of the sensor during application. Total Nitrogen as-applied map P2O5 as-applied map

OBJECTIVEDESIGN

Near-infrared (NIR) Liquid Manure Sensors Provide the capability to estimate NPK, DM and more during the pumping of pits and field applications. The sensor technology provides operators real-time feedback during field application especially indicating changes in nutrient concentrations at the time of application.

• Calibration curves for the type of swine/beef ma nure mix applied during this study would adjust the results more to the 1:1 line.

PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE TRADE

• Results indicated the NIR sensor did a good job of relatively estimating the P2O5 and Total Nitro gen variations during field application.

• The variation in Total Nitrogen and P2O5 within the as-applied maps illustrates the challenge of a single point pit sample to inform field application.

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 69 PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine SUMMARY

• A value of the technology was the feedback with the in-cab display to the operator during applica tion to show changes in N and P concentrations allowing an operator the opportunity in the field and at the pump to adjust or maintain the recom mended N and P rates (see as-applied maps).

NutrientsManure

For inquiries about this project, contact... John Fulton Professor, Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering fulton.20@osu.edu

RESULTS

• The sensor calibration curves used in this study were not developed for the mixed manure sourc es that were field applied.

4/15/2021 Variety Fresh Manure, Composted Manure Treatments 2 Reps 8 Species Dairy Beef Genetics Commercial Breed Dairy Beef Sex Male Manure Type Pen Pack Growth 400-800 lbs Diet Composi tion Corn, Soybean,

NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION Manure Compost Start

This was an on-farm research design. Each producer was asked to establish one baseline compost windrow that was to be turned weekly with a commercial compost turner. Fresh manure was weighed, turned for 6-8 weeks and then scaled out as composted ma nure. Each producer was asked to take initial and ending volume measurements. Three manure analyses were taken from each producer’s windrow weekly, just after compost turning (samples were adequately mixed). Analyses evaluated nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, organic matter, organic carbon and carbon-nitrogen ratios to track nutrient changes over the course of the trial. Five producers participated in this study with 8 unique compost windrows (piles). To evaluate the use of composting as a method to reduce the volume, weight and moisture and increase the nutrient density of solid manure. Date Date DDG,

70 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY

Straw

11/1/2020 End

Compost and manure being applied in alternating strips for the field trial. Farm OSUFultonExtensionCounty

OBJECTIVEINFORMATION

eBarns Collaborating

• Fresh manure samples averaged 66% moisture and composted manure averaged 53% moisture.

• Across all research sites, the total fresh manure put into compost windrows was 258 tons and the composted manure total was 121 tons in the end.

• There was no significant difference in total usable nitrogen from the start to the finish of the trial.

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 71 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments (lbs/TKNton) (lbs/Pton) (lbs/Kton) (lbs/Ston) (lbs/Caton) Moisture(%) OM(%) (%)OC C:N Fresh Manure 7.80 a 7.80 b 15.00 1.40 4.10 67.00 30.10 17.40 21.30 a Composted Manure 7.50 a 22.40 a 34.10 3.10 12.10 48.20 42.70 24.80 20.70 a LSD: 0.45 CV: 6.63 LSD: 7.47 CV: 56.23 LSD: 6.10 CV: 28.23 LSD: 0.44 CV: 22.28 LSD: 2.66 CV: 37.32 LSD: 3.02 CV: 5.96 LSD: 3.54 CV: 11.07 LSD: 2.06 CV: 11.07 LSD: 1.98 CV: 10.69 Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE Digital temperature monitors (HOBO) were used to track temperatures over time to ensure ideal temperatures were 120-140 degrees Fahrenheit. Several of the test windrows started with temperatures over or near 160 degrees Fahrenheit before stabilizing in the ideal range. Over the course of the project, we were able to see that the nutrient density of phosphorus, potassium, sulfur and calcium all nearly doubled. The observed loss of volume and weight was driven mostly by the reduction in moisture. This allowed for compost to be hauled farther because fewer loads were needed.

• Nutrient density for key nutrients phosphorus, potassium, sulfur and calcium doubled (or more).

• Volume (aka ‘loads’) were reduced by 28% as a result of composting manure for 6 to 8 weeks.

Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) Case IH Magnum 190 with this CVT is invaluable for pulling the compost turner at ultra-slow speeds.

For inquiries about this project, contact... Eric Richer Extension Educator, Fulton County (419)richer.5@osu.edu590-6042

RESULTS

72 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Compost being applied at 5 ton per acre. eBarns Collaborating Farm OSUFultonExtensionCounty This study was designed in a randomized complete block design. The two treatments were approximately 5 tons/ac of composted cattle manure and 10 tons/ac pen pack cattle manure (direct from the barn). Composted manure was turned in a windrow weekly for 7 weeks prior to field application. Nutrient analyses indicated that the compost was twice the nutrient density of manure for key nutrients P, K, S, and Ca. All organic nutrients were applied in April prior to corn planting and lightly incorporated the next day. All field operations, starter application rates and side dress nitrogen were consistent across all treatments. Planting Date 5/1/2021 Harvest Date 9/9/2021 Variety Beck's 5929 Population 33,250 sds/ac Acres 20 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Minimum Management Fertilizer, InsecticideHerbicide, Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Colonie Fine Sand, 48% Tedrow Loamy Fine Sand, 17% Granby Loamy Fine Sand, 14% Evaluate the yield impact when compost or manure are used as the nutrient source in corn silage. WEATHER INFORMATION Harvest DatePlanting Date 10090807060504030201000123F)°(TEMPERATUREMIN.ANDMAX.DAILYPRECIPITATION(IN) Manure Compost Growing Season Weather Summary APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total Precip (in.) 1.83 2.39 4.45 3.39 2.08 4.76 18.90 Cumulative GDDs 189 538 1189 1874 2601 3111 3111

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 73 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments Avg.(plants/ac)Emergence Moisture(%) (tons/ac)Yield Manure 31,000 57.80 23.80 a Compost 32,500 57.80 22.70 a Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD: 1.7 CV: 3.1% SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE This trial site did not have a history of manure application. Soil analyses showed soil test phosphorus (STP) in the maintenance range, soil test potassium (STK) below the maintenance range, organic matter of 1.7% and 5.0 CEC. There were no visual differences between the manure and compost treatments. This farm received adequate rainfall during pollination. Generally, weather conditions were excellent for growing corn at this location. Visual observation of the corn silage from both treatments indicated ‘excellent’ quality. For inquiries about this project, contact... Eric Richer Extension Educator, Fulton County (419)richer.5@osu.edu590-6042 RESULTS • There was no statistical difference in yield between the treatments. • While there was no statistical yield difference, the numerical yield advantage in favor of the manure treatment is likely from the more plant available nitrogen at planting. • Additional replications of this study are needed to confirm the results of this study. HCL Machine This HCL Works CT-12 pull-type compost turner can accommodate a 6 ft x 12 ft foot windrow. The compost turner serves to mix and add oxygen to the compost windrow.

74 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Compost strips to the left (darker) and manure strips on the right. eBarns Collaborating Farm OSUFultonExtensionCounty This study was designed in a randomized complete block design. The three treatments were 3 tons/ac of composted cattle manure, 6 ton/ac pen pack cattle manure (direct from the barn) and check strip without organic nutrients. Composted manure was turned in a windrow weekly for 6 weeks prior to field application. Nutrient analyses indicated that the compost was twice the nutrient density of manure for key nutrients P, K, S, and Ca. All organic nutrients were applied in the fall of 2020 and lightly incorporated the next day. All field operations, starter application rates and side dress nitrogen were consistent across all treatments. Planting Date 5/19/2021 Harvest Date 10/22/2021 Variety Pioneer 0843AM Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 10 Treatments 3 Reps 3 Treatment Width 15 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, Insecticide Previous Crop Wheat Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Del Rey Silt Loam, 41% Lenawee Silty Clay Loam, 28% Kibbie Loam, 13% Evaluate the yield impact when compost or manure are used as the nutrient source in corn. WEATHER INFORMATION Harvest DatePlanting Date 10090807060504030201000123F)°(TEMPERATUREMIN.ANDMAX.DAILYPRECIPITATION(IN) Manure Compost Growing Season Weather Summary APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total Precip (in.) 1.94 2.27 5.68 8.25 2.24 4.03 24.41 Cumulative GDDs 203 565 1212 1895 2593 3089 3089

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 75 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments Avg.(plants/ac)Emergence Moisture(%) (bu/ac)Yield Check 32,200 18.00 258.00 a Manure 31,900 17.90 259.00 a Compost 33,200 18.10 258.00 a Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD: 9.7 CV: 2.1% SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE Stand counts were taken approximately one month after planting and there were no significant differences in emergence. This field had no history of manure since 2003. This farm’s soil has excellent water and nutrient-holding capacity as it had 4.4% organic matter. Growing conditions for corn were excellent at this field site in 2021. For inquiries about this project, contact... Eric Richer Extension Educator, Fulton County (419)richer.5@osu.edu590-6042 RESULTS • There was no statistical difference in yield or moisture among all three treatments. • Additional replications of this study and yearover-year data, especially in variable weather conditions, are needed to confirm the results of this study. Manure Spreader This New Idea box spreader and John Deere skid loader are valuable tools for applying organic nutrients in a efficient and effective manner.

76 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Manure (lighter) and compost (darker) treatments prior to incorporation. eBarns Collaborating Farm OSUFultonExtensionCounty This study was designed in a randomized complete block design. The two treatments were approximately 5 tons/ac of composted cattle manure and 10 tons/ac pen pack cattle manure (direct from the barn). Composted manure was turned in a windrow weekly for 7 weeks prior to field application. Nutrient analyses indicated that the compost was twice the nutrient density of manure for key nutrients P, K, S, and Ca. All organic nutrients were applied in April prior to corn planting and lightly incorporated the next day. All field operations, starter application rates and side dress nitrogen were consistent across all treatments. Planting Date 4/27/2021 Harvest Date 11/3/2021 Variety Seed 1112AMConsultants Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 3 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybeans Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Mermill Loam, 81% Nappanee Loam, 9% Haskins Loam, 7% Evaluate the yield impact when compost or manure are used as the nutrient source in corn. WEATHER INFORMATION Harvest DatePlanting Date 10090807060504030201000123F)°(TEMPERATUREMIN.ANDMAX.DAILYPRECIPITATION(IN) Manure Compost Growing Season Weather Summary APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total Precip (in.) 1.99 3.00 4.67 7.12 2.45 4.51 23.74 Cumulative GDDs 219 597 1282 1994 2714 3230 3230

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 77 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments Avg.(plants/ac)Emergence Moisture(%) (bu/ac)Yield Manure 33,700 17.50 252.00 a Compost 33,500 17.80 245.00 a Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD: 11.5 CV: 2.0% SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE OBSERVATIONSTRADE Compost and manure were applied to this field on April 17, 2021 prior to planting. Organic nutrients were incorporated immediately to conserve plant available nitrogen. This field experienced excellent growing conditions all season long. No plant health differences were observed between the treatments. For inquiries about this project, contact... Eric Richer Extension Educator, Fulton County (419)richer.5@osu.edu590-6042 RESULTS • There was no statistical difference in yield between the treatments. • The compost treatment resulted in a slightly higher grain moisture percentage at harvest. • While there was no statistical yield difference, the numerical yield advantage in favor of the manure treatment is likely from the more plant available nitrogen at planting. • Additional replications of this study, especially in variable weather conditions, are needed to confirm the results of this study. DJI Mavic 2 Pro with Hasselblad Camera This arieal imagery helps confirm layout and application consistency for this manure trial.

78 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION Finished compost after 8 weekly turns. eBarns Collaborating Farm OSUFultonExtensionCounty This study was randomized complete block design. The three treatments included manure, compost and commercial fertilizer. All treatments were applied at actual rates designed to meet the target 2-year crop removal rate of approximately 120 lbs K20, 55 lbs P2O5 and 12 lbs sulfate. All treatments received 40 lbs/ac of nitrogen at planting and 155 lbs/ac of nitrogen at sidedress. All other field operations were consistent across all treatments. Planting Date 5/19/2021 Harvest Date 11/4/2021 Variety Pioneer 0963, Pioneer 0720Q, Rupp D09-42 Population 30,000 sds/ac Acres 16 Treatments 3 Reps 3 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Minimum Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Tedrow Loamy Fine Sand, 24% Ottokee Fine Sand, 23% Gilford Fine Sandy Loam, 17% To evaluate the use of manure, compost or commercial fertilizer to meet the Tri-State fertility needs of corn. WEATHER INFORMATION Harvest DatePlanting Date 10090807060504030201000123F)°(TEMPERATUREMIN.ANDMAX.DAILYPRECIPITATION(IN) Meeting Tri-State Fertility Needs Growing Season Weather Summary APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total Precip (in.) 1.99 3.00 4.67 7.12 2.45 4.51 23.74 Cumulative GDDs 219 597 1282 1994 2714 3230 3230

All fertility treatments were applied on April 16 and incorporated the same day. Planting conditions were optimal. Planter setup led to a lower than preferred planting rate; emergence was consistent across all treatments. Replication number three showed signs of some water damage but damage was consistent across all treatments. This site received excess moisture in July and September. In general, there appeared to be no visual plant health differences among treatments.

• The results of this study showed that there was a statistically significant yield increase when using manure over the Tri-State (commercial) fertilizer rate.

• If possible, data from the soybean rotation in 2022 will be collected on this trial. Kuhn Knight ProTwin Slinger This manure spreader was used in compost studies. The spreader allows for consistent, even spreading while improving material breakup.

OBSERVATIONSTRADE

• Some of the yield increase in the manured treatment is believed to be associated with the additional nitrogen available from the spring applied manure.

Forages 2022 eBarns Report | 79 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments Avg.(plants/ac)Emergence Moisture(%) (bu/ac)Yield Tri-State Fertilizer 26,600 17.60 190.00 b Manure 26,700 17.70 213.00 a Compost 27,400 17.50 202.00 ab Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1. LSD: 14.90 CV: 4.25% SUMMARY

This field had no history of manure application. Soil analyses showed a soil test phosphorus (STP) in the maintenance range, soil test potassium (STK) below maintenance range, organic matter 1.7% and 4.4 CEC.

RESULTS

• There was no significant yield difference between the manure and compost treatments; similarly, there was no significant yield difference between the compost and fertilizer treatments.

For inquiries about this project, contact... Eric Richer Extension Educator, Fulton County (419)richer.5@osu.edu590-6042

PROJECT CONTACTTOOLS OF THE

FranklinScienceCounty Pigs were

Unit Department of

OSU Don Scott Swine Animal assigned the same sex

to floor space treatments in a randomized design and blocked by start ing weight and litter number. No more than two littermates of

80 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program STUDY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVEINFORMATION

were in each pen. Pigs were weighed bi-weekly until they approached 300 lb. Feed intake was measured by tracking feed that was fed and weighing back feeders bi-weekly as well. When the pen average reached 300 lbs, the study ended. Ultrasound was used at the end of the study to estimate carcass cutability. Salivary cortisol was measured at 150 and 300 lbs to evaluate stress response to floor space. Start Date 10/15/2015 End Date 8/1/2016 Species Swine Start Point 50 lb. (DOF, DOA, DIM) End Point 300 lb (DOF, DOA, DIM) Treatments 5 Reps 4 Experimental Unit Pen Genetics Commercial Breed Yorkshire Cross x Duroc Sex Equal Barrow : Gilt Health Protection As needed Feed Access Ad libitum To determine the effects of floor space allowance on growth, efficiency, and welfare of pigs when marketed at an average pen live weight of 300 pounds. MARKET HOG PERFORMANCE Market Hog Space Requirements

TechForages 2022 eBarns Report | 81 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Treatments(ft2) Avg. Daily (lb/day)Gain Avg. Daily Feed Intake (lb/d) Avg.(lb:lb)G:F 6.6 2.20 6.42 0.91 7.6 2.24 6.66 0.89 8.6 2.22 6.62 0.89 9.6 2.22 6.58 0.89 10.6 2.24 6.51 0.92 SUMMARY PROJECT CONTACT OBSERVATIONS As expected, barrows were faster growing than the gilts within the same treatment pens. Animal Well Being There were no difference in salivary cortisol concentrations across treatments. Of 160 total head, 10 pigs were removed from the study. Tail biting was minimal and only observed at two largest floor space treatments. Carcass Measurements There were no significant difference in Back Fat or Loin Eye Area across treatments. For inquiries about this project, contact... Garth Ruff Beef Cattle Field Specialist (740)-305-3201ruff.72@osu.edu RESULTS • Floor space allotment did not have an impact on pig performance up to 300 lbs. • Current floor space recommendations are adequate for modern market hogs marketed at weights of 300 lbs or less. • Carcass characteristics were not impacted by floor space treatment. Ultrasound Ultrasound technology can be used to measure and estimate fat and muscle of the animal throughout the different phases of production. TOOLS OF THE TRADE

Avian influenza is a viral disease that can affect multiple species of birds. It can exist in a low pathogenic form that causes mild symptoms of disease and can also mutate into a highly pathogenic form that can cause high mortality in multiple avian species including domestic poultry such as chickens and turkeys, shore birds, and raptors including hawks, owls, and eagles.

Four major waterfowl migration routes cross the United States and areas that have high concentrations of broiler chicken production. Approximate flyways are labeled Atlantic (purple), Mississippi (yellow), Central (orange), and Pacific (green) overlaid on the 2012 USDA broiler census map. Graphic by The Ohio State University. Source credit: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, VME-1037, https:// ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/vme-1037

82 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is devastating in that it is highly contagious with no treatment available. It can be spread widely in migratory waterfowl such as where it can exist in an asymptomatic carrier state. Two of the four major migratory pathways pass through Ohio which increases our risk of outbreaks.

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

Scott P. Kenney, PhD, Assistant Professor, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University Extension, Wooster.

Introduction

OtherForages 2022 eBarns Report | 83 NutrientsManure PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine

Direct poultry bio-security is preventing disease transmission from bird to bird. Disease can be spread from wild birds if they can encounter the flock or can be spread within the flock from a sick bird to another bird. Make sure that your flock cannot encounter wild birds through the use of fencing, bird netting or other exclusion, including keeping your birds indoors during an HPAI outbreak.

Bio-security to prevent disease introduction to flocks. A line of separation around flock house should be maintained with only select workers allowed to enter houses from a limited entry point. Entry point should allow workers to change into building-specific clothing, disinfect boots into and out of the house, and allow employees to keep personal belongings out of the house. Adapted from Iowa State University Center for Food Security & Public Health (Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine 2018).

For more poultry bio-security information visit the USDA Defend the Flock Program @ #defendtheflock. Prevention

For inquiries about this project, contact... Timothy S. McDermott Extension Educator, Franklin County (614)-292-7916mcdermott.15@osu.edu

PROJECT CONTACT

On Farm Bio-Security

The key to preventing outbreaks in both backyard poultry and the poultry industry is bio-security. Bio-security is the strategy of prioritizing the health by preventing disease from entering the flock or herd. It comes in two main forms, direct bio-security, and indirect bio-security.

Indirect poultry bio-security involves something else transmitting disease into the flock. Make sure to limit or exclude visitors to your flock whenever possible. Make sure to use proper sanitation procedures as well as include the use of personal protective equipment, disposable boot covers and gloves, and boot wash stations. Understand the risks of bringing disease into your flock through encounters with other domestic poultry or wild birds to make sure you are not the indirect spreader of disease.

Research Collaborators and Supporters Acknowledgments Nikki Berry Joel HaileyDouglasChrisTing-YuJeremyBielkeBlockChenClarkClevengerJermolowicz Dean Kreager Licking County Sheep Producers Kellie Enger Zach England OARDC Farm Shop Crew Ohio Top Farmer BWB EdwinWandersonKirstenDaltonNicoleGreggFarmsFogleHardyHuhnNicklesNovaisPickenpaugh OARDC Seeds Grant Program Merit Seed in Berlin, OH Roger WayneShearerShriver OARDC Small Ruminant Research Unit Staff Derrick Snyder Kevin Stottsberry Drew Toth Rick Whiting Robin Zendejas 2021 Small Ruminant Production Lab 84 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

NutrientsManureForages PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Farm Science Review 2022 Celebrating 60 Years of Progress 60 Years of Dairy Improvement... 60 Years of Beef Improvement... Join us in celebrating the advancements in agriculture at the Farm Science Review in the upcoming years: September 19-21, 2023 September 17-19, 2024 September 16-18, 2025 60 Years of Sheep Improvement... 2022 eBarns Report | 85

ADF – Acid Detergent Fiber, least digestible plant compounds, including lignin and cellulose

Dressing Percent – (Hot Carcass Weight divided by Live Weight) x 100

86 | Ohio

Feekes Growth Stages

– Confidence Interval, range of values that can be certain to contain the true mean of a population Ad Libitium – A feeding management in which animals are fed without any restrictions

DIM – Days In Milk, number of days a dairy cow has been lactating

GDD – Growing Degree Days, heat units used to estimate growth and development of crop and pests during the growing season

DON – Deoxynivalenol, Vomitoxin, a common mycotoxin found in grain

FAMACHA © – Selective treatment method for controlling the level of parasitic barber ’s pole worm in small ruminants

FEC – Fecal Egg Count, quantitative assessment of how many parasite eggs an animal is shedding at a particular time

10.0 – Grass Forage at Boot Stage 10.5 – Grass Forage at Heading

Bob Veal – Veal calves marketed up to three weeks of age

DM – Dry Matter, fiber and nutrients remaining once water is removed from a feedstuff or diet

FTPI – Failed Transfer of Passive Immunity, when a calf fails to absorb adequate immunoglobulins via colostrum State Digital Ag Program

ADG – Average Daily Gain, weight gained per animal, per day

DCAD – Dietary Cation Anion Difference, measurement used when formulating diets for dry or lactating cows using positively and negatively charged minerals on animal performance

Glossary95%CI

DDG – Dried Distillers’ Grain with Soluble, co-product of ethanol production and often used as a protein source in a diet

BW – Body Weight CP – Crude Protein, measures nitrogen content of feedstuffs, including true protein and nonprotein nitrogen

DMI – Dry Matter Intake, amount of dry matter consumed per animal, per day

ADFI – Average Daily Feed Intake, amount of feed (As Fed) consumed per animal, per day

NutrientsManureForages PoultryBeefDairy RuminantSmall Swine Gain : Feed – Measure of Feed Efficiency, ratio of total pounds gained to total pounds of feed fed Hot Carcass Weight – Carcass Weight prior to chilling Hypoglycemic – Low Blood Sugar K2O – Potassium fertilizer form, Potash Laparoscopic Artificial Insemination – Intrauterine method of insemination used in small ruminants Mycotoxin – Toxin produced by certain molds or fungi in grains N – Nitrogen NDF – Neutral Detergent Fiber, structural components of plants, specifically the cell wall and predicts voluntary intake because it provides bulk or fill NEL – Net Energy Lactation, amount of energy in a feedstuff that is available for milk production and body maintenance NIR – Near Infrared Reflectance, measures light energy reflected by the feed sample to determine the chemical composition of forages OC% – Percent of Organic Carbon OM% – Percent Organic Matter P205 – Phosphorus fertilizer form Passive Immunity – Immunity acquired via colostrum intake shortly after birth PCV – Packed Cell Volume, a measurement of the proportion of blood that is made up of cells RFID – Radio Frequency Identification, method used to track livestock SEM – Standard Error of the Mean, indicates how different the population mean is likely to be from a sample mean TDN – Total Digestible Nutrients, sum of digestible proteins, fiber, lipids, and carbohydrates in feedstuff TKN – Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, total concentration of nitrogen and ammonia TMR – Total Mixed Ration, method of feeding that combines feeds to a specific nutrient content Wet Chemistry – Chemistry based analytical methods used to measure chemical compounds in plant material 2022 eBarns Report | 87

eBarns is a The Ohio State University program dedicated to advancing production agriculture through the use of field-scale research. eBarns utilizes modern technologies and information to conduct on-farm studies with an educational and demonstration component used to help farmers and their advisors understand how new practices and techniques can improve farm efficiency and profitability. The program is dedicated to delivering timely and relevant, data-driven, actionable information to farmers throughout Ohio.

Disclaimer Notice: The information provided in this document is intended for educational purposes only. Mention or use of specific products or services, along with illustrations, does not constitute Endorsement by The Ohio State University. The Ohio State University assumes no responsibility for any damages that may occur through adoption of the programs/techniques described in this document.

eBarns

connecting science to farmers