Animal Disease Traceability Rule Part 2: Eartags

Dr. Michelle Arnold, Ruminant Extension Veterinarian, University of Kentucky

The new Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) rule, entitled “Use of Electronic Identification (EID) Eartags as Official Identification in Cattle and Bison”, was published in the Federal Register on 5/9/2024 and will be effective on 11/5/2024. This final rule, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2021-0020-2011 is an amendment to the animal disease traceability regulations already in place as of January 2013. One stipulation in the new rule requires eartags to be both visually and electronically readable to be recognized as official eartags for interstate travel for cattle and bison covered under the regulations. This final rule does not require exclusive use of eartags; the regulations continue to list eartags as one of several forms of authorized official identification, which also include tattoos and brands when accepted by State officials in the sending and receiving States. This article will address questions about eartag differences with regards to the new rule. For more in-depth information, there is a new guidance document entitled “OFFICIAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (AIN) DEVICES WITH THE “840” PREFIX”, published 5/14/2024, available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/media/document/64512/file .

What does it mean that an official tag must be “visually and electronically readable” for interstate travel? Are the RFID “button tags” considered visually readable or will flop tags/panel tags be required?

All tags must be readable in cattle, but USDA now has device readability standards, both electronic and visual standards, that must be met by tag manufacturers to obtain approval for official identification purposes that meet interstate travel requirements. In Version 3.0 of the ADT Device Standards, released 9/21/2023, the specifications are described in detail regarding readability:

  • Electronic ID eartags are required to be visually readable for a person with 20/20 vision (arm’s length) viewing from two-and-a-half feet (30 inches). RFID button tags meet this standard, so a panel tag is not required in order to be “visual”.
  • All official identification numbers must be imprinted at a minimum height of 5 mm (0.2 inches) on a bright, contrasting background. An exception may be made for small EID ear tags that do not allow the imprinting of the official identification number at 5 mm but are clearly read at the required distance.
  • For 840 tags, a space must be inserted after each third digit of the animal identification number (AIN) imprinted on the tag (for example, 840 003 123 456 789).
  • The font for all characters for required information imprinted on the tag must be Arial. APHIS must approve any different font.

Electronic ID eartags can also be read using an RFID reader. This reader sends a radio signal of a specific frequency to the eartag and records the number that comes back from the eartag. Once a signal is received from the reader, the eartag transmits the identity of an animal in the form of a unique 15-digit sequence of numbers. The 15-digit sequence begins with the country code (e.g., 840 for US born animals), followed by 003, then 9 unique digits. Official USDA-APHIS electronic eartags have no batteries or active transmission of information but are often categorized by the radio frequency range they use to communicate, either low (LF) or ultrahigh frequency (UHF). Low frequency tags have a shorter read range and only one tag can be read at a time. The transponders must be reliably machine read at a rate of 95 percent as cattle move by in a single file passage at 4 mph. UHF has an extended read range of up to 30 feet, faster data transfer, and is better suited to capturing load lots of cattle. UHF transponders must be reliably machine read at a rate of 95 percent at the read distance designated by the device manufacturer.

Why the push for both visually and electronically readable official tags?
Reading eartags electronically does not require restraint of animals because animal identification information is captured almost instantaneously by scanning the eartag with a reader. Once the tag is scanned, the tag number may be rapidly and accurately transmitted to a connected database. Electronic databases store only data associated with an eartag number that is necessary to perform traceability of animals; no business practices or other financial or competitive information is obtained or stored. Electronic eartags help animal health officials more quickly locate the records associated with an animal during a disease trace to identify the origin of the animal. If the animal was tagged with an electronic eartag, the tag distribution records are stored in APHIS’ Animal Identification Number Management System database (AIMS), which is easily accessible to animal health officials and provides the starting point for the trace. However, if visual only tags have been used, the animal usually must be restrained to allow the eartag number to be read and recorded. Often, the eartag must be cleaned before the number can be read. The eartag number is then recorded on paper or manually entered in a database and errors can occur while reading, transcribing, or entering the ear tag numbers. If the animal was tagged with a visual (non-electronic) eartag, there is no centralized tag distribution database and obtaining records often requires a lengthier search and further verification.

This final rule does not require producers or livestock markets to have electronic reading equipment or additional data management systems, because the official electronic ID tags must be readable visually as well as electronically. It is important to remember that producers should not sell, loan, or give tags they have purchased to other producers, because all 840 ID tags they have purchased are recorded as being distributed to them using the location identification system (Premise ID) used by their State. APHIS maintains an Animal Disease Traceability webpage with direct access to the Final Rule, FAQs, how to obtain free electronic ID tags, and other resources at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/traceability .

RFID tags were previously categorized as either “Low Frequency” (LF) or “Ultra-High Frequency” (UHF). This final rule now uses the acronym “EID” instead of “RFID” and refers to EID tags as “HDX” or “FDX”. What happened?

The new rule refers to electronic identification (EID) tags rather than radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to recognize the possibility of other electronically readable technology that may become available in the future. Electronic eartag technology can be categorized by the way information is transferred between the tag and reader, either “Half Duplex” (HDX) or “Full Duplex” (FDX). HDX tags are heavier, they transmit information one way at a time, they are better able to transmit through interference such as metal objects, they have the strongest read range, and are slightly more expensive than FDX. FDX eartags are lighter in weight, they transmit information continuously but are more susceptible to interference from metal objects and fluorescent lights, and they have a shorter read range. Both technologies work well and have similar qualities but have different strengths and capabilities so the choice depends on where and how it will be used (see Figure 1). Regardless of type, all electronic ID tags must be approved by USDA and meet standards for quality and performance, be tamper proof, contain a unique ID, the words “Unlawful to Remove” and display the U.S. official eartag shield. Both HDX and FDX tags follow the ISO standard and can be read by the same readers.

Figure 1

HDX tags talk to the reader like a 2-way radio; the reader sends out a signal then the tag replies. A half-duplex RFID reader generates short magnetic pulses that wirelessly charge a capacitor inside an HDX tag. When the charge field turns off, the tag uses the stored power to send the tag number back to the reader without interference from the reader. HDX uses Frequency Shift Keying (FM) which has better noise immunity and allows larger, simpler antennas. Since the charge field is pulsed, HDX readers require less power. Half Duplex (HDX) tags are (generally) white in color. They are better suited to transmit through metal interference such as metal and steel objects. Typical read range on HDX tags ranges from 15″ – 18″.

FDX is like a phone conversation: as soon as the tag receives the reader signal both tag and reader talk simultaneously. A full duplex RFID reader generates a continuous magnetic field which powers the tag to respond immediately. Tags repeat their message while powered by the field, up to 30 times per second. FDX tags can be made very small and thin due to their simple construction of a coil, ferrite rod and a chip. Very small tags have a short read range and so are primarily used for hand scanning. FDX uses Amplitude Shift Keying (AM) and is susceptible to atmospheric noise which limits antenna sizes. Full Duplex (FDX) are (generally) yellow in color and are good when the read range is short (13″ – 16″). FDX tags are more susceptible to interference from metal and steel objects such as head gates, panels, and squeeze chutes as well as fluorescent lights.

What is the difference in cost between HDX and FDX tags?
The cost of EID official identification tags varies by tag type and quantity purchased. USDA performed a market analysis in 2022 and found the cost per FDX tag ranged from $2.00 for large quantities (5,000 more) to $3.45 for smaller quantities (20 tags). The advertised retail price per HDX tag in August 2022 ranged from $2.32 for large quantities (5,000 or more) to $3.65 for small quantities (20 tags).

Depending on the tag type, many vendors that handle official ID tags offer volume discounts and free shipping for large orders.

When shopping for USDA-approved tags, manufacturers offer “visual tags”, “RFID tags” (FDX and HDX), and “RFID with visual matched (paired) sets”. Are “visual” tags with no electronic or RFID component still official?

The minimum identification standard in cattle is the visual 840 tag. For visual-only tags, the entire official identification number must be imprinted on the portion of the tag inside the animal’s ear. This will suffice if the cattle never leave the state of origin within their lifetime, however, interstate travel requires a tag with electronic capabilities. For electronic ID tags, the entire 15-digit official identification number beginning with 840 must be imprinted on the portion of the tag containing the transponder (see Figure 2). Be aware that manufacturers still sell tags beginning with 900 numbers used for in-herd data use only and cannot be used as Official ID.

Figure 2

Many of the new tags display a data matrix; what comes up when scanned with a cell phone?
The 2D Data Matrix that conforms with the ECC200 Data Matrix protocol must be imprinted on the portion of the tag that contains the transponder in a square approximately 5mm x 5mm and should be a two-dimensional representation of the official animal number imprinted on the tag. Readability (percent of data matrix read) on new tags being shipped from the manufacturing plant must be at 100 percent when read with a camera-based image reader (bar code reader).

Where should official electronic ID tags be placed?
The EID tag may be placed in either ear although the left ear is preferred. The tag should be placed in the middle of the ear, approximately ¼ to 1/3 the distance from the head to the outside tip of the ear and between the two cartilage ribs (see Figure 3). Make sure and record the date the tag was applied and a description of the animal. Accurate records of tags received and applied are required to be kept for a minimum of 5 years after the animal has been sold or dies.

Figure 3

Has anything changed with this new rule regarding which cattle are required to have “official identification” when moving interstate?
No changes have been made with this new rule. For cattle, the following animal classes must be identified with official ID eartags, both visually and electronically readable, beginning November 5, 2024, when moving interstate:

  • All sexually intact cattle and bison 18 months of age or over.
  • Cattle and bison of any age used for rodeo, shows, exhibition, and recreational events.
  • All dairy cattle, regardless of age or sex or current use.
  • All offspring of dairy cattle, including Beef on Dairy cross bred cattle.

The requirement for individual identification does not include beef feeder cattle, nor any cattle or bison moving directly to slaughter.

Ohio Farm Custom Rates: 2024

Barry Ward, Director, OSU Extension Income Tax School Program; Leader, Production Business Management
Eric Richer, Associate Professor and Field Specialist, Farm Management
John Barker, OSU Extension Educator ANR, Knox County
Amanda Bennett, OSU Extension Educator ANR, Miami County

Farming is a complex business and many Ohio farmers utilize outside assistance for specific farm-related work. This option is appealing for tasks requiring specialized equipment or technical expertise. Often, having someone else with specialized tools perform tasks is more cost-effective and saves time. Farm work completed by others is often referred to as “custom farm work” or more simply, “custom work.” A “custom rate” is the amount agreed upon by both parties to be paid by the custom work customer to the custom work provider.

Custom rates increased for the majority of field operations in 2024 as compared to surveyed rates in 2022 but the increases did vary by operation. Examples include an increase of 6% for Planting Corn (30 Inch Rows with Fertilizer Application), 5.6% for Harvesting Corn (Combine, Grain Cart, Haul Local to Farm), 21% for Spraying (Self-Propelled Sprayer, Crop Protection Chemicals), and 24% for Field Cultivator.

New field operations in this year’s survey and summary include drone/UAV application and cover crop seeding.

Ohio farm custom rates

The “Ohio Farm Custom Rates 2024” publication reports custom rates based on a statewide survey of 333 farmers, custom operators, farm managers, and landowners conducted in 2024. These rates, except where noted, include the implement and tractor if required, all variable machinery costs such as fuel, oil, lube, twine, etc., and labor for the operation.

Some custom rates published in this study vary widely, possibly influenced by:

  • Type or size of equipment used (e.g. 20-shank chisel plow versus a 9-shank)
  • Size and shape of fields
  • Condition of the crop (for harvesting operations)
  • Skill level of labor
  • Amount of labor needed in relation to the equipment capabilities
  • Cost margin differences for full-time custom operators compared to farmers supplementing current income.

Some custom rates reflect discounted rates as the parties involved have family or community relationships. Discounted rates may also occur when the custom work provider is attempting to strengthen a relationship to help secure the custom farmed land in a future purchase, cash rental or other rental agreement. Some providers charge differently because they are simply attempting to spread their fixed costs over more acreage to decrease fixed costs per acre and are willing to forgo complete cost recovery.

Charges may be added if the custom provider considers a job abnormal such as distance from the operator’s base location, difficulty of terrain, amount of product or labor involved with the operation, or other special requirements of the custom work customer.

The data from this survey are intended to show a representative farming industry cost for specified machines and operations in Ohio. As a custom farm work 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 published in this factsheet.

It is recommended that you calculate your own costs carefully before determining the custom rate to charge or pay. It may be helpful to compare the custom rates reported in this fact sheet with machinery costs calculated by economic engineering models available online. The following resources are available to help you calculate and consider the total costs of performing a given machinery operation.

  • Farm Machinery Cost Estimates, available by searching University of Minnesota.
  • Illinois Farm Management Handbook, available by searching University of Illinois farmdoc.
  • Estimating Farm Machinery Costs, available by searching Iowa State University agriculture decision maker and machinery management.

Volatility in diesel price may sometimes cause concern for custom rate providers that seek to cover all or most of the costs associated with custom farm operations. The approximate price of diesel fuel during the survey period (January – April 2024) ranged from $3.20 – $3.50 per gallon for off-road (farm) usage. As a custom farm work provider, if you feel that your rate doesn’t capture your full costs due to fuel price increases you might consider a custom rate increase or fuel surcharge based on the increase in fuel costs.

The complete “Ohio Farm Custom Rates 2024” publication is available online at the Farm Office website.

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in Ohio’s Wild Deer Herd

Are you a hunter, landowner, or wildlife enthusiast? If so, please join the Ohio State University Extension and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife for an evening workshop about chronic wasting disease (CWD) in Ohio’s wild deer herd.

Each workshop will cover:

  • What is Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD)?
  • Navigating Disease Surveillance Area Regulations
  • Carcass Handling Restrictions & Best Management Practices
  • Where and How to Test my Deer for CWD?
  • How does CWD impact Deer Management?

Chronic Wasting Disease in Ohio’s Wild Deer Herd: What You Need to Know

  • August 8 – Hardin County
  • August 12 – Union County
  • August 29 – Wyandot County
  • September 5 – Crawford County
  • September 10 – Allen County
  • September 12 – Marion County

All workshops are 6:30 – 8:30 pm. See the attached flyer for locations. 

There is no fee to attend these workshops. Due to space limitations, REGISTRATION is REQUIRED.

Visit go.osu.edu/cwdworkshop to register.

Contact Name: Marne Titchenell

Contact Email: titchenell.4@osu.edu

Wheat Harvest and Double Crop Considerations for 2024

Originally Published in the C.O.R.N. Newsletter

Authors: Laura Lindsey, Osler Ortez

Winter wheat maturation is about 10-14 days ahead of normal with harvest beginning late last week in southern Ohio. Last year, winter wheat yield was extremely high with a state average of 90 bu./acre (USDA NASS, 2024). During the previous five years, the state average wheat yield ranged from 56 to 85 bu./acre (average of 73 bu./acre). Last year, we attributed high yields to low rainfall (and consequently low disease) and cool temperatures, leading to a long grain-fill period. This year, we’ve experienced warmer temperatures, greater disease, and shorter grain-fill periods. Between March 1 and June 16, 2024, there were 1,000, 1,135, and 912 growing degree days at the Northwest Agricultural Research Station, Western Agricultural Research Station, and Wooster Campus, respectively (Table 1). During the same time period last year, there were 738, 816, and 617 growing degree days at the Northwest Agricultural Research Station, Western Agricultural Research Station, and Wooster Campus, respectively.

Table 1. Monthly growing degree day accumulation in 2023 and 2024 (CFAES Weather System, https://weather.cfaes.osu.edu/).

Northwest Agricultural Research Station (Wood County)

2023

2024

March

4

44

April

134

127

May

339

505

June 1-16

261

324

TOTAL

738

1,000

Western Agricultural Research Station (Clark County)

March

13

55

April

151

231

May

382

535

June 1-16

270

314

TOTAL

816

1,135

Wooster Campus (Wayne County)

March

10

29

April

128

182

May

281

438

June 1-16

198

263

TOTAL

617

912

This year, wheat yield will likely be lower than last year. However, earlier wheat harvest opens opportunities for a second crop following wheat. In Ohio, double-crop soybeans are the most common crop after wheat harvest, but other crops, such as sunflower, may be planted. The two primary requirements for successful double cropping are: 1) There must be time for the production of a second crop, and 2) There must be adequate water to produce two crops, whether from stored soil moisture, rainfall, or irrigation. The first requirement will likely be met, with earlier wheat harvest and a predicted later first freeze date, but continued dry weather in areas of the state may be problematic. However, several management practices will help maximize double crop yield potential.

Double crop soybean management considerations.

  1. Soybean relative maturity. Relative maturity (RM) has little effect on yield when soybeans are planted during the first three weeks of May. However, the effect of RM can be larger for late plantings. When planting soybean late, the latest maturing variety that will reach physiological maturity before the first killing frost is recommended. This is to allow the soybean plants to grow vegetatively as long as possible to produce nodes where pods can form before vegetative growth is slowed due to flowering and pod formation.

Table 2. Recommended relative maturity (RM) ranges for soybean varieties planted in June and July in northern, central, and southern Ohio.

Region

Planting Date

Suitable RM

Northern Ohio

June 1-15

3.2-3.8

June 15-30

3.1-3.5

July 1-10

3.0-3.3

Central Ohio

June 1-15

3.4-4.0

June 15-30

3.3-3.7

July 1-10

3.2-3.5

Southern Ohio

June 1-15

3.6-4.2

June 15-30

3.5-3.9

July 1-10

3.4-3.7

  1. Row spacing. Double-crop soybeans should be produced in narrow rows- 7.5 or 15-inch row spacing. The later soybeans are planted, the greater the yield increase due to narrow rows. Soybeans grown in narrow rows produce more grain because they capture more sunlight energy, which drives photosynthesis.
  1. Seeding rate. Soybean plant population at harvest for mid-to-late June plantings should be between 130,000-150,000 plants/acre. The harvest population for early July plantings should be greater than 180,000 plants/acre. Harvest population is a function of seeding rate, quality of the planter operation, and seed germination percentage and depends on such things as soil moisture condition, seed-soil contact, and disease pressure.

Double-crop sunflower management considerations.

In addition to double cropping with soybean, other alternatives may become feasible within the crop system. In 2022-2023, field experiments were established to study sunflowers’ viability as a double crop after wheat or barley harvest in Ohio (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Double crop agronomic sunflowers planted at 30-inch row spacing after wheat harvest during 2022-2023 field projects in Ohio.

The study had three commercial high oleic sunflower varieties: “ultra-early” maturity (N4H161 CL), “early” maturity (N4H302 E), and “mid-early” maturity (CP 455 E). These varieties were studied across three seeding rates: 17,000 seeds per Acre, 22,000 seeds per Acre, and 27,000 seeds per Acre. Preliminary results showed sunflower yields ranging between 1,012 lbs./Ac and 2,740 lbs./Ac (Table 3). The average yields per site were in the 1,400 to 1,900 lbs./Ac range, with the two highest yield sites being comparable to the average U.S. sunflower seed yields in the past two years.

Table 3. Study locations, previous crop, planting dates, harvest dates, and double crop sunflower yields in pounds per Acre (lbs./Ac) at 10% moisture.

Study
Location

Previous
Crop

Planting Date

Harvest Date

Minimum
Yield

Average Yield

Maximum
Yield

Northwest,
Wood County

Barley

6/29/2022

11/18/2022

1,296 lbs/Ac

1,867 lbs/Ac

2,599 lbs/Ac

Western,
Clark County

Wheat

7/11/2022

11/10/2022

1,012 lbs/Ac

1,967 lbs/Ac

2,740 lbs/Ac

Wooster,
Wayne County

Wheat

7/15/2022

12/21/2022

1,003 lbs/Ac

1,464 Lbs/Ac

1,897 Lbs/Ac

From the preliminary results on the sunflower work, crop production challenges have included weather, equipment availability, bird damage, plant lodging, and variable/low stand counts which have possibly limiting crop yields. This project is in progress and will be planted again in 2024, more results are forthcoming. Future considerations for sunflowers should include consistency of results across sites/years, variety selection, seeding rate, germination, fertility, bird control, seed/oil quality, and marketing options as major priorities.

Reference:

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 2024. Quick Stats. Available at: https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/58FEB025-0AD4-3B92-9F18-30D377D14279

Crop Observation and Recommendation Network

C.O.R.N. Newsletter is a summary of crop observations, related information, and appropriate recommendations for Ohio crop producers and industry. C.O.R.N. Newsletter is produced by the Ohio State University Extension Agronomy Team, state specialists at The Ohio State University and the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC). C.O.R.N. Newsletter questions are directed to Extension and OARDC state specialists and associates at Ohio State.

Author(s):

Laura LindseyOsler Ortez

Beef with a Business Mindset

– Haley Shoemaker, OSU Extension AGNR Educator, Columbiana and Mahoning Counties (originally published in the Ohio Farmer on-line ; sourced from the Ohio Beef Cattle Letter)

These days dropping a cull or feeder calf off at the local auction can feel a little bit like Christmas in July – prices are solid, and markets are strong, largely due to a decline in cattle inventory following years of drought and

Find out where your ‘benchmarks’ fit among your peers.

production challenges.  And while as cattle producers we’re naturally inclined to keep the “when will these prices end” thought in the back of our mind, we also sometimes find ourselves getting comfortable with the idea of $135/cwt for culls or upwards of $300/cwt for calves.

Periods of high prices, such as those the industry is experiencing now, have been known to make the good farm business manager look great, and the mediocre farm manager look good.  Anyone who’s been in business for any amount of time knows that these trends have a way of evening themselves out, but the factor that remains is that a well-managed farm business will stand the test of time, and volatile markets.  One of the tools utilized by beef herd managers across the U.S. is called FINPACK, a financial analysis software service offered in Ohio through the Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Team.  Each year, farm analysis teams throughout the country collect data from a variety of enterprises, ranging from beef, dairy, and crops to specialty products and small ruminants.  The data collected from balance sheets, income statements, and enterprise analyses not only provide invaluable information to the producer and their operation, but also compile the national database, known as “FINBIN”, managed by the University of Minnesota.

Taking a look at FINBIN’s five-year financial report for beef cow-calf enterprises, a couple trends stick out – net return, an indicator of the farm’s profitability, has only recently climbed into the positive during 2023 at an average of $125.31 per cow, preceded by four years ranging between ($41.50) and ($113.13) per cow.  2023’s rise in net return was accompanied by increased direct and overhead expenses, totaling $1,019.85 per head on average, indicating that even with elevated feed and operating costs, managers who took a calculated approach to business decisions “made the most” so to speak, of a favorable marketing landscape.  Those producers who managed their way into the top 20% of beef herds included in the 2023 database saw an average net return of $564.09 per cow, and an average of $812.14 per cow in direct and overhead expenses.  This represents a nearly $438 break separating the “average” and “top” herds, which can be the difference between a profit or loss during a year of weaker markets.

So, how do you know where your farm falls?  Is your business average, slightly above, or excelling – and how does your operation measure financial success?  If “I don’t know” was the answer to any of those questions, completing a farm business analysis may be a logical next step.  Beginning a financial analysis can be an eye-opening experience for a farm business.  In addition to gaining perspective on how a farm compares to similar operations throughout the state, producers also learn how to keep more targeted and detailed records, allowing for historical data and trends to be identified over years of participation in the program.  These trends provide insight into the operations’ reaction to business decisions and market variability, and can help producers clearly decipher financial strengths, areas of potential concern, and opportunities for improvement.

Producers throughout Ohio have the option of completing either a whole farm analysis, or whole farm with enterprise analysis.  Both provide individualized reports that take into account beginning and ending balance sheets and income statements, however those who complete an enterprise analysis will also receive summaries breaking down costs of production per unit (per head, cwt, acre, etc.).  All data is handled with care to preserve confidentiality.  Additionally, personalized benchmark reports serve as a useful tool in visualizing an operations percentile ranking among peers, which has often been stated as one of the most beneficial outputs of completing a farm business analysis.

Getting started is as simple as reaching out to your county Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, or to Clint Schroeder, Program Manager, at 567-242-6693 or via email at schroeder.307@osu.edu.  It’s tempting during times of favorable prices to shift resources and attention to putting out the next most demanding fire, but recent history has proven that consistent, diligent management is what prepares a farm for years where financial efficiency matters most.  In the long run, you can’t manage what you don’t measure – don’t let your financial success fall into that category.

Sources:

Beef Cow-Calf – Average Per Cow Sorted by Year: https://go.osu.edu/cowcalf5yearavg

Beef Cow-Calf – 2023 High 20% of Farms: https://go.osu.edu/cowcalfhigh20

Growing Degree Day (GDD) Summary, May 2024

Authors: Amy Stone
Published on:

The Plant Phenology and Growing Degree Day (GDD) posts and impacts have been a Buckeye Yard and Garden onLine (BYGL) staple for years. GDD will continue to be an important part of the blog written to assist green industry professionals, Extension professionals, Extension volunteers, and people with a passion for plants and pests too.

Readers will continue to see those updates in the BYGL on a monthly basis, but there is no better way to track GDD and ultimately the plant blooms and insect activity on your own. Be sure to save this website ( https://weather.cfaes.osu.edu/gdd/default.asp ) as a favorite, and set those calendar reminders now to check the website regularly.

Here is a Growing Degree Day Refresher if GDD is new, or you need a little review!

GDD are a measurement of the growth and development of plants and insects during the growing season. Development does not occur at this time unless the temperature is above a minimum threshold value (base temperature). The base temperature varies for different organisms. It is determined through research and experimentation. The actual temperature experienced by an organism is influenced by several factors. These factors affect growth and development. For instance, depending on the weather, an organism’s temperature may be a few degrees more or less than that recorded. An organism may spend its time in the shade or under direct sunlight. The fertility and nutrient content of the soil directly affect the growth rate of plants and thereby indirectly influence insect growth rates. The presence of weeds and precipitation may indirectly influence development. Due to these factors and some other scientific considerations, a base temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit is considered acceptable for all plants and insects. (Source: OSU Plant Phenology Website)

The one thing that we do know is that the sequence of events – both plant and pest development – consistently occurs in the same order no matter the weather.

At the end of each month this calendar year, there will be a GDD Summary Alert Posted to BYGL. While today’s post has some areas seeing zeros – it is the start of the calendar year – we will have to see if that is true. As you can see below, 21 Ohio locations (City, County, and Zip Code) have been chosen across the state and will continue to be used for the monthly updates.

GGD Chart, ending May 31, 2024
 
Ohio City (County) Zip Code    GDD Unit Accumulation 
Bryan (Williams) 43506 819
Toledo (Lucas) 43615 811
Sandusky (Erie) 44870 784
Elyria (Lorain) 44035 731
Cleveland (Cuyahoga) 44120 717
Burton (Geauga) 44021 704
Jefferson (Ashtabula) 44047 690
Van Wert (Van Wert) 45891 797
Findlay (Hancock) 45840 767
Medina (Medina) 44256 694
Mt. Gilead (Morrow) 43338 755
Mt. Vernon (Knox) 43050 868
Steubenville (Jefferson) 43952 846
Dayton (Montgomery) 45417 966
Springfield (Clark) 45505 966
Columbus (Franklin) 43210 944
Lancaster (Fairfield) 43130 983
Marietta (Washington) 45750 983
Cincinnati (Hamilton) 45223 990
Hillsboro (Highland) 45133 996
Ironton (Lawrence) 45638 988

Not seeing your city or zip code? No worries! You can always check out the website, type in your Ohio zip code, and ground truth what you are seeing with what the calendar says should be occurring.

Additionally, once you are at the website, you can click on summary and it will provide you the yearly GDDs and the 20 year average. To illustrate that, I have done this with the zip code at my office (43615) in Toledo, Ohio using May 31 as the common date.

 

Date: May 31

 

 

GDD Unit Accumulation

 

2024 811
2023 579
2022 667
2021 604
2020 455
2019 504
2018 646
2017 656
2016 565
2015 612
2014 541
2013 623
2012 870
2011 520
2010 741
2009 619
2008 476
2007 681
2006 561
2005 411
2004 637

Ohio Department of Agriculture Announces Free Farm Pesticide Disposal Collection Events

REYNOLDSBURG, Ohio (May X, 2024) – The Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) will sponsor three collection events for farmers wishing to dispose of unwanted pesticides. This year, the collections are happening in

Auglaize, Holmes, and Clinton counties on the following days and locations:

  • August 14, 9 a.m.–3 p.m.: Auglaize County, Auglaize County Fairgrounds, 1001 Fairview Drive, Wapakoneta, Ohio 45895
  • August 15, 9 a.m.–3 p.m.: Holmes County, Farmers Produce Auction (Mount Hope Produce Auction), 7701 OH-241, Millersburg, Ohio 44654
  • August 20, 9 a.m.–3 p.m.: Clinton County, Former Nutrien Site, 6704 US 22, Willmington, Ohio 45177

The pesticide collection and disposal services are free of charge, but only farm chemicals will be accepted. Paint, antifreeze, solvents, and household or non-farm pesticides will not be accepted. The pesticide collections are sponsored by ODA in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To pre-register, or for more information, contact the Ohio Department of Agriculture at (614) 728-6987.

Williams County Reinstates Ag Hall of Fame

Williams County has a rich tradition in agriculture; however, members of the agriculture community often go unnoticed or unrecognized. The goal of the Agriculture Hall of Fame is to recognize hardworking members of our agriculture community. After a nine-year hiatus, the Williams County Agriculture Hall of Fame is restarting in the 2024 calendar year.

 

The purpose of the Williams County Agriculture Hall of Fame is to recognize the outstanding contributions of an individual to the agricultural industry in Williams County. Individuals, spouses, or members of a business may apply for themselves or on behalf of someone else. Applications may also be submitted posthumously.

 

Nominations may be made by any individual or organization in Ohio by completing a nomination form and returning it to Ohio State University Extension – Williams County Office, Attention: Agriculture Hall of Fame Committee, 1425 East High Street, Suite 112, Bryan, OH 43506 or emailed to wyse.34@osu.edu by July 1st of each year or as designated by the Hall of Fame Committee. All nominations must be submitted on a properly prepared form.  Such forms will be printed and available at the Williams County Office or online at https://www.williams.osu.edu. Nominations of an individual, husband/wife, or member of an ag business or farm must be combined and submitted on one nomination form.

 

If you have any questions about the Agriculture Hall of Fame, please call The Ohio State University Extension – Williams County Office at 419-636-5608 or email wyse.34@osu.edu.

2024 Williams County Agriculture Hall of Fame

Crop Response to Phosphorus Fertilizer in Ohio

Authors: Dr. Manbir Rakkar, Greg LaBarge, CPAg/CCA; Original published in the C.O.R.N. Newsletter

Phosphorus (P) is an essential plant nutrient and P fertilizers are added to supplement the soil’s available P. There are economic and environmental benefits to making informed decisions about P fertilizer use. The under-application of P fertilizer can result in reduced yields, while over-application adds to input costs, with economic losses resulting from both scenarios. From an environmental perspective, excessive P going into streams and lakes can result in toxic algal blooms.Young Corn Plants

A few frequent questions about P fertilizer use are: Does P fertilizer always result in a positive yield response? How much yield increase is expected with applied P? What is the likelihood of yield penalty if P fertilizer is not applied?

A recently published factsheet‘Soil Phosphorus and Crop Response to Phosphorus Fertilizer in Ohio’ (https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-0146), provides a general overview of soil P and highlights the findings of Culman et al. (2023) to answer these practical questions (Rakkar and LaBarge, 2024). The study summarized 457 replicated field P trials conducted over the last 45 years across 40 counties in Ohio. The robust dataset evaluated corn, soybean, and wheat response to added P fertilizer in trials conducted on farms and at research stations.

Below are some key takeaways:

Does P fertilizer always result in a positive yield response?

No. Out of the 457 field P trials, a significant increase in crop yield was observed in 107 trials with P application. The crop response to added P also varied among crop types. Corn responded to P application in 29.9% of trials, soybean in 14.2%, and wheat in 36.8% (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Relation of relative yield and soil Mehlich-3 P for corn, soybean, and wheat across 457 field trials

Fig. 1. Relation of relative yield and soil Mehlich-3 P for corn, soybean, and wheat across 457 field trials (Culman et al., 2023).

How much yield increase is expected with applied P?

It depends on the Mehlich-3 soil test P level. The Mehlich-3 soil P measures the readily available soil P for crop uptake. Culman et al. (2023) classified Mehlich-3 soil P levels into five categories: <10, 10–20, 20–30, 30–40, and >40 ppm to evaluate the yield increase for each soil P category.

The crop yields were presented as Relative Yield, which refers to the yield with no P application divided by the maximum yield obtained across all P treatments. In other words, 100% relative yield means no yield increment with added P. The lower the relative yield, the higher the yield increment.

Generally, as the soil test P levels decreased, the yield increment increased with P input (Table 1). When the soil test P was less than 10 ppm, the median relative yield was 87%. As the soil test P level increased above the critical level of 20 ppm, the median relative yield ranged from 97% to 99%, signifying minimal yield increment with added P.

Table 1. Summary of crop response to P fertilizer by soil P classification. (adapted from Culman et al., 2023)

 

Mehlich-3 soil P classification (ppm)

Number of trials

Fertilizer responsive trials (%)

Median Relative Yield (%)

>40

71

14

99

30-40

53

13

98

20-30

121

12

97

10-20

164

34

93

<10

30

67

87

What is the likelihood of yield penalty if P fertilizer is not applied?

We can also determine the likelihood of yield penalty based on Mehlich-3 soil P with the information in Table 1. When the soil P level was less than 10 ppm, 67% of trials showed increased crop yields with applied P. When the P levels were above the critical level of 20 ppm, only 12-14% of trials showed increased crop yields. In other words, the likelihood of yield penalty with no P application decreases as soil P levels go above 20 ppm. If the soil test P level is less than 20 ppm, there is an increased risk of yield penalty with no P application.

For more soil fertility resources, information, and tools, use the link go.osu.edu/fertilityresources.

Reference:

Culman, S., Fulford, A., LaBarge, G., Watters, H., Lindsey, L. E., Dorrance, A., & Deiss, L. (2023). Probability of crop response to phosphorus and potassium fertilizer: Lessons from 45 years of Ohio trials. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 87, 1207-1220. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20564

Rakkar, M. & LaBarge, G. 2024. Soil Phosphorus and Crop Response to Phosphorus Fertilizer in Ohio. Ohioline. (https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-0146)

Ohio Fruit News – January 2024

The January issue of OFN is attached and also available online. In this issue, you will learn about:

  • Proposed changes to the registrations for Ziram, Thiram, and Ferbam, three fungicides that are critical to fruit disease management
  • The current status of agricultural water standards for the Produce Safety Rule
  • Fruit disease diagnosed in 2023 by the Plant and Pest Diagnostic Clinic

Print version OFN_JAN_2024

Online version https://u.osu.edu/fruitpathology/fruit-news-2/