What is it about the fear of loss that is so strong? Why do we spend so much time worrying about what we could have had? “If only I had...” or “I should have...” or “What if...” have become classic lead-ins to what might have been. Life is full of such stories. Nearly everyone can tell you about “the one that got away.” I cannot tell you how many times I have heard dairymen reference the fact that they will not let great opportunities get away from them again. The scar of 2008 has led many to consider this idea of price risk management. Margin management has become a household term and made its way to the agenda of many “free lunch” meetings. Many are ready to address the prices that are staring us in the face now. However, large cross sections of producers are held up by a crazy little creature called cash flow. Because many producers are still healing from the wounds inflicted by the 2009 equity blowout, they are ill-equipped to add new costs to their cash flow. Does this mean that producers should avoid risk management?

Over the past decade, livestock and poultry farms across the United States have been under siege by animal rights groups who use a certain tactic – the shooting and release of undercover video – to advance their agenda of ending the consumption of meat, milk and eggs. In the early years, they restricted their activities to breaking into farms at night and shooting video in one visit. More recently, these groups have resorted to a modified approach – getting undercover workers hired at local farms, where they then work for extended periods of time, engaging with on-farm workers and shooting undercover video. While there has been much speculation about whether the animal abuse seen on much of the undercover footage is staged or is incited by the cameraman, the end result is still the same. And for animal agriculture, it perpetuates the challenge we face each day – ensuring our consumer believes in how we farm, in how we produce food and that we are firmly committed to responsible care of our animals.

Many people associate farming with fresh air and a healthy, robust environment in which to work and live. However, much of the air that farmers breathe is dirty and sometimes lethal. Farmer’s Lung and Organic Dust Toxicity Syndrome (ODTS) are names given to two farm occupational diseases caused by inhaling airborne mold spores. Mold spores are produced by microorganisms which grow in baled hay, stored grain or silage with a high moisture content (30 percent). They become active when temperatures reach 70°F in poorly ventilated areas. Farmers most often suffer from these diseases in winter and early spring because the molds have had time to develop in closed storage areas.

At the Four-State Dairy Nutrition and Management Conference in Dubuque, Iowa in June, a four-member panel related what they did or recommended to be done throughout the last 18 months of low milk prices. The lender Gary Sipiorski, dairy development manager for Vita Plus Corporation in Madison, Wisconsin, said lenders are worried about cattle values, land values and regulators.

By now dairy producers and others have heard about or viewed the released video of animal abuse on an Ohio farm. Anyone who has seen it will agree the actions shown are intolerable. There is some debate floating around as to what the farm owner may have known or not known about the activities of the employees shown, but that is for others to determine. What is important is what farmers learn about preventing this kind of incident on their own farms. What should be learned may be in two different avenues: livestock handling procedures and employment practices. The two are closely related because having the right employees who have positive attitudes about working with animals will help make the livestock handling procedures an easier issue to manage.

Everyone likes an advocate, especially if they are advocating for you. One advocate group has repeatedly earned its reputation of helping farmers. Ohio Farm Bureau (OFB) has been instrumental in working with farmers across agriculture to promote ag, advocate for farmers and lobby legislation to improve farming, not hurt it. Most recently OFB had its hands full dealing with media asking questions about the Mercy For Animals footage that was taken on an Ohio dairy farm.

In very simple terms, dairy profitability can be defined as the difference between milk prices and the cost of production, multiplied by the pounds of milk produced. Thus, milk prices, cost of production, and pounds of milk produced are the three critical components for dairy profitability. Therefore, it is very important for producers to have a firm grasp on the three components (price, cost, and volume) of this equation and attempt to modify them in their favor. When milk prices are high and input costs low, producers should use all possible means to improve production and increase gross returns. When the milk price/input relationship is not that favorable, the approach is usually to cut costs, but this short-term, saving approach oftentimes affects medium- to long-term cow productivity and the milk, overall, shipped from the farm. It is critical for producers to identify those areas where they can reduce costs without having an impact on the cows both in the short and in the long term.