Okay, so welcome to our next session of the NDSU Extension Agriculture Challenges webinar. Today we're going to be talking about assessing and stretching forage supplies. This originally was our last session, but we have two more scheduled and four more that we're in the process of lining up. So tomorrow, Bray and Olson is going to be joining us to talk about considerations for crop insurance. On Wednesday, Ken Helvane is going to join us and talk about grain storage and drying. Today, again, we're talking about assessing and stretching forage supplies. This has been a challenging year, as we all know. With all the rain, there's lots of production of forages high in a lot of areas of the state. Here there's challenges with getting that forage up and now with moving it back to our home operations for feeding this winter. So before we get started, just a couple housekeeping items. If you are not speaking, please mute your line. We're going to be holding all questions to the end. If you have any questions and you're figuring to forget it, type it in the chat box. We'll make sure to address them at that time. Or you can wait and ask them live at the end also. I am going to be your first speaker. I'm Miranda Meehan. I'm the Life Second Environmental Stewardship Specialist here at NDSU. And I'm going to be talking how do we inventory those forages that we do have so we can make sure we have enough. So just a recap of the situation. Across the state, we had a long, cold winter. Because of the cold's temperatures and the brutality of the winter, we went through more heat than anticipated and a lot of our producers across the state used up their beach supplies. Then again, moving into this wet summer, while there was a lot of forage in parts of the state and droughts in some parts that made forage production lower, but again, we had a lot of people had problems getting that hay up in a good quality hay up because of that extra moisture. And now with an even wetter fall, we're having issues transporting that hay back to our home operations to be able to feed it for this winter. And also, people are already starting to have to use these forage supplies because pastures that they traditionally graze in the fall are underwater and they're unable to graze them. So to be able to know, we need to inventory all our available forage supplies that includes hay, silage, standing crops, and residues. To be able to do this accurately, you're going to need to determine dry matter content of these forages. So when we inventory our hay, the first thing is to estimate our dry matter content. As a rule of thumb, it's 88% for hay stored inside and 80% for hay that's stored outside. As we know, most of our hay in North Dakota is stored outside. So take that, to determine your dry matter, you're going to take that bale weight times that percent for your storage type. So you're going to take bale weight times 0.8%, or 0.8, sorry, it's a Monday, and that's going to give you dry matter content. Next thing is you're going to estimate hay loss from storage and feeding. This can range anywhere from 5% to 45%, and it's really going to be a function of how you're feeding that hay. If you're feeding it in a bunk in daily, it's going to be pretty low, but if you're rolling it out, you're going to have a higher feeding loss from that hay. So you estimate that, then do the total available forage, you're going to take that dry matter that you previously calculated times the percent loss that you're estimating times the number of bales that you have. And that's going to give you your available forage in terms of, hey, silage is a little trickier. Silage, you're going to determine your dry matter content. The ways that most common way for you to do it at home is going to be a microwave test. We post instructions on how to do that on the website when we post the recording. As a rule of thumb with the microwave test, it's going to smell bad. So if you can try not to do it in your home microwave, if you have another option, also make sure that you put a glass of water in there because it will start on fire. The other method is, one of the other methods is a coaster test. And if you go to some of your RECs, I know Carrington, they have a coaster tester there. They can help you out there. Also they have oven dryers, which is another way to determine your dry matter content. So you're going to take your dry weight divided by your wet weight and take that times 100. And that's going to give you your percent dry matter for your silage. Below here I have a table, an estimate of your silage capacity. All the publications I found assume a certain moisture content, which makes it a little tricky. And so this one assumes 65% moisture given the challenges with our harvest this year. We know that not all of our silage is going to be at 65% moisture. So that is one of the limitations here. But you're going to do your silage depth in feet multiplied by silo width and silo length of your bunker and divide that by 50. And that gives you an estimate, but remember this is assuming that 65% moisture. For your standing forges, we talked about some of those standing grains on corn and wheat previously. So I'm not going to cover those. This is more on the ends of cover crops or some of those residues, where the most accurate way to measure these is the clipping way method. And there's instructions on how to do this and the NDSU extension range and forage per production sample kids publications. We'll put a link to that on the website also to do this. So you're going to clip 5, 1.9, 2 foot square plots, random number, but it makes the math easier. Air dry those forages.  During the summer I do dash forward, but that doesn't work well this time of year. Then you're going to, once it's dry, you're going to weigh that forage. Making sure you're subtracting the weight of the bag or whatever you're weighing it in, calculate the average weight in grams, and then you're going to take that times 50 to convert it to pounds per acre. Once you do that, you're going to multiply it by the number of acres you have.  However, we know animals that are grazing aren't going to utilize 100% of that forage. They're going to trample it and some of it's going to get wasted. So this is where this harvest efficiency factor comes in. For if you're wanting to leave 50% of that residue behind for soil health reasons, or if you're going to pass your setting, you're going to assume 35%, but if you're going to take everything available for grazing in a crop residue setting, you would take it times 0.75%. So your total calculation is going to be, for available forage is going to be that average plot weight in grams times 50 times the acres times your harvest efficiency factor. Once you calculate your available forage for grazing, then you would take that divided by 913, which is how many pounds of forage one AUM is going to require. So one animal requires for a month. And that's based off of a one 1,000 pound animal. So you will have to adjust as needed based on those numbers. Just a couple other considerations to reduce that forage waste. Storage site is really important when I pick a dry, well-drained site. Also make sure to try to do something that's fenced off or restricted because that's going to keep livestock and wildlife out of there. We're supposed to have another hard winter, so we really want to reduce those losses that is any way we can. Also limit access with hay. When you're feeding it, feeding it daily in a bunk significantly reduces losses are if you're feeding it as part of TMR. Also make sure you have a well-designed feeder that is in working order. So you see this feeder in this picture. There's missing some bars and so there's going to be more waste if your feeder is not in good condition. Standing forages, I know a lot of people don't like the hassle of strip raising. It's a little more work, but it makes it more efficient. And if you're not going to use a strip raising, use a high stock density because that's going to reduce that waste to trampling. The issue with using high stock density is a lot of people don't have enough animals to achieve a high stock density without strip grazing. That's all I have. I'm going to turn it over to Jana Block now at the Heddinger Research Extension Center. She's a livestock system specialist, and she is going to be talking about how do we calculate our livestock requirements. OK, good. Alrighty. Thanks, Miranda. All right, so we all know that getting the cows fed is usually the greatest expense on a typical operation, even accounting for up to 70% of your total production costs. So with most rations being highly dependent on forages as the base and knowing that those are extremely variable, it's really important to know what we have and what we're working with in order to get that nutrition program designed correctly. So I'm going to recommend that you're not relying on the whitetails showing you the best bails for calving. So why do we test feed stuffs? Really, this is the only way to truly understand what nutrients are being provided and what the target animal's nutrient requirements are in using those two pieces of information to put together a cost efficient and effective ration. So you also need feed analysis when trying to determine the value of feed, if you're trying to sell forages or other feeds, being able to compare different types of forages or feeds together when you're trying to make a choice, maybe for a purchase or to use an ration, again getting down to a lease cost type of ration, comparing feeds on cost per pound nutrient. And then, of course, being able to determine if you have a potential deficiency or toxicity at you, such as with minerals or nitrates or some of the other contaminants we've talked about in previous webinars and then using that forage analysis to best predict animal performance. So accurate sampling is extremely critical in making sure that you're getting the best information and utilizing that information to make these feeding decisions. So these are just a few factors here that I've listed that can impact nutrient content of forages, kind of the two key ones being variety and maturity at harvest, but you can see here why it's so critical that we are kind of incorporating forage sampling as part of your annual management plan and not trying to rely on previous analyses to represent the forage from this year. If you think back from the differences between last year and this year, we definitely had a lot of different precipitation, different temperatures and things like that. Those can all impact nutrient content. And so I have people ask me all the time, can't I just use my forage analysis from last year or two years ago if those years weren't exactly the same and your fields weren't exactly the same, which they never are, no, it's really best to go ahead and just retest every year. And I think it's really important to remember that a lot of the analyses that we're looking at can take a gram or less of sample. And so getting that really representative sample, we talked about identifying a lot of forage, for example. So that is forage harvested in a 48-hour period. That's the same species coming off the same field. So it's important to know what you have on hand and then collecting bale probes using hay probe from 10% of each of those lots. So I know some lots can get really large. You're talking six or 700 bales or more. Just use common sense here. I would recommend a minimum of 20 cores to represent each lot. So I mentioned that forage maturity in species can really impact nutrient quality. Just wanted to show you a little bit of data here. If you look at grasses, preheading, our crude protein content can be greater than 18%. You go down to postheading and it can be less than 8%. So you can get into a situation where that protein is actually going to limit microbial efficiency in the rumen just based on maturity of those grasses. The other component we're looking at here is NDF or neutral detergent fiber. This is a good predictor of intake because NDF estimates kind of the bulk of the forage or how much fill or space it's going to take up in the rumen. And so the lower the NDF content, the more dry matter intake can be increased because passage rate is increased and intake can increase as well. So we get into the more mature forages, NDF content increases, the soluble carbohydrates and protein go down, and we have issues with digestibility and intake. Kind of the same occurs with legumes. You can get really high protein, low NDF content, and then as those forages mature, you're going to deal with decreasing crude protein and increasing fiber content. So I think this is kind of a stumbling block.  There's a lot of things that we could discuss here. I'm going to try and kind of just summarize this and use some rules of thumb and be sure and follow up with me if you have questions about how exactly to use your nutrient analysis and what those different acronyms might mean. But basically what we want to encourage you to start with is do a livestock inventory and in addition to your hay inventory, look at all the different livestock classes that you need to feed this winter. What stage of production are we looking at? Weight, what are your production goals? Do we need to be increasing body condition score? Are we looking at some really heavy milkers? All these things can change from one operation to another. And then of course, environment is going to really impact the nutrients required by those animals. We have to consider wind chill and things like that when we're looking at energy levels. So once we get our livestock inventory done, we can take a look at our forage analysis and kind of group bails based on livestock requirements at different stages and then we go into formulating our rations. So I'll kind of walk you through just a quick example of how we would do this. So here's just an example herd inventory. Again, there are going to be steps involved with this.  So livestock class. We have mature cows in late gestation, mature cows in early lactation. We have our bred heifers, growing heifers and mature bulls. And this might vary. Again, you might have some feeder calves or some other class of livestock on hand. So just figure out what you have, how many head in each category, an average weight and then a start date for each feeding period. And so late gestation and early lactation requirements are going to be different. So I'm breaking that up into those two different periods. So December to March 1, starting calving March 1, they're going to be in late gestation. Then we're going to move into early lactation where requirements are going to be significantly higher. Okay, so this is just a kind of a rule of thumb chart for kind of fitting your different forage quality into those different livestock class requirements. It's important to remember that livestock do not require percentages of nutrients. They require pounds. And so it's going to take additional steps beyond this, but this is a place to start. If you have your forage analyses done, you can kind of start to look and figure out where those forages might best be used based on what these requirements are. We also have some rules of thumb for estimating what intake can be. I mentioned that fiber content is really a driver of digestibility and therefore intake. And so energy content is really reflective of the fiber content. And so we look at some of our lower quality forages, say less than 52% TDN. Intake is going to be lowest on those because they're just not as digestible. They sit in the room for a longer period of time and passage rate is declining. And so then you can see as you move into your higher quality forages, intake is going to increase, intake will also increase as a product of lactation. Those cows will just more rapidly digest those feeds in comparison to a dry cow. All of these estimates are assuming that protein requirements are met. If they are not, microbial efficiency will go down and digestibility and intake will decrease. And so if you're not getting these type of intakes, you could have a protein issue. And again, this is why we have to go through and figure out how to actually balance the ration based on our environmental conditions and specific cow requirements. Okay, so we have just as an example, we have some 8% protein, 52 TDN hay. So if we looked at our nutrient density requirements by stage of livestock, we wouldn't automatically use this forage in this situation. But I'm going to show you why we go through these steps to figure out why that doesn't work. And so again, we're looking at pounds, not percentages of nutrients. So if our lactating cows weigh 1300 pounds, and we're at 18 pounds peak milk in the situation, really need to know kind of where your cows are at in milk production. Not everybody knows an exact estimate, but this would be probably a fairly normal 18 to 20 pounds peak milk. And that will really dictate nutrient requirements. So they're going to need 15 pounds of TDN, two and a half pounds of crude protein. So if we go back to our chart, we know that this is a lower quality forage based on that 52% TDN.  And so we come out with 28.6 pounds of dry matter intake. And to get that on an amount that you would actually be feeding per head per day, you take the dry matter intake divided by the dry matter content. And you come up with 33.7 pounds as fed. Okay, so when we figure out how much nutrients is actually being supplied by a forage, we're always going to use the dry matter basis. So we use dry matter 28.6, we have 8% protein. That forage is going to give us 2.2 pounds of crude protein. So if we look back up to our requirement, they need two and a half pounds. So we're a little bit deficient in crude protein based on this forage. Not surprising since we know that lactating cows are going to need usually nine to 10% crude protein in a forage. So we're deficient by 0.3 pounds. We have some dry distillers on hands that has 31% crude protein. So we'd need to feed 0.97 pounds on a dry matter basis or a little over a pound on an as fed basis. And that would meet our protein requirement. We have 0.3 pounds from the distillers to 2.2 from the hay gets us up to that 2.5. Going back to our total dry matter intake of the forage times energy content. We're at 14.8 pounds TDN. Slightly deficient might be okay. Again, depends on the condition of the cows. If you're trying to increase or maintain body condition and what the environmental conditions are on your place. But since we're feeding that pound of distillers, the energy is coming along for the ride with the protein supplement. So we're getting around 0.85 pounds of TDN from the distillers. So in total with the hay and the distillers, we're going to exceed the nutrient requirement for energy. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but you definitely want to take a look at your situation. What feed do you have on hand? Compare those on a cost per pound of nutrient basis to choose the best supplement and I know math just makes everyone's head spin. So if you want to walk through your own situation, be sure and contact me or your county agent and we can help you through that. Thank you, Janna. So our next speaker is going to be Carl Hoppe.  And he's going to be talking about sourcing co-products. So we have some to help supplement our forages. Good afternoon. Yes, and we have the opportunity to talk about co-product feeds and in following with the previous speaker, we certainly has a need and some of our rations to go find extra protein, even extra energy for rations and co-products or something that we can certainly look forward to in North Dakota. We can raise some protein and energy feeds on farm like field peas. Corn would be an energy source. We have other sources of protein like alfalfa hay. But not all the time do we have access to those. Sometimes it's nice to have both energy and protein in the same feed. In North Dakota, we have lots of that. And I tend to think of them as a supplement to our forage based ration. Not as a total feed, but just as an extra part to the ration that finishes off the ration and makes it a balanced ration for beef cows. North Dakota produces an exceptional amount of co-products. It's located on the eastern part of the state where most of these are, whether it be an ethanol plant or a wheat mid mill or an oil crush or molting facilities or even sugar processing, which could be from both the sugar beets as well as corn or even potato, potato waste. Again, they're available for the whole state. It's just a matter of transportation. Of course, transportation costs need to be figured in these. But they certainly are available in the state. Just to show how much is available in the state, I'd like to point out that North Dakota owns its own state mill and elevator. It's located in Grand Forks. I think it's important to share that it's the single largest wheat, Durham mill in one location in the world. It mills approximately 90,000 bushels of wheat and Durham a day into either flour or semolina. That's quite a few semi loads of product that's being processed every day. Of course, not all of that goes into Durham or into flour or semolina. A percentage, 20, 30% usually ends up as a co-product feed that can be fed to livestock. It's usually high in protein and actually high in fiber content. The fiber content is usually very digestible and it works well in our rations. It's usually either pelleted or loose mill, so it hauls easily and is quite handily used in mixture wagons and that type of thing. Just to give an idea, if we fed 10 pounds of wheat mids to every cow in North Dakota, well, for the amount of product that's produced in the state, if we fed 10 pounds of wheat mids out of this plant, we'd have enough feed for 200,000 head of cattle daily. It's wheat mids are 18% crude protein, so it's fairly high in protein, 83% TDN, note that corn is around 90, 92% TDN. So you can tell it's a high energy feed. So roughly if you add five pounds wheat mids to your ration, you could add, you could increase your diet protein by about one pound of crude protein. We also produce a lot of ethanol. It's huge in North Dakota, it really is. We have five distilleries in North Dakota. They produce somewhere between 3,500 to 4,000 tons daily of dried distilleries grades. Again, a very sizable production in the distilleries that we have in North Dakota. If we had almost a million cows in North Dakota, we could feed seven pounds of distilleries grains every day to every cow. I'm just sharing that with you, we have lots of feed, co-product feed available in North Dakota for our cowards. So how do we utilize this? One way would be to give a cow 12 pounds of distilleries grains daily in the wintertime for seven months. We'd have enough feed to do that. I'm not saying we should feed them 12 pounds. That'd be a heck of an energy and a heck of a protein load. If you're really short on feed, this is an option the person can look at. Distilleries grains is 30% crude protein, 86% TDM. Again, like I said, corn is 90, 91 TDM, 80, 90, 91, and wheat mids are like 83. So you can see the energy content of distilleries grains is at least 86. Sometimes you use 95 when there's a high-level oil in the distilleries grains. It's quite a nice addition of dried distilleries grains into the ration. Whether you want to use dried distilleries grain or modified, which is 50% moisture, they can certainly be added to the diet. Three pounds of the dry or six pounds of the modified would increase the diet crude protein by about one pound. Oops. Again, when we're looking at co-products, pricing is always a big factor, and most of these co-products are really hinged on the price of grain corn. So as the price of grain corn increases, the price of our co-products increase, and that's fairly constant. Distilleries grains is usually priced at par per ton with what the corn price is, or maybe 100%. At certain times of the year, it might be priced higher than that based on demand. Freight is a big factor on the dry product. Of course, you've got, as you're further away from the plant, you have a higher cost of freight modified to basically double the amount of freight because it's half water for the same amount of dry matter. We certainly have other feeds available in our area. Be sure to consider those. Co-products, some of them have some limitations, though. Long-term storage issues because some of them come out wet, so you need to be prepared. Either they might freeze in the wintertime, or in the summertime, they might start molding. Some of these co-products, like distillage grains, modified, or beet pulp would all come out of the plant, or like, according to Luton feed, would all come out of the plant, actually warm. Sometimes, if you put them in a bin, you might have bridging problems. Back when the distillage grains used to be about 12%, 14% fat, putting them into a bin in the wintertime, they would tend to harden up in great problems and flowability, and sludge hammers would be needed to try to get them moved out of your bin. Sometimes, they're low-density, like wheat mids. If you pellet it, you basically increase the density by two-fold, and consequently, your trucking costs would be a lot less. High-moisture products can lead to mold, like your potato waste, everything that has moisture added to it or not removed from it is always susceptible to freezing or mold issues. Here's a list of co-products available in North Dakota, kind of a short list. We've got distillage grains that's dried. We have one plant produces a wet product, which is 60% water. The other plants produce a modified product, which is 40% water. Sometimes, we can buy something called condensis to your solubles. Sometimes, they call it corn syrup. It's flowable, so we can pump it. But it is around 60% water, 40% dry matter, and it actually feeds just like wet distillage grains from a nutrition standpoint. Of course, wheat mids are produced in five locations across the state. Corn gluten feeds down in Wappaton. Unfortunately, I think within the next few days, they'll only be producing a sweet corn gluten feed. There'd be no dry product coming out of that particular plant. Soybean hulls have came on to the production in North Dakota out of the plant out of Enderland. Actually, right now, they're not a very competitive price. There must be quite a high demand because they're $30, $40 a ton higher than some of our other feeds. What's unique about soy hulls is they're high in protein, and they are around 10% crude protein. So, they're not really a high protein feed, but they are very digestible and work quite well, no ration. Beet pulp and beet tailings can be the issue coming out of the valley. Beet pulp can either be fed wet or dried. Most of it's wet, and this year, the price is around $5 a ton for pressed beet pulp. There's going to be some news about beet tailings this year because there's an ethanol plant being built up in Grand Forks. They'll be utilizing the beet tailings for making ethanol.  And there, of course, might be some rationing going on on whether you're a preferred supplier or not. We do have meals produced in the state, canola meal, sunflower meal, soybean meal, linseed meal, corn glute meal. There's three, four different plants in the state that produces beet product across the border of Minnesota that produces canola meal as well. So, if you need a protein in your feed, you can certainly do that. And again, these are usually priced off the protein market. So, they are considerably higher in their price like proteins. Well, let me just point out if you buy things like distillage grains, it's priced on the corn product market, not necessarily on the protein market. And we do have some other byproduct feeds. If you're close to a potato plant, you might be able to get the product coming out of there. However, they usually like to have you be a year-round consumer of that particular product. So, be careful of that. In Barley-Maltz sprouts, we used to have a large producer in the state. That plant is now closed, but there is a plant over in the Minnesota that might be able to have that available. Well, let's talk a little bit about use of these particular diets. In a 1,400-pound cow, she's mature, late gestation. That's the last three months before having a calf. I just want to maintain her weight. So, if we have grass hay and wheat straw and corn stover this year, let's just use this mill ration that's going to be half grass hay and half wheat straw. That's not a balanced ration. But if we add four pounds of distillers grains and a little bit of mineral, we'll have a fairly balanced ration of that. Be sure to feed test each end of the mill feeds so you know what you have before you add on the supplement. But this gives you an idea for planning purposes. If you need to buy feed, how much it actually needs, and then you can put some costs going with it to find out kind of where it is. I like to point out when you look at cost per day, three different, four different types of rations, fairly similar costs. So it's all kind of tied together. Now let's look at another one. This particular ration deals with 1,400 pound cows that need to gain some weight. I want them to gain one body condition score in 90 days, which is basically just gaining one pound per day. Our feedlot cattle, we like to have them gain three, three and a half pounds a day during the feedlot cows, during the feeding stage, the finishing stage. Here we're just looking at a pound a day gain. So let's look at the rations. This particular first ration, where I looked at last time, where if you use 20 pounds of grass hay and they're about the same amount of wheat stover, please notice that the dried distillers grains now increases from four to five up to nine. It almost doubles the amount of distillers grains that's required in the ration. And again, if you look at the cost, the costs are all somewhat similar to the same. But keep in mind, you're adding more value or more energy and more protein to the ration because you're using dried distillers grains. Well, we do have a numerous supply of co-products available to us in North Dakota. Just be wary of where you need to haul it from, what the freight cost is. I always concerned about people that use beet pulp in the western part of the state that are hauling out of the Red Room Valley. Because when you're dealing with product that's 80% water, 70, 80% water, that's semi-low. It doesn't have very many tons of dry feed. So please do the math and price accordingly. Things like distillers grains work quite well in your rations and check out the price for your local availability and good luck with using co-products in North Dakota. Thank you, Carl. Carl did send me a list of co-products and places to get them in North Dakota that will be posted on the website with the recording. Our next speaker is going to be Brian Parman. He is the egg finance specialist here in Fargo. And he's going to talk about the costs, benefits of some of the different options for stretching your forge resources. Yeah, thanks, Miranda. And it's nice that Carl kind of set me up because it's almost like this was planned that we were going to go from Carl right to me. So I've put together, I'm going to attempt to share some of what I had put together there. All right, is it working there? Everybody see the slide there? So basically... Yeah, it looks good. This is using, when I put this together, it was mainly for drought management. But it's really kind of essentially the same thing because the real comparison in this case, one of the comparisons was putting it together for putting, reducing the stocking rate and putting more animals out on lower AUM forage. But in this case, we're just going to kind of focus on what Carl was alluding to, which is trucking in feed versus hauling animals to where the feed is. So basically dry lotting at home versus sending them to a feed lot somewhere down the road. And these are kind of the hay prices that I used if you look at this first slide as to when these calculations were done. And basically this is talking about... This was put together with South Dakota State. Now, some research has been presented and done on dry lotting cattle by Vern Anderson up at Carrington currently where Carl works. And we can see partial budget for dry lot versus pasture beef cow production. And just exactly how much this dry lot is over pasturing them at the cash rental rates or pasture rental rates that exist. And you can see basically that you're looking at almost $60 plus dollars per head for dry lotting these animals versus putting them out on pasture. I don't think there's any question that pasture is cheaper but this just puts into perspective exactly how much more expensive that is. And the other part of that that you have to consider is if you've got a bunch of people in your area, a lot of these things that happen that would cause somebody to want to dry lot their cattle winds up affecting their neighbors as well. So it's often the case that we think of ourselves in a vacuum but if you've got everyone in an area wanting to haul in feed you can imagine what feed costs are going to do at least regionally for instance hauling in bales or these kind of things. You can imagine what's going to happen that these costs are going to go up especially if it's pretty widespread and you have to go a long ways out to acquire some of the dry lot feed that you need. And you know this is kind of exactly what it was showing here but where I want to go to mainly is this portion right here and I put this together showing pasture versus dry lotting versus buying feed. And what you see here if you wind up buying and shipping feed in for five months you're looking at about $479 per head which is a considerable cost and that's using some pretty conservative hay estimates. I know there are situations where you may bring in something like slew hay or these other kind of things but buying and shipping feed is just extremely expensive if you're talking in from a hay's perspective just because the energy density isn't high enough and the volume is just too great unlike things like corn and soybean meal which has a much higher energy density so the energy per load or TDN per load shipped is a lot less and in this scenario I used $4 per loaded mile which is pretty much the going rate for shipping just about anything across the state. And so this works out to about $479 per head this is the price of feed per ton at $100 so fairly conservative and this is only shipping 50 miles as Karl talked about some of these beet residues and things being shipped all the way to western North Dakota it's greatly in excess of 50 miles so that shipping cost really starts coming into play at that $4 per loaded mile mark and basically for five months if we're shipping hay we're talking about 34 loads at $4 per loaded mile that is that is a considerable cost to consider. Okay but boarding cattle at a feed lot in every scenario that I ran using that $4 per loaded mile and I even gave them a much larger distance that these animals had to be shipped at 250 miles and to tell you the truth it really doesn't make that big a difference that shipping cattle to a dry lot where the feed is almost always is cheaper than shipping the feed back if you're if you're actually having to basically pay retail prices for hay okay it just tends to work out that way because it's you know you ship them there they're already there even with the yardage fee of $0.35 it's still it's still just so much cheaper to ship them away now again there's all kinds of scenarios where you're getting local slew hay or lower quality hay and you're going to bring in grains or things like that and that makes the calculus on this a bit different but just on the surface shipping them to where feed availability is almost always makes the most sense unless there's something with the scenarios that I'm running where it's it's just better off to send them someplace else and some folks would think about a mixed strategy and that's kind of what I talked about in the drought scenario was you had a mixed strategy of you put what you could the the the lower quality animals on on grass the better animals on the dry lot getting better feed and then you did a deep cull and in this case where we're not talking about grass we're talking about buying feed or that those kind of things so the deep cull still comes into play but how deep you call I mean it is always cheaper to raise your own heifers rather than buying heifers so if you intend to stay in the business even though buying feed is expensive you have to weigh that cost benefit of losing the genetic base versus paying a quite a bit of extra money to to ship feed in or send those animals to a to a dry lot in the short term in order to not have to shrink your herd and you know we look at this fall heifers aren't too expensive but at the same time the amount of time and effort and the loss of the genetic base it almost always works out if all things are equal to raise your own heifers and so thinking about a heavy liquidation if you're going to stay in the business is is generally a poor strategy it's it's that mixed strategy that makes the most economic sense and so that's for the most part what I wanted to wanted to cover is just essentially the fact that you're going to have to think about it not in just one strategy going forward or it may be the case you ship some cattle you have some forage at home so you keep some cattle at home and feed them yourself it's hard to find a one-size-fits-all management strategy and unfortunately economics is often murky but at the end of the day we've got to figure out producer by producer what the best what the best options are they're the best of a set of bad options and that's really these numbers are really what it boils down to so with that I will take any questions or stop right there all right thank you Brian so we are wrapping Brian was your last speaker so we will open it up for questions feel free to tap type any questions into the chat box or you can you can also ask live whatever you prefer a couple reminders while people are thinking of of things is that if you do want to view things later or view a session a seminar webinar that you missed you can go to our website and scroll to the bottom and there's a topics tab for the webinar series and all of the webinars are posted here as well as the resources that we just specific resources we discussed during that webinar series also we do have some upcoming webinars scheduled now we have tomorrow again brain also we're talking about crop insurance considerations and Wednesday can hell they will talk you talking about grain drying and storage the survey link apparently is not working I do not know why I've tried to relaunch it so I will try to try to get that out to you guys since I think everybody on is extension and there should be a link to it hate on the the website too if you want to take that later or send me any input you have this would be greatly appreciated we'll see that we don't have any questions and thank everybody for participating and if you do think of any questions later feel free to reach out to any of the speakers our contact information is also on the website and we'd be glad to help you anyway possible right thank you well hopefully talk to you tomorrow


tube team keeping clean boy that game was crazy from start to finish shout out to the chiefs for getting a crazy comeback win shout out to the Browns for really bringing it to him and taking it down literally to the wire boy so Patrick Mahomes is still undefeated in September we'll see if next week changes that but we can't wait about that right now anyway this game started off Browns came out there with their chest out they said let's go they got the touchdown there's a Nick Chubb he was running for touchdowns and then after the first touchdown that they got um there was a penalty and the Browns were like we ain't kicking no extra man we going for two on these boys man and they went for two with Kareem Hunt and they got it they got it their running game was being effective the passing game because the run game helps especially in the Browns scheme and Kevin Stefanski scheme the run is so dependent on the run game because the run game opens stuff up and if you keep running good on teams on defenses and whatnot that opens up that play action because people start biting and boy these Browns boy they they brought it to the chiefs they brought it to KC in KC you know it's crazy loud there but the Browns they had the chiefs on hush hush for a little while for a little while not too long but could you just you just knew not necessarily knew that the chiefs were gonna come back and win but you knew they were gonna come back and make it a much closer game than it was looking initially um Baker Mayfield throughout this game he was doing his thing um he did lose his uh left tackle it was a Jedrick Jedrick Willis I want to say but he lost him and that that's a big blow that's a huge blow I didn't have Odell Beckham Junior this game I remember seeing something yesterday saying oh Odell Beckham Junior's question but no yeah he's gonna play but he didn't play they said he didn't look good in warm-ups so they they kept them out and they got to remember that this is it's a long season so even though you want Odell Beckham Junior out there you need Odell Beckham Junior out there you got 16 games left so yeah you'll be okay no need to rush anybody back cuz it's a very very long season um the Browns Miles Garrett and Jadavian Clowney they were getting after and they what what the Browns were doing very well early on they were tackling great they were doing some great tackling early on in this game and that helped them get out to the lead I loved love love love love love how aggressive they were from jump even just sad just to show you exactly how aggressive these boys were remember to play the last player to half you're not in field goal range you could just do a running play run out the clock you could even do a screenplay or something short pass was get some extra bonus no they passed the ball I forgot who Baker passed it to maybe it was Kareem Hunt but I know Kareem Hunt ended up with the ball in his hand he pitched it back he pitched it back to Baker may feel Baker may feel was running or maybe it was Baker may feel that was running and pitched it back to Kareem and then he I forgot what happened but I love how they were like a we got to take every single opportunity we can possibly get because we know these chiefs we know they got some crazy stuff in them I don't know what it is but they got some crazy plays in them to where they just they are insane so we have to capitalize on literally everything and they were holding it down they were holding down Patrick my home's and she even though Tyreek Hill throughout the game he was like going off and you just you were like oh Tyreek Hill keep making all these crazy catches I love what Tyreek Hill I love how with him he he'll catch the ball and then he'll always look to make somebody miss but it's like it's different from other receivers because he'll he'll go back and he'll lose some yards he'll catch the ball and he'll go back a little bit in this risky but he knows how fast he is so he can take those risks and he knows that nine times out of ten the risk usually work out for one thing about Patrick my home's that I absolutely admire and appreciate about his game is that he is not afraid he's not afraid this guy it was what play it was on it was like a third in two he had a receiver I think was the running back right in front of him like five yards in front of him he could have he could have hit the hit the running back easy game he's in completion but no he took off he turned into Patrick Vic and excuse me then there was another play where he does the same thing where he can make it easy play he can make it easy check down but he's like no he goes for those more difficult throws the harder throws to where he goes for them big chunk plays and then of course the play that really got the momentum swinging in a cheese favor was when he was scrambling scrambling rolling out roll out to his right and then was like and then John Johnson the Browns new safety who they got from the Rams he just he didn't track the ball Tyreek Hill caught and that was it man that was it and he did like a little mini peace sign he did like a peaceful peace sign because he ain't doing normal peace sign cuz he like man these reps they've been tripping on these taunting calls I ain't trying to mess this touchdown up so he did like a little okay peace and of course he got his new company with the gloves and stuff which that is so smart man wow that that was so smart to take it back to turn a negative into a positive I love that so shout out to Tyreek Hill for that of course I'm and just going back and forth Travis Kels with that beautiful cuz it's Kels not Kelsey I'm pretty I'm like 99% sure it's Kels but anyway Travis Kels with that beautiful like the corner whether that was a cornerback or safety I don't remember he was way too he was working the inside too much it's Travis Kels so you gotta you got to be ready for everything but he gave him too much space Kels beat him on that move and he was wide open and he did a little extra move to get the touchdown but he certainly did his thing where this game like that's where the the the chiefs had got momentum obviously on the Patrick Mahomes to Tyreek Hill touchdown to that that long wasn't 75 y'all bombs I'm like that but then where the Browns messed up oh man first um cuz brown cuz to beat the chiefs you you got to play like perfect man especially like these like the chiefs period I'm gonna say these chiefs in September but they're good all year they're great all year you have to play pretty much perfectly Nick Chubb he had the fumble and it was like oh boy these browns they collapsing then on the punt where the punter muffed it I was like all these Browns are collapsing big time they're shooting themselves in the foot with a shotgun with no socks on man they shot themselves right in the foot because early on in the first half they were doing everything right man they were doing everything right and chiefs were just slipping falling they couldn't get up but that's why you play two halves that's why it's four quarters not a two-quarter game is four quarters and the chiefs showed exactly that now for the Browns um Miles Garrett yeah he's still that dude he's still that dude but just overall with their team they're gonna be in great shape man for this to be your first game and for you to go out there and play like that they put up points that defense may some play but a defense just they could only hold the chiefs for so long that's why you you gotta play mistake free football against Kansas City but Browns they're gonna be a good team they were a good team last year they should be even better this year than they were last year because their roster got even better their roster continues to improve they they have consistency with coaching and that's big so they'll be fine so I know and I know with Browns fans I think and I'm not saying this in a trash talking way but I think Browns fans they know how to be realistically optimistic about their team despite a game like this yeah they have said that they lost of course nobody likes losing but from all the the losing that they've done over the years they they know what a good team looks like and they can look at last year and be like no yeah we got some yeah we lost to the chiefs but that's the chiefs that's the chiefs the chiefs are the chiefs they are the top AFC team right now until somebody dethrones them so Browns they ain't got nothing to worry about in that room in those regards now with the chiefs this was just another day at the office another dramatic field game with they end up coming back and just doing all this crazy stuff now one thing because me being a Ravens fan Orlando Brown Junior Orlando Brown Junior I remember just seeing a lot of Ravens fans be like Orlando Brown he's not that good anyway he's gonna struggle in KC all that that that passing that he's going from a running offense to that makes offensive linemen look better to a passing offense so he's gonna struggle over there he's gonna struggle with speed like he did here and some some Ravens fans were saying it out of hate cuz they're like oh man he wants to get traded then he ended up going to the chiefs and like oh man he went why do we make the chiefs who always beat us why do we make them even stronger but he was struggling at night boy he was struggling and they were just born right now it is your Davian Clowney Miles Garrett so I gotta give him that those are two good pass rushes but still that's gonna be something to keep an eye on just moving forward cuz I was thinking like like there were some people that said stuff like I said out of hate just cuz somebody on your team is they asking to be traded then they go to that team but um a lot of the comments that I saw ended up being true tonight but something to keep in mind it is just the first game so no need to overreact no need to underreact we just gotta just keep it moving keep it moving and hopefully Orlando Brown Junior's sake hopefully he improves not next week you can take off next week Orlando Brown Junior just relax next week but the week after then you can start doing the improvements next week we don't need you to be good anyway team keep it clean I appreciate y'all Kansas City and Cleveland I appreciate you all for just having a great game it was looking like man I was thinking uh oh and I mean it's it's an AFC opponent but I was thinking uh oh the the bingles one which I had not known until I started seeing like highlights and stuff that overtime game with the Vikings so I was like the bingles one uh oh is Cleveland about to beat these chiefs uh oh and the stealers won earlier uh oh all the AFC North teams won so my Ravens up next but the Browns end up taking a little pressure off but still Ravens still gotta take care of business but we'll see that game tomorrow anyway I love y'all team keep it clean I appreciate y'all shout out to all the new team keep it clean patrons thank you for showing extra support to the channel and if you want to become a team keep it clean patron you can just go to patreon.com slash engraving vids I love y'all this was a fun fun fun day of football and it ain't even over yet because we still got bears rams but I appreciate y'all I will see you all tomorrow we are out


Enterocoli-adjective forms, Enterocyoic and Enterocelous is a process by which some animal embryos develop. In Enterocoli, the method Berm middle layer is formed in a developing embryo, in which the selom forms from pouches pinched off of the digestic tract also known as the embryonic gut, or Archenteron. This type of selom formation occurs in deuterostome animals, which for this reason are also known as Enterocelomates. Enterocelous development begins once the embryo reaches the gastrolyphase of development. At this point, there are two layers of cells, the active Berm outer most and the endoderm inner most layers. The method Berm begins to form as two pockets of tissue one above the endoderm, and one below are formed via folding of the endoderm. These pockets begin to grow larger, and as they do so, they extend towards each other. When the two pockets of cells meet, the method Berm is formed, a complete layer of tissue right in between the endoderm and active Berm layers. This then leads to the formation of a selom. Enterocelous development is the stage of embryological development of deuterostomes in which the selom forms. The stage starts with the gastrolyphase, as the Archenteron forms. Pockets of migrating cells also form, creating another layer between the endoderm and ectoderm, the method Berm. These pockets gradually expand to form the selom. In protostomes, the body cavity is formed by schizosleaf.


Thanks for being here today. I came to CMS in the fall of 2015 with the intention of making the presidential election the focus of my thesis. And in the most basic sense, that is what I did in the study and what I'll be presenting on today. But if you could have predicted in advance, just how tumultuous, transformative, and for many of us disheartening, the election would end up being. Of course, you can only fit so much into 100 pages in 20 minutes. And so there are huge and important aspects of the election that won't get much mentioned today, including the disturbing rise of fake news, the alleged involvement in the election by foreign actors, and the failure of pollsters to predict the outcome, any of which by themselves could certainly have constituted a thesis. But what I present today nonetheless has implications, I think, at least implicitly for these other questions. In my thesis, I offer an overview of the flows of communication between candidates, voters, and the media over the course of the campaign. In particular, I explained how this new communication ecosystem was especially beneficial to Donald Trump, charismatic candidate purporting to be an outsider who drew on populist and paranoid tropes in his campaign. At the center of his communication strategy, as I will show, is the social network Twitter. And as president, Donald Trump's use of Twitter continues to dominate the news agenda, providing a powerful personal outlet for the most powerful person in the world. Before I turn to the 2016 campaign, I'm going to introduce a concept, paranoid populism, and two figures from 20th century American history who embodied it in their media use. Paranoid populism is the short hand I use, a combination of two related but distinct ideological constructs, populism and political parallel. As we'll see, paranoid populism, as I render it, offers a useful lens through which to view the Trump candidacy, and as a way to understand and even start to explain his success. Although populism in American politics has alluded to a specialized definition, scholars nonetheless agree on several of his characteristics. As his name suggests, populism proposes to advocate for the people, though the truth populists specifically refer to ordinary people, or what Mike Paysing does, a noble assemblage. In fact, it may be more appropriate to refer to not to a group of people, but to a place what Paul Tiger calls the heartland. Populism is defined moreover in its opposition to a selfish coastal elite, unconnected and unconcerned with the plight of the heartland. These appeals to the pure ordinary heartland, in contrast to an elite as cosmopolitan as it is corrupt, it always invariably stowed economic resentment as well as cultural antagonism. Given the subjection to coastal elites, populist movements are typically spearheaded by a figure with outsider credentials, especially someone with charismatic communication abilities who tells it like it is. One final feature typically associated with populism is that it is manifested in the communication strategies of its leaders as a conscious rhetorical project. I thus argue that Donald Trump's use of Twitter as an unfiltered means of communication was the essence of his populist appeal. But populism alone does not fully encapsulate the candidacy of Donald Trump. We also need to consider what I call paranoia, a concept which here should be considered in a political rather than a clinical sense. Richard Hofstahl's influential essay of 1964, The Paranoia Style in American Politics, provides an insightful look at the appeal of this strain of thinking and its impact. Hofstahl's essay, written amidst the rise of far-right Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, pinpoints three characteristics, exaggeration, suspicion and conspiratorial fantasy which he says constitute paranoia. Like populism, paranoia is an ideological construct targeting a certain sense of people, chief among them according to Daniel Pipe's, both politically disaffected and culturally suspicious. Paranoia thinking shares much with populist ideology, not least us versus them mentality, distrustful of elites. Its appeal, like that of populism, can be accentuated by media technology. In 1964, Hofstahl noted that the quote, villains today are much more vivid than those of the Paranoian pre-assessors. Yet the two terms are not entirely overlapping. Politicians famous for their anti-communist paranoia, including Goldwater and Joseph Barney, were not known for populist politics. And McCarthy was spelled by his own lack of charisma. When combined, however, populist ideology and Paranoia thinking can prove powerful, especially when enabled by the media of the day. Two figures from 20th century American history, Charles Coblin and Pat Robertson, both employed Paranoia populist tropes and taxes in their quest to build dedicated audiences on emerging communications platforms, and their stories are therefore constructed. It's possible, Michelle Held Heinz writes, that no single individual had more of an impact on thinking about the radio audience than Charles Coblin. When he was a Catholic priest in 1916, Coblin began a regular radio broadcast in 1926, a time when the medium was in its infancy. His sermons initially focused on narrow religious matters, but became over time almost exclusively political in concept. Coblin employed a wide variety of rhetorical techniques and a folksy way of address to appeal to the man in the street. Coblin's audience was drawn to his coverage of America's deep financial oppression and the blame that he has scrowed for this to the industrial elite as well as to the Roosevelt administration. In so doing, Coblin tapped into a then flexible communication platform around which few norms or laws had been established. He initially enjoyed easy access to his audience through an independent system of radio stations which broadcasts his sermons, meaning, in essence, that if one station objected to his content, he could simply strike a deal with a rival. Coblin's audience peaked at a remarkable $16 million in 1938, giving rise to the possibly a comparable notion that hearing his voice out of every window, you could walk for blocks and never miss a word. If Coblin's large audience would not prove eternal, a combination of religious, political and media elites ultimately conspired to take him off the air. As more radio stations eventually turned against him, the outbreak of the Second World War, which Coblin had vehemently opposed joining, saw new limits placed on quote, controversial public issues, one of the precedents to the Fairness Doctrine, which will be introduced in 1949. Before his fall from grace, Coblin had nonetheless demonstrated the appeal of paranoid populism and its ability to thrive on a new communications platform. At least while political and market conditions were favorable, I looked for regulation to court on. Coblin's experience brings to mind another paranoid populist biobrand, Pat Robinson, who also utilized an emerging medium to build a similarly loyal, if narrow, following. Robinson's Christian Broadcasting Network, launched in 1961, broadcasts programming by satellite, making his religious messaging seemingly descended from the heavens. Robinson's movement set itself against the perceived liberal excesses of the 1960s, appealing to the more traditional values of ordinary folk. In his broadcasts, Robinson seized the mantle of evangelical conspiracy and built on the tradition of Prophecy Theology, which predicted an imminent second coming, prefigured by apostasies, including drugs and devils. This unmediated Christian perspective was made possible through CBN's satellite transmission system, as well as by changes in regulation, which made religious broadcasting technically and economically feasible. CBN was eventually available on 3,000 cable systems, and the number of Americans viewing Bridges programming rose from around 5 million in the late 60s to around 25 million in the mid 80s. Robinson's media success spread political ambitions, but he would ultimately struggle to broaden his base, and he failed to win a single state when he ran in the Republican presidential primary in 1988. Indeed, his audience actually fell by 52% during his presidential run. Amongst other reasons, it seems that his attempts to go mainstream and secure the widest slice of the Republican electorate needed for the nomination caused him into more specific political pronouncements, many at odds with his base. The experiences of Charles Colvin and Pat Robinson differ, but share some characteristics. Both were paranoid populists who exploited emerging media technology before either rivals or regulations would catch up. Those were factors for Colvin's Second World War, and for Robinson the realities of majoritarian politics also eventually hampered their ambitions. But viewed in another way, each had what the other one lacked. Colvin's platform was broad but shaky, ripped from under his feet by regulations and nervous networks. Robinson's audience was deep but narrow, and he was unable to broaden it to encompass the widest way the voters went when he ran for president. It seems then that any paranoid populist seeking prominence and public office needs a hybrid communication stretch, with both a direct, unfiltered platform and the ability to get noticed by a much wider audience, which brings us to Donald Trump. I won't spend much time here rehashing the story of the 2016 presidential election, since it remains obviously fresh in everyone's minds, but it is worth remembering at the outset several of the perceived weaknesses of Trump's candidacy when he started. He was up against 16 other Republican presidential candidates, the largest field in history, which meant that before any votes were even cast, endorsements, fundraising and media attention were in high demand. In terms of both endorsements and fundraising, Trump, with minimal support inside the GOP and little organization, was running well behind. Campaign filings in January 2016, on the eve of the first primaries and after some candidates had already dropped out, showed Trump running only fourth in the fundraising states, while even by the time Trump clinched the nomination in May, he remained disliked in the party, sitting in fourth on rankings of elected Republican officials and endorsements. As you'll see, the metric that Trump did dominate was media attention. In this respect, Trump had several in-built advantages, including decades of experience dealing with the media, primarily tabloid newspapers and his years hosting NBC's Apprentice Show. Trump also had a Twitter account set up in 2009 under the handle of Pat Real Donald Trump, which reached several million followers at the outset of his campaign. And for the past several years, Trump was the informal chief spokesperson of the Bertha Movement, a group which falsely alleged that President Barack Obama had been born outside the United States and was thus ineligible to serve. Trump, in other words, knew how to get attention, in large part by saying and doing outrageous things. And in its early stages, his campaign was treated as a joke, with traditional website 538 writing of his chances and the Huffington Post news website deciding to cover Trump's campaign in its entertainment section. Yet on the trail and on Twitter, Trump's campaign began to gather scene, and it appears that in both domains, Trump embraced the tropes of a paranoid populace in the manner of those he came for. I run the text of all of Trump's tweets through corpus of linguistic software to determine his most common words and phrases. As you might expect, his slogan, Make America Great Again, was one of his favorite hashtags during the primary, as his chart shows, coming up 286 times overall, which accounts for one in every 200 words he tweeted. The phrase perfectly encapsulates the parallel populism as defined earlier, and is evidence that Trump's campaign is deliberately targeting disaffected voters. Many people have responded to the slogan by asking, well, where exactly in Trump's estimation was America great? Trump managed to avoid being pinned down on this question directly during the campaign, but his staunch attacks on the legitimacy and record of Barack Obama, the country's first African American president, are pertinent. By simultaneously alleging that America had seemingly lost its greatness, and by pinpointing the country's first black president as the chief agent in this process of perceived decline, Trump was making a very particular appeal to America's heartland. As noted earlier, by replacing the people per se with the heartland, populace can restrict the scope that their appeal to citizens deemed culturally and racially ordinary. Through his slogan and other campaign pronouncements, Trump tapped a vein of American normalcy, which stretched back centuries, seeking to restrict its scope to the country's heartlands and implicitly then into a particular kind of cultural and racial identity. Turning to the general election against Hillary Clinton, Trump on Twitter defied the traditional migration to the center ground to double down on his parallel populist rhetoric. As this graph shows, make America great again emerged as Trump's top hashtag during the general. His second and third most popular phrases were America first, a phrase of a long history in isolationism contained with anti-Semitism, and drain the swamp, another classically populist, anti-elitist sentiment referring to Washington bureaucrats. Yet in addition to looking at what Trump said, it's also instructive to look at how he used the platform. Trump began the campaign with almost 3 million followers and had earned 13 million by election day, showing quite linear growth in this follow-up campaign. This is an impressive number for any politician not named Barack Obama, and in itself partially explains Trump's prodigious tweeting throughout the campaign. Twitter, though, is a famously messy network, ribbon with bots, trolls and much else, so it is reasonable to assume that Trump was reaching far fewer than the 3 or 13 million voters each time he tweeted. One of the strengths of Twitter, though, is that the potential for amplification is built into its architecture through its retweet functionality. As such, it's actually possible to analyze the amount of wider reach that Trump's tweets received during the campaign. So for each month, I calculated the average number of retweets that each tweet received as shown here. As you can see, the amount of amplification that Trump received in his tweets rose considerably over the course of the campaign, from an average of only 200 retweets at the outset, so over 12,000 forward tweets sent in October 2016 that last month for the campaign. This effect mostly holds even when we control for his rising number of followers across the period. Trump, of course, started the campaign with a base of followers far in excess of the average presidential candidate. This should disapuse any notion that Trump led a campaign from the virtual grassroots. He has in fact enjoyed high levels of name recognition for many years, but what he did do was utilize his existing following into a source of much wider exposure for the paranoid populist messaging he employed, both on Twitter and beyond. And yet, as Trump appears to have ensured it, reaching several million followers or even several million more through retweets wasn't enough, he also needed to establish as much exposure as possible in the mainstream media. Another part of Twitter's architecture is the app reply, which links your own tweet to the account of somebody else while using the app key. As this chart shows, in the most common use of root app replies, Trump sought attention from predominantly media sources, with a couple of strange exceptions. In the primary, this mostly meant the at least somewhat sympathetic to his campaign, Fox News Channel. In the general election, however, Trump's media diet appears to have evolved to include central sources like CNN and the New York Times. Yet to a greater extent than in the primary, Trump's references to the media are around more than simply increasing his exposure. Of his 38 references to the Times, for example, fully 25 were to quote, were to be quote, failing New York Times. This suggests an evolution in Trump's strategy. Trump's tweets during the general election seemed to have had less to do with highlighting his media experiences and more media appearances and more to do with objecting to unfavorable coverage by seeking to delegitimize the organizations providing it. Thus, Trump used Twitter to both deploy paranoid populist tropes and target media sources, seeking both attention and retribution for perceived criticism. It seems to evoke something of a hybrid strategy, sloping the small but committed base of followers through a direct, unmediated, slow of messages and reaching out, however angrily, to try to gain a foothold in the mainstream media. For those whom Trump was reaching directly through his Twitter account, media exposure presumably did not affect their support not one way or the other. But for the larger bulk of prospective voters whose support is sought, Trump required even other support of them than at least an interested mainstream media. Of course, Trump was not the first candidate ever to seek media exposure. For decades, campaigns have tried to find cheap and efficient ways to get through the media's gaking process, which restricts the flow of information to the public. In the past, everything from press releases to photo ops have been used by campaigns to try to seize the media spotlight. If it works, this can result in free media, as opposed to expensive TV ads. Another theory of theoretical concept is useful here for thinking about how the media covers news. In a book about the Vietnam War, Daniel Hallam introduced three spheres of political discourse in America. First, there is a sphere of consensus, apple pie issues, about which most everyone agrees, and for which an opposing viewpoint does not need to be presented. The second sphere is that of legitimate controversy. This contains issues reasonably disagreed about, such as whether marijuana should be legal. The third sphere is a sphere of deviance, issues so outside the mainstream that journalists condemn them, such as hangers crime, and points for anyone who gets the Kennedy reference. Yet there are two counter-intuitive things to consider about Hallam's spheres. First, they are permeable. Issues can move between them over time, consider, for example, attitudes towards women's suffrage between the 19th century and today. And second, studies show that journalists disproportionately choose to cover deviance even as they condemn it. Over the course of the campaign, Donald Trump made nearly a deviant statement. In many cases, there were no shortage of people decrying them as abnormal or wrong. But it is also true that the sheer interest in Trump's campaign often outweigh concerns about condemnation. In an interview at Harvard on the eve of the election, CNN president Jeff Zucker expressed regret for the hours upon hours of live, unfiltered footage of Trump's rallies that his network broadcast. Of course, this coverage was an enormous ratings hit, an enormous consideration which undoubtedly contributed to the network's decisions. But without a filter of condemnation, this coverage served to normalise and even partly legitimise Trump's candidacy. My analysis suggests that Trump's deviance on Twitter meant his account was also over covered with respect to other candidates. Finally researched by queried media cloud, database developed by MIT's Center for Civic Media, for the Twitter handles of each of the Republican candidates over the course of the primary. As this graph shows, even the mainstream media references to real Donald Trump were far in excess to the Twitter handles of his rivals who barely get looking. Of course, correlation between Trump's deviance and the disproportionate coverage his tweets got doesn't prove a causal relationship. And many of these references to Trump's Twitter were presumably condemning him. But it nevertheless says a lot that Trump's paranoid populist tweeting received so much mainstream coverage during the primary election, a time when media attention contributed considerably to a candidate's viability. And so what have I shown today? First, the Trump's campaign contained many of the paranoid populist tropes of his ideological forebears, and that much of this ideology manifested itself in his communication strategy which was abnormally focused on Twitter. Second, and related, the Twitter offered Trump a direct unfiltered line to his base committed supporters, sending messages which were amplified by them through the network. And finally the Trump who baked familiar attention, even his eaves smirked the outlets which provided it, succeeded in getting through the gatekeepers in large part because of the deviance of his paranoid populist stances. Thus Trump needed the loyal following, melded the loyal following of Pat Robertson with a broad appeal of Father Coglan to become America's first paranoid populist president. Every election is decided by a myriad of factors, but in the case of 2016, my research suggests that without Admiral Donald Trump, we wouldn't have President Donald Trump. Thanks for listening, I've welcome your questions and if you want to discuss this any further later, I'm on Twitter. So that's a really like idea on this paper. My question is kind of about, you presented a very like nice and tidy line of the paranoid populist style in relationship to new media forms and you're tracing from radio to satellite to even Twitter. And I guess I'm just wondering why should we be convinced of the importance of Twitter specifically in the campaign? It's a nice, maybe, I'm feeling like it's a little bit too neat. In other words, if we could imagine a Donald Trump campaign without Twitter, we could say, you know, the primary amplifier of his paranoid populist rhetorical tropes was Fox News or even satellite radio still. But we might think about what he was saying as a, you know, an intentionally crossing media strategy where he's very aware of the way he's going to be covered by mainstream media first and Twitter is playing some type of role but not necessarily, yeah, so why should we be convinced that it's a central element? And part of that question is about the very low use of Twitter among the broader population and I don't know but I'm curious if you look at sort of Twitter use rates among the Trump supporters versus others and if Twitter is something that's used by a younger, wealthier and more coastal demographic that may have shifted because of this, so talk about that a little bit. Sure, yeah, that's absolutely right and I'm definitely clear about the fact that Trump's strategy was across media, right, so certainly he was being visited by the top radio. The Fox News example is a little more complicated because of what's happening around Kelly and for a while it looked like they were going to not cover him as favorably as he or look at him at all as he liked. So I think the emphasis on Twitter, while definitely a little too tidy, is just to emphasize the unmediated quality of that. I think that's something which both Colin and Robertson, while they had their audiences in place, were able to exploit, Colin could basically say whatever he wanted while he was giving a sense of eventually if he then got kind of tripped up by that. And so I think Twitter is, if not unique at least, very interesting and instrumental as far as it was a very unmediated one to this following. And even if it wasn't always the sole focus of the voters themselves, they were being fed a lot of this stuff via the media to vote. So a lot of it in eminence and put it in that it certainly wasn't the end of the platform he was using. Yeah, I mean I think another way to think about what Sasha's pointing to is that we assume that the value of Twitter is that Trump reached all his supporters directly every day in millions of them, right? But if the reality is that we'll actually be just more educated way of class, people, whatever. It doesn't matter because those people run Fox News and CNN and so on. And so that you can say that Twitter's value seems to be reaching a mass audience directly. But its value really may be just being able to shape the news events every day and seizing the news cycle. Yeah, and that's going to be kind of major implications of this. I think Trump as a candidate was fascinating as a subject of study. Now I think it's kind of imperative as Trump as president, particularly given that he can go online and tweet and say kind of set the news agenda today. Agenda setting is a phrase that I couldn't find room for in this presentation, but certainly appears in my thesis. And I think I tried to elucidate that as you say, kind of two-step flow between candidate to media to voters. Of course, there are several arrows missing from this overview. There's an arrow from voters to Twitter, which is really important. There's an arrow from the media to Trump. And indeed, one of the really interesting things now is do we have an echo chamber between what Fox News wants to talk about and what Trump tweets about and what Fox News reports about. Which is, if anything, scary and war-worrying. But in terms of the campaign being friction with Fox News, there's a reason to think about why Twitter, clock Twitter, is really important. Yeah, I mean, just briefly, just hypothesizing a lot already on both Sasha and Heather said, I mean, maybe Twitter was actually his unmediated line to the media in the sense that, as you mentioned, like he was originally running a very lean campaign, right? He didn't have a lot of money. They weren't running a lot of ads. And, you know, this in conjunction with his calls and, you know, CNN coverage and all that might have been looked for very smart, like, business decision to reach directly to influencers and media outlets who he knew would reliably amplify the message to his base. Yeah, absolutely right. There was a fallout. At times when Fox News wasn't running on the air or CNN to this is particularly nasty, that seemed to be the place where he went. And it seemed to do a useful job in allowing him to reset the terms of the agenda. Okay, do you have any? Yeah, potential. And how we, could you repeat the question to the light? Yeah, sure. The question is basically, do we need to think about, and if so, how should we think about using Twitter as a regulator Twitter to try and sort of prevent some of this stuff? You know, I think really the responsibility probably falls on the journalists because the instrumental control they've talked about. I think taking, you know, I think if, I think Trump now, possibly Trump in 2015, certainly Trump now is powerful enough that if Jack Dorsey decided to ban him, then there would be, you know, he would have simply set up his own sort of platform. He would find them now, he would find, be able to find an unmediated way to talk to the public. So I think kind of kicking off Twitter as satisfying as that would be, probably wouldn't achieve too much. But I think certainly journalists and others can, including all of us, have kind of been able to reach me something to find maybe interesting, but not, I don't think we really agree with, you know, everyone has to think about the tiny effect which adds up to the big effect of amplification that we all can do. And journalists at the tip of their eyes a little bit, they'll all participate in that process. Thank you. Technology against technocracy. Well Maya, setting up, Josh, can you say something about Breitbart news and banning and to like, you know, the media cloud team recently did an analysis of the Trump media sphere.