STICKER SHOC= KS

1. Fertilizer - Fertilizer prices skyrocketed this past fall, with UAN and urea pri= ces up by almost 50% from fall 2003, phosphorus up 25% and potash up 35%. The reasons for the price hikes in= clude increasing world demand, higher energy costs, and, to a lesser extent, the = late summer hurricanes in Florida<= /st1:place>. There’s not much you can do = to reduce the price of fertilizer, but there’s plenty you can do to redu= ce your per-acre fertilizer cost:

Rely on recent so= il analyses (five years ago isn’t “recent”) to fine-tune your fe= rtilizer program, and assume that if the soil test on a particular field is high you can get by with little or no fertilizer. The challenge is keeping fertilizer costs as low as possible without having to use a different fertilizer program on almost every field. Fertilizer costs more, but ti= me is money, too, especially during spring planting.
Maximize manure applications. If you spring-= apply manure on corn land, tilling it into the soil in hours rather than days will significantly increase available N. And it doesn’t cost any= more to till it in right away.
Skip a year on topdressing phosphorus onto hay land.&n= bsp; However, don’t skip a year on spring topdressings of N on grass fields, or potash on alfalfa (if soil tests indicate a need for it). It’s OK to sk= ip a year in topdressing potash onto straight grass fields unless soil test= K is extremely low.

2. Seed corn. Until recently, the only way = you could pay over $200 for a unit of seed corn was to buy a brown midrib (BMR) hybrid. But now, if you “stack” a genetically modified trait or two with a company-appl= ied seed treatment, some dual-purpose hybrids can top $200. Following are the most common corn hybrid traits and treatments, and suggestions as to their best fit:<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>

Bt (corn borer): Best use is where there’= ;s a history of European corn borer problems. Much of the Northeastern U.S. may not benefit enough from corn borer resist= ance to justify the price premium. We’re continuing to test the performance of this trait at Miner Institute.
Bt (corn rootworm)<= /span>: Available in limited quantiti= es for 2005, should be reserved only for areas with confirmed corn rootworm problems. This means continuous corn, probably third year and later. It’s not cheap, but nei= ther are soil insecticides. Don’t use a soil insecticide on any field where you plant= a “YieldGard Rootworm” hybrid. (See article on this subject = in this issue.)
Glyphosate (Roundup, etc.) resistance: A great altern= ative if you plowed a sod last fall without applying gl= yphosate. Apply a half rate of an annual grass herbicide along with the glyphosate;= this greatly improves weed control.
Liberty Link<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>: (resistance to = Liberty herbicide): Similar c= omments as for glyphosate, except we’re told= that Liberty isn&= #8217;t as effective on quackgrass as is glyphosate.&nbs= p; Often a “free” trait when you buy a Bt (corn borer) hybrid.
Company-applied insecticide seed treatments: There are a number of them, discussed in last month’s = Farm Report. The less exp= ensive ones (~$6.00 per acre) replace farmer-applied pla= nterbox treatments, the more expensive ones (~$18.00 per acre) replace soil insecticides. Most of th= ese products are performing well, though the ones that are advertised to control corn rootworms may not be as good as soil insecticides or genetically resistant (Bt) hybrids under he= avy rootworm pressure. Howev= er, this is still mostly “new stuff” and it will take some tim= e to learn what will fit where.

Another potential money-saver: Many farmers have big inventories of corn silage, mu= ch more than will be needed. Maybe this is the year to seed down some extra acreage to alfalfa-grass. You can rely on manure for at least some of the nutrients, little or no fertilizer N is needed, and alfalfa seed prices are only moderately higher than a year ago.

Ev<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman"'> Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

RAISING BULL CALVES AS STEERS

This past year we raised 35 bull calves as steers, treating them the same as we = did our heifer calves for the first part of their lives. We kept track of out-of-pocket cos= ts in an attempt to determine if this modest enterprise was worth the effort. Much of the TMR we fed the animals= was what we cleaned out of the dairy cow feedbunks = each day, so we didn’t put a price on that. Also, the same person that fed the= bull calves fed the heifer calves, and rather than use a questionable number, we aren’t including a cost for labor. That said, here’s our per-steer costs and return exclusive of labor and fencing costs.

NEED PESTICIDE APPLICATOR CREDITS?

Miner Institute will hold three meetings for anyone needing N.Y. (or Vermont) Pestici= de Applicator credits. (We have already applied for N.Y. credits but will apply for = Vermont credits if Vermont applicators plan on attending one or more of the meetings. Let Ev= know if this is the case.)

Weed Control in Field Crops. Thursday, February 24, 2005. 1:00-3:00pm, Miner Institute auditorium. Ev and several custom operators will discuss weed control programs including what’s hot and what’s not. 2 credits

North Country Corn Congress. Thursday, March 3, 2005. 10:00am-3:00pm, Miner Institute auditorium. Guest speake= rs Gary Bergstrom and Andrew Landers will discuss field crop disease prob= lems and new ideas in pesticide application technology. 1 credit. Also 2 CCA credits.<= /o:p>
Insect Control in Field Crops. Tuesday, March 15, 2005. 1:00-3:00pm, Miner Institute auditorium. Ev will discuss current insect problems and methods of control including genetically resistant hybrids and the newer insecticide pre-treatments. 2 cre= dits

NYDEC now requires 12 credits for Private Applicator recertification. Don’t wait until the last minute! All three meetings ar= e open to all at no cost, no reservation needed.

IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING?

Note that the title isn’t “Is our weather changing?” because t= hat changed since you started reading this issue. We’re talking about long-term changes. Thirty years ago the “experts” were worried about global cooling. Global temperatures had fallen for= the previous thirty years, the pack ice at the North Pole was increasing, glaci= ers were getting bigger, and the growing season was noticeably shorter. Now we’re worried about glob= al warming, spring is reportedly arriving a week earlier in the Northeast, and the “experts” are saying that global temperatures could rise by as = much as 30 degrees in the next 100 years. The most extreme of these predictions have cooled a bit (pardon the = pun), but concerns about global warming continue to make headlines.

To localize the question, let’s look at seasonal growing degree days (GD= D) for Chazy for the past 40 years. We use the 86/50 system of GDD, where temperatures above 86°F and below 50<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol; mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Ro= man"; mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'>°F are recorded as 86 a= nd 50. We’ve used ten-year averages to reduce the influence of a single year.

As you can see from the figure, for the first 30 years there wasn’t much change in GDD, but in the mo= st recent ten-year period there has been an increase of about 170 GDD. (Note that the scale begins at 100= 0 GDD, which makes the changes look greater.)&nbs= p; This may be interesting, but what effect does (or should it have) on your cropping plans? Can you = now plant corn hybrids that will take advantage of the increase of the increased GDD? The answer is a definite “maybe”, greatly depending on how hard you’ve been pushing corn maturity in the first place. While the ten-year average GDD has increased, we still can have a co= ol growing season (150+ GDD below the 40-year average of 2300 GDD). Therefore, any significant changes= in your corn hybrid maturity selection should be carefully considered.

E.T.<= i><= /p>

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK - Rumensin

Rumensin^® is an ionophore approved in November 2= 004 for use with lactating dairy cows as a feed additive to improve efficiency = of milk production. Ionophores result in changes in rumen bacterial popul= ations that result in greater propionate production and reduced methane production. In turn, this sho= uld result in greater energy value of feed for the cow. There is also a reduction in the degradation of feed protein that results in greater flow of escape protein = from the rumen. Other potential be= nefits include reduced lactic acid production (and less chance for subclinical aci= dosis) and reduced bloat incidence. = The changes in rumen fermentation increase the precursors for milk lactose and = milk protein production. Another potentially important effect of Rumensin feedin= g is improved health during early lactation.&nb= sp; In theory, increased propionate production should lead to less ketos= is due to less body fat mobilization.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved studies using over 600 lactating cows across six trial locations to determine the impact of feeding Rumensin on milk production. At the recommended level of supplementation (11 to as much as 22 grams/ton of DM), there is a small reduction in dry matter intake compared with a diet containing no Rumensin; about 1.6 lb/d less. Solids-corrected milk yield is unc= hanged, and efficiency of milk yield is improved by 2% (at 11 g/ton) to 4% (at 22 g/ton). Most recommendations = call for starting cows at 11 g/ton for the best economic return.

Published information indicates that Rumensin costs about= 2-3 cents per cow daily, with a potential return of 10 cents per cow daily. So, the potential is there for Rumensin to be a profitable component of a herd’= ;s feeding program. But, there a= re several important factors to bear in mind:

· = Rumensin has the potential to lower milk fat percentage = and yield. The risk of lowering m= ilk fat increases as the cow moves through her lactation. Lower amounts of Rumensin (11 g/ton) have less impact on milk fat than higher amounts. If a herd is going to experience a reduction in milk fat, it should be noticeable within 7 to 10 days.

· = Given the potential benefit of Rumensin= for reducing ketosis, a good feeding strategy would be to target it to the clos= e-up and fresh/early lactation groups only on a farm. Currently we’re using the 11= g/ton rate for the fresh and high groups in the Institute herd.=

· = Rations must be properly formulated for adequate physically effecti= ve fiber (i.e. particle length) and nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC). In parti= cular, NFC cannot be formulated so high that low rumen pH results. Another key point is that rumen degradable protein must not be limiting, otherwise any potential milk prote= in response to Rumensin will be limited.

A final point to consi= der: Rumensin will not magically solve many problems in a = poorly formulated or poorly implemented feeding program. The potential benefits of using Rumensin for improved cow health and efficiency of mi= lk yield are small, but significant. So, it’s another potentially useful tool for well-managed herd= s to use. Keep in mind some of the= other factors we know that also improve efficiency of milk yield and milk product= ion – such as forage quality, cow comfort, ration formulation – and don’t forget to continue focusing on these as well!=

Rick Grant

grant@whminer.com

IN VITRO DIGESTIBILITY: 24 OR 48 HOURS?

The Milk2000 spreadsheet is a very useful took that allows us to compare varieties or treatments within a trial for milk production potential. It us= es 48 hour in vitro digestibility, which involves allowing a ground sam= ple is allowed to digest for 48 hours in the rumen fluid in the laboratory, then analyzing it for dry matter digestibility and/or NDF digestibility. All well and good but no, a certain bald ERN, formerly at Miner Institute but now pl= ying his trade from the wilds of New Hampshire, has made loud noises suggesting = that 48 hour digestibility figures are worthless since nothing good stays around= in a cow’s rumen that long. He recommends 24-hr NDF= d (but really prefers a sequential analysis where the forage is analyzed after 12, 24 and perhaps 30 and 48 hours, fat chance of that ever becoming= a standard analysis). Miner Institute’s forage lab most often uses 30 hours. Cornell University, in an apparent attempt= at humoring ERNs, in 2001 reported both 30 and 48-= hr NDFd but since then reports only 48-hr since thatR= 17;s the basis of Milk2000.

In an effort to shed some light on the subject (rather than just heat, as has = been coming from New Hampshire), we analyzed eight corn hybrids involved in a hy= brid trial here on the farm for both 24 and 48-hour digestibility, calculating <= i>Milk2000 milk per ton using both sets of NDFd analys= es. The results are in the graph—the solid and dashed lines. It’s been suggested elsewhere that 24-hr NDFd can be converted to 48 hr N= DFd simply by multiplying by a factor of 1.2. That’s the dotted line. Note that with the exception of one hybrid, multiplying 24-hr NDFd by 1.2 is very reliable.

This certainly isn’t the final word on the subject, but suggests that we aren’t far off in using 48-hr NDFd in evaluating field trial forage quality.

E.T.<= i><= /p>

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

It's never happened here before! O= n December 29^th we received a message from Agrimark Test Results: our Somatic Cell Count reached a staggeringly impressive 59,000. Is this sufficiently low? Is production at 80 lbs per cow acceptable? Was our late 2004 pregnancy percentage of 21% good enough?&n= bsp; Ultimately, it's about mapping vulnerability, not risk. The benchmarks created are constan= tly moving. What then should a da= iry farmer be realistically aiming for – maximum production or maximum efficiency, a balance between optimization and profit, or an insular “Isolation Paradox”? Each farmer needs to deal with these questions on both a personal and business level. Without answe= ring these questions, trying to set achievable objectives and goals may exacerba= te the ever-present agricultural danger of ignoring that universal truth of the 'Triple Bottom Line' that must exist for sustained farming success: economic, social and environmental harmony.

The last of the steers were loaded up on a freezing cold December afternoon = 211; destination Vermont. From now on = any male calf born is off to the Tuesday auction in Chazy. Interestingly enough, we have been getting more and more calls from people wanting to buy dairy steers weighing between 600 - 800 lbs. Too la= te, the requirements made by milking herd expansion upon labor supercede raising steers out on pastures or in a little feedlot on refusal. The refusal now ends up on the com= post heap, which will encourage soil biota, fertility and health in the warm mon= ths.

With a ventilation system designed to work in unison with 272 cows in the new da= iry barn, and having only 197 milking animals in there, the curtains rebelled.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Not only that, but the frost and i= ce formed an effective “glue” between p= lastic tube and metal upright. It be= came a daily chore to go about freeing the curtains so that they could either infl= ate sufficiently to raise the temperature in the barn or deflate to allow an es= cape of ammonia. What to do? We si= mply moved our pregnant heifers into one of the pens. Ventech also rushed down and supplied us with stronger blower motors. The curtains are working well now, especially as with a greater population and a lower thermostat setting they= are seldom static, not allowing a build up of ice to cause weight or binding. The automatic scrapers have been a pleasure, this despite the freezing weather and occasional stalling due to = some cow laying with her foot purposely thrust in the scraper's way to stop it. Cows! Greasing those turning = parts is crucial though, and an almost weekly chore of the attentive Crops Crew.<= o:p>

The year lies ahead, for some a time of opportunity, others of change, for a fe= w a year to be created to fulfill their dreams and hopes. I urge you all to take pause for a= few minutes to look carefully at yesterday.&nb= sp; Do the moments of joy and pride outweigh those of shame and unhappiness? Irrespective of = our views, our opinions, and stance on subjects, in the end we are all family, = and as Jewel so succinctly sings, "In the end o= nly kindness matters".

Marco Turco

turco@whminer.com

VET’S = CORNER

With winter comes DA (Displaced Abomassum) season, s= o now is a good time to review follow-up care of surgery and toggle/tack down DA corrections. Over the past ye= ar only two DA’s did not return to normal production at the Miner Instit= ute farm. One was afflicted with = Fatty Liver Syndrome and did not recover and the other was a purchased animal with poor confirmation that just didn’t perform well enough to stay in the herd. This is a pretty good r= ecord, so here are our suggestions to help recovery.

Diet

·         For TMR-fed herds, offer ¾ normal amount= of TMR and ¼ long stem hay until her appetite improves to full feed.=

·      =    For traditional layer-fed herds, full feed forage and ½ norm= al grain and increase the grain by 2 lbs/day until on full feed again.

Treatment

·      =    Take temp daily for the first three days following surgery.

·      =    If the temp is greater than 102.5F, start her on Polyflex or Pro Penicillin G twice a day for five days.

·      =    If temps are not taken, start her on Naxcel immediately after the toggle or stitches are placed.

·      =    If the appetite is poor on the day following surgery, try these ste= ps:

Ø      = 500 ml Dextrose 50% IV= and 20 ml Vitamin B Complex IM for three days

Ø      = K= eto-Gold (Propylene Glyco= l) oral gel tube once a day for 3 days

Ø      = Two 6g Niacin boluses = daily for 5 days

Ø      = One FastTrack or other Lactobacillus-type bolus for five days

Ø      = Pump by stomach tube, = 4 lbs of fresh cow drench containing calcium propionate, magnesium, and potassium= in 5 gallons of luke-warm water once a day for two= days

·         Continue to treat for disease conditions such as metritis, which caused the cow to go off feed and led to development of the DA in the first place.

Management

·      =    For five days following surgery, keep her in a clean, dry pen for c= lose observation and diet control. At least keep her in the fresh cow group and lock her in for a half hour every= day so feed intake and udder fill can be monitored.

·      =    If she is not 50-75% improved within 36 hours, especially when surg= ery is an option as follow-up on a toggle case, call the veterinary service bac= k to re-evaluate the cow.

·      =    Record on a calendar that is checked daily, the date (11-21 days post-surgery) that the surgeon recommends for stitch removal.

Kent E. Henderson, DVM<= o:p>

Northwest Veterinary As= sociates

cowdoc@adelphia.net

GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT RAGWEED DISCOVERED

A single field of glyphosate (Roundup) resistant ragweed has been found in a 20-acre field in Missouri. Prelim= inary results show that the ragweed in this field can survive ten times as much <= span class=3DSpellE>glyphosate as it normally takes to kill the weed. The significant fact isn’t t= hat the resistant ragweed was found in a single field, but that it occurred at all. Ragweed is the third weed biotype in the U.S.<= /st1:place> found to be resistant.

This once again illustrates the risks of relying on a single herbicide, as is possible given the wide availability of glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans. Just becau= se you can use glyphosate alone every year in a corn-soybean rotation doesn’t mean you should. Even in continuous corn (five year= s or more of corn), we’d strongly recommend combining glyphosate with another herbicide or herbicides. Weed control will usually be better, too.

E.T.= =

NEWS FROM THE FORAGE LAB

Dr. Brian Perkins spoke at Dairy Day a few weeks ago and provided an interesting perspective on dairying. Here are three ideas I thought sho= uld be passed along.

“Give cows = the reins, don’t hold them back.” Rather than trying to drive production, we should change our thoughts to letting the cows drive us. We should base our management decisions on “allowing” cows to fulfill their potential. Give cows the= best environment, care and forage, have an eye on what is holding them back. Don’t worry = about pushing production; just remove the “roadblocks”.

Automatically hir= ing or promoting family members as business managers. This assumes that they are most capable and qualified to manage the business, which may not be true. Consider hiring a business ma= nager from outside the family and allow family members to create their own j= obs within the dairy and do what they are good at. It may be best to have a CFO = that you can comfortably fire.

We hear so much a= bout farm management ideas that have worked for others and how to manage co= ws and personnel. Though easy to = write articles about success stories after the fact, my question is, how do top managers think? What goes through their mind = during the decision making process? How do they weight economics versus cow comfort or personnel concerns? At what level = of return on investment are they comfortable investing and is this uniform across circumstances? Is= there a character trait that top manager’s poses that allow them a bet= ter view of what to do? Easy= to say we need to be open minded to new ideas, but then how to focus and become close-minded about the right thing to do? It seems that sometimes we al= l fail to see the key weaknesses in our own organization, which may lead to p= oor decisions, poor productivity, and poor profitability. In order to deal with the weak links of the chain, they must first be recognized.

     Hence, some of my resolutions for 2005, to make our forage lab a stronger and more productive link in the chain:

I will figure out= the critical combination of weather, soil and plant physiology variables t= hat explain 95% of forage fiber digestibility. (Because Sniffen demands it!) =

I will keep my de= sk clear. To say nothing ab= out the floor around my desk.

Our ADM students = will graduate from our program enlightened about dairy farming to be positi= ve influences as future farm managers and agents of agriculture.

All of my Farm Re= port articles will be completed at least 2 hours prior to Ev’s deadline, rather than 2 minutes.

I will work with = Ev to determine the best growing conditions for = bentgrass, so that wet greens or dry, his putts = will always seek the cup.

Best Wishes for the New Year!

Kurt Cotanch<= /p>
cotanch@whminer.com

BUG CONTROL = IN CORN

Corn hybrids genetically modified to control insects are highly effective—= at controlling that insect. This= past year we did a strip trial at the Institute comparing a = Bt hybrid resistant to corn borer with its non-Bt isoline= . The Bt = hybrid was 100% effective in preventing corn borer damage. This has been a valuable addition = to farmers’ insect control arsenal because neither seed treatments nor s= oil insecticides are effective in controlling European corn borers. Postemergence= insecticide applications are so inconvenient and inconsistent in their cont= rol that almost nobody uses them.

Now we have a new Bt, YieldGard= Rootworm, this one for Northern and Western corn rootworms, available from = some but not all seed companies. F= ield trials suggest that we’ll get a higher level of control and, where rootworm pressure is high, higher corn yield than with soil insecticides. While this certainly is good news = for farmers willing to use GM crops, the old Crops Dude is just a mite concerne= d, and here’s why:

The C.D. ran a series of over 20 soil insecticide strip trials way back in the = late 1970s, using several soil insecticides. (There were plenty of Northern corn rootworms around back then, but no Western corn rootworms.) These were simple comparisons, thr= ee or four replications, 4 to 6 rows treated, 4 to 6 rows untreated, record population, yield, and percent plants lodged. In about 75% of the trials, corn y= ields were higher where we used a soil insecticide, but seldom was there any sign= of lodging or goosenecked plants, which are the no= rmal signs of rootworm feeding.

Furthering the idea that there might be something else happening (instead of or in addition to corn rootworms) were a few nematode analyses we did at the same time. Nematodes are tiny thre= adlike worms, and got a lot of press in the Midwest during the late 1970s when it was found that controlling nematodes increased corn yields by over 40 bushels per acre.

We first did a 1977 trial in a Chazy corn field as a part of a chemical company’s national research program.= It was one of 18 fields involved in the study, the only field east of the Corn Belt. This field had (by several multipl= es) the highest concentration of dagger nematodes, and at level an Iowa State University nematologist said was damaging.

We then did a trial on a West Chazy farm in 1978, finding that use of an insecticide-nematicide reduced the concentratio= n of root lesion nematodes in the soil from 226 (control) to 61 per 100 cc of soil. (Concentrations of over= 200 root lesion nematodes per 100 cc of soil are generally considered to cause economic damage.) We then ana= lyzed the roots of untreated plants, finding 1366 nematodes per gram of root. (Anything over 1000 per gram is li= kely to cause damage.) Therefore, = both soil and root analyses suggested that we had an honest-to-goodness nematode problem.

How much of the yield increase in those 25-year ago trials was due to controlli= ng rootworms, and how much was due to controlling nematodes and any of seve= ral other soil pests? How muc= h of the yield response in current soil insect trials is due to controlling something other than corn rootworms? This isn’t as important if we use a wide-spectrum soil insecticide, but before we start using a lot of YieldG= ard Rootworm corn we really need to know what’s chewing on our roots.

E.T.<= i><= /p>

OUT THERE

· = Over the last decade, rich, dark coffee labeled as "shade-grown" has found= a multimillion-dollar market in the United States. But the questi= on for sippers remains: Does buying coffee with a shade-grown seal really have a positive impact on biodiversity? Of the two certification labels found in t= he USA - t= he Rainforest Alliance, and the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Centre's Bird Frien= dly program - the latter rated a recent study's top marks.

(Christine Mlot. Winter 2004.)

· = The Supreme Court recently heard arguments on a case that may allow the governm= ent to use 'Eminent Domain' to take land from private property owners to facili= tate business development that would generate more tax revenue. The ruling shoul= d be watched because it could apply to farms that are close to cities or towns.<= o:p>

(Rich Pottorff,December 10, 2004.)

· = USDA is calling for a record corn crop of 10,932 billion bushels and the timing couldn't be better. Worldwide demand for corn and other grains has left sto= rage bins practically empty. "We have no major grain reserves anywhere in t= he world, " said J.B. Penn, under secretary fo= r the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service.

(Beef Business Bulleti= n, 2004).

· = The First comprehensive study of organic agriculture in California challenges the popular noti= on that organic farming is dominated by small family-owned farms and shows how= the industry's regulatory structure has thwarted the very benefits that have generated strong public support for organic agriculture. "One percent = of U.S. agricultural acreage is organic, comp= ared to nearly 30 percent in Australia, Italy has over 45,000 organic farms. We really have to ask ourselves how successf= ul our approach has been.", says Julie Guthman, the author of the study.

(ATTRA, 2004)

· = Inmates at the Seminole County Correctional Facility, who have been growing their own vegetables for more than 10 years, are now raising thousands of beneficial bugs that attack pests and feed on troublesome weeds in Florida. The ins= ect farming program - the first of its kind in the nation - will generate about $2,000 year for the inmate welfare fund at the facility and help inmates develop marketable skills for future employment.

(Ta= ylor, 2004)

· = Did you know that farmers smoke half as much as the general population and = wind up with bronchitis twice as much as the general population? Breathing probl= ems are common in the farm population.

(Arleen Clark, healthy Horizons 2004).

M.T.<= i><= /p>

WEATHER PREDICTIONS

Both permutations of the Farmer’s Almanac are predicting a cold, sn= owy winter—at least the first half of it. Of course up here in the subtundra of Northern N.Y. where winter starts lo= ng before the official start on Dec. 21^st, that “first half” can be several months long.&nb= sp; However, the National Weather Service is predicting normal temperatu= res and below normal precipitation from January through March. If nothing else, winters up here a= re interesting: December is norm= ally one of the driest months of the year, but we had measurable precipitation 1= 2 of the first 14 days of December before the entire region went into the deep freeze. This was one of the w= ettest (or whitest, depending on where you live) Decembers in many years.

GENETIC ENGINEERING TIMELINE

Following are some important dates in man’s attempt at manipulating plant and animal genes:

8000 B.C.: Humans domesticate crops and livestock, and begin genetic selection.<= o:p>

1963 A.D. Mendel discovers that tr= aits are inherited through genes.

1906: First use of the word “genetics”.

1916: First use of the word “biotechnology”.

1933: Hybrid corn is commercialized.

1941: First use of the term “genetic engineering”.<= /p>

1980: Exxon patents a genetically engineered oil-eating bacterium.

1981: Agricultural Research Service develops a foot-and-mouth disease vaccine usi= ng gene splicing.

1982: Genentech markets genetically engineered human insulin.

1984: First transgenic farm animals (sheep and pigs) born.

1986: Release of the first genetically engineered crop—tobacco.<= /span>

1991: Release of the first genetically engineered food—“Flavr Savr” tomatoe= s.

1995: Bt cotton and Bt corn approved by EPA.

Source: Agricultural Research, Sept. 2004=

FARM NOTES

· &n= bsp; Anti-biotechnology measures were defeated in four California counties last November. One anti-biotech measure did pass in Mendocino County six months p= rior to that, it just so happens that there aren’t any genetically modified crops grown there in the first place.

· &n= bsp; A University of Wisconsin st= udy found that a three-year alfalfa rotation (including the establishment year) provides $17 per acre more profit than a five-year rotation. Shorter rotati= ons result in higher quality alfalfa, and also provide more N to the succeeding corn crop.

·  &n= bsp;      U.S. food dollars spent on= organic and natural foods have increased by 72% in the past five years, and now represent about 10% of total food sales. Several large companies including Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Kraft and Kellogg are now selling organic foods.<= /o:p>

NOTABLE QUOTES: GUYS AND GALS

·      =    There are two theories to arguing with a woman...neither works. Will Rogers

·      =    I'm a great housekeeper. I get divorced. I keep the house. Zsa<= /i> Zsa Gabor

·      =    By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you= get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. Socrates

·      =    An archaeologist is the best husband a woman can have; the older she gets, the more interested he is in her. Agatha Christie

·      =    When women = are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country.
Elayne Boosler

·      =    Long engagements give people the opportunity of finding out each other's character before marriage, which is never advisable. Oscar Wilde=

·      =    What are the three words guaranteed to humiliate men everywhere? “Hold my purse.'"
Sandra Bullock

·      =    A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car. Carrie Snow=

CALENDAR EVENTS

http:= //www.whminer.com/calendar.html