FARM MANAGEMENT CHANGES AT THE INSTITUTE

On March 14^th Steve Couture will assume responsibilities as dairy farm manage= r at Miner Institute. (Marco Turco has accepted a po= sition on a large organic farm.) Steve has extensive herd management experience at several large dairy farms in the region, including most recently at Adirond= ack Farms in Peru. We’re pleased to welcome Steve into the Miner Institute “family”. His email (as of March 14^th) is couture@whminer.com or phone 518-846-7121, ext. 133. Steve is more comfortable with cows than with a word processor, so future “What’s Happening on the Farm” artic= les will be co-authored by Steve and Ev, with Steve providing most of the information.

Until March 14, our dairy management intern Rach= el Oakes has herd management duties as a part of her one-year internship. Rach= el would like a career in herd management, and her experience in running our operation on a day-to-day basis should be helpful. At the end of her manage= ment experience her performance will be evaluated by our barn crew, something they’re looking forward to with good humor.

WHAT&#= 8217;S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

As would be expected with any new dairy facility we’ve had some growing pains, mostly involving the automatic ventilation system. During the frigid days of mid-January (eleven straight subzero nights with several in the -20<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:13.5pt;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 range) it was rainin= g inside the barn, as the ventilation system wasn’t coping with the high humid= ity in the milking parlor and holding area. The fact that w= e have a flush system for that area, and therefore lots of moisture, didn’t help. However, since then we’ve made some adjustments to the curtains’ open-close cycle that’s dramatically improved the situation. Even during the coldest days the curtains need to be open for a short time to let the humid air out. We also need to keep in mind that what= we have is an insulated barn, not a “warm” barn since the ideal wi= nter temperature in there is about 40= °F. At that temperature= the cows are comfortable and condensation should be minimal.<= /p>

We’= ve been buying a lot of cows and bred heifers in an effort to fill our new 272-stall barn, since an empty stall doesn’t make any money. Dairy Outreach Coordinator Wanda Emerich<= /span> has been doing a great job of lining up groups of registered Holsteins from good herds, making sure they’re tested for = leukosis and Johnes disease. This isn’t in her job description, but at Miner Institute one must be flexible. (At least that’s what we’re telling Wanda.) We’re up to about 240 c= ows going through the parlor, from 142 a year ago. Most of the “new girls” have made the transition very well, and in spite of a pile of first calf heifers, milk production per cow has been holding at about 80 lbs with some of the purchased cows topping 100 lbs.

Ev Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK – Analysis Of Seven Ye= ar Behavior Data Base At Miner Institute: Part Two

Last month I summarized what we’ve learned so= far about cow time budgets from a database that we’ve assembled at the Institute. This month I’d like to share highlights of a few of the individual projects that have been conducted here during the past seven yea= rs. Although some studies were conducted as “pilot” studies, itR= 17;s amazing how much information one can glean from them when viewed together. = And what is most exciting for me is that we will continue conducting research to add to the usefulness of this database in the future. Here are the essential results fro= m five studies that were conducted and contributed to this database.

·         Hock scores and cow behavior. A study by Cannon et al. (2001) gr= ouped cows into two groups according to hock score: 1) hock score>3, and 2) hock score ≤3. In this study, cows with hock scores less than 3, compared with cows having hock scores greater than or equal to 3, h= ad similar eating times, greater number of meals, reduced resting times, incre= ased rumination while lying, reduced rumination while standing, similar total rumination time, and less time in the holding pen. We need to conduct studi= es that evaluate any changes in productivity associated with these behavioral responses. We are monitoring changes in hock score of our herd since the co= ws moved from the old to the new barn, and the hocks have improved significant= ly over time – look for a report soon on this subject.

·      =    Lameness and cow behavior. A study conducted by Steele (2002) evaluated t= he influence of lameness on behavior at two different sites. Farm 1 (Miner Institute) had 3x milking with alley scraping by a skid steer conducted thr= ee times daily. Consequently, cows were forced to move fairly often throughout= the day. Site 2 (Ballard Acres) had 2x milking and alley scrapers so that daily management routines interfered less with the cows’ behavior. Cows were sorted into two groups: 1) lameness score <3, or 2) lameness score of 3 or greater (score 3 indicates moderate lameness). Lying time was increased for lame cows on both farms. Rumination time was relatively unaffected at both sites. However, eating time was influenced by lameness differently at each farm. At site 1, eating time was unaffected, b= ut it was reduced substantially for lame cows at site 2. Meal length was great= er for cows at site 2 compared with site 1. Management routines differed betwe= en farms and appeared to influence behavioral response. This needs to be considered when predicting behavioral response to lameness for any given fa= rm.

·      =    Body size and dominance hierarchy for fresh cows. Morgan (1998) evalua= ted the relationship between body weight and social dominance for cows in the f= resh group. Fresh cows are naturally less competitive, particularly cows that wo= uld ordinarily rank as subordinates due to size and age. When comparing body we= ight to position in the dominance hierarchy, this study found that body weight explained about 59% of the variation in social position within a group of f= resh cows. This relationship should be considered when designing fresh cow management strategies such as potentially grouping heifers and cows separat= ely and(or) ensuring ample manger space and access to stal= ls and water. Cows with a dominance hierarchy value less than 3 (subordinate cows), versus more dominant cows, had slightly less eating time, substantially less ruminating time while lying, greater ruminating time while standing, slight= ly less total lying time, and greater standing time.

·      =    4x milking frequency for fresh cows. Garr (2003) evaluated the influence of 4x milking for the first 21 d= ays of lactation on cow behavior. Cows were milked 4x for four months before the study was conducted. Behavioral observations were ma= de for cows being milked 4x, on the day of switchin= g from 4x to 2x, and after switching to 2x. There was no difference among the different time points in eating time, drinking time, and milking time. Numb= er of meals was greater for cows milked 4x versus 2= x. Resting times appeared to be greater for cows milked 4x and 2x compared to = cows on the day of switching from 4x to 2x.

Look for more information in the future as results become available!<= /span>

Rick Grant<= /st1:PersonName><= /p>
grant@whminer.com

VET’S CORNER

Year-end record keeping and review for the farm tax accountant can stimulate questio= ns by our farm clients about the size of their vet bill. By breaking down the bill, we attempt to use this as a positive exercise to identify areas for improvement for the new year. Parts of a vet bill represent a premeditated investment by the farm in improved management. Some farm finan= cial experts have predicted an 8:1 return to the dairy for expense on herd health/production medicine time.

Vaccine purchases should be reviewed to prove that vaccination protocols are being followed. After working up a strategic respiratory disease vaccination protocol, our practice noted that no MLV vaccine had been purchased for six months at one farm. This fact led the owner to discover that the new herdsp= erson was not aware of the protocol and half of the herd was not protected. In another herd we found that only enough J-5 E. Coli vaccine had been purchas= ed to protect a third of the herd. By reviewing the vet bill it was discovered that the herdsperson did not understand that each cow needed three boosters every year and had been administering only one injection upon entrance into= the close-up dry group.

Herd problems can be found when excessive expense is noted. When a steady stream= of one DA surgery/week was being performed by several vets in a multiple person practice, the magnitude of the problem was being overlooked. In a herd of 2= 00 milk cows, 6-10 surgeries/ year are a reasonable goal. When the vet bill demonstrated 17 surgeries in a six-month period it caused alarm so the herdsperson schedule= d a farm team meeting with all involved with feeding to plan correction of the = now urgent DA problem.

The high cost of treatments, such as Naxcel/Excenel= and Banamine, can inflate a vet bill quickly. A few times= in the past, the farm owner was surprised at the large proportion of the vet b= ill made up of purchase of these two items alone. In those cases the owner discovered that the fresh cow pen manager was not taking temps on fresh cows and found it easier to just inject them with meds. In another case the high usage of these drugs was due to viral respiratory disease in the fresh cow = pen, which was eventually improved by a change in the timing of respiratory vacc= ine in the dry cows and heifers.

The vet bill per cow varies so much farm-to-farm that no overall goal can be recommended. Veterinary practices know that their clients have many sources= of animal health supplies. By monitoring individual farm’s purchases periodically, we hope to add unique value to the vet bill.

Kent E Henderson, DVM

cowdoc@adelphia.net

MILK YIELD AT DRY-OFF AND THE PROBABILITY OF INTRAMAMMARY INFECTIONS AT CALVING<= o:p>

Recently it was noted that some cows at the Institute were producing over 70 lb of m= ilk at the end of lactation when they were dried off. Many of these cows are go= ing to be used in a close-up period nutrition study and followed during the fre= sh period. This situation caused me to revisit the issue of how milk yield at = dry-off is related to intramammary infections at calvin= g. Debate over the relative importance of milk yield at dry-off continues to evolve, especially as the genetic potential for milk yield of cows continue= s to increase.

A couple of recent studies shed some light on the topic. Ohio State researche= rs looked at 116 lactations of 96 multiparous cows= over a 16-month period and found that milk yield at dry-off was significantly associated with environmental intramammary infe= ctions at calving. For every 11 lb increase in milk yield at dry-off above 27.5= lb, the odds of a cow having an intramammary infect= ion caused by an environmental organism at calving increased by 77%. There = was no relationship between milk yield at dry-off and coagulase negative staphylococcal intramammary infections. All cows received antibiotic= dry period treatment.

Guelph researchers evaluated cow factors associ= ated with dry-off and the occurrence of intramammary infections during the dry period for 300 cows in 5 herds from New York, Kansas, Iowa, and Prince Edward Island. Cows that produced ³<= /span> 46 lb of milk at dry-= off were 1.8 times more likely to have teat canals stay open. This contributed to h= igher producing (³<= /span> 46 lb of milk at dry-= off) cows having more (36%) intramammary infections compared to lower producing cows (18%).

It appears that the increase in new intramammary infections during the dry period in high producing cows may be due to leaka= ge of milk and slower formation of the protective keratin plug. These factors allow bacterial entry to the udder and predispose cows to environmental organisms for a longer period.

&nbs= p;

Take Home Messages

·         Higher milk yield at dry-off is associated with delayed and reduced teat closure a= nd a higher risk for new intramammary infections dur= ing the dry period.

·         Environmental organisms typically cause new intramammary infe= ctions during the dry period in cows that were high producers at dry-off.

·         Management practices that minimize bacterial challenge from the environment should be implemented. Also, practices that improve teat-end integrity and teat canal closure during the dry period should be used.

Heather Dann<= /p>
dann@whminer.com=

Editor’s note: Heather Dann started here in April 2004 on a postdoctoral program but we liked her so mu= ch we hired her, effective Jan. 1^st. Her areas of emphasis are transition cow research and cell wall digestibility. She got her PhD. from = the University of Illinois, so don’t ask her a= bout the #1 ranked Illini men’s basketball team unless you have some time… (According to Ev, the only reason Illinois is ranked #1 is that they haven’t yet played UCo= nn.)

<= /o:p>

PRODUCTION RESPONSE TO BMR CORN SILAGE

In 2004 we planted 50 acres of BMR corn that yielded a total of about 800 tons= of silage. We started feeding this silage the first of December 2004 to our close-ups, fresh, high and lactating heifer groups. The thought being that = the close-ups and fresh would benefit the most from the higher digestibility co= rn during the transition period by allowing for greater fiber and total DM consumption. The high cows and milking heifer group should also be able to increase DMI and possibly increase milk production. The NDFd30 values for t= he BMR corn silage and our non-BMR corn for the past 3 months have been consis= tent at 63% and 50% respectively. Expectations were higher digestibility, higher intake, and higher production.

We introduced the BMR silage “cold turkey”. There was no gradual increase in feeding rate of the BMR. We simply switched corn bunks and fed = more of it than the non-BMR. Table 1<= /span> lists the changes in forage: concentrate ratio and percentage of corn silag= e in the diets between the conventional corn and BMR corn rations. (Note, we saw no off-feed or diges= tive upset when making the switch to the BMR CS)

The first few days, of BMR feeding entailed a bit of “blind groping” as we tried to ensure the diets contained enough forage and effective fiber given the higher digestibility. Ralph, our feede= r, was diligently taking Koster DMs to match the balanced DM lbs to be fed. Given that this was not a designed “feed’em and w= eigh’em” trial, or “switch-back design” the data we have is from reviewi= ng production records of the high group and heifers for the week prior to feed= ing the BMR CS (November 21-28) and three weeks later after complete rumen adaptation to the BMR (December 20-23).&nb= sp; During this period, however, cows were regrouped; weather was variab= le and DIM increased by 21. Regardless, we reviewed the production records of = cows that remained in their respective group for the 3 weeks to compare milk production before and with BMR CS. See Table 2.

The individual cow data is minimal at best as there are few animals within given DIM that remained in their group to allow comparison of production effects = due to the BMR CS. Table 3 pr= esents whole herd production data based on bulk tank milk shipped for the same time period.

The production data alone do not show great benefit= to feeding BMR CS. However, with the increased levels of forage in the BMR die= ts we would hope to see improved rumen health as well as overall health, especially during the transition period. Without a controlled research tria= l it is difficult to make any assessments as to improved health because of the B= MR CS. Over time the health bene= fits may become more obvious. Maintaining production on the higher forage diets = does indicate a nutritional benefit to the BMR CS; more milk from forage. Declar= ing an economic benefit would require diligent documentation to reduced concent= rate purchases and improved animal health. One prevented DA could pay for a lot = of BMR seed.

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

PACKING BUNKER AND STACK SILOS

Two things have happened to bunker and stack silos in recent years: New silos a= re bigger and forage delivery rates have increased, often because of the use of a cus= tom harvester. Four factors have a significant effect on silage density: Packing tractor weight, forage delivery rate, forage layer thickness during packing, and silage depth.

·      =    Packing tractor weight: This is pretty much a given, though you can increase the weight by adding weight to the front of the tractor and/or fil= ling the tires with solution. Another option is to use a second tractor, especia= lly if both operators are alert enough that they’ll pack the silage witho= ut running over each another. Contrary to what we were told (in all seriousnes= s) by a California dairyman, the fact that the guy running the packing tractor weighs 300 lbs has little effect on packing efficiency.
·      =    Forage delivery rate: This has increased considerably on many farms,= but few farmers or custom operators are willing to slow down to allow for additional packing. The ideal for many moderate size farms is to have no mo= re than 30 tons of fresh forage delivered to the silo per hour. Much more than that and you’ll either need two tractors, or a really big one. Many farmers deliver forage to the silo at 60 tons per hour or more. At 60 tons = per hour and 10-12 foot bunker silo height, even if you do a great job of sprea= ding out the forage in 6” layers and have a tractor on the pile every minu= te you’re filling, you’ll need a tractor weighing at least 30,000 lbs—generally that’s a tractor of at least 150 HP.

·      =    Forage layer thickness: This is often overlooked as a significant fact= or, and farmers are often surprised at the effect packing layer thickness has on silage density. In the above example—10-12 foot bunker silo height, 60 tons/hour, if you spread the forage in 12” layers instead of 6”, you’d need two 30,000 lb tractors to achieve the minimum recommended silage density. Between loads, the tires of the packing tractor should pass over almost the entire surface of what has just been spread. Du= als will help achieve this; research has shown that duals neither help nor hurt packing density: There’s half as much weight per contact inch but twi= ce as many contact inches. All in all I think duals are a plus, especially if they’re filled with solution, since they add to total packing tractor weight. Plus, on silos with steep sides they provide more stability and may help to reduce the blood pressure of the guy on the packing tractor.

·      =    Silage depth: As long as you can reach the top to unload properly, and maintain= an adequate feedout rate, the greater silage depth (height of packed silage), the better. ThereR= 17;s also the matter of safety for the person packing the silo. In general the s= ide slope, either from the crown of a bunker silo or for a stack silo, should b= e no steeper than 3:1.

We have experience at the Institute when it comes to the need for proper packi= ng. Some years ago we were seeing small patches of mold in our bunker silos, and after two “silage gurus” told us we weren’t packing well enough we weighed our packing tractor (actually a Timb= erjack) and discovered that they were right. We then started using a much heavier tractor and for some strange reason our silage problems decreased significantly. (Anyone who says he never has had any silage problems is kid= ding himself, or trying to kid us.) Oh, the ERNs still gripe on occasion about our silage, but now their complaints focus more on forage quality than on mold. And since “forage quality” isn’t nearly as visible or definable as = is moldy silage, they’re easier for the Crop Dude to ignore.<= /span>

Ev Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=

SEED CORN PRETREATMENTS

Following up on an article in the December issue of this newsletter: Farmers should g= ive serious consideration to the relatively new insecticide-fungicide seed pretreatments (applied by the seed company). Some of these are meant to rep= lace farmer-applied planterbox treatments, while oth= ers are to replace granular soil insecticides. Originally I reported that the s= eed pretreatments for corn rootworm control were about the same price as granul= ar soil insecticides, but that was before we had the new (and in many cases lower) prices for soil insecticides. Force 3G is about 15% cheaper than last year,= or several dollars per acre less than pretreatments Poncho 1250 and Cruiser BB= /CR. On the other hand, for farmers with a rootworm problem but no granular insecticide boxes on their corn planter, these products offer a relatively = safe (very low insecticide rate) and convenient way to control moderate rootworm infestations.

One distinct advantage pretreated seed has over planterbox= treatments is that the pretreatment is really st= uck to the seed. Planterbox treatments, on the other h= and, are “dusted” on and, especially with air/vacuum corn planters b= ut also with finger pickup units, can get blown/sucked/knocked from the seed. = One Midwest trial (don’t ask for the source since I’ve long since l= ost it) found that with finger pickup planters less than 25% of the planterbox treatment stayed with the seed all the way= into the seed furrow. With air/vac= uum planters the percentage was even less. This doesn’t necessarily mean = that there’s not enough left to do some good: A trial we did here at the Institute, using our John Deere finger pickup planter, resulted in 6% more plants where we used a planterbox treatment com= pared to an untreated control. = Cornell University’s Extension entomologist Elson Shields acknowledges the potential vacuum plan= ter problem, and recommends mixing the planterbox treatment with the seed before dumping it into the hopper.

Nothing is perfect, however, and there are concerns about the continued use of low = (sublethal) rates of a seed pretreatment that at higher rates would kill corn rootworms. Sublethal doses could in the long run make things worse, since research has shown that this increases the risk of developing insect resistance. That’s why Elson doesn’t recommend using low-rate insecticide pretreatments (such as Poncho 250) on more than 50% of your corn acreage. Here are some ideas for a long-term soil insect control program:

·      =    First year corn—No corn rootworm insecticide needed. Use a planterbox treatment, or (especially if you have an air planter) a low-rate insecticide pretreatment such as Poncho 250.

·      =    Second year corn—Option 1: Same treatment as year one. Option 2: If rootworms are likely to be a problem and you’ll use a soil insecticide for corn rootworm control, you can use 75% of the full labeled rate. Opt= ion 3: Use an insecticide pretreatment labeled for rootworm control such as Poncho 1250 or Cruiser BB/CR.

·      =    Third and later years of corn—Use Poncho 1250 or Cruiser BB/CR if rootw= orms are a moderate problem, or use the recommended rate of a soil insecticide s= uch as Counter or Force if you expect heavy rootworm pressure.

Research has shown that corn rootworms can become resistant to soil insecticides = within five years if the entire population is exposed to the same class of insecticides. In spite of this, there have been no confirmed cases of insecticide-resistant rootworms in over 40 years. Wise use of both old and = new insect control technologies is the best way to ensure a continuation of this excellent track record.

Ev Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=

MEETING LOCA= TION CHANGE

The “Insect Control in Field Crops” meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 15 conflicts with a Cargi= ll Animal Nutrition meeting: “Enhancing Your Forage Management: Removing Roadblocks to Higher Productivity”. We’ve therefore decided to combine the meetings, with Cargill’s forage management meeting in the morning beginning at 10:00 AM and the insect control meeting in the afterno= on starting right after lunch at approximately 12:30. The insect control meeting has been approved by NYSDEC for 1.5 Pesticide Applicator Training credits. The meeting will be at Guma’s Restaurant, Rte. 22, West= Chazy.

If you want to attend the meeting—including a nice lunch compliments of Cargill—call Cargill’s Swanton Plant at 800-462-5551. If you only want to attend t= he insect control meeting, plan on showing up about 12:30 pm. However, the mor= ning session promises to be an excellent one and you’ll probably want to attend both.

CRITTER QUES= TIONS

·      =    Isn’t it remarkable that our government can track a single cow born in Canada three y= ears ago, right to her stall in the state of Washington? USDA also was able to track her calves, again right to their stalls. But our Federal government is unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow...

·      =    When man discovered that milk came from cows, what did he THINK he was doing?=

·      =    On a statue of a person on a horse, if the horse has both front leg= s in the air the person died in battle. If the horse has one front leg in the air the person died as a result of wounds received in battle. If the horse has = all four legs on the ground, the person died of natural causes. Does this mean = that if the horse has all four legs in the air, it died in battle?

·      =    If carrots are good for the eyes, how come there are so many dead rabbits on the highway?

RESEARCH SUM= MARIES

·      =    Hispanic women in Tex= as were giving birth to babies with birth defects at a rate six times m= ore than normal. Recently the cause was determined to be <= span class=3DGramE>fumonisin, a mycotoxin found in unprocessed corn—something t= he affected women ate in significant quantity. Research in a number of countri= es including the U.S. has found that where corn borers are a serious problem, Bt corn (the genetically engineered stuff) reduced the amount of fumonisin by 90-95% compared to conventional (non-Bt) and organically grown corn.

·      =    Some corn plants are infected with a fungus, <= i>Acremonium zeae, that Agricultural Research Service= and Iowa researchers thought had no effect on the plants. Now they’ve discover= ed that the fungus does affect corn, but the good news is that it helps ward o= ff other (bad) fungi including the toxin-producing molds Asp= ergillus and Fusarium as well as some bacteria. The beneficial fungus is carried naturally within the corn seed, growing into the seedling and then throughout the plant.

DUELING DATA

The other day the Crops Dude was breaking bread with a local seed dealer, who obviously wanted more of the Institute’s seed corn business than he already had. When it was mentioned that part of the reason was that we̵= 7;ll be growing quite a bit of BMR corn in 2005, the dealer noted that we could = get the same increase in digestibility simply by chopping our corn at 18” rather than at 6”, and not have to pay $250 per unit for seed corn.

“Oh no” said the C.D., “there’s a lot more difference in digestibility between BMR chopped at 6” and a dual purpose hybrid cho= pped at 18”, and we have the data to prove it. Show me your data.”

So, by golly, he did—from the University of Wisconsin—and sure enou= gh, that data showed that a BMR hybrid chopped at 6” had only one percent= age point or so of advantage in NDF digestibility over a dual-purpose hybrid chopped at 18”. Hmmm. So we reviewed the m= ost recent silage digestibility analyses on Miner Institute’s corn silage—a bunker silo of BMR corn harvested at 6” chop height and another bunker silo of several dual-purpose hybrids harvested at 13”. While this isn’t quite the same as a 6” to 18” comparison, we’ve done research here at the Institute that found the NDF digestibility difference between 12” and 18” chop height to be = very small indeed.

As you can see, there was little difference in maturity or apparent grain cont= ent between the two silages, since both DM and NDF are close. The difference in lignin is expected since the BMR gene reduces lignific= ation in the corn plant. The 50% NDF digestibility for high chop corn silage at t= he Institute is quite normal—in vitro digestibility analyses on dual pur= pose corn silage hybrids grown here are usually only a few percentage points one side or the other of 50% NDF-d. What is notable is the big difference in ND= F-d between the dual purpose and BMR corn silage.

A better comparison is a side-by-side trial done at= the Institute this past year involving a BMR corn hybrid and a dual-purpose hyb= rid that in Cornell University trials has had very goo= d in vitro digestibility. In fresh forage analyses, the dual-purpose hybrid aver= aged 55.8% NDF-d while the BMR hybrid averaged 70.0% NDF-d.

Soooo, who’s right and who’s wrong? Probably nobody, based on what data each party has to go by. The University of Wisconsin fou= nd a much greater digestibility advantage to a dual purpose hybrid chopped at 18” vs. 6”, which is in contrast to the very small—1% poi= nt or so—digestibility advantage from high chop corn, both in the resear= ch done at Miner Institute and that done by Limin = Kung at the University of Delaware. In fact, Limin w= as so surprised at the tiny difference between 6” and 18” chop height that he didn’t believe his own data at first—had his research t= eam recheck their numbers, which, as you’ve figured out by now, were corr= ect.

This is what sometimes happens in field research, and why we need to be cautious about making long-term, high-investment decisions based on a single compari= son. The University of Wisconsin research compared a single dual-purpose hybrid and a single BMR hybrid. Maybe environmental conditions that year had a greater than normal effect on qual= ity as influenced by chop height. Maybe that BMR hybrid was lower in quality th= an we normally see with this type of hybrid. Maybe, maybe, maybe…. =

Ev Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=

FIGURES CAN LIE, AND LIARS CAN FIGURE

Warning: Ev is going to discuss statistics, always a dic= ey proposition. He will also discuss statistical theory and practice, on the surface a truly grim subject, but please read on a bit further…<= /o:p>

Agricultural researchers are in love with tests of statistical significance. If something can’t be proven to a 95% confidence level, then while it may indeed be true, it’s not statistically verified. I have no problem with subject= ing data to statistical analysis, but I do have a problem with the idea in many—but fortunately not all—agricultural scientists that if, f= or instance, one treatment compared to another isn’t statistically significant at 0.05 (which simply means that there’s a 95% chance that the difference is real and repeatable) then it’s simply “NSD= 221; which means “not significantly different” in statistics-speak. = Hogwash.

The level of confidence we need in comparing two hybrids, or two fertilizer treatments, is completely different in the level of confidence we need̵= 2;or at least should want—in, say, medical research. The key is risk-rewar= d. For instance, if you’re comparing two corn hybrids that cost about the same and are of similar maturity, if Hybrid A yi= elded more than Hybrid B in a field trial, and this difference was statistically significant at 0.10 but not at 0.05, would you be willing to buy Hyb= rid A? What’s the risk, since there’s a 1 in 10 chance that Hybrid = A is indeed not higher yielding than Hybrid B? Will your cows die? Will y= our barn burn down? No, you just won’t have quite as much corn. To put a = more positive spin on it—would you be willing to buy Hybrid A if there’s a 90% chance that it’s higher yielding than Hybrid B= ?

However, what if you wanted to take a pill that would improve your love life (I know= , a ridiculous and unnecessary proposition), and your doctor told you that these little pink pills would probably work wonders, that lab research had proven= at a 90% confidence level (statistically significant at 0.10) that the pills do what they’re supposed to. In this case, is a 90% confidence level acceptable, if the risk is that the pink pills could cause certain body par= ts to shrivel like a corn leaf after the first frost? Obviously, what’s “acceptable risk” in the corn field isn’t acceptable in t= he medical research lab.

Encouragingly, an increasing number of research reports are including 0.10 in their measur= es of statistical probability, and a few years ago a highly respected crop scientist, in an article in the Agronomy Journal, made essentially t= he same argument as made here. In summary, there’s nothing magic about something statistically significant at the .05 level—in large part it’s a matter of risk-reward, both economically and otherwise.

Ev Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=

ASIAN SOYBEAN RUST UPDATE—AND A LESSON LEARNED

The Southern Plant Diagnostic Network reports that soybean rust has survived the winter on leaves of kudzu in P= asco County, Florida= . This is the only confirmation to date where soybean rust has overwintered in the continental U.S. Other soybean rust survey efforts are ongoing in the southern U.S.

Farmers in the South initially were delighted to learn that soybean rust attacks ku= dzu, which is a very serious weed problem that fortunately won’t tolerate = our frigid North Country winters. They soon = were told, however, that kudzu is much too tough to be eradicated by a disease that’s simply the most devastating of all threats to soybeans. Kudzu = was brought into the U.S. = from Japan in 1876 as a part of the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. It was eventually discovered that livestock would eat the stuff, and during= the 1920s kudzu was promoted as forage crop. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Soil Conservation Service recommended it for erosion control and hundreds of Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) men planted it throughout the South wand then farmers were paid incentives by USDA to plant fields of the vines in the 1940s.

The problem with kudzu, as you’ve probably fi= gured out by now, is that it simply grows too well—as much as a foot per da= y, up to 60 feet per year. Kudzu now covers over seven million acres in the deep South and in 1972 was declared a weed by USDAR= 12;the same government agency that promoted it for erosion control. Oh well, it do= es do that…

WHY THE DARK AGES WERE DARK

Life in Engl= and during the Dark Ages wasn’t nearly as much fun—for lots of reasons—but here are some that are at least peripherally related to agriculture:

·      =    In the Dark Ages many houses had thatched roofs: Thick straw piled high, with no wood underneath. This was the only place for animals to get w= arm, so the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs, etc.) lived in the roof. W= hen it rained the roof became slippery, and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."=

·      =    Not all critters fell off the roof; some fell through= it, especially the smaller ones including an assortment of unpleasant creepy crawlers. To solve this problem, posts were attached to the corners of beds= and a sheet draped over them. That’s why canopy beds were invented—= to keep stuff from falling onto the occupants.

·      =    Sometimes the man of the house could obtain pork, a real treat. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off, since it wa= s a sign of wealth that a man could "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and everyone would sit around and "chew the fat."

·      =    Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid con= tent caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, sometimes causing fatal lea= d poisoning. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous. The German name for tomato translates as “wolf peach” and it was avoided for obvious reasons. Doubts about tomatoes as a foodstu= ff made their way to the New World, but reportedly were put to rest in 1820 wh= en Colonel Robert Gibbon Johnson announced that at noon on September 26, he wo= uld eat a bushel of tomatoes in front of the Boston courthouse. Thousands of eager spectators turned out to watch the poor man = die after eating the (supposedly) poisonous fruits, and were shocked when he li= ved.

·      =    Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom= of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the "u= pper crust”.

NOTABLE QUOT= ES

·      =    The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four Americans is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friend= s. If they are okay, then it's you. Rita Mae Brown

·      =    I think the best proof that intelligent life exists on other planet= s is that nobody from there has tried to contact us. Calvin, (Calvin & Hobbe= s)

·      =    A philosopher is a blind man in a dark cellar at midnight looking f= or a black cat that isn’t there. He is distinguished from a theologian, in that the theologian finds the cat. He is also distinguished from the lawyer, who smuggles in a cat in his coat pocket, and emerges to produce it in triumph. William Prosser,”My Philosophy of Law”, Cornell Law Quarterly, 1942.

·      =    Life is hard; it’s harder if you’re stupid. John Wayne

FARM REPORT CONTRIBUTORS – Meet the Writers

Ev= Thomas

Vice President, Agricultural Programs

Ev is the main contributor and Editor of the Farm Report. He has worked as an agronomist in Northern N.Y. since 1966, first as a regional Extension Specialist for Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> and since 1981 for Miner Institute. He received his B.S. in Animal Husbandry from the University of Connecticut and his M.S. in Extension Education from = Cornell University. Responsibilities include agricultu= ral production, research, and education. He is a Certified Crop Advisor and Certified Pesticide Applicator.

Kurt Kotanch

Director of Forage Lab

urt received = both his B.S. in Psychology and M.S. in Ruminant Nutrition from the University of Vermont. He managed the forage lab at the U= VM Agricultural Testing Lab from 1990-1996 and from 1998-2000. From 1996-1998 he worked for Nutrena Feeds out of the Swanton, VT, mill. He joined Miner Institute in 2001.= His responsibilities include instr= ucting students regarding forage quality, farm evaluation and ration balancing, as well as presenting research at local and national meetings. His primary focus is to provide an applied perspective to research and forage analyses.

Wanda Emerich<= /span>

Dairy Outreach Coordinator

Wanda is responsible for the coordination of educational progr= ams for students, farmers and agribusiness organizations through such events as Dairy Day, Corn Congress, Farm Days for Fifth Gr= aders, farm tours, and other educational programs and agribusiness training sessio= ns. She is responsible for overall leadership of the 14-week college student internship program, Summer Experience in Farm Management, and coordinates t= he one-semester course, Advanced Dairy Management. She earned both her B.S. in Animal Science and M.S. in Extension Education from the University of Vermo= nt.

Heather Dann

Research Associate

Heather Dann is a rese= arch associate at Miner Institute. She joined the research team in April 2004. Heather's formal education has been in Animal Science and Ruminant Nutritio= n. She received a B.S. from Cornell= University, a M.S. from Penn State University, and a Ph.D. from the Univ= ersity of Illinois. Heathe= r's graduate work focused on nutritional physiology of dairy cows during late gestation and early lactation. Her current interests include forage chemist= ry, nutritional physiology of dairy cattle, and the interaction of dairy cattle nutrition and the environment.

Kent Henderson, DVM=

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc

Kent graduated= from the Veterinary College at Iowa State University in 1974 and has been = in a dairy specialized veterinary practice in Vermont and New York for his entire career. As a y= outh, involvement in a 4-H agricultural club and being the son of a 37-year County Extension director gave the direction to a career in dairy veterinary practice. Ke= nt is the President/Business Manager of Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc. located in St. Albans, VT. Six veterinarians provide services= in Franklin County, VT and Eastern Clinton County, NY. Major interests are herd health me= dicine and reproduction, embryo transfer, parasitology= , and calf medicine. Professional associations include AVMA, VVMA, American Association of Bovine Practitioners, and American Embryo Transfer Association. One of Kent= 217;s favorite involvements at the Institute is to work with the students. After 10+ years of   4-H dairy club and quiz bowl involvement, it is great to see the students continue their dairy careers.<= o:p>

Rick Grant, Ph.D.

President

Rick has served as President of the Miner Institute since Febr= uary 2003. Prior to that time, Ric= k was a professor of ruminant nutrition and extension dairy specialist at the University of Nebras= ka, Lincoln= . His primary areas of interest incl= ude forage and nonforage sources of fiber, carbohydrate nutrition, and dairy cattle behavior. He received his B.S. in Animal Science from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and his Ph.D. in Ruminant Nutrition = from Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.&n= bsp; Rick was also a postdoctoral research associate at the U.S. Dairy-Fo= rage Research Center at the University of Wisconsin prior to becoming a professor at the = University of Nebraska. Rick’s primary role is to pr= ovide leadership to Institute staff as they work toward the common goal of optimi= zing the crop-animal interface through research and educational programs.

CALENDAR EVENTS

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

CLOSING COMM= ENT

If we learn by our mistakes, some of us are getting= a terrific education.