MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM - Sand vs. Sawdust

The decision to use either sand or sawdust for freestall bedding in our new dairy barn was an easy one. Concerning the use of sand, = the Crops Dude said “Over my dead body” or words to that effect. Th= is is a hot-button issue: During the planning stages we had two highly respect= ed dairy consultants say “Please tell me you’re going to use sand = in your freestalls. I love sand.” and “Please tell me you’re not going to use sand in your free stall= s. I hate sand.” To f= urther muddy the waters, the company designing our manure system said they couldn’t do it if we used sand, while agricultural engineers from both Cornell and Michigan State said we were = making a serious mistake in using sawdust-covered mattresses, that sand is the only realistic option.

Well, we’ve been in the new barn for about a year and the sky has not fallen and our cows have not all gone belly up from mastitis. In fact, since late = 2004 our somatic cell count has averaged 90,000. We’ve learned that one of= the keys is using enough sawdust. British Columbia research suggests at least 16 lbs of saw= dust per stall. We weighed the sawdust on top of our mattresses in several of ou= r freestalls and the average was 18.4 lbs. (There’= ;s a lot more sawdust per stall, but much of it isn’t on the mattress.)

This isn’t to say that sand isn’t a good bedding material—as l= ong as it stays in the freestall, which of course it doesn’t. Then it often becomes one of the worst bedding materi= als, at least for the people handling the manure. Of course, many farms are maki= ng sand work well—different strokes for different folks. Also, in the sp= irit of full disclosure, our gravity-flow manure system hasn’t been trouble-free and we had to back off a bit on the amount of sawdust to keep = the manure flowing freely. (The 18.4 lbs per stall was a= fter we reduced the amount of sawdust.) But udder health is good, hock sc= ores have improved since we moved out of the old barn (where we also had sawdust-bedded mattresses), and we’re convinced that for our farm, sawdust was the right decision.

The key to sawdust-bedded free stall mattress= es is using enough sawdust

This stall has at least the recommended 16 lbs of sawdust.=

&n= bsp;

=

Hock scores

Miner Institute/University of Vermo= nt graduate student Chris Hill has been keeping track of hock scores as our co= ws made the move from the old to the new freestall= barn. The objective is to determine if moving dairy cattle into larger stalls with softer, more comfortable beds would reduce the severity of hock lesion= s. The hocks of 80 cows were compared approximately three weeks after moving i= nto a new facility and again five months. The hocks were scored on a 1-5 scale = with 5 indicating the most severe lesions and 1 indicating no signs of abrasion.= The hock scores improved significantly after five months in the new barn, from = 2.77 to 2.61 (P < 0.02). These differences are small biologically, but= the time between observations was fairly short relative to the slow healing rat= e of injured hocks. after the initial observation Whi= le many factors affect hock lesions, this study showed that providing cows with larger stalls and a softer bed can reduce the severity of these lesions.

Crop trials

· &n= bsp; Bt vs. non-Bt for corn b= orer control—Two hybrids, Syngenta NK3030Bt and its non-Bt isoline NK3030, were planted in replicated four-row s= trips. Evaluations will include yield, percentage of lodged plants, corn borer infestation level, and (possibly) yeast and mold counts. =

· = Bt = vs non-Bt for corn rootworm control—Two hybrids, Golden Harvest H-46908RW (genetically resistant to corn rootworms) and the non-Bt isoline H-6907RR, were planted in replicated four-row strips. The non-Bt hybrid includes strips treated with Force soil insecticide and a no-insecticide control. Evaluations will include yield and percentage of lodged plants.

· = Brown midrib (BMR) vs. dual purpose corn for silage—A BMR hybrid and a dual purpose hybrid of similar maturity were planted in replicated four-row stri= ps. Evaluations will include yield and in vitro digestibility.

NEWS FROM THE FORAGE LAB

Last month’s article regarding peNDF and the v= arying degree of rumination elicited from various NDF sources struck a cord with a certain well-known ERN, now in private practice. Charlie Sniffen wrote back with some insights of his own from out in the “real world” of nutrition. Apparently he has run into a few herds that have tried feeding high chopped corn silage with less than stellar results. Char= lie notes that these farms had high forage quality to begin with and may have exacerbated a near-acidotic condition by switch= ing to the high chop corn. Having lo= st some effective fiber with the high chop, straw was brought into these ratio= ns as “peNDF-aid”. I decided to put th= is example to a test using Dr. David Mertens’ chewing data noted in last months article. The assumptions I made were that cows are fed 15 lbs DM from corn silage and th= at all 15 lbs. are replaced with high chop CS except when 1 lb of straw was fed with 14 lbs of high chop CS. = All else in our hypothetical diet is being kept the same and therefore ignored, just looking at the chewing time predicted under the CS scenario.

High chop CS runs about 2 units lower in NDF and 2 units higher in starch than c= orn chopped at the normal 6” height, as noted in the table. I have estima= ted the physically effective fiber (= pef) values. The chewing min/NDF are from Mertens 1997 (JDS 80:1463).

Based on these values, the conventional CS should provide 540 minutes of total chewing. The high chop CS pro= vides only 513 minutes of chewing; a net loss of 27 minutes of chewing time, thou= gh a net increase of 0.3 lbs of starch, adding fuel to the fire. However, when we add the 1 lb of straw to the high chop CS, the total minutes of chewing is = 619, resulting in a 79-minute gain above the conventional CS. We actually are feeding less peNDF but gain in predicted chewing time. So much for the peNDF value of the stalk left behind in the field wit= h high chop!

Certainly, the actual dietary circumstances need to= be considered when feeding high chop CS and when deciding whether to produce h= igh chop CS. The merits of high chop CS need to be determined for individual fa= rms and feeding situations. This exercise was not meant to be a recommendation to unilaterally add straw to rations with high chop C= S, but what an interesting concept: Improving the nutritional quality of high = chop CS by adding straw.

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

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK – Fiber Indigestion<= /p>
I spoke last week with a dairy farmer who asked about lignin and how it actua= lly reduces fiber digestibility. We were discussing how the weather could potentially influence the digestibility of= his forages. In other words, the different effects of cool and moist versus warm and moist growing conditions, or even dry condit= ions (is this possible in May/June in the Northeast)? Well, I was impressed with the dep= th of knowledge this farmer had, and his question regarding how lignin limits fib= er digestibility. I thought I would share the main points of the discussion th= is month because it provides me an opportunity to share an area of research we’re just starting this spring and summer: examining lignin and fiber bonds and how they change during rumen fermentation.

Lignin is negatively related to NDF digestibility, we all know this fact. However, depending on the crop and several other factors, the relationship between lignin content of a forage and NDF digestibility may not be that good. Particularly with corn silage, lignin itself may be poorly correlated with = NDF digestion. For example, Cornell researchers recently evaluated corn hybrids= and observed wide ranges in NDF digestibility with virtually no change in NDF or lignin. Corn silage samples that averaged 45% NDF and only ranged in lignin from 3.18 to 3.52% had 30-hour in vitro NDF digestibility ranging from 46.0= to 67.3%! In theory, that could translate into a range in milk production of 10 pounds! While we don’t really understand why there can be such a large range in actual fiber digestion with such a narrow range in lignin content,= there are several possibilities. We think that there may be substantial differenc= es among forages in exactly how lignin is linked with the NDF carbohydrates su= ch as hemicellulose. If some linkages are harder, = or even impossible, to break in the rumen during digestion, then the same amount of lignin could have very different effects on NDF digestibility depending on how that lignin was linked with the fiber.<= /o:p>

Lignin is essentially a plant plastic. If you think about the properties of plasti= c, then you quickly grasp why lignin would have a negative effect on fiber digestion. It is indigestible and repels water (both characteristics are bo= und to discourage rumen bacteria looking for a meal). If lignin is chemically b= ound to otherwise digestible carbohydrate in the plant cell wall, then directly = or indirectly it makes sense that the digestibility of that fiber will decreas= e. There are two basic types of bonds between lignin and fiber: ester and ether bonds. The names are unimportant, but what is critical is that ester bonds = can be broken in the rumen, but ether bonds cannot. So, if forage A has more et= her than ester bonds than forage B, its NDF digestibility should be lower, even with similar lignin content between forage A and B.

To test this idea, we are in the midst of a series of trials here at the Insti= tute designed to evaluate exactly how lignin is bound to fiber (ester versus eth= er bonds) over a wide range of forage types and maturities. We will measure how lignin is bound to fiber in the fresh plant sample and then how this patter= n of bonding changes during rumen fermentation. These studies will allow us to t= ruly measure which bonds break first in the rumen, and which bonds are most important in controlling NDF digestion for a variety of forages. We are eva= luating several corn hybrids, alfalfas of varying maturities, grasses, cereal grain hays, brown midrib sorghum-sudangrass, and seve= ral other forage types.

Our ultimate goal is to develop a better set of che= mical measurements to accurately predict NDF digestibility. Right now, lignin is commonly measured, but certainly has limitations. Measuring NDF digestion in vitro or in situ (in the rumen) is also done by commercial forage testing l= abs, but it is expensive and the procedures can be quite variable. We hope that better lab assays can be developed to measure NDF digestibility for use in ration formulation and forage benchmarking. Stay tuned in the coming months= as we finish up this research.

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

IMMUNOSUPPRESSION AT CALVING IS LINKED TO BODY CONDITION

Overconditioned c= ows around calving experience more severe immunosuppressio= n than thin or medium cows, according to Italian researchers in the June issu= e of the Journal of Dairy Science. Relationships have been well characterized betw= een body condition score (BCS) and the incidence of metabolic disorders such as fatty liver and ketosis. Until recently, no information was available on the association of obesity and body condition loss with dysfunction of the immu= ne system in dairy cows.

The objective of the study was to evaluate the relationship between BCS and lymphocyte (white blood cell) function. Thirty days before expected calving= , 21 Holstein cows were categorized as thin (= BCS < 2.5), medium (2.6 < BCS < 3.5), or overcond= itioned (BCS > 3.5). Cows were fed, housed, and managed similarly. Blood was collected before and after calving to assess lymphocyte function and nonesterified fatty acid (NEFA) concentration. <= /o:p>

Lymphocyte function as measured by secretion of interferon = g and IgM was lower in overconditioned cows than for thin= or medium cows. Interferon g directs the immune sy= stem's attack on viruses, bacteria, and other foreign substances that invade the b= ody, whereas, IgM is an antibody made by the body as= the initial response to an infection.

The alteration in lymphocyte function was proportional to the extent of body condition loss as assessed by measuring change in BCS and plasma NEFA. Thin, medium, and overconditioned cows lost 0.6, 1.1,= and 1.5 units, respectively, in the first 35 days of lactation. Overconditioned cows had higher plasma NEFA than thin or medium cows in the first week after calving, indicating greater lipid mobilization. There were negative correlations between plasma NEFA and interferon = g and IgM. Based on correlation analyses, plasma NEFA in transition cows should not ex= ceed 600 mmol/L in order to maximize lymphocyte function and minimize the severity of immunosuppression.

In summary, overconditioned cows have an increased= risk of infection because of decreased lymphocyte function that is associated wi= th lipid mobilization around calving. (The exact mechanism is unknown). Thus, = it is crucial to dry cows off at the proper BCS (3.25 to 3.5) and minimize pat= hogen load in the environment in order to reduce metabolic disorders and infectio= us diseases in cows during the transition period.

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

VET’S CORNER: Mastitis Clinical Cure vs. Bacteriological Cure

When a dairy producer and herd health veterinarian are discussing the outcome of clinical mastitis cases, is there a meeting of the minds or are two differe= nt outcomes being discussed? Generally, the producer should assume that the veterinarian is looking to eliminate the mastitis pathogen and is talking a= bout a bacteriological cure. And the veterinarian should assume that the producer wants put normal appearing milk back into the bulk tank for a c= linical cure. There is no right or wrong answer here, but the producer and his veterinarian need to be specific when pronouncing a cure.=

This month, for the first time in fourteen years, a new mastitis infusion treatm= ent tube is being introduced. The concept of extended duration of therapy is on the package insert for the fi= rst time. With a proper veterinarian-client-patient relationship in place, exte= nded duration can be prescribed for other products, but the new product will introduce the discussion of clinical vs. bacterial cure on many farms.=

For the veterinarian to evaluate a bacteriological cure for any mastitis treatm= ent, the producer should collect a sterile milk sample for culturing before antibacterial treatment. Although this rarely happens, another sterile milk sample should be taken 21-35 days after treatment ends to evaluate if the bacterium was successfully eliminated. When evaluating any mastitis treatme= nt product, not just this new one, the time and expense of the second test are justified to keep the product in the farm’s mastitis treatment protoc= ol.

For the dairy producer to evaluate clinical cure of the mastitis case, it is necessary to review treatment records for relapses and later recurrences on= the same cow and quarters. Loss of the amount of milk marketed should be determ= ined for each case and recurrence. Generally, milk is discarded for 2 to 5 days while the cow is under treatment and milk appears abnormal. Then it is discarded for another 36 to 72 hours depending on the product to prevent an= antibacterial residue. For this example, as= sume $12 (80# milk x $0.15/#milk) is lost daily for 3.5 to eight days, so $42-96 goes down the drain. Is this the whole milk sale loss? When monthly DHIA records are revi= ewed, production is commonly cut in half for a few weeks after a clinical case. A conservative estimate for this case would be that she only gives 40#/ day f= or the two weeks following treatment, so another $84 (40# milk x 14 days x $0.= 15/# milk) is lost while the cow is recovering. For this example, the dairy suff= ers a loss of $126-180 milk sale for each clinical case. If she is treated once= for five days and does not recur, the dairy loses $180. If she is treated two d= ays and recurs once, the dairy loses $252 (two clinical cases x $126/case). Thr= ee days extra treatment medicines to prevent a recurrence will not cost $72, so the extension of treatment to prevent recurrences is justified economically= .

If review of treatment records reveal that several animals are treated one or = two days and have an excessive number of retreats, the veterinarian could benef= it the dairy by instituting a milk culture program to monitor the bacteriologi= cal cure to enhance success of the farm’s treatment protocol.<= /span>

Kent E Henderson, DVM

cowdoc@adelphia.net

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

AIR COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT

Last month Miner Insti= tute signed EPA’s 50-page “Air Compliance Agreement” with some trepidation since, as one environmental attorney commented, in signing this= agreement farmers are jumping off a cliff holding hands with EPA, not knowing where they’ll land. Many farmers will sign the agreement with one hand hold= ing EPA’s hand and the other holding their nose—appropriate given EPA’s concern with foul odors. Meanwhile, guess where EPA’s oth= er hand will be? Reaching for the farmer’s wallet, of course.

EPA says it needs at l= east $1.5 million, or perhaps $9 million, for air quality research on four dairy farms including one in the Northeast. We didn’t send money with the agreement—that comes after EPA accepts it, then we have 30 days: $500= for large CAFOs (700+ cows), $200 for smaller opera= tions like ours. This isn’t to fund research, but is a fine for past sins—real and imagined. (This is like a cop giving you a speeding tic= ket on the assumption that you must have exceeded the speed limit one time or t= he other.) The research will cost participating farms up to $2500 per farm, regardless of herd size. If not enough dairy farms sign up, all bets are of= f. The alternative to signing the agreement is to hope that EPA inspectors nev= er visit your farm, and if they do that they don’t find any violations. = EPA has no hesitation at fining violators. How much are the fines? You don̵= 7;t want to know.

The Northeast Dairy Producers Association recommends that all dairies sign the agreement “= ;to assist the process of producing sound science that can properly quantify air emissions from modern animal feeding operations”. EPA’s goal is= to bring farms into compliance with the Clean Air Act and two other acts. T= he deadline for signup is July 1, 2005. All farmers signing the agreement will have to install “best available control technology” for all pollution sources where needed, and report any qualifying releases of ammon= ia and hydrogen sulfide. EPA is aiming at barns and manure storages, not field activities su= ch as manure spreading.

This isn’t just = for CAFO farms. However, nobody seems to know if mid-size farms would be affect= ed by air quality standards. A Wisconsin environmental attorney thinks that while the trigger might be as low as 400 cows, it’s more likely to be at least 1000. Au contraire, a Missouri agricul= tural engineer says that a dairy should consider signing if it has at least 100 cows.     =

So, we don’t kno= w if enough dairy farms will sign up, how much it would cost each farm to fund t= he research, what size farm will be affected, what “best available contr= ol technology” will be, and whether farms will be fined if they are out = of compliance. If ignorance is bliss, we must be positively orgasmic.

Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

A GOOD TIP<= /span>

After listening to Cornell University’s Andy Landers di= scuss the best and brightest in field sprayer tips, we bought low-drift nozzle ti= ps for our sprayer. This spring, as we do every year, we calibrated our spraye= r in the parking lot where it’s easy to see the spray pattern. At a pressu= re of 40 psi we were impressed at the spray pattern, but even more so with the lack of drift. There wasn’t a lot of wind when we were calibrating, b= ut even so, there didn’t seem to be any drift at all. Low drift nozzle t= ips are a really good idea, and aren’t expensive. You paid all that money= for your herbicides, why not put them where they belong instead of “blowi= ng in the wind”?

            =             &nb= sp;            =

JUNE IS DAIRY MONTH

News on the dairy front:

·      =    Since the discovery of the first BSE-positive cow in Washington in 2003 there hasn’t been one positive case in the U.S.

·      =    Some Canadian farmers want a BSE-related class action suit against = the Canadian government and Ridley Canada, seeking over $6 billion in damages. The suit alleges negligence in not more quickly banning ruminant-to-ruminant feeding. This would be the largest cla= ss action ever pursued in Canada.

·      =    Somatic cell counts in U.S. dairy herds continue to decline, showing that farmers are doing a better jo= b of maintaining good udder health.

·      =    A recent study of over 40,000 mostly middle-aged men concluded that drinking at least two cups of nonfat or low fat milk reduced their chances = of developing type-2 diabetes by 20%.

·      =    Antibiotic residues in milk are at an extremely low incidence rate.= The latest figures, based on over 3.5 million tests nationwide, found only 0.044% positive tests.

·      =    In the past five years, milk per cow has increased by 4.2%, the num= ber of milk cows has decreased by 2.1%, and total milk sold increased by 1.3%.<= /span>

COMPACTION ACTION—Second Of Three Parts

Edi= tor’s note: The following is condensed from an article by Randall Reeder, Extensi= on Agricultural Engineer at The Ohio State University, who was guest speaker = at our 2005 Corn Congress.

Surprise results from subso= iling

In 1987 we started compaction research at the Hoytville and South Charleston Research Stations in Northwest and Southwest Ohio respectivel= y. For four years after harvest we compacted entire plots with loads of either 20 tons/axle or 10 tons/axle. The control plots= had no extra compaction. Our research farms use fairly light equipment, contributing practically no additional, unintentional compaction. The plots were chisel plowed afterwards to minimize surface compaction effects on yie= ld.

A Paratill subsoiler was used in the first years of the project,= and was run 16 to 18 inches deep. The original 12-row plots were subdivided with one-third subsoiled after harvest in 1991 and e= very second year, and annually since 1996. Another third was subsoiled in 1993 and about every three years since.= There has not been a substantial difference based on subsoiling frequency. Since 1998 subsoiling has been done = with an Unverferth Zone Builder. The subsoiler shanks run between the 30-inch corn row locations, 14-16 inches deep. The c= orn is planted in almost the same row position every other year. Soybeans are drilled.

We expected the yields on plots compacted with 20 ton/axle and 10 ton/axle loads to improve with subsoil= ing, and they did. The surprise was that our control plots, with no intentional compaction and only light traffic, showed a substantial yield increase afte= r subsoiling. From 1992-2002, subs= oiling increased corn yields in control plots by an average of 3 percent and increased soybean yields by 12 percent. For the 20-ton plots, subsoiling increased corn yields by about 2 percent a= nd soybean yields by 9 percent. Subsoiling every 2= or 3 years gave about the same results as every year.

For eleven years, the soybean yields for the control-subsoiled plots averaged 12% higher tha= n the control plots with no subsoiling. Corn yields a= lso increased with subsoiling, but only 3%. On the = 20-ton plots subsoiling increased soybean yields almos= t 9%, and corn 2%. For soybeans, there were only two of the eleven years when subsoiling lowered yields, and both were dry summers = (1993 and 2002).

Hoytville soil appears to benef= it from subsoiling more than most. It is a deep silty clay loam, very poorly drained. (Our plots have subsurface drainage.) A soil scientist could explain it more precisely, but= to me, an engineer, this soil appears to re-compact naturally, over time, with= out heavy tractor and combine traffic. The soil particles are not necessarily mashed tighter together, as they would be under a heavy tire, but the effec= t on crop performance is similar. Subsoiling every y= ear or two probably improves soil porosity and allows more root growth. In an extremely dry summer the looser soil may dry out quicker, depressing yields= .

I am not writing this article to sell subsoilers. Your farm operation may not show the same= yield increases with deep tillage. If you want to try subsoi= ling, set up alternate strips, based on harvest equipment width. GPS and yield monitors make it convenient to compare yields. Maintain those strips for th= ree years with no additional subsoiling. Some yield increase may be expected the first year simply because more organic matter = is being oxidized in the soil profile.

Next month: Tire pressure, rubber tracks, and controlled traffic.

WEIRD NEWS

v      Japanese scientists cl= aim that genetically engineered soybeans can prevent hair loss and encourage ha= ir growth. The scientists inserted into soybeans an antihypertensive genetic material derived from egg whites, then fed the stuff to shaven mice and fou= nd that their hair (the mice’s, not the scientists’) grew back fas= ter. (Note to ERN Sniffen: This is still experimenta= l, and since the emphasis is on prevention of hair loss it’s too late= for you.)

v      Ah, but all is not pea= ches and cream (or soybeans and egg whites) on the hair front. Japan’s neighbor to the West, North Korea, has been publicly decrying long hair in men. Seems that long hair “consumes a great deal of nutrition” and negatively affects “human intelligence development”. The North Korean government recommends that men get haircuts every 15 days, and hair should be no more = than 2” long. However, balding men over the age of 50 are allowed to have slightly longer hair to help with their comb-overs. Nary a word about the recommended length of women’s hair; apparently = the North Korean government either believes that women are already at least as smart as they need to be, or that they’re a lost cause.

FARM FACTS AND FIGURES

·      =    World biotech acreage increased 20% from 2003 to 2004, with the U.S. sh= are 118 million of the 200 million acre total. While U.S. biotech acreage (mostly B= t and herbicide resistant crops) increased by 11%, India biotech acreage increase= d by 400%, Uruguay 200%, Australia 100%, Brazil 66%, China 32%, and Canada 23%.<= o:p>

·      =    Glyphosate has finally replaced atraz= ine as the most commonly used agricultural herbicide in the U.S. The most common home and industrial herbicide is 2,4-D, and we’d bet that most= of this is for weed control in lawns.

·      =    A 2004 consumer survey of who Americans trust on issues of food qua= lity and safety found that family physicians and dieticians rated highest. Actors/actresses ranked very low, but not as low as politicians.

·      =    Two Midwest food manufacturers h= ave signed a “piece” treaty. Hot dog buns will be sold in quantitie= s of 8, to match the number of hot dogs in a package, instead of the normal 6 or= 12. It’s estimated that more than two million buns are wasted because of = bun excess. (Bun excess is not the same as excessive buns, caused by eating too many hot dogs.)

REDUCING BACTERIA LEVELS IN MANURE RUNOFF

Vermont research funded by th= e Lake Champlain Basin Program sheds new light on the effects of manure storage and field management on the survival of E. coli, the most common dairy f= ecal bacteria. A cow can shed up to a billion fecal organisms per day, and runoff from cropland can contribute to high bacterial levels in waterways. Several factors can kill bacteria in manure, including heat, sunlight, dryi= ng, and predation by other microorganisms. The researchers established small pl= ots in both hay and corn fields. They spread both fresh and aged slurry manure = on the plots, and made it “rain” by building a rainfall simulator. Following are some of the more interesting results:

Runoff from plots receiving fresh manure had average E. coli counts of 190,000 to 2,400,000 organisms per 100 ml. (The Vermont water quality standard for swimming is 77 per 100 ml.) However, in both the corn and hay field trials, runoff from plots treated with manure that had been stored out= side in plastic swimming pools for 30 days averaged 97% fewer E. coli, while runoff from plots receiving manure stored for 90 days had 99% fewer E. coli and was similar to runoff from plots that received no manure.

On both hay and c= orn fields, a three-day delay between manure application and simulated rainfall resulted in 50% fewer E. coli in the runoff. Hay plots with tall stubble (5-6” vs. 2-3”) further reduced the E. coli in runoff, but this effect wasn’t consistent.

Incorporating the manure by tillage reduced E. coli levels in runoff by 60% for c= orn plots treated one day before rainfall. After a three day delay, incorporated and non-incorporated plots had similar E. coli lev= els. The most important effect of tillage was by reducing the amount of run= off. In full-scale field applications, tillage would probably reduce or even eliminate runoff during small rainfall events.

Combining these results with other data, the researchers recommended the following practices as part of a “multiple barrier&#= 8221; approach with the potential of reducing E. coli levels in runoff by = over 99%:

Store manure for = about 90 days without adding fresh manure. (Easier said than done, but new manure storage systems might have two manure storages, using one a= t a time.)

Avoid manure application to frozen or snow-covered fields. (Duh.)=

Avoid spreading m= anure when the soil is saturated or when tile lines are flowing.<= /span>

Avoid spreading m= anure on hayland just before a rain storm.<= /o:p>

On corn fields, incorporate the manure by tillage before the next rain.

For a copy of the full report contact the LCBP, 54 West Shore Rd., Grand Isle, VT 0= 5458 or www.lcbp.org.

Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

ASIAN SOYBEAN RUST

Following are a few rusty bits gleaned from various sources:

·      =    If the rust hits, fungicides are the only alternative since resista= nt varieties won’t be available for at least five years.

·      =    Asian rust is in the U.S. in 2005, first found in Georgia on volunteer soybeans in late April.

·      =    Tillage and crop rotation have no effect on rust.=

·      =    However, preliminary lab research has found that glyphosate (Roundup, etc.) has some rust suppression activity.

·      =    The rust won’t overwinter in the North, has to move up from t= he South, so every year will be different.

·      =    Rust spores can travel hundreds of miles per day, so with the right= (wrong) weather conditions things can happen fast.

·      =    Yield losses of 50% or more are common, and even fields sprayed wit= h a fungicide can have a 10% yield loss.

·      =    Fungicide cost is about $15 per acre (more or less depending on what’s used) plus application cost, and in most areas at least two applications will be needed per year.

·        If Asian soybean rust spores make it to this region, the Champlain Valley has almost ideal conditions= for rust development: Summer temperatures of 60-80= °F and morning dew.

NOTABLE QUOTES FROM U.S. PRESIDENTS

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol'>·         “When the President does it, that = means it is not illegal.” Richard M. Nixon

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol'>·         “If you can’t convince them, confuse them.” Harry S. Truman

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol'>·         “Farming looks easy when your plow is a pencil and you’= re a thousand miles from a corn field.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol'>·         “I guess it just proves that in America anyone can be President.” Gerald Ford

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol'>·         “I have never been hurt by anything I didn’t say.”= ; Calvin Coolidge<= /p>

CLOSING COMMENT

You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, and that’s sufficient for most purposes.

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM - Sand vs. Sawdust

The key to sawdust-bedded free stall mattress= es is using enough sawdust This stall has at least the recommended 16 lbs of sawdust.= &n= bsp; = Hock scores

NEWS FROM THE FORAGE LAB

IMMUNOSUPPRESSION AT CALVING IS LINKED TO BODY CONDITION

VET’S CORNER: Mastitis Clinical Cure vs. Bacteriological Cure

AIR COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT

JUNE IS DAIRY MONTH

COMPACTION ACTION—Second Of Three Parts

Surprise results from subso= iling

WEIRD NEWS

FARM FACTS AND FIGURES

REDUCING BACTERIA LEVELS IN MANURE RUNOFF

ASIAN SOYBEAN RUST

NOTABLE QUOTES FROM U.S. PRESIDENTS

CLOSING COMMENT

The key to sawdust-bedded free stall mattress= es is using enough sawdust

This stall has at least the recommended 16 lbs of sawdust.=

&n= bsp;

=

Hock scores