SILK TO SILAGE IN SEVEN WEEKS&#= 8230; USUALLY
You’ve
probably heard this before, but it’s worth mentioning again: Under no=
rmal
growing conditions, corn will reach the silage stage about seven weeks afte=
r silking. Since in much of the
Unless
you did something really foolish this spring such as planting corn hybrids =
that
are much too late for your farm, corn planted any time in May should be
When
the herd’s veterinarian advises a specific vaccine to the dairy produ=
cer,
value is added to the vaccine for the producer by the veterinarian’s
screening process to select the vaccine. Cost is not the most important
information that is weighed. To evaluate the expected performance of a vacc=
ine,
the vaccine company should provide a technical bulletin with the following
information. Efficacy Ease and number of
administrations – Some vaccine companies try to market more vaccine by promo=
ting
convenient intermuscular injections over the
subcutaneous route and getting by with one booster when their own data shows
superior efficacy with a second booster. The immune system is located mainl=
y in
the lymphatic system and located in the subcutaneous system. For example, c=
an
you remember seeing and feeling the swollen lymph nodes under the skin of a
cancer cow? In the future, techniques to vaccinate in the skin, not just under the skin will be developed. The
vaccine company recommending the subcutaneous route of administration is
promoting higher efficacy. Likewise, the company recommending the extra boo=
ster
shot is concerned with higher efficacy, not extra sales. Duration of immunity – To fit in a t=
imed
vaccination protocol, challenges of vaccine efficacy must be done after
vaccination to know how much time can pass before boos=
tering
is necessary. For instance, a common flaw in protecting Lepto
infected herds is that a MLV with Lepto is give=
n post
calving. The MLV portion can endure for the entire pregnancy but the Lepto portion expires in less than six months and late
gestation pregnancies are lost unless boostered=
mid
gestation. Viral shedding<=
/b> – Random select=
ed
vaccinates and controls are blood tested for titer response, and nasal and
fecal swabs are taken a month after vaccination to be sure that virus is not
spread to unvaccinated controls. The vaccine provider should be asked to
provide this published literature. Cell-mediated immunity=
– Few vaccine
companies invest in this sophisticated testing. This is the direct measure =
of
T-Cell marker and Interferon at several weeks post-vaccination. Most compan=
ies will
just provide rate of gain and disease challenge data as indirect evidence of
CMI, but not actually measure the marker or enzyme. Kent E Henderson, DVM Northwest Veterinary
Associates Following
is a summary of two of the research projects that were conducted at Miner
Institute and presented at the 2005 Joint Annual Meeting of the American Da=
iry
Science Association (ADSA) and American Society of Animal Science (ASAS) he=
ld
in Comparative effect of =
brown
midrib sorghum-sudan and corn silages on lactational performance, nutrient digestion, and phos=
phorus
retention in Total mixed rations containing brown midr=
ib
sorghum-sudan grass silage (bmrSS)
or corn silage (CS) at either 35 or 45% of dietary dry matter were fed to <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on">Holstein dairy cows to determine the effect on lactational performance, nutrient digestibility, and
phosphorus retention. Twelve cows were assigned to one of four diets in
replicated 4 ´=
4 Latin squares with =
21-day
periods. In vitro 30-h NDF digestion was 46.0% for CS and 58.3% for bmrSS. Dry matter intake was greatest when cows were =
fed
the 35% CS (51.6 lbs/day) and 45% CS (51.2 lbs/day) diets, was least when c=
ows
were fed the 45% bmrSS diet (38.8 lbs/day), and=
was
intermediate when cows were fed 35% bmrSS diet =
(44.3
lbs/day). The bmrSS diets resulted in greater B=
W gain
per period, but similar body condition score versus CS diets. Yield of
solids-corrected milk was similar among diets. Efficiency (solids corrected
milk/DMI) was greater for cows fed the bmrSS th=
an the
CS diets. In vivo digestibility of organic matter and CP was greater for th=
e CS
diets than the bmrSS diets, but digestibility of
neutral detergent fiber, starch, and nonfiber
carbohydrate was similar among diets. Ruminal p=
H was
greatest when cows were fed the 45% bmrSS diet
(6.58), was least when cows were fed 35% CS (6.10) and 45% CS diets (6.13),=
and
was intermediate when cows were fed the 35% bmrSS
diet (6.42). Ratio of acetate to propionate was greatest for the bmrSS diets with no difference among diets in total V=
FA
concentration. Phosphorus (P) balance was positive when cows consumed the 3=
5%
CS (14.6 g/d) and 45% CS (10.1 g/d) diets and slightly negative when cows
consumed the 35% bmrSS (-0.1 g/d) and 45% bmrSS (-7.0 g/d) diets, but at 45% forage, fecal excr=
etion
of P was less for bmrSS than for CS. In conclus=
ion,
cows fed bmrSS had similar solids corrected milk
yield with greater efficiency of production, greater r=
uminal
pH and acetate:proprionate<=
/span>
ratio than cows fed CS. With these diets, bmrSS=
was
an effective alternative to the CS hybrid when fed at either 35 or 45% of t=
he
dietary DM. The effect of feeding =
three
milk replacer regimens preweaning on first lact=
ation
performance of In a previous trial, sixty 1) =
27% CP/20% Fat at 1.5%=
BW
for the first week, 2.25% BW from 8 days through 5 weeks, and 1.25% BW from=
6
weeks to weaning 2) =
27% CP/20% Fat fed at =
200g
2x.day for 2 weeks, 250g 2x/day through weaning. 3) =
27% CP/15% Fat at 1.5%=
BW
for the first week, 2.25% BW from 8 days through 5 weeks, and 1.25% BW from=
6
weeks to weaning. The objective of this study was to measure the growth and performance of these ani=
mals
from 18 months of age through their first lactation. Data were analyzed usi=
ng
Proc GLM with farm and block (farm) in the model. No treatment differences =
were
found for weight and stature of animals at 30 months of age. No significant
difference in age or weight at calving was realized, although heifers fed m=
ilk
replacer at a fixed rate tended to be younger at calving, and weigh less.
Incidence of retained placenta and postpartum metabolic disorders was simil=
ar
for all treatments. Heifers also had similar calving ease scores with 79, 78
and 68%, respectively for groups 1, 2 and 3 having easy calving scores of 1=
and
2. No difference in milk yield was realized at 100 days in milk. Heifers fed
the 27/20 milk replacer as a % of body weight yielded over 1500 lbs more mi=
lk
than treatments 2 or 3 at 200 days in milk. Milkfat
and protein yield was similar for all treatments. Although not significant,
3.5%FCM yield at 200 days in milk tended to be higher for 27/20 milk replac=
er
heifers fed as a % of BW. Implementation of enhanced early nutrition progra=
ms
may positively impact first lactation milk yield. Last
month I wrote about my trip to As
you can see in Figure 1, =
when
the square feet per cow in the close-up pen dropped below ~600, the inciden=
ce
of DAs rose sharply. For a 7-month time period, the inverse relationship
between area per cow in the pen and incidence of DAs tracked almost perfect=
ly!
It’s important to note that this was an open lot dairy, not a freestall facility. But the relationship is the impor=
tant
point here. Clearly, stocking density was a major driver for this particular
herd’s DA problem. In
Figure 2, we see the
relationship between headlock capacity in the close-up pen and incidence of=
DAs
in the same herd. As the pen exceeded 80% of headlock capacity (or less tha=
n 30
inches per cow of manger space), the incidence of DAs increased. In the fig=
ure,
that would be the area between 0 (100% stocking) and –20 (80% stockin=
g)
on the Y-axis. Again, just like area per cow, the incidence of DAs tracked
remarkably close to the headlock stocking rate. Obviously these graphs do not reflect controlled
research, but as field observations I feel they are extremely instructive. =
In a
real-world setting, we can see how acutely our management (in this case
stocking decisions) influences the health of the herd. The take-home messag=
e is
that when we are trouble-shooting fresh cow health problems, let’s not
neglect to evaluate the stocking rate of resting and feeding facilities. We
tend to focus first on nutritional causes for metabolic problems in fresh c=
ows,
but the cow’s environment is also a critical factor. A number of times you’ve read (in this newsle=
tter
and elsewhere) that mineral analyses should be done using wet chemistry, not
NIR. Why not, you say…NIR is quicker, it’s cheaper, and NIR
technologies are improving all the time. Yes, yes, and yes, but still: No.<=
/p>
Recently
we sent samples from two first cut grass fields to the University of Vermont
forage lab, and had both NIR and wet chemistry analyses. As you can see, there’s good agreement betwee=
n NIR
and wet chemistry only for potassium and magnesium. Most significant for da=
iry
farmers, though, is the huge difference in phosphorus. For both fields, the=
NIR
P analysis is 48% higher than the wet chemistry P analysis. For
farmers trying to fine-tune rations, often with the additional challenge of
adhering to Nutrient Management Plans, that’s not nearly accurate eno=
ugh. CARBOHYDRATES AND ACID=
OSIS:
Notes From The American Dairy Science Association
Annual Meeting Dr.
Mary Beth Hall discussed analysis of carbohydrate (CHO) fractions: Sugar,
starch, soluble fiber and fiber. She noted that we analyze feeds for these
compounds for diet formulation, using the amount of each in conjunction with
its unique digestion and fermentation characteristics to optimize rumen
fermentation and animal performance. The difficulty lies in that there are a
multitude of sugars and various molecular combinations of these sugars that
make up starch, soluble fiber and fiber. The variety of molecular structures
and chemical properties makes it difficult to isolate and quantify these
carbohydrates. Hence the variety of lab methods to analyze what appear to be si=
mple
compounds. Currently our rationale has been to analyze “sugars”=
and
sugar compounds relative to how they ferment in the rumen. However, digesti=
on
and fermentation characteristics are greatly affected by particle size, rum=
en
dynamics and management—things the lab cannot control. Hall has put f=
orth
the notion of unifying lab methods by analyzing sugars by chemical properti=
es
that are defined and repeatable between labs. She recommends that we analyz=
e CHOs by their size in structural units and that the g=
urus
can then figure digestion kinetics for the isolated sugar compounds. Dr.
Steve Emanuele then discussed the feeding
implications of sugar and starch, reminding us that rumen microbes have uni=
que
appetites for different CHOs, specific sugars a=
nd
will ferment them to various end products depending on conditions in the ru=
men,
i.e. pH. For instance, Strep. bovis will rapidly ferment starch to lactate,
possibly to excess if conditions are right, resulting in rumen acidosis. St=
rep bovis does not ferment pentoses<=
/span>
(5 carbon sugars), typical of soluble fiber feeds. Therefore, Strep bovis
can be kept under control by moderating CHO source between starch and solub=
le
fiber. He mentioned a few general ration recommendations: Dr.
Mike Allen covered NDFd with comments for both
feeding implications and proper lab analyses. Mary Beth Hall also discussed acidosis, noting that=
rumen
pH values may not be the best indicator of subacute
(pH < 5.6) or acute (pH < 5.2) rumen acidosis. Cows fed the same diets
can vary greatly in rumen pH. Hall cited a study where cows fed the same di=
et
ranged in rumen pH from 5.3-6.2 measured just prior to feeding when pH is
believed to be at its highest point. These animals showed no health disorde=
rs.
Numerous presenters noted that individual animals consuming similar diets w=
ill
vary widely in their “normal” rumen pH level. Our own research =
has
shown that cows will sort feed to maintain their normal rumen status by sor=
ting
for or against fiber. Allen added that true acidosis occurs at the point wh=
ere
rumen pH results in cellular and epithelial destruction of the gut lining.
Destruction of the gut lining then results in: Lastly,
Dr. Gary Oetzel discussed how to obtain and int=
erpret
rumen pH data. The four standard methods result in different pH values that
warrant different acidosis reference values. The progression of pH values obtai=
ned by
methods relative to each other and the reference value for acidosis is: The
recurring theme: · =
Finally, a link between genetically modified corn and human
health. There’s now proof that pregnant women who consume GM corn hav=
e fewer
birth defects. The apparent reason is that because of less insect damage and
therefore less mold, GM corn has a lot fewer fumonisin=
bacteria. Fumonisin can prevent the fetal spinal
column from developing normally. Source: Environment & Climate News.=
· =
While representing only 3% of · =
A 3 ounce serving of “natural” beef contains 1.4 nanograms of estrogen, compared to 1.9 nanograms
in an implanted steer. The average birth control pill contains 34,000 nanograms of estrogen. · =
Researchers have now established a link between dairy product consu=
mption
and obesity. Women who consume the recommended 1000 mg of calcium per
day—the equivalent of just over 3 glasses of milk—on the average
weigh 18 pounds less than those not getting enough calcium. · =
During the next five years, over 52,000 jobs will become available =
each
year for college graduates in food, agriculture and natural sciences, but U=
.S.
colleges will only graduate about 32,000 students per year in agriculture a=
nd
another 17,000 in allied programs including biological science, engineering=
and
business. Following
are the seasonal totals for Grow=
ing
Degree Days (86/50 system) and precipitation for this year, last yea=
r,
and the 41-year average for Chazy: While this growing season isn’t nea=
rly
as much above average for temperature as most people think it is (mostly
because May was one of the coldest on record), precipitation has been well
above average each month. The normal result of “warm and wet” is
luxuriant growth, but at the expense of fiber digestibility. And 2005 bears
almost no resemblance to 2004. COST
OF NUTRIENTS IN FEEDSTUFFS It
is this time of the year where rumors of a possible drought in the SesameTM (available at www.sesamesoft.com)
is a software program developed at As
you harvest forages this summer you should be making crop rotation plans for
2006. Unless you plan a change in the relative acreages of corn vs.
alfalfa-grass, for every acre that will be seeded down next spring you̵=
7;ll
need to identify an acre to come out of sod this fall. The
old rule of thumb is that stands with fewer than three healthy alfalfa plan=
ts
per square foot should be plowed up. However, this doesn’t take into
account any forage grass in the stand. With or without grass in the stand, a
better guideline is the number of alfalfa stems per square foot. A
straight alfalfa stand with over 40 stems per square foot is still producti=
ve,
and if you have a good forage grass with the alf=
alfa,
30 alfalfa stems per square foot may be enough. We’re
also inclined to keep an alfalfa-grass stand in a year or two longer (as it
eventually becomes a grass-alfalfa stand) if the field can be manured. Grass-alfalfa stands need lots of nitrogen t=
o be
most productive; it makes a difference if that N comes in the form of $300+=
per
ton urea, or as “free” dairy manure. Most of the studies on how
long to keep stands before rotating to corn were done with straight alfalfa,
but the vast majority of alfalfa in the Northeastern U.S. is seeded with a
grass. Having a productive forage grass as a companion to the alfalfa, and =
in a
field you can get to with the manure spreader, may influence your rotation
decision. (This means 5 years instead of 4, not 10 years instead of 5.) If
you haven’t yet topdressed your alfalfa w=
ith
potash (0-0-60) and your soil test indicates a need for it, right after thi=
rd
cut is an ideal time. There’s still plenty of time for uptake before a
killing frost, and the soils are usually warm enough that the alfalfa plants
won’t take up more potassium than they need—called “lush
consumption”. (Cool and moist are ideal conditions for potassium upta=
ke.)
This is especially true if you seeded a cool-season forage grass (timothy, =
orchardgrass, bromegrass,=
reed canarygrass, etc.) with the alfalfa. Grasses are heavy
users of potassium whether they need it or not, but by this time of year mo=
st
grasses have slowed down (more because of soil temperature than lack of
moisture), leaving more of the potassium for the crop that needs it
most—alfalfa. How
about potassium fertilizer rates? While For
example, one of the fields here on the Institute farm is a Hogansburg
loam, a productive soil when tile drained, which it is. On the most recent =
soil
test the K reading was 160 lbs/acre, which Cornell considers medium-high. T=
he
fertilizer recommendation is 30 lbs per acre of potash, or 50 pounds of 0-0=
-60.
That’s per year, for three years. In the first place I donR=
17;t
know if it’s possible to accurately apply 50 pounds per acre of anyth=
ing
with a 6-ton broadcast spreader, but even so I have no intention of running
over a field dribbling on such a small amount of 0-0-60. However, the issue
isn’t whether the initial recommendation is correct, but how reliable=
it
will be three years hence. Cornell’s
estimated yield for alfalfa-grass on Hogansburg=
loam
is 6 tons per acre. OK, so if we harvest 6 tons per acre for three years,
that’s 18 tons of alfalfa. One ton of alfalfa contains about 60 lbs of
potash (K2O), so 18 tons would remove 1080 lbs of potash per
acre. The recommended rate of fertilizer will supply only 90 pounds of pota=
sh.
How much does the soil contribute? Some, but Hogansbur=
g
loam has a low potassium supplying power. Will the soil supply the remaining
1000 pounds of potassium? I think not. This
makes an excellent case for more frequent analysis of your good alfalfa and
alfalfa-grass fields. Too many things, both good and bad, happen to an alfa=
lfa
field over time for Cornell University’s soil test system—and I
consider it one of the very best—to accurately make potassium fertili=
zer
recommendations three years after the original soil analysis. Mid-July
found the Crops Dude in Alberta and British Columbia to put on a series of
forage quality meetings for farmers and agribusiness reps. I arrived in Cal=
gary
just as the famous Calgary Stampede was charging to a conclusion, with the
airport full of honest-to-gosh cowboys as well as faux cowboys wearing
snow-white Stetsons that never saw a bead of sweat and shiny Tony Lamas that
never kicked a cow chip. (AKA “All hat and no cattle.”). The
growing season in most of that region, from Calgary all the way to the Paci=
fic,
is fairly long but quite cool compared to most of the Northeastern U.S. Far=
mers
plant corn in mid-May and harvest it for silage in September, but they
can’t grow hybrids longer than 70-75 days RM. These same farmers can =
get
three cuts of alfalfa where they do grow the stuff (most don’t). Corn
silage yields are surprisingly good considering the short hybrid maturity, =
with
20 tons/acre not uncommon. The
Our silage bagger finally bit the dust. It didnR=
17;t
owe us anything since we bought it used about 20 years ago. We’ll
probably buy another bagger (preferably used-but-not-abused) since we find a
bagger useful for those small lots of forage that we don’t have room =
for
in our bunker silos. Silage bags are also good for those forages that, given
their questionable quality, we don’t want to put into our bunker silo=
s.
Such was the case this summer, when we found ourselves with about 100 tons =
of
weedy alfalfa-grass seeding. Since these were alfalfa-grass seedings
we were very limited what we could use in the way of herbicides. We have a =
very
good stand of alfalfa in these fields, but had too many broadleaf weeds (mo=
stly
lambsquarters and mustard) so we considered it
“heifer feed” Not that our heifers deserve poor quality forage,=
but
the resulting combination of pretty good alfalfa and not-so-good weeds shou=
ld
be OK for this purpose. The forage analyses on this forage are actually pre=
tty
good—16.5% crude protein, 33% ADF, 48% NDF. It’s easy to
overestimate the amount of weeds in a weedy alfalfa seeding. We did a botan=
ical
composition from one field and it was bout 80% alfalfa, 10% grass and only =
10%
broadleaf weeds. Some
farmers take the attitude that “If I grow it, they’ll eat
it,” but not us. Over the years we’ve chopped more than a little
forage back onto the field or dumped it in the woods. Forage that’s b=
een
rained on several times after mowing and sat in the field for a week or mor=
e is
no longer feed for any class of animal; it’s mulch. Some would say
“No, it’s horse hay!” but while some horse owners will
happily feed hay that long ago reached the “chewy” stage, they =
will
(and should) refuse badly weather-damaged hay. Even
with the fans we installed in June our cows don’t like heat and humid=
ity,
no surprise there. They backed off a few pounds per cow (to the mid-80s), b=
ut
have held up much better than before we installed fans. We’re current=
ly
installing the same fans in the last quadrant as we have in the rest of the
barn. HOW MUCH SOIL ARE YOU HARVESTING WITH YOUR HAY CROP
SILAGE? Ash
is indigestible, and all forages contain ash. However, what we’re
concerned with isn’t the ash that’s part of the forage, but the=
ash
added as a contaminant during the silage making process. A recent Hoard&=
#8217;s
Dairyman article highlighted the concern about high ash levels in forage
crops. Check
the ash level of your hay crop silage: If it’s much over 10% you need=
to
determine why. The most likely reason is that you’re mowing too close
with a disk mower. Shaving hayfields (all some farmers are missing is the
lather) wasn’t nearly much of a problem with sic=
klebar
mowers since if you started landleveling with t=
hem
you were soon under the mower changing a broken knife section. (Been there,
done that.) But it takes a se=
rious
stone to stop a disk mower, and some farmers have become much too aggressive
about mowing height. Some university agronomists are recommending mowing he=
ight
of one inch (!). Try that on some of our uneven fields and you might harvest
equal weights of forage and soil. If
the ash levels in your hay crop silage are over 10% there are several possi=
ble
causes: · =
Mowing too close or raking too aggressively. These two are relate=
d,
since if you leave a low stubble you might pick =
up
some soil as you rake or chop. A cloud of dust when you’re raking is =
not
normal. · =
Heavy manure applications, some of which adhered to the plant. Since the =
ash
in feeds isn’t digestible it all winds up in the manure. On a dry mat=
ter
basis dairy manure contains about 13% ash though this number can vary widel=
y,
with over 50% ash in some dairy manures. · =
Application of sand-laden manure to hay fields. Sand-laden dairy manure can cont=
ain
as much as 75% ash! If
you have high ash levels in your hay crop silage, the simplest thing to do is to increase your mowing height by an inch or t=
wo,
then check to see if there’s less ash in the forages mowed at =
this
height. We’re currently doing a research project on mowing height that
hopefully will shed some light on the subject. · =
USDA scientists are testing more accurate methods of predicting the most economical
fertilizer rate for grain crops. Farmers using the “yield goal”
method often apply more fertilizer than is needed because this method
doesn’t account for factors such as weather and soil type variability.
The new methods include canopy-reflectance sensing to monitor crop vigor and
plant nitrogen status. The result may be lower fertilizer costs for farmers,
and less nitrogen lost to the environment. · =
Glyphosate resistant weeds are a problem in some
states, but according to university and USDA reports, there hasn’t be=
en a
confirmed case any closer than · =
· =
A recent http:=
//www.whminer.com/calendar.html Women
like silent men; they think they're listening.VET’S CORNER
RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS FROM MINER INSTITUTE
![](3D"2005_08_files/image001.gif")
FROM THE PRESIDENT’S D=
ESK
– Stocking Rate And Herd Health
![](3D"2005_08_files/image002.gif")
![](3D"2005_08_files/image003.gif")
WET CHEMISTRY VS NIR
![](3D"2005_08_files/image004.gif")
FARM NOTES
THE GROWING SEASON TO DATE
![](3D"2005_08_files/image005.gif")
No=
te:
The following is excerpted from an article by Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy
Management Specialist at The EVALUATING
ALFALFA-GRASS STANDS
TIME TO TOPDRESS ALFALFA
EV’S “BUSINESS” TRIP
WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM
RESEARCH SUMMARIES
CALENDAR EVENTS
CLOSING COMMENT