RESEARCH SUMMARIES

Following are two summaries of research conducted at Miner Institute and presented at= the 2005 Joint Annual Meeting of the American Dairy Science Association and American Society of Animal Science.

The use of bioaugmentation to reduce odor and enhan= ce the nutrient profile in stored dairy manure.

Manure management is becoming an increasingly complex issue, with regulatory pressures on livestock producers to minimize odor emissions. Pro-Act Microbial, Inc. (PM) developed a bi= oaugmentation process that works as a three-stage digester in manure lagoons and pits. The objectives of this study were to:

1.&n= bsp; Determine the ability of the PM system to reduce solids content of stored slurry manure.

2.&n= bsp; Measure the effect of the PM system on the nutri= ent composition of manure at the upper and lower depths of stored slurry dairy manure.

3.&n= bsp; Measure the ability of the PM system to reduce objectionable odors including volatile ammonia and hydrogen sulfide in slur= ry manure.

Eight 1000-gallon vertical poly tanks were stored above ground and filled with slurry dairy manure averaging 4.2% solids. Tanks were randomly assigned to either control or PM. Microbes, growth accelerator and cycle additive were added to the PM tanks 30 minutes after filling. An aqua= rium pump was installed on each PM tank to serve as a surface aerator. Manure fr= om each tank was sampled at filling, and from the t= op 6-12 inches and bottom 6-12 inches after 67 days of storage. Samples were analyzed for solids content, pH, total N, P₂O₅, K2O, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions, and subjected to evaluation by an o= dor panel.

No differences in solids content, total N, P_{2O₅,
or K₂O were found. Hydrogen sulfide emissions were significantly
less for the PM-treated manure at both sampling depths. Ammonia levels at t=
he
bottom of the PM-treated tanks were also lower. A sensory panel confirmed t=
hese
findings, with 89% of panelists finding the PM-treated manure from the top
6-12” to be less offensive. No differences in odor were found for tre=
ated
vs. untreated manure from the bottom of the tanks. Manure treated with PM
system appears to reduce odor gas emissions after 67 days of storage. In the
following table, the longer it took for the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide le=
vels
to reach a concentration of 20 mg/L, the less the odor intensity. Therefore,
high numbers are good (table 1).}

Using nonlactating c= attle to improve the transition of lactating cows into a new freestall barn.

The objective of this = study was to determine if conditioning a new freestall barn with heifers and dry cows would improve the rate of adaptation of lactating cows to the new barn. Two pens of 68 stalls each in Miner Institute’s new, four-row freestall barn were used in this experiment. The first pen was divided into two halves of 32 stalls each. To condition the pens, pre-breeding heifers were housed in one section and dry cows were housed in the other section for 4 weeks prior to introducing lactating cows to the barn. The second pen was left vacant (“uncondit= ioned”) during this period. Ten first lactation and ten second and later lactation = Holsteins between 52 and 182 days in milk were bloc= ked according to lactation, mature equivalent milk production and body weight p= rior to the study and randomly assigned to one of two treatments: The conditioned pen or the unconditioned pen. These cows were observed for 24 hours, with behavioral observations recorded at 15-minute intervals. Observations were performed 46 days before the cows were moved (when they were still in the o= ld dairy barn), and 2 days and 17 days after moving them into the new barn.

Cows moved into either conditioned or unconditioned pens showed no difference in resting times two days after they were moved. There was a numerical but = nonsignificant increase in the amount of time per day spent resting for cows in the unconditioned pen at 17 days (51.5 vs. 56.1%). Time spent feeding and the number of meals was also similar for both pens. Rumination decreased slight= ly for cows in conditioned pens at 2 and 17 days after moving to the new facil= ity, but remained constant for cows in the unconditioned pen. Both groups showed= a decrease in milk production after moving into the new barn, with cows in the unconditioned pen showing a larger decrease. Housing cattle in the new barn before introducing lactating animals did not see= m to affect the adaptation rates of the lactating cows to their new home. Althou= gh the unconditioned pen was left empty and clean prior to moving lactating animals, it was impossible to prevent the aroma of the animals in the other pens from diffusing throughout the barn. This may have eased the adjustment= of these cows to the new barn.

He= ather Dann

dann@whminer.com=

WEED OR CROP?

A good definition of a weed is “A plant growing out of place.” Corn pl= ants growing in a field of soybeans are weeds, not a crop. We often find white clover filling in the low areas in our alfalfa fields where poor drainage h= as killed out the alfalfa. I’m not sure if this is white clover or ladin= o (a giant form of white clover), but it really doesn’t make much differen= ce. It’s only moderately hardy, but can reseed itself and therefore persi= st for a long time. The entire upright growth is nothing except leaves and petioles (no stems), so forage quality is extremely high. Cows pasturing wh= ite clover get a lot of protein but not much fiber, which makes manure consiste= ncy just a wee bit on the thin side. How thin? When these cows are in a tie sta= ll barn to be milked, their manure hits the gutter on the other side of= the alley. Walk behind these cows at your own peril, or your next pocketful may= not be of miracles.

Last year we seeded Pardee bird= sfoot trefoil on a leased field and were pleased with the initial stand. But then white clover “invaded” and this summer we had to look for the trefoil; it was there, but in most cases growing below an almost solid cano= py of white clover. The stand of clover was so uniform that I had to double ch= eck with our field crops supervisor Jake that we hadn’t seeded any white clover. (Since we didn’t buy any, this seemed unlikely.) Sure enough,= all we seeded was birdsfoot trefoil and grass. I= 217;m not optimistic about the future of the trefoil in this field, and since whi= te clover doesn’t like intensive harvest management I’m afraid that we’ll soon be left with little but grass. Not that grass is a bad thi= ng, but we were looking forward to trefoil. Even if the white clover persists, it’s too low growing to contribute a lot to yield. In this case, white clover is a weed, not a crop.

We’re not alone: In the area where our leased land is located there’s plent= y of white clover growing in old grass hayfields, and here at the Institute the alleyways between plots in Cornell University’s research area are just loaded with the stuff. Why does the clover stay in t= hese alleyways in spite of regular mowing but doesn’t stick around in our hayfields? Maybe that’s because some of the clover remains below the mower level and goes to seed. Either that or there’s one heck of a se= ed bank of white clover.

Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

VET’S CORNER

For the past two months pregnancy rates at many herd health checks have been subnormal. More open cows are presented for pr= egnancy diagnosis than normal because heat stress has suppressed expression of estr= us signs. With the return of cooler fall weather, it’s hoped that more c= ows that need to be rebred will show heats. Unfortunately, conception rat= es will take a few more months to normalize, so an increased number of success= ful breedings won’t occur until late September and October. =

Poor fertility is expected during summer heat so it’s important to create a plan with the herd health veterinarian to focus on finding the increased nu= mber of repeat breeders at the earliest possible time. Several options are avail= able to more quickly get these unsuccessful breeders inseminated:

1. = Traditionally, open cows have received a prostaglandin shot on h= erd health day if the veterinarian can palpate a viable CL. Careful attenti= on is focused on this cluster of rebreeding cows two to five days following preg check/prostaglandin injection. Since heat stress= is suppressing estrus signs, only modest results can be expected. Heat patches and tail chalking are strongly suggested.

2. = Slow-release progesterone implants (CIDR’= ;s) are approved to use in repeat breeding mature milking cows. The CI= DR is implanted in all cows that are bred 14 days following A.I. service and removed on day 20. Again you must focus on the cluster of rebreed= ing cows for one to three days following CIDR removal... It’s assumed that pregnant cows don’t show heat, and a higher proportion of the unsuccessful breeders will show up for rebreeding at an earlier time than waiting 28-42 days for veterinarian palpation.

3. = On herd health day, all cows diagnose= d open can be started on Ovsynch. (Any cow s= howing heat before the 10-day Ovsynch protocol is comp= lete is rebred and no further shots are given.) This method insures that a= ll open cows are rebred and doesn’t rely on heat detection that’s being impaired by heat stress. Currently, this is the most popular me= thod of “resynching” cows found open on = herd health day.

4. = A proactive method to quickly rebred open cows which we expect in h= igher numbers during summer heat is to inject all cows for pregnancy diagnosis= a week before herd health day with GnRH. The = GnRH has no effect on the pregnancy status of success= fully bred cows. Cows found open are immediately injected with Prostaglandin and given GnRH two days later and bred 0-24 hours l= ater, which is only two to three days following open diagnosis. The cost of the <= span class=3DSpellE>GnRH injection is similar to one day’s cost of feeding an open milking cow, so the shots to pregnant cows shouldn’t = be considered a waste in comparison to the value of getting more timely servic= es into repeat breeders.

Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

cowdoc@adelphia.net

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

We’ve been maximizing forage intake in the Institute dairy herd, with all milking rations except high group cows over 50% forage (dry matter basis). The fora= ge: grain ratio for our high group is 50:50, fresh cows 59:41, first calf heife= rs 52:48, for cows averaging 75# it’s 56:44, and for the low group it’s 71:29. On a dry matter basis we’re feeding more corn silage than hay crop silage. This makes the Crops Dude happy since it’s easi= er for us to produce a ton of corn silage than a ton of alfalfa silage. Our ty= pical dry matter yields are 6-7 tons of corn silage and about 4 tons of alfalfa silage. The milking groups are averaging 62% forage dry matter from corn silage, with very little difference between groups.

We’re currently installing 52” fans in the last quadrant in our dairy barn. It’s expensive, but if we save a couple of pounds of milk per cow per= day during hot, sticky weather the fans will pay for themselves in a few years. This doesn’t account for the positive effects on reproduction, diffic= ult to put a dollar sign on but important nonetheless.

Milk production is recovering well from a hot summer; cows sure do like the cool nights we’ve been having since mid-August. As it sometimes happens (a= nd not only to us), a couple of days we tested this summer was in a hot spell = when the cows were in a dip; they saved some of their worst days for the tester.= As of the end of August, production per milking cow was 86 lbs.

We did a dry matter test on Aug. 25^th on our earliest field of corn; dry matter on the several stalks we sampled was 28% , which means the whole field DM was about 26% since our experience (and that= of others) says to add 2 percentage points to this type of DM determination. Therefore, we should start chopping right after Labor Day.

Steve Couture couture@whminer.com

Ev Thomas thomas@whminer.com=

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK – Mount= ains of Byproducts

I just returned from a workshop in Nebraska on the subject of corn milling byproducts. The two major byproducts are distillers grains (from dry corn milling) and corn gluten feed (from wet corn milling). Unless you’ve managed to totally avoid the popular press, you likely already appreciate how rapidly new ethanol plants are being built across the U.S. Ethanol plants produce distillers grains as their major byproduct, whi= ch can be a tremendous feed resource for ruminants such as beef and dairy catt= le.

The purpose of the workshop was to identify potential changes in the nutrient profile of distillers byproducts that would allow cattle to consume more of them. Since someone (namely the ethanol and corn milling industry) is asking the question “How much more can you cattl= emen feed?” – it suggests that there is a substantial and growing availability of these byproducts. We did a quick calculation that illustrates the balance between corn milling byproducts (distillers and corn gluten feed) and cattle usage in the U.S. Ri= ght now there are approximately 20 million head of cattle (11 million feedlot steers and 9 million dairy cows) and production of approximately four billion gall= ons of ethanol. That translates into about 3.2 pounds per head/day (dry basis) = of milling byproducts in the U.S. In the next five years, this production of distillers and other byproducts = is expected to double! That will result in over 6 pounds per day (dry basis) of byproducts available for every head of beef and dairy cattle. Of course, not everyone will choose to feed these byproducts, so you might expect that some cattle could consume even more than 6 pounds per day. There will truly be mountains of byproducts available for the feed industry to use. The question is: Can we feed high levels of these byproducts without compromising cow performance or nutrient management plans?

During the workshop we made two lists: one contained all of the positive attribute= s of distillers grains, and the other all of the nega= tives. On the positive side, distillers grains are pala= table, have a high energy content, can be cheap, and are an excellent source of digestible fiber. On the negative side, they are low in lysine (like all co= rn protein), can be high in lipid content, handling is a challenge because the grains bridge easily in bins, they’re high in phosphorus, and the consistency of the product can be quite variable depending on the ethanol plant. A common complaint in the field has been that the oil content of the= distillers grains can depress milk fat percentage when= fed at too high levels. Also, distillers grains contain up to 0.80–0.90% phosphorus (dry basis), and inclusion in a diet at 15% of dry matter or more usually results in dietary phosphorus content of 0.45 or greater. This high level of phosphorus may be the limiting factor in use of these byproducts by dairy producers in regions like the Northeast where land base is limited in order to comply with nutrient management plans.

Today, many farmers feed distillers grains (wet or dry), but at comparatively low amounts. The real question at this workshop was how do we increase (or even maximize) the feeding rate for dairy cattle? We came up with a prioritized = list of nutritional challenges that the ethanol industry needs to tackle soon. At the top of the list is reducing phosphorus content. For many producers, des= pite the good nutritional attributes and the low cost of dis= tillers grains, the high phosphorus content closes the door to consideration. There appears to be technology on the horizon that will allow lower-phosphorus byproducts to be marketed. Second on the list was lowering and controlling = the amount of lipid (corn oil) in the byproduct to avoid milk fat depression. Technology is here today for fractionating these byproducts so that the gra= ins have lower lipid content and so more can be fed. Improved consistency of the byproduct is a given, and I think that the leaders in the ethanol industry = have heard this message.

The bottom line is that mountains of these byproducts will be available at economical prices over the next five years. Today, the ethanol industry is working on ways to reduce phosphorus, oil content, and generally create a byproduct that better fits into our rations and nutrient management plans. = Make sure your nutritionist keeps abreast of developments in corn milling and ethanol byproduct production in the next few years. Like many fibrous byproducts, distillers grains are an excellent s= ource of digestible fiber and energy when used to replace starch (and even some forage fiber) in the diet.

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

A REAL LIFE PHOSPHORUS ISSUE…DEFICIENCY

The herdsman of a rather large dairy farm in the Champlain Valley shared their recent experience concerning dry cow rations and dietary phosphorus levels. They have been feeding the “straw diet” to t= heir dry cows with great success. The diet consists primarily of chopped straw, = wet brewers grain and corn silage along with some concentr= ate and minerals. Through the first 6 weeks of about 160 c= alvings there was only 1 DA, 3% metritis and about 7% clinical ketosis. Then, in the herdsman’s words, “the heat hit”. Dry matter intake dropp= ed and cows just fresh were stumbling into their lactations. Blood tests of fr= esh cows showed that they were phosphorous deficient. (Normal blood plasma P le= vel is 4-6 mg/dl). Subsequent changes to the diets were to drop straw levels to about 5.5 lbs/cow/day, add some cal-phos and us= e an IV phosphorous in acute cases. The estimated costs in lost income and culls: About $20,000.

The question raised is whether the current NRC 2001 phosphorus feeding recommendations are too low, in this case for close-up dry cows. Without knowing what the P level was in this herd, we can’t make that assessm= ent. The problem became severe when DMI dropped due to the heat. The table lists the range of dietar= y P levels listed in the NRC 2001 ration guidelines along with the levels we ha= ve been feeding in our “straw dry cow diets” here at Miner Institu= te. We haven’t experienced any P deficiencies with these diets. Actually, our close-up intakes have remained fairly steady at about 25 lbs of DM throughout the summer heat.

Note the distinction between P% of the diet and grams of absorbable P supplied: = The two are not interchangeable. It’s the grams of absorbable P th= at the animal requires, regardless of dietary percentage. In the herd in quest= ion, the dietary P levels must have been extremely low since neither straw nor c= orn silage have much P and wet brewers runs about 0.= 35% P. With a reduction in DMI, the grams of absorbable P consumed likely dropped below the animals’ requirements resulting in P deficiency even though= the dietary P percentage may have been at the recommended level. Even with cons= cientious wet chemistry analyses of the diets indicating adequate P levels in this he= rd, the unknown factor is how absorbable the P is from various feedstuffs. Not = to say that we recommend overfeeding P in order to avoid the risk of deficienc= y, but rather suggest that the levels we have been feeding at Miner Institute appear to be adequate and not in extreme excess. The NRC 2001 recommendatio= ns may be low given the lack of research data with today’s high producing cows in their dry periods.

Take home message: Make sure the grams of nutrient consumed meet the animalsR= 17; requirements.

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

DAIRY COW NUMBERS

As the table shows, the 6 counties in Northern NY maintained cow numbers pretty well between 2004 and 2005, in sp= ite of considerable decreases in Essex and Franklin Counties. Milk production decreased slightly both regionally and statewide, but milk = per cow was down less than 100 lbs. Maybe the reduced BST availability had something to do with this.

FALL ALFALFA HARVEST

Always a common question from farmers this time of year: “Should I harvest my alfalfa this fall?” For anyone advising farmers this is a no-win situation: If we tell the farmer it’s OK to take a fall harvest and h= is alfalfa comes through the winter looking great he pats himself on the back = for being such a smart fellow. But if his alfalfa turns out lousy next spring (= dead @ lousy), regardless of the reason—a= nd of course there are many unrelated to harvest timing—he always rememb= ers exactly who said it was OK to mow. For this reason, those of us advising farmers ha= ve developed several handy weaselly phrases, including the time-honored “It depends on how much you need the feed.”

Because of the hot summer weather, some farmers took a third cut as early as the fi= rst week in August. We started harvesting third cut alfalfa-grass on Aug. 2nd. With a 35-day harvest interval between third and fourth cuts, this means th= at some alfalfa fields might be ready for a fourth cut by the just after Labor Day. Of course, alfalfa isn’t the only crop that grew like a weed this summer, and corn may be ready to chop early enough to compete with alfalfa harvest. Alfalfa will hold quality in September much better than will corn,= so if your corn is ready to harvest—at least 32% DM—then put the c= orn head on your chopper and get to it. To feed 30% DM corn silage you’ll have to harvest corn at 32% DM since the crop loses dry matter during fermentation, but not water unless there’s silage effluent.

I’m hoping that corn harvest will prevent an early September alfalfa 4^{th
cut because this will eliminate any notion of a 5^th (!) cut. With
current Cornell University recommendations of at l=
east
45 days harvest interval before a fall harvest, for alfalfa mowed in early
September 45 days is mid-October. Some years
we’ve had a hard enough frost by mid-October so harvest isn’t
feasible, but alfalfa doesn’t die with the first light frost so
there’s a fair chance that we’ll still have unfrosted alfalfa w=
ell
into October. We really hope someone in Northern
N.Y. does take a fifth cut =
of
alfalfa this year, but it won’t be us. If you do or know someone who
does, let us know so we can tell the rest of our readers what happens.}

Regardless of which cut you harvest this fall, make sure fertility levels—especi= ally potassium—are up to snuff and don’t harvest a field that’= s at increased risk due to borderline drainage. Also, leave a higher than normal stubble, especially if “normal” for you is 2”. Some agronomists recommend 6” of stubble for fall-harvested alfalfa. Apply= ing potash in October does little to protect alfalfa, since there’s little nutrient uptake once plants slow down as they prepare for a long North Country winter. As for what to do about fall harvest of spring seedings: There’s no ne= ed to baby them; in fact, if the seeding was established early enough in the spri= ng that this would be a third cut, the chances of winter injury are actually <= i>less than for an older stand. This is because root diseases and damaged crowns (= from wheel traffic) start to take their toll on older stands.<= /p>

Should you take a fall harvest this year? It depends on how much you need the feed= .

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

MILK CHECK MONITOR

The “Milk Check Monitor” is a spreadsheet that analyzes the monthly milk check and tracks trends in milk and component production and milk qual= ity. With the spreadsheet, the Miner Institute farm will be able to monitor prog= ress in production and locate areas for improvement. The spreadsheet has 5 data entry sheets linked to 9 graphs; as new data are entered they are transferr= ed to the corresponding graphs. The spreadsheet analyzes the monthly gross milk payment, which is the sum total of payments for = pounds of butterfat, protein and other solids shipped and the producer price differential. The producer price differential (PPD), which varies monthly, = is a calculation to balance the milk pool and account for the difference in the total classified value of milk and total component value of milk.

Each component’s % of the total gross payment is calculated in the spreadsheet. The majority of the milk check comes from payments for butterf= at and protein; in June, 40.70% of our gross milk check was from butterfat, 52= .40% from protein, with the remainder from the producer price differential and o= ther solids payment. The net milk payment is calculated from the gross payment, taking into account premiums and deductions. Deductions include hauling and stop charges for milk pick-up, money for milk promotion, and dues paid to <= span class=3DSpellE>AgriMark. AgriMark’s premiums include protein, quality and quantity, a $0.10/cwt basic premium, = and a $0.10/cwt multiple tank discount.

In the spreadsheet, our monthly “mailbox price” is the price paid = per hundred pounds of milk shipped. Since January, our mailbox price has decreased from $15.86 to $14.27= in June. Another number to monitor through the spreadsheet is the milk income/= cow (milking & dry); in June each cow made $309.20 gross milk income.<= /o:p>

Although we do not have any control over the monthly component prices, it is interes= ting to observe the price changes throughout the year and over the course of sev= eral years. Generally, the protein price is highest, followed by the butterfat a= nd then the other solids price. Compared to 2004 the protein and butterfat pri= ces this year have been much more stable, but not quite as high. Our protein pr= ice has been about $2.50, while the butterfat price has been about $1.70. =

Since the beginning of the year, pounds of milk shipped from the Miner Institute = farm have steadily increased, with a slight decrease in production during the hot summer months. In January we shipped 472,318 lbs of milk and in June we shi= pped 640,264 lbs of milk. Our quantity premium increases as pounds of milk shipp= ed increases; in June we earned a quantity premium of $0.30/cwt.

During the first half of the year butterfat has been between 3.7 – 3.8%, and lbs. of butterfat shipped has steadily increased. In the summer months of 2= 004, the butterfat % decreased quite a bit, but this summer butterfat % didnR= 17;t dropped as drastically. Milk protein % has been about 3.0%, and like butter= fat, the lbs. of protein shipped have also increased since the beginning of the year. If milk protein is greater than 3.05%, the farm receives a premium, a= nd for several months in 2004 we earned this premium, but since then, the milk protein has been just under 3.05%.

A full quality premium for Miner Institute farm is $0.30/cwt and can be earned only if the milk meets certain criteria. The raw bacteria count cannot exce= ed 5,000, the pasteurized bacteria count cannot exceed 100 and the somatic cell count cannot exceed 150,000. = Milk quality has definitely improved in 2005 and every month this year we have earned the full milk quality premium. The somatic cell count has been around 100,000 (up to 124,000 in the hot June weather), while in 2004, the somatic cell count ranged from 162,000 to 208,000 during the first half of the year= .

It’s exciting to see the progress we have made in production and milk quality, e= ven since January. Hopefully the = Milk Check Monitor will prove to be a useful management tool as the dairy manage= ment team continues to work towards higher levels of productivity and cow health= .

Anna Pape<= /p>
Summer Experience in Fa= rm Management student

University of New Hampshire

UGLY STUFF

I recently saw a forage sample from grass silage that immediately assumed top spot in my Pantheon of Pitiful Silages. (At first blush “PantheonR= 21; may seem an inappropriate word since it refers to a temple of the gods, but when I saw the analysis I said “Good heavens” or words to that effect.) This sample tops the silage from near Darwin, Australia that tested 1% crude protein, a level that’s biologically improbable = if not downright impossible. But I digress: The sample in question was 17.5% D= M, had no lactic acid (less than 0.1% is “none” in my book) with an eye-popping 8% butyric acid (that’s the silage acid that smells like a long-dead rat). More than half the nitrogen in the silage was ammonia N, wh= ich might have burned the cows’ nostrils assuming they could get past the stink of the butyric acid. With all that butyric acid, the silage pH was 6.= 1, about the same as fresh forage. A good lesson here: Not all silage acids decrease pH.

Another sample harvested at about the same date and from the same general area (but= not the same farm) was also much wetter than desirable, 21.5% DM. However, this= one had over 3% lactic acid, barely detectable butyric acid (0.04%), only 7% of total N was ammonia N, and a very acceptable 4.4 pH. Here’s the take-= home message: The grass silage represented by the first sample is a classic setup for Clostridial silage, very nasty stuff indeed, while the silage represented by the second sample, while much too wet, was = at least feedable. (We won’t discuss silage effluent, of which there must have been plenty.) Every percentage point of moisture you can squeeze out of your forage, up to the goal of at least 30%= DM, might be the point that separates fair-to-middling silage from something yo= ur cows won’t—or shouldn’t—eat.

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

ROUNDUP RESISTANCE

In an ominous report, University of California researchers recently identified= a marestail (horseweed) population able to withstand four times the labeled rate of glyphosate (AKA Roundup, Touchdown, etc.) Glyphosate-resistant = marestail is now a problem in China, Spain, South Africa, and is a rapidly increasing problem in the U.S.<= /st1:place> where it already infests well over 2.5 million acres. Recent discove= ries include likely glyphosate resistance in Palmer pigweed, suspected resistance in giant ragweed, plus confirmed resistance in common ragweed.

These recent findings all point to the same conclusion: DO NOT apply glyphosate continuously as your only herbicide. Either apply other herbicides in a tank mix with glyph= osate (such as using a half rate of an annual grass tank mix with Roundup Ready corn), or at least one year in five switch to something other than glyphosate. Resistance shouldn’t be a problem i= n most dairy farm crop rotations since about every five years corn fields are rota= ted out of corn and seeded to alfalfa-grass. However, even though we don’t recommend it, some farmers plant continuous corn a lot more than five years= ; in these fields, don’t use Roundup Ready corn every year. We don’t know how many years it takes for a particular weed to develop glyphosate resistance, so a conservative approach is = best.

CORN HARVEST 2005

As you chop corn this fall, make sure your brain is in gear along with your tractor. Record the number of loads you harvest from each field, and since = from FSA records you know the acreage in each field you can easily determine loa= ds per acre. It would also be useful to know how much silage is in each load, = but if you can’t do this, loads per acre at least will give you a relative comparison from field to field, and hybrid to hybrid. (If you don’t k= now what hybrid is planted in each field, just forget the whole thing—and shame on you.) Back per-acre yield up with dry matter tests to determine dry matter yield per acre, or yield at, say 32% DM since the boys at the coffee shop will be more impressed that you got 20 tons of silage per acre than 6.4 tons of dry matter.

Use this information to help decide on what hybrids to plant next year. It̵= 7;s tempting to buy something from every dealer who darkens your door. While th= is will further add to your already massive cap collection, it won’t get= you much of a quantity discount. You’ll be better off with a few hybrids = that are proven winners—plus a new one just to keep things interesting—than you would by ordering something from everyone. Besid= es, you already have more caps than you’ll ever use. (If in doubt about t= his, ask your wife if she thinks you have enough caps; I already know The Bride’s opinion on my supply.) Helpful Hint for Hubbies: You might be able to get away with owning a huge number of hats if you tell your wife th= at it’s a “collection” rather than an accumulation. We know = one farmer who’s successfully collected/accumulated over 300 caps and hasn’t (yet) been divorced.

If you have more than one silo to fill with corn, try to put similar corn type= s in one silo. For instance, if you have leafy or other silage-only hybrids, don’t mix them with dual-purpose hybrids. This is especially true if there’s a considerable difference in ear-to-stalk ratio. And certainl= y, any and all BMR corn silage should be strictly segregated since it should be fed to the animals that will most benefit from it—usually, fresh and/= or high producing cows.

Don’t assume that because we’ve had a hot summer your corn will be ready to= chop a lot earlier than usual. It might mature a week earlier perhaps, but remem= ber the frigid weather we had in May? Corn growth was well behind normal most of June. In fact, combined May and June Growing Degree Days were smack on the long-term average. Kernel milk line is a good starting point for when to harvest, but should be confirmed by dry matter analysis using a Koster tester or microwave oven. It’s not recommended that you use the microwave in your kitchen. Do so at your own peril.

Ev Thomas<= /p>

thomas@whminer.com=

EXTRA CORN? THE OPTIONS

Many people had a good year for corn in 2004, and are looking at a nice crop this year (thought perhaps not quite as nice as last year). Therefore, corn sila= ge inventories may be more than normal, and you might not have room for all yo= ur corn. The alternative for some is to sell surplus corn for grain, either combined for dry shelled corn or as high moisture corn. To assist in this decision, two points to consider:

It’s a long way from 30-35% DM corn silage to 70% DM grain corn. If there’= s a reasonable risk that your corn won’t mature for grain, don’t ta= ke the chance. Harvest your crop a few inches higher to fit more grain into yo= ur silo, and adjust your rations accordingly. Not everyone is in love with high chop corn silage, but it’s one option.

A fairly good corn silage crop—16-17 tons/acre @ 30% DM—contains about 100 bushels of corn. That’s 2.8 tons of 15.5% moisture shelled = corn or 3.3 tons of 30% moisture high moisture shelled corn. For 20 tons/acre, t= he numbers are 125 bushels, 3.5 tons and 4.2 tons per acre. Before you decide = to have your corn harvested as grain, check harvest cost and grain price.

NOTABLE QUOTES: EDUCATION

v&nb= sp; “Education is a method by which one acquires a higher grade of prejudice.”

—Laurence J. Peter

v&nb= sp; “An intellectual is someone who has found something more interesting than sex.”

—Edgar Wallace

v&nb= sp; “Education is the period during which you are being instructe= d by somebody you do not know, about something you do not want to know.”

—C. K. Chesterton

v&nb= sp; “An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.”

—Niels Bohr

v&nb= sp; “I respect a man who knows how to spell a word more than one way.”

—Mark Twain

SILAGE PROCESSORS

Silage processors are great—as long as they’re properly maintained. Ea= ch year before you start chopping corn, check the processor unit to make sure there aren’t any badly damaged or worn grooves. The rolls on processor units wear out, and while there’s no firm rule of thumb as to life expectancy we know of at least one processor with badly worn rolls after ab= out 2500 acres of corn. Worn rolls should be regrooved or replaced. We recently saw what happens to corn run through worn-out process= or rolls, and it wasn’t pretty. Even though the length of cut and proces= sor setting were both correct, there were many undamaged kernels in the silage, a lot more than there would be if the processor clearance was set a millimeter or two wider than it should be.

Speaking of rules of thumb, “start with a nickel (2-3 mm), end with a dime (1 mm)” is still a good place to start with silage proces= sor rolls, but this can change depending on kernel texture and the age of the rolls. As for length of cut, ¾” is best. Shorter chop lengths = burn up expensive fuel and don’t provide added benefit, while longer chop lengths are OK for your cows but maybe not for your chopper unit. (No data = on this last comment, which is based on the experience of custom operators.)

FEEDING BEHAVIOR BEFORE AND AFTER CALVING IDENTIFIES COWS AT RISK FOR METRITIS

Cows that spend less time feeding during the two weeks before calving are at increased risk of developing metritis after cal= ving, according to researchers from the University of British Columbia (UBC). The study was reported in the August issue of the <= i>Journal of Dairy Science and is the first study to show a link between feeding behavior and early detection of morbidity in transition cows. Previously, o= ther researchers have used feeding behavior to predict morbidity in feedlot catt= le. While other researchers have suggested a variety of animal fa= ctors (feed intake, milk yield, walking activity) as indicators for early disease detection in transition cows.

In the UBC study, time spent= at the feed bunk was monitored continuously for 26 Hols= tein cows during the transition period (2 weeks before through 3 weeks after calving). Metritis was diagnosed by examination= of vaginal discharge and rectal body temperature. Metriti= c cows spent ~22 min/d less time at the feed bunk during the transition perio= d (2 weeks before through 3 weeks after calving) than did non-metritic (healthy) cows. For every 10-minute decrease in average daily feeding time, cows were twice as likely to be diagnosed with metriti= s.

The factors (mechanisms) that mediate the link between feeding behavior and diseases prevalent during the transition period are unknown. Future research should help to determine how soon before calving at risk cows can be identified, and whether the feeding behavioral differences can be used in t= he early diagnosis of other diseases or metabolic disorders.=

Heather Dann<= /p>

dann@whminer.com=

DIAGNOSING PEST PROBLEMS IN CORN

There’s plenty of corn smut around this year. A month ago they appeared as small, grayish-white galls on the ears (or where the ears should be), but by now they’re large, grey-black galls chock full of black spores. The good = news is that smut isn’t harmful to you or your animals and doesn’t h= ave any impact on corn fermentation. If your corn has only the occasional “smutty” plant, don’t worry about it. However, if one hyb= rid appears to have a lot more smut than others, consider switching to another hybrid since some hybrids apparently are more susceptible to this co= mmon fungal disease. Because it’s so noticeable, smut usually looks much w= orse than it is; if you actually count the number of affected plants you’ll usually find only a percent or two that are affected.

Then there’s the damage caused by critters. Seems like most members of the animal kingdom love corn. Many years ago Charlie Hesse= ltine was combining corn at his farm near Malone. He was harvesting merrily away, watching the golden kernels pouring into the combine hopper. Then he harves= ted a stretch of corn adjoining some woodland, and suddenly the flow of kernels stopped almost entirely. Charlie got down from the combine and discovered t= hat almost every plant in the rows next to the woods had been picked kernel-cle= an, yet there weren’t a lot of lodged stalks that are characteristic of raccoon damage. Then he saw a gray squirrel hot-footing it for a tree, with= a mouth chock full of Charlie’s corn—mystery solved!

Blackbirds are often a problem, not as much for what they eat as for what they spoil by opening the ear. We have quite a bit of bird damage in one field this year,= but in looking at the corn we noticed that this hybrid produces a lot of “grinners”—tips of ears sticking bare-naked out of the hu= sk. This is just begging for bird trouble, and to make it worse the hybrid has erect ears, making it easy for the birds to perch on the ear and eat its fill.

Raccoons are of course a problem, and other than hunting them the best solution is to simply outnumber them by planting a heck of a lot more corn plants than they can eat. This isn’t a problem for dairy farmers; it is for sweet corn growers since they don’t usually plant nearly as much acreage and coo= ns just love sweet corn. We plant half an acre of sweet corn in the Cornell University research plots and the raccoons just decimate it, eating far more than our employees do. However, = it does do a pretty good job of keeping them out of Cornell’s corn hybrid trials.

The granddaddy of critter problems in corn is bears, and we’re told that = the bear population in Northern N.Y. is on t= he rise. Bear damage—and we’ve seen more than enough in Miner Institute corn fields—is easy to diagnose: Just look for a large area= of flattened corn in a field near a wooded area, lots of corn plants sort of pulled together so the bear can sit there in one place and eat his fill. We once had a 6-acre field so decimated by bears that it was a total loss. (That’s the last time we planted corn in that field, which is surroun= ded on all sides by woods.) From the amount of flattened but uneaten corn IR= 17;m not sure that they were there simply for dinner, but perhaps for recreation, procreation, or perhaps all of these: Dinner by twilight followed by a roll= in the corn. Sad to say there’s not much that can be done to prevent bear damage, since if you shoot the offending bear another will most likely move= in well before next fall.

Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

CLOSING COMMENT

If you think you're a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else's d= og around.