WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

Corn silage harvest= was completed on Sept. 22, with a good crop but not quite as good as last year’s bumper crop. We had 25 fewer acres of corn, which of course contributed to fewer tons. We averaged 21 tons per acre (30% DM basis) for = all our corn, a bit over our long-term average. Our brown midrib (BMR) corn averaged 18 tons/acre on a 30% DM basis, which is OK since BMR corn normally yields less than non-BMR hybrids.

We also took a fourth cut of alfalfa-grass since we finished third cut before Empire Farm Days. Some of the fourth cut was in bloom, the first time we’ve seen alfalfa blossoms in some of these fields since it was seed= ed. Harvest interval between 3^rd and 4^th cuts was 50 days. Quality was very good: 21% CP, 32% ADF, 44% NDF.= The lowest quality field was 5^th year alfalfa-o= rchardgrass, 2 percentage points lower in CP and several % points higher in ADF and NDF = than the other fields in spite of the same harvest interval. Note from Ev: I still hate orchardg= rass.

Milk production continues to increase. We’re told that our herd did a lot better than most during summer heat waves, validation for Rick’s insistence right from the start that we needed fans in the barn. The forage portion of our lactating cow rations ranges from 60 to 66% corn silage, and= all rations are at least 50% forage. A heavy corn silage diet makes the crops c= rew happy since it’s much easier to produce a ton of corn silage than it = is a ton of hay crop silage. Quality seems to be more consistent, too.

Our new self-propelled harvester has a big appetite for forage. Even harvesting= six rows of corn instead of three (as we did with our pull-type chopper), we chopped at more MPH and therefore delivered a heck of a lot more forage to = the silo each hour; so much more that we had to use a second packing tractor. B= oth the University of Wisconsin’s “silage density calculator” and the old “rule of 800̶= 1; (divide total packing tractor weight by 800 for maximum tons per hour) indicated that with two tractors we were OK. The acid test was measuring the volume of silage (silo size x average height of silage) and the tons of sil= age ensiled—easy for us since we weigh every load of forage harvested. Wh= ere we only had one packing tractor (25’ wide silo, not wide enough for t= wo) we had 16 lbs of dry matter per cubic foot, while where we had two tractors= in a bigger silo—one packing 95% of the time, the other 70%--we were ove= r 20 lbs DM/cu ft. The goal is at least 14 lbs DM/cu foot.

—Steve Couture, couture@w= hminer.com

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com=

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS FROM MINER INSTITUTE

Following is a summary of some of the research t= hat was conducted at Miner Institute and presented at the 2005 Joint Annual Mee= ting of the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA) and American Society of An= imal Science (ASAS) held in Cincinn= ati on July 24–28.

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Forage Lab Dairy Science Research Abstract in conjunction with Feed Commodities International, Inc.: A comparison of three techniques for determining the physical effectiveness factor for use in calculating physically effective NDF.

Physically effective NDF is a critical measure of feeds, forages and TMRs in terms of maintaining= rumen health and predicting microbial protein yields from rumen fermentation. The physically effective NDF conte= nt of a feed is determined by multiplying the NDF content of the feed by a physic= al effectiveness factor (pef). The pef is determined analytically as the proportion of the sample that is greater tha= n 1.18mm when dried and sieved using a Ro-Tap Sieve Shaker (Ro-Tap). The Penn State Particle Separator = (PSPS) has been proposed as a method to determine the pef value of forages on the farm, quickly and inexpensively using the “wet” as-fed feed sample. The objective of this study was to compare pef values from the “gold standard” Ro-Tap method to pef values fro= m 2 PSPS methods. The 2 PSPS meth= ods were: 1) using the PSPS 1.18m= m wire mesh screen and determining pef as the percenta= ge of wet sample greater than 1.18mm, and 2) totaling the percentage of particles= on the top and middle (19mm and 8mm) screens along with only 50% of the fine particles that ended up on both the 1.18mm wire mesh screen and the bottom = pan.

Twenty samples of corn silage and 21 samples of hay crop silage were collected fro= m 15 commercial dairy farms in Vermont, by representatives of Feed Commodities International in Middlebury, VT.<= /st1:place> Particle size distribution was determined for all samples using the Ro-Tap and the PSPS 3 sieve system with the 1.18mm wire mesh screen. = The pef for each sieving method was determined as: 1) proportion of dry forage greater than 1.18mm using the Ro-Tap (pef_Ro_-Tap), 2) proportion of as= -fed forage greater than 1.18-mm using the wire mesh screen of the PSPS (pef_PSPS), and 3) proportion of as-fed fora= ge remaining on the 19 and 8-mm sieves of the Penn State separator plus 50% of= the amount remaining on the 1.18mm sieve and the pan (pef<= sub>PSPSmod).

The figures provide a vivid picture of how accur= ate the 2 PSPS methods were in predicting the actual pef values of the hay crop and corn silage samples using the dry sieve RoTap method. = Figure 1 shows the results for = corn silage, Fig= ure 2 shows the hay crop silage data. The x-axis in both figures is the RoTap pef values. The y-axis (vertical axis) indicates the pef value obtained from the various PSPS methods.&nb= sp; If the PSPS accurately predicted the RoTap pef value, then the data points should be on the y=3Dx diagonal line. Clearly the PS= PS pef values using the wire mesh screen or the modified calculation do not equal the RoTap values for e= ither forage. The wire mesh 1.18mm = screen of the PSPS overestimates the true pef value as= noted by the diamonds all being above the diagonal y=3Dx line. Using the method of adding the top 2 screens plus 50% of the particles found on the wire mesh a= nd pan fairly closely predicts the RoTap pef values for corn silage but not for the haylage samples, as noted by the squares. We subseque= ntly were asked to compare the amount of forage remaining on the top 2 screens of the PSPS to the RoTap values, (depicted by the triangles) and for both the hay crop and corn silage, this greatly underestimated the true pef value.

In summary, compared to the Ro-Tap (x-axis), the= PSPS over-predicted pef and PSP= Smod under-predicted pef for corn silage. For hay crop silage, compared to R= o-Tap (x), both the PSPS 1.18mm wire mesh screen and the PSP= Smod over-predicted pef. Though this was a small sample set representing a limited range of pef values, the= PSPS and modified PSPS systems did not accurately measure p= ef as defined by the standard RoTap dry sieving method. If on-farm measuremen= t of pef is needed, then a new method or sieving tool need= s to be developed.

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

—Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com

DAIRY STATE LAND VALUES

Following are cropland values a= nd cash rent prices, plus the change from last year

As you can see, New York cropland is a bargain compare= d to other dairy states, either to buy or rent. Of course, in California the c= ropland isn’t covered with snow several months each year…

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK – Latest on Nutrient Management<= /h2>

I just finished reading the latest issue of the Journal of Dairy Science, and there were three research articles pertaining to dietary phosphorus and protein content and nutrient excretion and performance by dairy cows. Since many of you don’t routinely read the Journal, I wanted to share the essential take-home message of these articles because they provide solid research results that reinforce recent trends in the dairy industry.

Researchers at Michigan State University and the National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa evaluated the effect of 0.21, 0.31, or 0.44% dietary phosphorus for the last four weeks before calving for cows in second or greater lactation. When the= se close-up cows freshened, there were no differences among the cows in milk yield, health, or feed intake. So, even though higher levels are sometimes = fed, about 34 grams/day of phosphorus per cow (equivalent to the 0.21% level) du= ring the close-up period is adequate for Holstein cows. This amount of dietary phosphorus agrees closely with the recommendat= ions in the Dairy NRC publication from 2001. Once cows freshen, they can be fed a dietary level of 0.35 to 0.40% phosphorus based on several research trials = that have been published in the last few years.

A related paper from Penn State University evaluated the impact of dietary phosphorus on ovarian activity and reproduc= tive performance in Holsteins during their se= cond or greater lactation. This trial was designed to specifically evaluate reproductive performance. At calving, cows were assigned to either 0.35 or 0.47% dietary phosphorus. Milk yield averaged 88 pounds per cow daily regardless of phosphorus level in the diet. The bottom line is that dietary phosphorus level did not influence any measure of ovarian activity or reproductive performance. So, once again there is sound scientific evidence that feeding lower amounts of dietary phosphorus as part of a nutrient management strategy does not interfere with dairy cow performance.

The same research group at Penn State also reported a study that evaluated varying levels of dietary crude protei= n on milk yield and nitrogen excretion. By varying the proportion of corn and alfalfa silage, these researchers were able to feed diets that ranged from = 15.7 to 19.2% protein. As dietary protein increased, milk yield was unchanged, b= ut nitrogen excretion increased and the efficiency of nitrogen use for milk production was reduced. In other words, overfeeding dietary protein is inefficient, does not increase milk yield, and definitely results in more manure nitrogen to deal with. The lower dietary protein levels especially reduced the environmentally available urinary nitrogen. Based on their experiments plus the data in the 2001 Dairy NRC, these researchers propose = that about 17% dietary crude protein is sufficient for cows producing 85 pounds = of milk daily and fed diets containing various proportions of alfalfa and corn silage. Sounds to me like their results should apply to most top-end dairy farmers in the northeast, wouldn’t you agree?

–Rick Grant

grant@whminer.com

CORN HYBRID TRIALS: Demonstration vs. Rese= arch

Field trials comparing corn hybrids can be useful, but it’s important to remember the difference between a trial that demonstrates the characteristics of a number of corn hybrids—relative maturity, amount of grain, etc.—and a research plot that provides an indication of the true yield difference between hybrids. I’ve seen so= me trials where there are huge differences in plant population between corn hybrids, with one hybrid differing from another by almost 10,000 plants per acre. In this case were yield and quality differences due to genetics, or the big variability in plant population? Small differences in plant population (under 2000 plants per acre) are OK; = large ones aren’t.

You shouldn’t put too much weight on the yield results of a single side-by-side comparison, where the corn hybrids are planted in only one location. If there’s a 2 ton per acre difference between one hybrid a= nd another in a single location, there’s only a 60% chance that the difference is real and repeatable. (In other words, there’s a = 40% chance that the lower-yielding hybrid is at least as productive as the high= er yielding one.) That’s because a single comparison can be influenced by slight differences in soil type, slope, fertility, or drainage. But if you = have ten side-by-side comparisons and that same 2 ton yield difference, chances are 90% that the yield difference is “real”. Side-by-si= de comparisons are much more useful in comparing maturity between hybrids, sin= ce this characteristic is less affected by small differences in field conditio= ns.

VET’S CORNER: How Does A Dairy Farm Cope With The High Cost Of Dairy Replacement Heifers?=

Three strategies can be considered to reduce your dairy farm’s dependence on purchasing high-priced replacements. An individual dairy operator can have little influence on the purchase price currently asked for quality replacem= ent heifers. National surveys report that the <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">U.S. dairy cattle population = has had a slight increase and with no Canadian imports allowed due to the BSE barrier, prices for replacement cattle are predicted to remain high. To maintain proper culling levels and profitability, three management areas ne= ed attention.

1.      = Improve newborn calf survival rate

If ten cows calve on t= he farm this month, can you expect to have five live, healthy heifer calves leave t= he maternity pen? About 10% of all mature Holstein cow births are twins, so we expect to throw out one freemartin heifer this month. Surveys based on dairypersons’ memories indicate that 5-10% of calves are lost at birth, while surveys done on University and Institute he= rds with dedicated record-keeping indicate that 25% of first-calf heifers’ calves died at birth while 10% of mature cows delivered dead calves. If maternity pens are monitored mo= re often, one death prevented today can help to avoid a $1,800 bill in two yea= rs for a replacement heifer.

2.      = Lower the age of heife= rs at first calving

Monthly overhead cost = and feed cost for a growing heifer is estimated at $25 for each expense, so lowering age at first calving from the national average of 28 months to 24 months will save $200/heifer. If milk income over feed cost for these extra four months is added to this overhead and feed cost savings, the incentive = to calve heifers earlier is stronger. Another way to look at the profitability= of earlier calving is to consider that in a 100-cow herd there will be 13 extra milking heifers available after the transition to earlier calving.

3.      = Artificially inseminat= e. virgin heifers to calving-ease sires or sexed semen
If the herd does not r= aise crossbred heifers, there is an opportunity to raise about 15 extra baby cal= ves annually in a 100-cow herd. Your A.I. rep can recommend high repeatability calving ease sires or same-sexed semen to avoid dystoc= ia cases. The Iowa State University herd started breeding Holstein heifers to Holstein sires in the 1970’s; a computerized search revealed that 53% of the current milking cows are daughters of first calf heifers.

–Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

cowdoc@adelphia.net

OOPS

The September issue of Farm Futures obviously doesn’t think there’s much future to farming in the Northeas= tern U.S. They showed a map of what they said were the 100 “b= est, most profitable” counties to farm. There wasn’t a single one of= the “top 100” in New England, an= d only one in NY. That one was Suffolk = County, out on the tip of Long Island. Except not according to the folks at Farm Futures, which unbeknownst to its residents has relocated Suffolk County and according to their map it’s now smack in the middle of the Catskill Mountains, A.K.A. the Borscht Belt. Sullivan County…Suffolk County…oh well, they both start with the same two letters. (To be fair, in the text t= he writers did locate Suffol= k County in the right place.)

OK, so we didn’t make the top 100: Where do we rank? Farm Futures = put their list of all 3006 agricultural counties in the U.S. on its website: Here’s how Northern = NY and the adjoining counties in Vermont ranked:

<= 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'>·         New York<= /st1:place>: Clinton 215, Lewis 2= 64, Franklin 396, Jefferson 661, St. Lawrence 853, Essex 2442 (Oh well, at least the mountains are pretty and they have Champy.)=

<= 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'>·         Vermont: Franklin 222, Addison 301, Essex 1449, Grand Isle= 1565

No county in New Hampshir= e or Rhode Island ranked in the top 1000; = in fact, the only New England county outside of Vermont ranking in the top 500 was Connecticut’s Hartford = County at #336.<= /p>

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS GET SQUEEZED

USDA will reduce staff in county Farm Service Agency offices by offering buyouts or early retirement incentives. The FSA budget = for 2006 calls for 850 fewer positions. Some have already been achieved by attrition, with another 550 or 600 to go. Southeastern states will be harde= st hit by the reduction in staff, and some county offices may be consolidated (combined). This would mean that farmers in affected counties would have to drive further to their nearest FSA office and face delays in services. USDA wants to close up to 665 FSA offices, or about 30% of them. However, there’s a move afoot in the Senate to block these closings until USDA justifies them.

The financial stress caused by 9-11 as well as increased social service outlays= for Medicare and Medicaid have taken their toll, via reduced state and federal support of agricultural research and Cooperative Extension programs. Some programs have been cut entirely, but more often these programs are slowly b= eing bled to death by not replacing retired professionals. Enter hurricanes Katr= ina and Rita, which will take a huge bite out of the Federal treasury, perhaps = to the tune of $100 billion or so. Those dollars have to come from somewhere s= ince they can’t simply print the stuff (Oops, come to think of it they can= ), but in any case this isn’t good news for publicly funded agricultural programs.

HOME REMEDIES FOR PET MALADIES

§Does your dog have fleas? Don’t they all? Dish washing liquid will get rid of them. Add a few drops to your dog's bath, and shampoo the animal thoroughly. Rinse well to avoid skin irritations.<= /p>
§Next time your dog comes in from the rain smelling like, well, a wet dog, wipe Fido down with an unused dryer sheet, instantly making him smell springtime fresh.

§Eliminate ear mites. All it takes is a few drops of corn oil in your cat's ear. Massage it in, then clean with a cott= on ball. Repeat daily for 3 days. The oil soothes the cat's skin, smothers the mites, and accelerates healing. Speaking of healing, try some disinfectant = on the scratches you get while pouring corn oil into your cat’s ear—especially on Day 3, when the little dear knows what’s comi= ng.

§To prevent troublesome hairballs, apply a dollop of petroleum jelly= to your cat's nose. The cat will lick off the jelly, lubricating any hair in i= ts stomach so it can pass easily through its digestive system. You’ll probably need more disinfectant, especially if this follows the corn oil business.

FARM INPUT PRICE INCREASES

Sure, fuel prices have skyrocketed in the past mont= h or so, but it helps to take the long view. Following are some of the major crop-related farm inputs, and their change since 1990-92:

Fuel        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   +136%

Machinery        &= nbsp;    + 71%

Seed        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; + 71%

Wages        &= nbsp;          + 62%

Fertilizer + 61%

Ag chemicals     &nbs= p; + 20%

Fertilizer prices should remain high compared to previous years. Demand is up hugely, while the U.S. has been shutting down production facilities. As a result, we’re depending on imports more than ever. For instance, net imports of nitrogen = were 5% in 1990 and 45% in 2004. That said, Hurricane Katrina’s damage to = most fertilizer facilities wasn’t major, and handling of bulk fertilizer products should be almost back to normal. Flood-related fertilizer price sp= ikes were just that—spikes—and shouldn’t last.

GOOD NEWS

When growing up in the late 1950s (a proc= ess The Bride claims is continuing) I used to listen to an evening radio progra= m, “Good News with Alex Dreier”. Dreier was the last western repor= ter the Nazis kicked out of Berli= n, and dined with Churchill and Roosevelt. After his war experiences he must h= ave felt the need to bring a bit of good news into American homes in the times before televisions were commonplace. Every weeknight, 30 minutes of nothing= but good news: No stock market report, no reports of murder or mayhem or Cold W= ar crises.

Every weekday between 1966 and 1981 I had= an early morning farm radio show, about 4000 of them in all. (Yikes.) It was nothing like the “Good News” show since I only had five minutes, but I tried to keep the subject matter upbeat, focusing on the positive asp= ects of farming. In all those years I never mentioned the word “mastitis” or any of the other unpleasant things that happen to cows. I didn’t want to have my (mostly non-farm) audience thinking ab= out milk quality problems as they were about to pour the stuff onto their cerea= l.

If by now you’re wondering where I’m heading with this: On August 11 the wall of a man= ure pit on a huge Lewis County dairy farm failed and millions of gallon= s of manure ran into the Black River, killing= about 250,000 fish. The local TV news featured the manure spill, government officials (especially the elected ones) were apoplectic with outrage, and dairy farmi= ng took a hit. We took a hit even though, according to local agricultural authorities, the pit wasn’t an approved design and the farm’s C= AFO plan included a new manure pit. If your non-farming friends bring up the subject, tell them that catastrophic occurrences such as the Lewis County one are exceedingly rare. That’s the good news.

–Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

BALANCED FERTILIZATION OF ALFALFA

Because so many dairy farms have a positive phosphorus balance (more P coming onto = the farm as feed and fertilizer than leaving it as milk and cull livestock), we often tend to forget about this essential nutrient when topdressing alfalfa. It’s become normal to topdress alfalfa wi= th 0-0-60, sometimes not paying close attention to soil analyses. And for sure, most fields that are manured have plenty of phosphorus, but this isn’t to say that they all do. Purdue University research found that in long-term alfalfa fields (up to 7^th year = in production), topdressing with potassium and not phosphorus resulted in lower alfalfa persistence than not fertilizing at all for the entire 7 years!

Test each field on the farm at least once every three years, and if soil test P levels are low, apply manure or fertilizer P. If both P and K are low, it w= ould be better to spend $10 on P and $10 on K than $20 on either.

U.S.-JAPAN TRADE TENSION

Things are getting a mite testy between U.S. an= d Japanese trade officials. In September the U.S. Senate voted to stall a USDA measure that would reopen U.= S. markets to imports of Japanese beef. However, this measure assumed that J= apan would resume imports of U.S. beef, closed since BSE was discovered here in December 2003, and as you hav= e by now concluded, it hasn’t. The U.S. closed its market to Japanese beef in 2001 after Japan’s first case of B= SE was diagnosed. Since then, Japan has found 20 more cases. So the issue is who will blink first, and from the latest Senate action it appears that it won’t be us.

CORN SILAGE MATURITY MANAGEMENT

Farmers often chop co= rn silage before the proper stage of maturity. Harvesting prior to the proper stage of maturity can result in reduced dry matter yields and increased production of silage effluent. Because of the very high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of silage effluent, this represents a potentially serious sour= ce of water pollution. It has been found that silage effluent has nearly 60 ti= mes the BOD of human sewage. Owners of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), as a part of their Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan, are requ= ired to collect and treat or otherwise dispose of silage effluent. The objectives of this project wer= e:

To evaluate yield and forage quality changes with increasing maturity for corn harvested as whole plant silage.

To determine the effect of corn maturity on silage effluent product= ion and effluent characteristics.

A field of corn (Syngenta NK3030, 93 days relative maturity was planted in early June 2004 at Cha-Liz Farm in West Chazy. Harv= est dates were September 17 (Mature 1), September 24 (Mature 2) and October 8 (Mature 3). At each harvest date, whole plants were hand harvested at 12= 221; chop height from .001 acre and weighed to determine yield. Plots were replicated 4 times for each stage of maturity. The corn plants were then fed through a chopper head at ¾” theoretical length of cut and processed at 3mm roller spacing. The three desired levels of maturity were:= 25% dry matter (Mature 1), 30% dry matter (Mature 2), and 35% dry matter. Howev= er, the was less mature than anticipated, with dry matters of 23%, 25% and 31%<= o:p>

Previously constructe= d midi silos were used for ensiling fresh chopped corn. These are 3’ x 5R= 17; concrete culverts placed upright and buried approximately about 2 feet in t= he ground. Midi silos were filled for each = of the three stages of maturity, with four replications. Silos were filled with approximately 1000 lbs. of fresh weight corn forage. Fresh forages samples = were analyzed at the Dairy One Forage Laboratory for dry matter, crude protein, soluble protein, ADF, NDF, ash, lignin, starch, and sugar. A "Tiny Talk" temperature data logger was placed in each silo at filling at a depth of approximately two feet from the bottom of the silo, and temperature data was recorded every two hours. After filling, each silo was sealed using plastic sheeting plus a tire for weight. Effluent was collected 1 week after silo filling. Volume was measured, and the effluent analyzed for BOD5 (5-day biochemical oxygen demand) and nutrient content including crude protein, su= gar, and starch.

On December 14, 16 an= d 22^nd the midisilos were opened and emptied. Since the surface of the silos was frozen, spoiled silage was not easily discernible. Therefore, the top 6” of silage was removed from all silos, weighed a= nd discarded. The remaining silage was removed in three 12” sections identified as top, middle and bottom of silos. Silage was analyzed for part= icle size distribution, aerobic stability and nutrient analysis. Analyses includ= ed dry matter, nutrients, mold and yeast counts, 48 hour in vitro dry matter a= nd NDF disappearance.

RESULTS

Fresh forage:

·      =    Dry matter yields were highest for corn harvested at 31% DM. (7.5 t= ons DM/acre)

·      =    Dry matter digestibility was higher for the corn harvested at 31% D= M.

·      =    The dry matter density of the silos increased with increasing matur= ity, indicating that bunk density may be improved when packing more mature corn forage.

Ensiled forage:

·      =    One week after ensiling, 23% and 25% silage averaged 2.7 and 8.8 li= ters of effluent, while no effluent at all was produced with 31% DM silage.=

·      =    The effluent produced by the 23% DM silage had the highest sugar content.

·      =    DM content after ensiling was about 2 % points lower than the fresh forage. This is a normal result of fermentation.

·      =    No difference in DM losses based on stage of maturity.

·      =    CP, soluble protein, sugar and NDF were lower for the 31% DM corn, while starch content was highest.

·      =    Dry matter digestibility was lowest for the 23% silage, but there w= as no difference in NDF digestibility.

·      =    Milk per acre was highest for the most mature corn, and milk per ton was lowest for the least mature corn. Both milk per acre and milk per ton increased numerically with increasing maturity.

·      =    All three stages of maturity were preserved well. The most mature forage had the highest pH and the lowest total silage acids content, particularly lactic and acetic acid.

·         Mold and ye= ast counts evaluated in the top, middle and bottom section of each silo, and we= re low for all maturity levels and sections.

·         Temperature= s were recorded during the ensiling process. The 23% DM silage lacked the characteristic 10-degree increase in temperature during the first few days = of ensiling, but after that all three maturities followed similar temperature curves.

·         After ensil= ing, a subsample of silage was exposed to 77° air temperatures for 48 hours. A= ll maturity levels showed similar heating patterns, regardless of section of t= he silo.

CONCLUSIONS and SUMMARY

Although the target dry matters were not met, our results show that immature corn fo= rage harvested for silage (<25% DM) will have higher fiber with lower total DM digestibility. According to Milk2000 calculations, the least mature silage produced on this study would have resulted in 200 pounds less milk per ton = of silage fed when compared to the mature corn forage harvested at 31% DM. The most mature corn harvested for this trial also resulted in nearly 4000 poun= ds more milk per acre of corn when compared to the least mature corn. Forage ensiled at less than 26% DM resulted in approximately 15 liters of effluent= for every ton of forage ensiled. The biological impact of this nutrient-dense pollutant is alarming, and effluent production should be avoided by ensiling corn forage harvested at the proper maturity.

This research project was funded by the Northern New York Agricultural Developme= nt Program.

–Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

A BIT OF HEART’S DELIGHT FARM HISTORY

William Henry Miner kept excellent records when he operated Heart’s Delight F= arm from the first years of the 1900s until his death in 1930. (Actually, he ma= de sure his farm managers kept excellent records.) However, not much is known about what went on at the farm from 1930 until the 1960s. We do have copies= of the data he provided to USDA for the Census of Agriculture, though. Followi= ng are Heart’s Delight Farm r= ecords from 1918, Census data beginning in 1934, and the Miner Institute farm as i= t is today.

A few comments and unanswered questions:

§      =    After crop acreage declined by over 75% in the few years after his death, why did it increase from 900 to 1700 acres between 1935 and 1940?

§      =    Heart’s Delight Farm milked cows until at least 1954, and rai= sed quite a few hogs through 1959.

§      =    Why did the farm harvest 50,000 quarts of blueberries in 1939, but = none in 1934 or since 1939? We don’t know how many of the 800 employees li= sted as “farm workers” in 1918 were actual farm labor, but assume it= was most of them since they were listed in the census as employed on the farm.<= o:p>

§      =    A significant enterprise at Heart’s Delight Farm, sheep made a brief return during the 1980s, but only until we discovered that they carry= malignant head catarrh, a virus disease fatal to cattle. After we lost one calf d= ue to a mysterious disease, our herd vet couldn’t say that it was catarr= h, but that it might be. At which point we sold our sheep.
When I arrived at Miner Institute in 1968 there were no crops other than hay and= a patch of Cornell University research plots, and no livestock except a bunch of catheterized pregnant mares peeing up a storm in the cause of science. (The horses were involved in a research project for <= span class=3DSpellE>Ayerst Labs.) The first dairy animal made its re-appe= arance at Miner Institute in 1970 when Bill Gallamore, regional Extension dairy specialist, started a once vs. twice a day calf replacer feeding trial here. The rest is history.

–Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

CITY CRITTER NOTES

= §Where the buffalo roam: In the streets in New Delhi, I= ndia. Also lots of roaming cows, about 35,000 cows and buffalo all told. New Delhi officia= ls, frustrated at the traffic jams and general ruckus the bovines cause, are inserting ID = tags in their ears. (The animal’s, not the official’s.) If the cow or buffalo is picked up for trespassing, jaywalking or general malingering (Davy Barry would say that Malingering Buffalo is a great name for a rock group), its owner has to pay a $233 fine= to spring the beast from the bovine pokey.

= §Where the rats roam: <= b>New Delhi began paying 97 rat catchers $77 per mon= th after a 1994 rat-borne plague killed 56 people. The problem is that while <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">New Delhi has rats-aplenty, the rat catchers haven’t caught any rats. Not one. In t= en years. Therefore, the city has now spent $900,000 with nary a dead r= at to show for it.

= §Salt Lake City’s Rudy Duck Club uses y= oung pigs to harass the seagulls that were driving away the ducks on several islands. The members can’t shoot the seagulls because they’re t= he state bird (?!). The pigs are released for a few months each spring, scaring away the seagulls and eating their eggs, but they don’t bother Canadi= an geese, twice as big as the young porkers and at least twice as mean. Then in the fall the hunters shoot the ducks and the geese, neither of which are the state bird. No word as to what happens to the pigs, by now nicely fattened = up on seagull eggs, but we can guess. Oink.

= §Fish or fowl: More bad news for seagull lovers. (We know you’= re out there somewhere.) Killer whales at MarineLand in Niagara Falls, Ontario have learned to use fish as ba= it to catch seagulls. The whale regurgitates a bit of fish onto the surface of the water, lurking below the surface until an unsuspecting gull dives in for a = meal at which point it becomes the meal. One killer whale learned this tr= ick and soon taught it to several others; now all of them enjoy the occasional = fowl with their fish.

–Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

CALENDAR EVENTS

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

CLOSING COMMENT

The difference between art and science is that if something works in art you do= n't have to explain why.