FOURTH CUT ALFALFA QUALITY

This year we took a fourth cut of alfalfa. We waited 5= 8 days between cuts, which is well over the recommended minimum of 45 days. (Third= cut Aug. 2-3, fourth cut Sept. 29-30.) As we noted in last month’s Farm Report, some of the alfalfa was in bloom for the first time since we se= eded it, but we weren’t concerned about quality since we’ve never se= en high NDF fall-harvested alfalfa.

Turns out we were right (I love it when that happens),= since both ADF and NDF were just about ideal. We aim for 30% ADF for hay crops si= nce that results in close to the ideal combination of yiel= d and quality. NDF was mostly in the 40s, which is fine since all the fields were alfalfa-grass. However, there was just one problem: Or= chardgrass!

In April 2001 when we seeded the only field in which w= e have orchardgrass, we used one pound per acre with 1= 4 lbs of alfalfa. This in spite of my long-term dislike of o= rchardgrass, but this was a new, high yielding, high quality variety, maturity supposedly matched alfalfa well, yada, yada, yada, so we thought: “How much can just one pound per acre hurt?” Well, according to seed rate tables, one pound of orchardgrass con= tains about 425,000 seeds. At one pound per acre, that’s 10 seeds per square foot, and I think just about every one of them grew. See table on page 2 for the forage analyses for five fourth cut alfalfa-grass fields.

Can you pick out the field seeded to orchardgrass? Naturally, it’s the one with the highest ADF and NDF, and by far the lowest Relative Feed Value (RFV). Maybe we could have harvested the field a week earlier, but then the timing wouldn’t have matched up with the r= est of our alfalfa-grass harvest. To give orchardgrass its due, the field yielded well for a fifth year stand; at least we think 4 tons/A of dry matter is decent for 5^th year alfalfa-grass. Howev= er, compare this field to field #3, also seeded in April 2001, but to alfalfa-r= eed canarygrass. Yield is a bit better and forage quality= is a lot better. Another problem we have with orchardgrass (as if another is needed) is that it’s a bunch grass (see photo) and doesn’t fill in the spaces between plants. This is a continuous notill field; when we rotate it to corn (most likely = in 2007) we sure hope those big clumps of orchardgrass don’t cause planting problems… It would be just like this most troublesome species to jump up and grab us in the butt one last time just as we’re bidding it a not-so-fond farewell.

Have I mentioned that I hate orch= ardgrass?

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

FARM REPORT SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL<= /o:p>

FOR U.S. SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

It’s time to renew your free Farm Report <= /i>subscription for 2006 and 2007. You need to renew even if you’re a recent subscriber. Click here for the renewal form. We’ve made some changes = in the Farm Report in the past year; this will give you the chance to comment = on these as well as make suggestions for improvement, topics, etc. We’d = also appreciate it if you’d answer a few questions so we can learn a bit m= ore about our readership.

&nbs= p;

VET’S CORNER: Uterine Torsion

During the past summer our practice faced a growing nu= mber of difficult dystocia cases—hard calvings. The most difficult challenges were due to u= terine torsion. Folks who sought early veterinary intervention were rewarded while= the “wait-and-see” attitude resulted in some disasters.

Little can be recommended to prevent the occurrence of uterine torsion in the Holstein cow. The pregnant uterine horn hangs in the body cavity, so that when the cow rises = on her hind legs first, the uterus is suspended. Older cows have looser ligame= nts and deeper body cavities, so they are more prone to having the pregnant horn twist over the empty horn. Cases were seen in free-stall or tie-stall barns, total confinement or heavy pasturing, so no housing styles were spared.

Diagnosis of uterine torsion is difficult and leads to delayed intervention. In a normal delivery, signs of discomfort and restlessness don’t usually appear until the cervix dilates to admit t= he passage of the calf’s legs or head. Since the twist prevents the feet from entering the cervix, normal signs of labor aren’t present. The herdsmen don’t suspect that the cervix is dilated and wait too long to intervene. Generally, it takes 2 to 6 hours for the cervix to completely di= late in the mature cow and 4 to 10 hours in the first-calf heifer. After the cer= vix dilates, the cow takes 1 to 4 hours to forcibly expel the calf, while a hei= fer will take 2 to 6 hours. Spiral folds in the vagina and the broad ligament pulled tight across the uterus restrict the calf’s feet or head from entering the cervix, so the cow does not display the forceful expulsions mo= vements that the herdsman recognizes as labor.

Since we can’t offer any management advice to pr= event torsions, all that can be done is to suggest how to best control a torsion. More frequent observation of the mate= rnity pen and recording the progress of labor are the solutions to avoiding a poor outcome. Dry cows expected to come into early labor should be obser= ved every two to four hours. When early labor is first recognized, the starting time should be recorded so the herdsman will know when four hours have expi= red and a vaginal exam is necessary. =

Most torsions are counter-c= lockwise and the spiral bands in the vagina are very apparent. Only the most experie= nced herdsman is capable of correcting these presentations, so on most farms it = is time to call the vet when the characteristic twist is felt instead of a dil= ated cervix.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

cowdoc@adelphia.net

FROM THE PRESIDENTS DESK

Forage NDF Digestibili= ty Targets and How to Use them On-Farm

This time of year it s= eems everyone is talking about the fiber digestibility of their crops going into= the winter feeding cycle. Whenever I visit with groups of producers or nutritionists, there is considerable confusion concerning the various NDF digestibility measures used around the industry. Understanding the usefulne= ss of these various measures of NDF digestibility is critical if we want to fu= lly capture the value of measuring NDF digestion. Valuable on-farm uses of NDF digestion values include: Dry matter intake prediction, estimating the ener= gy content of forages, diet formulation, herd diagnostics, and supplementation strategies. Common applications of NDF digestibility analyses include benchmarking, MILK2000, Relative Feed Quality (RFQ), Dairy NRC (2001), CPM-Dairy ration formulation software, and other formulation software packa= ges. With people advocating 24, 30, 48 or some other time point for NDF digestio= n, it can be a very confusing situation for nutritionists and dairy farmers al= ike.

Everyone should be reg= ularly testing their forages for NDF digestibility and benchmarking their current forage quality with previous forage quality so that needed changes in ration formulation can be made in a timely manner. The table summarizes how common forage analyses can be us= ed on-farm most effectively (adapted from Randy Shaver, 2004).

Currently, forage testing laboratories ferment samples= using several time points. This is probably the most confusing aspect of interpre= ting NDF digestibility values. The NDF digestibility values may be 24 hours, 30 hours, 48 hours or even some other time point. All of these time points are highly related and the key point is to be consistent and always request the same time point when analyzing forages. The primary reasons for using these varying times of fermentation are:

·         24-h NDF digestibility: used to calculate a = rate of NDF digestion, and is used as an input for CPM-Dairy version 3.0 ration formulation software. Recent research from Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> also concludes that a 24-h time point with lignin and NDF content allows complete reconstruction of the entire fermentation curve for a forage sampl= e. If this approach is confirmed, then it will greatly simplify the discussion surrounding which fermentation endpoint is best because you will be able to estimate a NDF digestibility for any time point along the fermentation curv= e.

·         30-h NDF digestibility: this time point refl= ects the mean retention time of forage particles in the rumen of a dairy cow. So, this NDF digestion value reflects actual extent of rumen fermentation in lactating cows and may be most useful when benchmarking forages. Many feed companies in the U.S= . are routinely using this time point.

·         48-h NDF digestibility: This time point meas= ures digestion at a maintenance level of intake (dry cows). The Dairy NRC (2001)= and MILK2000 use 48-h NDF digestibility to predict energy content of forages and for ration formulation. The 48-h value is the most repeatable lab assay.

In reality, the digest= ion curves for alfalfa, corn silage, and orchardgrass remain reasonably parallel between 24 and 48 h of fermentation, so it may m= ake little practical difference which time point is used for benchmarking forag= es as long as the same endpoint is used consistently.

Analysis of forage and= feed samples for NDF digestibility is increasing, with the number of in vitro digestion assays more than doubling for some commercial laboratories betwee= n 2002 and 2004. From a ration formulation perspective, remember that NDF digestion relates to ruminal fill. When NDF digestibility= is poor, low-producing cows will increase feed intake to compensate, but high-producing cows are already limited by ruminal fill and feed intake will likely decrease.

—Rick Grant

grant@whminer.com<= /p>

CURRENT INSIGHTS REGARDING REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS

There’s been a trend over the past few decades f= or increased milk production and decreased fertility. (Figure 1)

Factors involved in this phenomenon include genetic selection, improved nutrition, improved manageme= nt along with new management tools (bST). As we co= ntinue to select genetics for increased milk production, have we unwittingly also selected for genetics that sacrifice reproductive efficiency? Or, is the tr= end for decreased reproductive success simply resulting from increased negative energy balance (NEBAL) or is there a specific nutrient negatively affecting ovarian activity?

W.R. Butler et al. presented a review of research conc= erning energy balance, dietary fatty acid supplementation and reproduction in dairy cows at the recent Cornell Nutrition Conference (2005). Butler cited conflicting research where increasing the energy density of pre and post partum diets through suppleme= ntal fat has had little effect on improving NEBAL and therefore not believed to contribute to improved reproduction. Though there is considerable data to suggest otherwise, that increasing the plane of nutrition through supplemen= tal fat and NFC sources improves energy balance and minimizes fat mobilization during the transition period. A loss of more than 0.5 BCS units in the transition period results in a significant decrease in ovulations compared = to animals that lose less than 0.5 BCS units. At 60d post partum, 90% of cows = that lost less than 0.5 BCS units during the transition period were ovulating, whereas only 60% of cows that lost more than 0.5 BCS units were ovulating. = This is a clear indication that energy balance affects ovarian activity. Monitor= ing BCS through the transition period may be a useful tool to predict reproduct= ive success and whether individual cows will require greater inputs in order to= get bred and pregnant. More impor= tantly though is minimizing the BCS loss since the proportion of animals ovulating after 60d postpartum that did lose >0.5 BCS units did not increase from = 60% as days post partum increased. (= Figure 2)

Butler also discussed the use of specific fatty acids to enhance reproduction. The polyunsaturated fatty acids of forage and oil seeds (C18:2 and C18:3) and t= hose of fish oil (C20:5 and C22:6) have roles in the biosynthesis of prostagland= ins and prostaglandin inhibitors. Fish oil fatty acids have been shown to suppr= ess the uterine synthesis of prostaglandin F₂_a (PGF₂_a) and therefore may contribute to decreasing e= arly embryonic mortality. The data is still inconclusive, since the author cited= one trial where fishmeal fed to lactating cows did decrease uterine PGF_{2_a
secretion, and another that showed no affect on uterine PGF₂a} secretion but did result in a 10 lb milk increase (probably a protein response). As for feeding trans-fatty acids, specifically the conjugated linoleic acids (CLA, isomers of C18:2), there are two reports citing improved conception rates.&= nbsp; Milk fat was depressed 0.45 and 0.30 units but conception rates were increased with CLA fed at about 34g/cow/d (42% vs. 27% and 33.5% vs. 25.6%). (It might be interesting to try feeding CLA to those cows that lost >0.5 units of BCS, who knows?)

At this summer’s Dairy Science meetings, Vogel <= span class=3DGramE>et. al. presented an abstra= ct that compared post partum serum nonesterified fatty = acid (NEFA) and glucose levels to first service pregnancies. Eighty-nine cows were assigned to = 1 of 2 breeding protocols (CoSynch or OvSynch) starting at day 37±7 postpartum. Blood samples were taken at 10, 7 a= nd 3 days prepartum and 3, 7, 14 and 21 days postpar= tum and analyzed for NEFA and glucose. Cows were pregnancy checked at day 32 and confirmed pregnant at day 60 by ultrasound. Cows that were pregnant on first breeding had significantly lower NEFA and higher glucose levels at day 3 postpartum. Cows with day 3 postpartum NEFA levels of >491mmol/L had only a 40% probability of 1^st service pregnancy, while cows with NEFA levels <400mmol/L had greater than 50% probability of 1^st service pregnancy. (Figure 3)

Whether it be through blood= testing at day 3 postpartum for NEFA or BCS monitoring through the transition perio= d, it is apparent that monitoring and maintaining positive energy balance of e= arly lactation animals is a critical factor in maintaining reproductive success.=

Minimizing negative energy balance during the transiti= on period is critical not only for maximizing milk production but also for maximizing reproductive success and ultimately profitability. Monitoring BCS loss and/or NEFA levels at day 3 postpartum may be useful tools in predicting reproductive success and subsequent management decisions for individual cows.

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

—Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com=

ALFALFA VARIETY SELECTION

This is the time of year when seed dealers are in an absolute lather to sell you the latest and greatest corn hybrids. However, = at the same time you might also consider alfalfa varieties for 2006, particularly = the combination of maturity, fall dormancy, and winterhard= iness that best fits your needs.

Fall dormancy is alfalfa’s response to the decre= asing temperatures and shorter day lengths of autumn. Varieties with low numbers = (2.0 is the lowest you’ll usually see) are more dormant and start to pack = it in for the winter shortly after Labor Day. Most varieties grown in this reg= ion are fall dormancy 3 and 4, though a few FD 5 varieties have done well in Cornell University variety trials. Fall do= rmancy is not the same as winterhardiness or wi= nter survival. Some FD 4 varieties will withstand tough winter conditions better than some FD 3 varieties.

The fall dormancy rating is also an indication of the relative maturity of an alfalfa variety. A FD 2 variety will recover more slowly after harvest than will a FD 4, for instance. Therefore, if you know that you can’t manage a 30-day harvest interval and you want no more = than 3 cuts of alfalfa, choose varieties with FD of 2 and 3. On the other hand, = if you want maximum yield and quality and are willing to manage the stand accordingly (including a fourth cut), plant varieties with a FD of at least= 4 and keep your eyes peeled for winterhardy FD 5 = varieties. All seed companies rate their varieties for fall dormancy on a scale of 1 t= o 11 (anything past 5 is best suited to more southern climes), and many also pro= vide a winterhardiness scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being= the most winterhardy.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

CUSTOM HARVEST OPERATORS

A couple of years ago the Crops Dude was = in New Mexico (Stat= e Motto: Lizards make excellent pets) doing a few silage management seminars. Custom operators harvest much of the New Mexico corn crop, so the organizers suggested that each farmer invite his custom operator to the meeting. Since it was the off-season and also involved a free meal, a number of custom operators show= ed up.

The farmers were also asked to bring a sa= mple of their corn silage, and after the meeting we spread a few samples out for closer inspection. One sample was reportedly processed, but was chock-full = of whole kernels and cob disks. I ran on a bit about what a lousy job of processing this was, that the farmer needed to h= ave a heart-to-heart with the custom operator. At which point the farmer said: “You do it, he’s standing right next to you.” (Why is it = that most custom operators are 6’2” and weigh at least 240?) Anyway,= after watching my life flash before my eyes the custom operator and I had a reasonably cordial discussion about the finer points of silage processing, = with the farmer loving every minute of it. At least until I suggested to the cus= tom operator that if he’d process corn at the proper setting he should be able to charge another dollar or so per ton. At which point the custom oper= ator got a lot happier and the farmer somewhat less so.

It’s easy to grouse about custom operators (at least from a safe distance), but consider that most of these = fellows have a lot of corn to harvest and a narrow “window of opportunityR= 21;. Many are paid by the acre, so it’s to their benefit to cover a lot of acres with as little down time as possible. (This might also account for the tendency for custom operators to leave a foot of corn stubble in the field, especially on fields where the rocks aren’t picked well.) A better de= al for everyone may be to pay the custom operator by the hour. The slight incr= ease in the time it takes to chop and process the crop correctly will be more th= an made up for in increased silage quality.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

CORN SILAGE QUALITY

Last month Miner Institute held a “= Corn Silage Quality” seminar just ahead of the Cornell Nutrition Conferenc= e in Syracuse. We invited a dozen or so of the “shakers and movers” in corn silage quality, including seed company reps, university researchers, dairy consult= ants and, for comic relief, an assortment of ERNs (E= minent Ruminant Nutritionists) including the godfather of ERN= s, Charlie Sniffen. We wound up with 20 participan= ts, including a few graduate students from Penn State and the University of Delaw= are.

We focused on several “hot stove= 221; issues including high chop corn silage, silage processing, BMR corn, method= s of digestibility analysis, and factors limiting corn silage quality. Following= are some conclusions and observations, some almost unanimous and others with a detractor or two—not surprising considering that three major seed companies and three state agricultural colleges were represented.

·      =    High chop corn (18” or so) fits many situations but may require ration adjustments and isn’t right for everyone. Bigger harvest equipment, m= ore custom harvest and less-than-perfect stone picking have resulted in a trend towards increased chop height on many farms, with 12” closer to normal than the so-called standard of 6”.

·      =    Everyone likes silage processing, but there’s still too much poorly processed corn out there. We need to do a better job of quantitatively evaluating processing effectiveness.

·      =    High chop vs. BMR: Not surprisingly there was less than complete agreement on this! = Some research shows high chop and BMR to be fairly close in silage quality, while other trials show a big advantage to BMR.

·      =    BMR hybrids: General agreement that the newer hybrids are performing better in= the field; a question or two about whether they sacrifice some forage quality to achieve this. Time will tell. Comments from dairy consultants were that BMR= is working well where it’s being used, mostly to transition and high gro= up cows. Used mostly in larger herds where BMR silage can be segregated. Nobody liked the idea of ensiling BMR and non-BMR in the same silo.

·      =    Low corn silage density is a serious problem, especially whe= re custom operators are chopping much more corn than packing equipment can handle.

·         Lots of variability in = in vitro digestibility analysis from forage lab to forage lab, and also within the same lab. Some labs aren’t running standards nearly enough. General but not unanimous agreement that NIR is more reliable than “w= et chemistry” as long as the calibration is based on enough samples.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

<= /o:p>

MORE ON FSA OFFICE CLOSINGS

Last month we reported on USDA’s pl= ans to close 665 Farm Service Offices, and on the U.S. Senate’s move to d= elay these closings pending proof that they’re needed. The agricultural appropriations bill approved by the Senate included language to block the U= SDA plan.

Well, when the dust finally settled USDA decided that their office-closing plan wasn’t such a hot idea after a= ll, and they’ve set aside the whole idea. Members of Congress say they’re ready to work with USDA to improve service to farmers, but at least for the time being this won’t include office consolidation.

NATIONAL FEED GRAIN SITUATION

The numbers change almost daily, but it appears that we’ll wind up with lower production of most feed grains = in 2005. Compared to 2004, corn production is estimated to be down 8%, soybeans down 5%, wheat down 3%, sorghum down 18%, oats down 1% and barley down 24%. Fortunately, beginning stocks of most of these crops are very good compared= to a year ago, with more than double the previous year’s stocks of corn = and soybeans. Soybean meal prices are higher than a year ago and are expected to remain there, while corn is about the same as last year and is expected to increase moderately throughout the winter.

CRITTER NEWS: Guns, Beer and Sex

·         A hunting dog in Oregon stepped on its owner’s gu= n and shot him. Several weeks later, a hound in <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Croatia stepped on its owner’s gun and shot him. Since dogs aren’t known to be crack shots, we wonder how many other dogs have tried to shoot their owners but missed? While you ponder this, don’t let your dog near a loaded gun.<= /p>
·         However, a gun-bearing dog is less dangerous than a drunken elephant. A dozen elephants in India got into a large supply= of rice beer brewing in casks, got snockered and w= ent on a rampage, killing three villagers.

· German zoo officials were concerned that they had several male gay penguins, since they’d been trying to mate with = each other (the penguins, not the officials) and were trying to hatch baby pengu= ins out of round stones. So the officials imported some female Swedish <= i>penguins to “set the boys right”, so to speak, but following protests fr= om gay rights groups they decided to drop the whole matter. Besides, the male penguins showed no interest in the Swedish females and the zoo director said they had to import two new male penguins “so that the ladies don̵= 7;t miss out altogether”.

· Europe= 217;s oldest hippopotamus is on “the pill”. Yup, 53 years old and the mother of 20, “Bullette” is too old= to give birth again but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t still enjoy a roll in the hay. Berlin zoo veterinarians are therefore giving her a weekly contraceptive pill the = size of a baseball. Hope she isn’t hiding it under her tongue.

· And finally, we’re delighted to announ= ce that the inventor of Neuticles has been awarded= the Ig Noble Prize for medicine. Long-time Farm Report= readers know Neuticles to be prosthetic testicles inten= ded to remedy low esteem problems in castrated dogs. Don’t laugh (OK, laugh,= but read on): So far he’s sold over 150,000 sets (we assume that’s = the way they’re sold) in various sizes and degrees of firmness (?!), gros= sing over $1 million.

DAIRY NOTES

· Ah, fair Idaho: Potatoes and neo-Nazis, what more could a person ask for? Well, milk for one thing. In August Idaho moved into 4^th place among dairy states, ahead of Pennsylvania for the first time ever. = This in spite of Idaho having 96,000 fewer da= iry cows than does Pennsylvania. For the present, anyway: In the past year Idaho has added 35,000 dairy cows and is the second fastest growing state, traili= ng only California. In August these two states accounted for over one-quarter of U.S. mi= lk production. Idaho’s milk per cow is third, trailing only Washington and Colorado.

· A recent “Got Milk?” ad isn̵= 7;t going over well with executives of Major League Baseball, a notably highly strung bunch. A TV ad, which makes fun of the league’s steroid scandal, has a player pulled from a game “after testing positive for a performance-enhancing substance”. The coach then pulls a carton of mi= lk from the kid’s locker. Haw.

· Membership in Cooperatives Working Togeth= er (CWT) reached almost 75% of the U.S. milk supply in September, the highest since the program began two years ago= . To date, the benefits have far outweighed the membership fee of five cents per hundredweight. When Pogo said “We have met the enemy, and it is us”, he wasn’t talking about dairy farmers.

· Sequent Biotechnologies has patented a process where an antibody can clump together the sex-specific proteins in b= ull semen, removing the unwanted sex. (In almost all cases, the “unwanted” sex is, of course, the male one. Sigh.)

· Lactose intolerance is the subject of= a class action lawsuit from ten plaintiffs recruited by the “Physicians Committee on Responsible Medicine”, an organization advocating a vegan (no meat or dairy products) diet. The suit seeks to have warning labels pla= ced on milk cartons, warning that drinking milk can be harmful to those who are lactose intolerant. Gee, you think?

A PRACTICAL CHRISTMAS GIFT IDEA

A Nevada= taxidermist has a great gift idea for pet owners, or to be more accurate, recently ex-pet owners. Freeze your recently departed pet, ship it to the taxidermist to be skinned, stuffed and turned into a Pet Pillow. Yessirree, for only $65 for a cat or $150 for a horse= (plus shipping), you’ll soon be able to lay your head each night on Muffy, Fido or Trigger. Although in the case of Trigg= er it might be a very big pillow. At first the logistics of freezing a horse may = seem a bit daunting, but it soon will be winter in the No= rth Country and as long as Trigger kicks off in the stable he shou= ld be rock-hard and ready for shipment in no time. As for method of shipment: Priority Mail, not Parcel Post—holiday mail volume, you know.

IT’S GONNA BE UGLY<= /o:p>

Fertilizer price, that is. Anhydrous ammonia in the Midwest has been pushing $500 per ton, $100 ton hig= her than fall 2004’s already sky-high prices. If energy costs affect urea prices similarly, we’re looking at over $400/ton for 46-0-0 or about = 45 cents per pound of N. Almost all fertilizer N is produced with natural gas,= and the news is full of what’s happened to these prices. Fertilizer price= s in general will be extremely high. A recent University of Illin= ois study concluded that the variable price for growing corn in 2006 will be ab= out $50 per acre higher than in 2005.

We can’t blame high fertilizer prices on energy = alone; there’s also considerably increased demand. In the past three years, world fertilizer demand has increased by 13%, which is almost equivalent to= the entire U.S. fertilizer usage. Potash usage increased by an incredible 25%, perhaps explaining why local fall 2005 prices were about $300/ton. For many farmers= it will still cost more to fertilize an acre of corn than an acre of alfalfa-grass, but since typical corn silage dry matter yields are about 50% higher than hay crop DM yields, the fertilizer price per ton of DM should be pretty close. At Miner Institute we expect that it will cost a bit over $11.00/ton DM just for fertilizer.

What can you do? You can’t change the price of fertilizer, but improving manure and crop management can reduce the amount you’ll need. Here are a few ideas, none of them new by any means:

· Apply some manure to a lot of fields rather = than a lot of manure to a few fields.

· Apply more manure to low-fertility fields, l= ess (or none) to high fertility fields.

· Rely on soil analysis and responsible fertilizer recommendations rather than fertilization based on crop removal,= or what your neighbor does, or because you’ve always used that much.

· More intensive crop rotation: First year corn needs N by the teaspoon full, while 5^th year corn needs it by the shovel full. On fields that aren’t manured, with $400/ton urea the difference in N cost for 1^st vs. 5^th= year corn is about $50 per acre.

Not surprisingly, price increases aren= 217;t limited to fertilizer. One major chemical company, BASF, has already announ= ced price increases for its entire lineup of pesticides (herbicides, insecticid= es, etc.); expect others to follow suit, especially for products still protecte= d by patents. It’s looking like 2006 will be a very expensive year to grow crops.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com

WORMS, MANURE, TILLAGE AND TILE DRAINAGE

USDA soil scientists in Ohio have been studying the relationsh= ip between worms and nutrient losses to subsurface drainage systems. Worms bur= row deep in the soil, deep enough to come close to drain tiles and drainage tub= ing. Tillage destroys these wormholes, making the poor worm start all over again. However, notill leaves wormholes intact and the= y may stay that way for years since the worms coat the inside of the holes with a sealant. Nightcrawlers make bigger holes (more potential nutrient leaching losses), and they much prefer notill fields. A worst-case scenario is continuous notill plus heavy fall manure applications on subsurface drained fields. The crop residue provides shelter for the worms, manure provides the food, and the subsurface drainage prevents a high water table that could drown the little= fellows.

What’s a farmer to do? You could avoid applying = manure near subsurface drain lines—a nice idea except how the heck do you know where they are? Or, you could destroy the wormholes by a shallow tillage just before or immediately after manure application. But th= en it wouldn’t be notill, would it? The alternative USDA seems to prefer is installing shutoff valves on tile drain outlets, keeping them shut during and just after manure application. Ohio farmers are= already doing this, appropriately encouraged by some state cost sharing bucks.

WEATHER

Not much good to say about the weather of late, seems = like it only stops raining long enough to snow. However, all weather is local; j= ust how much so is evidenced by this year’s precipitation here at the Min= er Institute farm and in Beautiful Downtown Peasleeville, ho= me of the Crops Dude, AKA as The Town That Lost Its Zip Code.

NOTABLE QUOTES: QUICKIES

· Happiness is having a large, loving, caring, close-knit family. In another city. George Burns

· Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. Wernher von Braun=

· Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes. Henry David Thoreau

· If I had a little humility, I’d be perfect. Ted Turner

· Never lend your car to anyone to whom you ha= ve given birth. Erma Bombeck

· If you can't be a good example, then you'll = just have to be a horrible warning. Catherine Aird

SOYBEAN PROBLEMS: MUCH ADO= ABOUT NOTHING?

Soybean farmers worried, fungicide manufacturers hurried, plant pathologists survey= ed, and agricultural writers warned: “The rust is coming! The rust is coming!” “The rust”, of course being Asian soybean rust, = and while a few rust spores were detected here and there, by and large U.S. so= ybean growers got away Scot-free. A heck of a lot more money was spent looking= for Asian rust than was spent on fungicides to control it. Fortunately, pla= nt pathologists took a cautious approach, waiting for the rust to appear before recommending protective (and ultimately unnecessary) fungicide applications= . If there were any losers in 2005, it was the agrichemical companies that rampe= d up production of soybean fungicides, only find themselves “all dressed up with no place to go”.

However, soybean farmers can’t rest= on their laurels. Weather conditions weren’t conducive to the development and spread of rust, but this has little bearing on what may happen in 2006.= So while soybean farmers may not be quite as worried, plant pathologists will continue to survey, especially in the deep South= , for in agriculture every year brings new surprises both good and bad.

Of more immediate concern these days is a= ny soybeans remaining in the field because of what seems like endless rain. In= states to our south there are reports of sprouted soybean seeds in the pod, includ= ing a purple discoloration caused by the purple seed stain fungus, Cercospora. While soybean sprouting would be n= ew for New York, according to Cornell plant pathologist Gary Bergstrom moldy and discolored seeds are not. He’s seen photos that look like the pod and stem blight fungus (Phompsis). While some of the mol= ds appearing now may affect the end use quality of the seed, Gary says that they shouldn’t pos= e a mycotoxin or food/feed safety threat. There isn’= ;t much history of mycotoxin problems in harvested= or stored soybeans. However, if you see a lot of pink mold (Fusarium) it would be wise to have grain tested for Fusarium<= /i> toxins such as deoxynivalenol and zearalenone.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com=

CORN HYBRID SELECTION GETS MORE COMPLICATED

Editor’s note: W= hile we’ve addressed this subject a couple of times in the past year, seed corn technology is changing fast enough that it’s worth a repeat visi= t.

Last year farmers had a dizzying number of choices: For corn rootworm control should I use a soil insecticide, a genetically modified hybrid (YieldGard Rootworm= , Herculex RW), or a company-applied seed treatment (Po= ncho 1250 or Cruiser Extreme Pak CRW)? Some seed companies have fallen in love w= ith company-applied seed treatments since it means they don’t have to nag their customers about using a planterbox treatm= ent. And for good reason, since treating seed makes their corn look better. I re= ally like company-applied seed treatments since they remain on the corn kernels a lot better than planterbox treatments—especially if you have a vacuum planter. Look for a big pu= sh by seed companies to sell pretreated seed corn. I wouldn’t be surpris= ed to see some companies make it a standard treatment on all their seed corn, = as Mycogen has done in treating all its BMR hybrids with Cruiser Extreme Pak.

How about economics? We can’t generalize since each seed company will price the various technologies differently. This past summer I commented to one seed company rep that it w= ould probably be very expensive to plant a hybrid with genetic resistance to both corn borer and corn rootworm. Not necessarily, he said…and when he qu= oted the 2006 price premium it was low enough to be a “slam dunk” for some farmers. Also, I’m told there will be regional pricing by some s= eed companies for genetically modified traits, so what you pay may be different than what a farmer in Illinoi= s pays.

We’re almost to the point where you’ll need to order a specific hybrid/seed treatment/genetic trait package for each corn field on the farm, or at least group fields according= ly: First year corn fields don’t need rootworm protection, so use a planterbox treatment or a low rate seed pretreatment = (Such as Poncho 250 or Cruiser Extreme Pak, for example.). Se= cond year and continuous corn fields probably need some rootworm protection, so = use the high rate of seed pretreatment (Poncho 1250 or Cruiser Extreme Pak CRW), hybrids with genetic rootworm resistance, or a soil insecticide. Then there’s the question of Roundup Ready and other = glyphosate resistant hybrids, Liberty Link hybrids (almost always linked with Bt resistance for corn borer), Bt for corn borer, etc. and we haven’t ev= en started talking about yield or forage quality, quantity discounts, early pay programs, added discounts for linking herbicide and seed orders, etc., etc. Lots of luck guys.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com

CLOSING COMMENT

What fun is it to be an expert if you make yourself ea= sy to understand?