WANDERING WI= TH WANDA

In the middle of February a group of eighteen people that included our Advanced Dairy Management students, a few Miner Institute employees, and a few dairy farmers from Vermont traveled to California to see agriculture. On Sunday we tri= ed to visit the giant Sequoia trees, but the bus driver (who had immigrated from = Russia = ten years ago seeking a better life), guided by a map with highlighter lines dr= ove until we reached a sign that read, “No Vehicles over 22 ft”. The locals told us that to get to = the big trees with the bus we were nearly three hours away…if only we had taken the other road. So we s= topped along the side of the road and purchased freshly picked oranges and tangeri= nes, then motored our way to the Harris Ranch in Coalinga where we were staying. Many from our group enjoyed the swimming pool and hot tubs in the courtyard---outside temperatu= res during the day were in the 70’s.&nbs= p;

On Monday we visited the JD Heiskell & Co. This feed mill produces 60 trac= tor trailer loads of feed per day every day of the year. The plant in Pixley, CA is one of the most efficient and technologically advanced feed manufacturing facilities in the nation in addition to being one of the largest facilities= in the nation in terms of total output. We then headed north to Hilmar and visited the Ahlem Farm owned by B= ill and Carolyn Ahlem. The farm is milking over 2800 Jersey cows and with a rolling herd average over 19,000 pounds of milk, 5% fat, and 4% protein. There were more than 300 cows clas= sified Excellent on the farm on the day we were there. It was a very impressive operation= both in terms of productivity and overall neatness. There were 28 employees on the dai= ry and each earns at least $3,000/month plus a bonus in addition to dental and hea= lth insurance and a 401K plan. Our guide had been employed at the farm for over 30 years. Cows were milked in a rotary milki= ng parlor. From there we traveled to the Hilmar Cheese Company where we were greeted with hugs from Charlie Sniffen who just happened to be touring with another group. Hilmar Cheese is the world’s largest single-site cheese, whey, and lactose manufacturing facility. Over 11.5 million pounds of milk a= re processed daily from 270 dairy farms.

On Tuesday our mad Russian bus driver took us to the World Ag Expo in Tulare where we h= ad signed up to go on Ag Tours for the day.&n= bsp; The bus driver circled the entire 228 acres escorted by a Tulare cop= on a motorcycle with lights flashing before returning to the point where I had said “go left here”…as we entered the grounds the first time…then he told me that I didn’t give very good directions (f= or the 3^rd time in three days).&nb= sp; Our bus was departing behind the 2 busses hired by the Ag Expo when = we got flagged down by the tour guide and 4 Iraqi ag buyers loaded onto our bu= s. The first stop for the day was the Mendes calf ranch where there were 30,000 calves under 4 months of age, 15,= 000 drinking milk from bottles. T= he milk fed to the calves is pasteurized waste milk picked up from farms in a = 70 mile radius of the calf ranch. The calf ranch pays $.25/gallon for the waste milk and charges $1.60/day for raising calves from birth to 4 months.&nbs= p; 100-150 new calves arrive at the farm each day. The next stop on the tour was the Hilarides Dairy and Three Sisters Farmstead Cheese in Lindsay, CA. This farm has 6,000 cows, primarily cross-bred and are being bred back to Jerseys. There are 6 800’ barns with = 900 cows in each barn. There is a= fresh cow ration and then one milking ration.&nb= sp; The manure is composted and there is a 3.5 acre area covered by a ta= rp where the methane gas is trapped and pumped back to the farm to generate 50= 0kw of electricity to operate the dairy. They make 8-9 cuts of alfalfa each year and manage 3,000 acres of la= nd. There are 75 employees on this dairy. A small portion of the= ir milk is made into cheese and the rest is sold to Hilmar Cheese.<= /span>

Wednesday we spent the entire day at the World Ag Expo where there are over 100,000 people viewing over 1600 exhibits. World Ag Expo and the California Dodge Dealers gave away a ’06 Dodge Ram pick-up truck, 1 chance to win with each ticket to enter the show grounds. So, each of us had a= 1 in 100,000 chance of winning the truck. We all dutifully filled out our tickets and turned them in at the ga= te and joked about how much work it would be to get it back home to the east coast. Two of the farmers wit= h us were already winners, Jeff, Julia and Troy Gosliga from Addison, Vermont in addition to Kyle Guillemette of Shelburne were sponsored on our trip thanks= to Pfizer and Vermont Farm Bureau Foundation in a drawing on behalf of the you= ng farmers group that they participate in.&nb= sp; Thursday evening, after a long flight home from California, Jeff called me and said, “Hey Wanda, bet you didn’t expect to hear from me for a while, = but I just got a phone call from the Ag Expo and I won the truck!” So if you happen to see a 2006 Dod= ge Ram 1500 Big Horn Quad Cab SLT 4 x 2 with 5.7 liter HEMI Multi Displacement Eng= ine driving around Vermont with a really happy family riding in it, you now know the rest of the story…

—Wanda Emerich

emerich@whminer.com

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

Water—= The Neglected Nutrient

Three things happened this week that made me decide to write a short article on what’s new in the world of water for dairy cattle. First, I read an article on water that has just been published this month; believe it or not= , we are still learning new things about designing better water troughs. Second,= a nutritionist called with a question about appropriate placing of water tank= s in a free-stall barn. And finally, I heard Larry Chase from Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> give a great presentation on water basics for dairy cattle. The title of the day-long workshop was “Non-nutritional Reasons Cows Don’t Perfo= rm.” The very fact that water as a topi= c was included in a workshop focused on non-nutritional factors such as cow behav= ior, facility design, and cow health reinforced my notion that we don’t pay enough attention to water as a major nutritional resource for dairy cattle.=

The paper just published in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science found = that water intake was almost three times greater when dairy cattle had access to= water surface area of about 12 sq ft compared with only 3 sq. ft. The surface area pertained to the surface of the water available to each individual cow stan= ding at a water trough. Time spent drinking also nearly tripled with the greater tank space; from only 11 seconds up to 35 seconds. The number of sips taken= by the cow (or maybe slurps is a better word for the average cow) jumped from = 6.5 to 22.5 as tank surface area increased. Data like these provide us with use= ful information as we consider how to optimally design and place water tanks in= our barns and paddocks to promote greater water consumption and milk production. With summer’s heat stress rapidly approaching (though it’s hard= to believe in March), we should all be thinking of practical ways to allow our cows to drink more water.

This same study also evaluated the impact of water tank height on drinking behav= ior. The researchers compared 12- versus 24-inch high tanks and found that cows drank 47% more water with the higher tank height. Depth of water in the tank made no real difference for water consumption or drinking behavior. However, the researchers did note that cows preferred to drink 44% of the time from = the deeper trough and 56% of the time from the shallower trough. We know from earlier research and on-farm observations that shallow water tanks work best because the water stays cleaner throughout the day since it must constantly= be refilled. Successful use of shallow tanks assumes that your farm has adequa= te water pressure to refill the tanks quickly during times when cows most want= to drink such as return from the parlor.

When summarizing what all the research to date tells us about water tank design,= we find that water consumption by dairy cows is most influenced by surface area available per cow. Height of the tank or trough appears to be secondary, and likely related to the average size of the cattle. It does make sense that t= he preferred height of a tank would vary in relation to how tall the cattle ar= e. We still need more research here, especially in modern confinement facilities.

Finally, we can’t forget other important aspects of water tank usage. Placemen= t of the tanks must be considered based on Kansas State research several years ago that showed clear preferences among cows in a pen for tanks located in central crossover alleys and the tank nearest to the parlor return. Water must be available 24 hours a day (i.e. no pressure or re-filling problems). When water availability is limited for any reason, several studies show that dominant cows will often out-compete subordinate = cows for the water resource. Water consumption of one or both is then hampered a= nd herd milk production drops.

The bottom line is that dairy cows need large amounts of water, and we already = know quite a lot about waterer design and placement. But, we learn new approache= s to encourage drinking (by the cows) each year, and these new ideas should be incorporated into the design of water systems.

—Rick Grant<= /o:p>

grant@whminer.com

VET’S CORNER

Calf scours has been a problem for several producers this winter. There have bee= n no new pathogens or special conditions: E. coli and Rota virus have been causing problems. The best treatment has been to avoid problems with proper colostrum management. At a recent conference Dr. Vic Cortese, a Pfizer Anim= al Health veterinarian, gave several helpful insights.

Don’t be afraid that colostrum will be overfed. Radiography shows that 5- 6 quarts can be tubed down a Holstein calf before the abomasum overfills and back flushes into the rumen. A Jersey calf can hold 3-4 quarts. If the stomach tub= e is inserted too deeply, colostrum can fill the rumen. So visualize how deeply = the tube should be inserted before putting it down the calf.

In the past, some cli= ents have complained that the calf will have loose manure if fed more than 3 qua= rts at birth as the veterinarian suggests. Meconium, which is waste that collec= ts in the rectum of the newborn, is evacuated because of the laxative effect of colostrum. This loosening of the manure is not harmful, and a sign that the calf received a good feeding. Another excuse to not feed enough colostrum is that the calf is not hungry at the next feeding. Normal colostrum contains sugars that will drive up the calf’s blood glucose. This is a transie= nt effect that depresses the calf’s appetite for one feeding. In the long run, we know that a highly concentrated bolus of IgG in the first feeding w= ill make a healthier calf that is more resistant to E. coli and Rota virus scours.

Another study was cited in which calves were fed 2 or 3 quarts of colostrum at birth and repeated before they were 10 hours old. The study found that 45% of the calves that received 2 quarts had failure of passive transfer. Only 5% of t= he calves that received 3 quarts had low plasma protein readings. So for Holst= ein breeders, think about throwing out those old 2 quart bottles and purchasing= new 3 quart bottles when the farm supply truck stops this month.

Feeding more colostrum, sooner after birth is the most important step in solving the calf scours problem for our producers.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

cowdoc@adelphia.net

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE= FARM

Corn (silage) is king= ; at least it is on our farm. Corn silage produces considerably more dry matter = per acre than either alfalfa-grass or straight grass, and it’s a lot more= fun to grow. Fortunately, both our farm manager and dairy nutrition consultant = like to feed corn silage. (It would be a lot less fun for the crops crew to grow= the stuff if the barn crew wouldn’t feed it.) Plans for 2006 include more corn silage and less grass silage. Below is a summary of the forage-to-grain ratio of our various groups and = the proportion of forage dry matter that corn silage represents.

Our cows are milking = as well as they ever have—in the 90s for some time now, and not coincidentally we’re in a run of really good silage, both corn and alfalfa-grass. A quote we heard recently from David Smithgall, who milks 900 cows in Western NY, is particularly timely: ”Your nutritionist is only as good as your forage.” Cargill Animal Nutrition recently analyzed the four silages we’ve been feeding and compared th= em to its Eastern NY-New England averages, representing thousands of samples.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Below is the results for NDF and N= DF digestibility.

Part of the reason our non-BMR corn silage is somewhat higher in NDF digestibility may be that we = try to select hybrids that rank high in digestibility. The first haylage sample= is third cut and the second sample is fourth cut; not a lot of “mixed= 221; in those samples, since they were almost entirely alfalfa. Straight alfalfa packs really well in bunker silos even at fairly high dry matter contents; = our third cut was over 50% DM and still had almost as much lactic and acetic ac= id as the average hay crop silage at 36% DM.

—Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com=

Q & A ABOUT SARA

Is SARA Hurting Your Cows?

Subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) is an important determinant of dairy cow welfare and dairy herd profitability according to Kruase and Oetzel, University of Wisco= nsin researchers, in the March issue of Animal Feed Science and Technology. SARA= is estimated to cost U.= S. dairy producers at least $500 million a year as a result of lost milk production and other associated disorders such as lameness. Fortunately, pr= oper nutrition and feed management can decrease the risk of cows developing SARA. Highlights from the review by Kruase and Oetzel follow and may help you identify if your cows are suffering from SARA.

What is SARA?

Ruminal acidosis usually is observed in lactating cows and is classified as either subacute or acute. SARA is characterized by periods of depressed ruminal pH (5.0 to 5.5) and is associated with laminitis and other health problems resulting in decreased milk production. Measurement of ruminal pH can be accomplished in a commercial farm setting by rumenocentesis, which is the collection of ruminal fluid by a veterinarian using percutaneous needle aspiration. Ruminally cannulated cows that are kept on commercial farms for= use as donors of ruminal fluid for sick cows can be also used to assess ruminal= pH quickly and easily. Our forage lab guy likes to refer to those cannulated c= ows as “canary cows” (similar to the concept of canaries in coal mi= nes) since the cows can serve as a monitoring system and alert dairy producers to acidosis problems before long-term signs of acidosis are obvious in the her= d. Ruminal pH of 5.8 or greater is considered normal for a healthy rumen. Acute ruminal acidosis occurs when there is a sudden and uncompensated drop in ruminal pH and ruminal lactic acid concentration rises. Currently, SARA app= ears to be more prevalent than acute acidosis in dairy cows and typically occurs between calving and 5 months post-calving.

What are the signs of SARA?

Clinical signs of SARA are often varied and ambiguous, but can include decreased or fluctuating intake, decreased rumination, low body condition score, diarrhe= a, nosebleeds, unexplained deaths, high cull rates due to vague health problem= s, milk fat depression, poor milk production, lameness, laminitis, rumenitis (inflammation or irritation of the rumen wall), liver abscesses, and pulmon= ary bacterial emboli (clumps of bacteria blocking a blood vessel). Rumenitis initiates chronic health problems. Clinical signs of acute acidosis include loss of appetite, abdominal pain, rapid heart rate, rapid breathing, diarrh= ea, lethargy, staggering, recumbency, and death.

Some nutritionists use the number of cows in a group ruminating at any given tim= e as an indicator of “rumen function.” At least 40% of cows fed a TMR for ad libitum intake should be ruminating at any given time; at least 35% = of cows that are component fed should be ruminating at any given time. If the percentage is less than 35 to 40%, then further investigation is warranted.= Use of locomotion scoring may be another tool to help identify chronic cases of SARA since cows with SARA can develop lameness problems.<= /p>

What does SARA “cost”?

A case of SARA is estimated to cost $400 to $500 per cow per year assuming a = 6 to 7 lb loss in milk per day, 0.3 percentage unit drop in milk fat per day, an= d a 0.1 percentage unit drop in milk true protein per day. The cost of associat= ed disorders with SARA, such as lameness and its effect on reproduction are not known, b= ut are assumed to be as high or higher than the cost of lost milk production.<= o:p>

        &= nbsp;

What causes SARA?

The three main causes of SARA in dairy herds are 1) inadequate ruminal buffering caused by inadequate physically effective fiber, 2) excessive intake of rap= idly fermentable carbohydrates, and 3) inadequate adaptation to highly fermentab= le, high carbohydrate diets. The three causes are interrelated and they all mus= t be investigated in herds with acidosis problems.

The lack of an adequate quantity and quality of fiber in the diet can cause acidosis. If the fiber in the diet is too fine, chewing time is reduced. Th= is causes a decrease in the production of saliva, which has an important buffe= ring effect on the rumen. Diets with a lot of highly fermentable carbohydrates c= an cause acidosis. High concentrate rations result in the production of excess volatile fatty acids. Grain overload can result in rapid reduction of rumin= al pH. When the ruminal pH falls below 6 for a period of more than 4 hours a d= ay, fiber digesting bacteria and protozoa die and lactic acid producing bacteria become dominant. Lactic acid is produced in excess and is absorbed, causing= a decrease in blood pH. The aci= d can damage the lining of the rumen. If this happens, bacteria may escape into the bloodstream and cause the cows to become ill in the future. When laminitis results, substances released into = the blood supply during acidosis destroy blood capillaries, which supply the laminae. Cows with SARA are at increased risk of acute acidosis if excessive amounts of grain are fed.

How can you decrease the risk of SARA?

Proper dietary formulation and good feed bunk management are critical for the prev= ention of ruminal acidosis. The risk of SARA can be minimized by 1) proper formula= tion of diets to optimize intake of fermentable carbohydrate, intake of physical= ly effective fiber, and endogenous buffering capacity, 2) consistent delivery = of diets with minimal variation in composition, 3) continuous access to feed so meals are small and regular and thus avoiding slug feeding, and 4) inclusio= n of appropriate feed additives, such as buffers, that prevent low ruminal pH.

Take-home message<= o:p>

SARA can negatively affect cow welfare and herd profitability. Work with your nutritionist and veterinarian to identify if SARA is a problem in your herd= .

—Heather Dann

dann@whminer.com=

TAXING THOUGHTS

After recently filing= my Federal tax return, the following seems appropriate: When NASA first started sendin= g up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ballpoint pens wouldn’t work= in zero gravity. NASA scientists spent the next decade and $12 billion develop= ing a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside-down, on almost any surface inclu= ding glass, and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 300 C. The Russian cosmonauts used a pencil.

—E.T.<= /span>

RESEARCH SUMMARIES=

·      =    Research at the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Wisconsin invest= igated the effects of silage inoculants on alfalfa silage. They inoculated both fi= rst and second cut alfalfa with three inoculants plus an untreated control. In first cut alfalfa, all three inoculants overwhelmed the natural population = of fermentation bacteria, resulting in lower pH and higher lactic acid levels.= For second cut, however, the natural populations were much higher and there were fewer significant improvements from inoculation. However, in both first and second cut alfalfa, two of the three inoculants improved microbial biomass, showing that inoculants can improve ruminal effects without noticeable improvement in silage fermentation.

·      =    Minnesota= agronomists applied hog manure to alfalfa-reed canarygrass in midsummer. They found no difference in manure response between six alfalfa varieties. Manure significantly increas= ed the yield of reed canarygrass, but had little effect on the alfalfa. What effect there was, however, was positive—slightly higher yields. The highest rate of hog manure did hurt the alfalfa in one case, however, by completely coating and smothering the plants. Source: Crop Science Vol. 45, No. 6. P. 22= 93

·      =    Pennsylvania<= /b> plant physiologists= examined how well forage mixtures persist in intensively managed pastures. An on-far= m study compared three forage mixtures containing 2, 3, and 11 species. They found = that planting a forage mixture without paying attention to species selection wasn’t wise. Less than half of the species in the 11 species mixture persisted during the 6-year experiment. This mixture did yield more than th= e 2 species mixture, but this was due to the inclusion of a few highly producti= ve species—including alfalfa.

·         Alfalfa var= ieties with high levels of resistance to the potato leafhopper (PLH) greatly reduce yield loss when this pest is not controlled; however, some yield loss still= can occur when PLH populations are high. Ohio State University ag= ronomists established field trials to document yield loss in each variety relative to= the number of leafhoppers. Total yield over three years for the untreated (no insecticide) resistant variety was 0.3 tons/acre per year lower than the susceptible variety treated with an insecticide. The value of that yield difference was about the same as the cost of insecticide treatment, so prof= its were equal for the untreated resistant and the insecticide treated suscepti= ble variety. Economic yield loss was observed for the susceptible variety at 11= of the 14 summer harvests, compared to only 4 of the 14 summer harvests with t= he leafhopper resistant one, and only when PLH populations were three to four times higher than the normal economic threshold. The economic threshold for= PLH resistant alfalfa (over 50% resistant plants) is about three times higher t= han for susceptible alfalfa, and leafhopper populations rarely reach this level= .

CURRENT RESEARCH:<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> COMPARISON OF peNDF MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND A= NIMAL CHEWING AND PRODUCTION RESPONSES

We have just started a research trial studying the measurement of physically effective neutral detergent fiber (peNDF) of forages and TMR. We are lookin= g at 3 measurement techniques of peNDF: 1. The NDF content of a TMR multiplied by the amount of DM retained on a 1.18-mm screen using dry sample vertical shake sieving (peNDF_{>1.18<=
/sub>)
aka Mertens’ RoTap method. 2. The NDF content of a TMR multiplied by =
the
proportion of as-fed sample retained on the 19- and 8-mm Penn State Particle
Separator (PSPS) screens (peNDF_>8), and our own Z Box sieve
shaker (sieve dimensions confidential…for now). Each sieving method r=
esults
in a physical effectiveness factor (pef), which is the proportion of sample
retained by the specified screen or sieve. The pef is then multiplied by the
forage or TMR NDF value to obtain a peNDF value.}

The determination of adequate fiber particle length of a TMR continues to be debated regarding which method, dry sieving peNDF_>1.18 vs. PS= PS peNDF_>8, is more accurate in predicting ruminal health and an= imal production responses. According to conventional peNDF wisdom, ruminal pH can drop drastically and animal production can be affected negatively when TMR peNDF drops below 19-21%. Having an accurate means of determining peNDF on = farm would be a beneficial nutritional tool. The current trial is part of our wo= rk on the development of such a tool.

Sixteen Holstein cows (8 mature cows, 8 first lactation heifers) are housed in our tie-stall facility. Four diets are bei= ng fed, one control and 3 treatment diets varying in peNDF; control (17.7%), l= ow peNDF (19.1%), intermediate peNDF (21.4%), and high peNDF (23.8%). The treatment diets contain 15% DM basis of oat hay. The hay was chopped to minimize sorting and also to vary the peNDF value of the diet. The chopped = oat hay has a pef value of 91% using the Mertens’ RoTap method. Our crops crew hammer-milled some of the same hay in order to obtain a lower peNDF va= lue of the same forage to vary the TMR peNDF. The hammer-milled oat hay ended up having a pef value of 37%. This is finely chopped hay: Only 37% of t= he dry particles retained by a 1.18-mm screen. The treatment diets on a DM bas= is are 35% corn silage, 9% 3^rd cut alfalfa silage, 41% concentrate pellet, and 15% oat hay. The oat hay is either the long oat hay, the fine o= at hay, or a 50/50 blend of each oat hay to vary the total peNDF values of the diets. The control diet is the same as the treatment diets except that 3.5 = lbs of corn meal replaces the oat hay. The peNDF values of our diets hopefully differ enough in order to affect ruminal pH and rumination time. One of our objectives is to determine the sensitivity of peNDF in predicting rumination time, ruminal pH, and possible effects on milk production and composition. However, the primary objective of the trial is to validate the Z Box as a t= ool for accurately and consistently measuring pef on-farm with as-fed forages.<= o:p>

Coincidentally, the February 2006 issue of the Journal of Dairy Science has an article by Zebeli et al. (vol. 89:651-668) that reviews much of the research to date comparing the peNDF_>1.18 and peNDF_>8 methods wi= th regards to animal production parameters including DMI, total chewing and rumination activity, ruminal pH, milk production, and milk composition. The authors fo= und that peNDF_>1.18 was a decent estimator of ruminal pH (R²⁼=3D0.67) explaining 67% of the variation in pH, though peNDF_>1.18 was poorly correlated to total chewing (R²=3D0.17) and rumination (R= ²=3D0.24). The peNDF_>8 had a lower confidence level of explaining the variation in ruminal pH (R²=3D 0.27). Surprisingly, both peNDF>1.18 and peNDF_>8 were relatively poor in estimating the time anima= ls spent ruminating, accounting for only 24 to 36% of the variation in minutes ruminating per day.

Stats refresher: the R² value refers to the proportion of variability = in Y that can be explained by X. V= alues can range from 0.0-1.0. An R<= sup>2 of 1.0, indicates that 100% of the variation in Y can be attributed to X. Or an R² of 0% indicate= s that X explains nothing about Y. <= o:p>

We have only been on the trial for 10 days or so, but since I was responsible = for formulating the test diets and these were 16 of our 90+ lbs milkers, I need= to share this. The diets these cows came from and the oat hay diets they are on now might be of interest (Table 1). Fortunately, milk production and D= MI have remained steady…so far.

—Kurt Cotanch

cotanch@whminer.com

RESEARCH NEWS YOU CAN USE

·      =    Alfalfa doesn’t need nitrogen fertilizer, but that doesn’t mean it can’t use it. No play on words here; thi= s is an important consideration what with all the dairy manure being flung about= on alfalfa-grass fields. Increasingly, manure is being applied to straight alfalfa, too, especially on farms where farmers are looking for places for = summer-produced manure.

·      =    Arizona agronomists applied t= wo types of dairy manure at a rate equal to the amount of nitrogen removed by = the alfalfa. The two types of dairy manure were fresh and composted, with the composted manure containing about one-third landscape nursery cuttings. The= two manures were applied for 18 months and 13 alfalfa harvests, plus an unmanur= ed, unfertilized control. At the end of the trial, soil analyses from down to a depth of five feet showed no significant difference in soil N between manur= ed and unmanured plots. Leachate analysis to a soil depth of almost six feet f= ound no detectable nitrate or phosphate from any of the treatments. Alfalfa yield didn’t vary among treatments.

Source: Agronomy Journal 98:80-84 (2006)

MONKEY BUSINESS

In the heyday of sailing ships, all war ships and many freighters carried cann= ons that fired round iron cannon balls. For obvious reasons it was necessa= ry to keep a good supply of cannon balls near the cannon. When under attack fr= om a bunch of bloodthirsty pirates, it wouldn’t do to have to go searching= for cannon balls. However, how to prevent the cannon balls from rolling about t= he deck? The storage method devised was a square-based pyramid with one = ball on top, resting on four resting on nine, which rested on sixteen. In t= his way a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next= to the cannon. There was only one problem: How to prevent the bottom layer from rolling out from under the others. The solution was a metal plate called a "monkey" with 16 round indentations for the cannon balls. = However, if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it si= nce the decks were almost always wet from rain, waves, etc. The solution to the rusting problem was to make the monkey out of brass. But there was a hitch: When it got really cold, brass contracted much more and much faster than ir= on. Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannonballs would slide right off the mo= nkey and roll around the deck. Thus the saying: "It’s cold enoug= h to freeze the balls off a brass monkey."

SIZE DOES INDEED MATTER<= /o:p>

A number of times I’ve commented somewhat tongue-in-cheek that one way those of us advising farmers assure our job security is that once we get a reasonable number of farmers following a particular recommendation—we change the recommendation. I could cite several examples, but the latest regards what constitutes an acceptable alfalfa stand. Ten years ago we were= saying that a good stand of alfalfa was at least 10 plants per square foot, and wh= en the stand declined to fewer than 6 plants it should be plowed up. However, = we changed that recommendation when research showed that stems per square foot, not plants, were more important. So in recent years we’ve been telling farmers that when alfalfa stands decline to fewer than 40 stems per square = foot they should be rotated to another crop.

But wait! Just-released Purdue University research concluded that it’s not the number of alfalfa stems per squa= re foot, but the size of the stems that’s important. In fact, the agronomists found that only when the alfalfa wasn’t adequately fertil= ized did it produce the previously recommended number of shoots per square foot. (Stands with small shoots had inadequate levels of phosphorus or potassium.) With proper fertilization, the alfalfa shoots were larger but there were on= ly 30 per square foot—and yields were very good. In fact, the highest yi= elds were in plants fertilized with both P and K with shoot densities of 25-30 p= er square foot. That’s because as the alfalfa is fertilized, shoot size increases considerably and more than offsets the reduction in the number of shoots. The Purdue agronomists found that in adequately fertilized fields, shoot densities as low as 25 per square foot were just fine.

This research was done with clear alfalfa, not alfalfa-grass. It’s likely = that if the research was done with alfalfa-grass, alfalfa shoot densities a bit = less than 25 per square foot along with a productive grass stand would be plenty good enough.

—E.T.<= /span>

<= /span>

MEASURING GRAIN IN SILAGE

Several years ago Miner Institute did a research project investigating the effect of several corn silage maturity levels and silage processor clearances on the = proportion of whole kernels and large kernel pieces in the silage. Charlie Sniffen and= Ev put their heads together, always a dangerous undertaking, and decided that since (according to ERN Sniffen) kernel pieces larger than ¼” = in size tend to pass through the cow’s digestive tract, we’d simply have our research staff separate out these from samples of chopped corn.

Well, it sounded easy, and really it was; what it wasn’t was efficient, involving picking kernel pieces from the chopped forage with tweezers. One Advanced Dairy Management student, pressed into service, claims that he wore out a set of tweezers in the process. Since Ev had said that his would all = be a simple process, when it turned out to be nothing of the sort and as the particle pickers’ dispositions declined, he began to avoid the resear= ch staff. The job was finally accomplished, taking at least ten times as long = as Ev told Director of Research Katie Ballard it would. (She has reminded him = of this many times since; in fact each time he estimates how long one of his f= ield trials will take the research staff to complete.)

Now it appears that we didn’t have to do all this particle picking after = all. At the January “Silage for Dairy Farms” conference in Pennsylva= nia (Rick and Ev both reported on this in last month’s Farm Report), the University of Wisconsin’s Randy Shaver noted that corn grain pieces c= an be sorted from the forage portion simply by putting a pound or two of corn silage or freshly chopped corn forage into a dishpan of water. After a minu= te or two the kernels have sunk to the bottom, leaving the stover on top. Disc= ard the floating stuff, and what’s left is the grain. As long as the weig= ht of the sample is known, the grain pieces can then be sorted or screened into whatever size is desired. Simple, eh? Too bad we didn’t know that a f= ew years ago…

—E.T.<= /span>

CORN SILAGE PROCESSORS

Some recent information on silage processing:

·      =    Theoretical= chop length: ¾” is correct; no more, no less. A recent trial found increased milk production at ¾” (91.9 #/cow) vs. 1 ¼= 221; (90.4#), while anything under ¾”TLC results in using more power (thus more high-priced fuel), plugged processor rolls, and increased proces= sor wear.

·      =    Washington State University research found that s= ilage processing increased total milk production, both butterfat production and percentage, and protein production but not percentage.

·      =    Processed silage also packed better in the WSU trial, 14.6 vs. 14.1= lbs DM/cubic foot. On average, processed is resulting in about 10% higher silage density.

·      =    Anything larger than about one quarter of a kernel may pass through= a cow’s digestive system. Make sure your processor is doing a thorough = job of kernel breakage: Some processors will bust up kernels just fine at 3 mm clearance, while other processors need to be tightened to 2 mm for the same crop.

WORLD AG EXPO

Every two years we bring our Advanced Dairy Management students plus a few dairy farmers and assorted others (18 in all) to World Ag Expo in Tulare, California, touring a variety of farms and agribusinesses while we’re there. It’s always an interesting trip, this year’s adventure especial= ly so.

Critter stuff—The most intriguing invention we saw at World Ag Expo was the “Rodenator”, designed to rid fields of prairie dogs, gophers and other subterranean livestock. The idea is to pour propane down the prairie = dog hole, touch it off with the Rodenator, killing the prairie dog and collapsi= ng its tunnels. The explosion is supposed to gently vibrate the ground, but a = guy we talked to who used one said the ground did a shake, rattle and roll. He = kept his eye on the prairie dog hole, not noticing the ground squirrel holes rig= ht behind him that when the propane went BOOM discharged their contents all ov= er him. At least he wasn’t standing over one…(Can you imagine explaining that one to the Emergency Room physician?) The Rodenator is in compliance wit= h the U.S. National Organic Program (NOP).

ANOTHER LOOK AT RED CLOVER FOR DAIRY COWS

Red clover has been i= n the farm news of late, as information suggests that in lactating cow rations red clover silage may perform better than alfalfa because of less protein break= down in the silo. Red clover has more bypass protein (25-35%) than does alfalfa (15-25%). Therefore, some ruminant nutritionists are falling in love with r= ed clover. Of course, they don’t have to grow and harvest it…=

Cornell University managed the dairy ope= ration at Miner Institute from 1970 until 1979. In the summer of 1979 this relationship ended and the dairy herd was split 50-50 between Cornell and t= he Institute. That summer, while still employed as a Regional Field Crop Specialist by Cornell Cooperative Extension, I started calling the shots in= the field crop operation—for better or worse. It was interesting and high= ly educational: At the same time I recommending to farmers how they should man= age field crops, and suffering the occasional negative consequences of these recommendations here on the Miner Institute farm. The previous management h= ad decided that our soils wouldn’t grow alfalfa, so we were growing red clover. =

However, Cornell had done a notill trial that included alfalfa on some land we were leasing, and the alfalfa stuck around a lot longer than any red clover we w= ere growing, so I thought: “Gee, why don’t we start growing alfalfa?” = The red clover was seeded with an oat nurse crop that was chopped in the boot s= tage and ensiled. All well and good, except that my good buddy Harry Randy had t= aken over management at the Institute’s dairy operation. Harry said that I could grow all the oat silage I wanted, but he had no interest in feeding i= t. Therefore, we immediately switched from oats underseeded with red clover-timothy to clear seeded alfalfa-timothy—a year or so later, al= falfa-reed canarygrass. Of course, in 1979 we inherited a number of red clover-timothy fields in various stages of decline so had to manage them for a year or two. Since then we’ve seeded red clover a few times, mostly at low rates a= s a nurse crop to get a stand of reed canarygrass going, so have some idea of w= hat currently available red clover varieties can do.

Based on this admittedly non-scientific background, I have the following comments= on red clover:

If you’re considering red clover for dry hay….don’t. For why, see #2.

If you’re considering red clover for silage, be sure you seed it with en= ough forage grass to make the grass a significant component of the stand. When mowed, straight red clover makes a dense windrow that doesn’t dry wel= l at all. Stretching out the windrows to at least 2/3 of mower width helps, but = you still may have problems with a heavy first crop. A seeding rate of 6-8 lbs/= acre of red clover and 4-5 lbs of timothy is about right, though if you want a long-term grass stand after the clover peters out use 5 lbs each of red clo= ver and reed canarygrass.

The big problem with red clover is that it’s a short-term crop. Newer varieties have much better disease resistance than old ones (including mild= ew resistance), but it’s still a short-lived perennial. Seeded without a small grain companion crop you’ll get two or three harvests the seedi= ng year and, assuming a decent winter, three cuts in year two. After that…lots of luck. One reason red clover doesn’t survive long i= s that root-damaging insects (most notably clover root curculio) like it even more than alfalfa. I well remember one year we actually got the clover into year= 3 and had a nice first cut. Then dry weather hit, challenging what by then wa= s a badly chewed up root system, and the stuff just sat there and died: We didn’t have a 10% stand for second cut. Timothy goes to sleep for the summer, so we didn’t have much grass to harvest either.

The best place for red clover is fertile soils that don’t dry out during = the summer. A soil pH of 6.0 is marginal, but OK. If you fertilize well (plenty= of potassium) stands should last for two or three years. If you don’t fertilize them well they might only last…oh, two or three years. Such= is red clover.

—E.T.<= /span>

DAIRY NOTES=

Each year dairy farms continue to get fewer and larger, but that’s not new= s. Sometimes it helps to take a longer perspective. See below for the distribution of U.S. milk production by herd = size, 2000 vs. 2005.

As you can see, most of the change has been in herd sizes under 500 and over 2= 000 cows.   Milk production by herds of 500-1999 cows hasn’t changed much at all in the past five ye= ars.

On a related note, 2006 may well be the year the national herd average breaks = the 20,000 lb. barrier. It was a few hundred pounds under that last year, and predictions are that unless we have unusually rotten weather in dairy count= ry we might just do it. Combined with slightly more dairy cows, production will increase and, since consumption isn’t doing anything exciting, 2006 f= arm milk prices will most likely decrease.

Top four dairy states by milk production: California, Wisconsin, N.Y., and Idaho. Big moves in the top 10 dairy s= tates, 2005 vs. 2004: Idaho + 12.3%, New Mexico +12.2%, Texas +12.2%.

AGRIBUSINESS NOTES=

·  &n= bsp;      After a ten-year legal battle Dow and Monsanto have decided = to bury the hatchet, and for a change not in each other’s corporate skul= ls. The two companies have announced a new agreement wherein both will be able = to stack Dow’s Bt traits (European corn borer and corn rootworm protecti= on) with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready trait. This will give farmers around the world (at least in those countries where genetically modified crops are leg= al) new technology options for pest control.

·  &n= bsp;      Yet anot= her research trial—the third in the past six months—has concluded t= hat consumption of dairy products helps control weight = gain and may even reduce weight.

·  &n= bsp;      The U.S. didn’t sign the Kyoto Agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, while most European countries did, casting great aspersio= ns on the U.S. decision With this in mind, don’t you find it interesting that since Kyoto, greenhouse gas production has increased 4% in the = U.S. while it’s increased 5% in Europe?
·  &n= bsp;      Last month the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the Europe= an Union broke international trade rules by applying a moratorium on genetical= ly modified crops and foods. This is good news for U.S. agricultural trade, which since the late 1990s has had about $300 million of exports per year blocked= by the E.U. moratorium.

WEB DOMAIN CHANGE<= /span>

The Institute website domain name is now www.whminer.org. We still own= the rights to the .com domain and users accessing our site via that label will still be directed to our homepage. Email addresses will not change.

CLOSING COMMENT

Post-Super Bowl revelation: When a woman talks about waiting for the "right time," she doesn’t mean a commercial break.

=