MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

DEALING WITH WINTER-INJURED ALFALFA

Winterkilled alfalfa isn’t pleasant to deal with= , but it’s simple: Plow up the stand and start over (but not with alfalfa because of potential autotoxicity problems). But winter-injured alfalfa is another issue entirely: If you treat these plants right they might actually recover. One of the most commonly recommended practices for winter-injured alfalfa is to allow the plants to mature longer before harvest. However, this isn’t usually a good idea for first cut since we often have a hard time getting high quality first cut even mowed at the late bud stage, in part due to the variable amount of grass in most fir= st cut alfalfa-grass stands. Letting this first crop go to 10-25% bloom isn’t something we’d like to do, and it gives dairy nutrition consultants heartburn.

<= /o:p>

The alternatives are to wait until second or third cut= to let the crop advance to early bloom. However, second cut stem quality is usually very poor because of those long, hot days, and we sure wouldn’= ;t look forward to feeding late-harvested second cut. Third cut? Perhaps, but = by then the crop will most likely either have recovered enough to allow normal management, or it will have died in which case you can refer to the first sentence of this article.

<= /o:p>

We speak from experience on this subject, having had a= very badly winter-damaged field of alfalfa-reed canarygrass= in the winter of 2002-03. We used normal harvest management, made sure the field had plenty of potash, and the alfalfa came back just fine; in fact, we got five years out of the stand including 4 tons/acre of DM in the final ye= ar.

<= /o:p>

You should be able to diagnose winter injury by now, i= f not by the presence (or lack) of new growth, but by digging up a few suspicious-looking plants (4-6” deep is enough) and checking the tapr= oot. If the root is gray and spongy and you can squeeze water out of it, you’re probably holding a dead alfalfa plant. Healthy roots are firm = and have a white interior. Older plants will most likely have some crown rot, b= ut this is due to accumulated wheel traffic damage in years past, not Old Man Winter.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whm= iner.com

VET’S CORNER: TOO MANY STEPPED ON TEATS!!=

Last year our practice received three complaints of “too many stepped on teats”. The farms had converted from worn-= out tie-stall barns to freestall housing and reduci= ng teat injuries with one of the stated purposes of the change. A barn designed for comfort such as the Miner Institute barn will reduce teat and leg injur= ies, so why were these new free-stall barns having stepped on teats? When walking the cows they seemed calm and not given to flight and violent rising. It wasn’t suspected that the workers were treating the cattle roughly. Overcrowding was not an issue; in new barns with all stalls in excellent repair, we accept a 110% stocking rate.

The first tip-off of the cause of stepped on teats was= that the cows’ flanks were very clean and over 50% had no hair on their ho= cks. Clean flanks are a good thing, but clean flanks and little bedding under co= ws are not. In an effort to reduce cost, bedding was brought into the barn eve= ry 10 days and used too sparingly. Saving bedding is one of the selling points= of installing mattresses but it does not mean that no bedding is needed. Beddi= ng acts a lubricant between the pressure point of the hock and mattress during= the normal rising process. With over 50% of the hocks with no hair, not enough = lubrication was being provided.

Other possible causes of the hock lesions can be a too= short resting area in the stall or inadequate bob zone. Large cows in these herds weight 1400 lbs; length from the curb to the bottom of the brisket board measured 65-66 inches, so the resting area was adequate. The bottom divider pipe was only 11 inches from the floor, so sideways lunge was not being obstructed. Stall size was not the problem.

Observation of the standing behavior gave the final re= ason for improper stall use. 9 out of 10 cows should stand with all four feet in= the stalls. In these barns, we counted several “perching” cows. A perching cow has her hind feet down on the floor, not up on the comfortable mat. The cow’s leg is not made to stand in this extended fashion, the stretch puts unnatural stress on the Achilles tendon and stifle joint and w= ill shorten the cows’ lifetimes. The cause of perching is that the neck r= ail is placed too far back in the stall and the large cow’s body simply cannot fit into the stall. With the goal of saving bedding and keeping the flanks clean, the builder placed the neck rails six inches behind the brisk= et board. The improper location of the neck rail caused the larger cows to get= up in an awkward manner that was contributing to the stepped on teats. The pro= per location of the neck rail is directly over the brisket board. In two herds,= the neck rail was moved ahead and perching and stepped on teats were reduced. Workers now bring in bedding twice a week and scrape more manure from the stalls. They prefer this activity to milking and treating mastitis in cows = with stepped on teats.

In the two herds that moved the neck rails, the discus= sion progressed to creation of a heifer group. There is a six inch difference in= the recommended resting area for a 1200# heifer compared to a 1400# mature cow,= so the heifers were responsible for putting most of the manure in stalls. By creating a heifer group, stall sizes could be adjusted to accommodate speci= fic animal needs more accurately.

Final short-time horizon recommendations to redu= ce stepped on teats were:

= 1. Use adequate bedding for lubrication between hock and mattress.

= 2. Move neck rail forward to a position directly on the brisket board.

—Kent E. Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary A= ssociates, Inc.

cowdoc@adelphia.net

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK=

SWEDISH TRIP

The first week in March I traveled to Sweden = for a dairy nutrition conference on nonfiber carbohyd= rate nutrition of dairy cattle. Mary Beth Hall covered some basic aspects and analytical challenges, while I tried to give the audience a flavor for how = the basic information could be applied to Swedish dairy programs. It was challenging, and as always, after attempting to answer the questions I real= ized just how little we know (or at least I know) after all these decades of research about successfully feeding and managing the modern, high-producing dairy cow.

I wanted to share with you a few random but interestin= g, things I learned about the dairy industry in Sweden. There are about 450,0= 00 milk cows in Sweden<= /st1:place>, and dairying is by far the predominant agricultural industry. The Muslim embargo on Danish products has really hurt the Swedish dairy industry recen= tly because much of their milk is apparently marketed through a Danish company. There is a quota system in Sweden and many herds would be small by American standards, but the herds we visit= ed were quite advanced technologically. I saw automated feeding systems that delivered forage and concentrate to the feed bunk multiple times daily, free-stall buildings designed very much like one would see in the upper Midwest, and a keen focus on forage quality and cow comfort. For example, one dairy we visited had mattresses in the free stall= s, but had used a covering that resulted in far fewer hock abrasions than I’ve typically noted in the U.S. or even on our own farm.=

Forages and crops are a challenge for dairy farmers in= Sweden = due to their short growing season and cool temperatures. The host for our conferen= ce said that summer in = Sweden is more a function of longer days than warmer temperatures! There is a push= for more corn silage to be grown as a forage crop for dairy cows. Historically, there has not been much corn grown in Sweden since corn is a tropical grass, and as one of the hosts joked, he hadn’t seen too many palm trees gro= wing in Sweden lately. Wheat is available, and corn and soybeans are imported. However, genetically enhanced crops cannot be fed, so it is becoming a challenge to import sufficient grain for the dairy industry. One topic that caught my attention because it so closely mirrored what is happening in the= U.S. in= volved feeding byproducts. Apparently, there will be a number of wheat mills in the near future that will produce mountains of wheat distil= lers grains. As I heard a nutritionist describe the situation and wonder how muc= h of this byproduct could be fed to a cow, I was struck by how similar the situa= tion was to the abundance of corn distillers grains in the U.S. Th= e phosphorus content of wheat is higher than corn grain, so I would assume that the wheat byproduct would be even higher in phosphorus that corn distillers grains. <= /p>

Coincidentally, when I asked dairy farmers what their biggest challenges were, one that topped the list was environmental impact = of dairying. It will be interesting to see how they accommodate greater high-phosphorus byproduct feeding and still meet environmental regulations. Another topic that was right at the top of the list was animal well-being. = It is apparent that Europe generally is far ahead of the U.S. in= terms of concern (and legislation) for animal welfare. The bottom-line? When I visit dairy farmers around the globe, it’s amazing how similar the fundamental challenges are.

—Rick Grant

grant@whminer.com

Does Your Farm Have an Environmental Steward?

“Every farm needs to find their environmental steward,” according to Bill Cook, a dairy producer from Aurora Ri= dge Dairy, LLC in Cayuga County NY. Cook recently spoke at the Northeast Dairy Producers Association (NEDPA) conference about challenges and opportunities facing the Northeast dairy industry. Three main challenges identified by Cook were= 1) ourselves and our mindset, 2) immigration and illegal labor issues, = and 3) environmental issues.

We all know that environmental issues are a concern no= w and will continue to be in the future. However, it was Cook’s passion abo= ut the environmental issues that caught my attention. He believes that “= we have a God-given, moral, ethical, and now legal responsibility to do the ve= ry best that we can to minimize the negative environmental effects of our operations.” Cook shared with us his environmental policy statement f= or his farm. The statement, which hangs in the coffee/lunch room for employees= and visitors to see, focuses on striving to be excellent stewards of the soil, water, and air by making environmentally informed decisions, working to exc= eed environmental regulations, and employing new technologies that will have a positive impact on the environment and neighbor relations. An environmental steward is employed by the farm to make their environmental policy statement more that just a piece of paper hanging on the wall.

The steward is the “environmental watch dog̶= 1; for the farm. We don’t want to leave it to the neighbors or regulators to find the problems. The steward must be passionate about finding and reducing any environmental degradation and focused on the possible environmental outcomes of all major activities on the farm. Some jobs for the steward wou= ld be to watch tile lines, field run off, ditches, and streams after rain even= ts to look intensely for manure run off, silo run off, silo leachate control, etc. Cook suggested giving the person a title, responsibilities, a= nd just compensation.

In addition to finding a steward, Cook encouraged us t= o work through the agricultural environmental management (AEM) program or with our crop/CAFO planner to assess potential environmental risks and prioritize the work to be done. Also, he suggested working together with other farmers to share information about manure handling and environmental issues through discussion groups, tours, and Internet sites. We need to learn quickly from each other’s successes and mistakes.

—Heather Dann<= /o:p>

dann@whminer.com=

WE GET LETTERS….

Actually, we get a lot more phone<= /span> calls and emails than we do letters. (If the USPS were a stock we’d be short-selling it.) Following are some recent topics:

·        Which TMR mixer does the best job for dry cow rations?

·        What about TMR vs. free choice rations for d= ry cows?

·        What causes mycotoxin problems? (We wish we knew.)

·        What factors are involved in silage digestibility? (The dairy nutrition consultant’s client has well-managed grass silage but the cows aren’t milking as well as they should.)

·        Where can an Australian farmer buy the new silage plastic we’re using in one of our bunker silos here at the Institute? (In Wisconsin, England, or Italy—it’s truly a world agricultural economy.)

·        Do you have precipitation data for 2005? = (NYSDEC is on the prowl, visiting medium-size CAFO farms and asking for this data. = And yes, we have the data.)

Why so many DCAD equations, is one better than the others?

The February 2006 Journal of Dairy Science has 3 artic= les pertaining to dry cow nutrition and milk fever (hypoca= lcemia). The article by Lean et al. (Hypocalcemia in dairy cows: meta-analysis and dietary= cation-anion difference theory revisited. JDS 89:669)= provides the framework of much of the following discussion.

There are many equations used to calculate dietary cation-anion difference (DCAD) in dry cow rations. The basic purpose of these is to m= onitor the dietary mineral balance relating to milk fever. The theory being, that the more negatively charged minerals (anions: Cl^{-,
S^-, P^2-) the animal consumes relative to the positive=
ly
charged minerals (cations: Na⁺, K+}, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺) the less likely the risk of milk fever. Thus, the approach of feeding anio= nic salts to close-up dry cows to result in a negative DCAD value. When dietary DCAD is negative, blo= od pH drops, stimulating mobilization of bone Ca in attempts to buffer the pH dro= p. This activation of Ca mobilization physiologically prepares the cow for the increased Ca demand at calving. Li= sted below are just 4 of the more common variants of the DCAD equation:

The reason for so many variations to the DCAD equation= is to increase the power of the equation in predicting the risk of milk fever. The inclusion of Ca, Mg and P are believed to improve the predictive power of the base equation. Coefficients= are included in some equations to account for the bioavailability of each miner= al for absorption in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). For instance it is thought that the absorption of dietary sulfur in the GIT is only 60%, (coefficient 0.60).

In conjunction with the differing DCAD equations, ther= e have been various recommendations for the optimal dietary Ca level that should be fed in the prepartum diet. Individual research trials have sh= own that:

= 1.      >30 g/d of Ca has no effect on milk fever

= 2.      < 20 g/d of Ca will decrease the incidence of milk fever

= 3.      150 g/d of Ca (1.10-1.50% of DM) should be fed, when DCAD1 results in –15 mEq/100gDM

= 4.      50-60 g/d Ca was optimal when not feeding anionic salts

= 5.      Ca fed at low or high levels resulted in no milk fever, but S and Na levels we= re more critical than DCAD or Ca concentration on incidence of milk fever

Clearly, individual trials under very specific feeding= and management protocols can result in a variety of specific conclusions as out= lined above. The technique of meta-analysis, the review of data across multiple research trials, can help identify large trends and effects across many trials and many more calvings than individual trials (like seeing the fore= st from the trees). Lean et al. = used this meta-analysis approach to review data from 137 published research tria= ls which encompassed 2,545 calvings to come to some basic conclusions regarding DCAD and minimizing the risk of milk fever. Some of Lean et al. findings are presented here:

1= .      =             There is “good evidence” that the risk = of milk fever increases with age:

= a.      =              Decreased intestinal absorption of Ca as cows age
= b.      =             Decreased physiological responsiveness to hypocalcemia

= c.      =              Decreased bone turnover

= d.      =             Decreased bone responsiveness to parathyroid hormone and vitamin D for Ca mobilization.

2= .      =             DCAD1, (Na + K) – (Cl + S), was found to be most closely associated with milk fever:

= a.      =              The risk of milk fever decreased linearly as DCAD1 decreased

= b.      =             As DCAD1 went from –25 to +25mEq/100g DM the = risk of milk fever increased 110%

= c.      =              Inclusion of other ions or absorption coefficients = did not improve predictions of milk fever

Lean et al. note, however, that some minerals affect t= he DCAD value differently than they affect milk fever. For instance:

3= .      =             Increased dietary Mg, a cation= , was associated with a decrease in the risk of milk fever. Magnesium plays a key role in enzy= me and hormone synthesis and the ability of bone to mobilize Ca and the kidneys resorb Ca. A dietary Mg level of 0.40% DM may help to minimize milk fever.

4= .      =             Increased dietary P, an anion, increased the risk of milk fever. Specific feeding guideline not provided in the article. NRC 2001 recommends <0.30%

True to their effects on the DCAD value:

5.   &n= bsp;     Increased Na and K, increased the risk of milk fever

6.   &n= bsp;     Increased Cl and S, decreased the risk of milk fever

Lean et al. also noted that the length of time cows are exposed to an anionic salt diet may play a role in the incidence of milk fever. Their analysis was not conclusive, but trends indicated that “short” exposures to high= Ca diets increased the risk of milk fever, long exposures decreased the risk, = and that increasing exposure to the diet from 20 to 30 days increased the risk = of milk fever by 42%. (Take note 1 group dry cow managers?)

Charbonneau et al. (JDS 89:537) also conducted a meta-analysis of DCAD and milk fever but included the equation DCAD =3D (Na= + K) – (Cl + 0.60S), referred to here as DCAD5= . This equation was not part of the = Lean et al. analysis discussed above. Charbonneau et al. found this equation to be more strongly associated with predicting milk fever (R²=3D0.44) and urinary pH (R^{2=3D0.78)
than DCAD1. They also note th=
at a
drop in urine pH to ~7.0 is adequate when feeding anionic salts and that
feeding salts to drop urine pH lower shows minimal gains in reducing milk
fever. Feeding anionic salts =
was
shown to reduce dry matter intake (DMI) by ~ 11% when DCAD went from 30 to 0
mEq/100g. Heifers do not need=
DCAD
salts since their bones are not fully matured and more capable of Ca
mobilization compared to mature cows.}

In summary, DCAD1 =3D (Na + K) – (Cl + S) and DCAD5 =3D (Na + K) – (Cl + 0.60S= ) seem to be the best equations for monitoring the dietary risk of milk fever. A Mg le= vel of 0.40% may be advantageous in the close-up dry cow diet, watch P levels. When feeding anionic salts, common recommendations are to feed 1.50% Ca, though this was not supported by the = Lean et al. paper. When not feeding anionic salts a Ca level of 0.50-0.60% may be most appropriate. And lastly, Jerseys had a 2.25x hi= gher risk for milk fever than Holsteins.

—Kurt Cotanch<= /o:p>

cotanch@whminer.com

POOP NEWS

The company that collects San Francisco’s trash is starting= a pilot project to use dog poop in a methane digester, which after a few week= s of cooking will create methane that can be used to generate electricity or be piped directly into anything powered by natural gas. = San Francisco’s 240,000 dogs and = cats produce an estimated 6500 tons of waste each year. We did the math, so you don’t need to: That’s 54 pp/p (poop pounds = per pet). We should also mention that San Francisco is named after St. Francis, the patron s= aint of animals.

Japanese agricultural engineers have developed a proce= ss for extracting gasoline from cow manure. By applying pressure and high heat to = the manure they extracted 0.042 ounces of gasoline from 3.5 ounces of manure. S= ince about 500,000 tons of cattle manure are produced in Japan each year, extracting a= ll the gasoline from this manure would produce enough fuel to operate a Hummer for= one full year. (We’re kidding, of course; actually it would produce lots = more than that, but the scientists say it will be at least five years before the= process is commercialized.)

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

Corn has about 50,000 genes. We don’t know the function of the great majority of them, but are learning more all the time. Even one gene can have a dramatic effect on corn performance, as we’ve learned from research involving the genetic modification (Bt gene) that controls European corn borer. At last month’s Corn Congres= s we reported on two field trials involving genetic insect control in corn harve= sted for silage. Following are the results:

Bt vs. non-Bt corn for control of Europe= an corn borer

In 2005 we planted the second of a three-year trial. A= s in 2004 we used two Syngenta hybrids, N3030Bt and = N3030 (identical genetics except for the Bt gene). The= re wasn’t any statistically significant yield difference in either year,= but the Bt hybrid yield was numerically lower yieldi= ng in 2004 and higher in 2005. This may be because corn borer infestations were considerably higher in 2005—almost twice as many plants affected than= in 2004. It’s remarkable how ratty the non-Bt hybrid looked both years compared to the Bt hybrid, further proof that it’s the numbers that count, not “windshield evaluations”. We’ll do the third and final year of trial in 2006, using the same hybrids and the same field.

Bt vs. soil insecticide for corn rootworm control

We planted two Golden Harvest corn hybrids in a 4^=
th year notill field, one with YieldGard Rootworm (Bt gene) and the other without the gen= e for rootworm control. The non-Bt hybrid was planted both with and without Force= 3G soil insecticide.

There wasn’t any statistically significant diffe= rence between any of the treatments, with about a 1 ton/acre difference between t= he Bt and insecticide treatments vs. the control. Obvious= ly, corn rootworms weren’t a serious problem in this field in 2005. Whate= ver was there to bug our corn, however, was equally well controlled by either <= span class=3DGramE>Bt or Force.

—E.T.=

ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA ON THE HOT SEAT

Last month a coalition of environmental organizat= ions, farmers and consumers filed a lawsuit against the USDA, calling its approva= l of Roundup Ready alfalfa a threat to farmers' livel= ihoods and a risk to the environment. The suit contends that the USDA improperly allowed the commercial release of Roundup Ready alfalfa, the first genetica= lly engineered perennial crop (leafhopper resistance in alfalfa isn’t a GE trait), and failed to analyze the public health, environmental, and economic consequences of glyphosate resistance. The laws= uit also asserts that Roundup Ready alfalfa is likely to contaminate non-RR alf= alfa and eventually prevent farmers from producing non-RR alfalfa for markets th= at demand it—such as organic farmers and the export trade. The suit clai= ms that U.S. farmers could lose alfalfa exports to Japan and South Korea value= d at almost half a billion dollars, stating that importers there indicated that because of the release of Roundup Ready alfalfa they’d avoid buying U= .S. alfalfa. However, since the suit was filed = Japan has approved imports of genetically modified alfalfa, most likely taking some of the wind out of the plaintiffs’ sails.

NOTILL VS. MYCOTOXINS

Editor's note: Cornell plant pathologist Gary Bergs= trom was asked recently about the relationship between noti= ll (and zone till) and the incidence of mycotoxins= on a particular farm. Here's his answer:

On balance, the impact of local tillage on mycotoxins in NY corn silage is probably negligible. = First of all let's frame the question around Fusarium graminearum (Gibberella zeae), the major cause of stalk rot and ear= rot in NY and the principal producer of DON (vomitoxin) and zearalenone, our most frequently encountered toxins in NY corn. Fusarium graminearum toxins in silage come from ears (result of Gibberella ear rot infection) and th= e stover (result of Gibberella stalk rot). Classic thinking is that the ears contribute more toxin t= han the stover.

The fungus survives on corn= and cereal debris, and to some extent in the soil. It is cosmopolitan on all cereals and grasses; believe me, it is everywhere. We find the spores in la= rge numbers in the air even at great distances from corn fields. But the biggest load of airborne inoculum (for ear rot stage) w= ill be when a corn/cereal crop is planted directly into corn/cereal debris. This tilts the reduced-tillage equation at lea= st somewhat in favor of ear rot and mycotoxins in = the ear. But we find plenty of ear rot in first year corn fields too because of= the atmospheric load of spores over our region. Also consider that in silage production there is much less stalk tissue than in grain production left be= hind to harbor the fungus.

Stalk infection by Fusarium graminearum = occurs primarily from the soil into the roots and the fungus colonizes especially those plants that are stressed. Especially where moisture is limited, plants grown under conservation tillage may have roots that are less stressed than under clean plowing. In other words, conservation tillage MAY result in at least some reduction in stalk rot.

So you see, I don't think the tillage regime in silage production on one farm is likely to have a huge net effect in increasing or reducing Fusarium grami= nearum mycotoxin levels in the silage. However, the br= oad regional risk of diseases and mycotoxins associ= ated with F. graminearum/G. = zeae has been increased in recent years because there are more airborne spores associated with more crop debris under conservation tillage in the larger region.

—Gary Bergstrom<= o:p>

gcb3@cornell.edu=

GET READY TO APPLY UREA TO GRASS FIELDS

This topic appears in the Farm Report almost ev= ery April because it’s one of the most important spring crop activities. = In fact, Cornell agronomist Jerry Cherney says tha= t if you don’t apply either fertilizer N or manure to grass hay fields it’s probably not worth your time and money to harvest them; thatR= 17;s how low yield and quality is for most unfertilized grass fields. If you can apply spring manure, unless you apply it sometime in the next few weeks you’ll still need commercial nitrogen; we much prefer urea for early spring applications.

Application rate depends on the grass species and your= bank balance. If you have a productive stand of an improved species such as reed= canarygrass, orchardgrass= (which I hate) or timothy, 200-250 lbs/acre of urea is about right. If you canR= 17;t afford this much, even 100 lbs/acre is worth the time and expense. If you h= ave an old mixed stand including native grasses (for example, quackgrass), 150 lbs. should be enough. Ammonium sulfate or ammonium sulfate-urea blends= are also A-OK, but I prefer these for second cut since the ammonium sulfate won’t be as much affected as urea will by warm summer conditions. Research here at Miner Institute found that that about 100 lbs of N applied= to a good stand of grass will double yields and increase crude protein from 12% (with no N) to 18%. Essentially you’re tripling your fertilizer inves= tment in the five weeks or so from application to harvest. Do you have a better investment option than that?

AN OCEAN OF MILK

·        Milk production grew by almost 6% in February compared to Feb. 2005, the biggest increase in 25 years.

·        Milk per cow increased by over 4% in the 23 = top dairy states, and there were 121,000 more dairy cows than a year ago. More = cows making more milk per cow—you do the numbers.

·        Monsanto announced that it’s increasing production of Posilac, allowing it to meet the = needs of current and future customers. This certainly won’t have a dampening effect on milk production.

= ;

FORAGE GRASSES FOR DRY COWS

Recently published Quebec research is especially relevant for farmers in this region. The agronomists evaluated several varieties of five grass species a three Quebec locations, with the objective of determining which produced forage lowest (best) in DCAD. We were especially interested in this research since it closely mirrored research we did here = at Miner Institute in the late1990s. Also, while we used timothy, orchardgrass and reed canarygras= s, these involved timothy, orchardgrass, bromegrass, meadow bromegrass, and tall fescue. There was no difference in overall grass DCAD between the three Quebec locations, which is encouraging since it suggests that the results of this research may have wide applicability. We were particularly interested in how tall fescue performed since there’s a lot of interest in this species= but not a lot of work involving DCAD. Briefly, here’s what they found:

= 1.      Orchardgrass had by far the highest (worst) DC= AD, and timothy by far the lowest DCAD. In most cases with orchardgrass and in all cases with timothy, these differences were statistically significant. Orchardgra= ss makes lousy dry cow forage!

= 2.      First cut orchardgrass had significantly more potassi= um than any other species. Second cut orchardgrass= was numerically higher in K than any other species, and significantly higher in= K than either bromegrass or timothy.

= 3.      First cut timothy yield was higher than the other species, but apparently went to sleep for the summer since second cut yield was lowest of all species. Two = cut totals: Smooth bromegrass and timothy were 1-2,= while orchardgrass was dead last.

= 4.      Timothy was the only species for which there was a significant decline in DCAD betw= een first and second harvests. In contrast, our research found a decline in DCAD from first to second cut regardless of species.

= 5.      How did tall fescue fare? Just so-so. Yield was in the middle, and so was DCAD. Only for tall fescue was there a significant difference in DCAD between varieties.

= 6.      The conclusion was that timothy is the best grass species for prefresh dry cows, with second cut timothy lowest in DCAD.

= ;

Source: Agronomy Journal 98:280-288, (2006).

CROP INPUT PRICES

Loyalty is a fine thing, but so are low prices. Each y= ear when ordering herbicides and insecticides for the Miner Institute farm we g= et price quotes from several area dealers. In some cases the brand of a partic= ular herbicide varies, but usually it’s a direct “apple-to-appleR= 21; comparison. This year we priced herbicides from three dealers, and from hig= h to low found a difference of 11%. By choosing the lowest price for each herbic= ide, we actually saved a bit more than that. We also priced fertilizers from thr= ee dealers, and found a price difference of 12% with comparable quality and le= vels of service. Service is important—we never forget that.

Is it worth an 11-12% “discount” to get pr= ices from several dealers rather than just one? How much more time would it take= you to do so? For our 580 acres of crops, this usually amounts to a savings of several thousand dollars. We’ll leave the answer to you, but for us it’s sure worth the few minutes it takes to shop around.

With nitrogen prices pushing $0.40 per pound of N, far= mers may be wondering if this is the year to cut back on N use on corn. It may b= e, but not entirely due to the price of N. If N increases by $0.10 per lb., assuming a constant value for corn (grain or silage) and that you weren’t already over-applying N, this should result in a reduction of only 15 lbs. or so of N per acre: For farmers using UAN (N solution), that’s about 4 gallons per acre. Some N applicators aren’t even calibrated to within 4 gallons of the “intended” rate.

—E.T.=

RANDOM THOUGHTS

= 1.      One out of every four Americans is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends; if they're okay, then it's you.

= 2.      We heard of a farmer complaining that his wife is always asking for money. “Last week she asked for $50, the week before she wanted $100, and ju= st the other day she asked for $300.” What does she want with all that money, we asked? “Beats me—I never give her any.”

= 3.      On average, married women are heavier than single women. That’s because = at the end of a long day, single women see what's in the fridge and go to bed. Married women see what's in bed and go to the fridge.

Research summaries

1.      A recent study found that athletes recovered more quickly from workouts when = they drank chocolate milk between the first and second workout. Yep, chocolate m= ilk beat the so-called “sports drinks”. The co-author of the study stated that “Chocolate milk contains an optimal carbohydrate-to-prote= in ratio, which is critical for helping refuel tired muscles.” This good news is in addition to s= everal recent studies confirming that milk can be an important part of weight-loss programs. Furthermore, after the desired weight is attained, milk can help maintain it.

2.      Yet another dairy study of over 68,000 post-menopausal women found that those consuming the 1250 mg/day of dietary calcium were at a lower risk for breast cancer than woman consuming 500 mg. Note the emphasis on the word dietary; the study found no link between calcium supplements and risk of breast cancer.

3.      Cornell University research found that warm workers are more productive. When office temperature increased from 68°= to 77° F, typing output increased 150% and the typing errors decreased by = 44%. These resulted in the equivalent of a $2.00 per hour savings per worker. (Recently Rick Grant asked to = have the heat turned down (from 68°F) in his office. Maybe he’s= not interested in working at peak efficiency.) We’re not sure how this relates to farm conditions—warmer milking parlors, maybe—but it certainly suggests that your farm office should be toasty warm.

ETHANOL AND DAIRY RATIONS

The coming increase in ethanol production will almost certainly reduce the cost of dairy rations. For example, Archer Daniels Mid= land Co. (ADM) plans to expand its ethanol capacity by 500 million gallons/year;= one plant with annual capacity of 275 million gallons is scheduled to come on l= ine in early 2008. A byproduct of ethanol production is dry distillers grains (DDG), and increased supplies of DDG will cause them to figure more promine= ntly in least-cost rations. At current corn and soybean meal prices, it’s estimated that DDG are worth about $170 per ton in dairy rations. A recent price in both Boston and Buffalo (according to Feedstuffs= ) was $124/ton.

Ah, but not so fast: DDG is very high in phosphorus, a= bout three times as high as some competing concentrates. Dairy farmers strugglin= g to meet P requirements in their CAFO plans may find that they won’t be a= ble to take full advantage of DDG. Take-home message: The better job you do = now of managing P inputs, the better shape you’ll be in a few years when = DDG are really cheap.

SILAGE DENSITY IN TOWER SILOS

We had our concrete stave silos taken down years ago, = but many farmers still make good use of tower silos. Much is written about sila= ge density in bunker silos, but not much is said about silage density in uprig= hts, in part because there’s not a lot you can do to influence it unless y= ou rewrite one of Mr. Newton’s Laws of Gravity. (It&= #8217;s number 2, by the way.) However, over the years I’ve heard more than a= few farmers complain about moldy silage soon after opening a tower silo, so it’s a subject worth discussing.

What’s typical silage density in a tower silo? T= his depends on where you are in the silo. Using the National Silo Association&#= 8217;s tower silo capacity table, here’s the dry matter density in several places in a 24’ x 60R= 17; silo.

Recommended silage density is at least 14 lbs/cubic fo= ot. As you can see, the top 20 feet of the silo is well under this (the top 10 fee= t is a lot worse) and the middle 20 feet barely makes it. Long ago I saw a chart recommending different dry matter goals for each 20 feet of a 60-foot high tower silo. While I don’t remember the exact numbers, the chart recommended that the bottom third of the silo should be over 40% DM (for hay crop silage, not corn silage), the middle third about 35%, and the top third about 30% DM. Of course the logistics of doing this are a bit dicey, to say nothing of the moaning and groaning and whimpering noises that would emanate from your dairy nutrition consultant. But what this table does illustrate is why the silage in the top 10 feet of a tower silo is often moldy—it o= nly has about half the recommended density.

What can you do about this? Not much, but I’d certainly try to top off your tower silo with 50 tons or so of relatively l= ow dry matter forage—30% DM, not 25%. Hay crop silage at 30% DM shouldn’t produce butyric acid but will squash things down a bit. Thi= s is just the opposite of what usually happens, since on a good “hay day” the last of the forage to disappear up the chute is often the driest. You might also consider treating the last 50 tons with an acid preservative, and don’t skimp on the amount.

—E.T.

<= /o:p>

AN ALTERNATIVE TO TIRES ON BUNKER SILOS

One of the most hated jobs on farms with pit, bunker or stack silos is covering them with plastic and then weighting the plastic do= wn with tires. Many other silo coverings have been tried (almost in desperation considering some of the materials tried), includ= ing an experimental thick black spray-on goop that worked well when we tried it he= re on the Institute farm. However, the goop had to be custom-applied and the estimated cost was about ten times what plastic is. That cooled our jets, a= nd apparently discouraged a lot of other farmers as well since the material ne= ver made it past the trial stage. Researchers in the U.S. are currently working wi= th other experimental products including a “starch-salt matrix”, b= ut these have some problems to overcome before they’re ready for prime t= ime.

At Miner Institute we’re tossing many of our tires—not onto the silo, but onto the junk pile. Increasingly we̵= 7;ve been using gravel-filled silo bags, with very good results. These bags are 39” (one meter) long by about 5” in diameter, made of tough bla= ck geotextile. We fill them with pea gravel to reduce ab= rasion of the fabric. (Sand might work in warmer climates, but probably not up her= e.) After putting the plastic sheets on the silo, we run a row of silo bags aro= und the silo perimeter, providing a tight seal between the plastic and the silo walls—or with stack silos, between the plastic and the silo floor. Th= en we run rows of silo bags across the width of the silo, one row every 15-18 = feet. The gravel-filled bags are heavy (40-45 lbs) and form an airtight seal, so = even under windy conditions the plastic between the rows of silo bags doesn̵= 7;t blow around. We drive a pallet of silo bags up onto the silo with a forklif= t or front-end loader and put them in place. Then as the silo is fed out we keep rolling the row of bags back until it eventually meets the next row, at whi= ch point we stack the bags on a pallet, ready for the next silo filling.

We’ve been using silo bags for several years now= and are very pleased with the results. Our silo crew is just as happy with truck tire sidewalls, but for minimizing spoilage the bags are our choice. They t= ake less time than tires, do a lot better job of preventing air infiltration (a= nd aerobic spoilage) under the plastic, and are neater than piles of rotting t= ires full of stagnant water—which of course are convenient breeding grounds for mosquitoes carrying the West Nile virus.

<= /o:p>

Finally, be on the lookout for a new silo plastic that’s a much more effective oxygen barrier than what we’re now using. Currently manufactured in Italy, this plastic is cuttin= g dry matter losses in half compared to the standard silo plastic. It will cost m= ore, but if the research I’ve seen is duplicated under farm conditions it = will be a very good investment. The currently available material is clear and ve= ry thin (requiring a mesh fabric cover since it has little UV light protection= ), but we’re told that an opaque plastic is being developed. We’re using the clear plastic plus the mesh cover on our third cut alfalfa-grass silage and it appears to be doing a great job, with no spoilage at all under the plastic. For pictures of the material and to learn more about it visit www.silostop.com. A distribut= or is CP Feeds in Valders, WI; email kget@cpfeeds.com.=

—E.T.

WORDS OF WISDOM

The following was excerpted from Baxter Black’s “The Edge of Common Sense” column in the March issue of “Progressive Dairyman”. Baxter Black is a former large-animal veterinarian; for more on him visit www.baxterblack.com.

“How could you not like a vegetarian? It woul= d be like not liking a monk, a Libertarian party candidate or a dairyman raising= Jersey cows. Ya gotta hand it to ‘em. They’re swimmin’ upstream, livin’ life the hard way. But I admire them bec= ause they have to be true believers, even though they may secretly buy a Holstein, eat a burger or vote for Ralph Nader. And organic farming: It’s just some hard-working folks that have found a niche! They have given up trying to save the world, they just hope there are enough people in their congregation to keep ‘= ;em in business. Kind’a like the Episcopalians.”

CLOSING COMMENT

Don’t = compare yourself to others; they’re more screwed up than you think.