MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

“WORLD’S LARGEST” TALL FESCUE TRIAL

Two years ago Cornell University seeded 47 varieties of tall fescue in the research plot area it manages here at Miner Institute. With five replications of each variety, this well may be the lar= gest tall fescue trial in the world. The varieties are being harvested three tim= es each year, with data collection including optimum harvest date, yield and f= orage quality. Project leaders are Jerry Cherney (N.Y. State Forage Specialist) and Debbie Cherney (Co= rnell University Dept. of Animal Science). A similar trial has been established at the Extension Learning Farm in Canton (NY). Past Cornell research has shown tall fescue to rank among the highest of several cool-season grass species = for yield. However, palatability issues have long dogged tall fescue, so itR= 17;s encouraging that three dairy feeding trials haven’t found any palatability issue.

This research is being funded by the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program, a farmer-driven research and education program specific to the six counties in Northern N.Y.

AVIAN INFLUENZA (A.K.A. BIRD FLU)

The accompanying “flamingo flu” photo notwithstanding, we need to rely on facts = and not sensationalism when discussing the subject with non-farming family and friends. The popular press has been full of gloom and doom stories about bi= rd flu, and a recent network TV movie on the topic didn’t help at all. T= he facts: There have been only about 200 human cases of bird flu worldwide, and to= date none in the U.S. Almost all of these 200 cases were traced to close contact with infected poultry, such as children playing with chicken heads. Even where b= ird flu exists, proper handling and cooking of poultry and eggs provides protec= tion against the disease.

When I was in rural China= a few months ago I was amazed at the number of “free range” chickens and ducks that were just everywhere on small farms and villages, a= nd young children were mingling with all sorts of poultry both dead and alive. Recal= ling this, it’s encouraging that a group of Asian nations has recently formulated a five-point plan to cooperate in controlling the spread of the disease.

Finally, it’s been feared that bird flu would be spread to the U.S. by migratory birds. Scientists have been testing thousands of migratory birds = in Africa this past winter, and didn’t find a si= ngle infected bird. After these birds migrated to Europe<= /st1:place>, only two cases were found. Not exactly an epidemic, is it?

—E.T.<= /span>

TWO YEARS OF BMR CORN SILAGE: SUMMARY

Miner Institute has been growing and feeding BMR corn silage (CS) since the 2004 = crop year with relatively positive results. Table 1 lists the acres and yields and percentage of total c= rop of BMR and conventional corn planted for the past three crop years.

Now that we are nearly at capacity in the new barn (~280 milking), we are runni= ng tight on corn silage inventory. Cropping decisions include how to accommoda= te the yield drag from BMR and whether or not to commit ourselves to purchasing corn silage and or haylage.

Forage quality has certainly been good for the BMR corn silage. On average the BMR corn silage has been 10 units higher in NDFd30 than our conventional corn silage. Table 2 lists the nutritional parameters of the BMR and conventional corn silage as determine= d in the Miner Institute forage lab.

Both the BMR and conventional corn silage crops have been quite similar as far as DM, NDF and ADF levels, indicating similar stage of maturity at harvest over the past 2 years. The major difference has been lower lignin content and hi= gher NDF digestibility for the BMR vs. the conventional corn. Figure 1 shows the trend of NDFd30 for both BMR and conventional CS over the past 2+ years.

Over the past two years we have at times had to adjust our corn silage feeding strategies as BMR silage inventories varied. We have been feeding BMR corn silage as 50% of TMR dry matter to our close-up dry cows. The fresh and hei= fer groups take 2^nd priority for BMR. In general those rations have = been 55% forage with BMR comprising 20-35% of the total forage dry matter. We have not been feeding straight = BMR CS in any of our lactating rations. When inventory allows, we have fed BMR to = our high group cows.

We are planting a few more acres to BMR this year, but still need to consider the economic break point of having to purchase forage to fulfill DM needs again= st the benefit of higher digestible fiber in our corn silage.

—Kurt Cotanch=

cotanch@whminer.com

JOHNES DISEASE AND TOPDRESSED MANURE

I think it was Will R= ogers who said: “The trouble isn’t that we don’t know enough, b= ut that we know so many things that aren’t true.” And from John Prentic= e, “A bare assertion is not necessarily the naked truth.”

A number of Johnes Disease authorities (including= the New York State Cattle Health Assurance Program—NYSCHAPS) don’t recommend topdressing hay fields with manure until the harvest season is ov= er due to possible contamination of the forage—especially forages fed to cattle under two years of age, which are at higher risk for developing Johnes. We’re more than a bit interested here a= t the Institute since our herd is Johnes positive, we’ve participated in the NYSCHAP program for years, and we feed sila= ge (from fields topdressed with manure almost every summer) to heifers beginning at 4-5 months of age.

M. paratuberculosis, the pathogen causing Johnes Disease, is resistant to heat, cold and drying, and can survive in manure f= or up to a year although storage in manure pits decreases its viability by a couple of months The pathogen in topdressed fre= sh manure can remain viable in the field for 5-8 months depending on weather conditions. The more infected manure a young animal consumes, the greater t= he chance of developing Johnes. However, I questio= n if under normal conditions harvested forage contains enough residual manure to cause a problem. Pastures may be a different story entirely, since many paddocks are rotated on a very intensive schedule. If manure is applied to alfalfa right after harvest there’s almost no chance of manure remain= ing on the forage a month or more later because alfa= lfa regrows from crown buds. However, with grasses itR= 17;s possible that manure could remain on leaves as they re= grow—but would there be enough manure to cause a problem? Nobody seems to know the answer to this.

Two alternatives to manure application during the growing season are topdressing manure after the last harvest, and applying high rates of manure to corn fi= elds in the fall. There are three problems with this: First, fall applications on forages are more susceptible to environmental losses (leaching, runoff) sin= ce there’s no growing crop to uptake manure nutrients. Second, applying = high rates of manure to corn land increases the chance of nutrient losses and on many CAFO farms would violate the farm’s Nutrient Management Plan. Th= ird, there’s the risk of a very wet fall making manure application to a= ny field problematical.

It probably makes sense to avoid feeding dry hay from recently manured fields to young stock. However, what about silage? A research trial here in 1994-95 involving manure topdressed onto alfalfa found that silage fermentation wiped out E. coli bacteria; would sil= age fermentation do the same to the pathogen causing Johne= s Disease? I searched long and hard for research on the influence of silage fermentation on M. paratuberculosis, and finally found a trial that hit the nail on the head: “Effects of sila= ge fermentation and ammonia treatment on activity of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis.” The research was done in Japan a few years ago by a group of Japanese animal scientists so not surprisingly the paper is mostly in Japanese, but our two Zen-Noh Japanese dairy scienti= sts-in-residence were kind enough to translate the paper. The Japanese researchers inoculated sterilized, ground alfalfa with M. paratuberculosis= and a standard bacterial silage inoculant, then fermented it at several dry matter levels. Here’s what they found:

In both 25% and 40% DM alfalfa silage, 100% of the M. = paratuberculosis was killed following fermentation and the resulting increase in lactic acid concentration. Silage pH 4.5 or less and 2.5% lactic acid concentration both resulted in a 100% kill. Even at 55% DM, 87% of the M. paratuberculosis was killed. At 90% DM (equivalent to dry hay) there was 100% survival. Howe= ver, since sunlight kills M. paratuberculosis, there may or may not be significant pathogen survival in dry hay under field conditions—this wasn’t addressed in the Japanese study.

A second Japanese research project, “Effect of ensiling on inactivation= of Mycobacterium avium sub sp paratuberculo= sis”, achieved exactly the same results. Fermentation reduced silage pH to 4.4, completely killing M. paratuberculosis. A veterinarian at the Johnes<= /span> Information Center at the University of Wisconsin stated= that during and after fermentation “Certainly the number of (M. paratuberculosis) organisms will be knocked down = due to low pH and time.” This vet cautioned that the Japanese research used “spiked” rather than naturally-occurring populations of M. <= span class=3DSpellE>paratuberculosis, and that it’s better to s= ay that silage is “low” risk but not “no= ” risk. Perhaps, but that’s a big improvement over telling farmers they shouldn’t topdress manure during the grow= ing season.

Here are my recommendations (<= u>not NYSCHAPS’, not the Johnes Information Center’s, etc.) for in-season manure topdress on farms wh= ere Johnes disease is present—which at least in the= Northeastern U.S. appears to be most dairy farms. T= hese recommendations are based on what I consider to be “best available in= formation”.

—E.T.<= /span>

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

New Guidelines for Byprodu= ct Feeds

I just returned from the Eastern Nutrition Conference in Guelph, Ontario<= /st1:place> where one of the topics presented was use of byproduct feeds by dairy cattl= e. Byproduct feed use by the dairy industry is already substantial and is expe= cted to grow in the coming decade. One dairy production phase with potential for increased incorporation of byproducts into the diet is the transition cow. Several research reports indicate the potential benefits of replacing forage fiber with byproduct sources of fiber in the prepartum= period. Currently, few data exist for the prepartum cow, but several studies have demonstrated that fresh and early lactation c= ows will perform well with diets containing byproducts such as wet corn gluten feed, soybean hulls, and cottonseed hulls. Nonforage sources of fiber such as soybean hulls, cottonseed hulls, and beet pulp have increased prepartum feed intake when substitute= d for moderate quality forage fiber as shown in Table 1.

We completed a study at the Institute several months ago where we replaced oat= hay with beet pulp in the dry cow and close-up period and found that heifers fe= d the beet pulp diets prepartum had better milk produ= ction postpartum and less variable dry matter intake. The bottom line is that as = long as recommendations for physically effective neutral detergent fiber are met= and the diets are formulated carefully for other nutrients, there is no reason = why fibrous byproducts cannot be a component of successful transition cow feedi= ng programs. The effect of the mineral content of these byproduct feeds and the implications for the close-up cow remain to be investigated.

Optimal amounts of byproduct feeds in the diet for lactating cows, based on research during the past 10 years, are summarized in Table 2. Both a typical amount and a maximal amount are sugg= ested.



= Nonforage sources of fiber should be viewed as vehicles f= or delivering digestible NDF to dairy rations. An understanding of the chemical and physical properties of each byproduct is needed to define optimal and maximal levels of inclusion for diets fed to both lactating and nonlactating dairy cows. Development of creative combinations of byproducts that exploit their unique nutritional properties will occur as we learn more about them. Undoubtedly, a continued supply of = many byproducts will be available to the dairy industry, as exemplified by the b= loom of ethanol plants and production of distillers g= rains. However, future research must focus on how to best incorporate byproducts i= nto a complete feeding system that integrates nutritional value, productive and health responses, and any potential environmental consequences of feeding a particular byproduct.

—Rick Grant

grant@whminer.com <= /i>

Vet’s Corner: Maximum profit, not just mi= nimum cost.

No matter what is happening with the dairy economy,= sound ideas are still sound. Depressed milk prices have forced managers to reexam= ine their practices to eliminate unnecessary cost. Some lose sight of the goal = of achieving maximum profit and get hung up on cutting cost. Some believe that with milk prices this low, it makes sense to produce less if costs can be c= ut. In reality, this is almost never true. Usually, the individual producer is = far better off to continue producing at a high level. (As a disclaimer, we are aware that overproduction as an entire industry is given as a reason for low milk prices. The aim of this article is to help the individual producer operating under the current milk pricing conditions. No political statement= or pricing policy is intended.)

Consider this example of reducing purchased grain in a TMR. Since purchased grain is the highest single expenditure on most dairies, reducing the grain bill could have a ma= jor impact on farm expense. In this case, it would save $0.85/day for each cow,= but winds up costing the farm $0.35/day per cow income over feed cost, i.e. pro= fit.

&nbs= p;

The exact numbers for individual farms will vary from this example. The goal of= the example is to give an idea of the magnitude of change that could be expected from the decision to limit energy in the ration. The big decrease in milk production is from the fact that 1 pound of dry matter intake supports 2.2 pounds of milk production. Other performance factors to monitor would be bo= dy condition scores and heat detection/conception rates. Cows will not maintain flesh or breed well on an energy deficient diet.

In general, it’s rare that a practice has such a narrow profit margin th= at it pays when prices are $16 per cwt. and not when milk price drops below $1= 2. Before cutting a current expense, ask these three questions:

1.      = How large of a return does the item generate?

2.      = How soon is the return effected?

3.      = How certain is the effect on return?

For the grain limitation example, the answers are:

1.      = Reduced grain saved $0.85/cow, but lost $1.20 milk for a reduced pr= ofit of $0.35/cow.

2.      = The timing of the return is about a week to see the drop in the milk tank, three months to detect fertility loss, and a month to notice loss of condition.

3.      = It is highly certain this outcome will occur.

Managing a dairy in these times of extremely low milk prices is a difficult task. As your herd health veterinarian, we wish to be your ally to look at the impac= t of practices on your dairy. This exercise can be applied to other practices including conversion of 2X to 3X milking, review of specific medicines used= in sick cow treatment decisions, usage of a professional heifer grower, foot c= are, reproductive hormone protocols, AI vs. bull breeding, and others.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

cowdoc@adelphia.net

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

Corn planting got off to an early start here, as a fairly dry April left fields = in excellent condition. We started planting corn on May 1st, and things went swimmingly for ten days or so, then the rains came. We had about 190 acres = in by then, but the remaining 23-acre notill field didn’t get planted until May 24th. The cold, wet weather also had an effect on corn that was already planted; as of the end of May we had a coup= le of fields with really spotty population. Some corn plants were 4-6” h= igh while others a few inches away were just in the spike stage. Older alfalfa stands really took a beating over the winter, while newer stands came throu= gh much better. Some alfalfa plants were frost heaved two or three inches out = of the ground. These, of course, died, but many other alfalfa plants that look= ed really sad in late April are making something of a comeback, and we’re cautiously optimistic that they’ll provide at least fair yield this, their last season.

Our biggest equipment purchase was another manure/forage truck with interchange= able manure tank and forage box. This additional truck should allow us to topdress manure onto fields right after they’re harvested rather than waiting for the entire forage har= vest to be completed.

The dairy herd continues to do well, for the past six months stuck in a 90-95 lb/cow “rut” but that’s not all that bad a rut to be in. = Our current rolling herd average is 28,676-1078F-868P. Some dairy scientists are suggesting a production goal of one ton of butterfat plus protein per cow; = at 1946 lbs, we’re almost there. We’re installing a sprinkler syst= em in the freestall barn well in advance of summer= , and since we now have fully functioning fans (installed last summer in the midd= le of a heat wave), we should be able to cruise through hot spells in much bet= ter shape than during the first two summers in our new barn.<= /p>

We had our NYDEC medium CAFO inspection on May 23 and things apparently went pretty well. This was mostly a walk-through and look-see since medium CAFO nutrient management plans don’t have to be fully implemented until Ju= ne, 2009. Maybe next time they’ll get out the thumbscrews…

—Steve Couture, couture@w= hminer.com

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

MINER INSTITUTE WELCOMES SUMMER STUDENTS

In late May we opened our gates to our Summer Experience students. We have been conducting our summer internship programs since 1982. This program has expanded from the original Summer Experience in Farm Management to four programs for college students that additionally include Equine Management, Agricultural Research, and History Internship. The students are with us for 13 we= eks and are involved in a variety of activities as they learn to put their “book knowledge” to work on the farm, with the animals and in t= he fields. Our staff in the various areas of the farm utilize their best teaching and demonstration skills and patience to help the students learn how to drive tractors, milk cows, feed calves, train horses, and manage sample collection for a variety of research projects.

Students for the summer of 2006 came to us from a variety of schools across the coun= try.

Farm Management:

Genevieve Duncklee, Findlay College<= /span>

Dominique Noome, Larenstein University

Joe Olsen, University of Minnesota

Lisa Van Iderstine, Virginia Tech<= /p>

Equine Management:

Chelsea Rice, Utah State University

Julie Fazio, Brigham Young University

Jerold Murrell, Austin College

Ryan Brooks, Virginia Tech

Agricultural Research:

Kendra O’Connor, Iowa State University

Megan Richmond, University of Vermont

History Internship:

Elana Katz-Mink, SUNY Platt= sburgh

CORN REPLANTING DECISIONS

Ugh, what a depressing subject, but the cold, wet weather in mid-May left many early-planted corn fields in sad shape. In some cases farmers wondered if t= hey were better off having corn planted in waterlogged, flooded fields, or stil= l in the bag. Following are a few comments and suggestions:

·      =    Once emerged, corn seedlings are pretty tough and can survive a few days of flooding with minimal damage. More than a few days and it gets dicey. However, corn that’s just germinatin= g is particularly vulnerable to a heavy, cold rain—almost exactly the conditions occurring in much of Northeastern NY and New England about May 17-20.

·      =    Obviously, any replanting decision depends on how much corn you los= t, and whether the loss is confined to flooded areas or is general throughout = the field. If flooded areas are bereft of plants immediate replanting is recommended, perhaps using an earlier-maturing hybrid.
·      =    If the stand is thin but relatively uniform, you’d have to lo= se a significant percentage of plants to justify ripping up the field and starti= ng all over again. For instance, if you have 2/3 of a full stand but no large barren areas, corn yield may only be reduced by about 20%. That’s bec= ause plants in thin stands compensate by producing bigger ears and sometimes two ears per plant.

·      =    Thinking of replanting right into the old rows in an effort to thic= ken a thin stand? If so you’= ;d better have a very thin stand to begin with. Research has shown that with a stand uniformly thinned to 50%, you’d get about 75% of a normal yield= by doing nothing and 90% by replanting. We’re not sure this modest yield difference is worth all the time and input costs, but that’s your decision.

·      =    If the field is a total loss and you replant, switch to an earlier-maturing hybrid if you can get the corn planted by about June 20. M= uch after that and you may be better to plant a full-season hybrid since chance= s of the corn producing much grain aren’t as good. However, there’s nothing magic about June 20: Every season is different and even corn planted the first week of July can make a fair crop if we have an unusually warm su= mmer followed by a mild, frost-free fall extending well into October. Yields wil= l be much lower than with timely-planted corn and you’ll have to deal with immature corn silage, but as they say it’s better than feeding snowba= lls.

·      =    Once the sun finally does break through you may find sun scald on c= orn plants with a leaf or two fully emerged. This is common following an extend= ed spell of rotten weather, much the same as a North Country farmer who spends= a midwinter Florida= vacation roasting in the sun. His fishbelly-whi= te torso soon turns lobster red, while the part of the corn leaves exposed to = the direct rays of the sun are scalded almost white. It’s not a serious problem (the corn’s sun scald, not the farmer’s sunburn), just = one more consequence of many consecutive days of rain and clouds.

RUMEN-ATIONS

Cornell r= ecently released its preliminary 2005 Dairy Farm Business Summary. It’s interesting to look at two herd sizes, one decreasing in numbers (less than= 150 cows) and the other increasing (over 300 cows). Cornell summarized 30 “small” herds averaging 92 cows and 41 “large” herds averaging 680 cows. At the risk of irritating a few readers, following are = some comments based on this data:

Remarkably, in 2005 both herd sizes had exactly the same total operating expense= per hundredweight: $14.43. The big farms had a lot more hired labor (duh), but saved in several other areas. The small farms had higher operating receipts= per hundredweight due to higher cattle sales and miscellaneous receipts. The bo= ttom line: Net farm income per hundredweight was greater on the sm= all farms: $3.06 vs. $2.56.

Therefore, the small farms were more profitable, right? Not so fast: The small farms s= old an average of 19,827 lbs. milk/cow, while the large farms sold 23,684 lbs/c= ow. Net income per cow was almost identical: $607 for the small farms an= d $606 for the large farms. Of course, the big farms had a lot more cows, so on a = per-farm basis they made much more profit (assuming no real estate appreciation)—$412,000 vs. $56,000. Therefore, depending on how you w= ant to define profitability, this group of small farms were either more, less, = or just as profitable as the group of large farms. (None of these profitability figures should be considered as typical since both groups of farms were somewhat better managed than average.)

Take-home messages: Strictly from a profit-per-farm basis, bigger is a heck of a lot better. However, reduce that almost 4,000 lb. difference in milk per cow between large and small farms and the profitability picture would look much different. Also, numbers say nothing about personal preferences or quality = of life. Over thirty years ago my Chateaugay farmer friend Pat Dwyer had some tart comments about “managing cows like chickens”. Some farmers are quite willing to make less profit if this means they can know all their cows by name. Operators of some big farms mig= ht not even know all their employees by name!

That said, is it any surprise that herd size keeps on increasing? Forty years ago there were almost 900 farms shipping milk in Clinton County (where Miner Institute is l= ocated), including 585 with at least 20 cows—generally considered a “commercial” dairy farm in those days. Average herd size was 30 cows. Now there are only about 120 dairy farms left, but average herd size = is 150 cows. Since the mid-1960s, when I started working in this county, we’ve lost 80% of our dairy farms but only one-third of our milk cows. This might make the following na= tional predictions by a well-known dairy scientist somewhat more understand= able.

As you can see, this fellow thinks that most of the change will be at the extremes—under 200 and over 1000 cows. The shift in the percentage of milk production by herd size is especially remarkable: If his prediction is accurate, by 2010 half the milk produced in the U.S. will be by “mega farms” of 1000+ cows. (A dairy farmer’s normal working definiti= on of a “large” dairy farm is anything much larger than his own. That’s why with our 300-cow operation I consider a 1000-cow farm to b= e a mega farm. Operators of 1000-cow farms mostly likely would disagree.)<= /o:p>

—E.T.<= /span>

CLOSING COMMENT

Creativit= y is no substitute for knowing what you're doing.