We fought the rain to ma=
ke two
bunker silos of grass silage, one in late May and the other in June, coveri=
ng
them with a new high density plastic. It looks like normal silo plastic, bl=
ack
on one side and white on the other, but is different in two ways: First it
costs more (a little over $600 for each of our 30’ x 130’ silos)
and second, there’s a layer of high density plastic film between the
white and black layers that greatly reduces deterioration in the top foot of
silage. In side-by-side trials at Kansas State University using both standa=
rd
and high density plastic on a 40’ x 100’ bunker silo of corn si=
lage
(essentially the same capacity as our 30’ x 130’ silo), the new
plastic reduced spoilage losses by about $500. That more than covers the
additional cost of the high density plastic. And who likes to haul away and
dispose of spoiled silage?
We lost about 30 acres of our 210 acres of corn =
to
that cold, wet weather in mid-May. Since most all of that was in the low ar=
eas
that have remained wet, we were able to replant less than half of it. Most =
of
our corn fields have excellent plant population: 33,000/acre or about 2000/=
acre
more than normal for our farm. Recent University of Wisconsin resear=
ch
has resulted in its recommending 33,900 plants per acre for grain harvest, =
up
from its previous 30,000/acre. The change in recommendation is because of
improved genetics resulting in higher yield potential and better standabili=
ty.
The cows here continue to milk very well, in the=
90s
as of late June, but they’re also eating a lot…funny how that
happens. Cow numbers (milking and dry) are up to 320. Our “dairy
dieticians” tell us that the herd’s efficiency of feed conversi=
on
is quite good, but we’re still faced with purchasing forage this summ=
er,
not a pleasing prospect given what looks like a poor crop year in the regio=
n.
So far the fans we installed in our barn last year seem to be doing the job=
, as
we cruised through some hot, sticky weather last month with little effect on
milk production. Famous last words perhaps... We also just installed a
sprinkler system, so during hot weather our cows might be more comfortable =
than
our employees. (At least those employee without an air-conditioned office.)=
—Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com
—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com
America must act now to reduce dependence on for=
eign
sources of energy, according to President Bush in his 2006 State of the Uni=
on
Address. He set a national goal of replacing more than 75% of our oil impor=
ts
from the Middle East by 2025. One way to help achieve this goal is by produ=
cing
energy from biomass. Biomass is organic material (feedstock) that is availa=
ble
on a renewable basis. It includes agricultural crops and wastes, wood and w=
ood
waste, energy crops, food processing waste, municipal solid waste, and anim=
al
manure. Biomass is converted into energy by several methods including
combustion, gasification, fermentation, and anaerobic digestion. It appears
that the President’s 2007 budget will include $150 million to help
develop bio-based transportation fuels from agricultural crops and
wastes…that is about a $59 million increase over the 2006 budget. Far=
mers
definitely have a role in ensuring U.S. energy independence.
The use of biomass for energy has local and regi=
onal
support. Several communities and regions, including the North Country, view
biomass as a way to solve America’s energy needs and revitalize rural
communities by promoting opportunities for bio-based economic diversificati=
on.
I attended a strategic summit on bioenergy and rural development at Clarkson
University June 21 to 23. The goal of the summit was to identify opportunit=
ies
in the North Country to capitalize on the underdeveloped biomass resource b=
ase
and industrial capacity to supply growing markets for renewable energy fuels
and systems. There is a strong desire to increase the sustainability of the
North Country by developing community-friendly bioenergy businesses, reduci=
ng
costs and increasing security by substituting regionally produced bioenergy=
for
imported nonrenewable energy, increasing the tax base, and enhancing qualit=
y of
life in rural areas.
Workshops were conducted to identify needs and
implementation plans for bioenergy projects in the North Country. Bioenergy
projects that were identified include:
1. = Combined heat and power (CHP) – direct combustion of biomass<= o:p>
2.
CHP – biogas from gasification
3.
CHP – anaerobic digestion of agriculture and food waste
4.
Heat – wood/gra=
ss
pellet combustion
5.
Heating fuel – wood gasification and pyrolysis
6.
Biodiesel from crops or waste vegetable oil
7.
Ethanol fuel – corn, willow, and agriculture wastes
The workshops were productive in part because of
varied perspectives of attendees (local government officials, legislators,
engineers, consultants, food processors, university faculty, private and
government researchers, extension agents, foresters, venture capitalists,
energy company representatives, bioenergy producers, farmers, and NYSERDA, =
NYS
Agriculture and Markets, NYS Adirondack Park Agency, and USDA representativ=
es)
and the development of action plans.
In the short term, combined heat and power from
direct combustion of wood and wood wastes is most promising. The technology=
is mature,
the biomass is available and there are already facilities in the area, such=
as
Lyonsdale Biomass and the Chateaugay Power Station, to serve as models. Oth=
er
bioenergy projects are viable, especially with the amount of underutilized
agricultural land in the North Country, but projects will take time to deve=
lop
because of barriers to entry such as leadership, education, technology, and
economics. On a positive note, attendees of the summit viewed the
“barriers” as “hurdles” indicating that the barriers
will be overcome with time.
—Heather Dann
Pretty depressing in the world of Northeast fora=
ge
production, wet fields, over mature forages, predominantly grasses and
significant corn loss. Our cr=
ops
crew has been working diligently to get first cut off, in hopes of a decent=
2nd
and 3rd, while maximizing the quality of what is there.
Dr. Henderson asked Steve and me if we had any w=
ords
of advice regarding forage lying in windrows that has been caught in the ra=
ins.
We agreed that the decision to chop and fill this feed was a matter of how =
much
is there and how long has it been down. Certainly farmers do not want to sp=
end
the time and money to harvest forage that will only be junk coming out of t=
he
silo. Better to cut losses now rather than risk feeding and health issues
later. If the forage is starting to rot in the field, don’t fill a bu=
nk
with it. Either chop it onto =
the
ground or better yet chop it and haul it away off the field so as not to
contaminate the soil and subsequent cuttings with spoilage organisms.
In spite of the high fiber levels of this
year’s first cut, make sure to pack well. Although we cannot change the qual=
ity of
what goes into the bunk, it can certainly get worse if we don’t pack =
and
cover adequately. A few of our first cut forages harvested the first week of
June, though high in fiber (NDF 57%, ADF 38%, lignin 9%) had good
digestibility. (24 hr NDFd
Note we are now running our NDF digestibility at=
24
hours rather than 30. This al=
lows
us to use Dr. Van Amburgh’s NDF rate of digestion calculator, present=
ed
at the 2005 Cornell Nutrition Conference. This calculator fractionates NDF =
into
its fast and slow digestion pools, calculates pool size and a rate of diges=
tion
for each. We intend to look more closely at these two fractions with regard=
to
quality and herd production.
—Kurt Cotanch
An exciting challenge at the Miner Institute farm
this month was to discuss reproductive management and care of the transition
cow with a group of Japanese agricultural visitors. (It is a unique challenge to one&#=
8217;s
ability to concentrate and carry a thought, while giving a talk one sentenc=
e at
a time with pauses for interpretation.) From the Q and A period it was evid=
ent
that certain topics about dairy cow management are common on a worldwide ba=
sis.
The basis of getting the cow bred back starts wi=
th
transitional cow management. This year, many Northeast dairy farms are ente=
ring
the season of heat stress carrying too many over-conditioned dry cows. The
summer of ’05 was the worst breeding season in our 30+ year veterinary
career due to unrelenting heat stress which has resulted in the backlog of
these over conditioned dry cows. Farm managers should focus on these basic
goals to get through this upcoming challenge.
1. =
Maintain normocalcemia. To prevent clinical =
milk
fever cases and subclinical hypocalcemia which leads to metritis and displa=
ced
abomasum, review dry cow rations to be sure that DCAD is low and K content =
is
below 1.5% DM.
2. =
Adapt rumen to high energy diet
3. =
Strengthen the immune system. Review dry cow vacci=
nation
protocol with the herd health veterinarian and monitor the farm staff to be
certain that all respiratory, mastitis, and calf scour vaccines are being
given. Also review ration to be certain that adequate Se and vitamin E are =
fed
to head off retained placenta problems.
4. = Maintain Body Condition Score. The goal for BCS for= cows to dry off is 3.0-3.25. Eyeball the late lactation cows and consider creati= ng a special group for cows with BCS over 3.5. To prevent ketosis and fat liver = syndrome, dry cows should be fed to gain 0.25-0.5 BCS during the dry period. If they start the dry period with = BCS over 3.5, they can freshen with a BCS of 4.0 or greater, which will lead to= off feed problems and start the cascade of metabolic disease in the fresh cow.<= o:p>
5. =
Provide proper maternity pen management. Review signs of labo=
r and
proper pen observation times with all staff expected to calve cows.
—Kent E Henderson, DVM
Northwest Veterinary Associates, In=
c.
Interesting quote from Ken Wise, Eastern New York
State IPM Area Educator:
“Research
has shown that potato leafhopper resistant alfalfa is consistently higher in
quality than susceptible alfalfa varieties with or without potato leafhopper
pressure. PLH resistant varieties’ yields are comparable and generally
better than susceptible varieties when PLH are present. A bonus benefit is =
that
currently available alfalfa varieties with PLH resistance have come down in
price over the past several years.”
Farm Report readers probably realize that for the
past two years or so I’ve been recommending that farmers plant nothing
except leafhopper-resistant (LHR) varieties, even if they only occasionally
have leafhopper damage to their alfalfa. The news that LHR alfalfa is
consistently higher in quality certainly only reinforces this recommendatio=
n.
It yields as well or better than non-resistant varieties, is higher in qual=
ity,
seed cost is similar, and you won’t have to worry about spraying to
prevent “hopper burn”. Is there any reason you aren’t<=
/u>
planting LHR varieties?
This information from Ken is timely since some of
you will be making “fall” alfalfa seedings. If so, we’d
remind you that seeding is usually better done in late July than in mid-Aug=
ust
or later; Penn State research clearly showed this, and their late-season
weather and winters are a lot milder than ours.
—E.T.
Recently Miner Institute paid its “civil
penalty” of $200 to the Environmental Protection Agency for past sins,
both real and imagined, as part of the commitment we made when we signed the
Air Quality Compliance Agreement in May, 2005. We were among 13,710 farms
nationwide to do so, but one of only 600 dairy farms signing the agreement.=
What happens now: Air emissions on farms across =
the
U.S. will be studied for about two years, and then new emission rules will =
be
put into place, with compliance by all farms required by 2010. Several stat=
es
including California, Iowa and Wisconsin have now or will soon have their o=
wn
air quality standards. EPA air emission standards will apply to barns, manu=
re
storages and animal feeding sites, but not crop fields that have had
manure applications. While the new EPA standards will apply to all operatio=
ns,
since we signed the agreement and paid our “civil penalty” (my
blood pressure bumps up a bit every time I type those two words), Miner
Institute won’t be liable for past emission violations. Of course, we=
don’t
know exactly what these past violations were or what penalties will be for
noncompliance either past, present or future. Other than that we’re
really on top of this issue.
—E.T.
Here in the Northeast the rain just won’t
stop. We’re all looking forward to a year of feeding poorer quality
forage, even while we struggle with herd health problems related to the
incessantly rainy weather, fluctuating silage moisture content and so forth=
. I
honestly cannot get excited about ginning up information on how to feed poor
quality forage and managing forages in years like this one so early in the
calendar year. So, I am going to ignore the fact that as I write this artic=
le
it is pouring outside (June 28th), and instead focus on some recent research
results that are just being summarized at the Institute on effects of stock=
ing
density on cow performance and behavior. A graduate student, Chris Hill, has
been working in this area for the past year and now his data are really
beginning to tell us some new things about stocking density and cow
performance. And when you think about it, information like this will be even
more valuable during times when you know that another aspect of management =
on
the farm such as forage quality is limiting.
Chris’ study evaluated the effect of 100, =
115,
130, or 145% stocking density of stalls and manger space on production and
behavior. The various stocking densities were obtained by chaining off stal=
ls
or closing headlocks. Alley space therefore remained constant, which may ha=
ve
softened the effect of overstocking that we observed. Overall, we observed =
that
lying time was reduced by 1.1 hours/day when stocking density increased from
100 to 145%. At the same time, milk yield dropped numerically from 94.6 to =
91.3
pounds/day. Interestingly, this 3.3 lb/day difference in milk yield agreed =
well
with a large data set that we had pulled together last year from behavior
research here at Miner Institute where we found that each one-hour change in
resting time was associated with a 3.5 pound/day change in milk yield. Of
course, it could all be coincidence, but I really believe that the relation=
ship
between resting and milk yield is real.
As stocking rate increased, standing time in the
alleys increased and time spent ruminating while lying decreased.
Interestingly, total feeding time was unaffected and averaged about 5
hours/day. What we couldn’t measure in our study was rate of eating, =
and
I suspect that this increased as stocking rate increased.
Things became even more interesting when we look=
ed
at the differential response of first-lactation versus older cows and lame
versus sound cows. As stocking density increased, the difference in milk yi=
eld
between younger and older cows grew from 6 pounds/day at 100% stocking rate=
up to
nearly 15 pounds/day at higher stocking rates. As stocking rate increased, =
the
milk yield of lame cows was markedly reduced compared with sound cows. From
100% up to 130% stocking rate, the difference between sound and lame cows in
milk yield increased by 26 pounds/day.&nbs=
p;
At 145% stocking rate, the difference between sound and lame cows
narrowed because the milk yield of sound cows suffered at this higher degre=
e of
stocking. As stocking rate increased to 145%, lying time of lame cows was
reduced by one hour and ruminating time was reduced by nearly one hour as w=
ell.
With some assumptions and measures from our
Institute herd, I made a rough calculation of margin per cow based on the
results observed in this study. Even though they are tentative, the calcula=
tions
point out an interesting trend that I believe would track well with the
real-world situation. The margin per cow was similar between 100 and 115%
stocking rate (actually it was very slightly greater at 115%), it dropped o=
ff
substantially at 130%, and really nosedived at 145%. Obviously, this respon=
se
will differ by farm and the management practices employed. But, these data =
do
agree extremely well with the handful of reported studies that indicate that
things become interesting somewhere around 120% stocking rate.
Stay tuned for more results from this experiment=
as
Chris completes the data analysis.
—Rick Grant
Two years ago we seeded Pardee birdsfoot trefoil=
and
grass on two fields and had a good catch, with plenty of trefoil. This year
there are only scattered trefoil plants in the field, nothing you could
consider a trefoil “stand”. On the off chance that we did somet=
hing
wrong (we know, extremely unlikely of course, but…), we contacted
Cooperative Extension educators around the state to see what success their
clientele has been having with birdsfoot trefoil. Pardee is the first varie=
ty
resistant to the lethal Fusarium=
disease that doomed the trefoil seed production industry in the Champlain
Valley.
One N.Y. Extension educator replied that “=
In a
trial of Pardee, Norcen and Viking I can say they all did dismally. Whether
mixed or seeded alone it didn't matter.” Another said he agreed with =
my
description of birdsfoot trefoil performance as “underwhelming”.
Cornell planted trefoil in a variety trial at SUNY Cobleskill and has what
appears to be a decent stand. Seeded with timothy and harvested four times,
Pardee yielded 3.3 tons DM/acre, or somewhat less than one ton per harvest
which in my opinion is, well, underwhelming, especially since grass compris=
ed
about 50% of the stand. A trefoil-grass trial Cornell planted in its resear=
ch
plots here at the Institute winterkilled, but a clear seeding of trefoil
Cornell planted here in 2004 looks good.
It’s not that birdsfoot trefoil won’t
survive in the region. The guy who commented on trefoil’s
“dismal” performance in his trial noted: “I have a great =
crop
of trefoil in my lawn, mowed once to 1.5 times a week, can't kill it by mow=
ing
it.” Same thing here: The lawn in front of Miner Center is mowed early
and often, and after many years of abuse there’s still a scattering of
trefoil plants. They’re especially easy to find in midsummer when the
lawn burns up and the trefoil is about the only thing that’s green. N=
ot
only does our “lawn trefoil” survive but it blooms with pretty
yellow flowers. The difference is that this isn’t Pardee or any of the
other “improved” varieties, but one of the pasture types (simil=
ar to
the old Empire variety) that have proven very hardy indeed.
—E.T.
Last year we seeded alfalfa + grass on several
fields. We had a good catch, with plenty of alfalfa. This year there’s
still a nice stand of alfalfa, but in the low parts of one field in particu=
lar
there’s also a nice stand of clover.
Question of the day: Where did the clover come f=
rom?
There hasn’t been any clover seeded in this field since at least the
1970s, and I don’t know that clover was ever seeded there. We donR=
17;t
use premixed forage blends in our hay fields, always a do-it-yourself mix.
Sure, clover has some hard seeds—viable seeds with a seed coat that <=
span
style=3D'mso-bidi-font-style:italic'>temporarily prevents moisture f=
rom
entering the seed. Hard seed is a natural survival mechanism, spreading
germination over time in case something wipes out the initial flush of
seedlings. Cornell Plant Breeder Julie Hansen says that in their Ithaca for=
age
trials they get a solid stand of white clover every year that they have to
kill, so she says join the crowd. Julie doesn’t know where all our cl=
over
is coming from unless it’s a lot of hard seed or seed deposited by ge=
ese.
But hard seed that sits in the soil for over 30 years and then germinates?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Neither do I like the goose explan=
ation,
but I don’t have any better one.
Good news: Sweetened sodas, which currently
represent about 45% of all beverages sold in schools, will soon begin to di=
sappear
from public school vending machines. These will be replaced in elementary a=
nd
middle schools by bottled water, unsweetened juice and low-fat milk. (Milk =
is
the fastest-growing product in the vending machine industry, up 10% in the =
past
year.) As more schools switch from sugar-loaded soft drinks to milk in all =
its
various flavors, expect this growth to continue for at least the next few
years. High schools will be able to sell diet soda and sports drinks, but n=
ot
sweetened soda. This agreement was accomplished through collaboration betwe=
en
the William J. Clinton Foundation, The American Heart Association, and the
nation’s largest beverage distributors.
However, don’t look for drastic changes in
school beverage choices in the short term because many of the contra=
cts
between bottling companies and school systems are long-term. Some
changes will be almost immediate, and the goal is to have sweetened sodas
completely removed from school vending machines by the 2009-2010 school yea=
r.
Sweetened soda has been a prime target for those fighting the marked increa=
se
in child obesity.
Bad news: The N.Y. City public school system
recently stopped serving whole milk and banned all low-fat flavored milk ex=
cept
chocolate-flavored skim milk. The problem is that students switching from s=
oda
to chocolate skim may not like it compared to chocolate milk with 1 or 2%
butterfat. We’ve tried both 1% and 2% chocolate milk and it’s
pretty good. What harm would there be for kids to drink a half pint of 1% c=
hocolate
milk at lunchtime? Shees̷=
0;
This spring I took the opportunity to spend a da=
y at
Monsanto’s St. Louis research facility—pretty neat stuff, as was
the round trip in Monsanto’s newest corporate jet. (I could get used =
to
traveling like that.) As most of you know, Monsanto is a major seed company
selling the Asgrow and DeKalb brands. One of the main areas of corn researc=
h at
Monsanto is improved drought resistance—and it’s not alone in t=
hese
efforts: Pioneer Hy-Bred, for instance, is doing much the same type of
research. Both Monsanto and Pioneer say that while it will probably be at l=
east
2010 before we’ll see much of this technology on farms, early indicat=
ions
are that under moisture stress, drought-resistant corn hybrids may yield up=
to
30% more than non-resistant hybrids.
We learned about drought-resistant crops just af=
ter
hearing about a Texas farmer, pumping “dinosaur water” from the
Ogallala aquifer, who spent $150 per acre in natural gas just to get
irrigation water out of the ground and onto his corn crop. Many farmers in
Texas and other Southwestern U.S. states have altered cropping plans becaus=
e of
the increasing cost of water, switching to less water-demanding crops.
—E.T.
We have two new 2-page fact sheets: “Aspha=
lt
Floors for Bunker and Stack Silos”, and “Johnes Disease and Man=
ure
Management”. You can find them on our website www.whminer.org or on
request by FAX or mail.
Lately The Bride has been going through clocks l=
ike
the Bush Administration through Cabinet members. We have three alarm clocks=
in
our bedroom, one for me and two for her. One is her “real” alarm
clock since if she didn’t set it to ring at 7:00 AM there’s no
telling how long she’d sleep since she doesn’t even have a
detectable pulse until about 9:00. But this clock doesn’t have a ligh=
ted
display, so there’s a second one on her dresser, just for telling tim=
e.
The one we had there for several years was hard to reset following power
outages, so T.B. got a new time-telling clock. But the new one had a very
bright blue display (Think: Night light on steroids) so she took to hiding =
it
behind the TV, pretty much defeating the whole purpose.
Enter time-telling clock #3. This one has an
adjustable LCD light, and once you set the right time zone it keeps absolut=
ely
perfect time thanks to a satellite circling somewhere up there, and the time
even jumps ahead and falls back at the beginning and end of Daylight Savings
Time. Plus it has a battery with a 3-year life, so like the Eveready Bunny =
even
during power outages it keeps going and going and going. All quite remarkab=
le,
not the least of which is the price: $9.97 plus tax at Wal-Mart.
This point of this—and I know by now
you’re wondering if there is one—is that our lives have been
changed tremendously by two inventions: The computer chip and the printed
circuit. Thanks to these, short-term weather forecasting is more accurate t=
han
ever before, up-to-the minute grain prices are a few computer keystrokes aw=
ay,
tractors can be controlled by GPS, and the rate of technology transfer (from
research plot to farmer’s field) is faster than ever before. Plus, for
ten bucks The Bride can buy an alarm clock that’s foolproof for all b=
ut
the most talented fool.
—E.T.
Part of NY State has been very dry, and part has
been incredibly wet. We’re on the wet side of the state, joined by mu=
ch
of New England. More corn has been replanted in the Champlain Valley than
anytime I can remember, though I’ve been around here since the mid-19=
60s.
Some has been replanted twice and the third crop still looks lousy—wh=
at
there is of it. But as of late June many, many fields have yet to be plante=
d at
all. As I commented to a ERN friend, it’s a lousy season to be an
agronomist in the region, but may well be a worse fall and winter for dairy
nutrition consultants as they contend with forage shortages and poor qualit=
y.
What now? The choices are few, and mostly
unpleasant. It’s OK to plant corn through mid-July, using full season
hybrids since July-planted corn won’t mature for silage regardless of
maturity rating. Summer annuals such as BMR sudan-sorghum are also a
possibility, although at this late date you’ll probably only get one
harvest. After mid-July, your best bet probably is to switch to oats for si=
lage,
planting 2.5 to 3 bushels/acre in early August and hoping for a long, warm
fall. You can expect 1-2 tons DM/acre from forage oats, closer to 2 tons wi=
th
good fall weather and where you use manure or N fertilizer. If possible use
manure to keep production costs down. If you have a choice of oat varieties,
buy one that grows tall since you’re not worried about lodging. Oat
forage has more protein and less energy than corn silage. Harvest only as
wilted silage—direct cut oats will be high in butyric acid and will r=
eally
stink up the place.
—E.T.
Tidbits gleaned from a variety of sources:
·
Milk prices: There may be a light at the end of the tunnel, and
it’s not an oncoming train. The pace of milk production expansion is
slowing, and fluid milk sales are up. Exports of nonfat dry milk are expect=
ed
to continue to be strong for the balance of the year.
·
99.5% of U.S. dairy farms are either individual family farms,
partnerships or family owned & operated corporations.
·
According to Midwest research, one cow generates about $15,000 in
economic activity, and the income from nine dairy cows is enough to generate
one job.
·
Dairy cows on a high corn silage diet urinate a lot less than cows =
on a
high hay crop diet—about 3 gallons less per day, in fact. We have no =
idea
how you can use this information since you’re not about to make a
wholesale ration change just to get your cows to whiz less, but it’s
interesting nonetheless.
·
A study reported in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine found that
women who consume dairy products were five times more likely to have twins =
than
women who don’t eat animal products (vegans). This may be caused by a
protein, Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF), found in cows’ milk and ot=
her
animal products. All well and good, but then the author, Gary Steinman, mak=
es
the statement that the effect
“…is likely to be greater in countries such as the United
States that allows growth hormones to be fed to cattle”, and this is
simply untrue. In the first place, farmers don’t “feed”
growth hormones because they would be broken down in the digestive tract and
would have no effect. In the second place, injected growth hormone (bovine
somatotropin, AKA Bst) doesn’t result in an increase in milk hormone
content—this has been proven over and over and over. Perhaps Dr. Stei=
nman
had better stick to reproductive medicine and leave the agricultural
explanations to others.
·
Monkey business. The monkeys and apes at the Budapest Zoo drink win=
e daily,
supposedly to increase their red blood cell count. (We’ll have to
remember that excuse…uh…explanation.) Most of the 55 liters of =
wine
was consumed by the zoo’s 11 apes.
·
Doggone, but not for long. A black lab got separated from its owner=
at
a remote Scottish railway station, but then got on the next train home. As =
if
that wasn’t remarkable enough, the pooch even got off at the right
station almost 20 miles later.
·
Oops. The fellow’s pet parrot Ziggy kept saying “Hi
Gary” every time his girlfriend’s cell phone rang, and made kis=
sing
sounds whenever Ziggy heard the name Gary on TV. The problem? The guy’=
;s
name is Chris. The girlfriend admitted that she was having an affair, and y=
ou
can guess the fellow’s name. Chris ditched the girlfriend, and then g=
ot
rid of Ziggy. So much for fidelity, winged and otherwise.
·
Donkey makes an ass of himself. Aga the donkey has been banished to=
a
deserted island because he wouldn’t stop sexually harassing the female
donkeys at a Croatian national park. Visitors to the park complained that a=
ll
Aga seemed to be doing was having sex. Park officials said the donkey herd
seems happier and healthier since Aga’s social activities were curtai=
led.
·
Speaking of which: Aga may be exiled but he’s still better off
than a donkey named Pacho, who was incarcerated by Columbian police for thr=
ee
days for his role in a traffic accident. (He was run into by a motorcycle.)
Animal rights activists eventually shamed the police into releasing poor Pa=
cho.
Ethanol has been making headlines in both farm n=
ews
and the popular press. A few facts about ethanol:
·
A 2004 USDA study found that ethanol produces 67% more energy than =
it
takes to grow and process the corn used for ethanol.
·
The Argonne National Laboratory says that ethanol-blended fuels red=
uced
greenhouse gas emissions by 7 million tons in 2004, equivalent to the annual
emissions of 1 million cars.
·
It’s estimated that 20% of corn acreage will be used for etha=
nol
by 2010, and U.S. ethanol production could displace the equivalent of over
300,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
·
One acre of corn can produce enough ethanol to run a car for over
70,000 miles using “E-10 Unleaded”, a blend of 10% ethanol and =
90%
unleaded gasoline.
·
Fourteen new ethanol refineries were brought on line in 2005, and
ethanol is now blended into over 30% of the gasoline used in the U.S.
·
A handful of “E85” fueling stations are opening in the
Midwest. E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. E85 fuel is used in E85 vehic=
les,
not your farm’s current pickup truck engine.
—E.T.
Confidence
is the feeling you have before you understand the situation.