MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK: Behavior in Minnesota

I just returned from the annual meeting of the American Dairy Science Associa= tion in Minneapolis where the latest in dairy production research was presented by scientists from the U.S. an= d around the world. There were over 1400 presentations in 3.5 days, so I won’t= try to cover every topic! I focused my time on dairy nutrition and cow behavior sessions. Here are a few quick bites from some of the most interesting data presented on cow behavior.

The British Columbia<= /st1:State> group reported on the relationship between changes in feeding activity and = the risk for metritis in transition cows. Metritic cows spent less time feeding pre-calving com= pared with cows that remained healthy. Interestingly, feed intake was not differe= nt between healthy and sick cows. Their take-home message was that monitoring = time spent at the feeder pre-calving is a very good method for identifying cows = at higher risk for developing metritis at calving.= It seems to me that time spent standing at the feed manger could be monitored fairly readily on most dairy farms – much more easily than dry matter intake and more valuable as well.

Researchers at Oregon= State University determined what explained the reduction in dry matter intake that typically occurs about one week prior to calving. They grouped cows according to whet= her they had high or low intake depression prior to calving. Cows that experien= ced high intake depression had the same number of visits to the manger as normal cows, but they spent less time at the manger and consequently ate faster. T= his is essentially a description of slug feeding – shorter meals and grea= ter eating rate. When the researchers measured what happened to feed intake aft= er calving, it’s no surprise that those cows that experienced the higher feed int= ake depression prepartum also had lower feed intake, eating time, and feed bunk visits after parturition. Just as in previous studies at Purdue University and else= where, the behaviors practiced prior to calving influence the behaviors after calv= ing. Understanding why some cows experience greater depressions in feed intake <= span class=3DSpellE>prepartum will allow us to do a better job of managin= g our close-up cows. For now, it’s clear that slug feeding prepartum is associated with reduced feeding postpartum.

Spanish researchers weighed in with an evaluation of behavior in first-calf heifers that are either grouped alone or commingled with older cows. The mixed pens contained 30% heifers and 70% older cows, as would be typical on most farms. Separate grouping of first-calf heifers resulted in greater drinking behavi= or (always a good thing), greater rumination activity (definitely better for t= he heifer), and no obvious changes in grooming or fighting. The conditions of = this study did not result in high levels of competition for resources, and obvio= usly the results could have differed if this study were repeated at varying stoc= king densities. =

One more study reported in Minneapolis was fro= m a place called the Miner Institute – I believe it’s located somew= here in the wilds of northern New = York. Even though New York is a long way from = Spain, = these researchers evaluated the effect of 100, 115, 130, or 145% stocking density= of stalls and headlocks on cow behavior and productivity as influenced by age = and lameness – a perfect companion set of data for the Spanish work. The results definitely showed that first-calf heifers respond differently to stocking rate than do older cows, as do lame cows compared with healthy cow= s. I’ll cover the results in more detail over the next few months, so st= ay tuned.

—Rick Grant

grant@whmine= r.com

= ;

VET CORNER: Retained Fetal Membranes (RFM)

RFM outbreaks during the summer months are common and seem to be more deadly, so herdspersons are reminded to focus on this problem. RFM is defined as the failure of expulsion of fetal membranes 12-24 hours after birth. Immune sys= tem integrity before calving is key to preventing RF= M. Review the following nutritional factors to prevent RFM.<= /p>

1. = Vitamin E (2,000 IU) and Selenium (3-6ppm) pre= partum supplementation is best accomplished with special top-dress of transition c= ow rations, but may require injections for pastured dry cows and bull-bred her= ds with unreliable due dates.

2. = High ketosis incidence impairs proper immune function, so NEFA and = BHBA testing is appropriate to differentiate causes of ketosis.

a. = Body Condition Score loss during dry period should not be allowed so type II (fatty liver) ketosis is minimized.

b. = Fermented forage TMR s= hould be fed twice daily so that heat-induced spoilage doesn’t harm ration palatability to the finicky transition cow.

c. = Inadequate ventilation and cooling shouldn’t be ignored for t= he transition cow.

Treatment of RFM is more difficult during summer months and requires early intervention.

1. = The choice of doing nothing for cows with RFM should be reviewed du= ring the hot summer months, because our practice sees more deadly endotoxic RFM cases in the summer season. A recent on= -farm study indicated that 72% of RFM cases were eventually treated with systemic antibiotics because systemic-related symptoms developed.<= /p>

2. = Physical removal of the placenta is an old custom that has not been performed by our practice for quite some time. The possibilities of leaving membrane tags behind, trauma to the uterine wall and contamination of the uterus are avoided by eliminating “cleaning of the cow.”

3. = Hormone therapy has been used in various protocols, with little scientific evidence of effectiveness. Prostaglandin is naturally present in high quantities in the first 8 days post-calving, so it is difficult to justify its use. Oxytocin with calcium administration is commonly given after calving. This practice enhances uterine motility and may help expel the fetal membranes. The commo= n Oxytocin 5ml dose may cause uterine spasm; a more appropriate dose schedule for Oxytocin is 2 ml = every 3 hours, which isn’t practical on most farms.

4. = Interuterine treatment with iodine and Chlorihexidene reduces systemic infection, but they don’t assist expulsion of the membranes and can irritate the lining of the uterus and lead to subsequent fertility problems.

5. = Systemic treatment with antibiotics (Ceftiofur= , Ampicillin, or Penicillin) and a fever reducer = (Banamine or aspirin) have been reported to reduce sys= temic disease in over 70% of RFM cases.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.<= /span>

cowdoc@ade= lphia.net

= ;

LITTLE-KNOWN FACTS

We found the following geographical facts interesting and hope you do, too.

· = Canada has more lakes than t= he rest of the world combined, while Ohio has no natural lakes—every one is man-made.

· = Siberia contains more than 25= % of the world's forests.

· = 28% of Africa is wilderness, while 38% of No= rth America is wilderness.

· = In the Eisenhower Interstate System one mile in five must be straight so that it could be used as an airstrip in times of war or ot= her emergencies.

· = More than half the coastline in the entire U.S. is in Alaska.

· = Antarctica, which contains 90% o= f the world’s ice and 70% of the world’s fresh water, is the only lan= d on our planet that is not owned by any country.

· = The Amazon River discharges so much water into the Atlantic Ocean t= hat you can dip fresh water out of the ocean over 100 miles from its mouth.

Cows with Docked Tails Experience Sensitivity or Chr= onic Pain Similar to Human Amputees with Phantom Limb Pain

For the past two summers, our Summer Experience in Farm Management students at Miner Institute have debated the value of tail docking. The debates have focused on cow cleanliness, udder health, milk quality, and employee comfort (cleanliness and safety working in a parallel parlor). A couple of the interns have reviewed research on the topic in our seminar series. A growing body of evidence suggests that tail docking does = not appear to improve the cleanliness of cows or improve milk quality though be= tter udder health. Also, there are some disadvantages associated with tail docki= ng, such as pain associated with the procedure, impaired fly control, and public perception.

Another disadvantage associated with tail docking was reported in the August issue = of the Journal of Dairy Science. Researchers from Purdue University and USDA-ARS tested the possibility of increased sensitivity or chronic pai= n in cows with docked tails resulting from a pathophysiolog= ical change similar to that seen in human amputees with phantom limb pain. Phant= om limb pain is pain appearing to come from where an amputated limb used to be. Amputation appears to disrupt normal peripheral nerve activity through dama= ged nerve endings and alters nervous activity within the brain as a result of t= he loss of sensory input from the amputated limb. Typically, affected limbs ha= ve an increase in surface temperature.

The researchers used 14 Holstein heifers: 7 heifers were tail docked at 3 weeks of age with a band and 7 heifers were l= eft intact. When the heifers reached 22 to 23 months of age, they were tested f= or increased cold or heat sensitivity using cold and hot packs applied to the underside of the tail. Greater changes in tail surface temperature of the docked heifers compared to the intact heifers after application of cold and= hot packs indicated increased sensitivity and demonstrated that pain may be present.

During the cold test, the docked heifers had increased sensitivity with more stomp= ing behavior. Stomping and shifting behaviors identified in other studies with docked cattle were thought to be associated with fly displacement. However,= the stomping behavior may be associated with increased sensitivity and pain, and not with fly displacement. Interestingly, during the heat test intact heife= rs had increased stomping behavior indicating that docked heifers had a decrea= sed response to heat that may indicate chronic pain.

The researchers concluded that cows with docked tails experience sensitivity or chronic pain similar to human amputees with phantom limb pain. Their study = is one more piece of evidence to discourage the use of tail docking as a routi= ne procedure on dairy farms.

—Heather Dann

dann@whminer.= com

MINER INSTITUTE DAIRY HERD AVERAGE TOPS 29,000 LBS

Last month for the first time ever the DHI rolling herd average here topped 29,0= 00 lbs. milk/cow and 1100 lbs of butterfat. Current averages: 29,255M—1101F—886P.

We’ve been pleased at cow comfort during the steamy days of July. Milk production held up pretty well during those humid, 90-degree days, thanks to fans and = the new misters we installed this spring. The cows love the misters, walking ov= er to stand under them—you can almost hear them say “Aaahhh”. Keeps them cleaner= , too. As part of a research project we turned off the misters for a few days right smack in the midst of the hottest, stickiest weather. We have humidity logg= ers in each quadrant in the barn, and have included the average relative humidi= ty at midnight and 3 pm through midnight July 21^{st .}

As you can see, it took a couple days of 90-degree days to begin to affect the cows’ production, but with cooler weather they bounced back quickly. = Note how relative humidity was generally much higher at midnight than at 3 pm the following afternoon. What’s really important, though, is the Temperature/Humidity Index, which combines both heat and humidity to predict heat stress on dairy cattle. Some people in the dairy industry don’t = seem to believe that dairy cows in the Northeastern U.S.<= /st1:place> suffer from heat stress. However, anyone who suffered through the Dog Days = of July know that this isn’t true. More on this in a future Farm Report article.

—Steve Couture<= /st1:PersonName> couture@whminer.com <= /span>

—Ev Thomas thomas@whminer.com

Changes in Copper Sulfate Use on Northeastern New Yo= rk and Vermont Farms Between 2002 and 2005

The use of copper sulfate (CuSO₄) in footbaths as a preventative maintenance for foot health is a common practice on dairy farms in Northeas= tern New York and Vermont. Often the waste material from CuSO₄footbaths is added to manure storage facilities increasing the Cu content of manure applied to fields. At Miner Institute manure slurry contained 0.04 lbs Cu/1000 gallons in 1996 and 0.74 lbs Cu/1000 gallons in 2000, before and after CuSO₄ footbat= hs were employed, respectively (Fig= ure 1). In 2005, the copper concentration in the manure at Miner Institute was 0.52= lbs Cu/1000 gallons. While research has been done to determine the effects of h= igh copper concentrations in swine manure, little work has been done examining the eff= ects of high copper concentrations in dairy manure.

Recent concern about the level of Cu being applied to cropland initiated a survey = of the use of CuSO₄in footbaths on seventeen Northeastern New York= and Vermont dairy farms in 2002 and their continued practices in 2005. All farms surveyed utilized CuSO₄ footbaths in 2002, while 35% had decreased or discontinued the number of footbaths per month and the pounds of CuSO₄₌ used per footbath in 2005 (Figures 2 and 3). The pounds of CuSO₄ imported monthly decreased on 29% of farms still using footbaths in 2005. The yearly import = of Cu per acre per year decreased on 65% of these farms in 2005 because of an increase in acres manure slurry was spread (Table 1).

Additionally, Forage Cu levels were measured on fifteen surveyed farms and showed a decre= ase in the concentration of Cu in both corn silage and hay= lage from 2002 to 2005 (Table 2). The decrease in the pounds of CuSO₄imported per acre per year on the majority of farms surveyed may have contributed to the downward trend in forage Cu levels. However since data was not collected on crop yields, manu= re Cu concentration, manure application rate, or soil test Cu values it is dif= ficult to accurately determine contributing factors for the decrease in forage Cu concentration.

This summer research is being conducted at the Institute to determine the effect= of high CuSO₄ concentration on dairy manure pit ecology and corn gr= owth and quality.

—Sally Flis

flis@whminer.= com

ADSA SUMMARY: Physically effective NDF using the Penn State Particle Separator

A few of the Miner Institute research staff attended the ADSA meetings in Minnesota where = we presented a number of posters. One of the posters covered our development of the Z-Box system for determination of physically effective NDF (peNDF) of forages and TMRs. The Z-Box is an alternative particle separation system to “dry sieving= 221; using the RoTap system or “as is” s= ieving using the Penn State particle separator system. A= s the good ADSA poster organizers would have it, our Z-Box poster was displayed r= ight next to that of a Penn State particle sepa= rator (PSPS) poster from Dr. Beauchemin’s group= . Dr. Beauchemin’s group has been conducting superlat= ive research into peNDF determinations and animal production responses using the proportion of forage retained on the top 2 sieves of the PSPS. Not that we are in competition, but we are both trying = to exert our scientific approaches to peNDF determination as the best of all systems and more importantly as the approa= ch that best predicts animal response in terms of rumen health and animal productivity. It would be in poor taste to not share some of their findings. Dr. Beauchemin’s approach has been to use= the proportion of forage/feed retained on the top 2 sieves of the PSPS (19 mm += 8 mm) on a DM basis as the physically effective factor (= pef) that is used to determine peNDF in the followin= g equation: peNDF =3D pef x NDF= of the forage or TMR

As you can see, we have a fair number of peNDF sys= tems to choose from, some better than others in terms of ease of use, but which predicts animal response best?

· RoTap dry sieve sample system, % DM > 1.18 mm, as outlined by Dr. Merten’s of the USDA Forage Research Center in Madison Wisconsin. Lab ana= lysis system only.

· PSPS as is sample sieve system using the proportion of forage retai= ned by the top 2 sieves (19 mm and 8 mm sieves). Effective on-farm analysis system.=

· PSPS as is sample system using the proportion of forage retained by= the 1.18 mm wire mesh screen. Gen= erally accepted as not accurate.

· Z-Box as is sample system. In the process of being validated as an effective on-farm analysis system.

Given these different measurement systems it’s imperative that we have appropriate peNDF guidelines for each system regarding predicted animal response. For instance, using the Merten’s dry sieving system the peNDF of a ration should be greater than 21-22% in order to avoid the risk of ruminal acidosis or possible milk fat depression. The= Z-Box system is being designed using these same guidelines only with an “as is/wet” sample. The PSPS system however, using “as is/wet” sample to sieve and a minimum particle size of 8 mm as opposed to 1.18 mm, requires a different peNDF reference value. Wha= t that value is has yet to be determined. I’m curious to know if any of our readers are using the top 2 screen PSPS value to monitor peNDF or total percentage of ration DM greater than 8 mm and what values they cho= ose as lower limits to ensure rumen health and sufficient effective dietary fib= er. There’s a significant proportion of forage particle between 8 mm and = 1.18 mm that can act as effective fiber. In some of our work we have found 10-15% of haylage samples being retained between the 4.75-8.00 mm sieve dimensions.

Dr. Norgaard of The Royal Veterinary & Agricult= ural University of Copenhagen, Denmark, presented data at this ADSA meeting concerning the particle size distribution of rumen contents and feces of co= ws. He found that 95% of fecal particles are smaller than 5 mm, while only 50% = of rumen particles are smaller than 8 mm. This would indicate that in order to pass through the rumen, particles must be smaller than 8 mm. In other words, particles between 5-8 mm still need to be ruminated before passage. Interesting to note, our “as is” sample sieving with the Z-Box indicates that the proportion of haylag= e particles retained by a 4.75 mm screen is closely related to the proportion= of particles retained by a 1.18 mm screen when dry sieved. Possibly a biological coincidence this ~5 mm particle length? Miner Institute hopes not.

Looking at the Beauchemin posters, they fed diets of 35= :65 and 60:40 forage:concentrate ratio (F:C) while varying the forage particle length of alfalfa silage from 0.75” to 0.31” (2.0 - 0.8 cm). This was a replicated 4 x 4 Latin square with 8 lactating cows. Based on the PSPS top 2 sieve peNDF calculations, peNDF ranged between 10.7-17.5% f= or the alfalfa silage and corn grain based diet. Total chewing and rumination time= was significantly increased as F:C increased. Time of rumination increased by nearly 0.5 hours/day. = While mean ruminal pH was significantly increased due= to increased forage particle length and increased F:C. In their conclusions they stated that the elevation in rumen pH by increasing = the peNDF level of the ration resulted not from increased rumination and salivary buffering but from a reduction in the rate of rumen fermentation, more slowly degraded forage carbohydrate and less rapidly degraded starch. The question remains as to how peNDF<= /span> functions to maintain rumen health. Is it an effect on the animal’s natural buffering system of chewing and salivary action or simply an altera= tion of the type and amount of carbohydrate presented to the rumen? <= /span>

As a take-home reference point from Dr. Beauchemin’= s poster, when using the proportion of DM retained on the top 2 screens of the PSPS, it appears that a peNDF value of 12-14% f= or TMRs will ensure adequate fiber for rumination and mi= nimize the amount of time that rumen pH < 5.5.

ADSA Meeting Bits and Pieces:

The Alltech company had = a couple of young ladies meandering through the throngs of academicians, handing out free samples of Sel-Plex nutritional supplement= s. This forage lab guy was approached by one of these young maidens who insist= ed that I try some of their product. Selenium being a highly valued micronutri= ent not only for dry cow nutrition and immune function, but also…well who knows what else. I asked her if I really looked that bad to need the nutritional supplement, and without hesitation she emphatically replied, “Yes, you do”. Must be a Mid-Western marketing approach, open-e= nded blunt honesty; hit the male ego square in the mouth. I took my sample bottl= e. Will be handing off to Ev; might help with the = golf.

—Kurt Cotanch

cotanch@wh= miner.com

SILAGE DENSITY IN BAGS

Information from a variety of sources indicates that silage density in silo bags is usu= ally lower than recommended for bunker silos. Silage density in bunker silos sho= uld be at least 13 lbs dry matter/cubic foot—higher is better. We measured silage density of 44 lbs/cubic foot (wet weight) in one of our corn silage bunker silos; at the actual 36% DM in that silo that’s about 16 lbs D= M/cu ft, encouraging because we thought we packed it well.

We filled several 9’ diameter silage bags last year, and measured silage density in each. We used two new Ag Bag machines, one that we later purchas= ed. Silage density for two bags of corn silage was 33.7 and 28.4 lbs/cu ft wet weight. We were surprised at the difference between the two bags since corn from the same field fed both bags. This silage was on the dry side, and we wound up with just over 12 and 10 lbs DM/cu ft respectively, similar to what others have found. We also measured silage density in a bag of second cut alfalfa-grass, and this was also about 12 lbs DM/cu ft. However, the qualit= y of the silage in these bags has been very good. The most likely reason silage keeps well in spite of relatively low density: Very good air exclusion duri= ng and after filling.

A LAST, DESPERATE ATTEMPT AT A CROP

If you still have open land—the result of either not being able to plant cor= n or a planting failure, your last reasonable hope of getting anything from this land may be an August planting of oats. Some experts recommend triticale instead of oats, but Wisconsin experience indicates that triticale yields somewhat less than oats. Obviously, you shouldn’t plant small oats on land that had a residual corn herbicide applied this year—read the label of any corn herbicide applied this growing season.

If possible, disk or otherwise work in manure to keep input costs down. Oats t= hat received a good shot of manure prior to planting probably won’t need starter fertilizer, and because oats love nitrogen will almost certainly produce higher yields. Seed 2.5 to 3 bushels per acre. This may seem a bit high, but you don’t have to be worried about lodging. Harvest at the = flag leaf stage, not the boot stage. Hopefully this will be in October, n= ot September—oats are susceptible to frost. Yield potential is only fair—1 to 2 tons dry matter per acre—but forage quality and milk production potential should be very good. The crop absolutely must be wilted and ensiled as oatlage, not direc= t cut.

—E.T.

LEAFHOPPER CONTROL IN ALFALFA-GRASS

Do you have potato leafhoppers in your alfalfa-grass f= ields? Too bad, so sad, since there’s little you can do other than harvestin= g a week or so early. This probably won’t help much but at least you̵= 7;ll be doing something. What you should have done is plant a leafhopper-resistant (LHR) variety. Both Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> entomologist Elson Shields and your intrepid agronomist have been recommend= ing that farmers plant only LHR varieties for almost three years. Though there’s some hope for the future, there currently are no insecticides registered in N.Y. for leafhopper control in alfalfa seeded wi= th grass. On well-drained fields straight alfalfa is an option, but for most fields LHR varieties are by far the best bet. You’ve read this here before, but an informal survey of seed dealers indicates that the vast majo= rity of alfalfa seed sales are of non-resistant varieties. We have no idea why t= his is, since planting non-resistant alfalfa benefits only the leafhoppers and,= to a lesser extent, the chemical companies.

FUELISH IDEAS

The popular press is in a tizzy over high diesel fuel prices, and has come out = with a host of ideas to save fuel…some quite sensible, some decidedly less= so. These range from making sure farm engines are tu= ned up (Always a good idea regardless of fuel prices) to keeping farm equipment wa= xed for better aerodynamics (Huh? I’d like to see the data supporting that recommendation.) One suggestion making the rounds yet again is notill planting to save fuel.

Sure, notill saves fuel because you don’t have = to plow and then pick all those #&$@ stones. However, while notill makes good sense in some soils—especially sandy loams and loamy sands (soil scientists tell us there’s a difference)—it isn’t the perfect solution for most high-clay content soils. I think we’ve planted as much not= ill at Miner Institute as anyone in the immediate region, almost certainly for = more years. We have some fields that have never been plowed, either straight notill or extreme minimum tillage since we broke them= out of permanent pasture in the early 1980s, so we should know what to do. We a= lso tried notill on a clay loam with miserable resu= lts, so we also know what not to do.

Planting notill where it doesn’t belong makes very= poor sense if you wind up with lower yields just to save fuel. For it’s not how much fuel you use per acre, but per ton of forage dry mat= ter. Moldboard plowing and two secondary tillage passes use a total of about 3 gallons of diesel fuel per acre. Rock picking isn’t listed in any of = my fuel use charts since agricultural engineers apparently haven’t ackno= wledged the reality of rocks, but figure on another gallon per acre for a total of 4 gallons/acre, so let’s call it $10.00 per acre for diesel fuel. If notill corn yielded even half a ton of silage less per acre, fuel use per ton of silage would be greater with notill than with conventionally-tilled corn. So plant= notill where it fits, but use some common sense and don’t make a “fuelish” mistak= e just to save a few gallons of dinosaur juice.

—E.T.

DISTILLERS GRAINS AND YOUR NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PROGR= AM

Discussions of CAFO and Nutrient Management Programs is pretty dull stuff compared to s= ome of the other topics in this month’s Farm Report, but tremendous increases in corn-based ethanol production will result in similarly large changes in protein supplementation of livestock. Every bushel of corn produ= ces about 2.7 gallons of ethanol, but it also produces 12.5 lbs of corn gluten = feed and 2.5 lbs of corn gluten meal. We won’t worry about corn gluten meal since there won’t be nearly as much of it on the market. Also, while it’s sky-high in crude protein (usually over 60% CP), it’s relatively low in phosphorus compared to most other protein supplements—about 0.5% P.

Corn gluten feed, on the other hand, is another story entirely. Over the = next few years the amount of corn used for ethanol production will increase to a= bout 1.5 billion bushels. That’s almost 10 million tons of corn glu= ten feed, at least twice what’s produced now! Crude protein averages about 25%, while phosphorus is quite high, averaging 1.1% P according to the Dairy One forage lab. However, the range in both CP and P content is quite high: Dairy One averages indicate a “normal range” (based on over 500 samples) of 16.5 to 30.5% CP and 0.8 to 1.3% P. Different corn-based ethanol plants will produce distillers products that vary considerably in nutrient content. New technology will increase the feed value.

As the price of corn gluten feed decreases—as it almost certainly will—it will start figuring in least cost rations. It’s best su= ited for dairy and beef rations, since its high fiber content limits usefulness = in poultry and hog rations. The fly in the ointment for farmers with high P so= il test levels may well be its high P concentration. For instance, whole cottonseed has about the same CP but only averages about 0.7% P. Switching = from cottonseed to corn gluten feed could therefore result in an increase of 50%= in the amount of phosphorus from this part of the ration. We know that excess ration P will simply flush through the cow and wind up in the manure, and eventually back on cropland. Something else to consider= in looking at “least-cost” rations.

SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW…

A few items gleaned from a not-so-recent issue of Farm Journal; actual= ly its first issue, dated March 1877. Comments in italics are ours.

Fat people who wish to get lean should eat freely of lean meat, avoiding pastry, sugar, fat meat, and generally all kinds of farinaceous articles of food. <= i>(Farinaceous means starchy foods; a word you don’t see often. Guess the “Atk= ins Diet” isn’t so new after all!)

To remove ink from linen, cotton, etc., wash the article in sweet milk, leavin= g it to soak overnight or as long as the stain remains, rubbing and wringing the cloth daily.

Some women won’t be happy in heaven unless they can scrub it out once a ye= ar.

A grocer had a pound of sugar returned with a note stating “Too much sa= nd for table use, and not enough for building purposes.” (Nice to see that sarcasm was alive and well 130 years ago.)

Farm Journal also offered lady readers ten dollars (a nice prize in 1877) for the best essay = on “How shall the mother of five or more healthy children maintain a swe= et temper?” We’d love to read the winning essay, assuming there we= re any submissions. And finally, the ads on the back page included the followi= ng fertilizer products: Pelican guano (“Pure No. 1 Peruvian guano”= ), ground bones, dissolved bones, and bone charcoal. There were a few chemical fertilizers available back then including muriate of potash, but most commercial fertilizers were either imported bird manures (guano) or livestock byproducts.

ALFALFA SNOUT BEETLE

First, the bad news: The alfalfa snout beetle, a devastating insect pest of alfalfa for which there’s no chemical control, is spreading in <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Northern NY. Jefferson County remains almost entirely infested, the snout beetle is spreading in Lewis Country, and the infestation in Franklin County has grown fr= om one farm to a large area in the central part of the county. <= /p>

Now, the good news: A Jefferson County farm that once had 2.5 mill= ion snout beetles per acre saw the beetle population crash in 2002 and remains = at almost non-detectable numbers. Cornell entomologists are now “cautiou= sly optimistic” that the biological control organisms released on this fa= rm beginning in the early 1990s are the reason for the snout beetle crash. Biocontrol research plots are being established in fo= ur other Northern NY counties this year. This research has been (and contin= ues to be) supported by the Northern NY Agricultural Development Program.

CLOSING COMMENT

Every time you think about how dumb the average man is, just remember:

By definition, half of them are even dumber than that.