Vet’s Corner: M= aking Marginal Financial Decision= s

Every day, herd health veterinarians make recommendations that affect the financial state of their dairy clients’ farms. Some decisions are easy, such as recommending teat dipping, cutting a DA on a high producer, a= nd advocating E. coli mastitis vaccination. Others are hard to decide such as making an expensive building design improvement or switching from 2x to 3x milking. On what basis are these decisions ma= de?

In the past two weeks, our practice has performed 3 successful umbil= ical hernia operations. These were cases that did not respond to the more conservative, less expensive approach of wrapping, so the producer was faced with the decision of investing a surgery fee to retain a potential herd addition. If the calf is killed, the farm receives very little compensation= and has no further expense. If surgery is elected and we assume a modest 90% success rate, the cost of surgery could exceed the difference in average raising cost against the common purchase price of an unaffected replacement heifer. So were these three hernia operations a bad idea?=

NO, these surgeries were a good idea, because these are not average calves. They are “marginal” calves. When asked the value of the calf, = the producer usually answers with the amount that would be paid to purchase the calf, not the cost of raising the calf. So for argument’s sake, let’s assume that the calves are being raised for sale. By doing the surgery, there would be 50 calves to sell this year instead of 49. The farm= has the same fixed expenses for the calf-raising enterprise such as mortgage, utilities, insurances, manure removal, etc. with or without the hernia operation calf. The highest rate of profit is made on the sale of that last surgery calf raised.

Overall, a farm’s financial averages are made up of the outcom= e of a series of these marginal decisions. Expanding milking herd size to the mo= st profitable stocking density or pushing up TMR once more daily to encourage = one more pound of DMI are examples of adding more profitable marginal output. F= or a veterinarian, our most rewarding work is done while improving your margin.<= o:p>

—Kent E Henderson

Northwest Vete= rinary Associates, Inc.

huggamoo@comcast.net

DAIRY FARM DILEMMA<= /span>

To our dairy farmer readers faced with high costs and low milk price= s: It would be politically correct to say “I feel your pain.” But actually I don’t, at least not in my wallet. Nope, my paycheck is deposited into my checking account (AKA The Bride’s checking account) regardless of whether milk prices are $11.00 or $17.00, and the amount of my paycheck doesn’t bounce around from month to month. On a somewhat lar= ger scale, while the cost-price squeeze certainly affects the profitability of = the dairy enterprise here at Miner Institute, farm receipts represent less than= 25% of the Institute’s total income. Therefore, low milk prices are inconvenient to be sure, but not catastrophic. In recent years we’ve = had enough money to do most of the things we need to do but not enough t= o do all the things we want to do. (Considering some of the nutty ideas t= hat various staff members here have wanted to do, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.)

While most of us at the Institute aren’t financially affected = by the currently bleak dairy economic situation, it has reached far past those farmers who seemingly are always living on the knife’s edge. Dairy farmers who have been able to tough out previous periods of low prices have been dipping into savings or increasing borrowing. One farmer told me that = his farm expenses are exceeding income by $15,000 per month; another said that = in October he didn’t “pay himself” (take money from the farm= account for personal expenses) for the first month in many, many years. Farm supply dealers talk about previously-unheard-of levels of accounts receivable. National milk prices averaged just over $15.00 in 2005, will wind up averag= ing less than $13.00 this year, and next year looks like it will be somewhere in between—one recent prediction is $13.90 to $14.70 (up about half a bu= ck from an earlier prediction) with the higher prices in the second half of the year. For some farmers, just getting to the second half of 2007 may = be the problem. Considering that it costs many well-run dairy farms at least $14.0= 0 to produce a hundredweight of milk, 2007 doesn’t look like the year for farmers to recover previous losses.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like the recent increase in cor= n prices is a temporary situation. Looking at futures prices, by next summer corn is predicted to be almost $1.50 per bushel more than it was this past summer. = At least for the next few years, the tremendous volume of corn that will be us= ed for ethanol production will keep corn grain prices high. I heard one report that to feed both its livestock and ethanol plants, = Iowa may have to import corn. Iowa! On = the bright side, we may benefit from bargain prices for distillers grains, and should be considering ways to maximize their use in our rations. Rick Grant says he’s optimistic that a meaningful amount of distillers grains can be us= ed in many least-cost dairy rations without significantly affecting ration P cont= ent. Look for a more complete discussion of this topic (by Rick) at Corn Congres= s on February 28^th.

So, what’s a dairy farmer to do? On the crop side, 2007 will b= e a great year to fully account for both past and present manure nutrients: Past manure applications that have increased soil fertility thus decreasing star= ter fertilizer needs, and the manure you’ll spread next spring and summer that can replace a lot of the N and K and probably all the P your alfalfa a= nd grasses need. Guest speaker Quirine Kettering f= rom Cornell University will focus on some of t= he specifics at the 2007 Corn Congress.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com

Z Box Testimonial

We’ve been processing a number of forage and TMR samples throu= gh the Z-Box for peNDF determination. Various feed reps, nutritionists a= nd our vet Dr. Kent Henderson have pr= ovided samples. The other week Dr. Henderson stopped in to relay a message regardi= ng his field results using our peNDF values. We ha= d used the Z-Box to determine the pef values of a numb= er of TMRs he was having concerns about regarding effective= fiber levels. We analyzed the samples for pef and NDF= in order to quantify peNDF. The peNDF values were quite low for some of the TMRs, ran= ging from 14-21%. Recall that 21% is the recommended minimum peNDF value of a TMR to ensure adequate fiber levels and a rumen pH above 6.0. Af= ter increasing the fiber levels in some of these TMRs, the cows responded with ~ 5 lbs more milk. Not a controlled study, but certainly a pleasant response and positive sign for the Z-Box and peNDF system.

For anyone interested in the Z-Box or inquiring about purchasing one, we’ve created a page on our website for you to visit. We’ll be posting an instructional video and more field data to review. Please email = me directly if you would like to order a Z Box or have any questions contact m= e at 518-846-7121 ext 123. If anyo= ne would like to send samples for peNDF analyses, = we are still looking to add more to our database.

—Kurt Cotanch<= /o:p>

cotanch@whminer.com

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

Cows Under Pres= sure

We’ve just recently put an updated version of the cow time-bud= get evaluator on the Institute’s web site, based on recent research compl= eted by former graduate student Chris Hill (who successfully completed his MS de= gree this fall and now works for Poulin Grain). The updated version now provides the user with expected reductions in milk yiel= d as stocking rate increases for primiparous cows (f= irst-calf heifers) in mixed groups as well as lame cows that are commingled with heal= thy cows. Many of you may not have used this simple Excel spreadsheet yet, so l= et me explain how it works. It can easily be downloaded from our web site: (www.whminer.org). The spreadsheet calc= ulates expected loss in milk yield as cows are placed under pressure due to overcrowding.

The essential function of the spreadsheet is to estimate the average time available for resting (i.e. lying down in stalls) to cows in a group or herd. Then, based on the time available for resting, potential for lost mil= k is calculated. The major inputs are: 1) time spent outside the pen, and 2) num= ber of comfortable stalls and number of cows to calculate the stocking rate. Ti= me that cows spend outside the pen is a major factor that influences resting a= nd eating time. Time budget analysis on many farms that differ in facilities a= nd management routines shows that cows cannot afford to spend greater than abo= ut 3.5 hours/day outside the pen and away from stalls, feed, and water. If they do, then time must be taken away from some other activity (since there are only= 24 hours in a day)—most likely resting or eating. Every farmer should kn= ow how long his/her cows are outside the pen in the process of being milked or= for any other daily activity such as health checks at a management rail. <= /o:p>

Stocking rate also will affect resting activity. The negative relationship between stocking rate of stalls and resting time is used by the spreadsheet to further reduce the time available for resting if stocking ra= te of stalls exceeds 120%. Although there is considerable variation in cow response for the few reports thus far on stocking rate, it is clear that th= ings get interesting at around 120%. At this point, the reduction in resting predicted by the spreadsheet does not become more severe as stocking rate increases beyond 120%--the data are not clear. There is simply a 20% reduct= ion in resting time across the board. Actually, the spreadsheet has proved to be remarkably accurate in predicting on-farm milk response to overstocking situations. So, we will continue to refine the tool as more data are genera= ted, but it works well right now.

Once time available for resting has been calculated, then it is comp= ared to the requirements for resting for both average cows and the “elite” cows that are in the top 10% of a herd or group by milk production. Based on the difference between time needed and time available = for resting, a potential loss in milk yield is calculated for each type of cow.=

The rest of the spreadsheet provides estimates of expected losses in milk production for primiparous and lame cows w= hen they are housed in mixed groups of healthy mature cows. As stocking rate increases, very quickly lame cows lose production due to the fact that they= are so poorly competitive for resources such as feed and stalls. Likewise, smal= ler first-calf heifers lose milk production at low stocking rates compared with larger mature cows. If you do mix first-calf heifers with older cows in your pens and then overstock, this spreadsheet will tell you how much milk you’re potentially leaving on the table.

The next revision of the spreadsheet will focus on predicted impacts= of stocking rate on transition cow response – we expect to get this done soon. Keep checking the web site for these continuous updates as new resear= ch is conducted.

—Rick Grant

grant@whminer.com <= /i>

PEST CONTROL MEETING SCHEDULED<= /span>

It may seem like a long way off, but if you need Pesticide Applicator credits or just want to listen to the latest in insect and weed control in forage crops have we got the meeting for you: Wed., February 21^{st,
1:00 to 3:00 pm in the auditorium at Miner Institute, Rte. 191. We’ll
have two or three custom applicators there to discuss what they saw as the =
most
serious weed problems this past season, as well as what worked and what
didn’t. We’ll also discuss the corn insect situation and how to
control the most serious pests—granular insecticides, seed treatments,
genetically resistant hybrids or crop rotation. We’ve already applied=
to
NY DEC for applicator credits.}

&nb= sp;

= COW COMFORT

Editor’s note: Steve Mooney is a Postdoct= orate Research Fellow who arrived at the Institute this fall and will be with us = for two years.

Cow comfort is important. We know comfortable cows are healthier and more productive. But how do we know if a cow is comfortable? She can’t talk. She can’t whisper how she feels or what she prefers. We have to watch and interpret what we see.

We know comfortable cows spend more time lying down than cows that a= re stressed, uncomfortable, overcrowded, overheated, lame, or injured. Given t= he choice, cows will lie 12 to 14 hours per day. This time spent lying is important because it allows the cow to rest, recuperate, and ruminate—time called “Vitamin R” here at Miner Institute.=

To quantify observations of lying cows, scientists have devised indi= ces of cow comfort in freestalls. These are based o= n the premise that, if cow feel comfortable in the stalls they have available, th= ey are more likely to be lying in them. These indices will divide the cows in a pen into four groups: lying in stalls (A), standing in stalls (B), eating or drinking (C), or doing something else (D). We also need to count the number= of usable stalls: Stalls that are clean, bedded, and in good repair.

Cow comfort index (CCI) is one such index, considers only cows that = are in stalls. It addresses the question “What are cows doing in the stalls?” CCI is calculated as (A)/(A+B) and should be greater than or equal to 0.85. Stall use index (SUI) is another i= ndex used to examine cow comfort; it considers all cows in a pen not eating or drinking. SUI is calculated as (A)/(A+B+D) and s= hould be greater than 0.80. Mathematically, CCI will usually be greater than SUI = and, as all stalls become occupied, they will be close to equal.

Which index should you use? Does it matter? Last spring, Brendan Fitzgerald, a student in our Advanced Dairy Management program, compared indices of cow comfort in a research project that addressed these questions. Using our dairy barn, he found the two indices to be the same. Each index g= ave relatively the same picture of the group. The indices changed in parallel throughout the day, going up and down together as the cows moved from milki= ng, feeding, drinking and other activities to lying in the stalls.

What should you use on your farm? Choose the index that will fit bes= t in your system, probably based on ease of counting. Use the appropriate thresh= old for the index and time your observations to give the most usable informatio= n. These measurements are sensitive to the time of observation, so choose a ti= me when stall use should be high. Cows want to lie down after milking and eati= ng so an observation an hour or two after milking should give more valuable information. As with most performance measures, establishing your baseline = and following changes in your herd over time is more beneficial than adhering t= o a one-time measure against a standardized threshold. Although these indices h= ave been used to evaluate free stalls, they could be adapted to tie stall evaluation. For more information on time budgets for cows, visit the “Outreach” section on our website, www.whminer.org.

—Steve M= ooney

mooney@whminer.com

BEDSTRAW CONTROL IN GRASS HAYFIELDS AND PASTURES

Bedstraw has long been one of the toughest weeds to control in grass hayfields and pastures. The old herbicide 2,4-D = does so little that it seems bedstraw must feed on it, while the more modern broadleaf herbicides Banvel and Clarity aren= 217;t much better. Now there are two new herbicides, Milestone and Fore= front R&P, which in recent Cornell University trials performed just great. (Forefront R&P is a premix of Milestone and 2,4-D.) Registration of Milestone in NY State is pendin= g, but we’re optimistic that it will get approved because the active ingredi= ent, aminopyralid, is of relatively low toxicity. Co= mpared to the other herbicides used for bedstraw control, ami= nopyralid also reduces the potential for contamination of ground and surface water as well as non-target organisms.

How effective is Milestone in controlling bedstraw? When evaluated 1= 40 days post-treatment, Milestone at 4 oz/acre and Forefront R&P at both 1= .5 and 2 pints/acre provided 96 to 99% control. This compares wi= th 2 to 27% control with several other herbicides. Think terrific vs. terrible.<= o:p>

While there are some crop restrictions for Milestone and Forefront R&P, there aren’t any grazing or hay harvest restrictions followi= ng application of Milestone at labeled rates. There’s a 7-day restrictio= n on hay harvest if Forefront R&P is used because of the 2,4-D in the mixture. Don’t move grazing animals from a pasture sprayed with either of these products to a pasture with sensitive broadleaf plants witho= ut allowing three days of grazing in an untreated pasture. That’s because both manure and urine could contain enough herbicide residue to injure sensitive plants.

&nb= sp;

Additive Effects of Rumen-Protected Choline and Mon= ensin on Performance of Transition Cows Evaluated

Rumen-protected choline (Reashure choline) and monensin (Rumensin) are often supplemented in diets for transit= ion cows to improve performance. Choline aids in fat metabolism, in particular transport of fat from the liver. A deficiency in = choline may be associated with fatty liver, which dec= reases glucose (energy) production and impairs performance. Some studies have shown that supplementing rumen-protected choline in d= iets fed to transition cows has improved liver metabolism and milk production. <= span class=3DSpellE>Monensin aids in improving energy balance. It alters = the bacterial population in the rumen to favor bacteria that make propionate. Propionate is used by the cow to make glucose. A greater supply of glucose (energy) reduces fat mobilization and decreases the risk of ketosis and fat= ty liver. Studies have shown that giving monensin = to transition cows improves energy balance and milk production.

Several studies have evaluated rumen-protected = choline and monensin independently, but according to researchers in the December issue of the Journal of Dairy Science no studies have investigated the possible interaction between the two suppleme= nts. The researchers hypothesized that since each supplement has a different mod= e of action, it is possible that feeding both to transition cows could have an additive or synergistic effect on performance, in particular milk productio= n. To test this hypothesis, 182 Holstein co= ws at 3 weeks before calving were assigned to 1 of 4 treatments and given either = 1) a monensin controlled-release capsule (335 mg/day= for 95 days) 2) rumen-protected choline (56 g/day) = until 28 days in milk, 3) monensin and rumen-protecte= d choline, or 4) no supplement. Cows were monitored unt= il 60 days in milk.

There were no significant interactions of the effects of supplementi= ng monensin and rumen-protected cho= line on dry matter intake, milk production, milk components, blood metabolites or liver function. Apparently, there is no additive or synergistic effect of rumen-protected choline and monensin on performance of transition cows. Independently, each supplement had a beneficial effect on performance. Cows that were fed rumen-protected choline produced 2.6 lb/d more milk in the first 60 d= ays than cows that did not receive it. The milk response (9.7 lb/d) was more dramatic in fat cows (³ 4 BCS) fed rumen-protected choline. Cows given monensin had a lower serum ß-<= span class=3DSpellE>hydroxybutrate concentration and higher serum glucose concentration, indicating an improvement in energy status and presumably a lower risk of ketosis. There was no effect of monensin= on milk production.

Key Points:

1.&n= bsp;       There is no additive or synergis= tic effect of rumen-protected choline and monensin on performance of transition cows.

2.&n= bsp;       Rumen-protected choline improved milk production of transition cows, especially in fat cows.

3.&n= bsp;       Monensin improved the energy status of transition cows, but did not improve = milk production.

—Heather Dann<= /o:p>

dann@whminer.com

TH= E END OF CHEAP FEED?

There are 105 ethanol plants in operation in the U.S., w= ith 40 more under construction and over 50 in various stages of planning. New biofuel plants are popping up around the world—already on line, under construction, or in the planning phase—at a rate of one per day. While it’s far too early= to know how much effect this will have on feed prices, it’s no secret th= at corn prices have been going up and will almost certainly stay high relative= to prices in recent years. Corn prices in the Midwest have almost doubled in the past year, increasing about a buck a bushel just since summer, and commodities that can to some extent replace corn in lives= tock diets have also increased in price. Midwestern oat prices, for instance, ha= ve increased by 37% in the past year. Not surprisingly, U.S. stocks of corn, wheat, o= ats and barley are all down from year-ago levels.

An item in a national dairy newsletter forecast that increased grain exports, corn used for ethanol, and competition = for feed grains by the beef industry will combine to result not only in higher = feed prices, but greater price volatility. Livestock producers will have to make ration adjustments, including using distillers grains. We’ll have to = get used to substituting distillers for soy meal and other high-protein feeds in least cost rations.

What’s Happening on the = Farm

An update on the manure system – it’s working again! When we dug up the end of the pipe, we found the last two sections of pipe full of sand. Not quite sure where the sand came from, but the pipe is clear again. Great was the excitement when we turned on the ram pump and the manure started flowing out through the pipe into the pit. Sorry guys –= ; no more boating for a while (we hope!).

One of the few radio stations that we can get in the office was play= ing Christmas music before Thanksgiving! We tuned in to a different station for= a couple weeks, but now that it is December maybe we can enjoy some Christmas music during the day. During Thanksgiving and Christmas labor management issues always come up – t= he cows don’t take a holiday and so some of us have to work too. But the problem is deciding who gets which days off. Some of the employees are more than willing to work over the holidays because they are paid overtime, while others would still rather spend the day at home with friends and family. We made it through Thanksgiving without disgruntled employees, so we’ll = see how Christmas goes. They generally agree they just want it to be fair for everyone.

A quick review of where the farm has been over the past year:

·         We’ve been pleased with the success of our calf and heifer program. They are healthy and growing well f= or the most part, maintaining appropriate body condition, and calving in aroun= d 24 months. And after they calve, the first lactation animals are peaking at 98= lbs of milk.

·         In the dry cow barn we’ve = been learning how and when to assist with calving in order to minimize our dead = on arrivals (DOAs). Especially with the colder mon= ths around the corner, we’re trying to pay more attention to the close-up= pen so that all cows calve in the clean maternity pens. The fresh cows generally have been “up and running” after calving. Not to say that we don’t hav= e our occasional cases of metritis, ketosis and DAs, = but they have been pretty healthy.

·         Reproduction is going to be the topic of our New Year’s resolution! With a pregnancy rate averaging 1= 6% and services per conception averaging 2.7, we know there is room for improvement. Steve Couture jus= t came back from a great conference in Denver with some ideas for improving the herd’s reproduction.

·         It was a difficult crop year on = the farm due to frigid May conditions that wiped out about 15% of our corn, followed by wet weather that prevented replanting most of this. Corn yields were down but the moist conditions improved hay crop yields. We bought corn= silage for the first time in many years, will increase corn acreage for 2007 in ho= pes that we can prevent a repeat performance.

·         It was a team effort to bring the rolling herd average up to 29,000 lbs. this year and maintain a cull rate of 23%. Now we have our sights s= et on 30,000 lbs. and know that it will take consistency and close attention to details to reach this goal. <= o:p>

From all of us at the dairy barn, we wish you a very Merry Christmas= !

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

—Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com

News in S= oils, Agronomy, and Crops Research

This past month I attended the International meetings for the Americ= an Society of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America, and the Soil Science Soci= ety of America in Indianapolis, IN. With this size meeting = there were a lot of talks to choose from and posters to read. I focused mainly on environmentally related topics, but for some spice listened to a few talks about some of the new precision agriculture products and where the economic benefits of these products are.

The environmental sessions focused on air quality and manure contaminants entering the soil and water. On the air quality front, the 14 = barn sites in the United = States have been identified for the research that will be done to determine emissi= on rates from barns. Only one of these farms in located in the Northeast and i= s a large dairy in New York. Of the 14 sites selected, 5 are dairy sites and the rest are divided between swine and poultry. The data collection for this project will last for 2 yea= rs and the project is projected to be completed in July of 2009. While the research is being conducted, information will be available at www.AgAirQuality.com. In addition= to research on emission rates, work is also being sponsored on the development= of best management practices to reduce air pollution from agricultural practic= es.

The current focus of manure contaminant research is looking at hormo= nes and antibiotics in the soil and water after application. So far the majorit= y of this research has been done with swine and poultry manure because producers= are frequently feeding these animals both antibiotics and hormones. Dairy operations are a lower level of concern for these contaminants because producers are not feeding these products to cows. Work done at the University of Minnesota found that there is a ve= ry low level of resistance to antibiotics in the soil on dairy farms. They are speculating that this is due to low use rates and higher dilution of manure over the land. This did raise a few questions for me, such as what about th= ose fields close to the barn that have had historically higher manure applicati= on rates and what levels of antibiotics are there in dairy manures? The United Stated Geological Society, not who you would expect, has some data availabl= e on the concentration of hormones and antibiotics in dairy manures. However, it= was not presented at this meeting and I’m working on getting some of that data. Finally, work has been done at SUNY Buffalo looking at the effects of= tetracyclines in manure on plant growth and uptake. Greenhouse results indicate that there is a reduction of growth of leaves a= nd pods of pinto beans grown in soil contaminated with chlortetracycline. There were no differences in the growth of corn grown in soil contaminated with chlortetracycline and the control plants. This is of particular interest to= me because of my work with dairy footbath treatments, one of which is tetracycline, and their effects on the growth and quality of forage crops. Overall, there is still a lot of room for more research to be done in both = of these areas, which is good news for me, as I am just staring my research career. It looks like I shouldn’t run out of work for a few years.

I also attended a talk about nutrient management and reduced tillage= . Ohio research found that the type of phosphorus ent= ering Lake Erie has changed from mostly particulate phosp= horus to mostly soluble phosphorus with the change of most cropland in the area t= o reduced or no till management. This has resulted in the phosphorus levels in Lake Erie increasing again. This reinforces the idea that in agriculture there is no silver bull= et to solve these problems, but that we need to use multiple management practi= ces to reduce pollution.

In the area of precision agriculture, work has been done at the University of Kentucky to determine just how acc= urate precision application really is. They found that the largest problems are t= hat the pattern of application from a spreader is not always known and the amou= nt of time it takes a spreader to change application rates. These factors can result in application rates that aren’t as precise as planned. The University of Kentucky has developed and is test= ing a corn planter that uses motorized rather than mechanical seed placement. The planter allows you to know exactly how many seeds were planted in the field= and the X and Y coordinate of each seed that was planted. They are claiming that with the savings on wasted seed, the improvement in the planter will pay for itself in a few years. The planter is not yet commercially produced. Sounds like a much better way to know the number of seeds planted and plants expec= ted to grow in a test plot rather than counting them 2 or 3 times. Maybe the X = and Y coordinates could also be given to applicators of pesticides and fertiliz= ers so that they might not knock down plants. Finally, the economic analysis of= the use of precision application of soil amendments indicates that due to curre= nt equipment cost and analysis techniques, precision application of lime is the only profitable use of precision application.

I was also able to purchase a new book on cool season forage grasses, talk to a company about new autoclaves, and talk with the USDA-ARS about job opportunities. This was a great meeting to attend and I look forward to attending the regional meetings in June of 2007 and the international meeti= ngs in New Orleans next November.

—S.A. Flis

flis@whminer.com

IGNORANCE ISN’T ALWAYS BLISS

I was watching ESPN on the tube, where Pe= nn State’s football team was putting a whipping on Mic= higan State. To fill a bi= t of dead time one of the cameramen focused on a nice-looking corn field, part of which had already been combined. Peering down the rows of 8-foot tall stalks complete with leaves, tassels, and ears, Pam Wood, one of the two announcer= s, said: “What we’re looking at is, I believe, a wheat field.̶= 1; “Yes, that’s what it is.” replied Rod Ardmore, the other announcer. Now, Ardmore is from California which explains a lot, but Ms. Wood is an easterner from Washington, D.C. and graduated from the Un= iversity of Maryland, so she should know better.

The point is that even the (supposedly) intelligent, educated portio= n of the non-farming public knows much less about agriculture than we often assu= me. My father used to think that a cow started milking upon reaching some magic= age of majority, sort of like teenagers being legally able to drive when they r= each 16 years of age. When I told him that the sex act was in some way involved = in the eventual conversion of heifer to cow, he was really surprised. When discussing farming with non-farmers, don’t assume that they know much= of anything about the subject. You’ll be right more often than you’= ;ll be wrong.

—E.T.

CHOOSING CORN HYBRIDS FOR SILAGE

Katie Ballard, our Director of Research, farms with her husband Kris in Georgia, Vermont. Corn silage is one of the major forage crops both at Miner Institute and at Ballard Acres. Every September Katie brings in a few ears of corn from her farm, and Ballard Acres ears are always bigger than the Miner Instit= ute ears. The Crops Dude has various explanations (Katie uncharitably calls them excuses) including less productive soil types, higher plant populations, our focus on fiber digestibility, etc., none of which Katie’s buying for a minute. One major difference between the two farms is hybrid maturity: Much= of the Ballard corn is over 100 days in relative maturity while most of ours is about 95 days. For years I’ve said that in this region we give up some yield with very early hybrids (85 days or less), but there isn’t much yield difference between 90 and 100 RM hybrids.

Sooo, when= the 2006 Cornell corn hybrid trial results came out in November, Ev looked at the yield and quality of the hybrids in = the several maturity classes in the trial planted here at the Institute. All hybrids were harvested at similar maturity—within a couple points of = 35% DM. He eliminated the one BMR hybrid in the trials because BMR hybrids are, well, different. Here’s wh= at he found.

As you can see, there isn’t much difference in yield except for the earliest maturity group. However, it’s interesting that thereR= 17;s at least a trend to higher quality with the latest maturity group.

This was a really tough year to grow corn in the Champlain Valley, so = Ev looked at the trial in Madrid (S= t. Lawrence Co.), where yields were excellent. Here’s what he found—all hybrids harvested at about 35% DM, same as at Chazy.

In the Madrid trial there was a 1-2 ton/acre penalty for planting very early hybrids; the= se were also lower in quality, but that’s about it for differences. Madrid’s g= rowing season is a bit shorter than Chazy’s, but= in looking at both these trials it sure doesn’t seem to make a whole lot= of difference which hybrid maturity you plant. There was much more difference between hybrids within each of these maturity groups than= between groups. To be fair to Katie—and aren’t I always?—there wasn’t a 101-105 maturity group in either location; Cornell apparently doesn’t think we should be growing hybrids of this maturity. Is there perhaps something magic about the yield of hybrids over 100 RM? Not accordi= ng to the Cornell trials: Looking at a the Aurora, NY hybrid trial, 96-100 RM hybrids averaged 27.6 tons/acre while 101-105 RM hybrids averaged 28.2 tons/acre…not much difference at all.

But since later hybrids apparently don’t explain the difference between ear size (and, presumably, silage yield though we have no proof of this) at Ballard Acres and Miner Institute, what is the reason? Could it be that Ballards are sim= ply better at….nah, not possible.

—E.T.

SEED CORN REMINDERS

As you order 2007 seed corn, a few reminders:=

1.&n= bsp;       Some seed companies are treating= all seed corn with the low rate of insecticide pretreatment—Poncho 250 or Cruiser Extreme 250—it’s built into the price. Others offer it = as an extra-cost option. Be sure you know who’s doing what. If you don’t use either Poncho or Cruiser you’ll need to use a planterbox seed treatment such as Latitude. There are= a lot fewer planterbox options this year—Latitu= de is the only one we know of.

2.&n= bsp;       Given all the options including genetic traits and pest protection packages, when you order seed corn for 2= 007 you’ll almost need to know ahead of time what will be planted where. Inconvenient perhaps, but still a good idea.

3.&n= bsp;       If you’ll use a lot of Bt = seed for corn borer and/or corn rootworm control, don’t forget about the requirement for refuge areas—at least 20% percentage of planted acrea= ge that’s not Bt. For details, refer to the 2007 Technology Use Guide the seed company provides to each farmer who buys Bt seed corn.

FAITH-BASED FARMING?

Like most Americans, I consider myself a political moderate—OK= , in my case moderately conservative, perhaps. An advantage of being a moderate = is that you can appreciate political viewpoints from both the left and right, especially when the writer has a sense of humor. That’s why I like uber-liberal Molly Ivins<= /span>, a nationally-syndicated political columnist “who remains cheerful des= pite Texas politics”, and the conservative Dennis Avery, author of “Saving= the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic”.

Avery’s conservative genes obviously passed down to his son Al= ex, who’s a food policy analyst for the Hudson Institute. In a recent editorial Avery the younger noted that the Organic Trade Association is complaining that organic farming isn’t getting its fair share of the federal dollars that benefit other aspects of agriculture. He says that it’s entirely reasonable for organic farmers to ask for their “= fair share” of government support, but that share should be zero because “Government promotion of organic farming and food violates the Constitution’s first amendment against the establishment of religion.” (!) Avery characterizes organic agriculture as a “fundamentalist, new-age religion based on the rejection of modern fa= rm technologies”. He says that the organic farming industry has never be= en able to demonstrate superior nutrition, greater safety or better environmen= tal stewardship, yet keeps proclaiming these to be true. And that “Belief without evidence is the very definition of faith.” Whew, Alex, why don’t you tell us what you really think? (He backs up his comm= ent about “environmental stewardship” with a recent USDA study concluding that modern conservation cropping techniques currently in use on about 2/3 of non-organic crop acres reduce soil erosion by up to 80% com= pared to organic methods.)

Getting closer to home: As stated in the past, I have nothing against farmers who want to increase their profit (or just to make a profit, for th= at matter) by producing organic milk. One previously cited study of organic da= iry farm economics in Vermont and Maine was less t= han encouraging. However, if you’re considering a switch to organic milk production, take a close look at what the farm price of organic milk is now—and could be in a year or two. N.Y. Cooperative Extension = is involved in the “transition to organic” decision-making process= via meetings cosponsored by Cornell and NOFA (National Organic Farming Association); this whole deal makes me just a bit nervous but maybe it̵= 7;s just creeping old age.

Why would I be concerned? One reason is Wal-Mart’s recently st= ated goal of “democratizing” organic foods, selling them for only a = 10% premium to the regular stuff. (I still refuse to call foods produced by conventional methods “non-organic”.) Does Wal-Mart’s pric= ing goal include organic milk? If so, what impact will this have on the farm pr= ice for organic milk? Wal-Mart is already the nation’s biggest seller of organic milk: If it sells organic milk for a 10% premium, can farmers expec= t to get anything approaching the currently reported price of $26-30 per hundredweight—that’s a 100% premium, not 10%! Maybe locally produced organic milk will still sell for $3.50 per half gallon, though I’m at a loss to explain why it would. However, organic dairy farmers= in the Northeastern U.S. had better hope it does: There’s just no way th= ey can pay premium prices for organic grains, comply with the other rules and regulations involved in organic milk production, and only get a $2.00-3.00/= cwt premium. Or am I missing something here?

As always, your opinions and comments are welcome, regardless of how ill-conceived they are. Just kidding…

—E.T.

AUTUMN CROP QUESTIONS

As crop season wound down, the questions crossing the Crops DudeR= 17;s desk took a turn to the wild side. A sampling:

·         How high is too high for the sug= ar content of timothy hay to be fed to horses? (The hay contained over twice as much sugar as normal. You wouldn’t think that sweet hay would hurt ho= rses as long as they floss and brush regularly to prevent tooth decay, but turns= out that this hay—containing 23% sugar—could be very harmful.)

·         Does pine oil really mask the sm= ell of slurry dairy manure? (Yes it does, though at the recommended application rate of 1 quart per 1000 gallons of manure it’s wise to restrict it’s use to “socially sensitive” areas, such as next to t= hat tort lawyer’s yard.)

·         Does anyone still manufacture a one-row picker-sheller? (Not that we know of.)<= o:p>

WHERE YOU LI= VE

·         The best mapping and satellite imagery website we’ve ever seen can be found at the following URL: http://www.naffis.co= m/maphacks/latandlon.html. It includes maps as well as satell= ite photos, and the “hybrid” option even labels the satellite with roads, etc. You can also pinpoint your home’s latitude and longitude = to about 12 decimal places, not that we know why you’d want to. Some are= as have much better imagery than others; for instance, we can zoom in on Miner Institute to the extent that we can count calf hutches and even see whoR= 17;s in and who’s out, while 20 miles to the south, in beautiful downtown = Peasleeville where the Crops Dude resides, the mapping feature works fine but the satellite images don’t have nearly the lev= el of resolution.

·         Although many of our articles are (hopefully) used to dairy farmers everywhere, readers of the Farm Report= will notice a definite Northeastern slant. That’s because 50% of our “snail mail” readers live in NY with another 36% in New England—by far the most of them in Vermont. We have hundreds of monthly email subscribers and others who read our newsletter on-line; while we don’t know where they’re from we suspect that it closely mirrors our mailing list.

NY CAFO IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINES, AND MORE

Miner Institute is into education and research, not regulation. Howe= ver, you may need to know the following implementation deadlines for New York CA= FO operations: (Farmers in other states should check with their nutrient management planner or regulatory authority.)

Large CAFOs

®      Full implementation December = 31, 2006.

Medium CAFOs

®      Non-structural practices Octo= ber 1, 2007

®      High risk practices ASAP, no lat= er than October 1, 2008

®      All other practices June 30, = 2009

In a related matter, EPA is moving ahead in gathering air emission d= ata from farms. EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board approved a total of 2568 agreements, of which only 468 are dairy farm agreements. (Miner Institute is one of these.) Over 70% are swine operations. Now the monitoring survey will begin, probably this winter.

CALENDAR EVENTS

http://www.whminer.org/calend= ar.html

RESEARCH NEWS YOU CAN USE

·         One of the most common corn m= olds is Aspergillus, especially when the crop= is heat-stressed. The mold can produce mycotoxins including one of the most dangerous ones, aflatoxin. Adding to the problem is that there aren’t any a= flatoxin-resistant corn hybrids on the market. Well, this may soon change. Agricultural Resear= ch Service scientists in Mississippi and Georgia and scientists at the Univers= ity of Illinois have been working on the subject since the late 1980s, and have discovered several lines of wild corn that have resistance to Aspergillus. Also a corn geneticist in = Nigeria= heard about these lines and sent the ARS researchers some of his own corn plants. These had become resistant to aflatoxin formati= on through years of exposure to Aspergillus= in Africa. Now after seven years of testing and several generations of corn plants the two research efforts are about to pay big dividends. Once final evaluations are complete, several lines of Aspergillus-resistant corn will be made availa= ble for both American and African corn breeders. Source: ”Agricultural Research” October 2006

·         How much residual dairy manur= e N is left for the succeeding year’s corn crop? That was the question as= ked by University of Wisconsin agronomists. Using sever= al testing methods, they concluded that second year residual N from semi-solid manure is 9 to 12% of the original N rate, with third-year residual N 3 to = 5% of the original N. These are = almost identical to the 9% and 3% for the second and third years respectively foun= d by Cornell <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">University agronomists 12 years ag= o. Source: Journal of Environmental Quality. 35:2170-2177 (2006).

·         A survey of weed scientists from 11 farming states indicated that the increased use of glyphosate (Roundup and related products) is resulting in a “weed shift”. Winter annuals, lambsquarters and waterhemp are becoming more of a problem where glyphosate= has been used for a number of years—as in the case with Roundup Ready soybeans. Every one of the weed scientists said that weed shifts are occurr= ing, and two-thirds of them think that this is of economic concern.

CLOSING COMMENT

It’s not what a teenager knows that bothers his parents; it’s how he found out.