0207 Farm Report

Copper Sulf= ate in Dairy Manure and Grass Growth

In the last year we started looking at the effects of copper sulfate used in d= airy footbaths disposed of in manure storages and then applied to cool season fo= rage grasses. Between November 2005 and April 2006 we grew timothy, orchardgrass, and reed canarygra= ss in the greenhouse at Plat= tsburgh State University. The 3 species received different rates of copper (Cu) from copper sulfate in dairy manure (0, 5, 10 lbs/acre of Cu). We planted the grasses in two diffe= rent soil types, sandy loam and silt loam. The grasses were cut twice and at each cutting the number of shoots present were counted and the total dry weight = of shoots measured. At the second cutting the roots of the grasses were also harvested, dried and weighed.

From this work a few things were discovered that we weren’t looking for. First, all the grass that was seeded in the silt loam soil was planted too = deep and did not germinate well, so these treatments are currently being repeate= d. The second unexpected result was that when we cut the reed canary grass the first time at 2” it all died. So, here I am reporting the results for= the timothy and orchardgrass grown in the sandy loa= m, as these were the treatments with no complications.

Orchardgrass and timothy responded the same to Cu treatment levels. A linear decrease was observed for the 2^nd harvest number of shoots and t= he tillering rate from harvest 1 to 2 (Figure 1a), suggesting that there is a decrease in the number of shoots at 2^{nd
harvest and the tillering rate between harvests=
1 and
2 as the Cu treatment level increased. Also, there the 2^nd harve=
st
shoot dry weight was 1.12 g/pot lower for the high (10 lbs/acre) versus the
control (0 lbs/acre) Cu treatment. This would be equivalent to a 339 lbs/ac=
re
yield decrease. Finally, there was a significant linear decrease in root dry
weight as the Cu treatment level increased (Figure 1b). <=
/span>}

The shoots from the 2^nd harvest were analyzed for NDF, ADF, lignin, = and CP (% DM). There were no significant or biological differences in the chemi= cal analysis. Shoots were also analyzed for mineral concentration and again the= re were no significant differences. The Cu concentration in the shoots tended = to increase with Cu treatment level: 29.8, 30.9, and 39.0 ppm for the control, low, and high treatments, respectively. However, these concentrations are within the normal range for crop plant Cu concentration = (0 – 50 ppm).

The roots were analyzed for mineral concentrations and it was found that there = was a numerical increase in the Cu concentration as Cu treatment level increase= d. Overall, the Cu concentration in the shoots was lower than in the roots, 33= .2 vs. 66.6 ppm, respectively. This is expected be= cause Cu is generally sequestered in the roots.

Tillering rate decreased as copper application level increased regardless of grass species. Also, there was a decreased shoot yield and dry root weight = with increased copper application level. These effects may result in a decrease = in the longevity of the stand and an overall decrease in yield. There may be concern for a larger decrease in regrowth rate = and yield in drought conditions due to the decrease in root dry matter with increased Cu application rate. This work was funded by the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program.<= o:p>

Research in this area is continuing at Miner Institute. We are currently looking at = how reported Cu concentration differs depending on soil testing method; applica= tion of Cu from dairy manure on corn; and this spring and summer we’ll mea= sure the effects of different footbath treatments on grasses and alfalfa.

—Sally Flis

flis@whminer.com

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

We’ve been asking for winter to come and finally our request has been granted = 211; the temperature has been well below freezing for the past 2 weeks, and this week the wind picked up, giving us a real North Coun= try winter experience. Our calf warmers have been excellent in this cold weathe= r; they warm you right up after morning chores, but since there are two, we all have to share. J Actually, the warmers have done a good job of quickly and completely drying off the calve= s. They stay in the warmer for about 6 hours; after they come out, we put a jacket on them and put them in a bedded pen inside the dry cow barn. Then within 24 hours, t= hey move up to the calf hutches where they have been braving the cold very well= ; we haven’t lost a calf due to the cold weather yet.

The Advanced Dairy Management students have arrived at Miner Institute for the spring semester. On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday mornings they work with = us on calves, herd health, milking, and feeding. It’s been nice to have extra hands during the cold weather. The students all have farm experience,= but they are eager to learn and we’ve enjoyed getting to know them and working with them.

What else is happening on the farm - not too much new and ex= citing. Things around the farm have been kind of like a see-saw. For a while the cows milk around 9= 5 lbs. and then production drops down to 90 lbs. (or even 88 lbs. this morning). We have a couple DOAs or calves born in the manure= , and then we’re more careful, and healthy calves are delivered in clean maternity pens. Several cows have a rough start to their lactation (retained placenta, metritis, DA, or ketosis) and then we= have a batch of fresh cows that are producing 100 lbs. of milk by 10 days in mil= k. One of our employees was recently hospitalized, but it was great to see everyone pull together and work as a team to get the job done. Just when we think the mold in the= feed isn’t too bad, more mold shows up or the <= span class=3DSpellE>mycotoxin report comes back positive, or the birds st= art destroying the silage face. We had one cow die this week, but since then, we’ve delivered 3 healthy heifer calves. Guess that is just the joy and cha= llenge of farming!

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

—Steve Couture<= /st1:PersonName>, couture@whminer.co= m

FURTHER COMMENTS ON ALFALFA VARIETY SELECTION

In the spirit of full disclosure, Farm Report readers should be aware t= hat the Crop Dude’s opinions on leafhopper-resistant alfalfa are not universally accepted. (I know, hard to believe, but…) I’ve stat= ed previously that you should plant only leafhopper resistant (LHR) alfalfa varieties unless leafhoppers are seldom if ever a problem on your farm, or unless when leafhoppers do attack someone is out there right away applying = the right insecticide.

I was recently taken to task for this position by a guy in the seed business = who says that in the absence of leafhoppers, LHR varieties don’t yield as well as non-resistant ones. A review of university trials reveals that he m= ay have a point, though there’s not a lot of solid data. That’s because most trials either compare LHR varieties to non-resistant ones with= no insecticides, or they don’t include LHR varieties in trials where leafhoppers are controlled with insecticides. However, the 2006 Cornell University alfalfa variety trials = provide some useful information. One Tompkins Co. trial of 22 varieties included 3 = LHR ones. One LHR variety was right at the three-year yield total, another was = 3% under this, and a third about 7% less than the trial average. The top non-L= HR variety yielded 5% over the trial average. A few comments (you knew this was coming):

1. = There’s often not much difference between the top-yielding variety and the trial average: In the Tompkins Co. trial, 0.26 tons/A per y= ear. You certainly wouldn’t be able to see this kind of yield difference, perhaps one reason why most farmers who now plant only LHR varieties are pleased with their decision.

2. = Further confusing the issue, the top-yielding variety in one trial isn’t necessarily tops in another trial, or anywhere near it. For instance, the variety that topped the Tompkins Co. trial was just average in the Cornell trial planted here at Miner Institute.

3. = In some cases, a non-resistant variety can yield right up with a LHR one even with quite a bit of leafhopper damage. In two Cornell leafhopper variety trials, the check variety 5312 yielded as well as a couple of the L= HR varieties in spite of a lot more “hopper burn”. However, there wasn’t any forage quality data.

4. = LHR varieties continue to improve, both in yield and in percentage = of plants that are resistant (once about 30%, now up to 75% or more). In a 2006 Iowa trial, one new LHR variety yielded well compared to non-resistant varieties even when they all were sprayed for leafhoppers, and in an adjoin= ing “no-spray” trial it beat all the non-resistant varieties. =

5. = About 85% of alfalfa in the Northeast is seeded with grass, but as = of this writing there’s no insecticide registered for leafhopper control= in alfalfa-grass stands—just for pure alfalfa.

The Crops Dude is sticking to his guns on this one. Pick one of the best LHR varieties (often a seed company’s newest one) and it should perform acceptably well when leafhoppers aren’t around, and extremely well wh= en they are. The less likely you are to apply an insecticide if leafhop= pers are a problem, the more important it is to plant a LHR variety.=

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com

PESTICIDE CERTIFICATION CREDITS

There won’t be pesticide recertification credits at the 2007 Corn Congress because we’re focusing on fertilizer programs, distillers grains, and potential cost-shaving measures during these tough financial times for dairy farms. However, we’ll be holding a “Pest Control in Field Crops” meeting on Wed., Feb. 21, 1:00 to 3:00 pm, Miner Institute Auditorium. No charge, no pre-registration, just show up. We’ll have three custom spray applicators there to discuss what’s hot and what’s not in the field. NYDEC has approved this meeting for 2.0 applicator credits, and we can file for Vermont credits for any Vermonter needing them.

Topics included :

· Leafhopper-resistant alfalfa varieties: To buy or not to buy?<= /o:p>

· Weed control in alfalfa seedings: Poten= tial of Roundup Ready alfalfa in the Champlain Valley. =

· Weed control in corn: What herbicides are working best, current pes= ky weed problems.

VET’S CORNER:= Subacute Ruminal Acidosis

In late fall several foot trimmers reported higher incidence of sole abscesses= and farmers complained of too many hoof blocks used during routine hoof trimmin= g. In the summer, heat stress causes cows to slug feed and suffer rumen pH drop below 5.5; consequently, a few months later lami= nitis lesions appear. This winter, high incidence of sole abscesses persists past= the time associated with summer heat stress, so other factors that contribute t= o Subacute Ruminal Acidosis= should be investigated.

If the herd milk fat test is normal, can this report be disregarded? Probably not. While it’s true that an acidotic cow will have depressed butterfat, a herd suffering chronic acidosis can test normal due to sufficient normal and cur= ed animals diluting out the effect of affected animals. Herd managers should l= ook for further symptoms such as:

· Lameness rate >15%

· Paintbrush hemorrhages on the sole during routine foot trimming of “normal” cows.

· Unexplained abscesses in the liver and kidney t= hat show up on post-mortem exam= s.

· Poor response to conventional treatments for m= etritis, mastitis, and a variety of health problems.

· Sudden deaths from hemoptysis (unexplai= ned bleed out in the abdominal cavity), annual herd culling rate >45% for po= orly defined reasons.

This winter, several factors are combining to promote acidosis. Inconsistent wea= ther during harvest has caused a wide range of moisture content of forages. A co= mmon practice is to adjust forage weight if the cows don’t clean up the bu= nk. If the change is due to anything other than the forage dry matter, the adjustment reduces forage and the feed becomes fiber deficient and can lead= to acidosis. Weekly forage moisture monitoring is part of TMR management.

Many farmers are forced to feed low quality forages his winter, making up for production with heavier concentrate feeding. Any process that makes more st= arch available in the rumen can overwhelm the lactate utilizing bacteria and lea= d to lower rumen pH. In a fiber-challenged ration, the addition of more than 2 l= bs of supplemental fat reduces protozoa, which naturally stabilize rumen fermentation.

Lastly, in our top genetics herds that have the capability of consuming greater quantities of dry matter, the total intake of rumen fermentable carbohydrate will be too high even though ration specs are within acceptable safe ranges= .

In this example with safe NF= C%, the high producing cow that can consume 12 more pounds of dry matter is tak= ing in 4.4 more pounds of rumen fermentable carbohydrate. This illustrates that increased awareness of rumen acidosis should accompany genetic progress and feed management improvement.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

hugamoo@comcast.net

FARM NOTES

· Sign of the times: DuPont has cut back on its pesticide and nutriti= on enterprises, investing the approximately $100 million in savings in its biotechnology business—controlling insects with genes, not pesticide jugs.

· We knew an old farmer who always voted “no” on everything—school budgets, state bonding issues—you name it. He said that we already had too many laws. He’d probably be happy with t= he current Congress: With a lame duck President and close margins in the House= and Senate, Washington insiders predict that no major legislation will be enact= ed in the next year or two except for immigration reform and a new Farm Bil= l.

· Are we running out of phosphorus? Certainly not on dairy farms, whe= re high soil P levels are often a concern. However, scientists say that world phosphorus supplies may be completely mined out within about 25 years. With= the current P levels on many dairy farms, this means that low soil test P might become a problem in, oh, say 50 or 100 years.

· One of the many things we don’t understand is why the Departm= ent of the Interior is responsible for everything outside.

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

Ethanol Intoxication?<= /o:p>

I just returned from an interesting meeting called = the Boston Tea Party, an annual get-together of the Northeast Ag and Feed Allia= nce that includes the feed industry and other closely allied businesses. This g= roup always manages to invite some thought-provoking speakers and this year was = no exception; the topics ranged from ethanol to economic trends in agriculture, and how special interest groups are insidiously eroding public confidence in modern agricultural practices and products. The topics on ethanol production especially caught my attention since I’ll be speaking on a similar subject later this month at our annual Corn Congress.

Dennis Gartman, who writes a widely published daily commentary on global markets, energy, and grain trading, piqued my attention when he stated that ethanol production as a fuel is nonsense. He asserted t= hat it is energetically unfavorable to produce ethanol from starch (arguably tr= ue) and that ethanol corrodes current pipeline systems and automobiles. A later speaker pointed out that pipelines and autos of the future would no doubt alleviate this problem. Gartman stated that the= U.S. is already essentially free from middle-eastern oil, unlike Europe and Japan. That was actually news= to me, but he listed the top-five sources of oil that flows into the U.S. as Ca= nada, Venezuela, Nigeria, M= exico, and finally Saudi Ar= abia. His point was that the U.S. really is not as dependent on oil from the middle-east as politicians always imply, and that the = U.S. should not be aggressively pursuing ethanol as a means of reducing our dependence on oil. He summed up his talk by saying that the “most stupid” ideas from business or government always seem to garner the m= ost enthusiastic support.

Nathan Rudgers, former Commissioner of Agriculture in = New York State, followed with his perceptio= ns on ethanol and commodity prices. His starting premise was: Maybe ethanol is a = dumb idea, but the reality is that it is here in a BIG way and we had better understand how the blooming ethanol industry will impact commodity prices a= nd livestock feeding. He noted that a trend in motion tends to stay in motion – and ethanol production is a really big trend that will likely stay = in motion for quite a long while. Rudgers commente= d on the two ethanol plants in western New York (near Shelby and Fulton) that will be running in time for this year’s corn crop, and the likelihood of two more plants to be built near Romulus and Caledonia. Corn will flow into these plants at the rate of one unit-train (100 cars) e= very 3 to 6 days. The economic impact of the plants, both in New York and nationwide, will be substantial. And here in the North Country we cannot forget about the ethanol plants just north of the border.=

The current reality, according to Rudgers, is that = there is a 1.8 billion gallon ethanol marketplace between P= ittsburgh and Boston. So, the northeast sits right in the middle of whatever scenarios eventually play out regarding corn prices and ethanol production and utilization.

To me, the most important take-home message was this: We in agriculture need to start monitoring crude oil price trends just as carefully as we currently monitor other trends within agriculture. With the advent of a large ethanol industry, energy will drive commodity prices (such as corn) more directly than will livestock utilization! How long this situation will exist = is clearly up for debate, but we cannot afford to ignore it.=

—Rick Grant

grant@whminer.com

WEE ONE WISDOM

Art Linkletter said that “Kids say the darned= est things”, but sometimes the little urchins make a lot of sense. To wit= :

· Even if you’ve been fishing for three hours and haven’t caught a single thing except poison ivy and a sunburn, you’re still better off than the worm.

· Picking your nose when no one else is looking is still picking your nose.

· If your dog doesn’t like someone, you probably shouldn’t either.

· There is no good reason why clothes have to match.

· If you stand on tiptoe to be measured this year, you’ll have = to stand on tiptoe the rest of your life.

· Even Popeye didn’t eat his spinach until he absolutely had to= .

· If you want a kitten, start out asking for a horse.

The Feeder&= #8217;s Job: The Five Priorities and the First Priority

Last month we determined that the feeder’s job is important and this month, we’ll discuss the five priorities of this important job of managing a high-quality feeding program. While at Michigan State, Dr. Herb Bucholtz and I developed The Feeder Tr= aining School, a course that focused not on the science of nutrition but on the sk= ills and practices necessary to take the rations balanced by the nutritionist and deliver them accurately to the cows. As we rode back and forth to Feeder Schools around Michigan, we distilled the feeder’s job into five priorities that can be prioritized by importance:

· First: Mix correctly

· Second: Maintain the mix sheet

· Third: Observe and plan

· Fourth: Deliver feed properly

· Fifth: Measure dry ma= tter intake

The rank of these skills is important, as each skill is required by the next. T= he ability to mix correctly allows each of the following skills to produce meaningful results and measurement of dry matter intake has its greatest va= lue if the ration is assembled and delivered with accuracy. If a feeder has all these skills, conclusions about nutritional program can be made with confid= ence and changes can be made with purpose and focus.

The first skill is the ability to mix correctly, putting the right amount of the right ingredient into the ration. If the feeder can’t accomplish this, the value of balanced rations and measured dry matter intake is diminished. Mixing correctly is simple in theory. The feeder needs to identify the corr= ect feed from the choices available, select only edible feed from inventory, and incorporate the clean, correct feed into the ration at the correct amount. = In practice, mixing correctly is more complicated. Identifying the correct feed requires a standardized system of labeling feeds that everyone knows and everyone uses. The feeder should set these labels and communicate them to t= he nutritionist so that rations come back to the dairy with accurate, understandable labels.

The feeder must be able spot and separate out rotten or compromised feeds, only incorporating feed of good quality into rations. Ralph LaBombard, our Feed Technicia= n, uses smell as much as sight from the cab of the loader on these dark, windy mornings. For example, part of the research done here involves sampling sil= age bags after fermentation. The sampling requires making a hole in the bag and, although the plastic is patched, these sample sites inevitably develop a hemisphere of rotten silage. Getting out of the warm cab and forking rotten silage by headlight on these January mornings is not fun, but the removal of these few hundred pounds of rotten material keeps it out the ration and int= ake of the lactating cows is maintained at the level necessary to support our production.

Adding the right amount of the feed is the hardest subskill of mixing correctly. Practice is required to operate the feeder’s equipment without “thinking” and to learn the flow characterist= ics of each feed. Some people have more natural talent than others for adding t= he right amount. One loader operator we give a wide safety margin for fear of losing fingers and toes while another we’d trust to scratch an itch on the tip of our nose. Adding the right amount with a coffee can, scoop shove= l or three-yard loader is all about control. With practice, feeders gain control= of equipment operation and feed flow and with that control comes accuracy, the most important ingredient in our high-quality feeding program.

An exact weight for each ration ingredient appears on each mix sheet. An exact number is nice in theory but hard to attain in reality without more time an= d effort than feeders can afford to give. If we try to add an exact amount, our human tendencies will lead us overfill the ingredient. We fill and get close, add= a little more, a little more, just a little more and then, aw shucks, we are over. Feeder should be shooting for a narrow window around the exact amount= of the ingredient, to fill until they reach a weight within in the window and stop.

Miner Institute’s high ration is a 4 to 5 ton batch (depending on dry matte= rs of the feeds) with individual ingredients ranging from 50 to 2500 lbs. Ralph consistently makes a window around the exact weight of ±25 lbs for forages and ±5 lbs for grains. This accuracy is confirmed with the download of the truck scale weights at the end of the shift. This ±25 lbs on forages is less than normal daily variation of dry matters in the forages (±1% DM on 1200 lbs as fed would change our ration ingredient amount by 30 to 35 lbs). In a sense, his goal is to be more accurate than t= he forages. What window around the exact weight should your farm use? The answ= er is specific to each dairy, depending on the skills of the feeder, the size = of the batch, and amount of the ingredient. The feeder and nutritionist should collaborate to determine the windows for your dairy.

Mixing correctly, the first priority, allows accuracy when assembling a ration. The day-to-day consistency required for the health and productivity of our lactating cows is achieved through within-day and across-day accuracy. Next month we’ll discuss maintaining the mix sheet as part of building a high-quality feeding program.

—Steve Mooney

mooney@whminer.com

Degree of S= tarch Access Assay

Scenario: You see a fair amount of apparently undigested corn kernels in the manure. = Upon wet sieving a random sampling of the high group cows manure, you see a few large kernel fragments, most but not all of the starch has been digested fr= om what you first thought were intact corn kernels. You also see a fair amount= of tiny, shiny, crystalline shards of undigested dry cornmeal. High group MUNs are running about 15-16 mg/= dL, where in the past they had been 10-12 mg/dL. An= d your vet keeps telling you how rough and granular the manure is while he’s palpating during herd health check. The diet on paper indicates the ration = to be 24% starch DM basis. What are your thoughts?

So, we think we have some undigested starch from both silage and the dry cornme= al appearing in the manure, but how much? We’re also unsure of whether t= he starch being digested is doing so in the rumen or hindgut as noted by the increased MUNs indicating a ruminal protein/nitrogen:starch imbalance. We wonder if the digestibility of the corn starch in the silage = and cornmeal is as good as we thought. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a lab = test to more accurately predict the digestibility of starch from both corn silage and dry ground or high moisture corn?

There have been attempts at assessing starch digestibility, including processing adjustment factors (NRC 2001), kernel processing score of CS (KPS or the CS= PS index) and in situ and in vitro starch digestibility assays. Unfortunately, none of these methods encompasses all of the parameters that affect starch digestibility of dry and fermented corn. The factors most aff= ecting starch digestibility include: particle size (fine vs. coarse), moisture content, grain processing (steam flaked vs. dry rolled), storage method (dry vs. high moisture), corn endosperm type (floury vs. flint) and corn silage maturity at harvest, chop length, extent of kernel processing and length of time as fermented silage. Quantifying how both physical and chemical proper= ties of the starch affect digestibility in a single test has been difficult.

I recently had the pleasure of hearing two starch gurus speak on this topic. = University of Wisconsin Extension Dairy Scientists Pat Hoffman (Marshfield Ag. Research Sta.) and Randy Shaver (UW-Madison) dis= cussed a new method of starch analysis called “Degree of Starch Access” (DSA). This method uses an as-fed sample, un-ground, just as the cow sees it and treats the sample with starch degrading enzymes. The amount of starch digested from the sample is then divided by the total amount of starch in t= he sample to calculate a percentage of starch digested. The method appears to = be fairly robust, sensitive to particle size (R²=3D0.99), and moder= ately sensitive to moisture content (R²=3D0.76) and endosperm type (R<= sup>2=3D0.59), the three primary factors influencing starch digestibility of corn grain. T= his procedure doesn’t directly determine starch digestibility or rate of starch digestion but does provide an index of the accessibility of starch in various feeds to digestion. This allows for tracking the potential digestibility of starch from silage or grain between feeds and over time. T= he higher the value of starch digestibility as determined by DSA the higher the total tract digestibility of that starch.&= nbsp; For instance, the range of starch digestibility values for cornmeal could vary between 79-98% and for corn silage between 80-94%. I think we wi= ll be sending our corn silage off for testing. Ask your forage lab whether they run this test, if they do not, Dairyland Lab (www.dairylandla= bs.com) in Wisconsin does. Also, to read more ab= out this assay, the website is: (www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/StarchDig-FOF.htm).

—Kurt Cotanch

cotanch@whminer.com

SOME BRIEF THOUGHTS ON CORN SILAGE

In this our 25^th year of publishing the Farm Report, each month we’re reprinting an article from the corresponding month in 1982. The following article is by Dr. Harry Randy, former President of Miner Institut= e.

There are a lot of statistics that can be used to describe corn silage. An agrono= mist will talk to you about plant populations, soil pH, and fertility, the numbe= r of rows of kernels on the ear and the diameter of the cob. A nutritionist will tell you that “normal” corn silage is 30% dry matter, 8.4% crude protein, .70 Mcals Net Energy “milk”= ;, etc. An engineer will tell you that a 24 x 60 silo will hold 760 tons of 30% dry matter corn silage.

This fall when we harvested the corn silage at the Miner Institute we took the opportunity to look at our corn silage in a little different way. We went o= ut and harvested ten random plants<= /span> from each field.

Field A was one of the best corn fields we ever cut at Miner Institute. We ended = up harvesting 18.5 tons of 39% dry matter silage per acre. On a dry matter bas= is 55% of the corn silage was the shelled corn. The plants each gave us 0.33 pounds of grain. With a plant population of about 24,000 plants per acre, t= his is the equivalent of 4 tons of dry shelled corn per acre.

Field B was a rocky, no-till, late-planted field that gave us only 10 tons of 46.= 5 % dry matter corn silage. Once again the grain made up over half of the crop, 51.8% to be exact. The grain once again equaled 0.33 pounds per plant, but = the plant population was cut in half, thus the lower yields. Following is a sum= mary of some of the other statistics we observed.

On the surface some of these figures may seem similar. They can have some significance in planning your feeding program. The 7% difference in dry mat= ter alone is equal to a difference of 4 pounds of “as fed” corn sil= age if you are planning to feed half of your cows’ forage dry matter from corn silage. In a 100-cow herd that difference is better than 70 tons of co= rn silage over the course of a year, or another way of expressing this differe= nce would be 1200 bales of hay.

As you look at the data in the table, the main impression you should get is th= at better than half of the dry matter in corn silage isn’t forage at all= but shelled corn and the remaining forage you are depending on is a dried up, overly mature grass—corn stalks and cobs. Keeping this in mind might = go a long way to explaining problems with low test and ketosis, to name a couple= .

So the next time you think of corn silage, think in terms of a late cut grass = and shelled corn. Watch your fiber levels closely to prevent test problems and = keep your forage-to-concentrate ratio in the neighborhood of 50%.

GROUNDHOG DAY

On February 2^nd Punxsutawney Phil popped out of his hole in Pennsylvania and didn’t see his shadow, supposedly indicating an early spring. But not= so fast: Another groundhog, “Woody” in Howell, Michigan, may have a better track record, having correctly predicted when spring would arrive for six of the past eight years. Reportedly, the Michigan gopher is more accurate becau= se it’s a female, and according to Woody’s spokesman, that’s because female groundhogs have more responsibility. He notes, “What do male groundhogs do: They mate…and then they get hit by cars.” <= o:p>

What we find interesting if a bit disconcerting is that this information comes f= rom Richard Grant, listed as Executive Director of the Howell Conference and Nature Center. Now, it may well be that this is not the same person as our own beloved Rick Grant. However, we present the following = facts and you can come to your own conclusions:

The press release from Richard Grant was issued on January 29, 2007. On Sunday, January 28^th, Rick flew to the Midwest, returning the night of the 29^th. He said he was in Chicago, but do we really know that?

Punxsutawney Phil came out of his Pennsylv= ania burrow on February 2^nd. On that very day Rick was in Pennsylvania, re= turning home that night. We don’t know why he was down there, but we hope he wasn’t to eliminate the competition. We have heard of no Phil sightin= gs since Feb. 2^nd.

Use of Anim= al Vocalization to Detect Estrus

Detection of estrus (heat) in dairy cattle is a critical component of the reproductive management program. Several methods exist to aid in the detection of estrus, such as visual observation by humans, pressure-sensitive mount detectors, t= ail chalk/paint, detector animals, estrus synchronization programs, and activity measurements (pedometers). Unfortunately, failure to detect cattle in estrus continues to be a common cause of reproductive management problems in many herds. Thus, alternative methods of detecting estrus that may be more relia= ble, automated, and efficient continue to be investigated.

According to German researchers in the January issue of the Journal of Dairy Scien= ce, in some mammals such as monkeys and elephants there is evidence that vocalizations of females contain information on reproductive status. The researchers speculated that vocalizations of cattle contain information abo= ut their reproductive status. To test the theory, the researchers investigated vocalizations, measured blood progesterone, and observed sexual behavior before, during, and after estrus in tethered heifers.

The number of vocalizations in a 24-hour period in heifers increased ~59% from = one day before estrus to estrus and decreased ~79% after estrus. The increased = rate of vocalization coincided with estrus as observed visually by the herd personnel and the decrease in blood progesterone. Interestingly, two types = of vocalizations were identified: a harmonic structure termed the “moo” call and a noisy (disharmonic) structure termed the “bellow” call. There was a greater proportion of bellow calls compared to moo calls at estrus.

The researchers are optimistic about the on-farm application of their findings = as they have filed a patent for an automated technique for monitoring the rate= of vocalizations. However, the researches noted that it was unknown whether the calls were caused by social stress since heifers were tethered ~49 feet away from each other or a vocal expression associated with estrus aimed to attra= ct a bull. This is a big question mark! A study should be done with cows in loose housing, such as a free-stall barn, to confirm the results of the heifer study. Continued development = of the technique could provide dairy farmers with data that could be used solely o= r in combination with other automated systems for detection of estrus and could increase estrus detection rates in heifers and cows.

—Heather Dann

dann@whminer.com

SEEDING INTO ESTABLISHED ALFALFA STANDS

The increased availability of Roundup Ready alfalfa for 2007 raises the followi= ng question: Can you seed grass into recently established alfalfa? Of course you can. However, at this time what kind of stand you’ll get is mostly unknown= but based on previous experience I’m not optimistic. Expecting a tiny gra= ss seedling to compete with an established alfalfa plant is asking a lot of the seedling. However, of one thing I am absolutely certain: Some farmer will t= ry this, and because of a prolonged spell of wet weather afterward, thus reduc= ing the competition for water, he’ll have at least modest success. I̵= 7;m also pretty sure that if he’s read this article he’ll contact m= e to tell me just how wrong I was. Wouldn’t be the first time…<= /o:p>

Many years ago Bob Debyah, Franklin County (NY) Alli= s Chalmers dealer, dairy farmer, and all-around good guy bought a Moore UniDrill, a notill drill = that did a nice job where Roundup had been used to kill the sod. Flushed with his re= cent success he decided to drill some alfalfa into an old timothy stand right af= ter first cut, no Roundup or anything. I told him he’d be wasting his time and money, but Bob being Bob, he did it anyway. When the alfalfa seed germinated and started growing, Bob was on the phone ordering me out there = to see. I came, I saw, I said: “Let’s wait awhile.” Then sum= mer hit along with a dry spell, and the alfalfa seedlings just seemed to evapor= ate. I don’t think 1% of those alfalfa seedlings survived. (Bob didn’= ;t call to tell me this. He didn’t have to. I knew where he lived.)=

Following Roundup application maybe the Roundup Ready alfalfa isn’t well enough established to provide lethal competition to grass seedlings. Only time and experience will tell. In the meantime I’d sure avoid reed canarygrass in this situation since it’s slow t= o get started; better choices would be tall fescue or timothy.<= /p>

—E.T.<= /span>

WHO READS THE FARM REPORT?

We occasionally are asked what the readership is of the Farm Report. We usually mention the number of names on our email and snail mail mailing lis= ts, but in reality we have no idea of how many people read our newsletter, or h= ow they got it. For instance:

In our December issue I reported on two ESPN announcers both agreeing that the field near Penn State’s football stadium was= wheat when it wasn’t wheat at all, but corn. I commented that one of the announcers was from Californi= a, “which explains a lot”. Steve Taylor, New Hampshire Commissione= r of Ag and Markets, picked up the story from our newsletter (as he often does) and included it in his Weekly Market Bulle= tin (circulation about 7500).

Among the 7500 getting the WMB is the Institute of Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky, which reprinted the article on its website “The Rural Blog”. Obviousl= y it reached a lot further west than Kentucky, because along with the article was an email from a reporter at the Fresno Bee, a topnotch Californi= a daily newspaper. She took offense to my comment about the ESPN announcer fr= om California, writ= ing: “I would hate to think ideas about all Californians being out of touch with farming are being spread.”

So as you can see, we really don’t know who reads what portion of the Farm Report, where they live, or by what means they receive it. Other than t= hat we have the situation well under control.

—E.T.

GROW GRAIN CORN IN 2007?

If spring turns a young man’s fancy to love, there’s something abo= ut $4.00 per bushel that turns many a farmer’s fancy to raising corn for grain. Corn grain acreage—in most cases high moisture corn—has decreased on many farms in recent years as increased in herd size resulted<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> in the need for more corn silage. However, we certainly should see some increase in regional corn grain acrea= ge in 2007.

The good news is that there are more high-yielding, early-maturity hybrids on t= he market than ever before. I’m especially impressed at the grain yields= Cornell University is getting in its trial= s with 80-day RM hybrids. You’ll want to plant hybrids that will reliably= mature for grain. (This means most years, not just in an unusually w= arm growing season.) I recently tried to help a farmer who bought HMC harvested= in December, some of it far too dry to ensile properly. Unless you plant hybri= ds that will mature for grain well before winter arrives, you could be in the = same boat as this poor fellow. (“Continuous corn” refers to replanti= ng corn in the same field, not keeping it there from one spring to the next.)<= o:p>

Before you plant corn for grain, be sure you have someone lined up to harvest it…less of a problem in some areas than others. What if a cool growing season or an early frost leaves your corn fresh out of growing season but n= ot yet at grain harvest stage? All is not lost: Because 2006 was such a rotten year for corn, there will probably be farmers willing to buy the crop for silage. Plus, if we have another lousy corn year, you might need to harvest= the extra corn acreage for your own farm. Therefore, this should be a relatively low-risk year to plant corn for grain: Grain prices will almost certainly be high this coming fall, and next September you can look at grain and silage markets (plus your own crop inventory) and decide what you want to do with = your corn.

—E.T.

SPIT HAPPENS

Oh, dear, the anti-rBST lobby has worked itself int= o an absolute lather over a naturally-occurring hormone called “insulin-li= ke growth factor-1”, more commonly known as IGF-1. They’re worried that the use of rBST results in increased level= s of IGF-1 in cow’s milk and they think that IGF-1 is bad for you. It doesn’t and it isn’t, but this is about perception, not reality. (Speaking of reality, human breast milk contains more IGF-1 than does cows’ milk.) Our saliva contains lots of IGF-1; Trent Loos, a popular farm writer and friend of the dairy industry, notes that you̵= 7;d have to consume 100 quarts of milk from rBST-tr= eated cows (or, for that matter, from cows not treated with rBST) every day to get as much IGF-1 as is already pr= esent in your saliva. Taking this to its (il)logical conclusion, the most effective solution to li= miting your IGF intake: Spit, don’t swallow. (Something the users of smokeless tobacco have been doing for years, much to the disgust of non-use= rs.) This won’t make any difference, of course, since our digestive tract breaks IGF-1 down into basic amino acids, but it would be at least as effec= tive as limiting your milk consumption or switching to rBST= -free milk.

—E.T.

CLOSING COMMENTS

If a man says somethi= ng in the woods and there are no women there, is he still wrong?