MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

SOIL TESTING RELIABILITY

Reprinted from the March 1982 Farm Report as part of our 25^{th
anniversary celebration.}

Some figures on your soil analysis report mean a lot more than other= s. While the chemical analysis of a sample isn’t difficult, the interpretation of the results often is. It’s not important to know how many pounds of an element such as zinc or copper or potassium is in the soi= l. What is important is how much of this is available to your plants. A soil analysis doesn’t measure availability; it uses an extractant that results in an estimate of the amount = of nutrients available to plant roots. In some cases the estimates are very reliable, but sometimes the “estimate” is more of a guesstimate= .

Todd Peck, a Unive= rsity of Illinois soil scientist, has calculated the reliability of soil analyses for various plant nutrients. For soils with a pH of less than 7.5 (in other words, for 99% of= our soils) here are his reliability ratings:

In most cases, once you get past the “big three”—p= H, P and K—you’re on thin ice if you rely on soil analysis alone to = tell you whether or not you should use a particular nutrient. That’s why we recommend that for minor nutrients such as zinc you should use a combinatio= n of soil and tissue analysis.

—Ev Thomas

Corn Plots 2006: = The = Effect of Copper from Dairy Manure on Corn and Soil Copper <= /b>

In the summer of 2006 corn plots were planted at Miner Institute to examine the effect of copper (Cu) from copper sulfate in dairy manure on co= rn and soil Cu levels. The plots were 4 rows wide and 25 feet long. Treatments were control, medium (8.1 lbs/acre Cu), and high (16.3 lbs/acre Cu). The 3 treatments were tested on two corn hybrids, Pioneer 39D81, 84 RM and Pioneer 36M28, 103 RM. Each corn hybrid at each Cu level was replicated 4 times for= a total of 24 plots.

The 84 RM hybrid was harvested on September 6 and the 103 RM hybrid = on September 12^th. At harvest a soil sample was taken for analysis.= The weight and number of plants harvested was recorded and plants were chopped = with a wood chipper and dried for NDF, ADF, lignin and mineral analysis

There were no hybrid by treatment interactions; both hybrids respond= ed the same to the copper treatments. There was no effect of copper treatment level on plant number per plot, total harvest weight, number of plants harv= ested, or the weight per plant harvested. Long-term studies with the application of high Cu swine manure have consistently reported no effect of the level of Cu application on corn grain or silage yields Also, there was no effect of Cu treatment level on harvest DM, NDF, ADF, lignin, or CP. <= /p>

The Cu concentrations of the plants were 3.2, 2.8, and 3.4 ppm for the control, medium, and high treatments, respectively. The Cu treatment level did not increase the Cu concentration = of the plants and was with in the normal range of 0 to 50 ppm. Studies with long-term application of high Cu swine manure have consistently reported leaf or grain Cu concentrations that were not outside expected val= ues. When compared to the Cu concentrations observed in the grass study, the corn plant Cu concentrations were much lower than the grass shoot Cu concentrati= ons (29.8, 30.9, and 39.0 ppm for the control, low,= and high treatments, respectively).

Higher applications of Cu resulted in higher total Cu concentration = in the soil (11.0, 13.2, and 18.2 ppm for the cont= rol, medium, and high applications, respectively). As expected, total soil Cu concentration increased linearly as the Cu treatment level increased. The difference in the Cu applied per acre and the difference of the soil test l= bs/acre is approximately the removal of Cu in the shoots of the corn (3.7 and 1.9 lbs/acre removal from the soil for the medium and high Cu treatments, respectively). This indicates that the only loss of Cu from the soil is from plant removal, and with one application at these rates there is no leaching= of Cu.

From the results recorded in the summer of 2006 it appears that one = year of application of at least 16 lbs/acre of Cu from dairy manure is not a con= cern for yield or plant Cu concentration. When soil was analyzed for total Cu concentration the total Cu increased as Cu application rate increased and t= he only loss appears to be from plant removal.

Comparing the results of the work done in the greenhouse with grass = and the corn plots it appears that a single high application of Cu has a greater effect on grass growth and yield than corn growth and yield. However, conti= nued research is needed on the effect of multiple high application rates on corn since a single application of dairy manure to corn land is not a common practice. We will be repeating this project this summer with the same application rates on the same plots and the same hybrids.=

Finally, the method of soil analysis for Cu needs further examinatio= n. Differences in soil Cu concentration were observed in the corn soil samples when total mineral digestion was performed, but the typical test for soil is an extrac= tion on available minerals that may not be showing the any increases in soil Cu concentrations.

—S.A. Flis, flis@whmine= r.com

FERTILIZING FIELD AREAS NEAR STREAMS AND DITCHES
CAFO regulations prohibit manure applications within certain “setback” distances of streams and drainage ditches. In NY the setbacks are either 100 or 50 feet, depending on whether the watercourse is permanent (a lake, pond or stream) or a drainage ditch that only runs part = of the time. On farms with lots of ditches or streams and modest field size (b= oth characteristic of Institute cropland) these setbacks can amount to a lot of land—in our case, 15 of the 585 acres we cropped in 2006. =

Although we doubt that many farmers have seen the effects yet, not b= eing able to manure this setback acreage will eventually take its toll in lower = soil fertility. Indeed, in many cases the effects will be years away: High ferti= lity fields probably got that way from edge-to-edge manure applications prior to CAFO, while low fertility fields should have been getting liberal rates of starter fertilizer all along. However, to prevent problems down the road, during the years the field is in corn production don’t skimp on start= er fertilizer in these setback areas. It’s a good way to maintain fertil= ity without threatening water quality, since the fertilizer is placed below the soil surface and is therefore not subject to runoff losses. It will also be= come increasingly important to soil sample these setback areas separately since = they may become much lower in fertility than the portion of the field that can b= e manured. We’re already doing this on our farm although so far there’s not much difference in soil test levels.

TILE DRAINAGE

Recently there’s been increasing concern by environmental authorities about tile drainage. (Subsurface dra= inage isn’t actually done using clay tiles anymore, but with corrugated pla= stic tubing.) Their issue is the nutrient losses from subsurface drains when nutrients (especially slurry manure) are applied during dry conditions when clay loams may have cracks running much of the way down to the tile lines. I’m still a big fan of subsurface drainage, for both nutrient managem= ent and yield reasons.

First, nutrient management: I understand the environmental concerns since in worst-case scenarios we do lose manure nutrients through tile line= s. (Larry Geohring, Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> agricultural engineer, opined recently that 90% of the problem is in only 1= 0% of the fields.) However, nutrient-laden water that doesn’t run thr= ough the soil will run off it. This is an argument I’ve been making= in favor of tile drainage for most of the past forty years. Which do you think contains the most nutrients, water running off a saturated, recently-manured field, or the water coming from the end of a = tile drain? There’s not nearly as much data on this as you’d think there’d be but you know where my sentiments (and sediments) lie.

Then there’s the matter of yield: You’d have a hard time finding anyone with a subsurface drainage system who isn’t a b= ig fan of the practice. There’s a farmer in South= ern Quebec who crops about 3000 acres with fields tiled at 50-foot spacing. This past fall while harvesting grain corn with his 8-row combine equipped with a yield monitor, here’s what he found:

·         8 rows directly over the tile li= ne: 175 bushels/acre

·         8 rows next to that: 140 bushels/acre

·         8 rows midway between the tile lines: 100-110 bushels/acre

This farmer now plans on running another line of drain tubing midway between the existing lines, resulting in a 25-fo= ot spacing. Based on his yield monitor results and the price of corn, he calculates that he’ll pay for the additional drainage in two years= .

There are reasonable alternatives to either banning tile drainage (simply unthinkable) or severely restricting its use. Most of the problem i= s in clay loam soils since sandy loams and silt loams don’t often crack. On clay loams, perhaps we should avoid slurry manure application during unusua= lly dry periods when there are obvious cracks in the soil. In the fall after co= rn harvest, if there are still visible cracks (not a common occurrence), perha= ps a light tillage to seal them up prior to manure application. Alfalfa-grass vs. clear alfalfa? No data on this that I’m aware of, but I ex= pect that nutrient losses—both surface and subsurface—are less with alfalfa-grass because of the dense, fibrous root system of grasses.

We simply can’t farm the clay loams in the Champlain Valley profitably (or in some cases farm them at all) without subsurface drainage. Many farmers (especially in V= ermont) have been trying to do so, with often stunning lack of success. The alterna= tive is not to restrict subsurface drainage, but to take reasonable steps to red= uce nutrient losses when and if they occur.

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

CRITTER NEWS

·         A hunter shot a duck and brought= it home, depositing it in the fridge for later processing. Obviously much late= r, because after two days the hunter’s wife opened the door to the refrigerator and the duck picked up its head and looked at her. After what = must have been a spirited discussion the couple brought the duck, now named “Perky”, to the local vet for surgery on its wing. During surge= ry Perky went into cardiac arrest and was saved by several minutes of CPR by t= he vet. Perky is now recovering. Cats are reputed to have nine lives. A duck—at least Perky—obviously has at least three.

·         Readers may recall a Farm Rep= ort item about “pet pillows”. Jeanette Hall, a Nevada taxidermist described in a news= story as “glamorous”, would turn the skins of recently-deceased pets = into cushions “as an alternative way to remember your pet”. She rece= ived hundreds of orders and reported business to be booming, noting that “= Most people were happy that Fluffy was still on the couch”. We regret to r= eport that this service is currently unavailable because Ms. Hall went into hiding after receiving hundreds of threats from animal rights activists from all o= ver the world. Pet pillows weren’t her first foray into stuffing the unus= ual. Among her specialties: Snakes for $16 per foot and deer testicles mounted o= n a plaque, a bargain at $125. (We assume this price is per pair.) Ms. Hall is still a Miss, with the following golden rule: Never pick up road-kill on the first date. Speaking of road-kill: People thinking of causing Ms. Hall harm might want to know that she hunts wild hogs with a Remington 7400 and is a crack shot.

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

Corn Futures and the Future of Corn-Based Ethanol

At the risk of beating the proverbial dead horse, this month I want = to address several more topics related to ethanol production trends, corn pric= es, and potential impacts on livestock agriculture. I spent considerable time t= he past few weeks reviewing what experts are projecting for corn production, ethanol production, and feed prices as I prepared for Corn Congress. A rece= nt issue of Doane’s Agricultural Report (2/2= 7/07) asked the bottom-line question of economist John Lawrence at Kansas State University: “Long-term, will there be enough corn to go around?” His answer: “Yes, there will be enough corn, but markets aren’t kind, gentl= e, or smooth.” He also noted that the ethanol industry is growing “faster than economists can make graphs.” These two statements capture the frenzied state of corn-based ethanol remarkably well.

Let’s start with what we know:

1.&n= bsp;       Ethanol plants are proliferating= . By 12/31/06 there were 110 ethanol plants in the US with= 73 under construction, and 200 more proposed.

2.&n= bsp;       Corn-based ethanol production= is expected to grow by at least 1 billion gallons/year to reach 8 to 10 billion gallons by 2008-09. A leading research grou= p in biofuel modeling, the Iowa State University Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), projects that by 2015 corn-based ethanol will reach 31.5 billion gallons/year and constitute about 20% of projected US fuel consumption.

3.&n= bsp;       There will be less corn for livestock. Depend= ing on assumptions, experts predict that between 20 and 50% of the US corn= crop will be used for ethanol production by 2008. The CARD group predicts that c= ost of production for hogs will increase by 31% and feed costs for poultry will rise over 18%. Dairy and beef cattle producers ought to feel less pain on t= he feed-cost side because they can feed distillers grains (DG) to offset corn.=

4.&n= bsp;       Corn price will increase<= /i>. Over the past year, corn price has alre= ady increased by over 50%. Some predict a softening of corn price due to oversu= pply of ethanol in the short-term ($2.50-3.00/bu), but most analysts are predict= ing $4-5.00/bu in 2007 and the Chicago Board of Trade corn futures hit an all-t= ime high recently at $4.39/bu in May.

5.&n= bsp;       There will be greater DG availability. Likely= , 2 to 3 times more DG will be produced than can reasonably be fed to livestock, and so many are predicting that DG prices will drop to as low as $80/ton. J= ust here in New York State, the plants coming on-line w= ill produce 5 to 10 pounds of DG for every dairy cow in the state per day!

How quickly cellulose-based ethanol will replace corn-based ethanol = will determine the duration and the severity of any increase in corn price and reduction in corn supply to livestock producers. The energy balance of cellulosic ethanol production is superior to corn. The ratio of renewable energy output to fossil fuel use is only 1.40 for corn-based ethanol, but is 10.0 for cellulose. Mike Johanns, U.S. Secretar= y of Agriculture, stated “Dairy producers must go through two years of pri= ce turmoil until the development of cellulosic ethanol will take the pressure = off corn prices (2/12/07).” Perhaps more realistically, most research gro= ups project that it will take at least 6 years for significant volumes of ethan= ol to come from cellulose fermentation. Still, the US Department of Energy predicts that by 2030 one billion tons of biomass/year will produce 60 bill= ion gallons of ethanol to replace 30% of current US petroleum usage.

How strange could this journey become as the corn-based ethanol juggernaut plows forward? Iow= a, the #1 state for corn, hogs, eggs, and now ethanol, is projected to become a net importer of corn to feed both the livestock and the ethanol plants! Nebraska would n= eed to import corn if only one-half of the proposed plants come on-line! Land valu= e in the Midwest is being fueled by the ethan= ol industry with an average increase of 12.7% from 2005 to 2006. Corn acreage = is projected to increase between 9 and 15%, while soybean acreage will decreas= e by 2 to 9% in 2007. The picture will become clearer when USDA releases its Planting Intentions report at the end of March. Just to make things interesting, the current forecast for 2007 calls for a wet spring, possibly delayed planting, and a drier than normal growing season in the corn belt. =

We know that ethanol is not going away soon – there is too much momentum from research and development programs, politics and energy polici= es that mandate renewable energy, as well as market application. As I wrote la= st month, for the short-term anyway, we need to start monitoring oil prices because we have now entered an age where energy needs drive commodity prices more directly than livestock utilization.

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

VET’S CORNER: = Metritis Not Associated with Re= tained Fetal Membranes

Rectal examinations of the fresh cow group at a different herd’= ;s weekly check revealed 14 of 20 cows with fetid, red, smelly uterine dischar= ge. The farmer was totally surprised at our findings and insisted that only two= of the cows retained fetal membranes and only one had an assisted calving. The cows are calved in a group bedded pack which was dry and had fresh sawdust every other day. How could so many cows have uterine infection? Was there a unique super bug infection on the farm?

Unlike other species of livestock, bacteria enter the wide-open lume= n of the cervix and infect nearly all cows after calving. In one study, 93% of t= he uteri obtained within 15 days of calving yielded bacteria, with the proport= ion of infected animals actually increasing from day 7 to day 14. This fact lea= ds us to believe that contamination during birthing is not the only reason for infection.

Competence of the immune system is important in the prevention of th= e metritis complex. The innate immune system is respons= ible for the elimination of bacterial contamination of the uterus after parturit= ion. Liver function disorders suppress the functional capacity of neutrophils, which are the white blood cells that kill bacteria. This led our investigation back to the close-up dry cow pen. Seven cows that were within 14 days of calving were blood tested and six had Non-= Esterified Fatty Acids (NEFA) over 0.400 mEq/l. High NEFA indicates excessive fat breakdown and deposit in the liver. These cows will calve with impaired liver function th= at we commonly associate with ketosis and displaced aboma= sum. In addition to those problems, 14 of 20 cows in this herd had metritis.

After the lab test confirmation, the nutritionist was alerted to the problem so close up dry cow ration could be reformulated to prevent negative energy balance. Strict sanitation during the calving process was reviewed w= ith all workers that help in the maternity pen. And the dairy person redoubled efforts to bring clean dry cows into a clean bedded pack. On weekly herd he= alth visits, all cows will be palpated 4-11 days after calving to monitor for improvement.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Vete= rinary Associates, Inc.

hugamoo@comcast.net

Sugar No Longer: Water soluble carbohydr= ate or ethanol soluble carbohydrate

Effective February 1st DairyOne laborato= ry is offering two different analyses for what the industry has for years been calling “sugars”. The two methods are 1. Water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) and 2. Ethanol soluble carbohydrate (ESC) or simple sugars. The significance of this is that we can no longer refer to the family of highly fermentable mono-, di- and oligosaccharides as “simple sugars̶= 1;, but must now refer to them by their method of analysis, just as we refer to fiber as ADF and NDF. Years ago, Dr. Will Hoover at West Virginia University proposed that water soluble carbohydrates was the best estimate of rumen soluble sugars in forages, the thought being that sugars/carbohydrates solu= ble in water would best estimate those most soluble in the rumen, as opposed to only the simple sugars soluble in an 80% ethanol solution. Fructosans, not simple sugars, are highly soluble in water but have varying degrees of solubility in ethanol based on their size. Longer chains of fructosans are insoluble in ethanol, but still very soluble in water. The debate has r= aged for years as to whether fructans should be cons= idered a sugar. And the proper lab analysis for “sugars” has raged on: “Which lab did sugars correctly?” and “What should be considered sugar in terms of ruminant nutrition?” Thanks to Paul Sirois and Dairy One, it’s now up to your nutritionist and the ERNs to decide which metho= d of “soluble carbohydrate” or “simple sugar” analysis is biologically correct or best fits their particular nutrition model. CanR= 17;t you hear the nutritionists already, debating the merits of their choice of = WSC or ESC over their competition?

I need to be careful here since I’m in the midst of this foray given my involvement in developing the CPM 3.0 Master Feed Dictionary. Allo= w me to explain (not necessarily defend) the sugar values in CPM: During development of the feed dictionary, Dairy One provided us with an extremely large database of analy= ses encompassing a wide variety of forages, energy and protein feeds, with sugar and starch analyses based on WSC. We compared data from West Virginia (RFPL= ), Mary Beth Hall (then with the University of Florida) and lat= er a dataset provided by Ralph Ward at CVAS, all of which differed in “sug= ar” extraction and detection methods. The Dairy One data was the most encompass= ing and fit the logic of WSC being the best estimate of rumen soluble sugars. Because of the debate in methodology, the logic of defining a sugar fell on= its believed rate of fermentation. At the time, sugars were believed to ferment very rapidly, orders of magnitude faster than starch and soluble fiber. With little rate of degradation data to review, it was decided that fructans, being water soluble, likely fermented more = similarly to simple sugars than to the slower fermenting starch or soluble fiber. So, given a complete dataset of WSC values for nearly every feed ingredient imaginable, we went with the Dairy One dataset of WSC. We now understand that sugars don’t ferment as fast as we originally believed and that starch and soluble fiber may ferment faster than we thought. Right or wrong, that’s what = we did.

As for which analysis is best suited for CPM, I leave that for the C= PM Carbohydrate Subcommittee to decide, but keep in mind the current values are WSC-based. Also, development of the dictionary, sugar, starch and organic a= cid values were input as a percentage of NFC. We didn’t have the current luxury of entering values as % of DM. This put those carbohydrate values at= the risk of error associated with CP, NDF, NDICP, EE and ash analyses. My advice: Pick a lab and methodol= ogy and get wet chemistry data for your inputs. Don’t rely solely on the = CPM default values.

Table 1 lists the pre= dominant sugars and nonstructural polysaccharides found in the vegetative tissues of northeast forage crops and whether they are soluble in water (WSC) and 80% ethanol (ESC).

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

EV’S ORGANIC EXPERIENCE

One of the few cooking chores I do (or am allowed to do by The Bride= ) is make soup. We were out of celery so I went to the only grocery store in Peru, discovering that the “regular” celery must have been in the case since Christmas and was looking much the worse for it. The only alternative= was certified organic celery, which looked good but then it should for $= 3.29 per package. It’s about 10 miles to the next closest supermarket, so I gritted my teeth and bought the organic brand. (Celery trivia: Celery conta= ins androsterone, a hormone said to attract women that is released through sweat glands .)

On opening the package I discovered that there were not one but two heads of celery. Really small heads, the smallest I’ve ever seen. The= n I got to thinking: Because it’s organic the growers can’t use any commercial fertilizer, maybe that’s why the heads are so small and spindly. I read the label on the package and discovered that while the cele= ry is distributed by a California co= mpany it’s grown in Mexico. I also started wondering what the farmers used for nutrients since they can’t use fertilizer. Hmmm. Needless to say, even though the stalks appeared quite clean I washed them really well. I also emailed the <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">California company, asking about organic certification standards = south of the border, but didn’t get a response.

—E.T.

The Feeder’s Job: Second Pr= iority

The second priority of feeder’s job is maintaining the mix she= et, which serves 3 purposes. First, the mix sheet is a contract, an agreement a= mong the nutritionist, owner or manager, feeder (who may or may not be the same person), and the cows for how things will be done and what is expected. It’s also a recipe, a list of ingredients and their weights required = for the correct mix. Lastly, it is a record; a written document that details wh= at the feeder did when.

The ration sheet, usually balanced for one animal, shows the details= and justifications that don’t concern the feeder directly as he feeds gro= ups of animals on a daily basis. The mix sheet is the translation of the ration sheet into something a feeder can use and is the center of the feeder’= ;s job. The feeder should be responsible for keeping the mix sheet current and usable.

The feeder maintains both the animal and feed sides of the mix sheet. For the animal side, the feeder tracks feed refused and number of animals i= n a pen, decides how much will be offered next, and can provide input and adjustments to the description of the animal described on the ration sheets= . On the feed side, the feeder monitors feed inventories, decides when new feed analysis is needed, and tracks feed dry matters. The feeder incorporates th= is information into the feeding program through the mix sheet.

A mix sheet can contain many pieces of information but several are essential. Every sheet should have the date formulated (or date revised), ration description or group name, ingredients with standardized names and associated weights and dry matters, mix totals, and cow numbers. A sheet can contain one mix or multiple mixes at the preference of the feeder. Some mix sheets have adjustments should dry matters change or alternate mixes if cow numbers change, providing proactive solutions to changes the feeder may encounter within a day. Ideally, the mix sheet would have answers for all potential changes but, in reality, include as many as is practical. Overall, the feeder is responsible for keeping the sheet current, readable, accessib= le, and used on a daily basis.

Mix sheets can either be provided by the nutritionist or composed on-farm by the feeder. Miner Institute’s dairy operation has develope= d a simple, in-house, Excel spreadsheet to maintain the mix sheets for the whole herd (Figure 1). With this spreadsheet, we’re able to make adjustments daily, keeping the mix sh= eet current and accurate with a minimum of calculator time and pencil pushing. = Our daily printout contains the elements required in a mix sheet plus individual ingredient codes used by the tracking program on the mixer, and a space for= writing the ingredient weights added during research trials. To generate the daily = mix sheets, ration formulations are entered on a dry matter basis and the spreadsheet combines this ration information with current dry matter percentages, cow numbers, and number of feedings per day and generates the daily mixes for the whole herd on two fresh sheets of paper. These calculat= ed mixes are also entered into the tracking program on the mixer. <= /span>

During feeding, adjustments are made to the mixes as needed. At 4 a.= m., refusals are weighed and mix totals are adjusted as necessary and recorded = on the mix sheet. The Koster tester runs almost constantly measuring new dry matter percentages as Ralph or Travis note cha= nges in the forages. New dry matters are recorded on the mix sheet and, with a calculator, new as fed feed weights are computed and used immediately, keep= ing the mix sheet current with the feeds being feed. At the end of feeding, all= new information is entered into the spreadsheet bringing mix sheet up-to-date a= nd ready for the next day.

Our farm has developed a simple system to keep the daily mix sheets up-to-date and accurate. An accurate mix sheet provides a current contract, recipe, and record and maintaining the mix sheet, the second priority, is required for high-quality feeding program.

—Steve M= ooney, mooney@whminer.com

Take a Peak – MyPyramid Lau= nches with Retail Promotion

In April 2005, the USDA introduced MyPyramid, a new symbol and a web-based interactive food guidance system that emphasiz= es an individual approach to improving health through healthy food choices and exercise (www.mypyramid.gov). If you’re like most people y= ou recognize the new symbol (the triangular graphic), but don’t follow t= he guidelines. The USDA acknowledges that the MyPyramid program has been a bit of a failure as about 80% of people recognize the symbol, but only 2 to 4% of people follow the guidelines. Part of the probl= em with the MyPyramid program is lack of federal f= unding to market the program. Take a Peak was developed to address that problem.

Take a Peak is a campaign to take the MyPyramid concept to the grocery aisle and is funded = by the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), and the Food Products Association (FPA) and supported by the USDA. This is = the first widespread attempt at in-store education by the food and beverage industry. An essential part of the campaign is moving nutritional informati= on from the Internet to the grocery aisle where most people actually make their food choices. Specifically, the campaign will show people how they can transition to more healthy diets and lifestyles by making small progressive changes in their food buying and eating habits. Take a Peak will use aisle banners, floor graphics, and information kiosks and provide education-based coupon books with point-of-decision information.

A healthy diet emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-= free or low-fat milk and milk products; includes lean meats, poultry, fish, bean= s, eggs, and nuts; and is low in saturated fats, trans<= /i> fats, cholesterol, salt (sodium) and added sugars according to MyPyramid. This is good news for the dairy industry a= s Take a Peak will emphasize a milk group that includes non-fat, low-fat, and reduced-fat dairy products. Interestingly, the reduced-fat dairy products represent an intermediate step to improve a person’s selection within= the milk group. Also, Take a Peak realizes the importance of flavored mi= lk in contributing important shortfall nutrients in children’s diets.

What is going to make the Take a Peak campaign work? Consumers need and want help making decisions about the food and beverages they buy. Based on a FMI report in December 2006, 73% of consumers want in-store sign= age leading them to healthy foods and 56% of consumers want in-store diet and weight-loss information. Take a Peak also comes at a time when manufacturers and retailers are positioning themselves around for the “better for you” products. Aging consumers, the availability of nutritional information, and overall health concerns are expected to drive a trend toward healthier living, suggesting that the early part of the 21st Century will be defined as a period of customized health and wellness produ= cts according to a March 2006 Executive Perspective report.

More information about Take a Peak can be found at www.TapintoMyPyramid.com.

—Heather Dann<= /o:p>

dann@whminer.com

NITROGEN APPLICATION TO GRASS AND CORN

There’s lots of information (and misinformation) out there regarding spring application of N to grass and corn. Nitrogen should be app= lied to grasses just as uptake is beginning to occur. Therefore, leaching losses= in most cases are minimal since it’s hard to get anything past the root system of well-established forage grasses. Urea is the most economical choi= ce: While you hear stories about ammonia volatilization, the truth of the matte= r is that up here in our cool climate, very little early spring N is volatilized. Ammonium sulfate is also an excellent topdress product, but is more expensive per pound of N, so often it’s applied = as a 50-50 blend with urea. Liquid N (UAN) is a blend of urea and ammonium nitra= te. While it’s great as a sidedress for corn,= urea is a better product for topdressing grasses.

I don’t like preplant applications= of urea for corn. In the first place, soils have warmed up and there’s m= ore risk of volatilization. But more importantly, there’s no root system = to intercept the N if a soaking rain occurs between N application and the time corn is a foot or so tall. Therefore, while urea and UAN are both dandy products for sidedressing, it’s risky to = apply them prior to planting corn.

—E.T.

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE= FARM

The barn has been buzzing with research activity this month. The Adv= anced Dairy Management students each have a project on which they have been worki= ng. We‘ve had cows in the tie-stalls, heifers commingled with mature cows= , a copper sulfate footbath experiment, and a newborn calf study. Cannulated cows have had rumen fluid removed daily and there are buckets of manure with tetracycline or formaldehyde added to monitor bacteria growth. Then last we= ek we cannulated two cows for a project in the spr= ing, and two more surgeries are scheduled for early March. But our cows are used= to research projects, and they just go with the flow!

The students have been learning about farm evaluation and the types of information that one needs = to gather to understand how the farm is operating. They spend some time in the classroom and then go on weekly field trips to neighboring farms. We know t= hat repro is an area where we can improve, so let’s look at some of our numbers to see where we stand and how we have been making some improvement.=

% of cows pregnant – 156 pregnant/310 total cows =3D 50% In the fall/early winter it was just under 50%.

Calving Interval – 14 months. The only good news is that the projected calving interval is 13.9, = so it seems that we’re headed in the right direction

Days open – 144 days. We have been hovering around 150 days open since the fall.

Pregnancy rate – 23% (current month) 17% (for= the past 12 months). Our preg rate was below 20% during the fall, but November and December’s preg rates are up to 23%!

Services/pregnancy – 2.5. In December our services/pregnancy was 2.7, and it’s steadily decreased each month si= nce then.

Of course, it’s = winter and reproduction usually improves during this time of year. So now the challenge is to continue this forward progress and hold onto it during the summer!

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

—Steve Couture, = couture@whminer.com

CHANGING TIMES, CHANGING RECOMMENDATIONS

Agriculture is such a rapidly evolving science that those of us advi= sing farmers should never work ourselves out of a job. Providing even more job security, though, is the tendency of recommendations to change, either beca= use of advances in technology or, well, just because. Eminent Ruminant Nutritionists have refined this into an art, perhaps figuring that it’= ;s hard to hit a moving target. We offer without comment the following: The 19= 89 edition of the National Research Council’s “Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle”, the ERN’= ;s bible, has 158 pages. The next (and current) edition (2001) has 382 pages. =

When the first disk mower-conditioners came onto the market, the “green ones” only came with steel impellers to condition forage, not the more common rubber rollers. I didn’t want anything to do with impellers, armed with research information showing that while impellers may= be fine for grass, for alfalfa they function as both conditioner and leaflet removal device. So we bought one with different colored paint, and over the years ran that one into the ground. Also into a telephone pole, the same one twice, operated by a Summer Experience student, and into a pile of clay drainage tile, operated by the Crops Dude. By the time that one was worn ou= t, manufacturers of the green ones had seen the light and were offering a disk= mower conditioner with rubber rollers, so we bought one of those.

Meanwhile, Tom Kilcer, a downstate exten= sion field crops educator (up here everyone’s “downstate̶= 1; unless their flag sports a maple leaf and they say “eh?” a lot), has been rethinking the idea of conditioning hay crops for silage. Basic principals of plant science back up his thought that crimping or crushing alfalfa stems might not be good: An unconditioned stem loses moisture throu= gh the leaves, which stay moist as the stem dries. The result is a more unifor= mly dry plant (dried to about 35% DM) that should lose fewer leaves by shatteri= ng. After talking to several farm equipment representatives, we decided to give this a try last year on our fourth cut alfalfa. We relaxed tension on the c= onditioner rolls as much as possible while still providing enough tension to pull the forage through. This, combined with wide windrows, resulted in our making 4= 0% DM alfalfa silage in less than a day in late September, much of it “m= ow in the AM, chop in the PM”.

This leads me to wonder if we need conditioners at all. Perhaps for first cut reed canarygrass? We expect that much= of the reason for the development of steel tine impellers rather than rubber r= olls was because the rollers don’t do much to f= lat grass leaves. (I first saw impellers in Hungary during the 1980s, whe= re they were mowing high yielding, heavily fertilized grasses, and they seemed= a good fit for those forages.) Eliminating the conditioner from a disk mower would considerably reduce the cost of the mower. We’re not ready to go there yet, but time will tell…

—E.T.

WHO DOES WHAT

We think it’s helpful for our readers to know who’s invo= lved in writing and publishing the Farm Report. We haven’t done so = in a year, so in alphabetical order here’s the current cast of characters:=

Kurt Cotanch, Miner Institute’s “Lab Guy”, has worked in the d= airy industry for over 25 years—on farms, in a cheese plant, in the feed industry, and as manager of the University of Vermont’s agricultural testing lab. For the past six years he’s been director of our forage laboratory. Kurt’s articles provide a practical perspectiv= e to dairy nutrition and forage quality.

Steve Couture doesn’t actually write for the Farm Report but provides much of the information for the “What’s= Happening on the Farm” column. Prior to becoming Dairy Farm Manager here two ye= ars ago, Steve worked as herd manager on several dairy farms ranging in size fr= om 200 to 1450 cows, and also farmed on his own.

Heather Dann is a research associate who contributes= an article every month or two. Her education was in Animal Science and Ruminant Nutrition; her current interests include forage chemistry, nutritional physiology of dairy cattle, and the interaction of dairy nutrition and the environment.

Wanda Emerich, our Dairy Outreach Coordinator, writes about the Institute’s undergraduate education programs and keeps the “Coming Events” section of the newsletter current. She also proofreads each issue to correc= t Ev’s more egregious errors. <= /p>

Rick Grant writes the monthly “From the President’s Desk” column. Prior to coming to the Institute in 2= 003 he was professor of ruminant nutrition and Extension Dairy Specialist at th= e University of Nebraska so he’s a Cornhuske= r fan through thick and thin. (Mostly thin of late.) His areas of interest include forage and nonforage sources of fiber, carbohyd= rate nutrition and dairy cattle behavior.

Kent Henderson is President of Northwest Veterinary Associates Inc., a seven-person dairy practice in St. Albans, Vermont. Kent writes the monthly “Vet’s Corner”, teaches in our undergraduate courses, and is our herd veterinarian. He raised Registered Holstein heifers for eight years and was a consulting veterinarian for a ve= al feed company.

Debra LaPorte puts the Farm Report toge= ther each month including organization, copying, mailing, and posting each month’s issue on our website. She also harasses delinquent writers ab= out deadlines and in general is responsible for making us look good.

Anna Pape is here on a one-year dairy internship, working with Steve Couture in managing our herd. A 2006 gra= duate of the University of New Hampshire, s= he writes the monthly “What’s Happening on the Farm” column = with input from Steve and provides many of the dairy-oriented photos accompanying articles.

Steve Mooney is a Postdo= ctorate Research Fellow who arrived at the Institute in September 2006 and will be = with us for two years. His primary= focus is dairy management practices and their subsequent impact on dairy cattle behavior and productivity

Ev<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:112%;font-= family: Arial'> Thomas, AKA the Cro= ps Dude, has been at Miner Institute for 39 years, the first 13 as a regional agronomist for Cornell Cooperative Extension and the last 26 as the Institu= te agronomist. He’s editor of the Farm Report. Most articles with= no name or initials attached are written by Ev, so= if you don’t like an article and there’s no name to blame, chances= are he’s the culprit. =

MANURING CALCAREOUS SOILS

Research USDA research confirmed and expanded upon what previous stu= dies have found: The higher the percentage of calcium carbonate (CaCO_{3)
in the topsoil, the less phosphorus in field runoff. This has major
implications for CAFO nutrient management plans. Previous research related =
soil
test P and P runoff, while this study included manure-amended soils. Calcar=
eous
soils normally have a very high pH—at least 7.5. While there arenR=
17;t
a lot of these calcareous soils in the Northeastern =
U.S.,
there are some…including a couple at Miner Instit=
ute.
Most Phosphorus Index calculations don’t include pH or % calcium
carbonate, but they probably should: The USDA researchers concluded that
“Soils with high levels of CaCO₃are well suited as sinks =
for
excess P in manure. Thus, soil CaCO₃ level should be considered =
in
the P index in states with calcareous soils.”}

Even though your CAFO plan (if you have one) doesn’t include adjusting maximum allowable manure rates on high pH soils, you might take t= his into consideration when applying manure. You can’t apply more than allowed, but it’s useful to know that maximizing manure application r= ates on these soils probably won’t pose the environmental threat a similar rate would on other fields.

Source: Better Crops with Plant Food, Vol. 90, p. 3-5

SUSTAINABLE VS. ORGANIC FARMING

There’s the tendency of some people to use the terms “sustainable” and “organic” interchangeably, but they’re not interchangeable at all. Not all sustainable farming is organic farming, and not all organic farming is sustainable. When done properly, farming with commercial fertilizers and pesticides has been sustainable for at least 50 years, or since these inputs became widely available. As long as crops are rotated, reasonable rates of fertilizer applied, and proper precautions observed when using pesticides, conventional farming can continue indefinitely and therefore is highly sustainable. On t= he other hand, some forms of organic farming involving clean tillage and row c= rop cultivation every year, with little or no crop residues left on the surface, actually result in greater soil erosion losses than conventional high-resid= ue farming operations. (Based on a recent USDA study cited= in the Dec. 2006 Farm Report.) While some irresponsible sources blame “factory farming” on BSE (bovine spongiform encephalitis), the first reported case, in England in 1985, was on an organic livestock farm. Does organic farming cause BSE? Of course not, but thank goodness that first poor cow wasn’t on a farm using Posilac, pesticides and Roundup Ready corn!

However, there’s a lot we can learn from organic farmers. They rely on crop residues and “green manure” crops for soil fertili= ty, and cultural methods to control most pests. Some of these techniques are applicable to a wide range of farm operations. Organically-raised fruits and vegetables don’t taste better because commercial fertilizers arenR= 17;t used for their production, and anyone who’s had a basic course in soil fertility should know better. However much of this produce goes from “= ;farm to fork” in a lot less time than what we buy in the supermarket, and = fresh fruits and vegetables do taste better—regardless of the technologies involved in their production. I’ve seen produce in the supermarket th= at I wouldn’t take if it was free, while seldom does roadside stand or farmer’s market produce (certified organic or otherwise) have that shopworn appearance. This has nothing to do with pesticides and fertilizers, and everything to do with marketing—something most organic farmers do very well.

AG NOTES
·         The area planted to biotech c= rops in 2006 increased 13 percent from 2005. This is the 11^th consecu= tive year that plantings of genetically modified crops have increased by more th= an 10 percent. More farmers plan= ted more acres of biotech crops in more countries in 2006 than ever before.<= o:p>

·         A new study in the journal Ob= esity confirmed that three servings per day of dairy products may result in less body fat in young, normal-weight women. The women in this study mainta= ined a higher intake of fat-free and lowfat dairy fo= ods six months after the trial ended.

·= ;      =    Cornucopia Institute is suing USDA for failing to enforce the National Organic Standards law. Cornucopia claims Dean Foods and Aurora Dairy are operating large-scale dairies and monopoliz= ing the organic milk market while falling short of organic pasture standards. U= SDA has promised to issue a rewrite of the organic standards involving grazing = but has yet to do so.

DAIRY FARM ECONOMICS

The good news is that milk prices are supposed to strengthen somewhat beginning late this summer, although recent future prices have not been particularly encouraging. The= bad news, though it’s not news to anyone in the dairy business is that fe= ed costs will be up substantially. Of course it depends a lot on your ration, = but it looks like purchased feed cost will increase a bit more than $1.00 per hundredweight almost entirely due to the price of corn. Overall feed prices may be up more= in the West than in the Northeast because we rely more on home-grown forages. =