ARIZONA DAIRYING
Last =
month
our Advanced Dairy Management students along with Institute staff members,
farmers, and other agricultural professionals—25 in all—spent t=
wo
days visiting dairies just west of Phoenix, Arizona (State Motto: But
it’s a dry heat). Most of the group then went to
Note =
the
term “dairies”, not dairy farms. That’s because
Durin= g our first morning of farm visits I called The Bride and asked how the weather w= as back in beautiful downtown Peasleeville. “= ;Oh, it’s all the way up to 10 below zero now. I was out at 10 PM last nig= ht with the snowblower getting the drifts out of t= he driveway. What’s it like out there?” In this situation should I have told T.B. that it was 80 and sunny? (I didn’t think so either.)<= o:p>
CAFO =
and
nutrient management didn’t appear to be of any concern to these dairy=
men,
even with only one acre of cropland per cow. This is partly because of the
extremely high crop yields that remove a lot of nutrients: Double-cropped c=
orn
silage totaling about 50 tons per acre, and alfalfa dry hay yields of 9-10 =
tons
per acre. Also, there aren’t a lot of rivers and streams in the regio=
n,
so it’s a long way for polluted field runoff, on the rare occasions it
does occur, to reach water bodies.
—
The Feeder’s Job: Two Needed Skills
Two s=
kills
that are essential to a high-quality feeding program are dry matter managem=
ent
and feed sampling. Both of these skills are used extensively in maintaining=
the
second (maintaining the mix sheet) and the third (observing and planning)
priorities of the feeder’s job.
Dry m=
atter
(DM) management involves monitoring the DM of feeds and adjusting the mix s=
heet
as necessary to new DM information. A DM management program should be
proactive, with monitoring and adjustment on a regular (at least weekly)
schedule plus whenever necessary as the DM changes. Our attention should be
focused on the feeds with the greatest variability (e.g. wet feeds exposed =
to
the elements) and the feeds included in the mixes of cows most sensitive to
mixing errors (e.g. transition cows).
A fee=
d can
be separated into DM and water. The composition of any given feed’s DM
changes little but a feed’s moisture can come and go, particularly in=
wet
feeds stored outside. Rain, snow, and dew can add moisture to silage and the
sun or aerobic respiration on a bunker face can dry it out. The proportion =
of
water or DM of a feed can be measured on-farm with several different drying
methods. Regardless of method, some principles remain constant. We want to =
dry
our feed until all water is removed but stop before DM is lost. Under-dryin=
g a
sample will overestimate the DM content of a feed, burning or spillage will
underestimate DM.
Ratio=
ns are
balanced on a DM basis but mixed on an as fed basis. Each new feed DM
measurement should be incorporated into the mix sheet immediately. We need =
to
take the old feed weight, calculate the pounds of DM contained in it, and
determine the new as fed weight using the correct DM. The equations used to
convert as fed weights to DM weights and vice versa may be used on a daily
basis by a feeder and should be “second nature” to a feeder. Th=
ey
are:
·
Pounds As Fed =3D Pounds Dry Matter ÷ (Dry =
Matter
% ÷ 100)
·
Pounds Dry Matter (DM) =3D Pounds As Fed x (Dry Ma=
tter %
÷ 100)
Feed
sampling, the second skill, is used to get samples for the analysis of DM or
nutrient composition. The results of DM and nutrient analysis are used to
determine our feeding program so feed sampling shouldn’t be haphazard=
, an
afterthought, or rushed. It should be done with effort and care reflective =
of
the significant financial resources that will be allocated based on the
analysis of each feed sample. With feed costs representing a large part of =
the
dairy operating costs, feed samples should be collected in a scientific
manner.
The g=
oal is
to obtain a sample of a feed that is representative of inventory on hand. A
typical lab will use a teaspoon of dried, ground feed to measure specific
nutrients. This teaspoon of feed must be representative of the tons of feed=
in
inventory so the analysis obtained will lead to accurate rations. Accurate
sampling allows the resources of time, money, and energy spent on the feedi=
ng
program to have to greatest success.
Sever=
al
methods exist for the proper collection of feed samples. The common theory =
to
all methods is to collect a larger sample than needed that represents all t=
he
variation of the feed, to mix this sample completely, and then subsample
methodically to avoid biases that will lead to misrepresentation. The more
heterogeneous the feed in inventory, the greater the initial sample required
and the greater care needed to get a representative subsample. An exact met=
hod
is hard to describe and is best learned by doing. Work with your nutritionist, feed
representative, or extension specialist to make sure you, as a feeder, are
taking samples with the accuracy and precision needed for a high-quality
feeding program.
Dry m=
atter
management and feed sampling are two skills every feeder needs to master. In
the next Farm Report I’ll discuss the third priority, observing
and planning.
—Steve=
Mooney
FROM
THE PRESIDENT’S DESK
Distillers Diets
We will soon begin feeding distillers grains at the Institute’s dairy herd. Our reasons for doing this include: 1) the presumption that cost per ton will go down while corn grain price continues to increase, 2) increasingly high pri= ce for whole cottonseed, 3) manageably low concentrations of phosphorus in the= distillers grains, and 4) the potential to feed a much higher amount than we have previously fed.= Like many dairy producers, our concentrate mixes have contained low amounts of distillers dried grains for many years. Now, we are looking to p= ush the inclusion level to take advantage of the prevailing economic situation.=
We wi=
ll be
conducting studies this year that evaluate the cow’s response to
low-starch diets (i.e. minimal corn grain) containing various amounts of
distillers dried grains. The carefully controlled studies will determine
productivity, digestibility, and rumen metabolism response to higher distillers grains diets. We hope to collaborate with C=
ornell
researchers to develop optimal feeding and ration formulation strategies fo=
r
In ad=
dition
to these studies, we will also begin to incorporate wet distillers grains i=
nto
our lactating cow diets to gain practical experience in how best to handle =
and feed
the wet byproduct with the forages commonly used in
One k=
ey
point is that we will pull whole cottonseed out of the diet to avoid
overfeeding unsaturated vegetable oils from cottonseed and corn oil in the =
distillers grains. Many analysts are predicting the pr=
ice of
cottonseed to increase substantially with a projected 14% reduction in cott=
on
acreage for 2007.
As we=
begin
the feeding experiments, we will keep you posted on herd response and the
effect on phosphorus excretion in the manure.
—
NOTABLE QUOTES
·
Money can’t buy friends but it can get you a
better class of enemy. Spi=
ke
Milligan
·
Some cause happiness wherever they go; others when=
ever
they go. Oscar Wilde
·
I think I've discovered the secret of life –=
you
just hang around until you get used to it.=
Charles Schulz
·
The right to be heard does not include the right t=
o be
taken seriously. Hubert H. Humphrey
·
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in
CRITTER NEWS
·
A family in
·
Using various methods of poisoning and gassing,
officials in
Bedding material absorbency and ammonia
emissions
I came
across an interesting study in the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center 2005
Research Report by T.H. Misselbrook and J.M. Po=
well
titled, “Influence of bedding material on ammonia emissions from dairy
barns”. These researchers compared the absorptive capacity and abilit=
y to
retain urinary ammonia of several common dairy barn bedding materials.
Certainly cow comfort and on farm logistics take precedence in choice of
bedding materials, but consideration of minimizing ammonia emissions may
warrant consideration as well.
Urina=
ry
urea is converted to ammonia by urease enzymes =
in
feces. The resulting ammonia is volatilized and can result in poor air qual=
ity in
the barn as well as being an environmental pollutant and an economic loss of
nitrogen (N) from the farm.
Sequestering urinary ammonia is a win-win benefit all the way around=
.
As the
authors note, bedding materials can influence ammonia emissions through:
![](3D"2007_04_files/image001.gif")
It go=
es
without saying that the choice of bedding materials depends on the whole fa=
rm
situation, cow comfort, manure handling, supply of material, rural-urban
interface to name just a few.
However, consideration of bedding materials should also certainly
include its ability to figure in to the nutrient management plan as far as
sequestering nutrients (N) and minimizing volatile losses. Since we are currently considering
something other than sawdust in our proposed new dry cow facility, I though=
t I
might tweak Ev with this article.
And a=
nother
benefit to sand bedding, we could practice our bunker shots at lunch.
—
WANDERING WITH WANDA
Our a=
nnual trip
with the Advanced Dairy Management students to somewhere out west this year
included a tour of the Grand Canyon and a visit to three dairies in the
Phoenix, Arizona area followed by the Western Dairy Management Conference in
Reno, Nevada.There were 25 of us on the field t=
rip
which included eight students, a veterinarian, four dairy farmers from Verm=
ont,
a feed company representative, and a variety of folks from Miner Institute =
and
the University of Vermont. As=
you
can see, the students were very well chaperoned!
We hi=
red a
tour guide for the
On Mo=
nday
we toured two large dairies. The first was the Triple G Dairy located in
Buckeye,
Our n=
ext
stop was in
The
following morning we headed south of
We
certainly appreciated the time these farm owners were able to spend showing
their dairy and crop operations to our crew from northern
Follo=
wing
our dairy tours, we went up to
—
VET’S CORNER: Killer Colostrum
In Fe=
bruary
our practice hosted renowned calf raising expert Dr. Sam Leadley
for an evening discussion. Pr=
ior to
the meeting, colostrum samples were collected f=
rom
various farms to detect coliform bacteria level=
. During the presentation it was sta=
ted
that 4 of 5 samples test with loads of coliform=
that
are high enough to infect calves. Would the farms from our practice fare any
better?
On a =
farm
with the most sanitary maternity pens in our practice, calves were scouring=
at
3-5 days of age. Navels are dipped; pens are monitored every two hours so
calves are removed ASAP, and 3-4 quarts of colostrum
is fed or tubed before 2 hours old. Yet E. coli=
was
isolated from fecal scour samples. The colostrum
culture result for coliform was TNTC (Too Numer=
ous To Count). In
this case calves were being fed Killer Colostrum. The
first milking was performed with a bucket milker;
after milking the milk pail was being rinsed out with hot water but not
sanitized. Since adopting proper cleaning procedures with sanitizer and acid
rinse for the milk bucket, scours cases have dropped off.
On an=
other
farm, 2-4 day old calves were dying of septicemia and scours. Killer Colostrum was also being fed to these calves. In this=
3x
milking herd, the fresh cows are milked for the first time in the parlor wi=
th
the mastitis cows. Bottles with colostrum are p=
laced
in snow banks or pails of water with freeze packs to chill before placement=
in
the refrigerator. (Dr. Leadley informed us that=
the
refrigerator’s function is to hold items at a low temp and is not
efficient at reducing the temp to stop coliform
growth for several hours, so the colostrum has =
to be
chilled before placing in the refrigerator.) Within an hour of birth, fresh=
colostrum is taken from the refrigerator, warmed, and=
fed
to each calf. What could be wrong with this procedure? This colostrum
did not test high for coliform; instead it had =
low IgG content.
Serum protein concentrations read 4.0 g/dl or less on 2-6 day old
calves. During this calf scours episode, it was found that the night crew w=
as
not milking the newly calved cows, so some colostrum
was from cows that had calved more than a half day before. The drop in IgG was due to dilution of the c=
olostrum
because the udder filled after calving.&nb=
sp;
Now, only colostrum from cows less than 6
hours fresh is saved for newborn calves.
Unfor=
tunately,
there are other causes of Killer Colostrum. Whe=
never
investigating deaths in calves under a week old, colos=
trum
handling procedures should be reviewed.
—
Northwest Veterinary Associates,=
Inc.
Not in my backyard!
̶=
0;Proposed
dairy farm neighbors voice concerns,” “Neighbors sue dairy farm
over health concerns,” and “The big stink: more milk means more
manure — and a threat to a way of life” are headlines from news
media reflecting quality-of-life concerns expressed by neighbors of operati=
onal
or proposed dairy farms. Large-scaled dairy farms are viewed typically as
undesirable neighbors…even before they move into a community. At publ=
ic
meetings across the country it’s not uncommon to hear people strongly
vocalize their concerns (fear and anger) about large-scale dairy farms.
Perce=
ived
problems with large-scale dairy farms have revealed some primary
concerns that include 1) declining property values, 2) a decreas=
e in
the quality of drinking water, 3) concerns about odors produced =
by
manure, and 4) fly infestation, according to
The
researchers found that people that lived near (< 1 mile upwind or downwi=
nd)
a large-scale dairy farm or lived far (> 5 miles in a rural or urban are=
a)
from a large-scale dairy farm had similar opinions about the quality-of life
issues. Opinions of people that responded (102 out of 275) to the study wer=
e:
·
86% of people believed property value had decrease=
d;
·
72% of people believed drinking water quality was
affected;
·
86% of people believed odor of manure was a concer=
n;
and
·
77% of people believed flies were a nuisance.
The
quality-of-life concerns that were expressed about living near a
large-scale dairy farm were not based on reality. The researchers
contacted realtors that work in the study area and discovered that real est=
ate
transfers within 10 miles of the large-scale dairy farms had not shown
declining values since the dairies became operational. Real estate values
appreciated at similar rates for land near and far to the large-scale dairy
farm. Government agencies and risk managers (farm owners/managers, dairy
development companies) had not received any complaints about drinking water
quality, odors, or fly infestations as a result of the large-scale dairy fa=
rms.
The r=
esearchers
concluded that people just do not want large-scale dairy farms in their
backyards…similar to not wanting airports, nuclear power plants, and
landfills in their backyards. The recommendation made by the researchers wa=
s to
locate large-scale dairy operations in areas where there are few, if any,
current neighbors and where future residential development is least likely =
to
occur. The recommendation sounds great, but it may be difficult to do,
especially here in the Northeast.
Knowing the perceptions and attitudes of people regarding
quality-of-life issues should be useful information for land-use planners, =
as
well as current dairy farmers. We need to do a better job of communicating =
with
our neighbors, addressing their concerns whether they are perceived or real,
and adopting best management practices.
—
DAIRY NOTES
1. A
recent Harvard School of Public Health study found that women consuming low=
-fat
dairy products had an 85% greater chance of a certain type of infertility t=
han
women consuming some full-fat dairy foods. Don’t chug-a-lug heavy cre=
am
or base your diet entirely on Ben & Jerry’s Cherry Garcia; one
serving of cheese or regular ice cream per day is sufficient. Also, though =
the
Harvard study didn’t mention it, low-fat dairy products are not likel=
y to
be a reliable method of birth control.
2. The negative attitude toward trans fats would seem to be positive for dairy product=
s, but
not so fast: Starbucks has asked its bakery suppliers to provide pastries w=
ith
no trans fat by the end of the year, which means no butter. That’s
because current FDA guidelines don’t differentiate between natural and
artificially-created trans fats, requiring foods=
with
at least 0.5 gram of trans fat to include this information on the label.
SOIL TEST LABS
Reprinted from the April 1982 Farm =
Report
in recognition of 25 years of the Miner Institute Farm Report.
Most
universities and commercial laboratories doing soil analyzes use about the =
same
analytical procedures, so it’s not surprising that there is some
semblance of agreement when the various labs are asked to determine whether=
a
soil sample is high, medium or low in a particular nutrient. What they d=
o
with the numbers—their fertilizer recommendations—ah, thereR=
17;s
the rub!
A farm
magazine has been running a series of articles comparing the recommendation=
s of
a host of different soil test labs, all who received identical soil samples.
The resulting confusion is enough to make a grown man cry. Or laugh, as the
case may be. However, I’ve sorted a few facts out of the numbers, and=
can
offer these comments:
1. It
seems that the cost of the soil analysis has almost nothing to do with the
quality of the recommendations. Some labs charging less than $5.00 per samp=
le
made recommendations that appeared more realistic and well-considered than =
did
a couple of labs with per-sample prices in the $20-50 range.
2. The
various labs’ philosophy concerning organic matter and the value of
alfalfa in an alfalfa-corn rotation differs tremendously. The
3.&n=
bsp;
If you interest is simply in having your soil
analyzed, then almost any lab will do. If you want the lab to make fertiliz=
er
recommendations you can live with, then pick your lab with care, and soil t=
est
regularly so that you’ll have some idea of what effects that lab̵=
7;s
recommendations are having on your soil fertility.
—Ev Thomas=
CHANGING=
TIMES
(?)<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
Also =
in
that April, 1982 Farm Report were the following items that originally
appeared in the March, 1882
A letter from a=
N.Y.
dairyman who was worried that margarine was reducing butter sales and wanted
Congress to do something about it.
·
A statement that from 1/3 to 2/3 of the nutrient v=
alue
of manure was being wasted due to poor manure management.
·
An editorial complaining that county fairs had str=
ayed
from their original agricultural roots.
Times=
sure
have changed, haven’t they?
What’s Happening on the Farm<= o:p>
Occas=
ionally
you will hear that a month is awareness or prevention month of some disease=
. We
have decided, along with the cows, that the title for March should be
“Mastitis Madness Month”.
We have had a flare-up of environmental mastitis in our high-produci=
ng
cows that we think is due to Klebsiella, based =
on
previous experience and culture results. Lots of thought has gone into the
source of the bacteria and how to reduce the cows’ exposure. Several
weeks ago we began adding chopped straw to the sawdust bedding. Has that
brought an increased bacteria load into the stall? Or is Klebsie=
lla
in the feed and passing through the GI tract, ending up in the manure. We k=
now
that our cows tend to lie too far forward in the stalls, resulting in dirti=
er
stalls. Almost all the cases of mastitis have been in the high group (10-150
DIM) that has been averaging 120-125 lbs/cow/day. In between milking some of
these cows are leaking milk; an open streak canal is the perfect opportunity
for invasion of the bacteria. So far, we have not had any cows die from
mastitis, although the majority of them have not returned to production. It=
is
depressing to see a cow produce 140-150 lbs of milk one day and then within=
two
days be producing nothing and looking like she is going to “kick the =
bucket”.
So as we’re treating these sick cows with fluids and antibiotics,
we’re working on preventing more cases!
—Anna Pape,
pape@whminer.com
—
CROPPING DECISIONS DURING TOUGH TIMES
We=
217;re
told that this spring farm equipment dealers are offering a
“Dairyman’s Special” tractor: No seat and no steering whe=
el
for the farmer (who because of low milk prices and higher costs) has lost h=
is
butt and doesn’t know where to turn. This is probably funnier if
you’re not a dairy farmer. For many dairy farmers this spring’s
cropping decisions are especially critical since not only are dollars in ve=
ry
short supply, but a lousy 2006 growing season chewed up excess forage
inventories. This year the challenge is producing as much high quality fora=
ge
as possible, and with limited financial resources.
At our
recent Corn Congress I suggested five ways that farmers could decrease thei=
r per-ton
cost of producing forages. Cost per ton is more important than cost per acr=
e.
1.&n=
bsp;
Calibrate your field sprayer and buy new nozzle ti=
ps,
or use a custom operator. A university study found that inaccurate herbici=
de
application cost farmers $2 to $12 per acre in added chemicals, crop damage=
and
poor weed control. New, low-drift nozzles are inexpensive and last a long t=
ime.
We put them on last year and are pleased with the improved performance: You=
can
see the difference when calibrating. They result in more herbicide winding =
up
where it will do the most good. However, if you know you can’t get yo=
ur
spraying done on time, a custom operator is a good, relatively inexpensive
option.
2.&n=
bsp;
Apply nitrogen to grass fields. Apply=
ing
spring manure or N fertilizer to grass in April can result in one of the
quickest conversions of fertilizer dollars to greatly increased yield
and quality. It may hurt to buy that expensive urea or other N fertilizer, =
but
forage grasses really need nitrogen.
3.&n=
bsp;
Start first cut by late May (most years). It
doesn’t cost any more to mow alfalfa in the bud stage vs. bloom, or to
mow grass in the boot stage vs. headed, but it makes a big difference in how
much milk the resulting forage will produce.
4.&n=
bsp;
End corn planting by the end of May (most years). As =
with
harvest timing, it doesn’t cost any more to plant corn in mid-May tha=
n it
does in mid-June, but you’ll know the difference this fall. If you kn=
ow
you won’t be able to plant all your corn by the end of May, see if you
can get someone to custom plant at least some of your corn. The $20-25 per =
acre
typical custom planting cost is quite reasonable given the yield and quality
difference between dented and dough stage corn silage.
5.&n=
bsp;
Make hay crop silage in a day.
S-t-r-e-t-c-h those windrows out as wide as your mower-conditioner will all=
ow,
reducing field drying time, preserving valuable plant sugars and resulting =
in
better hay crop silage.
To th=
ese
I’d add one more: First-year corn doesn’t need any more N than =
is
in a typical starter fertilizer. Cornell has plenty of on-farm data showing
that there isn’t any response to sidedressing N
on first-year corn, whether the sod was 100% alfalfa, 100% grass or anything
between. Use about 30 lbs/acre of N in the starter band, and that’s <=
span
class=3DGramE>all the N you need the first year.
—=
;E.T.
COURT PUTS THE KIBOSH ON ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA
We=
217;ve
never thought that Roundup Ready alfalfa would be a big hit in the Northeas=
t,
simply because over 80% of alfalfa in NY and
The l=
egal
action against the USDA (by the Center for Food Safety and others) centers =
on
the USDA’s process in approving Roundup Ready alfalfa. It’s =
not
focused on the safety of RR alfalfa (the District Court, USDA and Monsanto =
all
seem to agree on this), but on the regulatory procedures used to approve it=
for
planting.
This =
had an
immediate impact here at the Institute: Monsanto was funding a RR alfalfa t=
rial
this spring that we were going to plant on a nearby farm. We had the field =
and
the variety picked out, the plot design, the farmer’s approval, and
confirmation of Monsanto’s funding. Now we’re all dressed up wi=
th
no place to go. Rats.
GLYPHOSATE
HERBICIDES
There=
are
three main differences between the many formulations and brands of glyphosate (AKA Roundup): The salt included in the
formulation; surfactants and other “inert” ingredients; and the
concentration of the active ingredient.
Adjuvants: While
there can be performance differences between glyphosat=
e
products, these are often because of the surfactant formulated with the
product. University trials have consistently demonstrated similar performan=
ce
among glyphosate products when equivalent ra=
tes
are applied and label recommendations for surfactants are followed.
—=
;Condensed
and adapted from information by Bob Hartzler, <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on">
A BIT OF HISTORY: American Bison at Miner Institute=
When =
William
Miner was assembling his huge farm in the early 1900s he brought a small he=
rd
of American bison to his Heart’s Delight Farm. This was probably beca=
use
they were an endangered species back then, but perhaps he just wanted to ha=
ve
some bison here. And here they remained for the better part of 100 years, w=
ith
the occasional bull imported to prevent the herd from becoming too inbred. =
Bison
don’t like fences, so when ours got tired of their pasture or perhaps
just bored they’d simply charge through four strands of barbed wire a=
nd
off they’d go. One February the herd spent three days in and t=
he
rest of the month out incurring property damage claims. They got so =
far
afield that we hired an airplane to scout for them, to no avail. We eventua=
lly
solved the wandering bison problem by digging a ditch around the pasture so
that they couldn’t get up a head of steam before reaching the fence. =
(If
this didn’t work one suggestion was to fill the ditch with water and
stock it with alligators.)
In al=
l the
years they were here these beasts never became domesticated. Indeed, the te=
rm
“tame bison” is an oxymoron. The problem wasn’t the one or
two bulls in the herd, which were thoroughly henpecked (though that’s
probably not the most accurate term), but the cows. The bison cows were
ill-tempered on their best of days and much worse during calving season. Th=
ey
never lost their range instincts, and when one was calving the other cows w=
ould
form a circle around her, facing out to ward off predators. Sometimes it was
days before we could determine the sex of the calf, and then only at the ri=
sk
of life and limb. Institute president Harry Randy was almost killed by a bi=
son
cow that knocked him over and pinned him against a fencepost. The only reas=
on
he survived was that the cow got tired of stomping on him and moseyed off,
leaving Harry in an untidy pile of mud and blood and manure.
After=
he
was attacked an understandably vindictive Harry wanted to get rid of the wh=
ole
herd. However, Chairman of the Board Jim FitzPatrick
said that as long as he (Jim) was there the buffalo were staying put. As a
compromise I suggested to Harry that we sell all the bison except a bull an=
d a
cow, then shoot, stuff and mount the loving couple on stakes in a wooded,
far-off corner of the pasture. That’s as close as most people usually=
got
to them, or had any sane reason to. Sadly, this brilliant idea was rejected=
as
high risk, especially if Mr. FitzPatrick caught=
on to
it. Jim passed away in 1988, at which point the Miner Institute bison almost
immediately became an endangered species once again (at Miner Institute, at
least). Harry soon got a “bison expert” (though Harry was the o=
nly
one attesting to the guy’s credentials) to declare that our bison were
badly inbred and poorly represented the species. That’s all the excuse
Harry needed: We butchered and ate a couple and sold the rest, and the bison
herd became a part of our rich history. That was almost twenty years ago, y=
et
people keep asking “Do you still have the buffalo at Miner Institute?=
”
No, and we’re not likely to get any anytime soon. —=
;E.T. This =
time
of year some farm publications include information on evaluating alfalfa
stands, suggesting a minimum number of alfalfa plants desired per square fo=
ot.
Most farmers in the How
productive is an alfalfa-grass stand with only one or two plants per square
foot? This depends on several factors: 1. What
grass species is growing with the alfalfa? If it’s reed canarygrass or tall fescue, chances are that the gras=
s has
at least partly filled in the bare spots left by dying alfalfa plants. 2. Will
you fertilize the field with nitrogen or topdressed
manure? Nitrogen applied just as the grass is greening up is essential for
maximum yield and quality of a mixed alfalfa-grass stand where grass is a
significant component. Be honest: If the stand is at least 50% grass, ferti=
lize
it as you would a good grass field. 3. How
uniform is the alfalfa stand? If you have an almost pure stand of alfalfa on
the 40% of the field that’s high and dry and close to a 0% stand
everywhere else, that’s not a 40% alfalfa stand. In this case
I’d be tempted to apply N to the part of the field that’s almost
all grass, driving around the patches of good alfalfa. Your meanderings mig=
ht
cause the neighbors to consider you crazy (your wife, of course, is already
certain of it), but you don’t want to waste expensive nitrogen fertil=
izer
on good alfalfa. Don&#=
8217;t
be too quick to judge your alfalfa stand this spring. Often alfalfa plants =
are
injured by winter conditions and look really lousy early in the season, just
sitting there while other plants green up and start growing. The lousy-look=
ing
ones are probably on their way out, but some recover enough to produce a de=
cent
yield. Several years ago we learned first-hand the difference between winte=
rkill
and winter injury; we came close to plowing down one 3rd =
year
alfalfa-grass stand in April, only to find that it improved each and every
cutting. If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again,
it’s probably worth it.EVALUATING A=
LFALFA
STANDS
CLOSING COMMENT