WHAT’S HAPPENING = ON THE FARM

Spring has arrived here at Heart’s Delight Farm and with it all the activities that this time of year brings. It is much easie= r to work without having to trudge through the snow in all those layers of winter clothes – good thing because we have lots to do!

The North Shop, where the crop = crew works, has been quiet all winter as they have been busy getting the tractors and equipment ready for the growing season. Now the equipment is out in the ya= rd and the shop is buzzing with activity! We’ve started to disc harrow some fields, following behind with the rock picker – what a wonderful implement! The new Case MX190 has been put to work already, spreading fertilizer. The corn planter = is waiting to be hitched up to a tractor and brought out to the field as soon = as the ground warms up to 50 degrees F – any day now. Those of us who lo= ve fieldwork are dreaming of mowing hay, running the self-propelled chopper, a= nd driving a dump truck full of freshly chopped forage! Meanwhile, over at the dairy barn,= we are calculating our feed inventory to make sure that at our current feeding rates we’ll have enough forage for the cows and heifers until next year’s crop is in the bunk and fermented.

We also have spring cleaning to do at the barn. The sidewall curtains are covered = with dirt and sawdust and need to be sprayed clean with water. Manure has built up on the alley w= alls and the metal gates and our cattle trailers need to be pressure washed.

The herd is doing well – averaging between 92 and 97 lbs. of milk per cow per day. The mastitis is u= nder control; we are not treating any cows at present. Although some of the cows recovered and came back in milk, we did end up selling several of the cows = that had acute infections. Mastitis is an expensive disease between drug costs, = loss of milk in the tank, and the cost of involuntary culling! Concerning reproduction, we are in a good position going into the summer – 55% of the herd is pregnant and the bredsum for the la= st 150 days shows the pregnancy rate at an average of 24%. We’ve figured tha= t we need approximately 5.5 pregnancies each week (to maintain herd size and hav= e a 13 month calving interval) and we have been averaging 7.5 pregnancies each week.

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com =

—Steve Couture, couture@w= hminer.com

Feasibility of a Small-Scale Dairy Processing Facility

“It’s the best chocolate milk…we have to stop.” This was the statement declare= d by Anna Pape, our dairy intern, on a recent trip t= o the New England Dairy Feed Conference in West Lebanon, NH. An= na was referring to the McNamara Dairy in Plainfield, NH. The dairy produces and bottles fresh quality milk for distribution in the local community.

Since Anna is a New Hampshirite, I was a little skeptical of her claim. M= y view changed quickly after I tasted some of the McNamara Dairy chocolate milk offered at the conference. We (a Miner Institute van load of students and staff) took a detour on the way home to visit the dairy. We were greeted by= Pat McNamara and he told us about the business and gave us a tour of the dairy processing facility. We left the on-farm store with several glass bottles f= ull of chocolate milk and arrived in Chazy a few hours later with several empty glass bottles. Anna was right…the chocolate milk was fantastic.<= /o:p>

I wondered about the feasibilit= y of starting a small-scale dairy processing facility here in the North Country = or in Vermont. A dairy processing facility might be able to provide a dairy producer with a great financial return and more market security by eliminating a “middleman.” Also, community-supported agriculture is a growing trend in agriculture. This trend will continue to grow with the rising inte= rest in the origin of food and the nostalgia for the family farm of yesteryear. = The McNamara Dairy uses the slogan “quality products of yesteryear”= on their glass milk bottles.

While looking for information on the investment and operational feasibility of a small-scale dairy processing facility, I came across an interesting study in the May 2007 issue of the Journal of Dairy Science. The study examined the economic feasibility of 50- and 500-cow dairy processing facilities in Vermont for fluid milk, yogurt, and ch= eese. Net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) calculations for projected costs and returns of a 10-yr period (Table 1) indicated that the 500-cow yogurt and cheese plants would be the most profitable, followed by the 50-cow yogurt plant. Fluid mi= lk produced at either scale was projected to be economically infeasible. =

This study relied on key assumptions regarding plant ownership, financing, construction costs, management, and marketing skills of owners. Although changing some of the k= ey assumptions may yield different results, the study provides a framework for analyzing similar dairy processing ventures. If you are interested in start= ing a value-added processing facility, I encourage you to take a closer look at= the Vermont study. (J. Diary Sci. 90:2505-2516; A= Cost and Returns Evaluation of Alternative Dairy Products to Determine Capital Investment and Operational Feasibility of a Small-Scale Dairy Processing Facility.)

—Heather Dann

dann@whminer.com

DON’T GET JUNKED

The “Junk Mail” fil= ter in the Miner Institute email system has recently become much more efficient= at sorting wheat from chaff. However, if you send us an email (especially for = the first time) there’s a slim chance that the filter might consider you chaff and dump you into the Junk Mail file. (We’re told that AOL email accounts may be more susceptible to this.) Various staff members treat junk mail differently, but some of us dump it without looking since there often = are over 100 junk messages per day, mostly get-rich-quick schemes, body part enhancing elixirs, and Nigerians promising to share millions of new-found wealth if you’ll send them your bank account numbers. So far almost a= ll legitimate email messages to us, including first-timers, have wound up in o= ur inbox. However, if you send us an email and don’t get a timely response, it = may be wise to phone us. (Yeah, old technology, but…) The office phone nu= mber is always on the first page of the Farm Report, and when you call you’ll be directed to the appropriate person. If we know that you’ve been “junked” we can fix it so it doesn’t ha= ppen again.

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK=

Getting Ready for = Summer Heat

The few sunny, warm days we’ve had this spring made me anticipate summer – and wonder if we’ll have a “good” or “bad” summer for heat stress. As I write this article, I am actually in Tokyo at a dairy management conference = (more on this trip next month) and one of the topics is new research and key conc= epts in heat stress abatement. There were four major points – let’s = have a look at them now so we can be better prepared when heat and humidity hit.=

Point= 1. Heat stress is associated with rumen acidosis. Data from the 1970’s, which= was mostly forgotten until recently, showed clearly that heat stress conditions reduce rumen pH to levels well below 6.0. If we feed a diet that is borderl= ine low in fiber and high starch, that will only make the problem worse. Heat-stressed cows ruminate less, drool, pant, and are more likely to sort their diet or slug-feed. All of these changes in hot, humid weather contrib= ute to lower rumen pH. Management factors such as overcrowding inhibit normal rumination (by as much as 1 to 2 hours per day!) and the negative consequen= ces of high stocking densities in our pens will be even worse during heat stres= s.

Point= 2. Heat stress will increase the incidence of lameness and claw lesions. Because he= at stress exacerbates acidosis, the incidence of laminitis increases. In addit= ion, hot cows stood in the alley nearly 2 hours per day more than comfortable co= ws. So, more stress is placed on the hoof. Recent research indicates that risk = of lameness begins to increase at a temperature-humidity (THI) index of only 6= 8 or so, which may not feel very uncomfortable to us, but is stressful to a lactating dairy cow. These researchers noted that problems could occur at o= nly 70^oF.

Point= 3. THI = and body temperature mediate cow behavior, especially standing and lying. Body temperature rises when cows are lying in stalls. When it reaches about 102,= the cow stands up in an effort to cool off because more surface area will be available for evaporative cooling. Use of sprinklers and/or fans will speed= the rate of body temperature decline. Once body temperature drops back below 10= 2, the cow is then more likely to lie back down. This research clearly pointed= out the importance of cow cooling if we want to keep cows off their feet during heat stress.

Point= 4. Feed= ing more digestible NDF may improve performance during heat stress. Recent stud= ies show greater milk production when some forage fiber is replaced with nonforage sources of fiber such as soybean hulls. Alt= hough the mechanism is unknown, it may be related to less heat of digestion for t= he highly digestible NDF in the soybean hulls compared with the forage. Another study found that feeding 50% of the TMR after 7:00 pm resulted in a 7% improvement in efficiency of milk production.

We keep learning more about heat stress effects on the cow, and the negative consequences of heat stress on = cow behavior, feed intake, and health. All of this new information is useful, but we can never forget the basics of heat stress abatement. The prioritized to-do list for reducing the negative effects on your herd are:

1. = Provide ample water – the heat-stressed cow&= #8217;s water requirement is 1.2 to 2.0 times normal.

2. = Provide shade when cows are outside to reduce solar heat loading.

3. = Reduce walking distance to the parlor. The elevati= on in body temperature that occurs when a cow walks excessive distances in the heat of the day will last six to ten hours.

4. = Improve cow cooling in the holding pen and exit la= nes.

5. = Cool close-ups, fresh, = and early lactation cows to improve feed intake.

6. = Cool mid-late lactation cows.

7. = Adjust rations. Ration adjustments (such as increa= sing digestible NDF) will not be fully effective unless cows are also cooled.

By the time you read this artic= le, it will likely be mid-May. Now is the time to seriously evaluate your plans= for dealing with heat stress and make any changes needed to be fully prepared. Although we may want to simply bask in the pleasant spring days that have finally arrived, heat stress for our cows wi= ll most likely be here before we know it.

—Rick Grant

grant@whminer.com

HAY CROP MOWING HEIGHT

Two years of research here at M= iner Institute pretty much agreed with the results of research done elsewhere: Harvesting higher than 2” (or the height necessary to avoid field scalping) sacrifices yield without much increase in forage quality. Therefo= re, unless fields are very uneven or you did a rotten job of picking stones bef= ore you seeded, our recommendation is to leave about a 2” stubble height. This is true regardless of whether you have straight alfalfa, alfalfa-grass= or all grass. Birdsfoot trefoil might be the excep= tion since I’ve seen recommendations to leave a higher stubble height for trefoil, but most farmers can’t get the stuff to live very long anywa= y. Our research found that forage yield increased or decreased by 500 lbs of d= ry matter (total of three cuttings) for each inch between 2” and 4”, or a total of half a ton of dry matter/acre, which we think is a lot. This is al= most exactly what other research trials have found. We still recommend a 4”= ; or 5” stubble for fall harvests—where you don’t expect much = regrowth—but that’s still months away, th= ank goodness.

Monitor the ash levels in your forage analysis and let them be help guide mowing height. Forages normally contain about 8% ash (calcium, potassium, phosph= orus, etc.), so if your ash levels are much above this (over 10%) you’re probably harvesting two ladies: Alfalfa—the queen of forages, and Mot= her Earth. The first makes good feed, the second does not. Average ash concentrations on hay = crops have been on the rise, most likely due to the increased use of disk mower-conditioners. It takes a serious rock to stop a disk mower, while wit= h a sicklebar mow too close and you’re soon off the tractor repairing a broken knife section. (Been there, done that.) We’= ;ve heard of cases where the stuff deposited onto windrows when the crop is sca= lped with a disk mower resulted in high butyric acid concentrations even when the forage dry matter was 35% or so, where you wouldn’t expect to find mu= ch butyric acid at all. Butyric silage is nasty stuff; you don’t want it= on your farm.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com

ORGANIC FARMING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

British organic farmers are mad= at David Miliband, Britain’s Environment Secretary, and Sir David King, the government’s chief scientist. Miliband recently stated that organic food is a “lifestyle choice” with no evidence that it’s nutritional= ly superior, while King said that organic food is no safer than food produced = by conventional means. Fighting words to Britain= ’s $2 billion organic food industry, which had a 30% growth in sales last year= .

Milib= and’s and King’s comments were made following <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Britain’s first compreh= ensive study of the environmental impact of food production. The report concluded = that there is “insufficient evidence” that organic food has fewer ecological side effects than other farming methods. A Manchester Business= School study found = that while many organic products had lower ecological impacts than conventionally-produced foods, organic production of milk, tomatoes and chi= cken may be more polluting than their intensively-farmed equivalents. Usi= ng data from previous studies, the researchers singled out milk as an example = of the environmental challenges of organic farming: Organic milk requires 80% = more land, creates almost twice the amount of water pollutants, and generates 16% more carbon dioxide (“greenhouse gas”) than conventional milk production.

Then there’s the matter of food safety: Though the whole story may never be known, it appears t= hat last fall’s outbreak of the deadly strain of E. coli that kill= ed three people and made over 200 sick was caused by organically grown spinach. That this could have happened is confirmed by University of Minne= sota research that found organic lettuce (another leafy vegetable) to be the most contaminated crop they tested, with one in four heads contaminated with the more common and less lethal strain of E. coli. They found that organ= ic produce was six times more likely to have E. coli than produce from conventional farms, and they found salmonella bacteria on organic lett= uce and green peppers, but not on the conventionally-grown veggies. Those famil= iar with crop production shouldn’t be surprised at this, given organic agriculture’s reliance on “natural” rather than “ch= emical” fertilizers.

—E.T.

Vet’s Corner: Food Safety for Cows, = Too

Food safety for pets and= humans has been the topic of recent headlines, so now dairy farmers may turn their attention to harvesting safe forage for their cows. Years ago little soil got into for= age; this made for a short list of diseases to consider that could be introduced through soil in the feed. Som= e of the older diseases that are rare but still seen in the Northeast include:

Actin= omycosis (Lum= py Jaw) is manifested as osteomyelitis (swelling of bony tissue) of the upper or lower jaw. <= u>Actinomyces bovis from soil enters through a wound in t= he cow’s mouth to cause the typical bony swelling. This disease was not widespread and tended to occur on a few river bottom farms.

Liste= riosis, seen= as circling disease or sporadic abortion, was seen in herds which were fed corn silage which had poor fermentation as evidenced by alkaline pH.<= /span>

With the introduction of improv= ed mowing equipment in the past 15 years, it has been noted that more soil gets into hay crop silage and corn. Consequently, we have seen more herds suffer sudden deaths due to so= il borne Clostridia species. Clostridia species are old familiar causes of sud= den death, caused by the ingestion of spores in the soil. Thirty years ago <= u>Clostridium perfringes C & D were considered to= be the consequence of over feeding grain to young stock and Clostridia <= span class=3DSpellE>chauvoei was considered to be a problem in he= ifers on too closely grazed pasture. At the time it wasn’t considered neces= sary to vaccinate animals over 24 months old and only pastured cattle were vaccinated. In the past 10 years our practice has had many occasions to cha= nge this recommendation. Several farms on high concentrate diets are including Clostridia vaccination in the dry cow vaccine list to prevent sudden death = in high producing fresh cows. Du= e to improper fermentation of forage, Clostridia that originate from spores in t= he soil proliferate in spoiled feed and can overwhelm fresh cows with compromi= sed immune systems.

In the past 5 years Hemorrha= gic Bowel Syndrome has been seen in some herds that struggle with acidosis-= rumenitis-laminitis. There is research and debate abo= ut the specific organism that causes the disease. Clostridium perfringes A, another soil-borne organism, is one of the pathogens suspected to be involved.

Now a new pathogen is on our li= st of possible soil feed contaminates. Klebsiella<= /span> is a coliform-type mastitis that usually ca= uses loss of the quarter and/or the cow. Thirty years ago we were taught that Klebsiella was brought under the cow in wet sawdust m= ade from logs that had been dragged through mud. Klebsiell= a can also be isolated from feces, and PCR testing tells if the mastitis stra= in comes from the sawdust or feces. In cases where the mastitis pathogen is the fecal strain, is the Klebsiella entering the GI= tract as soil in the forage or fecal contamination of the feed? Until further research answers the question, this is another reason to be careful to keep soil out of forages.

—Kent Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates,= Inc.

Hugamoo@comcast.net

WHAT&= #8217;S HAPPENING IN THE FIELD

Glory= oski, a g= ood winter for alfalfa survival! Seeming proof of this is that so far this spri= ng I haven’t had a single call about what to do with a winterkilled alfalfa stand. Late this winter Dutch Rovers, our Chazy farming neighbor, said that= he thought we’d had the perfect winter for alfalfa survival—turns = out he was right. When we didn’t have snow cover it wasn’t very col= d, and when it was very cold we had snow cover. Plus, we had the least ice she= et damage in recent memory. We’re not finding much of a relationship bet= ween taking a fall harvest and winter survival. We’re not doing any resear= ch on the subject, and taking a fall harvest could be modestly reducing first = cut yield the following spring and we wouldn’t know it. However, we sure can’t see any noticeable difference in winter survival, and as long as there’s enough forage there in late September or early October to mak= e it worth while dragging a mower-conditioner around the field, continue to beli= eve that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

—E.T.

The Feeder’s Job: Third Priority

The third priority of the feede= r is observing and planning. After mastering priorities one and two, application= of the third priority, observing and planning, lifts a feeding program up from beginning to intermediate status. This includes watching your program with a critical eye, asking questions about what is and what should be, and answer= ing honestly about what is seen.

Obser= ving focuses on the “here and now.” The feeder should be watching feeds, cows, and equipment and looking for changes and exceptions. Feeds should be checked daily for quality, stability, and changes. Certain other observations should occur regularly. Dry matters should be measured at least weekly and composition samples should be drawn based on variability: = The more variable the composition, the more frequent the sampling.

The feeder is an excellent posi= tion to watch cows. Physically, the feeder usually rides high and slow past pens= as feed is unloaded. The feeder can watch the group to spot patterns and probl= ems. Some questions to focus the feeder include:

·= ;      =    How many cows are in the group?<= /p>
·= ;      =    Are cows eating, drinking, and ruminating?

·= ;      =    Are they comfortable and clean?<= /p>
·= ;      =    Are they walking on healthy feet and legs?

·= ;      =    Are cows too thin or too fat?

Also, from this vantage point t= he feeder can note exceptions by cow and jot down heats, lameness, and illness= .

Ralph, our feeder, considers the driver’s seat of the mix truck the best place on the dairy to observe= the herd. He’s constantly monitoring the groups as he feeds. The early morning light this time of year spotlights group body condition as the cows line up to eat fresh feed at the bunk.&nbs= p; He also carries a pad and pen to write down cows in heat. And if a wate= rer is not working he will stop and fix it.

Within the third priority, a fe= eder also plans. Planning involves regularly-scheduled tasks to maintain a high-quality feed program as well as looking ahead and trying to foresee challenges and opportunities to the feeding program in coming weeks and mon= ths. Planning can begin with tracking of feed inventories including how much fee= d is on hand and, at current rates of use, how long it will last. This begins the overall planning of feeding program, projecting when orders should be placed and when program changes are likely to occur. The goal is a proactive appro= ach ensuring that in a timely manner samples are run, rations adjusted, and mix sheets are current. Having projected rations ready for forage changes or hot days can be the difference between consistency and bumps in your feeding program. A proactive plan is = the goal of a high-quality feeding program.

With both observation and plann= ing, the feeder is at the center of a high-quality feeding program, collecting a= nd disseminating information to the owner, herdperson, nutritionist, veterinarian, and milkers. A feed= er should know:

·= ;      =    Who provides the ration balancing feed analysis?

·= ;      =    Who provides the ration balancing animal descripti= on?

·= ;      =    Who provides the ration sheets or mix sheets?

·= ;      =    The feeder is responsible for making sure these ta= sks are completed on-time.

The observation and planning wi= thin the third priority take the feeding program to the intermediate level. Delivering feed properly will be discussed in the next Farm Report.

—Steve Mooney

mooney@whminer.com

Silage pac= king and initial layer thickness

Soon it will be time for 1^=
st cut haylage and thoughts of packing density to = ensure maximum preservation of forage quality, protein and digestible fiber. Rapid harvest of grass and alfalfa at the proper maturity and moisture is critica= l to maximize forage quality. With proper packing, silage densities of >16 lbs DM/ft³ will help minimize DM losses during the aerobic phase of ensiling. Dry matter losses of 20% can occur with only 10 lbs DM/ft^{3,
but can be reduced to 10% at 22 lbs DM/ft³ (Ruppel 1995, JDS 78:141). Some of the key factors to
consider in adequate packing are tractor weight, wheel load, forage DM and =
rate
of fill. However, one of the =
most
important factors that I believe gets overlooked is the depth of forage lay=
er
being packed.}

This subject becomes excruciati= ngly obvious to the Miner Institute research staff during midi-silo packing days. Fortunately, we do not yet have any such trial planned involving packing fr= esh forage into our 4’ x 3‘ upright conc= rete culverts. We use these structures as small upright silos that will hold abo= ut 1000 lbs of fresh packed forage at about 12-14 lbs DM/ft³. We pa= ck by foot, a lot of hopping and stomping, though there is a certain technique that allows us to maximize silage density. We limit the amount of forage to= 50 lbs for each layer of packing. At that amount we can adequately pack 50 lbs into a 2” layer equivalent to 0.29 ft³, the key being to p= ack a thin layer each time.

Kurt Ruppe= l of Cargill shared with us his research on this subject with regards to bunk= er silo packing. Keeping the lay= er of fresh forage to 6” helps maximize packing effectiveness. Depths of fo= rage greater than 6” allows too much weight transfer to be dispersed within the forage mass rather than straight downward. Kurt showed data of silage densiti= es of 17 lbs DM/ft³ when 6” layers were packed versus 13 lbs DM/= ft³ when 12” layers of forage were packed using the same tractor weight. =

Applying this concept to packing our 30’ wide bunk to height of 10’, using the progressive wedge technique (3’ run to 1’ rise) means that the area to spread each load of fresh forage is actually ~948 square ft., recall (a²+b2=3Dc²). For first cut haylage, each truckload contains = ~10 T of forage (35%DM) in a dump-body volume of ~930 ft³. Spreading t= hat 930 cubic feet of forage over 948 square feet of wedge face means we’= re packing layers of forage at a depth of 0.98ft or 11.8 inches (930ft^{3/948ft²
x 12”/ft). To spread that same 930 cubic ft of forage to a depth of o=
nly
6” requires twice the length of wedge face, 62ft. (see figures below). Now this as=
sumes
that our rate of forage delivery and tractor weight is in accordance, recall
tractor weight/800 =3D tons/hour that can be adequately packed (fill rate).=
Given
our packing tractor weight of 30,000 lbs, we can fill silo and pack at a ra=
te
of 37.5T/hr, and with 10T loads, this means a load every 16 minutes. <=
/o:p>}

Take home message: Spread the forage thin, pack 6” layers of forage to maximize silage density and forage quality while minimizing spoilage. Get out a calculator and tape measure; run the math to check rate of filling, and area needed to pack thi= nner layers of forage and periodically measure the depth of forage layer being packed. I suggest we pack a longer flatter wedge to allow more forage to be spread over greater surface area, resulting in increased silage density and improved forage quality.

—Kurt Cotanch

cotanch@whminer.com

PASTURE THOUGHTS

Reprinted from the May 1982 Farm = Report in recognition of 25 years of the Miner Institute Farm Report.

As you get this copy of the Farm Report you have probably just turn= ed your cows and/or heifers out to pasture and your thoughts are probably more toward seedings, corn plantings, spraying, etc.=

Turning the cows out may help to eliminate feeding and manure handling chores, but there are some considerat= ions relating to the animals that can earn you quite a return on your time.=

First, as you were fixing fences this spring did you pick up all the old wire or staples? It is remarkably easy for your bes= t cow or heifer to badly cut a leg or teat on some old wire. Then there is hardware disease. I wish I had a dollar for every co= w that has died because of an old bent wire staple that someone was too lazy to pi= ck up. It is cheap insurance to = put a magnet in every cow and heifer. Vaccinating for blackleg may also be a good idea. Many herds in the = North Country have experienced losses due to this disease.

Is your pasture a dumping ground? Boards with nails, pi= eces of metal, tin cans, broken glass, can all seriously injure a valuable animal. Have you ever seen a = cow that had a canning jar gasket caught on her hoof? It’s not a pretty sight! Then there are fertilizer bags. Someone told me once that a walnut= shell full of urea could kill a cow. That’s about what might be left in a used bag.

So we have the heifers or cows = out in a pasture with good fences and not junk piles. Do they have a good clean source of water? How about salt? It should be free-choice, probably trace-mineral as well. How bi= g are the calves you have just put out? We have found that they should be at least 400 pounds before they hit the “back 40” to be forgotten for five months. Probably even = bigger if you really do “forget” them.

How about mineral supplementation? There are lo= ts of recommendations. Some of the = most common would be to use a high calcium-low phosphorus mixture mixed equal pa= rts with salt for heifers or a high phosphorus mixture for dry cows. In many instances, this is the pro= per recommendation, but if you heavily manure the pasture year after year you w= ill probably not need phosphorus, but you will need calcium even for your dry cows. This is the case for ou= r dry cow pasture at Miner. Located= right behind the barn, it is a most convenient place to spread manure.=

A few years back we found that = our dry cows out on pasture were having problems with milk fever and retained placenta. Forage analysis ind= icated our calcium to phosphorus rations was 1 to 2.5. A couple of ounces of a high calci= um mineral mix helped to bring things into line, and has worked well ever since. We are not recommendin= g that you run out and give your dry cows calcium supplements if they are not clea= ning properly. You should, however= , look into the cows’ diet and supplement to bring things into line. You can send fresh-cut grass to th= e DHI lab and have it analyzed. I wouldn’t get too concerned about protein = and energy because these nutrients change rapidly as the plant matures. You should sample for minerals if = your cows are not performing up to par.

Another rule of thumb to keep in mind is to observe what happens to milk production when you turn the cows out. If it goes down you may = have made the switch too quickly or your grain mix may be out of line. If it goes up be sure to get help = with next winter’s feed program because what you were doing this year was = not working. Other nutritional considerations relating to pasture days include:

Q: Do early summer fresheni= ng dry cows seem to have more udder udema?

A: Probably so, due to high protein levels in early actively growing grasses. Maybe you should feed those cows a little poor hay each day to dilute out that protein.

Q: Do you fertilize, clip, rotate, and drag your pastures?

A: Our experience would say= to look very hard at the economics associated with fertilization and with past= ure renovation with no-til legume seedings. In some cases these can be very beneficial. Soil testing can = give you a good indication as to the value of these practices. Dragging pastures with a chain har= row once a year is helpful in breaking up manure “pattys” and preventing clumping of the gr= asses around the manure. Pasture ro= tation can help you to increase the handling capacity of your pasture. We allow 4-6 weeks recovery after pastures are grazed. Our rule= of thumb in a rotational grazing program is 1,000 pounds of animal unit per 1½ acre. This techniqu= e on native North Country grass pastures give= s us gain of 1¼ to 1½ pounds per heifer per day without supplementation.

A little attention to some of t= hese pasture management techniques can easily help you put an extra 50 pounds of weight on a heifer during the summer. That can get those heifers in the milking string a month sooner.

In summary, while you are plant= ing corn this summer think about your pastures just a little. It may help you to gain some on th= e low price of milk.

—= ;Harry A. Randy

GROWING DEGREES, THEN AND NOW

The graph shows base 86/50 Growing Degree Days in Chazy for seve= ral five-year periods for the past 100 years. We didn’t select the time periods to support any particular contention; they’re approximately 1= 00, 50, 30 and 5 years ago. Missing data, especially in the earlier time period= s, prevented anything more comprehensive. We used five-year periods to reduce = the influence of one very warm or very cool growing season. <= /p>

From this, can you see any sign= of global warming? Fifty years ago we had higher growing season temperatures t= han we’ve had in the most recent five years. This isn’t to say we’re getting cooler; you could argue that we’re either getting slightly warmer or slightly cooler depending on the time period you choose. This isn’t to deny the existence of global temperature change; we’re not nearly smart enough to figure out what’s happening, m= uch less why. However, we would c= aution farmers not to change the relative maturity of corn hybrids they plant “because of global warming”.&n= bsp; Of course, since we just shivered through the first three weeks of April, warming doesn’t seem so bad, does it?

RANDOM THOUGHTS

·         The National Organic Standards Board recently vote= d to exclude cloned animals and their products from the organic food sector. Gee, what a surprise! (Not.) If organic farmers won’t accept genetically m= odified plants, do you think they’d accept Dolly the cloned sheep?

·         Recent legislation prohibiting the slaughter of ho= rses for foreign consumption has resulted in a glut of used horses that nobody w= ants. Livestock auctions are having a hard time selling them, and most animal res= cue organizations have “no room at the inn”. Some horse owners can’t afford to have a vet put their horses down, and many states prohibit burying horses. Let’s see now: Americans won’t eat horsemeat, we can’t export the meat for consumption elsewhere, and of= ten we can’t bury them. What alternatives are left? In some areas unwanted horses are being turned loose in the countryside. This is an alternative pe= rhaps but not a good one, for in time every live horse becomes a dead horse and w= ho wants a countryside littered with horse corpses?

·         In one of Bill Watterson’s “Calvin and Hobbes” comic strips, Calvin said: “I liked things better when I didn't understand them.” Maybe, but here are a few things I’d l= ike to know:

Þ      What hair color do they put on the driver's licens= es of bald men?

&= nbsp;

THE RUFUS DIARIES

Dear Diary: Those strange folks= at PETA are mighty upset at Al Gore on account of in his movie he didn’t= say nothin’ about cows and chickens being big producers of greenhouse gas. The movie’s somethi= n about the truth bein inconvenient, and I’= ll sure drink to that. I ain’t seen it yet b= ut it’ll prolly be at the drive-in soon. Now= most ever’one knows that cows make lots a gas at both ends, and any country boy worth his salt knows to stay away from the back e= nd of a cow on new grass lessn he wind up with a p= ocketful of green and I don’t mean greenbacks. But the ide= a of chickens making gas—that’s news to old Ruf= e. Must be more like a blip than a blast lessn the= y sort of ease it out but maybe I just ain’t bee= n payin attention, not that I have much truck with chic= kens anyhow. I don’t want to doubt a good old Tennessee boy like Mr. Gore, but IR= 17;ll have to ask the missus to listen closer next time she grains the hens. PETA wants Al to prove he’s for real and become a veg= gytarian, sez they’ll even cook him a “non-ch= icken” fried chicken dinner. That’s probably a non-starter but looking at how much more of Al there is these days, seems like a mess of veggies couldn’t hurt none. Course it would be jus= t like them Peta-ites to try to make somethin outa nothin just to= make the evenin’ news with that purty gal Mizz Katie Couric. They may be a few quail short of a covey, but they’re good at gettin’ PETA’s name in the news. We may laugh at them but at least we’re payin attention and that’s all I have to say about that.<= /p>
—Rufus Redneck<= /span>

RESEARCH SUMMARIES

·         Recent research at two locations each in New York and Pennsylvania found that planting grass with alfalfa reduces potato leafhopper dam= age. The research looked at both leafhopper resistant and nonresistant alfalfa varieties spring seeded with orchardgrass, tall fescue or timothy. During the seeding year there wasn’t much differen= ce between grass species, but the addition of grass to nonresistant alfalfa significantly reduced leafhopper damage and increased yield compared to hav= ing no grass in the mixture. Adding a grass to leafhopper-resistant varieties offered limited benefits in addition to those already provided by the resis= tant alfalfa.

·         The “basic cation saturation ratio” (BCSR) is a theoretically ideal balance of calc= ium, magnesium and potassium in the soil. This is still used by some private soil testing labs to interpret soil analyses. According to this theory, first proposed in 1940 based on greenhouse and field trials, plant growth is maximized when the soil’s exchangeable Ca, Mg and K concentrations are 65%, 10%, and 5% respectively. Much of this research now appears to have be= en seriously flawed, and numerous studies (including a re-examination of the 1= 940 research) suggest that within the ranges commonly found in soils, soil fertility and crop growth are not influenced by the ratios of Ca, Mg= and K. The authors conclude: “The data do not support the claims of the B= CSR, and continued promotion of the BCSR will result in the inefficient use of resources in agriculture and horticulture.” Reference: SSSAJ: Volu= me 71: Number 2. March-April 2007P. 259-265.

·         A recent British study concluded that genetical= ly modified crops (Roundup Ready, Bt, etc.) res= ult in a reduction in greenhouse gases by allowing farmers to use lower amounts of= pesticides and less tillage. Notill crop production result= s in less carbon dioxide escape into the atmosphere, and CO₂ is the m= ost notorious greenhouse gas. In the past ten years GM crops have helped farmers save over 400 million gallons of fuel, leading to a 5 million ton reduction= in CO₂ emissions. Source: AgBioForum= Vol 9, No. 3, 2006.

·         Not all lambsquarters<= /span> is created equal. Kansas<= /st1:PlaceName> State University weed scientists collected lambsquarters seed fr= om several states and applied glyphosate at several stages of development. While 1” high lambsquarte= rs seedlings were severely injured by glyphosate, 3” and 6” high plants weren’t nearly as injured. Moreover= , as the plants grew there was an increasing difference in tolerance between populations. So your 3” high lambsquarters might not be as susceptible to glyphosate as th= e lambsquarters on another farm. Source: Weed Scienc= e 55, March-April 2007.

·         You need a fungicide on seed corn to prevent se= edling diseases, but do you need an insecticide for first-year corn? Not if co= rn follows soybeans, according to recent Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> research. A two-year study of corn using Poncho 250 and Poncho 1250 seed treatments found no significant difference in forage quality or calculated per-acre milk yields between either Poncho treatment and the no-insecticide control. However, this wasn’t following an alfalfa-grass sod, a notab= le “producer” of wireworms. While we have no research evidence eit= her way, it might still be a good idea to use the low rate of seed company-appl= ied insecticide the first year after a grass sod.

·         The early bird may catch the worm, but applying glyphosate too early in the day could result in poorer weed control. Univ= ersity of Missouri weed scientists found grassy weed biomass to be 1.7 times greater when glyphosate was applied at 6:00 AM vs. anytime between= 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Don’t wait too long though, because grass control declined greatly when glyphosate= application was delayed until 8:00 PM or later. Previous results suggest th= at broadleaf weed control is also reduced with very early or very late applications. Therefore, don’t apply glyphosate<= /span> before breakfast or after your dinner (still called supper on some farms).<= i>

DAIRY NOTES

·         Following are the 2006 state rankings for several states for a number of crite= ria. We don’t know what to make of it all but nonetheless found the rankin= gs interesting.

=

=

·         All sorts of good news concerning the effects of d= airy product consumption. One study reported in American Journal of Epidemiol= ogy concludes that dairy products provide some protection against colon cancer. Another, in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggests that consuming dairy products may reduce fat absorption after a meal. And the Ap= ril issue of Nicotine and Tobacco Research reports that milk and cheese worsens the taste of cigarettes, possibly decreasing the inclination to smo= ke.

·         More good research news: According to researchers = at McMaster University, the protein in skim mi= lk builds muscle mass in young men almost twice as fast as soy milk protein. Therefore, not only are milk drinkers better lovers but they may be the ones kicking sand in the faces of soy milk drinkers.
·         And yet more good news: Due to the increased availability of flavored milk in single-serve containers, milk is one of the fastest-growing food items in restaurants, with a 4% increase in food servi= ce sales last year.

&= nbsp;

LAST-MINUTE SEED CORN REMINDERS

By now you should have a good i= dea where each bag of seed corn will be planted. (The seed,= not the bag.) This is especially important if, like here at the Institut= e, you have some seed treated with the low rate of Poncho or Cruiser Extreme a= nd some with the high rate. Here are a few last-minute reminders:

1.&n= bsp;       Using the high rate of Poncho/Cruiser on first year corn is a waste of money since the high rate costs almost three times as mu= ch as the low rate.

2.&n= bsp;       Some seed corn isn’t treated with either Pon= cho or Cruiser, so you’ll have to use a planterbox treatment. Don’t use a planterbox treatme= nt on anything already pretreated with Poncho/Cruiser.

3.&n= bsp;       Using corn rootworm resistant hybrids on first year corn is a waste of money and technology. We prefer using resistant hybrids = on third and later years of corn.

4.&n= bsp;       Planting glyphosate-re= sistant hybrids where you won’t use this herbicide is also a waste of money. = At one point I thought that planting all Roundup Ready corn would be cheap insurance in case you needed to apply a postemergence<= /span> herbicide. Then the tech fee increased so the price of insurance went up, and I don’t think that way any more.

5.&n= bsp;       The seed of most hybrids won’t germinate unt= il the soil temperature reaches about 50° F at the 2” planting depth. Planting into cold soils gets the corn into the ground, but the idea= is to get it out of the ground and growing. Don’t plant into cold, wet soils since it takes more nice days to warm wet soil than it does dry s= oil. For years I’ve said that any time after about May 1^st that= our soils are dry enough to plant corn, we’ll plant it.=

—= ;E.T.

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

=

=