MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

Footbath U= se Survey: Preliminary Response Summary

On January 5^th 429 surveys were mailed to producers in Northeastern= New York, Northwestern Vermont, and a few in Connecticut= , New Hampshire, Ma= ssachusetts, Maine, and Pennsylvania. The survey asked produce= rs questions about their footbath use practices, manure management, and general farm characteristics such as number of lactating cows.

Of the 429 surveys mailed, 105 were returned from producers and a few more from people that were not producers but had interest in the project. Of these, 61 were from NY, 50 from VT, 6 from NH, and one each from ME and PA. Additiona= lly, 77 of the farms or 73% of farms returning surveys were using footbaths. The average size of farms using footbaths was 433 lactating cows while the aver= age size of farms not using footbaths was 63 lactating cows. =

Producers reported using 13 different products including copper sulfate, formaldehyde, tetracycline, zinc sulfate, and commercially available products such as Pedicure. Producers on average were using 2 footbath products. Copper sulfa= te was used by 83% of the farms using a footbath, followed by 30% using formaldehyde and 10% using tetracycline. Zinc sulfate was used on 6% of far= ms and all other products on less than 2% of farms. Of the farms using a footb= ath, 50% use them only for the lactating cows, 24% for all animals, 15% for lactating cows and heifers, and 9% for lactating and dry cows.

Ninety percent of the producers reporting the use of a footbath stored manure for = some portion of the year. The manure storage types that were most commonly repor= ted were lagoons (37%) and pits (50%). The used foot= bath solutions are emptied into manure storages by 88% of the producers that are using them.

Based on the reported total manure applied per year, total tillable acres, and percent of acres receiving manure, the calculated application rate of copper sulfate per acre was 8.2. Since copper sulfate is 25% copper by weight this= is equivalent to 2.1 pounds per acre of copper applied per year. This only rep= resents an average as actual application rates per field or per acre was not collec= ted.

I would like to thank all the producers that took the time to respond to the survey. There is more data to be summarized and these results are currently being used to design projects for the summer research season and determine = the directions of future research. This research was funded by the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program.

—Sally Flis, flis@whminer.com

ZINC STUDY

Reprinted from the June, 1982 Farm Report in recognition of 25 years of this newsletter.<= /o:p>

Note: The following report is from Dr. Jim Brown, a soil scientist who worked for Miner Institute this past year in completing one phase of a long-term resea= rch project examining the zinc needs of corn. Zinc deficiencies are very common this year, including some severe cases.

Zinc deficiency may be responsible for reduced corn yields in the North Country. We have been working jointly with Cornell University, the University of Vermo= nt, and Agrico Chemical Co. on soil and plant testi= ng procedures to identify conditions leading to zinc deficiency of corn. Sever= al of the 51 fields we inspected were found to be zinc deficient. Zinc deficie= ncy appear during the first 30 to 45 days of growth as broad pale stripes midway between the margin and midrib of leaves. The most common condition associat= ed with the deficiency seems to be lack of manure, an excellent source of micronutrients such as zinc. Identification of the deficiency should begin = by examining unmanured fields sometime in June. A = soil zinc test should be requested for fields exhibiting zinc deficiency symptom= s.

Zinc can be applied as a foliar spray four to six weeks after planting, or appli= ed as bulk blended zinc sulfate with starter or broadcast fertilizer. The most economical use of zinc is two to four lbs/acre of zinc banded with starter fertilizer. It may also be broadcast to build up low soil levels, but this requires twice the quantity of fertilizer.

We have completed a greenhouse study to determine corn yield response to zinc in fertilizer and sludge compost. The study is being extended to several fields this summer. As a result of this work, we should know whether an economical corn yield response can be expected in fields we have described as zinc deficient. Zinc is an expensive micronutrient, and we do not recommend its = use unless indicated by soil or plant analysis.

—Ev Thomas, thomas@wh= miner.com

June, 2007 addendum to the zinc article: Our research did find significant yield increases from including zinc in the starter fertilizer, and at only 1 lb of zinc per acre (about 3 lbs of zinc sulfate), not two to four lbs as stated = in the article. Where soil test zinc concentrations are less than 1 lb/acre, <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Cornell University recommends 0.5 to 1.0 l= b of zinc in the fertilizer band with no more than 20 lbs of phosphate since P t= ies up Zn.

FROST DAMAGE

As most farmers know, crops differ considerably in their frost tolerance. There hasn’t been a lot written lately about specific temperature/crop susceptibility, so we have to rely on some old (1958) information. But since crop tolerance to frost hasn’t changed in the past fifty years, the following should be reliable. The temperatures listed are the minimum temperature at which plants can be considered safe from frost. Of course, t= here are a few variables including how much surface moisture there is and the co= lor of the soil surface. Dark colors absorb the heat from the sun, while light colors reflect it. That’s why so many cars in the Southwestern U.S. are white. (Residents there know that during the summer a seat belt buckle can be an effective branding iron when applied to a bare midriff.) While this may not seem important, I well remember a conventional tillage vs. notill on sod trial Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> had here many years ago. We had one of those early June frosts, and while t= he corn seedlings planted into the killed grass sod—light tan in color—were frosted right to the ground, the conventional corn a few f= eet away—dark brown soil surface—was unaffected.<= /p>

Below are the temperatures (degrees F) below which frost damage is likely. <= /o:p>

Vet’s Corner: Are Bulls more fertil= e than A.I.?

In last month’s Hoard’s Dairyman Jeff Stevenson, professor = at Kansas State University, gave a thorough discussion of the costs of natural service versus A.I. breeding. “The bottom line net cost per cow of using bulls was $10.27 more than using an A.I. program.” When managers of bull-bred herds that I visit= for herd health checks were challenged with this data, the common response was “Yeah, but the bulls get more cows bred quicker.” This response= led me to run some numbers on DC305 Consultant or PCDART for herds that I am privileged to monitor on a monthly basis.

Cows that are bred after 150 DIM will have calving interval over 14 months (150 = days + 282 days pregnant =3D 432 days)/30 days =3D 14.4 mo interval. Economic mo= dels predict that “fresher” herds produce better than herds with lon= ger days in milk. In this case, the natural service herds will have more cows t= hat are milking in a less profitable stage than the “fresher” A.I. herds.

The 21 day pregnancy rate is calculated for all cows in the herd that are past = the Voluntary Waiting Period and not already diagnosed pregnant. Even though co= ws that became pregnant before the VWP were removed= for the natural service herds; their preg rate badly trails the A.I. herds.

These numbers don’t support the belief that bulls get c= ows bred quicker. The superstar breeders are new facilities that have invested = in pedometer technology. The initial expense is significant, but there is litt= le recurring cost of hormone purchase, so over time the cost/pregnancy of this system will decline.

Little difference is seen in the performance of the other two A.I. programs. Four farms use DC 305 to generate daily injection lists and all cows are bred on timed A.I. The third group contains 16 herds that have monthly or bimonthly visits and start delayed breeders on targeted breeding or Ovsynch based on rectal palpation findings.

There are only three natural service herds, so this work does not carry the weigh= t of Dr. Stevenson’s 20,580 cow study. However, it would be hard for these three dairymen to illustrate that the bulls are getting cows bred quicker.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

—Kent E Henderson, DVM
Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.<= /span>

hugamoo@co= mcast.net

DAIRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM=

In April the N.Y. State Legislature funded the New York Dairy Assistance Progr= am, a $30 million effort to assist dairy farmers following the very low milk pric= es in 2006. $25 million was expended by the original deadline, with average payments just over $5000 per farm. Since the objective was for all $30 mill= ion to go to dairy farmers, the deadline was extended and it’s expected t= hat every dollar will wind up on NY dairy farms.

Miner Institute did not participate in the Dairy Assistance Program. We decided n= ot to participate when we found out that all $30 million would be expended. Th= is is consistent with the practice that’s been in place at the Institute= for over 25 years: Even though we can legally do so, we don’t participate= in any government program where our receiving money would mean that another fa= rm would be excluded or have its funding reduced. That’s why we’ve participated in the MILC program, but not in EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program).

FROM THE PRESIDENT= ’S DESK

Assessing Cow Comfort

Recently Pete Krawczel, who is a PhD student here at Min= er Institute, evaluated three common indices of cow comfort to see which one worked best under conditions of variable stocking densities that we see on-farm. He looked at: 1) cow comfort index (CCI), the number of cows lying= in a stall divided by the total number of cows in contact with a stall; 2) sta= ll standing index (SSI), the number of cows standing in a stall divided by the total number of cows in contact with a stall; and 3) stall use index (SUI),= the number of cows lying in a stall divided by the total number of cows in the = pen not eating. Herds and facilit= ies that score high in cow comfort often have much lower incidences of lameness= and other health problems. Pete’s objective was to evaluate the effects of stocking densities (stall and headlock basis) of 100, 113, 131, and 142% on= cow comfort indices during a 24-h period and particularly between midnight and = 4:00 a.m. when most resting activity occurs.

During peak resting hours, from midnig= ht to 4:00 a.m., cows standing idly in the alley increased by nearly three-fol= d as stocking density increased from 100 to 142%. At greater stocking densities, cows were forced to wait in the alley for a stall to become available and subsequently lay down more quickly once in the stall. The free-stall area in herds where stocking density exceeds 113% or so resembles the supermarket parking lot on Saturday morning. As soon as a stall opens up, several cows = are waiting to fill it.

During peak stall use in the early morning hours, there was little change in either CCI or SSI as stocking density increased. At every stocking density, CCI was near the recommended target of at least 85% and SSI never went beyond 20% w= hich is associated with excessive standing time in stalls. In contrast, the SUI decreased as stocking density increased above 113%. At 131 and 142% stocking density it = fell below the recommended target of 75+%. The CCI and SSI suggest that stocking density can be increased above 100% without having a detrimental effect on = cow comfort (based on stall use). This is most likely attributable to the unused stalls that are found at a 100% stocking density becoming occupied as stock= ing density increases. However, the increase in the number of cows standing in = the alley at each increased stocking density indicates a substantial decrease in overall comfort. <= /span>

Increasing stocking density above 100 = to 113% clearly increases the proportion of cows standing in alleys and compromises cow comfort. The CCI and SSI, calcul= ated using only the cows standing or lying in a stall, fail to incorporate the c= ows standing idly in an alley. Consequently, these indices do not assess the overall comfort of the pen environment for all cows within it. Conversely, = SUI accounts for all cows within the pen, and as a result is the more accurate indictor of individual cow comfort within a pen when stocking densities are increased above 100 to 113%. Cow comfort at higher stocking densities shoul= d be assessed during the time of peak lying behavior, which occurred in this stu= dy between the third milking and the delivery of fresh TMR (or, between about midnight and 4:00 a.m.).

The bottom line here is that we need t= o be assessing our pen environments for cow comfort. We also must realize that increasingly dairy herds may experience some significant overcrowding. So, = the method we use to measure cow comfort has to be accurate even under conditio= ns of high stocking density. In Pete’s study, the Stall Use Index did the best job, plus it is easy to calculate. If the herd is at ~100% stocking density, then all three indices will work well.

—Rick G= rant, grant@whminer.com <= /i>

BLAST FROM THE PAST

While waiting for a meeting to start in the agronomy conference room at the University of Vermont, I noticed a framed report= dated March 31, 1887. The report, from W.W. Cook, Director of the Vermont State Experiment Station, listed the various fertilizer products that had been te= sted and approved for sale. All the fertilizers had similar analysis and priced = at $37-38 per ton. They included such interesting products as Bowker’s Hill & Drill, Bradley’s XL Superphosphate, and Quinnipiac Phospha= te. All had an analysis of approximately 3-12-2, so it appears that they were starter fertilizers. There wasn’t any fertilizer tested that was more than 3% N or 2% K, so farmers of 120 years ago must have had a heck of a ti= me supplying enough of these critical nutrients to their crops. And while the fertilizer only cost about a dime per pound of plant nutrient, milk and oth= er farm commodity prices were a far cry from what they are now.

—E.T.

Calf to Ca= lf Transmission of Johne’s Disease

Cattle are infected most often with Johne= ’s Disease when they are calves (< 6 months of age). = Calves can be infected in utero or by ingesting= colostrum, milk, water, feed, or manure contaminated = with the bacterium, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis (MAP). It’s generally assumed that cattle start shedding the bacteria= at about 2 years of age and that MAP is only spread from infectious cows (over= 2 years of age) to calves. However, based on some recent research studies this may not be the case.

Michigan State University researchers found that fecal shedding of MAP occurred in calves from four different age groups (0-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-14 months, and 15-24 months) from 5 of 7 farms with a known test prevalence levels of 1 to 42%. Researchers from the Netherlands found that an estimated 5 to 14% of cattle became fecal culture positive be= fore 2 years of age in high prevalence herds (apparent prevalence =3D 10%). The = age at which cattle become infectious can be estimated by the age at which the cat= tle become fecal culture positive for MAP.

Does a calf that is shedding MAP infect other calves? Yes, according to another group of researchers from the Netherlands. Calves from Johne’s Disease-free herds (t= ested 4 times per year by fecal culture) were housed with infectious cows for 3 months. After 3 months, the calves (donor calves) were moved to a facility = that had not previously housed cattle and were commingled with 1 week old calves (receiver calves) for a 3 month period. All calves were blood and fecal tes= ted regularly for MAP until 43 to 48 months of age.

All of the donor calves shed MAP during period 1 when they were =3D 3 months of= age and housed with infected cows. Eighty percent of the donor calves shed MAP = from 3 to 6 months of age when they were housed with the receiver calves. Forty percent of receiver calves were infected from the donor calves, indicating calf-to-calf transmission of MAP. The route of transmission was most probab= le by the fecal-oral route. A common pattern in shedding of MAP by infected ca= lves was also noticed by the researchers. There was a peak shortly after MAP int= ake or infection and then a decline to no detectable shedding for a relatively = long time, and then an increase again.

These studies suggest that young stock shed MAP and should be a major concern in = the control of Johne’s Disease. Calf-to-calf transmission may be maintaining= Johne’s Disease in herds that have implemented Johne= 217;s test and cull control programs focused on adult cattle. Consult your veterinarian for help implementing a Johne’s Disease control program that focuses on both cow-to-c= alf and calf-to-calf transmission.

—Heather Dann, = dann@whminer.com

—Sally Flis, flis@whminer.com

BIODIESEL= AND CELLULOSIC ALCOHOL: IT AIN’T ALL PEACHES AND CREAM<= /p>
There’s been quite a bit of discussion in the farm press about the challenges cause= d by the tremendous increase in corn-based ethanol production. However, biodiesel and, eventually, cellulosic ethanol (when and if it becomes as big a thing = as some are predicting) have their own problems. One seems kind of trivial, the other doesn’t:

There’s already a glut of glycerol on the market. Glycerol is a byproduct of biodie= sel production; for every 10 pounds of biodiesel there’s 1 pound of glyce= rol. USDA scientists are currently working on new ways to use glycerol including= in the plastics and surfactant industries.

Of more serious concern is what will happen when we start harvesting huge amou= nts of grass, corn stover and other crop residues f= or biomass for cellulosic ethanol production. Crop residues are needed to main= tain good soil structure and moisture holding capacity. Using crop residues for ethanol production may be a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The Feeder’s Job: FOURTH Priority<= /span>

The fourth priority of the feeder’s job is delivering feed properly. This includes assembling, mixing, and feeding a ration so that cows eat the diet formulated on paper. The goal is an efficient assembly of the prescribed ra= tion in minimum time with ingredients added in a sequence to promote a uniform m= ix while accommodating the restrictions and requirements of the mixer.

Assembling a ration involves not only choosing good feed and adding it in the right am= ount (as discussed in previous priorities) but also managing the batch so that t= he final mix is uniform and complete. The order in which ingredients are added= is determined by where the feeds are located and how the mixer works. Often, t= he forages are located together and concentrates somewhere else. Where you start is determined by the mixer type. Some mixers produce a better mix if forages are added first, others concentrates. Ultimately, the sequence of fillin= g is unique to each dairy and, once established, the sequence becomes standard operating procedure (SOP) for the dairy.

At Miner Institute the concentrates are added first. While these concentrates = are loaded, the reel-type mixer isn’t mixing to allow for the accurate addition of concentrates (±5 lbs). Then the feed truck is moved to silage bunkers and forages are added. Mixing causes the scale reading to “bounce” as the feeds are tumbled within mixer. This “bounce” is better managed against the greater weights of the forages required in most batches.

With all the ingredients in the mixer, the batch must be mixed uniformly before feeding. The feeder must mix the batch for a time and at a speed that deliv= ers a uniform mix. With each mixer, reading the manual, talking with the dealer, and experience will give a place to start for estimating the time and speed= for mixing. From there, observation will help you adjust the mix parameters to improve the mix where necessary. In a well-mixed batch, you should not see clumps, particle size reduction, or changes in color or texture from the beginning to end of the load. If the mix is incomplete, time or speed need = to be increased.

Miner Institute doesn’t have a set mixing time for each load but, rather, t= he load is allowed mix while prep work is done for the next batch. The time ta= ken for tasks such as sampling or collecting forages from distant silage bags ensures the batch is mixed before delivery. With this method, the concern is particle size reduction due to over mixing but, with our reel-type mixer, t= his isn’t a concern.

Once thoroughly mixed, feed is delivered to the cows. Each load is unloaded while the truck is driven back and forth the full length of the bunk. The reason = for this back and forth is to minimize risk of any variability of the mix. If a= ny differences exist from beginning to end, this variability is spread out the length of the feed bunk instead of laid out horizontally as with one pass unloading. This style of feed delivery is considered an important part of o= ur feeding program. This back and forth also promotes a more uniform distribut= ion of feed the length of the bunk which maximizes the use of the bunk space by putting feed at all headlocks. And, as a bonus, it allows a simple check of= the uniformity of the mix as the end of the load is dropped on the beginning an= d color and texture differences across the load are easy to spot. Granted, this back and forth is much easier with our feed truck than with a tractor and wagon.= The goal of the feeding sequence here at the Institute is cows returning from t= he morning milking to fresh feed, so cows are fed in the order they are milked= .

The order in which rations are mixed each day and the order in which ingredients are added to each ration are determined for each farm by considering the nutritionist’s requests, the cows’ schedule, the feed’s location, and the manufacturer’s recommendations for the mixer. Regardless of sequence or system, the goal of delivering the feed properly = must be a uniform mix presented to the cows. With our uniform ration, we can dis= cuss measuring dry matter intake (the fifth priority) in next month’s installment.

—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com

News from = the Forage Lab: Volatile Fatty Acid levels of dry ground versus as fed forage samples

Ever wonder what the VFA profile is of a dry ground forage sample? Probably not, unless you’re a user of the CPM 3.0 ration balancing program. Proper analysis of VFA profiles is run on an as fed, “wet” forage samp= le. Drying the sample volatilizes some of the fatty acids, particularly acetic, butyric and proprionic acids. Lactate isn’= ;t as volatile and remains in the dried sample. The question is: To what extent a= re the volatile fatty acids lost during the drying process? The CPM 3.0 program requires the entry of a VFA value on a DM basis, but lab analyses are repor= ted on an “as fed” basis. Use of the “as fed” VFA total amount as a CPM entry reduces the calculated value of soluble fiber, a high= ly valued carbohydrate source. Entering a 0 into the VFA over-estimates the soluble fiber value. So what adjustment factor can we use to accurately estimate the VFA amount of the dry ground sample?

We’ve run a very limited number of samples to estimate this adjustment, but so far have found that for haylage and corn silage nea= rly 100% of the lactic acid remains in the dry ground sample. For haylages nearly 100% of all the = VFAs, acetic, butyric and propionic are lost d= uring drying. For corn silage 25 to 50% of the acetic acid remains in the = dry ground sample, but none of the butyric or propionic acid.

Therefore, though very limited in scope it appears that for hayla= ges CPM 3.0 users should enter only the lactic acid amount for the total VFA amount. For corn silages, enter the sum of 25-50% of the acetic acid and 10= 0% of the lactic acid amount as the total VFA amount.

We intend to keep adding to this data set to better track these recommendations over a wider range of samples and moisture levels.

—Kurt Cotanch, = cotanch@whminer.com

QUARTER-CENTURY CORRECTION

Steve Herbert, agronomist at the University of Massachusetts, n= oticed an error in our April issue—actually, the article that was a reprint = of my 1982 article titled “Soil Test Labs”. In it I somehow subtra= cted 0 from 180 for the N credit from plowdown alfal= fa and wound up with 130. Don’t know how I did so, the New Math maybe, but better a late correction than never. The Univers= ity of Massachusetts currently uses = 60 lbs for an alfalfa N credit, less than some labs recommend but UMass uses a low number because when Massachus= etts farmers plow down an old alfalfa field there’s almost always less than 25% alfalfa remaining. Steve agrees that more N should be credited for a fu= ll stand of alfalfa and has research supporting this, but says that Bay State farmers aren’t likely to plow down good alfalfa.

—E.T.

FORAGE GRASS RUMINATIONS

Never leave hold of what you've got until you've got hold of something else. So i= s it with companion grasses for alfalfa. I’ve long been a proponent of ree= d canarygrass, as long-time readers of this newsletter = are well aware. But for several years now I’ve been slowly falling out of love with canarygrass, partly because it’= s an inconsistent companion to alfalfa (sometimes we get a lot of canarygrass in an alfalfa-grass seeding, sometimes no= t much at all) but also because recent Cornell University research suggests that it doesn’t hold forage quality nearly as well as some other grasses. I’ve been waiting for something better to come along, and now it just might have.

For the last few years we’ve been seeding a bit of tall fescue with alfal= fa, and this year went whole hog, seeding 40 acres with 12 lbs alfalfa + 3.5 lb= s of tall fescue per acre. This is a lower grass seeding rate than is usually recommended, but we’ve been cautioned not to get too aggressive with = tall fescue rates and our experience with a 5 lb rate would seem to agree with t= hat. The alfalfa seeding rate would also seem to be on the light side, but the better job done in seedbed preparation, the less seed needed. And our crops crew does a very good job of seedbed prep. And 12# of alfalfa is about 60 s= eeds per square foot, a lot more than we need to make it through that first wint= er.

—E.T.<= /span>

What’s Happening on the = Farm

It is a beautiful summer day here in Chazy as I write this article, and we’re making hay while the sun shines! Jake is chopping haylage in Champlain, just north of Chazy, and we have three trucks driving back and forth, delivering fresh forage to Henry who is packing the bunk.

A new batch of college students has arrived at the farm, just one week after = the Advanced Dairy Management students left. While the spring semester students were from New England, the summer students are from all over the US and one is from Ireland. It’s exciting = to meet people from different places and backgrounds! They will be working wit= h us this summer as they learn more about farm management, equine management or agricultural research.

There are agricultural students here at Miner Institute for the better part of th= e year – part of our three-fold mission of research, demonstration and education. One of the benefits of being an intern or student at Miner Insti= tute is the numerous opportunities for learning -- new research projects, informative guest speakers, and barn and research staff that are more than willing to share their knowledge. Not to mention the experience that just c= omes from working on a dairy farm! There always seems to be something new to lea= rn or experience (if you are willing to ask questions and get dirty) – <= span class=3DSpellE>Ev is more than happy to answer forage questions and = take you out to the field for an agronomy lesson; Heather D= ann is up on the latest dairy research and an excellent source for nutrition information; Kurt is busy in the forage lab, will discuss NDF and NDFd at lunch and has taught me to use the new Z-box;= Jake and the crops crew patiently teach students to drive the tractors and equipment; Steve and Ralph ha= ve so much cow experience to share; Russ, our nutritionist, explains ration chang= es and Dr. Henderson loves teaching about cow health. It’s an environment that encourages an inquisitive mind and the desire to understand and experi= ence new things.

I have been here now for about 8 months as the herdsman intern and am still loving it and learning new things every week. I’ve enjoyed the opportunity to learn by doing. When I first arrived, I followed people arou= nd, watching how things were done, how decisions were made and helping out when= I could. As I learn, I am given more responsibility and trusted to make decisions. Our farm manager Steve and I talk often about the cows and the operation of the farm, both of us sharing things that we see need to be don= e or changed or addressed. The barn crew has helped me to transition from being a student to being part of the “team” (although a member who is s= till learning!).

Miner Institute has been and continues to be a wonderful training ground for stud= ents as they move from college to a job in the dairy industry.=

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

—Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com <= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt'><= /p>

TOO MUCH GRASS

Last week I took a drive across Nor= thern NY. On the trip I saw a lot= of grass which is good since the North Country is dairy country, but I also saw a lot of grass in corn fields, which isn̵= 7;t good at all. At this time of year much of the grass is that pesky perennial= quackgrass, also known as knot-grass, quitch grass, couch grass, wheat-grass, shell-grass, devils-grass, scutch-grass and quick grass. Farmers have called it some other names that won’t be repeated here. However, the inclusion of the terms “devils” and “quick” is suggestive of its behavior and reputation. <= /o:p>

Back in the days when split applications of atrazine= were used for quackgrass control it wasn’t unu= sual to see patches that had escaped control. Unless follow-up treatment was applied, these patches grew, later to be dragged around through tillage, and before long the farmer once again had a quackgrass infestation. But for the past quarter century we’ve had glyphosate (first sold as Roundup but now as many oth= er brands) a= nd there’s simply no excuse for poor quackgrass control. Glyphosate does a dandy job when appli= ed a few days before fall plowing or if you wait for 6” or so of quackgrass growth in the spring. The advent of Roundup Ready corn and soybeans offers in-season opportunities for quack control. Escapes and spray skips (on the Institute farm these are called “expe= rimental control areas”) can be spot sprayed for complete control. While for generations quackgrass was considered one of the worst weed problems, there’s no reason for it to be a serious problem now.

—E.T.

ORGANIC MILK PRICE= S

Readers may recall that a few months ago I noted that with both public and private entities encouraging dairy farmers to “transition to organic”, = it may be unreasonable to expect a continuation of the recently reported farm price of $26-30 per hundredweight for certified organic milk. Due to the “great leap forward” in grain prices (both organic and other grains), dairy farm profits have already decreased or losses have increased= . On a national basis it looks like the supply of organic milk will increase by = 50% in 2007. That’s no misprint: Fifty percent. Demand for organic milk h= as been expanding at 15 to 20% per year, but that’s 15-20% of a very sma= ll amount.

Here in the Northeastern U.S. a significant increase in organic milk supplies has been reported as more farmers “transition” to organic production. The same report stated that milk handlers haven’t reduced the farm price for certified organic mi= lk, but how long can this continue? There’s potential for continued incre= ases in organic milk sales but at what price? Those who think that production of organic milk can continue to increase by more than demand with no impact on= the farm price are ignoring basic economic principles. How many more consumers = are willing to pay the current price of $3.50 or more per half gallon? What will happen to prices when an increasing amount of organic milk starts approachi= ng its “sell by” date on supermarket shelves? We won’t see a similar 50% increase in organic milk production next year since much of the increase was by farmers converting to organic production to beat new regulations that went into effect a year ago. Also, several huge milk coops –both regional and national—have placed a moratorium on new org= anic milk production contracts until this fall. Will this keep organic milk pric= es high? Maybe, maybe not.

For an idea of what could happen, look at the current pricing of milk sold as <= span class=3DSpellE>rBST-free. Several milk handlers in the Northeast have stopped buying milk from farms using Posilac. S= ince most of the affected farms stopped using Posilac, this greatly increased supplies of rBST-free mi= lk. What’s happened to the price? Last time I checked in WalMart, the price of a half gallon of Byrne Dairy’s 2% milk labeled rBST-free was less than five cents more than its “regular” 2% milk. That difference is a lot less than it used to be. I couldn’t even fin= d a half gallon of “non-labeled” milk in the Hannaford’s store since their brand is now labeled rBST-free. Nobody’s saying that certified organic milk will cost the same as reg= ular milk; given the much higher production costs, it simply can’t. But can the supply of organic milk continue to increase with no influence on price? And those who think that the store price of organic milk can decrease with no impact on the farm price must also hold firmly to t= heir belief in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. If organic milk improves overall dairy product consumption, that’s good for the dairy industry. Maybe not for Monsanto, but… Dairy farmers contemplating a transition= to organic milk production would be ill advised to assume that current organic milk prices will hold indefinitely. The situation, as they say, is “fluid”.

Eliot Coleman, a prominent organic farmer who advised USDA on its National Organic Program, says that “Organic is now dead” since it’s been “corrupted by profit-oriented agribusiness”. (Gee, I thought th= at making a profit was a worthy goal, maybe even an essential one. Guess what happens to agribusinesses that don’t make a profit…) Coleman fa= vors the term “authentic” food for farmers “more concerned with quality than the bottom line”. “Authentic” dairy producti= on would have the following standards:

·        Milk sold only within 50 miles of the farm, and by the farm produci= ng the milk.

·        Fields and barns open for inspection at any time, by anyone.

·        No fertilizers except farm-derived organic matter and crushed rock.=

·        Livestock must be raised outdoors and pastured as much as possible.=

If Coleman is trying to ensure that organic dairy farmers don’t make a profit, this is an excellent start.

—E.T.

DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHIN= G YOU READ

Don’t believe everything you read—unless it’s in the Farm Report, of course. A feature article in a recent national farm magazine had the subtitle “Rootworms could sabotage your seed-treated corn.” A f= ew comments to hopefully make some sense out of a confusing subject:

·        National farm magazines’ corn coverage focuses almost exclusi= vely on the Corn Belt. There are big differen= ces in corn rootworm infestation levels between the Corn Belt and the Northeastern U.S. Therefore, you need to localize p= est control recommendations. = Cornell University trials h= ave found good rootworm control with the high rate of seed treatments.

·        The University of Illinois research cited in the article concluded that high rate seed treatments didn’t protect corn against heavy corn rootworm pressure. I doubt that we often (if ever) see what an Illinois entomologist would call “heavy” rootworm pressure. Our climate = is different, and in much of the Northeastern U.S. so are our crop rotations. We simply don’t have a lot of farmers in continuous corn-soybean rotations.

·        South Dakota entomologists say that starting from low rootworm pres= sure the first year (what we’d have coming out of a sod), it takes about f= our years of continuous corn for rootworm populations to build to levels where = high rates of seed treatments (Poncho 1250, Cruiser Extreme 1250) would fail. Th= is would suggest that it’s OK to use the high rate in third year corn and maybe fourth.

·        I don’t think we should be relying solely on seed treatment f= or insect control in corn anyway. As we get into (perhaps) the 4^th = and (certainly) the 5^th year of corn (which are hopefully the last y= ears of corn prior to rotating to a hay crop) we should be using either a granul= ar soil insecticide or rootworm resistant hybrids. Therefore the magazine arti= cle, while good copy and perhaps accurate for the Corn Be= lt, isn’t completely inconsistent with what we think you should be doing anyway.

—E.T.

CRITTER NEWS

·        A few months ago we provided an update on “Pet Pillows”, made from the skins of once-beloved-but- now-departed pets. Well, the lady taxidermist who came up with the pillow idea isn’t the only one making money from postmortem pet care: A woodworker in Maine is making caskets and urns for p= ets, with casket prices ranging from $100 to $400. The caskets are made of pine = and lined in satin. (!) Engraved brass plaques are extra.

·        A firm in Sapporo, Japan with a name that transl= ates to “Poodles as Pets” was selling miniature poodles to wealthy Japanese women for $600, half the normal price. The trouble started when a Japanese movie star complained that her new pet wouldn’t bark or eat = dog food. After displaying photos of the animal she was devastated to learn tha= t it wasn’t a poodle at all but….a lamb. Another proud new pet owner learned she’d been had when a dog beautician said she couldn’t = trim Fifi’s nails because they were hooves. Thousands of women were apparently conned into believing that the lambs were poodles. Sheep are rare in Japan and most people there don’t know what they look like. Obviously.=

·        On another wild and wooly subject: Australian animal geneticists are asking farmers to contact them if they have any ugly Merino sheep in their flocks. Evaluating sheep with “extreme features” (a rather nice word for ugly) is one of the most efficient ways to find genes that could h= ave a favorable impact on wool quality.

·        Switzerland’s Agricultural Ministry has asked Swiss farmers to stop feeding marijuana to their dairy c= ows. The farmers say it’s cheap and easy to grow; they think the active ingredient (THC) makes their cows happy (why yes, we believe it just might); and that pot-munching cows make more milk. The Ministry now is threatening = to prosecute because THC could get into the milk and create a health hazard. T= hey also worry that Swiss cheese could become contaminated. Swiss cheese produc= ed from this milk would give new meaning to a term well known to those of us traveling North Country roads: Potholes.=

CROP COMMENTS

·        Last year we lost about 30 acres of corn due to frigid late May conditions, so last fall we had to buy a lot of corn silage. This wasn̵= 7;t much fun at all, so this year we increased our corn acreage from 200 to 360 acres. With any kind of reasonable yield this will be more than we need for= the coming year. But as the wise Prez Rick says, he’d rather look at it than not have it. We’ve considerably increased our acreage of brown midrib (BMR) corn in hopes that we’ll = be able to feed it year-around. BMR is expensive seed to buy and not the prett= iest stuff in the field, but our cows love it.

·        Check the germination % on your seed corn tags. Germination is stat= ed as 95% in every case, right? Coincidence? Nah, most likely the tags were printed before the seed was tested. Most seed corn is over 95% germination,= and the preprinted tags give seed companies some leeway. High germination, impr= oved seed treatments and precision corn planters combine to result in better emergence. Cornell recommends over-planting by 10-15%, which is a good recommendation even though often final plant stand will be over 90%. ItR= 17;s usually better to have a few more plants per acre than a few less.

·        Hopefully you’re doing some forage analysis at harvest; NIR is fine for this purpose. That way you’ll know what’s in your silos before you start feeding it. As an agronomist the numbers on a forage analy= sis that I look at first are dry matter, NDF, and ADF. Percent dry matte= r is confirmation that the as-harvested tests you’ve been doing are accura= te. NDF and ADF are the most important analytical figures because they answer t= he critical question: Was the forage harvested at the right stage of maturity? High quality forages are about 30% ADF. Ideal alfalfa is about 40% NDF, whi= le “milk cow” quality grass is 52-55% NDF.

·        Unless you know your alfalfa is starved for nutrients, don’= ;t topdress potassium in June. If you topdress once a year—all that’s necessary= in most situations—delay application until later in the season. The objective of late summer topdressing is to have potassium available late in= the season to help get the alfalfa through the winter.

·        Hay crop forages start to lose sugars soon after they’re mowed and continue to do so until whole plant moisture reaches about 40%. Sugars = are food for fermentation bacteria, so the quicker your forages reach chopping stage, the better your chances of proper fermentation. Wide windrows are the best, most practical way to increase the forage drying rate.

—E.T.

ALFALFA BROWN ROOT ROT UPDATE=

Brown root rot (BRR) is a serious alfalfa disease first found in Canada and more recently in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New York (including Miner Institute. T= hanks, Canada.) The confirmed areas affected are expanding, and cold weather doesn’t impede this disease since it’s been found in <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Alaska. The disease is relatively new = to plant pathologists, and nothing is currently known about the environmental factors that promote BRR disease development (i.e. heavy vs. sandy soils, s= oil compaction, soil organic matter, etc).

In two fields sampled extensively in 2005 (one here at the Institute and anoth= er in Wyoming County), the researchers found a relationship between BRR severity and both soil texture and soil compaction. However, since both were older stands the low BRR severity could have been = a result of high mortality due to BRR in previous years (the most susceptible alfalfa plants were already killed).

Cornell University is following up on th= ese results by establishing two field plots this year, with one seeding at the Institute and the other at the Willsboro research farm owned by Cornell. Graduate student Michael Wunsch will inoculate = the alfalfa with BRR, which is why the trials are located where they are (and a= lso why they’re really small). The experiments will evaluate factors that might increase the severity of brown root rot. The goal is to determine whi= ch fields would be at the highest risk for severe BRR losses, and why.

Closing Comment

If at first you don't succeed, you'll get a lot of free advice from folks who didn't succeed either.