SILK TO SILAGE IN SEVEN WEEKS<= o:p>

…or six weeks perhaps, depending on August we= ather. Note the date when your silage silked, count ah= ead six weeks and that’s about when you should get serious about checking maturity status. Most of the difference between hybrids of different relati= ve maturities is between emergence and silking, no= t from silking to the 32-35% dry matter that’s i= deal for corn silage. You might have read somewhere that corn will reach “silage maturity” 35-45 days after silking= , but usually that’s 30% DM and we much prefer waiting until the corn i= s a few percentage points further along than that.

If you haven’t already done so, now would be a good time to plan where you&#= 8217;ll put what for many farmers in Northeastern NY and New England is looking lik= e a bumper corn crop. Many corn silage silos will be empty or nearly so by September, but this could be the biggest crop in many years and you donR= 17;t want to run out of silo room with a lot of acres still standing. Selling the excess crop for grain is a possibility for some, but custom combine operato= rs don’t get excited about moving their equipment onto your farm for 20 acres or so unless they’re already next door. This may be the perfect year to consider high chopping—leaving 12 to 18” of stubble rat= her than the normal 6-8”. Shelled corn prices will be high and with many farmers increasing the distillers grain in their rations, starch will be at= a premium. An easy way to increase the energy in corn silage is to increase c= hop height. There will only be a modest increase in digestibility and of course you’ll lose a ton or so of yield per acre, but there’ll be more grain in every mouthful. Any production response should be positive; Wisconsin researchers got 2 lbs more milk (with cows milking 90 lbs) when chop height was increased from 8” to 24”, = and feed efficiency also increased. It should go without saying (but we’l= l do so anyway) that this “supercharged” silage should be analyzed a= nd rations rebalanced accordingly.

Final= ly, since the September Farm Report might hit your desk after you’= ve started chopping (or heaven forbid, if you don’t read it immediately)= , a bit about corn silage dry matter. First, a couple of don’ts:

· Don’t start chopping based on how the ears look. “Dented” isn’t nearly a good enough measure si= nce hybrids differ greatly in whole plant dry matter at the fully dented stage.=

· Don’t start chopping based on kernel = milk line. We used to tell farmers to start at about 1/3 milk line, measured from cap to tip. That was before we realized how much variability there is betwe= en hybrids in whole plant dry matter at the 1/3 milk line. <= /p>

&= nbsp;

What = you should do is chop 10-20 typical plants (“typical” is not the be= st 10 plants in a 20-acre field) at the height you will be chopping, then dry = them in a Koster Tester or microwave oven to determi= ne actual dry matter %. Then subtract 2 percentage points (sample DM of 32% =3D actual field DM of 30%) since the field DM is almost always a bit lower than your sample—no matter how accurately you try to sample.

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.co= m

Visual Learning in Animal Science

Last = month several of my coworkers and I attended the Joint Annual Meeting of ADSA, PS= A, AMPA, and ASAS in San Antonio<= /st1:City>, TX. The scientific sessions= were informative and provided us with many topics to discuss and new ideas for research projects. One session that was unique focused on undergraduate and graduate education and the use of visual learning in animal science. Visual learning is a method that associates ideas, concepts, data, and other information with images, pictures, and other visual media to enhance thinki= ng and learning skills.

&= nbsp;

If yo= u are a visual learner then the use of images, pictures, color, and other visual media help you learn. I fall into the category of visual learner…it w= as much more fun and educational to visit the Alamo than read about it in a history book! I have summarized some of the sites t= hat were discussed at the meeting that can aid parents, teachers, 4-H leaders, = and extension educators in teaching, and students of all levels in learning ani= mal science.

&= nbsp;

The National Science Digital Library (NSDL; http://nsdl.org/) This library was created by the= National Science Foundation and provides access to high quality resources and tools = that support teaching and learning at all levels (kindergarten to college) of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

&= nbsp;

The A= nimal Science Image Gallery (http://anscigallery.nal.usda.gov/) The gall= ery is a collaborative project of the National Agricultural Library and the Americ= an Society of Animal Science that has resulted in a digital image database to assist teachers and students. Images, animations, and video can be download= ed for use. There are sections for cattle, horses, swine, companion animals, nutrition, and other species. People are encouraged to submit images, animations, and video with descriptions. Data are peer reviewed to ensure accuracy.

&= nbsp;

Breed= s of Livestock Library (http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/)= The libr= ary was developed and is maintained by the Department of Animal Science at Oklahoma State University. This site is a great source for information and images of breeds of livesto= ck (cattle, goats, sheep, horses, swine, and others) throughout the world. The images c= an be used for educational, not-for-profit purposes.

The P= ork Information Gateway (PIG;http://www.porkgateway.org/we= b/guest/home) The gateway is a new tool developed by the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence. Peer-reviewed fact sheets, frequently asked questions, an events calendar, a glossary, and an image library on aspects of swine and pork are some of the many resources found on the site.

—Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com =

IRRIGATION AND FORAGE QUALITY

A few= years ago Eminent Ruminant Nutritionist (ERN) Charlie Sniffe= n came back from one of his Western U.S. sojourns mumbling something about reduced digestibility from flood-irrigated alfalfa. Seems that a few other ERNs from out W= est said they didn’t like flood-irrigated alfalfa. If what we read in for= age quality texts is true, excess water + hot weather (and they have a lot of h= ot air on the Left Coast) reduces forage digestibilit= y. Charlie mumbles about a lot of things but that particular opinion seemed to make sense (“This is real, people!”), especially when the follo= wing spring I watched a field of California alfalfa disappear under a foot of fl= ood irrigation water. =

This = was confirmed recently in research done with corn silage in Italy; = in collaboration with none other than Sniffen. Tha= t boy does get around… They used two rates of irrigation water and both flo= od and sprinkler irrigation, and sure enough, flood irrigation resulted in significantly lower protein, lower fiber digestibility, higher lignin, and numerically lower starch content. Moreover, the high rate of sprinkl= er irrigation resulted in better forage quality than the low rate of fl= ood irrigation.

What = should this mean to you? Well, if you’re buying Western alfalfa it would be a really good idea to find out what kind of irrigation was used to grow the alfalfa. In the Italian research the quality differences between irrigation methods were sizable: Under the low irrigation rate, 57% NDF digestibility = for sprinkler irrigation vs. 49% for flood irrigation. Since ruminant nutrition= ists say that 1 percentage point of NDF-d is worth half a pound of milk producti= on, 8 percentage points difference is 4 lbs of milk. Got your attention now?

—E.T.

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

Where the rubber meets the cow

For s= everal years it’s been fairly common for farmers to install some sort of rub= ber in the alleys of their free-stall barn. Most often, the rubber is placed in= the alley where cows stand to feed with the hope that it will improve cow comfo= rt and encourage greater feeding activity. A variety of rubber products have b= een used including belting and mat products. Surprisingly, there is no controll= ed research that really has shown a consistent benefit of rubber flooring surf= aces by the feed bunk. And, the usefulness of rubber flooring in free-stall alle= ys remains an open question. Undoubtedly, cows prefer to walk and stand on sof= ter surfaces. Anecdotal as well as controlled research observations make this abundantly clear. Since installing rubber flooring in a= barn costs money, we need to know when it is most likely to provide a benefit to= the cow. Several recent studies, taken together, provide some valuable insight = into this question.

&= nbsp;

Numer= ous studies show a potential advantage for rubber over concrete flooring in few= er claw lesions and less lameness. Also, both Canadian and European researchers have noted that cows display more normal walking gaits when moving about on= rubber floor surfaces compared with ungrooved concrete= . When the cow steps on rubber it’s a yielding surface – in other word= s, it deforms slightly with the weight of the claw pressing down on the rubber surface - which provides good traction for the cow as she walks. In a study published last month in Journal of Dairy Science, Swedish researchers found that the majority of cows preferred to walk and stand on soft rubber rather than concrete flooring – a not too surprising conclusion. In t= heir experimental set-up, cows could choose either rubber or concrete flooring. = They noticed that lame cows showed no preference for softer walking surfaces, wh= ich is puzzling until we realize that these lame cows were being out-competed f= or the more desirable flooring by healthy cows!

&= nbsp;

This = aspect of competition among cows within a pen or barn, and the potential effect it= has on a cow’s choices, brings me to the final study I want to share. Iri= sh researchers reported this summer in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science on rubber versus concrete floor= s, where cows choose to stand, and resulting hoof health. The study found no differences between the floor surfaces and hoof health. But they did find t= hat cows on concrete floors stood more in the stalls, whereas cows on rubber flooring stood more on the rubber by the feed manger. This observation explained the lack of effect of floor type. They concluded that cows prefer= red to stand on comfortable surfaces while not feeding and that they can use well-bedded and comfortable stalls for standing to provide relief for their feet from hard concrete. This makes good sense.

&= nbsp;

But w= hat happens when we factor in overcrowding as commonly occurs on many dairies? = At Miner Institute we’ve shown that when pens are overstocked much beyon= d 115% of stalls that cows no longer have the luxury of standing in stalls and are forced to stand idly in the alleys. With greater competition for stalls at higher stocking densities, when a stall is free a cow will enter it and qui= ckly lie down. Consequently, rubber flooring surfaces may well be more important when pens are overcrowded because cows cannot stand in stalls as readily. <= o:p>

&= nbsp;

The b= ottom line here is that we still need to learn more about the proper role and use= of rubber floor surfaces in free-stall barns. But, this latest evidence strong= ly suggests that if you are overcrowding your pens much beyond 115%, then rubb= er floors make more sense. Cows want to stand on a comfortable surface – it’s as simple as that.

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com <= /i>

SOFTER FLOORING IN TIE-STA= LLS INCREASES RESTING AND REDUCES LEG INJURIES

Much = of the current research focused on cow comfort examines cows housed within freestall barns. The focus on cows within freestall barns is due at least in part to the increa= sing number of cows housed in this system. However, according to the most recent= ly conducted USDA survey (2002), more dairy farms in the U.S. are housing their lactating cows in tie-stalls or stanchion (50%) than in freestalls (30%). While these numbers may change when= the results of the next survey, due in 2007, are released, a large percentage o= f U.S. fa= rms will still house their cows in tie-stalls. Therefore, it remains important to investigate ways to improve the welfare of these cows.

=

Canad= ian researchers published work on this topic in the most recent issue of the Journal of Dairy Science. The stu= dy evaluated the influence of flooring type (concrete versus rubber mats) in tie-stalls on time budgets and occurrence of injury. Twenty-two mature cows were moved from calving pens into the study housing 14 days after calving. = The concrete and rubber flooring was distributed evenly across the two styles of tie-stalls included in the study and all tie-stalls were covered with appro= ximately 1 lb of straw daily. The behavior of the cows was determined using video da= ta recorded for 24 hours every other week throughout the 16-week study. The co= ws were visually examined for the presence of cuts, abrasions, or hair loss and the knees and hocks were manually manipulated to determine if noticeable swelling was present on a weekly basis.

=

Sever= al behavioral changes were evident for the two flooring types. First, the cows with rubber mats tended to spend more time lying. Also, the time spent lyin= g in the rubber-floored stalls resulted from more frequent bouts that were short= er in duration. Second, the total time spent standing was reduced for the cows= on the rubber flooring and the same pattern of more frequent, shorter bouts was observed. These results indicate that these stalls were more comfortable for the cows to shift from standing to lying, or vice versa. Lastly, the reduct= ion of total standing time for the cows with rubber mats was due to a decrease = in idle standing only; the time spent eating while standing was the same for b= oth groups. This demonstrates the cows provided rubber mats were utilizing their time more effectively by standing only when necessary for feeding and then lying down to rest when finished.

=

The occurrence of cuts or abrasions was similar for both groups, indicating that the straw bedding was sufficient to prevent injury. The rubber mats tended = to reduce swelling in the knees and hocks; however, the difference between gro= ups became significant when the analysis focused on the front knees. This is mo= st likely the explanation for the unwillingness of the cows housed on concrete= to change positions. The swelling would likely have resulted from the impact of lying down and the pain from the injury could make shifting to a standing position difficult.

=

The r= esults of this study demonstrate that the welfare of cows housed in tie-stalls can= be improved by the inclusion of a softer flooring material underneath the bedd= ing.

—Peter Krawczel, krawczel@whminer.com

=

TOPDRESSING SECOND CUT GRASS

We ap= ply urea to first cut grass soon after it greens up in the spring. We seldom ap= ply fertilizer N after first cut, relying on topdressed manure to supply the N. However, by the time we get to many of the fields they’re too late to topdress. This year w= e had some leftover urea and applied about 100 lbs/acre right after first cut to a number of grass fields. That’s less than generally recommended, but we wanted to stretch the urea as far as seemed reasonable. <= /p>
&= nbsp;

What a difference! Second cut grass yields and protein content were the best we’ve ever seen for second cut: 16-20% CP with yields all over 1 ton = dry matter per acre and approaching 2 tons/acre on several fields. The per-acre cost: About $18 for the urea plus a few dollars to spread it. That’s a really good rate of return in 30 days, which was our harvest interval.=

=

Vet’s Corner: how much BVDV is out ther= e?

BVDV = ear notch testing is proving to be a valuable tool in determining the prevalenc= e of PI carrier animals. Despite elaborate and costly vaccination programs, infertility and respiratory dise= ase continues to plague herds until we bite the bullet and undergo the expense = of individual whole herd ear notch testing.&n= bsp; Our heifer grower farms were the leaders in insisting on negative ear notches for all incoming cattle, and the practice is being adopted by produ= cers who purchase cattle.

=

Dr. J= ulia Ridpath, USDA Veterinarian specializing in BVDV resea= rch, presented this table at t= he recent Northeast Dairy Veterinarian Conference.

=

=

The t= op row gives the occurrence rate of BVDV-PI in source herds. In herds tested in our practice where BVDV-PI carriers are suspected to exist, we commonly find tw= o to six carriers in 500 head herds. 0.40% to 1.20% is the PI prevalence level in these problem herds.

=

The left-hand column gives the number of animals purchased. In the Northeast it’s common to purchase smaller quantities of sp= ringers, but over a year’s time it’s not uncommon to purchase 50 head. And several large producers are purchasing whole herds, so buying cows by the hundred is not unheard of.

=

Unles= s the purchased animals are ear notch tested, the prevalence rate in the herd of origin can only be assumed. 0.10% (one in a thousand) PI prevalence rate co= uld be assigned to an untested closed herd which has not purchased replacements= or bulls or gone to cattle shows. So if 50 springers are purchased from such a quality source, there is a 4.9 % (one in twenty) that= a BVDV-PI carrier will be brought into the herd.

=

For t= he large herds that purchase 100 head there is 9.5 %( one in ten) chance that = the incoming cattle will infect the herd with BVDV. If 100 cattle were purchased from one of our problem herds there is a greater than one chance in three t= hat BVDV will be brought into the herd.

=

Ear n= otch BVDV-PI testing is an easy, convenient procedure that should be considered = for inclusion in every dairy farm’s biosecurity program.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM
Northwest Veterinary Associates,= Inc.

hugamoo@comcast.net

&= nbsp;

FORAGE ANALYSIS: NIR OR WET CHEMISTRY?

Recen= tly we sent six just-harvested grass forage samples to = the University of Vermont lab, which did both NIR an= d wet chemistry mineral analyses on them. The table below shows the results.<= o:p>

=

=

Draw = your own conclusions, but I sure wouldn’t want to balance rations for prefresh dry cows by relying on the NIR potassium ana= lyses for samples 2 and 6. In sample 2 the NIR analysis is much higher than the w= et chemistry analysis, while in sample 6 it’s much lower. And for sample= 2, to keep ration P down below 0.40 you might want to know if your forage is 0= .22% P, or 0.43% P. If you need to know the mineral content of your forages—such as when formulating close-up diets—use wet chemist= ry since vas the above data shows, with NIR you just don’t know for s= ure.

—E.T.

=

What’s Happening on the Farm

Farm = life is back to “normal” now that our week at the Clinton County Fai= r is over. We had lots of fun but got very little sleep between operating the milking parlor, taking care of our heifers, getting up early to wash them, = and of course staying up late for the truck pull and the tractor pull!

=

Second cutting is finished and our manure trucks have been busy hauling. Despite a= ll the heat and humidity during the end of July, the cows have been milking fa= irly well. And after several weeks of less than desirable vet checks, we have be= en getting 5-7 cows pregnant each week.

=

Today= Ralph (our feeder), Jake (crops manager) and I updated our Feeding Center map (see below). The map was designed to help with communication during wee= kly meetings with our nutritionist and because I was frustrated by not knowing which bunk or bag everyone was talking about opening next! We‘ve foun= d it helpful to have our forage inventory mapped out in front of us while we plan ahead and discuss rations.

=

=

To de= sign the map, I used textboxes= and “AutoShapes” in Microsoft Word to make schematics of the differ= ent structures—silage bunks, the commodity shed and the buildings are rectangular, grain bins are circular, and the silage bags are oblong. The contents of each bunk, bag, and grain bin are typed inside the respective shapes. In the spring we planned = out where each cutting of grass and alfalfa would be stored along with corn sil= age storage and noted that on map in a different color ink than the 2006 inventory. This year we used = Crop Cure on some of the haylage and the inoculant BioMaxx on the = rest of it. We also tried the new Silo Stop plastic covering from Cargill. These “experiments” were noted on the map too – better to have things written down than to rely on everyone’s memory!

=

=

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com =

—Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com

=

High leve= ls of DMI reduce degradation of rumen degradable protein

A gro= up of researchers from Italy= and Cornell University presented research at t= he ADSA meeting a few weeks ago, investigating the effect of DMI level on rumen degradability of protein sources. (Abstract # 985, Schadt et al. ADSA 2007 proceedings). As DMI increases, rumen turnover and passage of undegraded protein from the rumen also increases.&nbs= p; The researchers rumi= nally incubated a number of protein sources in six cows ranging in milk production and level of DMI (22 – 56 lbs/day).&= nbsp; As one might expect, the extent of ruminal degradation of all protein sources was decreased as level of intake increas= ed. The extent of reduction of protein degradation ranged from 12-50% across all protein sources as DMI increased. The researchers then compared this in situ data to in vitro enzymatic (Strep. griseus) ass= ays to estimate rumen enzymatic activities of 1.9 U/ml, 0.9 U/ml and 0.5 U/ml at t= he low, medium and high levels of DMI. In other words, as DMI increases, passa= ge rate increases thereby decreasing the length of time the rumen microbial population has for their enzymes to degrade, rumen degradable protein (RDP)= as evidence by the decrease in proteolytic activit= ies. Hence, less RDP actually degraded in the rumen, resulting in more rumen undegraded protein passing to the lower gut than may = have been predicted in our ration formulation. Common sense, right? Nicely documented though.

=

Relat= ing this logic to our herd rations and our struggle with low milk fat made me wonder about whether our RDP and carbohydrate sources are properly balanced= for >60 lbs of DMI. In the past, before this drop in milk fat, our rations w= ere balanced with RDP at 11.1% of DM along with NFC of 39% and starch at 24%. W= hen cornmeal became cost prohibitive we lowered starch to 21% and included more wheat starch, kept NFC at nearly 39% but inched up RDP to 11.3-11.5, the thought being, as noted by the research above, that we wanted to ensure sufficient RDP actually being degraded in the rumen given our high DMI. But we forgot to increase the star= ch, thinking that the increase in soluble fiber was adequate to keep our total = NFC at 39% and provide the microbes with carbohydrate to match our increased RD= P. I think we were wrong. We recently increased starch up to 24% with some cornm= eal and seem to be gaining back some milk fat.=

=

Take = home message: With a high level of DMI, be wary of providing sufficient RDP in relation to fermentable carbohydrate, realizing that r= uminal protein degradation is being reduced by the increased passage rate.

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com <= /span>

=

AM VS PM ALFALFA HARVEST

You m= ight read in magazines or “e-zines” (newsletters, etc. available on-line) about the superiority of alfalfa mowe= d in the afternoon because of higher plant sugar levels, citing Canadian research that found a 2 lb. milk response from PM vs. AM mowed alfalfa. We did two y= ears of research on this subject here at the Institute a few years ago. We found= PM mowed alfalfa-grass to have significantly higher sugar than alfalfa-grass in the same field mowed in the AM. However, what’s important isn’t= just when you mow, but how long the forage has to sit in the field (losing sugar= s in the process) between mowing and chopping. With good windrow management we c= ould mow in the morning and chop in the afternoon. However, try as we might, alf= alfa mowed in the afternoon just wasn’t ready to chop that evening, and it wasn’t until late the following morning that it reached about 35% DM.= By that time the alfalfa had the same sugar content as the AM-mowed alfalfa did when we chopped it. As expected, we didn’t find any differences in fermentation or silage quality between AM and PM mowed alfalfa-grass. =

&= nbsp;

We ha= ve no data to support the following suggestion but to most benefit from PM mowed alfalfa, it would be best to mow late in the afternoon, since sugars contin= ue to build in plants throughout a sunny day. You won’t be able to chop = that day anyway and the plants will lose sugars all night long, so at least try = to start with as much sugar as possible. Probably the worst thing to do would = be to mow early in the afternoon before sugars are maxed out, then not be able= to chop until the next day. Therefore, for silage production prime time to mow would be early enough in the morning to permit ensiling that same day, or late enough in the afternoon to maximize sugar content. One recent Canadian trial did find higher milk production from PM-mowed alfalfa harvested for silage, and they mowed at 6:00 PM.

—E.T.

=

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

̶= 0;Measure intake daily” is a common recommendation to dairy producers. It sounds simple enough: Measure what the cows eat each day. But accurate measurement= of dry matter intake (DMI) is a challenge on most dairies, requiring a good sy= stem built on attention to detail, ingenuity, and daily effort.

=

As st= ated last month, the accurate calculation of dry matter intake per cow per day requires five numbers: 1) Weight of feed offered, 2) Dry matter percentage = of feed offered, 3) Weight of feed refused, 4) Dry matter percentage of feed refused, and 5) Number of animals fed with the feed offered. Using these fi= ve numbers gives us the accuracy research here at Miner Institute requires. Bu= t is this accuracy, to the tenth of pound, necessary in a day-to-day production situation? How accurate do we need to be to manage a dairy herd? Can we tra= de off a number or two, save time or money, and still have a number useable for management purposes? Yes, we can.

=

Of th= e five numbers, which do we did need on a farm? An accurate number of animals fed = is absolutely required. Being the denominator of the equation, it’s required mathematically and headcount errors can have a large effect on DMI estimates, particularly in smaller groups. And more oft= en than not, obtaining a good count doesn’t take much more effort than obtaining a bad one. The weight of feed offered and the dry matter percenta= ge of that feed should also be accurate or this exercise of measuring DMI has = no point. The weight of feed refused and dry matter percentage of that refusal= can be the hardest, most time consuming numbers to obtain but can often be esti= mated with the least impact on the estimate of DMI.

=

To tr= ack relative (not absolute) day-to-day changes, we can make some assumptions and simplify the equation. For relative changes we need to measure feed offered, dry matter of that feed and the number of cows fed, estimate the weight of = feed refused, and assume the dry matter of the feed refused. The DMI calculated = with these numbers is sensitive enough to show day-to-day changes and trends over time. Estimates of the weight of feed refused can be done by volume with a scoop or bucket. If our interest in calculating DMI is to provide feedback = to our nutritionist, we need to increase accuracy and find a way to weigh the = feed refused. This, with an estimate of feed refused dry matter, should generate= DMI information very useful to the nutritionist. To establish the best DMI calculation system for your dairy, work with your nutritionist.<= /span>

=

At Mi= ner Institute we calculate daily DMI with four measured numbers. The number of lactating cows per group is recorded at each milking in a notebook. Pounds of feed offered is recorded daily by the tracki= ng program. The measured dry matters for each feed with the actual weights for= the day are used to calculate the dry matter percentage of the feed offered. Fe= ed refused by pen is weighed each morning before feeding. And when not conduct= ing research, dry matter of feed refused is assumed to be the same as the feed offered. With these five numbers, the tracking program calculates daily DMI= by pen with no extra effort by anyone. The DMI generated daily are used primar= ily to monitor changes and trends for each group. This daily DMI information is also communicated to the nutritionist for comparison and evaluation.

=

For a= ny system that measures DMI, a dairy needs a system that both collects data efficiently and, just as quickly, converts the data to informatio= n. Each dairy is unique and must establish its own standard operating procedur= es from the calculation of DMI. The simplest system is a spreadsheet that, with the daily input of the five numbers, generates DMI numbers and graphs that = can be posted and shared. Other systems can be more elaborate but, whatever the= system, the information generated should be used.=

—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

NO FEED OR WATER

The following is reprinted from the July-August 1982 Miner Institute Farm Repor= t, in recognition of its 25^th anniversary of publication. The write= r, Dr. Harry Randy, came here in the 1970s as a Regional Extension Dairy Specialist and was employed by Miner Institute from 1981 until his untimely death on August 24, 1991 at age 41. During his tenure = Ev Thomas, Katie Ballard and Wanda Emerich all joined the Institute staff. We still miss= you, Harry.

=

Did y= ou ever wonder what would happen to milk production if you didn’t feed or water your cows for a day or two? We didn’t either, but had an occasi= on to generate some interesting numbers this spring when we decided to install rumen cannulae in two pregnant first calf heife= rs. The rumen cannula is essentially a hole in the cow’s side that allows us to go directly into the cow’s stomach= to conduct nutrition studies. In order to do the operation, an incision about 6” long is made in the cow’s left side. The rumen is stitched to the muscle and skin layers, and the hole is plugged with a rubber stopper. = The entire operation is done under local anesthetic.

=

In or= der to have things go as well as possible, it is best to have the rumen empty. As a result, feed was taken away 36 hours before the operation and water 24 hours before. As soon as the operation was over the animals were put back on feed= and water. It was remarkable to see how quickly the cows recovered in production despite all we put them through.

=

Both = cows were about 200 days into lactation and almost identical in production. While their recovery was quic= k, we apparently lost 5 to 7 pounds of milk per day as a result of our manipul= ation. That is not much different than if we had moved them from group to group. <= o:p>

=

=

—= ;Harry A. Randy

=

Editor’s note: We still cannul= ate cows at Miner Institute since we have a continual need for them, but we avo= id doing the procedure during the cow’s lactation.<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:113%'>

=

Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge-Tomorrow’s Dairy Leaders

The Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge is a unique opportunity for tomorrowR= 17;s dairy leaders from both two- and four-year colleges/universities to apply theory and learning to a real-world dairy while working as part of a team. = This two-day learning experience challenges each individual student to work beyo= nd the classroom with students from 12 different colleges in 8 states and 2 universities from Ca= nada. This experience is made possible through sponsors. John Marshman, Oxford, NY, a Dairy Challenge Diamond Dairy Sponsor for four years says, “Our fee= ling was that to be tied with the best = ag students from across the Northeast will help the dairy business prosper far into the future. We believe herd management training is essential to making sure students get off to the right start.”

=

Spons= orship is the key to maintaining the quality and the continued growth of this prog= ram for our future leaders, herd managers, herdspersons and ag professionals. During the past four years, o= ver 400 students from around the Northeast have benefited from this learning experience. Sponsorship from you will help offset the cost of the program, = for rooms, meals, travel and materials. The cost of one student’s two day participation is $500.<= /o:p>

=

All sponsors will be recognized on the sponsor board during the event. Sponsors will also be included in our Producer Profiles. This can include highlights= of your dairy, potential career opportunities on your farm and your contact information. The Dairy Challenge is a great opportunity to recruit members = of a select group of dairy enthusiasts for employment on your management team.

=

How y= ou can help: To become a sponsor for 2007 we ask you to request a Sponsorship form from Barry Putnam at bputnam@crinet.com or 607-277-6838 and send it with yo= ur tax deductible contribution to NAIDC-3310 Latham Drive, Madison, WI 53713. The information on the sponsorship= form is needed to include you in the Producer Profile if you are seeking potenti= al employees.

=

CHECKING FOR CORN ROOTWORM DAM= AGE

Now i= s a good time to walk your corn fields (through them, not past them), checking = for corn rootworm damage. Check for rootworm beetles as well as goosenecking from rootworm larvae feeding on corn roots. Northern corn rootworm beetles = are bright green—the only bright green beetle you’ll see in a corn field—while Western corn rootworm beetles have yellow and black strip= es. Western corn rootworms are twice as damaging, so it’s fortunate that = in much of Northeastern NY we don’t h= ave a lot of them. Well over 90% of the rootworm beetles are the Northern ones, puzzling since in other areas once Westerns move in they soon become the dominant rootworm species. Guess our corn rootworms didn’t read the b= ook, but in this case their ignorance is our bliss. You’ll find rootworm beetles feeding on the corn silks; they prefer young silks, which is why late-planted corn in an area with lots of timely-planted corn (and therefore the potential for oodles of rootworm beetles) is often hammered. One year t= he notill corn in a Cornell University tillage = trial here at the Institute was about a week later in maturity than the rest of t= he corn. We had a lot of rootworm beetles that year right when the notill corn was silking, = and they chewed off most of the silks before the corn was pollinated, resulting in m= any nearly barren ears.

&= nbsp;

Also = look for goosenecked corn plants, the result of feed= ing by rootworm larvae. Brace roots will be almost completely chewed off when root= worm damage is severe. However, you can get yield loss from rootworms (or nemato= des) without lodging—I found this many times when doing soil insecticide trials in this area back in the 1970s.

&= nbsp;

This = would also be a good time to check any fields planted to rootworm-resistant hybri= ds (YieldGard Rootworm, YieldGard Plus, Herculex RW, Herculex XTRA). Some seed companies use the Herculex trait, others YieldGard= . You might see some rootworm beetles but you shouldn’t see any lodging= due to rootworm feeding. University research found less root injury with Herculex than with YieldGard, but yields were similar. At this point I don’t think there’s enough meaningful difference here in the Northeast (where rootworm damage tends to= be less severe than in the Corn Belt) betwe= en the traits to have this be the deciding point between one hybrid and the other.= The difference between Bt and no Bt (for rootworm at least) is much greater than the difference between the traits.

—E.T.=

&= nbsp;

TBTB

Back = in the mid-1960s when I was attending graduate school at Cornell University, The Bride (TB, thoug= h at the time she was TBTB, The Bride To Be) was an undergraduate at Ithaca College. She lived = in a college dorm while I had a room far off-campus ($10 per week, in advance please). I had to eat meals at a restaurant, and since I was as poor as most college students are, I had to eat on the cheap. I soon found a modest diner with a clientele consisting almost entirely of blue-collar workers—garbage collectors (sorry, “sanitary engineers”), truck drivers, etc.—plus several ladies whose occupation was not immediately apparent. But the food was good, and it was cheap: The daily Bl= ue Plate Special offered by Nick the Greek was $0.90. This is not a misprint. Meanwhile, the food at TBTB’s college caf= eteria wasn’t nearly as good though a heck of a lot more expensive, so a cou= ple of times a week she joined me for dinner at Nick’s.

&= nbsp;

TBTB = was young, blonde, and, well, beautiful, and Nick immediately took a liking to = her. While we both had his ninety-cent special, she also got a nice tossed salad, made personally by Nick, no charge. The point of this—yes, the= re is one—is that you don’t always get what you pay for. Sometimes= you get more.

&= nbsp;

Such = is the case with tile drainage: Farmers install tile (actually corrugated plastic tubing) to improve drainage during wet years. Subsurface drainage is really= water table control, preventing groundwater from rising and killing the roots= of alfalfa and other crops. However, what farmers who have subsurface drainage installed for the first time soon learn is that tile drainage pays in both = dry years and wet ones. In fact, one of the best times to locate tile lines in fields is during a moderately dry year when the field is in alfalfa product= ion. You can often pick out the individual lines because the alfalfa is “bigger and better” right over the tile line. Therefore, the on= ly time that subsurface drainage pays is during wet years, dry years, and anyt= hing in between.

=

Last = year was a very poor year for milk prices, and, for many, a bad crop year. But t= his year crops look very good in much of the region, and recent milk prices have been at record levels. Certainly some of the large milk checks need to be u= sed to pay down debt and make long-delayed necessary purchases. However, try to= set some money aside to install drainage in that very wet field, the one that’s a problem most years. It will cost about $1000 per acre but as with dinner at Nick’s, you’ll get what you pay for, and more.

—E.T.=

SUMMER PROJECTS

As mo= st of our regular readers know, we’re planning on building a new dry cow facility next year just west of the dairy barn. Site prep has started with = the removal of most (but not all) the trees from the site and bringing in the f= irst of what will be a whole lot of fill by the time we’re done. We also removed about a 15-foot swath of trees on both sides of the farm road for o= ne mile between the new barn site and the 100+ acres of cropland in what we lo= ng ago misnamed as the “Back 40”. Well, it’s about 40 hectares… This opened up the road a lot, making it easier for Ev to see the manure truck coming around the bend and= find a safe place to tuck his Honda Accord.

We renovated our silage effluent collection/treatment system, removing the old crushed stone in the “dilute effluent overflow” trench and replacing it with larger sized crushed stone. We also reworked the trench, making three crushed stone “fingers” to allow for a more uniform flow of effluent into the vegetated filter area. We built a removable scree= n to collect any silage particles making it through the pipe running from the bu= nker silo area to the stone-filled trench. So far the changes are working well, confirmed by the regular water samples we take in several places in the vegetated filter area.

&= nbsp;

One o= f the big summer jobs also involves silage effluent: When a contractor ripped out= a concrete floor between two rows of bunker silos a few years ago and install= ed asphalt he inadvertently crushed the tile drains running from under the bun= ker silos on the North side of the silo area. Ever since then any effluent has seeped up through the seams between the asphalt and the concrete walls and footers. This has contaminated the bottom layer of silage, causing great (a= nd understandable) angst to our feeders and dairy nutrition consultants. So th= is past month the guys in our maintenance department cut into the floors, loca= ting the tiles that immediately began discharging “silage juice” that stunk to high heaven. As soon as we gave the effluent an easier exit it sto= pped coming up from the bunker silo floors. We ran a new line from these old dra= ins into the silage effluent distribution box. Credit goes to the maintenance department guys (especially Steve Fessette and Kelly Snide) who did a fine = job under really unpleasant conditions. We’re all learning on the fly (including agricultural engineers) regarding the design and maintenance of silage effluent treatment systems, and to some extent we’re still in = the trial-and-error phase.

&= nbsp;

Final= ly, this month we’ll have asphalt installed from between the truck scales= and commodity shed to the asphalt in the bunker silo area, reducing (hopefully eliminating) the muddy conditions in that area that have plagued us for yea= rs.

&= nbsp;

POTATOES AND SOIL pH

For a= few years back in the 1970s one of my responsibilities as a regional Extension Field Crop Specialist was making fertilizer recommendations for potato production. I knew almost nothing about potato producti= on but that wasn’t a problem—at least not for me. Making fertil= izer recommendations for potatoes in this region was simple: Base recommendation= s on a complete soil analysis, looking primarily at the aluminum and iron levels, especially aluminum. If the aluminum level was low (at least for potato soi= ls, most of which had pH levels in the 5.0-5.5 range) recommend 1500 lbs/acre of 5-10-10. If the aluminum level was high (and it often was), recommend 2000 lbs/acre of 5-10-10.

=

A ton of fertilizer per acre, year after year? That’s right: Soil pH had to be kept low to avoid potato scab, but the cost of low pH was high: Lots of fertilizer to counteract very high levels = of metals and low nutrient availability. Dairy farmers don’t need to wor= ry about scabby corn or alfalfa, but they do need to pay attention to maintain= ing soil pH. As soil pH drops below 6.0, nutrient availability declines. Use of nitrogen fertilizers during corn production slowly reduces soil pH: Several pounds of lime are needed to neutralize each pound of fertilizer N. As pH d= rops to 5.5 or so, those metals—aluminum, iron, and also manganese—s= tart to become a serious problem. The University of Vermont long ago realized the relationship between aluminum and soil pH, and their lime recommendations are strongly influenced by soil aluminum status.=

—E.T.<= /o:p>

&= nbsp;

Clos= ing Comment

A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can ever spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man.

=

=

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

=

=

=

=

=