WHA= T’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

We fin= ished third cut grass and alfalfa-grass on Aug. 27; fresh forage analyses look go= od. We won’t take a fourth cut of alfalfa this year, mostly because we don’t have a place to store it. We opened the 2006 stack of corn sila= ge to mixed reviews, including disparaging comments on packing density even th= ough we thought we packed it well. But it’s still early… The wollastonite we used as a base is almost as hard as concrete now that it’s been exposed to silage acids.

Our rolling herd avera= ge finally topped 30,000 lbs last month, at which point the cows almost immedi= ately dropped. Part of this was probably because we ran out of BMR corn silage mid-month, but part of it is just cows being cows (a standard answer for unexplainable blips in production). =

We finally got the area surrounding our commodity shed and truck scales paved, thus eliminating the pond of mud and other debris that accumulated whenever we had more than a b= rief shower. Now we won’t be driving through this on the way to and from t= he bunker silos. And what a nice change that will be!

We had a small group of Canadian dairy and crop farmers visit on Aug. 23^rd as part of a Mycogen-sponsored dairy tour. “Small” as in about 600 (!), by far the largest tour group we’ve ever hosted here. They came early (9 AM) in 11 charter bu= ses, ate lunch and stayed late (3 PM), visiting corn hybrid plots, our dairy barn and our Heritage Center, and certainly appeared to have a fine time.

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

—Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com <= span style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black;mso-font-kerning:1= 4.0pt'>

—Ev Thomas. thomas@whminer.com

The Feeder’s Job: When It R= ains

A heavy rain or snow s= oaks the face of the bunker silo. Puddles grow at the base of the face, seeping = into the silage. The dry matter of this silage no longer matches the number on y= our mix sheet. What do you do?

Rain and snow can comp= licate the feeder’s job, a complication that’s been much discussed at Miner Institute this summer, both at meetings we’ve sponsored and in = our break room. Days of rain and inches of snow add weight to bunker silages bu= t no nutrients. If the feeder doesn’t adjust to this dry matter change, wa= ter will displace the nutrients of the forage and the final mix won’t be = what it’s supposed to be. In this situation, the loss of fiber from forage= is the primary concern. Without adequate fiber the rumina= l fermentation is altered and the chances for acidosis, DA, and laminitis increase. Research presented at the National Dairy Science meetings this su= mmer in San Antonio showed that even one day with a “hot” ration can cause problems that will affect the cow for the remainder of her lactation.

The feeder’s job= is to make sure the ration balanced by the nutritionist is the ration eaten by the cows. When it rains, the feeder must determine the new dry matter of this w= et silage and adjust the weight of the silage required in the mix. The feeder should scrape the face and mix, sample, and test the wet silage. However, if the feeder takes the time and effort to do this, the process of feeding the herd may be slowed or even stopped. If the feeder doesn’t adjust to t= he wet silage, problems with cow health will occur. Each of these options has = its lack of appeal.

What are the alternati= ves? The feeder could fudge on the fly, skipping the measurement for the new dry matter. The feeder could increase the silage weights by some predetermined percentage or could add the feed to the mixer by volume instead of weight. = Both of these options are less time consuming, less accurate, and more risky. If either of these alternatives is used, the benefits and risks must be fully understood.

Another alternative is= the reallocation of the wet silage. A reduction in ration fiber due to wetter silage can affect some groups of cows more than others. Transition cows are probably the most sensitive to this mistake, followed closely by high and f= irst lactation groups. These classes of cows are often fed at minimum fiber leve= ls so a loss of fiber would be detrimental. Other groups of animals such as he= ifer and low groups receive higher or excess fiber in their diets and may be less sensitive to a temporary fiber reduction. Maybe the wet silage should be allocated to these groups with the fudge factors, saving the unexposed fora= ge for the more sensitive groups.

Ultimately, the answer= may be preventing our silages from getting wet in the first place. A nutritioni= st at a recent meeting here commented that he has clients who leave the coveri= ng plastic long enough to cover half or two-thirds of the bunker face, which minimizes weather exposure yet the feeder works under the plastic without complication. Another option is to cover the face when precipitation is expected. The heavy rains and= snows that really change dry matter percent rarely arrive without warning. Having= a tarp at the ready may be the solution. Another form of prevention is making sure water flows away from the face and not toward it. Silos and their cove= ring systems should be designed so water is directed away from and not allowed to soak into the silage.

In the end, the rainy = day feeding strategy should match the dairy’s attitude toward time and ri= sk management. Each dairy is unique and the feeder, nutritionists, and cows mu= st be proactive and come to a consensus on the standard operating procedures f= or rain and snow. The final plan should allow for timely mixing but prevent he= alth problems in the cows.

—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com

Vet’s Corner: Umbilical cord dip

Prevention of navel and joint ill makes economic sense, and navel dipping is a proven practice. Cle= an calving areas help lower pathogen exposure, but many farms are challenged to provide a perfect maternity area. Dry sand has the lowest bacteria load, but presents handling problems for most farms. Sawdust is the most common beddi= ng used in the Northeast, but it sticks to the wet navel easily and carries a = high coliform load 24 hours after use. Umbilic= al cord dipping has been especially helpful in prevention of navel ill in these sawdust bedded pens.

Due to its use by crim= inals in illegal drug manufacture, we have been advised that 7% Tincture of Iodin= e will soon no longer be available for public sale. Here are some thoughts when considering substitutions for 7% Iodine dip:=

Ÿ &nbs= p; In an emergency, rubbing alcohol can be used. In our favorite iodine dip, alcohol was included. It acts as a drying agent and helps= the umbilical vessels contract and prevents the pathogens from going into the b= ody. Don’t use iodine teat dip because the iodi= ne level is too low and it contains emollients to condition the teat and keep = it moist. It will prevent the desired effect of drying the cord. Chlorhexidine is a proven disinfectant that works in = the presence of organic material. As a practice we will investigate its use as a substitute.

Ÿ &nbs= p; Navel clamps have not been a big success in our hands. When cords a= re not dipped we have seen 20% incidence of navel ill. The use of clamps= did not reduce this incidence to 5% as dipping has done.

Ÿ &nbs= p; While using a new product for dipping it will be important to monit= or the calves closely to be sure it’s effective. For the first wee= k of life check all navels every other day for signs of inflammation. If t= he cord is the size of your thumb, start the calf on systemic antibiotic treat= ment immediately for a one-week course. If more than 20% of the calves need treatment, the new product or device is doing no better than no treatment at all.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.<= i>

hugamoo@co= mcast.net

SOIL SAMPLE TIMING, P FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATI= ONS AND CAFO Cornell University did a study of 28 noncalcareous (under pH 7.6) NY soils that looked at = the effect of time of sampling vs. soil test P. One of these soils was from a f= ield at Miner Institute, and several others were common Northern NY and Champlain Valley soils. They found that afte= r P application either as fertilizer or manure, soil test P almost immediately increased, then began to decrease for about 60 days. How quickly this decre= ase occurred depended on the type of soil extractant, but in all cases the decrease occurred.<= /p>

Quoting from the report: “From these resul= ts, we conclude that soils sampled within 2 months of the recent P application = are likely to have not yet reached equilibrium and may thus overestimate baseli= ne agronomic P for the next cropping cycle or planning year.” They furth= er noted that soil test P can “change dramatically” during the fir= st two months after manure or fertilizer applications. What this means to you: Since manure and fertilizer recommendations are greatly influenced by soil = test P, if you’re a CAFO farm with—as so many farms are—a numb= er of fields with high soil test P levels, you should be sure to take soil sam= ples this fall before manure applications. Even so, you may find temporarily elevated s= oil test P levels if you topdressed manure onto for= ages late this summer. Source: Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71:1225-1232= .

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

Agriculture = and the Environment

As I write this articl= e the first week of the fall semester is just underway. During fall semester, the= Institute has been home to the Applied Environmental Science Program for over 35 year= s. Students from SUNY-Plattsburgh, primarily Environmental Science majors, tak= e a suite of courses covering field and forest ecology, soils, hydrology, and a relatively new course offering – Agriculture and the Environment. All= of the courses are taught by SUNY faculty except Agriculture and the Environme= nt which is taught by Institute staff with substantial support from invited speakers. Very few of the students have any meaningful agricultural backgro= und and so they are a real departure from the type of students we teach during = the spring and summer sessions, who come primarily from farms or rural backgrou= nds.

It’s always exci= ting to see how these students react as we discuss the environmental issues confronting contemporary agriculture. The subject matter ranges from crop, weed, and pest management to nutrient management and CAFO issues with the f= ocus squarely on water, soil, and air quality. Topics such as biosecurity, animal welfare, food safety and marketing are thrown into the course for go= od measure. In many ways these students, with their initial lack of agricultur= al knowledge, come closer to representing the typical American consumer than a= ny other students we teach.

As an introduction to = the course I quickly skimmed through various industry magazines and a few scientific publications to illustrate to the students just to what extent t= hese issues are “hot topics” for the industry and the public at larg= e. I was stunned – I had never fully realized just how completely these is= sues dominate the printed news. Here are a few samples that I found, and remember that I spent only about one-half hour looking through these publications wh= ile sitting at my desk getting ready for class:=

Ÿ Ethanol industry seeks methods to reduce water use. According to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the typical 50 million gallon p= er year ethanol plant needs ~500 gallons of water per minute to operate. (Nebr= aska Department of Agriculture Update, 8/24/07)

Ÿ Organic versus locally grown food.= A great series of articles comparing the merits and problems with bo= th approaches, but the lead article concluded that local is more important to focus on than organic. Definitely a hot topic. (Time Magazine, 3/12/07 R= 11; OK, that one had sat on my desk for awhile).

Ÿ Feed companies are gearing up product lines to support the organic demand – what is the future? (Feed Management magazine, August, 2007)= .

Ÿ Glyphosate-resistant weeds and the potential problems faci= ng crop production in the future. (Science, May, 2007).<= /o:p>

Ÿ UN and EPA reports on livestock contributions to global carbon diox= ide, methane, and nitrous oxide – significant differences of opinion between the two reports – w= hich one is most correct? (Northeast Dairy Business, August, 2007).

I had at least a dozen= other articles from newspapers and other popular magazines in my stack for class.= To say the least, it was easy to convince the students that these issues that crosscut agriculture, food safety, societal issues, and the environment are front-and-center for any American who even causally reads the newspapers. <= /span>

Is there a point to th= is article? I haven’t reviewed any new data or suggested a way to improve production, cow comfort, or farm profitability. But I feel the point is an obvious one, and one that we cannot afford to fo= rget: These issues are highly visible not only to folks involved in agriculture f= or a living, but inescapably obvious to anyone who follows the news. We have to = vigorously pursue research and educational programs aimed at determining and then teac= hing the best management practices for production, food safety, animal welfare, = and the environment. If we fail, it will be front-page news. =

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

Wet Forage Adjustments: How much is too much for maintaini= ng proper TMR DM and intake?We’ve had some stretches of wet weather here in the North Country and could certainly afford to share some with you that are dry. Associated with the wet weather ha= ve been spells of DAs, which leads us to wonder about cause and effect: Wet forages resulting in wet TMRs, depressed intake= , and altered nutrient and fiber levels delivered in the TMR. Following Dr. Mooney’s discussions regarding feeder responsibilities, how do you ad= just for weather-induced (rain), wet forages? What is the protocol for adjusting forage amounts during DM (dry matter) fluctuations? =

Typically Ralph, our f= eeder, will adjust forage inclusion levels based on his loader bucket volume assessment, considering 1 full bucket of “wet” forage to have an equal weight of DM as a full bucket of “dry” or “normal” DM forage. This on-the-fly adjustment is usually pretty accurate considering the issues of:=

1. = How precise the equal volume measurement is at delivering the requi= red lbs of DM.

2. = The accuracy of the volume assessment of a full bucket versus &frac= 12; or ¼ bucket of wet forage.=

3. = How long it would take to run a Koster = or even microwave DM determination to calculate proper weights for the wet forages.

The accuracy of assumi= ng a predetermined amount of rain, say 1 inch, requires a 10% increase in forage “as is” weights to add to the mixer.=

The question we have h= ere at the Institute is, when adjusting for weather-related changes in silage DM, = at what point does the whole TMR become too wet as a result of increasing the = wet pounds, resulting in Ralph telling me, “If I make the full adjustment= , I will just end up cleaning it ALL out tomorrow!”?

Given that our TMRs are typically >55% forage and the forages run ~30-32% DM, and when it rains, these DMs can dr= op 2-3 units, the resulting TMR DM can become unpalatable. Table 1 calculates the change in TMR DM% of a high group TMR, 55% forage before (normal TMR DM) and after it rains (wet TMR DM). The norm= al DM would run about 47% DM, but the wet TMR calculates to 44%DM. At 44% DM, Ralph will likely be pushing out quite a bit more refusal than normal. In t= his scenario, do we risk rumen health more by fully adjusting for the increased moisture level of the forages, resulting in a soupy TMR or by feeding less = of the wet forages in attempts to maintain intake but not the optimal nutrient balance? Even if we add 2 lbs of DM from the hay to the mix, it only increa= ses the total TMR DM by 1% unit.

The best solution is to avoid this situation by maintaining a clean bunk face, thus minimizing the sponge action of loose forage in the bunker, keeping the bunk face covered = as best as possible or possibly feeding some loose dry hay; especially to the fresh cows. Wondering what people’s thoughts are to topdressing nice = dry hay to fresh cows during times of inclement weather, when soggy TMRs are obviously at risk for nutrient imbalance and= poor DMI. Stabilize those rumens.

—Kurt Cotanch, = cotanch@whminer.com <= span style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black;mso-font-kerning:1= 4.0pt'>

Tail Status does not affect udder cleanliness or = milk quality

Tail docking is one of= the more controversial management practices occurring on dairy farms. Some farm= ers contend that removal of the lower portion of the tail is essential for keep= ing cows clean and improves milker comfort. However= , the claim of improved hygiene hasn’t been consistently observed in resear= ch trials. Work at the University o= f British Columbia and the University of Wisco= nsin didn’t observe improvements in hygiene resulting from tail docking. Conversely, researchers at Purdue University found co= ws with docked tails to be cleaner. The milker com= fort aspect of the tail docking argument hasn’t been addressed in a contro= lled research trial. In an effort to reduce milker c= ontact with a soiled tail, the Miner Institute dairy staff has been using clippers= to completely remove the switch while the cows are housed in the fresh pen. As part of her Summer Experience in Agricultural Research, Melisa Bauer from t= he University of Minnesota conducted a study to det= ermine the effect of this tail management strategy on cow hygiene and milk quality, compared to tail docking or leaving the tail intact. =

We used a retrospective approach to gauge cow hygiene and milk quality of 135 cows in the Institute herd (37 docked, 68 trimmed, and 30 intact) and 62 cows (20 docked, 21 trim= med, and 21 intact) at a collaborating farm in Vermont. Cows in the docked treat= ment had previously had the lower portion of their tails removed. The trimmed treatment varied by farm due to the inability to restrain cows at the collaborating farm. At Miner Institute, the switch of the tail was complete= ly removed. At the collaborating farm, the switch was trimmed with scissors to= the tip of the tail. Cows in the intact treatment had tails that were unaltered. Cow hygiene was assessed from a cleanliness score assigned to the leg, flan= k, and udder of each cow using the 1-to-4 scale developed at the University of Wisco= nsin (Table 1) every other wee= k for 6 weeks. To ensure that the environmental conditions were similar from one = week to the next, the cleanliness of the rear 18 inches of the freestalls were assessed with a scoring system; ranging from 0 (freshly bedded) to 4 (heavily soiled). Milk quality was evaluated from the somatic cell scores (= SCS) collected from the DHIA testing for June and July. The cows from the high production pen and the heifer pen were scored at Miner Institute while only= the cows in the high production pen were scored at the collaborating farm. On b= oth farms, the cows from all three treatments were commingled.

The leg and udder cleanliness scores at Miner Institute were not affected by treatment (Table 2). A treatment-by-time e= ffect was observed in the flank scores. The mean flank score for all treatments f= ell between 1 and 2, indicating that little soiling was evident on any cow, whi= ch also suggested that the observed difference was not likely a biologically significant difference. The environmental scores were similar for both pens, and the mean scores suggested that less than 25% of the rear portion of the average stall was soiled. The SCS were unaffected by treatment and the mean value of 2.0 (approximately 50,000 somatic cells per ml) was indicative of = good milk quality.

The leg and flank cleanliness scores at the collaborating farm were higher for the intact cow= s than the docked or trimmed cows, but the numerical difference was approximately = 0.5 (Table 2). Similar to the effect observed at Miner Institute, this differen= ce was most likely not biologically significant in a scoring system that incre= ased by increments of 1. The udder scores did not differ between the treatments.= The average environmental score was less than 2, which indicated a relatively c= lean environment with minimal soiling of the freestalls. The SCS was not affected by treatment and the mean value of 2.8 (approximat= ely 100,000 somatic cells per ml) was indicative of good milk quality.

Although differences i= n leg and flank scores were found between docked, trimmed, and intact cows, the similarity in udder scores and SCS suggest that tail docking does not resul= t in meaningful differences in hygiene or milk quality. The data confirmed that = cows with trimmed tails were similar in cleanliness and SCS as cows with docked = or intact tails within the same pen or on the same farm. Future research on the interaction of milker comfort and tail trimming= is needed to determine if it’s a viable alternative to tail docking.

—Peter Krawczel= , krawczel@whminer.com

LEAVE A HIGH STUBBLE ON ALFALFA

Many of you have alrea= dy mowed your alfalfa and alfalfa-grass fields for the last time this year. If= so, you can skip this article. If not, read on. While we’ve become convin= ced both by research done here at the Institute and elsewhere that most hay crop harvests should be at about a 2” stubble height, such is not the case= for fall-harvested alfalfa and alfalfa-grass. There are a couple of reasons why= you should leave a high stubble on any field harvest= ed late enough in September or October that there won’t be much regrowth. First and most commonly cited, a high stubble will tend to catch and hold snow, providing insulation. More snow cover results in less fluctuation in soil temperature, and alfalfa doesn’t like a large number of freeze-thaw cycles. There’s no d= oubt that a high stubble will catch and hold snow; last winter Bob Irwin in Peru commented at how much snow an oat stubble on one of his fields caught and h= eld compared to closely mowed fields in the area. =

Less well known but pe= rhaps as important, a high stubble can reduce the effe= cts of ice sheets. If portions of your alfalfa field catch and hold a foot of wate= r, freeze and turn to a glassy surface seemingly ready for Hans Brinker and his silver skates, a high stubble wouldn’t hav= e done much to help. But for those ice sheets a few inches deep, the presence of stubble creates channels and cracks in the ice through which gas exchange c= an occur between the soil and the air above. Because when alfalfa plants die u= nder an ice sheet it’s usually from lack of oxygen.

So, how high a stubble? I’ve often said about 5 inches, but some sources (including Michigan State University agronomists) suggest 6 to 8”. Six inches perhaps but boy, 8” sounds like a lot especially gi= ven the relatively low yields we often have with fall harvests.

—E.T.=

A BREATH OF FRESH A= IR

Verm= ont officials are realizi= ng that agriculture isn’t the biggest contributor to Lake Champlain pollution. A recent report in the Burlington Free Pr= ess stated that the 5% of the Champlain basin that has been developed into lawn= s, driveways, and roads produces over 50% of the lake’s phosphorus pollution. This was based on a recent University of Vermo= nt analysis, contradicting a report about ten years ago that attributed more p= ollution to farms than to urban and suburban areas. Less phosphorus comes off an acr= e of farmland than an acre of developed land. =

CORN SMUT<= /span>

This is the time of ye= ar when farmers often notice smut in their corn fields and on occasion call as= king if it’s a serious problem: Will my cows eat it, will it cause mycotoxin problems, is it toxic, etc. Common corn smut isn’t the best thing that can happen to a corn crop but it’s far from the worst. Smut galls are edible, sold under the fancy name “cuitlacoche”, and are considered a delicacy by = some people but most certainly not by me. =

Smut adversely affects= grain yield, but according to a Tex= as study cited in a recent Pioneer Hi-Bred newsletter there aren’t any palatability problems in corn silage. In the first place, seldom is there m= ore than the occasional smut gall on a corn plant, so smut represents a very ti= ny portion of the overall silage crop. In fact, in the = Texas study sheep seemed to prefer corn silage loaded with smut. Forage quality was lower—higher NDF, lower digestibility—but dry matter intake increased by 10% when the sheep w= ere fed corn silage with 50% smut (compared to silage with no smut), and increa= sed by 18% when fed silage from plants 100% affected by smut! Now, sheep are not the most intelligent of God’s creatures, in my opinion ranking just slightly above your average mollusk. But cows aren’t a whole lot smar= ter and most likely will eat smutty corn silage just fine.

—E.T.=

MINER INSTITUTE LIL= ACS AND CLIMATE CHANGE=

Cornell University horticulturalists hav= e been looking at the lilacs at Miner Institute every spring since 1967. They sure= are pretty, but that’s not why they’ve been looking: They’ve = been recording the first flower date for a variety of lilac, “Red Rothomagensis”, at the Institute as well as at = 71 other locations in the Northeastern U.S.= , to quantify any climate changes. They’ve also been collecting similar da= ta on grapes and apples including at an orchard in nearby Peru. Collectively these data indicate an advance in spring development (2001 vs. 1965) ranging from 2 to 8 days depending on location.

At Miner Institute, fo= r 32 years of records beginning in 1967 there was a 3.7 day per decade advance in bloom date, or about 12 days. Assuming a similar change since then, the lil= acs at Miner Institute now start blooming about 15 days earlier than they did 40 y= ears ago. We can talk until we’re blue in the face about global warming and climate change—yes, no, how much, how fast—but this sure makes = you think.

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp;

However, what effect does lilac flowering date h= ave on our growing season? The following graph shows Growing Degree Days in Chazy, May 1^st through Sept. 30^th= , 1966 to 2006.

As you can see, the dashed = trendline shows no trend at all. (The lilac and other information suggest that while = we are warming, the colder months of the year aren’t quite as cold, while summers stay about the same.) We’ve had more year-to-year variability= in growing seasons since 1996, but I don’t know that we should make much= of that. This data certainly doesn’t suggest that we should plant longer-season hybrids than we did a generation ago.

<= /span>

GM CROP NEWS

Maine became the last state to permit the use of genetically modified crops, as its Board of Pesticides voted unanimously to approve their use. This case was essentially one between conventional and organic farmers, with the conventional farmers claiming that the use of Bt corn would increase yields while reducing pesticide= use and therefore be better for the environment. Organic farmers contended that drift from Bt corn could contaminate their crops= . This time, conventional farmers won.

Monsanto is challengin= g the court decision banning the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa for reasons that should be obvious to readers who have been paying attention. Monsanto’= ;s lawyers are saying that the court made a mistake in its decision, and that = the banning of RR alfalfa has caused hardship to farmers wanting to adopt this technology. Now the case will begin to wend its way through the court syste= m at a glacial pace (this is probably doing glaciers a disservice), and there’s little chance a decision will come down in time for spring 20= 08 planting.

PRICING CORN SILAGE =

Although the Aug. 16^th hail and wind storm took its toll in an area ju= st North of Plattsburgh, there’s still = a big corn crop in the Champlain Valley (the New York side, at least) and in much of New England. As you head west from here corn yields decrease somewhat because of too much r= ain in Franklin Co., not enough in Jefferson Co. and points west. A common ques= tion these days is “What’s a fair price for corn chopped for silage?”

One approach commonly recommended by university agronomists is to value the crop as if it would be harvested for grain. If the crop yields 100 bu/acre, the local price of corn is $4.00 per = bushel and custom combine cost is $40, that’s $360 per acre. Since 100 bu is equivalent to about 16 tons of corn silage, $36= 0/16 =3D $22.50 per ton in the field, AKA “Standing corn”. One problem w= ith selling by the acre is determining the yield. A much better alternative wou= ld be to sell it based on weight. This assumes a typical harvest dry matter content of about 32% DM. Wetter than 32% DM is better for the seller; drier than 32% DM and it’s better for the buyer. If you don’t pay any attention to the dry matter of the corn you’re buying or selling, then price and profit must not be very important to you. For example, well-matur= ed corn—35% DM—selling for $22.50 per ton in the field is $64/t= on of DM, while early dent corn—28% DM—selling for the same $2= 2.50 per ton is $80/ton of DM. =

Chopping, hauling, and ensiling corn silage costs about $6 per ton. Therefore, if the seller will = do these jobs and the yield is 16 tons/acre, add $96/acre for a total of $456/= acre or $28.50 per ton. Is that the cost per ton of silage? Nope, that’s p= er ton of fresh-chopped corn. Assuming a 10% fermentation loss, for $456 the b= uyer winds up with 14.4 tons of fermented corn silage. Therefore the cost would = be about $32 per ton of fermented silage. In 2006, when corn grain prices were quite a bit lower, some corn silage sold in this area for $28 per ton deliv= ered close by; more if it had to be hauled further than a few miles.

Is $28.50/ton for fres= h corn delivered to the buyer’s silo a “fair” price? What’s “fair” anyway? If you have 20 acres of recently frosted standing corn that’s too immature to make grain (or you can’t get anyone= to combine it), all your silos are full and you don’t want to make a corn pile, it’s a buyer’s market and you take what you can get. On t= he other hand, if it’s a well-matured crop that you can sell as grain or silage and your neighbor is short of feed but not short of cash, speaking of short you have him by the “short and curlies” as my old British cousin would say. Assuming there’s nobody else to sell him corn cheaper it’= ;s then a seller’s market but don’t get greedy since you may well = find yourself on the opposite side of the fence next year.

—E.T.=

MILK PRICES: A FINE WHINE

Recently #1 son Jim ca= lled from his home in Virginia to complain about the price of milk in the supermarket. He just finished pa= ying $4.00 for a gallon of milk, which he thought outrageous since not long ago = he was paying less than $3.00 at the same store. This is the same guy who rece= ntly bought a case of brand name bottled water, paying a buck a pint for somethi= ng that bottlers are increasingly being forced to admit is often little more t= han filtered tap water.

Milk is a lightening rod for price complaints whenever store prices increase by more than a few cents per half gallon. As previously noted in this newsletter, supermarkets sometimes put printed statements on milk display cases, apologizing for what is almost al= ways a temporary increase in milk prices but stating that it’s because of higher farm milk prices (but never due to higher dairy company or store margins). One of the more ridiculous examples is by a Plattsburgh coffee shop, which recently posted the following sign: “As the milk crisis continues, all milk/ice cream-based items are raised 25 cents. Sorry.” Mi= lk crisis? Because farmers are now making a living = wage? The real “milk crisis” was last year when farmers were getting = less than $12.00 per hundredweight, most losing money on every pound they sold. Meanwhile, the price of a wimpy head of lettuce in the produce aisle may be pushing $2.00, with no store apologies expected or given. I tried to tell J= im that for a change dairy farmers are getting a fair price for their milk, th= at a year ago most were losing money, but much of thi= s fell on deaf ears. (While now the owner of a very successful web design business= he was an art major in college, so what can you expect?) But I fear that in many ways son J= im is Mr. Typical American Consumer, more interested in the price of milk in the supermarket than in the plight of the dairy farmer.

—E.T.=

WE WON’T SAY WE TOLD YOU SO, BUT…

From a recent article = in Farmshine.

“The controversy= about the growing number of organic dairy farms has come to a head this year as t= he number of farmers transitioning to organic dairy production has dramatically increased, causing a surplus of organic milk for the first time. That surpl= us, attributed largely to the mega-farms, is now driving down prices to family farmers around the country, endangering their livelihoods. It’s also become a tragedy for some family farmers around the country who have gone through the arduous and expensive three-year transition to organic manageme= nt but now have nowhere to ship their milk.”=

Astute readers (even semi-astute ones) will reca= ll that earlier this year we were questioning the wisdom of state-funded progr= ams aimed at helping farmers “transition to organic”. With the stea= dy increase in the supply of milk and the much slower increase in organic milk sales, we wondered how long organic milk would sell for $26-30 per hundredweight, at the time about twice the price of regular milk. We now ha= ve the answer: Not very long indeed. Not long ago Central Valley, California dairy farmers were getting $27.00 per hundredweight for organic milk, but in July they got about $22.50 per hundredweight. Well, whoop-de-do: Last month= we got almost $22.00 mailbox price for our “regular” milk. Farm mi= lk prices have shot up in recent months while (at least on a national scale) t= he farm price of organic milk has remained the same or decreased. Meanwhile, t= he lust for corn by ethanol plants has greatly increased the cost of grain.

WHERE WILL TOMORROW’S AGRONOMISTS COME FROM?

A recent survey of all= 50 Land Grant Universities revealed some disturbing but not surprising information: Fewer undergraduate students are enrolling as soil and crop science majors, and two-thirds of these are majoring in turfgrass, landscape or horticulture. At most universities fewer than 30 students are enrolled in agronomy or crop science majors relating to production agricult= ure. In fact, if it weren’t for the “non-production agriculture̶= 1; students, many institutions wouldn’t have enough graduates to sustain= an agronomy/crop/soil science major. =

One reason for the downward trend is that many students planning on a career in production agriculture are choosing business-oriented majors, apparently thinking that they can catch up on the technology aspects of their job at a later time, or perhaps on the job. But another reason is the lure of biotechnology; not only does it have a sexier-sounding name than agronomy, but there are some high salaries being = paid to the best and brightest biotech graduates.=

CONFLICTING RECOMMENDATIONS

It’s understanda= ble why farmers sometimes question recommendations from the various “experts” in a particular field. This would be a fine time to c= ast our normal aspersions on Eminent Ruminant Nutritionists, but this time the topic is alfalfa harvest management, specifically an article in the most re= cent Quebec Farmers’ Advocate. The QFA, with a readership in the thousands, mostly in Quebec<= /st1:State> (duh), each month publishes some of the articles from the current Miner Institute Farm Report, often enhancing the articles with their own photos. It’s a synergistic relationship we’ve long enjoyed.

The case in point is an article in the July-August issue of the QFA on alfalfa harvest management, = by a Quebec provincial a= gronome (roughly equivalent to a regional Extension worker in the U.S.). Following are some of the recommendations made in this article, along with = the recommendations from N.Y. and a number of other dairy states:

= 1.&n= bsp; Quebec: “The recommend= ed stage of growth for harvesting is early bloom (for legumes) and early heading (for grasses).”

NY: Our goal is to never see an alfalfa blossom during the life of the stand, from seeding to plow down. For grasses, our m= otto is “When you see the head, the quality is dead.” Cornell and mo= st Midwestern university agronomists generally recommend harvesting alfalfa at= the mid to late bud stage. This assumes that the goal is high milk production, = not maximum stand life. Intensive harvest management may shorten stand life, but what’s more important, milk production or stand life?

2.&n= bsp; Quebec: “Allowing less= than 35 days between cuts will weaken the alfalfa and reduce both its chances of surviving the winter and its first-cut yield the following season.”<= /span>

NY: We usually harvest second and third cut al= falfa at less than 35-day intervals simply because the plants are often at the fu= ll bud stage before 35 days—especially second cut.

3.&n= bsp; Quebec: “It is recomme= nded to allow alfalfa to attain the full bloom stage at least once during the se= ason (ideally at the last cut)…”

NY: We never intentionally allow alfalfa to reach full bloom. Of course, Mother Nature often has something to say about that, with the most recent example this year’s second cut alfalfa. We’ve sometimes waited 8 weeks between third and four= th cut, hoping that NDF content would increase to close to 40%, but we never d= id see a blossom.

4.&n= bsp; Quebec: “Do not cut in September.”

NY: We often cut in September, as recently as = last year. The reason cited in the article is that the plants wouldn’t have enough time to replenish root reserves before winter. This is true, which is why we wait until late enough in September that there’s likely to be little or no regrowth. We also make sure that there’s been about 45 days between a fall harvest and the previous on= e, so that root reserves are already high.

5.&n= bsp; Quebec: “In eastern Ontario and even in southern Quebec, it is not recommended to make = four cuts per year.”

NY: Many of our more aggressive farmers routinely make four cuts, and have been doing so for years. Here at the Institute sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t, depending on our need for the forage and the yield prospects. = Last year we took a fourth cut and couldn’t imagine better winter survival than we had. Actually, successfully feeding fourth cut alfalfa silage here has been more of a challenge here than making the silage. We’re = not sure why, but it doesn’t match in cow performance what the forage analyses are telling us.

Milk production per co= w is somewhat higher in the Northeastern U.S. than it is in Ontario or Quebec. Part of this may be due to the supply management programs long in place in = Canada, or rBST use in the U.S.= But how much of the production difference is due to less aggressive forage = crop management? We certainly couldn’t maintain our current level of milk production at Miner Institute by routinely cutting alfalfa in bloom, or gra= ss after it’s headed.

—E.T.=

CLOSING COMMENT

The economy depends abou= t as much on economists as the weather does on forecasters.