HARVEST 2007

As I write my article for the October Farm Repor= t, it is a beautiful fall day here in the North Country= – the sun is shining, the sky is blue, and a gentle breeze is rustling the leaves that are just starting to turn color. On September 22^nd we finally finished chopping our corn – hurray!!! Corn harvest is always an exciting time= at the farm, but as all you farmers know, it makes for very long days! We chopped 6,800 tons of silage th= at we stored in two bunks, an ag-bag, and a pile. The following photos are a few from our Harvest 2007 photo album – enjoy.= —Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

Behavior of Dairy Cows in Compost Barns

For the past 6 years, = dairy farmers in Minnesota have been exploring an alternative form of housing for their lactating cows, commonly called compost barns. The general idea is similar to a bedded pack with the most noticeable feature being the 4 ft wall separating the bedded = area from the feed alley. Bedding is added at a regular basis and allowed to bui= ld up to the height of the wall. The area is maintained by aerating it twice daily, which distributes and incorporates the surface manure into the beddi= ng material. The bedding material is typically removed each fall. Several mont= hs ago, researchers from the University of Minnesota conducted a descriptive study of farms using this system for at least 6 mon= ths. They found an improvement in half of the participating farms’ somatic cell counts following their transition to compost barns, a decrease in mast= itis on 66% of the farms, and almost 60% of the farms improved their reproductive performance. Additionally, 75% of the cows showed no signs of hock lesions,= 24% had mild swelling, and 1% were suffering from sw= ollen hocks.

Last month the same researchers published a follow-up study in the Journal of Dairy Science<= /i>, which examined the behavior of the cows housed in compost barns. The second study focused on 12 herds with an average size of 74 cows, representing 92%= of Minnesota farms = using compost barns. Only farms tha= t had housed their entire lactating herd in a compost barn for 6 months qualified= for participation in the study. A= ll farms fed and milked twice daily, had a rolling herd average of 23,000 lbs.= of milk , 3.7% fat, and SCC of 325,000 cells/mL. The researchers used data loggers to record the l= ying, standing, and walking behavior of at least 15% of the herd. Cows were group= ed by lactation number (1, 2, 3, and > 3) and days in milk and a representa= tive group was selected for data collection. Cows less than 30 days in milk, gre= ater than 305 days in milk, or considered lame (locomotion score ≥ 3 on a 5 point scale) were not selected. To estimate social interactions, the positi= on and posture of each cow on the bedded area was recorded at 15 minute interv= als for a total of 8 hours. Other social behaviors, such as grooming herd mates, aggressive interactions, or submissive behavior, was recorded and reported = as the number of occurrences per hour.=

=

Cows had an average of approximately 19 square feet per cow, sufficient for the full range of natu= ral lying positions, which is thought to be an indicator of good cow comfort. T= he cows spent approximately 9 hours per day lying unless they were provided ac= cess to pasture. Cows with pasture access only spent an average of 7 hours per day lying. The cows shifted fro= m a standing to a lying position an average of 11 times per day, a similar numb= er as cows housed in freestalls with either sand o= r sawdust bedding. The majority of lying activity was observed between 8:00 PM and 8:= 00 AM. The cows spent an average of 13 hours per day standing. The most common= ly observed aggressive interaction were chasing, pushing, and head butting; however these behaviors were only observed about once per hour compared to social grooming, which was observed more than twice as often.

=

The researchers conclu= ded that the behavior of dairy cows in compost barns is not substantially diffe= rent than other housing systems. This indicates that housing lactating herds in compost barns can be a viable option.=

—Peter Krawczel= , krawczel@whminer.com

REALLY WELL-STACKED CORN<= /h2>
Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto have reached an agreement aimed at launching “SmartStax”, the first-ever corn hybrids combini= ng eight different herbicide tolerance and insect-protection genes. The hybrids will include the companies’ above- and below-ground insect protection syst= ems, including Dow’s Herculex I and Herculex RW; Monsanto's YieldGar= d VT Rootworm/RR2 and YieldGard VT PRO; and both Roundup Ready and Liberty Link.

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

Putting Ev out to Pasture

As some of you may already know, our resident agron= omist is retiring next June or July after over 40 years of service to the North Country. Not only will we miss his knowledge = of crops, but we will also miss his sense of historical perspective since he l= ived through most of the history. As Ev likes to say= , he has been at Heart’s Delight Farm longer than even William Miner himse= lf was.

One of our largest challenges during the next 9 months or so will be to find a qualified individual to carry on the Institute’s mission in the area of agronomy research, education, and outreach. I will paraphrase the official job announcement here for two reasons: 1) So everyone will know how we envision filling Ev’s job; and 2) In case you know= of someone who fits the qualifications and may be interested.

The position will be full-time with responsibilities in research, undergraduate and graduate education, industry outreach, and oversight of the Institute cropping progr= am. Of course, Ev excelled in all of these areas, b= ut realistically we’d be happy with someone who had 3 out of 4 abilities. The successful candidate will be expected to develop a research program that addresses the environmental implications of crop production and nutrient management. To us, this is an important research issue in the Champlain Valley and the northeast generally. Agriculture’s potential impact on water, soil, and air quality needs to be understood if we expect livestock product= ion to continue to flourish in the North Country.

Specific responsibilit= ies of the agronomy position will include teaching agronomy portions of educational programs offered at the Institute and leading the Institute’s outreach and demonstrational programs in Agronomy. We expect the successful candidat= e to be able to attract external research funding and interact effectively with colleagues at the Institute and collaborating universities and agencies. The candidate must be able to communicate effectively, both orally and in writi= ng, with producers and allied industry representatives, students, and researche= rs. Here we would honestly be happy with someone who is only 2/3 as effective a= s Ev has grown to be. =

We are searching for a person with a PhD in Agronomy or a closely related field, evidence of resea= rch and outreach publications, demonstrated ability as an effective educator, a= nd a proven ability to work as part of a multidisciplinary research and education team. The salary we offer will be commensurate with the person’s qualifications.

In case you don’t know, the Institute has approximately 650 acres of cropland used to produce feed for the Institute livestock operations and for applied agronomy resear= ch and demonstration. Additionally, there we have a 40-acre research plot area that is used cooperatively by the Institute and Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType>. The Institute has a 300-cow dairy operation equipped with modern research a= nd education facilities. The Institute also has fully equipped nutritional, forage, and environmental research laboratories, a library, small-scale sil= os, and a variety of classrooms. Staff at the Institute regularly collaborates = with faculty at University of Vermont, Cornell University, and SUNY-Plattsburgh. So, we think the Institute is a fantastic place to work, = have fun, and help solve problems confronting agriculture.

I’ll close with = two final requests: 1) Be sure to thank Ev sometime during the next several months for all of his efforts over the years here at Miner Institute; and 2) Pass along this job announcement to people you feel might be qualified. A more detailed job announcement is posted on our web s= ite at www.whminer.org.

One final note: Ev has agreed to stay on as the Farm Report editor fo= r the foreseeable future which makes us all very happy!=

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

THE FEEDERS’S = JOB: A SIMPLE SPREADSHEE= T

Over the course of the Feeder’s Job series I’ve suggested that the math required by the feeder could be entered easily into a simple spreadsheet, saving time and tedium. I have assembled a spreadsheet that contains all math described in = the series plus a few extras. This spreadsheet is available for free download at our website at www.whmi= ner.org\outreach.html. The simple spreadsheet can assist the feeder with several tasks including sample scheduling, inventory estimation, new feed weight calculation, mix s= heet generation, and dry matter intake calculation. <= /p>
=

If your farm has a fee= d sampling schedule, the first worksheet can help keep track of when each feed needs t= o be sampled next. Three inventory estimators can help monitor your silage inventories and, with additional input, project the number of days of feed remaining. One worksheet will estimate for a top-unloading tower silo and t= he next will estimate for a bottom-unloading. The third worksheet will provide estimates for a bunker silo. The look-up tables contained within these worksheets are estimates aggregated over a range of conditions and should be used conservatively.

The next worksheets co= nvert wet weights to dry matter pounds and back using user-entered dry matter percents. The following worksheet combines these two equations and will calculate a new wet feed weight when the feeder enters the old wet feed wei= ght, old dry matter percent, and new dry matter percent. These two worksheets can help a new feeder learn the math required for the job.

=

With the next workshee= t, the feeder can generate a batch mix sheet for a group by entering the informati= on found on the nutritionist’s ration sheet. After the number of cows, f= eed identifiers, dry matter pounds of each feed, and dry matter percents are entered, the worksheet will calculate the mix sheet ne= eded for the group which the feeder can print.=

=

Finally, the last two worksheets work together to turn the raw data regarding intake (the five numbers described in August 2007 Farm Report) into dry matter intake information. The dry matter i= ntake per cow per day is calculated in the first worksheet and plotted in the next worksheet. These worksheets track one group for one month.

=

This spreadsheet is ge= neric and should be considered a good start to meet the needs of your dairy. Work with your nutritionist to tailor this spreadsheet to your dairy or to create your own. As comments and con= cerns arise with this first version please contact me.=

—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com

FAMILY FARMSUSDA recently publishe= d a summary of what it calls “family” farm size. USDA defines a family farm= as a single proprietorship, partnership or a family corporation that doesnR= 17;t have hired managers; in other words, management decisions are made by the owners. The wheels of government grind slowly, so the data is from 2004. Th= at notwithstanding, there’s some interesting information in the report, = with the devil in the details.

According to USDA ther= e are just over 2 million farms in the U.S., or at least there were = in 2004. But of these 2 million, 65% were what USDA euphemistically calls “Limited resource”, “Retirement”, and “Residential/lifestyle” farms. Although there are a lot of them, they account for only about 8% of agricultural product sales. These farms receive well over half their income from non-farm activities such as pensio= ns, interest, dividends and rent. Then there’s the 2% of the farms USDA c= alls “Nonfamily farms”, which sounds like another term for corporate= or “factory” farm, but that’s not the case at all. About 40%= of Nonfamily farms sell less than $10,000 worth of farm products each year, and two-thirds sell less than $100,000 so these aren’t really what most o= f us would call commercial farms. There are some huge farms in the Nonfamily farm category, accounting for 15% of U.S. farm product sales, just not a lot of them. What USDA calls “small” farms account for 90% of all U.S. farms, and on average they lost money in 2004. =

The real action is on what USDA calls “Lar= ge scale family farms”. While accounting for only 7.5% of total farms, in 2004 they represented 60% of farm product sales; in 2007 the percentage is almost certainly higher. These farms have sales of at least $250,000, so “large scale” isn’t necessarily huge: Even with $20.00 mi= lk, a typical 80-cow farm has about $330,000 in milk sales. Is this large scale= ?

CORN 2007

I am sure you have just finished reading Ev’s recounting of our c= orn harvest, yields of BMR and conventional, silos filled and packed. It is fun= to watch Ev hover over the fax machine waiting lik= e a kid at Christmas to receive the NIR results of the various fields and varie= ties of fresh chopped corn. He rifles through the results quoting DMs, fiber and starch values. I feign excitement, kno= wing that this is important stuff for an agronomist, seeing what nutrients were harvested and packed into storage. Being more of a pragmatist/nutritionist I don’t get so excited about what goes into the bunks as much as what comes out of them. Certainly= it is helpful to know DM, starch and fiber levels to get an idea of the potent= ial quality of the feed we will have. Fermentation, we all know, can do funny things to high quality green forage.<= /p>
=

We believe we did a go= od job keeping up with packing as forage poured in. For a while Henry was maintain= ing a very progressive wedge, which seemed a bit steep. It looked like he was preparing for a lunar launch, as attested by Anna, who was brave enough to spend time in the cab along side him. I mentioned that it might be better to lengthen the slope of the wed= ge in order to maximize downward pressure on a thinner layer of incoming forag= e. The idea that Henry’s butt imprint in the tractor seat should be as d= eep if not deeper than his back imprint provided a good visual for proper wedge slope.

Whole plant corn DMs were running between 30-36% for most of harvest, = though kernel DMs ran 53-61%. No milk there, hard dent kernels i= n some cases. Jake had the processor rolls cranked right down to 1-3 mm, and upon particle separation, there were NO intact or just cracked kernels. Nearly e= very kernel was crushed to smaller than ¼ kernel fragments. This will definitely help with starch hydration and solublizatio= n during storage, resulting in better ruminal fermentation. We can’t afford starch slipping through cows undigested= .

=

So, now we wait, letti= ng the forage ferment and “stew”, hopefully for 2-3 months. But given = that we are running low on fermented CS, looks like we may be into 2007 corn in = 4-6 weeks. That’s when we see how good Ev’s corn really is.

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

FARMERS, THE FARM REPORT, AND= THE INTERNET

A recent survey indica= tes that 59% of N.Y. farmers had access to the Internet in 2006, up by 4 percen= tage points from 2005. If you’re now receiving this newsletter via “snail mail” and would prefer to receive it on line, let us kno= w. It’s quicker and cheaper for us, and you’d get the Farm Report a few days earlier (more than a few days earlier when our copier goes on the fritz). On-line subscribers get an email message once a month linking them = to the just-published issue. Just send Debra LaPorte an email (laporte@whminer.com) and she= 217;ll make the change.

What’s happening on the farm

September was a busy m= onth in the maternity pens and fresh group - we calved out over 30 animals, and thr= ee of those cows had twins within a 5 day period. Occasionally we will have a backwa= rds calf or a calf with a front leg tucked underneath its body, but lately we h= ave had several difficult calvings due to abnormal positioning and/or the presence of twins. A couple calves tried to be born = in the forward position with their head very much in the wrong position - tuck= ed way underneath the abdomen or with the nose pointing back towards the tail.= Our feeder, Ralph, has arguably the longest arms on the farm and they have been numb a couple times this month, trying to reposition a calf. Now we are wondering what caused t= he calves to move into an abnormal position inside the ute= rus? Almost all the cows get their hooves trimmed at dry-off - perhaps tilting t= hese cows on the hoof table causes some trouble? <= /p>
=

The most interesting c= alving story, though, occurred one recent afternoon when we began to pull a backwa= rds calf from a heifer. She was fully dilated, but still very tight inside. We lubed her up and with considerable effort got the calf’s back half ou= t of the heifer. But after that, we could make no progress – we even tried= our calf jack that we almost never use – the calf was stuck in the pelvis= of the heifer. Later in the afternoon the vet arrived and as the calf was alre= ady dead, he removed both front legs at the shoulder. Surprised that the calf didn’t slip right out, we pulled some more and out popped a two headed calf! As you can see in the picture, the calf has two complete mouths, four eyes, but only two ears. No wonder we had such a hard pull – this time two heads were not better than one!=

—A.P.=

Editor’s Note: The cow giving birth to this calf wasn’t involved in any weird research project; it wasn’t a gene= tic engineering experiment that went wrong. Ev thin= ks it’s due to global warming.=

MANAGING HIGH MOIST= URE SHELLED CORN High grain prices and = an increased acreage of corn in the region may result in more of the crop harvested as h= igh moisture shelled corn (HMSC) this fall. Fred Owens from Pioneer Hi-Bred off= ers some timely food for thought. When HMSC is ensiled between 20 and 24% moist= ure, feed efficiency is lower than either dry rolled grain or HMSC ensiled at hi= gher moisture contents. Other research has shown that HMSC continues to increase= in starch digestibility for many months—at least 9, according to one study—after ensiling. What this means is that wetter HMSC—usual= ly that harvested first—should be fed first, while HMSC harvested= at less than 25% moisture should have water added to it if possible and then allowed to ferment as long as possible. Of course this is exactly opposite = the last-ensiled-first-fed system used on farms that don’t have bottom-unloading tower silos.

=

A related concern is t= he increased starch availability from HMSC stored for many months. Cows eating significant quantities of this feed may be at increased risk for acidosis. Fermented (ensiled) grain corn has higher starch digestibility than dry cor= n. According to Owens, “The increase in starch digestibility with longer storage appears correlated with solubilization = of corn proteins that encase or link starch granules. Hence, the types and activity of bacteria inherently present on the crop or added to harvested g= rain as an inoculum are likely to influence starch digestibility.”

Fresh Cow Problems Lead to NEFA Testing at Miner<= /span>

Lately, fresh cow prob= lems have occurred more frequently than usual here at Miner Institute. Most of t= he problems have been ketosis and displaced abomasum within the first 2 weeks after calving. In order to identify the cause(s) of the fresh cow problems, Steve Couture, our farm manager, and Anna Pape, our dairy intern, have been evaluating the mana= gement and nutrition programs of the dry and fresh cows. The timing of the health problems suggests that it is a dry cow program issue. =

Many fresh cow problem= s have a metabolic component which can be related back to pre= calving negative energy balance or severe postcalving negative energy balance. Precalving negative en= ergy balance is determined by testing blood for the concentration of nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA). Blood NEFA reflect = body fat mobilization in response to negative energy balance or stressful conditions. Elevated NEFA increases the risk of fatty liver, ketosis, displ= aced abomasum, retained placenta, and immunosuppression. University of Guelph researchers found that the risk of subclinical ketosis= was 5 times greater when precalving NEFA was greate= r than 0.7 mEq/L. Cows with preca= lving blood NEFA greater than 0.5 mEq/L were at 3.5 t= imes greater risk of developing a displaced abomasum= .

=

We decided that measur= ing blood NEFA in the close-up dry cows and heifers would be a useful tool to h= elp identify the cause(s) of the fresh cow problems. On August 27, Anna started collecting blood from our close-up animals. It is recommended to collect bl= ood from a minimum of 12 animals. Anna collected the blood immediately before feeding, the time period in the day that NEFA will be the highest. After feeding, NEFA will decrease. Anna has continued to collect blood every 7 to= 10 days. She separated the serum from the blood and froze the serum until it w= as analyzed at a diagnostic laboratory and here at Miner Institute. There are several laboratories that will analyze the serum for NEFA with a typical co= st of $8 to $12 per sample.

The NEFA results of 29= blood samples from close-up dry cows and heifers sampled between August 27 and September 17 are shown in the fi= gure. When we interpret the results we are not interested in the mean NEFA value,= but rather in the proportion of animals above the cut-point. In addition to defining the appropriate cut-point, it is necessary to determine the alarm level for the proportion of animals about the cut-point. The cut-point recommendations vary some among diagnostic laboratories, veterinarians, and consultants. However, a common recommendation for serum NEFA in dry cows and heifers more than 14 days before calving is less than 0= .325 mEq/L and for dry cows and heifers between 2 t= o 14 days before calving is less than 0.400 mEq/L. A= nimals within 2 days of calving usually have high NEFA and are difficult to interp= ret. The alarm level recommendations vary also with a range of 10 to 40% above t= he cut-point. When too many animals are above the cut-point, then there is a herd-level problem with precalving negative ene= rgy balance and excessive fat mobilization.

=

Interpretation of NEFA results should be made carefully while assessing other information such as = feed intake, diet composition, body condition, cow comfort, and management pract= ices. In our herd, and other herds, we always expect a couple of cows to be above= the cut-point. A great example of this is the cow represented by the triangle w= ith NEFA of 1.36 and 1.53 mEq/L at days -15 and -4.= It is unusual to see precalving NEFA so high. This co= w was thin (~2.75 BCS) during the close-up period and calved with twins. Presumab= ly, this cow was not eating well and mobilizing an excessive amount of fat. Aft= er calving, this cow was a downer cow with severe metabolic problems and was e= uthanized. When this cow was excluded from the dataset, there were 5 animals out of 25 animals sampled within 14 days of calving with NEFA greater than our cut-po= int of 0.4 mEq/L. This is equa= l to our alarm level of 25% suggesting that we do have a herd-level problem with precalving energy balance.=

=

Investigation of feed intake, close-up diet, and body condition score of the animals did not revealed an obvious problem. The far-off diet contained chopped hay (~8 inches long) that was being sorted against by the animals. The animals were sorting for the higher energy corn silage. Presumably, the far-off animals were consuming more energy than pla= nned because of sorting. Over-consumption of energy by far-off animals can cause them to mobilize more fat and have higher NEFA immediately before calving. = The hay is being chopped now to a smaller size (X= 04; 4 inches long) before it is added to the diet to reduce the ability of the animals to sort against it. Anna plans to continue collecting blood for NEFA analysis. This approach will allow us to develop a baseline for our current management and nutritional practices. It will also help us identify an appropriate cut-point and alarm level for our herd. The usefulness of NEFA = as a routine monitoring tool is great. It allows early detection of problems bef= ore they occur and provides an additional way to evaluate management and nutritional changes.

—Heather Dann, = dann@whminer.com

WHAT’S DRAINAGE WORTH? = The following article = is from the October 1982 issue of the Farm Report, in celebration of 25 years = of this newsletter.

Ohio State’s Department of Agricultural Engineering has updated some of its information on the economics of soil drainage. We = think this information is timely in spite of the dollar shortage on dairy farms. Assumptions:

1.      = Cost of $150/A for surface drainage and $550/A for tile drainage.

2.      = 5% annual depreciation for tile.=

3.      = Interest on average investment is 14%.=

4.      = Maintenance cost of $6/A/year for surface drainage.

5.      = Corn price is $3.00/bushel.=

While the highest yiel= ds and profits are with a combination of surface and tile drainage, most of the yi= eld increase is obviously due to the tile drainage. If there’s any way you can find the dollars to improve drainage on your farm, do so. The benefits are great, the return on investment is excellent, and the profits from improved draina= ge continue on and on, in good years and bad.=

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

Editor’s note: The cost of tile drainage has = about doubled in the past ten years, and while the corn price has only increased about a buck a bushel, interest on investment is a lot less than 14%. The numbers have changed, but there’s still plenty of profit in improved drainage.

VET’S CORNER: Whole Milk vs. Milk Replacer<= o:p>

Higher milk prices have brought back the smiles on many dairy producers. One downside to the higher prices has been the accompanying cost increase of milk replacer for baby calves. It’s been especially tough on the milk-fed veal business.&nbs= p; =

On the Penn State website, = http://www.das.psu.edu/xls/calfmilkcostcompare.xls, Coleen Jones and Jud Heinrichs share a calculat= or that compares the cost of milk replacer and whole milk. Inputs for the calculation were $22/cwt milk price and $70/bag for 20:20 milk replacer, as reported by several herd health clients in July. Feeding rates were 1 gallon whole milk vs. 1.25 lb milk replacer. Without going into too much detail, <= span style=3D'mso-bidi-font-style:italic'>some interesting outputs follow= :

=

The narrow difference = in cost has many producers investigating switching to feeding whole milk becau= se they expect better health and performance in the whole milk fed calves.&nbs= p;

Another potential adva= ntage to feeding whole milk could be for the calf to receive the full antibody protection from vaccination of the cow with one of the new vaccines for E. Coli/Rota/Corona. Currently these vaccines are used extensively in the beef industry, where the calf has a constant supply of maternal antibody via suckling whole milk. Many dairy producers have not adopted the vaccines bec= ause the calf consumes the maternal antibody for only four days in colostrum and then is switched to milk replacer which cannot be presumed to contain antibody. (In some of our practice’s to= ughest Rota/Corona calf scours outbreaks, our best protection was to add a pint of whole milk to milk replacer for the first two weeks of life in an attempt to supply some Rota/Corona antibody.) Feeding whole milk from a herd protected with E. Coli/Rota/Corona vaccination could be a good step in battling calf scours in baby calves.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.<= i>

www.NWVetVT.c= om

hugamoo@co= mcast.net

Cornell Feed Dealers Meeting at Miner Institute<= span style=3D'color:black;mso-font-kerning:14.0pt'>

Tuesday, October 30, <= span class=3DGramE>2007 6:30 PM

Topics to be covered b= y Dr. Larry Chase and Dr. Tom Overton include:=

Ÿ  &nbs= p;      Distillers grains – New thoughts on an old feed (Chase)

Ÿ  &nbs= p;      Carbohydrates – Understanding the Alphabet Soup (Chase)

Ÿ  &nbs= p;      Update on the Milk Component study (Chase)

Ÿ  &nbs= p;      Dairy Profit Monitor – a new tool to use with your clients (Overton)

Ÿ  &nbs= p;      DCAD strategies for dry cows (Overton)=

Ÿ  &nbs= p;      Dry period length and milk production (Overton)

Ÿ  &nbs= p;      Update on the Milk fat field study (Overton)

Ÿ  &nbs= p;      Frequent milking of fresh cows field study (Overton)

For more information contact: Wanda Emerich 518-846-7121x117 or emerich@whmin= er.com. A small registration fee will be c= harged to cover the cost of refreshments and proceedings.

MANAGING MOUNTAINS OF CORN SILAGE

With last year’s= short crop of corn silage, many farmers planted more acres of corn in 2007. Then—at least in about a 100-mile radius from here—we had almost perfect corn growing weather and a terrific crop. We also had a good year f= or hay crops, so there wasn’t much room left in silos normally intended = for these crops. The result on many farms is mountains of silage—piles and stacks as well as bunker silos mounded higher than normal. A few suggestion= s in dealing most effectively with this situation:=

=

To the extent possible, delay feeding new crop corn silage as long as possible. On many farms this won’t be long at all, of course, but at least wait a few weeks—= more if you’ve used inoculants that stipulate a longer period.

Be especially careful = with stacks and bunker silos piled higher than normal. Don’t tunnel under = the face of these as you feed out—remove silage by scraping the face from= top to bottom. If your unloading equipment won’t reach to the top of the = pile then you’ve piled it too high. Every year farmers are killed by “silage pile cave-ins”…don’t be one of them.=

Start feeding first th= ose silage inventories most susceptible to spoilage, rodent damage, etc. This w= ould include small silage piles and silage bags on unimproved surfaces (AKA “dirt”). We like silage bags, more for hay crops than for corn silage, though, because of rodent problems. We put up one bag of corn silage this year (for later research purposes) but put it on an improved surface, = as far as possible from the resident rat population.

—E.T.=

= ;

U.S.= CORN CROP

As corn growers have s= tarted harvesting, the size of the 2007 crop is becoming clearer. The latest report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), released last week, increas= ed the estimated corn production to 13.3 billion bushels, up from 13.1 billion bushels just a month ago. The new estimates are in line with several private analysts’ recent forecasts, notes the National Corn Growers Association. According to the report, USDA expects yields to average 155.8 bushels per acre, the second highest yield ever. The number of corn acres harvested is projected to be t= he highest since 1933.

NORTHERN N.Y. DAIRY FARMS

Some dairy statistics gleaned from the N.Y. State Dept. of Agriculture and Markets:

Therefore, with 14% fe= wer dairy farms, the dairy industry in Northern N.Y is getting smaller, right? = Not so fast: Now look at total milk production per county, and the change between 2003 and 2006:

So, the dairy industry= in Northern N.Y. is getting larger, right? Ever the optimist, we’d suggest that the industry is indeed growing modestly, at least in 4 of the 6 NNY counties—actually 4 of 5 since it could be argued that Essex County’s 17 dairy farms don’t constitute an “industry”. In fact, t= here are a few farms in the region that have more dairy cows and more milk production than all the farms in Essex County put together= . The reason for higher milk sales is higher production per cow, since overall cow numbers decreased slightly.

—E.T. =

NOBODY ASKED ME, BUT…

Ÿ &nbs= p; When I hear of people with such a sweet corn fetish that they insis= t on boiling the pot of water before picking the corn I wonder what they have in their medicine chest.

Ÿ &nbs= p; Recent $20 milk prices are allowing dairy farmers to pay down some = of the debt incurred when milk was in the low teens. But I’m afraid that after this, the lust for shiny new steel will in far too many cases superse= de more long-lasting investments such as improved field drainage.

Ÿ &nbs= p; Just wondering what was the best thing BEFORE sliced bread, but I t= hink I know…

Ÿ &nbs= p; Gotta love those veterans: Strategically placed sign = in the Brushton-Moira (NY) American Legion: Vietnam Veterans’ Jane Fonda Memorial Urinal. Pause and Remember

Ÿ &nbs= p; I don’t get very worried about food additives. I figure at my= age I need all the preservatives I can get. =

Ÿ &nbs= p; If the U.S. government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does Title 14, Section 1211= of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July 16, 1969, make it ille= gal for U.S.= citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their vehicles? Hmmm= .

—E.T.=

PAY NOW OR PAY LATER

With high fuel prices = the temptation is to keep manure close to home rather than haul it to fields several miles away. However, one of the results of the ethanol boom will be higher prices for many crop inputs including fertilizer. Therefore, you nee= d to balance the added cost of hauling manure to distant fields with the added fertilizer you may need next spring if you don’t apply manure on them. This is especially important for fields that are low in P and K. Only about 30% of the total N in fall-applied manure is available to the next year’s corn crop, while = the P and K in manure doesn’t leach much at al= l and is at least as efficient as the nutrients in commercial fertilizer: A pound= of manure P and K is as good as a pound of fertilizer P and K. So while you mi= ght save fuel dollars this fall by keeping the spreader close to home, it will = cost you next year, either in more fertilizer or in lower yield.

Corn silage yields were extremely high in much of the region. One ton of corn silage removes 6 or 7 pounds of potash (K_{2O), so a big 25-ton/ac=
re
crop would remove 150-175 lbs. The soil would supply some of this, starter
fertilizer some, and manure still more. However, especially on fields you
don’t manure, this might be the year to apply 0-0-60 fertilizer prior=
to
fall tillage. That’s what we’re doing this fall on our more dis=
tant
corn fields that haven’t received heavy rates of manure. The differen=
ce
between your “normal” corn silage yields and what many farmers
harvested this year may in itself justify an application of 100 lbs/acre of
0-0-60.}

—E.T.=

GET A GRIP, LADY

A recent public servic= e announcement running on local radio stations concerns pollen allergies. The lady announc= er has some helpful suggestions, and one that’s truly ludicrous. She says that when children, dogs and cats come inside, to give them a bath right aw= ay because “they are major carriers” of pollen and other allergens. Makes you wonder if she’s ever had kids or owned a dog or cat. When o= ur kids were between the ages of 2 and 20 the knowledge that they’d immediately have to bathe upon coming inside would pretty much ensure that = we wouldn’t see them twixt dawn and dusk.=

What really got me goi= ng was the suggestion that dogs and cats be bathed every time they come inside. I wonder how many pets this lady has bathed---especially cats. In a former li= fe as a “kennel boy” at a large veterinary hospital (housing for at least 250 dogs and cats) I bathed hundreds of dogs—and several cats. = Most dogs don’t particularly like to be bathed but when plopped in the tub= and doused with water resign themselves to their fate, then are absolutely ecst= atic when the bath is done and they can shake water and tick dip all over the pl= ace. Cats, however, are another deal entirely, and seldom is the bath optional s= ince cats normally take care of their personal hygiene just fine. No, the candid= ate is usually a cat with a skin condition and therefore not in a particularly = good mood to begin with. And while a dog quickly calms down, wetting and then soaping a cat elicits a progression of feline emotions: Shock—terror—anger—revenge. A soaped-up cat is a slippery business indeed, with almost all “grippable” body parts equipped with fangs or claws. And since feline skin conditions require repeated treatment, the cat often knows what’s coming. Back in the day, more than once the soapsuds were mixed with blood, and not the cat’s. I wish—oh, how I wish!—that j= ust one time this lady would have to bathe a mangy cat that’s been bathed= a few times before (Remember, she says to bathe pets every time they come in)= and is therefore primed for action. My advice would be: Get a grip and lots of luck, but in the end I think the result would be a cat-astrophe.

—E.T.=

TRICK OR TEAT?

Wanda Emerich was do= ing a web search on Google for “teat end condition scoring”. Imagine = her surprise when two hits were from UNICEF and the Minn-D= ak Division 4 News. Curiosity got the better of her so she followed the first = link and found a promo entitled “Listen to an audio greeting from Clay Aik= en, spokesman for Trick or Teat for UNICEF.” Thinking that this was an unfortunate one-time omission of the letter “r” in the word “treat”, she followed the second link and found: “The Trick-or-teat for UNICEF campaign is a wonderful opportunity for your club,= to go out into your community and make a difference…Have a blast on Halloween night while raising money for a great organization!” WeR= 17;d love to see the costumes the Trick or Teat folks will be wearing…

GAUNTLET THROWING <= o:p>

We were pleased to rea= d that Vermont’s large CAFOs all passed recent inspections by the state’s Agency of Natural Resources without a single violation. We we= re less pleased at the ANR’s commissioner st= ating that “If we have violators we will throw the gauntlet at them.”= A gauntlet was a metal glove worn with a medieval suit of armor. Back then a knight would throw down his gauntlet, challenging his opponent to fi= ght. If he threw his gauntlet at the opponent and hit him with it the fig= ht might be over right there, but little chance of that since those suits of a= rmor were hell on throwing accuracy. We think the commish meant that ANR would throw the book at violators. Figuratively speak= ing, we hope.

CRITTER NEWS

Ÿ &nbs= p; Officials at the Chiang Mai Zoo (China) have put Chuang Chuang the giant panda on a diet in hopes that it will encourage him to mate with female panda Lin Hui= . CC is gaining weight too fast, tipping the scale at 331 lbs while Lin only wei= ghs 253 lbs so Lin isn’t comfortable having sex with him any more. Theref= ore, zoo officials cut bamboo shoots out of CC’s diet so all he gets are bamboo leaves. After trying for months to get the couple to mate, officials are getting desperate: They’ve tried a mock wedding, separation (absence didn’t make the heart grow fonder) and s= exy panda movies (which must certainly be the first time ever that those three words have appeared in sequence). =

Ÿ &nbs= p; In a tragic accident in Thailand, a circus hippopotamus swallowed a dwarf named Od. The hippo was yawning while waiting to perf= orm in the next act, the dwarf bounced sideways off of a trampoline right into the hippo’s mouth, the hippo had a gag reflex a= nd down went Od. More than 1000 spectators at the = circus applauded wildly until they realized there was something dreadfully wrong. = The hippo recovered but Od did not, which when you think about it isn’t odd at all.

Ÿ &nbs= p; Lookin’ for love in all the wrong places: A randy rhinoceros gave a group of visitors to a British safari park more than they bargained for when he tried to have sex with their car. Sharka the rhino tried to mount the car from the side, denting the doors and rippi= ng off the side mirrors before the driver drove away with Sharka in hot pursuit. According to the driver, “He sidled up against us. The next thing I know he’s banging away at the car and it’s rocking like hell.”

THE USDA YEARBOOK OF AGRICULTURE

Warning! Rant follows.= Read on at your own risk.

The first Yearbook of Agriculture was published by USDA in 1894, and until 1936 was an annual rev= iew of agricultural developments, statistical tables, and “unrelated arti= cles on current agricultural research or study”. Beginning in 1936 the yearbooks changed, with each volume focusing on a single topic, aimed at the general public but especially farmers. These were the golden years of the Yearbook of Agriculture, including useful references such as “Grass” (1948) “Insects” (1952), “Plant Diseases” (1953), “Animal Diseases” (1956), “Soil” (1957), and “Seeds” (1961). I still use “Insects” as a bug reference. =

Then something went ho= rribly wrong. USDA apparently decided farmers didn’t need technical information from the yearbooks, or much= of any information at all for that matter. What followed were tepid efforts ai= med not at farmers but at consumers: “Consumers All” (1965), ”Outdoors USA”(1967), “Handbook for Home” (1973), ”Shopper’s Guide” (1974), “Gardening for Food and Fun” (1977), “Living on a Few Acres” (1978), and “What’s to Eat?” (1979). And t= hen, if possible, it got worse: “Our America= n Land” (1987) = and “Americans in Agriculture” (1990) were both a series of unrelat= ed “up close and personal” vignettes, and finally “New Crops= ” (1992) which extolled the value of milkweed and predicted that ethanol would soon be a big thing. After this, USDA mercifully gave up and stopped publis= hing the yearbooks altogether. Much as T.S. Eliot in his poem The Hollow Men<= /i> predicted: “This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper”, the Yearbook of Agriculture died with a whimper.

—E.T.=

=

SEED CORN THOUGHTS<= o:p>

If seed dealers haven’t already darkened y= our door they’re about to. (That’s if you grow corn; if you have on= ly pasture and grass you won’t see them except at meetings.) This year m= ore seed companies are treating all their seed corn with either Poncho 250 or Cruiser 250. That’s the low rate; most seed companies are also offeri= ng the 1250 rate of seed treatment (the “rootworm rate”). This is a change from last year, when Pioneer, among others, offered both rates of se= ed treatment as options. Not all seed companies are following the same practic= e, so check with your dealer if you’re not sure. The following table is based on 2008 seed cat= alogs and dealer information.

<= /span>

You’ll almost certainly find seed corn somewhat more expensive this winter because of thr= ee reasons: Most companies are including the seed treatment in the price of a = bag of seed; significantly higher cost for genetically modified traits (Bt, glyphosate resistance)= ; and $4.00 corn. (Though seed company execs would join the Hairy Krishnas rather than admit that they’d take advantage of higher corn grain pri= ces. The very idea!)= Based on 2007 costs, the low rate of Poncho or Cruiser will increase= the price of a unit of corn by about $18. Combined with one or more genetic tra= its such as RoundupReady and Bt= for corn borer and/or corn rootworm, there will be a lot more seed c= orn with a retail price over $200 per unit. =

=

If you plant seed corn= with the 250 rate of Poncho or Cruiser, be sure to use either a soil insecticide= or rootworm-resistant hybrids in years 3, 4, and 5 (in a 5-year corn rotation). That’s because according to Cornell University’s entomologist Elson Shields, even the low rate of these products kills some rootworms and exclusive use of the 250 rate may kill off the weak ones, lea= ving only the strong to survive. (Just what we need—an industrial strength rootworm.) Our new corn planter doesn’t ha= ve insecticide boxes, so we’ll use either the 1250 rate of Poncho/Cruise= r or rootworm-resistant hybrids in years 4 and 5.=

—E.T.=

CLOSING COMMENT

The best contraceptive= for old people is nudity.<= o:p>

<= /span>