MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

HOW DAIRY COWS CAME BACK TO= MINER INSTITUTE

Following William Miner’s death in 1930 the farm operation at Heart’s Delight Farm went into a long period of decline. Dairy cow numbers quickly decreased from 100 to 50 or so and remained there into the 1950s. By 1960 there wasn’t a single dairy cow at what had become The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute.

&nbs= p;

The Cooperative Extension Dairy and Field Cr= ops Team had its offices at Miner Institute from the team’s inception in 1968. In 1969 Dairy Team Specialist Bill Gallamore began a once vs. twice a day calf feeding trial in the old dairy barn (now = the horse barn), buying a bunch of heifer calves at the local livestock auction. These were the first dairy animals to set foot on the farm in over ten year= s. In 1970 Miner Institute and Cornell University entered = into a 10-year dairy research agreement and the Institute built a 160-cow freestall facility for Cornell’s use. By the ti= me the new barn was done Bill’s calves had grown into heifers and as they freshened moved into the milking herd.

&n= bsp;

In 197= 9 it was decided not to renew the Miner-Cornell agreement. The terms of the agreement stipulated that half the herd was owned by Cornell, the other hal= f by the Institute, so that summer Cornell had the herd appraised and divided in= to two supposedly equal groups, cleverly named Group 1 and Group 2. By then th= ere was a new dairy specialist on the Dairy Team: Dr. Harry Randy. Harry had a = big advantage in assessing the relative merits of each group because he knew a = lot about each cow in the herd, including the health status of each quarter of every cow’s udder. Harry quickly concluded that Group 2 was much better than Group 1; in fact, of the 20 cows Harry considered the cream of the cro= p, 15 were in Group 2. After some discussion it was decided that since it was Cornell’s appraisal, Miner Institute could pick the group it wanted. = And we did—or rather, Harry did, acting on the Institute’s behalf s= ince nobody on the Institute staff knew anything about dairy cows. So almost overnight Miner Institute was back in the dairy business, with 90 cows roam= ing about in the 160-cow barn. We retained the best of the farm employees and m= ost of the cows, Harry started showing up at dairy farm auctions, buying nice registered cows and bred heifers here and there, and we were on our way.

Since Harry was the only one on the farm who= knew much about feeding dairy cows and making herd management decisions, Miner Institute and Cornell entered into an agreement whereby Harry and Ev would manage the dairy and crop operations respect= ively, and in return Miner Institute would fund a fourth Dairy Team position, that= of agricultural engineer. (The Dairy Team already had dairy, field crop and fa= rm management specialists.) But Cornell simply couldn’t find an agricult= ural engineer willing to brave the wilds of the North Cou= ntry, and since in the intervening two years Harry and Ev hadn’t screwed the farm operation up too badly Miner Institute hired = them both in 1981 and the rest, as they say, is history.

—Ev Thomas, = thomas@whminer.com

&n= bsp;

FARM REPORT MAILING LIST REVISIONS

We normally update our mailing = list every two years, asking subscribers if they want to remain on the Farm Report mailing list. We are not going= to do it this fall. However, if you have changes in your mailing address or don’t want to receive this newsletter any more (raising the question = of why you’re reading this), let us know. If there’s someone you w= ant added to the mailing list, send us their name and either email or mailing address.

&n= bsp;

Ve= t’s Corner: Anovular Cows

The anovular cow is defined as not returning to reg= ular estrus cycles following calving. At the Elite Dairy Team Conference, = Dr. Richard Pursley from Michigan State University reported= that the rate of anovular cows can range from 10-40%= at 50-75 Days in Milk (DIM). As expected, calving difficulty, metritis, ketosis, and DA’s lead to higher anovular= cow rates. The best predictor of anovulation = is a low Body Condition Score. Again as expected, BCS <2.75 had anovular rate of 40%, but more importantly, cows in the desirable BCS >3.25 had 10% cows that were not cycling by 75 DIM. So anovula= r cows occur in all herds.

For herds that use Timed Artificial Insemina= tion, it’s common to perform the first pregnancy check around 110 DIM after= the first time insemination. If Resynch (GnRH injected 7 days prior to pr= eg check) is used, open cows are expected to have a functional CL to be lutein= ized by a prostaglandin injection. If Resynch = is not used, the cow is expected to have a regressed CL and approaching a natural heat. In the field, it’s frustrating because we find many cows that do not fit these patterns. In herds with good BCS and few fresh cow problems, 5-10% of the open cows will be anovular and not= be in the expected estrus pattern. If >10% of the open cows don’t = fit the pattern, spend some time on the diagnosis of the cause of anovular cows.

The results of Dr. Purs= ley’s comparison of cows bred on signs of natural heat vs. O= vsynch indicate 17% drop in preg rate for cows on Ovsynch in the 50-75 DIM group. By definition, cows i= n the control group can’t be anovular because t= hey have been observed to be in estrus and should be the most fertile cattle in= the milking herd. By starting Ovsynch less than 76 = DIM, anovular cows that can’t become impregnated are= being forced into the breeding program and are responsible for the lower pregnancy rate. Check out the 1st service % successful rate in your herd, if it is not higher than 2nd and l= ater service’s successful rates, consider raising VWP to keep anovular cows out of the Timed Artificial Insemination program.

= 212;Dr. Kent E Henderson

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

hugamoo@comcast.net

&n= bsp;

FAMOUS LAST WORDS

· = Kenneth Lay, after he was convicted of fraud in= the collapse of Enron: “We believe that God in fact is in control.”= Lay died two months later of heart failure. (He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, still dead.)

· Jerome Rodale, considered by many to be the father= of the organic food movement in the U.S., in an interview with The New York T= imes Magazine: “I’m going to live to be 100, unless I’m run down by a sugar-crazed taxi driver.” The ne= xt day during a taping of a TV talk show Rodale died of a heart attack at age = 73.

· John Sedgwick, Civil War Union Army general while inspecting his troops during t= he Battle of the Wil= derness: “They couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist…”<= /o:p>

· Lady Astor, awaking momentarily on her deathbed to find herself surrounded by family: “Am I dying or is it my birthday?”

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

Agritourism and Public Perception of Agriculture

Recently we’ve been working on a grant proposal = that would get Miner Institute more involved with agritouri= sm. The entire process got me thinking about why there is a need for agritourism, and public perceptions regarding agricul= ture. The definition of agritourism is visiting a wor= king farm for enjoyment or education and to learn how agriculture affects the consumer’s way of life. In our case, we would use the beautiful historical farm buildings as the hook to attract people, but our real purpo= se would be to demonstrate the importance in contemporary agriculture of produ= ction efficiency, environmental stewardship, animal comfort, and pride in produci= ng a wholesome product.

&n= bsp; = ;

As I thought about the significance of agritourism as a trend in the <= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">U.S., i= t dawned on me that we are really beginning to consider farms as tourist destinations rather than food production units that have to be profitable business enterprises. Think about this: Agritourism is attempting to inform consumers about modern farming by making farms tourist destinations. If you’re a farmer, you’ve just become an exhibit= to many consumers, a site for them to visit for recreation and perhaps some education.

&n= bsp; = ;

Fundamentally, agriculture’s tremendous success in the 20th century resulted in a ne= arly complete disconnection between the average American consumer and the farmer. Successful mechanization and adoption of new technologies has allowed farme= rs to produce more food. In 1900, 39% of Americans lived on a farm. In 1920, 3= 0% of Americans lived on a farm, but by 1940 that number had fallen to 23%, and only 7.5% by 1960. Today, less than 2% of the U.S. population lives on a fa= rm. In 1960 one farmer produced food and fiber for 46 people, but by 2007 one farm= er produces food and fiber for 144 people. The average U.S. consumer only spends ~10= % of disposable income on food – that is incredible by world standards.

&n= bsp; = ;

So, what does the average American consumer “see” when looking at farming and the environmental, food safet= y, and animal welfare issues that involve agriculture? Mostly, their views are shaped by popular press stories that are not necessarily supportive of agriculture. Recent polls, for instance, on consumer views about animal wel= fare found that 47% of consumers agreed that greater regulation of treatment of = farm animals is needed and 73% felt that animals have rights. Consider this: 25%= of these same consumers felt that animals deserved the same rights as people. Today’s consumer wants che= ap food, a safe food supply, healthy food (real or perceived), socially responsible production practices, and assurance of animal welfare.

&n= bsp; = ;

Where does that leave most farms on t= he continuum between a farm that is operated purely for a= gritourism and the reality of running a profitable business? We need to inject factual, scientifically-based information into any truly successful agritourism experience. The issues that cross-cut agriculture, food safety, societal issues, and environment are already front page news and will continue to be= so. If we don’t educate consumers, nothing else we do ultimately matters = all that much. For me, the realization that only 1 to 2% of our fellow Americans are farmers made me finally accept that ~99% of the people in the U.S. cann= ot really be expected to understand contemporary agriculture because they are disconnected from their food supply. It is a daunting challenge, but we in agriculture have to engage consumers in educational programs at all levels. With our unique set of historical buildings, the Institute is positioned to enter the agritourism trend, but our essential = goal must be educating consumers about the realities of modern farming.

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

&n= bsp;

Fa= ll production and forage quality update

It seems as though the more we understand about ruminant nutrition and forage = quality, the more we don’t understand. Recent advances in forage testing have given us multiple protein and carbohydrate fractions along with VFA profiles and estimates of starch and NDF digestibility. When forages are good and co= ws are milking well, we believe the analyses with conviction. When cows are not milking as we might expect based on the diet printout and forage tests, we wonder which is incorrect; the diet formulation or the forage analyses on w= hich the diet is based. Things get “sketchy” pretty darned quick in spite of all we think we know. Not to mention the possibility of molds and = mycotoxins and the myriad of other yet unknown metabo= lites that occur in ugly feed as well as perfectly good looking feed that can ups= et a rumen and its host, the cow.

Back in August we hosted a dairy nutrition conference and spoke openly about our herd in terms of production, rations = and forage quality. Upon assessment of peNDF using = the Z Box and manure screening of our high group cows, it was concluded that the = cows or rather their rumens were not functioning to peak fermentative capacity. = The Z Box showed our high diets to be on the low side of effective fiber at ~21= %, and that was with BMR CS in the ration (hence, our recommendation of increa= sing TMR peNDF levels to >23% if not higher when feeding BMR CS.). Also, there was a fair amount of large and medium sized particles passing through into the manure. Nutrient imbalance in conjunction with a lack of effective fiber, cows were just hanging on, as seen by their= rather gaunt body condition.

Well, we then ran into some poor forage qual= ity both in the BMR CS and the haylage. We were pin= ned down, and the cows were telling us that. Both silages were running about 30= % DM but much wetter toward the bottom and smelling of butyric (0.82 % of DM in = the haylage). We ran out of BMR and switched to 100% conventional CS, to no avail. The corn we switched to had been purchased in 2006, during that catastrophic corn year in the Northeast. Now that we are feeding it we realize that it was being delivered faster than we could pack= it. (When you are buying corn for silage in times of scarcity, who is going to = tell the trucks and chopper to slow down? And yes we did have 2 tractors packing). Silage density…well, you can sink your fingers into the face and pluck off a handful like you were stealing a piece of yellow birthday cake. =

We have since switched to 2007 1st cut grass haylage and opened a bunk of 2007 BMR CS, while finishing off the purchased 2006 corn silage. On paper everything looks copasetic. Though we have yet to make up = the lost milk, the cows are gaining back lost body condition. As far as forage testing goes, once again the cows are the best indicators of quality forage= and nutrition.

—Kurt Cotanch, cotan= ch@whminer.com

&n= bsp;

= HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH?

A high school freshman won first prize at the 2007 Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair. In h= is project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide since it has t= he following properties:

· Can cause excessive sweating and vomiting.=

· = A major component of acid rain.

· = Can cause severe burns in its gaseous state.

· = Accidental inhalation can be fatal.<= /span>

· = Decreases the effectiveness of automobile brake= s.

· = Has been detected in tumors of cancer patients.=

&n= bsp;

He asked 50 peopl= e if they supported a ban of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide. Forty-three said yes, six were undecided, and only one knew that = the chemical was...water. He was attempting to show how conditioned we have bec= ome to the alarmists spreading fear of everything in our environment. He succee= ded pretty well, didn’t he?

&n= bsp;

The title of his = prize winning project was, "How Gullible Are We?" The answer is obvious= .

&n= bsp;

The Feeder’s Job: Scales

Underlying the feeder’s work are scales. Scales are used when feeding cows individually, measuring dry matters, or filling feed trucks and working. Accurate scales are an essential component of a high-quality feeding progra= m. Without scales, the feeder will not be able to achieve the 5 Priorities for feeding dairy cattle.

Are your scales accurate? An experienced fee= der will spot big errors easier, but what about smaller or creeping errors? Sca= les should be checked against known weights as part of the regular routine of the feed= er and, when the scales are off, adjustments should be made immediately.<= /o:p>

In theory, two types of errors can occur wit= h a scale, “slope” and “intercept”. These terms come fr= om the high school algebra equation for a line, y=3Dmx+b<= /span>. For this discussion, x will equal the actual weight of the feed and y will equal the measured weight of the feed.&nbs= p; If the measurement of the weight of the feed is accurate, then the s= lope (m) of the line comparing the actual and measured weights will be 1 and the intercept (b) will be 0 and the actual weight (x) will equal the measured weight (y) as described by the dotted line with diamonds in Figure 1. A “slope” error occurs when m≠1 or w= hen the scale is always off by the same percentage. (The triangles in Figure 1 show a = scale that is always off by 40%.) An “intercept” error occurs when b≠0 or w= hen the scale is always off by the same amount. (The squares in Figure 1 show a scale that is always off by 400 pounds.)&n= bsp; To distinguish between the two errors, the feeder must check the sca= les at two weights. Note in Figure 1, the two errors give the same measured wei= ght at 1000 pounds but diverge as the actual weight goes up.

Knowing the difference can be helpful to a f= eeder while waiting for repairs. With “slope” error, a TMR can be mix= ed in the correct portions but accurate DMI cannot be calculated. With “intercept” error, the weight of one ingredient (usually the fi= rst) will be messed up but the feeder could fudge in the appropriate direction.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

In reality, the scales are just wrong. With defective load cells or bad wiring, problems are often intermittent, it wor= ks for a while then not which leads to a mix of “slope” and “intercept” errors. So, check your scales and fix them immediat= ely because when you have a problem quick repair is essential for maintaining t= he high quality of your feeding program.

—Steve Moone= y. mooney@whminer.com

&n= bsp;

CORN AND CADDISFLIES=

Caddis= flies are freshwater aquatic insects th= at are gobbled up by the millions by trout and other fish. A recent Environmental Protection Agency study funded by the National Science Foundation found tha= t Bt corn pollen and other corn debris washes into streams from nearby corn fiel= ds, and at least the pollen is eaten by caddisflies. Follow-up laboratory tests found that Bt corn pollen and other corn plant p= arts eaten by caddisflies decreased growth and incre= ased mortality of these insects. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Bt cor= n is toxic to caddisflies in their natural environme= nt, but is certainly a cause for concern. You can bet that EPA will be doing mo= re testing on this, especially with the rapid increase in the use of Bt corn hybrids. If you want to read = the full report http://= www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0707177104v2?etoc.

&n= bsp;

HONEST EV’S SOIL TEST= ING SERVICE FOR CAFO FARMS (SATISFACTION GUARANTEED)

In the October Farm Report Rick mentioned that I’m planning to retire next summer, though I’ll continue to write for and edit this newsletter. I don’t intend on disappearing from the agricultural scene anytime soon—too much interesting stuff to do, and I'm busier tha= n a one-legged Riverdancer.

&n= bsp;

In fact, I’m considering a new enterpr= ise: Honest= Ev’s Soil Testing Service for CAFO Farms= (Satisfaction Guaranteed). This service would be very useful to CAFO farms with ever-increasing soil test P levels;= in other words, almost all CAFO farms. A “high” P Index (which is based on several factors but primarily on soil test P) means that you can’t apply any more P as fertilizer or manure than you remove as cro= ps, and that’s not a lot. A “very high” P Index means you can’t apply any fertilizer P or manure to that field. This can be a real problem, especially since your most fertile fields are almost always closer to the barn where it’s quicker (and cheaper) to spread manure. I know of one CAFO farm = that had so many very high P Index fields that they spent one fall spreading man= ure on land they didn’t farm. Ugh.

But there’s a solution to this problem= : Hire Honest Ev to take your soil samples, and when t= he tests comes back from the lab those (previously) very high fertility fields, where past manure application rates might be better measured in inches of d= epth rather than tons or gallons per acre, will miraculously be much lower= in P. This can be accomplished in a couple of ways, one downright dishonest and the other, well, creative.=

The dishonest way--and I’m sure nobody= has ever thought of this before--is to take soil sam= ples from the hedgerow or woodland near the field, or for that matter from any l= and that hasn’t ever been manured. But Honest= Ev would never do something as low-down as this, especially since there’s another way: Instead of sampling at the normal 8” depth, H.E. would sample much deeper---let’s say 16” deep. Of course this would take a lot mo= re effort, and his fees would reflect this. Deep sampling would work very well since most very high soil test P fields are very high only in the pl= ow layer, as you soon shall see.<= /p>

Some years ago we (actually Dave Lang, a Mississippi State agronomist doing a sabbatical leave here) did a study on the Miner Institute farm, testing four fields th= at varied widely in soil test P. Each field was sampled at various depths, including 8-16” and 16-24”. See Table 1 for results.=

&n= bsp;

As you can see, in 3 of the 4 fields most of= the plant-available P is in the top 8” of soil, which in many (but not al= l) cases is the plow layer. Sampling Field 4 to a depth of 16” would red= uce soil test P from 23.7 ppm to about 15 ppm. But looking past Honest Ev&= #8217;s entrepreneurial spirit, there’s a serious side to this: If you’= ve been offset disking or chisel plowing corn land for a few years while apply= ing liberal rates of manure, P levels are almost certainly higher in the top few inches of soil—0 to 4”—than at 4 to 8”. Sampling shallower than you plow can result in unrealistically high soil test P leve= ls and a higher P Index, something a CAFO farm sure doesn’t want. Make sure that whoever is taking soil samples on your farm is sampling to the full plow de= pth.

= 212;E.T.

&n= bsp;

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN=

The USDA's Econ= omic Research Service released its 2007 statistics on the adoption of genetically engineered corn hybrids—Bt for corn borer and corn rootworm, glyphosate and Liberty herbicide resistance. In 2007, 73 percent of the nation’s corn crop w= as genetically engineered, compared to only 25 percent in 2000. Adoption of GE corn has been averaging 6 percent increase each year, but in 2007 it was up= by 12 percent. One seed company representative recently commented that because= of the many trait options available, dealers are getting dizzy with the dozens= and dozens of hybrid x trait combinations. He said that here will soon be a pus= h by his seed company to combine traits into a package and not offer nearly as m= any options. For instance, if you buy a hybrid with the Bt-corn borer trait, it will also have at least one and perhaps several other genetically engineered traits. We don’t know w= hen this will happen (or even if), nor if it does, if other seed companies will follow suit.

&n= bsp;

NEWS FROM THE FARM

The following article is from the November 1982 Farm Report, in celebration of = 25 years of this newsletter.

&n= bsp;

It has been a while since we talked about th= e farm in a general sense so we thought it might be appropriate to update you just= a bit on some of our activities. First, the harvest is just about completed. = We put all of our first cut grass in the silo in very early June and fed it through the summer. With thirty acres of new seeding alfalfa plus the red clover, alfalfa and trefoil from the past, our haylage= averaged better than 17% available protein with butterfat depression in Jul= y, August and September due to a very low fiber level in the total ration. Des= pite our best efforts to solve the problem by using sodium bicarbonate, the test remained low. This is certainly a problem when you’re feeding 24% pro= tein alfalfa with an ADF level of 23% along with high moisture shelled corn. It constantly amazes me how much milk we can make from quality forage with a minimum of grain. Because we = had an excellent corn crop we put up about 300 tons of corn silage more than we had planned to make up for the short second cutting from h= aylage. We also put our high moisture corn up as ear corn and had some left to sell= .

The basic diet for the milking herd for the = winter will consist of 20 lbs of corn silage, 40-50 lbs of ha= ylage, 25 lbs of high moisture ear corn, 2-3 lbs of protein supplement and 2-3 oun= ces of minerals per cow per day. The dry cows receive 20-30 lbs of corn silage, grass hay and a high phosphorus mineral mix. The majority of the heifers ar= e on a corn silage diet being supplemented with one of two protein supplements of different protein solubility. We plan to duplicate the high moisture corn s= tudy of last winter in the months ahead. We filled two 16 x 50 concrete stave si= los with high moisture corn with no preservatives, one with ground ear corn and= one with ground shelled corn. We compared these throughout the winter: When fee= ding diets balanced for energy, protein and minerals the cows gave 3 pounds more milk and ate 3 pounds more total ration dry matter on ear corn than on shel= led corn. This seems to go along with recent work out of Wisconsin and Minnesota. This winter we will be using shelled corn from a neighbor’s Harvestore to see if the difference in intake was due= to the storage method and/or physical form of the feed.

You should be sure to check the November 10,= 1982 issue of Hoard’s Dairyman for the results of our corn steep liquor experience as well as for two articles by Ev.

—Dr. Harry A= . Randy

&n= bsp;

2008 CORN PRODUCTION COSTS =

USDA recently published its estimated national average costs of production for major field crops. Given that you’re probably not all that interested in the cost= of production for rice, for instance, following are the estimated changes (from 2007) in corn input costs.

I checked fertilizer prices at a local deale= r, and the news is terrible. USDA says fertilizer prices will be up by 18%; try at least twice that, from the prices I was quoted. $500+/ton urea is definitely not out of the question, but all nutrient prices are up a lot. (See article= on this in this issue.)

From what I hear from seed company personnel I’d also expect seed corn prices to be up by more than the USDA estim= ate of 4%, in part because of increased prices for traits plus a lot more stack= ed trait hybrids on the market. Also, in what way (if any) does USDA account f= or the increased cost of a bag of seed corn when a good chunk of the cost is a Poncho or Cruiser Extreme seed pretreatment? If our per-unit seed cost is only = 4% more than last year here at the Institute I’ll be very pleased—= and very surprised. I would be absolutely amazed if total corn production costs aren’t up by at least 10%.

—E.T.

HONESTY IN MILK LABELING

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has notified a number of milk market= ing companies that their labeling is either false or misleading, and needs to b= e changed. Rumor has it that this may spread to other states, including NY.; time will tell. Labels are reportedly misleading or inaccurate if they contain claims that can’t be verified, or if they imply that the product is safer th= an others through “absence labeling”, which is telling consumers w= hat isn’t prese= nt in the milk as opposed to what is. Of course, this all relates to rBST, though some companies are also stating that the= ir milk is free of antibiotics when in fact ALL milk has to be tested and conf= irmed free of antibiotics. Some labels contain statements such as “hormone-free,” but as we all know, all milk contains hormones. Other labels also claim the absence of “synthetic” hormones, but there’s no test that can determine this.

Some of the companies involved include Crowley, Garelick, Farmland, Upstate Farms, and Dean Northeast= ; in other words, a partial “Who’s Who” of milk marketers. The companies have until January 1st to correct th= eir labels. What will be interesting is if the companies either: a. Change their labels just for Pennsylvania unless other states follow Pennsylvania’s lead; b. Change their labels for their entire marketing area; or c. Do neit= her and fight the action in court, in which case we’re told they’ll probably lose. Stay tuned, this could get interesting…

RUMINATIONS FROM THE CROPS = DUDE

As I sit here at my computer the delicate aroma of slurry manure is wafting through the office. Don’t = know how since it’s 50°F out and all the doors and windows are shut, b= ut wafting it is. Not that I think it’s an offensive odor; to those of u= s in the dairy industry it’s the smell of success. Or as a former employee once said, albeit rather indelicately, it may be **** to you but it’s= our bread and butter. But there are some dark clouds on the horizon, as the com= ing years promise (threaten) to be challenging ones for animal agriculture. We = hear that EPA regulators have set their sights on nutrient applications on tile drained fields as a potential source of water pollution, seemingly ignoring= the fact that if the land wasn’t tiled the nutrients would run off the l= and rather than through the soil. And the L.A. Times, in a recent editorial, gave livestock farmers a real lambasting because of methane emissions (from their livestock, not the farmers). From the over-the-top negative tone of the editorial it sounded like the editor must be a vegan, a PETA member, or both.

Looking at the Palmer Drought Severity Index= is like coming onto a bad car wreck: You don’t really want to look since it’s pretty gruesome, but you can’t help it. Here’s the l= ink if you want to see for yourself http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/seasonal= _drought.pdf.

The Northeastern U.S. is generally in fine s= hape; even Western NY, which had a really dry summer, is improving. But much of the Southeast, particularly Georgia= is suffering through a severe drought, and who gets the rapidly diminishing wa= ter supply is a lively topic. Australia would gladly trade G= eorgia’s situation for theirs, which is a years-long drought that’s grinding i= ts farmers into the dust. In one= week in early October the Aussie wheat crop yield estimate was reduced by 30%, t= his on top of a 20% cut for a total of 50% reduction in just two weeks! I spent some time in Australia two years ago and well remember the dairy farmer who like most Australian farmers relies heavily on irrigation to supply water to his crops; he had just been notified of his water allotment for the coming = crop year—zero—= ;and asked me how he was going to grow crops to feed his dairy cows. Of course I didn’t have an answer…still don’t. I write the occasional article for a quarterly Australian farm newsletter, and am almost embarrass= ed to relate how good things are here while the situation “Down Under= 221; goes from bad to worse. Count your blessings.

= 212;E.T.

INS= ECT REFUGES

If you planted genetically modi= fied corn last year you’ve probably received that seed company’s 2008 Technology Use Guide; we got ours in September. This pamphlet isn’t an ad and should be required reading = before you complete your 2008 seed corn order. (That’s why they send the guide so early, folks.) Pay particular attention to the corn insect refuge requireme= nts. (Note the word: “requirements”, not “recommendations” or “suggestions”.

For both corn rootworm and corn borer traits= , at least 20% of the total corn acres must be planted to non-Bt hybrids. But th= ere are differences between the trait requirements, particularly the insect ref= uge. With the Bt-corn borer trait you have to plant non-Bt corn on land you own = or manage that’s within ½ mile of the field. But with the Bt-corn rootworm trait, a non-resistant hybrid has to be planted at the same ti= me (probably the same or next day) as the Bt c= orn, and the refuge has to be planted next to or within the Bt field. “Next to” means the two hybrids can be separated by a field ditch or road, but not by another field. Most farmers in this area don’t plant anywhere near 80% of the= ir corn to Bt-corn borer hybrids, so they don’t have to worry much about refuge acres. But planting even one field to a rootworm resistant hybrid may mean that you’ll have to plant non-Bt corn in that field. =

If the insect refuge is planted within the f= ield, it has to be at least four rows wide. Unless you have a really big planter, putting corn in the outside two rows with up-and-back planting with a 4- or 6-row planter would mean that 33-50% of the corn would be non-Bt corn. Howe= ver, you can use a soil insecticide or high rate of seed pretreatment on the ref= uge (non-Bt) corn. There are other important requirements you must follow, so be sure to read the applicable information in the guide. In most cases it̵= 7;s only one page, but it’s a very important page indeed.

—E.T.

MAN= URE PIT MUSINGS

Miner Institute has a 6 million gallon liquid manure pit that we agitate and empty each year, starting in e= arly summer and hopefully ending in fall. Though we have several places around t= he berm of the pit to position the agitator, we’re= not able to do a thorough job of mixing. When we first start emptying the pit, = even after agitating for days we start pumping something the color and consisten= cy of diet cola, with a thick layer of sawdust and both digested and undigested forage particles floating on top of the pit. The solids content starts out = at 1-2% and stays there for a depressingly long time until we eventually hit t= he floating layer, at which point the solids content quickly increases to 4% or so. We’ve been told that we aren’t the only ones with this situation.

You might ask, is there a difference in nutr= ient content between the “cola” and the higher solids content slurry= ? Of course there is, you knew that, but what’s useful to know is the ratio of potassium to phosphorus (actually K2O to P2O5) in the two slurries: Looking at several analysis over the past few years, the watery stuff has an average K : P rat= io of 4.5 to 1, while the higher solids slurry has a K : P ratio of 2.5 to 1. =

This is interesting (well, at least to the C= rops Dude), but it also can be useful IF you know the nutrient content of both t= ypes of manure. We do, but this should not surprise you. We apply the low solids material to high fertility land close to the barn (aren’t all fields close to the barn high in fertility?), not wanting to haul something that’s 98-99% water any further than we have to. What we’re spreading close by is relatively high in K and low in P, and low P is just = what we want for our Nutrient Management Plan. When we start hauling high solids material to our low-fertility land, we’re hauling material containing= a lot more P, also just what we want. As Harry Randy used to say, “I lo= ve it when a plan comes together!”

—E.T.

SKYROCKETING FERTILIZER PRI= CES!

Blame it on the increasing pric= e of oil, more crop acreage in the U.S., more corn in China, ethanol, Hillary. Take your pick, but the bottom line is that you’ll = be paying a lot more p= er ton for fertilizer than you did in 2007. Fertilizer dealers are already pay= ing over $100 per ton more for MAP and urea than they did last winter. I’d say that $500 urea isn’t out of the question, except that I was told = that some farmers paid this much for urea in spring 2007. Potash Corporation announced that the wholesale price of potash is going up by $30 per ton effective Dec. 1st, and = the total change from 2007 to 2008 might be about $100/ton. Some experts are predicting that by spring, N fertilizer prices will increase by another 10%= or so from today’s already very high prices.

If you’ve never paid attention to the recommendations we make about relying on soil analysis to guide fertilizer rates, taking full credit for manure applications, using PSNT where practic= al, etc., 2008 will be a dandy year to start doing so. A PSNT (presidedress nitrate test) is especially valuable where spring-applied manure is incorporated soon after application. At $0.50 per pound of N, saving 50 lbs= of (unneeded) N per acre on one 20-acre field is $500 that stays in your pocket. That got your attention?

Next spring would also be a good t= ime to eliminate starter P and K on corn fields where soil fertility is high. We routinely apply only starter N to these fields—and no fertilizer at a= ll to legume-grass seedlings on high fertility fields. We use a 50-50 blend of urea and ammonium sulfate on highly fertile corn fields, applying about 100#/acre of the resulting 33-0-0. Saves money, fewer fertilizer hopper fill-ups, works just fine.

Finally, higher fertilizer prices means that= every spreader-load of manure is more valuable, and you can therefore spend more = in time and diesel fuel to take it to lower fertility fields. Just for example: Assuming 2008 fertilizer prices of $0.50/lb for N and P and $0.30/lb for K, 1000 gallons of 6% DM slurry manure with an analysis of 10-7-16 is worth $13.30, actually more than that when considering the value of ammonia N, organic matter and other nutrients. Therefore, applying one 4000 gallon loa= d of this manure is $50 worth of N-P-K you don’t have to buy. The K in man= ure is probably more plant-available than the K in commercial fertilizer, while= the P in manure is less available. Cornell University recently= did a trial comparing liquid dairy manure and monoammonium phosphate (MAP) confirming that not all P in manure is immediately plant available.

—E.T.

SOIL TEST CHANGES AT MINER INSTITUTE

Miner Institute has used Cornell&#= 8217;s soil test lab for soil analysis since the 1970s. For many years we’ve been following soil fertility changes on 31 fields totaling 315 acres that = are part of the “home farm”—most of which were once part of William Miner’s Heart’s Delight Farm. This isn’t a mass nutrient b= alance for our farm since we now crop about 680 acres. The “new land”, both owned and leased, is in almost all cases much lower in fertility than = the home farm, and if we were to compare the averages of all fields in 1987 and 2007 we’d find dramatic decreases in fertility, which is not the case= . Table 1 shows the weighted averages of 315 continuously cropped acres—a weighted average means that the soil analysis on a 30-acre field has three times the influence of the soil analysis on a 10-acre field. Statistical weenies will probably remind me that since pH is calculated on a logarithmic scale it’s not quite kosher to calculate average pH in the same way w= e do P and K. OK, you’ve reminded me, now go away.

&n= bsp;

· Soil pH isn’t a problem; we haven’t applied a ton of lime since 1988, and even our slightly acid fields (pH 6.0-6.2) appear to be holding steady.=

· = We have a few very high soil test P fields, but these were at least as high wh= en we inherited them from Co= rnell University in 1979.= In spite of a whole farm P balance that, like almost all dairy farms, is decid= edly positive (lots more P coming onto the farm than leaving it), soil test P has actually decreased over the years. Part of the reason is that we’ve b= een applying more a lot of our manure on low-fertility leased and recently purchased cropland, but part of the reason is that a lot of the applied P is tied up by the high levels of calcium (high pH) in many of our soils. =

· = Soil test K has fallen a bit over the years in spite of potash applications that often are somewhat more than recommended by Cornell. We only have two fields that are very high in soil test K, and so we continue to be aggressive in o= ur potassium fertilization.

&= nbsp;

Note that these comments refer to so= il test P and K, not soil fertility. There’s a huge difference between so= il P and K levels and plant available P and K, which is what a soil analysis atte= mpts to do. The total amount of P and K in our soils is ever-increasing, but it’s not having much effect on soil test numbers.

= 212;E.T.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS = FOR ARID REGIONS

Scientists have discovered a gene that allows plants to grow better in low fertility conditions and even enhance their growth through sodium uptake. Salty soil caused by irrigation practices in arid regions has become a major agricultural problem, not only in India, China and African coun= tries, but also in the Mediterranean and in arid regions of the U.S. Th= is may get worse in coming years if predicted climate change leads to desertificat= ion.

The scientists investigated a sodium transporter called OsHKT2;1 in the roots of rice plants. They found that this transporter has capabilities previously thought to exist, but not genetically validated in plants. When sodium leve= ls are too high, OsHKT2;1 transport is quickly shut off, protecting the plant = from accumulating toxic concentrations of sodium.

They also found that sodium can also have beneficial effects under low fertility conditions. Where soil potassium lev= els are low, a common problem after many years of agricultural production, plan= ts can take up sodium through the OsHKT2;1 transporter to replace some of the functions of potassium and actually increase growth. This improvement in our understanding of how plants regulate salt uptake may help to find a solutio= n to reducing the impact of soil salinity on agricultural production. Source European Molecular Biology Organization

= RESEARCH SUMMARIES

A study of Midwest dairy herds included an evaluation of the i= mpact of feeding different levels of corn s= ilage, ranging from 0 to 31% of total DM. While t= here wasn’t a big difference in either fat-corrected milk production or dry matter intake, income over feed cost was greatest at the highest level of c= orn silage feeding. Source: Hoard’s Dairyman Nov. 2006, P. 778.

&n= bsp;

Oregon State= University researchers have found a way to i= ncrease milk shelf life witho= ut sacrificing flavor. Ultra-high-temperature pasteurization can leave milk wi= th an off flavor, while the new process crushes and kills bacteria, resulting = in milk with a refrigerated shelf life of about 45 days. Source<= /span>: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, = Nov. 29, 2006.

&n= bsp;

USDA’s Agricultural Research Service is discovering that enhancing corn with the genes that produce certain = enzymes may b= e as effective as the Bt gene in controlling corn borers, but the enzyme trait w= ould offer much broader control of other insect pests including caterpillars and beetles. In related research, University of Minnesota scient= ists have discovered that the genetic traits= affecting weed and insect control don’= ;t have any impacts on yields on their own; in other words, if a particular we= ed or insect isn’t present, the plant would yield the same as one not containing that genetic trait. Source: Doane’s Agricultural Report, Vol 70. No. 8<= /o:p>

&n= bsp;

OLD HERBICIDES

Hopefully things have quieted d= own out in the field. If so, and if you haven’t recently checked the far reaches of your pesticide storage building to see what’s lurking back there, now would be a good time to do so. For granular= s (most soil insecticides) or dry flowables (many= of the triazine herbicides), as long as you keep t= hem high and dry they store well and should be good for quite a while. But if y= ou have liquid herbicides and your pesticide storage isn’t heated, check= the labels for recommended storage temperatures. A few can stand freezing OK as long as the jug doesn’t split, while others should be stored above freezing and a few as high as a minimum of 40°F.

What to do if you have herbicides (or other pesticides) that have frozen? Don’t consider them a loss, at least not yet. First read the label for any helpful recommendations. Then, shake the container well and mix a small amount of the liquid in water. If it goes in= to solution without clumping or doing something else nasty, you should be OK. = No guarantees, of course, but using it is better than losing it; disposing of obsolete and/or damaged pesticides is inconvenient at best.

Even if surplus herbicides are in good shape= with no storage restrictions, it’s a good idea to rotate stock and use up = old supplies as soon as possible. If you have a gallon of a herbicide left that= you know you won’t use again simply because you’ve switched to anot= her product, check with your farm supply dealer or custom operator to see if he= can use it. It’s better to give away (yes, for free) modest amounts of herbicides rather than store them until they eventually become obsolete and= you can’t use them any more.

—E.T<= /i>.

&n= bsp;

CLOSING COMMENT

Be content with what you've got, but be sure you've got plenty.

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;