MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT DECEMBER 2007

From the President’s Desk: Feeding High Priced Corn

We all know that the p= rice of corn grain has increased substantially since 2006. Several factors are influencing the price of corn: 1) Use of corn as a food for humans; 2) Use = of corn as a source of ethanol; and 3) Use of corn for livestock use. Since th= e price of all feed commodities is rising, corn grain is still a valuable feed even= at its current higher price. However, if the long-term trend is toward higher = corn prices, then we need to understand feeding approaches that will limit the amount of corn grain required to formulate a diet. Substituting lower priced feeds for some portion of dietary corn grain will reduce feed costs, but we need to formulate the diets correctly to avoid lower performance.

Corn grain is usually = the major source of carbohydrate energy in dairy rations. Corn grain contains 7= 0 to 75% starch on a dry basis, which serves as an energy source for rumen micro= bes as well as for the cow herself. Starch ordinarily comprises between 20 and = 30% of the total ration dry matter, which encompasses the range from high-bypro= duct diets to high corn silage diets.

If corn grain price is= high, can we feed less starch in our dairy rations? The obvious answer is yes, but the real question is: What are the limits to how low starch content of the = ration can be? Rumen microbes require a supply of fermentable carbohydrate that co= mes primarily from starch, but may also be derived from sugars, soluble fiber s= uch as pectin, and digestible neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Many common byprod= uct feeds such as beet pulp, soyhulls, distillers grains, and corn gluten feed are good sources of these carbohydrates as wel= l as digestible NDF. The bottom line: Starch is not a required nutrient.<= o:p>

Several years ago, University of Florida researchers evaluated how = well rumen microbes grew on various carbohydrate sources. Starch was most effect= ive at promoting maximum microbial growth, whereas sucrose and pectin were slig= htly less, but still very acceptable energy sources. NDF was least effective, but the amount of microbial growth is a function of the digestibility of the ND= F. So, high quality, immature forages and highly digestible byproducts high in= NDF would support considerable microbial growth. Very few studies have evaluated the effect of feeding various sources of NFC on actual dairy cow performanc= e. However, one European study evaluated six concentrate mixes containing seve= ral alternative feeds in a diet with a 1:1 forage-to-concentrate ratio (dry bas= is). Soybean hulls, apple pomace, Jerusalem artichokes, molasses, and whe= at were used to formulate diets that differed widely in starch, sugar, fructans, and pectin content. Despite the wide range = in the carbohydrate composition of the diets, cows fed these diets had similar feed intake, energy-corrected milk yield, and the NE_l<=
/sub>content of these diets was similar. So, clearly the rumen microbes can use other carbohydrates in addition to starch as an energy source and cow performance can be quite acceptable even on low starch diets.

In addition to using o= ther potentially cheaper sources of fermentable carbohydrates, we also need to m= ake certain that the corn grain in the diet is being used as efficiently as possible. The major factors to consider include: Correct particle size and = corn silage processing, moisture content, grain genetics, and source of the star= ch (corn, barley, wheat). Depending on how finely ground the grain is, its moisture content, and these other factors, rumen starch digestion can vary = from less than 50 to over 90%. Another factor that has been recently investigate= d is the length of time that corn silage spends in the bunker silo. After 5-6 mo= nths in the silo, starch digestion begins to increase and by 10 months it can be= up to 15 percentage units higher than when originally ensiled.

If you do begin to red= uce the amount of starch in the lactation diets, here are several items to monitor = in your herd: 1) Milk protein; a reduction reflects lower microbial protein yi= eld, 2) MUN; an increase may occur if less ammonia is captured by rumen microbes= , 3) Manure may become stiffer if more undigested fiber appears in the manure, a= nd 4) Milk production – remember that the cow is always right! She will = let you know if starch is too low.

R= 12;Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON T= HE FARM

It’s hard to bel= ieve that we’re in the last month of 2007. It’s been a busy and even= tful year, but then again, there is rarely a boring day on the farm! The following are some comments on= the year and some year-end numbers that we usually don’t think about duri= ng our daily routine, but are certainly interesting! Please note that as the year isn&#= 8217;t yet completed I have estimated numbers for December and included them in the yearly totals. It’s amazing how much you can get done in a year when = you just take it a day at a time!

· = Two groups of students came and worked with us at the barn – the Advanced Dairy Management students in the spring and the Summer Experience in Farm Management interns. (We appreciated their help and enjoyed getting to know = them all.)

· = We calved out 335 cows and first lactation heifers for a total of 353 live cal= ves. That is a lot of calves to bucket train! Interestingly, the male: female ra= tio was 55:45. =

· = We struggled with DAs in the last half of the year – still unsure of the exact cause, although a change in the particle length of the far dry diet s= eems to have been involved in the improvement of the ketosis and DA rates in the fresh pen.

· = We shipped a little more than 8,478,000 lbs of milk. Over the course of the year, the g= uys in the parlor each attached approximately 70,000 milking units – WOW!

· = We mixed about 7 million pounds of feed dry matter in our Keenan feed truck for our cows. <= /p>

· = During the crop season we hauled 9500 tons of forage in dump trucks and self-unloa= ding wagons and packed it into bunkers, silo bags and a pile. After harvest we applied 4.3 milli= on gallons of manure back onto our fields.

From all of us at the = dairy barn, we wish you a Merry Christmas and hope that you have a wonderful New Year!

I’d like to clar= ify a few points regarding October’s What’s Happening on the Farm = article on the problems we had experienced with dystocia. We trim all cows before they are dried off in an effort towards good hoof heal= th through the dry period and after calving. We do not believe that this causes any problems at calving; i.e. twisted uterus or abnormal calf positioning. Our concern has been with the cows that become lame, but are o= nly a couple weeks from freshening. Our practice has been to trim these cows im= mediately and deal with the sole ulcer, white line crack, etc. that is causing the co= w to be lame and not come to the feed bunk as often as she should. While we wond= er about the effects of tilting these cows so close to calving, we do know that lameness in the transition period is a recipe for disaster. So we work firs= t at preventing lameness, but when we have a sore cow in the dry cow pen, we do = our best to get her walking normally again so that she will freshen as a health= y, productive animal.

R= 12;Anna Pape, pape@whmine= r.com

R= 12;Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com

WHAT’S GOOD FOR YOU=

A recent study of long= -lived populations around the world focused on the particular eating habits that m= ight be resulting in their longer life expectancy. Here’s what they conclu= ded may be the dietary “magic bullet” for each:

· = Greece: Olive oil

· = San Blas Islands (South America): Chocolate<= o:p>

· = Japan: Fish

· = Okinawa: Sweet potatoes

· = Many places: Wine and other alcoholic beverages in moderation =

Therefore the ideal di= nner might be fish cooked in olive oil and a sweet potato, with a glass of wine = at dinner and a hunk of chocolate for dessert. You could also nosh on some blueberries and nuts since these were also found to be related to heart hea= lth and a longer life expectancy.

Another route to a lon= ger life expectancy is simply to eat less of everything, severely limiting total cal= oric intake. One guy in California= (how did we guess) who’s doing this method is down to 135 lbs, eats something like 1500 calories a day and has such little flesh on his butt th= at it hurts to sit in a wooden chair. This diet also has negative impacts on testosterone production and therefore on male libido. This guy might live a= lot longer, but it begs the question: Why would he want to? <= /p>

A saner approach: Limit saturated fats (but be reasonable about it), severely limit trans fat, eat plenty of fruits, vegetables and grains, and get plenty of exercis= e.

The Feeder’s Job: = Orts Management

Or= ts. What are “orts?” “Orts” is the scientific name for weighbac= k or refusal, coming from the dictionary definition of “ort” as “a small scrap or leaving of food after a meal is completed.” W= hat do you do with your milking herd orts? Do you feed so you have none by the = next feeding? Do you throw them out? Do you give them to other animals to eat?

For a variety of reaso= ns some dairies feed their cows so that the bunks are empty by the next feeding. Th= is may be necessary or practical but does come with a cost for lactating dairy cows: Limited intake and, therefore, reduced milk.

To insure full intake,= we in research feed 10 to 15% of orts but in any commercial setting this practice= is too expensive. Ralph, our Feed Technician here, feeds our milking pens for X= 04;5% orts. This, with frequent feed push up, ensures that quality feed is always within reach.

So, if you have 5% ort= s, what should you do with it? Given feed costs, the orts are expensive and it woul= d be a shame to just throw them away. Given the chemical composition, the orts a= re probably too rich or variable for heifers and steers without a lot of daily adjustment and dilution. If your orts are of good quality, consider re-feed= ing them to the same group.

Like leftovers from yo= ur dinner, orts could be re-fed if the quality is good. In a high-quality feed= ing program, mixing will be accurate and sorting by the cows should be minimal = so the chemical composition of the orts will be similar to what was fed. In th= ese coming winter months, the orts should stay fresh enough to re-feed the next day.

Re-feeding orts can be= done two ways: The simple way or m= ore controlled. The simple way is to push the orts to a part of the bunk where = the cows seem to feed the most (the location depends on the barn and the cows), adjusting the total mix for the weight of the orts remaining, then filling the rest of the bunk with fresh TMR. The = more controlled way is to incorporate the orts back into the new daily TMR. If a system can be established where the orts can be judged as “still good”, easily put back into the mixer, and weighed as an ingredient in the TMR with specially-designed mix sheets, the re-feeding of orts may be profitable. If you’re interested in re-feeding your orts, work with y= our nutritionist to develop an SOP that fits into your high-quality feeding program.

R= 12;Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com <= /o:p>

Vet’s Corner: Voluntary Waiting Period vs. First S= ervice Pregnancy Rate

For long-time readers = of the Farm Report, you may remember that a few years ago, the Miner Institute herd decided to extend the Voluntary Waiting Period (VWP) to 70 days on Lactatio= n 2+ cows and 80 days for first calf heifers. First service conception rate (FSCR) has improved from 18 to 32% after this management choice. Has this change improved overall reproductive performance of the herd?

For many herds that st= ruggle with heat detection and high calving interval, cows are bred with short VWP= to compensate for the deficiency. Typically insemination before 70 days in milk results in a smaller FSCR. Uterine health improves when the uterus is allowed to completely involute past the traditi= onal 70 days post partum. Also, most anovular cows h= ave started to cycle by 90 DIM. For these reasons, the Miner dairy chose to ext= end the VWP, but how much did FSCR have to improve to reduce average days open?=

According to work done= by Dr. Jose Santos, University of California, “For every delay of an estr= ous cycle (approx. 21 days) in the VWP, FSCR has to increase 8 to 10 percent to compensate for the delay to obtain improved average days open.” = For the Miner herd, FSCR rose 14% and average days open has dropped 38 days. Clearly, delayed VWP paid off for the Miner Institute herd.

&nbs= p;

This success begs the question: Considering the high level of milk production of this herd, could= the VWP be delayed another cycle? Herds with top repro management achieve 38-42% FSCR regularly, so if the current FSCR is below 32%, there is room to apply= Dr. Santos rule of thumb. Careful consideration must be taken when deciding on = what VWP to choose. Only cows with high persistence of production can be conside= red for extended VWP.

R= 12;Kent Henderson, DVM, hugamoo@comcast.net<= /a>

Nort= hwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

= ZINC DEFICIENCY IN CORN

The following artic= le is from the December, 1982 Farm Report. This is the last in a celebration of 25 years of this newsletter.

We had a severe zinc deficiency occur in one= of Cornell’s corn trials at the Institute crop research area. Zinc was n= ot being evaluated in the manure study, but we were still able to learn some interesting facts about this micronutrient. There were four replications but only Rep 3 was severely affected by zinc deficiency. Not all corn plants in= the replication were affected, and some plants in the other replications were affected. However, most of the deficiency appeared in Rep 3. Followi= ng are the yields and % dry matter for each replication.

Note that not only is = yield affected, but so is maturity. This isn’t surprising since delayed maturity is one of the effects of zinc deficiency. Comparing the replicatio= ns tends to dilute the real effect of zinc deficiency, because as we said the deficiency was concentrated in but not restricted to Rep 3.

The effect of previous= manure applications on the zinc status of Rep 3 was very much in evidence. The table suggests is that previous manure applications had relatively little effect on yields in Reps 1,2, and 4, where zinc levels appeared to be adequate, = while in zinc-deficient Rep 3 the previous manure application left enough residual zinc in the soil to make a greater difference.

Note in the last colum= n that in Rep 3 the % dry matter variation is as predicted from the previous discussion.

—Ev Thomas

Lying Time in Mattress-based Freestalls Decreased by = Wet Bedding

Over the past few years numerous studies have focused on methods to improve the comfort of freestalls. It’s starting to become clearer that in addition to a well-designed stall (key factors include size, brisket board location, neck rail height), the quality of bedding can affect t= he amount of time that cows will spend lying down in a stall. For example, data from the University of British Columbia suggested that cows reduced their lying time by 10 minutes for each 1/3 inch decrease in sand bedding, relative to curb. Although this might not appear to = be a great reduction in lying time, the same study estimated that sand was reduc= ed by 2 to 4 inches across roughly 65% of a stall after 6 days and across 80% = of a stall after 9 days. This indicated that lying time could be potentially red= uced by 1 to 1.5 hours per day. An analysis of several years of behavioral resea= rch at Miner Institute found that milk production was decreased by 3.5 lbs per = day for every lost hour of lying time.

In the latest edition = of the Journal of Dairy Science, the same research group from the University of British Columbia examined the effects of wet versus dry bedding on lying time and stall usage in mattress-based stalls. = Two separate experiments were conducted to determine how bedding quality would affect stall use and occupancy. In the first experiment, four groups of cows were provided either wet (sawdust soaked with water) or dry bedding. The co= ws were allowed to acclimate to the bedding treatment for 5 days and then total time spent lying was recorded for 2 days. In the second experiment, alterna= ting stalls were covered with either wet or dry bedding. There was both a wet an= d a dry stall available for each cow, which allowed the cows to select their preferred bedding condition.

The temperature in the= barn ranged from 38°F to 44°F throughout the experiments. During the fir= st experiment, cows spent roughly 14 hours per day lying in a stall when provi= ded dry bedding. Lying time was reduced by 4 hours when the stalls were bedded = with wet sawdust. The time cows spent feeding regardless of treatment was not changed, so cows provided wet bedding spent the 4 hours of lost lying time either standing in the alleys or with their front feet in a stall. The result of the second experimen= t was an even stronger indication of the cows’ preference for dry bedding. = The total time spent lying was 13.5 hours per day, with 12.5 of those hours spe= nt lying in the stalls with dry bedding.

The results of this st= udy clearly indicate that cows prefer lying in a dry stall when given the choice and will spend more time lying in stalls containing dry bedding. On the oth= er hand, the wet bedded stalls of this study were, most likely, substantially wetter than what would be typically found on a commercial farm. For this reason, increasing the frequency that soiled bedding is removed or stalls are re-bedded with fresh sawdust may not increase lying times to the same extent. Still, based on the results of this study, either of these management practices may increase cow comfort.

R= 12;Peter Krawczel , krawczel@whminer.com

LET THEM EAT…MILK AND MEAT

Those who propose to e= liminate animal agriculture (PETA, Humane Society, etc.) and turn us all into vegetarians cite the increased efficiency of crop production compared to an= imal production. It’s true that a vegetarian diet is more efficient in ter= ms of the amount of cropland needed. However, a recent study reported in the October 2007 Cornell Chronicle concluded that it just isn’t th= at simple. Cornell University researchers found that if everyone in N.Y. State followed a low-fat vegetarian diet, farmers could produce enough food for a= bout 32% of the state’s population. With today’s (non-low fat) diet, N.Y. is able to provide food for only about 22% of its population.

But not so fast: A veg= etarian diet may not be the most efficient in terms of total land use. That’s because fruits, vegetables and grains need to be grown on good cropland, while livestock can be supported by lower quality grass hayland and pastures—something we have in abund= ance. Therefore, while a vegetarian diet requires less total land per person, a d= iet that includes modest amounts of meat and dairy products will feed more people because while it takes slightly more land (0.6 vs. 0.5 acres per per= son), it uses more of the state’s total farmland. Contact: pressoffice@cornell.edu

Mi= lk urea nitrogen as a diagnostic tool

At the recent Cornell = Nutrition Conference Dr. Glenn Broderick of the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center presented a summary of how best to use milk urea nitrogen (MUN) values at t= he farm level. Here are some of = the high points from his discussion.

Milk urea nitrogen val= ues are considered to be a useful tool in monitoring dietary crude protein (CP) consumption and nitrogen efficiency in dairy cattle for the following reaso= ns:

1. Excess N intake may impair reproductive performance.

2. Excess CP intake above requirements increases energy demand, as it takes 13.3 kcal= of digestible energy to excrete 1g of excess N.

3. Protein supplements are costly to overfeed.

4. Excess N excretion is not good for the ecosystem, air emissions and water contamination.

Since it is really blo= od urea nitrogen (BUN) that we are concerned about metabolically in the animal, it’s fortunate that MUN, a much easier sampling mode, equilibrates so quickly with BUN; about 1-2 hr. Blood urea N peaks about 3 hrs post-feeding, add another hour or two and MUN should be at its peak. This then indicates = the best time to milk sample to obtain maximal MUN values. This also indicates = that MUN is quite variable depending on milking time in relation to feeding times.

Milk urea N is highly influenced by dietary CP level, with R² around 0.80 across numer= ous studies. The level of rumen degradable protein (RDP) and protein to energy balance are minimally related to the MUN level. It has long been considered that the rumen balance of RDP to fermentable carbohydrate could be monitore= d via MUN levels. However this relationship is relatively weak when using MUN as = the diagnostic tool.

There are a number of = sources of variation in MUN values:

1. Analytical method. Much of t= he scientific research has been conducted using the diace= tyl monoxime colorimetric assay or the urease enzymatic method. Field determinations by comm= ercial labs and milk processing plants most commonly use an automated infrared (IR) method, and only occasionally the urease method. Hence, different assay methods used to generate scientifically determined M= UN recommendations than what is being used at the farm level to monitor MUN levels. In a study comparing the 3 different testing methods, recommended “optimal” MUN levels were: 11, 9 and 12 mg MUN/dL for the color assay, the urease and IR assays. = This indicates that the color and IR (commercial lab method) run slightly higher= in MUN value than the standard research enzymatic assay. Therefore, research recommendations of MUN levels of <10 mgMUN/dL may correspond to field measurements of 11-12 mgMUN/dL= .

2. Sampling variation. Genetics influences a cow's inhere= nt N metabolism resulting in a range of “normal” MUN levels between cows. So, how many animals do we need to test to get a good indicator of MUN level for a group? Four is the absolute minimum, but 10-16 is best.

3. Daily variation. MUN levels vary throughout the day= and across milkings. Best to stick to a single milk= ing for MUN testing to ensure consistent conditions in order to generate a base= line of MUN values for reference.

Bulk tank testing is n= ot a recommended practice to monitor N efficiency. The vagary of which milkings are actually being analyzed, variation within and between rations in the en= tire herd, does not allow for bulk tank MUN levels to be used to monitor group specific nutrition. There’s also lab variation to consider when a sin= gle bulk tank sample is being tested. At the Dairy Forage Research Center, bulk tank MUNs ranged from 8.8-12.1mg/dL over a 1-week period and changed from 9.8 to 12.1mg/dL within 24 hours. This drast= ic change in MUN values in 24 hours is highly improbable biologically, especia= lly over a herd of 300 cows, and essentially useless as a dietary monitoring to= ol.

In summary: Constant t= esting conditions are required to ensure good MUN values that can be used to monit= or CP/N utilization within groups of cows and to establish baseline values.

1. Same milking

2. Same individual cows

3. Same diet

4. No mastitis cows

5. No testing of cows less than 30 DIM.

R= 12;Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

TRICK OR TRAIT

(The above would have = been a much cuter title for the October Farm Report, but better late than never.)

It isn’t taking = long for seed companies to get tired of offering every genetic trait a la carte, = especially as the number of traits continues to increase. For instance, selling a corn hybrid with either Bt for corn borer, or Bt for = corn rootworm, or glyphosate tolerance, or any two o= f the three. Most of the major seed companies have already simplified things for = 2008 by including the low rate of Poncho or Cruiser Extreme as a standard treatm= ent instead of an extra-cost option. Now they’re increasingly stacking traits, in some cases not offering the option, for instance, of just the Bt for corn rootworm trait.

As an example, letR= 17;s consider a Pioneer hybrid, base genetics 38H67. Using Pioneer’s list prices and assuming 2.5 acres per unit (rounded to the nearest dollar, no discounts included), here are the options. Except for option #4, all include the low (250) rate of Poncho. Not all seed companies price traits quite the same; check with your seed dealer for specifics.

1. &n= bsp; 38H67--$149 or $60 per acre. No added traits.

2. &n= bsp; 38H66--$174 or $70 per acre. Includes RR2 (glyphosate resis= tance)

3. &n= bsp; 38H72--$188 or $75 per acre. RR2 + Liberty Link + Bt corn bo= rer + Bt corn rootworm.

4. &n= bsp; 38H67 + high rate of Poncho--$188 or $75/acre.

5. &n= bsp; 38H67 + soil insecticide—$75 per acre +/- depending on soil insecticide bra= nd and rate.

Pioneer charges $10 pe= r acre for RR2, but with the bargain prices for glyphosate these days, as long as you’re willing to spray p= ostemergence you can get excellent weed control at a low price. But if you also want the traits for corn borers or corn rootworms, you get them both for another $5 = per acre, which is a real bargain. For fields in their third year or later of c= orn production, I question using a soil insecticide at all as long as you carefully observe refuge requirements for the traits, especially= for rootworms. I’m also having a hard time finding much reason to use= the high (1250) rate of Poncho or Cruiser Extreme except perhaps in the refuge areas, since it costs as much as the 4-way stack (38H72) and research has s= hown that control of rootworms and corn borers is better with the traits. Plus, = you get Liberty Link (tolerance to Liberty herbicide) “for free”! Is this a great world or what? In fact, I’d recommend using the Bt traits in 4th or 5^th year corn if for no other reason than to add a different = mode of rootworm control instead of only Poncho or Cruiser Extreme. Insect pests love farmers who get into a “control rut”, relying on the same methods every year.

Cornell University Entomologist Elson Shields says that another factor to consider is what the= refuge may cost in reduced yield or in the bother of planting at least 20% of the field to non-Bt seed (if there isn’t an adjacent field to plant to no= n-Bt corn). If you plant the refuge within the field, to protect against = corn rootworms on the non-Bt rows you should either use a soil insecticide or the high rate of seed pretreatment. You can use a first–year corn field a= s a refuge for the Bt-corn borer corn you plant in an adjoining continuous corn field.

Recommendations change= as prices and technology does, but as of today here’s what I’d recommend (and Elson is OK with these recommendations):

First and second ye= ar corn: Low rate of Poncho or Cruiser. <= span class=3DSpellE>Glyphosate tolerance if you’ll use glyphosate.

Third year and late= r: Triple (or quad) stack of glyphosate tolerance + Bt = corn borer + Bt corn rootworm (+Liberty Link). But don’t use triple or quad stacks for more than three years in a row unless until we get another (different) genetic event to control corn rootworms.

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

CLOSING OUT 2007

It’s getting clo= se to January 1^st, when people make New Year’s resolutions, most= of which they soon break. The Crops Dude doesn’t make resolutions, but h= ere are a couple of things he’s vowed never to do again:

·      =    The next time field crops supervisor Jake asks: “Are you sure you = want to plant this hybrid in that field?” he will wonder why Jake is askin= g. This should prevent a repeat of this past season’s unfortunate incide= nt where the always-frugal C.D., not wanting to waste a bag of leftover seed c= orn, had Jake plant it in a 30-acre field that consisted of all Roundup Ready corn—except for the fateful unit, that is—resulting in our havi= ng to change the weed control program for the entire field.<= /p>
·      =    He will never, ever again ask a woman (in this case, one with whom he was only slightly acquainted): “So, when is the baby due?” unless there = is a baby actually emerging from her body. In his defense, she was wearin= g a bulky sweater…

How often should you sample your feeds?

How often should you s= ample your feeds? This seems like a simple question. However, the answer is not straightforward because it depends on several factors such as herd size, fe= ed source, variation in chemical composition, analytical costs, etc. Tradition= ally, the industry standard has been to take one sample of each feed once a month= and automatically reformulate diets with the new data or if the composition has changed by more than 2 standard deviations. However, the industry standard = may not be appropriate for all herds, according to Ohio State researchers at the Cornell Nutrition Conference and in the December issue of the Journal of Dairy Science. St-Pierre and Cob= anov have developed a model to determine the optimum sample size, sampling inter= val, and control limits for forages. The model is complex, but provides a framew= ork to make feed sampling decisions based on herd size and economic variables.<= o:p>

Variation in feed comp= osition, in particular forages, results in decreased dairy profitability because of = its negative impact on cow performance. Variation can occur due to delivery of a new batch of feed, such as a commodity or random variation because a feed is not nutritionally uniform. According to Ohio State researchers, there are t= hree types of variation in forage composition on a dairy: 1) Changes in measurem= ent because of sampling, subsampling, and analytical variations, 2) Small changes in composition caused by many factors that each have a small effect, and 3) Large and sudden changes in composition caused = by sourcing forages from different fields, varieties, species, harvesting date= s, etc. The large and sudden changes can be managed by separating inventories = of feeds with different nutritional profiles, sourcing feeds (in particular commodities) from a single source, or purchasing grain mixes from a mill wi= th a quality control program. Another way to control variation on a dairy is to implement statistical process control methods that requ= ires routine chemical analyses of feeds.

The statistical process control method has been in use since the 1930s in commercial production processes to monitor the performance of the production process with statist= ical tools, such as a control chart, in order to predict significant deviations = that may later result in rejected product. Now it’s gaining acceptance and= use in agricultural production processes as animal production systems can be characterized as “in-control” and “out-of-control”.= A control chart determines whether or not a process is in a state of “s= tatistical control”. If the process is not in control, the pattern revealed in t= he chart can help identify the source of the variation to manage to bring the process back in-control. Historically, the control limits have been 3 stand= ard deviations from the mean for commercial processes and 2 standard deviations from the mean for agricultural processes. Use of a statistical process cont= rol method on a dairy for feed sampling requires 3 control parameters that form= a sampling design: Sampling frequency; number of samples collected at each sampling; and the control limits or acceptable standard deviations from the mean.

The Ohio State researchers h= ave provided the industry with some guidelines based on their model and the statistical process control method. The optimal sampling design when all in= put variables were set at their central values was to take 2 samples every 15 d= ays and reformulate the diet when the standard deviation was greater than 1.1, which is very different than the industry standard of taking 1 sample every= 30 days and automatically reformulating diets with the new data or if the composition has changed by more than 2 standard deviations. The researchers evaluated the cost implications of the sampling design and provided guideli= nes based on herd size and current U.S. prices (Figure 1). The industry standard appears to be close to an optimal sampling design for small herds (~50 cows). However, the industry standard = is incorrect for larger herds. The sampling frequency decreases exponentially = as herd size increases. Herds larger than 50 cows should take 2 samples at each sampling. The optimal control limit is between 1.1 and 1.4 standard deviati= ons so a guideline of 1.2 standard deviations is recommended to reformulate die= ts. The cost savings with an optimal sampling design can be substantial (Figure= 2). For example, an optimal design compared to the industry standard reduces to= tal quality cost by approximately $250 per day at a herd size of 1,000 cows. Ta= lk to your nutritionist and see if there is an opportunity to optimize your sampling design and improve your dairy profitability.

—Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com =

IS IT TIME TO ORDER FERTILIZER?=

Unless you’ve be= en living under a rock you know that fertilizer prices are much higher than a = year ago. Furthermore, there’s no place to hide: N, P and K are all up a l= ot, with the increase in N prices perhaps most striking. You may pay at least $= 150 more per ton for both urea and blended fertilizers than you did a ye= ar ago. The difference in price between anhydrous ammonia and the two other co= mmon N sources, urea and UAN, looks to be narrowing, so some farmers who have be= en using anhydrous may switch to UAN (which is much more commonly used here in= the Northeast), placing further pressure on UAN prices and supplies.

Before you start cussi= ng out your fertilizer dealer, it’s not his profit margins that are the prob= lem: Wholesale prices have gone through the roof, due in part to higher energy (production) costs but mostly due to higher demand. The wholesale prices of both MAP and DAP (the basis of granular fertilizer blends) have doubled<= /u> in the past year, increasing by over $200 per ton. The good news about pota= sh: Prices aren’t (yet) up much. The bad news: According to one dealer I talked to in late November, you couldn’t get the stuff, probably beca= use of announced price increases of $30/ton Dec. 1^st and another $50= /ton Jan. 1^st. Muruate of potash will pro= bably be well over $300 per ton by the time we’re ready to topdress alfalfa next summer.

So when should you buy fertilizer? In general, the lowest prices are when not as many farmers are using the stuff, and well before they’re getting ready to do so. That means December: By mid-January fertilizer prices often start to rise as far= mers in warmer regions get ready to plant. Obviously there aren’t any guarantees, and farmers who order this time of year will occasionally get burned by an unexpected spring downturn in prices. But this doesn’t happen nearly as often as planting-time price increases, and the odds are in favor of ordering soon, especially this year. Ordering in December also giv= es you the option of paying in late 2007 or early 2008 depending on your income tax status. Another advantage, one we haven’t had to worry about befo= re: Buying now will (or should) guarantee that your fertilizer will be there wh= en you need it. With the world demand/supply situation as unsettled as it is, there are no guarantees that you’ll be able to= call your fertilizer dealer in April and get what you want when you need it.

Finally, let’s k= eep things in perspective: Let’s assume that 2008 fertilizer prices actua= lly do double from 2007. Assume that your corn fertilization program is 100-50-= 50 (30-50-50 corn starter + 70 lbs N), and that in 2007 this cost $65 per acre. If the p= rice doubles to $130/acre, with 18 ton/acre corn silage yields that’s an increase of about $3.60 per ton of silage. If you feed 50 lbs of corn silage per day, that’s $0.09 more per cow. Assuming milk production of 75 lbs/cow, that’s $0.12 per 100 lbs of milk. Wh= ich makes you more sad/nervous/angry: A doubling of fertilizer prices or a decr= ease of a little more than a dime per hundredweight in your milk price?

R= 12;E.T.

WORDS OF WISDOM BY MARK TWAIN

We think the fo= llowing quotes are by Mark Twain; at least they’re supposed to be. Twain was = so famous for his witticisms that occasionally a clever comment by someone else got attributed to him. But we like the following regardless of their source= :

·      =    The only way to keep your health is to eat what= you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not.=

·      =    Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.

·      =    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

·      =    If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; t= hat is the principal difference between a dog and a man.

·      =    I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved = of it.

HERBICIDE APPLICATION: CUSTOM OPERAT= OR OR DO IT YOURSELF?

It seems that custom applicators are doing an increasing proportion of herbicide applications (in the Northeastern U.S., at least), on lar= ge farms and small. Over the past few years at Miner Institute we’ve don= e all our own herbicide applications, most of them, or none of them. Last year we had it all custom done and will most likely do so in 2008. But= the decision is unique for each farm: Do it yourself or hire it done? Following= are a few things to consider:

How current are you= on the latest herbicides and herbicide combinations? Some excellent products have come onto the = market in the past few years, many with low application rates, excellent environme= ntal safety, and competitive prices. If you do your own spraying and haven’= ;t changed products in the past few years, chances are you’re using old technology. One year of poor weed control may be the result of too much rain that prevented timely application or, in the case of pre-emergence herbicid= es, not enough rain following application. But has poor weed control become the rule on your farm rather than the exception?

Do you simply want = someone to apply herbicides, or have the custom applicator’s help in choosing herbicides? The a= nswer to this question may well determine which custom applicator you hire. Preferab= ly hire one who’s more than a spray coupe driver because even if you insist on selecting herbicides for= each field, if the applicator is sharp and sees a weed problem the original herbicide package won’t control he can consult with you on a control plan.

If you have a Pesti= cide Applicator’s License are you accumulating the necessary recertificati= on credits to be able to renew it? You certainly don’t want to be limited to only unrestricted herbicides, and getting the 12 hours of recertification credits (in N.Y. St= ate at least) you need for renewal is just one more demand on a farmer’s time.

What else could (or= should) you be doing instead of spraying? Custom herbicide application usually costs $7 to 10 per acre (plus herbicides) depending on the applicator and acreage involved. If you have 2= 00 acres of corn to spray that’s $1400 to $2000, not an inconsiderable s= um. But if doing the spraying yourself means delaying first cut by several days, you’d probably be further ahead to hire a custom operator. Or, if you stop spraying to start mowing, by the time you’re done with first cut= the weeds may have already grown big and much tougher to control.

Will the applicator= be there when you need him, or are you at the botto= m of his customer list? (Farmers who are slow to pay or otherwise difficult to deal with often = wind up at the bottom of the list. Funny thing about that…) If you can’t count on him, you’d be better off to get some advice about what to spray where and = then do the job yourself.

LAKE CHAM= PLAIN BASIN PROGRAM=

The Lake Champlain Bas= in Program (LCBP) works with government, private organizations and individuals from Vermont, N.Y. and Quebec to coordinate and fund efforts benefiting the lake’s water quality. The program began in 1990 as the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act, sponsored by U.S. Senators Leahy, Jeffords= , Moynihan and D’Amato, heavy political hitters all. In 2002 it acquired its pre= sent name as the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lake Champlain Basin Program Act. Enough about the history of the LCPB, I can sense your eyes glazing over.

The Technical Advisory= Committee (TAC) is comprised of technical experts and researchers. It provides funding recommendations to the Lake Champlain Steering Committee, the LCPB’s ruling body. The Steering Committee usua= lly takes the TAC’s advice but sometimes it doesn’t, especially if the TAC doesn’t recommend what the Steer= ing Committee considers adequate funding of one of its pet projects such as wat= er chestnut removal. I’ve been a member of the TAC ever since it was for= med in 1990, one of 18 members chosen from an original list of over 40 nominees, and from what I understand the selection process was a bit contentious. May= be the nominees thought they’d get paid for being on the TAC; if so, they were wrong. We now have 26 members but only 4 “surviving” membe= rs (the term isn’t chosen hastily) from the original 18. We started with four members from the agricultural sector, and two—Phil Benedict from= the Vermont Dept. of Agriculture and me—are still there representing agriculture and will be until we both retire this coming year.

Getting stuff done on a committee level, especially one with so many entanglements with the various federal agencies including EPA, USGS and the Army Corps of Engineers, is li= ke breeding elephants: The activities take place at a high level, are accompli= shed only after a great deal of noise and commotion, and it takes a very long ti= me (in the elephant’s case, 22 months) to see any results. The TAC meet about 10 times a year to pass judgment on a variety of monitoring and resea= rch proposals, many practical and useful, others somewhat less so, in the proce= ss spending (actually, recommending that the LCBP spend) a fair amount of your= tax dollars. Some years it’s not much—in fiscal year 2007 only $127,000, the least I can recall, while in 2006 it was a more typical $780,= 000. 2008 looks more like the 2006 level of funding. (It was a lot easier making decisions about where to spend $127,000 than when we had close to $1 millio= n.) In general, this money has been well spent. Significant improvements have = been made in Lake Champlain water quality, in= vasive species identified and steps taken to combat them (including those nasty wa= ter chestnuts). Where progress isn’t obvious (zebra mussels, for instance= ), at least now we know more about the challenges that we face.

R= 12;E.T.

A TEST FOR= rBST?=

A number of recent pop= ular press articles and quotes from industry sources state that there is a relia= ble test for rBST use in dairy cows. Apparently thi= s got under the collective skins of several professors at = Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> who know a great deal about this issue. In a recent open letter to the dairy industry, Drs. Dale Bauman, Dave Galton, Kasey Osborn and Michael VanAmburgh set the record straight. Following are the last two paragra= phs of their letter. (The italics are ours.)

“After checking = with colleagues throughout the University, we can safely say none of the divisio= ns within Cornell University are currently working on a test for bST; this includes the Department of Animal Science, the New York State Diagnostic Laboratory, the College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Food Science.

To summarize, no affiliate of Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> currently has a valid method to differentiate milk from cows supplemented w= ith bST from those who have not been supplemented. As = of today there is no validated test for bST use in= dairy cows. Milk from bST-supplemented cows do= es not differ in nutrient content or in the content of any of the trace constituen= ts including bST and IGF-1. Dairy producers an= d milk handlers need to understand that there is no valid milk test for bST, therefore any statements or references to a vali= d test are incorrect and misleading to dairy producers and the industry. If you ha= ve any further questions about this matter, please feel free to contact us at 607-255-4478.”

CRITTER NEWS

·      =    Farm Report readers ma= y recall an item here a while back about dogs shooting their masters. It was happeni= ng enough times that we wondered if the shootings were accidental or perhaps s= ome form of canine revenge. If so, they’re at it again: An Iowa man is recovering after be= ing shot in the leg at close range by his dog. The man shot a pheasant, put his= gun on the ground and went to get it. At which point the dog stepped on the shotgun, tripping the trigger. Hmm…Why didn’t the dog fetch the= bird? Isn’t that what retrievers are for? The “accident” happened on the first day of pheasant hunting season, so the gun was loaded with birdshot—good thing it wasn’t buckshot, since the hunter t= ook over 100 pellets in a 4-inch pattern in his calf. No one else was hurt including the dog, which was not cited.&nb= sp;

·      =    South African police were notified of a man trying to load two cows and two goats, all stolen, into a Fiat Uno, which is a really small car. By the time they arrived on the scene the man had completed the theft and tried to speed away. However, two cows and two goats proved too heavy a load for a car wit= h an engine with about the same horsepower as a sewing machine, and the driver s= oon abandoned the car and fled the scene.

Cale= ndar Events 2008

January 24, 2008 —Cornell Winter Dairy Management at Miner Institute=

&#= 8220;Raising Fiscally Responsible Replacements”. Speakers include Jason Karszes, Dr. Mike= VanAmburgh, Curt Gooch, PE, Dr. Jerry Bertoldo, and John Conway. For further information and to registrer contact Blake Putn= am, Dairy Educator, Cornell Cooperative Extension Clinton County, Phone: 518-561-7450 Ext.106

=

February, 26, 2008—Vermont Large Farm Dairy Conference, Hampt= on Inn, Colchester, VT. For program and registration infor= mation contact Colleen S. Leonard, UVM Extension, 802-334-7325 ext 13, 866-260-5561 = ext 13, colleen.leonard@uvm.edu

March 27, 2008—New England D= airy Feed Conference, = West Lebanon, NH, for program details and registration information contact Rick Zimmerman, Executive Director, Northeast Ag and Feed Alliance, Office: 518-426-0214, Cell: 518-727-8156, rzimmerman@acds-llc.com

Corn Congress at= Miner Institute

Tuesday, March 4, 2008=

10:00a.m. -3:00p.m.

Guest Speaker is Dr. <= span class=3DSpellE>Limin Kung, Jr., Dairy Nutrition and Silage Fermentat= ion Laboratory, University of Delaware, who wi= ll be discussing “Getting the most out of bunks, piles and bag silos”= and “Evaluating Corn Hybrids using Milk 2006 and Corn Picker”. Dr. Ri= ck Grant will be speaking in addition to Ev Thomas from Miner Institut= e who will be speaking about, “Reflections after 42 years of heat, cold, ic= e, wind, rain, drought and the occasional ‘normal’ growing season”. We hope you ca= n join us for the day. Admission to = Corn Congress is free. Lunch available for $5.00. For further information contact:

Wanda Emerich

Dairy Outreach Coordin= ator

emerich@whminer.com

518-846-7121 x117=

=

=