WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM
Some notes from the dairy barn…
During a recent farm tour one of our visitors asked ab= out our silage defacer. That was a compliment to our two feeders who skillfully use an articulating loader to remove silage from the bunk face. Using the loader bucket, the guys scrape the middle of the bunk face vertic= ally and then drive along side the face from the middle toward each wall to shave off silage. They have been do= ing an excellent job at bunk management – keep up the good work!
These days the coldest job on the farm is probably fee= ding calves in hutches up on the hill where the wind really blows! Our calf mana= ger says that one of the most important things about caring for calves in this kind = of environment is keeping them dry. Before moving from the maternity area to a hutch, the calf must be completely dry; it is especially important for the calf’s extremities (such as the ears) to be dry or frostbite will set in. Our calf warmer has done = an excellent job of quickly drying newborn calves. Straw bedding inside the hutch act= s as an insulator. The hutches are initially bedded with a whole bale of straw a= nd frequently rebedded to keep the hutch dry. Afte= r the calves have grown a little, around four weeks of age, they are bedded alternately with sawdust and straw so that the bedding pack doesn’t g= et too deep.
Peter Krawzel, one of our =
PhD
students, is finishing up a research trial in the barn. He’s studying
some of the effects of overcrowding on cow behavior in co-mingled pens (1
—
—
MID-WINTER FORAGE INVENTORY CHECK
How does the old adage go, come Ground Hog day you sho= uld have half of your firewood and half of your haylage left to get through winter? At least that is what an old French Canadian dairyman once told me…eh?
Here is where we stand at Miner regarding forage inventories. As you recall, <= span class=3DSpellE>Ev has long been planning on raising enough corn sila= ge, specifically BMR, to finally get us through the year with enough carryover = to feed during filling the following September. Fortunately the farm crew and nutritionist have worked it out that we might make it happen. Happy Retirem= ent, Ev! Enough carryover CS both BMR and non-BMR to absolve you from any bla= me of forage shortage.
Below is a listing of our haycrop=
and corn silages by storage unit, rations fed in, feed out rate and days
(months) of forage remaining.
Dimensions of forage remaining were used to determine cubic feet of
forage, which was then multiplied by a density value of 45 lbs/cubic ft.
![](3D"2008_02_files/image001.gif")
Of note is how little lactating cow haylage we have on hand as calculated on this date. This is due to feeding some bun= k 3 HCS to the dry cows and heifers as we fought mold problems in the bunk 1 forage. We since have dug thr= ough the mold and will feed less of the high quality haylag= e in bunk 3 to heifers. We also recently cut back on the BMR corn silage in order to conserve. We still feed about 56% forage rat= ions, with about 2/3 of the forage as CS, about 40% as BMR. Corn inventory looks = good Ev, I think we might make it.
—
NEW PUBLICATION: ASPHALT FOR SILAGE FLOORS
Last year we worked with representatives of the Asphalt Institute in providing them with recommendations, photos, and our experienc= es in installing asphalt for bunker silo floors. These efforts have paid off w= ith the publishing by the Asphalt Pavement Alliance of a 4-page full-color broc= hure titled “Hot-Mix Asphalt for Silage Floors and Feeding Bunkers”. It’s very well done, a handy “how-to” if you’re planning on using asphalt for a bunker silo floor. We have some, so contact= Ev if you want a copy. The quickest way to get a copy= of the brochure is to download it using the following link: http://www.a= sphaltalliance.com/library.asp?MENU=3D552 The PDF file is a bit over 2 MB, so if you have a dial-up Internet connecti= on you’ll have to be patient while it downloads. This information also reached a large number of asphalt contractors since it was a feature article (“Hot mix asphalt for agricultural applications”) in the Asphalt Institute’s Fall, 2007 Asphalt magazine.
SEXED SEMEN: EXPLORING ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT ON T=
HE
DAIRY INDUSTRY
Widespread use of sexed semen is anticipated within th=
e next
decade because of continued advances in semen sorting technologies, improved
fertility of sexed semen, and increased commercialization and marketing of
sexed semen. Animal scientists from
Currently, there are some limitations to industry-wide adoption of sexed semen, which include increased cost per unit of semen, compromised fertility, and limited availability of semen from popular sires. However, for the exercise, the animal scientists made some key assumptions:= 1) Price of the sexed semen is not a limitation to its widespread adoption, 2)= The fertility of sexed semen approaches that of conventional semen, 3) Sexed se= men from popular sires is widely available, 4) The calf has the desired sex at least 90% of the time, and 5) Performance of calves born from sexed semen is similar to calves born from conventional semen. The use of sexed semen is expected to create a greater supply of replacement heifers than are needed = to replace culled cows and thus affect the structure of the dairy industry.
Widespread use of sexed semen will impact heifer price, cow pric=
e,
and milk price
As the supply of replacements heifers meets the demand= , the purchase price of a heifer is expected to decrease. The estimated cost is $1,300 to $1,500, which will cover the calf cost, rearing costs, and a small profit for the heifer raiser. It’s much less than the recent $1,500 to $2,300 purchase price. Newborn heifer calf price is expected to fall as wel= l.
The decrease in heifer price is expected to cause the = value of a cow in the herd to decrease. Cow price may drop $60 to $70 per $100 de= crease in heifer price. This results in a projected decrease of $200 to $300 per c= ow. It will result in the appearance of a sudden loss of assets and equity…something most bankers don’t want to see. It has the potential to alter a banker’s lending practices, in particular towards herd expansions.
The annual herd turnover rate is expected to increase because of the difference between the price of a heifer and a cull cow will= be reduced. More cows of marginal value will be replaced.
Cull cow price isn’t expected to be affected if producers breed 50% of their best heifers and cows with female sexed semen = and use male sexed semen for the remaining heifers and cows. However, if most producers use female sexed semen then the value of dairy beef is expected t= o decrease because of the lower feed efficiency of heifers compared to bulls or steers= .
With more heifers available and the likely increase in= herd size, the supply of milk is expected to temporarily increase more than dema= nd so milk price is projected to decrease until supply and demand stabilizes.<= /p>
Widespread use of sexed semen will impact breeding decisions
Fewer heifers and cows will be needed as dams to produ= ce the new generation of replacement heifers. Therefore, many breeding options will exist for the genetically poor heifers and cows, such as breeding them with inexpensive dairy or beef semen.
Genetic progress is estimated to increase up to 15% wi= th increased selection of dams through sexed semen. Inbreeding will likely increase unless counteracting measures are implemented.
Widespread use of sexed semen will impact consolidation, expansi=
on,
and specialization
The rate of consolidation, expansion, and specializati= on of dairy farms is expected to increase.
The economic benefit of raising heifers on-farm may be reduced so some farms may specialize in milking cow. In contrast, other far= ms may specialize in breeding, raising, and selling genetically superior replacement heifers (seed stock).
Farms that fulfill niche markets, such as the organic market, may be able to grow in size quicker with closed herds or have the opportunity to market specialized replacement heifers.
—
FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK: DAIRY STUDENTS AND UNDERGRADUATE R=
ESEARCH
As I write this article, the second week of the spring
semester is just underway with our Advanced Dairy Management (ADM) students.
They spend one full semester here at Miner Institute as part of a 2 + 2 pro=
gram
between
An important component of their educational experience= here is conducting an undergraduate research project. During the first week of classes, students meet with the research staff and discuss a range of poten= tial projects that are all aimed at solving a current on-farm problem or generat= ing preliminary information for a later, more in-depth study. Each year I am impressed with how quickly the students appreciate the importance of the individual studies – both in terms of the information to be learned as well as the importance of understanding the research process for them as students and future dairy producers.
For us, the goal of undergraduate research is four-fol= d: 1) We of course generate useful data for on-farm decision making and often for future studies; 2) We nurture critical thinking and problem-solving skills = in these students within an applied agricultural research setting; 3) These sk= ills allow the students to assess product information supplied to them in the fu= ture as dairy producers more critically; and 4) Conducting and interpreting a st= udy provides a (relatively) painless and practical vehicle for teaching the fundamentals of statistics in a manner that is less easily forgotten once t= he semester ends!
To give you a flavor of the range in project topics th= at the students tackle, here is a brief description of the projects for this semes= ter.
4&nb= sp; Effect of length of storage time in the silo= on nutrient composition and digestibility of corn silage. This student will ev= aluate how starch, protein, and lipids change in their composition and digestibili= ty with time in a mini-silo, bunker, or bag -- these potential changes would h= ave a large impact on diet formulation and cow response.
4&nb= sp; Comparison of copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, = or formaldehyde in foot baths. Control of hoof infections is a major concern on dairy farms, and these students will assess how many cows can pass through a foot bath between changes and determine the relative efficacy of these different treatments.
4&nb=
sp;
Relationships between stocking density,
locomotion, hock, and hygiene scores on dairy farms in northern
4&nb= sp; Effect of hay processing on particle size, T= MR sorting, and rumination. This study will solve a specific problem of sortin= g a dry-hay based dry-cow diet on our farm. We have purchased a new hay chopper= (Haybuster) and will compare it to our conventional tub grinder.
4&nb= sp; The final project will determine whether for= age samples should be shipped to analytical labs in plastic or paper bags to accurately assess mold and yeast counts. Currently, plastic bags are common= ly used, but there is potential for mold to grow under these shipment conditio= ns that would confound the analyses.
So, you can see that the students will be busy this sp= ring semester. But, by May we expect to have gained valuable insight into a rang= e of important issues. And perhaps more importantly, these ADM students will have gained a working appreciation for the value of the research process and critical thinking in their future professional lives within the dairy indus= try.
—
BEDDING MATERIAL FOR DAIRY COWS: COMFORT VERSUS PREFERENCE
In the most recent edition of the Journal of Dairy Science, collaborating researchers from the
&nbs= p;
The objectives were addressed in two separate experime= nts run over several years. All stalls were roughly 8 ft long (rear 6.5 ft used= for lying) and 47 in wide. The straw-bedded stalls had a concrete base covered = with 14 lbs of straw to begin with, and an additional 1.5 lbs of straw added dai= ly. The sand stalls were about 8 in deep and cleaned and groomed twice daily. C= ows were housed in the freestall barn from November= to April (yr 1) or June (yr 2 and 3) and the stocking density was 100% (1 cow = per stall). When not housed indoors, the cows were maintained on pasture. Lying behavior was measured as the total time spent lying, number of lying bouts,= and duration of each bout using video data collected every other day for the fi= rst 5 days of indoor housing and then every other week of the time spent indoor= s. Cleanliness was assessed during the final 7 weeks of f= reestall housing using a 10-point system involving the teats, udder, legs, and sides. One point was assigned to each soiled area with a maximum of 10 points poss= ible (10 =3D a very dirty cow and 1 =3D a very clean cow). Hock injuries were as= sessed at the beginning and end of the freestall housi= ng portion of each year using a 6-point system (5 =3D presence of a bleeding w= ound and 0 =3D no lesion visible). Claw injuries were also assessed at the begin= ning and end of freestall housing using an 8-pt syst= em. One point was given when any of the common hoof injuries were present on an individual claw, so 8 =3D injuries present on both claws of all 4 legs and = 0 =3D no injury on any claw of any leg.
In Experiment 2, the cows’ preference for sand or straw was determined. At the conclusion of the freesta= ll housing period, the cows were divided into 10 groups of 2 or 3 cows. The gr= oups were based on which bedding material had been provided during the indoor housing period and each group was housed in a pen containing 6 stalls (3 be= dded with sand and 3 bedded with straw) for 5 days at the conclusion of the year= ly data collection for Experiment 1. Video data was collected on days 1, 3, an= d 5 to determine the frequency that each stall was occupied.
Following a 5-day adaptation period, cows provided str=
aw
bedding rested an additional hour each day compared to cows provided sand (=
12.5
hours vs. 11.3 hours). The increase in lying time was most likely due to a
combination of number and duration of lying bouts, as each was not
significantly different between sand and straw individually. Cows with the
straw bedding were dirtier (6 vs. 4) than the cows with sand; however, the
areas of the body that were the main contributors to this difference did not
include the udder or lower legs. The cleanliness of the udder and lower legs
has been previously associated with subclinical mastitis by researchers at =
the
&nbs= p;
Cows previously housed with straw demonstrated a prefe= rence for straw when offered both sand and straw. Cows previously housed on sand demonstrated an initial preference for straw (day 1), which was followed by= no evidence of a preference during the days 3 and 5.
&nbs= p;
In conclusion, cows appear to favor straw bedding over= sand and make this preference evident by a) spending more time lying when housed when straw and b) choosing to lie in straw bedding over sand when both are available (especially after prior experience with straw). This preference raises quite inter= esting questions, due to the benefits for increased cleanliness and reduced hock lesions associated with sand bedding, about the need to balance what a cow = may want with what may provide her the greatest benefits when attempting to increase cow welfare.
—
VET’S CORNER: CALF SCOURS INVESTIGATION
When called to investigate calf scours outbreaks, the = grower tends request the herd health veterinarian to identify the “bug” that is the cause of the problem. In addition to focusing on discovery of t= he specific antibiotic or vaccine that will combat this “bug,” our most rewarding effort can be to identify calf management problems that allow excessive build up of these pathogens, which overwhelm the baby calf’s immune system.
Follow this checklist to look for ways for the calf to= be overexposed to scours pathogens:
= 1. Inadequate labor/maternity pen bedding. (With increasing sawdust prices, we are seeing poorly bedded calving pens in an area that should not be shortchanged. The = labor pen must be sanitized and bedding changed daily to prevent calf scour patho= gen build-up.)
= 2. Filthy cows in a clean labor/maternity pen. (Bedding scarcity in the close-up dry = cow group is the current common excuse for this problem, also.)
= 3. Unsanitary colostrum from unsanitized= udders on these filthy cows is loaded with deadly coli= form bacteria.
= 4. Unsanitized milking equipment used to milk the colostrum from the freshly calved cow can inoculate <= span class=3DSpellE>coliform bacteria in the colostr= um.
= 5. Communal warming area for calves must be sanitized regularly. (Many cold free-stall farms provide warming boxes for newborns, but these stalls must be washed a= nd sanitized twice a week.
= 6. Calf transport vehicles – carts – trailers must be sanitized twice a week if the farm is experiencing calf scours problems.
= 7. Calf pens must have at least 3 inches of bedding to keep the calf dry, clean, and insulated.
= 8. Don’t dump feed refusals into the calf pens, which encourage the calf to eat off = the floor and ingest a “manure meal.”
= 9. Check sanitation of feeding and feed-mixing utensils.
—
Northwest Veterinary Associates, In=
c.
IN CRUISE CONTROL: GREEN HOUSE
We’re having our retirement house built next to =
the
—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com
BUILDING A RUMINANT
Last week we had the Cornell Winter Dairy Management Seminar, “Raising Fiscally Responsible Replacements”, here at t= he Institute. One of the topics discussed was management of weaning calves. Underlining t= he management recommendations associated with weaning are physiological changes the calf must go through before weaning can be successful, something we do = not often discuss. So, how do we build a ruminant?
A ruminant is the scientific name for the cud-chewers = we know and love: cows, sheep, goats, deer, buffalo. These animals eat feed wh= ich first goes to a specialized forestomach made of= three parts officially called the rumen, reticulum, and omas= um. We can think of the rumen as the manager of the fermentation that turns feed fiber into energy the animal can use, the reticulum as the traffic controll= er that receives the swallowed feeds, forms the cuds that are brought up and <= span class=3DSpellE>rechewed and directs fermented feed to the lower GI t= ract, and the omasum as the gatekeeper in front of th= e abomasum, the ruminant’s true stomach which is = very similar to the human stomach.
A calf starts out life with all four parts of her stom= ach but only the abomasum is functional; the three = parts of the forestomach are not. When a calf drinks = milk, the milk bypasses the forestomach via a shunt a= nd goes directly to the true stomach. As long as the calf is on a milk-only di= et, the forestomach will be bypassed and, therefore= , not develop and function because there is no need for it. But with the introduc= tion of solid food that will not bypass, the forestomach is activated and begins a period of tremendous growth and development. With continued availability of solid food, the forestomach<= /span> will grow, developing the muscle, absorptive surface, blood supply, and reflexes necessary for the controlled fermentation and cud-chewing characteristic of a ruminant. If the calf is healthy, well-fed and watered, this transition from a simple-stomached animal to a ruminant takes to 2 to 3 weeks.
To get the forestomach wor= king properly, the calf needs: 1) blueprint for a mature fo= restomach; 2) Microbes that will do the fermentation; 3) Feed; and 4) Water. The calf has the blueprint ready a= nd waiting and will build her forestomach as soon = as she needs it. The microbes are remarkably good at getting where they need to be= on their own, coming from Mom, feed, and the environment. So the only responsibility we have is providing the feed and the water every day. To pu= t it another way, we need to provide the microbes something to eat (feed) and a place to live (water).
Because we are trying to wean calves long before nature would, we must provide the best feed we can get. That’s why a starter is nece= ssary for weaning at 6 weeks or less. It provides readily fermentable feed compon= ents and “scratch factor” (also called “texture”) which accelerate the development of the forestomach w= hile providing the nutrients the calf needs. Our on-farm forages rarely match th= is need. The specifications required of a good starter are a topic for another= day or can be found with simple searches.
To wean a calf, she must have a functioning forestomach that can process solid feed and provide t= he nutrients that the calf needs. If she is weaned without a functioning forestomach, she will have a very rough week or two (assuming she makes it…), effectively starving until her forestomach comp= letes the transition. If she has a functioning forestomach, her daily starter intake will be consistent, eating the recommended 1.5 to = 2.0 lbs of starter per daily. If not, her daily intake will fluctuate, more tod= ay, less tomorrow because the system is backing up. Another indicator of a functioning forestomach is cud-chewing, a good indicator that all the reflexes and physiology of are ruminant are in place= .
When should you wean on your dairy? The proper number = of weeks is determined by your skills and attention to your calves balanced against your feelings about risk. Six weeks is a standard recommendation. E= arly weaning is riskier with more chance of a nonfunctional ruminant but if calv= es are your “thing”, you really know each of your calves, and have= to time and ability to manage each calf as she needs, then maybe weaning sooner than 6 weeks is a risk you can take and win. If your calf skills and program might not be the best then some risk can be avoided by going beyond the 6 weeks. The extended time to weaning is more costly but ensures the calf is ready to be weaned and you can make your money in the area of your dairy wh= ere your talents and skills are.
In summary, to wean a calf, she must have a functional ruminant. Work with your veterinarian and nutritionist to determine where y= our calves are and what opportunities your calf raising program might be hiding= .
—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com
TILE DRAINAGE WORKSHOP
An all-day Tile Drainage Workshop was held at Miner In= stitute on January 15th involving government conservation workers, state regulators, environmentalists, Extension educators and university researchers, plus sev= eral farmers representing agricultural organizations. The meeting was “by invitation only” in an effort to hold attendance down to better facilitate discussion, and even so we wound up with 75 attendees from NY, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Quebec and Ontario. The meeting was to discuss the growing concern (mainly but not exclusively by environmentalists and regulators) about the pollution potential of tile drainage systems. A major issue is the “preferential flow” of nutrient-laden tile dischar= ges that reportedly can occur when a rain event closely follows topdressing of slurry or liquid manure.
The questions we discussed were:
= 1. What do we know (research-based, not opinions) about nutrient losses through subsurface drains?
= 2. What don’t we know that we need to about the subject? In other words: Rese= arch needs.
= 3. How are we going to go about learning these things? (Sources of funding?)
With a group as diverse as we had, obviously not all w= ere in agreement as to the seriousness of the preferential flow problem. However, everyone seemed to agree that while perception may not be reality, it indic= ates a need for more data than we currently have. Based on presentations made at= the workshop, here are some items that we found interesting:
4&nb= sp; Almost all preferential flow (nutrients runn= ing quickly through the soil profile via wormholes and cracks) occurs within ab= out 3 feet of tile lines. Therefore, one way to greatly reduce nutrients reachi= ng tile lines is to avoid spreading manure over tile lines. However, nobody had any suggestion as to how to find subsurface drain lines in a field.
4&nb= sp; There’s only 1/10 to 1/3 as much nutri= ent loss through subsurface drain systems as is lost as surface runoff in undrained fields. Therefore, while tile drains may not eliminate nutrient losses, they greatly reduce them compared to the alterna= tive of no drainage.
4&nb= sp; Steve Mahoney from the Clinton Co. Soil and Water Conservation District reported that in the many years he’s been involved in laying out subsurface drainage systems, no tile drained land has ever been converted to development (houses, etc.). His point was that once = the land is tile drained, farmers value it too highly to use it for anything ex= cept crop production.
4&nb= sp; Almost all subsurface drainage systems are b= eing installed as pattern drainage (parallel lines throughout the entire field),= not the once-popular random tile lines that drain the wet spots in a field.
4&nb=
sp;
Dr. Peter Kleinman
from USDA/ARS in
4&nb= sp; Other government research involving the inserting of highly absorptive material directly into the tile line is redu= cing P losses by about 70% (2 years of data so far), with an expected life of ab= out 25 years. No information yet on cost or availability of this material.
4&nb= sp; External “end of pipe” filters a= re commercially available and are being used by some sewage treatment faciliti= es. They’re expensive at $2000-5000 each; some appear to work, some don’t. No independent testing yet, though.
After a morning of presentations, the attendees broke =
into
three discussion groups to discuss what we need to know and how to get ther=
e.
Many useful ideas were suggested, and we’ll soon begin a research pro=
ject
here involving Miner Institute,
FERTILIZER PRICE STICKER SHOCK
You already know that 2008 fertilizer prices are much = higher than in 2007, and last year they were very high indeed. With few exceptions they won’t be coming down any time soon. In its recent “updated” forecast of corn production costs, USDA apparently st= ill has its head buried in the sand (or perhaps somewhere else). It predicts th= at 2008 fertilizer prices will increase by only $6 per acre (6.3%) from 2007. = With fertilizer prices up $100 to $200 per ton, how this is possible unless farm= ers drastically reduce application rates is beyond comprehension. And with high= cash crop prices, nobody is predicting that application rates will decrease. In September, USDA’s estimated fertilizer cost per acre was $25 less than its now-updated cost and we intimated then (in the November Farm Report) that their economists= were delusional. They still are.
Following are a few facts and figures about what’=
;s
happening in world grain markets, plus the effect on wholesale prices of N, P, an=
d K.
In most cases these do not include the influence of
4&nb= sp; World grain and oilseed stocks will decline again this year in spite of increased planted acreage and high grain prices= . In part that’s because while grain usage continues to increase each and every year, during the past five years it’s increased at a rate more = than twice as much as the previous five years.
4&nb= sp; Past high grain prices were due to temporary supply problems, while the current situation is controlled by increased dem= and. High grain prices are expected to persist for several years—at least. (Futures prices for soybeans and corn are very high indeed.) Soybean futures recently set an all-time record and corn isn’t very far behind. Only a small portion of these high prices will be due to crop use for biofuels.
4&nb=
sp;
There’s been a big increase in fertili=
zer
use in Asian countries, and not only in
4&nb=
sp;
Fertilizer use in the
4&nb= sp; Wholesale phosphate (DAP) prices have skyrocketed, increasing from about $225 per ton to over $500 per ton in jus= t a few months.
4&nb= sp; Wholesale potash prices have also doubled in= the past year, from $200 to over $400 per ton.
4&nb= sp; Wholesale urea prices were in the $300/ton r= ange last year, are now over $400 per ton.
CORN BELT DROUGHT PROSPECTS INCREASE
An If a Closer to home, the National Weather Service predicts a
slightly dry spring but normal summer precipitation, with normal temperatur=
es.
Pretty boring stuff, eh?. A slightly dry April-May can be positive for crop
prospects (easier spring planting) as long as we get decent rain after that=
. SPEAKING OF DROUGHT While the Quality Silage Systems is an Australian silage company
providing crop management advice and silage-making products to a national
clientele, and is also active a number of neighboring countries including N=
ew
Zealand, China, Indonesia and the Philippines. QSS and its owner Ken Rich w=
ere
my hosts when I was there. QSS has an excellent quarterly newsletter, In the
Pit, to which I’ve contributed ever since its first issue in Feb. 200=
5,
providing an American perspective to silage-making. The newsletter is avail=
able
on-line if you want to get a first-hand look at Australian farming. The web=
site
is easy to remember www.silage.net.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
—E.T
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
4&nb=
sp;
A study conducted by PG Economics Ltd. in
4&nb=
sp;
According to a recent report, corn has falle=
n to
second place in value in cash crops in the
4&nb=
sp;
It looks like any month now
NOTABLE QUOTES
4&nb= sp; It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to t= he first. Ronald Reagan
4&nb= sp; They think work is a four-letter word. Senat= or Hillary Clinton, speaking about kids today.
4&nb=
sp;
According to a new study, one-third of
4&nb= sp; Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. H.L. Menken, newspaperman
WHY YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO ORDER POTASH NOW
If you haven’t ordered potash for topdressing al=
falfa
by now it might be best to wait until later in the summer. This does not co=
me
without risk, since there’s always the chance that in a few months
But the real reason you might want to wait is that if = you haven’t priced 0-0-60 recently you’re in for a shock and might = want to do all you can to supply K as manure instead of purchased fertilizer. We certainly wouldn’t recommend applying potassium fertilizer to grass fields, and would try to topdress manure on thi= rd and later alfalfa-grass fields—maybe even second year fields.
—E.T.
THE FEEDER’S JOB SERIES COLLECTION
The entire Feeder’s Job Series is now available = in one document and can be found at www.whminer.org/outreach.html.
Last Call: If you have any changes for the next version of The Miner Feeder Tools, please send them to Steve Mooney at mooney@w= hminer.org. The Miner Feeder Tools Version One can be downloaded at http://www.whminer.org/outrea= ch.html
CLOSING COMMENT
Originality is the art of concealing your sources.