MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

CONTROLLING SILAGE EFFLUENT

Miner Institute built a silage effluent treatment syst= em in 2000 as part of our CAFO program requirements. It consists of a collection = box to separate concentrated and dilute silage effluent, with the concentrated effluent running into a septic tank and the dilute effluent running through= a transfer pipe into a gravel-filled trench and then into an 8500 ft2 grass filter area. It was designed by not one but two agricultural engineers, a s= cary concept indeed, but has worked fairly well. This was among the first in Northern NY and h= as to be one of the most intensively monitored silage effluent treatment systems anywhere, with Miner Institute’s Director of Laboratories Steve Kramer and Plattsburgh State University environm= ental science students taking weekly water samples whenever the soil isn’t frozen, during fair weather and foul, year after year. This system was also part of an EPA-funded Cornell University research project and was found to be working fairly well.

However, “fairly well” suggested that some improvement may be possible, so Steve Kramer and Steve Fessette, our Direct= or of Physical Plant, implemented several modifications to the system: First, we replaced the #1 and #2 gravel in the trench with larger #4 and #6 stone that’s less likely to get clogged up with leaves and debris. Second a= nd probably most important, we installed a large removable metal grate to coll= ect the debris (silage particles, etc.) washed through the collection box and transfer pipe. Third, we constructed several stone-filled “fingers= 221; running perpendicular to the trench. The idea is to reduce the preferential flow problems that affect most of these systems. We also established a management system so that each party knows who’s responsible for what. This may not be a problem on most farms, but it can be at a place like the = Institute.

The improvements were installed last summer and so far= are working very well. The Plattsburgh State students come over after every significant rain to clean the grate, a job that only takes a few minutes bu= t really makes a difference. We also analyze the effluent after it exits the system. Silage effluent is loaded with phosphorus, has low pH, high BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand, a major cause of eutrophication = in fresh water systems) and high conductivity. In the table are the results, comparing 2002-2006 to the average of the weekly tests made in fall 2007.

While the improvements aren’t large, that’s because before the changes the system was, as previously stated, working “fairly well”. We think that the system is now working about as well as possible, with almost 100% reduction of both phosphorus and BOD. So= far the stone-filled “fingers” are functioning well, with minimal maintenance. Silage effluent treatment systems are definitely not maintenance-free, but 15 minutes of attention now and then can go a long way toward ensuring their continued effectiveness.

—= ;Ev Thomas, = thomas@whminer.com=

COMPARISON OF TWO HAND-SAMPLING TECHNIQUES OF PROCESSED ALFALFA HAY

Sampling technique is critical to obtain accurate nutritional analyses of a representative sample of forage. Here we compare two methods of hand sampling our expensive western alfalfa hay. Proper sampling technique would= be to use a hay probe on at least 10 bales of hay to obtain a one quart sample, and as discussed by Dr. Dann in the December 20= 07 Farm Report, we should submit at least two separate samples to ensure accuracy.   Here we chose= to investigate hand-sampling methods given that not all farms have hay probes,= as might most hay dealers.

We sampled our processed large bale of alfalfa after i= t had been broken open in the commodity bay.&nbs= p; We sampled the open bale using two methods: First, we took undisturbed compact clumps of hay (Sample A) and second we grabbed some of the loosened forage trying to capture the leaf and stem material proportionally (Sample B). Samples were then dried and ground= and sent to CVAS and the Miner Institute forage lab for analysis (Table 1).

The analysis of sample B clearly indicates a high fibe= r, low protein forage, which upon visual inspection this hay is clearly not. In fact, the analysis of sample A = may not belie the true nutritional value either, but obviously is much closer to what we expect for this forage. Clearly, sample B, the loose material, upon sampling suffered from loss of leaf and an abundance of stem as noted by the lower CP value and higher ADF and NDF. The NDFD24 of alfalfa stems is clear= ly much lower than alfalfa leaf. Sugar, starch and NFC are higher in leaf mate= rial than stem, as is Ca. Potassium, however, is more concentrated in the stem.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Interesting to note how nutrients = are partitioned between leaf and stem and not only what that means regarding sampling technique and accurate nutrient analysis, but also how it may affe= ct nutrient delivery in the diets where wind may blow leaf fines away at the m= ixer and how sorting of stems in a TMR may influence nutrients actually consumed= .

—= Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

BEHAVIORAL COSTS OF REGROUPING=

Current management practices require dairy cows to swi= tch pens multiple times throughout a single lactation. At Miner Institute each mature cow= will make a minimum of five pen changes and each heifer will change pens at least four times. These numbers can change considerably for cows that experience health problems or that are moved to regroup pens for research trials. Rese= arch dating back to the 1970’s has demonstrated that each movement requires the affected cows to engage in aggressive social interaction to restore the hierarchy within the pen. Typically the resulting aggression was most evide= nt at the feed bunk. Researchers at the University of British Columbia= have revisited this question in the most recent issue of the Journal of Dairy Science. Their objective was to examine how regrouping affected the short-t= erm behavior of lactating dairy cows.

To determine the effects of regrouping, the researcher= s used 80 cows averaging 150 DIM, 1500 lbs in body weight, and 26,000 lbs of 305-d projected milk production. The effects of regrouping on the cows taken from= one pen and moved to another were established from the behavioral and production changes. Time spent feeding, aggressive interactions at the feed bunk, lying time, displacements from the freestalls, allogrooming (social interaction where one cow grooms another cow), and milk production of the cows moved were determined for 3 d= ays before and 4 days after the pen switch occurred. The responses of 12 cows w= ere recorded. Stocking density was kept at 100% during both observation periods.

The total time per day spent feeding (approximately 300 minutes) was consistent throughout the 7 days of observation. An increase in the number of times the moved cows were displaced from the feed bunk was observed on the day of relocation and for the following 2 days. An approximately 1 hour reduction = in lying time as well as reduction in the number of lying bouts was observed on the day of the switch. Both lying time and bouts returned to normal on the subsequent days. Unlike the feed bunk, regrouping did not result in an incr= ease in the number of times the moved cows were displaced from a freestall; however, they were less likely to displace other cows immediately after the move. On the first 3 days after regrouping, the moved cows initiated fewer incidents of allogrooming and also received less grooming immediately after being moved. Switching pens resulted in a loss of approximately 8 lbs of milk on the day following regrouping and then return= ed to pre-movement levels on the following days.

Although this research demonstrates some of the behavi= oral changes that may occur following regrouping and the duration of those chang= es, there are several remaining questions that should be addressed to fully und= erstand the impact that pen movements have on the behavior of dairy cows. To their credit, the authors acknowledged many of these questions in their article. = Most notably, the authors indicated the need to address the variation in response that may result when cows are moved into a more competitive situation (i.e.= , an overcrowded pen). Another management practice that may influence the behavi= oral response to the introduction of new cows into a pen is that the movement of cows in is often associated with the movement of other cows out. The smaller group size combined with the addition of only one cow to the existing social structure may have also influenced the observed response. It would be beneficial to conduct future trials with a greater amount of change to the = pen (for example, moving cows both in and out and more cows involved) to establ= ish how long was needed to reestablish a stable social group. Finally, the collected data focused only on the cow moving into the pen. Data on the behavioral response of= the cows already residing within the group are needed to develop a more complete understanding of the social dynamics being affected.

—= Peter Krawczel, krawczel@whminer.com

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK: GETTING THE MOST FROM YOUR CORN

Higher priced feeds will remain the norm for the fores= eeable future. A recent Doane’s Agricultural Rep= ort (2/22/08) reported Midwestern corn at $4.98/bushel, distillers dried grains= at $157/ton, and soybean meal at $342/ton. One year ago, the same commodities = were $4.13/bushel, $126/ton, and $223/ton. The same Doane&#= 8217;s Report predicted that this period of higher feed prices could last another = 15 years. Between 2005 and 2007, common feed ingredients for dairy rations increased in price by over 60%. Corn price increased by= 66%.

Now, more than ever, we need to efficiently extract nutrients from the feed ingredients in our dairy rations. Currently there’s considerable interest in feeding lower-corn, lower-starch die= ts to lactating dairy cows in an attempt to reduce feed costs. Of course, the = goal is really to reduce dietary corn grain and starch without compromising milk yield or some other important measure of cow productivity and health. A key component of profitable feeding strategies will be ensuring that dietary st= arch is effectively used by the cow – and that only a minimal amount of st= arch actually ends up in the manure.

Several important factors influence the rumen fermentability and/or total tract digestibility of co= rn starch:

4&nb= sp;   Corn genetics (floury or vitreous endosperm, more or less digestible starch)

4&nb= sp;   Source of starch: barley > corn > sorg= hum in starch digestibility

4&nb= sp;   Proper particle size of grain and silage

4&nb= sp;   Moisture content at harvest

4&nb= sp;   Time in silo: starch becomes more digestible with time in the silo, particularly after 4 to 5 months.

As a result of these and other factors, rumen starch digestion can range from <50% to >90%. In the future there will be an increasing need to measure starch digestibility when formulating rations so that dietary starch is efficiently used. Feed testing labs are beginning to offer starch digestibility measurements along with measures of total starch content in a feed sample.

The relative importance of particle size, moisture con= tent, and endosperm type was assessed recently by Dr. Pat Hoffman at the University of Wiscon= sin and shared with fellow nutritionists, agronomists, and forage lab managers = at a meeting in Indianapolis. He related change in rumen starch availability to various measures of parti= cle size, moisture content of the whole plant or grain, and endosperm type. His data showed that particle size is most highly correlated with starch availability, followed by moisture, and then endosperm type. So, it makes s= ense to evaluate your current corn processing and feeding strategies in that ord= er. Have you evaluated the particle size of your supplemental grain? Have you evaluated the particle size of your corn silage and how well processed the = corn kernels are? Make sure that the moisture content of your corn silage is appropriate for the storage structure and not too dry. Recent data from Europe show that the starch digestibility of corn s= ilage begins to increase markedly about 4 to 6 months after ensiling. Be sure to adjust your ration formulation to account for these changes.

According to Dr. Jim Ferguson at the University of Penns= ylvania, we can assess dietary starch digestion by measuring fecal starch content. If fecal starch is 4.5%, then that would equate to approximately 90% starch digestibility. For every 1%-unit decrease in fecal starch, the cow should produce about one more pound of milk. Although we should have been focusing= all along on ways to increase the efficiency of starch and other nutrient use by the cow, prevailing feed prices demand that we do so now.

—= Rick Grant, grant@whminer= .com

CONGRATULATIONS, HEATHER <= /p>
We were curious when Heath= er Dann, Research Associate here at the Institute (and a regular contributor to the Farm Report), didn’t show= up for an 11 AM meeting when an hour or so before that she was in the Farm Off= ice and said she’d attend. But she had a good excuse, because by then she= was at the hospital having a baby. Jacob Dann Perki= ns came into the world on February 21st, weighing i= n at 6 lbs 9oz. Mother and baby are both doing fine.

RESEARCH SUMMARY: TOPDRESSING MANURE ON ALFALFA-GRASS

A 2006 Miner Institute research trial found that manure application had little if any influence on yield, and manure application af= ter first cutting didn’t significantly affect forage quality of second and third cut alfalfa-grass. Alfalfa damage from the manure spreader was negligible as measured by crown size, symmetry and condition. However, the species composition of the field was predominantly grass. A 2007 study repeated the procedures from 2006, using a field with a higher percentage of alfalfa.

Four plots were divided into three strips, with one of= three treatments randomly assigned to each strip in each plot: No manure; manure = applied 3 days after harvest; and manure applied 10 days after harvest. Manure was applied after first harvest at 5000 gallons/acre. Yield and forage quality including in vitro digestibility were measured for both second and third harvests. This data was used to calculate milk per ton and milk per acre us= ing the Milk2006 spreadsheet. Alfalfa crown damage was assessed after each harv= est by rating six plants from each replication, with 0 indicating a completely healthy crown and 5 a dead one. The results are in Table 1.

There wasn’t any difference between waiting 3 da= ys after harvest before applying manure vs. a delay of 7 days. Moreover, manure didn’t affect yield or Milk2006 milk production potential. There were small numerical differences, but in no case were these statistically significant. Nor did manure application damage alfalfa crowns; in fact, cro= wn scores tended to improve between 2nd and 3rd cut.

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

“The sign of a good manager is how his (or her) = team performs when he is gone.” These were our farm manager’s parting words to us when he left with the students on their trip to the World Ag Ex= po in California this past month. And the team performed excellently – everyone knew t= heir job and was capable of making good decisions in their area of responsibilit= y. Another reminder to us how important it is to have employees who are dedica= ted to the farm and have been trained with the skills to perform their job well even when the manager isn’t present to answer questions and supervise= .

In February the cows tested at 95 lbs of milk, and dur= ing the month there were days when they milked 97 lbs/day. When Steve arrived h= ome, he was greeted with a pleasant problem – we were overflowing the bulk tank! So when our girls are “cranking ”, we have to switch tanks part way through milking. Our milk truck driver tri= es to arrive earlier at the farm now so the tanks have time to wash before the next milking.

We have heard lots of stories about sunny California, the World Ag Expo and dairy farming on the west coast. After seeing the different rations fed to cows o= ut there, we are wondering about the trucking cost to deliver a load of almond hulls = to Chazy. Jake and the crops crew is wondering how = to convince Ev that we need a GPS system for our tractors! In the midst of sharing about the sunny weather, there was a comp= laint about a peeling sunburn – one comment R= 11; NO sympathy!

—= Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

—= Steve Couture, couture@w= hminer.com

BIOTECH ACREAGE CONTINUES TO GROW

The worldwide acreage planted to genetically modified = crops continues to increase rapidly. In 2007, another 30 million acres were plant= ed to GMOs, an increase of 12% over 2006 acreage. = About 80% of this GMO acreage is in the U.S., Argentina, and Brazil.= But this doesn’t mean that developing countries are standing still; use of biotech crops in developing countries increased by 21% in 2007 compared to 2006.

VET’S CORNER: VAGINOSCOPE FOR DIAGNOSIS OF POSTPARTUM ENDOMETRITIS

Repmon reproductive analys= is was performed on January DHIA data from the Miner Institute dairy farm. (Repmon is a computer program that analyzes reproducti= ve management data from DHIA.) First insemination efficiency was 75.4% and jud= ged as OK by Dr. Jim Ferguson, University of Pennsylvania.&nb= sp;The Presynch program is running well and cows are b= red during the elected voluntary waiting period.

First service conception rate (CR) is lower in the gro= up inseminated in the 52- to 72-day window, especially in the third lactation cows. Only 12.5% of these cows conceived in the 52- to 72-day period.=

It’s not surprising for experienced dairy breede= rs to learn that older, high-producing cows don’t breed as well as younger = herdmates. The commonly recognized causes of reproductive inefficiency in this group include poor heat expression and po= or follicular memory due to subclinical and clinical metabolic disease in transitional cows. In the Miner Institute herd, we intend to learn if undiagnosed endometritis is another cause. = ;

For a variety of reasons fresh cow reproductive exams = have been dropped from the regular herd health visit in many dairy herds and replaced with routine prostaglandin injections. For fresh cow exams to be of= value, cows with impaired reproductive ability must identified and appropri= ate treatment provided. A 2002 Journal of Dairy Science article by University of Guelph researchers found that abou= t half of all endometritis cases are missed by traditi= onal veterinarian rectal palpation. The use of a vagi= noscope in cows over 27 days in milk identified cows with muco= purulent discharge and enlarged cervical diameter >7.5 cm. Cows with large cervix= es and/or pus-like discharge had a reduced pregnancy rate of 27% (a decrease in 21-day pregnancy rate from 20 to 14.6% which adjusts to 32 more days open).

Adoption of vaginoscopy is= not welcomed by many because of perceived inconvenience to the veterinarian palpator in most dairy cattle handling systems. = But with feed bunk lock-up systems such as the one used in the Miner Institute barn, the new vaginoscopy service should be considered.

—Kent E. Henderson, DVM, Nort= hwest Veterinary Associates, Inc., hugamoo= @comcast.net

FARMING WITH FOUR HOOVES INSTEAD OF FOUR WHEELS<= o:p>

During the past month or so I’ve spoken at sever= al Lancaster Co., Pennsylvania meetings as = well as a couple in Western Ontario where som= e to almost all the farmers in attendance were Amish or Mennonites. Most of the Mennonite farmers use traditional implements including tractors. One sect, however, uses steel wheels on their tractors. It was pretty strange seeing = an almost-new, shiny green John Deere tractor with equally shiny steel wheels front and back.

What’s interesting is that many of the crop ques= tions these farmers have, including the Old Order “horse and buggy” Amish, are very similar to those of other farmers: What’s the best cutting height for alfalfa; what’s the best type of corn hybrid; and = what about conditioning hay crops for silage? One Amish farmer was a big help on= this last question: Conditioning alfalfa on many Amish farms is a separate trip = from mowing, and when he was half-way done with one field his double-roller conditioner broke. He said he was surprised and pleased to discover that the half of the field he didn’t condition was ready before the part he di= d. (Since I had just finished suggesting to the group that they try eliminating conditioning of wide-swath alfalfa harvested for silage, it was nice to have someone agree with me!)

—E.T.

NEMATODE DAMAGE TO CORN

Did nematodes damage your corn in 2007? You probably don’t know and neither does anyone else. Will they damage your corn in 2008? Same answer. The feature article in a recent issue of Ag Professional= , a useful magazine for crop consultants, is titled “The Hidden Predator = in Corn” and is—as you have by now so astutely concluded—all about nematodes. Readers of the Farm Report may recall that your intrepid agronom= ist was calling your attention to this pest a year ago. (Ahem.) He was (and sti= ll is) concerned that the replacing of soil insecticides by seed treatments and genetic traits to control corn insects may result in increasing nematode damage. In part it’s a matter of physics: The protein molecule in Bt = corn hybrids that kills corn rootworm and corn borer larvae is simply too large = for nematodes to ingest.

Nematodes are almost certainly causing hundreds of mil= lions of dollars in crop losses in corn and soybeans in the U.S, and probably in a number of other crops. Ten years ago a University of Illin= ois study found that nematodes caused about $90 million in corn yield losses al= one, and that was in the days of buck-a-bushel corn. The university hasn’t done another nematode study since then, simply because there hasn’t b= een money to fund one. Only this past year did Syngenta Seed Care get serious about the subject and do a corn nematode survey in the northern corn states. They found parasitic nematodes almost everywhere they sampled, with the highest populations in the best corn-growing areas.

Twenty years ago we did nematode assays on several Champlain Valley corn fields. We found two species, root lesion nematode and dagger nematode, at numbers high enough t= o be causing economic damage. The population of dagger nematodes, which kills the growing point of corn roots, was very high.

There are few nematicides = on the market, Counter® being the most common one. It’s a very good soil insecticide but one of the most toxic, requiring a Pesticide Applicator license, so many farmers have turned to more user-friendly products. Althou= gh the BASF website clearly identifies Counter® as an insecticide-nematicide, according to Syngent= a Seed Care there’s no product currently labeled for nematode control in corn. (In a University of Illinois “= corn trait trial”, corn treated with Counter® had the highest yield ev= en though it also had one of the poorer corn rootworm root ratings. Was the hi= gher yield because Counter® was killing nematodes while the Bt traits were not? Hmmm. Bayer CropScience is experimenting with two seed-applied products for nematode control in corn, = one a chemical and the other a biological compound, and Sy= ngenta is also developing at least one product. In the meantime, there’s not much else you can do except to try to grow a healthy, vigorous crop. If the= plants get a good start early in the season they should be able to withstand some nematode damage. Chances are even if you have some nematode damage you won’t recognize it as such. Ignorance might not be bliss, but it sure= can be convenient.

—E.T.

IN CRUISE CONTROL

One of the more daunting parts of retirement (other th= an contemplating what the next Big Event will be) will be, for The Bride and m= e at least, moving. We’ve been in the same house for 40 years and have accumulated a dizzying amount of, well, stuff, including clothing. In this regard at least I’ve been in a streamlining mode for some time now, having decided that life is too short for uncomfortable clothes. I’ve given an assortment of seed company jackets to Miner Institute for out-of-a= rea visitors who apparently don’t realize that it actually gets cold up h= ere, while the Salvation Army has been the beneficiary of the rest, including ju= st about anything made of polyester. The objective is 100% cotton (an agricult= ural product!), especially next to the skin, which for a guy is pretty easy what with “tidy whities” and all. This isn’t nearly as easy for many women because of the social need for st= urdy structural components that result in various body parts being pushed up, he= ld down, squeezed together or otherwise confined, often with alarming results.= (I am reminded of the old “Blondie” cartoon strip where Blondie te= lls Dagwood that one of her friends is frustrated “because her hydrangeas= are drooping.” Dagwood replies that this wouldn’t be a problem if s= he wore clothing that fit properly.)

One of the disadvantages of 100% cotton is that over t= ime and with repeated washings, it tends to shrink. At least that’s what I’ve convinced myself since the “Sally Army” recently got several pair of pants that no longer fit even though I haven’t change= d in weight or body conformation in 20 years. At least that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. T.B. has a different, much less satisfactory explanation but you will not read it here.

—E.T.

Closing Comment

A teenager is God’s punishment for enjoying sex.=