MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT APRIL 2008

COMPARISON OF DM METHODS AND A NOVEL ON-FARM APP= ROACH

Simple Question: W= hat is the best way to determine dry matter (DM)?

Simple Answer: T= hat depends ….

It depends on if you = want just DM and how fast you want it, and how accurate you want that value to b= e. Whether DM is the only value needed on farm or in the lab, or whether the sample will be analyzed for nutrient composition dictates how the sample sh= ould be dried. In the lab or on farm, there are certain desirable criteria of a = good DM method:

4 Fast

4 Multiple sa= mples

4 Accurate

4 Representat= ive sample size

4 Repeatable<= o:p>

4 Easy

Some of these criteri= a are obviously in conflict, such as fast and accurate versus multiple samples and representative sample size.

We set out to test so= me common DM methods in a Consumer Reports style evaluation, grading each meth= od on the criteria listed above. We analyzed 2 haylage and 2 corn silage samples concurrently (getting all 4 DMs done at once). Samples were d= ried using a Koster Tester, Microwave oven, and three NFTA (National Forage Test= ing Association) approved methods using lab ovens: 105°C for 18 hours, 135°C for 2 hours, and the standard 2-step method of 55°C followed = by 105°C. Samples for nutrie= nt analysis are typically dried at 55°C, ground for analysis and a sub-sam= ple dried at 105°C to determine residual moisture, since drying at 105°C can alter the nutrient profile (as we will see in next month’s Farm Report). Each DM determinatio= n of the 4 samples was timed and rated from poor (*) to good (****) on a 4-aster= isk scale.

Aside from testing th= ese drying methods, we were hoping to determine an easy and accurate on-farm DM method that would accommodate 4 samples of > 200 grams to ensure representative sample size. We settled on the idea of roasting the samples = in a standard kitchen oven. Certainly not the oven in your kitchen, but how about the oven in the student lounge? Seriously though, quality used ovens that may be of use on-farm are available at many recycled appliance stores. The key to fast and accurate drying is the depth of material being dried. Surface area is critical: A la= yer of <1” is OK, but a ½” layer is better. This requirem= ent dictated that we needed an oven chamber large enough to accommodate four 8.= 5”x 11.5” aluminum pans containing 220 grams of forage at a 0.5” de= pth.

The DM results are li= sted in Table 1. The 105°C method was chosen as our “gold standard” for a single step DM determination. The microwave method clearly resulted in some errant values. The Koster Tester showed slightly higher DM values and the 135°C oven resulted in lower DM values. This is likely a temperature effect as typical temps in a Koster are around 85°C. As temperatures increase we may be combusting some DM along with the water we intend to drive off. The kitchen oven method resulted in = DMs very similar to the other oven methods.

Our rating of the var= ious methods is in Table 2. Note t= hat “Time” spent drying is that required per sample. Microwave drying required 5-10 min= of nuking time, with another 10 min of cooling time depending on moisture cont= ent. Whether the method was “Fast” or not depicts how long it took to get all four DMs done. Catego= ry of “Easy” reflects amount of labor and skill involved. For instance, the ability to micro= wave a wet sample without spilling and accurately determining the dryness endpoint. “AccuracyR= 21; was determined by the methods ability to obtain similar DM as the 105°C standard method. “Rep” reflects representative sample size. The microwave accommodated only 50 gram samples while the ovens allowed for lar= ger 200 gram samples, more representative of the for= ages.

The Koster method is clearly a safe and reliable on-farm DM determination method in te= rms of speed, ease and accuracy. It only lacks in ability to handle a more representative sample size and running multiples; that is unless you have m= ore than one Koster. The conventional kitchen oven set at 125°C (275°F)= to determine DM of four large forage samples proved fairly accurate and easy. However, we did produce quite a bit of smoke and had we left the samples in= the oven roasting any longer than 80 minutes, I do believe we may have started a fire. Hence a lot of question marks on the safety issue with this method. N= ext month we’ll look at how these methods affect the nutrient analysis.

—= Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@w= hminer.com

CORN ROAST

At our recent Corn Co= ngress Ev wasn’t exactly roasted but he was pretty well browned, including disparaging comments on his driving abilities (or reported lack thereof) by Charlie Sniffen, who couldn’t be there in person but sent comments to Wanda. A highlight was the surprise appearance by Ev’s #1 son Jim who made the 11-hour drive up for Virginia just for this meeting. It was the first time he’d been home in 8 year= s, and with the horrible weather we had during his brief stay (during which ti= me the temperature in Richmond was in the 70s), it might be a long time before he’s back. At Corn Congress Jim presented “The top ten reasons you know it’s time = to retire from Miner Institute.”

10. You outdate most of the build= ings at Miner Institute.

9. You don’t remember when your “wild oats” turned to “shredded wheat”.

8. Many of your co-w= orkers weren’t yet born when you got your last promotion.<= /p>

7. Your clothes have= come back in style.

6. You know all the answers, but nobody asks you the questions.

5. “Depends= 221; becomes a noun.

4. You earn the “Miner Moron” award one too many times.

3. Your son has more= gray hair than you “supposedly” do.

2. Everything hurts = and what doesn’t hurt doesn’t work!

1. You’re the = last employee that still refers to Mr. Miner as “Billy”.<= /span>

VET’S CORNER: PROPER BUNK SPACE FOR TRANSI= TIONAL COWS

During another spring= time DA storm season, are you getting bored beating up on your feed rep and veterinarian about the causes of the problem? At the Vermont Large Farm Dairy Conference, Dr. Nigel Cook from the University of Wisconsin presen= ted some helpful suggestions about stall size dimensions and pen moves that can explain the cause of DA’s.

The following dimensi= ons should be observed 90% of the time

1.&n= bsp; At least one stall per cow.

2.&n= bsp; At least 30 inches of bunk space per cow for pre-and post-fresh pens.=

3.&n= bsp; At least 24 inches of bunk space per cow for far-dry cows and heifers.

4.&n= bsp; At least 120 square feet of bedded area per cow in calving pens.

Cows want to come up = to the bunk to eat as an entire group, and Holsteins need 30 inches of bunk space = to allow top dry matter intake. After the next DA surgery, take a minute to lo= ok over the dry cow pens with your herd health vet. Using 30 inches bunk space/cow as the limitation, determine the capacity of the close-up dry cow pen. Many of our DA investigations reveal that overstocking of the dry cow facility is the predominant cause of the problem. Above all other factors, Dr. Cook favors protecting inches of bunk space per cow. In times of heavy calving schedules, this will mean moving cattle through the close-up group faster than the traditional 3 weeks. A close-up pen vi= sit of as short as 9 days can be adequate. To manage this closely, excell= ent breeding records that predict accurate due dates are essential. =

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, In= c.

hugamoo@comcast.net

FERTILIZER PRICE ANGST

As you’re stari= ng dolefully at your fertilizer price quote (or at the dreaded invoice), consi= der how lucky most of you are—at least those of you who are dairy farmers. About 2/3 of the nutrients you feed your cows are “pass-through” nutrients, both literally and figuratively. Cows only utilize about 1/3 of = the nutrients they eat to produce milk, increase body weight, and grow a calf. = Much of the balance is deposited in the gutter for you to use as efficiently as possible. Pause for a moment and consider the crops farmer: Sure, the price= s of what he sells have increased considerably (so have milk prices compared to = two years ago), but he has to purchase the nutrients he needs. If you grow alfa= lfa or alfalfa-grass, you can supply much of the potassium and all the phosphor= us via topdressed manure. But the cash hay producer has to buy those nutrients, including a whole lot of outrageously priced potassium. Some farmers will be paying over $100 per acre just for the potash needed to feed a hungry alfal= fa crop, to say nothing of phosphorus needs. Similarly, many corn farmers need= 200 lbs or so of actual N per acre, and that’s also about $100 per acre. =

Most dairy farms oper= ate at a decided nutrient surplus: There’s a lot more N, P, and K coming onto = the farm as feed and minerals (and to a lesser extent, fertilizer) than leaving= it as the nutrients in milk and cull livestock. The challenge, and it’s never been a more financially rewarding one, is to use this resource—dairy manure—to replace commercial fertilizer to the greatest extent possible. This has always been a wise decision based on economics, but this year there could be another reason: Fertilizer industry experts tell us that 2008 may well be the year that some regions of the U.S. run out of phosphorus and/or potassium fertilizer; you’ll call your fertilizer dealer to get a price on MAP or 0-0-60 but he won’t have a price because he doesn’t have any and can’t get it.

However, don’t = let high fertilizer prices get in the way of the nutrient needs of your forage crops. Someone once said that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance. Similarly, while fertilizer is expensive, it’s not nearly as expensiv= e as buying forages to make up for the yield losses from under-fertilized crops.=

—= Ev Thomas, thomas@whmi= ner.com

PRACTICAL MICROBIOLOGY

The Mysterious ETR= 17;s farewell Corn Congress took place in the beginning of March and, as you mig= ht expect, a lot of talk and questions focused on good silage. Lots of recommendations and suggestions were put forth and these are built on an underlying foundation of scientific principles as are many of the SOP we us= e in dairy production. For most of the discussion, the underlying science was microbiology, the study of very, very small living things.

Many of the practices= that dairy producers do day-to-day involve the management of microorganisms or microbes for short. We focus our management of the big fuzzy things that we= milk a couple times a day but we need of remember that about 1,000,000,000,000 microbes are trying to make a living inside each of our cows. We do not thi= nk much about competition between different factions of microbes within our si= lage but the winner of this competition determines the type of silage that comes= out of the silo.

Microbes come in many= types (bacteria, yeasts, molds, viruses) and some are our allies, doing good that contribute to animal well-being and dairy farm cash flow. Others do bad thi= ngs, things that can hurt or even kill. The rest of this discussion will focus on these bad microbes.

Very generally, bad m= icrobes of many different types do their nasty work when 6 parameters are met. Firs= t, the microbes must be present. If they are present, they need 5 favorable conditions to grow and multiply which is the real danger of these bad micro= bes. These microbes need: 1) Food for energy to grow and multiply; 2) Water to l= ive and move; 3) Warmth that allows and accelerates growth, 4) Air so they can breathe; and 5) An environment free from things that inhibit or irritate.

So what? If these 6 parameters are needed, then taking away one will stop the growth and multiplication of the bad microbes. Focusing again on putting up good silag= e, the plant material we put into the silo is loaded with many types of microb= es, is food, has enough water for most bad microbes, is often warm enough in the summer and fall for rapid growth, and is usually free of irritants and inhibitors. The difference between bad and good silage is air. If we don’t pack well (chop too long, put up too dry, or do not put enough weight on the material) or don’t cover quickly and tightly, air stays= in the silo and keeps coming in over and over again. With air flowing in, the = bad microbes take over and we get a nasty, inedible mass that really is not sil= age. But, if we keep that air out (one of the 6), we get good silage. Milk, as another example, is great food for bad microbes and has more than enough wa= ter and air for them to be happy. So, our on-farm recommendations focus on eliminating the other 3 parameters: Eliminating the microbes (e.g. barriers, forestripping, and clean bedding), taking away the warmth (e.g. cooling milk and freezing colostrum), and providing inhibitors and irritants to the bad microbes (e.g. antibiotics, teat dips, and sanitizers).

Examples of eliminati= ng one of the 6 are all over our dairies. Replacing sawdust and straw with sand bedding eliminates food. Drying hay down eliminates water and prevents mold. Keeping hooves dry slows many nasty microbes. Calf hutches in the North Country winter take away the warmth. Pasteuri= zation eliminates the microbes that spoil milk and endanger human health. And the = list goes on but remember, very generally speaking, eliminating one (microbes, f= ood, water, warmth, air, or irritant-free environment) can prevent the bad micro= bes from growing and doing bad things.

—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com=

ONE RINGY-DINGY, TWO RINGY-DINGIES…

One of the few advant= ages of being technologically retarded is that a certain senior executive here at M= iner Institute is, telephonically at least, even more so. The topic is cell phon= es: My family has been on my case for a long time because while I have a cell p= hone I don’t usually turn it on unless there’s a specific purpose, s= uch as when I’m making an outgoing call or expecting an incoming one. At a recent Institute board meeting, however, we learned that this person actual= ly has a cell phone—which was news to most of us—but that his knowledge of cell phones is such that he finally had to ask someone how to retrieve messages. Turns out he had about 30, probably including a few from people wondering why he hadn’t returned their calls.

—E.T.

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK: DG REDUX

I spent the last week= of March hosting the invited speakers for the two annual dairy nutrition conferences sponsored by the Northeast Ag and Feed Alliance. I always look forward to these meetings, not only because of the presentations but becaus= e I get to spend a day traveling through Vermont visiting with the speakers and watching them stimulate the local economy with purchases of maple syrup, Ca= bot cheese, and outdoor gear from Orvis. This year three of the speakers focuse= d on nutritional considerations when feeding distillers grains (DG). I know much= has been written on this topic over the past year, but I wanted to share the hi= gh points with you since all three talks were outstanding. And, even though the price of DG has not plummeted as predicted a year ago, they remain an abund= ant, competitively priced, and nutritious feed for dairy cows.

First on the program = was Dr. Paul Kononoff from the University of Nebraska (he took my former position) who has o= ne of the most active programs in the U.S. on feeding strategies for DG. Paul’s research has shown that cows can= be fed up to 30% DG (% of diet, dry basis), although 15% or so is much more co= mmon and an easier diet to formulate. Cows in his studies often respond to DG wi= th greater feed intake and consequently greater milk yield with good milk component production. I noted that in several of his studies cows were producing 80 to 90 lb/d of milk - demonstrating in fact that cows can produce quite well when consuming fairly high amounts of DG. Maintaining sufficient effective fiber in the diets for good rumen conditions that enhance microbial fermentation is a key when fee= ding substantial amounts of DG. Paul also emphasized formulation of diets with l= ower starch than commonly fed – even less than 20% of dietary dry matter. Additionally, these high-DG diets contained much more digestible fiber than commonly fed. Essentially, he is advocating a nutritional approach that swa= ps energy from starch with digestible fiber – not a bad idea if you are = feeding ruminants!

Dr. Tom Jenkins from = Clemson University focused in-depth on how lipids, especially from DG, influence rumen fermentation and milk fat yield= . We all know that low milk fat is a major risk when feeding DG due to their potentially high oil content, and Tom is the preeminent researcher on this topic in the U.S. (an ERN in Evspeak). Distillers grains contain high levels of unsaturated f= atty acids that reduce milk fat if consumed at too high levels. When the cow consumes too much unsaturated fat, an intermediate of rumen fat metabolism called trans 10, cis 12 conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) accumulates and this compound is such a potent inhibitor of milk fat synthesis by the mammary gl= and that as little as 10 g/d flowing out of the rumen reduces milk fat by up to 50%! The key point here is that the unsaturated fatty acids are present in = all feeds, not just DG, and we must consider the total dietary supply to the cow’s rumen. There is nothing inherently bad with DG, but if you have formulated a diet which is “on the edge” regarding unsaturated fatty acid content, then adding DG to the diet can easily push the cow and = her rumen over the edge with milk fat depression and poor performance being the result. Tom also pointed out several dietary situations that will make feed= ing higher levels of unsaturated fatty acids even more risky: insufficient effective fiber and low rumen pH, too much grain, using monensin, overfeedi= ng fat in general, and poor management such as overcrowding that can depress r= umen function.

Dr. Bill Weiss from <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Ohio State University focused = on proper sampling techniques with specific application to DG. We sample feeds= to get a good sense of their variation in nutrient composition and to hopefully obtain an accurate value for use in ration formulation. Obtaining representative samples for variable feeds such as DG is critical. For examp= le, if you only used the NRC (2001) book value, you could be 95% sure that your= DG sample would fall between 23 and 36% crude protein. But, with only one samp= le taken and analyzed, you become 95% certain that your sample is between 26 a= nd 32% protein. A few more samples would provide you with even greater accurac= y.

The bottom line is th= at DG are here to stay regardless of what direction the ethanol industry eventual= ly takes. They can be fed successfully, from modest to fairly high levels, but= we need to know their nutrient composition and formulate diets with sufficient forage-fiber that do not oversupply unsaturated fatty acids.

—= Rick Grant, grant@whminer= .com

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO CHANGE FROM SLATTED TO R= UBBER FLOORING

Slatted floors allow = for a convenient method of manure disposal. However, the openings in the floor may cause an alteration of the cows’ gait and place a strain on the hoof. This resulting strain has been demonstrated to increase the incidence of laminitis or claw horn lesions, which decreases cow welfare. In 2002, German researchers found that covering slatted concrete floors with slatted rubber mats provided a more comfortable walking surface without impeding the movem= ent of manure through the slats. The benefits of these rubber mats: Improved locomotion in both lame a= nd sound cows, better claw health, and reduced slipping, were demonstrated in subsequent research trials. Additionally, the cows’ preference for the rubber mats was also established by associating its usage to herd hierarchy; dominant cows utilized the rubber flooring more when it was offered in a limited amount.

In a recent edition o= f the Journal of Dairy Science, German researchers followed the behavioral respon= ses of 50 Brown Swiss cows (averaging 19,800 lbs of milk with 3.5% true protein= and 4.5% milk fat) during a 3-phase introduction of rubber mats (1.2” thi= ck) to cover the existing concrete slatted floors. During the trial the cows we= re housed in a 4-row barn with freestalls arranged in tail-to-tail and bedded = with straw. The three phases of the study were 4 weeks long and the specifics of each are as follows:

4 Assessment = of behavior on original concrete floors – resting (lying in the alley), comfort (grooming while standing on 3 legs and grooming sides of the body),= and estrus (one cow mounting another) behaviors were collected between 8:00 AM = and 4:00 PM on 10 consecutive days. Locomotion (step length analysis and total number of steps per day) was observed through the period.=

4 Assessment = of flooring preference – the flooring type used by the cows when both we= re available was recorded between 8:30 AM and 3:30 PM for 6 consecutive days.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The location of the rubber mats was changed after the first 2 weeks.

4 Assessment = of behavior on rubber flooring – the same measurements recorded during t= he 1st phase were recorded during this phase.

Data collected from t= he 1st and 3rd phases were compared to one another to determine the response to the addition of the rubber mats, and the data from the 2nd phase was used to establish flooring preferences.

The number of times p= er day that a cow was observed lying in the alley increased 12-fold when rubber ma= ts were completely in place. Although this suggested an increase in the comfor= t of the floor, it also indicated the inadequacy of the stalls within the barn. = An approximately 4-fold increase in grooming while standing on three legs and = an approximately 8-fold increase in grooming the sides of the body were observ= ed during phase 3 relative to phase 1. Significantly more occurrences of estrus behavior occurred during phase 3 relative to phase 1. Earlier research has demonstrated that this type of behavioral change may generate an economic benefit as well. The addition of rubber flooring also resulted in a signifi= cant alteration of locomotion. When the rubber mats covered the entire floor, an increase in step length (27.5” vs. 22.9”) and total number of s= teps per day (5,600 vs. 4,200) were recorded. The combined effect of these two responses resulted in the cows walking roughly 1 mile further each day on t= he rubber mats compared to the concrete floor. Finally, when offered a choice between the two flooring types, 66% of the cows traveled on the rubber mats.

Overall, the results = of this study suggested that the addition of rubber mats on an existing slatted flo= or was an effective method of improving cow comfort. The main benefits of the flooring changes were observed in increased step length, less slipping, and willingn= ess to demonstrate estrus behavior. The study also provided an example that one positive change in cow comfort (better flooring) may highlight an existing deficiency (uncomfortable stalls) that would then need to be addressed.

—= Peter Krawczel, krawcze= l@whminer.com

THE BUZZ ON BOOSTING BEE POPULATIONS<= /span>

Managed honeybees pro= vide pollination services to many agricultural crops (including an important ups= tate New York crop—apples) and are facing threats such as Colony Collapse Disorder = and competition from exotic species. As a result, agricultural production may become more reliant on wild populatio= ns for pollination, making it necessary to understand the resources required to support wild bee populations. Wild bees require habitat for both nesting and foraging, which are not always available in highly managed agricultural are= as; crops often bloom synchronously – providing extensive forage to bees – but only for a few weeks out of the year, and annual tilling of fie= lds may impact wild bee habitats.

Scientists are resear= ching solutions to the problems facing managed bee colonies, as well as ways to b= est approach “managing” wild populations. One suggested approach to plan agricultural landscapes that accommodate wild bee foraging and nesting habits. Last year, scientists at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, published a paper in Basic and Applied Ecology focusing on land use and wild bee populations in agriculturally intense areas. Specifically, they were interested in determining the importance of semi-natural areas (pastures comprised of grasses, small shrubs, and wildflowers) to bees in intensively farmed landscapes.

Data was collected fr= om 10 canola (Brassica napus) fields, ranging from 60 to 158 acres, in southern <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">Alberta, Canada. Bee data was collected along two transects in each field. On each transect, 3 sites were sampled, for a tota= l of 6 sampling sites per canola field. Bees were collected during bloom via 3 sampling techniques: Pan trap= ping with a sweetened honey/water solution; sweep netting; and visual observation. Sampling took pl= ace on days when temperatures were above 64F and mostly sunny, and the collection effort was the same in all fields. <= /span>

Land use was characte= rized 0.5 miles from field edges, or approximately 1265 acres surrounding the fie= ld, because previous studies have shown the maximum foraging range of bees is around 0.46 miles, and also because agricultural land in Alberta is generally divided into 0.5 = mile x 0.5 mile sections. The canola fields were categorized as “high”= or “low” based on the percentage of the surrounding area in pastureland relative to the sampled canola field. To fall under the “high” category, pastureland in an area equal to or greater than 15% of the canola field made up the 1265 acres surrounding the field. For t= he “low” fields, the surrounding 1265 acres consisted of an area of less than 6% of the canola field in pastureland. For example, if a canola f= ield was 100 acres, and the surrounding 1265 acres had at least 15 acres of past= ure, the canola field qualified as “high”; with less than 6 aces of pasture in the surrounding 1265 acres, the 100 acre canola field qualified = as “low”.

Through sweep nets an= d pan traps, 656 bees were collected from the 10 fields. Significantly more bees (511) were found in the fields surrounded by more pastureland than in fields with less surrounding pasture (145). The types of bees were not different between the high and low pasture fields.

As managed honeybees = are facing difficult times, the importance of wild bee populations is becoming = more important in today’s agricultural community. This study shows having heterogeneous landscapes – such as pastures interspersed with highly managed field crops – may also benefit bee populations. If your crops require insect pollination, heterogeneous landscapes may offer staggered flowering and low= -impact management that can ultimately benefit wild bee and other insect populations.

—= Rachel Butzler, butzler@w= hminer.com

READ THAT FORAGE SEED TAG!=

Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin forage agronomist, remin= ds us that this year you should check both germination and purity of your forages—especially alfalfa. There’s an unusually large amount of low germination, low purity seed on the market this year. What you need to = do is determine the percentage of pure live seed (PLS): Multiply % Germination= x % Purity, both numbers that are stated on the seed tag. For instance, 95% germination x 80% purity =3D 76% PLS. If PLS is less than 80%, adjust your seeding rate (higher, of course).

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

In January we discuss= ed some opportunities for improvement on the farm in 2008, and we have done a pretty good job of sticking to our New Year’s resolutions. We have been work= ing to improve communication among employees and to offer opportunities for employee training. Now we have bi-weekly (sometimes weekly) meetings to dis= cuss farm issues, protocols, and to share ideas on how we can do a better job. Sometimes just the “management team” meets and sometimes everyo= ne on the farm sits down for a one-hour meeting. It has taken discipline to set aside the time, but we have seen some benefits already, working better toge= ther as a team as we have improved our communication. Understanding other people’s thoughts and reasons for doing a job a certain way helps to foster a team attitude rather than frustration. And then when the subject is out on the table we discuss the best way to accomplish the job so that we a= re all on the “same page” and being consistent. One of the other things we have learned during these meetings is the importance of personal responsibility, to make sure that each of us is doing the very best job we = can do – it is easy to blame a problem on everyone else. The meeting isn’t for criticizing, but for discussion and improving farm performa= nce. &n= bsp; = ;

For one of our recent= farm meetings, our nutritionist arranged a calving class. Dr. Andy Austin from Battenkill Vet Clinic spoke to us about the natural progression of calving,= how and when to assist in a calving, and the importance of cleanliness when assisting. It was a good review with plenty of new information and tips tha= t we can use to improve our calving management.

—= Anna Pape, pape@whminer.co= m

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

MILK PRICES

A recent Farm Bureau Marketbasket Survey found that in the 4th quarter of 2007 the average retail price of a half-gallon of regular whole milk was $2.28. The average price o= f a half-gallon of “rBST-free” milk was $3.06, or $0.68 more than r= egular milk. During 2007 the price gap between regular and rBST-free narrowed somewhat, from $0.79 in the second quarter. Here in = Northeastern NY it’s difficult to know what the price gap is because = in all three supermarkets where The Bride and I shop we can’t buy regular milk! Nope, everything on dairy case shelves, both store brand and brand na= mes, has that little label stating that the milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. There doesn’t appear to be any price difference between rBST-fr= ee milk at the supermarkets we patronize and regular milk sold elsewhere. Such= is not the case with organic milk, which continues to cost $1.00 or so more per half gallon than any other milk on supermarket shelves.

The regular stuff is = still available if you know where to look, including over 300 Stewart’s Sho= ps in NY and Vermont= . Last year Stewart’s milk won the “Best Milk” award from t= he New York State Milk Quality Program. And the Crops Dude is related to the long-time owners of Stewart’s Shops, the Dake family. (Dake is the “D” in Everett D. Thomas.) The Dakes started in the dairy busin= ess in Greenfield, NY in 1921 with the manufacture of “Dake’s Delicious Ice Cream”. Way to go, cousins!

—E.T.

CHECK SEED CORN SIZE

Before you head for t= he corn field this spring, check the end flaps on your bags of seed corn to see what each hybrid weighs. Last year our seed corn at the Institute, all in standa= rd 80,000 kernel units, weighed as little as 37 lbs. to as much as 50 lbs. depending on the hybrid. In an effort to avoid itty-bitty seed that runs through our John Deere finger pickup planter like….well, like very quickly, we won’t order (or accept) small rounds. Obviously, this doesn’t always result in large seed! We can’t blame the seed de= aler since when we place our order he doesn’t know what the weight per unit will be, that depending not only on the particular seed company but on what kind of seed production year they’ve had. Seems like everyone wants medium flats, but Mother Nature just didn’t design ears with all medi= um flats. If you’ve ever seen seed corn growing in a field, often with little nubbin ears that might yield 50 bushels/acre in a good year, it̵= 7;s a wonder we wind up with the seed size choices we do. But I’ll bet the crop that produced the seed weighing 50 lbs per unit wasn’t 50-bushel corn!

The various corn planters—particularly air vs. finger pickup models—don’t handle seed size differences the same way. If you have seed that weighs less than 40 lbs per bag, if you have an air planter check the owners manual to = see if you need to make air pressure adjustments. We used to try to check population in our JD MaxEmerge finger pickup planter by running it in the parking lot, but chasing bouncing seed corn wasn’t a lot of fun and besides, planting speed influences seed drop so we were mostly just getting some exercise. A population count monitor is best (our new planter has one = and we love it), but start by consulting your owners manual to set the desired population. Start by planting a small field of known acreage and figure out= how many units it took to plant it, then adjusting up or down as necessary. You might need to do this again if you switch to a much different seed size. Not exactly high tech, but this ain’t rocket science.

—E.T.

CORN ROOTWORM BATTLES—I<= /b>

Contrary to what the = title may suggest, some of the corn rootworm “battles” are being foug= ht not between farmer and bugs but between seed companies (primarily two of th= em) selling competing rootworm traits. The contestants, and this should not sur= prise anyone who reads farm magazines, are Pioneer and Monsanto, though Syngenta = also has a rootworm trait (Agrisure RW) that’s similar but not identical to either Pioneer’s or Monsanto’s trait.

The point of contenti= on is which trait results in better rootworm control and higher yield. And the two may not be the same: A higher degree of rootworm control (better root ratin= gs) doesn’t necessarily result in greater corn yield, a fact supported by university research. Pioneer claims that its Herculex trait provides better= protection later in the season, while Monsanto claims that its YieldGard hybrids suffer less early-season root feeding. We’re not going to declare a winner within the confines of this article. In the Northeastern U.S. we seldom see= the severity of rootworm damage encountered in the Midwe= st. While there’s little data to support my opinion, the (what I think ar= e) modest differences between the several corn rootworm traits would result in little impact on corn yield in this region. Certainly, the biggest differen= ce is between control and no control—whether you use one of the traits, a high rate of seed pretreatment, or a soil insecticide. Monsanto says that it finds a 25 bu/acre difference between the average triple stack hybrid and t= he non-traited isoline.

Just because you use = a corn rootworm trait doesn’t mean there won’t be any rootworm damage.= The root ratings on corn rootworm trials almost always find some damage, regard= less of the control method. This isn’t surprising when you think about how some Bt traits control rootworms: A rootworm has to eat part of the root in order to ingest enough toxin to die. Lots of rootworms =3D many nibbles out= of tender corn roots.

—E.T.

CORN ROOTWORM BATTLES—II

We’ve commented= before on the Bt corn rootworm trait and corn refuges, but in the Jan-Feb issue of= Cornell University’s What’s Cr= opping Up? Newsletter, Elson Shields provides a few insights well worth a second l= ook (or a first one if you haven’t been paying attention):

There’s almost = no risk of economic corn rootworm damage in the first year of corn production. The = risk increases to 25-35% in second year corn, 50-70% in third year and 80-100% in fourth and later years. Therefore, beginning in the third year of corn your chances are better than 50-50 of having economic rootworm damage unless you= do something.

While the low rate of Poncho™ or Cruiser™ seed treatments won’t control rootwor= ms, the high rate provides effective control. There have been reports of seed treatment failures, but closer examination found that the lodging was due to soil compaction, wet conditions or herbicide injury. The high rate of Ponch= o or Cruiser fits very well into the second and third years of corn production, = but shouldn’t account for more than half the total corn acreage on a farm= .

Two new rootworm-resi= stant events are available this year, Herculex-RW™ and YieldGard-VT™, providing even more broad-based control options. However, if you use one of these traits, you have to plant at least 20% refuge to a non-Bt hybrid. This hybrid must be in a field with the same field history as the field planted = to the Bt hybrid, the hybrid has to be of similar maturity, and it must be pla= nted on the same day as the Bt field. The refuge acres can have a seed treatment= or soil insecticide to minimize rootworm damage.

NOTABLE QUOTES

4      Only two things are infinite, the universe and h= uman stupidity, and I’m not so sure about the former. Albert Einstein

4      I have not failed: I have successfully discovered twelve hundred ideas that don't work. Thomas Edison

4      I don't want to belong to any club that will acc= ept me as a member. Groucho Marx<= /o:p>

4      There’s no such thing as “business ethics”. It’s personal ethics. Courtesy is very cheap, but pays great dividends. Truett Cathy, Chicken-fil-A founder

4      It is better to understand little than to misunderstand a lot. Anatole France<= o:p>

INSECT CONTROL IN MIXED ALFALFA STANDS

Warrior insecticide h= as recently been approved by NYDEC for use in mixed alfalfa stands, including alfalfa-grass. The supplemental label also includes straight grass. Among t= he insects that Warrior is labeled to control are cutworms, armyworms, and pot= ato leafhoppers. Warrior is a synthetic pyrethroid, one of the more modern products, and application rates are very low, just a few ounces per acre. (= The rate of active ingredient per acre is truly miniscule.) In spite of this Warrior is a “Restricted” product, for use by licensed pesticide applicators.

It’s good to ha= ve Warrior in our pest control arsenal, since it’s an effective insectic= ide. However, with the highly effective biological control of the alfalfa weevil= in this area for about 35 years (due to wasps parasitic to the weevil) plus the availability of leafhopper-resistant alfalfa varieties, we’d expect t= hat the need for Warrior, at least in the Champlain Valley and surrounding area= s, will be fairly low. In fact, I think there’s a better chance that we’d need Warrior for armyworms ravaging grass hayfields (they seem to particularly love reed canarygrass) than for alfalfa weevils or leafhoppers= .

—E.T.

WEATHER—OR NOT

In a recent issue of Pioneer’s “Walking Your Fields” newsletter, Don Specker, Pioneer’s Area Agronomist, noted that growing season Growing Degree D= ays (86/50 basis) have been on in increase in the past ten years compared to th= e 30-year average. This is for Ithaca, NY. But Ithaca isn’t Northern NY, so we did the same comparison using Chazy data for the same ten years, in this case comparing it to the 48-year mean (since we have records going back that far). The table show what we fo= und.

While the ten-year di= fference wasn’t as great in Chazy as it was in Ithaca, seven of the past ten years had= longer growing seasons than the long-term average. This might be why corn yields h= ave been pretty good over the last decade. However, the fact that in 3 of the p= ast 10 years we had below-average GDD, and in six of ten years the difference w= as less than 100 GDD, suggests that we shouldn’t be making big changes in the relative maturity of our corn hybrids.=

WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE GENETIC REVOLUTION

A look at university = corn hybrid trials reveals where U.S. seed companies are heading. For instance, in the 2007 Ohio State University Corn Performance Trials, over 80% of the hybrids entered were transgenic—Bt for rootworm and/or corn borer, glyphosate and/or Liber= ty resistant. And 8 of the 10 top-yielding hybrids in the trials were triple- = or quad-stacks.

It’s therefore understandable why some European scientists are concerned about the continu= ing opposition there to genetically modified crops. Limagrain, the world’s fourth largest seed company, is under so much pressure from the French anti= -GM lobby that it’s considering relocating from France to another country. (M= ost likely not to Brussels, which has 15,000 lobbyists “massaging” various agricultural issues.)

Unless things change drastically, the Limagrain would almost certainly wouldn’t move to another member of the European Union (EU), which for the past decade has fo= ught to prevent the planting of transgenic crops. Politicians and scientists are= at odds over this, with the scientific community stating that transgenic crops= are safe. This standoff may soon be broken by the World Trade Organization, whi= ch by declaring that banning GM crops is an unfair barrier to trade would leave the EU open to WTO penalties.

The winners, at least= for the time being, are countries where transgenic crops can be grown including Nor= th and South America. GM crops have higher yields, less insect damage resulting in fewer mycotoxin problems, and (usua= lly but not always) lower production costs. Perhaps American farmers should be rooting for the European anti-GM lobby, which is restricting its farmers to 1980s technology while much of the we use GM traits resulting in higher yie= lds, better yield stability, and improved drought resistance.<= /p>
—E.T.

TALL FESCUE VARIETY TRIAL<= /p>
In 2004 Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType>’s Jerry Cherney established what’s reportedly the “world’s largest tall fescue trial”—44 varieties— here at Miner Institute in the plot area managed by Cornell. All varieties were fertilized according to soil test recommendations, and were harvested three times each year. There’s now enough data collected over three years and a wide variety of growing conditions for us to make some conclusions. <= /span>

The top five varietie= s for yield (three year average, 2005-2007) were Kora, Enhance, Festival, Stag, a= nd Courtenay, all at least 4.5 tons of dry matter per acre. Kora and Courtenay were especially impressive, excelling each of the three years. But not far behind was Tuscany II, which we use here at the Institute, at 4.4 tons DM/a= cre. At the very bottom of the trial, yielding less than any of the 44 tall fesc= ue varieties, were Okay orchardgrass (3.7 tons DM/acre) and Rival reed canaryg= rass (3.6 tons DM/acre).

One of the great thin= gs about Jerry’s research is that he realizes that the fate of most N.Y. forag= es is in dairy cattle rations, and he did % NDF and 48-hour % fiber digestibil= ity for the first cut on all fescue varieties in 2005 and 2006. NDF averaged 52% and 49% for 2005-06 respectively, which is excellent quality forage, at lea= st comparable to 40% NDF alfalfa if not a bit better. Digestibility was also v= ery high at 79% and 81% respectively. You can make milk with this stuff!

Second cut fiber digestibility in 2006 was somewhat less, averaging 74% NDF-d. An almost identical trial was seeded in = Canton, with somewhat lower yields. Reed canarygrass was also at the bottom of that trial, and the orchardgrass didn’t fare much better.

We’ve been real= ly impressed with the fall growth of tall fescue, which doesn’t go to sl= eep with the first fall frost and turn an unhealthy orange color like reed cana= rygrass does. This past fall I was walking through a pasture we’d seeded a few years ago with a shotgun mixture but predominantly tall fescue and was just amazed at the amount of forage there. If I pastured animals late into the season I’d sure give tall fescue a serious look. I think this is what livestock farmers mean by “stockpiled” forage, because there su= re was a pile of it!

—E.T.

COW MANURE AND LUNG CANCER=

Never thought youR= 17;d see those two terms linked in an article title, did you? We’re not sure w= hat to think about the following, but: According to an article in New Scientist magazine, dairy farmers are five times less likely to get lung cancer than = is the general population. The likely reason is that farmers inhale dry manure particles, thus building up greater exposure to all sorts of microbes, including ones related to lung cancer. In fact, some epidemiologists are starting to think that modern life, with its extreme aversion to dust and d= irt, might be part of the reason for the increase in certain types of cancers including breast cancer. Farmers certainly don’t have to worry about avoiding dirt and dust, it’s all around us. So next time you pass by = that pile of manure—breathe deeply, it’s for your own good.

CLOSING COMMENT

If we don't protect f= reedom of speech, we‘ll never know who the real nuts are.<= /p>