MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT MAY 2008

How drying temperature can affect nutrient analysis of silages

This is a follow-up to last month’s article testing various oven-drying methods of silages. Recal= l we compared dry matters obtained with a Koster Tes= ter, microwave and various ovens across 3 temperatures, 55, 105 and 135°C (1= 31, 221 and 275°F). Looking a= t the forages dried in the ovens across these temperatures, it was visually appar= ent as to how “toasted” the samples became as temperatures increase= d. Curiosity got the best of me and we decided to analyze the samples to determine how increasing heat affected nutrient profiles, specifically CP, NDICP (NDF insoluble protein), soluble protein, NDF, sugar and NDFD24 (NDF digestibility at 24 hours).<= /span>

Results for the change in haylage nutrient profiles across 55, 105 and 135°C drying temps are presented in Table 1. Of note is that total protein does n= ot change much, possibly a bit of NPN volatilized, however the NDICP increases while the soluble protein decreases. This indicates that the more soluble, more digestible proteins are b= eing cooked on to sugar components, being made less soluble resulting in the increase in NDF with rising temperature. This process is generally known as “carmelization” or the “Maillard reaction”. Sugar clearly is decreased = with heat. Most dramatically, NDF digestibility plummets as drying temperature r= ises from 55 to 135°C.

The corn silage data is prese= nted in Table 2. Note the slight drop in CP as drying temperature increased. Sol= uble protein decreased by about 12 units with most of that occurring between 55 = and 105°C. The NDF increased = by about 2 units of DM as a result of cooking the proteins into NDICP. Sugar is typically low in CS to begin with, but drying at high heat still burned nea= rly 50% of what was there. Fiber digestibility was decreased nearly 50% with increasing drying temperature.

For both haylage and corn silage, drying the sample at too high a temperature can cook the sample and affect the nutrient profile. Clearly, temperatures of 105 and 135°C are inappropriate for accurate nutrient analysis. Though, most of= the “damage” appears to happen somewhere between 55 and 105°C.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> For that reason analytical labs dry samples in ovens at 55-60°C, typically overnight, so as not to affect t= he analyses However, for faster = turn around time and NIR analyses, microwave drying is often used. We have documented samp= le temperatures as high as 85°C using a microwave. Whether or not nutrient profiles are changed at 85°C is yet to be determined here at the Miner Institute forage lab, though it is generally understood that improper micro= wave drying can artificially increase NDICP. Given the sensitivity of NDF digestibility to heat noted here, who knows the effects of 85°C on that analysis? (Sounds like a pote= ntial student project?).

The take home message: Beware= the hazards of quick, high temperature drying on forage analyses. Drying the sample at 55-60°C overnight is preferable to avoid altering the nutrient profile. (Most labs = are conscientious about drying and understand the risks of “toasting̶= 1; samples). To speed the drying process, use a thin layer of sample, preferab= ly 0.5” deep and no more than 1” in depth.

Regarding last months article, Bill Mahanna commented that the Penn State “Vortex” method of on-farm DM determinations works pretty slick. Here is that web site = for those interested http://www.abe.p= su.edu/vortex.

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

FORAGE SEEDINGS NEED FIRM SOIL

Our John D= eere grain drill has press wheels that do a good job of firming the soil right o= ver the seed. However, in many cases this isn’t enough: The normal second= ary tillage that we do (“we” meaning Miner Institute and farmers in general) often results in a seedbed that’s simply too fluffy for a fo= rage seeding. That’s why we hook a cultipacker between the tractor and the grain drill, to provide a firm seedbed prior= to seeding. The cultipacker firms the whole see= dbed, while the press wheels produce a good environment for the germinating forage seeds. The cultipacker also presses back into t= he soil the fist-size rocks that our rock rake and rock picker miss.

After cultipacking or rolling, the field should be firm eno= ugh that when you walk on it the soil doesn’t come up past the soles of y= our shoes. Another rule of thumb (for forages, not corn or soybeans) is that an empty pickup truck shouldn’t make more than about an inch depression = in properly firmed soil. Corn and soybeans are larger seeds placed deeper in t= he soil, so seedbed preparation is somewhat more forgiving.

Many years= ago I saw the effect a super-fluffy seedbed can have on a forage seeding. Cornell University was trying out one of t= hose new-fangled (at the time) power harrows, the ones that take about 1 HP of tractor power per inch of operating width. Not a good match with today̵= 7;s $4.00 diesel fuel! The power harrow worked up a great-looking seedbe= d; I sank almost to my ankles when walking through it. But an alfalfa seeding ma= de directly into that seedbed without any subsequent soil firming resulted in = some sorry results indeed.

—Ev Thoma= s, thomas@whminer.com

Vet’s Corner: Marginal Value of Extra= Dry Matter Intake

During the spring semester, <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">Vermont 2 + 2 st= udents (A.K.A: Advanced Dairy Management students) are on the Miner campus and ful= l of stimulating questions and ideas. It is necessary to re examine our old “rules of thumb” in these times of volatile milk prices and increasing feed costs to answer their queries. Recently the question arose: Is it profitable to push for increased dry matter intake in the face= of escalating feed cost?

In the past two years, average milk price rose $6.00/cwt and the cost of a pound of dry matter has risen $= 0.04 or 67%. This year, despite the increased feed cost, $9,164 extra profit was rewarded for increasing DMI compared to two years ago, before feed costs to= ok off.

The student discussion procee= ded to listing factors that will maximize feed intake:

= 1.&n= bsp; High quality roughage that is not too high in fiber, moldy, or spoiled.

= 2.&n= bsp; Excellent water cleanliness and availability.

= 3.&n= bsp; Control heat stress and provide exce= llent ventilation.

= 4.&n= bsp; Observe strict feed time schedules a= nd increase number of feedings.

= 5.&n= bsp; Never allow the bunk to go empty.

= 6.&n= bsp; Frequent bunk push-ups and refused f= eed removal before delivery.

= 7.&n= bsp; Avoid over-crowding which leads to inadequate bunk space.

= 8.&n= bsp; Address lame cow treatment and prevention.

—Kent Henderson, DVM, Northw= est Veterinary Associates, Inc.

hugamoo@comcast.net

COMMON LAMBSQUARTERS BECOMING TOO CO= MMON A PROBLEM

Over 30 ye= ars ago common lambsquarters became a more serious weed problem in corn because of the rapidly increasing population of triazine-resistant lambsquarters= . We’ve been fighting this battle for years, switching from triazine to other herbicide families. Now, however, they’re finding lambsquarter biotypes in = Michigan and Ohio that are resistant to the very common ALS inhibitor class of herbicides that includes the popular corn herbicides Accent, Beacon, Basis, Permit, and Steadfast. Even more ominous, lambsquarters is becoming increasingly more tolerant to glyphosate in some states, including ones as close as Pennsylvania.

= ;

If you hav= e a lambsquarters population that isn’t being contr= olled by what you think should do the job, contact someone—your crops consultant, custom applicator, Extension professional—to confirm that= the problem is the resistance/tolerance and not something else. It’s important that we identify any new areas where these problems are occurring= so steps can be taken to prevent their spread.

Changes in World Dairy Production

The other day I was reading t= he USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System report “Dairy 2007 Part II: Changes in = the U.S. Da= iry Cattle Industry, 1991-2007.” I was surprised to see a section foc= used on changes in world dairy production. Dairy production data from several countries were collected by the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Interestingly, China’s dairy industry has grown rapidly in the last 15 to 20 years in part due to national policies that gave the dairy industry priority status. China h= ad the largest increase in the number of milk cows of any country or region with a 542% increase from 1991 to 2006 (~1.5 to 7.9 million cows, respectively). A= long with the increase in milk cow numbers, China showed a 687% increase = in milk production (4,646,000 to 31,934,000 metric tons) during the same time period. Although China= does not currently have the most cows or greatest production in the world, China&#= 8217;s rapid dairy production growth is likely to have an impact on world dairy production and trade.

—Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com

A WELL-DESERVED PAT ON THE BACK =

We donR= 17;t like to brag….well maybe just occasionally, and this is one of those times. Our dairy operation had a federal inspection last month. This is done once a year on about 15-20 farms shipping milk to Agri= -Mark. The farms have to score above 90. The federal inspector has been doing this for more than a few years and had never given out a perfect score of 1= 00. At least not until last month: That's right, we got it! He said he has never seen a place so clean and the drugs in all the right places. Rick’s comment: “From previous experience here and in the Midwest, I know that the Federal Inspectors always = are very serious about their job and certainly don’t ‘inflate the score’.”

And we’re happy to repo= rt that for the second time in the past year (OK, for the second time ever<= /i>) our rolling herd average has crept over the 30,000 lb. mark. Congratulation= s to the dairy crew for their topnotch cow care, and to the crops crew that grew, harvested and ensiled the forage.

NAHMS Dairy 2007 Reports Available

Last year,= the USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) conducted a s= tudy of US dairy operations. Almost 80 percent of dairy operations and 83 percen= t of dairy cows were used in the study to collect data on dairy health and manag= ement practices. This was the fourth national study of the U.S. dairy industry. The other studies were conducted in 1991, 1996, and 2002. According to the USDA, all = the studies have served as a “basis for education, service, and research.”

= ;

The first = report “Dairy 2007 Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the Uni= ted States, 2007” was released October 2007. The second report “Dairy 2007 Part II: Changes in the U.S. Dairy Cattle Industry, 1991-2007” was released March 2008. Both reports can= be viewed electronically at http://n= ahms.aphis.usda.gov/dairy/index.htm#dairy_general. Printed copies of the reports can be requested at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/request_report_form.htm.

R= 12;H.D.

From the President’s Desk – Gre= en Grass of Spring

In the 1891 edition of Leaves of Grass the great American poet Walt Whitm= an summed up his thoughts on grass:

= “A child said ‘What is grass?’ fetching it to me with full hands;<= o:p>

=

= How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he…<= o:p>

=

I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars.̶= 1;

Even thoug= h cows have consumed grass forever, just like Mr. Whitman who wasn’t sure wh= at grass really was, we are still learning how to best take advantage of the nutritional attributes of grasses in dairy rations.

Across the Northeast we’ll soon be harvesting first-cutting hay crop silage, and much of this silage will be predominantly grass. Successfully feeding grass silage requires a thorough understanding of the fermentation of grass fiber. When it comes to understanding fiber nutrition, there is no better source of information than Dr. Dave Mertens at the Dairy-Forage Researc= h Center in Madison, WI. Dave presented an outstanding paper at the 2007 New England Dairy Nutrition Conference on feeding grass to dairy cattle and I want to share with you the main points of his paper. If your feeding goal is to optimize the use of fo= rage fiber in the diet and minimize expensive grains, then high quality grasses = are an excellent option.

Although g= rasses typically contain more fiber (NDF) than legumes they have higher NDF digestibility at a similar stage of maturity. Research has clearly demonstr= ated that maturity at harvest has a much greater impact on NDF digestion than the actual grass species. So, worry less about the type of grass you are growing and more about the best strategy to harvest that grass at the proper maturi= ty (and pray for cooperative weather). Grasses can mature rapidly and the harv= est window for high quality grass is short in the Northeast. =

Grasses ha= ve a slower rate of NDF digestion than legumes, which might be related to the chemical linkages between hemicellulose and the soluble phenolic complexes that are more abunda= nt in grasses than legumes. Regardless, the slower fiber digestion rate can quick= ly limit feed intake as maturity advances and slower digesting fiber builds up= in the rumen. The surest way to reduce production in an early lactation cow is= to limit intake.

        &= nbsp;

When formu= lating diets with grasses, the optimal NDF intake will be somewhat higher than typical; about 1.2% of cow body weight. The digestibility of the NDF will determine how much can be fed successfully to a lactating cow. Mertens provided an example with a grass of 60% NDF digestibility at 48 hours and showed that you could attain 80 lb/d milk wit= h a diet of 54% forage. However, if the digestibility of the grass increased to 76%, then you could feed a diet of 62% forage. In each case, the forage mix= ture was 25% alfalfa and 75% grass – not too different from many Northeastern U.S. farms. Merte= ns also compiled a table that related grass NDF content (maturity) and the associated forage content of the total diet to achieve 90 lb/d of milk production. As grass NDF increased from 51 to 59% (it became more mature), = the optimal forage content of the diet decreased from 52% down to only 43%. Clearly, less mature grass allows us to feed higher forage diets because the grass contains less NDF and that NDF is more digestible in the rumen of the cow.

So, Walt Whitman considered g= rass to be nothing less than the reason for the existence of stars. I can’t comment on that, but I can say that a leaf of grass is nothing less than the perfect forage for a dairy cow when properly harvested and fed. At the star= t of a new harvest season, let’s all hope for cooperative weather, high quality grass forage, highly fermentable fiber, and milk production that surpasses our wildest expectations.

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer= .com

Does Seasonal Grazing Affect Lameness in Da= iry Cows?

Now that s= pring has finally arrived in the North Country= , more and more cows are being moved out of freestall = barns and onto pasture or provided access to dirt paddocks that are adjacent to t= heir freestall pens. I recently had the opportunity = to interact with a group of legislators touring the UVM Dairy Farm. One key po= int of discussion was the importance of dairy farming and tourism to Vermont and the = extent to which the two are intertwined. Speaking as a former tourist in Vermont, I can a= ttest that the pastoral view of dairy cows out on pasture is a major draw. As a result, it seems an appropriate time to review two studies that were publis= hed in the Journal of Dairy Science that investigated the relationship between pasture (or potentially paddock) access and lameness.

A research= group from the Scottish Agricultural College published the first study several ye= ars ago evaluating the occurrence of lameness and hock injuries for cows housed indoors throughout the year compared to cows allowed to graze for at least a portion of the year. The study was conducted as a survey of 28 farms across= Great Britain. Locomotion scores of the cows were recorded as they were brought into or le= ft the parlor using a 5-point scale. The condition of hocks and knees were assessed by the presence of swelling, exposed, callused or damaged skin, and the number of limbs affected. The occurrence of lameness was higher on non-grazing farms compared to those that incorporated grazing into the management strategy. Only the occurrence of swollen knees was significantly affected by grazing or no grazing. It was speculated that the increased ris= k of lameness could be attributed to standing on concrete or increased time stan= ding in manure. Unfortunately, the portion of the non-grazing farms using concre= te and rubber flooring was not reported within the study. Previous research has demonstrated the benefits of providing rubber flooring compared to concrete. The increased number of swollen knees was attributed to the impact of transitioning from standing or lying within freestalls= . This demonstrates the importance of monitoring the condition of freestall mattresses on farms using continuous indoor housing.

The second= study on the relationship of lameness and pasture access demonstrated the benefic= ial effect of pasture housing for cows with a locomotion score = 1619; 2.5. Researchers at the U= niversity of British Columbia housed groups of cows either on pasture or in freestal= ls for 4-week periods and recorded a weekly locomotion score using a similar 5-point scale. The locomotion score of cows housed on pasture improved on average by 0.2 units each week. By the end of the trial cows had improved 1 full unit from their average start= ing point, which equaled a score of 3. Three is the first score at which a cow is considered clinically lam= e. This study demonstrated the potential for improving the locomotion of lame = cows through a change in housing environment; however, it did not establish the mechanism for that improvement. Possible contributing factors include the d= ietary change and physical improvement of the cow. The shift to a grass-based diet= may have reduced the acidity of the rumen that would alter the rumen bacterial population. Both ruminal acidosis (ruminal= pH < 5.2) and subacute ruminal<= /span> acidosis (ruminal pH between 5.2 and 5.5) have = been associated with the occurrence of lameness. The softer surface of the pastu= re may have allowed a more “natural” gait while walking and this c= ould strengthen the muscles and loosen stiff joints. There has been some researc= h to demonstrate a positive relationship between exercise and hoof health.<= /o:p>

These two studies suggest that access to pasture can reduce the total occurrence of lameness and allow cows that have become clinically lame to improve. The short duration of time needed = see those improvements in locomotion suggest that providing access to pasture during the dry period would be sufficient for achieving similar results wit= hout complicating the management of the lactating herd. Finally, if the key factor for this improvement is a physical improvement then providing access to a dirt paddo= ck could be adequate.

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

Practical Thermodynamics

Cows produ= ce heat, a lot of heat, and, as we move toward the summer months here in the <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">North Country we will need to help our cows lose th= is heat to remain productive and happy. A practical understanding of the scien= ce of thermodynamics can help us do this.

Scientific= ally speaking, heat moves in the environment (or, more practically, to and from = our cows) in four ways going by the technical terms: Radiation, conduction, convection, and evaporative cooling. Radiation is the movement of heat betw= een objects that are not physically touching such as when the sun heats the Ear= th or when we are overheated standing near (but not in) a campfire. Conduction= is the movement between objects that are touching as when your hand loses heat= to a cold metal doorknob or when a dog stretches out in the dirt in the summer= to cool down. Convection is when heat moves from an animal to flowing (however slowly) air or water with air taking less heat away than water. A milk plate cooler transfers heat by conduction and convection. Evaporative cooling tak= es place when water absorbs a tremendous of heat as it turns to vapor.

These form= s of heat transfer are modulated by temperature difference, contact area, and he= at conductivity. The greater the temperature difference, the faster the heat w= ill transfer between objects as when a cow will lose heat faster on a cold than= on a warm day. The greater the contact area between two objects, the more heat will move between them. We se= e this when a dog stretches out (increasing contact area) on the cool ground in the summer to lose more heat and when it curls up (decreasing contact area) to = stay warm. A overheated cow will tend to stand more, increasing the amount of hi= de (contact area) in exposed to the air. At November football games, we get co= lder faster sitting on aluminum bleachers (high conductivity) than on wooden bleachers (lower conductivity). And as an added note, insulation (a stadium seat) will prevent the movement of heat by eliminating the contact area and= the conductivity.

In most an= imal agriculture, evaporative cooling moves much more heat than convection or radiation, which are about equal, and conduction usually dissipates the lea= st amount of heat. The reason evaporative cooling is so effective is that conversion of water from a liquid to a gas absorbs a lot of heat. The incre= ase of 1cc of water one degree will absorb 1 calorie of heat. The evaporation of 1cc of water will absorb 350 times the heat, which is why evaporation will = make surfaces cool to the touch and why sweating is such a good way to cool down= .

So, what d= o we need to do for our cows to keep them cool? We want to block the solar radia= tion by providing shade. Our management of conduction is not as practically usef= ul but sand stalls may draw more heat than mattresses that tend to insulate. A= ir is a very poor conductor of heat but, if we move the air with fans, the air= can take away little bits heat from our cows over and over and those little bit= s of heat lost add up. And evaporative cooling is our most powerful heat transfer tool, pulling tremendous amounts as the water evaporates off the cows we ha= ve soaked at the bunk or in the holding pen. The combination of convection and evaporative cooling is an excellent combination for maximizing heat loss in= the warm summer days of the North Country.

R= 12;Steve Mooney, smooney@whminer.com

GLYPHOSATE PRICES HEAD SKYWARD<= /o:p>

If you haven’t yet priced glyphosate you may be = in for a shock. While most herbicide prices increased by a few dollars per gallon,= glyphosate is up by at least 50% from last year. Gene= ric glyphosate was $15.00-25.00 per gallon last year, whi= le this year it’s at least $30.00. Last year premium brands of glyphosate (Roundup WeatherMax, Touchdown Total) sold for $35.00-45.00/gallon, now they’re over $60.0= 0. By the time you add the technology fee of $10.00 per acre for the glyphosate resistance seed trait, and assuming an application rate of 22-24 oz/acre of Roundup Weatherma= x or Touchdown Total, that’s over $20.00 per acre for herbicide plus se= ed trait, and that doesn’t include the recommended half rate of an annual grass herbicide. And there’s no place to hide, at least not if you wa= nt to use atrazine instead of glyphosate. Atrazine prices have increased by about $5.00/g= allon, to at least $14.00.

Oh Deer!&n= bsp; The impacts of white-tailed deer on corn yields

Thanks to = the generosity of Stephen Ero, this past winter my husband and I were able to enjoy some North Country<= /st1:place> venison. Enjoying the deer meat, and reminiscing about my dad’s schem= es to keep deer out of his garden in Pennsylvania got me wondering how much deer can impact agricultural landscapes. While cr= op damage can result from a number of animals—ranging from birds to bears—white-tailed deer are suspected to be responsible for more dama= ge to corn than any other wildlife species.

In 2007, scientists from the Smithsonian Conservation and Research Center in Virginia published an article in The Journal of Wildlife Management on the im= pact of white-tailed deer on agricultural landscapes within historical parks in = Maryland. These = parks lease land to farmers to maintain agricultural plots that accurately repres= ent the park’s historical use. However, deer populations are not actively managed in these parks, which caused concern for farmers about the crop loss due to deer damage. The researchers attempted to quantify the total product= ion loss from deer on several plots to address these concerns.

Study site= s were located in 11 fields planted with corn at 3 National Historic Parks in Maryland. The fi= elds ranged in size from 9.9 to 42.2 acres. Within each field, twelve 16.4 ft^{2
plots were established – 6 open plots and 6 plots fenced to exclude d=
eer.
These fenced/unfenced pairs were distributed throughout the field to include
interior and edges. Mesh fences were erected after seeding but before
emergence, and taken down just prior to harvest. The fences allowed small a=
nd
medium sized mammals access under the fence, and were open at the top to al=
low
birds access while excluding deer.}

Plots were sampled twice during each growing season, about 1 week after emergence and 1 week before harvest. At the first sampling they counted the number of emerg= ent stalks and recorded any evidence of deer grazing. Prior to harvest they cou= nted the number of stalks, plant height, characterized the quality of ears for development and uniformity, and determined field weight of 15 randomly sele= cted stalks of corn in each plot. Crop yield was estimated with a standard yield equation published by Maryland Cooperative Extension, which used average we= ight of individual corn stalks, number of stalks per meter, and row spacing to estimate total crop weight per hectare; they were then able to calculate si= lage losses between the fenced and unfenced plots and attribute the losses to de= er grazing.

The study = found significant crop loss due to deer damage. The fenced plots averaged 17.8% higher corn weights, 24% more stalks with corn, and 40% less poor quality e= ars of corn than their unfenced counterparts. Silage losses ranged from 7.4%, o= r 2,010 pounds/acre, to 43.5% loss, or 12,010 pounds/acre. The scientists also found that crop loss was affected by the surrounding landscape: The more forested habitat within a 1640 feet radius surrounding the field, the greater the lo= ss.

Since the National Historic Parks infrequently manage wildlife populations, and the s= tudy took place over 500 miles south of here, these numbers may not directly com= pare to farms in the North Country. However, = this study illustrates the potential damage an unchecked deer population can actually cause, and demonstrates the need for continuation of responsible a= nd safe deer management practices.

R= 12;Rachel Butzler, butzler@whminer.com

MINT-SMELLING MANURE= ?

Students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were assigned to work with E. coli bacteria, the most common bacteria in dairy manure (and in the intestines of most all warm-blooded animals including us). But the students didn’t = like the smell, which was like, well, manure. So they got a colleague to mail th= em a strand of DNA that expressed a wintergreen smell. Then they inserted this "minty" genetic material into their E. coli bacteria and instantly created a new bacteria, previously unknown to nature: A pleasant, wintergreen-scented E. coli. Does this mean that our dairy cows will= be making manure that smells like wintergreen? Uh, no, at least not anytime so= on, but hope springs eternal.

What’s Happening on the Farm

All around= the farm, signs of spring are appearing, and we are relieved that winter is finally o= ver! Last week the far-dry cows went out into the dry lot – they kicked up their heels and ran around with tails up in the air – they too are gl= ad that spring is here! The snow and ice finally melted, allowing us to remove= the Christmas tree that had been frozen in front of the barn for months; now daffodils are blooming instead. In the milking barn, the inflatable side-wa= ll curtains have partially lowered, and the fans even turned on a couple of ti= mes, creating a nice breeze through the barn. Out in the fields, the guys have b= een picking stones, harrowing, and planting some new grass/alfalfa seedings. The manure trucks have been running and corn planting will start before long, although some of our neighbors have already started. We are calculating feed inventories, cleaning out bunks, and making room for the ’08 crops.

We have re= cently come to appreciate again the variation in haylage quality on the farm. Over the last couple months as we fed through a haylage bunk of 2007 1^st cut grass, the NDF became more and more digestible. Then we moved into ha= ylage bunk 6 that had some nice= 3^rd cut alfalfa in it – also very digestible fiber. At that point we deci= ded to add 2 lbs. of chopped straw (per cow) to the TMR because while the fiber numbers looked OK on paper, the cows were telling us a different story R= 11; butterfat had dropped and manure was too loose; the fiber the cows were eat= ing was highly digestible, resulting in passage of some fermentable carbohydrat= es into the manure. But just about the time the straw was delivered, chopped, = and added to the TMR to help slow the rate of passage, the haylage in bunk 6 changed, and we started to move into some low quality 2^{nd
cut grass with slowly digestible fiber that had been the initial forage pac=
ked
into that bunk. All of the sudden we had a new challenge – too much s=
low
digestion; the cows were chewing like it was going out of style (not a bad
thing), but the manure had too much fiber in it. In fact someone complained
that the undigested fiber in the manure poked a hole through his breeding
glove! We have since decreased the amount of straw in the diet and increased
the sugar and soluble protein levels to aid the fiber-digesting microbes. W=
hat
a balancing act nutrition and feeding dairy cows is, but they are always the
first ones to tell us when their diet needs an adjustment.}

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

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

<= o:p>

THE SKY IS FALLING! = (With apologies to Chicken Little)

Chicken Li= ttle, in case you led a sheltered childhood, was the chicken who while walking in= the woods was hit on the noggin by an acorn and mistakenly thought the sky was falling. (The Chicken Little Award is also an “achievement” awa= rd given by the National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that it considers to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare campaigns about environmental matters. But enough about global warming.) For dairy farmers it must seem that if the sky isn’t quite falling, it’s looking mighty threatening what with = very high prices for fertilizers (discussed elsewhere in this issue), herbicides (also discussed in this issue), and feed grains. The m= ilk:feed ratio continues its descent into sub-2.5 territory, which is decidedly bear= ish for profitability and currently is at an all-time low. Although the project= ions bounce around a lot, it appears as of this writing that U.S. fa= rmers will plant about 8% fewer acres to corn, with most of this acreage going in= to soybeans. If we get a really good growing season in the Corn Belt the average farm price of corn might be under $5.00; if we get poor weather, it might top $6.00 and at least one analyst thinks it cou= ld go a lot higher. In the average, the Midwest has a serious drought every 19 years. It’s been 19 years since the la= st one. Hmmm. Therefore, the price of corn (i.e. grain-based energy) will eith= er be high in the coming year, or it will be very high.

= ;

Normand St. Pierre from Ohio State University…sorry, The Ohio State University…ea= ch month publishes a list of the actual and “breakeven” prices of common feedstuffs used in dairy rations. In a recent list the breakeven pri= ce of 35% DM corn silage was over $90 per ton. That’s per wet ton, not p= er ton of dry matter! That’s in comparison to competing feedstuffs, not = the price you would expect to pay to buy or sell corn silage. The point here is that every bushel of corn you produce in your 2008 corn silage crop will al= most certainly be worth more than ever before, and in spite of high input prices, you need to do whatever it takes to grow a well-eared corn crop, and then a= llow it to mature to the proper stage for silage harvest.

ON CRUISE CONTROL: EATING OUT

I’ve= eaten over 6000 “meals out” since reaching adulthood, that being arbitrarily defined as graduation from college. (Arbitrarily also because T= he Bride questions if I’ve yet reached adulthood, that if I have she hasn’t noticed.) Meals out include restaurants, diners, truck stops, “free” breakfast buffets in hotels, and, with T.B., as guests of honor at a formal dinner in a 15^th century Portuguese castle. The result: Moderately elevated cholesterol and a bunch of opinions. The cholesterol is mine alone, while the following are for your consideration:<= o:p>

4    If the diner’s weekly Thursday night special is chicken and biscuits, don’t order chicken and biscui= ts on Wednesday.

4    The more expensive the hotel, the be= tter the coffee in its restaurant. For some reason this doesn’t hold for restaurants in general.

4    Speaking of coffee, in those free ho= tel breakfast buffets it’s pretty weak stuff.

4    You can often get some nice extras n= ot listed on the menu, like crumbly blue cheese on your salad, but you have to ask.

4    Dirty, stained menus are a sign that= the place doesn’t much care about its clientele. Get out while the getting’s good.

4    If you want French fries from fresh-= cut potatoes, go to a decent diner that’s not part of a national chain. E= ven the most expensive restaurants almost always use frozen spuds for their fri= es.

4    If, like my old friend Harry Randy o= nce did, you order spaghetti at a Chinese restaurant, don’t be surprised = (and don’t complain) if it comes from a can.

4    If you order a baked potato with din= ner and get half a potato, as I have several times, don’t expect much for= the rest of the meal. One of those was in a Malone, NY restaurant, at a dinn= er meeting of the local potato growers association. The farmers were not amused.

4    If the word “Bar” on the sign is a lot larger than the word “Restaurant”, expect the bee= r to be better than the food.

4    If it’s mealtime and the parki= ng lot is almost empty, keep on driving; the locals know where to eat, and also where not to.

Got any to= add?

R= 12;E.T.

NITROGEN PRICES AND CORN<= /span>

This is a = good year to maximize manure use on any crop that needs supplemental N, which ar= ound here is mostly corn and grass. Not all corn needs supplemental N. First-year corn seldom responds to any more N than is applied in the starter—and sometimes not even that—so applying anything more than starter N to “sod ground corn” is an almost guaranteed waste of money. A goo= dly dose of spring-applied manure, if worked in soon after application, = can greatly reduce or eliminate the need for fertilizer = N. Presidedress nitrate tests (PSNT) can be= used to great advantage following spring manure applications. Even if only the occasional PSNT indicates no need for supplemental N, your time and expense will have been well rewarded.

What about= fall manure applications, much more common on the heavy soils here in the Champlain Valley? We can’t apply spring manure to most of our fields here at the Institute because we’d be ab= le to see the wheeltrack compaction right into the summer. (Don’t ask how we know this.) But 70-75% of the N in fall-applied manure, regardless of whether you till it in right away or wait a week, is = gone by spring. (Don’t ask where, a fire-breathing environmentalist might = be listening.) You’ll gain a bit from the continued breakdown of organic matter in manure applied 2-3 years ago, but not a lot. We used to run PSNT = on our corn fields, did so for years before we figured out that because we app= ly manure in the fall we’d never have enough residual N on contin= uous corn to eliminate the need for supplemental N. A new predictive assay, the Amino N Test, is being evaluated by Cornell University and shows promise, but lacking that your best alternative is to base N applications on field history, soil type, and the assumption that about ¼ of the man= ure N you applied last fall is available this year. All forms of fertilizer N a= re expensive—and will continue to be for the foreseeable future—but 2008 isn’t the year to be buying forage so bite the bullet and apply supplemental N when your corn is about a foot tall.

R= 12;E.T.

SPRING GRASS MANAGEMENT

By now you should have applied either N fertilizer or manure to your grass fields. If = you have, harvested at the right time you can expect high yields and excellent forage quality. The key is timely harvest, of course. If you only have enou= gh grass that it can be harvested in a few days then you can wait for the ideal time, just before head emergence—the “late boot” stage. However, if you have a lot of grass and know that it will take a week to ge= t it harvested even if the weather cooperates perfectly (and it seldom does), you’d be better off sacrificing a bit of yield and start when the hea= d is still a couple of inches from emergence. They didn’t coin the saying “When you see the head, the quality is dead” without reason. Gr= ass quality plummets after heading, often turning from milk cow forage into dry cow/heifer forage in a week or less. Rick’s article this month does an excellent job of relating grass NDF level to intake. If you applied enough = N, either as fertilizer or as manure, with timely harvest you can expect good yields = and about 18% crude protein. If you didn’t apply either, expect perhaps 1= 2% protein and low yields. Jerry Cherney has made = the comment that if you don’t apply either manure or fertilizer to grass = hay it may not be worth harvesting at all—the cost of harvest exceeding t= he value of the forage.

A word abo= ut cutting height: While alfalfa stores food reserves in its root system, gras= s stores little there; most is in the bottom few inches of the above-ground portion = of the grass plant. Therefore, cutting grasses too close removes part of this reserve and can result in lower subsequent yields. Stand losses are possibl= e in the worst situations. Grass root growth is also affected by too-close mowin= g, tending to be shallower and therefore more affected by dry weather. Grasses can tolerate close mowing = early in the season better than later—it’s somewhat like alfalfa in t= hat regard. Also, harvesting grasses early—before heading—apparently does less damage than a close-mowing after heading. A worst-case scenario w= ould be mowing headed grasses at less than 2” stubble height. Research at Miner Institute concluded that a 2” stubble height for alfalfa was be= tter than 4” for yield and milk production per acre. However, it might be = wise to mow alfalfa-grass stands at 2.5-3” stubble height, especially late= r in the season. For the last harvest in the fall, leave at least a 4” stubble.

R= 12;E.T.

LAST-MINUTE CORN PLANTING POINTERS

Corn plant= ing should be in full swing about now; but here a couple of last-minute planting tips:

= 1.&n= bsp;     Check seed depth, especially if you = do any notill planting or have fields with very different soil types (sandy loam vs. clay loam). I worry less about planting too de= ep than too shallow. Corn planted less than 2” deep will yield less and = will be more subject to the effects of early season dry weather—something = we don’t usually have, but… The only way to be sure of planting de= pth is to get down on your hands and knees and dig up a few kernels. We often h= ave to adjust our planter between notill and conven= tional fields.

= 2.&n= bsp;     Mentioned in last month’s F= arm Report but worth a reminder: In most cases dropping fewer than 30,000 seeds per ac= re means leaving some yield potential “in the bag”, so to speak. Exceptions would be late planting on droughty soils. We aim for 32,000-33,0= 00 per acre. Today’s seed corn, especially now that we have pretreated s= eed, doesn’t suffer near the early-season stand losses that we once had. In most cases we’re finding about 90% final stand, so with 33,000 seeds = we wind up with 30,000 plants at harvest.

= 3.&n= bsp;     I’ve heard a few reports that = the high rate of seed pretreatment—Cruiser Extreme 1250 and Poncho 1250 m= ight not plant quite the same as the low rate. We haven’t encountered this with our JD MaxEmerge finger pickup planter, bu= t we only have a year of experience under our belt and it’s worth checking= .

= 4.&n= bsp;     Make sure you know what you’re planting where. It’s a waste of money to plant seed treated with the = 1250 rate of Cruiser Extreme or Poncho, or corn with the Bt-rootworm trait in a first-year corn field. You should have both a written plan and a permanent written record of what’s planted in every field.

TOUGH TIMES FOR ORGANIC DAIRIES=

Greatly increased demand and higher production costs are combining to drive up the price of feed grains in general, but especially the price of organic grains. According to published reports the April 2008 price of certified organic #2 corn was about $400 per ton nationally, but it was $500/ton in Western NY. This isn’t surprising since organ= ic grains typically fetch a much higher premium in the grain-deficit Northeast. than in the Midwest. National= ly, organic corn has been selling for at least twice the price of conventional corn. There are similar price relationships for feed grade oats and soybean= s, $20 per bushel for soybeans and about a 100% “premium” for orga= nic cereal grains. It’s a lot harder to get reliable organic hay prices, = but a recent article in Hay and Forage Grower mentioned a premium of $25= per ton in Idaho. Organic forages cost about 30% more nationally, but as with grains, we̵= 7;d guess that they’re more than 30% higher here in the Northeast.

The current price of organic grains is to a great extent due to the overall increase in grain prices. A year ago shelled corn (Chicago) was $75 per ton; in April 2008 it was $185. Similarly, soybean meal (Decatur bid) was = $180 last year; in April 2008 it was $330. Small organic dairies are blaming the “factory” organic dairies including Aurora Organic Dairies and those operated by Dean Foods, but then they blame the large organic farms f= or everything from the (purportedly) shrinking ozone layer to Dutch elm diseas= e. In this case they might be right since compared to small organic dairy farm= s, the mega-dairies don’t rely nearly as much on pasture and almost certainly feed more purchased grains. Their big appetite for organic grains must certainly be influencing the price. The Northeastern Organic Dairy Pro= ducers Alliance (NODPA) estimates that in the past two years the higher price of f= eed alone has resulted in an increase of $7.00 per hundredweight in the cost of producing organic milk, and total organic milk production expenses during t= his same period increased by almost $10.00/cwt. NODPA figures indicate that two years ago the average 50-cow New England organic dairy farm was losing $1.38/cwt; in 2008 it projects a loss of $6.31/cwt. In the past six months, about 25 organic dairies in the Northeast have gone out of business.

With the m= ore than doubling of grain prices plus higher prices for fuel and just about everything else a dairy farmer needs, the farm price of organic milk must b= e a lot higher, right? Uh, no, at least not yet. According to NODPA, the prices paid by Horizon Organic, Organic Valley, and H.P. Hood for organic milk from New England dairy farms increased by less than $1.00/cwt between 2006 and 2= 008. Recently the store price of organic milk has started to climb, with the Organic Valley brand about $6.00/gallon and probably headed for $7.00. However, organic dairy farmers are concerned that this might price the product out of the market for some consumers.

<= /p>
= Farm Report readers with good memories may recall my October 2006 article (“Transition to Organic”), cautioning farmers that it m= ight not be the best time to “transition” to organic milk production given the milk price uncertainties plus the cost of making the change. I commented that the encouragement (financial and otherwise) to “go organic” by state government and the Land Grant University system may= not be a good idea at that time. While it gives me no pleasure to say “I = told you so.”….I told you so.

R= 12;E.T.

FERTILIZING FORAGES THIS SUMMER=

In the cur= rent environment of extremely high fertilizer prices, what should you do about fertilizing hay crop forages this summer? It’s already too late to get the quickest and biggest bang from your fertilizer buck, namely applying N = to good grass hayland in April. But it’s not= too late to apply a modest amount of N—as fertilizer or as manure—r= ight after you harvest the first cut. I wouldn’t recommend commercial N on tired-out fields of “tame” hay—native species such as bluegrass and quackgrass—but improved gra= sses such as orchardgrass, reed canarygrass and tall fescue should respond quite nicely.

How about = P and K? If you can apply a good coat of manure don’t apply a single pound = of fertilizer P or K. We haven&#= 8217;t applied P or K to our grass fields at the Institute in many years. For alfa= lfa, unless soil test P is very low you can wait until the stand has thinned out= a bit and then apply manure. Almost all dairy farms have a lot more P than th= ey can use in the form of manure, and it just doesn’t make sense to buy = more of something you already have, even though it smells bad and takes more wor= k to apply. Potassium for alfalfa is the tough one: Potash is very high in price, alfalfa needs a lot of it, and many farmers don’t want to run over go= od alfalfa fields with the manure tanker. To each his own, but we might start applying manure to second year alfalfa-grass stands this year. The more gra= ss in the alfalfa-grass stand, the more likely we’ll use manure instead = of 0-0-60. As has been mentioned before in this newsletter, potash is the only= fertilizer we didn’t purchase last December. We delayed purchase in hopes that by this summer either the price would have gone down (unlikely), I’d have gotten smarter (extremely unlikely), or we’d be able to apply manure = to 2^nd year stands without doing much field damage. Or, there would be a new agronomist sitting in this chair and the problem would be theirs. Unless so= il test K is low, don’t apply K fertilizer now; wait until the soil has warmed and dried since K uptake is higher during cool, moist conditions and= you don’t want the alfalfa to suck up the potash now and not have any left this fall.

R= 12;E.T.

WEEDS IN CORN: CATCH ‘EM EARLY=

Recent res= earch at the University of Guelph shows how= important it is to eliminate weeds before they become competitive. However, as a resu= lt of this research “competitive” is being re-defined. We’ve long known that early-season weeds can reduce yields by competing with the = corn plant for nutrients, water and sunlight. But the Guelph research suggests that corn seed= lings are able to detect the very presence of weeds at emergence, and will change their growth pattern in response to weeds. This happens because the plants = can detect changes in light quality caused by the presence of weeds. If enough weeds are present, corn seedlings shift from root development to the above-ground parts. Later on this lack of root development catches up with = the corn plant, thereby limiting yield potential.

Does this mean we should aban= don postemergence herbicides to corn? Certainly not; but = what it does suggest is that the longer weeds are “up and growing” t= he more they’ll reduce corn yield potential. This has been shown time= and time again in field trials by Cornell University weed specialist Russ Hahn. The longer you delay postemergen= ce herbicide application (primarily glyphosate but= other post herbicides as well), the bigger the yield penalty you pay.<= /span>

DO WE NEED TO CONDITION HAY CROPS MO= WED FOR SILAGE?

No conditi= oning of hay crops for silage: Is this a practice whose time has come? We’re not ready to recommend that farmers stop conditioning forage mowed for dry = hay; it’s not that we know it won’t work, but that we don’t kn= ow that it will. However, either relaxing the conditioning rolls or removing t= he conditioner entirely seems to have promise for forages that will be ensiled= . We tried it a couple of years ago with 4^th cut alfalfa, decreasing = roll pressure as much as possible while still letting the forage “flowR= 21; through the conditioner rolls, and it worked just fine. Cornell University agronomists also test= ed the concept and it worked for them, too, and the University of Wisco= nsin’s Extension Agronomist Dan Undersander is on boar= d, too. (Note: This should only be done if you’re laying the windrows ou= t as wide as the mower will allow.)

It would be easy to try this = on your farm this year during first cut, although it should work on any cuttin= g. Mow and condition most of the field as you normally would, then for the last acre or two, relax the roll tension and see what happens. What do you have = to lose? Where’s your spirit of adventure? What you’ll gain is a b= it of usable horsepower and about 1% in forage yield since while impeller-type conditioners reduce yields by several percent, even roll-type conditioners = cut yields a small amount. You’ll also gain some useful information right= on your own farm.

MANURE VALUES<= /p>
Cooperative Extension did a fertilizer program across NNY in March. At that time (with the help of some calculations from Extension’s Jeff Miller) I showed what a 3000 gallon load of manure was worth, just using a typical ma= nure analysis. At that point the prices I used were $0.65/lb N, $0.63/lb P2= O5, $0.36/K2O. This gave that 3000 gallon tanker a value of $34.31 when surface applied and $48.35 when incorporated. This just includes the value of N, P,= and K—no value place on organic matter, secondary or minor nutrients. No = cost was placed on the cost of the equipment, just labor and fuel costs. These v= ary a lot from farm to farm, and it’s also impossible to fairly value secondary and micronutrients since these aren’t needed on every field. For the sake of argument I assumed that one would mostly offset the other.<= o:p>

Joe Lawrence (Cooperative Extension in Lewis Co., NY) had a call recently a= bout the value of manure and wanted to update the prices. He got current fertilizer prices from a local dealer of $0.67/lb N, $0.80/lb P2O5, $0.49/lb K2O. That makes that same 3000 gallons of manure worth $55.60 when surface applied and $70.11 when incorporated (value of N-P-K......not including micronutrients, umm.....). Consider this when planning manure applications = this summer. Especially if you use a truck spreader, even with $4 diesel fuel you can haul that manure a very long way, to the fields that need it most.=

R= 12;E.T.

CRITTER NEWS
4    The good news is that tiger poop rep= els deer that are trying to eat your corn crop. The bad news is that tiger poop repels everything else include neighbors living a mile away. This sad fact = was learned by a Montana farmer who got the tiger poop from a nearby zoo. The smell was so bad that = the Billings city fat= hers passed an ordinance making it unlawful to use, possess or otherwise have anything to do with tiger poop. Can you imagine a Montana farmer in the pokey, asked by = his cellmate what’s he in for: Burglary, assault, drugs? “Tiger poop.”

4    A New Zealand man was arrested = for assaulting a teenage boy with a hedgehog (which is a spiny critter similar = to a porcupine). The hedgehog was thrown at the boy, reportedly causing a nasty = welt and several puncture wounds. We don’t know what the boy was doing to warrant the attack, nor if the hedgehog was alive or dead during the assaul= t, but it was most assuredly dead when the cops arrived. Since hedgehogs are n= ot known for their sunny dispositions, we’d bet it was dead before the attack. The man plans to plead innocent, since assault with hedgehog, while= not covered by any specific statute, carries up to a 5-year prison sentence.

4    “Assault by hedgehog” is= bad but assault by turkeys may be worse since in this case the turkeys were the wild type, most assuredly alive, and there have been repeated attacks. A handful of the birds have been attacking postal workers (“mailmenR= 21; before we went P.C.) in Madiso= n, Wisconsin as they make their rounds, in once case flying through the open window of a mail truck and scratching its driver. One theory is that this behavior is related to the mating season (of the turkeys, not the postal workers) and the horny birds = are attracted to the colorful mail trucks. Another is that the turkeys see the postal workers as threats to their food supply. Whatever. Squirting the tur= keys with water pistols worked OK until the birds got used to it, so now the wor= kers might have to wait until mating season is over.

Miner institute awarded Grant

The New Yo= rk State Department of Agriculture and Markets recently announced that Miner Institute was one of fifty-one recipients of an agri-tourism grant. Agri-tourism is a growing segment of tou= rism where people visit agricultural related sites such as farms, orchards or su= gar houses. The Institute’s share, a $50,000 matching grant, will be used= to document 100 years of North Country Agriculture. With about one percent of = the U.S. po= pulation employed in agriculture today it’s more important than ever to educate our neighbors on the importance of agriculture and let them know why we do things the way we do.

The projec= t will include the digitization of a small portion of William Miner’s 5,000 = or so glass plate negatives for a video slideshow documenting life on Heart’s Delight Farm a century ago. A second video will present viewe= rs with the opportunity to go “behind the scenes” on a modern dairy farm. Visitors will see cows being milked, crops being planted and harvested and how farmers work to protect our environment. These may be routine tasks= for farmers, but they are foreign to the other 99% of the population. The proje= ct will conclude in mid-2009 with an Institute-wide open house where visitors = will be able to watch these new videos, see demonstrations and tour the farm.

If you haven’t visited the Heritage Exhibit yet or haven’t been by in a while, please stop by some time this summer. Once you step inside you will understand why William Miner called this farm his “Heart’s Delight” and you will want to come back again and again.

Amy Bedard, Miner Institute librarian

bedard@whminer.com

BROWN RECLUSE SPIDERS
In spite of what you may have heard about black widow spiders; the brown recluse spider is the most dangerous spider in North America. It’s small, usually ranging from ¼̶= 1; to ¾”, but while unimpressive in appearance its bite can cause devastating tissue damage. Fortunately, this spider isn’t aggressive = and usually only bites when pressed against the skin such as when getting tangl= ed up in clothing. The initial b= ite often can’t be felt and there may be no pain. Most bites are minor, but some can= form ulcers that result in gangrenous tissue that sloughs away. One person in Ontario who was bitten had to have his= leg amputated to save his life. B= rown recluse spiders like dark spaces both inside and outdoors, including attics= and woodpiles. Wear gloves when w= orking in places where brown recluse spiders can lurk. If you can turn a light on (or let sunlight in) for half an hour before working in a previously dark space, do= so.

FROSTED CORN

One of the joys of farming in= the North Country is the wonderfully diverse weather we get, including, on occasion, freezing temperatures after corn has emerged. (Maybe this diversity thing isn’t all that wonderful after a= ll.) But if frost does occur all is not lost, at least not necessarily. ThatR= 17;s because the growing point of a corn plant is still below ground when the co= rn is several inches tall, which is about the latest you’ll see corn fro= sted around here. Frost makes the corn look quite horrid for a while, but patien= ce is a virtue. Oh, patience isn’t one of your many virtues? Not to worr= y; there’s a quick-and-dirty way you can tell if your corn is merely insulted or has gone to that great Silo in the Sky: Take your pocket knife = and cut several of the worst-looking plants off half an inch or so above the so= il surface. Then do the same to some corn that is frosted but doesn’t lo= ok quite as bad. If you do this early in the morning, by the end of the day you should be able to see a small amount of new growth as the plant starts to g= row out of its problem. The cut portion that was flat in the morning should by = late afternoon have a small crown to it, a sign that the corn is still alive. A = day later the new growth should be easy to see. If the worst ones are dead while the so-so ones are alive, you then have to determine if there are enough pl= ants left for a decent crop. Chances are good there are, since it’s really rare for a June frost to wipe out May-planted corn.

R= 12;E.T.

CLOSING COMMENT

Old age is always fifteen years older than you are.

=