MINER INSTITUTE JUNE 2008 FARM REPORT

Feeder’s Job: Managing Inventories

The Miner Feeder Tools Version Two is available for free download. One of the changes in this version is an expansion of the inventory estimate options w= ith the goal of more accurate estimates of inventory on your dairy. Part of the feeder’s job is tracking inventories, observing what is and planning = when adjustments need to be made (Priority #3, May 2007).

Tracking inven= tories can be as simple as making notes on a calendar. Writing qualitative measures such the number of doors left in an upright or feet left in a bunker or sil= age bag on a calendar on a weekly or monthly basis can establish a rate of use = and give a rough estimate of how many weeks or months are remaining in inventor= y.

More quantitat= ive measures of inventories may be more useful to the feeder and nutritionist w= hen employed proactively. The Version Two still has the generic, “book-value” calculations to estimate your silage inventories b= ut adds the potentially more accurate estimates of inventory based on your own bulk density measurements. Bulk density (as-fed pounds per cubic foot) can = be measured by your feed rep, Extension educator, or you as feeder and involves two steps: Measuring the weight of known volume within the packed silage and then measuring the dry matter of that silage.

After bulk den= sity, a volume of the useable feed must be determined. Calculating volumes takes us back to high school geometry where we learned the equations for the volume = of cylinders, cubes, cones, and trapezoidal volumes. (The Version Two contains these equations should they be dim in your memory.) After the volume of use= able feed is calculated, it is multiplied by your bulk density to get pounds or = tons of usable feed remaining, a number that should be more accurate than “= ;book-value” estimates because it is based on measurements from your dairy. Once dry mat= ter tons in inventory are calculated and reported to your nutritionist, feeding rates could be adjusted up or down to manage the feedo= ut of your inventory.

Taking invento= ry management one step further toward a high-quality feeding program, we have added a “minimum vs. maximum silage feeding rate” worksheet whi= ch was inspired by the suggestion of our Past President Charlie Sniffen. After entering the required data, the worksh= eet will calculate three rates of silage use: Minimum, current, and maximum. The minimum rate of silage use is based on the rate of feeding required to mini= mize aerobic deterioration, the heating of silage as mold and yeast consume the high-quality nutrients of the silage face. The maximum rate of silage use is calculated by dividing the current inventory by number of days the silage h= as to last. In an ideal situation, the current rate of silage use will be grea= ter than the minimum rate and less than or equal to the maximum rate.

Miner Feeder T= ools Version Two is available at our web site at http://www.whminer.org/outrea= ch.html. Improvements in Version Two include increased inventory estimate options, calculation worksheets for running averages for feed nutrients, oven dry matters, Penn State Particle Separati= on, and Z box measurement, and a more legible mix sheet printout.

—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com

Multiple Occurrences of Clinical Mastitis is Costly<= o:p>

Clinical mastitis is a health problem affecting 95% of dairy herds and 17% of cows in the United States, according to the USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System repo= rt “Dairy 2007”. Mastitis is a major concern for farmers because of its negative impact on cow welfare and farm profitability (lost production, increased treatment costs, and higher risk of culling). Although clinical mastitis is often a recurring event, most studies have only focused on the first case of clinical mastitis and its effect on culling and economics. It= is likely that repeated cases of clinical mastitis will have a different impac= t on culling decisions and economics compared to a single case of clinical masti= tis.

Cornell University researchers evaluated multiple occurrences of generic clinical mastitis on mortality, culling, and economics and reported their findings in the June issue of the Journal = of Dairy Science. The term “generic” clinical mas= titis was used because most farmers have to make treatment and culling decisions without knowledge of the specific organism causing the infection. The researchers used 16,145 lactations from 5 New York dairy herds with an average r= olling herd size of ~860 milking cows, a rolling herd average of ~24,200 lb, and an average monthly somatic cell count of 225,000 cells/mL. All cows were housed in freestall barns and milked 3 times per day. The herds used a J5 vaccine. <= /span>

Any clinical mastitis occurrence that happened more than 14 days after a previo= us occurrence of clinical mastitis was defined as a new clinical mastitis case. During the first 10 months after calving 3,036 cows had one case of clinical mastitis, 758 had two cases of clinical mastitis, and 288 cows had three cl= inical mastitis cases. During the same time period, 960 cows died and 1,995 cows w= ere culled.

Cli= nical mastitis increased both mortality and the risk of a cow being culled. The o= dds of a first lactation cow dying within the month of the occurrence of the cl= inical mastitis were 5.6, 23.3, and 27.8 times greater for the first, second, and third clinical mastitis occurrence, respectively compared to a cow without clinical mastitis. A similar pattern was found for the second and greater lactation cows with increased odds of dying of 9.9, 12.0, and 11.5 times for the first, second, and third clinical mastitis occurrence, respectively.

The= odds of a cow, regardless of parity, being culled within the month of the occurrenc= e of the clinical mastitis were at least 3.7, 5.0, and 6.4 times greater for the first, second, and third clinical mastitis occurrence, respectively, compar= ed to a cow without clinical mastitis. Unfortunately, all cows had an increased risk (more than 4 times) of being culled for at least 2 months after a clin= ical mastitis occurrence.

The= average cost of a clinical mastitis case based on dynamic programming was $179 with $115 due to milk loss, $14 due to increased mortality, and $50 due to treat= ment costs. Interestingly, the cost of a clinical mastitis case ranged from $3 to $403 and was dependent on cow traits. A case of mastitis is less costly in a cow that should be culled anyway, compared to a cow that is young and other= wise healthy and has an expectation of high future income.

—Heather <= span class=3DSpellE>Dann, dann@whmine= r.com

Public Relations: Answering sensitive questions regarding our industry

I had the pleasure of going to a regional extension training program in Wilkes-Barre, PA with Ev last week. In spite of what p= eople had told me about traveling with the Institute’s agronomist, it was an enjoyable trip. Ev, you are an easy travel part= ner and class act on the road. Will miss you…whenever you finally retire from here.

One of the presentations I found particularly interesting was titled “Media Relations 101”. Beth Me= yer, public relations specialist for the American Dairy Association and Dairy Council, discussed how best to handle media interviews when asked to speak about potentially controversial topics. Questions regarding the use of BST = or manure spreading are certainly hot-button topics, ones where we could easily find ourselves being misunderstood or misquoted. Beth explained that the typical ne= ws media presentation is aimed at a 6th grade level of education, which means your well-intentioned professional-level explanation may easily be lost in translation from what you said or thought you said to what was written in an article or to be broadcast on TV. Not that many of us will find ourselves in front of the microphone and TV camera, but many of us will find ourselves b= eing asked sensitive questions about dairying by friends and acquaintances. As B= eth suggested, it is better to be prepared for these occurrences than not. In any case here are a few suggest= ions from the presentation on how to publicly answer sensitive questions:

1. Buy time in or= der to get your thoughts together and get more informed resources if need be. Answering off the cuff can be a fo= rm of roulette.

2. Question the questioner as to their level of understanding in order to frame the level of your response. Just because t= he questioner knows that BST is a hormone, they may not understand that it is a protein hormone that would be inactivated by digestion if consumed and that humans are unresponsive to bovine growth hormone as shown in studies of dwarfism years ago. Do not as= sume the questioner will understand your explanation just because they use a few “buzz” words.

3. Stick to answe= ring the question asked. A full-blown explanation of the physiology of hormones or volatile compounds in manure m= ay just lead to misunderstanding. Remember, their presumed audience is the average 12 year old. Don’t get technical or use j= argon or humor; it is likely to backfire.

4. Don’t ar= gue your point. Take the high ground and stick to the reasonable explanation. Stick to the truth.

5. Lastly, be awa= re of your body language. Avoid fol= ding your arms and looking down at people or looking away. In other words, look like you are = being honest.

Having a numbe= r of suburban friends, I am frequently asked to explain agricultural issues in l= ay terms without oversimplifying or being excessively technical. Just another reminder of how far r= emoved most Americans are from their food source.

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

RABIES AWARENESS= <= o:p>

Rabies is endemic in Northeastern NY and the surround= ing areas of Vermont and Quebec; it’s always around. Howe= ver, this year there’s a lot of rabies in our wild animal population, much more so than usual. Wild animal attacks on farm livestock are rare, but they happen. We know this quite well at Miner Institute since some years ago one= of our farm animals was infected with rabies. How we’ll never know but t= he best guess is a rabid fox. “Surprise” was an oversexed male lla= ma; anyone letting him sneak up from the rear quickly learned how he might have earned his name. After Surprise was confirmed rabid, several of our farm employees had to have the full course of rabies shots.

You need to be aware of = the signs of rabies if you see one of your cows or heifers behaving abnormally, especially if the animal has been out on pasture. Symptoms in cattle vary a= lot and are often confused with other conditions. Initial signs may be mild and include depression, not eating or drinking, and lameness. As the disease progresses the inability to swallow may cause slobbering, accompanied by he= ad drooping, difficulty in walking or standing, and signs of pain. Repeated be= llowing and straining to urinate or defecate are also common. Some but not all rabid cattle will become aggressive and attack people, other cattle or inanimate objects. Full paralysis usually occurs and most rabid animals die within a = week from the time signs are first detected. Be very careful around any cows or heifers exhibiting strange behavior and if in doubt call your herd veterina= rian right away. (It would also be a good idea to keep rabies vaccinations curre= nt for any barn cats you can catch, plus all house pets allowed access to outdoors.)

From the President’s Desk: Can Cows Walk and Chew = Gum?

A few weeks ago I received an e= mail from a nutritionist that I know with an interesting question: Can a cow chew her cud while she is walking? I have to admit, that was a question I had not considered before. I found myself ruminating on it for several days before replying. I’d like to share my answer plus a few other important poin= ts about what environmental factors influence rumination. We all know that rum= ination is vital to cow health, productivity, and well-being so understanding how to optimize it in our herd is critical. When a cow is under stress, rumination= is often the first behavior to be negatively affected.

The particle s= ize of the forage or diet is the primary driver of rumination as we all know. But,= we also need to remember how much of an effect that the cow’s environment may have on rumination regardless of the diet. Cornell research from several years ago compared 100 to 130% stocking density of stalls and manger in a 4= -row barn and found a 25% reduction in rumination time with the higher stocking rate. That response to stocking rate more than rivals any common ration adjustment to fiber content or particle size. We also know that heat stress= will reduce rumination substantially and summer’s heat and humidity may be just around the corner (although in northern New York you never know).

We also conduc= ted a student project last year that evaluated how first-calf heifers respond in mixed pens containing mature cows. We know that there are preferred stalls = in a pen, and that dominant cows have first dibs on them. We also know that the younger, subordinate first-calf heifers tend to avoid those stalls. This student project found that when heifers were lying in a stall known to be preferred by older cows, they ruminated up top 40% less than when they were lying in a non-preferred stall. We need to understand the implications of t= his reduced rumination activity since mixing heifers with mature cows is such a common practice on many dairy farms. My hunch is that we are often leaving substantial amount of milk on the table when we commingle cows and heifers, particularly when we overstock.

Now to the que= stion that started me ruminating in the first place: I can’t say that I’ve seen cattle walking and ruminating at the same time, and my guess would be that most often cows would choose to either stand still or lie down while ruminating. I checked with a graduate student here who has watched hu= ndreds of hours of video and he couldn’t think of a time where he had seen a= cow walking unhurried in a pen and also chewing her cud. In Jack Albright’= ;s classic cow behavior textbook, he discusses how “rumination acts as an anti-boredom activity in mature cattle with considerable self-stimulation accompanied by a relaxed state.” Also, the EEG patterns (brain waves) observed during rumination while recumbent are similar to those obse= rved while the cow is experiencing rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. This would im= ply that walking (i.e. physical activity) and rumination would ordinarily be mutually exclusive. I suppose that if a cow were frightened or forced to wa= lk involuntarily while ruminating, she would. But, she would likely ordinarily swallow a bolus first and then begin walking.

There is still= more for us to learn about this most basic of ruminant behaviors, and how we can improve our management to avoid situations that will reduce rumination and compromise rumen health. But, as we head into summer this much we know for sure: don’t overcrowd your pens, use heat stress abatement such as fa= ns or sprinklers, and try not to put heifers in a situation where they need to compete for stalls with older, dominant cows. We know with certainty that heifers cannot compete and chew their cud at the same time!

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com <= /i>

Vet’s Corner: Have you been busy, Doc?<= o:p>

Often the herd health vet is greeted with a comment similar to this: “Have you been keeping busy, Doc?”   Readin= g between the lines, this question can be begging to know if other farmers are having the same cow problems that the vet has been called to see on this farm. The answer to this question this spring has been: “You bet= we have been busy, especially fixing DAs!”

This spring our practice serviced a dozen farms that had displaced abo= masum (DA) storms. There can be several reasons for this problem and we saw most = of them this spring. There didn’t seem to be any common cause that could= be attributed to this particular spring. Here is a partial listing of our experiences.

1.      High DCAD feed for close up dry cows. Grass sil= age from heavily manured fields had K levels over 2= .8%, which leads to high DCAD and subclinical hypocalcemia<= /span> and DAs. Some producers skipped forage analysis on these silages until a full-blown DA storm forced them to revaluate.

2.      Clostridial fermentation = of wet grass silage led to astronomical butyric acid levels. Again forage analysis= was skipped until cows started to DA and recovered poorly from surgery. These problems can be prevented now as crops can be tested for moisture during the harvest season.

3.      TMR feed separation due to feeding too much long part= icle hay or straw. Attempts at feeding new higher fiber rations to close-u= p dry cows were unsuccessful in some cases, because straw was not chopped enough = to prevent ration sorting.

4.      Overcrowding bunk space for close-ups compromised DMI= and created negative energy, which leads to type II Ketosis and DAs. Few facili= ties have 30 inches of bunk for close-up cows to begin with and with uneven bree= ding patterns or crowding in a group of first calf heifers, the facilities were maxed out.

5.      Heat Stress. Believe or not, we had 70+ F days = for a few weeks in the Northeast in April and it was enough to throw long coated dry cows off in poorly ventilated dry cow facilities. This was a good test = for the upcoming summer months and ventilation has been improved to avoid anoth= er DA storm.

Last fall, when dry conditions allowed a relatively easy harvest of good quality forage, we predicted that DA’s would be down this year. Unfortunately, we are not very prognosticato= rs but we were busy surgeons.

—Kent Hende= rson, hugamoo@comcast.net <= /span>

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

R= EPORT FROM THE FIELD

I’m still trying to get over President Rick quoting 19th century poet Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass” in the May Farm Report. Such a sophisticated bunch of writers we have here. But if Ric= k ever starts quoting his own poetry…

Mos= t of our forage seedings were in by the end of April, the exception of one field, a portion of which we intended on tile draining, but the drainage guys got involved with bigger jobs and we wound up seeding the= field in May; the drainage will have to wait. We used leafhopper-resistant alfalf= a, tall fescue, and “annual” Italian ryegrass on all fields.<= /o:p>

We = started planting corn at the Institute on May 5th and finished all but a few acres = of a manure management trial by May 16th. The trial was planted on May 19th, mak= ing 305 acres in all, about 1/3 of which is BMR, 1/3 a leafy hybrid, and two dual-purpose hybrids. We planted only four hybrids this year (except for a = corn silage hybrid trial) in at attempt at producing a more uniform crop and the= reby appease those in the dairy operation who crave more uniform silage. We have= no expectation that this will happen (either the uniform crop or the appeasing) given the variability of soil types, pH, fertility, drainage, etc, but at l= east we tried. The BMR hybrid will go into two bunker silos, the leafy hybrid probably into a drive-over stack, and the two dual-purpose hybrids into our largest bunker silo. At least that’s the plan.

We = started corn planting with a notill field on a fall-kil= led alfalfa-grass sod. It was the first planted and the first to emerge. We hav= e no idea why more people don’t plant notill c= orn on well-drained, sandy loam soils. We routinely do stand counts and get about = the same plant population as we do with conventionally-tilled corn. With a gall= on of diesel fuel fast approaching the price of a bushel of corn, not having t= o do tillage and stone picking is a real money-saver.

SLEEPING CALVES

Obtaining sufficient sleep is critical for the welfare of all animals, especially dur= ing the developmental years. Due to the technical difficulties of assessing the sleep state of an individual animal under group housing conditions, there is little research on the effects of housing and environment on the ability of= dairy animals to achieve natural sleeping patterns. These sleeping patterns inclu= de time spent awake, in non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep, and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Monitoring the progression of an animal through these sleeping states in previous research has required restraint, individual housing, or a combination of both. These methods limit the ability of researchers to both accurately assess the natural sleeping patterns of the subjects, due to the stress from the restraint or social isolation impacting sleeping patterns, and investigate loosely housed animals. In a recent edition of Applied Ani= mal Behaviour Science, scientists from the University of Helsin= ki, Helsinki University Central Hospital, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, conducted a preliminary study of a non-invasive technique for recording sle= ep states in loosely housed dairy calves. The objective of the study was to compare the state of sleep demonstrated by electroencephalographic (EEG) da= ta with behavioral observations. The secondary objective was to describe the patterns of sleeping states and the transitions between each.

To = conduct this study, 6 calves (4 Holstein-Friesian and 2 Ayrshi= re) between 9 and 10 weeks old were housed in pairs. Each pair was maintained in a 8 ft × 9 ft pen bedded with straw, cleaned dai= ly, and mechanically ventilated. Calves had unlimited access to hay and water a= nd were supplemented with 11 lbs of grain daily. EGG data were collected using= a custom-made harness and 10 electrodes. The electrodes were attached to the shaved areas of the calves head and neck while the calves were under sedation. Data were collected= from 0900 to 1430 and from 1630 and 0700. To avoid disturbing the sleep cycles, routine barn work was done only during hours that EGG data were not being collected. Simultaneously behavioral data was collected by direct observation. The body position (standing, lying on their side, and lying upright), head position (head rai= sed and moving, head raised and motionless, head resting on body or side with n= eck relaxed), eye position (open, closed and still, and moving rapidly either o= pen or closed), and rumination (occurring or not) of each calf were recorded by trained observers in 3-hour shifts.

Ove= rall, calves were lying down in 58% of the total observations; lying on the side accounted for 5% and lying with neck relaxed accounted for 19% of the lying observations. The EGG data suggested that calves were asleep 25% of the time with sleep occurring in 50 bouts. The bouts were 5 minutes in duration. REM sleep was observed during 45% = of the sleeping observations and NREM sleep was observed during 55% of the sleeping observations. Using the behavioral observations, the researchers were able = to predict approximately 80% of the times recorded as sleeping or not sleeping. Furthermore, the researchers were able to model the various sleeping states by including specific behaviors close to 90% of the time.

This research suggests that behavioral observation may be a reliable means of de= termining the amount of time that a dairy calf has spent in each sleep state during a specific period. Further validation of the reliability of assessing sleep u= sing specific behaviors will benefit both researchers and producers. This methodology would allow for the assessment of how animals respond to various management techniques during designed research trials. From a producer perspective, it may eventually be part of a herd health evaluation and allow for the measurement of an additional factor that may affect the herd’s well being.

̵= 2;Peter Krawczel , krawczel@whminer.com

REDUCING NITROGEN LOSSES

This spring for the first time we used a urease inhibitor in the UAN (liquid N) we topdressed on grass fields. We used enough Agrotain® to give us about 2 weeks reduction in volatilization losses. We thought the cost, about $3.00 per acre, was reasonable given the very high price of N fertilizer these days. And it tur= ned out to be a good decision in the end since we went almost two weeks after application before we got a significant rain event—and it sure turned= the grass a nice, dark green color.

How= about the use of urease inhibitors at corn sidedressing? Yes, if you’ll broadcast UAN and = not incorporate it, but in most other cases, no. It’s not likely to return the cost if the UAN is dribbled on—though we really have no hard data= to prove this. It can be used wi= th granular urea, but should only be considered if the urea will be broadcast = and not incorporated. =

Thinking About Venturing into Agritourism? <= o:p>

While my husband and I lived in Texas, one of our favorite weekend activities was to go mountain biking at a nearby cattle ra= nch and afterwards enjoy a fresh grilled burger from the same ranch. This beef/biking business was a successful endeavor of the owner, and thinking b= ack I became curious about factors that contribute to a successful agritourism operation. In 2008, a study was published= in Sociologia Ruralis relati= ng characteristics of farms and farm owners to the income of their agritourism operations.

For the purpos= e of this study, agritourism referred to any activity developed on a working farm with the intention of attracting visitors, such= as on-farm stores, bird watching, corn mazes, U-pick, and many more. Surveys w= ere distributed to farms directly, and to reach a larger pool, through extension agents as well. Data from 449 agritourism farms= in the United States was included in the analysis. The survey collected information on farm characteristics, marketing and business plans, and information about the fa= rm owner. Performance of the farm was measured by total gross annual income--farming as well as on-farm activities such as recreational or value added products.

The authors de= termined that the extent of farm owner involvement in agriculture and business relat= ed associations was positively related to gross farm inco= me. Holding all other factors equal, for each professional association the owner belonged to, gross sales were greater. The authors and past studies suggest= ed that the professional and social relations gained through the memberships provide access to useful and reliable information related to their business. Also, the longer the farm had been in business was related to greater farm income, potentially attributed to experience and reputation. Similarly, far= mers with the primary occupation of farming earned more than those involved in o= ther occupations; again, the thought that greater expertise in agriculture benef= its the farm income. However, while experience may be important to agritourism operations, farms owners over 50 years old earned less than younger farmers, maybe because younger farmers are more willing to introduce new products, or may be willing to take more risks bec= ause they have not invested as much into the farm as older farmers. <= /span>

This study fou= nd that education level, while positively related to the income, was not significan= t to farm income. This study quantified the level of education but not the type,= so if one farmer had studied business and marketing and the other traditional agricultural production, it was not differentiated in the data collection. Also, whether or not farms had a business or marketing plan did not significantly affect farm income. However the authors emphasized that their measure--gross income--may not be the best way to assess the significance o= f a business plan.

If you’re interested in expanding into agritourism, this = study may highlight some farm and farmer characteristics that may be important. F= or example, while you cannot change how long your farm has been in business or your age, you can choose to be involved in professional organizations that = may provide helpful information to your business. As with any study, you should take care to interpret results, but with the ever-growing field of agritourism, perhaps we can expect to see more studies identifying trends and needs in the industry, helping farm owners successfu= lly venture into agritourism operations.

—Rachel Butzler, butzler@whminer.com

RESEARCH SUMMARY= <= o:p>

How late in the season can you safely seed a forage g= rass and expect to have a good crop next year? That’s the question asked b= y University of Wisconsin agronomists some years a= go. To get some answers, beginning in late summer they started seeding the most co= mmon species of cool-season forage grasses including orchar= dgrass, reed canarygrass, timothy, bromegrass and tall fescue. They seeded each species in three locations in the state e= very two weeks through mid-October (and in a couple of years, into mid-November)= . Seedings made by mid to late September produced stands having visible plants before a killing frost at all but one year at one location, while seedings made after mid-Septemb= er generally didn’t produce visible plants until the following spring—if at all. Many of the later seedings were complete failures.

Gra= ss yield the following spring declined as seeding was delayed after mid-August. So w= hile September seedings may not have resulted in a c= rop failure, it’s better to seed early. It shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with the species that reed canarygrass tended t= o have more severe yield and stand reductions with the later—mid-September—seeding dates than did the other grass spec= ies. Reference: Agronomy Journal 99:1579-1586

IN CRUISE CONTROL: CROPPING CHANGES

In 1966 I was hired to be a Cooperative Exten= sion Agent in Clinton County before ever setting foot he= re. The interview took place one spring day in a restaurant near Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType>, where I was finishing my Master’s degree. So my first trip here, driv= ing East on N.Y. Rt. 11, was momentous: With education practically leaking from every pore and eager to inflict this knowledge on an unsuspecting (and as I would soon learn, not always willing) farm populace, I remember like it was yesterday saying to myself as I crossed the county line: Show me a sign of = what I’ll be heading into for a career. Folks from this area know that aft= er crossing the county line the first town on Rte. 11 is Churubusco, not exact= ly the heartbeat of agriculture. But heading east, Ellenb= urg is next and I’d heard there was lots of farming in Ellenburg, so a sign must be close at hand. I looked right and left but nothing until I got to Ellenburg Corners, and it was then that I got my first glimpse of Clinton County agriculture:

A f= armer raking first cut hay.

In mid-July.

With a team of horses.

Oh, well= , so much for signs…

But= that was the low, or something close to it. Dairy farming has changed tremendous= ly in these 42 years, mostly for the better. Here are four of what I see as the most significant cropping changes:

1.      More intensive= hay crop harvest management. In the 1960s most farmers were harvesting alfalfa-grass two or three times per year, waiting until alfalfa was in ear= ly bloom for at least the first two harvests. At the time Cornell’s harv= est management recommendations weren’t aggressive, but almost nobody in t= he Northeast was recommending more intensive management. It was a few brave farmers who first started pushing the crop, harvesting four cuts in some ye= ars. At first I was dead set against four cuts, but (not for the first time) I w= as wrong. We need to manage alfalfa for its milk producing ability, not to squ= eeze that last year out of a tired stand. In 2007 for the first time a Clinton County farmer harvested his alfalf= a five times.

2.      Less dry hay a= nd a lot more silage. This has been the result of two trends: More corn silage becau= se of increases in herd size, often on about the same acres of cropland, and &= #8220;the need for speed” has meant more hay crop silage and less dry hay; sila= ge being quicker to harvest and more efficient to feed, especially in total mi= xed rations. Of course, this has greatly increased the number of bunker silos.<= o:p>

3.      Higher corn si= lage yields and improved quality, aided greatly by better hybrids permitting much higher plant populations. In the mid-1960s planting at = more than about 24,000 plants/acre often resulted in small ears and many barren plants. Some hybrids (such as Funk G-6) had up to 24 rows of kernels, but on a big, fat cob so there wasn’t nearly as much there as met the eye. Plant breeders have done a terrific job of “reconfiguring” corn: Deeper kernels, a smaller cob and much better st= andability. They also have increased the crop’s tolerance to high populations, so= now we can plant at 30,000+ populations with little worry about lodging or barr= en plants. Farmers are doing a much better job of managing their corn crop, but the plant breeders also deserve a big pat on the back for their accomplishments.

4.      Getting stuff = done on time. Sure, there’s a lot of hay crop still cut much too late for good quality, but there’s less of that happening on the region’s dai= ry farms. Part of this is because the poorer farmers retired, went belly up or= sold out to neighboring farmers. But much of the reason is that dairy farmers increasingly realized that higher milk production required better forage quality, and this meant mowing first cut hay crops (especially grasses) and planting corn in May, mowing a lot more acres per day, moving the crop from stem to silo much faster, and ensiling in bunker silos rather than uprights. Also larger herds and bigger equipment, of course, but that’s modern dairy farming.

—Ev = Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

CORNELL ESTABLIS= HES TWO GRASS TRIALS AT MINER

Teff

Cornell University is planting a teff trial this month in the plot area here at the Institute. What’s teff, you ask? It’= ;s an annual grass native to Africa that might= be a good fit for farmers looking for a relatively late-planted forage crop with= the potential to produce good yields of quality forage. Te= ff is frost-sensitive and may emerge in as little as three days, so Cornell’s forage agronomist Dr. Jerry Cherney wanted to wait until the danger of frost is past—or mostly so, given = the uncertainties of spring weather in Northern N.Y. Working in collaboration w= ith Penn State’s Marvin Hall, they’ll plant seven varieties at four seeding rates in two Pennsylvania locations plus in Canton and Chazy. A 200= 7 Pennsylvania tri= al resulted in very good teff yields but not much quality information, and more needs to be learned about seeding rates. UVM’s Heather Darby also planted a bit of teff in 2007 in Alburg, Vermont that looked good when we saw it last summer. There’s still a lot to l= earn about teff—forage quality, seeding rate, harvest interval (which appears to be very short between first and second c= ut), response to nitrogen and topdressed manure.

Grass for biomass production

Cornell is also establishing a grass biomass variety trial here, funded by the Northern N.Y. Agricultural Development Program. T= he trial includes both warm-season grasses (switchgrass, big bluestem, indiangrass, Eastern gamagrass, coastal panic g= rass) and the more traditional cool-season grasses (reed can= arygrass, smooth bromegrass, tall fescue and domestic tall wheatgrass). We’re going to need a lot of biomass to supply the pilot cellulosic ethanol plants planned for New York, including some expected to be in operation within 18 months. Variety evaluations will include seedling vigor, ease of establishment, and energy and ethanol production per acre. We don’t kn= ow a lot about warm season grass production in Northern N.Y., but they’re wor= th a look since while cool season grasses are well-adapted to the region, they m= ight not yield as much per acre, especially in a low-input management system. The data from this trial will be combined with those of several other sites in = the state. Cornell University is one of five land-grant universities in the U.S. selected as a regional Su= n Grant Initiative Center. The Sun Gra= nt Initiative is a national program committed to strengthening rural economies= and communities through support of biomass-based industries and agricultural su= stainability.

FARMING LOW FERTILITY LAND

The cropland at Miner Institute, both owned and leased, is divided about equally into high and low fertility fields. Most of the high fertility fields have = been under our operation for many years, and that means many years of manure applications. Most of the low fertility fields either are or were owned by farmers who didn’t have many or any cows, and therefore the fields didn’t get much (if any) manure. Farming high fertility soil is pretty easy, and even in these days of very high fertilizer prices, not all that expensive. However, the low fertility fields are a problem.

Low fertility is tolerable as long as we either keep the fields in grass or, be= tter yet, plant them to corn. Grass yields have ranged from poor to quite good, = and we’re the process of taking one field at a time—the lowest yiel= ding ones first—out of continuous grass and planting it to corn. The corn = does very well; we apply a relatively high rate of starter P and K (about 60 lbs. each of P_=
2O= ₅ and K= ₂O) and= use supplemental N. We manure these fields each fall with a moderate rate of manure; distance to most of these fields somewhat limits the application ra= te. Even with these practices, our soil test P and K levels stay on the low sid= e. When starting with as low a fertility level as we did—in some cases almost undetectable on the Cornell soil analysis!—it takes a lot of nutrients to significantly increase soil test P and K.

The= real problem occurs the year after seeding to alfalfa-grass: We get a good initial stand= of alfalfa, but beginning the second year the grasses start to take over. This= has happened with both reed canarygrass and tall fe= scue. And we don’t think that the grasses aren’t choking out the alfa= lfa, it’s maybe a case of which came first, the chicken or the egg, but it sure seems that the grass is where the alfalfa ainR= 17;t. Last spring we seeded five fields to alfalfa-tall fescue; looking at them t= his spring the alfalfa stands rank from very good to only fair, with (not surprisingly) the high fertility fields very good and the low fertility ones not so hot. This in spite of 300 lbs/acre of 0-0-60 applied to the low fertility fields last July. Oh, well, at least this simplifies the decision= of whether to topdress these low fertility fields = with manure this summer.

—E.T.=

FERTILIZING FORA= GES THIS SUMMER

There’s the old one about the guy who was feeli= ng blue about his situation when a friend said “Cheer up, things could be worse.” So he did and sure enough, things got worse. That’s abo= ut what we’re facing here at the Institute regarding muriate of potash: We delayed purchasing potash last fall, shocked at the price but since we had no intention of topdressing our alfalfa fields until late summ= er, we thought what the heck, maybe potash prices will go down twixt now and th= en. Well, we’re fast approaching “then” and the price of pota= sh hasn’t done anything except go up, and by a lot. So, what to do?=

As mentioned in a previous Farm Report article, this is the year to maximize manure topdressing. We don’t know about you, but $600 potash (that’s 50 cents per pound of fertilizer K) has us planning on topdressing manure on just about everything except new seedings. What you do should be influenced by the soil test K levels on your alfalfa = and alfalfa-grass fields. Grasses are another matter altogether; there’s absolutely no way we’d apply a single pound of fertilizer K on any gr= ass field that we can manure—and unless soil test K is abysmally low, even those we don’t. That’s because grass will find K in the soil wh= ere alfalfa will not. Alfalfa is a heavy user of potassium and most of the alfalfa-grass fields on the Institute farm are medium to low in soil test K= , so skipping a year of fertilization isn’t a good idea. However, in most cases we’ll apply manure rather than 0-0-60 to these fields; the exception may be a couple of 2007 seedings if they’re still looking good in August. We’ll probably apply 200 lbs/acre of 0-0-60—at current prices, $60 per acre (!)—to these fields.

How= about alfalfa-grass fields with high soil test K? First, are you sure K is high? = If the soil test is more than a year old, maybe it’s not since a good cr= op of alfalfa will really suck up the potassium. Today’s extremely high fertilizer prices are an excellent reason to test alfalfa fields more often than once every three years. An ideal time to soil test is heading into the last year of corn production. This way you can apply <= span class=3DGramE>ag lime (if needed) this fall after corn harves= t and have it plowed down about 6 months before you seed. Fall would also be a fi= ne time to apply a “goodly rate” of manure to these fields in an effort to supply all the P and much of the K needed for at least the first = two years of alfalfa production. Caution: Your CAFO planner might want you to restrict manure rates on some of these fields…check with your planner= or crops consultant first.

—E.T.=

GOOD THINGS SOMETIMES TAKE TIME

Eminent Ruminant Nutritionists don’t like high potassium forages for prefresh dry cows. The ERNs here at the Institute (first Harry Randy and then Charlie Sniffen) were no different, continually whining about the K content of our dry cow forages. So ten years ago the Cr= ops Dude, after trying with a spectacular lack of success to reduce the DCAD of cool season forage grasses, first by limiting potassium applications, then = by supplementing with sulfur, decided to try topdressing grasses with calcium chloride. At the time nobody we’d ever heard of had tried this either= in research or in practice, although Jesse Goff, then with USDA/ARS in Iowa, soon was t= rying to achieve the same goal by fertilizing alfalfa with calcium chloride. The C.D. also worked with a Japanese company (Hokuren) t= o set up a similar research program there.

We = soon learned that it was a lot easier to increase grass Cl<= /span> concentration than it was to decrease forage K. That’s the good news.= The bad news is that it’s a pain to apply calcium chloride, which has a remarkable ability to suck humidity from the air and turn a spreader load of calcium chloride granules into a calcium chloride Slus= hie. So we decided that if you can’t beat them join them, and made a concentrated calcium chloride solution to be applied with our field sprayer= . We soon learned a fascinating if discouraging fact that must certainly illustr= ate some chemical principle: A concentrated, pressurized solution of calcium chloride gets very hot very fast. How hot? Hot enough to melt plastic spray= er hoses. (Don’t ask how the Crops Dude knows this.) <= /p>

We = had a graduate student doing her research with high-Cl reed canarygrass fed to prefres= h cows in the University of Vermont dairy herd (and with very positive result= s), but before she completed her M.S. thesis she got a job, got married, and be= came a mother, and her research was never published. High C= l canarygrass does work in dry cow rations, howev= er: Some farmers in Canada= (Ontario, Nova Scotia) and Japan routinely apply chloride to grasses to be harvested for dry cow forage, with good success. It was therefore reassuring to learn that almost ten years af= ter we started our work, Quebec researchers are doing very similar research—and publishing the results. They fertilized timothy with cal= cium chloride, increasing the Cl concentration from = 0.15% in the control to 1.07% in the treated grass. Then they fed diets consistin= g of 65% timothy hay (high and low Cl) ad lib starti= ng 30 days prior to the expected calving date. Dry matter intake wasn’t affected by treatment, and the low DCAD (high Cl) hay decreased urine pH compared to the control hay. Cows on the high Cl diet also had higher calcium concentration. No cli= nical milk fever was observed with either diet, but 67% of the cows on the control treatment were classified as having subclinical milk fever vs. only 35% of = the cows on the high Cl diet. Reference: WCDS Advances in Dairy Technology (2008). Volume 20, Abstract, P. 359.

—E.T.=

CRITTER N= EWS<= o:p>

§  &nbs= p;     A California woman was driving her car w= ith her cat in her lap. When the cat scratched her she drove into a power pole = and knocked it over, shutting down traffic for an hour. (If you think not being able to drive for an hour isn’t a huge problem, you have never driven= in California.) Bot= h cat and woman suffered minor injuries. Several days later the California Assemb= ly, with no sense of humor about traffic tie-ups and eager to head off a possib= le rash of cat/lap accidents, approved a bill that would make it illegal to dr= ive with a pet in your lap.

§        Pierre the penguin h= ad a serious problem. He’s 25 years old, which is 5 years older than a penguin’s normal lifespan. But his problem wasn’t age itself; <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Pierre was going = bald. “Bald may be beautiful” for ERN Charlie Sn= iffen, but Pierre was getting bald on his heinie. (One= of the many things for which we are thankful is that we have absolutely no knowledge of the hair status on Sniffen’s posterior.) But we digress: Penguins rely on their waterproof feathers to k= eep warm, and without any feathers on his butt Pierre would get so cold he’d ref= use to go into the water. Therefore, scientists at the California Academy of Scien= ces (that state again) created a spiffy rubber wetsuit that kept him toasty warm and was something of a penguin fashion statement. After six weeks of sartor= ial splendor Pierre had gained weight and grew back some butt feathers, and scientists were slo= wly weaning him from his wetsuit.

§        A headline you probably thought you’d never see= : Florida lawmaker= s may ban ornamental bull testicles. Metal replicas of bull testicles have become popular bumper ornaments in some parts of Florida. Why, we have absolutely no id= ea, but one state senator, Carey Baker, is not amuse= d and is campaigning to ban bull testicles. The ornamental ones, that is. The sen= ator stated that while the Sun= shine State may have bigg= er issues, they need to draw a line on what's obscene. His bill to fine drivers $60 for displaying the ornaments drew some support from fellow senators, but don’t hold your breath waiting for the bull ball ban to become law.

§  &nbs= p;     A donkey got tossed into jail in Chiapas, Mexico for assault and battery after it attacked two men. Actually the donkey only attacked one man, biting him in the chest, but when a second man came to his aid the Good Samaritan got kicked and wound up with a broken ankle. It took= six men to control the donkey and hustle it into the slammer, where it was to remain until his owner could pay the injured men’s medical bills. The arresting officer said that “Around here if someone commits a crime t= hey are jailed, no matter who they are.” And there’s plenty of precedence for this in Chiapa= s: In the past year or so, incarcerated four-legged beasts have included a bull for devouring corn crops and destroying a couple of vending stands, and a d= og jailed for biting someone.

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

In the mornings at the farm the parking lot has been filled with vehicles belonging to employees, students and the crew that is working on the new dry cow barn. Construction began at the end of May and h= as been progressing quickly. The new barn will be connected to the current mil= king barn, so the crew has been working with their equipment right outside the holding area. As the cows leave the milking parlor they seem to enjoy watch= ing the construction as much as we do!

The= Summer Experience students arrived the week of May 19th and are settling into a routine around the farm; this year all the dairy students happen to be from Minnesota. We are enjoying working wit= h a new group of students and learning a little bit about Minnesota as well! One of the first projects for the students after they arrive is to help with our summer educational events, primarily the Farm Days for Fifth Graders. The local fifth grade classes co= me to the farm to learn about dairy cows and Morgan horses (which we also breed and train here at Miner). They tour the two barns and learn about what a cow eats, how she is milked, about training a horse, and they get to see our fi= eld crop equipment (at least the pieces that are not being used in the field ri= ght now).

The= cows are doing pretty well – they produced 95 lbs/cow on the last test day= . We have been working on some maintenance hoof-trimming and also have been more aggressive with heat detection, trying to get cows pregnant before the summ= er heat arrives.

(Cr= op note from the Crops Dude: We finished planting just over 300 acres of corn on May 19th, and it along with 65 acres of alfalfa-tall fescue-Italian annual ryeg= rass are up and growing. First cut grass harvest started right after Memorial Day weekend—both yield and quality appear pretty good.)=

—Anna Pape, pape@whmine= r.com

—Steve Cou= ture, couture@whminer.com

Closing Comment

Light travels faster than sound. That’s= why some people appear bright until they say something.

<= /span>