DEVELOPMENT
OF NEW PRODUCT TO IMPROVE EMBRYO TRANSFER PREGNANCY RATES
I=
was
recently asked by our Zen-Noh colleague about a new product being marketed =
to
improve embryo transfer (ET) conception rates. Pregnancy rates associated w=
ith
ET are generally lower than those for artificial insemination. It’s b=
een
found that the manipulation needed to transfer embryos nonsurgically
to the appropriate horn of the uterus triggers release of prostaglandin
F2α (PGF2α) into the lumen of the uterus. Several in vivo studies
have shown that PGF2α is detrimental to embryo development. This is ce=
rtainly
nothing new, knowing that PGF2α release results in uterine contractions
and demise of the progesterone-producing corpus luteum=
on the ovary. However, recent in vitro studies with rat, rabbit and bovine
embryos have shown that embryo development is impaired by just being in the
presence of PGF2α in the culture medium, indicating there are PGF2^=
5;
receptors on bovine embryos (Scenna et al., 200=
6).
This discovery led to the development of Embryo Armor™ as a receptor
antagonist (blocking the binding site for PGF2α) with a potential
therapeutic strategy to improve success rates in embryo transfer. An initial
experiment conducted by Scenna et al. (2008)
evaluated the development of frozen/thawed embryos exposed to low levels of=
PGF2α with=
and without Embryo Armor™ (EA) to determine if this product could
circumvent the negative impact PGF2α&=
nbsp;
may have on embryo development during transfer. Embryos cultured with EA had impro=
ved
development when compared to embryos cultured with PGF2α (58.5 % vs. 4=
5.7
%; P=3D0.05). Embryos exposed to PGF2α had a tendency for improved
development when EA was also present in the culture media (57 % vs. 45.7%;
P=3D0.07). In a second study, 783 embryos were recovered from donor cows us=
ing a
flush media with and without Embryo Armor present. Embryos were either
transferred fresh to recipients or frozen and transferred at a later date
(P<0.10). For both fresh and frozen embryos, pregnancy rates were improv=
ed
for embryos recovered with Embryo Armor present in the flush medium.
<= o:p>
I=
asked Dr.
Kent Henderson, who has worked extensively with embryo transfer, how preval=
ent
is the use of this product. None of the ET practitioners he knows have used=
the
product and remarked they are waiting to see results from independent studi=
es
rather than from a single research group.
<= o:p>
T=
he
realization that there are PGF2α receptors on embr=
yos
makes me wonder what the broader implications are on early embryonic
death. It seems there have been few explanations for what causes these early
reproductive losses. There is some evidence that stress (heat, or other for=
ms)
may stimulate PGF2α secretion from the uterus. Perhaps low levels of
PGF2α present in the uterine body may be one of those elusive factors
responsible for early embryonic death. As we continue to evaluate cow comfo=
rt
in studies at Miner Institute, perhaps we should consider evaluating potent=
ial
impacts on reproductive performance, particularly incidence of early embryo=
nic
death.
—
ON
CRUISE CONTROL: CROP PROGRAM TRANSITIONS
W=
hen I
assumed responsibility for the crop program at Miner Institute in the summe=
r of
1979 there were 335 acres of cropland: 238 acres that the Institute owned a=
nd
the rest rented or borrowed. That summer Harry Randy assumed control of what
had just become a much smaller (90-cow) dairy operation, Cornell University
having taken its half of the dairy herd at the completion of a ten year
agreement and headed south with it. The hay crops consisted of red
clover-timothy and birdsfoot trefoil-timothy. T=
he red
clover did just fine for one year, but was mostly gone the next, while the
trefoil seemed to die at the first sight of the mower-conditioner, persisti=
ng
only in the field borders in a cruel reminder of what might have been. Hay
crops were seeded with oats that were harvested as silage. This turned out =
to
be a slight problem, because Harry said that while I could grow all the oat=
s my
heart desired, we weren’t going to feed any oat silage to
“his” cows. We were stuck with a silo-full of oat silage from t=
hat
spring that was fed out with considerable grousing from Harry, but 1979 was=
our
last year of oats.
<= o:p>
T=
here
wasn’t any alfalfa on the Miner Institute farm because the previous
management decided that the soils here weren’t well enough drained for
alfalfa. I found this somewhat curious since I’d been following a
field-size notill vs. conventional tillage fora=
ge
trial that Cornell had established in one of our fields and after several y=
ears
the alfalfa was hanging in there quite nicely, thank you. So in one fell sw=
oop
we changed from oats-red clover-timothy and oats-trefoil-timothy to
alfalfa-timothy. The alfalfa did just fine, persisting years longer than red
clover, and Butyrac Ester herbicide did a good =
job of
controlling the broadleaf weeds that were probably the main reason for an o=
at
nurse crop. We also went from two harvests per year of red clover-timothy to
three harvests of alfalfa-timothy.
<= o:p>
C=
ornell
University had tile drained one field as part of a research project, and it
worked so well that we soon started tiling other fields, installing over
120,000 feet of subsurface drainage in the following few years. Nothing
we’ve done has lasted as well nor paid the annual dividends as those
systems. Except for the one Cornell “test field”, these were the
first tile drainage systems installed on the farm since 1914.
<= o:p>
O=
n a
personal note: Miner Institute hosted a nice retirement BBQ for me on June =
27,
and as you could expect, more than the chicken was roasted. But I can be pr=
etty
dense when it serves my best interests, and often when it doesn’t, so=
in
retribution I announced that in spite of the festivities I won’t be
retiring right away: We won’t have a new agronomist on board for a wh=
ile,
so in July and August I’ll be taking a week of vacation and then work=
ing
a week. (Some cynics have opined that working half-time would be an increase
from my normal routine.) My fall schedule is yet to be determined, but
I’ll do my best to be available one way or the other to answer questi=
ons,
etc.
—
GLOBAL WARMING?
In
reading the popular press it’s easy to get the idea that global warmi=
ng
is a fact, currently happening, and is a really serious problem. However, t=
here
are a lot of skeptics out there, Dennis Avery among them, and not without s=
ome
reason. Avery is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in
<= o:p>
O=
bviously
there are learned opinions on both sides of this issue, but if all your
information comes from the popular press you might get the idea that global
warming is a fait accompli, with few responsible, informed detractors. Tain’t
necessarily so.
VET’S
CORNER: COW DRENCHES ARE NOT
CREATED EQUAL
A=
decade
ago, drenching off-feed fresh cows was an innovation in getting ahead of
transition cow problems. Where there is a demand, a supply will be created;=
so
a cascade of cow drench products has come onto the farms. With the introduc=
tion
of so many new products, producers have dabbled in mixing the various produ=
cts
to achieve the ultimate results. The mixing of products can lead to disaster
unless the quantity of each ingredient is known and applied to the appropri=
ate
problem.
<= o:p>
F=
or
instance, the fresh cow drench that our practice formulates contains a high
level of calcium. If additional calcium from another drench or paste is add=
ed
to our drench, it could result in =
death
20 minutes later from heart block. Likewise, there is an adequate leve=
l of
energy precursor in our practice’s fresh cow drench that precludes the
addition of propylene glycol from another drench, syrup, or tube. Oversupply of propylene glycol cou=
ld
worsen the cow’s appetite.
<= o:p>
A=
good
plan is to take a minute during the herd health visit to review the various
drenches, pastes, and syrups in the drug cabinet and be sure that the proper
diseases are being treated with the proper supplement. Most commercial
preparations that we have seen on the farms contain lower amounts of quickly
absorbable calcium, which is aimed at milk fever prophylaxis.
<= o:p>
O=
ur
practice’s fresh cow drench was formulated for the purpose of a
prophylactic treatment just after calving of 2+ lactation cows to prevent m=
ilk
fever and ketosis. The mix was created to prevent LDA in cows that had twin=
s or
a hard calving, obese cows prone to type II ketosis, and cows with a previo=
us
history of milk fever. It is also intended for chronic Ketosis cases that h=
ave
received several treatments and are prone to going down with potassium defi=
ciency.
<= o:p>
I=
t would
be inappropriate to use most of these formulations to treat dehydrated cows
that are suffering from a severe toxemia such as metri=
tis
or mastitis. In those cases, the degree of dehydration should be evaluated =
and
corrected with a balanced oral electrolyte solution.
<= o:p>
I=
n any
case, a good plan would be to go over the medicines with your herd health
veterinarian and develop working protocols to ensure that the proper
medications are being used.
—Kent Henderson, DVM, hugamoo@comcast.net
Northwest Veterinary Associat=
es,
Inc.
A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME?
M=
AP
fertilizer over $1000 per ton, muriate of potas=
h and
urea both over $600, corn over $7.00 and soybeans in the teens. Certainly
previously unheard of prices, but let’s put things in balance as it r=
elates
to crop practices: Perhaps it is a “whole new ballgame” but
it’s more like they juiced up the baseball at the same time they moved
the fences back. Because while we’ve never paid prices like these for
fertilizer (or grain), corn silage and other forage crop prices are also mo=
ving
up considerably. Scrimp on fertilizer and if this results in lower crop yie=
lds
you’ll be faced with buying very expensive forages and grains this co=
ming
feeding year. The days of $30/ton corn silage and $100 alfalfa hay are gone=
and
they won’t be coming back anytime soon. Certainly, maximize the nutri=
ents
in manure—but if you need commercial fertilizer, do so.
FROM
THE PRESIDENT’S DESK: H=
OT AND
BOTHERED
J=
uly
seems like an ideal time to write about heat stress and the impact it has on
our cows. Every year heat stress sneaks up on us in the Northeast as
temperatures edge upward toward 80 degrees and higher and especially as
humidity climbs. I just checked the week-long weather forecast for Plattsbu=
rgh,
New York and relative humidity is predicted to average about 60% with a
temperature around 80 degrees. Dairy cattle begin to experience heat stress
when temperatures reach the mid-70s at a relative humidity of 60%. So, this
next week when temperatures reach 80 degrees the cows will experience a
temperature-humidity index (THI) of 75. For perspective, cows begin to show
signs of heat stress when THI exceeds 72.
<= o:p>
O=
ne of
the easiest cow responses to monitor is respiration rate. In other words, h=
ow
many breaths per minute is the cow taking? If the breaths per minute exceed=
80,
then the cow is likely heat stressed. Take the time to walk through your ba=
rn
and measure several cows per pen for their respiration rate. It will provide
you considerable insight into whether your heat abatement system is working
(such as fans and sprinklers) or how much your cows are suffering due to la=
ck
of a cow cooling system.
<= o:p>
A=
long
with obvious changes in breathing rate, dairy cows exhibit several other
predictable behavioral responses to heat stress. Recent European research f=
ound
that heat stressed cows had a 47% reduction in eating, a 22% reduction in
rumination, a 52% increase in standing time, and a 19% reduction in movement
around the pen. Based on what we know about the link between behavior and
performance, it is obvious why we routinely observe such dramatic reduction=
s in
feed intake and milk yield during heat stress. Also, the reduction in
rumination and associated poorer rumen health combined with greater standing
time help to explain the common observation of increased lameness problems
during hot weather.
<= o:p>
T=
he same
study also found that drinking increased 42% during heat stress, which
underscores the critical importance of ensuring adequate fresh water when c=
ows
are heat stressed. Of course, we should always provide sufficient water, but
remember that water requirements are 1.2 to 2 times normal under heat stress
conditions. Finally, as you might guess, the highest producing cows were the
most sensitive to heat stress and these cows were the ones who suffered the
largest reduction in lying time and the greatest increase in standing. The
bottom line: if you want your high producing cows to become lower producing=
and
have a much greater risk of health problems, then don’t cool them.
<= o:p>
A=
nother
study conducted two years ago by
<= o:p>
T=
o wrap
up, here are the current
1.&n=
bsp;
Provide
shade when outside
2.&n=
bsp;
Reduce
walking distance to the parlor (especially high producing cows)
3.&n=
bsp;
Improve
cooling in the holding pen and parlor exit lanes
4.&n=
bsp;
Cool
close-up cows to increase feed intake
5.&n=
bsp;
Cool
fresh and early lactation cows
6.&n=
bsp;
Cool
mid- to late lactation cows
7.&n=
bsp;
Adjust
ration formulations
—
4H
LECTURE AND THE NUTRITION PYRAMID
I=
agreed
to give a nutrition talk to the local 4-H group,=
kids
ranging from 8-14 along with their parents, but then wondered what I would =
say.
Their ages and nutritional knowledge was troubling to me, what to present a=
nd
at what level. In these circumstances a fistulated
cow is always handy to entertain all ages; nothing like sticking your arm i=
nto
a full rumen, submerging into the warm mass of ingesta=
,
feeling the tidal flow and contractions. Sensing the strength of those rumen
contractions, no wonder that a 3 lb weighted bag of forage samples gets was=
hed
downstream to the reticulorumen orifice, requir=
ing
the strength and skill of an ice fisher to retrieve. A microscope to view a
sample of rumen fluid and watching the zooming activity of protozoa provide=
s great
entertainment.
<= o:p>
I=
thought
I would try to give a brief talk describing human nutrition in relation to
ruminant nutrition. We printed out the new and old Food Pyramid Guides as
reference. I would talk of the food groups and how they relate to ruminant =
nutrition.
Consider that human nutrition is referenced by food group, whereas ruminant
diets are balanced by nutrient, not 3 helpings of forage to every 1 of ener=
gy
and protein concentrate. Keep=
it
simple for the humans.
<= o:p>
L=
ooking
at the updated human nutrition food groups: Grains, Vegetables, Fruits,
Milk/Dairy, Meat & Beans, Fats/oils/sugars, lets just consider carbohyd=
rate
(CHO) nutrition. We see that there are various carbohydrates in each of the
food groups; sugar, starch, soluble fiber, fiber (cellulose and hemicellulose).
<= o:p>
N=
ote
there is a fair amount of overlap of nutrient in various food groups. Sugar=
can
be found in 4 of the 6 groups, starch and fiber in at least 3 groups. Hence,
it’s much easier to balance a ration using the nutrient approach rath=
er
than the food group approach, though there is an interesting commonality ac=
ross
the carbohydrate fractions. I brought out a bag of sugar, a bag of flour an=
d a
flake of hay/straw and asked the group what was the fundamental commonality
across these foods. Answer: Glucose. Each of these foods, whether they be a
source of sugar, starch or fiber (cellulose) is fundamentally made up of
glucose units “tied” together. And what makes them unique as fa=
r as
type of CHO fraction and digestibility etc, is how they are tied together, =
the
type of bond. The type of bond results in different alignments of these
molecules. And it is this phy=
sical
structure that accounts to a great extent for the function of the molecule
(readily available energy, stored energy or structural support). Picture a =
string
of baler twine as a long string of glucose units. Then tie various knots in=
the
twine consecutively. For inst=
ance,
50 consecutive square knots results in that string taking on a unique shape
compared to that of 50 slipknots, the former tight and strong, the later lo=
ose
and limp. The shape of that s=
tring
and ease of which those knots come untied equate to how glucose can be part=
of
blood sugar, the glaze on your donut or the fiber we call peNDF.
Form equals function.
<= o:p>
I=
was
hoping to spark some young minds into appreciating nutrition if not organic
chemistry. We could certainly
afford to improve peoples understanding of science, nutrition and where the=
re
food comes from.
—
WHAT
ARE THE MORAL AND BEHAVIORAL BASES FOR REGULATING THE WELFARE OF FARM ANIMA=
LS?
S=
cientists
at
<= o:p>
T=
he basic
framework for animal welfare can be divided into 3 theories. First is the i=
dea
of Unitarianism, which suggests that the morality of an activity should be
decided by weighing the positive and negative effects of the activity again=
st
each other. If positives are greater than the negatives, then the activity =
is
acceptable. The next theory is categorical imperative, which states that so=
me
activities are either right or wrong regardless of the outcomes. This theor=
y is
the basis for the modern animal rights movement. The final theory is that o=
f a
social contract with animals, which states that the evolutionary bond share=
d by
humans and animals form the moral obligation to ensure the animals welfare.
Under this theory, the horses would be granted more consideration due to its
historical role in human society than a polar bear, for example, which has =
not
be had a similar role. Each of these theories are represented by some aspec=
t of
society, which leads to competing views on the extent of human responsibili=
ty
for ensuring animal welfare. =
<= o:p>
G=
overnments
have used science in animal welfare legislation in a variety of ways. Recen=
tly,
European countries have taken a more progressive approach and started to
legislate on the basis of animal needs. The Treaty of Amsterdam was one fac=
tor
in this trend. It stated the following objectives for the protection of
animals: 1) increasing minimum
welfare standards 2) establishment of alternatives to animal testing 3)
standardization of welfare indicators 4) education of animal handlers and t=
he
general public on animal welfare issues, and 5) furthering international
support for animal welfare. This is a strong contrast from the conventional
approach of treating animals as property. The most interesting portion of t=
his
section was the discussion of the Swedish approach to animal welfare, which,
while restricting certain practices, rewards farm managers that are able to
meet welfare benchmarks. In this system, the maximum stocking density allow=
ed
for broiler chickens at the time of slaughter is dictating by the score the
farm has received on its welfare audit. For example, the greater the
farm’s ability to control mortality and lameness in its broiler flock,
the greater the maximum stocking density allowed becomes.
<= o:p>
T=
he
greatest difficulty in making science-based public policy is that the exist=
ing
data has been subjected to a wide variation in interpretations. The paper u=
ses
the example of sow behavior in gestation grates to demonstrate how different
scientists can draw opposite conclusions from the same data, which is evide=
nt
in the European Union’s decision to phase out gestation crates while
researchers from
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp;
T=
here are
many difficulties in directly incorporating animal welfare science into pub=
lic
policy. However, the increasi=
ng
public concern suggests welfare will remain an issue that needs to be
considered and addressed. At =
the
present time, there is a need to further the field of animal welfare scienc=
e in
order to rectify the contrasting interpretations of the data and establish
achievable welfare standards.
—
WHAT'S
HAPPENING ON THE FARM
W=
hen a
cow is producing 95 lbs. of milk, a comfortable stall is very important to
maintaining that high production. Hopefully our cows are now resting more
comfortably on their new mattresses that were installed in mid-June. When t=
he
barn was built in 2004, Foxworthy foam rubber mattresses with a dual-layer
covering were installed. During this past winter the covering began to show
signs of wear including a few small tears. These tears got longer as the co=
ws
moved in and out of the stalls; sawdust and a little manure began to accumu=
late
under the mattress covering, making it difficult to scrape the stalls
clean. The mattresses we had originally purchased are no longer being
manufactured, and we wanted to try a different brand of mattress. We chose a
dense rubber mattress from Animat.
<= o:p>
S=
everal
weeks ago a tractor trailer delivered the pallets of mattresses and rolls of
the new mattress covering; the installation crew from
<= o:p>
W=
hile the
cows cannot adjust the "sleep number" of their individual mattres=
ses
(Select Comfort does not have an agricultural division that I’m aware
of), they are resting well on their new Animat
mattresses.
—
—
PRACTICAL
RUMINANTS
A=
few
months back we talked about how to make a ruminant, how to turn the
simple-stomached calf into a cud-chewing, fiber-fermenting heifer. But what=
is
a ruminant? A practical understanding of what a ruminant is can help us bet=
ter
care and manage these animals.
<= o:p>
W=
hat do
we know about the ruminant? A ruminant is the scientific name for the
cud-chewers we know and love: cows, sheep, goats, deer, buffalo.
We talk about the ruminant having four stomachs but it may be more instruct=
ive
to consider of this system as three processing chambers (rumen, recticulum, =
omasum)
before the true gastric stomach (the abomasum).=
We
can think of the rumen as the manager of the fermentation that turns plant
fiber into energy the animal can use, the reticulum as the traffic controll=
er
that receives the swallowed feeds, forms the cuds that are brought up and <=
span
class=3DSpellE>rechewed and directs fermented feed to the lower GI t=
ract,
and the omasum as the gatekeeper in front of th=
e abomasum, the ruminant’s true stomach which is =
very
similar to the human stomach.
<= o:p>
D=
airy
cows and the microbial population of forestomach
fermentation have a symbiotic relationship: A relationship where both parti=
es
derive benefits. The dairy cow provides water, warmth, food and waste
management to a diverse and interacting collection of bacteria, protozoa, a=
nd
fungi. The environment created by the dairy cows is so perfect that these
microbes thrive in the forestomach at highest
population densities found anywhere on the planet. In return, these microbes
turn the plant fiber into useable nutrients such as energy and protein.
<= o:p>
T=
his
stomach system is supported by a generous supply of blood and nerves. The b=
lood
moves nutrients and wastes to and from the forestomach=
,
supporting its actions. The nerves coordinate the fixed and timed reflexes =
that
continually mix the contents, belch out the fermentation gases, and form the
cuds. Cud-chewing or rumination is one of the defining behaviors of ruminan=
ts.
Ruminants tend to eat rapidly then continually bring the feed back up and <=
span
class=3DSpellE>rechew which aids in the breakup and fermentation of =
the
feed. In addition, rumination also aids in the management of the acid load
generated in the forestomach and provides the d=
airy
cow some to the regenerative effects we associate with sleep.
<= o:p>
T=
he
advantages of a properly working forestomach are
many. In addition to the digestion of plant fiber into usable energy and the
production of microbial protein from a healthy ruminal=
microbial population, a healthy fermentation can detoxify, converting harmf=
ul
or counterproductive compounds into benign or even useful nutrients. The
fermentation also provides vitamins and essential fatty acids. In short, the
ruminant can take marginal feed in marginal situations and live quite happi=
ly.
Our goal as dairy producers is to maximize the function of this forestomach fermentation.
<= o:p>
T=
his
ability to generate good things from minimal or marginal input is why rumin=
ants
have been so successful on this planet, colonizing many different ecosystems
from the polar regions to the equator. But the
hardworking forestomach fermentation does have =
its
costs. The dairy cows must provide significant resources to maintain a heal=
thy
and working system. And fermentation as a form of digestion and absorption =
of
feed has some inefficiencies. In our production systems, the forestomach complicates ration formulation, making nu=
trient
supply to our dairy cows very difficult to predict. Much time and computer
hardware has been devoted to this challenge but still some days we come up
short in our prediction and understanding of the workings of the forestomach of the lactating dairy cow.
<= o:p>
O=
ver the
next few issues we’ll discuss some of the practical workings of a dai=
ry
cow and how we as dairy producers might help her do the things she need to =
do.
—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com
HARVESTING
SECOND AND THIRD CUT GRASSES
H=
arvesting
second and third cut grasses is a bit of a crapshoot. That’s because =
most
cool-season grasses don’t head (at least not reliably) following first
cut, so you seldom can use this as a guide. The crop will continue to decli=
ne
in quality as it ages though, so when to harvest is a compromise between
quantity and quality.
<= o:p>
O=
ne
problem with this management is that a 30-day harvest interval may damage
timothy stands, and will almost certainly deplete brom=
egrass
stands. Orchardgrass, reed canarygrass
and tall fescue are more tolerant of frequent harvests, which is why
they’re replacing timothy on many intensively managed dairy farms.
<= o:p>
S=
econd
and third cut grasses are almost always lower in potassium (unless you appl=
ied
manure right after first cut), and may be the best forage you harvest all y=
ear
for prefresh dry cows. One way to handle a
low-yielding second or third cut is to bale it as dry hay. The potassium in
grasses is a bit less available to cows when the crop is preserved as dry h=
ay
compared to the same forage managed as silage.
—E.T.
FACTORS
AFFECTING PRUSSIC ACID CONTENT IN PLANTS
The following is from Marvin=
Hall,
Penn State University Forage Specialist
<= o:p>
Sudangrass, forage sorghums and sorghum=
-sudangrass crosses (all in the genus Sorghum) contain=
a
non-poisonous chemical called dhurrin. If these
plants are damaged by freezing, chewing or trampling), the dhurrin
is converted into prussic acid (cyanide) which is potentially very dangerous
for animals eating these crops.
<= o:p>
4
=
Species—T=
he
vegetative portion of all sorghums contains prussic acid. Generally, howeve=
r,
prussic acid content in sudangrass is about 40%=
less
than in most other sorghums. As a group, sorghum-sudan=
grass
hybrids have more prussic acid than does sudangrass.
Crosses have now been developed that contain extremely low quantities.
4
=
Plant parts
4
=
Maturity—H=
ighest
prussic acid levels are reached before the boot stage. As plants mature, th=
e stalks
make up a greater proportion of the plant, causing prussic acid content in =
the
total forage to decrease.
4
=
Drought—S=
evere
drought is probably the most common cause of prussic acid poisoning.
Drought-stricken plants are hazardous to feed because they are mostly leave=
s.
4
=
Freezing—Forage is usually
considered safe to pasture or feed as green chop 5-6 days after a killing
frost.
4
=
Fertilizer
<= o:p>
Safe feeding of potentially
hazardous forages
4
=
Pasture—Sorghum that has wilt=
ed and
dried 5-6 days after being killed by frost is considered safe for grazing. =
The
risk of prussic acid poisoning can be reduced by feeding ground cereal grai=
ns
to the animals before turning them out to graze. The chance of problems on
pasture can be further reduced by using heavy stocking rates (4-6 head per
acre) and rotational grazing to avoid cattle selectively grazing the leaves=
. If
new shoots develop after a frost the crop shouldn’t be grazed until t=
his
new growth is 2 feet tall.
4
=
Green chop
4
=
Silage—Sorghum silage is gen=
erally
safe for feeding. Although it could contain toxic levels of prussic acid wh=
ile
in storage, much of the poison escapes as a gas during fermentation and when
being moved for feeding. However, as a precaution don’t feed new sila=
ge
for at least 3 weeks after harvesting and storing.
4
=
Hay—T=
he
prussic acid content of sorghum hay decreases as much as 75 percent while
curing and is rarely hazardous when fed to livestock.
BIOLOGICAL
CONTROL OF ALFALFA WEEVILS
W=
e’ve
written in the past about the great job that tiny parasitic wasps are doing=
in
controlling the alfalfa weevil. While in other areas biological alfalfa wee=
vil
control is somewhat hit or miss, with occasional weevil outbreaks, in this
region we haven’t had a serious alfalfa weevil problem in about 35 ye=
ars,
which is remarkable.
<= o:p>
O=
ne
reason for this stellar recordd is that in addi=
tion
to parasites, we have another biological control friend in alfalfa, an
insect-feeding fungus, Zoophthora phytonomi,
that parasitizes the alfalfa weevil and nothing else. In much of
—E.T.
GRASS
SILAGE
I=
’ve
been cleaning out my files, deciding on what to keep, what to toss, and wha=
t to
leave for the (eventual) new agronomist. In doing so I came upon an interes=
ting
Cornell University Department of Agricultural Engineering publication by El=
gin
B. Hundtoft: “Quality grass silage and the
influence of cutting practices”. I read it, thinking that it might ha=
ve
some interesting information on currently hot topics such as stubble height,
conditioning and windrow management. The publication isn’t dated but =
Hundtoft wrote another Cornell publication in 1965 and
since he was gone by the time I started with Cornell Cooperative Extension =
in
1966, I figure it was written in the early 1960s. Hund=
toft
moved west from
<= o:p>
T=
he grass
silage publication didn’t cover any of my hot topics, but Hundtoft noted that “according to specialists
acquainted with silage production techniques”, the recommendations for
producing quality silage are:
1.&n=
bsp;
Cut
the crop at an early stage of growth.
2.&n=
bsp;
Field
cure to less than 65% moisture content.
3.&n=
bsp;
Chop
it short.
4.&n=
bsp;
Fill
the silo fast.
<= o:p>
C=
an’t
disagree with any of these, but then he continues:
“The advantages of wil=
ting
over direct-cut practices are still debatable. Seepage losses at the silo f=
or
direct-cut material amount to approximately 10% of the total nutrients ensi=
led.
If through the wilting program we leave this same 10% in the field as a fie=
ld
loss, we have achieved little or nothing by adopting such a program. Field
losses associated with direct-cutting are usually small.”
<= o:p>
I=
t sure
sounds like Professor Hundtoft was waffling on =
direct
cut vs. wilted grass silage. Of course, 40 years ago we didn’t have C=
AFO
requirements and dairy farmers didn’t have to worry about silage
effluent. We could also explain these rash statements by noting that Hundtoft was (is?) an agricultural engineer and what =
could
he know about crops? In his defense (if indeed he needs one), herd averages
back then were about half of what they are now, so the penalties incurred f=
rom
feeding 15% dry matter, high butyric acid grass silage weren’t nearly=
as
severe. But direct cut grass silage is one reason why a dairy farmer wore
coveralls that he had to hang on a nail outside the kitchen door before his
wife would let him come in. Boy, did that stuff =
stink!
—E.T.
INTERNAL
HERD GROWTH
O=
ne of
the advantages of speaking at meetings here and there is getting to listen =
to
some pretty smart people. This includes Michael Evanish, manager of MSC
Business Services, which provides management services to Pennsylvania Farm
Bureau members. Evanish has an accounting and marketing background but knows
the dairy industry well and was appointed to the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture’s Dairy Task Force.
R=
ecently
MSC compared the average vs. the top 10% of 440
<= o:p>
M=
ichael’s
message is brief but worth posting in your farm office, to be read by every=
one
associated with the care of young stock on your farm:
4
Every
female born on the farm is precious.
4
Every
female born on the farm should be treated throughout her ENTIRE life like s=
he
is precious.
ETHANOL
AND FOOD PRICES
R=
ecently
Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator from
<= o:p>
&=
#8220;Most
experts agree that corn ethanol isn’t responsible for more than 10 or=
20
percent of the total increase in food prices. The fact is, $120 a barrel oil is the biggest culprit behind the rising =
cost
of food. Another driving force is the surging demand for more and better fo=
od
by an escalating middle-income population in
<= o:p>
T=
here’s
only about a dime’s worth of corn in a $5.00 box of Kellogg’s C=
orn
Flakes, so the
CELEBRATE
DAIRY MONTH THE MINER WAY– YUM!
I=
n honor
of June being National Dairy Month, the staff of Miner Institute celebrated
with the 2nd Annual Dairy Month Dessert Contest. The rules were simple – dess=
erts
must contain at least one dairy product, and of course, be homemade. Monday morning arrived, and the
mouth-watering concoctions start rolling in – each one sounding better
than the last. This year̵=
7;s
line-up of dairy inspired temptations included Chocolate Buttermilk Pie, Ch=
ess
Squares, Nanny’s Fudge, Layered Strawberry and Mocha Mousse, Toll-Hou=
se
Pie, Raspberry Tart, Mom’s Ice Cream Dessert, Blueberry Gingerbread,
Cinnamon Buns, Peanut Butter-Chocolate Éclair Dessert, Fruit Pizza, =
and
the Mystery Whipped Cream Dessert.
<= o:p>
I=
was
looking forward to lunch (well, dessert really) and remembered last
year’s winning entry from
<= o:p>
F=
ruit
Pizza
·
sugar
cookie dough rolled out on a circular pizza pan, baked for about 15 minutes=
at
350°
·
8
oz container of cream cheese, flavored to taste with sugar (approximately 1=
/8
cup)
·
top
with your choice of sliced fruit
<= o:p>
T=
hank you
to the cafeteria staff for their assistance, as well as all the participants
who toiled in their kitchens to make these wonderful desserts. We’d like to extend a special
thanks to all the dairy producers who work hard every day so that we can en=
joy
these desserts that require fine dairy products!
—Rachel Butzler,
butlzer@whminer.com
Closing Comment
A=
ny
twelve people who can't get themselves out of jury duty are not my peers.