MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

Clean Alleys Equal Clean Cows

There is a growin= g body of evidence that associates cow cleanliness, or hygiene, and mastitis. Clea= ner cows are a lower risk for a mastitis incident than dirty cows. Klebsiella, a leading cause of c= oliform mastitis, is a prime example of a pathogen that may be more prominent in a dirty environment. Manure in the alleys is one source of contamination of cow’s legs, which then come into contact with the udder while the cow= is lying. Cow hygiene was the focus of two articles in a recent edition of the Journal of Dairy Science. The first article evaluated the effects on the us= e of automatic alley scrapers on the cleanliness of slatted floors and, the subsequent, effect on cow cleanliness.&nbs= p; The second article attempted to expand previous work and establish a relationship between cow hygiene and the presence of K= lebsiella on the lower leg and udder (both before and after udder preparation).<= /o:p>

Bot= h the cleanliness of the barn and cows were recorded in the study conducted at th= e Swedish University of Agricultural Science= s. The automatic scrapers were run in one portion of the barn every 2 hours in the alley associated with the freestalls and every = 3.5 hours in the alley associated with the feed alley. The amount of manure in these alleys was compared to another portion of the barn, which relied sole= ly on the slatted floors for manure removal. Using the alley scrapers significantly reduced the amount of manure behind the = freestalls and along the back wall of the feed alley. This reduction of alleyway manure resulted in cows with significantly cleaner teats and udders.

The= second study measured the percentage of cows contaminated with Klebsiella across the range of hygiene scores. Swabs of cows from each hygiene score (= on a 1 to 5 scale) were collected from the lower leg and the teats. Teat swabs were done prior to udder preparation for milking and again following the completion of preparation.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Cleanliness was not associated wit= h Klebsiella prevalence on the legs or pre-preparation = udder; however, dirty udders were significantly more likely to be contaminated aft= er udder preparation. This demonstrates that Klebsiella remains on the teat and puts the cow at greater risk for infection when the teat sphincter is relaxed following milking.

The combined results of these two studies suggest that the investment in alley scrapers can be one important aspect of maintaining or improving milk quali= ty. Keeping alleyways cleaner leads to cleaner cows, which are at less risk for environmental mastitis.

—Peter Krawczel, krawczel@whmi= ner.com

Silostop System Review

Reduced permeability plastic for bunker and piled silage has been a hot topic latel= y. The Silostop system is relatively new in the U.S. Th= is system makes use of a very low oxygen permeable plastic, 1/20^th that = of standard 6-8 ml polyethylene silo cover plastic.= The Silostop system also requires covering the silo walls= as well as the top surface of the forage. A plastic mesh tarp is used to cover= the top surface, providing protection from UV light and punctures from weather = and animals. Gravel bags are then used to hold the tarp down on the plastic and both tight to the ensiled forage.

At the recent Cornell Nutrition Conference, Dr. Richa= rd Muck of the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center presented a review of researc= h to date with the Silostop system. His group compar= ed the Silostop system on 4 corn silage and 2 alfalfa = silage bunker silos versus an 8 mil white plastic top cover. Silage quality was evaluated at ensiling and at fadeout, at 2 locations: 2 ft down from the top and 2 ft in from the bunker wall, and 2 ft down from the top in the center = of the silage stack.

The biggest difference in silage quality observed bet= ween the two systems was found in alfalfa silage at the wall. In the top 6 inches there was a 19% loss vs. 1% loss in DM for the white plastic and Silostop respectively. At 6-24 inches, losses were si= milar at 3% for each cover. At the top center, silages showed no visible signs of mold and losses were similar for each system at about 3%. The Silostop<= /span> system did consistently show slightly lower pH and higher lactic:acetic ratios, but not statistically different= . Dr. Muck mentioned that these results were similar to those of Dr. Limin Kung’s research, finding significant improvements of silage quality near the bunker walls with the Silostop system compared to 8ml polyethylene plastic,= but small effects at the middle of the silo.&n= bsp; Dr Muck did mention that he would expect larger differences in silage quality (less loss) in favor of the Silostop sy= stem when compared to 6 mil plastic, given that he has noted greater losses of D= M with 6 mil versus 8 mil plastic in the order of 5 percentage = points. He also wondered if covering the bunker walls with 8 mil plastic would give the same benefit as the Silo= stop system.

Silostop advantages:<= /span>

1. = “Double cover” of the low permeability plastic and protective tarp, added wei= ght over entire silage surface along with adequate gravel bags or tires.

2. = Protective tarp minimizing penetrations of the plastic from weather or animals

3. = Quicker and ea= sier to cover silo than thinner plastic requiring tire-to-tire coverage<= /span>

Silostop disadvantages:

1. = Cost, nearly t= wice as much as standard polyethylene plastic

2. = Need to reuse = tarp to save on costs, makes it awkward at feed out

Silostop also has a one-step pro= duct, low permeability film that does not require the cover tarp, but the data is= not in yet on that product.

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

An apple= a day…

Did you know that= New York State is the 2nd largest apple producing state in the US? As it is apple season rig= ht now, a certain employee was foraging at the grocery store, and couldn’= ;t decide which apple to buy, so he bought 9 different varieties. He was gener= ous enough to share the fruits of his labor at lunch with us, so we had an impromptu apple taste test. The eating apple varieties were (in no particul= ar order): = MacIntosh, Macoun, Cortland, Jonagold, Empire, Honeycri= sp, Rhode Island Greening, Twenty Ounce Apple, and Crispin. Honeycrisp was a clear winner, followed by Cortland, then Crispin. I won’t tell you which one came in last, but I did hear someone say “Rhode Isla= nd can take their Greenings back”. If an apple a day is good, 9 apples a= day is better, right? =

Rachel Butzler, butzler@whminer.com

From the President’s Desk: Management and Milk Components<= o:p>

Milk protein and milk fat dictate the value of milk.<= /span> Milk fat test= is impacted by many feeding and management factors and is easily manipulated. Boosting milk protein percentage is more difficult, but it can be done. The feeding program and the feeding environment must deliver the needed nutrien= ts for the mammary gland to synthesize milk.

If milk protein is low you should evaluate sources of amino acids needed by the mammary gland to make milk protein. Sources of am= ino acids for milk protein include microbial protein synthesis that accounts for over 60% of the total amino acids needed plus dietary sources of rumen undegraded protein or RUP. Maximize microbial protein synthes= is, because this will always be the most economical way to improve milk protein= . Do this by optimizing feed and energy intake that drive microbial growth:=

4 Adequate physi= cally effective fiber to avoid rumen acidosis

4 Provide adequa= te rumen fermentable carbohydrate in the ration

4 Add 2 to 4% su= gar (total of 4 to 6% in ration dry matter).

Consider adding protected amino acids if indicated by= a computer-based amino acid model (such as Dairy NRC 2001, CPM-Dairy, or Amino Cow). Lysine and methionine are considered as f= irst limiting amino acids. If protected amino acids are supplemented, milk produ= ction and(or) milk components can respond within two w= eeks. If milk fat percentage is too low, the following factors should be evaluate= d:

4 Feeding of polyunsaturated fatty acids as free oil (not contained in an intact seed su= ch as corn oil in distillers gra= in) (Lower milk fat)

4 Feeding more s= aturated fat sources (Raise milk fat)

4&nb= sp; Feeding recommended levels of oilseed (< 5 lb/cow/= day; Raise milk fat)

4&nb= sp; Increase forage level (Raise milk fat)

4&nb= sp; Decrease forage particle size or length (Lower milk fat)

4&nb= sp; Adding sodium bicarbonate buffer at 0.75 percent of t= he ration dry matter (Raise milk fa= t if rumen pH is low)

4&nb= sp; Higher milk yield (Lower milk fat by dilution)

4&nb= sp; Loss of body condition (Raise milk fat)

4&nb= sp; Starch levels over ~28 percent of ration dry matter <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> (Lower milk fat)

4&nb= sp; Shifting from dry to high-moisture, pelleted, or steam-flaked corn (Lower milk f= at if starch levels are high)

4&nb= sp; Shifting to total mixed ration (Raise milk fat)

4&nb= sp; Feeding more frequently and pushing up feed (Raise milk fat)

4&nb= sp; Reducing feed sorting (Raise milk fat)

4&nb= sp; Rumen acidosis (Lower milk fat with higher milk protein)

4&nb= sp; Improper milking procedure (Lower milk fat)

Increasing milk fat and protein depends on getting numerous feeding aspects right. As we head into the winter feeding months, now is a great ti= me to evaluate your rations with your nutritionist to maximize the value of the milk your cows produce.

—Rick Gran= t, grant@whminer.com

THE 2008 GROWING SEASON

May-through-September precipitation and growing degree day (GDD) accumulation in Chazy were about normal compared to long-t= erm averages, but that doesn’t tell half the story. We started and ended = with relatively dry months (May and September), but the intervening months were = all wet (in more ways than one), with over 4” of precipitation each month. This is good for growing most crops, but not for forage quality. August was quite cool, and it was generally agreed that corn was about a week late in maturing. In spite of similar growing season precipitation and GDD totals, don’t be surprised if 2008 forages don’t test or feed as well as 2007 forages.

Extreme weather visited = the North Country this growing season, including hail t= hat shredded corn leaves and a microburst that ravaged both 100-year old trees = and corn at Miner Institute. The problem wasn’t widespread but localized damage was terrible. Hurricane Ike also visited us, causing devastation to = corn in the Western part of the region, mainly Jeffer= son County (Watertown area), while it goosenecked corn but for the most part didn’t cause serious damage in more Easter= ly regions.

What’s Happening on the Farm

October was a hectic yet interesting month at Miner Institute. A plethora of activi= ties were on the agenda ranging from educational seminars to farm tours. Dr. Jan Shearer from the Universi= ty of Florida started = the month off with an informative hoof trimming seminar. Up next was an Agricultural Career Day organized by Cornell Cooperative Extension of Clint= on County designed for local high school students interested in ag-related careers. Participants included dairy farme= rs, veterinarians, feed companies, milk quality reps, and many other profession= als. Two Japanese groups, ZenNoh and a group headed = by Dr. Koichi Ito, Miner’s Japanese extension agent, toured the facilities. Other activities included a composting workshop, a heifer grower’s seminar, a group from Blue Seal, and several other tour groups. As if these scheduled events did not keep Miner Institute employees sufficiently occupi= ed, an intriguing unscheduled event also occurred.

A calf with a defect known as schistosoma reflexus was delivered via feto= tomy. Such cases are commonly referred to as inside-out calves. The most lucid description I found is from Answers.com (Don’t worry, I wouldn’t reference this site on a thesis) and states “A common fetal monster a= nd cause of dystocia…characterized by acute = angulation of the spine so that the tail lies close t= o the head, the thoracic and abdominal cavities have no ventral wall and the visc= era are uncontained.” After two hours of manipulating the calf, the “monster” was finally extracted. The dam is now recovering rath= er well considering the uterine tear she experienced and is still in our milki= ng herd. Although dismayed by the result of a dead calf, the learning experien= ce was intriguing for everyone involved. If anyone is interested in learning m= ore about inside-out calves or other fetal “monsters,” visit Dr. Maarten Drost’s website at http://drostproject.vetmed.ufl.edu/.

I know what you are all wondering: Was it a heifer ca= lf? We forgot to check!

—Glenn Pal= mer, gpalmer@whminer.org

—Steve Couture, couture@whminer.org

PRACTICAL RUMINANTS: VFA PRODUCTION AND REMOVAL

Last month we talked about the once-bitten donut as a metaphor for volatile fatty acids (VFA) produced in the ruminal fermentatio= n in the lactating dairy cow. The once-bitten donut is free of its packing, still has most of its energy and usable if you don’t mind microbe spit. The microbes free the glucose molecules (tiny donuts) from a wide variety of fe= eds, take a small portion of the energy from the glucose (the bite), and leave V= FA (the once-bitten donut) which the cow absorbed and uses for energy. This process allows the cow to extract energy from plant fiber that is otherwise unavailable.

In the ruminal fermentati= on of the lactating dairy cow, a lot of VFA are produced each day and are usually= in one of three forms: acetic acid (two carbons), propion= ic acid (three carbons), and butyric acid (four carbons). The total VFA produc= ed each day is determined by amount of feed consumed by the cow and fermentability of that feed. The more the cow eats, t= he more VFA is produced. The more fermentable the feed consumed, the more VFA produced. Fermentability of a feed increases wi= th increasing proportion of nonfiber carbohydrate = and decreasing proportion of NDF. As an example, corn grain will produce more V= FA per pound than good quality forage and forage will produce more than straw.=

Once produced, the ruminal VFA must be removed before they accumulate in the rumen and cause problems. Mos= t of the VFA produced by the fermentation are absorbed across the ruminal wall. Some VFA flow to lower parts of the dig= estive tract and are absorbed there. Regardless of where the VFA is absorbed, a healthy lining with lot of surface area absorbs more VFA than a flat or dam= aged lining. The surface area of a healthy forestomach is increased by the papillae (little fingers) of the rumen, reticular ridges (= the honeycomb) of the reticulum, and papillated lam= ellae (leaves or folds) of the omasum. Ultimately, al= l VFA are absorbed and metabolized or incorporated into other molecules and the a= cid is neutralized.

The total daily VFA load is produced within and remov= ed by the lactating dairy cow. When production and removal of VFA are out of balance, problems occur. Next month we’ll talk about the problems cau= sed by this imbalance or, more accurately, the problem of the excess VFA produc= tion which leads to acidosis.

—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com

Maximizing Your Internet Search: Finding What You Need Quicker

When it comes to searching the Internet, it can be difficult to translate what y= ou need into the results you want. But certain techniques can increase success when you start typing in that Google toolbar.

Basic Search Engine Searching

By default most s= earch engines use the term AND= to connect phrases. This means it will sear= ch the text of a website for all of the words you type into the search box. As long as those words are located anywhere in the website, they will be in yo= ur search results.

Example: If yo= u type milk fat into Google’s search box, like most search engines, it will search for the terms milk AND <= /i>fat but not necessarily as a phrase. Results will contain “Actual percentage of <= /span>milk fat varies based on the type of cow...” as well as “Fat and Cholesterol in Human Milk …= ;”

This method works okay if you don’t need a spec= ific phrase, but if you do, try using quotation marks. Quotation marks force a search engine to look for an exact phrase and results will include only that phrase.

Example: If yo= u type “milk fat”, the search engine will only return results = with that exact phrase similar to “This study investigated the effect of <= /span>milk fat content…”

Searching a Website

Let’s face it; some websites are difficult to navigate. If you recently read some interesting information on a website but can’t remember where it was located or y= ou simply want to see what’s on a particular website, you can do a site search by using site: in any search engine without going to the website first.

Example: You want to kno= w what information is available about milk f= at on the USDA website. Use quotations around m= ilk fat because you want that exact phrase. Therefore, type "milk fat" site: usda.gov <= /b>and all records on the USDA website with “milk fat” in them the will be returned.

A Few Things to Keep in Mind

Search engines search from left to right so put the most important words first.

Features vary from search engine to search engine. So= me allow several Boolean search options; some are much larger than others and = some are not updated very often.

Search engines and databases are NOT the same. A data= base is set up so all records are the same format. Search engines search the rec= ord (website), as is and since they don’t discriminate on quality, results can be dubious. Also, some search engines only search the first 100-200KB (= very little) of the website so you may not getting the complete picture of what information is available.

There are a multitude of tricks for Internet searchin= g, but these shortcuts will help you find the information you need a little fa= ster. For more information on specific search engine features or to learn more Internet search shortcuts, check out Greg Notess’= ;s Search Engine Showdown at http://searchengineshowdown.com.

—Amy Bedard, Miner Institute Librarian

bedard@whminer.c= om

Vet’s Corner: Annual Vaccination Protocols Review

Fall brings on variation in temperature and humidity = that challenges ventilation systems and vaccination protocols. This is a good ti= me of year to review protocols, new vaccination products, and other concerns w= ith your herd health veterinarian.

As understanding of the bovine immune system expands, animal health companies are bringing new vaccination products to market at a rapid rate. The companies are constantly testing their products to achieve = more extensive claims for their products. Dairy veterinarians have a variety of opportunities to learn about and evaluate these new products, so the animal health company depends on the herd health veterinarian to introduce appropr= iate products and monitor their success on dairy farms.

=

As new products arrive, we have been able to eliminate some boosters and combine injections at proper times to reduce labor time. = By reducing vaccinations, compliance and animal health improve.

Some of the vaccine prob= lems we encountered this year were:

1.      = Forgetting to = give boosters was responsible for a B= RD break in 6 to 9 month old calves. This problem was addressed by desig= ning a check-off list for individual calves and changing vaccines to an equally effective product that did not require a booster.

2.      = Contamination = of vaccine. A group of calves suffered serious BRD symptoms and one death per day after vaccination from a bottle of vaccine which had turned color from pink to brown. Vaccine companies place pH indicators in their products that ca= uses the color change and is a tip-off that the product is damaged. In this case= , a needle that had gone through calf skin was used to draw more vaccine from t= he multiple-use bottle; the bottle was not discarded and even though it was properly refrigerated for three weeks, it was contaminated and caused probl= ems for the next batch of calves.

—Kent Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veteri= nary Associates, Inc.

Hugamoo@comcast.= net

FRUIT AND NUT ALERT

In= ternational hijinks continue to play havoc with fertilizer prices, but what’s certain is that you’ll pay more for the stuf= f in 2009 than ever before. (See “Fertilizer Price Insights” in this newsletter for more on this subject.) High fertilizer prices often result in “alternative fertilization strategies” popping up like dandelio= ns. Some of these strategies may be well-founded, but most are not. One that’s not is foliar feeding of macronutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium). There’s nothing wrong with foliar feeding of micronutrien= ts (boron, zinc, several others) if there’s a known deficiency, but it’s hard to get plant nutrient uptake of more than about 1 lb/A in m= ost crops including alfalfa and corn. Therefore, substituting foliar fertilizat= ion for more tried-and-true methods is almost certain to be futile. But that doesn’t stop purveyors of high-priced liquid fertilizers from recommending it.

Fo= liar feeding of field crops has been extens= ively researched: Iowa State University conducted replicated fi= eld trials from 1994 to 2006, foliar fertilizing soybeans at several growth sta= ges. They got a response in fewer than 20% of the trials, with the yield response from the best treat= ment (3 gallons/acre of 3-18-18) a paltry 0.7 bushels per acre. Based on the pri= ce of liquid fertilizer and application cost, that rate of foliar feeding would cost about $30 per acre. For less than one bushel yield increase? For the best treatment, and even then only 1 time in 5?<= /span> Other trials in the Midwest were similar= ly discouraging, with increases of up to 5 bu/acre= but decreases of up= to 6 bu/acre. If soybeans with their extensive leaf canopy don’t respond to foliar feeding, how do you think corn would fare?

Th= is isn’t a condemnation of liquid fertilizers. As long as they’re competitively priced per pound of nutrient (and we’ve expounded at le= ngth on this subject), liquid fertilizers are fine. But they need to be used in a similar way as granular fertilizers, which means soil-applied. Supplementing normal fertilization practices with a few gallons per acre of foliar fertil= izer isn’t recommended; why spend extra money on fertilizer and application cost when there’s so little to gain?

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

If I begin foaming at the mouth…<= /b>

Recently my dog Orson and I had a surprise encounter with a raccoon on a beautiful Sunday afternoon. We were walking in my driveway when a raccoon ran out from under my vehicle and jumped at Orson. Luckily, Orson was just as surprised = as I was by the raccoon and didn’t get a chance to fight with it. The youn= g, healthy-looking raccoon quickly ran off into the surrounding woods as I sho= uted a few choice words. This chance meeting got me wondering about rabies.=

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, rabies is a viral disease affecting the central nervous system causing encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and = myelitis (inflammation of the spinal column). The rabies virus is transmitted through saliva and brain/nervous tissue. The virus can only be transmitted into bite wounds, open cuts in the skin, or mucous membranes found in the mouth or ey= es. Signs of rabies in animals are unusual behavior, general sickness, increased drool or saliva, problems swallowing, and difficulty moving. In humans, ear= ly signs of rabies are nonspecific – malaise, fever, or headache. As the infec= tion progresses, anxiety, confusion, agitation, abnormal behavior, hallucination= s, and insomnia will be observed. Rabies is almost always fatal once the clini= cal signs appear.

Rabies surveillance in the U. S. was summarized recently= in the September issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Rabies control programs during the 1940’s and 1950’= ;s, which used extensive vaccination strategies, reduced rabies in domestic animals. However, there are still over 7,000 reported cases of rabies each = year and this probably only represent a fraction of the cases of rabies since ma= ny rabid animals are never observed and go untested. In 2007, wild animals accounted for 93% of the 7,258 reported cases of rabies in the U. S. The ot= her 7% were in domestic animals. Raccoons (37%) were the most frequently report= ed rabid animal, followed by bats (27%), skunks (20%), foxes (7%), cats (4%), = dogs (1%), and cattle (<1%).

Prevention and control methods for rabies in wildlife= are limited to minimizing the translocation of “known rabies reservoir species” and distribution of oral rabies vaccines. In August, the NY State Department of Health dropped rabies vaccine bait from helicopters over northern NY in an annual effort to fight raccoon rabies. Rabies vaccine dro= ps also occur in other parts of NY. The prevention and control of rabies in domestic animals is easier. All dogs, cats, and ferrets should be vaccinate= d. Livestock that are valuable or have frequent contact with humans (petting z= oos, fairs, public exhibitions, etc.) should be vaccinated. All of the dairy cat= tle here at Miner are vaccinated for rabies.

Check out the following websites for more information about rabies:

4      http://www.cdc.gov/RABIES

4      http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/communicable/zoonoses/rabies

4      http://www.worldrabiesday.org <= o:p>

—He= ather Dann, dann@whminer.com

Editor’s note: Miner Institute had a case of rabies many years ago i= n a llama, and several farm workers who had contact with the animal had to go through the series of shots. Rabies does occur on Northern NY farms.=

SEED CORN STICKER SHOCK

Until this fall about the only way you could pay $300= for a unit of seed corn was by buying a BMR hybrid. But some non-BMR corn hybri= ds for 2009 planting may well exceed that price—maybe not here in the Northeastern U.S., but more likely in the Corn Belt<= /st1:place>. The price increase is for two reasons: First, your cost of growing corn has increased a lot and so has the cost of growing corn for seed production. Bu= t a significant source of higher seed corn prices is the increased number of tr= aits in the newer hybrids. If you don’t need to apply a soil insecticide f= or rootworm control because your corn hybrid is genetically resistant to rootworms, you’re saving about $40 per unit in reduced insecticide co= st. Of course, this assumes that you have a rootworm problem, or the likely potential for one, and that you would have used a soil insecticide. The same goes for the high rate of seed treatment (Poncho 1250, Cruiser Extreme 1250= ). Your seed bill is higher, but your insecticide bill is lower. In fact, if y= ou use leafhopper resistant alfalfa you might not need to purchase any field c= rop insecticides at all. It’s similar for RoundupRea= dy (glyphosate resistant) hybrids: You’re pa= ying more for the RR gene, but it allows the potent= ial for reduced herbicide costs. While the RR t= rait was a better deal before the trait, Roundup and other = glyphosate prices took a healthy jump in price (well, at least it was healthy for Monsanto), I still think the options that Roundup Ready technology offers m= akes it worth the price.

—E.T.=

RETHINKING STAYGREEN

Back in the Dark Ages (before the advent of silage processors) I recommended that farmers choose corn hybrids for silage with moderate staygreen ratings. For the uninitiated= , staygreen is the ability of the corn plant to stay gr= een while the kernel dries down. (Staygreen =3D sta= y green. Aren’t plant breeders a clever lot?) A hybrid with a high staygreen rating, 8 or 9 on a 1 to 9 scale, might be = at 1/3 milkline while still well below 30% whole plant= dry matter. We got a shock years ago when we started chopping a hybrid at what = we thought was the right stage based on kernel milk line, only to find that wh= ole plant DM was well below 30%. That’s when I started recommending that farmers choose hybrids with moderate staygreen, a recommendation secon= ded by some but not all agronomists/plant breeders.

Ah= , but how things have changed! Now a majority of the corn harvested in the Northe= ast is processed—at least it seems that way—and on these farms we m= ight need to rethink the whole staygreen issue. This= is front-and-center because of high grain prices that increase the value of gr= ain in the silage. For instance, a ton of corn silage contains about 6 bushels = of corn. If corn increases in price by $2.00 per bushel, that’s an additional $12 per ton or about $200 per acre. A high = staygreen rating allows the ear to continue to accumulate starch while the rest of the plant doesn’t get too dry for good ensiling.

However, this assumes th= at silage processing is done correctly, which means almost every kernel broken into small pieces, and many silage processors aren’t properly adjuste= d. A whole kernel with a crack in it isn’t good enough. This year we tight= ened the processor clearance on the Institute processor to 2 mm (from 3 mm in 20= 07) and considerably increased chop length. With some processors, further adjustments may be necessary to achieve good kernel breakage, the settings depending on the particular processor as well as crop condition.

HERBICIDE BREAKDOWN

The floods in the Midwest this past spring wreaked havoc with farmers, and now they’re having to deal with an unusual problem: How fast or sl= ow herbicides break down under flooded or waterlogged conditions. While we haven’t had to deal with floods this year, aren’t flooded or waterlogged conditions just what we often have in the wet holes and poorly drained areas of fields? And if so, information on herbicide degradation un= der anaerobic conditions (occurring when the soil is water-saturated) should be useful in predicting or explaining why we often have problems the following year in these areas. Maybe part of the problem is herbicide residue. Anyway, here’s a list of some common herbicides and what happens under anaero= bic conditions.

4      Atrazine, simazine—Slower breakdown

4      Prowl—Faster

4      Roundup—= Unknown (though it probably doesn’t make much difference)

4      Accent, Beacon= —Can degrade under anaerobic conditions

4      Dual, Frontier= —Much slower

This would suggest that = there might be enough triazine residual from atrazine or simazine stic= king around to pickle alfalfa-grass seedings the fol= lowing spring. Of course, the alfalfa probably wouldn’t last long in a wet h= ole anyway…

FERTILIZER PRICE INSIGHTS

It’s tough on farm= ers when the demand/supply situation combines to drive up fertilizer prices, but we’re all in the same boat with regard to fertilizer prices, right? Wrong, especially in the case of urea. Chin= a and India are major factors—if not the major factors—in the world urea market, and neither of these countries operates on a m= arket economy. The price of urea in China and India has nothing to do with crop prices or the world price of this fertilizer. F= or instance, in 2008 In= dia provided its farmers $29 billion= in fertilizer subsidies. (And guess who ele= cts the parliament in In= dia?—Farmers, of course!) While Ch= ina remains a net exporter of urea, it recently imposed an export tax in an eff= ort to keep more of the stuff at home. This really hits U.S. farmers because we import about two-thirds of our urea.

It looks like potash supplies will be very tight for = the next couple of years, and some dealers may not be able to get what they ord= er. The next significant expansion in potash production capacity won’t be until 2011. The next big phosphate plant isn’t due to come on line un= til 2014, about the same time a proposed new potash facility in Saskatchewan would begin production. W= orld demand for grain has increased by about 30 million tons annually for the pa= st decade, placing pressure on fertilizer supplies, especially potash. All fertilizer ingredients are in short supply, and the world situation would h= ave to change dramatically for fertilizer prices to be lower in 2009 than they = were in 2008. This in spite of recent reductions of over $20= 0 in the price of urea. Miner Institute hasn’t ordered starter fertilizer yet and won’t until early 2009, but we won’t wait too long and we’ll take delivery long before we need the stuff. We’= re hearing just a few too many comments about inadequate fertilizer supplies…

Ano= ther reason fertilizer prices will remain high is increased food demand. With its increased demand for soybean meal, China intends on increasing s= oybean imports. At the recent Soya and Oilseed Summit 2008, Bill Lapp, former VP of economic research at ConAgra, said: “Enjoy your meals here, because t= hey are among the last cheap meals you will have.” (For additional commen= ts on the fertilizer situation see Ev’s “Ike” blog on www.oakpointagronomics.com.)

NOBODY ASKED MY OPINION, BUT…

4      The St. Lawren= ce River town of Waddington<= /st1:place>, NY boasts that it’s the “Carp Capital of the World”. Why anyone would want to lay claim to carp fame is beyond me. This reminds me o= f an old carp recipe: Put carp in a large pot of water. Add 1 lb. of onions and = two clean bricks. Simmer for 48 hours. Discard carp, eat bricks.

4      Hats off to Agri-Mark for their efforts to assist Amish farmers i= n this region (St. Lawrence County) in marketing their milk. The farmers lost their previous milk market, Heritage Cheese House, and Amish religious beliefs prevent proper on-farm cooling of milk. But now Agri-Mark is helping to set up “community milk houses” (including one in = my home town, Hammond) that will permit quick cooling and for the first time a= llow the Amish to ship Grade A milk.

4      I recently rea= d two apt definitions relating to the financial turmoil in world equity markets: = Bull market: A ra= ndom market movement causing an investor to mistake himself for a financial geni= us.
Bear m= arket: A six- to 18-month period when the kids get= no allowance, the wife gets no jewelry, and the husband gets no sex.

4      An agronomist = friend titled a recent email to me “Life on the other side”. I got to thinking…what “other side” was he referring to? That he w= as working and I’m partly/mostly retired? Or that he’s in the Midwest and I’m in the East? I decided I prob= ably shouldn’t give this too much thought—as lawyers often say, don’t ask the question if you’re not = going to like the answer.

—E.T.=

ORDERING FIELD C= ROP SEEDS FOR 2009

Crop trial results will = soon be available and can be useful as you place seed orders. We always like to = try at least one new corn hybrid each year, focusing on those that excelled in local/regional trials. I’ve don’t place much importance on how = a 90 day RM hybrid, for instance, did when planted in a 110 RM region. Fortunate= ly, Cornell University plants a replicated corn silage hybrid trial at Miner Institute each year, = and at least one other in Northern= NY.

You’ll see a big increase in the number of trai= ts in corn hybrids, but that doesn’t mean you need all of them…especially since most come at a price premium. Genetic tolerance= to Liberty herbicide (Liberty Link) is usually the exception since it gets a “free ride= 221; on many Bt-corn borer hybrids. Although Liberty isn’t nearly as common as glyphosate, it’s a good, wide-spectrum herbicide even though it isn’t as ho= t on quackgrass. Custom herbicide applicators I talk= to like it, and some think it’s not used often enough. Are corn borers a problem on your farm? If so, the Bt-corn borer is highly effective, providi= ng nearly 100% control. However, if you don’t= need it—and I don’t think corn borers are a serious problem in much = of Northern NY and New England—than why spend the $ on this trait? =

Bt for corn rootworms is another thing entirely, both genetically and otherwise. If you grow corn for several years in the s= ame field there’s a good likelihood that you’ll have some rootworm damage. And like Bt for corn borers, the trait is very, effective, providing more complete protection than any soil insectici= de. There’s a growing trend to stacking both Bt traits, but if you can buy the Bt-rootworm trait without the one for corn borers it should save you some money. IF is the operative word here: A growing number of seed companies don’t offer the option of Bt-rootworm alone on many of their hybrids.= The good news is that if you meet the insect refuge requirement for Bt-rootworm you’ll also meet the requirement for Bt-corn borer because the former= is more restrictive.

At Miner Institute we continue to plant only leafhopper-resistant (LHR) alfalfa varieties, as we’ve done for the p= ast four years; we just ordered our seed for spring 2009. Some years we have potentially damaging infestations of leafhoppers, some years we don’t= . I don’t want to have to worry about leafhoppers, and by planting LHR varieties I don’t have to. Opinions vary as to if there’s still= a “yield drag” with LHR varieties, but with the newest varieties = if there is one I think it’s pretty small. If a farmer or his crops consultant is willing to scout his alfalfa fields frequently and spray as s= oon as leafhopper populations exceed the threshold for control, maybe you could make a case for non-LHR varieties. But how often does this happen? Plus, I = hate the idea of applying insecticides to alfalfa fields since alfalfa weevil parasites are doing such a great job of keeping weevils at bay. I don’= ;t think there’s a big difference between one seed company’s newest LHR variety and another’s. Pick a recen= tly released LHR alfalfa variety and stop worrying. About t= hat, at least.

—E.T.=

CROP INPUT COSTS

Ag economists say that you should always know w= hat it cost you to produce an acre of crops. Yeah, sure. I am reminded of the definition of an economist: Someone who's good with numb= ers but doesn't have the personality to be an accountant. I would contend that = with what you'll spend in 2009 for seed, fertilizer, and pesticides it might be better that you not total up all the ugly numbers--and trust me, they will = be ugly as a mud fence. Oh, if you're a cash crop producer it might make sense to know since that's a rather direct transaction: Cost of crop sales minus production cost of crop =3D profit. But for dairy farmers, who'll fee= d the crop to their cows...well, you never really know how much "profit" you make on an acre of corn chopped for silage. You figure that if it yield= s 25 tons of silage per acre you must be making money, while if it yields 10 tons per acre you're probably losing money. (If you tend toward the latter yield you might not want to show this article to your Better Ha= lf.) Somewhere in between is your breakeven cost, but twixt 10 and 25 is a lot o= f " in between". Therefore, knowing how much it costs to grow an acre of corn in 2009 will probably just make you sick and = it won't reduce your growing cost by a dime, so if ignorance is bliss--and the= re's a lot of the former going around these days--be blissful, or at least not miserable.

If = you're a glutton for punishment, in itself a pretty good working definition of a dai= ry farmer: I read in a farm magazine recently that one mi= dwest farmer estimated that it will cost him $800 per acre to produce corn in 2009--this includes cash rent, input costs, etc. Since we'll grow a bit over 300 acres of corn at Miner Institute in 2009, that would be almost one quarter of a million dollars! (See why you shouldn't pu= sh a pencil on this?) Of course we have a couple of advantages over the typical = midwest corn grower in that our land cost is in almos= t all cases much less, and because of dairy manure and the inclusion of fora= ges in the crop rotation our nitrogen costs are somewhat less.

Instead of worrying over input costs about which you = can do little, concentrate on the output side--yield per acre--and what you can= do to increase corn yields. Timely planting is one--May, not June--and it does= n't cost any more to plant in May. Hybrid selection is another, since there's n= ot a lot of difference in price between most corn hybrids but there sure is in yield. And finally--though it's a long time before you'= ll have to think about this again--harvesting at the stage of maturity to maximize yield and quality.

—E.T.=

MANURE ANALYSIS FOLLOW-UP

A while back we reported the results of a series of f= our manure analyses we took on our 5+ million gallon liquid manure pit in 2007, noting that the analysis changed greatly with increasing solids content as = we pumped the pit down. Not only was the manure more nutrient-dense, but the r= atio of P to K changed greatly, with relatively more P as the manure got higher = in solids. Essentially the same thing happened this year. Some crop consultant= s, in making manure application recommendations (for CAFO as well as non-CAFO farms), use long-term manure analysis averages. While this may be OK in some situations, if you’ve made a meaningful change in rations—especially increasing or decreasing ration P—or if there’s a big difference in solids content from top to bottom, using = an average might be way off. And if your manure pit is like ours, you’ll= be applying a lot more nutrients—especially P—in each spreader loa= d as you approach the bottom third of the pit. We use the most current analysis = to determine our application rate in lbs of N-P-K per acre. And if you think t= his is a lot of work: In one hour, using the two most recent manure analyses, I summarized several months of manure applications, including both gallons and nutrients per acre. With fertilizer prices in the stratosphere, every pound= of manure nutrient you apply is a lot more valuable, and 2-3 year averages just don’t cut it.

E.T.

Closing Comment

Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.=

<= /span>