MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

What’s Happening on the Farm

December 2nd had a little more excitement than a normal Tuesday on the farm usually holds. After a brief morning meeting betw= een farm manager, feeder, herdsman intern and herdsman, we split to work on the= few tasks left before moving cows into the new dry cow barn. Grooving the concr= ete floors had left the waterers covered in dust, t= he feed alley needed to be swept and gates moved around. December 1st had been= the last day the far dry and close-up animals would be fed in the “old barn”; it was moving day!

Usi= ng our gooseneck trailer and small cattle trailer, we made several trips between barns. First we moved close-up cows onto the bedded pack – a two thirds, one third mixture of sawdust and chopped straw. This is the first time (at least for quite a while) that we have man= aged dry cows at Miner on a pack. We are planning on letting the cows freshen ri= ght on the bedded pack, although there are several conveniently located materni= ty pens in case we need to assist with a calving. Right off the close-up pen is the = vet room with a cattle chute, a calf pen for newborn calves and storage for vaccines, calving supplies and colostrum. =

The= far dry cows were moved into the side of the barn with sand-bedded freestalls. Both dry cow groups did a lot of running, smelling, and general curious cow behavior. However, the close-up cows were all lying down within a few hours; not so with the far dry cows! This was the first time they had ever seen a = sand bedded freestall and they were a little hesitan= t to give it a try - especially because some of them sank up to their knees when they stepped up into the stalls! We had done our best to pack the sand, but couldn’t apply quite as much pressure as an 1800 lbs cow! By the evening 11 animals were lyi= ng down, some were perching, and others were still milling around or eating.

Cow= s were all moved by lunchtime and it went very smoothly. The barn is far from full – extra pens will be used for control and treatment groups during research studies and to accommodate a larger herd size should we decide to expand. We are excited to be finally in the new barn and actually work in t= he facility that we spent so much time designing; from now until February we h= ave 100 animals due to calve so we should soon see how things work. If you are interested in seeing the new barn, visitors are welcome.

Fro= m all of us at the dairy barn – Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!=

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

From the President’s Desk – Animal Welfare Ruminations

At a meeting last week at the Institute, Dr. Larry Chase from Cornell University presented a brief update of animal welfare issues confronting U.S. livestock producers. Of course, we have all heard about the recent passage of Proposition 2 by California voter= s that will effectively close down the commercial egg industry in that state when = it becomes effective. The proposition requires that all farm animals “for all or the majority of any day” not be confined or tethered in a mann= er that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, turning around or extending its limbs without touching another animal or an enclosure such as= a cage or stall. An important question obviously is: what are the ramificatio= ns of this vote for other segments of animal production in other states? Specifically, what does it mean for dairy producers that rely on tie stalls= or even free stall housing? Time will tell, but this latest turn of events illustrates just how disconnected the typical American consumer (and voter)= is from the production of their food.

With Proposition 2 as a backdrop, it’s worthwhile to revisit = some key results of a survey conducted in 2004 by Ohio State researchers. They reported the following consumer attitudes about animal welfare:

4 92% felt that farm animals should be well cared for,

4&nb= sp; 81% felt that well-being of farm animals was just as important as family pets, and

4&nb= sp; 47% agreed that greater regulation of the treatment of farm animals is needed (35% were undecided)<= o:p>

A separate Gallop survey in 2003 found that 25% of U.S. co= nsumers believed that animals deserve the same rights as people. What do these surv= ey results portend for animal agriculture and animal welfare in the U.S.? <= o:p>

U.S. demographics provide an instructive background for interpreting th= ese results. Less than 2% of the U.S. population is involved in farming or ranching. In the early 1900s it was of= ten stated by societal leaders that everyone should understand the production of food because farming was so fundamentally important to our society. In some ways, contemporary farming has become a victim of its own success. With the technological and mechanical revolutions that swept U.S. agriculture throughout t= he 1900s, especially after 1940, productivity soared and each farm was able to provide food for many for consumers. In 1930, one farm fed about 10 people; today one farm feeds about 114 people. U.S. consumers in 2006 spent = about 10% of their disposable income on food, which is incredibly low by world standards.

Many people know very little about agriculture, and what they do kn= ow is likely from the popular press or internet sites that may not necessarily provide accurate and unbiased information. Today there is a clear disconnect between agriculture and the typical consumer that is manifested in numerous ways. I’ll leave you to ponder some of these questions as 2008 winds down:

4 How do we best go about gaining consumer acceptance and understandi= ng of farming in the US= ?

4&nb= sp; What are the ultimate objectives of the animal rights movement in the US? Is it compatible with ani= mal agriculture? How much have these groups influenced consumers or will they in the future?

4&nb= sp; What are some natural behaviors for common farm animals that may be influenced by housing facilit= ies and management routines? Can we afford to ignore these natural behaviors?

4&nb= sp; What a= re common welfare concerns associated with other livestock species? Will these concerns also affect dairy farming?

4&nb= sp; Will today’s volunta= ry welfare audits soon become mandatory and would your dairy farm pass one?

I don’t want to end 2008 on a down note, but as we enter the = time of year when all of us make various resolutions for the New Year, perhaps we should also resolve to become more proactive in wrestling with these “= ;big picture” issues – and I suspect that animal welfare will loom as one of the biggest.

—Rick Grant<= /st1:PersonName>, grant@whminer.com

WHERE CAN I CUT MY FERTIL= IZER BILL?

During my years as a Regional Extension Specialist with Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType>, occasionally a farmer would pose this question: “I only have X dollars for fertilizer. How can I best spend it?” Although it meant more work rather than simply quoting Cornell University fertiliz= er recommendations, I welcomed this kind of question since as long as you have= recent soil analyses, cutting fertilizer use on a field-by-field basis is much bet= ter than simply cutting rates across the board. Following are three suggestions= for making the most of a limited fertilizer budget. Some may give your fertiliz= er dealer heartburn, but better him than you, eh?

First, eliminate secondary and micronutrients unless there’s a proven need for them. In most cases this “proven need” should not be based on soil tests since they aren’t very reliable for some secondary and micronutrients and you’d be much bett= er off basing these decisions on tissue analysis. (Note: Tissue analysis is not the same as forage analysis. A forage analysis is done on the whole plant a= fter harvest, while a tissue analysis uses a particular part of the plant at a specific stage of growth: Corn ear leaves at silking, the top 6” of the alfalfa plant at the bud stage.) The only two micronutrients commonly deficient in this area are zinc for corn and boron = for alfalfa and other legumes. Cornell University’s = soil test for zinc is fairly reliable, while analyses from some other labs are somewhat less so. Fortunately, zinc isn’t expensive and application r= ates are modest. Soil tests for boron are generally reliable, a good thing since boron isn’t cheap. Don’t buy “premium” fertilizers containing an assortment of trace minerals, since if you do have a deficien= cy of a micronutrient the amount contained in most premium fertilizers probably isn’t enough to correct it. If you have so much enough extra cash tha= t you can afford to spend it on premium fertilizers “just in case”, s= end the money to me instead. (Mailing address provided on request.)<= /span>

Secondary nutrients include calcium, sulfur and magnesium. The best way to provide calcium is through = ag lime. I have NEVER seen a case where pH was adequate but soil test calcium was low. And forget the theory that some ide= al ratio of calcium, magnesium and potassium is necessary for optimum yields. = This idea has been tested and retested, most recently in university trials, and = it just doesn’t work. Some of the ag lime available in this region contains magnesium. Since almost all soils testing low in Mg are also low in pH, applying lime will often correct low = Mg. (Your lime supplier will have a current lime analysis stating % Mg.) In ove= r 40 years I’ve encountered only two or three fields with high pH and low = Mg. In one of these cases, sul-po-mag (sulfate of p= otash magnesia) did a great job of correcting the problem. (At least the farmer h= ad a much better corn crop the following year, and I accepted full credit for it. Never disagree with a happy farmer.) That leaves sulfur, and there’s a growing need for this nutrient since “the gummin= t”, primarily EPA, has been working long and hard—and successfully—= to reduce industrial sulfur emissions. As a result, atmospheric sulfur deposit= ions are a fraction of what they were 10-20 years ago and the need for sulfur fertilizer is on the increase. I’m not a fan of soil tests for sulfur= ; if you suspect a deficiency, do a tissue analysis. Ammonium sulfate (21-0-0-23= S) is an excellent source of sulfur, but like most other fertilizers it’= s a lot more expensive than it was a couple of years= ago.

Second, use phosphorus sparingly, especially if you’re a dairy farmer. As I’ve noted many times before, dairy f= arms bring several times more P onto the farm as feed and minerals than they ship off the farm as milk and cull animals. The closer the field is to the dairy barn, the higher the soil test P (almost always), and therefore the less fertilizer P you need to use. You definitely shouldn’t use any fertil= izer P for corn or forage seedings if soil test P is “Very high” or “Excessive”; howeve= r, I’d also suggest taking a hard look at fields with “High” soil test P. On the Cornell soil test system, anything testing 8+ lbs P/acr= e is considered high. I’d still apply a low rate of starter P to fields testing below 20 lbs/A, but above that you won’t get much if any resp= onse to from starter P. We routinely eliminate starter P on about 25% of our corn fields and alfalfa-grass seedings, including mo= st fields on the “home” (Miner Institute) farm.<= /p>

Third, apply nitrogen fertilizer when and where it’s needed. You can= 217;t afford to broadcast and incorporate urea before planting corn. About one ye= ar in three there’s enough rain between application and the time corn re= ally starts to need N that it leaches below the root zone. And where soil draina= ge is moderately poor and leaching isn’t a problem, denitrification could result in losses of broadcast N. A generation ago Cornell used to rec= ommend increasing plowdown/disk in N rates by 40% to a= ccount for these losses. With current urea prices can you afford to apply 40% more= N than the crop needs? Spending a fortune for nitrogen fertilizer is bad enou= gh; applying it too early and letting it become a water pollutant instead of a = crop nutrient is just dumb. If you don’t have any sid= edress equipment and custom application isn’t an option, consider using your corn planter as a sidedresser. You might have t= o move or remove the planter units, and don’t run over the corn plants with either the tractor or planter, but many times you can run a band of urea between the rows (anywhere from 6” from the corn row to the middle of= the row).

—Ev Thomas, = thomas@whminer.com

Top Ten Ways to Mess-up a Good Ration

Recently, I attended a Dairy Calf and Heifer Profit Seminar sponsored by the Dairy Ca= lf and Heifer Association. Dr. Normand St-Pierre from The Ohio State University gave a great presentation on “The 10 Best Ways to Mess-up a Good Ration.” I have summarized the key points below.

10. Anybody can fe= ed heifers. Not all employees have the skill and dedication to do the job right all the time. The right amount of feedstuffs and the right feedstuffs are critical.

9. = What’s a= little moisture? Changes in moisture of ensiled forages, high moisture grains, and= wet byproducts have a big effect on the TMR composition. Dry matter content of feedstuffs should be measured with either a lab = oven, Koster tester, or microwave on a frequency basis and = not just when the feedstuffs “appear” to have changed. Use of a con= trol chart to plot dry matter content is recommended. Rations should be adjusted when dry matter content changes by 2% or more.

8. = If mixing for 5 minutes is good, then 10 is even better. All TMR mixers damage fiber. The e= xtent of damage varies by mixer and increases with mixing time. To see how much damage your mixer is causing to fiber and particle size, hand mix a 100 lb as-fed batch of TMR and mix the same ration in your mix= er. Use the Penn State Particle Separator to compare the particle size distribu= tion of the hand mixed TMR and the mixer TMR. The distribution of particle size should be similar if the mixer is causing minimal damage.=

7. = We only grow a= nd feed “good stuff.” Don’t feed spoiled feedstuffs.

6. = Fill it to the= rim. Do not overfill your mixer since it will not mix the feedstuffs properly. Use = the “Hat Test” to determine if your mixer is too full. Place your h= at on the top of the feedstuffs in the mixer and turn the mixer on. If your hat moves around but stays on top, the mixer is too full and the feedstuffs on = top are not being mixed properly. If the hat disappears the mixer is mixing properly and its time to ask your favorite feed company for a new hat. If y= ou don’t want to risk your hat, another test to check mixing in heifer rations is the calcium marker test. Consult with your nutritionist before y= ou do this test. Add about 1/3 lb of limestone/heifer to the ration on the day= of the test to achieve a calcium content over 1%. S= ample the TMR as the beginning, middle, and end of the bunk and analyze each samp= le for calcium using wet chemistry (a relatively cheap assay). If the mixer is mixing properly, all samples should have a calcium content within 10% of each other.

5. = 100 pounds mor= e or less, what’s the difference? Make sure the feeder knows what the acceptable deviation in weight is from target to actual feedstuffs added to= the mixer. If your feeder never returns to the commodity shed or bunks with ext= ra feedstuffs you may have a problem with delivering an accurate and consistent ration to your heifers.

4. = Our mixer scal= e is always exact. Scales should be tested 4 times per year. Add 2 50 lb bags to each corner of the mixer when the mixer is empty, half full, and full and c= heck the accuracy of the weight.

3. = We can hide it= in the mix. Don’t feed poor quality feedstuffs. Be aware of low palatability= of some feedstuffs.

2. = It’s a b= it old, but it still works (and it’s paid for). Mixers wear out and need to be replaced. A tired mixer can causes problems, such as inadequate mixing and fiber destruction.

1. = Who’s on= the phone? Feeding requires concentration to do the job right. Make sure there = are no disruptions from phone calls or visitors.

—Hea= ther Dann, dann@whminer.com

Vet’s Corner: Puerperal Metritis

During fresh cow exams producers can be surprised when a red-brown odorous uterine discharge is found. In these surprise cases there may be no history of retained fetal membranes, twin calves, or large calves requiring OB intervention, which predispose the cow to puerpe= ral metritis. Often, thorough calving records are not kept, so there can be no investigation and we hear the comment “A lit= tle piece of cleanings must have broken off, I thought she cleaned.”=

Recent dry matter intake studies during the close up = dry period have shown that cows with reduced appetite before calving are prone = to go on to develop metritis (Huzzey et al., (2007) JDS 70:3220-3233). These findings cast doubt on the “broken piece of placenta” theory. Negative energy balance before calving impairs immune function by diminishing = neutrophils’ (a type of white blood cell) ability to contain bacterial contamination that occurs in all calvings. The reason that th= e cows have diminished feed intake during the close-up period should be explored to explain the occurrence of these surprise metritis cases.

To demonstrate th= at negative energy balance in the close up dry group is causing metritis, seven cows should be blood tested for NEFA = or BHBA. If a problem exists, run through the following checklist with y= our herd health veterinarian and feed representative.

1. = Inadequate fee= d bunk space (30 inches/cow in the close-up pen).

2. = Overcrowded fr= ee stalls. (Aim for 85% capacity during busy calving season.)

3. = Wet, unsanitar= y bedded pack or maternity area.

4. = Pen move strat= egy review to reduce pecking order fights.

5. = Excessive days= in the maternity pen. (3 days or more leads to 3X risk of DA.)

6. = Heat stress.

7. = Unpalatable or= moldy feed.

8. = Ration formula= tion review. (Our recent investigations seldom find much room for improvement in this area.)

—Kent Henderson, DVM, Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

hugamoo@comcast.net

Proposition 2 passed in <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">California

Proposition 2, “Standards for Confining Farm Animals, Initiative Statute” was pa= ssed in California with 63% yes votes and 37% no votes on November 4 . Proposition 2 has received national interest and was featured on a popular daytime television talk show prior to the election. A question about Prop 2 was raised at the= Dairy Calf and Heifer Growe= rs Association conference at Miner Institute on October 30th.

I thought I’d take this opportunity to summarize the new law and provide arguments on both sides of the issue. First, it is important to clarify that Prop 2 applies only to pregnant pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens. It will prohibit the tethering or confinement of pregn= ant pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens on a farm for all or the majority of= any day in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, and turning around freely. Therefore, the law will essentially prohibit the use of gestation crates, veal crates, and battery cages. There are circumstances that fall under the exception to the law including: During scientific or agricultural research, examination, treatme= nt, transportation, rodeo exhibitions, fair exhibitions, 4-H programs, humane methods of slaughter, and for pigs, the last 7 days of gestation. If the la= w is violated, a person faces a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment no= t to exceed 180 days. This provision will be effective January 1, 2015. Some of the major arguments for and against Prop 2 are listed below.

Major arguments in favor of Prop 2:=

4 Prevents animal cruelty

4 Promotes food = safety

4 Improves publi= c health

4 Supports family farmers

4 Protects the environment

Major arguments in opposition to Prop 2:

4 Increased risk= of bird flu

4 Increased risk= of food-borne illness

4 Lost jobs and = revenue

4 Increased egg = prices

4 Increased impo= rt of eggs from other states and Mexico

4 Harms the envi= ronment

Ot= her states including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Oregon already have similar laws in pl= ace. Whether you agree or disagree with the legislation included in Prop 2, the passing of this law in CA signals a change in food animal production. For m= ore information regarding Prop 2, you can visit the following web-site: www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov and click on “Proposition 2.”

—Sarah Bouc= her, boucher@whminer.com <= /span>

PRACTICAL RUMINANTS: THE PROBLEM OF EXCESS VFA=

As we have discussed, feed is eaten by the cow and the fermentation of the fee= d by microbes in the rumen produces volatile fatty acids (VFA, or those once-bit= ten donuts). The cow can use these VFA for energy or as the building blocks of = milk fat and sugar molecules. The net total VFA present in the rumen is a balanc= e of production and removal, and a buildup can come from overproduction (too much fermentation) or under-removal (reduced absorption). This buildup of VFA in= the rumen leads problems that can harm the cow.

In a lactating dairy cow, a buildup of VFA can occur = as subacute ruminal acidosis= (SARA), characterized by a ruminal pH of less than 5.5 = one or more times within a day. This increased acidity can compromise ruminal fermentation, damage rum= inal lining and thus impairing absorption, unbalance water pools within the cow,= and challenge the cow’s health. This buildup of rumi= nal acidity usually leads to reduced or inconsistent feed intake and, when a persistent herd problem, can lead to decreased production efficiency, reduc= ed milk fat test, poor body condition, unexplained diarrhea and laminitis. Cha= nges in the ruminal lining or the feet are generally permanent and negative and challenge the cow for the rest of her life.=

As discussed previously, the amount of VFA or acidity= in the rumen is determined by how much the cow eats and the fermentability of that feed. And we run into excess VFA production when the cow consumes t= oo much or when consumed feed ferments faster than the cow can handle. Dr. Oetzel, a research veterinarian at the University of Wisco= nsin, noted that feed management may be more critical than the actual diet and “cycles of feed deprivation and re-feeding are more important risk factors for SARA than is diet formulation itself.” This idea is impor= tant to consider as we review our on-farm nutrition program. <= /p>

We need to not only consider our total daily intake b= ut how that intake might be consumed within the day. Are we feeding to an empty rumen? Do we have situations within the day where the cows don’t have access to feed for hours? A cow with an emptier rumen from an empty feedbunk overnight, too much time away from feed for milking and management practices, or access to f= eed limited by more dominant cows will consume a very large meal when she gets access to the bunk again. This large meal leads to more fermentation and may generate a short-term excess of VFA leading to SARA or another form of acidosis. On the other side of the total VFA equation, we can increase the = fermentability of the meal by feeding rained or snowe= d on forage without making a feed weight adjustment or overfeeding grains in a component feeding system.

Our dairy feeding management program should limit ruminal acidity. With a balanced diet, our program sh= ould encourage each cow to eat many small meals during the day, which promotes balanced ruminal fermentation and spreads the V= FA production evenly across the day. The goal is keep our rumen full or “topped off” and all cows should have access to feed when they desire to eat. So, keep the bunk full for the entire day, have enough bunk space for all cows, keep competition among the cows within a group to a rea= sonable level, and limit the time the cows are separated from their feed source.

Maintain the ration fermentabili= ty by keeping the dry matters and feed weights accurate for each and every mix. The TMR delivered must be accurate every feeding. Big mistakes cause proble= ms. In component feeding systems, the overall goal is more feeding of small amounts. Split the daily grain amount into as many feedings as is practical, feed forages before concentrates, and feed protein and energy grains togeth= er instead of alternate feedings. All these practices put a limit on ruminal acidity.

—Ste= ve Mooney, mooney@whmi= ner.com

Can Cows with Digital Dermatitis be Identified During Milking?

Lameness continues to be a major welfare issue for dairy cows. In addition to the reduction in performance, the visual image of lame cows on farms can lead t= o a negative public perception of dairy farming. A recent survey in Minnesota found = the prevalence of lame cows (those scoring a 3 or greater on a 1-to-5 scale) ra= nged from 3 to 50% on 53 farms. Digital dermatitis, or hairy heel warts, is one = of the most common, infectious disease causes of lameness. The typical method = for evaluating cows for digital dermatitis required putting the cow onto a hoof trimming table. While this method remains the “gold standard” f= or digital dermatitis as well as the other lesions and diseases that cause lameness, it’s labor intensive and disruptive to the cow’s daily routine. For these reasons cows are evaluated infrequently. It was hypothes= ized that cows could be routinely examined for digital dermatitis while in the milking parlor with minimal labor investment or disturbance to the cow. Two previous studies have attempted to establish methodologies that would allow= for this type of non-invasive examination. Unfortunately, neither study develop= ed a protocol that would be practical in on-farm situations due to time (examinations took more than 2 minutes per cow) and equipment (relative cos= t) requirements.

Danish scientists from the University of Aarhus, the University of Copen= hagen, and Dyrlægerne Uni-Vet reported on their attempt to devise a practical method for the evaluation of digital dermatitis during milking. To address the shortcomings of previous work, these scientists evaluated a method that took no more than 15 seconds= per cow and utilized no special equipment. The study was conducted on 3 commerc= ial herds housed in freestall barns. To ensure a br= oad applicability, the 3 farms enrolled in the study used different parlor desi= gns (herringbone, parallel, and rotary). All lactating cows on each farm were examined in the parlor (day 1) and the trimming table (day 2). The study fo= und a large amount of variation in the sensitivity (Observer recording a cow as positive for digital dermatitis that was confirmed as positive) and specifi= city (Observer recording a cow as negative for digital dermatitis that was confi= rmed as negative). In general, the method used in this study was more successful= at correctly determining cows that were not experiencing digital dermatitis. Sensitivity was greater for large (> 2 cm) lesions than small lesions (≤ 2 cm); however, specificity was unaffected by lesion size. Differe= nces in sensitivity and specificity were found in the various types of parlors. = The greatest sensitivity (0.84) was found for the herringbone parlor and the greatest specificity (0.97) was found in the rotary (the specificity of the parallel was 0.91).

The results of this study suggest that after appropri= ate training is provided (in this study the observer was trained by a veterinar= ian with several years of experience in evaluating digital dermatitis) it is possible to identify cows may require treatment for digital dermatitis. The sensitivity and specificity demonstrated that it may be more practical to u= se a routine hoof evaluation during milking to establish cows that do not need further evaluation by the hoof trimmer rather than identifying cows that require treatment. The incorporation of regular hoof evaluations during mil= king may be one step to the reduction of lameness prevalence.<= /p>

—Pet= er Krawczel, krawczel@whminer.com

PESTICIDE APPLIC= ATOR TRAINING COURSE

Th= ere will be a NYDEC-approved Pesticide Applicator Training Course at Miner Institute= on January 13^th, from 2:30 to 4:30 PM. Please note the later time than we’ve had in the past for this course. This is necessary because the Winter Dairy Management School will be held in the Miner= Center auditorium t= hat day and it won’t get over until about 2:00 pm. The later time will ma= ke it possible for farmers attending the first meeting to also attend the trai= ning course, which will carry 2.0 Recertification Credits.

Pa= rticipating in the program will be Ev (up from winter quart= ers in Virginia for a few days) and area custom applicators Charlie Hessel= tine, Kevin Hollister, and Ron Debeer. No pre-registr= ation needed, and there’s no charge for the course.

Z Boxes: Where have they gone?

We continue to sh= ip our Z Boxes around the world. Every time we reorder the molded plastic frames, I think, “that will be the last of it”. However, we keep selling = them without any advertising. We do have a bit of sales support though; we can usually trace the travels of the good Dr. Sniffen by his email trail and where interest in the Z Box is coming from. Our top “marketer” though is definitely Dr. Bill M= ahanna of Pioneer. And no, he does not get any kickback, just kicks from Ev. Most of the sales have been in the northeastern <= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">U.S. along with Japan and Italy (see attached maps). To date = we have sold over 200 Z Boxes.

We = welcome comments from those that own a Z Box and are hopefully using it to monitor = pef of TMRs and forages. = We have not heard very many testimonials either in support of or disgust with the particle separator. A common question asked by Z Box and CPM users is why t= he Z Box determined peNDF value of a TMR is usually = lower than the calculated peNDF value predicted in CP= M. In my estimation, there are the two major contributing factors resulting in the differences:

Particle size reduction = in the mixer.

Grain and commodity ingredient pef values in CPM were set at 0.40 (40% of particles being >1.18mm in length= ) in accordance with Dr. Mertens’ data and rat= ionale regarding the peNDF system. However, actual measurement of these feeds in the Z Box will result in pef values substantially less than Dr. Mertens defa= ult value of 0.40.

As = an example calculation, if the Z Box measured pef = value of all the grains in a TMR is actually 0.20 rather than the CPM default val= ue of 0.40, with forage pef at 0.85, a TMR with 50= :50 forage to grain ratio and NDF content of 33% results in peNDF of 17.3 with the Z Box value compared to 20.6 as calculated in CPM.

Rem= ember to take caution with these peNDF determinations; t= ake into account the sources of the fiber, since not all fiber generates the sa= me chewing response, and most importantly monitor animal response, for they are the “gold standard”.

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

Role of Management in Helping Employees Become More Productive

Farmers constantly seek to improve the production of their herd and crops, but it’s important to pay attention to the productivity of the workers as well. Between 40% and 70% of farm costs goes towards labor, so efficiently managing the farm workforce will ultimately benefit the business. In 2007, a conference about agriculture workforce management featured a talk on “underperformers” on the farm.=

What is an “underperformer”? This term re= fers to an employee who just gets the job done – one who doesn’t thr= ive, but also doesn’t perform badly enough for termination. An underperfor= mer has a history of years of this behavior, and does not refer to a worker who= is having a bad day or a bad few weeks.

Why should I care about underperformers if they are getting the job done? An employee’s underperformance will eventually = hurt the bottom line of your business. Nobody wants to be labeled mediocre ̵= 1; this characterization will not help the person or the business. And underperformers cause frustration for both employees and supervisors. =

In order to properly address the underperformance iss= ue, it’s important to understand the problem first. The chart in the referenced paper identifies fourteen likely causes of underperformance, how it may affect the business, and suggests a move in the right direction.

What doesn’t work? Managers are likely to try s= ome easy or instinctive solutions; these responses are usually spontaneous, tak= e up little of the supervisor’s time, and unfortunately, probably will not work. For example, patience just gives the employee more time to follow the same path, rather than identifying and fixing the root of the behavior. Get= ting angry, making threats, pep talks, and offering more money, are similar intuitive responses that may get a short term response, but do not address = the problem.

What does work? Unfortunately, there is no easy answe= r to helping an underperformer thrive in their position. The take home message i= s to “do something” – the situation will not resolve itself. W= hen approaching the employee, do not generalize – each employee has their individual challenges. Accept that some employees are just not the proper f= it for the position or company. Focus your efforts on finding the cause of underperformance – the 14 provided is a good place to start. Look for deficiencies in both leader and worker – avoid blaming the worker. And use performance evaluation and feedback to assure that the worker is involv= ed in the resolution process. A successful resolution will probably include in= put from both the worker and supervisor.

—Rachel But= zler, butzler@whminer.com <= /span>

REFERENCE: = “Employee Management for Production Agriculture”. A conference b= y Kansas State Uni= versity Research and Extension on October 11-12, 2007. www.oznet.ksu.edu/employee .=

ORDERING FERTILI= ZER FOR 2009

Th= is coming crop year may be the first in memory in which some U.S. farmers won’t be a= ble to get fertilizer delivered in time for spring planting. Don’t be one of them. There’s been no reason to order fertilizer before now since the price situation has been so uncertain. Indian farmers are paying $150 per t= on for urea because of government subsidies and China has all but suspended e= xports of urea. How long will these situations persist? Wholesale fertilizer prices are already coming down in some areas. In Europe, N prices plummeted about 70%, while P and K were off a more modest 15% or s= o. More good news: International shipping prices have dipped by over 25% from recent highs. However, in the U.S. any price reductions will take a while to work their way through the system, and this might not occur before spring planting. Some dealers bought (or contracted) a lot of their spring fertilizer needs before wholesale prices dropped.

By= now fall manure applications should be complete or nearly so, so you should kno= w on a field-by-field basis the nutrients being supplied by manure (see article = on pg 3). Since you have recent soil analyses on all fields, you can now deter= mine how much fertilizer is needed, also on a field-by-field basis. Then talk to your fertilizer dealer(s) and try to have prices and your firm order locked in by the end of February. If your dealer wants to deliver fertilizer sooner than normal, by all means let him. A bird in the hand, et= c.

Sp= ring 2009 will not be a good time to build soil fertility through the use of commercial fertilizer. Prices should start coming down sometime in the comi= ng crop season, and a number of fertilizer plants are currently under construc= tion though they won’t be on line for a couple of years. No guarantees, but there’s a good chance that fertilizer prices will be lower in late 20= 09 or in 2010-2011 than they are right now.

—E.T.

MANAGING CORN HY= BRID TRAITS

The cost of some corn hy= brid genetic traits has increased in the past year or two, so you need to decide which are “must have” and which you don’t really need. Ea= ch seed company prices its traits a bit differently, but we’ll use one hybrid family, Mycogen TMF2L412, as an example. Following are list prices before any discounts, and what you get for your money. Price per acre is based on 2.5 acres per 80,000 kernel unit, and all include the low (250) rate of Cruiser Extreme.

<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'font-family:Calibri;mso-ansi-language:EN'>

Comments:

4 The Roundup Re= ady trait has become more expensive and there’s been a big price increase= in glyphosate herbicides. I once toyed with adding the RR trait to all the seed corn we bought “just in case” since both = the trait and glyphosate were relatively cheap. Tha= t time has passed. I still like the RR trait when taking a late harvest of alfalfa= or grass and fall plowing the field for corn the following year. There’s seldom time for enough regrowth to apply glyphosate after a late forage harvest, and our weed control has been excellent when fall plowing without any herbicide and then using a RR hybrid the next spring (followed by glyphos= ate and a half rate of an annual grass herbicide package). But using this routi= nely for continuous corn? Compare prices, then you decide.

4 If you do use = the RR trait for continuous corn, adding Bt for corn bo= rer is a bargain if you need it. I’m not convinced that corn borers ar= e a serious problem in much of the Northeast, and two years of Bt vs. non-Bt research at Miner Institute wasn’t very convincing. But for only two bucks per acre? Hmmm. Not that adding the Bt trait increases the RM of the hybrid from 92 to 94 days. That’s becau= se preventing corn borers results in a healthier plant (thus greener and lower= in % DM), a fact confirmed by Cornell University research= .

4 Adding corn ro= otworm control costs another $10 per acre, but look at the price difference between 418 and 412. If you don’t need RR or Bt fo= r corn borer, $33 per acre just to get rootworm control is expensive. In this case I’d opt for a granular soil insecticide or the high (1250) rate of Cruiser Extreme, which costs about $13 per acre. The 1250 rates of Poncho a= nd Cruiser Extreme have resulted in good rootworm control except in severe infestations, something we rarely encounter in the Northeast.

4 What’s m= issing in this hybrid family is Bt for corn rootworms (= or rootworms and corn borers) but without the RR trait. You can get one or bot= h Bt traits without RR in some other hybrids, but you ne= ed to compare the price, relative maturity, yield and quality of the other hybrids before switching just because of trait availability. Hybrid selection sure = is simple, isn’t it?

NOTABLE QUOTES

<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'font-family:Webdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Webdings; mso-bidi-font-family:Webdings;mso-ansi-language:EN;mso-bidi-font-style:ital= ic'>4&nb= sp; Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only onc= e a year. Victor Borge

4&nb= sp; People will forget what you said, people will forget = what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. Maya Angelou

4 A computer lets you make mistakes faster than any invention in human history, with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila. Anonymous

4 A word to the wise does no good. It's the stupid people out there that need the help. Bill Cosby

CALENDAR EVENTS

January 13, 2009 — Winter Dairy Management, 10:00 a.m.—2:00 p.m. “We’ve got to do something”!, Dairy Modernization is Theme for Winter Dairy Management.

We’re looking for dairy farm families wrestling with “what’s next” as demands for income change.

4 Business Plann= ing for a Successful Project

4 Is your Farmst= ead Master Plan Still Workable?

4 Renovating the= Old Free-stall for Milking Cows, Heifers or Special Needs

4 Manure Handling Options & What about Robots or Rotary Parlors?

4 AFO or CAFO: Evaluating Environmental Issues on your Farm

Cor= nell Winter Dairy Management is at Miner Institute. To register for the program or for= more information contact Amy Ivy, 518-561-7450, adi2@cornell.edu.

February 26, 2009 —= ; VT Large Dairy Conference, 9:00 a.m.—3:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Hotel in Burlington, VT.<= /st1:place> Speakers will be:

4 Mike Hutjens, University of Illinois, speaki= ng on covering higher feed costs with lower milk prices and transition cow approa= ches.

4 Lenny Peterson= , IBA, speaking on milking machines/milkers/cows ̵= 1; a complex triangle.

4 Adam Lock, University of Vermont, will discuss milk marketi= ng and the difference between rBST, rBST-free, organic and conventional milk.

4 Damian Mason, a comedian whose Humor for the Heart of Agricultur= e talk will combine experience with and enthusiasm for agriculture and study with Second City-Chicago.

For more information, contact Celine Bernier, Newport= UVM Extension, 802-334-7325, Ext 11, or 866-260-5561, Ext 11. Email: celine.bernier@uvm.edu.

Closing Comment

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting = what to have for lunch. But at lea= st the sheep has a vote.

<= /span>