MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

What’s Happening on the Farm

You know it is go= ing to be a good day when the morning milker comes int= o the office and asks for help switching over to the second bulk tank because the first tank is just about to overflow! And when we opened the tank cove= r, cold, white milk was agitating less than an inch from the top.

For the past two weeks the herd has been averaging over 100 lbs of milk. During the month of February we were climbing steadily through t= he 90s, finishing out the month with a weekly average of 101.5 lbs. The g= irls are working hard and we are monitoring body condition, feed intake, manure consistency, and the feed efficiency ratio so that we keep the girls perfor= ming at their peak.

The challenge with all high-producing cows is to get them to eat eno= ugh to maintain or increase production without peeling off bodyweight, although= we expect a certain period of negative energy balance in early lactation. We h= ave tweaked the ration, adding a little more bypass fat to the high group ̵= 1; they need to consume all the energy they can get. No calorie counting for t= hese girls! With scales on the feed truck and daily refusal weights we are able to get a fairly accurate intake number. And intake has increased with production, as expected. The additional feed first came from simply feeding 110% of the diet that was on the feed sheets from the nutritionist. Since t= hen we have added 2 lbs of dry matter as BMR to the ration in an effort to incr= ease the forage-to-concentrate ratio and ward off subclinical acidosis.

Ver= y soon we will see how the cows produce while they readjust to pen rearrangements = in preparation for a new research study!

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

—Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com<= /span>

= ;

MORE MONEY-SAVING CROP OPTIONS

In previous issue= s of the Farm Report we suggested some ideas to reduce crop expenses, but last month’s Milk:Feed ratio plummeting to all-time lows has cash-strapped dairy farmers looking f= or additional options. Here are a handful of ideas being floated around, along with Crop Dude comments.

4 Buy "sila= ge blend" seed corn?—This has always bee= n a lousy idea, and still is. Silage blends vary widely between seed companies,= but also year-to-year from the same company. What goes into these bags is often= an ever-changing dog’s breakfast of has-beens and never-were’s. If you planted a silage blend in 2008 and were happy with it, the blend you plant in 2009 from the same company may not be the same hybrids. That’= ;s why silage blends usually are sold with a maturity range (90-95 days RM) ra= ther than a single number such as 92 days RM. Talk to your seed dealer about wha= t's available in hybrids that are “oldies but goodies”, since these= are often quite a bit cheaper than the latest releases.

4 Hold those traits?—Unless corn borers are a common and serious problem on your farm, don’t spend money for the Bt corn borer trait. The Bt corn rootworm trait is a different deal altogether since corn rootworms are a more common problem in continuous corn and the rootworm tra= it costs about the same as either the high rate of seed treatments or granular insecticides. Don’t use seed with the rootworm trait on first and sec= ond year corn fields since there won’t be enough rootworms there to justi= fy the cost.

4 Eliminate star= ter fertilizer for corn?—Eliminating starter fertilizer for corn would be= low risk on high fertility fields receiving spring-applied manure, or on medium fertility fields getting a high rate of spring-applied manure. In this case, spring application of manure is recommended because corn needs some N early= in the season. It doesn’t make any difference whether the N comes from fertilizer or manure, but about two-thirds of the N in fall-applied manure = is either lost or is slowly available. If P and K fertility is high but you ca= n’t apply manure this spring, consider an N-only starter. Miner Institute uses = 125 lbs/acre of a 50-50 blend of urea and ammonium sulfate.

4 Eliminate star= ter fertilizer for forage seedings?—Forages don’t need much N at establishment, so if you applied a high rate of manure either last fall (or will this spring), or if soil fertility is alre= ady high, then you don’t need any fertilizer for see= dings. We’ve established some really good alfalfa-grass stands at Miner Institute over the years by relying entirely on manure. Whether we use star= ter fertilizer or not depends entirely on soil test P and K levels. Research has shown that applying heavy rates of manure before planting alfalfa can incre= ase alfalfa yield more than the same amount of nutrients applied as commercial fertilizer.

4 Buy less expen= sive alfalfa seed?—This doesn’t mean Vernal alfalfa, a variety that’s about 50 years old but remarkably is still on the market. But progress in alfalfa variety yield improvement has been at a snail’s p= ace, and there’s often only a fraction of a ton difference between varieti= es ranking in the top and bottom half of yield trials. Don’t pay much ex= tra for a variety with a slightly higher disease rating, since most of these diseases aren’t an economic problem in the Northeastern U.S. Miner Institute typically buys one of the newest leafhopper-resistant alfalfa varieties, but the difference between the newest LHR variety and one that’s a couple of years older is probably small.

4 Don’t pa= y a lot for grass seed if you’ll use it as a companion crop with alfalfa. Som= e orchardgrass seed is selling for over $5.00 per pound, which isn’t worth it if you’re just going to seed a few pounds along with 12-15 pounds of alfalfa. The same for other expensive grasses, w= hich includes just about all low-alkaloid reed canarygrass<= /span> varieties. This might be a good year to use less expensive grass seed for legume-grass seedings.

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

FERTILIZER PRICES DIP AGAIN

Wholesale fertilizer prices took anoth= er dip in the first half of February and are now far below their fall and early winter highs. Retail price differences between dealers are in some cases mu= ch greater than normal, and this has nothing to do with dealer markups. Dealers who bought early in an effort to ensure adequate supplies (and fill early orders) got stuck with falling wholesale prices plus a large number of farm= ers who delayed fertilizer purchases. We’ve heard of price differences between dealers of $150 per ton for urea, and there sure isn’t this k= ind of wholesale to retail markup in the fertilizer business.

Far= mers who waited to place 2009 starter fertilizer orders should be well-rewarded for their wait. We bought starter fertilizer in February for about half the pri= ce it was in October 2008—same analysis, same 1-ton bags. Nitrogen fertilizers including both urea and UAN have also decreased quite a bit in price. But the time for delay is about gone, and we don’t expect fertilizer prices to decrease much if at all between now and corn planting time. Some fertilizer plants have already shut down, concerned that the eco= nomic downturn will depress both demand and price. So if you haven’t yet ordered fertilizer, do so soon.

From the President’s D= esk – Making Use of Starch Analyses

Over the past year the interest in measuring starch content and digestibility has grown among nutritionists and dairy farmers, driven by higher priced corn, lower starch diets, and nutritional models that require these inputs to formulate a diet. Interestingly, in 2004 54% of nutritionists felt that rou= tine starch analysis was not necessary, but only four years later up to 75% meas= ured starch. Recent research at Miner Institute found that cows produced 95 poun= ds of milk daily with a feed efficiency of 1.65 (very good) whether they consu= med an 18, 21, or 25% starch diet. But, to successfully feed a lower starch diet (<20% starch), we really need to understand the availability of the star= ch that determines its energy value to the cow.

The three most important factors affecting starch availability in the rumen are, in order, particle size, moisture, and endos= perm type. A key question is “Can we measure the effect of these factors on starch availability and make use of it during ration formulation?” Greater interest in use of starch analyses reflects the importance of optimizing starch digestion by the cow. Increasingly, nutritionists are tracking fecal starch (should be <5%) or corn silage processing score to ensure that starch is being efficiently used by the cow. These tools assume that we have a reliable laboratory method for measuring starch content and digestibility. And, we really don’t have either one right now. Just l= ast year, researchers at the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center showed the impor= tant variation that can occur in starch analyses of corn silage and corn grain d= ue to drying temperature and type of grinding mill. A cyclone mill (abrasion-t= ype mill) resulted in higher starch values compared with a Wiley mill (cutting-= type mill) for dry grain, and drying at 55°C resulted in = more precise values compared with 105°C. Research li= ke this will help forage labs to adopt standardized methods for starch analysis that ought to make values more comparable among various labs. =

For measuring starch digestibility or fermentability in the rumen, there is currently no agreed-upon method. Several methods exi= st that all have pros and cons. In vitro systems incubate samples in flasks, tubes, or bags with rumen fluid and buffer, in situ methods involve incubat= ing the sample in a bag directly in the rumen, enzymatic methods use amylase enzymes, and a new method proposes to measure zein protein that limits starch digestion in the rumen. The bottom line is that there is no standard method among labs.

What are the implications for nutritionists and dairy farmers who want to make use of starch analyses when feeding their herd? Optimizing starch digestion and use of low starch diets increase the need f= or accurate and precise starch analyses. Increasingly, we understand the need = to measure and adjust feeding management due to corn hybrid, field differences, harvest date, processing, length of time in the = silo and so on. Simply stated, our nutritional and management needs are ahead of current method development.

So what can you do today rather than simply wait for standardized methods to be developed for starch content and starch digestibility? If we focus on= corn silage, Kurt Cotanch (Miner Forage Lab guru) and I discussed the following steps at our recent C= orn Congress: 1) focus on DM, NDF, NDF digestibility, starch, and starch digestibility. Benchmark these values and track them over time to more easi= ly determine if a specific value makes sense or if it is an outlier. This simp= le approach should reduce the potential for one bad value to throw off your feeding program. 2) Stay with one lab to avoid between-lab variability. 3) Within-lab variability exists, so track your starch values over time and use common sense!

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

PUZZLEMENTS

What state has the farthest point west= in the United States? If you said Alaska, you’re right a= nd you get a gold star since lots of people would say that it’s Hawaii. But it&#= 8217;s Pochnoi Point in the Aleutian Islands, which stretch = far out into the Pacific but are still part of Alaska.

OK = then, what U.S. state has the farthest point east? Maine? Nope. Massachusetts? North Carolina? Florida? Nope, nope, and nope. Amazingly enough it’s Alaska’s Amatignak Island. That’s because the island is west of the 180th meridian separating the Eastern and Western Hemispheres, so it’s technically east of the rest= of the U.S.= Therefore, Alaska= has the farthest points North, West, and East.

Vet’s Corner: Is too mu= ch treatment causing DA’s?

Dr. Sheila McGuirk from the University of Wisconsin's School of Veterinary Medicine asks if there's an association betwe= en the negative effect that too high blood glucose (hyperglycemia) has on abomasal motility and the occurrence of displaced abomasum. Ketosis is often tre= ated before the occurrence of DA’s, so she is asking if too much dextrose treatment can be causing the DA.

In the cow fresh less than 4 days, blood glucose stay= s at a normal level because milk production has not kicked in to create negative energy balance, yet. If you don’t agree, just ask your herd health ve= t to run a few cow-side blood glucose tests on some fresh cows to prove it. This= is the same simple blood drop test that diabetes patients use, and it can be u= sed on your cows, too.

These practices create excess blood glucose in cows w= hich can lead to DA’s:

4 Routine use of= IV calcium-dextrose combinations given within 48 hours of calving.<= /span>

4 Steroid (Dexamethasone or Predef) = use at the same time a 500 ml bottle of 50% dextrose is given.

4 IV dextrose for unexplained signs or fresh cow problems other than ketosis.

4 Multiple bottl= es of 50% dextrose over a few days.

4 Using 50% dext= rose as a transport vehicle for antibiotics, vitamins or other treatments.

4 Repeated use o= f glucocorticoids several days in a row – Predef or Dexamethasone.<= o:p>

These practices help avoid creating hyperglycemia and subsequent DA’s:

4 Reserve IV 50% dextrose for cows with very high urine ketone s= tick or use BHBA strips on a cowside blood tester to= find severe cases.

4 Only use Predef or Dexamethasone on uncomplicated ketosis cases. These cows are usually 20-50 days in milk and don’t have feed intakes that support high milk production. The steroid holds up milk production in these fresh cows and allows for the ene= rgy level to catch up.

4 Ketosis that o= ccurs in the first 14 DIM tends to be complicated and associated with fatty liver syndrome. There is a high level of endogenous steroids in these cows a= nd additional steroid injections only add to the problem.

4 Only use Predef or Dexamethasone o= nce and do not administer 50% dextrose at the same time.

4 Use a glucose precursor like 8 oz of propylene glycol or fresh cow drench at the time the steroid is given.

These ketosis treatments reduce the risk of hyperglyc= emia and DA:

4 8 oz propylene= glycol syrup.

4 One oral ketos= is treatment tube.

4 Fresh cow dren= ch with 1.5 lb calcium propionate.

4 2 one liter bo= ttles of electrolytes with reduced concentration of glucose.

Only one of these treatments should be used at a time= for cows that test small or moderate on urine strips or BHBA blood test. Repeat treatment for up to two or three days and call the vet if there is no improvement. To stimulate rumen motility add yeast and direct fed microbials to help ward off DA’s.

—Ke= nt E Henderson, DVM, Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.=

hugamoo@c= omcast.net

NOTABLE QUOTES

4 Success is the ability to go from one failure to anot= her with no loss of enthusiasm. <= /span>

—Winston Church= ill

4 Some people try to turn back their odometers. Not me;= I want people to know why I look this way. I've traveled a long way and= some of the roads weren't paved. <= /span>

—Anonymous=

4 Retirement means no pressure, no stress, no heartache...unless you play golf.

—Gene Perret

4 There is no problem so awful that you can’t add some guilt to it and make it even worse.

—Calvin (of “Calvin and Hobbes”)

4 An intellectual is a person who's found one thing tha= t's more interesting than sex.

—Aldous Huxley

Protein and Amino Acid Nutrition 1= 01: Part 1

For the past two weeks I've traveled around the states of VT, NY, and CT speaki= ng at several VT DHIA regional meetings. I spoke at 8 meetings in 2 weeks in t= owns stretching from Brooklyn, CT to Newport, VT. At the meetings I gave a 30-minute= talk to dairy producers about nutritional strategies to increase milk protein production. In the Northeast Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO), producers= are paid based on the component pricing system, which means that prices paid to producers are based on the value of milk components (butterfat, protein, and other solids) and the producer price differential (PPD). In February 2009, = the price for protein was $1.91 per lb, fat was $1.09 per lb, other solids was $0.04, and the average PPD was $0.50 in the Northeas= t FMMO. Protein is therefore the most valuable component of milk, and in a time when every penny matters, increasing milk protein yields can be beneficial.=

So, how do you feed dairy cows for high milk protein yields? Well, I will start by explaining the biology of protein synthesis in the mammary gland. Don’t stop reading, I will keep this brief. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein; therefore, the dairy cow requires amino acids to make protein in the mammary gland. The amino acid compositio= n of milk protein is determined by the cow’s DNA, which means no matter wh= at the amino acid composition is of dietary protein, you cannot change the ami= no acid composition of milk protein. So, what we need to do is focus on suppor= ting the cow’s amino acid requirements for maintenance and milk protein production. Now, you might be thinking: How do we do that? Well, there are = 10 amino acids that are essential for the dairy cow and must be supplied by microbial and bypass protein. These amino acids are: a= rginine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine. Of these 10 amino acids, we only have a good = handle on the dairy cow’s requirement for lysine and me= thionine. Two out of ten seems pretty shabby, I know. We need to get to work on the others, but the good news is that balancing rations to meet lysine and methionine requirements of the cow very often will re= sult in increased milk and milk protein yields. For now, we will just assume that the other 8 amino acids are supplied in sufficient amounts by microbial and bypass protein. I know what happens when people assume, but this does work.=

To feed dairy cows for high milk protein yields, it's critical to have a healthy rumen to support maximum synthesis of protein in= the rumen by the microbes. The microbial protein produced in the rumen has an a= mino acid composition that closely matches the profile of amino acids required by the cow to synthesize milk protein. Once that’s in place, provide the= cow with adequate, but not excessive, amounts of bypass protein to meet her requirement for metabolizable protein. Metabolizable protein represents the total amino acid= s that are available to the cow to synthesize protein. The diet should then be balanced to meet the lysine and methionine requirements of the dairy cow. Depending on the nutritional model used to balance your ration, lysine concentrations in metaboli= zable protein should be about 6.6-6.8% and methionine concentrations about 2.2-2.3%. This represents a 3:1 ratio of lysine:methionine.

This is a good place to start and finish. Hopefully, = if you didn’t fall asleep yet, you have a basic understanding of why ami= no acid nutrition of the dairy cow is important. Next month I will describe in more detail how to implement these nutritional strategies.

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

2007 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE: DAIRY FARMS

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, according to the recently-released Census of Agriculture there were fewer d= airy farms in the U.S. in 2007 than in 2002. But as usual, the devil is in the details. USDA classifies a “dairy farm” as any farm with at least one cow, bu= t we all know that a few cows do not make a dairy farm. So if we consider a dairy farm as one with at least 20 cows, here’s the breakdown of these approximately 52,000 dairy farms:

4 68% had fewer = than 100 cows, down from 73% in 2002.

4 26% had 100 to= 499 cows, up from 23% in 2002.

4 The remaining = 6% had at least 500 cows, up from 4% in 2002. This is the only category that gaine= d in farm numbers over the five years--from 2902 to 3284.

Dystocia in Dairy Cows<= /span>

Dystocia, more commonly known as calving difficulty, is a pro= blem too many dairy producers experience with their cattle. Approximately 6 out = of 10 dairy operations report reproductive problems such as dystocia and metritis. However, since only 38% of dairy operations report having a system in place for scoring dystocia, this problem may be under-reported. In the = U.S., the most common scoring system for the degree of dystocia is based on 5 points: 1 =3D no problem, 2 =3D slight problem, 3 =3D needed assistance, 4 = =3D needed considerable force, and 5 =3D extreme difficulty/surgical procedure. Dystocia can have a huge financial impact on dairy operations by decreasing milk production and fertility of the cow and increasing morbidity and mortality of both the cow and the calf.=

Dystocia occurs when o= ne or more of the main components of the calving process fails or is inadequate, = such as expulsive forces, fetal size and position, and birth canal size. The most common type of dystocia in dairy cattle is R= 20;feto-pelvic disproportion”, which is determined= by calf birth weight and cow pelvic size. However, the primary type of dystocia is influenced by parity. Heifers are more li= kely to experience dystocia due to feto-pelvic disproportion more often than abnormal fetal position, or vulval stenosis (narrow/constricted vulva). In contras= t, cows are more likely to experience dystocia fir= st due to abnormal fetal position and second due to feto-pelvic disproportion, followed by multiple fetuses, uterine inertia (lack of uteri= ne contractions), uterine torsion, or cervical stenosis (narrow/constricted cervix).

Since calf birth weight and cow pelvic size contribut= e to most of the dystocia observed in dairy cattle, = it is important to know which factors will affect them. Calf birth weight is most influenced by gestation length, which in turn is influenced by calf gender, breed, maternal parity, maternal nutrition, and ambient environment during = the last trimester. For a Holstein calf, the= birth weight should be between 92 and 99 pounds to minimize the risk for dystocia. The odds of dystocia increase by 6% for every pound increase in birth weight. Cow pelvic size is most influenced by parity, weight at insemination, and age, weight, and body condition at calving. Pelvimetry (assessment of= the pelvis) is not routinely used in the dairy industry like it is used in the = beef industry to cull small heifers before service. The dairy industry in general minimizes the risk of dysocia by selecting for reduced calf birth weight rather than selecting for increased cow pelvic si= ze. Next month I'll review in more detail several of the factors affecting calf birth weight.

= 212;Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com

Sources: USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System report “Dairy 2007” http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov/dairy. <= /span>Mee, J. F. 2008. Prevalence and risk factors for dystocia in dairy cattle: a review. Vet. J. 176:93-10= 1.

CALENDAR EVENTS

New England Dairy Feed and Nutrition Conference; Thursday, April 9, 2009; Fireside Inn, = West Lebanon, NH.

4 Pat Hoffman, <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">University of Wisconsin. “Factors affecting starch digestibility” and “Feeding heifers for increased efficiency”

4 Limin Kung, University of Delaware. “Forage management= from field to silo”

4 Matt Lucey, University of Missouri. “Nutrition and reproduction”

4 Joe Stewart, S= tewart Farms Inc, Nampa, <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">ID “Improving farm efficiencies = from a producer perspective”

4 Registration information available through Northeast = Ag and Feed Alliance, 27 Elk = Street, Albany, NY, 12207 or 888-445-4595.

Miner Institute Open House: Miner Institute will unveil its ne= west addition to the Heritage Exhibit—100 Ye= ars of North Country Agriculture: Heart’s Delight Farm to Miner Institute= —during an open house on June 27, 2009 from 1= 2-4pm. The feature attraction will be a documentary video on the evolution of agricult= ure over the past century. Throug= hout the day, demonstrations will be held on the grounds in our equine and dairy facilities highlighting versatility of horses, dairy cattle nutrition, trai= ning of horses, and cow behavior. = The open house coincides with the Lake Champlain Quadricen= tennial celebration and the centennial anniversary of William Miner’s publica= tion of the 1909 “Heart’s Delight Farm” book. The event is free and open to the public.

Six steps towards providing effective feedback for your employees

At an employee management conference in 2005, Richard E. = Stup from the Penn State Dairy Alliance discussed the importance of feedback, and made recommendations for supervisors to provide effective feedback to their employees.

Why should you use positive feedback? People like to = feel important to others, and positive feedback shows that you appreciate their = good work. When you reward an employee for good behavior, you're encouraging the= m to repeat the good behavior, which is especially important when learning new skills.

What about negative feedback? Negative feedback may be necessary -- note that negative feedback is not a punishment, but a re-direction. While you may not enjoy giving negative feedback, it is your responsibility as a manager to provide it in a timely manner. If you do not provide negative feedback in those situations, you essentially deny the employee the opportunity to improve because they are unaware of any problem= s or areas needing improvement.

Worst case scenario? No feedback. A lack of feedback = is de-motivating and can reduce the quality of any employee team. Quality employees may think they are doing poorly, and change their behavior. On the other hand, poor performers may think they are excelling, and continue their behavior.

Want to = make the most of your feedback? The six guidelines in Table 1 can help you be more effective in feedback.

Remember that employees want to know how they are performing on the job – the lack of feedback can be de-motivating. Wh= en negative feedback is necessary, provide support for improvement. And lastly, there is no such thing as too much sincere positive feedback – if your employees are excelling, let them know!

Check in next month for more on providing employee feedback…

—Rachel Butzler, butzler@whminer.com

Source: Stup, = R. 2005. Feedback that motivates. Emp= loyee Management for Production Agriculture Conference. Kansas City, MO.=

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP ACREAGE

The use of traite= d (genetically modified) field crop seeds in the U.S. continues to increase, b= ut for soybeans it's leveling off. This isn't because farmers are unhappy with glyphosate-resistant soybeans (the most common GM tra= it). It's because such a high percentage of the = U.S. soybean crop is already genetically modified, a whopping 92% of planted acreage in 2008. This represents only a 1% increase from 2007, and don't be surprised to see a sm= all decrease in the next year or two since there's still a market for non-traited seed. Last year 80% of U.S. corn acreage was genetic= ally modified, an increase of 7% from 2007. We might see this rate of increase l= evel off in 2009 as farmers try to save money on seed costs. <= /p>

Diet Comparison: Similar Rations or Not?=

The other day Anna showed me two very different diets in terms of ingredients t= hat provided the same amount of energy; both diets had NE_L va= lues of 0.60 Mcal/lb. This got me thinking about how energy values (NE_{L) are obtained and how they could be simi=
lar
between rations that are vastly different. One ration was mostly haylage and the other a blend of corn silage, haylage, straw and grain. How could they possibly bot=
h be 0.60 Mcal? Note the die=
ts below
and see what you can make of them. Do you expect the same predicted energy
value of both? Given the same NE_L value, are these diets similar in terms =
of
expected rumen fermentation?}

First, why the similar NE_L values? Remember, NE_=
L is “predicted”; normally I would say calculated, but the point is = that the calculation is just a prediction, an educated guess, using ADF. There a= re a number of equations to calculate NE_L from ADF, considering feed source, either grass or legume or corn silage or TMR. The basic premise is the lower the A= DF, the higher the predicted energy content of the feed. Given our current emph= asis on metabolizable energy in many ration-balancing programs, NE_{L is a bit outdated, much like TDN. These
values do not tell us how the animal will use or partition the energy, whic=
h we
now know depends not only on the feed itself but the animals' physiologic s=
tate
and level of intake, environment, etc. Hence, in this situation, high quali=
ty haylage with low ADF values calculate to similar NE_L of=
a
diet that includes corn silage, straw and grain. Which brings us to the ide=
a of
nutrient fractions provided by the two diets, are they similar? NO WAY. Com=
mon
sense tells us that with CS and grain there will be quite a bit of starch in
Diet 1 and not Diet 2. This is noted in the 10-unit difference in NFC value=
s as
well. How will this affect rumen fermentation between the diets? Diet 1 has=
a
lot of rapidly fermentable CHO that may or may not be effectively utilized =
by
the rumen bugs depending on rumen degradable protein fractions. Diet 2, all=
haylage, is providing energy from highly digestible f=
orage
fiber, not starch. Two diets,=
equal
predicted energy levels, but one from starch the=
other
from fiber. Not similar diets at all.
Depending on the rest of the diets’ protein and CHO fractions =
as
well as the physiologic state of the animals being fed we could expect very
different responses to these rations.}

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

= ;

Is an Avoidance Distance Test a Reliable Measure of Welfare?<= /p>

Continuing on the basic theme of assessing farm animal welfare addressed in last month’s Farm Report leads to a review of research published in the most recent issue of Applied Animal Behaviour Science. The objective of two trials conduc= ted by a group from the Institut= e of Animal Husbandry= and Welfare was to evaluate the on-farm repeatability of the Avoidance Distance Test and to determine how a farmer’s attitude may affect the results = of that test. This test is defined as the distance at which a cow will withdraw from an approaching human. The rationale for using this type of test to ass= ess welfare is that it's based on both the importance of the human-animal relationship, especially on a dairy farm that dictates consistent daily interaction, and the physiological differences between animals that are less fearful of human interaction than those that demonstrate a greater fear.

Thi= s study was conducted on 10 commercial farms that were raising beef cattle; however, the methods used in the study could be easily replicated on a dairy farm. T= he Avoidance Distance Test was conducted on bulls that were using a feeding sp= ace. The experimenter approached the bull from a distance of 6 ft. and the dista= nce at which the bull removed its head from the feeder or turned away at an ang= le greater than 45°. Farmers’ attitudes were determined using a questionnaire focus= ed on the comfort level of engaging in certain behaviors, such as entering the pens, care of animals upon arrival at the farm, etc. and the level of importance they place on behaviors, such as talking to the cattle while approaching them, stroking cattle, etc.&nb= sp;

There was a high inter-observer reliability for Avoid= ance Distance Test. Unfortunately, the between-observ= er reliability was much lower. Despite this, there were still significant differences found between farms for the distance at which cows would withdr= aw. The comfort level of the farmer when interacting with their cows was found = to have a positive relationship on the results of the Avoidance Distance Test:= The more comfortable the farmer was, the closer the cows would allow the experimenter to approach.

This research trial was viewed as being a preliminary step in fully validating t= he Avoidance Distance Test as a means to assess farm animal welfare. These data suggest that the attitude towards animal handling and interaction can have a positive effect on the human-animal interaction. Ensuring a positive human-animal interaction is critical for ease of handling as well as proper milk letdown. This type of assessment may also be useful during farm evaluations for identifying potential problems with management approach to = animal handling. Finally, the ability to conduct this sort of assessment without having to enter the pen indicates its practicality.

—Peter Krawczel krawczel@whminer.com

Reference: Windschnurer, = I., X. Boivin, and S. <= span class=3DSpellE>Waiblinger. Reliability of an avoidance distance test for the assessment = of animals’ responsiveness to humans and preliminary investigation of its association with farmers’ attitudes on bull fattening farms. Appl. Anim. B= ehav. Sci. 117:117-127.

SOUTHERN EXPOSURE

The Bride and I are winding up our first wint= er in Virginia. We've enjoyed the relatively mild weather, but are looking forward to headi= ng back to North Country later this month. = It will be good to be home! I've managed to avoid that trio of Southern favorites--collard greens, grits and sweet tea--and haven't yet been banned from the Southern Baptist church we attend. Pastor Mark said that he doesn't like people looking at their watches during his (45-minute) sermons, and he might have been looking at me when he said that. In my defense, it wasn't my idea to sit up front. T.B. says it's bad enough for me to look at my watch; tapping the crystal to see if it's still running is a bit over the top.

A few weeks ago I drove north through four st= ates (Virginia-West Virginia-Maryland-Pennsylvania) on my way to speak at a farm= er meeting. On the way I noticed a big difference in dairy crop operations bet= ween this area and the Northeast, namely the percentage of corn fields planted to winter rye (or another winter cereal since they all look about the same in February). This may be a practice that's underutilized on our dairy farms; = UVM agronomist Sid Bosworth seems to think so. Winter rye can be seeded late en= ough in the fall that you can often harvest corn for silage and still have time = to plant rye. It can then be harvested as ryelage = in mid/late May or plowed down as a "green manure" crop somewhat ear= lier than that. The rye will tie up some nitrogen over the winter on manured fields. Rye plowed down will improve soil structure and add organic matter, making it particularly advantageous where manure can't be applied to a field that's b= eing planted to corn for several years.

Pro= blems and pitfalls include not getting the rye off early enough to till and then plant a full-season corn hybrid, especially if you harvest the rye for sila= ge. You could plant notill corn, but I'm not hot on= this idea because rye may be slightly allelopathic (= toxic) to notill corn. Years ago I remember some resea= rch at the University of Maryland where they= notilled corn into several winter grain crops and were surprised at how poorly the corn did when notilled into rye stubble.

—E.T.=

2007 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE: CLINTON COUNTY<= /o:p>Clinton County (where Miner Institute is located) is in many ways a microcosm of rural are= as in the Northeastern U.S. Here are a few figures from the recently-released 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture for Clinton County, with comparisons to the 20= 02 Census:

4 Farm numbers d= eclined slightly, from 604 to 590, while the value of production soared by 58%, to = $124 million.

4 Clinton County farmers weren= ’t “farming the government” to any great extent. Total government payments to farmers was $1 million, but that works out to less than $7000 per farm. Government payments in 2007 were 66% less than in 2002.

4 The number of = cattle and calves decreased by about 7%, to 35,539. The vast majority of these were dairy animals since there are very few beef cattle in the county.

4 Corn silage ac= reage didn’t change much at all; the 13,500 acres represented an increase of only 1%.

4 Acres of corn harvested for grain, while still modest compared to corn silage acreage, to= ok a big leap of 48%, to almost 6500 acres.

4 Soybean acreag= e was down by 7%, to just under 1500 acres.

Fin= ally, and this has nothing to do with Clinton County though it has far more th= an its share of prisons: According to the 2007 Census, there are a lot more people= in jail in the U.S. than there are full-time farmers. There are 1.4 million farmers, and 2.4 million prisoners. Including those on parole or on probation, the number ju= mps to 7.3 million. As a side note, PETA claims to have more than 2 million members.

RESEARCH SUMMARIES

4 Manure contain= ing two rates of copper as copper sulfate plus a no-copper control was applied in slurry dairy manure to plots at Miner Institute and both early and late maturing corn hybrids were grown. Treatments were applied in both 2006 and 2007. Soil samples were analyzed for copper concentration by three soil extractants. With two annual applications of high-cop= per dairy manure there were no effects of growth or yield of corn. Nor were the= re effects on forage quality or mineral concentration of corn tissue. The available copper in the soil as measured by Modified Morgan’s extract= ion increased only after a second application of high-copper manure; the extrac= tion of copper by calcium chloride wasn’t affected. There was no evidence = of vertical movement of copper in the soil. Source: Northeastern Branch meetin= g of the American Society of Agronomy. Contact ballard@whminer.com

4 In Quebec research, first and second cut alfalfa was mowed at 4:30 pm after a sunny day and at 8:00 the following morning. Alfalfa was allowed to dry in wide swaths in the first harvest and without swathing in the second harvest. Samples were taken at mowing and ev= ery hour after the AM mowing until dry matter was approximately 30%. At time of cutting, nonstructural carbohydrates (NSC) were 15.5% and 10.6% for PM and AM-cut alfalfa at first harvest, and 13.5% and 9.9% for the PM and AM-cut at second harvest. The difference in NSC between PM and AM harvest was still t= here at the end of the wilting period at second harvest, but not for the first harvest. Cutting time influences NSC, but the effect may be reduced or eliminated by the end of the wilting period. Source: Northeastern Branch meeting of the American Society of Agronomy. Contact: = Chantale Morin, University of Laval, Quebec, K1K= 7P4.

ORGANIC DAIRIES HIT HARD TIMES

H.P. Hood recently informed its Maine organic dairy farm owners that s= ome contracts to produce organic milk would not be renewed, while the remaining farms would have to decrease production by 15%. The economic downturn is be= ing blamed for a reduction in consumer demand for organic milk, which in Maine has been s= elling for about $5.00 per gallon compared with about $3.80 for "regular" milk. Hood stated that the transportation cost of getting organic milk from farm to processor also played a part in its decision.

Reg= ular readers may recall an article I wrote at least a year ago, questioning the = use of public funds to encourage farmers to "transition to organic". I noted that because of the high retail price for organic milk, increased production of organic milk by some large dairies, and the much higher cost = of organic inputs (mainly feed), for some farmers a transition to organic may = wind up being a "transition" out of dairy farming entirely. And that's just what will happen to some of these Maine dairy farms, if we are to listen to the affected farmers. In that article I also wondered how long milk processors would be paying a premium for organic milk that would be high enough to compensate producers for their much higher production costs. The Hood article didn't state what it was currently paying farmers for organic milk, but with only a 30% higher store price, I'd be am= azed if the premium Hood has been paying comes anywhere near covering the added production costs. It gives me no great joy to say "I told you so." But...I told you so.

The= se are not happy times for the organic food industry in general, as consumers have been cutting back on high-cost organic foods to save money. And the respect= ed Consumers Union, publishers of Consumer's Reports, recently noted that orga= nic foods aren't necessarily any safer than foods produced by conventional meth= ods. In an apparent response to declining sales, the Organic Trade Association, which represents 1700 companies, announced the beginning of a $500,000 advertising campaign promoting organic food.

—E.T.=

CORN PLANT POPULATIONS

While it may seem early to think about corn p= lant populations, not really because plant population influences the amount of s= eed to order and many farmers haven’t yet completed their orders. There’s plenty of information out there on the subject; university research plus some individual hybrid data by our friends at Pioneer, and it= all points to the need to be planting well over 30,000 seeds per acre to maximi= ze corn silage (and grain) yields. Today’s corn hybrids have the ability= to produce a good ear at relatively high populations, and you will sacrifice little if any silage quality by planting, for instance, 33,000 seeds/acre v= s. 30,000.

Mos= t of today’s seed corn has a very high germination rate, often higher than stated on the seed tag, and today’s corn planters are doing a more precise job of seed placement. About ten years ago we did some whole-farm analysis at Miner Institute of harvested plants vs. planting population, and found that for several years in a row, our final plant stand was about 90% = of the number of seeds dropped. And that was before the move to more effective seed treatments (Poncho and Cruiser Extreme). Taking these changes into account, you should plan for no more than 10% loss between seed drop and cr= op harvest: In other words, if you plant 34,000 seeds per acre, final plant st= and assuming a 10% loss would be 30,600.

Even if every seed makes= it (and they won't), not to fear: Most hybrids will do well at final stands of 34,000 plants per acre. For most corn hybrids there’s little reason to plant less than 33,000 seeds per acre unless you’re planting in sandy= or droughty soils. These recommendations are for the No= rtheastern U.S., where we usually have adequate growing season precipitat= ion. Where moisture is limiting and irrigation isn’t an option, lower plant populations are in order. Cornell University is condu= cting a multi-year research project on corn populations, is currently recommendin= g 34,500 kernels for silage production on silt loam soils, and 30,000 for grain.

Alt= hough many seed companies have increased recommended populations for corn silage production, some are still on the low side. If you’re planting less t= han 30,000 seeds per acre for silage (and probably less than 33,000), you’= ;re almost certainly leaving some yield potential “in the bag”.

TOP CORN SILAGE STATES; FOR NOW, AT LEAST

The state rankings bounce around a bit from y= ear to year depending on weather and competing crop alternatives, but last year= New York was #3 in the production of corn silage, behind Wisconsin and Californ= ia, and #4 in corn silage acreage behind WI, CA, and Pennsylvania. Yield per ac= re is another thing entirely, and doesn't necessarily reflect the management ability of a particular state's farmers. For instance, of the top 15 corn silage states, Idaho led in yield with 27 tons/acre, but much of Idaho<= /st1:place>'s corn was irrigated. Californi= a was #2 at 26.5 tons/acre, and virtually all of it was irrigated. North and South Dakota, also among the top 15 corn silage states, only averaged 10 an= d 12 tons/A respectively. Guess ho= w much of the Dakotas' corn was irrigated? NY averaged 20 tons/Acre, an 18% increase from 2007. Average yields don't boun= ce around from year to year nearly as much where the corn was irrigated; for instance, both California and Idaho corn silag= e yields were unchanged from 2007.

The= water situation in California has worsened considerably, and most of the farmers who buy irrigation water from the Central Valley Project will get a zero allocation, while those get= ting water from a separate state-run system will have their water allocations cu= t by 85%. These farmers will have to rely to a much greater extent on groundwate= r, and there are problems with this in terms of the cost to drill wells and pu= mp water as well as water quality. An estimated 1 million crop acres will be idled, and these areas grow a tremendous amount of corn silage and alfalfa.= The Central Valley also produces over half t= he fruit, vegetables, and nuts grown in the U.S. Expect significant price hikes for these commodities.

CLOSING COMMENT

Cleaning your house while your kids are still growing is like shoveling the driveway before it has stopped snowing.