MINER INSTITUTE - APRIL FARM REPORT

The true color of conventional dairying?

I am often, shall= I say, “accused” or “labeled” as being Green regardin= g my philosophical and political views. I like to consider my viewpoints as fair= ly middle ground and objective. But like any entity, our existence is relative= to others. Maybe it's because of my 6th grade teacher, who made us learn publi= c speaking and debating by having us write down topics, place them in a bucket, then randomly draw a topic. We were given only 3 minutes to prepare a 3 minute t= alk on whatever topic and point of view we drew. Maybe I am just argumentative, or possibly it is my appreciation for the sarcastic wit of the “Colbert Report” that prompts me to voice these thoughts. Whatever, consider t= he notion that today’s dairy industry is “returning” or “gravitating” back to, in honor of Darwin’s Anniversary, “The Natural Order”.

For instance, what is the cow’s preferred bedding surface? Not synthetic oil-based rubber or kiln-dried sawdust, but sand…good old mother earth…rock in fact, finely ground rock. How more natural a choice for comfort and better health? Consider next the latest research on calf growth= and nutrient levels of milk replacers moving back to the proportions found in mother’s milk, 28:20, protein:fat; or the frequency with which we now milk cows, no longer the universal 2x, but 3x a= nd occasionally 4x or 6x. How of= ten would a calf naturally suckle her dam? Certainly more than 2x. Again, the way nature intended? How about managing close-up cows: For a whi= le we would forcibly alter their physical and social environment at nearly the moment of parturition by disrupting the calving process in order to provide= her privacy and isolation in the name of ease, safety and bio-security. How do = many farms manage parturition today? They provide a large well-bedded pen, 85% stocking density, and allow the dam to choose her own time and place of isolation within that pen. Granted a bit more controlled than having her ca= lve out in the far corner of the woods in the back 40, but still, minimal stress when she chooses the time and place of delivery.

Isn= ’t our recent focus on animal behavior a Humanist approach to dairy management? Isn’t our current focus about what is best for the animal that which = is also best for the business of dairying? We now seek to provide not just adequate, but rather optimal resting time by managing stall and bunk space. Isn’t this a similar approach to human industry where working conditi= ons are controlled to optimize human output and not be abusive? Lighting, temperature, working hours, cube space, well, that may be more like the pou= ltry industry. <= /p>

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

Is = it ridiculous to anthropomorphize when evaluating cow behavior in order to pro= vide what is best for the cow? The idea of trying to feel and think like her and what see needs to be more efficient and profitable for t= he business. Is it “green” to think like the cow, to modify= our management of cattle if it benefits the business?

I g= uess you can spin it any which way, but we need to make sure those making decisions = that affect our industry either as individuals or the mass consumer, have a firm understanding of the biology, physiology, behavior and economics of dairy cattle before we allow their actions to wreck havoc with our way of life.

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

From the President’s Desk – Regrouping Redux

On many dairy farms, cows are regrouped three or more times during a typical lactation. Maintaining multiple groups allows for more homogeneous pens in terms of milk yield, stage of lactation, or parity. Cows can be fed a more targeted ration, thereby reducing the risk of limiting milk production by h= igh producers, excessively conditioning lower producers, and reducing excessive feeding of nitrogen and its excretion into the environment.

One of the major issues with multiple pens is the los= s of milk production that occurs when cows are moved from one group to another. = Most research has measured short-term reductions in milk yield of cows that are transferred into a new pen of cattle. This reduction in milk could reflect greater competition at the feed bunk or stalls, greater aggressive interactions, and lost resting time.

A recently published study from the University of Briti= sh Columbia found that milk yield declined by ab= out eight pounds per cow on the day they were regrouped, but milk returned to n= ormal by day 2 following the regrouping. So, like most earlie= r results, these scientists concluded that the negative effect of regrouping = on milk yield is short-lived and milk returns to normal fairly quickly. Previo= us research has indicated that milk returns to normal within 2 to 10 days.

Given these results, why is it that so many dairy producers are hesitant to create multiple groups on their farm because they fear a more prolonged loss of milk when cows are regrouped? Despite the research, there is no doubt that milk loss can be substantial and prolonged following regrouping on commercial dairy farms. Why do on-farm results sometimes differ from carefully controlled studies with small numbers of co= ws in a pen? The exact answer is unknown, but several potential reasons include pen size, time spent outside the pen, and the effect on time budget behavio= rs such as resting and eating. Moving one or two cows into an existing pen of = 20 cows could well yield different results compared with moving eight or ten c= ows into a pen of 100 cows. Social dynamics would differ markedly between the two situations. We also know that with larger pens the potential for cows to sp= end more than 3.5 to 4 hours per day outside the pen increases, making any nega= tive effects of regrouping worse.

I recently attended the Mid-Atlantic Nutrition Confer= ence in Baltimore and presented a talk on the effects of stocking rate on behavior and productivity. During the question period we got into a discussion of why co= ws may lose milk yield for prolonged periods of time when moved from one group= to another on-farm. A perceptive nutritionist in the audience wondered whether= a substantial part of the answer might be the stocking density of the pen that the cow(s) is moved into versus the stocking density of its current pen. On many farms, the later lactation, lower producing cow pens have the highest stocking density. So, if a cow is moved from the high or medium group into a low pen, she may well experience a different diet, but additionally she may also experience higher stocking density. So, the greater competition she experience amplifies and prolongs the negative effects of regrouping on her behavior and productivity. We agreed that it is certainly an idea worth more investigation. We hope to study this issue in the coming months on a range = of farms with varying stocking densities and pen sizes. Hopefully, we will arr= ive at a practical way to regroup cows on the farm that minimizes any negative social consequences that lead to lost performance.

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

Protein and Amino Acid Nutri= tion 101 - Part 2

Last month I explained some of the basic concepts behind amino acid nutrition of lactating dairy cows. I'd like to continue with this theme as it is a very important concept. Balancing dairy rations for amino acids has many benefit= s, including increased milk protein yields. However, balancing dairy rations f= or amino acids also improves the efficiency of conversion of dietary protein i= nto milk protein. This can save on feed costs as well because often less crude protein needs to be fed.

The term “limiting amino acid” comes up w= hen discussing amino acid nutrition. What does this mean? The first limiting am= ino acid is defined as the amino acid in shortest supply relative to requiremen= ts, and the second limiting amino acid is the one in the second shortest supply relative to requirements. If the supply of the first limiting amino acid is increased to more closely match the animal’s requirement, protein synthesis will be increased up to a point where the second limiting amino a= cid will limit the amount of protein synthesized. There are many different analogies that are used to help explain this concept. However, this concept= is easiest to understand when we understand what is really happening in the mammary gland.

Protein is comprised of long chains of amino acids. I mentioned last month that the cow’s DNA determines the amino acid composition of milk protein. Therefore, the amino acid composition of milk protein is genetically determined and cannot be altered by the amino acid composition of the diet. In the process of protein synthesis in the mammary gland, the DNA codes for a certain combination of amino acids to be linked together to form a particular milk protein molecule. For example, let’= ;s say a part of the protein chain requires the following sequence of amino acids:

-methionine R= 11; lysine – arginine <= /p>

– valine – lysine –methionine-

If methionine is in short supply relative to what is required for synthesis of this protein molecule,= the protein chain cannot form. It’s not as if the DNA says OK, no methionine is available, I’ll use leucine instead. (DNA can’t talk, but that’s beside the point.) Protein synthesis is an all-or-nothing process. If all of the components are not available, the protein cannot be made.

To illustrate this concept in another way, let’s say that 20 molecules of a particular milk protein can be synthesized in the mammary gland and each of those protein molecules requires 5 methionine components. You'd need 100 methionines to make the 20 protein molecules. If only 82 methionin= es are available then only 16 protein molecules can be made.

It may seem sort of silly that protein synthesis is so specific, but the amino acid composition of milk protein very closely match= es the profile of amino acids required by the calf. Evolutionally, this makes sense. Lucky for us and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the amino acid composition of cow’s milk protein is very similar to the amino acid requirements of humans also. This is why milk protein is such a high quality protein source= for human consumption, and why whey protein powders are so popular among body builders.

I will continue with this topic next month, as I'd li= ke to cover the applied side of amino acid nutrition. However, once the basic understanding is in place, the application is much easier.

—Sarah Boucher, boucher@whminer.com=

AN APRIL PRIORITY: FERTILIZI= NG FORAGE GRASSES

If you don't pay attention to anything else Ev wri= tes, pay attention to the following.

Grass fields will be greening up soon, at which time farmers should be out there spreading manure or applying nitrogen fertilize= r. With the dire financial situation on dairy farms the temptation may be to u= se manure instead of fertilizer (which may be OK), or to use nothing at all (w= hich is not OK). Grass fields that don't get manure or fertilizer may not even be worth harvesting, since the cost of harvest may exceed the value of the cro= p. For spring N application, a grass field is anything with less than 50% alfa= lfa or other legumes. N won't hurt the alfalfa; it will actually increase alfal= fa yield, but not by enough to pay for the fertilizer which is why we don't ap= ply N to fields that are predominantly alfalfa. But if you've never applied N in April to grass-alfalfa fields, you might be amazed at the results.

Manure is a good alternative as long as it doesn't contain a lot of bedding and you can apply it before the grass gets too tal= l. The taller the grass, the less the response to the N in the m= anure. The first manure out of the pit in the spring is often very low in solids, = so you might need to apply two or three tanker loads per acre. Many grass fiel= ds are soft this time of year, and you don't want to cut up fields that you pl= an to leave in grass for years to come. That's why N fertilizer is often your = best alternative.

Urea is the cheapest fertilizer N source, and volatilization losses are usually low from spring applications. UAN (an aqu= eous mixture of urea and ammonium nitrate) is an alternative. UAN costs more than urea per unit of N, but the N in UAN is used more efficiently by the grass.= UAN has to be sprayed on, so you'll need to consider application costs. We use = UAN at Miner Institute. Another N source worth considering is ammonium sulfate (AMS). (See the sulfur article in this issue.) AMS is more expensive than u= rea, but has very low volatility and the sulfur may provide an added benefit. In= the past we've used a 50-50 blend of urea and AMS for topdressing second cut grasses, although we try to maximize manure use after first cut. We also use the AMS-urea blend as a corn starter on fields with high soil test P and K.=

How much bang will you get for your nitrogen fertiliz= er buck? Research at Miner Institute found that applying N to first cut grasse= s at green-up doubled yield and increased crude protein content by about half, f= rom 12% to 18% C.P. And all this happens in about 5 weeks, from fertilization t= o harvest! N also significantly increases second cut yield and quality, though you mig= ht want to use manure after you harvest the first cut. Second and third cut grasses benefit greatly from manure. If you apply manure on your grass fiel= ds you should never need to apply fertilizer P or K to this crop.

Application rates: For good stands, 70-90 lbs /acre of actual N. For instance, 90 lbs of N can be supplied by 200 lbs of urea or 3= 00 lbs of 30% UAN. If the field has a long history of manure applications in previous years you might be able to reduce the N rate slightly.<= /span>

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

CRITTER NEWS &= nbsp;

4 A 19-year-old = woman working at an English hotel in Norwich, England s= aid she discovered a baby bat in her bra after five hours of wearing the undergarment. When she felt some vibrations, Abbie Hawkins at first thought her cell phone was going off, but when she searched for the source of the shaking she found a small bat hiding in the padded po= cket of her bra. At this point her best option would have been to say nothing to anyone about the incident, but she said “I keep thinking, how could I have not known it was there?” How, indee= d.

<= span style=3D'mso-armenian-font-family:Calibri;mso-currency-font-family:Calibri; mso-cyrillic-font-family:Calibri;mso-default-font-family:Shannon;mso-greek-= font-family: Shannon;mso-hebrew-font-family:Calibri;mso-latin-font-family:Shannon; mso-latinext-font-family:Calibri'>4 A recent study found that after female fruit flies ma= te they increase their immune systems to fight off infections. Wow, a bug that protects itself against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)! And for good reason, since female fruit flies that mate more than once have a shortened = life span. But they mate repeatedly anyway. Why are we not surprised? Repeated matings apparently have no negative effects on male fruit flies.

Vet’s Corner: Seven Food Borne Illness Pathogens= that are killed by Pasteurization

Since 1987 the FDA has prohibited interstate sale of raw milk, and currently 26 states ban sales inside their borders. Recently a few states have revised s= tate law to allow more sales of raw milk directly from the farm to the consumer. Last year, Vermont state law was changed to allow 50 quarts to be sold daily, and now the Hous= e Ag committee is considering a bill to allow unlimited sales.=

Advocates of raw milk claim health benefits and relie= f of lactose intolerance. Most of these claims are based on conflicting personal testimonies and little scientific investigation supports the health claims.= The question before the House Ag committee is to weigh these possible benefits against the known food borne illnesses that have been transmitted in raw mi= lk. These include:

1. = Q Fever causes chills, fever, headache, and endocarditis is caused by Coxiella brunett= i. Coxiella b is found in 94% of bulk tank samples and i= s the standard measure of success for the pasteurization process.

2. = Salmonellosis causes enteri= tis and serious flu symptoms. Salmonella is the second most common pathogen and is found in 9% of bulk tank samples. In a 2005 Cornell study on our practice's herd health clinic farms, Salmonella spp was fo= und on the premises of over 60% of the farms, so it presents a major risk in our a= rea.

3. = Campylobacter = causes intestinal flu symptoms and is especially tough on new raw milk drinkers. I= n Kansas in 2007, 87 people were sickened by two sepa= rate cases and last year another Campylobacter outbreak occurred in California from = raw milk shipped into the state under a “cow share” program designed to = beat the FDA interstate shipment ban.

4. = E. coli 0157:H= 7 causes hemolytic uremic syndrome, which has led to death due to kidney failure in = the very young.

5. = Listeriosis causes aborti= on and death in humans. It's a common soil inhabitant in Vermont and along with Salmonella is t= he subject of premises environmental monitoring at milk processing plants. Listeria spp. only causes 0.02% of food borne illness= es, but 27.6% of all deaths due to food borne illness are from Listeria, so it is an extremely dangerous pathogen. In 1985, 48 deaths occurred= in Los Angeles from = eating Mexican style cheese made from unpasteurized goat milk.

6. = Mycobacterium tuberculosis causes respiratory disease in humans and has been largely controlled in the U.= S. by an 80-year old test-and-cull program. A recent flare-up in valuable= Michigan herds originated from contact with deer and reminded us that surveillance must continue.

7. = Undulant Fever= is caused by Brucella abortis= and is checked at the milk plant on a quarterly basis with the Ring test. As the name implies, victims suffer recurring fever and exhaustion. Raw milk s= old directly from the farm would not be monitored with the Ring test.

End-product testing of raw milk for food-borne illness pathogens, as recommended by the proposed Vermont law, will not provide the bullet-proof protection that pasteurization has done. Pathogens are secreted sporadically and may not be present in sufficient numbers to find = on test day. So no practical testing procedure can be as reliable to prevent f= ood borne illness as pasteurization.

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

hugamoo@c= omcast.net

SAVE THE DATE

June 27, 2009

Miner Institute Open House

Mi= ner Institute will unveil its newest addition to the Heritage Exhibit—100 Years 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. For m= ore information contact Amy Be= dard at 518-846-7121 ext 149 or email bedard@whminer.com.

Detecting Lameness in Tie-Stall Ho= used Dairy Cows

In spite of the increased awareness of the detrimental effects of lameness on productivity and welfare, there has been little improvement made in the prevalence of this condition over the past decade. Recent research has esti= mated that between 20 and 30% of all cows housed in either tie-stall or freestall barns are clinically lame. It's been estima= ted that over 50% of cows may have sole injuries that do not result in clinical lameness, but may still cause some pain or discomfort. Locomotion scores ar= e a reliable means to access lameness rates in freestall facilities; however, that system may not be practical for 3rd party assessm= ents of cows housed in tie-stall facilities. Researchers from the United Kingdom, Germany, and Austria collaborated in the development of a stall-based scoring system that could = be used to evaluation tie-stall housed cows. Their results were published in t= he most recent edition of the Journal of Dairy Science.

The initial step for the development of their stall-b= ased assessment was to identify 5 behaviors that may be associated with lameness. These behaviors wer= e:

1. = Constant shift= ing of weight from one foot to the other.

2. = Rotating the f= oot beyond the midline of the body.

3. = Standing on th= e curb of the stall.

4. = Refusing to be= ar weight on a foot while standing stationary.

5. = Refusing to be= ar weight on a foot while moving laterally.

The presence of these factors was determined using the following standard procedure:

1. = Cows that were= lying down were made to stand up. (Any lying cow was not evaluated until she had stood for a minimum of 3 minutes.)

2. = The standing p= osture of the cow was evaluated for any of the previously identified behavioral factors.

3. = The cow was th= en made to move from side to side and evaluated while in motion.<= /p>

4. = The standing p= osture was re-evaluated after the lateral movement.

5. = Any cow demons= trating at least two of the behavioral indictors, at any point in the evaluation, w= as scored as lame.

Du= ring this study, cows were evaluated by two observers and the scoring (lame vs. = not lame) of these observers agreed 91% of the time. This suggests that this me= thod results in a highly repeatable score. After the stall-based assessment was conducted, the cows were released and given a conventional locomotion score. The agreement of cows identified as lame vs. not lame between the 2 scoring systems was 81% and 78% for the 2 observers. Mildly lame cows (as determine= d by the locomotion score) were the most difficult to detect in the stall-based system and were responsible for the majority of the disagreement between th= e 2 methods. The ability of the stall-based assessment to find all lame cows wi= thin a herd was limited (only about 61% of cows that were later scored as modera= tely lame or lame were identified). However, when only lame cows (those receivin= g a score of 4 or 5 in a 5-point locomotion score) were included in the analysis over 80% of those cows were identified while in the stall. Furthermore, the= stall-based system resulted in cows being incorrectly identified as lame less than 7% of time.

This stall-based system for identifying lame cows can= be used to conveniently assess the lameness prevalence in tie-stall barns. It should be recognized that the number of moderately lame cows would most lik= ely be underreported. In spite of this, the ability to accurately identify more severely lame cows, without falsely including nonlame<= /span> cows, indicates that farmers, 3rd party auditors, or consultants should con= sider utilizing this assessment tool.

—Peter Krawczel, krawczel@whminer.com

Source: Leach ,= K. A., S. Dippel, J. Huber, S.= March , C. Winckler, and H. R. Wha= y. 2009. Assessing lameness in cows kept in tie-stalls. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :156= 7–1574

SAVE THE DATE - August 17-20, 2009<= /p>

Basic Dairy Nutrition Course at Miner Institute in collaboration with Cornell

Details available after May 1, 2009 from Heather Howland at 607-255-4478 or email hh96@cornell.edu.

Opportunities to give employees feedback

If you read the Farm Report last month you should remember the importance of managers giving feedback to their employees on a regular basis. In a nutshe= ll, providing frequent feedback can help maintain and improve a productive workforce. At the “Employee Management for Production AgricultureR= 21; conference in 2005, Richard Stup of the Penn St= ate Dairy Alliance gave further tips for employers seeking opportunities to give their workforce feedback.

Annual performance reviews are an opportunity for you= as a manager to give formal feedback to your employees. The drawback of the an= nual review is that is happens only once a year; feedback should be offered more frequently than once a year to effectively improve a worker’s performance. If you see employees doing an excellent job but wait until the= end of the year to tell them, their behavior may have changed over that time. If you see an area needing improvement but wait until the end of the year, employees may have months to incorporate the less than desirable habits into their everyday routine.

As a manager, you have many opportunities to give feedback to your employees rather than just once a year. Informal feedback, which is any communication about job performance in an informal setting, gi= ves you endless opportunities to provide feedback. Opportunities for informal feedback may arise every day that you see your employees at work. If you no= tice a job particularly well done, a simple “good job” shows your employee you appreciate their work. And when you offer ideas and direction towards improvement on a regular basis, you are helping your employees grow= and improve and can recognize the progress at the annual review.

Depending on the organization of your workforce, feed= back may be appropriate to issue to a group. This can be accomplished during team meetings, where it is appropriate to discus a team’s overall performa= nce and results. A group meeting is also a good forum for those who work togeth= er to identify trends and work together to solve problem areas. Individuals ma= y be singled out publicly for positive feedback, but it is never a good idea to = give negative feedback to an individual in front of a group – it is embarrassing and rarely has a positive outcome.

Another method of feedback may already be built-in to your agricultural operation through your measurement systems. For example, = if the milking crew changed their pre-milking teat preparation, bulk tank tests could indicate if the new protocol was effective in lowering the somatic ce= ll counts. Because this data is collected routinely, it can provide regular opportunities for feedback. Furthermore, because much of this data is colle= cted by a computer or analyzed off site, and employee and manager can look at the same set of numbers, reducing opportunities for personal bias. <= /span>

To sum up: Employers have ample opportunities to give their employees feedback. This includes formal end-of-year reviews, team meetings, and via your regular data reports. Remember: Opportunities to tell yo= ur employees they are doing well or give them hints for improvement happen eve= ry day -- take advantage of these opportunities to ensure that you have a posi= tive and productive workforce.

= 212;Rachel Butzler, butzler@whminer.com

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

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; &= nbsp;

FIELD CROP QUICKIES

4 We've noted be= fore that one potential impact of using genetic traits to control insect pests in corn is that they don't control nematodes. But according to recent research, neither do the limited number of pesticides labeled for nematode control in corn. Included in the plots were Counter soil insecticide, "N-Hibit HB" hopper box treatment, and ProAct, which is applied posteme= rgence. Even combining all three products didn't increase yields. But it looks like more effective control, a seed corn treatment, is on the horizon.

<= span style=3D'mso-armenian-font-family:Calibri;mso-currency-font-family:Calibri; mso-cyrillic-font-family:Calibri;mso-default-font-family:Shannon;mso-greek-= font-family: Shannon;mso-hebrew-font-family:Calibri;mso-latin-font-family:Shannon; mso-latinext-font-family:Calibri'>4 You've probably been reading about foliar corn fungic= ides in recent farm magazines. With milk prices in the toilet the last thing you need is another input expense. And this is a good one to skip, especially if you're farming in the Northeast. Nationally, foliar fungicides are economic= al about half the time, but less frequently in the Northeastern U.S. and Canada. Response also tends to be greater where there are heavy corn residues, something that isn't the situation when corn is harvested for silage. =

NYSCHAP Offers a Cattle Welfare Certification Program

The New York State Cattle Health Assurance Program (NYSCHAP) focuses on disease prevention and uses a team of advisors to develop farm-specific herd health plans. In addition to disease prevention, NYSCHAP is promoting the welfare = of dairy cattle by highlighting guidelines for their proper care and handling = and offering a Cattle Welfare Certification Program.

Recently, several area dairy producers and I had a ch= ance to learn more about the NYSCHAP Cattle Welfare Certification Program from K= athy Finnerty, coordinator of NYSCHAP, while enjoyin= g a free dinner at Guma’s courtesy of Palmer Veterinary Clinic. I knew nothing about the program before I went and was pleasantly surprised that the requirements for achieving the certification = were reasonable and very achievable for many farms. I assume most producers do n= ot get too excited about welfare certification programs, but I think the requirements for passing the certification are closely tied to management practices that are profitable on farms. All producers should strive to pass this certification.

The Cattle Welfare Program requires the support and participation the herd veterinarian and the herd enrollment in the NYSCHAP program. Producers recertify every 10 to 14 months. The issues addressed in= the Cattle Welfare Program are:

4 Non-ambulatory= cattle

4 Euthanasia

4 Hospital/speci= al needs cattle

4 Care of newbor= n calves

4 Lameness<= /o:p>

4 Hygiene

4 Body condition= score

4 Facilities

4 Cattle movemen= t and handling

4 Routine and el= ective surgical procedures

Standard operating procedures (SOPs) must be available for the care of cattle that cannot rise or walk, euthanasia, hospital/special animals, newborn calves, lameness, routine/elective surgical procedures, and identification of sick or injured animals. If a farm does not have SOPs established, they can use SOP templat= es found on the NYSCHAP web site to create SOPs specific to their farm. NYSCHAP will evaluate the SOPs and the training records at the time of certificatio= n.

Facilities vary greatly from one farm to another and establishing guidelines related to welfare can be challenging. I thought it= was positive that the NYSCHAP program will evaluate facilities based on cow measures and not physical dimensions. Housing will be evaluated by assessing locomotion scores, hygiene scores, and body condition scores at the time of certification. A certain percentage of the scores must be either above or b= elow established thresholds.

For more information visit the NYSCHAP web site: www.= nyschap.vet.cornell.edu or contact Kathy Finnerty at kdf2@cornell.edu or 607-253-3910.

= 212;Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM<= /p>

Well folks, the international tour season is officially underway at Miner Institute. In the first week of April we have already seen three large groups come through our facilities: a group of St. Lawrence County producers, Cayuga County producers, and producers from Southwest Ontario.= All groups were a pleasure to meet with and discuss hot topics in th= e dairy industry. As usual, a popular portion of the Miner tour is discussing research currently being conducted. =

An overstocking study using 136 cows and first-calf heifers is underway. Two pens= are split in half (four total) and filled with 34 animals (100% stocking density). Stalls are chained = off and a portion of headlocks are locked to simulate overcrowded conditions. Despite the decrease in available resources for the cows they are still milking at levels close to the milking averages prior to the start of the study.&= nbsp;

An additional 16 cows are involved in a tie stall study. The studies present challenges to and more work for the Dairy Barn staff. Because of the increase in milking= groups, a second person has been added to the M-1 and M-2 shifts to help milk the “research cows” and prevent an increase in shift length (M-3 already has two milkers).

In March, a group= of over 20 people embarked for the Pacific Northwest and Reno, NV. The group included Miner Institute employees, Advanced Dairy Management students, and producers and veterinari= ans from both upstate New York and Vermont. We visited three Jersey dairies in= the Tillamook Valley, southwest of Portland, OR. Jersey’s are a popular breed= in this particular milkshed because their product = is shipped to Tillamook Cheese (which we also visited) and producers are paid accordin= g to pounds of milkfat produced, making Jerseys desirable. After spending a f= ew days in the Portland area we flew to Reno, N= V for the Western Dairy Management Conference and listened to many interesting speakers including our own president, Rick Gran= t, who spoke on the importance of cow comfort.

The upcoming mont= hs will only become busier for us with the addition of cropping season to our already tour-laden, research-altered, dairy barn. Perhaps we will see you!

—Glenn Palmer, Dairy Intern, palmer@whminer.com=

SILAGE PROCESSORSSpring may seem like a strange time to discuss silage processors, but if you have a chopper with a processor unit, the unit is probably sitting on the floor of your shop or in another easily accessible place. Unless your processor is fairly new, one of the next rainy days woul= d be a good time to check it for wear. Just like the tires on your pickup truck, silage processor rolls will eventually wear out and have to be replaced. There's no easy rule-of-thumb such as number of acres of corn chopped--too = many variables affect the rate of wear.

Start by checking your operator's manual. John Deere sells a plastic measuring gauge for its processors that can be wrapped arou= nd the processor roll to measure its diameter. When the roll has worn down to a given diameter that's when it should be replaced. Neither Kevin Shinners (a topnotch agricultural engineer at the University of Wisconsin) nor Deere recommends re= conditioning processor rolls; when they wear out it's time for new ones. Deere has a good on-line publication on this subject:

http://www.deere.com/en_US/ag/servicesupport/tips/hay= forage/ottumwa-when-should-you-replace-kernal-processor-rolls.html#

You'll probably have to hold the Control (Ctrl) key d= own as you click the above link. And while it may appear from the link that Dee= re doesn't know how to spell the word "kernel", (It was written by an engineer, after all), it's spelled correctly in the publication.=

—E.T= .

GOOD TO BE BACK HOMEWhen The Bride and I left for winter quarters last November we said we'd return when the grass started to turn green. Well, the grass is greening up, and we're back home — home being Oak Point on t= he St. Lawrence River, about 15 miles west of Ogdensburg. Miner Institute still doesn't have a "new and improved" agronomist, though hope springs eternal. But I'm still involved in the Institute's cropping activities, so = if you have spring planting or other crop questions you can contact me at thom= as@whminer.com or by calling 315-534-5632; 7:00-8:00 a.m., 12:00-1:00 p.m., and evenings are best. You can also reach me on my cell phone 518-570-7408 almost any time I'm on land unless t= he "land" happens to have 9 or18 holes. And if the fish are biting, forget it.

POSITIONING CORN HYBRIDS

We try to use the KISS principal (Keep It Simple, Stupid) at Miner Institute, restricting the numb= er of corn hybrids planted each year. This year we'll use only 4 hybrids for o= ur 330 acres of corn, all to be harvested for silage. But within these hybrids some units will have the low rate of Poncho or Cruiser Extreme seed treatme= nt and some will have the high rate. One will have the Bt<= /span> rootworm trait. What we'll need to do, and what you should do if you're in a similar situation, is make a written list of the hybrids--hybrid plus seed treatment and/or trait--to be planted on each field. Divide the seed count = per unit--usually but not always 80,000-- by your intended planting rate to determine acres per unit. The money you spend for the rootworm trait will be wasted if this seed is planted on first-year ground, as will the added cost= for the high rate of Poncho or Cruiser Extreme.

An increasing percentage= of seed corn has one or more insect traits--Bt for = corn borers or corn rootworms. Don't forget the refuge requirements for these traits, which are considerably more stringent for the rootworm trait than f= or the corn borer one. If you use these traits you'll still need to plant at l= east 20% of your acreage to non-Bt corn. This situation may change in 2010 if the proposed "refuge in a bag" is approved.

Then there are the Liberty Link and Roundup Ready tra= its: Most custom spray operators have their own horror stories involving applyin= g glyphosate or Ignite (the new name for Liberty) to a field of corn that was supposedly resistant to the herbicide, only to discover too late that the hybrid wasn't resistant. Custom applicators aren't perfect, but in many (mo= st?) cases it wasn't the applicator's fault but a lack of accurate planting reco= rds.

This all represents a big change from about ten years ago, when if you bought hybrids of similar maturity you could simply load up your pickup truck with seed corn and not pay a lot of attention to what was planted where. However, now you need to properly position each hybrid, since traits aren't cheap and there's a big difference in cost per unit between t= he three rates of seed treatment.

—E.T= .

NEW ELEMENT DISCOVERED

A new element has recent= ly been discovered that is the heaviest yet. Governmentiu= m (Gv) has 1 neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 d= eputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrou= nded by vast numbers of particles called peons. Since Gover= nmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected because it imped= es every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normall= y take one second to take from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life = of two to six years. It does not decay, but undergoes a reorganization in which a number of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fa= ct, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons= to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a criti= cal concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass= .

When catalyzed with money, Gover= nmentium becomes Administratium (Ad), an element that ra= diates just as much energy as Governmentium since it h= as half as many peons but twice as many morons.

UVm Team Earns Gold Award at NAIDC

A team of four students = from our Advanced Dairy Management course, which is offered in collaboration with the University of Vermont 2+2 program, won a Gold Award in the No= rth American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge (NAIDC) held on March 27-28, 2009 = in Syracuse, N.Y.

A total of 29 teams from the United States and two from <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Canada competed in the eighth annual event, hosted by the Northeast Region NAIDC committee.

The team coached by Wanda= Emerich consisted of Joshua Bates, Franklin, Vt.; Sarah Boutin, Newport Center, Vt= .; Coral Kent Dennis, Marlboro, Vt.; and Cody L’Esp= erance, St. Albans, Vt.

Dairy Challenge was desi= gned by professionals from the allied dairy industry and university educators to bring classroom training to life in the real world for students preparing f= or dairy careers.

The UVM team spent two d= ays at the contest. On the first day, they combed through cow and farm management data, as well as financial records, then conducted an on‐site evaluation. Later that day, they also interview= ed the farm owner.

After identifying opportunities to increase efficiency and profitability for the herd owner, the team presented its findings to a judging panel comprised of a dairy business owner and four experts in dairy nutrition, herd health, reproduction, and financial management. Teams were judged on their analysis of the operation, recommendations, and overall presentation.

Reflecting on this year’s competition, reproduc= tion expert and judge Dr. Ray Nebel from Select Sire= s Inc. said, “Besides being the best training of students for what they will face in the future, the Dairy Challenge contest brings together the whole d= airy industry for a great common goal. The knowledge, excitement, enthusiasm, and teamwork displayed by the students at the 2009 Dairy Challenge made me feel good about the future of the dairy industry and the outstanding leaders it = will have.”

The mission of the North American Intercollegiate Dai= ry Challenge is to facilitate education, communication and an exchange of ideas among students, agribusiness, dairy producers and universities that enhances the development of the dairy industry and its leaders.

SULFUR FERTILIZERSWe used to get all the sulfur we needed and more thro= ugh atmospheric depositions--A.K.A "air pollution". But EPA emission regulations have been very effective, which is why we don't hear nearly as = much about acid rain as we did 10-20 years ago. Many agronomists now think that = it's only a matter of time before we'll need to start applying sulfur fertilizer= as a regular part of soil fertility programs. Soil tests for sulfur are unreliable, and since sulfur leaches through the soil even if we did have a good soil test we'd have to run a new test every spring. =

Some parts of the U.S. are already seeing corn = yield increases from S fertilization. At this point it's probably best for farmer= s in the Northeast to wait for research results. Alfalfa is more responsive to S fertilization than is corn, and this year Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> will be running S fertilization trials on alfalfa. We did some sulfur resea= rch on alfalfa at Miner Institute almost a generation ago, part of statewide Cornell trials. We found no change in alfalfa yield or quality, but back th= en we were still getting a lot of sulfur from precipitation. Corn silage trial= s at Miner Institute 5 years or so ago found little yield response from sulfur applied as a sidedress. Research done here ten = years ago, on the effect of sulfur on cool season forage grasses, was somewhat mo= re positive: Ammonium sulfate resulted in 17% higher yields than the same N ra= te applied as ammonium nitrate.

Regional Dairy Herd Management Specialist

General responsibilities: Plan, implement and evaluate educa= tional programs related to Dairy Herd Management and Production Systems for dairy = farm managers and agribusiness in Clinton, Essex and Franklin Counties. Collabor= ate in program development and applied research and demonstration as a team mem= ber with other CCE Educators, Cornell and William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute faculty and dairy stakeholders. Impact audien= ces through a variety of delivery methods including on-farm demonstration proje= cts, meetings, workshops, farm visits and written materials. Program superv= ision provided by the Executive Director (Dairy Team Leader) CCE Franklin County, with administrative oversight by the Executive Director CCE <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Clinton County. Office space and support services provided by the W.H. = Miner Institute.

Qualifications: Masters Degree with a major in dairy science, dairy h= erd management, dairy production systems, or related degree plus two years professional experience required.

Compensation= : Starting salary is $45,000 commensurate with experience and qualifications.

Application/Contact Information= : Applications will be reviewed starting on 5/1/09 or until an acceptable pool of applicants has been identified.

For further information contact Carl Tillinghast, Executive Director / Ag Educator at CCE Franklin County 518-483-7403 / cat21@cornell.edu

Send letter of intent, resume, and transcripts to PA<= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">#492, Box 26, Kennedy Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. See http://www.cce.cornell.edu/careerops/pa492.htm for details.

<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;line-height:113%;font-family:Shannon;mso= -ansi-language: EN'>Cornell Cooperative Extension provides equal program and employment opportunities.

Closing Comment

If you have to borrow money, borrow from a pessimist; he doesn’t expect it back.