WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

Fall is a beautif= ul time of year on the farm! Here in = Chazy, the trees are starting to change colors and mo= rnings have been chilly, even into the low 40s.

&= nbsp;

The la= st weekend in September we finished chopping our BMR corn and covered the pile with Silo Stop plastic and hundreds of tires. That is a messy job, but many hand= s make light work, and we covered the whole pile in about 5 hours. It was a good harvest – cons= istent dry matter, the kernels were well processed, and the pile was well packed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> When the pile got big enough, we h= ad three tractors packing – one tractor with a blade, pushing the freshly chopped corn and two other tractors packing. We are about two-thirds of t= he way done with corn and are now moving on to harvest our conventional corn.=

&= nbsp;

As always, we are= working to improve the different management areas on the dairy, and reproduction is= one area we have been focusing on recently.&nb= sp; There are so many factors that affect the reproductive performance o= f a herd – timed AI protocol, transition cow health, nutrition, heat detection, the prevalence of cystic cows in the herd, to name a few. These are all things having = to do with the female, but last month we were reminded of another important compo= nent – semen handling.

The thermometer i= n our thaw thermos “bit the dust” several weeks ago. As I got ready to breed a heifer o= n a recent warm September afternoon, the outside of the thermos felt hot to the touch; when I checked the water temperature, it was up to 105°F! Later in the week, Steve, our farm manager, checked the water temperature inside the thermos; it was up to 110= °F! Needless to say, we now have a new thermometer and are checking the temperature before thawing any semen.

Is this the one t= ime solution to all our reproductive challenges? No, but I am sure that it will hel= p as we work to improve this area of our operation. And it was a good reminder of the = importance of reviewing the fundam= entals!

— Anna P= ape, pape@whminer.com

— Steve C= outure, couture@whminer.com

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK — ABCs OF BMR <= /b>

Numerous articles= have been written in the past month about harvesting corn silage. By the time you read this article you may well be done chopping corn, so I'm going to focus= on lessons we’ve learned when feeding brown midrib (BMR) corn silage to = the Miner Institute dairy herd. Hopefully, these bmr feeding tips will help you to maximize the productive response of your herd when feeding bmr.

BMR corn silage grown at Miner Institute over the past three years contained 2.= 0% lignin compared with 3.4% lignin for conventional silage and consequently h= ad 48.6% 24-hour NDF digestibility versus 38.2% for conventional corn silage. = We have consistently observed a 10 percentage-unit advantage in NDF digestibil= ity when feeding bmr corn silage. Published research shows that this greater digestibility is typical= ly associated with greater feed intake and consequently more milk yield. A sum= mary of past research at Michi= gan State University indicates an average milk response to bmr of ~7 pounds/day. Our research shows that higher producing cows respond more positively to corn hybrids with greater NDF digestibility. Cows producing m= ore than 65 to 75 pounds/day of milk are much more likely to respond to feeding= bmr corn silage compared w= ith lower producing cows.

A key to our succ= essfully feeding bmr corn sil= age has been monitoring the degree of kernel processing by using the Corn Silage Processing Score (CSPS). The CSPS measures the fraction of starch that pass= es through the 4.75-mm screen when a sample is dry sieved. Generally, a CSPS greater than 60-70% indicates optimal processing, a CSPS of 50-60% is avera= ge, but a CSPS less than 50% indicates inadequate processing – the corn kernels are too coarse. In our experience, bmr hybrids often have smaller kernels than conventional hybrids and so the rollers on the corn processor need to be tightened in order to effectively smash the corn kernels. We have learned t= his lesson the hard way in past years when the rollers have not been adjusted between conventional and bmr= corn silage. Two years ago, our conventional corn silage had a CSPS of 64.5%, wh= ich is OK, but the bmr CSPS with the same roller se= tting was only 41.4%, which indicated that the corn was not processed sufficiently and too much starch remained in the larger kernel particles. The cows let us know that the corn silage was inadequately processed by producing less milk than we would ordinarily expect when feeding bmr corn silage. In this time of expensive corn starch, we cannot afford to squander the starch value of the corn silage.

Another key to successfully feeding bmr corn silage is to recognize that bmr corn may h= ave similar particle size and NDF content compared with conventional hybrids, b= ut reflecting the higher NDF digestibility the fragility is also greater. In o= ther words, particles of bmr corn silage break down much more quickly when chewed than do lower digestibility hybrids. In fact, if you’ve ever rubbed a handful of dried bmr corn silage between yo= ur hands, you will notice that it disintegrates whereas most conventional hybr= ids are harder to break apart.

=

Consequently, you= need to feed more total forage, feed for a higher level of effective NDF, and/or supplement some low fragility forage such as straw to maintain adequate che= wing time and efficiency of milk production. In our experience, feeding a ration that contains ~50% bmr corn silage and 10% haycrop silage (or some combination with dry forage) = on a dry matter basis results in herd milk production of 95 pounds/day with 3.6% fat, 3.1% true protein, and 11-12 mg/dl MUN.

The bottom line is that cows eat more bmr corn silage due to its= greater NDF digestibility and fragility, and usually produce more milk. In order to take advantage of the nutritive value of bmr corn silage, you need to measure and monitor NDF, NDF digestibility, starch, starch digestibility, and physically effective NDF as you formulate rations= .

  &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;        — Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

ZUCCHINI REPRISE

After reading the article about surplus zucchi= ni in the September Farm Report, Wesley Landis sent us a recipe for a zucchini cobbler that's supposed to taste just like apple cobbler.

Anything that makes squash taste like apples seemed worth trying, so The Bride made a batch and by golly, it does! She tested the cobbler out on some unsuspecting folks at a recent pot luck supp= er and got rave reviews.

Check it out at http://= allrecipes.com When you get there enter "zucchini cobbler" in the Search box and look= for the recipe submitted by Beverl= y. It might be a bit late for zucchini this year; but if so save the recipe for next summer.

VET’S CORNER: PHARYNGEAL SWAB FOR RESPIRATORY DISEASE DIAGNOSIS <= o:p>

A new tech= nique that is simple and safe to perform is giving us specific pathogen diagnosis= for bovine respiratory disease (BRD). Methods for antibacterial selection and pricing have been described in past Vet's Corner articles. For strategic vaccination development and treatment selections, a rapid, accurate diagnos= is of the pathogens involved is important.

Testing in the pa= st has had its share of problems for the practitioner. Blood serology testing requ= ires two samples collected 3 weeks apart, so the diagnosis is made after an outb= reak has subsided and the results are hard to interpret because they are complic= ated by previous vaccination and products. Postmortem lung samples submitted for culture, histopathology, and immunology studies often give the secondary pathogen that overgrew the original virus or bacteria, so that the original cause of BRD is missed.

=

The procedure des= cribed by Dr. Don Sockett, University of Wisconsin Diagnostic Lab, involves the use of a double-guarded culture swab that is inserted a predetermined distance from the nostril to the deep pharyngeal a= rea at the back of the throat. It's best to obtain samples from 4-6 calves at t= he beginning of an outbreak, preferably before antibacterial treatment. (Like mastitis cases, it is best to pull a sample before treatment). Two swa= bs are inserted on each calf; one placed in bacterial media and the other into viral transport media.

If there is a pos= itive bacterial pathogen such as Pasteurella, Mannheimia, or Salmonella, a bacterial sensitivity ca= n be performed to help eliminate non effective treatments. The addition of a specific bacterin to the farm’s strategic vaccination program can be made based on the result of the bacterial culture. A positive for IBR, BRSV, or BVD can lead to enhanced strateg= ic use of MLV vaccines or eliminate the use of expensive unnecessary antibacterials. Emerging diseases like Corona virus and = Mycoplasma have turned up in our investigations to he= lp explain why our current vaccination programs didn't prevent BRD outbreaks.<= o:p>

A complete BRD investigation includes identifying risk factors such as ventilation, overcrowding, and sanitation and the search for underlying diseases such as= ruminal acidosis and parasitism. Simply going on a “bug hunt” with pharyngeal swabs and coming up with the proper vaccine or treatment will not cure the problems that set up the calf’s immune system for failure.

            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =           — Kent E Henderson, DVM

            =             &nb= sp;            =            Northwe= st Veterinary Associates, Inc.

           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;         Hugamoo@comcas= t.net

ALFALFA SNOUT BEETLE ALERT

Adapted from an article by Keith Waldron in the NYS IPM Weekly Field Report.=

The only places i= n the U.S. that the alfalfa snout beetle (ASB) is found are Oswego, Jefferson, Cayuga, Wayne, Lewis, St. Lawrence, Cl= inton, Essex and Franklin Counties. If you're= in one of these counties, watch your alfalfa fields this fall for signs of str= ess because this is when fields can show symptoms of ASB larval feeding damage. These are root-feeding insects, with the vast majority of damage caused by larval feeding. Suspect ASB feeding damage if you find alfalfa fields with short, chlorotic, or otherwise weakened plants = or large areas within fields that are void of any alfalfa.

Alfalfa snout bee= tle larvae are legless, white, and ½ inch long. They're in the upper lay= ers of soil when very small, but move down 18-24" during mid-July to late-August. In September, the large larvae move back up
to the top 8" and do most of their tap root severing in September and October. After development is complete, they move deep in the soil to overwinter. Larvae
go deep in the soil in the fall after feeding and
remain there for the next 18 months.         =             &nb= sp;

If you grow alfalfa in one of the coun= ties mentioned and suspect ASB injury, dig up a few sick-looking plants, getting= as much of the root system as possible. Look for damaged, girdled roots and the presence of whitish larvae. ASB damage in the spring looks similar to winter-killed alfalfa, with plants failing to green up. Plant breeding and biological control research is underway at Cornell to develop options to re= duce ASB injury, but for now the best option for managing this devastating pest = is a crop rotation that includes a row crop such as corn.

SEED CORN THOUGHTS

These are tough t= imes for dairy farmers, but American farmers are harvesting a bin-busting corn crop. Since about 95% of seed corn sales are for grain production, don't expect s= eed companies to take pity on dairy farmers and keep prices down. In fact, it l= ooks like 2010 seed corn prices will be up from 2009 — in some cases up qu= ite markedly. Some hot new "stacked" hybrids will cost over $300 per unit.

There's nothing y= ou can do about the list price of seed corn, but you can keep your net cost down several ways:

Take increased advantage of volume discounts. For instance, if you need to buy 80 units of seed corn for 2010, instead of buy= ing 20 units from each of four seed companies divide your 80 units between two = seed companies. This doesn't limit the number of hybrids you buy, since volume discounts are by brand. You'll disappoint a couple of dealers and it might reduce the number of seed company trinkets you get, but do you really need another cap or jacket? (Ask your wife's opinion on this...)

2. Consider ea= rly order, early pay discounts. Early order saves money and increases the likelihood that you'll get the hybrids you want. Most seed companies will a= llow you to switch hybrids later on as long as you stick with their brand. The e= arly pay option is usually a good deal since you get a nice discount and only ha= ve your money tied up for a few extra months. But early pay programs differ between companies, so you'll need to pencil out the economics. <= /span>

3. Don't buy t= raits you don't need. If you won't use glyphosate= for weed control, why spend the money for the Roundup Ready trait? The Bt-corn rootworm trait provides the most effective rootworm control, but you don't = need it for first (and probably second) year corn fields. I'm not convinced the Bt-corn borer trait is one most Northeastern U.S. farmers need any = year. The trend is toward stacked hybrids, but you can still buy untraited seed of most hybrids.

            =             &nb= sp;            =            — Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

BUNKER AND STACK SILO SAFETY

Limin Kung at the University of Delaw= are recently had a good friend crushed by silage falling from a bunker silo fil= led to a height of 12 to 14 feet. The man was standing there doing nothing when= the silage hit him from the side, burying him with only an arm sticking out.

He was able to dig his face clear when the feeder rescued him. His spine was broken in two places, with four damaged disks and many torn ligaments. He's= in a back brace and won't be able to drive for about two months, but at least = he's alive, which is more than can be said for some victims of other silage "avalanches".

<= /p>
This was a very well-managed silo; in fact, Limin's friend was = going to take pictures of it because the face was so well maintained. It sure did= n't look like a disaster waiting to happen. At least one feed company forbids i= ts nutrition consultants from sampling from the faces of bunker silos for just this reason. Food for thought...

100 YEARS OF DAIRY FOOD INNOVATIONS

Did you know that chymosin, the enzyme responsible for coagulation in c= heese making, was the first genetically modified food ingredient approved by the = U.S. Food and Drug Administration? Fun facts like this one can be found in a rec= ent paper by Michael Tunick published in the Septem= ber 2009 Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Tunick’s paper summarized dairy innovations over the past 100 years (Table 1). =

It was interesting to read about concerns of the wholesomeness of the nation’s milk supply in the early 1900’s, advances in safeguards, and the improvements in dairy products. Several of the concerns, issues, and trends of the dairy industry from the early 1900’s are still a concern today.
<= /p>
For example, people have = an emotional connection to milk because it serves as an infant’s first f= ood. People can easily become suspicious of the safety and quality of milk.

<= /p>
Recent examples include t= he milk produced from cows injected with rBST, and= milk contamination in Chi= na. People are placing a renewed interest in healthier foods, foods that are be= tter for the environment, and those produced by small businesses. This has led to several niche markets including locally grown food (community supported agriculture), artisanal products, and organic and raw milk products. I guess what is o= ld is new again.

— Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com

CORN SILAGE CHOP LENGTH &
FIRST CUT PRESERVE UPDATE

We received a fair number of responses to last months article regarding= the use of an acid preservative on first cut haylage. Thank you all for sending me infor= mation documenting the effectiveness of inoculants, especially L. buchneri. I just wanted to clarify that in t= he past, we have used both inoculant= and acid type preservatives on haylage and have experienced spotty mold growth throughout the silage. We believe this is primarily due to varying DM% of the forages due to geographic issues of small fields in mult= iple locations making it difficult to harvest an entire crop at the desired mois= ture level. We have tried a number= of products in years past that we have not written about in the FR, primarily because they did not prevent these mold pockets. This year, under our normal harves= t and packing conditions, the propionic acid product = seemed to minimize the random mold pockets when we first opened the bunkers. Now that we are well into the sila= ge, mold pockets are still present. This was certainly not a designed research trial but rather what a r= eal farm might do, try a product and see if it works. Under “try it and see” endeavors, we need to keep in mind the number of variables that are not controlled over crop years such as weather, population of native microflora, undocumented differences in harvest condi= tions, forage DM, pack density, etc. This testimonial, I dare not even call it research, is what we in the Farm Management Coffee Club call “Verbal Research.” Knowing the lack of scientific rigor used to make any statements, I trust that our readers understand that, in the FR, we do write articles simply telling wha= t we have tried on the farm and what we have seen as well as articles based on w= ell controlled and designed research trials.&n= bsp; By no means were we claiming that the acid product is superior to an= y other, simply that it initially seemed to work this year. Keep in mind, the best = silage preservative is not sold by anyone, but can be achieved through diligence regarding forage moisture, particle length and packing density.=

&n= bsp;

To that effect, this year we have increased to 3 packing tractors and s= et up cones as markers for our truck drivers and packers to mark distance. This allows us a visual reference = to spread the corn and minimize layer thickness at packing. Also, the pile is much flatter, le= ss of a wedge, allowing greater downward pressure for packing. It is clear to see that there is m= uch less spring of forage under the packing tractor tires with these adjustments. Note the shallow= depth of tire track (< 2”) of the forage in photo, indicating solid pack= . Lastly, a note on particle length of fresh chopped corn. Look for no more than 20 to 25% on the bottom pan of the PSPS (Penn State Particle Separator), 10% on the top and the rest in the middle. With sharp knives and processor ro= les set appropriately this should be easily attained. Though LOOK at the middle screen w= ith the knowledge that forage on that screen can vary between 9-18 mm in length. Just because it is on the middle screen does not indicate appropriate parti= cle length. The hole dimensions of the PSPS at 19mm on the top and 8mm on the middle generate a large range of particle size on the middle screen. Look at those particles and make s= ure most of them are 12-18mm ( 0.50-0.75”), ra= ther than 8-12mm (0.31-0.50”). We varied the chop length setting in our John Deere from 1.00, 1.26 to 1.50= 221; with the following PSPS results:

&n= bsp;

Only at the 1.50” setting did we change = the particle distribution between the PSPS sieves, with far too much forage on = the top screen. The PSPS distribu= tions at the 1.00” and 1.26” settings did not differ, however, visual= ly the forage on the middle screen at 1.00” setting was much shorter than that chopped at 1.26” setting. These pictures do not clearly show what visually is quite apparent. = Left to right are the particles of the PSPS middle screen from chopper settings = of 1.0”, 1.26” and 1.50”.&n= bsp; Take home message, STOP, ASSESS, ADJUST. This process took Jake and I less than 10 minutes to assess all chop lengths. Only 10 minutes to assess and adju= st harvest process that can significantly affect forage quality and herd production.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;     — Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

NORMAN BORLAUG, 1914-2009

Dr. Norman Borlau= g's death last month at age 95 was covered by the agricultural press, but should have made "above the fold" headlines in daily newspapers. A Nobel Peace Prize winner and called the "father of the Green Revolution"= ;, it's almost impossible to describe the impact he had on production agricult= ure. One non-agricultural website called him "Possibly the most important person you never heard of.”

Frequently referred to as "the man who fed the world,” Borlaug may have saved more lives than any other man in histo= ry — over one billion by one estimate. He developed disease-resistant varieties of wheat that were much higher yieldi= ng, and this many years before the advent of genetic engineering. He also promo= ted the use of inorganic fertilizers. Borlaug was asked about the claim that organic farming is better for the environment. His response:

That’s ridiculous. This shouldn’t even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have — the animal manures, the human waste, the pla= nt residues — and get them back on the soil, you couldn’t feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you wo= uld have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal ar= eas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.

At the present time, approximately= 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you h= ave to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There’s a lot= of nonsense going on here.

If people want to believe that the organic f= ood has better nutritive value, it’s up to them to make that foolish decision. But there’s absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can’t tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it’s better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God ble= ss them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It’s a free society. = But don’t tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That’s when this misinformation becomes destruct= ive…

ECONOMICS OF STACKED
CORN HYBRIDS

The September-October issue of Cornell University's "= What's Cropping Up?" newsletter includes a report summarizing two years of N.= Y. research on double- and triple-stacked corn hybrids vs. the base genetics of each hybrid. This was grain corn research, but the results are also useful = for farmers growing corn for silage:

3 of 8 site-rotation comparisons (four farms, two yea= rs) showed a net profit from stacked hybrids while 2 showed a net loss, suggest= ing that farmers shouldn't use stacked hybrids indiscriminately.

There was little yield response when stacked hybrids = were used on second year corn. Corn rootworm damage usually isn't serious enough= in second year corn in N.Y. to justify the expense of the rootworm trait.

Grain moisture was 1.5% points higher (and therefore drying costs higher) for stacked hybrids, probably because of the corn borer trait. However, growers should be aware that the corn borer trait results in higher moisture content for both grain and whole-plant silage. <= /span>

=

The complete September-O= ctober issue of "What's Cropping Up?" is available at http://css.cals.cornell.edu/cals/css/extension/cropping-up/index.cfm=

NOBODY ASKED MY
OPINION, BUT...

• &= nbsp;         Anything labeled "New and Improved&quo= t; isn't, it just means the price went up. "All New" or "Comple= tely New" means the price went way up. "New Size" means the price= may or may not have increased, but the amount of the contents decreased. <= /o:p>

•        &= nbsp; I was taught to respect my elders, but it keeps getting harder to find them.<= /span>

• &= nbsp;         H.L. Mencken observed that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligen= ce of the American public. For instance, people who buy bottled water that may have a fancy name but is really just tap water — with the municipal source printed right on the label. <= /span>

• &= nbsp;         Those portable GPS devices are pretty neat. They're not perfect — in driving from Burlington, VT= to Hammond, NY, Tom-Tom tried to route me through = Ottawa (!) — but they are particularly useful for finding your way around in cities.

•        &= nbsp; I do not tweet and I do not twitter. I have a hard time saying anything in on= ly 140 characters, and wonder why anyone would be interested in my so-called "stream of consciousness" anyway.

  &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           <= /o:p>

  &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           — E.T.

MOV= ING HEIFERS TOGETHER MAY EASE INTRODUCTION INTO MIXED PARITY PENS

Dairy heifers joi= ning the milking herd face numerous challenges during the transition period, includi= ng adjustment to the milking parlor, new housing environment, new herd mates, = etc. The 30% cull rate on a typical farm means that a substantial portion of the milking herd will be undergoing these stressors at any given time, so alleviation of this may have a positive influence on cow performance. Resea= rch from the Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs in Switzerland and the Department of Behavioural Biology in Germany evaluated the potenti= al effects of introducing heifers either singularly or in pairs.

=

The study was con= ducted on six dairy farms and monitored the introduction of heifers over the first= six days that were spent in the new housing conditions. The behavior of the cows already housed in the pen was monitored from 2 weeks prior to the introduct= ion of the heifers to evaluate the impacts of the heifer management strategies = on current residents. The pen sizes ranged from 24 to 39 animals, which begins= to approach a realistic size for smaller U.S. dairies. The resident cows averaged 4 lactations and 175 DIM. The portion of the day spent at th= e feed bunk, lying in the freestalls, within the activ= ity area (defined as the space between the feed bunk, water trough, and freestalls), and average path length were measured.

=

Before the introduction of the heifers, cows spent 52% of the day in the freestalls, 30% feeding, and 15% in the activity area; their average path length was 4 ft per min. Heifers introduced into the pen singularly spent 40% of the day in the freestalls, 30% feeding, and 30% in the activity area; their average path length was 6.= 5 ft per min. The portion of time the existing cows spent on those activities di= dn't vary substantially from their baseline. Heifers introduced into the pen in pairs spent 53% of the day in the freestalls, 2= 3% feeding, and 22% in the activity area with an average path length of 5 ft p= er min. Again, the existing cows did not substantially alter their behavior.

=

These data indicate that introducing heifers to a new pen of cows as part of a gr= oup rather than individually may alleviate some of the behavioral impacts of the move, as indicated by the greater portion of the day spent lying and a reduction of the portion of the day spent in nonproductive behaviors in the “activity” area. Furthermore, there was a reduction in the dist= ance covered per min, which may indicate that the paired heifers were less fligh= ty or were displaced less often. Scheduling pen moves to group heifers together may be one practical approach to reducing the detrimental effects of commingling heifers and cows.

=

            =             &nb= sp;            =            — Peter Krawczel, krawczel@whminer.com

TIME TO TOPDRESS ALFALFA WITH POTASH?

It probably is time as long as there hasn't be= en a killing frost, manure application isn't practical, and your soil test indic= ates a need for potash fertilizer.

The idea is to apply potash late enough in the season that most of the potassium will be stored in the tap root rather than contribute to late-season growth that won't be harvested.

Fall is an especially good time to topdress alfalfa-reed canarygras= s stands because the canarygrass has probably sto= pped growing and turned an unhealthy orange color, while the alfalfa is still ta= king up nutrients. Potassium applied while the canarygrass<= /span> is still vigorous usually means that the grass will get most of the K before the alfalfa does.

CRITTER NEWS

A New Mexico<= /st1:State> woman got in trouble when police found 334 rabbits hopping around her yard.= (A local ordinance limits pets to five per family.) The officers were followin= g up a complaint that the bunnies were eating up the neighbor’s garden. The woman’s husband took in one abandoned rabbit 12 years ago, soon a few more, and nature took its course. She tried to separate the males from the females, but the males hopped over the fence and “things got out of control.”

An Ohio= police detective was taken aback when during the interview of a witness in a murder case, a baby squirrel popped out of the skimpy tank top the woman was wearing. Seemingly unconcerned, the woman tucked the squirrel back into her= ample cleavage and continued the interview as if nothing had happened. The detect= ive said that neither the woman nor the squirrel should be called to testify. <= /span>

SOIL TESTING FOR CORN NITROGEN NEEDS

Soil testing for = accurate assessment of corn nitrogen (N) needs is a tricky business. We all know that first year corn following grass or alfalfa grass is usually high-yielding d= ue to the release of plant-available N from sod decomposition, and only starte= r N is needed. After this, things get more complicated. Nitrogen cycling is by = and large biologically mediated by soil bacteria and therefore sensitive to soil drainage, oxygen levels, temperature, and pH to name a few. In reality, corn fields utilize N from multiple sources including the soil, fertilizer, manu= re, sod residues, and even the N in precipitation.

Soil tests design= ed to predict whether corn will be responsive to additional N have a tough job because of the multiple factors affecting N availability. The pre-sidedress nitrogen test (PSNT) is a simple test desig= ned to estimate whether additional N is required for an economic optimum yield. It= is only useful for fields that have a manure history and/or 2^nd or = 3^rd year corn fields following hay where N credits from organic sources are uncertain.

The PSNT measures plant-available N (ammonium-N and nitrate-N) and is based on the premise th= at the amount of inorganic N measured at this stage is a reasonable indicator = of what will be available for the remainder of the season. If the PSNT exceeds 25 ppm there’s only a very small = chance of getting an economic yield increase, meaning the yield kick you’d g= et from additional N is not enough to make up for the cost of application. My experience is that you either like the PSNT or you don’t─ there doesn’t seem to be much middle ground.

=

This attitude isn= 't so ‘fair and balanced’ when you consider the complexity of the N cycle. It’s important to realize that the PSNT, like any soil test, is just another tool to help with decision making and is far from perfect. It is absolutely critical that the PSNT be done correctly or the results are meaningless. If you don’t take a 12 inch sample, or you f= ail to immediately dry the sample after collection, you might as well dump the sample back in the field.

The Illinois soil nitrogen test (ISNT) is a relatively new test developed at the University of Illinois in the late 1990’s.= This test is designed to measure the fraction of organic N that is susceptible to mineralization by bacteria. While some research in the Midwest has shown that the ISNT is an accurate predictor of whether corn will respo= nd to N beyond a starter, other results have shown that it is not. Recent rese= arch at Cornell has demonstrated some promise for using the ISNT in NY corn fiel= ds. A recently published study that looked at 34 N rate trials in NY for three-years showed that the ISNT (corrected for organic matter content) was= 83% accurate in predicting N responsiveness of 2^nd year corn. <= /o:p>

=

No matter which t= est is or isn’t used, keeping good crop records is absolutely essential. Bot= h of these tests rely on crop records (e.g., rotation year, manure N credits, accurate soil type) to generate sidedress N application rates if the test says that additional N is needed. Given the h= igh price of N and the continued price uncertainty into the future, using N tes= ts to fine-tune corn N needs makes economic sense.

=

It doesn’t = have to be an "all or nothing" approach either. Start with a few fields a= nd see what you think. Here at the Insti= tute, we’re following up our PSNTs this year wi= th the ISNT and the late season stalk nitrate test. Combining the PSNT and/or ISNT with the stalk nitrate test is the best way to determine if corn received adequate N since it reflects the amount of N that was available to the corn during the growing season.

            =             &nb= sp;

            =             &nb= sp;            =            — Eric Young, young@whminer.com     <= /span>

PROTEIN AND AMINO ACID NUTRITION—103

Last month I desc= ribed some of the methionine products available for u= se in dairy rations. This month we'll shift the focus to lysine. It seems like al= l I talk about is lysine and methionine, at least that’s what my colleagues around the Institute tell me. Even our rese= arch technicians can now tell you that the ratio of lysine to methionine in dairy rations should be 3:1.

As stated in previous articles, the desired concentration of lysine in dairy cattle rations is about 6.6-6.8% of total metabolizabl= e protein, and corn protein is very low in lysine compared with what the cow requires. (About 2.5-3.0% of corn protein is lysine.) Feeds that contain hi= gher amounts of lysine include blood meal, fish meal, soybean meal, and canola m= eal. High by-pass soy products are also available to increase lysine concentrati= ons in dairy rations.

Feedstuffs can be= used effectively to meet the lysine requirements of the cow, but meeting the cow’s requirement for lysine is sometimes a little trickier than meet= ing the cow’s requirement for methionine. The= re is great variation in lysine content and digestibility within and among feeds, particularly for any feed that has been heated during processing. As I mentioned in an article a few months ago, heat can destroy lysine. Analyzing feeds for lysine content and lysine digestibility is time-consuming and cos= tly, so obtaining accurate estimates of the amount of lysine in a feed that can = be utilized by the animal is currently difficult at best.

Similar to methionine, an inexpensive source of feed gr= ade lysine cannot be fed to dairy cattle to meet their lysine requirements. Tho= se hungry little bugs in the rumen will gobble up lysine just as quickly as th= ey do methionine. Therefore, lysine also needs to = be fed to dairy cattle in a form that protects it from the rumen bugs. Until recen= tly there hasn't been a rumen-protected lysine product available to meet the ly= sine requirements of dairy cows. However, Balchem Corporation (New Hampton, NY) has newly introduced Ami= noShure™-L, a rumen-protected lysine product. The availability of a rumen-protected lys= ine product provides dairy nutritionists with more options to meet the lysine requirements of dairy cows.

This summer at th= e Joint Annual Meeting of the American Dairy Science Association and the American Society = for Animal Science, some research regarding AminoShure-L was presented by Balchem. The authors fed 0, 30= or 60 grams of AminoShure-L per day to lactating cows, which resulted in lysine concentrations in metabolizab= le protein of 6.02, 6.26, and 6.48%, respectively. Increasing lysine concentrations in metabolizable protein from 6.= 02 to 6.26% by the addition of AminoShure-L to the di= et resulted in increased dry matter intake and milk, milk fat, and milk protein yields. There was no difference in milk or milk component production between cows fed 30 or 60 grams of the product. Now if you're paying attention, you might have realized that the concentration of lysine in metabolizable protein of 6.26% when= 30 grams of AminoShure-L was fed is lower than wha= t I suggest is the optimal concentration of lysine in meta= bolizable protein. However, many factors influence milk and milk component yields, so responses to balancing rations for lysine and methioni= ne will vary by study and will certainly vary by herd. The most important thin= g to consider is the return on investment of balancing rations for amino acids. Balancing your herd ration to achieve 6.6-6.8% lysine in metabolizable protein may increase milk component yields, but at times the cost of doing = this may be greater than the additional income from the increased milk components.

=

To summarize, herd responses to balancing dairy rations for lysine will vary. Consider the return on investment of balancing for lysine and methionine for your particular herd. Talk with your nutritionist about the lysine sources in your diet and determine if a rumen-protected lysine product will be economically beneficial.

            =             &nb= sp;           R= 12; Sarah Boucher, boucher@whminer.com

            =             &nb= sp;            =            *Ref= erences are available upon request

FALL TILLAGE THOUGHTS

Reduced and zero = tillage have become standard in many places, including the M= idwest and DelMarVA region. However, there's still a p= lace for the moldboard plow in the Northeast, especially where relatively flat fields pose little risk of soil erosion. Moldboard plowing does a great job= of incorporating herbicide residues, weed seeds, and topd= ressed nutrients. Continued reduced tillage can result in a zone of high fertility= in the top few inches of soil. The higher the rate of top= dressed manure and fertilizer, the more fertile is this zone. Moldboard plowing mix= es this into the rest of the plow later better than any other tillage tool.

Repeated applicat= ions of topdressed or shallowly incorporated nitrogen fertili= zers have an acidifying effect on the soil.Where mos= t of the N needs of the corn crop are supplied by urea, ammonium sulfate or UAN solutions, by the fourth or fifth year of corn production this combined = with continuous reduced tillage can produce an "acid roof": An inc= h or two of highly acidic soil that can harm forage seeding= s and reduce the effectiveness of triazine herbic= ides. Sampling to a normal depth of 6-8" can mask the effect, which is why s= ome agronomists recommend two soil samples for continuous = notill fields, one at the normal sampling depth and the other (primarily for pH) f= rom just the top 2". The best two times to use a moldboard plow are coming= out of a sod and going into a forage seeding: The first will break up the sod a= nd release organic N, the second will help bury "the sins of the past&quo= t; as well as providing a plow layer with more uniform pH and fertility.

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    — E.T.