MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

WANDERING WITH WANDA

In early March our Advanced Dairy Management students, a few Institute employees, an= d a couple of other folks from Ve= rmont ventured out on our annual trek, which has become known as “Wandering with Wanda”. We landed = in Boise, Idaho on S= aturday and utilized Sunday to tour the greater Boise area. Thanks to arrangements by one of our students, Jeff Chamberlin, we visited the Simplot Livestock in Grandview, ID. Dr. Dave Fredrickson, veterinarian for the feedlot, hopped on the bus and gave us an extensive to= ur. This feedlot has the capacity to feed 150,000 head at one time. It is the largest feedlot all in one place and was established to eat the waste from a large potato processing plant operated by Mr. Simplot. Most of the animals = on the farm the day we visited were beef animals that are on the feedlot from 7 months old through finish, approximately 180 days. They were also just gett= ing started with Holstein steers which arrive from California at 250-300 pounds and take = about 300 days to finish. On the whole farm they are currently achieving 3.2 poun= ds average daily gain. There are 100 employees on the feedlot and it appeared = that most of them drive feed trucks, as the feed trucks always have the right-of= -way and we had to be certain to keep the bus out of their path.

After the feedlot, we toured the capital and a few other areas in Boise. Ev wanted to be certain that the students didn’t miss any of his “Field Crops” course that= he teaches as a part of the Advanced Dairy Management program, and showed them= a sample of Idaho Blue Grass at Boise State University football stadium. Our bus driver gave us a tour of the campus, stopped at t= he stadium and we all hopped out. Then we walked around the outside of the stadium and noticed some signs that rea= d, “No Trespassing, $500 fine.”&n= bsp; Well, one of the students found an open door at the athletic office, walked in and found a graduate student sitting in an office and said, “Hi, we’re from V= ermont and we need to see your Blue Grass.”= The grad student replied, “You came all the way from Vermont and you = want to see our ‘Smurf Turf’?”&n= bsp; So we all walked onto the turquoise blue turf. In the photo you will notice Ev lecturing to the student on the proper technique for sampling well-managed turf. I’m not cer= tain what he will send to the athletic director for fertilizer recommendations, = but I think he brought back a sample for Kurt to analyze in the forage lab! The bus driver picked us up at the athletic office and mumbled something about, “didn’t know you c= ould get in there”…we don’t really think we were supposed to either because they were locking the door behind us as we left!<= /span>

The next day we visited three very productive dairies in the Meridian and Nampa, Idaho area. Dan Van Grouw’s Dairy is a d= ry lot with 1200 cows milking 2X, averaging 27,000 lbs. of milk and 3.9% butterfat= . At this farm we found an interesting fermented mint waste product that was bei= ng fed to heifers and dry cows to encourage dry matter intake. (See article ti= tled “Different Strokes” in this issue.)

Our next stop was to the MooRiah Dairy where Rudi Dewinkle and his family milk = 700 Jersey cows and raise youngstock. The cows average = 60 lbs./day milk at 5% butterfat and 3.7% protein. They’ve been in the top 5% o= f Jersey herds in the country for production. The die= t is 55% forage. Rudi utilizes the Afikim software system for heat detection in addition to early detection of displaced abomasums and mastitis. Cows on this dairy were peaking in produc= tion at 75 days in milk and averaging 80 pounds at peak. Calves are fed milk pasteurized at the farm.

Our last visit for the day was to the Stewart Farm where Joe, Jim, and Jerry Stewart have 800 cows averaging 30,000 lbs. of milk and 1100 lbs. of butter= fat. The 14 employees on the dairy are motivated by the pay structure of which 1= /3 is paid on a bonus system for laborers and ½ of the herdsman’s= pay is bonuses. The farm mixes all their own feed and has done a variety of research projects with biotin, B vitamins, niacin, and BST due to their precision management and extensive, accurate recordkeeping system. Joe is developing a software program that tracks each expense for every cow and analyzes her as her own enterprise. We saw one cow that was producing 240 pounds of milk per day! Bunker management was one of the p= recision-managed areas on this dairy as evidenced by the photo below.

After our visits to the Idaho dairies, we atte= nded the Western Dairy Management conference in Reno, Nevada where attendance was over 1500 people. This conference happens every other = year and is well worth attending for current dairy information.

Wanda Emerich<= /p>

emerich@whminer.com

FEED EFFICIE= NCY

Feed efficiency (FE) has been used in the= beef, swine, and poultry industries for several years, but only recently has the dairy industry started evaluating FE of lactating dairy cows. Good FE on da= iry farms can be important economically because feed is the largest single production cost. It can also be important environmentally because more nutrients are directed toward milk and less towards manure.

The simplest measure of FE is pounds of m= ilk produced per pound of feed dry matter intake consumed. This equation doesn’t account for differences in milk composition of fat and energy output. A preferred measure of FE is pounds of 3.5% fat corrected milk (FCM) produced per pound of feed dry matter intake consumed. In general, a 1% cha= nge in milk fat will result in a 0.25 change in FE-3.5% FCM.<= /p>

Useful equations

FE =3D milk produ= ced (lb) ¸ dry matter intak= e (lb)

FE-3.5% FCM =3D 3= .5% FCM produced (lb) ¸ dry matter intak= e (lb)

3.5% FCM (lb) =3D= 0.432 ´ milk produced (l= b) + 16.23 = ´ milk fat produce= d (lb)

Casper and coworkers from Agri-King, Inc. studied FE on six farms and found that diet dry matter digestibility was the major factor affecting the FE of lactating cows. The biggest factor that affected diet dry matter digestibility was forage quali= ty and the digestibility of that forage. However, there are several other factors that affect FE.

The key point is that FE will increase when the quantity of nutrients available= for non-maintenance functions increases and FE will decrease when the quantity = of nutrients required for maintenance or other non-milk functions increases. Because several factors affect FE, no one FE value can be set as a standard= or goal across all cows, all stages of lactation, and all herds. However, some= general guidelines can be made.= Feed efficiency values can vary from 1.1 to 2.0 with an optimal range of 1.4 to = 1.7.

In summary, FE can be a valuable tool to evaluate performance on your farm and compare it to farms in your area. The "power" in FE is monitoring how it changes over time within groups and between groups on your farm.

Heather Dann<= /p>
dann@whminer.com=

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK – Nonfiber Carbohydrates and Starch

Currently, many nutritionists consider only the tot= al nonfiber carbohydrate (NFC) fraction when formulating rations for lactating dairy cows. Increasingly, we need to measure the components that comprise N= FC (starch, sugars, soluble fiber, B-glucans) and formulate rations that optimize the amount of each component in the diet. Starch is the major NFC fraction in d= airy cattle diets, and some research has attempted to determine optimal dietary concentrations of either NFC or starch. However, an optimal amount of dieta= ry starch is a function of several factors including the inherent degradabilit= y of the starch source, processing method, amount of soluble protein, NDF conten= t, feeding method and environment. Commonly, dietary starch recommendations ra= nge between 23 to 30% of ration dry matter (DM) depending on forage content of = the diet. The basis of this range in recommendations is a combination of some research, but mostly anecdotal and experience-based observations in the fie= ld.

We can’t define an optimal dietary concentrat= ion of starch without considering other nutrient fractions in the diet. We need to define any optimal starch concentration in relation to the concentration of other carbohydrate and protein fractions. Additionally, we must consider the ruminal degradability of the starch and other dietary carbohydrate fraction= s. In other words, we must optimize the entire carbohydrate profile, pool sizes and digestion rates, to optimally formulate a ration.

We also need to consider the feeding environment an= d its potential impact on cow response to any particular amount of dietary starch. Management and housing factors that encourage abnormal feeding behaviors su= ch as slug feeding or sorting will increase the risk of ruminal acidosis and associated problems for any concentration of dietary starch.

Routine analysis of the NFC fractions is new for commercial testing laboratories. But, it is important to develop routine an= alyses for these fractions as they become more commonly used in ration formulation. Feedback from field nutritionists and consultants indicates that most use N= FC when formulating rations, but increasingly nutritionists will use individual values for starch and sugars.

Some research, particularly in the 1990s, attempted= to define optimal ranges for dietary NFC. Most of these studies have found that diets containing <25 to 30% or >45% NFC resulted in reduced milk yiel= d. The diets in these studies were based on combinations of alfalfa and corn silage and mostly traditional concentrate feeds. Recent research with nonfo= rage sources of fiber clearly demonstrates that dietary starch may be reduced to <25%, and NFC to <30%, with no negative impact on milk production if = the diet is properly formulated. There is little difference in cow response for diets containing between 36 and 42% NFC.

We still have a considerable amount of research to conduct, but for now we can continue the move to better characterization of= the NFC fraction of the diet – starch, sugars, and soluble fibers. Even s= ome organic acids appear to stimulate productivity such as malic acid. More on = that topic in the next

Farm Report.

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

DAIRY NOTES<= o:p>

Ø      = USDA has just increased its recommended daily intake of low fat or fat free dairy products, from two cu= ps a day to three.

Ø      = A new study at Creighton = University has concluded that cows’ milk is the best source of calcium, better than calcium-fortifi= ed soy and rice milk and orange juice.

Ø      = U.S. dairy exports will increase to $1= .7 billion, up over $400 million from what 2004 dairy exports. Most of these g= ains will be sales of dry milk powder to Mexico<= /st1:country-region>, the Phillipines, Indonesia and Malaysia.

CORN SILAGE MATURITY

In a month or so, many farmers will make a serious mistake for which they’ll be paying long into 2006: They̵= 7;ll either plant corn hybrids in May that are too late-maturing for their growi= ng season, or they’ll plant hybrids that are well adopted for May planting—but plant them in June and then harvest them before they’re properly mature. Following is a summary of a research trial we did this past year, looking at the influence of corn silage maturity on yie= ld and quality.

A 93 RM corn hybrid (Syngenta NK3030) was planted in early June on a farm in West Chazy. We harvested plots as whole plant silage at 12” chop height on three dates: September 17, Sept 24, and October 8, with four replications of each harvest date. We knew the corn wasn’t mature at the first two dates, = but many farmers harvest corn before they’re supposed to, so we did, too.= We chopped enough corn to fill twelve half-ton “midisilos”, packed them and sealed them until fermentation was complete. We collected enough d= ata to choke a horse (not that that’s necessarily a bad thing….just kidding) but only will highlight what we think are some of the most importa= nt results. For the balance of the discussion we’ll only compare the Sep= t. 24 and Oct. 8 harvest dates. Yield and quality data from the Sept 17 harvest date was similar to Sept. 24; actually a bit worse.

·      =    Silage dry matter %: Prior to ensiling, the corn forage harvested on = Sept 24 and Oct. 8 was 25%, and 31% respectively. Since corn silage should be ov= er 30% DM, only the second harvest date came close to ideal. During ensiling, silage dry matter % almost always decreases for two reasons: First, water is formed during the fermentation process, and second, the normal heating of fermentation results in dry matter losses of 5% or more. This is what we fo= und when we unloaded the silos after about three months: Silage dry matter for = the two harvest dates in question was 24%, and 29% respectively, a loss of about two percentage points of DM in each case. This is one reason why we should = harvesting corn for silage when it’s closer to 35% DM—since during fermentation it “loses” about 2 % points.

·      =    Silage yield: Wet yield was 28 and 24 tons per acre for the two harvest dates, = but what’s more important was the dry matter yield since that’s what makes milk. Converted to 30% DM, yields for the two harvest dates were 23 a= nd 25 tons per acre.

·      =    In vitro digestibility: NDF digestibility changed little as maturity increased, holding at about 57% which is quite good, and whole plant digestibility only increased from 80 to 81% as grain increases were offset = by advancing stalk maturity.

·      =    Packing density: While it may seem that wet corn packs better, just the opposite was= the case. Dry matter density in our midisilos—packed with footpower, not horsepower—increased from 12.6 lbs. at 25% DM to 14.1 lbs. at 31% DM.= Dry matter density of 14 lbs/acre is the minimum recommended density for silage, and only with the more mature forage were we able to achieve this.

·      =    Silage effluent: This may not seem important, but if you’re a CAFO farm it is. (Even if you’re not a CAFO farm it’s still important, since sil= age effluent is really nasty stuff.) One week after ensiling, silage packed at = 25% DM averaged 2.3 gallons of effluent (“silage juice”) per silo. Since each silo held half a ton of silage, that’s 4.6 gallons of effl= uent per ton of silage. Put into farm terms—a 2000 ton bunker silo—that’s 9200 gallons of effluent! The 31% DM corn didn̵= 7;t produce any effluent.

·      =    Milk producing potential: Using the Milk2000 spreadsheet, corn sil= age at 29% DM had significantly higher milk per ton than the wetter silage: 3497 lbs/ton vs. 3411 for 24% DM silage. The difference in milk per acre was even more pronounced: 26,376 lbs/acre for 29% DM corn silage vs. 23,648 lbs/ton = for the 24% DM silage.

We don’t know what more can be said about the importance of harvesting corn at the proper stage of maturity: Hi= gher dry matter yields, better packing, little or no effluent, and significantly more milk per ton and per acre.

Ev= Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=

RESEARCH SUM= MARIES

·      =    Penn State researchers are doing research on burning waste agricultural plastics, including bale wrap film, silage bags and bunker silo plastic tarps. They’ve partnered with a Korean company in customizing a boiler to burn the plastic once it’s = been turned into nuggets. The system preheats the boiler with conventional fuels, then burns the plastic at very high temperatures (about 2000°F), resulting in smoke that’s non-toxic. =

·      =    Cornell University entomologists have gone as far as Hungary in their efforts to find a control for the alfalfa snout beetle, a devastating alfalfa pest that’= ;s only found in a handful of counties in the U.S. Current efforts include investigating a fungus disease that kills snout beetles. Also, fungal produ= cts already on the market in the U.S., Australia and elsewhere will be tested to see if they have any effectiveness.

VET’S CORNER: LOSSES DUE TO OVERAGE HEIFERS=

Discussion with University of Vermont Advanced Dairy Management students at Miner Institute included possible losses in the replacement hei= fer program. Three types of losses were evaluated to identify areas to improve heifer growing:

·      =    Heifer mortality rates were found to be normal. Few dairy farms record stillborn heifer ca= lf deaths and the number is usually underestimated by herdpersons. Most will remember stillborns over the previous month, but not have an accurate annual estimate. It’s not uncommon for farms to lose 30% of first calf heifers’ calves and 10% of the heifers from mature cows. In herds that struggle to maintain milking cow inventory, stillborn rate should be record= ed to demonstrate this basis cause of inadequate replacement numbers. At the I= nstitute, all births are recorded and heifer death loss during the first day of life = is 4%, an acceptable number. Death loss before weaning is an excellent 2%. And= no heifer calves were lost after weaning age. This year’s total heifer c= alf loss of 6% is below a commonly accepted goal of <9% total heifer deaths.=

·      =    Overage heifer loss appeared to be negligible because Dairy Comp 305 lists average at first calving at 25 months and our goal is 24 months. However, further dissection of the numbers illustrate that averages can be deceiving.= Of sixty heifers that were raised and freshened on the Institute farm last yea= r, eight were over 28 months old at calving. Costs of $1.50 to $3.00/heifer ha= ve been estimated for each day calving is delayed beyond 24 months. So the farm had a loss of $1,440 to $2,880 supporting those eight overage heifer= s. A larger loss to the farm was from the beef sale of six heifers that did not breed. Even with high beef prices, most farmers will have to add $1,000 cas= h to the beef check to purchase a springing heifer, so it could be estimated the farm lost another $6,000 for not getting these heifers bred.

·      =    Undersized heifers was the final loss investigated by the students. Seventeen heifers calved out under 22 months of age. These heifers were responsible for the deception of an overall normal first calving age, by offsetting the eight overage heifers. Even considering Miner’s accelerated growth feeding program, these heifers were 150 pounds under the heifers that calve in the optimal 22-26 month age group. 600 pounds milk lost/heifer for being unders= ized 150 pounds body weight is a common estimate. So the farm lost $1,632 milk income on these undersized heifers. [17 undersized heifers x 600 lb milk lost x $0.16 milk price/lb =3D $1,632].

Actions taken as a result of this: Records were reviewed for all breeding age heife= rs and all >12 month old heifers were evaluated for height and weight with = the herd health veterinarian. Heifers that were 15 months old and not bred were implanted with Eazi-Breed CIDR’s. A list of heifers under 13 months of age was posted near the heifer breeding pen, as a reminder to not breed the= se underage heifers when their heats are observed.

Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates

cowdow@adelphia.net

DIFFERENT STROKES….

The Crops Dude has often said that really good dairy farmers can make some thin= gs work that mere mortals (the other 90% or so) cannot. This includes making t= he most of modest facilities, less-than-ideal soil resources, and strange fora= ges.

One of the farms we recently visited in the Treasure= Valley region of Idaho is a good example: The foundation of the farm’s forage program is pre= mium quality alfalfa hay from Cali= fornia, the stuff that runs 180-190 RFV. The farmer said that he didn’t like = the “lower quality”, 160 RFV alfalfa, they can ship that stuff to t= he Northeast. (That kind of alfalfa tests 20% CP, 30% ADF, 40% NDF!) He also f= eeds normal forages including corn silage, as well as less-than-normal forages i= ncluding mint silage. It’s not quite accurate to call this “silage” since it’s a biproduct of mint oil processing and was heated to 200°F or so, which should = kill any silage-making bacteria. Most of the Western U.S.= dairymen we met don’t do fermentation or in vitro analyses, so the C.= D. brought back some of the mint forage for analysis. He had to triple-bag it since it had such a strong odor—not bad, but…distinctive= .

Surprisingly, the mint had fermented somewhat—pH 5.2, 2.5% lactic acid and 3.7% tot= al acids. (This is about half as much acid as normal hay crop silage.) However= , we couldn’t see any spoilage in the small stack of mint silage. Dry matt= er was 30% and crude protein 17%, so you might be tempted to think of this as “milk cow” quality feed even though the farmer is only feeding = it to heifers. But further analysis showed why the farmer wasn’t feeding= it to anything making milk: A whopping 15% lignin (almost 3 times that of good alfalfa), and 30-hr NDF digestibility a truly ugly 34%. An oat straw sample= we tested at the same time was 11% lignin and 30% NDF-d, while the alfalfa sil= age we were feeding at the time was 5.7% lignin and 59% NDF-d. The farmer wasn’t feeding a lot of mint silage to his heifers, but said that ano= ther dairyman he knows is feeding it to heifers at 75% of forage DM; bet those g= irls aren’t getting fat!

Ev= Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=

FROM THE FORAGE LAB: A Theory On Sugar Levels Of Alfalfa Pre- And Post-Ensiling<= o:p>

We were recently asked if we had any research on the sugar levels of alfalfa p= re- and post-ensiling. We went back to the only two midi-silo trials that invol= ved ensiling alfalfa. The trials were run in 2002 and 2004 under very different weather conditions.

First though, have you ever wondered how the level of readily fermentable CHO (carbohydrate), sugars, starch and soluble fiber in pre-ensiled forage affe= cts the quality of fermentation? Sugars provide a ready source of CHO for the fermentation process. Starch, being crystalline, is less available to the urgent needs of the fermenting organisms and therefore does little to fuel a rapid fermentation. Fresh alfalfa does not have much starch to begin with, = but plenty of sugar and soluble fiber. And if fermentation is complete, why do = we still pick up rather high levels of sugar in fermented forage, when in theo= ry the sugar should have been consumed in the process? What role does soluble fiber have in fermentation? Is there a hierarchy of CHO that fuels the fermentation process? In other words, is there a continuous degradation of = the CHO sources, releasing sugars from soluble fiber resulting in the inherent sugar levels in well preserved fermented forages, typically in the range of 2-4%?

Listed in tables 1 & 2 are t= he pre- and post-ensiled carbohydrate data for the two trials. Since there were no significant treatment effects in either trial, the data for each was averaged across treatments to compare pre- versus post-ensiled means. The 2002 trial, howev= er, showed a significant effect for a bacterial inoculant compared to the acid = and control in that it resulted in lower levels of lactic acid and total VFAs. = The fermentation data for that trial was averaged using only the control and ac= id treatments. (see table 3)= . In tables 1 and 2 the “Diff” column is the change in level from pr= e- to post-ensiling.

The results of these two trials show a different trend for pre and post ensiling sugar, starch and soluble fiber values. (Soluble fiber was crudely calculat= ed as NFC–NSC). Alfalfa in the 2004 study had much higher pre-ensiling s= ugar values compared to the 2002 study. In the 2002 study, the sugar and starch values were virtually unchanged during fermentation, but the soluble fiber value decreased nearly 2% units. The 2004 trial showed soluble fiber to increase as a percentage of DM, while sugar dropped nearly 3.5% units. Why = the opposite change in CHO levels for the two trials?

In the 2002 trial alfalfa was mowed the afternoon/evening prior to chopping and ensiling. Some of that field = was mowed the morning of ensiling, but the entire period was overcast and long drawn out (i.e. 3 AM the next day packing silos). In the 2004 study alfalfa= was mowed on a bright sunny morning and chopped later that day, which was warm = and sunny with a light breeze. Th= e 2002 study had a prolonged wilting, which allowed for continued plant respiratio= n, likely consuming all of the sugars. Also, since it was overcast, the alfalfa likely had less sugars initially due to minimal photosynthetic activity. In= the 2004 study, the alfalfa wilted more quickly and had minimal plant respirati= on prior to ensiling, about 6 hours; therefore higher initial sugar levels.

The 2 trials resulted in somewhat similar fermentation results. Both were very = good alfalfa silages coming out of the midi silos. Similar pH values and possibly similar total VFA values, but very different profiles of lactic:acetic. This may be a result of different sources of fermentable CHO supporting different fermentation end products; sugar versus soluble fiber. Since neither trial showed a difference between control and treatment products, it appears that= it was the difference in initial CHO sources resulting in the lactic and acetic acid differences. When sugar levels are high, pre-ensiling this may spare soluble fiber during fermentation (2004 study). When sugars are low, soluble fiber= is consumed during fermentation (2002 study). The 2002 study showed higher ini= tial soluble fiber levels, but this is likely due to a lower sugar content resul= ting in the high proportion of DM as soluble fiber.

Since alfalfa harvest in cool overcast weather results in prolonged wilting and cellular respiration, bacterial inoculants may not be the preservative of choice. The fermentation values for the bacterial treatment in the 2002 stu= dy were: pH 4.5, lactic 4.76%, a= cetic 1.08% and total VFAs of 5.96%. These values were lower than the control and acid treatment, with differences of lactic acid and total VFA significant a= t P<.02.

Overall, it’s interesting to note the differences in CHO fractions pre- and post-ensiling and what they may mean for choice of preservative and further preservative research. Though sugar levels may not significantly differ in = the ensiled forage, the distribution of fermentable CHO fractions may be altered—possibly resulting in changes in potential energy of each for= age.

Kurt Cotanch<= /p>
cotanch@whminer.com

WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE FARM=

With the arrival of a= nother 27 animals any day now, our new 272-stall dairy facility is nearing full ca= pacity. We currently have 284 cows (milking and dry), and are milking 249. This is quite an increase from the 161 cows on test just one year ago. Wanda Emerich has done a good job of finding q= uality Registered Holstein heifers and cows at what we consider reasonable prices. We've ramped up Posilac usage to the recommended rate, which has helped boo= st milk production. Current we're at 83 lbs per day, and our rolling herd aver= age is 23,767M--875F--723P, the best it's been in over a year. We're especially= pleased with daily milk production since 58% of our cows are first calf heifers. Somatic cell count continues to be terrific at 74,000. Current efforts incl= ude improving milking parlor efficiency (more turns per hour) and increasing the herd's pregnancy rate. The pregnancy rate has improved somewhat, but we sti= ll have a ways to go.

We're in nee= d of more silage storage capacity, so are building a 140' x 140' pad North of the greenhouse for silage bags and/or stacked silage. We're using geotextile fabric, crushed stone for the base and Wollastonite for the surface. We used some Wollastonite (a mining biproduct from an hour South of the Institute) = to build farm roads in and around our heifer and dry cow barn, but Steve has h= ad experience with it as a silo base at Adirondack Farms, where it's been work= ing very well.

Steve Couture couture@whminer.com

Ev Thomas thomas@whminer.com

THE CHALLENGES OF MAINTAINING AIR QUALITY IN NORTH COUNTRY BARNS

The sub-title of this article should read: “y= et keep them from freezing solid!” A project conducted in the Spring of = 2004 by Advanced Dairy Management student Brett Denny involved the collection of temperature and humidity data from 7 dairy facilities in Northern New York = and Vermont. The fac= ilities used were either “cold” freestalls with ridge ventilation and no insulation, “modified” freestalls with ridge ventilation and so= me insulation, or “warm” freestalls with chimney ventilation and f= ull insulation. Information on animal stocking density was also collected. Temperature and humidity readings were taken hourly each day with a programmable data logger. We calculated the number of readings that were ab= ove both 80 and 90% relative humidity. This is undesirable air quality for conf= ined livestock. If you are in a barn that is foggy, or worse yet, creating its o= wn snow (sounds funny, but we’ve seen it!), this represents humidity readings approaching 100%, or completely saturated. At conditions over 80% relative humidity, the survivability of bacteria in the cow’s environ= ment is increased, possibly increasing the incidence of mastitis and respiratory illness. High humidity inside the barn is also very rough on the facility itself, causing rapid deterioration of metal, wood and any equipment housed= in the building.

The grap= h illustrates the humidity readings above 80% relative humidity for the vario= us freestall designs evaluated (C=3DCold, M=3DModified, and W=3DWarm freestall= barns) for the months of February and April. The barns with asterisks did not have data collected for February. Understandably, stocking density appeared to p= lay a role in humidity readings above 80% during the cold weather in February w= hen the average outdoor temperature was 18°F (-8°C). For this discussion, stocking density is referred to in terms of square feet per cow. The C2, C3 and M1 facilities had the highest stocking densities. It should be noted that nearly 100 of the animals housed in M1 were pre-breeding/breeding and bred heifers.

<= o:p>

Stocking density and BTU production by facility

Interestingly, the lowest stocking density for a= n occupied barn was C1, Miner Institute’s old freestall barn, and did not have t= he best air quality. Nearly 10% of the time, humidity levels were 80% or higher during the month of February. Unfortunately, with the low BTU output per co= w in Miner’s barn, the freestall was frozen solid for a good share of the month, making cow comfort and worker comfort a concern that headed us in the direction of a warm freestall design for our new facility.

The overstocking of barn C2, with curtains proba= bly closed most of the time, kept the barn temperature in February averaging 38= °F (3°C) with a minimum temperature of 17°F (-8°C) recorded. However, = air quality was sacrificed, resulting in 35% of the humidity readings greater t= han 80%.

In April, cold barns 2 and 3, M2 and W1 had fair= ly high humidity readings. The air quality of M1 was excellent, maintaining low humidity readings throughout the month of April. The average temperature in this barn for April was 50°F (10°C), with minimum of 22= °F (-6°C) recorded. As temperatures start to warm in t= he spring it is important to open up the barn, as much as possible and as soon= as possible, to alleviate humidity stress within the barn, especially if the facility has a high stocking density.

Managing air quality in dairy facilities can be a challenging task in this part of the country, as winters can be frigid. Each facility is different, and fine-tuning of the ventilation system becomes mo= re of an art than a science. As with most aspects of dairy management, your co= ws will let you know if you are on the right track!

This study will continue to gather seasonal air quality and temperature data from these barn systems for the next couple of years. A special thank you to the farms who have and continue to cooperate = with this study.

Note to farmers who had facilities participating= in this project: You will be receiving a summary of this spring.

Heather Wolford, Research Technician = wolford@whminer.com

Katie Ballard, Director of Research = ballard@whiminer.com

EPA AIR EMIS= SION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT

In case you’ve been out of town, either literally or cognitively, you’ve probably heard that the Environmental Protection Agency will s= tart regulating emissions from animal housing and manure storage areas on livest= ock farms. According to Cornell Pro-Dairy, “Producers are being held responsible for emissions they did not know about by existing laws they were unaware of.” Further, even if emissions are qualified today, and producers start to comply with the laws, they are still open to lawsuits for emissions up to five years prior.”

The poultry and swine industries have been losing air emission lawsuits, and so they approached EPA to see what could be done. The result is a legal docume= nt, the “Air Emission Compliance Agreement”. EPA agrees not to sue farmers participating in the agreement, once the farmers have paid a “penalty” ($200 for most farms, $1000 for most large farms). Af= ter paying the penalty, participating farmers also will probably have to chuck = in some more bucks (up to $2500 per farm) for emissions research, estimated to cost well over $1 million for the dairy industry. (Swine and poultry operat= ions will be covered by separate research agreements.) What participating farmers get for all is that EPA will agree not to sue them for current or past emissions. Nobody knows for sure what size dairy farm it takes to emit enou= gh bad stuff to be liable for litigation, but this could include farms as smal= l as 150 cows.

If you’re a dairy farmer, what should you do? Not for us to say, but Min= er Institute will participate, paying the $200 and hoping that enough of the nation’s 70,000 dairy farms sign up to permit EPA to do their dairy f= arm emissions research. If not enough do, all bets are off: EPA has said that i= t will start enforcing existing clean air laws for animal agriculture emissions. T= he signup period has been extended to July 1, 2005. The signup form, this being the Federal government, is a mere 41 pages long.

Ev Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=

AMMONIUM NIT= RATE CONCERNS

According to a recent press release, last November Long Island criminal intelligen= ce detectives went shopping for ammonium nitrate. They didn’t really wan= t to buy it, but since terrorists can use ammonium nitrate to make explosives (a= nd since there’s no law preventing the sale of agricultural grade ammoni= um nitrate in NY), the detectives wanted to find out how easy it was for “suspicious” individuals to buy the stuff.

First, detectives surveyed retail locations selling ammonium nitrate, making owners and store personnel aware that terrorists might try to buy the stuff at the= ir store. They were urged to contact police or dial 911 if a suspicious person tried to buy a large quantity of ammonium nitrate. A few weeks later, an undercover detective (we assume looking nothing like a farmer) visited each store, showing the store clerk a slip of paper with the words “Ammoni= um Nitrate 500 lbs” and a Brooklyn, NY street address. (Yeah, we know= , A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, but it doesnR= 17;t need 500 lbs of ammonium nitrate.) At three of the stores the detective was turned away and the store promptly contacted law enforcement. At another st= ore, the clerk referred the detective to another store, made note of the license plate of his vehicle, but didn’t report it. Another store sold the 500 lbs of ammonium nitrate to the detective, and later said that the customer didn’t look suspicious. At a store that didn’t sell fertilizer, the detective was referred to a st= ore that did. The clerk didn’t find it curious that the guy was looking to buy 500 lbs of fertilizer at a toy store!

Intellectually challenged store clerks aside, what is encouraging is that our law enforcem= ent officials are doing something about making store owners aware of the potent= ial dangers of ammonium nitrate, and the potential to use this common fertilizer for nefarious purposes.

<= /span>Ev= Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=



AN APPLE A D= AY?

Whether or not “An apple a day = keeps the doctor away”, there’s some evidence that at the very least = it will help retain your marbles. A recent study of Hudson Valley apple growers found that there’s no record that any apple grow= er has ever died of Alzheimer’s Disease. In fact, most of the growers, when they eventually did ascend to that Big Orchard in the Sky, died at ages ranging from 86 to 103, far older than average for U.S. males.

This is more noteworthy when you consider the frequency of pesticide application= in orchards: Insecticides, miticides, fungicides, herbicides—the whole g= amut of -cides. (The Spellcheck in the word processing program on my computer didn’t recognize the word “miticide”, suggested replacing= it with “matricide”…however, we don’t think that’= ;s one of the “cides” used by orchardists.) But we digress: There’s a lot of concern (mostly outside of agricultural circles) abo= ut the influence of pesticides on cancer rates. Not only are orchardists, who = live virtually surrounded by trees receiving a variety of pesticides, living lon= ger and healthier lives, pesticides aren’t a leading cause of cancer anyw= ay. In fact, here are the leading causes of cancer: Tobacco 30%; obesity and diet 30%. (Pesticides = are last, at 0%.)

Ev Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=

PESTICIDES A= ND THE FAMILIES OF FARMERS

In its article “Trouble on the Farm”, the Natural Resources Defense Council made the statement, referring to pesticide use on farms, that “Farm children are like canaries in the coal mine.” (In case you miss the meaning: Coal miners used to bring caged canaries down into the mi= nes with them since birds were more sensitive to the dreaded and lethal coal gas—a grim but often effective early warning system.) NRDC’s cl= aim was that farm children are exposed to high amounts of pesticides and are be= ing selectively poisoned. This statement, plus other comments from the NRDC, galvanized pesticide manufacturers into action. Six chemical companies prov= ided financial support to researchers at the Universi= ty of Minnesota, funding a study of= 95 farm families comprising 372 people (185 children ages 4 to 18) in Minnesota and South Carolina. The farm families were randomly selected from statewide lists of licensed pesticide applicators. Three commonly used pesticides were studied: Two herbicides—2,4-D and glyphosate (Roundup= ), and one insecticide—chlorpyrifos (Lorsban).

A total of 116 pesticide applications were made during the study that include= d at least one of the three pesticides. All members of the families aged 4 and over—consisting of farmer, spouse and at least one child—collec= ted their urine 24 hours per day for five consecutive days: The day before the pesticide application, the day of application, and for three days after tha= t. As an aside, can you imagine the challenges involved in collecting the urine “24/5” from a five-year old? (Ev and The Bride recently had the= ir triplet 5-year old granddaughters spend a week with them, so this idea is p= articularly daunting.)

The pesticides were analyzed in parts per billion. (One part per billion is one second in 32 years.) Confirmatory analyses were conducted by the Environmen= tal Protection Agency and the U.S. Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. While some of the farmers had increased urine concentrations of at least one of the three pesticides, the only children with elevated concentrations were several teenagers who apparently helped their fathers with the spraying. Therefore, the conclusion was that these farm children (at least the ones who didn’t help their fathers with the spraying) did not have elevated risk from any of th= ese pesticides.

Note the term “elevated” concentrations rather than “none̶= 1;. That’s because when the analysis is in parts per billion, almost all = of us have measurable levels of, well, lots of stuff. Of the three pesticides, chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) is the only one that’s been extensively studie= d in the general population. One study found that the average adult (farm and nonfarm adults included) had a urine concentration of 4.5 ppb of chlorpyrif= os, vs. 6.5 ppb for the farm wives in this study. Another study found that chil= dren in the general population had an average urine concentration of 6.4 ppb of chlorpyrifos, compared to an average of 7.6 ppb for the study children. (It’s even lower than 7.6 ppb if we exclude the few teenagers who hel= ped with the spraying.) These concentrations are less than half what the farmers averaged in the three days after they applied chlorpyrifos, and are far<= /u> below any scientifically accepted level of concern.

If you’d like more information on this study, check out the following website www.farmfamilyexp= osure.org.

Ev Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=

PLANTING INTENTIONS SURVEY

Ag Agvisor (an Internet website) conducted a survey of over 400 cash crop producers, asking them about their Spring 2005 planting intentions. About one-third of respondents (33.5%) said they planned to plant more corn, while 10% said they will reduce corn acres. Nearly one fourth of panelists (24%) = said they will plant fewer acres of soybeans this spring, while 17% said they wi= ll boost production. While the survey didn't ask specifically for the reason, = we'd surmise that the possibility of Asian Soybean Rust had something to do with= the shift away from soybeans and towards corn. Obviously aware of the shortage = of high quality hay in many areas of the U.S., hay and alfalfa produce= rs appear ready to expand acres. Nearly one fourth of growers polled said they will increase production.

Ev Thomas<= /p>
thomas@whminer.com=

CLOSING COMMENT

The main difference between a yard sale and a trash pickup is how close to the = road the stuff is placed.