MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

Independence Day thought: If you can r= ead this, thank a teacher. And since it's in English, thank a soldier.<= /span>

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

Fans or no fans, that = was the question. Last year we installed fans in two quadrants of our dairy barn and were mulling over the decision to install fans in the rest of the barn. Then during the second week of June the temperature and humidity combined to result in a sky-high “misery index”—for our cows, at leas= t. They crashed, going from milking over 90 lbs/day to 75 lbs in a matter of a= few days. According to both our h= erd vet and our feed consultant we weren’t the only herd to suffer, but t= his doesn’t make it O.K. Within a week the cows had recovered almost all = of this loss, but by that time we’d ordered enough fans for the rest of = the barn. The fans were delivered on June 15 and we started installing them the following week, in two bays replacing 36” fans with 56” ones. T= he hot, humid weather continued, but where the new fans were installed the cows didn’t drop much at all. Time will tell how much difference fans will make, but at least Rick is happy since he’s been the most vociferous proponent of fans right from the start. In the midst of our fan installatio= ns this week, the pen with fans located over the stalls and the feed alley has dropped only one pound per cow while a pen with inadequate fans has dropped= 12 pounds of milk/cow daily. The math becomes pretty simple when answering the question: do we need cow cooling in the northeast and New England= .

Otherwise, our dairy h= erd is doing very well; reproductive efficiency and general herd health continue to improve. Our heifers slightly exceed recommended height at 12-18 months of = age and are right at the recommended weight, so they’re certainly growing well. Maybe this will be the first year in many that the heifers we bring to the county fair won’t be “over-conditioned”, a politically correct term for “fat”.

We bought a nearly new self-propelled chopper and what a difference it’s made in how fast we= can harvest forage! Harvest is in some cases more than twice as fast as it was = with our former pull-type chopper. (We’re using a heavier packing tractor = on the bunker silos, and packing density appears to be very good.) We expected faster harvest; what we didn’t expect was the tremendous improvement = in uniformity of chop, with almost no long pieces of grass in the chopped fora= ge. This has also caused a difference in the appearance of the silage bags of g= rass silage we put up for heifers and dry cows. Instead of a lumpy look, the bags are almost as smooth as we get with bagged corn silage.
St= eve Couture couture@whminer.com

Ev= Thomas   thomas@whminer.com

DCAD Q&A

Is There An Optimal Dietary Cation-Anion Difference (DCAD) For Lactating Cows?

Traditionally, dietary cation-anion difference (DCAD) has been evaluated and manipulated by nutritionists formulating dry cow diets. There has been less attention give= n to DCAD in lactating cow diets. At the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference he= ld in May, Dave Beede from M= ichigan State University addressed the issue of formulating lactating cow diets for optimal DCAD. His presentation prompted some discussion here at the Institute. Below are seve= ral questions and answers from Beede’s presentation to discuss with your = nutritionist.

What is DCAD?

DCAD is the difference between cations and anions in the diet. Cations are miner= als with a positive charge like sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg), whereas anions are minerals with a negative charge such as chloride (Cl), sulfur (S) and phosphorus (P). The charges affect buffering capacity and acidity in a cow’s blood. DCAD for lactating cows is hig= hly positive or alkaline (contains a lot of K and Na), as opposed to the negati= ve or acidic diets (contains a lot of Cl and S) used for dry cow diets.

There are several equations that can be used to calculate and report DCAD express= ed as milliequivalents (meq) per 100 g of dietary dry matter (DM). The three-element DCAD equation is DCAD3 (meq/100 g DM) =3D [(Na + K) - Cl]. The commonly used four-element DCAD equation is DCAD4 (meq/100 g DM) =3D [(Na += K) - (Cl + S)]. To convert dietary mineral concentration to meq/100 g DM divide = % Na by 0.023, % K by 0.039, % Cl by 0.0355, and % S by 0.016.=

Is there an optimal DCAD for lactating cows?<= /i>

Yes, the optimal range of DCAD4 to maximize intake and milk yield is +25 to +30 meq/100 g DM based on several research reports and meta-analyses. There are minimal changes in intake and milk yield when DCAD4 is between +20 and +40 meq/100 g DM. Decreases in int= ake and milk yield occur when DCAD4 is less than +20 and greater than +40.=

Most research in this area has been done with mid to late lactation cows with lo= w to average milk yield. Beede suggested that a DCAD4 higher than +30 meq/100 g = DM may be desirable in early lactation, high producing cows that experience metabolic stress or cows under heat stress. The response to increased DCAD = for cows under heat stress is not consistent, based on research conducted in the southern US. Additional research is needed in these areas.

How should diets be formulated to optimize DCAD?<= /u>

Feed ingredients should be analyzed for Na, K, Cl, and S with wet chemistry (not NIR). Diets should be formulated to meet NRC 2001 recommendations for miner= als and then evaluated for DCAD4. If DCAD4 is low, add supplemental Na, K or bo= th to the diet, without adding Cl or S. Practical and economical sources are sodium bicarbonate and potassium carbonate.

It appears that DCAD values should be routinely monitored in diets fed to high-producing dairy cows. Here at the Institute, The Forage Lab Guy calcul= ated DCAD4 for the lactating cow diet= s and found that it ranged from approximately +19 to +25 meq/100 g DM. It app= ears there may be an opportunity to adjust the DCAD in these diets and improve m= ilk production.

Take Home Message

The optimal DCAD4 for lactating cows is in the r= ange of +25 to +30 meq/100 g DM. D= CAD4 values outside the range of +20 to +40 are probably rare on farms with good nutrition programs. However, it may be worth discussing the DCAD concept wi= th your nutritionist to see if opportunities exist to improve the milk product= ion of your cows.

Heather Dann dann@= whminer.com

Kurt Cotanch co= tanch@whminer.com

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK—Idaho Experience=

Two weeks ago I visited Idaho to give a series of presentations on the importance of time budgets for dai= ry cattle and management approaches we can use to improve cow comfort. I was amazed at the size of the dairy industry – it seemed most dairies were multiples of a thousand. In fact, many were over 5,000 cows and many were expanding. It was interesting to hear some of the challenges and opportunit= ies these dairy farmers faced in the Idaho region.

As most of you likely know, Idaho became the number five dairy state recently, edging Minnesota out of the top five. One of my first questions to producers and agribusiness folks I met was “how much more will the industry grow?” The consensus was that there may not be much more growth, perhaps 100,000 more = head or so. I was a bit amazed that 100,000 head of cattle was considered “= ;not too much more growth.” But, the Idaho industry does face several important challenges in the coming years. Most producers and industry people indicated that public pressure in heavy dairy regions would slow expansion in the near future. In some areas, access to sufficient water will likely become a key issue. Another critical issue that hasn’t really hit the front burner there yet is nutrient management. = In particular, there was very little discussion of managing phosphorus and cur= rently most planning appears to be done based on nitrogen.

I noted a wide range in quality of forage being fed to cows. For some produce= rs, there is definitely a window of opportunity here to improve the quality of harvested crops. Cow handling and management can also be a challenge on lar= ger dairies, and several veterinarians indicated that simply tracking cattle and conducting routine herd management is a major challenge given the magnitude= of the herd size.

One of my major messages was ensuring that we don’t upset the cow’s natural time budget. Specifically, I shared data that illustrate the negati= ve impact on milk production when cows are kept outside their pens for greater than 3.5 hours daily. Research is pretty clear that keeping cows away from = resting areas, feed, and water for greater than 3.5 hours daily will reduce milk yi= eld substantially. In essence, the cow has to sacrifice other important behavio= rs when we waste her time by keeping her away from these resources. Examples include excessive time in headlocks (greater than one hour per day is excessive), holding areas, milking parlor, and so forth. Obviously, on larg= er dairies the potential for cows to be kept away from critical resources for resting and eating is great due to the group sizes and time required to con= duct management routines.

An important question for dairies with open lots concerns how to express stock= ing density. Is it best done based on manger space or headlocks, lot area avail= able per cow, shaded area per cow, or some other measure? There was considerable discussion on this topic, but no definitive answer. Research needs to addre= ss this issue.

Yesterday I received an email from a consultant = for a dairy producer who had attended one of the workshops. He decided to track= the time budgets on his farm and realized he could make changes without incurri= ng any expense. The producer timed how long each group was out of the pen and locked up. He saw that it was too long, and then reorganized his labor rout= ines so that cows were locked up no more than one hour and out of the pens less = than three hours daily. Within several days, he observed a three-pound increase = in milk yield. Almost invariably, we see a productive response to management practices that accommodate the cow’s natural time budget!<= /span>

Rick Grant

grant@whminer.com

VET’S CORNER

Last month Miner Institute hosted a conference, “Food Animal Welfare for Bovine Veterinary Practitioners”. Animal Welfare Audit Programs was t= he topic and Monsanto Dairy Business and the Vermont Veterinary Medical Association were the sponsors.

Animal welfare has become an issue for many consumers. Restaurants = and groceries are asked by consumers if their animal producers/suppliers are us= ing humane practices in raising their livestock. The Animal Welfare Audit Progr= am (AWAP) is a totally voluntary national program cooperatively developed with= the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR), the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the producer community (the National Milk Producers Federation for our dairy industry). A $550 fee is submitted to request an AWAP audit. The requested audit is listed on their website, so certified AWAP auditors can = bid on the audit. After a week, the producer can select the auditor from the submitted bids.

The purpose of this article is to introduce producers to what consumers want on= the farms that produce their food. As noted, this is strictly a voluntary progr= am now, but the topics should be included in the farm’s long range plann= ing horizon.

Training programs and record keeping are covered extensively in the audit. A farm wi= ll not pass without a written herd health plan. It is expected that employees = will be trained for the following tasks: Animal movement without scaring or enda= ngering the animals, proper euthanasia techniques for baby calves as well as adult animals, proper milking equipment operation (e.g. preventing over or under milking), teat care, handling non-ambulatory animals, administering injecti= ons and dehorning,

Proper medical treatments to audit will include feeding colostrum to each newborn = bull or heifer calf within four hours of birth, extra teat removal before three months of age, using local or general anesthesia for dehorning calves over = 10 weeks of age and not docking tails prior to being confirmed pregnant. It mu= st be demonstrated that euthanasia equipment is maintained in functioning condition.

General questions about housing include maintaining bedding in a condition and thickness that keeps the cattle dry, clean and prevents injury, non-slip surfaces in animal living areas. Self-locking stalls must have a emergency release. When 50 head are randomly body scored, < 10% of the cows exhibit scores <2.0 and wh= en locomotion scores are assessed, <3% have a score of >3.0 (a score ove= r 3 means the cow is lame and at least partly favoring one limb).

In the hospital pen, cows cannot be moved by dragging or electrically prodding them. The cows must be able to eat and drink while waiting for treatment. In the milking parlor teats must be dried prior to milking with a individual t= owel used for each cow.

To bovine veterinarians and producers, some of these areas of concern seemed frivolous compared to our sophisticated techniques to prevent metabolic dis= ease or promote udder health. But these are the concerns that the retail food industry has about the humane treatment of animals. The U.S. pu= blic has the safest food supply in world history. Farmers are perceived as “go= od guys,” and hopefully a simple auditing system will certify to the pub= lic that the animals and products they consume were grown in a humane manner.

One of the practical exercises for the participating veterinarians was to audit= the new Miner Institute dairy facility. It received very high marks and missed a perfect score over a minor record-keeping omission.

Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

cowdoc@adelphia.net

FREESTALL BEDDING FOLLOW-UP
A recent issue of Northeast Dairy Business had thumbnail sketches of 46 “SuperMilk” award winners, including the bedding types used on = each farm. Here’s a summary of the bedding type used on the freestall farm= s: 10 sand, 9 sawdust, 3 straw, 2 shavings, and 1 each paper sludge, shredded paper, chopped hay, and something called “Syracuse fiber”. The conclusion: = When it comes to udder health it’s management that makes the difference, n= ot the bedding material.

MINER INSTITUTE WEBSIT= E

If you haven’t v= isited our recently updated website www.whmine= r.com check us out. We’ve added lots of photos and new information.

FORAGE LAB BITS & PIECES

Corn silage processing score is a rating of how effective corn silage kernels we= re fractured during harvest, by measuring the percentage of starch in particles 4.75 mm or larger. Back in December 2004 we ran this assay, which showed th= at we had less than optimal processing of our corn silage resulting in large kernel fragments and some intact kernels. The greater the number of large or intact kernel fragments, the greater the chance for inadequate ruminal star= ch digestion and passage of these fragments through the cow undigested. It was= put forth by a highly respected crops expert that the analysis in December was = of the last corn harvested and kernels were harder, thereby more difficult to = be processed effectively. Hence, the current re-assessment of our corn silage processing score. The table below tells another story. The BMR corn silage kernel processi= ng value is at least consistent with the previous assay, while the conventional corn in bunk 4 seems to have slipped in its processing value since last December.

Interesting…well, that was last year’s corn with last year’s chopper. This year w= ill be much different!

These past 6 months we’ve been feeding quite a stretch of good forage that = we harvested in 2004. Table 2 tracks the 30-hour NDF digestibility values that we have measured in our lab on a monthly basis. Note that the analyses of February are quite odd, likely due= to lab error. In fact, the cow we obtained the rumen fluid from for that assay was heading into acidosis the = next day; rumen pH of 5.2. It appears that the acidosis had quite an effect on o= ur digestibility measurements.

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

WHAT’S IN A NAME= ?

Our legal name is R= 20;The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute”, but we’re O.= K. with “Miner Institute”. All other names are incorrect, includin= g: The Miner Institute, Miner’s Institute, W.H. Miner Institute, Minor Institute, etc., etc.

The length of our name sometimes causes minor (as opposed to miner) problems because it doesn̵= 7;t all fit on one line of some address labels. Therefore,

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute sometimes appears like this:<= /p>

William H. Miner<= /o:p>

Agricultural Research Institute

P.O= . Box 90

Cha= zy, NY 12921

            =

This causes some to as= sume that William Miner is still with us in body as well as in spirit, and on occasion we get a letter addressed to “Dear Bill”. (Actually, we understand that his close friends called him Willie.) It also resulted in t= he following telephone conversation between a “cold call” salesman= and Ev:

Salesman: “Is William Miner there?R= 21;

Ev: “No, he died.”

Salesman: “Oh, I’m so sorry to h= ear that.”

Ev: “Yes, it was very sad.”= ;

Salesman: “When did he die?”

Ev: “1930.”

Salesman: “Uhhh…”

COMPACTION ACTION—Third Of Three Parts

Editor’s note: The following is condensed = from an article by Randall Reeder, Extension Agricultural Engineer at The Ohio State University and a gu= est speaker at our 2005 Corn Congress.

Tire pressure and rubb= er tracks--Lower tire pressures help prevent compaction and improve traction. Radial tires h= ave recommended pressures as low as 6 psi for duals and triples—12 psi for singles. Agricultural engineers at Ohio State University conducted research in the early 1990s comparing tires inflated at the corre= ct pressure for the load to over-inflated tires and to rubber tracks. A John D= eere 8870 4WD tractor with 710/70R38 duals correctly inflated to 6 and 7 psi (fr= ont and rear), and then over-inflated to 24 psi, was compared to a Cat Challeng= er 65 with 24” rubber tracks and a Cat Challenger 75 with 36” trac= ks. The tractor with correctly inflated tires had least negative effect on soil physical properties, followed very closely by the 36” and 24” t= racks. The tractor with over-inflated tires caused the most compaction. While controversial at the time, the results were the same both with load and a t= owed load: The tires at 6 psi resulted in the same compaction at “4 to 20” as the rubber tracks.

Another project tested= a 1200-bu grain card against a JD 9600 combine with different tire/track arrangements. The grain cart with 35 psi dual tires, 40 tons/axle caused by= far the most compaction. Next in order (most to least) were the combine with ti= res at 34 psi; experimental half-track; duals at 26 psi; wide tires over-inflat= ed at 24 psi; and the same wide tires at the correct pressure of 15 psi. The conclusion: For a certain axle load, the lower the inflation pressure, the better it is for the soil. The half-track had an average calculated pressur= e on the soil of about 10 psi, but gave results that appeared to make it equal t= o a tire with about 30 psi.

Don’t interpret = these results as “anti-track”. Tracks have other advantages that often make them the best choice. In comparing the 4WD tractor to a tracked vehicl= e, tracks created about the same level of compaction only when the tire pressu= re was as low as possible. The dual wheels were about twice as wide as the tra= cks, meaning that more soil was driven on.

Controlled traffic—Driving in the same la= nes year after year is the best way to avoid most compaction yield losses. Ridge-till farmers have always used controlled traffic, and a few notill farmers have adopted it. The technology that will lead to rapid adoption of controlled traffic is auto-steering on tractors, combines and sprayers. This means that all traffic can be kept in precise lanes with no more than one i= nch error. If compaction is reducing yields by 5% on a 1000-acre farm operation, using controlled traffic may pay off the entire cost of an auto-steering system.

The first step toward controlled traffic is to use equipment that’s all the same width, or a multiple of that width. After deciding on this width, next select the tire = size and spacing to minimize the number of traffic paths, making sure that no ti= re ever runs on a corn row. It’s reasonable to expect that only 20% of t= he ground will get driven on, leaving 80% of the soil untouched by heavy axle loads. Getting all machinery to cover the same swath is essential. The big machinery companies are paying more attention to controlled traffic today, = so matching equipment to your needs will become easier.

VETERINARIANS, THEN AN= D NOW

I was at Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> one hot, humid day last month to speak to a group of veterinary college students. There being no discernable sign of life in the agronomy buildings= , I spent the hour before my presentation in the air-conditioned comfort of the main vet college building. In one of hallways there’s a photo of each graduating class of veterinarians, beginning about WWI. <= /p>

For the first 15 years= or so the classes were all male. The first woman graduate wasn’t until 1929, which was also the year this country went into a deep economic depression (“The Crash of ’29”). However, no relationship between th= ese two events is known or suggested. The first woman graduate wasn’t the start of something big, at least not for many years. When I was in college = in the 1960s it was accepted as fact by my ag college classmates that the Corn= ell vet school would only accept one or two women each year. Whether there real= ly was a gender quota or not, the photos of the graduating classes back then included no more than two women in most graduating classes, and sometimes n= one at all. And there sure wasn’t any shortage of very capable coeds tryi= ng to get into vet college.

How times have changed= ! In the 2004 graduating class there were 14 men—and 60 women.

DAIRY NOTES=

·  &n= bsp;     According to a Safeway Stores spokesman there’s a severe shor= tage of organic milk throughout the country, with demand increasing. An organic trade association predicts an annual sales increase of 17% for orga= nic milk each of the next few years.

·  &n= bsp;     According to Britain’s University of Bristol, milk doesn’t increa= se the risk of stroke and heart disease, and may even have a protective eff= ect.

·  &n= bsp;     Eating low glycemic foods may be more important than a low f= at diet. The Journal of Clinical Nutrition reports research concluding = that people could eat as many carbohydrates with a low glycemic index as they wa= nted and lose as much weight as people on a low fat diet. Low glycemic foods inc= lude fruits, nuts and dairy products.

·  &n= bsp;     With current trends, U.S. milk production will soon be evenly distributed, with one-third each co= ming from herds with under 200 cows, 200 to 999 cows, and 1000+ cows.

·  &n= bsp;     A ten-year study reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that women who consume four or more servings of dairy products per day suffer fewer effects from PMS. They just do, OK?

CRITTER NEWS

If you thought last month’s article on the North Korean campaign against long hair (on the pretext that it uses valuable nutrients) was the nuttiest idea you’ve heard in a long time, try this: Researchers in the “Mixed Reality Lab= ” at the University of Singapore have invented a computer system that allows physical interaction over the Intern= et, starting with chickens. Here’s how it works:

A chicken-shaped doll = sits on a mechanical positioning table near your computer. When you turn on the system the doll duplicates the movements of a chicken, via a real chicken that’s being tracked by a webcam. Here’s where it gets good: Wh= en you pet the virtual chicken doll, sensors transmit this to the actual chick= en, which is wearing a cyberjacket. The chicken feels your touch in exactly the place you touch the doll. Whether it wants to or not. Neat, eh? And no chic= ken poop to clean up.

You may be wondering w= hy in the name of Bill Gates someone would go through all this trouble to cyber-p= et a chicken. Ah, but as usual the scientists have a plan: This system would all= ow people who are allergic to their dog or cat to caress said pet, remotely. In zoos, visitors could remotely pat a tiger on the head or remotely chuck a grizzly bear under its chin. Of course, said tiger or bear would have to be wearing a cyberjacket (how’d you like that job?), but then nothing’s perfect. Speaking of which, after perfecting “cyberchicken”, the scientists plan to adapt the system for hum= an contact. Feel free to use your own imagination at the possible types of contact, but the scientists specifically mention “Internet hugging”.

WEATHER AND YOUR CORN = CROP

Research at Cornell University and at the U.S. Dairy F= orage Research Center makes these links between weather and corn silage quality:<= o:p>

·      = Weather prior to silking affects corn plant height, silage y= ield and NDF digestibility.

·      = Weather after silking affects corn grain yield and total dry matter digestibility.

·      = Cool, dry years are best for corn silage quality.=

·      = Cool temperatures, especially at night, can improve stover quality.=

·      = Slight moisture stress may stimulate grain production. <= /span>

ARE MULTILEAF ALFALFA VARIETIES BETTER?

We planted Legend, one= of the first multileaf alfalfa varieties on the market, in 1990. Calling Legen= d a “multileaf” variety, however, is like calling the Crops Dude a = good golfer. (The CD describes his golf game as “islands of brilliance in a ocean of poor play”; he’s a good golfer only on the occasional shot. And don’t ask why, on the course where the blood-and-guts Thomas family golf tournament is held each July, the 6^th hole is called “Ev’s chagrin”.) Only the about 3% of Legend plants were multileaf, with 5 to 7 leaflets instead of the normal 3. In the years since, plant breeders have improved multileaf varieties to well over 50% multileaf expression. However, what’s really important is what percentage of to= tal yield the leaves represent. Sadly, in most cases there’s little quali= ty difference between trifoliate and multifoliate varieties.

Cor= nell University alfalfa breeders had = developed a multileaf variety before the commercial ones were available, but never released it because they found no difference in yield or quality. Somewhat later, a two-year Minnesota study found no meaningful difference in leaf percentage between the two typ= es, even though one variety had 58% multileaf expression. Nor did % multileaf expression improve forage yield, protein or fiber content. Multileaf variet= ies look better simply because of all those extra leaves, but good looks don’t feed your cows. (And lucky for you, eh?) Choose alfalfa varieties based on yield, maturity, winter hardiness and pest resistance, not on the number of leaflets.

Speaking of alfalfa le= aves: You’ve probably noticed that second cut alfalfa leaves are almost alw= ays smaller than first or third cut ones, and always smaller than 4^th cut leaves. That’s because there’s an inverse relationship betw= een temperature and leaf-to-stem index: With warmer temperatures, the leaf-to-s= tem index is lower and leaves are smaller.

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

ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA

This summer, Monsanto and Forage Genetics expect to release for sale about one million pounds of Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa. A farmer recently asked my opinion about RR alfalfa, likely to be featured in 2006 farm seed catalogs. (The variety, not my opinion.). I replied that RR alfalfa might become popu= lar in much of the alfalfa-growing U.S. but not here in the Northeast.

Why not? Consider the percentage of alfalfa that’s seeded with a forage grass: California 4%, Midwest 20%, N.Y. 90%. With RR alfalfa you seed straight alfalfa, wait for t= hose nasty weeds to emerge, then apply glyphosate and watch ‘em die. Howev= er, if RR alfalfa is seeded with a forage grass, the glyphosate will also kill = the grass. What about seeding RR alfalfa, applying glyphosate to kill the weeds, then seeding grass later in the season? I don’t much like this idea, = not only because it’s an extra trip but more importantly, when you ask a seedling to compete with an already-established plant the seedling usually = loses.

What if you have a ter= rible weed problem because of poor weed control in the preceding corn crop? (If a= lot of weeds went to seed in your corn crop, expect a lot of weeds in your seeding.) In this case seeding RR alfalfa may be a good option, but you als= o can get good weed control in non-RR alfalfa with Pursuit or Butyrac. I don̵= 7;t know how much more you’d have to pay for RR alfalfa seed, but at least for the first year or two it probably will be pricey. There’s also the matter of leafhopper resistance: If I have to pick one trait, I’ll go with LH resistant alfalfa since while we have to fight weeds only in the seeding year, leafhoppers can be an annual problem.

Speaking of which, War= rior insecticide has received a “NY State Emergency Exemption” for t= his season, allowing it to be used to control leafhoppers in alfalfa-grass and clover-grass fields.

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

SEED CORN SIZE AND SHAPE

An article in the March Farm Journal looked at the influence of corn se= ed size and shape on germination and yield. Agronomists from Mid-West Seed Services tested small and medium flats, and small, medium and large rounds, simulating early corn planting conditions: 50= °F followed by heavy rainfall. In other words, a typical North Country May.

Most of the various seed sizes and shapes yielded nearly the same—215 to 2= 20 bushels per acre—while small rounds yielded only 209 bu./A. While it’s impossible to know exactly why small rounds yielded less, itR= 17;s noteworthy that this seed size also had the lowest percent germination—82%, compared with 85% for medium rounds, 90% for large rounds, 93% for small flats, and 94% for medium flats.

The seed was also subjected to an “accelerated aging” test, which estimates germination potential after six months of storage. In this test, small rounds again had the lowest germination: 86%, vs. over 90% for the ot= her seed sizes and shapes. Does this mean that you shouldn’t carry over s= mall rounds from one year to the next? Perhaps. The lower yield and germination = of small rounds wasn’t entirely due to size since an 80,000-kernel unit = of small rounds weighed 43 lbs vs. only 39 lbs for small flats. One reason suggested for poorer performance from small rounds is that their position on the tip of the ear may subject them to more pest damage.<= /p>

We won’t buy small rounds, and haven’t for years. If small rounds = are all that’s available for a hybrid, we won’t buy them. (This alm= ost never happens.) However, our reason is that small rounds gives Miner Instit= ute’s finger pickup planter (JD MaxEmerge 2) indigestion: It discharges small rou= nds much too fast, and it’s a pain to recalibrate in the middle of a busy planting season. One time we had to plant small rounds for a funded research trial (we become somewhat more tolerant when there’s enough money involved), and the only way we were able to achieve the desired population = was to change the planter gear ratio and plant at a slower speed. We don’t mind large rounds (they come from the butt end of the ear), whi= ch usually are available long after medium flats are sold out. Even though the researchers preferred medium rounds and medium flats, in this trial large rounds (a hefty 67 lbs. per unit) resulted in the highest yield.=

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

WHO’S DOING WHAT IN SEED CORN

The four largest seed companies account for almost three quarters of U.S. seed corn sales—b= oth silage and grain. The following 2004 market shares were self-reported by each of the companies. Because they were self-reported, there’s some discrepancy between how much a particular company says it sells and how much its competitors say it sells. Gee, what a surprise…

GM CROPS ON THE RISE

Since their introduction ten years ago, the doll= ar value of genetically modified crops has grown at an annual rate of 55%. As = you can see by the figure, most of this has been in herbicide tolerant crops—mostly glyphosate resistant (Roundup Ready) soybeans and corn.

NOTABLE QUOTES: ANIMAL= S

Ø       “B= iologically speaking, if something bites you it's more likely to be female.” Desmond Morris

Ø       “I ask people why they have deer heads on their walls. They always say because it's such a beautiful animal. I think my mother is attractive, but I have photographs of her.”
Ellen DeGeneres

Ø       “The lion and the lamb will lie down together, but the lamb won’t get much sleep.” Woody Allen

Ø       “No matter how much cats fight, there always seem to be plent= y of kittens.”
Abrah= am Lincoln

Ø       “Humans are the only animals that have children on purpose wi= th the exception of guppies, who like to eat theirs.” P. J. O'Rourke=

Ø       “M= y cousin Oralene has got a new diet program now and I think it is going to work. She’s got a big tomcat, and when she weighs in the morning she holds = the cat. If she’s put on a pound, she starves the cat. It almost didnR= 17;t make it through last Christmas, got to looking real bad.” = Bill Chitwood

CHECK CORN SILAGE INVENTORIES

How is your corn silage inventory holding out? If it appears that you’ll have some left by th= is fall, as long as you can figure out how to feed “old crop” corn silage while filling your silos with the new crop, a reasonable surplus is a good thing. This is good not only from an insurance perspective, but the co= rn silage you’re feeding now may well be at its peak in nutritional valu= e. Research has shown that the dry matter digestibility of corn silage continu= es to increase up to 280 days post-ensiling! While nobody is suggesting that y= ou should have an extra 9 months inventory of corn silage, neither should you = be in a big hurry to feed out your 2004 crop before fall. Of course, we realiz= e that many farmers don’t have the flexibility to feed old crop corn silage = for a couple of months after the new crop is ensiled. (That’s why we have= six bunker silos at Miner Institute, most of them about 1000 ton capacity.)

An alternative to mult= iple bunker silos would be to put up a bag or two of corn silage this fall, plan= ning on feeding it during and after 2006 corn silage harvest. Ideally, it would = be best to delay feeding new crop corn silage until at least December. However= , if you do put up a bag of corn silage and expect it to remain intact for a yea= r, make sure you put the bag in an open area where you can keep eye on it. A remarkable assortment of troublesome critters including crows, rats and 10-= year old boys can wreak havoc on a silage bag.

FOOD COSTS<= /span>

Following are the percentages of domestic income spent on food:

U.S.        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       10%

Canada        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; 11%

Japan        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    15%

United Kingdom      =              16%

Brazil        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    23%

Mexico        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; 27%

Russia        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; 34%<= /p>

CLOSING COMMENT

One reason to hold a children's party is to remind yourself that there are chil= dren more awful than your own.