FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

What’s New with Stocking Density?

I just returned from Japan w= here one of the talks I had to put together was on stocking density and cow response. There has been some interesting research conducted during the past year regarding the effect of overstocking on cow health, behavior, and productiv= ity during the dry as well as the lactation periods.

Researchers at the University o= f Wisconsin Veterinary School evaluated the effect of overcrowding on the prefresh, close-up pen. In their study, the pens cont= ained both first-calf heifers and older cows. When stocking density was greater t= han 80% of stalls in the prefresh group of mixed co= ws and heifers, milk yield was reduced for the heifers during the first 83 days in milk following calving. In fact, for each 10% increase in prefresh stocking density above 80%, there was a 1.6-pound per day reduction in milk yield for the first-calf heifers. These data need to be compared with older research that evaluated the impact of headlock stocking density on feed int= ake during the close-up period. In this 1999 study in Minnesota, feed intake was markedly re= duced at any manger stocking density greater than 90%. Also, remember that earlier this year I shared with you on-farm data from Idaho that showed a strong negative relationship between headlock stocking density in the close-up pen and inci= dence of abomasal displacements after calving. Whenev= er headlock stocking density was greater than 90%, then the incidence of DA’s went up sharply. Clearly, the take-home message of this research= is that stocking density greater than 80 to 90% in the pr= efresh or close-up pen will result in lost milk production and greater fresh-cow health problems.

In the fresh-cow pen, the= re is less research, but still an indication that stocking densities less than 10= 0% for both stalls and manger space will result in better feed intake, milk yi= eld, and fewer health problems. Also, keeping first-calf heifers grouped separat= ely from older cows in both the prefresh and postfresh pens will help to ensure better health and productivity of the first-lactation animals.

For cows beyond the fresh= group, there is not as much information, but the data definitely show that beyond = 120% overstocking of stalls that resting behavior usually drops off substantiall= y. No doubt, there is considerable variability among farms, but if we are stoc= king are pens beyond 120%, then red flags need to be raised that a problem is mu= ch more likely.

For the transition period, monitoring milk yield can be a useful indicator of the overall effectivenes= s of the management system. Useful targets for both first-calf and mature cows f= or milk yield are:

·= ; = First lactation animals: target would be to observe an 8% increase in milk per day for the first 18 days of lactation. A problem exists if there is no increase in milk or milk yield is less than 65 pounds per day at 30 days in milk.

·= ; = For second and greater lactation animals, th= ere should be a 10% increase in milk yield per day during the first 14 days of lactation. A problem exists if there is no increase in milk yield or if milk production is less than 85 pounds per day at 30 days in milk.

The bottom line is that s= tocking density of the transition pens is a key part of the management strategy. We have suspected this for a long while and now we have good evidence that we = lose milk and suffer more health problems when we overstock the close-up and fre= sh cow pens. In fact, even 100% stocking rate is too high!

—Rick Grant

grant@whmine= r.com

FA= RM REPORT SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL

FOR U.S. SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

It’s time to ren= ew your free Farm Report subscription for 2006 and 2007. You need to ren= ew even if you’re a recent subscriber. The renewal form is on the inside back page. We’ve made some changes in the Farm Report in the past yea= r; this will give you the chance to comment on these as well as make suggestio= ns for improvement, topics, etc. We’d also appreciate it if you’d answer a few questions so we can learn a bit more about our readership.

VET’S CORNER O= ral Fluid Treatment for Calf Scours

Last month’s Vet= 217;s Corner article stressed that early intervention was the key to success in handling uterine torsion dystocia cases. This month, early intervention is stressed as the key to success in handling calf scours. As dehydration and disease progres= s, the calf becomes lethargic and will not suckle milk or electrolyte solution voluntarily. When in doubt if= a calf is dehydrated enough to warrant oral fluid treatment, remember that a = calf with normal hydration will rapidly excrete excess water and electrolytes so= you can cause no damage by over aggressive treatment.

Few pathogens that cause = baby calf scours will be eliminated by oral antibiotic therapy. Antibiotics kill bacteria, so they= are ineffective against Rota and C= orona viruses, and Coccidia and Cryptosporidiosis protozoa. Most enteric E. col= i and Salmonella have developed antibiotic resistance and require systemic treatm= ent to protect vital organs instead of oral treatment. So the calf raiser’s first t= hought should focus on proper rehydration of the calf instead of looking for the m= agic antibiotic pill to stop the scours.

A scouring calf with mild symptoms of dehydration is a good candidate for oral electrolyte feeding. Skin over the eye will tent = for no more than 3 seconds, the calf will arise and have a suckling reflex, mucous membranes are moist, and extremities are still warm. Some guidelines for oral treatment follow:

1. &n= bsp; Don’t mix the electrolyte solution into mi= lk replacer, most commercial packages contain bicarb<= /span> which interferes with milk clot formation in the aboma= sum.

2. &n= bsp; Feed 2 liters of electrolyte solution, which= is about 5% of a normal sized Holstein calf’s weight, at a time. The abomasum holds 2 liters and overfilling will ca= use escape into the undeveloped rumen compartment and not be absorbed.

3. &n= bsp; If the calf will not suck on the first try, feed the electrolyte solution with a stomach tube, but realize that much of the flui= d is going to the rumen. If the ca= lf is not sucking 6 hours later, resort to SQ or IV therapy immediately.

4. &n= bsp; Most commercial preps contain high levels of electrolytes and energy and are great for initial treatment. However, they should not be the= only source of fluid or fed more than 24-48 hours or salt poisoning may occur. Switch to isotonic electrolyte solutions after 24-48 hours.

5. &n= bsp; Continue feeding normal levels of milk replacer<= /i>. While it is possible that milk fee= dings will continue diarrhea output, milk is needed for nutrition and the oral fl= uid therapy will maintain hydration if the calf continues to scour. The goal is to have a healthy, hyd= rated calf not just to dry up the scours by starving the calf.

6.   &n= bsp; Feed the electrolyte solution 1-2 hours after mi= lk replacer feeding so that the abomasum volum= e of 2 liters is not exceeded.

7.   &n= bsp; Most calves only need two feedings of electrolyte solution daily. If skin tenti= ng and attitude do not improve, move on to SQ or IV treatment.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM
Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.<= /span>

cowdoc@ade= lphia.net

NEWS FROM THE FORAGE LAB Good Observations and Communications Avert Potential Transition Cow Problems
The observations:

·= ;      =    Fresh cows racing from parlor to fight for headlocks closest to low group TMR.

·= ;      =    Fresh cows slightly ket= otic as evidenced by Keto-stix and slightly sweet br= eath.

·= ;      =    Fresh cow DMI not noticeably depressed.

·= ;      =    Close-up cows slightly = ketotic upon smell of breath and keto-stix.

·= ;      =    Whole herd milk production holding steady 88= -90 lbs.

·= ;      =    All pen milk production and DMI holding stea= dy.

These observations of the= milkers and feeders, provi= ded vague signs of ketosis in both the close-up and fresh cow pens. Let’s look at the diets (table 1).

The diets look to be suff= iciently balanced for both fresh and close-up cows, but the cows are telling us something is wrong. Obviously= they are slightly energy deficient given the hints of ketosis in both groups. So, where to look first? Forages maybe? Both rations are heavy on the BMR CS. The 2 groups are getting = their own grain mixes; I doubt both mixes are inadequately balanced for energy or micronutrients. Let’s s= tart with the big obvious issues first and see if we can rule them out.

It does not take long to = realize, at about 20’ it is rather obvious, that something is foul in the BMR = CS bunker. The stench followed m= e home to Swanton on the undercarriage of my truck. Record level rainfall this autumn resulting in record high seasonal level of Lake Cham= plain at 95’ has obviously raised the ground water table as well. Water that would normally drain un= der the bunkers is rising up through the flooring and being soaked up by the BMR CS. Fortunately this is the o= nly bunker that is being affected. This is resulting in the bottom 2-3 feet of silage being washed clean of soluble nutrients, primarily starch. Oddly though t= he bottom section of silage does not stink as bad as the effluent polluting my truck, though it does not smell good. Analyses of the top and bottom sec= tions of this silage are presented in = table 2.

The bottom 3 ft of silage= averaged 29.6% DM, the very bottom of this section is soup. The NDF level of the bo= ttom section is also much higher than the top due to the loss of soluble DM resulting in a greater concentration of NDF. There is nearly an 8.5 percentage = unit difference in the NFC values from the top and bottom portions of the BMR CS silo due to lost starch. Using these values, recalculating the NFC values for the fres= h and close-up diets results in values of 34.3% and 31.5% respectively. Both rations figure to be about 3 = units lower in NFC than they were balanced for.&= nbsp; Clearly these cows are deficient in NFC in the form of starch. And this does not take into consideration the possible negative effects of the high moisture and odd sm= ell that this forage may have on DMI. To alleviate this situation we have replaced 50% of the BMR CS with = our conventional CS, increased the amount of dry hay in both rations and increa= sed molasses. The rationale; dilute the offending forage, stabilize the rumen w= ith more dry forage and provide more fermentable carbohydrate. The close-up cows are being indivi= dually drenched with glycol. The BMR= CS is being fed to more animals, the high group, in order to feed through the affected silage

What only appeared as a s= light ketosis problem to our astute barn staff was investigated more thoroughly, looking at animal behavior, ketosis measures, ration and forage re-evaluati= ons. These small pieces of information were openly communicated and coalesced in= to actions that most likely prevented a larger herd health and production prob= lem.

Credit this one to good observations and communications.

—Kurt Cotanch

cotanch@wh= miner.com

CORN HYBRIDS FOR 2006 (Condensed from E= v’s Dairy Day talk)

One unit of DeKalb DKC 46= -26 pretreated with Poncho 250 retails for $135 before early order, early pay, quantity, and I’m-such-a-nice-guy-couldn’t-you-shave-the-price-= just-a-bit-more discounts. Other hybrids with the same base genetics as DKC 46-26 retail for $166, $167, $172, $175, and $189 per unit. Under most situations we wouldn’t expect any difference in silage quality whether we pay $135 = or $189 for the unit of seed, and we may—or may not—see a differen= ce in yield. What gives? The price difference is due to several genetic traits= (chart 1).

The most common genetical= ly engineered traits in seed corn are Liberty Link (resistant to Liberty herbicide), Roundup Ready (resi= stant to glyphosate herbicides), YieldGard Corn Borer and Herculex for corn borer control,= and YieldGard Rootworm and Herculex<= /span> RW for corn rootworm control. The Liberty Link trait usually comes as a “freebie” accompanying the Bt-corn borer trait, so we won’= ;t include it in our discussion. Also, Liberty is a much less commonly used herbicide in the Northeaster= n U.S. than is glyphosate.

Using DeKalb 46-26 as the example, following are the retail prices of the various genetic trait optio= ns, assuming all seed is treated with Poncho 250. (RR2 =3D Roundup Ready 2, YGC= B =3D Bt for corn borer, YGRW =3D Bt for corn rootworm, YGPL= =3D Bt for both corn borer and corn rootworm.)

If you buy the hybrid wit= h the RR2 gene (DKC 46-28) it will cost $1 per unit less to add the gene for corn rootworm protection (DKC 46-24). If you plant this hybrid on continuous corn land (3 years or more of corn) and therefore more likely to need rootworm protection, a soil insecticide would cost $15-18 per acre. You could combine RR2 and YGRW, even if you don’t plan to apply glyphosate, and still pay less than buying DKC= 46-26 and then spending at least $15 for a soil insecticide. This isn’t a misprint on the company’s price list: For another DeKalb hybrid, a 10= 1 RM hybrid with base genetics DKC 51-43, combining RR2 and YGRW traits costs $7= less than RR2 alone.

Soil insecticide vs. Bt for corn rootworms: A soil insecticide will control= a number of insect pests, while genetic rootworm control will do a great job = of controlling corn rootworms but that’s about it. Compared to soil insecticides, YGRW and Herculex RW have their advantages: Research-proven better rootworm control and higher corn yield, = one less thing to buy, and no danger of operator toxicity from handling an insecticide. So there are pluses and minuses, take your pick. Remember that with either of the Bt traits you’ll have to plant a minimum acreage of non-Bt corn as a refuge. Since few farmers in th= is region will want to plant all Bt corn, this shouldn’t be a problem. However, you should take resistance management very seriously.

What with all the differe= nt hybrid/seed treatment alternatives available, make sure you save all seed c= orn tags and put them where you can find them.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whmi= ner.com

SOYBEAN-GLYPHOSATE INTERACTIONS

Some recent popular press articles suggest that applications of glyphosate (Roundup et al.) may induce rust resistance in soybeans. The Asian soybean = rust was pretty much a “tempest in a teapot” this year since the cau= sed nary a problem, but this doesn’t mean the same will happen in 2006. O= ne reason for encouragement is that in preliminary field trials, glyphosate does indeed appear to lessen stripe rust on wheat. Furthermore, in greenhouse trials glyphosate appeared to affect rust development in soybeans.

Not so fast. Cornell plant pathologist Gary Bergstorm says: “I am mo= re skeptical about any real promise against soybean rust since severe rust epidemics are widely observed on Roundup-ready soybeans sprayed with glyphosate.” So while we should keep an eye on = the rust-glyphosate interaction as greenhouse trial= s move into the field this coming year, don’t count on enough glyphosate providing adequate control of Asian soybean rust.

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

The wettest October in ma= ny years made fall chores…well, a chore. However, we managed to do most of wha= t we needed to do in the fields. The monsoon finally ended and was followed by a week of fine weather, and judging from the sweet aromas around the valley, a lot of farmers did as we did and took advantage of that week to empty manure storages.

Now that the summer hot w= eather is over, we’ve completed installation of fans throughout the dairy ba= rn. Since we had to run wiring over the insulated area that was at “broil” temperatures, we were forced to wait for cooler weather= to complete the job. Rick is smiling, not only because the job is done, but be= cause he was in favor of fans all along and feels that he’s been vindicated. Certain other staff members mumble something about even the blind bird catc= hing the worm on occasion. This spring we are going to install a sprinkler system over the feed alley in combination with the fans already in place. We want = to evaluate how effective the fan and sprinkler system will be in our barn and whether we can successfully use this cooling system with an alley scraper system. We believe we can, but will test it out first on our high and fresh cows, and then do the rest of the barn if the system functions well. We'll = keep you posted next summer on our experiences in cow cooling in the North Country. People often downplay the importance= of cow cooling in northern New York and New England, but summers like 2005 should convince us that we do indeed have to contend with substantial heat stress.

This past Sunday morning (November 27th) we had a fire in the old dairy barn that apparently started near the manure pump. The end of the barn was heavily damaged, but we dodge= d a bullet and the majority of the barn will still be useable. Over the next few years, as we design and then build a new dry cow barn to complement our new lactating cow barn, the need for the old barn will grow smaller. Fortunately for us, our neighbors at Wyeth pharmaceuticals noticed the fire on their surveillance cameras just as it was beginning, or else the results could ha= ve been much worse.

On the bright side, the h= erd continues to improve in milk production. As this article is being written, = the herd is averaging over 90 pounds per day and steadily climbing. We continue= to make progress on reproductive performance, and milk quality remains excelle= nt. The bottom line is that the farm staff are doing= an outstanding job.

Rick was in Japan f= or two weeks in November along with research associate Heather Dann, who was there for one w= eek. They both had a productive trip, but neither is hankering for sushi (fish or horse) anytime soon. Prospects are excellent for a continuation of the productive research partnership between Miner Institute and the huge Japane= se cooperative ZenNoh. In 2006, we will have two scientists from ZenNoh in residence at the Inst= itute who will help conduct the various research trials funded by the cooperative= and also learn more about the US dairy industry.

PREDICTION of MANURE and NUTRIENT EXCRETION from DAIRY CATTLE

Accurate estimates of man= ure and nutrient excretion by dairy cattle are important for designing adequate man= ure storage facilities and developing effective nutrient management plans accor= ding to researchers in the October issue of the Journal of Dairy Science. The American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) provided estimates of man= ure and nutrient excretion in Standard D384.1. However, the researchers pointed= out that the ASAE estimates were based on data from the 1960’s and 1970’s with lower producing cows than what is found typically on dairy farms today. In addition, the ASAE standard underestimates manure and nutri= ent excretion from high producing cows and overestimates manure and nutrient excretion from dry cows, calves, and heifers since the estimates are based solely on body weight. After realizing the limitations of the ASAE standard, the ASAE and the Federation of Animal Science Societies teamed up to revise= the ASAE manure excretion values using data from contemporary diets and levels = of productivity. Data sets from several universities were pooled to derive estimates for lactating cows, dry cows, heifers, and calves (table 1).

The estimates of manure a= nd nutrient excretion can be improved at the farm level through the use of predictive equations that incorporate input variables, such as milk product= ion, dry matter intake, body weight, and dietary composition (table 2).

In most animal types, dry= matter intake and dietary composition were better predictors of excretion than bod= y weight or milk production. However, if dry matter intake or dietary information is unknown, then use of equations with the milk production input is better than use of the general table estimates. The researchers concluded that the impr= oved ability to predict manure and nutrient excretion is essential information f= or technical service providers and producers to consider when developing nutri= ent management plans.

—Heather Dann

dann@whminer.= com

SEAGULL REDUX

In the October Farm Re= port we wondered about the seagull being the Utah state bird. Aaron Gabriel, with Cooperative Extension in Washington County (NY), provided an explanation. Most of the facts are from the “Utah Historical Quarterly” while the extraneous comments are Ev’s.

When the Mormons first en= tered the Salt = Lake Valley in 1847 they first planted 2000 acres of winter wheat, then several thousand acres of corn and vegetables the following spring. May 1848 brought devasta= tion in the form of countless numbers of a voracious insect, later named the “Mormon” cricket for obvious reasons. The Mormon cricket (Anabrus simplex) isn’t a cricket = at all but a member of the katydid family, ugly as sin and as big as a man’s thumb. In June of that year relief arrived in the form of—you guessed it—seagulls. Swooping in from the Great Salt L= ake, they ate huge amounts of crickets, drank some water, puked up the old crick= ets and then ate more. They gobbled Mormon crickets for two weeks, saving many = of the crops. This became known as the “cricket war”, and later, putting a more positive spin on the event, the “miracle of the gulls”. In honor of this occasion the Californ= ia gull (Larus cali= fornicus) became the Utah state bird, and in 1913 = the Seagull Monument was erected on Temple Squa= re in Salt Lake City<= /st1:City>.

The seagulls didn’t= end the Mormon cricket problem: Almost 100 years after that first encounter, a Utah County Agent (Agricus p= ublicus) commented: “To date nothing has been tried that these insects won’t eat.” The seagulls return most years to eat crickets as w= ell as their new food staple, McDonald’s french fries, but they aren’t eating near= ly enough of them: As recently as 2004, almost 2.5 million acres in Utah were infest= ed with Mormon crickets.

—E.T.

ORGANIC MILK SHAKEUP THICKENS=

When we last visited the situation several 4000+ cow Western dairies had convert= ed to organic production to take advantage of the high “mailbox” p= rice for organic milk. Operators of small organic dairy farms (or about 99% of a= ll organic dairy farms) cried foul and filed a complaint with the USDA. Earlier this year Round One went to the small farms when USDA ruled that organic mi= lk must come from cows that graze in pastures during the growing season. Round= Two (at least temporarily) went to the large farms, which claimed that they pas= ture their cows, albeit a much smaller percent of the time on a lot less land per cow (one man’s dry lot is another man’s pasture) and continue to market organic milk.

USDA has been inundated by letters from organic dairy farmers (guess which ones)= and in response scheduled a hearing at its November 17, 2005 National Organic Standard Board meeting. This most likely won’t settle the issue once = and for all; stay tuned. In the meantime, consider the following: Is the object= ive of organic milk production to provide a livable income for a growing number= of pasture-based family farms that may not be able to survive on $12-14 milk? = Or, is the objective to produce organic milk as efficiently as possible, perhaps lowering the store price of organic milk from its current 100% premium over= the “regular stuff” and by doing so make it economical for middle a= nd low income families? Good arguments can be made for either case.=

MANURE ON ALFALFA<= /span>

Old wives’ tale: Don’t apply manure to alfalfa because it has nitrogen-fixing bacteria and if you apply manure they’ll die and when= the plant needs nitrogen again they won’t be there. This isn’t true: Alfalfa doesn’t need bacteria to fix nitrogen if it can get nitrogen = some other way, such as from topdressed manure. The bacteria are like some teenagers: They’ll work only if forced to. If = less manure N is applied than the alfalfa plant needs, the nitrogen-fixing bacte= ria will get back to work and the alfalfa will start making its own nitrogen ag= ain. Grass and corn are still the preferred crops for manure, but it’s bet= ter to spread the stuff around than to overload one crop and completely ignore another.

OUT WITH THE OLD...<= /span>

It’s nearing the end of the year so it’s desk-cleaning time for the Crops Dude; herewith a few items that didn’= ;t fit elsewhere:

·         Whatever genius designed the new Pioneer seed catalog must never have heard of file cabinets. All other seed catalogs fit nicely into a file folder, but does Pioneer’s? Nooooo= , they had to supersize theirs to 11” x 11”. Maybe the idea is to have farmers leave it out where they can see it. Mine is on the floor under my d= esk.

·         I’ve concluded that there are some advantages to getting old: People no longer view you as a hypochondriac, an= d in a hostage situation you’re likely to be released first. These pale, however, in comparison to getting a cup of coffee for half-price at McDonald’s.

·         Excuse me if I don’t get all nervous a= nd jerky over the latest environmental cause du jour, namely the carbon cycle and how agriculture needs to do its part. Based on what I’ve read, it = would take a heck of a lot of notill crops replacing = normal tillage to make even the tiniest dent in the carbon cycle.

·         Just wondering: How come Superman could stop speeding bullets with his chest, but always ducked when someone threw a gun= at him?

·         The Bride says that the only one of her chil= dren who didn’t grow up and move away is me. Wonder what she means by that= ?

<= o:p>

CHOOSING A FORAGE GRASS<= /o:p>

Yeah, you’re thinking that grass is a boring topic, but you might want to t= hink again. There’s been a tremendous increase in the number of cool season forage grass varieties on the market. Gone are the days when timothy meant Climax and bromegrass meant Saratoga. Grass varieties have gotten b= oth longer and shorter in maturity, to the point that in a recent Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> trial, the earliest orchardgrass variety (Centu= ry), headed one full month before the latest timothy variety (Climax).

The species you choose, as well as the variety within that species, should depe= nd on the intensity of your crop management as well as whether the grass will = be seeded alone or as a companion to alfalfa. Our frustrations with orchardgrass are well documented, but some far= mers who manage alfalfa aggressively seem happy with orchardgra= ss, the poor misguided souls. Our advice, should you choose to use this most difficult grass as a companion to alfalfa: Buy the latest-maturing orchardgrass variety you can find, and use an early-m= aturing alfalfa variety (preferably one with a fall dormancy rating of no less than= 4), and don’t call me when the orchardgrass overruns your alfalfa. Late-maturing orchardgrass varieties include Intensiv, DP6508, and LG 31. However, even the latest maturing orchardgrass variety may be headed before you’re ready to mow your alfalfa. Straig= ht orchardgrass is another story entirely, since you don’t have to worry about it maturing ahead of the alfalfa. Cut early= , orchardgrass can make high quality forage.=

There’s not a lot of maturity difference between reed canar= ygrass varieties, in most years a week or less, but canarygra= ss matches up pretty well with first cut alfalfa maturity. Just make sure you = buy a low-alkaloid variety. Canarygrass seed doesn’t hold germination well, so don’t buy old seed unless it’s been retested for spring 2006. There’s not much yield difference between the handful of low-alkaloid varieties on the market, including Marathon, Palaton and Bellvue.

Timothy maturity ranges from = quite early to really late, about a three-week range from the earliest to the latest varieties. Timothy tends to go to sleep for the summer, and second cut yiel= ds may be less than half of what second cut reed canarygr= ass will yield. One of the latest heading timothy varieties (well into June) is= Barmidi, while Climax is almost as late but doesnR= 17;t yield as well. High-yielding early varieties include Treasure and Talon.

Bromegrass doesn’t match up well with today’s intensive alfalfa-grass management. It matures early enough (similar to reed canarygrass) but doesn’t= like 30-35-day alfalfa-grass harvest intervals. For straight grass stands though= , bromegrass is a sod-former and with lenient harvest management can persist fairly well. Stay away from old-timer Saratoga though; it’s much lower yielding and a lot less persistent than newer varieties York and Peak.

The grass species that may be worth a look is tall fescue, which has been performing very well in Cornell trials. We seeded some alfalfa-tall fescue = this past spring and so far have been pleased with the results. It doesn’t take over the alfalfa, but neither does it take the summer off. In clear stands, yield and persistence have both been excellent. Tall fescue heads a= bit earlier than reed canarygrass, and so far there doesn’t appear to be a lot of maturity difference between varieties. = High yielding varieties include Select, Bull, and Enhance. If you’re tired= of your current grass variety and are looking for something new, give tall fes= cue a try.

—E.T.

NOTABLE QUOT= ES: BILL COSBY

·=       = “A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stu= pid ones that need the advice.”

·=       = “Human beings are the only creature= s on earth that allow their children to come back home.”

·=       = “Let us now set forth one of the fundamental truths about marriage: The wife is in charge.”=

·  &n= bsp;     “I am not the boss of my house. I don't know when I lost it. I don't know if I ever had it. But I have seen the boss's job and I do not wa= nt it.”

·=       = “That married couples can live toge= ther day after day is a miracle the Vatican has overlooked.”

&= nbsp;

AGRICULTURE SURVIVES ELECTION= DAY 2005

November 8 was (mercifully) quiet for U.S. agriculture. The only significant farm-related initiative on ballots was an initiative to ban genetically modified crops in Sonoma County, California. Two California counties have already ban= ned GMOs, but they’re not agricultural counties whi= le Sonoma County most definitely is. The measure was defeated by a 56% to 44% vote.

GMOs certainly are big business: Worldwide acreage o= f GM crops increased by 20% from 2003 to 2004, with almost 60% of this acreage in the U.S.= Total value of GM crops is almost = $5 billion, with corn and soybeans representing 88% of the acreage.=

LOCATING LIVESTOCK

We recently read an interesting publication by Winrock International: “Environmental and Other Factors Influencing Location Decisions of Livestock Operations.” The authors considered several factors influencing the likelihood of a farm locating in a particular state, including the regulatory environment, business climate, weather conditions = and the existing extent and importance of agriculture in that state. While they included hogs, dairy and beef, for obvious reasons we’ll focus on dai= ry farms.

Between 1975 and 2000 the= western 40% of the U.S. has been in what the authors call a pattern of augmentation (more dairy cows), while the rest of the U.S. has been in a period of attrition. This isn’t exactly news. However, the two states rated wit= h the highest likelihood of being selected for dairy production were Wisconsin (O= K) and Alabama (Huh?). Least likely states included all of New England except Vermont. The cha= nges in dairy cow numbers haven’t been small, either: During this period the = Rocky Mountain and Far West states averaged a 60% incre= ase in cow numbers, the Southwest gained 5%, while the other regions suffered 22 to 49% decreases.

YOUR TAX DOL= LARS AT WORK

The Northern N.Y. Agricul= tural Development Program has funded $400,000 of research and other agricultural activities for 2005-06. This coming year’s projects have something for almost everyone. A partial list includes:

·         Manure and nitrogen management on dairy farm= s.

·         Soil health and conservation agriculture.

·         Alfalfa snout beetle survey, biocontrol and breeding genetically resistant varieties.

·         Corn, small grain and grass variety trials.<= /p>
·         Swath management for hay crop silage.

·         Cropping systems for organic grains.

·         Using grasses for biofu= el.

·         Options for meat animal marketing in Northern NY.

·         Cold-country wine grape production.

·         Improving sugar maple tree growth.

Two projects that will be done at Miner Institute a= re:

·         The effect of cutting height on alfalfa yield and quality.

·         Copper sulfate in manure: Effect on plant gr= owth and soil copper.

= ;

COMINGS AND GOINGS

We note with sadness the passing of Roger Palmer, associate professor at the <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">University of Wisconsin, following a long battle= with cancer. Roger was guest speaker at the Miner Institute Dairy Day two years = ago, and was a recognized authority on dairy systems management.

On a personal note: Matt Thomas (Ev’s #2 son= ), who was involved in crops consulting in this region until recently, is a proud first-time father: Nathaniel, Nov. 8, 7# 3 oz., in <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Allentown, PA. Nathan and mother Peg (former Summer Experience in Farm Management student here) are both doing fine.

RESEARCH SUMMARIES=

<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>·        Ohio State University research conclu= ded that pasture yields were 23% higher when quackgrass= and white clover were grown together vs. either species being grown alone. = The OSU agronomists aren’t recommending propagation of quackgrass, but they say that quack is compatible with other pasture species. We would = add that quackgrass doesn’t winterkill, nothi= ng ever crowds it out, it tolerates a wide variety of soil drainage conditions including flooding, and those rugged rhizomes make it a great soil conserva= tion crop.

<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>·        Glyphosate resistant weeds are a problem in some states, but according to universi= ty and USDA reports there hasn’t been a confirmed case any closer than <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">New Jersey. Pennsylvania, New York, and all of New England are—so far—free from weeds resistant to Roundup and similar products. The be= st way to prevent weed resistance is to rotate crops and/or herbicides, and to apply label recommended rates of herbicides. Less-than-label recommended ra= tes can increase the chances of weeds developing resistance.

<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>·        Dairy scientists at the University of British Columbia found that stall width ha= d an impact on stall usage. Cows with access to both 44” and 52” wid= th stalls spent 42 more minutes each day lying down in the wider stalls. Also,= the cows had a greater tendency to stand with just their front legs in the narr= ower stalls. The researchers concluded that cows don’t like contact with s= tall dividers. Next time you’re in the Miner Institute dairy barn (with our 50+” wide stalls) and make a lame joke about them being big enough for two cows, remember this study.

&nbs= p;

CALENDAR EVENTS

http:= //www.whminer.com/calendar.html

NITROGEN FERTILIZER N= EWS

·         There’s recent controversy regarding the “correct” nitrogen rates for corn. Richard Mulvaney, a University of Illinois agronomist, says that the current formula used to estimate fertilizer N needs is wrong. What Corn Belt farmers have been using is: Nitrogen rate= =3D (predicted yield in bushels) – (crop and manure credits) x 1.2. For instance, for continuous corn (no crop or manure credit), 150 bu/A corn needs (150 – 0) x 1.2 =3D 180 lbs N/A= . This formula assumes that high yielding land needs more N, which Mulvaney says simply isn’t true because it doesn’t take into account the= mineralizable N in the soil.

·         The natural gas crisis caused (or at least made worse) by this fall’s hurricanes is reverberating throughout the fertilizer industry, with most of the angst in nitrogen fertilizers. Domestic production of nitr= ogen fertilizer represents about half of total <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">U.S. supply. However, three o= f the nation’s largest nitrogen fertilizer companies have announced product= ion capacity reductions of 50% or more; this on top of U.S. 17 ammonia plants t= hat have closed permanently since 1998. There have been past threats that farme= rs wouldn’t be able to get fertilizer for spring planting, but most have been transportation-related. While some of this could be fertilizer industry hyperbole in an effort to get natural gas drilling restrictions eased, the situation certainly isn’t good. Sky-high nitrogen fertilizer prices w= ill most likely dampen demand a bit, but as of now it looks like the N supply situation will be extremely tight.

FARM FACTS

Below are the “feel good” facts that the non-farming pu= blic loves to read about.

·         There are 2.1 million farms in the U.S., a= veraging 441 acres each.

·         67% of farms are owned by the principal oper= ator and another 26% are partly owned by the principal operator, leaving only 7%= of farms operated by a tenant.

·         Family farms account for 90% of U.S. fa= rms and 66% of total farm land.

These are a bit more sobering:

·         63% of U.S. farms are little more th= an “homes in the country” because the owners depend heavily on off-farm income.

·         79% of farms have gross sales under $50,000,= and most of these probably show a net loss on their IRS Schedule F.

&nbs= p;

Closing Comment

When a man opens the door of his car for his wife, you= can be sure of one thing: either the car is new or the wife is.

=

<= /span>

<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

&nbs= p;

&nbs= p;

&nbs= p;

&nbs= p;