WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

Winter has once again settled in at Heart’s Delight Farm. “Settled in” is perhap= s too gentle a term; actually it landed with a subzero thud. Only those of us living close to C= anada, where the metric system is the only (legal) system, have any reason to know that minus 40°F and minus 40°C are the same temperature—reall= y, really cold, eh?

We’ve mostly rebuilt the section of the old (1970) dairy barn that was lost in a = late November fire, using our own maintenance and dairy farm staff. The manure ram was damaged but not completely destroyed, and we’re in the process of repairing it. This will be a slow process, so we won’t be using it for several months.

In December we had a few cases of pneumonia in our dry cows, but the milking h= erd is doing just fine: 272 cows milking an average of 91 lbs, 190 days in milk. We had 27 calves born in November and 30 in December, helping our barn crew to stave off boredom. Of these, 6% were born dead (2005 = average a bit under 9%), both pretty good numbers.= First calf heifers are 40% of the herd, mostly because of our 2005 expansion. Somatic cell count= is still hanging around 110,000 but we’re getting some teat end damage a= nd decided to switch brands of inflations—waiting to see if this was the right move. Repro is still a = bit of a struggle, but is slowly improving with a pregnancy rate of 15%.

—Steve Couture, couture@w= hminer.com

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

WESTERN ALFALFA HAY

A Learning Experience

Nothing like some western alfalfa hay to get people riled up here at the Institute. Now that we’= re at capacity, milking about 280 cows, our forage inventories are rather tight, = most notably alfalfa and grass/alfalfa milker haylage. Going into the 2005 crop year we decided that if need be we would purchase some h= igh quality hay to supplement our milking rations, the thought being to feed 2-3 lbs of dry hay which would make up for 8-9 lbs of hayl= age.

We spoke with our nutritionist who knew of a good source of 2005 first cut wes= tern alfalfa hay that tested 24% CP, RFV 180.&n= bsp; I only mention the RFV because that was how it was being marketed to us. The high RFV simply indic= ates relatively low ADF and NDF values. The actual lab analysis for this hay that we saw before purchasing w= as CP 23.5%, ADF 29.0%, NDF 34.8%, TDN 67.7 and NEl 0.70 Mcal. We heard supplies of this quality of hay were scarce, so we bought it.

Upon the hay’s arrival, the Crop Dude and Lab Guy immediately went to insp= ect the forage and sample it for analysis. To our surprise, the premium hay loo= ked like it had seen its prime in the field. It was mottled brown and green as though the windrows had sat in the field too long, getting sun bleached on = top while preserving the bright green tissues below (see photo). Stems were qui= te prominent, but the hay was still quite leafy. Crop Dude was disgusted, while Lab Guy reserved judgment until he could analyze a sample but more importan= tly we wanted to hear from Steve Couture whether this hay could make milk.

Adding intrigue to the situation was the wide range of analyses we obtained from f= our different labs. Table 1 shows the analyses of this hay from the labs by method of analysis, NIR ver= sus wet chemistry. This exercise clearly indicates what happens in the field wh= en comparing different lab analyses and trying to balance rations or make purchasing decisions: Chaos.

Quite a disparity in analysis by the four labs, but a good case to consider why. First and most important was obtaining a representative sample of = the hay without losing the leaves and getting disproportionately more stem. Each lab was sent a sample taken by different pe= ople at different times, except for the two wet chemistry labs that analyzed the same sample. This does not explain the 4.9 unit difference in CP! Much of t= he difference is likely due to sampling technique. Second is the variation due to NIR= vs. wet chemistry methods. The original analysis used to make the purchase deci= sion was from a reputable, NFTA certified lab using NIR analysis, clearly stated= on the forage report. A perfectly acceptable analysis, although rather sparse with = the information. It would = have been nice to know the NFC and NSC values to gauge the soluble carbohydrate content of the forage and NDF digestibility would also have been helpful. T= he low NDF value of 34.8 %, which drives the RFV value up, appears to stick out compared to the other three lab NDFs of 39-43%. Without making any accusations it should be noted that the Western lab used= by the hay marketer had the lowest fiber values. Lastly, the low NDFd30 values (38.2 NIR and 34.7 wet chem.) may indicate that this western hay was not as digestible as we had hoped. Typically alfalfa hay will have an NDFd = 30 of 40% or greater.

According to Steve (Farm Manager) the hay fed well and certainly fit into a well-bala= nced TMR. Whether it was “the” critical ingredie= nt pushing us to our current production levels…difficult to say.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We’re feeding a lot of good = forage right now. We have since purc= hased some high quality processed alfalfa hay locally, which seems to be working quite well.

—Kurt Cotanch=

cotanch@whminer.com

WEBSITE ADDITIONS

· We’ve put a few of our recent PowerPoint programs on our webs= ite, under the “Research” tab. Some of these are big files, so if you have a dial-up Internet connection you’ll need to be patient while th= ey download.

· The “Search” tab on our website is now up and running.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It will get you to the Google sear= ch engine, where you enter a key word or two. For instance, if you enter ̶= 0;mycotoxins” you’ll get a list of 12 Miner Institute Farm Report articles and Research Reports containing this key wor= d. (You can also choose to search the entire World Wide Web, in which case you’ll get a tidy list of 592,000 articles containing the word “= ;mycotoxins”.)

CORN SILAGE HYBRID TRIAL RESULTS

1. = Cornell University has published its results including two trials in Nor= thern NY—Madrid and Miner Institute. If youR= 17;d like a copy either contact your local N.Y. Coope= rative Extension office, Bill Cox, 607-255-1758 or wjc3@cornell.edu or Ev.

2. = Heather Darby from University of Vermont Extension has published the results of her silage trial in NW Vermont. It’s availab= le online at http://pss.uvm.edu/vtcr= ops or from Heather at (802) 524-6501.

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

New Year and New Opportunities

As I write this article for the Farm Report, it’s January 2, 2006. With the start of each new year I like to pause and reflect on the tremendous= array of opportunities (pessimists would say challenges) that confront the dairy industry. I’m an optimi= st who sees opportunities, in part, because as a dairy scientist I see all of the innovative research coming down the road.&= nbsp; Scientific advances in dairy food processing, dairy management, physiology, nutrition, and genetics will all contribute to improved dairy production systems in the future. A perfect illustration of dairy research advances can be found in the latest issue of the Journal of Dairy Science. A quick scan of the papers provides = us with the following information:

· Cornell University researchers explained= an approach that cheddar cheese manufacturers may use to remove serum proteins from milk for improved functional properties and cheese yields.<= /span>

· Fat byproduct of soybean oil refining shortened the days to first ovulation in a University= of Florida trial. F= atty acids and lecithins also can improve milk yield= based on previous University of Nebraska researc= h.

· Physical characteristics of stall bedding such as absorptive capaci= ty and bulk density determine the ammonia emissions from the barn. Sand and pi= ne shavings provided the least ammonia emissions (United Kingdom and Wisconsin study).

· Recycled sand bedding is a safe and acceptable bedding material = 211; this paper from the Unive= rsity of Pennsylvania exp= lains the best way to recycle sand.

· Ohio State University research detailed an optimal method for processing and feeding cottonseed that improved dairy performance.

· Long-day photoperiod (16 h light: 8 h dark) promoted lean growth ra= te in dairy heifers, accelerated puberty, and did not limit body size. Use of long-day photoperiod schemes should increase the entry of heifers into the milking herd without sacrificing milk yield (Illinois research).<= /p>

· The energy content of the postfresh die= t has a greater effect on metabolic status than the prefresh= diet, according to Univer= sity of Wisconsin resear= chers. Contrary to popular belief, hoof health was improved by increasing the concentrate content of the diet immediately postpartum versus waiting until= 3 weeks postpartum.

· Garlic oil and its constituents improve the efficiency of rumen mic= robial fermentation (Spanish research). Could these compounds have a future role as effective feed additives?

· Wisconsin researchers reported = on a corn silage fragmentation index that improves our ability to estimate starch digestibility in corn silage and better formulate diets.<= /p>

All of this information is from only one month’s issue of only one journal among scores of scientific journals in the agricultural sciences! Throughout the next year, our goal= will be to continue bringing you the latest in scientific advances, from the Institute and elsewhere, that you can use to imp= rove the profitability of your dairy enterprise.

— Rick Grant

grant@whminer.com <= /i>

SOIL ANALYSIS: Pick a Lab and Stick with It (even if you’re stuck with = the tab!)

It’s tempting to have your fertilizer dealer pay for your soil analysis (especia= lly with what you’ll probably be paying him for fertilizer this year), bu= t it may not be your best move unless you buy your fertilizer from the same deal= er every year, and he sends your soil samples to the same lab every year. You = can learn a lot from soil test results if you use the same lab each time. =

Soil test labs use any of several soil extractants t= hat can produce very different results. For instance, a soil test P of 40 lbs/a= cre can be “Very High” or “Very Low” depending on which soil extractant the lab uses. One extractant isn’t necessarily better than another, they’re simply…well, different. While soil test labs will usual= ly make fertilizer recommendations based on the soil analysis, these range from reasonably good to simply awful. (Cornell’s is in the “reasonab= ly good” category; even better than that because its recommendations are based on New York= crop response research and not some unproven theory of soil nutrient availability.) But even the best soil test-generated fertilizer recommendat= ion is a generalization that with a little work can be fine-tuned to your farm.=

At Miner Institute we’ve used the Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratory e= ver since the 1970s. We’ve used several other labs as part of soil analys= is studies, confirming how confusing it is to compare results between labs. By using the same lab each year you can make your soil analyses a moving pictu= re rather than a snapshot. Example: Field # 10 has a potassium reading of 150 = lbs per acre on the Cornell soil test. However, what a single soil analysis doesn’t tell you is whether that’s 1= 50 lbs and holding about steady, 150 lbs and increasing rapidly, or 150 lbs and decreasing rapidly. Which of these it is may indicate whether you should increase, decrease, or leave unchanged the rate of potassium you’ve b= een applying—regardless of whether that was based on a soil analysis, your fertilizer dealer’s unbiased (?) recommendation, or “What Dad always used”. However, if you have several soil analyses on a field f= rom the same lab (at least one soil test every 3 years is required by CAFO plans and is a good idea anyway), you can tell in which direction soil fertility = is headed and make more informed decisions.

Don’t be worried about small changes in soil test values: I wouldn’t change past fertilizer application rates unless the analysis has increased or decreased by more than 20% or so. Small differences are probably at least in part due to sampling error…although “error” is a harsh te= rm considering that in a 10-acre field one pound of soil sample represents 20 million pounds of soil! But if, for instance, potassium levels on your farm= are on a steady slide that’s a sign that changes are needed. More often, = what we find are steadily increasing soil test P levels, indicating that you may= be able to significantly reduce fertilizer P purchases.

Another reason to save old analyses is when a strange number pops up on your latest soil analysis. For example: Soil pH was 7.0 for the prior two soil tests, b= ut this time is 6.2. Should you apply lime, or is the low pH due to either sampling or (much less frequently) lab error? If you have prior soil analys= es on this field that show a high pH, you might do another pH test rather than spread 2 tons/A of lime on the field. Stuff like this really happens: The pH tests over a 12-year period on one of Miner Institute’s fields are 7.= 0--7.2--6.9--6.6--7.3--7.3. The year that the pH test was 6.6, Cornell’s recommendation was to ap= ply 1 ton of lime per acre. We didn’t apply any lime, and judging from the two following pH tests it’s a good thing we didn’t! Soil test K= can bounce around from test to test because crop removal of this nutrient can be very high. However, soil pH and soil test P don’t change much from ye= ar to year, so be particularly suspicious of a reading that based on past anal= yses just doesn’t seem to make any sense.

—E.T.<= /span>

VET’S CORNER: Employee Incentives

Labor management is not a topic that dairy producers commonly associate with their herd health veterinarian, but Gregory Billikopf= threw some challenges our way during his recent agriculture labor management semi= nar at Miner Institute.

Few employee incentive practices have improved farm performance in our experien= ce. For farms seeking to improve reproductive performance, a common incentive i= s to pay $2-5 to the employee who identifies a cow in heat that becomes pregnant= . In those herds, on pregnancy check day it’s common to be presented with several five months pregnant cows that were identified as “in heat= 221; by an aggressive employee seeking the $2-5 reward. Accuracy of heat detecti= on is not rewarded by this incentive, so an excessive number of cows are prese= nted for breeding in hopes that they will actually be in heat. Few additional pregnancies are pro= duced, and some may be lost due to passing an A. I. gun through a pregnant cervix.=

Likewise, rewards for lowering SCC count are used. But there are several reasons that= SCC can drop besides better employee performance. The farm owner/manager deserv= es the reward if she decided to change from a 2X to 3X milking schedule, or the improvement may be due to improved weather conditions that are outside the employees’ control. The farm manager may have decided to cull a few chronic mastitis cows that lowered bulk tank SCC, and should not pay an employee bonus for the decision.

Instead of rewarding on the basis of some of these popular benchmark endpoints, it = may benefit the dairy more directly to reward employees on the basis of their adoption of specific processes that will lead to a better endpoint. This is where the consulting veterinarian can assist.

In the case of rewarding for improved reproductive performance, it is often difficult to find the cause for the poor performance. A common start is to implement a reproductive hormone protocol, i.e. presyn= ch. Instead of rewarding for more pregnancies, wouldn’t it be fairer to compensate the employee who makes sure that 100% of the cows actually got t= he shots and were bred on time? Compliance with the protocol can be monitored = by the herd health vet on a variety of consultant DHIA software programs.        &= nbsp;

Improved maternity pen management has been stressed in past Farm Reports. Monitoring= the mortality rate of calves and/or serum protein levels of newborn calves coul= d be used to reward employees who take the time to watch cows in labor and feed = colostrum immediately to newborn calves.

Several possibilities exist on the farm for incentive pay ideas for employees. If t= he farm decides to invest energy in a new process to improve herd health, the veterinarian could provide monitors to see if the workers’ compliance deserves additional compensation.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

cowdoc@adelphia.net

ALFALFA WINTERKILL: OF ICE AND MEN

During my first bumbling years as an Extension Agent I accurately forecast severe winterkill two years—nailed, it, baby. Unfortunately, I inaccurately forecast severe winterkill six times (some of us bumble longer than others) including four years where alfalfa came through the winter in absolutely terrific shape. My six years of dire predictions were because of what (reportedly) causes alfalfa winterkill:

·        Cold weather—Temperatures below about 10°F can damage alfalfa roots a= nd crowns.

·        Limited snow cover—Snow insulates alfalfa plants.

·        Ice sheeting—Ice sheets can smother alfalfa stands and can also cause freezing damage due to the poor insulating properties of ice.

·        Aggressive harvest management—Frequent harvests can stress alfalfa, especially if there’s been a short harvest interval prior to a fall cutting.

·        Wet fall conditions—This increases the chance of frost heaving.

·        Winter hardiness (genetics)—Alfalfa varieties differ greatly in their winter hardiness, which is not the same as fall dormancy.

·        Low soil fertility—Potassium is alfalfa’s antifreeze. <= /p>

The discerning reader (that’s you) will probably conclude that almost eve= ry winter we have conditions that are bad for alfalfa. However, unless those blue-flowered trifoliate plants are some sort of mutant species, most years alfalfa survives the ravages of winter just fine, thank you.

I no longer make alfalfa winter survival predictions, having concluded long a= go that I couldn’t find the pea in the winterkill shell game if you spot= ted me the first two shells. However, we can separate the above causative facto= rs into two categories: Those we can influence, and those we cannot. We can’t do much about cold weather, fall precipitation, snow depth or i= ce sheets. But we can practice proper fall harvest management, select alfalfa varieties with good winterhardiness, and mainta= in adequate soil fertility.

ORGANIC DAIRYING? NOT SO FAST

There’s a good market for organic milk at about twice the price of “regular” milk. The farmers producing this milk are sharing in = the premium price, receiving about $23.00 per hundredweight according to a rece= nt study by the Universities of Vermont and Maine. The 30 farms included in the study, averaging 48 cows/f= arm, received net income in 2004 of about $22,000 per farm. This doesn’t s= eem like much when you consider how much hard work dairy farming requires—organic or conventional. Even more discouraging, after a charge for the owner’s labor and management, the organic farms returned a negative 3% return on equity.

We’re certainly not opposed to organic milk production, or anything for that matt= er that increases dairy sales. However, in spite of the glowing farmer testimonials we sometimes read in the farm press, it’s obvious that t= he move to organic milk production isn’t an automatic license to start printing money. We have no doubt that the best-managed organic dairy farms = are doing very well indeed, but the message is clear: It’s tough to make a decent living in dairy farming (organic or otherwise) by just being average= .

SOYBEAN RUST: 2006 OUTLOOK

Soybeans aren’t a big crop in the Northeast, but since we feed a lot of soybean meal the Asian soybean rust situation should be of interest. In 2005 rust turned out to be a tempest in a teapot, but that doesn’t mean soybean= growers can let their guards down. For one thing, the rust is now established in Georgia= and even a bit North of there. Rust certainly has the potential to be much worse in 2006 since it’s overwintering in Florida on kudzu= (a weed you should be happy doesn’t grow this far North). Will rust be a prob= lem in the Midwest this year? Tough to say; = it won’t overwinter that far North so rust spores would have to blow up = from the deep South, Central or South America or the Caribbean, and early enough= in the growing season to make a difference. It may turn out that the Asian soy= bean rust will be a problem in the Midwest on= ly in the occasional year when all conditions are “go”.

DAIRY NOTES

·        In 2004 U.S.= milk sales on a per-capita basis declined for the 15th straight year. In 19= 90 were consuming 25.4 gallons of milk per person, while now we’re down = to 21.1 gallons. This slide isn’t likely to end anytime soon since the proportion of racial groups that are more lactose intolerant is steadily increasing.

·        But the news isn’t all bad: Exports of U.S. dairy products co= uld exceed last year’s records, with both the amount and value well above year-earlier totals. Exports represent a bit over 7% of U.S. mi= lk production. And in this case, the future looks good since it’s expect= ed that worldwide dairy product demand will exceed supply.
·        Surprise, surprise, the MILC program has risen<= /span> from the ashes. The two-year extension is similar to the original in that t= he “trigger” is still $16.94/cwt (Class I Boston), 2.4 million lb. limit, but this time the payment is only 34% of the difference between $16.= 94 and the actual price. In the previous program it was 45%.=

INTERPRETING MANURE ANALYSES

Since emptying manure pits is an annual fall activity in much of the Northeast, it’s obvious that a significant portion of a dairy farm’s manur= e is applied six months or more before any crop will use it. This isn’t id= eal soil fertility management, but on many farms it’s= essential farm management. CAFO nutrient management plans require that all manure sources be analyzed at least once each year. This has resulted in so= me farmers staring for the first time at a manure analysis. Phosphorus and potassium analyses are simple—what you see is what you get, but interpreting nitrogen analyses is more involved.

Most manure analyses include both ammonia and organic sources of N. Guidelines on manure N availability differ, and are being revised as more accurate method= s of measurement become available. However, for fall applications little or none= of the ammonia N in fall applied manure—whether left on top or immediate= ly plowed down—is available to the following year’s crop. Furtherm= ore, only about 35% of the organic N in slurry manure is available to the next year’s crop.

Let’s assume that this past fall you applied 5000 gallons/acre of slurry manure containing 32 lbs total N per 1000 gallons; of this, 16 lbs was ammonium N = and 16 lbs was organic N. Therefo= re, while you applied 160 lbs of total N, the 80 lbs of ammonia N is unavailable for next year’s corn crop (it’s gone forever), and 35% x 16 lbs= x 5 thousand gallons =3D 28 lbs of the organic N is available in 2006. ThatR= 17;s only 17.5% of the total N in the manure. However, about 12% of the organic N you applied in last year’s manure is available. If you applied the sa= me rate and analysis of manure the previous year, that’s another (12% x = 16 x 5) =3D 10 lbs of organic N for a total of 38 lbs. If recent research is pro= ven reliable, even these modest numbers may be a bit high. This isn’t good news what with sky-high N fertilizer prices, but it’s better to know what’s happening and why than to wonder what happened.

—E.T.<= /span>

WE’VE BEEN READING

The relaxed office schedule during the Christmas holiday allowed for some catch= ing up on farm magazine reading. Two things that stuck with us:<= /p>
·        We heard much about what Hurricane Katrina did to New Orleans, but the effects on agricul= ture were devastating. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wreaked havoc on Louisiana’s sugarcane industry, ruining thousands of acres of recently planted cane. Si= nce sugarcane is a perennial this is particularly damaging. Rita was worse than Katrina since it flooded farmland that hadn’t seen a flood in 100 yea= rs.

·        Katrina affected anyone driving a car or heating a home, but it also affected rail movement of grains all the way to Nebraska. After Katrina the rail rates= to ship corn from Nebraska to Mexico = were almost as much as the farm price of the corn. While the gulf region slowly recovers, shipping grain from Illinois t= o the Gulf of Mexico costs almost as much as shipping it to Japan. =

SEASONAL TRENDS IN FERTILIZER PRICES

The following carries some risk: For you, in case the Crops Dude is way wrong; = and for the C.D. depending on how mad you get at him when you realize how much money following his suggestions may have cost you. Cowardly disclaimer: The= se are based on past fertilizer trends and may not foretell what will happen in 2006.

·        Phosphate prices usually decline a few percent following spring planting. Therefore, if you’re going to do some summer seeding and wi= ll need phosphate fertilizer, wait until July to purchase it. You’ll probably save $10 or so per ton on the fertilizer, and you won’t have your money tied up for an extra 6 months or so.

·        Urea prices decline even more from winter to midsummer, though most= N is applied in the spring (topdressing grass) and very early summer (sidedressing corn) so there’s probably limited opportunity for savings here.

·        Wholesale potassium prices increased 17% from fall 2004 to spring 2= 005, from September to October plummeted 17%, then increased 12% from October to November. With these changes even I’m n= ot crazy enough to recommend when you should buy potash. At Miner Institute we’ve purchased all our fertilizer needs except potash; we’ll w= ait until next summer to buy potash since by then we’ll know how much slu= rry manure we’ve applied to our alfalfa-grass fields.
—E.T.<= /span>

COMPUTERS AND THE INTERNET

We mail our Farm Report to over 500 U.S. addresses. (It reaches s= everal thousand addresses, in part or in whole, via cooperators in Canada and Japan.) However, a lot more than 500 peopl= e read our newsletter on line each month, and these numbers continue to grow. The on-line version is posted on our website several days before the mailed cop= ies reach their final destination.

While it doesn’t make much difference to us which version you read, if you don’t already have a computer and access to the Internet, isn’t= it about time you did? There are many options for both hardware and Internet access, as you know from watching TV. (If you don’t have a TV you’re a hopeless Luddite. If necessary look this word up in a dictionary, then stop reading right here and turn off your kerosene lantern. Don’t forget the chamberpot.)<= /span>

As we reported, the web edition of the Farm Report is now searchable by enteri= ng a key word or key phrase. But beyond that, there’s no profession better served by the Internet than agriculture. Whether itR= 17;s up-to-the-minute crop prices, weather forecasts including live radar, where= to buy almost any farm product, or how many feet of snow those poor sods in Oswego have, you = can find it on the Internet.

CONTRIBUTORS’ THUMBNAIL SKETCHES

One of our subscribers suggested that once each year we provide our readers with brief biographical sketches of the more-or-less regular contributors to the Farm Report. So here they are, in alphabetical order:

Kurt Cotanch= —A.K.A. “L= ab Guy”, Kurt has worked in the dairy industry since 1981: On farms, in a cheese plant, in the feed industry, managing the UVM forage lab, and since = 2001 as Director of our forage lab. His responsibilities include the CPM v. 3.0 = feed dictionary; current research includes NDF digestibility and physically effective fiber. His primary focus is providin= g a practical perspective to research and forage analysis. He continues to milk cows part-time as well as coach youth sports.

Steve Couture—Prior to assuming responsibilities as Dairy Farm Manager in March 2005, Steve wor= ked on a variety of farms beginning with a 3500-acre cash crop farm that includ= ed 3000 sheep. He spent most of the next 20+ years as herdsman on increasingly larger dairy farms, from 200 to 1450 cows. In 1989 Steve purchased a herd of cows and rented a farm for two years, so he knows dairy farming from both t= he operator and employee perspectives.

Heather Dann= —Heather's resea= rch while earning her Ph.D. at the University of Illinois focused= on the nutritional physiology of dairy cows during late gestation and early lactation. She came here on a two-year “post-doc” but proved so useful that we hired her. Her current interests as Research Associate inclu= de forage chemistry, nutritional physiology of dairy cattle, and the interaction betw= een dairy cattle nutrition and the environment.

Wanda Emerich—As Dairy Outrea= ch Coordinator, Wanda is responsible for the coordination of Miner Institute’s educational programs for students, farmers, and agribusin= ess organizations. She’s responsible for leadership of the Summer Experie= nce in Farm Management and coordinates the one-semester Advanced Dairy Manageme= nt course. Wanda also participates in Jersey breed association activities and is Cattle Superintendent for the Clinton County Fair and the Champlain Valley Exposition.

Rick Grant—President of Mi= ner Institute since 2003, prior to that Rick was a professor of ruminant nutrit= ion and Extension Dairy Specialist at the University of Nebra= ska. His primary areas of interest include forage and nonfo= rage sources of fiber, carbohydrate nutrition, and dairy cattle behavior. Rick’s primary role is to provide leadership to Institute staff as th= ey work toward the common goal of optimizing the crop-animal interface through research and educational programs.

Kent Henderson<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>—The only “non-Miner Institute” contributor, Kent is President of Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc., a seven-person dairy practice locate= d in St. Albans. Interests include reproduction/embryo transfer programs, parasitology, and calf and replacement heifer rearing.&n= bsp; He was a consulting veterinarian from 1995-99 for Formula One, the l= ast veal feed company in Vermont, and raised Registered Holstein heifers from frozen embryo to springer stage from 1989 to 19= 97. Kent is= the veterinarian for the Institute dairy herd.

Ev<= i> Thomas—A.K.A. “C= rop Dude”, Ev has worked as an agronomist in Northeastern = N.Y. since 1966, as a regional Extension Specialist for Cornell University and s= ince 1981 for Miner Institute. His responsibilities as Vice President--Agricultu= ral Programs include research, education, and the Institute’s crop progra= m. He’s the Farm Report editor, and is responsible for most of the items= not attributed to one of the other writers.

THE STRESS DIET

Another holiday season has come and gone, leaving a number of us a few pounds heavi= er. With this in mind, The Stress Diet:

BREAKFAST

½ grapefruit

1 piece unbuttered whole-wheat toast

8 oz. skim milk

LUNCH

4 oz. lean broiled chicken breast

1 cup steamed zucchini

1 Oreo cookie

8 oz. skim milk

MID-AFTERNOON SNACK

Rest of the package of Oreos

1 qt. Rocky Road ice cream

1 jar hot fudge

8 oz. skim milk

DINNER

1 loaf garlic bread

Large pepperoni pizza

3 Milky Ways

Entire frozen cheesecake

8 oz. skim milk

CHRISTMAS AND CARTS

On Christmas Eve day I found myself sitting in the parking lot of a large grocery store = in St Albans. Normally I would be the one to be in the= store shopping, but this day found me in the car babysitting a 3 month old Basset hound puppy. The parking lot was abuzz with last minute pre-holiday shopper= s, people and shopping carts moving in all directions. Fortunately, I was seat= ed in a position to view two of the shopping cart return corrals, those iron structures that take up spaces in the middle of the parking lot so we can “return” our shopping carts without having to make the commitme= nt of returning them all the way back to the store.

Soon a middle-aged woman was returning her cart to one of these corrals, moving = at quite a clip, when she suddenly picked up speed, stepped into the cart hand= le bar and with full extension of arm, wrist and finger tips following through= to the target, released her cart toward the corral from a good 5 feet away. Th= is woman was moving; in fact I think she was back in her vehicle before the cr= ash of her cart against the iron framing of the corral was heard. I thought that this was an interesting behavior from a demur looking woman. Profiling on my part…perhaps. A second woman of similar age and appearan= ce approached from the opposite direction, also shoving her cart from afar into the cart corral. Hmmm, two for two. The third cart was returned by a middle aged male who promptly organized the askew carts and nested his within those two and gent= ly put the three carts deep into the cart corral. At this point I had to keep score.

I broke down the cart returns into two categories, “neat” or “shove”. A “neat” return was an orderly placement of the cart within the corral. A “shove” was a release of the cart prior to the front = end of the cart breaking the plane of the corral opening. Given that the average shopping cart is about 3 feet long, the release point had to be a minimum o= f 3 feet from the corral mouth. T= he dependent variable was gender: Male or female. Sample size was nearly equal, with 11 males and 12 females returning carts within a 20-minute span of observations. (That alone is worthy of commentary: Who’s out shopping= on one of the busiest days of the year.) The table shows th= at a slight majority of males (55%) were conscientious about returning their car= ts in an orderly manner. The females, at 75%, resoundingly preferred to reckle= ssly shove their carts into the corral.

At the risk of being politically incorrect, here are some possible explanations for these findings.

1. = The males, stereotypically, may have greater concern and compassion= for borrowed equipment, whether it be a chainsaw or shopping cart and thus exhi= bit due regard to the care and use of said hardware.

2. = The females may have chosen to shove their carts based on the urgen= cy of the day, knowing that they would be responsible for making the holidays a success and that time was of the essence in order to get everything done. <= o:p>

3. = The males may have been sent to the store to get them out of the ho= use; or may have been there by choice just to get out of the house, and were in = no hurry.

4. = The females, having greater experience with grocery shopping and he= nce greater appreciation for the durability of the average steel shopping cart, understood the forces of collision that the cart could withstand, thereby allowing them to enjoy the physical exertion of the shove and violent cart-corral contact.

5. = Feel free to read any behavioral generality you wish into this male= vs. female phenomenon. But beware: There are some tough women out in the parking lot.

—K.C.<= /span>

IN VITRO USES AND MISUSES<= /p>

The Ohio State University’s Bill Weiss recently had these comments on in vitro NDF digestibility (IVNDF= D):

· Some comparisons of corn silage samples with big differences in IVN= DFD have found no difference in net energy lactation.

· There’s about a 0.3 lb increase in dry matter intake and a 0.= 5 lb increase in fat corrected milk from each 1% change in IVNDFD. You can’= ;t simply take IVNDFD and multiply it by 0.5 lbs to predict milk production. <= o:p>

· Don’t get excited about small differences in IVNDFD. In the s= ame laboratory run there can be up to a 2.5 unit difference (55.0% vs. 52.5%, f= or instance) between hybrids or treatments and not be statistically significan= t. Between lab runs, at least a 5-unit difference may be needed for the differ= ence to be statistically significant.

Cumberland Valley Analytical Services’ Ralph Ward adds his two cents to the subj= ect, noting that while the new Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) index is a big improvement over RFV, it should be used with care. Ralph found a sizable difference in 30-hr IVNDFD between his lab and a university lab, with CVAS numbers 5 to 10 percentage points higher. If you had two samples of alfalfa= hay analyzed, one by CVAS and the other by the university, you might conclude t= hat the hay analyzed by CVAS is higher in digestibility when in truth it may be lower.

RESEARCH SUMMARIES

· In case you’re fresh out of things to worry about: What happe= ns to the antibiotics you administer to your livestock? Absorption of antibiot= ics by animals is incomplete, and some winds up in the manure. In fact, as much= as 90% of antibiotics are excreted in the urine and feces. Minnesota researchers applied hog manu= re containing chlortetracycline and tylosin to soi= l and grew corn, onions and cabbage in a greenhouse. All three crops absorbed chlortetracycline, but not tylosin. The concentrations of chlortetracycline in plant tissue were extremely small, b= ut increased with higher rates of manure. Source: J. Env<= /span>. Q., Vol 34, No. 6, p. 2082. <= /p>

· Scientists at the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Wisconsin studie= d the nitrogen availability to crops of slurry dairy manure using labeled nitrogen isotopes—a new method. They discovered that manure N availability to = the following crop was a lot less than previously assumed. A number of state universities have been using 30-40% first year N availability from manure, = but this research found first-year N availability of only 19%. Second and third year N availability was also lower than previous assumptions at 9% and 2% respectively; we’ve been using 10% and 5%. Apparently most urine N mineralizes during the first few weeks after manure application, only becom= ing available to crops over the long term.

· We all know that individual corn plants within a field vary in yiel= d, but by how much? That was the objective of a multi-state, international eff= ort involving cornfields in the U.S., Central and South America. Corn rows 25 = to 100 feet in length were selected, and individual plants within the row labeled = for later yield determination. On average, there was a 44 bushel per acre difference between individual plants. The maximum and minimum yield between plants varied much more than 44 bu./acre, of cou= rse; the 44 bu. was the average variation. We have no idea what this means or how you can use it, but we found it interesting. Source: Agronomy Journal Vol 7, No. 6, p. 1603.

· USDA scientists are testing more accurate methods of predicting the most economical fertilizer rate for grain crops. Farmers using the “y= ield goal” method often wind up applying more fertilizer than is needed because it doesn’t account for factors such as weather, nutrient contributions from the soil organic matter, previous manure applications, a= nd soil type variability. The new methods include canopy-reflectance sensing to monitor crop vigor and plant nitrogen status. The result may be lower fertilizer costs for farmers, and less nitrogen lost to the environment.

· Ontario agronomists compared = leafy and conventional (nonleafy) corn hybrids to see= if the additional leaves in a leafy hybrid contribute more to yield. In spite = of the leafy hybrid having 25% more leaves, 26 to 40% more leaf area, and 16-4= 1% more whole plant yield at silking, by physiolog= ical maturity there was no difference in silage or grain yield. The researchers removed all leaves above the ear and found that yield was reduced much more= in the leafy hybrid. However, when all leaves below the ear were removed, yield was reduced in the conventional hybrid but not in the leafy one. The conclu= sion was that the leaves below the ear are less important in leafy hybrids. Sour= ce: Crop Science Vol. 45, No. 6, p. 2246

CRITTER NEWS

Mickey’s revenge: A New Mexico homeowner tried to dispose of a mouse by tossing it into a pile of burning leaves. The mouse caught fire but then ran over to the guy’s house, catching it on fire. The home and all its contents were destroyed. No word on what happened to the mouse, but we can guess. This is what’s known as going out in a blaze of glory.

CORN PRODUCTION COSTS

Each year USDA publishes its estimate of crop production costs for each major re= gion of the U.S., including the Northeast. The cost estimates are interesting, especially the changes from one year to the next. For corn grain production, USDA estimated per-acre operating costs (crop supplies, fuel, repairs) at $163 in 2004 and $211 in 2005, an increase of 29%. Total costs (operating costs + labor, machinery, land, taxes and insurance) increased from $354 to $423, an incre= ase of 19%. While these are for corn grain production (USDA has little to say a= bout corn silage), the trend for corn silage production should be about the same= .

A NEW YEAR: Out With The Old, In With The…= ;Uhhh, Old

As the misbehaving boy writing “I will not [blank] Judy” (Insert offensive behavior of your choice) 100 times on the school blackboard knows= all too well, repetition is boring but often effective. With this in mind here’s a handful of crop truisms that you’= ve almost certainly heard before:

1. = The field next to the dairy barn won’t need much if any start= er P. In fact, it may not have needed any since Rooseve= lt was president. The first one.

2. = On the other hand, rented land over a mile away from your (or the previous owner’s) cow barn is almost certainly low in fertility; when= ce the term “renter’s disease”.

3. = If the soil type on rented land has a naturally low pH it’s s= till low since almost nobody limes the land they rent on a year-to-year basis. T= hat’s why multi-year leases are good for both parties, and for the land.

4. = If you haven’t recalibrated your field sprayer in a few years= or installed new nozzle tips, chances are you’re applying either too muc= h or too little herbicide, and in a lousy spray pattern.

5. = Applying the same herbicide (or herbicide family) to the same field year after year is asking for trouble. Two or three years of the same weed control program may be OK; five or six years is = not.

COMMON SENSE PREVAILS

Good news has been busting out all over on the farm front. Examples:<= /span>

· Vermont legislators decided t= o keep their state in the 21st century and rejected legislation that would have severely restricted the use of genetically modified crops. We don’t really care whether or not Green Mountain farmers pl= ant Bt and other genetically modified corn and soybeans; i= ndeed, dairy farming wouldn’t go belly up if there was nary an acre of GM se= ed planted there in 2006. It’s simply a matter of right and wrong: It wo= uld be wrong if Vermont farmers no longer had the right to plant the same crop varieties and genetic traits as farmers in other states. Heck, even California voters have been rejecting moratoria on GM crops.

· After a two-year halt due to fears of mad cow disease, Japan is again accepting U.S. be= ef. This much to the delight of both the U.S. beef industry (which has lost at least $6 billion because of this) and the decidedly carnivorous Japanese, who just love U.S. beef. Before the ban U.S. be= ef accounted for 35% of the Japanese market. It will take a couple of years be= fore exports reach pre-ban volume, but at least it’s a start.

RETRIBUTION

At last December’s Dairy Day Wanda and Rick had great fun at the Crop Dude’s expense, involving certain issues he had with a local railroad crossing. Wanda put together a PowerPoint program dramatizing the event, wi= th Rick’s enthusiastic encouragement. It was all in good fun, everyone h= ad a good laugh at my expense, and I thought: I will get them for this.

At the time Rick certainly needed some comic relief what with the performance = over the past few years of his beloved University of Nebraska Cornhuskers football team. They tried changing head coaches and they changed players, t= o no avail. According to Rick, what they really need to do is change the teams t= hey play. (They’re scheduled to play both USC and = Texas in 2006.) Always ready to help h= is Huskers, Rick’s suggesting the following schedule for the upcoming season, which we’re told he’s sending to the Athletic Director. This would have the added bene= fit of all home games, since away games haven’t been the Cornhuskers̵= 7; friends of late.

One down, one to go.

WEED AND INSECT CONTROL MEETING

We will be holding a pest control meeting (weeds, insects, etc.) on Tuesday, M= arch 7th, 1:00 to 3:00 pm in the auditorium at Miner Institute. We’ve registered the meeting for 2 DEC Pesticide Certification credits. (Note: Th= ese are getting harder to come by, so better get ‘em= while you can.) Ev will moderate and otherwise = try to manage the meeting, but we plan to have a few custom pesticide operators th= ere to keep him on the straight and narrow.&nb= sp; No charge or pre-registration for the meeting, just show up at 1:00 = pm.

CALENDAR EVENTS

http://www.whminer.com/calend= ar.html

CLOSING COMMENT

New Year’s resolution:

Try to be sincere, even if you have to fake it.