MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

ANOTHER= LOOK AT LEAFHOPPER-RESISTANT ALFALFA

At Empire Farm Days a Western NY dairy farm= er had the temerity to challenge our recommendation that farmers plant leafhopper-resistant alfalfa varieties. In this case “our” means both the Crops Dude and C= ornell University entomolo= gist Elson Shields. Elson’s opinion on this appears quite clear from the following statement in the 2006 Cornell Guidelines for Integrated Field = Crop Management: “Planting the newest generation of PLH resistant alfalfa hybrids (var= ieties) is strongly suggested for the management of PLH in both clear alfalfa seedings and in stands mixed with grass species.̶= 1; However, the farmer said that according to Cornell University plant breeder Julie Hansen, leafhopper resistant varieties haven’t been among the t= op yielding ones in trials where insecticides are applied (when necessary) for leafhopper control. A review of recent Cornell alfalfa trials confirms this. What isn’t up for debate is the superiority of resistant varie= ties where leafhoppers are a problem and the alfalfa isn’t sprayed. In this situation, leafhopper resistant varieties consistently top the trials.=

For more information we accessed the University of Wisconsin’s “Alfalfa Variety Comparison” website, which allows you to select the states and years to include, and then compare any variety to any other variety and to the multi-state trial averages. For our purposes we chose tr= ials seeded in 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the “cold weather” states N= Y, PA, OH, MI, MN and WI, and also Ontario. Data comparing resistant to non-resistant varieties is hard to come by since many of the universities test them separately. We discovered that some of t= he leafhopper resistant varieties didn’t perform as well as the overall trial averages, while others were quite competitive. One leafhopper resista= nt variety, WL 346 LH, performed well above the overall trial averages but in = one Cornell trial was about 10% lower yielding than the top few varieties. Furthermore, a few of the top-yielding varieties including Starbuck and Hytest 410 were consistently at or near the top in se= veral trials.

There appears to be a moderate yield difference between most leafhopper resistant alfalfas and the top non-resistant varieties, enough to more than pay for t= he cost of insecticide application. Therefore, if you are the type of farmer w= ho carefully scouts all your alfalfa fields (or has a consultant do it), and as soon as leafhopper numbers exceed the injury threshold apply an insecticide (today, not a few days from now), then it would appear more economical for = you to plant non-resistant varieties—at least until one or more of them s= tart popping up at the top of the variety trials. However, if you’re among= the other 95% of dairy farmers who scout alfalfa fields from the seat of= your pickup truck, and when confronted with an insect problem hope that if you ignore it the problem will soon go away, my recommendation is unchanged: Plant the best leafhopper-resistant alfalfa variety you can buy.

One other factor to consider: Here in the Champlain Valley we haven’t had to spray for the alfalfa weevil in over a generation—of farmers, not weevils! Tiny parasitic wasps are easy to = find in area alfalfa fields, very effective in keeping weevils at bay. In sprayi= ng alfalfa fields for leafhoppers we’d also be killing these parasitic wasps. Mother Nature (with a big assist from the wasps) is doing a great jo= b of weevil control, and it’s good business not= to mess with Mother Nature. Also, I take a personal interest in these little wasps since I was the fellow who, like a modern-day Johnny Appleseed, went hither, thither and yon throughout Northeastern NY back in the early 1970s spreading them in weevil-infested alfalfa fields. They’ve been doing a great job for over 30 years, and I had a part in it. It is also good busine= ss not to mess with the Crops Dude.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whmi= ner.com

VET’S CORNER

Last month a meat withholding time was assigned to a popular broad-spectrum antibiotic (Ceftiofur sodium, i.e. Naxcel) that has been used for 19 years with no with = hold requirement. In addition, this summer FDA is reporting that the most common= ly found violative residue in meat is Flunixin Meglumine, i.e. = Banamine. Banamine is labeled for IV use, only, and carries a 4= day meat with holding time. If it= is given in the muscle or SQ, it is considered extra-label use and the meat withholding is unknown but would logically exceed four days.

How will these developments affect dairy cattle marketing? Naxcel and Banamine are two of the most commonly used = dairy veterinary drugs. Some farms don’t devote the same care and attention= to newborn bull calves as to valuable heifer calves. To keep the bull calf ali= ve long enough to be sold, some would just receive Naxcel= and Banamine injections to bandage poor newborn= care with little fear of residue detection.&nbs= p; Now these bandages will be violations and the bull calf must receive= the same care as heifers, if the farm expects to receive income from their sale= .

In the past, since there is no milk or meat withhold, some farms have simply injected cows without having a specific diagnosis of the cow’s ailmen= t. If the farm wished to send the cow to slaughter in case of an unfavorable outcome, the withholding time did not delay her slaughter. The new violative residue will stimulate the herdsperson to c= ome up with a specific diagnosis before treatment to avoid getting stuck with an untreatable case.

This will give topics for discussion at the next herd health visit. Review of newborn calf survival strategy and fresh and sick cow treatment protocol wi= th the herd health can help to compensate for these recent changes. Most dairy farms have personnel trained to administer fluids by IV route. So if uncomf= ortable giving Banamine by syringe IV, the herd health veterinarian can demonstrate proper technique.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.<= /span>

cowdoc@ade= lphia.net

FOOD NEWS=

· = Americans spend less than 10% of their income on food, the smallest percentage in history. This even though we eat more meals away from home, m= ore high-priced organic foods, and more meat. In fact, per capita meat consumpt= ion is expected to hit an all-time record this year. Somewhere, Dr. Atkins is smiling.

· = Though there are over 2 million people involved in agricultural production in the U.= S., only 76,000 produce 80% of the food.

· = A new study found that eating lowfat da= iry products may help lower your blood pressure. Participants who consumed the = most lowfat dairy products had a systolic blood pres= sure 3.5 points lower than those who ate the least amount of dairy, and had 54 percent lower odds of having high blood pressure at all.<= /p>

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK=

Beating the heat in the Northeast

This month I want to summarize a research trial on heat stress abatement by an outstanding Summer Experience in Agricultural Research intern we had this y= ear named Kendra O’Connor. She evaluated both fan arrangement and use of water sprinklers over the feed alley here in the northeastern US where some folks still feel that heat stress is negligible and question the cost-effectiveness of heat stress abatement. It is important to point out t= hat mild heat stress for dairy cattle begins at a temperature and humidity index (THI) as low as 72 and by the time the THI reaches 80, the cow experiences substantial heat stress.

Kendra conducted two studies. Study 1 evaluated use = of 52-inch fans placed over the head-to-head free stalls only versus the same = fans placed both over the stalls and the feed alley. At the start of the trial, = cows for both treatments were similar in days in milk, lactation number, milk production, and body condition score. Study 2 evaluated the use of sprinkle= rs with fans at the feed alley. The sprinklers were set to run for 30 sec ever= y 10 minutes based on how long it took to thoroughly wet the cow’s back and achieve essentially complete evaporation between successive sprinkling bout= s. This routine resulted in us using approximately 6-7 gallons of water per day for each cow.

When the THI was greater than 72, there was a significant relationship between T= HI and rectal body temperature such that, for every unit increase in THI, ther= e was a 0.14-degree rise in body temperature. In other words, if THI increased fr= om 72 to 82, then rectal temperature would be expected to increase by 1.4 degr= ees. Likewise, for each unit increase in THI, respiration rate went up by 4 brea= ths per minute. So, an increase in THI from 72 to 82 ought to result in 40 more breaths per minute. With the single row of fans over the stalls, each unit increase in THI resulted in an increase of nearly 3 breaths per minute, but with two rows of fans (over the feed alley and the stalls) there was only an increase of 2 breaths per minute. The two rows of fans resulted in a 15-20% reduction in respiration rate compared with the single row at both low and = high THI levels. The two-row arrangement of fans also led to lower rectal temperatures. Although we couldn’t apply statistical analysis to the = data for milk yield, we did notice that there was more variation in milk product= ion per cow for cows with only row of fans versus cows with two rows when production was measured two days following heat stress exposure. An increas= ed range in milk yield when exposed to heat stress conditions for a pen of cat= tle implies that some cows are being more severely impacted.<= /p>

When sprinklers over the feed alley were added to the heat abatement system, both respiration rate and rectal temperatures improved significantly. The rectal temperature was reduced by 0.9 to 1.2 degrees with sprinkling versus fans o= nly. Likewise, respiration rate decreased by 16 to 23% with = water sprinkling.

The conclusion for us was pretty inescapable. We need fans over both the feed a= lley and the free stalls, plus we need sprinklers over the cows’ backs when they are feeding. It is important to note that even though our barn has an alley scraper system, there was still no substantial pooling of water in the feed alley where cows were walking. Based on Kendra’s calculations and the cost of material to install the sprinkler system for one 68-cow pen, we would need about 10,500 pounds more milk to break even on that investment. Obviously the number of days during the summer when THI is 72 or greater va= ries from year-to-year. In our situation, we would need about 2.0 to 5.0 lb/cow = more milk daily to cover the costs within one summer depending on how severe the summer heat was. Our experiences with this trial suggest that heat abatemen= t is a “no-brainer” even in our region of the northeast where we are often more focused on cold stress than heat stress!

—Rick Grant

grant@whmine= r.com

DAIRY WAGE SURVEY RESULTS

A few mont= hs ago we mailed some of our Farm Report subscribers a copy of the 2006 Dairy Wage Survey by Gregory Encina B= illikopf in the mail from us. Gregory = was very happy to obtain information from many of you. Highlights from this survey are presented below.

Other Data of Interest

A little over a third (36.5%) of the dairy farmers provided an incentive pay program of some sort, with some of these falling more closely in the catego= ry of a bonus than an incentive. The average milker earnings during the month of April, in terms of their incentive pay, was $286. One third of the dairy employers provided so= me sort of health insurance. The average cost of this insurance, per month, was $377. About two thirds of the dairymen provided vacation to their milkers (over 10 days vaca= tion on the average). A number of dairymen also provided additional pay in lieu of vacation. About half of the dairies provided milkers with housing or a housing allowance. Eighteen percent paid a shift differen= tial for more difficult shifts.

Several respondents asked excellent questions about how to attract labor, design incentive pay programs, understand why workers leave dairies, and deal with other issues. Many of these answers may be found at h= ttp://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor or http://tinyurl.= com/6xtt where dairy farmers can find articles, research papers, and several free do= wnloadable books including Labor Management in Agriculture: Cultivating Personnel Productivity (2^nd Edition); Dairy Incentive Pay (4^{th
Edition), and Helping Others Resolve Differences. You may contact the
author at g=
ebillikopf@ucdavis.edu
or call 209.525.6800.}

FATTY ACID INDUCED MILK FAT DEPRESSION

I recently attended the Advanced Dairy Nutrition and Management Conference at= Cornell University where I heard Dr. Adam = Lock and Dr. Matt Waldron speak. Both are graduates of Cornell University and new faculty at th= e University of Vermont. They are very well spoken= and well versed in ruminant biology and how it relates on farm. I strongly urge= you to take the opportunity to hear them speak.

I want to share with you a bit of Adam Lock’s presentation as it clarif= ied many of my questions regarding milk fat depression. Recent advances in our understanding of milk fat depression have pointed to specific fatty acids as playing a critical role. We now know that it only takes a few grams of t= rans-10, cis-12 CLA to induce a 25% reduction in milk fat. (CLA or conjugated= linoleic acid is basically an 18-carbon fatty acid th= at can have its double bonds in various points resulting in various isomers of this molecule). Milk fat can also be depressed by trans-9, cis-11 = CLA and cis-10, trans12 CLA. Before I get myself lost in the orga= nic chemistry jargon let me define some basic terms: First of all, fatty acids = are long chains of carbon atoms “C” linked together. These carbons = can be linked together with a single, double or triple bonds. When all of the carbons are linked with single bonds, that FA is said to be saturated. When double or triple bonds are present, the FA is unsaturated. Depending on whe= re those double and triple bonds are and how many there are determine the degr= ee of unsaturation of the FA. Unsaturated FA are toxic to rumen microbes. Forages are rich in unsat= urated FA, as are grains and concentrates. In the rumen the unsaturated FA are biohydrogenated, the double bonds are broken and hydr= ogen is added to the molecule. This process is constantly taking place. As such, there is always trans-10, cis-12 CLA present in the rumen as = well as the other milk fat depressing FA. If all goes well in the rumen, these FA are further biohydrogenated into a saturated FA= , and no longer exist as the milk fat depressing molecule. Problems arise when we disrupt the biohydrogenation process or cause p= assage rate of the milk fat depressing FA to increase. And how does this disruption occur?

1. = Too much unsaturated FA in the diet can overload the biohydrogenation process. The FA sources range from forage, = grain to added fats and oils.

2. = Sorting behavior at the feed bunk can upset/alter the microbial population in the rumen, upset the biohydrogenation process (i.e. High concentrat= e, low fiber diet).

3. = Increased DMI. Any increase in passage rate can increase the flow of unsaturated FA to the lower gut for absorption and affect milk fat producti= on in the mammary. Increase DMI to increase milk, but fat may lag.<= /span>

4. = Highly fermentable forage diet. With greater amounts of forage we increase the amount of unsaturated FA delivered to the rumen. With increase= d rate of passage, unsaturated FA flow may increase and possibly exceed the critic= al 2-3 grams of CLA. (Often wonder why sometimes we see milk fat drop on high forage rations--this may be the cause).

5. = Rumensin. Depending on the rumen environment, the additi= on of rumensin may alter the = biohydrogenation pathways just enough to increase flow of unsaturated FA. =

Once again it comes down to ensuring a healthy, stable rumen environment not onl= y to ensure maximized production and health but milk fat production as well.

—Kurt Cotanch

cotanch@wh= miner.com<= /p>

FARM NOTE= S

The U.S. National Climate Data Center reports a slight global cooling tr= end over the past seven years—1998 through 2005. While this doesn’t negate global warming concerns and may be only a pause in the pronounced warming trend from 1970 to 1998, it’s a reminder that global climate changes occur very gradually and certainly not in a straight line.

A North Dakota State University rangeland management specialist says that dandelions have good animal palatability, low fiber, almost 19% crude protein and higher net energy tha= n orchardgrass. All true perhaps, but we still don̵= 7;t like dandelions in our fields.

According to USDA, genetically modified (GM) crop acreage increased again in 2006; up= by 9.5% over last year. GM soybeans (almost all glyphosat= e resistant) represent 89% of soybean acreage, while 61% of corn acreage is planted to GM hybrids. These represent 2% and 14% increases over 2005. The increase in GM corn is especially noteworthy.

MINER INSTITUTE RESEARCH UPDATE

Does partial replacement of forage NDF with byprodu= ct NDF in close-up diets of dairy cows improve transition performance?

Nutritional management during the transition period may affect susceptibility of cows to metabolic disorders and infectious diseases. One nutritional approach that = has received attention recently is the partial replacement of forage neutral detergent fiber (NDF) with more digestible NDF sources from byproduct feeds. The NDF from nonforage fiber sources (NFFS), su= ch as soybean hulls, beet pulp, and citrus pulp, is characterized by low lignin content, rapid rates of fermentation, and high extents of digestion. The ra= te of NDF digestion of NFFS is greater than the rate of NDF digestion of forag= e, but less than the rate of sugar or starch fermentation, so replacing forage= NDF with byproduct NFFS NDF should promote greater dietary digestibility with lowered risk of ruminal acidosis and increased intake.

A few studies have investigated the effects of replacing forage or grain in d= ry cow diets with byproduct NFFS. University of Missouri researc= hers replaced 0, 15, 30, or 45% of long-stem grass hay (poor quality) with soy h= ulls in close-up diets fed to cows. Cows fed close-up diets containing soy hulls= had higher prepartum intake but not postpartum inta= ke. Cows fed the 30% diet peaked earlier and had a higher peak milk yield than = cows fed the 0 or 45% diets. In a Penn State study, researchers fed cows during = the entire dry period a conventional diet containing 70% forage and a diet containing NFFS such that 28% of the forage was replaced with cottonseed hu= lls and soy hulls. Cows fed the diet containing NFFS had higher prepartum intake and lower plasma nonesterified fatty aci= ds (NEFA) compared to cows fed the conventional diet. Diet did not affect postpartum intake, plasma NEFA, or milk yield. Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> researchers fed close-up cows either a high nonfiber carbohydrate diet or a high NFFS diet. The NFFS (9.5% beet pulp and 7.9% so= y hulls) replaced starch-based cereals. There was no effect of diet on prepartum and postpartum intake or milk yield. It app= ears that feeding close-up diets containing large amounts of NFFS may stimulate intake of close-up cows compared to close-up diets containing large amounts= of poor or average quality forages but not starch-based cereals.

We recently completed a collaborative study with Zen-Noh to determine the effe= ct of partial replacement of forage NDF with byproduct NDF in close-up diets o= n metabolism and performance of transition animals. Forty five cows and 19 heifers were = fed corn silage based diets containing either 1) 30% oat hay (control; 0.73 Mcal NE_L/lb, 12.8% CP, 42.4% NDF) or 2) 15= % oat hay and 15% beet pulp (beet pulp; 0.73 Mcal NE<= sub>L/lb, 13.2% CP, 40.5% NDF) from -21 d relative to expected calving until calving. After calving until 14 DIM, animals received a lactation diet (0.78 Mcal NE_L/lb, 17.1% CP, 35.0% NDF). Close-u= p diet did not affect prepartum intake, energy balance= , body weight (BW), body condition score (BCS), serum NEFA and (beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA), or total tract digestibility = of dry matter and NDF. The absence of a treatment response for total tract digestibility of nutrients supports the lack of an intake response during t= he close-up period.

There was no carryover effect of close-up diet on intake, energy balance, milk yi= eld, BW, BCS, or serum NEFA and BHBA during the first 14 DIM. A carryover effect= of close-up diet on postpartum variables was not expected since close-up diet = did not affect prepartum intake or metabolism. Howe= ver, there was a diet by time interaction for intake during the first 14 DIM. Animals fed the control and beet pulp diets increased intake 35 and 47%, respectively. Interestingly, animals fed the beet pulp diet had a smoother = and more gradual increase in intake compared to animals fed the control diet. T= here was a trend for a diet by parity interaction for milk yield during the firs= t 14 DIM. More milk tended to be produced when previously during the close-up pe= riod mature cows were fed the control diet and heifers were fed the beet pulp di= et. The reason for the different response to diet by parity is unknown, but is supported by a diet by parity interaction for BW loss. More BW was lost in = the first 14 DIM by mature cows previously fed the control diet and heifers previously fed the beet pulp diet.

In summary, partial replacement of forage NDF (oat hay) with byproduct NDF (be= et pulp) did not improve metabolism or performance in our study. One possible reason for the lack of response was that the oat hay was very palatable and good quality (0.48 Mcal NE_L/lb, 3.9%= CP, 64.1% NDF). Based on in situ analyses, oat hay and beet pulp had potential extents of digestion for NDF of 52% and 85%, respectively. Thus, the control diet had a lower mean potential extent of digestion for NDF than the beet p= ulp diet (65% vs. 72%). However, this difference did not appear to be biologica= lly meaningful in our study since there was no effect of close-up diet on prepartum intake, metabolism, or total tract digestib= ility. The oat hay quality was good enough to minimize the effect of partial replacement of forage NDF with the more digestible byproduct NDF. Use of po= orer quality forage may have yielded different results. Also, the replacement le= vel of 15% may have been too low to see a positive effect on transition performance.

—Heather Dann

dann@whminer.= com

CORN HARV= EST THOUGHTS

With the late planting season (or replanting season, unfortunately) this year, lots of corn will be harvested later than normal, so the following is still timely:

Some evidence suggests that we may need to revise the old “silk to silage = in seven weeks” rule of thumb since recent trials in the Northeastern U.S. found that corn hybrids in a wide range of relative matur= ity actually took a bit less than six weeks to mature from silk to proper silage maturity. “Silk to silage in six weeks” still has a nice alliterative sound, but not so fast—read on.

Research in Ontario found that two leafy, silage-only corn hybrids matured at different rates t= han two dual-purpose hybrids. Leafy hybrids had a wider harvest window (more da= ys that the crop remained within the recommended range in dry matter content),= but milkline progression was more irregular for leafies. How long did it take for both leafy and dual-purpose hybrids to progress from silking t= o 50% milkline? 50-60 days, or at least 7 weeks! However, there was considerable difference both between hybrids and between years in the four-year study. O= ne year the hybrids “flat lined” for a full week from six to seven weeks after silking, not progressing in milk li= ne at all. On average the dual-purpose hybrids went from sil= king to 50% milkline in fewer days, but only one yea= r of four was this close to 6 weeks. This confirms that while rules of thumb are nice, they must be backed up by farmers walking their corn fields. Kernel m= ilk line should only be used as a “trigger” to indicate that itR= 17;s time to do a dry matter test. Long-term University of Wisco= nsin corn hybrid trial data found a range in whole plant dry matter of 28 to 48%= at half milk line, with an average of 37% DM. A 20-point range in silage DM isn’t nearly good enough, is it?

Speaking of dry matter testing of standing corn and rules of thumb: One we’ve found useful and pretty accurate is this one: Take a random sample of 10-20 stalks of corn from a field, do a dry matter using a K= oster tester or microwave, then add subtract two percentage points from the resul= ting DM. For instance, if the DM test on standing corn is 32%, if you were to go= in immediately and chop the field, the DM on the field-chopped corn would be a= bout 30% DM. Don’t exactly know why, but it is...and this isn’t just= our opinion, either. Make this statement at a farmer meeting, and you’ll notice smiles and heads nodding in agreement. (Most are, anyway—some = are nodding because they’re dozing.)

—E.T.

MANURE AND ETHANOL

You’ll be hearing a lot about ethanol in the coming months, and since ethanol may = have a significant influence not only on corn grain price but on the availability and price of corn distiller’s grains, you should at least have a pass= ing interest. One of the latest items crossing our desk (actually our computer terminal) is a venture between a large Midwest dairy farm (Fair Oaks) and Bion Environmental Technologies. The cows will eat wet distiller’s grains and their manu= re will be converted into methane that will power an ethanol plant that in addition to ethanol will produce—wet distiller’s grains, of cou= rse. 1000 dairy cows can power a closed-loop system producing 1 million gallons = of ethanol. Neat, eh? The cows will also produce ab= out 3 million gallons of milk. Hmmm… which is the byproduct: The distiller’s grains, the manure, or the milk?

While we’re at it, following are a few biofuel definitions to impress the boys at the coffee shop:

· &n= bsp; Ethanol—Ethanol used for biofuel is usually mad= e from corn, though it can be made from other products.

· = Biodiesel—Esters derived from vegetable oils or animal fats intended f= or use in diesel engines.

· = Biodiesel blends—Denoted<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'> as “Bxx”, with the “xx” the percentage = of biodiesel in the blend. For instance, B20 is 20% biodiesel and 80% regular diesel fuel.

DROUGHT A= ND THE DAIRY BUSINESS

Drought in cash hay and grain production areas will have an effect on dairy ration prices this winter. Heat killed thousands of cows in California, but before this disaster U= SDA reported July 2006 dairy cow and replacement dairy heifer numbers to be up about 100,000 each from one year ago. This will certainly have a dampening effect on any increase in milk prices that’s a result of lower produc= tion during this summer’s heat wave. Farmers started to build herds during high milk price months of 2004 and early 2005. What’s happening is a = slowing of the increase in cow numbers—and that’s no guarantee of higher milk prices.

As if dairy farmers needed more bad news: According to Do= ane’s Agricultural Report, cotton crop conditions in mid-July were a “train wreck” and we doubt they’ve improved much since then. Cotton farmers will abandon about 2.5 million acres as not worth the cost of harve= st, 4 or 5 times the normal cotton acreage abandoned. This means less whole cottonseed for dairy cows, and, most likely, higher prices. Both corn and soybeans have also had a rough summer in the Heartland, but their situation appears much better than that of cotton.

SHOULD YOU INOCULATE IMMATURE CORN SILAGE?

That’s what we asked the Univers= ity of Delaware’s= Limin Kung, noted silage guru. Here’s a summary= of what he said, plus a few of our own comments:

· = Do inoculate wet corn silage with a good Lactobacillus plantarum inoculant. = Wet corn silage tends to develop lots of acetic acid, a good silage acid but only in moderate amounts. High acetic acid concentrations are probably due to “wild” fermentation bacteria, and you may need a commercial inoculant to overwhelm these wild bacteria. Limin has seen inverse ratios of lactic to acetic acid (more acetic than lactic) in corn silage with less than 30% DM. Lactic acid= is the strongest silage acid, and the right inoculant will encourage its production.

· = Do not inoculate wet corn silage with an inocu= lant containing Lactobacillus buchneri, such = as Pioneer’s 11C33 or Lallemand’s Buchneri 500. We’ve used both these products on= Miner Institute’s corn silage and really like them, but L. buchneri promotes acetic acid formation. Too much= total acid (lactic + acetic + proprionic + butyric) w= ill often cause intake problems. Pioneer recommends 11C33 for corn silage that’s at least 28% DM.

· = The good news is that wet corn silage rarely “goes clostridial” since all those sugars causes the = pH to drop too fast for the development of clostridial silage.

· = Regardless of which inoculant you use (= or even if you ignore Limin’s advice and don’t use one), this is the year to have a fermentation analysis on y= our corn silage. These assays aren’t expensive, and can help identify a problem before it severely affects herd performance. A s= imple silage pH, included in many standard forage analysis, is not a good indication of which fermentation acids are present in the silage, or in what amounts. Data from the Cumberland Valley Analytical Serv= ices lab found that as % dry matter increased from less than 26% DM to over 40% = DM, total fermentation acids declined from over 10% to about 4%. However, silag= e pH was in at every dry matter level within a tenth of a percentage point of 4.0! There may be intake prob= lems if you feed high rates of corn silage with acetic acid concentrations over = 5%.

—E.T.

SOYBEAN PESTS:

GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS

The good news:

The soybean aphid arrived in the U.S. in 2000 from Asia, rapidly spreading throughout North America and becoming one of the worst soybean insect pests. Insecticides are currently the only way to combat the soybean aphid. Howeve= r, soon after the aphid’s arrival plant breeders began screening the USDA soybean germplasm collection at the University of Illin= ois, searching for genetic resistance to the aphid. Within one year several sour= ces of resistance were identified and scientists began making crosses between current commercial varieties and some of the soybean lines showing the strongest resistance. They discovered that a single dominant gene fo= und in a variety long since disappeared from commercial production controlled resistance to the soybean aphid.

Note the emphasis on “dominant”. This is great news for soybean bree= ders since it means that they can use simple back-crossing procedures to rapidly convert today’s commercial soybean varieties into aphid-resistant one= s. The timeline for public release isn’t certain, but according to the l= ead scientist in the study, resistant varieties should be available “soon= er rather than later”. This is yet another example of your (USDA) tax dollars at work, since if that huge collection of soybean germplasm didn’t exist, scientists may have been searching for genetic resistan= ce for years, not months.

The bad news:

Two soil-borne soybean diseases new to New York were discovered in the state for the first t= ime this year. Both were in Western NY, but there’s no reason to expect that they won’t spread further. The foliar symptoms of Sudden death syndrome (pleasant name, that) and <= i>Brown stem rot are almost identical: Necrosis (death) of the tissue between t= he leaf veins. Brown stem rot also has an internal discoloration (Can you guess the color?) of the stem. Both diseases are very common in the Midwest, and N.Y. plant pathologists have long suspected that they’ve been pre= sent here. Now they know.

What soybean growers should do is to plant a crop other than soybeans (co= rn, for instance) for two years between soybean crops. What they almost certainly will do is nothing of the sort if their normal crop rotati= on has been alternating years of soybeans and corn. They’ll do nothing, = that is, until SDS or stem rot sneaks up and bites them in the butt—figuratively speaking, of course. Then they’ll gnash their teeth, wring their hands, wonder what happened a= nd why it happened to them and why nobody told them something like this could happ= en. Things change, but they stay the same…

—E.T.

CORN SILA= GE AND NITRATES

It’s useful to get questions from farmers and agribusiness reps since it lets us know what’s currently on their minds. A recent question dealt with th= e potential of nitrate problems from this year’s corn silage, especially silage f= rom fields that weren’t yet waist high at the end of August. I wouldnR= 17;t worry much about fields where the corn is pale green; those fields either n= ever got supplemental N, or what N they got was washed away by heavy rains or denitrified by waterlogged soils. Since the nitrates tend to concentrate in= the bottom of the corn stalk, one recommendation is to chop the corn a foot or = so higher than normal. This is a hoot since chopping some of this corn a foot higher would leave much of the crop in the field.

Lactating cows can handle corn silage with moderate concentrations of nitrates since = the “problem” silage is almost always fed with other (low nitrate) feedstuffs. Non-pregnant cattle can handle nitrates better than pregnant on= es. If you’re concerned about high nitrates in your corn crop, have an analysis done on the freshly chopped forage. If the nitrate concentration in fresh forage isn’t much over 1000 ppm I wouldn’t worry since the nitrate concentration will be reduced by abo= ut 50% during fermentation. However, if nitrate is 1000 p= pm or higher, have the completely fermented silage tested to be safe. Done alo= ng with a standard forage analysis, a nitrate N test costs $6.00 from DairyOne and $9.00 from Cumberland Valley Analytical = Labs.

Ruminants can be fed high nitrate corn silage if the rumen bacteria are given time to adapt by gradually increasing the amount of high nitrate silage in the rati= on. Whatever you do, don’t make an overnight change from 2006 corn silage= to a 2007 crop that’s even moderately high in nitrates.

—E.T.

GENETICAL= LY MODIFIED CROPS IN VERMONT AND NEW YORK

Genetically modified (A.K.A. genetically engineered) crops are popular with more than j= ust Corn Belt farmers. A recent report by the Vermont Department of Agriculture reveals dramatic increases in the acreages of genetically modified corn and soybeans planted in Vermont—crops resistant to Europ= ean corn borers and/or corn rootworms, herbicide tolerant varieties, or both. T= he following tables show the acreages of genetically modified corn and soybeans planted in Vermont from 2002 through 2005.

Acreages of GM crops are also up in Ne= w York: in the past year genetically modified corn, about evenly split between inse= ct and herbicide resistant traits, increased from 2= 7 to 32% of total corn acreage. The acreage of Roundup Ready soybeans didn’= ;t change much at all, but at 84% of total soybean acreage there’s not a= lot of upside potential.

CRITTER N= EWS

Proving that, like Yogi, he’s “smarter than the average bear”, Boo the grizzly bear has twice escaped his British Columbia caretakers who intended on neutering him. Raised in captivity since 2002 when his mother was illegally shot by a hunt= er, Boo was originally housed in an artificial den but after breaking out of th= at was put into what was thought to be a completely secure enclosure. Air tight perhaps but not bear tight, at least not for Boo, who proceeded to bash a 400-pound steel door off its four bolts, destroying an electrical box while tearing through two electric fences and over a 12-foot fence. Apparently not enamored of the intended surgical procedure, Boo then took off for parts unknown with all his parts intact. A helicopter search team spent ov= er 50 hours in the air without success. Boo’s first escape was in June, prime mating season for grizzlies; he apparently intends on getting that job accomplished while he’s still able to.

CRITTER N= EWS 2

City-dwelling raccoons in Olympia= , Washington, have killed at least ten c= ats and a marauding gang of five tried to carry off a small dog. (The dog survi= ved but may have suffered permanent psychological damage.) Now this is happenin= g in Washington, which last time we checked w= as still on the Left Coast and we’= re used to strange happenings in that part of the country. However, this seems= to be the real deal, confirmed by Department of Fish and Wildlife officials. T= he townsfolk employed a “hired gun” (actually a nuisance wildlife control operator) to trap the coons but in six weeks he caught only one. His excuse: Raccoons—especially street-wise ones—learn to avoid tra= ps and teach their young to do so. Ev will attest = to coon smarts, having tried for weeks without success to trap one that had be= en raiding his bird feeder and leaving a pile of coon poop on his deck. Day af= ter day Ev baited a Hav= -A-Hart trap with cat food, with his only “success”, if you could call = it that, one very unhappy skunk. Phew.

WATCH FOR ROOTWORMS IN LATE-PLANTED CORN

Cornell’s Keith Waldron reminds us to look for corn rootworms in late-planted corn, f= ields that had some parts replanted, and in general uneven stands. Corn rootworm beetles feed on pollen, and if most of the corn in an area has already gone= to “brown silk”, they’ll zero in on the corn plants still producing pollen. Therefore, if fields with significant differences in corn maturity, the beetles will, as Keith says, “head to the islands”= ; of pollinating corn. Watch these areas closely for possible silk clipping, whi= ch if it happens at the wrong time can result in poor pollination and therefore lousy grain fill. Should corn rootworm beetle egglayin= g be high enough in this area, it’s a good bet that they’ll be at higher risk for rootworm larval feeding next year. Therefore, if cropping schedules (= and herbicide applications) allow, it might be a good idea to rotate these fiel= ds to hay crops in 2007. If the fields do have a lot of silk clipping and you leave them in corn next year, use a soil insecticide, rootworm resistant hybrid, or “rootworm rate” of an insecticide seed treatment.

ORGANIC D= AIRY FARMS UPDATE

Many organic dairy farmers think that “corporate organic dairy farm”= is an oxymoron: Dairy farms can’t be both corporate and organic. Not so, says Horizon Organic, the nation’s biggest producer of organic milk.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> (Horizon Organic is part of Dean F= oods, which has annual sales in excess of $10 billion.) Small organic dairy farme= rs claim that Horizon’s 4000-cow dairy in Idaho is neither organic nor a true fa= rm; Horizon counters by stating that 80% of its milk comes from 340 “family” farms, almost all with less than 500 cows.<= /span>

USDA has had its fingers in the organic foods pie since 2002, but is probably wondering why. A year ago it looked like USDA was going to settle the contr= oversy over what constitutes an organic dairy farm, but the battle rages on. It’s a no-win situation for the government: Both Horizon Organic and Aurora Organic Dairy, which by this fall will be milking over 10,000 cows in two western states, claim that their size and scale allows them to produce organic milk much more efficiently (read: cheaper) than on a 40-cow farm—probably true. Consumer advocates would seem to be in favor of reducing the price of organic milk, which most recently was about twice the price of “regular milk” (We refuse to call it “non-organic”.) On the other hand, when consumers buy organic m= ilk many assume it comes from family farms—something Horizon does nothing= to discourage: The only farm photos on its website are of small farms; we certainly couldn’t find any photos of its 4000-cow dairy. Aurora’s we= bsite was slightly more forthcoming, with a nice photo of its milking parlor but nothing that looked like a very large freestall= barn.

There’s a lot at stake here: Organic milk is already a $2+ billion business, up alm= ost 25% in the past two years. In the next year or two, organic dairy products = will make up about 5% of total dairy sales. The current argument mostly revolves around when a pasture isn’t a pasture. The big organic dairies say th= at as long as their cows have “access” to pasture some of the year, that’s enough. The small dairies want the USDA to mandate that cows on organic farms have “significant” access to pasture. A lot seems= to depend on the USDA interpretation of the word “significant”. As we suggested almost a year ago,= stay tuned for the next exciting development.

—E.T.

DESK-CLEA= RING TIME AGAIN

It’s been a long time since Ev has cleaned his deskt= op, both the wooden one and his virtual desktop. The following are the opinions of = the not-always-politically-correct Crops Dude, although in all cases they are, = of course, absolutely true.

· = Studies have shown that married men live longer than single men. Gi= ven the behavior I’ve observed of many single men, this isn’t surpr= ising. What is puzzling, however, is that wives die sooner than single women. Memb= ers of both sexes with close friends live longer, so if you don’t get married, get friendly. Married or single, men are dying more slowly than ev= er before, and are catching up to women in average lifespan.

· = Which countries are the top suppliers of crude oil to the U.S.? I= f you said Saudi Arabia or <= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Venezuela you’d be close, but based = on 2004 figures the top two are our neighbors = Canada and Mexico.

· = Each morning in Africa a gazelle= wakes up knowing that it has to run faster than the fastest lion or it will be ea= ten. Each morning a lion wakes up knowing that it has to outrun the slowest gaze= lle or it will starve. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a gazelle o= r a lion: When the sun comes up, you’d better be running.

· = An acquaintance says she’s not a vegetarian because she loves animals, but because she hates plants.

· = I have nothing against those poor misguided souls who are willing to pay premium prices for organic food—it’s their money—but = I do take issue with claims that organic food is healthier. A recent University of Georgia study found no pesticide residues in either organic or conventional food. However, the organic food = had 100 times as many pathogens as the conventional food.

· = Our government can track a cow born in Canada three years ago right to her stall in the state of <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Washington and even track her calves to their stalls. However, this same government is unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around this great nation. Maybe we should give them each a cow.

· = Most men are good about working through various (and often self-inflicted) injuries including broken bones and actively bleeding wound= s, but they’re wimps when it comes to not feeling well. I don’t kn= ow if it’s the result of childbirth, what The Bride calls “the til= t of the moon” or that extra layer of, uh, adipose tissue, but women seem = much more willing and/or able to function when afflicted with headaches and vari= ous other ailments. While T.B. will work all day with a headache, at the first twinge I head for the sofa, moaning piteously.

· = I’m not really 63 years old; I’m 21 with twice that many years of experience.

NORTHERN = CORN LEAF BLIGHT

There’s quite a bit of Northern Corn Leaf Blight (NCLB) in corn fields this year. T= his fungal disease is characterized by canoe-shaped lesions on the leaves. Hot, humid weather promotes its development. As the disease progresses, the lesi= ons can get large enough to cover the entire leaf. NCLB doesn’t affect the grai= n, and the effect on yield depends on how early in the season the disease hits. If= the blight hits after silking —which appears = to be the case locally — there shouldn’t be much yield loss. Corn hyb= rids vary in their resistance, so hybrid selection can help prevent NCLB while c= rop rotation and seed treatment will not. If you had the disease this year, work with your seed dealer to choo= se hybrids for 2007 with the highest available level of resistance to NLCB.

SAVE THE = DATE!

Miner Institute’s Annual Dairy Day is scheduled for Wednesday, Novem= ber 29, 2006. Guest speaker this = year is Dr. Randy Shaver from the University of Wisconsin Madison.

CLOSING C= OMMENT

A good scapegoat is nearly as welcome as a solution = to the problem.