November 2006 Miner Institute Farm Report

TIME TO RETHINK GRASS COMPANION CROP CHOICES?

As many of our long-time readers know, I’m a big fan of reed canarygrass= . I love how vigorously it grows once it’s established, (note italics), i= ts tolerance for a wide variety of soil drainage conditions, and the fact that= it sucks up high rates of spring and summer-applied manure with little adverse affect on water quality. (University of Minnesota resear= ch confirms this.) What I don’t love is the always sky-high price canarygrass seed fetches, and especially how difficult it can be to establi= sh as a companion crop with alfalfa. A couple of years ago we started adding a couple of pounds of timothy to our forage seed mixes, reducing the reed canarygrass seeding rate accordingly. Now, however, there may be a better alternative: Tall fescue. Cornell University trials s= how tall fescue to be a high-yielding species with good forage quality and good tolerance to variable drainage conditions. These trials are clear-seeded gr= ass stands, but Cornell agronomist Jerry Cherney reports that farmers around the state are happy with tall fescue in alfalfa-grass stands.

We only have a couple of legume + tall fescue stands: One was birdsfoot trefoil-tall fescue, the other is alfalfa-tall fescue. The trefoil-tall fes= cue field is now almost bereft of trefoil (if I never seed that stuff again it = will be too soon), but the alfalfa-tall fescue looks great. It hasn’t stood the test of time since we only seeded it in April 2005, but so far, so good. That field has alfalfa-tall fescue around the perimeter, and alfalfa-reed canarygrass in the center of the field. No need to mark where one stops and= the other starts: Where there’s some grass, that’s the alfalfa-tall fescue, while the alfalfa-canarygrass looks much like a clear seeding of alfalfa. Where there’s no alfalfa there’s bare ground, and I ju= st hate bare ground since it never remains bare for long, filling in with bluegrass, dandelions, and other pestiferous species.

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com

WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT GROUPING HEIFERS SEPARATEL= Y FROM MATURE COWS?

Most of us are aware of the recommendation to group first-lactation heifers separately from mature cows. Various studies have shown that heifers housed separately have great= er DMI and higher productivity than those housed in mixed groups, but why is t= his? The common thinking is that, since heifers are smaller, they have more difficulty competing for feed. While this is often true, recent research has shown that there are actually many more differences between heifers and mature cows than we may have suspected.

For example, heifers take smaller bites and spend more time feeding than mature cows. Since mature cows are u= sually more dominant and can push heifers away from feeding spaces, grouping them separately may ensure that heifers have enough time to feed throughout the = day. As Rick mentioned a couple of mont= hs ago, some recent Spanish work found that heifers grouped separately ruminate more and drink more. A compan= ion study to this work published in the January issue of the Journal of Dairy Science indicated that housing heifers separately may also provide the added benefits of increased feed efficiency and milk fat percentage. The improvement in milk fat might = be associated with both the increase in rumination and greater number of meals= per day observed in heifer-only groups.

Resting behavior can also be affected in mixed groups. Cows do not perceive all stalls equally. Research in Nebraska has sho= wn that dominant, mature cows will lie in stalls nearest the feed manger, while hei= fers tend to lie in stalls along the back wall.= The heifers that do lie in the stalls nearest the feed bunk ruminate less than those lying along the outside wall, perhaps indicating that they = are stressed by the thought that an older cow might kick them out at any time.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> British researchers have also obse= rved signs of stress exhibited by heifers in mixed groups such as more time spent fighting and grooming than heifers grouped separately.

Grouping heifers separately is particularly important in overcrowded situations. Subordinate animals are the first = to be affected as stocking rates increase beyond 100%.&nb= sp; Although we need to study it further, here at Miner Institute we recently found that increased stocking rates reduced time spent lying by heifers more than cows. It al= so appears that heifers decrease rumination more than cows as stocking rate increases, which complements the research I mentioned earlier. If our results prove true, reduced rumination and a possible increase in feeding rate may result in acidosis.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Combined with increased time spent standing, this could create a perfect storm and increase lameness in heifers just as we want them to start paying off all of the costs we just put into raising them.

Incidentally, you might want to know that we also observed a potential decrease of up to = 18 pounds of milk per day for the heifers compared to the cows as the stocking rate increased to 131 and 142%. It will take a long time for a heifer to pay for herself with that kind of reduction in milk yield!

As a side note, I just wanted to thank all of the people at Miner Institute for their help and support with my Master’s Degree research over the last= 2 1/2 years. We’ll presen= t more results for you in future editions of the Farm Report.

—Chris Hill<= /o:p>

hill@whminer.com

SOME GOOD NEWS ABOUT FARM NUTRIENT BALANCES

A recent Cornell publication, Statewide and County-based Phosphorus Balances = for New York State, contains some good news for= NY Farmers. The state-wide phosphorus nutrient balance has declined considerab= ly since 1992: It was +58 million pounds of P in 1992, +34 million in 1997, and +28 million in 2002. The amount of P fertilizer used on farms decreased fro= m 57 million pounds in 1992 to 35 million in 1997 and again to 28 million in 200= 2. This suggests that Cornell’s efforts to have farmers use less starter fertilizer on fertile fields is working. Although not evaluated in the publication, we also suspect that dairy ration P has decreased in the past = five years or so.

The situation is even better here in Clinton County: The P balan= ce for 1992, 1997 and 2002 was 580,000, 427,000 and 311,000 respectively. ThatR= 17;s an improvement of 46% in the P balance. Phosphorus fertilizer use declined a lot, from 461,000 lbs in 1992 to 304,000 lbs in 1997, to 161 lbs in 2002. T= he decline of 47% in P fertilizer use between 1997 and 2002 is particularly encouraging considering that during that time the agricultural industry in this county = was relatively stable.

—E.T.<= /span>

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

Size Matters on the Farm

We just returned from the 2006 Cornell Nutrition Conference where we presented= a paper about on-farm measurement of physically effective fiber – or, in other words, particle size of forages and TMRs. Physically effective fiber (abbreviated peNDF) is the coarser fraction of NDF that stimulates chewing = and contributes to the rumen digesta mat. For the past 10 years, the standard method to measure peNDF has been= to dry the sample and then measure the amount of particles that are retained o= n a 1.18-mm screen. These are the longer particles in a feed that will stimulate chewing and improve rumen health. Some of the most commonly used ration formulation software used today requires peNDF as a key input.

To-date, the only way to obtain a peNDF value was to send a forage or TMR sample to a testing laboratory for analysis. This is not a great situation because often the peNDF value is needed immediately. For instance, if a field is being chopped and we want to know if the theoretical chop length is correct, then= we have to measure peNDF on the farm. Also, nutritionists would like to be abl= e to measure peNDF on-farm as well so that ration changes can be made sooner. Un= til now, there has not been an on-farm method that provides peNDF values that a= gree with the standard lab method. Recently, we have developed an accurate on-fa= rm tool that easily measures the effectiveness of a forage or TMR at stimulati= ng chewing.

The new tool is called the “Z-Box” and is named after the Japanese cooperative (ZenNoh Cooperative) that funded the research leading to development of the particle separator. Essentially, it is a plastic box with two interchangeable sieves: 2.38 and 3.18-mm openings. The 3.18-mm sieve is inserted into the plastic box when measuring the peNDF for corn silages and TMR. The 4.76-mm sieve is inserted when measuring haycrop silages with long= er chop length. The sample is loaded into the box, and then a specified shaking method is used to separate the short and long particles. Measuring the coar= ser particles left in the box following shaking, as a percentage of the total sample weight, gives you the effectiveness value for the sample. In testing= at the Institute, we found that this on-farm method resulted in peNDF values v= ery close to the standard lab method.

Beginning in November, the Z-Box will be available for purchase through our web site.= If you have any interest in purchasing one, or if you would like more detailed information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer= .com

—Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@w= hminer.com

COPING WITH 2006 CORN SILAGE

For most farmers the 2006 corn crop has been ensiled for several weeks or more;= now what? Quality ranges from quite good for corn planted in May to not so hot = for corn planted (or replanted) in July. Forage analyses are always important in ration formulation, but will be especially critical in dealing with what for many farmers will be the highly variable quality of this year’s corn crop. For late-planted corn, energy levels will probably be down from normal corn silage but crude protein may be higher by a couple of percentage point= s, which is a meaningful difference. But you won’t know this unless you = have forage analyses on your silages. Also, this coming year you should continua= lly do on-farm dry matter analyses on corn silage, especially if you ensiled the whole shebang—early, mid and late-season plantings—in the same silo. A variation of several percentage points in dry matter could have significant effects on milk production, especially if, as is the case here = at Miner Institute, corn silage is a major portion of your forage ration.

TRICK OR TREAT?

Ag Bagged Corn Silage and Executive Decisions

In 2005 we put up a 150’ Ag Bag of BMR corn silage to feed out during the transition to 2006 crop. The = bag was situated along side the wall of a concrete bunker, about 100’ from some woods, in other words, close proximity to vermin; raccoons, crows and various members of the rodent family. We did our best to patch holes when noticed and felt we did a decent job, though not perfect, of protecting this precious forage from aerobic exposure during storage.

Mid-September 2006, we decided to start feeding out of this bag. We had been feeding BMR CS at abou= t 10% of the TMR DM to our fresh cow, high and heifer groups all along, maintaini= ng decent milk production (> 90lbs). Initial sampling and visual inspection of the silage in the bag indicated that it appeared to be “ok”. Moisture was good, smelled all rig= ht, no yeasty aroma or noticeable molds. Forage nutrient and fermentation analysis looked good (table 1). Our only reservation was that the = silage was not packed very firm. With moderate pressure ones fist could sink into the bag about 2”, indicat= ing poor silage density and reason to suspect aerobic instability once we open = the bag. We considered the potent= ial risks, but given the 2006 northeast crop year, low CS yields (if any), and = the fact that we had already been feeding over 1000 T of purchased CS, we were going to feed this BMR CS.

Within a week or 2, milk started to drop. Was it the BMR, the purchased CS, the haylage changes, the change of seasons, changes in barometric pressure, who knows? After the third week on this silag= e cows were visibly losing body condition. Raise the red flags, inspect all feed ingredients! Ralph, Steve and I immediately wen= t to the bag of BMR CS and found heating silage and spots of red, white and blue spoilage throughout the forage. Executive decision, dump the remaining 50’ of BMR CS. Within a matter of hours, the sila= ge was gone. We told Ev later that d= ay, after it was all over. <= /o:p>

We sampled the silage as it was being trashed to compare nutrient and fermenta= tion profiles of the initial sample with the “final” sample. Interesting to note, that the nutr= ient profiles of the initial and final samples were not much different and did n= ot indicate any change in sugar or starch levels resulting from spoilage. The fermentation profiles however = were quite different; a decrease in lactic acid, rise in acetic and extreme leve= ls of propionic acid, which under ideal conditions is supposed to be negligibl= e. At time of disposal, the silage ha= d a distinct yeasty smell, leading us to conclude that this silage was under go= ing aerobic deterioration by yeasts, which allowed for the growth of other more deleterious microfloral. Also= to note is that we did not wait for forage analyses to base our decisions, whi= ch may have taken another week. =

After disposing of the bad BMR CS, and feeding a diet without any BMR CS, the cows have recovered about 5 lbs of the 8-10 lbs that they lost. It appears that punctures during storage, lack of adequate silage density, and possibly too slow a feed out,= or any combination of the above, resulted in a lack of aerobic stability. Yeasts began to proliferate during= feed out consuming lactate, which combined with oxygen exposure allowed for the growth of other microorganisms including propionic acid producing microbes. It did not take lab analyses to determine lost body condition, lost milk and rumen upset result= ing in varied manure consistency for an executive decision to be made immediate= ly. This ag bag of corn silage was certainly not a treat.

—K.C.<= /span>

INTERESTING NEW WEBSITE

A New Hampshire farm manager has been working with University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension to launch a new website www.dairycos= ts.com that invites farmers to anonymously post farm input cost information. Then = you can compare what you’re paying against what others say they’re paying. The website is still in its initial signup period so there’s = not a lot of data on there, but be patient: Sign up now (it’s free), and check out the rather detailed list of inputs—both crop and animal-oriented.

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

With the corn and haylage in and fermenting, we recently did a feed inventory wi= th our nutritionist. We have bun= ker silos, ag bags and now a pile of silage so the calculations were a little tricky, but it is good to know what we have to work with. We have more than enough haylage f= or the cows and heifers. At the end = of this month we will be finished feeding the 823 tons of purchased silage, and then our 2006 silage will last us until the next corn harvest.

Milk production is climbing back up again after it dropped in October when we hit some moldy corn silage. It is amazing what mold can do to a cow’s digestive system – producti= on drops, manure is inconsistent, some cows go off feed, and it takes the whole herd a while to recover! Part= of the reason we ended up with moldy feed is that the raccoons enjoyed a meal = at our expense from one of our ag bags. Our feeder, Ralph, said that it was real American mold – he saw red, white, and blue mold!

This week our new calf warmers were delivered, great timing seeing that we got o= ur first snowfall on October 20th. The calves lay on a plastic grate and a hea= ter sits protected underneath the grate. A vented dome closes the calf off from the rest of the environment a= nd warm air blows intermittently, drying off and warming the calf. So now that we have this great contraption, we are working on establishing a protocol for using it. How soon after birth do you put a = calf into the warmer and how long do you leave her in there? Should you feed her before you put= her in the warmer so that she doesn’t get forgotten? How do we acclimate her to the out= side temperature after she comes out of the warmer? Probably all these questions depen= d on the temperature and the condition of the calf, but we want to make sure we = are using the warmer correctly. We certainly do not want our calves getting pneumonia!

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

—Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com

VET’S CORNER

Recrystallization of Frozen Semen

When conception rates drop, inaccurate heat detection, infectious diseases, heat stress and nutritional insufficiencies commonly get the blame. Sometimes, poor semen handling tec= hnique is the culprit.

The table from Dr. Brad Strou= d, Stroud Veterinary Embryo Services, illustrates the drastic change in temperature that occurs in the neck of a nitrogen tank. When semen is plunged into liquid nitrogen (-196° C), it can be viable for hundreds of years. If the temp is raised to -130°= C (within 6 inches of the top of the nitrogen tank), recrystallization will begin. Transformed large crys= tals of water will invade cell membranes of sperm cells. If the straw is plunged back into = the tank, sperm cell damage occurs due to the refreezing of the large water crystals.

If the straw is raised to within 4 inches of the top, temperature in the straw raises to -100 C in 10-15 seconds. Therefore, while searching for straw tab codes, within 8 seconds drop the cane back below 9 inches for semen safety. At -100° C, the straw will be = frozen and appear normal, but be assured that recrystallization has begun. You cannot see the damage.

Specific suggestions to improve conception rates are to:

1.        Purchase semen directly from AI stud companies, which are doing an outstanding job of processing, freezing, and shipping semen.

2.        Know the prefix code of the desired bull, before raising the canister. If the cane is sear= ched in the frost zone, the straw that is removed and placed in the water bath w= ill be fine. What happened to the remaining 9 straws in the cane that are plunged back to -196° C.? Have they been damaged by recrystallization?

3.        Review basic semen handling techniques with a trained AI tech to be= come proficient in the use of tweezers and forceps to remove straws from the can= e, six inches below the top of the neck of the nitrogen tank.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

cowdoc@adelphia.net

MINER INSTITUTE’S FIRST ANNUAL CRAPPIE FISHING= DERBY

At the end of corn harvest, everyone at the Miner Institute needed a little fun and entertainment, especially the crops guys. A fishing derby was just the type = of recreation they had in mind, so out came the old row boat. Anxious to take an afternoon off f= rom spreading manure, Jake was the first eager participant.

Unfortunately, due to water quality issues, the crappie just were not biting that afternoo= n. L The next time Jake invited Steve to come out in the boat with him; fishing = is more fun when your buddy is with you!

Jake and Steve were our only 2 brave contestants and although neither of them ca= ught anything, the crappie fishing derby was enjoyed immensely by the observers = on shore. We all at the Miner Institute sure do know how to keep things exciting!

All kidding aside, those pictures are real, and Jake and Steve were actually in= the manure pit trying to find the exact location of the pipe that empties into = the pit. The pipe has been clogged since July, making it necessary to haul manure out of the barn everyday. We have tried forcing air through = the pipe and even had Roto-Rooters come, but nothing worked. Now that the corn and haylage are = in, the crops guys have been hauling manure almost non-stop, trying to get to t= he bottom of the pit so that we can work on fixing the pipe before winter. While they hope never to have such= an unpleasant boating experience again, they did find the pipe and next week an excavator is coming. We’= ;ll dig out the pipe and build a burm around it. Then we’ll remove the end se= ction of pipe (where we think the blockage is located), clean it, and hopefully t= he system will be up and running again!

FARM NOTES

·        All uses of lindane will soon be cancelled as a result of voluntary requests by the registrants. They determined that the cost of continued registration outweighs the benefits of the remaining seed treatment uses, w= hich includes corn. Lindane was about the only planterbox insecticide we could u= se for wireworm control; fortunately, insecticide pretreatments (Poncho, Cruis= er) will control wireworms.

·        Aurora Organic Dairy, the largest producer of organic milk in the <= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">U.S., is tripling the acreage of certified organic pasture at its 3300-cow dairy in Dublin, Texas. Operators of small o= rganic dairy farms were complaining that the dairy was actually a confinement operation, with insufficient pasture to be considered organic. Aurora recently completed its third organic dairy (High Plains Organic Dairy) in <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">Colorado; we ass= ume it also has plenty of pastureland. Organic milk now accounts for about 2% of a= ll fluid milk sales.

WHEN YOU ONLY WANT A HEIFER...

Since Adam and Eve, humans haven’t been very successful at manipulating the= sex of their offspring or the offspring of the animals around them. Just imagine the problems that could have been avoided if Eve gave birth to Jane and Abe= l. In the dairy industry the use of sexed semen seemed to put to rest many of = the whacky breeding practices purported to result in a cow giving birth to a he= ifer calf. Just when I’d thought the fertility idols had been put to bed, = (are you paying attention Ev?), I read an article in the July 2006 issue of Anim= al Reproduction Science. Just like an episode of Discovery Channel’s Myth Busters, a group of Dutch and Danish scientists examine the thought that varying the time of insemination can alter the sex of calves. It has been suggested that early insemination (far before ovulation) would result in mo= re female calves whereas late inseminations (i.e. close to ovulation) would result in more male calves. (I know there is probably a joke here, but my children…all boys…are old enough to read the Farm Report, so I won’t go there!) The scientific thought behind this is due to theoret= ical differences between X and Y-bearing sperm; survival time and timing of capacitation, a process sperm must undergo in the female reproductive tract before they can fertilize an egg. This study used ultrasound every 4 hours = to pinpoint time of ovulation and cows were bred between 36 hours before and 12 hours after ovulation. Seven days after breeding, the uterus of each cow was flushed and 64 total embryos were recovered and assessed for quality and se= x of the embryo. There was no effect of insemination relative to ovulation on the sex ratio of the seven-day-old embryos.

Several studies have confirmed this study’s findings, that sex of the calf ca= nnot be influenced by time of insemination relative to ovulation. However, some studies have found more female calves with early inseminations and male cal= ves with later inseminations. Just as many studies have found the opposite to be true. So, the debate rages on…perhaps if the cow is facing north and = the wind is blowing from the south at the time of insemination…oh heck, t= haw me a straw of sexed semen.

—Katie Ballard

ballard@whminer.com

Editor’s note concerning Katie’s linking of Ev and fertility idols<= /b>: When Ev and The Brid= e were trying to start a family—with no success at first—someone gave = him an African fertility idol. Figuring that it certainly couldn’t hurt, = the idol was placed in a “position of honor”, specific location non= e of the reader’s business. After three children in five years, Ev turned = the fertility idol around to face the wall.

BROWN ROOT ROT OF ALFALFA: Progress Report

Miner Institute is cooperating with Cornell University in explo= ring ways to control Brown Root Rot (Phoma sclerotiodes) in alfalfa. While many plant diseases are more of a problem at warm temperatures, Brown Root Rot (= BRR) is active at low temperatures. The pathogen causes lesions not only on alfa= lfa but on clover and other perennial legumes. Long known to be a problem in the Canadian prairie provinces, BRR was first reported in the NY in 2003. Since then the disease has also b= een confirmed in Vermont and New Hampshire. Cornell University plant pathologist Gary Bergstrom and his graduate student, Michael Wunsch, have been sampling fiel= ds in 5 counties in NY, 4 in Vermont and 2 = in New Hampshire. (= This most likely means that Michael has been doing the sampling since, well, thi= s is what graduate students do.) About 50 plants were examined in most fields, b= ut in one field each in Clinton and Wyoming Counties (NY), over 700 alfalfa pl= ants were sampled. That’s a lot of digging!

Brown Root Rot was found in 8 of 10 fields sampled in NY, 6 of 7 in Vermont and 5 of 6 fields in New Hamp= shire. This includes Clinton and St. Lawrence Counties in NY and Addison and Franklin Counties in Vermont, all with large dairy industri= es. This suggests that BRR is widespread in the Northeast. In all three states = the vast majority of both the root and crown lesions were extensive enough that= BRR almost certainly is having an economically important impact on alfalfa. Currently there’s no chemical, cultural, or genetic control; thatR= 17;s what the Cornell research is all about. Stay tuned.

—E.T.<= /span>

2007 SEED CORN ECONOMICS

Pricing policies differ among seed companies, but for the sake of illustration we’ll use the prices for the “base genetics” Pioneer hybrid 38B85 plus its t= raits and pest protection packages. Assumption: 80,000 kernel unit, 2.5 acres per unit =3D 32,000 seeds per acre. All prices are per acre, rounded to the nea= rest dollar, include Poncho 250 seed treatment except for 38B85, and assume a 10% discount from the retail price due to early order/early pay/volume discount= s. You’ll need to do your own math for other seed companies with differe= nt pricing plans, but it will be well worth your time and effort.

Comments:

·        With the 10% discount, Poncho 250 pretreatment costs only about $2.00/acre more than a planterbox treatment. Given the difference in expect= ed performance, the pretreatment is well worth the extra cost.

·        Given the $1.00/acre difference between Poncho 1250 seed pretreatme= nt and 38B83 (Bt for corn rootworm), if you have a serious rootworm problem it= may be better to use the rootworm-resistant hybrid. For most farmers in the Northeastern U.S., Poncho 1250 should provide good rootworm control and is also effective on some insects that RW-resistant hybrids don’t control.

·        After several years of research here at Miner Institute we still aren’t sure how serious a problem corn borers are in this region. Sin= ce it costs $12/acre ($61 vs. $49) to add genetic corn borer control, it’= ;s a decision that should be based on the history of corn borer damage in your a= rea and on your farm.

rBST-FREE MILK

Six milk plants in Eastern NY and New England owned by Dean Foods and H.P. Hood= no longer accept milk from cows treated with rBST, and Vermont Commissioner of Agriculture Steve Kerr is encouraging Vermont dairy farmers to stop using BST. Since cows produce somatotropin naturally,= the focus is really on recombinant BST (rBST), sold by Monsanto Co. as Posilac. Questions include “Will Hood and Dean Foods decide to purchase nothing except rBST-free milk?” and “If they do, how much (if any) prem= ium will farmers receive in return for not using Posilac?” Estimates on a premium range widely, from $0.20 to almost $1.00. Monsanto says that assumi= ng a 10 lb milk response to Posilac and a five-year average milk price of $13.85, dairy farmers should get $0.76/cwt to forgo its use. A 9-year Cornell University study involving 675 farms participating in the NY Dairy Farm Business Summary Program concluded that using rBST decreased the cost of mi= lk production by between $0.23 and $0.52/cwt. Garelick (Dean Foods) recently w= as selling “no added artificial growth hormones” milk in Boston for $4.50 per gallon, or about twice what regular milk sells for in local supermarkets. Garelick’s advertising contains the following statement about their rBST-free milk: “No significant difference in milk from c= ows treated with artificial growth hormones.”

We’re more than casual observers, in part since we use Posilac in the Miner Insti= tute herd. Some concerns being expressed are financial; others are philosophical= but perhaps at least as important. There’s a milk surplus now, so milk handlers can pretty much call the shots. However, if the surplus dries up (= not using Posilac would contribute to this) and there’s competition for r= egional milk supplies, could Hood and Dean Foods find the necessary amounts of rBST-free milk? (Current data shows Vermont milk production down over 4% in the past year.) And if milk co-ops are successful in limiting or preventing the use of a legal, research-proven pr= oduct (Posilac), what’s next for dairy farmers? No dry treatments for masti= tis prevention? No progesterone injections? No oxytocin? Restrictions by milk companies on use of fertilizers and pesticides? The camel’s nose is a= bout to poke beneath the dairy farmer’s tent. Serious stuff? Gee, ya think= ?

—E.T.<= /span>

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

It’s been said that a specialist is someone who knows a lot about a little; as t= his person continually learns more and more about less and less he eventually k= nows everything about nothing. (In a similar vein, Albert Einstein said that an expert is a man who has made all mistakes possible in a narrow field of expertise.) A generalist knows a little bit about a lot of things; he learns less and less about more and more until one day he knows nothing about everything.

There’s an increasing number of professionals serving the dairy industry, both in government service (including the Land Grant Colleges) and in agribusiness,= who know a lot about forage crops but don’t know what happens after a cow eats the forage, or who know all there is to know about mammary function but couldn’t find the milk line on a corn kernel. We’re getting to = the point where we have too few generalists: People with a working knowledge of= the many aspects of dairy farming. Some dairy nutrition consultants come close = to being generalists, also some production animal veterinarians and those work= ing in public or private agriculture that were brought up on a dairy farm. Howe= ver, with many of these ex-farmers the problem is what they think they know vs. what’s really true. ERN Charlie Sniffen (him again) approaches what I= see as the ideal: He has a well-earned reputation as a topnotch dairy nutrition= ist, but through his background in Cooperative Extension and an ever-inquisitive mind he knows a lot about forage crops. (We won’t say how long ago he= was a County Agent, but as a lad Sniffen attended a one-room school. Honest.) In the years we worked together here at Miner Institute Charlie was always ask= ing those “what, why, and how” questions about our crop activities,= so he never stopped learning. We dumped on him a bit in last month’s Farm Report so this sort of evens things up.

The emphasis on specialization within agriculture is getting worse. In the past= ten years, mostly because of nutrient management legislation and CAFO regulatio= ns, there’s been a big push to have agronomists become Certified Crop Advisors so they can legally prepare nutrient management programs for farme= rs. To remain certified they must accumulate 40 hours of technical training (“Continuing Education Units”) every two years. However, althou= gh almost every CCA in the Northeastern U.S. is in some way involved in the dairy industry, nary an hour of this training i= s in animal agriculture or the various aspects of dairy herd management. The more time CCAs spend learning and relearning crop stuff the less time they have = to discover about what happens to forages and grains once they stop being a cr= op and become a feed. I strongly suspect a comparable situation exists with certified Professional Animal Scientists.

In some ways this is job security for those of us with broad-based backgrounds, though some would say we know just enough to be dangerous. However, lots of “cow-crop interface” questions wind up on my desk, and I probab= ly get as many questions from veterinarians and dairy nutrition consultants as= I do from crop-oriented professionals. There’s a solution for all of us working with farmers: Keep up with the printed word on both animal and crop management—including the popular press and the appropriate profession= al journals—and attend the occasional educational meeting that isn’= ;t in our normal field of expertise.

—E.T.<= /span>

THE U.S. DAIRY INDUSTRY

Looking Ahead to 2007

USDA has published its Livestock, Dairy, & Poultry Outlook. Here are a few statistics for your enlightenment, comparing 2007 predictions to the past y= ear or two.

·        Nothing exciting regarding dairy cow numbers, ranging from 9.05 to = 9.13 million from the end of 2005 through 2007. Trend is slightly lower, which should be good for prices.

·        Milk per cow continues its slow but steady increase. Sometime next = year the national herd average will reach 20,000 lbs/cow for the first time ever. We’re only a milk pail full away right now.

·        The above two trends will combine to allow total milk production to remain almost unchanged at 182 billion pounds, about 1% over expected 2006 totals.

·        Marketings: In line with production, which also is good for prices since imports will remain very small.

·        Prices: “All milk” prices are forecast to average betwe= en $13.00 and $13.90/cwt for 2007, up from $12.70-12.80 for 2006. Therefore, depending on which end of the range the price falls, it could be a so-so ye= ar for milk prices, or a pretty good one.

SOIL TEST, WHETHER YOU OUGHTA OR GOTTA

If you’re a CAFO farm, you gotta. If you’re not a CAFO farm, you oughta. Average soil fertility on dairy farms is slowly but steadily increasing. On some heavily-manured fields, it’s increasing faster th= an slowly. On what do you base your fertilizer program? What you’ve alwa= ys used? Soil analyses done five or more years ago? Some farmers will wheedle = and whine to save $10 per ton on fertilizer, and then apply much more than they need. Cornell has done plenty of research on farmers’ fields showing = that using a high rate of starter fertilizer (or perhaps any at all) on fertile fields is a waste of money. The more manure you apply to a field, the more important it is to have a current soil analysis. While CAFO farms are requi= red to soil test all crop fields at least once every three years, this should be standard practice on all farms. It’s not too late to sample fields th= is fall (if you get right to it) and have the results back in plenty of time to order fertilizer for spring 2007.

A soil test is only half the battle. The other half is a responsible set of fertilizer recommendations. Most state university recommendations (Cornell, UVM, etc.) are based on actual crop response data, and are much more reliab= le than those made by a lab thousands of miles from your farm with no knowledg= e of local growing conditions or cropping practices. One huge soil testing lab, = for instance, makes fertilizer recommendations without asking any questions abo= ut manure use. You could take the soil sample, then apply 20,000 gallons of sl= urry manure per acre, and the fertilizer recommendations wouldn’t take this huge nutrient application into account at all. For continuous corn it could make the difference between needing just a starter fertilizer vs. 100+ lbs = of N per acre. Test, don’t guess, and then use “local talent”—Cooperative Extension, crop consultants, etc.—to = help with fertilizer rates and application methods.

SOYBEAN RUST UPDATE

Soybean leaf samples collected from Po= pe County, Illinois were confirmed positive for soybean rust (10-13). Other new reports for 2006 inc= lude Fulton County in Kentucky. Currently rust has been found infecting this year's soybeans in 99 different counties in ten states: AL, FL, GA, IL, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, and TX. Includi= ng reports on kudzu, there is a total of 121 counties in ten states with rust = this year. Much like the 2005 season, more soybean rust finds came late in the growing season. While rust hasn’t&nb= sp; yet been found in the Northeast, its continued spread across soybean-growing regions means that we can’t forget about this potenti= ally devastating disease.

MORE FARM NOTES

·        It’s not known what’s responsible for the late-summer blooms of toxic cyanobacteria in Lake Champlain, particularly Missisquoi Bay in Vermont and Quebec. Research suggests that these bacteria may be more resistant to herbicides than more common algae. Researchers from Clarkson University and Platt= sburgh State University conducted toxicity tests to assess the relative toxicity of some of the new= er herbicides (Broadstrike, Accent, Callisto, Frontier, Matrix) and atrazine to phytoplankton species commonly found in Lake Champla= in. Good news: They found that the new generation herbicides have very limited activity on the test organisms. Their conclusion: “Based on our resul= ts, we are confident that herbicides are not the leading factor contributing to toxic cyanobacteria blooms in Missisquoi Bay.” Contact= : basartj@clarkson.edu

·        In the recent Renewable Energy Conference in = St. Louis, Monsanto’s Rob Fraley predicted that in 30 years corn yields will average 300 bushels per acre. <= o:p>

·        It seems foolish to write about drought when we’ve just come through a year when unremitting rains in May and June drove farmers to distraction. However, one of the most respected weather cycle theories is t= he 18- or 19-year drought cycle. Tree ring records going back hundreds of years seem to support this. The most serious droughts in the past century in the = Midwest were in 1936, 1955, 1974, and then a few ye= ars early, in 1988. While it’s not uncommon to go 20 years without a seri= ous drought, the longest drought-free interval on record is 23 years. It’s been 18 years since the 1988 drought. This means we’re likely to have= at least one serious drought between 2010 that will impact both the central and eastern U.S. We have no idea what you should do with this rather unsettling information.=

CALENDAR EVENTS

http://www.whminer.org/calendar.html

CLOSING COMMENT

Girls turn into women. Boys turn in= to bigger boys.