M= INER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT CELEBRATES 25 YEARS

The first issue of the Farm Report= was published in January 1982. In it we promised that “Each month you’ll receive a report from us which will contain a variety of resea= rch results, meeting notices, and dairy and crop recommendations. We will use t= his report to keep you informed about what’s happening in the agricultural community in general and at Miner Institute in particular.” We’ve tried to be true to our word, but Miner Institute’s farm operation sure has changed since 198= 2. The following paragraph was in this first issue:

Presently our dairy herd consists of = 105 cows with a 15,800# milk—545# fat herd average. The feeding program is clover haylage and high moisture corn. We also have 15 Charolais, 14 beef steers, and assorted goats, horses, buffalo, and a llama. Our 1982 crop pla= ns are for 165 acres of corn, mostly for high moisture corn, 80 acres of legum= es for haylage, 50 acres of grass hay, 35 acres of alfalfa seeding, and about = 100 acres of rotated improved pasture.

Today we have three times as many dai= ry cows almost twice the milk and more than twice as much fat production per c= ow. Our milking rations don’t include any clover haylage or high moisture corn, are based on corn silage and alfalfa-grass haylage. We don’t ha= ve any beef steers, goats, buffalo, or llamas. We still have horses, and as wi= th the dairy herd, the quality of our horses—registered Morgans—has improved tremendously. Since 1982 we’re on our fourth President of Mi= ner Institute and our seventh dairy farm manager, but still are stuck with the = same old Crops Dude.

Each month in 2007 we’ll reprin= t a Farm Report article from the corresponding month 25 years ago. This months article (page 2) is by Dr. Harry Randy, who came to the North Country in the 1970s as a Cornell University Extension Dairy Specialist. Harry joined the Institute as Director of Research in 1981, soon becoming President, and held that position until his untimely death in 1991= at age 41. The articles are all by Harry or Ev simply because in 1982 they were the only ones writing for the Farm Report. How times have changed!

—Ev Thomas

thomas@whminer.com

MASTITIS—THE BATTLE GOES ON

Over the past few years the dairy her= d at the Miner Institute seemed to have more than its fair share of mastitis. The New York Regional Mastitis Laboratory has pretty well documented that our problems were primarily staph species, staph aureus, and strep species.

The herd is strep agalactia free and = has a very low level of E. coli, Klebsiella and other types of mastitis. In order to lower the frequency of mastitis in the herd, we had tried just about everything you might imagine.= All cows have been teat dipped at every milking and dry treated for years now. = We put in automatic takeoffs to try to eliminate some of the possibility of pe= ople error. Still the mastitis persisted.

This past spring, we decided to beef = the old “chronic” mastitis cows. Twelve cows whose average producti= on was right at 50# per cow per day were identified as “chronic” b= ased on their past history of clinical mastitis, DHI somatic cell count and bact= eria culture.

Many of these cows were due in the fa= ll and their average DHI production for their last completed lactation was jus= t over 17,000 pounds of milk. However, only 10-11,000 pounds of this milk was sold, the rest being dumped or fed to calves because it was treated. In an effort= to maintain our herd size after these cows left, 10 bred heifers were added. T= hese animals calved throughout the summer. Their projected records average 18= ,000 pounds and through the end of the year produced a total of 63,000 po= unds.

It was interesting to note that when = we beefed the old cows over a period of a few weeks, watching drug withdrawal = time, we hardly noticed a drop in the bulk tank. Between the milk we were dumping, and fresh cows and heifers coming on, we actually gained quite quickly in production. It was also nice to go from treating an average of one cow every day to only one a week.

—Harry A. Randy

Originally printed in the January 1982 issue of the Farm Report.

Holiday Ch= eer and a Bite of Cheesecake

Our holiday party was a pleasant affa= ir, good food and good conversation away from the work place. However, the conversation be= came quite boisterous when Peter K, our animal behavior PhD. candidate mentioned that = he made possibly the best cheesecake ever.&nb= sp; I don’t recall how we came to be talking about cheesecake, but there it was, a declaration by the new guy. Well, you should have seen the hac= kles rise as others proclaimed the merits of their cheesecakes. So, there it beg= an, the First Annual Miner Institute Cheesecake Bakeoff Challenge.

The days leading up to the competition were wrought with tension and anxiety in the cafeteria as people whispered = who they thought would enter, who they thought would win, what their secrets we= re to ensure a flawless and tasty dessert.&nb= sp; Rules and conditions were discussed; flavorings or not. You know, th= ose that have fruit or caramel swirled in the batter resulting in a super-sweet gooey treat, more like candy than dessert. = As opposed to the straight-up purist cheesecake of just cream cheese, sour cream, eggs and sugar.

The day arrived and so did the cakes. There were 4 entries, 2 submitted by well-known women of the Institute and 2 from the male side of the staff, Peter and myself. Hope sliced the cakes into sampling sizes and prepared forms for voting an overall winner based solely= on taste, texture and mouth appeal, not appearance; this was not to be a beauty contest. The tension was palp= able during lunch as people yummed their way through the entries.

At last the votes were tallied and it= was a landslide tie! The 2 male entries ran away with the competition leaving t= he 2 women’s cheesecakes in the dust.&nbs= p; The men's cakes each garnered 9 first place votes. The women? Well, they did receive a few votes, logic would have it that they would vote for their own cakes, right? The tiebreaking vote came down to Laurie Miller, our accounts manager. Bad new= s for me, because Laurie has had it in for me for quite awhile. I am not very pro= mpt with my cafeteria payment and trip receipts and Laurie is frequently heard yelling “Kurt! Don’t make me come after you!”.

The tiebreak went to Peter K, for his deliciously rich, crushed almond topped cheesecake. (We all know that toppi= ngs on cheesecake are only decorative disguises to hide the flaws and cracks of= the cake surface. But, as stated by the rules committee, this was not a beauty contest). <= /p>

Peter and I congratulated each other,= and the ladies, on each other’s fine desserts and good sportsmanship. Tho= ugh there were immediate chants of “rematch” and claims that the ot= hers would win a cookie bakeoff or a hors d’oeuvre cook-off, or a …. Peter and I looked a= t each other and shrugged, “Whatever ladies, bring it on!”<= /span>

—Ku= rt Cotanch

cotanch@whminer.com =

Vet’s Corner: Considerate Dehorning of Calves

Few producers would argue that dehorn= ing calves is unnecessary. An adult dairy cow with horns is often a menace to h= er herd mates and to the humans who care for her. Since almost all dairy cows = will experience dehorning in their lifetimes, I believe it’s important to prevent this procedure from being unnecessarily painful, frightening, and stressful for young stock.

Veterinarians have ways of dehorning cattle at any life stage, but it is without a doubt best to dehorn them at = the calf stage, when the horns are mere buds and the animal is easily handled. = This is generally between weeks 2 and 12 of the animal’s life. As the anim= al ages the dehorning procedures become increasingly traumatic, entailing more blood loss, more exposed sinus tissue, and more rodeo skill. We should all = make an effort to identify calves at the horn bud stage in order to avoid these situations.

The horn grows from a ring of tissue surrounding the horn bud and directly on the surface of the skull bone. If = this tissue is destroyed, the animal will never grow a horn. If the ring is only partially obliterated the animal will grow a “scur” in the futu= re. If the bud is removed without the destruction of the germinal tissue the ho= rn will grow again as though nothing has happened.

I prefer using hot iron dehorners, wh= ich should heat up to about 600º C if working properly. The hotter they are, the more like= ly they are to destroy the growing ring of horn tissue. The iron is held on long enough to create a copper-colored ring around the horn bud (usually 30-60 seconds). Gouging out the horn with a scoop dehorning is another effective method but= can be very bloody.

Regardless of method, I feel a person= al responsibility to perform a nerve block for the animal that is to be dehorn= ed. If you’ve ever burned yourself, you know how painful it can be. Imagi= ne if someone held an iron to you for 45 seconds! I’m sure you would appreciate some anesthesia.

How can you desensitize a horn bud? It’s easy and generally very effective: If you straddle the calf and = feel the skull just behind the outside corner of each eye you will detect a divo= t. This sunken area corresponds to our temples. The nerve that supplies the ho= rns with sensation runs right though this soft spot. Take an 18 gauge 1 ½ inch needle attached to a syringe loaded with 3 to 5 cc of lidocaine, and insert the needle into the divot. I always protect the eyeball with my non-dominant hand while I bring the needle near the face. Put most of the lidocaine close to the bone and deposit the rest as you slowly withdraw the needle. Repeat for the other horn bud, and allow 5 to 10 minutes for the lidocaine to perfuse the tissue. (Editor’s note: Lidocaine must be obtai= ned from your veterinarian.)

If all goes well the calf doesn’= ;t feel the procedure and may even try to suckle your hands while you’re dehorning it. Reasons to go to this extra effort include humaneness, decrea= sed stress on calf and operator, and increased return to feeding. The primary disadvantage is increased operator time, but even this is minimized as the operator gains some experience.

—Matthew Eyles, DVM<= /span>

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.=

bumblecat_2000@yahoo.com

<= /o:p>

SPANISH TRANSLATION

Thanks to Steve Graham from Chrs. Han= sen, a Spanish translation of Ev’s article “Asphalt Floors for Bunker and Stack Silos”, is now available on our website= .

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK: State of the Institute<= /o:p>

We just completed our year-end review= of progress and activities at Miner Institute for 2006 and I thought I’d share some of the highlights with you. Each year as I look back over the accomplishments of the Institute staff and their programs, I’m amazed= at what we are able to accomplish.

In 2006 our research group (directed by Katie Ballard) conducted nine full-scale studies on topics ranging from measuring forage fragility and chewing response to the effect of copper sulfate on plant and soil characteristics (research from the front to the back end of the cow). Student projects are a significant portion of what we do here, providing th= em with a glimpse into the research process and simultaneously generating usef= ul, practical knowledge. In 2006 nine students conducted research projects rang= ing from the effects of stocking density on cow behavior (Chris Hill’s MS thesis) to a cordless system for monitoring rumen pH to cooling systems for= our free-stall barn to improving equine reproduction (I’ll leave the gory details to Katie or Karen). We invested considerable resources into our research program in 2006 to upgrade our equipment and hire additional techn= ical staff – we can now move to a new level of investigating how forage chemistry influences digestibility and move the CPM-Dairy nutrition model forward.

Our educational programs remain the essential reason that we’re here. The Advanced Dairy Management progr= am monopolizes our efforts (and especially Wanda E= merich’s time, who coordinates the program) in the spring semester with dairy manage= ment students spending an entire semester in residence at the Institute. These a= re primarily students who have spent two years at V= ermont Technical College and have transferred to the University of Vermont for their final two years. Our hope is that most of these students return to dairy farming when the program is completed. During the fall semester the focus shifts to Agriculture and the Environment (coordinated by Steve Kramer) and students primarily from SUNY Plattsburgh with little or no agricultural background. The contrast in stud= ent backgrounds, experiences, and expectations between spring and fall semester= s is a significant part of what makes it stimulating to work here. Our Summer Experience programs in crop/dairy, equine, agricultural research, and Heart’s Delight History remain vibrant and highly competitive, attrac= ting students from across the U.S. and even occasionally internationally (for example the Netherlands in 2006).

Industry outreach consumes substantial amounts of all staff time, and this reaches back to the Institute’s c= ore mission of application of the latest technological advances to solve proble= ms confronting North Country agriculture (or, in fact, national and global issues). Nearly 1500 people attended over 20 workshops/seminars held on-cam= pus in 2006. Our audience at Dair= y Day 2006, the premier event focused on the dairy industry, was comprised of 38% producers from New York, 38% producers f= rom Vermont, and 24% from Quebec. Ev continues to make the Farm = Report far and away our outreach effort with the single greatest impact. In the pa= st two years, The Stable Sheet has delivered timely information to the equine industry (kudos to Karen Lassell, our Equine Manager). Increasi= ngly, our website is an important vehicle for delivering information. Debra LaPor= te (my administrative assistant – meaning she keeps the wheels on and th= ings running smoothly) oversees the website and reckoned that over 2700 people p= er month visited the web site in 2006 with the Farm Report and Stable Sheet be= ing most frequented.

The Institute’s most visible demonstration program continues to be the dairy herd. Steve Couture and his staff elevated the herd to new heights in 2006 – just a few pounds shy of a 30,000-pound RHA. A high level of d= airy herd performance is necessary for our research results to be applicable to = the modern dairy industry, for relevant educational programs, and for effective demonstration of the latest technology in a dairy-crop system. <= /span>

Obviously, I’ve skipped over ma= ny other significant accomplishments and programs, but I did want to share with all of you a quick glance at the breadth and vigor of our research, educational, and demonstration programs. As I travel I find that many folks have heard of Miner Institute, but usually their impression is one-dimensio= nal. For instance, they’ve interacted with students and staff at the Dairy Challenge or they funded research here and their knowledge of the Institute= is really fairly narrow. If this brief overview stimulates interest on your pa= rt in learning more about the range of Miner Institute programs for any reason, feel free to contact us.

Finally, and most importantly, best wishes for 2007!

—Ri= ck Grant

= grant@whminer.com

The Feeder’s Job: Importance

Editor’s note: This is the firs= t of a series of monthly articles on feeding management by Steve Mooney, a post-doctoral fellow here at the Institute.

The feeder on a dairy farm is respons= ible for the management of a dairy’s most expensive enterprise and, through feeding, influences most (if not all) aspects of the dairy operation. Given= my bias as a nutritionist, the feeder’s job is the most important on a dairy.

Feeding the dairy herd can account for 50% of the costs to operate a dairy, and the return on those invested dolla= rs will be influenced by the skills and practices of the feeder. With current economic and regulatory pressures on the dairy industry, accurate mixing and delivery of rations is essential for maximum return and utilization.

The feeder on a dairy farm can have m= any responsibilities and the tasks assigned vary from farm to farm. The job can be a part-time or full= -time depending on the size of the farm and the number of full-time equivalents i= nvolved. The feeder manages the feeding program every day and, on any given day, the feeder might monitor feed (quality and quantity), run dry matters, adjust m= ix sheets, mix and deliver rations, monitor intake and refusals, watch cows, k= eep records, and communicate information. All these tasks are essential to a high-quality feeding program.

In a high-quality feeding program, the feeder becomes the intermediary between the nutritionist and the cows. The nutritionist provides a ration that the feeder must deliver accurately to t= he cows. And, in a well-managed feeding system, the cows can provide accurate feedback on the ration that t= he feeder can deliver to the nutritionist. A feeding program with daily quality control can provide for a two-way communication between the cows and the nutritionist. Ultimately, the feeder is the linchpin that holds the whole feeding program together.

Someone wiser has said that three rat= ions exist on every dairy farm: The ration the nutritionist balances, the ration= the feeder delivers, and the ration the cow eats. Three different rations occur when the nutritionist, the feeder, or the cows make mistakes. The nutrition= ist might balance a ration based on inaccurate analyses, out of date dry matter= s, or ingredients that are no longer available on the dairy. The feeder might = use the wrong mix sheet, select the wrong ingredients, add the wrong amount of a specific ingredient, or underfeed a group of cows. The cows may not eat the amounts predicted on the ration sheet or may sort for or against specific ingredients.

Three rations on a dairy can make conclusions about nutritional “cause and effect” difficult if n= ot impossible. The goal of every feeder must be to eliminate the mistakes and generate only one ration for each group of cattle. The ration mixed and delivered by the feeder must be the same as the ration balanced by the nutritionist and eaten by the cows. Only then can the communication through= the feeder between the nutritionist and the cows have any meaning or value.

Miner Institute’s dairy operati= on has established a feeding program with a high level of daily quality contro= l. Our feeders, Ralph and Travis, work hard to maintain one ration for each gr= oup of cattle. This program is a strong contributor to our increasing milk production. Using Miner Institute as an example in the next few Farm Rep= orts, we’ll explore the good, bad, and ugly of a high-quality feeding progr= am beginning with a discussion next month of the Five Priorities of the Feeder= .

—Steve Mooney=

smooney@whminer.com =

NEW RESEARCH REPORTS AVAILABLE=

We recently completed three research projects; the reports are available either on our website or by request. They are:

·= = The effect of cutting height on yield and quality= of alfalfa in Northern New York.=

·= = The effect of manure application on yield and qua= lity of alfalfa harvested in Northern New York.

·= = The effect of copper sulfate from dairy manure on= the growth and composition of cool season forage grasses and corn.

These research projects were funded by the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program.

Lameness in High-Producing Cows=

Housed in Freestalls

Lameness is a major health, welfare, = and economic concern on dairy farms. Lameness is a multifactorial condition, but few studies have investigated the association of on-farm herd-level risk factors with the prevalence of lameness of cows housed in freestalls, accor= ding to Minnesota researchers in the August 2006 and January 2007 issues of the Journal of Dairy Science. The researchers used 5,626 high-producing cows housed in freestalls from 50 commercial dairy farms in Minnesota with a herd size =3D150 cows= to identify the prevalence and herd-level risk factors of lameness.

Locomotion scoring of cows evaluates walking behaviors and postures that are thought to be indicative of lamenes= s. Cows were scored by the researchers for locomotion using a 1 to 5 scale whe= re 1 =3D normal locomotion, 2 =3D imperfect locomotion, 3 =3D lame, 4 =3D modera= tely to severely lame, and 5 =3D severely lame. Clinical lameness was indicated whe= n the locomotion score was =3D3.

The average prevalence of clinical lameness (=3D3) was 25% with a range of 3 to 57%. A goal of less than 15% clinically lame cows in a freestall herd should be achievable. Interestingl= y, the average prevalence of clinical lameness was about 3.1 times greater than the prevalence estimated by the herd managers on each farm. This suggests differences in criteria of lameness classification, lack of observation of = lame cows, or an unwillingness to openly admit there is a lameness problem in the herd. Thus, there is a need by managers for routine use of locomotion scori= ng that will help identify cows at earlier stages of lameness and result in fa= ster recovery, reduced treatment costs, improved performance, and greater profitability. A great place to observe cows for lameness is at the exit of= the parlor after milking. Another option is to have a nutritionist, veterinaria= n, or another set of eyes locomotion score the cows on a regular basis, which = will eliminate the manager bias. It is easy to overlook problems when a manager becomes accustomed to seeing lame cows on a daily basis.<= /p>

Several herd-level factors were associated with the prevalence of lameness.

·= ; = Time away from the pen. The preva= lence of lameness was increased when cows spent a longer time away from their pen= when being milked. Additional time spent outside the pen may have negatively affected their time budget, in particular resting time which could have affected hoof health. The top 25% of herds averaged 160 minutes away from t= he pen and 21% lameness while the bottom 25% of herds averaged 351 minutes away from the pen and 27% lameness.

· Cow comfort quotient (stall comfort). This was measured as the number of cows lying down in stalls divided by total number= of cows touching a stall. The prevalence of lameness was decreased when the cow comfort quotient increased. The top and bottom 25% of herds averaged a cow comfort quotient of 88% (19% lameness) and 63% (34% lameness), respectively indicating that a goal of 85% can be achieved in well-managed herds. A low = cow comfort quotient should be incentive for a manager to evaluate and possibly improve stall design.

·= ; = Hoof trimming frequency. Herds that trimmed hooves on a regular basis for the prophylactic (1 or 2 times annual= ly) and therapeutic (when cows needed it) effect had a lower prevalence of lame= ness (22%) than the herds that trimmed hooves only for the therapeutic effect (3= 4% lameness). Over-trimming hooves or not using proper trimming techniques can lead to lameness.

·= ; = Brisket board design. A brisket= board height of more than 6 inches and the presence of concrete behind the brisket board were associated with a greater prevalence of lameness (29% vs. 23% lameness). Presumably, these factors impacted stall use and the ability of = cows to lie down and rise without injury to the hooves.

·= ; = Stall surface. The prevalence of lameness in cows = was lower in herds with sand stalls (17% lameness) than in herds with mattress stall surfaces (28% lameness)

On a positive note, most of these herd-level risk factors can be managed to lower the prevalence of lameness = of cows housed in freestalls.

—He= ather Dann

d= ann@whminer.com

What’s happening on the farm

When is the last time you finished a meeting and thought, “Now that was productive!”? Several Fridays ago we had a meeti= ng like that in which we discussed some areas for improvement on the farm. The theme of our meeting was “Miner Institute has a healthy dissatisfacti= on with the status quo”. While we are pleased with the progress we’= ;ve made over the last couple years, we see areas that could use improvement if we’re going to increase production and keep our herd healthy. These broad categories are:

·= ; = Reproduction

·= ; = Cow comfort & lameness

·= ; = Feed and nutrition

·= ; = Milk quality

·= ; = Labor and training

·= ; = Calves and heifers

As you can see, we’ve covered m= ost of the farm – that’s because all these areas are connected in o= ne way or another. Reproduction is listed first, being the area where we see t= he most need for improvement. Most of the other areas affect reproduction but = they all impact production. Hock scores need to be improved and we are trying to trim hooves more often – comfortable cows are more apt to be at the f= eed bunk and showing signs of heat. We’ve been dealing with some moldy fe= ed this year that we know isn’t good for proper rumen fermentation ̵= 1; but there isn’t too much that we can do about that until next crop ye= ar. Increasing production is a team effort on the farm and so we need to focus = on training and education. And we can’t forget the next generation of mi= lk producers - the future success of the herd is in part dependent on them. We want to make sure they’re healthy and growing well so that we can get them bred and into the milking herd around 22-24 months.<= /p>

During our Friday meetings we’re trying to address at least one of these issues, discussing how we are doing= and throwing around ideas. We don’t have an agenda – maybe we should – but we are able to brainstorm. Of course we sometimes we get off tr= ack and start laughing, but that sometimes results in a creative idea – thinking outside the box! We are taking notes so that we don’t forget what we’ve decided upon and we are assigning jobs to people so that t= he illusive “someone” doesn’t end up doing all the work.

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

—St= eve Couture, couture@w= hminer.com

FEED C= OMMODITY BARGAINS

Periodically <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Ohio State University’s Dr. Normand St-= Pierre publishes a list of feed commodity good and bad deals. Here’s his lat= est:

REINDEER SEX AND SANTA CLAUS

According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, both male and female reindeer grow antlers each summer. Howe= ver, male reindeer drop their antlers from late November through mid-December wh= ile female reindeer retain theirs until they give birth in the spring. Therefor= e, since every single depiction of Santa’s reindeer on Christmas Eve sho= ws them with antlers, that means they’re all females—Dasher= and Dancer and Prancer and Vixen; Comet and Cupid, Donner and Vixen (though we’ve always wondered a bit about Prancer). Even that reindeer-come-lately Rudolph.

Women say they aren’t surprised= at all, that only females would be able to drag a fat old man in a red velvet = suit and a sleigh full of presents around the world in the dark of night and not= get lost. However, an all-female = team also might explain why Santa’s reindeer were always, uh, bickering ab= out who would lead the sleigh.

—E.T.

DESK-CLEANING TIME

Out with the old, in with the new. It’s that time of year again, when Ev cleans off his desks—the = old wooden one and his virtual desktop—of tidbits, trivia and other stuff= too good to toss.

·         A posting on Dairy Today’s website referred to “a few small and mid-sized dairies (with less than 700 cows)” S= ince when is a 600-cow dairy “mid-sized”? Since CAFO regulations def= ine large dairy farms as 700+ cows, anything under that must be “mid-sized” or smaller.

=

·= ;      =    Quote from best-selling author Garrison Keillor: ̶= 0;Sex is good, but not as good as fresh sweet corn.” Cute, but either Keill= or has had some very good sweet corn, or some very bad….oh, never mind.<= o:p>

=

·= ;      =    A recent study found that women talk three times as much as men. What, you’re surprised? This wasn’t merely an opin= ion survey, but a scientific study. The researchers also found that women devote a greater portion of their brain to speech. This is also believable since much of the spam I get suggests that a large portion of the male brain must be devoted to another organ entirely.

=

·= ;      =    Which reminds me: If it truly was the thought that counted, a lot more women would be pregnant.

=

·= ;      =    Interesting voice mail message I recently came across: “I am not available right now, but thank you for caring enough to cal= l. I am making some changes in my life. Please leave a message after the beep. If I do not return your call, you are one of the changes.” I’m waiting for that guy to = phone back…I’m sure he will soon.

=

·         Venus is the only planet in our solar system that rota= tes clockwise. Venus is normally associated with women. I don’t know if t= hese two facts are related.

=

·= ;      =    Attila the Hun’s rule: If you're = going to rape, pillage, and burn, be sure to do things in the right order.=

=

·= ;      =    Thought worth remembering from the Rev. Oliver Daley, = from Richmond, Jamaica: “Good judgment= is knowing the difference between what is important and what is essential.R= 21; What is important is having your cow win at the county fair, a good first c= ut of alfalfa, or the Yankees losing 162 games in 2007. What is essential…You should know the answers to that one.

Copper Sulfate Producer Survey

You may have already received the sur= vey I am conducting to determine the products that are being used in footbaths = in Northeastern New York and Vermont. Information collected from the survey will be used to determine the path of continued research investigating the effect of footbath treatments on the function and ecology of manure pits, soil loading, and plant growth, yield,= and quality. Additionally, results of the survey will be shared in the Farm Rep= ort and at Regional and National industry meetings. Finally, a small sub-set of farms may be selected to obtain manure, soil, and forage samples for analys= is.

Please return surveys in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided by February 23, 2007. Also,= if you prefer the survey is accessible on our website at www.whminer.org = to be completed. If you have any questions, have misplaced your survey, or never received one, I can be reac= hed at 518-846-7121 x126 or flis@whminer= .com.

Thank you for your help with my resea= rch.

—S.A. Flis

f= lis@whminer.com

=

FOOD (ACTUALLY FEED) FOR THOUGHT

Ethanol production will chew up an increasingly large portion of the U.S. grain corn crop, which w= ill have a significant effect on corn prices. Right now, predictions of fall 20= 07 corn prices resemble a “Can you top this?” competition, with forecasts of close to $4.00 with a good corn crop, over $5.00 with a not-so-good one. At the same time there will be an abundance (perhaps overabundance) of distillers grains: Cornell’s ag economist William T= omek predicts prices of $80 per ton or less. Therefore, most dairy farmers will = be able to soften the blow of higher corn prices by working with their dairy nutrition consultants to substitute an increased level of distillers grains= for other high protein supplements in their rations.

This won’t be an option for dai= ry farmers producing organic milk, however. There won’t be any “organic” ethanol plants (duh), and therefore no certified orga= nic distillers grains. (To confirm this I checked on the Internet and couldn’t find any, nor did I expect to.) The current producers= of organic grain corn will be able to sell their corn to ethanol plants and gr= ain elevators at substantially higher prices than before regardless of whether = they use pesticides, GMOs or commercial fertilizers. Certified Organic #2 corn is selling in the Midwest for $1.50 to $2.0= 0 per bushel more than normal corn—$5.00 to $5.50 vs. $3.50. Will organic c= orn growers demand that their customers pay a $1.00 or $2.00 premium over the p= rice they can get for regular corn at the ethanol plant or grain elevator? =

We’ve been focusing on organic = milk production in recent issues. That’s because organic milk is the faste= st growing dairy product, and there are current efforts both by Cooperative Extension and the State University system to inform farmers about organic milk production. The University of New H= ampshire is developing an organic dairy farm, and Cornell Cooperative Extension has = been holding farmer meetings with assistance from the National Organic Farm Association (NOFA). Our goal is to have farmers considering this decision to have all the facts, including carefully evaluating developments that seemin= gly have nothing to do with organic farming—such as the one presented her= e.

—E.T.

=

STORE MILK PRIC= ES, AND SOME “ORGANIC COMMENTS”

Following are some recent Wal-Mart SuperCenter retail prices for the various types of milk.

As you can see, Wal-Mart’s plan= to sell organic foodstuffs for only 10% more than their regular brand hasnR= 17;t come to fruition yet. Prices of organic milk, both Stonyfield and Wal-Mart’s partner Horizon, have changed little in recent months, sti= ll about 2.5 times as much as the Wal-Mart store brand. Also, there’s a $0.93 per hu= ndred difference in retail price between Byrne’s regular and “rBST-free” brands. Wonder how much of this $0.93 is going back= to the farmers selling “rBST-free” milk?

Politics isn’t the only thing t= hat makes strange bedfellows. Who’d ever imagine that Monsanto and the National Organization of African Americans in Housing (NOAAH) would both be fighting the labeling of milk as “rBST-free”? Monsanto’s position is obvious since they sell Posilac, but NOAAH has asked the Food a= nd Drug Administration to stop labeling of milk as rBST-free because it’s “identical to less expensive products”. The non-profit organization, representing low-income citizens, claims that the current labeling practice “imposes a needless financial burden on low-income consumers, …generating unnecessary confusion and anxiety.”

With all the hoopla about organic foo= ds and reports of the rapid increase in organic food sales, let’s have s= ome perspective here. The fact is that that organic agriculture is still pretty tiny: Only 0.5% of U= .S. cropland and pasture (1 acre in 200) is certified organic. Cows producing certified organic milk represent 1% of U.S. milk cows. In N.Y. State it’s less than that—0.7%.

Finally, N.Y. City is making headlines with its plan to ban trans fats, but that’s not t= he only dietary stricture they’ve made. A while back they phased out who= le milk in city schools, offering only no-fat chocolate milk and even that onl= y on Fridays. Having tasted both no-fat chocolate milk (chocolate-flavored chalk comes to mind) and 1% chocolate milk (not bad at all), is it surprising that school milk consumption has declined by 10% since the regulations were put = into place?

=

SEEDCORN SIZES
A recent on-line article summarized t= he experts’ views on seed corn size and shape. They concluded (as most others have) that it doesn’t make much difference whether you plant rounds or flats, large or small seed, as long as you properly adjust your c= orn planter—this means adjusting finger tension on finger pickup planters (like the one we have here at the Institute) or installing a small disk on = air planters when using small flats (such as F16).

Yeah, yeah, yeah…sounds good, b= ut who wants to take the time to change finger pickup tension or install disks during the rush of spring planting? All the options in seed treatments and genetic traits are making planting decisions (what goes where) confusing en= ough without having to worry about planter adjustments. What we want to do is lo= ad that sucker up with seed at the start of planting season and not worry about adjustments until we’re done. This is what we’ve tried to do he= re on the farm, with generally (but not always) good results. We avoid small rounds like the plague, wanting nothing to do with seed that weigh much less than 40 lbs. per 80,000 kernels. This past year we lost about 15% of our co= rn due to a cold snap in mid-May just as the corn planted the first few days of May was germinating. But judging from population counts on the rest of our corn, we got about what we were aiming for—in fact, slightly more. We want 31,000-32,000 plants per acre (counted in June); this year we wound up with about 33,000 on the fields where we didn’t lose corn to cold weather. We hit 35,000 on two fields which most likely wasn’t a probl= em, but in 2007 we’ll have a new planter with a monitor that measures population.

Seed reportedly comes in seven choices based on size (small, medium, large) and shape (round, flat) plus a plateless planter grade. Sometimes it’s just not possible to get the = size you want (especially medium or large flats), even when ordering early. We ordered some seed corn in November and weren’t able to get either our first or second choice in size. Were they sold out already? Not likely̵= 2;because of the size and shape of the ears on many seed production fields there aren’t any large flats to begin with.

=

SOME SOBERING NEWS ON HERD SIZE

A recent issue of the Market Administrator’s Bulletin for the Northeast federal milk marketing order compared farms in the Northeast by size, for May 2002 vs. May 2006. It compared milk sales per month, from less than 50,000 to over 1,500,000 lbs.= In May 2006 there were 111 farms in the Northeast Order shipping at least 1.5 million lbs. per month—about one tractor-trailer load per day. Compar= ed to May 2002 this was an increase of 38% in “load a day” farms. (Assuming annual production of 20,000 lbs/cow, 1.5 million lbs/month is a h= erd of 900 cows—modest for = California, but very large if you’re farming in the Northeast.) These farms represented over 12% of all milk pooled in the Northeast Order in May, comp= ared to less than 8% in 2002. The smallest farm size, less than 50,000 lbs/month—equivalent to 30 cows or less—represented 20% of farm= s, declining by 11% from 2002 to 2006. We may not need to be worried about the economic viability of very small dairy farms. That’s because Census of Agriculture data indicates that for a significant percentage of these farms, most of the family’s disposable income comes from an off-farm job—the farmer driving school bus, the wife working in town, etc. On = many of these farms, selling the cows would result in an increase in the family’s net taxable income! (Sad to say, with the terrible cost-price squeeze that’s existed in the past year or so, this would be the case= on many larger dairy farms, too.)

Much of the change was in farms selli= ng from 50,000 to 99,999 and 100,000 to 199,999 lbs per month. These represent= ed over half the farms in both 2002 and 2006, and they suffered the highest percentage loss—each losing about 18% of the farms. In fact, 45% of t= he total loss in dairy farms between 2002 and 2006 was in the category of 50,0= 00 to 99,000 lbs. (roughly 30 to 60 cows). Times have been tough for these far= ms, especially if there’s not a significant source of off-farm income.

As mentioned here a year or so ago, we should also be concerned about midsize dairy farms, represented by the next= two categories, 200,000 to 499,999 and 500,000 to 749,999 lbs/month. These aren’t what the non-farming public loves to call “mega farms= 221; by any stretch of the imagination: 120 to just over 300 cows. (Although we recently heard that one environmental organization considers any dairy farm with over 50 cows a “factory farm”!) Milk income is greater on these farms but so are expenses, and income from an off-farm job logically makes less of an overall difference because it’s usually a smaller pi= ece of the pie, so to speak. These two categories represented 12% of farms in b= oth 2002 and 2006. The Northeast order lost 255 of these midsize farms in this four-year period, and many others are currently living life on the edge.

Low milk price hurts all farms, regardless of size; however, low prices affect certain farm sizes more than others. A higher percentage of the biggest farms will make it because of th= eir efficiencies of size, so will the smallest farms because of off-farm income, but what of the rest? Once in a tanker hooked to a semi, milk can move a lo= ng way, and cheaply; we can’t assume that as Northeast dairy farms go ou= t of business, supply and demand will cause area farm milk prices to increase markedly. What’s more likely to happen is that regional dairy product shortages will be avoided by big farms getting bigger, perhaps including da= iries thousands of miles from here. Not a pretty picture perhaps, but it’s = the hand we’re dealt.

—E.T.

COMMODITY PRICES<= /h2>
There’s lots of excitement and turmoil in grain and feed ingredient markets. Following are some recent Midwest and Southeastern U.S. ca= sh prices, compared with the same product six months and one year ago.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> All prices are per ton except for = corn and wheat.

CLOSING COMMENT

Few women admit their age. Few men act theirs.

<= /span>

<= /span>

<= /span>

<= /span>

=

<= /span>

<= /span>