Keep Stalls Bedded to Minimize Leg Lesions

Rubbe= r-filled mattresses, sand, and waterbeds can all be used successfully to minimize leg lesions if bedding management is appropriate, according to Colorado State University research= ers in the July issue of the Journal of Dairy Science. The researchers surv= eyed 85 dairies with a total of 10,226 cows in Wisconsin<= /st1:State>, Minnesota, New Yor= k, Iowa, and Indiana to compare lying area surfaces= for dairy cows on leg lesions.

Cows = on dairies with rubber-filled mattresses had more leg lesions than cows on dai= ries with sand or waterbeds (Table 1<= /span>). Interestingly, lesion scores were similar between cows on sand or waterbeds. The location of the lesion was affected by stall bed type (Table 2). Cows on rubber filled mattresses had more outside hock lesions, while cows on sand had more lesio= ns on the back of the point of the hock. The lesion on the back of the point of the hock was most likely because of abrasion with the concrete curb when sa= nd became low. Both types of injuries may be prevented by bedding more frequen= tly.

The frequency of adding nonabrasive bedding was the main difference between dai= ries with the least and most lesions regardless of stall bed type. Dairies with rubber-filled mattresses that had the fewest cows affected by lesions bedded daily or every other day with 2 to 3 pounds of kiln-dried shavings or straw. The best sand dairies kept the stalls filled with sand and used high quality sand with fine particles. Cows bedded with recycled sand had more lesions than cows bedded with new sand, most li= kely because recycled sand contained coarser, more abrasive particles. Dairies w= ith waterbeds that had the fewest cows affected by lesions bedded twice daily to every other day and used 1 to 3 pounds of kiln-dried shavings, straw, or li= me in combination with shavings or chopped straw. Dairies with the most lesion= s on cows generally bedded once or twice weekly.

—Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com

CUTTING HEIGHT REVERBERATIONS

The alfalfa-grass cutting height study we did last year certainly has received plenty of press, thanks mostly to the Northern N.Y. Agricultural Development Program that funded the research. However, not everyone agrees with our conclusion resulting from this trial, to mow alfalfa and grass at about a 2” stubble height. Heck, it wasn’t even our recommendation unti= l we did the research. An old friend who’s worked in the field crops busin= ess for many years called to respectfully disagree. (I’d call him a greyb= eard except he doesn’t have a beard and if he had one I don’t have a= ny idea what color it would be since he’s bald as an egg.) But I digress: This fellow has been recommending a 4-6” stubble height (6 inches?!) = for many years, and expressed two concerns: First, that mowing first cut at 2” would have an adverse affect on subsequent harvests. In our resear= ch we compared yield for each of three cuts and could find no adverse effect o= n 2^nd or 3^rd harvests from the 2” (vs. 4”) mowing height. = His second, closely related concern was that close mowing would damage the crow= ns of the alfalfa plants and thereby reduce stand life. This warrants further discussion:

IR= 17;ve dug up a lot of alfalfa plants, most recently as part of a trial comparing so-called “traffic tolerant” and normal alfalfa varieties. The stand was five years old, and it was hard finding any plants that didn&#= 8217;t have some crown or root rot. I wasn’t surprised; partly because of long-ago comments by Cornell plant breeder Bill Pardee= about field traffic in hay fields. Bill said that by the time the field has been harvested three times, at least theoretically every plant in the field will have been run over by some piece of equipment. I don’t know if t= he same holds today with our wider equipment, but if it’s wider it’s also heavier. Running over an alfalfa crown wit= h a 20,000 lb tractor or a loaded forage truck can crack the crowns, opening th= em up to crown and root rots. How much damage depends on field conditions, and= I think in this case moist is better than dry since there’s a bit more “give” to moist soil. No data to support this, but one year we applied lime to an alfalfa field in December after the ground was frozen. We got almost 100% kill of run-over alfalfa plants; you could even tell that t= he spreader truck had dual tires since there were surviving plants in the few inches of space between the duals. I’ve been telling farmers for years that alfalfa doesn’t simply die, we kill it. How many alfalfa fields = are still highly productive—the alfalfa in the field, not the grass—after more than five years? (One of the reasons younger alfalfa stands tolerate fall harvest better than older ones is that the plants are = healthier to begin with.) We can extend the life of an alfalfa field a bit by using conservative harvest management—harvest in full bloom, no fall harves= t. However, this will also “conserve” milk production! In the end, field traffic will unavoidably take its toll and with alfalfa as in life, we shouldn’t worry about those things over which we have no control.

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

Bt A= ND BEE DEATHS

As so= me of you may know, “colony collapse disorder” (CCD) has been causing severe problems for beekeepers across the <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">U.S., and nobody can figure o= ut the cause for it. Contrary to what you may read and hear from other sources, a number of studies lead to the conclusion that what is most likely not the cause of CCD is the pollen from Bt corn hybrids—for at least three reasons.

&= nbsp;

First= , the toxins in Bt (corn borer and rootworm resistant)= corn is poisonous to caterpillars, but not to honey bees. Second, the amo= unt of toxin in the pollen of most Bt corn hybrids i= s so low it’s barely detectable. And third, corn doesn’t produce nec= tar and nectar is what bees are after. Think about it: How many honey bees have= you ever seen in a corn field? Corn pollen is relatively heavy (as pollen goes)= and doesn’t drift all that far, so there’s little chance that any meaningful amount of corn pollen could drift onto blossoms and thereby be t= aken up by bees.

Forage Fragility, new method of forage analysis?

We ha= ve been dabbling in a new methodology to predict the chewing response of cows = fed a given forage and subsequently, rumen health. To date the industry relies predominantly on the peNDF system of Mertens, as noted by our development of the Z-box to determine that specific value of a forage or TMR. The Penn State particle separator system is still widely used to monitor particle length a= nd sorting of TMRs. Neither system is perfect in determining how much time a cow will need to chew a given forage particle, whether it be from grass, alfalfa, straw or corn. It seems that there ought= to be a means of analyzing a forage to determine how “tough” it is= and how much time a cow will need to chew it.

In development of the peNDF system, Mertens presented data that shows that per unit of NDF, straw requires nearly twice= as long to chew as alfalfa hay. In other words, 1 kg of NDF from straw took ne= arly 100 minutes more chewing than 1 kg of NDF from alfalfa. This seems reasonab= le given what we know about the NDF digestibility of those two forages. As suc= h, we have begun researching a method to determine forage fragility: How resis= tant a particular forage is to mechanical breakdown, = and examining how it relates to NDFd and actual che= wing time.

Using= a ball mill, which is a ceramic jar with a defined number of ceramic balls se= t on a rotating roller system, we mill a dried sample and measure the reduction = in particle size from start to finish after 6 hours. Theoretically, the more fragile forages should show a larger reduction in particle size as determin= ed by physically effective fiber (pef) value (perc= entage of particles > 1.18mm) compared to “tougher” forages.= We analyzed a number of forages across species and qualities within species for NDF, ADF, AD-lignin, NDFd₂₄ and fragility as indicated by percent change in pef value after ball milling. The dat= a are presented in Table 1. Graphically, fragility is plotted by NDFd₂₄ in figure 1.

The r= ange of NDFd₂₄ values indicates that our samples certainly differed in digestibility and therefore may differ greatly in fragility. However, when fragility is plotted by NDFd the relationship i= s weak at best. After removal of a f= ew odd samples such as the alfalfa leaves and a troublesome 2^nd cut hay, the correlation coefficient is only R²=3D 0.46. Previous documen= tation in the research literature supports these findings: That digestibility is n= ot closely related to forage fragility. However, we are still waiting to deter= mine how chewing response relates to chewing activity, which is the primary objective of this research. We are currently collecting chewing and fragili= ty data in a trial that involves predominantly BMR corn silage-based vs. grass silage-based TMRs, which will shed light on the prospects of ball milling as an analytical technique to predict chewing response.

—= ;Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK - <= i>Size matters=

Lately we’ve been discussing forage particle size quite a bit here at the Institute. Forage particle size determines chewing response, flow of saliva= and buffers to the rumen, and consequently efficiency of feed digestion in the rumen. Since we formulate diets using the program CPM-Dairy, we measure for= age particle length as physically effective NDF. In fact, this fraction of long= er particles is one of the most important inputs when formulating diets and dr= ove us to develop the “Z-Box” for on-farm measurement of physically effective fiber.

But we’ve known for a long while that even though particle size may well = be the primary stimulator of chewing, other forage characteristics play a significant role. These factors include fragility, moisture content, density and so forth. In other words, size is important, but it’s not the only thing. We feel that one of the most potentially important factors to consid= er, in addition to particle length, is forage fragility. We define fragility as= how easily, or quickly, does a forage particle break down when it’s chewe= d or milled in the laboratory. In theory, a more fragile particle would grind mo= re quickly, whether in a mill or between a cow’s teeth, and therefore it’s “effectiveness” at stimulating chewing would be less= than a tougher forage particle of equal length and NDF content.

Latel= y, Kurt Cotanch, our Forage Lab Director, has eval= uated the relationship between 24-hour NDF digestibility for a wide range of fora= ge qualities and fragility. We measured fragility using a ball mill and grindi= ng samples for 6 hours. The ball mill is essentially a rotating steel canister with ceramic “balls” (actually shaped like marshmallows) that r= oll around within the forage sample and slowly grind it down as the canister tu= rns. Many years ago Dr. Jim Welch at the University of Vermont felt that using ceramic balls in this type of mill might be a decent representation of the actual effect of forage grinding that occurs with cow’s molars du= ring chewing. What Kurt found was a pretty decent relationship between how digestible the fiber was in a forage sample and = how fragile (or easily broken down in the mill) the forage particles were. We n= eed to analyze more samples, but it does appear that we may be able to predict = the fragility of a forage based on a 24-hour measure= of NDF digestibility. We need to go one step further and link these samples wi= th actual chewing responses in dairy cows.

Diffe= rent chewing responses to forages of similar NDF content and particle size is an issue that needs to be dealt with to more accurately formulate rations with= in the physically effective NDF system used by CPM-Dairy. The bottom line is t= hat for some feeds, particle size assessment alone (with the Z-Box or Penn State Particle Separator) will not do a great job of predicting chewing response,= so we need to develop a way to measure these other characteristic(s) that inte= ract with particle size. Is it possible to develop a relatively simple procedure that would measure or predict "fragility"? Could this value be us= ed to adjust the effective fiber values in a model such as CPM-Dairy? Can we reliably use NDF digestibility (already a common and routine lab analysis) = to predict fragility? These are questions that we expect to answer in the comi= ng months. Stay tuned for further results from the Forage Lab here at Miner Institute.

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer= .com

Vet’s Corner: Terminal Caesarian Section

When managing dairy cows we’re faced with making the best of a bad situati= on from time to time. One day last month at the Miner Institute farm the staff found a close-up dry cow that was unable to arise because of torn stifle ligaments. Her injury was judged as incurable and her due date was three we= eks away. So the question arose, ”Can the calf= be saved before the cow is destroyed?”

In th= e case of the Miner Institute farm, the answer is an emphatic YES. The cow could n= ot provide colostrum, but at all times there is plentiful supply of colostrometer-measured high quality colostrum in the freezer and refrigerat= or at the Institute. Premature calves don’t have a strong suckle reflex and tube feeding can be necessary for 2-5 days. At Miner Institute there are three persons experienced in tube feeding available, so that improves the o= dds for this premature calf. If there is a supply of colostrum and a competent tube feeder, we go down to 6 weeks premature and expect to = have a decent chance at saving the calf.

The c= ow was induced with corticosteroids (which also aided pain management) and prostaglandin and scheduled for the terminal C-Section 18 hours later. Prostaglandin has the effect of stimulating the maturation of the fetal lun= g so the calf is not born with “wet lungs.” The addition of prostaglandin to the parturition induction protocol has greatly improved the survival of the calf in our experience. To perform the surgery, sterile procedure was not observed but the incision site was anesthetized, an enthusiastic pre-vet student, Toni, incised the uterus and the HEIFER calf = was extracted. Farm management intern Anna Pape was= the nose tickler, Toni was the head rubber, and I lifted up and down on the rib cage and elbow like a bellows and the calf turned its head up and breathed = in less than half a minute. As soon as Anna had her sneezing, the calf was set= up on her sternum and was trying to stand in less than 15 minutes.<= /span>

With = the high value of newborn dairy calves, a terminal C-Section should be consider= ed on most farms if there is an incurable problem with the dam. Even if the ca= lf was male, it would have paid for the vet call. In the Miner Institute farm’s case of getting a heifer calf, the farm receives a 10:1 financ= ial return for the surgery. These premature calves are more susceptible to psychological stress syndrome and scours and warrant extra observation and early treatment, but are definitely worth the risk, expense, and effort.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates,= Inc.

hugamoo@comcast.net<= /o:p>

CROP CANOPY CLOSURE

A rec= ent Pioneer Hy-Bred “Walking Your Fields̶= 1; newsletter contained some interesting information on crop canopy closure and the Leaf Area Index (LAI). By now your corn should have achieved complete canopy closure: That means the corn leaves completely shade the row, lettin= g no sunlight reach the ground. A cornfield is a living energy conversion system, converting sunlight energy into plant energy. The quicker the leaves shade = the row, the less weed growth and the better the moisture conservation. Also, t= hat energy system can operate at higher efficiency. Plant scientists use LAI to measure the canopy of a crop. LAI is the ratio of total upper leaf surface = of a crop divided by the surface area of the field. If a crop has one layer of leaves that completely shade the soil surface, that’s a LAI of 1.0. M= ost crops have multiple layers of leaves of course, so a LAI of 4.0 and higher = is common.

Soybe= ans are most efficient with a LAI of 4.0, or four ac= res of leaves per acre of field by the time the plants flower. This is normally achieved with a 30” row spacing when plants are about 3 feet tall—shorter than that with narrow rows, of course. With a LAI of less than 4.0, some sunlight will reach the soil surface and will be wasted, reducing maximum potential yield. That’s why timely planting and unif= orm stands result in the highest yields. That’s also one reason why narrow rows often result in a bit higher yields.

The Feeder’s Job: F= IFTH Priority

The f= ifth priority of feeder’s job is measuring dry matter intake (DMI). With t= he first four priorities satisfied, the measuring of DMI becomes a powerful and meaningful exercise providing a clear communication between the cows and nutritionist and elevating the feeding program to high-quality status.=

&= nbsp;

The accurate calculation of DMI requires five numbers: 1) Weight of feed offere= d, 2) Dry matter percentage of feed offered, 3) Weight of feed refused, 4) Dry matter percentage of feed refused, and 5) Number of animals fed with the fe= ed offered. Weight of feed offered and its dry matter percentage are relatively easy to obtain. With accurate scales, the weight of feed offered to a group= is easily tallied. With an up-to-date mix sheet and accurate mixing, the dry matter percentage of the feed offered can be taken off the mix sheet or measured with a quick sample.

&= nbsp;

Weigh= t and dry matter percentage of feed refused is more problematic. Accurate weight = of feed refused requires the gathering and weighing of feed refused by group. A typical system to accomplish this would require a skid loader to gather fee= d, something solid to push against to get feed into the bucket, a loader with reach enou= gh to get the feed refused back into the mixer for weighing, a pen and paper to record the weight of feed refused, and the time to do it. On many dairies, = one or more of these elements may be lacking or inconveniently placed, making t= he job of weighing feed refused awkward at the start. Getting the weight of fe= ed refused usually means developing a new system with the creativity and ingen= uity the farmers have. Each dairy has different obstacles to this measurement. A= dry matter on the feed refused adds one more level of complication as an accura= te dry matter requires good mixing and sampling.

&= nbsp;

The f= ifth number required, number of animals in a group, can be the most difficult to track on a daily basis. Animals move in and out of pens based on production, health, or reproductive events, moves that may or may not be communicated to the feeder. The daily group counts requires spec= ial effort and care. The most straightforward method is to count by hand but, as anyone who has tried to count a group of more than 10 head knows, cows can = be less than cooperative when we try to count. Timing of this count may be the= key to accuracy. Picking a time when animals are relatively stationary (as when group is eating or resting) can make this job easier. If your computer is t= he source of your numbers, make sure input is up-to-date and that divisions of groups within the computer match those of the herd feeding program. While h= ead counts can be difficult, they are also the most required mathematically by = the calculation of dry matter intake.

&= nbsp;

To calculate accurate DMI, the weight of the dry matter of the feed offered is subtracted from the weight of dry matter refused and this result is divided= by the number of animals that consumed that feed. The equation is (((Weight of feed offered)(Dry matter percentage of feed offered/100)) - ((Weight of feed refused)(Dry matter percentage of feed refused/100))) / Number of animals fed.

&= nbsp;

A uni= t of time is implied in this calculation. Usually, the unit is “day”= but unit of time will match the feed refused management system on the dairy. So= me dairies remove feed daily. Ma= ny do not, preferring instead bunch refusals at one end of the feed line and remo= ve it on a less than daily basis (e.g. every other day, weekly). This will complicate the calculation of DMI but, with adjustments, an accurate answer= is still possible.

&= nbsp;

Next = month, this discussion of the fifth priority will continue with a discussion of the more practical uses and concerns of measuring DMI.

—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com

SKIM MILK STRAIGHT FROM THE COW?

New Zealand dairy scientists have found a cow that produces lowfat milk—and we mean really low fat, about 1%. (My grandfather, who was a St. Lawrence Co. dairy farmer for a while, said that feeding free cho= ice greenchop oats accomplished about the same thing.) Bu= t back then lowfat milk was a drawback since much of t= he milk produced in Northern N.Y. was used = to make butter. But now in this fat-conscious age it’s a plus; the researchers think they can capture the genes from “Marge” and within a few years have a whole herd of lowfat = cows. They also think they can breed cows that produce milk with the characterist= ics needed to make butter spreadable right from the fridge.

What’s Happening on the = Farm

Our n= ew Summer Experience in Farm Management students have adjusted quickly to a bu= sy summer on the farm. They are eager to learn and have been a great help R= 11; driving tractors, feeding calves and watching for heats, etc. But they are = also busy getting their animals ready for the Clinton County Fair, July 17-21. Wanda and Steve helped pick out an= imals with good conformation and the students have been teaching their heifers to lead and clipping them to get a nice haircoat f= or the fair.

We co= ntinue to keep busy out in the field; the bunks that were empty at the beginning of the summer are already full, and we have put up several ag bags! First cutting was finally finished the third week of June. It was interrupted by a long stret= ch of rainy, damp weather and when we were able to chop the remaining fields, they had matured a little too much; it will be good heifer and dry cow feed. But the stuff that we harvested in= late May before all the rain is, according to Ev, “rocket fuel”. Our grass grew back amazingly fast and we began second cut June 25, cutting on a 30-day harvest interval.

Sched= uling is a challenge during crop season, which happens to also be the time of year that lots of people enjoy vacations and family gatherings. But we have mana= ged to keep enough help in the fields and still get most everything accomplishe= d in the barn. Long days as you well know. The students have discovered Creamie’s—the local ice cream place in Chazy—and they have been frequent customers at the end of busy days. There is nothing like an ice cream cone on a summer evening. Good thing we = are working off those extra calories the next day!

Keepi= ng our cows cool is always a concern during the hot, humid summer days in Northern= NY – I know it isn’t as bad as some places in the US, but= we certainly do deal with heat stress! Our sprinklers located over the feed bunk have been working well. Th= ey come on when the temperature reaches 70º to 80ºF, depending on humidity, and then operate on a timer, spraying the cows for one minute eve= ry six minutes or so. The fans blow air over the cows’ wet backs for evaporative cooling. It is a pretty comfortable barn in the summer! Current= DHI herd average on 310 cows: 29,942# milk, 1106# fat, 911# protein.

We ho= pe that your bunks, silos, ag<= /span> bags, and piles are getting full of high quality feed and that your cows continue to produce well through the summer months. And don’t forget = to support the dairy industry by enjoying some ice cream this summer.

—Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

—Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com

WHY NOT NOTILL?

This = year we have notill corn planted on fall-killed sod, second year from sod, and fifth year from sod. None of these fields have be= en plowed or otherwise tilled in many years. This spring the custom applicator= we hired to spray these fields commented at how good they looked, and wondered= why more farmers don’t plant notill. He menti= oned the advantages of no stones to pick and less fuel use. Plus, on hilly fields there’s much less soil erosion—one study found over 80% less so= il loss with notill.

&= nbsp;

And why not notill? Sure= , you need a notill planter but the additional cost b= etween a conventional and notill planter is soon recov= ered in labor and fuel savings. We have a John Deere notill= planter—currently on our third one—but have been impressed with= the job other notill planters do as well. Over the = years we’ve learned from our own mistakes and those of others, and there ar= e a few things we won’t do including trying to plant into a sod that wasn’t killed the previous fall, and planting into a heavy, wet clay loam. But it’s been a very long time since we’ve had disappoint= ing results with notill corn. Final plant stands are close to that of conventionally-tilled corn fields, and while we haven̵= 7;t done any yield trials we don’t think we’re paying much if any y= ield penalty. In fact, in a dry year on a sandy loam we might get higher yields = with notill because of better moisture conservation.=

&= nbsp;

Let m= e know if you’d like to look at our notill corn = this summer. Continuous notill is sometimes consider= ed “farming ugly” since we’re planting into last year’s corn stubble and there are often weeds to kill before or right after planti= ng. But we don’t think there’s anything ugly about the 22-25 tons/a= cre of corn silage we’ve been getting with notill.

—E.T.

POISONOUS PLANTS

Agronomists at Penn State have compiled= the following list of poisonous plan= ts, using several sources. Note that some of the plants, such as milkweed, must= ard and pigweed, aren’t ones commonly thought of as poisonous.

KLEBSIELLA AND CORN FIELDS

Klebsiella, one of the nastier mastitis pathogens, has recently been receiving attention about its mode of transmission. In something that sounds like it should be on “The Twil= ight Zone”, (Sorry kids, how about “The X Files”?) it’s = been discovered that Klebsiella can reside in plants, doing them no harm but perhaps serving as a means of crop-to-cow disease transmission. The occurrence of Klebsiella in plants would be quite similar to the endophytes= in grasses. An endophyte is a fungus that lives in= side grass plants, doing the plant no harm. However, it produces toxins that are harmful and sometimes fatal to livestock.&= nbsp;

Dr. H= elen Griffiths, a plant pathologist working with Quality Milk Services at Cornell University, was on the Miner Insti= tute farm in June, taking soil and plant samples in search of Klebsiella bacteria .&= nbsp; So far she hasn’t found any in the alfalfa she sampled though she’s conducting further tests, but did find some in soil samples from one of our corn fields—one that perhaps not coincidentally was heavil= y manured last year. She’ll be back later this su= mmer for more sampling, including presumably the corn growing in the field where= she found the bacteria. She’ll also sample the Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType> plots here, most of which haven’t had any manure for at least 40 year= s.

—E.T.

=

IS LAMBSQUARTERS GLYPHOSATE RESISTANT?=

Accor= ding to Cornell University weed scientist Russ Hah= n, last year there were several reports of poor lambsquar= ters control when glyphosate was used in Roundup Rea= dy (RR) soybeans. Were these plants a glyphosate-r= esistant biotype, or something else? Russ was suspicious that it was something else since the first field reported had only had RR soybeans twice during the pa= st ten years, and the farmer has never grown RR corn. With only two glyphosate applications in the past ten years, this <= span class=3DSpellE>lambsquarters population hadn’t been subjected = to excessive selection pressure from repeated glyphosate<= /span> use. However, there were surviving lambsquarters plants that were about a foot tall when they were sprayed with 44 ounces/ac= re of glyphosate, or twice the normal rate.

&= nbsp;

Seed = was collected from surviving plants for a greenhouse study to determine if they were a glyphosate-resistant biotype. Lambsquarters plants were sprayed with 44 and 88 oz/a= cre, or 2 and 4 times the normal rate, when they averaged 3” tall. All the plants died at both rates. But when the plants averaged 5” tall, most= of them survived both application rates though the 88 oz rate caused more inju= ry than the lower rate. Lambsquarters averaging 12” tall were sprayed with 88, 176, and 352 oz/acre (holy cow!) or up= to 16X the normal rate. Some of the plants survived the 176 oz rate, but not t= he 352 oz. A second trial essentially confirmed the findings of the first one.=

&= nbsp;

These results suggest that size of the lambsquarters = at the time of application is more important than with some other broadleaf weeds,= but that these plants were not glyphosate resistant since small plants were controlled with the 44 oz rate. Problems = with lambsquarters control in RR crops have been rep= orted in other states, but nobody has yet confirmed glyphosa= te-resistant lambsquarters. The take-home message here is th= at it’s important to apply glyphosate when w= eeds are small.

—E.T.

WHAT’S NEXT IN ALFALFA BREEDING?=

While walking through the dairy exhibit at the 2006 World Ag Expo in Tulare, California I met Mark McCaslin, an alfalfa breeder with Fo= rage Genetics. I’ve known Mark for a long time so asked the logical questi= on ”What’s new?” and got a very upbeat report, summed up by = his comment that it’s a great time to be an alfalfa breeder. Using conventional techniques, alfalfa breeders continue to make slow progress in improving yield and forage quality. However, using genetic engineering, alf= alfa breeders are making remarkable progress in several areas. Here’s what= may be ahead in alfalfa variety improvement.

&= nbsp;

Reduc= ed lignin concentration—Scientists at the Noble Foundation have “silenced” the genes involved in lignin synthesis in alfalfa. T= he earliest of these transgenic plants have been selected for lower lignin, hi= gher digestibility and agronomic performance. So far they appear to have similar yield, much less lignin, and about 10 percentage points higher fiber digestibility. When I asked Mark if these low lignin plants wouldn’t = all fall over (or never stand up in the first place) he said no, agronomic performance looks good. Hay is being produced this summer from these plants= for a sheep feeding trial to confirm the improved animal performance. Forage analyses are fine, but it’s how the animals do that counts.

=

Droug= ht tolerance—More than half the alfalfa grown in the U.S. is produced under irrigation or under dryland cond= itions where inadequate moisture usually limits yield. Several seed companies are testing transgenes for alfalfa as well as for o= ther crops that increase drought tolerance and water use efficiency. Forage Gene= tics is beginning to test several potentially drought-resistant alfalfas. <= /o:p>

=

Tannin content—Tannins bind with proteins and slow the rate of protein degradation in the rumen. Alfalfa produces tannins but only in the = seedcoat, which doesn’t help much in dairy rati= ons. Various genetic strategies are being explored to produce tannins in the lea= ves and stems of alfalfa plants. The U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center estimates that “tannin alfalfa” could decrease protein supplement costs in dairy rations by 60% (!) while reducing nitrogen losses to the environment.=

—E.T.

FORAGE FACTS

For y= ears I’ve been collecting farming facts, filing them away for reference. H= ere are a few you might find useful and/or interesting:

=

·         June 21 through August 21^st is the worst period for forage quality because temperature is increasing and the hours of sunlight are decreasing.

·         There’s almost no relationship between ADF content and digestibility in second cut grass.

·         One percentage point of NDF digestibility is worth about half a pound of milk production.

·         In corn hybrid trials the tallest hybrid yields the most silage only about 20% of the time.

·         June 1^st through July 15^th is when it’s most important for corn to have adequate soil moisture.

·         Adequate soil potassium levels provide yield insur= ance during a dry year. In a field trial, corn yield was reduced by 20% where so= il K levels were adequate and 50% where they weren’t.

·         Visual signs of boron deficiency in alfalfa are ju= st about as reliable as a soil test.

·         Soil magnesium levels need to be higher for birdsfoot trefoil than for other legumes. Mg should b= e at least 200 lbs/acre on the Cornell University soil ana= lysis.

·         Humans have about 800 muscles, while cutworms have over 4000. I have no idea how this may be useful, but found it interesting anyway. And a beetle can carry 850 times its body weight, which must be abo= ut how my daughter felt when she was pregnant with quadruplets.

·         Quackgrass root= s and shoot are both phytotoxic to alfalfa. ThereR= 17;s a big difference in tolerance among alfalfa varieties, with yield reductions = of up to 50%.

·         Dandelions are poor competitors for light so have = very little effect on alfalfa yield.

·         If U.S. agriculture were no more productive today than in 1961, we’d either n= eed to expand farmland by 63% or eat 63% less food.

=

ORGANIC MILK PRICE/SUPPLY FOLLOW-UP

Last = month I commented that organic dairy farmers might not want to count on a continuation of the prices they’ve been receiving for organic milk. They’re probably OK for a while since all farm milk prices are really good these days, but we all know this is temporary. Dean Foods, which produ= ces the popular Horizon Organic line of organic dairy products, recently warned that organic milk production is increasing almost twice as fast as demand.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Industry-wide, organic milk produc= tion is expected to increase 40% this year, while the annual increase in demand = has been averaging 20-25%. (A report on the Price Chopper website predicts as m= uch as a 70% increase (!) in organic milk production this year.) Dean Foods predicts that other organic milk handlers will attempt to stimulate demand = through aggressive distribution expansion and lower retail prices.

=

In sp= ite of big production increases, organic milk is still a tiny portion of the dairy industry. In 2005, dairy cows producing organic milk were less than 1% of t= otal U.S. dairy cows. Of the nation’s 60,000 dairy farms, only about 1000 produ= ce organic milk.

=

Sign = of the times? Last month the Plattsburgh (NY) Price Chopper was selling two brands= of organic milk, Stonyfield for $3.69 per half gal= lon and its own brand, Wild Oats, for $3.29. While the shelves of Stonyfield organic milk were full, there was but a si= ngle half gallon of Wild Oats organic 2% milk; the shelves for Wild Oats’ skim, 1% and whole milk were bare. Were consumers were more willing to buy organic milk for $3.29 per half gallon (still twice the price of regular mi= lk) than for $3.69? Or maybe Price Chopper simply didn’t get their Wild O= ats delivery that day. (Insert your own witty comment here.) Interesting tidbit: Nowhere on Wild Oats 2% butterfat milk was the f= at percentage stated; it was labeled “reduced fat” and “37% = less fat than whole milk”, but “2%” didn’t appear anywhe= re. Ah, the wonders of marketing…

—E.T.

=

INSECT CONTROL IN ALFALFA-GRASS=

New York rece= ntly received a supplemental label that will allow application of Mustang insecticide in mixed stands. Cornell entomologist Elson Shields did field trials in 2000 with very heavy leafhopper pressure and found Mustang to be = very effective. In small plots with very heavy PLH pressure on all sides, 1.6 fl ozs/acre gave 21 da= ys control of potato leafhoppers with a very small number of nymphs and adults present= 21 days after treatment. The low= est label rate listed in the supplemental label is 2.24 fl ozs, which will be more than adequate. Elson says that he would feel very comfor= table with the 1.6 fl oz rate in a less-than-label-rate application.

=

Each = year the arsenal of insecticides available to NY farmers for use in alfalfa-grass stands is very limited, and sometimes nonexistent. Mustang, sold by FMC, has been around awhile and appears to be an excellent product. However, it̵= 7;s a Restricted Use pesticide so can only be used by or under direct supervisi= on of a Certified Pesticide Applicator.

=

WINNERS AND LOSERS: EDITORIAL COMMENT

We re= cently heard that Monsanto’s Posilac division is reducing professional staff, both in the field (including locally) and at i= ts St. Louis research center. While we don’t know the official reason for this, it doesn’t take a deep think to conclude that it could have something to= do with the increasing number of milk handlers demanding = rBST-free milk (“no artificial hormones”) from farmers. One of the latest= to stop marketing milk treated with rBST is the la= rgest dairy cooperative in the Southeastern U.S., Southeast Milk. Its largest customer is the Publix Super Market chain with = over 900 stores.

We= 217;ve use Posilac in the Miner Institute herd ever si= nce it became legal and will continue to do so as long as it’s available, so= we obviously have a dog in the hunt. However, if and when Monsanto decides that this battle is lost and stops selling Posilac, = all dairy farmers will have lost something. For if popular opinion, or what = milk handlers apparently perceive as popular opinion*, can result in the los= s of Posilac, what’s next? Rumensin? Lutylase? Oxytocin? antibiotics for mastitis prevention/control?. In= fact, the Sno-Fresh Dairy milk label (sold in the sta= te of Washington ) states “All Natural, Farm Fresh, Free of Antibiotics, Rumensin, rBST”. (The italics are ours.) Looking at the list of proposed legislation in NY S= tate doesn’t provide any encouragement: While politicians can bloviate to their heart’s content, proposing laws they know have little chance of ever becoming enacted, included in this year’s legislative wish list = is a moratorium (in effect, a ban) on all genetically modified crops.

=

* In a survey of consumers’ dairy product concerns, BST and wasn’t mentioned by a single person as a concern when the question was open-ended. They mentioned freshness, fat content, and price as the most important fact= ors. Only when they were specifically asked about “artificial hormones in milk” did they cite this as a concern.

—E.T.

=

= U.S. F= ARM EFFICIENCY

In 19= 40, the average farmer in the U.S. produced enough food to feed 19 people. Today the average farmer feeds 144 people, a remarkable figure. This results in Americans spending a lower percentage of their disposable income on food than in any other country, as the following numbers show. =

=

C= LOSING COMMENT

You usually aren't learning much when your lips are moving.