DEVASTATING STORM HITS MINER
INSTITUTE
A highly localized=
storm
packing 60 mph winds and what was described as a “wall of water”
struck Miner Institute on the afternoon of July 18th, snapping off and
uprooting hundreds of trees that have been here since Mr. Miner’s day.
The devastation around our Shadow Lawn guest house, along Rte. 191, and near
the entrance to the Institute is particularly severe. Calf hutches with cal=
ves
attached were blown into a fence. We lost two calves with broken necks and
it’s amazing we didn’t lose more with internal injuries. This w=
as a
very isolated storm: At our main dairy barn, no more than 100 yards from the
calf hutches, several empty plastic pails in front of the barn weren’t
even tipped over, and our closest neighbor to the East, John McAuliffe, did=
n’t
suffer any damage. Talk about the luck of the Irish…
Building damage wa=
s minor,
especially considering the severity of the storm. A gutter ripped from the =
roof
of Shadow Lawn by a falling tree, one squashed garage, one squashed car,
moderate roof damage in another building, and part of the stone entrance ga=
te
crushed. Many of the trees, some 4 feet in diameter, were much too large fo=
r us
to handle with our equipment, so a logger was brought it to salvage what he
could. Much of the damage was to conifers, but we lost some huge maple trees
and most of the willows surrounding the pond at Shadow Lawn. Some corn in t=
he
VET’S CORNER: HOW TO GET THE MOST PROTECTION FRO=
M CALF
VACCINES
Recently, new vacc=
ines
have been introduced to assist in preventing scours and pneumonia in baby
calves. We expect that these vaccines are truly improvements in
technology. However, if calf management is poor, we don’t give t=
he
new vaccines much of a chance of bandaging old management problems and
shortcuts.
On farms that achi=
eve
excellent colostrum management, maternal antibo=
dies
will protect the calf for the first three weeks of life. The new vacci=
nes
are promoted to protect calves that have failure of passive transfer, so if=
the
farm’s colostrum management is subpar, th=
ese
vaccines are expected to have great value. In reality, we expect farms that
practice good colostrum management to benefit t=
he
most from using vaccines in newborns, because maternal cells that are prese=
nt
in colostrum help stimulate the calf’s im=
mune
system and improve response to vaccination later in life.
Another way to rec=
eive the
full benefit of vaccinating newborns is to provide minerals such as zinc,
selenium, copper and chromium in chelated or or=
ganic
forms. Calves fed diets deficient in protein and energy also have
suboptimal responses to vaccination. We've seen success when the amoun=
t of
milk powder and grain are increased through the first five weeks of life to
match desired weight gain. Recently, however, high protein intensified
milk replacer diets have been shown to produce less interferon gamma which =
is
responsible for immune response. More research is needed before the undesir=
ed
effect on immune status of these intensified high protein diets is fully
understood.
Long term stress i=
s likely
to reduce immune response. If calves are subjected to cold, heat, the stres=
s of
mingling with older animals, or frightening noise, chronic stress is
induced that will lead to a reduced vaccine response.
Finally, evidence =
is
emerging which indicates that calves are able to mount an immune response in
the face of maternal antibody. In the past, it was noted that vaccinated ca=
lves
didn't develop antibody IgG titers when they we=
re
protected with maternal antibody. But this should not be interpreted to mean
that the calves did not respond at all to the vaccine. Cell-mediated
immunity which is not measured by IgG titers is=
stimulated
by vaccination. T-cells of calves vaccinated in the face of maternal antibo=
dy
can be found to be activated within days of vaccination, and increased T-ce=
ll
responsiveness may persist for weeks or months after vaccination even if
antibody IgG titers did not rise after vaccinat=
ion.
So to get the most
protection from new vaccines for newborns make sure that before vaccination=
:
4&nb=
sp;
Feed fre=
sh colostrum containing living maternal cells
4&nb=
sp;
The calf=
is
fed adequate fat-soluble vitamins, minerals, energy, and protein
4&nb=
sp;
Prevent
environmental stress
4&nb=
sp;
Vaccinat=
e in
the face of maternal antibody.
—Kent
Henderson, DVM
Northwest Veterinary Associates, In=
c.
FERTILIZER PRICES ARE GETTING
REALLY SCARY
A recent national =
survey
of fertilizer dealers and industry sources found the following price
predictions for the 2009 crop year. As high as fertilizer prices are this y=
ear,
they’re about to get higher: DAP $1000 per ton; anhydrous ammonia $10=
00
per ton, muriate of potash $900 per ton. We exp=
ect
that MAP will also be about $1000 since its price has been tracking that of=
DAP
pretty closely. Keeping things simple (not cheap, just simple), this means =
that
for every pound of N-P-K fertilizer you buy next year, figure on spending at
least $0.70, and probably closer to $0.75. Assuming $0.75 per pound of
nutrient, applying 120-60-60 to a moderately low fertility, third year corn
field with no manure will cost $180 per acre. Topdressing a high-producing
alfalfa field, again one with moderately low fertility, with 0-40-240, will
cost $210 per acre.
Got your attention=
? Good.
If you’re a crops farmer with no livestock, you have few options exce=
pt
to soil test intensively and frequently, hoping that the current very high
price of cash crops will continue. But if you’re a dairy farmer, the
price of what you sell—milk—isn’t going to go up much at =
all
in the coming year, and might decrease moderately. Your recourse is that wh=
ich
has been available to you right along: Manure. Store it in such a way as to
conserve nutrients, test it so you know what you have, and apply it when and
where it will do the most good.
FROM THE PRESIDENT’S D=
ESK:
FOCUS ON THE YOUNGSTERS
This past week I r=
eceived
an email from a dairy farmer in the
To help answer his
question, I enlisted the input of Dr. Trevor DeVries
who recently joined the faculty of the In Trevor’s =
response
to the farmer, he reviewed several studies that show the negative effect of
overstocking on feeding behavior, and he concluded that exceeding one feedi=
ng
space per heifer results in greater competition for feed, altered feeding
behavior, and is not recommended. Also, research with adult cows is beginni=
ng
to show a real link between overstocking at the feed bunk and greater incid=
ence
of disease and reduced productivity (both milk yield and perhaps even poorer
breeding). Another important point is that overstocking may sometimes have
little negative effect on the average growth response of a pen of heifers, =
but
the variability among heifers within a pen will increase substantially. Gre=
ater
variability in growth and body size creates a much greater management
challenge. Finally, at the re=
cent
American Dairy Science Association meetings in So, we still need =
more
research on heifer management including stocking rate of the bunk or pen.
Fortunately, we have scientists such as Trevor at the —Rick Gr=
ant, grant@whminer.com INCOME OVER FEED COST Ken Bailey is the =
Predicted income o=
ver feed
cost will be substantially less this year vs. 2007, and less in 2009 than in
2008. Of course things could change (for better or for worse), but it certa=
inly
appears that farmers will be paying more for just about everything in the
coming 18 months or so, while milk prices will remain pretty much unchanged=
. MANAGEMENT AFFECTS HERD
PERFORMANCE Dairy herd perform=
ance is
affected by many factors such as nutrition, reproduction, genetics,
environment, and management. There have been several studies that have
evaluated the relationship between management practices and herd performanc=
e.
However, the rations fed in the surveyed herds were different so it’s
difficult to separate the effect of nutrition from the management practices=
. Researchers from <=
st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on"> Interestingly, ave=
rage
milk production per cow within herd ranged from 45 to 74 lb. per day even
though the herds had the same ration and similar genetics. This illustrates=
the
importance of non-dietary factors on herd performance. The researchers found
that 56% of the observed variation in milk production was accounted for by =
the
heifer rearing management (age at first calving), feed bunk management
(presence or absence of feed refusals and whether TMR was pushed up in the =
feed
bunk) and stocking density of the free stalls (number of free stalls per
lactating cow). These factors were considered the most important non-dietary
factors affecting herd performance. Age of first calvi=
ng
averaged 27.7 months and had a negative relationship with milk production (=
r =3D
-0.46). Herds that had feed refusals present at the next feeding compared w=
ith
no feed refusals produced more milk (~4 lb. per cow per day). Also, herds t=
hat
pushed up feed produced more milk (~8 lb. per cow per day) than herds that =
did
not. The average number of stalls per cow was 1.1. There was a positive
relationship between the number of stalls per cow and milk production (r =
=3D 0.57).
However, there was no relationship between herds with at least 1 stall per =
cow
and milk production. These data indicate that overstocking can negatively
affect milk production, but understocking does =
not
positively affect milk production. —Heather=
Dann, dann@whmine=
r.com FALL IS THE TIME TO SOIL SAM=
PLE Previous studies h=
ave
suggested that fall is the best time to soil sample. However, many of these
studies compared spring vs. fall sampling. Most farmers are too busy to sam=
ple
their fields during the spring, but some take the opportunity to soil sampl=
e hay
fields during the summer between cuttings. Recent research at Cornell sugge=
sts
this is a bad idea. Cornell agronomists found that twice as many subsamples=
in
a field were needed during the summer to obtain as reliable a sample as soil
sampled in the fall. The price for a soil analysis doesn’t change from
spring through fall, so why do twice as much work for the same results? Do you know what&#=
8217;s
on the cow’s back? Didn’t think so; we didn’t either. Tha=
nks
to an article sent to us by Kent Henderson, it’s a plastic backpack
designed by Argentine scientists to measure the methane expelled by cows. C=
ow
flatulence makes up 30% of PRACTICAL RUMINANTS: RUMINATION AND SALIVATION Rumination, someti=
mes
called cud chewing, is one of the defining behaviors of a ruminant. Formall=
y,
it is the coordinated, cyclical process of regurgitation, remastication,
and reswallowing. Less formally, rumination beg=
ins
with the burping up of a cud formed in the reticulum. Once in the mouth, ex=
cess
liquid associated with the cud is reswallowed a=
nd the
remaining feed is rechewed for about 60 chews. =
After
chewing, feed is swallowed again to rejoin the fermenting mass in the rumen
and, after a short pause another cud is formed and process repeats. Rumination is requ=
ired
and, as with many processes inside our highly evolved lactating dairy cows,=
it
serves multiple beneficial purposes. Primary among them, rumination aids in
feed particle breakdown. The fermenting feed brought back up to the mouth is
crushed by the molars, breaking the particles into smaller particles and
exposed fresh surfaces for microbial fermentation. At the same time, rumina=
tion
provides many of the benefits of sleep to lactating dairy cows such as rest=
and
rejuvenation. Rumination also increases saliva flow, providing the buffers =
that
help manage the acids produced in the ruminal
fermentation. The increase in sa=
liva
production is one of the important aspects of rumination. Compared to other
species, ruminants secrete large quantities of saliva enriched with buffers.
Current research puts saliva flows for our lactating dairy cows at 65 gallo=
ns
per day. Saliva flows from the mouth to rumen continuously but the saliva r=
ate
during rumination (and eating) doubles (give or take) =
nonchewing
flow; therefore, more rumination will provide more saliva with its buffers =
to
the rumens of our lactating dairy cows. Lactating dairy co=
ws will
spend 8 to 9 hours per day ruminating, spread across 10 to 20 bouts of
rumination per day. Actual rumination time per day is influenced by physical
form and composition of the diet as well as time and space allotted to the =
cows
in our management scheme. Rumination is inhibited by high acid concentratio=
ns
in the ruminal fermentation as with overly
fermentable diets and by conditions that reduce movement of the gut such as
stress and illness. Rumination is stimulated by dietary factors that increa=
se
the “scratch factor” in the rumen such as increased diet partic=
le
size, increased dietary fiber, and decreased forage quality. To obtain the all =
benefits
of rumination, we as dairy producers must provide the circumstances that wi=
ll
maximize daily rumination in our lactating dairy cows. Missing one promoter=
can
take away all the benefits. The diets must provide the necessary effective
fiber (also called peNDF) to stimulate the requ=
ired
daily rumination. This is the challenge when formulating diets for our peak
lactation dairy cows as we balance this need against the demand for energy =
that
tends to pull fiber out of the ration. A quick shake of your TMR with our Z=
-box
can tell you whether your diet is providing the necessary effective fiber. =
Also
for maximum rumination, cows also need the time and space to be cows. Resea=
rch
here at Miner Institute shows that over 95% of daily rumination occurs when
cows are in stalls, whether standing or lying. This is easily satisfied in =
tie
stalls but in our free stall systems we need to provide access to the stalls
for rest and rumination. Access to stalls can be limited by too much time
locked away from stalls (by extended milking times or in headlocks) or with
overstocking that decreases the stall time per cow per day. Our time budget
worksheet can help you evaluate whether this is concern on your dairy. (Bot=
h of
these management tools can be found at our web site at www.whminer.org/outreach.) —Steve M=
ooney,
mooney@whminer.com INVASIVE EARTHWORMS! Yeah, this sounds =
like a
sequel to the old movie “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” except
that this is truth, not fiction. According to HYBRID SPECIFICITY IN RESEAR=
CH
TRIALS INVOLVING SILAGE ADDITIVES At the American Da=
iry
Science Association annual meeting last month, while perusing the myriad of
posters and oral sessions, a general theme began to emerge regarding silage
inoculants, enzyme treatments and microbial fermentation. That was the
“hit or miss” success of test products in much of the research
trials. Sometimes a test prod=
uct
would show significant effects, and sometimes not. There were many instance=
s of
a test product working on one corn silage hybrid but not another in a given
research trial. Whether it was a cocktail of lactic acid-producing bacteria=
or
microbes expressing ferulic acid esterase activ=
ity
(ability to cleave lignin), success of the product was<=
/span>
oft times noted as being hybrid specific. Much of the research was conducte=
d on
corn silage. Now this may indeed suggest that enzymes and inoculants show s=
ome
degree of hybrid specificity in order to fully exert their effects, but it =
also
makes me wonder at how much we have yet to understand about forage quality
beyond DM, fiber, lignin and digestibility. Hence our endeavors here at Min=
er
Institute regarding new methodologies of forage evaluation; phenolic
acid and fragility assays. So, how does one m=
ake
purchasing decisions on-farm when the research data is less than definitive=
and
your ability to run a controlled on-farm test is limited (i.e. Try it one y=
ear
and if it “works” use it again next year). Questions to ask or =
at
least consider: 1.&n=
bsp;
Is there=
truly
a plant hybrid effect associated with the success or failure of the test
product? What hybrids were used during the testing and what were the growing
conditions? What hybrids did it work and not work on? Were growing conditio=
ns
optimal for each hybrid in the trial, or was one hybrid stressed more than =
the
other? Who knows what yet-to-be-determined forage parameter affects the test
products ability to work on a given forage. 2.&n=
bsp;
Were the=
test
product application conditions correct: Proper D=
M,
rate of application, packing density?
Remember, these products generally do not work miracles. If so, we w=
ould
all be making a lot of milk and then be out of business. 3.&n=
bsp;
Given cu=
rrent
forage analytical methods, are they appropriate or adequate to quantify sig=
nificant
effects? In vitro vs. in situ=
vs.
gas production fermentation trials: Which most closely represents what will
happen in a commercial production dairy cow? 4.&n=
bsp;
When usi=
ng the
product on-farm, how to determine if it was the product or the year or the =
hybrid
or the growing conditions, etc. that resulted in the perceived success or
failure of the test product without a proper control treatment? And finally, wheth=
er the
product is successful in improving forage quality, does it result in
quantifiable improvement of your business? Are the benefits realized in
improved production and profitability or are there other issues regarding
forage quality that warrant consideration first? —Kurt MILK COMPOSITION There are lots of =
claims
being made for and against the most common types of retail
milk—conventional, rbST-free, and organic=
. A
recent study published in the July 2008 Journal of the American Dietetic
Association tested 334 retail milk samples from all 48 contiguous states for
antibiotics, bacterial count, components, bST,
Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), and the hormones progesterone and estradiol. Following is a summary of the results: 4&nb=
sp;
None of =
the
samples had any detectable antibiotics. 4&nb=
sp;
Bacteria=
l counts
were the least for conventional milk, intermediate for organic milk, and
greatest for milk labeled as rbST-free. 4&nb=
sp;
There we=
re no
differences in fat, lactose, or solid content, but protein in organic milk =
was
0.07-0.08% higher. 4&nb=
sp;
There wa=
s no
difference in the concentration of bST regardle=
ss of
label type. 4&nb=
sp;
The
concentration IGF-1 was lower and progesterone was higher in organic milk. =
Estradiol was significantly lower in conventional mil=
k than
in either rbST-free or organic milk. Label claims weren=
’t
related to any meaningful differences in any of the compositional variables
studied. The differences were so small—and almost certainly not
biologically meaningful—that milk purchases should be based on price =
and
personal preferences. WHAT’S HAPPENING ON TH=
E FARM Summer isn’t=
usually
the happiest time for dairy cows, especially during hot, humid weather. Our
cows have been holding up pretty well though in July they dropped below 90 =
lbs
for the DHI tester for the first time in many months. However, this was most
likely due to moving a lot of cows around as we regrouped in preparation fo=
r a
research trial. The research also involves removing BMR corn silage from so=
me
of the cows’ diets, then putting some of them back onto BMR, more cha=
nge.
It’s a necessary part of the research and that’s part of what
we’re about, but cows don’t like change much at all… It’s been to=
ugh to
get hay crops harvested in a timely manner what with frequent rains, but it
could be worse: We could be trying to make dry hay! So far hay crop quality=
is
pretty decent thanks to a lot of hard work by the Crops Crew, assisted by t=
he
guys in the barn. RESEARCH UPDATES We’ve been
conducting studies in the tie stall area of the dairy barn since the end of
March with only one week off, that used to clean and prep for the next stud=
y.
The tie stalls are scheduled for trials right through October. An off-site field =
trial is
evaluating the impact of a feed-through fly control system for dairy farms.
This involves 12 commercial farms in We were recently awarded a Federal grant fro=
m the
National Research Initiative for over $250,000 (!), by far the largest grant
we’ve ever received. This will help fund research work involving the
impact of stocking density on dairy cow comfort and performance. Kudos go out to Dr. Heather Dann=
, Dr.
Steve Mooney and graduate student Pete Krawczel=
. Sally Flis
is finishing her PhD work here involving the impact of copper sulfate footb=
aths
on manure ecology and forage crop yield and quality. You’ll be hearing
more about the results of this research. Our former Irish e=
quine
intern Lindsay Perry conducted research here this past winter, our first eq=
uine
nutrition trial. She received an award from the Speaking of college
students, this year’s Summer Experience in Agricultural Research inte=
rns,
besides assisting in various research projects are each doing an independent
study. These include an evaluation of our silage leach=
ate
system; whether animal performance and resting time is improved after the
compressed and damaged mattresses were recently replaced in our dairy barn;=
and
the effect of freezing extender and extender ratio on the post-thaw quality=
of
equine spermatozoa. —Katie
Ballard, ballard@whminer.com NOWHERE TO HIDE Last month we repo=
rted
that fertilizer and grain prices were at previously unheard of levels. Now =
we
read that hay prices in the One solution is ac=
quiring
more cropland via lease or purchase. However, in many areas of the Northeast
good land is hard to find, especially at a reasonable price. Nonfarm landow=
ners
read the newspaper too, and figure that since other inputs have increased in
price, so should the price of their farmland. We hear of cash rent prices in
the Here’s somet=
hing
that makes more sense: Do more with what you have. Are you really farming as
well as you know how to? If so, you’re in the minority. That means
planting corn on the 10th of May instead of the 10th of June, harvesting co=
rn
for silage when it’s at least 32% DM, mowing forages starting in May
(both of these weather permitting of course), applying manure where and whe=
n it
will do the most good. Regarding “weather permitting”,
doesn’t it seem strange that the weather “permits” better=
for
some farmers than for others? One farmer is planting corn on May 10th while=
his
neighbor is still wondering if the soil is still too cold for corn or waiti=
ng for
parts for his planter that should have been ordered weeks ago. As we’=
ve
said many times before, it costs no more to plant in May than to plant in J=
une,
or to mow in the bud stage than at full bloom. What’s changed is that=
the
price paid for delaying these chores has never been higher. Some farmers ma=
ke
things happen, others watch things happen, while others wonder what happene=
d.
Which are you? —Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com NOW IS THE TIME TO TOPDRESS
ALFALFA We’ve been t=
elling
you for some time now that early in the growing season =
is
not the time to be applying potassium fertilizer on alfalfa. Forages take up
potassium more readily under cool, moist conditions, and here in the Now is the time we
normally tell you to topdress alfalfa with 0-0-=
60.
However, if the price of muriate of potash give=
s you
hives (and at $600 per ton, it might), you can topdres=
s
with manure instead. However, using manure alone to supply as much potassiu=
m as
alfalfa needs could eventually build soil P to very high levels. This is
especially important for CAFO farms, but there’s a good chance that s=
ome
day every livestock farm will have to follow a nutrient management plan. I =
much
prefer manure to commercial fertilizer on low P soils, but low P fields are
becoming increasingly rare on dairy farms. The wise approach is to refer to=
a
current soil test for each alfalfa and alfalfa-grass field on the farm
(“current” meaning within the past three years), deciding which
fields (those low in both P and K) can most profitably be manured
in the coming few months and which ones are high in P but medium or low in =
K.
Then bite the bullet and order enough 0-0-60 for the high P, medium/low K
fields. Potassium is especially important for any good alfalfa fields that =
are
low in soil test K. Not applying any potassium (either as manure or fertili=
zer)
to these fields will result in reduced alfalfa yield and perhaps loss of st=
and. —E.T. FUNGICIDE APPLICATIONS TO CO=
RN AND
SOYBEANS The application of
over-the-top fungicides was covered in a previous Farm Report, but it’=
;s
been getting a lot of coverage in farm magazines so an update might be usef=
ul.
Some predictions are that at least 30% of the nation’s corn and soybe=
ans
will be sprayed with a fungicide this year. Fortunately, there have been ma=
ny
replicated trials evaluating fungicide applications to field corn. A recent
summary of trials in 9 mostly Corn Belt states and 4&nb=
sp;
37.5% of=
the
trials had a 6 to 27 bushels/acre positive response 4&nb=
sp;
34.0% of=
the
trials had a 1 to 5 bushels/acre positive response 4&nb=
sp;
4.8% of =
the
trials had no response 4&nb=
sp;
27.4% of=
the
trials had a 1 to 20 bushels/acre negative response. At least some of the
negative response was due to fungicide damage to the developing ear Cornell University
Extension plant pathologist Gary Bergstrom has been keeping on top of the
foliar fungicide issue, as have his cohorts in other corn and soybean-growi=
ng
states. Here are a few of Foliar fungicides =
should
be applied where there is a significant risk of foliar fungal disease based=
on
previous field history and crop sequence, the susceptibility of
hybrids/cultivars planted, scouting-based observation of early disease, and
forecast weather. In general, we hav=
e less
consistent foliar fungal disease pressure in Routine fungicide
application to We need to pay more
attention to the identity and severity of diseases in our fields and then
utilize this information in choosing adapted corn hybrids and soybean culti=
vars
that have the highest available levels of resistance to the diseases of loc=
al
significance! This should be our first line of defense against foliar
diseases in ON CRUISE CONTROL: CARS Since 1966 I’=
;ve put
nearly a million miles on various cars owned by Cooperative Extension, I have the unfortu=
nate
reputation here at the Institute as a somewhat less-than-perfect driver. Of
course, this is completely unwarranted: In almost 50 years of driving
I’ve never had a speeding ticket, nor a chargeable accident since I w=
as
16 (creased the fender on my parents’ DeSoto
and paid dearly for it). The problem is not that I run into things but that
things run into me, including other motorists, black bears (twice) and most
recently a deer. Oh, there was that incident a couple of years ago at the RR
crossing to the considerable delight of certain staff members, but no harm,=
no
foul, eh? —E.T. AGRONOMIST SHORTAGE?<=
/b> We were recently t=
old by
someone working on Wall Street that there’s a shortage of agronomists=
in
the Ah, but it takes a=
t least
four years to turn a freshman into a fresh-faced agronomy graduate, and more
than four years for the many jobs in the field requiring an advanced degree.
However, it’s encouraging to see a turnaround at some universities. If
agronomists get in sufficiently short supply, Eminent Ruminant Nutritionists
could decide to take on the responsibility for growing crops as well as fee=
ding
them, and we certainly don’t want that to happen. —E.T. ROTATING OLD ALFALFA-GRASS F=
IELDS
TO CORN Now’s a good=
time
examine your alfalfa-grass fields and decide on which to keep in alfalfa and
which to rotate to corn next year. For those fields that you’ll be
rotating, an excellent and underused practice is to apply glyphosate
to the standing crop shortly before your last cutting. You may be concerned
that you could be feeding forage that was sprayed with glyphosate
just prior to harvest, but extensive testing has found that if label direct=
ions
are followed there are no residues in milk or meat. You’ll need a fai=
rly
high rate of glyphosate, 2 quarts/acre of the 3
lb/gallon formulation, because alfalfa can be tough to kill. Read the label=
to
be sure that this is a labeled use for the particular brand of glyphosate you’re using. The minimum time betwe=
en
application and harvest is 36 hours. It will take somewhat longer for the
forages to start showing the signs of injury, so you’ll probably be
harvesting a normal-appearing crop (except for the sprayer tracks, of cours=
e).
Don’t wait for injury symptoms to appear. We’ve used this pract=
ice
on the Miner Institute farm with excellent results. You might not kill all =
the
alfalfa, but the glyphosate should do a good jo=
b on
it and a better job on the grasses. Of course, if you moldboard plow after
harvest that will settle the alfalfa’s hash once and for all. If you grow corn y=
ou
probably realize that unless you do something outstandingly stupid your best
corn is almost always on “sod ground”. That’s mostly beca=
use
of the tremendous nitrogen release from the decomposing sod. And the better=
the
growing conditions for corn, the greater the amount of N released from the
decomposing sod. (Is this a great world or what?) Now might also be the tim=
e to
take a fresh look at your crop rotation plan, considering reducing the numb=
er
of years of consecutive corn—and therefore how long alfalfa-grass fie=
lds
are left down. ”Reducing” in this case means from 5 or more yea=
rs
of continuous corn to 3 or 4 years. If you’re already in a 3-year
rotation—3 years of corn followed by 3 years of alfalfa—disrega=
rd
this discussion, which is for the other 98% of farmers reading this.) The a=
dded
cost of plowing and secondary tillage, assuming you don’t use notill, a greatly underused practice on sandy loam so=
ils,
will be balanced by the savings in nitrogen from eliminating that 4th or 5th
year of corn. Then there’s the increased yield from a higher percenta=
ge
of your corn crop being on sod ground, and you won’t have to deal with
that low-yielding 4th or 5th year of alfalfa-grass—or more accurately,
grass-alfalfa. —E.T. DON’T EVEN THINK OF IT=
We heard that a we=
ll-known
dairy nutritionist is recommending that farmers with silage processors wait
until corn is 40% dry matter before they harvest it for whole plant silage.=
One
Pioneer trial showed only a small decrease in silage digestibility as corn
matured from 34% to 41% DM, but 40% DM is a bit too high for my liking. If =
bad
weather hits just as you’re ready to harvest, the crop may be
considerably over 40% DM by the time you’re able to get back into the
field. However, with corn grain prices at way above previous record levels,
this is not the year to harvest corn before its time. Start chopping at the
“dough stage”? Don’t even think of it. Forget about start=
ing
when the kernels are merely “dented”. And use kernel milk line =
only
as an indication of when to start checking whole plant dry matters. If you =
have
a processor unit on your chopper, aim for at least 33% DM, and 35% isn̵=
7;t
too high. This is the year to wait until kernels are full of starch and
you’ve gleaned every bit of starch possible from the crop while still
having enough moisture for proper ensiling. Let’s put so=
me
dollar signs on this: Early dent corn silage, 25-30% DM, has about 75% of t=
he
grain yield of fully dented corn silage at 32-35% DM. Assuming 7 bushels per
ton for fully dented corn silage and $7.00 per bushel for grain corn, fully
dented corn silage is worth $49 per ton in grain value alone. Not only are =
dry
matter yields about 20% lower for early dent corn silage, but the value of =
the
grain in each ton is $12 less per ton. Consider a 20-acre corn field averag=
ing
20 tons per acre at full dent: 20 acres x 20 tons/acre x $49 grain value per
ton =3D $19,600. But if you harvest that field in the early dent stage̵=
2;and
it only takes 10-14 days to go from early to full dent—the value of t=
he
grain is only $14,800. Is it worth waiting two weeks or less to gain 20% in=
dry
matter yield plus almost $5000 in the value of grain? —E.T. FORWARD PLANNING By now you should =
have a
good idea of how each of your older alfalfa-grass stands are
performing. First cut isn’t the ideal time to tell since this harvest
often contains a lot of grass. But second and third cuts are mostly
alfalfa—at least if the stand of alfalfa is at all decent. Today we
don’t worry as much about plants per square foot, it’s
alfalfa stems per square foot that are more indicative of yield. Check your
records if you’ve already harvested second cut, or plan to do somethi=
ng
to approximate relative yield if you haven’t started second cut. Plan=
on
rotating your lowest-yielding fields to corn, even if they’re not the
oldest stands, and seeding down an approximately equal acreage of corn land=
. As
previously noted, very high nitrogen prices will make “sod groundR=
21;
corn even more profitable than it’s been before. Don’t be afr=
aid to
increase corn silage acreage, especially if you have a lot of manure and a =
good
place to store the extra silage. Corn will produce more tons of dry matter =
than
any other crop we can grow, and recent research shows that cows on a high c=
orn
silage diet make less manure than cows on a diet containing relatively more
grasses and legumes. At Miner Institute we grow almost an acre of corn for
silage per milk cow (305 acres of corn, 316 cows). —E.T. LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF SILAGE
HARVEST ON SOIL QUALITY Corn was grown on =
a silt
loam soil in the plot area at Miner Institute for 32 years, under both
conventional (moldboard plow) and notill manage=
ment.
Half of the plots were harvested as whole-plant silage, with the other half
harvested as grain with the stover returned to =
the
soil. Cornell agronomists and plant pathologists measured 25 soil properties
including standard soil tests, bulk density, porosity, compaction and
nematodes. Only 8 indicators were affected by stover
harvest (silage vs. grain), while 15 were affected by tillage. Results of t=
his
study indicate that on a silt loam soil, whether the corn is harvested for
silage or for grain has less adverse impact than does tillage. Reference: Soil Science Soci=
ety of
BUNKER SILO SAFETY We’ve heard =
of two
people killed in recent months by silage falling from the top of a bunker s=
ilo.
In one case the farm employee was completely buried and though two people
witnessed the accident there was so much silage covering the man that they
weren’t able to find him. They called 911 but by the time help arrive=
d it
was too late. He had worked on the farm for 22 years. In another case, this
time thankfully not a fatality, a farmer in a front end loader was buried by
falling silage. Though he wasn’t injured it was four hours before they
dug out both him and the loader. In The higher the sil=
age is
piled, the worse the hazard because of the difficulty in reaching the top w=
ith
the loader bucket. The result is a silage overhang that’s a disaster
waiting to happen. Corn silage seems to be more likely than hay crop silage=
to
be a problem because of its shorter particle length. Think of silo safety as
you’re filling bunker and stack silos with this year’s corn cro=
p:
Don’t pile the silage higher than you can reach with unloading equipm=
ent.
You’ll be able to keep a more uniform face, thus improving face life =
as
well as preserving the lives of the people working in and around the silage=
. LET THEM EAT….ESTROGEN=
Here are some inte=
resting
dietary facts from Trent Loos, cattle rancher,
journalist and a great friend to agriculture, on the estrogen content of
various foods: 4&nb=
sp;
A 3-ounce
serving of organic beef contains 1.4 nanograms.=
4&nb=
sp;
A 3-ounce
serving of conventionally-finished beef contains 1.9 n=
anograms.
4&nb=
sp;
One cabb=
age
leaf contains 2000 nanograms. 4&nb=
sp;
One tabl=
espoon
of soybean oil contains 28,000 nanograms. Three ounces of be=
ef might
be USDA’s “recommended” serving size, but who stops at 3
ounces? Let’s be generous and assume we’re snarfing
down a conventionally finished, 9-ounce RANDOM THOUGHTS 4&nb=
sp;
The larg=
est
cell in the human body is the female egg. The smallest is the male sperm. I
don’t know why this bothers me, but it does. 4&nb=
sp;
A dog is=
truly
a man's best friend. If you don't believe it, put your dog and your wife in=
the
trunk of your car for an hour. When you open the trunk, see which one is ha=
ppy
to see you. 4&nb=
sp;
Sometimes
women take things too literally. Like the farmer who talked his wife into
helping him set some fence posts. He said: “I’ll hold the post =
and
when I nod my head you hit it with the hammer.” Maybe she’d bee=
n in
the trunk with the dog. 4&nb=
sp;
The othe=
r day
The Bride and I had words, only I didn’t get a chance to use mine. —E.T. Clo=
sing
Comment If you think there=
’s
good in everybody, you haven't met everybody.![](3D"2008_08_files/image002.gif")
![](3D"2008_08_files/image004.gif")