MINER INSTITUTE FARM REPORT

EV SAYS GOODBYE, SORT OF =

As Rick wrote = in his column several months ago, I’m retiring as agronomist and Vice President at Miner Institute; to be precise, “retired” since Au= gust 29th was my last day. I’m continuing my relationship with the Institu= te, writing and editing the Farm Report each month, ordering 2009 crop needs and teaching some classes for our Agriculture and the Environment and Advanced Dairy Management undergraduate programs. I’m leaving my old wooden de= sk dating back to Mr. Miner’s time, but will continue on my “virtual” desk (my computer), using my current email address for the foreseeable future. Editing the newsletter isn’t a difficult job since we have very capable writers who only occasionally have to be reminde= d of an approaching deadline. In his five years here President Rick has only mis= sed one deadline. That month I wrote his article for him—or what I though= t he might have written—and suffice it to say that was a traumatic enough experience (for him, not for me) that he’s never missed another deadl= ine.

I’ll continue some agronomic consulting and speaking at meetings, including a couple of talks at World Dairy Expo this October. Also my monthly Farming magazine column and occasional articles for Hoard’s Dairyman and Northeast Dairy Business. Hoard’s has published over 100 of my articles during the past 32 years, which might be a record for persistence if nothing else.

The Bride and I will spend spring through fall in the beautiful new house that T.B. designed on the St. Lawrence River about 15 m= iles west of Ogdensburg, NY. We leveled the 200-year old farm house at Oak Point that my family had owned since before the Civil War, building our new home = on the site. As recently as the 1950s there were dairy cows in the adjacent ba= rn built in the 1880s that we’ve renovated into a modern apartment. Phot= os taken in the ‘50s show bundles of corn stalks running right down to t= he shore. In the fall when the weather heads south, so will we: To Richmond, Virginia where we’ll spend the winter next to my #1 son and his famil= y. We’ll be like shepherds, heading back north in the spring when the gr= ass turns green again.

I came to Miner Institute in the winter of 1968-69 as a Regional Field Crop Specialist with= Cornell University and started working for= the Institute in 1981. I’ve been able to travel quite a bit, including Japan, Western and Eastern Europe before t= he Iron Curtain fell, and more recently Mexico= , Australia, New Zealand, and China—always with someo= ne other than the Institute or the Crops Dude footing the bill. It’s bee= n a great career! Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) said it best: “The secr= et of success is being in the right place at the right time. Since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place, then just hang around.” For me the “right place” h= as been Miner Institute, and I’ve managed to hang around for 40 years.

Because it looks like it will be a while before we ge= t a new agronomist, feel free to contact me with crops-related questions. My em= ail address is the same, or you can contact me through my new website www.oakpointagronomics.com Ph= one number at Oak Point (315) 324-5632, mailing address 82 Dake Circle, Hammond, NY 13646.

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whmi= ner.com

From the President’s Desk – Nutrition isn’t Everythin= g?

At the annual American Dairy Science Association meeting this past July a group of Spanish researchers reported = on the relationship between non-dietary management factors and dairy herd performance. We all appreciate the tremendous impact that a well-formulated diet will have on herd performance, but this research quantified just how important other management factors can be – apparently nutrition isn’t everything; potentially sobering words to a lifelong nutritioni= st.

The= study involved 47 herds with over 3,100 cows of similar genetics that were fed essentially the same diet. So, we would assume that dietary factors as well= as genetics had little influence on how cows performed across all of the herds. The researchers found that the most important non-dietary factors that influenced performance were:

1. = Age at first c= alving which was negatively correlated with milk yield,

2. = Use of a close= -up ration which was associated with lower culling rates,

3. = Feeding so tha= t there were always feed refusals (i.e. no “slick bunk” feeding),<= /o:p>

4. = Adequate feed = push-up throughout the day, and

5. = Stocking rate = of free stalls.

The= last three factors were all associated with greater milk production. These management factors accounted for over 50% of the observed variation in milk yield that was not attributable to the diet itself. Naturally, the diet is extremely important, but the best diet formulated by the most talented ERN = will fail in a poorly managed dairy.

Int= erestingly, the next presentation in the very same session by University of Arizo= na dairy scientists delved into the effect of feed push-up schedule on milk yi= eld. They conducted the study in a herd that was milked 2x, fed 3x, and had an e= mpty feed bunk for 2 hours daily. The two treatments were: 1) feed push-up every hour throughout 24 hours, and 2) feed push-up every 30 minutes for the firs= t 2 hours after each feeding, in addition to hourly push-ups the rest of the da= y. That equated to an additional 9 push-ups each day. That’s a lot of fe= ed pushing!

Cow= s that experienced the extra feed push-ups produced an average of 2.6 pounds per d= ay more milk. The positive effect on milk production was most pronounced for t= he older cows, which actually went up nearly 4 pounds per day in milk yield. <= o:p>

The take-home message here is not necessarily to push up feed over 30 times a d= ay. But, we have to be impressed with the milk response to greater feed push-up following fresh feed delivery. All of this makes sense given what we already know about the high level of competition right after feeding and the import= ance of feed availability when cows want to eat (such as returning from the parl= or).

&nb= sp;

To me the most compelling aspect of this sort of research is not really the ba= sic cow response to management changes. For instance, most of us would guess th= at cows might respond positively to greater feed push-ups or reduced stall stocking density because of greater feed and stall access. What amazes me is the magnitude of the positive production response that we observe in study after study when we adjust our management to accommodate the cow’s natural behavioral needs.

–Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

IS HEAT STRESS IN THE NORTHE= AST WORSE THAN IN THE SOUTHWEST?

At the Cornell Advanced Dairy Nutrition Conference in August, Dr. Lance Baumgard from the University of Arizo= na suggested the summer heat in Northeast might be more damaging to cows than = the heat of the Southwest. He pointed out that 85ºF at 80% humidity is jus= t as stressful to a cow as 100ºF at 20% humidity. He also pointed out that = the Northeast will have several cycles of heat stress in a summer whereas the h= eat in Arizona just comes and stays. Heat stress depresses intake and when the weather bre= aks, the cows gain back full appetite. Each time the cows start eating again is another chance for ruminal acidosis associated with filling an emptier rumen with fresh feed.

This theory ma= kes sense but I wondered what actually happens here at Miner Institute. We̵= 7;ve had bouts of hot weather this summer and Ralph and Kris, our feeders, enter= the data that calculates our daily pen intakes. So, I plotted intake of our Pen= 3 against the daily maximum temperature (Figure 1). Pen 3 is usually our first lactation cows (assuming experiments haven’t messed with our manager’s grouping strategy) and shows lower intake variability than = our other pens. Many factors influence pen intake but some relationship between intake and maximum temperature is apparent.

Tal= king with Ralph, he observes that periods of heat depress intake and, when the h= eat breaks, the cows come back on intake but not all at once. It usually takes = two or three days of cool weather to get back to full intake. In the figure, wh= ile not a controlled scientific experiment, you can see both the quick re-feed = that might lead to the variable intake we usually associate with acidosis (start= ing June 11) and a gradual increase over a few days (starting June 17). So, we = have pen reacting both ways to the break in the heat, probably related to the nu= mber of the days of heat with longer periods having a more gradual recovery of f= ull appetite.

Looking at the complete weather records, a c= hallenge we may not think about that comes with the hot, humid weather in the North Country is thunderstorms. I think the real challenge the break in the heat in the Northeast is the rain that usually accompanies it. We get a string of hot, humid days and then a cool front co= mes through, squeezing the water out of the air and heavy downpours soak our st= ored forages. On that next cool day, the cows will be inclined to start eating a= gain and, if we don’t adjust to rained-on forage dry matters, we will pres= ent a ration that is lower in forage fiber as well. More intake of a hotter rat= ion (higher percentage of grain to forage) is a recipe for problems. In June, t= he weather records for Chazy show that more than a third of days had more than 0.25 inches of rain with the heavier rains associated with the breaks in the daily maximum temperature. Something to think about.

—Steve = Mooney, mooney@whminer.com

Trimming your farm’s electric bill

In 2003, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) audited 32 farms across central and norther= n New York for the= ir energy use, to help determine for each farm where most of their electric en= ergy was used, and ways to improve their farm’s electric energy efficiency. While this may be old news to many of you, a quick reiteration of the main points might help influence any decisions waiting in the pipeline. The audi= tors collected data on basic farm characteristics, total energy usage, and the b= reakdown of energy used -- specifically which activity the electricity was being used for, and areas where farms could increase energy efficiency. 14 tiestall fa= rms ranging from 42-140 cows and 18 freestall barns ranging from 65 to 860 cows were included in the audit.

Milk cooling, lighting, ventilation, and vacuum pumps used 88% of all electric energy on the farms. Water heating, feeding, manure handling, and miscellaneous activities accounted for the remaining 12%. Interestingly, the horsepower required for ventilation systems was low but = had long running times, while feeding and manure handling required higher horsepower but for shorter duration and used less total energy. =

The study recommended several Energy Conservation Measures for farms that didn’t already have them. The most commonly proposed conservation measure was energy-efficient lighting. To increase lighting efficiency indoors you can do something as simple as using compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandescent bulbs; a larger scale effort might be to install complete fluorescent light systems with energy efficient T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts. Outdoor lighting can be more efficient by using high-intensity discharge light sources such as high-pressure sodium a= nd metal halide lighting. The average cost to install more efficient lighting = was about $1500, with payback time ranging from 2-10 years depending on the far= m.

The next most commonly recommended conservation measu= re, the variable speed drive vacuum pumps – which slows down the pump when less airflow is needed rather than venting and wasting excess flow, costs an average of $3500 to install with a payback of about 1-11 years. A plate milk pre-cooler, costing on average $2500, also ranges from 1-11 years payback t= ime. And the last recommendation, refrigeration heat recovery – which uses waste heat from milk cooling to preheat water for cleaning, costs about $30= 00 with a 4-6 year payback. Finally, the audit concluded that even though ventilation used significant amounts of energy, no Energy Conservation Meas= ures were recommended because energy efficient alternatives are not readily available.

Keep in mind that depending on the farm size and setu= p, these measures may or may not be as appropriate. For example, the payback f= or upgrading to a variable speed vacuum pump on a farm of 40 cows will be significantly longer than on a farm of 800 cows simply because the vacuum p= ump runs for longer periods on the larger farm, and the savings add up faster. = Also remember that energy-efficient incentive programs could help reduce the act= ual payback.

If you are interested in an energy audit, NYSERDA can help facilitate an audit at little to no cost to your farm. Furthermore, NYSERDA can provide incentives for certain equipment and other funding assistance for new technologies, and may even help lower interest rates for loans on efficiency improvement projects. To view the NYSERDA agricultural website go to http://www.nyserda.org/programs/Agricultural or call 518-862-= 1090 for more information.

—Rachel Butzler, butzler@w= hminer.com

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

Summer has once again flown by here at the farm, which means we begin to anticipate characteristics of the fall season: Cooler days (sweatshirts and flannels a= re already in fashion), chopping corn, and the beautiful foliage of the Lake Champlain Valley.

It= has been a busy summer with the construction of the new dry cow barn. Our farm manager and the barn design team meet with contractors almost daily to revi= ew plans and make those necessary spur-of-the-moment construction decisions. Currently, the floors and curbs are being poured and we are hoping to move = in our dry cows sometime in October.

Mi= ner Institute once again participated in the Open Cattle Show at the Clinton Co= unty Fair and brought 10 heifers shown by the farm management students, our herd= sman intern, and a 4-H’er. The animals made a respectable showing with sev= eral first place finishes. As part of Miner Institute’s ongoing mission to encourage youth involvement in agriculture, one heifer was brought to the S= tate Fair in Syracuse for the 4-H show. A milking cow from Cha-Liz Farm was also selected to atte= nd the State Fair. The Institute and Cha-Liz teamed up to prepare their animal= s for the 4-H show. While the show animals held their own, the kids gained some perspective on the quality of show animals in New York State. Their exposure to big stage cattle showing was a great learning experience. After an exhausting week-long stint everyone was ready to return to the North Country, satisfied with their efforts. Congratulations to everyone involved.

—Steve Couture, Farm Manager couture@whminer.com

—Anna Pape, Dairy Herdsman = pape@whminer.com

—Glenn Palmer, Dairy Intern gpalmer@whminer.com =

To 4th cut or not

Here at Miner Institute we don̵= 7;t typically try to take a 4th cut unless we are truly short of haylage (HCS) = or the standing crop just looks too good to pass up. In the past we have had a= few successful 4th cuts as well as some disasters. Given the increased cost of harvest, taking a 4th cut requires even more serious review of cost-benefit= .

=

Nutritionally, 4th cuttings tend to be high quality forage, both alfalfa and grass. Looking at some data from CVAS as few years back, 4th cut versus 1st cut alfalfa silage had similar CP (22.7 vs. 21.3),= but lower fiber, NDF (39.8 vs. 44.0), ADF (32.2 vs. 36.9) and lower lignin (6.9= vs. 7.4). Here at the Institute, = our 4th cut mostly alfalfa/grass mixed stands have also run lower in fiber, NDF 44.0%, ADF 30% with very high 30 hour NDF digestibilities of 50-59%. Given = the low fiber and high digestibility, 4th tends to be a “hot” forag= e, which makes sense given its lush appearance in the field. Typically there’s a higher leaf-to-stem ratio for 4th cut, making it tempting to harvest. Whether this cutting ferments well and feeds well is another issue= .

=

Considering the growing conditions of 4th cut, usuall= y in August-September, with decreased total sunlight (12 hours vs. 15 hours in mid-summer) and decreased intensity given angle of the sun, photosynthesis decreases. This reduces the production of sugars as well as decreasing nitr= ogen metabolism and the conversion of nitrate to ammonia to amino acids. As the season progresses toward fa= ll, there is a decrease in the accumulation of growing degree day units (GDD, b= ase 41°F), slowing growth, thereby requiring longer time to attain “maturity” since the previous cut. The mid-summer interval is usually about 30 days between cuttings, with an accumulation of an average = of about 620 GDD. We don’t know as much about the GDD required for a fou= rth cut, but since it takes more GDD for third cut (an average of 645) than for second, it stands to reason that the number GDD for a 4th cut would be at l= east 645. Consider also the amount of initial plant sugars at time of harvest required to fuel a proper fermentation. At 35-40% DM, alfalfa given its hig= her buffering capacity due to higher protein content requires about 10-14% suga= r DM basis. Grasses only require 5-7% sugar to fuel fermentation. Whether these levels are attained with 4th cut, I do not know. Lastly, what effect does t= he cooler temperature have on the rate and extent of fermentation either by na= tive bacteria or an inoculant? In spite of some good silage densities, we have h= ad some moldy messes with 4th cut. Whether it is advisable to use an acid on 4= th cut or to increase the rate of application of an inoculant, again, I do not know, but may be worth consideration.

=

All the best for a pleasant fall harvest corn or hayl= age should you choose 4th cut or not.

—Kurt Cotanch,= cotanch@whminer.com =

Miner Institute’s Day Out

Miner Institute’s staff and summer interns had the opportunity to tour the Noble Environmental Power Clinton-Ellenburg Wind Parks on July 30th. Lauren Carter, Public Affairs Inte= rn, did an excellent job leading the tour for our group of 25 people who were e= ager to get up close to the enormous structures.

=

We ventured to a site on Tacey Rd on top of a hill in Ellenb= urg where we were able to view many of the 121 wind turbines in the parks. It w= as a warm but cloudy day and a little disappointing because believe it or not, t= here was no wind, a rarity for that part of the country. A slight breeze did com= e up for a few seconds, so we were able to see one of the turbines turn briefly.= The overall view of the turbines was awesome.

=

Lauren took us to the entrance of one of the access roads. (The public is prohibited to be on the access roads without a company escort). She explained details of the planning, construction, and operation= of the wind turbines as well as answering other questions. Did you know that it takes approximately 7 mph of wind to activate the turbines and that they wi= ll shut down if the wind exceeds 55 mph? The operation of the turbines is moni= tored at an offsite operations center in Plattsburgh. The electricity produced by the Noble Wind Park goes into the national grid and supplies either the = North Country or the closest point of demand. With our safety vests and hardhats= on, she escorted us to within 100 feet of the 390 foot tall turbine. We all enj= oyed the informative tour that cleared up many of the misconceptions we had about the wind turbines and wind energy production.

=

Since we had many young people with us from outside <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">New York State who were unfamiliar with this most northern part of = New York State, we couldn’t leave the area without stopping by the infamous Dick̵= 7;s Country Store and Music Oasis where gas, guns, groceries, and guitars are s= old. What can I say, the name spiked their curiosity.

—Maggie Carter, carter@whminer.com

What Does “Sustainability” Mean? Perspectives from Holland

The notion of sustainability, in regards to farming, has been bandied about for more than a decade; however,= the way in which it is used often reflects the personal basis of whoever is usi= ng it. This is true in both the popular press and the scientific literature, a= nd the definition may include such factors as environmental impacts, economic considerations, or social concerns. In a recent edition of Livestock Produc= tion Science, researchers from Wageningen University in the T= he Netherlands undertook a survey to define the concept of “sustainable farming” from the perspective of non-farming citizens. The survey involved taking two groups of citizens to two dairy farms in their respecti= ve regions of the country. Following a tour led by the farmer at each dairy, t= he participants completed a questionnaire that asked what they had seen, heard, smelled, and felt while walking through the farm. Additionally, each member of the p= anel was asked to take 10 digital photos that represented characteristics of the farm that were important to maintain for future generations.

Following the completion of the farm visits, the researchers established some broad themes that were identified as important to the panels.

=

1.      = Milk productio= n — The factor that was of most concern was hygi= ene. What may be the most interesting aspect of this finding was that the cleanl= iness of the barn and surrounding area led to a positive perception of the farm a= s a whole, in terms of hygiene.

2.      = Technology on = the farm — Overall the incorporati= on of technologies such as computerized data collection, automatic milking system= s, and palm pilots were viewed as a means to decrease the workload and increase efficiency

3.      = Economics — Participants expressed concerns both about t= he ability of the farmers to earn a sufficient income for their labor and pass= the farm on to the next generation.

4.      = Cows — All participants identified the cows as a key factor in sustainability. Freestalls, brushes, and other housing factors that allowed for natu= ral behaviors were ranked as highly important. However, concern over the year-r= ound confinement was expressed along with the separation of the calf and dam.

5.      = Aesthetics — The picturesque scene of cows on pasture was viewed by 80% of participants as a cultural aspect that was worth preservin= g. Additionally, there was a highly positive response in regardless to the quietness of the landscape and the ability to experience “nature̶= 1;, which did include livestock species.

6.      = Lifestyle — Most respondents left the farm visits with a sense that farming was more than a job, but a way of life and valued the human-animal interaction that occurs on farm. Again, 80% of those surveyed = left with a positive impression of the farm due to the positive attitude express= ed by farmers. Finally, a general appreciation for the complexities and challe= nges of managing a modern farm was gained from the visits.

=

There are several take-home messages for those of us across the Atlantic in North America. A concrete definition of “sustainable farming” remains difficult = to establish, but these findings indicate that the average citizen may combine environmental, economic, and social factors into their own definitions of t= he concept. These results demonstrate the receptiveness of Dutch citizens to t= he technologies incorporated into the management of today’s dairy farms. Those involved with dairy farming may need to consider ways to engage the increasing portion of the population that is completely removed from farms.= The results of this study suggest that the opportunity to visit a working farm = is a key factor for establishing a positive attitude towards the work of dairy farmers. This sort of engagement also is a way to establish which practices generating concern that can be adequately defended to the general public (separation of calf and dam following calving or complete confinement) and those that may need to be reconsidered to alleviate those concerns and main= tain the positive public perception of dairy farming.

—Peter Krawczel, krawczel@whminer.com =

Vet’s Corner: Frequency of Pregnancy Checks

At last month’s SPAH-sponsored “Vet to Vet” meeting, Dr. Jeff Stevenson from Kansas State University explained the correlation between herd palpation pregnancy rate and the frequency of pregnancy check appointments. It turns out that another cost benefit of superior heat detection can be to reduce the expense of extra pregnancy check sessions.

=

=

At the end of each herd pregnancy check, calculate the day’s herd palpation pregnancy rate by dividing the number of new pregnancies by the number of cows presented for exam. In the absence of computer-generated records, the palpation pregnancy rate can serve as a good indicator of the ability to detect repeat breeders. Repeat breeders are picked up for service and not presented for examination, which reduces the number of cows presented for examination, which raises the herd palpation pregnancy rate. Excellent herds constantly run over 85= %, while some are challenged to get over 50%. Herds in the 85% rate can consider extending some time between veterinary palpation visits; herds in = the 50% range need weekly or biweekly visits to pick up the excessive missed he= ats.

For= a herd with 50% palpation pregnancy rate that’s checked by rectal palpation, weekly herd checks are recommended to reduce time of missed AI by one or two estrus cycles. If the herd is checked with ultrasound 10 days sooner, = herd checks could be biweekly appointments to reduce time of missed AI by one es= trus cycle.

For= herds that emphasize heat detection and attain the 85% pregnancy palpation rate o= n a consistent basis, biweekly rectal exams or monthly ultrasound exams may be sufficient to keep missed heats at a reasonable level. When summer heat and heavy field work seasons can be anticipated to reduce heat detection ability, it may be necessary to schedule more appointments in these normally high fertility herds.

—Kent Henderson, DVM,

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

hug= amoo@comcast.net

SOY PRODUCTS LINKED TO LOW SPERM COUNTS

Last mon= th we reported that soy oil is absolutely packed with estrogen, and that you̵= 7;d have to eat almost 5000 juicy strip steaks to get the same amount of estrog= en as contained in one tablespoon of soybean oil. You say, “So what?R= 21; Well, researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health have fo= und that the equivalent of half a serving of soy food per day (a cup of soy mil= k or one soy burger) lowers sperm count and could have a negative effect on reproduction. That’s what. They collected data on 99 men attending a = fertility clinic, asking them how much soy-based food they ate. The men eating the mo= st soy food had the lowest sperm counts—41 million fewer sperm per ml of semen, and that’s a heck of lot fewer little swimmers. (Normal sperm count is 80-120 million/ml, but since these guys probably weren’t at = the fertility clinic to check out the décor, theirs would have averaged = on the low side to begin with.) The link between soy consumption and lower spe= rm count was strongest in overweight men.

The= re’s no definitive proof that eating soy-based foods reduces sperm count, nor th= at reduced sperm count will prevent conception since it only takes one to do t= he job. (A soy burger is not a reliable contraceptive, though the term “reliable contraceptive” is arguably an oxymoron and it is none= of your business how we formed this opinion.) Even so, the researchers stated = that overweight men with low sperm counts who consume a lot of soy products might want to decrease their intake of these foodstuffs. Let’s hear it for fewer soy burgers and more oysters…

Do Nonambulatory Cows Recover?

We had a great group of research interns this summer. They worked hard, asked questions, and shared their thoughts on several topics. One topic that caught my attention was the discussion of a “downer” cow in our sick pen. They were concern= ed about the cow’s welfare. The handling and care of nonambulatory cows = is a serious animal welfare issue on dairy operations. According to a study conducted by the National Animal Health Monitoring Systems (NAHMS) more than 75% of farms in the 21 major dairy states had at least one nonambulatory cow over the course of a year.

After our disc= ussion, I wondered how often nonambulatory cows recovered. During a Google search, I came across the dairy portion of the NAHMS Nonambulatory Livestock Study published in the June 2008 issue of the Journal of Dairy Science. One objec= tive of the study was to describe factors associated with the recovery of indivi= dual nonambulatory cows (Table 1).

=

Older cows that became nonambulatory were more likely= to recover than younger cows that became nonambulatory. Also, nonambulatory fr= esh cows (less than 15 days in milk) had greater recovery than other nonambulat= ory cows. The authors attributed these findings to hypocalcemia in older, fresh cows and the greater recover of cows with hypocalcemia compared with other reasons for nonambulatory cows, such as calving injury, lameness, slipping,= and falling.

Cows that were nonambulatory for less than 24 hours w= ere more likely to recover compared with cows that were nonambulatory for great= er than 24 hours. Typically, the longer a cow is nonambulatory, the more severe the muscle and nerve damage. The authors indicated that 6 hours is a critic= al threshold for secondary recumbency to prevent muscle and nerve damage, so nonambulatory cows should be treated as medical emergencies. Ideally, recum= bent cows should be repositioned (alternating between left and right sides) every few hours.

Repositioning and lifting nonambulatory cows did not improve recovery. The authors suggested that the findings are influenced by= the quick recovery of cows with hypocalcemia that did not require repositioning. These findings shouldn’t discourage caretakers from repositioning or lifting cows that have been recumbent for a prolonged period of time.<= /o:p>

The take-home message from the study was that based on recovery and animal welfare, euthanasia should be considered for cows that = have been nonambulatory for more than 24 hours.

—Heather Dann, dann@whminer.co= m

MATCH BUNKER SILO FILLING METHOD TO FILLING R= ATE

The standard method of filling bunker silos = is the progressive wedge, where the material is pushed onto the pile via a “ramp” of forage until the desired final height is reached. As = the silo is filled, the ramp therefore keeps being pushed back toward the front= of the silo. This is appropriate for many situations, but maybe not if the who= le silo will be filled in a day or two. The amount of forage delivered per hour may be too much to maintain a thin (6”or less) layer of forage across= the ramp and the forage not yet packed to the final height. In this case it may= be better to fill the silo horizontally than in a progressive wedge, resulting= in a lot more level surface area on which to spread the forage..

Cre= dit goes to “Lab guy” Kurt Cotanch for this recommendation. He was watching our crops crew fill a 25’ x 160’ bunker silo with corn, with the forage being chopped at a rate a= pproaching 100 tons per hour. He did a bit of calculating and concluded that we almost certainly weren’t maintaining that 6” layer of forage. And there’s a big difference in packing between a 6” layer and a 12” one.

CORN SILA= GE HARVEST

In last month’s “Don’t Even Think of It” article we cautioned against jumping the gun on harvesti= ng corn for silage; that dough stage corn is far from the ideal harvest stage.= For most corn planted in May, September is corn silage harvest time but it̵= 7;s also time to check whole plant dry matter levels before you start. Either c= hop a small amount with your SP chopper or hack off 10-20 consecutive or random= ly selected plants at the chop height you’ll be using. (“Randomly selected” doesn’t mean the best 20 plants in the field.) Avoid guard rows and non-representative areas. If you hand harvest, either carefu= lly run the plants through your chopper (the idea is to chop the corn stalks, n= ot your appendages) or use a wood chipper. Then dry the sample in a microwave = or Koster Tester. Don’t use the spring scale included with many Koster Testers; a postal scale is much more accurate. Unless the corn is silage-processed you’ll have a bunch of whole kernels, so make sure y= ou completely dry the sample. Weigh the supposedly-dry sample, then dry a bit = more and re-weigh. If the corn in the microwave bursts into flame it was probably dry enough.

The= n, assuming you weighed the sample both before and after drying (duh), punchin= g a few buttons on a calculator will determine the actual dry matter of the sam= ple. However, that probably isn’t the dry matter of the corn in the field = from whence the sample came. Advice from people with a lot more experience at th= is than we have suggests that you should subtract at least two percentage poin= ts from the result, maybe three. In other words, if the sample DM is 32%, whole-field DM is probably 29-30%. Seldom is the whole-field DM higher than= the sample DM. Obviously, it’s better to check more than one properly-tak= en sample per field but one sample will at least get you close. Then when you start chopping, keep that Koster Tester or microwave oven running, testing frequently as you chop. Here at the Institute we’ve occasionally stop= ped chopping a field when the crop turned out to be wetter than our sample pred= icted. It doesn’t happen often, but it’s better to stop for a few days than to wind up with a silo full of wet corn silage.

Fin= ally: Delaying harvest until the ideal stage of maturity is for many farmers a ma= tter of risk-reward. The risk is wet weather that would delay or prevent corn harvest. The reward from waiting is less (or no) silage effluent, higher dry matter yield, more grain and therefore more milk potential in every ton. Un= less the weather has changed drastically in recent years the risk of wet weather= is no greater than it’s ever been, but the reward is a lot greater since corn grain costs about three times what it did a couple of years ago. =

—E.T.

ENSILING FROSTED CORN <= /p>
Each year some farmers get caught short by an early frost, late harvest, or both. A single frost won’t do much harm= as long as the corn is chopped and ensiled soon afterward, but repeated frosts= can dry the crop and prevent efficient fermentation. Leaves account for only ab= out 10% of whole-plant dry matter, but freeze drying them (and often the top ha= lf of the stalk) can change the situation in a hurry. Worse yet is if the crop= is seriously immature; a number of years ago University of Vermont plant pathologist Alan Gottlieb (now retired) found that dough-stage ears started= to mold within a week of a killing frost.

A s= ilage processor won’t help frosted corn all that much since the rapid dryin= g is mostly in the leaves and top half of the plant and a silage processor affec= ts these portions of the plant little if at all. A recutter screen can help but really sucks up the horsepower. I was never sold on that corn silage shredd= er attachment sold for John Deere “39 series” choppers, nor were university ag engineers, and JD now sells a processor-equipped 3975. If you have an already-too-dry corn crop that you can’t harvest for grain, y= our best bet is to chop as fine as you dare (1/4”, perhaps) and pack very, very well if you’re ensiling in a bunker or stack silo. That means packing layers no thicker than 6” and preferably less than that. Sila= ge baggers can handle fairly dry corn silage, while conventional upright silos pose bigger challenges. Use a research-proven silage inoculant since frost = can reduce the natural (wild) population of fermentation bacteria.

In a typical stack silo you can usually count on losing much of the silage on the perimeter because of inadequate packing. To reduce these losses, make a nor= mal stack with a 3-on-1 slope, packing very well, then take your front end load= er and remove the silage on the perimeter up to a height of 5-6 feet, putting = that silage on the stack and packing it well. So most of your stack silo (except= for the ramp you’ll need for the silage you’re removing) will have 3-on-1 sides down to a height of 5 feet or so, then cut-off, nearly vertical sides. You’ll have a small amount of spoilage on the vertical sides, = but you’ll save most of the silage you remove and restack. I saw stack si= los managed like this in Torreon, Mexico this past summer and looking at the feeding face I liked what I saw (see photo page 1).

—E.T.

FALL MANURE MANAGEMENT

If the current price of fertilizer doesnR= 17;t make you more aware of the value of manure, probably nothing will. Because = as fertilizer prices have tripled, so has the value of the nutrients in dairy = manure. Someone recently noted that the spring-to-summer price increase of a ton of muriate of potash is more than the total price just a few years ago. A rece= nt Illinois study p= rojected that non-land corn production costs will be 36% higher in 2009 than in 2008, and most of this is higher fertilizer costs.

The= re’s little difference in plant availability between the nutrients in commercial fertilizer and in manure; the advantages of fertilizer include custom mixin= g to get just the analysis you need, plus the ease of application. But you have = to spread the manure anyway, so you might as well put it where it will do the = most good.

As = we discussed a few months ago, you can economically haul manure with a truck m= uch further than you can with a tractor. Since the price of fertilizer won̵= 7;t be going down anytime soon, if you have a lot of land several miles or more from the farm you may be able to pay for a truck-mounted tank spreader soon= er than you think. Especially if you already have a spreader tank that’s= in good enough shape to mount on a truck. We have two trucks with quick-change forage boxes and manure tank and are very pleased with them.

CAF= O farms need annual manure analyses, but all dairy farms should be doing manure analyses on a regular basis. Manure varies considerably in percent solids a= nd in the nutrients in those solids. Dairy farms have a lot more nutrients com= ing onto the farm as feed than are removed in the crops they harvest each year,= so in a perfect world we should be able to completely eliminate commercial fertilizer. But this is far from a perfect world and manure nutrients can’t be applied exactly when and where they’re needed, so we’ll continue to need to buy some fertilizer. Here’s how to use this fall’s manure applications to limit these purchases.<= /span>

Unl= ess soil test P is really low, fall-applied manure can eliminate the need for starter fertilizer for next spring’s forage seedings, or nearly so. It’s unlikely that P levels are low on any cropland you’ve been farming that’s within a mile or so of your dairy barn, but you need a recent = soil test to confirm this. We seldom use starter fertilizer on any seedings here= on the home farm. If you apply at least a moderate rate of manure on low P soi= ls, use a small amount of starter P if band seeding with a grain drill—20= -30 lbs/acre of P₂= O₅, just enough to get the forage seedlingR= 17;s root system established. There’s not much research to support this, b= ut $1000+/ton MAP and DAP sure makes me want to spoon-feed phosphorus. If you’d have to broadcast the fertilizer you’d be better off to j= ust use manure because there’s little difference in plant availability between manure and broadcast fertilizer. In many situations banded P fertil= izer is several times more plant-available than broadcast P.

App= ly manure on the corn fields that most need the nutrients, not the fields easiest to = get to with the spreader. Only about 35% of the N applied in fall manure is available for the next year’s corn crop—whether or not you incorporate the manure—so mostly it’s a matter of P and K. Corn silage removes a lot more potassium than does corn harvested for grain, so = pay particular attention to fields where you’ll be harvesting the crop for silage. Dairy manure isn’t the perfect fertilizer for corn silage sin= ce it contains too much P and not enough K, but can go a long way in reducing = your 2009 fertilizer bill.

Sep= tember is a great time to apply manure to grass and older alfalfa-grass stands. In fact, I’d use slurry manure (or any manure without much bedding) for everything but new seedings. Don’t sweat soil compaction or plant dam= age this late in the growing season, and the potassium in the manure will help = get the alfalfa through the winter. Dairy farms should seldom if ever have to a= pply fertilizer P or K to any grass fields, at least not if you can get to the fields with a manure spreader. During the past ten years the only fertilizer other than N that we’ve applied to grass has been a small amount of leftover corn starter. We never order any fertilizer except N for grass fie= lds.

—E.T.=

CLOSING COMMENT

The things that come to those that wait may be the things left by those who got there first.

<= /span>