MINER INSTITUTE - OCTOBER 2008 FARM REPORT

SCLEROTINIA DISEASE OF ALFALFA, CRAZY TOP OF CORN <= o:p>

A Quebec agribusiness rep sent me two photos of a white mold growing on alfalfa. Cor= nell Extension Plant Pathologist Gary Bergstrom identified it as Sclerotinia, or Sclerotinia trifoliorum= for you scientific weenies. It’s specific to small-seeded legumes including alfalfa, clover and trefoil. The fungus survives for a long time = in the soil, and in late summer or fall it fruits to form small mushrooms that puff out clouds of spores. These infect the young leaves of forage legumes,= but only ones planted that season. The disease starts as small brown spots on t= he leaves that aren’t very obvious, and a white mold develops from the s= pots the following spring and moves from plant to plant. If conditions are cool = and moist, the disease will kill out patches of legumes in the stand. The later= in the season the legumes are seeded, the higher the risk. That’s because the spores are released in late summer and adult plant resistance usually k= icks by fall for spring-seeded forages. The reason we’re seeing the disease now is probably because we had May conditions in midsummer. Gary says that Scl= erotinia is a major reason plant pathologists discourage summer seedings.

The= other photo accompanying this article shows corn affected by Crazy Top, a fungal disease. It’s a strange one because the fungus attacks the plant very early in the growing season, usually between the seedling stage and when the corn is about 10” high, but no symptoms appear for many weeks. ItR= 17;s usually associated with cool, very wet conditions early in the season. The disease causes replacement of the normal tassel by a large, bushy mass of s= mall leaves, and no pollen is produced. There’s often no ear, and ear shoo= ts are numerous, leafy and barren. This disease occurred in the Ottawa (Ontario) area this summer, and probably in other places as well. Crazy Top is strange-looking but because it usually only affects scattered plants in a f= ield is seldom anything to worry about, and having it one year has no bearing on= its possible occurrence the following year.

—Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

Vet’s Corner: Best Timing of Breeding

Prohibitive fuel prices have affected all businesses that transport their services to the farm, such as A.I. service and veterinarians. A. I. services are more commonly visiting the fa= rm on a once-daily schedule as the number of technicians declines and their practice areas expand. In some cases farms have replaced bull breeding with tail-chalking conducted by the A. I. technician. Some fa= rms depend solely on once-a-day observation by the technician for missing chalk= to identify heats. This past summer several of these farms suffered subpar breeding results.

Let’s go back to some of the basics of the bovi= ne estrus cycle:

· = On average, the egg is fertile for only 8 to 12 hours= .

· = Egg fertility starts around 27 hours after the cow be= gins standing and 3 to 6 hours after she stops standing.<= /p>

· = Capacitation of sperm cell= s takes 6 hours for the sperm to become fertile after semen is placed in the uterus= .

· = Poor semen handling can shorten fertile semen life fr= om 20 hours to 10 hours.

Fo= r once-a-day service to be successful, the dairyman must assist the technician with accu= rate heat detection in the morning and evening to help pinpoint the 8-12 hour pe= riod when the egg is fertile. If the cow is bred at the very beginning of heat, 27 hours could go by and sperm life will be over before ovulation and= the start of fertile egg life. The biggest problems occur when cows are br= ed early and semen life is shortened by poor semen handling and placement.

To extend the time when semen is fertile, be = very particular about how semen is thawed. It's tricky to thaw 2 straws in= the same water bath, because they tend to stick together and then the semen doesn’t thaw at the same rate. For the same reason, it helps to use a= 95F water bath instead of pocket thaw to give a more uniform thaw. Don’t rush, but strive to have semen thawed and implanted in the cow = in 10 minutes. If it takes longer than 10 minutes on a regular basis, restrain the cow better or closer to the water bath or thaw fewer straws at= a time.

—Kent E Henderson, DVM, Northwe= st Veterinary Associates, Inc.

hugamoo@comcast.net

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON= THE FARM

As the Farm Report is going to pr= int the barn and crops crew are happy to have all our corn chopped, hauled, pac= ked, and covered. Most everyone got their share of hauling loads of corn b= ack to the farm or packing the bunk, while the rest of us kept things running in the barn.

Just before corn harvest we fini= shed feeding out the '07 corn in the bunker silos and moved into the corn pile. = Feed samples went out so that our nutritionist could adjust the ration, but the analysis that came back didn't tell the whole story: it didn't account for = the physical form of the silage, in this case, the kernels. As we started into the pile, the kernels were hard and dry and minimally processed – some whole kernels and some only cracked. Walking through the barn, o= ne could see corn in the manure, and a manure screening showed undigested kern= els. The cows were not getting the nutrients in those kernels. Adjustments were = made to the ration, and as we have moved further into the pile, the kernels have become softer and are presumably being digested better.

September was a busy month for calving and th= e barn crew did a great job monitoring the close-up and maternity pens. We h= ad only one dead calf out of 32 calvings - a 3% DO= A rate for the month. The dry cows are anxiously awaiting the completion of the new barn - fixtures inside the barn (lights, railing, gates, etc.) are being installed.

—Anna Pape= , pape@whminer.com =

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

From the President’s Desk – What’s New at Miner Institute?

I recently had the opportunity to present a brief overview of current Miner Institute programs at the 2008 Vermont Dairy Industry Association Annual Meeting in Burlington, VT. The purpose of the presentation wa= s to highlight the collaborative efforts between Miner Institute and University = of Vermont (UVM). Geographically, the Institute is located about one hour away from UVM, and so collaborative programs between Miner and UVM are natural a= nd key to our efforts to support the regional dairy industry.

We = view our programs as being the modern-day embodiment of William Miner’s vision= for regional agriculture: application of the latest appropriate technology to s= olve the problems confronting farmers. In Miner’s own words: “No other occupation is as important to= the human race, nor requires such a wide range of practical and technical knowl= edge as farming … it has to do with our very existence – the product= ion of food and conservation of the soil” <= /span>(W.H. Miner, 1915). Nearly 100 years later, = the primary focus of Miner Institute’s education and research programs remains the crop-animal interface. Much of our research is aimed at improvi= ng forage quality and use by dairy cattle, and increasingly, we have focused on the environmental aspects of nutrient management on dairy farms. In additio= n to the dairy and crops programs, we also have a vibrant equine program with Mo= rgan horses that is used for educational purposes as well as reproductive and nutritional research.

Man= y of our programs are conducted collaboratively with regional colleges and universit= ies. A key collaborator is the University of Vermont, particu= larly the Departments of Animal Science and Plant Science. In the future, agricul= ture in northern New York and Vermont will be best served by continu= ed and enhanced collaborative programs between Miner Institute and UVM researchers= and extension staff. On-going educational programs, notably the Advanced Dairy Management Course taught at Miner as part of the FARMS 2+2 program between UVM and Vermont Technical College, have successfully kept young people in the region and actively involved in dairy farming.

Muc= h of our research focuses on nutrition, crops, and cow response. In addition, we hav= e an active interest in applied cow behavior and how our management strategies (= such as stocking density) influence cow health and performance. We even conducted our first equine nutrition study this past year, looking at the effect of s= ugar content in the grass on the horse’s metabolic responses. Here is a li= st of research highlights from 2007-08 that we feel will have a significant im= pact on the regional dairy industry:

Development and use of an on-farm tool to measure effective fiber in TMRs and silages. We have called this too= l the “Z-Box” (named after the Japanese company that collaborated wit= h us in the development, ZenNoh). It’s been ga= ining substantial use among nutritionists who use CPM-Dairy as ration formulation software.

We evaluated the relationship between forage fiber digestibility and its fragility, or how easily the forage is broken down du= ring chewing. Nutritionists know that some forage fiber breaks down more quickly than others during chewing (such as straw versus high quality grass hay or = BMR corn silage), and we have worked on methods to incorporate a measure of fragility into ration formulation.

We evaluated the effect of stocking density on cow behavior, productive respon= se, and milk quality. Over the course of several experiments, we’re begin= ning to understand much more accurately what the effect on cow performance and h= erd profitability will be for various stocking rates.

We continued research evaluating the effect of copper sulfate in manure (from footbaths) on soil and plant characteristics.

We&= #8217;ve been conducting several trials on feed supplements that have the potential = to enhance rumen digestive efficiency and cow performance.

We’ve also been evaluating appropriate feeding approaches for dry cows and shortened dry periods.

We = are building a new dry cow barn specifically designed for research as well as teaching. It will be sized to accommodate a herd size of 450 cows. Currentl= y, we have a herd size of 300 cows and so we’ll have flexibility in the fut= ure for herd expansion. The dry c= ow barn will have a combination of small pens with sand-bedded stalls (holding= 12 cows each) and bedded pack that can also be sub-divided into pens of 12 cows each. As in our current barn, we’ll install a camera system and catwa= lk to collect behavioral data. There will also be a surgery area and extensive animal handling area for weighing cows, collecting blood samples and so for= th. Next year, we hope to expand our current tie stall area to accommodate more feeding trials.

We = are in the process of hiring an agronomist to replace Ev Thomas who has retired this fall. We hope to= hire someone who will be able to address basic crop issues and also to develop a research program in the nutrient management area. This person would undoubt= edly interact extensively with extension and research staff both at UVM and Corn= ell.

The= bottom line is that a tremendous amount of cutting-edge information is being discovered right here in our corner of the country at UVM, Miner Institute,= and Cornell <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">University. From our perspective, = much of it is readily applicable to the dairy industry. As William Miner wrote, “agriculture is the fundamental occupation,” and we ultimately = are here to ensure that profitable farming endures in this region.

—Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

Corn chopping: particle l= ength and kernel fracture

It took a few loads but we finally honed in on the appropriate forage particle length and adequate kernel fracture of incoming corn crop. Finding the chop= per settings to obtain the desired particle length while still crushing corn kernels can take some time, but well worth the effort. We recently started feeding 2007 corn silage that was the last harvested. Which means to= say, it was a bit dry and kernels were a bit hard. It was clear that these kernels were not processed adequately as corn started showing up in the man= ure, big intact and cracked kernels, undigested. In order to maximize starch utilization we needed to make sure this year’s corn was processed more aggressively: NO whole, nicke= d or cracked kernels, only smashed pieces.

The initial chopper settings were 3/4“ chop len= gth and 3 mm on the kernel processor (KP), thinking kernel moisture was still r= elatively high and that 3 mm clearance would be adequate to smash. But upon Penn State particle separation and visual inspection, 3 mm wasn’t tight enough on the KP. So we tightened the KP to 2mm. Result was good kernel fracture, sma= shed pieces, but diced forage. Adjusted the cut length, but = still too short. Finally set= the chopper to 1.50” cut length in order to get our desired forage partic= le length of about 1”. Still had good kernel process= ing. It’s interesting to note tha= t as we increased the length of chop, the particle separator results did not cha= nge much. This has to do with the= fact that the middle screen on the separator contains particles between 8-19mm (= 3/8 and 3/4 inches). As we increased the chop length we weren’t affecting= the percentage of particles on the top or bottom screen, but only affecting len= gth within the middle screen. The particle separator wasn’t sensitive to particle length changes betwee= n 8 and 19 mm; it took visual observation to see the difference. Our goal was f= or 1” particle length (25 mm), which would result in an increase of particles on the top screen. The table below shows the Penn State Particle Separator results by sample and chopper settings as we increased the length= of cut before obtaining the desired 1”.= Kernel fracture was maintained with KP set at 2mm.=

Across most of the samples there was 70% on the middle screen, a very acceptable value. However, across those samples, the distribution of particle lengths = on the middle screen ranged from short/diced (8mm) to “okay” (clos= er to 19mm). Not until we had &g= t;10% on the top screen were we comfortable with the length of the particles on t= he middle screen. Regardless of = what the chop settings are, look at what is going into the bunk to ensure proper particle length and adequate kernel processing.

—Ku= rt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

PRACTICAL RUMINANTS: CONTENTS OF THE RUMEN<= o:p>

So, what’s in a cow’s= rumen anyway? Well, a whole lot. The rumen of a typical lactating dairy cow in midlactation is 25 gallons holding a 190 lb bubbling mixture of liquids and solids. This 190 lb mix is an actively fermenting ma= ss, changing and releasing the nutrients within as the rum= inal microbes live, grow and die.

If you took the total 190 lbs out of the rumen and dr= ied it down, you would drive off 165 lbs of water. This water is either the wat= er moving freely around the active fermentation (probably 80% of 165 lbs) or t= he water trapped inside the fermenting feed or ruminal microbes that do the fermentation. The dry matter would weigh 25 lbs and ma= de up of the fermenting feed (the majority) and the dried out bodies of ruminal microbes. The fermenting feed in the rumen mi= ght be equal in weight to about half of the daily intake but that varies depending= on the timing and size of the cow’s last meal.

The microbes that do the work of fermentation in the rumen are numerous. The healthy rumen will have among the highest microbial population concentrations found anywhere on the planet.

A lactating dairy cow can have microbial concentrations of 10,000,000,000 microbes per ml or cc. So, a 10 cc syringe= of ruminal fluid would contain 100,000,000,000 microbes = and the rumen of our typical dairy cow would be home to 1,000,000,000,000,000 <= span class=3DSpellE>ruminal microbes (That’s one quadrillion or mil= lion billions.). Needless to say, they are very, very tiny.

The job of the ruminal mi= crobes is to ferment the feed eaten by the cow, especially plant fiber. Fermentati= on converts the plant fiber to nutrients the cow can access. To oversimplify, = the ruminal fermentation serves to release glucose chains= from different configurations (sugar, starch, plant fiber) found in the feeds a = cow ingests. Chemically, glucose is a ring of 6 carbon atoms with hydrogens and hydroxides sticking off it and is the building block of most feed a dairy cow will eat. For simplicity (and possibly silliness), think of these glucose molecules as do= nuts (another ring structure). The feed the cow ingests contains billions= and billions of these tiny, tiny donuts and these shipments of donuts into the rumen are packaged many different ways.

The microbes that live in the rumen get the shipments first and their job is to release the donuts from their packaging which the= y do in return for the food and shelter of the rumen. Some of the donuts are not packaged (i.e. simple sugars) and microbes enjoy them quickly and easily. Others are heavily packaged (i.e. glucose chains that form plant fiber) and= the microbes must use an array of tools that would make Batman jealous to free these donuts. The donuts move in steadily and microbes tend to go for easy = ones first then get to as many of the heavily packaged donuts as they can. Once = the donuts are free from the packaging, the microbes can take one and only bite from each donut. That is the house rule the microbes must live by when they live under the protective roof of the cow’s rumen. And by this rule, hungry microbes are forced to release lots and lots of donuts that the cow = can use.

Continuing with the silly metaphor, cows can use only loose donuts and don’t really mind the missing bites as long as they = have lots of donuts provided by the microbes. Since cows don’t have thumbs= or tools to open the packaging, they couldn’t get at all the donuts with= out the help of the hardworking ruminal microbes.

Sci= entifically, the relationship between ruminal microbes and t= he cow is called symbiosis, a relationship where both parties gain benefits by the association. Next month, the production and removal of the acids of fermentation and the problems when these two processes are out of balance w= ill be discussed.

—Steve Mooney, mooney@whminer.com

ADDRESS CORRECTI= ONS, FARM REPORT SUBSCRIPTIONS

It’s been a couple of years since we di= d a “re-upping” of Farm Report subscriptions, but if you’ve had an address change or if the address on the label of this newsletter is incorre= ct, please let us know. Also, if you know of someone who might like to subscrib= e, have them contact us. It’s easier (and cheaper) for us to send the Farm Report via e= mail and you get it at least a few days sooner, so if you’re currently get= ting a hard copy but would prefer the electronic version let us know. For additi= ons, deletions or changes contact Deb Laporte at laporte@whminer.com or call 518-846-7121 ext. 113.=

Is Positive Human Contact Beneficial to Dairy Heifers= ?

The transition from the dry perio= d to the lactating period is difficult for all cows. These changes are especially traum= atic for heifers that are not only undergoing the physiological changes associat= ed with calving and the onset of lactating, but adapting to a new housing environment and the novelty of the milking routine. Furthermore, these heif= ers are forced to adjust to an increased amount of contact with the farm staff. Researchers from Newcastle University in the UK investigated if a short bo= ut of positive human interaction would be sufficient to reduce the problematic behavior displayed by heifers within the parlor, such as being reluctant to enter the parlor and increased amounts of kicking, urination, and defecation. These behaviors w= ere reported to increase the likelihood of culling for those heifers.

The positive interaction consisted of one researcher entering the pen and brush= ing an unrestrained heifer for 5 minutes each week for 6 or 13 weeks before calving. The behavior of these heifers was compared with control heifers who received minimal handling during routine farm management practices. After calving, the heifers were observed during their 1^st 4 trips= to the parlor and 4 additional milkings during the= next 3 weeks. Latency to initial milk let down (defined as the first appearance = of milk in the clear base of the milking unit), foot stomping, and kicking were recorded. The behavior of the heifers was also given a subjective score from the milkers who were unaware of the precalving treatment.

Milk let down occurred significantly faster in the treatment heifers compared to the control group. Treatment heifers were less likely= to kick while in close (< 3 ft.) proximity to the milk= er. Finally, treatment heifers tended to be viewed more positively in the subjective evaluation.

The response to brief periods of human contact during the weeks prior to calving suggests an opportunity exists to reduce some of the difficulties associated with bringing new heifers into the milking herd. The minimal time investment (30 minutes per cow spread over 6 weeks) indicates that it could be practic= al to implement this treatment into the management practices of commercial farms.

-Peter Krawczel, Krawczel@whminer.com <= /span>

Death Losses for Cows are Increasing

Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) lact= ation data from 1995 to 2005 (> 15 million lactations) were used by USDA researchers to study death frequency in dairy cows (Table 1). Death frequen= cy was defined as the probability of a lactation ending in death on the dairy.= The overall mean death frequency was 3.1% per lactation (5.7% per cow). Death frequency increased from 2.0% in 1995 to 4.6% in 2005. Some of the increase= in death loss can be explained by the 2003 USDA requirement that downer cows be euthanized on the dairy instead of sold for beef. As expected, frequency of death decreased with days in milk (DIM) and increased with parity.

The DHI data did not identify cau= se of death so the researchers did not identify specific management practices to decrease death losses. However, the USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System report “Dairy 2007” stated that the major cau= ses of death in cows were lameness or injury (20%), mastitis (17%), and calving problems (15%). Focusing on management practices that minimize those proble= ms should decrease death losses.

—He= ather Dann, dann@whminer.com

LIFE ON THE OTHER SIDE

This is my first Farm Rep= ort as a retiree, though The Bride isn’t quite buying this “retired” busine= ss yet. The reason for TB’s skepticism is several trips I made to the Institute in September to teach Agriculture and the Environment classes and= to speak at a Vermont agribusiness meeting,= plus a fall speaking schedule that includes seven states and Ontario. But though we’re both still amateurs at retirement so far, so good. One day late last month I spent a sunny afternoon on the St. Lawrence River, first in a paddleboat with T.B.= , then in my canoe wetting a line. Temperature in the 70s, the river smooth= as glass, hundreds of C= anada geese making a commotion just to hear themselves= honk. I could get used to this.

It’s encouraging if a bit sobering how well thi= ngs seem to be doing at the Institute in my absence. The cows’ milk production dropped like a stone as soon as I left (obviously overcome with grief) but have been making a good comeback. President Rick and the rest of= the committee charged with hiring a new agronomist have to date been woefully unsuccessful in their efforts. It’s certainly not for lack of trying; there just aren’t many (any?) agronomists with the required qualifications who are looking for a job in Northern New York., even at a workplace as terrific as Miner Institute.

I c= ontinue to get questions from farmers and agribusiness professionals; keep sending = them and I’ll do my best to provide answers. Recent questions included dis= ease management in corn and alfalfa; grass management for dry cows; fall alfalfa harvest; asphalt for bunker silos; and using silage inoculants on corn that= had to be chopped early because the remnants of Hurricane Ike blew whole fields flat.

—E.T.=

DOWN CORN

Hurricane Ike wreaked havoc on = many North Country corn fields. Damage was far worse to the west, especially Jefferson County (Watertown area) where some farmers repo= rted almost half their crop on the ground. They were able to salvage much of the crop through chopper head modifications and simply going much slower (a lot= of fun = that is during a b= usy harvest season), but all across Northern NY there’s more stalks lying= in fields this fall than in a very long time. At the Institute we didn’t have much lodged corn, but lots of goose-necked plants so somewhat more sta= lk left in the field. This probably will have about the same result as high chopping, even if the chopper was set to cut 6” or so from the ground= .

What will be the effect of this on next year’s crops? That depends on the crop and what type of tillage is done. Depending= on how mature the grain got before the plant died, there could be a lot of via= ble seed in the field. I well remember some fields in Peru, NY that were combined b= ut a lot of corn was left in the field. The farmer decided to use a rotary harro= w to chew up the plants, but this was his only tillage prior to disking in the spring. The harrow did a terrific job of burying the corn kernels at the perfect depth for germination, which is just what they did after the farmer planted corn the following spring. The only way you could figure out where = the planter went was to look for the dark green strips that the starter fertili= zer left. Plant population was in the millions per acre… If you plant a h= ay crop you should be OK since you’ll mow any volunteer corn off with the first crop.

Power harrows are pretty much extinct, but if you lef= t a lot corn in the field don’t use a disc harrow this fall—this includes tandem discs, offset discs, any type of discs. I’m not real thrilled about chisel plows in this situation, though you’ll have to balance the amount of corn in the field vs. the ease of chiseling vs. moldb= oard plowing. The worst fields really should be moldboard plowed—especially those harvested for grain since the kernels are much more likely to be viab= le. That will bury the seeds under 6” or more of soil and they won’t make it out of the ground from that depth.

—E.T.=

IS OUR WEATHER GETTING WETTER?

In the summer issue of Farm Journal, highly respe= cted Iowa State Extension climatologist Elwynn Taylor commented that “Our climate has changed. The M= idwest receives about 10% more annual precipitation than the years before 1970.= 221; We don’t have local weather records extending back far enough to make= for a really compelling story, but what’s the good of having all this jui= cy data if you can’t use it every now and then? We went back to 1964, the first year state climatologists started keeping weather records here, and u= sing five-year averages to reduce the impact of a very wet or dry year, we calculated annual precipitation through 2008. Since we haven’t yet fi= nished with 2008, we used the totals through September and then plugged in long-te= rm averages for the remaining three months.

Ev= en using five-year averages there’s plenty of variability, but look at the lin= ear trendline: Nothing much happening, is there? We might= be averaging an inch more precipitation per year, but that’s about it. I= f we look just at the last 5 years of the 1960s it would appear that we’re indeed “getting wetter”, but those were the last in a stretch o= f dry years in this region, with no more than 30” of precipitation any year 1964 through 1969. Our long-term average just over 31”.

CORN HYBRID EVALUATION

To the extent possible you shou= ld rely on university trials to evaluate the corn hybrids you’re conside= ring planting next year. Corne= ll University does an excellent job of evaluating corn hybrids on a regional basis, with separate trials for silage and grain production. Seed companies are usually reliable= in rating their own hybrids for yield and quality. It’s tempting to make decisions for 2009 based on how a hybrid did on your farm in 2008, but how Hybrid X did on a particular field is often more indicative of field condit= ions than of how good or bad the hybrid really is. One evaluation you can make w= ith some confidence relates to relative maturity. If you planted the hybrid at a normal time (for you) and if we had a reasonably normal growing season, did the hybrid mature in time for harvest? If not, you might consider planting an earlier hybrid next year. Of course, if the hybrid was ready for harvest before you were then you should think about ordering a later-maturing hybrid.

Be careful in evaluating in vitro= digestib= ility when comparing corn silage at considerably different whole plant dry matter levels. To prepare the sample for these assays the dried silage is finely ground, grain and all. This can mask the fact that over-mature corn kernels aren’t as digestible as the kernels in corn silage harvested at the proper stage of maturity. For instance, at whole plant dry matter levels appro= aching 40% there can be at least a 10% difference in starch digestibility between processed and unprocessed corn silage; imagine the difference if the corn is finely ground (as with in vitro). That’s why silage processing is especially useful in over-mature corn. In vit= ro digestibility is a great tool when used properly, but you need to know what you’re measuring and how to use t= he results.

CORN, CORN FLAKES AND ETHANOL

An 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains about 13 ounces of milled corn—that seems like a lot, doesn’t it? In 2007 when corn was “cheap” ($3.40 per bush= el), 13 ounces of corn was worth a bit less than 5¢. If corn doubled in pri= ce, that would result in a nickel increase in the price of corn in a box of cor= n flakes. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the price of a box of corn flakes w= ould increase by only a nickel, just that increases in the price of corn flakes = has very little to do with ethanol or what a farmer gets for a bushel of corn. Similarly, it takes only 19¢ worth of corn to produce a pound of hamburger, facts to keep at hand when your non-farming friends complain abo= ut ethanol and corn prices driving up the cost of food.

KEEPING TRACK OF= PEST PROBLEMS

Ken Wise of the New York State = IPM (Integrated Pest Management) program reminds us that it’s important to keep annual records on any pest problems that might have an impact on the following year. But he says it better than we can:

“Did potato leafhoppers go over threshold and w= hich field(s)? Were there certain corn diseases present? Did you have corn that = had corn rootworm injury? Were there new weeds or weed escapes you did not expe= ct this year? Pick up a pencil and write them down on a field-to-field basis to better select certain management practices the next season. For example, if= you were hit with potato leafhoppers this season and you want to rotate your alfalfa, one management option to consider for the future is use of a potato leafhopper resistant alfalfa variety. Another example might be to select wh= eat varieties that are resistant to certain diseases. If you had weed escapes y= ou might reconsider your selection of weed control products. Are your pesticide use records up to date? Rates, dates, efficacy, etc. It is always important to keep pesticide records up to date. If you w= ait too long you may forget what happened in certain fields. So write them down= ! A sharp pencil beats a dull memory…”

FORAGE CROP COSTS AND RETURNS

While sorting out my files I came across the results = of a study we did many years ago that looked at the yields of alfalfa-grass and corn, plus the production cost, for years 1 through 5 of our crop rotation.= We summarized ten years of yield data (1982-1991) for the 34 fields on the Institute farm, plus 1991 variable input costs (seed, fertilizer, pest control). Following are the results, which while they’re a bit dated,= are still worth a look. We indexed both dry matter yield and cost per ton of DM, assigning 100 to the highest yield and highest cost per ton.

Co= mments:

· Alfalfa-grass yields were highest the first year after seeding, and remained high the third year of the stand. They fell off only modestly after that, but we were harvesting more grass and less alfalfa in years 4 and 5.=

· = Alfalfa-grass cost per t= on of DM was highest in the seeding year since there’s seed to pay for and lower yields the seeding year. The reason costs decreased in later years is that with older stands we used manure instead of commercial fertilizer to supply nutrients.

· = Surprisingly, corn silage yields weren’t the highest on first year (sod) fields. Don’t kn= ow why this is, nor can I explain the dip in corn silage yields in year 4. Data gremlins, maybe.

The longer corn was in a field, the more it cost to g= row an acre of corn. This is partly due to increased nitrogen costs, also to the need to use a soil insecticide to control corn rootworms.

Using the above figures, from a crop input basis a th= ree-year crop rotation seems to make sense. Updating this for 2009, we’ll pay a lot more for using muriate of potash vs. manure during the alfalfa part of the rotation, and for using commercial N vs. man= ure or a plowed sod for corn silage. These would favor a crop rotation of less than 5 years each of corn = and alfalfa-grass. Note: We didn’t take into account the labor and equipm= ent cost of the additional tillage necessary for a shorter rotation.

—E.T.=

COON CONTROL

Now that most of this year̵= 7;s corn silage crop is tucked away, a timely topic is raccoons and the damage = they can do to silage bags, stack and bunker silos. Back in 1991 we polled the <= /span>Farm Rep= ort readership, asking for ideas on preventing coon damage to silo plastic. We received some good ideas and a few really wacky ones, complete with diagrams, flow charts= and treatises on raccoon psychology. One of the most interesting was from a New Hampshire wo= man who informed us that raccoons will not cross squash or pumpkin vines because of= the prickly spines. She made a habit of planting squash around her corn for yea= rs and was never bothered by coons even though she says they were “in the neighborhood”, so to speak. Of course, she had her seasons a bit mixed up—corn is ensiled in the fall, often after the first frost has pickl= ed squash or pumpkin vines—but the idea is intriguing and maybe the fros= ted vines are still prickly enough to discourage marauding raccoons.

It’s a bit ominous= that my “Complete Guide to Pest Control”, manual, all 304 pages of i= t, doesn’t even mention raccoons; either the author didn’t consider them to be a pest or he was smart enough to avoid the topic altogether.

Got any tried-and true methods of repelling raccoons?= If so, let us know and we’ll share any worthy ideas. (A HavAHart trap followed by a .22 bullet, though effective, is not in the true spirit = of “repelling”.) If you follow a catch-and-release program, be sure you take the captives a long way from the scene of the crime. One of the respondents to our 1991 request noted that he began by trucking the coons he caught in his HavAHart traps about a mile away.= Some of the coons he was trapping seemed to be less agitated than expected about their imprisonment, and when he thought he recognized a couple as recidivis= ts, he started spray painting their butts with red paint (obviously a Case-IH g= uy, not John Deere) before releasing them and soon confirmed that he was catchi= ng some of the same coons over and over. He considerably increased his coon-trucking distance, with better results.

—E.T.=

ALFALFA-GRASS AND LOW SOIL FERTILITY IS A POOR MATCH

I may be stubborn but I’m= not entirely stupid. (No comments, please.) After se= veral years of trying with a spectacular lack of success to grow alfalfa-grass on leased land that has very low P and K fertility, I’ve finally had to admit that it’s been a flop. Oh, the grass grows just fine and we’ve harvested some decent yields from these fields, but grass is so much more efficient at extracting potassium and other nutrients from the so= il that it starves the alfalfa out. We get very good establishment of the alfa= lfa, but as the grass starts to get a foothold (roothold?) the alfalfa almost se= ems to suck back into the ground. In these situations, grass is a “companion” crop about like a wolf is a companion to a flock of sheep.

There’s nothing wrong with a good stand of gras= s, but it’s a really lousy idea to spend the money on alfalfa seed when = it will only last a year. Based on our sad experience, we offer these alternatives:

1. Wait until you increase soil test P and K <= span style=3D'mso-default-font-family:Shannon;mso-greek-font-family:Shannon; mso-latin-font-family:Shannon'>to at le= ast medium levels before seeding alfalfa-grass. This will almo= st certainly have to be done by relying primarily on liberal (heavy) applicati= ons of manure because of the very high price of commercial fertilizer.

2. = Seed alfalfa without any grass. The problem with this= is that unless the land is uniformly well-drained, the alfalfa will soon die o= ut in the low spots to be replaced by dandelions and weedy grasses.

Seed grass at higher rates than you would in an alfalfa-grass mixture. Many farmers have no idea what an intensively manage= d, pure grass stand will do because what they’re used to harvesting are run-out alfalfa-grass fields with less than half as many grass plants as ne= eded for optimum yield.

—E.T.=

NOTABLE QUOTES

· If the price o= f eggs gets high enough, it seems like even the roosters start layin’ ‘em. Earl Butz, former= U.S. Secretary of Agriculture

· = In the discharge of the office (of President) there i= s one rule of action more important than all others. It consists in never doing anything that someone else can do for you. Calvin Coolidge

· = Life is tough, and really = tough when you’re stupid. Damon Runyon

· Farming is one of the finest occupations in the world= if taken in moderation. Peter MacArthur

· Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. <= /span>Albert Einstein

CORRECTION

O= n page 7 of the July 2008 issue of the Farm Report in the article regarding our stall changes, the article states, “The new brisket board (a 5 inch diameter PVC pipe)” should read, “The new brisket board (a 5 inch diamet= er S/B Polyethelene pipe)…

CLOSING COMMENT

The reason talk is cheap is that supply exceeds demand.

<= /span>