January 2010

January 2010

KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECT TRANSITION SUCCESS

The Miner dairy f= arm and research staff has spent the last several months conducting a nutrition stu= dy with dry cows and early lactation cows. This type of study reminds us all of the challenges that surround the transition period. A couple of our research technicians had limited experience with fresh cows at the beginning of the study. Their hard work and willingness to learn and ask questions has been great. We have had several discussions focused on fresh cow health, physical examinations, and causes of transition failures.

There = are several key factors in transition cow management that affect transition success. Dr. Ken Nordlund surveyed the transiti= on management practices of 50 Wisconsin freestall herds. The herds had a wide range of manage= ment practices, housing characteristics, and animal evaluations. Interestingly, 5 factors were associated with the herd average Transition Cow Index^TM (TCI). The TCI is a tool to assess= the effectiveness of transition management programs.

Bunk space. A minimum of 30” of bunk space per cow in the dry and fresh pens is recommended when headlocks or ot= her vertical dividers between feeding spaces are used. More bunk space is needed when a post and rail system is used.

Pen moves and social stress.<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;letter-spacing:.25pt;mso-ansi-language:= EN'> Frequent pen moves and entries into pens should be minimized to reduce soci= al turmoil. Limit the duration of stay in isolated pens (i.e. box stalls).

Amply sized freestalls or bedded packs. Stalls for Holstein and Jersey cows should be at least 50” and 45R= 21; wide and 70” and 63” long (curb to brisket board), respectively= . A bedded pack should provide at least 100 square feet per cow when there is a separate feeding alley or at least 120 square feet per cow when the feeding area is continuous with the bedded pack.

&= nbsp;

Surface cushion. Sand is the recommended bedding for freestalls. A deep, loose surface (i.e. bedded pack or mattress with adequate bedding) = is better than a hard surface (i.e. concrete or mattress with no bedding).

&= nbsp;

Effective screening program.= Optimal screening programs use some form of appetite assessment, have facilities that allow for easy restraint, and have skilled herdsmen.=

&= nbsp;

Nordlund says the 5 factors listed above are the primary focal points he and his colleagues work with to improve fresh cow health for their clients.

— Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com

Ref= erence: Nordlund, K. 2009. The fi= ve key factors in transition cow management of freestall dairy herds. Pages 27-32 in Proceedings 46th Florida= Dairy Production Conference, G= ainesville, April 28, 2009.

PRICING CROP INPUTS

In looking over university crop research results, something that has long bothered me is how seldom the cost of a particular crop input is tied to its effectiven= ess. For example: In a university trial, Herbicide A provides 92% control of yel= low foxtail, while Herbicide B provides 90% control. However, Herbicide A costs= $30 per acre, while Herbicide B costs only $15. Which is your better alternativ= e? Will there be a corn yield difference between 92% and 90% foxtail control? I think not, but you sure would notice the difference of $15 per acre! Some y= ears ago in attempting to control annual grasses in the corn at Miner Institute,= we used a top-rated postemergence application of a package mix of two herbicides. It did a good job, but in looking at the cost – about $40 per acre when the adjuvant was included – we decide= d to try a somewhat cheaper alternative, finding that it too was very effective.=

Of course there's a reason for the = lack of price data: It would be almost impossible for university researchers to report input prices on a state-wide basis because of the differing prices offered by the various distributors and the often large year-to-year price changes of some products. For instance, Monsanto is having a fire sale on Roundup this year, pricing it at about 50% of what it cost last year. So any cost comparison from 2009 involving Roundup (or most likely any other brand= of
glyphosate) would be way out of whack in 2010. =

Good luck in tryi= ng to find current price data on herbicide options, at least in any comprehensive form. Not that this hasn't been attempted: A number of years ago one of the regional agribusinesses in Nor= thern NY published a list of many= of the commonly used herbicides and herbicide combinations, including the current retail price. This was very useful, but of course was outdated = by the following spring. And it must have been enough work that I never saw an updated version of this list.

<= /p>

As you consider the relative effectiveness of various pest control options (bo= th chemical and genetic), also consider the cost. Sometimes you'd wind up payi= ng a lot more for a very small gain in pest control – or no gain at all. O= ne of the best sources of this information, at least when it comes to herbicid= es, is custom applicators. These folks make most of their profit on the actual application, not the small difference in markup between one herbicide and another. Their goal is to provide effective weed control at a reasonable pr= ice. Good weed control keeps you coming back to them, while the reasonable price helps keep you in business. A win-win situation, to be sure...

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; – Ev Thomas, Thomas@whminer.com

SOYBEAN VARIETY TRIAL SUMMARY

We don't know what it is about North Country weather – particularly Northeastern NY<= /st1:place> – but soybeans continue to be an almost bulletproof crop, at least = to grow if not to harvest. Each year Cornell University agronomists plant soyb= ean variety trials at two or three Northern NY locations including one in Corne= ll's crop research area at Miner Institute. And each year – hot, cold, wet= , dry – the Miner Institute trial provides big yie= lds. This year the trials, consisting of 14 Roundup Ready Group I varieties plan= ted on May 29th, averaged 57 bushels/acre. Just about everything yielded well; = with the exception of one variety that yielded 51 bu= /A, there wasn't anything that was less than 55 bu/= A with the top three all 60 bu/A o= r higher. It was encouraging that even though the trial wasn't harvested until Nov. 2 there was no lodging at all. A similar trial at Sackets Harbor (near Watertown) didn't fare quite as well but still averaged a respectable 44 bu/A.

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK —
STATE OF THE INSTITUTE 2010

We just completed our year-end review of programs and activities at Miner Institute for 2009 and I thought I’d share some of the highlights with you. Each year as I look back over the accomplishments of the Institute sta= ff and their programs I am amazed at what a staff of only 50 folks can accompl= ish!

Our educational programs remain the fundamental reason that we exist. The Advan= ced Dairy Management program monopolizes our efforts during spring semester, wi= th dairy management students spending an entire semester in residence at the Institute. These are primarily students who have spent two years at Vermont Technical College and have transferred to = University of Vermont for their final two years.= Our hope is that most of these students return to dairy farming or closely alli= ed industry when the program is completed. In 2010 we will have nine students,= up from six this past year.

During fall semes= ter our focus shifts to Agriculture and the Environment and students primarily from SUNY-Plattsburgh with limited agricultural background. Here our goal is to = use the Institute’s farm and forested lands to teach students how agricultural practices impact the environment. The contrast in student backgrounds, experiences, and expectations between spring and fall semester= is a significant part of what makes it stimulating to work here.

Our Summer Experi= ence programs in crop/dairy management, equine management, and agricultural rese= arch remain vibrant and highly competitive, attracting students from across the = U.S. an= d even internationally.

Our research group conducted numerous studies on topics ranging from evaluating the effects of stocking rate on dairy cow behavioral response to successfully feeding low starch diets to dry and fresh cows. Student projects are a significant port= ion of our research and educational programs, providing them with a glimp= se into the research process and simultaneously generating useful, practical knowledge. In 2009, 11 students conducted research projects ranging from the effects of forage NDF source on milk components to the effect of soil sampl= ing site on phosphorus content.

Industry outreach consumes substantial amounts of all staff time, and this reaches b= ack to the Institute’s core mission of application of the latest technological advances to solve problems confronting North Country agricult= ure (or, in fact, national and global issues). Over 2700 people attended over 50 workshops/seminars held at the Institute in 2009. In 2009 the Northern New = York Dairy Institute was created as a collaborative effort between Cornell Cooperative Extension of the northern counties and Miner Institute.

The Farm Report continues to be our outreach effort with the single greatest impact on crop and dairy farmers. In addition, The <= i>Stable Sheet delivers timely information to the equine industry. Increasingly,= our website is an important vehicle for delivering information, and in 2009 it = was completely overhauled.

The Institute’s most visible demonstration program continues to be the da= iry herd. As always, the dairy staff did an excellent job of balancing research= and educational demands with our need for maintaining a highly productive herd.= In 2009, herd milk production topped 31,500 pounds rolling milk production. A = high level of dairy herd performance is necessary for our research results to be applicable to the modern dairy industry, for relevant educational programs,= and for effective demonstration of the latest technology in a dairy-crop system= .

Obviously, I’ve skipped over many other significant accomplishments and programs, but I did want to provide a quick glimpse of the breadth and vigor of our research, educational, and demonstration programs. If this brief overview stimulates interest on your part in learning more about the range of Miner Institute programs, please feel free to contact us. And, most importantly, I hope that 2010 brings you prosperity!

— Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

VET’S CORNER: MYCOTOXINS IN NORTHEASTERN DAIRY RATIONS =

Possible mycotoxin contamination in dairy rations has been an important topic this fall due to wet, cool growing and harvest weather. In recent weeks our practice and clients have been brought up to date by excel= lent presentations by Dr. Ken Zanzalari, Prince Agri Products and Dr. Swamy Haladi, Alltech. For comprehensive reading on the subject check out the following websites:=

www.KnowMycotoxin= s.com

http://www.vetmed= .iastate.edu/diagnostic-lab/diagnostic-services/diagnostic-sections/chemist= ry-toxicology/mycotoxins

When considering = the possibility of mycotoxins in rations, investiga= te for breakdowns in proper feeding management before going to the expense of mycotoxin testing. Vomitoxin (DON) is the most commonly reported mycotoxin in forages grown in the Northeast. In ruminants it doesn’t cause specific disease symptoms but reduces the palatability of feed and therefore reduces dry matter intake (DMI). In this year with such poor climate condit= ions for harvest, monthly testing of forages is recommended to stay ahead of mycotoxin problems. Of course there are a myriad= of reasons for DMI to be reduced. Before just throwing an expensive feed addit= ive into the ration, Drs. Haladi and Zanzalari recommend reviewing other causes of diminished DMI, such as inaccurate mois= ture content of the ration and overcrowding of the feed bunk with the herd feed = rep and/or herd veterinarian.

Zealerone is another mycotoxin, one found in 90% of forage samples that te= st positive for DON. For this reason, forage analysis usually just tests for D= ON and assumes that zealerone is also present. Unl= ike DON, specific symptoms are associated with this mycoto= xin in dairy cattle. Zealerone mimics estrogen̵= 7;s effect on the dairy cow’s reproductive system and has been associated with poor conception rate in cattle that exhibit abnormal estrus activity. Cows display increased vaginal secretion and swelling and heifers may exhibit abnormal mammary enlargement. There are many cause= s of abortion, early embryonic death, and irregular cycling in dairy cows that m= ust be eliminated before placing the blame on mycotoxin.

These are the two= main mycotoxins found in the Northeast, but that doesnR= 17;t mean that other mycotoxins can not be in your dairy’s rations because grains imported from the Midwest could contain significant levels of aflatoxin a= nd fumonisin. These mycotoxins will be concentrated 3X during the ethanol production process and therefore be m= ore concentrated in distiller’s grains. Local grain companies regularly t= est loads for these contaminants. Ruminants can handle a low level, but there is increased danger this year. Aflatoxin is associated with cottonseed and can be transmitted through the milk to human= s. In humans it can cause liver cancer so it’s tested for at the milk pl= ant in Midwestern states. Fumonsin is a commo= n mycotoxin in the Midwest that causes poor appetite and diarrhea in dairy cattle. It’s suspected to be one of the causative agents in the emerging disease syndrom= e, Hemorrhagic Bowel Syndrome.

— Kent Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterin= ary Associates, Inc.

Hugamoo@comcast.n= et

NOTABLE QUOTES

One of the remarkable things about life is that it's never so bad that = it can't get worse. Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes)

Things ain’t what they used to be and probably never was. Will = Rogers

Funerals are for = people who died too young; everyone else deserves a celebration. Buck O'Neil, former Negro League baseball star.

I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved= of it. Mark Twain

THE EU STRIKES AGAIN

That crazy bunch = of activists on the other side of the pond is at it again. The European Union recently banned the use of atrazine, which has = been in common use for about 50 years. Was this ban based on pollution problems?= Human health issues? Poor performa= nce? Nope, according to EU policy makers, the ban wasn't based on any scientific knowledge but simply because atrazine is so wid= ely used by European farmers that it might cause problems someday. =

Under these guide= lines perhaps the EU should also ban the consumption of lettuce; it's never caused any problems and has been eaten for generations but, well, you never know.... (Sigh). How do U.S. weed scientists view atrazine? Here's a quote (= from a couple of years ago) from a weed scientist at a state agricultural college, referring to weed control in corn: "It doesn’t really matter whi= ch herbicide you use as long as it contains atrazine."

However, in the s= pirit of full disclosure, EPA recently announced plans for yet another review of atrazine. This in spite of a just-completed multi-year regulatory study that concluded that atrazine is unlikely to cause cancer in humans and doesn’t affect the reproductive development of frogs and other amphibians. EPA has been studying atrazine for about 20 years and hasn’t found any ”smoking gun” so to speak, but environmental activists continue= to hound EPA about this highly popular herbicide.

That said, U.S. farmers should take heart: Between the EU's staunch opposition to its farme= rs growing genetically modified crops and its Neanderthal view of modern agricultural technology in general, the EU is painting its farmers into the proverbial corner compared to the rest of the farming world. It's already m= ore expensive to produce almost any farm commodity in Europe than it is in Nort= h or South America, and the banning of one of the oldest, most widely used (and cheapest) herbicides is just one more nail in the European Union coffin.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; – E.T.

WHO SAID THIS?

"Small farms, the niche marketers, and the organic producers can feed the community and those who want to buy local, but only the large commercial farmer can f= eed the world, and a well-fed world will not be a terrorist world."=

The president of a large petrochemical company? Someone from The Fertiliz= er Institute? Nope, it was none other than a guy whose wife planted an organic garden as soon as she and her family moved into their new house. The "= house" was the White House, and the hubby was President Barrack Obama. =

INTERESTING FACTS

As we start a new= decade, a few facts to chew on:

There are five times as many words in the English language as there were in Shakespeare’s time.

The amount of new technical information doubles every two years.

China is the second la= rgest English-speaking country in the world.

One out of five jobs most in demand now didn’t even exist in 2004= .

CRITTER NEWS

Small American flags were disappearing from the graves of veterans at a= Port Huron, Michigan cemetery. Workers noticed that the flags had been torn from their little wo= oden staffs, which were still in place. The crime was solved when the cemetery superintendent watched a grey squirrel detach a flag and carry it up to its nest, which upon further examination was colorful indeed.

EQUIDAY 2010

Equiday at Miner Institute will be held Saturday, March 20, 2010 at the Miner Center Auditorium,
586 Ridge Road, Chazy, NY. Admission is free and registration begins at 9 a.m.

&= nbsp;

For more information, contact Karen Lassell= ,
Lassell@whminer.com or call (518) 846-7121,
ext. 120.

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

Another year has past – it is hard to believe. We probably s= ay that every year and should by now be used to the pace! Looking back ov= er this year, we are mindful of the importance of our farm team – those individuals that work together to make the farm run smoothly and successfully. Everyone has a different job and/or shift, each person brings a different set of skills, everyone’s personality is different= and somehow all these people have to work together to operate the farm and accomplish all the different jobs that entails. And details cannot be neglected on the farm or the cows and the business will suffer. Part of our farm team is our nutritionists, veterinarians, breeders, IBA dealer, and milk tester – those who “bring us news from the outside world,” evaluate our cows and farm management with a fresh eye, and provide the services we need to continue operation.

     Last year we set several go= als for the farm including decreasing the DA rate, the somatic cell count, and = the number of calves born dead on arrival. In all these areas our team made progress while increasing herd average by 1,660 lbs. And can we point to one person who made this all happen? Certainly not — it had to be a team effort. To meet our goals in the new year, our t= eam must perform like a well-oiled machine, everyone doing their very best at t= heir job and contributing to the successful operation of our dairy farm.

The following are= some fun year-end numbers.

In 2009 our team:

•       Milked
approximately 312,075 cows – that is 13,000 turns of the
parlor.
•       Fed 6,432 tons of TMR to the milking cows (or 12,864,790 lbs).
•       Inseminated 1,219 cows and heif= ers.
•       Freshened 339 cows and heifers.=
•       Raised 146 heifer calves.
•       Chopped and packed 5,937 tons of corn silage.
•       Mowed, merged, chopped and pack= ed 2,969 tons of grass and alfalfa haylage.

Wishin= g you and your team a wonderful new year!
        =             &nb= sp;
        =                   =       — Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

&= nbsp;

SOUTHERN EXPOSURE

Ever since we arrived in Virginia<= /st1:place> in early November, the weather has been the meteorological equivalent of the rinse cycle. We’ve had so much rain that animals are starting to pair= up two by two, and church discussions involve the exact length of a cubit. (An= swer: It varies since a cubit is the distance between the tip of the middle finger and the elbow, generally 17-21”. Remarkably, when asked, The Bride kn= ew this.) However, in between storms there have been enough 60-degree days to = make it tolerable.

=

It’s certainly different to live (if for only a few months a year) in a region w= here cotton and tobacco are commonly grown field crops. In recent years, our lea= ders in Washington have shanghaied U.S. to= bacco companies for billions of dollars. In Virginia this money has in many cases been put to good use, with some very impressive community meeting centers built with tobacco company reparations. Tobacco m= oney has been used by local and state governments for varying purposes across our nation, and in a lot more foolish ways than the “bricks and mortar= 221; approach seen down here.

Finally, one of the highlights of the holiday season here in Richmond is the annual “Tacky Lights Festival”, a city-wide event focusing on the homes with the most impressive and/or excessive use of Christmas lights. The locations of the winners are well-publicized, and there are even commercial limousine tours. Some displays, including one home with over a million ligh= ts, must really make the old electric meter spin!

           &nbs= p;                    =    – E.T. <= /o:p>

WATCH OUT FOR ALFALF= A
SNOUT BEETLE IN 2010

The alfalfa snout= beetle (ASB) is the most damaging alfalfa insect pest and can completely destroy an alfalfa stand within a year or two. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture estimates that ASB can cause a 20 to 30% increase in feed costs in some cas= es due to reductions in yield and quality, certainly something that no dairy f= arm can afford.

ASB was identifie= d as an alfalfa pest in the late 1920’s when
alfalfa was introduced as a forage crop in Oswego County. ASB has since spread onto an estimated 500,000 acres of NNY cropland. Recent ASB
infestations have been confirmed in Peru, Malone, and along Lake Champlain north of Plattsburgh. No evidence of ASB has been found yet at Miner Institute, but the recent discovery of ASB in the area should get the attention of alfalfa growers. T= he adult ASB can hitch rides on farm implements, beehives, and other equipment, making containment difficult. Since all ASB adults are females, it only tak= es one to start an infestation as they lay between 300 and 1,000 eggs.

The broad host ra= nge of ASB (alfalfa, clover, wild carrot, dandelion) an= d the inability to manage them with insecticides makes control difficult. The real damage is caused by larvae. Adults are on the move in April and lay eggs in June. Larvae migrate to depths of one to two feet in the soil and feed on r= oots until they pupate the second year. Damage by ASB should not be confused with winter kill. The best time to look for ASB damage is generally in late Octo= ber. The picture of alfalfa damage above right was taken in the third week of October before 4^th cutting and was easily distinguishable from t= he unaffected portions of the field in the background. ASB is typically found = in well drained soils where the seasonally high water table is deeper in the ground.

=

Dr. Elson Shields= at Cornell has shown that biocontrol of ASB may be possible by inoculating soils with entomopathogenic nematodes, which prey specifically on ASB and other soil insects. Nematodes= are cultured, added to water, and applied with sprayers at a rate of 1 billion/= acre for a cost of about $200/acre. Shields
recently demonstrated that nematodes persisted for seven years at one site, while ASB populations stayed at manageable levels compared to no treatment. Shields also works with Dr. Don Viands at Cornell on developing ASB resista= nt alfalfa. The Shields lab has screened hundreds of thousands of plants and Viands performs the selection and cross breeding. Shiel= ds believes that both alfalfa resistance and bioco= ntrol will be required for effective ASB control.

=

So what’s the bottom line? Vigilant scou= ting is important because you and your farm neighbors need to know if ASB is present, where it is, and how severe. If you noticed suspicious alfalfa damage this fall, be on the lookout for ASB adults this spring. While biocontrol and alfalfa resistance continue to improve, problem fields can be managed with a shorter rotation (~2 yr) or can be seeded to grass.

— Eric Youn= g, young@whminer.com

INSECT CONTROL IN CORN

In the current is= sue of Cornell’s “What’s Cropping Up?, Extension Entomologist Elson Shields makes some excellent points about root= worm control in corn. He notes that first year corn has virtually no chance of c= orn rootworm damage, while second year corn has only a 25 to 35 percent chance = of economic damage. However, the percentages increase to 50 to 70 percent for third year corn and 80 to 100 percent for fourth year and beyond. Put anoth= er way, if you do nothing your chance of incurring significant rootworm proble= ms are approximately one in three for the second year of corn production, two = in three for the third year, and almost certain in the fourth year and later.<= o:p>

So what are you g= oing to do about it? The high (1.25 mg) rates of Cruiser Extreme and Force will do a good job of controlling corn rootworms in the Northe= astern U.S. However, using these seed treatments as your sole means of rootworm control isn’t a good idea because of the potential for developing insect resistance. A better idea would be to use the high rate s= eed treatments for a couple of years, then switching to genetic control (Bt) for years four (and if applicable, five).

Don’t assum= e that just because you don’t see goosenecked st= alks and lodged corn that you have no rootworm damage. Yield loss can occur as a result of root pruning even if your corn doesn’t assume what we agronomists call a “horizontal growth characteristic.”

If you’ve a= lready ordered seed corn and need to make changes to increase rootworm protection, most seed companies should be accommodating. Almost all seed corn is already treated with Cruiser Extreme or Force, so usually all that’s necessar= y is to order seed with the higher treatment rate. If you choose genetic control= , in many cases the base genetics wouldn’t change so the other characteristics—yield potential, silage quality, etc. would be very similar.

=

For a more comple= te discussion of insect control in corn, visit:

http://css.cals.c= ornell.edu/cals/css/extension/cropping-up/index.cfm#rootworm

           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;         – E.T.

FORAGE VARIETY INFORMATION

Cornell University has an excellent= website that contains a great amount of current and recent years’ crop variety yield data:

=

http://css.cals.cornell.edu/css/extension/publication= s.cfm

On this website you’ll find five or six years of both corn silage and corn grain hybr= id trial results, plus the results of several years of soybean and forage vari= ety trials. Many include quality data particularly useful to dairy farmers. Also included is an archive of Cornell’s excellent newsletter, “What’s Cropping Up?,” with is= sues going back to 2000.

It’s worthw= hile to look over this information prior to placing forage seed orders. For instanc= e, many farmers are considering a change in forage grass species, perhaps from timothy to tall fescue. By spending a few minutes on this website you can learn, for instance, that in one 2009 N.Y. trial, Climax timothy (seeded Ap= ril 2007) yielded 5.33 tons of dry matter per acre, while Select tall fescue, seeded on the same date, yielded 8.47 tons DM/acre with higher digestibilit= y. Is it worth your spending a few minutes to learn this? You can even find so= me cut-by-cut yield data, showing which species provides the highest mid-summer yields.

           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;         – E.T.

RISK FACTORS FOR LESIONS ON FREESTALL-HOUSED DAIRY COWS IN NORWAY =

For the past 15 y= ears, Norwegian dairy farmers have been required to construct only freestall barns, as development of new tie-stall faci= lities was prohibited by the Norwegian Food Authorities. As with any regulation, t= here are pros and cons of this development. The elimination of tie-stall housing provides the cows with more freedom of movement and the ability to perform natural behaviors (grooming, social interactions, etc.). The largest negative is the preval= ence of skin lesions that occur on loosely housed cattle. This is a welfare issue that can impact large portions of herds housed in free= stall barns, especially those using mattresses and sawdust for the stall surface. The lesions are comm= on on any part of the leg that protrudes from the leg, such as the hock, and arise due to the compression of the soft tissue between the stall surface and the bone. The extent of the injury ranges from mild hair loss to an open wound = in the most severe cases.

Due to the legisl= ative restrictions on housing, a group of researchers from the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science and= the Norwegian University of Life Science conduct= ed a survey of 232 dairy farms to determine the prevalence of leg lesions and id= entify specific stall and cow characteristics that put individual cows at risk for developing lesions. They also sought to investigate the role of the farmer’s attitude in the prevalence of cows with lesions within their herds.

=

The data for the survey was collected during a single visit to each farm. Skin lesions (on a scale of 1-to-5 with 1 representing no lesion to 5 representi= ng an open wound), body condition score (5-point scale), and locomotion (5-point sca= le) were recorded from a representative group of 10 cows from each farm. The st= all length (measured from the curb to the front divider), curb height, and neck rail height were recorded for each farm. The stalls were further characteri= zed by softness of the base and bedding material Finally, the farmers’ attitudes were quantified by their level of agreement with the statement: “Animals experience pain as humans do.”, which was also used in= a previous study by the same researchers.

=

The cows enrolled into the study were primarily Norwegian Red and were 140 DIM. Thirty percent of the cows were primiparous and= 28% were in their 4^th or greater lactation. Eighty-three percent of = the cows were not lame (locomotion scores of 1 or 2) and only 0.5% were severely lame (locomotion score =3D 5). Lame cows were at a greater risk = than non-lame cows for developing a lesion and multiparous<= /span> cows were more likely to have a lesion than primiparou= s cows. For stall design, softer bases and shorter stalls, in both a double-r= ow or against a wall, were less likely to result in the development of lesions= on either the knee or the hock. Finally, cows were less likely to develop knee lesions on operations= run by farmers who agreed that animals feel pain in a similar way to humans. Th= ere was no relationship between the farmer’s attitude and hock lesions.

Overall, this stu= dy highlights that characteristics of the cow, the stall, and the farms all ha= ve a role in the risk that the cow is at for developing skin lesions. While most farmers are stuck with their current facilities for the immediate future, attitude and lameness can be more readily addressed. Assuming that = risk factors are the same in here in the Northeastern U.S= ., taking the cow’s ability to feel pain into consideration when making management decisions and striving to remedy lameness as quickly as possible could reduce the prevalence of skin lesions on dairy cows.        &= nbsp;

— Peter Krawczel, krawczel@whminer.com

Reference: Kielland, C., L. E. Ruud, A. J. Zanella, and = O. Østerås. 2009. Prevalence and r= isk factors for skin lesions on legs of dairy cattle housed in freestalls in Norway. J. Dairy Sci. 92:5487-5496

RETHINKING GROUPING STRATEGIES

On many dairy farms, a single total mixed ration (TMR) is fed to the milking h= erd after the cows leave the fresh pen or even after calving. There is a lot of information about providing a separate TMR to fresh cows, but what about providing a separate TMR to cows in early to peak lactation versus cows in later lactation? Two of the primary reasons to feed these two groups differ= ent TMRs are to prevent over-conditioning of later lactat= ion animals and manage feed costs. Recently Dr. Michael Allen from Michigan State University presented information= about “Grouping to Increase Milk Yield and Decrease Feed Costs” at the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference in Fort Wayne, IN (refe= rence below). Some of the key points of these conference proceedings will be high= lighted in this article.

=

The nutrient requirements of high producing cows are very different from low producing cows. If the same TMR is fed to both groups, you run the risk= of feeding below the requirements of the high producers, which will limit milk= and milk component production, or feeding above the requirements for the low producing group, which can lead to over-conditioning. When cows in late lactation gain excess body condition, they are at increased risk of develop= ing metabolic and reproductive problems in the subsequent lactation. Use of rbST helps prevent over-conditioning of late lactation animals, which has allowed for relative success of feeding a one group TMR = to the lactating herd. However, because many herds are not using rbST anymore, it may be time to re-evaluate grouping strategies in the milking herd.

An important benefit of utilizing grouping strategies is that feed costs can often be reduced. If grouping strategies are implemented, you can maxim= ize forage utilization in the low producing group and decrease the need for purchased feeds. Right now, many producers are looking for ways to cut feed costs. Cutting out highly fermentable carbohydrates and good quality protein sources from the high producing cows can negatively impact milk production, which may not help the bottom line. However, grouping and maximizing forage utilization in the TMR of late lactation animals can save on feed costs wit= hout sacrificing milk production.

&= nbsp;

One argument that is often heard for maintaining a one group TMR strate= gy is that labor savings are realized when one TMR is fed to the milking herd,= but depending on the mixer capacity, pen size, and herd size, labor costs may n= ot increase when groups are fed different TMRs.

&= nbsp;

Some o= f the key points of grouping strategies highlighted by Dr. Allen are:<= /span>

&= nbsp;

Ben= efits of grouping:

Optimal forage al= location

Increased efficie= ncy of nutrient utilization

Decreased nitrogen excretion

&= nbsp;

Pot= ential profits to be realized:

Increased milk an= d milk component yields

Decreased feed co= sts

Decreased culling=

&= nbsp;

Her= ds that will benefit most are those that:

Do not use rbST

Have more variation in milk yield and age among cows

=

Re-evaluating the use of multiple TMRs in t= he lactating herd may be of benefit at this time due to high feed costs, particularly if you are no longer using rbST. However, it is important to evaluate changes in both labor and feed costs if these strategies are implemented.

=

— Sarah Bou= cher, boucher@whminer.com

=

Reference: Allen, M. S. 2009. Grouping to increase milk yield and decrease feed costs. In: Proceedings of= the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, p. 61. Fort Wayne, IN.<= /st1:place>

CORNELL WINTER DAIRY MANAGEMENT 2010

Widening Dairy Margins Using Herd “Intelligence”- Keeping More Dollars on the Farm Using New & Traditional Herd Health Surveillance Tools<= /u>

Thursday, Jan. 21= — 10:30 a.m. to
3 p.m. at Miner Institute, Chazy, NY

=

Progra= m:

Money-on-the-Tabl= e…Workshop Focus, Case Farms and Your Farm’s Data

Presen= ted by John Conway

=

Catching Pathogens at “Stage 0”. QMPS’ New Bulk Tank Surveill= ance Program is the Perfect Complement to Cow Level Tools that Help Grab Dollars=

Presen= ted by Tonya Van Slyke and Dr. Gary
Bennett, QMPS

&= nbsp;

Feet Talk. NYSCHAP Foot Health Assessment and Root Cause Diagnoses Help this New Module Keep Management’s Feet to the Fire

Presented by Frans= Vokey, Lewis CCE and Kathy
Finnerty, NYSCHAP.

&= nbsp;

Proud of the Job you are doing Assuring the Health and Well-being of your Herd? Why not tell the consumer how good= your farm is with a Whole Herd Animal Welfare
Audit? Presen= ted by Kathy Finnerty, NYSCHAP

=

Your Farm’s Surveillance Data

Question, Answer and Discussion Session with all of the Presenters.

=

=

VERMONT DAIRY
PRODUCERS’ CONFERENCE

When: = Thursday, Feb. 25= , 2010 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Whe= re: Sheraton Hotel an= d Conference Center, South Burlington, <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">VT

&= nbsp;

— Registration information is available by calling
802-334-7325, ext. 11.

&= nbsp;

Speake= rs for this one-day program include:

Senator Bernie Sanders

Comedian Carl Hurley

Dr. Bill Stone

Dr. Andre Wright

Terry Batchelder

Bob Gray

Dr. Rick Grant<= /span>

Dr. Tom Overton

CROP CONGRESS AT
MINER INSTITUTE

Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

=

Speake= rs include:

=

Quirine Ketterings, Cornell University, Corn-alfalfa Rotation Manag= ement.

=

Anita Deming, Cornell Cooperative Ext., Essex County, Costs of Roundup Ready Corn Production Versus Conventional Herbicide Progra= ms.

=

Eric Young, Miner Institute, Getting the Most From<= /span> Your Soil Tests.

=

For more informat= ion, contact Eric Young, 518-846-7121, ext. 113 or email young@whminer.com<= /o:p>

Closing Commen= t

If you can't convince them, confuse them.

&n= bsp;