FORAGE QUALITY ASSESSMENT: CORN SILAGE

We started our Advanced Dairy Management class with the Annual Forage Quality Assessment exercise.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We provide the students with actual forage analyses of 5 corn silage samples and ask them to evaluate and criti= que with the notion of having to purchase 500T. We ask them what are the pertinent concepts to consider when reviewing just the lab analyses and what more information would they like to have, short of actually seeing, smelling and holding the forages. So, base= d on the abridged analytical data below, how would YOU assess and rank these sil= age samples? Which would you be w= illing to purchase?

Now for highlights of the thought process of assessment:

What type of analyses are these? NIR or wet chem., does= it matter on CS for lactating cows? NIR is relatively accurate for many components except minerals, it’s fast and inexpensive compared to the Gold Standard of wet chemis= try analyses.

Dry matter. Are an= y of these samples too wet or too dry for further consideration? Understanding the perils of soggy = wet forage on DMI and possibly indicating immature corn at harvest or problems = in fermentation. Too dry a forag= e, also risking limited DMI, suspect fermentation and risk of spoilage, yeasts= and molds, poor digestibility of hard dry kernels, low forage digestibility.

NDF (and ADF) values: Indicative of stage of maturity at harvest, possible indicator of energy content of the feed, effects on gut f= ill with increasing NDF limiting DMI.

Starch content: high, low, adequate? Good CS typic= ally has starch around 35% or more.

CP analysis of va= lue in CS? If >10% may indicate immature c= rop, if in conjunction with high NDF (>45%) and low starch (<25%) or high sugar (>5%)

Soluble protein o= kay? Higher value may indicate length o= f time silage has been fermented as soluble protein increases with time in silo or some other anomaly in fermentation process. Have all of the samples listed fer= mented the same length of time?

What other analyses you wou= ld like to have? VFA and pH to indicate quality of fermentation, NDFD, Star= chD, particle size, others?

&= nbsp;

Could = all of these samples come from the same bunker silo? If so, where would you find each of these samples within the silo? Can you match up the analysis with the sampled spots noted in the photo on page= 1?

Why the variation in CS quality between layers within the same bunk silo? With a variety of hybrids and fiel= ds going into a single bunker using a progressive wedge fill technique; it is understandable to obtain the layers of corn silage variation. Some of this variation may be an e= ffect of maturity as the upper layers were harvested later than the lower layers = and possibly had more time to deposit starch in kernels and increase in DM%. This group of CS samples does not = vary too much, all a bit wet but okay. In terms of DM and starch, samples B and C look to be the forages to buy. How many of you chose C,= the red layer of CS resulting from a harvest delay, as the forage of choice? Funny how it a= nalyzes fairly well, except for the 59% soluble protein. The low DM value for E, may result from being slightly green at harvest or some ground water seepage from the bunker floor given the wet year in 2009. Also, note how starch decreases fr= om top to bottom of this bunker, possibly due to maturity at harvest. But where does that leave CS “A”? Actually, sa= mples “B-E” are from the bunker silo of 2008 CS and “A” is 2009 BMR CS, just opened, hence a lower soluble protein value. The sample code from table and pho= to is: A-not shown BMR pile, B-4, C-= 3, D-2 and E-1.

Some take home points, again to reiterate the extent of variation of forage qual= ity within a bunk silo and the need to thoroughly blend the forage taken from t= he face for a homogenous forage to be fed on a cons= istent basis. Given this information= is there reason to alter our harvest process?= Is there reason to reconsider our choice of corn hybrids? Should we be considering potential changes in our local climates when selecting hybrids? Does historical weather and heating degree-day information still hold or should we be considering previous 5-10 year averages of climate conditions? Certainly more questions than answers, but this is to get people thinking about what the new year and new decade = may hold for the production of high quality forage.

— Kurt Cotanch, cotanch@whminer.com

VET’S CORNER: ANOVULAR COWS REVISITED

The November 2007 “Vet’s Corner” article reported that anovular cows have lower conception rates than cows that resume ovulation within 40 = days of calving. Recent research conducted by Dr. Paul Fricke from the University of Wisconsin indicates that anovular cows also have a high rate of double ovul= ation on the first service following a low progesterone postpartum period, and hi= gher Early Embryonic Death (EED) rate 33-61 days after service.

The definition of= an anovular cow is one with low blood progesterone who doesn’t resume cycling during the first two months after calving. Since it isn’t practical to blood test cows for progesterone, the herd health veterinarian has used rectal palpation or transrectal ultrasound to detect the presence of a functional CL to identify anovular cows. In nor= mal herds, 24-28% of cows are not cycling at 65-75 days in milk as determined by ultrasound or serum progesterone tests.

When anovular cows are put into a Timed Artificial Insemination protocol after the first = TAI: Anovular cows had 31% conception rate (CR) vs. = 52% CR for cycling cows; and anovular cows had 18% EED= at 33 – 61 days vs. 6% EED in cycling cows.

In herds with low= CR and high EED rates, palpation or ultrasound for a functional CL could be perfor= med on cows that have not exhibited estrus signs twice, at 47-53 and 54-60 days postpartum before going on TAI. If anovular cow= s are identified and kept out of TAI, some repro problems could be avoided.<= /o:p>

In another study,= anovular cows were diagnosed at 45 DIM and placed on = TAI. On the first ovulation 36% had multiple ovulations, and on the second ovula= tion multiple ovulation rates dropped to a normal rate of 8%. Breeding anovular cows on the first ovulation from a TAI servi= ce could result in a significant increase in twinning rate. The combination of twinning and low body condition that is commonly associated with anovular cows can create life threatening metabolic problems on the next calving. We also know that the abortion rate for cows diagnosed with twins is three times greater than for single pregnancies, so there is another connection between anovular co= ws and higher abortion rate.

— Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterin= ary Associates, Inc.

hugamoo@comcast.n= et

CROP CONGRESS AT MINER INSTITUTE

Wednesday, Feb. 17 — 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at Miner Center Auditorium, = 586 Ridge Road, Chazy, NY.

Admission is free, lunch will be available for $5.

Speakers include:=

Quirine Kette= rings, Cornell <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">University, Corn-Alfalfa Rotation Management.

Anita Deming, Cornell Cooperative Extension of <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">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.

Karl Czymmek, PRO-DAIRY, Cornell University<= /st1:PlaceType>, CAFO Update and Emerging Environmental Issues.

Dr. Russ Hahn, Cornel= l University, An Update on Weed Control in Corn. <= /p>

For more informat= ion, contact Eric Young by calling (518) 846-7121, ext. 113 or email him at young@whmine= r.com.

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK — THE
IMPORTANCE OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH

As I write this article, the second week of the spring semester is just underw= ay with our Advanced Dairy Management (ADM) students. They spend one full seme= ster here at Miner as part of a 2 + 2 program between Vermont Technical College and University of Vermont. During the= ir time in residence at the Institute, these students rotate through the dairy farm operations, take courses in agronomy, nutrition and forage management, seminar presentations, and dairy farm evaluation.

&= nbsp; An important component of their educational experi= ence at Miner is conducting an undergraduate research project. During the first = week of classes, students meet with the research staff and discuss a range of potential projects that are all aimed at solving a current on-farm problem = or generating preliminary information for a later, more in-depth study. Each year, I am impressed with how quickly the students appreciate the importance of the individual studies – both in terms of the information to be learned as well as the importance of understanding the research process for them as students and future dairy producers.

&= nbsp; For us, the goal of undergraduate research is four-fold: 1) we of course genera= te useful data for on-farm decision making and often for future studies, 2) we nurture critical thinking and problem-solving skills in these students with= in an applied agricultural research setting, 3) these skills allow the student= s to assess product information supplied to them in the future as dairy producers more critically, and 4) conducting and interpreting a study provides a (relatively) painless and practical vehicle for teaching the fundamentals of statistics in a manner that is less easily forgotten once the semester ends= !

To give you a flavor of the range in project topics the students tackle, here are the topics for this semester:=

Does dietary starch Con= tent affect the meal pattern of lactating multiparous cows?

Influence of maturity at harvest and ensiling time on protein solubility, starch degradability and f= iber digestibility of corn hybrids harvested for silage.

Evaluating corn silage quality and fermentation characteristics in mini-silos

Relationship between fe= cal cortisol metabolites and serum c= ortisol collected under two different conditions.

Do cows have similar feeding duration when feeding from a Calan gate versus a headlock feeding barrier?

Effect of regrouping on resident and introduced lactating dairy cows.

Evaluation of methods f= or diagnosing clinical and subclinical metritis in= Miner Institute’s herd

The effect of copper sulfate footbaths on bacterial contamination of teat-ends after milking

So, you can see that the students will be busy this spring semester. But, by Ma= y we expect to have gained valuable insight into a range of important issues. And perhaps more importantly, these ADM students will have gained a working appreciation for the value of the research process and critical thinking in their future professional lives within the dairy industry.

= 212; Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA: STATUS REPORT

Progress by government committees is much like breeding elephants: The activity takes place at a high level, is accomplished only after considerable noise and commotion, and it takes a very long time (in the elephant’s case, 22 months) to see the results. Such is the case with the USDA regarding Roundup Ready alfalfa.

There’s been a period for public comment on the environmental imp= act of this technology, and now four meetings are being scheduled at various pl= aces around the U.S. for the public to comment on USDA’s draft Environmental Impact Statem= ent (EIS). The deadline for submitting comments on the draft EIS is Feb. 16.

With others, we were hoping that even though RR alfalfa won’t be nearly as popular in the East as it will be in the West, the process would = be completed in time for 2010 seed sales. This is proving to have been a false hope.

TO PLOW OR NOT TO PLOW

A farmer I’= ve known for many years recently asked me why the Institute still uses a moldboard p= low. Long ago he moved from plowing to reduced tillage, and reports excellent results. It’s a good question from a very good farmer, and deserves an answer. (Miner Institute’ s crop program is now under new management, namely Eric Young, so this explanation will consist of what we’ve don= e in the past, not necessarily what we’re going to do in the future.)=

Some of the Institute’s cropland has been continuous = notill, or almost so, since we brought it into production in the early 1980s. That’s because this land is so stony that conventional tillage would bring up an ungodly number of stones, and if we were to attempt to pick them we’d only succeed in lowering the elevation of the whole field. =

I used to tell people that this land has “two rocks for every dirt̶= 1;, which isn’t far from the truth. The “almost so” comment is because the only tillage done on this land has been one pass with a seconda= ry tillage tool (formerly a tandem disk, now a John Deere Cultimulcher) following the last year of corn. This smoothes out ruts= and fits up an inch or so of soil so we can seed alfalfa-grass with a conventio= nal grain drill. This system has worked very well, and one tillage pass = every 10 years is almost “continuous” notill.

We’ve been moldboard plowing the rest of our cropland twice during the typical 8-= 10 year crop rotation, as we rotate into and out of forage seedings. We plow as we rotate out of alfalfa-grass (= and into corn) because much of our land is clay loam and our experience with notill corn on clay loams has been unpleasant. We then chisel plow for several years. We also moldboard plow following the last year of corn, in the process incorporating any surface debris including manure solids, herbicide residues, and weed seeds. Since we don’t use herbicides on alfalfa-grass s= eedings it’s good to bury the sins of the past — i.e. weed seeds. Moldb= oard plowing also allows us to be a bit more liberal with our use of atrazine in the final year of corn production since a= ny surface herbicide residues are buried six to eight inches deep.

Many years ago Successful Farming magazine ran an excellent feature artic= le on how effectively various tillage tools incorporate surface residue. Ag engineers treated small beads of man-made “residue” in such a w= ay that they could photograph the soil profile following tillage and see where= the residue wound up. The tillage tools included moldboard plow, tandem and off= set disks, and both straight and twisted shank chisel plows. Only with moldboard plowing was the surface residue incorporated more than a few inches deep. <= /span>

We did some related research at Miner Institute examining the fate of nutrients after many years of conventional vs. minimum or no tillage, and found that unless the field was moldboard plowed, the applied nutrients (primarily phosphorus and potassium) remained in the top inch or two of soil.

There’s sti= ll a place for moldboard plows on many Northeastern U.S.<= /st1:place> dairy farms. As they say, there’s more than one way to skin a cat = 212; or grow a crop.
= &nb= sp;

— Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

“TEMPING” COWS

Measuring the rec= tal temperature of a cow during the first 7 to 14 days after calving has become= a common practice for identification of sick cows. The procedure is quick, low cost, and can be done while making other health assessments such as attitud= e, breathing rate, rumen fill, vaginal discharge, and udder appearance. Our research technicians at Miner Institute have spent the last several months measuring rectal temperatures on our fresh cows enrolled in an early lactat= ion nutrition study. Our technicians’ observations and comments reminded = me that “temping” a cow and using that information as an indicator= of illness is not always as straightforward as it s= hould be.

Many veterinarians, farmers, and researchers use 103°F as the threshold value to def= ine fever and indicate illness. This threshold needs to be modified based on thermometer accuracy. We have used several different digital thermometers at the Institute that varied in cost and accuracy. In general, the cheaper “drug store” thermometers have an accuracy of ± 1°F, while the more expens= ive thermometers have an accuracy of ± 0.1°F. However, cost doesn’t always tell the story as we have found some of the more expen= sive “veterinary” thermometers to have poor accuracy (± 0.5<= /span>°F to ± 1°F). We now check the thermometer accuracy before buying a new thermometer. The accuracy impacts = the threshold at which we consider a cow having a fever and possible illness. We prefer to use the more accurate (± 0.1°F) thermometers. However, the durability of these thermometers is often an issue, causing us to use a less accurate back-up thermometer on occasion. The less accurate thermometer forces us to look at a larger range of temperatures (102°F to 104°F) as possible fever and evaluate other health assessments more carefully.

Some researchers from Germany and Canada (Burfeind et al., 2010) recently evaluated the variability of rectal temperatures in cows and discovered that the type of thermometer and the procedure used to obtain the temperature influenced the measurement up to 1°F. They compared 4 digital thermometers to a liquid-in-glass thermometer and found a high correlation among the thermome= ters but a maximum mean difference of 0.7°F. The penetration depth of the probe into the rectum (2.4” vs. 4.5”) affected the temperature = by 0.8°= F with the higher temperature occurring when the probe was inserted deeper. Differences in rectal temperature before and after defecation were minor (0= .1°F) in cows with normal m= anure. In addition to the factors identified in the study, ambient temperature, time of day, and =
management routines can affect rectal temperature by 1 to 2°F.

The variation in = accuracy of thermometers and the procedure used can explain why several “healt= hy” cows can have temperatures over 103°F and why sometim= es cows that appear sick don’t have a fever. The take home message is that “temping” cows is useful if you understand the method limitatio= ns and combine the measurement with other assessments of health.

Our research tech= nicians are always looking for
a “better mousetrap.” If you have a durable, accurate thermomet= er that you use and like, please let Heather Dann know at dann@whminer.com or = call 518-846-7121, ext. 119.

Reference: Burfeind, O., M.A.G. von = Keyserlingk, D.M. Weary, D.M. Ve= ira, and W. Heuwieser. 2010. Short communication: Repeatability of measures of rectal temperature in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93:624-627.

SOIL NITROGEN TESTING FOR CORN: SOME ‘UNOFFICIAL’ RESEARCH

Trying to predict= soil nitrogen (N) availability is a bit like trying to predict the weather beyon= d a couple of days in the North Country― it’s difficult and general= ly meets with mixed success. Tools for predicting N availability in corn range from relatively simple soil testing methods to more complex, process-based models that incorporate rainfall, temperature, soil properties, and crop and manure management. For many, using process-based models to manage N inputs = is not yet a practical option.

This past cropping season the pre-sidedress nitrogen= test (PSNT), the Illinois soil nitrogen test (ISNT), and the corn stalk nitrate = test (CSNT) were utilized on three corn fields at the Institute to determine whe= ther additional
sidedress N was warranted. One field (B4) was first-year corn, where N beyond a starter is not required. The other two fi= elds (R36 and A28) were third and fourth-year corn fields. Soil types range from sandy loam to silty clays in spots, and manure = was applied the previous fall. Samples for the PSNT were taken in July, while t= he ISNT and CSNT samples were taken about a week prior to corn silage harvest.

<= /p>

Results from the tests we= re in agreement and indicated that additional sidedress N would not be needed for an economically optimum yield. The PSNT results f= or each field were above the critical level of 25 mg/kg, where additional N is considered unnecessary. Resul= ts from the ISNT test also showed that N beyond a starter was not needed, as I= SNT-N concentrations were above the critical level for each field (based on ISNT = and the field’s organic matter content).= The CSNT confirmed that N availability was sufficient. Fields R36 and A28 had excessive n= itrate levels in the plant at harvest time, confirming that N was not limiting.

<= /p>

PSNT was not used to guide sidedress N this past yea= r, and both R36 and A28 received an additional 70 lb N/acre. Fields with CSNT valu= es above 5,000 ppm are opportunities to save on sidedress N. The sidedress N did “green” the corn up, but this is an unreliable index of N needs= .

This was not a re= plicated trial, but that doesn’t make it useless― hence the term “unofficial research”. Given the low milk price, the cost of N, and the risk for N leaching, holding off or cutting back on sidedress N for = these fields makes sense. Next year we’ll use N tests for all 2^nd year and older fields and compare yields from strips with different sidedress N rates.

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp;

— Eric Youn= g, young@whminer.com

WHAT’S HAPPENI= NG ON THE FARM

In January, Jenna= McNeil joined our team as the new herdsman intern. Jenna grew up on a small farm i= n Ellenburg, NY, about twenty minutes west of Chazy. Her family has a beautiful show string of Ayrshire and Holstein cows that have been to the NY S= tate Fair, the Big E in Springfield, the All-Am= erican Show in Harrisburg, and the RAWF in Canada. Graduating from SUNY Cobleskill with a Bachelor of Technology degree in Dai= ry Science, Jenna brings to the Miner Institute farm both practical experience= and an understanding of dairy science from her classes in college. She also bri= ngs a dairy judge’s eye for good cattle; in 2008, Jenna competed in the collegiate dairy judging competition at the World Dairy Expo. Her team plac= ed 1^st and she was the 2^nd highest individual (missing first place by o= ne point!). She will be learning= about the different aspects of herd management this year as she works alongside t= he barn staff.

Winter is a good = time to catch up on things around the farm and to take time out for education. Our regional Cornell Cooperative Extension Educator has organized a series of classes this winter on herd health. Depending on the schedule, a couple people from the farm attend cla= ss on Tuesday afternoons to brush up on their skills and learn ways to improve= cow health, hoof care, biosecurity, calf care, etc. It’s also been an opportunity to see other farms and talk with other producers – both great ways to learn new things to improve management= on our farm.

Last month’s article reviewed the farm’s team effort in 2009 to raise, feed, milk,= and manage our herd of cows. While we hope the Farm Report readers enjoy= ed our year end summary, we also knew that it was important for our team to understand how much they had accomplished in 2009. So recently we bought some pizza a= nd an ice cream cake for an evening meeting after work to review 2009 and set some goals for 2010. Hopefully, we all came away with a greater appreciation for= how everyone’s job affects the whole herd performance.

= &nb= sp; <= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; — Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com<= /span>

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp;

UPCOMING HERD HEALTH CLASSES

Feb. 9 in Cl= inton Co. Feb. 10 in Franklin Co. — Infectious Disease and Biosecurity.

Feb. 16 in Clinton Co= . Feb. 17 in Franklin = Co. — Lameness Management.

&= nbsp;

Feb. 23 in Clinton Co= . Feb. 24 in Franklin = Co. — Reproductive Management.

&= nbsp;

For mo= re information, contact Emily Myers at (518) 353-4949 or erm35@cornell.edu.

IMPROVING COW COMFORT IN TIE STALLS

In a recent repor= t by the Humane Society of the United States, tie-stall housing was included o= n a recent list of factors affecting the welfare of dairy cows. The restrictive nature of this type of housing is the main reason that it’s an area of interest. Two recent studies, one in the Journal of Dairy Science and one in Preventative Veterinary Medicine, focused on ways to improve = the cow comfort of tie-stall barns.

First, in a serie= s of three experiments researchers from the Universit= y of California at Davis, the University of British Columbia, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada investigated the effec= t that various amounts of sawdust or straw bedding can have on lying behavior.

All experiments i= nvolved 12 cows, a mix of mature cows and heifers, housed in a tie-stall facility. = The cows were milked twice daily, fed once daily in the morning, and released for 1.5 hours of exercise once daily. In the first experiment the cows were provided approximately 7, 20, 33, or 52 lbs of sawdust bedding per day. Increasing the amount of bedding d= id not alter the duration of lying bouts, the number of bouts per day, or milk production. The average lying time per day was increased by 1.1 hours per d= ay by increasing the bedding amounts. In Experiment 2, cows were provided 2.2,= 7, 11, or 20 lbs of straw bedding per day.&nb= sp; Similar to Experiment 1, the amount of bedding did not affect average duration of a lying bout or milk production; however, the number of lying b= outs per day and the average daily lying time increased as the amount of bedding increased. In Experiment 3, 1= .1, 2.2, 4.4, or 6.6 lbs of straw bedding were provided. The authors described = this as an insufficient amount of bedding to cover the base of the stall at all = treatment levels. In this experiment, none of the 4 response variables were affected = by the treatment. Across all experiments, the compressibility of the bedding increased as the amount of bedding increased.

The second study = was conducted by researchers from the Estonian University of Life Sciences and = the Swedish University of Agricultural Science= s. The treatments in this study consisted of the inclusion of two different styles= of stall partition. The partitions consisted of a nylon strap that either exte= nded straight down to an attachment point on the floor or attached to the floor = in an inverted Y-shape. Measurements included stall cleanliness (defined as the cross contamination of a stall by the neighboring cow’s urine or manu= re), lying position, and total lying time relative to stalls containing no partition. The inclusion of the partition reduced the number of times a cow defecated in their neighbors stall, but did not affect the number of times a cow urinated in their neighbors stall. Cows with partitions spent less time standing at a 45° angle to the feed bunk than those without. Mean daily lying time was unaffected.

The results of th= ese studies demonstrate two practical ways to improve cow comfort in tie-stalls. Increasing the am= ount of bedding increased lying times and the increased compressibility may redu= ce the occurrence of injuries to the front knees – this can occur when a= cow is transitioning from standing to lying. The addition of partitions reduces= the amount of manure coming into the stall from a neighboring cow. This may red= uce lameness by lowering the amount of manure that a cow stands in. Additionally, teat injuries can be reduced by preventing cows from standing at angle and entering the resting space of their neighbor.

— Peter Kra= wczel, krawczel@whminer.com

References: Aland, A., L. Lidfors, and I. Ekesbo. 2009. Impact of elastic stall partitions on tied dairy cows’ behaviour and s= tall cleanliness. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:154-157.

Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, a= nd K. A. Beauchemin. 2009. Cow comfort in tie-stalls: Increased depth of shavings or str= aw bedding increases lying time. J. Dairy Sci. 92:2684-2690.=

CROP INPUT TRENDS: WHAT’S UP AND WHAT’S DOWN

We can talk about what’s hot and what’s not in crop inputs, but the bottom line is what farmers are actually buying. We don’t yet know what will happen = in 2010, but here were the ups and downs in 2009 purchases of crop inputs, as reported by agricultural retailers:

&= nbsp;

UP:= Genetically modif= ied seed, herbicide adjuvants, seed treatments, crop protection chemicals (pesticides). Over 60% of U.S. agricultural retailers reported sales gains in these four input categories.

FLA= T: Custom applicatio= n, micronutrients, precision agriculture technology.

DOWN: Fertilizer, traditional seed. Fertilizer was a big dr= ag on sales, with 57% of retailers reporting reduced sales in 2009. But traditional (non-genetically modified) seeds also had a bad sales year, with only 20% of retailers reporting increased sales.

These results differ markedly from 2008, where eight of the nine input categories were up more than 50%, with traditional seeds the only laggard. = In 2008 at least 90% of agricultural retailers reported sales increases in crop protection chemicals, fertilizer and GM seed.

SOUTHERN EXPOSURE

As someone who’s spent his life in the Northeast it’s amusing to s= ee how Southerners behave during and after a “snow event.” Not snow necessarily, but just an “event” because the mere possibilit= y of snow causes Southerners to make a desperate run on food stores, buying l= arge quantities of milk, beer, grits, toilet paper and other basic necessities. During the first (and to date only) “significant” snow event of= the season — a total of 6”— it was impossible to find a snow = shovel in any store in the Richmond area. It was amusing watching one of our neighbors try to clear snow from h= is front porch using a garden rake. The pastor of the church we attend here sa= id that he bought the very last pair of boots in stock at Payless Shoes. They = had plenty of sandals, though.

After an actual s= nowfall it’s wise to stay off the roads for a while, for two reasons: First, there aren’t nearly enough snowplows to clear the roads in a timely fashion. Virginia= highway authorities reported that their goal was to plow all roads within 48 hours of the aforementioned snow event. 48 hours for 6” of snow? (= They didn’t achieve their goal.) Second, native Southerners simply have no idea how to drive on snow-covered roads, apparently thinking that the best = way to stop is to tromp on the brake pedal and wait for their vehicle to slide = to a halt or to hit something solid — often another vehicle. The result is something between the Keystone Kops and a demolition derby. No. 1 son Jim a= nd I have 4WD vehicles and are used to driving in wintry conditions, but we stay= ed off the roads until they were plowed.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp;

— E.T.

NO EXCUSE
FOR QUACKGRASS

Idaho hay hauler Brad Nelson rec= ently noted that you can pull quackgrass up, shake al= l the dirt off the roots, hang it on the fence for two years, burn it, then bury = the ashes and it will grow. A bit of hyperbole to be sure, especially since farmers have long had glyphosa= te (Roundup) in their herbicide arsenal. In the old days when quackgrass control in corn involved applying atrazine and = more atrazine, it was common to see patches of quackgrass that escaped even split applications of the herbicide. Farmers who didn’t grow corn were in much worse shape in t= his regard since there weren’t any herbicides that would effectively cont= rol quackgrass in hay crops.

&= nbsp;

But th= at was then and this is now, and judicious use of glyphosate<= /span> even once during the crop rotation can essentially eliminate quackgrass as an economic problem. There simply is no reason for farmers to have to put up with this persnickety perennial.<= /o:p>

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = — E.T.

STARTING SALARIES FOR
BEGINNING VETERINARIANS

A recent survey c= onducted by the American Veterinary Medical Association found a big difference in starting salaries for recent veterinary college graduates depending on what type of animals they treat. (Vet college graduates entering government serv= ice earned somewhat less regardless of critter type.) Food animal vets (cows and pigs) entering private practices had the highest starting income, averaging about $72,000. The average starting salary in companion animal practices (dogs and cats) wasn’t much less — $69,000 — which in turn was high= er than the average starting salary of $63,000 for mixed, predominantly food animal practices. But it’s a long way down the salary scale for veterinary college graduates entering private equine practices, whose avera= ge starting salary was just under $39,000. (This is not a misprint.) About 80%= of 2009 veterinary college graduates either got job offers or opportunities for advanced study, down 11.5% from the previous year. This is sobering news for those in the remaining 20%, who have an average debt of about $130,000 upon graduating from vet college.

RANDOM THOUGHTS=

If you sometimes think you have a really lousy job, here’s a suggestion: Buy a rectal thermometer made by one of the world’s leadi= ng medical supply companies. Remove it from the package and check out the small print in the accompanying literature stating that “Every rectal thermometer made by (the company) is personally tested and then sanitized.” Remember, there’s always someone who has a job that’s more of a pain in the butt than yours.

A battle has been raging over proposed windmills in my home town of Hammond, N.Y. Mos= t people appear to be in favor of wind power as a concept, but opposed to windmills = in their community unless they’re on their own land. An ideal place for windmills is on the banks of the Potomac River (near Washington, D.C.) since there’s always an excess of hot air in the vicinity, and no shortage = of windbags.

A Chinese shopping center about 250 miles nort= h of Beijing recently opened a “Women Only” parking lot featuring additional lighting and extra-wide parking spaces. The spaces are one meter wider than= normal, to accommodate what an official called women&#= 8217;s “different sense of distance”. Nicely put… Female parking attendants have been trained to help guide women drivers into their (wider) parking spaces.

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of = the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn= 't always fair; and Maybe it’s my fault. He is survived by four stepbrothers: I know my right= s; I want it now; I’m a victim; and Someone els= e is to blame.

— E.T.

FARM REPORT SURVEY OVERVIEW

We would like to = take this opportunity to tell you about what we learned from our recent Farm Rep= ort survey. If you still have not responded to the survey and would like to continue to
receive the Farm Report, please mail
it in immediately or email
dutil@whminer.com.

&= nbsp;

Of the= several hundred who responded, 51.5% have been subscribers for more than six years; 52.9% are farmers; most are from New York state or from somewhere in the Northeast, but some are= from as far away as the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

&= nbsp;

Most respondents said they felt the balance of dairy and crop-related articles w= as good. Fourteen respondents th= ought we should have more dairy articles, 14 thought we should have more crop articles.

&= nbsp;

Many o= f the respondents included comments similar to those from the subscriber in St. Albans and in Liverpool, and many subscr= ibers opted to heed our call for article suggestions. Some suggestions include: <= o:p>

Breeding issues and things to help producers drill do= wn to the core problem and make better management decisions.

Foot health, freestall design and the effec= t on cow comfort.

Molds and control in corn.

How do we make a profit on $10 milk?

Increasing fiber utilization through pro-biotics.

There are a lot of articles on how to diagnose problems, but a follow up article on where to go once you have found the problem would be helpful; or= how or when it is a good idea to implement changes in your herd due to new research.

&= nbsp;

We tha= nk all of you for your continued support and feedback. It helps to make the Farm Report that much m= ore relevant.

Closing Commen= t

Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional.

&n= bsp;